Why does pedestrianizing Church Street require extra police?

Plans to pedestrianize parts of Church Street in downtown Toronto have run into some unexpected (and largely unexplained) costs.

Pedestrianizing Church-Wellesley Village - usually referred to as Toronto's "gay village" - during the summer months was expected to cost the City in the region of $150,000. But Toronto Police Services are insisting that extra policing is needed, and have budgeted an additional $300,000 for policing and security.

In fact, TPS's original ask was $3 million(!), but they were persuaded to only police it at weekends, which are expected to be by far the busiest times.

What's not clear, though, is what the extra policing is actually for. As Councillor Josh Matlow notes, "There's no reason you'd need more police at a pedestrian street than any other street". In fact, he continues, "they's safer because there are fewer cars". He's got a point. What is it that TPS are expecting to go down during these pedestrianized times?

Part of the problem is that Canada, and Toronto in particular, is just not used to having pedestrianized streets. They are the norm in most European cities, and have even become more common in some of the more progressive American cities. 

In Canada, Montreal is at the forefront of pedestrianization, with seven streets now fully pedestrianized during the summer months. Approximately 7 km of pedestrianized streets are now part of Montreal's tourist attractions, and they are wildly popular with local residents. Some store owners report a drop in sales, while others, particularly restaurants and bars, see a large increase in sales. They do not seem to require any additional policing, apart from for specific festivals and public gathering that would need extra policing anyway.

FIFA may have miscalculated in Canada

Not only is the upcoming World Cup not going to work out as beneficial to host cities Toronto and Vancouver as advertised, it might not even work out as well for FIFA as they had hoped.

The way these things usually work is: FIFA does pretty much whatever it wants and makes all its big money up front, while the host cities and their citizens carry all the risk and the expense. That's still how it works this time, except that FIFA's policy of charging top dollar for ticket prices may not be quite as effective as usual. FIFA's dynamic pricing policy has resulted in some of the most expensive World Cup tickets ever, and many Canadians are thinking twice about them (and the $17 beers and concession prices that seem to be double or even triple those in some US stadiums).

While Canada was hugely excited by the prospect of holding World Cup games at first, the bloom is off the rose somewhat of late. Less than a week before the first games, hundreds of tickets remain unsold for events that were once expected to be oversold many times over.

Unlike many another country, soccer here is popular but a distant third or even fourth love, after hockey, baseball and basketball. Both Vancouver and Toronto are overwhelmingly cities of immigrants, most of whom have brought their idolization of soccer with them to Canada. But, as a nation, our national pride is invested much more in hockey, even in baseball and basketball, than it is in soccer. Football is not a core part of our national psyche, as it is for so many other countries.

So, there is a certain subset of the population that is socccer-mad, and will pay whatever it takes to watch a world-class display of football, even if that might be Ghana v Panama or Senegal v Iraq. But, past that, the delirium starts to fade, and there has been push-back against what many perceive as FIFA's greed and insensitivitiy. Even bona fide fans feel they are being charged exorbitant ticket prices. Even local hotels are only at about 80% capacity, which is about the same as usual during summer months. (Or according to other stats, less than half full!) So, did FIFA miscalculate?

Embattled FIFA president Gianni Infantino claims that demand for tickets has been ten times that of the last two World Cups added together, but that doesn't seem to have played out here in Canada. Infantino claims that, "there are expensive tickets, yes, but there are also affordable tickets". The face value of the cheapest tickets to the opening game in Canada (the home team versus Bosnia & Herzegovina) starts at over C$1,000, which most Canadian fans (particularly recent immigrants) will find far from affordable. It feels to many residents like they are paying for the games, but still can't attend them.

One Toronto fan summed it up well: "I've given up, and at this point, I don't want to give my money to FIFA. I'm done with them. I get that, while they can control pricing, it feels like an affront to what makes football great: it's a sport for everyone. Accessibility ought to make it easier for fans - especially those living in the host cities - to see the games."

A "sports economist" from Concordia University explains that FIFA is in the business of maximizing its revenues, not of filling stadiums (and certainly not of providing a memorable experience for local fans). Sometimes it makes more commercial sense to sell high-priced tickets than to fill lower-priced seats. The practice from previous World Cup tournaments of making more tickets accessible to local residents has been supplanted this year by the more lucrative strategy of real-time variable pricing models, which it says "aligns with industry trends across various sports and entertainment sectors". As the sports economics prof puts it, "There is no competition, so they can behave in whatever immoral, unethical, improper way they want - unless fans are prepared to walk away." Well, it seems some fans at least have walked away. 

It's thought that, as the date of the first games approaches, the prices of the remaining tickets may drop drastically. But don't bet on on it. This is FIFA at the controls, after all. 

One other wild card in all this is that Ontario recently passed a law, just in time for the World Cup, that bans the resale of tickets at prices above the original face value. So, in theory at least, we shouldn't be seeing resales on StubHub or on FIFA's own resale platform at the kinds of ridiculous prices seen in some other jurisdictions. But ... FIFA is still in charge of those original face values. And regulation and policing of the new law is almost impossible, according to experts.

Meanwhile, FIFA continues to make PR mistakes, further alienating local people. It has banned reusable water containers at the eleventh hour, ostensibly for safety reasons, and only allows fans to bring in one small factory-sealed soft plastic disposable bottle of water. (This was a climb-down after the initial announcement that NO water bottles could be brought in.) After that, they can of course buy FIFA's own high-priced disposable bottled of water to deal with the high temperatures expected during the tournament. Toronto's environmentally-conscious council has complained loudly. 

And don't get me started on FIFA's new "hydration breaks": mandatory three-monute stoppage, one in each halfs  for the players to get a swig of water, something they always used to do during regulat stoppages for injuries and other game interruptions. Players are quite capable of keeping themselves hydrated; these are essentially "TV advertising breaks", and just another source of revenue for FIFA (an estimated $250 million in the USA alone.

FiFA as an organization has never been kess popular. There's even a "Reboot FIFA" campaign underway, looking to deliver "the largest single complaint FIFA will ever have received about the conduct of its senior officials", covering a range of issues including exorbitant ticket prices and the semi-official offering of a peace prize to a notorious war-monger.

For what it's worth, the venerable Sports Illustrated magazine has voted Vancouver the best of the 16 host cities, mainly for the stadium's central situation and accessibility, the good public transportation, the city's walkability, and it's mild weather. Surprisingly enough, Toronto came in at No.3, separated from Vancouver only by Seattle.

Toronto's World Cup hosting not as rosy as portrayed

Toronto and Vancouver were sold a bill of goods when the two Canadian cities decided to bid for hosting some of the FIFA World Cup 2026 games.

It's happened time and time again that countries and cities get all gung ho about major sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup. It's such an alluring idea, to invite the world to your city, to help celebrate one of the biggest international sporting events. Can you feel a "but" coming?

BUT ... however much cities and countries try to convince themselves that hosting World Cup events is a good idea, a no-brainer even, history tells us that it's really not. 12 of the last 14 World Cups have proven to be financial busts for the host countries, in some cases spectacularly so, like Brazil 2014, which precipitated a national economic emergency. (The Olympics is very much the same: the last Olympics to actually pay its way was Los Angeles in 1984.) 

While Toronto and Vancouver opted in to this risky venture, it's notable that Montreal and Chicago both considered participation and decided against it, citing excessive projected costs and FIFA's operations conditions and lack of transparency. (Edmonton and Washington DC both had their bids rejected.)

Part of the problem is cost overruns, which are now standard in World Cup bids. When Toronto initially bid on the World Cup, back in 2018, it estimated a cost to the city's taxpayers of $30-$45 million. Just 8 years later, that cost has ballooned to well over $300 million. If a city got it that wrong for any other development project, it would be considered a national scandal and heads would roll. But, because it's the World Cup, and therefore, by definition, a Good Thing, such overruns are merely swept under a very large carpet. 

According to Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office, the country as a whole is sinking over $1 billion into just thirteen World Cup games (six in Toronto, and seven in Vancouver), yielding a cost per game of some $186 million. The federal government is to cover $473 million of that, with the rest coming from other levels of government. Different estimates show Toronto on the hook for $380 million, and Vancouver an eye-watering $578 million. It's hard to see that as money well spent.

Another element of the problem is the way that FIFA operates. Cities are expected to pay for the "privilege" of hosting the event, while FIFA reaps all its money up front. FIFA also makes many very specific, and very expensive, demands on host cities - free transit for ticket holders, labour law exemptions, a ban on competing events, VIP access to hospitals, preferred procurement status for corporate partners - as I have kvetched about before. (UPDATE: Usually totally inflexible, FIFA has proved surprisingly flexible on these requirements as cities have pushed back: FIFA has now backed down on ALL of these requirements in the cases of Toronto and Vancouver at least. So, what, they were just trying it on?)

And finally, there is the revenue side. The usual justification for putting on these big events is that they are "investments" in the tourism and hospitality industries. Some proponents have been claiming, with little or no justification, that Canada's participation in the World Cup will generate up to $4 billion in potential revenue and economic benefits. FIFA itself puts that figure at $940 million, but even that seems a stretch. These benefits are notoriously difficult to prove, and even harder to predict.

Yes, the World Cup provides a showcase for host cities (although, remember, that can also have negative repercussions if not everything goes perfectly). In practice, these events typically generate a short-term boost to tourism, but very little long-term benefit. Remember as well that this year's World Cup is spread over 16 different cities across three countries, thus diluting and dissipating any tourism boost. 

And one other consideration you might not have thought about: some visitors that might have come to Toronto for other sports events, music concerts, conferences, or just to explore the city and its culture, may actually put that visit on hold while all the World Cup craziness is underway, a corollary that usually gets conveniently forgotten.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Toronto and other cities were just plain wrong to bid for World Cup games. The Globe's Cathal Kelly describes the emotional argument for it with his inimitable panache: "At some point, it's not about the money. It's about where we see this country in the world... Along with keeping us solvent and healthy, the point of a government is to, within reason, maximize the amount of fun in its citizens' lives... Exciting the nation's 10-year olds has to be worth at least a billion." He also argues that, in a world getting meaner by the day, it's our duty to step up, money be damned; otherwise, nobody would ever do anything worthwhile, and we'd turn into a nation of "cheapskates and philistines".

That said, personally, I would still have preferred not be involved (go on, call me a cheapskate and a philistine). Falling into a billion dollar hole without eyes wide open is foolhardy in the extreme. Part of having eyes wide open is acknowledging that we'll probably be paying for this boondoggle for many years to come.

No, Mr. Ford, banning the Al-Quds Day rally is not the answer

Talking of putting himself on the wrong side of history again, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is on a roll recently, most recently by wading into the controversial pro-Palestine Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto, which is scheduled for later today.

In a very-last-minute attempt at intervention, Ford has called on the Ontario Attorney-General to ban this year's demonstration, which he says "is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and antisemitism" and that "it glorifies violence, it celebrates terrorism". 

Legally, constitutionally, I'm pretty sure he can't do that. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)  says it is "deeply troubled" by Ford's move, calling it "a sweeping attack on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly".

The Al-Quds Day rally is an annual demonstration, part of a "global day against imperialism" that has been happening every year for decades now. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for the Islamic holy city of Jerusalem, as well as one of the holy names of God, meaning "the holy one" or "the pure one". In Toronto at any rate, the rally is first and foremost a pro-Palestinian protest, although, given the current situation in the Middle East, it will almost certainly include Iran and Lebanon under its banner this year. It is only anti-Israel insofar as Israel is the country oppressing Palestine and Iran, and only anti-Jewish insofar as Israel is motivated by Jewish nationalism.

That said, the protest has in the past pushed boundaries. While not actually violent, it has seen some pretty inflammatory anti-Israel, and, very occasionally, downright antisemitic rhetoric. This is unfortunate, but pre-emptively banning the demo at the last minute is not the solution.

The rally plans to go ahead inspire of Ford's calls for an injunction. There will almost certainly be a pro-Israel counter-demonstration too, which is the only thing that might cause it all to end in violence.

UPDATE

In the end, the Ontario Court denied Ford his injunction and the Al-Quds Day rally went ahead. It was noisy, boisterous and well-attended (about 3,000 in downtown Toronto and many more at other smaller rallies) and, despite the presence of a small pro-Israel counter-protest, there were just two isolated arrests. So much for Ford's predicted hate-filled bloodbath.

Ford professed himself "extremely disappointed" at the court's judgement, and no doubt he will be complaining again about our "biased" legal system and renew his calls for reform (he has expressed his preference for a partisan appointed judiciary, à la USA). But luckily, for now at least, we still have an independent judiciary so that, when Ford and his administration tries to pull illegal and unconstitutional stunts, as they are prone to do, there is an impartial legal system there to hold him to account.

Doug Ford moves to exert more power over Toronto

Doug Ford, Premier of the province of Ontario, is furthering his life-long ambition to be Mayor of Toronto, or at least to exert control over the city, one way or another. He has never forgiven Toronto for not voting him in as Mayor back in 2014, and has made it his MO as Ontario Premier to interfere in Toronto politics as much as he possibly can, from reducing the number of city councillors (in the middle of a municipal election) to closing down and moving iconic museums to trying (and failing) to get rid of the city's bike lanes and speed cameras.

In his latest shot across the bow of the city, Ford has vowed to take over Toronto Island's little Billy Bishop City Airport and expand it to accommodate jet planes. The plan as it stands is to extend the runway by as much as a kilometer into Lake Ontario, which will allow bigger planes to land there, and boost the little airport's capacity to FIVE TIMES its current through-put.

Currently, the small airport (often referred to as the "island airport") is only used by smaller turboprop planes operated by Porter Airlines and Air Canada. Ford wants to see "small jets" also able to use it, which would require an extension to the runway, as well as more parking and infrastructure in general.

The idea of jet flights from the island airport has been proposed - and defeated - many times, most recently in 2013. A limited number of business travellers may be in favour of it, but the residents and users of the Toronto waterfront and its parks have repeatedly rejected it due to the increased noise, pollution and development. Current Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow remains implacably opposed to expansion of the airport.

The airport is currently owned by a three-way agreement between the City of Toronto, the Toronto Port Authority (a federal agency) and the federal Government of Canada. While the City remains opposed to the idea, the Port Authority reportedly favours further development, and the federal government is reserving judgement thus far. 

Because of the way the municipality is structured and its legal subservience to the province, Ford and the province of Ontario could legally replace Toronto in this ownership structure, in which case the further development of the airport would be all but assured, even if it is against the wishes of the city's residents. Ford would have another victory over the ungrateful City of Toronto, and his business buddies would be very pleased with him.

Either way, Ford is putting himself on the wrong side of history yet again with this issue, and putting his business buddies ahead of the regular folk of the area. Sign the petition and send him an email.

Ontario moves to a more circular economy (but how does it work?)

As of January 1st this year, the collection of recycling in Ontario (the Blue Box Program) devolves from municipalities - Toronto in my case - to a not-for-profit organization called Circular Materials. In theory, this is a step towards a more circular, less wasteful, economy, but I am reserving judgement until I see how it works in practice.

The idea, so we are told, is not so much to outsource and privatize yet more city services, but to move to a model where the producers of all the packaging that gets recycled are the ones that pay for the recycling, a concept known as "extended producer responsibility" or EPR. Environmentalists are all in favour of EPR as it represents an extension of the "polluter.pays" principle. And it does make a lot of sense to me too, in principle at least. Plus. Circular Materials seem to be able to recycle a few more items than the old City-run program - toothpaste tubes, black plastic containers, nothing too crazy

The change is supposed to save Ontario's municipalities about $200 million a year (about $10 million in the case of the city of Toronto). Historically, under the municipality-operated recycling program, producers only funded about half of the costs, with the municipalities (i.e. taxpayers) paying the other half. Now, the organizations that produce the products and packaging will be responsible for operating and finding the entire program.

However, nothing I have read about it explains just how these cost are charged to the producing companies. It sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare. Does Circular Msterials somehow keep track of every paper, plastic and metal item that runs though its system and note down which producer was responsible for it? Surely not. But how else would it work?

Of course, the producers will no doubt recoup these additional costs through higher consumer prices - they're not charities after all - but the "producer pays" principle has been established, and in theory it is now in their interests to reduce their packaging in order to reduce costs. Except, in practice, as noted, they will probably just pass on the costs to us consumers anyway. But maybe consumers will become more picky about expensive over-packaged products, who knows?

New Finch West LRT not so rapid

The Finch West LRT (Line 6) opened a couple of weeks ago to a certain amount of fanfare. After all, it was the first rapid transit line to open in Toronto since the Sheppard subway line (aka the Sheppard Stubway, for its short and largely redundant route) over two decades ago. Line 6 began construction in 2016, nearly 10 years after it was first proposed. And it opened before the beleaguered Eglinton Line 5, which was begun 5 years earlier. Things take a long time to get built in Toronto...

The new light rail line runs 10.3 km from the Yonge subway line at Finch West station to Humber College north station in Toronto's far northwest. It was designed to link some of Toronto's more needy suburbs to the main subway system, and to improve the long commute downtown. It runs above ground on the central median of busy Finch Avenue and incorporates 18 stops.

But it also opened to a lot of criticism, mainly for its slowness. Part of the problem is that, although the line is segregated from the regular traffic, it does not take advantage of any signal priority, so it is often to be found idling at traffic lights. It also doesn't seem to go very fast even when it is able to, and is constantly overtaken by cars and even the buses it is designed to largely replace. It was theoretically supposed to complete the 10km route in about 34 minutes; in practice, it takes 55-60 minutes.

To underline this slowness, runner Mac Bauer, who blogs under the name 514runner, and has made a name for himself running - and beating - Toronto's streetcars, raced the Finch LRT on foot and beat it by a healthy 18 minutes (that day, the LRT took an hour and four minutes to complete the 10.3 km route).

Now, I'm pretty sure that Mac didn't bother waiting for the traffic lights, but his stunt certainly shone a light on the challenges of the new LRT, and Toronto's transit system in general.

Blue Jays fans get creative over tickets

In case you didn't hear, the Toronto Blue Jays are in the Major League Baseball's World Series for the first time since 1993, first game tonight at the Rogers Centre against the Los Angeles Dodgers. It's big deal here - and even throughout the rest of Canada - and thousands of closet Jays fans (including me) have suddenly come out.

Thing is, it's such a big deal that ticket prices for home games have gone through the (retractible) roof. Initial ticket offerings sold out within hours. There have been the usual stories of touts and scammers buying up the much sought-after tickets online and immediately re-selling them at three or four times the price. There have been stories of real fans trying to buy tickets and being booted out at the payment stage under suspicion of being an automated bot (because, yes, that's a thing too, these days).

Resale tickets are going for up to $10,000, even $15,000 a piece. One lower bowl seat was being offered at $32,609. The very cheapest seats are currently selling for about $1,300 on StubHub. Toronto Mayor - oops, sorry, Ontario premier Doug Ford - has been musing about bringing in laws to limit the resale price of tickets by scalpers and gougers for events like these, but that won't help people this week, and once the event is over Ford will probably conveniently forget about all his righteous outrage (remember, he very scrapped a very similar law proposed by the Liberals when he first took office in 2019).

But some people are getting creative about getting hold of the golden tickets.

Flights to LA from Toronto are currently around $400, and you can probably find accommodation there for less than the $280 average hotel price. Given that the cheapest seats to the LA games are much cheaper (around $860), Dodgers fans being much more used to World Series appearances, you could see a game in California for around the same price you can in Toronto, which is kind of ridiculous. Of course, you also run the risk of being finger-printed, arrested, deported, and God knows that else...

Rooms in the Toronto Marriott City Centre Hotel with rooms overlooking the field of play are expensive, at around $4,000 a night (and up), but they can accommodate up to 5 people, so individuals could only pay $800 (and up) each. I doubt those are still available though.

Some people have started up GoFundMe campaigns to accumulate the cash needed for a ticket from generous souls who may or may not know them, one or two dollars at a time, and some of those have well surpassed their goals.

Then, there is something called "district drops", good tickets offered at preferential prices to those subscribing to a Blue Jays promotional text subscription scheme.

And finally, you could just trust to luck and hope for last minute price drops - and I mean VERY last minute - through Ticketmaster, as they look to unload unsold tickets. But given everything else that is going on, and the general baseball hysteria in the city, I really wouldn't rely on that.

I only hope all these people are not disappointed.

Doug Ford really doesn't like it when judges (and Ontario voters) oppose him

Doug Ford is desperately trying to be Mayor of Toronto again. He never quite got over losing that election back in 2014.

He has been trying to interfere in Toronto's bike-lane policy for months now. He claims it slows down his commute into the office. Well, that's not quite what he says in so many words, but reading between the lines...

The Ontario Superior Court, however, ruled, with evidence to back it up, that Ford's proposed lane removals would put people at an "increased risk of harm and death" and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, he's claiming that "a judge overrules the people of Ontario because of ideology", and that the court ruling is "ridiculous" (by which he means he disagrees with it). Well, as it happens, the people of Toronto - the relevant part of Ontario in this case - are 80% behind expanding bike lanes according to recent polls. Ford's own reaction wouldn't be due to ideology, would it?

The man is well past his sell-by date. Bring on the next election.

Toronto gets a(nother) new area code

It used to be that you saw a 416 area code, and you knew that a caller was from Toronto. Well, that's still true, but in addition Toronto is getting yet another area code as the region starts to run out of new phone numbers to accommodate its burgeoning population.

After the old 416 code, 647 was allocated to Toronto in 2001, followed by 437 in 2013 when that still wasn't enough. Now, starting this month, 942 will also be a Toronto area code. 

It's getting to the stage that it's hard to remember all the codes, so it's not so easy to see that you have local call coming in or an international spam call.

How bad is Toronto's traffic really?

I keep hearing that Toronto has some of the worst traffic congestion in the world, certainly in North America. This seems to be due to a traffic survey by navigation company Tom-Tom, which shows Toronto at third worst in the world after only London and Dublin, and much worse than American cities like New York, which only ranks 20th in Tom Tom's analysis.

Well, I can believe it, from my own personal experience of driving around in recent years.

However, Inrix's Global Traffic Scorecard seems to tell a very different story. According to Inrix, a traffic data analysis and management company, Toronto's traffic ranks 17th worst, which is still not great, but significantly better than American cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Philadelphia. It also shows Toronto's traffic on a gradual improvement curve over the last few years, which seems kind of hard to believe.

So, what are we to believe? Maybe it doesn't really matter. The point is, we shouldn't even be in the bottom 50!

UPDATE

An updated report by Tom-Tom puts Toronto at No. 95, better than London (#5, i.e. fifth worst), Dublin (#10), New York (#25), and even most other major European cities - Barcelona (#21), Brussels (#30), Rome (#35), Athens (#37), Vienna (#38), Paris (#45), Berlin #49), etc. It's not even the worst in Canada, with Vancouver appearing at #69.

So, yes, bad, not not THAT bad.

The fraught issue of regulation of e-bikes

I've often wondered what are the actual rules around e-bikes. They are ubiquitous in Toronto these days and, given that many of them use roads, bike lanes and sidewalks almost interchangeably, it's hard to know what they are supposed to be doing. Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure they are not following what rules do exist.

A pretty comprehensive article in the Globe tries to tackle the subject and, yes, it's complicated. While provinces and municipalities are keen to encourage e-bikes as a way of addressing traffic problems and climate change, it's hard to do that while also ensuring the safety of pedestrians, regular cyclists, e-bikers and even car-drivers.

There are so many different types of e-bikes available these days that the line between bike, e-bike and motorbike is pretty blurry. And the rules governing them are a patchwork of provincial and municipal laws. And, to make things worse, there is next to no enforcement of the rules anyway.

One distinction is between e-bikes on which the motor plays merely a supporting role and most of the power is provided by pedalling (sometimes referred to as "pedelecs"), and ones where pedalling is optional or entirely unnecessary. Some e-bikes may have pedals that are completely inoperable and just for show, designed to ensure they are classed as bikes and not motorbikes (which have much more onerous regulations and licensing requirements, as well as insurance implications). Some e-bikes may have speed limiters, where the motor cuts out when a certain speed is reached, but most don't.

The laws and bylaws governing e-bikes try to take all this heterogeneity into account, but that ends up making things very complicated. For example, in Toronto, e-bikes that are limited to 32 km/h capability are allowed in paint-only bike lanes (i.e. those that are not physically separated from the road by a curbstones or other barrier) but prohibited in separated ones, the (perfectly reasonable) theory being that passing other cyclists is easier and safer on the paint-only lanes. But do you think anyone is even aware of these arcane bylaws?

Also, e-bikes that require some muscular power (i.e pedalling) are allowed on all bikeways in Toronto, providing they weigh less than 40 kg. Again, you can see the logic here - especially given that some actually weigh in at over 100 kg - but it is completely unenforceable. 

And all e-bikes are technically banned from riding on sidewalks, but is anyone really going to ticket a food courier riding on the sidewalk of a fast, dangerous arterial road which has no bike lane, when that they are merely prioritizing their own safety? Presupposing that anyone is even trying to police them.

British Columbia's rules are even more complex. Its Motor Vehicle Act defines e-bikes according to their power rating, 200 or 250 watts depending on the rider's age, and a speed capacity of less than 32 km/h. If an e-bike exceeds these parameters, then they are technically subject to motor vehicle licensing and other rules like a full-blown motor cycle. How is that going to be enforced?

Electric kick scooters (like a kid's scooter but with a motor, sometimes referred to as "micromobility") are a whole other issue, and a whole other risk factor for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. These require no physical exertion (apart from balance), but they are nimble, portable .... and fast. Some are rated at 40 km/h or more - I was talking to a guy recently who maintained his scooter did 80km/h! -  although Ontario's laws limit them to 24 km/h on roads. Well, that's not going to happen!

You can't fault provinces and municipalities for trying to regulate e-bikes and micromobility. They are increasingly popular, and are an increasing hazard, and accidents and complaints about them are proliferating. And, of course, they are a good match with jurisdictions' climate change goals and traffic management issues. But to call it the Wild West is putting it mildly.

