feature — Comments Off on FAQ for Councillors considering the removal of the Jarvis Street bike lanes
06
Jul 11

FAQ for Councillors considering the removal of the Jarvis Street bike lanes

Update: A version of this post is now available at OpenFile Toronto.

Confidential to Toronto city councillors still considering their vote on the elimination of the Jarvis Street Bike Lanes: So, hey, you’re one of those uncommitted councillors, probably hanging somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.  I understand that it’s a challenging position to be in. Even if you are a tad uncomfortable with the Rob Ford brand of conservatism, you can’t deny the mayor’s popularity coming out of his crushing victory in the October 2010 election. And if he won big in your ward, doesn’t that mean that your constituents expect you to follow the mayor’s lead and support his team on key matters? Isn’t that the definition of democracy?

Spoiler Alert: The answer to that question is no. I’d suggest that you were elected by your constituents with the promise that you would use your best judgment and work to do what’s best for your ward and for your city. Sometimes that will involve going against what’s perceived as popular. Sometimes that will involve going against the mayor.

So, all that said, you’re considering an upcoming item relating to the potential removal of the bike lanes on Jarvis, and I thought it might be helpful to know the ins and outs of the issue before the motion comes to a vote next week. That way, you won’t have to worry yourself with what direction that famous thumb is pointing. You can just vote based on what you feel is right.

And that’s all we could ever ask of you.

Weren’t the Jarvis bike lanes implemented by the previous council, over the objections of many of those who currently hold the balance of power?

No. The previous council voted to implement Item 2009.PW24.15 “Jarvis Street Streetscape Improvements – Class Environmental Assessment Study“ by a margin of 28-16. Four members of the current Executive Committee voted to implement the lanes.

But I heard the bike lanes were added at the last minute when the cycling community hijacked the debate?

Not really true. Though it is factual that the original plan for streetscape improvements on Jarvis Street did not include the provision for dedicated cycling lanes, the preferred option from that plan did include wider curb lanes that would have allowed for ‘sharrows’ to allow safer travel for cyclists.

A quick history lesson: Jarvis was, for much of its existence, a tree-lined residential street, home to many of the city’s wealthiest families. Its decline roughly coincides with a decision to better facilitate automobile traffic with the installation of a reversible centre lane on the stretch of roadway north of Queen Street to Mount Pleasant. This middle lane caused an increase to the speed of traffic and made for a hostile pedestrian environment. A 2005 traffic study concluded that, on Jarvis Street, “the pedestrian exposure to conflict is undesirable.” (pg. iii) The study recommended the removal of the reversible middle lane, which led to a staff report calling for streetscape improvements. Following advocacy efforts from the city’s cycling community, the recommended plan was altered to include the provision for cycling lanes, which were installed following the removal of the middle lane in 2010.

But don’t the results of the 2010 mayoral election mean that people want the lanes gone?

No. During his campaign, Mayor Ford told the Toronto Star that he would not remove the lanes: “It would be a waste of money to remove it if it’s already there, that is unless there was a huge public outcry in the area.” As far as “public outcry in the area” is concerned, Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, who supports the bike lanes, prevailed over opponents who vowed to remove the lanes in the municipal race last fall.

But Rob Ford says he’s gotten a lot of calls from people asking him to remove the lanes, shouldn’t we listen to them?

Absolutely. Consultation with the public is always important. Unfortunately, the item as amended by Councillor John Parker does not allow for further consultations regarding the future of Jarvis Street. In fact, a motion by Councillor Mike Layton that would have required proper community consultations before any changes are made to Jarvis Street was defeated at the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee by a vote of 4-2.

Wasn’t the original plan for Jarvis Street, which didn’t call for bike lanes, a better one?

It very well could have been. Jarvis Street suffered because the 2009 debate became entirely about bikes-versus-cars, when it rightly should have been about what’s best for Jarvis Street. But either way, that plan also called for the removal of the reversible middle lane, so impacts on traffic flow would have been similar.

As far as I know, there is still roughly $6-million allocated for beautification efforts on Jarvis Street, though I don’t think there’s a timeline attached to the work. Before removal of the lanes was put back on the table, Councillor Wong-Tam was also planning to spend $1-million of Section 37 funds to improve the street. Some of that money would have gone to synchronizing traffic lights to further improve traffic flow. All of this work is currently on hold, pending City Council’s decision.

Haven’t the bike lanes on Jarvis Street have resulted in significant traffic delays?

Not really. The bike lanes on Jarvis Street haven’t caused any significant delays. The removal of the reversible middle lane — which, you’ll remember, was going to happen anyway, bike lanes or no bike lanes — did result in a small increase in travel time at peak periods. Average travel times increased by approximately two minutes northbound and southbound in the a.m. rush, and by approximately three-to-five minutes in the p.m. rush.

Much of the increase in the p.m. rush is due to long queues as vehicles wait to turn left onto Gerrard Street. Traffic Services was set to install an advanced green phase this summer, which would alleviate much of the delay. At the very least, Council would be wise to wait for the results of a future traffic study, which should detail the effectiveness of the intersection tweak, before they take any further action on Jarvis Street.

Again, any delays are primarily due to the removal of the reversible lane. Removing the bike lanes could allow for the installation of dedicated left-turn lanes at major intersections, but that alone seems unlikely to substantially improve travel times. If council wants to explore that option further, I’d recommend commissioning a report.

What if I choose not to believe staff’s reported numbers?

You should panic. If that’s the case, I would suggest council has far bigger problems that they need to deal with immediately, and that those problems should take precedence over this issue. If you’re concerned that staff are being negligent or improper with the data they’re reporting to council, steps must be taken to improve that situation.

Of note: A recent news story relating to inaccurate cycling counts on John Street was due to a city-hired consultant using staff-reported numbers incorrectly.

Is it even feasible to re-add the fifth lane to Jarvis Street?

I don’t think so, no. Removing the bike lanes and installing some dedicated left-turn lanes is set to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $80,000. Reinstalling the reversible middle lane, on the other hand, would cost approximately $570,000. That’s a substantial financial outlay for the city, given current budgetary challenges.

Further, there are some relatively serious safety and design concerns relating to the previous configuration of Jarvis Street. Typically, the city recommends a minimum width of 3.3 metres for mid-block traffic lanes. Jarvis, in its five lane layout, had lane widths of only 3.1 metres. The 2005 Jarvis traffic study described the lane widths as ‘substandard.’ (pg 25)

Isn’t Jarvis kind of useless as a bike lane? It doesn’t even connect to anything.

It does, in fact, connect to existing bike lanes at Shuter Street. It will also connect to new separated bike lanes on Wellesley Street, should the new Downtown Bike Plan as proposed by Denzil Minnan-Wong be approved and built by this council.

Also, it’s important to remember that cyclists do not burst into flames should they come to the end of a bike lane. Jarvis also connects to numerous bicycle-friendly side streets, as well as popular destinations like St. Lawrence Market and Allan Gardens. The lanes are also directly adjacent to three BIXI bike rental stations.

But the plan for separated bike lanes on Sherbourne — only a block away — means Jarvis is no longer necessary for cyclists, right?

No. Just as Sherbourne and Jarvis are both useful for drivers and pedestrians depending on where one wants to go, cyclists use both routes. You would never argue that sidewalks are unnecessary on Jarvis Street because pedestrians can just use Sherbourne Street.

In addition, the Sherbourne Street bike lanes are currently in a shabby state of despair and require resurfacing. Given that council has not yet approved any aspect of the proposed plan for separated bike lanes downtown, removing Jarvis because of the existence of improved lanes on Sherbourne seems premature.

Finally, the installation of bike lanes on Jarvis have more than tripled the number of cyclists who use the route on a daily basis, which would indicate that there is significant demand for a safe bike route on the stretch.

Jarvis was one of the only working traffic arterials left downtown — how could making it slower be considered a good thing?

Jarvis is not simply a traffic arterial. It’s a street that has historically been residential, with a rich character all its own. In 2001, Jarvis was identified of one of seven “cultural corridors” in the City of Toronto. Thousands of people live and work on Jarvis Street, and more are coming as condo construction works it way east of Yonge Street. Jarvis Street is also home to schools — both a regular one, and Canada’s National Ballet School — and the aforementioned Allan Gardens, one of the city’s largest downtown parks.

As noted in remarks made by Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, which came just before he voted to install the bike lanes, Jarvis is worth far more to the city as a vibrant place to live and work than it is as a simple traffic pipe. And given that the number of vehicle trips has not decreased even after the removal of the reversible fifth lane, it’s difficult to argue that Jarvis has lost utility as an arterial. It’s still doing the work it used to do, just in a slightly more civilized way.

What’s the big deal? Let’s just remove these things and move on with our lives.

Removing infrastructure should always be a big deal. Whether or not you agreed with the process that led to their installation in the first place, the Jarvis bike lanes are here. The city spent approximately $60,000 putting them in, and they are used by approximately 1,000 cyclists every day.

To justify their removal, councillors need to prove that the removal of this infrastructure is cost-effective. You’ll need to show that the money the city will spend removing these lanes will be recouped through increased economic activity. To do any less would be fiscally irresponsible.

link — Comments Off on Ford For Toronto Life
05
Jul 11

Ford For Toronto Life

If you can’t get enough of my political ramblings these days, I’m also moonlighting this week with City Hall articles at TorontoLife.com. Check them out below:

More to come as the week progresses. Keep watching the skies.
link — Comments Off on A gentle reminder of City Council’s recent commitment to cultural funding
05
Jul 11

A gentle reminder of City Council’s recent commitment to cultural funding

Given that some of the chatter surrounding the big Pride/Mammoliti/QuAIA story has bled into general debates about the city’s funding for cultural events, with some asking why Pride can’t be self-sufficient and operate without an annual city grant, I though it worth a second to refer back to a council vote that took place on May 18, 2011. With unanimous support — including from Mayor Rob Ford — council approved a report titled “Creative Capital Gains: An Action Plan for Toronto.”

Here’s an excerpt:

The City’s investment achieves greater leverage when the City provides support that would otherwise go wanting. The City is in the best position to understand, evaluate, and facilitate support for a myriad of events and organizations across the entire city. The City’s investment can also be the initiator for a whole stream of additional funding from a wide variety of other sources. Often, the City’s support can come via in-kind services or the waiving of fees or other charges. Although highly leveraged by funding from other sources, the City’s investment in culture is tremendously important. To maintain and build significant competitive advantage, the City needs to bring its commitment to culture to be more in line with that of other global creative capitals.

We recommend that the City keep pace with international competitors by making a firm commitment to sustain Toronto’s cultural sector and to position Toronto as a leading, globally competitive Creative Capital.

We care deeply about the future of our city. We recognize that in a time of necessary fiscal restraint, the City must think carefully about its investments in order to ensure they are working for the good of all taxpayers. This report details how targeted investments in the cultural economy can generate significant returns for the people who live and work here, and come to visit our great city. Toronto can create jobs and wealth, attract and retain talent, build stronger neighbourhoods, and build a prosperous city through culture. We have an opportunity to capitalize on our strong economic position relative to many of our competitors by recognizing that culture is the fundamental driver of Toronto’s future prosperity. The stage is set. The curtain has gone up. We must act now.

via Creative Capital Gains: An Action Plan for Toronto | PDF Report.

So if any councillor starts making noises about why should the city fund cultural events, point them to this report. They probably voted for it.

link — Comments Off on Despite what Mammoliti says, there’s no reason to defund Pride
05
Jul 11

Despite what Mammoliti says, there’s no reason to defund Pride

So Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti is making the media rounds, talking excitedly about the great footage he shot at the Saturday Dyke March that will, he says, make for a slam-dunk case for withholding this year’s Pride funding.

What’s on the tape? The Toronto Star’s Robyn Doolittle has the details:

The 17-minutes of tape, which Mammoliti plans to edit down, shows about 30 parade marchers expressing pro-Palestinian opinions. Some carry a “Free Palestine” banner. Others call for a boycott of Israeli products. Others chant “End the occupation.” Some are not marching in the parade, but are standing at the sidelines.

via Pride funding in jeopardy after Mammoliti video gets rise from City – thestar.com.

Quick sidebar: I love that he plans to “edit down” his footage. He should use iMovie. Add some transitions — star wipes — and background music. Really make a show of it.

So, okay, he’s got footage of 30 or so people doing politicized things as part of a Pride event. Is that enough to justify withholding Pride funding? I’d argue that it isn’t. In fact, I would argue that the City of Toronto, as an agency that entered into a good faith agreement with Pride Toronto to provide money and services for the week-long event, has no grounds to even consider withholding funding for Pride 2011. Money was committed and Pride Toronto displayed Toronto’s logo as an event supporter. The only condition of the deal — that no participant violate the City’s anti-discrimination policy — was most assuredly upheld. To renege on the deal at this point isn’t just bad politics — it’s bad business.

But let’s ignore all that and focus on Mammoliti’s arguments. To have even a shred of credibility on this issue, he needs to prove a couple of things. First, that Pride Toronto was derelict in their duty by allowing these participants to march. Second, that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid broke their word and participated in an official Pride event, despite promises that they would not.

Based on the facts we have at hand, neither appears to be true. The group that marched on Saturday was “Dykes and Trans People for Palestine.” QuAIA’s actions were limited to dropping a banner at the Sunday Pride parade, something they seem to be very proud of. While the group that marched on Saturday did express solidarity with QuAIA, it’s ludicrous to the point of insanity to expect that any event organizer can or should be held accountable for the behaviour of every single person in attendance. That would be like holding the Leafs responsible for the behaviour of their fans at hockey games.

link — Comments Off on Opposition to local food part of a race to the bottom
04
Jul 11

Opposition to local food part of a race to the bottom

From last week, the Toronto Star’s Paul Moloney:

The City of Toronto probably can’t afford to buy local food for its long-term care homes, shelters and daycare facilities, say some members of the government management committee.

Work on a buy-local policy began under former Mayor David Miller, but supporters of Mayor Rob Ford made it clear they don’t like it if it costs more.

“I think we should go out there and get the biggest bang for our buck,” said Councillor Doug Ford. “Yes, everyone wants to support Ontario-based food growers, but sometimes it’s just not realistic.”

via Toronto’s ‘buy local’ food policy under attack – thestar.com.

Later in the article, Councillor Paul Ainslie justifies the opinion by noting that he noticed quite a price difference between locally-produced and California-grown strawberries.

The city’s new strategy of going for the cheapest possible option above all else already burned them once, when the discount survey software they used for the Core Service Review frustrated a ton of people. This race to the bottom ignores that sometimes the city can make strategic investments that actually benefit the people in and around Toronto.

The buy-local policy, approved in an unrecorded vote by the previous council, set a target of 50% local food that was later found to be unworkable and unattainable. However, the consultant hired to look at the plan does lay out new targets, which would cap out at 25% local food purchasing, at cost of $125,000 per year to the city. You can read the report at the city’s website.

That cost is small potatoes given the city’s overall budget, and the economic benefits of buying local are bound to outweigh that figure. This doest feel like it should be a contentious issue. Instead, this opposition feels like the work of politicians who continue to believe that “public investment” is synonymous with “wasteful spending.”

A final decision will be made at this month’s council meeting.

link — Comments Off on City infrastructure: something’s gotta give
03
Jul 11

City infrastructure: something’s gotta give

The Toronto Star’s Paul Moloney reported last week that the city now carries $4.4B worth of net debt, as a result of a 20 per cent increase in 2010. Moloney talked to Deputy Mayor Doug Holday to get the scoop on how this administration is going to reduce debt levels:

“I guess we’ll have to look at capital requests with a fine-tooth comb,” Holyday said. “It’s things like the Fort York bridge, which was to be entirely borrowed — it went over budget and became unaffordable.”

“As we go forward, I wouldn’t be surprised if we found other projects that could wait or be reduced in some fashion. We’re just not in a position to keep increasing the debt load.”

via Toronto debt $4.4B and rising – thestar.com.

In other words: we’re going to cut things. Because previous councils have spent far too much on all the entirely unnecessary infrastructure we’ve seen spring up in recent years. Like, um… huh.

The reality is that a significant percentage of the city’s capital costs go to entirely necessary repairs to existing infrastructure. It’s never easy or cheap to run a major city, but it gets progressively harder and more expensive when all the stuff that helps the city function — the pipes, the roads, the tracks, the transit vehicles, the public housing — get to be at least 30-40 years old.

It’s worth noting that the last time a city agency got lax with prioritizing state of good repair costs in their capital budgets, people literally died.

Even ignoring the cost of maintaing the infrastructure we’ve got, no one could reasonably argue that a fast-growing city in a super-fast-growing region can or should make do with the infrastructure we have. As reported by the National Post’s Natalie Alcoba, the Toronto Board of Trade released a report last week calling for the expansion of transportation infrastructure to be a major issue in this fall’s provincial election:

Toronto-area residents are stuck in some of the worst traffic around, spending on average 80 minutes a day commuting, according to regional transit agency Metrolinx. That could hit 109 minutes by 2031. The congestion costs the Toronto-area economy $6-billion a year, a figure Metrolinx says will rise to $15-billion in 20 years if significant action isn’t taken.

