Bike, transit use rising along with gas prices
This is a repeated national survey by Angus Reid. What I think is really interesting is the way that BC differs from the rest of the country.
But, possibly because of the rain, fewer of us in B.C. are willing to park the car and walk more.
This seems to me to be supposition on the part of Gordon Hamilton. There are a number of more plausible explanations but it seems that either Angus Reid did not probe further, or the Sun could not be bothered to publish more information.
Where we live determines how we get about. Downtown Vancouver is not like the rest of the City let alone the rest of the region or the province. That means most people live in places where walking is not encouraged. There are no direct walks and no destinations within easy reach. There are no sidewalks in most suburbs. Bike facilities are often sparse and poorly designed . And transit sucks. Sure ridership has increased, but mode share hasn’t. Most people still do not see transit as a viable alternative.
But the survey also reveals that British Columbians are more likely to do nothing about the bigger bite gas is taking out of their income than most Canadians, an interesting twist to the results that [Angus Reid director of global studies Mario] Canseco said reflects our obsession with personal choices.
“That was surprising — more than a third of B.C. residents don’t want to do anything or don’t feel that they should,” he said.
Now since he is talking about his poll, I suppose that reflects the way the question was asked. But in the suburbs of Vancouver and out in the Valley, the transit mode share drops off like a stone, mainly due to the paucity of service. And the complete absence of service between suburbs - and most trips these days are suburb to suburb. Which is a market that the transit system ignored for a long time and is only now getting to grips with.
I would like to see the same survey conducted in the main conurbations - Montreal, Toronto and here. And more pointed questions asked about perceptions of the options available. I have a sneaking suspicion that we are not keeping up. I have never been to Price George so I have no idea what they feel about their transit system. But I bet the market share there is pretty low.
New fuel rules face roadblocks
Ottawa proposal to phase in tougher rules by 2020 called timid by activists, unrealistic by automakers
Which means they have probably got it about right. As Mark Jaccard noted, if GM had spent its money on research and development instead of law suits when California introduced its fuel efficiency standards, it might still be No 1 - instead of being pushed aside by Toyota, which has been concentrating on building better vehicles ever since it got into the business.
But then Canada may also find that GM has not learned its lesson and will once again resort to a law suit, following the precedent set by the Ethyl Corporation. They are the friendly folk who used to make a lead additive for gasoline that poisoned a couple of generations and reduced their intelligence - which explains a lot, come to think of it. Once the US got the lead out, they turned to other additives including MMT, a neurotoxin banned in the US but allowed in Canada. When BC attempted to get it taken out of our gas, Ethyl responded with a suit based on the Free Trade Act. Tom Gunton (then Deputy Minister at MoE) and Moe Sihota folded - fast. Ethyl, they said, may be lousy chemists but they sure can afford good lawyers. (Incidentally the motor manufacturers also wanted MMT banned as it damaged their catalytic converters and thus increased emissions of common air contaminants.)
If Canada tries tougher standards than the US I expect another Free Trade Act challenge from the US manufacturers. The importers, of course,will already have far more fuel efficient cars than new standards demand ready ahead of time.
Government unveils plans to slash emissions
B.C. climate action secretariat head Graham Whitmarsh, in his first public appearance since being appointed last May, told a Vancouver audience that legislation to slash emissions 33 per cent by 2020 will be introduced this fall, and will be in force within a year.Over the longer term, Whitmarsh said, B.C.’s efforts will mean less consumption of fossil fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles, more public transit, more compact urban growth, and less onerous commutes between work and home.“To me, it seems like common sense that we should burn even our fossil fuels at a slower rate and have more efficient cars, that we should live in community again instead of diverse, sprawling communities that some of us are forced to live in today.
“I don’t think it is necessarily a bad place we end up in. In fact, I could argue it’s actually a positive place,” he said.
I have quoted more extensively than usual because it is important. This is what the Government is saying about Climate Change. Graham Whitmarsh is not some political hack talking off the cuff at some fund raiser. This is a statement of intention from the head of a new agency - not about the target already announced, but how it is going to be achieved. Allow me to repeat
more public transit, more compact urban growth, and less onerous commutes between work and home.
That is a strategy which I whole heartedly endorse. Now, can you please explain how widening Highway 1 from Vancouver to Langley is going to help achieve any of those aims? And please do not respond that the EA submission shows how the project will positively help the environment, because we have read it carefully and it is clear that is a shoddy, poorly argued and unsupported claim. The Gateway program is utterly contrary to the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It will not achieve any of its stated objectives and will be hugely expensive - much more expensive than the government is currently admitting. The same sums spent on utilizing existing infrastructure, through more SkyTrains to Surrey and rapid buses across the Port Mann now (not in six years time) , as well as more passenger services on existing railway lines, will all help achieve the objectives and the “positive place” Mr Whitmarsh refers to.
It is probably too much to expect that Kevin and Gordon will admit they were wrong, and make a big show of a policy shift, like they did on fare gates. But I don’t think we necessarily need that. Just get on with the queue jumpers and place some orders for more buses and SkyTrain cars - and begin a more extensive recruitment campaign. Not just for attendants and security at existing stations but actually achieve a bigger run out of buses onto the streets every peak period. And allow the plans for the new bridge and the extra lanes to go back into the drawers again. Together with all the other plans to build more highways. Because we will not be needing them. Or the hydrogen highway come to that. Let us just concentrate on doing what we know will work, using existing technologies that are cheaper and more effective.
Biofuels
George Monbiot in the Guardian continues his campaign against biofuels. They are an easy option for western governments, since they allow their voters to keep on driving but seem to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I say “seem to” since the calculations seem to ignore the math of full cycle cost and only look direct cost. So, for example, it would appear that although we know that the use of nitrogen fertilisers releases nitrous oxide - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - this emissions are not included in the evealuation. Not only that but it turns out to be much harder to ensure that there are not knock on effects. We may not like palm oil for our biofuels, but that does not mean the oil we do take to make our diesel is not replaced by palm oil.
Anyway, he is a much better writer than I am so I hope you click the link and find out what he has to say.
But just to give this some Canadian content, the federal government has mandated 5% ethanol of all our gasoline. And that will almost certainly come mostly from corn, or possibly other food grains, since that technology is well known and understood. In theory you could make ethanol from other plant material - like woodwaste or wheat stalks - but so far that has not been proved commercial. And from what I understand it actually takes more energy to produce and distribute ethanol than you get out of it. And that is before you take the fertiliser into account.
High-density development can create ‘urban heat islands’
“Heat Islands” may produce more energy consumption - or not. First of all, it depends on the ambient temperature, and how comfortable it is. Secondly how people behave.
I suspect there is a significant difference in Phoenix to downtown Toronto for example. But also some of these effects can be offset by techniques such as green roofs, better energy efficiency in the buildings (less heat loss) use of planting and landscaping and so on.
But mainly mixed land uses, so the people in the buildings do not feel quite so much need to drive everywhere.
Moreover “may add to global warming” also depends on the energy source and use. In a city like LA which gets a lot of its electricity to run HVAC systems from coal power, there could well be an increase in carbon emissions. But somewhere using existing hydro (like Vancouver) no increase in carbon emissions.
Many modern office buildings capture all their own “waste” heat - people generate a lot, and so do copiers and computers. If you have a dense urban core, mixed land use and a district energy system this heat can be used by other buildings in the vicinity, such as care facilities. North Vancouver has such a system in its new development at the south end of Lonsdale. Of course such places need careful urban planning.
So LA and Phoenix, with very low densities in general, poor transit systems, low energy efficiency buildings (a legacy of a long history of low energy prices) and the custom of not only having the a/c set to deep freeze but also sending the “waste” heat into the sky, probably do add to the problem. In a city like Toronto where there is significant need to heat many buildings in winter, but plenty of “waste heat” around which can be captured, plus a good transit system and much mixed land use near the core, the effect may not be so significant.
Of course, systems such as LEED are fairly recent innovations in North America, but rising energy costs mean that better buildings pay for themselves in lower operating costs. Lots of surface parking lots, paved with asphalt also create more urban heat effect than parks, planting and other urban amenities.
In Vancouver, our biggest issue in meeting the current challenge of reducing emissions is mainly going to be about transport. That is because we no longer have the large scale industrial users in the city. Indeed, BC has a much bigger challenge than say Alberta - which Vaughan Palmer pointed out yesterday. Our challenge is to reduce ghg emissions from driving ourselves around: some of that will come from better, smaller and more efficient cars and maybe better fuels. But much more can come from significant investments in transit - given that our transit system is over capacity and a lot more people want to use it than can. But mainly not building more freeways to encourage ever more low density sprawl up the valley and outside the Metro area and creating more motorised travel demand. “Build a compact urban region, with complete communities, protect the green zone and increase transportation choice.” (LRSP) That was a good formula before Gordon Campbell committed us to a 30% reduction in ghg - it is an even better one now!
Transportation | Tipping point for hybrids?
Citizens are finally demanding electricity-powered cars—many years after David Suzuki bought Canada’s first hybrid.
Well this citizen isn’t and I have lusted after an electric car for years. But when it came time to replace the 12 year old minivan I had a bad case of sticker shock. One good thing about Toyota is that there is no dickering, so you can do price comparisons on line and know before you go to the dealership what the bottom line is. For you do not pay the often quoted “price” because you are going to have to pay taxes and fees, delivery and you will probably want something more than the absolute base model.
So for me the choice came down to the hybrid Prius at around $40k - and fuel consumption of 4.1 l/100km or the slightly less exotic Yaris for which I paid around $20k and am expecting 6.3 l/100km. These figures do not include the Government rebate since you cannot actually get it yet ($2k for the Prius, $1k for the Yaris) - though the claim forms are expected to be available … in due course.
You can buy a lot of gas for $20k - so for someone who does not too many kms (there were only 150,000 or so on the old van after 12 years) the economic case is not there. And the rebate is, frankly, irrelevant. And anyway, I do not want to invest an extra $20k upfront in my mobility for not very much return other than bragging rights. And I will be burning a lot less fuel than I was in the old van too - that was getting around 12 l/100km at the end.
And if I was going to throw that kind of money around on a car I think I would expect a bit more than better fuel consumption.
Tax exemption driving up sales of pickup trucks
New federal measures aimed at pushing Canadians into hybrids and other fuel-sipping vehicles are instead driving up sales of new pickup trucks, according to research released Friday by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants.
Sales of small pickups like Ford Motor Co.’s Ranger were up 18 per cent in the first seven months of the year, while sales of large pickups like Chrysler’s Dodge Ram rose 14 per cent over the same months last year, DesRosiers’ research shows.
I would like to think that this is the working of the “law of unintended consequences”, but I have become cycnical enough to know that this is not true. The effect was exactly as intended. North American manufacturers (i.e. car makes with plants in Canada) do not have anything much to stand up to the imported hybrid small cars (Toyota Prius, Honda Civic) that top the fuel efficiency lists - or even the conventional cars that nearly equal their fuel efficiency (Toyota Yaris).
The Conservative government exempted pickups when it unveiled its so-called EcoAuto program in March because it said many people use them for work.
Yes but many more of them now drive pick up trucks because they are seen as “cool”. And they may drive them to and from work but many do not “need” the truck bed except for the weekend excursions to the garden centre maybe. Even my 16 year old daughter yearns for a pick up truck.
The point was not to favour a particular segment of the population but I will bet that pick ups are the favoured vehicle of choice in Stephen Harper’s constituency. The percentage of pick ups used in Alberta for personal transport must be as high as it is in Texas. Like wearing cowboy hats at stampede time, it’s a statement about identity.
So I am sure that Ford, Chrysler (and, no doubt, GM though Des Rosiers does not mention one of their products by name in the piece) will be suitable grateful at the next Conservative fund raiser. Maybe they can add a bumper sticker with the Canada word mark. (Like the BC Liberals put on the SkyTrain (very belatedly) to acknowledge federal funding when they were looking for more Ottawa dollars for the Canada Line.) So we can see our tax subsidies at work.
Guardian commercial Zurich house of the future video
The Tree House in Clapham is a beautifully executed exercise in sustainable building. Inspired by Alvar Aalto’s Villa Mairea the house takes the tree which occupies the site as an integral part of the design and works in sympathy with it.
Yes it’s a commercial. It’s a video. It is also a testament of hope. You cannot buy this house. In fact in most municipalities in this region they would not let you build it because it would be “against code”. But it takes up very little space - and has a garden, and trees. And it does not consume energy - it actually uploads it to the grid. Reverse metering is something that BC Hydro does not promote very effectively. Ground source heat pumps and solar panels on the roof. In Clapham! Timber frame and old newspaper insulation.
I want one.
Ideas on how the provincial budget can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Carole Taylor wants our ideas on how the budget can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is what I sent her:
1) Exempt all forms of mass transit from the collection of provincial tax. This includes the gas tax that is currently recycled through various levels of government. It is ludicrous that Translink collects tax from itself on the fuel it uses. It is also simply wrong that the provincial treasury collects fuel tax from municipal transit systems which are largely supported by municipal taxes.
Transportation of people by bus is much more energy efficient that car use. The tax exemption should therefore be extended to work and school buses, long distance bus services and registered van pools.
2) Railways and inland waterways are also much more energy efficient ways of moving freight than trucks. Exempt these modes from provincial fuel tax to improve their competitive position vis a vis trucking.
3) The Liberal government very foolishly reduced the luxury tax on vehicles. This should now be put back or alternatively increased for large vehicles used for personal transport. All vehicles that can achieve low fuel consumption figures, whatever their configuration, should be encouraged, but the tax incentive for hybrid SUVs should be withdrawn. This incentive for large passenger carrying vehicles is self defeating. Any new vehicle that consumes more than 10 liters per 100 kms should be penalised, and the penalty should be graduated so the the largest pay the highest penalty. This penalty system must also apply to light duty trucks used for personal transport. Essential users should be able to apply for a rebate if they can show that the vehicle is mainly used for the movement of freight or essential equipment. The rebate should only be available to charities and businesses registered and paying taxes in BC and not to individuals who use light duty trucks solely or mainly for personal transport.
4) Introduce a tax reduction for biodiesel and for automotive fuels made from waste. No tax exemption should be considered for fuels made from products which would otherwise be used as human or animal food (therefore no tax incentive should be provided for ethanol from grain as it is arguably more energy consuming than saving).
5) Eliminate provincial sales tax on all energy saving devices including insulation, set back thermostats, solar panels, double glazing, ground source heat pumps, low flow shower heads and so on
6) Dig out the Greenhouse Gas Action Plan written for the province in 1996 by civil servants at the Ministry of Energy and all subsequently laid off. This plan was never implemented but identified 48 different initiatives that could be introduced that would pay for themselves with a year or two at the energy prices then prevailing. Ask why these measures have not been introduced.
Canada in last place
David Pritchard has done some sums about why Canada is not meeting its greenhouse gas emission targets. Yes, it’s something to do with the oil patch. But it is also because we are driving further in larger vehicles, and that trend continues. That is what urban sprawl and freeway building does for you.
And his blog gets added to the blogroll too.
