[Monarch Butterfly]

The charter challenge will go on.

Ontario will not begin removing bike lanes until March 20 at the earliest, the Transportation Ministry has said. The cyclists sought the injunction to prevent any biking infrastructure from being removed between that date and the court hearing on April 16.

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

 

[Midtown Hank]

"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.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the judge is saying that the number of cyclists using these routes will decrease for safety reasons, but rather for convenience reasons.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the judge is saying that the number of cyclists using these routes will decrease for safety reasons, but rather for convenience reasons.

Why would it be more convenient to take longer routes, not on the main road, where everything is?

 

[bearcat]

Why would it be more convenient to take longer routes, not on the main road, where everything is?

well the one explanation I can see is without bike lanes it may take longer to bike along these streets as now there will be cars in gridlock in the way, so the removing bike lanes make the road more unsafe AND more inconvenient (with respect to time spent) for people on a bicycle, so even more hardcore cyclists who feel comfortable riding with cars will avoid these streets since now the gridlock of cars will slow those cycling down too mich

so it's not that longer routes will become more convenient, rather where the roads where the bike lanes will be removed will become less convenient

 

[UntitledCyclist]

Yeah that's a safety issue flat out.

 

[Coolibop]

Construction has begun on the new Pickering elevated boardwalk / new waterfront trail connection...

Latest update courtesy the city's waterfront committee:

I believe most of the shoring work is done.

Steel decking is coming along and shipment of the concrete decking is ramping up:

Cross-section of the boardwalk - Left is wood-like texture (concrete) for pedestrians and right will be the cycling path. It looks to me that there will be small gaps between the panels so it remains to be seen how smooth of a ride it will end up being...

Here's a closeup of that tan coloured textured concrete which looks pretty nice. Holes are predrilled for railing etc.

Finally the boardwalk at this point is about 4 feet up...example below of the nice view over the lake:

The boardwalk will be maintained in the winter months. Still on schedule for opening this summer for those venturing east of the city.

Bonus update ...The Waterfront Trail (missing) connection between West Shore Boulevard and Marksbury Drive has shoreline work ongoing (planning) and the hope is to get this into next years budget for shoreline work and path construction. The two properties on site were demolished.
A reminder what this short path plans to connect from my previous update:

 

[Northern Light]

@Coolibop any plays for Pickering/TRCA to snag the next 3 properties to the east? It looks like that would provide for a significant lakeside trail extension.

****

Then they need to bring the trail out across the mouth of Frenchman's Bay and get some kind of bridge over the opening.

 

[Coolibop]

@Coolibop any plays for Pickering/TRCA to snag the next 3 properties to the east? It looks like that provide for a significant lakeside trail extension.

Doubtful, but I don't have insight to ownership (I assume individual private owners). The trail reconstruction here was complete not too long ago to circumnavigate. Further, they are relatively newer construction/renovated, versus the older properties that were took down recently (previously owned by a popular developer in the area - an easier deal).

Then they need to bring the trail out across the mouth of Frenchman's Bay and get some kind of bridge over the opening.

Too many hurdles at this point.

This idea has been explored from bridge (too restrictive for sailboat passage), tunnel (cost prohibiting), and even a ferry of sorts. The last probably had the best chance but I wouldn't hold my breath given value for money and navigation challenges. There were talks about a lift bridge too, but again costly and not something anyone is pursuing at this stage. Today, the city is more focused about the Frenchman's Bay ownership and water quality.

To expand on the restrictions of the bridge option, much of the property surrounding the mouth on the east side is owned and used regularily by OPG for their nuclear plant marine activities illustrated below.

Finally, I often get the sense there is local opposition on the west side (of the bay) to keep that side quiet. Worries arise when speaking of introducing easier access.

 

[txlseries4]

link

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

View attachment 637660
link

@Northern Light is this true? Please give us some hope!

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light is this true? Please give us some hope!

I don't have any contacts in the Premier's office.........

But it certainly doesn't sound promising.

 

[Andy_in_Toronto]

I don't have any contacts in the Premier's office.........

But it certainly doesn't sound promising.

@Northern Light however you have excellent contacts to enlighten us a bit more what really is going on. Thank you.

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light however you have excellent contacts to enlighten us a bit more what really is going on. Thank you.

I'm working them...........

Don't have anything shareable or particularly insightful as yet.

 

[Northern Light]

Also.. @bearcat

...how much sidewalk space did you want to cut at Dundas?

For reference, the wider point on the north side of the cross walk is under 3.4M

The standard for a road w/this pedestrian volume is 6M

 

[bearcat]

Also.. @bearcat

...how much sidewalk space did you want to cut at Dundas?

View attachment 638053


For reference, the wider point on the north side of the cross walk is under 3.4M

View attachment 638056

The standard for a road w/this pedestrian volume is 6M

something like this? if the standard for expected pedestrian volume here is 6 meters obviously this wouldn't be acceptable