next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Owen Hertzman wrote: > > I'd like to attempt a partial response to some of what has been said about > my position on the 101 highway and on short haul air flights. > > 1) The 101 Highway > > It is clear to me that there are two interlocking problems which are being > confused here: one is safety the other is the way we (and others) choose > to travel. Regardless of the big issues (such as providing decent bus > and/or train service to get people out of their cars) there is a current > issue of safety. This requires two immediate steps: a) some spearation > of vehicles going in opposite directions and b) some ability for cars, > buses, trucks, trailers of different speeds to pass each other safely. > Some of this can be accomplished cheaply by putting physical barriers > between the different directions of traffic in the very dangerous areas. > The second thing which can be done is to build "turn outs" such as are > employed by Washington state. There, it is illegal to NOT use a turn out > when there are 5 or more cars directly behind you. This system works very > well and should be employed here. > Beyond those measures, there should be a serious debate about a frequent > subsidized and timely bus system which will enhance travel to activitios > in the Valley for those in Halifax and vice versa. > Take an example of the Atlantic Theatre Festival, a very worthwhile and > excellent cultural activity. Twice in the last month I have driven out > there in the afternoon (with 4 and 3 people in my Honda) to have a meal > and see a play. This involved driving home from Wolfville after 11 pm > both times. This is not a pleasant experience. If there had been bus > service coordinated with the ATF we sould have used it...you try driving > home after Othello!! > If a good bus system is employed (one with reservations and buses less > than 50 years old) then questions about which sections of the road are > dangerous can be brought up in the context of options for those who wish > to use the road. Then a rail versus road debate would make sense. The > problem with rail in areas with distributed population is the high cost > per trip compared to a bus. Also buses can alter their routes as > necessary (eg ACADIA football games, ATF, Fairs, etc. which happen > intermittently). Some comibination is also possible. > > 2) Short Haul Air Flights > > In many parts of the US, and in South America, short haul air routes are > removing cars from highways and providing quick access to the city for > country people (eg) Mexico, Brazil and some western states. In some > parts of the US, people are actually living in one city and working a few > days a month in another, while doing most of theit work on home computer. > Thbe question of what distances should be done by air versus on the > surface is certainly an issue. I know of the commuter air network into > Boston from parts of New England works very efficiently (I experienced the > service in 1989 while working briefly in Brunswick, ME.) It seems to me > that the goal of any commute is to make it no more than 60-75 minutes. If > distance, weather, road or rail conditions makes a surface trip longer > than that then air should be looked at. Certainly trips from Halifax to > Boston should be done by air unless someone is hauling an RV for a long > camping trip. Which brings up my final point.... > > 3) Cars > > I think it is very arrogant for any of us to assume that every car and/or > every car trip that is not essential should not be taken. There are many > people who don't get around very well...who don't bike, who don't walk > easily and who still wnat to get out. I think that having one car with a > four cyclinder engine for two people is not excessive. As far as pollution > is concerned our auto use represents less than a third of our home heating > use on a litre by litre basis. So, our pollution from non-essential trips > is a fairly small fraction of our personal ecological footprint. I have > argued both in my class and publicly that houses with 3 people and 5 > vehicles are the problem (unless they're farms). I would stick with that > analysis. I think it is a no-win position to try to brand all cars as > evil. Before we have a functioning alternative way to get city people to > the country and vice versa, I see no alternative. There are many crafts > people who require transport like this. > > More later. OH > > ________________________________________________________________ > Owen Hertzman E-mail: Owen.Hertzman@Dal.Ca > Dept. of Oceanography Phone: (902) 494-3683 > Dalhousie University FAX: (902) 494-2885 > Halifax, NS CANADA, B3H 4J1 I think my major concern is about the tremendous cost ($5 million to as much as $100 million per mile for urban or major bridge areas) of highways and the alternatives such as health care, education, environmental remediation, and much public transportation which could be purchased as an alternative. The public seems generally unaware of how this hits their taxes/pocketbooks. One quarter of the provincial debt in Ontario has been found by Transport 2000 Ontario to be due to borrowing for highway building. The subsequent interest is on general debt and never attributed to highways. I have little to add to earlier comments about the economic and environmental costs of short-haul air flights. John Pearce
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects