Traffic is the answer!richardmasoner via flickrMeant to mention these two pieces last week, but things fell apart, as they say. (Do “they” say that, or is it just me?)

Both relate to the connection between cars and public transportation, and both are a bit counterintuitive.

The first, an op-ed by David Owen in the Wall Street Journal, posits that traffic jams are a boon to public transportation because they piss drivers off and “turn [them] into subway riders or pedestrians”—and that congestion pricing is counterproductive because it makes driving a more pleasant (albeit expensive) experience:

Advocates of congestion-fighting strategies usually argue that traffic jams waste gasoline. That’s true, but the energy waste and carbon output attributable to idling cars is smaller than that attributable to the overall transportation network. There’s nothing green about fighting congestion if, by distributing traffic more efficiently, it results in an overall increase in traffic volume and extra miles driven by vehicles avoiding the fee areas.

I suspect squadrons of transit thinkers have plenty to say about this, but my quick reaction is this: never has a traffic jam made me want to go hop on a subway. When a traffic jam breaks, all I want to do is drive fast, and far, and reclaim the road. And I’m a fan and user of public transportation. I hope there are indeed people out there who think, “By gosh, this road sure is prone to traffic jams. I think I’ll walk next time.” But something tells me it’s not happening as often as Owen would like to think.

Or is it? Because the other piece is about parking garages in transit-oriented developments, and how more garages are being built—and in a sustainable way—so that people can drive to the train.

Parking garages have become key to the success of transit lines, developments that emphasize transit, and suburban town centers — all popular with environmental groups and others who support reduced dependence on the automobile.

Without abundant parking near transit stations in suburban areas, people won’t bother to hop on subways and trains, says Martin Stein, president of the 1,200-member National Parking Association, which is meeting near Washington, D.C., this week.

“The perception of convenience is very important,” Stein says.

So to sum up: Traffic jams are necessary to convert people to public transportation. And then cars and parking garages are necessary to make transit convenient. Partly that sounds like common sense, and partly it sounds like—well, we are just the teensiest bit addicted.

Related Links:

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Here’s what we know so far

Cast your vote for the best climate journalism

Beltway observers of all stripes owe Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) a debt of gratitude. In 2006, after 20 years in the House of Representatives, he ran for Maryland's newly vacant Senate seat against then-Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Steele's defeat put him on a trajectory to become chair of the Republican National Committee, where he has provided the political world with an unending stream of malapropisms and unintentional hilarities.

Meanwhile, Cardin -- who boasts close to a perfect 100 score from the League of Conservation Voters -- has become a key player on green issues in the Senate. He was kind enough to answer a few of our questions (transcript at bottom of post):

Sen. Cardin doesn't mention it specifically, but he is one of the original sponsors of CLEAN-TEA (the Clean Low-Emissions Affordable New Transportation Equity Act), which would set aside 10% of the revenue from any cap-and-trade program for green transportation projects. The provision was dropped from the House bill; it needs five more sponsors on the Environment and Public Works Committee to get voted through to the Senate floor. Neither Obama nor Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have come out in support of the provision yet, but they oughtta.

Enviros will be heartened to hear that Cardin is on board with preserving the EPA's Clean Air Act authority over greenhouse gases. Rumor has it Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and other Dems on the Environment and Public Works Committee are pushing to include this in the climate bill.

Finally, Cardin doesn't mention this specifically either, but he is an original sponsor of S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration Act, which would define the word "fill" to prevent mountaintop-removal mining operations from dumping waste and rubble in mountain streams. He was one of the earliest members of Congress to speak out clearly against the barbaric practice of MTR; progress on the issue seems to be picking up steam.

Big thanks to Sen. Cardin for taking the time to answer our questions. With any luck, this won't be the last time.

Here's the transcript:

Introduction: I'm glad to be here today to answer questions from Grist, a great website covering environmental news.

Q: Are there any alternative ways of boosting public transit in the climate bill?

A: The climate bill gives us an excellent opportunity to increase public transportation. It's critically important to reduce greenhouse gases, to use less oil and fuel, and to provide better services to the people of our community, make their lives a lot easier. Now, we're very pleased about the House passing the climate change bill. It's an important bill; it establishes the framework to bring down greenhouse gases. But I must tell you, I think we could do much better on public transportation. And I'm looking forward, in the Senate, to providing more dedicated revenue sources to increase our commitment to improve public transportation in our nation. I think we can really get the job done that will help our communities as far as life is concerned, traffic is concerned, also, save us oil and energy and bring down greenhouse gases.

Q: Is there a push in Congress to preserve the EPA's new-source-review authority?

A: It's a very high priority that we preserve the new authority of EPA to regulate, especially under the Clean Air Act. We want to make sure that those authorities remain. Now, we are concerned about the House bill. The House bill is an important bill, and it moves us forward on global climate change, but we don't think we should take away from EPA's ability to use authority within the Clean Air Act, to make the type of progress necessary to bring down greenhouse gases. Bottom line is, we want it to be a partnership between what Congress will give this administration, the policies that we establish, working with the EPA to make the type of changes necessary to affect climate change in this country.

Q: What's the status of the Appalachian Restoration Act? Is there any appetite in the Senate for addressing mountaintop removal?

A: Mountaintop removal for coal is just devastating. There is no justification for mountaintop mining. The coal industry is important, but getting coal by that technique destroys our rivers. It destroys our environment. It's not fair to the people of that community. Their rivers are being destroyed, and it's just a horrible process. I'm pleased that we have bipartisan support to move legislation. Now, the EPA has already taken some steps. They're carefully reviewing each permit. I give the EPA a great deal of credit for taking that extra time, but they need the authority from Congress that prohibits this type of mining in our country. I do think there is support for it, and I'm hopeful that this Congress will move forward to an act of meaningful help for the EPA, in keeping our rivers clean and helping the environment.

Conclusion: I really want to thank Grist for giving me this opportunity to answer some of your environmental questions. I hope that we can continue this dialogue. Please feel free to go to my website, which is cardin.senate.gov, where we can help you with more information. This is an important subject. It deserves great debate. We appreciate you being part of it.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

This post originally appeared on Streetsblog DC.

This is the big problem with Ed Glaeser's New York Times posts purporting to analyze the costs and benefits of a high speed rail system.

Despite Glaeser's acknowledgment that his "back-of-the-envelope calculation" doesn't "[represent] a complete evaluation of any actual proposed route," the posts are sure to be read and regurgitated by rail opponents uninterested in having an actual debate on the merits of high-speed rail investments.

Today, the Washington Post's lame excuse for an economics columnist, Robert Samuelson, used numbers from Glaeser's analysis in writing an extremely regrettable piece arguing that investments in high-speed rail are misguided. But this is no honest entry into the discussion of how best to invest in transportation infrastructure. It's a hack job, plain and simple.

Samuelson begins by complaining about Amtrak subsidies, but he can't be bothered to address what those subsidies actually suggest about the competitiveness of fast, intercity rail. On the corridor where service most closely resembles true high-speed service, Amtrak runs an operating profit.

It gets much worse from there. Samuelson argues against rail on the basis of population density, writing:

What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad, passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.

Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct connections between heavily populated city centers and business districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653 in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up most people where they live and work and take them to where they want to go. Cars can.

This is embarrassingly bad analysis. America's overall population density includes vast expanses of land in the west where few people live and where high-speed trains won't be built (have a look at the administration's map of proposed routes here and note how many low-density states are not expected to get service).

The proper point of comparison is the population densities of metropolitan corridors where lines will be built. A child could understand the point, and yet Samuelson, out of ignorance or deliberate obtuseness, doesn't get it.

He follows that up with a similar error:

Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes.

Again, this is just embarrassing. Distances between major cities on planned corridors will be at most 400 miles. No one is suggesting that rail compete with planes on coast-to-coast routes.

This is a hugely important factual point, and Samuelson seems to be entirely ignorant of it. He simply knows nothing about the policies being considered.

Samuelson goes on to make other mistakes; like Glaeser he fails to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives to high-speed rail -- given current congestion levels and expected population growth, new infrastructure of some kind will be necessary to keep the national economy functioning. But given the basic errors mentioned above, it's hardly worth engaging with the piece.

The Post should be ashamed of its decision to publish this. And Glaeser should be at least a little bit uncomfortable that his work is being cited in factually challenged columns by writers who clearly have no interest in honest participation in the discussion.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

FOX News and TrollCat agree: Global warming is BUNK!

Washington Post mocks Inhofe as “last flat earther”

The green-building news is coming so fast and furious it can be hard to delve deeply into each story. So here’s a survey of a few of the shiniest, brand-spankin’-newiest, innovativest projects taking shape:

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Photo: wings777 via FlickrIt's been a long time coming, but starting this Saturday, it'll be "all aboard!" when Seattle's light rail trains pull into the station.

The Sound Transit trains will travel 14 miles from Westlake Center, in the center of downtown, south to Tukwila, two miles short of the Sea-Tac airport. By the end of the year, the trains will reach the airport.

Thanks to generous Seattle voters, this $2.3 billion "starter line" will eventually reach north to the University of Washington campus (2016) and out to other suburbs like Federal Way, Overlake, and Lynnwood on a 53-mile track that is expected to serve some 280,000 daily trips by 2030.

But for now, ridership is expected to be much lower. More than 100,000 people are expected to go for a ride opening weekend, when all trips will be free. But starting Monday, regular fares will apply and Sound Transit estimates just 26,600 weekday trips on average for the next year.

The light rail will provide some commuters with a fast and efficient way to get to work -- and soon, the airport. And the project has generated some 7,000 short- and long-term (green) jobs. But it's been an uphill battle all the way.

Years late and miles shorter than promised when voters approved the plan back in 1996, the light rail project has seen its share of engineering challenges -- from toxic soil to sinkholes, as well as a couple of minor train-car collisions.

One of the long-time proponents of the light rail project has been Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels (D). He talks about finally seeing the dream realized in this short Seattle Times video from a recent media ride-along:

Related Links:

Learning how to count to 350

U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill

Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Long story short, my parents have been thinking about buying me a car since soon I will be going to University and that way, I won't constantly be using their cars. My mom suggested a Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, which I love the look of. However, it doesn't appear to be very environmentally friendly. I didn't do a lot of research since I don't really understand all the car terms, but the website I checked said that the Mini Cooper was a lot more eco-friendly for about the same price. I was just wondering which car you would suggest, preferably a convertible?

Megan Y.
Toronto, Ontario

A. Dearest Megan,

Fun, yes. But necessary?Vicarious car shopping is my favorite. Especially for a car I would never, ever buy, like a convertible. And in Canada, to booot! Howevah, I am an environmental advice columnist, so before we shop it is my duty to say this: I don't understand why you will need your own car. Typical university students spend their time living near campus, attending classes, studying, working at some nearby job, hanging out with proximate friends, and maybe going on an occasional weekend trip.

If you are attending a poorly planned university where a car is a necessity, all is forgiven and we will talk about how to pick one in a moment. Otherwise, we need to discuss. Your needs as a student could most likely be met with a combination of walking, biking, taking public transit, and renting the occasional car. You could also join a car-sharing service (here are your Canadian car-sharing resources). All of these will be less expensive than owning a car (check out this True Cost to Own calculator), be less of a hassle, keep the Freshman 15 at bay, and of course emit fewer pollutants. Please look into the transit situation at your matriculating university and reconsider your plan to add another dirty driver to the planet.

If your situation absolutely requires a car and my officious attitude should be shelved, I do have one further question. What is the point of owning a convertible when you live in Canada? I am familiar with the peri-Canada area, having lived in northern New England and the Pacific Northwest. A convertible is for sunny, warm areas with little precipitation, aka not Canada. Think about the maintenance issues for the hood.

Alright, enough rain on your parade. Your parents are willing to spend at least $25k on a new car, you're ready to cart all your new friends around, and you think the Beetle is cute. It sure is. Here are other convertibles in the lower price range: the Mazda Miata, the Ford Mustang, and the Toyota Solara. Slight more expensive are the Honda S200, the Volkswagen Eos, and the Nissan Z. Then we move into BMWs, Porsches, and Audis, which we shall set aside. I like Consumer Reports, and they like the Nissan, the Mazda, the Honda, and the Toyota for reliability and performance. Hm. All Japanese cars. Strange ...

On the fuel economy front, the U.S. government provides a side-by-side carbon footprint and air pollution score for the cars of your choice, and of course the Canadians compare cars as well. Out of your two favorites, the Mini Cooper does get better mileage -- or kilometrage. You wrote me because you were concerned about environmental impact, however, so I would go a little further if I were you and look into the fuel economy of all the convertibles in your price range.

Basically, I'm going to let you do your own footwork. Your first university research project. Look for a reliable car based on ratings. I think it's worth it to subscribe to Consumer Reports online, but you may also find old copies in the library; you should also take a cruise around GreenerCars.org (which will also require a subscription to get full details). Then evaluate the emissions and go with the best of both worlds. There's no point in buying a car you yourself have not committed to, and I'm not going to take responsibility for a car you hate. My only vote is against the Volkswagen. The mileage is poor and the long-term performance will be too. Alas for its enticing cuteness.

Regretfully,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

California's East Bay -- the collection of towns, cities, and suburbs across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco -- has a lot to boast about. There's the perpetually great weather, enlightened inhabitants, and a halfway decent, if in my opinion overpriced, public transit system in the form of BART. Yet despite BART's 43 stations spanning 95 miles, most folks in the area find they need a car, too.

Sherman LewisBut one man thinks his town, Hayward -- or at least a part of it -- can make the leap to automobile-free. "I want to live a lifestyle that's less dependent on cars," says Sherman Lewis, a retired poli-sci professor at Cal State East Bay and president of the Hayward Area Planning Association since 1978. But, he admits, he's chosen a relatively difficult way to achieve it, "by trying find 950 other families who want to live the same way."

Lewis has developed plans for Quarry Village, a 1,000-unit development about a mile from the Hayward BART station and a short skip from the Cal State campus and downtown Hayward. It includes townhouses, condos, walking paths, shuttle buses to the rail ... and no garages. It would fill 22 acres on a former rock quarry (hence the name) currently owned by Caltrans, the California DOT; the land is not yet for sale, but Lewis says the agency is supportive of his redevelopment vision. The residences will be officially affordable, at least by Hayward's definition: studios to six-bedrooms between $250,000 and $650,000. Lewis believes the larger units will appeal to telecommuters, who can use the extra bedrooms as offices.

Today a quarry, tomorrow a car-free revolution?QuarryVillage.comInside the development, residents would be able to walk to basic amenities -- a restaurant or two, a well-stocked grocery store. For other needs, they could take an on-site shuttle to BART, use the shared or rental car services that would be available, or, if they really want, rent one of the 100 or so parking spots along the perimeter of the neighborhood. Those spots would be auctioned off, starting at perhaps $125 a month, to help subsidize the shuttle service. No one need fear being judged for not giving up his or her car, Lewis assures. "They're going to be congratulated, " he says," because their money will go to pay for everyone else's bus."

The Quarry Village vision is inspired in part by the Vauban development in Freiburg, Germany, a 6,000-resident suburb where parking is limited to the perimeter and a space goes for $40,000. Some seventy percent of Vauban-ers don't own a car, and by all accounts they seem to have adjusted quite easily.

But that's Europe. Are Americans -- some of whom say their car represents them more than their friends of clothes -- ready for the car-free experience?

Well, maybe. Car-sharing, it was reported last week, is on the rise, with city policies and real estate developments encouraging the practice. (I find ZipCar, at $120 per weekend day here in New York, to be prohibitively expensive, but perhaps I'm spoiled by my bicycle and my $2 subway). Quebec-based CommunAuto asserts that every shared car knocks eight off the road -- that's about 1,800 fewer miles driven per person each year.

So the political climate is ripe for Quarry Village, and perhaps the mindset of many Americans, still stinging from our brief foray into $4 per gallon gas, has properly adjusted. "We have more than 100 people [ready] to sign up to buy these units when they become available," says Lewis.

But when will that be? At the end of May, the Hayward Planning Commission gave the thumbs up to new zoning, permitting higher density and less parking, and Lewis expects the city council to overwhelmingly approve SMU zoning -- sustainable mixed-use -- at the end of June, which Lewis says was created with Quarry Village in mind.

If you lived here, you'd be ooh-ing now.QuarryVillage.com"The city council is unanimously supportive, but all of us are concerned about getting investors and selling units fast enough," says Lewis. That's right, they're still lacking one key component: the money to actually create the neighborhood, despite plenty of interest and excitement. The tagline displayed prominently on the Quarry Village website sums up the current state of the project: "If you'll come, we can build it."

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

LaHood and Jackson look on as Obama signs a fuel-economy memo earlier this year.White HouseThere’s this crazy idea spreading through the Obama administration: not only can you work with your opponents to get things done, you can work with your allies. Like today, for instance, comes news that the EPA, Department of Transportation, and HUD have built upon an earlier DOT/HUD deal to create a Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The landmark collaboration identifies six “livability principles” for the agencies to keep in sight as they work on policy. Which means, said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, “For the first time, the federal government will speak with one voice on housing, environmental, and transportation policy.”

Imagine!

The six principles are:

1. Provide more transportation choices.
Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nations dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.

2. Promote equitable, affordable housing.
Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.

3. Enhance economic competitiveness.
Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets.

4. Support existing communities.
Target federal funding toward existing communities through such strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.

5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment.
Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.

6. Value communities and neighborhoods.
Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods rural, urban or suburban.

You see number one there? It could lead to more surprisingly good transit systems. And number four? That one’s about stopping sprawl in its tracks. Number six will make us healthier people—not only fighting climate change and obesity (also known as globesity), but making our towns and cities better places to be.

It’s so dreamy it’s almost ridiculous. Now if they can actually make headway, that’ll be the real miracle.

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House

When it comes to public transit in the U.S., there are certain predictable all-stars: the Metro in Washington, D.C., is convenient, efficient, and clean. The anthropomorphically nicknamed El and BART in Chicago and San Francisco are legendary. And everyone knows it’s easier to navigate New York City without a car than with one.

But what about the rest of the country? As cities big and small rethink how their residents get around, new systems are taking shape—and as gas prices and paychecks fluctuate, riders are responding in droves. While the current economic crunch is forcing many cities to hike fares and cut back on service, innovations continue, and the tracks are laid for a bright future.

Here are a few surprising places where public transit is gaining speed—steer yourself to the comments section below to leave your own nominations.

By the time I get to Phoenix, you’ll be riding.Jim JeffersPhoenix, Ariz. Pop. 1.5 million

The desert-gobbling Arizona capital opened its first light-rail line in January with much fanfare and a few days of free rides. The 20-mile line is a modest start, but it beat early expectations, proving that even a poster child for sprawl can change its ways. Future corridors would further connect the city, America’s fifth largest. One less-than-sunny idea: The county sheriff’s “Con Rail” plan to transport inmates on city rails. And drivers are still getting used to those big moving objects: vehicles have collided with trains 22 times this year, with motorists, not Metro, taking the blame.

Rapid transit: the final frontier.GRTCRichmond, Va. Pop. 202,002
The Capital of the South is served by a century-old non-profit that runs bike-rack-equipped buses, vans, and a carpooling and ride-matching service. Honored last year by the American Public Transportation Association for its deep commitment to the community, the Greater Richmond Transit Company has taken an active role in educating residents about the joys of carless living, with initiatives including a Lunch Time Express shuttle that makes downtown stops and even a transit TV show. A plan known as Mission 2015 envisions rapid transit and a downtown transfer center—big plans for a system dubbed by CEO John Lewis as “the little engine that could.”

Blizzard? What’s a little blizzard?!Yokota FritzDenver, Colo. Pop. 588,349
Denver’s mile-high sprawl is a lot easier to navigate thanks to one of the leading transit systems in the West. An established network of light rail and buses connects the city’s grid, all centered at the downtown Union Station. The voter-approved FasTracks plan will extend rail and bus lines into the suburbs, reaching into eight counties. And the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority hopes to run high-speed trains (up to 300 mph) along the oft-choked I-25 and I-70 corridors that traverse the state (though Colorado was among the states that got no love in President Obama’s national high-speed rail plan).

A MAX bus bound for glory.busride.comSalt Lake City, Utah. Pop. 180,651
What would you do if you expected millions of visitors to descend on your city for a couple of weeks? In Salt Lake City’s case, the answer was obvious: make it easier for them to get around. In advance of the 2002 Olympics, the city undertook several upgrades, including building a light rail system known as TRAX. The Utah Transportation Authority also runs a comprehensive bus system—which offers winter service to nearby ski areas—and a new commuter rail called FrontRunner. In fact, the city aims to build seventy miles of rail in seven years; officials are also studying the possibility of adding a downtown streetcar and a bicycle transit center. UTA actually decreased fares this year by dropping a fuel surcharge, but now budget cuts are being leveled at paratransit services, and disabled riders are none too pleased.

Exploring the Charlotte light rail.Charlotte ObserverCharlotte, N.C. Pop. 671,588
Charlotte’s light-rail line is certainly more of an up-and-comer than a well-rounded network, with its first 10-mile route opening in 2007. But what a story it’s been: Republican Mayor Pat McCrory put his career on the line for mass transit, asking this auto-loving Southern city (future home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame) to pony up nearly $500 million for the LYNX line. Sure as shootin’, voters responded. The rail line blew through 2020 ridership projects last summer, sparking new development downtown. Ridership has dropped along with the economy and gas prices since then, forcing service cuts. Still, other Southern cities have sent delegates to Charlotte to learn from this regional transit pioneer.

Fight the power ... of smog.Fred Camino via flickrLos Angeles, Calif. Pop. 3.8 million
The city known for smog, sprawl, and freeways has been working for two decades to reinvent itself as a transit-friendly place, spending $11 billion on a comprehensive rail network and creating a Metro Rapid bus line that uses low floors, traffic signal priority, and limited stops to minimize travel times. The work is paying off: despite its bad rap for public transit, L.A.‘s ridership ranks among the top in the nation. “We want to rethink what the city looks like,” Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa (D) has said, “to focus on a new urbanism that makes transit-oriented development and mixed-use development the future of L.A.”

Lolly the Trolley, the ride that started it all.Crawfishpie via flickrCleveland, Ohio. Pop. 438,042
Despite financial hardships earlier this decade, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority saw several years of rail and bus ridership growth, added “free with a smile” downtown trolleys, and was hailed as one of the nation’s best transit systems by the American Public Transportation Association in 2007. In 2008, it added a route traveled by hybrid buses. Bike racks on buses and an airport connector make it theoretically possible to get around car-free. All of which rocks! But during the last year, route cuts and fare hikes have left some customers feeling stranded.

Riders crowd the platform at a MetroLink grand opening in 2006.Steve Patterson/Urban Review STLSt. Louis, Mo. Pop. 354,361
The Gateway City is working to reinvent itself, and its MetroLink light-rail system has played a crucial part. Ridership exceeded predictions, and advocates say the system has helped attract new shops, offices, residences, and hotels in both the Missouri and Illinois sections of the greater metro area. But after a November sales-tax referendum failed to get countywide support, the system had to raise fares and make major cuts in service. Despite the bumpy ride, experts say St. Louis is a great example of the positive impact that transit can have on development patterns.

For iRiders, a glut of tourist attractions await.Orlando, Fla. Pop. 227,907
In a city perennially clogged with tourists, downtown traffic was a downer. So Orlando officials created a free bus rapid transit system known as LYMMO in the late 1990s. Today, they credit the system with inspiring the development of several nearby office and residential buildings and improving walkability. The city is now looking at expanding beyond its current corridors, which total about twelve miles, and replacing its “clean-diesel” buses with hybrids. In a classically American catch, the bus remains free to riders because it is subsidized by income from—wait for it—parking garages.

Grand Rapids Station, the nation’s first LEED-certified public transit facility.Rapid Growth MediaGrand Rapids, Mich. Pop. 193,627
The transit system in Grand Rapids, known fondly as The Rapid, is like an eco-catchprase come to life. Green building? Check, in the form of a LEED-certified central terminal. Green jobs? Yep, expansion is expected to create 1,200 of them in the short-term, with about 400 being permanent. Transit-oriented development? You betcha: That LEED terminal has helped inspire $74 million of development in a three-block radius. Plus the system boasts super-friendly Midwest benefits like a shuttle in the ‘burbs that takes riders to the nearest bus stop. OK, OK—so maybe walkability is the one eco-catchphrase that hasn’t caught on yet.

This list was created by Jonathan Hiskes and Katharine Wroth. Thanks are due to the American Public Transportation Association, Environmental Defense, Planetizen, and Reconnecting America for their suggestions, information, and advice.

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

On paper, the biggest U.S. export is capital goods--aircrafts, semiconductors, medical equipment, and such. But we've been exporting something else in force to developing countries: the suburban lifestyle. From American Village in the Kurdish area of Iraq to "Napa Valley," a development outside Beijing, the McMansion and its watered lawns are making their way around the world.

Meanwhile, back home, suburbia is falling out of favor and small houses are becoming more popular -- at least to gawk at and be inspired by, if not yet to inhabit. So perhaps the next big thing in international architecture will be on the small side: the suburbia of affordable homes.

A new kind of plan.Tata HousingThat's the premise behind Shubh Griha, the architectural version of the Nano, world's cheapest car at $2000 a pop or so. In fact, Shubh Griha -- housed in the Mumbai suburb of Boisar -- comes from the Nano's parent company, the Tata Group, which works on everything from painted steel to natural gas exploration. Yes, they've got a division for pretty much every ingredient of home building and development; think of them as the Viacom of the engineering world.

While they've previously created American-style luxury towers and gated communities--the tallest residential towers in Bangalore, they say, and luxury apartments with Jaccuzzi tubs and mountain views in Gurgaon--Shubh Griha will be a modest affair, with 1,200 units ranging in size from 283 to 465 square feet. The luxury housing sector has taken a hit in India just as it has in the U.S., and India, at least, seems to be responding with creative development. Forget the re-creation of Desperate Housewives' Wisteria Lane; this is the Indian version of Levittown.

What makes these units attractive--clearly not capaciousness--is what surrounds them. They are marketed as green, luxurious, and affordable, all the buzz words of modern real estate, with new schools, playgrounds, and a hospital; a rail station to take suburban dwellers into Mumbai; a water harvesting station; community center and shopping and "hawking" zones; and, perhaps most luxurious in the concrete maze of Mumbai, landscaped courtyards. "Green here is seen in a very literal sense," says June Williamson, author of Retrofitting Suburbia.

The apartments will sell for between 390,000 and 670,000 rupees, something like $8,000-$14,000; somehow, they're managing to build at about 700 rupees--$14!--per square foot. But the ticket price is still a handy sum in a country where some 500 million Indians live without electricity, and the gross national income per capita is somewhere around $2,460, with millions earning only a fraction of that. "India is in desperate need of affordable housing," says Williamson. Part of Tata's market is the huge class of migrant workers who travel to cities, live in cramped rental pads, and send remittances back home. Tata estimates that almost half of the people in the "lower segment" stay in rentals.

So they seem to have figured out what American developers are stubbornly ignoring: that there are many more people on the low end of the economic scale in need of decent housing than there are in the luxury sector, and that low-end buyers are just as susceptible to a green marketing pitch as those at the other end of the spectrum.

"The idea is to understand that opportunity lies at the bottom of the pyramid," is how Tata Housing's managing director, Brotin Banerjee, put it at a press conference earlier this month. "This is the safest bet, as there is a huge shortage at this end of the market."

Of course, this is an easier bet in India, where cheap labor and virgin land abound--$14 per square foot construction costs are impossible here, even if you're building a cob earth hut with your bare hands. Christopher Leinberger, a land strategist at the Brookings Institution, points out that the most expensive rooms to build are the kitchen and bathroom, and with such tiny units you have ten times the number of them on a small piece of land.

So will these Nano houses make their way to American soil? Not likely, says Williamson: "If you could make money doing it here, people would be doing it."

Related Links:

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

CPSC.govKnow what’s awesome? Bike sharing.

Know what’s not awesome? Bike sharing programs that get wrecked by theft and general disregard. As many of them seem to do.

But let’s hear it for optimism: Check out this editorial in the daily paper of the University of Iowa. It lays out plans for a bike-sharing program based on those that have gained speed in cities from Paris to Portland—but says the smaller size of Iowa City would mean less velo-vandalism:

Iowa City’s population hovers around 80,000, a good portion (say, half?) of whom are students, faculty, and staff at the university who need easy and available modes of transportation. If there were around 3,000 free bikes at hubs distributed around mostly downtown — some placed near the farther facilities and dormitories — all provided for the day’s use completely free of charge, what’s the point in stealing one? There’s another just up the street. We are perfectly sized for an operation like this, and beyond its plain convenience, there are other benefits.

One of the most prevalent topics of idle conversation (beyond smokers’ rights, binge drinking, and violence) is the parking situation downtown. It’s awful, we all know this, and with wheels turning toward complicating the already-awkward Dubuque and Washington Street intersection, the traffic patterns will suffer that much more. Bicycle hubs would significantly reduce both traffic and parking … and all the crap we pump into the air every time we circle the block yet again in case we can grab a spot right out front.

First gay marriage, now bike sharing? Oh Iowa, we hardly knew ye.

Related Links:

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Nice column on elevators. Since most elevators are counterbalanced, there is much less energy use involved than most people would expect. It's nice to see the addition of hybrid technology to recapture the braking energy, though. On the other hand, those ESCALATORS ..... ! I have seen a "smart" escalator in Europe that only operates when there is someone around to use it, rather than going and going all day even when there's no one around. I wish they would make it to the States.

BTW, since you are a writer and obviously not "in the dark," shouldn't you be called "Penumbra"?

Peter
Boston, Mass.

A. Dearest Peter,

While I appreciate your wordplay, a penumbra obscures things. Hopefully that is not my role. Though I'm not sure I have a ton of light to shed on the world of escalators. Other than, of course, advising all readers against installing escalators inside their homes.

Better escalate than never?Eric and Deanna Pesik via flickrLet's start with some good news: The "smart" escalators you have seen, which are also known as intermittent escalators and are in wide use in both Europe and Asia, are indeed beginning to make it to the States. New York City got a special permit to start using them last summer, and installed 35 test units in various subway stations. When no one is riding, these escalators move at 15 feet per minute; a few seconds after a rider steps on the bottom stair, the speed increases to 100 feet per minute.

You might like some germane energy-use stats. A 2004 report from Congress tells us that the 30,000 escalators in the U.S. use enough energy to power 375,000 homes (i.e., 2.6 billion KwH). The cost to continuously run these escalators is an estimated $260 million a year. The use of intermittent escalators can save 40 to 50 percent of this energy, as well as reducing wear and tear on escalator parts. As a result of its findings, Congress required that any new escalator "acquired for installation in a Federal building shall be an intermittent escalator." There you are -- your wish will potentially be coming true in federal buildings as well as in the bowels of the Big Apple.

As for the rest of us: It makes sense to use the stairs instead of the escalator, whenever the choice is presented. Firstly, it is good for us to make physical efforts up staircases (unless prohibited by preexisting health conditions). Secondly, logic says it must take slightly more energy for the internal gears of an escalator to move each additional riding person. Thirdly, an unused escalator is a strange, ghostly phenomenon, and leaving it behind us as we pass through a building can only make us feel happy.

Strangely,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

It's all yours.iStockI recently committed a subversive act: I sold my car, and I'm not buying a new one.

I'd thought that I'd feel virtuous and free -- and I do -- but it's turned out to be a bit more complicated than that.

Never too attached to my particular car, I considered it transportation, not a reflection of who I am. My job as an environmental reporter has taught me about the hazards of car ownership, from pollution and materials waste to sprawling, disconnected communities to oil politics -- even obesity. Yet in spite of living for 14 years in San Francisco, a compact city with good public transit, I'd held onto my car.

In fact, I did walk and bus many places. Plus the city has two car-share businesses, one with a lot around the corner from my house. Why did I need a car? I am the target market for these companies, yet the notion of selling my car still generated paranoia of being trapped in a lawless city after an apocalyptic event.

Finally, I realized that my 1997 Saturn SL2 wasn't getting any younger; it would be best to cut ties before it really cost me money. I considered buying another, but a quick look at used prices put me off that idea.

Doing the math -- insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, depreciation -- I was surprised to find that I would likely come out ahead by busing and car sharing. My plan to rent out my parking space was gravy. I joined the car-share company on trial and borrowed a car once to see how it worked. It was easy and kind of fun. Yet despite all this progress, I still resisted putting my car up for sale until my insurance came due again.

Because suddenly, instead of a rattletrap responsibility, my car felt like a security blanket. It could take me wherever I wanted to go, whenever I wanted! My depth of feeling for this vehicle, which I'd never really liked and sometimes felt guilty for using, caught me off guard. In spite of my values, I clearly wasn't immune to the way cars are embedded into our infrastructure and culture.

Finally, the time came. The morning of the sale, I drove to meet the buyer. On this, our last trip together, I looked around the car's interior and considered it with new eyes. Cleaner than usual, it felt cozy, almost homey. I thought to it, "Say goodbye to the neighborhood," simultaneously feeling verklempt and a bit ridiculous.

After the sale, I walked past where I'd last seen the car and instinctively veered to reunite with it. Laughing, I ruminated over my expected savings and the maintenance hassles I'd avoid, feeling a real sense of liberation.

In the weeks that I've been car-free, the story of Why I Sold My Car, And How I Will Travel Now has been a subject of intense interest from family, friends, neighbors, insurance agents. As I am one who enjoys challenging assumptions, these talks have been mostly fun.

Still, living differently has a learning curve. Frustration hit when I encountered a line at a car rental company (used for longer trips) and when I researched a bus route improperly and ended up late. But other lessons have been exciting, like when I realized a bus a block from the house takes me directly to three popular neighborhoods across the city.

I'm saving money, getting exercise by walking, and becoming more familiar with my city on the street level. If that's subversive, I'm for it.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

A Penny Saved Is…

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Sick transit?arvindgrover via flickrThis morning, Vice President Biden went slightly off-message about swine flu—just enough to freak out the White House, and potentially enough to freak out hypochondriacal Americans. Appearing on NBC’s Today Show, he responded to a question from Matt Lauer by saying he would advise his own family not to “go anywhere in confined places now.” He specifically mentioned planes, subways, and even cars as spaces that could be unsafe (he also mentioned classrooms and, uh, containers).

The White House scrambled to tweak the message, saying that all Americans should avoid air travel to Mexico and that only those who are feeling sick should avoid hopping on the subway. And lord knows public transportation doesn’t need a mass exodus, given the troubles it’s already facing.

But is Biden right? Should we avoid the subway and other confined spaces?

Not so fast, says David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, which advocates for public transportation as part of community planning. “Certainly it’s understandable that people are concerned,” he told me. “But if you can’t get on a subway or a plane, then you probably shouldn’t be in an office where they recycle the air, and you probably shouldn’t be at a shopping mall.” Far from “holing up in our bunkers,” Goldberg says, the best approach is to use common sense. “The precautions you should take if you’re using public transportation are the same as if you’re in any public space.”

Dr. John Balbus, chief health scientist at Environmental Defense, echoes that sentiment, and says the current threat is getting blown out of proportion. “Every year the United States experiences an influenza epidemic that kills thousands of people,” he says. “It runs from October through March, and we don’t tell people to stop using the subway then.” Balbus, a member of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, says there are no indications at this stage that swine flu is much more severe than other flu strains we’ve encountered recently.

“Is it risk-free to take the subway? No, absolutely not,” says Balbus. “But it’s not risk-free to take it during any flu outbreak. It just requires common-sense precautions.”

What are those precautions? The basics: Wash your hands, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, and for the love of Pete, stay home if you’re sick. And one more tip for those who brave the subway, says Goldberg: “Don’t wrestle on the floor with a sneezing stranger.”

Here’s Biden in the (uninfected) flesh:

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

This is eye-opening, by which I mean brutally depressing: Transportation for America has a map of transportation systems considering fare hikes, service cuts, or layoffs—and sometimes all three. The map went up in late January; they’re still compiling the news and updating the map as best they can, inviting the public to write in with stories and photos.

Related Links:

For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?

Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining

Washington Post features rail hack job from Robert Samuelson

The Obama administration has big plans to create a "world-class passenger rail system" across the country, the president announced this morning.

"What we need ... is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century," said Obama. "A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility. A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity. A system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs."

Vice President Joe Biden -- a rail enthusiast -- joined Obama in making the announcement. "With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks," Biden said. "We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities. We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion. And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet. This is a giant environmental down payment."

The plan calls for development of a new "efficient, high-speed passenger rail network in 100-600 mile corridors." It would be paid for with the $8 billion for rail that was included in the economic-stimulus package, as well as the $1 billion per year over the next five years that the administration requested in its budget. These funds would be a "down payment," according to the White House. The admin expects more funds to be made available through the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs later this year.

The administration has identified 10 potential corridors for high-speed rail (also see the map below):

The admin also says there are opportunities to expand service in the Northeast Corridor, from Washington to Boston -- currently the only place in the country where high-speed rail is up and running.

"All in all, we're going to make travel in this country leaner and a whole lot cleaner," Biden said. "And as we look to the future, we're going to ensure that we can travel through the system that is sound, secure, and able to handle full-speed-ahead progress for this new economy."

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Photo: Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr

If you noticed this week that your bar tab was a bit higher than usual, it's probably because of that extra shot of tequila you're now regretting the sales tax hike. As of April 1, residents in King, Pierce, and Snohomish county started paying more for their purchases -- one half of one percent more, to be exact -- and that money is going toward Sound Transit light-rail expansion, improved express-bus service, and boosted capacity on commuter trains. Sound familiar? That's probably because you marked an "X" in a spot on your November ballot labeled "Proposition 1." (Or maybe you didn't -- but you're still paying, sucka!) Estimates suggest the average adult will pay about $69 a year in new sales taxes -- but considering your boozehound-y habits, that figure could be on the low end.

Read it: What other ballot measures are due to go into effect this year? Find out here.

Related Links:

Learning how to count to 350

U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill

Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic

Mention "reducing demand" to Average Jane American and she'll assume you mean conservation:  turning off lights, drying clothes on a clothesline, riding a bike to work, wearing a sweater when it's cold inside. And when she thinks conservation, she'll generally think, ugh, there go the dirty hippies telling me to feel guilty and be miserable again.

Both these associations are bogus.

First, when energy wonks talk about demand reduction, they usually mean efficiency. That means consuming the same energy services -- the same "warm showers and cold beers" -- using less energy. For instance, driving a Prius rather than a Taurus offers the same comfort and mobility while using less gas.

The distinction matters. Efficiency can boost economic productivity and reduce emissions simultaneously; McKinsey says it can get us 40 percent to where we need to go, at negative cost (that is, profit). And it doesn't require any individual lifestyle changes, so it's not as politically perilous.

Conservation is a tough row to hoe because people associate it with sacrifice -- shivering in the dark. What's poorly understood, perhaps because greens aren't very good at painting the picture, is that many changes that reduce individual energy consumption increase quality of life. Living in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods can lower gasoline consumption while improving health and sociability. Raising food in a garden is rewarding; shopping at farmers markets is fun; having fresh, local food to eat is, well, tasty. Doing more socializing and less TV watching/web surfing increases life span.

The high-speed, high-consumption American lifestyle is no longer increasing happiness. Slowing down, spending time rather than money, can be enormously gratifying. The greener life is a better life. (For more on this, see Bill McKibben.)

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Environmentalists and economists alike are obsessed with putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and with good reason: climate pollution is a classic "externality," a cost paid not by polluters but by society at large. Pricing carbon internalizes that cost. The policy is "market-based" because it is agnostic toward particular practices, products, or technologies; the market's "invisible hand" is set loose to find the cheapest emission reductions without undue micromanaging by the dread "government bureaucrats."

Which is great, as far as it goes. But raising the price of carbon will lead to the cheapest, fastest emission reductions only if all else is equal, and in the real world, all else is not equal. Unpriced externalities are but one of many, many market failures around energy. Trying to correct them all with a carbon price is like trying to build a house using only a hammer. Not everything is a nail! Ultimately the effort will require lots and lots of what wonky greens have taken to calling, somewhat misleadingly, "complementary policies." (Kind of like how the other members of a soccer team are "complementary" to the goalie.)

It's difficult to summarize All the Other Stuff, but such policies include efficiency standards, low carbon fuel standards, reform of electricity grid interconnect rules, minimum renewable energy or efficiency mandates, infrastructure investments (think grid and public transit), and ... on and on.

These policies are every bit as important -- more important, in aggregate -- as pricing carbon. They can help reduce the overall cost of a price-based policy. They can help address emissions sources that are not covered by a carbon pricing scheme (think agriculture). They can correct or compensate for other market failures. (For more on this, see a Powerpoint presentation from Holmes Hummel: "The Essential Role of Complementary Policies in Climate Policy Design.")

In other words, the work of tackling climate change need not wait for a price on carbon, and it will not end when a price is in place. That is but one step in a long road.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

All the youths are buzzing about the fact that C-SPAN now allows their video to be embedded. Wicked roasty! (That's what the youths say these days.)

To get a sense of the hottness this is going to bring to the interweb streetz, check out this video of a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on "Sustainable Transportation." If you can handle the heat, that is!

Totally tubular!

Related Links:

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Reflecting on the lameness of my profession