TheGrimSweeper
New Member
Man never realized how backwards this Etobicoke area is. Good lord.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
PL1
Senior Member
I'd really like a Ford Holiday to start in 3 days
bearcat
Active Member
Okay I was wondering why Crooked Cue wasn't on the list, of course they are are actually Plaintiff 1 lol.
Towered
Superstar
Not Greek Taverna! Argh.
Towered
Superstar
And isn't Janchenko Bakery in BWV? That's much further east, past Jane. And I supported their business a few times based on strong sympathy for Ukraine...
bearcat
Active Member
I did not realize this is happening as part of the bridge reconstruction. Too bad it's going to be cut off from other bicycle infrastructure.
www.toronto.ca
To connect this to Adelaide and Richmond would mean removal of a lane where Adelaide goes up the ramp, which I am not sure Dougie will approve.
Anecdotally, with this ramp being narrowed to one lane earlier (more west) than usual during this current construction, driving through there I haven't really noticed any slowdowns. I think it would I'll be fine for it be one car lane staring at Power Street. Though I don't really drive during rush hour.
The connection to Broadview at the east end will have to wait until the DVP on ramp it redone along with the flood protection in the area, and I think the Broadview extension will have cycle tracks that this can connect to as well.
One day.
@Northern Light do you know if the extension of the Richmond and Adelaide cycle tracks to Power Street is still happening? I could only find this link about it: https://torontocentreprojects.ca/en...als-richmond-st-power-st-adelaide-st-power-st
Rehabilitation of Eastern/Adelaide Bridges
Until Fall 2025, one traffic lane will be closed in each direction on Eastern Avenue, one eastbound lane will be closed on Adelaide Street East and one westbound lane will be closed on Richmond Street. The City of Toronto is rehabilitating the following four bridges: Eastern Avenue Bridge...
www.toronto.ca
To connect this to Adelaide and Richmond would mean removal of a lane where Adelaide goes up the ramp, which I am not sure Dougie will approve.
Anecdotally, with this ramp being narrowed to one lane earlier (more west) than usual during this current construction, driving through there I haven't really noticed any slowdowns. I think it would I'll be fine for it be one car lane staring at Power Street. Though I don't really drive during rush hour.
The connection to Broadview at the east end will have to wait until the DVP on ramp it redone along with the flood protection in the area, and I think the Broadview extension will have cycle tracks that this can connect to as well.
One day.
@Northern Light do you know if the extension of the Richmond and Adelaide cycle tracks to Power Street is still happening? I could only find this link about it: https://torontocentreprojects.ca/en...als-richmond-st-power-st-adelaide-st-power-st
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
You haven't been following me long enough............ LOL.
I previewed this in 2022:
Eastern Avenue Bridge/DVP Interchange
A very big project is moving closer to the public eye. The City is intent on finding ways to address pedestrian/cycling safety as part of this project. Whether that is a dedicated bridge or cycle tracks and sidewalks. In either case, the intent is to ultimately link to the...
Yes, its in the plans, not sure on exact timing.
There was internal discussion about the hassle of the Adelaide Cycle Track being on the north side, and the new MUT on the south. Some question as to how to mitigate that.
I can't recall what was settled on, but I think it may have been traffic light at Power, and must cross there. But don't hold me to that.
Last edited:
Midtown Hank
Active Member
I'm not so sure. It is pretty unprecedented to get this number of businesses together cohesively in opposition to decisions/actions of the city. Unless the city can get it tossed based on Northern Light's argument that the city can do what they want to any street regardless of the harm caused to businesses, then the city will have to defend it's decision/action. The plaintiff would have to make a case to prove it's allegations and the city would have to defend against them. It could make for some very awkward revelations when the forensics go deep. Unless the city believes it did everything by the book (and didn't hold bias) they may not want a forensic review of their decisions and actions. This could get ugly unless all parties come to some form of settlement. A Judge may end up saying, look the bike lanes are coming out, so no further remedy required.
evandyk
Senior Member
I don't think there's any law obligating the city to have done any consultation before installing bike lanes, and I don't think there's any law saying they had to consider the business interests of the plaintiffs before installing bike lanes. Are you aware of any? What is the "book" you're referring to when you say the city had to do everything by the book? The city could close Bloor to cars entirely tomorrow and this lawsuit would fail, because that's within the city's lawful powers. The city could say you can only travel along Bloor on a unicycle.
I'd love to see the Statement of Claim to see if there's an actual piece of law they say the city violated, or if they're just blowing steam and hoping it fogs up the windows enough that a judge can't see through it for some reason.
I'd love to see the Statement of Claim to see if there's an actual piece of law they say the city violated, or if they're just blowing steam and hoping it fogs up the windows enough that a judge can't see through it for some reason.
Northern Light
Superstar
One misguided/spiteful plaintiff or one hundred have the same legal standing on a claim. Either there is a valid point of law on which they can validate their claim or there is not.
As noted, again, by @evandyk above, that is exactly the City's discretion. They chose to flip Richmond/Adelaide to one-ways 2 generations ago........they used to be two-way, don't like it? Hassle to your business? Too bad, so sad.
I'm the first to be empathetic to objectors (in general) , but that's not a legal claim.
The City regularly closes lanes, regularly alters roads, including by widening, I've never heard of a successful claim of this type. If it were upheld, the City would be frozen in time, and unable to change anything, ever. The litigation risk wouldn't just be paralyzing but bankrupting.
What forensics? The City is allowed to have a point of view and is allowed then to be biased in favour of transit, in favour of bikes, in favour of native plants or biodiversity, in favour emissions standards and energy efficiency etc etc.
The City has no obligation to be neutral.
Please cite a legal precedent for this assertion. I'll be happy to reevaluate my thinking if you can provide one.
Last edited:
TheGrimSweeper
New Member
I'm just waiting for the outcome to become a new provincial bill: any road change of any type in any city in the province for any purpose must be personally approved by Dougie & Prabmeet.
Midtown Hank
Active Member
I think you guys are looking at the very narrow argument that the city has the right to make changes to roads as they see fit, but there are other laws out there that protect business from harm and disruption (which I believe is the angle the plantiffs are making). It's one thing to say the city can do anything to a road, but as to anything there are limits - for example the city would likely be breaking a law if it decided to pave a road with radioactive uranium. Anyway, the plaintiffs here (and there appear to be many) claim they were harmed by the city's decision/action. To say these business have no recourse is not true. They can challenge the city's decision and sue. Yes, it's possible that a judge could say, tough luck, but it's also possible a judge could say the case goes forward as the plaintiffs have been potentially harmed. I used the words forensics when I likely should have used discovery. Basically, if a judge decides the case has merit and agrees to hear arguments, the city may very well have to explain the process they undertook to consult the community (as that has been specifically mentioned as a bad faith exercise). If through discovery & cross examination it looks like the city took some shortcuts or ignored feedback from businesses and citizens, then it would look terrible. That could, in turn, put into question other community consultation processes (which are not in question here, but would certainly cause a lot of credibility issues).
I guess what I'm saying is there's a possibility this goes no where, but there's also a possibility it gains legs. Some of you believe it's a slam dunk. I don't think so, and if it does go forward there are substantial risks to the city beyond this case.
I guess what I'm saying is there's a possibility this goes no where, but there's also a possibility it gains legs. Some of you believe it's a slam dunk. I don't think so, and if it does go forward there are substantial risks to the city beyond this case.
TheGrimSweeper
New Member
If this is allow could we not see major lawsuits against Metrolinx for the massive years long disruption to business at Yonge and Eglinton? Or now for the Ontario line?
Northern Light
Superstar
I think what the rest of us are saying, some of whom are lawyers is that we don't see any precedent for the action. We're saying that if you want to suggest that the plaintiffs may have an actionable claim, you need to show why.
You seem to feel that a judge is entitled to be arbitrary and whimsical here. That's not (typically) how these things work. You need to show legal cause, and "I don't like the outcome of lawful public policy" is not such a cause.
The City did not physically injure anyone's property, they did not poison any business owner, employee or their customer, they did not alter the right of that business to exist or be open, alter how its run, or take any other action outside of the scope of doing what they are legally allowed to do which is alter their property, the roadway, which they did.
There is no legal obligation to maintain a certain speed of traffic on the road, if there was the City would be sued into oblivion since most roads, altered or otherwise run slower than they did 10 or 20 yeas ago.