conflicting messages spell trouble for emission reduction promises
What’s wrong with this picture? On one hand the provincial grits want to make it easier for you to drive throughout the Lower Mainland by building more highways and bridges. On the other, they want to entice you to hop on regional public transit after a multi-billion dollar facelift. And stuck in the middle is a promise to significantly reduce provincial greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Did someone say conflicting messages?
Nothing could be more reckless for a government bent on pursuing a climate change agenda than confusing the public as to its own bearing on the issue itself. But that is essentially what the provincial Liberals are doing. And this spells trouble for making any real progress in reducing emissions.
In a recent speech at Simon Fraser University academic urban planner Dr. Lawrence Frank lamented that given the choice between cars and transit, people will almost always choose their cars. This is especially true if new lanes and bridges make it more convenient to use one’s car even though a fancy new SkyTrain runs past a neighbourhood right into downtown.
Indeed, a review of the plethora of studies of the topic suggests that new highway capacity generally encourages more vehicle kilometers traveled, encourages suburban-style land-use planning, enables car-dependent lifestyles and decisions, and induces traffic for vehicle trips that would otherwise not occur. We’ve seen this happen in Toronto. Ditto Montreal. And the impact is plain and simple, more cars on the road means more emissions.
Gordon Campbell, listen up! If climate change is high on the political spectrum in the Lower Mainland and tangible strides are to be made, then allowing this choice between cars and transit cannot – should not – exist.
Harsh? Perhaps. Draconian? Maybe. But it’s a reality that has to be acknowledged if significant emission reduction strides are to be made in this region.
SPEC has it right. So does the Pembina Institute. In recent reports both organizations call on the provincial government for a clear political vision and leadership that sustainable transportation will be encouraged and supported in the region. And future investments in highways are not seen as a priority.
Carbon taxes and increased investment in transit are a good way to start articulating this direction and these efforts should be applauded. But canning the expansion of major roads and bridges in the region would go a long way too. So would planning for more walkable communities where one’s groceries, laundromat, day-care centre and movie store are right around the corner, reducing the need to drive.
But it is this exact kind of holistic and progressive determination that appears to be lacking at the provincial level. The Liberals seem comfortable, almost confident,that reductions can be achieved working within the status quo. And no one, really, seems bothered by this.
If appropriate action is not taken soon, not only will the region’s image as a sustainable and progressive North American metropolis be in jeopardy but so too will the quality of life of future generations.
It’s time for Mr. Campbell and his fellow grits to keep their eyes on the ultimate goal and substantiate their promises with real and directed action. The best tool we have for achieving greenhouse gas reduction strategies in this region is consistency. If this can be established, the picture will look crystal clear.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
the renewed city.
Filed under: commentary
What’s wrong with this picture? On one hand the provincial grits want to make it easier for you to drive throughout the Lower Mainland by building more highways and bridges. On the other, they want to entice you to hop on regional public transit after a multi-billion dollar facelift. And stuck in the middle is a promise to significantly reduce provincial greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Did someone say conflicting messages?
Nothing could be more reckless for a government bent on pursuing a climate change agenda than confusing the public as to its own bearing on the issue itself. But that is essentially what the provincial Liberals are doing. And this spells trouble for making any real progress in reducing emissions.
In a recent speech at Simon Fraser University academic urban planner Dr. Lawrence Frank lamented that given the choice between cars and transit, people will almost always choose their cars. This is especially true if new lanes and bridges make it more convenient to use one’s car even though a fancy new SkyTrain runs past a neighbourhood right into downtown.
Indeed, a review of the plethora of studies of the topic suggests that new highway capacity generally encourages more vehicle kilometers traveled, encourages suburban-style land-use planning, enables car-dependent lifestyles and decisions, and induces traffic for vehicle trips that would otherwise not occur. We’ve seen this happen in Toronto. Ditto Montreal. And the impact is plain and simple, more cars on the road means more emissions.
Gordon Campbell, listen up! If climate change is high on the political spectrum in the Lower Mainland and tangible strides are to be made, then allowing this choice between cars and transit cannot – should not – exist.
Harsh? Perhaps. Draconian? Maybe. But it’s a reality that has to be acknowledged if significant emission reduction strides are to be made in this region.
SPEC has it right. So does the Pembina Institute. In recent reports both organizations call on the provincial government for a clear political vision and leadership that sustainable transportation will be encouraged and supported in the region. And future investments in highways are not seen as a priority.
Carbon taxes and increased investment in transit are a good way to start articulating this direction and these efforts should be applauded. But canning the expansion of major roads and bridges in the region would go a long way too. So would planning for more walkable communities where one’s groceries, laundromat, day-care centre and movie store are right around the corner, reducing the need to drive.
But it is this exact kind of holistic and progressive determination that appears to be lacking at the provincial level. The Liberals seem comfortable, almost confident,that reductions can be achieved working within the status quo. And no one, really, seems bothered by this.
If appropriate action is not taken soon, not only will the region’s image as a sustainable and progressive North American metropolis be in jeopardy but so too will the quality of life of future generations.
It’s time for Mr. Campbell and his fellow grits to keep their eyes on the ultimate goal and substantiate their promises with real and directed action. The best tool we have for achieving greenhouse gas reduction strategies in this region is consistency. If this can be established, the picture will look crystal clear.
Share this:
Related
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment