Blogs

A new report released by the Toronto's chief medical officer shows how cycling and walking are both good for our health and save it's money. The report, “Road to Health: Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto,” also demonstrates how reducing motor vehicle speeds reduces the number of people being killed annually, recommending that Toronto lower speed limits to 30 on residential streets and 40 on arterials. The latter will prove to have a hard time getting traction in Toronto, despite the fact that many Toronto residential neighbourhoods already have 30 zones with traffic calming measures (though many also do not). And despite the fact that other cities have proven how successful it can be on making other cities more liveable, literally.

Studies are quite clear that deaths and serious injuries increase dramatically with higher speeds. There is a “greatly increased probability of death or serious injury when hit by a vehicle travelling 50 km/h compared with 40 km/h.” One of the studies found that 85 per cent of people struck at 50 km/h are likely to die, versus only 25 per cent at 40 km/hour.

Toronto politicians aren't ready to push for this and a majority of drivers are bound to think the proposal goes too far, except when it comes to their own neighbourhood. Currently the City requires communities to individually apply for lower speed limits, asking traffic engineers who feel their job is to keep cars going fast for exemptions to the rule. The rule is that they first need to get speed humps and they can only get those if traffic engineers measure that the average speed on the street is above the posted limit. The City has made it exceptionally difficult for neighbourhoods to get safe streets. This proposal would flip out around by saying we should be going slower everywhere except for those roads where we make an exception. From the Star:

Dylan Reid, former co-chair of the city’s pedestrian committee, argued that residents have already demonstrated that they prefer slower speeds on local streets.

“Most of Toronto’s residential areas are designed to slow cars down, and people want them slow. . . . I think this is frankly just catching up to reality in a lot of ways,” Reid said.

“Where there is a wide road that is suited for a faster speed, it’s easy to simply post that speed where appropriate. But it doesn’t make any sense for the default speed to be 50 km/h.”

If I may make a bold claim, Torontonians want lower speed limits where they and their children live but not where the drive. They deserve safe streets, they feel, but elsewhere speed should trump safety. Cycling and walking advocates (and maybe a campaign like 20 is Plenty for Us can take advantage of this dichotomy and start helping local communities to fight city hall for the right to safety where they live. We now have an official report to back it up. Just don't rely on councillors to take the lead since our love for speed is ingrained.

The report has another proposal that has been overlooked but that could prove to be powerful. It recommends the City to set targets for reducing injuries and deaths. Imagine getting a yearly report that showed how we missed our goal to reduce deaths. It would bring media attention to the fact that city inaction has a direct result on more people dying. What politician would want to get behind that story? New York City is doing something similar with their Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan, where the city is now required to produce a report to show what, if anything, they've done to reduce pedestrian injuries and deaths. Building political traction can be difficult, but this would help keep politicians' feet to the fire.

Even if the City might not yet be ready to do something rational to save lives by lowering speed limits, the report has a number of strategic measures that it recommends to improve Torontonians' health by getting us walking and cycling more and doing it with less risk of injury or death. And already the press coverage of the controversial recommendation for lower speed limits will help jolt people out of their complacency. At least we now can't deny the trade-off: if you want to go faster you know you're risking greater injury and death.

On the day of the Complete Streets Forum in Toronto and just after the Toronto Cyclists Union said they would take their request for an Environmental Assessment on the Jarvis bike lane removal to the province, I was thinking about an outdated urban traffic planning - popular in the 1950s - that is favoured by some people on City Council. Contrary to our Mayor, Minnan-Wong sees an important place for cyclists and pedestrians, while still emphasising a central place for motorists. While Councillor Minnan-Wong seems to be seriously considering how to balance different needs, I don't believe he or anyone else can successfully balance the insatiable needs of of the car against the needs of the community. We only need to look at our current suburbs to see how giving over our neighbourhoods to "optimize" car travel has failed to reduce congestion. It would be hard to find people anywhere in Toronto that are willing to give over yet more space to automobiles in their own community.

Councillor Minnan-Wong is concerned that downtown Toronto is becoming too unfriendly for motorists, particularly in a time when public transit is so poor that many people are still "forced" to commute by car. Minnan-Wong stands by his stance on Jarvis, that it should primarily be seen as a route for motorists and not as a complete street that also takes into account the people who live on it or who travel by other means. Instead, other routes like Sherbourne should be optimized for means like bicycle.

Do we need more transit? Yes. Do we need more bike paths? Yes. Would it be better if more people could walk to work or take transit? Yes.

But in the real world, biking from Malvern or Rexdale to King and Bay works well in theory but a little worse in practice. And a lot worse in the months of November through to March. Given the city's lack of progress at installing bike lanes, it is no surprise that many suburban cyclists make different choices about how to get around.

A mobility plan includes measures to expand the use of transit and bicycles, and – critically – practical means to substitute public for private methods of transport over time. Until the supply of transit is adequate (and we're a long way from there) or until our downtown is bike-friendly, the city has a duty to enable its citizens to enjoy the benefits of mobility, including trips taken by car.

There is some nuance to this view and has some logic to it. We can't make driving more difficult while failing to make it easier to take transit or bike. This would only serve to anger motorists. But there are a few problems with Minnan-Wong's argument.

One, it doesn't help that the TTC commission voted to reduce bus service in the suburbs and that Minnan-Wong voted with the majority. It would be easier to take his argument if he was also working hard to improve transit.

Two, Torontonians are frustrated by congestion, though far from being a downtown problem, traffic congestion has been getting much worse in the suburbs while remaining stable into and out of downtown over the last two decades (from 1985 to 2006). The question we should be asking ourselves is, why is traffic in the suburbs - with its wide and plentiful roads - getting worse while downtown traffic is not? Instead of trying to fix downtown congestion, we should look at what the suburbs can learn from downtown?

Three, re-installing the fifth lane on Jarvis will provide next to no benefit for anyone. The street will be less safe for all people and frustrated drivers will still be frustrated even with up to 2 minutes saved in travel time. The staff had measured times post fifth lane removal of between 2 to 5 minutes longer during rush hour. However, this delay was likely reduced because of the installation of a dedicated left turn signal at Gerard and Jarvis. So it's not clear if motorists will save any time.

One would think that an extra lane would help more. But there are bottlenecks at the top and bottom of Jarvis, which means we can only squeeze as much capacity as there is at the bottleneck since that is where motorists are forced to merge again into fewer lanes.

And even if there weren't bottlenecks on Jarvis, it would not be able to escape the principle of "induced demand". Induced demand means that the more supply you provide the more people who will find more reasons to make trips. And then soon the supply is all taken up and we're back to similar congestion levels as before.

Four, shaving off 2 minutes of someone's commute time while making someone else's commute (or neighbourhood) more dangerous is a lousy trade-off. All over Toronto there exist neighbourhoods who have fought to install speed humps and lower speed limits on their streets. Jarvis may be a main arterial but people still live on it or travel on it by foot or bike. How do we weigh and prioritize what we value here? Don't we usually prioritize safety over convenience?

We can see models in Europe for how to create communities that better balance the competing needs of cars versus the rest of the community, but these communities relegate cars to a small part of their overall transportation mixture. By pushing for expanding the space dedicated to cars we soon run into problems. It is no longer the 1950s; there is no cheap land in much of Toronto on which to build more roads. Squeezing a couple minutes here or there is not going to solve congestion. It's probably not even a worthwhile goal for Toronto. Congestion is the price we pay for being a successful city. After all, as David Mirvish said, "If we get slowed down, that’s part of the price of living in a city. Plan ahead."

The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) voted to reinstall the fifth lane of Jarvis and remove the Jarvis bike lanes after the installation of the Sherbourne Street separated bike lanes at its meeting on June 23, 2011. Cyclists, the Toronto Cyclists Union in particular, supported the Sherbourne separated bike lanes but were against creating a trade-off with the Jarvis bike lanes. The number one argument used to push for removing the Jarvis bike lanes was that it slowed down traffic (by about 2 to 5 minutes). In the report Transportation Services staff had noted that travel times could be improved by installing an advanced left turn signal at Jarvis and Gerrard streets. The staff have installed the advanced left and have studied the results. It's time that PWIC released the results so the public knows if it has helped resolve travel time issues.

At PWIC’s June 23. 2011 meeting, PWIC had before it a June 9 , 2011 City staff report, Bikeway Network 2011 Update. City staff advised in the report, referring to Jarvis Street, that:

Travel times increased by approximately two minutes in both directions following the installation of the bike lanes in the a.m. peak hour and by three to five minutes in both directions in the p.m. peak hour.

• Much of the increased travel time could be attributed to the delays and queues experienced at the Jarvis Street/Gerrard Street East intersection, particularly in the northbound direction during the p.m. peak period.
• The introduction of an advanced left turn phase in the northbound direction at this intersection, scheduled this summer, will reduce the delays at this intersection and the overall travel times between Queen Street East and Charles Street East.

An advanced left turn phase in the northbound direction of Jarvis Street at the intersection of Jarvis Street and Gerrard Street East was introduced in the summer/fall of 2011. New stats for the intersection of Gerrard and Jarvis have been internally generated by the City and a travel time analysis may be available that would help the public and the Committee in understanding if there has been a change in the delay experienced by motorists on Jarvis Street during rush hour after the change in signal timing.

PWIC should release the new travel time statistics now so that the community can be able to assess the real impact, if any, of the removal of the 5th lane of Jarvis and the installation of the Jarvis Street bike lanes.

Public Bicycle System Company, the maker of BIXI systems worldwide was required by the province of Quebec to be sold off in a loan agreement with the City of Montreal. CBC reports that Serco, a large UK-based multinational that operates a whole range of government services from air traffic control to prisons to London's bikeshare system, is interested in purchasing BIXI.

This won't affect the existing systems using BIXI bikes since all but Toronto's are run independently. BIXI Toronto is owned by the international wing so it would likely be also be owned by Serco. Dan Egan of Transportation Services says that this won't affect BIXI Toronto's service since the owner would assume the 10 year contract with the City.

Previously, Alta Bicycle Share had also expressed interest in purchasing BIXI. It's not clear if they're still in the running. Alta operates the bikesharing systems in Washington, Boston and Melbourne. They will also soon operate ones in New York City and Chicago.

Some local Quebec investors are also interested.

If BIXI must be sold, it would be ideal if the new owner was focused on creating extensive and efficient bikesharing systems. Given Alta Bicycle Share's one and only business is bikesharing it seems like their interests would align much better than Serco, which has its fingers in so many different pots.

I Bike TO update: I've resolved some security issues that appeared on Monday. The website should be running smoothly and securely again.

I had published a poll on the proposed Toronto Cyclists Union name change. I decided to take it down since it was not going to provide an accurate sample of the bike union membership. It would do the opposite of just muddying the discussion. Website polls are blunt tools that can only tell us who is most eager to vote and not a representative sample of the population. The resulting numbers may look accurate enough but they won't mean much.

In this case the population is the bike union membership, so to know what they are thinking we would have to conduct a survey of a random sample of the membership. To be precise about 325 people would have to be surveyed. I used this handy sample size calculator based on a membership of 2100, confidence level of 95% and margin of error of +/- 5. For those interested in this survey methodology stuff, wikipedia does a good job of giving an overview. For everyone else, let's just keep conversing.

The Toronto Cyclists Union yesterday threw down a legal opinion (drafted by Iler Campbell LLP) at the City, making the claim that City Council's vote to remove the Jarvis bike lanes and install a 5th lane requires a full Schedule C Environmental Assessment. If the City doesn't respond within 10 days they will approach the provincial Ministry of Environment.

The Torontoist:

Commissioned by the Cyclists Union, Iler Campbell LLP’s opinion contends that bike lane decommissioning and a reversible centre-lane addition on Jarvis Street is subject to a minimum of a Schedule B project screening—that is, screening for projects that “have the potential for some adverse environmental effects.” However, the firm recommends that a more intensive Schedule C assessment (for projects that “may have significant environmental effects”) be undertaken.

Installing the 5th reversible lane (as it was before the original environmental assessment was done) would go against the Official Plan and provincial guidelines that recommend improving streets for active transportation. It would inhibit active transportation and encourage more air pollution and worse health. It is hoped that the City and/or the province will agree it requires a Schedule C Environmental Assessment because of these potential adverse effects so the public can be properly consulted.

Is there a chance the Jarvis bike lanes could be saved? I certainly hope so, but let's look at the details.

Last year Councillor Minnan-Wong made a last minute motion to remove the Jarvis bike lanes at the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC), without consulting/warning Councillor Wong-Tam or the ward citizens who use it. Councillor Minnan-Wong managed to get it pushed through City Council despite the protests of cyclists and Councillor Wong-Tam, and despite the $250,000 price tag to bring back the reversible lane. Such is politics where there is never a Gravy Train when it's your own pet project.

But Toronto Cyclists Union members - and in particular Ward 27 cyclists - are still fighting to get that decision changed. They have a Drivers for Jarvis campaign to showcase that drivers (like Steve and his Jaguar pictured above) in fact find bike lanes useful and want to keep them on Jarvis as well.

It is an uphill battle. Councillor Wong-Tam would have to work hard to convince enough colleagues to pass it at PWIC and/or city council. If she can't get PWIC to reverse its decision (the same PWIC dominated by Minnan-Wong) then I believe there will have to be a 2/3 majority at council to get it on the agenda. A difficult prospect but who knows how this would shake down. Surprising things could happen, such as the recent tweet by Councillor Berardinetti - the same infamous councillor who pushed through the removal of two bike lanes in her ward. Berardinetti, in response to Dave Meslin's complaint of the cost of removing the Jarvis bike lanes, suggested that they save the Jarvis bike lane and save the quarter million dollars for transit.

Will enough councillors have this change of heart?

How dedicated is Councillor Wong-Tam to keeping the bike lanes? She has been quoted in the media as wanting to keep the Jarvis bike lanes, saying that "removing the bike lanes is a step back and throws into disarray a plan to beautify Jarvis Street.". In person she expressed to me that it was important that we fight to save the Jarvis bike lanes. I haven't been able to find any press release or news item from her office suggesting that saving the Jarvis bike lanes was a key priority or how we could go about saving them. She is, however, holding a public meeting on the topic of "Jarvis Street Cultural Corridor". This might be where she will make a principled stand for bike lanes on that busy, fast corridor, though none of the speakers seem to be experts in cycling, which includes Heritage Toronto, Cultural Affairs, ERA Architects, and Heritage Preservation Services. So maybe the meeting is more about the buildings than about the streetscape? It's unclear. The Ward 27 Bike Union group has posted an event asking for cyclists to come to call for keeping the bike lanes.

The last time I heard the term "cultural corridor" was in regards to John Street. And in that case calling it a cultural corridor/pedestrian priority area was a justification for not incorporating bike lanes. So in regards to Jarvis we should be careful when it comes to vague terms like cultural corridor and what it means for safe, efficient transportation for cyclists.

It's unclear at this time what specifically Councillor Wong-Tam is doing to save the Jarvis bike lanes. Perhaps there's stuff going on behind the scenes that I'm missing. If there is feel free to let us know in the comments.

