Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton

[SteelTown]

Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton
Says toll roads, new taxes and in-fill development needed to battle climate change

March 25, 2009
Eric McGuinness
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/536622

To combat climate change, Environment Hamilton is calling on the city to freeze its urban boundary, build no more roads or parking lots and commit millions of dollars to light rail transit.

Those are three of 10 immediate steps the non-profit group says “are the minimum necessary” to head off global catastrophe.

Even though the organization recently gave the city poor marks for implementing 10 “baby steps” suggested two years ago, members are pushing for more.

The new list of 10 actions includes lobbying the province to let the city toll parkways, tax parking spaces and tax vehicles.

Don McLean, re-elected to the board at the annual meeting where the list was approved Tuesday night, was asked if he thought councillors were willing to take such measures.

He said: “Politicians, I think, think the public is much more foolish than the public is. Most people realize car dependency is a bad thing that is ruining the future for their kids and grandkids.

“I think tolls would be acceptable if the revenue helps pay for transit and bringing in light rail. They talk about transit as a subsidy program. Roads are a subsidy program.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for light rail. If this community can make a commitment to a  new stadium, it can commit to light rail and expedite provincial dollars coming here.”

For further information, visit www.environmenthamilton.org.


Climate change action plan

1. Permanently protect Hamilton’s foodlands by freezing the urban boundary and locating 100 per cent of growth within this boundary.

2. Commit to no net increase in surface parking lots and total road space (kilometre lanes) for motor vehicles.

3. Commit now to paying the municipal portion of a light rail system for Hamilton.

4. Use traffic calming to achieve 30 km/h speed limits in residential areas where there is a demand.

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS.

6. Establish 100 new community garden plots each year for the next five years on underused city lands, and support them with equipment, materials and staffing.

7. Begin purchasing EcoLogo-certified green electricity to achieve the goal of powering all city facilities (owned and leased) with renewable energy by 2020.

8. Adopt a municipal buy-local purchasing policy, establishing targets and requiring an annual staff report on implementation.

9. Conduct energy audits of all city-owned housing and develop a capital program to implement the recommendations.

10. Lobby the provincial government for legislative authority to allow the city to toll roads, tax parking, impose vehicle taxes and require green building standards.

[Millstone]

Why does light rail always have to be tied in with some climate change mumbo jumbo.

[emge]

even if you consider climate change unimportant in your books, if it boosts the rest of the case for light rail, why be negative about it?

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by Millstone

Why does light rail always have to be tied in with some climate change mumbo jumbo.

Likewise, why do some people persistently ignore, downplay, or distort the overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change just because it threatens a particular worldview?

[adam]

Light rail is infrastructure, one of the best ways to help an economy in a recession/depression. But I'd much rather have light rail on the major arteries than 5 lanes of 1 way traffic.. I wonder what cancer rates would be like if there were 1/2 as many cars on the road?

[coalminecanary]

oh adam, that's enough of your mumbo jumbo!

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Likewise, why do some people persistently ignore, downplay, or distort the overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change just because it threatens a particular worldview?

Man-made climate change has been proven? That's like saying Al Gore doesn't burn embarassing amounts of jet fuel en route to his next book signing.

lol, hippies

[crhayes]

Technically nothing is ever proven in science . You just collect evidence and form theories that support the evidence; theories are always subject to change.

[hamiltonguy]

I hate Al Gore, and think he distorts the facts to suit his quest to make money.

But I accept climate change...mostly...there are still some questions in my mind as to what percentage is the earth's cycle and how much is due to greenhouse gases. But in the end, it doesn't matter. We're screwed no matter what.

[omro]

We could always just say:

A form of transit that produces no gases as a byproduct has to be better, in some way, than a form of transit that does produce a gas as a byproduct.

Even if you don't believe in green house gases and the effect that they have on the environment.

Less gases as a byproduct of transit, at the very least, would mean less local air pollution, smog, particulates in the air, staining of buildings, etc.

[bigguy1231]

Environment Hamilton can issue all the statements it wants and recommend anything it wants, but the reality is they are a fringe group that represents a very small minority opinion.

Any politician who tolls roads or taxes parking spaces is committing political suicide.

As for the city putting money into green initiatives they can't afford to pay for existing programs let alone green initiatives.

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.

[waterloowarrior]

Climate change action plan

1. Permanently protect Hamilton’s foodlands by freezing the urban boundary and locating 100 per cent of growth within this boundary. Doable, but would increase housing prices and could drive development elsewhere (leapfrog). Will run into problems with legal requirements to have land available for development. Likely not feasible, but the province may be flexible.

2. Commit to no net increase in surface parking lots and total road space (kilometre lanes) for motor vehicles. I understand the idea, but if the population is growing than new roads will need to be built and new parking for new residents and businesses. Maybe I am over-analysing this - makes sense for the core though, or at least for municipal parking lots.

3. Commit now to paying the municipal portion of a light rail system for Hamilton. Good idea.. put the ball in their court

4. Use traffic calming to achieve 30 km/h speed limits in residential areas where there is a demand. Good idea, many other places are considering this

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS. Could be a way to get people to try out the bus... but also could be quite expensive with limited increase in ridership

...
10. Lobby the provincial government for legislative authority to allow the city to toll roads, tax parking, impose vehicle taxes and require green building standards. The more funding powers cities have the better

[omro]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS. Could be a way to get people to try out the bus... but also could be quite expensive with limited increase in ridership

Expensive, to mail out the tickets or to honour them?

If people don't use the tickets, then it's just the cost of mailing them, right?

Could always hire a few teens/students and drop them through doors by hand, might be cheaper than mailing them.

Time limit the tickets.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by Millstone

Man-made climate change has been proven?

I didn't say it was proven, I said it is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence (in peer reviewed studies, to boot).

As crhayes points out, scientific theories aren't "proven", in the sense that showing you a million white sheep doesn't prove that all sheep are white. A theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions and is hence falsifiable; that is, if there is a logical possibility of proving it false. Therefore you could disprove my claim that all sheep are white by producing a black sheep.

(This, incidentally, is why creationism and "intelligent design" are not scientific theories. Since they make no testable predictions, they cannot be falsified.)

The evidence for anthropocentric climate change is very wide and deep, coming from a multitude of studies in a variety of disciplines, from geology to meteorology to biology to oceanography. The case against it is sporadic, mostly non-rigorous, and originates mainly from funders and researchers with conflicts of interest, i.e. who benefit materially from delaying policy efforts to address climate change.

Since the theory is a complex model of prediction in a complex, dynamic system with emergent characteristics, it is technically impossible to make an exact prediction of what will happen. Instead, climate modeling seeks to take into account as many variables as possible so models can sketch out statistical probabilities.

Changes to the climate system are not linear but chaotic, lurching suddenly and disruptively from one dynamic to another. This has already happened and has been observed and measured in detail.

If anything, climate models to date have tended to under-estimate both the speed and disruptiveness of actual changes to the climate system. Scientists are regularly discovering new feedback mechanisms - many of them positive feedback loops that actually accelerate warming, like the melting of the Siberian permafrost - and adjusting their models to take these into consideration.

Of course, none of this will make any difference to you. If you have refused until now to undertake an honest review of the scientific literature on climate change, nothing I write on some forum is going to change your mind.

Originally Posted by Millstone

lol, hippies

Because nothing says "hippie" like tens of thousands of people with PhDs in science, tenured professorships in research institutions and publication in peer reviewed scientific journals. lol.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

As for the city putting money into green initiatives they can't afford to pay for existing programs let alone green initiatives.

Green initiatives actually cost less than existing programs, because they're based on increased efficiency and greater sustainability.

Think of it this way: what costs more, building a highway - hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs, tens of millions of dollars a year in lifecycle costs, plus a net drain on city finances since development charges aren't high enough to recover the cost of providing service to far-flung greenfields - or setting a firm urban boundary and changing zoning rules to allow dense, mixed use development on already-serviced land?

What's missing is not money to commit but the political will to stand up to status quo business interests and take a chance on sustainability. Cities that do this see their economies grow, their city finances improve and their communities become more desirable destinations for both residents and businesses.

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.

Light rail has no choice but to take away from existing traffic lanes. It has to go somewhere, after all. In any case, a dedicated lane for light rail actually has a higher capacity to carry people than a lane of vehicular traffic.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I like my car and I will not support anything that will inconvenience me. Call me selfish, I really don't care.

What may be regarded as selfish is your assumption that society as a whole should be forced to subsidize your choices when they are demonstrably harmful to community vitality, air quality, and public health.

If you insist on driving, you should be prepared to pay the full cost of your choice, including the cost of the infrastructure you use, and your contributions to climate change and air pollution. As it stands, the various fees and taxes you pay to drive come nowhere near covering the cost of providing automobile infrastructure, let alone the various negative externalities.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes.

Ain't no such thing.

I represent the opinions of the majority

And that my friends, is why we're all screwed.

[emge]

The last two posters pretty much said it all.

At least the prospect of light rail seems to possess, as well as spark, some of the vision needed to change perspectives of Hamilton residents even without an individual being a driving force behind it (rather, several individuals, including our mayor, and a good chunk due to Hamilton Light Rail). To me it's always about vision and perspective.

Mock the so-called respectability, image, whatever of taking a train over a bus.. fine. Call the enthusiasm of councillors back from a trip simple. Call the climate change factor irrelevant. Call it whatever. (Not necessarily you, but as some have).

In itself, light rail is an initiative that can start chipping away at the monumental myopia regarding cars and transit in this city... and with Metrolinx, looks like it's gonna happen. Add on the Pan Am Stadium, an A-line, the GO station nearby... that and Copps well-serviced by transit both within the region and without. Even if that stadium never happens, the possibilities light rail opens up and the benefits it gives will happen.

Maybe we'll even get enough space for proper bike lanes on the main streets. Who doesn't win here? I mean, it'll even free up more lanes for your Hummer.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Call me selfish, I really don't care.

Yup, you are. But don't worry someone will explain it to your kids for you when they wonder why there's nothing left for them.

[adam]

100 years was a very short while ago. 100 years ago there were almost no cars around at all. in another 100 years, there will be almost no cars around again. history books are going to remember our generation with amazement - our lack of communities, how the majority of our public space was dedicated to the auto industry, how people couldn't even cross the street without literally running.

Why can't we afford to put money into green technologies? Every single household is expected to purchase 2x$30,000.00 vehicles every 5 years and pay millions of dollars through tax money every year to upgrade roads... What's cheaper? I'd rather have the freedom of going everywhere using public transit instead of having to worry about traffic fatalities (higher rate than most terminal illnesses), gas prices (due to go up again very soon), buying a new car for thousands and thousands and being in debt as a result?

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Yup, you are. But don't worry someone will explain it to your kids for you when they wonder why there's nothing left for them.

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.