The Centre for Sustainable Transportation

Cars, Copenhagen and Climate Change

2009-11-27T16:41:00.005-06:00

Cars generate a lot of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Each litre of fuel burned in a car emits almost three kilograms of GHGs.

The Centre’s research work using on-board vehicle feedback systems, known as OttoView^TM, have estimated emissions from light duty vehicles operating in Winnipeg. The Centre is currently working with Blue Mountain Resort to reduce vehicle emissions in their light duty commercial fleet. A principle finding from this innovative research indicates that drivers underestimate the emissions generated from vehicles. The Centre proposes additional studies to improve driver understanding and awareness of vehicle carbon- footprint.

Copenhagen, for those who have never been, is an amazing city and the hub of the capital region of Denmark. It is amazing for its copper roofs and numerous spirals. Storks, Tivoli Gardens, Carlsberg beer, and the Little Mermaid are landmarks in this old capital city. Shakespeare must have visited a cheese shop here to understand that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.” And he chose the northern community of Helsingør and the Kroneborg Castle as the setting for Hamlet.

This capital region was modernized and expanded by the famous finger plan: a network of radiating arterial roads and alternative transportation corridors, including cycle paths and commuter rail. It will become famous again in a couple of weeks when world leaders meet to decide global measures to address climate change.

The current media is flooded with articles, pro and con, about climate change, leading up to the upcoming high level discussions in Copenhagen. The Centre for Sustainable Transportation (definition) works to reducing transportation emissions and using energy resources in transpiration more efficiently.

Results of a transportation study by the Oslo-based Centre for International Climate and Environment Research (CICERO) in Norway are reported in Atmospheric Environment. The study estimates and forecasts the contribution of transportation sector emissions to global climate change. The researchers admit there are some uncertainties in the estimates they calculated due to the limitations of understanding the role of clouds and aerosols affecting climate. But they also find that their results agree with the general conclusion of other atmospheric scientists.

The printed article includes intriguing data, graphics and discussion. The take-away for the Centre’s purposes is that this study estimates transportation “…has contributed 9% to the total net man-made warming in 2000.”

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced a series of socio-economic scenarios that drive energy use for purposes of estimating future emission of GHGs. Depending on the scenario, the study forecasts that by 2050 transportation will account for between 10% and 16% of total global warming. By 2100, the IPCC forecast transportation will contribute roughly 20% to total global warming.

Future temperature increases in this study are forecasted based only on emission records after 2000. This method is used to minimize the influence of different emission histories within transportation sectors, e.g. vehicles, rail, air and ships. Road transportation is found to be the most dominant contributor. This sector is forecast to increase global temperature between 0.13°C and 0.18°C by 2050. Given this conclusion it is apparent that addressing emission reductions in road transportation vehicles is critically important.

The Centre will be very interested to find what the climate negotiations and agreements will decide to do about reducing emissions from this sector. We’ll keep you posted!

by Terry Zdan, CST Research Director

Transportation News Roundup

2009-11-17T20:46:00.033-06:00

It's been a busy couple of days for transportation news over at Planetizen, the primo source for urban planning news on the Web!

Did you know for example that California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger kiboshed efforts to obtain over a billion dollars in federal funding for 29 projects to improve commuter rail lines, choosing instead to seek funding for one line only: a nearly 800-mile bullet train link between San Diego and San Francisco? His reasoning was that it would improve its chances for actually receiving the stimulus money.

For those wishing to commute somewhat less than 800 miles, there is a new study from US News and World Report documenting the U.S. cities with the shortest commute distances. Reasoning that high rates of public transportation don't necessarily translate into shorter commuting times, the researchers looked for cities with shorter commuting times first. They found that the 15 top cities are characterized by various combinations of walkable neighbourhoods, extensive investments in cycling infrastructure, and excellent transit services. With fewer people on the roads in cars, commuting times drop for everyone.

Meanwhile, over at the Freakonomics Blog, Eric Morris argues that transit services shouldn't treat everyone equally. Wealthier users tend to travel longer distances on more expensive modes (i.e., commuter rail) and during peak hours, while poorer riders use buses during off-peak times. He is therefore pleased to learn that New York's MTA is going to institute reduced off-peak fares. This should only be a first step, in his view: transit authorities should also consider distance-based fares.

Such pricing regimes can vary, but those for safety should not. That's the argument from the Obama Adminstration, which is seeking legislation to set and impose safety standards for the nation's transit systems. The Administration is concerned over the number of accidents in subways and light rail systems, which went up over 180% in the five years between 2003 and 2008.

Surely some of this can be blamed on the deplorable state of America's transportation infrastructure. That's the argument of Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times, who laments that America appears to have forgotten the economic importance of transportation infrastructure. He speculates on two alternate futures: One in which the nation has invested in light rail, electric vehicles and a smart grid, and the other in which the nation's roads, bridges and rail tracks continue to deteriorate to unusability. Which future the country actually gets will depend, he says, on decisions made now.

Commuters in Minneapolis/St. Paul might have a more sunny take on their infrastructure: they just saw the opening of the $317 million, 41-mile Northstar Commuter Rail line connecting Minneapolis to western exurbs in Anoka County. It is expected to be used by long-distance commuters working in the Twin Cities.

Those in England, however, may well agree with Herbert: many of that nations' train stations are deteriorating. The condition of these stations (some of which date to the 19th century) is so bad that Transport Secretary Lord Adonis is personally touring the worst of them to determine what is to be done. According the BBC website, "the signs of decay...are everywhere." And just to make sure the government knows the extent of the problem, they're soliciting readers to submit their candidates for the worst station on their website.

At the other end of the age-o-meter is the freshly-minted LRT system in LA. Christopher Hawthorne, writing in the LA Times, celebrates the opening of the Gold Line Extension, and believes that the region's light rail connections are "remaking the physical and psychological terrain of Los Angeles in profound ways." At a basic level, he argues, more transit means more pedestrians, as well as new connections forming between parts of the city -- and populations -- that have for too long been divided.

This is precisely why Enrique Penalosa (the "father" of Bus Rapid Transit) is disappointed by the Ahmedabad BRT in Gujarat, India. In an interview with the Indian website DNA, he points out that the ample parking lot at the station should have been given over to enhance pedestrian accessibility. Making space for pedestrians is essential if a city is going to have lively public spaces -- and, he adds, vibrant local shops.

Finally, the Netherlands is considering a distance-travelled fee on motorists. Starting in 2012, GPS units mounted in each Dutch car would record the kilometers travelled and transmit this to a collection agency, which would then send drivers a bill, for 7 U.S. cents per km, raising it to 16 U.S. cents by 2018. Passed by cabinet, the bill still needs parliamentary approval.

So there you have it...the highlights from just one day in transportation news. Clearly -- there's a lot happening in sustainable transportation news, so much so that it's hard to keep track of. As this review demonstrates though, Planetizen is a great source for transportation news.

What Role for the Electric Car?

2009-10-13T15:12:00.026-05:00

Consumer electronics such as computers, cell phones and iPods have long followed a predictable economic arc: the first generation will be highly expensive and desired; early adopters will pay the hefty price; industry will make rapid improvements for subsequent generations, which will be cheaper; and eventually the product becomes mass-produced and affordable for a wide range of consumers.

The same thing may not be the case with electric and hybrid cars. The rapidly escalating demand for electrified motor vehicles may be driving the price beyond the reach of affordability. Mischa Popoff, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, believes that the economics of battery technology are revealing hybrid cars are a costly mistake, because the batteries are so costly and the growing popularity of hybrids is only driving the cost of the raw materials up:

"A run-of-the-mill hybrid battery is currently triple the cost of a gasoline engine, about $8,000. Raw materials comprise 70 per cent of this cost. [T]he high-performance 2010 GM Volt hybrid['s] lithium battery costs a whopping $21,000. Let me stress, that's just for the battery at today's price for lithium."

For these reason, Shai Agassiz believes that the only to way to make electric cars viable is to separate the ownership of the cars and the batteries. His California-based company A Better Place is making a lot of headlines with its innovative and potentially game-changing approach to electric cars:

"To ensure that we can confidently drive an EV anytime, anywhere, Better Place is developing and deploying EV driver services, systems and infrastructure. Subscribers and guests will have access to a network of charge spots, switch stations and systems which optimize the driving experience and minimize environmental impact and cost."

The scheme involves a vast infrastructure of stations for swapping out the batteries. As the Globe and Mail reported recently,

"The business plan takes its inspiration from the mobile phone industry. As with cellphones, where most customers pay by the minute or buy fixed-rate plans, Better Place customers will pay by the mile driven or buy a fixed-rate plan that allows unlimited miles and battery swaps...Of course, the battery-swap concept requires a standardized battery pack and electric vehicle design. If every EV has a different design and battery, the robots won't be able to swap batteries efficiently...But this is not a small problem. Many in the auto industry do not believe that a critical mass of car makers will agree to design cars around one battery standard. Battery technology is advancing too quickly for the industry and individual companies to settle on a standardized battery design."

However, even if this problem were resolved, others argue that not even a total switch to electrified transportation systems will solve our problems. Lynn Sloman, writing in the Guardian, acknowledges that technological advances need to be a part of the transition to sustainability, but worries that an overdependence on this approach allows us to get ourselves "off the hook" in terms of our behaviour:

"The worry is that the government will focus on long-term technological solutions and do little to encourage short-term behaviour change. But trusting exclusively to future technology is the Superman solution. It's like ignoring the gently downward sloping footpath and hoping instead that at some point in the future you will be able to safely jump off a cliff to get down to sea level. The only trouble is, unlike Superman, we may be heading for a crash landing."

The tension here is between what is referred to as “weak” and “strong” sustainability. For adherents of “weak” or “technological” sustainable development, continued economic growth is considered essential, and indeed should be encouraged so as to raise living standards in developing nations. It also accepts that human beings as economic actors will not be able to control their habits as consumers. Therefore, unsustainability becomes a matter of more accurate pricing, better policies and sufficiently “green” technologies (like electric cars) to more effectively manage consumption.

“Strong” or “ecological” sustainable development, by contrast, rejects these assumptions. Far from being a matter of adjusting prices and policies within the existing system, it is the current paradigm associated with economic growth and development that is itself seen as the problem. Relying solely on the development of “green” technology will be at best an interim measure: a fleet of electric cars, for example, while less polluting in use would still require the consumption of vast resources to produce and generate undesirable social consequences in terms of urban form, quality of life, congestion and so on.

Here at the Centre for Sustainable Transportation, we see the electrification of the vehicle fleet as only one component of a much broader strategy. Electric cars – or plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) – will not on their own constitute a sustainable transportation system. Rather, we envision a strategy premised on a “Hierarchy of Modes”, with the priority placed on those with the greatest benefits to society with the least costs. At the top of the hierarchy then is no travel or E-work, followed by active transportation (cycling, walking etc.). Then the priority must be placed on mass transit, then carpooling. Only then can we see the potential for plug-in hybrids and other electric cars. Finally, we must do what we can to make conventional internal combustion vehicles as sustainable as possible for the duration of their usable lives.

There will be electric cars, but we cannot pretend that they will see the same phenomenon of mass ownership that the case for the car in the 20th Century. Our needs and more importantly our constraints -- from strained resources to strained economies -- will not likely allow us that fantasy again. But the electrification of the vehicle fleet does have a vital role to play within a wider, broader and most socially equitable strategy of sustainable transportation.

Can Metrolinx Get the GTA on Board for "The Big Move"?

2009-10-06T19:39:00.023-05:00

On October 2nd 2009, the Ontario Crown agency Metrolinx received the Canadian Institute of Planners award for planning excellence at the CIP conference at Niagara Falls. I attended not only the award ceremony but the conference session offered by Leslie Woo, Vice President of Policy and Planning of Metrolinx.

The award was given to Metrolinx for its massive planning effort, dubbed appropriately, The Big Move. This effort is a $10 billion, 25-year strategy to completely retrofit the Greater Toronto Area with multiple, excellent layers of public transit and related infrastructure and urban development.

A number of things make this a remarkable step forward for public transportation in Canada. The first and most significant is that this entirely a provincially-funded and mandated plan. Authorized by the Metrolinx Act (2009), the Big Move is managed by a Crown agency which is in turn overseen by a non-elected Board of Directors.

As Woo explained at the Niagara conference, The Big Move is intended to redress a "lost generation of investment" -- two decades in which the public transit infrastructure and fleet were allowed to fall into disrepair and lag behind the growing needs of the region. The costs of congestion costs were becoming immense, with worse to come. The province calculated these losses at $6 billion in 2008 dollars and that business as usual in the GTA would run $15 billion annually by 2031.

The other highly significant factor underlying The Big Move was that there was already an existing and solid provincial foundation in terms of land use legislation – the Ontario Greenbelt and Places to Grow legislation. With these already existing plans in place, there was no need for The Big Move to engage in a debate about any growth and development issues.

The challenges are immense. There are 10 existing transit 0perators in the region, all of whom were needed to bring on board to cooperate on a seamless system with shared fare structures. What would be needed for such a network?

Their initial public consultation was revealing. The two decade "lost generation" had created such an interlocking series of problems that no mere tinkering could repair them. There was a significant public mandate for a revamped system, which would double regional transit service and tripling the number of routes. Even with such an investment, however, commuting times will not significantly drop. All this, just to maintain existing travel times in the face of a growing regional population.

What the provincial government did not have, however, was any public willingness to pay more for this improved transit. No new taxes, or significantly higher fares, would be tolerated. The system would need to be financed another way.

The planning foresaw 100 steps; yet was to be premised on what they call the system's "Nine transformative elements:"

An expanded regional rapid transit network;
Better and more transit connectivity to Pearson Airport from all direstions in the region;
A dramatically renovated and expanded Union Station, at which the lines converged, so as to quadruple its capacity;
Complete walking and cycling network with bike sharing;
Information system for travellers -- adopting what Metrolinx calls a "travellers first" outlook;
Region wide integrated transit fare system – supported by high tech pass cards;
Mobility hubs – which are basically Transit Oriented Development on steroids, complete with multimodal operability residential developments, services, and employment, as well as embedded technology supporting the "travellers first" model;
A comprehensive, multimodal strategy for goods movement through the region; and
A sound financial strategy to make the whole thing sustainable over decades.

To manage all this, the province, which owns 100% of the system, contracts out the operation to regional operators on a performance basis. And Metrolinx will need to come back to the province in 2013 with their investment strategy. In 2028 the system's costs will peak, and while the Province can amortize these costs long term, Metrolinx needs to come up with an additional $40 billion. Where to find it?

Their suggestions: Road pricing; parking fees; a gas tax; transit operating grants; transit capital grant; and a 1% sales tax. This would come to $2 billion a year...or as they reason, $1.35 per person per day -- the cost of a cup of coffee.

However, as Woo pointed out, Metrolinx has no authority to implement these fees and taxes. And there will be a huge public debate about this, as there is no appetite among the public to spend a penny more to improve transit. As well, public opposition is building over some of the system's elements. So part of the problem is building a constituency for transit -- which, she argues, a transit system can do by getting initial projects underway right away to make some initial major improvements.

These improvements include electrification of the diesel GO trains; although they are also open to future propulsion systems, including hydrogen.

The scale, elements, approaches and ambitions of The Big Move clearly warrant the CIP award for excellence in planning. It demonstrates a number of key elements for success in public transportation:

a provincial legislative mandate;
robust provincial funding premised on full-cost accounting, that recognizes the province's stake in urban mobility as well as the high cost of doing nothing;
a regional approach;
integration with existing land use planning;
attention to excellence in urban design; and
a multimodal approach that integrates walking, cycling and motor vehicles.

The extent to which Metrolinx can achieve its "nine transformative" elements should be of great interest to transit systems all across the country.

By Michael Dudley

Ciclovia! Winnipeg Joins Bogota in Celebrating the Bicycle

2009-09-21T19:46:00.031-05:00

On September 13th, Winnipeg hosted its -- and, not incidentally, Canada's -- first Ciclovia street festival.

Hosted by the Downtown Winnipeg Biz and backed by many local sponsors (including the City of Winnipeg, CTV and the Winnipeg Free Press), Ciclovia was the result of months of planning that included significant participation by the Centre for Sustainable Transportation.

Ciclovia (Spanish for "bike way/path") is a car-free street festival which originated in Bogota Colombia. Surprising as it may seem now given Ciclovia's global reach, but Bogota was not a promising place for such an event. According to StreetsWiki:

“Bogota is the sprawling capital of Colombia with a population of over seven million. Its congested streets carry over 55,000 taxis, 18,000 buses, and more than a million private cars. The traffic culture in the city is notoriously lawless, resulting in 56,000 accidents and 900 deaths annually."

However, in the 1990s, parks commissioner Guillermo Penalosa initiated a cycling renaissance that was later taken up by his brother Enrique, who, as the city's mayor between 1998 and 2001 radically transformed Bogota's transportation culture:

"He engineered perhaps the most swift and dramatic livable streets renaissance ever seen in a major international city. In just three years in office...he led a transportation revolution so complete that Bogota was transformed from a traffic-clogged mess into one of the most transit and bike friendly cities in the world."

Among the Penalosa brothers' accomplishments is, of course, Ciclovia, during which

"every Sunday and holiday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., Bogota, Colombia closes off--or, rather, opens up---more than 70 miles of city streets. Closed, that is, to cars and open to bicyclists, skaters, walkers, and mass aerobics. When that happens, 1.5 million people come out to enjoy the safety, community, and exercise that a seemingly car-free city allows. According to many participants, the Ciclovi a has transformed life in the city all around for the better. People feel happier, healthier, and more united."

The idea has now spread around the world, and numerous cities have held their own Ciclovias. Winnipeg's event received enthusiastic promotion in the local media and now has its own Facebook page.

The Centre for Sustainable Transportation was instrumental in raising awareness of and organizing the event. Back in 2007, Executive Director Arne Elias wrote in a proposal,

"Ciclovia allows a city to showcase the best of its artists and musicians, to exhibit its cultural industries and parade the best of its urban features to itself and the world. It combines healthy living with arts and culture and engages citizens in active alternatives to motorized transportation, bringing life back to otherwise car choked streets. And it does something else that is exceptional. It allows a city to dream of different ways of living well, of other community aspirations in an urban environment. What does it mean to have a significant stretch of streets free of cars and open to travel, entertainment and new social possibilities."

I attended the festival with my family and we had a terrific time taking in the entertainment and new social possibilities. But it would have been difficult to actually use a bicycle the street was so filled with pedestrians, booths, activities and, every few minutes, a horse-drawn wagon. The range of activities was also exciting: bicycle polo; dance classes; musicians; advocacy; children's games and of course, lots of food.

And bikes! There were recumbents and child/cargo human powered vehicles, pedicabs and unicycles.

Alas, or course, mine was not among them; we came on foot. Since moving to Winnipeg in 1998, we have faithfully attended all the city's street closures, from former mayor Glenn Murray's "Get Together Downtown" street festival on Portage Avenue to the annual Canada Day street festival on Osborne street. We found this event had its advantages over either of those locations. As you can see from the photo, Broadway was ideal: plenty of green space and trees provided shaded spots for attendees and musicians alike. And the sheer length of Broadway meant that it was difficult to take it all in: it was truly an impressive sight.

However, what Broadway lacks that the other Winnipeg street festival locations have in abundance is an active street wall with stores and restaurants. Broadway is largely built up with low-rise office towers, and, being a Sunday there were few destinations open.

That aside, Winnipeg's first Cyclovia, like its predecessors around the world, was not just about bicycles but was all about returning the street to people for human-scaled activities, for fun, for conversation and for celebrating the best aspects of city life.

It's amazing what people can accomplish without cars around.

By Michael Dudley

"Defying Gravity" With Public Transit

2009-09-15T20:57:00.029-05:00

One of our car culture's most powerful forces of acculturation is film & television. I'm not referring simply to car advertising, but rather to the glamorizing of the automobile in films. From Sean Connery's Aston Martin in Goldfinger to Steve McQueen's flying Ford Mustang in Bullit to the various incarnations of the Batmobile, cars have long been as important -- if not more so -- than the characters who drive them. Through filmic depictions of the car, we are encouraged to fantasize -- and more importantly -- to aspire.

Such fantasizing has been particularly true of science fiction TV and films, in which viewers have been treated to both the fanciful (the flying Spinner in Blade Runner), and the dystopic (the turbo-charged, jerry-rigged world of Mad Max). Regardless of whether or not the future depicted is a desirable one, the one thing we have been able to count on is that we will still be driving -- and that those cars will be real cool.

Which is why the new ABC television series Defying Gravity is so refreshing. Set in the year 2052, the show deals with a multi-year mission through the solar system, and -- in flashbacks set 5 years prior to launch -- the training the crew went through.

And in this future, there is nary a car to be seen.

Unlike the recent series Battlestar Galactica -- in which almost every action of the characters reflected the intensely-detailed political and religious structures of Colonial and Cylon society -- Defying Gravity has been slow to reveal much about life in the mid-21st Century. The characters' cell phones are certainly thin. And abortion is illegal. But life looks much the same as it does now.

This recognizability was a deliberate decision on the part of the show's creative team. According to series director David Straiton,

"Fifty years from now, it's not The Jetsons. There will be inventions that we can't even think of yet, but I think life will look pretty much the same. So that's really the approach, that life isn't all that further advanced except for maybe a few gadgets along the way."

The one element of that future that Straiton was convinced about, however, was public transit. The series is filmed in Vancouver, so the SkyTrain was an immediate inspiration:

"I rode my bike home the other day underneath the SkyTrain and I thought, this is the future...Vancouver embraces a lot of ideas that the world should become. [It has] a really strong public transit infrastructure...the SkyTrain and bike paths. A lot of people live in high-density housing, where they're building up instead of building out, and smaller apartments. That's the future."

This car-less future is subtle: nobody talks about the absence of cars, they simply accept that they have to take public transit everywhere. As a result, the characters are regularly seen conversing on buses and trains, and key moments of their relationships occur "in transit" as it were. In one emotionally powerful sequence, Zoe Barnes (Laura Harris) collapses at the bus stop as a result of taking an abortificant, and Maddox Donner (Ron Livingston), who was waiting with her, is able to save her.

This casual use of public transit in a popular television series is notable for another reason: the show's sexiness. The crew is as busy dealing with their frustrated sexual desires as they are with the hazards of space, and so the divorce of beautiful people from any depiction of cars is commendable.

But not unique or unprecedented. Most notably, none of the various incarnations of Star Trek have ever featured a car, although a helmetless Chris Pine did drive a motorcycle in the recent blockbuster film, and, in a flashback, an 'antique' corvette.

However, Star Trek has largely posited a far future, one in which life on Earth is radically different, even utopian.

Defying Gravity, by contrast, offers a future anyone under 50 may live to see. That this future offers both the wonders of interplanetary travel and ubiquitous -- and sexy -- public transit makes it a show with considerable potential to contribute to our acculturation for a low-carbon future.

By Michael Dudley

The Revolution Will be Human Powered

2009-07-17T21:09:00.017-05:00

In his massive two-volume book Endgame (2006), author Derrick Jensen holds that civilizations cannot be sustainable -- or, indeed, redeemed. Every aspect of what we refer to as civilization is in his view merely a form of violence and domination and therefore must be “brought down” by whatever means necessary before it destroys the global biosphere and with it, humanity.

This past week Jensen offered another provocative thesis on the Orion Magazine website: that we have been suckered in by a campaign of what he calls "systematic misdirection." His essay, "Forget Shorter Showers" argues that

"consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide."

The basis of the argument is that we are not as individuals responsible for the rapaciousness of industrial capitalism, and our individual contributions to problems of environmental degradation and climate change pale when compared to the impacts of industries, government and the military. He quotes Kirkpatrick Sale, who says

"For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution...The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them

Note that Jensen isn't arguing against living simply; what he is saying is that we shouldn't mistake voluntary simplicity for political revolution. Our simple lifestyle allows us to feel virtuous, yet the industrial strip-mining of the natural world still goes on unimpeded. However, while some of the acts of voluntary simplicity he describes (e.g., shorter showers) can't be called political acts, this is not true of Sale's example: cycling. Riding one's bicycle on city streets is a highly visible act, and one that inherently stakes a claim on public infrastructure. As the leftist Daily Kos website put it last week, "Biking is a political act, and each additional cyclist opens the door to safer and saner roads just another crack."

As well, many cyclists supplement their bicycle use with involvement in advocacy organizations. For example, this has been quite true of Winnipeg, home to the Centre for Sustainable Transportation.

What's really changed dramatically in the past few years is the extent and the sophistication of the bike advocacy in this city: there are now no fewer than a dozen active groups out there working to improve cycling conditions. These include:

Bike to the Future promotes cycling as transportation, by advocating for the development and use of bike lanes, designated routes on traffic-calmed streets, and multi-use pathways as part of an interconnected bicycle route network.

Green Leap Forward is an umbrella initiative that includes many organizations and government bodies. It promotes green commuting and recreational options through public events such as Bike to Work Day and the Manitoba Marathon.

One Green City is an advocacy organization that contributed an original plan for a first-class, comprehensive network of bikeways while attempting to coordinate active transportation groups in Winnipeg.

The Bike Dump is a volunteer-based community bicycle shop that offers tools and the space for users to repair their own bicycles. As well, they offer workshops on various aspects of bicycle mechanics.

The Winnipeg Trails Association represents more than 40 organizations that advocate for - and build - trails and trail connectivity.

The Manitoba Recreational Trails Association helps in the construction of the TransCanada Trail and other trail network.

The Orioles Bike Cage is a community bicycle shop in Winnipeg's West-end that provides expertise, tools, and space, to aid in bicycle repair. Recycled bicycles are sold on a sliding scale.

The Bike Dungeon is a cycle repair teaching shop located at the University of Manitoba.

Sanctoral Cycle Canadian Mennonite University's bike co-op. Sanctoral Cycle seeks to cultivate goods habits of physical health and environmental responsibility by promoting the use of the bicycle as a form of transportation.

The North Winnipeg Commuter Cyclists group was formed to link individuals and organizations committed to promoting the bicycle as a viable mode of transportation in Winnipeg and specifically connecting North Winnipeg to the rest of the city with active transportation corridors.

West Central Commuter Cyclists is a neighbourhood-based cycling advocacy group which takes on a similar role to North Winnipeg Commuter Cyclists.

As in other major cities, Critical Mass Winnipeg is a leaderless parade of many forms of active transportation which occurs on city streets the last Friday of each month. The aims of those involved in critical mass vary from highlighting sustainable transportation to reclaiming public space.

There is now substantial momentum behind the incorporation of the bicycle into the city's transportation planning. And events such as this week's Bikefest are showing that this movement isn't just about sustainability, but can make the city more fun and livable, too.

Contrary to Jensen's argument, then, simple acts can be political; and in the case of the bicycle, revolutionary. As H.G. Wells once wrote, "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the human race."

By Michael Dudley and Andrew Kaufman

Electric Vehicles for All –or Are All the Eggs in One Basket?

2009-07-06T11:05:00.003-05:00

“…the development and commercialization of the electric car is “not a sprint, but a marathon…” Volkswagen AG Chairman of the Board of Management Prof. Dr. Martin Winterkorn

In a recent presentation Volkswagen AG outlined its approach to electric vehicles. Winterkorn identified four “megatrends” influencing electric mobility: growth in global population and traffic; collapse of traffic in big cities; necessary reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gases; and, deceasing and more expensive oil.

Car manufacturers note consumers are becoming more concerned about fuel economy and emissions. This is consistent with CST’s research findings on driving behaviour. And industry is very busy lining up advanced battery and electric partnerships.

However, all this may be creating a false image of electric mobility. Winterkorn comments “…We are witnessing an electro-hype. Experts, consultants and politicians tumble over one another with forecasts. And the auto industry doesn’t hold back on announcements. The result is massively false expectations by the customer...”

Electric mobility implies a major shift in automotive technology. There are at least three major hurdles facing electric cars. First, research and development into battery technology is required. Current battery storage capacity and recharging time is not sufficient to meet driving demands. Second, the market for these cars needs to move from a niche pocket to mass consumption. Third, a recharging infrastructure that is compatible across all vehicles and areas needs to be developed.

Given these realities VW doesn’t expect too many electric vehicles on the road over the next few years. A mix of motive systems is emerging. Winterkorn sees gasoline and diesel powered cars making up the majority of vehicles. But he also anticipates overall improvement in combustion engine efficiencies. And he notes there will be increasing demand for alternative fuels including natural gas and biofuels. Population of hybrid drive and electric cars, including the possibility of hydrogen fuel cells, will increase in step with technology and infrastructure deployment.

Volkswagen is proceeding with a diverse menu of vehicles and motive drive systems. This industry model is a strategy for success in today’s global economy. Fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, and advanced technologies are a cool mix of eggs in the “next car” basket.

By Terry Zdan

Thinking About Operating Plug-in Hybrids in Your Fleet?

2009-06-25T14:15:00.006-05:00

Large fleets, particularly government operated, considering adopting advanced vehicle technologies, may benefit from a recent assessment.

The US has a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) as they become available at a reasonable cost. PHEVs are vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the (1) potential benefits of plug-ins, (2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and (3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet.

The GAO report recommends a need to coordinate multiple goal objectives to support PHEVs. These objectives include reducing dependency on petroleum, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, managing costs, and acquiring advanced technology vehicles.

In terms of benefits the GAO found PHEVs can substantially reduce transportation emissions but there is a complementary need to require a shift to low-carbon electricity generation. Nuclear, solar, wind and hydro generation pathways are suggested. In Canada, Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec produce the majority of electricity from hydro resources. These jurisdictions offer the earliest and easiest opportunity to facilitate low-emission PHEVs in Canada.

The report comments that reduction on oil dependency from foreign countries may be replaced by dependence on imported lithium. The global reserve base of lithium is concentrated in Bolivia, Chile and China.

The GAO suggests that battery prices need to decline. They argue that for PHEVs to be cost effective there also needs to be a corresponding increase in gasoline prices.

Conversions kits are available. Installing these kits usually voids exiting warranties. They have not been crash tested and they constitute tampering of vehicle emission control systems. In addition there are challenges to battery manufacturing capacity and very limited recharging infrastructure.

Declining auto sales, eroding consumer confidence, and tight credit markets are identified as additional barriers to PHEV’s. Spikes in gasoline prices and cultural values towards vehicle style and image also influence purchase decisions. And there is a lot more to ponder.

An interesting observation in the GAO report is that by electrifying transportation the initiative may counter other existing federal policies to reduce electrical energy consumption for facilities. Finally the general lack of understanding and confusion about the range of issues calls for a managed and measured approach. This includes legislative changes and the development of guidelines designed to assist federal agencies procure PHEVs for the US federal fleet.

By Terry Zdan

Fixing the Auto Industry, the Economy, the Atmosphere and All That …and Making a Profit … One Car At a Time

2009-06-23T11:43:00.009-05:00

Recent American data on the economy is dismal news. On June 16, 2009 the US Federal Reserve reported:

“…Industrial production decreased 1.1 percent in May after having fallen a downward-revised 0.7 percent in April. The average decrease in industrial production during the first three months of the year was 1.6 percent. Manufacturing output moved down 1.0 percent in May with broad-based declines across industries. Outside of manufacturing, the output of mines dropped 2.1 percent, and the output of utilities fell 1.4 percent. At 95.8 percent of its 2002 average, overall industrial output in May was 13.4 percent below its year-earlier level. The rate of capacity utilization for total industry declined further in May to 68.3 percent, a level 12.6 percentage points below its average for 1972-2008. Prior to the current recession, the low over the history of this series, which begins in 1967, was 70.9 percent in December 1982.”

On an entirely different spectrum recent news out of Copenhagen on climate change isn’t very optimistic either. An urgently updated status report by the International Scientific Congress entitled Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions states that:

“…Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts…”

People are having a tough time keeping jobs, making mortgage payments, putting food on the table and putting fuel in the gas tank Governments and political leaders are facing similar tough challenges meeting social objectives and keeping peace order and good government. Current carbon dioxide concentration is about 394 ppm, compared to pre 1750 levels of 280 ppm, and are increasing.

On the sunnier side of the street a new report from the University of Michigan Transport Institute titled “Fixing Detroit, How Far How Fast How Fuel efficient?” models profitability of the Big 3 auto manufactures assuming fuel economy improvements of 30% to 50%. The study identifies the critical components of successful industry turnarounds and the model results are very promising and encouraging.

In 2009 the CST published its research findings about driving behaviour and feedback systems. The study participants overwhelmingly identified fuel cost and fuel economy as the most important information influencing their driving behaviour. The least significant factor was greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.

The "reader’s digest" version of this long story is that if North America can do the things necessary to turn the automobile manufacturing sector around and produce more fuel efficient vehicles a ride of prosperity will follow. People will probably buy these fuel efficient cars. The Federal Reserve data will show growth instead of decline, more people will be employed; mortgage payments will be met, etc. And with improved fuel economy, tailpipe emissions decrease. Take this scenario to the highest and best technology possible, electrification of transportation systems can reduce carbon emission by a factor of 80%. This all adds up to saving the planet - one car at a time.

By Terry Zdan

Can the Bixi "Commons" Avoid the Problems of Velolib?

2009-06-18T19:56:00.023-05:00

Almost two years ago, a massive bike-sharing program called Velib opened in Paris, to much acclaim.

But as the Globe and Mail reports, Parisians have been abusing the system to such a degree that the whole economic model -- i.e., free to taxpayers -- is coming under question:

"Since the program started in July, 2007, 8,000 of the bicycles have been stolen, and nearly 1,400 people were arrested for Vélib' theft just last year. Police have retrieved about 100 of the purloined bicycles from the depths of Paris canals and the Seine River. Some have been spotted on balconies. There have been reports that a few turned up, mysteriously, on the streets of other European cities. But the fate of most of the missing bicycles is unknown. At the same time, 16,000 bicycles have been vandalized...Vélib' was also not supposed to cost taxpayers anything. Now, under pressure...city council has decided to cover €400 of the cost of replacing each damaged bike – an estimated expenditure of €1.6-million a year."

What this may mean for other systems, such as the Bixi scheme launched this May in Montreal is an open question. Montreal is hoping they can avoid Paris' problems :

"Montreal... [will require] all renters to swipe a credit card. The city is also cultivating a sense of civic pride in the Bixi. The official Web site of the bike's developers features a cult-like credo-- 'We are Bixi,' it begins -- so perhaps the hope is that stealing or damaging one of the Montreal bikes will be come to be seen as blasphemous. The aluminum-framed, three-speed bicycles were created by award-winning Montreal designer Michel Dallaire with an eye to thwarting vandals and thieves and easing the job of mechanics."

All these factors may help. However, the one major difference between the systems is that Velib is operated by the private outdoor advertising company JCDecaux, while Montreal's Bixi system is fully public, and owned and operated by the city's parking authority. In other words, Bixi is part of the "commons" that is shared by all local residents, rather than private property. And things that are truly held in common may be better able to avert the fate of Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, in which the commonly-held land is destroyed by the collective expression of self-interest. So it remains to be seen if this will make a difference. However, the most important thing that the Paris experience shows is that there is a common problem associated with any effort to introduce new technologies: that the cultural and social dimension of technological uptake is essential, but the most difficult to do well.

Michael Dudley

Transportation and the "Top 10 Myths" of Sustainability

2009-06-11T21:45:00.000-05:00

"Sustainability" has become something of a buzzword, and one sees it almost everywhere these days. Because of this, there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what it actually means. Michael D. Lemonick, senior writer at the climate change think tank Climate Central has tackled this problem in the pages of the March 2009 issue of Scientific American, outlining (and debunking) what he believes are the Top Ten "myths' about sustainability. We here at the CST think there's a lot of merit to his arguments -- but that it would be worthwhile to take on these myths from a transportation perspective.

Myth 1: Nobody knows what sustainability really means.

Lemonick says that this is "nowhere close to being true" -- that the definition dates back to the 1987 Brundtland Report and has been widely adopted and integrated. He translates this to mean simply, “don’t take more than your share.”

This translates nicely for our purposes: Don't drive/fly/ship more than you need to; and travel by the least consumptive mode possible.

Myth 2: Sustainability is all about the environment.

Lemonick argues that sustainability initiatives not only make good economic sense, they can contribute to our overall psycho-social well-being.

Sustainable transportation, too, makes excellent economic sense: after all, the movement of people and goods is essential to our economy, and in an energy-poor future such movement will not be possible if modes, efficiencies and renewable technologies are not adjusted and advanced. And there are huge benefits to our health and well-being when we are able to walk and bicycle to our everyday destinations.

Myth 3: “Sustainable” is a synonym for “green.”

Lemonick points out that "green" generally denotes natural, organic and non-technological. By contrast, if we are to share a sustainable future, this will involve a heavy reliance on advanced technologies -- including, argue some, nuclear power.

This is certainly true when one considers sustainable transportation options. If the automobile is to have a future it will need to involve technologies far more advanced than the internal combustion engine. Even the humble bicycle, while the most efficient form of transport yet invented, is comprised of non-biodegradable parts and utilizes petroleum products.

Myth 4: It’s all about recycling.

That is, if you use a blue box, all is well. Think again, says Lemonick. The most significant areas that people need to examine are their energy use and transportation habits.

The equivalent here in terms of transportation might be the demonized SUV: that if you don't drive one -- or else traded one in for a smaller car -- then this would be sufficiently "green." Yet with the global automobile fleet estimated to reach 1 billion cars by 2010, it is certainly not only about switching to smaller cars. The absolute number of vehicles is also a problem.

Myth 5: Sustainability is too expensive.

Yes, admits Lemonick, transitioning to a more sustainable technology is often more expensive over the short term, but pays dividends in terms of efficiencies and long-term viability.

Sustainable transportation systems -- such as light rail -- do cost a considerable amount of public monies. But these costs need to be compared with the costs of business as usual, including the massive public subsidies for roads -- as well as gains in efficiencies and reduced pollution.

Myth 6: Sustainability means lowering our standard of living.

This isn't true, argues Lemonick, because the efficiencies gained through sustainable technologies will allow us to do more with less.

Advances in sustainable transportation will also allow us to move more using less energy. And when we re-consider what we mean by "standard of living" we can also see that modal shifts that see us reduce our driving and increase our walking and cycling have the potential bring about large improvements to our health and quality of life.

Myth 7: Consumer choices and grassroots activism, not government intervention, offer the fastest, most efficient routes to sustainability.

This is the preferred argument, says Lemonick, of "free market evangelicals" who loathe anything not left to the "free market." Yet the large-scale changes needed -- including correcting the erroneous assumption that emitting greenhouse gasses incurs no financial cost -- can only be undertaken (or at least led) by governments.

Consumer choices mean little if there is no provision to allow consumers to make more sustainable choices. That is why governments are needed to mandate, fund and regulate sustainable transportation infrastructure such as light rail, and to require that industry supply sustainable transport modes, such as hybrid and other low-emission vehicles.

Myth 8: New technology is always the answer.

Actually, Lemonick shows that using existing technology more appropriately (keeping your tires properly inflated) or adapting that technology (swapping car batteries rather than developing new ones) can be at least as effective as developing new technology.

However, technologies old or new are not always the answer. That's why the CST’s focus is on the relationship between society and its institutions, transportation technologies, policy options and environment. Our applied research provides pragmatic solutions that guide social policy, human behaviour and technology roadmaps. For example, the CST has developed guidelines for land use and transportation policies to support active transportation for children. We have used technology to research and develop outreach proposals to address driving behaviour and improving efficiency by changing behaviour, and we have deployed GPS technology to cyclists to assess and advance the development of cycling infrastructure with the OttoCYCLE project.

Myth 9: Sustainability is ultimately a population problem

Lemonick calls this a "false solution" rather than a myth. It is true that we are consuming far more resources than the planet can offer, and disposing more waste than it can absorb -- and billions more people are expected before population trends reverse. However, unless we are prepared to adopt draconian measures or mass suicide, the only option, he says, is to reduce our rates of consumption.

Since transportation represents such a 52% of global oil consumption, and is equally such a large producer of greenhouse gas emissions, then sustainability may be seen to a large extent as a transportation problem. Solutions must include a vast reduction in the amount of energy needed to move people and goods locally and globally.

Myth 10: Once you understand the concept, living sustainably is a breeze to figure out.

Au contraire, writes Lemonick,

"...You cannot really declare any practice 'sustainable' until you have done a complete life-cycle analysis of its environmental costs. Even then, technology and public policy keep evolving, and that evolution can lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. The admirable goal of living sustainably requires plenty of thought on an ongoing basis."

We concur: It isn't easy being sustainable and transportation solutions are still evolving. The CST proposes a hierarchy of modes for sustainable transportation practices, and is certainly committed to engaging in "plenty of thought on an ongoing basis" to the problem of sustainable transportation in particular and sustainability generally.

Terry Zdan and Michael Dudley

The "Key to the City:" Rethinking the Transportation Hierarchy

2009-05-27T05:40:00.010-05:00

For almost a century, our transportation planning in North America has been premised on universal automobility, or, rather, the notion that it is universally aspired to. The car, possessing as it does a host of attributes considered desireable, commodious and sexy, is placed as the top of the hierarchy as the premium transportation mode. Our cities and all attendant functions and services are designed to facilitate cars, while below the automobile in status and practicality lie rail transit, busses, taxis, and then, finally, bicycles and walking. To be without a car is accorded such low status in our society that it can affect our self-worth, as illustrated in a recent Globe & Mail essay in which "Mom without Wheels" Bonnie Goldberg professed "pricks of hot shame" at not being able to drive her daughter to school.

However, if we want to move towards sustainability – universal mobility over the long run – we have to reverse this hierarchy of transportation modes. Active Transportation – walking, cycling and other physical forms -- offer the greatest environmental and social benefits in terms of emission savings, travel costs and personal and ecosystem health. Each of those savings is enormous as there are no real emissions or fuel costs and large benefits to health and to health care budgets associated with Active Transportation. The only costs are the relatively low investments in infrastructure that can have multiple uses for human access. Transit, car pooling and other shared usage strategies deliver the next level of benefits, particularly if these strategies involve grid tied transportation or future EV, PHEV or hybrid vehicles. Single occupancy vehicles (SOV) offer the least emissions reductions but even they can be competitive in scenarios where PHEVs and EVs are utilized.

To make this new hierarchy apparent and viable, we need to serve the pedestrian, cyclist and transit rider so well and so lavishly that drivers will envy them. This may seem like it will require a massive cultural shift, but the fact is it is already underway.

One sign of this is that the marketing of bicycles is beginning to more closely resemble that of the automobile. For example, bicycles are now sold under the Cadillac brand, and the ad copy for them is every bit as colourful and seductive as that used for their cars:

"Cadillac Bicycles provides a breakthrough line of bicycles and accessories to the client who values quality, style, performance, and luxury. Built with the finest materials and craftsmanship available, Cadillac Bicycles is the benchmark for a smooth, comfortable ride for a lifetime of cycling excitement. We combine traditional as well as innovative bicycle designs with classic styling and timeless finishes to form an elegant package with an instant brand recognition that stands for quality."

That the bicycle -- long disregarded in North America as a legitimate mode of transportation -- can now be associated with that most premium (and gas-guzzling) of automobiles is, perhaps, ironic; yet it also marks what may be a shift in consciousness regarding our transportation identities -- a sign that human powered vehicles can also be status symbols.

(This desire for luxurious human-powered vehicles has already taken what may be its most extreme [and whimsical] expression in a recumbent bicycle tricked out to look like a Cadillac that was featured at the 2008 Toronto International Bike Show).

Another sign that human power is getting more respect these days is the number of cities and hotels offering bikesharing programs aimed at boosting their tourism industries. According to the Globe and Mail, bicycles are the new "key to the city":

"As urban cycling gains in popularity, following the European example, cities and hotels are offering bike-sharing and bike paths – along with bikes as amenities for guests – as a way to attract visitors and open up a new tourism experience."

I (MD) recently experienced first-hand this new change in status. This past month I cycled through the rain to a conference held at the downtown Delta Hotel here in Winnipeg. I got off my bike and saw to my dismay that there were no bike racks and immediately started writing in my head an irate letter to the management of the hotel. As I began to lock it up to a sign post, the doorman came up to me and told me that I shouldn't lock it up there. I added a new paragraph to my mental letter.

"Are you staying in the hotel?" he asked through the rain.

My brain stopped writing for a moment. "I'm attending the conference."

"Well then, take your bike into the lobby, go to the desk and they'll check your bike in and store it for you."

Stunned, I wheeled my bike into the hotel lobby. Sure enough, the bellhop approached me, wrote out a number on a tag and passed it to me, and then, smiling, wheeled my bicycle away. The doorman then took my poncho, coat, rain pants, helmet and pannier, offered me another tag, and took them into the coat check. Dry, unencumbered and immensely pleased, I attended the day's sessions, never once worrying about the security of my bicycle, or bothered by having to carry around my gear.

Surely none of the delegates who drove the Delta that day were treated half as well!

Yes, there are signs of positive change, but the truth is that our automobile culture has been with us for over a century and will not go away quickly, even if we were to run out of oil tomorrow. The modes of transportation that provide the greatest public good, to say nothing of keeping people happy and healthy and out of the medical system, have for too long been ignored and misunderstood. The time has come to treat cyclists, walkers and transit users as the champions they are and that means providing them with the high quality infrastructure and services they need.

Michael Dudley and Arne Elias

Changing the Debate on High-Speed Rail

2009-05-08T20:08:00.000-05:00

For years there has been a relentless campaign against both light and heavy passenger rail transportation in the U.S.. In cities and states across the country when ballot initiatives to fund rail transportation are tabled there is invariably a heated debate fuelled by op-eds and position papers, many of which are drafted by fiscally conservative think-tanks such as the Reason Foundation. Rail opponents argue that rail will be too expensive, will not meet the needs of most Americans and will have a minimal impact on their ostensible goals, such as greenhouse gas reduction. Another common tactic is an appeal to faux populism:

"First, virtually nobody who’ll ride light rail could afford it if they had to pay the full cost. That’s right: people in rural Tennessee are paying for Charlotte to have a gilded trolley. Not only did the federal government have to kick in hundreds-of-millions of dollars for the project to have a chance of getting built, but everyone in town had to pay more for many of the things they bought. Even the state chipped in. This is a phenomenon known as 'concentrated benefits and dispersed costs' in which politicians and special interests collude to bring expensive goodies to an area in exchange for their votes, and then stick everyone else with the bill. (Thank you, Mr. Mayor.) "

While this is true as far as it goes, what rail opponents rarely acknowledge is that roads are also heavily subsidized, and no automobile driver comes close to paying the full cost for the roads on which they drive. Yet this argument remains a major element of the anti-rail arsenal, bolstered as it is by populist rage against government spending that continues to gain momentum, aided significantly by sympathetic conservative media, such as Fox News.

It is significant, therefore, that during the same week in which "teabagging" rallies took place across the United States, President Obama set out an ambitious program to build a national high-speed rail system. According to the Washington Post,

"Obama said that the money would be used for two things: to improve existing rail lines so that trains on them could go 100 mph or faster; and to identify and construct new rail lines in major corridors...In his remarks...Obama confronted critics who say the plans are too expensive, don't go far enough, or will shift resources away from the roads and airports. He dismissed all those concerns."

The CST concurs. Our position on Obama's proposal is completely supportive. If anything, he could be faulted for not asking for more. The proposed network will primarily be geared towards intercity travel, typically between 150 - 1000 km, so the speeds being proposed, while falling well short of Japanese standards, will be quite adequate to serve most destinations. We agree with the President that the arguments against it are easy to dispense with, even in lower density areas when high-speed rail becomes the prime mode of travel.

The proposal does however lack one major component: a continental strategy. Canada needs to take this opportunity to jump on the bandwagon. The time is right in every way - this is one of the best stimulus measures, it fits with current infrastructure led policy, offers existing and new industrial sector growth and is part of the natural evolution to low carbon travel (which incidently has large implications for utilities and renewables). The choice is the same - join in an emerging Advanced Green Economy (AGE) or sit on the sidelines.

However, President Obama and rail supporters across the nation (and continent) must now prepare for what will likely be an anti-rail campaign of unprecedented scale. Fiscally conservative analysts have been swift to post their responses: David Fredosso and Samuel Staley at Reason both argue that Obama's plans for high-speed rail will "go nowhere fast" primarily because, they argue, it will cost vastly more than he says it will, and will never be able to compete with air travel for cost and speed.

Like most megaprojects, American high-speed rail may well indeed cost much more than expected. However, Fredosso and Staley are basing their analysis on a very dubious assumption: that air travel will remain affordable -- to say nothing of even being viable -- into the future, when oil scarcity will probably drive most airlines out of business. In the rail debate to come, it will be essential to take a long view, rather than assuming present conditions will remain unchanged.

Trains are not an elitist form of transportation; they were once the primary means of long distance land-based travel for all levels of society. They only remain more expensive for lack of appropriate government subsidies equivalent to those lavished on roads and automobiles. The Obama announcement represents an opportunity to build a truly sustainable and socially equitable North American transportation system. However, to get there we may need to change the terms of this entire debate.

Michael Dudley and Arne Elias

Creating a More Resilient Automobile Industry -- and Society

2009-05-06T20:07:00.000-05:00

Resiliency is being increasingly recognized as an essential factor for a sustainable society. In a paper on Resilience and Sustainable Development delivered to the World Summit on Sustainability in 2002, the authors state that

"Resilience, for social-ecological systems, is related to (a) the magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state, (b) the degree to which the system is capable of self- organization, and (c) the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation."

Based on these criteria, it is apparent that our present auto-industrial society meets none of them. It has never been capable of self-organization but has always been driven by powerful elites, as well as being deeply dependent on government subsidies to remain viable. There has also been very little capacity shown by the domestic industry to learn and adapt, in contrast to some off-shore manufacturers. Until recently, the domestic industry -- while selling some smaller vehicles manufactured by off-shore OEMs -- has focused on building gas-guzzling behemoths against all evidence that this was folly, and many of us have been only too willing to buy them. Add to this the massive inheritance of built and legal infrastructure, and it becomes obvious that the auto-industrial society as a whole is very resistant to adaptation.

But clearly, it is concerning the first criteria that our present arrangements are revealed to be hopelessly ill-suited for long-term viablity. As we have seen, the auto-industrial society has been quite incapable of absorbing major shocks, be they from soaring energy prices or the subsequent economic meltdown, and neither government bailouts nor the "stimulus" packages aimed at resuming consumer "confidence" will effect the needed changes. Indeed, as many critics are pointing out, these interventions are little more than misguided -- and probably futile -- efforts to return to "normal."

But such a state may no longer even be possible. Sara Robinson, at the Campaign for America's Future, says that we can't "go back to normal."

"There is no going back. That future was foreclosed on right along with the houses and the banks. You can only believe in the Happy Face story if you willfully ignore the deep structural changes afoot in the way the world works -- the changes that have closed and locked the door back to "normal" behind us for good. There's a small number of overwhelmingly strong global trends that explain why all this stuff is breaking, and why just fixing it isn't even on the table. [W]hen we take full stock of the size and quantity of major moving parts in the machinery that's propelling us on toward the next future, it becomes very, very clear that going back to the 20th Century isn't anywhere among our current options."

Yet this appears to be the philosophy underlying the frantic efforts of the industrialized nations to re-start their economies: to go back to "normal." This is particularly true of the auto industry bailouts,which have effectively made the American and Canadian governments auto industries unto themselves. The two nations' governments have, despite some public opposition, used public money to provide short-term loans to General Motors and Chrysler, and taken the extraordinary steps of actually backing the auto makers' warranties, and in the case of President Obama, ordering GM's former CEO, Rick Wagoner, out the door.

Konrad Yakabusk, writing in the Globe and Mail, believes that the bailouts undertaken by both the American and Canadian governments are weakened by a "policy paradox" -- that, despite these governments' professed interests in developing a "green" North American auto industry, it may not be possible to both save the industry and have green cars. The Japanese and Chinese auto makers are so far ahead of the "Big Three" that the North American industry will not be able to make electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars in the numbers needed and at a viable price point. The much lauded Chevy Volt, for instance, will be twice the cost of its Chinese counterpart. Yakabusk notes,

"The auto bailouts, for all their expediency, represent a case of government policy at odds with itself... Any move by Americans to smaller cars, much less electric ones, would leave the Canadian industry in straits even more dire than where it is
now."

Emma Rothschild argues in the New York Review of Books that the bailouts can only be justifiable if they were oriented to not boosting a doomed technological model, but rather to ending the "auto-industrial" society altogether:

"An enduring bailout, or a new deal for Detroit, would be different. It would be an investment in ending the auto-industrial society of the late twentieth century. This would involve innovation in public transportation, and in the infrastructure that would enable people to work at home or close to home. It would engage the information industries in making public transport more convenient, more enticing, and more secure. It would be an investment, even, in the old promise of 'automotive' freedom, of owning a car but not having to use it, and of being able to go anywhere at any time."

Such an investment in public transit would be an excellent start. But the auto bailouts are part of a larger problem. Like the Wall Street investment firms whose "toxic assets" interconnected with every aspect of the economy, so too is our auto-centric transportation system a "toxic" force that has distorted the economy, our built environment, and our social relations. We should simply never have become so dependent on a single industry or a single mode of transport.

The reality is that we live in “Motordom”, a car-dominated culture that will take many decades to change significantly, as we build out our public transit and redesign our cities for Active Transportation. While we are doing that, we face an ongoing major cultural shift away from personal vehicles, balanced with the very real need for these vehicles for the many areas that continue to be poorly serviced by other modes. Cars are likely to be here for the foreseeable future and therefore it becomes even more important that they are clean, efficient and appropriate -- even as we pursue policies to minimize and price their use.

Therefore, instead of the bailout models currently being pursued, what is needed is an outcomes-based approach that would offer support to those businesses who could produce more sustainable personal transportation, rather than simply throwing more money at existing manufacturers who may or may not be able to produce the vehicles of the future. A per-unit subsidy aimed at innovative and smaller-scale manufacturers, or other capable companies such as Magna International, plus subsidies aimed at consumers to purchase the vehicles these companies would produce, would work to both meet "green" vehicle targets and to diversify the economy.

Whatever economy emerges from the present crisis must be one that is far more diverse, and made up of a varied range of entities filling a wider range of functions and connected to each other by more than just ribbons of asphalt. It may not produce profits for a select few, but overall such an economy be a lot healthier and resilient, and would also help to achieve a far more robust and livable transportation system.

Michael Dudley and Arne Elias

About Sustainable Transportation

2009-05-01T10:35:00.000-05:00

Sustainable Transportation is about how we move people and goods as if we plan on staying here for the long term. Follow The Centre for Sustainable Transportation's feature blogger, Michael Dudley, as he comments on moving towards green pastures, here.