No, We Don’t Need A Ring-Road
As a senior LFPress editor, Larry Cornies regularly ignored the communications that I sent to him (directly and indirectly) about transportation issues. He is an example of the management of that newspaper which has long turned a blind eye to London’s pro-automobile transportation problems and done such a woefully inadequate job of presenting alternative transportation choices.
Mr. Cornies’ current column (”Prarie Star Offers a Model“; London Free Press; 2009/06/13) tries to disguise his pro-automobile, pro-sprawl approach to our worsening problems by pretending to be something else.
Attempting to reflect an appreciation for alternative transportation, Mr. Cornies makes a passing reference to “walking and cycling paths.” And he asserts that “we don’t want to encourage endless expansion of vehicular transportation in London.”
He portrays bridges as being a good thing. But that appreciation appears only exist only for those bridges that convey automobiles across rivers. Nowhere in his article does he make any mention of the need for pedestrian bridges (or tunnels) to safely convey pedestrians across increasingly dangerous in-city arterial roadways.
And then he finally gets around to his real purpose, which is to advocate for that long-cherished dream of local exhaust spewers, a ring road.
If London has a “growing traffic congestion” problem, it’s because of pro-automobile advocates like Mr. Cornies. And if people truly care about “safer” travel, then they will start to demand things like increased expenditures on pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and public transit, and the kind of police enforcement which reflects the legal rights of those commuters.
And they’ll start to demand better coverage of those same things by our only local “daily” newspaper.
© Fowler Media
As a cyclist, pedestrian, driver and transit user, I disagree.
Yes London is a car-culture and that’s a problem. But even if that weren’t the case, the lack of ring-road is a serious issue, and getting worse as the city grows.
It can take, at some times of day, an hour to get from the north end of the city to the 401. Would fewer cars help? Absolutely. But it’s not just that – it’s the design of the city, it’s the narrowness of the roads, it’s the horribly timed traffic lights.
I will opt for public transportation, bus, train, etc. whenever possible, but that doesn’t eliminate my ability to recognize that there needs to be a way to get around the city by vehicle. In fact, a ring road would probably make life better for pedestrian, cyclists, etc. by reducing traffic in concentrated areas.
It doesn’t have to be a pedestrian-vs-cars issue. It’s about making getting around in this city safer and easier for everyone.
“It can take, at some times of day, an hour to get from the north end of the city to the 401.”
The easier, cheaper and enviro-responsible solution is to make a cross-town hop when it’s not during peak travel times.
But you have to admit that crossing town at non-peak times is not always practical or doable and if it were all it would create would be new peak times.
Of course it’s do-able. But it may take some effort, maybe even some lifestyle changes.
Not everyone has the luxury of making such choices.
Your use of the word “luxury” needs further explanation. Are you suggesting that the adoption of a self-disciplined ‘less instead of more’ lifestyle choice like travelling across the city during non-peak hours requires monetary wealth?
Of course not, there are lots of reasons why one may not have the luxury to travel when, where and how they would prefer.
And those reasons are… ?
Wow…you’re seriously asking me why people might not have control over how, when and to where they travel? The blinders are bigger than I thought.
Let’s try work, school, kids, appointments, interviews, meetings, shifts and the timetable that comes with all or a combination of them.
Some people can pull off all of these things without having to travel during inconvenient times. Most of us mere mortals can’t.
My eyes are not closed to the fact that some people will whine and complain about the slightest personal inconvenience even when it’s for the greater good. It may be true that there are some peak-time drivers who can’t reschedule their commute to other less-congested days/times, but I think that the majority probably can. And let’s not forget all of the SOV drivers during rush hour who could ride-pool but don’t.
London is in dire need of a ring road Greg. Have you driven in London in the last 5 years? Pumping money into transit and sidewalks isn’t going to alleviate that need.
A ring road doesn’t make it less “safe” for anyone, it makes it safer.
Furthermore saying it would be “safer” by dumping money into alternative transportation is only making thing safer for your demographic, try thinking about how other users of the road need to be accommodated, and not just your special interest groups.
The only “dire” transportation problem in London is the daily threat of death that pedestrians and cyclists are subject to from automobile drivers.
And I may have voluntarily chosen to not renew my driver’s license because of my deteriorating eyesight, but that doesn’t mean that I no longer travel anywhere in an automobile.
A circular expressway would definitely contribute to a less safe situation. Because it would support much greater populations of people and vehicles. And they would not restrict themselves to the periphery of the city.
Support for alternative transportation modes helps to reduce automobile use which makes it safer for everybody. There’s nothing selfish about public services that can be used by everybody, John. The selfishness is the billions of dollars being spent on a transportation mode that primarily only benefits private owners of automobiles.
One could argue that bicyclist riding on the sidewalks are a “dire” threat as well. Not only do they endanger the lives of the pedestrians rightfully using the sidewalk but they create a dangerous space for both automobiles and themself.
“And they would not restrict themselves to the periphery of the city. ”
- fine, if this is to happen what is the issue? the periphery of the city would be ring roads and other roads, nothing else.
I think you need to define what you consider the periphery of the city as last time I checked the periphery of the city (which the overwhelming majority is outside the urban growth boundary) is unable to be developed and consists of nothing more than farm land.
“There’s nothing selfish about public services that can be used by everybody, John. The selfishness is the billions of dollars being spent on a transportation mode that primarily only benefits private owners of automobiles.”
- True, however, if you are promoting public transportation that can be used by everyone you must also support the creation of new roads, the buses simply do not float in the air.
I didn’t introduce the word “dire” into the conversation, John did. As a descriptor for the supposed need of a ring road. Before we go branching off on yet another tangent, let’s wait to see if he can defend the original assertion.
As for your contention that the construction of a ring road wouldn’t influence the inner city, I totally disagree. It would be followed by even more pressure from the pro-auto lobby for wider, faster inner city roads.
I’m using “periphery” in the same context that Cornies defined it in his article. He identified the roads which should be considered for a ring road. If I was to provide the descriptor then I’d probably agree with you that outside the UGB would be more accurate.
Public transportation needs to service existing neighbourhoods. But I don’t agree with your contention that supporting public transportation also requires that I support the construction of new roads. It’s entirely possible to support public transportation without subscribing to a notion that urban sprawl is necessary. In fact, I don’t even accept the contention which is made by many that the city has to grow to be healthy. What I have said, and I stand by it, is that in many respects our species is like a cancer.
So instead of building roads to the people and therefore supporting public transit, you’d rather strand a portion of the population because they don’t live in you’re self imposed boundary?
Would you like to try to support your logic? Just because I don’t subscribe to the notion that we need to keep building additional new roads doesn’t mean that I don’t support public transit.
That’s ridiculous Greg. If you want better overall transit you must accommodate the existing majority, drivers, and allow them to use alternate high capacity routes. Less cars on Adelaide equals faster bus service.
You can’t just wish sprawl or cars away. It’s here to stay.
To be fair, I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. There’s no reason a well-managed city can’t discourage suburban sprawl, promote urban growth through tax and city-funded initiatives and still develop transportation systems (transit, roads and expressways) to manage traffic/people flow. There will never be a perfect solution, but there is certainly a middle ground between the two extremes (give up or dig your heels in)
I won’t trade insults with you by calling you ridiculous just because you disagree with me.
“You can’t just wish sprawl or cars away.”
You do have a penchant for putting words in other people’s mouths, don’t you? I’ve never said that the effort to combat urban sprawl or to reduce the number of automobiles would be easy or popular.
“If you want better overall transit you must accommodate the existing majority, drivers, and allow them to use alternate high capacity routes.”
I don’t buy that assertion. In fact, I think that continuing to accomodate automobile users instead of discouraging their use will only result in more and more cars on the road and a continued deterioration in the quality of our life and our ability to pay for it.
“Less cars…equals faster bus service.”
Not necessarily. But it would definitely support the delivery of faster service.
I have to agree with both John and Carolyn on this one.
Having a ring road or a highway through the city (a highway which was proposed, funding was provided but the city turned down decades ago) makes the city a safer place for all; bikers, walkers and drivers. By providing a highway of sorts that allows people to get from one end of the city (or around it all together) removes un-needed and dangerous traffic from typical city streets allowing for those who use those streets to do so in a much safer manner.
As much as I would like to see London wipe out the car all together its not going to happen.
Greg (or anyone else) if you haven’t listened to THIS yet I encourage you to do so.
The experience by cities the world over demonstrates conclusively that if you build more, more efficient roads, it only results in more automobiles. A peripheral expressway will increase the number of automobiles which will make the situation less safe.
Highways are built as more efficient roads, and yes they are unsafe, but to whom? The drivers that choose to use them. Perhaps if there were pedestrians using the highways I might support what you are trying to get at, however, roads, high efficient ones, ones built for the automobile are simply that, built for the automobile, they thankfully keep a large proportion of daily traffic out of my way.
Think of it this way, if we did not have the highways, such as the 400 series or those cutting through municipalities (like Kitchener/Waterloo or a proposed ring road in London) the traffic would be forced to use the streets within the populated areas of the city increasing the chances of people getting hurt.
I don’t know what that comment was in response to. Because I didn’t frame my opposition to a peripheral expressway based upon any danger to pedestrians. What I’m saying is that it’s construction would quickly be followed by added pressure to intensify the use of existing inner-city roads. That’s what would increase the risk to pedestrians and bicyclists.
My view: London’s window of opportunity to build a ring-road closed almost 30 years ago. There was a plan, there was funding, but there was no real interest. Successive city governments have driven nails into that window to make sure it stays shut. Witness what has happened along Fanshawe Park Road and the former Highway 100.
I think the real problem is that our road system does not have the capacity to handle daily peaks. Outside of the periods 8am-10am and 3pm-6pm, I can drive West-to-East inside of 20 minutes. So to me, a ring-road would only be treating the symptoms of our problems, and not very effectively at that. The downsides more than outweigh any benefits (for me):
- They create a fortress wall to isolate City from Country – and this would be a detriment to the special relationship between urban London and rural County (albeit, a relationship currently under pressure)
- They spur further growth at the edges of the City – more bland subdivisions and more big box stores huddling for relevance along a major traffic corridor.
- Further to the previous point, they are a catalyst for inner-city rot. People and their cars take the path of least resistance. If it’s easier to get to the mall, why go downtown?
I would *much* prefer we spend our money fixing the capacity issues: better traffic light systems, less subdivison sprawl, better coordination of road construction projects, more thinking around pedestrian bridges/tunnels, fewer traffic lights in front of mall parking lots, more incentives for in-fill, more onus on Developers to ensure services and infrasturcture are there *before* they build, a recognition that sustained city growth is not a good thing, restrictions on left-hand turn-lanes on certain roads, and the list goes on.
In the end, I think a ring-road is just an easy way around the tough thinking – at the expense of our wallets and quality of city life.
I like this comment
Kevin (#2), those are all interesting points and definitely worth considering. London already has severe inner-city rot and box-store hell. But I think there’s sort of a catch-22 going on here:
Downtown is unpleasent right now due to traffic congestion, lack of foot-traffic, lack of convenient non-car ways to get there. Creating a ring-road to alleviate some of that congestion might help make downtown a nicer place to be (if, of course, it was done in concert with other urban-renewal initiatives).
On the other hand, you’re right, creating a ring road has the potential to make the box-store-hell and sprawl even worse.
I think the thing with London is that there’s a legacy of lack of long-term planning. Eventually the city is going to crumble under it’s own patchwork-solutions. Whatever the option is, there needs to be some long term (not just 5-years from now) consideration to the reality of the city.
Not just certain groups, not just certain interests, but the overall health, growth and development of London.
Anybody who thinks that a ring road would put an end to this debate is deluding themself.
In the first place, the moniker should probably more aptly be “circular peripheral expressway.” Because that’s what the proponents really want. The ability to get across the city on the most direct route possible, and without having to be inconvenienced by such things as traffic signals or speed limits.
So get prepared to spend billions of dollars for huge, ugly concrete expressways.
And not just on the periphery. It won’t stop there.
Check out this probable early scenario. And note the way that I’ve drawn the inner-city expressways right thru the environmentally-protected areas. Because the car-lovers won’t settle for anything less than the most direct, fastest routes possible.
And that’s only the beginning.
You think that this kind of debate didn’t take place in other cities? In Tokyo, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Toronto, etc? Is that the kind of polluting automobile hell that you want our legacy to be?
Build it and they will come. More automobiles. More urban sprawl. A huge, SW Ontario concrete metropolis stretching from Windsor to Toronto.
Because we’re like a cancer.
You can call it whatever you want to but its still the same thing, so trying to add a fancy name to it isn’t going to help any argument.
The fact of the matter is if you build a road just for vehicles, on the outside of the city (remember, we still need to properly define city in the terms of London, Ontario) pedestrians will not be exposed to that traffic.
Not that I don’t appreciate your added map, but correct me if I am wrong, don’t the (majority) of the lines you added already exist as roads?
I’m differentiating between existing roads and expressways. The worst that we have so far is arterials like Commissioners. We don’t have expressways.
And as I stated previously, you’re incorrect in assuming that my opposition to expressways is based upon the danger to pedestrians that would exist in that location. (see previous comment)
My map depicts the location of the ring road as described by Mr. Cornies in his article, and what I think are the most likely candidates for subsequent inner-city expressways. So yes, most of them are existing arterials. What’s different is that I don’t think they would continue to respect environmentally-sensitive areas. Plus I tossed in the existing CNR corridor
In the end, what this comes down to, is your desire to halt growth. Not a concern for alleviating congestion, pollution, improve transit and public safety.
You want to take away people’s freedom to chose whether they live in an apartment in the city, or whether they can own a house.
Do I want to see an end or a serious reduction in the pace of the city’s outward expansion and the swallowing up of prime agricultural land and the increased infrastructure/service costs that accompany such growth? You bet I do.
Does that mean that I don’t also want to alleviate “congestion, pollution, improve transit and public safety”? Not for a second. It’s just another example of you attributing things to me that I didn’t say. The fact is, I do want to see an alleviation of congestion and pollution. And it’s equally obvious to anybody who’s read my posts for any length of time that I do want to see an improvement in transit and in public safety.
“You want to take away people’s freedom to chose whether they live in an apartment in the city, or whether they can own a house.”
How about some accuracy, John? I have never said such a thing! Not even close to it.