“This is a critical issue, this is a top issue up there with the issues of health care, with the issues of education,” said [Board of Trade president Carol] Wilding. “At this point, taking options off the table, or a bidding war that goes down the path of what we don’t want to do, is not the right discussion to be having.”

via Funding to tackle ‘a critical issue’: Toronto Board of Trade | National Post.

The belief that solving the fiscal challenges facing the city is a simple matter of cutting a few wasteful things is, I think, one of the more dangerous elements of the Rob Ford administration. Serious, structural shortfalls — both fiscal and relating to infrastructure — require serious leadership, especially with regard to intergovernmental affairs.

Of course, Councillor Doug Ford stepped it after the Board of Trade report, fulfilling his role as Requisite Diversion and proposing some dumb magical private-sector thing where the Gardiner Expressway would be three storeys high and people would live in it. Problem solved.

 

link — Comments Off on Giorgio Mammoliti: Toronto’s Michele Bachmann?
03
Jul 11

Giorgio Mammoliti: Toronto’s Michele Bachmann?

Matt Taibbi has an awesome feature in this month’s issue of Rolling Stone detailing the unlikely political career of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. The whole article is online, and I highly recommend you read it — there are some echoes of Municipal Election 2010 on page three of the article, when Taibbi writes about the difference between “being mocked and being taken seriously” — but the reason I’m pointing this out today is for the article’s reference to a time wherein the famously anti-gay Bachmann was caught hiding in some bushes outside a gay rights rally:

Bachmann’s obsession with gay culture led her to bizarre behavioral extremes. In April 2005, after the State Senate refused to even vote on her constitutional amendment, she hid in the bushes outside the State Capitol during a gay-rights rally. A photo shows Bachmann, only the top of her Stepford head visible, crouched alone in an extreme catcher’s squat behind the Capitol shrubbery. She later insisted she wasn’t hiding at all, but resting because her heels hurt.

via Michele Bachmann’s Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics.

Here’s the photo.

Sounds like a ridiculous only-in-America scenario, but then this weekend Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti was discovered playing the same kind of paranoid witch-hunt game, when revellers at Saturday’s Dyke March caught him standing, stone-faced, holding his camcorder while the parade marched down Church Street. He was on a mission, apparently, to discover and capture anti-semitic elements who might appear in the crowds at the parade.

The Toronto Star’s Chloé Fedio:

Giorgio Mammoliti and his camcorder want to axe city funding for Pride Week.

The city councillor says he captured an anti-Israeli group chanting the controversial phrase “Israeli Apartheid” during Saturday’s Dyke Parade.

“I see this as cockiness, I see this as a slap in the face to City Hall and I see this as a slap in the face to taxpayers in this city,” Mammoliti said after the parade. “This councillor does not want them to get funded this year. I will be seeing whether the mayor agrees with me.”

via Councillor urges end to Pride funding after filming Dyke March – thestar.com.

This whole Queers Against Israeli Apartheid battle is so very tiring. City Council voted last year voted to withhold funding to Pride Toronto until after the parade, to ensure compliance with their anti-discrimination policy. The idea was that this measure would keep QuAIA out of the parade. City staff later ruled that, in fact, QuAIA didn’t violate their anti-discrimination policy, which threw a wrench into the whole deal. But then QuAIA promised to not march in this year’s parade. A promise which they appear to have kept, despite members of some other groups apparently picking up their cause.

I’m sure Mammoliti has some lovely video of someone saying the words “Israel Apartheid” at the Dyke March or waving a Palestinian flag, but none of that even begins to disqualify Pride from receiving their city grant. Unless parade organizers are found to have knowingly allowed a group to participate in the parade whose message violates the City of Toronto’s anti-discrimination policy, council has no grounds to withdraw committed funds.

What’s worse is that, at the heart of things, the City and Pride Toronto have a business relationship. The City provides a small amount of grant funds and in-kind support to allow for Pride Week events and, in turn, the city gets a ton of return on investment in the form of tourist dollars and cultural activity. It’s a win for everyone.

Councillor Mammoliti’s actions — and, to be fair, this is not even in the top five most ridiculous things he’s ever done — threaten that business relationship. If the councillor and the mayor want to kill Pride, they should just be honest about it.

“Grassroots Community”

The Star’s David Rider has more from our favourite councillor in his (very good) article about the fall-out from Ford’s decision not to attend Pride. Talking to Rider, Giorgio defends the mayor’s absence:

“I haven’t heard from anybody in the grassroots community say that the Pride community is right,” said Mammoliti (Ward 7, York West). “If anything they’re saying that they’re irritated by what the Pride community is saying.

