After allowing Toronto Mayor David Miller's announcement that he will not seek re-election to sink in a little bit, I wrote this article which appeared in the Bloor West Villager on October 23, 2009.
Miller's Time
Before passing judgment on Mayor David Miller's (not yet complete) record, it is important to recall the state of the city right before he was elected.
At that time, Toronto was led by a mayor who was more likely to make residents cringe than feel inspired. The mayor's hand picked police chief divided residents with his old school approach to policing. Social policy focused on squeegee kids while more homeless slept on our streets.
Years of unaffordable tax freezes further backlogged needed infrastructure improvements. Talk of the "New Deal for Cities" was falling on deaf ears. Waterfront renewal projects went nowhere.
At city hall, lobbyists operated unchecked and the MFP computer leasing scandal brought into question the very credibility of our municipal government.
So in the fall of 2003, Torontonians were looking for a serious a candidate, a person with a vision for the city, a mayor they could be proud of. It was clear to me early on that David Miller was that candidate.
Upon Miller's surprise election victory, public hopes and expectations were high, perhaps, impossibly high. Those expectations may explain some of the criticism of Miller's record today.
Again, let us look at the state of the city today in the context outlined earlier.
Toronto has restored its reputation. The city is a respected global leader on innovation and the environment due directly to the mayor's efforts in advancing policies to combat climate change.
Toronto got a better deal from other levels of government. Thanks to the mayor's leadership, Toronto and all Canadian cities now receive new revenues through a share of the federal gas tax. That revenue has been used to replace aging busses and subway cars. There are also agreements in place to help fund Transit City, a network of new streetcar lines to bring Toronto's transit system into the 21st century.
Toronto is renewing its waterfront with projects like the urban beach and new commercial development. This renewal is spreading to neighbourhoods throughout the city as watermains are replaced, bike lanes are installed and trees are planted.
Toronto is a safer city. Under a new police chief supported by the mayor, crime rates have been lowered through a commitment to community policing.
Toronto is a more just city. Two thousand homeless Torontonians now have homes and there are new community support programs for at-risk youth.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Toronto is once again an honest city. The mayor restored integrity to local government with the appointment of Toronto's first Integrity Commissioner and Auditor General and the creation of a lobbyist registry.
David Miller will not leave office a perfect mayor. Work must continue on new and existing challenges facing the city.
But the true measure of any politician is if they can answer the following question in the affirmative: "Are things better now than when you took office?"
David Miller can rest easy knowing Toronto is a better city thanks to his leadership.
Christopher Holcroft
Standing up for public parks
I wrote the article below for my local community paper, the Bloor West Villager. It ran August 14th, 2009.
Parks deserve more respect
Public parks are of intrinsic value to cities.
They are more than just places to play, rest, exercise and explore. Parks contribute to the overall social, economic and environmental health of communities. They are meeting places for families, artists and neighbourhood groups. Beautiful parks will enhance a city's attractiveness to tourists, and close proximity to parks will increase residential property values.
Most modern metropolises find commonality in their abundance of concrete. But it is through shared green spaces that we distinguish cities as our own, and define our cities to the outside world.
Think of Central Park in New York or Parc Mont Royal in Montreal. Here at home, we are fortunate to have - and in our very own community - High Park. But it is the totality of our park system - "a city within a park", as the City's slogan goes - that makes Toronto unique. In a city where more than half of all households are in apartment buildings or condo developments, our parks play an additional role; that of public backyard. It is in these backyards that a child will first learn to ride a bike and a couple will enjoy a first date. Protecting Toronto's parks then - even when it is not convenient to do so -should be of the utmost priority for our civic government and a responsibility all residents share. Most of the time, it is. But Toronto's recent labour dispute with its unionized workers, resulting in the disruption of regular garbage pick up in most of the city, has weakened this resolve. As residential trash began to accumulate soon after the disruption in service, safe and quick garbage disposal became a pressing issue. In response, the City made the regrettable decision to open up, almost immediately, 11 parks as temporary garbage disposal sites, with more parks later designated. There were other options. The City could have, for example, increased its public education campaign on waste reduction, recycling, proper storage and composting while keeping the main transfer stations open as disposal sites. Or it could have designated only non-park, city-owned property such as brownfields sites or parking lots. Or it could have entered into short term leases for private lands to use as disposal sites.