The author of the article suggests a way forward that tries to balance safety and safety conduct with the encouragement of further growth in e-bikes. First, food delivery couriers need to be specifically regulated (with the onus on the app/company): riders need to be properly trained, bikes should be monitored to ensure they are in good working order and meet all applicable rules, safe charging stations and secure overnight parking facilities should be mandated, etc.

Second, provinces should provide funded cycling education in schools (as already happens in BC) as well as for any adults who want it. Motorists should also have their driver education extended to include dealing with bikes and e-bikes.

Third, governments should standardize their e-bike definitions, and implement a system that allows for easy identification of e-bikes and whether or not they should be covered by licensing laws.

And cities should re-double their efforts to build cycling infrastructure. Toronto, for example, has bike lanes on only 4% of its roads, lagging well behind leaders like Vancouver and Montreal.

All sensible suggestions. But since when did sensible suggestions becomes the basis for government policy?

Toronto's trams are the slowest in the world - or are they?

Toronto's streetcars (trams) have been a subject of controversy forever. Personally, I quite like them, and I think people would be shocked at how bad Toronto's traffic could get without them (they hold multiple times more passengers than buses). We've had a glimpse of that from time to time when construction projects necessitate bus replacements (an increasingly common occurrence). They are also preferable environmentally. Many people, though - mainly car drivers, to be fair - viscerally hate them, and blame them for all sort of evils.

Anyway, be that as it may, a new study of tram systems around the world has found that, while Toronto scores well on service frequency (departures per hour per direction), it comes in dead last on network speed. Essentially, Toronto has the slowest trams in the world, and by quite a large margin.

Toronto's streetcars are about three time slower than those of Utrecht, and twice as slow as cities like London, Göteborg, Stockholm and Sydney. 

Now, to be fair, Utrecht is a relatively small city, but London? Hold on, though, London doesn't have trams! Or it didn't last time I was there. When I checked, it turns out that "Trams run in parts of South London between Wimledon, Croydon, Beckenham and New Addington". Oh, so not in the busy central part of the city, then? Well, of course they will run faster!

Stockholm and Sydney, though, fair comparison, right? Well, maybe. But Stockholm's figures are from 2017 and Sydney's are from 2016, while Toronto's figures are from 2024. So, not really an apples-to-apples comparison in an increasingly busy world. 

Toronto's streetcar system may indeed be bad, although a comparison factoring in dollar investment may be more illuminating, given Toronto's notoriously underfunded public transit system. But I think that BlogTO could have done a better job of offering some perspective rather than just a blanket condemnation.

A fascinating glimpse into the world of Toronto street racing

There's a very well-written article in the Globe this weekend on Toronto's street-racing sub-culture. Embedded with York Regional Police's High-Risk Traffic Unit (8 designated officers and a helicopter, along with social media experts and plants), author Stephen Marche gives a fascinating glimpse into the MeetUp scene, the TOTakeover scene, and the street racing scene generally.

Meeting late at night in suburban parking lots and industrial areas, these young men - and yes, they're pretty much all young men, with a few female groupies - are adrenaline junkies who think nothing of driving at 200, 220, 250 km an hour on suburban roads, recording the whole thing for Instagram. Some use trade plates to disguise their cars, despite the fact that they may be lime green or sprouting myriad extra lights and add-ons, making them instantly recognizable anyway (and the Instagram accounts are definitely also traceable). 

But it's all about "chasing clout", essentially showing off to their peers. Some will even taunt the police to goad them into a chase, because that makes for a better video, or engage in genuinely dangerous activities just for the social media attention. Sometimes the police will give chase, particularly if they are aware of other crimes and misdemeanours, but sometimes it is just too dangerous to get involved - it may be a spur-of-the-moment decisionfor the police involved (and the stunt drivers know that). 

Some MeetUps are serious, well-organized events, with closed-off roads, official photographers, drones, and motorcycle spotters. Others are more seat-of-the-pants affairs, where ice cream and pot-smoking feature heavily. It became a popular nocturnal pastime during the pandemic, when there was nothing better to do, but it has, if anything, become even more popular since then. Some of the vehicles are lovingly souped-up and tricked-out Hondas and Nissans; others appear to be daddy's purloined Maserati or Lamborghini. 

Noise is an important part of the image, and catalytic converters are stripped out and holes drilled in exhaust systems for maximum effect. Part of the point of it is to be noisy, and some cars achieve noise levels close to jet engine levels, up around 130 decibels, right at the point of physical pain.

If the participants are caught, the consequences are not insignificant, ranging from license suspensions to jail time, but this does not seem to deter them. And, let's not forget: some of the participants do die from time to time, and some of them kill others (like the recent crash that killed two grandparents and their 3-month old grandson). 

As the article points out, most of these young guys are just genuinely into cars, and arguably guilty of little more than an excess of testosterone. But if 95% are just regular guys, 4% are completely idiots, and 1% are out-and-out psychopaths. Those engaging in "drifting", "doughnuts" and "burnouts" on flaming roads are towards the latter end of the spectrum, and are generally hated by the regular MeetUp folk who have had their event usurped for someone else's social media feed. This is more TOTakeover territory.

Like I say, a fascinating glimpse into a world I know nothing about, and understand still less.

