Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Traffic Planning

One of the urban issues I really care about is traffic planning. I get to go around the city, and use the public transit extensively, but so far, Alhamdulillah, it's not become a daily commute. I came up with three reasons why I care about traffic planning and development- Traffic problems are directly linked with the environment, and secondly, speed and efficiency. The third reason is my certification in Preventive Engineering and Social Development. My blind professor, Vanderburg was a true inspiration because of his honest and concerned way of thinking on the direction this world is headed towards.

A growing number of planning experts realize that current trends are unsustainable- Urban policies are dictated by private automobile companies and this makes their orientation seem deceptively sensible. Sticking to the example of the GTA, I see clear economic segragation encouraged by land-use patterns.
Now, I live in downtown Toronto.
  • School was never more than a 10 minute walk.
  • I reach work in about 9 minutes.
  • Most of my closest friends live as close as 5-15 minutes away.
  • I had to get the address on my driver's license renewed, it was less than 20 min walk.
  • Same for getting my health insurance card.
  • The mosque too, is a 15 minute leisurely walk away.
  • The streetcar stops in front of my place.
  • Most other places I need to go to are accessible by transit readily- be it grocery shopping, or heading to a class.
  • Al Maghrib classes are held on campus, 8 min away.
  • Last summer I filed a case against my old landlord- 20 min by transit.
  • Applying for my visa- Again, across the road from where I filed the case- 20 min by transit.
  • In case of an emergency- Walk to the end of the street on which I live
  • For travel, the Greyhound station again, is next to the Masjid- 15 min walk.

And I can go on and on.

when I have errands in Mississauga, the first thing I need to do is- book a huge chuck of my time and get lots of reading material. The buses run every 20-25 minutes and the stops are placed in the most unplanned manner (more below) . It takes forever to get anywhere. The transit doesn't manoeveur through the smaller less popular areas.

This economic segregation conflicts with the struggling core city economy. So, in the core, you find congestion, higher rate of homelessnes, garbage dumps, and so on. I can't comment much on the safety issues.

In the longer run, the livability of the entire metropolitan area is slowly drag down.

There are so many myths about traffic planning used to justify a losing battle to keep up with the endless demands of the car. Definitely, over the last 3 weeks the changes in my schedule have really made me think I finally need a car, and what's keeping me from it is my dread of the overheads. Too much responsibility. Will it really serve the purpose, or maintaining a car take away from the initial purpose I bought it for?

so, what are some of the plausible solutions?
- Can predicted traffic growth be provided for?
In practice, there is a sort of Parkinson's law that peak-hour traffic almost always expands to fill available road space. Bigger roads act like magnets to attract and generate traffic.
First, newer destinations become possible.
Second, the frequency of trips increases because access is easier.
Third, people take jobs farther from home.
Fourth, some people shift from transit to cars.
Fifth, the reduction in transit ridership encourages land-use patterns oriented toward car travel.
Each increase in capacity provided ratchets up demand, attracts more traffic and thus justifies further increases.

- Are bigger roads safer?
Unfortunately, the answer to this question is done through a cost-benefit analysis, which for me, brings out a looming disgust. The Caliph Umar, May Allah be pleased with him, wasn't able to sleep in the nights worrying that if a traveling merchant's caravan gets logged in a pothole as they enter his city, his will be answerable to Allah. And today, planners take into consideration what they call: per-capita roadway mortality.
More and bigger roads generate their own increasing demand. Yet the roadway toll keeps increasing despite decreasing mortality per mile because of more miles driven. Bigger roads also tend to encourage higher speeds, which encourages faster driving until the roads become as unsafe as ever.

- Do bigger roads increase mobility?
Each new car requires 30 times as much roadway space as the transit it replaces and encourages low-density suburban sprawl. But this destroys small functioning communities, and they get replaced with Walmarts, malls, etc. Mobility should be redefined as being able to reach desired destinations rather than average speed or how far it is possible to travel. With bigger roads we are obliged to spend more time to reach fewer and fewer destinations; we have to run faster to stand still- You're not the only one annoyed @ all the stop signs!

- Why do roadway planners and traffic engineers focus their attention solely on moving cars faster and farther and not taught to consider results such as global warming and other subtle social, economic, and environmental side-effects of their policies??

I personally find it extremely mind-boggling why in Mississauga bus stops are located after the signal, as opposed to just before the signals. Can anyone explain? More often than not, the bus hits a red. It has to stop. But no one can get off because the stop is after the lights. So twice the amount of time is wasted. I rarely see the same style in Toronto.

Planning should NOT be left to the "experts". Our community has opportunities to undo past mistakes and shape the future. The most important questions that arise in urban policy are not matters of expertise, but rather the general goals of what the community should be like in 20 years. Realistic goals and well-insightful proper projections by a well-informed public.
At the same time, the City should educate the public about the implications of current policies and trends. The solution does not lie in computer-generated models determining the hidden consequences of roadway policies.

2 Comments:

At 3/08/2006 3:25 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't know you were an expert on traffic planning as well.

The bus stops after the traffic light are typically found on intersections that tend to be busy. It wasn't always so... was changed as recently as... some year ago. The rationale? When the stop is before the light:

1- Where there is no separate lane for the bus stop: cars behind the bus try for a quick lane change fearing getting stuck on a red, which is often dangerous. You also find cars wanting to take a right turn trying to do so in front of the bus. By keeping the stop after the light, you reduce lane changes and stupid right turns.

2- Where there is a separate lane for the stop: you see that drivers do not yield to the bus wanting get back into the traffic. By having the stop after the light, the driver can at least get back in safely once the light turns red... You have the problem of people turning right in front of the bus here as well (see Route 19, going North on Hurontario at Elm where the stop is before the light... I have witnessed many close misses there).

Cunayt

 
At 3/08/2006 3:51 p.m., Blogger Humairah Irfan said...

I think (and I haven't thought much about this) that separate signals is a better solution so far. Haven't had the chance to ride the Viva buses yet (and.. I really hope I don't have to!) but if it works with the Viva.. then I'm sure the idea will be ported to Missisauga with transit planning being high on the priority list.

- I'm not an expert on traffic planning, just feel strongly about it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home