Each of these choices would have come with a small financial cost or inconvenience, but our parks would have been preserved for summer enjoyment.
The immediate problems with allowing garbage dumping in our local parks have been well documented: reduced access to the parks because of the space needed for the disposal sites, reduced enjoyment of park facilities due to the visible blight and smell, ongoing concerns over the health and environmental risks to the parkland and nearby bodies of water, risks that were amplified by the decision to spray garbage piles with pesticides.
The long-term ramifications of having garbage in our parks are less obvious but possibly of even greater consequence. For if we were not able to keep our parks clean from garbage during the labour dispute, how can we expect to keep our parks clean from everyday litter now that the situation is resolved?
And if we cannot keep our parks safe from garbage dumps, how can we keep our parks safe from potential development? If any good can come from all this garbage, perhaps it will be through increased public discussion of how we value our parks. So hopefully, the next time a decision has to be made on whether to protect Toronto's parks, the choice is abundantly clear.
Christopher Holcroft
Parks deserve more respect
Public parks are of intrinsic value to cities.
They are more than just places to play, rest, exercise and explore. Parks contribute to the overall social, economic and environmental health of communities. They are meeting places for families, artists and neighbourhood groups. Beautiful parks will enhance a city's attractiveness to tourists, and close proximity to parks will increase residential property values.
Most modern metropolises find commonality in their abundance of concrete. But it is through shared green spaces that we distinguish cities as our own, and define our cities to the outside world.
Think of Central Park in New York or Parc Mont Royal in Montreal. Here at home, we are fortunate to have - and in our very own community - High Park. But it is the totality of our park system - "a city within a park", as the City's slogan goes - that makes Toronto unique. In a city where more than half of all households are in apartment buildings or condo developments, our parks play an additional role; that of public backyard. It is in these backyards that a child will first learn to ride a bike and a couple will enjoy a first date. Protecting Toronto's parks then - even when it is not convenient to do so -should be of the utmost priority for our civic government and a responsibility all residents share. Most of the time, it is. But Toronto's recent labour dispute with its unionized workers, resulting in the disruption of regular garbage pick up in most of the city, has weakened this resolve. As residential trash began to accumulate soon after the disruption in service, safe and quick garbage disposal became a pressing issue. In response, the City made the regrettable decision to open up, almost immediately, 11 parks as temporary garbage disposal sites, with more parks later designated. There were other options. The City could have, for example, increased its public education campaign on waste reduction, recycling, proper storage and composting while keeping the main transfer stations open as disposal sites. Or it could have designated only non-park, city-owned property such as brownfields sites or parking lots. Or it could have entered into short term leases for private lands to use as disposal sites.
Each of these choices would have come with a small financial cost or inconvenience, but our parks would have been preserved for summer enjoyment.
The immediate problems with allowing garbage dumping in our local parks have been well documented: reduced access to the parks because of the space needed for the disposal sites, reduced enjoyment of park facilities due to the visible blight and smell, ongoing concerns over the health and environmental risks to the parkland and nearby bodies of water, risks that were amplified by the decision to spray garbage piles with pesticides.
The long-term ramifications of having garbage in our parks are less obvious but possibly of even greater consequence. For if we were not able to keep our parks clean from garbage during the labour dispute, how can we expect to keep our parks clean from everyday litter now that the situation is resolved?
And if we cannot keep our parks safe from garbage dumps, how can we keep our parks safe from potential development? If any good can come from all this garbage, perhaps it will be through increased public discussion of how we value our parks. So hopefully, the next time a decision has to be made on whether to protect Toronto's parks, the choice is abundantly clear.
Christopher Holcroft
One Week one great Canadian movie
A great film, like a beautiful piece of art or a wonderful novel can challenge your mind and touch your soul.
If you have not yet seen the movie One Week (www.oneweek.ca) I encourage you to go see it! A moving, thought provoking story, very fine acting (including a strong performance by the lead, Joshua Jackson), beautiful cinematography and a cool soundtrack, this movie has it all. There is also enough Canadianna to make the country itself a compelling part of the film.
I hope it receives the critical acclaim and popular recognition it deserves. On the latter point, I wonder if we are doing enough to create a made-in-Canada film industry? (In fairness,this is more of a challenge in english speaking Canada as there is already a strong French-Canadian industry.)
Would it not be worth exploring the idea of requiring movie theatres to devote a percentage of overall screen time to Canadian films? Other countries currently do this and the Canadian government once had an agreement with the major movie theatres on a voluntary commitment. A similar approach to Canadian content on radio helped to build a successful and varied Canadian music scene. I believe it is worth pursuing.
Any thoughts on this are welcome. In the meantime - please go see this film!
If you have not yet seen the movie One Week (www.oneweek.ca) I encourage you to go see it! A moving, thought provoking story, very fine acting (including a strong performance by the lead, Joshua Jackson), beautiful cinematography and a cool soundtrack, this movie has it all. There is also enough Canadianna to make the country itself a compelling part of the film.
I hope it receives the critical acclaim and popular recognition it deserves. On the latter point, I wonder if we are doing enough to create a made-in-Canada film industry? (In fairness,this is more of a challenge in english speaking Canada as there is already a strong French-Canadian industry.)
Would it not be worth exploring the idea of requiring movie theatres to devote a percentage of overall screen time to Canadian films? Other countries currently do this and the Canadian government once had an agreement with the major movie theatres on a voluntary commitment. A similar approach to Canadian content on radio helped to build a successful and varied Canadian music scene. I believe it is worth pursuing.
Any thoughts on this are welcome. In the meantime - please go see this film!
Prime Minister Harper, Turn Off Your Lights
With Earth Hour just a few days away, I wrote the op-ed below that the The Toronto Star has today (www.thestar.com/comment/article/607658). If you agree with me, and want to ask the Prime Minister directly to power down for Earth Hour, why not drop him a line at pm@pm.gc.ca. Thank you.
Prime Minister Harper, Turn Off Your Lights
Last year on March 29 at 8:00 pm, millions of Canadians joined hundreds of millions more around the world in turning off their power for sixty minutes to mark Earth Hour.
At 24 Sussex Drive, the home of our Prime Minister, the lights were famously, or rather infamously, left on.
Whether this was the act of a neglectful manager or an agent provocateur is irrelevant. What it did clearly illustrate was a Prime Minister sadly out of touch with ordinary Canadians and their concerns about climate change and the future of the planet.
In many neighbourhoods this concern – and corresponding commitment to change – went beyond an hour at home in the dark. Many families gathered for candlelight walks, attended a special service at their place of worship or participated in events in civic squares.
This year in my own community in Toronto, various grassroots resident and business groups are working together to organize a numbers of events around Earth Hour, including three candlelight walks, a bike ride and a town hall meeting. These events all symbolize public efforts to draw attention to the urgency of our environmental challenges.
While Canadians from across the country are taking individual action, imagine how much more we could achieve at home – and contribute abroad – with engaged, active leadership from the Prime Minister.
Canada has an important role to play in global discussions over climate change and we are well positioned to do so. Canada has a long history of activism on international policies – from the creation of peacekeeping and the International Criminal Court to the banning of land mines. We are also per capita one of the world’s worst carbon polluters.
But before we can speak credibly to the world, we must talk honestly with each other. We should be under no illusions as to how difficult this conversation will be.
Pursuing meaningful action on climate change presents Canada with unique policy challenges. Consider that ours is a resource driven, advanced economy. Our population is spread sparsely across a large land mass. Our winters are (for now) long and cold. And one of the greatest contributors to our oversized carbon footprint – oil – is also the source of regional resentment and political risk.
But surely this is the job of the Prime Minister – to initiate, lead and facilitate national conversations on complex, sensitive and urgent issues. We should also expect him to be capable of highlighting our unlimited possibilities rather than our current constraints, and be willing to appeal to our more hopeful and generous selves to enable change.
Prime Minister Harper could use his leadership position to offer specific signals to Canadians that he shares our concerns on climate change, including by:
• Fostering a culture of conservation – The federal government could lead a conservation revolution by launching a public education campaign to highlight how small measures to reduce energy and water usage can have major financial and environmental benefits.
• Committing to science – Canada deserves a government that embraces, not ignores the scientific evidence on climate change and its causes. Just as important, the government owes it to Canadians to provide, not suppress, new information that will encourage us to act. Finally, we need leadership that refuses to cling to false hopes of unproven technologies in an attempt to maintain the status quo.
• Forging a national consensus – If ever there was an issue that called for a united, not fragmented, response to an issue, it is the environment. What happens on the tar sands in Alberta or off the coast of Newfoundland affects the entire country. The Prime Minister should launch an intergovernmental strategy by hosting a First Ministers Conference on the environment and holding it in public.
In choosing to power down for Earth Hour, Canadians are sending a message to government that we see ourselves as more than just consumers of energy, more than just participants in the national economy – we are citizens of this world, guardians of this planet and we are prepared to act on climate change.
We want to see the federal government act too. Even more than specific policies, we are looking for a Prime Minister who demonstrates that he “gets it” on climate change. But if, on March 28 the lights are still on at 24 Sussex, he doesn’t.
Prime Minister Harper, Turn Off Your Lights
Last year on March 29 at 8:00 pm, millions of Canadians joined hundreds of millions more around the world in turning off their power for sixty minutes to mark Earth Hour.
At 24 Sussex Drive, the home of our Prime Minister, the lights were famously, or rather infamously, left on.
Whether this was the act of a neglectful manager or an agent provocateur is irrelevant. What it did clearly illustrate was a Prime Minister sadly out of touch with ordinary Canadians and their concerns about climate change and the future of the planet.
In many neighbourhoods this concern – and corresponding commitment to change – went beyond an hour at home in the dark. Many families gathered for candlelight walks, attended a special service at their place of worship or participated in events in civic squares.
This year in my own community in Toronto, various grassroots resident and business groups are working together to organize a numbers of events around Earth Hour, including three candlelight walks, a bike ride and a town hall meeting. These events all symbolize public efforts to draw attention to the urgency of our environmental challenges.
While Canadians from across the country are taking individual action, imagine how much more we could achieve at home – and contribute abroad – with engaged, active leadership from the Prime Minister.
Canada has an important role to play in global discussions over climate change and we are well positioned to do so. Canada has a long history of activism on international policies – from the creation of peacekeeping and the International Criminal Court to the banning of land mines. We are also per capita one of the world’s worst carbon polluters.
But before we can speak credibly to the world, we must talk honestly with each other. We should be under no illusions as to how difficult this conversation will be.
Pursuing meaningful action on climate change presents Canada with unique policy challenges. Consider that ours is a resource driven, advanced economy. Our population is spread sparsely across a large land mass. Our winters are (for now) long and cold. And one of the greatest contributors to our oversized carbon footprint – oil – is also the source of regional resentment and political risk.
But surely this is the job of the Prime Minister – to initiate, lead and facilitate national conversations on complex, sensitive and urgent issues. We should also expect him to be capable of highlighting our unlimited possibilities rather than our current constraints, and be willing to appeal to our more hopeful and generous selves to enable change.
Prime Minister Harper could use his leadership position to offer specific signals to Canadians that he shares our concerns on climate change, including by:
• Fostering a culture of conservation – The federal government could lead a conservation revolution by launching a public education campaign to highlight how small measures to reduce energy and water usage can have major financial and environmental benefits.
• Committing to science – Canada deserves a government that embraces, not ignores the scientific evidence on climate change and its causes. Just as important, the government owes it to Canadians to provide, not suppress, new information that will encourage us to act. Finally, we need leadership that refuses to cling to false hopes of unproven technologies in an attempt to maintain the status quo.
• Forging a national consensus – If ever there was an issue that called for a united, not fragmented, response to an issue, it is the environment. What happens on the tar sands in Alberta or off the coast of Newfoundland affects the entire country. The Prime Minister should launch an intergovernmental strategy by hosting a First Ministers Conference on the environment and holding it in public.
In choosing to power down for Earth Hour, Canadians are sending a message to government that we see ourselves as more than just consumers of energy, more than just participants in the national economy – we are citizens of this world, guardians of this planet and we are prepared to act on climate change.
We want to see the federal government act too. Even more than specific policies, we are looking for a Prime Minister who demonstrates that he “gets it” on climate change. But if, on March 28 the lights are still on at 24 Sussex, he doesn’t.
More reasoned, respectful discussion needed on teachers
As an independent business person and a resident of Ontario, I place great value on a strong public education system. Public education is the great social equalizer and the foundation for a successful economy. But such a system will not exist without classrooms led by qualified and motivated teachers. They are noble agents of the public trust tasked with guiding the next generation of leaders into adulthood.
So it is with alarm that I read commentary publicly attacking teachers; the most recent example coming in the form of an open letter from the President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/12/c8023.html) to the Minister of Education opposing the government’s latest contract proposal to the union representing Ontario’s public elementary school teachers (since accepted).
These attacks too often cite erroneous information, make disingenuous comparisons and disparage hard working teachers. I would have expected a more reasoned perspective from an organization such as the CFIB. However, their letter relies on the same sort of divisive tactics to try and bolster their arguments. Consider some of the main points raised by the CFIB:
· Questioning the hiring of an additional 1,500 teachers. If we are to provide kids with the best possible classroom experience we need to ensure our teachers are teaching subjects in which they are most qualified and are given the necessary time during the work day to prepare innovative and interesting lessons for their students. To meet this goal, schools need to hire more teachers.
· Unfavourably comparing the higher salaries of teacher with “matching positions in the private sector”. It is revealing that no specific examples of such positions are provided in the letter. I am intrigued to know what private sector job actually compares to the work of a teacher, a profession that requires two university degrees and includes the following responsibilities – developing and delivering a 5-6 hour daily presentation to up to 100 different kids, analyzing through a number of written reports how well these presentations have been understood, managing relationships with a number of third parties (parents, principals, social workers, etc.) and generally motivating, supporting and nurturing students while remaining accountable to the broader community.
· Lamenting that the Province is keeping its commitment on pensions to teachers. Unlike many private sector plans, teachers make equal contributions to their own pension plans. These pensions are part of a package of benefits that exist to attract and retain talented educators. If the projected value of the fund will be insufficient to pay the pensions of future retirees, the government either increases its share of the contribution or breaks its commitment to younger teachers.
By virtue of their chosen profession, teachers are informed advocates for public education. Attempts to portray their concerns as the simple pleas of greedy public sector workers do a disservice to anyone who cares about the state of our schools, including the taxpayers the CFIB purports to defend in its letter.
It is essential that dialogue on all important public issues – not just teacher contracts – be focused on factual arguments, with respectful consideration given to the perspectives of all parties involved. Casting judgment without taking this approach diminishes the public discourse.
Particularly as the economy weakens, we should brace ourselves for more petty envy – what Shakespeare called the bitter thing – purveyors of which single out one community for derision. Today it may be teachers, tomorrow it may be a different group, perhaps even the CFIB. Either way it will be wrong, divisive and will do nothing to address the serious challenges our society faces.
So it is with alarm that I read commentary publicly attacking teachers; the most recent example coming in the form of an open letter from the President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/12/c8023.html) to the Minister of Education opposing the government’s latest contract proposal to the union representing Ontario’s public elementary school teachers (since accepted).
These attacks too often cite erroneous information, make disingenuous comparisons and disparage hard working teachers. I would have expected a more reasoned perspective from an organization such as the CFIB. However, their letter relies on the same sort of divisive tactics to try and bolster their arguments. Consider some of the main points raised by the CFIB:
· Questioning the hiring of an additional 1,500 teachers. If we are to provide kids with the best possible classroom experience we need to ensure our teachers are teaching subjects in which they are most qualified and are given the necessary time during the work day to prepare innovative and interesting lessons for their students. To meet this goal, schools need to hire more teachers.
· Unfavourably comparing the higher salaries of teacher with “matching positions in the private sector”. It is revealing that no specific examples of such positions are provided in the letter. I am intrigued to know what private sector job actually compares to the work of a teacher, a profession that requires two university degrees and includes the following responsibilities – developing and delivering a 5-6 hour daily presentation to up to 100 different kids, analyzing through a number of written reports how well these presentations have been understood, managing relationships with a number of third parties (parents, principals, social workers, etc.) and generally motivating, supporting and nurturing students while remaining accountable to the broader community.
· Lamenting that the Province is keeping its commitment on pensions to teachers. Unlike many private sector plans, teachers make equal contributions to their own pension plans. These pensions are part of a package of benefits that exist to attract and retain talented educators. If the projected value of the fund will be insufficient to pay the pensions of future retirees, the government either increases its share of the contribution or breaks its commitment to younger teachers.
By virtue of their chosen profession, teachers are informed advocates for public education. Attempts to portray their concerns as the simple pleas of greedy public sector workers do a disservice to anyone who cares about the state of our schools, including the taxpayers the CFIB purports to defend in its letter.
It is essential that dialogue on all important public issues – not just teacher contracts – be focused on factual arguments, with respectful consideration given to the perspectives of all parties involved. Casting judgment without taking this approach diminishes the public discourse.
Particularly as the economy weakens, we should brace ourselves for more petty envy – what Shakespeare called the bitter thing – purveyors of which single out one community for derision. Today it may be teachers, tomorrow it may be a different group, perhaps even the CFIB. Either way it will be wrong, divisive and will do nothing to address the serious challenges our society faces.
More city building
Keeping with the theme of the last post, another essay on a small but significant test of political committment to city building - it ran on the Toronto Star's website opinion page today.
More than bike lanes at stake
Toronto City Council this week will discuss whether to create designated road space for cyclists on Annette Street between Runnymede Road and Jane Street. But that discussion is about more than a few hundred metres of potential new bike lanes in one neighbourhood. It is also a significant test of council's political leadership and commitment to building a better Toronto.
One of the measures of a healthy and prosperous 21st-century metropolis is having efficient and sustainable modes of transportation. With intense traffic congestion throughout our city and an aging public transit system, Toronto has much work to do.
Our challenge is magnified by the growing threat of climate change and the impacts of poor local air quality. Consider that in the last five years alone, Toronto has suffered through 110 "smog alert days." One of the key drivers of smog is carbon emissions created by automobiles. As someone with asthma, I am one of the many who suffer the consequences on these days.
While there is no one solution to these issues, following the lead of such cities as Chicago, Paris and Copenhagen by encouraging greater transportation via bicycle is clearly one component of a successful strategy.
Whether commuting to work, running errands or meeting family and friends, travelling by bicycle is an inexpensive, healthy and environmentally sustainable mode of transit for both individual and city.
In 2001, city council approved a bold plan to increase cycling as a mode of transportation. The centerpiece of the Toronto Bike Plan was the creation of 495 kilometres of new bike lanes across the city.
Bike lanes are intended to create a climate of accommodation on our roads. They provide designated space for cyclists while prohibiting motorists from using them. Cyclists are provided with buffer room between themselves and automobiles, and in turn are much more visible to motorists. Studies show bike lanes reduce cycling accidents and encourage more travellers to choose cycling as their mode of transportation.
However, to date, only 85 kilometres of such lanes have been created. The current debate over continuing a planned bike lane on Annette, westward from Runnymede to Jane, may explain why.
In spite of a city staff recommendation and widespread community support for continuing the planned bike lanes along Annette, city council will be considering a motion from the public works and infrastructure committee – and advocated by the local councillor – to implement "sharrows" instead. Sharrows are glorified pavement markings intended to "encourage" shared use of the roads between motorists and cyclists. No specific designation of bike lanes would be created under this scenario, with a review of the sharrows being held in two years.
The primary concern expressed over the option of extending full bike lanes is that such a move will reduce on-street parking along Annette, a result that some argue will have negative ramifications for area businesses and residents. However, a city staff report indicates that even with the reduced number of parking spaces, there is still sufficient parking to meet demand. In fact, parking will still be provided on one side of the street at all times and the amount of available parking will actually be increased during the high-traffic morning and evening rush hours. Currently, parking is prohibited in this area during these times. That prohibition is eliminated under the proposal for new bike lanes.
Given the facts surrounding these options, the city's own bike plan and the large show of public support for continuing the bike lanes west along Annette, the only impediment to a progressive decision from council is political will.
As a city, we need to ask ourselves, what do we aspire to be? What are the limits of our ambitions? And when opportunities present themselves for positive change, do we move forward purposely or timidly? Council should be encouraged to consider these questions as part of its discussion on new bikes lanes for Annette Street.
More than bike lanes at stake
Toronto City Council this week will discuss whether to create designated road space for cyclists on Annette Street between Runnymede Road and Jane Street. But that discussion is about more than a few hundred metres of potential new bike lanes in one neighbourhood. It is also a significant test of council's political leadership and commitment to building a better Toronto.
One of the measures of a healthy and prosperous 21st-century metropolis is having efficient and sustainable modes of transportation. With intense traffic congestion throughout our city and an aging public transit system, Toronto has much work to do.
Our challenge is magnified by the growing threat of climate change and the impacts of poor local air quality. Consider that in the last five years alone, Toronto has suffered through 110 "smog alert days." One of the key drivers of smog is carbon emissions created by automobiles. As someone with asthma, I am one of the many who suffer the consequences on these days.
While there is no one solution to these issues, following the lead of such cities as Chicago, Paris and Copenhagen by encouraging greater transportation via bicycle is clearly one component of a successful strategy.
Whether commuting to work, running errands or meeting family and friends, travelling by bicycle is an inexpensive, healthy and environmentally sustainable mode of transit for both individual and city.
In 2001, city council approved a bold plan to increase cycling as a mode of transportation. The centerpiece of the Toronto Bike Plan was the creation of 495 kilometres of new bike lanes across the city.
Bike lanes are intended to create a climate of accommodation on our roads. They provide designated space for cyclists while prohibiting motorists from using them. Cyclists are provided with buffer room between themselves and automobiles, and in turn are much more visible to motorists. Studies show bike lanes reduce cycling accidents and encourage more travellers to choose cycling as their mode of transportation.
However, to date, only 85 kilometres of such lanes have been created. The current debate over continuing a planned bike lane on Annette, westward from Runnymede to Jane, may explain why.
In spite of a city staff recommendation and widespread community support for continuing the planned bike lanes along Annette, city council will be considering a motion from the public works and infrastructure committee – and advocated by the local councillor – to implement "sharrows" instead. Sharrows are glorified pavement markings intended to "encourage" shared use of the roads between motorists and cyclists. No specific designation of bike lanes would be created under this scenario, with a review of the sharrows being held in two years.
The primary concern expressed over the option of extending full bike lanes is that such a move will reduce on-street parking along Annette, a result that some argue will have negative ramifications for area businesses and residents. However, a city staff report indicates that even with the reduced number of parking spaces, there is still sufficient parking to meet demand. In fact, parking will still be provided on one side of the street at all times and the amount of available parking will actually be increased during the high-traffic morning and evening rush hours. Currently, parking is prohibited in this area during these times. That prohibition is eliminated under the proposal for new bike lanes.
Given the facts surrounding these options, the city's own bike plan and the large show of public support for continuing the bike lanes west along Annette, the only impediment to a progressive decision from council is political will.
As a city, we need to ask ourselves, what do we aspire to be? What are the limits of our ambitions? And when opportunities present themselves for positive change, do we move forward purposely or timidly? Council should be encouraged to consider these questions as part of its discussion on new bikes lanes for Annette Street.
City Building
For many Canadians, political advocacy starts at home, almost literally. Issues that impact on our neighbourhoods, parks and schools are the ones we are most likely to engage in. I recently wrote the essay below for my local community paper, the Bloor West Villager, on the future of Toronto's western waterfront.
Our western waterfront – a beautiful area that can be improved
Residents of Swansea and its surrounding neighbourhoods are fortunate to live so close to one of Toronto’s most spectacular natural locations – our western waterfront. Access to one of the world’s largest fresh water lakes, its connecting beaches and bordering parks is a recreational and social treasure.
Walk through the area on any summer weekend and you quickly appreciate how both the city’s natural and physical beauty (particularly when observing the skyline from the magnificent Humber Bridge) is being enjoyed by families representing every segment of multicultural Toronto.
But unfortunately, we are too easily distracted from these pleasant moments by small but maddening problems that inflict our waterfront neighbourhood.
Let’s start with accessing the waterfront. There are only three access points from north of the waterfront (there could have been four, but the City chose to maintain the elevated ramps at the South Kingsway/The Queensway interchange, eliminating the potential for a new direct path to the waterfront). The access points we do have all take us under the Gardiner Expressway and CN rail line. There is not much we can do about that in the near term, but we could make the journey for anyone not in a car far more pleasant. We could, for example, widen the narrow sidewalks and make the tunnel-like corridors we are forced to walk through more pleasant by adding lights and creating murals that depict the waterfront area we are traveling to.
Once we emerge from the tunnels to the north side of the Lakeshore, we must adhere to a traffic signal system that so clearly favours automobiles that an Olympic sprinter could not easily get across to the waterfront side with just one signal cycle. To make matters more interesting, pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Lakeshore must huddle together on narrow curb space and dodge vehicles traveling well over the posted speed limit or making rolling, red light, right hand turns. Clearly improvements to the signal system, curb side waiting area and much stricter traffic enforcement is necessary. Increasing greater direct public transit access to the area should also be considered.
