"Climate Action Plan?" LOL

Yup, nobody does it better when it comes to the novel art of the lie than these guys. It's where they truly shine. They could write their doctorates in it.

Speaking of doctorates - there is a real difference between schooling and intelligence...and University of Victoria earth and ocean sciences professor Andrew Weaver is an apt example when he says:

"It is silly pegging it to greenhouse gasses. It's silly, but not in a mean way.... This is a harmless announcement."

Yeah....as silly and as harmless as hiring a fox to guard the chicken coop

"Silly"? or " banal" perhaps?

The concept of the banality of evil came into prominence following the publication of Hannah Arendt's 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt's thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.

Edward S. Herman
from the book : Triumph of the Market

Cabinet

Our provincial Cabinet thinks we are morons. There's no other explanation. They feel they don't even need to try to tell a good lie. Couldn't they at least put a little thought into it? C'mon Liberals, put your heads together and get creative. More roads = less CO2? We're paying you for that? I demand a really inspiring, jaw-dropping, awesome lie. I know you can do it.

Climate Action Team does Silly Happy Dance

.....this just in: "Impending Environmental Collapse has been Averted."

Oh the humanity! Yes, the overwhelming evidence is in. Environmental catastrophe has been forestalled as Gordo was spotted today wearing a tie of different....(hold your breath)..... "colour".

He is no longer wearing his pretend Liberal red tie but has donned a pretend Green green one instead.

I know this may sound silly....but don't worry, be happy!.... as this has been scientifically confirmed by a group of scientists also wearing green ties.... so it must be true.

Whew!...that was a close one......the planet is saved.

Moat........

......for the cost of the proposed SkyTrain subway from Clark Drive to UBC, I could build LRT from BCIT to UBC and downtown Vancouver; Diesel LRT from Vancouver to Chilliwack and Abbotsford Airport; and a 'real' LRT line from the Tri-cities to SFU (and even connecting to BCIT).

Why does Campbell and Falcon want the most expensive (SkyTrain) or unworkable (RapidBus) option, because they either want it strictly for political prestige or the need of more new roads (for RapidBus) and building roads are a cheaper option.

Campbell, Falcon and even the NDP don't have the wit to understand modern public transit philosophy and continue to support expensive and unworkable transit solutions.

more roads equals less brains

More roads. Pfft. 20th c. solutions.

More rail for freight and people is a good idea. Making cycling way, way more attractive to otherwise able, fat-ass drivers is a good idea.

Off-peak scheduling for deliveries and road transport... another good idea.

Giving a yes-man with an inferiority complex the transportation portfolio... and having him take direction from a premier with little or no understanding of the issue ... the grand-daddy of bad ideas

Bring businesses to

Bring businesses to localities and much of the commuter problem will be solved.

The biggest problem is the collectivization and "get big or get out" syndrome capitalism learned from Soviet communism, for the sake of "monetary efficiency", forcing people to move into inefficient cities and communities for monetary benefits to a few, while transferring real costs on the public and the environment.

In any case, much , or even most, of the office work these people are commuting to could be done in their homes with computer hookups. Apparently Telus is doing a bit of this now, but most employers seem to like to see people come to offices, as it gives them a feeling of power.

Higher speeds also use more fuel by much higher percentages than the speed gained, because "Mass increases with speed".

Campbell is only passing on orders, he himself receives from his superiors and the Fraser Inst. to his underlings. The man has a pretty head with very little inside.

In other words, a good Reformer....

Ed Deak.

Price of Freedom to high?

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3509/Going_Bankrupt

and E=MCe2

Ed:
I don't think there would be a measurable mass gain when one accelerates from 30 km per hour to 100km per hour. Wind resistance is the main factor. No matter how streamlined your vehicle greater speed will require greater energy input once you exceed "hull speed".
That particular speed for most shapes in air is somewhat less the 80 kmph and has more to do with length and smoothness than available power

Wood....... What I wrote was

Wood....... What I wrote was that fuel consumption INCREASES in far greater percentages than speed gained.

There are some objects, where doubling the speed demands squared fuel intake.

The same applies to any increases of speed not only in vehicles, or boats, or planes, but also in sports, and especially in production systems, where the replacement of single workers may demand energy inputs of dozens, or hundreds of hp.

This is one of the biggest causes of pollution, illnesses like cancers, resource waste, poverty and global warming, etc.

Something economists and politicians have yet to figure out, not to mention the sucker public who accepts and votes for them .

Ed Deak.

Hogs at the money trough

It always amuses me when the Politicians with their gold plated pension plan, gorge themselves with a pay raise. Then trying to justify these excessive raises with the lame excuse ,that, in order to get quality people in government we must, pay quality wages. Quality people!
This government has "one" quality person, and she leaving at the end of this term. Can't say I blame Carol. Hard to fly like an eagle when your flying amongst sh!t hawks. So here they are throwing money around all the major towns in BC, spending it as fast as the turds that come out of Victoria's sewer outlet into Strait of Juan De fuca. The sole purpose , to buy votes, votes in the major areas. No don't go spend money on the Hope Princeton Highway with its treacherous curves with its fuel burning , brake over heating hills. No pollution there, the trees are almost dead from the the pine beetle anyway. AHH, the kicker ,there no votes along that highway. These thieves in Victoria are stealing our money. Money that belongs to the rural areas, is being spent to buy votes in the Larger centers. The environment, as far as those twits in Victoria are concerned stops at Hope. With a little luck the tide will turn, maybe enough that the twits drown in their own turds their sending out to the Strait.

overpasses and no lights

careful there... you may end up uttering the 'f' word

Luke Skywalker: Quote:No

Luke Skywalker:

Andrew Weaver isn't going to produce an estimate because he is an ocean scientist, not an urban planner:

http://web.uvic.ca/eosc/people/weaver.htm

It even says so in the article.

There are people qualified to give such an estimate, though. You would probably not like their answer.

Budd Campbell, I haven't

Budd Campbell,

I haven't read a post from you since this

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/05/25/ClearViewVancouver/

From the quote below, I see you're up to the same old nuttery, eh?

Wow. So many inane falsehoods to point out, so little time...

IT'S TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT

"Wow. So many inane falsehoods to point out, so little time..."

Give it up, Jimmy. It's true that faux ledftists who haven't met a blue collar worker in years like to conflate their anti-auto, anti-highways gospel along with their intense hatred of Bush and America. The silliest thing about this band of rabble is that they hate Kerry more than Bush for losing. What kind of childish snit they're going to get into with Carole James I shudder to think, but I don't plan to be around to see the immaturity and the gutlessness up close and personal.

SEATING CAPACITY ON O-TRAINS

Budd - Capacity is a function of headway, a two car O-Train would carry about 500 persons; thus capacity is said to be 500 persons per hour per direction. More trains operating per hour the higher the capacity.

Pardon me, but that figure of 500 people per two car train is very hard to accept. The O-train cars are one level vehicles. Even a two-level GO or WCE type car has at most about 150 seats, so the one level car must be less. Unless you're doing the Skytrain "crush load" thing, there's no way it's 500 people per two car train.

CAN WE PLEASE NOT BE SILLY?

"In 2006, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) continued the trend of long-term improvement in air quality, however,
maximum pollutant concentrations still exceeded the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) in some areas of the region."

Grumpy, this is a quote from your second source. It basically says there's some problems. It doesn't say press the panic button, on the contrary, things are geting better. Obviously, you didn't read it, did you?

Whoa, Grumpy!

We may get through this without turning the thread into a Skytrain\Subway vs. Lightrail debate.

We know that building an elevated system or subway from Alma to UBC is overkill at the moment. Light rail would be the way to go... and in the future, we could build that subway or elevated system if need be. Heck, we ripped out our light rail network once before, and we could probably do it again.

Maybe we could get some of those developers into thinking about LRT to UBC as a way of freeing up some of those massive parking lots at UBC for residential development.

I do disagree with you when you suggest that our government really favors Skytrain type of technology. I just think that they like to promise it because the public likes it, but building (and paying for it) becomes the burden of future governments.

Skytrain to Langley by 2030? They make 20 years sound like it is slightly longer than 5 years. I agree.... the valley needs light rail, now.

Time bandits!

The light rail/SkyTrain debate......

.........must happen, because it has not. This has left everyone with a complete ignorance about transit, including the media! Almost every city in North America have had an open debate on transit, including LRT, metro SkyTrain/RAV), and RapidBus, and affordable transit decisions have been made, not so in the Metro Area!

Budd, O-Train (the Bombardier number being used in Ottawa) is a three section articulated vehicle, about as long as 3 MK.1 SkyTrain cars capacity 225 people. Vehicle capacity is based on all seats occupied and standees @ 4 persons per sq. metre. (TransLink likes to use 8 persons standing peer sq. metre for RAV cars!) As O-Train cars are more spacious than 3 MK.1 cars, advertised capacity is about 250 per car.

Now, other companies are offering modular Diesel LRT cars, with capacity at about 60 persons per module and cars can be made up to 6 modules!

Alda - Calgary's problem is not the C-Train, but a starvation of investment on a very successful system. Planner's in Calgary have forgotten what LRT is and now treat it as a railway and all plans have LRT built to railway standards, which takes much of the cost advantage of LRT away.

In Vancouver, the $90 million/km. for SkyTrain, still double of that of Calgary's LRT to build has hamstrung any attempt to make a much needed 'rail' network happen!

Example: "There is not enough density for 'Rapid Transit' in the Fraser Valley."

If SkyTrain was cheaper than LRT to build and operate, as advertised in the late 70's and early 80's, it would have been the system 'du jour'. But SkyTrain's high construction costs and even much higher operating costs (almost 3 times of that of Calgary's) has made the mode an orphan.

Every independent transit survey......

......in the region has shown the public favouring LRT over SkyTrain; Every BC Transit/TransLink survey show the public favouring SkyTrain.

The BC Government has refused any independent debate on transit and have always forced the 'metro' on the taxpayer.

SkyTrain is the big reason why only 12% of the 'Metro' population using public transit.

Grumpy, you've just repeated

Grumpy, you've just repeated what I said,
which is that the C train IS a valuable and necessary infrastructure - but that it hasn't been maintained, developed, and improved the way it should, and has, thus, become an unmitigated disaster. Sit in Calgary traffic,(no longer just at rush hour) but at ANY time of day, and you'll know that the LRT ridership isn't HALF of what it should be.

The C-train might have started out as a "successful system," but it is quickly losing efficacy, due to little expansion of stations and trains, lack of security, and the unplanned-for flood in population.
In a wealthy city at the hub of one of the hottest industries in the world, the LRT is symbolic of incompetent (municipal, but mostly provincial) governance.

WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH MOAT?

"While Highway 1 is ugly, it is not as bad as Falcon and others claim."

"I again state that Los Angeles and Toronto are close…. But only in good weather, with no accidents, construction, or police incidents. And where is this going to happen?"

"We have had over 40 years of this mess – the costly freeway experiment is not working."

OTOH, ... Hwy 1 is ugly. But it's not so bad really, Falcon's just pretending about that part.

OTOH, ... Toronto and Los Angeles have reasonably good freeway systems. But they never work because of accidents and weather and too may police cars.

And then again, the last 40 years proves that the freeway mess isn't working.

SKYTRAIN IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE creme de la creme

"Budd, O-Train (the Bombardier number being used in Ottawa) is a three section articulated vehicle, about as long as 3 MK.1 SkyTrain cars capacity 225 people. Vehicle capacity is based on all seats occupied and standees @ 4 persons per sq. metre. (TransLink likes to use 8 persons standing peer sq. metre for RAV cars!) As O-Train cars are more spacious than 3 MK.1 cars, advertised capacity is about 250 per car."

Thanks for the information, Grumpy. I was only on the O-train once and I didn't understand that what appeared to me to be separate cars were really one articulated car.

These figures of four and even eight people per metre are hard to visualize. I try looking down at the carpet and visualizing a section three feet one way and three feet the other way, and then imagining four people standing in there, some with bags, packs, etc. The idea of eight is truly unimaginable. I think the expression the equipment sales people use is "crush load", and I can't do better than that.

As a WCExpress passenger I really pity the people who are expected to ride the Skytrain cattle cars. Stubbornly sticking with that approach is one more cynical gesture of contempt for suburban commuters on the part of the Westside "creme de la creme" crowd, and their shameless political hirelings in local and provincial and even federal office.

G WEST, NOT GRUMPY

"In 2006, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) continued the trend of long-term improvement in air quality, however, maximum pollutant concentrations still exceeded the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) in some areas of the region."

I meant to direct this exceprt at G West, not Grumpy. Must have been late or something.

Budd

Surely you didn't think I hadn't read that.

Go back and read my original post - the point was that freeways make the problem worse - not better.

The fact that California's emission control legislation has limited the growth of the problem is irrelevant.

Cities with decent and comprehensive rapid transit do not have the atmospheric pollution and C02 problems that cities with freeways do.

You must have been up late all right!

WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE G WEST?

"Cities with decent and comprehensive rapid transit do not have the atmospheric pollution and C02 problems that cities with freeways do.

You must have been up late all right!"

As you know, G West, there is absolutley nothing whatsoever in that report about freeways or any other form of transporation.

I was indeed up late last nite. What's your excuse for claiming that this report supports your theory when it does nothing of the sort?

Campbell Buddy

The GVRD likes to peddle this stuff, Stump.

Of course they do. It makes sense. They're in good company. A lot of jurisdictions and individuals have come to the same logical conclusion.

All those voices are wrong, but you are right? Oh please.

VISION: MORE of the SAME!

Plan for the future by building more of the same! Some vision!

Sounds like some leadership!

Why not be done with it and pave the entire lower mainland! Then sell every square meter!

That way the future may arrive sooner!

I can't wait!

GVRD BIKE RHETORIC NOTHING BUT TALK

Of course they do. It makes sense. They're in good company. A lot of jurisdictions and individuals have come to the same logical conclusion.

All those voices are wrong, but you are right? Oh please.

Exactly who is "all those voices", Stump? Is that your own voice perhaps? Or are these voices you swear you are hearing, but which others cannot hear? You just don't seem to realize or else just don't care that you're being used. I'll bet the "planning" bureaucrats have a real good private chuckle over guys like you playing into their hands so effortlessly.

Whenever the "planning" circus comes to Maple Ridge to talk about transportation there's always one (1) guy in the crowd they can point to who cycle commutes from Pitt Meadows to Braid Station, then Skytrains it to wherever his work location is. That's one (1) guy.

I have asked you this before and got nothing but ridiculously pompous self-advertising in return, just as I got no answer whatsoever from the GVRD "planner" type. But what the Hell, I'll try anyway. Stump, ... what do you think is a reasonable distance for bike commuting? I am going to suggest trips up to about 10 kilometres, on the grounds that this would take a person about three quarters of an hour assuming an average mix of hills and intersections, etc.

If the GVRD is serious about bike commuting, where is their map of dedicated bicycle paths? What is their standard design width? (I think Burnaby has chosen 3.5 metres) How much is the GVRD "planning" to spend on building these bike paths?

And since you're an such an acknowledged expert {* cough *} on bike commuting, Stump, why don't you tell us what the accident and casualty rates are for bicycle travel? How do they compare to travel in buses, cars, motorcycles, etc.?

What does any of your above

What does any of your above points have to do with road-building as a green solution? If you want me to concede we should spend more on cycling infrastructure I give you my whole-hearted agreement on that point.

If accident rates and casaulty rates are your concern I'm shocked to find you barracking for more cars. They are one of the deadlier ways to travel.

Every last tree

I have another theory:

The sides of highway 101 where I live on the coast were logged for miles and miles a few years ago under the premise that our very winding highway would be widened and straightened...and generally improved.

In came the american logging companies. Down by the hundreds came the very old and very grand Douglas firs that bordered our highway.

Out went the logging trucks filled with BC trees, day after day, for months and months.

What was once a grandeur to behold is now miles and miles of a very long and winding sight of despair.

Years later the highway has yet to be widened, straightened or improved.

Now imagine if that was happening all over BC... which it very well could be. That's certainly not much a stretch of the imagination under the forest policies of this government.

Imagine the trees that would suddenly be made available/accessible for logging (where previously they were not) through the premise/eco-green scam of "widening" our highways.

How many miles of rural highway (up for this green logging grab) do we have in BC?

Budd Budd Budd - you're the one

You're the one who named certain cities, remember this:

I just posted one of many studies about air quality in the places that happen to have massive freeway systems - you're the one who slammed Vancouverites, Walter Hardwick and anyone else you could think of for not supporting freeways here in the lower mainland since (how long ago was it Budd) the sixties.

Now please, let's stop the nonsense.

If you can't see the connection - I'm wasting my time talking to you - you're not interested in doing anything but airing your own personal grievances on this issue my friend - and it shows.

This argument is over. You lost.

BIKING CAN BE DEADLY

If accident rates and casaulty rates are your concern I'm shocked to find you barracking for more cars. They are one of the deadlier ways to travel.

I recently came across a table of data through The Livable Blog which had American accident figures for various modes of travel. Bicycling was much higher than cars.

HARDWICK IS GONE BUT HIS PREJUDICE LIVES ON

I just posted one of many studies about air quality in the places that happen to have massive freeway systems - you're the one who slammed Vancouverites, Walter Hardwick and anyone else you could think of for not supporting freeways here in the lower mainland since (how long ago was it Budd) the sixties.

Your study had nothing to do with freeways or highways or vehicle travel at all. It's solely concerned with measuring air quality. No doubt motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, but so do other industries. In Canada, less that 20% of all GHGs come from gas and diesel cars and light trucks.

Budd

But that's the whole point. Don't you get it?

Many of the same cities that have gone the freeway route for the last half of the 20th century ARE the self same ones with the air quality and CO2 problems today. That's what a little analysis and some insight will tell you Budd - I shouldn't have had to explain it once - let alone three times, c'mon.

You have bones to pick with the big municipalities and I do too - but this simply isn't going to be the answer to anything. It is, frankly, criminal, to continue in this direction and exacerbate the problems we already have.

End of story.

The lower mainland and the Fraser Valley would be a worse sewer than they already are if Hardwick (and a whole lot of others you choose to ignore) hadn't stopped the freeways you and Campbell (the phony green) and the Falconator are now determined to concentrate on.

That 20% is the easiest segment to tackle Budd. Remember, people CAN get along without their cars - heating their homes isn't so easy to forego - 80% of the country needs heat about 60% of the year.

And good planning can't just worry about roads - it must also be concerned with re-creating local viable communities and getting rid of big-box stores in the centre of acres of ashphalt. This is NOT rocket science. There are communities in England right now that are going completely green - you can look it up.
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/Opening_Green_Doors_tcm2-29435.pdf

You're desperately trying to defend a lost cause.

YOU'RE NOT BEING SERIOUS, G WEST

"End of story.
...
That 20% is the easiest segment to tackle Budd"

Clearly G West you're not being serious. It's nothing but pop science babble to consciously propose to put all your weight on 20% of the issue.

And tell me this. Do you seriously believe that Dr David Suzuki drives to his cottage in the Spatsizi country in his Prius? I have a funny feeling the Prius stays at home in Pt Grey and the 4-Runner or the Sequoia or whatever else it is that the Doctor has stashed away outside the view of the cameras makes the journey instead.

There's no doubt that Los Angeles and other cities would do well to put more of their commuters onto public transit. But that's been difficult in America, and Canada too, because gas taxes are low and changing family and lifestyle arrangments, the rising labour force participation of married women most importantly, has led to much more dispersed commuting patterns that are difficult for transit to service.

And that's just the trip to work. Other social trips, from shopping to recreation, are even harder to attract onto transit. I take the WCExpress to work in downtown Vancouver from my home in Maple Ridge, but if my wife and I are coming into town on a weekend for a play or concert driving is the only practical choice in terms of the value of our time.

Who said anything about ALL

In any campaign you attack the softest spots first - and people needlessly and heedlessly driving their cars and SUVs are soft spots - get going on the transit - forget the freeways - give people a grant to convert to Natural gas. Any other approach in this country is just stupid.

Then you get after harder targets like home heating, insulation and electricity.

Easy Peasy.

I couldn't care less what Suzuki does - the point is there are tens of thousands of commuters driving their damn cars needlessly. Why'd you even bring him up - desperation?

More money on more roads is ridiculous and ten years from now all you dinosaurs will recognize that too.

ROAD SPACE NEEDED EVEN IF EMISSIONS ARE ZERO

"More money on more roads is ridiculous and ten years from now all you dinosaurs will recognize that too"

You're wrong. Even if every vehicle is converted to a ZEV, the demand for road space will still be there given continuing growth in population and employment, and rising real incomes.

Nice!

Where did I ever say anything of the sort? Please read my words again.

It isn’t exactly the kind of thing you can win an argument with – accusing your interlocutor of saying what you ‘wish’ he’d said instead of what he actually did say.
You're the one promoting wider roads and more freeways as a green alternative, remember?
The point is, we'd be in a bigger and deeper hole than we are now if you and road builders association had been in charge and there were freeways everywhere from Hope to Horseshoe Bay.

You know that's true. The evidence is irrefutable and in 10 years, if we don't make better choices today, the case will be even more profound. Of course by that time Campbell the greenie will be long gone

Wait and see. In the meantime, that's it for me. I don't get any pleasure out of kicking a man when he's down.

Bye!

G West: HAVE SLOGANS, WILL POST

In the meantime, that's it for me. I don't get any pleasure out of kicking a man when he's down.

Bye!

That's really very funny, G West. The self-declared winner is running off, out of pity for the vanquished, of course. What else could it be?

You're not understanding that propaganda (what's officially "green", what's officially "brown", what's said to be "greenwashing", etc.) is really just pop jargon and tinhorn slogans. At best they are a substitute for real thought, at worst they inhibit it. It's kind of like a Gresham's Law effect, where bad thinking drives out good, till only junk and nonsense remain.

If you want to read something serious about auto externalities I can refer you to a recent article in the AEA's Journal of Economic Literature. And as well, in the same journal, two very interesting reviews of the Stern Review on climate change. Something tells me you're not interested, in the same way that the habituated MacDonald's patrons aren't interested in the extra two bucks it would take to go to a decent restaurant.

Keep posting Budd

When someone can't sustain an argument it's a great idea to call your interlocutor names. As far as economists and wisdom are concerned - well, let's not go there.

Happens all the time around here Budd and responding to that kind of thing is as big a waste of time as debating politics with Ian King. I know you know all about that too.

I don't suggest your ideas are junk and nonsense - but you are wrong.

In my opinion.

Have a nice weekend.

BIKING CAN BE DEADLY

Frying bacon in your underwear can be deadly.

Cars can't offer the solution to our problems. Getting rid of as many cars as possible can offer part of the solution.

It's simple. Just not profitable.

BTW, biking gets a little

BTW, biking gets a little safer every time there's one less car on the road.

And... it's also been studied and proven; the long-term benefits of cycling combined with the accident rate compared with the sedentary effects of driving plus accident rate demonstrates that in the long run as a cohort regular cyclists have a longer life expectancy than habitual drivers.

I KNEW YOU WOULDN'T READ IT

As far as economists and wisdom are concerned - well, let's not go there.

What's your theory, G West? Why is there such a red hot market for ideology in BC, and such contempt for anything that might be real research and real thought? Why the snearing derision for economics and social sciences on the one hand, and the hushed reverence for natural sciences on the other?

It's not your ideas that are junk and nonsense. It's the slogans and the agreed-upon rhetoric that some bunch has told you is the flavour-du-jour, and that you just have to go along to get along. I've seen that sort of thing in political parties and it seems to extend to others as well.

BEGINNING TO GET THE PICTURE

BTW, biking gets a little safer every time there's one less car on the road.

And... it's also been studied and proven; the long-term benefits of cycling combined with the accident rate compared with the sedentary effects of driving plus accident rate demonstrates that in the long run as a cohort regular cyclists have a longer life expectancy than habitual drivers.

Stump, I see what you're driving at, if you'll pardon the expression. No wonder you're so opposed to Gateway and to any increase in auto capacity. Removing cars from the roads would substantially reduce your own very considerable personal risk of death and injury. For you this really is a life and death struggle.

As to your second point I find it hard to believe and would appreciate a source if you have one. In the meantime, I will look up the table of accident rates I was refering to.

You still haven't said what you think a reasonable distance for bike commuting is. I offered up to 10 kilometres.

What do you think is a reasonable age group for bike commuting? Would ages 15 to 54 be about right, or do you want to extend it upwards to the mid sixties? What about people in their seventies? Are they exempt from your call to action?

and a Hummer to you too

Interesting arguments going on here.
Has anyone noticed that we often have some pretty bad weather in BC?
Standing in line waiting for an overcrowded bus or train is no better than trying to make your way on a pedal bike, when there is rain or snow.
Also, thanks to speculators many of our neighbourhoods are designed so that any and all services are far away.
The streets in these newer areas are not built to standards that will support heavy bus-traffic.
All together that makes for a situation where public transit at best is an option that requires walking for long distances.
To suddenly expect families to abandon the car in order to reduce pollution is silly, people bought where they did because they saw commuting as a cheaper alternative to living in the centre of town.
Besides we have so many examples of uncontrolled pollution that one wonders: "why pick on my vehicle?"
The idea of making traffic flow easier at least has some merit, and widening certain segments of roadway as well as roundabouts, will help, and so would updated regulations about speed.
We have become a nation of vehicles capable of safe high speed driving, and all we do is run along at idle speed, doing more damage to the engines and creating more pollution than driving at more reasonable speeds.
If worried about accidents, then ban all the gadgets that distract drivers, and insist on proper driver training, use simulators to determine an applicants skills and reaction times, instead of relying on underpaid staff, that incidentally may be bribed.

Why building roads doesn't ultimately cut greenhouse gases

Yes, improving roads "will improve traffic flow and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles"
IF
You also freeze new car registrations. That doesn't happen. So making it easier to drive attracts more vehicles, which leads to congestion, which leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles.

We need these wider roads

By the of widening the roads, we at The Ministry of Homeless will be able to accommodate more of our future homeless citizens. Additionally these paved shoulders will allow for more creature comfort. With the natural slowing down of winter driving traffic, due to poor winter road maintenance. Heated exhaust fumes that only pollute the atmosphere, will come to serve a real purpose. This untapped resource, will be directed down onto the homeless, by the slow moving vehicles, which will provide for a very comfortable and warm sleep. And, its free heat. At the Ministry of Homelessness here in Lotus Land we have a slogan board that says "A WARM HOMELESS PERSON, IS A HAPPIER MORE PRODUTIVE HOMELESS PERSON". When the hot summer heat is upon the road. We will mandate a substantial speeding up of the traffic, there by, causing a rapid movement of the air. The desired effect, will be the cooling of our homeless friends, and, will allow for a nice cool restful sleep. We at The Ministry of Homeless are also proud to point out another cost saving measure we acquired on behalf of the public. The previously mentioned slogan sign is magnetic, thereby with the change of seasons we can remove the word " WARM" in the summer and replace it with the word "COOL". Gordon is so proud of us.

LOL, woody

Your sense of humour comes to the fore more and more.

Perhaps the Ministry could issue the homeless new cardboard gas chambers ... er .... cardboard boxes, to keep the exhaust fumes in for better warmth?

Zalm

Your right, there is probably some P3 buddy of Gordon's on the phone lobbying for it right now.

alive

Because we are the "little guy" -- the proverbial 98 pound (44 kg) weakling?

CARS DON'T DRIVE THEMSELVES

You also freeze new car registrations. That doesn't happen. So making it easier to drive attracts more vehicles, which leads to congestion, which leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles.

I have heard this theory many times, DNA. People don't buy a car because a road has been widened. It depends on their income, the prices of cars and fuel, etc. If a city widened it's roads, and then there was a recession, vehicle traffic would decrease.

Budd Campbell: Quote:It's

Budd Campbell:

What a bunch of rubbish. Nothing but insults and false generalisations. Truly pathetic. But moreover all of this is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Wha...? You must have gone off your meds.