|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 3, 2005 13:12:36 GMT -5
Cathy, I want to discuss public transit with you and to respond to your statement posted under "Transportation" when I have more time. Let's do it under that heading and not this thread which deals with "the limits to air."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 3, 2005 16:15:11 GMT -5
What I'm interesting in receiving a response to is the idea that, as the population ages, the young generations who are accustomed to public transit are much less likely to be using cars, as the cost of owning a vehicle continues to increase. That is an interesting idea, but I'd be interested in seeing the statistics. From personal experience (and I know that's a dangerous thing), every time I drive by K.S.S. I see what the students there generally think about public transit. Even though we have reasonably good transit to that particular area (comparatively speaking, of course), the student parking lot is jammed with cars. The personal automobile is such an icon of our culture, that it doesn't seem likely to disappear for quite some time now. Despite the advent of hybrids, Smart Cars (now THERE'S an oxymoron), and so on, all we seem to do is find more ways to have more and more vehicles on the road all the time, with more and more pollution. As well, it's interesting to look at the big picture and ask why the cost of vehicles, fuel, maintenance, and so on continues to increase. Perhaps you have an answer to that question???
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 3, 2005 19:37:05 GMT -5
I don't know if you've seen the number of students who do take the bus, compared to those who drive. The student parking lot at KSS is not nearly large enough for all students to drive to school, but the truth is, it doesn't need to be. Half an hour before and after every school day, the buses are crowded almost beyond safety with students from KSS, KLO, Immaculata, and UBC. Other areas of town, however, such as close to the Rutland schools, take priority for the larger, double decker buses, indicating there are many students using the bus system all over town. In talking to a few people who lived in the area several years ago, this is quite a change. Previous generations were much more likely to own a car upon turning sixteen, since the cost of gas and insurance tended to be lower, and the rules for learning less strict. Since more young people are taking the bus, walking where possible, etc., this habit is more likely to continue in later life than it is that people of older generations will start taking the bus if they've never had to before.
Obviously the high cost of owning a car is due to the number of people who drive. However, as young people enter the system of learning to drive and purchasing vehicles, many are forced to find alternate options to owning a car, since the number of people who have driven because it was easy and cheap have made it difficult and expensive. This is due to your generation, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 3, 2005 20:16:45 GMT -5
I don't know if you've seen the number of students who do take the bus, compared to those who drive. The student parking lot at KSS is not nearly large enough for all students to drive to school, but the truth is, it doesn't need to be. Half an hour before and after every school day, the buses are crowded almost beyond safety with students from KSS, KLO, Immaculata, and UBC. Other areas of town, however, such as close to the Rutland schools, take priority for the larger, double decker buses, indicating there are many students using the bus system all over town. In talking to a few people who lived in the area several years ago, this is quite a change. Previous generations were much more likely to own a car upon turning sixteen, since the cost of gas and insurance tended to be lower, and the rules for learning less strict. Since more young people are taking the bus, walking where possible, etc., this habit is more likely to continue in later life than it is that people of older generations will start taking the bus if they've never had to before. Obviously the high cost of owning a car is due to the number of people who drive. However, as young people enter the system of learning to drive and purchasing vehicles, many are forced to find alternate options to owning a car, since the number of people who have driven because it was easy and cheap have made it difficult and expensive. This is due to your generation, not mine. Interesting that you would say that, given that I'm the one who walks and cycles to work as much as possible. And I do see how many take the bus, but I also see the traffic jam at Raymer every school day when school lets out. That jam is, in part, from the college, but the majority is students leaving the KSS parking lot. I'd sure like to see the hard evidence (you know, studies and statistics) that say that young people are increasingly using transit, that they will continue this habit into later years, and that it will have an impact on automobile usage given our demographics. I suspect that you don't have them, and are just musing or something instead. Finally, Cathy, as you have done in other threads, you seem to be avoiding answering the real questions and just move on to something else equally banal. So here are a few of them to remind you. 1. If we use the 1994 Holtzclaw study as a basis, will traffic increase as density increases? 2. Does an increase in traffic result in poorer air quality, at least in practice? 3. Are there more vehicles in Kelowna now than in the past? 4. Has the city made any attempt to stop sprawl as density increases downtown, in order to halt the increase in commuter trips from the sprawl areas and the resulting impact on air quality? 5. Does the city of Kelowna, in various documents, state that poor air quality is a significant issue here? 6. Does the city of Kelowna also state that vehicle traffic contributes significantly to air quality problems? 7. Does the city of Kelowna state that population growth will only exacerbate those problems? 8. Finally a new one: do you have any studies that clearly show that increasing population density, and perhaps just growth in general, actually result in an improvement in air quality? We're waiting for some real answers, some real discussion, and some real studies and statistics. I wonder how long we'll have to wait.....
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 3, 2005 23:51:20 GMT -5
At least until you can address me with a little more respect, I'm afraid, Mr. Shea. Calling my comments "banal" and such is not necessary, and not a way to encourage discussion. I am not pretending to know more than anyone else on these subjects, but I am interested in discussion without insult.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 4, 2005 9:16:25 GMT -5
...and blaming my generation for ruining things for you contributes to discussion? Posting meaningless comments contributes to discussion? Neglecting to do research contributes to discussion? Not responding to questions and simpy switching to other meaningless comments and unresearched opinions contributes to discussion? To this point, you've only demonstrated that "banal" is accurate, and I'm rapidly losing the respect I initially had for you -- but that's your own doing, not mine.
The list of questions is long, the list of answers is so far non-existant, so I'm still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 5, 2005 13:24:45 GMT -5
A study of the possible link between risk of stroke and air pollution in 189 966 stroke deaths in England and Wales reaches this conclusion: "Living near main roads is associated with excess risk of mortality from stroke, and if causality were assumed, approximately 990 stroke deaths per year would have been attributable to road traffic pollution." (Maheswaran R, Elliott P. www.isuh.org/download/2004_Jan_Lit_Rev.pdf ) Even the city of Kelowna has acknowledged increased health risks, including death, due to air pollution (I'll find the reference later). Despite lip service to transit, clean air initiatives, and bicycle use, the current "densification" fad among councilors and others has none of the elements to stop increased automobile traffic. In other words, they are callously writing off more of the vulnerable people in our city...again -- as does everyone who drives a car regularly, or who uses fossil fuel-based transit. To complete the picture, note that some of the "environmentally friendly" modes of transit rely heavily on fossil fuels for their production. Isn't it heartwarming that we ship our air quality problems overseas, to China, Korea, Mexico, and so on?
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 7, 2005 1:07:47 GMT -5
“[Kelowna] transit ridership has been growing from just over 1 million passengers per year 10 years ago, to almost 3 million passengers in 2003, a growth of 10 – 12% per annum. A more modest growth of 4 – 6% per annum is projected over the next 10 – 15 years.”www.kelowna.ca/citypage/docs/pdfs/Transportation%20Division/Smart%20Transit%20Plan%20-%20Report.pdf1.If we use the 1994 Holtzclaw study as a basis, will traffic increase as density increases?Congestion: Yes. Amount of car use per person, due to shorter distances/ other available modes: No “It is well known that sprawl worsens traffic by leaving people little option but to drive to their destina-tions. Sprawling developments and poorly designed roadscapes are hostile to anyone who is not inside a car or a private property; transit service becomes costly and inefficient; and drivers have to cover long distances to get to jobs, schools, and stores.”www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/Pacific_NW_Scan.pdf”For example, if homes and worksites are within convenient walking distance of shops and restaurants, residents and employees will walk there for errands. Some employees will commute by Transit or Rideshare if they can reach such services by walking, but will drive if a car is needed to run errands during lunch breaks. Land use patterns also affect the distance that people travel to reach destinations, regardless of the mode used.- Land Use Accessibility: The number of potential destinations located within a geographic area tends to increase with population and employment density, reducing travel distances and the need for automobile travel. For example, in low-density areas a school may serve hundreds of square miles, requiring most students to travel by motor vehicle. In higher density areas, schools may serve just a few square miles, reducing average travel distances and allowing more students to walk or cycle. Similarly, average travel distances for errands, commuting and business-to-business transactions can decline with density.
- Transportation Choice: Increased density tends to increase the number of transportation options available in an area due to economies of scale. Higher density areas tend to have better sidewalks, bicycle facilities and transit service because increased demand makes them more cost effective.
- Favors Space-Efficient Modes. Automobile travel tends to require more road and parking space than other modes, particularly as traffic speeds increase, because each vehicle requires additional “shy distance.” As a result, increased density tends to reduce traffic speeds, increase traffic congestion and increase parking costs, making driving relatively less attractive than alternative modes.”
[/i][/li][/ul] “[glow=red,2,300]Data from the National Personal Transportation Survey… indicates that residents of higher density urban areas make about 25% fewer automobile trips and more than twice as many pedestrian and transit trips as the national average.[/glow]”www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm20.htm“Population density affects motorized trips for two reasons. First, for a given population, the higher the density, the shorter the distance between two points in general, and the higher the number of people who can walk to work or shopping areas (see Box 1). Second, the higher the density, the easier it is to provide frequent and easily accessible public transport services, thereby reducing demand for private motorized transport.”lnweb18.worldbank.org/SAR/sa.nsf/Attachments/Briefing6/$File/Briefing_Note_No_6.pdf2. Does an increase in traffic result in poorer air quality, at least in practice?An increase in traffic can be one of many factors contributing to poorer air quality. “The Okanagan Valley lies perpendicular to the prevailing winds, resulting in an increased number of calms and therefore greater air stagnation. In summer months, higher temperatures and increased sunlight can result in greater concentrations of ground-level ozone. In winter months, thermal inversions trap cold air below a layer of warmer air inhibiting the dispersion of pollutants.”www.cord.bc.ca/docs/planning/pl_aq_sum.pdf“Current development patterns also bring substantial air pollution, largely because of the increased automobile dependence that is associated with sprawl. For most people, especially those in conventional suburban developments, the only realistic choice for running these errands is to drive. Motor vehicle use in America doubled from one to two trillion miles per year between 1970 to 1990. SGA’s Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact found that a family of four living in a very sprawling region will drive 40 more miles a day than the same family in a more compact region. The more sprawling areas have higher peak ozone levels. All this means degraded air quality for many metropolitan regions in the U.S. and increased greenhouse gases for the world. Although emission controls have improved over the past thirty years, unhealthy air pollution level still plague virtually every major city in the United States. Urban air pollution also disproportionately affects low-income communities because of a history of running highways through poorer neighborhoods.” www.smartgrowthamerica.org/environment.html“Development patterns and practices also indirectly affect environmental quality since urban form can influence the travel decisions that people make. Patterns of development characterized by very low densities, singular land uses, and little or no public transportation, foster greater reliance motor vehicles. As development grows more dispersed, people must drive further to reach their destinations. Between 1980 and 1997, population growth increased at an annual rate of 1%, while miles driven increased 3.1% annually. This auto-dependence leads to more and longer vehicle trips, which are associated with the auto-related air emissions and greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. Ultimately, air pollution and climate change can also adversely affect water quality and habitat.”www.epa.gov/livability/topics/eb.htmStudies suggest the high density produces much better air quality than urban sprawl, and that population increase does not necessarily decrease air quality. Please see answer to #8. 3. Are there more vehicles in Kelowna now than in the past?”Motor vehicle use in the Okanagan is very high due to the dispersed nature of the comunities. A comprehensive study completed in 1995, showed that 94 % of the people in Kelowna traveled by car and 76% of those being drivers. Between 1985 and 1994 the number of registered cars grew by 41%, making Kelowna having the highest household ownership out of five British Comumbian urban areas. The use of motor vehicles does not promote a sustainable society.” www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/thomp-ok/env-changes/land/ch4.html“More people equate to more vehicles. There are 104,000 registered vehicles now in the Central Okanagan and increased growth will produce more emissions that can result in deteriorated air quality.”www.cord.bc.ca/docs/planning/pl_aq_sum.pdf (2) “Kelowna residents are among Canada’s most vehicle-enamoured. The average Kelowna household owns 1.8 vehicles. It is challenging to convince residents to abandon their vehicles and become cyclists, pedestrians, and bus patrons when residents can live in the suburbs and still reach their jobs and schools in fifteen minutes.” www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm?group_ID=3453Yes, and they are making longer and longer daily journeys, due to sprawl and the regular addition of housing estates on the outskirts to which bus service is not provided. 