« Good news and bad news | Main | Progress on my "Do the RIGHT Thing" campaign?... »

August 14, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Luke Ventura

"how does rapid transit help commercial transportation, the lifeblood of our economy?"

By getting commuter vehicles off the streets, mass transit lowers the traffic volumes to make commercial transportation easier. It's not that difficult a concept to understand, really.

As for Davenport, it never had more than two driving lanes. You might want to check your facts on that one.

Mark L

Excellent article and a lot of great points.


The traffic on the 401 going home or going to the girlfriend's has been driving me up the wall the last few weeks. I have to go from McCowan and 401 to 427 and the Gardiner. The Gardiner was my alternative, but appears to be no more due to the bridge construction. I caved and got a 407ETR transponder again. My life is much easier now compared to before and my billing has been correct. I write down all of my trips and they've been matching. No problems for the last 7 years (knock on wood). I've roughly estimated that the fuel I waste in 401 gridlock (not to mention my stress level) is about the same. It's made my life easier.


HOV lanes, I love them in Vancouver, when I'm on my motorcycle http://www.flickr.com/photos/d70w7/4716945999/


I said from day one the HOV lanes will NOT work, especially on the 403, through Mississauga, where EVERYBODY has cars, and the HUGE majority (easy 60+%) of cars on the 403 in rush hour are single occupancy vehicles.


Even as a driver, I have a hard time understanding other drivers' objections to bike lanes most of the time, especially if, as you imply in your first half-dozen paragraphs, traffic congestion is caused mostly by other drivers.

It's odd how drivers like to point out that cycling cannot and should not be a year-round activity. Let's leave that decision to the individual cyclists, shall we?

Then they claim the numbers of cyclists aren't enough to justify lanes being put in or existing where they do. By the same token, can we shut down little-used streets and roads that don't have bike lanes and get little car traffic? Like suburban cul-de-sacs? I mean, practically no one's using them, right?

And so when cyclists ARE on the road and there aren't bike lanes for them to use, drivers gripe that they're in the way and should be riding somewhere else ... because for some strange reason, drivers can work out just fine how to get past each other, dodge potholes, avoid raised manhole covers, but when it comes to passing a cyclist who is already all the way over by the curb, drivers suddenly OHMYGOD can't judge distances and it supposedly entails swerving into the opposite lane.

The jaw-dropping hypocrisy continues when they blame bike lanes for congestion, even though - back to the initial point - the main cause of congestion is other cars. If bikes only get one lane (and even then for just a mile or so, as on Jarvis) and cars get two or more in each direction, why can't drivers get their act together and keep things moving?

(Could it be ... traffic signals?)

Jim Kenzie

Hi Luke:

I doubt any increases in rapid transit we could begin to afford to build would take enough cars off our roads to improve commercial traffic.

And sorry, it was Dupont, not Davenport - I always get those two mixed up! I drove on Dupont just the other day. Absolutely idiotic.

Jim Kenzie

The comments to this entry are closed.