I thought the wikipedia article entitled Automobile Dependency was so interesting and well written I would share it in full:

Automobile dependency is a term coined by Professors Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy to capture the predicament of most cities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, large cities in Europe.

Automobile dependency implies that cities where automobiles are the predominant transport not only deny their residents freedom of choice about the way they live and move around the city, but that the culture of automobile use has produced a kind of addiction to them. The analogy is made with addictions to harmful substances and activities because of the well-known law of diminishing returns in relation to increasing use or participation – the more that is used, the less of the desired effect is gained until a point is reached where the substance or activity has to be maintained to remain ‘normal’ – a state of dependency.

When it comes to automobile use, there is a spiralling effect where traffic congestion produces the ‘demand’ for more and bigger roads and removal of ‘impediments’ to traffic flow, such as pedestrians, signalised crossings, traffic lights, cyclists, and various forms of street-based public transit such as streetcars (trams). These measures make automobile use more pleasurable and advantageous at the expense of other modes of transport, so greater traffic volumes are induced. Additionally, the urban design of cities adjusts to the needs of automobiles in terms of movement and space. Buildings are replaced by parking lots. Open air shopping streets are replaced by enclosed malls. Walk-in banks and fast-food stores are replaced by drive-in versions of themselves that are inconveniently located for pedestrians. Town centres with a mixture of commercial, retail and entertainment functions are replaced by single-function business parks, ‘category-killer’ retail boxes and ‘multiplex’ entertainment complexes, each surrounded by large tracts of parking.

These kinds of environments require automobiles to access them, thus inducing even more traffic onto the increased roadspace. This results in congestion, and the cycle above continues. Roads get ever bigger, consuming ever greater tracts of land previously used for housing, manufacturing and other socially useful purposes. Public transit becomes less and less viable and socially stigmatised, eventually becoming a minority form of transportation. People’s choices and freedoms to live functional lives without the use of the car are greatly reduced. Such cities are automobile dependent.

Automobile dependency is seen primarily as an issue of environmental sustainability due to the consumption of non-renewable resources and production of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It is also an issue of social and cultural sustainability. Like gated communities, the private automobile produces physical separation between people and reduces the opportunities for unstructured social encounter that is a significant aspect of social capital formation and maintenance in urban environments.

There are a number of planning and design approaches to redressing automobile dependency, known variously as New Urbanism, Transit-oriented development, and Smart growth. Most of these approaches focus on the physical urban design, urban density and landuse zoning of cities. Dr. Paul Mees, a transport planning academic formerly at the University of Melbourne argues that investment in good public transit, centralised management by the public sector and appropriate policy priorities are more significant than issues of urban form and density.

There are of course many who argue against a number of the details within any of the complex arguments related to this topic, particularly relationships between urban density and transit viability, or the nature of viable alternatives to automobiles that provide the same degree of flexibility and speed. There is also research into the future of automobility itself in terms of shared usage, size reduction, roadspace management and more sustainable fuel sources.

Explains it pretty well, I think. More New Zealanders (in particularly Aucklanders) need to become aware of this problem if we are to change the mindset and to avoid all the negatives (environmentally and health wise) and risks (economically) posed by some of the motorway projects we are seeing currently, in particular lane-widening projects  (like the SH16 widening project) which are by far the worst and eventually leads to this:

Toronto - 9 lanes each way and still gridlock
9 lanes each way and still gridlock
Share this

17 comments

  1. Apparently that motorway takes up about 800 hectares of land as it crosses Toronto. To put that into context, it’s around the same size as the Melbourne suburb of St Kilda, which has a population of around 40,000.

  2. It is the busiest motorway in the world, I guess what I’m saying is Toronto has good PT (not world leading but good) and about 4 million people. Population projections show in 100 years NZ could have 8 million people with 4 million in Auckland. If we don’t get cracking with new railways and busways and continue to invest in widening how big will our motorways have to be then if Toronto has good PT and we don’t..? That isn’t even taking into account peak “cheap” oil and carbon pricing/climate change…

  3. When constructed it was a 4 lane carriageway (since widened to 18) and referred to as the Toronto Bypass, the sprawl it encouraged meant the city sprawled out past it pushing more and more cars onto it, sucking in more and more poorly used land… I think it shows building these ridiculously wide motorways actively encourages congestion…

  4. The scariest part of that image is at the top where there is an interchange between the express and collector lanes of the motorway… When we are starting to build motorways that interchange with themselves rather than other motorways or entry/exit points, it is time for a new solution…

  5. Toronto is a rather interesting city to look at there.

    Right now Toronto has that one big motorway going east/west through the city with roughly a 10km catchment either side, in comparison Auckland has two motorways running north/south about 5km apart. This is a classic case of putting all their eggs in one basket.

    Something else of interest is that there eastern suburbs look like they are designed for car use only. Even though they have a rail line going right through them they seem to have no passenger stations. This may be due to the rail line having a rather slow looking alignment.

    Something else of interest is that they have large green spaces 5km apart which shows they had planned for more motorways however for some reason decided to just expand the existing one. There is another one 10km north however this stops short on the outskirts of town and does not connect to the eastern suburbs.

    A similar story is seen on the Western side heading to Hamilton.

  6. Many North American cities have rail lines going all over them (fantastic amounts really) yet they build light rail instead and never even consider using them for suburban services or electrifying them, the reason is freight methinks…

  7. The 427 highway also runs East / West. It was build by the (left-ish) New Democratic Party and then privatised and turned into a toll road by the Conservatives who followed. So it was built with public money…then handed to the private sector. The worst way to do it. For a long time relatively few people used it because of ill feeling about the way it was done. The 427 is now very busy and is a great way to really by-pass Toronto if you aren’t stopping in Toronto. But it will cost you. Last time I used it, it was about C$12 each way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *