[PL1]

Can they keep restaurants’ “patios” off the road space?

Can they keep parking off roads? A true impediment to smooth movement of cars. Also, can they make sure garbage collection does not occur? Also an impediment to movement.

 

[Northern Light]

I have removed my post here, for now, a tweaked version will likely be up later tonight.

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..............

 

[generalcanada]

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..............

Now, Portland is probably in that grey area, Council approved but no work awarded until next year

 

[evandyk]

I like how they need to prescribe a list of municipalities it will prescribe to (which has to be done through introducing a regulation). Probably they just start with Toronto, saying they'll get around to lower priorities later, and then just don't. So everybody in the suburbs gets to poke a stick at Toronto and vote PC, while everybody in Toronto gets to get around less safely and businesses suffer, but Toronto won't vote PC anyways, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Northern Light]

Now, Portland is probably in that grey area, Council approved but no work awarded until next year

I'm not going to publicly comment, at this stage, on what proposal fits where.

I doubt very much it would make one iota of difference to the ultimate outcome; nonetheless, I don't feel like drawing Cycle Track opponents a map identifying which projects are more or less secure.....yet.

As things reach different milestones, and as we see how the legislation is/is not pushed by the province, or info becomes otherwise public, I may have more to say.

 

[DSC]

Though one suspects that any comments will go straight to recycling, there IS an official way to comment on the 'get rid of bike lanes' Bill. See https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=48874&language=en

 

[TwinHuey]

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

However, the City has some creative design elements that may help and be of interest to other proposed cycle tracks.

The section from Victoria Park to Danforth Road will remove one lane of traffic in each direction, but will incorporate 24 hour parking with the cycle track.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for the next section to Kingston Road.

The remaining 8 km section from the Danforth Kingston merge to Scarborough Golf Club Road, with the exception of two short sections of less than 1 km in total, will not require the reduction of vehicle lanes.

If those short section vehicle lane reductions cause the Province and Councillor Kandavel grief, the City has another clever idea with the addition of Rapid TO Bus lanes + separated cycle tracks.

Taken from the Danforth Kingston Project Overview - June 2024

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/997d-Danforth-Kingston-2024-06-06a-sml.pdf

 

[ImmenselyMental]

Analysis of the current draft law and its implications by AI of Google:

This draft law significantly impacts the authority of municipalities in Ontario to construct bicycle lanes on highways under their jurisdiction. Here's a breakdown of the key provisions and their implications:

1. Provincial Approval Required:

• Section 195.2 (1) & (2): Municipalities designated by the Minister would need provincial approval to build bicycle lanes that reduce the number of lanes for motor vehicle traffic. This effectively gives the Ministry of Transportation a veto over certain bike lane projects.

2. Scope:

• "Bicycle lane" (8): The definition is broad, including any portion of a highway dedicated to bicycles, even partially.
• Regulations (7): The Minister has broad power to define which municipalities this applies to, what information they must provide, and to exempt certain highways.

3. Ministry's Considerations:

• Traffic Flow (4): The Ministry can assess whether a bike lane would "unduly diminish" motor vehicle traffic flow, potentially prioritizing car movement over cycling infrastructure.
• Review of Existing Lanes (5) & (6): The Ministry can demand data on existing bike lanes that reduced car lanes in designated municipalities, hinting at potential future actions regarding these lanes.

4. Transition (3): Projects already underway or contracted before the law comes into force are exempt, providing a limited grandfathering clause.

Implications:

• Reduced Municipal Autonomy: This significantly curtails the ability of municipalities to implement cycling infrastructure as part of their local transportation planning.
• Potential for Delays and Obstacles: The approval process could add delays and create barriers to building bike lanes, even if they have strong local support.
• Focus on Car Traffic: The emphasis on maintaining motor vehicle traffic flow may hinder efforts to promote cycling and other sustainable modes of transportation.
• Uncertainty: The broad regulatory powers and ability to review existing lanes create uncertainty about the future of cycling infrastructure in Ontario.

