U
Uncle DaveyBoy
Guest
Thougt I'd post this one, why not...
Suburban thrall: Montreal's expansion strategy will keep its economy competitive
Wendell Cox, Financial Post
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Many of the same urban areas have adopted anti-automobile strategies, seeking to attract people to mass transit. There is no disputing transit's superiority for commuting to large, concentrated downtown areas, such as to downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto. But, downtowns contain, on average, one-fifth or less of urban employment. No urban area in Western Europe or North America provides the automobile competitive transit capable of providing mobility to the other four-fifths of jobs. Moreover, no urban major urban area in the high-income world has materially reduced the share, much less the volume, of travel by automobile at any level of transit expenditure.
The usual anti-mobility dogma needs to be recognized for its emptiness. For example, if all travel by car were stopped tomorrow, the greenhouse gas emission reduction would fall far short of what is required to meet the nation's Kyoto objective. Not providing new highway capacity to accommodate the inevitable growth in travel actually increases greenhouse gases by slowing traffic and creating stop-and-go conditions. A new federal report outlines means by which greenhouse gas emissions can be substantially reduced without denying home ownership to the next generation or expanding poverty with less economic growth. Further, the idea that new highway capacity induces significant increases in car travel is like suggesting that building new maternity wards would increase the birth rate. The data indicate the opposite. Phoenix has built more new freeways than any other U.S. urban area over the past two decades, yet its driving per capita has risen at less than the national rate and considerably less than anti-automobile Portland.
This means more roadway capacity is necessary. This is much more than a matter of minimizing travel time to work. More freely flowing highways mean trucking costs are less and service vehicles can reach their destinations quicker. All of this brings lower prices and more discretionary income.
There is an increasing recognition of the importance of highways to economic growth. Recent studies in Vancouver and Portland have made a strong case for improving traffic congestion by additional highway investment. In Portland, a driving force has been the fact that businesses are beginning to locate in other urban areas because of the traffic congestion increases that have resulted from neglecting necessary highway expansions.
It is important to recognize that the choice is not between transit and roadways. The choice is rather between more and less traffic congestion. The choice is also between more and less economic growth.
Montreal already has one of the world's best freeway systems. No urban area in Canada or the United States has more kilometres of freeway per square kilometre of urbanization than Montreal. Nonetheless, significant improvements are required. In response, Quebec has adopted a plan for important improvements, such as a freeway bypass of Montreal Island along through the south shore (Autoroute 30). This will remove material amounts of truck traffic from Autoroute 40 (Boulevard Metropolitain) through the middle of Montreal and improve air quality.
--------------------
Not to argue for or against any of the afforementioned points made so far, I've nonetheless always had my reservations toward the "more highways equals more traffic" theory, hence why I highlighted that part. I mean, how quickly can a new stretch of highway fill to overcapacity after completion??
Dave
Suburban thrall: Montreal's expansion strategy will keep its economy competitive
Wendell Cox, Financial Post
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Many of the same urban areas have adopted anti-automobile strategies, seeking to attract people to mass transit. There is no disputing transit's superiority for commuting to large, concentrated downtown areas, such as to downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto. But, downtowns contain, on average, one-fifth or less of urban employment. No urban area in Western Europe or North America provides the automobile competitive transit capable of providing mobility to the other four-fifths of jobs. Moreover, no urban major urban area in the high-income world has materially reduced the share, much less the volume, of travel by automobile at any level of transit expenditure.
The usual anti-mobility dogma needs to be recognized for its emptiness. For example, if all travel by car were stopped tomorrow, the greenhouse gas emission reduction would fall far short of what is required to meet the nation's Kyoto objective. Not providing new highway capacity to accommodate the inevitable growth in travel actually increases greenhouse gases by slowing traffic and creating stop-and-go conditions. A new federal report outlines means by which greenhouse gas emissions can be substantially reduced without denying home ownership to the next generation or expanding poverty with less economic growth. Further, the idea that new highway capacity induces significant increases in car travel is like suggesting that building new maternity wards would increase the birth rate. The data indicate the opposite. Phoenix has built more new freeways than any other U.S. urban area over the past two decades, yet its driving per capita has risen at less than the national rate and considerably less than anti-automobile Portland.
This means more roadway capacity is necessary. This is much more than a matter of minimizing travel time to work. More freely flowing highways mean trucking costs are less and service vehicles can reach their destinations quicker. All of this brings lower prices and more discretionary income.
There is an increasing recognition of the importance of highways to economic growth. Recent studies in Vancouver and Portland have made a strong case for improving traffic congestion by additional highway investment. In Portland, a driving force has been the fact that businesses are beginning to locate in other urban areas because of the traffic congestion increases that have resulted from neglecting necessary highway expansions.
It is important to recognize that the choice is not between transit and roadways. The choice is rather between more and less traffic congestion. The choice is also between more and less economic growth.
Montreal already has one of the world's best freeway systems. No urban area in Canada or the United States has more kilometres of freeway per square kilometre of urbanization than Montreal. Nonetheless, significant improvements are required. In response, Quebec has adopted a plan for important improvements, such as a freeway bypass of Montreal Island along through the south shore (Autoroute 30). This will remove material amounts of truck traffic from Autoroute 40 (Boulevard Metropolitain) through the middle of Montreal and improve air quality.
--------------------
Not to argue for or against any of the afforementioned points made so far, I've nonetheless always had my reservations toward the "more highways equals more traffic" theory, hence why I highlighted that part. I mean, how quickly can a new stretch of highway fill to overcapacity after completion??
Dave