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.

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.

Note: 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’.

With 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.