There are still councillors to convince. The unofficial leader of the pro-LRT cohort, Councillor Karen Stintz, was herself against the bike lanes, claiming she heard from a mother who's children were going hungry for minutes(!) because she was late for dinner. (Think of the children! Meanwhile the mothers who choose to bike on Jarvis with their kids have only themselves to blame.)

Here's where I think councillors will most likely stand, based on their support for bike lanes on principle or based on their alliances. A simple majority to overturn the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes is possible, though not ensured, and a 2/3 majority is unlikely.

NO Camp: 19

• Rob Ford - Mayor of Toronto
• Mike Del Grande - Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt
• Doug Ford - Ward 2 Etobicoke North
• Mark Grimes - Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore
• Doug Holyday - Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre
• Norman Kelly - Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt
• Denzil Minnan-Wong - Ward 34 Don Valley East
• Frances Nunziata - Ward 11 York South-Weston
• Paul Ainslie - Ward 43 Scarborough East
• Peter Milczyn - Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore
• Vincent Crisanti - Ward 1 Etobicoke North
• Giorgio Mammoliti - Ward 7 York West
• Cesar Palacio - Ward 17 Davenport
• David Shiner - Ward 24 Willowdale
• Michael Thompson - Ward 37 Scarborough Centre
• Gary Crawford - Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest
• Frank Di Giorgio - Ward 12 York South-Weston
• Ron Moeser - Ward 44 Scarborough East
• James Pasternak - Ward 10 York Centre

Wildcards: 6

• Michelle Berardinetti - Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest
• Jaye Robinson - Ward 25 Don Valley West
• Gloria Lindsay Luby - Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre
• Chin Lee - Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River
• John Parker - Ward 26 Don Valley West
• Karen Stintz - Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence

Likely to vote Yes based on alliance or principle: 20

• Josh Colle - Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence
• Josh Matlow - Ward 22 St. Paul's
• Mary-Margaret McMahon - Ward 32 Beaches-East York
• Ana Bailão - Ward 18 Davenport
• Raymond Cho - Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River
• Anthony Perruzza - Ward 8 York-West
• Glenn De Baeremaeker - Ward 38 Scarborough Centre
• Shelley Carroll - Ward 33 Don Valley East
• Sarah Doucette - Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park
• Paula Fletcher - Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth
• Maria Augimeri - Ward 9 York Centre
• John Filion - Ward 23 Willowdale
• Mike Layton - Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina
• Kristyn Wong-Tam - Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale
• Mary Fragedakis - Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth
• Adam Vaughan - Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina
• Janet Davis - Ward 31 Beaches-East York
• Joe Mihevc - Ward 21 St. Paul's
• Pam McConnell - Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale
• Gord Perks - Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park

If we are going to have any chance of saving the Jarvis bike lanes I think it would be necessary for Councillor Wong-Tam to make an official statement, start holding public strategy meetings with the help of advocates on how to save the bike lanes and start working to sway enough councillors to pass a reversal. She might be doing some of this, it's just not public information.

There will be a demonstration against Michael Bryant this Thursday March 29 at 5pm at the Royal Ontario Museum. The following is the press release from Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip, who is organizing the event. His contact info is at the bottom and you can contact him with questions and concerns:

On Thursday March 29 Michael Bryant, the former Attorney General and MP who was excused from standing trial after killing cycle messenger Darcy Allan Sheppard, will be lecturing the Liberal Party at the Royal Ontario Museum.

The incident was captured by surveillance video and witnessed by many who were willing to share their accounts. A special prosecutor, Richard Peck, with ties to the liberal party worked with the defence team to document and publish Mr. Bryant’s version of the events.

The exceptionality of Mr. Bryant’s case is undeniable: no rational person in the same circumstances could expect the exemption from a fair trial and weighing of evidence that was granted to our ex-attorney general. Anyone without his political connections, that is. In fact, it’s quite difficult to imagine a more clear-cut example of legal bias.