The Economic, Human Cost of London's Car-Dependency
 

Hey everyone, I'd like to invite a discussion about the negative economic impacts of car use in London, Ontario.

The understanding that some folks have in this city concerning the impact of car-dependency on society's economic bottom line is frustrating. I watch the headlines and often read about Londoner after Londoner killed by another car driver, either in a car, bike, or simply a pedestrian. All too often every single one of these events is followed by armchair economists insisting individually driving their 4-person car over hectares of 3.5m wide roads is the most efficient and beneficial use of resources for our city of London, Ontario - subtly suggesting or even outright stating that these deaths are normal, acceptable, and the status quo is preferred (unless they themselves or someone they love has been impacted...)

Here's a recap of the last few months of headlines involving car drivers hitting Londoners with their cars:

https://imgur.com/a/JT1b1d9
https://imgur.com/a/JT1b1d9

alt-text:
| Date | Location | Outcome for Driver | Outcome for Pedestrian | Truncated Headline |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|
| Jun 22, 2024 | Wellington & Commissioners roads | No consequences | Taken to hospital | Police probe shut... |
| Jun 17, 2024 | Wonderland N & Oxford West | Fled scene | Serious injuries | Pedestrian serio... |
| Jun 4, 2024 | Dundas & Colborne streets | No information | Unknown injuries | Person on electr... |
| Jun 22, 2024 | Sunset Road & Fingal Line, St. Thomas | Fled scene | Killed | Police investiga... |
| Mar 13, 2024 | Adelaide Street bridge near King Street | Remained at scene | Killed | London pedestria... |
| Mar 7, 2024 | Commissioners Road East near Highbury Avenue | Remained at scene | Serious injuries | Roads reopen aft... |
| Jan 24, 2024 | Highway 4 near 14 Mile Road | No information | Killed | Pedestrian kille... |
| Mar 13, 2024 | Adelaide Street North bridge, south of King | Remained at scene | Killed | Pedestrian dies ... |
| Jan 12, 2024 | Veterans Memorial Parkway, north of Hamilton | Remained at scene | Life-threatening | Pedestrian fight... |
| Nov 13, 2023 | Adelaide Street North and Glenora Drive | Remained at scene | Killed | Pedestrian kille... |


As someone who bikes regularly to their job, allowing my partner to drive my car to work enables us to be a 1-car family, thus saving at least $350/month, which is an extra $4,200 in disposable income we spend at local businesses. Culturally, I know for a fact that if I'm the one in the headlines next, the very same folks will come out to make the same comments that, at best, stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how civil finance and walkability interact to effect the average London taxpayer.


Let's break down the real economic impact of car dependency in London:

1. Cars Hurt the Economy by Killing Londoners
• Each life lost represents a significant economic blow to our city. These aren't just statistics; they're taxpayers, workers, family members, and consumers, removed from our local economy.
• For instance, if we conservatively estimate each person's economic activity at $50,000 per year, losing at least four citizens annually (as we do in London apparently) equates to a $200,000 annual loss to our economy.
• The ripple effect on families is substantial. Any income earner's death can cripple a family's finances, increase reliance on deficit-facing services like mental health care, and reducing overall economic productivity of the entire family.

2. Cars Hurt the Economy by Reducing Business Traffic
• Our obsession with parking has turned vibrant areas like our downtown area into concrete slabs of road and parking. Just look at the difference between the Victoria Park area, the foot traffic those businesses have, and then look merely four blocks south to the parking lots surrounding London's train station – which area generates more economic activity per square foot?
• Studies show that walkable cities have higher property values and more successful businesses, which leads to higher city revenue for services like road maintenance and traffic enforcement. For example, a study by the City of Toronto found that pedestrian-friendly areas saw 40% lower commercial vacancy rates compared to car-centric areas.
• The land used for downtown parking, especially parking lots adjacent to the Bus Rapid Transit stops, is an objectively poor economic use of the space. One might even find several locations downtown where a parking spot may generate less revenue than a mature tree in the same spot - the knock-on effects of shade, walkability, air quality, street traffic, would replace what the square footage a parking spot would earn in annual revenue.

3. Car Dependency Diminishes Livability and Societal Health
• The "loneliness epidemic" isn't just a social issue; it's an economic one. Isolated people are less productive and more likely to require mental health services. Walkable areas are more social, and high sociality is directly linked to happiness - and happy citizens are more productive citizens (since we don't value happiness outright in Canada ~gestures angrily around at everything~).
• Noise pollution from traffic isn't just annoying – it's linked to decreased property values and increased health care costs. The WHO estimates that traffic noise in Western Europe alone costs society at least €40 billion per year. Our downtown is dead quiet at times when there's no cars driving by, but in contrast - Frank & Furter's patio on King's absolutely sucks with the amount of motor exhaust settling onto your plate. Barney's consistently has motorcycles intentionally ripping away from their patio too.
• Air pollution from cars contributes to health issues, increasing healthcare costs and reducing productivity. The Canadian Medical Association estimated that air pollution costs Canada $8 billion annually in health care expenses.
• Car dependency disproportionately affects our most vulnerable citizens. Those who can't afford or are unable to drive a car face significant barriers to employment, healthcare, and social participation.

No one's suggesting to ban anything in a hyperbolic manner, though we should make the realization that in later decades every single Londoner will benefit from "severe" policies like congestion taxes, for those insisting not to use the (if-ever-practical) rapid transit system downtown. Every Londoner would economically benefit from a mental shift in our infrastructure planning towards a city with less cars. This means:

• Investing in protected bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure by reducing 4-lane roads to 2-lane roads. (Candidates like York St., Richmond St.)
• Improving public transit frequency, coverage, and holding fares against inflation for several years
• Review each parking spot in the downtown core, first removing city on-street parking spots, whilst changing policy to discourage private surface lots.
• Enable trees to be planted immediately next to roadways, granted things like utilities enable.


By making these changes, we can create a London that's not only more economically vibrant but also safer, healthier, and more financially accessible for working class families.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel like London is shifting in a better or worse direction in this sense?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m in London right now visiting from BC, London is where I grew up. As a resident of a highly walkable part of Metro Vancouver, I am always struck at how car dependent London is whenever I’m back. Where my parents live in the west end, there’s no walkability whatsoever - you have to drive everywhere, or pay $3.50 to catch a bus that comes once an hour on Sundays or every 30 minutes the rest of the week. It’s incredibly isolating. And there’s a notable lack of “third places” - if you want a coffee shop, your only choice is Tim Hortons in this particular area.

Also striking is the continued construction of single family home subdivisions, in areas like Lambeth, and outside the city around Komoka - with very little commercial development that one can walk to. Most of the new areas have no public transit whatsoever.

I am also struck at how dead the streets are, both in the suburbs and downtown. Lots of cars but very few people. (The heat wave this week may be contributing to this, in fairness)

There are more walkable parts of London than where I grew up, but it’s still nothing like the dense areas of Metro Vancouver, or Toronto, or Montreal.

London’s problems will take decades to fix as many Londoners are happy with the status quo and have chosen this community because of its car dependency and Quiet Neighbourhoods™

Simple fact is that as much as we bitch, London isn't really that hard to get around by car and easy to park wherever you want to go. We went to a sold out concert at Bud Gardens Saturday night, got there 45 minutes after doors opened and had no problem parking a 5 minute walk away. Sure, a couple streets are hard to travel a couple times a day but we aren't gridlocked.

The transit system is pretty basic, our civic leaders all drive cars, none take the bus until election time when they are invited for a ride along with the LTC GM to discuss transit issues, so there is no real political will to improve it. This new BRT system hardly has any fans, even amongst pro-transit people, and the city doesn't even have budget set up to start to operate it when the first routes are ready to go in a couple years. Never mind that it's not being built to serve the people that would probably use it most, university students. Current routes are not very conveniently scheduled and too downtown specific. We lived in Byron and if my kids had to take LTC to or from Saunders, it would take as long as it would to get to Montcalm the other side of town, because of how crappy the routes were timed.

London lacks proper car infrastructure as well which adds to frustration. Most car-centric cities have many 6 lane roads (sometimes 8 lanes) and some municipal freeways and/or bypasses.

Since London has none of this stuff, those longer-distance journeys take place on narrow city streets and can cause a lot of stress for drivers, causing them to take more aggressive risks on the road.

The good news is we don't really need to do expensive transformative projects to turn these blights of infrastructure into something else. However, that also means the progressive news stories about them are gone as well.

Not Just Bikes and others like to rip on London and I do concede he has many valid points, but the city is either average on some things or well above average when it comes to big 'stroads' or inner city freeways that cut neighbourhoods off from one-another.

We're making good progress in some areas such as the BRT (half-assed but something), adding bike lanes and some are even decently-protected bike lanes, removing pork-chop style right turn lanes at intersection rebuilds (these are terrible for pedestrians), road diets, lowering speed limits, etc. There is still lots to be done but I think London is making decent progress... sure maybe not as much as we'd like but at least it's something.

"Two-vehicle crash claims one life, sends two others to hospital east of London"

East Zorra-Tavistock, north of Woodstock. A rural road intersected by a two stop signs.

One person killed, one seriously injured, and one taken to the hospital as a precaution.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/cr...ock-16th-line-cassel-side-road-1.7255105

~~~~~~~

You presumably have posted this news article in support of this thread you started advocating the reduction/restrictions in personal automobile use (and reduction/removal of infrastructure to support that). In that, you assert that the personal use of automobiles should be replaced whenever possible by expanded public transit, bicycles, walking, 15 minute neighbourhoods, etc. You even mention a congestion tax to make it financially impractical to use a personal vehicle.

In the news piece you posted above, the traffic incident occurred in a very rural location. How does the occurrence of this particular incident support your assertions? The area is mainly agricultural, with homes and businesses widely spread apart. The space between towns is measured in 10’s of kilometres or more. How would the alternatives to traditional automobile use that you list be employed (or imposed) in a location such as this? How does the tragedy of a fatality in a car accident in a location and circumstance such as this one support your theories about personal automobile reductions and replacement with the alternatives that you outlined above?

Rural areas can benefit from multi-use trails as well. Essex County has a network of rural bike paths that can be used to travel inbetween towns. As well, the abundancy and over-reliance on cars in our transit network increases the total amount of cars driving on all roads at all times - period. If everyone needs a car, there will be more raw car deaths. It's simple statistics. I don't want these people to die - yet they did, and it's absolutely avoidable.

These people could have been your family members - what if the other car simply wasn't there because our culture encouraged less people to drive in general? Currently, lots of city folk speed down rural roads unsafely to avoid congestion in the city, too. Heck, I totally forgot about the possibility that Southwestern Ontario could run a between-town bus system like they did the Greyhound, allowing members of these rural communities to safely access other municipalities - but our culture doesn't understand that transit systems don't need to turn a profit when the R.O.I. on the local economy is greater than the cost of the transit system. The many rural villages in the U.K. connected by bus comes to mind.

"One hurt in crash involving cyclist: London police"

City area - Adelaide and Cheapside

"One person was taken to hospital with unknown injuries following the collision at the intersection of Rabb and Boulee."

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/16-year-old-charged-with-careless-driving-in-deadly-crash
~~~~~~~

I've taken that road to get to Costco from where I live in NW Woodstock. Pretty hard to do a Costco run by transit bus.

