It was not surprising that the Journal de Montreal would put the news of the public/private development of highway 30 on its front page (03 Aug. 2009). The mainstream newspapers are all great cheerleaders when it comes to the “unquestionable” merits of car culture and its requisite infrastructure. After all, these newspapers have traditionally been very well funded by automotive advertising. The recent nose-dive by the Big Three has probably hurt the papers’ ad revenues, so cheerleading this megaproject becomes imperative. In fact it’s a no-brainer by virtue of the fact that with new highways and bridges comes more traffic. If this means more car sales, then it also means more ads in the future.
However, the big problem with the proposed highway 30 is of course the promise of more traffic. But nowhere does this reality actually get mentioned in print. Instead, the argument goes, the 30 is a long overdue remedy for the congestion caused by funnelling all highway traffic through the city along the Metropolitain (located on hwy 40) or the 20 – which includes traffic lights (god forbid!) just before the Island of Montreal, and which leads drivers eventually to the infamous Turcotte interchange – also slated for mega-project development, but that is a topic for another post…
It’s true that the Metropolitain Boulevard is required to do much more than what it was designed to do – which is a generous statement, since design is exactly what the Met is lacking: Ill-conceived construction based on assumptions and an exuberant hubris characteristic of the times (c. 1967) resulted in a highway system that guarantees gridlock on a daily basis. The fact that over a distance of several kilometres the Met is expected to carry the traffic of both the 15 (north/south) and the 40 is a clear indication that short-sightedness was abound when the whole thing was built.
The question now is will the proposed 30 solve our daily problems on the Met? To which the conventional answer is a resounding Yes! And it’s quite possible that, for some time the new 30 may provide a significant re-routing of traffic that the Met will be less congested. But to be satisfied with this answer is to accept the repetition of the same old mistakes that have been plaguing most cities in North America for almost half a century. That’s because there are always unintended consequences that, by now, are so predictable that to ignore them is simply not acceptable.
The promise of alleviation from traffic woes through construction mega-projects such as bridges and highways has consistently spurred the growth of suburban sprawl, which is an invitation for people to add to the over-all number of vehicles and to the overall distance traveled per vehicle. Building more roads invariably results in more traffic.
One glance at the map of the proposed highway 30 and you can see a number of ‘burbs that will inevitably be more attractive to developers once the highway is in place: from Salaberry de Valleyfield through Beauharnois, Mercier and Chateauguay, the tendency will be to expand and cater to the commuter, possibly at the continued expense of the local farmer and most certainly at the expense of the urban centre. Meanwhile up on the Met, the reduced traffic will be a selling point for developers of sprawl that relies on this artery for commuter access to downtown Montreal. Eventually another repeat episode in the ongoing saga of urban sprawl will have been aired, but no-one will have heeded its message.
Political leaders should know better. They should know that outward sprawl is backward progress. They should know that a solution that calls for more of the problem is no solution at all. And they should know that solutions do exist. What’s more, they should know that a real solution to the problem of traffic congestion (on the Met or anywhere else) is part of the solution to the two much bigger problems of climate change and fossil fuel dependence/ depletion*. They should know that they themselves are faced with the political, legal and moral obligation of addressing these problems.
So in case they don’t yet know, here is a short list of where public money should be spent long before said money (billions) goes to highway infrastructure expansion:
· Introducing pay tolls for cars entering the downtown core and crossing major bridges and tunnels (individual car deterrent)
· Re-inventing public transport infrastructure and networks; developing trams, &/or LRT; micro-/ taxi-buses with flexible routes and schedules; etc. (generally making transit more comfortable, convenient and more enticing)
· Launching a public awareness campaign linking carbon emissions and fossil-fuel dependence with climate change and diminishing supply – peak oil (again stressing the importance of switching to public transport services)
· Incentivising the selling of one’s automobile through taxation (tax breaks for a low-carbon lifestyle)
· Ever-greater emphasis on bicycle ridership and its own infrastructure & maintenance (promoting a utilitarian bike culture)
· Tax incentives and grant or low-interest loans for green businesses – especially in the transport sector (alternative energy-driven fleets)
· Facilitating the creation and development of car-free zones within the city, linked by effective transit and promoted as a resource (building on a post-carbon vision of community)
*For those of you unfamiliar with Peak Oil (or the cresting energy supply curve) you may like to read up on the issue. It just so happens that this is in the news today:
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001772/iea-economist-warns-of-oil-shortfalls/
see also http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/207-peak-oil-day/
However, the big problem with the proposed highway 30 is of course the promise of more traffic. But nowhere does this reality actually get mentioned in print. Instead, the argument goes, the 30 is a long overdue remedy for the congestion caused by funnelling all highway traffic through the city along the Metropolitain (located on hwy 40) or the 20 – which includes traffic lights (god forbid!) just before the Island of Montreal, and which leads drivers eventually to the infamous Turcotte interchange – also slated for mega-project development, but that is a topic for another post…
It’s true that the Metropolitain Boulevard is required to do much more than what it was designed to do – which is a generous statement, since design is exactly what the Met is lacking: Ill-conceived construction based on assumptions and an exuberant hubris characteristic of the times (c. 1967) resulted in a highway system that guarantees gridlock on a daily basis. The fact that over a distance of several kilometres the Met is expected to carry the traffic of both the 15 (north/south) and the 40 is a clear indication that short-sightedness was abound when the whole thing was built.
The question now is will the proposed 30 solve our daily problems on the Met? To which the conventional answer is a resounding Yes! And it’s quite possible that, for some time the new 30 may provide a significant re-routing of traffic that the Met will be less congested. But to be satisfied with this answer is to accept the repetition of the same old mistakes that have been plaguing most cities in North America for almost half a century. That’s because there are always unintended consequences that, by now, are so predictable that to ignore them is simply not acceptable.
The promise of alleviation from traffic woes through construction mega-projects such as bridges and highways has consistently spurred the growth of suburban sprawl, which is an invitation for people to add to the over-all number of vehicles and to the overall distance traveled per vehicle. Building more roads invariably results in more traffic.
One glance at the map of the proposed highway 30 and you can see a number of ‘burbs that will inevitably be more attractive to developers once the highway is in place: from Salaberry de Valleyfield through Beauharnois, Mercier and Chateauguay, the tendency will be to expand and cater to the commuter, possibly at the continued expense of the local farmer and most certainly at the expense of the urban centre. Meanwhile up on the Met, the reduced traffic will be a selling point for developers of sprawl that relies on this artery for commuter access to downtown Montreal. Eventually another repeat episode in the ongoing saga of urban sprawl will have been aired, but no-one will have heeded its message.
Political leaders should know better. They should know that outward sprawl is backward progress. They should know that a solution that calls for more of the problem is no solution at all. And they should know that solutions do exist. What’s more, they should know that a real solution to the problem of traffic congestion (on the Met or anywhere else) is part of the solution to the two much bigger problems of climate change and fossil fuel dependence/ depletion*. They should know that they themselves are faced with the political, legal and moral obligation of addressing these problems.
So in case they don’t yet know, here is a short list of where public money should be spent long before said money (billions) goes to highway infrastructure expansion:
· Introducing pay tolls for cars entering the downtown core and crossing major bridges and tunnels (individual car deterrent)
· Re-inventing public transport infrastructure and networks; developing trams, &/or LRT; micro-/ taxi-buses with flexible routes and schedules; etc. (generally making transit more comfortable, convenient and more enticing)
· Launching a public awareness campaign linking carbon emissions and fossil-fuel dependence with climate change and diminishing supply – peak oil (again stressing the importance of switching to public transport services)
· Incentivising the selling of one’s automobile through taxation (tax breaks for a low-carbon lifestyle)
· Ever-greater emphasis on bicycle ridership and its own infrastructure & maintenance (promoting a utilitarian bike culture)
· Tax incentives and grant or low-interest loans for green businesses – especially in the transport sector (alternative energy-driven fleets)
· Facilitating the creation and development of car-free zones within the city, linked by effective transit and promoted as a resource (building on a post-carbon vision of community)
*For those of you unfamiliar with Peak Oil (or the cresting energy supply curve) you may like to read up on the issue. It just so happens that this is in the news today:
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001772/iea-economist-warns-of-oil-shortfalls/
see also http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/207-peak-oil-day/
0 comments:
Post a Comment
please share your comments and suggestions here, and remember that this, like the street itself, is a public sphere.