Okay, so the official title is Chief Congestion Officer.
But whatever. What's important is that the City of Toronto is apparently close to hiring a human that will become the so-called "congestion lead". This will be, in their words, a senior strategic cross-divisional leadership role that reviews programs and projects, and then works to minimize traffic congestion (this is among other things).
Translation: Construction is causing too much congestion so let's make sure we're better at managing what happens on Toronto's streets. Fine. Nobody is going to argue against being too coordinated. But there are at least two problems with the overall framing of this position.
Firstly, it is likely that this czar will go after things like construction lane closures. Maybe the city will make them harder to get and/or maybe they'll increase the occupancy fees they charge. (Reminder: Developers pay cities lots of money to occupy public streets.)
Regardless of what is done, it's important to keep in mind that there's a trade-off here. Any time you make construction more difficult, you add costs. And when construction costs are added, they have to go somewhere. Typically that means they get passed on to buyers and renters. So depending on how hard this czar goes after road closures, we could be indirectly increasing the cost of new housing.
Pick your poison.
But the even bigger problem with this new role is this: It presupposes that if only we did X, Y, and Z, we could solve traffic congestion. This is a fallacy. It's not going to happen. Of course, I'm not saying that better coordination wouldn't improve traffic flows; I'm saying that we're ignoring the root problem.
The Greater Toronto Area has a population of nearly 7 million people, and there’s simply no conceivable way we could all drive around everywhere and still have free-flowing traffic. It’s impossible — no matter how well we coordinate roadwork or how many people with whistles we plant at major intersections during rush hour.
The only way to solve this problem is to embrace a multi-modal approach to urban mobility. And so rather than a "traffic czar" narrowly focused on car congestion, what we really need is a "mobility czar" focused more broadly on moving the most number of people as efficiently as possible — across all modes of transport.
This is not the solution that many people want to hear — because it will mean a break from the status quo — but we already know that it works. Really well in fact.
On Sunday evening, I rode out to the Port Lands area (of Toronto) to check out the new park that just (partially) opened up. Named Biidaasige Park (pronounced "bee-daw-si-geh"), it is the largest park to open in the city in many decades.
The first phase is just over 50 acres, and an additional 10 acres is planned to open next year. It houses 5,000+ trees, 77,000+ shrubs, and over two-million herbaceous plants. In terms of spaces, there are picnic areas, a playground with ziplines, off-leash dog parks, trails, and a pebble landing where you can launch "non-motorized personal watercraft." (Is it safe to swim?)
I was impressed when I rode through it. It's a huge quality of life upgrade for the city. But of course, what's most impressive is that the island it sits on (Ookwemin Minising) is the result of a $1.4 billion investment in flood protection. One that now unlocks the Port Lands area for development. That's up next.
After my ride, I did the customary things. I made a protein shake (sidebar: I recently added creatine to the mix), shared my ride to Strava, and then tweeted out this video. The tweet got reshared a few times and so I received a bunch of replies. And whenever this happens, which isn't often, I'm always a bit taken back by the type of comments. A lot of them are negative.
In this case, people commented on the lack of trees (see number of trees planted above), said it would be filled with tents in a week, and even remarked that it would soon be overrun with Indian people. I won't get into the specifics on this latter point, but there was more to it.
Now, I know that this is what happens on the internet. And I don't take any of it personally. I've also done my fair share of community meetings over the decades where I've had tomatoes thrown at me. But it always makes me think: Is this what is going on in people's heads as they go about their day?
To each their own, of course. But I am of the opinion that perspective matters. The world gives you what you give it. If you go about your day thinking negative thoughts, then eventually it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If, on the other hand, you show up with positivity, good things will happen to you.
Parkview Mountain House has just launched a new creative residencies program intended to reinforce the house's identity as a creative retreat. The way it works is very simple: If you're an artist, designer, creative or a brand doing culture-shaping work, you can now apply for a free three-night stay at the house. In exchange for the stay, we ask that creative residents produce and share original content that reflects their experience in the mountains of Utah and at Parkview Mountain House. This could include photography, videos, written pieces, branded campaigns (such as a lookbook), and maybe even an artifact for the house. Long term, the idea is to assemble a kind of cultural archive with credit being given back to each individual creator and/or brand. We're really excited to see what this residency program produces and we hope that the results will be design-focused, globally minded, and rooted in a deep love for the mountains.
If you'd like to apply, or know of someone who would be a good fit, here's the link.
Okay, so the official title is Chief Congestion Officer.
But whatever. What's important is that the City of Toronto is apparently close to hiring a human that will become the so-called "congestion lead". This will be, in their words, a senior strategic cross-divisional leadership role that reviews programs and projects, and then works to minimize traffic congestion (this is among other things).
Translation: Construction is causing too much congestion so let's make sure we're better at managing what happens on Toronto's streets. Fine. Nobody is going to argue against being too coordinated. But there are at least two problems with the overall framing of this position.
Firstly, it is likely that this czar will go after things like construction lane closures. Maybe the city will make them harder to get and/or maybe they'll increase the occupancy fees they charge. (Reminder: Developers pay cities lots of money to occupy public streets.)
Regardless of what is done, it's important to keep in mind that there's a trade-off here. Any time you make construction more difficult, you add costs. And when construction costs are added, they have to go somewhere. Typically that means they get passed on to buyers and renters. So depending on how hard this czar goes after road closures, we could be indirectly increasing the cost of new housing.
Pick your poison.
But the even bigger problem with this new role is this: It presupposes that if only we did X, Y, and Z, we could solve traffic congestion. This is a fallacy. It's not going to happen. Of course, I'm not saying that better coordination wouldn't improve traffic flows; I'm saying that we're ignoring the root problem.
The Greater Toronto Area has a population of nearly 7 million people, and there’s simply no conceivable way we could all drive around everywhere and still have free-flowing traffic. It’s impossible — no matter how well we coordinate roadwork or how many people with whistles we plant at major intersections during rush hour.
The only way to solve this problem is to embrace a multi-modal approach to urban mobility. And so rather than a "traffic czar" narrowly focused on car congestion, what we really need is a "mobility czar" focused more broadly on moving the most number of people as efficiently as possible — across all modes of transport.
This is not the solution that many people want to hear — because it will mean a break from the status quo — but we already know that it works. Really well in fact.
On Sunday evening, I rode out to the Port Lands area (of Toronto) to check out the new park that just (partially) opened up. Named Biidaasige Park (pronounced "bee-daw-si-geh"), it is the largest park to open in the city in many decades.
The first phase is just over 50 acres, and an additional 10 acres is planned to open next year. It houses 5,000+ trees, 77,000+ shrubs, and over two-million herbaceous plants. In terms of spaces, there are picnic areas, a playground with ziplines, off-leash dog parks, trails, and a pebble landing where you can launch "non-motorized personal watercraft." (Is it safe to swim?)
I was impressed when I rode through it. It's a huge quality of life upgrade for the city. But of course, what's most impressive is that the island it sits on (Ookwemin Minising) is the result of a $1.4 billion investment in flood protection. One that now unlocks the Port Lands area for development. That's up next.
After my ride, I did the customary things. I made a protein shake (sidebar: I recently added creatine to the mix), shared my ride to Strava, and then tweeted out this video. The tweet got reshared a few times and so I received a bunch of replies. And whenever this happens, which isn't often, I'm always a bit taken back by the type of comments. A lot of them are negative.
In this case, people commented on the lack of trees (see number of trees planted above), said it would be filled with tents in a week, and even remarked that it would soon be overrun with Indian people. I won't get into the specifics on this latter point, but there was more to it.
Now, I know that this is what happens on the internet. And I don't take any of it personally. I've also done my fair share of community meetings over the decades where I've had tomatoes thrown at me. But it always makes me think: Is this what is going on in people's heads as they go about their day?
To each their own, of course. But I am of the opinion that perspective matters. The world gives you what you give it. If you go about your day thinking negative thoughts, then eventually it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If, on the other hand, you show up with positivity, good things will happen to you.
Parkview Mountain House has just launched a new creative residencies program intended to reinforce the house's identity as a creative retreat. The way it works is very simple: If you're an artist, designer, creative or a brand doing culture-shaping work, you can now apply for a free three-night stay at the house. In exchange for the stay, we ask that creative residents produce and share original content that reflects their experience in the mountains of Utah and at Parkview Mountain House. This could include photography, videos, written pieces, branded campaigns (such as a lookbook), and maybe even an artifact for the house. Long term, the idea is to assemble a kind of cultural archive with credit being given back to each individual creator and/or brand. We're really excited to see what this residency program produces and we hope that the results will be design-focused, globally minded, and rooted in a deep love for the mountains.
If you'd like to apply, or know of someone who would be a good fit, here's the link.
Here's a silly example.
On my ride over on Sunday, I ended up beside a guy who was similarly suited up on a road bike. He was giving off the "I'm a serious and intimidating cyclist" vibe. So naturally, I decided to strike up a conversation with him. We then ended up shooting the shit all the way over to the park. I got back exactly what I put in.
All of this is not my area of expertise but I have been thinking recently about anonymity on the internet. I recognize that there are instances where this might be important; but broadly speaking, I don't think it's a good thing for our social fabric.
When you say bad things in real life, there are repercussions. You are accountable for your words and actions. And as a result, people tend to behave a certain way. That is not the case when you troll behind an anonymous account on the internet.
Here's a silly example.
On my ride over on Sunday, I ended up beside a guy who was similarly suited up on a road bike. He was giving off the "I'm a serious and intimidating cyclist" vibe. So naturally, I decided to strike up a conversation with him. We then ended up shooting the shit all the way over to the park. I got back exactly what I put in.
All of this is not my area of expertise but I have been thinking recently about anonymity on the internet. I recognize that there are instances where this might be important; but broadly speaking, I don't think it's a good thing for our social fabric.
When you say bad things in real life, there are repercussions. You are accountable for your words and actions. And as a result, people tend to behave a certain way. That is not the case when you troll behind an anonymous account on the internet.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
