the dire situation of increasing congestion, air pollution and squandered suburban land facing many canadian cities and regions begs the need for proactive solutions not complacency or band-aid action plans. perhaps surprisingly, toronto and it’s surrounding municipalities appear to be making the most headway in this regard.
the toronto star has reported numerous times over the past year that metrolinx, greater toronto’s transit authority, is detailing a series of scenarios for reducing car use, in the latest stage of developing a regional transportation plan. the most ambitious vision would cost $90 billion over 25 years. initiatives include a focus on making active transportation opportunities easier and more accessible, road tolls, parking fees and an influx in spending on creating a more cohesive and efficient transit network. together and, really only together, would these initiatives make it easier, more appropriate and cheaper to switch to more sustainable modes of transportation.
these types of action plans are controversial. that’s because they attempt to go beyond mere band-aid initiaties, those that strive to remedy a problem without tackling the real source or underlying cause. when it comes to air pollution and congestion, the problem is car use not highway capacity.
in this sense, metrolinx has the right idea. but what about vancouver? it too is suffering from increasing traffic congestion and air pollution. and translink’s (metrolinx west coast equivalent) solution to this? sweeping investment in new bridges and highways. their rationalization? give people more space to drive will means less congestion and less idling-related air pollution.
many studies have disproved that logic. yet it maintains a standard option for regions suffering from rising congestion and air pollution. and, really, why wouldn’t it? it’s an easy solution that keeps the voters happy. they get brand new highways that will be all but clogged again soon enough and the car maintains it’s status as the preeminent cheap, convenient and accessible mode of transportation.
air pollution and congestion are tough, intricate problems that require tough action plans to mitigate. the more we make vehicle use easier, the less headway we will make on creating a more sustainable region. toronto’s bold steps to tackle the problem at the source should be seen as a positive example that other governments could follow. hey, nobody said this would be easy ….
Filed under: commentary
the dire situation of increasing congestion, air pollution and squandered suburban land facing many canadian cities and regions begs the need for proactive solutions not complacency or band-aid action plans. perhaps surprisingly, toronto and it’s surrounding municipalities appear to be making the most headway in this regard.
the toronto star has reported numerous times over the past year that metrolinx, greater toronto’s transit authority, is detailing a series of scenarios for reducing car use, in the latest stage of developing a regional transportation plan. the most ambitious vision would cost $90 billion over 25 years. initiatives include a focus on making active transportation opportunities easier and more accessible, road tolls, parking fees and an influx in spending on creating a more cohesive and efficient transit network. together and, really only together, would these initiatives make it easier, more appropriate and cheaper to switch to more sustainable modes of transportation.
these types of action plans are controversial. that’s because they attempt to go beyond mere band-aid initiaties, those that strive to remedy a problem without tackling the real source or underlying cause. when it comes to air pollution and congestion, the problem is car use not highway capacity.
in this sense, metrolinx has the right idea. but what about vancouver? it too is suffering from increasing traffic congestion and air pollution. and translink’s (metrolinx west coast equivalent) solution to this? sweeping investment in new bridges and highways. their rationalization? give people more space to drive will means less congestion and less idling-related air pollution.
many studies have disproved that logic. yet it maintains a standard option for regions suffering from rising congestion and air pollution. and, really, why wouldn’t it? it’s an easy solution that keeps the voters happy. they get brand new highways that will be all but clogged again soon enough and the car maintains it’s status as the preeminent cheap, convenient and accessible mode of transportation.
air pollution and congestion are tough, intricate problems that require tough action plans to mitigate. the more we make vehicle use easier, the less headway we will make on creating a more sustainable region. toronto’s bold steps to tackle the problem at the source should be seen as a positive example that other governments could follow. hey, nobody said this would be easy ….
No Comments Yet so far
Leave a comment