Toll
roads. Congestion charges. Special fuel taxes. Higher parking fees
in certain areas. All these may be closer than we think. Even U.S
President George Bush wants to look at ways of relieving urban
congestion that may involve user-pay schemes.
Adding to this
wave of change for North American motoring are new High Occupancy
Vehicles (HOV) lanes that exclude solo drivers. Cities across the
continent are also planning bus and streetcar lanes, some of which
take over the centre lanes of major arterial roads.
Political
parties of all colours are becoming more comfortable in shifting
money and road space from car use to other priorities. In Ontario
and other jurisdictions, this also means infrastructure money for
freight movement, such as extra railway tracks and highway lanes for
trucks. While much of this is still talk and plans, widespread
concern about both suburban sprawl and environmental degradation
indicate real change is coming.
Obviously
drivers could use some win-win options that aid the majority of
commuters who currently drive themselves to work. But where are
these solutions? Can we devise an overall strategy that improves
transit and goods transport -- without inconveniencing motorists? Is
it even possible?
Take the
example of a new exclusive streetcar line that opened in Toronto
recently. Trams now travel free of traffic in the middle of six-lane
wide St. Clair Avenue. A reader wrote me that many local drivers now
have to make U-turns and drive further than they used to. Despite
the controversy over St. Clair, Toronto is going ahead with further
studies of these “rights of way” across the city.
To the north,
the Region of York is planning exclusive lanes for buses on Yonge
Street. Brampton too has a similar busway that is waiting for funds,
and Mississauga and other cities won’t be far behind. All these
ideas usually translate into more U-turns and some inconvenience for
drivers. Is there no other way around this problem?
In late 2006
Ottawa city council cancelled a controversial light rail route that
would have displaced traffic on downtown streets. The plan was
dumped for various reasons -- not only did city merchants not want
to lose road space, but local transit experts thought the
multi-million dollar design was intrinsically flawed.
Not
surprisingly, commercial interests in central Ottawa proposed
sending the tram line underground, which is a standard response of
those who want to avoid the conflict between cars and transit. The
same philosophy guides plans to build subways -- but the main
obstacle that blocks the digging crews is not bedrock, but
taxpayers. It’s too damn expensive to go beneath street level-- not
when one underground transit station alone costs $100 million. The
Canadian Automobile Association recently proposed a major
subway-and-highway building scheme for Toronto, but the idea
collapsed under the impossible weight of billions of loonies.
In the hunt
for easy win-win options, what’s left? (And please don’t say
monorails.) Rapid transit lines could be put alongside rail lines,
as has already occurred in Ottawa, but in many cities the railways
are still using the tracks -- and business is growing. There’s also
a century’s worth of federal regulations that tend to squash
progressive plans to use these rail corridors, but red tape can be
cut…
When it comes
to raising funds for transport infrastructure, road use is the big
target. The other traditional target -- the pocketbook of the
general taxpayer -- is now apparently off-limits. More creative use
of private sector capital will leverage some extra funds, but unless
we’re prepared to see the existing transport network stagnate,
expect more auto-oriented charges, fees and taxes.
edrass@nationalpost.com