[bearcat]

I also visited the Peter/Blue Jays Way bike lane upgrades, it looks pretty much done

however, they forgot to move/remove parking signs here (just south of Richmond)

further on Blue Jays way at Navy Wharf Ct the bike box for turning left is now gone.... for whatever reason... and there are still old sign for a left turn lane that no longer exists since the bike lane was put here in like 2021?


as the city is limited in installing new bike lane now, maybe they should focus on optimizing intersections with bike lanes? fix/remove vestigial signage, ensure all have yield to bikes in bike lanes signs, get rid of dashed bike lanes marking approaching intersections where appropriate, add raised bus stops so buses don't pull into bike lanes... maybe even protected intersections or add more bike boxes and no right on reds to facilitate these

 

[Toronto1834]

An attachment to Vision Zero/Cycling project report to I&E has been posted from Councillor Matlow.

He is prepared to support the current version sans bike lanes.......for now...... but....

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/ie/comm/communicationfile-213862.pdf

From the above:

View attachment 742958
Note the last line.

Will be interesting to see what might actually be installed if the current item were approved, since there is no roll plan or diagram available. It makes reference to narrowing the lanes, creating a new loading space, installing 3 medians, removing parking 30m prior and 15m following all three crosswalks. Presumably if the bike lanes are stage 2, they would have to create a design for the interim stage that protects for the bike lanes in future.

 

[Northern Light]

I also visited the Peter/Blue Jays Way bike lane upgrades, it looks pretty much done

View attachment 743252

however, they forgot to move/remove parking signs here (just south of Richmond)

Lets try this, please file a 311 ticket under this heading:

Service Request

www.toronto.ca

Attach the photo with your explanation. If that doesn't work we'll try something else.

View attachment 743253

further on Blue Jays way at Navy Wharf Ct the bike box for turning left is now gone.... for whatever reason... and there are still old sign for a left turn lane that no longer exists since the bike lane was put here in like 2021?

as the city is limited in installing new bike lane now, maybe they should focus on optimizing intersections with bike lanes? fix/remove vestigial signage, ensure all have yield to bikes in bike lanes signs, get rid of dashed bike lanes marking approaching intersections where appropriate, add raised bus stops so buses don't pull into bike lanes... maybe even protected intersections or add more bike boxes and no right on reds to facilitate these

For the above (paint/lane markings), a 311 request is also a good idea, but I think it would be worthwhile letting the cycling unit know. Try the 311 first, so that is successful, you can give the ticket number.

cycling@toronto.ca
311 ticket here:

Service Request

www.toronto.ca

Under this section:

Hopefully, that's helpful. Keep us apprised!

 

[txlseries4]

Matt Elliott posting about the planned bike lanes on Parkside with bad news re Bill 212.

Matt Elliott (@graphicmatt.com)

In a June 4 letter to advocacy group Safe Parkside, staff from Councillor Gord Perks' office confirm that the safety redesign for Parkside Drive is stalled due to new provincial rules re: bike lanes. City spent years studying how to make the road safer, but dragged their feet and now, well, whoops.

bsky.app

Text of the letter in case the grey is too light for people:

City Transportation staff’s review of Ontario’s Bill 212 has concluded that the City’s ability to advance road safety improvements across the city of Toronto, including on Parkside Dr. has been fundamentally reduced. Bill 212 has stalled the planned safety redesign of Parkside Dr., which was intended to include bike lanes, by requiring municipalities to seek approval from the Ministry of Transportation.

However, the City of Toronto has implemented safety measures that are still within our authority eg. WYSP sign, permanent permit parking, installation of traffic control signals and reducing the legal speed limit.

Please continue to advocate to the Provincial government about the impacts of Bill 212. Please also continue to report reckless and speeding motorist behaviour to the Toronto Police for enforcement to deter this behaviour.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Matt Elliott posting about the planned bike lanes on Parkside with bad news re Bill 212.

Matt Elliott (@graphicmatt.com)

In a June 4 letter to advocacy group Safe Parkside, staff from Councillor Gord Perks' office confirm that the safety redesign for Parkside Drive is stalled due to new provincial rules re: bike lanes. City spent years studying how to make the road safer, but dragged their feet and now, well, whoops.

bsky.app

View attachment 743330

Text of the letter in case the grey is too light for people:

City Transportation staff’s review of Ontario’s Bill 212 has concluded that the City’s ability to advance road safety improvements across the city of Toronto, including on Parkside Dr. has been fundamentally reduced. Bill 212 has stalled the planned safety redesign of Parkside Dr., which was intended to include bike lanes, by requiring municipalities to seek approval from the Ministry of Transportation.

However, the City of Toronto has implemented safety measures that are still within our authority eg. WYSP sign, permanent permit parking, installation of traffic control signals and reducing the legal speed limit.

Please continue to advocate to the Provincial government about the impacts of Bill 212. Please also continue to report reckless and speeding motorist behaviour to the Toronto Police for enforcement to deter this behaviour.

Same nonsense with Eglinton, though that one the City had the chance to do something but cowardly chose not to. In the event the court of appeal upholds Justice Schabas, there will be a need to go all out to demand the repeal of Bills 212 and 60.

 

[txlseries4]

Same nonsense with Eglinton, though that one the City had the chance to do something but cowardly chose not to. In the event the court of appeal upholds Justice Schabas, there will be a need to go all out to demand the repeal of Bills 212 and 60.

Some info from IEC today about Eglinton. Can't link to a timestamp on the video because the meeting's still being livestreamed. Saxe asked some questions at IEC today to staff and they (Hayward with TS) explained that on Eglinton the contractor was able to file for substantial completion because the high value and scale of the works on the contract issued, and time that had passed, allowed them to file for substantial completion, and the city was required to grant that ("We had no legal means of saying no"). Was explained that the provincial legislation (Construction Act) does not allow the city to proceed with a new contract even if they wanted to it would be subject to an exception from the province, but right now there isn't a currently process for requesting an exception. At a future time if that process exists, then council could proceed.

Saxe was clearly exaperated. Lightly paraphrasing here: "It's heartbreaking that we had a path forward and we lost it. It's a generational project that we were promised. Council feels we did everything we could do, I understand you (Hayward/TS) feel we did everything we could do, but we still lost it"

@TwoWheelPoli tagging you as I edit in the video timestamped in case you want to hear the rationale.

 

[Northern Light]

Some info from IEC today about Eglinton. Can't link to a timestamp on the video because the meeting's still being livestreamed. Saxe asked some questions at IEC today to staff and they (Hayward with TS) explained that on Eglinton the contractor was able to file for substantial completion because the high value and scale of the works on the contract issued, and time that had passed, allowed them to file for substantial completion, and the city was required to grant that ("We had no legal means of saying no"). Was explained that the provincial legislation (Construction Act) does not allow the city to proceed with a new contract even if they wanted to it would be subject to an exception from the province, but right now there isn't a currently process for requesting an exception. At a future time if that process exists, then council could proceed.

Saxe was clearly exaperated. Lightly paraphrasing here: "It's heartbreaking that we had a path forward and we lost it. It's a generational project that we were promised. Council feels we did everything we could do, I understand you (Hayward/TS) feel we did everything we could do, but we still lost it"

Saxe is right to be exasperated.

That is all I will say publicly as this time.

 

[Northern Light]

Matt Elliott posting about the planned bike lanes on Parkside with bad news re Bill 212.

Matt Elliott (@graphicmatt.com)

In a June 4 letter to advocacy group Safe Parkside, staff from Councillor Gord Perks' office confirm that the safety redesign for Parkside Drive is stalled due to new provincial rules re: bike lanes. City spent years studying how to make the road safer, but dragged their feet and now, well, whoops.

bsky.app

View attachment 743330

Text of the letter in case the grey is too light for people:

City Transportation staff’s review of Ontario’s Bill 212 has concluded that the City’s ability to advance road safety improvements across the city of Toronto, including on Parkside Dr. has been fundamentally reduced. Bill 212 has stalled the planned safety redesign of Parkside Dr., which was intended to include bike lanes, by requiring municipalities to seek approval from the Ministry of Transportation.

However, the City of Toronto has implemented safety measures that are still within our authority eg. WYSP sign, permanent permit parking, installation of traffic control signals and reducing the legal speed limit.

Please continue to advocate to the Provincial government about the impacts of Bill 212. Please also continue to report reckless and speeding motorist behaviour to the Toronto Police for enforcement to deter this behaviour.

In my reading of Bill 212, (others may vary), a multi-use path is not a bike lane.

I would propose narrowing Parkside and replacing the sidewalk (where applicable) on the west side of the road with a bi-directional, multi-use path. So far as I can discern, this would exempt it from Bill 212.

FWIW, there are those in the civil service who agree with my interpretation; but clearly, others do not.

 

[nfitz]

Saxe is right to be exasperated.

She's still too soft on them. Have staff never heard of a change order?

And how did such a huge change in scope not get council approval first? Isn't this contempt?

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Some info from IEC today about Eglinton. Can't link to a timestamp on the video because the meeting's still being livestreamed. Saxe asked some questions at IEC today to staff and they (Hayward with TS) explained that on Eglinton the contractor was able to file for substantial completion because the high value and scale of the works on the contract issued, and time that had passed, allowed them to file for substantial completion, and the city was required to grant that ("We had no legal means of saying no"). Was explained that the provincial legislation (Construction Act) does not allow the city to proceed with a new contract even if they wanted to it would be subject to an exception from the province, but right now there isn't a currently process for requesting an exception. At a future time if that process exists, then council could proceed.

Saxe was clearly exaperated. Lightly paraphrasing here: "It's heartbreaking that we had a path forward and we lost it. It's a generational project that we were promised. Council feels we did everything we could do, I understand you (Hayward/TS) feel we did everything we could do, but we still lost it"

@TwoWheelPoli tagging you as I edit in the video timestamped in case you want to hear the rationale.

I just watched it. The deputant share my frustration exactly and Councillor Saxe did appear speechless over this as well.

 

[txlseries4]

She's still too soft on them

For all we know transportation staff could be just as appalled as people here, and Saxe may know this from conversations outside of the public eye. Maybe not, but there is also a fine line to walk when it comes to politicians being critical of bureaucrats and not veering into berating, because there is no mechanism for staff to hold their own time and respond, or ask questions in response, and so it is not accepted and will result in a committee chair admonishing a councillor for going to far and requesting they withdraw their comments. Councillors not being careful about this can end up with the Integrity Commissioner taking a close look at their comments.

 

[nfitz]

For all we know transportation staff could be just as appalled as people here, and Saxe may know this from conversations outside of the public eye. Maybe not, but there is also a fine line to walk when it comes to politicians being critical of bureaucrats and not veering into berating, because there is no mechanism for staff to hold their own time and respond, or ask questions in response, and so it is not accepted and will result in a committee chair admonishing a councillor for going to far and requesting they withdraw their comments. Councillors not being careful about this can end up with the Integrity Commissioner taking a close look at their comments.

Asking tougher questions isn't berating.

"Why wasn't council consulted on the decision to change the plan that council approved?"

"Who signed off on the change?"

"Why couldn't a change order be submitted under the existing contract to maintain the original design?".

 

[jmi22]

Fletcher already nixed Jones because it would remove a few parking spaces. Anything in Ward 14 that affects parking is likely off the table with the current councilor.

She needs those parking spots to advance the peoples revolution duhhhh

 

[nfitz]

She needs those parking spots to advance the peoples revolution duhhhh
View attachment 743667

So? The right-wing tried spreading that during the 2010 election and got zero traction.

Why repeat conservative talking points? She's a known quantity. It's not like she's suddenly going to start advocating the annexation of private condo buildings for free housing without compensation in 2027.

 

[jmi22]

So? The right-wing tried spreading that during the 2010 election and got zero traction.

Why repeat conservative talking points? She's a known quantity. It's not like she's suddenly going to start advocating the annexation of private condo buildings for free housing without compensation in 2027.

I thought that was quite clearly a joke, but I guess not.

To be clear I do not think Paula Fletcher is attempting to advance a communist insurgency in Ward 14.