[adys123]

It looks like he's coming after transit lanes as well... https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-60

Prohibition re reduction of lanes

195.3 (1) Except as permitted by the regulations, a municipality shall not, by by-law or otherwise, reduce or permit a reduction in the number of marked lanes available for travel by motor vehicles on a highway or a portion of a highway under the municipality’s jurisdiction and control for any of the following purposes:

1. A bicycle lane.

2. Any other prescribed purpose.

Transition

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a purpose set out in that subsection if, on the day before the purpose is prohibited under subsection (1), a contract has already been awarded or entered into for the construction or installation of any thing, or the marking of a highway, in respect of a purpose described in subsection (1), or, if the construction, installation or marking is to be done by the municipality and not by any party under contract, such work has already commenced.

6 Section 195.9 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Reimbursement

195.9 (1) If the Minister requested support or information from a municipality under subsection 195.8 (1) and the municipality provided such support or information, the Minister may reimburse the municipality for the reasonable costs it incurred in doing so.

No reimbursement or compensation

(2) For greater certainty, the Minister is not required to reimburse or compensate the municipality for any costs other than those described in subsection (1), including costs the municipality incurred to install the bicycle lanes.

Particulars

(3) To support its claim for reimbursement under subsection (1), the municipality may be required to provide the Ministry with the particulars of the costs it reasonably incurred to carry out the request made under subsection 195.8 (1).

7 Clause 195.10 (1) (b) of the Act is repealed.

8 Clauses 195.18 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted:

(a) governing when the prohibition set out in subsection 195.3 (1) does not apply, including,

(i) prescribing highways, parts of highways and areas to which the prohibition does not apply,

(ii) providing that the prohibition does not apply in respect of a purpose set out in subsection 195.3 (1),

(iii) prescribing any other circumstances in which the prohibition does not apply, and

(iv) prescribing conditions, criteria or requirements that must be satisfied in relation to subclause (i), (ii) or (iii);

(b) prescribing other purposes for the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection 195.3 (1);

(c) prescribing municipalities for the purposes of subsection 195.4 (1);

(d) governing the information that may be required by the Minister under subsection 195.4 (1).

Commencement

9 This Schedule comes into force on the day the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 receives Royal Assent.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It looks like he's coming after transit lanes as well... https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-60

Prohibition re reduction of lanes

195.3 (1) Except as permitted by the regulations, a municipality shall not, by by-law or otherwise, reduce or permit a reduction in the number of marked lanes available for travel by motor vehicles on a highway or a portion of a highway under the municipality’s jurisdiction and control for any of the following purposes:

1. A bicycle lane.

2. Any other prescribed purpose.

Transition

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a purpose set out in that subsection if, on the day before the purpose is prohibited under subsection (1), a contract has already been awarded or entered into for the construction or installation of any thing, or the marking of a highway, in respect of a purpose described in subsection (1), or, if the construction, installation or marking is to be done by the municipality and not by any party under contract, such work has already commenced.

6 Section 195.9 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Reimbursement

195.9 (1) If the Minister requested support or information from a municipality under subsection 195.8 (1) and the municipality provided such support or information, the Minister may reimburse the municipality for the reasonable costs it incurred in doing so.

No reimbursement or compensation

(2) For greater certainty, the Minister is not required to reimburse or compensate the municipality for any costs other than those described in subsection (1), including costs the municipality incurred to install the bicycle lanes.

Particulars

(3) To support its claim for reimbursement under subsection (1), the municipality may be required to provide the Ministry with the particulars of the costs it reasonably incurred to carry out the request made under subsection 195.8 (1).

7 Clause 195.10 (1) (b) of the Act is repealed.

8 Clauses 195.18 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted:

(a) governing when the prohibition set out in subsection 195.3 (1) does not apply, including,

(i) prescribing highways, parts of highways and areas to which the prohibition does not apply,

(ii) providing that the prohibition does not apply in respect of a purpose set out in subsection 195.3 (1),

(iii) prescribing any other circumstances in which the prohibition does not apply, and

(iv) prescribing conditions, criteria or requirements that must be satisfied in relation to subclause (i), (ii) or (iii);

(b) prescribing other purposes for the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection 195.3 (1);

(c) prescribing municipalities for the purposes of subsection 195.4 (1);

(d) governing the information that may be required by the Minister under subsection 195.4 (1).

Commencement

9 This Schedule comes into force on the day the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 receives Royal Assent.

That's a leap.

The legislation does allow the province to ban it for "any other prescribed purpose". Which means the province could bring in a Regulation to ban it for transit lanes or other things - but as of right now, the province has not indicated an intent to do so and it is limited to just bike lanes. As of right now there are not any other "prescribed purposes" and that provision is likely there to provide flexibility in dealing with municipalities which are actively resistant to much of Ford's recent policy changes on the municipal level (i.e. Toronto claiming it can still enforce Green Standards despite the MMAH being very clear that the intent of recent legislation is to prohibit it).

COULD Ford come for transit lanes? sure. But he COULD have done so 2 weeks ago. The new legislation doesn't really change that possibility and the province has not shown any intent to actually do so.

 

[adys123]

That's a leap.

The legislation does allow the province to ban it for "any other prescribed purpose". Which means the province could bring in a Regulation to ban it for transit lanes or other things - but as of right now, the province has not indicated an intent to do so and it is limited to just bike lanes. As of right now there are not any other "prescribed purposes" and that provision is likely there to provide flexibility in dealing with municipalities which are actively resistant to much of Ford's recent policy changes on the municipal level (i.e. Toronto claiming it can still enforce Green Standards despite the MMAH being very clear that the intent of recent legislation is to prohibit it).

COULD Ford come for transit lanes? sure. But he COULD have done so 2 weeks ago. The new legislation doesn't really change that possibility and the province has not shown any intent to actually do so.

Would "any other prescribed purpose" not apply directly to removing lanes for anything? It does seem rather clear in that way.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Would "any other prescribed purpose" not apply directly to removing lanes for anything? It does seem rather clear in that way.

The way legislation is written "any other prescribed purpose" is basically saying "you can let this clause do something else as well with a regulation".

A regulation is not an Act, but rather a sub-clause of the act which does not need to go through the legislature. MZOs for example are all implemented as regulations under the Planning Act.

What the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 proposes to do is allow the Minister to institute a regulation which would expand their powers under 195.3(1) of the Highway Traffic Act to any purpose they desire - potentially including transit lanes.

What it does not do is actually implement any additional prescribed purposes to prohibit lane reductions. The minister would be required to propose a regulation and have it undergo public comment before any additional prohibitions could occur.

Opposition groups are angling it like the Minister is coming for transit lanes as that's one possibility which could occur through the legislation - but the Minister may have an entirely different idea as to what they would use that power for. I.E. if Toronto decides to remove lanes "for bioswales" and the project just happens to have bike lanes as well in an effort to bypass the legislation, the Minister would have the ability to relatively quickly pass a regulation to intervene instead of having to amend the Highway Traffic Act through the legislature first.

As of right now the Province hasn't indicated an intent to prohibit transit lane conversions and I would assume that position continues until we hear otherwise.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Given last Sunday's South Scarborough Loop ride hosted by The Driveside and last week's ground breaking for the Brimley Road South trail, I decided to write a blog post explaining what's happening with Scarborough's waterfront.

Would be great to find out if there are any other Scarborough waterfront developments I may have missed. Yes @Northern Light, I'm looking at you.

What’s Happening with Scarborough’s Waterfront?

A blog about cycling and political advocacy based in Toronto, Canada. (#BikeTO)

www.twowheeledpolitics.ca

 

[UntitledCyclist]

Given last Sunday's South Scarborough Loop ride hosted by The Driveside and last week's ground breaking for the Brimley Road South trail, I decided to write a blog post explaining what's happening with Scarborough's waterfront.

Would be great to find out if there are any other Scarborough waterfront developments I may have missed. Yes @Northern Light, I'm looking at you.

What’s Happening with Scarborough’s Waterfront?

A blog about cycling and political advocacy based in Toronto, Canada. (#BikeTO)

www.twowheeledpolitics.ca

Great write-up! It's quite an ambitious plan, and one I never thought I'd see in my lifetime – and still may not, but here's hopin!

One point on the Bluffs West Project you mention at the end. That gravel trail below Scarborough Heights Park that is cut-off from Bluffers Park by steep cliffs and water, is accessible only via a path / former road with terrible surface conditions and very steep grades. It's dangerous going down and very challenging going up. I love doing it for fun on rides to the east, but it's not for most people. If this were to be part of a more connected trail system, that access road would have to be regraded or made into a switchback to allow for most non-athletes to climb and descend safely. If connections east and west could be extended along the waterfront from the Beaches to Bluffers Park, that might not be needed, but there have to be a few access points along the route.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

The previous timelines have been nothing but nonsense. They update it and remove the old versions, but it would be fun to use the Internet Archive to go back and trace all the broken promises they've made over the years...

OK, I did a thing as the Millennials say. I have to give some credit to the City for maintaining most of the updates on the Lower Don Trail Improvements site over time, which catalogue a litany of dashed promises and blown deadlines.

It's still instructive to use the Internet Archive to see what was being promised along the way.I screenshot the site, at points of key updates, starting in 2022 around the time they were re-tendering the bid after the initial contractor failed to get it done.

Text follows each image. I cropped them with the date of the capture at the top right. Pardon the length.

June 25, 2022: A May 2022 updated mentions re-tendering of the contract. Summer 2023 is the stated completion date, even with the re-tendered plan. This was probably never remotely realistic.

March 20, 2023 - A stealthy change was made nearly a year later, pushing the completion date to Spring 2024. No explanation for this major delay was given. But perhaps the early 2023 date was a typo or holdover from the first contractor's plan. Who knows.

May 20, 2023 - Another update with a helpful closure map that pushes the completion date to summer 2024. We are now a full year behind the initially given completion date, with no explanation.

May 27, 2023 - No changes, but a more visible update at the top of the page announcing the trail closure dates and the Summer 2024 reopening date.

June 24, 2023 - The first photos of the work site, and the first reasons given for the slipping schedule.
No date changes here and they are framing the delays as "slight." Just wait.

Dec. 5, 2023. A substantial couple of updates with photos and a new delay, with "late summer 2024" being the new goal.

May 14, 2024. The first update of 2024 mentions the soil conditions that necessitated "revised foundation work" for the sloped path, which seems to have been one of the bigger problems. No date changes here.

July 17, 2024 - Another big update and another big delay, pushing completion to July 2025. So another year tacked on.
At this point we were looking at a full two-year delay from the originally announced completion date. Just wait.

Dec. 14, 2024 - Another update with more details on the problems and the work remaining. No date changes, but the "still anticipated" line at the end doesn't sound convincing.

July 17, 2025 - A couple of updates here, with a new timeline and header and a new completion date: November 2025.
So another four months have been added since the last completion date of July 2025 was given and then reaffirmed a few months back.
More blame is being place on Metrolinx here than the soil conditions and narrow worksite that was the culprit in past delays.

Current site (Oct. 27, 2025): I just screenshot some of the recent delay explanations given by the city. The new completion date is now Spring 2026.

For the record, this is approximately 32 months later than the initial completion date of "Summer 2023" that was given back in 2022.

As I said earlier, that 2023 date was never realistic. It was likely an error, or at least wildly optimistic. I'm willing to accept the later change to Spring 2024 that was given when work actually started in May 2023. That still makes Spring 2026 a full 24 month delay – or a 3X increase from the initial 12-month timeline to 36 months. That is very bad.

Also keep in mind I am not even including the time lost to the false-start with the first contractor that was originally supposed to begin in 2021. I feel like that situation was more out of the city's hands, so I am focusing on the re-tendered bid and the current contractor's work.

I noticed that Ruthanne Henry, who had been the project manager on the LDT improvements since way back before COVID, is no longer listed on the site. The new senior project manager listed is Rafie Mehraban.

I don't pin this mess on any other individual at City Hall, though some fault must be found in such a terribly executed project. It would be nice to see a postmortem, given this has cost residents one of our key ravine trails for what will be at least 3 years.

Lastly, for those who read this far, the work contract was awarded (after the re-tender) to Grascan Construction Ltd., in Sept. 2022. They made the lowest bid of any company for a total around $10.5 million. The contract was meant to end Aug. 31, 2023. I am unsure whether they are still working off that contract, or have amended it since all the problems and delays arose.

As of now, we wait for the spring.

 

[Northern Light]

Given last Sunday's South Scarborough Loop ride hosted by The Driveside and last week's ground breaking for the Brimley Road South trail, I decided to write a blog post explaining what's happening with Scarborough's waterfront.

Would be great to find out if there are any other Scarborough waterfront developments I may have missed. Yes @Northern Light, I'm looking at you.

What’s Happening with Scarborough’s Waterfront?

A blog about cycling and political advocacy based in Toronto, Canada. (#BikeTO)

www.twowheeledpolitics.ca

I think you've got everything that's actually in process at some level or another.

 

[dob467]

I understand that raised bike lanes are better, but what exactly are wrong with these barriers exactly ? I mean I don't ride bikes much but as a driver I feel better with barriers for the bikers

From a safety perspective, they're not fully secure and are subject to being bumped by vehicles which can obstruct cyclists in the bike lane. This can be especially dangerous at night when a barrier that is jutting into the bike lane isn't easily seen and can cause serious accidents and injuries if a cyclist hits one. And from an urban esthetic perspective, they add nothing to the streetscape. Even when painted they still look like they belong in a temporary construction site.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

The Lower Don Trail has seen so many delays as @UntitledCyclist pointed out that trail users have become frustrated and David Rider wrote this piece in the Toronto Star.

The Lower Don Trail was supposed to be open last year. Why the city says it still isn’t usable — and when it will be

Pedestrians and cyclists are heartbroken that one of the key bicycle commute routes into the downtown remains unusable.

www.thestar.com

 

[DSCToronto]

Martin Goodman on Cherry Street.
The short block-long section of the shared Martin Godman on Cherry Street between the Ship Channel Bridge and Unwin Street needs some work. I asked 311, wrote to Paula Fletcher and let the Cycling Unit know. The Cycling folk replied as follows:

"Thank you for your email, and nice to hear from you again! I looked into future plans for this section of trail on Cherry Street, and it appears that upgrades are not included in the near or long-term cycling program.
Contacting 311 and alerting the Councillor’s office is the correct procedure for placing this sort of request, as you have done, so I will also add your comments to our database of cycling requests so we can consider upgrades to the Cherry Street trail in the next round of programming.'

As things tend to happen if there are multiple requests, others might want to chime in?

Here is what it looks like - narrow with bumps!: