[TRONto]

Davisville is 4 lanes. I thought this isn't permitted anymore?

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Finally got to check out that Lower Don switchback people here have been focused on a lot lately. Fingers crossed the Lower Don Trail reopens later this spring so we can check this out up close!

 

[UntitledCyclist]

Finally got to check out that Lower Don switchback people here have been focused on a lot lately. Fingers crossed the Lower Don Trail reopens later this spring so we can check this out up close!

View attachment 726417
View attachment 726418View attachment 726419

that last step is a doozy!

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Didn't know the "Communist Chinese" (as Doug Ford mentions) is so interested in bike lanes.

Doug Ford’s government won’t hand over bike lane emails. Why critics say it’s a sign of things to come​

From https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/doug-fords-government-wont-hand-over-bike-lane-emails-why-critics-say-its-a-sign-of-things-to-come/article_7e3a7817-1de9-4dde-8cdd-9bb7c356ea72.html

As Premier Doug Ford prepares to reduce records available for public scrutiny, FOI advocates say the provincial officials are already helping keep documents secret by dragging their heels for months on end.

In November 2024 the Star first filed a freedom of information request with Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation for communications sent or received by the minister and five ministry officials, containing the words “bike lanes.”

The request followed Prabmeet Sarkaria’s announcement that his government would force the removal of some Toronto bike lanes — legislation that sparked intense public debate, a legal challenge now being deliberated by Ontario’s Court of Appeal, and, finally, a compromise with the city of Toronto to preserve the Bloor Street bike lane while resurrecting a vehicle lane.

Sixteen months later, the Star has not received any internal emails, reports or other records from Sarkaria’s ministry. Nor has it received a ministry decision about which records it considers releasable and which it will try to keep secret under Ontario’s government transparency laws.

In March, the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner — which ordered the Transportation Ministry in August to give the Star its decision no later than last Sept. 18 — said the ministry “has advised that it is actively working on responding to your request.” The ministry has provided the Star with such assurances since late 2024.

FOI process dragged out​

The timeline doesn’t surprise government transparency advocates. Though Premier Doug Ford’s government has come under fire for moving to retroactively shield records from public scrutiny, they say the Ontario government was already dragging out the current freedom-of-information (FOI) process — potentially making records no longer relevant to public debate or decision-making.

“The FOI system in Ontario is barely adequate” now, said James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, with little to stop the province from delaying release until records are “stale to the point of being useless.

“And instead of dramatically increasing access to records, for which people have a right, Ford is moving to dramatically reduce public access.”
The Ford government announced a new law that will make records of the premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices exempt from FOI laws. Members of the public could still seek records created by civil servants in government ministries.

The change would be retroactive, potentially ending the Star’s bike lane request as it pertains to records created by Sarkaria and named officials in his office. It could affect other ongoing battles for provincial records involving the Greenbelt scandal and Ford cellphone records ordered by the IPC to be released to Global News.

Patricia Kosseim, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, said that Ford retroactively expanding FOI exemptions would send a message that “if oversight bodies get in the way, just change the rules.”

She added that FOI laws exist to give Ontarians “vital information about how government decisions are made, on what basis, who influenced them, and whether the public interest is being served.”

Initial request sent in 2024​

The Star’s Nov. 19, 2024 FOI request asked for communications containing the phrase ”bike lanes,” sent or received by Sarkaria, and named political staff and ministry officials, between April 1, 2024 and Nov. 18, 2024.

The government foot-dragging “is not surprising, given who’s doing it,” said Turk, referring to Ford, whom he said makes a show of transparency by offering his personal cell number but, since becoming premier in 2018, has repeatedly fought to keep publicly funded records secret.

“What is surprising is that the privacy commissioner hasn’t been a little more aggressive in pushing” Sarkaria’s ministry to provide a response to the Star’s request which, he noted, could be a refusal to release some or all of the records, which the Star would have to fight with another complaint to the commissioner.

Some records potentially covered by the Star’s FOI request have been made public through court proceedings, including records showing the government had research showing that removing bike lanes might not alleviate congestion, as Ford had assured the public, and could increase the number of cyclists hit by drivers.

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, told the Star that Ontario’s FOI regime is already “so full of loopholes it really should be called the ‘guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know’ law.

“As long as there is no penalty for violating the freedom of information law, Cabinet ministers, government institutions, and public officials will continue to violate the law regularly by keeping secret or delaying disclosure of information and government records that the public has a clear legal right to see.”

Motorists parking illegally face greater penalties than government officials ignoring orders to release records, he said.

Sarkaria did not respond to a Star request to his office for comment for this story.

Asked for comment on delays of record releases despite IPC orders, Kosseim’s office emailed a statement noting that wilfully failing to comply with such an order is a provincial offence.

Prosecution could be triggered by anyone but only with consent of Ontario’s attorney general — a member of the Ford government. The privacy commissioner can in some cases, such as personal health privacy breaches, file orders with Superior Court, which are then treated as court orders. However the privacy commissioner does not have that explicit power for FOI breaches.

The privacy commissioner has, over the years, urged the province to modernize laws so that FOI breaches can be referred to Superior Court and enforced as court orders, it said.

“Unfortunately, our efforts have not been successful, but we will continue to advocate for these changes, including as part of any upcoming legislative proposals.”

 

[StreetcarRider]

Saw this thing last week, on Gerrard St E at Parliament, facing east.

What is it?

 

[txlseries4]

Saw this thing last week, on Gerrard St E at Parliament, facing east.

What is it?

View attachment 726549

If you’re talking about the origami looking thing it’s one of six “public Art Installations/Light Posts titled ‘Let There Be Light’ for Daniels on Parliament”

Peter Kattan Design

Peter Kattan is a multidisciplinary Mixed Media, Installation Artist & Furniture Designer with a background in Fine Arts, Branding, Advertising and User Experience Design.

www.peterkattandesign.com

Photos from the install:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

edit: relevant thread here https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...parliament-88-25m-25s-daniels-superkül.30036/

 

[StreetcarRider]

If you’re talking about the origami looking thing it’s one of six “public Art Installations/Light Posts titled ‘Let There Be Light’ for Daniels on Parliament”

Peter Kattan Design

Peter Kattan is a multidisciplinary Mixed Media, Installation Artist & Furniture Designer with a background in Fine Arts, Branding, Advertising and User Experience Design.

www.peterkattandesign.com

Photos from the install:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

edit: relevant thread here https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-regent-park-daniels-on-parliament-88-25m-25s-daniels-superkül.30036/

Thanks! Parliament should have nice lights.

The curious thing to me is the paving below the light installation. It kind-of looks like a dedicated, bi-directional bike lane. In today's day and age, however, it's often good to moderate expectations, so thought I'd check with everybody about what it actually is.

Edited to add: the city website says that the planned changes to bike lanes west of Parliament are up in the air because of provincial legislation. There seems to be an information desert about current plans for east Parliament. An older plan called for separated bi-directional bike infrastructure on the south side of Gerrard between Parliament and River, which would be most excellent, and might still be possible despite provincial legislation.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Thanks! Parliament should have nice lights.

The curious thing to me is the paving below the light installation. It kind-of looks like a dedicated, bi-directional bike lane. In today's day and age, however, it's often good to moderate expectations, so thought I'd check with everybody about what it actually is.

Edited to add: the city website says that the planned changes to bike lanes west of Parliament are up in the air because of provincial legislation. There seems to be an information desert about current plans for east Parliament. An older plan called for separated bi-directional bike infrastructure on the south side of Gerrard between Parliament and River, which would be most excellent, and might still be possible despite provincial legislation.

Interesting. It's probably easier to incorporate a bi-directional cycle track when that Gerrard-Parliament southeast corner is undergoing development. Going past Dreamers Way could be more challenging given existing apartment buildings.

 

[StreetcarRider]

Interesting. It's probably easier to incorporate a bi-directional cycle track when that Gerrard-Parliament southeast corner is undergoing development. Going past Dreamers Way could be more challenging given existing apartment buildings.

The exciting thing is that those apartment buildings have been demolished! All the old buildings on the south side of Gerrard are slated to be demolished. With construction of the new replacements, there is a chance to basically take enough space on the south side of Gerrard to make bi-directional bike lanes without changing car/streetcar lanes. This was the plan at one point. Very much hoping it's still the plan.

Here's the forum for the redevelopment east of Dreamers Way:

Regent Park: Phases 4 and 5 | 134.1m | 39s | Tridel | Karakusevic Carson Architects

The Star has now caught up to what @HousingNowTO was updating us all on more than 3 weeks ago. https://www.thestar.com/real-estate/how-a-city-vortex-chamber-threw-the-final-plans-for-regent-parks-revitalization-into-disarray/article_89bb0246-a694-11ef-84ff-87747c78eaf9.html The above...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

The curious thing to me is the paving below the light installation. It kind-of looks like a dedicated, bi-directional bike lane. In today's day and age, however, it's often good to moderate expectations, so thought I'd check with everybody about what it actually is.

Edited to add: the city website says that the planned changes to bike lanes west of Parliament are up in the air because of provincial legislation. There seems to be an information desert about current plans for east Parliament. An older plan called for separated bi-directional bike infrastructure on the south side of Gerrard between Parliament and River, which would be most excellent, and might still be possible despite provincial legislation.

It is a bidirectional cycle track.

Provincial legislation has no impact on what's been built, as it doesn't subtract any vehicle lanes, its achieved by building setbacks.

That can be built all the way east to River, but only as the new buildings are constructed. So it won't be terribly useful in the early years.

I believe the drawings for the next phase line up in this way. But don't hold me to that.

Edit: Found it; its there in the Site Plan:

 

[StreetcarRider]

It is a bidirectional cycle track.

Provincial legislation has no impact on what's been built, as it doesn't subtract any vehicle lanes, its achieved by building setbacks.

That can be built all the way east to River, but only as the new buildings are constructed. So it won't be terribly useful in the early years.

I believe the drawings for the next phase line up in this way. But don't hold me to that.

Thanks! It's so great. Delighted to know the lanes are in the plan. Don't care if it takes a while to build.

These lanes will help if some of the Dundas lanes get ripped out. The Dundas lanes are popular in the east end but don't go all the way downtown and, it seems to me, are vulnerable to being removed in the Regent Park area sometime in the future. Last time I looked, some of the signs declaring the lanes as temporary pandemic measures were still up.

With good lanes on Gerrard St E, people coming in from the east end on Dundas could get downtown on quality infrastructure. The River lanes would connect to the Gerrard, Shuter or West Donlands lanes, depending on the final destination.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

Trying to make yet another 311 quest for impeded bike lanes on Eglinton (east this time) and I find the process almost designed to push users away.
Here is the first question they ask you, which requires a "yes" to proceed.

Is your request related to items constructed, or placed on City property (boulevards, sidewalks, roads, bicycle lanes) that were not installed or placed by the City?

So... if the items were "installed or placed by the city" you cannot make this request? In my case I am reporting broken panels of barriers, which were definitely installed by the city, they just didn't stay in place. Obviously I will say "yes" so I can proceed, but it's so hard to parse this weird negative construction: like it was written by an AI generated city lawyer.

The next section asks for the specific type of encroachment. Again, I am reporting broken pieces of city barriers lying in the bike lane. I don't really know which of these applies as they were not "constructed" or "placed" in the lane, they just broke off and are lying there and they are too big, heavy and sharp-edged to just toss out of the way. I think I chose the right option, but who knows?

Then you have to give an address. In this case it's a bike lane on Eglinton East under the CP rail overpass between Don Mills and Leslie. There is no address here that can be found. If I choose either major intersection as a starting point, the system won't allow me to move the pin to the underpass as it is "too far." This system is biased against off-street reporting in parks or trails or other stretches that don't have nearby addresses or intersections.

The UI will not let you just drag and drop a pin to start. And you cannot use GPS coordinates like from Google Maps, which I have from photo data. So the only option is to select "address cannot be found" then write in the location details.

Also note that the city's mapping system will not show a lot of street names, even at max zoom which makes it hard to navigate and wayfind on the map.

The process takes too long and is not user friendly. In the end it would probably be easier to do a phone request. I did this on a browser, but I don't think the app is appreciably different. It should work both ways in any case.

I would make a 311 complaint about all this but I think I'm done for the day.

 

[Northern Light]

Trying to make yet another 311 quest for impeded bike lanes on Eglinton (east this time) and I find the process almost designed to push users away.
Here is the first question they ask you, which requires a "yes" to proceed.

So... if the items were "installed or placed by the city" you cannot make this request? In my case I am reporting broken panels of barriers, which were definitely installed by the city, they just didn't stay in place. Obviously I will say "yes" so I can proceed, but it's so hard to parse this weird negative construction: like it was written by an AI generated city lawyer.


The next section asks for the specific type of encroachment. Again, I am reporting broken pieces of city barriers lying in the bike lane. I don't really know which of these applies as they were not "constructed" or "placed" in the lane, they just broke off and are lying there and they are too big, heavy and sharp-edged to just toss out of the way. I think I chose the right option, but who knows?


Then you have to give an address. In this case it's a bike lane on Eglinton East under the CP rail overpass between Don Mills and Leslie. There is no address here that can be found. If I choose either major intersection as a starting point, the system won't allow me to move the pin to the underpass as it is "too far." This system is biased against off-street reporting in parks or trails or other stretches that don't have nearby addresses or intersections.

The UI will not let you just drag and drop a pin to start. And you cannot use GPS coordinates like from Google Maps, which I have from photo data. So the only option is to select "address cannot be found" then write in the location details.

For fixing issues w/311, that are structural, talk to Danielle Seraphim, who is the Executive Director - Customer Experience ( '311')

Check your messages.

Also note that the city's mapping system will not show a lot of street names, even at max zoom which makes it hard to navigate and wayfind on the map.

The process takes too long and is not user friendly. In the end it would probably be easier to do a phone request. I did this on a browser, but I don't think the app is appreciably different. It should work both ways in any case.

In such cases you use the closest City street address, but explain if possible.

In this case, that would be 1155 Eglinton East or 1083 on the north side, take your choice.

Use this program:

Toronto Maps

map.toronto.ca

Zoom in, go to properties and pick address:

But the most accurate ID is the bridge ID, which is:

Bridge ID124

Note, you can upload photos to 311, and you can use 'screenshot' on the map above (as I did) and u/l that screenshot showing the exact location. (yes, that's a pain, no excuses for 311 clunkiness, just saying)

I would make a 311 complaint about all this but I think I'm done for the day.

LOL I would laugh so hard.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Thanks! It's so great. Delighted to know the lanes are in the plan. Don't care if it takes a while to build.

These lanes will help if some of the Dundas lanes get ripped out. The Dundas lanes are popular in the east end but don't go all the way downtown and, it seems to me, are vulnerable to being removed in the Regent Park area sometime in the future. Last time I looked, some of the signs declaring the lanes as temporary pandemic measures were still up.

With good lanes on Gerrard St E, people coming in from the east end on Dundas could get downtown on quality infrastructure. The River lanes would connect to the Gerrard, Shuter or West Donlands lanes, depending on the final destination.

I hope the Dundas bike lanes east of River don't get removed. We need those to provide east end residents a safe way to get to downtown. Hopefully, this can be complemented by extending the recently constructed Eastern MUP west towards Power Street within the next few years.

Good to know regarding the developments on Gerrard, @Northern Light & @StreetcarRider. Thanks.

 

[Erich Nelson]

Trying to make yet another 311 quest for impeded bike lanes on Eglinton (east this time) and I find the process almost designed to push users away.
Here is the first question they ask you, which requires a "yes" to proceed.

So... if the items were "installed or placed by the city" you cannot make this request? In my case I am reporting broken panels of barriers, which were definitely installed by the city, they just didn't stay in place. Obviously I will say "yes" so I can proceed, but it's so hard to parse this weird negative construction: like it was written by an AI generated city lawyer.

View attachment 726574
The next section asks for the specific type of encroachment. Again, I am reporting broken pieces of city barriers lying in the bike lane. I don't really know which of these applies as they were not "constructed" or "placed" in the lane, they just broke off and are lying there and they are too big, heavy and sharp-edged to just toss out of the way. I think I chose the right option, but who knows?

View attachment 726576
Then you have to give an address. In this case it's a bike lane on Eglinton East under the CP rail overpass between Don Mills and Leslie. There is no address here that can be found. If I choose either major intersection as a starting point, the system won't allow me to move the pin to the underpass as it is "too far." This system is biased against off-street reporting in parks or trails or other stretches that don't have nearby addresses or intersections.

The UI will not let you just drag and drop a pin to start. And you cannot use GPS coordinates like from Google Maps, which I have from photo data. So the only option is to select "address cannot be found" then write in the location details.

View attachment 726577

Also note that the city's mapping system will not show a lot of street names, even at max zoom which makes it hard to navigate and wayfind on the map.

The process takes too long and is not user friendly. In the end it would probably be easier to do a phone request. I did this on a browser, but I don't think the app is appreciably different. It should work both ways in any case.

I would make a 311 complaint about all this but I think I'm done for the day.

Try using the new https://solveto.ca/ app. I used it for a blocked drain and it seems to work well