Regina’s Investment in Biking #YQRcc #YQRbike

Contrast:

The City of Regina is pleased to encourage active modes of transportation by supporting the Carmichael Outreach Centre Bike Rally event on June 27 from 2 – 6 p.m. at 1925 Osler Street. The City has provided $1,500 from the 2013 Sustainable Communities budget for bikes, helmets and other bike accessories for free draw prizes.

Now look at Portland, OR, considered one of the most bike friendly cities in the world, with more than 6% of its population commuting by bike.:

The city revised its bicycle plan again in February 2010 when the Portland City Council unanimously adopted its third bike plan, titled the ‘Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030’, which called for $613 million of spending on bicycle infrastructure over the next 20 years to expand the bicycle infrastructure target from 630 miles by 2016 to 962 miles by 2030 and increase the daily bicycle modal share from the current 7-8% to 25% by 2030. With only about 300 miles of bicycle infrastructure built by the end of 2009, the plan sets a target of building 662 miles of new bicycle infrastructure in the city over the next 20 years.

Portland City Council’s investment has more than a little to do with the massive flooding in Calgary and Alberta. “Calgary floods spotlight cities’ costly failure to plan for climate change.
Municipalities not ready for rising number of severe weather events.”

Put bluntly, Regina’s missing the boat (and the flood waters will be coming for us too one year soon).

This is what Regina’s bike infrastructure looks like when the water comes:
Biking from the SW to the NE poses a few problems

Advertisements

About John Klein

My full time blog is at AbandonedStuff.com My personal site devoted to my Regina politics work is at JohnKlein.ca

6 thoughts on “Regina’s Investment in Biking #YQRcc #YQRbike

  1. A bit of a stretch saying climate change is to blame considering the history. Heavy rain in June has not been uncommon in that area over the past 100 years, and who knows what it was like before 1880 when we established settlements that recorded weather..

    http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=85e14121-c411-4351-885d-eb7f92aaf5f2

    Perhaps you can tell me more about the climate change period that occurred during the period of roughly 1915 to 1936. Interestingly enough there was a large spike in the number of severe temperatures (Dust Bowl and many record highs were set in this time frame), hurricanes and flooding world wide during this period, including the worse flood by death toll that happened in China 1931. What caused this period of extreme natural disasters and why did it end for a few decades until recently?

    I’m not a climate change denier, nor suggest people are not a cause, but it gets a bit much when people are so quick to label climate change as being a reason to an incident that has happened repeatedly since we have recorded such events in that area.

    • Many very intelligent experts suggest your interpretation is not correct Nate.

      The dust bowl was also in part to no erosion controls in agriculture.

      The climate changes in ’15 to ’36 were not as severe as they are now, because there is much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than back then.

      Remember, climate change doesn’t mean there wasn’t natural changes to climate before, it’s a realization that air pollution is modifying the normal weather patterns. Weather is therefore more severe and more frequently extreme in given time periods

    • Well there are many others that also suggest there is a point here.

      How do we know what is man-made and what is natural? Simply via C02 concentration? Again, agree we have an impact, but I’m curious how you can differentiate the cause between us and nature.

      How do you compare the severity of climate change in the 30’s to the last 10-15 years when you suggest it is more severe today? Historic data seems to suggest if anything the 30’s saw greater and more severe droughts, storms, heat waves, cold streaks (more record lows and highs were set in the 30’s than any other decade since 1900).

      My point is we see big swings where we have periods of a few years where weather patterns are abnormal. We have a recorded history of this. Cases of drought, flooding, increase in storm activity etc. all in a short period of time, maybe over a couple of years. Today we look back at these periods and say “that was natural”, but whatever is happening today, even if it shows signs of a historic pattern, well that’s man-made. This based primarily on C02 concentrations There is vastly more to this picture than simple C02 concentrations, and if that was the only significant reason why aren’t this activities now the norm? 6-7 years ago or so we had an increase in Atlantic hurricane activity and the uber-climate change lobby told us this was to be the new norm, well in hindsight it wasn’t.

      Wouldn’t your theory suggest Calgary should expect these floods to be much more common?

    • “How do we know what is man-made and what is natural? Simply via C02 concentration? Again, agree we have an impact, but I’m curious how you can differentiate the cause between us and nature.”

      Don’t have to worry about that. It’s CO2 by the way. People only bring this point up when they are arguing to continue on the pollution path we’re currently on. It’s much easier not to worry about the individual cases of flooding, because they are ALL a partial product of climate change, because we live in a (man-changed) changing climate.

      You see, your perspective and the perspective of people who openly acknowledge they deny the existence of climate change, is backwards. The norm for our climate now is a rapidly changing climate, not the sort we’ve experienced for thousands of years before industrialized burning of fossil fuels. There are all kinds of tipping points built into our complex climate systems, and we’re on the verge of triggering several of them, from melting of ice caps and permafrost, to changing the pH of our oceans. One doesn’t ask, “Was this event due to climate change,” because it’s like asking, “Is this tree wet in the forest being rained on.” It’d be surprising to find a tree that is dry, because the natural state of rained-on trees is wetness, not dryness.

      “Wouldn’t your theory suggest Calgary should expect these floods to be much more common?”

      Yes, and it’s not just “my” theory, it’s the theory of close to 100% of scientists who study climate factors, the people who did a flood study on Alberta just last decade, insurance companies, and countless others who ‘get it’.

  2. https://saskboy.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/spending-a-billion-cdnpoli/

    ADDED:

    “Mr Cook said studies have tried to put a number on how much of global warming is caused by humans, ‘‘and the rough answer is, all of it’’.He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-like-atom-bomb-20130622-2op3i.html

Comments are closed.