Band-aids versus solutions

Let’s be honest with people, let’s not misguide them.” 

Mayor Eddie Francis to the DRIC team

The European Public Health Alliance  has some novel ideas in dealing with Particulate Matter pollution – actually dealing with them as opposed to moving them about.  They have some sobering words for our lawsuit happy Mayor:

Activities to manage air quality at the local, regional and national levels need to be integrated to improve air quality in cities. Measures such as traffic management or improved urban design at the local level alone may be very cost-effective in reducing the exposure of people living in hot spots, but of limited effectiveness for the protection of society as a whole. Providing alternatives to private motorized vehicles, particularly public and non-motorised transport such as trains, cycling and walking, may lead to changes in people’s behaviour and would reduce traffic congestion and influence long-term trends in transport demand and pollution emission.

Other measures – such as increasing energy efficiency, using cleaner fuels in households, industry and vehicles, and using end-of-pipe controls such as particle filters – are also important for the reduction of pollution and population exposure. They are not sufficient, however, without society’s commitment to clean air. Long-term planning, fiscal incentives, legislative measures and communication with the public are all necessary to achieve this result.

Now as I’ve stated before, I’d rather use the $2.5 billion Greenlink would cost to install catalytic convertors on all diesel trucks today - which would benefit the entire city of Windsor rather than  localised neighbourhoods only – you don’t want to live downwind from one of those portals, let me tell you.

In reducing particulate matter both the Greenlink and DRIC proposals rely solely upon increasing fuel efficiency by eliminating stop and go traffic – not tunnels, short tunnels, or land bridges. 

So how exactly is that “improving” air quality in Riverside, Walkerville or Sandwich Towne, for example?

The truth is – it does no such thing – unimpeded traffic flow does more to improve overall air quality than any of the features of Greenlink or the DRIC for that matter ever will.  As the Ontario Ministry of the Environment indicates:

“Many environmental pollutants such as particulate pollutants resulting from the heavy traffic on highways in the region are generated both locally and regionally, and can be carried a long way by winds, affecting areas far removed from the source of the pollution. Also, data analyses strongly indicate that neighboring US states (Ohio, Illinois and Michigan) are significant contributors to elevated levels of ozones and inhaled particles in the region (Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) [13].”

Then of course we have improved fuel efficiences and cleaner diesel as mandated by the federal government.

Imagine – dealing with the issue of particulate matter pollution at the source, rather than demanding ineffective methods that simply move it around.

The DRIC is well aware that areas to the south of us are “significant” contributors of “inhaled particles.”  Therefore, the goal of moving traffic quickly would have a far greater impact at improving overall air quality for the greater community than any tunnel would.

Another factor as to why we will not be getting Greenlink is this little press release I found from March 14, 2008:

Officials from the Government of Canada, EnCana Corporation (TSX, NYSE: ECA) and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) announced today they are committing $5.5 million in financing to a NxtGen Emission Controls project which demonstrates an innovative diesel
emission reduction system. NxtGen’s syngas technology will assist diesel trucks in complying with stringent global emission reduction regulations and has the potential to enable manufacturers to increase fuel economy. When retrofitted onto existing trucks, NxtGen’s system is expected to reduce particulate emissions by 85 percent and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 65 percent. This new technology for diesel trucks is similar to catalytic converters for gasoline vehicles.

“This technology is an example of the kind of forward thinking that will help ensure Canada remains at the forefront of clean technologies that will reduce air pollution and our greenhouse gas emissions,” said the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources. “The partnership we see here is a great example of how our Government is encouraging innovation, making sure Canadians have the opportunity to enjoy the full environmental and economic benefits of these technologies.”

Now I had written about this sometime ago under “Fear mongering and the border” – those stringent EPA standards being adopted in the US are making their way this side of the border.

I’m going to go out on a limb here -  so why would the Province of Ontario or the Federal Government spend $2.5 billion; set a national precedent to mitigate a problem, when the solution is all but a few years away?  Why the DRIC officials don’t speak of this is beyond me because to me it is the most compelling argument.

So what Greenlink really boils down to is parkland and connectivity – something the DRIC Parkway already offers.

Which is why I found the Mayor’s performance on Monday horrifying. 

If this is how the Mayor “negotiates” its a wonder anything gets accomplished in our fair city.

The DRIC Parkway proposal is better than any other in Canada – by spades – to address a problem that will be significantly reduced by the time the last meter of roadway is constructed.

I just don’t see how spending $1-billion more on a problem that will be reduced significantly is any type of “solution” at all. 

And I especially don’t see how acting like a school yard bully achieves any desired result.