|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 19:53:03 GMT -5
As I pointed out in the answers to your questions, some things, such as commercial development plans, may have served to reduce traffic by providing more local services, but were abandoned do to lack of public support. A recent example of this is the Sarsons commercial development plan. One of the fundamental problems is that you keep using the words "may" or "might" when all the data show that the word should be "won't" Nowhere has development actually reduced traffic, in fact everywhere it has increased, along with all the problems it creates. It's time for you to face reality.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 22:13:26 GMT -5
Except that I was refering to commercial development, ie. shops and services, which would reduce the number of trips needed in and out of town to fulfill basic needs. I'm not making this up; the idea of local stores to reduce traffic is a fundamental pricipal of smart growth and high density development.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 22:25:38 GMT -5
You did refuse because it IS applicable. Please answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 22:55:21 GMT -5
Actually, my answer to the first part clearly makes the second part not applicable.
Come on Cathy, you can do better than this. These are very serious issues here.
And the fact that you do this in consultation with your cohort causes me great concern about them now too.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 22:57:35 GMT -5
Except that I was refering to commercial development, ie. shops and services, which would reduce the number of trips needed in and out of town to fulfill basic needs. I'm not making this up; the idea of local stores to reduce traffic is a fundamental pricipal of smart growth and high density development. You are making it up. There may be a reduction in the INCREASE, but there will still be an increase. We've already proven that, so why do you continue to lie? Probable answer: It's clear that you really are not concerned about the health effects on anyone else, and simply have your own agenda in mind.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 23:08:16 GMT -5
No no, see, I'm not talking about adding more houses. I'm talking about adding stores to areas which already have houses, so the people already living there won't have far to drive. Get it now?? Also, on the subject of health effects... healthlinks.washington.edu/nwcphp/nph/s2005/duckart_s2005.pdfPlaces are turning to smart growth to help with public health. "But on the positive side, air quality in the Portland region today is not a problem; crash deaths declined 38 percent between 1990 and 2001; and pedestrian death rates have declined 35 percent between 1994 and 2000. Both pedestrian and car crash death rates are far below the national average. Research by Arthur Nelson at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta also shows promising results. Nelson compared Atlanta, which had a sprawling population growth spurt, to Portland’s roughly equivalent population growth, between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. He found that Portland’s air quality improved, commute time declined, and neighborhood quality improved. In Atlanta, the results were the opposite."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 23:17:53 GMT -5
Actually, you've specifically mentioned the Sarsons area, where there is significant residential growth planned, and you've posted in the thread regarding Clifton, where there is significant residential growth planned, so you are talking about adding more stores where there are more houses. So far, you haven't given even one example where there is no additional residential growth planned. And, by the way, how are the goods going to be delivered? Where will the tradespeople, service people, and so on come from? I suppose you'll tell me that they're all going to walk, right? Finally, this about Portland: "Compared to most other U.S. cities, Portland has enviable air quality. Primarily due to improved automobile technology, Portland’s air is actually cleaner than it used to be. But Portland can have unhealthful air on hot summer days. Neighborhoods near freeways or other pollution sources may be particularly hard hit." www.sustainableportland.org/GreenPages/Snapshot.htmSo, what has caused the improvement in air quality? Don't lie to us now. And where do the pollutants near freeways come from? Don't lie to us now.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 23:49:34 GMT -5
I asked: "Are there things that can be done to limit traffic to and from existing sprawled areas?" The idea of adding commercial development to existing housing areas which lack stores, etc., was based on that. Whether or not there are new houses going in, shouldn't there be stores?? "Several programs have played a significant role in reducing Portland area CO emissions: - The Vehicle Inspection Program which dates back to 1975 in the Portland area is credited with reducing CO by 17 percent.
- Since 1992, oxygenated fuel (oxy fuels) is required from November through February in the Portland area. Oxy fuel is gasoline that is blended with additives that contain extra oxygen. The oxygen promotes more efficient combustion, which reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide up to 20 percent.
- Traffic flow improvements reduced stop-and-go driving that boosts CO emissions.
- Improved public transit including Tri-Met's light rail system.
- Active involvement by the Portland business community in encouraging their employees to use public transportation and other alternatives to drive-alone commuting including carpooling, walking and biking."
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/news/deq-1001.htmlAnything, other than perhaps the light rail, that Kelowna would be unable to manage? Admittedly, over use of motor vehicles, although allegedly the same vehicles with "improved automobile technology" which have been improving air quality.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 14, 2005 0:57:31 GMT -5
So, we're finally clear that densification does not improve air quality. It is other measures that, fortunately, have accompanied densification, that have improved air quality.
Now it's time to move on to those other measures. More to come over the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 14, 2005 17:09:01 GMT -5
Er yeah, but I never suggested it did, besides some rare exceptions where other action has been taken. I was talking about the reduction in the increase, which you agree could be done. I have never stated anything on this board with the intention of lying, and I'd appreciate you not twisting my words to suggest I have.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 14, 2005 18:35:36 GMT -5
Cathy, when you used this quotation on July 2nd, you seem to be supporting the statement.
'Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation,' by the Smart Growth Network says when communities are created that double household density, vehicle travel is reduced by 20 to 30 percent, as people use convenient and cheaper alternatives to the car."
This quotation does not talk at all about a reduced increase. In fact, I would argue that it is either extremely poorly written, or deliberately written to be misleading, and clearly implies that increased density absolutely reduces vehicle travel, rather than the amount of increase in vehicle travel.
That, of course, is nonsense. Without other measures in place (more to come on that), the resulting increased vehicle travel will lead to poorer air quality.
So, Cathy, if you don't agree with the ideas in the quotations you provide (and your post just prior to this one clearly implies that you disagree with the idea), then you should say so when you use the quotes.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 15, 2005 23:14:51 GMT -5
I was talking about the reduction in the increase, which you agree could be done. I have not agreed that densification will reduce the increase. I've pointed out that Holtzclaw's study supports the idea that car trips per residence might be reduced, especially (as John pointed out) when densities approach those of Toronto, but I've also pointed out some of the inadequacies of that study.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 28, 2006 10:41:07 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One day after the Sustainability Forum was held at the Grand, Kelowna witnessed the worst air quality that it had seen in years when the Air Quality Index registered 53 at 3pm (with any reading above 50 being poor). In commenting on the layer of smog over the city on Monday, June 26, 2006, E.L. of Kelowna said in a letter to the editor of Castanet "All those people who have relocated here over the years have brought their cars with them. I've lived here for 17 years, and I have never seen it (or felt it ) this bad." Mayor Sharon Shepherd, Vice-Chairman of the Regional Air Quality Committee, said that there was only so much that could be done other than encouraging people to take alternate forms of transportation.
One of the things that defines sustainability in any given area is the capacity of that region to absorb pollutants. This is part of our overall environmental carrying capacity. We have obviously exceeded our pollution absorption capactity in regard to vehicle exhaust when it appears as a blanket of smog across the sky and begins to sent people with respiratory conditions to the hospital. What is the solution? I seriously doubt that all the millionaires that are moving to Kelowna lately will be lured into taking public transit as many in the "green growth" camp believe. That leaves us with the only real solution which is to limit the population of the city and Central Okanagan Region before smog becomes a daily occurrence here as it has in big cities such as Vancouver and Toronto.
|
|