NationStates Jolt Archive

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95e7af4b-ea1f-478b-8ef6-aea68d3257e0&k=48609)

Pollution spewing from vehicle tailpipes kills about 440 people in Toronto and costs the city's economy $2.2-billion every year, according to a new study from the city's public health unit that one critic says falsely suggests our air is poisonous.

Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's medical officer of health, hailed the study as the first of its kind in Canada to tabulate the number of people killed by vehicle-borne pollution and to estimate the number of lives that could be saved if people drove less.

The report, Air Pollution Burden of Illness from Traffic in Toronto, concludes a 10% reduction in traffic-related pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide would prevent 63 premature deaths in the city every year.

Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.

Another gorgeous example of government and corporate sleight of hand. Cigarettes kill 400,000 people in the U.S. every year yet everybody goes apeshit over a dozen spinach-related deaths.

It's like trying to distact a man from the horde of rampaging machete-wielding maniacs racing toward him with murder in their eyes by giving him a wedgie. Except that for some reason it keeps working. :p

Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.

First on live just south of Houston, Tx. The city has horrific mass transit, and the limited mass transit is does have starts right by where I work. So there is really no point to taking it. Meaning I have no choice but to drive if I want to get to work.

Yes, I could always change jobs, but my job makes me happy so why would I want to do that?

First on live just south of Houston, Tx. The city has horrific mass transit, and the limited mass transit is does have starts right by where I work. So there is really no point to taking it. Meaning I have no choice but to drive if I want to get to work.

Yes, I could always change jobs, but my job makes me happy so why would I want to do that?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe to stop children from dying of lung cancer? Would that be a sufficient motivation to change your lifestyle a bit?

There is also the possibility of using a bicycle or other form of HPV, such as roller blades, longboards, and rollerskis.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe to stop children from dying of lung cancer? Would that be a sufficient motivation to change your lifestyle a bit?

There is also the possibility of using a bicycle or other form of HPV, such as roller blades, longboards, and rollerskis.

It already takes me 30 minutes to drive to work in the morning without traffic. I simply can't justify taking 2 hours to get to work on rollerblades or bike, when I can do it in much less time. I already get up early. If I change my mode of transportation there would be no need to go to sleep, and then my health would be worse off than those children, and it would be much shorter.

Besides, If Toronto's pollution problems are really that bad, then the city needs to make some major changes to their mass transit. Besides the only way you are really going to get lung cancer from breathing automobile exhaust is if you are sucking it straigh off the tailpipe.

Heck, in the county I live in 513 people die every year from deer related fatalities. That is more people than the number of people that die in Toronto from automobile pollution. Does that mean we should exterminate all deer?



I think not.

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95e7af4b-ea1f-478b-8ef6-aea68d3257e0&k=48609)

Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.

Thanks for proving why we need a greater investment in greener public transit.

It's not just the emissions either, it's the person behind the wheel of the death machine. How many innocent people are killed every year because of a wreckless driver? I'm sure the stats are just as overwhelming.

As if you needed proof that cars cause emissions-related deaths... here's a nice little FYI, according to a female spokesperson of the Chinese Communist Party (I know this is heresy/anecdotal but it's still worth sharing; I got this from my dad who had been in Beijing recently with hi girlfriend who was there on business; the did meet some important people), when the Olympics come to Beijing, for about 2 weeks or more in advance of the games, the entire city other than vital services and the hospitality/service industry will be completely shut down, and the 20 million people will be ordered out of the city.

The only ones allowed to remain are those in vital services, the hospitality industry, transit, those with Olympic tickets and people working at the games. Everyone else has to leave. They're clearing the city of all civilian vehicles. And why? There is a layer of smog so thick over the city of Beijing that it would take at least 2 weeks to make it slightly tolerable. The smog reaches the ground level. It would be as though a car drove by on a dirt road, lifting up a cloud of dust.

Heck, in the county I live in 513 people die every year from deer related fatalities. That is more people than the number of people that die in Toronto from automobile pollution. Does that mean we should exterminate all deer?



I think not.

It seems you cannot tell the difference between fatalities related to that beyond our control, and those in the areas we can control. You're comparing apples and oranges.

There is plenty of proof that we can control the pollution. There is plenty of proof that pollution control is within the realm of man's reach. It begins by investing in greener means of getting around. Strangely, this would also cut down on rates of obesity because we would not rely on cars so much and we would walk more, use means of transit that don't rely on oil. It would also give us a chance to make our public transit better because more people would need it and when the system has to server more people, it would have a greater amount of resources at its disposal.

We cannot control animals but we can control ourselves by remembering that we are merely borrowing this planet from the children; the ones who have to live with our decisions and the consequences of those choices.

Tell me, is it necessary for one person to go from point A to point B in an SUV for no other real purpose than to get to work when a properly funded transit system can achieve the same thing by taxing the environment less?

Has it every actually occured to some that many urban centers, especially in North America, have been designed to accomodate the personal motor vehicle? That mass transit is not all capable of supporting a ban of personal motor vehicles in the near future? That the particular layout of many cities is not at all ideal for foot or bicycle traffic? In other words, to support a ban of personal motor vehicles, would require copious amounts of funding that are most likely being directed at other priorities, a complete redesign of the urban center to accomodate the changes required and more than likely large amounts of manpower to undertake such a project. In layman's terms, there just isn't the funding, the manpower nor the immediate need for such a project to take place in the immediate future.

It already takes me 30 minutes to drive to work in the morning without traffic. I simply can't justify taking 2 hours to get to work on rollerblades or bike, when I can do it in much less time. I already get up early. If I change my mode of transportation there would be no need to go to sleep, and then my health would be worse off than those children, and it would be much shorter.

Yes, you may to change parts of your current lifestyle other than your choice of vehicle. You could move. I know a woman who moved from the suburbs to an apartment closer to her work. Her 1.5 hour bicycle commute is now twenty minutes.

I realise it may be inconvenient for you, but I hope you can understand how dying of lung disease can also be inconvenient for those who share your environment.

Besides, If Toronto's pollution problems are really that bad, then the city needs to make some major changes to their mass transit. Besides the only way you are really going to get lung cancer from breathing automobile exhaust is if you are sucking it straigh off the tailpipe.

There is no reason to believe that Toronto's quality of air is significantly worse than any other city of comparable size in the western world. Unles you have some source? As for your rather dismissive attempt to ridiclue the health problems of others, I will ask you one question, do you anyone who uses an asthma inhaler?

Heck, in the county I live in 513 people die every year from deer related fatalities. That is more people than the number of peolpe that die in Toronto from automobile pollution. Does that mean we should exterminate all deer?

That is a stupid analogy. On many levels. Tell you what, why don't we get rid of our dependence on cars and the associated urban sprawl? That would also reduce deer related fatalities. And lung cancer.

There is also the possibility of using a bicycle or other form of HPV, such as roller blades, longboards, and rollerskis.
No there isn't, take your cigarette bandwagon somewhere else.

I have no choice but to drive my car for work because my job entails me having to drive to clients all across town. One day soon I hope to be my own boss when my business is running full speed and I wont have to go anywhere. Also I hope to be able to afford a green vehicle.

Has it every actually occured to some that many urban centers, especially in North America, have been designed to accomodate the personal motor vehicle? That mass transit is not all capable of supporting a ban of personal motor vehicles in the near future? That the particular layout of many cities is not at all ideal for foot or bicycle traffic? In other words, to support a ban of personal motor vehicles, would require copious amounts of funding that are most likely being directed at other priorities, a complete redesign of the urban center to accomodate the changes required and more than likely large amounts of manpower to undertake such a project. In layman's terms, there just isn't the funding, the manpower nor the immediate need for such a project to take place in the immediate future.

There are also many urban centers that have grown organically prior to the invention of the automobile. Newer ones, such as those in the western parts of North America, can be modified easily.

Mass transit can and will be made more efficiently. We could stop subsidising all those oil and car companies to get the money.

The particular layout of many cities is not ideal for car traffic either. Or perhaps you have never heard of this phenomenon called a traffic jam?

As for the economic costs, building a bike path is far cheaper than building a road. And just in case you didn't read the article:

900-million

Amount that could be saved every year if Toronto reduced its motor-vehicle emissions by 30%.

You also didn't address the issue of lung related fatalities caused by automobile pollution. In layman's terms, that's called dodging the question.

I know what you should be driving right now. Get to it. I don't want to see you here.

LOL - after work :p

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95e7af4b-ea1f-478b-8ef6-aea68d3257e0&k=48609)



Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.

Sure, if you want to regress society, and live the 18th century life, we can ban that. But that doesn't make sense. Vehicles are a necessity in modern life. People die, and it's sad, but that's life. We need to do everything possible to make it less pollutant, but we cannot outright ban vehicles.

Vehicles make society so much more efficient that it outweighs the deaths. And yes, things can outweigh deaths. Most people support war at some point. Take the most cliche example of WW2. People died in the war, but it was worth it. People die from a lot of thing, but sometimes these things outweigh the need to preserve life.

I live out in the woods, the bus doesn't come out here nor do we have Light Rail in Concord. So in order for me to get from place to place, I have to drive, but luckily I drive a 1996 Acura Integra, so...at least I'm not driving an SUV.

You also didn't address the issue of lung related fatalities caused by automobile pollution. In layman's terms, that's called dodging the question.
In layman's terms, you are making shit up. The article doesn't even use the word lung once.

Sure, if you want to regress society, and live the 18th century life, we can ban that. But that doesn't make sense. Vehicles are a necessity in modern life. People die, and it's sad, but that's life. We need to do everything possible to make it less pollutant, but we cannot outright ban vehicles.

Vehicles make society so much more efficient that it outweighs the deaths. And yes, things can outweigh deaths. Most people support war at some point. Take the most cliche example of WW2. People died in the war, but it was worth it. People die from a lot of thing, but sometimes these things outweigh the need to preserve life.

First of all, I will repeat myself: I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries. Banning all motor vehicles would probably cause more deaths than continuing the status quo, but that's not what I am arguing, is it?

The comparison with WWII is spurious at best. No one is going to exterminate the Jews if we don't use cars within urban centers.

In layman's terms, you are making shit up. The article doesn't even use the word lung once.

Are you actually attempting to engage in discussion? It's hard to tell.

First of all, I will repeat myself: I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries. Banning all motor vehicles would probably cause more deaths than continuing the status quo, but that's not what I am arguing, is it?

The comparison with WWII is spurious at best. No one is going to exterminate the Jews if we don't use cars within urban centers.

Ok, how about factories then. They pollute as well, and I'm sure a study can tie deaths to their pollution. However, we have decided that the need to produce crucial things and keep a strong economy outweighs the deaths that result from the pollution. Same with pesticides used on crops. We must push to make the factories pollute as little as possible, and the pesticides be as safe as possible, and even allow people to avoid pesticides with organic food, but we still allow these practices. I'm sure I could find many more instances like this.

Ok, how about factories then. They pollute as well, and I'm sure a study can tie deaths to their pollution. However, we have decided that the need to produce crucial things and keep a strong economy outweighs the deaths that result from the pollution. Same with pesticides used on crops. We must push to make the factories pollute as little as possible, and the pesticides be as safe as possible, and even allow people to avoid pesticides with organic food, but we still allow these practices. I'm sure I could find many more instances like this.

There are many instances. I am discussing one: automobile use in urban centers.

I would love to see some sort of breakdown showing how many lives are saved or lengthened by allowing automobile use in urban centers. Then we could compare the studies and make a decision. Do you have one?

Yes, you may to change parts of your current lifestyle other than your choice of vehicle. You could move. I know a woman who moved from the suburbs to an apartment closer to her work. Her 1.5 hour bicycle commute is now twenty minutes.

There are some parts of people's lifestyps that can't be changed. For example, I have two children so an apartment is out of the question. Or I should say the rent on an apartment for four + people would run me about 1800 a month, that is far more than I pay in gasoline, insurance, and morgage on my home. Not to mention the poor quality of public schools my children would possible attend, so that means I would need a nearby parochial school. Just the cost of that would eat up even more of my money, therefore it is economically impossible to live in that area. Hence commuting to work is my only economically viable choice.

I realise it may be inconvenient for you, but I hope you can understand how dying of lung disease can also be inconvenient for those who share your environment.

Inconvenience is really not the issue. It boils down to economics and again, I must stress that you are more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, or sucking on the tailpipe of the car than you are from breathing normally.

There is no reason to believe that Toronto's quality of air is significantly worse than any other city of comparable size in the western world. Unless you have some source? As for your rather dismissive attempt to ridiclue the health problems of others, I will ask you one question, do you anyone who uses an asthma inhaler?

I did find an link that discusses Toronto's air pollution problems (http://www.communityair.org/Problems_MOHspeaks.htm). It seems that most of the smog is caused not by automobiles, but by air travel.

Yes, and most of them, use their inhalers less once they started exercising more, pollution plays little in their breathing problems. Also in the instance of my best friend, he used is daily through his youth, once he moved to the city and went to college is stopped using entirely. When he got married and moved to Wichita Fall, he went back to once a day.

That is a stupid analogy. On many levels. Tell you what, why don't we get rid of our dependence on cars and the associated urban sprawl? That would also reduce deer related fatalities. And lung cancer.

My point was that it is ludicrous to be bickering over a miniscule 0.016% of the population dying from lung related illnesses. Just like it is for someone in my county to complain about something needing to be done about our "steep" number of deer related fatalities. Especially, when there is no way you are going to convince the more than 2 million people of Toronto, or 3 million in Houston to change their lifestyles.

No, I don't have a study, but the use of a vehicle in urban centers is not only for saving lives. I don't want the government regulating this. It's a freedom I like to have, and I don't want the government to take it away. I don't want to rely on the government or anyone else to go places. I want to be in control of my own transit.

I live out in the woods, the bus doesn't come out here nor do we have Light Rail in Concord. So in order for me to get from place to place, I have to drive, but luckily I drive a 1996 Acura Integra, so...at least I'm not driving an SUV.

I live out in the woods too. In the middle of them.

I have two buses to choose between, because my society emphasizes public transportation.

There are also many urban centers that have grown organically prior to the invention of the automobile. Newer ones, such as those in the western parts of North America, can be modified easily.

Well, let's take a look at my situation. My hometown is near Edmonton, Alberta, a western city. A city, that right now relies on personal transportation so survive and support an economy. How so? Well much of the work force comes from outerlying communities. Public transit is available from some of those communities but nowhere near enough to support the number of people who enter and leave the city on a daily basis.

One could of course move into the city to be much closer to work. To do so however is much more expensive than most people can afford. Alberta is in a boom right now. Housing shortages are rampant and property prices are throught the roof. Examples:

My uncle recently sold his tiny 2 room bungalo in Calgary for half a million on the basis that he gets to live there till next summer.

My cousin recently changed jobs and decided to move closer to his place of work. One reason being the schools in the area for his children, another being he could now ride his bike to work in the late spring, summer and early fall. He is now tied into a mortgage that would make any sane person cringe.

As for modifiying the city, well that is underway during the summer months. Anthony Henday Drive is current;y being completed. It is a ring road the surrounds the city and allows for traffic that once travelled through the city to now travel around, relieving congestion on many of the inner routes. Anthony Henday Drive is also years behind schedule and millions over budget. Anthony Henday Drive is being built in a province known for it's infrastructure and with one of the highest economies in Canada.

Mass transit can and will be made more efficiently. We could stop subsidising all those oil and car companies to get the money.

I'm not saying it won't be, I am however saying that currently it is not practical or advanced enough to take on what would be required by a city wide ban of cars.

And to top it off, to stop investing in oil companies would be devestating to the economy and put off any hopes of achieving a greener city. I'm sure the same goes Toronto and that part of Ontario as much of its industry is built up on automobile manufacturing. These are necessary evils as they are the backbone of the economy here. Without them a greencity is just a pipedream.

The particular layout of many cities is not ideal for car traffic either. Or perhaps you have never heard of this phenomenon called a traffic jam?

Exactly, which is why foot traffic and mass transit may be more ideal there. Not all cities are built the same. And as stated above, traffic jam issues are currently being addressed but you must remember labour, cost and other issues come into play. It is not simply lets build a ring road around the city to reduce the number of cars travelling through the city.

As for the economic costs, building a bike path is far cheaper than building a road. And just in case you didn't read the article:

Not denying that either. Edmonton does in fact have a large amount of inner city greenspace, complete with bikepaths and such. However much of the city has been built up long before the idea of bike paths and such were considered. These are parts of the city where personal motor vehicles and commercial vehicles are the only vehicles I would hope to see. An increase in foot traffic in these areas would most certainly see an increase in traffic related pedestrian injuries and deaths. So instead of death by lung cancer it now becomes death by a rocky-mountain double. Which would you rather, an open or closed casket?

You also didn't address the issue of lung related fatalities caused by automobile pollution. In layman's terms, that's called dodging the question.

Lung related fatalities make up a minute part of traffic related deaths. A problem? Yes. I big problem? Hardly. There is no practical way to address every issue and hiccup in a growing city. Yes it is unfortunate, but it is the truth.

