Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

There’s also savings in numbers

with 4 comments

Two neat letters in the Straight today

Solving the Port Mann traffic jam is simple

1. No twin bridge
2. Four or more occupants, no toll
3. Three occupants, $2 toll
4. Two occupants, $10 toll
5. SOVs, $30 toll
6. All moneys to rapid transit and computerized ride-share program
7. Container semitrailer hours: 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Slow climate change now; end the twinning.

Lance Read / Vancouver

Re: “The two faces of Gordo” [Oct. 4-11]

At the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, Gordon Campbell said: “As Einstein so clearly stated, the world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created this situation.”

But his actions remind me of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting the results to be different.

For generations, cities have tried to cope with too many cars by expanding roads. Over and over, the results have been loss of homes, farmland, wetlands, and forests. Toxic emissions and road accidents are leading cause of death and injury. Car dependency consumes income needed for housing and education and weakens communities in numerous ways. Ironically, the cities that have invested the most in car infrastructure suffer the worst congestion and longest commute times.

The Gateway program would perpetuate this insanity by increasing single occupant vehicles while delaying and impeding development of a comprehensive transit system.

Carole James recognizes the futility of trying to move masses of people with cars, and characterized the program as “yesterday’s solution for tomorrow’s problem”. This is not quite accurate: it epitomizes yesterday’s nonsolutions, and why we are in a global environmental crisis today.

Ned Jacobs

Vancouver

Written by Stephen Rees

October 12, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Posted in Gateway, Transportation

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m interested to note that somehow this blog published the letter as sent to the Straight exactly with SOVs though they “corrected” that and published it as SUVs. How did this blog get ahold of the original?

    The Straight subsequently published “OMG! SOme SOB Changed SOV to SUV”
    which I thought was great:

    http://www.straight.com/article-113584/theres-also-savings-in-numbers

    Lance Read

    October 28, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  2. Lance Read

    October 28, 2007 at 9:00 pm

  3. I regularly go back to posts and make corrections, updates and amendments in the light of new information. Mostly this is because someone is kind enough to pick up one of my many errors or things the spell checker missed – but in this case it was easier to make the correction than reproduce the original letter.

    Stephen Rees

    October 29, 2007 at 9:02 am

  4. Cheers… a lot of work

    Lance Read

    November 6, 2007 at 10:45 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: