Top Polluters is US!

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:50:28 -0300 (ADT)
From: Fred Hall <ai670@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Paul A Falvo <pfalvo@chebucto.ns.ca>
cc: Sustainable Maritimes <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sust-mar-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

&gt; 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