[Admiral Beez]

Wasting taxpayers' money on unnecessary lawsuits since 2018!

We could have saved taxpayers money on both sides had we included congestion mitigation in our plans to add bike lanes through the removal of vehicular lanes. Instead we removed car lanes without reducing automobile volume or adding efficiency to automobile flow - where were those cars supposed to go? Had we done it right the first time, by adding bike lanes AND controlling automobile congestion, the city would have a strong case to tell the Premier to piss off.

 

[Northern Light]

We could have saved taxpayers money on both sides had we included congestion mitigation in our plans to add bike lanes through the removal of vehicular lanes. Instead we removed car lanes without reducing automobile volume or adding efficiency to automobile flow - where were those cars supposed to go? Had we done it right the first time, by adding bike lanes AND controlling automobile congestion, the city would have a strong case to tell the Premier to piss off.

With respect, you have it wrong.

Mitigation was included in most cycle track concepts. Notably, added and enlarged left hand turn lanes and in some cases, right-hand turn lanes.

I'm not sure what other mitigation you might have in mind, but that is certainly the obvious, low-hanging fruit.

I'm also unclear on how you propose to unilaterally reduce automobile volume. Tolls were vetoed by the Liberals, and they and congestion charges wouldn't pass muster with Ford. How else would you propose to make drivers go away?

 

[DSCToronto]

We could have saved taxpayers money on both sides had we included congestion mitigation in our plans to add bike lanes through the removal of vehicular lanes. Instead we removed car lanes without reducing automobile volume or adding efficiency to automobile flow - where were those cars supposed to go? Had we done it right the first time, by adding bike lanes AND controlling automobile congestion, the city would have a strong case to tell the Premier to piss off.

The City raised the question of road tolls / congestion charges and it was rejected (by Wynne and Ford) . Road pricing is a proven way to reduce vehicles.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The City raised the question of road tolls / congestion charges and it was rejected (by Wynne and Ford) . Road pricing is a proven way to reduce vehicles.

And yet without any plan approved by Queens Park we proceeded to reduce road capacity. I can only assume that the city's and province's professional urban planners warned decision-makers that removing vehicle lanes without addressing traffic volume, either by reducing it or improving flow, would lead to severe congestion. If so, their advice appears to have been ignored. It seems someone simply decided that bike lanes were worth the trade-off, no matter the consequences, and IMO that is a valid position in the name of safety. I just wish someone would openly acknowledge that choice, rather than feigning surprise and lacking any plan to deal with the predictable backlash from both Queen's Park and the public.

 

[kotsy]

@Northern Light do we know if/when the wellington street bike lane extension is happening this year?

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light do we know if/when the wellington street bike lane extension is happening this year?

Not likely I'm afraid.

Pretty much anything that cuts lanes on a major road is on hold at the moment. Possible one or two small things of that sort might squeeze through.

Staff are shifting their attention to multi-use paths, upgrades to existing bike lanes and various other items that they hope won't stir too much ire from the province.

 

[kotsy]

Not likely I'm afraid.

Pretty much anything that cuts lanes on a major road is on hold at the moment. Possible one or two small things of that sort might squeeze through.

Staff are shifting their attention to multi-use paths, upgrades to existing bike lanes and various other items that they hope don't stir too much ire from the province.

argh! I'm surprised Wellington is considered a major road.

 

[nfitz]

Staff are shifting their attention to multi-use paths, upgrades to existing bike lanes and various other items that they hope don't stir too much ire from the province.

I don't recall council providing such direction.

Is whoever gave that instruction in contempt of council?

 

[Northern Light]

I don't recall council providing such direction.

Is whoever gave that instruction in contempt of council?

The province has passed a law limiting the City's ability to implement any new cycle track that would remove a vehicle lane (subject to MTO approval).

Council is well aware of this........as is the Mayor.

Staff have not gone rogue. LOL

 

[DSCToronto]

I don't recall council providing such direction.

Is whoever gave that instruction in contempt of council?

One is usually best to avoid annoying those who have power over you so this sounds pretty sensible reaction to me. (Even though I disagree with the Province's opinion!!!)

 

[bearcat]

Not likely I'm afraid.

Pretty much anything that cuts lanes on a major road is on hold at the moment. Possible one or two small things of that sort might squeeze through.

Staff are shifting their attention to multi-use paths, upgrades to existing bike lanes and various other items that they hope don't stir too much ire from the province.

Is eglintonTOday still happening?

 

[Northern Light]

Is eglintonTOday still happening?

That's the plan/hope.

 

[evandyk]

And yet without any plan approved by Queens Park we proceeded to reduce road capacity. I can only assume that the city's and province's professional urban planners warned decision-makers that removing vehicle lanes without addressing traffic volume, either by reducing it or improving flow, would lead to severe congestion. If so, their advice appears to have been ignored. It seems someone simply decided that bike lanes were worth the trade-off, no matter the consequences, and IMO that is a valid position in the name of safety. I just wish someone would openly acknowledge that choice, rather than feigning surprise and lacking any plan to deal with the predictable backlash from both Queen's Park and the public.

I don't think there's any evidence the bike lanes are contributing to "severe congestion". Construction is what causes the severe congestion, bike lanes are a minor congestion irritant compared to things like the Gardiner.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't think there's any evidence the bike lanes are contributing to "severe congestion". Construction is what causes the severe congestion, bike lanes are a minor congestion irritant compared to things like the Gardiner.

I wish the city would outlaw rather than charge developers for taking over lanes. The developer doesn't care what it costs, since they just pass the fee onto the buyers.

 

[PL1]

I wish the city would outlaw rather than charge developers for taking over lanes. The developer doesn't care what it costs, since they just pass the fee onto the buyers.

Especially since the Province has clearly stated that movement of autos is important (though they also want development)