HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 7:48 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
In my opinion, you shouldn't worry about man-made climate change, as explained at the following links (and many others), man-made CO2 is a very small percentage of naturally occuring greenhouse gases - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm. I do believe in climate change, I just don't think that mankind is having any significant effect on it (I believe climate change is a natural occurrence, not man-made, as historical records of past ice-ages and warming cycles indicate). Unfortunately the man-made climate change theory has become a political issue where people are verbally attacked if they question climate change models.

One thing to remember is that CO2 is a very important component in the atmosphere, without it photosynthesis would not be able to convert CO2 to plant matter, and life as we know it would soon come to an end - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen...nd_respiration. In fact, in order to grow plants in greenhouses the concentration of CO2 is often increased 2 - 3 fold to increase the growth rate of plants - http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm.

Although I believe that man-made climate change is a red herring, the end result should be a cleaner atmosphere which is certainly good for mankind.
Ugh, I'm not going to keep this going, so we have to agree to disagree here.

The type of natural climate change that you're discussing does happen, but it's my understanding that it happens over thousands of years, not mere decades unless there is an unusual occurrence (such as a meteor strike or perhaps some unnatural activity ??). Regardless, to deny that our activities do not affect the environment is merely wishful thinking IMHO. Over and above the ever-popular climate change, there's also polluted air, chemicals in our oceans and water supplies, etc. etc.

For that matter, where's all the lush greenery that should be proliferating due to all that excess CO2? https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

There are studies... everywhere. Research... everywhere. Many contradictory. Some honest. Some "sponsored"... you get the idea. The media fires them at the public all day every day until the average Joe doesn't know what's right or what's wrong, but it does give them the opportunity to cherry pick data to support whatever they want to believe. Then the internet becomes rife with 'debates' about it, and in the mean time yet another thread goes wildly off-topic...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 8:09 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Ugh, I'm not going to keep this going, so we have to agree to disagree here.

The type of natural climate change that you're discussing does happen, but it's my understanding that it happens over thousands of years, not mere decades unless there is an unusual occurrence (such as a meteor strike or perhaps some unnatural activity ??). Regardless, to deny that our activities do not affect the environment is merely wishful thinking IMHO. Over and above the ever-popular climate change, there's also polluted air, chemicals in our oceans and water supplies, etc. etc.

For that matter, where's all the lush greenery that should be proliferating due to all that excess CO2? https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

There are studies... everywhere. Research... everywhere. Many contradictory. Some honest. Some "sponsored"... you get the idea. The media fires them at the public all day every day until the average Joe doesn't know what's right or what's wrong, but it does give them the opportunity to cherry pick data to support whatever they want to believe. Then the internet becomes rife with 'debates' about it, and in the mean time yet another thread goes wildly off-topic...
I agree, if you read my last sentence I indicated that the climate change dogma should lead to a cleaner environment.

I don't think that we are that far off topic since the topic is population growth and therefore whether the planet can support population growth is part of that topic.

I actually agree with most of what you stated. I went to a Nova Scotia high school and learned very good experimental techniques from my high school physics and chemistry teachers before I even went to university. The lesson I learned from my high school teachers was that when doing en experiment you start with an hypotheses (or theory) and do experiments to prove whether it is true or false and then reach a conclusion. Unfortunately over the past 40 years I have countless times seen people in science and politics start with a hypotheses and then try to prove the hypotheses to be correct. As my high school teachers taught me, if the data doesn't indicate that the hypothesis is correct then that is the correct conclusion.

Being in the R&D field for the past 40 years I can say with certainty that there are just as many shady researchers as shady politicians. In short, I started out in the science field as being naive, and now I am a definite skeptic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 8:32 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I agree, if you read my last sentence I indicated that the climate change dogma should lead to a cleaner environment.

I don't think that we are that far off topic since the topic is population growth and therefore whether the planet can support population growth is part of that topic.

