Schultz wants span, not SPEC
Blogger Walter Schultz has been posting up a storm supporting the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We wanted to highlight two of his most recent posts.In this one, Schultz points out that the bridge is necessary for transit, and has been part of the region's long-term plan:
The problem for the zealots in the anti gateway gang is the only answer they have to our lower mainlands traffic issues resides in one single approach, more transit. You can't solve the issues with just new transit options. For an example:
* How do you run a bus system over the current Port Mann Bridge?
* How do you add a transit line over the current bridge?
* How do you add in a West-Bound HOV lane over the bridge?
The answers to our problems are in providing a mix of transportation improvements. You can't make improvements to transit without twinning the Port Mann bridge.
That's why the previous NDP government planned to twin the Port Mann bridge. And that's why Mike Harcourt has come out in support of the twinning of the Port Mann. There are 2.3 million residents in the lower mainland and growing, they're here and they aren't going to move away.
In the second post, he points out that the almighty customer is demanding more efficient vehicles, and that the market is moving to satisfy that demand:
I am convinced that Canadians will make fundamental changes in the way they deal with their personal transportation once convenient, reasonably priced alternatives exist.
One example is the increased sales of fuel-efficient, low-emissions hybrid vehicles. Additionally, future advances in science and technology will do more for improving our air pollution and climate changing emissions levels than trying to force people out of the convenience of driving their cars. We could soon be living in a world where near zero emission vehicles are driving around our region.
I see a bright future for our region - a region with more Span and less SPEC!
7 Comments:
Is it wishful thinking that somewhere in the hypothetical future technology will allow us to expand our highways and still reduce harmful pollution and green house gas emissions?
The fact is only about 1% of cars sold in Canada are hybrids. And hybrids still pollute and release green house gases.
And we already have transportation solutions that are virtually emissions free (SkyTrain, LRT and electric trolley buses). Why don't we expand this infrastructure now and wait until the other technology is widely adopted before expanding highways?
This post has been removed by the author.
Wishful thinking, Rob? Some call it market demand. The demand for cleaner, more efficient cars is going up, and so will the supply of that technology.
"...call it market demand. .."
Yes, exactly my point. We should wait to expand highways until the market demand and technologies allow us to do so without harming our environment or the health of our loved ones.
Based on current market demand the Highway One expansion will increase ghg emissions, increase asthma attacks and increase all the other negative health consequences (by some estimates up to 30%).
So, instead of expanding highways at the present time we could reduce congestion using virtually emission-free technologies (SkyTrain, LRT, and trolley busses) without the negative consequences.
At the Gateway Open House in Vancouver on Wednesday, there was some interesting news.
The current report says that GHG emissions from gateway will go up <1% by 2021 compared to business as usual without gateway.
However, this report was written before Premier Campbell said he wants to cut emissions by 1/3 by 2020. This is great news, but it certainly throws the < 1% from gateway into question.
My point is that if we want to (need to) aggressively attack climate change and emissions, we can not do this while still expanding roads.
Hybrid cars, although much better than regular cars, still emit pollution (in both their production and their operation). So, they alone will not be a solution.
Interestingly, though (and I think it has been mentioned here before), hybrid cars compared to standard cars produce less emissions in heavy traffic and the same at highway speeds. What this means is that hybrid cars will only decrease pollution if there is significant traffic (eg- city driving and stop and go highway traffic).
"What this means is that hybrid cars will only decrease pollution if there is significant traffic"
A wise statement you made, therefore, you undoubtably would agree, less idling also decreases pollution which would support the twinning of the Port Mann bridge.
I certainly don't consider myself a zealot and I don't have only one solution.
The Sunbury Neighbourhood Association has put forward several alternatives. The building of more and expanded roads is definately not the answer. There is not one example of a city that has built it's way out of congestion.
Post a Comment
<< Home