Eagles stop cormorant removal work

Urban wildlife management is hard. This is known. 

The double-crested cormorant (the official name of the regular everyday cormorants we see around the Great Lakes) was in terminal decline a few decades ago, mainly due to toxic pesticides like DDT. Due to conservation efforts, it made a miraculous recovery, and now has a very healthy summer population in the area - perhaps too healthy.

Thing is, they are pretty unpleasant birds. Perhaps their worst habit is killing off the very trees they nest in - their guano or droppings is very acidic, as well as pungently, putridly smelly, and kills their nesting trees over time. You might have seen (and smelled!) the blighted area of trees towards the tip of Tommy Thompson Park (better known locally as the Leslie Street Spit), just offshore from downtown Toronto, where they have nested for some years now.

Having killed off that area of trees, the cormorants thought it a good idea to move just across the bay to Centre Island and infest a grove of trees there. But Centre Island is a tourist area and adjacent to the small community of people who live on the islands. Toronto naturalists and park managers tracked the move and have been trying to deter the cormorants from settling on Centre Island

However, that work is now on hold. The reason? Two bald eagles moved in to a cormorant nest on Centre Island this spring, spruced it up, tripled its size, and this has those same naturalists very excited. Because, other than another nesting pair that made an undisclosed Toronto ravine home earlier this year, these are the first bald eagles ever to settle in Canada's most populous city.

So, the cormorant removal work promptly stopped in order to give the eagles some space, and now the cormorant population on Centre Island has mushroomed from about a thousand to at least two thousand. The eagles have been seen snacking on cormorants, but that's not going to be enough to discourage them from wrecking the trees of Centre Island. 

*Sigh* What to do? Well, now that two healthy eaglets  have fully fledged from the nest, Toronto Region Conservation Area personnel believe they can now continue their work of aggressively relocating the cormorants back to Tommy Thompson Park. And I guess they will do the same thing all over again next year if the eagles return.

Toronto can now recycle its coffee cups

It's taken a while, but Torontonians can now recycle their disposable paper coffee cups, including plastic/wax lined ones.

I don't know quite how they are suddenly managing to deal with such composite products in the recycling system, and forgive me for being a bit suspicious about it. But, assuming this is all above board and not just greenwashing, kudos to Toronto for achieving this. 

In fact, the kudos goes to Circular Materials, the administrators of Ontario's recycling system. And this announcement for Toronto is just a pilot projects, which will hopefully spread to the rest of the province. 

It comes with a few provisos -  cups must be rinsed out, lids must be removed, and cups may not be stacked - and I think it may lead to a lot of confusion for a while. Perhaps the main sticking point is that it only applies to single- and multi-residential homes, long-term care homes and retirement homes, and elementary and high schools within the city of Toronto. So, not street garbage/recycling bins, which is probably where a lot of coffee cups are currently disposed of, I'm guessing.

But hopefully people will get used to it, and it will represent a genuine step forward in our recycling capability.

Toronto's huge World Cup bill (partly) due to FIFA's overreach

The World Cup is coming to Toronto. This is not news, having been known since the USA/Mexico/Canada joint bid was accepted back in 2018, and the host cities were announced in 2022. Most people were probably agreeably disposed to it at that point although, even then, a sizeable minority were against it. Much as I like soccer, I was one of them.

Fast forward six years, and the bill for our tiny share of the huge 2026 extravaganza has ballooned. Did no-one else see that coming?

And when I say "ballooned", I mean ballooned. Like at least 10-fold. The original bid envisaged costs of $30-45 million for the five games then envisaged, an obvious under-estimate even then. We are now looking at $380 million for six games in Toronto, with plenty of time for that sum to increase still further. I recently drove past the Toronto stadium with friend and avid soccer fan, and he merely said "is that it?" (the stadium will need many improvements and extensions).

Mayor Olivia Chow, who is upfront in admitting that she would not have allowed the bid had she been Mayor at the time, has been desperately scrambling to obtain promises of funding from other levels of government, and she has managed to wrangle $97 million from the Ontario provincial government and now another $104 million from the federal government. However, that still leaves Toronto on the hook for nearly half of the total sum, and even recent hefty property tax increases are not going to make much of a dent in that kind of bill.

Part of the huge cost increase has arisen from FIFA's ever-changing demands. The city insists that it did not just write a blank cheque, but there seems to be a lot of FIFA requirements that were not spelled out in the initial negotiations - or were kept secret from its taxpayers - requirements that the host cities are just expected to cover. 

In addition to the stadium rebuild, FIFA mandates: free transit tickets for game attendees and media, and extended transit hours on game days; free office space and equipment "of the highest quality" for FIFA officials; the covering of any municipal taxes FIFA may incur; extensive city beautification measures (including covering up construction projects in progress); a huge FIFA Fan Fest event; late night opening for bars, restaurants and stores on game days; the removal of commercial signage and advertising in the area around the stadium on game days; the list goes on. They also tried to force Toronto not to host any other "substantial cultural events" while the games are on, but the city pushed back against that one.

*Sigh* I suppose we should be grateful we are not Vancouver. They are on the hook for $581 million for the seven games they are to host.

Tucker Carlson goes to Canada

So, Tucker Carlson was invited to Canada to impart some of the ultra-right wing conspiracy theorists' deep wisdom. Well, that was never going to go well, was it?

The man that even Fox News couldn't stomach was invited to speak by - you might have guessed - Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, ostensibly for Carlson to "interview her" (i.e endorse her). I guess she thought it might burnish her severely-tarnished reputation a little. And maybe it did among her die-hard supporters, those who don't really care whether her reputation is somewhat tarnished according to those liberal elites in Toronto and Montreal.

For every one else, those she would categorize as liberal elites (whatever that actually means), the visit mainly elicited yawns and eye-rolls. Smith did preface her "interview" with a disclaimer that she doesn't necessarily agree with everything Carlson says, but after that it pretty much went as you might expect - support for Alberta's oil exports to the US, and criticism of the solar power that Alberta increasingly relies on; support for 2022's trucker convoy, and amnesty for Albertans arrested during it; opposition to medical assistance in dying; opposition to our "facist" prime minister, etc, etc.

He also offered some Toronto-bashing, which went down very well with the Alberta audience. "There's one in particular that, I'm sorry to say, I think is an atrocity ... why is Toronto the face of Canada? ... why are you clustered in the crappiest places?" I'm not sure I remember Toronto being called an atrocity before. I feel suitably chastened about my home town.

Maybe Carlson needed endorsement from Smith, who right-wing Americans are increasingly familiar with? Maybe it was other way round. Maybe neither. The studio audience of rabid Albertan righties lapped it up, offering standing ovations. But did it help Ms. Smith? Probably not. Those who like her, still like her a lot. But not all Albertans do, and most of the rest of the country is distinctly suspicious of her. None of that has changed, although maybe it is a smidgeon more pronounced. A divided people a little more divided. Good job, Danielle.

A timely audit of the Ontario Place re-vamp

I have managed not to discuss Doug Ford's plans to "revitalize" Ontario Place thus far. But an article in the Globe and Mail today has served to remind me of how irritated I am about it (yeah, I know, I'm always irritated, when I'm not outraged), and in just how many different ways it is wrong. 

As Alex Bozikovic points out, there are no actual allegations of corruption - yet! - but two investigations are now being run by the province's acting Auditor-General into the propriety and appropriateness of the plans, and the huge costs that are about to be incurred.

The first question to be asked is why we are handing over six acres of the beloved site - the whole of the West Island - to Austrian spa operator Therme. The entirety of the parkland on the island is to be razed, along with some 800 trees, to make way for an up-market glass monstrosity. No environmental review is planned - this project has been "exempted" - nor any provincial heritage review, such as would usually apply to such a site.

Therme is to get a 95-year lease, but details of what they are paying remain hidden, as is the cost of the government-financed rebuild and infrastructure (which will, of course, be borne by taxpayers like you and me). These will almost certainly outweigh Therme's contribution, so the government line that the spa company is somehow subsidizing a public park is disingenuous at best.

Then there is the 1,000 underground parking facility which is now planned, covering a million square feet, and expected to cost (us) about half a million dollars. This, despite the 2019 "call for development" which made it clear that NO new parking was to be planned for the site, especially given that there will soon be a new subway station right there. The parking is clearly just another sop to Therme, although the paperwork for that too remains secret.

And last but not least, there is the matter of the provincially-owned Ontario Science Centre that Ford has belatedly announced is to move from its iconic Moriyama-designed in its spacious ravine location near Eglinton to ... Ontario Place! That decision came as a surprise to the Science Centre's board chair John Carmichael, who was clearly not consulted.

Sure, the Science Centre is looking a bit tired and dated, but that's because it has been starved of investment for decades, although it too us getting is new. But moving it to a site half the size in Ontario Place is not the solution. And who made this decision, and why? One theory is that it provides an excuse for that huge parking lot, as the two are to be built in one combined project.

The whole thing will probably cost taxpayers upwards of $1 billion which, for the notoriously stingy Ford, is a huge amount of money. And much of this has been hatched behind closed doors. It seems likely that the Auditor-General's investigations will turn up some nasty little under-the-counter dealing. 

They are already erecting fences and preparing to cut down trees with unconscionable haste, even though the City of Toronto has not given its consent to any of the work. So, the investigation could not be better timed. The first thing it should do is to impose a stop work order.

No accountability for the long-delayed Eglinton Crosstown rail line

Twelve years later, we still have no idea when the Eglinton Crosstown light rail line might be opening. 

Begun in 2011, the project, which runs east-west through mid-town Toronto, was originally supposed to have been completed in 2020, which would have been bad enough, given that European and Asian cities seem to be able to build subway and rail lines within just a few years. Then it was 2021. Then 2022. 

A final decision on the opening was supposed to have been announced by the end of the summer of 2023. But all we actually got was an admission that "we're not there yet", and no specific time frame. So, it could be 2024. Or 2025. Or not. According to Metrolinx's statement, "pretty much" all of the line and its stations are now built, but testing and commissioning is producing various "faults and issues" which will take an "unpredictable" time to fix. Hmm. 

How can a project of this magnitude, millions of dollars over budget, have quite so little accountability? Phil Verster, the CEO of Metrolinx, the guy in charge of all this embarrassment, has just had his contract extended. Go figure.

Mayor Olivia Chow met the "news" with a "big sigh", but no-one seems unduly perturbed by this complete lack of culpability and dereliction of duty. Somehow, I can't imagine such equanimity in Tokyo or Stockholm. But then, in Tokyo or Stockholm, the rail line would have been opened years ago...