4. Has the city made any attempt to stop sprawl as density increases downtown, in order to halt the increase in commuter trips from the sprawl areas and the resulting impact on air quality?”Transportation Demand Management. Kelowna will manage transportation facilities and services rather than build new and bigger roads. It hopes to reduce the reliance on cars by building compact town centers and by expanding and improving local transit.” www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/thomp-ok/env-changes/land/ch4.htmlAs far as I can see, the basis of increased density is to stop sprawl by providing places within the city centre for people to live. “"Projected increases in the population and traffic will require major changes in travel if conditions are not to worsen," says the report. The report states that 82 per cent of the population commutes by private vehicles, rating the city at 20th in B.C. And, the researchers suggest a new bridge may only encourage greater vehicle use.””Gray agreed that Kelowna residents are guilty of being too reliant on their cars. "We're guilty as hell of that," he said. "But we have the fastest growing transportation system in Canada, and we are starting to change those habits." On the plus side, the report says Kelowna is trying to make progress on several fronts: Several highrise projects have been undertaken on the waterfront and downtown, although they are continually challenged by opponents of high-density projects. It has become easier to get approval for secondary suites. The city is promoting change in travel behaviour, such as the recent commuter challenge. Kelowna has 210 kilometres of bike lanes, perhaps the highest ratio in North America. The city was also lauded for major cultural facilities, such as Prospera Place and the Rotary Centre, as well as the Mission Creek Greenway.”www.kelownadailycourier.ca/?nopic=true&latest_date=2004/06/09The lack of commercial development cause more areas to be isolated from services, meaning longer journeys are required, often by car, to fulfill basic needs. Some attempts at commercial development ( www.kelownadailycourier.ca/archive/2004/08/10/stories/6509_full.php4?latest_date=2004/08/10) have been abandoned due to lack of public support. 5. Does the city of Kelowna, in various documents, state that poor air quality is a significant issue here?“From 1996 to 1999 monitoring data has shown that the air quality in Central Okanagan was “good” on average 88% of the time, “fair” 11% and “poor” 1% of the time. Human caused instances of “fair” or “poor” air quality are primarily due to vehicle emissions, dust attributed to vehicles and smoke from burning. Other instances when national standards for particulates were exceeded are attributed to forest fires or dust carried from outside the Okanagan Valley.”www.cord.bc.ca/docs/planning/pl_aq_sum.pdf (3) (From #3) “Kelowna residents are among Canada’s most vehicle-enamoured. The average Kelowna household owns 1.8 vehicles.” www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm?group_ID=3453 (2) 6. Does the city of Kelowna also state that vehicle traffic contributes significantly to air quality problems?“The Okanagan also has high levels of ozone attributed to natural sources and vehicle emissions; however, more research needs to be completed before it is known how fossil fuels and natural background levels affect ozone formation in the Okanagan.”www.cord.bc.ca/docs/planning/pl_aq_sum.pdf (4) Yes, and much more so if there is a need for large numbers of people to drive long distances to reach their destinations. www.kelownadailycourier.ca/?nopic=true&latest_date=2004/06/097. Does the city of Kelowna state that population growth will only exacerbate those problems?Yes, if people continue to move to the outskirts of the city and add to the traffic making long journeys in and out of town. “A 1995 study by Levelton and Associates predicts that, by the year 2013, vehicles in the Central Okanagan will emit over 7,500 tonnes of fine particulates annually into the airshed from tire wear, brake linings, engine emissions and road dust. That works out to 20 tonnes daily”.Key Recommendations include, (among others,): “Integrated Land Use Planning – Local governments within the Central Okanagan should implement land use policies that will accommodate future growth in a manner that fulfils clean air quality goals. (As in high density?) * Transportation Planning – It is recommended that the transportation sector (regional, provincial/federal) should be engaged in planning for air quality improvement. Air quality research should be linked directly to the analysis of regional transportation options and planning programs. Emission reduction strategies should be directed at reducing the levels of air pollutants associated with vehicle traffic, including road dust and vehicle emissions. These strategies are viewed as timely, as they correspond to regional efforts directed as transportation demand management and at expensive transportation corridor improvements.”www.cord.bc.ca/docs/planning/pl_aq_sum.pdf (5) 8. Do you have any studies that clearly show that increasing population density, and perhaps just growth in general, actually result in an improvement in air quality?An example of an improvement in air quality despite population growth is Vancouver. “A principle target of the 1994 AQMP was to reduce the overall emissions of the most common air contaminants - carbon monoxide, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic matter - by 38 per cent (from 1985 levels) by 2000. Through a combination of new technologies, education and awareness efforts and focussed programs like AirCare, this target was achieved.”www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/planning_plans.htm“1985 –2000 Regional Growth–Population increased by 30% with associated increase in motor vehicle use and economic activity Year 2000 emission reduction target achieved–Common air contaminants reduced by 40% from 1985 –Per capita emission reduction of 60% Regional ambient air quality improved–Average SOx levels 50% lower, NOx levels 10% lower–Frequency of ozone smog episodes decreased–Currenltyin compliance with Canada-wide standards, but Health Reference Level exceeded 43% of the time at some locations”www.pnwis.org/2004%20Events/PortAQ/Morris%20Mennell.pdf“Single-use, dispersed neighbourhoods, located far from downtowns, produce nearly 3 times more annual emissions per household than mixed-use, compact neighbourhoods near the downtown.” ”Within the same location, developing more compact neighborhoods with mixed-use and pedestrian oriented designs decreases greenhouse gas emissioins by 24-50%.” SOURCE: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2000 Publication “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Travel: Tool for Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability”.www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm?group_ID=3453
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 7, 2005 9:44:42 GMT -5
Rick may not be able to respond to your post right away due to personal reasons. Please be patient.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 10, 2005 1:04:52 GMT -5
Without including Cathy's lengthy and repetitive post, I've copied my questions and summarized her answers.
1. If we use the 1994 Holtzclaw study as a basis, will traffic increase as density increases?
According to Cathy, yes. What Holtzclaw neglected to include, so we don't have relevant data, are the increased number of service and delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, transit trips (generally on fossil-fuel based buses and so on), tradespeople, and visitors. As well, Kelowna seems to be bent on increasing tourism, so that leads to more traffic as well. The only valid conclusion is that traffic increases as density increases, and any other statement is simply nonsense.
2. Does an increase in traffic result in poorer air quality, at least in practice?
According to Cathy, yes.
3. Are there more vehicles in Kelowna now than in the past?
According to Cathy, yes.
4. Has the city made any attempt to stop sprawl as density increases downtown, in order to halt the increase in commuter trips from the sprawl areas and the resulting impact on air quality?
Cathy evidently doesn't know that, along with increased numbers of higher density developments, growth in the sprawl area continues at a rapid rate (see the graphs I presented earlier). In other words, the answer to the question is "no."
5. Does the city of Kelowna, in various documents, state that poor air quality is a significant issue here?
Cathy says yes. The city of Kelowna says "Fine particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) and ground level ozone are the only pollutants to exceed provincial guidelines; therefore, these two pollutants are of greatest concern. "
...and the city says "Vehicle exhaust is a significant contributing source to ozone formation. Growth projection patterns estimate Kelowna’s population to increase to 153, 222 in 2020. A growing population contributes to increased vehicle usage, which results in additional vehicle emissions. Assuming travel habits and modes of transport remain the same, Kelowna’s personal automobile use during peak travel periods is expected to increase by 77% by 2013. Also, considering additional demand from adjoining communities, the City’s peak hour traffic demands are actually expected to double"
...and the city says "Outdoor air pollutants, primarily fine particles, are causing some health problems in our region. Currently, 10% of the population is considered most "at risk"; however the entire population will be affected to some degree if conditions worsen.
People most affected by air pollution include the very young (ages 0-5) and the elderly. People with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema are particularly sensitive, as well as people with heart conditions and those with sensitive eyes.
Estimated costs of “symptom days” due to outdoor air quality in the Okanagan-Similkameen Region range from $1.5-1.7 million per year, while loss of work time is estimated at $1.0 - $1.5 million per year. There is a small, but measurable increase in premature deaths due to respiiratory and cardiac conditions aggravated by poor air quality." (City of Kelowna "State of the Environment Report" 2003)
In summary, the city's policies and practices effectively "write off" some of the people who already live here, while bringing in even more people who will create even more problems.
6. Does the city of Kelowna also state that vehicle traffic contributes significantly to air quality problems?
Cathy says yes. See above as well.
7. Does the city of Kelowna state that population growth will only exacerbate those problems?
Cathy says yes and, given that the city is clearly making no effort to control growth in any area, it's a definite yes.
8. Finally a new one: do you have any studies that clearly show that increasing population density, and perhaps just growth in general, actually result in an improvement in air quality?
