![\"\"](\"http:\/\/farm3.static.flickr.com\/2712\/4406733976_c8a86b3f70_z.jpg?zz=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Mercifully, Toronto has so far been spared the smog days which have defined summers of the past. This respite from smog days however belies the true condition of the air we breathe and the toll that air pollution takes on each and every one of us. Air pollution and the broader category of public health have long been the great equalizer in debates over public policy. \u00a0Modern urban planning emerged out of the needs to address common public health concerns. \u00a0Rich or poor, cyclist or driver we all breath the same air; a simple fact that may be one of the most powerful arguments against investing in increased automobile capacity.<\/p>\n
Talk of pollution from personal automobiles often focuses on carbon dioxide and its role in climate change, yet just as tangible are the effects that other emissions from cars are having on our bodies. Air pollution has been linked to increased mortality, respiratory illness, impaired cardiovascular functions and an increased risk of cancer*. A 2010 study out of Harvard University estimated that emissions from vehicles idling in congestion resulted in 3000 premature deaths in the United States in 2005. While new technology is reducing emissions, these gains are being offset by dramatic increases in the amount total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a measure of the total amount of distance driven by all vehicles.<\/p>\n
We all know that cars pollute, but we don\u2019t remind ourselves often enough about just what is coming out of a tailpipe and how direct its impacts can be on our health. The pollutants that have been attributed to tail pipe emissions include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), air toxins such as benzene and formaldehyde, as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which combine to form ozone*. \u00a0Environment Canada estimates that passenger vehicles account for approximately 51% of VOC emissions and 21% of NOx <\/sub>emissions in Canada.<\/p>\n The link between emissions from personal vehicles and these health effects has been well established. A study conducted during the Atlanta Olympics illustrates this perfectly. In preparation for the crowds, officials closed the downtown to cars and instituted alternative transportation. The resulting 22% decrease in peak hour morning traffic lead to a 13% decrease in ozone levels and a decrease in acute asthma measures of up to 44%.<\/p>\n Despite the hard science, the most powerful facet of the public health argument against policies like removing bike lanes on Jarvis in favour of new lanes for cars is the universality of the negative effects of increased vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions don\u2019t just harm nearby pedestrians, they equally hurt those living and working in nearby buildings as well as the drivers inside the cars themselves. As others have pointed out, the idea of \u2018the war on the car\u2019 is bunk; its inherent divisions between drivers and other groups such as cyclists and pedestrians don’t\u00a0really\u00a0exist. \u00a0Drivers stand to benefit from alternative transportation options just as much as everyone else.<\/p>\n Opponents will argue that creating more lanes for cars is necessary to reduce air pollution because it reduces congestion. This argument is tragically misguided. As Tom Vanderbilt aptly pointed out in the New York Times this month, the car is doomed by its exponentially diminishing collective returns. Each new car that hits the road makes the entire system slightly worse for everyone by contributing to greater traffic jams and more pollution. Investing in more traffic capacity will only perpetuate this exponentially growing cycle.<\/p>\n Another fundamental flaw in the argument for increasing road capacity is the well documented phenomenon of induced demand. More road capacity leads to more cars and provides no overall gain in reducing congestion. A recent study by economists at the University of Toronto adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating this by drawing a clear link between road capacity and levels of traffic. The study even goes so far as to propose the equation +1 = +1 meaning that a 1% increase in road capacity will lead to a 1% increase in the amount of traffic. We cannot pave our way out of congestion.<\/p>\n The case for reducing the capacity of roads in the downtown core crystallizes when considered from a regional perspective. As a region sprawls outward and commuting distances increase, the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rises dramatically, pushing up air pollution. In order to curb VMT growth, cities must reduce how far people have to drive by increasing density, improving access to transit and promoting employment close to where people live. Toronto has been very successful in at least one of these areas by increasing density and mixed use in its downtown core. Yet the public health catch in this equation is that increasing density brings increased traffic and congestion to the downtown, exposing the growing numbers of people who live there to the increasingly poisonous effects of vehicle emissions. Because of this, increases in downtown density must be accompanied by a shift away from automobile capacity or public health will suffer. More density in downtown must be accompanied by a shift towards alternative means of transit.<\/p>\n Wasting precious infrastructure dollars on additional lanes of traffic is therefore unequivocally a step in the wrong direction. As downtown Toronto continues to flourish with new residential density we must shift the transportation modal split or we will only expose larger numbers to higher concentrations of air pollution. Each time we decide to saddle ourselves deeper with more autocentric infrastructure, we move backwards at the peril of our health and wellbeing.<\/p>\n *Source Frumkin, Howard, Lawrence Frank and Richard Jackson. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Island Press 2004.<\/p>\n