[nfitz]

Probably. It would be fairly expensive because there's a lot of sloping right next to the road in parts. And you'd have to cut down a lot of trees.

At the same time, it is rather surprising that in this day and age, there's still no sidewalk on the west side. Despite being a very well used mud footpath where everyone walks.

Cut the (relatively few) trees and do it property. Heck, and throw in streetcar tracks from Howard Park to Keele at the same time, so that 506 has a proper terminus that connects more easily to the subway.

 

[DSC]

The draft regulations are available already? Can you link them?

As noted in the Registry, the Regs are not yet published but, as @evandyk says it is unlikely the City can get a court to agree that the Province does not have the power to do this, very stupid, thing. See: https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=48874&language=en

 

[nfitz]

As noted in the Registry, the Regs are not yet published but, as @evandyk says it is unlikely the City can get a court to agree that the Province does not have the power to do this, very stupid, thing. See: https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=48874&language=en

I don't see that it will be quick then.

And if the regulations do not conform to their legislation, then lots of reasons to challenge it.

Even if there is 0% chance of success, the best thing the city can do is to drag this out for a few years. Going through all the courts can take time - especially if the City chooses to use stalling tactics. It would be unlikely to be sorted until after Ford leaves office.

 

[DSC]

I don't see that it will be quick then.

And if the regulations do not conform to their legislation, then lots of reasons to challenge it.

Even if there is 0% chance of success, the best thing the city can do is to drag this out for a few years. Going through all the courts can take time - especially if the City chooses to use stalling tactics. It would be unlikely to be sorted until after Ford leaves office.

That is certainly one tactic but I am afraid that almost any Court will say the City has no case because of the Supreme Court's ruling on the size of Council.

The Court provided clarity on the status of municipalities under the Constitution. The majority confirmed that subject to the Charter, a province, under s. 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867, has absolute and unfettered legal power to legislate with respect to municipalities. A province has “absolute and unfettered legal power to do with them as it wills”.[viii] Likewise, the majority found that section 3 of the Charter, which sets out the “right to vote in an election” applies only to provincial and federal elections – not municipal elections. The absence of municipalities in the constitutional text is not a gap to be addressed judicially; rather, it is a deliberate omission.[ix] My highlighting.

SEE: https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights...egislation-reduced-size-torontos-city-council

 

[ey2470]

Even though I drive way more than cycling into downtown, I am a huge supporter of properly designed bike lanes. I have submitted the comment below to Bill 212 (enhanced by AI) and hope to advocate for more bike infrastructure from the viewpoint of a driver.

As a daily commuter between North York and High Park, I frequently navigate downtown Toronto by car. I strongly oppose the proposed bill to remove bike lanes for the following reasons:

Enhanced Safety and Efficiency for all Road Users: Bike lanes significantly improve road safety for both motorists and cyclists. They eliminate the unpredictability of cyclists weaving through traffic, reducing the risk of accidents. Moreover, dedicated bike lanes contribute to smoother traffic flow by minimizing interactions between cyclists and cars.

Addressing the Root Causes of Traffic Congestion: The primary contributors to traffic congestion are factors directly related to cars, such as parallel parking, left turns, and blocked intersections. Bike lanes do not exacerbate these issues. Removing them will not alleviate traffic problems.

Potential for Increased Traffic and Accidents: Adding more traffic lanes can introduce additional complexity and confusion, especially at intersections. This could lead to more frequent accidents, particularly when cyclists are mixed with car traffic. The current configuration of roads like Bloor Street, with well-defined lanes and clear turning options, promotes efficient traffic flow.

Misallocation of Resources: The substantial cost of removing bike lanes could be better invested in initiatives that directly address traffic congestion, such as automated traffic enforcement, 407 toll subsidies, and maintenance of major infrastructure like the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway.

 

[Obsidian]

Does anyone know is simple renaming the status of the bike lanes to Dougie lanes for example would force the province to the process of amending the act to include Dougie lanes??.
As long as they are not bike lanes how would the act effects them.

 

[ssiguy2]

The problem that bike networks/advocates are up against is that they only advocate for cyclists and politically, that a bad move.

I NEVER take a bike nor transit. I need my car for work and I take my dog comes with me everywhere so transit is not an option but I, as a driver, strongly support separated bike lanes. I hate having cyclists swerve in and out of traffic or using the road due to the bike "lanes" are just a painting line so a bureaucrat can tick a box. I don't want to hit a cyclist and a lack of bike lanes makes it very easy to do so.

It maybe hard for cyclist advocates to get their head around but many , if not most, drivers want separate bike lanes just as they want sidewalks. It makes all parties much safer and often keeps car traffic flowing much better. Cyclist advocates should begin to get the driving community behind them and I think they would get a lot more support from them than they think.

 

[leopetr]

Does anyone know is simple renaming the status of the bike lanes to Dougie lanes for example would force the province to the process of amending the act to include Dougie lanes??.
As long as they are not bike lanes how would the act effects them.

You'd have to use an existing designation like paved shoulder

 

[Obsidian]

You'd have to use an existing designation like paved shoulder

so i assume that means extending the sidewalk and calling them paved shoulders?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Probably. It would be fairly expensive because there's a lot of sloping right next to the road in parts. And you'd have to cut down a lot of trees.

