H4F33Z
Active Member
100A spotted with RapidTO livery? I assume this is promotional.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
The problems with physical barriers is they eat into lane width and can be problematic for snow removal.
As a general statement, roadway markings have no force in law unless they are backed by a regulation (or a bylaw if empowered by a regulation), although there are a few exceptions. I'm not sure there are any regulations regarding lane colourings.
allengeorge
Senior Member
I heard there may be these flexipost things that could be placed every so often. They may even have been used by the city in other places...
robmausser
Senior Member
Pretty soon the entire city is just going to be one big flexipost.
I heard the CN Tower is actually an homage to the flexipost gods
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Shouldn't the bus routes scheduled to be RapidTO (BRT light) return to use their 9nn Express bus routing by now?
- Eglinton Avenue East/Kingston Road/Morningside Avenue from Kennedy Subway Station to the University of Toronto, Scarborough.
Effective date: October 11, 2020
- Jane Street from Eglinton Avenue to Steeles Avenue.
- Dufferin Street from Dufferin Gate to Wilson Avenue.
- Steeles Avenue West from Yonge Street to Pioneer Village Subway Station.
- Finch Avenue East from Yonge Street to McCowan Road.
DSC
Superstar
This TTC webpage about improving accessibility of bus stops is interesting...
They state
They state
- Despite all work being on City ROW, Councillors may receive some complaints from adjacent property owners. Threats from property owners to staff who are implementing legally mandated accessibility construction — in support of people with disabilities — are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
Northern Light
Superstar
Threatening staff is clearly, without equivocation, unacceptable.
My assumption here, is that this will be the take of a portion of someone's front yard.
Which the City may well own and/or have easement over, as is common.
However, I do have a modicum of sympathy for those unawares of the ROW issue; as in my experience many people aren't.
I'd add here that many people landscape to the edge of their yard, so have the City take down any portion of a garden/fence/rockwall etc could be a tad upsetting.
I also wonder if the City notifies the de facto owner of the property in advance of work taking place.
None of the above is to countenance criminality or rudeness; but simply to say I can understand irritation.
****
Relatedly, I wonder if the City could avoid a good deal of this by going through the stop rationalization process before upgrading stops.
I can see the City/TTC upgrading literally 500 stops that will be decommissioned over the next 3-4 years.
Assuming a cost of $3,000 per stop (that's a guess, a typical park bench + pad reads as 5k in the City's books)
You could easily be looking at 1.5M in wasted work; and needless aggravation.
Its important the system be made accessible; but its rather a waste to make a stop accessible that won't be there in 2024.
DSC
Superstar
The problem is that many property owners are not aware of where their property ends and assume that the City's "road allowance" is theirs. The City is NOT 'taking a portion of someone's front yard".
The TTC notice states that the TTC has contacted the property owners ahead of time:
"Residents and businesses near affected bus stops received/will receive construction notices before the work begins.
- Residents and businesses that were identified as having private encroachments within the City ROW were/will be notified with a letter outlining the specific encroachment to be removed and an outline of the expected construction."
Northern Light
Superstar
Agree on the problem statement.
One question I have is whether Real Estate agents clearly explain this in layman's terms at time of sale.
A lot of people seem taken aback by this issue; which could be entirely wilful ignorance. But my instinct is that a better job should be done creating awareness of this issue.
I note that when front yard fences are installed, no one installs them across the middle of the lawn.
I wonder again if contractors understand these issues properly, and if the City when issuing permits (lets be frank, many people don't get them); but for those that do, I wonder about the City even allowing a fence on their property; and how that would be communicated through the permit process.
DSC
Superstar
Part of the problem is that property owners can encroach without permits for many things like fences and pathways. See: https://www.toronto.ca/services-pay...arking-by-laws-regulations/street-use-by-law/ The catch is that the City can demand things be removed if/when the City needs that City-owned land, as is happening here.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Same with trees on city property. They can be pruned, removed, replaced, or planted on city property. A sidewalk can be installed on city property, unless the ward councillor is anti-pedestrian (IE. Councillor Mike Colle, Councillor Mark Grimes, and others) and vetoes the installation.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
The TTC 905 started running again today actually. Took it from Kingston/Lawrence and got to Kennedy in 16 minutes!
lenaitch
Senior Member
I've bought and sold a number of properties, both rural and urban, and have never had the issue of municipal allowance pointed out (although I am well aware of it). It might be something a real estate agent could do informally but it sounds more appropriately on the plate of the transaction lawyer.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Here, of course, we're in a forum of urban, planning policy, infrastructure geeks! LOL (among whom I proudly count myself).
But among the general public, I don't think this sort of thing is as well known.
It really should be made clear when buying a property, to the prospective buyer.
Not only what is theirs and what is not; but also what the implications are in terms of maintenance, liability, and where you build that fence.