Three Simple Rules For Sharing Our Ages-Old Infrastructure

It used to be simple. Centuries ago, when we needed to get somewhere, we walked there. The wealthy might ride a horse or carriage. Road users negotiated the use of space between themselves informally, if needed. Today, sharing the road has become far more complicated.

As new forms of transportation were developed, road space was divvied up among users according to their vehicle type. Recently, a heap of new vehicle types are gaining popularity on our ever more congested roads, motivated by a desire to escape our automotive dependency, and enabled by new technologies.

Vehicles range from single occupant, to mass transit, to freight. Walking pace to jet speed. Any number and configuration of wheels. Articulated or rigid chassis. Wide or narrow. Combustion, electric, or muscle powered. On rails or road, portable or massive, human operated or autonomous, tilting or stable… Everything seems possible, plus all the varieties of hybrid vehicles that may combine any of these attributes.

It’s futile to even try to classify all these vehicles to begin with!

As a result of these blurred lines, the decision-making process for carving up road space according to vehicle type has become daunting and fraught with political peril as users of different modes create factions, clamouring for road space of their own. The need to set functional and lasting rules for sharing the road is urgent.

But if we can’t set those rules according to vehicle types in any sensible, effective way, then how do we do it?

The most elegant solution would be to stipulate limits for allowable use of particular roads or paths to extract their optimal safe utility. Then simply let the endless variety of vehicles fall within the terms of use for those spaces.

The two most obvious concerns when it comes to safely sharing the road are the speed and width of each vehicle, or user. By merely applying restrictions based on those factors to existing infrastructure, here is what new, simplified road rules could amount to:

However, it has to be acknowledged that these new limits would promote increased sidewalk use, reducing the comfort and safety that pedestrians are accustomed to. For this reason, it’s important to add a third and final stipulation extending priority to pedestrians.

After all, pedestrians aren’t safer if they’re surrounded by kids on a bikes, joggers, and mobility scooters (all currently allowed on sidewalks) than by adult cyclists, skateboarders, and e-scooters at the same speed. They should all be allowed to share the sidewalk with equal constraints, plus due consideration for pedestrians.

An important element of the pedestrian-priority perspective is to extend their protections to areas where sidewalks may not exist. To do so, it’s simply a matter of expressing the rule in a way that encompasses all roads and paths, ceding priority to pedestrians on whichever slowest infrastructure happens to exist in a given area.

Thus, on a street where no sidewalks exist, the onus is on wheeled vehicles (chiefly cars and bikes) to yield to pedestrians even on the street. That road would effectively belong to pedestrians first. Such a policy should fit nicely into the Vision Zero strategy that many cities are already pursuing.

The flip side is that wheeled vehicles get priority on whichever additional infrastructure might exist alongside the pedestrian-priority lane.

This stipulation then obviates the need for any jaywalking law. It allows pedestrians to cross any street as long as they yield the right of way where necessary. Crosswalks, in turn, could be legally defined as extensions of the sidewalk to extend pedestrian priority onto them.

Further elegance of this ‘3-rules’ approach is that it makes the concept of shared space inherent to the rules of the road. Road users cannot escape the notion that their privilege to use a given right-of-way is dependent on the allocation of safe areas to other users.

It also implies a hierarchy of road users, from the most vulnerable to the least vulnerable, from the most affordable to the least affordable, from the most natural and environmentally friendly to the least so.

Another benefit is that it allows outcomes to be optimized in urban and suburban parts of the city, all under the same rules. The roads and paths end up shared in whatever way is best for each given community, according to the available lane types and the concentration of users on them.

In a follow-up post, we’ll look at how this new rules structure for road sharing can form the framework for a whole new set of pared-down vehicle regulations. Such regulations could simplify existing rules on safety equipment, taxation, and licensing, as well as emerging issues such as power source and autonomous vehicles.

The days of the horse and buggy are long gone, and it’s time we updated our regulatory framework with an eye to the future.


The Perfect Car

Like many boys, I became a car nut in my early teens. I can remember the very first exposure that initiated me into the vast universe of automobiledom. It wasn’t a shiny, sleek car body or throaty exhaust note but a line drawing in an old textbook I found in my school library. The image showed the optimized aerodynamic shape for an automobile.


Of course in my youthful naivete I was easily seduced by the idea that a known perfect solution to a problem seemed to exist. Using this ideal shape as a starting point I started sketching my vision of ‘the perfect car’. Hundreds of attempts and several years later, I matured enough to accept that perfection is not attainable in reality.


A youthful attempt at drawing the perfect car.

Compromise begins from the moment the car’s potential market is defined. Assumptions have to be made about what buyers might want, or how they might use the vehicle. Or if no particular market is targeted – say we want to invent the ‘everyman’ car – then it has to satisfy everyone’s needs. It has to have the interior space of a van, the exterior size of a subcompact, the off-road ability of a truck, the performance of a supercar, the comfort of a luxury car and the cost of an econobox.

Clearly, these are mutually exclusive properties. Even price is a compromise all on its own. Do we make the car cheap to buy, or make it a bit more costly so it’s equipped with features that make it cheaper to own over the long run? I gave up, it’s impossible.

And that’s when it started to get fun!

Since the perfect car is an impossibility we might as well specify outlandish performance criteria for it, with no restriction of any kind. In that case, the perfect car has unlimited storage, while being infinitely small. It goes anywhere, and travel is instantaneous and soothing, and it’s not just cheap but actually pays people to use it. It also never breaks down, never gets stuck in traffic, never pollutes, and never hits anything. Now that’s a perfect car!

