Policy makers are ignoring the demographic changes that mean that there will be fewer car drivers in the future. About 25% of the Canadian population is aged 65 or older and because people are living longer, that proportion of the population is growing ( another 15% will join the over 65 group in 5 years). People who are over 65 are less likely to own and drive cars because of health issues or budget issues ( Cataracts, glaucoma, fixed incomes). If you combine the proportion of the over 65 with the proportion of the under 18 year olds, it means about one third of the population is not driving cars. This may be even larger if those under the age of 30 cannot afford cars because of tariffs.
I suspect that even among the population that is driving cars, there are many that would prefer not to act as chauffeurs and would like the non-driving members of their families to get around by walking, public transit or cycling.
Provinces which pay for health care should consider that active transit such as cycling and walking has massive public health benefits, especially when those activities are safe and accessible for all ages and abilities. From a business standpoint, it is rather silly to not provide ways for about a third of the population to be able to access your services.
I am one of those over 65 living on a fixed income. I do not own a car and generally do not patronize businesses that I cannot walk or cycle to. I do use a car share program occasionally. But the businesses that get the lion's share of my dollars are pleasantly, safely and easily accessible by cycling or walking.
"...what fiscal conservatives think is worth spending gobs of money on."
So tell me, what do you think THIS fiscal conservative (actually, I'm a conservatarian but that's for another day) thinks is worthy on spending gobs on. I'd be interested to know what I'm thinking.
Why does the "Trucker-Convoy-Freedom!" set want to micro manage everybody else's life? This was a city decision taken by a city council under a mayor who at one time was the provincial leader of the same Tory party that Mr F now leads. Heck, some bike lanes were even built when Mr F was a part-time city councillor & his bullied younger brother was the mayor.
Ontario gets most of its gasoline from the US. Maine gets most of its gasoline from New Brunswick. Adding a big tariff both ways should discourage driving.
Universal high tariffs are still stupid, of course.
It might if they stayed...but they won't. I've already written here what Trump is using tariffs for. We're just 4 days into this "trade war" and already those that saw our "reciprocal tariffs" (which generally weren't reciprocal at all - most other countries still had larger tariffs than we on them) are just starting to respond.
73 countries wish to "negotiate" where quite a number have already offered the magic number - $0 Tariffs from them in return to $0 Tariffs from us. Just what the end goal was (with some other "negotiations" TBD, I bet, to further other goals). Not bad - certainly not what a tyrant would do, right?
And Xi, now hit with a 104% tariff on everything, holding a very poor hand on an 20/80 import number, is going to find out the hard way that he has no leverage and that China was the main target after all.
Coming back to what I said before:
- Shiny Objects are the distractions
- What's important is going on way deeper
- Media (and many others including Establishment Republicans) take him literally but not seriously, his supporters understand to take him seriously and not literally. Do not confuse the two.
"As of now, the Trump administration has reported that over 70 nations have expressed interest in negotiating trade agreements following the implementation of sweeping tariffs. However, only a smaller subset of these countries has actively engaged in formal discussions or made concrete proposals.
Key countries currently negotiating or preparing to negotiate include:
Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has prioritized deepening economic ties with the U.S. and is actively negotiating.
Japan: Japanese officials are in talks to avoid auto tariffs and have proposed concessions in areas like agriculture and energy.
Cambodia: Cambodia has offered significant tariff reductions on U.S. goods as part of its negotiations.
India: India has proposed cutting tariffs on U.S. imports as part of its initial discussions.
South Korea: South Korea has initiated talks following the announcement of tariff pauses.
Vietnam: Vietnam has agreed to start negotiations and proposed eliminating tariffs on U.S. goods.
Argentina: Argentina has already met with U.S. officials to discuss a potential free trade agreement.
United Kingdom: British officials are actively negotiating for tariff reductions.
Mexico and Canada: Both nations are planning or have initiated talks, with Canada scheduling negotiations post-election.
While over 50 nations initially reached out after the tariffs were announced, this number reportedly grew to over 70 following a temporary 90-day suspension of the highest tariff rates, which encouraged more countries to come forward with proposals. However, only about 15 nations currently have concrete offers or active negotiations underway."
It kinda looks like > 0, Bob. The Trump Admin has admitted that they can't deal with all of them at the same time. Such types of negotiations may well take some time for each nation.
Note that Perplexity AI was last reloaded in Feb so knows nothing about he world since that date. You cannot use AI for real time analisis of active situations which is what you seem to be trying to do here.
It is quite normal for the US Trade dept to be talking deals with other countries over trade. It is afterall their job. They were doing it before Trump and will be doing it after him.
Those countries you mentioned were talking trade deals with the usa before the tarrifs were announced. (This is what happens when you use a out of date AI as a source)
Japan and Canada has just dumped USA bonds on the Soverign Bonds market causing massive pain to the USA. Hardly the actions of countries "begging for a deal"
We know from the UK (public statements by them) that the USA Trade Dept recently started a unsolliced trade talk with them. after the tarrifs anouncement (unsolicited in this case means the USA started it not the UK) They offered a deal - the UK rejected it (public statements) it apparently demanded the drop of VAT (a sort of sales tax) from USA imports. The UK rejected it (public statements) .
I think your Perplexity info, this real-time Search AI (and not a Reasoning one like other LLMs) is out of date. But just to play along, I asked: "
I was just told that Perplexity was last loaded back in February. When was Perplexity last loaded or does it interactively search when new materials are questioned? Are your answers to my questions on tariffs out of date or up to date?"
Answer:
"Perplexity AI operates interactively, using real-time web searches to provide up-to-date answers whenever a new query is asked. It does not rely solely on preloaded information but instead gathers insights from authoritative sources during the query process."
Sure, the Fed Govt is always talking trade with other countries but this "event" is certainly far different than normal. I'll grant that the bond mkts are roiled.
Regarding your questions about tariffs, the responses are based on the latest available data retrieved during the search process. While Perplexity AI ensures accuracy and relevance through real-time searches, the information provided depends on the timeliness and reliability of the sources consulted at the moment of inquiry."
I am SO disappointed to read this. In the last six or seven years, San Diego, where I live, has installed lots of bike lanes, some of them very nice. A few are completely set off by a physical berm from cars and traffic. I can go to visit friends, run errands, go to our downtown, completely on safe bike lanes now. It's one of the reasons I recently ordered a new bike, an e-bike this time, planning on using it a lot and go even farther on a bike.
Why do we elect politicians who don't do us any good?
"Why do we elect politicians who don't do us any good?"
I think the answer lies in the phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure". What you think is a goodness, and you are utterly convinced that it is because of its utility to you, or that it fits your world/belief systems perfectly, may well NOT be to others. As I try to keep pointing out, the latter ALSO have votes within the body politic.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And what seems to be happening, more and more because of the political polarization of the day, what is desired by one set of folks is immediately undone by the defeated set when they gain back power.
And let the flip-flopping back and forth begin. Man has looked for thousands of years for the eternal motion machine. Congrats - you've found it in the sphere of politics.
I don't see this changing for quite some time as both (or more) sides are at each other's throats convinced that THEY are the right ones and all others are the Devil Incarnate for refusing to think and believe as they do. Thus, the Oppositional Forces never relent.
With our bike lanes locally, cyclists are happy that they are safer. Motorists like the lanes, too, because they don't have to dodge folks on bikes. A few were a little unhappy that a handful of parking spaces are now gone. Overall, the bike lanes are what most people want. My complaint is that we have people like Ford and Trump who are not listening to what the majority of folks desire and doing quite the opposite.
Really? I read what you wrote and pondered upon it - and then realized that I had to repeat what I've already written before on the nature of elections and their outcomes:
"My complaint is that we have people like Ford and Trump who are not listening to what the majority of folks desire and doing quite the opposite."
No, they ARE doing what the majority of voters wanted. If the "majority" were not their voters, both Ford and Trump would have LOST.
The majority of voters determine election outcomes and both Ford and Trump, necessarily by definition, won the majority of voters who voted in those two elections.
So your statement is, taken at face value and by definition, wrong.
Now, I'm willing to listen to your argument for bolstering that both Trump and Ford are now "electorally compelled" to do what the losing side wanted. I'm being serious here - it ought to be quite...interesting.
