No win

Toronto's City Council's acrimonious debate over the fate of the Gardiner Expressway seems one of utter futility. They are about to render a decision. It is the ultimate no win.

At the moment, the whole council seems completely split right down the middle. Both sides really don't know what they are talking about. Personal agendas flow into the scene. The vote took place during the writing.

The Gardiner Expressway was called the mistake by the lake when it was constructed. In high school, one teacher gave us a study in urban planning. His assessment about its construction was that once used it was going to be like an urban planning Heroin. It does what it was designed to do. Once employed it became an addiction hard to kick.

Challenging most logic, if one carefully leafs through the various projects, one finds that they are all valid. Another commonality infused in each advocacy seems laced with the blissful ignorance of winter conditions. A flaw in both sides was in the limited view these people had of the highway. One would naturally think that the highway existed for the sole convenience of the suburban commuter. Another problem is the speed of which it is constructed. The City engineers seem to believe that the structure will eventually become dangerous about the year 2020. For a major project this is not all that far off.

A lot of political capital was expended by each side. The boulevard advocates abandoned cited magical studies and polling reports. They used every euphemism for the word stupid referring to their opponents. They had studies. There were studies supporting a highway teardown, There was an equal number of myths. For many politicians of both sides, if not all, this debate will come to haunt them in the future.

For the observer this debate seemed a real life example of the no win scenario. Truly the Gardiner Expressway debate can be called the Kobayashi Maru of city politics. There were four choices. Keep it. Tear it down. Or merge the highway projects into something called a Hybrid. Each version would work. BUT

No matter the choice, it would be wrong. The people who lost the close vote vowed to continue to vocalize against it. This project isn't really worth the political fight. It was something that had to be dealt with. The losing councillors and over social media vowed to keep up the fight. The whole debate was a red herring argument.

The same people that want to tear down are also in a severe fight to prevent the island airport to expand to  accommodate jet aircraft. They have proven very poor advocates of any position. Here is a proposal that would have a far greater impact on the city than that intersection. Some of the City Mayor's Executive came out for tearing it down completely.

Basically these councillors were voting against the boss. This can only happen so many times without being forced out of their perk laden cushy appointments. Now the airport vote will be another very close vote with many of the same people sitting on the fence. Several key votes are on the Executive Committee. These councillors expended a lot of political capital and may have to hold their votes to support the expansion of the airport.

It is why this was a no win. By fighting this issue so severely, the expansion of the airport will pass because the four votes on the Executive committee will be forced to vote for the expansion. They lost a lot of their political blood on their support of another plan. Many of the councillors also prove themselves to be totally undemocratic vowing to reverse council decision. These same political hacks will not have the same persuasive power because its going to be very difficult after calling other politicians basically thoughtless idiots on this lesser issue.

Regardless, no matter the choice, every choice is wrong. And that is a very rare example of the no win situation.

Drop it I tell ya. Drop it buddy

Its a magnificent struggle for lunacy. Some want the Gardiner East section to be removed. Some, like the furious Mayor, want a hybrid. Sort of a highway mule with no fertility.

Like you, I could really care less. But what is distressing from a third party standpoint is that both sides are trotting out the BS. The advocates for the mule give numbers about time increases. Advocates for removal trot out minimal figures.

Worse still is the fanciful project costs. Everyone on every side seems to be giving rather low estimates of their options. Going on history, City history, I'll betcha dollars to donuts* that those are about one third to one quarter of the final real costs of each project.

Reason. That is  particularly complex topography to build anything since it is also at the mouth of a small, albeit definable river mouth. Worse still, they have to work around existing infrastructure maintaining some traffic flow.

In all the arguments, I don't think people seem to regard that section of the highway as part of the entire highway system from Montreal and Ottawa to Windsor, to Sarnia, to Fort Erie.

The debaters seem to argue about six hours out of a 24 hour period. And the removers seem to say, well everyone will have to start earlier without adding the ever so critical point of saying that people will go from work to home even later. The cherry on this little sundae gem is the fact that they are pointing to public transit the same day that the vaunted TTC subway system collapsed because it seems no one has a cell phone. 

Had all the stations were equipped with cell phone service the supervisors could have bypassed. No. Seems out of all the TTC supervisors on staff none have cell phones or use them. They could ask the customers to use those cells to move trains. Nope.

In off peak, night hours a lot of truck traffic flows down and up the DVP/Gardiner Queen Elizabeth corridor. Not all. But about 1/4 of trans-city traffic to Niagara slides down through. Trucks from up north come down the 400, 404 at night and off peak hours, they choose which way to go.

 

Some confused Ryerson puppies on the Star seem to hate the Gardiner for the most trivial reasoning. One columnist even cited how San Francisco should be the model because it no longer has its harbour expressway. The guy skirted around several things. First different geography SFO is on a peninsula. Second SFO is an end point of the ground transport system, Toronto is the major hub of the highway network in the middle of the highway network. Third, the reporter failed to give equal weight to Edmonton, Regina, Calgary, and Winnipeg which all have ring expressways to facilitate commercial traffic. Toronto has a functioning ring highway under several different names unfortunately. (401,DVP,Gardiner, 427)

Removing that section will move that commercial traffic all the way through Toronto and onto the hard pressed Hwy 427. Plus the advocates of the removal seem to believe that if they remove that part of the Gardiner, that removes all the traffic. Its just going to move it onto other streets where their precious TTC operates.

Neither side seems to stand up to the measure of reality. Its now more political than logical.

Unda Der Vater, Da Deep Dirty Vater

Here's the situation. Aging public works that needs expensive rehabilitation and soon. Toronto's agony seems a lesson best not forgotten. Its all about the Gardiner Expressway. This is a major expressway, built in the 1950's which due to inadequate taxpayer funding regarding ongoing maintenance has aged far faster than the original plan.

Studies state that commuters face a delay of ten minutes on each one way travel during the work week days if the Gardiner disappears. The network of media and political punditicles use the term "Gridlock" to describe the resulting traffic jams. Indeed, one of the biggest vote grabbers for politicians involves the promise of reducing gridlock.

The problem involves the positively obvious fact that there are simply too many automobiles on the city infrastructure. Easily 9 out of 10 rush hour cars carry only a single human. As soon as public works builds a solution such as the Gardiner Expressway, it seems to fill up very fast and just as fast as when there was no solution.

Over the years, various solutions have been tried or encouraged. The first of these seems the most logical is public transit where instead of one person, one vehicle a larger single vehicle carries close to 100 people. Logic dictates that in doing this, one vehicle reduces one hundred. Or in the case of a subway or mass transit train, two thousand or more people which translates into the potential elimination of 1999 cars. In North America, this strategy has been an ongoing failure. The reason is that public transportation is a popular way to travel as long as its the other guy on the system.

The second major strategy to eliminate "gridlock" has been staggered working hours. This is a brilliant concept on paper. Presently people seem to get to work between 0800 and 0930hrs and depart between 1600 and 1800hrs, this puts a large number of people onto the mass transit beyond its capacity. And its not cost effective to build expensive public transit to the ideal rush hour capacity.

The staggered working hours though defy any reality. The reason one goes to work at such a time aims at being working with employees or other companies at work during that time also. Economic activity depends on efficient co-ordinated immediate contact transactions. Trade and commerce is a human activity. Staggering hours looks good on paper but defies simple humanity. Its a pointless commercial gimmick.

Since people maintain an addictive relationship with their cars, any action weaning them is doomed to failure. Each one of those adults votes. Forced removal from their cars, is a form of political suicide in a democracy. Heavens above witness the lack of willingness of political leaders to sacrifice their well paid careers for the self interest of the community or nation.

That's the basic transportation dilemma confronting Toronto City Council. Ironically though the people want to stay in their cars, as taxpayers they don't want to fund it to the point sufficient to maintain that facility.

Coming to how that effects the Gardiner Expressway. Any option is the best solution. Something does have to be done. Recognize one thing. That Expressway serves mostly people who do not pay city taxes, who live outside the borders of Toronto.

Two unnerving facts emerge from this controversy. First, I believe that all the budget estimates for any version of the project are way too low. History has proved that 4 out of 5 city projects have overrun the original budgets.

Read a number, a project estimate that is given, then automatically double it. If the hybrid solution that the present mayor wants suggests that it is going to cost $900M, its really going to cost $1.8B. The Spadina transit way, the St. Clair transit way, the trackage down Leslie to the new streetcar barns, the York University subway extension, Harbourfront rehabilitation, ... without exception all these projects have been grievously afflicted by gargantuan cost overruns.

The second unsettling facet of all the Gardiner, Don Valley Parkway reconstruction projects do not include the redirection of the mouth of the Don River. The sharp diversion of the Don immediately below the interchange lends to flooding in every heavy rain. Straightening out the flow channel or eliminating the ninety degree dogleg with a curving shape. Without including the redirection of the Don channel then the future designs of the Don Valley Parkway will continue to be flooded every heavy rain. Reconstructing the Gardiner, gives the opportunity to solve the traffic flow and the water flow. Ignoring the Don River problem will prove more costly for both projects if they continue to be segregated.

  

Tortured soil, and a solid waste

For a place of good charm, the Toronto City Council showed that it could not cope with linear thinking. They mostly stuck to the political guns to ratify a union contract. Whatever was said, few balanced the issues.

Mayor David Miller stated in a news report that he wasn't responsible for the course of the strike. Nothing like leadership accountability Dave.

Remember, the Star is a Liberal paper. Consider the source when you read it. This article is included in this diatribe for the education and edification of the students of the Digital Watchers.


Toronto Star

David Miller finds little fault of his own in strike TheStar.com - GTA - David Miller finds little fault of his own in strike

August 01, 2009

Jennifer Wells

David Miller is lifelessly draped across the corner of the mayoral couch, an image that presents a fair impersonation of Jean-Paul Marat after Charlotte Corday got her deathly hands on him.

Defeated – if not exactly dead – is what his opponents are hoping for.

"Frustrated" is the statesmanlike word chosen by the mayor after he rights himself and attempts a post-mortem on what went horribly wrong in managing what he insistently calls this "completely unnecessary" strike.

Amend that: "Frustrated and pissed off," is the mayor's state of mind.

He's furious at the cadre of councillors who tried to strike down the deal negotiated with city workers. He's maddened by what he calls the "recasting of history" that in his view has marked the whole sorry affair. And he is off the charts with the level of enmity he reserves for Councillor Case Ootes who, during a July 8 meeting of the city's employee labour relations committee, of which Ootes is not a member, stepped out to give a television interview on how negotiations appeared to be hopelessly stalled.

"Landslide Ootes walks out and does a media interview and speaks about what we had just been speaking about," says the really pissed-off mayor. "We call him `Landslide' sometimes because he only ... ."

It's probably best if we let Miller trail off at this point.

What Miller does not admit are the miscalculations made in positioning the negotiations in the minds of the public, selling them on a deal he now says he knew he could not deliver and exposing his own flank to a collective of councillors calling themselves the Responsible Government Group. Perhaps due to a mayor's office that appears to be structurally sheltered, not nimble, non-strategic, Miller's momentary failure, if it is only momentary, is not so much the deal itself but the politics of the deal.

Through the window behind him, the public square is not exactly abuzz. On the contrary, the city seems motionless, in a state of stasis, absent the verve the mayor promised to bring to the city and the office when he first swept to victory with that broom in the early winter of 2003. He is wearing a shirt with French cuffs, which is only worth mentioning because it accommodates the shiny cufflinks given to him by Infrastructure Minister John Baird, whose "f--- off" response to the city's failed request for stimulus funding will surely be included in the Miller biography, should it ever be written.

All the positive selling points Miller has accomplished for the city – getting Toronto's handling of the environment onto the world stage (he recently had framed a laudatory letter from former U.S. president Bill Clinton applauding Miller's efforts on this score); targeting at-risk neighbourhoods; Transit City – have faded, at least today, in memory. As he sifts the entrails of the 39-day strike he finds little fault of his own. "We always knew we'd have to give somewhere," he says of the negotiations that culminated most surprisingly with the option of the continued accrual of 18 sick days annually for city workers. "We achieved our goal. I really can't accept that anyone can see it in any other light whatsoever."

If there is a disconnect between the mayor and the people, that may well be it.

Let us pause.

On Wednesday, Miller gave a news conference. This is what he said: "The proposed agreement also eliminates the provision of bankable sick days to our employees by eliminating the provision to new employees and providing existing employees an option to take a payout or participate in a new short-term disability plan. This is how the elimination of sick banks has been done before in other jurisdictions ... and is the fair way to do it in the city of Toronto."

It was yet another miscalculation, for he failed to voluntarily lay out negotiated option Number 3 – the grandfathered sick bank accrual – insisting that the provision had been "eliminated." "Okay, so what's a better word?" he asked in our interview. "Removed? Discontinued? Stopped? Ended?"

Worse, the mayor had no upside to offer. "That press conference was supposed to be about telling Torontonians how their services were coming back," he says sourly. Instead, that news was put on hold pending agreement on back-to-work protocols for Local 416.

By Thursday, Miller was fronting yet another news conference, staring down the murder of oppositional councillors arrayed at the back of the member's lounge where the mayor briefs the press. Case Ootes. Karen Stintz. Denzil Minnan-Wong. "To suggest that our negotiations went outside the mandate is not only untrue, it's irresponsible, it's beneath contempt and it's beneath the very offices that these people hold," Miller thundered in oratory to rival Moses parting the Red Sea. By the way, the mayor added, no previous council had even attempted to do the hard work of getting the sick bank out of the contract.

Standing with his arms crossed, Case Ootes laughed lightly. "How does he know?" he said moments later. "In 2002 he was walking the picket line." (There's the trademark attack on Miller's politics.) "There were a lot of issues on the table and if my memory's right, that was one of them ... But we didn't get the opportunity because the province ordered the workers back to work."

Did Ootes think that, given the chance, council then would have been able to undo the provision for existing workers? "I don't know. I don't know. I have no idea. That's not the point. This mayor ... made a commitment to the people to get this off the books."

In fact, Miller has gotten it off the books. Not today, but in a process of phase-out not unlike myriad other jurisdictions, including Etobicoke pre-amalgamation. The former city of York had similar provisions. Miller says he was well aware of the pattern in bargaining that had been set, a pattern emphasized in a presentation to council and the public yesterday by Bruce Anderson, the city's chief negotiator. Money will be saved, eventually, thus addressing the current urgency expressed across both the private and public sectors to contain benefits costs.

Miller checks his BlackBerry to recall how and when the turning point occurred. He fingers Wednesday, the 15th, as the day he was briefed that Local 416, led by Mark Ferguson, was prepared to talk about the sick bank. "One of their principles was choice," says Miller, who refuses to see grandfathering as an undoing of the way the city had framed its position. "Not at all," he says. "Anybody on council who pretends to have that position just isn't being honest."

A week earlier, on July 8, the city's employee labour relations committee had approved the city's negotiating mandate, the third such motion since September. "Bruce Anderson said very clearly that grandparenting would be one of those options they would have to consider if they were going to get a settlement," recalls councillor Janet Davis, who sits on the committee. "I find it very difficult to understand how anyone in the labour relations committee could somehow suggest that they weren't aware. It was very clear."

Committee member Francis Nunziata, grabbing a smoke outside city hall, says no such thing was clear to her. "When I was briefed by the mayor this week I asked if sick days are off the table. He said absolutely." And they are – for new hires. If Nunziata was confused, it didn't stop her from moving the motion to approve the July 8 mandate.

On that date, all members were cautioned by outside counsel not to speak about the progress, or lack there of, in negotiations. At some point, Case Ootes left the room. Miller's wife, Jill Arthur, happened to catch the councillor on CP24 and emailed Miller to give him a head's up. Miller was furious. "I didn't talk about the strategy," Ootes says. "I talked in generalities that from what I saw in the meeting that the two sides were so far apart that this strike was going to continue for quite some time." Was that appropriate? "Absolutely ... As a representative of the public, it was my responsibility to tell them what they were in for."

Mark Ferguson, coolly watching council's antics yesterday – and they are plentiful and often embarrassingly schoolyardish – credits the effectiveness of provincial mediators as being "instrumental" in ultimately aiding negotiations. "The framework for the settlement was most definitely a framework presented by the provincial leaders," he says. Mediator Reg Pearson, he adds, was key in bringing the two sides closer together. (Ferguson additionally insists that contrary to Case Ootes's memory, eliminating the sick bank was not proposed in bargaining in 2002.) Ferguson, it must be said, looks like a very contented man with the deal now done, including a 6 per cent wage increase over three years.

Throughout it all, the mayor was regularly briefed. He says he slept pretty well. He kept up his daily runs down to the lake from his home in High Park, past two of the temporary garbage dumps set up during the strike. Is he happy with the way he framed the issues? "Well," he says. "I told the facts ... What would have been easy would be to give the unions 3 per cent and not try to make any changes in the collective agreement. Then I would have been severely criticized by the same critics for selling out."

He believes – well, he would wouldn't he – that the mess of the strike will end up being merely a political moment, and not an election issue. Time will tell that tale.

Is he running again? "Yes." Is he committed to that? "Yes." Will he change his mind in six months? "No."

"I'm not saying this is my career. I'm saying I'm intending to run for one more term. I've always said that you need three terms to do what's needed to be done in the city."

The wallpaper on Miller's BlackBerry is a photo of himself, taken at the Humber River Bridge staring out toward the CN Tower. A good moment. An artful contrast to the bad moment through which he has led the city.

Two lane slack top

No neutral ground

Use of the bicycle provides the exception. Normally one tries to adopt a distant neutral stance. Dispassionate, and very legal describes the best approach. That neutral attitude must dominate most of the time on a wide range of topics, but the passion surrounding bicycles doesn't allow such neutrality.

Very few political topics involve such raw emotion. Supporters of bicycle use in this nation, access the political ear to a point far in excess to their environmental benefit, social impact or political standing. They exploit the paternalism of civic authority figures. Universal childhood memories associated with bicycle use in all North American people fortify the false arguments.

Bicycles are regarded as the transport of youth despite the statistically verified inherent danger of injury. By most bicycling remains a recreation, and not more. Bicycle use joins the ranks of motherhood issues. Numerous cycle lobbyists exploit that social memory.

To this point, I am not exactly a person poised in a neutral position. Many friends are passionate users of the bicycle. And, I like and respect them. Yet my close proximity to the bicyclists lobby allowed me to examine their arguments. Writing such conclusions will likely mean a loss of those treasured friendships. Like most reformers they are unforgiving of those who appear to oppose their position. They personalize their political thought.

Their belief in bicycle use is that irrational. Their enthusiasm is welded to the childhood myth involving the bicycle. Although small in raw numbers, the cyclists present a formidable political force in Toronto. While it appears that there are dozens of local cycling organizations, in reality there are very few active cyclists since they often sign on as members of more than one organization. Usually on every public demonstration the very same few people show up. They are politically astute. Members hang around the city hall like gulls on a fish trawl.

In that closeness, I found that the politicians tend to listen to them. Usually cyclists win every political argument because few people in authority do not wish to tackle with the obvious inadequacies of the pro-bicycle lobby's arguments.

In the study for this article, I found that specific facts and observations cycle lobbyists present to advance the cause of bicycles, paradoxically are the same arguments against bicycles. It depends on viewpoint. The same material that can be used to present their argument provides equal fertile grounds to actually ban the use of the the bicycle.

Bicycle lanes

The latest political confrontation in the city of Toronto involves the deletion of a fifth lane on the north and south running Jarvis Street. The disappearing lanes converting to become two dedicated bicycle lanes. Jarvis Street is a very heavily used access road in and out of the downtown core. It needs more lanes, not less.

Bicycle lobbyists persist in using the two shoe argument. While one argument is vehicle safety, the other shoe is almost always involves the environment. Bicycle lanes do provide a level of protection to cyclists on streets. But there are so few cyclists compared with other vehicular traffic, that even a substantial increase in cycling ridership will never cover the deleterious environmental impact on the local air quality or overall safety due to the added traffic congestion.

Toronto clearly understood the advantages when it allocated bicycle lanes to parallel street Sherbourne, that is just two blocks east of Jarvis street. Sherbourne Street gets heavy use in the freshness of spring but the rest of the year that artery doesn't exactly stream with the usage of bicycles promised by theory. Winter climate, and rain pushes that use down dramatically. Torontonians by the vast majority, are fair weather cyclists. Most of the time, those established bicycle lanes are under utilized.

The theory is that bicycle lanes promotes increased use of the bicycle. This theory remains only anecdotal and totally unsubstantiated by any third party neutral study. All studies in that regard carry the support of the bicycle lobby. Such lanes do not cause the proportional increase equal to the polluting increase caused by the constriction of traffic.

Bicycle lanes will constrict the flow of traffic on Jarvis. Estimates conclude that 27,000 cars use Jarvis on a weekday. The installation of bicycle lanes create a constriction, which will increase rush hour travel times by two extra minutes. The usual travel time is about ten minutes. Bicycles use should approximately arrive at the 600 mark with the creation of the lanes. 100 cyclists per day were estimated to use the corridor previously.

Statistics are another area of information misuse used by bicycle advocates. Politicians embrace these deceitful promise and subjective statements because it is a motherhood type issue. Supporting the lanes gives the impression that they are doing something about the environment. The impact causes more traffic gridlock and greater air pollution. Bicycle lanes are a useless appendage to the municipal plan.

Irony of math

Here lies the irony. Those very same numbers used by cyclists to advance their cause are, the same statistics that can be used in the argument to ban bicycles from every public road.

In every single statement issued by the Toronto Cycling lobbyists, it seems they mark the accident but not fault. One common attitude amongst all this very small advocacy is a universal hatred of cars beyond normal logical bounds. The bicycle lobby always finds fault with the automobiles, never the cyclist.

In recent breakdown of bicycle accident statistics published in the Toronto Star recently, the lobby convinced the journalists to support the bicycle lanes by obscuring critical information. Only two accidents of bicycles involved fatalities. The rest covered the entire city area with accidents and those accidents incurring injury. They advanced their position with favorable numbers only, without presenting all the data.

In other studies where the breakdowns of accidents occur, it was found that almost half of the bicycle accidents involved the cyclists use of sidewalks. Cyclists ran into right turning cars. The bikes came into intersections from the sidewalks. Or the cyclists ran into pedestrians. This breakdown wasn't included in the Toronto Star report. It would be extremely unfavorable to the bicycle lobby and the story. It is a sample of very poor journalism to let the advocates guide the story.

Statistics can mislead. In all the United States figures, bicycles seem to have a lower fatality rate than cars but a far higher serious injury rate. The problem in comparing fatality rates is that the single accident with cars can include multiple fatalities while each bicycle accident has a single fatality. Further to the issue is that the automobile travels on highways at much higher rates sustaining more serious injuries but at an injury rate lower than cycling accidents. Per unit of distance, per period of time, the bicycle injury rate is almost double that of cars. Using such figures one must adjust for the reality. After some study, I can testify that the fatality rate for bicycle accidents under 40km/hr exceed the cars fatality rate at the same speeds.

People in an automobile are more likely to survive injury free in a low speed crash such as found in parking lots. Also very troubling is the lack of a world standard in collecting global statistics between jurisdictions. One can conclude that the accident statistics involving bicycles and pedestrians are tremendously skewed because many of these low speed accidents are not reported. And often those fatalities are called pedestrian fatalities not fatalities charged to bicycle use.

Also, there is no legal mandatory reporting of bicycle accidents like there is for automobiles. Many low speed automobile accidents aren't reported. When a cyclist falls of the bike on a sidewalk and scrapes a knee that injury is never reported. Indeed the fact that an injury comes from bicycle fall such a fact is often never charted by the hospital emergencies or first aid clinics.

The cyclists in the cyclist lobby groups know that the accident rate for bicycles is far greater than reported. The average cycle courier suffers frequent injuries from their professional use of bicycles. And injury free accidents are almost never counted. By far and away if a bicycle accident is reportable or not, I've yet to hear where the cyclist admits fault.

Abuse of the social contract

And here lies one real bugaboo about the use of bicycles. While automobile laws are rigidly enforced cyclists abuse their traffic laws constantly. Very few cyclists obey the traffic laws on a ride. Even bicycle police ride on sidewalks, cross lawns, go up the wrong way on one ways, fail to come to full stop at intersections. And they are the police.

The most egregious law abuse I saw recently was at a Toronto Cyclist demonstration at city hall. They paraded on bikes onto the square. After across Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square, moving pedestrians out of the way, to the front doors of City Hall, these cyclists rolled out a fake bike lane made of old roofing tar-paper .

Nathan Phillips Square is supposed to a pedestrian use only gathering area. Were they a legal protest, they should have dismounted and walked onto the square. They knew cycling onto the square was wrong. Didn't bother them at all. They broke the law regarding the safety of pedestrians to protest the abuse of safety for cyclists by cars. They want bicycle lanes running the length of Bloor. And the demonstration featured the presentation of a petition to the city politicians with no apologies to pedestrians.

There was little police presence for the demonstration beyond the quizzical looks of the normal security guards. I doubt they had the required permit to have a demonstration. In all my time, I have never seen cars drive onto Nathan Phillips Square to protest the lack of downtown parking. The bicycle lobby gets away with anything.

So here lies the heart of an issue. Cyclists want to use streets designed for the efficient movement of car traffic. And in turn, allocate dedicated lanes for use by unregistered, unplated vehicles by users who are not licensed, insured, or subject to vehicular safety regulations. Cyclists pay little or no road tax, energy tax, or tax of any kind. Use of these paved streets are gratis. They even get free parking.

Lobbyists want to use bicycles with no applications of the same legal sanctions applied to motor based vehicles. A driver with a suspended license can use a bicycle on the same road used by vehicles that this person was banned from. Indeed a lot of bike riders drink and ride. Every impaired charge applied to a cyclist usually stands up, cyclists pay a fine, or spend a short time in jail, lose their driver's license if they have one, cyclists simply hop on a bicycle the day after their punishment expires with no fear or sanction. Police prefer chasing cars rather than cyclists.

The worst punishment a cyclist incurs is jail time. Police rarely enforce traffic laws effecting bicycles. How do we know? Well when a cyclist gets a speeding ticket, that's news. It makes news or the rumor mill because catching, charging and convicting a cyclist is an exception not the rule.

There is a special license each for motorcyclists, for professional drivers, for truck drivers, for schoolbus drivers and more. There is none for bicyclists, yet they insist on having a special lane on major routes where other vehicles must meet safety standards, be insured, and be happy to provide tax monies for the maintenance of those roads. They get special treatment in so many ways.

Pedal power cyclists also don't want to share. Moped type vehicles including the recently introduced electric scooter presently have the right to also use those lanes. But the cyclist lobby has recently filed a protest about that also. The electric scooters become more popular, are an environmental gem but the cyclists don't like them.

Active Transportation

One avenue of advocacy is the use of the bicycle for transport of goods into the city core. It is a movement called Active Transport. The theory is that cargo movements into the city core must be made by human powered vehicles. The position does reduce carbon emissions in the city core. But using the factors and numbers supplied by that lobbyist group and Revenue Canada, one can demonstrate that overall and indirectly that humans are poor power converters of energy. Active transportation advocates managed to get a taxable allowance for energy use that car driving couriers have.

Its all in the math. This Canada Revenue discount on the gross income is equivalent to $15.00 per day. It is for energy delivered to the human as food. Food it should be pointed out has one of the highest energy foot prints on the store shelves. Fuel is used to fertilize, til, spray, harvest, process, transport, refrigerate, house, and display food product. And the food must be consumed as most comes out as crap or lost in other human bio activities. So humans are inefficient energy converters.

The Active Transport cyclist travels a bit better than 100km per day. A 4 cylinder car on the other hand does better than 200km per day. The Active Transport carries no more than an average of 15 Kg at any one time over that distance. A car can carry usually 50 to 500kg over the whole distance of its travel.

Usually the fuel costs for the car at 99 cents per litre over that 100 km distance is about $7 dollars. So a bike delivering the capability of moving the average 15kg over 100k at double the rate of a car carrying the same amount. When the larger cargo capability is included, the car becomes far more efficient transport including the energy foot print, than the single bicycle. It would take 33 cyclists to carry the 500kg over 100km. Only one car and driver is used.

To move that material, would cost Revenue Canada $231 dollars on lost taxable income in the energy discount versus the seven dollars declared by a car. What is worse, is that 33 bicyclists on the roads do not curtail traffic congestion especially since according to accident statistics half of those vehicles are going to use sidewalks on their journey at 66 times the likelihood that an injury will occur using the US traffic accident statistics.

While a member of Active Transportation groups, in a study of the issue I presented a comment that bicycles were unsuitable to be a cargo carrying vehicle in the present configuration. Bicycles possess a high center of gravity. The greater the weight destabilizes the vehicle. The rider must balance the bike and the load at the same time.

As a generality an ordinary rider can cope with about 18Kg carried in a back pack. Saddle bags on the rear can extend that weight carrying capability about 300pounds. Unfortunately, modern bicycles lack sufficient sturdiness in mechanical design to sustain those loads over long distances. Bicycles tend to breakdown due to the very high loads on a very fragile frame. Time is lost on repair on bicycle movements exceeding the on journey breakdowns of the automobile. A bicycle are more likely to suffer a mechanical delay enroute than cars.

I found that there were better environmentally sound, human powered inventions more capable than bicycles. They were tricycles. These devices are available today at about the same cost as a high priced bicycles. Yet couriers of the City of Toronto use few, if any of these vehicles for standard delivery. One reason is that they don't go fast enough to suit cyclists. The second reason is that they have very poor snow characteristics. They get stuck easily. Bicycles can be carried across snow banks with the cargo in the backpack.

And that is the reality of Active Transport heavy machines. It only works well in snow free environments. Even the numbers of cyclists decline in snow conditions. This is offset for cars because cars can move faster because all traffic is down. If one can get downtown during heavy snowfalls one finds very few traffic delays due to the lower numbers of vehicles. While Active Transport types of vehicles do reduce pollution the solution to clean air is to convert those vehicle designs to alternative power sources such as hydrogen or electric sources.

So here we have bicycles as only one way but not the major way of getting pollutants out of the air. However the design of the vehicle is meant to deliver an unburdened person rapidly and efficiently. Cargo and freight designs are not competent when the major motive force is human power alone.

Live long and pay monthly

The last issue concerning bicycles has already been outlined but must be revisited. That issue is insurance. These vehicles possess no major insurance support framework to pay for accidents or social liabilities. Any vehicle using publicly supported, and publicly maintained streets should have some sort of insurance. Its not a complicated demand. The vast majority of bicyclists are not insured for that activity.

Cyclists want to use those roads without operator's license, without safety inspection, without plates, without insurance, without adequate personal protection, and without sanction of law. Cyclists do not want to pay extra despite the heightened level of injury due to bicycle operation.

Here is the kicker. If bicycles were introduced today, and not in the world of the mid-1800s few jurisdictions would welcome the invention. Bicycles would be declared unsafe vehicles and banned from public roads. The rates of injury are high. No insurance company would issue the proper insurance because the vehicles do not meet modern safety standards.

Banning bikes would reduce accidents for motor vehicles and a safer environment for pedestrians. Proportionally a majority of pedestrians complain about bicycles on sidewalks rather than cars on streets. Banning bikes saves health costs. The values of the savings exceed the minor environmental benefits gained from cycling.

Money saved by the reduction in health costs due to elimination and allocated to renewable energy development would do more for the environment than treating bicyclists like special citizenry. Banning bikes would reduce car insurance costs. Regardless of fault, cyclists almost always incur injuries in auto bicycle collisions which means excess medical costs.

In many ways the Toronto Cyclists should be thanked. Without their advocacy of bicycle lanes using questionable statistics, this study would not have been done. Cyclists in Toronto and other urban environments have had about 120 years to clean up the misuse of bicycles. They want special favors but give none in return. One favor would be to clean up their act. Because at this point there is a very viable alternative answer to the bicycle problem. The only socially efficient and cost effective solution to the bicycle problem is the simple one. Ban the bicycle.

Leaf fan molester

When seeking out sanity, don't go near a Toronto Maple Leafs supporter. They are not too well endowed with any intellectual acumen. This includes the sports casters of which there is a legion. They are all experts in the fields of athletics.

One can certainly tell. They are all working themselves up into a frenzy about a skill player named Mats Sundin. He is presently a free agent.

At first he didn't want to leave Toronto. So he signed a one year deal, at a discount rate to play hockey in Leaf land. He said he like playing in Toronto. He does have an excuse for this. He's Swedish.

So earlier in the spring time when it became apparent that the Leafs had about as much chance of making the playoffs as Albertans embracing the Kyoto treaty. There was a hullabaloo about Sundin not wanting to do it for the team, and sacrificing himself to become a rental player

Now he clearly stated that he wanted to remain in Toronto for the season. Yet the fans went nuts because they thought they could get hundreds of good players in trade. It remains a specific quandary for Sundin.

First he stated that he wanted to play in Toronto. You see this is the top of the laundry list of paradoxes. If Sundin had requested to be traded, there would be screams from the very same fans mind you. The kind citizens of Toronto get sort of ticked when a world class super star states a reluctance to come to Toronto. You know the old USA cultural concept, that everyone wants to be an American. Its the same thought process.

No wonder a lot of superstars don't want to come to Toronto. The fans are idiots. Its a no win.

The last perplexation remains Sundin's reluctance to make up his mind. He had stated that he wanted to announce his intentions July 1st. He had some fantastic offers regarding time and length of contract. He has yet to make up his mind.

This outward failure of committal doesn't go over too well with Leaf fans. First if he resigns with the Leafs, they will be mad that it looks like that he was trying to hold them over a barrel. If on the other hand he signs on with another team, again the very same fans will roast him for being an inconsiderate mercenary.

In lock step comes the Toronto sports media which acumen can be resolved with the simple point that they all forecast the Patriots to win the Super Bowl and most forecast the Penguins in the Stanley Cup. If there is a favorite these guys ride with it. The same goes for Sundin for the sports media in Toronto plays up to their audience, never guides it.

This glares in the Sundin example. They appear not to understand why Sundin is taking his time. This shows a large lack of attention. Had these "experts" read their notes from a couple of years ago, it would show that Sundin had serious hip problems after a season of hockey. He was thinking of retiring then. The only treatment for his hip problems was replacement which would have ended his professional hockey career.

Since no surgery has occurred since last we looked, one can assume that Sundin is allowing his hip to recuperate enough to play for a full season. Every year the hip problem gets worse. Sundin knows that he cannot play hockey at a professional pace unless his hip is relatively pain free. So it is no surprise that he has not committed to any hockey contract because his hip is saying no.

A Surprise

Oh here's a surprise. Now its I told you so time. Almost forty years ago, before it was fashionable, I was urging Northern Ontario to aggressively separate from the hideous leeches of Queen's Park.

While you read this article from today's Star and if you are a Northern Ontario resident, remember this crap next time. And realize that not a single farthing, or penny collected from any tax like this will go back into Northern Ontario, it all go into things improving the government limousine service in Toronto or a thirty pay increase for southern a$$hole politicians.

Conclusion. This is an I told you so article. Its time for a Northern Ontario Party specifically representing Northern Ontario and working feverishly for a new province or completely separate country if Ottawa proves equally ignorant to the long ignored Northern Ontario. Its time to leave.

* The following article is sourced from that money pig, Liberal loving, Northern Ontario hating newspaper the Star ...today's issue. Its purpose is solely intended for the education of the many students that read this blog and not for commercial purposes.


**************

Diamond tax dooms investment, northerners say TheStar.com - News - Diamond tax dooms investment, northerners say

May 06, 2007

Chinta Puxley
Canadian Press

A paragraph buried deep in the Ontario budget is crushing burgeoning optimism that northerners will see a renewed mining boom fuelled by exploration for diamonds, nickel and other mineral deposits.

The province's first diamond mine is one year away from starting production, but that didn't stop the governing Liberals from quietly introducing a new tax of up to 13 per cent on any diamonds mined in Ontario in their March budget.

To many in the province's north, that paragraph in the stack of budget papers – which came as a surprise to northerners and the mining industry alike – represents a grave threat to hope that's been building in remote communities.

