To what extent do the arguments advanced by the pro-Parkway lobby carry any weight?

1) The main argument offered so far is that the Parkway extension will reduce through traffic on a number of 'residential' streets, such as Cumberland, Franklin (both in the North end) and Monaghan. In response, three preliminary points need to be emphasized:

 (a) People living on a street constructed at public expense have no right to expect that access to that street should be denied to other members of the public.  The latter have every right to access the street in question at any time they may desire.  There is no such thing as a 'residential' street.

(b) Growth of a community, usually desired by most residents, will cause an increase in the traffic burden on the existing road network.  Although some streets may end up carrying a larger share than others, no-one living on any publicly-financed street can expect 'their' street to be exempt from carrying part of the burden of traffic growth.   Even with a stable population, growth in incomes is likely to lead to more traffic.

(c) Up to a certain point (when the congestion becomes so severe as to generate significant costs), the more the traffic on a street, the better the return on the investment of public funds in its construction.  Severe congestion only occurs when alternatives (either routes or transportation modes) are not available.  In Peterborough, the existing road network has acceptable alternative routes for most destinations.

 Pro-Parkway advocates overlook the fact that the expected benefits of the Parkway extension accruing to residents on streets such as Cumberland, Franklin and Monaghan have to be compared with the expected costs imposed on residents with houses or apartments fronting or backing on the route through which the extension would be routed.  Pro-Parkway advocates appear to believe that such costs either should not be taken into consideration, or are minimal, since everyone living on the route in question has been aware that the Parkway extension has been on the City's planning books for some 50 years.

 To refuse to consider such costs offends basic notions of equity.  All residents must be treated equally.  Furthermore, the fact that a route is in a plan is not a cast-iron guarantee that the route will be constructed. A plan drawn up 50 years ago is most unlikely to be still relevant today,  since there have been so many changes in the context in which the plan was drawn up. If an action originally planned 50 years ago still has not been implemented, one could even argue that it no longer merits serious attention.  

To take account of expectations, however, it might seem reasonable to discount to some extent the costs inflicted on residents along the Parkway extension route. If this were the case, it would be unreasonable not to discount also to some extent the benefits accruing to residents on Cumberland, Franklin and Monaghan, on the grounds that they too must expect increased traffic from increased growth.  Since affected residents along the proposed Parkway extension route are probably much more numerous than affected residents on Cumberland, Franklin and Monaghan, it seems likely that the sum of the costs to the former will be greater than the sum of the benefits to the latter.

(2) Another argument is that the Parkway extension will reduce the number of road accidents and improve safety.  This argument is mere conjecture, since no evidence has been produced to suggest that there may be a problem with respect to accidents and safety that needs to be addressed.  One could argue that since any increase in the road network increases the potential for accidents, the Parkway extension would mean an additional cost rather than benefit!  Furthermore, the causes of accidents in the areas under consideration must be examined to ascertain whether or not the accidents in question are relevant to the issue of the Parkway extension.  For example, the accident may involve only parties living in the immediate neighbourhood and not be linked to the perceived problem of through traffic.

 (3) A third argument is that the Parkway extension will shorten the time taken for ambulances to access accidents or other emergencies.  Again, this argument is mere conjecture, not substantiated by any evidence that there may be a problem at the present time.

 (4) A fourth argument goes along the line that 'we have to do something', and that 'all the studies undertaken so far confirm that the Parkway extension is the best solution'.  Such affirmations merely reveal the gullibility and ignorance of the people making them.  The chapters in the April 2002 Comprehensive Transportation Planning Update dealing with the road network are fundamentally flawed, in their reliance on theoretical assumptions with respect to road classifications, capacities and levels-of-service, rather than on observations on the ground with respect to the reality of traffic conditions in Peterborough.  The evaluation section is particularly laughable in its reliance on an ad hoc subjective methodology that no serious and professional funding agency would ever dream of using for the kind of multi-million dollar investments at stake.