Fall 1992 Volume 1 No. 1
AUTO-FREE OTTAWA: REMOVING THE MAIN OBSTACLE TO ACHIEVING A HEALTHY METRO OTTAWA
Chris Bradshaw
HOW DOES AUTOMOBILE USE MAKE OUR AREA
UNHEALTHY?
Automobile use kills, injures, and intimidates.
It creates so much of the urban noise.
It generates polluting gases and particulates.
It is expensive for individuals to use and for
government to provide for and to control.
It is not available to many in our society.
It threatens agricultural and sensitive lands by
causing urban sprawl.
It discourages in so many ways the choice of more
environmentally friendly modes.
It decreases street life and erodes neighbourhood
life.
And thus reduces concern for the environment and
increases opportunities for crimes to occur.
WHAT BENEFITS DO CARS BRING?
Cars can do nothing that other modes can't do, at a
lower cost to the traveller and society. Cars offer
only speed (which kills), weather protection (which
insulates), and status (which inflates drivers' egos).
Cars get people to their jobs, but too often induce the
individual to move further from their job. Where do
they move? Out on the fringe, near greenspace, until,
that is, the next subdivision is built. One third to one
half of city land is devoted to car driving and parking.
AREN'T THERE LESS DRASTIC ALTERNATIVES
TO REMOVING AUTOMOBILES?
Yes, but none of them address even a few of the
problems mentioned above, and some even make
them worse.
Auto-Free Ottawa contends that large vehicles driven
at speeds several times the speed of walking by
amateur drivers through streets where children play,
seniors walk, and disabled people do their business is
inhumane. You can't compromise with this
technology. There is no way to interact with a person
in a missile, and there is no such thing as balanced
transportation. Cars are predatory. They intimidate
people: "Use a car or stay at home!", they say. Even
people in small cars feel less safe than those in larger
cars. It's the law of the jungle: might makes right;
blame the victim for being in the way! The car driver
is the intruder, not the pedestrian.
The way cities, especially in North America, are domi-
nated by cars makes one wonder if they are really the
centre of civilization. Drivers have an attitude
problem. So do those who run our cities.
And there is the matter of people's addiction to the
automobile. Advertising promises status and power by
showing the product performing alone on winding
exciting mountain roads or perched on mountain tops
or on country club driveways ... never stuck in traffic.
The low cost of petroleum makes the cost of driving
appear to be low, when in fact the full cost is more
than ten times that which goes into the tank.
AUTO-FREE ZONE* is published quarterly by
Auto-Free Ottawa, Box 21045, 151A Second
Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5N1, and is
mailed free to subscribers or members of Auto-
Free Ottawa (see form back page).
Auto-Free Ottawa is a non-profit volunteer
group, whose mandate is to draw public atten-
tion to the full costs of a car-oriented trans-
portation system, and to point out ecologically
sustainable and socially rewarding solutions.
Viewpoints expressed in AFZ do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Auto-Free Ottawa mem-
bers. Readers are encouraged to submit
articles, events, and graphics. Articles should
preferably be submitted on diskette (WP5 or
5.1) and limited to 1,000 words. Letters to AFZ
must be marked "For publication" (include
address and phone number which will not be
published), and are subject to selection and
editing.
Reproduction of editorial content is welcome
provided that credit is given to the author and
issue of publication. Please send a copy of
reprinted articles to Auto-Free Ottawa for our
files.
Editor:
Lucy Segatti
Contributors:
Chris Bradshaw, Lawrence Howman, Margaret
Jensen, Mike Kaulbars, Carolyn Luce, Lucy
Segatti, Charles Shrubsole
Graphic: Cathy Woodgold
Advertising:
For information on advertising rates or space,
please contact Auto-Free Ottawa at the address
above or at (613) 234-0923.
Deadline for next issue: Winter solstice 1993
(December 21).
AFZ is printed on unbleached, 100% post-
consumer recycled paper.
(cont'd from page 1)
The cocoon design shuts
out the weather, not to mention
the noise, pollution, and crime
which the car creates. Finally,
there is the red carpet treatment
that drivers experience: free
parking, better snow clearance
standards (than sidewalks),
constant traffic reports on the
radio, and "toys" that allow time
on the road to be put to use,
even if the driver is dangerously
distracted.
So strong is the lure,
that people drive even when they
have lost their licenses, or can't
see well, or are already too upset
to do it right. And what impact
does this have on the large
percentage of the population
excluded from driving, who must
rely on being chauffeured, using
transit, walking everywhere, or
just staying home.
What is the future of the
car? So many cars that each
person will have different
vehicles for different trips?
Automated guideways? Flying
cars? Or will there be envi-
ronmental taxes? Endless
congestion? Brown air?
Municipal bankruptcies from
rebuilding, maintaining, and
expanding our road system?
The car was invented for
rural travel, but has been
shoe-horned into cities by
spreading them out. It provides
the way most North Americans
escape the unlivable city five
nights a week, when in fact it is
the major cause today for that
unlivability. The car caused the
bland suburbs and has ruined the
pre-car neighbourhoods with
their houses and stores and
parks built close to the street.
Cars are far bigger and travel
much faster than is necessary in
cities.
Ralph Nader wrote
Unsafe At Any Speed in 1964.
His crusade for the safety
features inside cars - seat belts,
padded dashes, air bags, and
head restraints - has been
successful. But ironically, none
of these benefits has made the
car safer for cities; in fact,
studies have shown that drivers
use the added security to simply
drive faster, while the outside of
the car remains totally unpadded.
WON'T PEOPLE REBEL IF
YOU OUTLAW CARS IN
CITIES?
Auto-Free Ottawa does
not propose simply banning cars.
We propose, instead, to rely
primarily on persuasion by
developing a clear vision of the
city without cars and convincing
people that such a city is
healthier, more livable, and has
a higher quality of life, not to
mention being environmentally
sustainable.
However, in addition we
will propose to governments a
number of measures that will
lead us in the right direction, as
public support grows:
using public funds and
sanctions to clearly favour walk-
ing, cycling, and transit (in that
order);
rationalize the movement of
goods (e.g. trucks) in
Ottawa-Carleton;
improve transit provided by OC Transpo (reduce
noise and air pollution, increase frequency and the
quality of service; and perhaps encourage other
transit providers
adopt regulations that force travellers to pay social
and environmental costs for their travel; in this way,
they will make different decisions than they are
making today.
Auto-Free Ottawa believes that after a few
years, the use of a car will become socially
unacceptable, just as smoking is unacceptable in the
company of others.
I AGREE WITH YOUR OBJECTIVE. HOW CAN I
HELP?
Say so---to others and in letters to the editor
Join Auto-Free Ottawa (see inside back page)
Plan now to achieve an automobile-free lifestyle as
soon as possible (stop being part of the problem---be
part of the solution). Many people do so already.
Ask candidates running for office for their
commitment to these principles.
Be assertive when using the other "greener" modes.
Demand that businesses you patronize and your
employer not offer free parking, except for bicycles.
Be supportive and helpful toward others when in
public places.
Show your disapproval to those who drive.
Let's Make our City REALLY Smoke-Free!
(Chris Bradshaw is a co-founder of Auto-Free Ottawa
and of Ottawalk)
AUTO-FREE OTTAWA TAKES ACTION
FREE THE MARKET FROM CAR GRIDLOCK!
On Saturday, June 27th, members of Auto-
Free Ottawa, Ottawalk, Citizens for Safe Cycling and
Class War Mountain Bikes gathered on York Street
between the Market buildings and parked bannered
bicycles in parking spaces to point out the
predominance of cars and the lack of proportional
space and consideration for pedestrians and cyclists.
The By Ward Market was chosen as Auto-
Free Ottawa's first public event, because having been
built before the democratization of the car, the
Market's streets are compact and human-scale, and
therefore, prime candidates for pedestrianization.
In addition to a petition asking Ottawa City
Council to approve that William and By Ward Market
streets be restricted to cars on weekends and holidays
during business hours (a similar proposal is being
made in Toronto for the St. Lawrence and Kensington
Markets), a survey was available for people to fill out.
The last question on the By Ward Market survey
asked people to sign up with "Friends of the Market",
a group which has yet to be formed and which would
continue the long-term work that would need to be
done to implement proposals to reduce the number of
cars now in the Market.
Since this was AFO's first event, the months
of preparation beforehand proved to be a great
learning experience. The encouraging response from
the public (through comments such as "It's about time
somebody did something about this.", "I'm glad you're
doing this.", "Where's your petition? I want to sign
it.") made those involved feel a little less marginal.
While the Auto-Free Market event did not
get very supportive mainstream press coverage (as was
expected), it seems that the idea of restricting cars
from the Market is being discussed at City Hall once
again.
Councillor Peter Harris, on his own initiative,
asked Jim Sevigny, Ottawa's Commissioner for
Economic Development to include the concept of an
auto-free market in the current retail food sector
study.
The Commissioner's reply was: "The majority
of market customers come to the By Ward Market by
car and we would want to be very careful in
introducing any major changes to the Market that
would effect its overall accessibility. Having said that
I would add that we are always ready to discuss any
initiative that could possibly benefit the future of the
By Ward Market."
For more information on the retail food sector study,
call Phil Powell, Market Manager at 564-1632.
WHY SHOULD URBAN AREAS BE
AUTO-FREE?
Laurence Howman
To most people the idea of auto-free urban
areas would provoke the comment of being against
technology and anti-modern. However, any
environmentalist worth their salt could not be honest
to their creed unless they make a call for a reduction
in the use of the motor car. It is beyond any doubt
the biggest polluter the world has ever known.
Therefore, I see a need for city councils and
authorities to invest in mass transit and technology
based on human power. The less fossil fuels we burn
the better. This to me means the bicycle. At least
75% of all transport needs can be covered by bicycle.
Really heavy objects of course cannot be carried by
bicycle, but who carries heavy goods. Most people
have them delivered. Groceries can be fetched by
attaching a trailer to your bicycle. It is a fact one can
easily move 150 kg at the speed one can run at on a
bicycle (about 12 kmp).
This poses the question: how can we
encourage cycling? Bikeways and bike lanes do offer
a solution. However, I have doubts about their safety.
Their biggest problem is where they meet the rest of
the road network. It is at intersections where 80% of
accidents happen. We would have to have either
traffic lights with cyclist only phases or a more
expensive overpass or underpass construction.
Wherever possible, cyclists should get priority over
motorists.
To add to these problems, pedestrians and
cyclists are put on the same path which causes many
conflicts. Ottawa-Carleton recreational paths are an
example of this.
At the same time, how do we discourage
motoring? The easy answer is to make motorists pay
the full cost of their motoring. Experts estimate that
the motorist is subsidized to the tune of about $2,000
per annum per car. Fewer car parks and higher car-
park fees, and a tax penalty for employers and
shopping centres that offer free car parking.
Another solution might be to require special
licenses to drive in each urban area. This could be
made to cost the same as a mass transit pass. Yes,
this is a political time-bomb, but in the near future,
we may not have any option.
As for alternative fuels, such as ethanol, these
still pollute, and large tracts of land are needed to
grow the necessary corn. Besides, is it moral to use
foodstuff for fuel when half the world is without
decent food? Electric cars may be clean at street
level but generator stations still pollute and
hydroelectricity causes ecological problems. And we
still have to solve the problem of congestion!
Our dependency on the car is the result of
bad city planning. Just take a look along Carling
Avenue. One thing which strikes me is the ugly
manmade deserts of concrete and asphalt you see on
both sides of the road. You could house the whole of
Nepean and Kanata in the space needed for the huge
car parks in front of each shopping centre. Carling
Avenue isn't just six lanes wide. It is about one-
quarter mile wide on average. A small medieval
town could fit into the area covered by a highway
intersection. There is a lot of "town" along the
Queensway.
In most cases, the car rather than closing
distances actually increases distances. What woke me
up to this was a trip I took in London, England,
where we travelled 8 miles in about 2 hours! The
automobile society is a living mayhem of noise and
unnatural smells. Who wants that! Only someone
who is plum crazy.
(Laurence Howman is a member of Auto-Free Ottawa.)
AUTO-FREE ZONES: THE HERE AND NOW!
EC BACKS CAR-FREE CITIES
European Community Environment
Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana
released a detailed report in June
outlining the need to keep cars out of city
centers. "Obsessive use of the private
car...is becoming something of a
nightmare, paralyzing and suffocating our
cities," Ripa said at a press conference.
According to the report, transportation in
cities without cars could cost between two
to five times less than in current auto-
clogged urban areas, when all the costs of
acquiring, insuring, and parking cars are
taken into account.
In another development, Amsterdam
residents recently voted in favour of
keeping cars away from their city center.
The European Commission hopes to form
a "club" of cities that will follow
Amsterdam's lead, possibly with EC
funds. "This would lead...from the 'car
dream' to the 'dream city' - the carless
city," according to Ripa. (Reuters via
The Urban Ecologist, Summer 1992)
GREENWICH VILLAGE AUTO-FREE
DISTRICT APPROVED
In July, Manhattan's Community Board 2
voted 21-18 to transform a one-block
section of Washington Place -- the launch
site of the April 23 car crash in
Washington Square Park that killed 5 and
injured 27 -- into a pedestrian street for a
six-month trial period beginning this
December. From 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
weekdays, only pedestrians and emergency
vehicles will be permitted on the block.
New York City's Transportation
Alternatives had released in March its
Greenwich Village Traffic Calming Study,
which called for four new auto-free areas
at sites across the Village, including all of
Washington Place from Broadway to
Washington Square East. New York
University released a plan in April, just
one day before the accident, which called
for freeing only the western-most block.
In June, Transportation Alternatives,
facing vehement oppostion from the local
block association, backed NYU's one-
block plan. (Auto-Free Press, Sept/Oct
1992)
MOVING TOWARD TRANSIT IN
ZURICH
The city of Zurich, Switzerland has
removed 10,000 of 60,000 parking spaces
in the last year, in addition to declaring
certain residential areas auto-free zones
and installing many street barriers to
reduce traffic speeds. The moves are
intended to sharply reduce automobile
use in Switzerland's largest city. Already
70 percent of Zurich's residents use buses
and streetcars regularly, and the city
boasts one of the best transit systems in
the world. Few residents must walk more
than 300 metres to reach a streetcar or
bust stop, and major streetcar routes
offer service at six-minute intervals.
Under the leadership of City Councillor
Ruedi Aeschbacher, Zurich is beginning
to reduce its street network by narrowing
streets and installing street "blockades".
(Der Stern/Auto-Free Press via The
Urban Ecologist, Summer 1992)
USHERING OUT THE OLD
In November 1991, Maine voters by a
60-40 margin deauthorized a proposed
$100 million project to widen the Maine
Turnpike. Highway backers outspent
opponents by 7-1 and still lost. A
renewed rail link between Portland and
Boston is also now being studied. (Auto-
Free Press via The Urban Ecologist,
Spring 1992)
1000 Friends of Oregon has begun a
major study to determine whether
changes in land use and transportation
policies could better meet the city's needs
than a planned freeway, the 20-mile
"Western Bypass". (Energy, Economics
and Climate Change via The Urban
Ecologist, Spring 1992)
Paris plans to remove some 200,000
parking spaces in coming years, while
Copenhagen now bans all on-street
parking in the downtown core. (World
Watch via The Urban Ecologist, Summer
1992)
FUNDING TRANSIT, NOT HIGHWAYS
In an effort to solve its transportation
problems, New Jersey has cancelled $1.2
billion in new highway projects and is
planning to double the state's investment
in mass transit. Other states such as
Florida, Colorado, and Maine have also
recently cancelled road projects in favour
of other alternatives. (Wall Street
Journal via The Urban Ecologist, Spring
1992)
BRINGING BACK MASS TRANSIT
The European Community will give
Greece $400 million to expand it subway
in Athens. (Ecology Centre Terrain via
The Urban Ecologist, Spring 1992)
The South Korean government is
expanding subway systems in Seoul and
five other cities, in response to traffic
jams so bad that military helicopters are
sometimes called to lift disabled cars off
highways. (Auto-Free Press via The
Urban Ecologist, Spring 1992)
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION IN
QUEBEC
The commuter train from Windsor station
to Dorval, Beaconsfield, Saint-Anne, Śle
Perrot, and Dorion now has space for
four bicycles on all weekend trains and
some weekday runs. This service allows
city cyclists to visit the countryside
without a car. (Le Monde
Bicyclette,
Fall 1992)
BIKES-ON-RAIL
After a year-long campaign led by
Transportation Alternatives, New Jersey
Transit has initiated a pilot "Bike Aboard"
program on its North Jersey Coast Line.
Through mid-October, two standard-
frame bikes will be permitted on each off-
peak train. Permits are required. After
November, the program may be expanded
to allow more bikes per train and to
include other NJT lines. At that time,
permanent permits will be issued for a
one-time fee of $5. (City Cyclist,
Sept/Oct 1992)
BIKE ORDINANCE IN L.A.
The Los Angeles City Council has
adopted a bicycle ordinance requiring that
bike parking spaces be provided for new
commercial or industrial construction of
10,000 square feet or more, though only
in an amount equal to two percent of the
number of automobile parking spaces
required. The ordinance also requires
that showers be provided for new
commercial/industrial construction of
50,000 square feet or more, or for retail
development of at least 100,000 square
feet. (The Urban Ecologist, Spring 1992)
HAVANA: BICYCLE CAPITAL OF THE
AMERICAS
As Cuba's supply of Soviet oil dwindles to
a trickle, cars are disappearing and a
bicycle revolution is taking place in the
island nation. In Havana, bicycles now
account for 30 percent of all trips, and 25
miles of bikes-only lanes and paths have
been created. Many streets are reserved
for buses and bikes only, and speed limits
have been greatly reduced. Every work
place now provides bicycle parking. Bike
ferries carry riders across the bay, and
special bridges have been built to convey
cyclists across rivers and streams.
In the last two years the Cuban
government has purchased 1.2 million
bikes from the People's Republic of
China for a price of about $40 each, and
has then sold them on credit at subsidized
prices to students and workers. With
automobile traffic greatly lessened,
planners are considering narrowing
streets, planting trees on them, and
turning them into "Calles parques" or
"street parks". (The Tubular Times via
The Urban Ecologist, Summer 1992)
BICYCLING BUREAUCRATS [or how
TEAP could have saved $10,000]
The Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors has established a pool of
bicycles for workers to use for on-the-job
trips. The bikes are unclaimed mountain
bikes recovered by the Sheriff's
department. Similar programs are
underway in San Luis Obispo and
Sacramento. (California Bicyclist via The
Urban Ecologist, Summer 1992)
In another development, Glendale,
Arizona offers city employees free bikes
that went unclaimed as stolen property,
on the condition that the employees ride
them to work three days per week.
(Bicycling via The Urban Ecologist,
Summer 1992)
FREE BIKES
The tiny town of Greenfield in
California's Salinas Valley, has required
two developers to put two bikes in every
new home. "I don't know whether they'll
use the bikes or hock them and take the
money," said Mayor Roy Morris. "But at
least we're doing something about this
brown air. (Associated Press via The
Urban Ecologist, Spring 1992)
SOLAR-POWERED TRICYCLE
The Wall Street Journal reports that
Osaka's Shimon Corporation has
developed a trial solar-powered tricycle
that travels 31 miles on a clear day and
22 miles if it's cloudy! (The Energy
Newsbrief, 26 Aug 1992)
VEHICLE POOLING IN
SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Since the early 1970s, 3M in London,
Ontario has provided a cost-efficient
vanpooling program for interested staff.
Twelve vehicles (minivans or large twelve-
passenger vans) operate Monday to
Friday, collecting and delivering
employees on a regional basis. Users of
the program pay a $50 to $85 per month
fee, proportional to the distance between
their home and 3M.
The Ford Motor Company in St. Thomas
has been providing a successful
vanpooling service for their employees for
about nine years. This program operates
on forty twelve-passenger Ford vans, with
a daily ridership of approximately ten to
eleven persons per van. To use this
service, employees are charged a payroll
deduction based on the total daily
kilometers travelled by their van, with
average monthly charges between $60 and
$80.
The University of Western Ontario has
recently implemented a new system that is
neither expensive nor time-consuming:
the responsibility is on the commuter to
participate. "Share a Ride" is a
computerized database available at no
charge from the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation that contains information
on all registered users.
(TREA Talk, Spring 1992)
COMMUTING ALONE
"Car pools and mass transit have lost
ground to single drivers compared to ten
years ago," reports Power Line,
July/August 1992. Of the United States'
115 million workers, 73% drive to work
alone, according to 1990 Census Bureau
statistics. Only 13.4% of workers
participate in carpools and only 5.3% use
public transit. The average commute to
work is 22 minutes. (The Energy
Newsbrief, 26 August 1992)
HIDDEN COSTS
HOME MECHANICS A THREAT TO
ENVIRONMENT
Montreal---Do-it-yourself oil changers are a menace
to the environment, say Environment Canada
researchers, who are studying what happens to 410
million litres of oil Canadians pour into their vehicles
every year.
Most of the oil left over after oil changes is re-used
either in cars or burned for energy but the study
found that 16.5 million litres end up in landfills and
another four million litres are poured directly into
sewers. That amounts to nearly 12 per cent of waste
oil. (Ottawa Citizen, 9 Sept 1992)
A report by the authoritative World Resources
Institute concludes that U.S. subsidies to automobiles
total $300 billion a year, including parking, air
pollution, police services, military costs (to protect oil
supplies), and road work not covered by gas taxes.
(World Resources Institute via The Urban Ecologist,
Summer 1992)
CAR USERS GET HEAVIER DOSE OF FUMES
THAN PEDESTRIANS
London---Car users can be exposed to pollution levels
up to 18 times higher than those experienced by
cyclists and pedestrians, says a Greenpeace report,
compiled from studies in Britain, Europe and the
United States.
Ventilation does not help, although conditions inside
cars improve with air conditioning and deteriorate
when fan heaters are switched on. Concentrations of
pollutants can also be increased by congested traffic,
lower speeds, older vehicles and faulty exhausts.
The levels of benzene, a carcinogen for with the
World Health Organization says there is no safe
threshold, were found to be two to 18 times higher
inside cars than outside. Levels of carbon monoxide
were two to 14 times higher and those of nitrogen
dioxide 1.3 to 2.5 times higher, both exceeding
recommended safety limits. (Ottawa Citizen, 9 Sept
1992)
THE GREAT DIVIDE: UITP SURVEY ON TRAFFIC
The UITP and the EC conducted a 1991 survey
involving a sample of 14,000 Europeans in the EC
and 160 elected representatives of the seven leading
countries, including the UK. The study includes some
interesting discrepancies between the views of
decision-makers and the sample of citizens. The study
was concerned with car traffic in urban areas, the
quality of urban life, and the relative importance
attached to public and private transport.
47% of European political decision-makers
expect to see greater use of non-motorised
journey modes by the end of the century.
75% of EC citizens hope that more
pedestrian areas will be created, while 71% of
Europeans take a favourable view of curbs on
car traffic in town and city centres.
Elected officials in Europe are pinning considerable
hopes on public transport. 81% think there will be
increased use of it, while 79% believe this to be a
positive development.
84% of EC citizens support priority
treatment for public transport in the event of
conflict with cars in traffic planning.
85% of local politicians questioned in
Europe share this opinion, with 93% of them
believing that expansion of public transport
would help to ease traffic in towns and cities.
In all the countries of the EC, the promotion of
public transport is viewed unquestionably as an
effective means of improving the traffic situation in
towns and cities (an opinion expressed by 80% of
Europeans).
92% of politicians think that greater use of
public transport is possible in their countries,
while 97% of them feel that improving
transport is bound to entail sizeable financial
commitments.
Elected officials overestimate popular attachment to
car use, and they get wrong the opinion of European
citizens over what action is needed, i.e. curbs on car
traffic and the expansion of public transport.
80% of politicians think that traffic should
be curbed in town and city centres, but
estimate that a mere 47% of the population
share this view (actual figure: 71%).
59% of politicians think that parking
should be restricted in centres, but estimate
that only 36% of the population share this
view (actual figure: 53%).
93% of politicians wish to create more
pedestrian areas, but think that only 51% of
the population share this opinion (actual
figure: 75%).
The discrepancies are even greater when it comes to
defining priorities among the different journey modes.
90% of politicians favour pedestrians over
the car. They estimate that 43% of the
population think the same way (true
proportion is 85%).
85% of politicians want priority to be given
to public transport over the car, yet estimate
that only 49% of the population think
likewise (actual figure: 84%).
Politicians are thus considerably underestimating
popular opinion and make the assumption that most
people still favour cars in towns and cities. Although
they correctly assess the level of citizens' awareness of
the problem, they do not believe their citizens capable
of drawing the right conclusions. (Light Rail and
Modern Tramway, July 1992)
"It's like the 1970 Cadillac. Do you think people
today, and in the coming years, are going to be
driving 1970 Cadillacs? It's the same with these
suburbs. These places are going to be obsolete.
Values will drop a lot. They have the look of
obsolescence alreaedy, and people who can afford it
will simply not want to be there."
-- Jack Lessinger, author of Penturbia: Where Real
Estate Will Boom After the Crash of Suburbia.
BEYOND NIMBYISM
Beyond Nimbyism: Traffic Calming Throughout the
Capital Region was the title of a workshop hosted by
the Peace and Environment Resource Centre and
organized by AFO member Neale MacMillan in
September.
Neale MacMillan began the evening by showing on a
map of Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais all the
current road projects under study or construction.
The seemingly endless list suggested that regional and
municipal governments are continuing to apply 1950s
thinking to 1990s transportation needs.
Steve Cushing from the New Edinburgh Community
Association spoke about his Association's ongoing
fight against the Vanier Parkway Extension, which has
still not been removed from the Region's plans.
Harry Gow spoke of the roads being built in the
Outaouais region, such as the Larame-McConnell
road through the recently cut old-growth pine grove
in Aylmer. He described the ongoing efforts of
CATU (Coalition pour l'amlioration du transport
urbain) to improve transportation in the Outaouais
region, and resistance to Transport 2000's proposal
for interprovincial rail service across the Champagne
Bridge.
The speakers seemed to agree that greater
cooperation among community groups on both sides
of the Ottawa River - rather than nimbyism - would
be a more effective strategy. A greater cohesiveness
may be what is needed to take transportation policy
beyond the mere building of roads.
Excerpt from Peggy Robin's Saving the Neighbourhood:
You Can Fight Developers and Win! Woodbine House,
Rockville, MD, 1990, pp. xi-xii.
"Before giving their go-ahead to the
application, the city planners never thought to ask us
about the major change. We didn't want so large a
development on our block---period. When we told
the planners this, they were not surprised. They
seemed to expect neighbourhood opposition to the
development and to be bored to death with it.
But I was still inexperienced and naive. How
could the city planners be so indifferent to the threat
that we saw in the development proposal? As public
servants, it was their job (so I assumed) to guide the
developers into doing what the people wanted. So it
was obvious they had either made a glaring error in
this case, or else they did not understand their jobs
quite as I did.
Unfortunately, the latter turned out to be
true. And it's so, I'm afraid, in most American city
and county planning departments. Those with
authority over land-use (whether city planners, county
officials, or elected representatives) generally do not
see themselves as advocates for the citizens. They see
themselves as an impartial body, pulled on the one
side by development interests, on the other side by
the citizens. They try to maintain "balance" between
these two equally competing interests.
[...] Consider what this attitude means to you,
the citizen, in practical terms. When a developer
comes up with a new plan that will alter your way of
life in your neighbourhood forever, it's as if you're at
the start of a race with him. Your city/county officials
are merely referees. You have the responsibility to
do all the preparation for the race, even if you've
never trained for an event before. You may have to
pay for professional help to get in shape for it; you'll
certainly have to take time out of your schedule to
devote to the contest. Meanwhile, your opponent, the
developer, is only doing the normal day-to-day work
of his business in preparing for the contest. He has
people on permanent retainer to help him negotiate
the hurdles. He's been there so often he knows all
the referees by their first names, too (they may even
go to work for him when they're finished with their
present government service).
Does this strike you as unfair as it strikes
me? [...] For now, [...] you should act on the
assumption that the planning functions of government
are not going to work automatically on your behalf."
Excerpt from Marcia Lowe's "Reclaiming Cities For
People". World Watch, July-August 1992, pp. 19-25. .
"In a more people-friendly city, municipal
officials, planners and other decision-makers would
set new priorities: the city is not to be a throughway
or storage area for motor vehicles, nor is it to be a
place from which people escape to find pleasant
surroundings. It should be a place to make one's
home.
City streets would become habitats for
humans and plant life; land-use regulations would
encourage and celebrate diversity, not reinforce
homogeneity; public spaces would recapture the
ground they've lost; and nature would become an
integral part of the urban landscape.
An important ingredient in this vision of a
humane city is a planning and design process that
involves the public. Experience has made painfully
clear the repercussions of imposing urban land-use
decisions without community influence or consent.
[...] A more participatory planning process [...] is
more likely to address the concerns of the elderly,
handicapped, children, and other groups with special
needs."
AUTO-FREEDOM: ACTING LOCALLY TO
IMPACT GLOBALLY
Lucy Segatti
The second annual Auto-Free Cities Conference
held recently in Toronto was about more than
transportation alternatives and redesigning cities and
suburbs. Over and over again, speakers and
participants stressed the need for a fundamental shift
in values and attitudes, without which any
transportation or planning measures would be
ineffective.
As long as economic growth, speed and mobility
remain central goals for our society, we can't even
dare hope to adapt to planetary climate change or to
reorganize ourselves into viable self-reliant
communities.
While sometimes criticized for choosing a
seemingly negative and provocative name, the
auto-free cities movement is proposing a very positive
and hopeful vision, provided it can be realized in the
immediate future. The auto-free vision is about
choice, about freedom to move without depending on
cars. Auto-free advocates want to humanize urban
settlements and promote the virtues of living without
cars.
The mobility and speed we have grown
accustomed to by driving cars over the past half
century have led to the loss of a sense of place.
Having lost our sense of community, we tend to take
less responsibility for the quality of life in our own
neighbourhoods and bioregions, and participate less
in local decision-making.
Redesigning our neighbourhoods so that we can
live, work, learn, shop, go to school and be
entertained locally would not only reduce our
transportation and environmental problems, it would
restore and enhance our sense of community and
belonging. However, without a shift from economic
to social and ecological values, and without
recognizing that we must consume less and live more
in place, the beneficial effects of any intermediate
measures would be lost and diluted.
Until our values change, the social and
environmental costs of our dependence on cars will
not be factored into the costs of the private
automobile. These "externalities" include the loss of
farmland, loss of productivity due to death or injury,
acid rain damage to forests, damage to crops by ozone
depletion and climate change, loss of community,
social alienation, and noise, air and water pollution.
Air pollution is reaching critical levels in cities
around the world. In fact, Los Angeles smog has
been detected in the Grand Canyon, and closer to
home, Toronto's ground-level ozone is adding to
Ottawa's already high levels of air pollution which,
according to an Ontario Ministry of the Environment
report, rival those in Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor.
Car-oriented urban design is also unsustainable,
because it depends on high inputs of non-renewable
energy (20% of the world's population in the First
World is using 80% of our planet's resources).
Considering the social, environmental and economic
costs of electricity from nuclear plants and hydro
megaprojects, not even electric vehicles are a viable
substitute at the present rate of use.
The current transportation hierarchy (the private
car over public transit over bicycles over feet) has
reached a point of diminishing returns. In fact, cars
are subsidized to the detriment of public transit and
facilities for cyclists and walkers. According to
Pollution Probe's recent report The Costs of the Car,
the total costs ($4.549 billion in direct costs and at
least $3.759 billion in hidden costs or "externalities")
of our car dependence in Ontario exceed car-related
revenues ($3.484 billion) collected by the provincial
government by roughly $5 billion.
This challenges the popular perception that the
cost of building roads is a normal expense, while
spending on railroads and mass transit is
subsidization. Consequently, cyclists, mass transit
users and pedestrians who do not generate such costs
because they do not cause the same degree of damage
to society, our planet or the economy, are not only
denied equal funding for services and facilities, but
are expected to subsidize private car users in addition
to putting up with arrogant motorists on the street.
Calculations by Transportation Alternatives in
New York show that if the current subsidies to
automobiles were shifted to mass transit in New York
City, not only would transit service be guaranteed and
greatly improved, but each rider would be reimbursed
19 cents for each transit trip taken.
Over 50 years ago, in a successful attempt to
expand a saturated automobile market, General
Motors, Standard Oil and others bought up the
electric transit systems in cities throughout North
America and replaced them with diesel buses. Once
the trolley tracks were torn up, cars were free to move
where they pleased, and cities which no longer
centred around trolley lines, were allowed to sprawl
and be designed as if everyone would have access to a
car. (In 1949, GM was convicted of conspiring with
Standard Oil and others to replace electric with diesel
transportation, and of monopolizing the sale of buses;
GM was charged a one dollar fine.)
Fifty years later, there are so many cars on the
roads of our finite planet (worldwide, a new car rolls
off the assembly line every second), and cities have
spread out so far (gobbling up precious farmland on
the way) that the speed and freedom originally offered
by cars is being eroded. The car is no longer as
efficient a means of transportation as it once was. At
a recent conference on bioregionalism (or the
philosophy of "living in place"), Peter Berg, a
bioregionalist from San Francisco (Shasta Bioregion),
compared cars to expensive telephone booths. The
average speed on L.A. freeways is 12 miles per hour.
Berg pointed out the absurdity of motorists spending
an average $17,000 and billions of dollars in road
costs to sit in crawling traffic using a cellular phone.
Since most North American cities were designed
for cars, not people, today cars are perceived as a
necessity, even liberators. However, having no choice
but to use cars to carry on their daily lives, residents
of car-oriented communities are actually enslaved by
their cars. Before being able to change their
car-bound lifestyles, alternative modes of
transportation must be made more convenient and
travel distances shortened.
Banning cars from downtown cores is an obvious
first step, but it is ineffective unless accompanied by a
reduction in commuting from the suburbs. The only
way to curb the daily suburban exodus is to transform
suburbs from bland car-dependent bedroom
"communities" to viable people-oriented
neighbourhoods with their very own downtown cores,
character, culture, and a sense of place.
As pie-in-the-sky as this may sound, it is possible
if land use zoning, as is being proposed by the Sewell
Commission on Planning and Development Reform in
Ontario, were to put "feet first". This would allow for
true mixed use, that is rezoning so that small
businesses (corner stores, shops, services,
neighbourhood pubs, restaurants) could locate in a
residential neighbourhood. This would give currently
car-trapped people the option to walk or cycle, or call
for goods to be delivered.
Other measures to retrofit suburbs and redesign
city streets include traffic calming (i.e. slowing traffic
to make streets safer for residents through the use of
street furniture like benches, planters, extended speed
bumps, wider sidewalks), reducing the speed limit on
neighbourhood streets, pedestrianization, and
intensification of low-density communities.
Telecommuting or working at satellite offices are an
increasingly viable alternative to driving to work every
day.
Even before the world supply of non-renewable
fossil fuels runs out, as planetary climate change
becomes increasingly obvious, international legislation
could ban carbon dioxide emissions. What would
people living in car-dependent communities do then?
Rather than attack the concept of auto-free cities,
naysayers would do well to explore the many visionary
ideas being proposed by progressive urban planners
and architects who have the foresight to prepare for
the social and economic changes that we cannot
escape as the state of our biosphere continues to
deteriorate.
Many cities in Germany, Holland and Switzerland
have banned cars from their downtown cores.
Bordeaux, Florence, Barcelona are just a few cities in
other European countries where cars are not allowed
to circulate freely. In Norway where winters are long,
transition areas are designed into the pedestrian
districts which extend the outdoor season by up to six
weeks.
Unfortunately, while European cities are often
looked to for models because they were mostly built
before the car, today in their eagerness to be more
like North Americans, Europeans are buying and
driving intolerable
numbers of cars and building exurban warehouse
stores and supermarkets that are replacing the local
grocery store, green grocer, bakery and butcher shops
that give European cities their charm and sense of
community. Ironically, the human-scale design so
covetted by North Americans striving for freedom
from the car is being eroded (at least for now) in
cities built before the onslaught of the car.
It is only in the last few decades that we have
come to take for granted that we can travel as long
and as far as we do. To think that we can maintain
our current level of fossil fuel consumption or that a
harmless technofix is just around the corner is
hopelessly pollyannaish. To think that we can sustain
our wasteful, polluting lifestyles is immoral.
The fact that General Motors alone spends $2
billion dollars a year on advertising suggests that it is
trying to sustain an artificial market. Cars are being
promoted as more than a means of transportation.
(An ad for Nissan's Infiniti reads: "It's not a car. It's
an aphrodisiac.") Cars are status symbols---emotional
and psychological crutches. They provide insulation
from nameless
neighbours and faceless motorists. They are perceived
as protecting us from the very problems they create.
Cars cause the decline of interactive communities, but
through advertising car manufacturers, oil companies
and other car-serving industries make us identify with
cars. We are what we drive. Our cars make us "feel
like a somebody".
The auto-free movement challenges the
current car culture, questions its morality and suggests
that to increase the chances for our species and others
to survive, we must start rethinking our lifestyles,
attitudes and values right now.
(An abridged version of this article appeared in the
Peace and Environment News, Sept/92)
GOT A MINUTE? WRITE A LETTER
CITY OF OTTAWA BACKS AWAY FROM GREEN PROMISES
Ottawa City Council has committed the City of Ottawa to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% (based on 1990
levels) by the year 2005. According to a Friends of the Earth study in 1990 the total emissions for the City of
Ottawa were 3,902.1 kilotonnes - 36% of which was the product of motor vehicles.
Despite "green" rhetoric during their election campaigns, Ottawa city councillors have not allocated any funding to
implement programs that would help to achieve the CO2 reduction goal.
Despite national recognition for its environmentally sensitive official plan, the City of Ottawa has so far not taken
any action to ensure that its policies and guidelines conform to the bylaws in the revised official plan. The official
plan, which was revised with the input of many community activists, is deserving of praise, but useless unless acted
upon.
To find out why this is so, phone or write Mayor Holzman or your Councillor. For greater effect, letters to City
Hall could be copied to the Ottawa Citizen.
Ottawa Citizen
1101 Baxter Road
Ottawa, ON K2C 3M4 596-3699 FAX: 726-1198
City of Ottawa:
Ottawa City Hall
111 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1N 5A1
Mayor Jacquelin Holzman 564-1342 FAX: 564-8411
Councillors Ward Telephone FAX
George BROWN Riverside 564-1296 564-8412
Jill BROWN Britannia 564-1336 (FAX for
Richard CANNINGS By-Rideau 564-1320 all
Alex CULLEN Richmond 564-1333 Councillors)
Peter HARRIS Dalhousie 564-1305
Diane HOLMES Wellington 564-1311
Peter HUME Alta Vista 564-1317
Tim KEHOE Carleton 564-1299
Jacques LEGENDRE Overbrooke-Forbes 564-1339
Jack MacKINNON Canterbury 564-1314
Mark MALONEY Carlington-Westboro 564-1326
Nancy MITCHELL St. George 564-1329
Joan O'NEILL Billings 564-1302
Jim WATSON Capital 564-1308
Joan WONG Elmdale 564-1323
MACKENZIE KING BRIDGE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL STUDY
The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transportation Committee will be voting on the preferred "alternative" for the
MacKenzie King Bridge at the end of October or early November.
For information or the date of the next public meeting, call RMOC Engineering at 560-6001 ext. 1494 or 1696.
Or write to the following regional politicians to express your concerns.
Region of Ottawa-Carleton:
Ottawa-Carleton Centre
Cartier Square
111 Lisgar Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 2L7
Peter D. Clark, Regional Chair
(613) 560-2068
Tim Kehoe, Chair, Regional Transportation Committee
(613) 564-1299
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 416?
Let your elected representatives know about it:
Ontario government:
Premier Bob Rae
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A5 (416) 585-7111
Evelyn Gigantes, MPP
Ottawa Centre
407 Queen Street
Ottawa, ON K1R 5A6 (613) 237-0212 FAX: (613) 237-3067
Gilles Pouliot, MPP
Minister of Transportation
Ferguson Block, 3rd floor
77 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, ON M7A 1Z8 (416) 327-9200 1-800-267-0295
Ken Polson
Senior Project Engineer (Kingston) (613) 545-4811
Brian Ruck
Area Engineer (Kingston) (613) 545-4795
SAD TO SEE TWO-CENTURY-OLD PINES TREES SACRIFICED TO PAVE THE LARAME-McCONNELL
ROAD?
Write to any or all of the following. Ask if a full environmental impact assessment had been carried out before
approval was given to build the road. And don't forget to send a copy to the Ottawa Citizen or other newspapers.
Quebec government:
Sam Elkas, MLA
Minister of Transport / Ministre des transports du Qubec
700, boulevard St-Cyril est
Place Haute-Ville, 29e tage
Qubec (QC) G1R 5H1
National Capital Commission:
Marcel Beaudry, Chair
National Capital Commission
161 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1P 6J6 239-5194 FAX: 239-5039
Transport Canada:
Jean Corbeil, MP
Room 707, Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5 991-0700 / 992-4026 / 995-1577
Environment Canada: (No federal environmental assessment was required before the road was approved.)
Jean Charest, MP
Room 436N, Center Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 997-1441 FAX: 995-0364
ARBUTUS BICYCLE CORRIDOR
In Vancouver, BEST, the Better Environmentally Sound Transportation Association, is running a campaign to create
the Arbutus Bicycle Corridor (ABC). BEST is proposing that a soon-to-be-abandoned rail line be converted into a
linear park with separate paths for walkers and cyclists. Since the Arbutus corridor has few road crossings and leads
to the downtown area, it is ideal for bicycle commuting.
Letters in support of the ABC may be sent to the Mayor and Council of Vancouver.
Vancouver City Hall
453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4