← Forum

Login or Register to join the discussion!

• ← Group Forum | Forum Topic Directory

  Bike lanes an election winner for Rossi (13 posts)

• Joe T. said 5 months ago:

  From the Toronto Star:
  http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/771020

  Good article on how Rossi is using the Jarvis bikelane to raise his own profile in the media.

  By talking about how misguided he is on the bikelane issue, are we just giving him more exposure, or is making bikelanes a major election issue (no matter how they are portrayed) a good thing in the long run?

• Paul T said 5 months ago:

  I think it would be horrible for the cities future if Rossi got elected. However, if he keeps campaigning on this issue, and nothing else comes up to woo voters he will win. Transit and Cycling infrastructure will suffer.

  Toronto is a city of drivers. A significant number of people would rather drive to work then take any other form of transportation. That combined with the media's spin on the issues ('war on cars') and you have a win for Rossi.

• Todd Tyrtle said 5 months ago:

  I'm trying to give everyone a chance. Apparently according to Rossi's twitter post he wants to see more bike lanes (just not on arterials). I would love more bike lanes as long as they're useful. And hypothetically speaking I really don't care where they go as long as they get me to where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. as I saw someone on FB post – I don't want to have to go up to Dupont as an alternate to Bloor). So if he's so bike-friendly, let's see his position. I would love to be proved wrong in my initial judgment that he's a guy who would prefer to see bikes returned to "recreation-only" status and off the streets entirely.

  It's unfortunate that he refused to be on CTV at the same time as Yvonne Bambrick. It seems like that would've been a great opportunity for him to show that he really does have an interest in moving people as much as he wants to move cars. If he is being misrepresented by the media he's got a *huge* perception issue. At this point I don't believe it, though and think he is completely pandering to the north of St. Clair crowd. We'll see if his behaviour over the next few months changes or reinforces my impression.

• Paul T said 5 months ago:

  I have to strongly disagree with the non-arterial approach. I'll do it with one example:

  Get from the area west of Dufferin bounded by King to Bloor to the downtown core without taking an arterial route for most of it.

  Very hard and time consuming. I know people who don't bike to work because of how scary taking your bike across queen/king/dundas is. Going down to the lake is a huge inconvenience and time waster.

  The one exception to the above is Harbord. But that's only a small section.

  There are plenty of examples of this. This is just the one I have personal experience with.

  Being against bike lanes on arterial routes is being against bike lanes. Because if bike lanes aren't connected in a usable network, that is convenient and useful, then they might as well not exist.

• Patch said 5 months ago:

  I’ve been doing some searches about bike lanes and found some interesting discussions like this one
  http://westsideindependent.com/2009/10/06/bike-lanes-proposed-for-amsterdam-and-columbus/ and
  There’s a good discussion here (http://www.kitsilano.ca/2010/02/03/barrier-protected-bike-lane-down-cornwall-avenue/) which mentions proposed bike lanes in Vancouver. At this point I’ll vote for anyone that comes out strong for more bikelanes in Toronto and improvements to current ones.

• Todd Tyrtle said 5 months ago:

  I completely agree with you, Paul. I don't see how a good network can exist in Toronto without a good number of arterial bike lanes. All the same I thought I'd give the exercise a try. Mostly I think it's convenient rhetoric that allows Rossi to sound completely reasonable to someone who drives and doesn't give the issue much thought while at the same time making those of us advocating bike lanes that actually help us as the immovable fringe who refuse to compromise. I think a direct discussion between Yvonne and Rossi would have potentially showed the flaws in his logic and potentially ruin the illusion that he's perpetuating.

• James Schwartz said 5 months ago:

  I'm with Paul T on this one. We don't have any alternate east-west routes that would make good thoroughfares for cyclists. Virtually every east-west corridor south of Bloor is a main arterial road (with few exceptions like Harbord mentioned above).

  I can't even believe some of us are giving Rossi the benefit of a doubt. Rossi has said that he wants to BAN bikes from major arterial routes and that he wants to rip out existing bike lanes. College, Jarvis and Sherbourne are all arterial roads.

  As cyclists, are we seriously going to give his argument any credibility?