Many say the tax is a signal to prospective investors and exploration companies that Ontario is prepared to single out any mineral and slap on a royalty before any mine even begins operation.

"Are they trying to kill the north?" asked Wayne Taipale, mayor of Moosonee, Ont., just south of James Bay. "What are they trying to do? Stop the development? Right now, we really need it. With the timber industry dying, there are no jobs."

Hope has been scarce as well, Taipale said. Young people don't see the point in going to university or college since they are just going to drive a cab or work behind the counter in a local store, he said.

The De Beers Victor diamond mine in nearby Attawapiskat changed all that, he said. The diamond giant is spending $1 billion to build the mine, employing many local people in the process and creating 400 local jobs, he said.

"I've been here for 49 years in Moosonee, I've never seen work like that," Taipale said. "We're all feeling the same way. We're very uncertain now what's going to happen here. This just feels like someone has put nails in the coffin for the north."

The tax isn't enough to stop the Victor project, but Timmins Mayor Tom Laughren said it's enough to deter other potential investors. It's a short-sighted tax grab given just one more $1-billion diamond mine would inject more into provincial coffers than this tax, he added.

"There is a lot of exploration going on in the north, specifically for diamonds," Laughren said. "My fear is it may trigger people to look elsewhere just because the tax regime will be uncertain."

That's a distinct possibility, said PriceWaterhouseCoopers mining tax expert John Gravelle. Exploration companies look for stable tax regimes – something Canada and Ontario has always offered, he said.

"This makes Ontario look less stable given that it has increased its tax quite substantially – two-and-a-half to three times higher," Gravelle said, adding companies also look for a fair application of taxes.

"There is no real reason why diamonds should be taxed any differently than other metals such as gold and nickel."

Opposition Leader John Tory vowed to roll back the tax, if he is elected premier in October, on a recent trip up north.

But Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said there are several good reasons behind the tax. Ontario is simply following the lead of the Northwest Territories, which has a similar tax rate, he said.

"We have to remember that the diamonds that are going to be extracted belong to the people of Ontario and we have to make sure that there is a fair return for the people of Ontario," Sorbara said in an interview.

To suggest that having a "single and similar royalty rate for the diamond extraction industry" will scare away other investment in the north is just "fear-mongering," Sorbara said.

Singling out any other Ontario metal or mineral is "simply not in the cards," he added.

Tory said it's not surprising that other companies would lose faith in the government's word given that the Liberals hiked diamond taxes less than a year after Premier Dalton McGuinty welcomed De Beers with open arms at their ground-breaking.

"To have that very same government turn around and just shaft these people and do a tax grab in the middle of the night, I think is inexcusable," Tory said. "It sends all the wrong signals . . . to every industry."

The province should roll back the tax before sitting down with people in the mining industry to set a fair standard going forward, said Tory.

The company that inspired the tax in the first place said it doesn't expect the government to change its mind now.

The best De Beers can hope for now is a "tax holiday," which would give the mine a chance to get up and running, said De Beers spokesperson Linda Dorrington. The mine represents a sliver of Ontario's overall mineral production value, she added.

"We feel that they've not really thought this royalty through," she said. "For a small amount of income coming into the government treasury, they're creating a very big negative effect."

The Great Coverup

About a year ago or more. When one gets this old one starts forgetting things like...???

But the essence remains. Oh whatta you know. I did get it right it was a year. The links and reference story are attached at the end of this little entry.

Anyhow this event was buried faster than a politician's promise. The claim by police was that this was not a terrorist event.

No inquiry was further published. In fact a lot of material I recall sourcing about one week after the event is no longer available on the internet.

From memory, which might be faulty, I believe these basic facts to be true.

1. It appeared to be a suicide.

2. The bomber intended to detonate the device.

3. The bomber was young.

4. The bomber was Islamic.

5. The bomber was an immigrant.

6. It happened on a very busy moment in a very busy area.

7. It occurred at a Tim Horton's.

8. The workers of Tim Hortons also happen to be of Islamic faith.

9. Tim Horton's is iconic in Canada. Thusly must be on a target list of Al Qaeda.

10. Facts and articles which expressed doubt about the police point of view have disappeared from the internet and the public record. Only the police version remains. Contrary opinions from official commercial sites are missing, while forums and blogs retained the essence.

11. In the forums the facts emerge that the bomber had tried to enter Varsity stadium earlier but had turned tail because of security there. So there may have been some sort of security alert

Frankly I believe that this was an attack by an Al Qaeda sympathizer. That Tim Horton's may have been the alternate target.

We have learned much even in the last year.

First. Most of the attackers are considered home growns. This event is consistent with that.

Second. The methods are always IED or improvised. Although clumsy the device was improvised.

Third. That the result to the attacker is always death which is why it was called a suicide attack. In this case, it was suicide.

Fourth. The police and fire department proclaim that there was no explosion. Every eyewitness on that day testifies to declaring otherwise. In one of the

Here is the real quirk of Canadian legal practice. Information on suicides are not published. Which means the police can deny any such terrorist event legally because they can withhold information since it was a suicide.

Even if there was a suicide attack on some more public target by law the Canadian police do not have to release any information whatsoever. Not only that, they can go to the traditional media sources and expunge that information from that resource base leaving the only source to be blogs and forums like this.

For Al Qaeda this is problematic. There is a simple answer for them. If the bomber had not been suicidal the newspapers could freely publish the material.

Also the level of security must be observed. Within the hour of the Horton's attack, two other mysterious packages had been identified and dealt with by police. Remember this was a Sunday in 2006. The response time to Hortons apparently was led by police. Often in 911 calls, it is the fire department that gets there first. So on that day, an attack must have been expected.

The sudden drop off of any information after April 6, 2007 appears astounding. Even on the Tim Horton's Wikipedia account the record of such an event is not there. This site often gleefully records such events.

The police view is that this wasn't an attack. Despite all the facts pointing to this event entirely consistent with an Al Qaeda inspired attack. Police at the time promised a full disclosure after several months of investigation. As of this date such report appears on the public record or has been released. No public record of a coroner's inquest although it would be required by law.

To this date I can find no online record of such an inquest. I do remember a blurb being published in the Toronto Sun in June to August but can find no record of it now.

Sometimes the absence of subsequent relevant information is more indicative than an outright lie that says volumes. The statements of the police and fire department were at odds with both the eyewitness details and with the modus operandi of Al Qaeda. If that event wasn't a terrorist event why was the inquest suppressed and not on record?

Links and articles.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608061/posts?q=1&&page=74#74

http://ianism.com/?p=126

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=57647

http://www.parrysound.com/voice/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t2046.html

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272668&page=6

http://boards.weddingbells.ca/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1306256&Main=1288571

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/03/tim-hortons-autopsy060403.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/02/toronto-explosion-060402.html

Deadly blast in doughnut shop not a terrorist job: police

Police have ruled out terrorism as the cause of an explosion at a Tim Hortons doughnut shop that killed one man in a trendy downtown area of Toronto on Sunday.

The victim was likely an arsonist or attempting suicide, Staff Sgt. Don Cole of Toronto police told reporters hours after the explosion.

Firefighters outside the Tim Hortons in Toronto where an explosion killed a man on Sunday.

"He's not a strap-on al-Qaeda bomber guy," Cole said. "It sounds to me like a guy who either wanted to do a torch job or commit suicide."

Police said the man apparently carried a can of gasoline into a washroom stall about 1 p.m. local time at the eatery in the city's Yorkville area, and set off a flash fire that killed him.

The victim was an unidentified male who was pronounced dead at the scene with severe burns to his body. Nobody else was injured.

Toronto police Chief Bill Blair answers reporters' questions outside the doughnut shop Sunday. (Patrick Morell/CBC photo)

Tim Hortons spokesman Nick Javor later confirmed the victim was not an employee. In a statement, he praised the quick response of the staff, and said they would be offered appropriate support.

Explosion triggered flash fire: police

Police Chief Bill Blair earlier described the incident as a flash fire rather than a bombing. Two blocks in the downtown area were cordoned off as police investigated.

A police robot removes a suspicious parcel from the shop in the aftermath of the explosion.

"It appears that there has been a very hot and intense fire in an enclosed area within the washroom," Blair said. But he declined to speculate on the cause of the fire.

"Until we determine precisely what happened in that cubicle and what caused those flames that took that man's life, I really can't speculate," he said.

Police could not confirm reports the man was seen entering the washroom with wires or possibly explosives strapped to his body.

The ceiling fell down on the victim, bringing down wires and batteries from an air-freshening device that might have contributed to suspicions of a bomb, Cole said.

Suspicious bag not a threat

After the incident, a police robot was used to remove a duffel bag from the doughnut shop, which is on Yonge Street just north of the intersection with Bloor Street.

Explosives experts detonated the bag with a loud bang. It contained school supplies.

Police also evacuated a second Tim Hortons a few kilometres north and detonated a suspicious package, which ended up being a clock in a shopping bag.

Eyewitness Jenny Phillips told Reuters that she heard bangs like pops from a firecracker and a scream "that will haunt me forever" as she left the washroom area.

She smelled burnt powder and saw a "wall of flames" inside the men's washroom before staff herded the two dozen customers outside.

"I thought the roof was caving in," she said. "People were screaming."

Blast rattles shop workers

Employees who appeared shaken were escorted from the scene, and some attempted to shield their faces from the throng of television cameras.

They refused to answer questions, but Tim Hortons district manager Amin Islam said they were doing well. "I'm just making sure they're going home safely," he said.

Daryl Fuglerud, a spokesman with Toronto's fire department, told reporters the man who died had burns to his body.

"It doesn't appear that there was much of a fire at all," Fuglerud said. "There was a very small amount of smoke upon our arrival."

Fuglerud said the investigation was turned over to police because it was a "possible criminal" case.

**************

from the Glob and Pail of the same period.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060405.TIMS05/TPStory/?query=tim+hortons+explosion

Coffee-shop death a suicide, police say

JEFFREY HAWKINS

TORONTO -- Police say the man who died in an explosion and flash fire at a downtown Tim Hortons restaurant that caused police to shut a part of the busy Yonge and Bloor area committed suicide.

Based on the evidence gathered at the scene from the coffee shop -- one of the busiest in Toronto -- and several eyewitness reports, investigators concluded that the incident Sunday afternoon was not accidental.

"Through various aspects of the investigation we have now determined that the injuries leading to the man's death were self-inflicted," Detective Sergeant Myron Demkiw said yesterday.

"We're still working on the identity of the deceased, and I can't say if we'll be releasing that information even if it is established."

The flash fire ignited inside the men's washroom of the restaurant on Yonge Street, just north of Bloor Street, sending startled patrons and employees out onto the street as smoke and flames shot out from under the washroom door and part of the ceiling collapsed.

Police have said they believe gasoline in a canister ignited in the washroom.

An autopsy Monday on the man's severely burned body concluded that he died of smoke inhalation.

The only other information that has been released about him is that he was not an employee of the coffee shop.

Det. Sgt. Demkiw said the investigation is continuing but would not comment on the forensic evidence that has been recovered from a white sedan towed from a parkade behind the Hudson's Bay Co., about two blocks from the Tim Hortons shop.

Great expectations and the real city

For quite awhile, I've pondered why a lot of people outside of Toronto detest the place. A friend sent me this link.

http://www.torontoist.com/

Interesting. It espouses a city that in truth, doesn't exist. A lot of the artsy fartsy types that control city hall promote the city as being that way. Oh yes, these events and people do exist. The reason for this dominance is that the city elders feel the need to compete with other cities. Then for the reason for economic development, attracting conventions and tourism all this... all this... call it what it is... out trots this bullshit.

At the leading edge of this tourist effort cycles the artistic effort of youth before alcoholism and the ravages of crack take their toll on the straw castles of mythic dreams. The fastest way to get funding for their artistic urges is to create things like this link. It appeals to the wealthy elite of the city, the business leaders that holds a firm grip on the life of this city.

Literally it is young artists and the useless progeny of the upper middle class trying to make a lazy partying life out of trying to appear to be culturally advanced. In other words its a gang of young culturally challenged goofballs trying to appeal to the elite business class. They do such things to kiss the bigger ass.

The result carries all the way into the annoyingly elitist CBC and rests displayed for all to see. These leaders of culture show nothing but arrogant, self interested, small minds unable to see their city outside of the rose colored glasses they wear.

In turn, in righteous justification for their well clothed greed, they work assiduously to misrepresent the true Toronto. The polished society, the modern city they portray, the mythical city doesn't exist. And at the end of the day, its good for their property values.

This facet is lost in ridiculous sites like the Torontoist. That city is an invention. That city is like the singles ads which portray a single person looking for a mate as liking arts, music, dining, Blue Jays, and long walks in the park.

Have you ever been to a Toronto park? Its like any city park. I never see these people there. Mostly its joggers, drunks, crackheads, nannies, suicidal bipolars looking for a tree to hang themselves, and city works personnel goofing off. Cute sexy singles are to city parks as elephants are to Yellowknife.

Worse, they pass this off to the hinterland as the real way to live. Well this would be good. Except it doesn't exist.

To a person from places like my former hometown like Marathon, which is a small community purpose built to serve the labor needs of a large corporation and possesses a simple mono-culture, a place like Toronto confuses. They bring their values, their social experience to the bigger pond and as such their expectations don't work for them.

One does not need an advanced education to live in Marathon. It doesn't challenge the temporal lobe of a Nematode. One does not need intelligence or wisdom to climb the social ladder. This isn't wrong. Such a life is quite comfortable. Its another world socially. But its failure comes that the dynamic dreams of youth must be suppressed for creature comfort. It leads to mental depression. However when a person arrives in a place like Torontoist portrays they rapidly become disillusioned since the social dynamics are so different and the promise of the elite doesn't match the real culture.

They are no longer socially important. It is why small towners complain about customer service. In a small town customer service comes from a neighbor. In a city the customer service comes from a stranger. The latter expects a tip.

And it is no coincidence whatsoever that the leading brainiacs of a place like Marathon brag about not paying out tips. It never failed. Two lines down the conversation these forested intellects will always parlay this rant adding that they don't like Toronto because they get poor customer service... Well duh!

Now father always did well in city travel more than my mother. He travelled the world often and functioned adequately for a small town type of person. He had the intellectual edge to explore and cared less about social status, race or cultural bridges. He could live anywhere. The only disconcerting thing that as an advanced intellectual he possessed the charming quirk of tending to mutter unaware anyone else was listening.

A couple of times I caught him muttering about what size of tip acceptable in this city. There was a rate for every city in Canada. He would slide over to every inlaw chum and always, always ask about the tip rate in every town. He would chart every facet of life but failed to record each rate in every city. In Calgary and Port Arthur, it was 10% of the bill. But in Winnipeg, on the train and in Fort William, it was 15%. He liked Port Arthur and Calgary quite a lot.

Yet he was absent minded to the extent that I overheard him mired in the usual end of meal internal debate. He sometimes lost track of his rate schedule mentally. And this usually exploded into muttering about which the percentage in this city was. I heard it several times. So did the waiters standing right next to me. Not a cool thing.

I digressed. But it shows the angst which even seasoned travelers from small towns confront the social dynamics of the larger city. They expect the city portrayed in the Torontoist web site. Alas. It aint.

The real Toronto is a gritty mud bath of ordinary people from a confluence of global cultures all mushed into a single community. They are friendly enough. They are more open to new people than the small town person. As they grow older they are not as status conscious as found in small towns. Toronto is a collage of cultures and its a dirty hot tub. It is not CBC.

A small town person is no longer a person of some status in this social structure. Most Toronto people are occupied with working hard, paying off the rent or mortgage, raising a family, getting fucked, eating, finding cheap food, partying, and getting loaded. Social status except for the few, doesn't exist. Its a muddy swamp. Thats the real Toronto.

Most city people I know have never been to a play, haven't even been up the CN Tower, or the Zoo, or the Harborfront, or Pantages. Professional sports events are too much money. Cable provides entertainment. I don't know anyone who listens to CBC. I don't know too many people who attend the theatre on a regular basis. And most of the arts and music culture are buskers looking for a buck on the streets.

The problem with why people hate Toronto is that they get off the plane expecting a city like the brochures. They will find the advertised in the narrow tourist traps that do exist. City tours go up Yonge street or Spadina to Yorkville. Tours don't go up Sherbourne to Regent Park. They tour down King West to Bathurst then turn right north up to Queen street. They don't go beyond to Parkdale or Dundas West.

Tours. To get to the small elite Beaches district, one must travel through East Toronto where the real city dwellers live. As a result even the street cars go fast through that zone in a headlong need to get to the magical land. It is when the visitor steps outside the glitz of the tourist trap that they run into the real city. Whoops! The myth falls.

And its expectations. It can be a confusing crush, the real city. The small town person is a stranded guppy in a clash of people, and transactions. Its a jungle path dark and full of hidden traps to the perceptions of a visitor outside the glitz tourist channels. Its like Disney World set in the Everglades. Inside the wonderful experience. Outside that compound, alligators.

To live in Toronto, the real Toronto one must like the swamps and alligators of human existence Not appreciating this fine point about urban existence leads to the misconception about a place like Toronto.

To a person from a small town driving in a busy town like Toronto can be a nightmare. It is not that traffic is all that bad in Toronto. Its perception. Small town drivers think that they are great drivers. No on the contrary. Its that to live in Toronto one must be a very good driver. Traffic in Toronto is actually a very efficient system. One needs to understand that to thrive to drive one must practice good driving.

The final point strikes the heart of the small town person. Officially they proclaim that they hate Toronto when really they do not want to admit to the world that they lack the driving skills or talent to function. e.g. Most Marathonians hate the 401. Oppositely, I have always loved driving the 4o1. I like driving down Bay Street from Dupont to Harborfront. I like driving through Portage and Main or Cumberland Street or Fort William Road. Its the challenge. Its attitude.

There lies the problem. People from the small towns in Northern Ontario bash Toronto or city life. Its their privilege and it makes them happy. But it isn't the fault of Toronto. It is the fault that everyone seems to buy into the mythic vision that Toronto wishes to portray. Its a show, not the real Toronto.

And it confuses the people outside Toronto because the real Toronto is far more dynamic and contrarily ordinary than advertised. There is a wall created by the city elite, and the tourist misconception between how absolutely functional Toronto is compared with smaller communities. Such a site as Torontoist displays the dream of a city not the actual gritty core of a city.

Political pontiffs like the present day Mayor were elected by the voting majority of suburbanites of the metropolitan zone. There lies the problem. The suburbanites are professional, or financial, or well paid government workers or educators who know little about inner city life. They go to work the same way every day, and go home to a quiet refuge or nest. They toil for years, grow a family, sell the house and quietly die banished to an old folks home. They are not the real city. They buy into the vision of the city portrayed by pseudo-intellectual and completely compromised politicians like David Miller.

They participate little in the city life. The suburban home is but a quiet refuge where it is convenient to hide until death. But every three or four years they control the voting power to elect politicians that paint the pretty version of their community not the real city. They sit communicating away on the internet inventing the city that really doesn't exist and never did. Their city is pretty, cleansed of all foul smelling things.

Yet like the sewers these people exploit the inner city. It is why the rest of the city foisted on the residents of St. Clair a transit way of ancient, antiquated street car technology because it was their vision not the real vision of the real St. Clair resident. The people that are now doing this to what was once a wonderful culturally dynamic neighborhood will destroy it much like they molded the Spadina district. Its not the concept of the real people living there. These arbitrary people imposing a vision on a vital district eventually destroy that neighborhood. They visit the place once to open the beast they conceived then go elsewhere to plague city life.

Such behaviors destroy the city neighborhood. Despite the pontifications from the bombastic mayor, while transitways look good on paper, in every instance they are factual disasters. The operations of the Spadina right of way are spastic, inefficient, impaired the functioning of the street, and is an alien space vehicle in a cringing world. Patently it is a success to the people who forced the project on the community in retribution for stopping a commuter motor expressway. In reality though having experienced the before and after of such a project clearly the
Spadina transitway is an abject failure.

The only saving grace for that area is the Kensington market where the real city retreated to and thrives is that it escaped the attention of the other neighborhoods. Unfortunately for the residents on St. Clair they will experience the same idiotic project that plagued Spadina. It takes a year to build the transitway and it takes about 15 years to recover socially from such a false project. It gives the neighborhood about ten years grace before the next social brainstorm from the suburbanite social elite to return its attention.

Why explore this pathway into this essay. What it shows is that there is a great gap between the perception and the reality. When I moved to Toronto I didn't move to the alleged upscale parts of town. They are the minority dysfunctional parts of Toronto. If I lived there in those illusions for any length of time, certainly I would be back in Edmonton.

The first time I moved here twenty years ago I went straight into the neighborhoods one is not supposed to like. I found it to be gritty, affordable, real and fun. I didn't go with the program. Also I found that the people who came to this city into a district like this one tended to stay in Toronto. The suburbanite refugees tended to always want to be somewhere else. They wanted a small urban town in a big city.

Now this confuses the people in places like Marathon. A large part of this is that they buy the outward face portrayed by the minority elites of Toronto. When confronted by the real city, like the city suburbanites they tend to go back home. Now this is not wrong nor right. It is the way it is.

One cannot come to a densely populated place like Toronto and expect things to accommodate their needs at the snap of a finger and no tip. One instantly loses all the social status, personal recognition, and close familiarity of a small town. One must drive to the efficiencies of city traffic not fumble around like it was a country lane.

So when a person clicks on a site like "The Torontoist." Take it with a grain of salt and a lot of doubting gravy. Its the promotion of a myth. A city that really doesn't exist. Its interesting for a few. Really though. Its complete bull crap.


(Note this is a draft only, I may return to revise the essay.)