Traffic Tools
Commuters are likely
in a tizzy down south, as the annual awards for most congested U.S. city
have just been awarded. Headlines and TV news spots usually greet the
yearly report of the Texas Transportation Institute, and although the
results don't really surprise anyone, the message has brightened a little.
Of course Los Angeles wins again as the City With Highways Everywhere But
No Place to Drive, where the average rush hour trip now takes 75% more
time than the same trip off-peak. Across the U.S., the average delay to
drivers increased, with 5.7 billion gallons of gas wasted and 3.5 billion
hours of lost productivity. Using the most-up-to-date figures possible,
congestion-induced productivity losses hit US$69.5 billion in 2001, US$4.5
billion more than in the previous year. Unlike past rankings, the traffic
researchers departed from the usual note of gloom, and shed light on some
gridlock remedies that may be working -- the same tools that are barely
used here in the GTA.
Also scrutinized was
the old-school method of reducing traffic jams -- highway building. While
new roads were found to slow an increase in congestion, almost no cities
in the US were able to build enough to make a difference. Instead, it is a
set of relatively low cost solutions that may be the motorist's saviour.
The rapid clearing of collisions got high marks, which may encourage
officials in Ontario who are currently studying procedures used in U.S.
cities. Next are freeway entrance ramp meters -- simple traffic signals
that regulate how smoothly cars flow onto a highway. They are used
extensively on California's overburdened roads, and a few can be found on
the QEW in Mississauga.
The next implement in
the gridlock tool bag is also rare in the GTA: traffic signal
coordination. The City of Toronto is slowly refitting its major
thoroughfares with technology that senses traffic volumes, and can react
to back-ups by changing the timing of green lights. Extending the system
to every arterial will take decades at the current rate.
The American approach
to slowing the rate of congestion growth appears to include a complex
range of responses, and while Canadian cities can peer over the border for
ideas, there is no home-grown research going on here. No one is comparing
the traffic troubles of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, let alone the
unique experience of other Canadian cities.
One clue is that the
federal government in Washington DC works closely with the states, because
it doles out the proceeds from fuel taxes and has a hand in deciding how
they should be spent. The federal government that resides in Ottawa is
only now considering spending some of the billions taken in from fuel
excise charges, and we all know how hard it is for Ottawa to hand out
money without attaching strings.
If it comes true, and
Paul Martin does start dishing out gas tax funds when he assumes the job
of prime minister, he should know which projects are worthy, and which are
poorly-studied cash holes. And until federal money starts to flow, there
is no point for any national research body to study Canada's traffic
problems and propose solutions.
Even if some "Alberta
Transportation Institute" were to ride over the hill to rescue motorists
trapped on the 401, armed with the best gridlock-fighting weapons ever
devised, it could still miss the big picture. The way our cities are laid
out defines how bad traffic will be, not the number of highway lanes or
fancy traffic gizmos. These amount to ineffectual tweaks if we avoid
asking the big question; "What kind of city do we want to live in?"
Ed Drass, National
Post
Have a question for
the Traffic Guru? Contact him at edrass@nationalpost.com or by fax at
416-322-7016