*Holy shit, that took awhile.

EDIT: Here's another thing I meant to add. Edmonton has been running electric buses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Transit_System) for well over twenty years now. Far ahead of many other (and greener) cities. Electric mass transit for twenty years, and still no ban on personal motor vehicles? Must not be quite practical or beneficial then.

It seems you cannot tell the difference between fatalities related to that beyond our control, and those in the areas we can control. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I can tell the difference just fine. The point was to signify just to ridiculous it is to bicker over such a minisule number when there really are much more important issues at hand. Like murder rates, crime rates and such.

There is plenty of proof that we can control the pollution. There is plenty of proof that pollution control is within the realm of man's reach. It begins by investing in greener means of getting around. Strangely, this would also cut down on rates of obesity because we would not rely on cars so much and we would walk more, use means of transit that don't rely on oil. It would also give us a chance to make our public transit better because more people would need it and when the system has to server more people, it would have a greater amount of resources at its disposal.

With all of this I totally agree, it is time for us to stop talking about ending our dependence of foreign oil and actually do something about it, like find a new source of energy. Hydrogen, wind and solar all provide good opportunities if we can just convince the powers that be to move in that direction.

Tell me, is it necessary for one person to go from point A to point B in an SUV for no other real purpose than to get to work when a properly funded transit system can achieve the same thing by taxing the environment less?

Abosolutely not, but that was something I noted in my first post. I have no public transportation that will get me from point A to point B. Now I could drive 13 miles to the public transportation and take it the 1.5 miles into work, but realistically, if I am going to have to drive 13 miles to take public transit, I might as well drive the additional 1.5 miles, afterall the gas mileage of my vehicle won't change either way.

There are some parts of people's lifestyps that can't be changed. For example, I have two children so an apartment is out of the question. Or I should say the rent on an apartment for four + people would run me about 1800 a month, that is far more than I pay in gasoline, insurance, and morgage on my home. Not to mention the poor quality of public schools my children would possible attend, so that means I would need a nearby parochial school. Just the cost of that would eat up even more of my money, therefore it is economically impossible to live in that area. Hence commuting to work is my only economically viable choice.

I have two kids. I live in an apartment. I moved to a neighbourhood that had a good daycare and a good elementary school. I must be special or superhuman or something.

Inconvenience is really not the issue. It boils down to economics and again, I must stress that you are more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, or sucking on the tailpipe of the car than you are from breathing normally.

Yes. You are more likely to get lung cancer from smoking. You are also more likely to get lung cancer if you live in a city where cars are allowed. Inconvenience is not the issue. Keeping people from dying needlessly is the issue.

I did find an link that discusses Toronto's air pollution problems (http://www.communityair.org/Problems_MOHspeaks.htm). It seems that most of the smog is caused not by automobiles, but by air travel.

That's not what the link says. Try again.

Yes, and most of them, use their inhalers less once they started exercising more, pollution plays little in their breathing problems. Also in the instance of my best friend, he used is daily through his youth, once he moved to the city and went to college is stopped using entirely. When he got married and moved to Wichita Fall, he went back to once a day.

Your best friend is one of those people who is being adversely affected by automobile pollution. It is his best interests for you to limit or stop using your car.

My point was that it is ludicrous to be bickering over a miniscule 0.016% of the population dying from lung related illnesses. Just like it is for someone in my county to complain about something needing to be done about our "steep" number of deer related fatalities. Especially, when there is no way you are going to convince the more than 2 million people of Toronto, or 3 million in Houston to change their lifestyles.

Then don't bicker about it. No one's forcing you to stay in the thread.

No, I don't have a study, but the use of a vehicle in urban centers is not only for saving lives. I don't want the government regulating this. It's a freedom I like to have, and I don't want the government to take it away. I don't want to rely on the government or anyone else to go places. I want to be in control of my own transit.

Please explain to me how your 'right' to operate your own motor vehicle trumps the right of people to not die of lung disease. You may find this tricky because most societies guarantee a right to life but don't consider operating a motor vehicle a right.

Well, let's take a look at my situation. My hometown is near Edmonton, Alberta, a western city....snip...He is now tied into a mortgage that would make any sane person cringe.

I know Edmonton well. Easiest city in Canada to get laid in. My first winter of bike riding took place in Edmonton. The LRT is also 100% wheelchair accessible, and if I recall correctly, is free downtown. Edmonton would be an ideal place to ban cars in the downtown area. Suburbanites could park at either end of the LRT line and take the free train in.

I'm not saying it won't be, I am however saying that currently it is not practical or advanced enough to take on what would be required by a city wide ban of cars.

And to top it off, to stop investing in oil companies would be devestating to the economy and put off any hopes of achieving a greener city. I'm sure the same goes Toronto and that part of Ontario as much of its industry is built up on automobile manufacturing. These are necessary evils as they are the backbone of the economy here. Without them a greencity is just a pipedream.

To be honest, any economic changes associated with making a greener city is sort of outside the discussion. I would like to point out that the study I linked to in the OP clearly indicates savings in the billions of dollars if Toronto were to ban cars in the downtown area.

Exactly, which is why foot traffic and mass transit may be more ideal there. Not all cities are built the same. And as stated above, traffic jam issues are currently being addressed but you must remember labour, cost and other issues come into play. It is not simply lets build a ring road around the city to reduce the number of cars travelling through the city.

Kicking cars out of the city would solve a lot of these problems fairly easily, and cheaply too.

Not denying that either. Edmonton does in fact have a large amount of inner city greenspace, complete with bikepaths and such. However much of the city has been built up long before the idea of bike paths and such were considered. These are parts of the city where personal motor vehicles and commercial vehicles are the only vehicles I would hope to see. An increase in foot traffic in these areas would most certainly see an increase in traffic related pedestrian injuries and deaths. So instead of death by lung cancer it now becomes death by a rocky-mountain double. Which would you rather, an open or closed casket?

You folks have a beautiful river valley. Saw a deer once there, close to the campus. You also have an urban design that almost completely ignores pedestriansin certain areas. But most of these areas are outside the downtown core and the area around the U of A, which would be the logical place to make a car free zone. From 81st ave to about 102nd Ave, I'd say.

Lung related fatalities make up a minute part of traffic related deaths. A problem? Yes. I big problem? Hardly. There is no practical way to address every issue and hiccup in a growing city. Yes it is unfortunate, but it is the truth.

It's also the OP.

EDIT: Here's another thing I meant to add. Edmonton has been running electric buses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Transit_System) for well over twenty years now. Far ahead of many other (and greener) cities. Electric mass transit for twenty years, and still no ban on personal motor vehicles? Must not be quite practical or beneficial then.

Or it could be due to the influence of the gas and oil lobby?

Gotta go pick up my kids, on my bike. I'll try to look at this thread tonight.

I have two kids. I live in an apartment. I moved to a neighbourhood that had a good daycare and a good elementary school. I must be special or superhuman or something.

Congratulations, you still did nothing to address the econimic issues I mentioned.

Yes. You are more likely to get lung cancer from smoking. You are also more likely to get lung cancer if you live in a city where cars are allowed. Inconvenience is not the issue. Keeping people from dying needlessly is the issue.

Realitstically, you are more likely to get lung cancer by breathing....air. In fact, in recent studies done in the US. Scientists found that pollution travels much further than previously thought. They discovered that pollution in California could be contributed to the levels of pollution in China up to three weeks after the fact. And research over the last several years has tracked pollution levels in California, and compared them with those in other states to find that a spike in San Fransisco one day corresponds with an identical spike in Houston 3 days later and Miami 2 days after that.


Your best friend is one of those people who is being adversely affected by automobile pollution. It is his best interests for you to limit or stop using your car.

Again, realistically, everyone is adversely affected by automobile pollution. Lets ban all combustion engines all together. After all, the studies I mentioned about prove the problem is global, and that simply removing autos from one city will have a minimal affect.

[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;13196668]First of all, I will repeat myself: I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries. Banning all motor vehicles would probably cause more deaths than continuing the status quo, but that's not what I am arguing, is it?
QUOTE]

Y'see folks, this is what happens when history teachers aren't doing their jobs. Set the Wayback machine for the late 19th century, Sherman. New York City, like most other cities, was known for filthy streets full of horse crap.

New York City, 1866: In 1866, the Citizen's Association Report on the Sanitary Condition of the City observed that, "The stench arising from these accumulations of filth is intolerable." Also in 1866, the Atlantic Monthly described Broadway as clogged with "dead horses and vehicular entanglements," and in that year the mistreatment of the urban horse stimulated Henry Bergh to found the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

And elsewhere:

1880, Port Adelaide, Australia, where a writer describes "gutters full of unmentionable filth".

San Diego, 1888, the Health Officer's Report to the Board of Health complains of the "tons of filth from horses standing along the sides of streets".

London, 1894: the Times of London predicts that by 1950, the entire city will be under 9 feet of horse dung.

Milwaukee, 1907: 133 TONS of manure had to be removed daily.

And the stuff spread tuberculosis- you know, that wasting disease fat sopranos in operas die of?

It was into this environment that the automobile was introduced.

It was supposed to bring in an era of swift, efficient, CLEAN transportation.

In every generation, geniuses come along with solutions to our problems.

Basically, we need to find more environmentally/health friendly ways of doing everything that we do now, without having it cost too much more, or losing the convenience of it...

I live out in the woods too. In the middle of them.

I have two buses to choose between, because my society emphasizes public transportation.

I would like to point out that woods, for me is being surrounded by at least 13 acres of it, outside of city limits. We don't live in suburban, we live in a rural area.

Abosolutely not, but that was something I noted in my first post. I have no public transportation that will get me from point A to point B. Now I could drive 13 miles to the public transportation and take it the 1.5 miles into work, but realistically, if I am going to have to drive 13 miles to take public transit, I might as well drive the additional 1.5 miles, afterall the gas mileage of my vehicle won't change either way.

----> Note: I'm talking about cities here, not rural areas

That's the result of poor planning on the part of the developers. That is, if you live in a suburban centre. Those types of places are designed strictly for cars. It's meant to keep costs down, at the cost of our environment.

Now, if tax payer money was prudently invested, light rail lines could be extended into those types of areas, reducing the need for people to rely so much on their cars, trucks and SUVs (though people in rural areas would still need it more since there would be a lacking demand that dictates the rate of supply. There is no need for supply where there is no demand).

Further, for all the people talking big about Toronto and its pollution, I have this to say to you, I wager that none of you actually live here and are blowing out your asses because if you did, you'd realise that parts of Toronto, namely those of the actual city are designed to better handle public transit than cars. I know pollution's a problem, it's a big problem and the only thing that will help besides shutting down coal plants (thanks for that broken promise McGuinty; that's what you voters get for not voting NDP), limiting the use of cars would increase our fresh air significantly and reduce the number of accidents.

By reducing the number of cars, we could free up the streets for people and mass transit. We wouldn't need to widen lanes if we invested more in public transit. The lanes are only widened because of the volume of privately owned vehicles.

How many of you have come into a city only to see the highway go from four lanes, rapidly increasing to 18 lanes across; 9 lanes in each direction that still managed to house bumper to bumper traffic, many, many vehicles with a single occupant?

A cousin of mine who had never been to Toronto before my wedding couldn't believe her eyes. The widest highway in her hometown was at the most a mere six lanes across. And that town is not small; it's got a decent size population.

Adding lanes to roads doesn't alleviate the amount of traffic. It only adds to it. How much more pavement and asphalt do we have to lay down on the ground before enough is enough?

The city could be easily transformed into a public transit utopia. There are plenty of means. There's the Eglinton Line that didn't get its complete funding because of political fuck-ups.

I'm 3 blocks from the subway and for this reason, I never sought a driver's license because I've see how decently funded transit can get us easily anywhere we go. So you might have to walk a little, our ancestors had no problem with walking.

If money was put into transit instead of bailing out failing industries, leaps and bounds could be made toward genuine progress; green progress.

I hate winter, how how I hate winter, yet, as much as I hate it, I would rather have clean air than have a warmer city.

And the stuff spread tuberculosis- you know, that wasting disease fat sopranos in operas die of?

It was into this environment that the automobile was introduced.

It was supposed to bring in an era of swift, efficient, CLEAN transportation.

In every generation, geniuses come along with solutions to our problems.

And based on the information and knowledge that people had at the time. It did appear to be cleaner. After all, it leaves no manure around. Diseases decreased and life expectancy increased. Now nearly 100 years later, we know the truth. Combustion isn't as clean as we once thought. We just need political will to push forth the new technologies that can actually get us away from combustion.

I know Edmonton well. Easiest city in Canada to get laid in. My first winter of bike riding took place in Edmonton. The LRT is also 100% wheelchair accessible, and if I recall correctly, is free downtown. Edmonton would be an ideal place to ban cars in the downtown area. Suburbanites could park at either end of the LRT line and take the free train in.

Maybe a toll to enter downtown in addition to the charges already applied to parking but an outright ban as I said is impractical, especially for the folks who live outside the city. The LRT is a nice addition to the city, and expansions are on the way but it doesn't cover a broad enough area to make it useful for everybody.

To be honest, any economic changes associated with making a greener city is sort of outside the discussion. *Snip*

To be honest, that is just straight up ignorance. Ignoring factors just because they count against a particular argument is quite juvenile.



Kicking cars out of the city would solve a lot of these problems fairly easily, and cheaply too.

And cause others. As I and others have said, it isn't always practical in some cities or for some people.


You folks have a beautiful river valley. Saw a deer once there, close to the campus. You also have an urban design that almost completely ignores pedestriansin certain areas. But most of these areas are outside the downtown core and the area around the U of A, which would be the logical place to make a car free zone. From 81st ave to about 102nd Ave, I'd say.

Almost no argument there. Still from my experience driving in and around the university (I have many friends there) downtown Edmonton is still not quite ready for a ban on cars. Issues such as parking in other areas of the city would have to be addressed then. I doubt the university parking would be capable of handling the displacement of traffic from the downtown. And I say university parking, because as of now, the U of A is still the end of the line for the LRT and parking down there is an issue enough already.


It's also the OP.

What is?



Or it could be due to the influence of the gas and oil lobby?

Gotta go pick up my kids, on my bike. I'll try to look at this thread tonight.

Regardless if it's the influence of lobby groups, it is still the leading industry in Alberta (by a large margin). The current economy is supported in large part by oil and gas. Any sudden deviation would destroy any hope for a greener future in Alberta and it's cities. Gradual change is what is need, not a sudden and immediate change. The same goes for probably nearly any city in the world, regardless of economy, location, etc...

I would like to point out that woods, for me is being surrounded by at least 13 acres of it, outside of city limits. We don't live in suburban, we live in a rural area.

In terms of kilometres, the nearest suburban settlement is roughly five away.

I deal with this personally everyday as I walk to or from school and breathe in all those fumes. It's not fair. In 100 years, we can't make a non-emission car? Or one that only emits non-poisonous gases.

I don't want the government regulating this. It's a freedom I like to have, and I don't want the government to take it away. I don't want to rely on the government or anyone else to go places. I want to be in control of my own transit.


I don't what other people to kill me through the air I breath. Living is a freedom I like to have, I don't want careless people to take it away. I don't want to rely on you or anyone else to let me live. I want to be in control of my own life.

No, I don't have a study, but the use of a vehicle in urban centers is not only for saving lives. I don't want the government regulating this. It's a freedom I like to have, and I don't want the government to take it away. I don't want to rely on the government or anyone else to go places. I want to be in control of my own transit.
Your own transit, you say, but did the people whose air was polluted consent to have it so?

Explain to me why there are some people so frail that breathing kills them? I can't help but think their health problems are the problem, not my ability to get to work, visit my family, and otherwise live my life.

you are more likely to get lung cancer from smoking
One who smokes chooses to smoke, it is therefore a consequence of their own actions. Those whose air is polluted have such because others polluted it, therefore it is NOT a consequence of their own actions

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95e7af4b-ea1f-478b-8ef6-aea68d3257e0&k=48609)



Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.

Amen, we need exercise. If we want transportation that bad that doesn't cause so much death we should make it unprofitable for corporations to make pollutative vehicles by boycotting them and only buy any environmentally safe cars they make.

Explain to me why there are some people so frail that breathing kills them?
Because the air they're breating in has been poisoned?

Because the air they're breating in has been poisoned?

And the millions who breathe the same air with no ill effects. They're superhuman?

And the millions who breathe the same air with no ill effects. They're superhuman?
Maybe those millions didn't breathe in as much of that air. Maybe they were the people driving around with their windows rolled up so that they wouldn't have to breathe in the pollution they were giving off and the people being poisoned from it the most were the people walking around breathing it in, in other words the ones not causing it.

Maybe those millions didn't breathe in as much of that air. Maybe they were the people driving around with their windows rolled up so that they wouldn't have to breathe in the pollution they were giving off and the people being poisoned from it the most were the people walking around breathing it in, in other words the ones not causing it.

Right, because drivers have their own air supply, and never venture outside of their vehicles? And their air supply inside the vehicles is a sealed system, and filters out the entire atmosphere?

What about the millions of pedestrians who never get ill? Are they superhuman?

Because some people are deathly allergic to bee stings, does that mean we exterminate all the bees on earth to prevent the possibility of a bee sting?

Because some people are allergic to peanuts, or shellfish, does that mean a blanket ban on them?

Because some people have Polymorphic Light Eruption, do we block out the sun?

And the millions who breathe the same air with no ill effects. They're superhuman?

susceptibility to toxins is genetic, my grandma was a smoker from age 14 to the day she died and she had no cancer whatsoever.

Right, because drivers have their own air supply, and never venture outside of their vehicles? And their air supply inside the vehicles is a sealed system, and filters out the entire atmosphere?

What about the millions of pedestrians who never get ill? Are they superhuman?

Because some people are deathly allergic to bee stings, does that mean we exterminate all the bees on earth to prevent the possibility of a bee sting?

Because some people are allergic to peanuts, or shellfish, does that mean a blanket ban on them?

Because some people have Polymorphic Light Eruption, do we block out the sun?
1) I figured the air supply in vehicles and homes would filter out pollution, I might be wrong, I'm not sure about this, I was more so meaning to question the relevance of your point to the safety of air...

2) Any proof that millions of pedestrians in polluted cities like Toronto never get ill?

3) Well, we do have special medications for those allergic to bee stings to save their lives, so as long as we have allergy testing for insect venom they should be reasonably safe.

4) No, but remember there are special labels for what is nut-free and special warnings for what may contain traces of nuts, so these people can avoid them if they choose to do so. It's not as easy to avoid air pollution.

5) What the hell is Polymorphic Light Eruption?

Allergy to sunlight. You see cases on the news sometimes -- kids who cannot go out of doors, who get burned when they play outside in the MOONLIGHT (which is weakly reflected sunlight, after all).

There are people who certain food additives are poison -- should they be banned, too?

Oh my God! That poor study. Why doesn't anyone ever think of the studies? :(

Allergy to sunlight. You see cases on the news sometimes -- kids who cannot go out of doors, who get burned when they play outside in the MOONLIGHT (which is weakly reflected sunlight, after all).

There are people who certain food additives are poison -- should they be banned, too?
What?

As for polymorphic light eruption, that's horrible, but I think the environmental implications of blocking out the sun alone (along with other implications, of course) would probably be worse, the point does not apply in the same direction with air pollution. The solution lies in medical research, and lots of it. Seek out embryonic stem cell research to try to cure it. Find out the genes that contribute to it so that carriers for it are restricted from passing on their genes (which would be child abuse to do) so that we don't have to have more people in the future having to go through that.

What about the millions of pedestrians who never get ill? Are they superhuman?


About as superhuman as the millions who smoke cigarettes and don't die of lung cancer.

About as superhuman as the millions who smoke cigarettes and don't die of lung cancer.
BOOM! HEAD SHOT!

Y'see folks, this is what happens when history teachers aren't doing their jobs. Set the Wayback machine for the late 19th century, Sherman. New York City, like most other cities, was known for filthy streets full of horse crap. ...snip...
It was into this environment that the automobile was introduced.

It was supposed to bring in an era of swift, efficient, CLEAN transportation.

In every generation, geniuses come along with solutions to our problems.

Thank you for successfully arguing against using horse drawn carriages as personal vehicles. Too bad that this thread is not about that as I haven't suggested using them. Though expanding existing carriage services in certain cities may be part of the solution, I don't think that simply replacing all the cars with horse drawn carriages will be a solution.

Congratulations, you still did nothing to address the econimic issues I mentioned.

Well, you were going on about how impossible it would be for you to do all these things and I just thought it was funny that I find them quite possible.

Do you really want me to find a solution for you? Making more responsible transportation choices isn't some easy cookie cutter solution. I know nothing about you. I know what I would do if I were you. Do you want to hear that?

To tie it back to the OP, your reasons for causing fatal pollution amount to inconvenience and a perceived lack of economic options.

Realitstically, you are more likely to get lung cancer by breathing....air. In fact, in recent studies done in the US. Scientists found that pollution travels much further than previously thought. They discovered that pollution in California could be contributed to the levels of pollution in China up to three weeks after the fact. And research over the last several years has tracked pollution levels in California, and compared them with those in other states to find that a spike in San Fransisco one day corresponds with an identical spike in Houston 3 days later and Miami 2 days after that.

Then it makes sense that we minimise pollution where we can. Like banning cars inside urban areas. Thanks for helping my argument.

Again, realistically, everyone is adversely affected by automobile pollution. Lets ban all combustion engines all together. After all, the studies I mentioned about prove the problem is global, and that simply removing autos from one city will have a minimal effect.

I think we should ban combustion engines, as soon as you can find another type of engine that can used by emergency vehicles, etc. Until then, we just ban their use where it is superfluous, like in urban centres.

Basically, we need to find more environmentally/health friendly ways of doing everything that we do now, without having it cost too much more, or losing the convenience of it...

Actually, we need to drastically reduce our consumption of everything, including energy. That means changing the way we do everything.

Maybe a toll to enter downtown in addition to the charges already applied to parking but an outright ban as I said is impractical, especially for the folks who live outside the city. The LRT is a nice addition to the city, and expansions are on the way but it doesn't cover a broad enough area to make it useful for everybody.

If I remeber correctly, the LRT runs in a line from the NE to the SW, ending at the campus. Building another one like it that runs perpendicular would be a relatively easy solution. Especially if you build most of it at ground level, like the existing line. have it tie into the existing in the downtown core. Add a few more elctric buses to the downtown core and the area around the U of A and Whyte Ave and you're pretty much done.

To be honest, that is just straight up ignorance. Ignoring factors just because they count against a particular argument is quite juvenile.

Okay. Play it your way. I have a link (the OP) showing a savings of $900 million if Toronto were to cut automobile traffic by thirty percent, and $2.2 billion with an outright ban. That is the equivalent of the entire budget expenditure for the TTC (public transit for Toronto) for the next few years.

link (http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/2007_2011_capital_program_aug2006.pdf) pdf. page 11.

So, the savings from banning cars in Toronto would apparently pay for the running expenditures of a public transit three or four times as large.

Looks pretty economically viable to me. Now, do you have anything to back up the claim that banning cars in Toronto's downtown core would have a negative economic impact? Or Edmonton?

And cause others. As I and others have said, it isn't always practical in some cities or for some people.

It seems pretty practical in Edmonton. I can't think of any problems it would cause, but you seem to think there would be many. What would they be?

Almost no argument there. Still from my experience driving in and around the university (I have many friends there) downtown Edmonton is still not quite ready for a ban on cars. Issues such as parking in other areas of the city would have to be addressed then. I doubt the university parking would be capable of handling the displacement of traffic from the downtown. And I say university parking, because as of now, the U of A is still the end of the line for the LRT and parking down there is an issue enough already.

An ideal solution in this case would be to expand the line one more stop and simply install a whole whack of parking (I'm thinking some multilevel garages)at the next station.

What is?

The issue of banning cars in the urban core for the sake of reducing lung disease. That's the OP.

Regardless if it's the influence of lobby groups, it is still the leading industry in Alberta (by a large margin). The current economy is supported in large part by oil and gas. Any sudden deviation would destroy any hope for a greener future in Alberta and it's cities. Gradual change is what is need, not a sudden and immediate change. The same goes for probably nearly any city in the world, regardless of economy, location, etc...

I agree. No sense in pissing off the oil and gas lobby. In a stand up fight, they'll win. They have the money and the clout. I just think that Edmonton is ready for the next step and that step should be a car-free downtown.

Explain to me why there are some people so frail that breathing kills them? I can't help but think their health problems are the problem, not my ability to get to work, visit my family, and otherwise live my life.

It turns out that these people's breathing problems are related to your ability to get to work, visit your family, and otherwise live your life. Consequently, responsible adults should take into account the health and welfare of others when making transportation choices. Especially those who live in cities with a centralised population, like New York.

And you are correct that it kills the frail. Those who may have lived long lives afflicted with asthma or bronchitis are now dead because of automobile pollution. Those who would have had tolerable lung problems now have horrific ones. Those who would have been healthy are not, but they won't die. Do you get it?

Thank you for successfully arguing against using horse drawn carriages as personal vehicles. Too bad that this thread is not about that as I haven't suggested using them. Though expanding existing carriage services in certain cities may be part of the solution, I don't think that simply replacing all the cars with horse drawn carriages will be a solution.

I think he was trying to point out that history has shown that as mankind has advanced, we have always had problems with pollution. The combustion engine is just the latest culprit.

And no expanding carriage services would create a new problem that would run the risk of spreading disease so that would not be a good option.

Well, you were going on about how impossible it would be for you to do all these things and I just thought it was funny that I find them quite possible.

I don't expect anything from you. You were arguing that I should be doing whatever I can to eliminate using my automobile. I was just noting that economically, living in the city and using another means of transportation is not cost effective for me. Now, is the city would expand the public transportation network, and light rail in a sensible direction, that might change, but I don't see Harris County or its neighbors doing that any time soon. Unfortunately.

To tie it back to the OP, your reasons for causing fatal pollution amount to inconvenience and a perceived lack of economic options.

No, it comes down to personal economics and a lack of reliable public transportation. As I said the public transist system in Houston is atrocious, especially if you live outside the Houston city limits.

Then it makes sense that we minimise pollution where we can. Like banning cars inside urban areas. Thanks for helping my argument.

Yet, you missed the point again. Because of the way pollution travels, simply banning cars in one city, might not have much of an affect on that cities pollution levels. These studies have shown that in order to have any major impact other cities, and in some cases other countries would have to adopt such a ban.

I agree that it makes sense to minimize pollution where we can, but I still believe that an outright ban on automobiles is the wrong direction. Changing our source of powering those vehicles is a much better option.


I think we should ban combustion engines, as soon as you can find another type of engine that can used by emergency vehicles, etc. Until then, we just ban their use where it is superfluous, like in urban centres.

Have you heard of hydrogen fuel cells? They have been around for a while, and several cities (Chicago, for example) have been testing buses that use them. So far all have been very successful.



While, I do understand your arguments, and I don't really disagree with them, I don't see the idea as being realistic. I believe the money, and effort would be better spend on pushing for greener transportation methods, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Electric Cars, and Solar-powered vehicles.

Actually, we need to drastically reduce our consumption of everything, including energy. That means changing the way we do everything.

On this I again disagree, primaryly because history has shown that advancement takes more and more energy, especially as the population of the Earth grows.

Short of eliminating all technology from our lives and reverting to using Stone Age tech, this is an unrealistic ideal. Again, I better idea would be to push toward green technologies for producing energy, like solar, and wind power.

We should just ban people from cities. After all the more people that pass through a given area the more likely there will be the spreading of illnesses and diseases.

We should also ban eating seeing as that can lead to obesity and heart problems.

We also need to ban drinking, as this can lead to choking and possible drowning not to mention all those nasty bacteria that could be in the water itself.

We should also ban work because that leads to stress and raises blood pressure increasing the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

TV should also be banned because it encourages a sedentary life style which causes obesity and leads to heart problems.

We should also ban walking because people could trip and split their head open on the ground or break their neck.

The fact is you can't simply ban something because it may be harmful to someone's health. It's not like you can just place people in a bubble to keep them safe.

On that note you are not going to see any changes from combustion to any other form of energy until one of those said forms becomes better or as good as combustion and is cheaper. As it stands now there is no realistic alternative to combustion. And mass transit only works in certain urban areas so it has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

You can't demand change until you have something to change to.

I can think of one example where suburban sprawl has a decent amount of transit to meet the demand. It has a regular schedule and even peak hour service that is quite good. This place is Ottawa, the capital of Canada. The neighbourhood I'm thinking of was built up during the 90s, with many, many parts built after 2000, with plenty of ongoing construction, yet some how the city planners have managed it so there are easily accessible bus stops throughout the winding main through fare of the neighbourhood. With proper investment, there could be better service, but this is proof that it can work.

I think he was trying to point out that history has shown that as mankind has advanced, we have always had problems with pollution. The combustion engine is just the latest culprit.

Then his (or her) point doesn't address the issue. Showing that we have had similar problems in the past does not help unless the solution can be applied to the current situation.

And no expanding carriage services would create a new problem that would run the risk of spreading disease so that would not be a good option.

That's nice that you believe that. We have horse drawn carriages here in Montreal. Please show me how expanding the existing system would create a risk of disease. Please back up your claim with reputable sources. Thank you.

I don't expect anything from you. You were arguing that I should be doing whatever I can to eliminate using my automobile. I was just noting that economically, living in the city and using another means of transportation is not cost effective for me. Now, is the city would expand the public transportation network, and light rail in a sensible direction, that might change, but I don't see Harris County or its neighbors doing that any time soon. Unfortunately.

I'm glad you're here to tell me what I'm arguing.:rolleyes:

Tell you what. Why don't you reread the OP. It does not seem to say 'Aurill should completely eliminate using his or her car', does it?

I am arguing that we should ban cars inside urban centers to avoid needless deaths.

No, it comes down to personal economics and a lack of reliable public transportation. As I said the public transist system in Houston is atrocious, especially if you live outside the Houston city limits.

Again, I am discussing banning cars within city limits. I guess it's partly my fault for not repeating this to you earlier. I thought that since I've mentioned that a dozen or so times now, you might have picked that up.

Yet, you missed the point again. Because of the way pollution travels, simply banning cars in one city, might not have much of an affect on that cities pollution levels. These studies have shown that in order to have any major impact other cities, and in some cases other countries would have to adopt such a ban.

You mean those studies that you haven't linked to? The study that I actually linked to in the OP states quite clearly that there are direct benefits associated with banning cars in urban centers.

I agree that it makes sense to minimize pollution where we can, but I still believe that an outright ban on automobiles is the wrong direction. Changing our source of powering those vehicles is a much better option.

Good thing I'm not arguing for an outright ban, then. And changing the power source only solves part of the problem. I will concede that it would solve the problem of increased lung illnesses and related deaths.

Have you heard of hydrogen fuel cells? They have been around for a while, and several cities (Chicago, for example) have been testing buses that use them. So far all have been very successful.

While, I do understand your arguments, and I don't really disagree with them, I don't see the idea as being realistic. I believe the money, and effort would be better spend on pushing for greener transportation methods, like Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Electric Cars, and Solar-powered vehicles.

I think things like this can be part of the solution, but simply replacing combustion engines with other engines will not address the myriad of issues.

On this I again disagree, primaryly because history has shown that advancement takes more and more energy, especially as the population of the Earth grows.

Actually, history has not shown that. Quite the reverse actually. Technological progress has allowed us to do more with less. This is why your computer is much more powerful, and smaller, than the first computers ever used.

We should just ban people from cities. After all the more people that pass through a given area the more likely there will be the spreading of illnesses and diseases....snip...The fact is you can't simply ban something because it may be harmful to someone's health. It's not like you can just place people in a bubble to keep them safe.

I think we should ban stupid analogies myself.

On that note you are not going to see any changes from combustion to any other form of energy until one of those said forms becomes better or as good as combustion and is cheaper. As it stands now there is no realistic alternative to combustion. And mass transit only works in certain urban areas so it has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

So ban combustion engines where you don't need them. Like in urban centres, where mass transit works better.

You can't demand change until you have something to change to

Fortunately, there is a long list of cities that have implemented car-free zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places

So it would appear that we do have something to change to.

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95e7af4b-ea1f-478b-8ef6-aea68d3257e0&k=48609)



Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.
Well, when the company you've been working for for 15 years moves your department from 10 miles away from your home to 25 miles away from your home, what do you propose the person do? Walk? Give up their time in the company and start over on retirement and salary? Move from your home that you've had for a decade to a scary low end part of town where you're afraid to go out at night (because that's where the new department location is)?

Yes, marvelous good plan.

440 deaths in Toronto annually blamed on emissions[/URL]
Just 440/year? Seesh... amateurs.

[QUOTE]I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.
If said cities have a huge, onmicomprehensive, perfectly-smoothly-working public transportation system 24/24, 365/365 (366/366 on some years ;) ) and affordable to everyone. Neh?

Well, when the company you've been working for for 15 years moves your department from 10 miles away from your home to 25 miles away from your home, what do you propose the person do? Walk? Give up their time in the company and start over on retirement and salary? Move from your home that you've had for a decade to a scary low end part of town where you're afraid to go out at night (because that's where the new department location is)?

Yes, marvelous good plan.

Thanks. I thought it was a good plan too. I still do, despite the fact that you have supplied an anecdote that may or may not have anything to do with my plan.

Unless you wanted me to discuss your situation as if it was affected by my plan. We could do that, I guess, but we would need more information, like where the company is located in terms of local population densities, the health of the individual concerned, his or her economic status, what city he or she lives in, if he or she lives in a city, etc.

Without information like that, I have no idea if my plan would positively or negatively affect this person's situation. I could be fairly certain that their risk of lung cancer would decrease though.

If said cities have a huge, onmicomprehensive, perfectly-smoothly-working public transportation system 24/24, 365/365 (366/366 on some years ;) ) and affordable to everyone. Neh?

It is not entirely affordable due to the fact that motorists believe they control the roads. If car use was taxed appropriately, the cost of public transit could be reduced while increasing the amount of service available. When this looks like an attractive prospect, more people will use it, generating more revenue for the system, allowing it to expand. But as long as the automotive industry's lobby is strong, it will prevent public transit from truly flourishing.

Thanks. I thought it was a good plan too. I still do, despite the fact that you have supplied an anecdote that may or may not have anything to do with my plan.

Unless you wanted me to discuss your situation as if it was affected by my plan. We could do that, I guess, but we would need more information, like where the company is located in terms of local population densities, the health of the individual concerned, his or her economic status, what city he or she lives in, if he or she lives in a city, etc.

Without information like that, I have no idea if my plan would positively or negatively affect this person's situation. I could be fairly certain that their risk of lung cancer would decrease though.

Want more info? I can easily provide it. It's my mom BTW not me. My mother lives in Vancouver, WA and works for a very large healthcare company. The reason she never moved to Portland is because of the infamously terrible Portland public schools. You're more than welcome to check that fact. The area she first worked in wasn't the safest either, there was no way she was going to raise her children in a place where she was afraid to let them leave the house. She started working for the healthcare company as a temp with a degree she was told would get her far, and really didn't. She worked her way up through the company from a barely livable wage (like we ate rice with sloppy joe mix on it because we were too poor to afford meat and many nights she wouldn't eat at all), to a fairly good wage (about 45k/yr).

She bought her house about 10 years ago, and through the years has fixed it up and made it a home. It's also all my sibling and I will get as a matter of inheritance, her retirement will sustain her but not leave anything for us. Her goal is to pay the house off by the time she dies so my brother and I can keep it or sell it. My family has never been wealthy and she wants passionately to leave her children with at least a little something.

Her company announced they were moving her department about three years ago if memory serves me (maybe only two). She looked for other jobs within the company, and even had HR try to assist her. HR did this for everyone in the company. The building they were housed in was being sold or the lease was up, so they had no choice but to move. The department was one of the only departments not in a company owned building. The company made the decision to move them into one of their own buildings, which happens to be in a city even further south.

The company could not find a department that would keep her at her current wage and at the same place on the food chain. There's only one other company with the same structure as hers in the metro area. Her skills could be used at an insurance company, but no one was hiring outside the company for someone in her specific role.

Not that she really could move anyway. She'd lose her retirement. She has traditional retirement and not have a transportable 401k. At the time her company switched to the 401k she would have lost a signifigant amount of money switching, so she stayed (as was advised) with the traditional retirement (retire in 30 years).

Her commute if she used public transportation is over 2.5 hours long and includes switching from one bus system to a completely different one (fun of living in one state and working in the other). She works 9-12 hour days in her current role so the commute would make her entire day 14- 17 hours. She also works many Saturdays (hooray for salary!) when there is no service across the bridge which means she's have to walk or ride a bike 25 miles each way. That's 50 miles a day!

Any other info you need?

Incidentally, I was born with extremely bad athsma (inherited from my mom's side of the family), I was born in the country and spent my early years there. I suffered from athsma badly. Moving to the city was my first relief. Moving back to the country has aggrivated my asthma once again. So yeah, I'd prefer city air to coutnry air any day.

Want more info?...snip...So yeah, I'd prefer city air to coutnry air any day.

Perhaps she could purchase an electric bicycle. That's what I would do if I were in her position. Assuming the weather in Portland is comparable to the weather in Vancouver. I'm going to buy one like this (http://www.e-ride.ca/Electric_Bikes/electric_bike_UnoBike.html) for my mother, who lives in Montreal, which has a far more demanding climate. This is only one of many possible solutions for your mother.

FYI:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/laws_regs.shtml

http://clevercycles.com/

And while I am sorry to hear about your asthma, one anecdote does not render a published study useless.

Okay, motorists.

Please explain to me why you feel your 'need' to drive trumps other people's rights not to die of lung cancer. I think that there should be a ban on all motor vehicles within urban centres, excepting emergency vehicles and perishable item deliveries.

I think when you add up all the deaths that result from traffic accidents and carcinogenic pollutants, I think we can all agree that cities don't need cars.
Awesome! Everyone always bitches about cigarettes, then gets told to shut up until cars are banned, but this is really the first time I've seen anyone argue that in fact, cars SHOULD be restricted! I'm very excited!

One thing I wonder about is how we can 'retrofit' urban centres that were built around access for cars, to be more people friendly. Now that would be a fantastic project I could really get behind, creating more public space...

Awesome! Everyone always bitches about cigarettes, then gets told to shut up until cars are banned, but this is really the first time I've seen anyone argue that in fact, cars SHOULD be restricted! I'm very excited!
As far as I can tell, Gift-of-god is making an argument from the smoker's side. Gift-of-god is ranting about lung cancer caused by car exhaust where the article never says how car exhaust is killing anyone.

One thing I wonder about is how we can 'retrofit' urban centres that were built around access for cars, to be more people friendly. Now that would be a fantastic project I could really get behind, creating more public space...
That would be impossible. Urban centers usually consist of building, you know, the big things consisting of concrete and steel. A whole city would have to be designed around pedestrian movement. And would also have to make it so that there is always enough residential space inside the city for everyone that works there. Adding more space does not making a city more pedestrian friendly.

You smokers need to get a clue. Gift-of-god is ranting about lung cancer caused by car exhaust where the article never says how car exhaust is killing anyone. Maybe you should just stop trying to kill other people while you kill yourself and accept it. Um...dumbass? I'm a non-smoker. It's the smokers who rant about car exhaust...and always complain that no one argues for banning cars...yet now we have a whole thread on it. This is me saying w00t.


That would be impossible. Urban centers usually consist of building, you know, the big things consisting of concrete and steel. A whole city would have to be designed around pedestrian movement. And would also have to make it so that there is always enough residential space inside the city for everyone that works there. Adding more space does not making a city more pedestrian friendly.
Wow! You have amazing powers of perception! Except, hmmm, let's see...take the cars off the streets and look around...where can we find some more space...damn it, I just can't figure it out, can someone help me here? Oh woe is me, it's just not coming to me!:eek:

Perhaps she could purchase an electric bicycle. That's what I would do if I were in her position. Assuming the weather in Portland is comparable to the weather in Vancouver. I'm going to buy one like this (http://www.e-ride.ca/Electric_Bikes/electric_bike_UnoBike.html) for my mother, who lives in Montreal, which has a far more demanding climate. This is only one of many possible solutions for your mother.

FYI:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/laws_regs.shtml

http://clevercycles.com/

And while I am sorry to hear about your asthma, one anecdote does not render a published study useless.
It rains most of the year here. The average rainfall is 36.6 inches/yr and 155 days of measurable percipitation. Mild summers and cold, wet winters. Here's the forecast for the week: http://www.wunderground.com/US/OR/Portland.html

Do you want to bicycle 50 miles in the rain?

By the way, it really doesn't matter to me if a definitive link can be drawn between car emissions and cancer. When you're blowing black gunk out of your nose after spending a day in a city like Santiago, Chile, then frankly, cancer or not you KNOW that shit isn't good for your body. Really working to provide an excellent mass transit system, keeping cars out of the most congested areas, and providing more greenspace is frankly something that shouldn't sound like a lot of wacky environmental garbage...it just makes sense.

Do you want to bicycle 50 miles in the rain?

There are people here who pedal around in these really cool, modified sit down bikes with a plastic cover, protecting them from the elements:)

There are also people who use studded tires to bike in the middle of winter. It's not that crazy.

There are people here who pedal around in these really cool, modified sit down bikes with a plastic cover, protecting them from the elements:)

There are also people who use studded tires to bike in the middle of winter. It's not that crazy.

I didn't see any electric bikes with that modification. I'd also be curious how they do up hills, Portland isn't exactly flat. Some of the people in my mom's department are in their 60's (most of the younger ones jumped ship when they could). Do you really expect a 60 year old to travel these excessive distances on a bike?

Speaking of the elderly, are they supposed to walk to all their doctors appointments and to the grocery store?

As far as I can tell, Gift-of-god is making an argument from the smoker's side. Gift-of-god is ranting about lung cancer caused by car exhaust where the article never says how car exhaust is killing anyone.

From the article:

Dr. McKeown, however, defended TPH's methodology.

"I'm often asked with these numbers, show me the person who's in the morgue, in the hospital, who died as a result of air pollution," he said.

"The reason we know that there's a strong relationship between quality of our air and the pollutants that are in our air and our health is because we can see that on bad air days more people have symptoms, more people go to the doctor, more people go to the emergency room, more people are admitted to hospital and more people die."

also...

BY THE NUMBERS:

Air Pollution Burden of Illness from Traffic in Toronto report says:

440

Number of premature deaths caused by traffic-related pollution in Toronto every year.

1,700

Number of hospitalizations caused by traffic-related pollution in Toronto every year.

1,200

Number of acute bronchitis episodes experienced by children annually as a result of traffic-related pollution.

2.2-billion

Cost to the economy of traffic-related pollution deaths every year.

189

Number of lives that could be saved every year if Toronto reduced its motor-vehicle emissions by 30%.

900-million

Amount that could be saved every year if Toronto reduced its motor-vehicle emissions by 30%.

All from the OP article. You are correct that I have been somewhat indiscriminate in my language in regards to lung disease when the only one that was explicitly mentioned in the article was acute bronchitis. But if you really want...

Traffic pollution and lung cancer. (http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Air-pollution-may-raise-risk-of-lung-cancer--1025-1/)

Traffic pollution and asthma (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s873781.htm).

There you go. There is a huge amount of medical literature tying car exhaust to a broad range of pulmonary disorders. Google is your friend.

That would be impossible. Urban centers usually consist of building, you know, the big things consisting of concrete and steel. A whole city would have to be designed around pedestrian movement. And would also have to make it so that there is always enough residential space inside the city for everyone that works there. Adding more space does not making a city more pedestrian friendly.

Urban centres also consist of the spaces between buildings. You know, that area that is currently devoted mostly to cars? In many older cities throughout the world this space has grown organically around pedestrian movement. Returning such spaces to pedestrians wouldn't be that difficult. Nor are newer cities that different. I have already explained how Edmonton, a relatively new city, could easily be modifiied to have a car-free downtown core.

Issues of residential housing are related, definitely, but creating more car-free spaces reduces use of cars, which would lead to a decline in urban sprawl.

And I have no idea what you mean when you say 'Adding more space does not making a city more pedestrian friendly.'

It rains most of the year here. The average rainfall is 36.6 inches/yr and 155 days of measurable percipitation. Mild summers and cold, wet winters. Here's the forecast for the week: http://www.wunderground.com/US/OR/Portland.html

Do you want to bicycle 50 miles in the rain?

Yes, I do. If the alternatives are driving in the rain and sitting on public transportation in the rain, I would bicycle. I am one of those people that bicycle in 'bad' weather. If I was old and had a gimp leg like my mom (perdoname, mama) I would use an electric motor.

Wow. Google is oddly helpful today:

Climatology is concerned with averages and variations about the average value. The annual total precipitation of Portland, Oregon (USA) and Montreal, Canada is similar; Portland has 39.8 inches and Montreal has 40.8 inches. The average precipitation for a month is nearly the same for the two cities. Portland's average monthly precipitation is 3.32 inches, while that of Montreal is 3.4 inches.

linko (http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_time_scale.html)

From the article:



also...



All from the OP article. You are correct that I have been somewhat indiscriminate in my language in regards to lung disease when the only one that was explicitly mentioned in the article was acute bronchitis. But if you really want...

Traffic pollution and lung cancer. (http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Air-pollution-may-raise-risk-of-lung-cancer--1025-1/)

Traffic pollution and asthma (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s873781.htm).

There you go. There is a huge amount of medical literature tying car exhaust to a broad range of pulmonary disorders. Google is your friend.



Urban centres also consist of the spaces between buildings. You know, that area that is currently devoted mostly to cars? In many older cities throughout the world this space has grown organically around pedestrian movement. Returning such spaces to pedestrians wouldn't be that difficult. Nor are newer cities that different. I have already explained how Edmonton, a relatively new city, could easily be modifiied to have a car-free downtown core.

Issues of residential housing are related, definitely, but creating more car-free spaces reduces use of cars, which would lead to a decline in urban sprawl.

And I have no idea what you mean when you say 'Adding more space does not making a city more pedestrian friendly.'



Yes, I do. If the alternatives are driving in the rain and sitting on public transportation in the rain, I would bicycle. I am one of those people that bicycle in 'bad' weather. If I was old and had a gimp leg like my mom (perdoname, mama) I would use an electric motor.

Wow. Google is oddly helpful today:



linko (http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_time_scale.html)

Isn't that what I said the rain was? But please, rehash stats I've already found for you. It still doesn't answer my question. Do you really expect 60 year old women to ride bicycles over 50 miles? Or wait, of course you do. Do you think a reasonable person would expect a 60 year old woman to ride a bicycle over 50 miles?

And what of the elderly? Do you really expect the elderly to walk to and from the store and to their doctors appointments?

I didn't see any electric bikes with that modification. I'd also be curious how they do up hills, Portland isn't exactly flat. Some of the people in my mom's department are in their 60's (most of the younger ones jumped ship when they could). Do you really expect a 60 year old to travel these excessive distances on a bike?

Speaking of the elderly, are they supposed to walk to all their doctors appointments and to the grocery store?

http://www.cab-bike.com/english/

Neesika is describing a recumbent tricycle with full fairings. The above link shows a commercially available model from Germany (I think).

I would not suggest one for a hilly environment. Unless it came with an electric motor. That would rock. Hmm. I have to talk to my mom.

As for the elderly, other than my mother, I guess, they would have several options open to them, including a much better transit sytem. My local supermarket has free deliveries for seniors, so the elderly only have to bring it up to the counter or phone their order in.

Isn't that what I said the rain was? But please, rehash stats I've already found for you. It still doesn't answer my question. Do you really expect 60 year old women to ride bicycles over 50 miles? Or wait, of course you do. Do you think a reasonable person would expect a 60 year old woman to ride a bicycle over 50 miles ?

Well, I was pointing out that I already bike in the rain (the same amount as Portland, by lucky coincidence) so I can safely answer that I would do it, and I think I could reasonably demand it of others. You will note the repeated references to my own mother. I expect her to, and she is older than sixty and has a problem with her leg. She seems to think she's capable.

And what of the elderly? Do you really expect the elderly to walk to and from the store and to their doctors appointments?

The elderly are capable of walking, and using public transport. They're not invalids, you know.

http://www.cab-bike.com/english/

Neesika is describing a recumbent tricycle with full fairings. The above link shows a commercially available model from Germany (I think).

I would not suggest one for a hilly environment. Unless it came with an electric motor. That would rock. Hmm. I have to talk to my mom.

As for the elderly, other than my mother, I guess, they would have several options open to them, including a much better transit sytem. My local supermarket has free deliveries for seniors, so the elderly only have to bring it up to the counter or phone their order in.
So I guess my mom has to walk over Germantown and across I-205.

Not all supermarkets have delivery in this area. Not all is free. Safeway tried free, which they no longer have. Besides that, most seniors barely have enough money to live on, if they have that. So the senior who's eating catfood because s/he can't afford anything else should be made to pay more money they don't have to get the catfood delivered? And their appointments? Many seniors have a multitude of health problems leading to specialists visits across the city. So seniors need to walk? The doc should make housecalls? Wait, then the doc would be driving, or seeing a fracion of his/her patients.

And have you really spent time in a geriatric care clinic. Many of these folks have walkers, canes, ect. That's hardly ambulatory.

And I didn't ask if you expected a 60 year old to ride a bike excessive distances, I asked if a reasonable person would expect that.

And how far is your commute anyway?

So I guess my mom has to walk over Germantown and across I-205.

Not all supermarkets have delivery in this area. Not all is free. Safeway tried free, which they no longer have. Besides that, most seniors barely have enough money to live on, if they have that. So the senior who's eating catfood because s/he can't afford anything else should be made to pay more money they don't have to get the catfood delivered? And their appointments? Many seniors have a multitude of health problems leading to specialists visits across the city. So seniors need to walk? The doc should make housecalls? Wait, then the doc would be driving, or seeing a fracion of his/her patients.

And once again, do you really think a reasonable person would demand a 60 year old ride excessive distances on a bicycle, motorized or not?

I am going to go ahead and be rude enough to point out the irony of using the elderly in your argument, as they are the ones most likely to die as a result of the pollution cars create.

If you wish to ignore the vast array of solutions that exist in all the car free cities around the world, be my guest. Solutions for the elderly, disabled people, children, and others with limited independence and mobility are all over the net. I know an old man with a tricycle. He manages to be independent despite a car and he's so old that my two year old can keep up with him. Combine this with increased public transit, rickshaws, electric bikes, and other HPVs, and you have a whole range of solutions. And just to tie it back to the OP, none of these cause lung problems in the elderly.

And have you really spent time in a geriatric care clinic. Many of these folks have walkers, canes, ect. That's hardly ambulatory.

And I didn't ask if you expected a 60 year old to ride a bike excessive distances, I asked if a reasonable person would expect that.

And how far is your commute anyway?

Are these people with walkers, etc. driving around? I would bet that the vast majority of these folks do not drive. But I bet many of them have breathing problems that are aggravated by urban pollution.

My mother expects to use a bicycle for her transportation needs. She is a reasonable 67 year old woman. She does not deem it excessive.

My commute varies depending on where the job site is. The farthest I would go is about a 90 minute ride. Average cyclist speed is twenty kilometers an hour. That would be a 30 km radius for the average person. I go about twenty miles an hour, or a little above thirty km/hr. So my maximum commute distance would be about 50 kilometers, or thirty miles. That's sixty miles round trip. Beyond that, I would use public transport.

But even with a 30 km radius of travel, that takes in the majority of Portland. The area I'm discussing as making car free would probabaly not encompass the entirety of Portland, and would definitely fit into a circle with a 30km radius centred on downtown Portland.

I am going to go ahead and be rude enough to point out the irony of using the elderly in your argument, as they are the ones most likely to die as a result of the pollution cars create.

If you wish to ignore the vast array of solutions that exist in all the car free cities around the world, be my guest. Solutions for the elderly, disabled people, children, and others with limited independence and mobility are all over the net. I know an old man with a tricycle. He manages to be independent despite a car and he's so old that my two year old can keep up with him. Combine this with increased public transit, rickshaws, electric bikes, and other HPVs, and you have a whole range of solutions. And just to tie it back to the OP, none of these cause lung problems in the elderly.

You still aren't answering my questions. I'm using the lederly as an example, but there's a variety of people that cannot exercise:
Contraindications to Exercise
Absolute
Recent Electrocardiogram changes
Recent Myocardial Infarction
Unstable Angina
Third degree Heart Block
Acute Congestive Heart Failure
Uncontrolled Hypertension
Relative
Cardiomyopathy
Valvular heart disease
Complex ventricular ectopy
References
(1998) Med Sci Sports Exerc 30:992-1008

Indications for Stress Testing before Exercise
Exercise at >60% of VO2 Max
Men over age 45 years
Women over age 55 years
Known Coronary Artery Disease
History of cardiac, pulmonary, or metabolic symptoms
Cardiac Risk Factors (two or more)
Diabetes Mellitus
http://www.fpnotebook.com/SPO35.htm

Contraindications during pregnancy:
http://www.birthingnaturally.net/exercise/contra.html

So those people are SOL eh?

For the third time, would a reasonable person expect a 60 y/o to ride a bicycle 50 miles?

For the second time, How do you expect people that cannot ride a bike to a doctor to get to a doctor?

And while were at it, what about a third trimester pregnant woman? I highly doubt they should be biking 50 miles.

Should people with communicable diseases be riding mass transit? How should someone with TB get to the doctor?

For the second time, how far do you commute a day?

What's the percentage of people that die per year anyway?

Edit: Incidentally, what's wrong with hybrid cars?

For the third time, would a reasonable person expect a 60 y/o to ride a bicycle 50 miles?

Fifty miles? Looking at a map of Portland shows me that I could drive all the way across the city and back. Obviously your mother is commuting from some suburb. I guess you missed the bit in the OP where I specifically said that I was only discussing banning cars in cities. So your mother could drive to some spot where there is easy access to timely public transport, and use that to get in and out of downtown Portland.

But that's not the only option that I have shown. It was an example of what I would do in that situation. My mother is doing just that. I have consistently given other examples of what the elderly could do. HPVs are only one option. You seem to be willfully ignoring them. Fine. here are the other options:

-Public transit
-Using local services
-Walking
-small electric vehicles
-Rickshaws and other HPVs operated by others

This is only part of the solution. Building clinics in or near senior's residences would also help.

For the second time, How do you expect people that cannot ride a bike to a doctor to get to a doctor?

And while were at it, what about a third trimester pregnant woman? I highly doubt they should be biking 50 miles.

Should people with communicable diseases be riding mass transit? How should someone with TB get to the doctor?

Please refer to the above options. As for TB, that's just plain foolish.

For the second time, how far do you commute a day?

You mean, on average? 90 minutes a day, or about 30 miles. See my previous post for more info.

What's the percentage of people that die per year anyway?

WTF?

EDIT: For the purposes of this discussion, hybrid cars are an improvement over combustion engines in that they do not cause as much illness and death. They still contribute to illness and mortality due to their continued use of fossil fuels, though.

Fifty miles? Looking at a map of Portland shows me that I could drive all the way across the city and back. Obviously your mother is commuting from some suburb. I guess you missed the bit in the OP where I specifically said that I was only discussing banning cars in cities. So your mother could drive to some spot where there is easy access to timely public transport, and use that to get in and out of downtown Portland.
Seeing as how she has to drive thorugh Portland it's very relevant and you are not including the metro area. The metro area includes Clackamas, Milwaukee, Hilsboro, Gresham, and Beaverton to name a few. These people go through the city or into the city. This would affect them. My mom goes THROUGH Portland to a southwest suburb. And if you look at the map, these suburbs all run itno each other. It's not like Portland is separate from Beaverton, Tigard, ect. So any change to Portland affects all the suburbs.

But that's not the only option that I have shown. It was an example of what I would do in that situation. My mother is doing just that. I have consistently given other examples of what the elderly could do. HPVs are only one option. You seem to be willfully ignoring them. Fine. here are the other options:

-Public transit
-Using local services
-Walking
-small electric vehicles
-Rickshaws and other HPVs operated by others
And that helps the metro commuters how? From vanouver drop your car off before the bridge, walk across the bridge take a bus to Beaverton/Tigard/Hilsboro, buy a second car for that part of the commute and go to work. Yeah. Perfect.

This is only part of the solution. Building clinics in or near senior's residences would also help.
And how do you propose to make private industry do that?

And since there's not any reliable food delivery, then what?


Please refer to the above options. As for TB, that's just plain foolish.
I asked how the TB patient got from point A to point B. That doesn't anser my question.


You mean, on average? 90 minutes a day, or about 30 miles. See my previous post for more info.
So adding another 10 miles each way shouldn't be an issue then?


WTF?
From pollutants. What percentage of the population dies every single year. Not total death, percent.

EDIT: For the purposes of this discussion, hybrid cars are an improvement over combustion engines in that they do not cause as much illness and death. They still contribute to illness and mortality due to their continued use of fossil fuels, though.
What percentage of the population would die every single year if hybrid cars were the standard? It's a relavant question when you look at risks vs benefits.

And for the fourth time now, would a reasonable person ask a 60 year old to bicycle 50 miles a day?

Seeing as how she has to drive thorugh Portland it's very relevant and you are not including the metro area. The metro area includes Clackamas, Milwaukee, Hilsboro, Gresham, and Beaverton to name a few. These people go through the city or into the city. This would affect them. My mom goes THROUGH Portland to a southwest suburb. And if you look at the map, these suburbs all run itno each other. It's not like Portland is separate from Beaverton, Tigard, ect. So any change to Portland affects all the suburbs.

OMG. Are you saying that my quick analysis of Portland using Google maps may not be perfect in all details of urban planning!??!! Oh no! That must mean that my entire argument is completely wrong!

The metropolitan area of most cities includes the surrounding suburbs. The suburbs are not considered a part of the city itself though. This is what differentiaites the City of Portland with the greater metropolitan area of Portland, unless Portland is somehow different from other North American cities.

Consequently, your mother could conceivably drive around any car free zone to go from her suburb to another suburb. I guess I'm not asking your mother to ride a bike fifty miles. In the rain. Uphill. Both ways.

And that helps the metro commuters how? From vanouver drop your car off before the bridge, walk across the bridge take a bus to Beaverton/Tigard/Hilsboro, buy a second car for that part of the commute and go to work. Yeah. Perfect.

You could that way, I guess. Ithink it would be easier to drive around.

And how do you propose to make private industry do that?

And since there's not any reliable food delivery, then what?

Seeing as how such a clinic would have a guaranteed clientele, I don't have to convinve anyone of anything. The market will do it for me.

Why wouldn't there be reliable food delivery?

I asked how the TB patient got from point A to point B. That doesn't anser my question.

I'm still wondering how many cases of TB Portland sees each year. I mean, aside from the homeless who aren't going to be driving themselves to the hospital anyways. My answer to your question is this: the incidence of TB is so small as to be insignificant, and therefore it would be foolish to address this as an important part of the discusssion.

So adding another 10 miles each way shouldn't be an issue then?

Did you read my previous post? I think that would answer the question.

From pollutants. What percentage of the population dies every single year. Not total death, percent.

Oh, you want to know what percentage of the urban population dies each year from traffic pollution. Then maybe you should read the article I linked to in the OP. Or find out yourself. Google operates on your computer too, I imagine.

What percentage of the population would die every single year if hybrid cars were the standard? It's a relavant question when you look at risks vs benefits.

Again, read the OP article.

And for the fourth time now, would a reasonable person ask a 60 year old to bicycle 50 miles a day?

No. They would not. But I'm not asking anyone to do that, am I?

Hahahahahah...

Ah.

Snatfuri...

j00 make me chuckle.

I didn't see any electric bikes with that modification. I'd also be curious how they do up hills, Portland isn't exactly flat. Some of the people in my mom's department are in their 60's (most of the younger ones jumped ship when they could). Do you really expect a 60 year old to travel these excessive distances on a bike?

Speaking of the elderly, are they supposed to walk to all their doctors appointments and to the grocery store?

Hahahahhaahaa...

Yeah, cuz you obviously missed the part where I mentioned having an excellent mass transit system. Yes, I expect the elderly and babies to ride bicycles in the middle of -30 weather.

Hahahahhaahaa...

Yeah, cuz you obviously missed the part where I mentioned having an excellent mass transit system. Yes, I expect the elderly and babies to ride bicycles in the middle of -30 weather.

Which
A)I Sucks badly in this city for traveling to and from suburbs.

B)Is mostly funded by road and gas tax, so it would suck worse.

Which
A)I Sucks badly in this city for traveling to and from suburbs.

B)Is mostly funded by road and gas tax, so it would suck worse.

A) drive your car and park it at the first transit station.

B) find other ways to fund the system.

But na, let's ignore the fact that banning cars within city limits would take a huge commitment on the part of the city to make the mass transit system more extensive and accessible. Instead, why don't we take your approach, and bitch and moan and think of every possible excuse under the sun to keep things just the way they are because thinking about anything else might hurt our heads.

OMG. Are you saying that my quick analysis of Portland using Google maps may not be perfect in all details of urban planning!??!! Oh no! That must mean that my entire argument is completely wrong!
Yup, that's what I said.:rolleyes:

The metropolitan area of most cities includes the surrounding suburbs. The suburbs are not considered a part of the city itself though. This is what differentiaites the City of Portland with the greater metropolitan area of Portland, unless Portland is somehow different from other North American cities.
Restating what I stated. This has nothing to do with nothing.

Consequently, your mother could conceivably drive around any car free zone to go from her suburb to another suburb. I guess I'm not asking your mother to ride a bike fifty miles. In the rain. Uphill. Both ways.
I-5, I-205, and Hwy 99 don't go anywhere near Portland. Okey dokey.


You could that way, I guess. Ithink it would be easier to drive around.
Driving around means going to the Dalles and then going back into the city.
Because the Dalles is so close. Oops, I-84 goes through Portland too. So that's out too.

Seeing as how such a clinic would have a guaranteed clientele, I don't have to convinve anyone of anything. The market will do it for me.
In all aras. All specialties. Or at least the ones most frequented by geriatric patients. Cardiologists, urologists, podiatrists. There isn't exactly an overflow in the city as it is, even with the medical school here.

Why wouldn't there be reliable food delivery?

There isn't now, why assume theyre magically would be.

I'm still wondering how many cases of TB Portland sees each year. I mean, aside from the homeless who aren't going to be driving themselves to the hospital anyways. My answer to your question is this: the incidence of TB is so small as to be insignificant, and therefore it would be foolish to address this as an important part of the discusssion.
Or other communicable diseases. Take your pick. Meningitis makes it's rounds through Portland often, so does antibiotic resistant strep, there's more than one communicable disease out there.


Did you read my previous post? I think that would answer the question.
Go for the gold.


Oh, you want to know what percentage of the urban population dies each year from traffic pollution. Then maybe you should read the article I linked to in the OP. Or find out yourself. Google operates on your computer too, I imagine.
It's disputed whether or not those deaths are even caused by by car emissions. Regardless, the numbers quoted are insignifigant.


Again, read the OP article.
Even more insignifigant


No. They would not. But I'm not asking anyone to do that, am I?
You essentially are yes. Or having their total work day be 14-17 hours long. Okay, so follow-up question, do you think it's reasonable to add that kind of commute time to an already excessively long day. Would you think a reasonable person would expect someone to add that kind of time to their commute?

Yes. Let's ignore the fact that banning cars within city limits would take a huge commitment on the part of the city to make the mass transit system more extensive and accessible. Instead, why don't we take your approach, and bitch and moan and think of every possible excuse under the sun to keep things just the way they are because thinking about anything else might hurt our heads.

A) Which would reqire a person drive into Portland and therefore be illegal.

B) Which would raise are already ghastly income tax and property tax.

And don't forget C) Cut down on all retailers profit. Oregon has no sales tax, so Washingtonians routinely go to Portland to purchase most or all of their food/ ect.

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to look at the consequences. Because if it's good for you, then it must be good for everyone. Thankfully any law like this passed through Oregon state congress would recieve enough signatures on a petition to refer it to a public vote. And there's no way in a million years that would pass the voters.

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to look at the consequences. Because if it's good for you, then it must be good for everyone.

Hey, no different than 'if it annoys Snatfuri it must be totally unworkable'.

Your 'looking at the consequences' has been, so far, consisted of 'waaaaaa, you meanie you want old people to do what?'

And GoG has handed your your ass more times than I can count...but by all means...continue your predictions of doom and gloom.

A) Which would reqire a person drive into Portland and therefore be illegal. Riiiiight. GoG dealt with this a while ago...funny how you feel the need to stick with bad arguments despite that.

B) Which would raise are already ghastly income tax and property tax. And yet would also mean less expenditures in healthcare.

And don't forget C) Cut down on all retailers profit. Oregon has no sales tax, so Washingtonians routinely go to Portland to purchase most or all of their food/ ect. All hail money! Who cares what health consequences ensue...

But it's really not even about 'money versus health'. Because a partial ban, with a beefed up transit system in the most congested areas would be a good start...but I have no doubt you'll piss all over that too because somehow it would inconvenience or annoy you.

Hey, no different than 'if it annoys Snatfuri it must be totally unworkable'.

Your 'looking at the consequences' has been, so far, consisted of 'waaaaaa, you meanie you want old people to do what?'

And GoG has handed your your ass more times than I can count...but by all means...continue your predictions of doom and gloom.

Well, it wouldn't work. It will never work. Unless they manage to move -5, I-205 and I-84 out of the city entirely. And when you look at the emmisions, they predominately come from the freeways. Cutting of use of I-5, the major west coast highway and I-84 is fucking brilliant. Give the guy a gold medal.

And he can continue to not answer questions as much as he wants. I'll jsut keep repeating myself.

And both of you continue to live in this majical dreamland where everything will work out all nice and perfectly. Thankfully Multinomah County voters have more common sense that you two.

Riiiiight. GoG dealt with this a while ago...funny how you feel the need to stick with bad arguments despite that.
Not really. Not every suburb can put a mass transit station right on the other side of the bridge, or on the edge of a suburb. If they could have, they would have.

And yet would also mean less expenditures in healthcare.
Which is neither here nor there since our healtcare is private.

All hail money! Who cares what health consequences ensue...
Reality is money does play a big part in these decisions. You can like it or hate it, we aren't a socialist society.

Edit to your edit: It doesn't explain how severing the most important freeway on the west coast is logical. Portland is very stuck with their two bridges, planners have been trying for years to find a place for a deperately needed third bridge and freeway loop that circumvents Portland altogether, it's just not possible.

Restating what I stated. This has nothing to do with nothing.

No. I am not restating anything. You were apparently confusing the city of Portland with the greater metropolitan area of Portland. I was clarifying that they are two different things.

I-5, I-205, and Hwy 99 don't go anywhere near Portland. Okey dokey.
]Driving around means going to the Dalles and then going back into the city.
Because the Dalles is so close. Oops, I-84 goes through Portland too. So that's out too.

Do you need me to draw a little map for you? With your mom's commute highlighted in easy to read colours? Apparently, you seem to assume that your mother is incapable of coming up with an alternative route to work.

Listen, you want to make the claim that it would be impossible to drive around a car free zone in Portland, then prove it. Show me a link, a map, a study, anything at all.

In all areas. All specialties. Or at least the ones most frequented by geriatric patients. Cardiologists, urologists, podiatrists. There isn't exactly an overflow in the city as it is, even with the medical school here.

I have no idea how that statement supposedly addresses my post.

There isn't now, why assume theyre magically would be.

Are you saying that there is no reliable food delivery in Portland? What do you eat?

Or other communicable diseases. Take your pick. Meningitis makes it's rounds through Portland often, so does antibiotic resistant strep, there's more than one communicable disease out there.

Neither of which can be contracted by sitting next to someone on the bus. And most people who are that sick shouldn't be driving anyways. What exactly is your point in regards to communicable diseases and public transportation. I mean, other than ignoring the fact that cars aggravate some of these conditions?

Go for the gold.

I have no idea how that statement supposedly addresses my post.

It's disputed whether or not those deaths are even caused by by car emissions. Regardless, the numbers quoted are insignifigant.

Really? I suppose you have a link to the study that disputes these findings. No? What a surprise. And 440 deaths are not insignificant when they are easily avoided.

Even more insignifigant.

But you just said it was relevant. Try to keep track of what you are arguing.

You essentially are yes. Or having their total work day be 14-17 hours long. Okay, so follow-up question, do you think it's reasonable to add that kind of commute time to an already excessively long day. Would you think a reasonable person would expect someone to add that kind of time to their commute?

No. I am not arguing that. Read the OP and my subsequent posts. I'm not going to argue this strawman you invented.

A) Which would reqire a person drive into Portland and therefore be illegal.

Not necessarily. The parking area for accessing the public transit need not be within the car-free zone.

B) Which would raise are already ghastly income tax and property tax.

Why?

And don't forget C) Cut down on all retailers profit. Oregon has no sales tax, so Washingtonians routinely go to Portland to purchase most or all of their food/ ect.

How so?

Yes, it's completely unreasonable to look at the consequences. Because if it's good for you, then it must be good for everyone. Thankfully any law like this passed through Oregon state congress would recieve enough signatures on a petition to refer it to a public vote. And there's no way in a million years that would pass the voters.

I have looked at the consequences. Apparently, we would save money and lives. And you have not shown why it would have negative consequences. You have claimed it would, but you haven't proved it, or even provided evidence.

Well, it wouldn't work. It will never work. Unless they manage to move -5, I-205 and I-84 out of the city entirely. And when you look at the emmisions, they predominately come from the freeways. Cutting of use of I-5, the major west coast highway and I-84 is fucking brilliant. Give the guy a gold medal.

Do you mean I should get a gold medal? Thanks, but I don't deserve it. Anyways, I haven't discussed moving any highways. Those are words you put in my mouth.

And he can continue to not answer questions as much as he wants. I'll jsut keep repeating myself.

And ignoring my answers in favour of strawmen, apparently.

And both of you continue to live in this majical dreamland where everything will work out all nice and perfectly. Thankfully Multinomah County voters have more common sense that you two.

Considering I actually use sources to back up my claims, I would be hesitant about pointing fingers accusing anyone of ignoring reality.

Not really. Not every suburb can put a mass transit station right on the other side of the bridge, or on the edge of a suburb. If they could have, they would have.

Do you have anything to back up that bolded bit?

Which is neither here nor there since our healtcare is private.

You are apparently unaware that the US also has medical subsidies.

Reality is money does play a big part in these decisions. You can like it or hate it, we aren't a socialist society.

And Toronto would save 2.2 billion dollars going car free. See the link in the OP. Now, do you have any links showing the economic problems associated with car free cities?

Edit to your edit: It doesn't explain how severing the most important freeway on the west coast is logical. Portland is very stuck with their two bridges, planners have been trying for years to find a place for a deperately needed third bridge and freeway loop that circumvents Portland altogether, it's just not possible.

Good thing I'm not arguing that.

Not really. Not every suburb can put a mass transit station right on the other side of the bridge, or on the edge of a suburb. If they could have, they would have. Sure they would have...because the lack of those stations now CLEARLY proves that it's impossible for there to ever be one.

Wow. Your logic is astounding.


Which is neither here nor there since our healtcare is private. Oddly enough, your government spends more on your private healthcare system than my government does on its public one. But you're right, that is neither here nor there...but I kind of felt like playing your 'insert lame and tangental point here' game.

Reality is money does play a big part in these decisions. You can like it or hate it, we aren't a socialist society. Um...riiight. And so those road taxes that you were discussing earlier are simply a hallmark of a pure capitalist economy.

Once again, your abililty to conflate issues is astounding.

Edit to your edit: It doesn't explain how severing the most important freeway on the west coast is logical. Portland is very stuck with their two bridges, planners have been trying for years to find a place for a deperately needed third bridge and freeway loop that circumvents Portland altogether, it's just not possible.
Huh? Where are you coming up with this shit?

Hows about you provide a link to the publication that definitively proves that the ideas layed out in the OP have been looked at, and discarded as being patently impossible. Cuz right now all you've provided is a long bitchfest about how change is bad.

I won't wait.

No. I am not restating anything. You were apparently confusing the city of Portland with the greater metropolitan area of Portland. I was clarifying that they are two different things.
No confusion at all, so..


Do you need me to draw a little map for you? With your mom's commute highlighted in easy to read colours? Apparently, you seem to assume that your mother is incapable of coming up with an alternative route to work.
I'd like to see where this mysterious bridge and freeway is that circumvents Portland. And once again, the majority of the pollution is from the freeway.

Listen, you want to make the claim that it would be impossible to drive around a car free zone in Portland, then prove it. Show me a link, a map, a study, anything at all.
I-5 can't be moved. I-205 and I-84 can't be moved. This has been a problem and will be a major problem in the next 20 years. If you can solve this you'd be able to write your own ticket here.


I have no idea how that statement supposedly addresses my post.
You are suggesting that these specialists that are hard to come by as it is will magically appear in an easily accessable place for grandpa and grandma. And if health organizations could make more money opening more clinics they would open more clinics. So that argument doesn't hold up.

Are you saying that there is no reliable food delivery in Portland? What do you eat?
Grocery stores. Or do you expect old folks who are living far below the poverty line to now eat take out. Are you kidding?


Neither of which can be contracted by sitting next to someone on the bus. And most people who are that sick shouldn't be driving anyways. What exactly is your point in regards to communicable diseases and public transportation. I mean, other than ignoring the fact that cars aggravate some of these conditions?

There is no airborne communicable diseases. Nope. Not one.

Cars, as proven by your flawed study don't affect a signifigant percent of the population.

I have no idea how that statement supposedly addresses my post.
If you can bicycle 50 miles a day go fer it. You are an above average athlete.


Really? I suppose you have a link to the study that disputes these findings. No? What a surprise. And 440 deaths are not insignificant when they are easily avoided.
440 deaths out of how many people? That's not a fraction of a percent. That's completely irrelevant.


But you just said it was relevant. Try to keep track of what you are arguing.
The percentage DEATHS are irrelevant not the fact. Try to keep track of what I'm saying.


No. I am not arguing that. Read the OP and my subsequent posts. I'm not going to argue this strawman you invented.
Right, you argue with me all day about this, now you refuse to argue and call it a strawman. Cute.

Not necessarily. The parking area for accessing the public transit need not be within the car-free zone.
You find a place to put it then. The city planners are constantly wrestling with this very topic. If you are so brilliant, then by all means, go make a six figure salary in Portland. They need someone to help.


Why?
Loss of revenue generated by gas tax and licensing fees would equal an increase of taxes elsewhere.


How so?
Because Washingtonians will stop shopping in Portland for all their needs if it's inconvenient. And when you consider the money and time they'd pay to ride the bus, most would consider it not worth it. And high dollar items do end up being large. It would be such a picnic to haul that plasma TV or bedroom set on the bus. And when you look at delivery fees, they are more that the tax savings.


I have looked at the consequences. Apparently, we would save money and lives. And you have not shown why it would have negative consequences. You have claimed it would, but you haven't proved it, or even provided evidence.
It wouldn't save money. And only save a neglible amount of people. It won't save on taxes, it'll raise them. It won't save on healthcare, it's private. It will cost to redesign the city. You can't prove that your idea will save any money.


Do you mean I should get a gold medal? Thanks, but I don't deserve it. Anyways, I haven't discussed moving any highways. Those are words you put in my mouth.
Yes. And I'm not being flippant. Anyone that's got that kind of dedication to their health should be applauded.

You'd have to for your plan to work. I-5 goes right through city center and is the biggest cause of pollution. If you leave the highways open, but stop traffic in the city, the reduction in emmissions would be inconsequential.


And ignoring my answers in favour of strawmen, apparently.
I answered all your "solutions." it won't work in this city.


Considering I actually use sources to back up my claims, I would be hesitant about pointing fingers accusing anyone of ignoring reality.
Because the lives of a neglible amount of people dying each year isn't worth the hardship to individuals and the loss of revenue to the city.


Do you have anything to back up that bolded bit?
It's an issue that's been part of my reality forever. All you have to do is look at how close to capacity both bridges are and look at the lack of options for a third bridge.

There's nothing readily findable on google, ODOT has the statistics you're looking for.


You are apparently unaware that the US also has medical subsidies.
And when you compare the amount of people living in urban areas that would be allegedly less sick to the funds as a whole it's a teeny tiny number.


And Toronto would save 2.2 billion dollars going car free. See the link in the OP. Now, do you have any links showing the economic problems associated with car free cities?
Portland has never done a study because it's a stupid idea. Portland wastes enough money on enough stupid things (like a Klingon translator) that I'm all for not wasting more money on stupid things.


Good thing I'm not arguing that.
It's the biggest pollution problem in Portland. Check ODOT.

No confusion at all, so..

So then, you're clear that the car free zone does not encompass the susburbs around Portland and does not even encompass all of Portland itself. Are you clear on this?

I'd like to see where this mysterious bridge and freeway is that circumvents Portland. And once again, the majority of the pollution is from the freeway.

I don't believe you when you say the majority of the pollution comes from the freeway. I also don't believe you when you say that there is no way to circumvent Portland when driving from one suburb to another.

I-5 can't be moved. I-205 and I-84 can't be moved. This has been a problem and will be a major problem in the next 20 years. If you can solve this you'd be able to write your own ticket here.

Did I say they should be moved? No. Then why are you arguing it?

You are suggesting that these specialists that are hard to come by as it is will magically appear in an easily accessable place for grandpa and grandma. And if health organizations could make more money opening more clinics they would open more clinics. So that argument doesn't hold up.

I don't believe you when you say they are hard to come by. And I don't believe you when you say they are not opening more clinics. So my argument holds up.

Grocery stores. Or do you expect old folks who are living far below the poverty line to now eat take out. Are you kidding?

So there is reliable food delivery in Portland.

There is no airborne communicable diseases. Nope. Not one.

Again, I have yet to see what this has to do with my argument. If you're trying to make a point, could you just make it, so I can address it?

Cars, as proven by your flawed study don't affect a signifigant percent of the population.

That is an oxymoron. If the study was flawed, it wouldn't prove anything. Do you read what you post?

If you can bicycle 50 miles a day go fer it. You are an above average athlete.

Thanks. But that has nothing to do with the subject.

440 deaths out of how many people? That's not a fraction of a percent. That's completely irrelevant.

I'm so glad that you are so blasé about people dying. I, on the other hand, think that avoidable deaths should be avoided.

The percentage DEATHS are irrelevant not the fact. Try to keep track of what I'm saying.

I am keeping track. You asked about hybrid cars, stating it was a relevant question. Then I directed you to an article. Then you said 'it' was insignificant. Oh, I see, I was supposed to read your mind about what 'it' referred to in that sentence. I'm sorry that I couldn't decipher your lackluster use of pronouns.

Anyways, you may consider avoidable deaths insignificant, but I think that says more about you as a person that it does in terms of the viability of car-free cities.

Right, you argue with me all day about this, now you refuse to argue and call it a strawman. Cute.

Wrong. You kept asking me if I expected your mom to ride fifty miles on a bike each day. Since I never said she should, (hint: if I said that you could quote me) you are arguing against something I never said, i.e. a strawman.

Sure they would have...because the lack of those stations now CLEARLY proves that it's impossible for there to ever be one.

Wow. Your logic is astounding
When this has been a perpetual problem for the existing riders of public tranist yes. I'd say that's a pretty big indicator.




Oddly enough, your government spends more on your private healthcare system than my government does on its public one. But you're right, that is neither here nor there...but I kind of felt like playing your 'insert lame and tangental point here' game.
In Oregon, that money accounts for the healthcare provided to the uninsured as a whole. It's drops in a bucket. And I'm just going where you take it.



Um...riiight. And so those road taxes that you were discussing earlier are simply a hallmark of a pure capitalist economy.
You are not that dense. Don't even play that game.


Once again, your abililty to conflate issues is astounding.
Yes, loss of revenue is a non-issue. I must be mad! You brought up the ebil monneh, not me.

Huh? Where are you coming up with this shit?
If it's so simple you should be jumping at the opportunity to come and set our dunderheaded planners straight. Like I said, you could write your own ticket if you solved that problem.

Hows about you provide a link to the publication that definitively proves that the ideas layed out in the OP have been looked at, and discarded as being patently impossible. Cuz right now all you've provided is a long bitchfest about how change is bad.
Sorry, my city doesn't waste money to do completly illogical studies on retarded ideas. Actually it's not true, Portland wasted money all the time on retarded ideas. It didn't waste money on this retarded idea.

And all the OP has provided is a study that proves there may or may not be a correlation. And the percentage of deaths is neglible.

I won't wait.
Thanfully Oregon will never spend a penny to look at the feasibility of this idea.

You find a place to put it then. The city planners are constantly wrestling with this very topic. If you are so brilliant, then by all means, go make a six figure salary in Portland. They need someone to help.

You seem to think that I'm obligated to provide a comprehensive and detailed package for Portland's conversion to a car free city. Too bad. You have yet to show me any link that says thatthis is even a problem

Loss of revenue generated by gas tax and licensing fees would equal an increase of taxes elsewhere.

Not if expenditures go down, which they would, according to the study I linked to.

Because Washingtonians will stop shopping in Portland for all their needs if it's inconvenient. And when you consider the money and time they'd pay to ride the bus, most would consider it not worth it. And high dollar items do end up being large. It would be such a picnic to haul that plasma TV or bedroom set on the bus. And when you look at delivery fees, they are more that the tax savings.

I don't believe you. I have an idea. If you want me to believe you, add a link to your claims.

It wouldn't save money. And only save a neglible amount of people. It won't save on taxes, it'll raise them. It won't save on healthcare, it's private. It will cost to redesign the city. You can't prove that your idea will save any money.

You didn't read the article in the OP, did you?

Yes. And I'm not being flippant. Anyone that's got that kind of dedication to their health should be applauded.

It has nothing to do with my health. I don't like sitting in traffic, and having a bike keeps me mobile.

You'd have to for your plan to work. I-5 goes right through city center and is the biggest cause of pollution. If you leave the highways open, but stop traffic in the city, the reduction in emmissions would be inconsequential.

I don't believe you.

I answered all your "solutions." it won't work in this city.

No. You didn't.

Because the lives of a neglible amount of people dying each year isn't worth the hardship to individuals and the loss of revenue to the city.

Prove it. All you've done so far is claim that to be true without any back-up. I tire of it.

It's an issue that's been part of my reality forever. All you have to do is look at how close to capacity both bridges are and look at the lack of options for a third bridge.

Really? Do you have a link?

There's nothing readily findable on google, ODOT has the statistics you're looking for.

In other words, you can't back up what you're claiming.

And when you compare the amount of people living in urban areas that would be allegedly less sick to the funds as a whole it's a teeny tiny number.

So what if it's a small number? One easily avoidable death is too many.

Portland has never done a study because it's a stupid idea. Portland wastes enough money on enough stupid things (like a Klingon translator) that I'm all for not wasting more money on stupid things.

In other words, youhave nothing to back up your claims. This is becoming a tired refrain, Snafturi.

It's the biggest pollution problem in Portland. Check ODOT.

No. I've supplied links to back up my position. Now it's your turn.

So then, you're clear that the car free zone does not encompass the susburbs around Portland and does not even encompass all of Portland itself. Are you clear on this?
Never wasn't. What I am saying and what you are failing to respond to is the signifigant impact on those suburbs.



I don't believe you when you say the majority of the pollution comes from the freeway. I also don't believe you when you say that there is no way to circumvent Portland when driving from one suburb to another.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117701496867496300
According to George, studies conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality show high levels of pollution in all those areas (see graphics linked below).

She is analyzing the DEQ data as part of a study that shows some of the pollution to be more than 100 times higher than levels considered safe by the state agency.
And by those areas, you'll see by reading the article they mean freeways.


Did I say they should be moved? No. Then why are you arguing it?
Primary polluter.


I don't believe you when you say they are hard to come by. And I don't believe you when you say they are not opening more clinics. So my argument holds up.
http://ratemds.com/filecache/searchResults.jsp?country=0&DLName=&DCity=portland&dspecialty=Cardiology+%28Heart%29&dgender=&zip=&radius=30
Five. So assuming one or two aren't listed, proves my point.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Portland+new+clinic&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Google doesn't turn up any news on it. Kind of strange that wouldn't be reported.....


So there is reliable food delivery in Portland.
For groceries? No. It comes and goes at best.


Again, I have yet to see what this has to do with my argument. If you're trying to make a point, could you just make it, so I can address it?
You were seeming to imply that communicalbe diseases being caught on public transportation was nearly impossible.


That is an oxymoron. If the study was flawed, it wouldn't prove anything. Do you read what you post?
I'm begging the question on your study because that's what you're going by.


Thanks. But that has nothing to do with the subject.

I was adressing your question on my comment. But if you'd rather be an ass about it, that's fine too.

I'm so glad that you are so blasé about people dying. I, on the other hand, think that avoidable deaths should be avoided.
I'd rather the time, money and effort that it would take to save a few lives be used finding ways to save many lives instead. After the major causes of avoidable death are taken care of, then look at the smaller ones.


I am keeping track. You asked about hybrid cars, stating it was a relevant question. Then I directed you to an article. Then you said 'it' was insignificant. Oh, I see, I was supposed to read your mind about what 'it' referred to in that sentence. I'm sorry that I couldn't decipher your lackluster use of pronouns.
Insults instead of refuting my statement. Excellent debate tactic.

Anyways, you may consider avoidable deaths insignificant, but I think that says more about you as a person that it does in terms of the viability of car-free cities.
So you think it's more important to focus on small problems before big problems. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Wrong. You kept asking me if I expected your mom to ride fifty miles on a bike each day. Since I never said she should, (hint: if I said that you could quote me) you are arguing against something I never said, i.e. a strawman.
YOu honestly don't remember all the links to electric bikes you posted in response to that originally?

You seem to think that I'm obligated to provide a comprehensive and detailed package for Portland's conversion to a car free city. Too bad. You have yet to show me any link that says thatthis is even a problem
Sorry no one in Portland feels like wasting their money on such inanity.



Not if expenditures go down, which they would, according to the study I linked to.
And you can guarentee this would happen? That's an awful risky gamble.


I don't believe you. I have an idea. If you want me to believe you, add a link to your claims.
I have to link to common sense? Common sense: if it takes more time and effort to aquire goods across state lines people will by locally. Common sense: Hauling a new bed or a plasma TV onto Tri-met is going to be strenuous and maybe impossible. Common sense: delivery of large items is expensive, otherwise people would just have things delivered instead of going through the hassle of borrowing a friend's pick up (if they don't have one) and muscling it into and out of a truck. I"m sorry, do sources need to be cited for this? Washington only has an .08.6% (IIRC) tax: http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/. Did you need a link to Portland's lack of sales tax too?



You didn't read the article in the OP, did you?
I don't believe it's applicable to Portland. But like I said, I'm begging the question.


It has nothing to do with my health. I don't like sitting in traffic, and having a bike keeps me mobile.
Fair enough. Or am I going to get insulted for replying to this?


I don't believe you.
See my previous post.


No. You didn't.
Really, what "solutions" did I not address?


Prove it. All you've done so far is claim that to be true without any back-up. I tire of it.
Your link shows the deaths caused. So no, I don't need to prove it.


Really? Do you have a link?
About the failed attempts at building a third freeway:
http://www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/goods/pdfs/itsyourc.pdf
Trying to be built since 1988.

The ever increasing congestion:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti20011986.pdf

More about congestion:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/12/metros_congesti.html

One of the ways to reduce congestion (kind of tangential, but proves that our freeways are beyond crowded):
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/10/incremental_cos.html

Moving it from the waterfront? One of the plans was to bury it:
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate16.html

Oh hey, freeways a major pollutant! Studies even done in Portland:
"Freeways are a major pollution source due to the high vehicle density," she said. "The closer you are to a pollution source the greater your exposure to pollution."
http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2007/10/25/News/Study.Examines.Freeway.Pollution-3055609.shtml

Ah, here:
http://pdxunderground.org/

Moving I-5 underground.


In other words, you can't back up what you're claiming.
Just figured you could, I dunno, crazily look on ODOT'S website. How hard is that?


So what if it's a small number? One easily avoidable death is too many.
Then we just don't see eye to eye. Tackle the big problems before the small ones. Makes infinately more sense.


In other words, youhave nothing to back up your claims. This is becoming a tired refrain, Snafturi.
I can't prove something that never happened, son. Portland's lack of studies about banning cars and multiple studies on traffic (see above) should attest to that. Then again, that's common sense.


No. I've supplied links to back up my position. Now it's your turn.
OH noes! Typing ODOT into google! It's sooooo strenuous!!!!

Never wasn't. What I am saying and what you are failing to respond to is the signifigant impact on those suburbs.

Then you are saying it very poorly. What, exactly, is the negative impact on the suburbs?

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117701496867496300

And by those areas, you'll see by reading the article they mean freeways.

See, when you use a link, people will believe you. Very good, Snaffy. You are capable of learning. Well, first of all, this article proves my point that there is a direct link between disease and traffic pollution. By banning cars in these areas, we would be able to reduce the incidence of these diseases. Your article neglects to mention what you would like it to mention: that there is no way to circumvent the downtown. I'd still like to see a link proving that.

Primary polluter.

That doesn't mean we have to move the freeway. It just means we don't allow cars on it in downtown Portland.

http://ratemds.com/filecache/searchResults.jsp?country=0&DLName=&DCity=portland&dspecialty=Cardiology+%28Heart%29&dgender=&zip=&radius=30
Five. So assuming one or two aren't listed, proves my point.

No, it doesn't. RateMDs is not an exhaustive list. Try again.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Portland+new+clinic&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Google doesn't turn up any news on it. Kind of strange that wouldn't be reported.....

Maybe it's not being reported because it's not true.

For groceries? No. It comes and goes at best.

If you don't have reliable food delivery in Portland, then having a car-free city is the least of your concerns. The rest of the developed world seems to be able to have stable food delivery systems.

You were seeming to imply that communicalbe diseases being caught on public transportation was nearly impossible.

I never said anything that could even remotely be construed that way.

I'm begging the question on your study because that's what you're going by.

Again, you are not being clear as to your point.

I'd rather the time, money and effort that it would take to save a few lives be used finding ways to save many lives instead. After the major causes of avoidable death are taken care of, then look at the smaller ones.

Then start threads about them.

Insults instead of refuting my statement. Excellent debate tactic.

Writing cryptic and short statements while disregarding common English usage is not exactly a sound debating tactic either. I find it difficult to have to reread the last three or four posts we have exchanged in order to decipher some of your sentences.

So you think it's more important to focus on small problems before big problems. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Seeing as how I never said we should ignore bigger problems, I wonder where you're getting this from.

YOu honestly don't remember all the links to electric bikes you posted in response to that originally?

Yes. I do. I posted them as an explanation of what I would do in that situation. What I would do. And one more time to be clear: what I would do. I also mentioned what my mother is planning to do. I never said that your mother should bike fifty miles.

I guess my hint was not explicit enough. Fine. Here:

If you think I said your mother, or anyone else, should bike fifty miles, then quote me. Until then, I will dismiss this as the strawman that it is.

And here's an article that says driving is preferable to walking:
“Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for an average family

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

But pollution isn't really the point is it?

Urban sprawl contributes to pollution:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000929073033.htm

Now use some common sense, where do you think these cars are primarily driving? Could it be a freeway?

Not that our air is exceedingly dangerous at any rate:
Currently, all Oregonians live in areas that meet federal air quality standards.
Could we do more? Yes. Are we doing pretty good now and better than the past? Yes.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/advisories/glance.htm

I just can't quote all the sources saying freeway pollution is dangerous, but here's a few:
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11614.html
In any community, a freeway is a major source of air pollution.
Freeways increase pollution:
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/pollution.shtml

http://envirohealthhouston.org/hazards/freeways.html

The majority of studies show that health effects begin along roadways that carry 20,000 or more vehicles per day, and are strongest for persons who live, work or go to school within about 3 football fields from the edge of a freeway. For commuters, health effects also relate with the average number of miles driven per day and the amount of stop-and-go traffic.
Are we seeing a trend?

Hey, automobile depandance! These fellows seem to think it's a problem too:
Low density population growth means that we cannot use our feet or bikes or mass transit to get places; we must drive. So it is not surprising that the population of cars has been rising faster than the population of people; between 1975 and 1990 U.S. population increased by 16% while the number of cars and trucks increased by 42%. In the Pacific Northwest, if every single driver got into a vehicle and drove at once, there would still be one million vehicles parked.
And more about how urban sprawl sucks. But that has to be fixed before we can look at going car free.
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/perspectives/moral.htm

Then you are saying it very poorly. What, exactly, is the negative impact on the suburbs?
Undue hardship. Going from a suburb to the north from a suburb to the south is going to take an expnentially long time if you don't go through portland. Google map it.



See, when you use a link, people will believe you. Very good, Snaffy. You are capable of learning. Well, first of all, this article proves my point that there is a direct link between disease and traffic pollution. By banning cars in these areas, we would be able to reduce the incidence of these diseases. Your article neglects to mention what you would like it to mention: that there is no way to circumvent the downtown. I'd still like to see a link proving that.
Proves freeways are a problem. You're saying they aren't the biggest problem aren't you. I've been saying freeways are a problem.


That doesn't mean we have to move the freeway. It just means we don't allow cars on it in downtown Portland.
I-5 goes through downtown Portland in case you haven't noticed.

No, it doesn't. RateMDs is not an exhaustive list. Try again.
I'd say look in the yellow pages to back this up, but that's not really possible.

How about a virtual one. Mind the city, the first one is in BEnd for example, many hours away from Portland.
http://www.dexknows.com/search.ds;jsessionid=6B79387A0575B3CFD1304213F028E17B.worker2

There's also duplicates.


Maybe it's not being reported because it's not true.
Funny how that proves my point.


If you don't have reliable food delivery in Portland, then having a car-free city is the least of your concerns. The rest of the developed world seems to be able to have stable food delivery systems.
I have never lived in a city where supermarkets deliver with any reliability. Albertsons will for a month, then won't. Safeway will, then won't. It's free, then it's not.

But that is a problem that has to be addressed first yeah?


I never said anything that could even remotely be construed that way.
Then why are you arguing about the risk of infection on mass transit? People with communicable diseases riding the bus is bad. That's my point.


Again, you are not being clear as to your point.
I'm begging the question that your study is true. How much clearer can I be?


Then start threads about them.
That's not the point. The point is there's far better things to spend money time and effort on. What you propose takes a lot of those. I"m simply stating those resources are best directed elsewhere.


Writing cryptic and short statements while disregarding common English usage is not exactly a sound debating tactic either. I find it difficult to have to reread the last three or four posts we have exchanged in order to decipher some of your sentences.
So insulting me is the best course of action. Got it.


Seeing as how I never said we should ignore bigger problems, I wonder where you're getting this from.
What are you not understanding? No one can push a button and stop traffic tomorrow in Portland. It's going to take lots of time, money and effort. The lives lost to this vs a myriad of other things is inconsequential and should be ranked on the list of things to solve accordingly.


Yes. I do. I posted them as an explanation of what I would do in that situation. What I would do. And one more time to be clear: what I would do. I also mentioned what my mother is planning to do. I never said that your mother should bike fifty miles.
Then what are viable options for someone in that situation?

I guess my hint was not explicit enough. Fine. Here:

If you think I said your mother, or anyone else, should bike fifty miles, then quote me. Until then, I will dismiss this as the strawman that it is.
You are accusing me of building a straw man. Fine. What options to you propose that are viable for someone in her position? It's hardly unique.

And here's an article that says driving is preferable to walking:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
*blinks*

Why not just come out with it and say or an infinite amount of fibre... beef is mainly protein, which isn't really the best energy source around. That article is fine example of phrase "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

On the other hand it only takes a third of a Mars bar to get you to the shops and back (~20g).

*blinks*

Why not just come out with it and say or an infinite amount of fibre... beef is mainly protein, which isn't really the best energy source around. That article is fine example of phrase "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

On the other hand it only takes a third of a Mars bar to get you to the shops and back (~20g).

Just like the OP... shocking coincidence.:eek:

Tt did touch on all preprocessed food and non-local foods being a problem too. It just used beef as the main example. Probably because of that pesky word limit on articles some journalists have. Or maybe the journalist was too lazy to write more than a refrence to the rest.

To sum up everything I"ve said, American cities can't just ban automobilies. I've been hammering on the infrastucture of Portland, but look at other major cities. Look at Seattle, LA, Houston, any American city. The infrastructure isn't set up for it. Changing the infrastructure takes time and money. Lots of both. It makes more sense to decrease more serious health hazards, health hazards that are easily fixable and health hazards that are fairly cheap to fix first.

Portland's air meets federal guidelines (see above links).

Portland has far more pressing concerns.

The cost outweighs the benefits for your solution.

Just like the OP... shocking coincidence.:eek:

Tt did touch on all preprocessed food and non-local foods being a problem too. It just used beef as the main example. Probably because of that pesky word limit on articles some journalists have. Or maybe the journalist was too lazy to write more than a refrence to the rest.Oh, I see. I haven't really been following the thread. I remember the OP claim being quite outlandish, but that Article quote did catch my eye as well.

<.< take it as a compliment that I think your long posts are worth reading...

And the thing about urban sprawl and public transport - anyone who has played a couple of games on SC2000 or later would know that. *ahem*

Undue hardship. Going from a suburb to the north from a suburb to the south is going to take an expnentially long time if you don't go through portland. Google map it.

I think this undue hardship pales in comparison to those families who have to deal with a death due to the pollution caused by traffic.

Proves freeways are a problem. You're saying they aren't the biggest problem aren't you. I've been saying freeways are a problem.

And I completely agree. I'll even go further and say that the vast majority of car traffic inside urban areas is a problem. Which is why I propose banning cars in urban areas. I'm glad we agree.

I-5 goes through downtown Portland in case you haven't noticed.

Then I guess your mom ain't taking the I-5 all the way through. Can she take it part of the way, and skirt the downtown core?

I'd say look in the yellow pages to back this up, but that's not really possible.

How about a virtual one. Mind the city, the first one is in BEnd for example, many hours away from Portland.
http://www.dexknows.com/search.ds;jsessionid=6B79387A0575B3CFD1304213F028E17B.worker2

There's also duplicates.


The Yellow pages isn't exhaustive either. It is basically a giant advertising circular. You have to pay to be listed. Many do not.

Funny how that proves my point.

Again, you are not being clear as to your point.

I have never lived in a city where supermarkets deliver with any reliability. Albertsons will for a month, then won't. Safeway will, then won't. It's free, then it's not.

But that is a problem that has to be addressed first yeah?

I have never lived in a city where it has been a problem. My anecdote cancels out your anecdote.

So, just to summarise: you have been unable to show a shortage of medical professionals willing to practice within walking distance of senior residences, nor have you been able to show that food delivery for the elderly is so unreliable as to pose a threat in a car-free environment.

Then why are you arguing about the risk of infection on mass transit? People with communicable diseases riding the bus is bad. That's my point.

I wasn't arguing the point. I was asking you what your point was. I would simply reply that they probably shouldn't be behind a wheel either.


I'm begging the question that your study is true. How much clearer can I be?

Perhaps you could use another phrase instead of 'begging the question'. Or clarify what you mean by using that phrase that way. You could say that the study was begging the question, then show me how the study is an example of that particular logical fallacy, if that's what you mean.

That's not the point. The point is there's far better things to spend money time and effort on. What you propose takes a lot of those. I"m simply stating those resources are best directed elsewhere.

Except that there are no documented negative economic impacts to car-free zones. People even look for them, and find none. link. (http://http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=2902&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=303&volume_num=41&issue_num=39)

Healthy Saturdays — which would create a six-month trial Saturday closure to cars on the same streets in the eastern portion of Golden Gate Park that are now closed Sundays — was approved by the Board of Supervisors last May but vetoed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who ordered a study of the impacts of the Sunday closure.

That study by the Transportation Authority and Department of Parking and Traffic brought great news for Healthy Saturday supporters, concluding that road closure is extremely popular with park users and has no significant negative impact to attendance at the park's museums, access by those with disabilities, availability of adequate parking, or traffic congestion at the intersections around the park.

"It spells out a very positive picture," McGoldrick told us. "Anecdotally, we knew all this, but now we have the empirical data laid out."

It looks to me like it frees up resources rather than uses them up.


So insulting me is the best course of action. Got it.

I wasn't being insulting. I was being honest. Your use of pronouns was unclear. If it had been clear, I would have known you were discussing the percentage of deaths, rather than whether or not hybrid car fuel usage was relevant. Both of these things could easily have been implied by your use of the pronoun 'it'. If you honestly feel insulted, I will apologise.

What are you not understanding? No one can push a button and stop traffic tomorrow in Portland. It's going to take lots of time, money and effort. The lives lost to this vs a myriad of other things is inconsequential and should be ranked on the list of things to solve accordingly.

Good idea. In Toronto, about 440 deaths occur due to traffic pollution each year. Each year in Toronto, there are about 60 homicides. link (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Statsrevjan102003FINAL.PDF)
Consequently, we should ban cars from the city centre before we have a homicide division. I like your thinking, Snaffy.


Then what are viable options for someone in that situation?

Your mother can drive around the car-free zone on her daily commute. When she needs to go downtown, your mother could drive to some spot where there is easy access to timely public transport, and use that to get in and out of downtown Portland.

Here are other options:

-Public transit
-Bicycles and other autonomous HPV
-Walking
-small electric vehicles
-Rickshaws and other HPVs operated by others.
-Animal drawn carriages.

Realistically, most urban centres that have chosen to be car free implement several of these options, as different things will suit different people. All bickering aside, if I got to know your mother and Portland, I'm sure I could find a viable solution for your mother. I'm in this situation right now with my mother, so I am putting my money where my mouth is. People assure me that I have many faults, but hypocrisy is not one of them.

I think this undue hardship pales in comparison to those families who have to deal with a death due to the pollution caused by traffic.
A minimal amount with a tenous connection at best.
http://www.lungnet.com.au/fact_sheets/pollution-health.html
It is suspected that long-term exposure to smog may result in chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but this has yet to be proven.
Recently an association has been found between the levels of particles in the air and death rates in North American cities. The reason for this association is not understood and as yet there is no evidence this occurs in Australia.
Across the board, other factors including allergens, colds, cigarette smoking and exposure to fumes and dust at work are probably more important.
I'm sorry, I prefer real number to possibly made up correlations.


And I completely agree. I'll even go further and say that the vast majority of car traffic inside urban areas is a problem. Which is why I propose banning cars in urban areas. I'm glad we agree.
No we don't. It's not feasable to ban cars on freeways. And if you aren't going to tackle the place where the majority of smog comes from then what's the point?


Then I guess your mom ain't taking the I-5 all the way through. Can she take it part of the way, and skirt the downtown core?
No other way to Beaverton. And now you want to shut I-5 down again? Okay, how do people get from California to BC?


The Yellow pages isn't exhaustive either. It is basically a giant advertising circular. You have to pay to be listed. Many do not.
Right. Crazy for a doctor with a six figure salary to PAY to be in the yellow pages. He's practically starving for Christ's sake!!!


Again, you are not being clear as to your point.
Not following the convo again?
Me:They aren't opening more clinics.

You: And I don't believe you when you say they are not opening more clinics.

Me: http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Google doesn't turn up any news on it. Kind of strange that wouldn't be reported.....

You: Maybe it's not being reported because it's not true.

Any clearer? I proved my point. KTHX.

I have never lived in a city where it has been a problem. My anecdote cancels out your anecdote.
It's not an anecdote. Supermarkets don't deliver here. I can't prove they don't do something that's impossible. It's not like Safeway is going to put on their website, "Guess what folks? We don't deliver." They don't deliver. Alberstons isn't going to have their PR people run stories

So, just to summarise: you have been unable to show a shortage of medical professionals willing to practice within walking distance of senior residences, nor have you been able to show that food delivery for the elderly is so unreliable as to pose a threat in a car-free environment.
There is no food delivery. How many more ways do you want it explained?

If they could make money doing that, there's already be clinics in walking distance. Because business people rarely say "hey! That's a strategy that will make us cash! Let's not do it." Do I need a source to site this or can you dig back to Jr. High in your brain?


I wasn't arguing the point. I was asking you what your point was. I would simply reply that they probably shouldn't be behind a wheel either.
Yeah, strep throat and viral meningitis make it awfully hard to drive.:rolleyes:


Perhaps you could use another phrase instead of 'begging the question'. Or clarify what you mean by using that phrase that way. You could say that the study was begging the question, then show me how the study is an example of that particular logical fallacy, if that's what you mean.
The study is contested, even in the article. Regardless, it still doesn't show the benefits outwiegh the costs.


Except that there are no documented negative economic impacts to car-free zones. People even look for them, and find none. link. (http://http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=2902&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=303&volume_num=41&issue_num=39)
404 Not Found. How interesting.


It looks to me like it frees up resources rather than uses them up.
Since that link doesn't work I have no idea where that quote came from and therefore cannot comment.


I wasn't being insulting. I was being honest. Your use of pronouns was unclear. If it had been clear, I would have known you were discussing the percentage of deaths, rather than whether or not hybrid car fuel usage was relevant. Both of these things could easily have been implied by your use of the pronoun 'it'. If you honestly feel insulted, I will apologise.
No. This was an offshoot of the convo about you riding your bike. You were an ass.


Good idea. In Toronto, about 440 deaths occur due to traffic pollution each year. Each year in Toronto, there are about 60 homicides. link (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Statsrevjan102003FINAL.PDF)
Consequently, we should ban cars from the city centre before we have a homicide division. I like your thinking, Snaffy.
Allegedly 440 deaths. But once again, assuming that's true that's .0004% of all deaths.

Apparently things are different there:
http://www.ohsu.edu/health/health-topics/topic.cfm?id=9423
http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod.htm
Leading causes of death in men alone.
1. Heart disease 27.2%
2. Cancer 24.3%
3. Unintentional injuries 6.1%
4. Stroke 5%
5. Chronic respiratory disease 5%

I'd rather see a focus on causes of death in at least whole percents before working on microscopic fractions.


Your mother can drive around the car-free zone on her daily commute. When she needs to go downtown, your mother could drive to some spot where there is easy access to timely public transport, and use that to get in and out of downtown Portland.
And once again, what I-5? Biggest polluter. Why not shut it down? But if you are going to do that, you best have a plan B for everyone using the west coast's most important freeway.

Here are other options:Alled

-Public transit- 2.5 hours each way, you said that wasn't unreasonable
-Bicycles and other autonomous HPV- you yourself said that wasn't reasonable
-Walking- walking 50 miles a day? Are you high?
-small electric vehicles- at 30 mph tops and bad on hills of which there are many. You said these things weren't good on hills. And what of weather protection?
-Rickshaws and other HPVs operated by others- someone is going to bike someone else 25 miles? And how much do you think that would cost? You figure it's at least as expensive as a cab, and that's too expensive.
-Animal drawn carriages- And what speed again? 10 mph tops I imagine, so that's 2.5 hours each way. You thought that was excessive.

Realistically, most urban centres that have chosen to be car free implement several of these options, as different things will suit different people. All bickering aside, if I got to know your mother and Portland, I'm sure I could find a viable solution for your mother. I'm in this situation right now with my mother, so I am putting my money where my mouth is. People assure me that I have many faults, but hypocrisy is not one of them.
The infrastructure isn't built for it here.

The voters would never pass a measure requiring it. It's never been introduced as a measure (enough signatures gets anything on the ballot). Oregon Congress has never made a peep about it. Could that be because everyone here thinks it's insane? Then again, my state is tied for first for cleanest air (http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates_2.html). Only 1/3 of the pollution comes from cars (http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=19735&sid=1&fid=1) in my state. Hmm... Quite possibly we don't have a problem here. If we are already tied for number one with cleanest air, and 66% of the pollution comes from other sources, doesn't it make more sense to go after those other sources? Oh that's right, we are. Because that's a bigger priority.

Edit: ANd in case you don't believe that making Portland car free has never come up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures That's the best list there is even if it's not entirely complete.

A minimal amount with a tenous connection at best.
http://www.lungnet.com.au/fact_sheets/pollution-health.html

I'm sorry, I prefer real number to possibly made up correlations.

This link is a simplistic introduction to air pollution. You can determine this by the fact that it doesn't actually show any numbers, and this little quote atthe bottom of the page:

Please Note: This information is intended by The Australian Lung Foundation to be used as a guide only and is not an authoritative statement. Please consult your family doctor or specialist respiratory physician if you have further questions relating to the information provided here.

I have already provided links to actual medical studies that prove a direct link between traffic pollution and lung diseases. I will provide more now.

Traffic pollution and chronic bronchitis. (http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/12/836)

Traffic pollution and emphysema (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/podcast/transcript030907.html)

No we don't. It's not feasable to ban cars on freeways. And if you aren't going to tackle the place where the majority of smog comes from then what's the point?

You have no proof that it is not feasible to ban cars on freeways.

No other way to Beaverton. And now you want to shut I-5 down again? Okay, how do people get from California to BC?

Tell you what, rather than assume that I have some detailed plan in my head as to how to completely redesign Portland, why don't you show me some feasibility study done by an urban designer, or a local planning commission. Or minimially, provide me with a detailed map of Portland and surrounding regions that shows zoning and land usage, the placement and quality of all bicycle paths and all public transit networks and routes, the major commuter routes with detailed information as to how many cars use them and when, as well as any other relevant information.

When we both have this information, we can intelligently discuss the exact details as to how to implement such a design. Until then, it would be impossible for either of us to prove to the other that a specific plan would or would not work.

Right. Crazy for a doctor with a six figure salary to PAY to be in the yellow pages. He's practically starving for Christ's sake!!!

The reasons for a doctor to advertise, or not advertise, in the Yellow Pages are completely irrelevant. You attempted to use the Yellow Pages as an exhaustive list to prove some imagined shortage of doctors, as a step in your argument that it is necessary for elderly people to drive to their appointments.

In order to prove this, I would have to accept that the Yellow Pages showed all the doctors in the area. This would be dumb, as there is no way of knowing that. Consequently, your claims as to a doctor shortage are unfounded. The rest of your argument is therefore also unfounded.

Not following the convo again?
Me:They aren't opening more clinics.

You: And I don't believe you when you say they are not opening more clinics.

Me: http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Google doesn't turn up any news on it. Kind of strange that wouldn't be reported.....

You: Maybe it's not being reported because it's not true.

Any clearer? I proved my point. KTHX.

Oh, I see. Again with the crappy use of pronouns.

When you said 'Google doesn't turn up any news on it', I thought you meant the claim that there was a shortage of doctors. Apparently you meant 'opening new clinics', which is odd because you never referred to that as the subject of the sentence.

Your Google skills could use some work.

Link. (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/10/29/daily6.html)

A unique primary care medical practice, ZoomCare, is opening its second location in Portland's Pearl District.

ZoomCare is a paperless clinic that offers online scheduling, same-day visits, welcomes walk-in patients and is open for extended hours and on weekends. It opened its doors in 2006 in a rather unconventional location: the Bridgeport Village shopping center.

Link. (http://www.thebeenews.com/features/story.php?story_id=119353209741447100)

Sellwood’s award winning “Share-It Square” now has medical resources available, in the form of the newly-opened “La Botanica Natural Medicine and Hypnotherapy”, 8512 S.E. 9th Avenue.

You have not proved that there is a doctor shortage. You have not proved that elderly people living in a car free zone would a more limited access to doctors than before.

It's not an anecdote. Supermarkets don't deliver here. I can't prove they don't do something that's impossible. It's not like Safeway is going to put on their website, "Guess what folks? We don't deliver." They don't deliver. Alberstons isn't going to have their PR people run stories

There is no food delivery. How many more ways do you want it explained?

It is an anecdote. An anecdote is an unsubstantiated story. In order to make it something other than an anecdote, you have to provide some sort of evidence, like this:

Claim: You can get your groceries delivered in Portland.

Support:
Since 1992, The Grocery Bag Shopping & Delivery Service has been serving customers within the greater Portland area. Shopping at stores with only the best quality and prices, The Grocery Bag has always been praised for the personalized service they provide.

Source. (http://www.grocerybags.com/about.html)

and according to Safeway (http://shop.safeway.com/offers/swy/default6.asp?PRMX_GOOG_DELIVER_0703), they do deliver in Oregon.

If they could make money doing that, there's already be clinics in walking distance. Because business people rarely say "hey! That's a strategy that will make us cash! Let's not do it." Do I need a source to site this or can you dig back to Jr. High in your brain?

If you want me to believe that this is the situation in Portland, I will need a source. For all I know, there's a clinic beside every old age home in Portland right now.

Yeah, strep throat and viral meningitis make it awfully hard to drive.:rolleyes:

You said: People with communicable diseases riding the bus is bad. You didn't specify how it is bad. Explain and I will deal with your point. Making short cryptic statements and then attempting to ridicule me when I can't decrypt your 'arguments' does not make for good debate.

The study is contested, even in the article. Regardless, it still doesn't show the benefits outwiegh the costs.

The response to the criticisms is given directly in the article, as well as an explanation explaining that the economic benefits was calculated using standard models.

404 Not Found. How interesting.
Since that link doesn't work I have no idea where that quote came from and therefore cannot comment.

It was a link to an article that discussed an assesment of the economic impacts of having a car free zone in San Fran. It showed no negative impacts. Link. (http://www.jusnhlado.sfbg.com/entry.php?catid=110&entry_id=2902)

You made a claim that there were negative economic impacts to having car free zones in the city. Prove it.

No. This was an offshoot of the convo about you riding your bike. You were an ass.

What was an offshoot about riding my bike? I just can't be bothered to look at the last few pages of the thread just to figure out yet another pronoun.

Allegedly 440 deaths. But once again, assuming that's true that's .0004% of all deaths.

According to your math, there would have been 110 million deaths in Toronto last year. Assuming you made an error by putting the percentage symbol, you still have 1.1 million deaths a year, or approximately 1/3 of the Toronto population. I think your numbers are wrong.

I like the way you ignored the fact that there are more than three times as many deaths related to traffic pollution as there are murders.

Apparently things are different there:
http://www.ohsu.edu/health/health-topics/topic.cfm?id=9423
http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod.htm
Leading causes of death in men alone.
1. Heart disease 27.2%
2. Cancer 24.3%
3. Unintentional injuries 6.1%
4. Stroke 5%
5. Chronic respiratory disease 5%

I'd rather see a focus on causes of death in at least whole percents before working on microscopic fractions.

You do realise that traffic pollution is one of the causes of heart disease, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease, right?

And once again, what I-5? Biggest polluter. Why not shut it down? But if you are going to do that, you best have a plan B for everyone using the west coast's most important freeway.

Here are other options:Alled

-Public transit- 2.5 hours each way, you said that wasn't unreasonable
-Bicycles and other autonomous HPV- you yourself said that wasn't reasonable
-Walking- walking 50 miles a day? Are you high?
-small electric vehicles- at 30 mph tops and bad on hills of which there are many. You said these things weren't good on hills. And what of weather protection?
-Rickshaws and other HPVs operated by others- someone is going to bike someone else 25 miles? And how much do you think that would cost? You figure it's at least as expensive as a cab, and that's too expensive.
-Animal drawn carriages- And what speed again? 10 mph tops I imagine, so that's 2.5 hours each way. You thought that was excessive.

Why do you keep arguing against things I never said? Did I say your mother should have to ride the bus for five hours a day? No. I did not. It's like when you kept asking me whether I think your mother should bike that distance.

And you obviously have not read my previous posts clearly. I never said that only one of these options can be chosen, though your post seems to make that assumption. I also gave these as options when your mother has to enter the car free zone. You are still assuming that your mother has to use one of these options all the time. Again, I never said that. You say I claimed that electric bikes aren't good on hills. I never said that. In fact, I said that recumbent bikes are not good on hills, unless they have an electric motor.

The infrastructure isn't built for it here.

So, where did you get your degree in urban planning? I ask this because it would be necessary to have some sort of education like that to make such a statement.

The voters would never pass a measure requiring it. It's never been introduced as a measure (enough signatures gets anything on the ballot). Oregon Congress has never made a peep about it. Could that be because everyone here thinks it's insane?

I have no idea. What do you mean by 'it'? Do you mean the infrastrucutre that you alluded to in your previous sentence, or do you mean 'car free zones' which I assume is the 'it' from your infrastructure sentence?

Then again, my state is tied for first for cleanest air (http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates_2.html).

Actually, your link does not say that. Air pollution is merely one of many indicators that gave Oregon its high environmental standing. It also does not address the fact that traffic pollution is not confined to Portland.

Only 1/3 of the pollution comes from cars (http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=19735&sid=1&fid=1) in my state. Hmm... Quite possibly we don't have a problem here. If we are already tied for number one with cleanest air, and 66% of the pollution comes from other sources, doesn't it make more sense to go after those other sources? Oh that's right, we are. Because that's a bigger priority.

Nor does your link say that either. Nor does it matter even if it were true. We don't have to solve bigger problems before going after the little problems. Rape causes less deaths than murder, but that doesn't mean we completely ignore rape until we have eradicated murder.

Edit: ANd in case you don't believe that making Portland car free has never come up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures That's the best list there is even if it's not entirely complete.

Just because someone has never discussed an idea does not mean that it is not a good idea. I am sure that the Oregon legislature has never discussed proper flossing techniques. Does that mean that flossing is dumb?