Somehow, by adding these fantastical performance expectations to the design criteria, the real-world image of the perfect car has come more sharply into focus when accounting for some recent developments in technology. And it reveals that we seem to be on a path towards that ideal, though we still can never reach it.

Crashes and pollution, for example, are likely to reduce with the advent of fully autonomous vehicles, and with cars built and powered using green energy.

While those technologies remain somewhere on the horizon, a present trend which addresses some of our ‘perfect’ requirements is the growth in car sharing services. These allow users to order up only as much car as they need, only when they need it, sort of like an infinitely re-sizeable car! A rationale which can also apply to old-tech rental cars, cabs, or transit. Though car sharing is close to our ideal because it enables owners to make money from their cars if they offer them on a sharing platform.

More ‘perfect’ requirements can be addressed with online meeting and collaboration tools, allowing us to work from afar in real time, offering that instant and easy ‘travel’ that we also imagined earlier. Though to be fair, that only moves electrons. Moving tangible objects that easily will require the development of large scale teleportation, which remains a fantasy even in this marvelous age of transparent TVs and shoes that order pizza! Until that day, cars will remain an indispensable component of the transportation mix.

This ‘cars plus’ vision is the line of thinking that has lead me to create Wheelist, which remains at its heart my stubborn attempt to conceive the perfect car. The evidence seems to indicate that furthering my goal requires these technological changes, combined with behavioural ones. Online shopping is an example of both. In that same vein, we can open up the door to even more optimization if we make lifestyle choices like buying local produce, and living and working in the same neighbourhood. These choices then unlock shorter-range transportation options like bikes, scooters, (electric or not) and of course walking. How else are your shoes gonna order that pizza?

All this means the poor schlub you see walking down the street may not be hopelessly destitute, but rather an inspired soul using the perfect automobile solution for his needs at that moment. No different than a supercar or 4×4 owner would be inspired for whipping their rides around a challenging course.


The old one-size-fits-all vision of relying on cars to open up new worlds for the average Joe has worked well enough in the past but that solution was never perfect. Because it can’t be. The limits of that strategy have been reached, particularly in congested urban centres. The next step in the endless path to perfection requires change, adaptation, and more transportation options.

Which conveniently aligns with the Wheelist motto; Revolution. Progression. Motion.

TTC: What to build next?

The latest addition to Toronto’s subway network was born yesterday! Six new subway stations were stuck on to the end of line 1 at Sheppard West (formerly Downsview station) and opened to the public on December 16th. If you’re curious about how it came to be, an excellent article by Oliver Moore and Jeff Gray covers that topic here, revealing just how much politics can trump thoughtful planning, even for such a massive project.

But my purpose with this post is to look forward, not back. One way to determine the next best subway project to start working on is by looking at the current demand versus capacity. Based on the latest ridership survey info available from the TTC, it’s possible to draw a pretty good picture of which routes people are taking and each line’s capacity to serve them. In other words; congestion.

TTC subway congestion mapNote: Background on how graph was made and its limitation are at the end of this post.

The new subway addition is not shown here, but extends up from Downsview station. It will be interesting to see the changes the new line will bring to the network in the next study, but some of them can be predicted in advance.

Obviously with the extension, the western section of line 1 (yellow) will see more traffic. This should not present any problem as there is spare capacity there at the moment and the forecast usage of the new stations shouldn’t overwhelm it.

For those who live in between the two legs of line 1, they will now have a choice of routes to get downtown. Many will divert off the eastern section, helping to alleviate the bottleneck on the that side but likely only briefly, as the law of induced demand tells us that whenever new capacity becomes available it quickly gets filled by new demand until it reaches a new equilibrium.

Not shown on the map is also the upcoming Crosstown LRT line, which will feed into line 1 at Eglinton Street on both the eastern and western legs when it opens in 2021. This will encourage even more passengers down line 1 from every direction. This is not good, as people already report being forced to wait for one or two packed trains to pass Eglinton before finding enough room to squeeze onto one.

The crosstown line will also connect at the Kennedy transfer point in the east, which should lighten the load a bit on line 2 (green) for people going to/from uptown rather than downtown.

It’s very clear that a relief line is needed as soon as possible to alleviate current and projected passenger volumes on line 1. But it remains a difficult argument to make because politicians prefer to back projects in the suburbs where anything that is perceived to make life easier for drivers wins big votes. Various relief line ideas have been tabled for decades but the only development we’ve had in the past 40 years is to stretch lines further and further out from the core. This can only go on so long before the hub is overwhelmed. In fact it may be too late already as rush hour subway service could become a nightmare by the time a new downtown line is completed.

Detractors of making the relief line a priority have their own valid transit concern, which is the end of the service life of line 3 (blue). That line is already on life support and the need to replace it is pressing, but here again the matter has become politicized, though that should be best explained in its own post. Suffice it to say, due to a number of terrible transit decisions in Toronto over the decades we’re are all suffering mild psychological traumas that make it difficult to make rational judgments on the topic of transit.

One thing is clear, as per the above graph: While the Scarborough RT needs to be replaced tout de suite, the relief line needed to be in place years ago.

So my plea to politicians is to stop resting your campaigns on some fantastic suburban transit dream and focus on the work that’s actually needed, not because I say so but because the well trained and fully informed planners we pay say so, and have been saying so for decades. Let the rest of us heal, please.

