If you saw the following recommendations, what kind of organization would you guess had written them?
Coordinate national policy approaches on urban land use, travel health and the environment.
Consider all modes of travel—in particular, environmentally sustainable modes—as well as land-use priorities, when allocating national government funds to the local level.
Encourage effective public participation, partnerships and communication.
Ensure that transport demand management tools and measures to promote non-motorized modes
Fully integrate air quality, greenhouse gas, noise and other environmental targets, and adopt and
rigorously monitor technical standards for vehicles and fuels.
Channel revenues from pricing initiatives so that benefits are felt by those bearing the costs.
David Suzuki Foundation? BEST? SPEC? Sightline Institute? Livable Region Coalition? Read more »
Obviously I wouldn’t have asked if it were any of them. These recommendations are among the many that come from the Conference Board of Canada’s report, “Sustainable Urban Transportation: A Winning Strategy for Canada” (Here, if you register)
Here’s the point: increasingly, you can’t tell much difference between private-sector and business-oriented think tanks and environmental organizations when it comes to urban transportation. They’re both calling for much the same things – and what they’re calling for looks very little like what Gateway is delivering.
Complete recommendations below the fold: