It has been pointed out to us, and even by some from our own group, that “Car-Free Mile-End sans voitures” is a problematic name; that it is potentially misleading and is certainly a challenging, provocative banner by which to identify ourselves as a group. At face value it asks you to imagine a Mile End (a fairly large urban area) void of all cars. To some it may be a dream-like ideal. To others it comes across as a sheer incomprehensible impossibility. I would suggest that as an idea, it is both of these things at the same time….
We like our name because for those who see it as an ideal to strive for, it provides a goal. For those who assume the opposing point of view it poses a challenging vision that forces one to think outside the routine of city life, and hopefully to question it.
We are realistic. And we have learned things since we started. We know that it can be more than just impractical to close streets to cars; that there are other ways to win back public space from the prevalence of automobiles. There are “car-lite” options that can go a long way in improving our neighbourhood, which are well worth considering. In short, our objectives as a community oriented group lands squarely in the realm of realistic and reasonable.
So please don’t let our name scare you. We will not be disrupting traffic or making attempts at ramming changes through political or administrative processes. After all, we have no power unless we have the consensus of the community, at which point most everyone will be happy with any changes we come up with. We have no power except that which flows from organisation, which we hope is our future.
But if we haven’t got power at the moment we do have an incredibly persuasive argument: car-free culture is the antidote to so very much of what ails us as a community, as a nation, and as a civilisation.
Like most every urban community, the Mile-End, the Plateau or even the whole of Montreal is burdened by the over-dependence, and ever increasing presence of automobiles. It is well documented, and well understood by citizens and experts, not to mention all three municipal parties here: all three ran on a campaign to reduce traffic on the island. The list of problems includes the danger/ risk of accidents, illness caused by pollution, and the disintegration and displacement of community.
As a nation, our dependence on cars is arguably related to our climate and Canada’s vastness. But this overlooks the fact that most daily car use is a function of the suburban commute, not survival of long-distance travel across the expansive North. The suburbs were not inevitable outgrowths, but consciously made constructs: a function of cheap energy and an expansionist mentality that sold a particular industrial mode of production. By design, had we consciously chosen to do so, we could rather have limited sprawl (conserving farmland in the process), and built our urban centres around public transit and urban markets. Okay, so hindsight may be 20/20, but suburban sprawl can still be remedied (in part) by reinvigorating urban sectors (such as the Mile-End) according to sustainable models, which in turn, as you may have guessed, would inevitably involve a reduction in car dependence.
As far as our civilisation as a whole is concerned (i.e. the global economy) we are coming to terms with what was dubbed as the Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome in 1972. Leading the way, the Western World’s Post-War economy has long been celebrated as a great success. But by all accounts this automobile-based economy and the requisite living arrangements (of suburbia and big-box stores etc.) is proving itself a failed experiment of unintended consequences. And now it seems continued economic growth itself is faltering. Perhaps calling all of this a failure is unfair: Some great achievements have been enjoyed along the way, but it seems to me the whole shebang is running its own natural and inevitable course of rise and fall, of which climate change due to anthropogenic GHGs is one major symptom. Energy and other natural resource depletion is another. In ecological terms civilisation is following the familiar, classic trajectory known as overshoot.
Clinging to car-dependence as a way of life or as an economic model for growth is like climbing the smokestack on the Titanic. But I hesitate to extend the metaphor to include the proverbial “lifeboat community” as a way of casting the Mile End. None of the seemingly catastrophic changes that seem to loom is going to happen overnight. Yes we should try to reshape our neighbourhood according to sustainable, sensible principles. And yes, this should involve a dramatic reduction in car use by us all. But this will never happen in a vacuum to the exclusion of our neighbours. Perhaps as a motivating factor we can think of a Mile-End striving to be car-free, or going “car-lite”, as a matter of setting an example for those neighbours who must ultimately be a part of our future.
Limits to Growth:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Meadows.htm
Overshoot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28ecology%29
http://members.shaw.ca/needsandlimits/index.html
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Peak – Take Two
And here is the second post on the subject of Peak Oil(two in one day!). Today's earlier post can be viewed below, and consists of mostly reference material supporting the views and facts expressed here.
If you’ve checked in on this blog before, there’s a good chance you came across the term “Peak Oil” or at least the notion of resource depletion, which I refer to regularly as a defining aspect of a global “civilization” of six billion people – and one of the broad-based reasons for thinking about car-free living arrangements. I have been reading blogs and books on the subject since I saw Richard Heinberg give a talk at McGill in 2003. I have since been processing the vast array of information and wide range of opinions and interpretations of the facts as they unfold. As a hobby, it has been quite an eye-opening experience which I recommend highly.
Although Peak Oil is often easily misconstrued and suffers obfuscation by deniers in much the same way that Climate Change does, the science behind it is far simpler and easy to understand, with uncontroversial historic records that support the theory in ways that are self-evident. That the consequences and implications of Peak Oil are enormous is also roundly accepted. The deniers, instead, tend to suggest that it simply is not imminent enough, sometimes deferring to the magic of free-market solutions to mitigate eventual energy shortfalls. But the consensus within the growing Peak Oil community (albeit still a marginal one), seems to be that the current economic contraction/ recession and energy constraints are not unrelated.
It is common nowadays to hear that petroleum is part of virtually every aspect of our lives. Oil is so significant that without it, we would have nothing at all similar to a modern industrial society – never mind a post-modern so-called post-industrial one. Even other energy systems such as coal and hydro depend on vast fleets of diesel-powered service vehicles, and other resources extracted by similar fleets…. Plastics (petrochemicals) is also huge. The high-tech industry, food processing and the garment industry are also only possible with an abundant supply of cheap energy. Agriculture too, including distribution of food, relies on 10 calories of fossil fuels for every single calorie of food energy produced.
It wasn’t always the case: petroleum is scarcely over a century old. But now, even George Bush the lesser was one to admit to America’s addiction to oil. So most of us have at least a vague idea of how oil plays a significant role in our lives. But we are generally not encouraged to think about energy supply beyond the price at the pump, so most of us may not have a particularly sophisticated understanding of how we manage to have all things oil provides at our fingertips at all times. That understanding would, by necessity involve knowing about Peak Oil.
So does Peak Oil mean that all the great amenities of the Western World are at stake? Fortunately the answer is no, not exactly. But, if the news is not as dire as that, rest assured, Peak Oil promises to wreak plenty of havoc with our industrial systems and economic expectations. Why? Because Peak Oil is all about supply and demand; contraction versus expansion; and about the running up against a fundamental limit to economic growth.
If petroleum is visibly a part of everyday life, it is also invisibly a part of our economic model that propels industrial activity. Not only is stuff derived and delivered by petroleum all around us, but we live submerged in a culture of ever more of that stuff. Fractional reserve lending, charging interest on loans, investing in forays into resource extraction and development all require ever expanding work, and the creation of wealth, which is inextricably dependent upon ever-increasing energy input, which we have enjoyed since the first drop of oil was discovered.
What happens when the overall energy supply available to the global economy (and especially to the West) can no longer expand? This, in a nutshell, is the essence of Peak Oil.
Science and history (Hubbert)
The theory of Peak Oil was formulated by an oil geologist named M. King Hubbert in the forties and fifties. Hubbert had demonstrated how an oil well by nature (pressure) gushes forth increasing amounts to a point, after which the rate of extraction can only ever diminish. He also made the connection between the peak of discovery in a given region and the ensuing peak in production. He told the industry that American production would peak around 1970, to great protest and indignant rejection by his peers. But history proved him bang on. And the U.S. has been a net oil importer ever since. Determining the oil supply in the rest of the world has been the Peak Oil community’s task ever since, especially since the publication of The End Of Cheap Oil, by Colin Campbell and Jean Laherriere (1998) which argued that global peak in oil production is about to occur sooner than later.
Scope of the Addiction
It is almost unfathomable how much oil was originally out there for us to exploit. Now we are down to about half of that original amount – much of which is extremely expensive to extract, or flows at a trickle. Equally mind-boggling is our daily rate of consumption of the stuff [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption]: we basically consume it as quickly as we can get it out of the ground. What’ more, the quality of energy afforded by oil is pretty much unrivaled. The question in the age of diminishing oil supply is how quickly will it drop, and can we fill the gap quickly enough, with as convenient a source of energy? Unfortunately, the more you research this question, the more apparent it is that the answer is no.
This is where it gets very interesting, and although I could go on at length here, I will stop short, since there is a huge amount of material on the subject, much of which I will cite below. I should point out that according to some (it is hard to determine for certain until years after the fact) conventional crude oil production peaked during 2005-06. if so, each year hence we must make do with less energy and/or make up the shortfall with other sources: whether that be a cocktail of alternative energy, expensive, “dirty” sources of oil such as the Athabasca Tar Sands, or oil reserves conquered by some at the expense of others through war is a matter of policy, which hints at the importance of the issue.
It is my opinion that for reasons of energy supply alone, we are in for a long and drawn out economic contraction, of which we have sampled merely the beginning. Because we have never really been faced with this challenge before, our ability to respond to it with tested remedies such as bailouts may prove to be futile. Paradigm shift takes on new meaning when it is more or less forced by something as simple as energy supply.
If you’ve checked in on this blog before, there’s a good chance you came across the term “Peak Oil” or at least the notion of resource depletion, which I refer to regularly as a defining aspect of a global “civilization” of six billion people – and one of the broad-based reasons for thinking about car-free living arrangements. I have been reading blogs and books on the subject since I saw Richard Heinberg give a talk at McGill in 2003. I have since been processing the vast array of information and wide range of opinions and interpretations of the facts as they unfold. As a hobby, it has been quite an eye-opening experience which I recommend highly.
Although Peak Oil is often easily misconstrued and suffers obfuscation by deniers in much the same way that Climate Change does, the science behind it is far simpler and easy to understand, with uncontroversial historic records that support the theory in ways that are self-evident. That the consequences and implications of Peak Oil are enormous is also roundly accepted. The deniers, instead, tend to suggest that it simply is not imminent enough, sometimes deferring to the magic of free-market solutions to mitigate eventual energy shortfalls. But the consensus within the growing Peak Oil community (albeit still a marginal one), seems to be that the current economic contraction/ recession and energy constraints are not unrelated.
It is common nowadays to hear that petroleum is part of virtually every aspect of our lives. Oil is so significant that without it, we would have nothing at all similar to a modern industrial society – never mind a post-modern so-called post-industrial one. Even other energy systems such as coal and hydro depend on vast fleets of diesel-powered service vehicles, and other resources extracted by similar fleets…. Plastics (petrochemicals) is also huge. The high-tech industry, food processing and the garment industry are also only possible with an abundant supply of cheap energy. Agriculture too, including distribution of food, relies on 10 calories of fossil fuels for every single calorie of food energy produced.
It wasn’t always the case: petroleum is scarcely over a century old. But now, even George Bush the lesser was one to admit to America’s addiction to oil. So most of us have at least a vague idea of how oil plays a significant role in our lives. But we are generally not encouraged to think about energy supply beyond the price at the pump, so most of us may not have a particularly sophisticated understanding of how we manage to have all things oil provides at our fingertips at all times. That understanding would, by necessity involve knowing about Peak Oil.
So does Peak Oil mean that all the great amenities of the Western World are at stake? Fortunately the answer is no, not exactly. But, if the news is not as dire as that, rest assured, Peak Oil promises to wreak plenty of havoc with our industrial systems and economic expectations. Why? Because Peak Oil is all about supply and demand; contraction versus expansion; and about the running up against a fundamental limit to economic growth.
If petroleum is visibly a part of everyday life, it is also invisibly a part of our economic model that propels industrial activity. Not only is stuff derived and delivered by petroleum all around us, but we live submerged in a culture of ever more of that stuff. Fractional reserve lending, charging interest on loans, investing in forays into resource extraction and development all require ever expanding work, and the creation of wealth, which is inextricably dependent upon ever-increasing energy input, which we have enjoyed since the first drop of oil was discovered.
What happens when the overall energy supply available to the global economy (and especially to the West) can no longer expand? This, in a nutshell, is the essence of Peak Oil.
Science and history (Hubbert)
The theory of Peak Oil was formulated by an oil geologist named M. King Hubbert in the forties and fifties. Hubbert had demonstrated how an oil well by nature (pressure) gushes forth increasing amounts to a point, after which the rate of extraction can only ever diminish. He also made the connection between the peak of discovery in a given region and the ensuing peak in production. He told the industry that American production would peak around 1970, to great protest and indignant rejection by his peers. But history proved him bang on. And the U.S. has been a net oil importer ever since. Determining the oil supply in the rest of the world has been the Peak Oil community’s task ever since, especially since the publication of The End Of Cheap Oil, by Colin Campbell and Jean Laherriere (1998) which argued that global peak in oil production is about to occur sooner than later.
Scope of the Addiction
It is almost unfathomable how much oil was originally out there for us to exploit. Now we are down to about half of that original amount – much of which is extremely expensive to extract, or flows at a trickle. Equally mind-boggling is our daily rate of consumption of the stuff [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption]: we basically consume it as quickly as we can get it out of the ground. What’ more, the quality of energy afforded by oil is pretty much unrivaled. The question in the age of diminishing oil supply is how quickly will it drop, and can we fill the gap quickly enough, with as convenient a source of energy? Unfortunately, the more you research this question, the more apparent it is that the answer is no.
This is where it gets very interesting, and although I could go on at length here, I will stop short, since there is a huge amount of material on the subject, much of which I will cite below. I should point out that according to some (it is hard to determine for certain until years after the fact) conventional crude oil production peaked during 2005-06. if so, each year hence we must make do with less energy and/or make up the shortfall with other sources: whether that be a cocktail of alternative energy, expensive, “dirty” sources of oil such as the Athabasca Tar Sands, or oil reserves conquered by some at the expense of others through war is a matter of policy, which hints at the importance of the issue.
It is my opinion that for reasons of energy supply alone, we are in for a long and drawn out economic contraction, of which we have sampled merely the beginning. Because we have never really been faced with this challenge before, our ability to respond to it with tested remedies such as bailouts may prove to be futile. Paradigm shift takes on new meaning when it is more or less forced by something as simple as energy supply.
Peak – Take One
Here is the first of two posts on the subject of Peak Oil. The following is mostly comprised of references to other sources of information, opinions, and quotes. I have included links throughout, for your browsing pleasure. But first I wanted to cite our “national leader” Prime Minister Stephen Harper, asking you to consider his standard-issue take on economics:
“Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with,”
… in an address to South Korea’s National Assembly.
[From:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aypC61AZIPec ]
If wealth comes from growth, where does he hope growth will come from? In ecosystems, growth (life) stems from energy inputs (the sun, plants for herbivores, meat for carnivores, etc.). In our ecosystem known as the economy, we derive the vast majority of our energy, not from food, but from compressed organic matter known as fossil fuels. Our revered economic growth stems from ever-increasing inputs of this energy source. So I would suggest that Mr. Harper take a second look at his simple logic in light of the Peak Oil reality that is dawning on us. It poses a truly confounding conundrum to be sure. And it’s easy to see why Peak Oil is a political wet blanket. But just because our leaders continue to ignore it, doesn’t mean the reality of it will evaporate.
But enough of my opinions! Below are some others’. Happy reading!
[And don’t worry. It’s really not that depressing being informed; in fact, it’s empowering to find optimism based on reality, rather than some vague presumptions spoon-fed to us by people who should know better.]
Kunstler
For some of the most colourful – if sometimes inflammatory – commentary on the global energy predicament, there is James Howard Kunstler’s “Clusterfucknation” blog. A recent entry included this tidbit:
“Industrial economies are still at the mercy of peak oil. This basic fact of life means that we can't expect the regular cyclical growth in productive activity that formed the baseline parameters for modern capital finance - meaning that we can't run on revolving credit anymore because growth simply isn't there to create real surplus wealth to pay down debt.”
[From: http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/12/forecast-2010.html#more ]
For another reiteration of his central thesis see also: [http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/courting-convulsion.html]
“What's going on in the US economy is a slow-motion convulsion from which we will emerge as a very different nation with a different economy. The wild irresponsibility of the media in pretending otherwise is only going to make the convulsion worse, more painful, more socially and politically destructive. The convulsion can be described with precision as one of compressive contraction. Historic circumstances are requiring us to change our behaviour, to make new arrangements for everyday life in all the major particulars: capital accumulation and deployment; food production; commerce; habitation; transport; education; and health care. These new arrangements must be organized at a smaller and finer scale, and on a much more local basis.
The main "historic circumstance" mandating these changes goes under the heading of "peak oil." We've come to the end of our ability in this world to increase energy inputs to the global economy. The routine "growth" in industrial activity and production that has been the basis of our financial arrangements for 200-odd years is no longer possible. Offsetting this decline in oil energy "input" with "alt.energy" is a dangerous fantasy because it distracts us from the urgent task of making new arrangements for trade, food production, et cetera - the very things that would provide jobs and social roles for our citizens in the future.”
Heinberg
For a more sober analysis, though no less passionate, I like to check in with Richard Heinberg, who’s position can be summed up thusly:
“Sooner or later, we must face reality. If we do it sooner, our chances of adapting successfully are far better than if we wait and deny just a little longer.”
And from an article posted to his “Museletter” blog [http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/211-isclean-coal-a-dead-end/ - see # 2 “Just Tell Us the Truth”].
The article begins:
“At last we know…sort of. An article in the UK newspaper The Guardian for November 9, titled “Key Oil Figures Were Distorted by US Pressure, Says Whistleblower,” reveals what hundreds of analysts have been trying to convey to world leaders for years: The global oil supply situation is critical and getting worse, and vested interests are playing key roles in covering up this devastatingly inconvenient truth.
…
“In the past few years these lone voices of warning have garnered the backing of a million-voice chorus: investment banks, oil analytics firms, and investigative journalists have joined the geologists in pointing out that oil production limits are within sight, and in calling for more transparency in official data reporting and forecasting.”
Sharon Astyk
Getting the Story Right: The Peak Oil vs. Climate Change Inanity Continues [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50945]
“The IEA has pretty much conceeded peak oil, announcing that growth to meet demand in the coming decades will come from entirely mythical sources. Ok, they didn't say that, what they said in the latest World Energy Outlook was that the majority of oil production by 2030 will be coming from "fields yet to be developed or found." But what that means is "we're hoping someone with magic powers will come and reverse the long-standing trend towards decline in oil discovery." Because we know that oil discovery peaked in 1964 and has been declining ever since, so that we are consuming oil five times faster than we are discovering it. According to energy consultants IHS, 90% of all known or suspected reserves are in production already. In a world that consumes 40,000 plus barrels per second, that's a pretty big deal.”
Charles Cresson Wood
The Irrationality Of Not Preparing Contingency Plans For Peak Oil [http://www.energybulletin.net/50578]
“The public has known about the threat of markedly diminished oil supplies since 1956. Over the last 50 years, the notion of more limited future supplies of oil has been fiercely debated in public forums, and now the data clearly shows which side was right. Now we see that there is no longer any dispute, now we see that we are on a plateau, where we are unable to increase world oil production, regardless of the price that this oil fetches in the marketplace. To verify the correctness of these statements, direct your browser to the web site of the conservative US Government agency called the Energy Information Administration. In spreadsheets of the world oil production numbers, you will see that world oil supply has been about 74 million barrels per day since 2005. Note that this production did not markedly change, even though the price spiked up to $147/barrel in July 2008. A variety of high-credibility scientifically researched reports discuss the seriousness of our current situation, our position at the peak of world oil production. For example, you might reference "Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management" by Robert L. Hirsch et al, and "Global Oil Depletion – An Assessment of the Evidence For Near-Term Peak in Global Oil Production" by the UK's Energy Research Centre.”
The Hirsch Report
And if you haven’t had enough yet, and you have a penchant for number crunching and technical analysis you can read the actual report cited above, here:
http://www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/HirschReport.htm
And there’s more!
Here is an article [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50874]on China’s Growing economy, and a good example of the many considerations of how the energy supply may have a very strong impact on projected growth. The article finishes on this note:
“Over the next year, the price of oil will be driven higher by two forces - a weaker dollar and increased demand that cannot be met. While there may be 3 or 4 million barrels of spare capacity to produce oil - mostly in the Middle East -- the last couple of million barrels will be very expensive oil and will require higher prices to bring onto the market.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that higher, possibly much higher, oil prices in the year ahead are likely. The U.S. deficit is not going away and the dollar is likely to continuing falling…. [F]or much of the world, oil prices are subsidized by the state so that much higher oil prices do not really impact consumer demand.
Those talking of economic recovery in the U.S. would do well to contemplate what the effects of oil prices north of $100 a barrel will be.”
Other Links
You may also like to check in with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil [ASPO-USA http://www.aspousa.org]
Peak Oil Reality: Industry Experts Offer Growing Drumbeat of Supply Warnings (press release) [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50826]
Newly-released videotaped remarks reinforce statements by senior petroleum industry officials about looming world oil supply constraints
Videos available: http://www.aspo.tv/aspo.tv-news.html
Oil Exploration and Production Constraints: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8
Acknowledging Peak Oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ
And then there’s The Oil Drum [http://www.theoildrum.com/]
“Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with,”
… in an address to South Korea’s National Assembly.
[From:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aypC61AZIPec ]
If wealth comes from growth, where does he hope growth will come from? In ecosystems, growth (life) stems from energy inputs (the sun, plants for herbivores, meat for carnivores, etc.). In our ecosystem known as the economy, we derive the vast majority of our energy, not from food, but from compressed organic matter known as fossil fuels. Our revered economic growth stems from ever-increasing inputs of this energy source. So I would suggest that Mr. Harper take a second look at his simple logic in light of the Peak Oil reality that is dawning on us. It poses a truly confounding conundrum to be sure. And it’s easy to see why Peak Oil is a political wet blanket. But just because our leaders continue to ignore it, doesn’t mean the reality of it will evaporate.
But enough of my opinions! Below are some others’. Happy reading!
[And don’t worry. It’s really not that depressing being informed; in fact, it’s empowering to find optimism based on reality, rather than some vague presumptions spoon-fed to us by people who should know better.]
Kunstler
For some of the most colourful – if sometimes inflammatory – commentary on the global energy predicament, there is James Howard Kunstler’s “Clusterfucknation” blog. A recent entry included this tidbit:
“Industrial economies are still at the mercy of peak oil. This basic fact of life means that we can't expect the regular cyclical growth in productive activity that formed the baseline parameters for modern capital finance - meaning that we can't run on revolving credit anymore because growth simply isn't there to create real surplus wealth to pay down debt.”
[From: http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/12/forecast-2010.html#more ]
For another reiteration of his central thesis see also: [http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/courting-convulsion.html]
“What's going on in the US economy is a slow-motion convulsion from which we will emerge as a very different nation with a different economy. The wild irresponsibility of the media in pretending otherwise is only going to make the convulsion worse, more painful, more socially and politically destructive. The convulsion can be described with precision as one of compressive contraction. Historic circumstances are requiring us to change our behaviour, to make new arrangements for everyday life in all the major particulars: capital accumulation and deployment; food production; commerce; habitation; transport; education; and health care. These new arrangements must be organized at a smaller and finer scale, and on a much more local basis.
The main "historic circumstance" mandating these changes goes under the heading of "peak oil." We've come to the end of our ability in this world to increase energy inputs to the global economy. The routine "growth" in industrial activity and production that has been the basis of our financial arrangements for 200-odd years is no longer possible. Offsetting this decline in oil energy "input" with "alt.energy" is a dangerous fantasy because it distracts us from the urgent task of making new arrangements for trade, food production, et cetera - the very things that would provide jobs and social roles for our citizens in the future.”
Heinberg
For a more sober analysis, though no less passionate, I like to check in with Richard Heinberg, who’s position can be summed up thusly:
“Sooner or later, we must face reality. If we do it sooner, our chances of adapting successfully are far better than if we wait and deny just a little longer.”
And from an article posted to his “Museletter” blog [http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/211-isclean-coal-a-dead-end/ - see # 2 “Just Tell Us the Truth”].
The article begins:
“At last we know…sort of. An article in the UK newspaper The Guardian for November 9, titled “Key Oil Figures Were Distorted by US Pressure, Says Whistleblower,” reveals what hundreds of analysts have been trying to convey to world leaders for years: The global oil supply situation is critical and getting worse, and vested interests are playing key roles in covering up this devastatingly inconvenient truth.
…
“In the past few years these lone voices of warning have garnered the backing of a million-voice chorus: investment banks, oil analytics firms, and investigative journalists have joined the geologists in pointing out that oil production limits are within sight, and in calling for more transparency in official data reporting and forecasting.”
Sharon Astyk
Getting the Story Right: The Peak Oil vs. Climate Change Inanity Continues [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50945]
“The IEA has pretty much conceeded peak oil, announcing that growth to meet demand in the coming decades will come from entirely mythical sources. Ok, they didn't say that, what they said in the latest World Energy Outlook was that the majority of oil production by 2030 will be coming from "fields yet to be developed or found." But what that means is "we're hoping someone with magic powers will come and reverse the long-standing trend towards decline in oil discovery." Because we know that oil discovery peaked in 1964 and has been declining ever since, so that we are consuming oil five times faster than we are discovering it. According to energy consultants IHS, 90% of all known or suspected reserves are in production already. In a world that consumes 40,000 plus barrels per second, that's a pretty big deal.”
Charles Cresson Wood
The Irrationality Of Not Preparing Contingency Plans For Peak Oil [http://www.energybulletin.net/50578]
“The public has known about the threat of markedly diminished oil supplies since 1956. Over the last 50 years, the notion of more limited future supplies of oil has been fiercely debated in public forums, and now the data clearly shows which side was right. Now we see that there is no longer any dispute, now we see that we are on a plateau, where we are unable to increase world oil production, regardless of the price that this oil fetches in the marketplace. To verify the correctness of these statements, direct your browser to the web site of the conservative US Government agency called the Energy Information Administration. In spreadsheets of the world oil production numbers, you will see that world oil supply has been about 74 million barrels per day since 2005. Note that this production did not markedly change, even though the price spiked up to $147/barrel in July 2008. A variety of high-credibility scientifically researched reports discuss the seriousness of our current situation, our position at the peak of world oil production. For example, you might reference "Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management" by Robert L. Hirsch et al, and "Global Oil Depletion – An Assessment of the Evidence For Near-Term Peak in Global Oil Production" by the UK's Energy Research Centre.”
The Hirsch Report
And if you haven’t had enough yet, and you have a penchant for number crunching and technical analysis you can read the actual report cited above, here:
http://www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/HirschReport.htm
And there’s more!
Here is an article [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50874]on China’s Growing economy, and a good example of the many considerations of how the energy supply may have a very strong impact on projected growth. The article finishes on this note:
“Over the next year, the price of oil will be driven higher by two forces - a weaker dollar and increased demand that cannot be met. While there may be 3 or 4 million barrels of spare capacity to produce oil - mostly in the Middle East -- the last couple of million barrels will be very expensive oil and will require higher prices to bring onto the market.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that higher, possibly much higher, oil prices in the year ahead are likely. The U.S. deficit is not going away and the dollar is likely to continuing falling…. [F]or much of the world, oil prices are subsidized by the state so that much higher oil prices do not really impact consumer demand.
Those talking of economic recovery in the U.S. would do well to contemplate what the effects of oil prices north of $100 a barrel will be.”
Other Links
You may also like to check in with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil [ASPO-USA http://www.aspousa.org]
Peak Oil Reality: Industry Experts Offer Growing Drumbeat of Supply Warnings (press release) [http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50826]
Newly-released videotaped remarks reinforce statements by senior petroleum industry officials about looming world oil supply constraints
Videos available: http://www.aspo.tv/aspo.tv-news.html
Oil Exploration and Production Constraints: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8
Acknowledging Peak Oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ
And then there’s The Oil Drum [http://www.theoildrum.com/]
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Climategate, Denial and Copenhagen
As we at CFME have said before at this blogspot, there are many reasons why a community might choose to explore less carbon-intensive arrangements for daily life. Regular readers might already know that I, for one, like to touch base, from time to time, with the “big issue” reasons that may motivate such activity. So allow me to muse over the recent “climategate scandal” and the current talks (circus?) underway in Copenhagen.
So-called Climategate seems to have unfolded in staged dramatic fashion: for the “denial” camp to have uncovered an injurious scandal, discrediting climate scientists on the eve of the most significant international talks on climate change since Kyoto itself in 1997 smack of a last-ditch effort on their part. With undeniable momentum building in favour of the anthropogenic climate change argument (and the moral imperative to respond to it), it’s as though the global warming deniers had to pull out all stops – including illegally obtaining information – in order to win some favour before any treaty gets signed.
From where I stand, it seems to have been a successful move, regardless of whether their science of denial has legs to stand on or not. Good science that supports the climate change thesis – of which I believe there is a great deal – can only be strengthened by honest doubt and scrutiny, and should proceed unscathed. However, public opinion does not operate by the same principles, and may well have cemented a little more around the pillar of distrust that average Joe has for “liberal” science – or what-have-you.
What’s more, to non-scientific ears, the deniers talk a good talk – much of it based on reasonable doubt. Most people are not expert enough to discern the subtleties that dot the climate change landscape. An impressionable mind can be led to connect whatever dots an “expert” may choose. Couple that with the underlying wishes and desires of most people (that everything is just fine as is) and denial becomes quite compelling. In other words, and I think this has always been true, the climate scientists who have the unenviable task of warning the world about global warming are working against an inertia of gigantic proportions.
Denial also helps to assuage our guilt. After all, we have literally burned through more energy in one generation (baby boomers) than in all of recorded history. Anthropogenic climate change is a function of industrialisation, and its particularly consumptive form known to some as the “throw-away” consumer society. With the greatest known source of fungible energy at our disposal we have chosen to squander most of it in as little time as possible - the geological equivalent of a hiccup.
Look to the Sea
Elsewhere, I have heard the denial argument take the form of “humility” claiming it is arrogant for humans to believe we mere mortals are capable of affecting Mother Nature. Nice try. I will concede that the more apocalyptic predictions about climate change do appeal to a certain arrogance – as do the fantasies about miraculously conjuring some technological fix at the last minute. But one look to the oceans can surely dismantle this posturing as mere pretence. The oceans, after all and (in addition to being disrupted by climate change) are thoroughly affected by human activity, and are at great risk of system failure because of it. Already, thanks to industrial-scale over-fishing, most populations of large species of fish have been reduced by 90%.(1) And as Canadians, we should all know the story of the poor ol’ North Atlantic cod.(2)
Add to that the problem of plastic: unfathomably vast portions of the biggest bodies of water have become completely riddled with plastic debris: quasi-islands of trash that have been growing since plastic became available as a disposable product decades ago(3)(4). Furthermore, the oceans' ecosystems have been so disrupted, that there are also vast dead-zones that once teemed with life. From a human point of view (though it may not be scientific of me to say), the oceans are physically on par with the atmosphere – and they are most certainly interconnected when it come to climate.(5) It is by no means arrogant to be dismayed by the state of the oceans, nor is it arrogant to believe that we might be having a similar effect on the atmosphere.
Climate change happens; it’s a matter of geological record. Arguably, we may be fighting a trend that is in fact bigger than mere anthropogenic climate change, and as a consequence, there may be very little we can actually do to prevent the dreaded two degree-increase in global mean temperatures at this stage in the game. But it remains glaringly obvious that continuing to add carelessly into the mix unprecedented amounts of CO2 is beyond foolish (can you say four degrees? Six?).
Proceeding without a carbon-reduced contingency plan for the long term is doubly foolish, since the stage is now set for ever changing dynamics on the energy supply front, which is the subject of my next post, where I will try to contextualise the oft misunderstood concept of “peak oil”.
As a final note I have to mention that by some strange coincidence, the talks in Copenhagen will close (and presumably deliver something) on my 40th birthday. Now I’m having enough of a hard time coming to grips with the personal milestone, but I’m trying not to place too much importance on “that number”. Similarly, I’m trying not to place too much importance on the would-be treaty or agreement that will get twisted by politics in Copenhagen, and the years to follow. I’d like to think that the lip-service and other news that comes out of the political process, is secondary to the moral imperative that conveyed there. It is this – arguably an end unto itself – that motivates at least some of us to change our living arrangements, no matter what our governments think they must do.
So-called Climategate seems to have unfolded in staged dramatic fashion: for the “denial” camp to have uncovered an injurious scandal, discrediting climate scientists on the eve of the most significant international talks on climate change since Kyoto itself in 1997 smack of a last-ditch effort on their part. With undeniable momentum building in favour of the anthropogenic climate change argument (and the moral imperative to respond to it), it’s as though the global warming deniers had to pull out all stops – including illegally obtaining information – in order to win some favour before any treaty gets signed.
From where I stand, it seems to have been a successful move, regardless of whether their science of denial has legs to stand on or not. Good science that supports the climate change thesis – of which I believe there is a great deal – can only be strengthened by honest doubt and scrutiny, and should proceed unscathed. However, public opinion does not operate by the same principles, and may well have cemented a little more around the pillar of distrust that average Joe has for “liberal” science – or what-have-you.
What’s more, to non-scientific ears, the deniers talk a good talk – much of it based on reasonable doubt. Most people are not expert enough to discern the subtleties that dot the climate change landscape. An impressionable mind can be led to connect whatever dots an “expert” may choose. Couple that with the underlying wishes and desires of most people (that everything is just fine as is) and denial becomes quite compelling. In other words, and I think this has always been true, the climate scientists who have the unenviable task of warning the world about global warming are working against an inertia of gigantic proportions.
Denial also helps to assuage our guilt. After all, we have literally burned through more energy in one generation (baby boomers) than in all of recorded history. Anthropogenic climate change is a function of industrialisation, and its particularly consumptive form known to some as the “throw-away” consumer society. With the greatest known source of fungible energy at our disposal we have chosen to squander most of it in as little time as possible - the geological equivalent of a hiccup.
Look to the Sea
Elsewhere, I have heard the denial argument take the form of “humility” claiming it is arrogant for humans to believe we mere mortals are capable of affecting Mother Nature. Nice try. I will concede that the more apocalyptic predictions about climate change do appeal to a certain arrogance – as do the fantasies about miraculously conjuring some technological fix at the last minute. But one look to the oceans can surely dismantle this posturing as mere pretence. The oceans, after all and (in addition to being disrupted by climate change) are thoroughly affected by human activity, and are at great risk of system failure because of it. Already, thanks to industrial-scale over-fishing, most populations of large species of fish have been reduced by 90%.(1) And as Canadians, we should all know the story of the poor ol’ North Atlantic cod.(2)
Add to that the problem of plastic: unfathomably vast portions of the biggest bodies of water have become completely riddled with plastic debris: quasi-islands of trash that have been growing since plastic became available as a disposable product decades ago(3)(4). Furthermore, the oceans' ecosystems have been so disrupted, that there are also vast dead-zones that once teemed with life. From a human point of view (though it may not be scientific of me to say), the oceans are physically on par with the atmosphere – and they are most certainly interconnected when it come to climate.(5) It is by no means arrogant to be dismayed by the state of the oceans, nor is it arrogant to believe that we might be having a similar effect on the atmosphere.
Climate change happens; it’s a matter of geological record. Arguably, we may be fighting a trend that is in fact bigger than mere anthropogenic climate change, and as a consequence, there may be very little we can actually do to prevent the dreaded two degree-increase in global mean temperatures at this stage in the game. But it remains glaringly obvious that continuing to add carelessly into the mix unprecedented amounts of CO2 is beyond foolish (can you say four degrees? Six?).
Proceeding without a carbon-reduced contingency plan for the long term is doubly foolish, since the stage is now set for ever changing dynamics on the energy supply front, which is the subject of my next post, where I will try to contextualise the oft misunderstood concept of “peak oil”.
As a final note I have to mention that by some strange coincidence, the talks in Copenhagen will close (and presumably deliver something) on my 40th birthday. Now I’m having enough of a hard time coming to grips with the personal milestone, but I’m trying not to place too much importance on “that number”. Similarly, I’m trying not to place too much importance on the would-be treaty or agreement that will get twisted by politics in Copenhagen, and the years to follow. I’d like to think that the lip-service and other news that comes out of the political process, is secondary to the moral imperative that conveyed there. It is this – arguably an end unto itself – that motivates at least some of us to change our living arrangements, no matter what our governments think they must do.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wishful Thinking?
In my last entry here at the Car Free Mile-End blog, I alluded to an emerging economy characterised by a new era of environmental consciousness involving efficiency measures that would in fact make the seventies look like mere rehearsal. Wishful thinking to some, it is my hope that something of the sort has an outside chance of coming to pass.
Thinking Global
As international climate change talks unfold this year and awareness of resource dependence and depletion gains traction across the board we all stand to improve our understanding of just what exactly our predicament is made of; and how far we are now from where we need to be in the near future. In other words we may only have a vague idea that something must be done (and equally vague ideas of what to do about it) for now – but we will invariably start envisioning and realising, through tangible creative activity, what can and must be done instead of business as usual. This is imperative since doing nothing is no longer an option. I am convinced this is the theme that will emerge presently.
Politically, the future will pose more and more pressure on governments to come up with solutions to problems of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, resource depletion, and energy shortfalls. Of particular imperative will be the legally binding, moral obligations that will emerge on the other side of climate talks in
Acting Local
No matter the details of our respective interpretations of the present, the sooner we make the leap to actualising alternatives here and now, on the ground, the better. I believe the creation of a pedestrian zone in
Of course I am under no illusions that the Car Free Mile-End project will achieve such a lofty goal all by itself. It is one piece of a puzzle: it must be a component of a wider network. Perhaps with a renewed municipal government at city hall and widespread community involvement, a number of car-free zones could become the vibrant centre-pieces of neighbourhoods throughout the city: something akin to the public squares of European cities, which act as hubs of social and economic activity (not just some place for office workers to eat their lunch à la Square Victoria).
The feasibility of car-free spaces is proven with numerous examples around the world. And of course there’s the success of Ste Catherine Est. right here at home. A car-free street can be as simple as mounting barricades and a few new traffic signs; and as involved as re-landscaping an entire tract of land and laying down a tramway. What we aim for is probably somewhere between the two, and is most certainly still up for discussion.
I would like to think a car-free St. Viateur would involve a lot more green space, and although it’s hard to imagine more social activity, it would emphasise the public space as a social arena, unhindered by the invasive capacity of cars. The east-west zone that we have in mind could also serve as a means of slowing through-traffic travelling at high speed on the neighbourhood’s “highways” (Ave. du Parc and St. Urbain).
Of course for our project to work as a permanent change, a certain amount of study, consultation and design will have to be done. Perhaps the best way of studying new ideas for the community will be a series of trial closures in the near future, a subject that will be pursued in further detail in future posts.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
IN DEFENCE OF CARS
It is fascinating to watch how a young child so readily takes to playing with cars and all things vehicular. If you’ve ever shopped for a baby boy, you’ll know just how much stuff (clothes, toys, books, etc.) is made to convey the positive presence of cars in our culture. No child is too young for this indoctrination. I too was raised on the things – the countless hours of playing “vroom-vroom” in my own little world…. Later, as an aspiring engineer in high school, I designed my own cars, dreaming of building my very own automobile manufacturing company one day. Needless to say I took a few stray turns along the way, and the closest I ever came to that goal was designing kyotomotors.ca.
Now I work here at Car Free Mile End (as a volunteer) to promote the ideas surrounding car-free culture and communities. It’s pretty easy work, when it comes to compiling the drawbacks of automobiles (cost - external and direct, safety/danger, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, devastation of the landscape, disruption of public space and land-use, petroleum dependency and foreign wars, lack of exercise, road rage etc. etc.). But when it comes to the emotional side of the debate, it’s hard to get a word in edgewise. People love their cars – they’ve been seduced, and as I’ve suggested, it starts at an early age.
Me I have broken this trance, and will never own a car so long as I can thrive in a walkable community. I’ve come a long way from my adolescent automotive dream, which is something I would like to think of as understandable, if not a bit embarrassing: after all, it was the Reagan era. It was “morning in America” – and allegedly in Canada too. Greed was good, and energy (when adjusted for inflation) was cheaper than it ever had been before. After the weird dream of oil shortages and Jimmy Carter’s efficiency measures that was the seventies, the economic energy-fuelled bonanza was set for 2.0. As with the first hoorah, which began after WWI, and featured the American Interstate Highway project, the second phase of economic growth would feature profligate energy use centered on the car and all of its requisite trappings.
Two Iraq wars later, resting on an flotilla of millions of SUV’s manufactured and sold as the new modus operandi, we emerge from this period better aware than ever that global warming is being accelerated by human industrial and consumer activity. We also know, in great detail (for anyone who cares to look) that the global supply of petroleum is at imminent risk of becoming much more difficult to extract (more expensive) and simply more scarce at the same time.
So a second weird dream is about to begin, featuring again (I hope) efficiency measures and a widespread culture of ecological awareness. Meanwhile, my two year old son is completely enamoured with his toy cars and especially with all things diesel at the local construction sites. And I say, so be it. Cars are for kids. They make good playthings in their hands. Grown-ups on the other hand, can be expected to understand the car's newfound place, now, in the emerging economy.
Maclean
Now I work here at Car Free Mile End (as a volunteer) to promote the ideas surrounding car-free culture and communities. It’s pretty easy work, when it comes to compiling the drawbacks of automobiles (cost - external and direct, safety/danger, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, devastation of the landscape, disruption of public space and land-use, petroleum dependency and foreign wars, lack of exercise, road rage etc. etc.). But when it comes to the emotional side of the debate, it’s hard to get a word in edgewise. People love their cars – they’ve been seduced, and as I’ve suggested, it starts at an early age.
