06-27-2026, 01:35 AM
(06-26-2026, 03:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-26-2026, 04:29 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I kind of wish staff were more willing to take a stand on this. And yes, I don't believe that they can force something to be done about it, (although I think they could ask for MTO approval). However, a professional engineer (that name means something when it comes to every engineering profession EXCEPT transportation) would never sign off on a known deficient and dangerous design.
The road construction design still need a P.Eng. stamp of approval. The problem is that the design criteria (which is what the engineers need to review against) really do not consider active transportation. It's not an engineer problem, it's a design standards problem.
For example, in Markham:
https://www.markham.ca/sites/default/fil...on%20A.pdf
"All municipal roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria outlined
in this document and with the Engineering Standard Drawings, and where applicable, the TAC
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, and the Ontario Provincial Standards and
Specifications.
Sidewalks and walkways shall be located and constructed in accordance with the City’s Sidewalk
Policy and the City Standards. "
I was speaking more of the design or designation of active transportation "routes".
Like they're calling things a "route" which has gaps in it. A P.Eng. wouldn't sign off on a road that had a hole in it, so why do they sign off on a bike route that has a hole in it.