In listening to the infuriating debate in City Council today, I have a number of questions related to the debate. If only they’d answer me.
1. Councillors arguing in favour of removing Jarvis lanes have said that bike lanes were never in the plan. They argue that the original plan was about increasing the pedestrian streetscape. And yet they want the bike lanes removed in order to restore the 5th lane of traffic which also is contrary to the original plan of returning Jarvis street to a pedestrian-friendly cultural corridor.
Contradiction much? If you agree that the street should be better for pedestrians, surely it is better to have 1 less lane of traffic than it is to have a highway that allows for high-speed vehicle travel.
2. Many councillors agree that cycling downtown is “dangerous” and that is why they support the separated bike lanes. Councillor Minnan-Wong said that “a painted line doesn’t make it safer.” So doesn’t it follow that the reason cycling is dangerous is BECAUSE of cars, not because of a lack of separated lanes? And as such, there should be fewer cars on the streets to keep cyclists safer?