Skip to content

Spacing

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered

Bikes

Convincing councillors to fund bike infrastructure

By

Read more articles by

Tomorrow at City Hall, Toronto’s budget committee will meet to discuss and hear feedback on the proposed 2008 capital budget. For most residents, any discussion of about the city’s budget is a snoozefest, but this is one of the few opportunities citizens can directly comment and influence how our tax dollars are spent.

On a personal note, I’ll be interested to see how much money city council dedicates to cycling infrastructure and operational costs. The recently released report from Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health that expresses a serious need to reduce vehicle emissions can be used as an effective tool to help convince city councillors on the need invest in bike transit. Cycling was also a component of the City’s “Change Is In The Air” policy.

The City has an ambitious 10-year bike plan that is far behind schedule. Mayor David Miller and Cycling Committee Chair Adrian Heaps have been actively trying to instill confidence in cycling and public space advocates that the City is about to get over the proverbial bump in the road and begin to implement the bike plan in a significant way. The mayor has stated that a portion of the $60-million raised from the newly approved Personal Vehicle Registration Fee would be directed to “road repairs, public transit, cycling and pedestrian improvements.” And in the upcoming issue of Spacing, Mayor Miller and David Suzuki cite the need to ride bikes as a small way to help fight climate change.

Luckily for those people who can’t make it to City Hall in the middle of the day, Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation (TCAT), one of the city’s best new(ish) advocates, will be at the budget committee with a number of excellent recommendations [ PDF ]. “The small amount of funding it would take to complete most of the Bike Plan in the immediate future would go a very long way to mitigate congestion, improve air quality and reduce health care costs from smog-related illnesses, as well as car-related injuries and deaths,“ says Fred Sztabinski, TCAT’s project coordinator. “Overall, the funds in the 2008 capital budget and the 2009-2012 capital plan are simply insufficient to meet Council’s goal of completing the Bikeway Network by 2012.”

The groups suggests committing a minimum of $6.2 million to the 2008 Transportation Services cycling infrastructure budget, commit an additional $300,000 in the capital budget towards Transportation Services staffing to ensure implementation can occur, provide a minimum of $4 million in the Parks, Forestry & Recreation budget for repairing and creating new multi-use pathways in Toronto’s Parks, and establish a staff position in Parks, Forestry & Recreation that is dedicated to ensuring the integrity and connectivity of the pathway network.

photo by Tanja-Tiziana Burdi

Recommended

12 comments

  2. While more money towards bike infrastructure would be helpful, we need quality, not quantity, and things must be where cyclists need them/will use them. To my mind this means Bloor St. over even the Rail Trail, and there are other huge gaps in bikeway infrastructure, and not just in the suburbs. And sometimes, there are things in other budgets that benefit bikes eg. Simcoe St. tunnel.

  4. The Bike Plan is dead. Has been for a long time. It was never so great to begin with and lacked political will & cash from the start. City Hall will continue to play politics with the safety of cyclists and brag about being ‘World Class’.
    2017? Oh, if I live to see it.

    Sad. We could have had a great bike city.
    They sold us out.

    Unless we get safe passage for cyclists now:
    East – West & North South for cyclists, it will all just window dressing without addressing the real needs for people on two wheels.

    No guts, no glory.

  5. Tino is right. The bike plan is dead dead dead.

    There is no reason for cyclists to play nice on the road or enter the sanctioned political process anymore. If we are going to get room to ride, we have to take it. If we are going to get respect, we have to take it. We know neither politicians nor police on the street care at all for our safety – both sets are drivers, and consider us a lefty nuisance. They might be right about that, but the fact is they are a far bigger nuisance for any kind of progress to a city worth living in.

    Cyclists, from messengers to commuters, are a large group. Do you think any ethnic-association as large as our numbers would get ignored? I hope that something comes of that Cycling Union, but it ain’t going to be worth a %&^* if they try to play nice. Nice gets ignored.

  7. Sorry ‘bikingtoronto’, maybe I forgot to take my prozac, or maybe I just ride on these streets.

  9. The difference between a smartass and a jerk is this: jerks make personal comments.

  10. I find that on blogs and etc, if you use your real and full name, people in general are less likely to make personal attack type comments. If you sign your name to what you say, people seem to debate the ideas cuz it seems more like it’s from a real person — it’s easier to be snarky with people who are sort of anonymous. Not that those of you who choose not to use your full or real names aren’t “real people” or whatever — it’s as subtle thing but has an effect (IMHO).

  11. I didn’t know “ray of sunshine” was such a personal insult.

    I’m just trying to help the cycling “advocates” in this city a little less negative and a little more constructive. Being left-wing nutjobs will not accomplish anything.

    My name is Joe.