(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The wiggling room is in the language: it doesn't actually block creating bike lanes or MUTs, it only blocks the removal of motor vehicle traffic lanes.

(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: nor would the conversion of a parking lane into a bike lane, MUT or wider sidewalk.

(12-04-2025, 02:38 AM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The wiggling room is in the language: it doesn't actually block creating bike lanes or MUTs, it only blocks the removal of motor vehicle traffic lanes.

When this whole ordeal started I recall there was a process included to get the province's approval to remove lanes. I'm not sure if that was a different bill or, if it was this bill, if that portion of it survived. It may have been meaningless regardless.

(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: nor would the conversion of a parking lane into a bike lane, MUT or wider sidewalk.

I think it generally would, as "parking lanes" are usually motor vehicle lanes, albeit useless ones for driving in.

Despite the other restrictions included, I do wonder if this is only meant to target cycling. Wider sidewalks can be turned into MUTs, bus lanes often permit cyclists (maybe not in Canada but in many parts of the world, and this may be preemptively blocking that approach?), and things like CafeTO often include space for cycling. So it's easy to see this as just an attack on cycling infrastructure and any attempts to bypass the restrictions.

(12-04-2025, 02:38 AM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The wiggling room is in the language: it doesn't actually block creating bike lanes or MUTs, it only blocks the removal of motor vehicle traffic lanes.

When this whole ordeal started I recall there was a process included to get the province's approval to remove lanes. I'm not sure if that was a different bill or, if it was this bill, if that portion of it survived. It may have been meaningless regardless.

(12-03-2025, 08:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: nor would the conversion of a parking lane into a bike lane, MUT or wider sidewalk.

I think it generally would, as "parking lanes" are usually motor vehicle lanes, albeit useless ones for driving in.

Despite the other restrictions included, I do wonder if this is only meant to target cycling. Wider sidewalks can be turned into MUTs, bus lanes often permit cyclists (maybe not in Canada but in many parts of the world, and this may be preemptively blocking that approach?), and things like CafeTO often include space for cycling. So it's easy to see this as just an attack on cycling infrastructure and any attempts to bypass the restrictions.

(12-05-2025, 03:18 PM)Acitta Wrote:

(12-04-2025, 02:38 AM)dtkvictim Wrote: When this whole ordeal started I recall there was a process included to get the province's approval to remove lanes. I'm not sure if that was a different bill or, if it was this bill, if that portion of it survived. It may have been meaningless regardless.


I think it generally would, as "parking lanes" are usually motor vehicle lanes, albeit useless ones for driving in.

Despite the other restrictions included, I do wonder if this is only meant to target cycling. Wider sidewalks can be turned into MUTs, bus lanes often permit cyclists (maybe not in Canada but in many parts of the world, and this may be preemptively blocking that approach?), and things like CafeTO often include space for cycling. So it's easy to see this as just an attack on cycling infrastructure and any attempts to bypass the restrictions.

The bill also prohibits bus-only lanes.

(12-05-2025, 05:59 PM)panamaniac Wrote:

(12-05-2025, 03:18 PM)Acitta Wrote: The bill also prohibits bus-only lanes.

Is there a specific provision in the Bill that you can cite?  My understanding was that existing bus lanes are not affected.  Don't know about planned future bus lanes.

(12-04-2025, 02:38 AM)dtkvictim Wrote: Despite the other restrictions included, I do wonder if this is only meant to target cycling. Wider sidewalks can be turned into MUTs, bus lanes often permit cyclists (maybe not in Canada but in many parts of the world, and this may be preemptively blocking that approach?), and things like CafeTO often include space for cycling. So it's easy to see this as just an attack on cycling infrastructure and any attempts to bypass the restrictions.

(12-05-2025, 09:51 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I have to say I think the notion of bus/bike lanes is very questionable. Buses need to be able to zoom along at full speed (whatever speed that is on a particular road), not worry about tiny vehicles that can’t go at motor vehicle speeds unless they’re ridden by very athletic people.

But that’s a local planning decision, not one for a bunch of right-wing yahoos to make at the provincial legislature level.

(12-05-2025, 09:51 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I have to say I think the notion of bus/bike lanes is very questionable. Buses need to be able to zoom along at full speed (whatever speed that is on a particular road), not worry about tiny vehicles that can’t go at motor vehicle speeds unless they’re ridden by very athletic people.

But that’s a local planning decision, not one for a bunch of right-wing yahoos to make at the provincial legislature level.

(12-05-2025, 06:13 PM)Acitta Wrote:

(12-05-2025, 05:59 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Is there a specific provision in the Bill that you can cite?  My understanding was that existing bus lanes are not affected.  Don't know about planned future bus lanes.

I read it in the posted article. I didn't read the bill.

(12-15-2025, 03:25 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(12-05-2025, 06:13 PM)Acitta Wrote: I read it in the posted article. I didn't read the bill.

The bill amended the Highway Traffic Act, and the changes only impact conversion of traffic lanes. Here is the wording:

Code:

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.

Note that only conversions to bicycle lanes are prescribed at this time, but the provincial government could issue regulations at any time forbidding lane reductions for other uses.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s25014#sched5s1

(12-16-2025, 02:19 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: That is such an insane law. “I love cars and you must always maximize space for them, but I especially hate bicycles and although I am already prohibiting taking space from cars for any reason, I will single out bicycles again”

(05-15-2025, 08:12 PM)ZEBuilder Wrote:

(05-15-2025, 07:19 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Speaking of bicycle signals, I'm pretty the signal at Weber and Victoria is still bagged after what feels like more than 2 years. Other bicycle lights have been installed and turned on in that time so I wonder what the issue is.

I can't say for certain as to the reason but having worked with traffic signal cabinets and controllers they are very likely part of if not the entire issue. At every intersection there will be a traffic cabinet,



If the cabinet is the issue (hopefully it isn't) it would not surprise me if the Region is waiting to change the cabinet until they redo Victoria from King to Weber for the transit hub. Especially since they're going to require a phase upgrade anyway for TSP and bike along Victoria. However hopefully it's a detection issue though, those are miles cheaper and easier to deal with generally.