By Michael Parkinson
Published June 1995
From the Ontario Ministry of Transportation come the latest plans for a new road project. Well, not that new. There were plans for constructing this road in the 1970s but the project never materialized. And the demand predictions for the road never quite happened the way the studies done at the time said they would. Now the predictions or forecasts of the demand for road space indicate we do in fact need this road.
The project in question is a Ministry proposal to build a new expressway between Kitchener and Guelph. The expressway is to be a 4 lane, restricted access road that is intended to replace Highway 7, the existing route between Kitchener and Guelph. The rationale, according to Ministry wisdom, is that there is already too much congestion on the highway and, based on the forecasts for the future, the time it takes to travel between Kitchener and Guelph by car will be unacceptable.
Ministry Consultants?
Not everyone subscribes to the view taken by the Ministry, however. For example, residents of the Wellington Street area in Kitchener, whose neighborhood will be affected by the traffic generated by the project, have organized themselves in an effort to stop the expressway. When area residents questioned officials associated with the project, they were shocked to learn that the Ministry’s consultants had not even considered the impacts on the quality of life in their neighborhood. Yet this residential area will receive a substantial increase in traffic generated by the proposed expressway.
Other members of the community also have serious concerns about the project. Landowners along the route are facing an uncertain future from the threat of expropriation by the Ministry. Preliminary results from a survey of businesses along the existing Highway 7 show that 80% do not support the new highway and that 69% feel it will hurt their business. At the University of Waterloo, a number of professors have spoken out against the project.
And through the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group, members of the K-W community have formed a working group to actively oppose the construction of the expressway. Though the reasons for opposing the expressway are varied, all of the aforementioned groups say it is the wrong solution to improving the transportation linkage between Kitchener and Guelph.
The Waterloo Public Interest Research Group cites a number of reasons why this expressway is not needed. On the economic side, spending $90 million to save rush hour commuters a few minutes is an extreme response when one considers less expensive options. Improvements to transit service or the promotion of carpooling in the workplace could be implemented for less than the cost of the interest payments on a $90 million loan. Commuters might also consider leaving a couple of minutes earlier.
And $90 million is just a start, since the price tag is for the construction costs only. Interest charges on the provincial debt incurred from this project are not included in this estimate, nor are the operating costs associated with maintaining roads, policing, snow removal, repairs, etc.
More Environmental Degradation
Serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the project have also been raised. The expressway will plow through some of the best agricultural land in Canada. Wetlands classified as Provincially Significant will be destroyed and other natural areas will be eliminated. To this we might also add that another auto centred transport project will only add to the amount of air and water pollution that inevitably affects all living plants and animals, including humans. This proposal has callously disregarded public opinion polls that show environmental issues are still one of the most pressing public concerns. Additionally, the environmental impacts resulting from this expressway ignore all of the evidence from the scientific community that claims the emphasis should be on preserving and improving the natural environment, not destroying it further.
Consideration of the social impacts reveals that the beneficiaries of the new expressway will be those who drive along Highway 7 during rush hour, to the extent that a few minutes might be saved in travelling time. But every present and future taxpayer will pay for this project in the end.
Building this expressway will not address the needs of a significant portion of the population who cannot or do not drive an automobile; for these citizens, there will be no improvement of the inadequate transportation options which are currently available to them. Yet it can be demonstrated that improved transit would not only be less expensive than a new road, it would also be a lot less damaging to the environment. And improved transit would be available for everyone to use.
Now, while there is a strong argument to be made for opposing the highway based on the impacts to the social, physical and economic environments, it could also be argued that the assumptions used to justify a new expressway are weak.
The major assumptions used to justify this expressway, (and in fact, most road construction,) is that if road capacity is expanded, congestion will decline. This makes sense in the short term but over time, quite the opposite is true.
As road supply increase so does the demand for the road. The general pattern that occurs is this: new road space decreases congestion initially, but the availability of the road attracts new users as well as auto-dependent suburban development which increases the demand for road space and leads to further congestion which traditionally leads to more roads which leads to… and so on.
This pattern has been demonstrated time after time. Most recently, a British Royal Commission recommended that new road construction be virtually halted because producing more road space is futile method of eliminating congestion. In this scenario, congestion is an accepted part of urban dwelling, an indication of a strong economy. If congestion becomes ‘unacceptable’ for a citizen or business, then alternative modes of transport are used.
The other major assumptions used to justify this project are those related to the forecasting methods used by the Ministry. Forecasting is a tricky exercise at the best of times but, for better or for worse, it is one of the primary tools in planning decisions. The forecast is highly dependent on a number of assumptions including projected population growth, projected economic growth, and the form of future development.
Unfortunately, many of the forecasts used to justify building this expressway are based on what happened in the past, and therein lies the problem. Consider the economic assumptions. The economy of tomorrow is likely to bear little resemblance to the economy of yesterday; already the nature of work has undergone a dramatic transformation, to say nothing of the concern about the public debt and deficits. What is occurring right now is a shift from full time jobs to part time jobs, from steady and secure work to temporary work, from high wage jobs to lower wage jobs and from a manufacturing economy to a more service oriented economy. And the increase in female labour force participation that occurred in the 1970s and 80s has now largely reached a peak. Considering this, how realistic can the economic assumptions be? What can we expect on 20 or 30 years? As they say, only time will tell, but it seems certain that the economy of tomorrow will not look anything like the economy of the past.
There is also the question of the data that the Ministry has generated to determine the nest alternative to relieving congestion (bearing in mind that the level of acceptable congestion is in itself a subjective indicator). In this case, the Ministry has determined that existing traffic volumes, and those volumes forecasted for the future, demonstrate that a brand new expressway is needed.
However, traffic counts done by area citizens show that the ministry has overestimated the traffic volumes on Highway 7. In fact, the vehicle counts done by citizens show that the amount of traffic can approach ½ of what the Ministry says is occurring and what citizens say is occurring.
In the larger scheme of things, there is a huge gap between what the citizens, businesses and public interest groups want and what the Ministry wants. How this discrepancy will be resolved remains to be seen. The Environmental Assessment process, through which the social, economic and environmental impacts are identified and evaluated, will provide an opportunity for concerns to be addressed.
But much will depend on those people who are concerned enough to get involved on the process, either as individuals or with groups. In fact, the wheels of democracy depend on it.
To find out more about opposing the expressway, call WPIRG at 888-4882.
Michael Parkinson is with the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group and the Better Transportation Coalition in Toronto.
