If Councillor Wong-Tam cares about cycling safety she has a funny way of showing it: Wellesley open house for cycle tracks

In the first of two open house meetings, a good showing of the public got an initial look at the proposal for separated bike lanes (also known as cycle tracks) on Wellesley and Hoskin, part of a larger project approved by City Council last year to create a network of separated bike lanes that improve safety and comfort for cyclists. Wellesley will eventually connect to Harbord to create a continuous cycle track from Ossington to Parliament.

I dropped by and took a look at the panels explaining the initial planning and provided my feedback. I also got a chance to speak with Councillor Wong-Tam, the only councillor attending. But it's not what you think; Councillor Wong-Tam didn't attend because she was so keen on the public consultation process and wanted to ensure that it went smoothly. Instead, most of her comments to me and other interested citizens were to criticize the consultation process and to point out her problems with separated bike lanes and the priority of the project. In fact, the councillor appears ready to call the public consultation process dead on arrival.

Attendees at the open house: Courtesy of Cycle TorontoAttendees at the open house: Courtesy of Cycle Toronto

Why is Councillor Wong-Tam so eager to attend the public consultation so as to slam it? It's not entirely clear, but from her comments it appears as if she is more concerned for condo developers, businesses and drivers and how the bike lanes will impact them than she is interested in making some bold moves to improve conditions for cyclists on this major cycling route. She displayed a similar reticence over separated bike lanes on Sherbourne before she backed down and agreed it should go ahead.

In order to convert the regular bike lanes on Hoskin-Wellesley to separated bike lanes (also known as cycle tracks), staff determined that left turn lanes and on-street parking between Bay and Parliament would likely need to be removed. This can be controversial but so far there have only been a smattering of complaints to staff. This first open house was the first opportunity for citizens to provide feedback to inform the design process. The more detailed plans will then be presented at the second open house in September. During the consultation process businesses, resident groups, property owners / managers have the opportunity to have a site meeting with City staff, to discuss their concerns and possible solutions. Staff will also involve City agencies and divisions - TTC bus service, Wheel-Trans pick-up/drop-off, fire and emergency access, curb-side waste collection, and snow removal and street cleaning - in the design process.

Why improve these bike lanes? Separated bike lanes are popular (77% of all Torontonians); they increase safety by providing some separation between cars and bikes; and they encourage a lot more people who might otherwise not bike to try it out. Cycle Toronto has pushed for the separated bike lane network. Harbord/Hoskin and Wellesley streets in particular are prime candidates as they form a major cycling backbone in Toronto, a popular and rare east-west cycling route that doesn't have streetcar tracks and is fairly continuous. Adding separated bike lanes to this route will add some much needed safety to help reduce crashes and injuries and to increase ridership.

The City provided a good summary of how Toronto is playing catch-up to many cities in Europe and North America who have been bringing their cycling facilities up to a higher standard (most recently Chicago):

In Canada cycle track type bike lanes, separate from motor vehicle traffic, have been built in Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and Guelph. Cycle track bicycle lane designs which help to keep
cyclists and cars separate are also popular in hundreds of other cities around the world. Lessons learned from these leading cities can help Toronto enhance its own bike facilities. Better bike facilities can create an environment that is safer for Toronto's existing population of cyclists. Cycle Track type facilities can also create an environment that is more accessible for people who do not yet cycle, residents riding in their golden years, and children. The goal of improving cycling facilities is to make cycling in the City, where you are near to motor vehicles, less intimidating.

Read more on the new standard for separated bike lanes in the United States on the NACTO site (National Association of City Transportation Officials)

Here's where the network of separated bike lanes is planned for Toronto:

View Downtown Bikeway Upgrades in a larger map

In comments to me and to Novae Res Urbis, a Toronto development industry newsletter, Councillor Wong-Tam made a number of comments that seemed designed to undermine both the process and the reasons for installing separated bike lanes in general.

At least 12 new projects are in the pipeline along Wellesley,” Wong-Tam said. “If you don’t factor in where those new buildings will have their egress and access points then I fear that we’re going to spend all this money and then tear it up later on.”

Wong-Tam would also like to see better coordination with property owners along the street who may have servicing or loading concerns, adding that “removing the bulk of the on- street parking isn’t necessarily going to be great for our main streets.”

Is Wong-Tam suggesting that this project be stopped until all 12 new projects are finalized? And what if yet more condo projects are proposed? Shall cyclists wait until those are done too?

Given that the City has explicitly noted how this process includes the opportunity for site meetings for stakeholders, it's unclear how Wong-Tam's criticism here has any traction. It appears as if her prime concern is with property owners and condo developers. Is this public consultation process not enough or would like them to have special access to the planning process?

“It’s a very expensive exercise to get wrong,” Wong-Tam said. “We can rush to a conclusion, build it out and [have it] not functioning the way we need to have it function then have residents upset that separated bike lanes don’t work. And then you will have a really hard time, if you mess up Wellesley and you mess up Sherbourne, of ever getting a complete network of cycling infrastructure. Which is why I’m advocating for a complete streets strategy, better coordinating with planning [and] a template that will ensure that the programming works for everyone.”

It's hard to understand her concern when City staff have already said that this is not a major project: they are not ripping up the street or changing the road width. They are proposing rolled curbs, bolted to the pavement such as they are doing north of Gerrard on Sherbourne, and changing the painted lines. City staff are “looking for some kind of temporary design that will be less costly but also something that we can remove when the street does get reconstructed and replaced with something permanent.” (Novae Res Urbis, June 29).

Councillor Wong-Tam is presenting her "complete streets" process as alternative to this process but it seems to be more of a case of doing nothing. A "complete streets" approach is sufficiently vague to mean anything in this context. If Wong-Tam wants better lighting on the street (which she mentioned to me) then bike lanes aren't holding that up. That can happen at any time and won't be covered under the cycling budget at any rate. If she is advocating for major road changes such as wider sidewalks (which she hasn't explicitly said) then it would likely involve a whole environmental assessment process and would actually be more disruptive for existing businesses. This just isn't going to happen any time soon.

Councillor Wong-Tam is throwing terminology around like complete streets to suggest she has an alternative that is equally satisfactory to cyclists, when, at best, it seems to be an empty term used to stall this process, and, at worst, is being used to keep the status quo of on-street parking for businesses and left turns for motorists.

Do left lanes and on-street parking convenience trump cyclist safety? Wong-Tam didn't make it clear that she would stand up for cycle tracks and take heat if there was opposition. But it's not even clear if there would be much opposition. Staff mentioned to me that they didn't think that removing parking would be that contentious since there isn't much currently and alternative locations exist. Removing left turn lanes will be a bigger issue, but even here I can't imagine a concerted effort to oppose it. I didn't see or hear any substantial opposition at this public open house and there are already many intersections downtown where left turns are prohibited.

Wong-Tam complained to me about the short notice for the meeting and how she didn't know what was being proposed until she arrived that night. I do not believe she is being genuine. Councillor McConnell had requested separate public meetings for each ward, which was likely to help Wong-Tam as well. This demand which was met, but ultimately the meetings were combined. Councillors were fully aware of the timing. Citizens first found about it three weeks ago from a Cycle Toronto notice on June 8. Information about the project was available on the City's website around June 8. The Ward 20 Cycle Toronto group on June 5th had emailed City staff and councillors Vaughan, Wong-Tam, McConnell and Minnan-Wong requesting that a date be set in a timely manner. There was ample opportunity to be abreast of the matter in her own ward.

Councillor Wong-Tam, however, told me that she hadn't publicized the open house in her ward. No newsletter went out explaining to interested citizens and stakeholders about the project and how they could provide comments. The same isn't true for a recent town hall Wong-Tam hosted on Jarvis Street as a Cultural Corridor. The councillor mentioned to me that she had made sure that all her constituents, particularly those in the northern part of her ward such as Rosedale, knew about it.

Wong-Tam could have put in the same effort for the Wellesley separated bike lane open house. If she felt certain groups were underrepresented they could have been invited. She could have used her office's resources which are larger than Cycle Toronto's. Was Councillor Wong-Tam hoping to discredit the public consultation by not publicizing it?

(The Jarvis town hall, by the way, had no explicit mention about the Jarvis bike lanes, but rather heritage and culture of Jarvis Street. Cycle Toronto did a call-out for cyclists to mention the bike lanes as important to the street. Councillor Wong-Tam mentioned to me after the open house how she was pleased with the resulting 'alliance' between heritage proponents and bike lane advocates. Was she crafting this outcome or did it appear as a sideshow? It's not clear how central Wong-Tam was to that relationship.)

