Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

[Monarch Butterfly]

Too bad Doug Ford vetoed "ranked balloting" at the municipal level. (And at the provincial level.)

 

[DSCToronto]

Agreed. And besides, most of the 6.8 million people who reside in the GTA do not live within Toronto anyway. And even if we looked at a province of the GTA, what about the nearly 2 million additional people who reside in the GTHA? Where do we draw the line?

Though I agree that the idea of the "Province of Toronto is not going to happen, the fact that it would not have an airport (or a major one) inside its boundaries is not significant. There is no 'law' saying a Province must have an airport and, of course, many people who live in Province A often use an airport in Province B.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Though I agree that the idea of the "Province of Toronto is not going to happen, the fact that it would not have an airport (or a major one) inside its boundaries is not significant. There is no 'law' saying a Province must have an airport and, of course, many people who live in Province A often use an airport in Province B.

Agreed. Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Seattle, Pittsburgh and New Orleans are all examples of US airports that are not located within their city limits. No one cares. In fact, having grown up in pre-aircon 1970-80s Mississauga and having to hear the roar of jets, I felt that moving to the Toronto Beaches area was upscale because it did NOT have a major airport nearby. In my young adult mind, major airports, railway freight terminals and landfill sites were necessities of any city, but best placed in the outer suburbs. I wonder if we'd built the train from Union to Pearson first if Porter would have got off the ground, so to speak at the Toronto Islands.

 

[adma]

Agreed. Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Seattle, Pittsburgh and New Orleans are all examples of US airports that are not located within their city limits. No one cares.

More to the "province of Toronto" point, DC's airport isn't within *DC* limits (National/Reagan Airport is across the river in Arlington). And you can also point out other "cross-state" cases (Cincinnati's airport being in Kentucky, for one)

 

[evandyk]

Kansas City's airport isn't in Kansas either. Though it is in Kansas City.

 

[ShonTron]

Kansas City's airport isn't in Kansas either. Though it is in Kansas City.

Uh... but... ah... never mind.

Cincinnati would have been a much better example.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Uh... but... ah... never mind.

Cincinnati would have been a much better example.

Milwaukee roof has "Welcome to Cleveland" on it.

 

[Northern Light]

Back to the real world.

The City is opening pre-budget consultations for 2026.

The online survey is absolutely terrible. But for those of you who enjoy pain/killing time......here:

BudgetTO: Building a City that Works for You

ca.mar.medallia.com

Most of it isn't useful. Ranks your 3 most important and 3 least important services; some of which group together unrelated programs. ...

But there are a couple of write-in segments where you can advocate for something useful.

 

[txlseries4]

Retail in neighbourhoods getting revisited. From here: https://secure.toronto.ca/nm/api/individual/notice/6686.do

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
To be held by the Planning and Housing Committee
(Under the Planning Act)

City-Initiated Request to Amend the Zoning By-law to facilitate small-scale retail, service, office and home occupation uses within Neighbourhoods

Location of Application: City-wide
Applicant: City of Toronto

Date: October 30, 2025
Time: 10:00 a.m., or as soon as possible thereafter
Place: Council Chambers, Toronto City Hall and by Video Conference

PROPOSAL
The City is initiating three Zoning By-law Amendments to Zoning By-law 569-2013 to: (1) permit certain small-scale retail, service and office uses on residentially-zoned properties within Neighbourhoods on major streets; (2) to permit small-scale retail stores and ancillary eating establishments on select sites within Neighbourhood interiors; and (3) to update home occupation permissions. These proposals form part of the City of Toronto's Expanding Housing Opportunities in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative, through the Neighbourhood Retail and Services study.

The City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendments to expand commercial use permissions on major streets and within Neighbourhood interiors applies to all zones under the Residential Zone Category including the R – Residential Zone, RD – Residential Detached, RS – Residential Semi-Detached, RT – Residential Townhouse, and RM – Residential Multiple Zone. The related Amendments would allow a broad range of retail, service and office uses on all Residentially zoned sites located on Major Streets. In the interior of the neighbourhoods, the location of commercial uses would be limited to corner sites of select “Community Streets”, as well as sites adjacent to existing non-residential uses, such as schools and parks. The Amendments set maximum interior floor areas for the commercial uses in all locations, as well as other performance standards.

The Amendment to expand permissions for home occupations applies to all zones where home occupations are permitted. The Amendment would allow a limited number of clients and employees to attend the premises of a home occupation, as well as allow home occupations to occur in an ancillary building. Most of the current Use Specific Regulations for Home Occupations in the Zoning By-law remain unchanged.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The City of Toronto AND the Province of Ontario needs to change its transportation policy ratings. Currently, the single-occupant automobile gets #1 priority.

Should be…​

#1 priority—emergency vehicles​

#2 priority—pedestrians​

#3 priority—public transit​

#4 priority—school buses​

#5 priority—cyclists​

#6 priority—delivery & contractor trucks​

#7 priority—autos with more than one person​

#8 priority—single-occupant autos​

#9 priority—personal trucks or SUVs​

​

 

[Northern Light]

A Member Motion from Councillor Matlow (seconded by the Mayor) to next week's Council Meeting seeks to curtail the Consultant Enrichment program about which I rail so often.

I like this motion.

Agenda Item History 2025.MM33.4

Agenda Item History 2025.MM33.4

secure.toronto.ca

From the above:

 

[Admiral Beez]

The City of Toronto AND the Province of Ontario needs to change its transportation policy ratings.

Should be…​

#1 priority—emergency vehicles​

#2 priority—pedestrians​

#2 over #1 please. I’m frustrated that road and sidewalk design is dictated by oversized emergency vehicles. We often can’t have separated bike lanes, sidewalk barriers, or other safe infrastructure because emergency vehicles can’t fit. Whenever I stand at the NW corner of Parliament and Carlton waiting to cross I note how narrow the sidewalk is, and how southbound trucks ride over the corner as they turn right onto Carlton - and I think we need a deeper sidewalk and a barrier here. But of course firetrucks seemingly cannot make the turn if a streetcar is there. Another example, in the suburbs, residential streets are built wide enough for six cars across, while in older city areas like Cabbagetown or Parkdale, streets may be only two cars wide - which would never be allowed today to serve the firetrucks. The solution isn’t to force infrastructure to accommodate massive vehicles, but to procure emergency vehicles that can navigate the streets we actually have. For example here is a firetruck in Paris.

I see no reason that we need these enormous beasts dictating our infrastructure if Paris can make do with the above. Especially since most FD trips are ambulance calls.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

#2 over #1 please. I’m frustrated that road and sidewalk design is dictated by oversized emergency vehicles. We often can’t have separated bike lanes, sidewalk barriers, or other safe infrastructure because emergency vehicles can’t fit. Whenever I stand at the NW corner of Parliament and Carlton waiting to cross I note how narrow the sidewalk is, and how southbound trucks ride over the corner as they turn right onto Carlton - and I think we need a deeper sidewalk and a barrier here. But of course firetrucks seemingly cannot make the turn if a streetcar is there. Another example, in the suburbs, residential streets are built wide enough for six cars across, while in older city areas like Cabbagetown or Parkdale, streets may be only two cars wide - which would never be allowed today to serve the firetrucks. The solution isn’t to force infrastructure to accommodate massive vehicles, but to procure emergency vehicles that can navigate the streets we actually have. For example here is a firetruck in Paris.

Instead of separate directional bike lanes, have dual-directional bike lanes. One lane for both cycling directions.

Maybe create "Emergency Vehicle Lanes", that can be used by cyclists when the ambulances or fire trucks are not using them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Instead of separate directional bike lanes, have dual-directional bike lanes. One lane for both cycling directions.

Maybe create "Emergency Vehicle Lanes", that can be used by cyclists when the ambulances or fire trucks are not using them.

If you make separated bike lanes that are wide enough for a vehicle they will be used by cars. I see this every day on eastbound Dundas, Parliament to River. Maybe some sort of automated bollard would help - though I can see cellphone distracted cyclists crashing into it.

But I'm not referring to bike lanes mostly, but instead to our sidewalks and road widths being dictated by our appetite for enormous emergency vehicles.

 

[zang]

#2 over #1 please. I’m frustrated that road and sidewalk design is dictated by oversized emergency vehicles. We often can’t have separated bike lanes, sidewalk barriers, or other safe infrastructure because emergency vehicles can’t fit.

Toronto lately has been building some bike lanes wide enough for emergency vehicle use. See; University Avenue, or Adelaide St.

That said, getting rid of street parking opens up wider lanes for everyone.

I see no reason that we need these enormous beasts dictating our infrastructure if Paris can make do with the above. Especially since most FD trips are ambulance calls.

I think it might just be about availability and cost. The Cummins L9 models the city ordered last year are built in Brampton, on Spartan chassis.

Our preference for "buying Canadian / buy North American" means we're buying from only a very small handful of companies like Rev Group, Rosenbauer and Oshkosh, and the arena is consolidating to the point of being a problem.

Regardless, it's more about length than width (so, curb radius and turning clearance vs lane width) as the Mercedes Ateco chassis trucks used in Paris are roughly 97.5" wide vs say ones built on the Spartan (Rev Group 100"), Ferrara (Rev Group; 102") or Rosenbauer Commander (100") chassis. Odds are if one of our fire trucks aren't narrow enough to make it through and area, it's likely European ones aren't either. The exception would be Oshkosh, but they make those ultra-wide odd looking trucks that you see more often at Airports.

That said, there's an interesting blog piece about the differences between North American fire apparatus and European and the differences that determine the equipment used.