On Monday of this past long weekend, I went for a quick bike ride over to the Beaches, up to Little India, and then back down to the St. Lawrence Market.
The ride along Lake Shore and through the Beaches is one of my favorites. Minus a few awkward twists and turns as you leave the East Bayfront, it’s generally smooth sailing. It feels a bit like a bike highway.
It took me about 24 minutes to get to the beach, which means I was traveling on average just over 20 km/h. If you lived in the Beaches and worked downtown, that would be a perfectly reasonable commute in my mind.
And it’s for reasons like this that Munich is looking to invest in a huge network of bike highways. They’re calling it a Radschnellverbindungen – which I might start ambitiously calling some of the bike paths in Toronto – and the idea is to connect the city with all of the suburbs.
Below is a map of the routes they’re looking at. The purple lines are “suitable routes” and the blue lines are corridors they’ve looked at it. If I’m wrong in my translation, blame Google.

They are still in the feasibility stage, but the idea is for each bike path to be 4 meters wide and have no cross streets or traffic lights – essential a highway for bikes.
And if you think this all sounds like a pipe dream, check out this video of the recently opened Cykelslangen (Cycle Snake) in Copenhagen.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iypvbe6J6Qs?rel=0]
Would you commute to work on your bike if you had a highway, just like cars do?
the traffic jam by Phoebe Eve on 500px
In 1968, Garrett Hardin wrote an article where he coined the term: the tragedy of the commons. Hardin was an American ecologist who was obsessed and concerned with the prospect of human overpopulation.
In his article, the term tragedy of the commons was used to describe a situation where individuals – all acting independently and in their own self-interest – actually end up behaving in a way that is detrimental to the larger group and that negatively impacts some sort of common resource.
Just in case, here’s another definition via Investopedia:
An economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals.
So what would be an example of a tragedy of the commons?
You may not have thought of it in these terms, but I bet you that everybody reading this blog has experienced one.
I will give you two examples.
1. The first is that of electricity consumption.
In most condominiums, there are two types of ways that electricity gets billed and paid. Either the whole building gets one bill (master metering) or each individual resident gets a bill (submetering).
In the case of master mastering, each resident’s consumption isn’t tracked and so nobody knows who is consuming what. But in the case of submetering, each individual resident only pays for the electricity that they use.
Not surprisingly, the data shows that submetering can cut electricity consumption by 10 to 30%. That’s because it creates a 1:1 relationship between usage and cost. There’s now a strong incentive to conserve.
With master metering, there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between usage and cost. The additional burden/cost of consumption actually gets shared by everyone else in the building. And since each individual is looking to maximize their own benefit, they lose the incentive to conserve. As a whole, this makes the entire group worse off.
2. The second example is that of congestion on public, un-tolled roads.
In most cities, public roads are a resource that is “easily available to all individuals” (to use Investopedia’s terminology). They are basically free. The marginal cost of driving another kilometer to work on a road is basically nothing (other than a bit of gas and some time).
What this does is create a situation where individuals – in their pursuit of maximum individual benefit – start to overload the road. Everybody just wants to get where they need to go and there’s no incentive to conserve the resource (i.e. the road). Once again, the result is that the entire group becomes worse off.
That’s why building more road rarely/never works. You’re simply increasing a resource that is easily available to all individuals. What we should instead be doing is looking at submetering our roads (i.e. pricing our roads). It’s been proven time and time again to reduce road congestion basically overnight.
I had never heard of the term tragedy of the commons before today, but I like it a lot. So the next time you’re stuck somewhere in traffic, you can now scream to yourself: What a tragedy of the commons!
On Monday of this past long weekend, I went for a quick bike ride over to the Beaches, up to Little India, and then back down to the St. Lawrence Market.
The ride along Lake Shore and through the Beaches is one of my favorites. Minus a few awkward twists and turns as you leave the East Bayfront, it’s generally smooth sailing. It feels a bit like a bike highway.
It took me about 24 minutes to get to the beach, which means I was traveling on average just over 20 km/h. If you lived in the Beaches and worked downtown, that would be a perfectly reasonable commute in my mind.
And it’s for reasons like this that Munich is looking to invest in a huge network of bike highways. They’re calling it a Radschnellverbindungen – which I might start ambitiously calling some of the bike paths in Toronto – and the idea is to connect the city with all of the suburbs.
Below is a map of the routes they’re looking at. The purple lines are “suitable routes” and the blue lines are corridors they’ve looked at it. If I’m wrong in my translation, blame Google.

They are still in the feasibility stage, but the idea is for each bike path to be 4 meters wide and have no cross streets or traffic lights – essential a highway for bikes.
And if you think this all sounds like a pipe dream, check out this video of the recently opened Cykelslangen (Cycle Snake) in Copenhagen.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iypvbe6J6Qs?rel=0]
Would you commute to work on your bike if you had a highway, just like cars do?
the traffic jam by Phoebe Eve on 500px
In 1968, Garrett Hardin wrote an article where he coined the term: the tragedy of the commons. Hardin was an American ecologist who was obsessed and concerned with the prospect of human overpopulation.
In his article, the term tragedy of the commons was used to describe a situation where individuals – all acting independently and in their own self-interest – actually end up behaving in a way that is detrimental to the larger group and that negatively impacts some sort of common resource.
Just in case, here’s another definition via Investopedia:
An economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals.
So what would be an example of a tragedy of the commons?
You may not have thought of it in these terms, but I bet you that everybody reading this blog has experienced one.
I will give you two examples.
1. The first is that of electricity consumption.
In most condominiums, there are two types of ways that electricity gets billed and paid. Either the whole building gets one bill (master metering) or each individual resident gets a bill (submetering).
In the case of master mastering, each resident’s consumption isn’t tracked and so nobody knows who is consuming what. But in the case of submetering, each individual resident only pays for the electricity that they use.
Not surprisingly, the data shows that submetering can cut electricity consumption by 10 to 30%. That’s because it creates a 1:1 relationship between usage and cost. There’s now a strong incentive to conserve.
With master metering, there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between usage and cost. The additional burden/cost of consumption actually gets shared by everyone else in the building. And since each individual is looking to maximize their own benefit, they lose the incentive to conserve. As a whole, this makes the entire group worse off.
2. The second example is that of congestion on public, un-tolled roads.
In most cities, public roads are a resource that is “easily available to all individuals” (to use Investopedia’s terminology). They are basically free. The marginal cost of driving another kilometer to work on a road is basically nothing (other than a bit of gas and some time).
What this does is create a situation where individuals – in their pursuit of maximum individual benefit – start to overload the road. Everybody just wants to get where they need to go and there’s no incentive to conserve the resource (i.e. the road). Once again, the result is that the entire group becomes worse off.
That’s why building more road rarely/never works. You’re simply increasing a resource that is easily available to all individuals. What we should instead be doing is looking at submetering our roads (i.e. pricing our roads). It’s been proven time and time again to reduce road congestion basically overnight.
I had never heard of the term tragedy of the commons before today, but I like it a lot. So the next time you’re stuck somewhere in traffic, you can now scream to yourself: What a tragedy of the commons!
Today I had lunch at Webers Hamburgers so that I could see what all the fuss is about. Here’s my check-in.
For those of you who don’t know Webers, it’s a burger place on the side of the highway in Orillia, Ontario. It opened in 1963 with the goal of targeting cottage goers and has since become an “institution” in the region.
I don’t think I’ve ever been, so I figured I had to give it a try.
Before going, I decided to ask around to see what people thought of the burgers. And in almost all of the cases, I got the same response: “You can get better burgers in the city. But you have to go. It’s an institution. It’s tradition.”
And that ended up being a very accurate description.
Were the burger goods? Yes. Were they mind blowing? No. In fact, they’re pretty basic burgers. You have a choice of 3 different toppings and 2 different condiments. That’s it. Want mayo? Sorry, they don’t do that.
But in the end, it’s not really about the burgers.
While there, I was reminded of a blog post by Seth Godin called, “Am I supposed to like this?” His opening line is the following: “If we think we are, we probably will.” And it’s all about how we make judgments well before we think we do (and how marketers invest in that).
What matters a great deal is how we’re “supposed to” feel about something. If a wine is expensive, we’re “supposed to” to think it tastes better and our mind usually makes that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And in this case, Webers has become symbolic of summer and good times at the cottage. You’re “supposed to” stop there whenever you go to the cottage. It’s tradition.
Today I had lunch at Webers Hamburgers so that I could see what all the fuss is about. Here’s my check-in.
For those of you who don’t know Webers, it’s a burger place on the side of the highway in Orillia, Ontario. It opened in 1963 with the goal of targeting cottage goers and has since become an “institution” in the region.
I don’t think I’ve ever been, so I figured I had to give it a try.
Before going, I decided to ask around to see what people thought of the burgers. And in almost all of the cases, I got the same response: “You can get better burgers in the city. But you have to go. It’s an institution. It’s tradition.”
And that ended up being a very accurate description.
Were the burger goods? Yes. Were they mind blowing? No. In fact, they’re pretty basic burgers. You have a choice of 3 different toppings and 2 different condiments. That’s it. Want mayo? Sorry, they don’t do that.
But in the end, it’s not really about the burgers.
While there, I was reminded of a blog post by Seth Godin called, “Am I supposed to like this?” His opening line is the following: “If we think we are, we probably will.” And it’s all about how we make judgments well before we think we do (and how marketers invest in that).
What matters a great deal is how we’re “supposed to” feel about something. If a wine is expensive, we’re “supposed to” to think it tastes better and our mind usually makes that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And in this case, Webers has become symbolic of summer and good times at the cottage. You’re “supposed to” stop there whenever you go to the cottage. It’s tradition.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog