Only automobiles to be impacted
Toronto Star, May 11, 2014
Re: Pushing to expand bike lanes downtown, May 8
Pushing to expand bike lanes downtown, May 8
A city report about adding bike lanes on portions of Richmond and Adelaide streets suggests the change will result in “some traffic capacity reductions.”
Since one can fit far more bikes on a road than cars, I presume the report means that there will be impacts on “motor” traffic but overall traffic capacity will actually increase.
Confusing a convoluted process
Toronto Star, April 24, 2014
Re: Ontario commits $25 million for cycling infrastructure, April 14
Ontario commits $25 million for cycling infrastructure, April 14
Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the head of Toronto’s Works Committee, suggests that the public doesn’t understand the “convoluted” environmental assessment (EA) process for bike lanes. This should be no surprise — especially when the councillor himself appears to be confused.
The relevant EA document actually “pre-approves” bike lanes on existing roads thereby pre-empting the expensive EA process. If more councillors actually sought advice from their legal department then the long delays for bike lanes noted by Minnan-Wong might actually be avoided.
‘Dooring’ a threat to cyclists
Toronto Star, June 27, 2013
Re: Impact of ‘dooring’ on cyclists ignored, June 25
Toronto Traffic Services — in commenting on its failure to record the number of cyclists “doored” by parked cars — is quoted as saying: “If you said how many days a week is it sunny, we’re not going to track that.”
Public officials shouldn’t justify their failure to record this dangerous behaviour with such flippant statements regardless of how “collision” is currently defined. Cyclists doored by parked cars have been seriously injured or killed in Toronto. The law, and the police, need to start treating the opening of a car door into a cyclist as serious life-threatening conduct.
And Traffic Services needs a better spokesperson
The treatment might have some buy canada levitra side effects. However, this can reduce the sex-drive discount cialis india of the patient. This is why the health benefits of tantric massage provide a great way for people to feel better viagra australia online without causing any additional harm to themselves. But, what if a person who is just 23 years old and a professional skater she had sustained a concussion by hitting her head against the deeprootsmag.org viagra generika ice in a fall.
Car-based transit model is a fossil
Toronto Star, March 27, 2013
Re: NDP leader mum about GTA gridlock solutions, March 26
NDP leader mum about GTA gridlock solutions, March 26
I’m always fascinated by the ongoing drama about how to finance transit expansion and reduce congestion in the Toronto area. Listening to the debate, you’d think we were being forced from a cheap transport system to one that unwisely squeezes more money from our pockets.
The opposite is true: individually and collectively we currently spend lavishly on our car-centred model. A system based on mass transit offers us long-term relief from high spending and poor returns on transport investment.
It costs more than $9,000 per year to own and operate a car. The total cost to operate the four million cars and light trucks in the GTA and Hamilton area (covered by Metrolinx) is therefore about $36 billion annually. And that’s mainly just the cost to participate in the system.
The community then spends a lot more money on direct transport costs (like road construction and maintenance) and hidden costs (like air pollution, climate change, and health care from collisions).
Many of the funding tools being considered would not only raise money for clean transit but also divert us from the current extravagant system. Yes, there will be victims in the transition — such as the oil companies to whom Ontarians export $10 billion annually for the crude oil that ends up in our vehicles — but that doesn’t justify a failure to act.
We don’t really have to fear new fees that will steer us toward a transit-based model (complemented by cycling and walking). What we should fear is the status quo — our outdated, inefficient, and expensive car-based model.
We fail to appreciate the snow — February 11, 2013
Re: Toronto snowstorm: The drive home will be terrible, too, Feb. 8
Toronto snowstorm: The drive home will be terrible, too, Feb. 8, Toronto Star
I love the snow. I love the glittering beauty of falling snowflakes and how they blanket our rooftops, cover our yards, and line themselves up along drooping tree branches. I love how the snow slows people down — just enough to share a smile or a kind word, perhaps as we clear our sidewalks or trudge child-like over a snow drift.
I’m always surprised at how a major snowfall is treated like a crisis or calamity, even as children revel in its opportunity and marvel at its mystery.
It isn’t really the snow that is the problem. Snow has been around for a long time. The problem is how we have organized our lives. I know a big snowfall causes hardship to some people, but those aren’t the people getting the attention.
We blame the snow for getting in our way. We expect to travel at the same speed, go to the same places, and use the same private vehicles on roads and highways. The result is predictable. We crash our cars into each other. We curse the snow. And we attack it with an ugly fury — poisoning it with millions of kilograms of toxic salt that will end up in our lakes, rivers and streams.
It doesn’t take long before the beauty of a fresh snowfall is turned into a dark, slushy mess.
If we weren’t so enamoured with speed, so wedded to our cars, and so unwilling to accommodate the snow, we might actually have time to enjoy its beauty.
