HSR in Canada?

A recent article from CTV news titled "Trainwreck: Canada's high-speed rail failure" provides a detailed summary of the current debate surrounding high speed rail in Canada. Here is a quick refresher on the benefits of HSR (courtesy of the article):

• They're fast. Japanese and French high-speed trains have both reached mind-boggling speeds of over 575 km/h. The Chinese, who are quickly becoming a leader in high-speed rail, had a recent test of a passenger train that hit 486 km/h on a soon-to-be-opened link between Shanghai and Beijing.

• Dedicated high-speed rail lines are ridiculously efficient -- at least in Japan. Officials there point out that trains are punctual down-to-the-minute, even with 300 million riders a year.
  
  
• They're safe. There has not been a single fatality in either the Japanese or French system. An average of seven Canadians die in road accidents every day.

• Environmentally, there is no better way to move a large amount of people, unless someone builds a really, big bike.

• Major economic benefits. Study after study says high-speed rail creates significant numbers of permanent jobs and massive residual benefits. An Alberta government report suggested a Calgary-Edmonton high-speed line could be worth $33 billion to the economy.

• Canada has the home-grown expertise in a company such as Bombardier.

While I recognize the drawbacks and limitations of HSR, I don't think it's worth criticizing this transport mode right now when they are starting to be recognized as a sustainable transportation solution. There is no shortage of ideas on how we can make HSR feasible and operational in Canada, or North America more broadly. My friend Leonard, shared a great idea on this blog a few weeks ago on how we can make progress on the HSR front. Alas, money and budget constraints often limit funds for sustainable and innovative infrastructure projects like HSR lines.

Many HSR proponents do not advocate for a national HSR line in Canada. That would be too expensive and impractical considering the geography and low population density of this country. The two corridors in Canada that would be suitable for an HSR line include Calgary-Edmonton and the Quebec-Windsor corridor, where half of Canada's population lives.

Jeff Casello, a prof of transportation planning and engineering at U of Waterloo, says "the capacity of Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and Highway 401 is maxed out, making high-speed rail an attractive alternative. I think there's very strong consideration on the (Quebec-Windsor corridor) considering the limits on Pearson and its ability to handle any more traffic and the unwillingness to invest in widening the 401. There's realization that there needs to be some redundancy in our transportation network, so we can't rely on a single mode to satisfy all our transportation needs".

Read more here.

Climatopolis - A Review

I recently finished Matthew Kahn's newest book titled "Climatopolis". I was looking forward to reading this book from the summer but did not find the time this past semester to indulge in Kahn's thought-provoking piece.

To begin, I highly recommend this book to anyone and especially those who love cities. According to the UN, 60% of the world's population will be living in cities by 2030. Climate change is bound to and already has affected urban areas. There are many opportunities for urbanites and Kahn is optimistic about how we will adapt.

Climate change has been a topical subject since 2006 when Al Gore and Nicholas Stern frightened the world about the future risks humanity would face if we did not take action. Gore, Stern (to a lesser extent) and a number of climate change researchers including climate scientists, economists, geographers etc, often focus our attention to climate change mitigation. This means looking at tools or systems (such as a carbon tax, cap-and-trade emissions standards, energy conservation) that will help lessen the impacts of climate change by emitting fewew greenhouse gas emissions. Few, however, talk about the importance of adaptation, or simply adapting to climate change in our uncertain future.

Matt Kahn's book takes us on economic journey (he's an environmental economist) exploring how residents of global cities such as Los Angeles and New York City can adapt to climate change if they receive proper signals about the importance of doing so. In a time when people have better access to information (thank you Google) there is more knowledge being created about the risks of more frequent natural disasters - flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, heat waves and droughts are all severe and highly damaging to any city in the world. Whether it is a developed or developing city, some residents are far more impacted than others (take hurricane Katrina in 2005 as a good example).

Throughout the book, Kahn talks about two vastly different groups and how they will respond or adapt to climate change. The first group is the Homer Simpsons of the world; those who are lazy, myopic and unwilling to sacrifice for their long-term good. They might be more skeptical of climate change and do nothing to protect themselves from it. Or, there is the traditional economic person who is cold, calculating and self-interested who Kahn calls the Mr. Spocks (Star Trek) of the world. The Mr. Spocks will take advantage of all of the information available on climate change and take pro-active steps to cope with the uncertainty surrounding climate change.

Take this example from the book: Kahn explains a situation where Al Gore (Mr. Spock) and Homer Simpson are both offered an opportunity to buy a home at a low price in an area that climate change scientists believe is at a high risk for serious flooding. The Al Gores would say either no thanks or if they accepted this offer, would take steps such as elevating the home and other costly flood-proofing actions to protect it. Homer (the ignorant one) would not be aware and take the offer right away. The Homers might take advantage of the low cost and migrate (or as Kahn says, "vote with their feet" by moving) away from a safe city such as Salt Lake City* to more risky and desirable cities like NYC, if they could trust their government and engineers to invent a credible protection strategy. The local government could construct seawalls for example, to help protect households living on the coast. That would be costly though and the money would come from all taxpayers including those who decided to live in less risky areas. As more and more households start to live in these risky areas, the federal government would provide more funds for protection because their political clout increases. So, if there is no flood, Homer will live on to be a happy person. If there is one, Al Gore will not suffer and Homer will.

Kahn provides examples like this to illustrate how both information and incentives can drastically change the way people think and adapt to climate change. Forward-looking entrepreneurs can innovate (earning huge profits) and be ready with a variety of products to help the Homers cope with their new reality. Thomas Mayne, an architect at UCLA, is discussed in Kahn's book because he is designing a "floating house" for New Orleans' residents. Such innovation can earn him big bucks for those wishing to live in riskier flood-prone areas.

There are countless examples in the book of such risky areas (like fire zones with wealthy landowners) where a market or insurance system can be created to price land based on climate change risk. An example comes from the state of Missouri where some local governments encourage developers to develop on high risk flood plains. This so-called "land assembly problem" allows developers to build on really cheap land in flood prone areas and make huge profits. The local government is excited about the new tax revenue and the job creation that accompany these projects. Alas, when floods happen in that state the federal government comes in a bails out the developer with tax payers' money because they were foolish enough in the first place to build in risky areas! Kahn suggests that insurance companies and markets need to appropriately price this land so that any risk takers who suffer from such disasters are solely affected by it, and not the taxpayers who probably disagreed with the development in the first place.

The bottom line is that there are a number of opportunities in cities across the world to embrace a more market and insurance oriented approach based on climate change risk. When insurance companies start to price land based on future risk, people will respond in different ways - some will migrate and some will stay and take advantage of the new demand for products such as floatable houses, more energy efficient air conditioners, rain water harvesting systems and many more. They will, in effect, adapt and create a greater market for such products allowing for better innovation and design from the business world thereby creating a safer city in our uncertain future. Keep in mind that while these adaptation technologies sound very promising, they will probably be very expensive and hence out of reach for the poorest and most marginalized - the group most affected by climate change.

These are just some highlights from the book. I do not agree with all of Kahn's points but I commend him for his forward-looking approach on a significant global issue of our time. He talks about Los Angeles and NYC extensively in his book because they are good case studies of climate change risk and adaptation potential. There is also a good amount of writing on China in the book and Kahn's predictions about how they will (or will not) green their cities in the face of climate change.

I have a copy of the book and would be happy to lend it to anyone interested.

I will write a post in January about some of the lessons urban planners could learn from Kahn's book.

*Kahn comes up with a list of the United States' top five most resilient cities that will cope best with climate change. These include 1) Salt Lake City 2) Milwaukee 3) Buffalo 4) Minneapolis 5) Detroit

Guest Entry: How can HSR gain speed and momentum in North America?

By: Leonard Machler

Infrastructure inflation has caught up with us, and we are starting to get used to billion dollar projects being thrown around with the casualness that we used to reserve for bus stops and phone booths. And even though high speed rail (HSR) may cost less than expanding airport and freeway capacity – with the added benefit that it provides a transportation alternative that is more environmentally friendly and that is meant to stimulate development in dense, walkable downtowns, the cost of HSR still represents a significant chunk of change.

The California High Speed rail system is estimated – at a minimum – to cost around $40 billion dollars; upgrading the Northeast Corridor of the United States for 300 km/h operation has been pegged at $117 billion. To compare, this figure is about the same as the total economic output of the Ukraine last year. Even if high speed rail in the US was not a political hot potato, it would be hard for any government to scrounge up that kind of cash. To compensate, governments, such as the Obama administration, contribute toward the project incrementally by providing “small” funding commitments.

This year, roughly $1.4 billion (including $624 million that had been allocated to Wisconsin, but turned down by a newly-elected Republican governor) was earmarked for the California High Speed Rail (HSR) project. In 2009, $2.3 billion was allocated to the California HSR program. At this rate, it will take over 20 years to fund the project in full, so the California HSR authority has proposed building a segment of the line between the two Central Valley cities of Fresno and Hanford. While not so small that they can’t be found on a map, connecting these two towns with a high speed rail line hardly has the cachet as a link between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Predictably, critics have derided this first segment as a line between nowhere and nowhere.

On the one hand, they are off base: the segment has to be built eventually, so why not now? Moreover, the short line would serve as a handy test track to evaluate the performance of high speed trains before they see regular service. On the other hand, the fact that it will be used as a test track for nearly a decade before regular service begins is a political high-wire act because almost nobody other than industry insiders will see the public benefits (i.e. trains that people can actually ride on) for this project. For the average voter, the line will not just be a train from nowhere to nowhere, it will be a line from nowhere to nowhere with no trains on it. Did it have to be this way? Are we doomed to wait an eternity until enough cash trickles in so that we can build a line people can actually use?

Most European countries have a different attitude. They would use the partial funding to build a short high speed line – similar to the Hanford-Fresno demonstration line – and then run the remainder of the service on conventional track. This way the public gets high speed rail service from day one and, over time, services and speeds improve as an increasing amount of high speed track comes on line.

This was how I remember the evolution of high speed rail in Germany. When I first used the system as a kid in the early 90s, only a handful of sections – usually meant to bypass especially slow or built up areas – were actually genuine high speed rail lines. Most other times, the ICE train would plod along the old rail line, bypassing freights and slower passenger trains at a comparatively “slow” 160 km/h. As the years went by, the ICE would spend less of its time dodging freight trains on the old tracks and more of its time speeding through the German countryside in its own dedicated high speed line.

It’s time for California and other North American jurisdictions to try a similar approach. The high speed line in the Central Valley should be built for demonstration purposes, as is the plan, but conventional trains should be allowed to use it – at least until the full HSR line is built out. Granted, track conditions in Germany – even on old, conventional lines – are better than pretty much anything that exists in North America today and are also electrified for higher speed too. California could use the earmark from the next two years to upgrade the existing track between San Francisco and Los Angeles* to support at least some quasi high speed service using conventional passenger trains, while taking advantage of the short high speed segment in the Central Valley.

Running conventional trains at higher speeds along incrementally longer stretches of high speed rail is not as sexy as a bullet train whisking passengers along a fully built-out line, but at least it has the chance of seeing the light of day sometime this decade. More importantly, it provides taxpayers with the impression that the line is immediately useful. As they say, it’s not perfect, but at least it’s a start.

Leonard Machler is a PhD student in the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC. He is a transportation enthusiast and is a strong advocate for more sustainable and accessible urban transportation systems.

*For a rail map comparing trips statistics (airplane, HSR and car) between San Francisco and Los Angeles, click here.*

A Wind Energy Update in Canada

Image credit:
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wind-energy.jpg

I love renewable energy but I usually don't blog about it. While I am relatively informed about wind energy (thanks to Chris and his comprehensive 100-page honour's thesis on wind energy deployment in Canada) I thought I would write a post about it.

The Globe and Mail (don't worry, I read other news sources too) had a special information feature on climate change and the environment a few days ago. The articles were written by representatives from several groups and institutes including Alberta's Pembina Institute, the University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, the David Suzuki Foundation and an article from the CEO of Siemens AG.

One of the articles discussed how wind energy was the world's fastest growing source of electricity generation in the U.S. and the EU in 2009. Canada, they argue, has a long way to go in fully developing its wind energy capacity. Wind energy in Canada has enough power to ostensibly generate at least 20% of Canada's electricity by 2025. That's huge!

Alberta is currently looking at renewable sources of energy, like wind, to alleviate its dependence on dirty coal-based electricity. According to the report from the Pembina Institute, the generating potential of wind in Alberta was estimated at 64,000 megawatts (MW). To put that in perspective, if you look at the IESO wind tracker located at the top right corner of this blog, 127 MW is enough electricity to power the City of Newmarket (population about 80,000). Just imagine what 64,000 MW could do.

In Canada, electricity generation is responsible for 17% of all greenhouse gas pollution, more than that produced by all of the cars on Canada's road. Both the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) are strong proponents for this renewable energy but continuously face obstacles from organizations and wind-opposing folks that Chris has talked about in the past.

It has been reported that a typical wind turbine in Canada produces enough power to meet the needs of 450 homes. Canada ranks 11th in the world in terms of wind energy-based electricity generation. Who are the leaders? 20% of Denmark's electricity is from wind sources, in Spain it is 13%, in Portugal, 12% and Ireland 9%.

Robert Hornung from CanWEA says that when measured as a percentage of total electricity production, Canada ranks significantly lower generating about 1.5% right now. Policy is the big challenge. We need incentives he argues. The federal production incentive program for wind energy is coming to an end. "Without a stable, clear-cut and long-term strategy to facilitate wind energy development, it will be hard to attract wind energy investment in Canada".

The key message is that federal government needs to send the right signals to renewable energy markets that demonstrate the need and importance of wind energy in this country. Alberta is constantly criticized for its oil sands industry and heavy dependence on coal based electricity. Alberta has a great opportunity to pursue this technology right now to earn some green points. But other provinces must also continue to increase their wind energy potential with the help of government incentives and strong renewable energy markets.

