News   Jun 21, 2024
Extending Sheppard Line 4… The Better Way
 3.6K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
Tenblock to Transform Tower-in-the-Park into Vibrant Urban Community
 1.4K     2 
News   Jun 21, 2024
Vaughan, QuadReal Shake Hands on Performing and Cultural Arts Centre
 1.6K     1 

Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

generalcanada said:
is there any update to the recent bike lane installations? like dan leckie and portland?
Click to expand...

Dan Leckie will more than likely move ahead shortly.

Portland may be held up for a bit......

There are some issues around managing with competing construction projects in the vicinity.
 
The 2025-2027 Cycling Plan is up at Ctte today.

I'm taking a peek in on proceedings from time to time.

This one will likely not be voted on til after lunch, we're currently on speaker 22 of 43 (from the public).

After that you get questions of staff, and then councillors speaking and moving motions.
 
Northern Light said:
Dan Leckie will more than likely move ahead shortly.

Portland may be held up for a bit......

There are some issues around managing with competing construction projects in the vicinity.
Click to expand...
Portland commons isnt finished yet, betting thats holding that up
Guess that means this is effectively 2 different projects
 
We got through the speakers list on the 2025-2027 Plan.

I did not have a chance to listen to them all by any means, but got the impression there was lots of support, but a few opponents, most of those from Holyday's ward I think (Complaints about Bloor).

***

We have now moved onto speakers for the current year approvals, so we have another 25 or so of those to go before any motions/votes.

***

A lot of opposition to the Parkdale Connections Plan, several speakers. One of whom is a commuter cyclist whose husband is also a commuter cyclist. A lot of the opposition seems to centre on one or two streets, particularly Macdonell.
 
Last edited:
Ok, we're on to motions...........this one is of interest, from Chair McKelvie:

1716927332211.png



The above passed.

There were no problematic motions.

Both cycling items pass as amended.

* Of note, Councillor Kandeval spoke and got the chair to move a motion, but it was only to advance a final report on the Scarborough West Rail Trail.


****


Here's the full set of motions (all passed) on 2025-2027 Cycling Plan:

1716927714299.png


Edit to flag @Metroscapes whose excellent work on public access to the Lakefront dovetails nicely w/the suggestion here of reviving this past link.
 
Last edited:
Some other positive news..........

This may adversely affect @allengeorge 's natural instinct for pessimism, LOL

But should please @TwinHuey among others...

www.toronto.ca

Shape the Future of Danforth Avenue and Kingston Road

Public consultation events have been scheduled for June 18, 19, and 25, 2024. The same information will be presented at all events. See details below. Further information and online feedback opportunities will be posted in the coming days. City of Toronto is inviting you to provide feedback on...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

From the above:

1716945597753.png


1716945621104.png
 
Northern Light said:
Hold on there Allen............. TL : DR ? It was only ~2,800 words! (yes, I put it through a word counter, cause I couldn't believe you called it 'long') LOL I mean that's less than 12 typical pages for a High School essay.

****

As for Robert's take.......... he'll love me for this.......... ornery and naive.

I like Robert, which is more than can be said for many, LOL ; but when he pontificates on what he'd like to see, he seems unable to grasp how exactly he would get that through Council.

His essential complaint is that the plan is of the same scale as the one now winding down, about 100km over 3 years.

However, in most years, we have yet to hit the requisite pace to deliver that number (we should be close this year). While I'm all for saying 40km or 50km or 100km per year would be nice, that's just a pie-the-sky number if you don't have a plan to deliver it. Staff have, by and large brought forward sufficient plans to hit the goal of the last plan. But as Robert notes, a couple of big pieces got pushed off (ie. Danforth-Kingston), though these will hopefully still be delivered in the next year or two.

Robert, however, seems blissfully unaware of things like by-elections, unsupportive councilors, less than cooperative agency partners, and utilities impact outcomes. To double the plan, to pick an arbitrary target, you need roughly double the staff count, you need double the implementation budget, you need some ruthless push from the top to ensure interdepartmental cooperation, and then you need more than a little luck.

The Mayor has (and will further) jack taxes. I support this, but its important to realize the first part of that exercise was about nothing but erasing a current operating shortfall, it didn't fund anything new.

Its the increases that will (or will not) come next year that can fund 'service enhancement'. If/when new money shows up, there are a lot of hands out............see all the clamouring to accelerate the Gardiner project (the province would have to agree); more for TTC, Parks, Library, the Arts, public realm, recreation, housing etc. are all desired/needed.

Then there's the matter of lining up votes to get something through Council.

He seems to want more cycle tracks in wards where the Councillors will offer luke warm support at best, and probably something less than that. The problem here is not the staff plan; its the Councillors.......staff can't change those; voters can.

Sigh.
Click to expand...
Rob Zaichkowski is an extremely dedicated cycling activist who works in the public eye, instead of under an alias on an urbanist forum. And your take here feels quite mean-spirited, and status-quo centric. I disagree with Rob often, but "ornery and naive?" "Blissfully unaware?" I am quite sure with your IQ, you are able to disagree with someone at a higher level of conduct.
 
UntitledCyclist said:
Rob Zaichkowski is an extremely dedicated cycling activist who works in the public eye
Click to expand...

I know exactly who Rob is; I was one of the first readers of his blog, lo those many years ago.

UntitledCyclist said:
, instead of under an alias on an urbanist forum.
Click to expand...

Now, that's a low blow for no reason. If I put my real name out there, all the literally thousands of tidbits of inside information I'm able to share about development, cycling, parks and planning go away.

I think it works out pretty well that I use a pseudonym, like the vast majority of posters here, including yourself.

UntitledCyclist said:
And your take here feels quite mean-spirited, and status-quo centric. I disagree with Rob often, but "ornery and naive?" "Blissfully unaware?" I am quite sure with your IQ, you are able to disagree with someone at a higher level of conduct.
Click to expand...

I actually said :I liked Rob....... I don't see how that's mean.

The reality is he is on the abrasive side to many, many people. He also has lots of critiques of City's policy (so do I) and I put them in print often. But his aren't paired so often with acknowledgement of hard work.

Naive may seem mean, but its not intended in such a fashion, its meant to reflect that Rob puts forward programs of near unlimited ambition with no clear sense of how to actually deliver on that.

*****

I've been a cycling activist longer than Rob (though not by so many years), but I go back to doing this pre-amalgamation.

I appreciate Rob's intentions and efforts; but they could at times, be better focused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
I didn't mean for that to be a low blow. I was just trying to paint the picture.

I appreciate what you bring here, but I just feel too often the cycling community turns on ourselves. I don't want to contribute to that as well, so I apologize if I was too strident.

If someone can't be public-facing with advocacy, I don't hold it against them, but it's a different to being a vocal blogger and deputant under a real name like Rob is.

I really admire what he does, even when I disagree. And I wasn't trying to explain Rob's advocacy to you, but just stating it to make my point so everyone understands.

However long you've been at it, I think being respectful should be the default. I hope we can agree there!

Plus, supporting younger advocates is a key part of making change in a multi-generational project like building a true cycling city.

Those "pie in the sky" expectations are often what end up pushing things forward!

Peace and bike lanes!
 
In Montreal again, and staying closer to the Plateau then downtown for the next couple of nights. Lots of bikes and bike lanes and of all varieties - adults, senior adults, kids. Fully protected lanes with verges all the way to painted lines (and even renewed in some sections which is a luxury as painted road markings are a luxury in this town). Bixis everywhere and Bixi mechanics and bicycle movers everywhere around town. And if you are a testerone fueled male driving a Hellcat, better park it, because you are going no where fast. Especially tonight with a bike festival of some sort going on and people of all ages and stages participating in the 30 km(?) route.

I would give this town a leg up on TO where it comes to bicycling as a from of people movement, and other forms of traffic calming and reducing the self importance of the car. I may be wrong, but they my general impression. And it seemed to be so at the office today where there was vociferous complaint about the car tax being raised fron$50 to $150 - seems cheap to me for a form of preferential me first transport.

A couple of photos follow for context, unfortunately not of the quality of some of our other UT’ers.

IMG_0216.jpeg
IMG_0213.jpeg
IMG_0219.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top