[PL1]

The City of Toronto has, however, set the speed limit for 'vehicles, motorized recreational vehicles, bicycles and personally powered vehicles' within parks as 20km/h. Toronto is near alone as a major Canadian city enforcing speed limits upon cyclists, and it is worth asking why. Where does this directive come from?

The city needs to repeal the enforcing of 20 km/h for bicycles and personally powered vehicles (such as skateboards or rollerblades), since they do not have speedometers on them.

---

This means that on non-park streets with posted speed limits of 30 km/h or 40 km/h, cyclists could go over the posted speed limit. But not in parks

Indeed, it's very easy to go 20km/h. Even with the Bike Share bikes, I routinely ride at 22 or so (which is close to max speed; 27 on e-bikes. As measures with my GPS watch.)

It's an artificially low limit. Do think a lower limit on mixed use trails (like 25km/h) makes sense, but I think there should be separate bike lanes where possible (e.g. Don Valley trail). A dream for now.

 

[afransen]

Indeed, it's very easy to go 20km/h. Even with the Bike Share bikes, I routinely ride at 22 or so (which is close to max speed; 27 on e-bikes. As measures with my GPS watch.)

It's an artificially low limit. Do think a lower limit on mixed use trails (like 25km/h) makes sense, but I think there should be separate bike lanes where possible (e.g. Don Valley trail). A dream for now.

Rather than trying to enforce speed limits, we should be policing negligent behaviour. Cyclists should be focusing on passing etiquette, using bells and lights (at night) and deferring to pedestrians on multi-use paths. I ride on paths and just slow down when passing pedestrians who are moving erratically or when there is not plenty of room to pass on the left.

I don't know if this enforcement is targeted at the lycra crowd who are training for the Tour de France in busy parks. If that's the case, a speed limit of 30 or 35 might be more appropriate.

 

[Northern Light]

An update on what came out of Committee yesterday on Cycling;

The Main Cycling item (non-High Park) passed but with one amendment via Cllr. Robinson.

Its not terrible, and with any luck won't create too big a delay.

She sought to request a supplementary report to the May Council meeting on doing the Millwood bridge with the two-way cycle track on the west side, but removing the one-way cycle track on the east side in favour of 'greening' and/or enlarged sidewalks to ameliorate the pedestrian conditions on the bridge.

I actually don't have a problem w/the idea here, though I'd rather remove another vehicle lane to achieve same; but I do wish this idea had come up way earlier in the process.

****

On High Park, Councillor Perks made a motion (which was passed) which kinda/sorta approved most of the staff recommendations, but made two very substantial changes.

1) It changed the long-term goal to Strategy 1, an entirely car-free High Park. It directed that the staff recommendations constitute an interim state pending addressing assorted accessibility issues.

2) It changed the staff recommendation to go to car-free Sundays only back to car-free weekends and holidays.

 

[Northern Light]

Next item, I noticed @H4F33Z made an observation about a possible change in the design boulevard bike path system on Steeles:

This was the previous render:

the City recently posted a new one:

The new render shows the cycle paths buffered by landscape from the road (Which both Hafeez and I prefer).

So I asked City staff about this. I was told that the intent was always to buffer where possible, and the render now better reflects that intent as the design has been refined.

I didn't discuss segment by segment but I do gather there will be some unbuffered parts, probably where there are turn lanes/or where the ROW is otherwise narrower. But the design will maximize buffers.

 

[evandyk]

I generally support a car-free High Park, but the amount of driving around side streets looking for parking it causes has to be addressed. They should put parking meters on those streets.

 

[Northern Light]

I generally support a car-free High Park, but the amount of driving around side streets looking for parking it causes has to be addressed. They should put parking meters on those streets.

Already in process:

From my very first post in the Parking Catch-all thread August '21:

Parking - Catch All

Just setting up this thread because I didn't see a logical place to drop 2 related reports headed to the Sept 9th meeting of TEYCC. Those reports concern the loss of parking that occurred when Bloor West go Cycle Tracks from Shaw to Runnymede. What's really good news in these reports, to me...

urbantoronto.ca

I assume they would have been installed on those streets by now.....

 

[robmausser]

Next item, I noticed @H4F33Z made an observation about a possible change in the design boulevard bike path system on Steeles:

This was the previous render:

View attachment 472422

the City recently posted a new one:

View attachment 472423

The new render shows the cycle paths buffered by landscape from the road (Which both Hafeez and I prefer).

So I asked City staff about this. I was told that the intent was always to buffer where possible, and the render now better reflects that intent as the design has been refined.

I didn't discuss segment by segment but I do gather there will be some unbuffered parts, probably where there are turn lanes/or where the ROW is otherwise narrower. But the design will maximize buffers.

Great to hear

 

[evandyk]

I was thinking of the streets intersecting with Parkside. Last time we went to High Park I made myself part of the problem and probably circled three times around Parkside, High Park Ave, Westminster, etc. before we found a spot. And we were not nearly the only ones doing that.

 

[Northern Light]

I was thinking of the streets intersecting with Parkside. Last time we went to High Park I made myself part of the problem and probably circled three times around Parkside, High Park Ave, Westminster, etc. before we found a spot. And we were not nearly the only ones doing that.

One side at a time. LOL, the Parkside area will come soon.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I generally support a car-free High Park, but the amount of driving around side streets looking for parking it causes has to be addressed. They should put parking meters on those streets.

Need more parking for High Park?

4.5 ha of marshland at the south end of Grenadier Pond was given to Metro Transportation when the Queensway extension was built in the early 1950’s.

From link.

The Queensway was built as a wide 3 lanes in each direction want-to-be-expressway stroad. The lanes were w-i-d-e. And fast, with 40 mph/60km/h speeds.

From link.

And no parking allowed on The Queensway. Today they created cycling lanes, and still no parking stopping.

Move the cycling lanes off the roadway and create dual-direction cycling paths west of the Parkside Drive overpass. Keep the cycling lanes on the overpass, for cyclists to be able to get over Parkside Drive. Narrow the lanes to be actually designed for a 50 km/h speed (and not for the "safety" of speeders) and create parking slots on The Queensway. With bumpouts at the corners to slow down right turns. Same parking fees as inside the park.

From link.

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

An update on what came out of Committee yesterday on Cycling;

The Main Cycling item (non-High Park) passed but with one amendment via Cllr. Robinson.

Its not terrible, and with any luck won't create too big a delay.

She sought to request a supplementary report to the May Council meeting on doing the Millwood bridge with the two-way cycle track on the west side, but removing the one-way cycle track on the east side in favour of 'greening' and/or enlarged sidewalks to ameliorate the pedestrian conditions on the bridge.

I actually don't have a problem w/the idea here, though I'd rather remove another vehicle lane to achieve same; but I do wish this idea had some up way earlier in the process.

****

On High Park, Councillor Perks made a motion (which was passed) which kinda/sorta approved most of the staff recommendations, but made two very substantial changes.

1) It changed the long-term goal to Strategy 1, an entirely car-free High Park. It directed that the staff recommendations constitute an interim state pending addressing assorted accessibility issues.

2) It changed the staff recommendation to go to car-free Sundays only back to car-free weekends and holidays.

@Northern Light - I watched the story about High Park and how everything evolved. Where are we right now and we have been before in terms of car access?

We had weekend and statutory holidays no car access already. Some funny stuff member who no one elected and no one knows influenced by who brought out the shocker news to bring back cars on Saturday. What a joke.

Now Perks came to rescue the Saturday as a car free day we had before. How did the overall situation change? It did not!

Smart as Perks is a car free HP might be addressed in 2027 per ICE note. So well after his tenure as Councillor. Is he a clown in this or do I misunderstand the situation?

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light - I watched the story about High Park and how everything evolved. Where are we right now and we have been before in terms of car access?

We had weekend and statutory holidays no car access already. Some funny stuff member who no one elected and no one knows influenced by who brought out the shocker news to bring back cars on Saturday. What a joke.

Now Perks came to rescue the Saturday as a car free day we had before. How did the overall situation change? It did not!

Smart as Perks is a car free HP might be addressed in 2027 per ICE note. So well after his tenure as Councillor. Is he a clown in this or do I misunderstand the situation?

Keeping in my mind that this must all pass City Council (this was just committee).........

I would read this as follows:

1) The Status Quo on car-free weekends is unchanged.

2) Staff have been directed to increase opportunities for safe-walking and cycling in High Park, in the near-term, but as yet, so far as I know, the strategy, as with most Parks strategies, has no funding. I would not expect any significant change next year; in terms of roads that were proposed to remain fully open to cars; however, those proposed for permanent closure, could see that done fairly quickly, but without the infrastructure you see in the glossy renders. (think pylons/jersey barriers and cheap signage, if you're lucky, big flower pots).

3) Staff have been directed that the long term goal must be a car-free High Park, but again, there is no money to affect change, and no approved solutions in terms of TTC service into/through the park or some version of in-park shuttles services. There is currently no working solution to things like getting sports equipment in/out at Baseball Diamonds or how the restaurant/concessions would be serviced. Its all quite do-able, but no hard timeline and no funds, don't expect any substantial change in the next year or two.

***

As to Councillor Perks motivations......... those are always a bit mysterious. LOL I've known Gord (not well, just acquaintances) since he was with TEA (Toronto Environmental Alliance), well before he became a City Councillor. (25 years ago).

He's always been a bit fickle on things; and publicly, hard to read sometimes. Except for being a tad stubborn, LOL, I've never had issues dealing w/him, but then again, that hasn't happened that much over the years.

 

[TRONto]

Anyone knows what's happening on College street with the bike lanes? Construction was supposed to wrap up this month from March but it really hadn't started.

I thought I'd message here first before sending an email the city contact.

 

[Dan416]

Next item, I noticed @H4F33Z made an observation about a possible change in the design boulevard bike path system on Steeles:

This was the previous render:

View attachment 472422

the City recently posted a new one:

View attachment 472423

The new render shows the cycle paths buffered by landscape from the road (Which both Hafeez and I prefer).

So I asked City staff about this. I was told that the intent was always to buffer where possible, and the render now better reflects that intent as the design has been refined.

I didn't discuss segment by segment but I do gather there will be some unbuffered parts, probably where there are turn lanes/or where the ROW is otherwise narrower. But the design will maximize buffers.

Definitely prefer the second. I'm not an experienced cyclist, but when I do ride my bike I prefer as much separation from the road as possible. Also, when I drive (which is admittedly more) I prefer bikes not to be on the road. It's win-win. I'm ok with taking away lanes used for parking to make space for bike lanes though, unlike some drivers.

 

[Northern Light]

Anyone knows what's happening on College street with the bike lanes? Construction was supposed to wrap up this month from March but it really hadn't started.

I thought I'd message here first before sending an email the city contact.

I checked w/staff.

It is under way at the west end and they are moving east. Its just a wee bit pokey.