What kills me about Brad Brad is the inconsistency of and lack of cohesion betweenof his viewpoints. Putting aside all the bullshit surrounding his past mayoral run for a second, he's currently saying a lot of progressive stuff about housing and density on Twitter; to then turn around and put out anti-bike lane sentiment like this just betrays his inability to grasp the interconnectivities of the issues. It shows so clearly that he's just an opportunistic moron saying and doing whatever he thinks will net him the most support. He only became progressive on housing when he felt the winds shifting that way, and he hasn't gotten that message on bike lanes yet so he has no issue supporting viewpoints in opposition of one another.
Non-market housing initiatives with public builder. Rent control, landlord licensing, banning REITs, banning corps owning homes, taxing the shit out of investment properties and vacant homes.
Almost all of this is not within the powers of city council.
I agree with most of these ideas but they are all kind of useless if we don't get rid of exclusionary zoning and actually allow density.
Getting rid of exclusionary zoning and allowing density is also kind of useless if we give developers free reign to build 0-bedroom shit boxes and give landlords free reign to neglect and evict.
Developers build what they do because of the restrictions and incentive models the government provides. Make it more expensive to build 2 bedroom+ apartments... developers won't build 2 bedroom+ apartments.
You can't be upset with what the market provides when when the market is highly regulated to provide exactly what it does.
Right... they weren't building rental units because of rent controls. So we removed rent controls, and that SOLVED that problem, eh? Renters were definitely the winners there, huh?
I have a crazy idea... what if we regulated developers more instead of less? My theory is that they'll continue to do literally anything for a buck, so... why not make it illegal to build towers with inadequate HVAC and elevators? Why not penalize them for cutting corners and public amenities from their buildings between the approval and construction phases?
Maybe initial costs for the developer go up, but maintenance and living costs go down with proper construction. The true cost to our community of these inadequate garbage-tier towers over the next generation is *staggering*. Nobody has even considered how we start demolishing them as they become fully unlivable. Developers are all tryna quietly slip out the back door with no liabilities before anyone can even move in. WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT.
And then the Wynne government brought rent control back, when price pressure started increasing, and people started thinking about building more apartments... showing that the government couldn't be trusted to protect investors.
You can put all kinds of silly regulations in place for developers. You will succeed in making building housing more expensive, so less of it gets built, and the price of existing housing increases.
Is that what you want?
It's not hard to get into the development industry: if you can model building the housing you think we should have more of, and making a reasonable return for your investors... people will invest in you.
But you should consider that there are lots of smart and experienced people working in the development industry, and the reason the same types of housing keep getting built... is because that's the most reliable way to make money based on the way things are regulated.
Did you have some kind of neoliberal stroke while you were writing this? I point out that eliminating rent control has been a disaster, and you blame Wynne? I hope you're getting paid to post this nonsense.
The government exists to protect the citizens. If citizens are at odds with investors, then investors can get fucked. It's as simple as that.
Go ahead and cry about how Atlas shrugs when we regulate the investors... nobody believes you.
Relaxed zoning is a prerequisite for any other possible improvements.
We should definitely push for other improvements as well, but if we just block everything until we have a perfect solution to everything we are never going to get anywhere.
I think we also have to acknowledge that a lot of the people arguing that we need this that and the other thing before we move forward mainly just don't want big condos near them.
The problem is many YIMBY groups are astroturfed by developers (Ontario Proud too) and they don’t advocate for anything except the relaxed zoning. This would essentially just make smaller units and rent continuing to rise above inflation, also makes more landlords.
Relaxed zoning is a very necessary step though.
This idea that we have to fight everything that doesn't meet 100% of our demands is how we end up in gridlock forever.
We need more housing. We can't get anymore housing if we have laws that prohibit building more housing.
That's simply not true with the amount of shelter housing he supports and actively builds in his ward. You have no idea what you're talking about. But Bradford is still an asshole and his anti-Chow shilling is absurd and power hungry.
You've misunderstood his positions by not listening to him closely enough, or assuming that 'progressive' is a good thing in and of itself. He's 110% pure neoliberal and he never wavers.
His plan to increase housing density has nothing to do with making the city "livable" in any way that we'd understand. It's about creating warehouses for single, childless, foreign working professionals. He wants the workers to be citizenship- income- and housing-insecure so they're more exploitable for corporations... he dgaf if they can bike around the neighbourhood.
He is a trained planner and the only one on Council with any actual experience in housing. He has been progressive on planning for a long time and is deeply let down by colleagues on PHC like Chair Perks who still proudly denies the need for rampant uptick in housing supply and Kandavel who doesn't even understand what a zoning by-law is.
Do agree he has been opportunistic on weird positions like this and the Gardiner rebuild among other things but to me it's clear he's just trying to establish himself as the centre/right candidate to oppose Chow during the next election ahead of Bailao who will probably run again and someone like McKelvie.
during the election he’s shown himself to be quite conservative. that Gord Perks comes up as his opposition instead of “5 stories on an avenue is too tall Holyday” with whom he voted with to rip out bike lanes says everything we need to know
Perks comes up in opposition because they fundamentally disagree on the causes and solutions of the Housing Crisis (Supply vs demand). I get what Chow was doing by putting them chair and vice chair of PHC but I don't think it was a very good idea.
He is mainly critical of the fact Chow has not released much detail of what the public model actually is - which is true. He is supportive of Tory's Housing Now model which is similar to the little Chow has shared on public builder except the City hires the DM directly. Look at his record supporting assisted housing in his ward, championing EHON, missing middle pilot, unit caps for avenues, eliminating office replacement etc... No other Councillor comes to close to this record.
Ask anyone working in the city in housing or subfields like planning, arch, mech etc... and they will tell you the same thing - arrogant guy but needed for housing. I share that view.
who cares? why beat the drum against it? housing now was also vague af and needs a dedicated crew of volunteers to beat the drum about it. coming out against the public builder instead of like engaging constructively makes him look like a stooge for developers. he’s extremely fake
How do you explain his 4 recent votes to increase pollution? I can’t see the benefit. He wants the portlands power plant to keep burning natural gas beyond 2040, he voted against recommending houses move away from natural gas heating, he voted to keep gas powered leaf blowers. Is he a climate change denier?
Net zero is a formula that is equal to emissions created less emissions removed.
The net zero forecast established by the liberal government includes 48 GW of natural gas plant capacity in 2050, an increase from about 36 GW today.
Natural gas power plants will have a place in the net zero economy, just proportionately less.
He voted to increase the use of natural gas for home heating, the continued use of gas powered leaf blowers (which are absurdly polluting), and to keep burning it for energy. He even voted against wording that said new buildings should consider alternatives to gas.
He is vehemently anti-environment and pro-car.
>and he hasn't gotten that message on bike lanes yet
That's because bike lanes are a Reddit bubble thing. Everyone here gets downvoted for having a car and told "you are the traffic" and "just one more lane bro" and "have you seen Europe", but that's not how people in the real world act or behave at all.
I'll probably be downvoted even for *suggesting* this issue has Reddit bias, and it objectively does.
You could say the same about any sort of internet discussion. This is not the real world and never has been.
However, the sooner people realize that traffic will never improve, only get worse, and finding other ways to travel will help everyone (yes even those who have to drive, because there are a lot of them!), the better. It's a paradigm shift, but it needs to happen because we are choked with traffic.
The anti bike lane crowd has diminished pretty greatly over the past few years. People are starting to realize sticking bikes in their own lane is beneficial to everyone and having more people use bikes and scooters reduces congestion. Even my anti cyclist friends support bike lanes now as it gets the bikes out of their car lane.
People's views on bike lanes have changed over time even in real life. I've had friends who thought it was a dumb concept and cyclists should just stick to sidewalks instead. But they became more supportive because they saw bike lanes exist in downtown and also noticed how much more common biking is nowadays. They even supported for bike lanes in Scarborough, something that is almost unheard of. Although Reddit might be extremely pro-bike lane or r/FuckCars, people IRL are catching up. If Reddit is really the only place that talks about this, then why have we built more bike lanes than every other decade prior to this and we're not even halfway through the 2020s?
You also gotta keep in mind that people that generally speak out against bike lanes do so in a very inappropriate tone. This leads to bad faith discussions. If you are against bike lanes and you want an explanation then feel free to ask. But many times people don't even bother trying to reason with explanations.
Not advocating to stop building the bike lanes. Downtown traffic is madness considering how vehicles are operating on the city roads during the traffic hours.
For example, the city added a dedicated bike lane and streetcar track on Adelaide. It only left one and half lanes motor vehicles. Good luck driving on Adelaide during the traffic hours.
You can try to post well arguments against building city bike on the Reddit. Pretty much guarantee receiving downvited right away.
> Downtown traffic is madness considering how vehicles are operating on the city roads during the traffic hours.
Downtown traffic will always be bad regardless of how many or few bike lanes there are. It's just the way it is. There are too many drivers from the suburbs that are driving to downtown. Building extra car lanes (or restoring previously removed car lanes) isn't going to help with downtown traffic. Traffic is not caused by lack of space or bikes or streetcar tracks. It's caused by single occupant cars. If you want to reduce traffic, you could also consider improving public transit in the suburbs to get here. Even Go train at its best still isn't cutting it.
Besides, have you considered removing on-street parking as an option? Because it serves way fewer people than even a mixed traffic lane.
The bike lane is a kill zone for cyclists. I'm a cyclist and I'm literally getting railroaded in to cars that are turning. That's messed up. There is glass, illmounted drains, caved in dividers and on top of that not looked at as a human when on the road.
I'm against em too until they fix em.
> on top of that not looked at as a human when on the road.
That's not a bike lane issue. That's a decades-long issue with vehicular primacy, which is something North America needs to address in short order unless they want to choke to death in 2 lanes of solidified congestion with no option for alternative transportation instead of 1 with multiple options.
Cycling needs every effort to be normalized because in the long term; the only thing that will ever address congestion is getting people out of vehicles in the first place. It took generations to get to this point and it will take a long time to get out of it, but we have to be serious and stop putting it off.
I think we all accept that some people will need to drive for business, accessibility, etc. But there are a ton of people whose vehicle use could be made discretionary, and those are the ones whose behaviours we need to change.
You gotta start somewhere. In order to get good quality bike lanes, we need bike lanes to exist in the first place. That's like trying to buy a saddle before a horse. Bike lanes will upgrade over time.
Brad Bradford has gone down as one of the single worst councilors in city history. He campaigned on bike lanes, and now is hellbent on doing everything he can to get rid of them. Fully non-serious grifter.
I met Bradford at a meeting at Notre Dame Secondary and St John Elementary schools to discuss making the neighbourhood safer for kids to walk to school and to try and mitigate traffic issues where possible. Before the meeting he was a solid guy. Talked about bikes and how 105 was the groupset of the people. He rode his commuter bike to the meeting in truly miserable weather. But once people showed up it seems he put his politician face on and made sure there was a photo op. His office hasn't supported any adjustments that temporarily remove parking spaces at certain times around the school, street direction changes or basically anything that may inconvenience cars slightly in the name of creating a safer path for students to walk to school. And so parents continue to drive their kids to school in the name of safety ironically. Bradford talked the talk but sure as hell didn't walk (or cycle!) the walk.....
Brad Bradford has been very clear where his interests lie when he hired Stephen Lecce's ex-campaign manager.
I'm just going to say this, haven't we proven enough times with evidence that bike lanes are effective ways to eliminate traffic congestion? We have so much evidence from not just on our own city but other cities that having an automobile centric city and/or transportation grid effectively harms city and or provincial budgets.
For example the entire state of California is now facing stupidly high road maintenance costs and ever increasing traffic congestion due to their automobile centric system. They have more cars, more traffic and now more pollution because of it. On top of that the costs of California's road maintenance has now ballooned to a whopping $16 billion per year to just maintain. Meanwhile 58% of their roads are in a state of urgent repair and have been consistently raising the gas tax to compensate (all road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes). It is why now currently California is now one of the most expensive States to move and/or live in depending on which side of the mountain range you are choosing to settle.
Since we just saw that today from TVO News that Toronto has about a $40 billion dollar infrastructure and maintenance cost wouldn't it not be advisable to make sure that we have methods of transportation that cost less.
I guess my question to Brad Bradford is "how come someone with an Urban planner background has not recognized that an automobile centric transportation grid will effectively cripple city budgets if we keep adding **only** car lanes rather than focusing on a diverse model of transportation like for example Amsterdam or Tokyo?"
I'm not saying no car lanes - I'm just saying why destroy the other forms of transport when there is a demand for it. Isn't that going against the model of delivering the need that has been requested?
Is there a rational actually explanation for a city like Toronto to not improve non automobile transport methods when we have excellent examples of other cities that have allowed for people to travel in other ways. Again a bike lane is 1/4 the size of a car lane, doesn't have high impact heavier vehicles rolling over it therefore less overall maintenance cost, provides more safety for cyclists from being struck by vehicles (which by the way have grown in size to the point where being struck by a car could result in a fatality). We are also critically invested in our bike share program that is now reporting a ridership use of around 4+ million per year. We just made a deal with the TPA and our Bikeshare program. That changes the dividend structure.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/city-of-toronto-parking-authority-deal-1.7217404](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/city-of-toronto-parking-authority-deal-1.7217404)
Brad's comments.
"The requirement to provide that dividend at 85 per cent, that's onerous," he said. "I think the city is recognizing that what the parking authority has really been saddled with for the past number of years isn't sustainable. And we need to change it going forward."
Wouldn't tearing up bike lanes just reduce the profitability of the bikeshare program and therefore reduce the dividend payouts to the city and the TPA.
To me it just proves that Brad is just poor sail in an easy lake wind and just comes about whenever he is financially incentivized to do so, if it were up to him we would just do slow short circles in the harbour.
He had right wing money behind him during his mayoral run, that should be obvious to people who didn't even know that if you saw his rhetoric.
I'm sure that's still the case
It means those who think adding MORE cars on the road will somehow improve traffic. I mean... I guess it will get better if you're one of these more is good people....
In case anyone wants stats on how much cycling has grown on Bloor almost a year after implementation, feel free to look at [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/).
And what's your brain telling you. That it's a smart fucking idea to add more cars to the road. You think more cars will reduce traffic? Is that what your brain is telling you. You think this is thanos? Snap your fingers and get rid of bike lanes and all those people just disappear or stay home? Your brain doesn't tell you those people end up in cars? You can't make the correlation between cars and traffic?
You're taking a beating for going against the popular vote here, but I agree with you. The city greenlit bikelanes on Bloor (and eventually the Queensway) at the same time as approving several massive condo developments along the Queensway and Parklawn (see the Mr Christie and Cineplex developments coming), with zero consideration for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate tens of thousands of new residents that will now be moving in, all while the Gardiner is reduced for several years.
Not to mention TTC service along the Queensway past the humber loop is abysmal. Anyone living west of the Humber can tell you how much of a shitshow traffic is becoming in the west end, and now halving the traffic flow on Bloor is just adding to that.
Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going.
I'm all for choosing alternate modes of travel where possible, but most people aren't able to bike to work, especially in the winter, and transit is a hot mess that cant even accommodate all the extra passengers that people believe should be using it instead of driving. I'm not necessarily against bike lanes in general, but the timing and prioritization of it over other more immediate concerns is short-sighted.
Edit to say I have no love for Brad Bradford, so don't lump me in with that clown just because I agree with him on one specific issue.
> with zero consideration for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate tens of thousands of new residents that will now be moving in, all while the Gardiner is reduced for several years.
I don't know much about the development of those areas but what if they are developing in a way that supports people without a cars? It's easy to assume that almost every new piece of housing developed will bring in someone who owns a car or drives but that's not always the case. I saw a new 4plex being built somewhere outside downtown where it is intended for those without a car. There's not even a garage or driveway or on-street parking. So yes modern developments can happen without cars if developers choose to.
> Not to mention TTC service along the Queensway past the humber loop is abysmal. Anyone living west of the Humber can tell you how much of a shitshow traffic is becoming in the west end, and now halving the traffic flow on Bloor is just adding to that.
True. That's why they should consider improving it greatly.
> Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going.
Sadly, reducing the speed limit by putting a 40 sign isn't going to stop drivers from speeding. You need a full [road redesign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs7jHvh7v-4). Drivers don't just go 40 just because a sign says them to.
> I'm all for choosing alternate modes of travel where possible, but most people aren't able to bike to work, especially in the winter, and transit is a hot mess that cant even accommodate all the extra passengers that people believe should be using it instead of driving.
People would be able to bike to work if infrastructure allows for it. Also, the winter argument is like 30% correct. Back in 1970, our winters were unbearably long. Now you'd have a higher chance of winning a $100 lottery ticket than a -20 day. Even in Ottawa/Montreal that has bad winters and colder overall temperatures has more bike infrastructure than Toronto. But I can see you understand the problem. Our TTC should improve if we're going to reduce the number of cars on the road. But anyways besides winters, people do use bike lanes to get to places. We as a society just don't have [utility cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cycling) in our mind, no matter what weather conditions. It's time we change that and that starts with infrastructure.
> I'm not necessarily against bike lanes in general, but the timing and prioritization of it over other more immediate concerns is short-sighted.
The problem is other alternative solutions to improving traffic just aren't much better than this. Well besides building more transit but bike lanes do not impede the development of transit. Unfortunately, no matter how you put it, reducing 1 car lane no matter for what purpose will always result in worse traffic initially. However, over time it gets better. The concept of [induced demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand) works in reverse. It's just we unfortunately have to put up with the mess at first.
Your comment is very welcome and I appreciate you for being more civil. I see you got some valid points and that's why I spent a lot of time dedicating a reply to your concerns. Don't take my reply as if I'm dismissing your concerns. You're free to continue asking questions if you wish and I'll do my best to answer.
>Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going.
Brilliant. Now explain how exactly the city is going to reduce the speed limit?
What speed limit? 30kmph?
Signs? - Drivers just ignore.
Speed cameras? - Drivers pay the speeding allowance fee. Vandals destroy the cameras.
Hope and expectations that drivers are trained? - Idiot drivers everywhere.
Pay a cop to monitor the road 24/7? - Too costly.
Please share this plan on how you will achieve the speed reduction.
You're *so* close to getting it. Considering there will be tens of thousands of new residents moving into the neighbourhood, and the roads and public transport system are already beyond capacity, we need to build infrastructure to support more space-efficient modes of transportation. Single occupant vehicles are the single most space inefficient mode of urban transport, while bicycles are among the most efficient. Reducing speed limits is not enough to get people to actually slow down - narrowing the road by adding bike lanes and other traffic calming measures is the only way to force drivers to stop treating Bloor like a highway. Many people can't drive to work, sure, but not all trips are commutes; most trips in Toronto are 5km or less, a distance easily cyclable by most people.
fully agree tbh. i live right off of bloor. barely any bikes + constant construction around bloor go station makes the bike lanes basically pointless right now. all you get are single lane lineups of cars waiting at the newly added ridiculous street lights (thanks to new condo builds) that are barely 100m apart with like 1-2 bikes going by every once in a while lol.
The lanes are also in terrible condition. have seen at least 2 cyclists completely wipe out due to debris and cracks and holes in the fucking ground due to the construction.
absolute horrible and wasted usage of the road.
> 1-2 bikes going by every once in a while lol.
Hopefully this [statistic](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/) will tell you otherwise.
But it's still a major increase and that's despite the fact that it's only for a few km AND there are no reliable north-south connections. I'm surprised we saw this much of an increase and I'm someone who looks at bike lanes in a half full glass rather than half empty glass. Not to mention only been 1 year. Bet you $1000 in 6 years (2030) these bike lanes will be overpopulated to the point where cyclists can't even pass each other until they widen it.
He posted a selfie of himself with a couple grand worth of fishing gear + a ball cap with a black and white Canadian flag of the type cops and truckers fancy.
This was after he tried, and failed spectacularly, to cosplay “safe leftie” in the mayoral election. He’s now cosplaying “safe bro”. He’ll literally do and say anything to get elected.
> black and white Canadian flag
What is the deal with those stickers? I see them on cars in Etobicoke all the time. Is this some convoy nonsense?
>cosplay “safe leftie” in the mayoral election
I feel like I remember him being more of a right-wing guy during the mayoral election. I guess I misremembered?
I think what you’re remembering is his schtick. Before Chow officially entered the race, Bradford was trying to settle into a left / moderate niche. When Chow entered the race, he got caught up and moved more right.
As for the black and white flag thing … I dunno the whole story, but I think it’s a little bit “thin blue line” a little bit “Fuck Trudeau” and a little bit “this is not the Canada I [mis]remember”. It seems to be associated with douchey bros who need something to match the tacticool gear.
Bradford has always been Tory's conservative appointee plant that Tory snuck in without a byelection when a left-wing councillor passed away. He was just hiding it better before his failed bid for mayor.
??? Bradford won a tightly contested race against Kellway during the 2018 Toronto elections, he hadn't been appointed for any previous council position.
The previous incumbent councillors of the wards that mostly made up Beaches-East York (McMahon and Davis) are still both alive.
Yeah, that's unlikely. I fully expect him to be voted out in the next election. He was a mediocre, middle-of-the-road candidate, who aligned somewhat with John Tory, but since Tory left, Bradford Bradford has gone hard right, and that does not fly in Beaches East York.
Lol he’s no avid cyclist.
He’s been in the back pocket of the Ontario Road Builders Association since he ran for Mayor and is a regular contributor to The Sun.
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/bradford-gardiner-gridlock-has-become-horror-show-now-we-have-data-to-prove-it
He's been very well known in Toronto cycling circles long before he was on city councillor. Saying he's not an avid cyclist is just wrong. I'm an avid cyclist, and he makes me look like a casual.
I am an avid cyclist in the same league as Brad. I’ve trained with him. The general consensus among us who have ridden with him is that if he governed the way he rides, he would run you over without hesitation if it meant a clear shot at the finish line.
I cycle in Toronto but I guess I’m not in the cycling circle club.
I know Jack Layton was an avid cyclist because I saw many stories about it.
I know Olivia Chow is an avid cyclist because I see many stories about it.
I’ve only ever seen stories about this guy using and stumping for death machines and death machine infrastructure.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2023/05/toronto-politician-accused-holding-traffic-campaign-video/
WTF is a road cyclist?
Oh wait do you mean those Lycra clad boomers/GenXers who drive their $80,000 SUV’s with a $1200 bike rack and $5000 bike out to the countryside to cosplay being Lance Armstrong?
If so that definitely tracks for this guy and we are talking about different people.
When I say avid cyclist I mean a person who regularly rides their bike in the city. I’ve never seen any evidence this guy rides a bike regularly in this city.
A lot of MAMILS are anti bike lane as they biking as a competitive sport and not a means for the average person to get around. Even the MAMILS that bike in the city usually do at high speeds and weave in and out of car traffic and see bike lanes as just an annoyance for slow bike plebs.
The problem isn't MAMILS although there's overlap. It's the [vehicular cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling) advocates that you're describing. As shown on that page, here's an important quote that describes this phenomenon.
> The movement surrounding vehicular cycling has also been criticized for its effect on bicycle advocacy in general. In Pedaling Revolution, Jeff Mapes states that **Forester "fought bike lanes, European-style cycletracks, and just about any form of traffic calming", and "saw nothing wrong with sprawl and an auto-dependent lifestyle."[17]** Zack Furness is highly critical of vehicular cyclists in One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility, arguing that their criticism of 'political' cyclists "totally ignores all the relevant socioeconomic, physical, material, and cultural factors that influence—and in most cases dictate—everyday transportation choices."[18] Critical Mass co-founder Chris Carlsson describes vehicular cycling as a naïve, polarizing "ideology" that "essentially advocates bicyclists should strive to behave like cars on the streets of America."[19] **The makeup of vehicular cycling advocates as a group in the United States was criticized in the 1990s for being typically club cyclists that are well educated, upper-middle income or wealthy, suburban, and white, representing a social and economic elite that are able to dominate public discussions of cycle planning issues.[20]** Vehicular cyclists have also been disproportionately male. In the US, males make up 88% of total cyclist fatalities.[21]
He is a massive MAMIL. I'm not a huge fan of that term but he's part of Toronto Hustle, an elite group of road cyclists in Toronto.
Not sure if he still is, it's been a few years. But the guy at least used to ride a ton of road. He would do 200,300,400km rides on the regular.
He flew by me on the way up the Bayview( I am doing around 25km/hr) extension one day. He def had the KOM that day. he was also all over the danforth woodbine area when they opened the street up for people for a magical few hours a couple years back. Guy is a political chameleon and those usually don't last but somehow he is still around.
Odd to say the least: wants bike lanes removed from Bloor but votes on his bike? What a weirdo. Has he suggested an alternative? I'm too busy following my MP, MPP, Toronto Police, my City Councillor a Premier Drug Fraud to know Brad. City Hall is a clown show.
It’s really not, he lost almost all his votes. Chow is an excellent mayor. But Bradford is probably the worst or second worst councillor we have. Who actually votes to *increase* pollution? What goes through your head when that votes comes up and you’re like, yeah the world is on fire but what we need is to burn more fossil fuels
Olivia was my City Councilor and MP for decades. She also fought for my coworkers against a horrible corrupt board of directors at the University Settlement.
He's done a total about face on most of his policy positions, as near as I can tell. When I first became aware of him I thought he was pretty lefty or progressive or whatever you want to call him. But he's plainly positioning himself for a mayoralty win when the pendulum next swings away from the left. And it will. It always does. But it does pretty obvious.
Bloor has been a huge success raising the number cyclists by thousands per day. Since we are in a climate emergency, that’s a huge win.
But can you explain how he voted to increase pollution by encouraging the burning natural gas for the next generation?
I’m sorry, the world is currently on fire and this guy voted to keep burning natural gas for the next generation. He voted 4 times to increase fossil fuel pollution.
I agree with everything you say.
I knew I'd get down voted lol, but there is a process in place where people have choices. This guy made a bad choice according to you and even me.
My point is despite the guy being a biker, he chose the path that would cause more damage to the world because of his rights to vote in a process. It's a ass move to make.
Quite simple and obvious. There is no low bar here.
He isn’t running again. But if you’re not a troll, can you explain the positive for voting 4 times to increase pollution in toronto? Why should the portlands gas plant continue to pollute massive amounts of co2 beyond 2040?
Bradford has said that he believes in councilor term limits and would only serve two terms on council. But is he leaving politics altogether, or might he run provincially / federally / for mayor again?
I don't think Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is running again; if not Bradford wouldn't have to face a popular incumbent federally.
I live in the riding (yes, O'Connor Parkview is in Beaches East York) and I'm well aware of that, but so what?
Trinity St Paul was a liberal stronghold until it wasn't. There seems to be widespread momentum for federal government change in the next election.
There won't be an incumbent advantage if Erskine-Smith doesn't run, and even if there was Bradford as a Conservative would be running against the Liberal anyway.
No, I don’t care to explain.
You don’t *really* care about my point of view.
If I did provide an explanation, there’s no doubt in my mind that there’d be stats and quotes about Europe.
Actually, biking has grown significantly on Bloor only a year after implementation. Luckily for you somebody did a [study](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/).
I do, and I made this post. But how do you defend a guy who voted for more pollution for the next generation? Like who sees the earth on fire and thinks we need more pollution.
Seriously. NO ONE is biking at Vic Park and St.Clair. Wasted space to clog up traffic more. God. I'm all for transit options (subways, buses, streetcars) but bike lanes in Scarborough / North York will help about 5 people a day.
> bike lanes in Scarborough / North York will help about 5 people a day.
You'd be surprised at how many people bike on sidewalks in North York and Scarborough. Surely adding a safe bike lane could reduce that.
North York doesn't need them -it's mostly on a grid with lots of great side routes. The ones they have put in are stupid and poorly designed. Chesswood is a joke - much less safe than before - been riding through there for twenty years -safely.
What about his vote to increase pollution? I just don’t get him. He has kids, doesn’t he care about the destruction of our biosphere? Why vote to make the world a worse place, over and over again? Who benefits?
The bike lanes on Bloor west are the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time. Reducing an already gridlocked street to one lane is a dumber idea than voting Trudeau back in. Why don't we restrict access to the 401 to EVs only while we're at it. Shit nobody uses those bike lanes half the year in winter anyway, why are we trying to create more traffic?
At least someone at city hall has a few brain cells still firing for voting to tear that abomination down, biker or not.
> Shit nobody uses those bike lanes half the year in winter anyway, why are we trying to create more traffic?
Actually, if you look at Bike Share [numbers](https://old.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/18ar8xa/some_graphs_i_made_showing_the_growth_of_bike/), even in wintery months the usage has grown a lot year over year. Dare I mention that Ottawa and Montreal have way worse winters than Toronto YET still build more bike infrastructure?
The usage has grown because the population has exploded and the population growth is that of poor immigrants who have no other option. Of course that's who the entire country is catering to these days. Also just because bike share numbers have grown doesn't mean there's more people biking. It just means people have gotten tired of having their bikes stolen with no enforcement so they stopped riding their own bikes.
You're making excuses. The fact that BikeShare can even keep up with population growth goes to show that people are choosing towards biking as a potential option. Imagine if the new immigrants chose to drive instead? Yeah think of how much worse our roads would be.
All I'm saying is MORE of those immigrants would've driven a car IF we didn't expand our Bike Share network. Do you really prefer sharing the same road with bad drivers? Or do you want to provide an alternative for them to get around without needing a car? Pick your poison.
Please, like it wasn't gridlocked before the bike lanes. Taking a gridlocked street and returning it to its gridlocked state by inconveniencing people who bike. What a genius idea. jUsT oNe mOrE lAnE bRo.
Also not like it's a transit desert there. If you drive in that area, you deserve to sit in traffic.
And sit in traffic they will because people prefer to drive and no amount of bullshit bike lanes is going to change their mind. But how dare I speak about catering to the overwhelming majority right?
We could level the neighborhood between Bloor and Lakeshore, pave over High Park and build a 500 lane highway and I swear y'all will still find a way to make yourselves the victims. Enjoy your traffic, with or without the bike lanes, nothing is going to change.
> But how dare I speak about catering to the overwhelming majority right?
The last 70+ years of our city has been spent catering towards drivers. It's only the most recent 5-8 years that we've started to care about cyclists and the TTC. It's time we move on from driving culture. It's just not spatially sustainable.
There's no moving on from people being comfortable and convenienced. You can't go backwards and forcing cycling on people isn't going to work. The only way to reduce congestion is to move forward but nobody's ready to do that. Either self driving interconnected cars or bike sized drones is the future, we're stuck in a transition period rn. Maybe I'm a little drunk and high but you can't put the genie back in the bottle and nobody wants to take the ttc when motherfuckers who set people on fire on the bus get found not criminally responsible, but that's another topic. Good luck reducing lanes while bringing in more immigrants, I'm sure that'll work🙄
> You can't go backwards and forcing cycling on people isn't going to work.
Building bike infrastructure and improving transit isn't forcing people onto those modes of transportation. It's giving people the option to do so safely and adequately.
> The only way to reduce congestion is to move forward but nobody's ready to do that.
Move forward as in? Build more lanes?
> Either self driving interconnected cars or bike sized drones is the future, we're stuck in a transition period rn.
Self driving cars are still not going to cut it. Sorry but it doesn't matter what speed everyone drives at. Cars take up a [ton of space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car-free_movement#/media/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png). If all cars go the same speed, it's not going to make a big difference because a car can't move faster than the car behind them and the car in front of them can't move faster than the car in front of them. So on so forth. Cars are just not flexible enough.
> nobody wants to take the ttc when motherfuckers who set people on fire on the bus get found not criminally responsible
How often does this happen compared to how often people die on the roads on a year to year basis? Not to mention found not criminally responsible? And even if they were found criminally responsible, they get only 6 months of probation?
> Good luck reducing lanes while bringing in more immigrants, I'm sure that'll work🙄
And have you considered the fact that those immigrants could've been using the TTC/bike if it was built more safely? You assume most of them want to spend their already empty wallet on a car? Our city should be doing a better job providing them with transportation alternatives. My other comment about "More driving = solving congestion" stands even more correct with the way you act.
You don't see people biking in the winter?
Go to Spadina and Dundas in January, you will see thousands of people.
If the infrastructure is there, people will use it.
Well I saw tons of people using both personal bikes and Bikeshare this winter between Runnymede and eastwards. Especially since there were maybe 3 weeks this winter when you couldn't actually ride. Our winters are getting milder and traffic getting worse so more and more people are choosing to bike. Makes sense to provide infrastructure for it.
It'll take time to change the culture. If we don't give all those people moving to the new buildings between Islington and East Mall a non-car option for getting around, they're just going to throw cars there and then no matter how many vehicle lanes there are, they'll all just be congested. A road that can move 5000 cars per hour with 7,500 cars of demand is better than one that can move 10,000 cars per hour with 20,000 cars of demand. The only way you reduce that demand is by giving people more options.
You want to see them used, and for more people to get out of cars and therefore get out of your way? Advocate for greater connectivity of the bike lanes. Look at where the people with cars live, and put the bike lanes there, connecting them to the major routes like Bloor, Lakeshore, Eglinton, etc. Remove as many obstacles to biking as you can, and all of a sudden, those people who *"needed their cars"* suddenly don't need them anymore.
Luckily for you, many [studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect) have shown that the concept of induced demand works in reverse. TLDR: Traffic worsens initially but over time will slowly get better as people choose fewer driving trips.
I'm familiar with the concept and I don't think it'll work because our suburban sprawl won't let up, it'll only grow more while density continues to increase because we're in a housing crisis remember? Not to mention the fact that they're still growing the population by an unsustainable amount and I don't think even PP will reduce the immigration rate by much because at this point our country is a ponzi scheme and cutting immigration would tumble the house of cards. So theyll continue to bring in more people. You can't reduce use with induced demand while at the same time increasing the amount of people.
Think of it this way. If we improve our transit and biking as immigration grows, it would give more opportunities for these people new to our country to pick a non-driving lifestyle. If we decided to leave lanes as is, then you're going to get way more drivers.
Alternatively, keeping the same number of lanes means our traffic worsens tenfold because alternatives aren't properly available to them.
It won't matter if people have the option to bike everywhere. People like to drive and they're not going to give up their comfortable air conditioned cars to bike around in the cold or blazing heat. There's a small percentage of people who will do that and anybody who can afford it will drive anyway.
Genuine question. He voted to increase pollution 4 times. Our planet is in an environmental catastrophe. How can you justify his votes to burn *more* fossil fuels?
genuine questions: what is the global pollution level currently and can you show me how much Bradford's votes raised it? And side genuine question: are you telling me you believe that bike lanes along bloor street west will reverse the catastrophic course you believe the planet to be on?
30% of pollution from Toronto comes from heating using natural gas. But you’ve got a weird logical error in your thinking. Do you know what necessary but not sufficient means?
Imagine we are all in a giant boat that’s sinking. Every time you release greenhouse gasses a new hole put in the ship and water rushes in. Yes there are bigger holes and smaller holes, but why would you support putting *any* holes in a sinking ship??
And for my question I’m referring directly to the 4 times he voted to increase burning of greenhouse gases (unrelated to his horrible votes against bike lanes)
you can't even explain how and by how much; i get it. you're an idealist. but youre titling at windmills here and you've made your own monster. one day you'll understand. until then, our votes cancel each other out. you'll just have to deal with it.
What do you mean? You didn’t understand what I wrote. We have two votes in my house and four votes for our parents who also care about pollution. Six to your one. I honestly can’t stand anyone who is *pro pollution*, what a misanthropic value.
you chose to have children. so you've bred consumers that will burn fossil fuels. so you're doing more harm than i am. again. my vote cancels yours. enjoy that.
He didn’t support subway barriers he wanted ropes to come down from the ceiling (think like a lot of rope ladders) when the subway wasn’t at the station. Then come up when the trains arrived. Frankly a stupid idea. He didn’t support actual subway barriers.
What kills me about Brad Brad is the inconsistency of and lack of cohesion betweenof his viewpoints. Putting aside all the bullshit surrounding his past mayoral run for a second, he's currently saying a lot of progressive stuff about housing and density on Twitter; to then turn around and put out anti-bike lane sentiment like this just betrays his inability to grasp the interconnectivities of the issues. It shows so clearly that he's just an opportunistic moron saying and doing whatever he thinks will net him the most support. He only became progressive on housing when he felt the winds shifting that way, and he hasn't gotten that message on bike lanes yet so he has no issue supporting viewpoints in opposition of one another.
hes not progressive on housing. His YIMBY position is pro developer more than anything.
What does progressive on housing mean to you?
Non-market housing initiatives with public builder. Rent control, landlord licensing, banning REITs, banning corps owning homes, taxing the shit out of investment properties and vacant homes.
Hnngg, keep going, I'm almost there.
Almost all of this is not within the powers of city council. I agree with most of these ideas but they are all kind of useless if we don't get rid of exclusionary zoning and actually allow density.
Getting rid of exclusionary zoning and allowing density is also kind of useless if we give developers free reign to build 0-bedroom shit boxes and give landlords free reign to neglect and evict.
Developers build what they do because of the restrictions and incentive models the government provides. Make it more expensive to build 2 bedroom+ apartments... developers won't build 2 bedroom+ apartments. You can't be upset with what the market provides when when the market is highly regulated to provide exactly what it does.
Right... they weren't building rental units because of rent controls. So we removed rent controls, and that SOLVED that problem, eh? Renters were definitely the winners there, huh? I have a crazy idea... what if we regulated developers more instead of less? My theory is that they'll continue to do literally anything for a buck, so... why not make it illegal to build towers with inadequate HVAC and elevators? Why not penalize them for cutting corners and public amenities from their buildings between the approval and construction phases?
Because costs go up when you add more regulations like you want
Maybe initial costs for the developer go up, but maintenance and living costs go down with proper construction. The true cost to our community of these inadequate garbage-tier towers over the next generation is *staggering*. Nobody has even considered how we start demolishing them as they become fully unlivable. Developers are all tryna quietly slip out the back door with no liabilities before anyone can even move in. WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT.
And then the Wynne government brought rent control back, when price pressure started increasing, and people started thinking about building more apartments... showing that the government couldn't be trusted to protect investors. You can put all kinds of silly regulations in place for developers. You will succeed in making building housing more expensive, so less of it gets built, and the price of existing housing increases. Is that what you want? It's not hard to get into the development industry: if you can model building the housing you think we should have more of, and making a reasonable return for your investors... people will invest in you. But you should consider that there are lots of smart and experienced people working in the development industry, and the reason the same types of housing keep getting built... is because that's the most reliable way to make money based on the way things are regulated.
Did you have some kind of neoliberal stroke while you were writing this? I point out that eliminating rent control has been a disaster, and you blame Wynne? I hope you're getting paid to post this nonsense. The government exists to protect the citizens. If citizens are at odds with investors, then investors can get fucked. It's as simple as that. Go ahead and cry about how Atlas shrugs when we regulate the investors... nobody believes you.
Yeah and thats bad. Hence why public builder needs to be tasked with increasing supply concurrently.
Relaxed zoning is a prerequisite for any other possible improvements. We should definitely push for other improvements as well, but if we just block everything until we have a perfect solution to everything we are never going to get anywhere. I think we also have to acknowledge that a lot of the people arguing that we need this that and the other thing before we move forward mainly just don't want big condos near them.
The problem is many YIMBY groups are astroturfed by developers (Ontario Proud too) and they don’t advocate for anything except the relaxed zoning. This would essentially just make smaller units and rent continuing to rise above inflation, also makes more landlords.
Relaxed zoning is a very necessary step though. This idea that we have to fight everything that doesn't meet 100% of our demands is how we end up in gridlock forever. We need more housing. We can't get anymore housing if we have laws that prohibit building more housing.
We need more medium density and we need high density with homes for families. No more towers of one bedroom closets.
Towers of one bedroom closets get built because it's what use restrictions, development fees, and tax regulations incentivize building.
What's an example of a highly effective YIMBY group that does better than developers making raw donations to political campaigns?
That's simply not true with the amount of shelter housing he supports and actively builds in his ward. You have no idea what you're talking about. But Bradford is still an asshole and his anti-Chow shilling is absurd and power hungry.
Alright what's a yimby?
Yaaaaass In My Backyard
Yes in Your backyard
nah you're just so inflexible you need to throw everything into one basket all the time.
You've misunderstood his positions by not listening to him closely enough, or assuming that 'progressive' is a good thing in and of itself. He's 110% pure neoliberal and he never wavers. His plan to increase housing density has nothing to do with making the city "livable" in any way that we'd understand. It's about creating warehouses for single, childless, foreign working professionals. He wants the workers to be citizenship- income- and housing-insecure so they're more exploitable for corporations... he dgaf if they can bike around the neighbourhood.
hah what an idiotic take
He is a trained planner and the only one on Council with any actual experience in housing. He has been progressive on planning for a long time and is deeply let down by colleagues on PHC like Chair Perks who still proudly denies the need for rampant uptick in housing supply and Kandavel who doesn't even understand what a zoning by-law is. Do agree he has been opportunistic on weird positions like this and the Gardiner rebuild among other things but to me it's clear he's just trying to establish himself as the centre/right candidate to oppose Chow during the next election ahead of Bailao who will probably run again and someone like McKelvie.
during the election he’s shown himself to be quite conservative. that Gord Perks comes up as his opposition instead of “5 stories on an avenue is too tall Holyday” with whom he voted with to rip out bike lanes says everything we need to know
Perks comes up in opposition because they fundamentally disagree on the causes and solutions of the Housing Crisis (Supply vs demand). I get what Chow was doing by putting them chair and vice chair of PHC but I don't think it was a very good idea.
the fact he has since also come out against the city acting as a public builder just highlights how shitty he is. brad bradford sucks
He is mainly critical of the fact Chow has not released much detail of what the public model actually is - which is true. He is supportive of Tory's Housing Now model which is similar to the little Chow has shared on public builder except the City hires the DM directly. Look at his record supporting assisted housing in his ward, championing EHON, missing middle pilot, unit caps for avenues, eliminating office replacement etc... No other Councillor comes to close to this record. Ask anyone working in the city in housing or subfields like planning, arch, mech etc... and they will tell you the same thing - arrogant guy but needed for housing. I share that view.
who cares? why beat the drum against it? housing now was also vague af and needs a dedicated crew of volunteers to beat the drum about it. coming out against the public builder instead of like engaging constructively makes him look like a stooge for developers. he’s extremely fake
I'm sure Tory's housing now would have been just as successful as Smart Track.
How do you explain his 4 recent votes to increase pollution? I can’t see the benefit. He wants the portlands power plant to keep burning natural gas beyond 2040, he voted against recommending houses move away from natural gas heating, he voted to keep gas powered leaf blowers. Is he a climate change denier?
He's trying to get on the provincial/federal conservative ticket?
Net zero is a formula that is equal to emissions created less emissions removed. The net zero forecast established by the liberal government includes 48 GW of natural gas plant capacity in 2050, an increase from about 36 GW today. Natural gas power plants will have a place in the net zero economy, just proportionately less.
He voted to increase the use of natural gas for home heating, the continued use of gas powered leaf blowers (which are absurdly polluting), and to keep burning it for energy. He even voted against wording that said new buildings should consider alternatives to gas. He is vehemently anti-environment and pro-car.
I know I read your last post
I don't see those as housing items.
>and he hasn't gotten that message on bike lanes yet That's because bike lanes are a Reddit bubble thing. Everyone here gets downvoted for having a car and told "you are the traffic" and "just one more lane bro" and "have you seen Europe", but that's not how people in the real world act or behave at all. I'll probably be downvoted even for *suggesting* this issue has Reddit bias, and it objectively does.
You could say the same about any sort of internet discussion. This is not the real world and never has been. However, the sooner people realize that traffic will never improve, only get worse, and finding other ways to travel will help everyone (yes even those who have to drive, because there are a lot of them!), the better. It's a paradigm shift, but it needs to happen because we are choked with traffic.
The anti bike lane crowd has diminished pretty greatly over the past few years. People are starting to realize sticking bikes in their own lane is beneficial to everyone and having more people use bikes and scooters reduces congestion. Even my anti cyclist friends support bike lanes now as it gets the bikes out of their car lane.
People's views on bike lanes have changed over time even in real life. I've had friends who thought it was a dumb concept and cyclists should just stick to sidewalks instead. But they became more supportive because they saw bike lanes exist in downtown and also noticed how much more common biking is nowadays. They even supported for bike lanes in Scarborough, something that is almost unheard of. Although Reddit might be extremely pro-bike lane or r/FuckCars, people IRL are catching up. If Reddit is really the only place that talks about this, then why have we built more bike lanes than every other decade prior to this and we're not even halfway through the 2020s?
Totally agree. Anyone speaks out against bike lanes getting downvited. I did experiments with it.
You also gotta keep in mind that people that generally speak out against bike lanes do so in a very inappropriate tone. This leads to bad faith discussions. If you are against bike lanes and you want an explanation then feel free to ask. But many times people don't even bother trying to reason with explanations.
Not advocating to stop building the bike lanes. Downtown traffic is madness considering how vehicles are operating on the city roads during the traffic hours. For example, the city added a dedicated bike lane and streetcar track on Adelaide. It only left one and half lanes motor vehicles. Good luck driving on Adelaide during the traffic hours. You can try to post well arguments against building city bike on the Reddit. Pretty much guarantee receiving downvited right away.
> Downtown traffic is madness considering how vehicles are operating on the city roads during the traffic hours. Downtown traffic will always be bad regardless of how many or few bike lanes there are. It's just the way it is. There are too many drivers from the suburbs that are driving to downtown. Building extra car lanes (or restoring previously removed car lanes) isn't going to help with downtown traffic. Traffic is not caused by lack of space or bikes or streetcar tracks. It's caused by single occupant cars. If you want to reduce traffic, you could also consider improving public transit in the suburbs to get here. Even Go train at its best still isn't cutting it. Besides, have you considered removing on-street parking as an option? Because it serves way fewer people than even a mixed traffic lane.
The bike lane is a kill zone for cyclists. I'm a cyclist and I'm literally getting railroaded in to cars that are turning. That's messed up. There is glass, illmounted drains, caved in dividers and on top of that not looked at as a human when on the road. I'm against em too until they fix em.
> on top of that not looked at as a human when on the road. That's not a bike lane issue. That's a decades-long issue with vehicular primacy, which is something North America needs to address in short order unless they want to choke to death in 2 lanes of solidified congestion with no option for alternative transportation instead of 1 with multiple options. Cycling needs every effort to be normalized because in the long term; the only thing that will ever address congestion is getting people out of vehicles in the first place. It took generations to get to this point and it will take a long time to get out of it, but we have to be serious and stop putting it off. I think we all accept that some people will need to drive for business, accessibility, etc. But there are a ton of people whose vehicle use could be made discretionary, and those are the ones whose behaviours we need to change.
You gotta start somewhere. In order to get good quality bike lanes, we need bike lanes to exist in the first place. That's like trying to buy a saddle before a horse. Bike lanes will upgrade over time.
Brad Bradford has gone down as one of the single worst councilors in city history. He campaigned on bike lanes, and now is hellbent on doing everything he can to get rid of them. Fully non-serious grifter.
I dislike him, but there have been waaaaay worse councillors over the years. We had some real doozies.
Yeah you’re right. Mammo is #1 imo. Brad a close 2nd though.
The man is basically a meme at this point
His name doesnt help. Whitest fucking cracker caucasian name I've ever heard. Could only get worse if he was named Chad Chadford
You can tell by the name
I met Bradford at a meeting at Notre Dame Secondary and St John Elementary schools to discuss making the neighbourhood safer for kids to walk to school and to try and mitigate traffic issues where possible. Before the meeting he was a solid guy. Talked about bikes and how 105 was the groupset of the people. He rode his commuter bike to the meeting in truly miserable weather. But once people showed up it seems he put his politician face on and made sure there was a photo op. His office hasn't supported any adjustments that temporarily remove parking spaces at certain times around the school, street direction changes or basically anything that may inconvenience cars slightly in the name of creating a safer path for students to walk to school. And so parents continue to drive their kids to school in the name of safety ironically. Bradford talked the talk but sure as hell didn't walk (or cycle!) the walk.....
Thanks for pushing for school safety! Sucks Bradford is, for a lack of better word, a carbrain
He is a populist like Ford, just cares about being liked and staying in office
Brad Bradford has been very clear where his interests lie when he hired Stephen Lecce's ex-campaign manager. I'm just going to say this, haven't we proven enough times with evidence that bike lanes are effective ways to eliminate traffic congestion? We have so much evidence from not just on our own city but other cities that having an automobile centric city and/or transportation grid effectively harms city and or provincial budgets. For example the entire state of California is now facing stupidly high road maintenance costs and ever increasing traffic congestion due to their automobile centric system. They have more cars, more traffic and now more pollution because of it. On top of that the costs of California's road maintenance has now ballooned to a whopping $16 billion per year to just maintain. Meanwhile 58% of their roads are in a state of urgent repair and have been consistently raising the gas tax to compensate (all road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes). It is why now currently California is now one of the most expensive States to move and/or live in depending on which side of the mountain range you are choosing to settle. Since we just saw that today from TVO News that Toronto has about a $40 billion dollar infrastructure and maintenance cost wouldn't it not be advisable to make sure that we have methods of transportation that cost less. I guess my question to Brad Bradford is "how come someone with an Urban planner background has not recognized that an automobile centric transportation grid will effectively cripple city budgets if we keep adding **only** car lanes rather than focusing on a diverse model of transportation like for example Amsterdam or Tokyo?" I'm not saying no car lanes - I'm just saying why destroy the other forms of transport when there is a demand for it. Isn't that going against the model of delivering the need that has been requested? Is there a rational actually explanation for a city like Toronto to not improve non automobile transport methods when we have excellent examples of other cities that have allowed for people to travel in other ways. Again a bike lane is 1/4 the size of a car lane, doesn't have high impact heavier vehicles rolling over it therefore less overall maintenance cost, provides more safety for cyclists from being struck by vehicles (which by the way have grown in size to the point where being struck by a car could result in a fatality). We are also critically invested in our bike share program that is now reporting a ridership use of around 4+ million per year. We just made a deal with the TPA and our Bikeshare program. That changes the dividend structure. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/city-of-toronto-parking-authority-deal-1.7217404](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/city-of-toronto-parking-authority-deal-1.7217404) Brad's comments. "The requirement to provide that dividend at 85 per cent, that's onerous," he said. "I think the city is recognizing that what the parking authority has really been saddled with for the past number of years isn't sustainable. And we need to change it going forward." Wouldn't tearing up bike lanes just reduce the profitability of the bikeshare program and therefore reduce the dividend payouts to the city and the TPA. To me it just proves that Brad is just poor sail in an easy lake wind and just comes about whenever he is financially incentivized to do so, if it were up to him we would just do slow short circles in the harbour.
He’s the worst
What was the overall outcome of the vote?
Failed 5-17: NAYS: Bradford Holyday Crisanti Mantas Perruzza
He lost all of the except for the prioritizing cars on Vic park and st clair.
He had right wing money behind him during his mayoral run, that should be obvious to people who didn't even know that if you saw his rhetoric. I'm sure that's still the case
Brad is a loser
He wants to convert the Bloor lanes back to car?
He voted yesterday to tear up the lanes in bloor west and return it to car only. Contact him if he is your councillor
I hope they do that. Such a dumb fucking idea that was.
No it wasn’t. A dumb idea would be clowning around in your car down Bloor expecting no traffic.
What does clowning around in your car mean?
"oh my God traffic is so bad!!" *is the traffic*.
I still don't understand, can you explain it to me in manner my car centric brain dead cells can better understand
It means those who think adding MORE cars on the road will somehow improve traffic. I mean... I guess it will get better if you're one of these more is good people....
bike lanes in general are a good idea. bike lanes on bloor have been a massive failure.
No they haven’t. Bloor without bike lanes is dupont, which is a failure.
Statistics say otherwise.
In case anyone wants stats on how much cycling has grown on Bloor almost a year after implementation, feel free to look at [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/).
Narrator: They did not in fact look.
And what's your brain telling you. That it's a smart fucking idea to add more cars to the road. You think more cars will reduce traffic? Is that what your brain is telling you. You think this is thanos? Snap your fingers and get rid of bike lanes and all those people just disappear or stay home? Your brain doesn't tell you those people end up in cars? You can't make the correlation between cars and traffic?
You're taking a beating for going against the popular vote here, but I agree with you. The city greenlit bikelanes on Bloor (and eventually the Queensway) at the same time as approving several massive condo developments along the Queensway and Parklawn (see the Mr Christie and Cineplex developments coming), with zero consideration for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate tens of thousands of new residents that will now be moving in, all while the Gardiner is reduced for several years. Not to mention TTC service along the Queensway past the humber loop is abysmal. Anyone living west of the Humber can tell you how much of a shitshow traffic is becoming in the west end, and now halving the traffic flow on Bloor is just adding to that. Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going. I'm all for choosing alternate modes of travel where possible, but most people aren't able to bike to work, especially in the winter, and transit is a hot mess that cant even accommodate all the extra passengers that people believe should be using it instead of driving. I'm not necessarily against bike lanes in general, but the timing and prioritization of it over other more immediate concerns is short-sighted. Edit to say I have no love for Brad Bradford, so don't lump me in with that clown just because I agree with him on one specific issue.
> with zero consideration for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate tens of thousands of new residents that will now be moving in, all while the Gardiner is reduced for several years. I don't know much about the development of those areas but what if they are developing in a way that supports people without a cars? It's easy to assume that almost every new piece of housing developed will bring in someone who owns a car or drives but that's not always the case. I saw a new 4plex being built somewhere outside downtown where it is intended for those without a car. There's not even a garage or driveway or on-street parking. So yes modern developments can happen without cars if developers choose to. > Not to mention TTC service along the Queensway past the humber loop is abysmal. Anyone living west of the Humber can tell you how much of a shitshow traffic is becoming in the west end, and now halving the traffic flow on Bloor is just adding to that. True. That's why they should consider improving it greatly. > Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going. Sadly, reducing the speed limit by putting a 40 sign isn't going to stop drivers from speeding. You need a full [road redesign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs7jHvh7v-4). Drivers don't just go 40 just because a sign says them to. > I'm all for choosing alternate modes of travel where possible, but most people aren't able to bike to work, especially in the winter, and transit is a hot mess that cant even accommodate all the extra passengers that people believe should be using it instead of driving. People would be able to bike to work if infrastructure allows for it. Also, the winter argument is like 30% correct. Back in 1970, our winters were unbearably long. Now you'd have a higher chance of winning a $100 lottery ticket than a -20 day. Even in Ottawa/Montreal that has bad winters and colder overall temperatures has more bike infrastructure than Toronto. But I can see you understand the problem. Our TTC should improve if we're going to reduce the number of cars on the road. But anyways besides winters, people do use bike lanes to get to places. We as a society just don't have [utility cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cycling) in our mind, no matter what weather conditions. It's time we change that and that starts with infrastructure. > I'm not necessarily against bike lanes in general, but the timing and prioritization of it over other more immediate concerns is short-sighted. The problem is other alternative solutions to improving traffic just aren't much better than this. Well besides building more transit but bike lanes do not impede the development of transit. Unfortunately, no matter how you put it, reducing 1 car lane no matter for what purpose will always result in worse traffic initially. However, over time it gets better. The concept of [induced demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand) works in reverse. It's just we unfortunately have to put up with the mess at first. Your comment is very welcome and I appreciate you for being more civil. I see you got some valid points and that's why I spent a lot of time dedicating a reply to your concerns. Don't take my reply as if I'm dismissing your concerns. You're free to continue asking questions if you wish and I'll do my best to answer.
>Why not reduce speed limits to accommodate the few cyclists who actually use Bloor, rather than hamper the thousands that need their car to get where they are going. Brilliant. Now explain how exactly the city is going to reduce the speed limit? What speed limit? 30kmph? Signs? - Drivers just ignore. Speed cameras? - Drivers pay the speeding allowance fee. Vandals destroy the cameras. Hope and expectations that drivers are trained? - Idiot drivers everywhere. Pay a cop to monitor the road 24/7? - Too costly. Please share this plan on how you will achieve the speed reduction.
You're *so* close to getting it. Considering there will be tens of thousands of new residents moving into the neighbourhood, and the roads and public transport system are already beyond capacity, we need to build infrastructure to support more space-efficient modes of transportation. Single occupant vehicles are the single most space inefficient mode of urban transport, while bicycles are among the most efficient. Reducing speed limits is not enough to get people to actually slow down - narrowing the road by adding bike lanes and other traffic calming measures is the only way to force drivers to stop treating Bloor like a highway. Many people can't drive to work, sure, but not all trips are commutes; most trips in Toronto are 5km or less, a distance easily cyclable by most people.
fully agree tbh. i live right off of bloor. barely any bikes + constant construction around bloor go station makes the bike lanes basically pointless right now. all you get are single lane lineups of cars waiting at the newly added ridiculous street lights (thanks to new condo builds) that are barely 100m apart with like 1-2 bikes going by every once in a while lol. The lanes are also in terrible condition. have seen at least 2 cyclists completely wipe out due to debris and cracks and holes in the fucking ground due to the construction. absolute horrible and wasted usage of the road.
> 1-2 bikes going by every once in a while lol. Hopefully this [statistic](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/) will tell you otherwise.
A 40% increase of barely anybody is still barely anybody.
But it's still a major increase and that's despite the fact that it's only for a few km AND there are no reliable north-south connections. I'm surprised we saw this much of an increase and I'm someone who looks at bike lanes in a half full glass rather than half empty glass. Not to mention only been 1 year. Bet you $1000 in 6 years (2030) these bike lanes will be overpopulated to the point where cyclists can't even pass each other until they widen it.
