Separated Bikeway Connecting the Waterfront Trail Between Norris and First Approved

In the spring of 2014, I wrote about the stretch of the Waterfront Trail between Norris Crescent and First Street. This is really the only part of the trail that's not off-road, not on quiet side streets and doesn't have a designated bike lane.

I followed that entry up with an update in July of 2014. I contacted my counsellor about it, and he told me they were looking at it. in fact, there was a study done, and they were actually looking at it.


Today, in a tweet from @GraphicMatt, I see the light. An on-street separated bikeway on Lake Shore Blvd. connecting the Waterfront Trail between Norris Crescent and First Street will be installed next year. This is great news.


Share this entry

Comments (21 - click here to join in!)

Ian from Etobicoke

This is how the war on cars begins friends.

September 15, 2015 @ 4:25 PM

I. F. E.

Just some 'Fordian' satire. Great news. The more safe bicycle trails/pathways the better.

September 15, 2015 @ 4:27 PM


Great news, and it makes so much sense in that section. It won't even affect vehicle traffic. That section of Lake Shore Blvd is 2 wide lanes each direction plus an extra lane that is moderately used for car parking.
What would be truly great for cyclists & pedestrians alike is a shared-use trail right beside the water (and I personally believe that can happen one day), but this is the next-best thing.

September 15, 2015 @ 5:38 PM


I want cyclist safety, really I do, but will anyone not talk about the fact that a large part of cyclist injuries are down to the complete lack of respect and adherence of cyclists to the rules of the road? There are a lot of drivers who frankly deserve their licenses revoked, but there are just as many cyclists who ride on the sidewalk, cut through intersections and ignore all traffic laws.

It would be nice if motorists and cyclists could share the road peacefully, but I feel like dedicating so much pavement to 1.3% of the city's population will actually negatively impact the city; pollution will go up as idling increases, and people will become more resentful. I feel like the cyclist union is now pushing a political agenda that is more about proving a political point than actually securing cyclist safety. Studies around the world have been done and the reality is, in the case of both motorists and cyclists, there is no substitute; education is the top preventative tool. Not speed limits, not bike lanes, not traffic lights. Educate cyclists on how to respect traffic laws and you have most of the problem fixed without these expensive construction costs (which the construction companies love by the way).

September 16, 2015 @ 11:09 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike


How often do I complain about cycling infrastructure in this city? Really, I've only complained about the stretch of the Waterfront Trail between Norris Crescent and First Street.

I complain about that stretch because it's part of a key bike trail on a fairly busy street that's already awfully wide. A separated bikeway on this stretch makes so much sense. Trust me, when it comes to bike paths, I pick my battles very, very carefully.

Education, of course, is important, but this is a great move. For me, my kids, and the many cyclists I see on this trail each and every day.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:19 AM


Toronto Mike, I didn't mean to get you riled up and my comment was not directed at you. I am talking about the overall issue of sharing roadspace. This may come as a surprise, but up until last year I actually cycled to work and back along Dundas St. West for 4 years (7 months of the year). Overwhelmingly, my fellow cyclists were the worst traffic offenders. Worse than cabs, regular cars or streetcars. And most astonishingly of all, they were the most reactive when the scenario of a possible collision evolved. Shouting profanities, flipping birds, and in 3 different instances, kicking the actual vehicles.

Regular people become road rage fanatics all the time behind the wheel of a car, and I submit that that actually happens with cyclists as well. My problem is that motorists are punished for bad behaviour, but cyclists seem to be rewarded for the same decisions.

My point is that as a whole, investing in these projects without a smidgeon of educational investment is fairly pointless. As for your specific path, congrats, I am sure you and your family will enjoy it. Also, I never accused you of complaining, nor did any of my comment speak to you directly. Not sure why it may have rubbed you the wrong way when it is addressing a general topic. Either way, cheers.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:31 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike


I only get that passionate about the following topics:

1. jinxes
2. Rob Ford
3. religion
4. junk science
5. bike paths


September 16, 2015 @ 11:34 AM

Sam in Pickering

I hope you didn't jinx the bike paths which will probably go away when Rob Ford's mayor again because his cancer was cured by snake oil, praise Jesus.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:38 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Sam in Pickering

I need a moment...

September 16, 2015 @ 11:41 AM


Fair enough TO Mike. I'm curious about what you mean by junk science though. Uh oh, am I opening a can of worms?

And why the Rob Ford hate? Can't you appreciate someone who was still capable of showing up to work at city council while on crack? At least he had that. What was Adam Vaugn's excuse? Lol.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:42 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike


By junk science I mean everything from climate change denial and creationism to cleanses, naturopathy and anti-vaxxers.

And I'm not biting on the Rob Ford question.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:47 AM


The Rob Ford thing was a joke. Interesting on your perspective about junk science. May I ask what has given you reason to be so firmly in one camp about something like Naturopathy and vaccinations? Just curious.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:51 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike


I trust the scientific method because it has no reason to lie to me.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:54 AM


@Christos: The great thing about science is that you don't have to have an opinion on it for it to be fact.

September 16, 2015 @ 11:57 AM


Oh man, I'm sorry TO Mike, I had to laugh at that one. So the scientific method that is employed by fallible, subjective, and self-interested humans has no reason to lie to you?

You don't believe that people twist scientific results to meet their own personal goals? I'd suggest doing some reading in the fields of history of science and philosophy of science. You will see that all science fields are in one way or another immersed in "turf wars". You see it in Physics (Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics), to Chemists and Engineers (GMO vs Organic), etc.

The 3rd leading cause of hospital trips and deaths in the US is prescription drugs. That says a lot about the state of things now. I think human beings are adopting science as the new religion and don't question it, choosing to believe that it is somehow pure despite the fact there are human beings behind it.

One of my favourite quotes is by Francis Bacon and sums up my personal philosophy; question everything.

"Read not to contradict nor confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider".

September 16, 2015 @ 12:05 PM


@ Lorne,

Based on the sheer number of articles that emerge regularly in scientific journals refuting or in answer to previous articles, I humbly believe that the opposite of what you say is true.

There is no question, science has helped us evolve to where we are today, but to think it is immune to private and corporate interests is naive.

September 16, 2015 @ 12:09 PM


@Christos Ahhh... okay, you're either a troll or an idiot. Thanks for letting me know. I'm going to go do something better with my time.

September 16, 2015 @ 3:46 PM


@ Lorne,

Name-calling when someone presents another perspective on an issue, well done. I can imagine a conversation with you must be scintillating.

Stay classy.

September 16, 2015 @ 4:32 PM

James Edgar


Mike said "I trust the scientific method because it has no reason to lie to me."
He didn't say " I trust the scientists because they have no reason to lie to me."

The difference is quite important.

No matter what personal or corporate bias might exist in any given research that "sheer number of articles that emerge regularly in scientific journals refuting or in answer to previous articles" is the scientific methods way of bringing the truth out no matter what.

So In answer to Lornes accusation I say if you already know this you are a troll and if not ....

September 17, 2015 @ 2:58 PM


@ James Edgar,

I see critical thought and dialogue, two pillars of science, are discouraged on this web-site in favour of name-calling and mass-herd mentality. Please narrow down exactly what you mean by the "scientific method". There are countless translations of this method made to fit specific science fields and lab experiments. You cannot remove the method from the person carrying it out. That is a simple fact. The theory of evolution is just that; a theory. A damn good one, and the closest thing to likelihood. But unless someone has videotape of those 5 billion years to show what happened frame by frame, it is still a theory. Every good scientist embraces doubt.

The majority of science is steeped in theories, not laws. This is because the majority of science and its method does its best to explain how things work and how they happen. This is a noble cause. And I am not writing off the progress or importance of science. But what I am saying is that people use it now to ascertain facts, which can never be fully proven or disproven. Worse, they like to yell "because science" at anyone who even questions any scientific fact. Questioning, analyzing and measuring are at the heart of science, so I fail to understand why people who claim to love science act so ironically in its defence.

Finally, in the things TO Mike listed in his "junk science", including alternative and complimentary healthcare, you have to really measure and analyze who carried out the studies and why. For example, if a prescription drug trial shows that it treats your asthma but has a 40% chance of killing you via heart attack, why it that so easily accepted AND defended, whereas something like acupuncture (as an example), which has been practiced in the east for hundreds of years with patients who claim good results is ridiculed? Is that good science? These are just examples of why I think it is healthy to question everyone. From the Pope to Stephen Hawking, and from the Naturopath to the MD.

If thinking critically means you're a troll or idiot, than so be it.

September 17, 2015 @ 4:08 PM

Leave a comment

Only 21 comments? C'mon, we can do better... Leave a comment above and let's keep this conversation going!

« Daily Photo: Jack Darling Park New Terry Fox Heritage Minute »