Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[txlseries4]

Has Bonnie Crombie said anything about this outrage? Why is she invisible?

She held a presser this morning which got posted to Facebook... lol. There were a couple q's and comments about bike lanes.

Q: "We've seen a shake up at Metrolinx with two individuals who were let go, one who was responsible for rapid transit, is that going far enough?"
A: "Let's just say that gridlock is costing our economy over 13 billion dollars and the one person who's responsible for all this mess is Doug Ford. He's the one who should be responsible for the mess created. His solution is to cancel some bike lanes, as though that will alleviate the gridlock problems. Doug Ford can't be trusted right now. He's announced.. what has he delivered on the crosstown? What about all the other projects?"

Q: "What do you expect from the government during this next session?"
A: "I think more of the same. Gimmicks. Distractions. What this government is really good at doing is booze, bike lanes, and boondoggles, and fantasy tunnels, to distract from the real needs of Ontarians. They're all gimmicks and distractions from the real issues."

Q: "You would reverse the bike lanes?"
A: "You gotta pick a lane, my lane is I'm a provincial politician, those are municipal decisions. Better left to the municipalities. This premier has not giving up on being Mayor of the City of Toronto as far as I can tell. Yet another distraction. Let's focus on the big issues. Metrolinx is failing, they're not delivering on Crosstown and he's worried on about bike lanes, like come on."

 

[adys123]

She held a presser this morning which got posted to Facebook... lol. There were a couple q's and comments about bike lanes.

Q: "We've seen a shake up at Metrolinx with two individuals who were let go, one who was responsible for rapid transit, is that going far enough?"
A: "Let's just say that gridlock is costing our economy over 13 billion dollars and the one person who's responsible for all this mess is Doug Ford. He's the one who should be responsible for the mess created. His solution is to cancel some bike lanes, as though that will alleviate the gridlock problems. Doug Ford can't be trusted right now. He's announced.. what has he delivered on the crosstown? What about all the other projects?"

Q: "What do you expect from the government during this next session?"
A: "I think more of the same. Gimmicks. Distractions. What this government is really good at doing is booze, bike lanes, and boondoggles, and fantasy tunnels, to distract from the real needs of Ontarians. They're all gimmicks and distractions from the real issues."

Q: "You would reverse the bike lanes?"
A: "You gotta pick a lane, my lane is I'm a provincial politician, those are municipal decisions. Better left to the municipalities. This premier has not giving up on being Mayor of the City of Toronto as far as I can tell. Yet another distraction. Let's focus on the big issues. Metrolinx is failing, they're not delivering on Crosstown and he's worried on about bike lanes, like come on."

Well, leaving municipal decisions to municipalities seems a general confirmation that she wouldn't want to waste the minister's resources on every single bike lane project.

 

[leslievillecyclist]

Right the wording has been changed from the news articles a few weeks ago.
The whole "removal of car lanes" section was removed

Right now, as written, If a bike lane has any impact on traffic, even the slightest, its dead.
Simple as that

The provincial news release explicitly says that it applies to "installing new bike lanes that would result in the removal of lanes for traffic" not sure what article you are relying on but the official government word is that this only applies in the case of removal of car lanes. How are car lanes defined is another thing, since most Toronto main roads involve a curb lane that is parking for 95% of the time, which I assume would still count as a car lane but maybe a municipality could argue otherwise.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Right the wording has been changed from the news articles a few weeks ago.
The whole "removal of car lanes" section was removed

Right now, as written, If a bike lane has any impact on traffic, even the slightest, its dead.
Simple as that

Can you please link to the draft legislation, or indicate that you've read it.

Because so far as I can discern the legislation text is not yet public, so assertions as to its exact wording seem premature.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My hope is that this will now force the city and province to be more innovative when it comes to bicycle infrastructure. In many countries bikes lanes are not relegated to the gutter of the road space, but are instead placed completely separate from the road.

 

[generalcanada]

The provincial news release explicitly says that it applies to "installing new bike lanes that would result in the removal of lanes for traffic" not sure what article you are relying on but the official government word is that this only applies in the case of removal of car lanes. How are car lanes defined is another thing, since most Toronto main roads involve a curb lane that is parking for 95% of the time, which I assume would still count as a car lane but maybe a municipality could argue otherwise.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

Can you please link to the draft legislation, or indicate that you've read it.

Because so far as I can discern the legislation text is not yet public, so assertions as to its exact wording seem premature.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bike-lanes-legislation-ontario-ford-sarkaria-1.7352228

The Ontario government says it will introduce legislation that would require municipalities to get provincial approval before building any new bike lanes that reduce lanes of vehicle traffic.

Municipalities would need to demonstrate any proposed bike lanes will not have a "negative impact on vehicle traffic," according to the province.

Hmm im reading it again, The 2 sentences are connected. As in. Only when a lane is removed you need to prove impact on traffic and get approval

When I read it before, it looked like All new bike lanes need approval and have 0 traffic impact.

 

[chrisw]

Maybe we need more road diets for wider sidewalks. Are multi use paths a side walk or bike lanes?

 

[Northern Light]

Hmm im reading it again, The 2 sentences are connected. As in. Only when a lane is removed you need to prove impact on traffic and get approval

When I read it before, it looked like All new bike lanes need approval and have 0 traffic impact.

The bolded is how I would read the statement.

But I remain persuaded that we will need to see the actual wording in the legislation.

****

The Minister has stated there is no intent to have the legislation be retroactive, and it will not remove the controversial lanes on Bloor in Etobicoke.

This does, in theory, provide the City a window to pass additional cycle tracks into law, prior to the provincial legislation receiving royal assent. However, that is again premature as we have yet to see the legislation, and it mostly certainly hasn't passed yet.

 

[leslievillecyclist]

Can you please link to the draft legislation, or indicate that you've read it.

Because so far as I can discern the legislation text is not yet public, so assertions as to its exact wording seem premature.

As you said, there is no draft out. But I think it is a fair characterization that something it explicitly says in the news release and 99% of the coverage on the issue will be in the legislation. Otherwise we could say there's no reason to conclude they will change anything about bike lanes because no legislation is out yet.

 

[Northern Light]

Maybe we need more road diets for wider sidewalks.

Worth saying, that was the original proposal for Jarvis, not bike lanes, but removing the centre lane to widen and beautify the street with new sidewalks and streetscaping.

Something I championed, that was unfortunately sabotaged by well meaning cycling activists, some of whom are dear friends......but whose understanding of politics and infrastructure design was poor.

Are multi use paths a side walk or bike lanes?

They are neither.

It will be interesting to see what wording is used in the legislation.

 

[Northern Light]

But I think it is a fair characterization that something it explicitly says in the news release and 99% of the coverage on the issue will be in the legislation.

What I was questioning was the poster's interpretation of what was said in the news release.

He has subsequently come to read it the same way I have been.

My request for further evidence was to support his different take on the wording.

****

I expect we will see a law that requires that certain proposals for cycle tracks /bike lanes that result in the removal of a traffic lane for cars will be subject to provincial approval.

However, there is lots of wiggle room that may (or may not) be in there based on how how one defines a travel lane for cars (is one that is 95% restricted by parking in or out?), How is this treated if the proposal is for a multi-use path?, what evidence from a municipality is sufficient for provincial approval? Is the approval automatic with said evidence or Minister's discretion? Is there a time limit? etc etc.

I would just like people to wait for the substance before debating details not in evidence.

 

[leslievillecyclist]

What I was questioning was the poster's interpretation of what was said in the news release.

He has subsequently come to read it the same way I have been.

My request for further evidence was to support his different take on the wording.

****

I expect we will see a law that requires that certain proposals for cycle tracks /bike lanes that result in the removal of a traffic lane for cars will be subject to provincial approval.

However, there is lots of wiggle room that may (or may not) be in there based on how how one defines a travel lane for cars (is one that is 95% restricted by parking in or out?), How is this treated if the proposal is for a multi-use path?, what evidence from a municipality is sufficient for provincial approval? Is the approval automatic with said evidence or Minister's discretion? Is there a time limit? etc etc.

I would just like people to wait for the substance before debating details not in evidence.

Sorry I quoted the wrong post. I thought you were the original person I responded to. My apologies
I think the fine wording of this law will be interesting to see if a municipality can find a way around it (and if that will just create a loophole whack a mole game). My main question would be whether already approved but not yet implemented bike lanes will be allowed, since the city recently passed its 3 year network plan, and has multiple projects that are passed and far along in the planning stages but not yet built.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

What I was questioning was the poster's interpretation of what was said in the news release.

He has subsequently come to read it the same way I have been.

My request for further evidence was to support his different take on the wording.

****

I expect we will see a law that requires that certain proposals for cycle tracks /bike lanes that result in the removal of a traffic lane for cars will be subject to provincial approval.

However, there is lots of wiggle room that may (or may not) be in there based on how how one defines a travel lane for cars (is one that is 95% restricted by parking in or out?), How is this treated if the proposal is for a multi-use path?, what evidence from a municipality is sufficient for provincial approval? Is the approval automatic with said evidence or Minister's discretion? Is there a time limit? etc etc.

I would just like people to wait for the substance before debating details not in evidence.

Does removing parking spaces count as removing a traffic lane? If not, can we take out parking on every major street with streetcars running in mixed traffic, and put bike lanes and widened side-walks where the parking spaces were. Win-Win.

 

[evandyk]

I must imagine that in the eyes of the current crowd running this plan, a lane that is parking 22 hours/day but live traffic at rush hour counts as a traffic lane and not a parking lane.

 

[Northern Light]

Does removing parking spaces count as removing a traffic lane? If not, can we take out parking on every major street with streetcars running in mixed traffic, and put bike lanes and widened side-walks where the parking spaces were. Win-Win.

That's the question; keeping in mind, that in most of those cases (streetcar routes), the curb lanes are parking free for 2-3 hours per day, when they are vehicle travel lanes.

So we'll need to see if the law addresses that.

In terms of how such lanes are described currently, they are described, legally, as travel lanes with parking permitted.

Not as parking lanes with travel permitted.

Though they are parking lanes, roughly ~ 94% of the week.