The Walrus Blog


What do Jack Layton and David Byrne have in common? Sure, Layton’s Twitter account tells us he’ll be busking on the Danforth this Saturday, but at press time, the range of his musical talent remains untested. No, it’s a shared interest in the future of cycling that unites the current NDP leader and former Talking Head, who will participate in an October 24 panel discussion at the International Festival of Authors. Along with Toronto Cyclists Union executive director Yvonne Bambrick and urban designer Ken Greenberg, Layton and Byrne will discuss the potential of urban planning — specifically, bike lanes — to improve the political climate of cycling in Toronto and around the world.

Walk a block in Toronto’s downtown core on any weekday afternoon, and you’ll see the strain of cyclist-motorist relations from the belly of the beast. Drivers roll their eyes and drum their fingers, and many cyclists ignore red lights and stop signs as traffic allows. At its worst, the drama plays out with fatal consequences, as it did in late August, when a downtown road altercation involving former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant, who was driving a convertible car, caused the death of bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard. Toronto cyclists rallied for bike lanes in the wake of the incident, insisting that separate roadways guarantee safer transit, especially in regions where traffic is busiest. Drivers and business owners, however, have been less willing to accept bike lanes as the solution, citing slow commutes and limited street parking, respectively, as evidence that city roadways have already been compromised enough. So with cyclists getting killed and drivers getting angry, what’s a judicious citizen to believe? Can’t we all just get along?

If recent history is any indication, the answer is no. And there’s more trouble coming: the newest version of the Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee’s official Bike Plan — a strategic proposal with a mission to introduce cyclist-friendly policies and programs — details measures to advance bike culture in six major areas. First up? Launching a public bicycle system by spring 2010.

Toronto’s updated plan, modeled after Montreal’s two-year old BIXI and the 20,000–strong Vélib “shared bicycle” program in Paris, proposes a start-up service area bounded by High Park in the west, Broadview Avenue in the east, Bloor Street in the north and Lake Ontario to the south. The projected system — roughly 300 rental stations with an initial capacity of 1,000 bicycles, to be increased to 10,000 over the next decade — will inevitably place a greater number of commuters on some of the city’s busiest roads. As a public transportation venture, a bicycle system presents a unique safety imperative. But are bike lanes the solution? Beyond their formidable logistic and financial considerations, would separate lanes ease the competing interests of cyclists and motorists?

I call city councillor Adrian Heaps, chair of the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee. Beyond novelty users at the program’s inception, he expects that a public bicycle system will appeal to three distinct categories of riders: those who typically use taxis to travel short distances, those who currently use car-share services for shopping trips, and, in non-winter months, tourists. Ultimately, the councillor says, the TCAC’s goal is to reduce car traffic in the downtown core, not to convert drivers outright. Ideally, cyclists and drivers would learn to share without incident. Heaps, though, is skeptical about the partitioning of bike lanes on existing roads as an easy remedy. “Putting a bucket of paint on the road doesn’t make a safer bike corridor,” he says. “It comes down to mutual respect.”

Still curious, I contact Christopher Sumpton, co-producer of Pedal Power, a documentary recently commissioned by the CBC to examine the shifting tides of bike culture around the world. What would happen, I ask, if 10,000 public bicycles descended upon Toronto tomorrow? “I think it would work very well,” he answers. “Toronto is a city of cyclists.” Sumpton makes repeated references to cities like Paris, where the Vélib program generated 120,000 trips a day in its first year of operation. He says the “dramatic immediate effect” of a public bicycle system will be a societal awareness of cycling, a “push to the process of mental change that bikes are a serious part of the transit system.” Moreover, he says, more bicycles and less cars in the downtown core will improve the quality of street life; Torontonians will experience “more human interaction, with people able to stop at shops and cafés instead of going by in a bus or car.”

Still, Sumpton says any higher-order change to the city’s transportation system requires the support and acceptance of most its citizens, not just those who cycle. “That’s where it gets messy right now,” he allows. “When you unleash a greater number of cyclists on the roads, you have to have some sort of provision for them.” In the shadow of the Sheppard-Bryant affair, and with the debut of Toronto’s public bicycle system on the horizon, Sumpton believes the bike lane debate is a study in prevarication. “Sure, a public bike system really ups the ante for safe cycling. Ultimately, that means providing bike lanes. But bike lanes are shorthand for a lot of things: rational traffic systems, advanced stop lines. A lot of imagination has to be brought to bear,” he says.

Next, I call Richard Poplak, who has written about bike culture for Toronto Life magazine and is currently at work on a graphic novel about bicycle hoarder Igor Kenk, the “Fagin of Queen Street.” As an authority on sharing the roadway, Poplak’s credentials certainly pass muster — he estimates that between commuting and training as a UCI–licensed racer, he spends twenty-five hours every week on a bicycle. Poplak is doubtful that the riders who use Toronto’s new public system will amount to a meaningful increase in the number of regular bike commuters, or a meaningful decrease in the number of cars downtown. In the meantime, he calls for improved road infrastructure (“so that bicycles can safely traverse the streets without having to dodge lake-sized potholes”) and a large-scale safety campaign targeting cyclists and drivers alike. I ask whether Toronto’s public bicycle system should underwrite an expanded network of bike lanes, and can almost hear him shaking his head from the other end of the telephone line. “What bike lanes don’t do is enshrine cycling as a right,” he says. “What they do do, is enshrine the primacy of the car.” Like Heaps, Poplak believes cyclists should simply obey the rules of the road: no more rolling through red lights as they see fit. As well, motorists should recognize cyclists’ right to share their roadways. “Cyclists have the right to be everywhere except the 401 [highway] and the Don Valley Parkway. End of story,” he says. “We have rules — all we need to do is enforce them.”

Whether enforcing the rules will neutralize the discord remains to be seen. What is certain, though, is that no one, whether they travel by car or by bicycle, has the prerogative to ignore where and how their fellow commuters take to the road. Just before he signed off, filmmaker Christopher Sumpton put it to me this way: “It’s like the weather. Everyone has to deal with transportation.” Poplak was more frank in the last email he sent me: “No matter how much you may loathe cyclists, you’d have to agree that something has to be done, and pretty fucking quickly. Painting white lines on the road and/or handing out bikes isn’t the solution. Making sure we all understand the rules of the game, however, is.”

Tags • , , ,
Posted in The Haulout  • 

  • Pingback: Bike Share Coming to Toronto: Now What? « YOU ARE THE ENGINE

  • Emilio

    Poplak looks to be right in suggesting that the enforcement of road rules for both motorists and cyclists is essential in establishing some amicable harmony between the two groups.

    But I wonder whether this policing needs to be preceded by another series of moves: (a) establishing what those rules are, (b) reaching some sort of consensus that those are good rules and (c) ensuring that the citizens know what those rules are.

    Before we start worry about enforcement, we had better have some coherent account of what those rules are, and also have reached some consensus on rules we have chosen. Then it comes down to educating the inhabitants of the city on what those rules exactly are, and there seems to be no good alternative to doing this except to advertise, advertise, advertise.



    It would be a beautiful and clear sight to see such a clear statement of the rules. But right now it’s a mess. If only the rules — whatever they are — were common knowledge!

  • MJ

    Great article (comprehensive and fair) but one small quibble: The range of Jack Layton’s musical talent has been out there for awhile. See this example from the Press Gallery dinner on You Tube.


  • Herb

    The original plan for the bikesharing system was for about 2500 – 3000 bikes at 300 stations, not 1000. Poplak doesn’t know what he’s talking about (just because someone commutes doesn’t make them experts on bikesharing): Montreal just made 1 million trips on BIXI in the first year alone. BIXI is highly visible. By August BIXI had almost 8500 members and 77,000 occasional users with 3.6 million km traveled (from We still need to see official stats of the number of trips per day, but I think it’s fair to say that Poplak is being glib and basing his opinion on not much at all.

    Believe it or not, Poplak is in the minority now among cyclists and planners. You won’t find too many people outside of a outspoken few (followers of John Forester) who believe that bike lanes are useless and that all we need is better education. Not even Toronto’s planners and CAN-BIKE instructors believe that education and better enforcement is going to solve things on their own. It may be fun to spew outrageous views, but most are more nuanced. The Bike Plan puts education as only one of the four areas, and a large portion of the money is being spent on improving the roadways to better accommodate the unique needs of cyclists, whether it is through bike lanes, bike signal lights, advanced stop boxes, painted “sharrows” to encourage drivers to give cyclists room, and so on.

    The truth is that very, very few people are as fast or capable as Poplak on a bike, so why would we plan our streets for only Poplak when our societal goal is to get ordinary people comfortably and safely on bikes?

    Poplak is no expert on cyclist needs.


    Interesting to read the Debate on bike share in TO.

    I feel we urgently need bike share schemes here in Australia. They could help swing our bike culture round from the lycra loaded, macho beast it now is, to something more serene and slow, like much of Europe

    We reached our nadir last week when one of the lycronistas hopped on a bus and beat up the driver who he thought had passed too close to him. Never mind that the arrogant cyclist was riding in the bus lane.

    It’s no wonder that here only 15% of riders are women, that you’ll never see a photo of a sit-up bike in one of our cycling mags, and certainly never a bike with a basket on it.

    I’m obsessed with all of this, having fallen in love with cycling in Europe, sane serene cycling, and the posts on my bog, And So To bike, explore these matters from every angle, esp. filmically

    Our progress to Bike Share? A contract has just been signed to bring Bixis to Melbourne. But we have a problem you don’t have.

    As I found out in talking to Alison Cohen, who works for the winning bidder, ALTA, there is a huge stumbling block, and that’s our compulsory helmet laws.

    Indeed, as a traffic engineer also points out in my movie, below, Bike share has never been set up in a country with compulsory helmets. There’s just no way to automatically dispense a helmet along with a bike

    How ironic it would be if the only thing our Federal Govt has ever done for bike safety ends up sabotaging a scheme which by increasing bike numbers, could do more for that safety than the helmets themselves


    Mike Rubbo

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
The Walrus SoapBox
The Walrus Laughs
Walrus TV
Archived Blog Posts
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007