Concerns:

• Lack of Consultation: Municipalities have expressed concerns about the lack of consultation in drafting this legislation.
• Evidence-Based Decision-Making: It's unclear what evidence the Ministry will use to assess bike lane proposals and existing infrastructure.
• Impact on Cycling Safety and Sustainability Goals: This law could negatively impact efforts to improve cycling safety and encourage more people to cycle, which have environmental and health benefits.

This analysis highlights the key aspects of the draft law. It's crucial to follow the legislative process and any further details or regulations released by the Ministry to fully understand its potential impact.

Although this summary of the proposed Bill 212 is AI-generated, it summarizes it in a way I find accurately reflects its contents.

The application of subsection 3 (transition) is very dubious, as the bill is intended to apply to proposed to all new bike lane projects, and retroactively to bike lanes built in the past 5 years (subsections 5 and 6). What would happen when a bike lane that is currently under construction is finished?

Apologies for the loaded language, but this has turned the bill, which I believe was already a bad idea, into a total clusterf**k for municipalities that aim to embrace active and sustainable transport. Ford is really using his powers to become the de facto mayor of Toronto with what is going on, likely because the city has a mayor who is aligned with the NDP.

Ontario promises to pay for ripping out bike lanes that fail unannounced criteria | Globalnews.ca

The Ford government is putting new bike lanes and any installed in the past half-decade on notice but has promised it will pay the costs if cities have to tear out routes.

globalnews.ca

One of the roads the Transportation Minister cited as likely not needing bike lanes is University Avenue. Well, University Avenue is pretty much the widest north-south throughfare in Downtown Toronto, and has many important employers located along it. During rush hour on weekdays, bikes are not permitted on the TTC subway, so what can employees who bike to work do? Keep standing up, Mayor Chow.

 

[innsertnamehere]

University is one of few roads in Downtown Toronto which had oodles of excess capacity that could accomodate lanes without impacting traffic.

Of course Toronto had to take it from 8 to 4 lanes instead of 8 to 6 lanes to accommodate the bike lanes.. so now the street has capacity problems.

The Province is also ignoring that the City just put some "hard" infrastructure in on University to accommodate the lanes which makes their removal particularly challenging..

 

[Northern Light]

One of the roads the Transportation Minister cited as likely not needing bike lanes is University Avenue. Well, University Avenue is pretty much the widest north-south throughfare in Downtown Toronto, and has many important employers located along it. During rush hour on weekdays, bikes are not permitted on the TTC subway, so what can employees who bike to work do? Keep standing up, Mayor Chow.

This one I will speak to; the next stage of upgraded cycle tracks for University Avenue (east side) which includes 'permanent' new curbs and streetscaping has already had its contract awarded and work is under way. Its not going anywhere, anytime soon; and will be complete in 2025.

 

[ImmenselyMental]

This one I will speak to; the next stage of upgraded cycle tracks for University Avenue (east side) which includes 'permanent' new curbs and streetscaping has already had its contract awarded and work is under way. Its not going anywhere, anytime soon; and will be complete in 2025.

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?

 

[PL1]

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?

This government has never tried to save money; they may say they are but their actions show otherwise

 

[evandyk]

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?

This is probably the one element that will piss off the suburbanites Ford is courting with this. Now not only have they been stuck in traffic for years due to the stupid bike lanes, now they have to pay Toronto to remove them too!

Of course, removing them won't get traffic moving any faster, so when it's done they've handed over their money to Toronto for nothing. What a waste.

 

[kotsy]

This is probably the one element that will piss off the suburbanites Ford is courting with this. Now not only have they been stuck in traffic for years due to the stupid bike lanes, now they have to pay Toronto to remove them too!

Of course, removing them won't get traffic moving any faster, so when it's done they've handed over their money to Toronto for nothing. What a waste.

Once everyone can see that traffic isn't any better with the bike lanes gone, the province should again foot the bill to reinstate the bike lanes. Take it out of the transport minister's and Ford's pay.

 

[rdaner]

How much flexibility is there with vehicle lane widths?