1908.

?

Visualize the scene.

?

The Model T Ford is trundling off the assembly line, about to revolutionise personal transport.
?
Meanwhile in one of the great cities of the world, the city fathers ? unaware of the great change looming ? are in a huddle, trying to conjure up enough money for a great project to enlarge the city sewers, the better to be able to dispose of the growing accumulation of horse manure in the streets.

Today, we have much the same scenario, except we have plenty of warning of the change ahead. The best science we have on climate change says we should be looking for massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The trend in oil prices appears to be confirming the predictions of peak oil theory, to the extent that even General Motors has seen the writing on the wall, and has announced plans to exit the SUV market and focus on fuel economy and electric cars.

So why, then are the Brisbane "city fathers" so disproportionately focused on roads?

Just one project, the North-South Bypass Tunnel, is to cost around $3-billion. Supposedly this cost will be recovered. How? By tolls. The highest figure I've seen for the proposed toll is $4.50. If 100,000 cars a day use the tunnel, this toll will bring in $164,250,000 per year, less than 5.5% of the capital cost (even if running costs are zero). You wouldn't even recover the interest for that. Considering that the other major tolled north-south route, the Gateway Bridge, has about 100,000 cars a day crossing it on a much lower toll, you have to wonder how we will ever recover the costs on this tunnel. And that's but one of several tunnels planned.

What are the alternatives?

Several cities have already seen past the 'dispose of the manure' logic, and have started planning for a future where cars are less ubiquitous. London has for several years had a congestion charge to keep traffic out. Paris has been on a car reduction drive since 2001, and Bertrand Delanoe, the mayor behind this trend was re-elected in 2008 on a platform of cutting car use by 40%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 60%. Seoul has also gone through a car reduction phase which included taking out a major road, and Bogota has eschewed? the freeway option and instead opted for an extensive network of bikeways, pedestrian space and public transport.

How real is the threat of change?

Peak oil theory says we should be at around the peak of supply; the rate of extraction should soon start slowing, if it hasn't already. In reality, it's not that simple. Hubbert's original theory of peak oil, with a fairly accurate prediction in 1956 that US extraction would peak around 1965-1970, did not allow for the possibility that oil could be produced from more expensive sources. Once the oil that was easy to extract was depleted in the US, oil companies could move elsewhere. Worldwide, that logic doesn't apply. We can't go to another planet to look for oil. So once the easier sources are depleted, oil companies can search for sources that are harder to extract. This does not however mean cheap oil will ever be back: "harder to extract" also includes "more expensive to extract". Some are talking for example of oil wells in the Arctic, at which point you have to pause and ask:

?

Why has it suddenly become feasible to drill for oil in the Arctic?

That brings us to global warming. Cutting car use is but one of many measures we will need to take to address the problem. So why make things worse, just when there is another good reason to start working on alternatives?

In summary: if we are both faced with escalating oil prices and the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions, isn't planning more roads as useful as planning for more efficient flushing of horse manure down the sewers? Except, in this case, we have plenty of warning that we need to make the change. As London, Paris, and the other cities have show, the direction to go has been clear for years. And if you look at the quality of life in those cities versus car-oriented cities like Los Angeles, you have to wonder why anyone would want to keep building roads at the expense of safe bike lanes, public transport and great pedestrian spaces.

So what are we waiting for?