"all parking is 'bad' and must be expunged" is not something that anyone has said, not in any of the articles he cited or anywhere else -- even here! He's putting up a bit of a strawman here, imo. If this is the impression he's getting then I wonder where specifically he has gotten it from.

This is with the caveat that the TTC is currently not being managed well and not being well resourced by the city. I agree with this, and with his statement that we should proceed *now* with the traffic regulations proposed by the RapidTO plan, and not wait for the express lanes to come in.

1/ He states that Bathurst express lanes need to be supported with substantial, permanent improvements to service frequency. If it turns out that the express lanes don't meaningfully increase service frequency, then yes, that's a good argument against them!

The thing is though, we have evidence (one of the studies cited in the objection letter, actually!) that argues that parked cars are a risk to pedestrian visibility and increase risk for pedestrian-car collisions, specifically for children. ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10....

Looked at the source used for their third point in the "Structural Risks" section, and wouldn't you know it: ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10....

Never mind the conflation of "faster-moving buses" as buses moving at higher speeds, instead of the actual effect of express lanes: Buses arriving at stops at higher frequencies without suffering delays. Express lanes don't take away speed limits! These guys think Bathurst will turn into this:

The second source they use for the "express buses are dangerous" specifically discusses passenger cars, not buses. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28557669/

Have you seen their official response? Some wild assertions being made and the sources they include don't seem to directly support these claims. static1.squarespace.com/static/68235...