On a promising note, the International Energy Agency predicts that $20 trillion (US dollars) will be invested in renewable energy projects worldwide in the next 22 years. C'mon Canada, this is your chance to shine!

City Planning: Melbourne and Toronto

I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail yesterday that discussed contemporary city planning issues in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada. The article, structured in a question and answer format, featured two urban experts discussing what their cities have done and what their cities need to do on the urban planning front. Robert Adams, director of city design for Melbourne is a huge proponent of pedestrian traffic and bike lanes (Don Cherry would call him a pinko). Mr. Adams vehemently lobbied to make public transit in Melbourne free before 7 am and cars were banned from the city's busiest street. A really progressive and visionary leader who has made Melbourne the third most livable city in the world, according to The Economist.

The urban expert interviewed from Toronto is Gary Wright, the current chief planner for the City of Toronto. In my undergrad, Gary spoke as a guest lecturer in one of my geography courses (summary of that lecture found here). Gary is very proud of what the Dundas Square has become (under his leadership) in terms of a public open space in which people can appreciate and gather together to enjoy the city's culture, night life and artistic events. This is what some would call experiential consumption whereby citizens and tourists can experience and enjoy the culture and vitality of the city through public spaces and not through shopping and material consumption.

He also commented on the planning of the forthcoming Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2015. He says that the athletes' village is going to require close collaboration with developers to ensure that everything goes well. The city's waterfront reinvention plan is underway and will have many implications for waterfront development in the coming years. In sum, he supports greater involvement of the developers because of their knowledge and expertise. Last and unsurprisingly, he is a big advocate for better transit in Toronto. Transit is a very salient issue these days but in a time of financial uncertainty, and with a new mayor, we'll have to wait and see how things play out on the transit agenda.

The rest of this post will focus on the great city planning work of Robert Adams and what other cities could learn from him. To begin, as a design enthusiast and supporter for greater pedestrian traffic, Adams recognized the importance of widening sidewalks. Trees were planted along the widened sidewalks which eventually led to a proliferation of sidewalk cafes.

From the Globe: "Adams closed Melbourne's main thoroughfare, Bourke Street, to cars before 7 p.m., transforming it into wide lanes for pedestrians, bikes, streetcars and buses. More than 35,000 pedestrians now walk the street each day, up from 12,000 ten years ago and businesses have returned as well."

Adams says we need more residential development around existing transit lines (something Hong Kong has mastered). He also thinks that municipal plans are too technical and thus non-transparent to the public. Plans need to have more visual components to show people how their communities are going to change in the coming years due to urban development and population growth. Finally, Adams, as a designer and planner, is really effective and engaging and leveraging public sentiment. One example from the article is a time when he announced his desire to pull down a freeway standing between the city centre and the Yarra River. Many thought this was not possible. He slowly developed green spaces around the freeway and Melbourne's citizens, quite some time later, saw the benefits of this and demanded that the road be pulled down.

City planning can drastically transform our cities into healthier, more transit friendly and enjoyable places. Both Adams and Wright have done remarkable things for their respective cities. Planning is inherently a political process with multiple stakeholders and multiple perspectives. This mix of interests is healthy but challenging for the planner who must consult and facilitate disparate and contested views.

Finally, Melbourne and Toronto are unique in that they have historic streetcar systems. Personally, I have come to appreciate streetcars not only because they have contributed to Toronto's identity, but also because they effectively complement other transit forms such as subways, buses and walking. For you transportation nerds out there, I would encourage you to read a paper by Currie and Shalaby on the successes and challenges in modernizing streetcar systems in Melbourne and Toronto. For the paper, click here.

Problems with HSR in China...

A number of months ago, I wrote about China's high speed rail (HSR) construction. China has the world's longest high-speed rail network with 6,920 kilometres and will expand to 13,000 kilometers within the next three years.

I also wrote about the many benefits of China's HSR growth. HSR will help stabilize the country's greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sector. It will (over the long-term) decrease demand for airlines services, it will advance China's transportation network, foster a greener ethic in its citizenry etc.

BUT, recent news from the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggests that such HSR expansion is happening too quickly and might be too expensive for the nation long-term, if demand is lacking.

"The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) reported to the State Council recently, urging the large-scale high-speed railway construction projects in China to be re-evaluated. The CAS worries that China may not be able to afford such a large-scale construction of high-speed rail, and such a large scale high-speed rail network may not be practical".

"Some local media have reported recently that the recently enabled Wuhan - Guangzhou high-speed rail is currently running an average daily attendance of less than half capacity, while the newly opened Shanghai-Hangzhou high-speed rail attendance is even lower. The main reason for the high-speed rail low attendance is that fares are too high; the high-speed railway ticket prices are usually double or higher than normal train fares". Read more here.

I have and continue to argue that HSR ticket prices must be competitive with airfare tickets. The success, popularity and future ridership of HSR will largely be dependent on how affordable it is for China's citizenry. HSR construction is indeed really expensive. However, if one of the goals is to have an extensive high speed train system with very high rates of use, then prices must be affordable to all income groups. With decent rates of ridership, the benefits will pay off long-term and the Ministry of Railways can recover the costs of construction.

I do hope that China continues to expand its HSR corridors. The Beijing-Shanghai line is supposed to open next year. I imagine it is going to have decent ridership and significantly reduce the amount of GHG emissions due to less demand for airlines. But, the issue of cost is something the Chinese Ministry of Railways must better address in this critical time for the nation.

Metro Vancouver Walkability Index

The physical activity of walking is becoming a central part of discussion today in fields such as public health and transportation research. It is a very topical theme in general as cities prides themselves on being "walkable". Indeed, a report on the world's top ten most walkable cities was just released. In June, Chris blogged about urban walkability and a software called Walk Score. Walkability, believe it or not, is becoming very popular because it has economic, social, health and environmental implications.

A team of UBC researchers recently wrote a report titled "Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver". The research was led by a professor in my program named Dr. Larry Frank.

Professor Frank and his team developed the Metro Vancouver Walkability Index (VWI) to measure neighbourhood urban form characteristics in Metro Vancouver. The report summarizes results from local studies that have applied the VWI to explore associations between neighbourhood design and travel behaviour, physical activity, obesity, and air pollution exposure.

The walkability index specifically measures residential density, commercial density, land use mix and street connectivity. Without getting caught up in this jargon, the key point is that neighbourhoods that are well serviced by public transit, are in close proximity to amenities (grocery stores, schools, community centres, shopping areas, entertainment), and are close to major street intersections are all conducive for walking.

Generally, compact and mixed use neighbourhoods allow for shorter trips (that can be done by walking or cycling) to access local amenities and services. If amenities are a 10 minute walk from someone's house, cycling and walking become much more desirable options and the physical health benefits of this are enormous.

Image credit: The South Fraser Blog

The map above shows the walkability of Metro Vancouver. It's fairly evident that the City of Vancouver is more walkable than Surrey, or Richmond. There are many reasons why this might be, but I can tell you that Vancouver has higher density than the aforementioned cities and is also better serviced by public transit.

Why is this important? Measuring walkability has implications for public health policy and transportation. Larry Frank's study looks at the relationship between walking and active transportation i.e. adults living in the top 25% most walkable neighbourhoods drive approximately 58% less than those in more auto-oriented (less walkable) areas. They are probably more physically active as a result.

The report also looks at neighbourhood walkability and air pollution exposure. Nitric oxide (NO) levels are highest in urban areas of high residential density and on arterial roads where more vehicles in a smaller area result in higher concentrations of this pollutant. What does this mean for the walkers who are exposed to air pollution?

It is a really dynamic and informative study. I would encourage you to read it if you have some time on your hands. While the focus is on Metro Vancouver, it is critical to understand why walkability is important in our cities so that we can do smarter planning for active transportation and a healthier society.

Check out the report here.

Guest Entry: Assessing the Environmental Impacts of the Tar Sands

By: Trevor Shah

Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.

Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).

The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.

This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.

Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.

Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.

Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.

The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.

To read the full report, see here [scribd].

Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.

Guest Entry: Greater Utility for Green vehicles must go beyond Green marketing

By: Caitlin Yan

Green marketing and green products - once just buzzwords in the corporate world are now, finally realizing exponential growth in the consumer marketplace. There exists, however, a lag in the adoption rates for some of these green products. Is the marketing all wrong? Are the creative agencies missing their mark? Not necessarily. While most Canadians support environmental sustainability in theory, the kind of behavioural change that some green products call for is often more than consumers are ready to accept.

One of the most obvious obstacles to incorporating green products into your daily routine is the higher price tag. Furthermore, the goods and actions that have the greatest positive impact on the health of the environment often require the consumer to make changes to habitual routines, patterned schedules and all in all, buy more complementary “stuff”. A good example is the array of green vehicles making their way into your neighbourhood dealerships.

At this point, we’ve heard our fair share of how these vehicles can significantly lessen our reliance on oil and in turn, reduce the amount of harmful pollutants released into the air. So why then, has the demand for these vehicles been disappointing? There are a few factors that have to be considered before this question can be answered.

The existing price differential between traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative energy vehicles (such as hybrids and electric powered vehicles) is a major roadblock for many consumers. Also, the fuel economy offered by some green vehicles is less than stellar which only appeals to a small segment of consumers more concerned with making a social statement than saving some coin. On top of that, the year-end blowout sales apply almost exclusively to traditional fuel vehicles thereby widening the gap between the costs of the two types of vehicles.

The slow sales can be attributed to hesitation on the supplier side as well. It’s not only the consumers who are reluctant to adopt this technology. It should come as no surprise that electric vehicles are more expensive to manufacture than traditional vehicles, but did you know that car makers actually lose money on each unit they sell because of the current retail price? Electric vehicles currently account for less than 2% of all vehicles sales and there are few signs indicating an increase in consumer demand. It looks like both manufacturer and consumer are waiting for the other to make the first move.

Finally, another indication of the current stalemate is the lack of electric car chargers and charging stations on the market. An electric car is by no means a stand-alone purchase as it requires the aforementioned accessory components to function properly. Battery charger suppliers appear to be waiting for car manufacturers to introduce more electric vehicles and car manufacturers are holding off until consumers show a greater interest in these non-traditional vehicles. The fact remains that there are not enough charging stations and chargers to reduce “range anxiety” – the fear of being stuck on the road without any power. Unfortunately, the solution is not as trivial as simply making more of the vehicles or the chargers.

Hopefully after taking a look at some of the contributing factors, the true nature of the situation is a bit clearer. The slow adoption of green vehicles is not only a marketing problem. Sure, the marketing departments of Nissan and Ford should be ramping up their efforts to better address their consumers’ perceptions of green vehicles. The economics and social views of green vehicles have shifted away from where they started when the talk of green vehicles first began. The progress made in regards to the complementary technology and systems for green vehicles needs an in-depth, critical evaluation (calling all R&D professionals).

There are many consumers who want to do their part for the environment by owning a greener vehicle but won’t do so until there is greater utility and when the infrastructure is a reality. Even with the tricks and illusions (critics words, not mine) available to marketers today, you would be hard pressed to find someone to successfully market a product or service that doesn’t exist.

Caitlin Yan is a recent graduate of the Business Administration program at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has a specialization in Brand Communication and Management. Caitlin has a keen interest in products and behaviours that are less harmful to the health of humans and the environment.

What you should know about wise water use in Canada

I am currently doing some research on water policy in the City of Vancouver. We've been learning about sampling strategy and survey design in my statistics class. I am going to design a survey that gets at questions around the conservation, protection and value of water resources in Vancouver. The questions will largely be focused on residents and their attitudes and perceptions of water resources. My research question and design will be more sophisticated, don't worry. If you're interested in reading my research proposal and survey design, email me in December.

Anyway, I came across a highly useful and informative link provided by Environment Canada. It is an overview of water supply, infrastructure, conservation, water metering, technology and more. It's great!

Check it out here.

Is telecommuting on the rise?

Ever heard of telecommuting? It's just a fancy way of describing how people perform their office tasks and duties at home instead of commuting to work. With the rise of information technology and communications technology, more and more employees (in the United States) are doing jobs that used to require being in the office from their own homes. For those living in the suburbs, telecommuting is great because it saves them their 1-2 hour commute to work everyday.

The New Geography blog provides an overview of telecommuting in the US along with data comparing telecommuting rates to transit commuters over the past nine years. Specifically, the article provides data to show increases in telecommuting and transit in American cities from 2000 to 2009. It's a really informative article but I wonder if the analysis controls for unemployment over time. Unemployment in the US has increased in the past three years which can directly affect the number of trips a person makes to work. Anyway, that's just a methodological side note.

From the article:

"In 2009, 1.7 million more employees worked at home than in 2000. This represents a 31% increase in market share, from 3.3 percent to 4.3 percent of all employment. Transit also rose, from 4.6% to 5.0%, an increase of 9%".

"In five metropolitan areas, the increase was between 70% and 80% (Richmond, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Raleigh, Jacksonville and Orlando). Only five metropolitan areas experienced market share increases less than 20% (New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Rochester, Buffalo and Oklahoma City). Nonetheless, the rate of increase in the work at home market share exceeded that of transit in 49 of the 52 major metropolitan areas. Transit's increase was greater only in Washington, Seattle and Nashville".

Why are more people telecommuting these days? One major reason is the rise in oil prices. Commuting for 2 hours everyday is not only expensive in terms of fuel consumption, but can be exhausting to an already stressed and over-worked employee. While there are drawbacks of telecommuting (working at home means decreased face-to-face interaction among employees, isolation of employee from workplace can lead to negative or unproductive activities, distractions etc) it is becoming a more interesting and researched topic in the transportation and planning areas. Traffic congestion in many North American cities is egregious; this has only exacerbated commuting times and air pollution -telecommuting is seen as a partial solution to this.

Telecommuting has even more potential to grow in North American cities. I am not too sure how common it is in Vancouver or Toronto, but I think it will become more popular as industries recognize the energy use reductions and cost-effectiveness of this phenomenon. Telecommuting might serve as interim process of adapting to climate change and the rising costs of oil. Indeed, it may justify the expansion of the commercial, financial and information technology sectors to open offices in the suburbs to provide jobs closer to where people are living. But, increasingly, more and more people are moving out of the suburbs back to the inner cities (I don't have data to support this particular claim, but the data is out there). If telecommuting does not bring about more industries in the suburbs, it can still result in reductions of hundreds of thousands of carbon dioxide emissions due to the number of cars taken of the road. This can alleviate harmful pollutants and improve the quality of our air.

Key Message: Telecommuting is on the rise in the U.S. (and potentially in Canada too). It can reduce the number of cars on our highways and thereby reduce per capita energy consumption and traffic congestion -both of which are sustainable. However, it can also lead to decreased social capital (if you think about it) as we advance into a more cyberspace world communicating via blackberries and computers instead of face-to-face.

Zetland's keynote address...

in Washington DC at a conference called "Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Water Management" at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. David Zetland wrote a guest post for us back in June about the importance of good local water management. He continues this discussion --building on points in his new book "The End of Abundance" -- and what policymakers need to pay attention to. Water is not priced correctly in the U.S. Zetland says, and information on water is lacking. Zetland's keynote starts at the 10 minute mark in the clip below.



People don't always know the cost of tap water in their household. Sure, if you are paying based on how much you consume (volumetric pricing) than you probably have an idea. But flat rates (all you can eat) don't tell the person the information they should know about how much their water costs per unit of consumption. Zetland thinks the U.S. Federal government should take action in assembling this information to make water management and water pricing more transparent.

People in the U.S. are attuned to markets and not community. Australia and Singapore have brought about stringent measures on water conservation. Yes, they don't have a lot of water, but residents of these countries have collectively decided to change their lifestyles based on water limits. They have adapted. In the U.S., price is what changes peoples' behaviour says Zetland. If water was priced based on scarcity, then prices would soar especially in places like Nevada, California and Arizona for example. The fact that the U.S. population is hovering around 308 million people, and in a time when water scarcity is becoming more rampant, the need for good water management, education and information is more critical than ever.

His bottom line is that we need to first understand our water systems, seek information about it, understand its fragility and start to price our water equitably and effectively. This also means that if farmers (or the agricultural sector) are allotted more water than residents living in cities and if they don't use up their allotted amount, then a market should be created for the farmers to sell that excess water at a price that reflects its value to other water users.

When I leave graduate school, my ideal first job would be to work as a water educator/planner disseminating information about water systems and water management and engaging citizens in this salient topic. Ultimately, the more information we produce on this matter, the more we can pressure our policymakers to get it right. Canada, like the U.S., has a long way to go in terms of water education and pricing of water.

A dialogue on the importance of water resources...

For those water enthusiasts out there, take a couple of minutes to read an article titled "who owns water? Experts debate pricing, infrastructure investment". I don't see this article as a debate per se, but as a dialogue where ideas and knowledge are exchanged and discussion emerges on how to move forward. Anyone looking for a general overview of the water situation in the U.S. (water pricing, climate change, groundwater, technology, policy) should read this article.

The discussion is between Sheila Olmstead (an economist), an engineer named Peter Gleick, former Arizona Governor and WWF trustee, Bruce Babbitt and Gretchen McClain, senior vice president of an engineering company called ITT. Very different perspectives are shared.

Also, check out these links on recent news pertaining to water:

The United Nations’ recent declaration of a binding human right to water and sanitation (Peter Gleick's blog)

America's water infrastructure challenges (The Infrastructurist)

Guest Entry: A short story on Brazil's colonial forests

By: Diogo Cabral

Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.

Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.

In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.

Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.

This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.

At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.

It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".

Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.

Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

The Future of Oil

Jeff Rubin, author of Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller, and Canadian journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk discuss the economic, environmental and social implications of conventional oil. The video is courtesy of TVO and was filmed at the Rotman School of Management at U of T earlier this year.

Jeff thinks that we have not reached peak oil per se, but a series of forthcoming commodity price shocks will make the price of oil more volatile and push it over $100 a barrel and eventually to $200 a barrel. Conventional oil is becoming more scarce but the unconventional stuff found in the Alberta's oil sands or in Venezuela, is plentiful but will become really expensive in the near future. Off-shore drilling has provided cheap oil to this planet for many years, but disasters like the recent Gulf Oil spill point to the precarious nature of such a process and the enormous risks posed to ecology and human beings.

"The world isn’t about to run out of oil—it’s just running out of oil that we can afford to burn. And whether we move goods by air, ship, truck or rail, the global economy runs on oil".

"In order to insulate ourselves from even greater oil price shocks in the future, we must move from the hugely energy-intensive model of a global economy to the far more sustainable model of a local economy. And that means we must re-engineer our lives to adapt to the contours of a much smaller world."

Andrew Nikiforuk is an outspoken critique of the Alberta oil sands which he regards as a petro state. He draws our attention to the negative environmental ramifications of the project and how it is tainting our image internationally. He also suggests that there are smart petro states such as Norway who have sovereign funds that help stabilize the oil economy. In essence, they maintain good oil production while diversifying the economy. They invest oil revenue into many sectors of the economy and also put money aside for future generations. Canada has lost over 300,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because of an appreciating petro dollar. Without diversifying the economy, petro states will inevitably push up their real exchange rate and contract Dutch Disease.

Anyway, check out the video.

Harnessing power from our ocean waves

Image credit: The Future of Things

A recent post from the New York Times' Green Blog provides an optimistic overview of an up-and-coming renewable energy called tidal power. In short, tidal power converts the energy of tides into electricity or other useful forms of power. The tidal forces produced by the Moon and Sun, in combination with Earth's rotation, are responsible for the generation of the tides. The image above is a tidal power generator which simply draws energy from ocean currents in a way similar to how wind turbines draw energy from wind.

Two excerpts from the Green blog:

"Tides are particularly attractive sources of power because they are predictable, unlike sunshine and wind. Not surprisingly, countries with rough seas like Britain and Portugal are leading the way in exploring ocean power".

"The European Energy Association estimates that, globally, the oceans could yield over 100,000 terawatt hours a year if the technology to harness that power can be perfected. That is more than five times the electricity the world uses in a year".

Read more about this form of renewable energy here.

Bike Lane Debate in Vancouver

Urban bike lanes always face opposition. People say they hurt businesses, they take space away from motorists, they are too expensive etc etc. We had a guest post in the summer from the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union that challenged many of the conventional arguments made against bike lanes.

On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.

My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.

Will writes:

"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".

Read more here.

Urban Planning Innovation in NYC

The video below, courtesy of The Infrastructurist, discusses a number of urban planning initiatives underway in New York City. With Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the city has done a remarkable job at creating more space for pedestrians in Times Square. Once riddled with non-stop motor traffic, Times Square has become safer for pedestrians, a more enjoyable social space for people of New York and has had a positive impact on businesses (more foot traffic instead of motor traffic). There are also many transit initiatives underway which you can see in the video. Well done, NYC.

The environmental impact of right-wing populism...

Incumbents beware. Governments around the world are shaking in their boots as elections, and the prospect of finding new work, loom ever closer. As is common with any recession, incumbent governments take much of the heat. No matter what else is going on in the world, if the economy is performing poorly and unemployment rears its ugly head, people focus on it and only it. And the government is at fault if it isn't fixed soon.

But this recession has been among the worst in recent history. In some places, its impact has been the worst since the Great Depression. The unfortunate reality of a recession is that with less money being made, the government makes less income through taxes. And with less tax income comes a smaller provision of services. Budget gets tight, programs get cut and ties get severed. Any rational thinker knows that if you want to maintain public services -- which are even more important in less prosperous times -- you need to raise taxes. But from a political standpoint, there are few more lethal land mines.

Threats of necessary tax raises have given rise to populism. In the United States, no recent populist movement has been stronger and more influential than the right-wing Tea Party Movement. Among many other things, the Tea Party folks are staunchly opposed to taxes, government regulation and almost all forms of government involvement in the daily lives of people. The November midterms could throw some Tea Party-backed Republicans -- having beaten out other established Republicans in the primaries because they weren't right wing enough -- into Congress.

This could spell disaster for environmental policy in the world's most powerful superpower. The Tea Party Movement -- and I generalize here -- still questions the impact and existence of climate change. Putting cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies into place are a no no, as is banning or reducing the level of offshore drilling, despite the BP disaster earlier this summer. Subsidies for renewable energy or public transit that might cost taxpayers money? Forget it.

Sadly, in order for most environmental programs and projects to be successful, they need to be funded out of the public purse. Privately-funded 'green' projects can be successful, but some tend to be tied to 'greenwashing' or green marketing while delivering very few actual results. Free market proponents argue that if the environment is as important as we claim, the market will reflect it by providing value to it. Well, that isn't quite how it works. And you can be sure it won't happen if Tea Party folks get into Washington.

Even closer to home in Canada, the Toronto mayoral race has given way to populism so strong, many are left dumbfounded. Rob Ford, a controversial City Councillor -- whose colourful history includes rants fuelled by homophobia and racism, drug charges and even getting ejected from a Toronto Maple Leafs game -- has taken everyone by surprise by leading the polls in the October race for leadership of Canada's flagship city. His 'regular guy' approach has attracted those who fear Toronto is becoming the playground of the elite. But if he comes to power, the city's environmentally progressive reputation -- along with much of its progressive reputation -- could fall by the wayside.

Rob Ford believes bike lanes are stupid. Roads are for cars and cars only. Other 'green' programs could see a similar fate.

Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is facing some heat, too. While trying to manage an unprecedentedly large fiscal deficit and wrestling with Ontario's move to a 'have-not' province, his Liberal government has introduced a variety of progressive yet controversial programs, including full day Kindergarten and more relevant to this blog, the omnibus Green Energy Act. The GEA has put Ontario at the forefront of renewable energy policy, but not without a cost. Ratepayers will see higher electric bills and rural communities are protesting the unwelcome introduction of major wind and solar projects in their regions. This rural uprising is contributing to a resurgence of the province's Progressive Conservative Party, which has vowed to do its best to repeal many aspects of the GEA.

Populism is not always a danger for the environment. Indeed, environmental problems -- like other progressive social movements -- have the potential to contribute to a populist cause. But this time around it's not Martin Luther King Jr. or Rachel Carson leading a cause, it's Glenn Beck. This populism doesn't want the next JFK in the White House; it wants Sarah Palin.

Masdar City: Revisted

In May 2009, I blogged about Abu Dhabi's planned Masdar City. It is claimed to be the world's first city powered solely by renewable energy.

The video above is informative and highly promising. However, be critical of the city's viability. On an unrelated note, water consumption per capita will be significantly less than a conventional city. Of course it will be less, they have less water than the average city!

There is no mention of the residents who will be living there. We know that the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology will provide residence space for its students. This is important but they must provide residence space for its students because they do research on the renewable technology. This planned city will cost $22 billion dollars. I am really curious to know what kind of residents it attracts. I suspect wealthier residents who will have the amenities and advanced renewable technologies associated with the city, and continue to live a profligate lifestyle through heavy air conditioning use and frequent visits to places like Dubai.

I don't mean to be too critical, but a city that strives to be sustainable must ensure that it has a diverse population base composed of poor and rich alike. Everyone should be able to benefit from the green technology, sustainable transit options and low-carbon lifestyle. With all of the capital that has been invested into this planned city, I hope that citizens of the country will recognize the merits of a greener lifestyle and adopt more sustainable and green-minded habits.

Richard Branson on climate change

World renowned entrepreneur, Richard Branson speaks with The Economist about some of his thoughts on climate change. He talks briefly about the carbon war room which is an entrepreneurial run initiative that helps industries find market-driven solutions to climate change.

He thinks the best time for large corporations to invest in clean energy is now. He says that the clean energy revolution is in its infancy and can become as big as the internet and mobile phone industries in time.

Streetcars coming back to Vancouver?

Photo Credit: Rail forth valley

This past Wednesday I attended a symposium titled “Streetcars: The Missing Link?” It was a symposium put together by UBC’s School of Environmental Health and the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. I attended it with a number of my classmates.

The purpose of the symposium was to explore the historical role of streetcars in Vancouver, how much it would cost to bring them back to the city, streetcar impacts on urban form and mobility, urban design and how the streetcar can complement others forms of transit such as buses or Vancouver's Skytrain system.

As a part of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, a demonstration section of the Downtown Streetcar was available for public use. The Downtown Streetcar was a 60-day demonstration period (January 21 to March 21, 2010) and ran between Granville Island and the new Canada Line Olympic Village Station on 1.8 km of newly constructed dedicated track. This demonstration project was successful; it provided reliable transportation for athletes, visitors and residents as often as every seven minutes and decreased the number of private vehicles, motor coaches and transit diesel buses to and from Granville Island.

Bombardier built the streetcar (as seen in the image) and would provide a fleet of them if Vancouver decided to go that route. I learned that Toronto is going to upgrade its streetcar system with a new fleet from Bombardier. There will be 200 new streetcars in Toronto between 2012 and 2018. This decision has also tempted Vancouver to bring streetcars back. The biggest issue is money. Research has shown that streetcars can help promote neighbourhood development and street life. They can help provide an urban identity too.

According to a speaker at the symposium, Vancouver was one of the first places on the planet to really embrace streetcars, in the year 1890. For almost 70 years, Vancouver had an extensive streetcar network. Don’t think of streetcars as a substitute to city buses, but instead as complementary form of transit that can help create higher density and move people easily within the downtown. Transit demand has increased 30% in Vancouver. This reason alone justifies some sort of public transit expansion.

By taking city buses a couple of times a week, it has become quite evident that buses are running at capacity. Streetcars have a longer life span and lowering operating costs than buses. They run on electricity and not fuel which is more environmentally-friendly. Again, they are not meant to replace but complement them.

While some Torontonians might think streetcars are a terrible form of public transit, they are beginning to take off all over the U.S. (especially in Portland) with 45 systems planned. A major impetus for bringing them back is that they can fulfill the transit hierarchy. By helping complete the transit hierarchy, Vancouverites would have every reason not to use their car.

In Vancouver, the streetcar would be connected to the Canada line, Skytrain and trolley buses and could take Vancouverites to work, errands etc. It would also connect tourists to Vancouver’s top attractions i.e. Stanley Park and Granville Island.

A former graduate student in my program conducted his thesis research on the Olympic streetcar. The results were overwhelmingly positive and the city is now looking at finance options.

Oh, one more thing. Many people I have talked to have negative attitudes toward streetcars, especially Torontonians. Let me tell you though, new streetcars would be grade separated meaning that the rail lines are elevated on a platform from the street so cars cannot drive in front of them. They would have right of way and allow for much smoother traffic flow.

More to come on streetcars and Vancouver’s impending decision on whether to re-implement them.

Adding bike lanes to new construction projects...

The ferry from Manitoulin Island to Tobermory was cold and windy, but upon landing in the famed and picturesque harbour town, I was regaled with stories of the Bruce Peninsula by Bob, a local dog breeder. After we chatted about my bike trip for a little while I told him I'd be taking Highway 6 south to Owen Sound, the only major highway on the Peninsula.

He told me that major construction had been taking place on the highway for most of the summer and that as a cyclist, I should love it. Instead of adding bike lanes after repaving the highway -- as is a typical way to add bike lanes, but is costly and obstructive, since the highway needs to be shut down for some point of time -- the province, with funds from the federal stimulus bill, decided to add them as it repaved the highway. Two birds. One stone.

And it is fantastic. The lanes -- which at this point are simply paved shoulders -- are very wide and could even accommodate two bikes side by side. And there are many signs that clearly say 'Do Not Drive on the Paved Shoulders', which is very necessary given that the shoulders look like part of the regular car lane.

I'm presuming that they will be painting lines in due time to mark the lanes, although another local I chatted with said they won't be. According to a discussion she had with one of the project's engineers, they may decide not to add painted lines because it could be harmful to cyclists.

Hmm. Sounds a little counter-intuitive. But according to the engineer, once lines are painted, motorists won't pay as much attention when passing cyclists on the road, assuming each vehicle will stay in its assigned lane. Unfortunately, this might lead to cars flying by at full speed within close distance to cyclists, which can be very dangerous. Without the lines though, motorists are forced to notice the cyclists and be more likely to slow down and go around carefully. I'm on the fence about the argument -- the government might just be cheap -- but it's interesting nonetheless.

The incorporation of bike lanes into highway reconstructions is rare in Ontario and the Bruce project is only the first leg in what is supposed to be a much larger highway network, including Manitoulin Island. I wish them all the best.

Bill Rees, The Ecological Footprint and Climate Change

Bill Rees is a prominent academic ecologist who co-created the Ecological Footprint concept back in the mid-1990s. Bill is also a distinguished professor in my graduate program (SCARP) and is well-known at UBC and in the City of Vancouver.

The 9-minute clip above is an introduction to a lecture he delivered at the World Federalists' Meeting this past April.

Bill draws on the problematic impacts that humans have had on ecology and explains the notable climate change implications. He also summarizes the ecological footprint concept very succinctly. Some of the points are a bit pessimistic but will hopefully give you an idea of the great challenges that planners and other professionals are currently confronted with. Bill works with a number of students in my program to develop ideas that will have salient policy impacts that alleviate human stresses on ecosystems.

Minnesota's Adopt a Highway Program...

I am nearly 1000 km into my bicycle journey and have just arrived into Michigan, having passed through Manitoba, Minnesota and Wisconsin over the past week. The routes have been absolutely stunning, as fall approaches and the roads are lined with miles and miles of multi-colored leaves sitting in the trees, just waiting to fall. But before they fall, plenty of volunteers will be making the final roadside clean up throughout much of northern Minnesota.

Along my route in Minnesota, I encountered what seemed like hundreds of different "adopted highways". Adopt A Highway programs typically involve and organization of some kind volunteering to pick up trash along a stretch of highway a few times per year. In exchange, the government puts up a big sign exclaiming the group's effort. You see these from time to time in Ontario and Manitoba (I'm sure they are elsewhere in Canada, too), but I have never seen them in such abundance as I did in Minnesota.

I have never personally been involved with an Adopt A Highway program, but it seems like a great idea. You get free advertising, the roadsides become cleaner (very noticeable by those of us who stop there frequently) and people can get outdoors and do some volunteering. Moreover, it reminds us that some environmental problems are still fixed simply by doing a little hard work, even though much of the world has moved on to the more exciting and global problems, like climate change and solving our energy needs.

I'm on a bike most of the time, so I'll admit I have little desire to research this any further and I have no substantive evidence that proves how popular Minnesota's program is. This is simply something I've noticed. Why is it so popular compared to other places? My only guess is that the signs the Minnesota government puts up are far larger than what you'd get in Manitoba or elsewhere. Advertising is advertising.

China's dependency on Coal

The Green Blog from the NY Times discusses China's heavy reliance on coal.

"the single most important issue is how to get China to deploy carbon capture and storage into its coal sector.”

"the technology is still in its infancy, with only a handful of projects up and running globally, and expensive to deploy. Who will cover the cost?"

"China, which counts itself as a developing country, say the industrialized world should underwrite such investments. But will Western countries be willing? To what extent should China be responsible for curbing its own coal emissions, and how much should the industrialized world contribute?"

China will probably consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology but is waiting for the United States, Canada and other Western nations to prove their commitment to this technology. Like many technologies for climate change mitigation, there are big costs and lots of uncertainties. Given China's coal dependent economy, there is a lot of opportunity for CCS. I think Canada and China should partner up and run a trial CCS initiative to evaluate its efficacy. This could showcase its potential and attract other nations.

China's straddling bus

A couple of weeks ago, Chris (and people around the world) reported on China's nine day traffic jam. The traffic jam was on the Beijing-Tibet expressway. Beijing itself has had many challenges with traffic congestion due to poor urban planning and transit policies that favor the automobile over public transport. When I was in Shanghai, I noticed the impressive transit system and was told by locals that it is well used. Beijing's public transit system is less impressive I'm told.

As Chris mentioned, congestion zone charges, highways tolls and carbon taxes could help ease traffic and pollution in cities like Beijing. Alas, these sorts of policy tools would probably not be well received by the motorists.

The straddling bus has been proposed by Chinese civil engineers. It would help save road space and could carry up to 1400 passengers. I think there are two really unique aspects of this transit mode (if is does come into operation). 1) The bus stations will have supercapacitors which would re-charge the bus with energy so it could make trips continuously. 2) It could carry over 1000 passengers. You do the math to figure out how many cars that could take off the road over a one year period and the drastic reductions in carbon emissions that would accompany this process.

Powered by electricity and capable of carrying over 1000 passengers, it sounds like a promising project for China's top tier cities like Beijing. Can't subways do the same thing? They sure can, but they are really expensive ($100 million per kilometre of construction) and they take years to construct.

Can the straddling bus help improve urban transit? We'll have to see what happens. 186 kilometres have been planned out in Beijing's Mentougou District.

Trent University Officially Bans the Sale of Bottled Water...

Trent University has hit a milestone shared by only a handful of post-secondary institutions across North America. Earlier this month, the school officially banned the sale of single unit bottled water on campus and will fully come into effect in the fall of 2011.

Over the course of the upcoming academic year, customers are being encouraged to reduce their consumption of individual bottles of water as the number of bottles available from cafeterias, vending machines and other sellers will steadily decrease, ultimately reaching none. Moreover, under the policy, no bottled water will be sold by "any member, club and group, organization or administrative or academic department at the university".

This is a major victory for Trent University and all groups fighting against the sale of bottled water. This is an especially important victory for Trent's Central Student Association and Sustainable Trent, the two student groups that have been fighting for this for several years. Several years ago, the likelihood of achieving such a ban was considered next to nil, considering the stranglehold held on the food services at Trent by Aramark. However, I first noticed a major shift in the tide at Aramark during a meeting one of its Reps had with Sustainable Trent in which he implied that a ban on bottled water might actually prove more financially beneficial to the food provider as the closest alternative to bottled water is the much more lucrative 'vitamin water', which is not covered in the ban.

Importantly, the school is providing an investment in water fountains on campus, which, up until earlier last year, were almost nowhere to be found on campus. In fact, under the food service contract with Aramark, it was able to place vending machines in front of old water fountains, thereby eliminating any competition between bottled water and water fountains.

It should be noted that the school's claim that the school will be "bottled water free by 2011" can not be fully achieved by the policy. Indeed, the sale of bottled water is not the same as providing it for free. As far as I understand it, this policy does nothing to prevent anybody giving away bottled water, which is not uncommon at conferences, sporting events, etc. However, one can hope that the ban emanates to these facets as well.

Congratulations, Trent.

Ever heard of Blue Efficiency?

I found this video on the Freakonomics blog. Mercedes-Benz is now pitching blue efficiency to its avid buyers who ostensibly have an interest in reducing their carbon emissions. The horse manure part of the video was also covered in SuperFreakonomics when Dubner and Levitt discuss New York City's egregious horse manure problem in the late 1890s/early 1900s and how the automobile became the "environmental savior" by eliminating the issue.

Elizabeth Kolbert from the New Yorker discusses the horse manure problem in greater detail and provides a scathing critique of SuperFreaknomics.

SuperFreakonomics: A quick review

I just finished reading SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. The authors are Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The book is a follow-up to their first book titled Freaknomics which was a NY Times best-seller and led to the creation of blog to continue the dialogue.

There are a number of really fascinating and very insightful stories found in SuperFreakonomics- stories that really make you think about how human beings can respond or alter behaviour based on reasonable economic incentives. At first, their insights and comparisons seem to be completed unrelated, but Dubner and Levitt are very creative and pull together correlations that leave you amazed. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone. It is not about recessions, financial markets or inflation, instead the authors use compelling statistics to illustrate how selfish and irrational we can be and how incentives, pricing and public policy can lead to a more harmonious and healthy society.

Instead of touching on how drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving, or why doctors are so bad at washing their hands or if people are innately altruistic or selfish or how monkeys respond to economic incentives, or what Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common, I will share an example with you which covers a controversial topic known as geo-engineering.

In short, geo-engineering is large scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.

While I don't have a particular stance on geo-engineering, it is worth some discussion. Let me share one SuperFreakonomics example with you where a geo-physicist has figured out a way to counteract a natural disaster provided by Mother Nature, hurricanes.

Hurricanes are deadly, since 1900, more than 1.3 million people worldwide have been killed by them. Between 2004 and 2005, there were six hurricanes in the U.S. with combined damages of $153 billion dollars. Without going into all of the technical details, hurricanes become more potent (accumulate more thermal energy) when they hover over warm waters. A geo-physicist has proposed a solution that can help prevent the water from getting too warm and thus too destructive.

The trick is as follows: hydraulic head is a force, created by the energy put into the waves by wind. This force would push the warm surface water down into the long plastic cylinder, flushing it out at the bottom far beneath the surface. As long as the waves keep coming in, the hydraulic head's force would keep pushing warm surface water into the cooler depths, which will lower the ocean's surface temperature. A molecule of warm surface water would take about three hours to be flushed out the bottom of the plastic cylinder.

The devices would take the form of rings made from old truck tires filled with foamed concrete and lashed together with steel cable. The cylinder extending six hundred feet deep into the ocean, would push the warm surface water under. The trick is to modify the surface temperature of the water. Bottomline: in large numbers, these devices could possibly make warm water cooler and thus less likely to build a destructive hurricane.

So, would this hurricane killer actually work? These devices would range in price (depending on size) but could be as little as $100,000 - allocating 10,000 of them around the world would cost $1 billion or one tenth the amount of hurricane property damage incurred in a single year in the U.S. alone.

This is just example proposed by imaginative scientists who think that such tricks could help decrease the impact of destructive hurricanes. Levitt and Dubner discuss specific geo-engineering examples here. They are controversial and may never be adopted by governments, but their point is this: changing the behaviour of individuals (to drive less or pollute less for example) is never an easy task, using geo-engineering solutions can cool the temperature of the earth at a cost considerably cheaper than public awareness campaigns or large scale government spending on carbon reducing technology. The ideas may seem far-fetched, but would be worth carrying out in smaller projects.

Take their thoughts and findings with a grain of salt, but understand that such solutions could be cost-effective if they were funded and embraced by governments.

India's infrastructure challenges

A recent article from the NY Times titled "A High-tech Titan Plagued by Potholes" discusses India's dire need of civil engineers to fulfill its long-term infrastructure goals. Software engineering and IT have taken off in India - they are far more profitable industries (better salaries) than civil or structural engineering.

"Young Indians’ preference for software over steel and concrete poses an economic conundrum for India. Its much-envied information technology industry generates tens of thousands of relatively well-paying jobs every year. But that lure also continues the exodus of people qualified to build the infrastructure it desperately needs to improve living conditions for the rest of its one billion people — and to bolster the sort of industries that require good highways and railroads more than high-speed Internet links to the West."

Both China and India are world's fastest growing economies. China however, unlike India, is rapidly advancing its infrastructure projects; high speed rail, hydro-electric dams, wastewater treatment plants etc. India has a long way to go especially in terms of bringing about infrastructure (like public transportation) that could boost its tourism industry and help improve living conditions for the country's poorest.

Along with the desire for civil engineering, urban planning will also be critical for India in the coming decades. From an environmental perspective, infrastructure improvements -- like those being done in China -- will bring about numerous environmental benefits including improved health and sanitation, a reduction in national carbon emissions and an improvement in air pollution in the urban areas.

What should India do? Any thoughts?