“I think that street art is illegal and it has to stay illegal.” --Invader
I was in an Uber on the Don Valley Parkway today and, for some reason, all of the graffiti on its sound barriers caught my attention in a way that it hasn't before. Maybe it's because I don't travel enough by car or maybe the highway people haven't yet done their spring cleaning. Either way, I caught myself thinking, "Hey, a lot of this looks pretty cool. Here are boring and utilitarian sound barriers that have been covered with colorful things."
Of course, street art is a tricky thing. Because, at the end of the day, it is, as French artist Invader says, illegal. It is an act of vandalism. And so there is a fine line between street art and criminal behaviour. When I leave my home in the morning and I discover that someone has spray painted nonsense on one of its exterior walls, it absolutely pisses me off. How about I come spray paint your home?
But what if it wasn't nonsense? What if Invader had decided to "invade" Toronto and I instead found a pixelated neon green Pac-Man outside of my lobby? It would still be illegal and it would still be vandalism, but I would frankly feel excited that Invader had decided to come and bestow my home with one of his art pieces. I would then proceed to take a picture and send it to all of my family and friends.
Now, obviously it makes a difference when it's a known artist. Context matters. But Invader had to start his illegal pursuits somewhere. And I find it interesting to think about the line where something is able to pass, in our minds, from being an illegal nuisance to a desirable art piece. I experienced moments of that along the Don Valley Parkway today.
When I wrote yesterday’s post about road tolls, it hadn’t been announced that Toronto Mayor John Tory was going to call for road tolls on both of the highways coming into downtown. That didn’t leak until late in the evening. So I was just writing another post on a topic that I care about.
Today, however, that announcement was made and the proposal is a flat $2 toll on both the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway. It is expected that this could bring in close to $200 million a year in new revenue for the city – all of which would be dedicated towards transit and roads. Good.
First, I want to applaud the mayor for coming out in support of road pricing. I didn’t agree with him on the Gardiner East, but I agree with him on this – mostly. It is a bold move.
The reason I say mostly is because I hope that we don’t simply default to a fixed and blunt road toll. There are more sophisticated options out there, such as variable pricing models that change based on demand/congestion levels.
Here’s a post that explains how that works and why I think it’s a good model.
With this approach, it becomes more of a congestion charge rather than a toll. It also gives commuters the option of driving during off-peak times to save money. And if we implemented something like this, I am sure that we would see employers and office hours adapt. More on this in the above post.
Still, I absolutely believe that it’s a step in the right direction for this great city. So thank you Mayor Tory.
Three months ago when Toronto City Council voted not to remove the Gardiner Expressway East (which in my view was a mistake), it did so with a commitment to look at tolling options for both the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway (which in my view is a positive thing).
Last week a preliminary report was released discussing some of those tolling options. If reading dry city reports is your thing, you can do that here.
The Coles Notes version (CliffNotes for you Americans) is that a $3 flat toll on both the Gardiner and the DVP – the same cost as riding transit in this city – would be expected to reduce vehicles on the highways by 9% and 12%, as well reduce end-to-end travel times by 3 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively. There’s obviously a lot more in the report, but these figures stood out for me.
Given how monumental the 3 minute delay was in the Gardiner East debates, it will be interesting to see whether people treat a 3 minute time savings in a similar way. I suspect they won’t. The cost will be the larger issue.
I’ve been a vocal supporter of tolls and road pricing on this blog. One of the main reasons for that is because I view the demand for highways as being largely inelastic and therefore a potentially great source of transit funding.
The discouraging part of the above report is that its primary goal is to explore tolls for the purpose of “offsetting capital, operating, and maintenance costs.” The primary goal is not to come up with sustainable sources of transit funding.
Having these costs paid for by user-fees as opposed to general taxes is still a good thing in my view. But an even better thing would be to help fund mobility solutions that we know will be far more effective at getting people around this region as millions more people move here in the coming decades.
The other discouraging part of the report is that near the end it explains that while the City of Toronto Act of 2006 allows for toll highways, they cannot be implemented without the Province passing regulation.
It’s a reminder that our governance structures do not reflect the current urban reality of this country.