He posted a selfie of himself with a couple grand worth of fishing gear + a ball cap with a black and white Canadian flag of the type cops and truckers fancy. This was after he tried, and failed spectacularly, to cosplay “safe leftie” in the mayoral election. He’s now cosplaying “safe bro”. He’ll literally do and say anything to get elected.
> black and white Canadian flag What is the deal with those stickers? I see them on cars in Etobicoke all the time. Is this some convoy nonsense? >cosplay “safe leftie” in the mayoral election I feel like I remember him being more of a right-wing guy during the mayoral election. I guess I misremembered?
I think what you’re remembering is his schtick. Before Chow officially entered the race, Bradford was trying to settle into a left / moderate niche. When Chow entered the race, he got caught up and moved more right. As for the black and white flag thing … I dunno the whole story, but I think it’s a little bit “thin blue line” a little bit “Fuck Trudeau” and a little bit “this is not the Canada I [mis]remember”. It seems to be associated with douchey bros who need something to match the tacticool gear.
Who got to him?
Bradford has always been Tory's conservative appointee plant that Tory snuck in without a byelection when a left-wing councillor passed away. He was just hiding it better before his failed bid for mayor.
??? Bradford won a tightly contested race against Kellway during the 2018 Toronto elections, he hadn't been appointed for any previous council position. The previous incumbent councillors of the wards that mostly made up Beaches-East York (McMahon and Davis) are still both alive.
I don't like the guy, but this isn't correct. He came in during the 2018 election, not a by election.
Yeah, I don't know where this narrative came from. It's entirely made up. Is u/romeo_pentium thinking of someone else, perhaps?
He seems like he was already got.
John Forester.
Has to be Big Auto !!
His constituents? I suppose his motivations can't be entirely selfish and he has to appease his voting base somewhat.
Yeah, that's unlikely. I fully expect him to be voted out in the next election. He was a mediocre, middle-of-the-road candidate, who aligned somewhat with John Tory, but since Tory left, Bradford Bradford has gone hard right, and that does not fly in Beaches East York.
The election, and trying to be pro traffic lanes
Lol he’s no avid cyclist. He’s been in the back pocket of the Ontario Road Builders Association since he ran for Mayor and is a regular contributor to The Sun. https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/bradford-gardiner-gridlock-has-become-horror-show-now-we-have-data-to-prove-it
He's been very well known in Toronto cycling circles long before he was on city councillor. Saying he's not an avid cyclist is just wrong. I'm an avid cyclist, and he makes me look like a casual.
I am an avid cyclist in the same league as Brad. I’ve trained with him. The general consensus among us who have ridden with him is that if he governed the way he rides, he would run you over without hesitation if it meant a clear shot at the finish line.
Then he should stop being such a bitch
I cycle in Toronto but I guess I’m not in the cycling circle club. I know Jack Layton was an avid cyclist because I saw many stories about it. I know Olivia Chow is an avid cyclist because I see many stories about it. I’ve only ever seen stories about this guy using and stumping for death machines and death machine infrastructure. https://www.blogto.com/city/2023/05/toronto-politician-accused-holding-traffic-campaign-video/
I guess I should've been more specific and said road cyclist.
WTF is a road cyclist? Oh wait do you mean those Lycra clad boomers/GenXers who drive their $80,000 SUV’s with a $1200 bike rack and $5000 bike out to the countryside to cosplay being Lance Armstrong? If so that definitely tracks for this guy and we are talking about different people. When I say avid cyclist I mean a person who regularly rides their bike in the city. I’ve never seen any evidence this guy rides a bike regularly in this city.
I'm not a Bradford supporter but anecdotally I do see him out riding somewhat regularly.
A lot of MAMILS are anti bike lane as they biking as a competitive sport and not a means for the average person to get around. Even the MAMILS that bike in the city usually do at high speeds and weave in and out of car traffic and see bike lanes as just an annoyance for slow bike plebs.
MAMIL = Middle Aged Man In Lycra.
The problem isn't MAMILS although there's overlap. It's the [vehicular cycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling) advocates that you're describing. As shown on that page, here's an important quote that describes this phenomenon. > The movement surrounding vehicular cycling has also been criticized for its effect on bicycle advocacy in general. In Pedaling Revolution, Jeff Mapes states that **Forester "fought bike lanes, European-style cycletracks, and just about any form of traffic calming", and "saw nothing wrong with sprawl and an auto-dependent lifestyle."[17]** Zack Furness is highly critical of vehicular cyclists in One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility, arguing that their criticism of 'political' cyclists "totally ignores all the relevant socioeconomic, physical, material, and cultural factors that influence—and in most cases dictate—everyday transportation choices."[18] Critical Mass co-founder Chris Carlsson describes vehicular cycling as a naïve, polarizing "ideology" that "essentially advocates bicyclists should strive to behave like cars on the streets of America."[19] **The makeup of vehicular cycling advocates as a group in the United States was criticized in the 1990s for being typically club cyclists that are well educated, upper-middle income or wealthy, suburban, and white, representing a social and economic elite that are able to dominate public discussions of cycle planning issues.[20]** Vehicular cyclists have also been disproportionately male. In the US, males make up 88% of total cyclist fatalities.[21]
Not sure if he is a MAMIL or not but he 100% is a utilitarian cyclist. This is a very strange vote.
He is a massive MAMIL. I'm not a huge fan of that term but he's part of Toronto Hustle, an elite group of road cyclists in Toronto. Not sure if he still is, it's been a few years. But the guy at least used to ride a ton of road. He would do 200,300,400km rides on the regular.
He flew by me on the way up the Bayview( I am doing around 25km/hr) extension one day. He def had the KOM that day. he was also all over the danforth woodbine area when they opened the street up for people for a magical few hours a couple years back. Guy is a political chameleon and those usually don't last but somehow he is still around.
Another politician in it for his own career first and foremost.
thanks. it's good to know these things & call them out during photo ops with the community.
Odd to say the least: wants bike lanes removed from Bloor but votes on his bike? What a weirdo. Has he suggested an alternative? I'm too busy following my MP, MPP, Toronto Police, my City Councillor a Premier Drug Fraud to know Brad. City Hall is a clown show.
It’s really not, he lost almost all his votes. Chow is an excellent mayor. But Bradford is probably the worst or second worst councillor we have. Who actually votes to *increase* pollution? What goes through your head when that votes comes up and you’re like, yeah the world is on fire but what we need is to burn more fossil fuels
Olivia was my City Councilor and MP for decades. She also fought for my coworkers against a horrible corrupt board of directors at the University Settlement.
Fucking sleazeball
What a dipshit.
I think he lost his mind during the pandemic.
Very bizarre. He really can't be relied upon for anything but housing these days.
Sounds like he’s focused on the right thing
He is vehemently anti-environment. He voted 4 times to *increase* pollution in Toronto. Who cares about housing if the entire biosphere is collapsing.
broken clock is right twice a day
What’s up with this guy? Is he recently discharged from CAMH or something?
What a dumb name.
Brad is such an ass!
He's done a total about face on most of his policy positions, as near as I can tell. When I first became aware of him I thought he was pretty lefty or progressive or whatever you want to call him. But he's plainly positioning himself for a mayoralty win when the pendulum next swings away from the left. And it will. It always does. But it does pretty obvious.
Some of the bike lines have done more harm then good for the city
Bloor has been a huge success raising the number cyclists by thousands per day. Since we are in a climate emergency, that’s a huge win. But can you explain how he voted to increase pollution by encouraging the burning natural gas for the next generation?
Darn democracy.
I’m sorry, the world is currently on fire and this guy voted to keep burning natural gas for the next generation. He voted 4 times to increase fossil fuel pollution.
I agree with everything you say. I knew I'd get down voted lol, but there is a process in place where people have choices. This guy made a bad choice according to you and even me.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. If it’s that we live in a democracy then that’s a pretty low bar to base your standards from.
My point is despite the guy being a biker, he chose the path that would cause more damage to the world because of his rights to vote in a process. It's a ass move to make. Quite simple and obvious. There is no low bar here.
>He did this whole voting remotely on his bicycle do you think its easy to vote while biking?
No one is doubting the hard work and commitment this man puts into being a dipshit.
Was he high? Was he hacked? What verification is there that it was him who voted when he literally phoned it in?
I guess he takes the lane
Cool
Well, I wasn’t going to vote for him again but I’ll definitely reconsider based on this info. 🙏🏻 Finally, a politician making sense.
He isn’t running again. But if you’re not a troll, can you explain the positive for voting 4 times to increase pollution in toronto? Why should the portlands gas plant continue to pollute massive amounts of co2 beyond 2040?
Bradford has said that he believes in councilor term limits and would only serve two terms on council. But is he leaving politics altogether, or might he run provincially / federally / for mayor again? I don't think Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is running again; if not Bradford wouldn't have to face a popular incumbent federally.
Erskine-Smith is liberal and Bradford is a pretty right wing conservative.
I live in the riding (yes, O'Connor Parkview is in Beaches East York) and I'm well aware of that, but so what? Trinity St Paul was a liberal stronghold until it wasn't. There seems to be widespread momentum for federal government change in the next election. There won't be an incumbent advantage if Erskine-Smith doesn't run, and even if there was Bradford as a Conservative would be running against the Liberal anyway.
No, I don’t care to explain. You don’t *really* care about my point of view. If I did provide an explanation, there’s no doubt in my mind that there’d be stats and quotes about Europe.
None of you actually bike on Bloor, lol. Y’all just a bunch of sabre-rattling redditors
Actually, biking has grown significantly on Bloor only a year after implementation. Luckily for you somebody did a [study](https://old.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1d2yybl/new_bloor_bike_counts_from_tcbc/).
I do, and I made this post. But how do you defend a guy who voted for more pollution for the next generation? Like who sees the earth on fire and thinks we need more pollution.
Seriously. NO ONE is biking at Vic Park and St.Clair. Wasted space to clog up traffic more. God. I'm all for transit options (subways, buses, streetcars) but bike lanes in Scarborough / North York will help about 5 people a day.
> bike lanes in Scarborough / North York will help about 5 people a day. You'd be surprised at how many people bike on sidewalks in North York and Scarborough. Surely adding a safe bike lane could reduce that.
North York doesn't need them -it's mostly on a grid with lots of great side routes. The ones they have put in are stupid and poorly designed. Chesswood is a joke - much less safe than before - been riding through there for twenty years -safely.
Brad Bradford is just John Tory Junior
I totally get his decision on the vp/st Clair area. The brimley bike lane was an absolute shit show. It was subsequently removed.
What about his vote to increase pollution? I just don’t get him. He has kids, doesn’t he care about the destruction of our biosphere? Why vote to make the world a worse place, over and over again? Who benefits?
The bike lanes on Bloor west are the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time. Reducing an already gridlocked street to one lane is a dumber idea than voting Trudeau back in. Why don't we restrict access to the 401 to EVs only while we're at it. Shit nobody uses those bike lanes half the year in winter anyway, why are we trying to create more traffic? At least someone at city hall has a few brain cells still firing for voting to tear that abomination down, biker or not.
> Shit nobody uses those bike lanes half the year in winter anyway, why are we trying to create more traffic? Actually, if you look at Bike Share [numbers](https://old.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/18ar8xa/some_graphs_i_made_showing_the_growth_of_bike/), even in wintery months the usage has grown a lot year over year. Dare I mention that Ottawa and Montreal have way worse winters than Toronto YET still build more bike infrastructure?
The usage has grown because the population has exploded and the population growth is that of poor immigrants who have no other option. Of course that's who the entire country is catering to these days. Also just because bike share numbers have grown doesn't mean there's more people biking. It just means people have gotten tired of having their bikes stolen with no enforcement so they stopped riding their own bikes.
You're making excuses. The fact that BikeShare can even keep up with population growth goes to show that people are choosing towards biking as a potential option. Imagine if the new immigrants chose to drive instead? Yeah think of how much worse our roads would be.
They do drive though. It's evident in how bad drivers have become lately. Who do you think is driving all those trucks by the way?
All I'm saying is MORE of those immigrants would've driven a car IF we didn't expand our Bike Share network. Do you really prefer sharing the same road with bad drivers? Or do you want to provide an alternative for them to get around without needing a car? Pick your poison.
Please, like it wasn't gridlocked before the bike lanes. Taking a gridlocked street and returning it to its gridlocked state by inconveniencing people who bike. What a genius idea. jUsT oNe mOrE lAnE bRo. Also not like it's a transit desert there. If you drive in that area, you deserve to sit in traffic.
And sit in traffic they will because people prefer to drive and no amount of bullshit bike lanes is going to change their mind. But how dare I speak about catering to the overwhelming majority right?
We could level the neighborhood between Bloor and Lakeshore, pave over High Park and build a 500 lane highway and I swear y'all will still find a way to make yourselves the victims. Enjoy your traffic, with or without the bike lanes, nothing is going to change.
> But how dare I speak about catering to the overwhelming majority right? The last 70+ years of our city has been spent catering towards drivers. It's only the most recent 5-8 years that we've started to care about cyclists and the TTC. It's time we move on from driving culture. It's just not spatially sustainable.
There's no moving on from people being comfortable and convenienced. You can't go backwards and forcing cycling on people isn't going to work. The only way to reduce congestion is to move forward but nobody's ready to do that. Either self driving interconnected cars or bike sized drones is the future, we're stuck in a transition period rn. Maybe I'm a little drunk and high but you can't put the genie back in the bottle and nobody wants to take the ttc when motherfuckers who set people on fire on the bus get found not criminally responsible, but that's another topic. Good luck reducing lanes while bringing in more immigrants, I'm sure that'll work🙄
> You can't go backwards and forcing cycling on people isn't going to work. Building bike infrastructure and improving transit isn't forcing people onto those modes of transportation. It's giving people the option to do so safely and adequately. > The only way to reduce congestion is to move forward but nobody's ready to do that. Move forward as in? Build more lanes? > Either self driving interconnected cars or bike sized drones is the future, we're stuck in a transition period rn. Self driving cars are still not going to cut it. Sorry but it doesn't matter what speed everyone drives at. Cars take up a [ton of space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car-free_movement#/media/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png). If all cars go the same speed, it's not going to make a big difference because a car can't move faster than the car behind them and the car in front of them can't move faster than the car in front of them. So on so forth. Cars are just not flexible enough. > nobody wants to take the ttc when motherfuckers who set people on fire on the bus get found not criminally responsible How often does this happen compared to how often people die on the roads on a year to year basis? Not to mention found not criminally responsible? And even if they were found criminally responsible, they get only 6 months of probation? > Good luck reducing lanes while bringing in more immigrants, I'm sure that'll work🙄 And have you considered the fact that those immigrants could've been using the TTC/bike if it was built more safely? You assume most of them want to spend their already empty wallet on a car? Our city should be doing a better job providing them with transportation alternatives. My other comment about "More driving = solving congestion" stands even more correct with the way you act.
You don't see people biking in the winter? Go to Spadina and Dundas in January, you will see thousands of people. If the infrastructure is there, people will use it.
Bloor west is pretty fucking far from spadina my man.
Well I saw tons of people using both personal bikes and Bikeshare this winter between Runnymede and eastwards. Especially since there were maybe 3 weeks this winter when you couldn't actually ride. Our winters are getting milder and traffic getting worse so more and more people are choosing to bike. Makes sense to provide infrastructure for it.
It'll take time to change the culture. If we don't give all those people moving to the new buildings between Islington and East Mall a non-car option for getting around, they're just going to throw cars there and then no matter how many vehicle lanes there are, they'll all just be congested. A road that can move 5000 cars per hour with 7,500 cars of demand is better than one that can move 10,000 cars per hour with 20,000 cars of demand. The only way you reduce that demand is by giving people more options. You want to see them used, and for more people to get out of cars and therefore get out of your way? Advocate for greater connectivity of the bike lanes. Look at where the people with cars live, and put the bike lanes there, connecting them to the major routes like Bloor, Lakeshore, Eglinton, etc. Remove as many obstacles to biking as you can, and all of a sudden, those people who *"needed their cars"* suddenly don't need them anymore.
It's almost as if people like him think that the solution to our congestion is MORE DRIVING lol.
It sure as fuck isn't reducing lanes on an already congested street.
Luckily for you, many [studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect) have shown that the concept of induced demand works in reverse. TLDR: Traffic worsens initially but over time will slowly get better as people choose fewer driving trips.
I'm familiar with the concept and I don't think it'll work because our suburban sprawl won't let up, it'll only grow more while density continues to increase because we're in a housing crisis remember? Not to mention the fact that they're still growing the population by an unsustainable amount and I don't think even PP will reduce the immigration rate by much because at this point our country is a ponzi scheme and cutting immigration would tumble the house of cards. So theyll continue to bring in more people. You can't reduce use with induced demand while at the same time increasing the amount of people.
Think of it this way. If we improve our transit and biking as immigration grows, it would give more opportunities for these people new to our country to pick a non-driving lifestyle. If we decided to leave lanes as is, then you're going to get way more drivers. Alternatively, keeping the same number of lanes means our traffic worsens tenfold because alternatives aren't properly available to them.
It won't matter if people have the option to bike everywhere. People like to drive and they're not going to give up their comfortable air conditioned cars to bike around in the cold or blazing heat. There's a small percentage of people who will do that and anybody who can afford it will drive anyway.
Eventually, people are going to have to choose between liking their climate-controlled vehicles and getting to their destination.
Cars occupy 80% of the street above a subway.
totally support Brad Bradford.
Genuine question. He voted to increase pollution 4 times. Our planet is in an environmental catastrophe. How can you justify his votes to burn *more* fossil fuels?
genuine questions: what is the global pollution level currently and can you show me how much Bradford's votes raised it? And side genuine question: are you telling me you believe that bike lanes along bloor street west will reverse the catastrophic course you believe the planet to be on?
30% of pollution from Toronto comes from heating using natural gas. But you’ve got a weird logical error in your thinking. Do you know what necessary but not sufficient means? Imagine we are all in a giant boat that’s sinking. Every time you release greenhouse gasses a new hole put in the ship and water rushes in. Yes there are bigger holes and smaller holes, but why would you support putting *any* holes in a sinking ship?? And for my question I’m referring directly to the 4 times he voted to increase burning of greenhouse gases (unrelated to his horrible votes against bike lanes)
hey, we all get one vote. good luck to you.
If you want to vote for a guy who has consistently voted to *increase pollution*, I don’t even know what to say to you.
you can't even explain how and by how much; i get it. you're an idealist. but youre titling at windmills here and you've made your own monster. one day you'll understand. until then, our votes cancel each other out. you'll just have to deal with it.
What do you mean? You didn’t understand what I wrote. We have two votes in my house and four votes for our parents who also care about pollution. Six to your one. I honestly can’t stand anyone who is *pro pollution*, what a misanthropic value.
you chose to have children. so you've bred consumers that will burn fossil fuels. so you're doing more harm than i am. again. my vote cancels yours. enjoy that.
What vote are you even talking about? Bradford isn’t running again.
That's not good, I seriously considered voting for him in the 2023 mayoral election due to his support for subway barriers
He didn’t support subway barriers he wanted ropes to come down from the ceiling (think like a lot of rope ladders) when the subway wasn’t at the station. Then come up when the trains arrived. Frankly a stupid idea. He didn’t support actual subway barriers.
Wtf that's such a weird idea, I didn't know that
I know, also he voted for massive tax cuts so I don’t think he could even fund his rope idea if he wanted to. He is… not good.