Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton

[omro]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

It doesn't matter what we do here in Canada or in the rest of the Western industrialized world for that matter. We only represent 1/5th of the worlds population. The other 4/5ths are in the developing world and they are not about to retard their growth to appease our environmental concerns.

However, if we don't hold ourselves to a high standard, how can we ask anyone else to?

The "developing" world is developing faster than the "developed" world did (seeing as they don't have to reinvent the wheel, just be taught how to make it). While this isn't widespread, some bright people in those countries (or from other countries working there), are actually working to implement green technologies now, during that country's development, rather than having to build "dirty" technologies now, rip them out and reimplement them green later, like the "developed" world has to.

[BrianE]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I am sure my kids your kids and our respective grandkids will be just fine.

As you can see from my comments I don't subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios. The world will live on and thrive for millions of years to come despite all the doom and gloom from the environmental fringe.

It doesn't matter what we do here in Canada or in the rest of the Western industrialized world for that matter. We only represent 1/5th of the worlds population. The other 4/5ths are in the developing world and they are not about to retard their growth to appease our environmental concerns.

I've always wanted to ask someone with opinions like yours a few questions, just to see what your line of thinking is.

Feel free to ignore them if you like.

Anybody else can answer them if they like too.

1. In Dollars/Litre what price of gas do you think you could afford to pay in order to keep using the number cars you currently own?

2. Picture your neighborhood. If you had to, would you be willing to walk to the store everyday to do your shopping? Or is it simply way too far.

3. Have you ever decided not to buy a particular house because the road out front is too busy?

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street would the property be less or more desirable to you?

5. Do you think it's fair that we as 1/5th of the worlds population produce more than 60% of green house gas emissions? Shouldn't we be striving to only produce our 20% share?

6. Are you aware that in the Hamilton area the summer of 2007 was one of the driest on record

7. Are you aware that in the Hamilton area the summer of 2008 was one of the wettest on record.

8. Do you find that odd?

9. I hate to be topical but did you notice that the Red River just crested at it's highest level in 112 years.

[highwater]

I 'noticed' the plants in my garden that should be dormant are still green in December. Last year my son 'noticed' a caterpillar in the woods on New Year's Day. But I guess you have to step away from the big screen tv to notice these things. It's easier to live in Happy Pony Land when you go straight from the SUV to the couch.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

As you can see from my comments I don't subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios. The world will live on and thrive for millions of years to come despite all the doom and gloom from the environmental fringe.

The world will do just fine, but I'm interested in what western civilization will look like once the access of our western civilization to cheap, abundant oil goes into decline.

I've studied the alternatives in some detail, and it doesn't look to me like any combination of viable alternatives can replace oil's sheer versatility, energy density, and ease of transport.

I don't "subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios" either, but I like to see a path from here to there: in this case, from today's economy to your optimistic future where we get to go on living in the manner to which we have clearly grown accustomed.

Your optimism notwithstanding, I don't think you can trace a plausible status quo trajectory into the future, given the facts on the ground.

Note: "new technologies" and "market forces" do not qualify as answers - particularly the latter, since market forces can just as easily match supply and demand by destroying demand as by creating supply (as the past few years have demonstrated).

• Renewable energy sources - wind, solar, geothermal - certainly can't replace oil at current consumption rates.
• Biofuels have a very low EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) and in every case in operation today, depend on massive hydrocarbon inputs to grow them in the first place.
• Nuclear power has a number of serious problems both technical and political - not to mention the fact that nuclear power plants still require cheap, abundant oil to construct and operate.
• Cold fusion is a will-o-the-wisp, with no prospects for commercial application for at least several decades.
• Hydrogen is not a power source but a medium of storage - and a net energy sink at that.

On top of all that, climate change is a real, demonstrable, empirically observed phenomenon - and it's going to create some serious challenges that we need somehow to address sooner or later.

All this means we're almost certainly going to have to get used to the idea that our economy and living arrangements will have to operate on a significantly lower baseline energy supply than they do today.

We don't have several decades put this off: the global oil production rate is already at or very near an all-time peak (probably the former) of around 85 million barrels per day, and the decline, once it begins, will be irreversible.

Neither God nor the technology fairies are going to put more oil in the ground or reverse the second law of thermodynamics. When an oilfield declines to the point that it costs more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, it's effectively depleted, regardless of how much oil is still left in the ground.

N.B. that the technologies developed in the past few decades - slant drilling, water injection, etc. - have succeeded mainly in increasing the rate of extraction, not the total recoverable yield. The latter is susceptible to the oil price (i.e. the higher the price, the higher recoverable yield at a profit), but even that is still bounded on top by EROEI.

All of this is to state not that the sky is falling, but that we have identified some serious long-term constraints on our ability to continue doing things the way we do them today. As a civilization, we can choose to respond to this feedback and adjust our living arrangements to make them more sustainable, or we can choose to do nothing and hope for the best.

Successful civilizations, like successful organisms, choose the former: apprehending feedback from their surroundings, responding appropriately and creatively to changing circumstances, and learning to thrive in the new environment.

At the same time, human history, like the biological record, is littered with the remains of civilizations and organisms that opted for the latter.

A positive future isn't something that just drops into our laps from the heavens. It's an outcome that we create through awareness of the challenges we face and a willingness to face them.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by BrianE

9. I hate to be topical but did you notice that the Red River just crested at it's highest level in 112 years.

Isn't that just representative of a very cold winter in the Midwest?

In 1937 the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada of 45 C was in Midale Saskatchewan. Is that odd? What should people have done then?

I'm not saying that carbon in the atmosphere doesn't have an effect, but that a lot of these weather records have a gaussian distribution characteristic to them (via the central limit theorem) and that over a period of time, you will get records at either extreme.

[adam]

Extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes have never occurred with such frequency. Ice that has never been melted for thousands of years is suddenly melting - and its length and width is being measured in kilometres.. All of that extra water has to go somewhere.

All the ice that's melting is the earth's way of cooling itself off, but what happens when there is no ice left?? The waters start to superheat and EVERYTHING dies. That's not far-fetched. If you follow current trends, that's where its headed. Incidentally I just realized I feel like I'm writing this for school children... but I guess some people out there really haven't taken the time to educate themselves. Its really sad.

[bornagainbiking]

We as Canadians are a responsible breed. But every watch "W" and Dick Cheney tells Colin Powell "We are 5% of the world's population and use 10% of the resources" So where does that leave us. China still uses coal and has major pollution issues. I never saw one spiral light bulb in my last trip to Ohio and NY state. Low rate faucets and low rate toilets in the US, probably non-existant but what do we do we go nuts recycle, go green, reduce our impact (and yes I have a full compliment of low watt bulbs and navy shower aeriator heads, Low water front loader washer)
We forget in winter that a 100 watt bulb would generate heat for our home.
So we as a nation are trying even though many apartment dwellers find it easier to just trash items.
Funny, we see that we want to reduce our impact and fossil fuel useage, just wait to see a major rise in oil consumption with $2000 cars in China and India. So much for your Hybrid's effect compared to 100,000's of new cars.
We try and our own auto makers fight us on fuel economy standards.
Especially when we get our oil from outside Canada.
So if you want to preach the efforts and determination of individuals first look at our own industry standards.
Our design of cities and reluctance of any government to promote and implement immediately freight movemtn by rail,and water. And get a regular mode of transport that will replace air for short hops. Anything between Halifax and Windsor. Just like Europe.
Hamilton and the KING/MAIN expressways. Do not encourage bike use it is too scary.
Get a hovercraft ferry for Burlington to the Discovery Centre and a bus turnaround there direct to downtown.
We do so much but do you think Mexico does anything or Russia or China or India. We are under 30 Million with lots of space. How big is the world.
Earth Day WOW

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by BrianE

I've always wanted to ask someone with opinions like yours a few questions, just to see what your line of thinking is.

I don't mind answering your questions.

1. I will pay whatever I have to to fuel my cars up to a point. I don't really have a choice. I work 30km one way from where I live. Public transit is not an option. I stay in Hamilton because I get twice as much house for half the price of anywhere else.

2. I do walk to the store for most of my shopping. I live in a neighborhood where everything is within reasonable walking distance.

3. My current house backs on to one of the busiest streets in the city. I don't even notice the noise anymore.

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street then the whole city would be in trouble. Not to mention that the value of my property would probably go down. It is a highly sought after area, at least thats what the real estate agents who constantly harass me say.

5. Lifes not fair, live with it.

6 & 7. So. How many times has that happened over say the last 10,000 years. I am sure it has happened more than a few times. We can't judge weather based on 10, 20 or even 100 year increments. Any climatologist worth his salt will tell you that.

8. Considering we only have records going back just over 100 years they really are not an indication of weather patterns over the long term. Now if we could have records going back 1000 years and chart todays conditions in comparison then records would be a good indicator.

9. Yes it is a record for the past 112 years, but what happened before that. 100 years is not a real history.

[adam]

You contradicted yourself when you said in #1 you get twice as much house for half the price and then in #4 when you said it is a highly sought after area with high value.

8. Absolutely wrong. We have climate records that date back 10's of thousands of years thanks to very deep drilling in ice. They can report the average temperature for that year based on how much ice melts.. Look it up

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by adam

You contradicted yourself when you said in #1 you get twice as much house for half the price and then in #4 when you said it is a highly sought after area with high value.

8. Absolutely wrong. We have climate records that date back 10's of thousands of years thanks to very deep drilling in ice. They can report the average temperature for that year based on how much ice melts.. Look it up

Let me address your first statement. I said I would get twice the house for half the price here in Hamilton rather than close to where I work. There is no contradiction read #4 again. I said it was a highly sought after area not a high value area. Even if it was a high value area here in Hamilton, the same house would cost at least twice as much in Halton region where I work.

As for climate records dating back 10's of thousands of years, I agree they do have them with respect to certain areas of the planet. But they do not tell the whole story. They are not very specific and scientists can only assume the causes of the changes. The climate has and does change through natural events not related to mankind.

[emge]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The only initiative that may have a chance, albeit slim, is the light rail. An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes. I like my car and I will not support anything that will inconvenience me. Call me selfish, I really don't care. I will take solace in the fact that I represent the opinions of the majority rather than the fringe views of Environment Hamilton.

I think this is where my question lies... I can accept that you have no choice but to commute by car -- many, many people don't have a choice there either. I can understand that you don't want to be inconvenienced - who does?

But I do wonder why you're unwilling to accept any inconvenience to yourself if it means many others ARE able to commute and leave their cars at home... that's a different kind of "selfish."

Certainly it's unacceptable for me to say that nothing should be downtown except light rail, or bike space, or walking space.. but for car owners to say the same (that the 5 lanes of dedicated vehicular traffic should remain and traffic flow shouldn't change at all) would mean that no one had the option of anything but a car or bus. That's not acceptable either. Even if it is the norm in your particular neighbourhood or circle of friends, it isn't for everybody. Sure, we chose voluntarily to sell our cars when we moved to Hamilton, but that doesn't remove the fact that my opinion still matters as a commuter and my convenience still matters as well as yours.

Saying "well, I don't want to be inconvenienced" is absolutely normal. That's human nature.

Saying "I don't care one iota about anyone else about myself, no matter how many people will benefit" is an entirely different statement, and far more selfish, and that's the statement you're embracing when you put your convenience over any benefit light rail gives.

It also fails to take into account a great many cities where public transit is a viable option for the majority, not just a certain cross-section of the population who is environmentally committed, works in a very specific area, or is financially unable to make another choice, as it still largely is in Hamilton today. Light rail can and will change that due to speed, comfort, and many other factors that have been better said by others. Do you truly not care about any of that, if your convenience is even slightly compromised?