Sorry, Cathy didn't answer this question.
I guess that there are no studies to support this idea. Yes, other factors (such as the Air Care initiative in Vancouver and area) can help to improve air quality, but they are completely independent from the density and growth issues.
In general, the picture is clear that any growth; whether dense growth, sprawl, or the city's current free-for-all everywhere; will have a significant impact on air quality and, even according to the city of Kelowna, on our health.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 10, 2005 18:23:13 GMT -5
I suggest that anyone reading this post look at both my answers and the censored version, and notice the difference in meaning from what my answers intended to demonstrate. The answers are specific to each question, and some information is repeated if it applies to more than one. The study on Vancouver is an example of an improvement in air quality despite population increase. This is relative to growth because Vancouver was growing while decreasing air pollution. In general, the picture is clear that growth will not necessarily decrease air quality, providing development is made carefully and in such a way as to restrict sprawl, as Kelowna is aiming for. There are many ways to improve air quality other than stopping growth, as demonstrated by Vancouver. www.pnwis.org/2004%20Events/PortAQ/Morris%20Mennell.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 11, 2005 11:30:55 GMT -5
Actually, the word "censored" is inflammatory, and completely unfair. Given the specific questions asked, I have summarized the relevant parts of Cathy's answers.
I note Cathy's use of the word "despite" as clear evidence that improving air quality, and development and population growth, are two separate issues, but that poorer air quality and population growth are clearly linked. Air quality can be improved either by reducing the absolute number of vehicles, by improving the emissions from vehicles, or some combination of the above. Keep in mind though that reducing emissions by 30% only requires a 42% increase in population to be right back where we started from in terms of pollution. And Kelowna's growth over the next 15 years is predicted to be more than that.
Finally, despite Cathy's assertion to the contrary, there is no evidence that Kelowna is "aiming for" reducing sprawl. The data clearly show exactly the opposite, and any reduction in sprawl will be because we run out of land to build on, rather than as the result of any sort of planning. It's obviously a free-for-all in Kelowna right now, traffic congestion is increasing everywhere, and the city documents state clearly that we should all be concerned about that in terms of health and air quality.
How many people should we be willing to write off, healthwise, so that we can add even more polluters to our population?
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 11, 2005 12:24:33 GMT -5
Hey Cathy, if Vancouver has successfully reduced air pollution by increasing densities then it is the exception rather than the rule and I wouldn't bet on exceptions in trying to make that argument for Kelowna. See the link www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/95.pdf which clearly spells out what happens in most cities in regard to densification and air pollution and where Wendell Cox concludes that "more intense traffic congestion and air pollution is associated with higher densities." You might also want to have a look at this table. Notice how the cities with higher population densities generally have the highest amount of air pollution. www.demographia.com/db-intlpollu-ton.htm Incidentally, how are you doing on the high school debating team?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 12, 2005 16:13:34 GMT -5
Well, apparently Vancouver isn't as successful as some would have us believe. Page S-9 of the 2003 "Forecast and Backcast" emission inventory document from the GVRD says this: "While emissions of CACs (common air contaminants) have declined and are projected to continue declining, emissions of contaminants of health and environmental concern like the “smogforming pollutants” (e.g. PM2.5, SOx, NH3) are projected to increase in the future. GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions also increased from 1990 to 2000 and are projected to continue increasing into the future." www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/pdfs/2000EmissionInventoryForecast.pdf
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 12, 2005 18:26:47 GMT -5
I believe the selection of what information is relevent or not should be left to the individual, and not decided by a biased summary. As research allows for predictions of future pollution concerns, more can be done to improve air quality. Having noted the projected increase in "smogforming pollutants", a new air quality plan is being implimented for Vancouver. See "Next Steps – Towards A New Air Quality Management Plan" www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/pdfs/2000EmissionInventoryForecast.pdfVancouver's example reduced emissions by 30% with a 42% increase in population because the population only grew by that much. That is not saying it could only be done with a 42% population increase; that's simply what they had to work with. Mr. Zeger, I'm afraid I'm uncertain as to why Kelowna could not become another "exception" in improving air quality if it were made a priority. What does Vancouver have that we don't which makes it possible for them to obtain an emission reduction goal, while Kelowna follows the general trend?
|
|