Glenn Hubbers

I’ve just arrived home after a two week holiday in New Brunswick (what a lovely province!) and Nova Scotia, sorted through the mail pile and found the latest Conservative bulk mailing.  You know the ones, they come on a single 8.5 x 11 black and white sheet with some policy initiative or other outlined and a “Who is on the right track” question (Ignatieff, Harper, Layton or May) with an arrow pointing to Harper’s name of course.  We seem to get one every week or so.

Of course, all of this is merely a means to compile the Conservatives electoral database and that’s fine as that’s the way the game is played, though I would strongly object if they were found financing this through MP’s budgets rather than party funds. Hmmm…

This latest mailing, though, states, “The Conservative government.  Investing in airports. Investing in you.” and goes on to talk about the investments in airport security that the feds are making.

Well no one would object to being safer, of course, but I have to ask how often have you not felt safe on a flight from a Canadian airport?  We had that Air India event, but that was quite a few years ago.  And 911 not so long ago.  Of course joining with the US and going round the world pissing people off will make enemies, so I guess it’s logical that we may be at some increased threat level from what used to be.

Frankly I feel far safer using air travel that driving in a car, particularly here in the GTA where we seem to license almost anyone who can see over the wheel and many who cannot, with no consideration of testing people on manual transmissions, no consideration of the differences in winter driving, no consideration of mandated snow tires, etc.

And half of this expenditure seems to be based on making air travel more efficient to “improve the passenger and freight air service experience.”

To what end? To decrease the hassle factor and thus increase people’s interest in traveling by air?

Where is the recognition from the Conservatives that air travel will seriously decline as a means of personal transport in years to come? Serious Climate Change policy would make this necessary, so I can understand why the Cons don’t mention this as many of them still don’t believe in it, and they still view such policies as a choice.  Fair enough, even if I disagree.  But Peak Oil will make the diminishing of air travel inevitable in the not too distant future, except for the super rich (and likely the politicians spending our money) so there is really no choice involved.

If you don’t believe me, reference what Jeff Rubin has to say about air travel.  He lays out the case fairly well.

It’s astounding that the Conservative Party still manages to snow people into believing they are strong stewards of the economy, when they get so much of it wrong.  They completely failed to predict the current recession even though many of us were saying as loudly as possible that it was coming.  And they seem to be missing all the signs of economic upheaval that Peak Oil will bring.

Banking on the future of air travel is a flight of fancy.

Glenn Hubbers Book Reviews, Economics, Energy, Environmental, Peak Oil, Transportation

President Barack Obama laid out a sweeping vision for high-speed rail in the United States this past week.  Obama has already secured $8 billion in funding in the stimulus bill and plans to pursue another $5 billion over the next 5 years.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress provided an excellent summary of the announcement.

In the meantime, Canada’s [non existent] national transportation strategy looks like this:

Yeah, I know, they’ve been really busy planning for our future, haven’t they?

Once the global recession ends, oil prices will resume their inevitable march to record levels which will be heralded with great fanfare in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, but will serve to continue to hamper the economies of all other regions.  Airlines will switch from fighting off bankruptcy due to the recession to fighting off bankruptcy due to rising fuel costs.

In the age of Peak Oil and Climate Change, High Speed Rail must be a national priority in Canada as a means of minimizing short haul flights and large numbers of cars.  We need to outline this vision now and put the systems in place before it’s too late.  Government economic stimulus would be well placed to be working toward that vision.

I fear, however, that what we will see first is >$200 per barrel oil, airlines asking for bailouts, a public clamouring for alternate transportation plans, and a government who says, “Well, you can’t blame us because no one saw this coming.”

Glenn Hubbers Climate Change, Economics, Peak Oil, Transportation

I tend to have a lot of complaints about public transit, being a daily user of the system. It’s trying, at best, to be reliant on public transit in this country/province and I am a dedicated user. Imagine how it appears to those who are not so altruistic? Locally, it’s designed with the assumption that all regional transit is to/from downtown Toronto, and it’s almost as if it would shock the planners to think that people might need to travel from one part of the region to another without the need to go downtown.

Case in point, I once considered a job offer at the Eglinton & Yonge area, almost due south of where I live on a straight line to downtown. It was an excellent opportunity, but I considered my transit day and the fact that I would need to take the GO train from Aurora to Union Station and then the Subway back north to Eglinton. Every day, Twice a day. No thanks.

But I digress since regional transit is not the subject of today’s post.

It would seem to me that to encourage people to leave their cars and rely on public transit, and I mean marginal people on the cusp of the decision, not the die-hard’s like me, that a local transit system designed to link to the regional transit is a critical component. George Monbiot wrote an entire section about this in his book on Climate Change solutions, “Heat, How to Keep the Planet from Burning”

Today, just as so many other days, I waited 17 minutes for a bus to appear. Add to that the three minutes during which I could have seen a bus go by and there was a 20 minute window in which no bus appeared. Now admittedly, for a route that includes two buses going to the same general location, each on a different 1/2 hour schedule you might be thinking that this certainly is a mathematical possibility. OK, that’s true, but consider the following:

• both of those buses take people in the morning to the Aurora GO station.
• they operate on different published schedules.
• one of those routes is called the “222 – Newmarket-Aurora GO Shuttle”.
• I make this trek every day and waited at my bus stop at the same time as I normally do, and generally can catch the bus by doing so.

Perhaps I’m being picky, but here are my rather humble requirements for designing this system:

• A bus route titled “GO Shuttle” ought to be designed to shuttle people to the GO station.
• It should do so within a reasonable window of time ahead of the train, say a minimum of 2 minutes ahead.
• It should have a schedule variance of NO MORE than 1/3 of the frequency.

For clarity, that means (in this case) a predictable 10 minute window each half hour where the bus would appear at stops along the route. Here it is visually…

The upshot of this is that a bus on a 1/2 hour schedule, specifically designed to take people to the train also on a 1/2 hour schedule, passed by my stop more than 25 minutes before the train and a more than 18 minutes before it actually needed to in order to meet the train. Brilliant.

The capital spend on transit systems is important, and governments of various levels are applying more, much needed funds for the expansion of transit projects. (Unfortunately they are doing this merely as an economic stimulus and don’t really care about transit for moving people or transit as a Climate Change response but whatever works to achieve those goals is good enough.)

But the operation of those systems is of equal, if not greater importance in that getting people out of their cars and onto transit requires:

• The system needs to go from/to where we need to travel.
• It needs to do so in a time frame reasonably competitively with our ability to drive.
• Most importantly, it needs to be predictable and consistent.

Why is this so difficult?

Other countries have good transit systems. Perhaps not in North America, but contrary to popular opinion we are NOT the entire world. And don’t give me the usual BS about us being a northern country or too spread out because northern European countries with just as much snow do a far better job and 97% of us live on 3% of the land area so for most Canadians our population density should be sufficient to support a decent system.

If I lived rurally I might have no legitimate case, but I live in a rather compacted town with an existing transit system and need to travel from my home to an existing regional commuter train.

No, the problem is a combination of political will and culture.

Culturally, we have been born and raised with the expectation that having and driving a car is our deity-given right and that transit systems are equivalent to social spending for people who can’t afford better.

And politically, well, they are just responding to the cultural demand (once you account for the petty infighting BS).

Some of this might change as the effects of Climate Change and Peak Oil become more apparent and richer folks start demanding a system that works, but we will likely first see more years of saving failing car companies, and don’t you dare spend a dime on public transit till you fix the potholes type rhetoric.

In the meantime, I’ll keep riding the crappy YRT service, tilting at windmills, and pointing out government stupidity wherever I find it, which should provide for years of entertaining blogs.

Glenn Hubbers Transportation Transit, YRT

Elizabeth May was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of supporters at the Hockey Hall of Fame as her Green Train arrived in Toronto on Wednesday September 24.

The trip, plus the fact tha the via train was hours late, was made in part ot highlight one of the central theme’s of the Green Party’s campaign which is the dire need to invest in rail infrastructure in Canada.

Doing so would address both climate change / greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, as well as provide a system for travel that is less dependant on depleting oil resources that our current method of moving ourselves and our products, cars and truck.

Here’s the speech in it’s entirety.  Sorry, had to break into two parts due to YouTube limitations.

Glenn Hubbers Canada Votes!, Climate Change, Elizabeth May, Green Policy, Proportional Representation, Strategic Voting, Transportation

Glenn Hubbers Canada Votes!, Climate Change, Green Policy, Transportation

A friend of mine passed on this little email exchange that he had recently with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and gave me permission to blog it.

I’m not sure what I would have expected, but certainly I didn’t expect the rudeness of this response.

Clearly the Ontario Director of the CTF does not believe the science of Climate Change, and certainly does not represent my views on tax policy either.

From: Robert ——–
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008
To: on.director@taxpayer.com
Cc: wilfeb1@parl.gc.ca; jflaherty@fin.gc.ca
Subject: CTF Gas Tax Petition

Mr. Kevin Gaudet
Ontario Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Dear Mr. Gaudet,

I was disappointed recently to see that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is promoting cuts to gas and diesel taxes. As a Canadian taxpayer I want to make it very clear that your organization absolutely does not represent my views on this issue. Lowering gas taxes “across the board” will hurt drivers and the environment by encouraging greater consumption and ultimately driving gas prices higher in the long term. In addition, the roadway expansion that your organization suggests that gas taxes should be financing doesn’t address traffic congestion, but simply encourages more people to drive cars. Lower gas taxes are the last thing we need right now. If Canadians do indeed need relief from the rising costs of energy, that relief should be directed to those who truly need it, such as lower-income families, through other means such as federal income taxes. High income-earning Canadians who drive gas-guzzling SUV’s choose to do so, and should be taxed for that choice.

I do share your organization’s concern with how the government spends the money it collects through gas taxes, however I believe that these funds should be directed to improving the efficiency of our transportation system through improved transit, promoting carpooling, supporting cycling and walking, and financing transportation demand management initiatives. Your suggestion that our government’s priority should be “rebuilding Canada’s aging roads” would encourage more people to drive single-occupant vehicles. Among other negative effects, this will drive up the price of gas (based on the basic economic law of supply and demand).

In summary, the suggestion that the Canadian federal government should lower gas taxes and/or direct the revenues from those taxes to constructing/expanding roads and highways is an extremely short-sighted proposal. I strongly urge the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to abandon this poorly-conceived and counter-productive campaign immediately. I would be happy to further discuss this issue, or refer you to reference materials on the subject (take five minutes to review “Appropriate Response to Rising Fuel Prices: Citizens Should Demand, ‘Raise My Prices Now!’”, available online at www.vtpi.org/fuelprice.pdf). We can do much better than the “knee-jerk” reaction that your organization is currently promoting.

Sincerely,
Robert ——–
Richmond Hill, Ontario

——————————————————————————————

From: Kevin Gaudet [mailto:kgaudet@taxpayer.com]
Sent: May 17, 2008
To: ‘Robert ——–’
Subject: RE: CTF Gas Tax Petition

Thank you for your note. Of course, the CTF disagrees. The Gas Tax Honesty Campaign has been in place for ten years and is anything but a ‘knee-jerk’ response, unlike the poorly-researched, ill-guided knee-jerk carbon tax movement of today in the name of fighting ‘global-warming’, I mean ‘climate change’, I mean cleaning the earth, I mean any new way to raise tax revenues.

We are a national not-for-profit organization representing the views of our 68,000 supporters across Canada – 20% of whom are in Ontario.

I appreciate the research. Our proposal is that gas taxes be lowered and dedicated to the infrastructure deficit in roads, bridges, and highways.

Regards,

Kevin Gaudet
Ontario Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
416-203-0030 office
416-725-0501 mobile

Glenn Hubbers Climate Change, Energy, Green Policy, Peak Oil, Transportation

Most of the people I know who watch End of Suburbia or Crude Impact for the first time, without the benefit of prior exposure to the concept of Peak Oil let alone the implications, come away from those movies feeling rather shell shocked. There’s just no way to have a positive outlook after being faced with those sober truth’s. It takes a bit for the “we’re screwed” feelings to settle down for people to realize that life is going to go on tomorrow pretty much as it did today.

But hopefully they also come away with the realization that our current path is not sustainable, and that we have a great deal of planning to do to prepare society for the transition that is inevitable, whether we like it or not. Yes, we should have started long ago, but hopefully they have a new resolve to begin changing their lifestyles to prepare for the future.

No amount of denial and wrangling to maintain an inherently unsustainable economy is going to make the truth go away. So politicians who tell you that they have the exclusive answers to your woes, and that a vote for them will ensure life will stay pretty much as it has been, are being either dishonest if they know the truth or incompetent if they don’t.

Anyone who reads this blog or hears me speak regularly knows that I don’t buy into the never-ending-growth-economy concept that we have all been force-fed our entire lives. You’ll also know that I don’t buy into the hydrogen economy, ethanol, biodiesel (at least not on the massive scale that their proponents envision) or any of the other technological fixes that are designed with the goal of maintaining our current unsustainable personal mobility. I believe we should be putting massive public support into public transit systems with the goal of moving millions of people out of cars. Not a few hundred thousand. Millions. Every day. Better yet, I advocate walkable cities and different living arrangements where most people can walk to work from where they live.

In yesterday’s podcast of The National on Global came this story, about the escalation in the price of food. This is just one of the results of rising energy prices, and we can expect more in the years to come.

So could someone please tell me again how things like ethanol make sense?  Or how urban sprawl, paving over productive farmland in communities that do not offer anything within walking distance, is a good model for living arrangements?

And for those that feel we must increase productivity of farmland as stated in the clip, what will we do as natural gas, a main ingredient in commercial fertilizer, becomes too expensive or so rare that we have to choose between heating our homes or fertilizing our crops? Or the diesel used for harvesting?

This is just one more signal that we can’t continue on our path of never ending growth in the economy, in our population, energy use, resource use, food production, etc. It is unsustainable and needs to stop. We need to find another way. I don’t pretend to have all the answers on how to do this, but at least the Green Party is acknowledging, rather than still denying, the problem.

Glenn Hubbers Economics, Energy, Peak Oil, Transportation, Urban Sprawl

Glenn Hubbers Climate Change, Energy, Transportation

Mollie and I attended an event last night in downtown Toronto.  She had parked at Finch Station and taken the subway to meet me, as I was already downtown after taking the morning GO Train.  Going home at 9:00 pm, we were hit by the snow storm that engulfed much of the area, eventually slowing to a crawl with cars doing 50 km/h in single file on the 404 as we approached the Aurora exit.  We were very thankful that we had changed to our snow tires a couple weeks earlier, before the first snowfall.

Which brings me to my point.  Why are so many people driving around in winter weather without snow tires?  This is Canada people!  It snows!  Avoid driving in the snow if you can, but for Pete’s sake, get some proper boots on that car!  You are endangering yourself, your passengers, and the rest of us as well.

It’s not that I’m saying that snow tires make everything completely safe.  They don’t.  There is no substitute for proper care when driving and slowing down to accomodate conditions.  Driving is an inherenly unsafe activity and snow tires make it only marginally safer.

So we were speculating about why people don’t have proper winter tires.  Here’s the list we came up with:

“I don’t have snow tires because of the added expense.”  I don’t buy this argument.  First, there is no added expense over the life of the vehicle as you need tires for every kilometre you travel, so having winter tires just offset’s km’s that you would otherwise be putting on your summer tires.  Second, for a car that sells new for a price of $18,000 to _____ (insert sky high price here), you’re going to quibble over $700 and risk your life?

“Even if it does make long term sense, I just don’t have the cash to lay out.”  Maybe this argument has some merit for all of the low income people out there, those that can afford to drive in the first place, who are running around in the cheapest car they can put on the road, but I don’t buy it when I see any car above $20,000 without proper tires.  Did you take the cost of insurance, fuel and maintenance into account when deciding what car to buy?  Then why not the cost of snow tires?

“I have all-season tires, so I’m OK for winter driving.”  In the words of Colonel Sherman Potter, “Horse Hockey!”  Spoken like a person who has never driven with snow tires and experienced the difference.  All-Season tires are a misnomer.  They do not replace proper snow tires.  As far as I’m concerned, we shouldn’t allow this naming for tires that do not, in fact, work well in snow and only serve to confuse the issue.

“I have four wheel drive, so I’m OK in the snow.”  While 4wd may help you go in the snow, and may even help you steer a bit better, it does pretty much zero for your ability to stop.  Surely the best combo is 4wd and snow tires, but I’d be the last one to advocate widespread use of inefficient 4wd when front wheel drive, snow tires, and proper driving care will do the job.

The lack of snow tires raises other questions as well.  Just some things to make you wonder.

1. Why don’t insurance companies insist on snow tires and charge higher premiums if you don’t have them?
2. Would it make sense for insurance companies to deny coverage if you are involved in a winter accident and you didn’t have snow tires?  (This could equally apply to those people who run around in the summer with bald tires.)
3. Would it make sense for charges to be laid or fines to be higher for the situations above?
4. Why don’t car dealerships just sell cars with 8 tires, not as an option, but just part of the base package?
5. Why don’t car companies who lease cars insist on snow tires for those vehicles?
6. Why do we mandate the use of seatbelts for safety and not snow tires?

I’m trying to see the downside in these ideas.  Car companies would flow the cost through.  Insurance companies would have fewer claims.  Dealerships would have a booming business changing tires twice per year for people who can’t or won’t do their own.  There could even be companies that change the tires and store your other set for you if you have no space.  I’ve already stated why it’s not really a higher cost for people.  And people would be safer.  Sure, tow truck drivers might lose a bit of business, but I can’t see them being a huge lobby group and there’s lots of people who drive stupid-aggressive in the winter to keep them busy.

Most importantly, the police would have fewer families to inform of the tragic, preventable death of a loved one.

What do you think?  Should we somehow be mandating the use of snow tires?  Let me know.

Glenn Hubbers Transportation

The Green Party has long tried to draw attention to the link between the environment and health. In the last election campaign here in Newmarket-Aurora, we even used this as our slogan by accepting the mantle of “single issue party.” Yes, we said, our single issue was health.

The link should come as no surprise. After all, we are what we eat, drink and breathe.

But we also contend that ill health results from a number of other factors which are high on the Green Party policy agenda. Poverty, urban sprawl, lack of exercise, a car dependent society, lack of public transit, improper labelling laws are all contributing factors.

Sometimes it’s hard to explain why spending on public transit, or a new urban planning policy to encourage walkable neighbourhoods with all the services one needs daily, would be actually be an investment in preventative health care.  But the links are all there if you look.

I think that this report from Global News, about a new study listing certain low income neighbourhoods in Toronto which have high rates of diabetes, makes the point quite clearly.

Glenn Hubbers Green Policy, Health, Transportation, Urban Sprawl