[Andy_in_Toronto]

Ok..... I've decided to refrain from too much detail..............

I'll say this..........some projects have been tendered and have Council approval, and are .likely 'safe'.

Others.................well............maybe there's a gray space.

And most (but not all ) of what is currently, or soon to be in consultation has at least some vulnerability.

There is definitely reason to be concerned.

On the other hand...........I think there's a solid work program for the next year, irrespective of this legislation (should it pass), and more to come.

I may have more to say, to some of you..............

@Northern Light you like to say hope is not entirely lost?

This draft law is basically so badly written to pressure the city to get some kind of deal and is not intended to become law?

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light you like to say hope is not entirely lost?

No. Even if the law is passed, as is, which would be obnoxious, there are many projects in a position to go forward in the near term, and some room to pivot in other cases to multi-use trail projects or upgrading existing bike lanes. Beyond the next year or two there is certainly potential for this law to be a real problem. But one day at a time.

This draft law is basically so badly written to pressure the city to get some kind of deal and is not intended to become law?

I'm not going to go that far.

 

[nfitz]

Looks like the Provincial legislation may not bode well for the proposed Danforth Kingston Complete Street.

Looking at below, I'd think you can simply replace the on-street parking with a proper driving lane.

Problem solved!

And car drivers will be happy!

 

[nfitz]

I general, you can go down to ~3.0M for a vehicle lane (through traffic), though curb lanes on roads w/buses and trucks will tend to get 3.3M more often than not, as a floor.

Queue lanes, like parking lanes can be less wide due to slower movement, maybe as tight as 2.5M

On 4-lane road, there isn't typically enough surplus to squeeze out a minimally acceptable bike lane, never mind one with separation.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. In many other countries they have narrower lanes. England typically goes down to about 2.75 m, and can go as low as 2.4 m.

An extra 25 cm over 4 lanes gives you a metre.

This could get you some bike lanes, depending on the current widths. Is a 4-lane road 12.6 m? If you go down to 11 m that should at least get you 1 bike lane. If you go to 9.6 m, that can get you two.

It would calm traffic as well.

 

[crs1026]

The wording of the bill is beyond me, but my stubborn brain wonders if the auto lane actually has to be reinstated.

What if they were converted to bus lanes or HOV lanes instead? Or sidewalks? The point being, the roads don't get the capacity handed back to individual drivers, they are used in other ways. I would love the reaction if Ford had to argue no, we actually want to mandate that people must use cars.

Just throwing it out there.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. In many other countries they have narrower lanes. England typically goes down to about 2.75 m, and can go as low as 2.4 m.

There is absolutely no circumstance in which 2.4M vehicle lane widths are approved on a major road in Toronto.

Before you mention England, you need to recall that the lanes, individually and collectively need to function to allow through and turning movements for 53ft long tractor-trailers (longer than is permissible on many roads in Europe.....though it is allowed on highways) and also articulated buses. Any road on which the TTC operates, the TTC has a veto for all practical purposes.

An extra 25 cm over 4 lanes gives you a metre.

This could get you some bike lanes, depending on the current widths. Is a 4-lane road 12.6 m? If you go down to 11 m that should at least get you 1 bike lane. If you go to 9.6 m, that can get you two.

It would calm traffic as well.

I'm all for narrower lanes, but if you want two, discrete uni-directional cycle tracks you need to find at least 4.2M of the existing ROW.

If you do one bi-directional track you might get away w/3.3M, though more would certainly be preferable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One thing that frustrated and disappointed me was when the Province began mentioning how Toronto’s bike lane expansions had impacted traffic, that the city didn’t immediately present their own traffic impact studies which were undertaken as part of any bike lane project - which we’ve clearly not done to the Province’s satisfaction . That’s how you deal with upper management, by anticipating their position and doing your homework to address any challenges.

 

[PL1]

One thing that frustrated and disappointed me was when the Province began mentioning how Toronto’s bike lane expansions had impacted traffic, that the city didn’t immediately present their own traffic impact studies which were undertaken as part of any bike lane project - which we’ve clearly not done to the Province’s satisfaction . That’s how you deal with upper management, by anticipating their position and doing your homework to address any challenges.

Municipalities have largely operated independently of the Province. Yes, this government has shown micromanaging tendencies. But I don't think anyone anticipated them doing this. Of course Doug Ford is still pissed that we didn't anoint him mayor, so ...

 

[nfitz]

If you do one bi-directional track you might get away w/3.3M, though more would certainly be preferable.

To hell with preferable. Let's have a real war on cars.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Municipalities have largely operated independently of the Province. But I don't think anyone anticipated them doing this.

The City should have run traffic impact studies as part of their bike lane strategy regardless of any predictions of interest or interference from Queen’s Park. It’s those studies that Mayor Chow would have been able to whip out when Ford began moaning. Instead we look like rank amateurs throwing down bike lanes willy-nilly without any thoughts of impact on traffic or any greater city-wide strategy. That lack of a city-wide strategy also explains our disjointed bike lane execution, with sometimes just paint, sometimes bollards, other times short curbs, then tall curbs or metal barriers - with seemingly no fast rules on which one gets executed where.

 

[generalcanada]

The City should have run traffic impact studies as part of their bike lane strategy regardless of any predictions of interest or interference from Queen’s Park. It’s those studies that Mayor Chow would have been able to whip out when Ford began moaning. Instead we look like rank amateurs throwing down bike lanes willy-nilly without any thoughts of impact on traffic or any greater city-wide strategy.

For Portland they did.

 

[Obsidian]

Thanks; I guess subsection 3 is giving it an exemption from Bill 212.

I thought the provincial government was focused on saving money, so why does it want to pay for removing bike lanes?

Conservative goverment and voters only pretend to care about spending when it's to help others. When it's stuff they want they drop the mask of being financially responsible real quick.

 

[adys123]

The City should have run traffic impact studies as part of their bike lane strategy regardless of any predictions of interest or interference from Queen’s Park. It’s those studies that Mayor Chow would have been able to whip out when Ford began moaning. Instead we look like rank amateurs throwing down bike lanes willy-nilly without any thoughts of impact on traffic or any greater city-wide strategy. That lack of a city-wide strategy also explains our disjointed bike lane execution, with sometimes just paint, sometimes bollards, other times short curbs, then tall curbs or metal barriers - with seemingly no fast rules on which one gets executed where.

Cycle lane standards have been constantly evolving and the nature of projects taking place at different times is the reason why designs typically reflect different standards. I would say that traffic impact studies would be dubious in this case because the act as written comes purely from political posturing. Therefore, no amount of data would likely make any difference. Imagine a scenario with the cycling lanes improve automobile travel time, the province has already decided to use them as the scapegoat, so they'll likely discredit the data anyway. Nevermind the mountains of research supporting cycling infrastructure for safety, sustainability, and efficient mobility, those weren't able to deter the government.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Conservative goverment and voters only pretend to care about spending when it's to help others. When it's stuff they want being cost effective no longer matters.

Federally, PM Harper reduced spending on the military to less than 1% of GDP, its lowest ever spend on defence. Conservative voters who would seemingly demand guns over granola didn’t even shrug.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Municipalities have largely operated independently of the Province. Yes, this government has shown micromanaging tendencies. But I don't think anyone anticipated them doing this. Of course Doug Ford is still pissed that we didn't anoint him mayor, so ...

The current government is populist in orientation - it will do anything that is popular with the subsegment of the electorate that it needs to stay in power. The last 7 years should have made it rather clear by now. I mean, if anyone want to tell me that spending 200M to expedite public beer sales is a good way to spend taxpayer funding, go right ahead.

What I do want to find out is who lobbied the government for removal of bike lanes from Yonge. Bloor is easy to figure out given his base in the west-ish end.

AoD