[evandyk]

I think there would be more of them if they were expressly allowed under the same rules e-bikes are (minus the silly rules about pedals). And of course there's the issue of the scooter rental companies, which would cause use to really take off if allowed.

 

[Natika33]

It joins the long list of things Toronto has rules prohibiting that are totally ignored and unenforced.

I have a love-hate relationship with our propensity for ignoring rules. On the one hand, some rules are baffling (the one against scooters for example) so it doesn't bother me at all when people break those, but on the other hand, I really wish there was more enforcement of anti-litter laws and keeping your dog on a leash laws.

 

[Northern Light]

The Cycling Plan and the latest cycling implementation report are just about to be voted on, at 8:13pm.

The poor staff, this was a Timed Item and was supposed to be done hours ago.

I will try to accurately document the motions and their outcomes:

Carried on Consent (voted on recorded)

Councillor Holyday trying to delete a bunch of proposed Cycle Tracks:

Councillor Morley with a tweak to the current Cycle Tracks in Bloor West Village, the room will now here from @crs1026 on the wisdom of this tweak.

Loses 4 to 17

Holyday trying to spike Cycle Tracks on Kipling (not happening for a bit yet)

Loses 3 to 19

****

More Bloor Cycle Track tweaks, @crs1026

Holyday had the above split so B and C are separate, passing 19-3, the balance carries on consent

***

Holyday got one through! (below)

Carries unanimously!

Next up from Cllr. Holyday:

Loses 9 to 13
And again, LOL

Loses 9 to 13

Cllr Nunziata did manage to gently push something back......its fine.......

(carried on consent)

From Cllr Bradford:

Carries 19 to 3

A couple of motions from Cllr. Mc Kelvie were entirely non-controversial changes to report structure and carried on consent.

The Cycle Plan, as amended passes 20-2

****

Councillor Holyday now trying something different, LOL

Loses 5 to 17

Next..

Carries on consent

And finally the item as Amended:

Carries 19 to 2

And we're done...........no damage done.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I really wish there was more enforcement of anti-litter laws and keeping your dog on a leash laws.

I was in a nearly empty, early morning, upper Riverdale Park earlier this week and the bylaw enforcement guy was challenging some folks walking their dog off leash. As I walked by (with my dog leashed) I heard them firmly, but politely exclaim: why don’t you enforce bylaws against camping in parks, construction noise, graffiti and litter before bothering people exercising their dog in an otherwise vacant park? They have a point, in that the bylaw officer seemed to be going after the easy prey, while ignoring the hard work cases.

It joins the long list of things Toronto has rules prohibiting that are totally ignored and unenforced.

I have to admit now that the city has basically abandoned its public spaces to disorder all while giving me a >18% property tax increase, I’m taking a more don’t GAF to bylaws myself. Neglect starts at the top and trickles down.

 

[allengeorge]

From Cllr Bradford:

Carries 19 to 3

Do you happen to know why? This seems surprising given the general tone so far?

 

[Northern Light]

Do you happen to know why? This seems surprising given the general tone so far?

Why what? Why it passed?

 

[allengeorge]

Why what? Why it passed?

Oh sorry - I wasn’t clear.

1. Why Brad Bradford specifically wanted to prioritize vehicular traffic on St. Clair and Vic Park (maybe that’s too aggressive a reading?)
2. And, yes - why it was passed

 

[Natika33]

I was in a nearly empty, early morning, upper Riverdale Park earlier this week and the bylaw enforcement guy was challenging some folks walking their dog off leash. As I walked by (with my dog leashed) I heard them firmly, but politely exclaim: why don’t you enforce bylaws against camping in parks, construction noise, graffiti and litter before bothering people exercising their dog in an otherwise vacant park? They have a point, in that the bylaw officer seemed to be going after the easy prey, while ignoring the hard work cases.

Terrible attitude! The by-law officers have to start somewhere & breaking the rules is breaking the rules regardless of whether or not someone else is breaking some other rule. I don't get people who try to argue and deflect like that. Sputtering just makes them even more worthy of shame. The word "entitled" gets thrown around a lot, but that's what that attitude is.

 

[Northern Light]

Oh sorry - I wasn’t clear.

1. Why Brad Bradford specifically wanted to prioritize vehicular traffic on St. Clair and Vic Park (maybe that’s too aggressive a reading?)

Not entirely sure...........

On VP it changes nothing...........which is to say, to my mind anyway (I'm not speaking for City staff here), the changes that are required in flow pattern to allow for Cycle Tracks and broadly hold or improve vehicular flow are clear, the options around same are also extremely limited.

On St. Clair, there may be some options, I'm not sure how advanced design is at this point, but its a wider ROW..........

I'll see if I can't dig deeper for anything here.

2. And, yes - why it was passed

My guess:

There's nothing binding here or specific, its just general vague guidance to staff that doesn't really compel different choices.

Brad is overtly not aligned with the Chow mayoralty, but he's been given some material role with Planning/Housing where his interests align w/the Mayor's............. read into that what you will.

 

[crs1026]

Councillor Morley with a tweak to the current Cycle Tracks in Bloor West Village, the room will now here from @crs1026 on the wisdom of this tweak.

LOL In general I think Councillor Morley did a far better job of distilling reasonable objections and transforming pain points into motions and pro-active suggestions than Holyday's nuclear "Just say no" defense.
The one that made me laugh was Martin Grove from Eglinton to the Westway.....considering there is sufficient street width to land a 747 along that stretch of MG, a more astute Councillor would have supported that one as a token of support for cycling, just to refute the accusation that they are anti-bike.
The right on red change on Bloor was not pre-advertised to the community and while it may be technically sound given the new road layout it is an oddball feature of the plan and a significant change in Etobicoke driving habits. And since TPS have shown absolutely no interest in enforcement, one wonders how anyone thought the change would go smoothly. It needs a change strategy.
I do think city staff will need to monitor and be active in tweaking the design....this is not one they can declare "complete" and walk away from. The motions put some onus on staff to keep this on the front burner and open the door to a more constructive dialogue....there may be plenty of whining but also good reasons to keep designing...
Another consideration is that the Bloor west of the Humber is rife with upcoming development plans - anything built now will face major interference from construction activities. This is not grounds to defer anything, but again staff will need to keep this on the to-do list as there will be a decade or so of responding to complaints over blocked lanes, cyclist diversions into traffic lanes, etc. I like the focus on better infrastructure in any development applications.... but Bloor is only so wide. I expect developers and businesses will keep lobbying for the ability to build out, putting walking and cycling at risk very low priority.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

Terrible attitude! The by-law officers have to start somewhere & breaking the rules is breaking the rules regardless of whether or not someone else is breaking some other rule. I don't get people who try to argue and deflect like that. Sputtering just makes them even more worthy of shame. The word "entitled" gets thrown around a lot, but that's what that attitude is.

Agreed, but I think it comes from a place of frustration with Toronto Bylaw’s selective enforcement and willful blindness rather than entitlement. I see the very rare off leash dog in this park, but one park over there are over a dozen squatters encamped in plain sight of bylaw officers. Same goes for graffiti over much of downtown east, where the bylaws state the property owner must remove it, but seemingly with impunity, never do. And then there’s construction noise, and to bring it back on topic, construction firms blocking bike lanes. In my own career we have a mantra that we do the hard stuff first, tackle the big challenges.

So, let's have Toronto mercilessly enforce its bike path bylaws, https://www.toronto.ca/services-pay...ation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/

I would like to see a bounty program. https://www.thebikinglawyer.ca/post/bike-lane-parking-bounties-automated-enforcement

 

[smably]

there are over a dozen squatters encamped in plain sight of bylaw officers

Do you seriously think bylaw officers ticketing people living in tents in a park would solve anything?

1. Why Brad Bradford specifically wanted to prioritize vehicular traffic on St. Clair and Vic Park (maybe that’s too aggressive a reading?)

Bradford's hard-right turn has taken him into the bizarre role (as a cyclist himself) of cycling skeptic. He's basically a mini-Holyday now. He voted for all of Holyday's anti-cycling motions yesterday, including the one to remove existing bike lanes from Bloor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806482033499140581

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806482423107961033

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806484680813740084

 

[Northern Light]

Bradford's hard-right turn has taken him into the bizarre role (as a cyclist himself) of cycling skeptic. He's basically a mini-Holyday now. He voted for all of Holyday's anti-cycling motions yesterday, including the one to remove existing bike lanes from Bloor.

I have plenty of issues w/Brad..........plenty......

But I will say this about the above.......and extend it to several other votes one sees at Council........ what you think you're seeing is not always what you're seeing. (though sometimes it is)

This is particularly true when a Councillor either makes, or supports a motion that they know full well will lose (in other words, its zero risk).

I can't speak to Brad's motivation's here, the upside for him isn't obvious (I'll add here, whether or not he keeps his word, he said he would not run in the next election as Councillor)

 

[smably]

This is particularly true when a Councillor either makes, or supports a motion that they know full well will lose (in other words, its zero risk).

Either Bradford secretly supports cycling and wants better infrastructure but wants to be seen as someone who's anti-cycling, or he's legitimately done a full 180 and agrees with Holiday that we should rip out bike lanes. The former is cynical and dishonest, the latter is stupid and dangerous. I'm not letting him off the hook either way!

 

[Northern Light]

Either Bradford secretly supports cycling and wants better infrastructure but wants to be seen as someone who's anti-cycling, or he's legitimately done a full 180 and agrees with Holiday that we should rip out bike lanes. The former is cynical and dishonest, the latter is stupid and dangerous. I'm not letting him off the hook either way!

Just to amuse you.........I offer that Brad voted on this item while standing beside his bike (he pulled over to vote), you can see him helmet on as he's voting.

Here's a screenshot: