Recently in automotive Category

Commuting is bad for the environment. Emissions from vehicles both directly and indirectly through fossil-fueled and river-befouling power plants, and from construction and maintenance combined with open space land grabs combine to form a toxic stew that is slowly killing us. Something to keep in mind as a reality check during the insane U.S. healthcare debate and the endless go-rounds what to do about the costs and doctor shortages in Canada.

Transportation typically accounts for 1/3 of emissions, and motor vehicles at 2/3rds of that. Commuting trips are about 20 percent of all travel.

The Canadians have done great work in assessing the health impacts from air pollution and accidents. A landmark study by the Canadian Medical Association, No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution pegs the pricetag at $8 billion in 2008, killing some 21,000 Canadians per year. 

A fair estimate is $35 million in costs and 915 fatalities from commuting in Canada per year . Or $350 million and 9,150 deaths annually in the U.S. which has roughly 10 times the population.

 Now a new study by Smartrisk, The Economic Burden of Injury in Canada  shows much those so-called 'accidents' add to the pricetag of commuting. It estimates that transportation-related injuries cost $3.7 billion resulting in 3,067 deaths and 30,932 hospitalizations; transportation is the leading cause of unintentional injury deaths.

"Motor vehicle incidents were the most common cause of transport related injuries, accounting for 1,331 or 43% of transport related deaths and over half of all other transport related injuries," said the report. 

Calculating the literal impacts for car commuting comes up with 266 deaths and 3,300 hospitalized injuries and at a cost of $270 million in Canada. And over 2,600 in fatalities, and 33,000 injuries costing $2.7 billion in the U.S.

And who pays the pricetags? The persons in the mirror either through pain and suffering, more bills, higher premiums, and tax hikes. What can that individual in front  can do about it? Go telecommute, locate on busy transit routes, and end free staff parking.

I have long been skeptical about electric or other alternative-fueled vehicles as truly green technologies because they all consume vast amounts of life-giving open space to transport comparatively few people and goods, drives more sprawl, which does likewise, and incurs air-killing construction and upkeep and requires hydrocarbon-based paving materials.

Peter Foster, a columnist in Canada's National Post, along with associated commentators have come up with a few more points to consider, in his column Wednesday subtitled 'Today's alternative vehicles are all profit graveyards or subsidy pits'.

Mr. Foster correctly pointed out one of the fallacies behind assuming that people will buy electric vehicles (EVs) and that is it isn't the average amount of driving per day that matters but the farthest that one usually wants to go.

"Apparently, Americans on average drive their cars less than 35 miles a day, but to suggest that this supports the viability of short-range electric cars is like suggesting that a five-foot tall person should be in no trouble if forced to spend alternate one hour periods in water six feet deep and two feet deep. After all, the average depth is only four feet. What is critical is not the average but the farthest distance you want to travel.

"With gasoline-powered cars or hybrids there is no distance limit, since there is a vast network of gasoline stations at which you can fill up in minutes. With electric cars, you have to plug in for a matter of hours. Battery exchange depots are an obvious idea but likely an impractical one.

I can attest to Mr. Foster's point. I work from home and the farthest I drive is 15 miles and that is on those days when I have to pick up my wife late at night from her part-time job, when the buses stop running. Yet we live in a small city in a rural area, so when we need to do shopping or conduct other business in a larger metro, or to just get out of town for something to do, our journeys are 100 miles to 150 miles round trip.

Mr. Foster's column also points out about controversy over ethanol whose fuel-driven demand has sparked starvation and food riots. And one of the commentators said that they had once read that a Prius has 37 pounds of copper wiring.  A standard gas powered vehicle has 25 pounds of copper.  "Did copper start growing on trees or is it ok for us to feel green while some guy works in a hole in South America?" asked the respondent.

What would be handy is to have a reasonably objective report from a well-respected organization (by environmentalists and industry alike) that cuts through the greenwash and the charges and PR and compares the total direct and indirect green impacts of transportation and transportation alternatives: i.e. private vehicles, transit, and telework. That way consumers and government decisionmakers spending their money would have a fair basis on which to choose the greenest option, weighing that factor against cost, need, and convenience.

 

It is rare that I mention green and cars in a positive light given the huge amount of emissions private vehicles produce--and the planet-damaging sprawl the overplanning for them engenders--but in the case I will make the rare exception and praise.

That goes to Japanese-owned carmaker Subaru. Not because it is a leader in bleeding-edge technology like hybrids, or that it makes tiny gas-miserly vehicles like its larger competitors, though its vehicles are very fuel efficient through using advanced proven technology.

Instead Subaru gets the accolade because they have built a low-environmental-footprint plant in Indiana that it is proudly advertising on TV that is a far cry from the creaking and wheezing factories belonging to the dying Big 3. And because their cars and compact SUVs, such as the popular Outbacks and Foresters are so well made they last near-forever (300K-400K is not uncommon)--which means less resources needed to build new and to repair existing ones.

Long-lasting vehicles are an environmental virtue. Anyone who has worked at or toured a car factory or for that matter a steel mill or aluminum plant knows and can appreciate just how much energy: electricity, coal/coke that goes into making vehicles and sees and senses the resulting pollutants from the entire auto-building process. That also goes for the trains and trucks that haul the materials, finished products to the dealers, and the vehicles back for scrapping.

The Subaru dealerships are truly dedicated to keeping the vehicles going as are their owners. Their higher-than-average pricetags encourages you to do just that. Then again, a used Subaru beats most other similar new vehicles hands down in reliability, longevity, and ROI.

There's also another benefit: fanatical customer loyalty. Subarus have 'built-in CRM'. Once you own one you never want to drive another make.

I can testify to the above. I own a secondhand 2001 Subaru Forester that I've driven everywhere from Vancouver Island logging roads to equally cratered Staten Island residential streets, swerving around both bears and bearish pedestrians with ease. It has just over 150,000 miles, which means it has easily 150,000 or more to go. The all-wheel-drive makes even New York City parking a no-brainer and takes the edge off coping with icy hilly roads like through the Poconos in Pennsylvania. It isn't coincidence that Vermont and New Hampshire have long been Subaru country.

The key to keeping Subarus or any other vehicle truly green is minimizing the mileage-killing start-and-stop commuting trips as well as regular maintenance including tune-ups. I work from home and when I have to travel to a large city or airport I take the bus, train, or park-and-ride at a commuter rail station. This also keeps my rolling investment free of damage, thereby extending its lifespan and value.

--BR

I live in a part of North America that is dependent on the auto industry and I am seeing it break down around me. 

Every day it seems the local media has a story on another layoff, if not of the Big 3 but of the many hundreds of firms that supply them. Every day it appears that one more factory has a For Sale or For Lease sign up. Every day one more track in the local railroad yard is taken up by a string of empty auto-rack railcars.

So I am not without sympathy to the families, indeed neighbors who are being hurt by what is happening in that industry.

Yet at the same time I have no pity for the companies themselves, Chrysler and especially GM. And should they end up in the scrap heap so be it. They the espousers of 'planned obsolescence': that philosophy of producing crap, gas-guzzling, air-killing products (I used to own a Dodge Intrepid, 'nough said) are now obsolete.

GM deserves such a fate and more. The tech 'evil empires' are benign when compared with this outfit. In 1949 GM, along with Firestone (now Bridgestone) and what is now Chevron were convicted of conspiring to rip up clean, efficient, electric streetcar lines and replace them with polluting, traffic-prone, and less attractive buses. GM handicapped the market for its now-sold Electro-Motive division that produced (and still does, under its present owners) fine, rugged diesel railroad locomotives that was largely responsible for displacing the romantic if comparatively inefficient and very labor-intensive steam engines. GM's locomotives continue to growl away on freight and passenger trains long after similar-vintage bus, car, and truck counterparts had become scrap metal; its designs are being used in ultramodern commuter rail and freight engines.

The growth in the auto industry, aided by taxpayer-financed roads, led to the near destruction of the rail and transit industries, and the demise of those jobs. But back then it was called 'progress'...

There is now a coming of minds to a solution to the dilemma of putting highly-skilled people back to work and at the same time cleaning up our air and relieving congested highways: investing in the green alternatives of high-speed rail and getting moving on telework. While green vehicles are nice they eat up much more land than rail or fiber optics: land that is used to replenish oxygen and water supplies, and to grow food on.

California is getting into the act by passing its high-speed rail measure. My sources tell me that has sparked renewed interest in the Pacific Northwest, which has, under the branding Amtrak Cascades, a nascent intercity rail network supported by Oregon, Washington, and the province of British Columbia. The premiers of Ontario--which has been especially hard hit because Canada's auto industry is centered there--and Quebec have been pressuring the Canadian government for high-speed rail. Bombardier, which built the now de-bugged Acela trains, has plants, conveniently enough, in both provinces. California, the Pacific Northwest, and Ontario and Quebec plan to power their trains eventually with mostly non-carbon-emiting energy: hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind. Ontario has a couple of nuclear power stations near the proposed right of way, where today's VIA Rail intercity passenger trains 'speed' by at no more than 95 mph on regular railroad tracks that are shared by freight trains.

And one can be sure that should the California plan progress to the stage where bids will be going out that the savvy manufacturers will promise to locate assembly plants there. Just as Siemens had done when orders began pouring in for its light rail cars from across the Western US and Canada; it was ironically, Edmonton, Alberta, the province's capital and the so-called center of the Canadian oil industry, that kicked off the light rail boom when its first line opened in April 1978.

The other part of the equation is telework (including conferencing or 'telepresence). For no matter how good high-speed rail systems and mass transit networks are and can be they cannot substitute for the many commuting trips and intercity business travel that are now taken by car and air.

The Telework Coalition has been invited by the Province of Ontario to make a submission to its pre-budget consultation. The organization plans to make some policy recommendations aimed at encouraging virtual work which too would put people to work, such as those at embattled tech firm Nortel that is headquartered there.

The pieces supporting telework is already there. What is needed is putting them together. On Thursday Nov.20, IEX is sponsoring a TMC Webinar on this topic. I'll be moderating the session, and I encourage anyone who is interested in telework to register, take part, and ask questions.

--BR

There is an interesting side to the Province of Ontario's just tabled legislation that would restrict using handheld devices while driving: a provision that would allow informal carpools.

The bill is actually called the 'Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act of 2008'. The Ministry of Transportation says it will, if passed (that's assured-the ruling Ontario Liberal party has a majority) update the Public Vehicles Act that will promote carpooling in Ontario by removing the barriers and red tape associated with forming carpools. This will include amending the definition of a carpool vehicle to recognize informal, irregular carpools that operate between municipalities for purposes other than just home-to-work and work-to-home trips. 

The big benefit here is that these informal carpools will be able to use the province's small but growing network of HOV lanes. Ontario also has many carpooling lots located just off its 400-series expressways.

Also, if you're in a carpool and you're driving you can ask someone else to take the calls for you...

--BR

I applaud the airports for taking steps to use less energy, generate fewer emissions, and recycle more, as reported in a USA Today story last week that I had perused while at ITEXPO West.

Yet if these facilities, and their airline masters truly want to go green they should:

* Invest in European-styled electric high-speed rail links to replace short-haul flights. 

A Hydro-Quebec report published in 2006 revealed that such air travel can release as much as 340 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometre as compared with zero for a passenger in a high-speed electric train, powered from hydroelectric dams. In contrast, long-haul flights, for which there is no competition (other than the ultraclean choice of conferencing) release as little as 102 grams.

Short haul flights also eat up runway space, whose expansion chews up life-giving greenspace. More runway wear-and-tear also means more pollution-adding construction and maintenance.

*Shift access to mass transit and shared-ride away from private vehicles. Invest in rapid transit and subsidize off-site airport buses to transit centers, like existing commuter rail/bus stations near where users live. Pay for this by hiking parking fees to discourage single occupancy vehicle access.

Several ideas/observations overheard at ITEXPO West last week in Los Angeles...

1. Get rid of the ethanol subsidy 

Ethanol production--from grains as opposed to biowaste--is being criticized for generating more pollution than it solves through processing and transportation.

Kind of like LEED buildings being erected in car-oriented office parks, gouged out of what had been environmentally-beneficial fields, wetlands, forests...

2. Go nuclear, like France has done. Get away from coal, heavy oil, natural gas, hydro...

There is some logic here. The big question with nuclear is what to do with the spent fuel. Those costs must be factored into the price.

Then again, compared with bird-killing tailing ponds from tar sands production, blowing up mountaintops and gouging craters for coal, the refining process for oil and natural gas, damming up rivers for hydro...

3. Invest in electric high-speed rail, again like France

Makes sense. Electric rail transportation emits far fewer total emissions than driving and flying and requires much less greenspace. 

Air and road travel have long had free rides--including on the environment--thanks to enormous direct and indirect subsidies that had put private rail passenger transportation out of business. 

The transportation picture, and the environment and energy, not to mention urban development, would have looked much different, had there been a true free market competitive level playing field between modes.

To redress this balance there needs to be heavy government investment--like which was made on the Interstates and in airports that had nearly eliminated passenger and urban rail.

There is a high-speed rail vote going to the California electors this fall. There are also other transit funding measures on or will likely be on the ballot (a future entry in the Green Blog will look at them but this article in the July issue of the transit trade magazine Metro gives a good primer. 

3. Look at shale and other oil sources

There is nothing evil about oil per se from any source, but the final costs from them must include all the direct and indirect environmental expenses incurred.
Anything less is a subsidy...

At ITEXPO West there is also an opportunity to win a Toyota Prius hybrid: a worthwhile vehicle to own for no matter how good mass transit and alternatives like teleworking are, there will always be a big place and need for private cars. The key (literally) is to minimize their environmental footprint by hybrid and pure electric technologies and by unclogging the roads through transit and teleworking so that driving can truly be fast, convenient, and free.