Advocacy & Safety - what passes for an "editorial" in toronto...

discuss:

HOV lanes make sense only to traffic engineers
Guest Column – John Anga

Some good ideas simply don’t work.
Take the car pool lanes for instance. I am sure you’ll agree that it’s a good idea but poor use of a perfectly good highway lane.
The HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes are designed to help move more people through congested areas. The HOV lanes can only be used by buses and vehicles carrying two or more people, so the act reads. The Ontario government has invested more than $100 million in HOV lanes. The transportation ministry says, “There car pool lanes are part of the government’s plan to create reliable, efficient infrastructure and strengthen Ontario’s prosperity.” Hog wash.
A few days ago, I had the misfortune of having to use the Hwy. 403 going into Mississauga at rush hour. I don’t know how people do this day after day. I felt claustrophobic sitting in that traffic. It was moving at a snail’s pace and at times not at all. There were thousands pf cars stuck out there idling and virtually going nowhere. It took me 45 minutes to go from one exit to the other; i could have walked it in five minutes.
As I slowly crested the hill ahead, I could see I was going to be there for a while but something else caught my eye, the very far lanes to my left was practically empty with the odd car speeding by. I thought to myself, “ what a perfect picture of a waste of taxpayer’s money”.
Here you have literally thousands of cars wasting gas, polluting the air, not to mention the loss of productivity, and a perfectly good car pool lane barely used. You can’t believe the frustration I felt. I had to be at a meeting a half an hour ago and here I was stuck in the right lane going nowhere.
If I was beside that car pool lane I think I would have been tempted to get in it, after all, I help pay for this lane through my taxes, didn’t I? (I wonder if some judge would buy that explanation).
I don’t know who thought of this terrific idea but it’s obvious it’s not working. I wouldn’t doubt that it was the same person that thought of the taxi-and-bus-only lanes downtown. Those lanes snarl traffic at rush hour every time. It’s bad enough two lanes can’t move the traffic fast enough now most major streets downtown are reduced to a single lane.
The bike lanes are another source of frustration to motorists. Have you ever driven along some of Toronto’s streets that have bicycle lanes? Did you see any bicycles? I think I’ve seen a couple a few days ago.
I know the intention is right but these ideas are not practical. They are costing us millions of dollars annually and the return is negligible. If the intention is to reduce the amount of cars on our roads perhaps the government should be giving driver’s tax incentives or free TTC (imagine that).
How about adopting some of Europe’s major cities ideas, odd licence number cars one day and even numbers the next.

The Villager - September 15th, 2006


...i want to respond (though it probably won't make any difference) but there's so much to say, i don't quite know where to begin!

Is this person really really really that stupid? Okay, so there's all this traffic congestion, so this ******'s idea is to get rid of a lane rather than reduce the number of cars... How do these people manage to breathe?

Erm...carpool, then. Dee dee dee!

This lady needs to go back to school.

He's got a point. People generally won't change unless forced to do so. If the government really wanted to make a change, they'd force that change on the people, either by taxing the crap out of the alternative until people no longer find it appealing or taking it away completely. Just giving people an option, which may look better on paper and even in reality, isn't going to convince most people.

With that said, I can only imagine the outrage if everyone woke up tomorrow to $10/gallon gas or a $15 congestion charge to enter any major city in a personal automobile or losing their priviledge to drive on certain days. My family members would all be ready to cut my throat thinking that I must have had something to do with it :)

With the level of congestion described in the letter, even if the HOV lane were opened to all, the pace would have only gone from a snail's to a turtle's.

HOV lanes are a flop. First of all, they are barely used in comparison to lanes open to any vehicle. Second, because they are used so lightly, the remaining traffic is forced into the remaining lanes, forcing highway departments to build yet another lane because of the congestion. Finally, HOV lanes are often built separately from the rest of the highway, meaning extra road grading, drainage, and all that entails. IMHO, HOV lanes are a waste of money.