“Some people chose to make it political and the reality is we have bigger things to talk about, like where are we going to get our money for 2012, to deal with our $700 million deficit?”

via Ford and the ‘family values’ case for gay rights | Toronto Star.

Okay, two questions:

First, who are the ‘grassroots community?’ Can I be included with the grassroots community? Why do their opinions matter more than others?

Second, if we’re looking at ways to improve the city’s overall fiscal condition, large cultural events that boost the desirability of Toronto to outsiders are surely not a bad place to start, right?

link — Comments Off on Mayor Rob Ford skips every Pride-related event
03
Jul 11

Mayor Rob Ford skips every Pride-related event

The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale makes it official:

Mayor Rob Ford will not be making a surprise appearance at the Pride parade on Sunday.

Ford’s spokesperson, Adrienne Batra, told CP24 that Ford would remain at the Muskoka cottage where he is spending time with his family.

Ford said on June 22 that he would miss the parade for the cottage gathering. Pride officials, councillors, former mayors and Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke, a gay rights advocate, were among the people who had urged him to reconsider.

Ford is the first Toronto mayor to miss the parade since June Rowlands in 1994.

via Ford to skip Pride parade – thestar.com.

Not only did the mayor miss the parade — forgivable, given his commitment to a family tradition — but also dozens of other Pride events that took place over the past week, ranging in complexity from a pub brunch on Bay street to a flag-raising taking place a short walk from his office. His only concessions to this major cultural event — an event that draws a hundred million dollars of economic activity — was his scrawled signature on the mayoral proclamation and a lone message posted to his Twitter account, which is managed by assistant Tom Beyer. (Who did, in fact, attend the parade.)

The bottom line: thousands of people came to the city over the past week to spend money and experience Toronto, and yet the mayor, for no good reason, did not publicly welcome them. Even if you can look past the social ramifications of the mayor snubbing the LBGT community, this just feels like bad manners.

Most of the apologist arguments on this issue were pretty weak — Pride is nothing but a dog pile of debauchery so why should the mayor attend? or Why are so-called open-minded, pro-choice liberals trying to force the mayor to do something? — but one school of thought stood out as particularly ignorant. Best espoused by the Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington, it went like this:

Why would anyone in the gay community want Ford at their parade?

If a million citizens turn out to watch the goings-on, participate and relish the get-together, surely that’s more significant than having a reluctant mayor in attendance.

I suspect he was invited simply and only so he could be booed.

vía No reason for Ford to attend Pride parade | Toronto Sun.

The answer to “Why would anyone want Ford at the Pride parade?” is really simple. It’s because, love him or hate him, he is the Mayor of Toronto. And with that title comes the responsibility to represent all the people of Toronto. Even if you take issue with the person sitting in the chair, you respect the office. The office means something.

You see it at council meetings, when classes of students drop in to the gallery. When the mayor approaches those groups — and, to his credit, he always does — the kids go nuts. They may not understand the procedural slog that is city government, but they get that this man, handing them business cards for some reason, is an important guy. He runs the whole city.

It wasn’t important that Rob Ford attend a Pride event. That’s getting too granular, too specific. It was important that the Mayor of Toronto attend a Pride event.

Sue-Ann Levy, of all people, sums things up nicely in her latest column:

But he and his advisors allowed the fiasco to escalate by ignoring suggestions for him to stop in at safe events, like an awards ceremony Wednesday evening, and even to hold a private event in his office.

Clearly they don’t understand the fine nuances of being a mayor of all the people of this city.

A true leader doesn’t shrink from one powerful group just because they didn’t vote for him.

He does the right thing.

via Rob Ford blows it on Pride | Toronto Sun.

A commenter to Levy’s column responds with “fag fest is over.” Which brings up the other sad part of this whole thing: Ford hasn’t even made a token gesture to disavow the notion that he agrees with the homophobic horde that is gleefully championing his time at the cottage.

link — Comments Off on Mammoliti on Jarvis Lanes: “Everybody has the right to use the road”
29
Jun 11

Mammoliti on Jarvis Lanes: “Everybody has the right to use the road”


During the 2009 debate over the removal of the reversible fifth lane on Jarvis Street — which, of course, led to the Jarvis Street Bike Lanes — Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti stood on the floor of City Council and gave an impassioned — if slightly confusing at times — speech supporting the narrowing of Jarvis Street. Specifically, he said that lower speeds will be good for businesses along the stretch. He praised Councillor Kyle Rae for his work bringing the project forward, and scolded councillors who were critical of the plan. “Get off your rear ends,” he told opposition councillors. “When someone goes down to party on [a narrowed and revitalized] Jarvis Street, they’re going to say what a wonderful street Jarvis is.”

He calls for the end of the oft-fiery debate between “the rights of drivers and cyclists,” telling council that “he doesn’t like that argument because I think everybody has the right to use the road.”

YouTube user HOOFandCYCLE was kind enough to post video of Mammoliti’s remarks. I’ve also transcribed the speech below. Any errors are my own.

Madame Speaker, I want to give some examples of what I would consider human nature, I guess. And that is… — when many of us go to restaurants we tend to look into the restaurant and tend to wonder how busy it might be and how popular it might be. And we tend to go into the restaurants — if we don’t know them quite well — that are loaded with people. The ones that seem to be busy. The ones that seem to be a little crazy.

The ones that are empty we usually say, “Well, the food might not be very good here. And I don’t think I’m going to take the chance.”

When we go to shows and concerts, we usually go to concerts that are the busiest with the most people — blah blah blah blah blah

Night clubs? Lineups out the door? Those are the ones we choose to go in because there must be something special with respect to this nightclub and the amount of people that must be going through.

(Another Councillor asks “What’s the point?”)

My point is — that I’m trying to make — is, that for some reason, the busier the street, the more popular it becomes. The slower a street, with respect with how people move through, the more popular it becomes.

In fact, I believe that if traffic is at a standstill, then businesses actually thrive on those streets. A prime example of that — you remember Yonge Street? Years ago? How congested it was? How you could not move on Yonge Street? The store owners on Yonge Street absolutely loved it. They didn’t want the traffic to go through quickly. They felt that that contributed to their success.

And around the world, that is the case. That, in fact, if you attempt to slow down traffic — in whatever manner — it becomes more popular for the pedestrian who does a lot of shopping. And it becomes a lot more popular for cyclists — yes, it does.

And why don’t we want to take a page from some of the successful cities that have learned from their experiences? That’s all that some of us are saying here. I’m saying it because I believe in that model. I think it actually does create business.

Jarvis, if you drive down, is very fast. Somebody has mentioned — I think it was Councillor McConnell who mentioned it in her speech — that traffic is actually very fast, at times, on Jarvis. And it’s time to slow it down.

So you slow it down by proposing to remove a lane, and, yes, you slow it down as well for people to pay attention to others that are using that street and sidewalks. Whether it’s pedestrians or the cyclists that now will be using Jarvis.

When we all go for our license, and the privilege of having a vehicle license — whether that’s car, or a bicycle license — one of the first things you’re taught about is cyclists. Use your rearview mirrors, watch our for cyclists, be careful. You’re at fault even if the cyclist does something wrong. You’re at fault.

And so, now the debate becomes the debate between the difference in rights between someone who is driving a vehicle and the cyclists. That’s what I’ve been hearing. And I don’t like that argument because I think everybody has the right to use the road.

And I said it it earlier when I stood that cyclists don’t have any other options. They can only use the road. They can’t use the sidewalks. So what is the debate about today — seriously? Some have pointed out that it costs money, and saying that perhaps we should be fixing other roads before this one. Is that the argument today?

Or is the argument about a fundamental logic that you don’t like cyclists on the road? Why don’t we be honest about that if it is?

Now Councillor Rae has worked this into his equation and he must be patted on the back for doing that. And it takes work to put this into any equation. To try and get lanes — cycle lanes — in your communities is a hard task. So might it be that some other councillors don’t want to work as hard, and when they find somebody doing [something] they want to hide behind policy and say, “It’s because of the policy. We shouldn’t be straying from it. How dare we do that?”

Get up off your rear ends and do the same thing.

And if it isn’t about bike lanes, do something else. Take on your own pet project. And don’t just sit at City Hall and try to change people’s minds and create scenarios in the back rooms. Spend some time in your communities and change the flavour of your communities. Councillor Rae is suggesting to change the flavour on Jarvis — and it will.

