Transportation - Car Free Zone

Lessons from Toronto

January 2005

Toronto is a big and diversified city.

It has a dubious resemblance to a European city compared to other North American cities, but that resemblance ceases if it is compared to a European city. During its hey-day in the 1980s, the actor Peter Ustinov called it:"New York as run by the Swiss". It is an ethnically diverse city that has successfully excelled in commerce and communications.

But a slow infrastructure decline since the mid 1990s and an unequal distribution of wealth among its residents, has raised questions and speculation as to what precipitated this gradual failing. Is it a lack of funds? A lack of political vision and leadership? Complacency and the self-interests of both politicians and the public? All of the above.

POLITICIANS

Lack of vision and leadership
An overall plan and political will to improve and advance our infrastructure has not been implemented. We don't have leaders, we have managers. Managers treat issues singularly, and as such a fragmented piecemeal approach to city's projects has prevailed; the result has been failure and regrets about lost opportunities. An example of this disconnected plan is the condo-clogged Harbourfront which separates and obstructs the view of the lake from the rest of the city.

Is Democracy a cop-out?
Are prolonged public consultations or democratic deliberations, if you will, taking place to enlighten the officials or are they merely a political strategy to hide political inaction? The answer is again a lack of vision and leadership. It is imperative to have participatory citizenry, however, proper design and planning belong to the professionals. The example of Kensington Market's inept implementation failed to test the potential for the proposed permanent car-free zones inititiative. It created confusion and frustration among the merchants and residents because it was merely based only on public consultations and unqualified City staff. The Waterfront Revitalization project is riddled with conflicting interests by TEDCO (Toronto Economic Development Corp.) and ORC (Ontario Realty Corp.) and created an impasse based on the competitive interests in these public deliberations.

Is there a democratic deficit?
Yes. Yet, there are democratic deliberations... but public concerns for the greater good are eclipsed in favour of political support for corporations, businesses, and constituents. It is based on reciprocity: support the power- players and they will re-elect the politician. Hence, parochial and self-interests vs actual progress for the city's infrastructure.

Status quo & contradictions
There has been continuous verbal support for public transit, yet, there is ample facilitation and convenience for automobile transport. In fact, congestion in this car-clogged city has been interpreted as economic success. The most recent boondogle is the proposal to extend and connect a city street, Front Street, to a highway which according to City councillors, will alleviate congestion... Such is the reasoning of the absurd. Verbal support for sustainable transportation, yet, bicycle lanes have been a bone of contention. The agonized Bike Plan, a network of bicycle lanes in the city, has been studied and discussed to no avail since the mid 1970s. It has been given different names and timelines to give the impression of a new project in action; at present, according to a City councillor, it will take another 20 years to complete! Half a century for a bike-lane network... Verbal support for pedestrians has also been counterproductive compared to the action taken to squeeze out pedestrian space to accommodate auto- traffic, as is the case in the St.Clair West project.

The status quo has locked Toronto's infrastructure in the early 20th century, where the car is considered the pivotal mode of transportation. Permanent car-free areas, a people-friendly environment and sustainable transportation are not here.

Much ado about nothing
When vision and action for environmental transformation in a city are lacking, then you proceed with ephemeral projects.... they do raise the political profile, don't they? It shows that they too, have joined the international image of progress... They also manage to placate the ever hopeful environmental activists into thinking that changes are being made, when no progress actually occurs in this increasingly smog-infested and car-clogged city. Short-term initiatives increase the municipality's profile, but they are empty of substance. The latest ephemeral celebration is the exhorbitant funding for car-free day in Toronto; the auto-dependent city that requires half a century to implement a bike-lane network... Yes, it is an international event; but progressive cities celebrate it in addition to having permanent car-free zones and alternative living within a sustainable infrastructure. Toronto, on the other hand, is satisfied with image.

PUBLIC ACTIVISTS

Competition to what extent?
Voters are concerned about policy outcome; politicians are concerned about holding office. Is the competition among activist groups then, for political influence, precious funding, or individual glorification and media attention? Are the power plays, cliques and rivalries serviceable or counter- productive? The answer is both. Activist groups do get funding but rarely achieve political influence; that is to the power-players' advantage. Activist competition is a double-edged sword; solidarity, tenacity and camaraderie are superficial if not downright absent. Principles and values are being compromised in an effort to cajole and play up to politicians for credit and attention. The "united we succeed" has not prevailed over the " fragmented we plod along".

Reality check
Activists eagerly push for the approval of their projects, ever hopeful that they will bring progress and improvement in this city. But where does hope end and reality begin? Decades of endless political rhetoric, a myopic vision, a middle-of- the-road buraucracy, and summits that do not develop beyond the planning stage, should make it clear that hope is blinding us to reality. This unabated hope is self-deluding if not self-defeating. Projects that are watered-down, compromised, poorly implemented and done in an untimely fashion, do not imply success. Nor do they earn the qualification of being progressive. Toronto has not benefited from incremental changes, but only from unabridged plans for completion of initiatives. It is time Toronto activists hone their perception and call a spade a spade if real progress is to occur. Otherwise, it will be fighting a virus and feeding it at the same time.