HOV lanes are a flop.

- here are a few links to actual studies:

NJ study (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov%2FJPODOCS%2FREPTS_TE%2F%405H01!.PDF&ei=mWkhRc3kJM2aYPfioZgH&sig=__pT6ucQ_-iKVorzmhHWMjar-MM7c=&sig2=Bx9Yq4mCNqsK5AOTMe9wkA#search=%22hov%20lane%20viability%22)

Maine (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caats.org%2Fcaits%2Freports%2FElectronic_Instant_Ridematch.doc&ei=mWkhRc3kJM2aYPfioZgH&sig=__nBqGCDCFrC_tMdtGTvS1eTtYSl0=&sig2=BvP_Bqvrrlk7URjZV9CLbQ)

- some planning considerations:

HOV planning (http://www.metroplanning.org/resources/136section5.asp?objectID=136)

odd and even license plates? wtf.
no one using the bike lanes? um, hello, over here!
whining about not using the special lane when all you need is ONE other person? two people per car equals half the cars.
thinking that having taxis, buses, bikes and cars all using the same lanes in rush hour is somehow better? yikes.

not to mention the whole "only driver's pay for the road and therefore i own it" argument...

he says himself that the government should work to reduce cars, but apparently because he's too lazy to do anything about it, then suddenly all these small steps forward "don't work"!

(grrr)

I'm not a believer in HOV, especially as the standard definition of a high-occupancy-vehicle is 2 (or more) occupants. That's not high occupancy IMO. At the pace the public changes its driving habits to utilize these lanes the benefits are never truly realized except as a stopgap against further congestion due to growth, one that doesn't come close to meeting the actual need.

I've always thought that if you're going to close a lane to traffic & make it available only to HOVs traveling "through" distances i.e. going from a DTcore to a suburb & vice-versa that a better use of that uber valuable real estate down the center of a highway would be light rail. Something that could actually get a great many of those people stuck in traffic to the right where they are traveling to in an expedient manner. I know HOV lanes are much, much cheaper but they should be, at least I'd expect to pay less for something that didn't work.

One idea the letter writer or columnist hit upon that could be made workable is Free TTC. This idea has been bandied about in one form or another for awhile now. The most recent version is IMO the most credible, providing free TTC (& other connecting transit systems) on the ever more frequent smog alert days. It may not keep many cars at home but it transmits the messege of conservation much better than HOV lanes.

HOV lane proponents usually speculate that people who are not alone in the car are not alone because of the HOV lanes.

The other solution to the cost and non-use of HOV lanes is to simply charge single occupant vehicles for the use of the HOV lane... then the lane is used more, and paid for, while those folks too impatient to work out a car pool or too wasteful to care, can use the lane... while paying for it.

how are you supposed to catch people who change into the HOV lane and don't pay for it, unless the lane is seperate.

Gene's suggestion only works when the HOV lane is physically separated by a barrier, or is a separate road, which it is on I-15 in San Diego.

But it does not work on traditional HOV lanes that are only separated with paint.

Highway 403 mentioned in the article is actually a toll road, so it's ironic that so many people were already paying to use it even when it was gridlocked.

I've always thought that if you're going to close a lane to traffic & make it available only to HOVs traveling "through" distances i.e. going from a DTcore to a suburb & vice-versa that a better use of that uber valuable real estate down the center of a highway would be light rail. Something that could actually get a great many of those people stuck in traffic to the right where they are traveling to in an expedient manner.
My wife takes the express bus to work everyday (tempe to phx downtown, 15miles) The bus uses the HOV lane and results in a 20mi ride (30mi door to door including walking to bus stop and to work) vs. the 80min+ it takes if she has to drive. The are multiple express busses daily each morning and afternoon and my wife says they are usually quite full. So the HOV lane does benefit mass transport.
Al

^^^ It's the 407 that people pay to sit in traffic on. The 403 is free parking.

To be clear, all the HOV lanes were ADDED to existing highways this year as HOV lanes, that is, no lanes were taken away from those important little people who sit in cars by themselves.

And it's unsuprising that people would foster this attitude about any stretch of pavement they can't get their grubby little tires on. It's just more of the "I demand the right to drive my car anywhere I want" mentality.

Maybe I should start riding my bike down all the 400-series highways because "my tax dollars paid for them". The speed that traffic goes in rush hour I could keep up most days.

HOV lanes are not perfect, but I know a few people who riding regional transit (GO) buses more often because the buses are no longer stuck behind the SOVs of characters like the author of the article.

- If it’s faster to walk then walk.
- Adding one additional lane to two existing lanes is a 1/3 improvement at best. So getting rid of the HOV lane would make this person’s wait 30 minutes at best but more realistically 35-40 minute wait. Not really much of an improvement.
- Just a note on increasing lanes as it relates to increasing vehicle capacity and returning the highway back to highway speeds at current usage levels; The first thing you need to understand that as speed increases so does the following distance so the faster each car goes the more room it needs. At 1mph cars are packed very tight and you can get a lot of cars in a section of road (352 cars/lane/mile.) At ~5mph the following distance about doubles so doubling the number of lanes will yield a ~5mph increase in speed (176 cars/lane/mile.) Quadruple the lanes and you get ~15mph increase in speed (88 cars/lane/mile.) Multiply the current number of lanes by 8 and you get a 35 mph increase in speed (44 cars/lane/mile.) At a multiplier of 16 we finally have created enough space for all the vehicles to return the roadway to 60+mph. Just think of the glory of it, 32 or 64 lanes and no waiting and the cost? Just $690 million/mile. [That's just for an additional 15 lanes.]
- The cost of adding one more car to full expressway so all can travel 60mph is ~$1.7 million. (Avg. cost of highway expansion (a lane in each direction) is $46 million/per mile and the number of cars that can be accommodated per mile (in one lane) at 60mph is 27.)

(Assumptions a car is 15 feet long plus the safe following distance of two seconds = the total distance each car requires at full capacity conditions.)

With the level of congestion described in the letter, even if the HOV lane were opened to all, the pace would have only gone from a snail's to a turtle's.

Or a racing snail.

Az

how are you supposed to catch people who change into the HOV lane and don't pay for it, unless the lane is seperate.

Easy, the govt rents you a blow up doll for the duration of the HOV lane use.:D

, no lanes were taken away from those important little people who sit in cars by themselves.

.


How droll.:rolleyes:

I've spent plenty of time in my car on the 404 stuck in a 5-mile backup next to a nearly empty HOV lane. Generally at least half the cars that go by are just SOVs that got sick of waiting and pulled out into it anyways because they figured the rules were meant for *everybody else*.

Don't underestimate the culture of total entitlement that pervades the arguments against HOVs. All of the 'facts' in the argument, were, as is par for the course in motorists letters to the editor, made up on the spot to match the agenda.

But unless we start riding our bikes on the highway, it's a moot point for cycling advocacy anyways.

And John, I had to get my cheap shot in somewhere. I thought I held back pretty well.:D

While having free TTC seems nice, you should realise a few things about the system.

1. Unique in North America, if not the industrialised world, the TTC almost operates at a profit. Some years the fare box pays for over 80% of the operating cost. The advantage this gives the TTC is the freedom to serve only neighbourhoods that are transit friendly. If you build it stupid, we won;'t go to your door, stupid. This philosophy can (and to some extent has) reduce the idea that you can have public transit that functions is people-unfriendly neighbourhoods.

2. The system more or less runs close to capacity. The Yonge line cannot carry anymore people (it carries the equivalent of 25 lanes of highway traffic at rush hour, not much less at shoulder periods). The Bloor line is close, only the Spadina and Sheppard lines can really carry large numbers of greater people.

3. This is not to say I don't advocate for more/better TTC service, just that any improvements MUST be linked to greater use. I highly resent the fact that about 20 cents of each ride goes to subsidize the sheppard line because the locals block every development that might increase density (why - because they're worried about parking and traffic).

In response to the OP (or at least the editorial) everywhere I walk I see bikes riding by, and thousands of bikes parked. If you don't like congestion - GET OUT OF THE SUBURBS AND GET DOWNTOWN ALREADY! Of the 10 busiest streets in the city 9 are in the suburbs, and 1 is downtown. The busiest street in the city is Steeles Ave (the northern boundary). If you really think that congestion is a problem - the solution is simple, sell your car, move downtown, and savour the 7.5-10 hours a week (accdg to statscan the average Torontonian commutes for about an hour and a half per day) that you now have to yourself. If you work the extra 15 hours, you can save up for a nice vacation. (the money you save by selling the car might cover the higher rental/real estate cost) The lack of road rage - priceless.


I'm not a believer in HOV, especially as the standard definition of a high-occupancy-vehicle is 2 (or more) occupants. That's not high occupancy IMO. At the pace the public changes its driving habits to utilize these lanes the benefits are never truly realized except as a stopgap against further congestion due to growth, one that doesn't come close to meeting the actual need.

I've always thought that if you're going to close a lane to traffic & make it available only to HOVs traveling "through" distances i.e. going from a DTcore to a suburb & vice-versa that a better use of that uber valuable real estate down the center of a highway would be light rail. Something that could actually get a great many of those people stuck in traffic to the right where they are traveling to in an expedient manner. I know HOV lanes are much, much cheaper but they should be, at least I'd expect to pay less for something that didn't work.

One idea the letter writer or columnist hit upon that could be made workable is Free TTC. This idea has been bandied about in one form or another for awhile now. The most recent version is IMO the most credible, providing free TTC (& other connecting transit systems) on the ever more frequent smog alert days. It may not keep many cars at home but it transmits the messege of conservation much better than HOV lanes.

EDIT sorry if this is a highjack - but I'm really not convinced HOV lanes are going to be a big help. Bus only highways (no intersections) might be a cheaper alternative to light rail where people lack the courage to build to a rational density.

increase density (why - because they're worried about parking and traffic).

In response to the OP (or at least the editorial) everywhere I walk I see bikes riding by, and thousands of bikes parked. If you don't like congestion - GET OUT OF THE SUBURBS AND GET DOWNTOWN ALREADY! .



MMM yeah, let's all move DOWNTOWN!! wheee..let's live in little apartments, sooooo nice.

^^^ It's the 407 that people pay to sit in traffic on. The 403 is free parking.


Oops...yes.

MMM yeah, let's all move DOWNTOWN!! wheee..let's live in little apartments, sooooo nice.

Nicer than living a chunk of every day in your car.

I'm not sure why someone from Crooked Lake Indiana feels compelled to even read a discussion on transportation in Greater Toronto to begin with.

Unless he really lives in Mississauga or something.

I'm not sure why someone from Crooked Lake Indiana feels compelled to even read a discussion on transportation in Greater Toronto to begin with.

Unless he really lives in Mississauga or something.

More like a Wyoming private-militia wannabe

MMM yeah, let's all move DOWNTOWN!! wheee..let's live in little apartments, sooooo nice.

They are nice within walking distance to shopping (grocers bakers et al & fashion/consumer) to theatre
(live & big screen) to parks (large many acres or small, closer parkettes) to restaurants (so many your mind would boggle if you enjoy food) to services (all of them) to churches (if that's your thing) to bars & clubs (if that's your thing) to your job (I work at home, uber-fast commute, when I didn't I was 5-10 min by bicycle from work)

Even when I did live in small apartments downtown it beat being in a cookie cutter 3-4 bdrm seperated by a drive from literally everything. When I want country I go to the cottage, and I'll likely retire there & do some subsistence farming for fun.

Lots of people live in suburbs and now see little choice in the matter, many like it because it gives them a false sense of security & exclusivity. I'm not knocking it, but city living does literally have more to offer. Even better access to trees.

Now John, let's say MMM yeah, let's all move OUT OF TOWN, but still demand all of the same services, not get them yet pave over miles of perfectly good farmland & forest to pretend we have them. At least living in an area with a developed infrastructure makes it possible to not devote 1/3 or more of my income to transportation.

so i guess my question was more along the lines of "what a dumb editorial, should i reply?"

i mean, it's a local paper, but part of a corporate media giant. i would think that whereas some people who read the paper might read the editorial, does anyone actually read the letters to the editor? i could write a letter to the editor, in the hopes someone might read it, but it's already 2 weeks later.

i'm curious what people's experiences are with "engaging the media" in such cases?

also, i have to say that i don't know much about the HOV lanes... i don't have a car, and i don't know how to drive. the lanes have been added, and i'm sure much time and consideration has been put in to figure out the best way to enforce things.

however... i DO ride my bike and live downtown and i DO use the bike lanes! for an editor of a paper (or in this case, a guest) to say that the lanes aren't being used and therefore a waste of money pisses me off!! it just adds fuel to a fire that already makes drivers angry and aggressive enough as it is.

and the odd and even license plate idea, wtf is that all about?

so i guess my question was more along the lines of "what a dumb editorial, should i reply?"

i mean, it's a local paper, but part of a corporate media giant. i would think that whereas some people who read the paper might read the editorial, does anyone actually read the letters to the editor? i could write a letter to the editor, in the hopes someone might read it, but it's already 2 weeks later.

i'm curious what people's experiences are with "engaging the media" in such cases?

also, i have to say that i don't know much about the HOV lanes... i don't have a car, and i don't know how to drive. the lanes have been added, and i'm sure much time and consideration has been put in to figure out the best way to enforce things.

however... i DO ride my bike and live downtown and i DO use the bike lanes! for an editor of a paper (or in this case, a guest) to say that the lanes aren't being used and therefore a waste of money pisses me off!! it just adds fuel to a fire that already makes drivers angry and aggressive enough as it is.

and the odd and even license plate idea, wtf is that all about?


Pfft, I wouldn't reply. Editorial submissions that depend on the observations of a self-centered whiner left unanswered do more for your point of view than any reply could.

Also I don't think that cat is an editor at that paper or any other. Just a cut n run columnist with a car culture bent.

Unless work is done to the ramps and other choke points, allowing use of another lane will just result in another lane full of cars sitting still.

Put a paper towel tube in one side of a sugar container with a small hole in the bottom, and fill the rest with sugar. The tube is clear and you could drop stuff straight down it really fast, but most of the sugar is taking forever to get out.

Now pull the tube out so all the "common" sugar gets to use that space. Guess what? The hole at the bottom isn't any bigger, the average grain of sugar is still waiting just as long to get out the bottom. Nothing's solved.

MMM yeah, let's all move DOWNTOWN!! wheee..let's live in little apartments, sooooo nice.

There are a lot of big places in downtown Toronto. Our place is over 2000 sq. ft, for example. The advantage is I spend very little time in transportation. I would much rather have a small yard and save all of the time and money I would spend on transportation. You may choose differently, but you should recognise that have 50+ ft of street frontage, plus a large car-dependent population IS a recipe for congestion. I am just pointing out that people choose congestion when they choose the big lots and big houses.

If you don't like the congestion, there are other choices available. If you want the large house/lot and little congestion, you could live in a rural area (there are a lot of nice ones in southern ontario) about 100 km or more away from a big city.

I just get frustrated when people claim that 'they have no choice'. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was telling the editorial writer where to live (maybe I was a little), but the intent is to point out that you can opt out of congestion if you want and still live in an urban area. HOV lanes and buses that come every half hour are not going to solve your transportation problems, living close to work, friends, shopping, and entertainment is.

If you send a simple response to the point that "I use the bike lane, hear me roar" they might post it. I believe the city keeps stats on how many bikes use the lane. From the city bike collision report they note that city streets (without bike lanes) such as Bloor and Queen have up to 17% of all vehicular traffic in the form of bikes.

True, the best HOV lanes are seperated. They work for buses, but only express buses. Rail can service more people while allowing stops along the way, servicing a larger area. If it weren't so damned expensive that is. It takes a brave municipality to attempt a rail system, but of every system I've tried in the cities I've visited or lived in rail is always preferable to the bus systems.

I've never tried the new light rail in Houston. I hope what they've done already was just to get their feet wet, what's really needed there is something that connects the suburbs directly to the DT, Greenway & Galleria/Post Oak, Med center business centers etc. They've got lots of experience with freeways there and do that very well, but all those cars have to get onto the surface roads eventually & big freeways don't encourage carpooling or transit use at all

It is the author's choice to travel in his car, by himself. He should accept his decision and stop whining.

- If it’s faster to walk then walk.

Haha, that was my favorite part of the letter...

Nicer than living a chunk of every day in your car.

There are other options. You can live in the 'burbs and take the train to the city (or wherever you work), or ride a bike. I actually do the opposite right now. I live in Philadelphia and can bike to New Jersey, or take the train if the weather sucks.

I've lived in downtown Philadelphia for the past 7 years, but I am growing sick of it. There are pluses and minuses, but the noise is getting to me. People play their music way too loud at all hours of the day, and don't seem to have any consideration for others around them. That's great if you are in college and don't have to wake up until noon, but I have to go to work in the morning. That and the incredible expense (taxes, inflated housing costs, etc) is starting to make me consider moving to the suburbs.

That and the incredible expense (taxes, inflated housing costs, etc) is starting to make me consider moving to the suburbs.


Urban housing is much more expensive than suburban, there's no doubt about it. Part of it is in hidden subsidies for suburban living...often suburbs receive provincial/state and/or federal assistance for things like police, sewage, public transit and other services that are supposed to be funded out of property taxes, so their taxes end up being lower than they should be, and taxpayers at large (including urbanites) pay a large portion of the cost of suburban highways which are not (as many people believe) anywhere near completely funded by gas taxes. Cities don't get the same municipal grants so their taxes get pushed up. Part of it is simple competition...many people recognize the lifestyle and cost-of-living benefits of living in the city and are willing to bid up the cost of urban residences to be there. And they accept a smaller house or apartment as part of the deal.

I live in the city, and while my rent is moderately higher, my electricity is significantly lower, and my transportation costs are zero, because everything I need is within walking distance.

If you compare rent only, I'm paying more; if you compare cost of living, I'm paying significantly less.

Urban housing is much more expensive than suburban, there's no doubt about it. Part of it is in hidden subsidies for suburban living...often suburbs receive provincial/state and/or federal assistance for things like police, sewage, public transit and other services that are supposed to be funded out of property taxes, so their taxes end up being lower than they should be, and taxpayers at large (including urbanites) pay a large portion of the cost of suburban highways which are not (as many people believe) anywhere near completely funded by gas taxes. Cities don't get the same municipal grants so their taxes get pushed up. Part of it is simple competition...many people recognize the lifestyle and cost-of-living benefits of living in the city and are willing to bid up the cost of urban residences to be there. And they accept a smaller house or apartment as part of the deal.

Yeah, it's not fair, but that's how it is. Living in the city I feel like I am subsidizing suburbanites in some respect too though. My taxes pay for the roads, parking, local attractions, law enforcement, etc in the city (or state for that matter, many of the commuters are from New Jersey), and they use it.

I live in the city, and while my rent is moderately higher, my electricity is significantly lower, and my transportation costs are zero, because everything I need is within walking distance.

If you compare rent only, I'm paying more; if you compare cost of living, I'm paying significantly less.


Well, in my case I think my transportation costs will go down, since I work in the suburbs anyways. The biggest transportation cost I have is getting across the Ben Franklin Bridge if I have to stay late. They close the bridge to cyclists and pedestrians after 7PM in the summer and 6PM the rest of the year. If I biked in and want to get back to Philadelphia, I have to take the train or the bus.

EDIT sorry if this is a highjack - but I'm really not convinced HOV lanes are going to be a big help. Bus only highways (no intersections) might be a cheaper alternative to light rail where people lack the courage to build to a rational density.

FWIW I think anything that gets the message across about the evils of the over use of single occupancy vehicles is going to help. But I will agree that HOV lanes may not be the best fit in every situation or locality. I personally would like to see more Lexis lanes with discounts for the number of passengers you have (and the single occupancy price should be set high enough to so the lane stays congestion free.)

MMM yeah, let's all move DOWNTOWN!! wheee..let's live in little apartments, sooooo nice.

I would venture to say there are far more apartments in the suburbs than there are downtown.

This is a rebuttal I just sent to The Villager (it's my local community paper):

The government did its' part in creating HOV lanes. The next step was
up to the citizens to utilize them. The vast majority remain
bull-headed and self-absorbed, unfortunately. Rather than bemoan what
a waste of taxpayers money the lane seemed to be, it would have been
more appropriate to criticize the thousands of motorists crowding the
other lanes with single-occupant, privately-owned vehicles. How
remarkably selfish, irresponsible and destructive those motorists were
insisting upon their own comfort over efficiency, expediency and
safety. Far too many Canadians are immersed in car culture and refuse
to consider car-pooling, bus travel and other alternative means of
transportation. Instead, they self-absorbedly sit in traffic and
compose editorials citing the smog that all the crawling vehicles were
creating while they, themself, are contributing to that very air
pollution. Hypocrisy, to say the least.

The editorial continued to complain about seemingly unused bike lanes.
Indeed, there are bike lanes that, at certain times of the day,
appear unused and even on certain days may be used very little and
there are even bike lanes that are not heavily employed because they
are either not designed effectively or they are not integrated with
other bike lanes to create an effective network, but I wouldn't expect
the composer of the editorial to consider all the facts. With an
estimated 900,000 seasonal cyclists in Toronto and 100,000 year-round
cyclists, bike lanes on many routes are often heavily travelled
(College St., Harbord St., Davenport Rd., Sherbourne St., etc.). On
poor-weather days those numbers are reduced, of course, but every
motorist should be thankful every time they see a bike in a bike lane
regardless of the weather because that cyclist is not in a car in
front of them slowing them even more, that cyclist is not contributing
to the dirty air being sucked into their lungs nor adding to the noise
pollution and that cyclist is not operating a potential death machine.
Perhaps the editor who wrote the piece should consider joining the
ever-growing number of us who work at well-paying jobs and can easily
afford a car, but choose to ride bicycles. We tend to not even notice
urban traffic jams as we go right past them and reach our destinations
long before a motorist possibly could.

This is perhaps the best part of the rebuttal:


every motorist should be thankful
every time they see a bike in a bike lane
regardless of the weather because that
cyclist is not in a car in front of them
slowing them even more...

I love it and hope it gets published. Nice work.

This is perhaps the best part of the rebuttal:

Good on the letter. As to what genec pointed out as best part, as long as readers don't interpret the opposite to be true :)

"every motorist should be hateful
every time they see a bike outside a bike lane
regardless of the weather because that
cyclist in front of them is
slowing them even more... "

;)

Al

woo! well howdy-ho neighbour!

i'm so glad to read that. much more coherant than what was in my mind.

awsome. thank you!

fwiw, after a cursory google search, it appears that mr. anga is quite involved in city politics. he regularly writes editorials for the etobicoke guardian (there were 45 results for my search on the insidetoronto site) and according to one, he's a landlord also.

oh and there's another article about HOV lanes currently on the guardian page.

cheers