[txlseries4]

If I am reading the amendment right - the province is no longer mentioning University bike lanes but now Avenue Rd instead? Or have they simply added the Avenue bike lanes to be removed as well?

Perhaps the permanent infrastructure and contracts being signed on University scared them off?

Unfortunately not, but I can't find a mention of Avenue Road. Below is what I see:

Existing lanes in the City of Toronto, direction to remove
195.6 Subject to any prescribed exemptions or modifications, the Minister shall remove the bicycle lanes located on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street, in the City of Toronto, and any related features, and restore the lanes for use by motor vehicle traffic.

 

[turbanplanner]

you say this as an absolute truth - but we know it's not. it's a gradient.

For example - say we took a lane off of rural Highway 10 between Brampton and Orangeville and replaced it with bike lanes. Do you think it's impact would be negligible and would overall improve economic output?

Obviously not. Nobody will be cycling from Orangeville to Brampton.

The example is a bit facetious, obviously - but there are degrees in between. On one end you have projects like Richmond-Adelaide and the waterfront trail extension across downtown - clear, unambiguous net positive lanes with heavy cyclist use and minimal impact on traffic. and the other, you have theoretical projects like the one I describe which would be laughably ridiculous and clearly not beneficial - but there are a million degrees in between. Bike lanes are not always absolutely beneficial. How many people on the road are making trips under 5km? how many destinations are available in cycling distance? employment opportunities? Is a lot of the traffic commercial vehicles or personal vehicles?

If you can add bike lanes without taking out existing capacity - it's always a win. But when you don't have that space, it needs a closer look of benefits vs. impacts.

For example - Bloor through central Toronto, while technically 4 lanes before the lanes, was mostly operating as a 2-lane street anyway given the huge number of parked cars and illegal stopping occuring. Converting it to a 2-lane road with bike lanes had a very minimal capacity impact for vehicles but provided a safe cyclist space in an area where it's easy to make trips by cycling with shopping, employment, and everything else within 5km for most residents. A win-win.

Further west though, into Bloor West Village - employment is more dispersed. Car volumes are much higher, and the road actually operates with 4 lanes of capacity at all times. It's harder to cycle places as more destinations are simply outside of cycling distance. The lanes effectively cut throughput capacity by 50% by removing a lane, but don't offer a viable alternative for many types of trips that locals make. Maybe it doesn't work out as well.

It's a weighted decision that has to be made - and is far from a universal one.

One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I've taken bikes to big stores before (not Costco specifically, but like Home Depot/Lowe's) and The biggest barrier I actually found was finding a place to park at the store. There were zero options the building and I ended up having to tie up to a chain link fence at the edge of the lot and walk about 100 m back to the store. If the stores provided basic bicycle infrastructure and if the parking lot layouts, especially entering and leaving, weren't actively hostile to anyone not in a car, more people might actually bike there.

The other thing is that if your mode of transport changes, your patterns of use change too. Bikes aren't well suited for picking up groceries for a family for the next two weeks. But they are very well suited for trips of convenience and making farther detours to pick up things. If suburbs build better infrastructure, people will use it.

 

[bearcat]

One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!

Yes most people won't cycle to Costco, it's probably one of the few places that I drive to instead of cycling, what's your point? Having bicycle infrastructure allows me to cycle pretty much everywhere else, and not contribute to traffic other than the twice a month trip to Costco and a few other car trips a month.

My choice most of the time choosing between driving and cycling is what's faster, so to be honest if there was a Costco that was a faster (faster including the time spent looking for parking, which at Costco can be up to 10 minutes) bike ride than drive or at the least not a 40 minute bike ride each way, I would probably bike there and just go more frequently. Unfortunately there is not a Costco downtown.

 

[afransen]

I listened to part of the Minister of Transportation reading out the amendment at the committee (link). They're on a 20 minute recess right now. It sounds really bad. It's like they heard the outrage and said hold my beer.

The outrage is the point. Keep eyes off 413.

 

[afransen]

One of my examples was to look at the people in the suburbs and where they are driving most of the time that isn’t work? Groceries, theatres, the mall?

I don’t see a single person at Costco switching to a bike trip even if there was a lane from their house to the store!

Kids, teenagers, etc. don't seem to matter in your estimation? We need more hurried SUV school drops offs in school zones rather than letting kids use active transportation to safely get themselves to school?

 

[Obsidian]

View attachment 613852

Speciality banning people from suing the province for injury or death caused by these changes is them admitting they know it will make the street more dangerous, but they don't care.

 

[evandyk]

This law already exists. The bill just restates existing law in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

@Northern Light this is now the end of the cycling network of Toronto? Sad!

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light this is now the end of the cycling network of Toronto? Sad!

I certainly hope not..........

 

[bearcat]

I certainly hope not..........

Well there doesn't seem like there is anything that can be done at this point, I cannot see this bill not passing and the bike lanes on Bloor, University and Yonge not being removed, with perhaps more in the future. Clearly any sense of opposition that Doug Ford gets is just making him double down even harder.

His party is still polling over 40%, I would not be surprised if they are re-elected.

I used to hate Not Just Bike's overwhelmingly negative attitude and outlook towards the future of cycling infrastructure in North America, but I understand it more now. Maybe it is just worth moving away from Toronto.

Clearly nuance and reason is lost in politics. Honestly, if the plan was to only remove the contentious new bike lanes in the western end of Bloor, I could at least understand. But it seems like this is being done out of spite, and of course to shift focus away from the parts of the bill pertaining to Highway 413.

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

I certainly hope not..........

@Northern Light - What is giving you still hope?

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light - What is giving you still hope?

I'm far too cynical to be hopeful; but I'm also far too cynical to be unduly pessimistic.

I've seen it all, come and go........before and again.

There's not much I can add at this juncture............

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

I'm far too cynical to be hopeful; but I'm also far too cynical to be unduly pessimistic.

I've seen it all, come and go........before and again.

There's not much I can add at this juncture............

@Northern Light light is what we need in this darkness. If I understand you correctly it can be put In essence, the author is expressing a kind of detached familiarity with whatever is being discussed, grounded in their past experiences. They're neither overly excited nor overly concerned, suggesting a "wait-and-see" approach.

 

[bearcat]

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain to me the shenanigans in terms of changing the definitions regarding e-bikes?

See https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-197

The definition of “bicycle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by striking out “a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle” and substituting “a tricycle and a unicycle”.

The definition of “motor vehicle” in subsection 1 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out “a power-assisted bicycle”.

No person who is the owner or is in possession or control of a motor assisted bicycle shall permit a person who is under the age of 16 years to ride on, drive or operate the motor assisted bicycle on a highway.

I've seen some people Tweet about it, and I am confused, does it mean it will be illegal to carry a child on an e-bike?

To me it seems the more narrow definition of "power-assisted" bicycle is gone, and only the more broader definition of " motor assisted" bicycle remains.