Wonderland Road Widening 4 to 6 lanes

[MolsonExport]

From an urban fabric perspective, the worst cities in the developed world are those that are mostly stroads with very poor walkability scores.

[Truenorth00]

Walkability above all else.

Then good transit.

Then good roads.

A properly designed city of London's population and size should have zero need for anything above four lane roads.

Should be noted, a four lane road is not the same as a four lane stroad. The former is driveable and traffic moves quick. The latter has a whole lot of driveways onto it and lights, which slows everything down and causes gridlock. Something nobody ever mentions in all this talk about Amsterdam, is that the Netherlands is also one of the best countries to drive in. Yes, the streets are slow. But when you hit a road, it's a real road. Not a useless and slow stroad. There's fewer lights. There's no pedestrians crossing anywhere. There's no cars turning out from random driveways. And the speed limits are closer to what the infrastructure is designed for.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

From an urban fabric perspective, the worst cities in the developed world are those that are mostly stroads with very poor walkability scores.

The problem is that for everyone like us here who understand urban planning, many others like this type of car-centered development the way it is. People like my parents who drive everywhere and are completely satisfied with having to drive long distances to buy a loaf of bread or a lightbulb.

[MolsonExport]

And that mindset is selfish in light of the catastrophic effect of our lifestyle on the environment, and utterly conducive to exacerbating a poor urban environment.

We have to stop kicking the can down the road.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. It's kind of like saying to someone "your fat, you'll stay fat forever, don't worry about it".

London can do something about how our city grows. We can be build a denser, more pedestrian, transit oriented city by NOT expanding roads endlessly and using that same money to build better infrastructure for people instead of cars. I am not sure how much you have travelled Jammer139, but the best cities in the world (in my opinion anyways) are cities that have invested/are investing in these forms of transport.

And London is doing that as well. Downtown has been adding new residential at a clip that council could only dream about 20 years ago. BRT construction is underway, numerous bike lanes are being added, we recently built 2 new bridges to connect a missing link in the active parkway in the north end. But we aren't ripping up my neighbourhood, or ME's neighbourhood, turning it back into farmland and moving us into the inner city. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people to move into the new buildings downtown, but there is also no shortage of people who want to move into new houses on the outskirts of town either. Are we really going to hang a closed sign on London and say sorry, only come here if you want to live in a highrise downtown?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

And that mindset is selfish in light of the catastrophic effect of our lifestyle on the environment, and utterly conducive to exacerbating a poor urban environment.

We have to stop kicking the can down the road.

It's not just the environment. It's making people fat and depressed. Literally. While simultaneously driving a housing affordability crisis and driving up servicing costs for municipalities.

[TallerIsBetter]

Molson Export wrote....


#47
Posted Aug 27, 2021, 11:16 AM


Quote:

>I take great issue with people trying to soft peddle the grave impact of climate change, simply to suit their own selfish interests.

And I take great issue with people assuming selfish intent rather than being motivated by scientific honesty and integrity.


> I do research on climate change, among other topics. I work with scientists who have spent decades researching the many effects that ACC is having on our ecology, from warming oceans, to bleaching coral reefs, from rising sea levels to retreating glaciers, from migrating species to mass extinctions. It is not an exaggerated threat in the slightest. It is not some distant prospect. It is the most grave threat facing humanity and the ecology. The consequences of of a business-as-usual approach will be devastating, ecologically, socially, and economically.

And, if you are honest, you'll acknowledge there is great deal of bad science going on in the ACC space, with a lot of funding that is up for grabs if you can even loosely tie your specialty to AGW. Again, if you look beyond the Summary For Policy Makers, you know there is nowhere near the pants/world on fire in the real peer reviewed work that is truly open to unbiased review. And you'll acknowledge that it is very hard to honestly and conclusively untangle Anthropogenic drivers from Natural drivers. And that adaptation has to be a factor, because even if you TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE! (meaning AGW), there will always be Natural Climate drivers (that we are not even close to understanding).

>I understand the science. I hold a PhD and an MSc, and I have been a Professor at Western for 16 years.

Lol, so, of course, the solution is... Socialism!! Predictable.

