Choice on our streets

Toronto’s proposed University Ave. bike lane project should be getting support from both sides of the political spectrum

Dave Meslin - Toronto-based artist and urban activist:

I’ve always thought it was strange how the issue of bike lanes seems to fall into the political spectrum. Quite often, the left is in favour and the right is opposed. And geographically, downtown politicians are generally in favour while suburban politicians are opposed.

Take the proposed bike lanes for University Avenue. The plan is being vocally supported by left-leaning mayoral candidate Joe Pantalone, while being derided by centre and right-leaning candidates Rocco Rossi, Giorgio Mammoliti, and Rob Ford.

Both of these patterns defy logic to me. Geographically, bike lanes are much more needed in the suburbs than they are downtown. Drivers are accustomed to seeing cyclists downtown and know how to give them proper space. In the suburbs, cyclists are unexpected and therefore more at risk.

Equally important is the fact that there’s more space for bike lanes in the suburbs! While it may be hard to squeeze a bike lane onto Toronto’s Bloor Street, there’s no reason bike lanes can’t be placed on our very wide suburban arterials, many of which have wide lanes and 20 feet of grass on either side. And the notion that cyclists exist only downtown is a myth that the City of Toronto’s own research has disproven. According to the Cycling Survey (2009), utilitarian cycling is actually growing faster in the suburbs than in the city core.

But the political spectrum is even more baffling to me. Why would right wingers oppose bike lanes? I thought they were all about consumer choice. Competition drives innovation, right? Well, bike lanes are all about choice. A street without a bike lane is like a corporate monopoly. No choice. Technically, I suppose you can still ride a bike on the street, but it sure doesn’t feel safe. It’s the equivalent of having one brand on a store shelf at eye level and another brand 15 feet up, out of reach. That’s not fair competition. Fair competition demands a level playing field.

I’ve heard bike lanes described as “anti-car.” That’s not true; they just provide an alternative choice. Pepsi isn’t anti-Coke. It’s just Pepsi. And sometimes, a store clerk might need to move a few cans of Coke to the side, to make room for some Pepsi. That’s not anti-Coke either.

Don’t get me wrong – there are people out there who hate cars. No doubt. They would like to see cars banned completely. But I don’t believe in that approach, nor do my colleagues. Simply put, it’s undemocratic. The approach I’d rather see involves a carrot, not a stick. We all agree that having fewer cars on our streets would mean a more efficient, cleaner, safer, and healthier city. So how do we get there? Do we ban cars or do we simply provide a more appealing alternative?

I think the answer to our gridlock problems is to embrace those right-wing values of consumer choice and competition. We get people to slowly shift away from automobile use simply by providing them with alternatives that are safe, clean, affordable, efficient, reliable, and healthy. Public transit and cycling are the best alternatives to the automobile, but I can’t blame people for staying in their cars when transit is underfunded and over-capacity and cycling isn’t safe in many areas.

The proposed bike-lane project on University Avenue should have broad political support. It’s a common-sense approach to a city-wide problem. Separated bike lanes are the most appealing and safest type we can build. They attract new cyclists who may not feel comfortable mixing with automobile traffic. And where are they most appropriate? On wide streets with multiple lanes of traffic in each direction. That way, there’s still ample room for cars, trucks, emergency vehicles, deliveries, taxis pulling over, etc.

Last week, along with David Crombie, Rahul Bhardwaj, Julia Deans, Susan Eng, and others, I proudly co-signed an open letter to all candidate’s in this year’s mayoral election, about our city’s streets and how we move around. The letter encouraged them to “embrace a comprehensive and democratic approach to transportation, rather than perpetuating or encouraging a divisive framing that unnecessarily pits Torontonians against each other.”

We took a strong stance in favour of a “complete streets” model that “strives to provide room for everyone including drivers, cyclists, transit riders and pedestrians.”

The proposal for University Avenue is a groundbreaking step for Toronto, putting us in step with other major cities across North America that are providing safe space for cyclists on arterial streets to provide a healthy, clean, and green choice for everyone who uses the streets.

I hope all our politicians and candidates, both right- and left-leaning, can embrace this project built on values of choice, creativity, efficiency, and collective health.