Peace and Environment News* May 1993
|
Peace and Environment News * May 1993 |
by Andy Wood
"It doesn't take a genius to see that there is too much traffic here," said Aylmer resident Guy Ethier in the Citizen's March 9 edition. Mr. Ethier is just one of hundreds of Aylmer residents who commute each day to Ottawa and who have been demanding a new link between their Quebec homes and Ontario.
Commuters have long been frustrated by congestion on the Champlain Bridge. A recent report recommends building a new link to alleviate that congestion.
On March 10, the Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation (J.A.C.P.A.T.) released Phase 2 of a consultant's study of "corridor requirements, socio-economic and environmental impacts, costs and priorities of the following bridge corridors and options: Britannia-Deschênes; Champlain Bridge; Lemieux Island; Kettle Island and McLaurin Bay (to determine corridor protection requirements only)." Phase 2 was based on the first phase of the study, completed in January 1989, which recommended that a new bridge would be necessary in order to meet the traffic demands of the next decade. This recommendation, however, has been resisted by both community and environmental groups. Recent decisions by the Hull and Ottawa city councils have reduced the options to the corridors at Brittania and Kettle Island.
Transportation planners and consultants continue to assume that the automobile must be the dominant form of transportation. However, a new bridge will only contribute to more traffic as the available space is filled by cars. The region's planners and consultants should be looking at ways to reduce the traffic and to reduce reliance on the personal automobile.
The report also contains information on the modal split, which estimates the proportion of people using public transit. Even with increased bus use, the report claims a new bridge is necessary. No mention is made of the multi-modal split, which looks at the use of transportation options other than the car or public transit (cycling and walking).
All levels of government have committed themselves to reducing the host of environmental evils associated with the predominant use of cars for transportation. If these governments are to be taken seriously, they must give approval to alternatives to the car as well as alternatives to a new bridge to accommodate more cars.
What are the other options? The J.A.C.P.A.T. study points out that there was a 14 percent increase in vehicle traffic on the Champlain Bridge from 1987 to 1992, from 10,250 vehicles to 11,700 in the morning peak hour. The capacity of the bridge is only 12,200 vehicles per hour. A quick survey of the Champlain Bridge reveals that the majority of vehicles during the morning rush hour contain a single occupant. The simple option of car pooling would quickly reduce traffic by up to 75 percent, assuming that four people could fit into every car. This option, referred to as demand management by consultants, is seen by some as difficult and inconvenient. Are our governments prepared to spend millions of dollars for the sake of convenience?
Increased use of public transit including the possibility of rail link is the first priority. Considering that it takes less than half an hour to bike from Aylmer across the Champlain Bridge and on to Tunney's Pasture, the bicycle is also a viable answer.
A number of community and environmental groups are preparing to send the message that planning should be for people, not for cars. Look out for petitions and meetings in the upcoming month.
For more information, call the Communities Before Cars Coalition at 725-3767, Andrea Prazmowski of ECOVISION at 233-5647, or Auto-Free Ottawa at 234-0923.
Andy Wood is a member of Auto-Free Ottawa and a former Bike Courier.
Converted March 10, 2001 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