Few Public transit systems turn a profit. Same as our road and bike path networks. They all required taxpayer subsidies to get built and operate. It's interesting to see in Japan that the employers subsidizes their employees transit fees.



https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-transportation

Are you assuming that, because you personally won't have your behaviour changed if improvements are made to non-private vehicle transit, that your surroundings will be unaffected also? I'm not trying to control you, Djeffery. I'm simply motivated to not have death-via-car be a constant statistic in our culture.

In Windsor last week, there was another person killed, and an 8-year old boy on a bicycle struck this past Thursday. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I believe that if I were to become numb to these deaths and find them acceptable, I'd be a horrible human.
<https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-cyclist-dead-after-collision-with-vehicle-on-lauzon-road#:~:text=Police%20said%20the%20cyclist%20was,said%20the%20investigation%20is%20ongoing.>

If our culture wasn't so car-dependent, you wouldn't need to drive to Costco... you could bike to a local grocer. But our culture doesn't value that currently.

I'd encourage you to check out the Youtube Channel of Ben Durham, especially this video here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyi-v94DJso&t=358s>. In this video he responds to the circular logic that specifically mentions Costco as the reason for car-dependency.


~~~~~~

The pretending we can keep the same lifestyle and have transit and bike as additional options is a specious argument.

Interesting article about London's police charging for Access to Information when other's don't.

The information requested was:

The number of motor vehicle collisions involving a pedestrian from 2021 to present.
The number of motor vehicle collisions involving a cyclist 2021 to present.
The number of reported car thefts 2021 to present.
The number of recovered stolen vehicles 2021 to present.

"Waterloo Regional Police Service, Windsor Police Service and Peel Regional Police all provided CBC News the data for free, and within a few days."

I think it's concerning that our local culture seems to not want to proactively understand how these people are involved in dangerous collisions. Could we not accept the practice of legally requiring road design to change if there's a death caused by traffic?

Specious in which manner? There's no untruth hidden behind the statement - I didn't want to belabour the point that improving cycling and public transit improves private-vehicle congestion. Here's a quick Youtube video explaining: https://sharetheroad.ca/environmental-and-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling/. "Cycling can also reduce congestion and the journey times of other road users, particularly in urban areas." Also, "Investing in active transportation and public transport can also help to reduce congestion, reduce delays from collisions, reduce the unreliability of travel time, reduce fuel and transport costs and improve residents’ ability to access facilities and services."


You're right that "The same lifestyle" is technically changed, but then we're literally becoming the meme of stoning the neighbor who says "We Should Improve Things Somewhat".

Which begs the question... Are we allowed to improve things somewhat?


~~~~~~

My point is we could invest as much as you want on bike lanes and transit and it won't work with the built form and tax rates we have. This is not Manhattan nor is it the Netheralnds. People with similar jobs in London are living on probably twice the space as someone in Rotterdam. I actully agree we'd all be happier and healthier adapting a more European lifestyle but it requires tradeoffs we have consitently not been willing to make.

Have you watched this video per chance? I want to assume you haven't, because the scientific evidence strongly, consistently, concludes these concepts can be applied almost anywhere - especially in typical North American municipalities like London, which are more identical than they are different. Bike lanes, transit, and lessening private-vehicle ownership benefits the local economy. https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/7Nw6qyyrTeI/...QG&rs=AOn4CLAggB5yOa2TJZXDJFlM4Kme1a5JkA.

I've never been to Rotterdam or Manhattan personally... but I have been to Montreal and Toronto! The former more than the latter is making great strides, but those places are nearby - have you been to the redeveloped parts of Montreal lately? Even smaller Canadian cities like Halifax are getting it done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxNoPe5xSQM

If we included these things, and changed our culture to acknowledge these efforts as beneficial to our quality of life (aka make these tradeoffs), our tax base and land-use form would improve and create more revenue per square inch, refuting the sentiment that these things are luxuries. In fact, private vehicle ownership is the luxury. I'm curious to learn more if this recent knowledge isn't mainstream yet, or what sentiment leads people to resist something they acknowledge is better.

If videos aren't your thing, here's some research studies done from a city 2 hours away from London, supporting my claims and refuting the claim these are things we can't/don't wanna/shouldn't work towards.


Business is Up on Bloor After Bike Lane, New Study Finds: https://tcat.ca/business-is-up-on-bloor-after-bike-lane-new-study-finds/
Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business | Parkdale (2016) and Danforth (2014): https://tcat.ca/resources/bike-lanes-on-street-parking-and-business-parkdale-danforth/
Bloor Street West Bike Lane Pilot Project Evaluation: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/8ef6-cycling-bloor-backgroundfile-107582.pdf

Arancibia, D., Farber, S., Savan, B., Verlinden, Y., Smith Lea, N., Allen, J., & Vernich, L. (2019). Measuring the local economic impacts of replacing on-street parking with bike lanes: A toronto (canada) case study. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(4), 463-481.
Problem, research strategy, and findings: Bike lane projects on retail streets have proved contentious among merchant associations in North America, especially when they reduce on-street parking. A limited but growing number of studies, however, detect neutral to positive consequences for merchants following bike lane implementation. In 2016, the City of Toronto (Canada) removed 136 on-street parking spots and installed a pilot bike lane on a stretch of Bloor Street, a downtown retail corridor. Using a case–control and pre–post design, we surveyed merchants and shoppers to understand the impacts of the bike lanes on economic activities. We find no negative economic impacts associated with the bike lanes: Monthly customer spending and number of customers served by merchants both increased on Bloor Street during the pilot.

June 13th 65-year old man killed; collision between motorcyle, private vehicle.
July 13th, 30-year old man killed; collision between motorcyle, private vehicle.
June 23rd, 74-year old killed.
June 15th, two people killed, collision between motorcyle, private vehicle.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/one-month-five-fatal-motorcycle-crashes-on-london-area-roads

July 17th, three London community members killed in New Brunswick vehicle collision.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/thre...eservists-killed-in-single-vehicle-crash

July 16th, 28-year old man killed; collision between private vehicle and semi-truck.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/londoner-killed-in-huron-county-crash-1.7265970

July 18th, cyclist killed; collision between bicycle and vehicle.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/fatal-crash-elgin-county


~~~~~~

That is quite a casualty list, in such a short time period.

Time period? More like time span - a continuous span, not a discrete period.


This amount of death and destruction caused by private vehicle use will not stop and will continue at a constant rate into the future (approximately 0.54% of all Canadians, culled annually) - the party won't stop just cuz I drive in! Ontario has approximately ~500 fatal collisions annually. (London having 447,255/15,801,768) 2.8% of Ontario's population, we can crudely, roughly, expect 14.15 Londoners to die this year. "Vision Zero"? "Vision 10-Fatalities/Year" would be a more attainable goal.

"The 530 fatal collisions in Ontario in 2021 resulted in the deaths of 592 persons, including 375 drivers, 95 passengers, and 92 pedestrians." (Source: https://www.g1.ca/driving-statistics/) - and this rate has been constant for the past decade. So that's 592 Ontarians sacrificed to the SunGod-er I mean CarGod each year.

Who knows! Maybe this year your children or loved ones will pull the lucky number! I wonder if private-vehicle advocates change their mind when reality hits too close to home... oh well!



July 29th, 2024: a 42-year old man was killed, no consequences for the killer. No consequential changes to the road design planned.
https://london.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-killed-after-being-struck-by-transport-truck-1.6984050

July 30th, 2024, three people critically injured, one life-threatening injury. No consequential changes to the road design planned.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/thames-centre-crash-three-people-hospital-1.7280655

July 25th, 2024, ~16 year old boy hanging on for life in the hospital. No consequential changes to the road design planned.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/te...-and-dirt-bike-in-south-london-1.7268972

July 19th, 2019, (current article past event) but a good reminder that the pain never goes away when you lose a loved one to a private vehicle. The absolute arbitrary, preventable, and senseless nature of these deaths leaves no closure, no solace, and very little room to heal. As Londoners interested in the city's development, it's important we all take a moment to open each of these pictures, full screen, and stare into the eyes of these boys. To not do so is to invite the potential of building a city with the death of children numbly designed into its fabric.
Pictures from CBC: https://imgur.com/a/MRoPfMa
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/hi...left-lifelong-friend-with-ptsd-1.6907180

"...the night he rushed to his friend's side, moments after Roby was struck by a car and thrown more than 30 feet in the air and onto the shoulder of the road."

"...the pair were riding on the curb of Exeter Road single file..."

"...I was covered in blood..."


No consequential changes to the road design planned.



~~~~~~~

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/driv...ison-sentence-crash-left-teen-wheelchair

"Tristan Roby was cycling with a friend along the road to go night fishing at a creek near Lambeth – a celebration of Tristan’s birthday – when he was struck by the vehicle."
"'He feels, he hears, he sees, he responds to verbal commands. He’s just trapped inside his body,' she said."

"Bleck, 31, was convicted a year ago... Late last week, Bleck was granted bail... "


Again, no plans to change the design in the road are planned. This is unfortunately being treated as an "oh well, oopsie", and we as a society have decided this not be our problem.

~~~~~~

https://london.ctvnews.ca/vehicle-collides-with-zurich-residence-1.6998370

"...a collision this evening between a vehicle and a residence."

I'm sure that family won't be financially impacted by having a truck-sized hole in their house.

I wonder what would be more efficient, letting every 18 year old boy have uninterrupted access to unecessarily oversized pickup trucks, or investing in inter-city busses, cycle paths, street cars...

~~~~~~

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/child-struck-by-vehicle-in-londons-old-south-neighbourhood

One child hit by car-driver in Wortley Village.

No clue why Wortley Village between Craig & Briscoe isn't pedestrianized. Absolutely no clue in the world.

^awful to hear.


Some asshole in a big, jacked, black RAM prickup truck rolled coal on me and my wife as we were driving westward on Sarnia Road on Friday, just after the intersection of Wonderland Road.

He had passed me very aggressively before the intersection, with all the extreme noise you have come to expect from these massive tank-like prickup trucks. The driver is sitting there (you know exactly what he looks like), in the next lane, waiting for the light to change (I glanced a quick look). My lane pulls ahead first, then he roars ahead of me at 90km/hr or more, and as soon as he pulls ahead of me into my lane, he rolls coal.

The rage that hit me was incredibly palpable. I saw myself driving after him, opening up his door, and pounding his face repeatedly. Of course I didn't do this (a younger, single, version of me probably would have, though).

But I swear to God, the next time I see that truck, I am going to get his plate number and call the police.

What the hell is wrong with people that they feel the need to spend thousands to modify their engine in order to spitefully spray people with toxic fumes? This is assault.

Was it because I glanced a look at this turd at the intersection? Was it because my wife is of Asian descent?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/...02404/the-cruel-practice-of-rolling-coal

Ya I could see Wortley car-free between Elmwood and Askin, at least to start. Use Ridout or Wharncliffe for through traffic.

---

For those coal rollers, ya those should be (or already is) illegal. Any cop that sees trucks with this stuff should pull them over and impound that vehicle permanently, along with a hefty fine and/or traffic violation.

Do you have a dash cam? If so I recommend getting one just to see the footage here. They're pretty cheap these days and you can even get ones that do front and rear recording with just one camera (wiring one for the back can be a pain).

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/pedestrian-hurt-south-london-crash

"Pedestrian suffers life-threatening injuries in south London crash: Police"
Nov. 6, Commissonmers and Wharncliffe

"...a man suffered life-threatening injuries in the crash, which took place on Tuesday evening at about 6:45 p.m."

No changes or review of the intersection as a result of a critically hurt Londoner.

~~~~~~

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/lo...-killed-getting-off-school-bus-1.7415940

"Longwoods Road residents call for changes after 7-year-old killed getting off school bus"

Notice the neutral language avoiding directly blaming the driver.

No automatic review or change to the crash site as a result of a manslaughtered child. No mention of an automatic lifetime driving ban for the driver.


Our ill-planned cultural obsession with private-car ownership creates externalities in the form of pollution, traffic, noise...

... and typically a dead child every year or so. Then everyone will continue on acting like this is just a normal thing that happens to normal children of normal families here in London, Ontario.

~~~~~~

I would say there is no mention of an automatic lifetime ban because there is still a legal process to go through.

Also, for those curious, the deceased child was a family member of former City councillor Roger Caranci. Nephew I think.

To the best of my understanding, the police are still investigating the incident. Charges may still be pending, and often in very serious incidents such as this charges may not be laid for a while until the investigation is concluded and conclusions drawn. If the article were to assess blame to the driver at this point, and it turns out the driver is not found to be at fault in the future, that's called libel. That's why the article is neutral, not some pro-automobile bias/conspiracy by the newspaper.

Until those conclusions are drawn by the police as to why and how the incident occurred, there is nothing to act on in terms of making physical alterations/improvements to the roadway.

Automatic lifetime driving ban? The driver hasn't even been charged with anything (yet). Burn the witch?

No one will ever view this as a normal thing.

manslaughtered child? Show a little reverence for this tragedy instead of making it your hyperbolic soap box.

It's frustrating to see the headline avoid directly stating that a vehicle driven by a driver killed the child, opting for vague neutrality instead. This tragedy isn't an isolated incident; it reflects systemic design and engineering failures that prioritize cost over safety, as evidenced by the lack of road improvements despite frequent accidents. Society has sadly normalized the death of children in traffic incidents, treating these losses as routine rather than addressing the underlying issues. Using the term "manslaughtered child" is not only accurate but essential to convey the severity of the loss, rather than diluting the language to downplay the tragedy. Furthermore, dismissing advocates for change as "hyperbolic soapboxes" is unacceptable—it perpetuates the normalization of these preventable deaths and ignores the urgent need for meaningful action to protect our children.

Maybe the ex-London councillor has given a thought to all the votes he made on road design. "I wonder if I could've made a decision that stopped this".


Any bets on which area of London will see a kid hit by a car next? Because y'all only respond negatively instead of positively and it's..... weird. The article even mentions that cars pass stopped school busses frequently - saying it happened several times leading up to the child's slaughtering. But somehow my connecting of the dots is what the repliers dial in on saying I'm presumptious and libelous. Weird. Aren't y'all interested in solutions to dead children?

It's like we can't apply the content on this thread to the other threads on city design lmao.

• Video Link

Now of course we will never be like Utrecht, but I would love to see us move towards that ideal--even just a little bit--and away from being stroadsville/Rimmies central. But that is pretty much all that our North American society knows.

I wanna preface the latter part of my post by first saying that I've been working with bicycles and cyclists professionally for over 7 years. Two of those years I worked for a London not-for-profit that advocates for cyclists (I was not working directly in the advocacy side of the organization, but was working adjacent to it).

I don't have a license and have never owned a car (both by choice). I live downtown and work downtown. I cycle everywhere. I bike for transportation, and also bike for exercise and recreation in my spare time. Over the last 10 years I've cycle-toured tens of thousands of kilometers during the summers, camping and exploring virtually all of Southern Ontario by bike.

Saying all that, I've found you posts here very off-putting and difficult to engage with. And again, this is coming from someone that is seemingly as aligned with your opinions and values as you're gonna get.

You're posting on a niche public forum that is already absolutely skewed towards people that are mostly in agreement with you. Most people here know and see the value in good urban design, and know how it affects us as we move through our cities. Yet you seem to be directing a lot of outside frustrations on us in your posts. It's obvious to me that you're extremely passionate about what you're writing here, but you could use a little more tact and know your audience here a bit better.

I want to see way more investment in active transportation. I want to see our streets and roads redesigned to give pedestrians and cyclists priority over cars. I want to see harsher punishments for motorists that injure or kill people outside of cars. I want safe fucking roads. I'm guessing I agree with nearly everything you are in favour of!

If you're seeking engagement here, maybe try coming across a little less adversarial. Again, I know you're very passionate because I read every single one of your posts, but if you want to facilitate discussion here you've gotta approach this from a different angle. You're not interacting with Facebook car-brains here. We aren't the douchebag RAM truck drivers you're seemingly frustrated with.

There is a go fund me going on for the Caranci family and it's approaching $250,000. Something just doesn't sit right with me when I see these types of fundraisers catch fire like that. It still states in the description the goal is to cover funeral and other expenses for the family which is great. 5% of the money raised will cover that. I don't know why the organizer kept it going after the first 15 or 20 grand was collected, as this isn't a case of someone needing lifelong care

I agree totally I don’t understand this at all:shrug::shrug::

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/one-dead-highway-402-crash-strathroy-1.7419943

Just shy of two weeks between this 7-year old boy and this 20-year old man being killed by/as drivers.

No mention of reducing the speed limit of the 402 from 120km/hr down to 100km/h. Instead, the 401 has been increased to 120km/hr - statistically increasing the amount of preventable deaths our community faces.

To my dismay, I can only reach the conclusion that our culture wholeheartedly accepts and normalizes the murder of children in the name of individual transportation freedoms. Perhaps a local campaign with the slogan "Stop The Child Murders" would wake people up... (hint: it worked before).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01lw88k

~~~~~~

I think where you and I differ is when it comes to the implementation and feasibility of safety improvements. Whether a safety improvement is financially and politically feasible, vs whether it is objectively the safest decision.

The design speed of the 400-series highways is 130km/h. The reason people have consistently driven over the 100km/h speed limit is because they perceive 120km/h as safe. Declaring a lower speed limit without redesigning the highway will not reduce vehicle speeds. To employ a 100km/h speed limit that people actually adhere to, would require a redesign of the highway. We would need to make people feel anxious and unsafe driving at speeds approaching 100km/h for them to actually change their driving habits. Speed traps, and speed cameras will only do so much.

You present these ideas like if people aren't on board with reducing speed limits on 400-series highways, then they are in favour of dead babies. Do you not see why you're having a difficult time engaging with people? You seem to ignore (or dismiss) the logistics and hurdles in the way of properly implementing your ideas. We have 70 years of car infrastructure, car laws, car habits, and car culture that need to be undone for the pendulum to truly swing away from car-dependency. This is a multi-generational shift that is happening slowly.

The car-brain monolith in North America is still too large and too entrenched for us to just redesign every road, every intersection, every highway, whenever someone tragically dies. It's truly sad, but that's just our reality in North America right now.

We can't invest in everything and change everything all at once. Things unfortunately need to improve incrementally. Is properly redesigning our 400-series highways to reduce speeds and make them safer a reasonable financial investment? Or could we save the same amount of lives (or more) if that financial investment was directed to other improvements instead?

Should we redesign the 400s, or should we remove slip-lanes in our cities? Redesign the 400s, or add curb extensions and bump-outs to daylight intersections? Redesign the 400s, or narrow problematic urban roads to calm traffic and make drivers feel less safe speeding?

It would be great if we could just implement any and all safety improvements that are objectively the safest regardless of their costs, but that's not how our society functions. I think this is why some have suggested your opinions here are kinda soap-boxy. You seem totally uninterested in acknowledging that some of your ideas are exceptionally hard to practically implement. If anyone disagrees with you, then they are in favour of murdering babies.

I don't even know how we get to "child murders" from a 20 year old dying in a traffic crash. Nor do I get what 400 series speed limits have to do with some idiot blowing past a school bus on a county road. This poster should call the OPP and save them the time of investigating the 402 crash since they already have all the answers.

I know I'm being a little difficult here, Nintentario. I'm just frustrated because despite me aligning with you and agreeing with you, I can't help but feel like your method of engaging with people is doing more harm than good.

Here's a recent Youtube video that touches on much of what we've been discussing. I find this guy's channel enjoyable, and would encourage everyone to check it out if you're ever bored. Nintentario, I'd love to hear what you think of the video, because I agree with pretty much everything the creator says in it.

How do you feel about the way he presents his ideas in that video? To me it feels like he's trying to educate and enlighten the audience. He's not upset with the viewer and blaming them. He acknowledges that decades of driving being our default means of transportation has resulted in us dismissing the negative externalities of car-dependency. People are not in the wrong for choosing driving when that is the only option available to them. The problem is that driving is seen as a right, not a privilege. That's what breeds so much entitlement in drivers. While it's selfish of people to prioritize their travel times over the safety of others, I don't personally find it surprising given our car culture.

Yep, I think that's the correct conclusion unfortunately. While not exclusively affecting children, Doug Ford has received tons of support with regards to his war on bike lanes. Unless he's a complete idiot, deep down he must know f o l k s are gonna die on those roads because of his decisions.

Changing people's views on car-dependency is like trying to turn an ocean-going cargo ship. It's a juggernaut with stupid momentum, and expecting an immediate response from our inputs is naive.

• Video Link

Ya putting an artificially low speed limit on roads makes things worse in my mind. You get a lot of difference in speed variance which increases risk.

The 400 series are mostly 130 design speed so that's why you feel comfortable doing 130 on it and 100 feels super slow. So when you have people doing 130 and others 100 that's unsafe as you have people weaving around the slow, but law-abiding drivers. It's best to go with the flow, not the speed limit, which is what the 85th percentile of drivers do- about 120 in most stretches.

Upping some of the 400 series to 110 helps this speed variance problem a bit, but getting it up to 120 or even 130 would fix things.

I can't really comment on country roads because you're not really going to spend a lot of money changing those since volumes are low and pedestrian use is even lower. What happened on Longwoods sucks but it could have happened in any rural area anywhere in Canada/US as that's what rural country roads look like.

In town we really need to fix up roads before lowering speed limits. Cheapside for instance went from 60 to a 40 with NO changes to the road design and the speed variance on it is wak and unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. Give that thing a road diet, narrow the lanes, etc if you actually want people do drive 40 on it because the road is comfortable to drive doing double that (80) east of Highbury, yet it's 40 all the way to Clarke.

At last Quebec got a redesign north of the CP overpass. It's all 40 now and doing 40 is ok here- but south of the overpass no changes were made and it's 40 now too.

Freeways in Ontario are designed for 120 km/h. Until recently, the posted speed limit for all Ontario freeways has been 20 km/h less than their design speed. There are exceptions where a freeway couldn't be designed to that standard due to physical constraints, and the posted speed in those locations is reduced to 90 km/h.

Why stop at 120 km/h? Why stop at automobiles? What about aircraft? 179 people instantly died yesterday in Korea, likely including some children. Where they all manslaughtered as well? At the core, what is the fundamental difference? After all, people operate transportation machines, and inevitably there will be mishaps due to operator carelessness or error, or mechanical failure (humans are not infallible). That indeed is what happened in a fundamental principle way several weeks ago outside of Lambeth, the other day outside of Strathroy, and yesterday in Korea. As such, the basis of reasoning for your argument is that the operations of such machines should be banned or radically reduced.

Society has decided a very long time ago that the value of that mobility outweighed the cost imparted by the flaws in those imperfect transportation methods/technology. Ships carrying immigrants to the Americas in the 1800's had a mortality rate of up to 20%. Early passenger air travel was very questionable in terms of safety. In Canada the annual mortality rate for automobiles is about 5 per 100,000 people (0.00005%). In each case, society as a whole by a very, very large majority felt that this price is acceptable for the benefit of having of "transportation freedom", and it has been that way for a very long time. That said, no one considers the price being paid due to those transportation modes being imperfect to be murder. It is considered an acceptable risk of an undesirable and unintentional outcome in using such transportation modes, up to and potentially including loss of life.

Does a mother who straps her child into a car seat in their car for a trip to the grocery store consider that she is exposing her child to the possibility of being murdered? The simple answer is "never", because that term is patently inapplicable in such circumstances.

As defined by the Oxford dictionary:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Your use of such terms as this is nothing but absolutist wild hyperbole, and discredits your argument, regardless if your position is correct of incorrect. To paraphrase your technique of persuasion, the way you present your of argument is killing me

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ne...membered-for-her-bright-spirit-1.7421003

Another senseless killing of a member of our community. Notice the neutral tone "struck by a vehicle" instead of "killed by a person driving a vehicle" - weird choice of wording, eh?

Considering our cities are continuously designed with the understanding that these deaths happen at a statistical constant, it's easy to argue that this killing of a human being by another human being was premeditated. We know what certain street designs do and don't do, we have the data - the outcomes of which are premeditated.

Loving the responses! Though it is illuminating some of the deficits in knowledge members of this like-minded community have. For example, concepts such as Social Murder. One poster even mentioned the fact that Doug Ford must know that his decisions will increase traffic deaths - exactly! Doug Ford is committing premeditated social murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder

Don't worry folks, we all know Sachina Shrestha will be the last one killed by another person with a vehicle in London, and I won't be posting here anymore!


~~~~~~

*clears throat*

*leans into mic*


Yes.



~~~~~~

Banned, or radically reduced.

So what would that look like in practice, Nintentario?

Glad I don't post here too often. Y'all need to hug this one out.:cheers:

There's a million places to start!

First off, when a pedestrian is hit, that intersection is automatically placed under review, and studies as to how it happened and what infrastructure can be put in place to avoid it are recommended and, next time that road is being renewed, these new infrastructure recommendations must be followed.

Y'know, so that the deaths would stop? That's kinda all I want lol. But there's 999,999,999 more reasons I'm not capable of communicating well, clearly lol. Can we assume everyone on this forum is aware of NotJustBikes? He literally compares London Ontario with better examples quite often. This one came out last week and provides a very clear idea of "what this would look like in practice". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uqbsueNvag

Also, to skewer your "immigrants on boats with 20% lethality" argument... I'm not coerced to take a boat to my job, or the grocery store, and boats aren't crashing outside my building.

Not that unrealistic, eh? I'm led to believe the very emotional responses directed at my "soap-boxing" are stronger than the responses to local death. Weird! It's almost like we're subconciously aware we could do better and don't want to... and when confronted, the cognitive dissonance makes us upset. Makes sense I guess, but it's... dissappointing.

~~~~~~

Well I certainly can't hug my brother that was killed by a driver, sooo....

As a longtime London resident who now resides in BC (and still lurks here several times a week) and visits 3-4 times a year, I really notice how London is extremely car-centric and lacks both walkability and public transit, particularly outside of downtown and a couple other neighbourhoods. London has horrendous traffic for a city of its size; it ranked 12th worst in North America in a 2023 study, surpassing Los Angeles and other large US cities. (https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/turns-out-londons-a-world-class-city-for-traffic-congestion) This leads to a lack of patience among drivers.

There was a long period of time in London when pedestrians were completely forgotten. As an example, when the commercial area of Oxford and Hyde Park was redeveloped in 2004-2006, there was no pedestrian friendly infrastructure put in place. The new development was built entirely around cars (despite there being several apartment buildings in the area and houses within walking distance); for a number of years after that there wasn’t even a sidewalk available to access the area around Remark Market, pedestrians had to walk on the road into the parking lot.

London also continues to prioritize new car-centric big box development on the peripheries of the city, such as along Wonderland south of Southdale. This creates more and more opportunities for car/pedestrian conflicts.

There would be less car traffic in London (and less opportunity for pedestrians to be struck) if there was proper infrastructure in place to make it possible for people to not have to drive for every single errand. There isn’t even any usable public transit for commuters from surrounding communities to go to the city for employment or other errands, so that adds extra cars to London traffic from places like Strathroy, St. Thomas and Ilderton.

I live in a community now where I can walk to the grocery store, I can take SkyTrain into downtown Vancouver, I can walk and buy a coffee from a non-chain restaurant in my own neighbourhood. Yes, we have problems with traffic and there are deficiencies in the regional road network in Metro Vancouver, but this is more of a lack of proper infrastructure for long distance truck traffic than forcing people to drive everywhere using personal cars. I use my car very little now, mostly for recreation. I’m in London right now and where my parents live in the west end, it’s just endless houses with nothing except Boler Mountain within walking distance. One must otherwise drive everywhere, or wait 30-40 minutes for a bus that takes over an hour to get to Masonville (with transfer).

I think your parents made the conscious decision to live near the ski hill and not near the A&P Plaza. Is that London city hall's fault that the houses near the ski hill are bigger, newer and nicer than old Byron however many decades ago that was?

Great post. My wife's from London. So we're in London often enough to visit the in-laws. Everytime I go I am struck by two things:

1) The incredible urban potential of an old city that didn't build a highway through the centre. It's really a city small enough that you can have most amenities within a 15 min walk and a lot of commuting should be possible by 15 min bus or bike ride.

2) The absolute ignorance and hatred for urbanism by most of the people I meet. There seems to be this idea that transit is for poor students. And that bike lanes are big city idiocy from Toronto.

Over the break, my MIL was going on about how serious the bike lanes are and how bad traffic is. They live near Masonville and were complaining about the traffic near the university. My wife (also an NJB fan) just looked at me and rolled her eyes. They don't get it. So much wasted potential in a city small enough to get around everywhere really quickly by foot or bike or bus.

And since London doesn't have the room or finances to really keep expanding most roads, I can't wait to see what the traffic will be a decade from now. And if HSR to London ever happens and it really becomes a full fledged GTA exurb? Oh man... I don't even want to imagine.

People whining about the bike lanes aren't even paying close enough attention to them to realize most of them replaced on street parking, not traffic lanes. There was a time when Dundas was 4 lanes from Wellington to Adelaide and then 4 lanes again from Elizabeth all the way east but a lot of that was reduced years ago to 2 lanes to add on street parking. It was barely noticed. Colborne hasn't been hurt by having bike lanes. Bring more of them. Expand the TVP, give Molson his bridge, so there is more safer off road access. I love bike lanes, I hate having to share lanes with bikes especially in my truck. Even if they did something stupid or reacted to someone else doing something stupid, the cyclist usually comes out injured or dead. So whatever we can do to make the roads safer for bikes and also provide safer routes for bikes to get places, I'm all for it.

I would say the only thing the city fucked up on with the Dundas east bike lane was, while they were kind enough to put loading zones in certain spots for delivery trucks to park, they didn't bother to put sloped curb access from the loading zone up onto the sidewalk. So someone like me who needs to deliver a heavy skid of product to a store on this stretch now has to drag it down the live lane of traffic to a driveway, as seen in this image, which also shows a car parked in the loading zone
https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9906855,-..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I sympathize for this and sorry for your loss. You are still, however, a bit much over thinking on some topics.

I get it. If you argue for 100 percent change, and 50 is offered, you're kinda happy. If you want 50, you'll get 25. So always argue higher.

Some really good posts on this page. Coming from Montreal, I am very frustrated by the mindset among many in London that transit is only for poor people and students. You get what you pay for (in this case, what you invest in). If you invest only in roads, you get stroads and big box barf/banality. If you invest in mass/rapid transit (as opposed to only perfunctory bus routes, that have to take the same roads that are always clogged with automobile and truck traffic...since there are no highways running through or North of London), you will get density along these mass/rapid transit corridors, and with that residential density, other forms of commercial development become possible, the type that are not just retail/restaurant chains, with the same cookie cutter designs, the same acres of parking, and the same hostility to any other form of mobility, be it pedestrian or bike). And we are not moving in the right direction...the BRT is bare-bones, covering only a fraction of the city, while we keep disproportionately building car-centric residential and commercial developments. Hence we end up with a boring cookie-cutter landscape. That big box barf smartcentre at Hyde Park (or at Wonderland/Southdale) is almost exactly like the one in St. Thomas, and like the ones in Cambridge, Milton, etc....everything looks the same, and there is a dearth of charm/uniqueness). It is embarrassing, when people come to visit me here in London, and all I have to offer is downtown (filled with Junkies, but also with so much potential...) and Wortley Village (wonderful, for about 4 square blocks, but now that Black Walnut is gone, you can't get a decent coffee...).