Tag: transit

• Toronto’s bike lane pendulum

  This week, the Province of Ontario started work on its plan to remove about 19 kilometres of bike lanes in Toronto on major streets such as Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and others. The plan is to restore motor vehicle lanes, push bike lanes to secondary streets, and “keep drivers moving.” However, work did not start without protest. Hundreds of cyclists have been protesting this week, and a handful of arrests have been made.

  The thing about bike lanes in Toronto, and other places, is that they tend to follow a political pendulum. We have a history of building bike lanes, and then paying lots of money to rip them out. It’s of course wasteful, but bike lanes are divisive and they can make for good politics. Recent polls suggest that the majority of Torontonians support removing them on major streets. And I can understand why. We’re all frustrated with traffic congestion!

  But here’s what I would say in response to what’s happening this week:

  • The city should be making the decision, not the province.
  • A street like Bloor serves as an important east-west artery in our cycling network. Toronto’s grid does not have a secondary street equivalent.
  • Toronto needs more major streets like Bloor. It needs a bold 21st-century masterplan.
  • It is true that some sections, such as in Etobicoke, do have lower cycling ridership, but every lane needs to be evaluated in terms of the broader network.
  • Built form dictates behaviour.
  • Successful cities must be multi-modal.

  Traffic congestion is no doubt a major problem in Toronto, but we’re nipping around the edges and unwilling to make big, bold changes. The keys to solving traffic congestion are appropriate land-use policies, road pricing, and investment in non-car forms of urban mobility. Pretending otherwise is just fooling ourselves. To solve congestion, Toronto needs to reduce automobile dependency.

  2026.10.15

• Is cycling an inferior economic good?

  Across most global cities, higher household income tends to correlate directly with higher rates of car ownership, solo car commuting, and vehicle miles travelled. So, one could argue, as many do, that cycling is what economists call an inferior good, meaning that as incomes increase, demand for cycling decreases.

  But this isn’t perfectly true. Data from the US — an obviously car-dominated place — has shown that bicycle demand is actually U-shaped. A 2013 community survey showed that the poorest quartile of Americans accounted for 39% of bicycle commuting, whereas the wealthiest quartile accounted for 20%. It was the people in the middle who biked the least.

  In the case of the poorest quartile, it is out of necessity; for the wealthiest quartile, it is a choice, often for health, environmental, and overall efficiency reasons. Cycling saves time and money.

  It could also be the case that the wealthy are able to live closer to work in more walkable communities, and so biking becomes a more tenable option. Irrespective of the reason, it casts doubt on the argument that cycling is truly an inferior good.

  I actually think that the more fundamental cause is our built environment. If you design a place for cars, then of course, as people make more money, they’re going to choose the more convenient option and drive more. It’s what you’ve been optimizing for.

  On the other hand, if you design for transit or cycling, then you start to break this relationship with income.

  Consider that in some of the wealthiest arrondissements in Paris, private vehicle commuting is less than 10%; that in Manhattan, the majority of households do not own a car despite having incomes that far exceed the US national average; and that in Copenhagen, high-income earners in the city centre cycle at the exact same rate as low-income earners.

  Wealthy people will always optimize for convenience. In a car-centric city, that means driving. But this doesn’t mean that cycling is an inferior good; it just means we’re building inferior cities.

  2026.10.13

• The context behind the viral Edmonton multiplex site

  I’ve had a few people respond to my recent post about the multiplex battle underway in Edmonton, and so I now have a bit more information. The address of the house in the photo is 10014 147 Street NW. Here’s a post-construction photo from the street:

  

  Here’s a street view image showing the two flanking multiplexes under construction:

  

  Here’s how close the house is to the LRT station currently under construction at Stony Plain Road & 149 Street (this is the Valley Line West extension):

  

  Here’s the route map:

  

  And finally, here’s the station’s location in relation to downtown:

  

  Customarily, this is exactly what you want to do on top of and around new transit investments. You want to build density. Transit investment and land-use policy, as I like to harp on here, are integral to one another. And if you do everything correctly, you won’t have to worry about parking minimums.

  Happy Thanksgiving weekend, everyone.

  2026.10.11

• How built form (not more lanes) solves traffic congestion

  

  I snapped this photo while we were in Paris a few weeks ago. We were walking down the street in the 7th and I noticed this mother (I’m presuming) picking up her daughter from the library. The daughter (I’m also presuming) got on the back of the bike and then they took off down the street. She also happened to be wearing a beret, which only added to the whole experience.

  When I posted this photo on Twitter, I got some of the comments I would expect. Some people called the mother (we’re all presuming) irresponsible for not wearing a helmet and for not forcing her passenger to wear one as well. Okay, maybe the child is of the age where one is technically required. But another way to look at it might be that it’s a testament to how safe they feel on the roads of Paris.

  My implied point was that this could have been a minivan ride. The solution to traffic congestion is not optimizing around the car; it is getting people out of them. Paris proper has about 2 million people compared to Toronto’s 3 million. But the footprint of the former is about one-sixth the land area, making it, on average, about 4 times more dense. And yet, Paris feels counterintuitively less congested, and easier to get around.

  The answer, and solution for all cities looking to get people moving, lies in its built form, its rail network, and what you see pictured above.

  2026.09.20

• Housing on the Line

  

  

  

  

  One of the fundamental truths about cities is that transportation and land-use planning are integral to one another. The most successful cities understand this and build density on top of transit, and build transit where density can and will go. See, once again, the Tokyo model. It’s for this reason that I think the Superkül-led conceptual project called Housing on the Line is an important one for Toronto. While the projects are speculative, they remind us that many of our transit stations are severely undeveloped, including ones we’ve only recently built. Why?

  Description:

  Housing on the Line, a conceptual project and architectural exhibition conceived and initiated by Superkül, will open to the public next Thursday, September 24th in Liberty Village. Developed in collaboration with six other firms – COMN Architects, Dubbeldam Architecture + Design, Gabriel Fain Architects, StudioAC, Studio VAARO, and Suulin – the project proposes speculative designs that integrate multi-unit residential buildings with smaller existing subway station sites along TTC Line 2 Bloor-Danforth. Each firm’s proposal treats a different subway station along Line 2 as a creative canvas for imagining innovative typologies and context-appropriate design that delivers human-scale character, enhanced amenities, and community connectivity.

  Details:

  Housing on the Line | Opening Reception
  Date: Thursday, September 24, 2026
  Time: 6:00–9:30 pm
  Location: The Bakery, 2 Fraser Ave, Toronto
  RSVP: adele@superkul.ca

  If you can’t make the opening reception next Thursday, you can also visit between September 25-27, during the hours of 10am-5pm.

  ---

  Project credits (in order): Superkül, Studio VAARO, Gabriel Fain Architects, Dubbeldam Architecture + Design

  Image credits: All renderings by Aron Lorincz Ateliers

  2026.09.16

• Travel isn’t always pretty

  

  Sometimes there’s an elevator down to the metro, but more often than not there isn’t. 

  Sometimes there’s AC, but oftentimes there isn’t.

  Sometimes Vivienne is peacefully sleeping in her stroller or carrier, but sometimes she’s having a diaper blowout meltdown and screaming loud enough that passersby start giving concerned looks.

  Traveling can be positively inconvenient at times. We’ve never traveled with so much paraphernalia before. We’ve never had to keep breast milk chilled on ice and think about bottle expiries while navigating busy metro trains with no room for our stroller. 

  But in my mind it’s like exercising. It’s work, especially with kids, but it changes you for the better. We also want Vivienne to grow up to be adaptable, resilient and patient in the face of hot, urine-soaked transit elevators and the like.

  As Anthony Bourdain once said:

  “Travel isn’t always pretty. It isn’t always comfortable. Sometimes it hurts, it even breaks your heart. But that’s okay. The journey changes you; it should change you. It leaves marks on your memory, on your consciousness, on your heart, and on your body. You take something with you. Hopefully, you leave something good behind.”

  We finished our week in Paris, walking and taking transit everywhere. We didn’t step into a car once. We averaged just over 10k steps a day, which is significantly lower than what we would have done sans baby, but it’s still respectable. 

  Seeing the data on my watch and my surging step count reminded me how sedentary my life has gotten over the last two years while working from home (at least from a steps per day perspective).

  It’s unacceptable and I need to make some life changes when I get back to Toronto. But for right now, it’s time to head south.

  2026.09.07

• From YYZ to CDG to central Paris with a 3-month-old

  We arrived in Paris this morning and Vivienne’s first flight was a 10/10. She slept most of the way in our arms. The bassinet looked like some sort of elaborate torture device (see below), but she did also sleep in it for a bit. The problem is that they make you take her out whenever the seat belt sign is on, and so we ended up just keeping her in our arms to make sure she stayed asleep. So she slept well; we did not. Thankfully, Toronto to Paris is a super easy flight. It was around 6 hours today.

  

  When we arrived at CDG, we stopped at Monop’ for some juices and a snack, and then went straight to the RER B train. Tip: Never fuss with the ticket kiosks. Open Apple Wallet. Add the Île-de-France travel card to it, and then choose the airport pass for €14. The express train took about 30 minutes to get to Gare du Nord. We then did one transfer and one stop on the RER E line, paused in the station to feed Vivienne and admire its vaulted ceilings, and then walked to our hotel. I think we were under an hour inclusive of the meal break.

  

  I’ve said this many times before, but I very much enjoy the feeling of getting off a plane and not having to drive. In terms of our experience with a travel stroller, none of the trains we took had level boarding, so I would just grab the front of the stroller and we’d lift. But every station we were in had elevators. Not all of them were in order, but we could always find one to use. In some cases, we just managed on the escalators.

  Full disclosure: We failed at our plan of only checking one 85L bag. We ended up checking one of our 36L carry-on rollers as well. We’ve never travelled with so much stuff before. But I will say that the Patagonia 30L MLC carry-on backpack is incredible. It miraculously fits a lot of stuff and it keeps everything organized and accessible. I don’t do bag reviews on this blog, but I almost want to now.

  It turns out that travelling with a 3-month-old is harder than not travelling with a 3-month-old. It requires full-on logistics management, especially in a big, dense city like Paris where we’re accustomed to only walking, biking, and taking transit. Vivienne is already giving us a different appreciation for the city and we’re excited to let her do that. One of the things she suggested is a picnic in the park. That sounds great, and a perfect way to enjoy late-summer Paris.

  2026.09.01

• Mapping 70,000 trains across Europe

  

  I just came across a fascinating visualization of rail in Europe. You can also visualize other places like the US, but as you know, there isn’t much to see there in the way of trains. What is shown in the above screenshot is Germany, the Benelux, Switzerland, and France. I paused the visualization at 7:20 AM and there were 5,293 trains running, with the vast majority of them (4,360) being regional rail.

  Here’s what stood out:

  • France operates a monocentric hub-and-spoke network with Paris as the clear central hub. Trips almost always route through Paris, which reflects France’s historically centralized economy. In contrast, Germany operates a decentralized mesh network with more point-to-point travel and no single dominant city.
  • Regional rail is the workhorse. When I paused the visualization, over 82% of the trains in operation were regional rail. High-speed rail is sexy, but it clearly needs to be supported by a dense regional grid that brings people to and from major high-speed routes.
  • Smaller countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have such a dense network of intercity rail that they almost read as continuous urban regions.

  If you love trains, as I do, you’ll want to take a look.

  2026.08.24

• Why uploading Toronto’s highways to the province won’t fix traffic congestion

  In 2023, the City of Toronto announced a deal that would “upload” the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway from the city to the province. This was a big deal because these highways were previously the city’s largest state-of-good-repair liabilities, and so, before this deal, the city was, you know, trying to figure out how to pay for them.

  One option was road pricing (or expressway tolls). And in 2016, this became a real possibility with City Council overwhelmingly endorsing the plan, before it got rejected by the province. It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I was in support of it and writing about it at the time.

  

  In 2016, Toronto estimated that 40% of all trips on these two expressways were by non-residents, and yet they were being funded by Toronto taxpayers. When I said this on Twitter, many of you got upset and argued that people coming in from the suburbs are a boon for the city. No doubt. But the reality is that this was an inequitable funding structure.

  Let’s look at the 2022 Transportation Tomorrow Survey results, which I wrote about here.

  The mode share for all trips to downtown Toronto (from within the city) was 75% non-car, with transit making up the largest share at 40.4%. And the mode share for home-based work trips to downtown Toronto (people who leave home in Toronto to go to work downtown and then come home) was about 80% non-car! In this case, transit made up nearly 50% of the trips.

  The effective result is that the people who tended to drive the least to work were paying for the highways with their tax dollars, and the people driving into downtown were not. This is in no way intended to be an attack on the latter camp. The simple reality is that driving into downtown and buying a chicken souvlaki pita from Jimmy the Greek at lunch isn’t enough to offset the road usage costs.

  The uploading of the highways to the province (which is still advancing but has already relieved Toronto of its financial obligations) is a more equitable solution. It shifts the cost burden to Ontario taxpayers, reflecting that people from all over the region use these highways and that Toronto is part of a broader economic agglomeration.

  But this only solved the jurisdictional problem. We still have worsening congestion and an inefficient funding model. The problem with using broad-based taxation to obfuscate infrastructure costs is that direct usage then goes unpriced, and that leads to what is known as a “tragedy of the commons.”

  We all tend to act in our own short-term self-interest, and the result is that road demand constantly outstrips the available supply. There’s zero marginal cost to actual usage, whether you drive 100 kilometres each day or bike to work. The most effective way to manage traffic congestion is to remove the hidden subsidy for driving and price the costs and negative externalities.

  2026.08.21

• Traffic is agonizing, maybe we should try something new

  The other day I asked my dad how a function he attended went, and he responded by saying, “Traffic, BRUTAL. Traveling by car is an agonizing experience.” He’s not wrong, and I know most of us in Toronto like to complain about it. Traffic is one of the negative externalities of a big city.

  But here’s the thing: we know how to solve this problem. You price congestion, as has been done in New York, London, Singapore, and many other cities, and then direct the revenue it generates to a mode of transport that isn’t as agonizing in a big city: rail travel.

  I’ve written so much on this topic over the years that there’s very little I can add at this point. If you’d like to have a read, here are the search results for “congestion pricing.”

  While the policy has proven successful elsewhere, political inertia and valid concerns over equity keep Toronto stuck. But until we charge for valuable road space, gridlock remains our default. New York City has also shown us that once people see the benefits, they quickly change their minds.

  2026.08.19