I actually agree with most of what you stated. I went to a Nova Scotia high school and learned very good experimental techniques from my high school physics and chemistry teachers before I even went to university. The lesson I learned from my high school teachers was that when doing en experiment you start with an hypotheses (or theory) and do experiments to prove whether it is true or false and then reach a conclusion. Unfortunately over the past 40 years I have countless times seen people in science and politics start with a hypotheses and then try to prove the hypotheses to be correct. As my high school teachers taught me, if the data doesn't indicate that the hypothesis is correct then that is the correct conclusion.

Being in the R&D field for the past 40 years I can say with certainty that there are just as many shady researchers as shady politicians. In short, I started out in the science field as being naive, and now I am a definite skeptic.
Interestingly, I preach that very concept on a regular basis - that the data and evidence must lead you to the conclusion and not the other way around. Unfortunately, sometimes it's very easy for experience and complacency to lead one to a conclusion that isn't supported by the data/evidence at hand because "I've seen it a million times before".

But yes, even more worrisome are 'researchers' who do this purposely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 9:42 PM
Phalanx Phalanx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
In my opinion, you shouldn't worry about man-made climate change, as explained at the following links (and many others), man-made CO2 is a very small percentage of naturally occuring greenhouse gases - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm. I do believe in climate change, I just don't think that mankind is having any significant effect on it (I believe climate change is a natural occurrence, not man-made, as historical records of past ice-ages and warming cycles indicate). Unfortunately the man-made climate change theory has become a political issue where people are verbally attacked if they question climate change models.
...
Not trying to derail the topic, but you may want to check both of your sites a bit more. The first quote is from Monte Heibe - an engineer for the mining industry - coal, specifically - and is a tad bit... biased. The second is actually making the case FOR man-made global warming. If you read the page in full it does note that while human CO2 emissions are a fraction of the overall CO2 emissions, the natural CO2 cycle was cyclical, and man made CO2 emissions have tipped the balance beyond what the environment can handle with compounding effect.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want, but most people with trained in the matter are in agreement on the science.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 11:35 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx View Post
Not trying to derail the topic, but you may want to check both of your sites a bit more. The first quote is from Monte Heibe - an engineer for the mining industry - coal, specifically - and is a tad bit... biased. The second is actually making the case FOR man-made global warming. If you read the page in full it does note that while human CO2 emissions are a fraction of the overall CO2 emissions, the natural CO2 cycle was cyclical, and man made CO2 emissions have tipped the balance beyond what the environment can handle with compounding effect.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want, but most people with trained in the matter are in agreement on the science.

Here is the opinion of a climate studies scientist on the matter - http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/...rcent_glo.html. This climate studies scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, is neither an opponent or proponent of climate change, but seems to take an unbiased view of the matter, which is the manner is which science should be conducted.

PS: I have been a fan of alternate energy sources for over 40 years since I first started hearing about Fundy tidal power growing up in NS; I am all for cleaner energy sources and I am encouraged by the efforts being made in NS. I think the world is heading in the right direction and I am not worried about the apocalyptic forecasts of some climate change proponents.

Getting back on topic, I hope that Halifax can get its population up to 550,000 in 15 years.

Last edited by fenwick16; Apr 8, 2016 at 12:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 12:07 AM
Phalanx Phalanx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 584
To borrow from one of your own sources:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

He is most definitely anti-global warming. There are a number of quotes from his work there, along with counter points.

It also notes he has affiliations with both The Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, both of which have an anti-global warming stance.

And while you can dispute the '97% of scientists agree' claim (honestly, there's no realistic way to calculate it with any real precision), one thing that can't be disputed is that the vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement that man-made global warming is a real thing. I will side with the majority of experts in this case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 11:54 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Ugh, I'm not going to keep this going, so we have to agree to disagree here.

The type of natural climate change that you're discussing does happen, but it's my understanding that it happens over thousands of years, not mere decades unless there is an unusual occurrence (such as a meteor strike or perhaps some unnatural activity ??). Regardless, to deny that our activities do not affect the environment is merely wishful thinking IMHO. Over and above the ever-popular climate change, there's also polluted air, chemicals in our oceans and water supplies, etc. etc.