[omro]

What I find astonishing is the belief that losing two lanes of a five lane road to a significantly more efficient transit system and converting the rest of the roads to two-way will negatively impact the driving experience through the Downtown.

The more people use transit, rather than their cars, the fewer cars will be on the roads Downtown, thus improving the Downtown driving experience.

Being able to use every road, in each direction, will allow a driver to get to their destination via the most direct route, rather than having to know exactly which road goes in what direction and sometimes having to circle around their destination, so that they can get themself into the correct one-way pattern to reach it.

[emge]

Certainly I agree with you there: the end result of light rail will help motorists out, and two-way conversion would be a boon, not just for those who live here but for visitors constantly frustrated by the city's roadways. But for a car-centric city like Hamilton to experience any type of change will be tough.

Motorists will wonder why there is construction happening and their morning commute is taking longer, others will fail to see why they should let themselves be inconvenienced or that any of their tax dollars will pay for it. Even in the interim before more people start using transit, a 5-lane reduction to 3 will be tough at the get-go.

This was just a question to one person who said they're selfish enough that they don't care about the benefits. I'm trying to point out that the benefits to others besides himself are valid also, and perhaps if he understands that, he'll find himself less selfish then he thinks he is in the process. (or maybe not, but that'll be his clarification to make)

[omro]

I agree with you too.

What's also strange is that the following assertion of bigguy1231's:

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street then the whole city would be in trouble. Not to mention that the value of my property would probably go down. It is a highly sought after area, at least thats what the real estate agents who constantly harass me say.

Yet all the evidence suggests that being near transit, especially LRTs will have the opposite effect.

[adam]

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.
http://www.runmuki.com/commute/commuting2.html

[emge]

Originally Posted by adam

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.
http://www.runmuki.com/commute/commuting2.html

For those who think "Nobody bikes in Hamilton," there's a link off his site to an article called "Nobody Bikes in L.A." also.

"Not only has riding my bike enabled me to glide past all this gridlock (in fact, I'm often not even aware it's happening), but it has made me realize that it's an illusion. The city itself is not gridlocked—merely the narrow asphalt ribbons onto which we squeeze all our single-occupant cars. On the back streets I now take, everything is quiet and serene. The main roads may mimic Times Square on New Year's Eve, but the areas between L.A.'s clogged arteries comprise mile after square mile of low-density, low-stress residential bliss (the same is true, I suspect, of most American cities).

.... Don't get me wrong—Los Angeles is an almost pathologically bike-unfriendly city. It has pathetically few marked bike lanes, and those it has often peter out for no reason and at the worst possible place. Its drivers go ballistic when a cyclist slows them down, even for a few seconds. And of course, it's so sprawling that some commutes would simply be impossible by bike (although I suspect more than we realize would actually be faster on two thin wheels)."


Seems fairly relevant to our city, eh?

Personally I haven't biked for a while because I'm so glad I can walk places in Hamilton, and I had loaned out my bike and just got it back this year. Compared to the nasty bike commutes I've done in other cities though, there's only a few routes to avoid in Hamilton, though the one-ways are pretty unfortunate.... more reason to avoid the "main arteries" though.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I don't mind answering your questions.

1. I will pay whatever I have to to fuel my cars up to a point.

So why on earth do you begrudge people who are trying to put measures in place that will make your life easier when the price of gas reaches that point?

[adam]

I agree, Hamilton is a lot easier to cycle than any other city I've tried in the GTA

[Jon Dalton]

[Jon Dalton]

What's particularily sad is these arguments are coming from through-commuters, those who drive through the core on our one-ways to hit the 403 to wherever. They are the least of the stakeholders in how we configure our roads.

If we reduce traffic capacity and it bothers people who don't live, work or shop here, what loss is it? They will find ways around it, and that's just fine. Anyone who likes 5 lanes of one-way isn't keen on stopping here anyway.