You typically see trompe d'oeil - optical illusions that trick the eye into seeing something that isn't there - on walls and ceilings. But in front of a medical building at The Boardwalk, you can find a rare example of road trompe.

The crosswalks have been painted to fool drivers into thinking pedestrians are walking on a series of elevated concrete blocks. The goal being to confuse and disorient motorists, and thus force them to slow down; if this illusion was real it would rip the bottom out of your car.

Curiously enough, this sort of trickery and complication is a key part of current transportation policy. Municipalities are constantly dreaming up new ways to make driving as awkward, confusing and inefficient as possible: shrinking roads, cutting speed limits and putting obstacles - real or imagined - in our way.

Regardless of intentions, these actions entail substantial social costs and leave us all worse off.

Last week, The Record reported on plans to eliminate driving lanes on Erb Street and Bridgeport Road. "This will be a way to afford to accommodate cyclists, and also to calm the road speeds a bit," Waterloo Mayor Dave Jaworksy boasted. Roads are getting smaller and slower, bike lanes more prominent.

Elsewhere, flexible warning signs have been planted in the middle of roads, presumably to make drivers uncomfortable. Redesigns have also made it impossible to drive in a straight line on a perfectly straight road. (Glasgow Street, I'm looking at you.)

And now there's a movement underway to dramatically lower speeds on many local streets; Kitchener is moving ahead with a pilot project to cut speeds to 30 km/h.

Once upon a time, traffic planners sought to improve the efficiency of the roads so drivers could get where they were going in the least time necessary. Today, the opposite is true.

These local innovations are aligned with numerous other cities across Canada, often with reference to Vision Zero, a Swedish concept that seeks to completely eliminate pedestrian deaths by putting the responsibility for all collisions on cars.

Safer roads are obviously a good thing. But if our goal is zero pedestrian deaths regardless of any other consequences, then we might as well ban cars completely. Force the entire nation to travel afoot - what could be safer?

That, of course, is nonsense, as our economy would grind to a halt. Yet if we accept that cars are too useful to abandon altogether, we need a way to judge these competing demands of safety and efficiency. And this requires cost/benefit analysis.

The problem with Vision Zero-inspired road policies is that proponents only ever mention the benefits.

Consider Kitchener's plan to lower speeds to 30 km/h. The staff report lists all sorts of advantages, including fewer fatal accidents as well as a stronger sense of community since more people will presumably be out walking. Sounds nice.

Yet no costs are listed for achieving this outcome, other than new road signs. There are, however, 'challenges' to be overcome, such as the fact drivers might get frustrated and ignore the new speed limits, and that bus schedules will have to be adjusted.

Despite the intentional ignorance of the Kitchener city report, however, there are real costs associated with forcing cars and buses to go a lot slower. Speed reductions mean more time spent in traffic and less time at home or work. This is not mere frustration, but real harm suffered by real people.

A major study on congestion in Toronto put the total cost of gridlock at $3.3 billion per year. Of this, $2.5 billion were time costs incurred by drivers and transit users needlessly and unproductively sitting in traffic. Enforcing slower speeds produces the exact same result as congestion, except it's deliberate government policy.

Vision Zero advocates generally scoff at the idea that forcing drivers to spend a few more minutes on the road per day can be compared to saving lives. But evidence-based policy requires that we reach decisions by putting proper values on both costs and benefits.

Last year, for example, the French government reduced highway speeds to 80 km/h, in a Vision Zero-style safety move. This change has forced commuters to spend an extra 300 million hours in their cars, according to a report from a motorists' group. And this time cost is equivalent to the output of 200,000 workers annually - a massive economic blow to the country. Even after accounting for a small expected gain in safety, the net result is a national loss of $5.8 billion.

Such outcomes are not unique. "(Many) studies suggest significant overall benefits to society as a result of lowering speed limits," says a report on reducing urban road speeds from the Monash University Accident Research Centre in Australia. "However, when these benefits are weighed against the costs associated with increased travel times, the net result is often negative."

While noisy lobbyists and grandstanding politicians are keen to talk up tiny safety gains from making roads slower and less efficient, a dispassionate look at the numbers reveals the costs suffered by society are actually far greater than any benefits.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Anyone who believes in evidence-based policy should stop deliberately ruining our roads. Safety and efficiency should be the goal. Not one at the expense of the other.