Earlier today, Mayor Rob Ford voted against all the community grants, while council voted unanimously to continue the grants (with one vote exception where Doug Ford voted along with his brother).
Council also voted (24-17) to protect graffiti alley (near Queen and Spadina).
The group of councillors in the middle just might begin to stand up for their constituents instead of continuing to kowtow to Rob Ford.
The vote for the Jarvis Bike Lane takes place July 13th. Since the bike lane was introduced, car traffic has not decreased, while bicycle use of the road has tripled. This to me would say - the bike lanes are having no negative effect on vehicle traffic, while making the road much more efficient and safer for cyclists. Why spend a lot of money to remove the bike lane only to make it less efficient and safe for cyclists, and to make no difference to motorists?
The reason that Ford and his supporters want to remove the bike lane (from the main link at top):
To those who push for the removal of the Jarvis bike lane, it is
worth considering that the Ford plan will not bring back the two-way
centre lane: rather, it will see the removal of the bike lane and the
introduction of a left turn lane. That is all.
And if this seems a petty reason to remove important cycling
infrastructure, that’s because it is. Councillors could be overheard
this afternoon stating that this was politics – pure and simple. It is part of a larger drive of the
right-wing Ford administration to simply undo the remnants of former
Toronto Mayor David Miller’s time in office.
And speaking with Garcia, you can see she tends to agree. “There is
really no reason to remove [the Jarvis bike lane] other than an
ideological position against having a bike lane on an arterial [road],”
she says. “This will set a negative precedent that we can do bicycling
planning based on ideology rather than evidence.”
The Jarvis, Birchmount and Pharmacy bicycle lanes will be removed (at a large cost to Toronto and to cyclists on these routes). The vote July 13, 2011 was 28-19 in favour of removal.