Upon arrival at the park or boardwalk, visitors are often forced to engage in a most unpleasant game of dodge the geese feces. This aesthetic blight is also a health hazard for children and pets alike, contributes to the pollution of our lake and severely restricts everyone’s ability to fully enjoy the waterfront. Incredibly, it gets worse every year. Yet humane solutions exist to discourage so many geese from calling this part of Toronto’s waterfront home – the city of Barrie for example, employs an enthusiastic dog to chase away geese – and must be pursued.
Finally, specific facilities to enhance everyone’s enjoyment of this neighbourhood treasure are sadly lacking. Washrooms must be better maintained. Clearer guidelines on pedestrian and cyclist pathways to inform new visitors are needed. More plaques and information stations to educate visitors to the waterfront on its natural and social history would be welcome. And additional spots to relax with a cold beverage and nice meal other than the current greasy spoon open only in summer may attract even more people to the waterfront.
The City is currently in the process of creating a Master Plan for the Western Waterfront and to be fair, there have been public consultations on the topic. But immediate, affordable improvements are both possible and necessary. All it takes is greater public support and political leadership. This is our waterfront – let’s make it as great as it can be!
Our western waterfront – a beautiful area that can be improved
Residents of Swansea and its surrounding neighbourhoods are fortunate to live so close to one of Toronto’s most spectacular natural locations – our western waterfront. Access to one of the world’s largest fresh water lakes, its connecting beaches and bordering parks is a recreational and social treasure.
Walk through the area on any summer weekend and you quickly appreciate how both the city’s natural and physical beauty (particularly when observing the skyline from the magnificent Humber Bridge) is being enjoyed by families representing every segment of multicultural Toronto.
But unfortunately, we are too easily distracted from these pleasant moments by small but maddening problems that inflict our waterfront neighbourhood.
Let’s start with accessing the waterfront. There are only three access points from north of the waterfront (there could have been four, but the City chose to maintain the elevated ramps at the South Kingsway/The Queensway interchange, eliminating the potential for a new direct path to the waterfront). The access points we do have all take us under the Gardiner Expressway and CN rail line. There is not much we can do about that in the near term, but we could make the journey for anyone not in a car far more pleasant. We could, for example, widen the narrow sidewalks and make the tunnel-like corridors we are forced to walk through more pleasant by adding lights and creating murals that depict the waterfront area we are traveling to.
Once we emerge from the tunnels to the north side of the Lakeshore, we must adhere to a traffic signal system that so clearly favours automobiles that an Olympic sprinter could not easily get across to the waterfront side with just one signal cycle. To make matters more interesting, pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Lakeshore must huddle together on narrow curb space and dodge vehicles traveling well over the posted speed limit or making rolling, red light, right hand turns. Clearly improvements to the signal system, curb side waiting area and much stricter traffic enforcement is necessary. Increasing greater direct public transit access to the area should also be considered.
Upon arrival at the park or boardwalk, visitors are often forced to engage in a most unpleasant game of dodge the geese feces. This aesthetic blight is also a health hazard for children and pets alike, contributes to the pollution of our lake and severely restricts everyone’s ability to fully enjoy the waterfront. Incredibly, it gets worse every year. Yet humane solutions exist to discourage so many geese from calling this part of Toronto’s waterfront home – the city of Barrie for example, employs an enthusiastic dog to chase away geese – and must be pursued.
Finally, specific facilities to enhance everyone’s enjoyment of this neighbourhood treasure are sadly lacking. Washrooms must be better maintained. Clearer guidelines on pedestrian and cyclist pathways to inform new visitors are needed. More plaques and information stations to educate visitors to the waterfront on its natural and social history would be welcome. And additional spots to relax with a cold beverage and nice meal other than the current greasy spoon open only in summer may attract even more people to the waterfront.
The City is currently in the process of creating a Master Plan for the Western Waterfront and to be fair, there have been public consultations on the topic. But immediate, affordable improvements are both possible and necessary. All it takes is greater public support and political leadership. This is our waterfront – let’s make it as great as it can be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
