Fear of the car-driving rabble holds us back from real solutions

Thestar.com
Aug. 26, 2015
By Royson James

If only our governments and transportation planners were not so afraid of the car-driving rabble. Maybe, then, we could have a reasonable conversation about where, how frequently and what kinds of HOV lanes we put in place.

HOV. High Occupancy Vehicle. Toll roads. Toll lanes. HOT. High Occupancy Toll lanes. Bus lanes. They are all part of the solution to clogged roadways.

Too often the dialogue is short-circuited by the citizen who is so car-committed he or she refuses to resolve this fact: we need to share the road during the peak travel hours. The alternative is to pave over everything in a wasteful pursuit of the unachievable.

In a successful city region like Toronto, there will be traffic congestion - thank you very much. Every lane of traffic that carries more vehicles with multiple passengers than vehicles with a lone driver is a plus and should be embraced.

There are car-bound commuters for whom transit is not an option. There are drivers who cannot share a ride with a neighbour or carpool with a work colleague or fellow traveller. The rest of us are going to have to share the road. And some commuters could be best served by tolls - a less than ideal option that favours people with the means to pay for traffic relief.

This seems obvious. Yet, every time the dirty T-word is brought up, our politicians run for cover or hide behind obtuse bafflegab.

There was Premier Kathleen Wynne this week trying gamely to say she’s still of the mind to bring in tolls on some lanes of existing highways - though not necessarily on existing lanes. “We have said all along that we were going to implement high occupancy toll lanes but there has been a conflation of the HOV lanes that were in place because of the Pan and Parapan Games and our commitment on HOT lanes,” she told the Toronto Sun. “They’re not one and the same thing.”

HOVs are open to cars with more than one occupant. HOTs allow a single-occupant car to use the lane - for a fee. This is all good so long as the government does not have the incentive to make it more difficult for carpoolers (such as increasing the “free” ride to cars with 3, not 2, people); and consequently easier for the paying customer.

The thirst for revenues can counter the goal here - to entice people to share a ride with someone else and reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

Naturally, there is political positioning that criticizes this as charging the people for road they already own and have purchased with their taxes.

To further disparage the idea, the opposition Conservative spokesman compared the proposed HOTs to the “charade” of the Pan Am HOV lanes.

Actually, many people liked those HOVs during the Pan Ams.

My litmus test is often the young adults trying to navigate across the GTA. “I can’t believe it. I was downtown in a flash on that HOV,” said one young commuter, who hooked up with others to get to her downtown office tower from Thornhill.

In other words, embrace the HOVs and everyone wins. Be careful about the HOTs, as the thirst for revenues can lead to policies that actually reduce the number of carpoolers.

Even hardened car-locked commuters who turn up their noses at travelling on transit with the masses have begun to realize that every full bus or train equals more space for their SUV; every auto with passengers represents hope for less congestion.

The political problem with HOVs is it often reduces the number of lanes available to the single-occupant car. So, drivers often say, “Just widen the street and add another lane.” Where has that ever worked? Traffic expands to meet the supply of car spaces on the road. Theoretically, we could build enough roads to accommodate everyone in cars unimpeded on all sides by other cars.

But there goes the neighbourhood and the livable city. Toronto’s rejection of that future is exactly what earns the city accolades in international rankings as one of the most livable urban regions on the planet.

I’m prepared to pay an extra $1,000 a year for transit - if someone will just bite the bullet, build what’s needed in the areas it is needed, not in corridors to mollify voters and win seats.

I hate the 407, the very idea and execution of it. But I love the 407 when I need to avoid the QEW on the way to Niagara. Or when I need to get from Rexdale to a football game in Markham in 20 minutes.

Choices. Options. That’s what a real city region offers. Including HOVs, HOTs...