Election Lens · Issue
Bike Lanes / Cycling
18 divided (non-unanimous, non-procedural) council or committee votes on this issue since January 1, 2023: 13 carry a clear direction on a tracked axis (counted in the patterns on each councillor’s stance profile); 5 carry a descriptive label but no directional axis (listed below, not counted in any pattern); 0 are genuinely unclear from the motion text.
This is a descriptive record, not an endorsement. Every row below is a real recorded council or committee vote since 2023. It says nothing about a councillor’s reasons, character, or fitness for office — only what was voted on and what a yea did. See What Council Actually Controls for how much of this any councillor actually controls.
For how each current councillor voted on these, see their stance profile.
| Date | Item | What a yea did | Motion (excerpt) | Tally | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-08 | Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Would have directed Civic Administration to implement the corridor recommendations, including new in-boulevard cycling infrastructure on Sarnia Road and Western Road and new in-boulevard cycle lanes on Philip Aziz Avenue, alongside pedestrian-signal, storm-sewer, and watermain work. (committee stage) | b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take such steps as necessary to implement th… | 1-4 | Motion Failed (1 to 4) |
| 2025-05-22 | Budget 2026 Cost Savings Opportunities - Cycling Lane Projects - Councillor S. Stevenson | Would have directed staff to report back to a future Budget Committee meeting with a full list of approved future cycling lane projects, their locations, timelines, capital costs, funding sources, and maintenance costs — a request for information, not a funding decision. (committee stage) | That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Bud… | 4-10 | Motion Failed (4 to 10) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Removed the planned Windermere Road to Gainsborough Road active transportation (cycling) connection from the Cycling Network maps. | Motion to approve part c) iii): iii) the Windermere Road to Gainsborough Road Active Tr… | 14-1 | Motion Passed (14 to 1) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Removed the proposed Taylor Street, McNay Street, and Gammage Street routes from the planned cycling network. | Motion to approve part c) ii) B.: B. Taylor Street, McNay Street and Gammage Street; | 10-5 | Motion Passed (10 to 5) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Changed the Huron Street cycling project’s priority tier to ‘medium-term’ (after a separate motion to remove it from the network entirely had just failed). | Motion to approve part c) ii): ii) Huron Street BE CHANGED to medium-term cycling project; | 14-1 | Motion Passed (14 to 1) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Would have removed the proposed Huron Street route from the planned cycling network. | Motion to approve part c) ii) A.: ii) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOV… | 5-10 | Motion Failed (5 to 10) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Removed the proposed Vancouver Street (Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street) route from the planned cycling network. | Motion to approve part c) i) C: C. Vancouver Street from Trafalgar Street to Wavell Str… | 11-4 | Motion Passed (11 to 4) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Removed the proposed Sovereign Road route from the planned cycling network. | Motion to approve part c) i) B: B. Sovereign Road; | 11-4 | Motion Passed (11 to 4) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Removed the proposed Royal Crescent (Clarke Road to Wexford Avenue to Admiral Drive) route from the planned cycling network. | Motion to approve part c) i) A: i) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED … | 13-2 | Motion Passed (13 to 2) |
| 2025-04-01 | (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Approved the Cycling Network maps overall, with specific street-level exceptions to be decided in separate sub-motions. | Motion to approve part c): c) the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except: | 11-4 | Motion Passed (11 to 4) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Recommended approving, as amended, the Cycling Network maps as a whole — approving the network overall while excluding the five specific routes (Royal Crescent, Sovereign Road, Vancouver Street, Huron/Taylor/McNay/Gammage Streets, and the Windermere-Gainsborough connection) separately voted out. | Motion to approve part c), as amended. | 11-4 | Motion Passed (11 to 4) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Removed the proposed Windermere Road to Gainsborough Road Active Transportation Connection from the Cycling Network maps. (committee stage) | That part c) be amended with a new part iii) and reads as follows: c) the Cycling Netwo… | 14-1 | Motion Passed (14 to 1) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Removed the proposed Huron Street, Taylor Street, McNay Street, and Gammage Street routes from the Cycling Network maps. (committee stage) | That part c) be amended with a new part ii) and reads as follows: c) the Cycling Networ… | 9-6 | Motion Passed (9 to 6) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Removed the proposed Vancouver Street (Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street) route from the Cycling Network maps. (committee stage) | That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows: c) the Cycling Network… | 11-4 | Motion Passed (11 to 4) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Removed the proposed Sovereign Road route from the Cycling Network maps. (committee stage) | That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows: c) the Cycling Network… | 9-6 | Motion Passed (9 to 6) |
| 2025-03-25 | Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps | Removed the proposed Royal Crescent (Clarke Road to Wexford Avenue to Admiral Drive) route from the Cycling Network maps. (committee stage) | That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows: c) the Cycling Network… | 13-2 | Motion Passed (13 to 2) |
| 2024-08-27 | (4.2) Councillor H. McAlister - Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan | Would have directed Civic Administration to flag a Hamilton Road Streetscape update (Adelaide St to Highbury Ave) for identification within the Mobility Master Plan — noting it could include a reconfigured three-lane layout with protected bike lanes and accessible sidewalks — with any large-scale redesign considered in the 2028-2031 budget cycle, and directed preparation of a budget amendment for future consideration; failed 5-10 at Council (a companion motion with identical text passed 5-1 at the earlier Civic Works Committee stage). | That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated August 1, 2… | 5-10 | Motion Failed (5 to 10) |
| 2024-08-13 | Councillor H. McAlister - Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan (links to the meeting page — this item shares its heading with another motion, so no single-motion anchor is possible) | Directed Civic Administration to flag a Hamilton Road Streetscape update (Adelaide St to Highbury Ave) for identification within the Mobility Master Plan — noting it could include a reconfigured three-lane layout with protected bike lanes and accessible sidewalks — with any large-scale redesign considered in the 2028-2031 budget cycle, and directed preparation of a budget amendment for future consideration. (committee stage) | Motion to approve the motion, as amended. | 5-1 | Motion Passed (5 to 1) |
Methodology: A “divided” vote is any council or committee motion since January 1, 2023 that wasn’t approved unanimously and wasn’t a routine procedural step, and it doesn’t include a vote decided by secret ballot to fill an appointment, since those don’t produce a recorded yea or nay by councillor. For each councillor, on each issue, on each axis: a vote counts as “for” when it matched that axis’s more permissive outcome, and “against” when it matched the more restrictive one — but a nay is never described as if it enacted the restrictive outcome; it’s described as opposing the motion it was cast on, and the same care is taken in the other direction. When every recorded vote on an axis since January 1, 2023 happens to fall on one side, the pattern sentence says so plainly instead of silently reporting a zero on the other side. Every motion’s issue, axis, and direction (“what a yea did”) come from an independent, motion-by-motion review, checked against that motion’s own complete text in the official meeting record rather than a keyword search, with a small, separately published list of after-the-fact corrections applied on top — never a silent edit to the reviewed record. This is a genuine reading of what each clause did, not a raw yea/nay count, including for the generic “approved or denied the item” description used when no issue-specific axis applies. Recusals and absences are always counted on their own, never folded into “against” and never treated as a hidden position. A pattern sentence is only stated once a councillor has at least 5 separate underlying decisions on an axis — a committee vote followed later by a council vote on the same policy question counts as one decision, not two, so a motion with several stages can’t inflate the count; below that threshold the individual votes are still shown, just without a summary sentence. Some motions were reviewed and confirmed to have no clear direction at all — a referral, a request for more information, or a genuinely ambiguous clause — and these are listed, on every relevant issue, as motions with no clear direction: never counted in any pattern or sample size, but never hidden either. This project has no source recording which committee a councillor belongs to — that list isn’t published or collected anywhere; a meeting’s own attendance record shows who was there that day, not who belongs to it. So when a councillor has no recorded vote on a motion, nothing is claimed about why, in either direction: only whether that meeting’s own record separately listed this councillor as present without a recorded vote, or whether nothing else can be said at all. Before any of the above, motions were also dropped in 2 ways, none of them guessed at or repaired: 32 where the same person was recorded as voting more than one way on the same motion (a roster conflict in the source data); and 12 more that turned out, on review, not to be a genuine division at all — a lopsided result the source data’s own “unanimous” marker missed, or the same motion recorded twice under two item numbers. Each motion is filed under exactly one issue, so a motion that touches two topics — a housing decision with a budget line, say — appears on one issue page only, never both. Where the source text has a hash symbol immediately followed by a case or item number — as in a title reading “Business Case”, then a hash, then “P-5” — this hub shows it instead as “Business Case No. P-5”, so the character can’t be misread as a link; the underlying wording is not otherwise changed.