Friday, April 11, 2008

London did it.

New York failed to do it.

What’s Chicago thinking? 

            London recently implemented congestion pricing to cut down on road congestion. This means that drivers would pay a fee to use the roads during high-traffic times of day, said Michael McLaughlin of the Metropolitan Planning Council. These fees would then be used to maintain and improve surface transportation. The system is similar to tolls, but vehicles would not have to slow down to pay. Instead, there would be an automatic system to deduct a certain amount of money from each driver’s account when they pass a check point. In the past year, Mayor Bloomberg made efforts to implement congestion pricing in New York City. Though the federal government would have contributed $354 million in assistance should it accept the plan by Monday, the State Assembly chose to not vote on the proposal. The United States Department of Transportation announced it will now offer the money to other cities. Congestion pricing would provide an added incentive for many people to schedule their day to avoid being on the roads during rush hour, and allow other vehicles to move more quickly.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Congress created a commission in 2005 to look into the state of the nation’s surface transportation, which includes highways, freight, and public transit. After 22 months of deliberation, it released its report in January. 

A couple of the more controversial recommendations are raising the gas tax and creating public-private partnerships to fund the building of more roads and transportation infrastructure.

Rose stressed that when it comes to transportation, we can not continue under-investing without severe economic and environmental costs. He said President Eisenhower quadrupled the gas tax to raise the money to build a national highway system. It is time we re-invested in our transportation system to bring it to where it needs to be, he said.

Regarding how soon we can expect the commission’s recommendations to translate to action, Rose said, “Well of course anyone who’s ever been asked to be on a commission, the biggest concern you have is whether or not your commission’s paper will become a doorstop in some congressman’s office. So we outsmarted them this time— we didn’t publish the report, we put it on the internet.”

You can check out the report online at http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/

Wednesday, April 10, 2008

For city drivers, you’re either stuck in traffic or slamming into potholes. Some heavyweights came together Wednesday to discuss the future and funding of the nation’s surface transportation, and its implications for economic growth and the environment, particularly in densely populated areas like Chicago.

Matt Rose, CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and former member of a special commission that studied transportation in the country, said, “Our job was to surface these issues. And at least to lay out what the challenges would be.”

The federal program to deal with transportation issues must be completely overhauled, he said, and that’s going to take money. Right now the nation is spending only 40 percent of the $225- 340 billion needed per year. In addition to public-private partnerships, tolling and congestion pricing, there is the potential to raise the money through a gas tax and other user fees, he said.

“The public’s not going accept higher fuel taxes and other fees if the system is not overhauled,” Rose said. “But you go out and you do polling, and you say will you pay a higher gas tax, the first answer you’d get is are you crazy? Gas is $3.25, $3.50 a gallon, no way. But if you go and say, if we can reduce your commute time by ten minutes, would you accept a nickel a gallon [increase] over the next five years, the polling looks a lot different.”

The final report, released in January, recommends a transition as quickly as possible from a gas tax to a vehicle-miles-traveled tax by 2025. Vehicle-miles-traveled is a way to charge drivers for how many miles they drive instead of how much gas they use. Until then, the gas tax would be 5 to 8 percent per year, each year for five years, and indexing the tax to inflation. Under the proposal, the average American motorist could expect to pay 44 to 66 cents per day.

Switching to alternative fuel sources is also among the recommendations included in the report. Currently, the transit system is 97 percent dependent on petroleum. The majority of petroleum in the United States is used on transportation. The commission recommended that Congress pass tax credits to induce auto companies to replace its traditional cars with hybrids, and for Congress to provide funding for electric-rail transit in order to reduce the United States’ oil dependence.

The report also recommended condensing the 108 current disparate federal transportation programs into ten. One of those programs would be dedicated to infrastructure maintenance, that would aim to prevent structural failures, such as the I-35 interstate bridge collapse in Minneapolis in August of 2007, which resulted in 13 deaths and approximately100 injured.

Rose said that in addition to maintaining and improving our highways and rail, we must heavily invest in public transit to accommodate a growing population and mitigate highway congestion. The census bureau estimates there will be 120 million new citizens by 2050, most of whom will live in metropolitan areas such as Chicago.

“The amount of public transit that America already uses saves over 4.2 billion gallons of fuel a year, it’s 37 million metric tons of less carbon that goes into the air,” said Bill Millar, president of American Public Transportation Association, which lobbies on behalf of public transit. The environmental benefits are twofold: first from the fuel emissions saved from vehicles not on the road, and second, the ones there are can move more quickly.

Larry Wilson, Rail Planning Section Chief at the Illinois Department of Transportation, said Rose “makes a very strong case for the investment in infrastructure being absolutely necessary. And having worked in the railroad industry in the past, if you let the industry investment slide down, it will have a huge effect on trade and the economic competitiveness of the nation and the region. I think Chicago’s infrastructure issues are nationally recognized, and I’m sure we’ll see a good share of what comes forward.” 

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 

The allegation: The City of Chicago purchased an expensive, high-tech solar-powered compacting trash can, and then stuck it underground at the State and Lake el station.

The reality: The Big Belly trash can company gave 50 solar-powered compacting trash cans to the city as a test run, to show the city how much money it can save with them.

How they work: Big Belly trash cans are roughly the same size as a normal city trash can. Only the solar panels provide the energy to compact the trash down so that trash cans that normally have be emptied four times a day only have to emptied once. This saves on labor costs of city workers who collect the trash, vehicle emissions to transport the trash to the dump, and so forth. The city chose to put one such Big Belly at the State & Lake location because this is one of the highest traffic areas in the city. The compacting process is powered by an AC adaptor. So, while the city isn’t exactly taking advantage of its greenest potential, it is still saving them a bundle. The only thing is not having a sign to explain what’s going on to passers-by who see the solar-powered Big Belly and think Oh yeah. That’s just like the CTA. Spend a bundle of solar-powered trash cans and “stick ‘em where the sun don’t shine” (John Fritchey’s blog, http://johnfritchey.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-sun-dont-shine.html.)

Perhaps a more important debate: Is compacted trash a good thing? Taken from Roland Piquepaille’s Technology Trends web site, http://www.primidi.com/2007/07/18.html:

“The real trouble is that [BigBelly is] generating compacted trash. And that brings it’s own set of problems… Compacted trash is great if you’re looking to fit the maximum amount of waste into collection trucks, or landfills. But the flipside of that benefit is that now your landfills get no oxygen, since they’re so perfectly compacted. And without oxygen, you don’t get decomposition. You get preservation. So landfills end up being giant storage heaps for trash. Which, again, is fine, if you want to keep the stuff. But wasn’t getting rid of it the point of making it trash in the first place?” (Taken from TreeHugger in 2005.)

For a closer look at Big Belly trash cans, go to http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1127

Notes to me: Go to State & Lake, watch if anyone notices & comments. Make a few calls to the city—have many people complained?

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 

A blast of cool air washed over the people crowded in the el cars as the doors slid open. The matter-of-fact voice of the CTA announced, “Doors opening on the right at Adams and Quincy.”

I followed the feet in front of me and stepped out onto the platform. Already there were lines of people snaking toward the exits reminiscent of meat grinders. As I struggled to pull on my gloves I looked over my shoulder at the end of the platform, and thought, that’s funny. There was a full car that had not made it to the platform. The conductor at the head of this metallic caterpillar had stopped too soon, and left one full car behind where the platform began.

As I tried to shrug off my morning sleepiness, I noticed that the doors of that last car had, in fact, opened with all the others. Are there people in that last car? I wondered.

A sudden rush of panic swept over me, followed instantly with relief. Jeez! I thought to myself. What if I had been on that car, and unable to get off at my stop? I would have been trapped—forced to ride to the next stop, where I would have had to get off and wait for another train to take me back in the opposite direction!

Maybe nobody on that car needs to get off here, I thought. That’s lucky I guess.

I imagined the doors opening before me, and seeing nothing but air, walking through to the next car—struggling with that very heavy door that allows you to cross to a new car—and then made it out onto the platform just in time. All these thoughts passed through my mind in moments, as my sight stayed drowsily glued to that last car, while passengers from the other cars streamed around me.

Then came that unmistakable two-toned warning sound that the doors were about to close. The doors shut in unison. Guess they didn’t get out, I thought to myself. The el train pulled forward thirty feet and stopped again. The voice announced the doors were opening.

In front of me, a woman and a man stepped out from the last car onto the platform. I gave them a confused look. “Did the doors open for your guys right onto the tracks?”

The woman saw me and exclaimed, “If he hadn’t pulled me back—” she gestured to a man beside her, “—I would have walked right out into the air.”

What happened next was a talking-over-each-other exchange of information:

me: “—You don’t expect the doors to open and there to be nothing—”

her: “—I’m usually not the first person out of the car, but this morning—”

me: “—You could have just walked out and fallen ten feet onto the tracks?”

None of the other hurrying commuters appeared to notice anything unusual.

What I surmised had happened was that due to red/brown line construction, the el has upped the number of cars on its morning trains from six to eight, and this particular conductor forgot to pull up appropriately.

Walking out the el doors onto nothing and slamming onto the el tracks ten feet below…I can think of better ways to start a Tuesday morning.

The moral of the story: Be good to the environment. Take public transit. But keep your eyes open, especially when getting off the el.

            For people who have to get around the city without a car, life just got a little easier. The CTA announced a partnership with Google Maps Tuesday. Now, instead of relying on CTA Trip Planner (which usually gives you three options, two of which are the same, and, many times, all of which fail to give you the most direct route), Google Maps has it all; an easy-to-read, interactive map and step-by-step instructions for taking Chicago public transit.

            It even compares the cost of driving versus the cost of taking public transportation, in terms of gasoline versus the cost of fare. I would be interested in finding out exactly what kind of algorithm they developed to calculate “the cost of driving.” Did they factor in only gasoline? In which case, did they account for varying fuel efficiency of different vehicles (miles-per-gallon) and changing speed (fuel is burned a different rates depending on velocity)? If not, what numbers did they use? Click on the estimated cost of driving and you will be routed to a web page with the following explanation:

“Cost of driving is based on the average mileage for the shortest route between your start and end addresses, multiplied by the cost per mile that the IRS allows businesses to deduct. According to the IRS, these rates “are based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile.” Runzheimer International, an independent contractor, conducted the study for the IRS. However, this is only an estimate and doesn’t consider tolls, parking fees, or variations in gas mileage for different types of cars.” –http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=81106&hl=en

           This definition leaves the calculation wrapped in mystery. Maybe a few phone calls will help to reveal a little more. Let me get back you on that. And what about the real cost of driving? What about taking into account maintenance costs, licensing and inspection fees, occasional speeding and parking tickets, and, of course, the purchase price of the vehicle?  Or do they consider these expenses to be non-applicable, since if we were to take these costs into account, the cost of driving versus taking public transit would always come out to something like $15,000.00+ to $2.00?

          My suggestion: create another feature that compares greenhouse gas emissions from driving versus taking public transit. Need to go from Wrigley Field to the Loop? Check it out: x green house gas emissions for driving, x for public transit. Get a close-up view of the carbon footprint of your actions.

          Like price analysis, this function would also be wrought with complications. For example, how many people are in the vehicle? You would have to divide by the number of people to calculate the emissions per person (this is the whole thinking behind HOV–high occupancy vehicle– lanes.) And with the el, you would have to estimate how many people ride that particular train or bus, most likely by relying on past statistics and taking into account the time of day, to arrive at the emissions per person.

            To see a goofy video of how CTA trip planner with Google Maps works, go to http://maps.google.com/help/maps/transit/chicago/ or to skip instructions and dive straight in go to http://maps.google.com/

Special info box: So just how much are you helping the planet by jumping on the el?

“If you have a two-car household with two adults who work outside the home and both of them drive separately, if just one of those adults started to commute by transit they’d save 10 percent of their carbon footprint,” Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, said. “That’s more than if they buy a new energy-efficient refrigerator, and change their lightbulbs out to compact fluorescents, and insulate their home. I don’t think people understand how just little changes wouldn’t destroy the American Way of Life as some critics would have you believe, but would make an enormous difference in these kind of big environmental issues.” 

Mission statement: To offer a clear report, without compromising complexity, of the current energy and environment issues and debates in Chicago as well as around the country and the world, and to encourage public discussion and action.

url: thegreenbeat.com 

Here are some online communities interested in the environment and energy issues:

(a)   Sustaining Our Environment Forum: http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/sustain/msg0810370812012.html

(b)  Facebook groups: “Stop Killing the Environment”, “FEEL THE HEAT! Global Warming and the Environment are for REAL,” “Save the Environment, Save the World,” “Alaska!! (Save the Animals and Environment),” “Save the Environment,” “Earth View: Environment,” “We All Need To Do Something To Save Our Environment,” and it goes on and on.

(c)   Stop Global Warming: news, discussion and take action site: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp

(d)  Earth Justice: earthjustice.org

(e)   Keep America Beautiful: kab.org

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/?gclid=CLL2xNaXyZICFQ_NIgodAzl5Fg 

There are a vast number of terrific web sites to keep up on environmental news. The following ones are a few I think are especially helpful:

(a)  Gov & other organizations:

National Resources Defense Council: www.nrdc.org

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch

Union of Concerned Scientists: www.ucsusa.org

Public Agenda: www.publicagenda.org

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council:  www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/nejac/index.html

Chicagoland Environmental Network: www.chicagoenvironment.org

Cityofchicago.org/environment 

(a)   Media:

Environment News Service: www.ens-newswire.com

Grist weekly digest: www.grist.org

NY Times environment news: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/earth/index.html

Environmental News Bits: http://lib.wmrc.uiuc.edu/enb/

(b)  Weblogs:

www.philinthespaces.com

http://pauldailing.com/

enviroblog.org

switchboard.nrdc.org

http://gristmill.grist.org/

http://thingsthatmakeyougogreen.com/

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com

http://www.hugg.com/

http://www.treehugger.com

(1)  Presidential candidates, their positions and records regarding environmental issues. (Also possibly local elected leaders in Chicago, Mayor Daley, Aldermen, etc.)

(2)  Advertising and going green: what products are using the “eco-sell” that might surprise you? A look inside how marketing is jumping to the green beat.

(3) Alternative energy sources for homes and businesses.

(4)   Energy and environment issues in Chicago, green initiatives, etc.

–>links to news articles, blog posts, discussion board posts:

(a)   PEW compares presidential hopefuls on environmental platform: http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Environment

(b)  Society of Environmental Journalists: http://www.sej.org/

(c)   http://carbonnation.wordpress.com/

(d)  news & discussion, a community to promote going green: greenoptions.com

(e)   Coalition of eco-minded businesses to open an entirely green shopping mall near Diversey and Western as early as September: greenexchange.com

(f)   BigBelly solar-powered trash compactors come to Chicago: http://www.primidi.com/2007/07/18.html

(g)  Chicago Diversey Wetland Project/ Floating gardens in the Chicago River: http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/sustain/msg0810370812012.html