Cycling infrastructure (Separated bike lanes)

[Northern Light]

That's it exactly- I think the key issue is whether the city can actually modify anything (ex sidewalk removal and conversion into wide path to match the supper section) on that roughly 100m of bridge deck for a reasonable price or without cutting off the second-busiest access for months of repaving. The city also wants to put a multiuse path all along Concession from the bottom left of your image to past where the trail you've highlighted intersects it, so it just seems like such a no-brainer if it can be done for a reasonable price.

Ok, so you're asking about the bridge part specifically, got'cha.

The curb lane is ~4.9M which should allow 1.4M of space to be repurposed. The existing sidewalk is ~1.5M. That gives you' 2.9M

The inner lane is ~3.4M, you can probably shave another 0.2 off that.

That gives enough for a trail/sidewalk, but without a barrier.

It would be a very tight squeeze to add one.

The bridge has a seam down the middle, two discrete decks, so, unfortunately, you can't shift space from the up direction to the down without a very big project.

But a raised, 3M path should be viable w/o ripping everything up. I say that w/o knowing where they've run the utilities or the exact engineering.....but I think is a solid....'guess'.

It's funny, I've done most of the Pacific Crest Trail and Arizona Trail, but despite living and working a few meters away from the Bruce, I've only done a few km of it!

Parts of the Bruce are gorgeous.

This one (below) is from Hamilton:

 

[generalcanada]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/court-injunction-ontario-bike-lanes-court-challenge-1.7483871

not much analysis of it yet

 

[Northern Light]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/court-injunction-ontario-bike-lanes-court-challenge-1.7483871

not much analysis of it yet

From the linked article:

What's curious to me is that the judge had openly hinted he might grant the injunction.

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

Is it just cause they think the province isn't actually going to do anything?

 

[Northern Light]

Is it just cause they think the province isn't actually going to do anything?

Whose 'they'?

The judge explained his reasoning, which is in my post above.

 

[DSCToronto]

Star story on it..

Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start in March, court rules​

CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.

Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start in March, court rules

CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.

www.thestar.com

 

[Northern Light]

Star story on it..

Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start in March, court rules​

CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.

Doug Ford’s removal of Toronto bike lanes can start in March, court rules

CycleTO had sought a temporary injunction to stop the Doug Ford government from ripping up Toronto bike lanes before a Charter challenge that’s scheduled to be heard on April 16.

www.thestar.com

While not impossible; and I'm not giving any guarantees, I find it unlikely there will be significant removal work, if any, before the hearing date.

Regrettably, the province is certainly capable of a surprise.

 

[bearcat]

From the linked article:

View attachment 636746

What's curious to me is that the judge had openly hinted he might grant the injunction.

what's IS the legislation's started purpose? to decrease car travel times?

 

[UntitledCyclist]

what's IS the legislation's started purpose? to decrease car travel times?

"Reducing Gridlock, Saving you Time!"

Only this government is capable of putting names on provincial legislation that sound like a cheap used car ad.

 

[bearcat]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/court-injunction-ontario-bike-lanes-court-challenge-1.7483871

not much analysis of it yet

"The evidence also suggests that if the lanes are removed, the volume of cyclists using these roads will decrease significantly, such that the raw total of cyclist collisions will be largely unaffected," he wrote.

So as per the judge it's a valid argument to claim that it's okay to make the road less safe for cyclists as long as it becomes so unsafe that it scares the cyclists away from using it?

Perhaps I am not quite understanding the context of this quote.

 

[generalcanada]

Some other news sites:

Judge denies injunction to stop the province from ripping up Toronto bike lanes

A judge has denied an injunction sought by cycling advocates to stop construction on Toronto bike lanes, paving the way for the province to begin removing them as soon as March 20.

toronto.citynews.ca

Toronto cyclists lose bid to force Ford government to pause bike lane removals | Globalnews.ca

A group of Toronto cyclists hoping to put a road block in the way of Doug Ford’s bike lane plans have lost their bid to delay them.

globalnews.ca

Court denies injunction to stop Toronto bike lane removals

Cycle Toronto’s Charter challenge to the Doug Ford government’s bike lane removal legislation will be heard in April

www.torontotoday.ca

Toronto today must have been in the courtroom because they have some juicy quotes

Firestone found many of the advocates’ arguments legitimate, opening the door to a lively case at the Charter challenge stage in April.

In court, Ontario argued the cyclists were essentially asserting a right to bike lanes. But Firestone agreed that the applicants are challenging the government’s decision “to suddenly and without justification remove an existing risk-reduction mechanism.”

“In summary, there is a live issue as to whether, in the Charter context, removal of the target bike lanes constitutes state action capable of depriving Charter rights,” he wrote, adding that “thorough analysis” may be needed to determine whether the law to remove bike lanes is “grossly disproportionate” with the government’s stated justification of reducing gridlock.

Ontario’s lawyer argued that despite any harms that may or may not come to pass as a result of the bike lane removals, the legislature has the final say, and that cyclists won’t face “irreparable harm” from the loss of the lanes.

Firestone disagreed, writing that he was “satisfied that on balance the applicants have established that they will suffer harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms or cannot be cured or compensated.”

They actually have a good shot at winning this

 

[UntitledCyclist]

"The evidence also suggests that if the lanes are removed, the volume of cyclists using these roads will decrease significantly, such that the raw total of cyclist collisions will be largely unaffected," he wrote.

So as per the judge it's a valid argument to claim that it's okay to make the road less safe for cyclists as long as it becomes so unsafe that it scares the cyclists away from using it?

Perhaps I am not quite understanding the context of this quote.

If that logic is what the judge is using in the wider case, I'm very concerned indeed. It's a circular type of reasoning that is extremely hostile to cyclists.

 

[RapidTransit]

As mentioned , MTO had plans to remove bike lanes in 2026 to 2027. So just because the judge says the province can remove it this month legally, It doesn't mean it will actually happen this month.

And this might be what starts the ball rolling on other bike lanes within Toronto.

I'm curious to know if the province will remove the bike lanes and then bill the city after? Or will they be footing the bill. Also, will the province also be designing the street layouts? I'm curious how they plan on going about it. There's more to it than just removing the bike lanes. The city even installed a lot of cycling lights as well. So the province really should be footing the bill and not sending it to the city. We'll see.

I remember there were issues with buses passing each other, particularly on Bloor. Even Brad Bradford brought it up when he was on the TTC board. At minimum make it so buses have proper bus stops, bus pads and room to operate.

Doug Ford could have at least given cyclist options with other cycling corridors. Even if it were hydro corridors. Something than just removing them and aleinating a transportation group.

 

[nfitz]

As mentioned , MTO had plans to remove bike lanes in 2026 to 2027. So just because the judge says the province can remove it this month legally, It doesn't mean it will actually happen this month.

And this might be what starts the ball rolling on other bike lanes within Toronto.

I'm curious to know if the province will remove the bike lanes and then bill the city after? Or will they be footing the bill. Also, will the province also be designing the street layouts? I'm curious how they plan on going about it. There's more to it than just removing the bike lanes. The city even installed a lot of cycling lights as well. So the province really should be footing the bill and not sending it to the city. We'll see.

I remember there were issues with buses passing each other, particularly on Bloor. Even Brad Bradford brought it up when he was on the TTC board. At minimum make it so buses have proper bus stops, bus pads and room to operate.

Doug Ford could have at least given cyclist options with other cycling corridors. Even if it were hydro corridors. Something than just removing them and aleinating a transportation group.

Yeah, I don't know why Doug Ford didn't build the bike lanes in the hydro corridor near Bloor Street - and the other one near Yonge Street.

Where's the facepalm icon?

 

[bearcat]

As mentioned , MTO had plans to remove bike lanes in 2026 to 2027. So just because the judge says the province can remove it this month legally, It doesn't mean it will actually happen this month.

And this might be what starts the ball rolling on other bike lanes within Toronto.

I'm curious to know if the province will remove the bike lanes and then bill the city after? Or will they be footing the bill. Also, will the province also be designing the street layouts? I'm curious how they plan on going about it. There's more to it than just removing the bike lanes. The city even installed a lot of cycling lights as well. So the province really should be footing the bill and not sending it to the city. We'll see.

I remember there were issues with buses passing each other, particularly on Bloor. Even Brad Bradford brought it up when he was on the TTC board. At minimum make it so buses have proper bus stops, bus pads and room to operate.

Doug Ford could have at least given cyclist options with other cycling corridors. Even if it were hydro corridors. Something than just removing them and aleinating a transportation group.

Sorry, what is the "this" that will "start the ball rolling". Do you mean this court case and the recent ruling on the injunction?

And what does "start the ball rolling" mean here? Start the removal of even more bike lanes? If you meant "start the ball rolling" on building more bike lanes, I am not sure how this law restricting them will do that.

What do you mean buses passing eachother? Like overtaking? Or passing by going the opposite ways the road is too narrow?

What hydro corridors are parallel and close to Yonge, Bloor and University???