As the founder of both Cycle Toronto and the Jarvis Emergency Taskforce, I thought I should probably contribute some thoughts here.

First, l wanna thank Astrid for starting a discussion. Within any movement or organisation, it’s important to foster debate & criticism. Any group, no matter how amazing they are, will screw up at times and without encouraging a culture of feedback and dialogue, those mistakes will go unchecked. So, thanks for being a shit-disturber. I’ve built a whole career on being a shit-disturber. We need more of us.

That said, I gotta say that I disagree with most of what you’ve written here about Cycle Toronto, how they’ve handled the Jarvis situation, and what they’ve been able to accomplish as an organisation.

First, the parts I agree with you on:

1) Yvonne should have worn a helmet, and kept her non-helmet attitudes to herself. I’m a huge fan of Yvonne’s and I can say that I’m not sure that Cycle Toronto would exist right now, if it hadn’t been for her leadership from 2008-2010. She invested thousands of hours into the bike union, at a time when we were just getting started and had little resources. (No office, no revenue, etc). She was a rock star, both politically and administratively. But like you, I always wished that she would keep her views about helmets to herself, and just put one on her head – for the group.

2) The “Union”. As you know, I was strongly opposed to dropping the word “union” from our name. But it was a democratic decision, and I’ve moved on.

Now, here’s where I disagree:

I think Cycle Toronto is doing an amazing job. And Jared’s job is Mission Impossible. First, he has hardly any resources. When I went on my research tour to learn about membership-funded advocacy organisations, I was blown away by what I saw. I visited groups in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Portland, Vancouver, Chicago and Ottawa. These groups were astounding, and had between 4 and 15 full-time staff. Staff job descriptions included: advocacy, membership outreach, fundraising, communications, event planning, database, marketing, reception, IT, etc….

Meanwhile, Cycle Toronto has had one or two staff – doing ALL of those roles at once. That’s a TONNE of work. So that partially explains why Jared can’t be at every PWIC meeting. He’s not a full-time advocacy person – he’s a full time everything person. It’s incredibly demanding. Media requests, tech problems, board meetings, finance planning, general admin, event planning, Council relations, keeping in touch with ward-based groups, sending Action Alerts, sending out the Ring & Post newsletter, website updates, research, etc… Holy moley. I wouldn’t want that job. Over-worked. Underpaid.

But Jared’s job is also Mission Impossible because he can NEVER make everyone happy. It just can’t be done. Let’s take the example of Denzil Minnan Wong. Yes, many members wanted us to revoke his membership when he double-crossed us and orchestrated the removal of bike lanes on Jarvis. But many members did not. By not revoking his membership, we pissed off people like you. But if we had revoked his membership, we would have pissed off people who want to see Cycle Toronto maintain a collaborative relationship with the Chair of the Public Works Committee. After all, Denzil was quite successful with his bullshit spin about Sherbourne being an adequate replacement for Jarvis. Heck, we even had members who told us not to fight for Jarvis at all!! They were like “Screw Jarvis. It’s over. Start working with Denzil on Richmond, Adelaide, Hoskins, Wellesely, etc…”. Those folks wanted us to be propositional, rather than oppositional. They were willing to let Jarvis die, in the name of maintaining a good relationship with Denzil, who had successfully framed himself in the media as a bike hero.

So, what did Cycle Toronto do? It listened to both points of view, and took a middle-ground approach. It didn’t revoke Denzil’s membership – but it didn’t back down on Jarvis. Cycle Toronto worked their ass off trying to save Jarvis. It was a great campaign, with a multi-pronged approach: Provincial court challenges, massive protest rides, “Drivers for Jarvis”, local ward-based planning, online petitions, Freedom of Information requests, press conferences, intense lobbying, etc… They didn’t cut ties with DMW, but didn’t let him off the hook either. It was a very calculated decision.

And then we finally lost Jarvis for good. That was two weeks ago. Again, we had a strategy meeting. Do we keep fighting, or do we let it go? Some people never wanted to fight for Jarvis in the first place. Others wanted to fight to the death (or at least… were willing to get arrested). Cycle Toronto decided that for them, the fight was over. I agreed. We had exhausted every technical opportunity to win the fight at City Hall.

Here’s the thing: Any successful movement has to have multiple ‘wings’ or ‘arms’ that can implement different styles of advocacy. Take the environmental movement. On one side, you’ve got the far radicals like Earth First or the Earth Liberation Front who promote direct action and even destruction of property. Then, on the other side, you’ve got the World Wildlife Fund, which is sponsored by RBC, Loblaw and Home Depot. Most groups fit somewhere in the middle (with Greenpeace leaning more towards ELF, and Sierra Club leaning more towards WWF). When government wants to invite people “to the table” to talk about a policy, they’ll invite the WWF or Sierra Club. And if the media wants to host a roundtable discussion on a policy item, they are more likely to invite WWF or Environmental Defence than Greenpeace, and definitely not the ELF. Now, if WWF tried to act more like the ELF – or vice-versa – they would both be letting down their membership.

The difficulty with Cycle Toronto is that we don’t have a diverse movement with multiple well-organised groups. ARC is still around (Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists), but their work is mostly limited to memorials. Meanwhile in New York, they are lucky to have Transportation Alternatives (“at the table”), and Times Up (a group committed to direct action).

In Toronto, when a deputation needs to be made at city hall, by a respected advocate who has credibility amongst Councillors… it’s a job for Cycle Toronto. But when a rally needs to be organised, with hundreds of angry cyclists, and someone yelling through a megaphone – that’s also a job for Cycle Toronto.

That is a HARD job, and requires constant assessment and re-assessment. It’s a tight-rope. Lean to far one way, you’ll piss off one side. And vice-versa. And I think they’ve done an amazing job of walking that tight rope.

Once the final vote had come in for Jarvis, and we had lost, the role for Cycle Toronto to play was over. Luckily, I had started another group called the Jarvis Emergency Taskforce – the ‘Greenpeace’ of the bike movement. haha. JET had 500 followers on Twitter and 100 subscribed to a txt-based alert service. After the vote, I took JET offline. I wasn’t sure if people really wanted to drag out the Jarvis fiasco any longer. But after hearing from many angry cyclists who wanted to express their anger, I put it back online, pulled together a team (the leads were Iva Jericevic and Danny Brown) and they held PUBLIC meetings, to discuss what shape the protest would take.

Those at the meeting decided to adopt a hybrid approach of 1) Peaceful civil disobedience, and 2) a creative art-based response, which took the shape of a vigil.

The direct action was stunning. One of the most inspiring moments I’ve seen in the history of our movement. In particular, seeing a physician arrested, standing up (or, sitting down in this case) for the Jarvis bikelane, and getting a really concise and strong message into the media – was beautiful.

And the vigil was beautiful too. I see nothing wrong with having a symbolic vigil. There is nothing inappropriate about it at all. I’ve been to lots of vigils to mourn actual deaths (too many to remember), and I’ve been to many symbolic vigils. Both are powerful – both are effective community-building experiences. In fact, some of the folks who organise ARC’s vigils for cyclists who have died – also attended the JET vigil.

I was at the scene, at Dundas and Sterling, last year when Jenna Morrison’s body lay on the ground, under a tarp. I stood vigil there for hours. sad. angry. outraged. And when I stood on Jarvis this week, I wasn’t mourning for ‘Jarvis’, the street. I was mourning for the people who ride on Jarvis – and praying that they don’t also end up under a tarp – like Jenna.

You wrote: “Cycle Toronto’s obsession with Jarvis seems to be almost maniacal.” Quite the opposite. Cycle Toronto fought hard for a bike lane that deserved to be fought for. When it was over, they moved on. As they should. There are other battles to win.

“Nearly all of Cycle Toronto’s tweets have, meanwhile, been monopolized by protest coverage on Jarvis.” Not true at all. During the three days that Jarvis was bring removed, Cycle Toronto sent out 19 tweets (not including RTs or replies). Of the 19, only TWO were about Jarvis. That’s because Cycle Toronto was busy doing other things: Organising to protect the Rogers Road bikelane, promoting a memorial ride for Mike Rankin, advocating for protected lanes on Wellesley/Queen’s Park/Hoskin, live-tweeting a PWIC meeting, promoting a fundraiser, promoting a winter cycling workshop, and promoting their info table at the Wychwood Barns. That’s a LOT of things to tweet about. Jarvis was a side note.

If they had mentioned Jarvis more on Twitter, some would have complained (“Move on folks!!!”). If they hadn’t mentioned Jarvis at all, some would have complained (“Don’t give up! This is our moment of glory!”). You can’t make everyone happy. But they try, and they try hard.

I’ve sat in on a dozen strategy meetings about Jarvis over the last few years. With board members, with activists in Ward 20, with Councillors, with lawyers, with Councillors, with Jared, with Yvonne, with Andie. Each time, there were hard decisions to make. And each time, I think we made the right one. Cycle Toronto deserves so much credit for doing so much, with so little – especially in such a hostile political environment.

When Andie wrote that bike infrastructure is “not political”, I think she meant that it shouldn’t be a right/left issue, nor a downtown/suburban divide, nor even a car VS driver fight. She meant “this is something we ALL care about – human safety. Let’s work together to find solutions”. That doesn’t mean that Cycle Toronto is apolitical, or isn’t aware of the political context that informs cycle policy. It just means that there are attempts being made to widen the tent, bring in new allies, and broaden our community support beyond the usual suspects.

In the same letter that Andie wrote that bikelanes are “Not Political”, she also wrote “It’s time for Ford Nation to meet Bike Nation.” That’s a threat, from a union.

See what I’m saying? Andie, Yvonne and Jared have to be the WWF and Greenpeace at the same time. It’s impossible – and yet they’ve done it well.

If anyone thinks we need a more radical cycling group, that is prepared to be more militant, or more partisan, or more ‘political’, or whatever, they should start one. And if anyone thinks we need a more moderate group, that doesn’t organise rallies and shout into megaphones, then they should organise one too. And/or, they should get involved with Cycle Toronto, as a voting member, join a subcommittee, join a local ward group, run for the Board of Directors, and try to shift the policy direction from inside.

I’ll just finish by again thanking Astrid. We’re all frustrated about how things are going. Toronto used to win awards for being the best bike city in North America, and now we’re a joke on the national scene. And it’s not just a Ford thing. Things were pretty crappy under Miller too. It’s sad, and as a cyclist – it’s scary. And we need to be talking about how we can respond, as a community.

But I don’t think Cycle Toronto is part of the problem. I think they’ve been part of the solution. Let’s not forget who won us the Jarvis bike lane in the first place. It was the bike union. I think that was an important fight, and I was proud of the bike union when they won it.

Now that bike lane is gone. Cycle Toronto tried hard to defend it, and that made me proud to be a member. Jared is my hero. And so is the board, and all our volunteers and staff (present and past). And my heroes include the volunteers in Ward 20 (Lynda Young, Genessa Radke, Michael Black, Chris Drew, Peter Low, etc) who ran the on-the-ground outreach campaign. And my heroes also include the people who put their bodies on the street to stop the trucks, and those who organised JET (Iva & Danny). And my heroes include anyone like Astrid, who cares enough about this issue to write long blog posts like this one.

We’re a community. We need to encourage critical analysis, but we also have to put ourselves in each other’s shoes and try to appreciate the complexity of a movement that is large and growing, but young and learning.

yours,
~ dave

In my opinion, the right thing for the group to do is entertain, just for a minute, the concerns brought up here. Ask themselves “what if people viewed us this way, and what would we do about it if they did?” If the answer is “nothing different” then we end the discussion. But, if the answer is “I guess we could improve _____…” then they’ve only bettered themselves.

Wish they’d do something different? Join (or start) a ward group and lead your neighbors and fellow members to take actions you feel are important.

Run for the board and, when elected by your bicycling peers, become part of the “bloated entity” of 2 paid staff and a handful of volunteers.

It’s fun to criticize, and it serves a purpose. But criticism alone won’t “steer” Cycle Toronto. Unlike the motoring clubs and AAA of the 1920s, there’s no propelling force of money pushing Cycle Toronto – no rich members, no dealership / gas station / mechanic trade associations. It’s pretty much done under volunteer power and $2.50 / member / month. The way to improve Cycle Toronto is to get more propulsion – motivated volunteers turning out to improve decisions and carry out more actions at the local or city level.

If convincing your neighbors / Cycle Toronto members that your ideas are worth acting on is too frustrating, or more work than you have time for, or you feel they’re idiots, then you might not be a politician, and that’s normal.

But there’s a limit to what lone citizens can do without organizing, and theres no alternate Cycling Union to join. I speculate that if there was, the effect of 1000s of independent, impatient, opinionated cyclists joining it would soon replicate the problems you criticize Cycle Toronto for.

And while small is beautiful, size matters when it comes to being able to credibly threaten “political peril” to your opponents. Cycle Toronto cannot hurt Denzil Minnan-Wong “at home” in his ward. The Ward 34 group has 5 active members. Until Cycle Toronto can influence ward voting as much as BIAs and Residents’ Associations, it will not be able to play political hardball.

If you are convinced that bold action would win the hearts, financial support, and votes of Torontonians, then please join your ward group (or more likely, start one in your area) go do some actions, and prove it works.

Until then, I have faith in the board we elected. They’re the best we got. And I’m proud of what we’ve done in the Ward 19 advocacy group. And I would love to see more Torontonians get involved and take action on improving cycling conditions, as you have.