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 

enter username said:
View attachment 670658
Esplanade west of market looks done

View attachment 670659
And grading is underway on the don mills-gateway trail
Click to expand...
WRT the bike trail along Don Mills, South of Gateway to the bridge over the rail tracks: I'm really glad they are doing this without interfering with the path from TE Seton park to Taylor Creek park. I run/ride it southbound a couple of times per week
 
enter username said:
View attachment 670658
Esplanade west of market looks done

View attachment 670659
And grading is underway on the don mills-gateway trail
Click to expand...
The short piece of separated bike track just west of Market Street has been done for several weeks, they have not yet removed the parking and painted the lines and/or put up the mini-Jerseys further west to Yonge - they got the necessary parking changes through Council a few weeks ago and say all will be done by end of August. It has taken FAR too long but ....
 
DSCToronto said:
People can be 'ignored' and that solves, or at least reduces, the problem, I recommend it.
Click to expand...
It's true though then you are faced with a bevvy of comments and replies to mysterious greyed out content by a user I have "ignored." It can be more frustrating than just browsing past it.
 
MTO has the bike lane removals in Toronto on their highways program as "safety improvements" scheduled for 2026. Cost of "$25 to $100 million" and contract number 2025-2035:

1754397734513.png
 
The Judge's decision on the charter case made it very clear that, irrelevant of government nomenclature in legislation or program, the removal of the three target bike lanes would be subject to the court's decision. The removal of the target bike lanes would violate charter rights due to the established correlation that was successfully argued in the case that their removal with greatly increase risk of injury and death while not effecting the stated goal of reducing congestion.
 
Milaisacat said:
The Judge's decision on the charter case made it very clear that, irrelevant of government nomenclature in legislation or program, the removal of the three target bike lanes would be subject to the court's decision. The removal of the target bike lanes would violate charter rights due to the established correlation that was successfully argued in the case that their removal with greatly increase risk of injury and death while not effecting the stated goal of reducing congestion.
Click to expand...
Something that needs to be said.
Normally judges give "deference" to the government if it satisfies even a tiny of the goals.
The right-wing propaganda has been pushing "judges making policy decisions" Well, theyre kinda right they shouldnt be.
Thats not the case here, The government had no evidence to support their goals. and mentioned multiple times goes against it.
remember the terms "arbitrary, overbroad and consequences disproportionate to their goals"

buried in the case is the fact that the government went out in the spring to find someone to say the removals will speed up traffic. They couldnt even do that.
If they even made up a study for them to do this with it would have been alot closer.

The point is, The government simply couldnt defend the position. They couldnt even make up a study to support their goals
If the study said travel times decrease by 50% there is definitely sway for the judge to say that is justifiable with increased risk
 
Doesn't the decision talk about the consensus conclusions of research on this topic? So even if the government manages to find one consultant who supports their position, that consultant would likely get torched under cross. And their work still wouldn't overcome the consensus.
 
MisterF said:
Doesn't the decision talk about the consensus conclusions of research on this topic? So even if the government manages to find one consultant who supports their position, that consultant would likely get torched under cross. And their work still wouldn't overcome the consensus.
Click to expand...
It does go without saying that finding a consultant willing to commit perjury would not be in their best interest.
 
MisterF said:
Doesn't the decision talk about the consensus conclusions of research on this topic? So even if the government manages to find one consultant who supports their position, that consultant would likely get torched under cross. And their work still wouldn't overcome the consensus.
Click to expand...
I still just don't understand the decision and the judge's apparent under prioritization of the legislative authority of the province, but I believe the decision says that he would have deferred to the province if they had produced any documentable evidence of the legislation achieving any specified goal the province has.

I don't particularly agree with the ruling on the basis that it's not inherent that the province produce evidence for its decision making to be deemed constitutional - but that's the standard the judge set for the province to make decisions which increase risk against Canadian's rights to safety.

While I think the judge's decision is judicial overreach - I will say that even he did not go so far as to say that government decisions must align with consensus conclusions of professionals. We are not a technocratic society. Simply that the government present some evidence of its decision making furthering its stated goals.

1754419774570.png

The Judge basically believes that since the province is doing it "arbitrarily" that it's unconstitutional. Where I struggle is that basically any infrastructure decision impacts the safety of infrastructure users either positively or negatively and it should not be the burden of the government to intensively prove that benefits outweigh any safety risk which may be exposed for every infrastructure decision.

What I am frustrated with is the province's inability to provide this evidence regardless - the original Bloor bike lanes study itself showed travel time increases across the original corridor of 4 minutes in the PM peak, or about 36%. I'm not sure why the province couldn't have just introduced even that original study by the City into evidence, which appears that it would have satisfied the judge's requirements.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
I still just don't understand the decision and the judge's apparent under prioritization of the legislative authority of the province, but I believe the decision says that he would have deferred to the province if they had produced any documentable evidence of the legislation achieving any specified goal the province has.
Click to expand...

This is not what the judge said.

I explained this in previous posts.

The burden on the province is higher than that .

It requires a legitimate public purpose (which it nominally had, less congestion); it requires some proof that the remedy proposed by the legislation relates to the stated goal. The province is entitled to some deference here, but not without limit.

But the judge found a S.7 violation (life, liberty and security of the person) ; this then requires the legislation 's remedy (bike lane removal, in this case) does not cause harm, disproportionate t the benefit.

The ruling clearly states it did not pass this test.

Any benefit was too small to outweigh the harm.

innsertnamehere said:
I don't particularly agree with the ruling on the basis that it's not inherent that the province produce evidence for its decision making to be deemed constitutional - but that's the standard the judge set for the province to make decisions which increase risk against Canadian's rights to safety.
Click to expand...

I don't agree w/your interpretation at all.
 
Northern Light said:
This is not what the judge said.

I explained this in previous posts.

The burden on the province is higher than that .

It requires a legitimate public purpose (which it nominally had, less congestion); it requires some proof that the remedy proposed by the legislation relates to the stated goal. The province is entitled to some deference here, but not without limit.

But the judge found a S.7 violation (life, liberty and security of the person) ; this then requires the legislation 's remedy (bike lane removal, in this case) does not cause harm, disproportionate t the benefit.

The ruling clearly states it did not pass this test.

Any benefit was too small to outweigh the harm.



I don't agree w/your interpretation at all.
Click to expand...
we are saying the same thing here I think. The judge identified that if the province had produced evidence that the removals would improve congestion (the public purpose), it would be fine given the deference the province is entitled to.

This is clear in paragraph 94, where the government's expert witness, Dr. Haider, is described in his testimony:

1754420942250.png

Dr. Haider instead relied on evidence showing travel time increases which occurred following the installation of the lanes, which for some reason, did not satisfy the judge (p. 90):

1754421044199.png



Basically the judge said Haider wasn't specific enough in his review of the lanes and that the government did not introduce forward-looking projections of travel time savings from the lane removals.

My interpretation continues to be that if the province had introduced evidence that the lanes would improve travel times, the judge would have deferred to the legislative authority of the government. And regardless, I fundamentally disagree that the burden should be on the government to provide that evidence in the first place. I would be surprised if this decision stands at appeal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top