Even though Wellesley runs through Wards 20, 27 and 28, only Wong-Tam appears to be against the process and project. This is quite surprising given her caché in the cycling community about being a pro-cycling councillor. I even saw her bike off down Wellesley after the meeting. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome that she bikes but it doesn't make a difference if a politician isn't supportive of what most cycling activists are fighting for. Councillors McConnell and Vaughan weren't present at the open house, yet it's clearer that they are supportive. McConnell has made it clear to constituents that she is supportive of the cycle tracks and Vaughan had even emailed me to express that he "totally support[s] seperated bike lanes to St George along Hoskin west of Queen's Park. No more consultation is needed."

Councillor Wong-Tam also brought up the Bike Plan as if this project could easily morph into installing some other bike lane somewhere else in the City.

“I’m disappointed that we’re actually not installing new bike lanes, more bike lanes, as in there’s not a single metre of new bike lanes being put into this entire project,” Wong-Tam said. “So that’s rather disappointing considering all the time and effort and resources being tossed into this.”

If Wong-Tam is not pleased about separated bike lanes on Wellesley she didn't offer any alternative bike plan for her ward. Instead she talked about completing the bike plan, how suburban cyclists need bike lanes too. Bringing up the Bike Plan is a red herring. It's not as if, for instance, the Pharmacy bike lanes will be brought back from the dead if the Wellesley separated bike lane project is stopped. The wheels of City Hall do not turn quickly and if this project is stopped here it won't be revived any time soon nor will it quickly result in bike lanes elsewhere. Besides, since the Bike Plan was drafted in 2001, cities the world over have advanced their understanding of bike lanes and cycle tracks. We should hold our bike lanes to higher standards, particularly are best used ones.

Councillor Wong-Tam even seemed to agree with a suggestion made by someone at the open house that there are machinations at City Hall that are setting up this project for failure. Supposedly so that bike lanes in general can be discredited. In this theory, the right wing with Public Works and Infrastructure Committee Chair Councillor Minnan-Wong at the helm want this to fail and so are forging ahead in such a way as to ensure that end. We know that Minnan-Wong is against bike lanes on Jarvis, but it is an entirely different matter to think that the right wing also wants the separated bike lane network to die. I'm not sure how it serves Minnan-Wong to be the main Council backer of a failed project.

Another idea floated by Councillor Wong-Tam at the open house was to suggest that this is a plan to get cyclists off the roads. I'm sure that this is front and center in the minds of some suburban politicians. A proposal to get cyclists off Toronto streets was last seriously proposed in the 1970s and it failed then. Today is a much different environment with many more people cycling and the urgent need to reduce traffic congestion. It is even less likely to pass.

Can we also accuse councillors Perks and Layton, who voted for Wellesley and Sherbourne at PWIC, of being part of the conspiracy? And councillors Vaughan and McConnell, who are supportive of the project in their wards? And why does the largest cycling advocacy organization in Toronto, Cycle Toronto, continue to push for separated bike lanes? Is Wong-Tam suggesting they are dupes to some nefarious plan?

I still hold out hope that Councillor Wong-Tam can be convinced of the need for this project and to get it installed in a timely fashion. Despite cycling herself Councillor Wong-Tam doesn't seem to be aware of where North American cities are headed and how she seems to be actively preventing Toronto from joining this modern world of being safer and more comfortable for all age groups and abilities. Cycle tracks aren't just a benefit for people cycling but for all road users. I encourage Councillor Wong-Tam to support cycle tracks on Wellesley.


I hope the option chosen does not call for cyclists to bike down QPC West, move into the left lane and then turn left onto Wellesley. Option B, C or D would be best.

A classic example of a well-intentioned politician (Councillor) abandoning a plan for fear of reprisal. If the majority of people (businesses, home owners, developers) contacting the Councillor are opposed to this project, then the tact changes.

Where are the 500-1000 cyclists in her Ward that care enough to express their need for this project? Becasue without it, I can't blame Councillor Wong-Tam for at least feeling reluctant to lead the charge, or turning on it entirely to save her own neck.

Developers, home owners and businesses are part of the public. They were given the opportunity to make comments at the last public consultation and they are welcome to attend the next one too.

Why should some groups appear to have special access to the councillor's ear and further require her to speak for them at consultation meetings?

@ IanF

Nobody has "special access", I never said that was the case.

But the reality is that many cycling infrastructure projects have been laid to waste because a business association or private interest pleaded with a Councillor to block their implementation; often without the benefit of informed and civil discussion, or consideration for the careful study that goes into every such project.

The need to organize community support for cycling is plainly obvious to me. Without it a few vocal parties are all it takes to remove a bike lane or to stop it from being installed in the first place.

Community organizing should ideally represent the needs of all, but the balance often shifts to the most vocal.

Toronto has repeatedly recognized the need to expand our cycling infrastructure (especially the current plan for separated bike lanes), but if we allow initiatives like the one in question to be derailed by the interests of the few, we will never see progress.

PS - If you think condo developers are part of the "community" then I have to ask what particular interests of theirs would serve the community or the city’s interests?

@ Seymore Bikes

Thanks for your reply.

I get the sense we agree on more than we disagree on.

Developers serve the city's interest in intensification, redevelopment and on occasion make payments towards "community benefits" or improve public space. I won't judge the quality of these contributions and I don't suggest this is well done or appropriate in every case.

Developers should be included in community consultation like everyone else. Their voices should be heard in the public forums affecting them and we should expect them to engage as courteous neighbours with the same civic responsibilities as the rest of us.

My principle concern is that Councillor Wong-Tam seems to advocate for the the concern of developers when she makes reference to forthcoming development applications on Wellesley as a reason to suspend the separation of these lanes.

I don't understand why a councillor would single out one group's interests when that group did not bother to attend a public meeting, but she is best placed to explain that.

As property owners on Wellesley, or at least parties with significant interests not unlike tenants, I would have thought they would present themselves to the meeting designed to hear those concerns. As far as I could tell, no developers were present. But I did not recognized everyone in the crowd.

It's pretty sad what this has evolved into, it sounds more like Herb has an agenda against wong-tam than it does an article.

Spacing Toronto just posted a great article why it wouldn't make sense to install a seperated cycle track on Wellesley.


The spacing article doesn't answer the question where do you put separated bicycle lanes other than Richmond Adelaide?
They have no answer
Bloor will never happen
It didn't happen after 8 years of Miller.
The only answer is Wellesley Harbord Hoskins
Bicycle lanes separated are not possible anywhere but Wellesley Harbord Hoskins
Herb is right
Wong Tam doesn't seem eager to see safe cycling
The Harbord lanes don't exist even unseparated between Bathurst and Spadina
There is no Harbord bicycle lane between these streets just charades.,. I mean sharrows .,,., to pacify cyclists
Wong Tam is an admirable person and a great addition to City Council but on this issue she is wrong.
Why does the left in this city not see what is obvious in the rest of world.
Montreal New York Ottawa even Guelph gets it.
Separated bicycle lanes are safer and ordinary people want them
If you are riding already you don't need them
90% of the population in this city , which includes the suburbs are too afraid to ride a bicycle downtown .
Keep it up Herb!

Herein lies the problem - the folks who attend consultations like these and write articles about the issue (such as Spacing) are folks who have already figured out how to navigate the city on two wheels. We need to build these things will all the future cyclists in mind.

The article SUGGESTS roads such as the richmond/adelaide corridor, but not limited to these, such as future eglinton lrt.

I am an 'ordinary' cyclist and I refuse to see money being wasted on separated bike lanes on a 2-lane road, put it where it's needed! bike lanes on bloor!

Wow you have identified two places to put east west separated bicycles in the entire city. Richmond Adelaide and Eglinton!
Bloor let's see
10-15 different wards and councillors
100's of on street parking spaces
100's of retail stores
Not a chance it will ever happen
Pure fantasy
How about separated bicycle lanes in the centre of a 6 lane highway - University Avenue?
Oh but that didn't work did it?
Oh those damned Fordkers!
But wasnt it the Millerite's who couldn't make that happen?
Queen , King , Dundas , College all have street cars
Gerrard doesn't go west of University
Shuter doesn't go west of Yonge
If we don't get separated east west Wellesley Harbord Hoskins the city will never see a network of separated lanes downtown ever
A critique of Wellesley Harbord is easy there just isn't an alternative that is politically feasible.

I don't see why you're so insistent on removing the possibility of it ever happening. Oh and btw, those two places that 'I' identified, I simply took as examples from that spacing article, you should go read it.

If your argument is for a network of separated lanes downtown, you also just argued why there won't be that network as well.

Bike lanes on Bloor and University!

The undeniable costs and concessions related to changing our urban spaces in Toronto (in this case the streetscape) are not being overlooked by the planners and engineers. I am not sure if this is any comfort to those that would otherwise assume that these projects are executed without careful consideration, planning, measure, study and due diligence; perhaps it is unapparent to most.

What is apparent however is that Toronto needs better cycling facilities – it’s just that simple.

We have fallen embarrassingly far behind other cities like: Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and New York; even far smaller and much colder Edmonton has more on-street bike lanes!

Toronto has continually rejected, removed, chastised, or demonized cycling infrastructure, and there is always an agent of excited (if not hysterical) and misguided rationale at work when this happens.

We need to do as others are, build what is already working elsewhere, and get past the ridiculous thinking that separated bike lanes can’t work.

Seymore, I don't think it's the case that people have the 'ridiculous thinking' that separated bike lanes can't work. I believe it's more along the lines of placing them where they are needed and actually make sense to do so rather than simply plopping them anywhere 'just because'.

I believe regular bike lanes on narrow streets such as Wellesley are great because they provide a distinct visual separation for cyclists and automobile traffic, but also give the freedom for cyclists to pass other cyclists safely and with enough room.

For example :
It's already a tight squeeze if passing cyclists stayed entirely within the lane, now stop and imagine this picture with about half a meter chopped off for the separated curb and buffer zone. Does that really make sense to you?

Freedom for experienced cyclists to pass versus safety for those who go too slow .... the old, parents with young children etc
That is what this is about?
In Northern Europe they have made the decision that the freedom to pass isn't that important
It is more important to make cycling safer and feel safer for the broad population
I am happy to be stuck behind a 75 year old grandmother on a bicycle who is out on the road in a separated bicycle lane
Happens to me on sidewalks as a pedestrian and on the road system in my car

Woah woah, this was never about 'experienced cyclists' vs 'the slow', but if you'd like to argue about this particular point, would you feel safe as a '75 year old grandmother' on a bicycle riding on a narrow separated bicycle lane with aggressive cyclists buzzing you while they pass?

Unfortunately, the speed of a cyclist is not dictated by a simple press of a gas pedal, but their physical ability. I'm so sure you'd love to be stuck behind a 75 year old grandmother.


There are plenty of reasons put forward by people who opt to ridicule separated bike lanes, and most are not what I would consider valid (hailing a cab, parking, snow clearing, or your congested bike lane dilemma (e.g. - bike lanes overrun with cycling grannies = good thing)

Keep in mind that building a network of separated lanes will be effective in getting the less savvy cyclist in & out of the city centre, hence the need to have a connection between Richmond and Sherbourne etc. At the risk of stating the obvious they also keep parked cars out of the lane - consider the family, the safety sensitive rider, etc.

So, while I would prefer a tiered multi-lane (ped, bike, auto) design, I still think that separated lanes do the job of opening the door to many more riders.

Build it and they will come. With expansion there are new challenges, but with those comes new opportunities too.

I think this is the wrong place to give tips since people who ride now probably already get it. who cares anyway.

The separated lanes, i'm not sure if this will just bring out the inexperienced bikers.

Looking back, I noticed that I didn't just get on a bike on the road and decide I'm comfortable and had the skills to just start. I had necessary skills going in and picked some up.

4 years of driving experience at the time to know the 4 way stops, the turns, this and that like lane change, blind spot, rules of the road.

I just started riding two abreast socially with a friend when no one was looking and single file then solo and the rest was history.

I got used to changing to exactly the gear I needed and what each one is for.

I did pick up skills right after like reading some of the motorcycle hand book for hand signals.

Lights and horns are mandatory on bikes which you won't find except on bylaws and maybe hta. The bells are useless and the horn's rubber cracks, get them for the law but ride without relying on them. My lights are the planetbike series of super flashers that you can get at MEC co op downtown.

Ride as if you are invisable but be assertive and have a friendly visable presence. Read about lane sharing as a bike, read what other bikers do.
Watch out for parked cars opening doors, I move slow and watch them.

Look behind you, signal, and don't be afraid of taking lanes when you have to. My experience leads me not to do it the entire time even if you are as fast as local traffic like at rush hour. Pisses people off even if legally entitled cuz of pot holes. I did it at all lights for safety but I think staying right and being a friendly visable presence so that I am in driver's minds and making it safe for the rest of us is a better way. I ride fast so the drivers aren't slowed much but taking the lane at lights pisses the crazy ones off.

I try to keep 50cm between me and the curb personally but not a stickler for it. (3 feet is what's legally considered safe passing but I need to recheck sources because things change and I don't have the link anymore so I could have misquoted). Be aware of how far drivers pass you and adjust for more space for yourself, but don't give them complete space so you have none for safety and comfort. There's a balance and you have to hold it like you own it for any respect, you do own it.

There is a "wide horrizontal object = threat and vertical object=blindness" mind trick that makes bicycles and motorcycles which have vertical profiles, even with lights, dangerous, invisable. (Ride as if you are invisble, have Horizontal lights layout or something obnoxious like bright blinking lights)

I also try to adjust my bike to fit properly and keep it properly tuned so I don't make mistakes or flip over while in traffic.

That basically concludes my biking experience and it has kept me safe.

Finally, I take left turns as if I am a motorcycle but using my hand signals, or else I have to sometimes make 3 pedestrian turns which is stupid and slow. I find it disturbing that nova scotia has a $138.96 fine for not riding in the bicycle lane and I think all these separated lanes are just inviting a stupid law to be made and prejudice from drivers towards a bike exiting the bike lanes to turn left. The separation and barrier does not inspire confidence and I don't think drivers will expect that left turn. (NovaScotia Fines and law) http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/roadsafety/onemetreq&a.asp

Remember that crazy driver that( being assumptive) felt like he was enforcing the law by bullying the woman biker onto a sidewalk and drive his truck or whatever on the sidewalk then turned himself into the police because bikes are allowed on the road? that's what I think will happen if I turn left. Drivers need to be socialized properly and that's what I try to do for you guys.

It really helps to be careful what one wishes for, and the devil's in the details.

So Richmond/Adelaide are the best places/highest need for separated bike lanes, and it's long overdue to put something there, as these streets were first looked at in 1992, and are in Bike Plan, including a separate study.

Sherbourne really needed reconstructing, and has long blocks - so doing something different there is/was somehwat sensible.

But the problems that we have with TO biking are NOT going to be fixed by rebuilding a few/3 existing bike lanes in a small part of the core, but rather, we need repairs and connectivity, and a responsive blend of adherence to the Bike Plan coupled with the acknowledgement that we are very badly lagging, and yes, in an ideal world we would start in on separated bike lanes.

If one looks at crash stats, it's the east-west routes that are needed more than north-south, and gee, in the Bike Plan there's a little bit of Bloor between Sherbourne and Church that should be with bike lanes, but why haven't we gotten a bit of that, and where's the push to have a missing link pushed forward? The bike traffic feeding in along the Viaduct is large, and it deserves respect, and at this point, I'd settle for removing one side of parking on Bloor with sharrows, just to get it started in that .7km.

With Wellesley, especially eastbound at its eastern end, we really really need to improve the flow north along Parliament to link to Bloor, and that should be a higher priority than any big reworking, though I can see some utility in at least engaging in a redesign exercise, though there are many short blocks and conflict points, with more arriving with redevelopments.

I don't think there's unanimity amongst advocates about the wisdom of separated bike lanes and nothing else - and there's been some deal-making and building up of Minnan-Wong and the Fordkers by Cyclists Union/Bike Toronto folks that is unfortunate. Deal-making by the CU also occurred with the missing four blocks of Harbord bike lane, and while the result is better than what we had before, and may set an example for west-end Bloor perhaps, why does this bit of commercial fare better than say, Dupont?

I'd also suggest that prior to really going down the separated bike lane routes, we see just how well the City does, or doesn't, get these facilities useful during winter months. Could we be set up for - "nobody uses these in the winter - what a WASTE!!" - and then scoop the bike budget in a design to fail, or design to facilitate raiding moment at bludget time, and btw, all those off-road trails need annual approvals, and will this happen?

pennyfarthing ok frye