Councillors Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks are both downtown progressive politicians who are interested in livable communities and pedestrian-friendly streets. Both are white men still in their prime, who, I believe, are occasional cyclists. Like many in this category they feel that they know enough about cycling on Toronto streets, and they are just cocksure enough, that they feel that they can make judgements on the needs of the diversity of regular cyclists, without needing to consult them. There are still a number of people in power who can't see beyond their own cycling experiences to consider what it might mean to cycle in this city if you're not quite as able, young (or too young), white, and masculine.
Turns out even progressive councillors like Adam Vaughan and Gord Perks give little thought to how they would improve cycling in Toronto's core. Perks has shown his support for Vaughan's wish to turn Richmond Street from one-way to two-way traffic. In a letter I've obtained from Councillor Perks to a constituent, Perks says:
[the bike union's] endorsement of this project concerns me. The project has its origins in the previous term when it was used as an excuse by some traditionally anti-bike lane Councillors to oppose the separated lane proposed for University Avenue. Instead of supporting a proposal which would have been in place last summer they argued for looking at other routes in the future. The proposal creates some specific problems for local plans in the area such as making Richmond St. into a two-way more pedestrian friendly street.
Additionally it is part of the ongoing effort supported by the mayor to push cyclists off the main streets in the City and onto side streets.
We haven't heard a peep from either of Perks or Vaughan if they have any plans to follow through with the official Bike Plan, which calls for bike lanes on Richmond and/or Adelaide. It's not only from Ford Nation that we have to worry about killing the Bike Plan, it seems like these two are helping it along by quietly ignoring it. If Vaughan and Perks don't want to provide for safer bike traffic on Richmond, just where would they like to put them all? Where will the cyclists get their long-promised safe bike routes? There is no other politically feasible route in the downtown, which is clearly shown in the work that the transportation planners did for the Bike Plan.
I think bike lanes on University would have been great. But it would have been only an alternative to St. George / Beverly and it's not clear to me that cyclists actually need to choose between one or the other. The separated bike lane plan was proposed in full yet again this year, when it's no longer important to "kill" University bike lanes. Doesn't it seem weird that a right-wing politician would propose separated bike lanes on Sherbourne, Richmond, St. George, Wellington and Harbord just to kill University? He'd be "sacrificing" a lot more than he'd be saving for motorists, if that were his only motivation.
Perks insinuates that the bike union didn't support the University bike lanes. He's wrong. Yvonne at the time said this:
"Certainly physically separated bike lanes are the most effective at providing safe spaces for cyclists to ride," she said. "That certainly stops cyclists from having to jut around a parked car. It's a step in the right direction and I'm glad to see the city is piloting this."
It's surprising that Perks references "local plans" for making Richmond two-way pedestrian-friendly street. If the comment by Adam Vaughan on this blog can be believed, Vaughan seemed to take a step back: "The reason I frame the debate with the phrase two-way is so that the idea gets attention, The assumption is one way streets work." So it seems to me that there is no "local plan", it is still merely at the stage where Vaughan is musing loudly, and where Perks feels the need to support Vaughan's musings.
Richmond is hardly a "side street". The opportunity for a major downtown thoroughfare to become much friendlier for cyclists and pedestrians is just too great to just cave into a politician's musings. It's been proven that separated bike lanes reduce motor traffic speeds; provide comfort and safety to cyclists; provide buffers for pedestrians from cars; and reduce injuries and crashes (Exhibit A: Prospect Park West Bike Path).
Even if the mayor has officially proposed taking cyclists off the streets, this proposal didn't come from the mayor. It never would have occurred to him to put separated bike lanes on all these major cycling routes through Toronto. And if he did, would Ford still be considered "anti-cycling"? And more to the point, if Vaughan and Perks oppose the entire separated bike lane network because Vaughan prefers two-way traffic on Richmond, are they still considered "pro-cycling"?
Comments
Ben
I don't think that Perks is
Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:39I don't think that Perks is actually a cyclist ever. I remember him saying that he's a transit guy about five years ago. Maybe that's changed though.
hamish (not verified)
A brief back up to Ben's
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:55A brief back up to Ben's point - Gord has a balance issue from an ear issue I think it is/was - and so he can't ride a bike.
Adam does ride a bike, and has even been doored.
More fullsome commenting later, but thanks for tackling some issues Herb, though a bit late being after the election, and that's less helpful.
Seymore Bikes
Politicians are far more
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 13:39Politicians are far more likely to "play it safe" when it comes to building bike facilities - because after all, any "radical left wing councilor" can meet their demise via a misinformed constituency. Sad but true - the removal of three parking spots can be one's undoing in municipal politics.
The Bike Union's ward advocacy program is designed to engage the gears that drive local politicians - Vaughan & Perks may seem to be lacking int he cycle savvy department, but their community is most certainly as lame in their demand for such things as bike lanes.
Ask and you shall receive, just don't expect a politician to ask on your behalf - it's not their job.
dances_with_traffic (not verified)
I am interested in the little
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:20I am interested in the little racial study going on here, clarify for me how being white has influenced the Councillor's decisions either way. You must have clear ideas here and it will be easy for you to write them down since you seem to take a strong position. I am also interested about the male issue also, could we expect less political maneuvering if those politicians were female? How does being male influence things. These things may speak clearly to you, but i am mystified.
herb
I'm skeptical that you're
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 00:21I'm skeptical that you're actually "mystified" - this word is a common device for getting one to set up counter-argument for the other, though perhaps not.
My little bit of profiling, while not meant to represent any scientific study on the matter, is not without reason. I say male because men, for various hormonal and cultural reasons, are willing to take greater risks than women. It's telling that less about 35% to 43% of cyclists in Toronto are women (depending on which survey).
I say white because as "people of palour" we've been given privileges that have been given to few others. In the book One Less Car Zack Furness describes the "charge" of Biking While Black, a sub-category of Driving While Black. He provided examples of black cyclists riding in critical masses composed mostly of white cyclists where they are singled out. His examples are American, but sort of thing goes on here too. People who aren't part of the dominant culture are less likely to take risks if they think they are going to be targeted. I know someone who was targeted during the G20 and they weren't even protesting.
Now for everyday cycling, this is probably less of an issue, but I still argue that being included in the dominant culture tends to provide some swagger in your step, and you are more likely to take risks and feel comfortable on the road.
Young: This is probably more straightforward. Those in their prime, roughly between 18 and 50, will have things a lot easier on many streets. Perks and Vaughan have probably in the upper range so perhaps they would tend to avoid the busier streets if cycled regularly (though I also often try to avoid main streets if I don't have to get anywhere fast).
Able: If you can move quickly to avoid tight spots and right hooks, you're often better off and feel safer on the street than if you can't.
The statistics reveal the obvious here, that the typical cyclist in Toronto tends to be a white, male cyclist in his prime and lives in the core.
The linked study doesn't address race, but I'll go out on a limb that utilitarian cyclists are more likely to be people of palour, at least from my experience in Toronto. Of course, there are differences based on culture as well, in my neighbourhood people of Chinese descent seem to be more likely to bike but working class Portuguese less likely.
lukev (not verified)
I'm sorry, but Mr Perks has
Mon, 03/28/2011 - 23:34I'm sorry, but Mr Perks has his head so far removed from reality that it's not funny. He's been like this since he was first elected as far as I can tell.
How arrogant of him to decide for the cyclists union what is best for them, and he doesn't even bike himself.
Why was this goon re elected anyways?
Kevin (not verified)
Hamish, People with balance
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 06:38Hamish,
People with balance issues can easily use an adult tricycle. Some of the recumbent 'trikes are smoking fast. This is just another excuse.
If he had the slightest speck of leadership (anathema to politicians, I know) he could be an example of how cyclling is an excellent means of providing mobility to disabled persons.
Kevin Love
hamish (not verified)
I'm glad that there's a bit
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 08:29I'm glad that there's a bit more company in criticizing the alleged progressives on the biking and travel issues. Both of these Councillors are doing good work, and mountains of it, on other very important issues, but they have some mywardopic vision and blindp spots, and can be outvoted by Council or overwhelmed by civic inertia.
Both Gord and AV were looking ever-so-pleased when they moved the motions for the Bloor/Dundas Avenue Study awhile back and according to the Bloor/Danforth bikeway EA, that study "recommended a short term restriping to accommodate bicycle lanes and a long term narrowing of the roadway to accommodatge wider sidewalks, and bicycle lanes".
Leaving aside the issue that it is the Bloor St. W. underpasses that are absolutely the most nasty pieces of Bloor and the narrower parts going east are also needing boosts in bike safety more than the inherently somewhat safer parts of wider Bloor near High Park, that portion of road was just repaved, and yet it was repainted only with the status quo lane markings!! Where are these bike lanes Gord and Adam?
