next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> Dept. Thanks for all the wealth of information, John ... i'm glad you (recently) joined us here on sust-mar. For anyone who doesn't know, John is president of Transport 2000 Atlantic. Owen, i agree with you that safety is paramount. But i disagree with you that twinning a highway is the way to achieve safety. It goes without saying that highway fatalities are tragedies. But so are deaths from air pollution; 1800 in Ontario last year. Suddenly a twinned highway stops looking so safe. The problem is that there were be more cars on a twinned highway than on the old highway it replaces. It has been shown time and time again that when highways are expanded, more cars start using them. Cars are the single biggest contributor to air pollution in the universe. It's not industry, not huge belching smokestacks ... but you & me hopping in our cars and driving out of town for the weekend to enjoy nature. Cars also consume a lot of space ... 3 times the land use of equivalent railway trafic according to a Swiss study. The same study says they use 3.5 times the energy, produce 9 times the pollution and *24* times the accident rate of trains. Suddenly that train to Truro is looking a lot safer than a twined highway! Cars are also expensive; i've read different figures, but the most conservative i've seen in a while says that a mid-size car in Atlantic Canada costs $9000/year to operate. But to get the real figure you have to double that, because the community kicks in another half thru taxes for road-building and other subsidies. Multiply $9000 times every car in the Maritimes and think what we could do with all that money if we spent it on say, healthcare (and that's just the public half of it). Sad thing is that with only 10% of trips being done by public transport, and 90% by car, it would only take a small shift away from cars to double the usage of public transport. We'd end up with a lot more buses and trains and a lot more people using them. John, maybe you can shed some light for me on long-distance air travel. You've already pointed out that short-haul flights are very damaging to the environment. But how does flying to Toronto or Vancouver compare to getting there by car, bus or train? Finally, i'm curious Owen that you suggested a *benefit* of short-haul flights is that they help rural people commute to urban centres. I'd like to hear more discussion on this idea. It's pobably safe to say that many people in rural areas live in harmony with the land, etc. But many do not. David Suzuki (in Halifax for the P-7) said that there was actually an environmental advantage in living in cities b/c we humans effectively concentrate our damage this way. So i'm curious whether helping rural people to commute is an environmentally sustainable idea [i suspect it depends on the person we're talking about]. take care, all ~paul On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, John/Karen Pearce wrote: > Reply to Owen Hertzman, by John Pearce July 30, 1998 > Several points need to be made in rebuttal to Owen's arguments. I hope > that both sides of the argument may generate a little thought by those > concerned about truly sustainable transport. Perhaps Owen Hertzman is > just playing Devil's Advocate to get some badly needed discussion going! > > 1. The economic costs of eliminating highway deaths is staggering. The > provincial quote of 1/4 BILLION to twin 125 miles of road is likely low > by at least a factor of two, especially considering the interchanges and > overpasses between Newport/Windsor and Coldbrook and the Avon River > causeway (which is now only 2 lanes). And this is only a small part of > one road (what about Hwy.103 to Bridgewater, and 104 east of New > Glasgow?) The money could far better be spent on improving overall > health care services and improving air quality through lower transport > emissions to save more lives. It seems to be assumed that twinning 101 > will stop the many road deaths on other routes down the Annapolis Valley. > Universally it is agreed that widening roads only encourages more cars to > travel further. Los Angeles is a prime example, and Toronto-style > commuter rail, trolley buses, and subways are now replacing freeways on > the planners' drawing boards. (would a commuter train from Sackville to > downtown Halifax not be better than a 6 lane Bedford highway, Bayers Rd., > Young St. etc.?) > 2. The road from Mt. Uniacke to Sackville is already twinned. Is that > part still "evil", and in what way? > 3. Passing lanes are certainly a much cheaper solution, perhaps only a > million dollars for each one mile stretch. An (over?) elaborate example > of this exists near Ellershouse on highway 101. > 4. Highway 118 out of Dartmouth is a good example of the costly type of > twinned highway we're talking about. Complete separation of traffic going > in opposite directions by grass median rather than "Jersey barrier" is > preferred due to ease of plowing, drainage, headlight glare etc. Of > course 118 is a short stretch of road in semi-urban area where traffic > volumes can justify twinning. > 5. One of the important reasons we are not making progress with energy > conservation and pollution reduction is that we say nothing can be done > unless we all get together. We can't reduce N.S. highway traffic (or air > pollution from power generation etc.) because northeastern U.S. or > Ontario or Alberta aren't doing it or won't do it. Again we put the onus > on someone else. Of course it would help very much if our federal > authorities had a firm resolve and ideas to implement the Kyoto accord, > instead of more studies and postponements while playing provinces off one > against another. > 6. Short haul air trips are very inefficient. Getting the airplane taxied > and off the runway and up to flight level, only to land within 30 minutes > in polluting and energy wasteful, even if aircraft (like cars) have > become somewhat more efficient over the last decade or two. The market > tells of inefficiency through the high fares that must be charged. > Another problem is that a small aircraft takes up air space almost as > much as a jumbo jet. They can't be in the same place at the same time. A > major reason for the U.S. federal government spending billions of $$ on > the 150 mph Amtrak service between Boston, Providence, New Haven and New > York (and on to Washington) due to begin with Canadian built equipment > next year, is to eliminate many short-haul flights in the busy U.S. > northeast and avoid the collosal cost of twinning Boston's Logan airport. > Next fall the U.S. federal and Maine state governments will also > inaugurate a new 4 times daily rail service from northeast New England > (Portland, Brunswick, and Rockland Maine) to Boston, for congestion and > pollution avoidance. The same needs to be done at Pearson and Dorval and > work is beginning on this. > 7. Car and van pools are helpful for daily routine trips. The problem is > that they are not open to general public for random trips and in any case > are not publicized. If the province of N.S. would licence, market and