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.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
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
Thursday, October 1, 2009
SCALING DOWN
Riding the bus home from Cinema Politica’s screening of The End of the Line, I found myself fixated on the potent image of West African subsistence fishers in their traditional boats (motorised as they may be) up against their gigantic foe, the industrial-sized fishing vessel in from Europe, free to strip more than the lion’s share of seafood from those once teeming waters. It is one story of many, unfolding all around the world that spells the utter demise of the planet’s oceans as a viable source of nourishment over the long term.
And it hit me then that the underlying theme of this film about fish is pretty much the same as what lies at the root of the urban design challenge: Industrial scale operations are at odds with human-scaled living practices. By human-scale I mean something that one or a few individuals can face without having the shit scared out of them. Stand in the middle of traffic on any given city street, and you have an artificial environment characterised by the mass and speed of cars and trucks, as well as the possible impatience of drivers – you have a hostile environment. It seems to me that it’s not just a coincidence that this activity is also a huge contributor to the macro problems of global warming and petroleum dependence/ depletion.
Ever since humans started to harness energy from fossil fuels, we have developed ways to have machines do work for us. As this process became more sophisticated, the mechanics of industrialism ushered unprecedented, seemingly perpetual economic growth. Now that we have pushed it to the global scale we can see it for the ever-consuming monster that it is. Whether you consider the demise of global fish stocks, the loss of rain-forests to agriculture and forestry, the erosion of topsoil, or the impending scarcity of water (not to mention the fossil fuel issues mentioned above), economic expansion at all costs is proving to be counter-productive, and inhumane.
Incessant, ubiquitous driving is just another manifestation of the global industrial growth paradigm. Now, at this historical crossroads (which I will assume is a given), the question is, have we forgotten what a human-scaled street might look like? There are so few examples in our local environment that it’s hard to have a working vocabulary as to how or why go car-free. Luckily there are many models that exist , thanks to progressive urban planning; and there are fantastic examples throughout the world, including ones in other northern cities similar to ours. In short, it turns out there are a number of ways to put vehicular traffic in its place, keeping it slow, or simply excluding it from the activity of a neighbourhood’s centre.
With the imperative of addressing the “big issues” we must consider what sustainable development might look like: What does the transition culture of the future entail? And, how would an alternative approach shape our immediate, local surroundings? Obviously, I would like to suggest that one possibility is the car-free initiative for Mile-End that is CFME. Not only can we create a human-scaled milieu for ourselves in our own back yard, but we can develop a blueprint for other neighbourhoods throughout Montréal, and in other cities across the country and around the world.
And it hit me then that the underlying theme of this film about fish is pretty much the same as what lies at the root of the urban design challenge: Industrial scale operations are at odds with human-scaled living practices. By human-scale I mean something that one or a few individuals can face without having the shit scared out of them. Stand in the middle of traffic on any given city street, and you have an artificial environment characterised by the mass and speed of cars and trucks, as well as the possible impatience of drivers – you have a hostile environment. It seems to me that it’s not just a coincidence that this activity is also a huge contributor to the macro problems of global warming and petroleum dependence/ depletion.
Ever since humans started to harness energy from fossil fuels, we have developed ways to have machines do work for us. As this process became more sophisticated, the mechanics of industrialism ushered unprecedented, seemingly perpetual economic growth. Now that we have pushed it to the global scale we can see it for the ever-consuming monster that it is. Whether you consider the demise of global fish stocks, the loss of rain-forests to agriculture and forestry, the erosion of topsoil, or the impending scarcity of water (not to mention the fossil fuel issues mentioned above), economic expansion at all costs is proving to be counter-productive, and inhumane.
Incessant, ubiquitous driving is just another manifestation of the global industrial growth paradigm. Now, at this historical crossroads (which I will assume is a given), the question is, have we forgotten what a human-scaled street might look like? There are so few examples in our local environment that it’s hard to have a working vocabulary as to how or why go car-free. Luckily there are many models that exist , thanks to progressive urban planning; and there are fantastic examples throughout the world, including ones in other northern cities similar to ours. In short, it turns out there are a number of ways to put vehicular traffic in its place, keeping it slow, or simply excluding it from the activity of a neighbourhood’s centre.
With the imperative of addressing the “big issues” we must consider what sustainable development might look like: What does the transition culture of the future entail? And, how would an alternative approach shape our immediate, local surroundings? Obviously, I would like to suggest that one possibility is the car-free initiative for Mile-End that is CFME. Not only can we create a human-scaled milieu for ourselves in our own back yard, but we can develop a blueprint for other neighbourhoods throughout Montréal, and in other cities across the country and around the world.
Monday, September 28, 2009
ATSA: Encore seul(e) dans ton char
Lundi dernier, j'ai participé à une manifestation menée par l'ATSA qui s'est déroulée de 7 h 30 à 9 h devant le Centre d'écologie urbaine de Montréal. Quelque 25 personnes munies de pancartes se sont rassemblées sur le coin des rues du Parc et Milton pour faire le décompte des voitures occupées par une seule personne en direction vers le travail.
Voici les chiffres : 1 122 autos occupées "en solo" (75 %), et seulement 366 par plus d'une personne (25 %). Voilà une statistique alarmante, surtout si l'on considère que se rendre au travail constitue une occasion idéale pour le covoiturage.
En jetant un coup d'oeil sur la figure ci-bas, qui montre que voyager seul(e) en voiture consomme de 3 à 5 fois plus d'énergie que de prendre l'autobus et 10 fois plus que de prendre le métro, il va sans dire que nous pourrions collectivement réduire notre demande en énergie en changeant légèrement nos habitudes.
Le covoiturage :
- réduit notre consommation d'énergie;
- diminue l'émission de gaz à effet de serre;
- améliore la qualité de l'air;
- vous sauvera de l'argent!
Évidemment, il y a encore mieux que le covoiturage : le transport en commun.
Si le transport en commun montréalais ne satisfait pas à vos besoins, dites-le! Je vous rappelle que les élections approchent à grands pas. Il s'agit donc du moment idéal pour vous faire entendre. Participez aux débats électoraux, et surtout, VOTEZ!
Mathieu
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Clearing Some Election Haze
A recent evening newscast so resembled an episode of the Simpsons that I would have liked to laugh out loud but for the fact that the matter was thoroughly depressing.
The news item presented some views on the upcoming municipal election; but it told us a very narrow version of the facts: A few people are for Tremblay. Others are against. The election is deemed a tight race between two parties. Any further questions? Curious about an up and coming third party making waves with solid results in recent bi-elections? Too bad.
Instead, the CBC deemed it useful to shorten their election story in order to follow with a story on some dogs on surfboards! …I kid you not. This, in a newscast that was recently extended to one and a half hours.
Watching the news you would have no idea Projet Montreal existed.
Montréal’s third municipal party is worth having a look at. Their platform is ecologically and economically progressive; their leadership is solid; and their presence (in election results, on the web, and in their communiqués) is prominent. Anyone paying attention (and this would include journalists, I expect) should see there is a story developing here. Theirs is precisely the kind of story that the two “main” parties would love to suppress.
So is it a coincidence that the media furthers this preference? I’d like to believe not….
It is the purpose of Car Free Mile-End to promote the creation of a car-free zone on St. Viateur Ouest. So far no municipal party has actually come forward with this plan on their agenda, but it is worth noting where each of the parties stands on car-use, and who might be most sympathetic to our cause. To that end I encourage you to look into all three parties and their platforms
http://www.projetmontreal.org/
http://www.unionmontreal.com/
http://www.visionmtl.com/
Inevitably all three parties are going to need to tune in to the like of us. We represent the groundswell. Groups like CFME are bound to crop up all over the city over the next few years, because people are learning that’s how things get done. Furthermore, once governments realise they’ve got to get off their backside and act on the most urgent matters of our day, they’ll need to turn to working groups like ours who are in the process of laying the groundwork for real change.
On a final note, above all, I encourage you to vote. Participatory democracy has its best chances at the municipal level because it is never so far from home. It ain’t perfect, but we can make it better. Ironically it is at this level of politics/ government that we see the lowest voter turnout. Mile-End hipsters and cynical gen-exers are the only ones who can really change that. So it is to that portion of the audience that I say: vote!
The news item presented some views on the upcoming municipal election; but it told us a very narrow version of the facts: A few people are for Tremblay. Others are against. The election is deemed a tight race between two parties. Any further questions? Curious about an up and coming third party making waves with solid results in recent bi-elections? Too bad.
Instead, the CBC deemed it useful to shorten their election story in order to follow with a story on some dogs on surfboards! …I kid you not. This, in a newscast that was recently extended to one and a half hours.
Watching the news you would have no idea Projet Montreal existed.
Montréal’s third municipal party is worth having a look at. Their platform is ecologically and economically progressive; their leadership is solid; and their presence (in election results, on the web, and in their communiqués) is prominent. Anyone paying attention (and this would include journalists, I expect) should see there is a story developing here. Theirs is precisely the kind of story that the two “main” parties would love to suppress.
So is it a coincidence that the media furthers this preference? I’d like to believe not….
It is the purpose of Car Free Mile-End to promote the creation of a car-free zone on St. Viateur Ouest. So far no municipal party has actually come forward with this plan on their agenda, but it is worth noting where each of the parties stands on car-use, and who might be most sympathetic to our cause. To that end I encourage you to look into all three parties and their platforms
http://www.projetmontreal.org/
http://www.unionmontreal.com/
http://www.visionmtl.com/
Inevitably all three parties are going to need to tune in to the like of us. We represent the groundswell. Groups like CFME are bound to crop up all over the city over the next few years, because people are learning that’s how things get done. Furthermore, once governments realise they’ve got to get off their backside and act on the most urgent matters of our day, they’ll need to turn to working groups like ours who are in the process of laying the groundwork for real change.
On a final note, above all, I encourage you to vote. Participatory democracy has its best chances at the municipal level because it is never so far from home. It ain’t perfect, but we can make it better. Ironically it is at this level of politics/ government that we see the lowest voter turnout. Mile-End hipsters and cynical gen-exers are the only ones who can really change that. So it is to that portion of the audience that I say: vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
