TheGrimSweeper
New Member
Is it just cause they think the province isn't actually going to do anything?
Is it just cause they think the province isn't actually going to do anything?
Star story on it..
Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start in March, court rules
CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.
![]()
Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start next week, court rules
CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.www.thestar.com
From the linked article:
View attachment 636746
What's curious to me is that the judge had openly hinted he might grant the injunction.
"Reducing Gridlock, Saving you Time!"what's IS the legislation's started purpose? to decrease car travel times?
Firestone found many of the advocates’ arguments legitimate, opening the door to a lively case at the Charter challenge stage in April.
In court, Ontario argued the cyclists were essentially asserting a right to bike lanes. But Firestone agreed that the applicants are challenging the government’s decision “to suddenly and without justification remove an existing risk-reduction mechanism.”
“In summary, there is a live issue as to whether, in the Charter context, removal of the target bike lanes constitutes state action capable of depriving Charter rights,” he wrote, adding that “thorough analysis” may be needed to determine whether the law to remove bike lanes is “grossly disproportionate” with the government’s stated justification of reducing gridlock.
Ontario’s lawyer argued that despite any harms that may or may not come to pass as a result of the bike lane removals, the legislature has the final say, and that cyclists won’t face “irreparable harm” from the loss of the lanes.
Firestone disagreed, writing that he was “satisfied that on balance the applicants have established that they will suffer harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms or cannot be cured or compensated.”
If that logic is what the judge is using in the wider case, I'm very concerned indeed. It's a circular type of reasoning that is extremely hostile to cyclists."The evidence also suggests that if the lanes are removed, the volume of cyclists using these roads will decrease significantly, such that the raw total of cyclist collisions will be largely unaffected," he wrote.
So as per the judge it's a valid argument to claim that it's okay to make the road less safe for cyclists as long as it becomes so unsafe that it scares the cyclists away from using it?
Perhaps I am not quite understanding the context of this quote.
Yeah, I don't know why Doug Ford didn't build the bike lanes in the hydro corridor near Bloor Street - and the other one near Yonge Street.As mentioned , MTO had plans to remove bike lanes in 2026 to 2027. So just because the judge says the province can remove it this month legally, It doesn't mean it will actually happen this month.
And this might be what starts the ball rolling on other bike lanes within Toronto.
I'm curious to know if the province will remove the bike lanes and then bill the city after? Or will they be footing the bill. Also, will the province also be designing the street layouts? I'm curious how they plan on going about it. There's more to it than just removing the bike lanes. The city even installed a lot of cycling lights as well. So the province really should be footing the bill and not sending it to the city. We'll see.
I remember there were issues with buses passing each other, particularly on Bloor. Even Brad Bradford brought it up when he was on the TTC board. At minimum make it so buses have proper bus stops, bus pads and room to operate.
Doug Ford could have at least given cyclist options with other cycling corridors. Even if it were hydro corridors. Something than just removing them and aleinating a transportation group.
As mentioned , MTO had plans to remove bike lanes in 2026 to 2027. So just because the judge says the province can remove it this month legally, It doesn't mean it will actually happen this month.
And this might be what starts the ball rolling on other bike lanes within Toronto.
I'm curious to know if the province will remove the bike lanes and then bill the city after? Or will they be footing the bill. Also, will the province also be designing the street layouts? I'm curious how they plan on going about it. There's more to it than just removing the bike lanes. The city even installed a lot of cycling lights as well. So the province really should be footing the bill and not sending it to the city. We'll see.
I remember there were issues with buses passing each other, particularly on Bloor. Even Brad Bradford brought it up when he was on the TTC board. At minimum make it so buses have proper bus stops, bus pads and room to operate.
Doug Ford could have at least given cyclist options with other cycling corridors. Even if it were hydro corridors. Something than just removing them and aleinating a transportation group.
Ontario will not begin removing bike lanes until March 20 at the earliest, the Transportation Ministry has said. The cyclists sought the injunction to prevent any biking infrastructure from being removed between that date and the court hearing on April 16.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the judge is saying that the number of cyclists using these routes will decrease for safety reasons, but rather for convenience reasons."The evidence also suggests that if the lanes are removed, the volume of cyclists using these roads will decrease significantly, such that the raw total of cyclist collisions will be largely unaffected," he wrote.
So as per the judge it's a valid argument to claim that it's okay to make the road less safe for cyclists as long as it becomes so unsafe that it scares the cyclists away from using it?
Perhaps I am not quite understanding the context of this quote.
Why would it be more convenient to take longer routes, not on the main road, where everything is?I may be wrong, but I don't think the judge is saying that the number of cyclists using these routes will decrease for safety reasons, but rather for convenience reasons.




