May 17, 2023

Stuck in Traffic?

More lanes or more alternatives?

What Causes Traffic?

In the US, 13,500 miles of highways regularly slow below the posted speed limits while 8,700 miles experience stop-and-go conditions. Traffic and road congestion is a frustrating reality for a large portion of those who commute by car. Unfortunately, traffic can’t always be predicted and is usually caused by saturation, construction, and accidents.

Saturation is the most common cause and occurs when there are more cars on the road than can be handled, usually due to a lack of infrastructure. However, the construction required to build new infrastructure can also be a main source of congestion. Accidents cause the most traffic as they are unpredictable and can span multiple lanes and directions.

Traffic Impacts on Commutes & Supply Chains

Traffic impacts people, businesses, and supply chains. For commuters, traffic can add hours to weekly commuting times. Texas A&Ms Transportation Institute found that the average American spends 54 hours annually stuck in traffic. This number is set to increase to 62 hours by 2025. Costs associated with traffic in the US are also set to increase by 20 percent to $200 billion in the same timeframe.

For businesses, the movement of goods and services is greatly affected by traffic. The Department of Transportation found that traffic costs the trucking industry $27 billion a year because of lost time and extra fuel consumption. Some companies experienced a 5 percent to 10 percent reduction in drayage productivity (transportation of goods over a short distance).

Solving Traffic – Advantages of More Lanes

Lower Cost of Using Existing Infrastructure

While building alternative transit methods may have a positive effect on traffic, the cost to build up necessary infrastructure is extensive. To compare, building a brand new, 4-lane highway, costs between USD $4-$6 million per mile in urban or suburban areas, and USD $8 to $10 million per mile in urban areas. However, adding lanes to highways or roads is less expensive. For example, upgrading a 4-lane highway to a 6-lane would cost, on average, around USD $4 million per mile.

Looking at the cost to build public transit infrastructure, even upgrading current systems is much more expensive. A new light-rail connecting east and west Toronto was projected to cost CAD $3.66 billion in 2007. Now, the cost has increased to USD $4.45 billion, or nearly USD $314 million per mile, and is only 53 percent completed. Even the Blue line extension in Montreal was projected to cost CAD $670 million per kilometer, or approximately USD $857 million per mile, making it one of the most expensive subway projects in the world.

Overall, it’s clear that adding lanes and upgrading highways is much more cost-effective than building up public transit infrastructure.

Improve Traffic Flow & Surrounding Areas

Cities or neighborhoods that have exhausted other low-cost options for maximizing road capacity can add lanes to help improve traffic flow. New lanes in the right locations can draw congestion from other roads that can’t access such relief. Added lanes can also increase mobility throughout the area by providing access to areas that were once difficult to reach. New lanes may also encourage commuters to utilize the businesses in the surrounding areas, which stimulates the local economy.

In addition, new lanes that feed into greater networks can slow the rate of congestion. Data from over 100 urban areas show that when road capacity is increased at a similar rate as demand, such areas experience a slower increase in congestion. Though increasing lanes doesn’t fully eliminate congestion, it improves the flow of traffic through and around major roadways and could aid in stimulating the surrounding economy.

Cars Offer Faster and Cheaper Options Over Certain Distances

While traveling within a large metropolitan area, alternatives such as extensive bike paths and reliable transit systems encourage car-free lifestyles. However, in rural or suburban areas, these alternatives are not always an option. For most of the US, it can be difficult to get anywhere without a car, and for 45 percent of Americans, public transportation isn’t an option. Living without a car is only an option for those who live in certain areas, making well-maintained roads and cars necessary for a large percentage of the population.

In many cases, traveling by car can be faster, cheaper, and more convenient than alternatives such as planes, coach buses, or trains. Traveling from NYC to Philadelphia takes roughly 2.5 hours by car or by plane, but the cost to fly is approximately USD $66, compared to roughly $20 to drive. Trains are also expensive, at $45 for this trip, while a bus would cost $26

However, after a certain distance, driving isn’t always the best option. A trip from NYC to LA by car would take 43 hours, whereas a plane takes 8.5 hours. However, a bus would take 63 hours and a train would take 66 hours. In terms of cost, the plane is the cheapest at $151 and driving would cost $524. Though a longer journey, trains cost $184 and buses cost $211.

Solving Traffic – The Benefits of More Alternatives

Decreased Pollution

One of the greatest advantages of introducing transportation alternatives is the reduction in CO2 emissions. Almost 75 percent of greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation are seen through surface transportation such as cars, trains, or ships. Of these emissions, 45.1 percent come from passenger vehicles, such as cars and buses, and 29.4 percent come from road freight, including trucks. Though it is difficult to reduce road freight since trucks play such an important role in connecting the country, reducing the emissions from passenger vehicles is within reach.

To compare, a single-vehicle trip generates 0.96 pounds of CO2 per passenger per mile (ppm), whereas a bus with full occupancy only generates 0.18/pm. Additionally, heavy rail, light rail, and 4-person carpools generate only 0.11/pm, 0.14/pm, and 0.24/pm, respectively. Those who do live near stations or bus stops produced the least amount of emissions and drive 4,400 fewer miles per year than those who aren’t in such proximity.

By switching to alternatives, like a bus or subway, a typical two-adult, two-car household can reduce its annual CO2 emissions by 48,000 pounds. Overall, US public transit can reduce emissions by 37 million metric tons annually by providing commuters with an alternative option to driving.

Commuters Save Money

Switching to transit alternatives can also save commuters thousands of dollars per year. Typically, one-way transit costs for buses or subways can range from $0.20-to $4.60, depending on the country and city. In New York, the cost is $2.80. Many cities offer weekly or monthly passes which give commuters unlimited uses, which, in NYC, costs $127 per month or $1,524 annually. Though it doesn’t seem significant, a pass gives you unlimited usage, so the savings are greater if you factor in other trips. Commuters can also choose to bike, which has an average annual cost of $308, or walk, which is free.

The cost of a vehicle alone is significant, with car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, and more. Annually, the average car owner spends $9,122 per year to own and operate their car.

Living in a big city, like San Francisco, the annual savings from not owning a car amount to $14,625. However, cities need to be equipped with proper public transit infrastructure to support residents without cars.

Reduced Congestion & Reliance on Cars

The greatest argument in favor of alternatives is the reduction in congestion, which is a direct result of decreasing the use of cars. This was realized in LA in 2003 when transit workers went on strike. They found that during the 35-day shutdown of all major bus and rail lines, congestion increased from 53 percent to 90 percent on roads. On US 101, which parallels the major rail line, traffic increased by 123 percent. After the strike, congestion decreased by 47 percent. Though traffic was still an issue after this period and continues to be problematic for commuters, this shutdown displayed the true reliance on public transit. Now more alternatives need to be added and upgraded to further decrease congestion on major roadways to realize the full effect.

Take the success in Copenhagen, Denmark, where 90 percent of residents own bikes compared to only 40 percent who own cars. They have made it more accessible to travel by bike by introducing more paths and lanes and increasing bike parking at transit stations. Currently, only 26 percent of trips are done by car, whereas 27 percent are completed using public transit and 41 percent are done by bike. They have become a top performer in reducing congestion by introducing more accessible alternatives to commuters.

Is Canada Really in a Recession?

December 23, 2023

Context A CBC News article discussed the possibility of the Canadian economy heading into a recession, or whether the country has already passed that threshold. The article discussed this possibility based on slowed growth, high inflation, and the Bank of Canada’s continued interest rate hikes. Analysis A recession is a significant reduction in economic activity that occurs over a length of time, usually months or years. One of the most accepted definitions of a recession comes from the economist Julius Shiskin in 1974, who identified the threshold to an economic recession as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP, although economists often argue about the comprehensiveness of this measure. The causes of a recession can be quite complicated and have many contributing factors. Some common examples include a sudden economic shock such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, excessive debt, asset bubbles, inflation, deflation, or large technological changes. One major factor influencing the probability of an economic recession includes rising interest rates from the Bank of Canada, which has implemented the highest hike in the shortest amount of time in all of the bank’s history, raising the rate over eight times since 2022. The Bank of Canada increased interest rates in order to curb inflation since rising interest rates discourage taking on debt and spending. This further encourages companies to lower prices or slow inflation to increase demand. Currently, the Bank of Canada is keeping at the 5.0 percent rate but has said that further hikes are not off the table as inflation may continue to exceed acceptable rates. Increases in interest rates can certainly contribute to or precede a recession. In fact, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates three times to slow inflation since the 1960s and all three times this action led to an economic recession. Current fears of a looming economic depression are also not unique to Canada, as following the COVID-19 pandemic, the global inflation rate increased to 8.73 percent in 2021. This was due to supply chain issues, as well as the effect of the Russia-Ukraine War creating rising food and energy prices, as well as general fiscal instability. A majority of the World Economic Forum’s lead economists agreed earlier this year that we could see the beginning of a global recession starting in 2023, which would certainly affect the Canadian economy. The article also discusses the Canadian economy’s slowed economic growth, as the GDP has stagnated in the second quarter of this year. However, it suggests other factors may explain the decrease, including striking port workers in British Columbia, and the resulting negative effect on economic activity. An RBC report mentions how on a per-person GDP basis, there has already been a decline for four straight quarters despite a surge in population growth, and concludes overall predictions for GDP growth do not look promising despite local factors including Canadian wildfires and strikes. They also point to a 0.5 percent increase in the unemployment rate over the past few months, which has historically tended to indicate a looming recession.

Ottawa Mayor and Lansdowne Park

December 21, 2023

Context The City of Ottawa Mayor, Mark Sutcliff released a statement about a revised plan for the redevelopment of Lansdowne, an urban public park containing historic landmarks and commercial venues. The project includes the demolition of a sports arena complex, stadium stands, and the building of a new event center, residential units, and retail space. Despite suggesting the new plan has addressed the concerns of residents, many issues remain. Analysis The City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) have been in partnership to develop Lansdowne since 2012 and finished an original redevelopment of the park back in 2014. A few years later in 2019, the financial sustainability of the park came to the city council’s attention, and in 2020 the partnership was extended another 10 years with direction to develop a new plan to revitalize Lansdowne. Consultation with community members started in 2020, with the original concept released last year in 2022, and a revised version released this month. Community feedback was acquired through various platforms including public information sessions, an open email for feedback, and public surveys. A summary report of that feedback was published on October 6th, which highlighted the six most common themes of community residents’ concerns. The first concern was related to the size and number of the multiple high-rise apartments which were designed to exceed 30 floors. In the new plan , they have removed one of the three planned buildings, with fewer total units in each, and only one tower with the potential to be built at 40 stories. Residents were also concerned about the loss of greenspace due to the new event center construction. Many people suggested they wanted that greenspace allocated elsewhere, or alternatively, an accessible greenspace roof on the event center. Although in the original plan the city had conceptualized a greenspace rooftop on the event center, this was scrapped in the new plan as it was deemed too expensive to maintain. Respondents wanted a restriction of vehicles to the premises to promote pedestrian safety, a concern that has existed since Lansdowne was first renovated back in 2014. They also wanted more public transportation infrastructure to and from the park, whether that is the local city buses, trains, or cycling infrastructure to reduce congestion on connecting roads. Relatedly, residents also desired more accessible public use space from washrooms to water fountains to usable and free space for people to occupy. The new plan has reduced the number of parking spaces for the residential buildings to meet the Bylaw limit of 0.4 spaces per unit, down from 739 to 336 spaces, while they added 36 new spaces for the event center. In terms of accessible public space, the new plan includes 27,000 square feet of space originally earmarked for the third residential building, now available for an unspecified “public realm.” Residents also wanted more local and less corporate or big-box businesses, to reflect the unique local community better. The new plan does suggest the amount of retail space has been reduced from 108,000 square feet to 49,000 square feet but does not directly address the desire to attract smaller, local businesses. Finally, there was also a concern about financial transparency of how the project is being funded and the resulting impact on the City. The Federation of Citizens Association (FCA) which represents over 70 community groups voted unanimously to oppose the new plan, which comes with a very costly price tag of $419 million, increased from $332 million of the first plan. They cite that the debt comes at a time when the transit system is facing major issues, and the city is struggling with a housing affordability crisis.

Danielle Smith - Conflict of Interest

December 20, 2023

Context Newly elected Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith has defended her cabinet which is coming under fire over conflict-of-interest concerns. Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz’s husband, Cole Schulz , may be lobbying the government in the areas that the Minister works in. Cole Schulz's firm is working on removing the protection of a threatened caribou range to make room for the oil and gas industry – which has raised concerns over who has Minister Schulz’s ear. Analysis The company that Cole Schulz is a partner with, Garrison Strategies, was hired by the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada and is working to influence the government on the issuing of reclamation certificates for oil and gas sites. The lobbyists are working to gain more access to protected caribou habitats to expand the oil and gas industry. They are hoping to “ address the moratorium on tenure in caribou regions ” which would effectively give them better access to land and investments. The Little Smoky and A La Peche herds in northwest Alberta were protected by a moratorium in 2013 which stopped the granting of new energy leases in this area. At the time, 95 percent of the herd’s range was heavily damaged. Phillip Meintzer of the Alberta Wilderness Association found that though records show that Garrison didn’t contact Environment and Protected Areas directly, the firm’s causes are “ too close for comfort ”. Meintzer also notes that as Garrison works on opening the protected caribou land for Alberta Energy, Environment and Protected Areas should be working on a protection plan for the federally and provincially designated threatened animal . Minister Schulz is working closely with the ethics commissioner, however, Danielle Smith confirmed that “ the ethics commissioner has looked at it, given guidance and there’s no violation [of the Conflicts of Interest Act]”. Cole Schulz also indicated that his firm wasn’t aware that Minister Schulz breached the Act at any time. Meintzer suggests that this situation “ calls for a further look ” from a third party. Sources https://globalnews.ca/news/9988998/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-rebecca-schulz/