  Imagine cyclists were banned from riding on Queen street? It would never happen, but why would we vote for someone who wants this?

  And even if he doesn't truly want to do what he is saying he wants to do, then he is just trying to get attention from the media by making controversial remarks.

  No matter what this guy says from this point forward, he has already lost any credibility he might have had.

• Patch said 5 months ago:

  I was not aware of Rossi's stance wanting to BAN bikes. Good grief what era is this guy in? He's obviously going after the car lovers who would love to see nothing done to encourage more cyclists or bike lanes. I've been sending my cycling friends this link and I can tell you Rossi has DEFINITELY lost any possible support from them. We need forward thinkers not this garbage.

  P.S.: Sorry I sound angry but this kind of thing really steams me up! Arrggh.

• Svend said 5 months ago:

  I'm undecided whether to ignore this jackass, it's disgraceful how he's trying to score points with our safety. He's a backroom strategist, not a representative of the people.

  Bikes have to be allowed on EVERY street, in fact we need bike lanes on every arterial road to make them safer for us.
  Ban bikes from arterial roads? How the hell would cyclists cross the Don Valley or Hwy 401?

• Joe T. said 5 months ago:

  Great post in Raise the Hammer today, pointing out that Rossi was not heard from AT ALL during the debate last spring about okay-ing bikelanes for Jarvis.
  http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1653/bike_lanes_already_a_toronto_election_wedge_issue

  Seems like political opportunism.

  "As I recall, Rocco Rossi was not particularly vocal during the Jarvis Street Bike Lanes debates of last year. And yet here he is, just months later, claiming to be the drivers' champion.

  We shouldn't be surprised. The subject of walk- and bike-ability has been well and truly hijacked by the media.

  Instead of discussing how we can move people around more safely in our various transportation modes, we are instead pitting the wants of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians."

• Joe T. said 4 months, 3 weeks ago:

  Shawn Micallef has an interesting piece on "Wedge" tactics that Rossi is using:

  Cars, wedges and the Brady Bunch
  http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/85104

  "It’s strange that Rossi chose to use the Jarvis lanes to stir up potential motorist votes (that is, votes largely outside of the old City of Toronto) when he is the former CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the organization whose annual signature event, the “Ride For Heart,” closes the Gardiner and DVP to all traffic but bicycles. Every year, on cue, this event draws the red-hot ire of motorists who complain of being put out and done wrong. Perhaps that’s why he knew who would react, on cue, to his anti-Jarvis stand."

• Anthony said 4 months, 3 weeks ago:

  Our former Metro (Toronto) government had a formal policy where they were moving towards banning bicycles from using the arterial streets under their control. While this ended as a formal policy in 1982, the effects still linger. Rossi's intention of banning bikes on arterials is an example.

  Most people don't have an good understand how our road and street networks work. Far too many people also equate streets with roads, and they wrongly assume that roads are 'built for cars.' And with these people, Rossi's comments stand a chance of resonating. But these are not the engaged people who consistently vote; but they'll be more likely to vote if you rile up their anger which is what Rossi seems to be attempting.

  The people who are more engaged and who regularly vote have, at the least, an instinctive understanding that roads are different spaces than streets, that our city needs both roads and streets, and that the best use of our streets goes far beyond being a mere corridor for cars. The biggest risk to cyclists is that many of these folks may overlook Rossi's bike lane comments if the rest of what he's offering is appealing enough.

• HiMY SYeD said 4 months, 3 weeks ago:

  Anthony,

  Your words above, "…Far too many people also equate streets with roads, and they wrongly assume that roads are 'built for cars.'… "

  I strongly agree with that.

  It is key to understanding what a street's actual purpose is. Streets are in fact, "Public Space."

  In 2006, I wrote for Spacing the following :

  http://spacing.ca/wire/2006/06/29/the-wealth-of-cities/

  Towards the end, John Friedmann answered my question and surprised me with his opening,

  "The first public space was the street. The state shouldn’t regulate the street other than order. … "

  Thus far it is dubious that Candidates Smitherman and Rossi share this understanding.

  HiMY