Archive for March 2009
The comments section of this blog seems to be dominated by the almost theologically intense debate about trams v skytrain. So it comes as something of a relief to have another subject suggested. The Sightline Institute (formerly North West EnviroWatch) has asked me to draw your attention to a post on their blog about buses.
The data is American, but favourably compares passenger miles per gallon between intercity bus, train and plane (in descending order of fuel efficiency). It would be nice if someone with time on their hands could dig out comparable Canadian data. Note that we are not talking about city buses – which spend such a lot of time starting and stopping that their fuel consumption is higher, and one reason why hybrids perform better in city traffic.
Intercity passenger trains do not do very well in a US comparison – since the type of service now provided is far inferior to most other advanced countries – and even some third world ones. There is little electrification or even decent speeds outside the North East corridor, and in most places trains use tracks designed for and dominated by freight trains. But of the choices now offered, a well filled bus is quite a good choice (apparently) if you want to reduce your carbon footprint.
Of course most people have other, more pressing concerns.
The following article was circulated to a couple of vancouver based cycling/transit lists. It originally comes from
but I am going to paste the whoile thing here. Not because I take folding bikes with me everywhere, but because it offends me that Air Canada has a stupid policy. And the more people point this out to them – especially if you quote your Aeroplan number to them – the more they are likely to reconsider.
by Larry Lagarde
Imagine Lloyd Alter’s surprise and rage when checking in recently for a flight on Air Canada. He checks a bag that’s well within Air Canada’s dimensional and weight limits for checked baggage; yet, he’s hit with a $50 surcharge because the bag contains a folding bike.
Lloyd’s a conscientious air traveler. When he flies, he buys carbon offsets but he wanted to do more. Thus, to further reduce his carbon footprint when traveling, Lloyd got a Strida folding bike to reduce his dependence on rental cars and taxis.
So why was Lloyd upset? Air Canada’s baggage policy makes no sense and is inconsistent.
Senseless Baggage Policy
Air Canada imposes a 50 lb weight limit and 62″ linear dimensional limit on each checked bag. Some items (such as standard sized bicycles) typically exceed Air Canada’s weight & dimensional limits and are obviously subject to an overage fee; yet, the Strida is NOT your typical bike.
When folded, the Strida is very compact, taking up less than a third of the space needed for a full size bike and certainly within Air Canada’s 62″ linear dimensional limit. Packed inside its padded custom carry bag, the Strida and bag combo weigh about half of Air Canada’s 50 lb. max weight limit for checked bags. There are no special handling requirements either; the Strida goes on the luggage belt just like every other checked bag.
Inconsistent Baggage Policy
According to Air Canada, every bike is subject to a surcharge because it would be too difficult for check-in personnel to determine which bikes meet the dimensional & weight requirements (I guess the scale and measuring tape works for everything but bikes). Air Canada also argues that they charge for folding bikes because other major airlines do too. Naturally, Air Canada conveniently forgot that Southwest, Alaska and other airlines DO NOT charge for folding bikes (you can even take certain folding bikes into the cabin on Southwest as a carry on).
Insult To Injury: Air Canada’s LeaveLess
Air Canada promotes itself as an airline striving for a greener world. As part of their LeaveLess “environmental initiative,” Air Canada brags how they’re cutting greenhouse gas emissions by converting some of their ground vehicles to propane, etc. If they were serious though, the airline’s policies would encourage fliers to use folding bikes. Instead, they charge a fee that discourages use.
Given that folding bikes like the Strida…
– emit NO greenhouse gases…
– are ideal for use with buses, trains and subways…
– meet airline dimension & weight standards…
the only logical conclusion is that Air Canada’s policy towards folding bikes is simply a way to generate revenue.
Convincing Air Canada to change their policy is simple: take action & complain. With all the competition out there and the state of the economy, Air Canada would be crazy not to listen.
