News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

Andy_in_Toronto said:
Is there anything significant of new cycling tracks being built this year? Doesn’t look to me. Sad!
Click to expand...
Not this year. Possibly due to uncertainty with the province's bike lane removal / approval plans. But it would be great if the City used this lull in building new lanes to spend some time and resources improving the bike lanes we already have.
 
Denison Ave looking north to Dundas

Construction on the east starting to clear up a bit and newly painted lines added to the road

IMG_20250729_082830.jpg


Initial thought was that this is pretty lackluster since I think the street was widened recently (just a painted lane on only one side - why not protected if the street is going to be reconstructed anyway?), but I don't know if this is temporary. School bus loading makes it harder to add nicer infrastructure on the west side?

Map I have from 1996 shows Denison as one way here (like the rest of Denison). Curious if there was any plan to have this little block return to one-way south if Augusta will re-connect between Dundas and Grange at some point.

IMG_20250729_173830.jpg
 
That decision is really scathing of the government's position, evidence, and argumentation. There's too many good quotes to pull all of them, but:

The legislation also imposes a high and grossly disproportionate cost on section 7 rights holders. The negative effects of the impugned provision – injuries and death that will result from the restoration of a lane of motor vehicle traffic and the removal of the protected bike lanes – are completely out of sync with the aim of reducing traffic congestion, even with this objective taken at face value. As the Interveners point out, the impugned provision will also have a serious and disproportionate impact on children and on low-income individuals who must ride bicycles as an economical means of transportation, or for their work.

In contrast, the evidence presented by the Respondent consists of weak anecdotal evidence and expert opinion which is unsupported, unpersuasive and contrary to the consensus view of experts, including the expert evidence, data and studies presented by the Applicants. The government’s expert evidence does not address the key issue of whether restoring a lane of motor vehicle traffic will in fact alleviate congestion.
Click to expand...

While orthogonal to its purpose, the decision is going to be a very useful document to reference to argue for the benefits of cycling infrastructure going forward. It's a very comprehensive collection and evaluation of evidence.
 
I was looking for public confirmation of that! The decision wasn't posted when I went looking! @ChesterCopperpot w/the scoop!

Here's the link to the actual decision:


Decision is 41 pages, or 223 paragraphs.

I will post details shortly.

But I note immediately that the judge awarded $200,000 in costs to cycling's advocates here.

I will also say the decision is a complete and total takedown of the government.
 
Interesting- I understand the governments position and arguement was weak here but I still really struggle with the realistic implications of this ruling. It implies any infrastructure project which has impacts on safety of any user group is unconstitutional which just *cannot* be right. You could apply the same argument to something like a simple road widening or passing lane addition.

If the province escalates this I can’t see the ruling standing.
 
Dr. Murtaza Haider again. I enjoyed the shade thrown at him tbh

Dr. Haider appeared to take issue with the well-accepted concept of induced demand, and discussed at length an issue that appears to be beyond his expertise and which is of little, if any, relevance, namely, that congestion he says is caused by the bike lanes results in emissions which harm cyclists who are exposed to them.
Click to expand...
 
innsertnamehere said:
Interesting- I understand the governments position and arguement was weak here but I still really struggle with the realistic implications of this ruling. It implies any infrastructure project which has impacts on safety of any user group is unconstitutional which just *cannot* be right. You could apply the same argument to something like a simple road widening or passing lane addition.

If the province escalates this I can’t see the ruling standing.
Click to expand...
That is not the implication, and the judge addresses this head on.

Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 13.52.09.png

Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 13.52.15.png
 
@eglinton1661 above has covered one key decision component well.

***

Something of interest is that advocacy on behalf of cycle tracks was taken by the Canadian Automobile Association:

1753898306018.png


Gotta love that.

****

Key Legal findings (in part) (for full text see the link to the decision in my previous post)

1753898216986.png

On the argument 'Cycling is a choice'

1753898468457.png


On Alternative routes:

1753898556459.png


1753898644636.png


On the arbitrariness of the law and the failure to link its stated objectives to its prescribed remedies:

1753898765793.png

On disproportionalality (of benefit vs harm)

1753898873191.png


1753898898259.png


Finally, on whether the government can use S.1 "The Reasonable Limits Clause" to justify the above:

1753898982560.png
 
Can this be appealed by the government to a higher court? I worry Doug will fight tooth and nail for this, but I have a feeling he won't.
 
bearcat said:
Can this be appealed by the government to a higher court? I worry Doug will fight tooth and nail for this, but I have a feeling he won't.
Click to expand...

Yes, the province can seek leave to appeal; though the appeals court does not have to agree to hear the appeal.

Should it get that far, a further appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.

Alternatively, the province could seek to repass the measures with the Notwithstanding Clause attached.

****

Should the province seek leave to appeal, they may also seek to stay the current decision. Though, given the in place injunction and the Appeals Court previous ruling on that, I don't believe a stay would be granted.

Assuming I am correct (its a guess............not a given)......... should the appeal route be taken, I expect the law would remain struck down pending any hearing at the Appellate level.

Should the province go the NWC route, they would have to pass the new legislation in the Fall sitting of the legislature. So, at least for now, the City is free of the law.

Whether it chooses to use that freedom expeditiously is a different question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top