Should we ask for sharrows on Jarvis?

The Jarvis bike lanes have been scrubbed off. Mayor Ford "won" this round, though it's unclear what's been gained. Long-term I'm sure City Council will again decide what to do with the nastiness on Jarvis. I've got an idea for the short-term. I've suggested this before, and this is definitely not a replacement for bike lanes, but I'm just wondering if we could get a consolation prize of sharrows on Jarvis. I particularly like the "green-backed" sharrow pioneered in San Francisco.

We might have lost the bike lanes, but Transportation Services doesn't need council approval to install sharrows.

It's not clear if a future City Council will even want to bring up bike lanes on Jarvis again. There is a common perception that the bike lanes were "imposed" on the community without consultation, though the bike lanes were always part of the Environmental Assessment. The local councillor, Kristyn Wong-Tam, was only a reluctant supporter of the bike lanes; she preferred the wider sidewalks but definitely didn't want the status quo of five car lanes. So perhaps "complete streets" on Jarvis will mean only wider sidewalks. The same problem for cyclists will exist even with wider sidewalks: Jarvis will be a nasty place for people on bikes. I hope the future us can get separated bike lanes on Jarvis, but sharrows will be better than nothing.

The risk with sharrows is that it might convince politicians that the problem has been solved. But the reverse might also be true: that it will help increase the number of cyclists who will in turn demand better infrastructure.


I believe then that we'd need sharrows in both the outer and inner lanes (all but the middle lane) since we're seeing the return of parking. No need for more bike symbols that spend the majority of their days covered by idle cars.


Or, make Jarvis like like Bay St. with dedicated lanes for taxi, bus & bicycle.

I think what needs to be done is to look very far into the future and start working with anyone that would be running for office in opposition to the present mayor. There must be people out there pondering it. Hook up with them and give your support if they intend to give their support to cycling.

This is just one setback. The movement continues. One day nobody will even remember that there had ever been any opposition to cycling infrastructure.

The parking is only on the southbound lane. Although I'm not sure why it's there at all considering that a lot of Jarvis is residential and office space and there isn't much retail around. Funnily enough, I still see cars avoiding the southbound curb lane even though the ticket machines aren't operational yet.

Or - we could just use the brand new seperated lanes on Sherbourne! How about that for a change! Once the Sherbourne lanes are at capacity, then we can talk about other north / south bike lanes. Just curious, when a new mayor finally decides to put bike lanes back on Jarvis Street, will you all complain its a waste of money just like how you all complained that removing the bike lanes were?

@ david davis

I would complain about wasteful spending, or about the diminishing of much needed cycling infrastructure.

Assuming by your post that you are OK with all this?

I am ok to put them back in when the Sherbourne lanes are at capacity - but I would expect them to consider all other options too - like Church Street. JArvis was an interesting experiment... conceptually it's ok, but the timing was wrong as was the process for implementation. I used Sherbourne going south and Church Street going north almost all summer.. Church Street was great for cycling.. traffic is calm, there is plenty of room between the parked cars and the lane - an no ebikes!

Yes, maybe some cheap sharrows on Jarvis St.
They're only about $200 apiece to put down, apparently.
So 1km of separated lanes like on Sherbourne St. @ $1,000,000 equals about 5,000 sharrows. So we could be putting three down on the corner where Ms. Jenna Morrison was killed, though that isn't a bike route anymore, since the city removed its designation post-killing after 6 years of time.
And since underpasses were noted in the Bike Plan as being more dangerous, why not add about a dozen in each curb lane for the Queen underpass where Mr. Peter Cram died, though it would be really nice if smooth pavement occurred first, as was pointed out four years ago.
Then another few dozen would be good on the Bloor underpasses - another bad spot.
While Jarvis was too dangerous to bike on pre-bike lane and Sherbourne St. was too rough, a push for full bike lanes on Jarvis was misguided given that the two streets really are very close, and with other options like Church, and really misguided when one looks at the crash stats. We are getting injured far more frequently on the east-west streets - that's the problem.
And now with the removal costs of everything, we're almost at the cost of that cancelled EA study for Bloor/Danforth.


The problem is that many people live on Jarvis, go to work/school on Jarvis, shop on Jarvis or have other reasons to go to or from destinations on Jarvis. A bike lane on Sherbourne does no good for a large number of people who use Jarvis Street.

For example, there is Jarvis Collegiate Institute. Why don`t its 1,099 high school students deserve a safe route to school?

Eventually there should be no more than about 500 Metres between some sort of biking infrastructure (about two blocks). This would create a grid/network that would increase useability. In the meantime having a handful of streets with some infrastructure is a way to get there.
And of course shopping districts need something for people to shop by bike.

Yes, well we;re not Europe yet. So why push hard for a duplication of a bike lane in very close proximity to a less-used route (compared with E/W) whilst not pushing for the completion of the grid in the rest of the City. Say, starting with Richmond/Adelaide? A *new * bike lane, where the width of the street relative to the type of traffic can handle the separations vs. mere 66' ROWs?

If one looks at the Bike Map, in the Jarvis/Wellesley area, there are pretty consistent spacings of the bike routes on the E/W - except for Bloor. It would only take about $20,000 to repaint that wee bit of Bloor from Sherbourne to Church St. in the Bike Plan since 2001, and yet undone, and we are instead spending million$ - from the Bike budget correct? - on separations for existing bike lanes that are less used, and we don't know how well the design will work and feel. eg. winter.

That wide part of Bloor was best for E/W in merely 1992 as well. Kyle Rae and the Millerites sold us out on the Yorkvile rebuild - making the new road 1M too narrow for easy bike lanes and then wasting that space between new planter and new curbs.

And what about links to the rest of the bike network from the new types? Another issue....

Sharrows have never been either safe for cyclists nor a deterrent for drivers.

What they have accomplished instead, is a false impression on cyclists of a bike-lane where there is no lane, and a credit to politicians taking action when there is no action taken toward alternative transportation. it is crumbs tossed to cyclists that have blocked progress.


I think sharrows aren't bad in some cases (e.g. Spadina), but I'm not a big fan of rush hour sharrows, and that is what these would be since Jarvis has parking now for most of the day.