90 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



in accordance with some custom. The 66 feet width of Ontario 

 seems to have no other justification than the fact that it is the length 

 of a chain. It is about half the width that should be provided for 

 some main arteries, and about twice what is necessary for the short, 

 tributary streets. It is true that, in the absence of proper development 

 schemes, we must have a system of regulations fixing a general stan- 

 dard in these matters that is the inevitable weakness of the by-law 

 system but it is quite as absurd to regulate the width of a street 

 according to a fixed by-law standard as it would be to prescribe that 

 all sewers and water-mains should be of the same diameter. 



EFFECT OF NARROW ROADS IN BRITAIN 



In Great Britain this point has been recognized for some years, 

 but the difficulties of securing variation are not so great as in Canada. 

 The standard width of streets in rural England is from 36 to 45 feet,* 

 and the result is that, while perhaps 75 per cent of the streets are 

 wide enough, the public have to bear a somewhat heavy share of the 

 cost of widening main arteries, which form about 25 per cent, al- 

 though a great many old highways exist which are much wider than 

 required by the by-laws, and form a sort of trunk system throughout 

 the country. 



The narrower widths of roads in Britain, as compared with Can- 

 ada, is partly responsible for securing a higher standard of road con- 

 struction and partly for enabling the middle and working classes 

 to secure cheaper housing accommodation in English suburbs and 

 rural districts. In regard to the former matter we are apt to flatter 

 ourselves in Canada that, although our roads are not so good as the 

 British roads, this is because Canada is a new country. We over- 

 look the fact that the high standard applies to all new roads in Bri- 

 tain and not only to old highways, and that it is the new streets and 

 roads which are being made to-day, rather than the old highways, 

 which set the standard of modern efficiency in street making. When 

 we recognise this fact, it is a proper question to ask why suburban 

 and village roads in Canada should not be as good as suburban and 

 village roads in Britain. A good deal of time must pass, of course, 

 before our rural highways can come up to the standard of those in 

 the older countries, but that does not provide any excuse for the poor 

 roads in many of our newly developed towns and suburbs. One 

 reason for the difference is due to the fact that in Britain the burden of 

 making new streets is placed on the shoulders of those who directly bene 

 fit from the subdivision of land for building purposes, and the roads hav e 

 to be constructed according to the municipal standard before the landis 



*In many cities in the United States the minimum width is 40 feet. 



