News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.6K     0 
I got the impression that the province wasn't planning on moving on them in the immediate term anyway as they were still talking through it with the City in any ability to retain lanes and addressing the revised road designs for them.

I would be extremely surprised if the courts rule that bike lane removals are a charter violation. It would have all kinds of ridiculous implications. This will most likely just prevent the province from construction until Schabas issues his decision. In the interim the province will probably continue unabated in removal planning like they would have anyway.
 
DSCToronto said:
Just cycled on Bayview and looked at the Lower Don Trail. - No sign of much/any work over the winter but there is some equipment there. The latest project update says:

  • "May 2023: Construction starts from Pottery Road to Bala Underpass at Corktown Common
    • March to October 2023: Site preparation work (staging, removals, excavations etc.)
    • Late 2023: Poor soil conditions discovered
    • May 2023 to June 2025: Metrolinx fence and gate replacement
    • November 2023 to July 2024: Foundation installation for structures (sloped path/pedestrian ramp and Dundas Staircase)
    • June to September 2024: New swale construction (landscaping for stormwater management)
    • November 2024 to June 2025: Sloped path/pedestrian ramp and Dundas Staircase installation
    • February to May 2025: Asphalt pavement replacement and pedestrian railing installation
  • July 2025: Construction complete from Pottery Road to Bala Underpass at Corktown Common
  • Spring to Summer 2025: Wayfinding/sign improvements to the trail
The timeline is subject to change." (So I confidently expect yet more slippage!)

FROM: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...ents-expansion-redevelopment/lower-don-trail/
Click to expand...
Checked it out today as well. Of those bullet points it appears they are currently working on the Metrolinx fencing at the moment, with some rebar in place for foundations for the sloped ramp. I haven't seen any work at Dundas for the new staircase. Visually it doesn't appear to be progressing quickly, but that may just be visually.
 
The injunction decision is very critical about the quality of the government's evidence and witnesses.

The Province can require the removal of bike lanes, but if it implicates charter rights then it can't be arbitrary or disproportionate. So what's the evidence that supports the province's argument that their policy objectives outweigh the harms that the implementation causes? Minimal to non-existent.
 
Cambry Ardship said:
The injunction decision is very critical about the quality of the government's evidence and witnesses.
Click to expand...
Have you seen a link to the actual decision? The reporters clearly have a copy, but aren't sharing it with us, and the Court hasn't posted it yet.
 
Yes, someone shared it with me.

Here's a couple of quotes:
1745351645432.png


1745351303351.png


Now I'm not an legal expert but I sure wouldn't be happy if a judge was writing this kind of stuff about an argument I was making.

That's not to say that the outcome is clear at this point, but I think it's a positive sign for the bike safety point of view.
 

Attachments

  • 1745351265336.png
    1745351265336.png
    157.2 KB · Views: 51
Cambry Ardship said:
Yes, someone shared it with me.

Here's a couple of quotes:
View attachment 645610

View attachment 645609

Now I'm not an legal expert but I sure wouldn't be happy if a judge was writing this kind of stuff about an argument I was making.

That's not to say that the outcome is clear at this point, but I think it's a positive sign for the bike safety point of view.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I mean what does that seem to imply if the Judge were to rule that removal impacts life-safety? Basically any transportation-related decision made has some form of impact on life-safety. Does it imply that decision-makers must make all infrastructure decisions in a "safety maximization above all else" lens? Does it mean that any road without dedicated cycling infrastructure is inherently "unconstitutional"? What makes Bloor Street being "bike lane free" unconstitutional but not Highway 27 or the other thousands of roads without dedicated cycling infrastructure?

Ultimately ruling that not having bike lanes on a given stretch of road infringes on charter rights effectively places governments in a position where the majority of road infrastructure is "unconstitutional". Or is it that it's the *act* of removing the lanes that makes it unconstitutional?
 
It's not that it's illegal to remove bike lanes, or that there has to be a safety-maximization lens to all infrastructure decisions, it's that when legislation infringes on chart rights (s7), it can't be arbitrary or disproportionate/unconnected to its legislative purpose.

There's also a difference between arbitrarily legislating the *removal* of specific cycling infrastructure, and not providing the infrastructure in the first place.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Interesting. I mean what does that seem to imply if the Judge were to rule that removal impacts life-safety? Basically any transportation-related decision made has some form of impact on life-safety. Does it imply that decision-makers must make all infrastructure decisions in a "safety maximization above all else" lens? Does it mean that any road without dedicated cycling infrastructure is inherently "unconstitutional"? What makes Bloor Street being "bike lane free" unconstitutional but not Highway 27 or the other thousands of roads without dedicated cycling infrastructure?

Ultimately ruling that not having bike lanes on a given stretch of road infringes on charter rights effectively places governments in a position where the majority of road infrastructure is "unconstitutional". Or is it that it's the *act* of removing the lanes that makes it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point, though I think the potential precedents you're thinking of are mitigated by the fact that, in our system, removing rights tends to be treated more seriously by the courts—or at least is subject to a stricter level of scrutiny—than simply not granting or expanding them in the first place.

That is to say, yeah, the state would probably as a result of such a decision face a higher bar to cross in other instances where it wanted to remove safety infrastructure (or at the very least provide evidence that said removal was neither arbitrary nor likely to be ineffective at accomplishing its stated goals), but it would be less likely that you'd see a bunch of new court challenges as the state plans and builds more roads without bike infrastructure.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Interesting. I mean what does that seem to imply if the Judge were to rule that removal impacts life-safety? Basically any transportation-related decision made has some form of impact on life-safety. Does it imply that decision-makers must make all infrastructure decisions in a "safety maximization above all else" lens? Does it mean that any road without dedicated cycling infrastructure is inherently "unconstitutional"? What makes Bloor Street being "bike lane free" unconstitutional but not Highway 27 or the other thousands of roads without dedicated cycling infrastructure?

Ultimately ruling that not having bike lanes on a given stretch of road infringes on charter rights effectively places governments in a position where the majority of road infrastructure is "unconstitutional". Or is it that it's the *act* of removing the lanes that makes it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
The ruling here quotes the bedford SCC decision very very often. To understand this case, you need to understand that one.

The ruling says, that any attempt to affect life liberty and security must have an equal or better outcome of proportionality. The purpose of the law must have a direct positive outcome.
Like in the Bedford ruling, its not a positive rights case where they found the lack of rights for sex workers is unconsittuional. Its the law that forces the sex workers into the background where their lives are more endangered thats the problem.

As you can see the bike lane law ticks all of those boxes

A government should easily be able to answer these questions. Its not hard.
It goes to the competency of Ford that theyre going to lose on this
 
Work actually going on with bike lanes on The Esplanade from Market to Church. I assume there will be work west of Church in duec course, too.

The Esplanade from Church St to Market St​

RoDARS ID:Tor-RDAR2025-2857

Start Date: April 16, 2025
End Date: July 31, 2025

On-Site Hours:07:00am to 07:00pm Continuous

Contractor:2489960 Ontario Inc (KORE Infrastructure Group)Description:COT contract: 23ECS-LU-04SU

Watermain restoration and roadworks

Updated TCP for 2025 work only attached.

Installing remaining bike lanes on the contract.

Closure Location: The Esplanade from Church St to Market St
 
generalcanada said:
The ruling here quotes the bedford SCC decision very very often. To understand this case, you need to understand that one.

The ruling says, that any attempt to affect life liberty and security must have an equal or better outcome of proportionality. The purpose of the law must have a direct positive outcome.
Like in the Bedford ruling, its not a positive rights case where they found the lack of rights for sex workers is unconsittuional. Its the law that forces the sex workers into the background where their lives are more endangered thats the problem.

As you can see the bike lane law ticks all of those boxes

A government should easily be able to answer these questions. Its not hard.
It goes to the competency of Ford that theyre going to lose on this
Click to expand...
This makes more sense. It's not like the province doesn't have data showing the bike lanes having an impact on travel times - the City's study on the original Bloor St bike lanes segment shows consistently, significantly increased travel times on the corridor. PM peak travel times on bloor are recorded as having increased by about 22%, with the highest volume direction increasing 38% (11.25 mins to 15.5 mins travel time):

 
The City of Toronto is collecting feedback for the Trinity Bellwoods Park Access & Circulation Study. Please submit your remarks through the interactive map & rank other comments until Friday, May 2. Disappointed with the long study timeframe. Especially considering the main thing that needs to be fixed for cyclists is repaving (and maybe widening) the paths!

www.toronto.ca

Trinity Bellwoods Park Access & Circulation Study

Take the online survey to learn more and provide feedback on recommendations to improve access and circulation in Trinity Bellwoods Park. The survey closes on March 5. Take the Survey Trinity Bellwoods Park is a popular destination for relaxing, exercising and socializing, as well as a central...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
TwoWheelPoli said:
The City of Toronto is collecting feedback for the Trinity Bellwoods Park Access & Circulation Study. Please submit your remarks through the interactive map & rank other comments until Friday, May 2. Disappointed with the long study timeframe. Especially considering the main thing that needs to be fixed for cyclists is repaving (and maybe widening) the paths!

www.toronto.ca

Trinity Bellwoods Park Access & Circulation Study

Take the online survey to learn more and provide feedback on recommendations to improve access and circulation in Trinity Bellwoods Park. The survey closes on March 5. Take the Survey Trinity Bellwoods Park is a popular destination for relaxing, exercising and socializing, as well as a central...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
Click to expand...

Maybe they should stop traipsing their F-250s all over that and every other park, for starters. Consult on that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top