Saying so doesn't make it so. More concrete evidence is necessary as ANYONE could say "most people want the bike lanes". I, or anyone else, could simply state the opposite; would that show sufficient proof that my statement held more weight than yours?
Of course not. So it's no proof at all.
Secondarily, showing a valid scientific survey (as opposed to an online self-selective one) that says "most people" would be better than merely stating "most people". However, it, too, is still insufficient as the respondents refused to put their political need/wants into action by going to the polls and VOTING (they didn't back up their talk with their walk to vote).
Voting for the candidate that WOULD have kept/made more bike lanes would have been sufficient action and reviewing the election results would show definitive proof.
But they didn't. So I repeat - no, most people didn't want them ENOUGH.
But we did have an election. Our mayor, Todd Gloria, who had installed the bike lanes, ran for reelection. The guy who ran against him said he would remove the bike lanes. Gloria won the election handily. People want the bike lanes.
"Meanwhile, back in the USA, the Department of Transportation is sending out memos looking to identify and kill bike lanes and electric vehicle infrastructure, particularly if they are in any way related to horrible things like DEI, climate change, or environmental justice, or “gender-specific activities:..."
This is at the federal level, not at the local or state level. So, bike lanes can still be built, but not with federal monies. Here, if bikes lanes can be put in, the state will do it sometimes within the cities. In rural areas they don't put them in.
"Bike lanes are under attack across North America. In Toronto, Ontario, Premier Doug Ford is tearing out the main east-west bike lane that my daughter uses every day to get to work.
"Identify Programs for which award selections may have included any of the following elements: equity activities, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) activities, climate change activities, environmental justice (EJ) activities, gender-specific activities, when the primary purpose is bicycle infrastructure (i.e., recreational trails and shared-use paths, etc.), electric vehicles (EV), and EVcharging infrastructure."
Once again, you are trying hard to conflate two things as one - any attempt to remove or NOT build more bike lanes are the same thing. Your ideology on this isn't allowing you to see this.
Plus, it looks like you want to sue Stantec for bidding for, being accepted, and working on a legal contract let by the Government. And the "sue" part is over a PE reg and NOT over an actual instance of a Law (the primary reason why suits are brought forward).
But when it comes down to it, you wish to have someone bring suit over political issues - you just don't like what the "political winner" is doing. In Ontario, Ford is merely accomplishing a political policy, promulgated during the campaign. Perfectly legal. His followers/those that voted for him are delighted - and they outnumber you as you failed to get out your like-minded voters. The Fault is not Ford, it's yours for not learning more about the workings of politics.
In the US, Trump is trying to reign in the almost $2 Trillion yearly deficit by any means possible. In short, he has realized what the Proper Role of Government is (and there are several layers to that from local to Federal) and is putting a stop to anything that is not mandatory. Again, his supporters are delighted that much is being cut from an overblown budget and that our grandkids won't end up as indentured servants.
Frankly, bike lanes should be the responsibility of local government. Period. Fight it out at that level. Everything else is superfluous at higher levels. For me being an American, why should the Feds be paying for bike lanes in my community?
That's how we got here to be $36 Trillion in the hole - FREE MONEY FOR EVERYONE FOR ANYTHING!
And thus, we've become the most indebted nation in world's history.
"For me being an American, why should the Feds be paying for bike lanes in my community?"
And why should they be deciding how a local community builds its roadway? Oh wait, that doesn't happen in our local community. Now the state or federal roadways is a different story.
Let me also add this - I've been watching the Lawfare brought against Trump for almost 10 years as the Left has tried to ruin him, his family, and those around him - simply because of political disagreement.
One of the most insidious subsections of this is when the Left goes after, not Trump or his policies, but after the lawyers that were hired to defend him against the Left's suits. They might have liked him or they might have stayed with the conventional "everyone deserves to have good counsel regardless of the circumstances".
The Left doesn't care - if Trump was left legally defenseless (as no one would take the case), so much more the better. The goal is the goal and anything else is mere collateral damage to achieve that goal. When the judicial system is abused in this manner, its legitimacy is called into question - badly. The Left doesn't care - all they do care about is the Win.
The Left has smashed this long-standing "I hate what you say but will defend your Right to say it with my life" to bits. Defend Trump? Not only will we destroy him but your firm, your reputation, and your livelihood by getting you disbarred".
Judicial Terrorism.
Is this what you are looking to do, Lloyd, with your line stating "...I suggested to one of the lawyers fighting to save the lanes that a complaint be filed under section 72(2) of the Professional Engineers of Ontario regulations."? Isn't this a similar tactic to what I described above - to tarnish the reputations of the engineers? Put Stantec itself out of business, put them all out of the industry, because of a political disagreement?
This is ABSOLUTELY a political disagreement. One side wanted the bike lanes and voted for the right people to get it done. The other side said "Nope!" and had the votes to win the next election - and their guy promised to remove them.
That's it in a nutshell whether you like it or not. You might be able to get an ambulance chasing lawyer to take the case but their reason for doing so is probably not yours. You want to WIN, they merely just want the publicity knowing that they'll lose.
You're trying to "repurpose" engineers' actions as a legal point of law, most likely, will fail. Simply removing bike lanes by an engineering company is not included in any legal definition of "killing people".
If a bike lane was faultily designed and a huge sinkhole opened up under a pack of bikers such that they fell into and they all died or were severely injured after its completion, you'd have basis for a suit. The same would hold if they take it out and a similar sinkhole appeared, you'd be able to sue.
Just for removing it? I can see no liability there (except for a political one).
Now, I'm not an American lawyer and I don't play one either. Much less, a Canadian one. But I highly suggest that you first find a point in Canadian Law FIRST before accusing private individuals of a "crime in the future" which is only criminal in movies (like Minority Report).
And if you do, I will immediately apologize and write "The Law is an Ass" 1,000 times forewith.
Were I the present Mayor of Tea-Ho, I'd look closely at the legislation that mandates these changes to make some additional changes such as: Reduce speed limits to 25 & 30 KPH, install more speed cameras, add more protected cross walks with safety islands, with speed humps, add "Share the Road" signs & pavement markings, have a dedicated high visibility police unit to patrol where bike lanes have been/ should be. I could go on.
I have a project on Danforth Ave where these bike lanes are set to be removed. My first site meeting was at the end of January & it was stupid cold. As a fair-weather cyclist I was shocked at the large number of people using the bike lanes mid morning. Bloor-Danforth even before the bike lanes hasn't been a road to commute by car since the Subway was built in the 1960's.
Lloyd, just a follow up to a comment from earlier that I made: what is the relationship of the road your daughter rides on to the government? Is it controlled by the City or the Province?
I wonder what the effectiveness and reactions might be if bicycle commuters were to organize themselves into groups of riders by route and destinations? It might offer safety in numbers on the roadways while demonstrating where bike lanes would help all the traffic continues to move in safety?
Policy makers are ignoring the demographic changes that mean that there will be fewer car drivers in the future. About 25% of the Canadian population is aged 65 or older and because people are living longer, that proportion of the population is growing ( another 15% will join the over 65 group in 5 years). People who are over 65 are less likely to own and drive cars because of health issues or budget issues ( Cataracts, glaucoma, fixed incomes). If you combine the proportion of the over 65 with the proportion of the under 18 year olds, it means about one third of the population is not driving cars. This may be even larger if those under the age of 30 cannot afford cars because of tariffs.
I suspect that even among the population that is driving cars, there are many that would prefer not to act as chauffeurs and would like the non-driving members of their families to get around by walking, public transit or cycling.
Provinces which pay for health care should consider that active transit such as cycling and walking has massive public health benefits, especially when those activities are safe and accessible for all ages and abilities. From a business standpoint, it is rather silly to not provide ways for about a third of the population to be able to access your services.
I am one of those over 65 living on a fixed income. I do not own a car and generally do not patronize businesses that I cannot walk or cycle to. I do use a car share program occasionally. But the businesses that get the lion's share of my dollars are pleasantly, safely and easily accessible by cycling or walking.
It’s so weird what fiscal conservatives think is worth spending gobs of money on. You’d almost think the “fiscal” part was some kind of ruse.
Yes, the “fiscal” part is a ruse – and so is the “conservative” part.
Without a doubt. Look at the US. All for me none for thee.
"...what fiscal conservatives think is worth spending gobs of money on."
So tell me, what do you think THIS fiscal conservative (actually, I'm a conservatarian but that's for another day) thinks is worthy on spending gobs on. I'd be interested to know what I'm thinking.
Why does the "Trucker-Convoy-Freedom!" set want to micro manage everybody else's life? This was a city decision taken by a city council under a mayor who at one time was the provincial leader of the same Tory party that Mr F now leads. Heck, some bike lanes were even built when Mr F was a part-time city councillor & his bullied younger brother was the mayor.
Ontario gets most of its gasoline from the US. Maine gets most of its gasoline from New Brunswick. Adding a big tariff both ways should discourage driving.
Universal high tariffs are still stupid, of course.
It might if they stayed...but they won't. I've already written here what Trump is using tariffs for. We're just 4 days into this "trade war" and already those that saw our "reciprocal tariffs" (which generally weren't reciprocal at all - most other countries still had larger tariffs than we on them) are just starting to respond.
73 countries wish to "negotiate" where quite a number have already offered the magic number - $0 Tariffs from them in return to $0 Tariffs from us. Just what the end goal was (with some other "negotiations" TBD, I bet, to further other goals). Not bad - certainly not what a tyrant would do, right?
And Xi, now hit with a 104% tariff on everything, holding a very poor hand on an 20/80 import number, is going to find out the hard way that he has no leverage and that China was the main target after all.
Coming back to what I said before:
- Shiny Objects are the distractions
- What's important is going on way deeper
- Media (and many others including Establishment Republicans) take him literally but not seriously, his supporters understand to take him seriously and not literally. Do not confuse the two.
Well that did not age at all well did it.
"73 countries wish to "negotiate" where quite a number have already"
For example:
Fake news - did not actually happen, we now know it was a made up number by a panicking Trump camp. (seems to have been closer to zero)
Source please?
From Lloyd's favorite AI:
"As of now, the Trump administration has reported that over 70 nations have expressed interest in negotiating trade agreements following the implementation of sweeping tariffs. However, only a smaller subset of these countries has actively engaged in formal discussions or made concrete proposals.
Key countries currently negotiating or preparing to negotiate include:
Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has prioritized deepening economic ties with the U.S. and is actively negotiating.
Japan: Japanese officials are in talks to avoid auto tariffs and have proposed concessions in areas like agriculture and energy.
Cambodia: Cambodia has offered significant tariff reductions on U.S. goods as part of its negotiations.
India: India has proposed cutting tariffs on U.S. imports as part of its initial discussions.
South Korea: South Korea has initiated talks following the announcement of tariff pauses.
Vietnam: Vietnam has agreed to start negotiations and proposed eliminating tariffs on U.S. goods.
Argentina: Argentina has already met with U.S. officials to discuss a potential free trade agreement.
United Kingdom: British officials are actively negotiating for tariff reductions.
Mexico and Canada: Both nations are planning or have initiated talks, with Canada scheduling negotiations post-election.
While over 50 nations initially reached out after the tariffs were announced, this number reportedly grew to over 70 following a temporary 90-day suspension of the highest tariff rates, which encouraged more countries to come forward with proposals. However, only about 15 nations currently have concrete offers or active negotiations underway."
It kinda looks like > 0, Bob. The Trump Admin has admitted that they can't deal with all of them at the same time. Such types of negotiations may well take some time for each nation.
Public statements by the parties concerned.
Note that Perplexity AI was last reloaded in Feb so knows nothing about he world since that date. You cannot use AI for real time analisis of active situations which is what you seem to be trying to do here.
It is quite normal for the US Trade dept to be talking deals with other countries over trade. It is afterall their job. They were doing it before Trump and will be doing it after him.
Those countries you mentioned were talking trade deals with the usa before the tarrifs were announced. (This is what happens when you use a out of date AI as a source)
Japan and Canada has just dumped USA bonds on the Soverign Bonds market causing massive pain to the USA. Hardly the actions of countries "begging for a deal"
We know from the UK (public statements by them) that the USA Trade Dept recently started a unsolliced trade talk with them. after the tarrifs anouncement (unsolicited in this case means the USA started it not the UK) They offered a deal - the UK rejected it (public statements) it apparently demanded the drop of VAT (a sort of sales tax) from USA imports. The UK rejected it (public statements) .
I think your Perplexity info, this real-time Search AI (and not a Reasoning one like other LLMs) is out of date. But just to play along, I asked: "
I was just told that Perplexity was last loaded back in February. When was Perplexity last loaded or does it interactively search when new materials are questioned? Are your answers to my questions on tariffs out of date or up to date?"
Answer:
"Perplexity AI operates interactively, using real-time web searches to provide up-to-date answers whenever a new query is asked. It does not rely solely on preloaded information but instead gathers insights from authoritative sources during the query process."
Sure, the Fed Govt is always talking trade with other countries but this "event" is certainly far different than normal. I'll grant that the bond mkts are roiled.
Regarding your questions about tariffs, the responses are based on the latest available data retrieved during the search process. While Perplexity AI ensures accuracy and relevance through real-time searches, the information provided depends on the timeliness and reliability of the sources consulted at the moment of inquiry."
So I just asked Grok the same two questions (combined into one):
Japan - Fourth-largest economy, ~$4.2 trillion.
Germany - Fifth-largest economy, ~$4.5 trillion.
United Kingdom - Sixth-largest economy, ~$3.4 trillion.
France - Seventh-largest economy, ~$3.0 trillion.
Canada - Tenth-largest economy, ~$2.1 trillion.
South Korea - Around 13th globally, ~$1.7 trillion.
Mexico - Around 15th globally, ~$1.5 trillion.
Netherlands - Around 18th globally, ~$1.1 trillion.
Sweden - Around 25th globally, ~$600 billion.
Here's their GDP Ranking (again, from Perplexity):
Here is the list of the countries ranked by their GDP (nominal) in 2023, including their global rank:
- Japan: $4.204 trillion (Rank: 4)
- India: $3.568 trillion (Rank: 5)
- United Kingdom: $3.381 trillion (Rank: 6)
- Canada: $2.142 trillion (Rank: 10)
- Mexico: $1.789 trillion (Rank: 12)
- South Korea: $1.713 trillion (Rank: 14)
- Argentina: $646 billion (Rank: 22)
- Israel: $514 billion (Rank: 28)
- Vietnam: $430 billion (Rank: 34)
Seems like the world's heavy hitters to me. Germany (#4) had started talks before the latest tariffs were announced. Ditto Italy (8th).
I am SO disappointed to read this. In the last six or seven years, San Diego, where I live, has installed lots of bike lanes, some of them very nice. A few are completely set off by a physical berm from cars and traffic. I can go to visit friends, run errands, go to our downtown, completely on safe bike lanes now. It's one of the reasons I recently ordered a new bike, an e-bike this time, planning on using it a lot and go even farther on a bike.
Why do we elect politicians who don't do us any good?
"Why do we elect politicians who don't do us any good?"
I think the answer lies in the phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure". What you think is a goodness, and you are utterly convinced that it is because of its utility to you, or that it fits your world/belief systems perfectly, may well NOT be to others. As I try to keep pointing out, the latter ALSO have votes within the body politic.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And what seems to be happening, more and more because of the political polarization of the day, what is desired by one set of folks is immediately undone by the defeated set when they gain back power.
And let the flip-flopping back and forth begin. Man has looked for thousands of years for the eternal motion machine. Congrats - you've found it in the sphere of politics.
I don't see this changing for quite some time as both (or more) sides are at each other's throats convinced that THEY are the right ones and all others are the Devil Incarnate for refusing to think and believe as they do. Thus, the Oppositional Forces never relent.
With our bike lanes locally, cyclists are happy that they are safer. Motorists like the lanes, too, because they don't have to dodge folks on bikes. A few were a little unhappy that a handful of parking spaces are now gone. Overall, the bike lanes are what most people want. My complaint is that we have people like Ford and Trump who are not listening to what the majority of folks desire and doing quite the opposite.
Really? I read what you wrote and pondered upon it - and then realized that I had to repeat what I've already written before on the nature of elections and their outcomes:
"My complaint is that we have people like Ford and Trump who are not listening to what the majority of folks desire and doing quite the opposite."
No, they ARE doing what the majority of voters wanted. If the "majority" were not their voters, both Ford and Trump would have LOST.
The majority of voters determine election outcomes and both Ford and Trump, necessarily by definition, won the majority of voters who voted in those two elections.
So your statement is, taken at face value and by definition, wrong.
Now, I'm willing to listen to your argument for bolstering that both Trump and Ford are now "electorally compelled" to do what the losing side wanted. I'm being serious here - it ought to be quite...interesting.
But most people want the bike lanes.
Saying so doesn't make it so. More concrete evidence is necessary as ANYONE could say "most people want the bike lanes". I, or anyone else, could simply state the opposite; would that show sufficient proof that my statement held more weight than yours?
Of course not. So it's no proof at all.
Secondarily, showing a valid scientific survey (as opposed to an online self-selective one) that says "most people" would be better than merely stating "most people". However, it, too, is still insufficient as the respondents refused to put their political need/wants into action by going to the polls and VOTING (they didn't back up their talk with their walk to vote).
Voting for the candidate that WOULD have kept/made more bike lanes would have been sufficient action and reviewing the election results would show definitive proof.
But they didn't. So I repeat - no, most people didn't want them ENOUGH.
But we did have an election. Our mayor, Todd Gloria, who had installed the bike lanes, ran for reelection. The guy who ran against him said he would remove the bike lanes. Gloria won the election handily. People want the bike lanes.
"Meanwhile, back in the USA, the Department of Transportation is sending out memos looking to identify and kill bike lanes and electric vehicle infrastructure, particularly if they are in any way related to horrible things like DEI, climate change, or environmental justice, or “gender-specific activities:..."
This is at the federal level, not at the local or state level. So, bike lanes can still be built, but not with federal monies. Here, if bikes lanes can be put in, the state will do it sometimes within the cities. In rural areas they don't put them in.
"Bike lanes are under attack across North America. In Toronto, Ontario, Premier Doug Ford is tearing out the main east-west bike lane that my daughter uses every day to get to work.
"Identify Programs for which award selections may have included any of the following elements: equity activities, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) activities, climate change activities, environmental justice (EJ) activities, gender-specific activities, when the primary purpose is bicycle infrastructure (i.e., recreational trails and shared-use paths, etc.), electric vehicles (EV), and EVcharging infrastructure."
Once again, you are trying hard to conflate two things as one - any attempt to remove or NOT build more bike lanes are the same thing. Your ideology on this isn't allowing you to see this.
Plus, it looks like you want to sue Stantec for bidding for, being accepted, and working on a legal contract let by the Government. And the "sue" part is over a PE reg and NOT over an actual instance of a Law (the primary reason why suits are brought forward).
But when it comes down to it, you wish to have someone bring suit over political issues - you just don't like what the "political winner" is doing. In Ontario, Ford is merely accomplishing a political policy, promulgated during the campaign. Perfectly legal. His followers/those that voted for him are delighted - and they outnumber you as you failed to get out your like-minded voters. The Fault is not Ford, it's yours for not learning more about the workings of politics.
In the US, Trump is trying to reign in the almost $2 Trillion yearly deficit by any means possible. In short, he has realized what the Proper Role of Government is (and there are several layers to that from local to Federal) and is putting a stop to anything that is not mandatory. Again, his supporters are delighted that much is being cut from an overblown budget and that our grandkids won't end up as indentured servants.
Frankly, bike lanes should be the responsibility of local government. Period. Fight it out at that level. Everything else is superfluous at higher levels. For me being an American, why should the Feds be paying for bike lanes in my community?
That's how we got here to be $36 Trillion in the hole - FREE MONEY FOR EVERYONE FOR ANYTHING!
And thus, we've become the most indebted nation in world's history.
"For me being an American, why should the Feds be paying for bike lanes in my community?"
And why should they be deciding how a local community builds its roadway? Oh wait, that doesn't happen in our local community. Now the state or federal roadways is a different story.
Let me also add this - I've been watching the Lawfare brought against Trump for almost 10 years as the Left has tried to ruin him, his family, and those around him - simply because of political disagreement.
One of the most insidious subsections of this is when the Left goes after, not Trump or his policies, but after the lawyers that were hired to defend him against the Left's suits. They might have liked him or they might have stayed with the conventional "everyone deserves to have good counsel regardless of the circumstances".
The Left doesn't care - if Trump was left legally defenseless (as no one would take the case), so much more the better. The goal is the goal and anything else is mere collateral damage to achieve that goal. When the judicial system is abused in this manner, its legitimacy is called into question - badly. The Left doesn't care - all they do care about is the Win.
The Left has smashed this long-standing "I hate what you say but will defend your Right to say it with my life" to bits. Defend Trump? Not only will we destroy him but your firm, your reputation, and your livelihood by getting you disbarred".
Judicial Terrorism.
Is this what you are looking to do, Lloyd, with your line stating "...I suggested to one of the lawyers fighting to save the lanes that a complaint be filed under section 72(2) of the Professional Engineers of Ontario regulations."? Isn't this a similar tactic to what I described above - to tarnish the reputations of the engineers? Put Stantec itself out of business, put them all out of the industry, because of a political disagreement?
It is not a political disagreement, my daughters and I use those bike lanes every day. They will kill people. Engineers are not supposed to do that.
This is ABSOLUTELY a political disagreement. One side wanted the bike lanes and voted for the right people to get it done. The other side said "Nope!" and had the votes to win the next election - and their guy promised to remove them.
That's it in a nutshell whether you like it or not. You might be able to get an ambulance chasing lawyer to take the case but their reason for doing so is probably not yours. You want to WIN, they merely just want the publicity knowing that they'll lose.
You're trying to "repurpose" engineers' actions as a legal point of law, most likely, will fail. Simply removing bike lanes by an engineering company is not included in any legal definition of "killing people".
If a bike lane was faultily designed and a huge sinkhole opened up under a pack of bikers such that they fell into and they all died or were severely injured after its completion, you'd have basis for a suit. The same would hold if they take it out and a similar sinkhole appeared, you'd be able to sue.
Just for removing it? I can see no liability there (except for a political one).
Now, I'm not an American lawyer and I don't play one either. Much less, a Canadian one. But I highly suggest that you first find a point in Canadian Law FIRST before accusing private individuals of a "crime in the future" which is only criminal in movies (like Minority Report).
And if you do, I will immediately apologize and write "The Law is an Ass" 1,000 times forewith.
Were I the present Mayor of Tea-Ho, I'd look closely at the legislation that mandates these changes to make some additional changes such as: Reduce speed limits to 25 & 30 KPH, install more speed cameras, add more protected cross walks with safety islands, with speed humps, add "Share the Road" signs & pavement markings, have a dedicated high visibility police unit to patrol where bike lanes have been/ should be. I could go on.
Reasonable process.
I have a project on Danforth Ave where these bike lanes are set to be removed. My first site meeting was at the end of January & it was stupid cold. As a fair-weather cyclist I was shocked at the large number of people using the bike lanes mid morning. Bloor-Danforth even before the bike lanes hasn't been a road to commute by car since the Subway was built in the 1960's.
Lloyd, just a follow up to a comment from earlier that I made: what is the relationship of the road your daughter rides on to the government? Is it controlled by the City or the Province?
the city.
But Canadian law holds that a Province can tell a city what it can/cannot do in certain cases (a modified American version of Dillon's Rule State).
Here in Houston, Tx this is the current situation in midtown: https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2025/04/07/518080/houston-heights-residents-businesses-divided-about-11th-street-bike-lanes-as-mayor-continues-criticism/
Not only a waste of taxpayers money, but endless construction in the city....
I wonder what the effectiveness and reactions might be if bicycle commuters were to organize themselves into groups of riders by route and destinations? It might offer safety in numbers on the roadways while demonstrating where bike lanes would help all the traffic continues to move in safety?
And i want to lead the counterattack. https://open.substack.com/pub/adamcheklat/p/urban-liberation?r=4m50jk&utm_medium=ios