That’s part of the city’s issue and why we arrived at this impasse with Queen’s Park. Toronto is always trying to do things on the cheap. My property taxes are up about 20% from 2023. Let's use some of that money to do bike infrastructure properly.

 

[evandyk]

They're up since 2023 because they didn't go up from 2010 to 2022. Those increases are paying for maintaining the current stuff we have with modest improvements. I'd be happy to see another 10% increase this year if it meant we got a much better separated bike lane network, but I'm not sure another 10% increase is the formula for Chow to get re-elected, so I doubt we'll see it.

And one of the reasons it was possible to get the bike lanes on Yonge, Bloor and Danforth was because it could be done cheaply initially. Makes it a much easier sell to people who won't see the benefit of the lanes themselves.

 

[Northern Light]

Rather than removing an automobile lane, couldn't they just build/install a bike lane parallel to Parkside on the High Park side?

Probably. It would be fairly expensive because there's a lot of sloping right next to the road in parts. And you'd have to cut down a lot of trees.

The answer is "No" they could not.

Its not simply a matter of cutting down trees, though certainly, that would be an issue.

This is Parkside just south of Bloor:

Beyond hat guardrail the land immediately slopes downwards at a steep angle.

The land between guardrail and the curb is of insufficient width for a Cycle Track here, but even if it were wide enough, you've have to relocate the streetlights and the power lines. The lines can be buried, at considerable cost, but where would the streetlights go, you'd have to cut down trees on a slope, within a park, (not generally permitted, but that aside, you would create slope stability issues (the roots are holding the ground in place, which is also the road bed) .

The level ground widens out a bit to the south, but then you encounter more problems at Indian Valley Road.

Looking north from that intersection:

Note the grade change, the narrowness, slopes above and below, as well as a retaining wall.

But then, cast your gaze south:

Once again, you find the space between the guardrail and the curb is not sufficiently wide for a bidirectional multi-use path or cycle track, and there is again a steep fall off here. Ecological damage aside, removing trees of the size you see here is a 7-figure cost given the site area and conditions, and that doesn't account for the infilling and re-grading the slope, which would require an Environmental Assessment and 7 or more likely 8 figure budget.

Then we can look south of High Park Blvd (streetcar loop):

Here, again, you have severe constraints which would require the removal of the retaining wall, most or all vegetation above same, a new retaining wall, much taller, would be cut in mid-slope........... the budget for this idea isn't high, its increasingly stratospheric.

***

To be clear, the idea of putting in an MUP/bi-directional cycle track next to the park, beyond the existing curb, would be a non-starter politically, from a regulatory perspective and fiscally.

 

[Midtown Hank]

I hear you, but as Parkside is more of a thoroughfare, I would think you could wander a bit more inside the park. In other words, there's no necessity to be within a few feet of the road. As for the tree felling, cycle routes don't require the same linearity as a road (they could go around trees to minimize having to chop them down). I'm not suggesting zig zagging too much, but I have to believe that a good cycle plan through the park near Parkdale (but not limited to being within a few feet of the street) could be figured out. Not only that, but it would be a far more pleasant ride (as long as it wasn't too convoluted).

Just taking it a bit further, as I think most will agree that Ford will follow through on his bike lane removal plan, some bike planners should be working on alternative routes (off major arterials, but nearby) that could be negotiated with the premier. Basically, Chow could negotiate the position of, if you are going to remove bike lanes to add back a car lane on this major street, we could accommodate if you pay for a new bike lane on this alternative route. I know the cycling folks will scream, but at least they get something.

 

[Northern Light]

I hear you, but as Parkside is more of a thoroughfare, I would think you could wander a bit more inside the park. In other words, there's no necessity to be within a few feet of the road. As for the tree felling, cycle routes don't require the same linearity as a road (they could go around trees to minimize having to chop them down). I'm not suggesting zig zagging too much, but I have to believe that a good cycle plan through the park near Parkdale (but not limited to being within a few feet of the street) could be figured out. Not only that, but it would be a far more pleasant ride (as long as it wasn't too convoluted).

Just taking it a bit further, as I think most will agree that Ford will follow through on his bike lane removal plan, some bike planners should be working on alternative routes (off major arterials, but nearby) that could be negotiated with the premier. Basically, Chow could negotiate the position of, if you are going to remove bike lanes to add back a car lane on this major street, we could accommodate if you pay for a new bike lane on this alternative route. I know the cycling folks will scream, but at least they get something.

You're not getting the issue w/the slopes. You can't just magically make them disappear, or run a bike trail over them, you'd have to re-grade them/fill them in. Its a very large undertaking and very expensive.

If you were being fanciful, I suppose you could could float the cycle track through the woods on helical piles, but that too would be tremendously costly and unlikely to be approved.

 

[evandyk]

I didn't really intend to get into it, but all of that is stuff you "could" do if your goal was to maximize car lanes at all cost AND build the Parkside bike lane. But nobody is going to want to pay to basically create a couple of kilometres of level ground where none exists right now just to put a bike lane there.