I'm also wondering why the @$@$ is there an EA occurring for the local Liberty St.; where's the West End bikeways approved maybe 1.5 years ago, and Queen St. in Parkdale and east is absolutely dangerous - what's a good 4-letter word - "road"? for cyclists.
Adam Vaughan has been talking a good deal about doing things for bikes, but he's failed to do enough truly good things for them.
- the 4-block gap on Harbord is now better, but it should have had bike lanes
- most of the bike boxes aren't truly useful where they've been put in
- he helped put through a change to Richmond St. at the 401 building at Spadina, but zilch for cyclists with the remaining three tight and fast travel lanes and those sidewalks are overude, but cyclists were sacrificed for trees that will likely die in a few years
- fresh car parking!! went in on Bloor St., in an indented parking bay narrowing sidewalks and choking the travel lanes in front of the Royal Conservatory of Music along Bloor last summer, in an area with maybe 2,000 off-street parking spots and the intersection of three subways.
- while the mistake was corrected by his office, the RFP for the Bloor/Danforth EA somehow managed to misinterpret both the boundaries and conclusions of the Bloor Visioning Study and the EA bidders were instructed to ignore Bloor biking in exactly the same boundaries as Vaughan's Ward 20
- the Bloor Visioning also sells out cyclists to close Bloor for the ROM's privatizing of the road and why not close up Queen's Park Crescent for night-time events?
- and there's the John St. opportunity too, and UA would be easy to repaint with bike lanes
Both of these Councillors overall do relatively good work; but so many cyclists have let them get away with stuff because they're "progressive", and at times overworked, and on the front lines of larger stupidities.
And we cyclists are kinda stupid for thinking the Bike Plan is gospel. City Wall wants to keep biking dangerous in the old west core because guess where the streetcar routes/transit makes money?
They've tended to hear from me already about some of this...and AV has a nasty streak in him that will produce personal and public attacks by the way
Ed
Perks was not helpful in the
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:07Perks was not helpful in the Boulevard Club bollard brouhaha. The minimal improvements he committed to on his website -- basically signs for motorists on Lake Shore Boulevard to not run over cyclists when turning into the Club driveway -- never went up.
Mind you, I didn't find Dan Egan, Dan Heaps, or the Cycle Committee to be helpful either.
dances_with_traffic (not verified)
Herb, those are some broad
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 23:08Herb, those are some broad conclusions and generalizations which you're trying to apply to an individual. Maybe you're biting off more than you want to chew with those comments?
It is interesting that a "white male", as the most common cyclist in Toronto, is not permitted to lead the cycling community. What gives?
Kevin (not verified)
"Not permitted"? Who says
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:13"Not permitted"? Who says that? I don't remember you standing for election.
dances_with_traffic (not verified)
Kevin, not permitted as in
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:41Kevin, not permitted as in the inappropriate(out of touch, aggressive, ruling elite "white man") candidate for the job. This is the conclusion one can draw from Herb's statement.
Obviously this is a bit confusing for the confused people who voted for him... in fact i believe Herb's racist argument and gender argument are what you call "red herrings" - you decide.
Kevin (not verified)
OK, I see what you mean.
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 06:47OK, I see what you mean. Yes, Herb's writing is a bit bizarre. I'm fairly white myself, but I'm still waiting to get any kind of privilege because of it. Maybe I should attend those White Conspiracy meetings more often.
herb
Instead of addressing the
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 14:25Instead of addressing the many good points I brought up in the article and the comments, dances_with_traffic prefers to just get angry and defensive.
Why should we let any politician get away with making conclusions only from their own bias? If they truly supported cycling they would consult those who are most vulnerable and who are out of the mainstream of current cyclists and find out what they need in order to feel safe cycling. That is why 8-80 Cities started up, to advocate for cities that are safe and comfortable whether you are 8 or 80 years old. That is why the bike union and CultureLink started up their partnership, to encourage newcomers to continue biking. That is why the bike union is fighting for separated bike lanes - because they're important for the vast majority of people who would like to take up cycling but are too uncomfortable on the streets.
By bringing up these issues, what I am doing is making you aware of them, so you can consider going beyond your own life experience to try to see things through someone else's eyes. Being part of a group of the more privileged, doesn't mean you have to always make policies that will only benefit the most privileged. Yes, you can look beyond your privilege and see that the streets need to become a lot safer before a wider cross-section of society will join us on bikes.
Vaughan and Perks are already aware of these issues when it comes to pedestrians and transit, but I feel that they are too glib about cyclists and prefer to fall back onto their own assumptions of the safety of the streets.
Maybe dances_with_traffic, Kevin, and anybody else reading the blog will become aware of this too. Instead of being defensive, I, a white, able male, prefers to find out why cycling tends to be dominated by types like me and how we can change our cities.
And to further reinforce my point about "Biking While Black", read this article.
Ed
It seems to me that there are
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 16:29It seems to me that there are a few too many issues conflated here. Issues that I can see in the comments above:
What I don't see evidence for, or proof for, is that Vaughan's swaggering white maleness drives his idea for making Adelaide/Richmond two-way. If we take away the context of cycling, turning them into two-lane roads may indeed be a good idea. Not everything can be focused 100% through the prism of bicycling, nor do the interests of bicyclists always trump all other considerations.
If what we are looking for is a project to really benefit those 8-80 bicyclists, forget Adelaide and Richmond, work for bicycle lanes (separated or otherwise) on Bloor. Neither Adelaide nor Richmond go far enough east or west to reach into the areas of the city where the eight-year-olds or the eighty-year-olds might be riding. How many eight year olds, or eighty year olds, will really want to ride through the downtown core? It's not like they need to commute between condo and downtown office towers, and it will never be a scenic ride like the waterfront or park trails.
Sure, bike lanes on Adelaide and Richmond are part of the bike plan, but while nice to have, I didn't feel back then that they were a key part of the bike plan. At the same time, the lack of connections west of Bathurst, or east of Parliament, was always a problem with the bike plan. So I don't see why it's worthwhile going to the wall to fight for Adelaide/Richmond bike lanes, or for the more flawed aspects of an imperfect plan.
Actually, I would like to see Richmond and Adelaide fixed up. The pavement is horrible, in places near-unrideable, and it's awkward getting past the backed-up lines of cars in rush hour so bike lanes would help too. Plus I'd like to see a bicycle left-turn lane on Richmond at Bathurst (and Front and Bathurst, for that matter), same as we have on Fort York Blvd at Bathurst.
But even with the nicest separated bicycle lanes on Richmond/Adelaide, the people riding there will be mostly the same tough white male commuter types (like myself I suppose), because of i) the destinations on Richmond/Adelaide are mostly commuter destinations; and ii) cyclists have tough sledding as soon as they hit Bathurst or Parliament, with no good continuing options (and none in the bike plan that I see).
Now, you want to ding Vaughan for his reluctance to put bike lanes on John Street, with a much-needed connection to the Beverly bike lanes, I am totally on side there. That's a worthwhile project, and it seems to me more beneficial to the general population of bicyclists.
Kevin (not verified)
Herb, So Detroit cops can be
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 16:49Herb,
So Detroit cops can be racist. No surprise there. What does this have to do with cycling in Toronto?
If you want REALLY racist cops, go to Japan. As a foreigner, I'll automatically get blamed for anything that happens, and the Japanese police strategy is "interrogate them until they confess."
But again, what does that have to do with cycling in Toronto?
Dances_with_traffic is right - these are just irrelevent red herrings.
The only relevant part that I can possibly extract seems to be that immigrants in Toronto from some countries (for example, The Netherlands) appear to have higher cycling rates in Toronto than immigrants in Toronto from other countries (for example, the USA). The Toronto Cyclists Union has a corresponding outreach program. See:
http://bikeunion.to/partnership
But then you write offensive statements such as:
"...we've been given privileges that have been given to few others."
Let me be clear: by including myself in that "we" this statement is untrue and profoundly offensive. I have most emphatically NOT been given privileges that have been given to few others of my fellow citizens. If you have, then good for you, but I have definitely not.
dances_with_traffic (not verified)
Sorry, but i won't be guilt
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 23:01Sorry, but i won't be guilt tripped into feeling i'm the person who dragged it off course.
You wrote those things about so called white men - not me - why get annoyed when somebody takes issue?
The default answer when a rational explanation isn't readily available isn't, we'll they're X and of gender Z and people of X and Z are likely to be out of touch and make rash decisions, therefore that must be what happened.
Most of the people I know who cycle are NOT white men. I always get a chuckle when a white guy assumes he is doing something wrong because a person who isn't white doesn't choose todo the same things he does. Strange brainwashing stuff going on there.
Suddenly, it seems a new right wing conspiracy may be afoot! :)