Grand River Transit

[jeffster]

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.