And then when everyone wants to go down to party on Jarvis, they’re going to say what a wonderful street Jarvis is. It’s so wonderful. At that point, who’s going to be around to remind everyone that perhaps it was the local councillor that changed the way things are done. Perhaps it’s someone who actually stood up and actually cared for his community and cared for the voices — yes, the voices — that I hear everyday.

So when Councillor Holyday stands up and says he’s in Etobicoke and he never sees any cyclists, well — I do. And I think most of us do who are in the West district. And I don’t know where [Holday is] coming from.

Perhaps the cyclists that aren’t there get the feeling that the politicians don’t want them there. And that’s probably why they’re not using our streets. I say something different — I say let’s make sure that we try to get them out there as well.

It’s not just about the Humber River [trail], as someone pointed out, it’s also about encouraging people to use the roads. Encouraging them and wanting them to do it, and not saying they’re excluded because [other councillors] believe some policy needs to be changed or [that] maybe we should be fixing another road somewhere in Scarborough before we do something like this.

Thanks.

Less than a year after making these remarks and voting to approve installation of the bike lanes, Mammoliti reversed course. As part of his abortive campaign for mayor, he told The Toronto Star’s Robyn Doolittle “When I’m the mayor of the City of Toronto, if they succeed with these bike lanes, I will take them down — and that will be the first thing that I do.”

Mammoliti, now one of the most loyal Ford supporters on Council, will undoubtedly vote to remove the Jarvis Street bike lanes when the item comes before council at next month’s meeting.

He has yet to offer a credible explanation for why he changed his mind.

feature — Comments Off on City Council Scorecard: How to save the Jarvis bike lanes
28
Jun 11

City Council Scorecard: How to save the Jarvis bike lanes

On May 25, 2009, a very different-looking Toronto City Council considered PW24.15, “Jarvis Street Streetscape Improvements – Class Environmental Assessment Study.” This item ultimately led to the installation of the controversial Jarvis Street bike lanes.

In the coming weeks, thanks to a motion by Councillor John Parker on PW5.1 “Bikeway Network – 2011 Update”, council will once again debate Jarvis Street, its role in the city, and whether it should continue to be of use to the 900+ cyclists who ride the route daily. While the exact nature of that debate is still a bit unclear — Public Works Chair Denzil Minnan-Wong would appear to favour the return of the reversible fifth lane, but the cost may be prohibitive — cycling advocates within the city have already begun a campaign to Save Jarvis Street.

But given the divisive nature of council and Mayor Rob Ford’s effectiveness when it comes to gathering support for major issues, the question has to be asked: Can the Jarvis lanes be saved? Is there any realistic hope of Rob Ford and company not getting their way?

Combining data from the 2009 vote and trends from my City Council Scorecard, an answer to that question does seem to emerge. And that answer is: maybe. But there are still a number of blanks that need to be filled in.

DISCLAIMER: This is highly speculative. For novelty purposes only.

Surprisingly, seven councillors who are currently hardline Ford supporters voted in favour of the bike plan on Jarvis Street in 2009. Joining them in support was Councillor Ron Moeser, who leans conservative but tends to vote more with his conscience than with the whip. The 2009 vote passed 28-16, with 1 absent. (I’ve included a breakdown of that vote at the bottom of this post. Just for the hell of it.)

Making a bunch of assumptions based on current voting patterns — along with some statements councillors have made since this issue resurfaced, e.g. Mary-Margaret McMahon’s comment on Twitter –, council currently breaks down with 17 in favour of keeping the Jarvis lanes, 15 opposed and 13 unknown votes. Six of the uncommitted councillors need to break for maintaining the status quo for the Jarvis lanes to win the day.

Of the unknowns, Councillors Mammoliti, Nunziata, Kelly, Palacio & Grimes are likely to flip-flop on their earlier position and support the removal of the lanes. It’s hypocritical and barely justifiable, but that won’t be enough to stop them.

Of the remaining eight, the best bets for cycling advocates are Councillors Matlow, Bailão, Colle, Moeser, Robinson and Di Giorgio. The first three will be significantly easier to convince than the last three, who might trot out the argument that, following the results of the 2010 election, Council has a democratic mandate to remove the Jarvis bike lanes.

It all adds up to a very tough-looking fight. The next council meeting is set for July 12.

If anyone has any information on voting intentions for the councillors I’ve identified as unknown — or if I’ve got a ‘likely’ vote wrong — please let me know and I’ll update the chart. I can be reached via email or on Twitter at @FordForToronto.

Continue reading →

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →