Recently in government initiatives Category

The Friday Oct.30 edition of the Peace Arch News that is distributed in South Surrey and White Rock, British Columbia in Metro Vancouver that borders on the U.S. contained a thought-provoking snippet on wind power by Dr. Roy Strang who covers the environment for the publication.

In it he writes: "Europeans are beginning to find that installing windmills to generate electricity has not led to any significant reduction in CO2 emissions--despite all the early hopes and promises. Because wind power blows only fitfully, backup conventional generators are needed, at full capital costs, for intermittent use."

"Denmark's costs are 15 cents per kilowatt hour while Ontario's cost is six cents. In the U.S., wind-powered generation is subsidized to the tune of $23.34/kwh; compare this to gas at 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydro at 67 cents and nuclear at $1.59. The wind itself costs nothing; harnessing it obviously is not free."

The study Dr. Strang appears to be referring to is titled "Wind Energy The Case For Denmark" published in September 2009 by the Center for Politske Studier. Among the findings are:

--"The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway."

--"Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plant can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years."

Hmmm...do we have another case of well-intentioned greenwashing (with taxpayers' green) a la ethanol on our hands where the net benefits do not exceed the total costs? Wind energy, like solar, cannot effectively be used to shave the most critical need--namely coping with peak-power demands unless you want to invest huge sums in electricity storage schemes like batteries, capacitors, and flywheels; hydro has long used pumped storage that sucks up a lot of land.

Or is this an example where, like solar, wind can be harnessed only in rare and site specific cases in close implementation with other tools such as LEED-designed buildings as in the case of Other World Computing's corporate HQ in Illinois, that, as reported on TMCnet.com has become first U.S. technology manufacturer/distributor to become 100 percent on-site wind powered. OWC also installed the wind power plant and made other energy-saving and environmental-footprint-reducing investments like heat pumps and water conservation at the facility without subsidies.
 

Forget about turning in old gas guzzlers for slightly more efficient vehicular monsters. 

If governments want a 'cash for clunkers' deal that will really have a positive green impact, both environmentally and in keeping money in taxpayers' wallets, they should offer to take over office space leases and buildings--prioritizing on those in car-oriented 'office parks'--in exchange for organizations sending their workforces to home offices.

Governments can then recycle the spaces, working with the owners and real estate firms (and giving them tax breaks to get their buy-in), for other uses: i.e. schools, hospitals, child/eldercare facilities--including tearing them down and cleaning them up to create parks or market gardens. Or they can flip these buildings and land around as brownfield sites, driving property prices so low to make greenfield development i.e. sprawl not attractive. Both means will actually stabilize property values that will benefit landlords of existing properties.

The payoffs from this true cash for clunkers program are plentiful and immediate. There would be fewer cars gouging up expensive 'freeways'  thereby reducing congestion and accidents that cost vast sums in lost productivity and in providing emergency services respectively. Not to mention enabling a much-needed shrinking of healthcare costs by minimizing harmful pollution and communicable disease spread i.e. H1N1 in offices. 

There would then be less need for billion-dollar/years-to-build mass transit systems, and the need to subsidize sprawl with servicing costs. And there would be less risk of destructive blackouts caused by A/C, lights, TVs, and computers suddenly clicking on when commuters get home.

These gains are on top of the environmental benefits. These include less energy used, cleaner air and more open space. And yes, fewer cars that need to be recycled.

 

There has been a lot of jawboning by government officials when it comes to telework as a green transportation alternative.

While federally-funded programs insist that applicants examine no-build options like transportation demand management solutions like telework, the nasty truth is that these are ignored. Why let imaginative, doable lower-cost methods get in the way of shoveling tax dollars to campaign-contributing contractors and engineering firms?

There may now, however, be at last interest and movement in getting governments to do the right thing thanks to large part to broadband becoming a necessity in homes and businesses. Hence its inclusion in the stimulus legislation.

Expanding broadband networks means money for their supplying carriers and equipment vendors. And they are at last emerging as political counterweights to the powerful transportation lobby. Just as highways and transit people talk about freeing congestion, the broadband talk is about connecting America, and increasingly about enabling greener interactions at the speed of light.

As reported by TMC last week, there are new House and Senate bills that for the first time link transportation and broadband policies. H.2428, The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2009 and a companion Senate bill, S. 1266 of the same name, would require states to install broadband conduit in new or expanded federally-funded highways. H. 2428 is sponsored by Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), and Mark Warner (R-Va.) put the Senate bill forward.

New York attorney Nicole Belson Goluboff thinks it's about time. She writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is also an advisory board member of The Telework Coalition (TelCoA), a telework educational and advocacy organization. 

In a recent article published in New Geography Goluboff called upon lawmakers to introduce and pass legislation tying telework incentives to federal highway and transit infrastructure money. She also asked Congress to provide telework tax incentives for employees and employers; eliminate tax, zoning and other laws that are hostile to telework; and offer public and private sector employers technical help in developing and implementing robust telework programs. 

Goluboff reports there is lawmaker interest in encouraging telework. She reported that 12 House members wrote to both the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requesting that they consider including some pro-commuter reforms as they design the nation's new transportation and energy laws. Among their requests were initiatives to incentivize telecommuting. 

There is also another benefit of telework versus old-fashioned transportation: results. A new light rail line in Seattle, Washington that opened last weekend was 40+ years in the planning, including political ups and downs much like the city's notorious steeper-than-San Francisco's terrain (Seattle had cable cars until 1941). A company can institute a telework program that can pull their employees' cars off the roads, buses, and trains in three to six months.

This isn't to say there is no longer any need for new highways or rail transit lines says other telework advocates. There will always be the need for in-person work and interactions that create travel demand. Executed right with an emphasis on full-time at home, telework results in fewer trips, requiring less taxpayer-subsidized investments e.g. arterials not freeways, diesel or electric regional rail on existing railroad tracks instead of separate light or heavy rail lines, and ferries in coastal areas than land-based modes.

"'When Congress finalizes its new transportation policy, it must exploit the tremendous mileage it can get from encouraging web-based travel,'" wrote Goluboff. "'Conditioning funding to state and local governments on investment by those governments in pro-telework measures - and offering meaningful federal funding to promote telecommuting - is a dual strategy that would yield a greener and leaner transportation system. '"

 

When housing and commercial building starts data are released and they show a jump there is generally a positive reaction. They seemingly show that the economy is back on track or that is it is growing and that people are being put back to work.

But is it good news? Not necessarily from the green or economic points of view.
And here's why. If the new buildings are being built on open space and not as replacements for older homes, offices, stores, and factories on existing land that is sprawl, which eats up more resources--environmental, infrastructure, services, and taxes--than it generates in income.

Commercial building, especially offices, is not a good sign because it shows that many companies still don't get it--that you don't need as many offices as you have--because half if not more of the work can be done at home. Which helps the public good by eliminating pollution-creating commutes and helps corporate survival by doing away with needless expenses.

Sprawl also leads to vast areas of already-services dying areas, locales that have become infested with crime that infects its way to the suburbs i.e. where the money is--as any drive through any mid to large city will attest. Crime does pay and in more ways than one. Ask any supplier to the law enforcement and prison biz. Money that in reality is a drain on the economy as it comes directly from the public purse than in turn subtracts from the public income.

Such starts also worsen the plight of existing owners and their communities by depressing prices. Many are already underwater and are walking away. More new homes and buildings at a time when the economy is weak will accelerate this exodus. It makes no sense to build new homes when existing ones are being foreclosed and abandoned.

Unfortunately there is an incestuous relationship between contractors, developers, and local politicians that encourages sprawl. Campaigns even in the smallest cities require serious money--I know, I ran for local office once--and developers have the cash.

There is also a collective leeching of resources from older and more efficient cities by outlying less-efficient car-oriented exurbs, such as blocking money to support mass transit. Many businesses and residents in these communities would like nothing more than to erect barbed-wire moats to keep the inner city out. One contact center company manager told me that when they picked a site in the exurbs they deliberately chose it not to be on a transit route to thwart central city residents i.e. "those people" (their quotes, not mine) from applying.

Fortunately there is an enlightened Administration in Washington D.C, which is the first one that recognizes the dark side of growth i.e. sprawl, with a President who understands all too well the issues and the consequences. 

The White House can do a lot by its control of federal highway and infrastructure dollars by rewarding those cities that encourage brownfield not greenfield developments, renewing not destroying housing and commercial building stock and neighborhoods, that create jobs that support not to ruin communities and the environment. And in turn limiting or cutting off cash to those that insist on sprawl which studies show clogs up added highway capacity in 4 to 5 years...a needless and destructive waste of tax dollars that consumers and businesses can ill afford to see happen.

In short, doing more and better with less instead of wasting land, resources, people, and the environment. That's the kind of positive news we need.

 

 

 

Intercity and commuter/regional rail offers, when done right, a greener alternative to driving and flying not only in reduced energy consumption but also in enabling compact high-density and walkable development on existing brownfield lands as opposed to car-oriented low-density greenspace-munching sprawl.

The Pacific Northwest is an epicenter of rail transportation and land use initiatives, with hits and misses given the beauty and quality of life and the unchanneled growth that threatens to destroy it. Hits that all three of the major cities: Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore. have or will have commuter and urban rail transit systems, are linked by an albeit sluggishly-growing-and-improving intercity rail network, and especially in Portland's case (with some of those most advanced policies anywhere), are encouraging transit-oriented development. Misses in that the British Columbia and to a lesser extent Washington state government continues 1950s-styled sprawl-encouraging roadbuilding and widening policies (in B.C. case's despite its commitment to carbon taxes) and service cuts including in Portland to local transit.

The Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center is sponsoring a conference that is happening soon:  May 27, 2009 - May 29, 2009 and would be worth while to attend to learn about transportation alternatives and developments in the region that can be applied elsewhere: intercity, commuter/regional rail and rail/cycling integration.

The event, the Cascadia Rail Partnership Conference is subtitled Moving Beyond Oil - Connecting Communities - Rails & Trails. Among its agenda items are

* Federal High Speed Rail Legislation-Moving Passenger and Freight Rail Beyond Oil

* Cascades Rail and Interconnecting Bus Service, and the Connect Oregon Initiative

* New Rail Technology from High Speed Rail to Diesel Multiple Units

* Update on Stimulus Package and Rail Opportunities
* Moving Freight and Passengers on the Same Track

There will also be a special-invite launch in Snohomish (north of Seattle) with Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) John Nemeth, Rail Planning Manager for SMART, the builder of a 70-mile rail and trail line, and Andy Peri from Marin County Bicycle Coalition will meet with Snohomish County rail and trail advocates, and the Snohomish Chamber of Commerce to discuss lessons learned.

This last one is quite timely because there have been and continue to be conflicts between both green form of transportation: cycling/walking and rail transit on little-used or abandoned-but-being-brought-back-to-use rail lines. There has been a big battle on the Seattle area's growing, sprawling, and congested Eastside over such a rail corridor that some senior and powerful officials want for bicycles/pedestrians only while others want for a mixed-use commuter/regional rail and cycle corridor. This route is also the only feasible north-south rail transportation alternative should the principal rail line that hugs the earthquake/landslide/tsunami-vulnerable shoreline from Everett to Seattle gets knocked out: a strong possibility in 'shake-rattle-and-roll country'. Or there is a fire or explosion in the aging tunnel that brings the trains under the city center.

The event takes place in Seattle and Portland with an on-board presentation aboard the 'kickoff' train between both cities on May 27. There will also be a tour of Portland's WES suburb-to-suburb commuter rail; the group will take the MAX light rail to Beaverton, change to WES, ride to Wilsonville, and return. Following that attendees can ride back on MAX and get off near the Amtrak station or ride further directly to PDX for their flight back via Horizon (alas Sound Transit's LINK light rail from SeaTac to downtown Seattle isn't open yet but there are the King County Metro buses). There will be sessions on the 28th and the aforementioned luncheon on the 29th.

 

It is great to see that jurisdictions like the Canadian province of Ontario taking steps to encourage green practices and technology.

As reported on TMCnet, the province's government will be introducing a sure-to-pass (Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberal party holds a majority in the legislature) Green Energy Act, which will:

* Encourage conservation side by creating an Expert Advisory Council that will offer advice to the government on any future energy efficiency changes to Ontario's building code

*  Modernize the province's electrical transmission system by employing 'smart grid' technology--two way communications, advanced sensors, and distributed computing--that enable power distributors to anticipate and address problems before they lead to outages

* Make it easier to get new wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels plants online and on to the grid while protecting the environment by addressing local bylaws and regulations that are used to delay or stop proposed renewable energy projects. Ontario has brought almost 1,000 megawatts of new renewable energy on-line since 2003

The measures are on top of efforts to end burning coal at four power plants by 2014 and plans to invest in new and upgraded mass transit systems in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Kitchener-Waterloo.

Ontario has other another good reason for these green measures: business continuity. Most of the province lost power during the infamous blackout of August 2003 and it was hit with the same ice storm that also paralyzed Quebec and New Brunswick in 1998.

As great as these steps and others are--and Premier McGuinty is to be commended for his leadership despite tough economic times that are facing his province, home to Canada's beleaguered automotive industry and facing plummeting real estate values--they are not exactly dramatic, ones that would truly put Ontario on the map.

The Telework Coalition (TelCoa) has suggested just that in its submission to Ontario's 2009 budget. Among its recommendations:

* A 'Comprehensive Trip Reduction' program aimed at incentivizing employers, both for-profit and non-profit, and post-secondary educational institutions to reduce employee and student commuting by car. The measures include and involve:

--Tax credits, or to nonprofits, institutions, and other governments grants-in-lieu of taxes for each employee or student who switches from driving to work to transit, walking, cycling, and telework. The credits/grants would be based on the direct and indirect costs of automobile commuting per person/km multiplied by the average commuting distance where the employer or college is located, as measured by Statistics Canada, minus the costs of the alternatives used

--The money granted would be used to pay for transit passes, accommodations for bikes, telework program setup, satellite locations, and relocating to areas with better transit access. A small portion could go as breaks and offsets to higher costs and reduced incomes. Compliance would be ensured by employers and schools asking and tabulating employee and student mode choice, through enrollment in formal telework and distance learning programs, and through monitoring of residents' complaints about employee/school parking

*  'The Ontario Government Telework Initiative', a new program that establishes working from home as standard practice for office-based civil service tasks, and that interpersonal contacts would be made through conferencing rather than travel for face-to-face meetings. Allocating formal offices and requiring staff to work from them, and face-to-face business travel would be the exception, rather than the rule. Here are several measures that could be contained in the Initiative

--Deploy an 'is this office necessary?' policy. The provincial government would examine employee functions to see which ones can be teleworked and create a telework policy with a dedicated manager and team. The acting assumption is that the positions can be teleworked full-time until demonstrated otherwise. The Government would open employment for teleworkable positions to all residents, regardless of where they live. The Ontario Realty Corporation, which manages the government's real estate would be charged with selling or subleasing office space either for offices or for conversions to other purposes, such as commercial, educational, medical/institutional, or residential

--Locate in "green" but not greenfield, sites. For non-teleworkable functions the government would be required to house them in facilities in downtowns and in other locations highly accessible by transit, cycling and walking. Leasing renting in greenfield developments and sites would be prohibited unless the government provides offsets such as buying development-threatened greenspace. Buildings would be chosen or retrofitted to minimize energy use

--Limit work travel. Policies should be set up to favor conferencing over travel and require staff to prove that conferencing is not feasible. Only if they are not, would employees be permitted to travel, but the rules would be set up to make driving the mode of last resort for short trips. Staff would be strongly encouraged to take trains and buses, and carpool. This policy can be applied in the same way as telework either by making travel including vehicles available only on an application-by-application basis or as part of departmental budgets that they reduce or use more cost-effectively

--Provide a service to other governments, institutions, and the private sector. The Ontario Government Telework Initiative, with a model telework policy, could be made as a model and resource for other organizations on a free or at-cost consultative basis

One of the challenges with formal telework programs as applied in government is that there has been no incentive at the managerial level to make them successful. That has proven to be the case of the U.S. federal government where savings from telework programs go to the Interior Department as opposed to the departments that achieved them. 

The Telework Coalition put forward two options to ensure departmental compliance with the Telework Initiative:

--Allocate to the Ontario Realty Corp less money (10-20 percent) less than it needs to cover Government facilities expenses. The ORC makes up the difference by requiring departments to demonstrate why they need offices and who then pay for them out of their program budgets

--Incorporate facilities costs as part of departmental program budgets, and giving managers the authority to cut them and use the savings for other purposes i.e. service delivery

The benefits of both recommendations are substantial. The Comprehensive Trip Reduction plan would deliver net savings to the Ontario Government. It achieves this by reducing commuting-purpose vehicular traffic, resulting in less need for highway spending and on related emergency services and healthcare costs.  The program would boost Ontario's economy by encouraging more spending in transit and in voice/data networks.

The Ontario Government Telework Initiative would enable the government to deliver the same, if not more services for less money by reducing facilities and travel costs, and employment expenses. The Initiative would boost productivity, cut illness-related healthcare costs, and improve work-life balance. The government could offer telework as an option to or as part of overall smaller employee compensation packages, thereby reducing labor costs. Specifically it would: 

* Permit the government to offer civil service employment to more Ontarians regardless of where they live, and at the same time widening the applicant pools to obtain the best, most productive workers available. This avoids relocation costs for employees 

* Shrink the government's environmental footprint through telework, locating needed facilities on transit routes, conferencing, and use of lower-impact transportation means

* Deliver a major boost to Ontario's economy by creating demand for voice/data network technology and services, home office furniture, and more functional and powerful home office computers, the latter three categories often supplied by local retailers 

"Encourage teleworking will help the Ontario Government achieve traffic congestion relief and reduced pollution in a far shorter timeframe than relying on mass transit improvements and HOV lanes alone, " says TelCoa." Telework strategies can achieve results in as less as six months as compared to 5 or more years for transportation projects."

TelCoa did acknowledge in its submission that there will be some need for transportation investments even with teleworking, if only to accommodate occasional travel to offices. It also accepted that teleworking could encourage sprawl with the expanded freedom to live outside of commuting distances.

In response TelCoa's presentation included measures to 'fix it first' on existing highways rather than to build new ones, modestly expand commuter rail and bus from Toronto and Ottawa into outlying areas, and to curb sprawl such as through fees tacked onto developers who build on or to the purchasers who buy commercial or residential property on greenfield (open space) sites.

The province is keeping its budget deliberation under tight wraps. With it being the home to and offices of leading comm/tech firms like Bell, Corel, Mitel, Nortel, Research in Motion, Rogers, and Telus, to name a few, one hopes that Premier McGuinty and his government would use the powerful tools of telework to step out of the box to build a greener, more productive, and prosperous future.

 

It is gratifying to see many countries, such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. plan to spend money on expanding their broadband networks.
 
The Canadian Parliament passed that country's 2009 budget on Tuesday with C$225 million to be spent over three years to develop and implement a strategy on extending broadband coverage to unserved rural and remote communities. 

Public assistance is needed, says the government, which is controlled by the Conservative party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, because companies cannot turn a profit on the investments needed to reach out to these individuals and businesses owing to density and distance from major hubs.

Only with broadband can consumers and businesses effectively access information, goods and services, and yes work i.e. telework via the information highway by riding on the equivalent of paved roads to and from their homes, storefronts, and factories as compared with the dirt tracks of dial-up and plank roads of satellite.

Yet it would be nice for governments also to offer tax incentives, either tax deductions to corporations or grants-in-lieu of taxes to nonprofits, to nudge these organizations to provide teleworking i.e. 'GreenWorking'. The Telework Coalition has called for just that, pointing that there are parking and transit deductions but none for telework.

One of the factors holding telework back has been less-than-competent managers who are unable to supervise others without seeing them Victorian-style. Tax deductions/grants may be just what the C-suite needs to finally crack the whip on theses individuals: go home or go home, for good.

In fairness to office building landlords there should also be grants or deductions available to them to compensate for their losses. These can go to conversions to other uses, like apartments for the swelling numbers of people who can no longer afford owning single family homes, for schools, or to plowsharing: tearing down buildings and restoring the land to productive greenspace.

The money would be well-spent from a public policy perspective. It costs far less to transport a worker over broadband than over an expressway or in an express train, bus, or ferry from the direct i.e. infrastructure and indirect i.e. healthcare through accidents and illnesses perspectives. Telework also makes infrastructure investments last longer through reducing demand and congestion, which also avoids emissions incurred in maintenance and upgrades. 

Compared with the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into what is becoming obsolete modes of getting around, the actual amounts to be allocated in these incentives would be a clear, clean, drop in the bucket.

In an exchange on contact center employment, Group Publisher Rich Tehrani expressed skepticism about the numbers of new American jobs, estimated by some sources at 5+ million that going green will produce.

No one has explained to him why the U.S. will make better green products than the Chinese or Japanese if the U.S. can't make better cars, etc.

Rich has a point, and it is illustrated in the mass transit industry. Every commuter, light rail, or subway car and a large percentage of transit buses that have been ordered or put in service in the past 15 years or so has been designed, engineered, and substantially built outside of the U.S., leaving the assembly and testing in the U.S. to comply with federal Buy America laws. 

Look at the nameplates of the buses and train. Chances are good that they will read Alstom, Bombardier, Breda, Dennis, Kawasaki, KinkiSharyo, New Flyer, Nova, Orion, Rotem, Siemens, and Stadler, to name a few. KinkiSharyo and Siemens have cornered the light rail market while the lozenge-shaped commuter rail cars that are found on nearly every system west of Chicago come from Bombardier. 

The last true American railcar builder, Budd, went belly up in the field; Boeing's venture into building light rail cars: for Boston and San Francisco was a disaster. GM got out of the bus business that it had long dominated. It nearly accomplished its mission of wiping out mass transit but foiled at the last minute by the energy crisis, and the need to clean up the environment and revitalize communities with public transportation.

The lesson is this: yes, the green revolution will create jobs, but the products have to be well-designed-and engineered, competitively priced, and supported, especially if the buying and financing comes from the public sector.

In short American manufacturers especially have to get back to quality and value-for-money that once made their goods the best in the world if they want to compete for their share of new green market.
 

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.

 

The Canadian federal government is taking the axiom of 'think globally, act locally' to heart by financing over a dozen local green transportation programs that range from cycling to shared-ride home, public transit, walking to school, and to telework.

Here is the release and the backgrounder:
 
Federal government delivers green transportation initiatives  
 
    OTTAWA, Jan. 8 /CNW Telbec/ - Canada's Transport Minister, John Baird,announced today that the Government of Canada will invest in 14 projects across the country that support environmentally friendly transportation.
 
    The projects will receive a total of almost $3 million under the ecoMOBILITY program. Fourteen municipalities will receive funding for projects that respond to their individual needs and circumstances.
 
    "This is a good example of what our government is doing to keep our economy  moving, create new jobs and deliver results for the environment," said Minister Baird. "These projects will promote greener transportation alternatives for Canadians, contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate our economy."
 
    The ecoMOBILITY program works with provinces, municipalities and regionaltransportation authorities to help develop initiatives that encourage commuters to choose public transit or other alternatives to personal vehicles. Through the program, the government is taking action to find ways to meet transportation needs, reduce costs to Canadians and protect the environment.
 
    The ecoMOBILITY program is part of the Government of Canada's ecoTRANSPORT Strategy, which has three goals: 1) improving the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing the environmental impacts of transportation; 2) contributing to Canada's future prosperity and competitiveness by making critical transportation infrastructure sustainable both economically and environmentally; and 3) promoting an efficient transportation system that supports choice and the high quality of life Canadians expect.

                   PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER THE ecoMOBILITY PROGRAM
         
    The Agence métropolitaine de transport in the Greater Montreal Area will receive a contribution of up to $125,000 for a project to enhance the delivery of its Allégo program that provides tool kits to private-sector employers wishing to put in place green transportation options for their employees.
   
    Calgary Economic Development will receive a contribution of up to $800,000 for a project to foster teleworking in the business community. The implementation plan will include awareness and public engagement; professional development; telework program planning, impact assessment and reporting; telework "living labs," or local work centres; and the development of policies to promote community buy-in.
   
    The City of Edmonton will receive a contribution of up to $260,000 for a community pilot project that aims to promote flexible work hours and alternative modes of transport, such as walking, cycling, public transit and carpooling in a "demonstration neighbourhood" in the city.
   
    The City of Guelph, Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $127,100 for its Bicycle Friendly Guelph Initiative. This project will deliver a wide variety of educational programs and events to encourage more people to ride bicycles safely and conveniently.

    The City of London, Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $120,000 for a project that will develop green transportation programs in both a suburban residential area and an industrial area in the city. These initiatives will help increase understanding of local transportation at the neighbourhood and business district level.
   
    The City of New Westminster, British Columbia, will receive a contribution of up to $120,000 for a series of related initiatives aimed at reducing the number of personal vehicle trips taken in the city by municipal employees, as well as by employees of the city's four main employers; promoting Safe Routes to School for nine elementary schools; enhancing green transportation components of the city's transportation plan; and creating a coordinator position to promote green transportation options.

    The City of Peterborough, Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $350,150 for a project that will expand green transportation outreach and education for workplaces, secondary schools and the general community. There are also plans to expand the current IWALK program to include elementary schools.

    The Corporation of the City of North Bay, Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $50,000 for a project to develop an outreach program to encourage local secondary school students and those with physical disabilities to use public transportation.

    The Halifax Regional Municipality will receive a contribution of up to $50,000 for its Guaranteed Ride Home Program, which is an 18-month pilot project to provide guaranteed rides home for participants in green transportation programs. The Halifax Regional Municipality will also receive a contribution of up to $55,000 for a project to study the feasibility of developing a dedicated municipal fund to encourage transportation choices that will create a greener transportation network.

    Metrolinx (the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority) will receive a contribution of up to $405,000 for a project at elementary schools in the Region of Peel and the City of Hamilton to pilot, test and monitor new concepts and initiatives that encourage students to walk to school. It will also promote green transportation alternatives for faculty and staff.
   
    The Region of Peel, in Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $120,000 for a project that will implement green transportation marketing programs at six employment sites, reaching an estimated 9,500 employees. The campaigns will aim to reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel.

    The Region of Waterloo, Ontario, will receive a contribution of up to $180,000 for a project that will promote the use of new transit services in a suburban residential community; demonstrate the effectiveness of a transferable transit pass; and help area municipalities develop parking management tools that support the use of green transportation alternatives.
   
    Saint John Transit in New Brunswick will receive a contribution of up to $210,000 for a project to increase ride sharing and the use of public transit in the local area.