Waterloo Region Connected
Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-25-2017

(09-24-2017, 10:39 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 09:45 PM)creative Wrote: All that I am saying is that with local homelessness, child poverty, opioid and other drug problems not to mention high rates of suicide; freaking out about a delivery van stopped briefly blocking a bike lane and sidewalk seams pretty trivial to me.

I have learned and observed (as you have now)  one thing over the years ... never comment NEGATIVELY on bike issues or challenge someone posting about bicycle rights supersede all others. I learned the bicycle group on here is often like a small organised group and they are always right and they won't let a comment go ... it's their way or no way in terms of reason. 

Let the lashing begin.

Your response basically amounts to “don’t bother me, I don’t care about that”. I don’t criticize you for your interests, and I suspect I’m not the only one who would appreciate if you would refrain from criticizing others for their interests. Not everybody can be working on child poverty, and society can accomplish more than one goal at a time. The posting to which you are replying is unfairly characterizing the response to the delivery van. I didn’t see any “freaking out”, just an observation that the van was operated in a way which disadvantages bicycles and pedestrians, the more vulnerable users of the street, compared to others. What’s really ridiculous is the way people “freak out” when people assert their needs.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 09-25-2017

(09-24-2017, 10:39 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 09:45 PM)creative Wrote: All that I am saying is that with local homelessness, child poverty, opioid and other drug problems not to mention high rates of suicide; freaking out about a delivery van stopped briefly blocking a bike lane and sidewalk seams pretty trivial to me.

I have learned and observed (as you have now)  one thing over the years ... never comment NEGATIVELY on bike issues or challenge someone posting about bicycle rights supersede all others. I learned the bicycle group on here is often like a small organised group and they are always right and they won't let a comment go ... it's their way or no way in terms of reason. 

Let the lashing begin.

Is this a joke? We're in a thread about cycling, and a user is complaining about people discussing cycling issues in it. And I don't really see anyone piling on creative in response despite what you say here.

There is a great diversity of opinions about cycling in this forum and I think that for the most part, the discussion is quite productive. Let's not lower the tone and level of debate to bitter name-calling.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 12:14 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 10:16 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Transportation is 28% of CO2 emissions in Canada.
http://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/ghg-emissions-canada/canada-emissions-by-sector/
Of that, road transportation is about two thirds (or about 19%); the remainder is primarily air and rail.

Our region is not the same as Canada:
http://www.climateactionwr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Our-Progress-Our-Path.pdf
Page 12, regionally our transportation emissions are 49% of our total emissions in 2015.

So the Waterloo Region numbers say 49% for road transportation; Canadian one is 19%.  Our region isn't that much different from the rest of Canada, really, is it?  Waterloo Region has zero for air transport and rail transport.  Either the methodology of the two calculations is significantly different -- or the Waterloo Region numbers are skewed by the limited geographic scope (for example, no flights included; what hydro generation is included?; how does it account for, say, 401 traffic that might originate/terminate/pass through the region?).

In general, I think that the smaller the area, the more difficult it is to get meaningful numbers.  With Canada as the scope, most of the activity is contained within Canada.  At the other extreme, for my block, almost no activity is entirely contained within my block.  Still the Waterloo Region numbers are useful for assessing the impact of CO2 reduction activities.

All that said, we can agree to disagree on the portion of transportation emissions.  For me, the 28% makes sense (in the US, EPA estimates transportation at 27%), and it's still significant.  If you prefer to focus on the Waterloo Region calculation, that's OK with me, but then let's make sure we at least specify the scope when we say 28% or 49%.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - clasher - 09-25-2017

There's not a lot of high-emission industries in Waterloo Region though, unlike say Hamilton with Dofasco; or any place with a cement plant like St.Mary's or Bowmanville. I don't know if those industries are the biggest emitters but they both burn a lot of coal. I could see that without including any primary industries like that would make transportation taking a bigger slice of the pie.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jamincan - 09-25-2017

As others have noted, air pollution isn't a local problem, so focusing on local figures is probably counterproductive.

Not that the fight against GHG emissions can't be fought on multiple fronts, but the resources needed to bring lasting and significant changes to transportation patterns are huge compared to cleaning up emissions related to oil sands production, for example, while the impact on emissions is probably on a similar scale.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 11:34 AM)jamincan Wrote: As others have noted, air pollution isn't a local problem, so focusing on local figures is probably counterproductive.

Not that the fight against GHG emissions can't be fought on multiple fronts, but the resources needed to bring lasting and significant changes to transportation patterns are huge compared to cleaning up emissions related to oil sands production, for example, while the impact on emissions is probably on a similar scale.

The reason for looking at local figures is to inform what our local governments can do. The oil sands aren't in the region, and our local governments can do little to change those emissions.  Our local governments can change emissions here, which is why knowing that transportation is the biggest emitter locally is useful.

I also disagree that the resources needed to clean up the oil sands are that much smaller than changing our transportation patterns.  I'd argue one of the things that would need to be done to change the oil sands *is* change our transportation patterns.  But that's not really something I can adequately back up with evidence, it's more of an opinion.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 01:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:  I'd argue one of the things that would need to be done to change the oil sands *is* change our transportation patterns.  But that's not really something I can adequately back up with evidence, it's more of an opinion.

It stands to reason that using fewer fossil fuel-burning vehicles will reduce the demand for fossil fuels. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence for that.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 01:38 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(09-25-2017, 01:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:  I'd argue one of the things that would need to be done to change the oil sands *is* change our transportation patterns.  But that's not really something I can adequately back up with evidence, it's more of an opinion.

It stands to reason that using fewer fossil fuel-burning vehicles will reduce the demand for fossil fuels. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence for that.

But given that our fossil fuel consumption is 0.0001% of the global total (or something like that), reducing gasoline consumption in Waterloo Region really won't have any perceptible impact on the demand for oil sands-sourced oil.  We need to reduce transportation patterns globally (or at least continentally) to have an impact on a specific oil-producing region.

Regulation, on the other hand, can effectively (and in parallel) reduce the environmental impact of the oil sands.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 03:05 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-25-2017, 01:38 PM)KevinL Wrote: It stands to reason that using fewer fossil fuel-burning vehicles will reduce the demand for fossil fuels. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence for that.

But given that our fossil fuel consumption is 0.0001% of the global total (or something like that), reducing gasoline consumption in Waterloo Region really won't have any perceptible impact on the demand for oil sands-sourced oil.  We need to reduce transportation patterns globally (or at least continentally) to have an impact on a specific oil-producing region.

Regulation, on the other hand, can effectively (and in parallel) reduce the environmental impact of the oil sands.

Sure, I'm not saying don't do regulation.  But don't discount the effect of acting locally.  Yes, we represent only 0.00001% (or whatever sufficiently small number we pick at random) of GHG emissions in transportation, but so does every city.  Not only should we not use that as an excuse to do nothing and absolve ourselves of responsibility (and I'm not necessarily saying this is what you are saying, but it is a very common response), we should do it to be a leader to others, provide evidence into the effectiveness of changing our transportation patterns.  In this, we are hardly a leader word-wide, but possibly we could be in North American mid sized cities.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-25-2017

That's what I'm talking about: we need change beyond just Waterloo Region.  Yes, we need to act, and, yes, being a leader would be good.  But I am also being realistic: our changes alone will not have an appreciable impact on fossil fuel demand, even if that production happens to be in Canada.

Oil sands can be regulated now, and once global oil demand drops enough, production there will eventually become uneconomical.  Mind you, that approach doesn't help quite as much with reducing fracking, which has its own environmental issues.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - darts - 09-25-2017

15 biggest ships in the world produce more pollution than all the cars

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars

Fun little read


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 09-25-2017

I just had a terribly unpleasant experience this evening, toward the end of my ride...

Coming along Margaret, heading Southeast, I guess. Passed Victoria, and passed a slower cyclist. As we approached the lights at Margaret/Queen, there were 3 cars at the red light. I stopped behind the last one, in the middle of the lane, because I was turning left (toward Lancaster).

Well, Mr. "I'm more important than anyone else" decides to ride up the right side of the line of cars. He cuts left across the first car at the stop bar, then across Queen (which still has a green), and proceeds on Queen toward Lancaster (the same direction I was going).

A person at the Bus Stop yelled some expletives at him, and the two of us both of us came to an agreement about what should happen to cyclists like that!

I wish everyone would just follow the rules and behave. I think what caught me off guard the most is this guy looked like a serious, everyday commuter. Business clothes, panniers, etc. And yet he was still a dick.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 05:55 PM)darts Wrote: 15 biggest ships in the world produce more pollution than all the cars

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars

Fun little read

While interesting, it's highly misleading.  The 15 biggest ship produce more sulfur oxide (and maybe nitrogen oxide) pollution than cars.  However, those are localized pollutants, and while bad, in the middle of the ocean they matter less (or at least matter less to people).  When it comes to GHG emissions, cars still win by many orders of magnitude.  Fun fact, there's a good chance the same is true of lawnmowers.  Since they're simple engines with no emissions control they emit a lot of other pollutants that cars produce very little of.  Gas engines found in cars have many emissions control mechanisms, and gasoline is highly refined, which mean they are fairly clean, compared with other engines, but they still produce plenty of good old CO2.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-25-2017

... and a lot of lawnmowers have two-stroke engines, which are substantially worse yet.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 09-26-2017

Anyone going to the October Bike Show in Toronto?

https://www.bicycleshowtoronto.com/