And my plea to voters is to stop being suckered by fanciful plans to connect subways to everyone everywhere. Vote for the candidate who will do whatever is needed to be done, not the one who promises whatever sounds the prettiest.

The base data used to create the graph is the station platform passenger traffic for a typical weekday in 2015. An assumptions on the proportion of travelers in each direction was made based on each station’s location on the line, with more passengers assumed to be traveling in the direction of other stations in proportion to their respective platform traffic.

The capacity of each line, represented by the grey ‘tunnel’ width, was calculated in passengers per hour, so it does not directly correlate to the volume of traffic represented by the width of each train line which is a full day’s value. The proportion between daily line occupancy and hourly capacity was established based on the report that line 1 is operating at 111% of capacity. The tunnel width of line 1 was thus made 11% narrower than the most congested line 1 train segment, and all other ‘tunnels’ were then calculated in proportion to the line 1 ‘tunnel’.

The Real Rules of the Road

colorful-pedestrian-bike-car-truckWith cameras everywhere these days people feel compelled to share their critique of any road user who breaks a rule here or there. Yet we know perfectly well almost all of us break a traffic law every time we go anywhere. The road rules we most often break are jaywalking, speeding, coasting through a stop, failing to signal, and using a cellphone.

Here are excellent dashcam examples of this contradiction. In the first video the driver complains to the cyclist who ran a stop, then proceeds to change lanes in the middle of an intersection (illegal in his jurisdiction) and then back again, all without signaling. In the second video the driver complains on his cellphone(!) about another driver who’s conscientiously running the red light.

Whatever the explanation for this hypocrisy, it means the rules defined by traffic laws don’t entirely define how we use our roads in practice.

Here then are the four universal principles of road use we all apply in reality. I call them ‘universal’ because they apply with astounding consistency to the behaviour of road users on different modes (driving, cycling, walking…) and even across nations. No contradictions, no hypocrisy.

1* The first Universal rule of the road is so obvious that we tend to dismiss it, but it needs to be stated, and that is safety. We all go to great lengths to avoid injuring ourselves and others, like steering straight into a ditch at speed to avoid a stalled truck. Safety overrides all other concerns. It is always 100% fair to criticize anybody who puts safety at risk (any circumstance likely to provoke an evasive maneuver or a collision).

2* The next consideration is the right of way. The right of way is largely defined by local law, but sometimes it’s negotiated informally between road users on the spot through eye contact or body language. Some cultures rely much more on informal rules to share the road but make no mistake, informal rules are very real even if they’re not obvious to outsiders. In fact, that’s a large contribution to the discomfort we feel when driving in a foreign area – we don’t know their informal rules.

The only valid excuse for breaking this second principle (cutting someone off) is to observe the first one; avoiding a collision.

Keep in mind, at this second stage no highway traffic laws matter other than those that happen to ascribe the right of way in a given scenario. Laws like seat belts, signaling, stopping, speed limits… none of them influence our use of the road except insofar as they may help establish the right of way. This may seem irrational, even dangerous, but we’ll see why the traffic laws unrelated to the right of way are so inconsequential below.

3* The third principle of road use is convenience. Or, what I amusingly describe as ‘whatever the hell I want’. Convenience is when we choose whether or not to jaywalk, to cruise past a stop sign, to exceed the speed limit and so on.

That may sound exactly contrary to the purpose of sharing the road, but in fact as long as the first and second rules are followed then observing this principle can enhance the flow of traffic and make it more predictable – meaning safer. Rule three also leaves room for using our best judgement to show courtesy towards other road users, to let them by in a congested area for example.

Doing whatever suits us – while respecting rules one and two – is actually a sign of competence and maturity. Granted, doing so may be illegal and it’s clearly not in our best interest to receive a ticket. But as long as we don’t contravene the safety or right of way rules, each of us can choose to weigh the risk of a fine alongside other costs and benefits, and decide on the best course of action for ourselves. Which is where rule four comes in.

4* The last principle of road use: all other traffic laws. This is the rule 99% of us break almost every time we go anywhere, illustrating just how inconsequential the laws can be. The only risk of conscientiously breaking rule four (meaning without obstructing others or creating undue risk) is a traffic ticket. It’s a purely technical breach of law, with no consequences to actual traffic.

If you’re not convinced, here are two everyday examples of how all of us ignore some laws that are clearly irrelevant. They may not even be enforced.

The first applies to pedestrians. When they cross the street with the walk signal, they’re supposed to stay on the sidewalk once the countdown begins, and finish crossing if they’ve already started. In practice they keep entering the intersection during the countdown and try to clear the intersection before the countdown ends. This is practical and sensible, but illegal (at least in Toronto).

The second example is a similar scenario at a crosswalk. When drivers stop to let pedestrians cross, Ontario law states they’re supposed to wait until the whole crosswalk is clear from end to end before proceeding. Again that’s silly and no serious person objects when drivers cross an intersection as soon as pedestrians are clear of their way.

Of course all laws (traffic and otherwise) still serve an important purpose, usually when we’re unsure about all the potential risks of our actions. In such situations it’s smart and prudent to know and obey the law. This explains why, when we come across someone who’s strictly observing the law, we often suspect that they’re new drivers or in some other way maxed out in their coping ability, and we try to keep our distance. In effect, we view such a cautious and law abiding road user as a greater hazard than another with more experience who skirts the law conscientiously. We intuitively understand that that cautious user will have contravened the third principle, which is worse than the regular road user who may inconsequentially contravene the fourth.

Here’s a final example demonstrating how we regularly dismiss some road rules that aren’t related to the right of way. We often view speed enforcement as unduly harsh while highway lane discipline needs harsher enforcement. This is because there is often no infringement of safety or right of way associated with casual speeders – they are (usually) only breaking rule four. But someone hogging the passing lane is obstructing the right of way, infringing rule number two. So we already know, instinctively, that the right of way is more important than any other rule.

Applying this new framework of road rules to our judgement of the ‘bad behaviour’ we see on the roads allows us to re-frame those situations in a more positive, sympathetic light. And it introduces interesting new insights into the problems of traffic. The video below is a great example of why it’s so important that we all understand these real rules of the road and apply them in our daily driving.

This driver sat waiting for a long time to turn on a green light, out of concern for being able to clear the snow-covered intersection fast enough to avoid oncoming traffic. So far, so good (ignoring that their lights were off…). Then the traffic light turned red and the driver took it as their cue to go, seeming to believe that oncoming traffic could stop by pure force of law. As if the rule of law was so powerful it could overcome the laws of physics! They mistakenly placed their respect for lawful traffic signals above the safety concerns that they’d been so cautiously applying just seconds before!

So it turns out that there’s a hierarchy of traffic laws, the top laws being those that assign who has priority if there’s conflicting traffic. Returning to the common example of blowing past a stop, it’s only a problem if someone were cut off or a collision was risked in the process. On its own, a failure to stop doesn’t indicate any offense other than to the law.

Knowing and applying these real rules of the road can help improve our perspective of other’s behaviour, supporting fair criticism or understanding and helping us share the road, making us better road users ourselves.

TTC missing opportunity to grow Toronto’s heritage

1966 TTC subway-smThe Toronto Transit Commission is set to approve a new naming system for our subways at their next board meeting on October 23rd. Gone will be the clunky “Young-University-Spadina Line” and “Bloor-Danforth Line”, to be replaced with dispassionate number designations for each of the four subway lines following the bureaucratic lingo that is used internally by the TTC.

While it will certainly be an improvement in clarity and concision for transit users seeking directions, the TTC’s proposed naming system is devoid of any character or relation to the city whatsoever. This has to be a concern that the board takes seriously. The naming of infrastructure with such a substantial presence in public conscience is a rare opportunity to shape the language and culture of the TTC, and the city, for generations.

This impact is easily demonstrated by considering the subways of New York and how their own alphanumeric designations are used in popular lyrics and storylines as references to various neighbourhoods throughout the city. Closer to home, we also use renowned infrastructure names to represent our values, such as the Highway of Heroes, the “905” vs. “416” divide, and of course companies paying millions for the right to rename landmarks after themselves, not least of which is the world famous CN tower.

Instead of mindlessly labeling our subway lines 1-2-3…, let’s take this precious opportunity to ascribe character to our city through the judicious application of names that hold meaning to us. This is a process that should involve public consultation and careful deliberation by knowledgeable history buffs, but that hasn’t stopped me from coming up with a few ideas of my own, just to help illustrate my point.

Subway map illustrating proposed name changesAs shown in my subway map, I would propose to rename the Bloor-Danforth Line the ‘Harris Line’ after R.C. Harris, the Pubic Works Commissioner who built the Bloor Viaduct in 1918. Conveniently, this is the very structure that just happens to contain the subway running between Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue! Harris was a highly respected visionary who contributed an important legacy of projects to Toronto.

Apart from a fresh name, the Yonge-University-Spadina Line would also benefit from being re-imagined as two conceptual lines which each “terminate” at Union station. In principle it is generally accepted that transit lines that run in straight lines are preferable to those that double back over themselves from the perspective of ease of use and accessibility. For example, identifying two separate lines at Union station would provide additional clarity to riders trying to distinguish between the two northerly directions of departure from the platform.

I imagine that the western segment could be called the ‘Jacobs Line’ after Jane Jacobs, the internationally renowned urbanist who had a profound impact on the shape of the city through the construction of the Allen expressway, where this portion of the subway runs. The eastern line should probably retain the Yonge name, given the importance of the street as central spine in the city, its mention in the Guinness Book of World Records, and the contributions of its namesake, Sir George Yonge.

The Sheppard subway-to-nowhere could stand to be named after former Mayor Mel Lastman, seen as how it was his baby when he was mayor of North York before amalgamation. The much ridiculed “stubway” seems to nicely represent Lastman’s short stature and crazy antics. He did play an important role in the history of the city, it has to be said.

Renaming the Scarborough RT system can be left until after it’s fate is finally sealed, assuming it ever happens. Perhaps the ‘Purgatory Line’? The less said on this subject, the better.

The point here is that the names given to the subways should be based on substance, a tangible element of Toronto’s heritage that people can relate to.

Yet, in my example the proposed names to not preclude in any way the ability for the TTC to create infographics and pamphlets that are just as clear and concise as the ones they propose. Each line can always be referred to by just the first letter of its name, exactly like 1s 2s and 3s. The subways would probably end up being named by the first letter of their names in casual conversation anyways; “Y train”, “L line”, and so on. But the substance behind those labels would always be there for Torontonians of the future to discover and connect with. In any case, the full names of the subways could always be used by the TTC in contexts where information does not need to be pared down to it’s bare minimum.

I hope that on the 23rd, the TTC board considers the significance of the proposed name changes under their review and choose to take advantage of this opportunity to better define ourselves through our infrastructure.

Porter Airlines, who’s at the controls?

Porter mascot leaning against the City of Toronto buildingThe city wrapped up a series of public consultations last Friday regarding a proposal to relax the rules governing the downtown Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA). They’re looking into the matter as a result of Porter Airlines’ request to allow a new breed of so-called “whisper” jets to use the airport. Jet aircraft are presently banned under the agreement that guides the operation of the airport.

I’ve been fascinated by charting the progress of the airport over time into what it is now – a bustling and highly appreciated though controversial waterfront development. It has grown exponentially since 2006 when it served a few thousand passengers per year to what will likely be close to 3 million this year, with no limit in sight. Bar graph of increased passenger travel at BBTCA from 2006 to 2012 The airport’s success is entirely a result of the rapid growth of Porter airlines, launched by airline wonk Robert Deluce.

On the surface it appears as if Deluce is the mastermind behind the skyrocketing success of Porter. However, the whole project of airline operations out of the BBTCA seems to have received the support of more than a few government and industry bigwigs, judging by the history of events leading up to it.

At the outset, the Toronto City Centre Airport (as it was known at the time) was set up as just a local airport that was allowed to host “limited commercial” flights, presumably in consideration of the odd charter flight that might wish to operate from the island. These were the terms of the restrictive Tripartite Agreement (27MB PDF) struck in 1983 between the city, the federal government, and the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) who manage the lands. Then one at a time, important restrictions on the airport were gradually slackened until its character and purpose no longer resembled anything that might have been intended by the original agreement.

For example, in 1985 an exception was added specifically to allow Bombardier’s then-new Dash-8, as it wasn’t able to take off and land as steeply as required in the agreement (thereby leaving a greater noise footprint at ground level). The fact that the plane is built at Bombardier’s Downsview facility in Toronto was obviously a very influential factor contributing to this first erosion of the agreement.

Then in the late nineties it became clear that the airport could no longer maintain the status quo, as government funding was being withdrawn and the TPA was expected to start walking on its own two feet. It either had to expand or be shut down and turned into a park. Expansion was the option of choice amongst the movers and shakers at the time, including Mayor Mel Lastman and Prime Minister Jean Chretien. That’s also around the time that Deluce strode in on the party and offered to run an airline out of the island.

Their expansion plan called for a road bridge link to the island and an enlarged terminal, both banned in the 1983 agreement. However the process of again watering down the restrictions to the airport was stalled for years due to legal feuds between the TPA, Toronto Housing Corporation, the federal government, and the city. It was only the impending threat of election of a new anti-bridge mayor, David Miller, that saw them rally together all of a sudden in 2003 to settle their differences and move forward with modifications to the deal, before it was too late.

But it was too late. As soon as Miller took office, he stopped the bridge as he had promised to do in his electoral campaign. He felt that the TPA had not obtained all necessary approvals before beginning work on the project. This led to a lawsuit by the TPA against both the city and the federal government. In the end the feds settled with the TPA despite the city’s objections. Out of the $35 million dollar settlement the construction company received $5.7 million for their sunk costs on the bridge construction, but most interestingly Robert Deluce pocketed $20 million of his own from that sum, for some unexplained reason.

Another boost to Deluce came from the Director of Aeronautics at Transport Canada in September 2006, who certified the Bombardier Q400 to fly out of Billy Bishop airport. This approval was based on that earlier amendment to the tripartite agreement that exempted “the de Havilland Dash-8”, since the Q400 airframe is based on that Dash-8. This, despite the fact that the Q400 wouldn’t exist for another 15 years after that exemption, while at the same time the new aircraft is nearly double the weight and capacity of the old one (65 200 lbs. up from 34 500, and 78 seats vs. 40).

2006 was actually a year of dizzying activity towards the founding of an airline at Billy Bishop. Some influential power players from the federal government, Bombardier, and OMERS pension fund all barged forward within days of Harper’s electoral victory to establish a viable airport on the island. This included a $120 million commitment to purchase Q400 planes in February, 7 months before they were even cleared for use at Billy Bishop by Transport Canada! By the looks of it, the bridge cancellation in 2003 had triggered a secret and immersive new campaign to impose a commercial airport on the island that skirted around public input.

Now a pedestrian tunnel is being built to connect the island to the mainland, again contrary to the tripartite agreement. I honestly have no idea how that one got shoved through. [March 2014 edit: In fact, the tripartite agreement only bans a “bridge or vehicular tunnel”. The pedestrian tunnel only needed council approval, which was granted in 2011.]

And that brings us to today.

The tripartite agreement still does not allow the airport to operate jets or extend the runway, but Deluce wants to allow jets and extend the runway. Will it happen? Looking at the history of events, it’s clear that it will. The powers-that-be had clearly decided many, many years ago that this was the airport’s fate regardless of the will of the electorate. Should it happen? That’s an entirely different question with plenty of fascinating details of its own which will probably merit another post.

The take-away from this information however is that Porter airlines is not merely the brainchild of Robert Deluce but of many much more powerful and heavily vested interests who are working behind the scenes to move the BBTCA agenda forward. Deluce may very well be nothing more than the designated frontman, deflecting attention from unions, corporations, pension funds and governments who need to maintain a sleek public profile. Perhaps in return for being the fall guy, taking all the public scrutiny and recrimination, Deluce gets rewarded with his own airline to play with?

Abolish Segregation!

Cyclists riding down an enclosed glass tube.

Pipe dream or nightmare? (Marc Ngui for Spacing Magazine)

In 2011, an Afrocentric curriculum was announced for Oakwood Collegiate.

In 2013, a protected bike lane is being prepared for Harbord Street.

What do these two initiatives have in common? They both support intolerance. Both measures were conceived to mitigate a perceived threat to a vulnerable segment of society; black student dropout rate and urban cyclist injury rate. Both seek a solution by dissociating each affected group from their existing mainstream environment. Both do more harm than good.

The ‘good’ of separated bike lanes is injury prevention, as a UBC study indicates, suggesting that a separate bike lane on Harbord should result in about an 80% reduction in injuries along that section of road.

The harm is less obvious. For one, it locks down our infrastructure. This makes the road less adaptable to traffic around incidents and construction, and it impedes the success of a swath of transportation alternatives as I discussed in an earlier post. It reinforces the much too prevalent misconception that roads are not for sharing, and it sets impossibly high expectations for all future bike lanes. It also sucks up valuable cycling infrastructure construction time and money that could be much better spent elsewhere, while removing nearly half the available parking that small businesses in the area depend on. But the biggest problem is that segregation removes bicycles from traffic, which will have the effect of increasing injury rates across the whole cycling network by reducing the familiarity of bicycles to motorists, according to an analysis by the Injury Prevention journal in 2003.

Note that the painted bike lanes along Harbord are already very successful as they stand. There has been no massive clamouring for separated bike lanes. Those who cry the loudest for them don’t actually stand to benefit from them! A Toronto Star reporter tells of her fall crossing streetcar tracks last year. But that was in an intersection, where protected bike lanes obviously can’t be used. In another article, a city councillor (and head of public works, no less) praises segregated bike lanes even though he admits he only learned to ride two years earlier and never, “ever, ever” cycled downtown before! And our most infamous politician, the raging know-it-all mayor Rob Ford, has passed judgement from the comfy leather perch of his swerving Cadillac Escalade, declaring that he is in favour of separate bike lanes. His conclusion, I can only imagine, is the result of finding he has to lift off the gas pedal for five seconds when his righteous way is impeded by an infuriating cyclist. Poor mayor.

The push for separated bike lanes at city hall resembles their misguided drive for a Scarborough subway at the risk of losing the funded and approved LRT . Both the bike lanes and subway are nice-to-haves, not must-haves for the city (and they are both Rob Ford pet projects-cum-infrastructure disasters). We desperately need as much transit as we can get, rather than bits of so-called “world class” transit (aka stubways). Just as we need a greatly expanded cycling network rather than enhancements to the feeble existing network. Separated lanes should only be required in specific instances like allowing two-way cycling on a one-way street, or supporting cycling along busy, high-speed roads.

By and large, cyclists who support separation (many are against) don’t have the same soapbox that those public figures have. Looking at their arguments, they all seem founded on one common observation; drivers are terrible. Two things need to be pointed out about that. First of all there is a misperception that painted bike lanes are not to be crossed by drivers (the same misperception drivers have about their superior right to their lanes). In reality, drivers loading or unloading by the curb, or turning right or squeezing around stopped traffic on their left should all feel free to use the painted bike lane when safe to do so. Negotiating the road use with other vehicles is in fact one of the advantages of painted bike lanes, as it improves traffic flow and encourages awareness of other road users. Secondly, we don’t have to throw up our hands and accept bad driving habits, forcibly controlling them with the erection of barriers. Their behaviour can be corrected.

I know, I know, it’s hard to believe that drivers can learn to see the road as a shared space, allowing safe room for cyclists. But all observation and experience support this conclusion.

Believe it, because in cities with higher cycling densities like Amsterdam or Portland, and even Montreal, drivers are more aware and considerate towards cyclists because they all have to deal with each other frequently. Contrast this with my experience cycling in the suburbs of Thornhill, where drivers have either come to a screeching stop behind me, or needlessly swerved around me into oncoming traffic, and in one case a driver passed me cleanly only to drive straight into a four foot snow bank! All because they had no idea how to deal with me being on the same road as them. The behaviour of drivers in the ‘burbs is no different than I would expect if I were a pink elephant stomping down the side of the road. Clearly, this is not the same behaviour as drivers in the downtown area because they are more accustomed to negotiating the use of the road with cyclists.

Believe it, because even the world’s model for cycling infrastructure, Amsterdam, allows bike lanes to be shared by e-bikes, gas bikes, and even tiny electric cars. It works. Of course in Toronto we did the opposite and banned e-bikes from bike paths!

Believe it, because the ‘shared space’ concept works. Shared Space is an even more extreme scheme for eliminating barriers between road users compared to merely desegregating bike lanes, but even then drivers have been shown to adapt, making it a success wherever it has been introduced.

Believe it, because the Injury Prevention journal concluded as much from its study. “Where, or when, more people walk or bicycle, the less likely any of them are to be injured by motorists. There is safety in numbers.” It’s the same reason that drivers who are more often exposed to snowy roads are better drivers in those conditions. Increased exposure breeds increased awareness.

Drivers can indeed improve. The money spent on separating existing bike lanes could be better spent multiplying the number of cyclists by creating desperately needed new bike lanes within our pitiful cycling network. An expanded bike network would draw more cyclists onto the roads throughout the city, making us a more permanent fixture in the eyes of drivers and forcing them to recognise that the road is to be shared, not owned.

All of this demonstrates that we need to correct the bad driving behaviour observed around cyclists by exposing drivers to cyclists more frequently, not less. Up with integration, down with segregation!

Cycling Cities – A Google Maps Showdown

I was curious to find out what made Ottawa such a great cycling city, after it earned a gold award this week as a Bicycle Friendly Community from the Share the Road Cycling Coalition.

The award rates cities based on their achievements in support of cycling planning, infrastructure, education, culture and enforcement following a methodology developed by America’s largest cycling advocacy group, the League of American Bicyclists. Ottawa is the first Canadian city to reach the gold standard, however I could find no specific explanations of what it did to achieve that success.

So I did what any self-appointed internet authority would do; I checked out Google.

Google Maps provides a moderately useful network of bike routes that can be used to derive directions for cyclists. Obviously, Ottawa must have a massive lattice of bikeways criss-crossing the city, right? Well, it kinda does actually! At a glance, one can detect a strong pattern of continuous bike lanes that reach each corner of the city, all surrounded by a slew of shorter little connector paths.
Map of Ottawa's cycling routes

Compare this to Rob Ford Land, which is a mish-mash of disjointed routes sparsely sprinkled with tiny routes representing parkettes or subdivision shortcuts. Not even close (all maps in this post were screen-captured to the same scale).

And how do these two compare to other Canadian cities? Actually there are some surprising contenders in this competition for green lines in Google Maps. Surrey, Kitchener-Waterloo and Fredericton all look like nicely bikeable cities, judging them as I am from the comfort of my office chair.
Map of Surrey, Kitchener and Fredericton bike routes

In the eyes of Share the Road (an Ontario organization), Kitchener ranks no better than Toronto, each winning a silver award. So obviously there must be more substance behind the judging than just a glance at internet maps.

Other cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal seem to have pockets of strong cycling infrastructure, but with enough neglected areas that I would have to rate them as second-class networks.
Map of Edmonton bike routesMap of Calgary bike routesMap of Winnipeg bike routesMap of Montreal bike routes

Like Toronto’s, Vancouver’s bike network is just sad.
Map of Vancouver's bike routes

It will be interesting to revisit these maps on Google in a few years to get an indication of the progress each municipality is making. Or in the case of Toronto, how much further we’re falling behind.

The Whee! List – Bullet Bike

Velomobile cockpit cam 02Don’t be surprised if you’ve never heard the term ‘bullet bike’ before, I just made it up. They’re properly known as velomobiles, but that just sounds too… French. Too wussy. It conjures up images of a fragile instrument that needs to be serviced by a mime with a big curly moustache. A bullet bike however, now that’s a man’s bike! Something any red blooded Canuck would be proud to talk about over a lager. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that velomobiles are far more common on the other side of the Atlantic than here, though they remain quite rare even there.

Fortunately for this blog, I happen to live only a short drive from North America’s one and only distributor; Bluevelo in Collingwood, Ontario. I was able to schedule a test ride on a beautiful Sunday morning with one of the incredibly helpful owners, Randy Mickevicious. He operates Bluevelo with his brother Ray, who recognized the appeal of velomobiles many years ago and decided that we needed to have them here too. There was hardly a wealth of pent-up demand for the product at the time, but their enthusiasm for the bikes lead them to open up shop here anyways, market sustainability be damned! The bikes’ popularity has been slowly growing ever since as more and more people discover them.

But wait, what the heck is a velomobile? …errrrr I mean bullet bike.

Simply put, it is a recumbent tricycle with full fairings. They kinda look like a bobsleigh with wheels. Like a bike, but shaped like a bullet. Get it? This form factor allows for superior aerodynamics, comfort, and versatility, making them ideal for long distance touring and commuting. But I prefer to think of them as what bikes would have evolved into if the Union Cycliste Internationale hadn’t ruled in 1934 that bicycles must have a certain ‘look’ that made them inefficient and uncomfortable. Those darned fanciful Frenchmen again.

One downside of bullet bikes is their cost, which start at around $8000 given the small volumes in which they’re produced. For those contemplating the purchase of a bike, one of the things Randy pointed out that’s worth keeping in mind is that they make unbeatable rolling billboards. Was he ever right! Even in the area immediately surrounding the Bluevelo workshop, people were slowing down, craning their necks, and chasing me down to chat about the bike.

In terms of performance, their big disadvantage is their bulk and weight. Maneuvering them in tight spaces can be challenging, but at speed this isn’t an issue as they are no wider than a typical wheelchair or even a bicycle with wide handlebars. However, there’s no way a rider could carry one up or down a few steps or ride it over a standard curb.

Randy provided me with a Quest model for my test ride. It was a genuine pleasure, and surprisingly so. I knew that bullet bikes feature full suspension since riders sit in a reclined position, meaning we can’t use our legs to absorb shocks over rough surfaces. Even so, I didn’t expect the comfort to be so remarkable. I couldn’t tell if the patches on the road were as rough as they looked because they felt so smooth. Even railroad tracks were a smooth crossing.

Another aspect that contributed to the comfort was the steady flow of air through the bike from the openings under my feet. Not only did it help to keep me cool but it also seemed to have the effect of blocking the wind in my face as the air rose up out of the cockpit opening. Despite the high speeds, up to 55 km/h, I never noticed any of the drumming wind noise that usually annoys me on an upright bicycle.

Unfortunately I had to abandon my plan to attempt a top speed run as it became evident that the terrain had an almost imperceptible slope. I only noticed it when I gained 15km/h without any extra effort on my part after I turned around to go back! This sensitivity to inclines is the real disadvantage of the bike’s weight, though the weight can also be beneficial as it helps to maintain speed over undulating terrain. Note also that I was still going faster in either direction than I would have gone on an upright bike.

The sensation of speed was exhilarating, and quite rewarding given the low effort it took to achieve. The very sharp steering response also contributed to the sporty feel. I had to learn how to ride while avoiding unnecessary steering inputs, which took some effort due to the rocking motion from my pedaling as well as the side-to-side bounce of the bike on it’s suspension.

When it came time to shed speed, braking was on par with an upright bike. The Quest only has brakes on the two front wheels as the rear tire would contribute almost nothing to slow the bike down. Here again the weight works against the bike, but that’s offset by the very low center of gravity that allowed me to really hammer the brakes without having to worry about going end over end.

Randy standing in front of a Yellow velomobile

Randy from Bluevelo

I must give a word of credit to Bluevelo for their amazing courtesy and level of organization in setting up this test ride for me. The bike was sized for me in advance, with some quick tweaks upon my arrival. They thoughtfully had a bike computer, GoPro mount and water bottle all ready to go, and Randy made sure to cover all the essential info that would help see me through the ride without problem. Experiencing his enthusiasm firsthand, I couldn’t help but reflect on all those stories one hears about pioneering artists, industrialists, or activists who jump into a field for the sheer passion of it. While the general public starts off unaware of their work, they eventually catch on and the pioneers become revered leaders of their field.

My wish is for that day to come quickly for the Mickevicious brothers and these awesome bullet bikes.

Why the Hyperloop Will Never Happen

Bullet flying into barrel

What a ride on the Hyperloop might look like.

I presume you have all heard of Elon Musk’s Hyperloop concept by now. Well you can forget it. Ain’t gonna happen.

(I love making this kind of crystal-ball-gazing declaration because for me it’s a win-win outcome. Either I win because I predicted the future, or I win because I get to see this crazy contraption actually get built! This is in contrast, by the way, to people who predict the end of times on a particular date. Those can only be lose-lose propositions, which just goes to show that all doomsdayers are nuts, whether they’re right or wrong.)

I truly believe the Hyperloop will never come to be, probably ever. Having read the publicly available PDF document explaining it, it’s quite clear that there’s a gaping chasm between the theory of this suction-tube type of transportation, and the real-world implementation. There are too many unknowns that need to be discovered gradually and at great expense before the technology can ever be applied to the design of a reliable transportation mode.

Supporters draw a comparison to the adventuresome days of the dawn of flight, or the excitement of space exploration, to decry our present complacency and fear when it comes to adopting new technologies. While this observation about human nature is generally true, the comment fails to acknowledge that the aeronautic and astronautic ages matured over decades through the contributions of thousands of small developments and lessons learned by experience. They did not snap into place at the whim of a lone wealthy eccentric futurist.

By all accounts, the science behind Hyperloop appears to be sound. But Murphy’s Law trumps all those puny laws of science, to wit: “anything that can go wrong will go wrong”. In the case of the Hyperloop, there are a handful of things that can go wrong at a glance.

The biggest question is perhaps the air cushion, whose flow could be choked with a sudden bump, or perhaps a sympathetic vibration in harmony with the resonance of the suspended capsule. Or there could be a disturbance external to the tube. For example oil pipelines have been known to fail, and it sure isn’t the oil that’s breaking them. The Hyperloop is nothing more than a human pipeline, ready to convert its 1200 km/h cargo into an instant goopy sludge puddle upon the failure of any of its components.

Man prepares to commute to work out of a cannon.

(Elmer Parolini,

Another ginormous fault with the concept is that nobody really needs to save one hour to get to San Francisco as much as they used to. With mobile electronics being what they are, there really isn’t any such thing as unproductive time anymore. This notion has clearly escaped Mr. Musk, dazzled by the elegance of the science as he is. For example, he seems not to have noticed that supersonic air travel was a failure and is now defunct. He waxes poetic about it in his PDF alongside the Hyperloop concept as if they were both viable travel options.

This isn’t to say that suction-tube transport can’t work. The concern is rather to point out that we don’t know enough to say if it will work reliably, efficiently, and with reasonable safety.

A more sensible project of this type to start off with would be a cargo transportation system. Perhaps something over water (or slightly beneath it), to avoid turns and land rights issues. Perhaps something to feed the US with all the cheap knickknacks coming from China, returning back to PRC with capsules chock full of US bonds?

According to the great Great Circle Mapper site, the straightest line between Harbin city in Northern China to Seattle Washington would cover 7700 km, most of which is over water near the coastline, crossing the Pacific gap up through the Bering Strait. Think about it, if a capsule full of plastic trinkets ever exploded in the middle of the Arctic, would it even make the news?

Map showing shortest route between Harbing and Seattle

Proposed Uberstrait route

Extrapolating from Elon’s guesstimapproximation of costs for the 350 mile Hyperloop, my Uberstrait™ proposal would only cost 82 billion dollars. But discounting for the cost of cheap Chinese labour, and the elimination of reclining leather seats, I think we can ballpark this thing at a mere 8.2 billion.

Wow, I’m actually loving this idea. Quick, to the PDF machine Batman, let’s make this Uberstrait™ thing happen!