Me I have broken this trance, and will never own a car so long as I can thrive in a walkable community. I’ve come a long way from my adolescent automotive dream, which is something I would like to think of as understandable, if not a bit embarrassing: after all, it was the Reagan era. It was “morning in America” – and allegedly in Canada too. Greed was good, and energy (when adjusted for inflation) was cheaper than it ever had been before. After the weird dream of oil shortages and Jimmy Carter’s efficiency measures that was the seventies, the economic energy-fuelled bonanza was set for 2.0. As with the first hoorah, which began after WWI, and featured the American Interstate Highway project, the second phase of economic growth would feature profligate energy use centered on the car and all of its requisite trappings.
Two Iraq wars later, resting on an flotilla of millions of SUV’s manufactured and sold as the new modus operandi, we emerge from this period better aware than ever that global warming is being accelerated by human industrial and consumer activity. We also know, in great detail (for anyone who cares to look) that the global supply of petroleum is at imminent risk of becoming much more difficult to extract (more expensive) and simply more scarce at the same time.
So a second weird dream is about to begin, featuring again (I hope) efficiency measures and a widespread culture of ecological awareness. Meanwhile, my two year old son is completely enamoured with his toy cars and especially with all things diesel at the local construction sites. And I say, so be it. Cars are for kids. They make good playthings in their hands. Grown-ups on the other hand, can be expected to understand the car's newfound place, now, in the emerging economy.
Maclean
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Parc and Bernard Take One
The following blog entry went to a few active members in CFME before being posted, and it garnered quite a lot of discussion surrounding bike safety.
I have included this dialogue at the end of the original text, which I hope may act as an invitation to readers at large to add to the discussion using the comments feature. Or email us at info@carfreemileend.com.
I know the corner of Ave. du Parc and Bernard quite well. It’s a hazardous place. When I saw the city bus heading towards me, barrelling down its privileged access lane at a hell of a clip, I knew I was right to have tucked my bike back onto Bernard behind the line of the curb. It’s my habit now, having had my turn playing chicken with the buses and taxis at rush hour on Parc Ave. on more than one occasion. I just wanted to cross the street and continue up on Hutchison…
When I heard the driver of the bus honk, I realised that another cyclist wasn’t so familiar with this danger. I turned to look, and sure enough, a bike-rider had just shoved off into the reserved lane heading north, not more than two feet from the curb. Swerving more than a little to avoid the cyclist while the honking rang in my ears, the driver managed to miss the bike, but nearly caused an accident in the adjacent lane, judging by the echoing din of more honking from speedy cars. The cyclist, no doubt was learning her lesson the hard way (racing heart, adrenaline rush etc.). These guys take the rules of the reserved lane very seriously: like the sign says, it’s for the exclusive use of buses and taxi-cabs. Enter at your own risk.
But of course, those of you who know me know that I’m not going to leave it at that.
Somebody has to tell these drivers that the progressive measure of implementing a reserved-use rush hour lane was not designed to allow buses and taxis to fly up and down the street at 65 km/h two feet next to a sidewalk full of pedestrians. In this instance, the bus was “hors service” (so you can imagine the driver was hurrying to get to the garage and head home), but I have seen drivers of full buses take the same hasty, unaccommodating approach, making tracks up Parc Ave, and it’s especially dangerous for cyclist on the same path – as a solution, I have taken to riding in the second lane, but I would rather rely on the simple principle of respect from other drivers, and not have to worry about my life while riding.
The last thing we need “in this day and age” (at risk of sounding clichéd) is to have public transit at odds with pedestrians and cyclists. And yet it’s something I witness all too often. Car Free Mile-End is dedicated to the idea of having public transit as a huge component of our vision for the future of a sustainable neighbourhood and the greater Montréal community as a whole. But as an advocate for public safety in public spaces above all, we must insist that the law provides clear parameters by which to curtail the actions of civil servants such as bus drivers bent on speed.
In turn, for their part, cyclists could do well to polish up their image somewhat by slowing down too – especially at intersections (read: red lights!). Sure a cyclist can slip through that grey area between pedestrian and vehicle, but there’s no great benefit in antagonising drivers, or pedestrians. What’s the big rush anyway?
I should point out that, in the case of the near-miss I witnessed, the cyclist simply appeared to be advancing in good faith. By all accounts the experienced bus driver (my assumption – he was in his fifties) should have seen it coming and simply pressed on the brakes, instead of freaking everybody out. Luckily, no-one was hurt.
As a final note, I’d like you to picture this: a little old lady waiting for the #535 bus might step forward as the “hors service” bus approaches, mistakenly expecting the bus to stop, only to have its side-view mirror brush by her head and nary a beep from the impatient maniac behind the wheel. This too I have witnessed – at the same intersection!
And the responses:
Hey there,
My only 'issue' with this is that I think that bicyclists should really try to avoid Ave du Parc, especially during the hours when the bus lane is open (I certainly do!). I know that there are not any great alternatives, but it is the lack of alternatives that is the primary problem in my opinion.
Of course it would be nice if the drivers would slow down and pay more attention. But the whole purpose of the dedicated bus lane is exactly so that buses can get through traffic faster! One certainly can debate whether high-speed buses mix well in dense urban thoroughfares.... Check-out how the dedicated bus lanes are structured in Bogota. In the denser urban areas the buses have completely separate rights of way (ie not even next to cars) and the stations are in 'pedestrian zones' designed for just pedestrians and buses.
Anyway... it is a good piece.
Zvi
Hey Maclean,
While I agree with your overall point and spirit of this article, I worry it comes off as being too critical of public transit (and may even contribute to the paranoia that many feel about even biking in this city, because they consider it as being too dangerous). I'm sure you've heard it before, that it's just "safer to drive". As you say in the article- "The last thing we need “in this day and age” (at risk of sounding clichéd) is to have public transit at odds with pedestrians and cyclists." ...so I do know that this is the heart of your argument and I agree with you. I'm not suggesting you change anything in your text. I think it actually just sparks a debate about what the true target for criticism is. Like Zvi mentioned, it's more a problem of infrastructure and lack of better options for cyclists. As well, the bus lane is designed so that public transit is faster and therefore more of a draw for people to use. I think the bus lanes need to be designed better, as well as bike paths. St. Urbain is one example of a really weird crossover/combination of bike path/bus lane in one. That just should never happen...
But your article definitely does address safety issues, and that's one of the keys points of CFME. It sparked a response from me, so I guess that means it's a good article!
Cheers
Shelley
Hey - I actually am very happy with the St. Urbain "bike lane". Whenever I am in a hurry to get downtown (by bike) I take St. Urbain. Have for years, even before the "lane" was there. The paint basically formalizes a situation that was pre-existing. The paint has the effect of creating awareness that bicyclists need their space too, and it works rather well in my opinion. Previously it was not unusual to be squeezed out of the lane (primarily at intersections as the cars queue up), and this happens much less often now. Obviously not everyone is comfortable riding in traffic, but on St Urbain there are fewer disruptions than on many of the side streets: everyone is going straight and in the same direction. On the other hand, I have read that cars tend to pass closer to bicycles who are in painted bike lanes than they would otherwise, and this could be the case. I have not measured the distances, and my impressions are not at all scientific....
Zvi
I also take it to work, and agree that it is fast and goes well with the one-way flow of traffic. My main complaint was just at the spots where buses pull over to stop... I always feel like I'm trying to cross paths with them. But maybe I'm just one of those cyclists who doesn't stay in the right lane :-)
Shelley
I agree that those sections are awkward, and in fact I stay in the outer part of the lane there (ie with the through-traffic) instead of following the bike lane next to the curb. The new painted bike lanes near UdeM make it more clear that the bus stops are weaving sections: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zvileve/3959254578/
Eventually some kind of guidelines need to get coded about what works and what does not. It is still too early to say what is "good", but the city's engineers are definitely working on things. Not that I have the impression that they ride bikes!
Zvi
I have included this dialogue at the end of the original text, which I hope may act as an invitation to readers at large to add to the discussion using the comments feature. Or email us at info@carfreemileend.com.
I know the corner of Ave. du Parc and Bernard quite well. It’s a hazardous place. When I saw the city bus heading towards me, barrelling down its privileged access lane at a hell of a clip, I knew I was right to have tucked my bike back onto Bernard behind the line of the curb. It’s my habit now, having had my turn playing chicken with the buses and taxis at rush hour on Parc Ave. on more than one occasion. I just wanted to cross the street and continue up on Hutchison…
When I heard the driver of the bus honk, I realised that another cyclist wasn’t so familiar with this danger. I turned to look, and sure enough, a bike-rider had just shoved off into the reserved lane heading north, not more than two feet from the curb. Swerving more than a little to avoid the cyclist while the honking rang in my ears, the driver managed to miss the bike, but nearly caused an accident in the adjacent lane, judging by the echoing din of more honking from speedy cars. The cyclist, no doubt was learning her lesson the hard way (racing heart, adrenaline rush etc.). These guys take the rules of the reserved lane very seriously: like the sign says, it’s for the exclusive use of buses and taxi-cabs. Enter at your own risk.
But of course, those of you who know me know that I’m not going to leave it at that.
Somebody has to tell these drivers that the progressive measure of implementing a reserved-use rush hour lane was not designed to allow buses and taxis to fly up and down the street at 65 km/h two feet next to a sidewalk full of pedestrians. In this instance, the bus was “hors service” (so you can imagine the driver was hurrying to get to the garage and head home), but I have seen drivers of full buses take the same hasty, unaccommodating approach, making tracks up Parc Ave, and it’s especially dangerous for cyclist on the same path – as a solution, I have taken to riding in the second lane, but I would rather rely on the simple principle of respect from other drivers, and not have to worry about my life while riding.
The last thing we need “in this day and age” (at risk of sounding clichéd) is to have public transit at odds with pedestrians and cyclists. And yet it’s something I witness all too often. Car Free Mile-End is dedicated to the idea of having public transit as a huge component of our vision for the future of a sustainable neighbourhood and the greater Montréal community as a whole. But as an advocate for public safety in public spaces above all, we must insist that the law provides clear parameters by which to curtail the actions of civil servants such as bus drivers bent on speed.
In turn, for their part, cyclists could do well to polish up their image somewhat by slowing down too – especially at intersections (read: red lights!). Sure a cyclist can slip through that grey area between pedestrian and vehicle, but there’s no great benefit in antagonising drivers, or pedestrians. What’s the big rush anyway?
I should point out that, in the case of the near-miss I witnessed, the cyclist simply appeared to be advancing in good faith. By all accounts the experienced bus driver (my assumption – he was in his fifties) should have seen it coming and simply pressed on the brakes, instead of freaking everybody out. Luckily, no-one was hurt.
As a final note, I’d like you to picture this: a little old lady waiting for the #535 bus might step forward as the “hors service” bus approaches, mistakenly expecting the bus to stop, only to have its side-view mirror brush by her head and nary a beep from the impatient maniac behind the wheel. This too I have witnessed – at the same intersection!
And the responses:
Hey there,
My only 'issue' with this is that I think that bicyclists should really try to avoid Ave du Parc, especially during the hours when the bus lane is open (I certainly do!). I know that there are not any great alternatives, but it is the lack of alternatives that is the primary problem in my opinion.
Of course it would be nice if the drivers would slow down and pay more attention. But the whole purpose of the dedicated bus lane is exactly so that buses can get through traffic faster! One certainly can debate whether high-speed buses mix well in dense urban thoroughfares.... Check-out how the dedicated bus lanes are structured in Bogota. In the denser urban areas the buses have completely separate rights of way (ie not even next to cars) and the stations are in 'pedestrian zones' designed for just pedestrians and buses.
Anyway... it is a good piece.
Zvi
Hey Maclean,
While I agree with your overall point and spirit of this article, I worry it comes off as being too critical of public transit (and may even contribute to the paranoia that many feel about even biking in this city, because they consider it as being too dangerous). I'm sure you've heard it before, that it's just "safer to drive". As you say in the article- "The last thing we need “in this day and age” (at risk of sounding clichéd) is to have public transit at odds with pedestrians and cyclists." ...so I do know that this is the heart of your argument and I agree with you. I'm not suggesting you change anything in your text. I think it actually just sparks a debate about what the true target for criticism is. Like Zvi mentioned, it's more a problem of infrastructure and lack of better options for cyclists. As well, the bus lane is designed so that public transit is faster and therefore more of a draw for people to use. I think the bus lanes need to be designed better, as well as bike paths. St. Urbain is one example of a really weird crossover/combination of bike path/bus lane in one. That just should never happen...
But your article definitely does address safety issues, and that's one of the keys points of CFME. It sparked a response from me, so I guess that means it's a good article!
Cheers
Shelley
Hey - I actually am very happy with the St. Urbain "bike lane". Whenever I am in a hurry to get downtown (by bike) I take St. Urbain. Have for years, even before the "lane" was there. The paint basically formalizes a situation that was pre-existing. The paint has the effect of creating awareness that bicyclists need their space too, and it works rather well in my opinion. Previously it was not unusual to be squeezed out of the lane (primarily at intersections as the cars queue up), and this happens much less often now. Obviously not everyone is comfortable riding in traffic, but on St Urbain there are fewer disruptions than on many of the side streets: everyone is going straight and in the same direction. On the other hand, I have read that cars tend to pass closer to bicycles who are in painted bike lanes than they would otherwise, and this could be the case. I have not measured the distances, and my impressions are not at all scientific....
Zvi
I also take it to work, and agree that it is fast and goes well with the one-way flow of traffic. My main complaint was just at the spots where buses pull over to stop... I always feel like I'm trying to cross paths with them. But maybe I'm just one of those cyclists who doesn't stay in the right lane :-)
Shelley
I agree that those sections are awkward, and in fact I stay in the outer part of the lane there (ie with the through-traffic) instead of following the bike lane next to the curb. The new painted bike lanes near UdeM make it more clear that the bus stops are weaving sections: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zvileve/3959254578/
Eventually some kind of guidelines need to get coded about what works and what does not. It is still too early to say what is "good", but the city's engineers are definitely working on things. Not that I have the impression that they ride bikes!
Zvi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
