next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> are not publicized. If the province of N.S. would licence, market and My New address is guevara42@hotmail.com On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Paul A Falvo wrote: > 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 > > co-ordinate van services to supplement and feed (but not compete with or > > replace) our potentially efficient highway bus network, we would > > certainly benefit a great deal. > > 8. Re-laying rails is a provincial matter, as the Windsor & Hantsport Ry. > > between Sackville, N.S. and Kentville is provincially regulated. But I > > agree that the federal government should pay more attention to its > > federal rail mandate rather than becoming involved in the provincial > > jurisdiction of highways. > > > > Owen Hertzman wrote: > > > > > > At the risk of starting a war here, I don't agree with John and Karen on > > > the points about the twinning of HIghway 101. Regardless of the energy > > > and transportation implications, the safety aspects dominate. Both for > > > local people and for tourists, parts of that road are just plain evil, > > > particularly the section from Upper Sackville to Windsor. I know less > > > about the areas beyond Middleton, but surely a major highway to two > > > ferries and several tourist destinations should at least have more passing > > > lanes and some separation of the two streams of traffic, perhaps using > > > barriers as on the 118 in Dartmouth. > > > > > > The issue of getting back to rail transportation of goods is going to be > > > decided on a national, not a provincial stage, since the loading and > > > unloading of trains and trucks is a real issue in costs and behaviour in > > > other provinces has to move with us.. > > > > > > Finally, you dumped on short haul air trips. Very bad idea. Properly > > > run commuter air services are very energy efficient, particularly in that > > > they keep urban workers in more rural areas (viz. Maine, New Hampshire and > > > Vermont with Boston commuters served by Delta Express and other US > > > examples). The absolutely ludicrous fares on Air Nova and Air Atlantic > > > essentially drive away most people except those on expense accounts. > > > > > > It is absolutely correct that we ourselves are far greater polluters taken > > > together than any single point source. However, it's important to ask how > > > can we realistically reduce (e.g.) auto kilometres driven, without causing > > > great amounts of wasted time and hardship. If there were a truly > > > subsidized and frequent van pool service for valley commuters and to the > > > two ferries (Digby and Yarmouth) I think we would start to see some very > > > innovative internal travel changes, for both regular and occasional users. > > > Trips so the QEII Health Sciences Centre could also be more rationally > > > organized, especially from Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne, Annapolis and other > > > locations similar distances away from Halifax. > > > > > > I don't see any possibility of relaying rails anytime soon...at least > > > until we break the mindset in the House of Commons. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, John/Karen Pearce wrote: > > > > > > > Transport 2000 Atlantic July 29/98 > > > > The front page headline in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald hoodwinks the > > > > readers. It's very comfortable (but self righteous) to be able to point > > > > fingers at big bad industries as the evil enemies of the environment. The > > > > truth of the matter is that the biggest polluters, especially in terms of > > > > global warming, is US! But that's uncomfortable so we don't like to talk > > > > about it. We like our cars. Besides "us" are voters, and government is > > > > unlikely to want to offend us. > > > > > > > > By far the largest production of greenhouse gases and use of non-renewal > > > > petroleum resources is by the transportation sector. Trends in the way we > > > > travel and ship our goods are moving us farther away and not closer to > > > > our "Kyoto" goals. We are using our cars and making short-haul air trips > > > > more than ever. More important we are shipping our goods by truck rather > > > > than by rail which would be 3 to 6 times more environmentally efficient. > > > > Read the "Sustainable Transportation Monitor" obtainable from the Centre > > > > for Sustainable Transportation, cstctd@web.net, phone 416-923-9970. > > > > > > > > The recent campaign to twin highway 101 all the way to Digby under the > > > > guise of "safety" is a case in point. Traffic volumes, at least west of > > > > Kentville, cannot justify the 1/4 BILLION dollar expenditure. More roads > > > > just encourages more automobiles and trucks and long-distance commuting. > > > > Why not relay rail tracks west from Kentville at least to Middleton for > > > > freight and run a scheduled commuter bus from Kentville and Windsor into > > > > Halifax. That would ease rush-hour congestion and save lives for a > > > > fraction of the road expansion cost. > > > > > > > > Remember: Loosening your belt is NOT a cure for obesity! > > > > John Pearce, Transport 2000 Atlantic. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Paul A. Falvo chebucto.ns.ca/~pfalvo/Profile.html cy531@torfree.net > Chair, Eastern Canada Chapter, Sierra Club of Canada (416)694-1513 >
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects