Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter
Many jurisdictions, not just Vancouver, have used the term "pilot" to describe a project used to demonstrate an infrastructure concept that if successful can then be rolled out to other locations.
The Dunsmuir bike lanes is a pilot in that sense. It is testing an idea that could be implemented on a wider scale.
The city has always been clear that the barriers for Dunsmuir would be permanent as opposed to the barriers for Burrard which were designed to be removed if the trial resulted in major problems.
Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
The evidence is quite clear. Cities who have introduced cycling and transit infrastructure at the expense of motor vehicle infrastructure actually have lower emissions than Vancouver.
Believing that we can meet our ghg emission targets without significantly reducing motor vehicle trips is the true pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
|
I call BS. Generally speaking when you reduce emissions in one place you increase them even more in another, that or you lower economic growth which is really the same thing. You will again need to release more emissions in the short or long term to achieve the same level of economic growth locally, nationally or globally. When you ride your bike you contribute to waste and emissions even more then car users, if your activity was more efficient then everyone would naturally do it. Im not against biking, I bike, and obviously there is a balance we try to reach between government and the free market.
And as far a motor vehicle trips go what are you going to do once the emission rates for cars are insignificantly low to non existent. What do you think will happen to the economies of cities that have damaged their infrastructure and reduced their flexibility. Personal transportation vehicles like cars are here to stay because their efficient, and their efficient because their flexible, you can go from any point to any point at any time you need to.
Threaded Mode