I too have hefty cred but I'm not trotting it out in full sanctimonious glory. And I prefer to focus on discerning good science from bad, and on proportional solutions that balance good stewardship and harm reduction where it actually makes a difference with not destroying the economy with Degrowth.

[Truenorth00]

I'm confused. What does road widening (or avoidance thereof) have to do with socialism?

[TallerIsBetter]

Nothing. Rather, I was countering ME, who was credential waving as if that was somehow definitive on the subject, and made everything he espoused about Climate Change unassailable, and further, that there is a strong proclivity for Professors to embrace flavors of Socialism, and how that may colour their views on the environment and how society should approach solutions.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Molson Export wrote....


#47
Posted Aug 27, 2021, 11:16 AM


Quote:

>I take great issue with people trying to soft peddle the grave impact of climate change, simply to suit their own selfish interests.

And I take great issue with people assuming selfish intent rather than being motivated by scientific honesty and integrity.


> I do research on climate change, among other topics. I work with scientists who have spent decades researching the many effects that ACC is having on our ecology, from warming oceans, to bleaching coral reefs, from rising sea levels to retreating glaciers, from migrating species to mass extinctions. It is not an exaggerated threat in the slightest. It is not some distant prospect. It is the most grave threat facing humanity and the ecology. The consequences of of a business-as-usual approach will be devastating, ecologically, socially, and economically.

And, if you are honest, you'll acknowledge there is great deal of bad science going on in the ACC space, with a lot of funding that is up for grabs if you can even loosely tie your specialty to AGW. Again, if you look beyond the Summary For Policy Makers, you know there is nowhere near the pants/world on fire in the real peer reviewed work that is truly open to unbiased review. And you'll acknowledge that it is very hard to honestly and conclusively untangle Anthropogenic drivers from Natural drivers. And that adaptation has to be a factor, because even if you TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE! (meaning AGW), there will always be Natural Climate drivers (that we are not even close to understanding).

>I understand the science. I hold a PhD and an MSc, and I have been a Professor at Western for 16 years.

Lol, so, of course, the solution is... Socialism!! Predictable.

I too have hefty cred but I'm not trotting it out in full sanctimonious glory. And I prefer to focus on discerning good science from bad, and on proportional solutions that balance good stewardship and harm reduction where it actually makes a difference with not destroying the economy with Degrowth.

What the hell are you talking about, tallerbetter? You have erroneously pigeon-holed me into some preconceived notion of an Academic. And your conclusions based on a cursory read of the climate change literature couldn't be more wrong. You really think that your layperson perspective, utterly lacking credible support, is more persuasive than the studies done by those that have spent decades researching the phenomenon from hundreds of different angles?

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those like you who insist that current warming is purely natural — or even mostly natural — have two challenges.

First, you need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, you need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community’s model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?



Is this graph a candidate for explaining today’s warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now — and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today’s changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing.

In other words, you are wrong. Contemporary climate change is mostly the result of human activities.

I won't waste anymore time discussing anything with you.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Nothing. Rather, I was countering ME, who was credential waving as if that was somehow definitive on the subject, and made everything he espoused about Climate Change unassailable, and further, that there is a strong proclivity for Professors to embrace flavors of Socialism, and how that may colour their views on the environment and how society should approach solutions.

Stop being ridiculous. You are out of line with your unsubstantiated characterization.

[MolsonExport]

The only reason I trotted out my credentials was in response to this statement:

If you think that an individual or a city or Canada can do anything to change the weather in the future, you are mistaken. That's because you have been misled and conditioned to believe, because don't understand the science.

With this remark, you insinuated that people supporting climate change mitigation policies are either misled, foolish or ignorant. I am none of the three.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Stop being ridiculous. You are out of line with your unsubstantiated characterization.

I will apologize for assuming anything specific about you as an individual, as I do not have supporting evidence one way or the other.

Regarding my characterization more broadly, here is substantiation:

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partis...ibutions-of-faculty-in-flagship-colleges

At the same time, I hope you recognize your errors in assuming my lack of credentials, or level of credentials, or depth of my veracity of study, as you also have no actual knowledge of those.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I won't waste anymore time discussing anything with you.

OK.

For others paying attention, you should know that there is still debate and criticism with Climate Science, and here are some rebuttals to the Ice Core conclusions ME refers to:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...s-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

https://holoceneclimate.com/co2-follows-temperature.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/e...ases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

And I should be clear, I do not contend that CO2 has no impact, but I do contend it is far, far less than the Alarmists suggest.

[Truenorth00]

I think it is to be appreciated that London is willing to put its money where its mouth is. That's commendable. Compared to cities that pass resolutions on a climate emergency and then do absolutely nothing to cut emissions.

I kinda wish they would go beyond simply arguing ad hoc against road widening and come up with a proper long term transport and development strategy that pushes a modal shift and trip avoidance. The goal should be to grow without increasing traffic. And the road development and design strategy should be a part of that. Simply arguing against one specific road widening isn't enough.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

With this remark, you insinuated that people supporting climate change mitigation policies are either misled, foolish or ignorant. I am none of the three.

Climate Czar John Kerry sure thinks any net zero mitigation attempt at the National level collectively by "all the Industrialized Nations" is useless!

https://mobile.twitter.com/JunkScience/s...ith-2016-for-hottest-year-declaration%2F

Bottom line is, and this brings everything back to the initial point - that widening Wonderland has no impact on the temperature of the planet.

If you are right that CO2 is a grave threat, then John Kerry points out explicitly that widening Wonderland has no impact on the temperature of the planet.

If I am correct that CO2 is truly a minor player, then Climate Czar John Kerry confirms that widening Wonderland is even less than a concern (I know, it can't be less than zero, but we get to zero in the foregoing).

And the main point is that the notion of City Council declaring a Climate Emergency, and then assessing any project through a ''climate lens" is an absurdity, and rather a handy excuse mechanism to use as they please

[Truenorth00]

I'd argue they should do avoid widening because it does nothing in the long term for traffic. But if the climate change argument, gets them to the same place, c'est la vie.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd argue they should do avoid widening because it does nothing in the long term for traffic. But if the climate change argument, gets them to the same place, c'est la vie.

I do agree. What west London will need is a VMP-style road near the western city limits to allow people in north London easy access to the 401 and 402. It would operate a lot better than widening Wonderland.

I think that's the best way to address N/S vehicle capacity issues in the western edge of the city. Wonderland widening is a distant second.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I do agree. What west London will need is a VMP-style road near the western city limits to allow people in north London easy access to the 401 and 402. It would operate a lot better than widening Wonderland.

I think that's the best way to address N/S vehicle capacity issues in the western edge of the city. Wonderland widening is a distant second.

And believe it or not I agree that a VMP style or even partial Limited Access N - S route would be best. Widening Wonderland would be very disruptive and expensive (just don't insult my intelligence in trying to make any sort of planet affecting claim - I'm not talking about this group, but rather the Buffoonery class at City Hall).

Oxford from Sanatorium to the 402 should have been 4 lanes divided/partly limited when the Oxford bridge was built, and they should have bought up a west end freeway right-of-way long before that. As I said, Buffoonery.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I do agree. What west London will need is a VMP-style road near the western city limits to allow people in north London easy access to the 401 and 402. It would operate a lot better than widening Wonderland.

I think that's the best way to address N/S vehicle capacity issues in the western edge of the city. Wonderland widening is a distant second.

I agree, but the possibility of that is rapidly closing. Myself and others have suggested in the past that Westdel Bourne be extended north to at least Gainsborough (Fanshawe ideally), and connected to the 402 in the south for starters, 401 ultimately. Issues of course would be ennvironmental going north across the river, which also leaves city territory. Which could be resolved with moving the city boundary about a mile west, north of the river. Not to mention that Westdel is rapidly being developed, and I think anything similar to VMP is out of the question now.

I can't see any other possible corridor in the west end. I don't see any way to run Hyde Park south to Colonel Talbot, for example, which is one suggestion I have seen online previously. Probably by people who don't look at maps. Maybe we can take over the Hunt Club, connect Colonel Talbot to Boler diagonally northwest from Pack Rd, and join up to Gainsborough lol