Road-Building Myths Busted
A recent column by the Vancouver Province’s Driving editor, Keith Morgan (Upside of adding new asphalt to landscape, Province, Friday, November 14, 2008), has drawn our attention to an interesting report by the Royal Automobile Club Foundation.The report, entitled Misconceptions And Exaggerations About Road Building In Great Britain busts many of the commons myths and misconceptions about road-building frequently put forward by the “wishful thinkers” opposed to twinning the Port Mann Bridge and improving Highway 1.
You can read and download an executive summary of the RAC Foundation’s myth-busting report here: Misconceptions And Exaggerations About Road Building In Great Britain - Executive Summary.
Labels: Get Moving BC, Port Mann Bridge, transportation
posted by Get Moving BC @ 11:14 AM
3 Comments:
Interesting report. I read it. I would hardly say that it busted any myths, however. Most of the arguments and statistics that it employs are typical and exceptionally myopic. This is not very surprising coming from such an obviously biased source though. You're excited by this? Wow.
Conveniently, there is no mention whatsoever of the economic value of the land which gets paved over. It really doesn't matter if emissions don't increase from auto-use on new roads if you paved over a carbon sink system that was processing billions of tons CO2. By removing the carbon sink, you are increasing carbon emissions by that much, *plus* any--however minor--emissions from cars.
You people can keep ignoring or "externalizing" (what a word) the costs of natural processing systems as much as you want. It won't change the fact that you're completely missing a full two-thirds of the economic picture.
Look, roads aren't bad. They're just not (even in the same league) as important as, say, Burns Bog. You can sit in traffic for an extra hour every day for all I care. That Bog and the areas like it that you would pave over for your immediate convenience in making your lives go even faster (when I bet you're already one of those road-rage jerks who gets upset at other drivers on the road) is a *vital* part of our ecosystem for this entire region. Removing these areas is like cutting off your head to spite your body. Go take a science class and learn how the planet works, people. You can't just pave everything over and think that they're won't be consequences, no matter what the "Royal Auto Club Foundation" says.
Busting myths or spreading them?
"Public transport is NOT a ready alternative to the private car. Public transport currently accounts for thirteen percent of all personal travel. This will increase on certain routes, but the car will remain the main form of transport overall." - Obviously, people can't ride transit that isn't there.
"Roads are EFFICIENT users of space in comparison to the railways. Road carry almost five times more passenger traffic than the railways and only take up 50% more land." - Who honestly complains about this? The real issue is that roads are the least efficient mode of transportation.
And on it goes... this is nothing but propaganda.
It is an automobile society that sponsored the "research". One must also consider that the UK has an extensive network of LRT community rail and other transit options that fare exceed what we have available in greater Vancouver. I don't see where this report is at all valid. The days of the single occupant vehicle are numbered and we had better look for alternatives. But I am happy to allow people that don't want to use transit to pay through the nose to use their cars and drive on roads. That's democracy!
Post a Comment
<< Home