+- 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: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 07:11 PM)plam Wrote:(09-08-2020, 04:40 PM)taylortbb Wrote: You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.
Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.
Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.
To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.
Individual actions aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.
Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.
It's worth noting as well, that Ontario's power is likely to become more dirty, not less dirty in the future. Between an increase in renewable energy, no investment in energy storage, and a shutdown of at least some of our nuclear plants, natural gas use is likely to increase. We've already eliminated all the coal, the result is that we are likely at a local minimum of emissions per kWh.
And yes, there are plenty of other sources of pollution.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 07:15 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(09-08-2020, 04:40 PM)taylortbb Wrote: You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.
Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.
Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.
To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.
I sometimes wonder about this, how valid per-capita emissions are as a measurement of responsibility. If Canada set a specific limit on emissions per capita, it would be fine for a businessperson to make frequent flights as long as someone else (or many other people) in the country have below average emissions to balance it out. But how about globally? Should one country be allowed to have higher per capita emissions if another country is below average? What about emissions per land area? What is the correct measurement? Do we not care about total emissions, just per capita?
If the pope flew a private jet around all the time, the Vatican would have massive per capita emissions, but it would probably be fairly sustainable. So, maybe governments regulating emissions should be taking the size of the population they govern into context. If a country specifically chooses not to grow their population (a luxury most developed countries have available to them, and developing countries could do more on this front though it's more complicated...), but maintains their per capita emissions, then they are doing better than a country that lowers their per capita emissions but grows their population at an even faster rate.
Now of course, Canada wants to grow it's populate at a rate I strongly disagree with, as our population size is probably the single most effective tool we have to lower our total emissions.
So, I wanna break this into two separate parts, per capita emissions fairness, and population.
I think the per capita emissions fairness makes some sense, we all live on planet earth, and should all be entitled to a similar amount of the resources. I don't think it's wrong for some of us to use less emissions to contribute our surplus to others, this is fundamentally been an aspect of our society since society became a thing.
However, I've raised this before, per capita emissions are not measured effectively. The emissions "I" emit are measured based on what Canada consumes, and what fraction of that I consume. It does NOT consider what I import. So if I import an EV, all those emissions that went into build that car, are assigned to another country, probably mostly China where the rare elements are mined, and also whereever the vehicle was manufactured.
I get to look great, "Canada" gets to look great, but only because we have dumped our emissions on another country. This has in fact been a reality of globalism since the very beginning, the ONLY difference here is that we are measuring CO2 as opposed to other environmental pollution, or resource extraction.
In terms of population, I think it's wrong and harmful to question population growth in terms of emissions. Everyone on the planet should have a right to live a life out of poverty, and as a planet and a species we have the resources to make it happen, it isn't a question of supply, even at our current population level, or even our future projected peak population levels. It is only a question of fairness.
Of course, there are real practical concerns about the in between space between now, and that magical future, but, to me, the idea of limiting immigration into our country as a method of limiting global polution by forcing people to stay in lower per capita emissions countries is not morally acceptable. Our focus should be on limiting our own emissions, not trying to force others down. And fundamentally I don't think it would work anyway. Developing countries are exactly that, "developing", in their infrastructure--physical and social--and in their wealth. Those countries will get to our level of properity, wealth, and infrastructure (and privilege). We need to make where we are sustainable, if we want those countries to also be sustainable.
Edit: As a side note, is there a sustainability/climate change thread this could be moved too, it's no longer (directly) GRT related.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 07:11 PM)plam Wrote: Individual actions alone aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.
Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.
Fixed that for you. No, a single person isn't enough. But if a million Canadians decide to drive an EV, or even drive a smaller car, or to eat less beef, it will indeed have an impact. Not enough, on its own, no. But neither is any Canadian government policy going to solve things on its own. We are all in this together, and we all need to act, individually and collectively.
Regarding CO2, reducing industrial/commercial electricity use will typically reduce natural gas-based generation, and thus reduce CO2. EV charging at home is off-peak and can (currently!) be handled through surplus nuclear power with no CO2 impact. But "supercharging" etc increases daytime load and CO2 emissions. And if we have enough EVs, we may need natural gas generation at night, too, at some point.
RE: Grand River Transit - jeffster - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 04:40 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: And yeah, families DO want to have a livable planet for their children. But guess what, NOTHING we do will make a difference. All it will do is make people live elsewhere, and depress the economy. We’re a small country population wise, with a huge area. We’re not the problem. And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.
You make some valid points about understanding why others think the way they do, but I feel like this part totally undercuts your argument.
Canada has terrible per-capita emissions, and electric vehicles aren't going to change that. Only a fundamental change to a more dense urban form, more European, will do that. Saying that it's pointless and we can't do anything is EXACTLY the problem. Per-capita we're a terrible emitter of CO2. So unless you have justification for why Canadians should be entitled to more CO2 than other countries, we need to be taking action.
Whether people want car-dependent suburbs or not is as irrelevant as whether people want private jets or not, it's not something we can afford for every person. Our CO2 budget is as real as our economic budget, people just don't like to be told that.
To be clear, I don't fault people for owning cars. I own one too (though an EV, as even if not a solution, they are better). But at a societal level, we need to be making changes to how we build our cities.
I feel like the answer below is too long, but I'll keep it up regardless. I will post a TL/DR to your points:
Driving trends between Canada and Europe aren't significantly different, which is remarkable considering our size and population differences. There is a connection between a countries general wealth and car usage, and population decline in some European countries. Over 80% of our GHG is related to industries, including farming, metal making (steel, for example), and keeping our ass warm during our 7-8 months of cold weather requiring heating to homes and workplaces, which is unique to Canada and some parts of the USA. Much of this GHG is also a result of us doing work to transfer GHG related products, like food, industrial and petro products to other countries, mostly, the USA. It's not an entitlement thing though, we feed the world, we feed ourselves, and we need to keep warm, we keep other people warm outside our country. Not many options here.
And we do need to create a more dense population and public transit nor is walking/biking everywhere a good alternative for everyone.
Long Version
If we're going to compare ourselves to Europe, both Canada and Europe are comparable in size, around 10,000,000 KM2. However, Europe is 20x the population. That being said, Canadians on average drive about 15,200 KM per year, while in Europe it's just shy of 13,700. Not a huge difference. Granted some countries have fewer cars, per capita, but that can easily be traced to a poor economy in many of European countries. But regardless, our large geography is not an advantage for Canada. Also remarkable consider the price of fuel, expensive gas does not keep European drivers off of the road.
Many of those same European countries have shrinking populations, not growing. The countries with population declines use cars the least. Other countries that continue to grow, like Germany and France, continue to use cars, I think the UK is the exception, though, with KM driven going down. Though the UK is small geographically. No need to explain why a shrinking population is an issue.
Another point to bring out when it comes to GHG, about 46% related to heating and electricity generation (about 1/3 of that is related to oil and gas exploration, mining, refining, etc). This amount to almost 2.5x the amount of GHG as compared to none commercial vehicles. Though perhaps that is what you're trying to say when it comes go GHG, that electric cars won't change that. If that's the case, then you acknowledge that fossil fuel cars aren't the issue.
Canada is also disadvantaged due to our weather. We need to heat our homes (GHG) more than any European country, as we have super crappy weather for a good 7-8 months of the year where we require to heat our homes. We produce "GHG" on our dime for other countries (exporting oil/gas and natural gas and other products related to GHG, for example, selling lumber, selling metal products. selling produce (like wheat)).
Now if we got rid of all of our GHG economies, with the exception of GHG for transportation, we'd have the lowest per capita. But we'd freeze in our homes or pay a tonne using electricity -- assuming we keep our nuclear reactors in shape, and can get enough energy from hydro-electric, wind and solar sources (not so much solar when we need it the most) as these are mostly, GHG free. But in order from keeping our economy from tanking, we'd need to figure out a new economy that doesn't factor in many industries that we have and depend on, including farming, which I am not willing to give up on.
But here's the question: would does this make us less guilty with GHG? We're simply transferring it to another country, assuming another country would have a different mindset than us and is OK with boosting their GHG to supply Canada (as of now, China and India don't have an issue with this).
I agree 100% we need to create a more dense population. I think our main issue is oversized properties though, not necessarily single (whether attached or not) dwelling units. I live in a semi, about a 24 wide property, if that. But many houses out there rock 60' or more. I think this is where we need to improve. As well, condo/apartment living prices need to come down.
However, even denser housing proves difficult when people continue to attack such projects. Hell, we even have people attacking that plan out on Highland Rd! That needs the mindset change. But it's not the solution to some of our other issues. Cars will still be used, for various reason, which this seems to be what the discussion was about. And places outside our cities, like Breslau, still deserve the right to grow, and have access to more built up areas.
As mentioned upstream, I think we need to continue to build on transit, friendly pedestrian roads, and bike lanes. But they are not great alternatives to private transportation. As mentioned previously, my daughter has had issues with GRT, and I also have supervised younger ones (under 25 females) who won't ride the bus ever again. They all have cars. All have had the similiar experiences as my daughter. I don't expect anyone here to understand that, as probably the vast majority of users here are males. And unless you can live, work and shop all within walking distance, you need a car. Bikes can be fine for many during the warmer months, but many cyclists put the bike away in the winter. As I mentioned before, our weather plays a negative role in our travels. Though again, not like places like Germany or France or the UK, etc., are much different.
If we want a real answer to GHG, though, we need to eliminate population. But Canada wouldn't be the place to start, as it's sparsely populated.
RE: Grand River Transit - jeffster - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 07:39 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: The fertility rate in Canada is far below replacement level, so unless I am misunderstanding something, our growth is entirely immigration. We even have the option to enter population decline if we desired. Of course I understand we have a ponzi scheme economy that would collapse without population growth though.
For the record, I'm not advocating for a specific position here... I'm just here to ask questions.
It's a combination of both. But without immigration, we'd have population decline. Our economy would go into the shitter as a result, but at the same time, maybe housing would become more affordable and people would have more babies.
One thing not mentioned, in regard to housing: when it comes to apartment and apartment style condos, they don't allow for much growth of a family. As a country, we do want this type of growth. And any apartment or condo that does have 3 or 4 bedrooms, prices out most people. While those that do live in a house, can renovate places like the bedroom, add additions if they need too, and have quite large families, including having parents move in, for example.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 10:06 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-08-2020, 07:11 PM)plam Wrote: Individual actions alone aren't going to get us out of this mess. It really does have to be systemic change with how we build our societies. Car-dependent suburbs are not viable.
Just to add onto the CO2 point: in Ontario natural gas currently supplies 29% of electricity; the rest aren't CO2 emitting. But that doesn't account for all the CO2 cost of suburbs. There's also embodied costs in the concrete that it takes to build these houses and the supply chains for them. Also, even electric vehicles produce particulates from tires and brakes. Not CO2 but it is pollution.
Fixed that for you. No, a single person isn't enough. But if a million Canadians decide to drive an EV, or even drive a smaller car, or to eat less beef, it will indeed have an impact. Not enough, on its own, no. But neither is any Canadian government policy going to solve things on its own. We are all in this together, and we all need to act, individually and collectively.
Regarding CO2, reducing industrial/commercial electricity use will typically reduce natural gas-based generation, and thus reduce CO2. EV charging at home is off-peak and can (currently!) be handled through surplus nuclear power with no CO2 impact. But "supercharging" etc increases daytime load and CO2 emissions. And if we have enough EVs, we may need natural gas generation at night, too, at some point.
The problem is more serious than that though...even if every Canadian in the whole country stopped driving entirely, and ate a vegan diet, and never flew, we'd still have a pretty big carbon footprint. The policies of the country, and indeed our capitalist economy ensure that even if everyone was doing everything right (even against their self interest), we'd still have trouble making the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvhXtOps4MM&t=1s&ab_channel=KurtisBaute
The biggest thing personal change actually achieves, in my opinion, is a market and political signal to those making the more impactful decisions that it's time to stop screwing around and actually deal with this problem.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 09-09-2020
(09-08-2020, 11:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(09-08-2020, 10:06 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Fixed that for you. No, a single person isn't enough. But if a million Canadians decide to drive an EV, or even drive a smaller car, or to eat less beef, it will indeed have an impact. Not enough, on its own, no. But neither is any Canadian government policy going to solve things on its own. We are all in this together, and we all need to act, individually and collectively.
Regarding CO2, reducing industrial/commercial electricity use will typically reduce natural gas-based generation, and thus reduce CO2. EV charging at home is off-peak and can (currently!) be handled through surplus nuclear power with no CO2 impact. But "supercharging" etc increases daytime load and CO2 emissions. And if we have enough EVs, we may need natural gas generation at night, too, at some point.
The problem is more serious than that though...even if every Canadian in the whole country stopped driving entirely, and ate a vegan diet, and never flew, we'd still have a pretty big carbon footprint. The policies of the country, and indeed our capitalist economy ensure that even if everyone was doing everything right (even against their self interest), we'd still have trouble making the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvhXtOps4MM&t=1s&ab_channel=KurtisBaute
The biggest thing personal change actually achieves, in my opinion, is a market and political signal to those making the more impactful decisions that it's time to stop screwing around and actually deal with this problem.
As I said, we are all in this together, and we all need to act, individually and collectively.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinT - 09-11-2020
(09-08-2020, 02:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: And I have been preaching, and no parishioners obviously, cars will be mostly electric in the future.
I 100% agree with you and got myself an Ioniq plug-in hybrid last year. My daily commute (when I had one, pre-Covid) is 100% electric in summer (a bit less in winter as the Ioniq idles its engine occasionally to make heat), and most of my weekend errands are done that way as well. Selfishly I held onto the gas option in my Ioniq for long distance as I don't want to stop to charge when driving to resorts for snowboarding in the winter, or when driving home completely spent afterwards. I'd have gotten the Model 3 Long Range if I could have afforded it, but sadly I could not. That said, I've literally done the math and it turns out that I saved $2,600 on energy costs versus my old car in the first year (an admittedly thirsty premium fuelled 3.8l rear drive sports car, my midlife crisis car), far more significant than I'd anticipated. Everybody should be driving electric; but sadly we don't have the rapid charger infrastructure or choice of vehicle models like they enjoy over in Norway. There's signs that it's coming (you can now cross the country on electricity, even in a low range model like the Ioniq EV as long as you're patient), and I think we're at a tipping point where that will accelerate a lot in the next couple of years.
All that said, I'm still a huge supporter of ION, GRT, GO, walking, and cycling because not everyone's in a position to own/drive a car.
RE: Grand River Transit - Acitta - 09-11-2020
Get an E-bike and save even more money.
RE: Grand River Transit - Acitta - 12-10-2020
Changes to accessible transit service
RE: Grand River Transit - Bob_McBob - 12-11-2020
So the region is finally starting to enforce the mask bylaw they said they would essentially never enforce, and have consistently failed to enforce in any way... to target public transit users.
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/ten-tickets-issued-in-waterloo-region-last-week-for-failing-to-comply-with-covid-19-restrictions-1.5227340
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-11-2020
Targeting transit users? I see that only four of the mask-bylaw tickets were to transit passengers. Much more significant tickets issued at private residences ($880 a pop).
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-11-2020
(12-11-2020, 02:18 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Targeting transit users? I see that only four of the mask-bylaw tickets were to transit passengers. Much more significant tickets issued at private residences ($880 a pop).
Four of ten...given that transit ridership is at best 1/10th of the region and probably considerably lower this year, seems like yes, they are targeting transit riders in excess of others.
RE: Grand River Transit - Bob_McBob - 12-11-2020
Only the public transit users were charged under a mask bylaw. All six other charges are for unrelated provincial offences. Furthermore, the region has made it very clear they will not enforce the mask bylaws, which I can confirm based on several reports from acquaintances attempting to make complaints. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time anyone has been charged under either mask bylaw, so it's pretty clear they are only targeting public transit users at this time.
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/face-covering-by-law.aspx
Quote:The Region and its partners will not be doing active enforcement and ticketing related to these by-laws at this time. We continue to take an education-first approach, asking people to comply with the by-law and educating them on the importance of protecting each other. We are appealing to residents’ goodwill and willingness to cooperate for the greater good.
RE: Grand River Transit - jwilliamson - 12-11-2020
(12-11-2020, 02:01 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: So the region is finally starting to enforce the mask bylaw they said they would essentially never enforce, and have consistently failed to enforce in any way... to target public transit users.
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/ten-tickets-issued-in-waterloo-region-last-week-for-failing-to-comply-with-covid-19-restrictions-1.5227340
This is good news. Obviously it would be better if they were enforcing it elsewhere, but I'll certainly feel better while riding transit of people are consistently masked.