I know it is supposed to be symbolic. I also know that I did my bit – I promoted Earth Hour here and on flickr/facebook (one post does for both). But I noticed that my neighbours did not.
Overall power consumption dropped by 1.1% in BC – less than last year’s 2% – and Richmond was one of the worst performers at 0.3% which is not good news for Green Party candidates here.
But meanwhile the Vancouver Sun has found an angle on global warming that might catch popular attention. Forget about the forecast loss of coastline – and the effect on populations in low lying areas. Or the expected social upheaval caused by droughts and crop failures – the possible wars over shortages of fresh water – the vast movements of populations. Not much of this grabs the headlines of the major media here. But it might effect winter sports! (Shock!! horror!!!)
Canada’s $5-billion-a-year winter tourism industry, generating more than 110,000 jobs, is also vulnerable to the warmer temperatures that lie ahead unless the world takes concrete action now to arrest climate change.
Well if that’s the case we might actually have to do something!
Ken Hardie tried to get this out early on Twitter but forgot to post a link to anything – and I am sorry but a “tweet” is not the same as a story. They had a media event and “Premier Gordon Campbell and other officials rode the entire length of the route for the first time on Friday morning, with reporters.” Once again Translink appears to have favoured conventional media over “social media” – which is understandable.
I love this quote from our Premier
Campbell said the line will provide the same transportation capacity as 10 lanes of roadway along the route, reduce the number of one-way vehicle trips per day by 200,000, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 11,000 to 14,000 tonnes a year.
So Mr Campbell, in that case why have you decided to build ten lanes of roadway across the Fraser? If the reduction of one way vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions are important on Cambie Street, why are they not important everywhere else in the Metro Vancouver region?
Actually, the Canada Line will not reduce vehicle trips for very long or by very much – if at all. The people who use the Canada Line will mostly be people who are currently riding buses. The shift from car to transit will be unnoticeable since the trips moved to transit will be more than offset by new induced car trips. These will occur because more road space will be available due to the design of the project and the relative absence of buses on currently crowded streets. (Toronto traffic engineers noticed very early on that the opening of subways made traffic worse on the streets under which they run.)
Oddly enough this would not be the effect if the H1PMR replacement was cancelled and replaced by an equal investment in streetcars. Firstly because road space would be taken away from cars and dedicated to transit – a much more efficient people moving system. This would produce the mode shift which you appear to recognise as desirable – but which will not happen by nearly as much as you say thanks to your current policies. Secondly the shape of development will not change very much in Vancouver – the dense parts are already about as dense as they are likely to get – the golf course and the park along much of the southern part of the Canada line will not be redeveloped. But if you had streetcars in Surrey and Langley just watch the pace of redevelopment along those arterials! The ranchers, bungalows and sidesplits would become townhouses and apartments over shops seemingly overnight.
The argument has always been about serving or shaping growth. The Canada Line serves an already well served area. Therefore not much change will happen. Changing the proposed transportation infrastructure in Langley and Surrey, on the other hand, will start to shift the transit mode share significantly – because it is only 4% now and has almost nowhere to go but up – given the right kind of system. Widen the freeway and the number of car trips will increase much faster and further than your model is capable of predicting. Because propensity to make trips – assumed fixed by your model – will increase.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a definition of madness.
It is time we changed direction.
This is a bit of a concern
It seems that the big issue is people moving and then forgetting to update their registration. You can still vote without being registered – as long as you are a Canadian citizen and have lived in BC for six months. But that involves lots of hassles at the poll. Much better to do it now and be ready
To get on the voter registry, check out http://www.elections.bc.ca, or phone 1-800-661-8683.
Ontario has a real Liberal government. BC currently has a government that has hijacked the Liberal brand but is in fact deeply conservative – in fact they are essentially a re-tread of the old Social Credit Party – or at least the right wing of that party. They are still stuck in the old blacktop politics that both parties espouse.
In Ontario the provincial budget espoused a Green shift
“jurisdictions that embrace the shift to a low-carbon, sustainable economy — aligning environmental goals with economic ones — will see more robust growth, more jobs and higher wages.”
And part of that is $2.6bn for transit projects in Toronto. Note the difference. BC commits to spending $3bn on an expanded freeway – but it is not in the budget. It is an afterthought after an unfundable P3 collapses – thought the partners in that project still are in line to get the lion’s share of the profits they would have gathered under the P3, and without taking on any of the risk. It seems, like The Producers, sometimes promoting a flop can be more profitable than promoting a hit.
BC has not, of course, done anything very significant to shift to a low carbon, sustainable economy. The big headlines here are for the money being made from oil and gas licenses, the hugely profitable privatisation of power generation (mainly for export to California) and the Olympics. There has been very little emphasis on the carbon tax, as even though it is too small to make any difference is still a distinctly unpopular move in the “heartland” (another word we no longer hear as often). The hydrogen highway has not been forgotten – but probably should be as there are still hardly any hydrogen cars. There are promises of transit investment – but for many year hence, and are also not fundable as they need both federal and regional contributions. The region cannot even fund current transit operation – and the Minister of Transport has even said that he doubts Translink will get new funding sources.
Fortunately there is going to be an opportunity to change the government soon. The question in my mind is “Is the NDP different enough?” I thought the switch of policy to favour the highway widening was bad – but the most recent Vaughan Palmer story has Carol James offering tax cuts to the B.C. Business Council. Both mainstream parties are busy fighting to grab hold of the centre – both being overly confident that they can hold their own side of the spectrum. I wonder about that. What I hear is that people are increasingly dissatisfied with both parties – and think it is time for some new ideas. I can understand those who say the only way to get rid of the Liberals is to hold your nose and vote for the NDP, but sadly they will take that as an endorsement for an approach which is not based on principles but on opportunism.
We already know that you cannot trust Gordon Campbell. He ran on a promise not to sell off BC Rail and then he did exactly that. That process is still before the courts – but related material about Patrick Kinsella a well connected Liberal insider shows that it was far from honest or open. The fix was in – and it was a politically driven fix. CP withdrew and Omnitrax was only kept in by promises of a “consolation prize” – subsequently withdrawn. On his tv show last night Palmer was careful not to talk about matters that are sub judice – but pointed to those who were in court and are writing about it.
Carol James does not seem to be able to convince people that she could run the province – and appears to be doing what many left wing leaders do in those circumstance. She is trying to be “reasonable” – or, in other words, shift right. Tony Blair made a great electoral success out of that in Britain – and out Thatchered Thatcher. I worry that something similar could be on the cards here if she wins. Is there a real choice here?
When I spoke in Surrey recently at the NDP/ Bus drivers’ union transit forum, I did not use PowerPoint. But there was one image I wanted to use and this is it
The diagram was created by Patrick Condon and Kari Dow, and it shows the amount of light rail system you could buy for the same price as the freeway widening and the replacement Port Mann Bridge. (By the way the province just gave itself an environmental certificate for that project on the grounds that “there will not likely be any significant adverse effects”)
If half of the roughly 40 million annual trips anticipated for the new bridge were shifted to such a tram system, it would amount to a reduction of the roughly 10,000 metric tons of GHG per year, a reduction equivalent to taking more than 21,000 cars off Lower Mainland roads completely.
…while building a bigger Port Mann Bridge reinforced commuting patterns in the region, building a robust light rail network likely would change how development occurs in the region, eventually shortening commutes as businesses elect to locate at various new public transit nodes.
“The Port Mann project is propelled forward by assumptions that are 20 years out of date. Commuting patterns are changing rapidly. The commute from Surrey to downtown Vancouver is relatively rare and getting even rarer each day. Jobs continue to move closer to housing all across the eastern part of the metropolis. What is needed is a system that gets us out of the car and serves our emerging complete communities, not guts them,” said Condon.