For that matter, where's all the lush greenery that should be proliferating due to all that excess CO2? https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

There are studies... everywhere. Research... everywhere. Many contradictory. Some honest. Some "sponsored"... you get the idea. The media fires them at the public all day every day until the average Joe doesn't know what's right or what's wrong, but it does give them the opportunity to cherry pick data to support whatever they want to believe. Then the internet becomes rife with 'debates' about it, and in the mean time yet another thread goes wildly off-topic...

I just have to ask you one point. You do realize that CO2 really is essential to plant growth? This is something that my daughter studied in grade 8, the carbon dioxide cycle.

In the link you provided the researcher stated "The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels." If you read through the paper you will see that the researcher then looked for conditions where it didn't stimulate plant growth. Ugh, this is exactly the sort of "science" that has caused me to become a skeptic of these climate change extremists.

Even during the year the CO2 levels vary by about 6 ppm as the earth revolves around the sun as the more densely vegetated North Hemisphere absorbs more CO2 during its summer growing months than the Southern Hemisphere during its summer growing months. This fact is often stated and accepted by climate change proponents (it was even shown in the Al Gore movie, An Inconvenient Truth); however they don't bother to point out that it shows the significant effect that plant growth has on CO2 levels. 6 ppm of CO2 is about 1.5 % of the total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is just the difference between plant growth in the northern and southern hemisphere (not the net result of all vegetation, just the difference).

So in short, yes increased plant growth can regulate increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Your argument that lack of lush vegetation indicates that this is false is actually not a good one; agricultural vegetable production per acre has increased almost continually for the past 100 years. Most of this is because of better farming practices, however, how can you scientifically state that it has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels (are you able to separate that effect out?). The link that I provide you with - http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm - was published by the Ontario Agriculture Department and it doesn't have a connection to climate change arguments, they are just giving information to greenhouse operators on how to increase their yield.

I watched the movie an inconvenient truth and believed in the dire climate change predictions. I also prefer Democrats in the US over Republicans. However, how long should people continue to watch the climate change predictions fail to come true before people stop accepting the predictions? I want countries to have cleaner air just for the sake of having cleaner air; however, climate change enthusiasts should stop thinking that they can change the weather.

Last edited by fenwick16; Apr 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 12:30 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I just have to ask you one point. You do realize that CO2 really is essential to plant growth?
Yes... and I resent your implications.

My point was that, as you alluded to as well, research and studies are all over the place.

I don't know why you want to continue to debate this with me. I've already given you my stance, and you've already chosen to believe what you want to believe. Let's just keep this civil and agree to disagree.

Enough already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 1:06 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Yes... and I resent your implications.

My point was that, as you alluded to as well, research and studies are all over the place.

I don't know why you want to continue to debate this with me. I've already given you my stance, and you've already chosen to believe what you want to believe. Let's just keep this civil and agree to disagree.

Enough already.
Likewise, I resented your previous two posts. What I posted was science based and well known, not some far-fetched idea coming from an opponent of climate change; I am fairly neutral on the subject, which is the way climate change should be studied in the scientific community.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 1:53 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Likewise, I resented your previous two posts. What I posted was science based and well known, not some far-fetched idea coming from an opponent of climate change; I am fairly neutral on the subject, which is the way climate change should be studied in the scientific community.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree.
OK, then let the personal insults stop and have a nice day.

Edit: You were aware that all posts on the topic weren't mine....

Edit 2: I finally had a few minutes to look back to try and understand what you resented about my previous 2 posts, and it left me confused as I was trying to be honest and respectful when I wrote them.

It appears that you resented (post 1) that I disagreed with some of your ideas; and (post 2) I'm still not sure as I was basically agreeing with what you had written in your previous post regarding scientific methodology.

Just to be clear, my resentment towards your previous post was simply your implication that I wasn't intelligent enough to understand something that your daughter studied in grade 8. I really don't expect comments like this from an educated adult, so I was somewhat taken aback.

OK, I'm done with this now... Happy Friday.

Last edited by OldDartmouthMark; Apr 8, 2016 at 9:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 2:02 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
OK, then let the personal insults stop and have a nice day.

Edit: You were aware that all posts on the topic weren't mine....
Yes, I realize you aren't Phalanx - although he is welcome to his opinion

Thank goodness it is Friday
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 8:49 PM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
I think man-made-climate-change denial goes in the "conspiracy theory" / pseudoscience bin along with vaccine-autism links, birtherism, "organic" diets, 911-as-an-inside-job, thinking Halifax has a population of 650,000, Creationism, aspartame as a carcinogenic neurotoxin, Holocaust denial, and the "war on drugs."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 10:03 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by portapetey View Post
I think man-made-climate-change denial goes in the "conspiracy theory" / pseudoscience bin along with vaccine-autism links, birtherism, "organic" diets, 911-as-an-inside-job, thinking Halifax has a population of 650,000, Creationism, aspartame as a carcinogenic neurotoxin, Holocaust denial, and the "war on drugs."
I wasn't sure about you, but now I have no more doubts.

Last edited by fenwick16; Apr 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2016, 11:45 PM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
I wasn't sure about you, but now I have no more doubts.
I know, siding with overwhelming scientific and historical evidence is INSANE, man. Lock me up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 10:18 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
This is not a response to anyone in particular. I am getting back on the topic of population growth and whether the planet can handle the increase.

I am amazed by the resiliency of this planet earth. There is no question that CO2 levels have increased over the past 100 years, however it has not lead to catastrophe.

The earth's population has increased almost 4-fold in the past 100 years:

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population )


In order to feed the much higher population, crop production has been increased dramatically, primarily by better farming methods, better seeds and industrial machinery (combines for example - https://www.deere.com/common/media/i...83_762x458.jpg). Here are a couple of examples of the increased crop yield per acre of agricultural land:

(source: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn...eldtrends.html)


Of course it is possible for a few media sources to scare people in to believing that we will soon be starving using the charts that show crop yield increasing:

(source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eed-the-world/, with the title "This terrifying chart shows we’re not growing enough food to feed the world" - question - is this chart really terrifying?)



Anyone who has taken science courses will know that we don't get anything from nothing. As the charts above show, the world is growing much more food (part of which goes to feeding livestock) than was grown a 100 years ago. So where did the plant matter come from? It will surprise many to know that most of the plant matter is not sucked from the ground except for some nutrients and water, but most is actually sucked from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is converted to plant matter, which eventually dies and then most of the plant matter gets converted back to carbon dioxide (although in the absence of oxygen it can get converted to coal and oil and then be once again accumulated in the earth's crust). This is all part of the carbon dioxide cycle as explain in this link - http://www.esa.org/tiee/vol/v6/exper...scription.html and an image is shown below:



After posting the information above, I did a quick Google search and found the following article - https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm - and it made me realize that extremists can take even obvious information and make it seem to be untrue. If you read the comments to the article it even has suggestions on how to make this article stand out and be read by more people.

In short, the increases in carbon dioxide levels probably did come from man-made sources such as fossil fuels and the decomposition of increased plant production. However, the carbon dioxide cycle re-cycles this increase and this increase in CO2 is necessary to sustain the increase in agricultural yield to feed the increasing population. This is not just my rose-colored view of life, it is based on an engineering mass balance, or in other words we can't get anything from nothing.

My opinion, based on science and engineering, is that increasing carbon dioxide levels are directly related to increasing population but it is needed to sustain the population. Once the population stabilizes, which most projections indicate will occur within the next 30 - 50 years, then the CO2 levels will also stabilize and reach a new steady state equilibrium. But the planet can handle this increase and needs it for man-kind and all animals to live.

Last edited by fenwick16; Apr 9, 2016 at 2:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 10:27 AM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,058
Okay. When did this thread, or forum for that matter, become another climate change flame war. Mods?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 10:35 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
Okay. When did this thread, or forum for that matter, become another climate change flame war. Mods?
Is there a problem with me posting information that indicates that the world can handle its current population and even an increase?

Everything I posted above was related to whether the world can sustain an increase in population. Have there been climate change flame wars on this forum?

This is all based on science and engineering, and I spent a significant amount of time to post it, so if it bothers you to quickly "glance at it" then just ignore the thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 12:10 PM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
So based on the evidence posted by Fenwick, Halifax will have no problem sustaining itself with a population of 300,001 or 450,000 or 650,000 or 750,000 and so on. The world will not end with a building 50 stories tall and a street widened to 6 lanes. YEAH for population growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 3:54 PM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax View Post
So based on the evidence posted by Fenwick, Halifax will have no problem sustaining itself with a population of 300,001 or 450,000 or 650,000 or 750,000 and so on. The world will not end with a building 50 stories tall and a street widened to 6 lanes. YEAH for population growth.
Well, Fenwick's data are more about global issues, and have little to do with local climates / weather (which are not the same thing) and populations, but certainly Halifax's geography could sustain a population many times greater than it has. There are a wide variety of much bigger cities with similar geographies already and they are doing fine, for the most part.

I think Halifax could nearly double right now without even having to increase sprawl / most infrastructure much - such is the extent of space available that could be infilled increasing density in areas that are already developed. (I'm saying that off the top off my head - I'm sure it could easily be challenged.)

It would have implications for more rural parts of Nova Scotia, too, in terms of pressure for agricultural production, etc., and would likely contribute to them having more sustainable economies, etc. There would be some negatives too in the form of likely deforestation and pollution, etc. but much of that can be managed / mitigated to some extent. And of course, there are swaths of the population that, economies aside, are strongly opposed to anything that would change the "character" of our city and province.

A bigger "Halifax" at the centre of the HRM / province could be a good thing in many ways. The questions are what is realistic to aim for and expect, what socio-economic-political forces would actually bring all the new population here (offshore oil boom? better marketing? better incentives / business climate for entrepreneurial immigrants to stay? etc.) The employment issue is a bit of chicken-and-egg - what comes first? Jobs or people? A bigger population means more service needs, thus more jobs, but how do you kickstart getting more people here in the first place, when the prime motivator is likely to be jobs, which - true or not - people perceive as not existing in Halifax?

This is the challenge of the population growth goals. Not a challenge that can't be overcome, but a challenge nonetheless.

As for 50 story skyscrapers, I think we'll get there - not right away, but when the population / market / economy / land value has increased to some level when developers decide there is real value in building them. And of course, when the political will has developed to allow them. I'd wager it will be a good 25 or 35 years before that happens, and only if the population does increase to 7 or 800,000 or so, which is probably a stretch based on current growth... But things happen when their time comes, and it's hard to say when that time will be. Imagine if someone told us in 2006 (remembering how dead the development environment was at that time) that there would be numerous high-rise developments happening all at once all over the city in 2016 - even in the precious downtown! and several entire new neighbourhoods full of fairly dense mid-to-highrise developments springing up in what was then still forest. We likely would have raised an eyebrow at such a prediction. Amazing things are happening.

Widening streets is a whole other debate. Clearly, there are some corridors that should be widened based on current usage because they are essentially major highways masked as 2 or 3 lane streets (Bedford Highway, for example.) But its controversial and unclear to say the least as to whether widening one street here and there does much of anything to mitigate traffic issues on the whole. There's always a bottleneck somewhere down the road. And who knows if in 30 years private single-occupant vehicles will still be the preference of the majority. Probably - but very hard to predict. There may be some other way....and of course there may not.

Last edited by portapetey; Apr 9, 2016 at 4:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2016, 5:44 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrynorthend View Post
Okay. When did this thread, or forum for that matter, become another climate change flame war. Mods?
My apologies as I think my post started it all.

Mods, please feel free to delete all my posts that led to this in order to clean up the thread a little.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.