Car Free Mile-End

2011-03-02T21:29:00.000-05:00

Part IV

Post-peak Plan B(ike)?

If you’ve read any of the recent blog entries I have posted here, you would have noticed my use of the term “appropriate technology.” Now, I admit that I am no expert on the subject, but as a self-described bike geek I have a pretty good grasp of the concept. Although appropriate tech may seem pointless to more than most of us just now, it’s a concept I recommend thinking about, even in this age of 4G networks and SUV’s. Indeed, despite the abundance, privilege and entitlement of the consumer society we enjoy, it may yet prove to be much more than just an eccentric hobby or the stuff of “eco-geeks”… With just a few turns of events the playing field may quickly favour such geeks and those who have the wherewithal and the wits to respond to sudden challenges. Appropriate technology will then become one of the most coveted elements in our daily life. As I alluded to in my last entry, these concerns stem from the prospects and promises served up by that elephant-in-the-room known as peak oil, a concept I’d like to revisit in just a bit of detail here. For another (insightful) reiteration on the matter please visit John Michael Greer’s latest blog entry on the subject, neatly outlined with a clear metaphorical analysis.

Some readers of this blog may be old enough to remember the two successive oil shocks of the 1970’s – the line-ups for gas being among the most poignant memories. I was alive then, but a bit too young. What I do know from reading a fair bit on the subject more recently, is that there are a host of factors that point to the likelihood of similar shocks in our lifetime again – as in the next decade or so.

Peak-oilers, if they’re smart, distance themselves from the apocalyptic types sometimes referred to as Cassandras, Chicken-Littles, or simply doomsayers. As Jane Jacobs rightly noted at the outset of her last book, prophesy is mostly for charlatans. But then she proceeded with the writing of “Dark Age Ahead” – remarkable read for its accounts of history’s examples of collective amnesia and societal break-down – even if she herself was not focused on the peak oil angle.

For my part, I choose neither to echo worries of doom and gloom, nor to forecast how events will play out in the years ahead. If society (Western Civilisation) is destined to collapse (like all civilisations have to date) I don’t expect it to happen overnight, or even within a decade or two. But if a closer look at how energy systems and dependence upon supply-flows has taught me anything over the years, it’s that the people who really know about this stuff know that the future promises less, not more of the lifeblood of industry known as petroleum.

For about fifteen years now the second generation of “peak-oilers” have been estimating the arrival of the global peak in conventional oil production. Dates ranged from 2001 to 2030 or so. Once corporations (and PR firms) got in on the debate, outright denial of the peak oil phenomenon entered the picture. In typical fashion, the corporate interests took the economic view that supply would always meet demand because humans are resourceful, and that’s what we wished for. Peak-oil was brushed off. But slowly the deniers have faded, for the most part, since the concept of petroleum being a finite resource is pretty well understood. Now the debate focuses on not if, but when. The “cornucopians” who don’t want to rock the boat of consumer confidence typically pushed their predicted date so far into the future that they effectively justified ignoring the matter. These views were consistently supported by the International Energy Agency, who routinely assesses the world’s supply of petroleum and projects what they think we can all count on for the years ahead.

To make a long story short, the IEA recently went from making production estimates that simply matched economic growth and demand projections, to announcing last year, that in fact global conventional petroleum production has actually entered decline, having peaked in 2006(!?). This about-face may prove to be the most under-reported story in recent times. The implications are stunning, not simply because the peak oil community can now say “I told you so.” Rather, it’s because from now on, oil will keep getting harder to get, and if there’s one I agree with conventional economists on, it’s that the reduction in supply will translate into higher prices.

Now of course the cornucopians consistently chime in here to remind us that everything is looking up, since we seem to have limitless supplies in the form of Tar Sands, deep-sea sources and “tight oil plays”. Setting environmental concerns aside for the time being, the numbers associated with these resources never quite add up to much of a long-term solution (for more on this, check out the recent essay by John Michael Greer, mentioned above). What’s more, the costs involved – again, excluding environmental costs – will guarantee that the price of a barrel is heading North long into the future…

And this was always the point made by peak-oilers. No-one ever expected the taps to run dry overnight. Instead, non-conventional sources will make up the post-peak shortfall for some time – difficult to say how long, since there are so many geological variables and economic factors at play. But this was precisely what peak-oil forecasters were calling for – along with the resultant hike in crude oil prices that we see now. Another salient point coming from those experts who have a more sober approach to crunching numbers is that these non-conventional sources will likely keep pace with declines from conventional sources for a while, but will likely fail to provide for increased demand associated with economic growth in the long run.

When the U.S. government commissioned Hirsch Report came out in 2005, peak oil was given real and official recognition. In the report, it was suggested that we would be very lucky if in fact that we had a number of decades for which to prepare, in a concerted and conscientious manner, for the realities of petroleum’s inevitable depletion.

In reality, we don’t have those decades to work with. We only have the present, where peak oil is upon us. If it’s all we’ve got, then from now on peak oil should find its way into the centre of the public discourse when preparing for the future activities of our society. Typically (or presumably) this is the purpose, role and responsibility of politics and governments, since it is through political debate that democracy governs the affairs of a nation. The glaring absence of peak oil in most public or political discussions pertaining to energy stewardship (as the driver of our economy) may prove to be just a running joke of the tragic-comedy of history. While we find ourselves grappling with the challenges of “going green” and addressing climate change in some meaningful, effective way, peak oil threatens to disrupt many of our fantasies about technological solutions that would save our carbon-intensive asses.

Transitioning from a petro-heavy, carbon-intensive lifestyle, after all, is in itself a carbon intensive proposition. Hydro lines and wind generators, photovoltaic panels and hydrogen fuel cells will not just materialise out of thin air. Meanwhile, agriculture’s dependence on petroleum (and carbon intensive fertilizers) poses a host of challenges in its own right. The sheer amount of things we require to replace the existing (fossil-fuel based) infrastructure runs in the area of stupendous to mind-boggling.

Dependence on petroleum in an era of abundance and ever-growing supplies (as problematic as it may be) is not half as bad as over-dependence in a time when supplies are diminishing. Somewhere, someone or something has got to give: whole countries may be shut out of the picture at times, and the next thing you know you’re looking at the geopolitical arena on CNN scratching your head (as in recent events unfolding in north Africa).

At some point we may have to ask ourselves not how, but why we would try to sustain the unsustainable. The question becomes rhetorical. Does it now make sense to build and expand road-systems in anticipation of increased traffic flow? Should we really expand our airports in anticipation of ever increasing volume in air traffic? Might that money (and energy) be better spent on other arrangements more suited to the energy realities of peak oil that are taking shape?

So far, the responses at higher levels of government have ranged from war in Iraq to “drill baby drill” (or in Canada’s case, “dig baby dig”) in an attempt to put off the inevitable day of reckoning and sustain the increasing rate of consumption that we have established as a society. The consequences of this continue to be disruptive, and disastrous.

On the other hand, conservation measures that would ease our dependence will have the benefit of mitigating disruptions. In the absence of officially sanctioned measures and incentives, the best response I know of is to reduce one’s own dependence on fossil fuels and carbon-intensive systems, which, just in time for the end of this week’s entry, brings us to the running theme of this series of posts: the bicycle!

As a proven technology in its own right, the bicycle provides many great advantages as outlined in previous entries here. It is the perhaps most readily available alternative to the predominant, carbon-intensive activity of driving. A sturdy bike in good working order doesn’t have to be kept solely for the purpose of having a back-up plan, but it is very flexible tool that can also serve that purpose when Situation Normal isn’t working the way it should. What’s more, the more your bicycle is a part of your daily life, the less painful the transition will be in the eventuality (temporary or permanent) that your car is not much of a useful tool for lack of cheap energy.

In closing, I think I’ll add this quote from the sometimes hyperbolic James Howard Kunstler. Say what you will about his colourful, shock-therapy style, but he has maintained a pretty clear view of the broad trends in America over the past ten years.

This latest comes from his recent blog:

“Also last week, Wikileaks released papers signifying that Saudi Arabia's oil reserves were quite a bit less than they had claimed. It was basically an old story, one that the late Matthew Simmons had published in 2005 just from poring over reams of production data from the Saudi oil fields. The difference in the Wikileaks story was that this time a Saudi Arabian oil ministry official confirmed the story. You can bet they are going to have problems keeping the flow rate up. They can sell off some stored inventory for a few weeks, but after that the world will know the truth: Saudi Arabia is in depletion and the oil markets will never be the same.”

Biking Part III

2011-02-11T21:07:00.003-05:00

The Long Arm Of Dependence

Last entry I alluded to a cyclist’s encounter with a snow-plough, and only later suspected that I might have created the expectation of some tale involving an errant snowplough driver and a locked bicycle. Certainly, this is a topic worth exploring, since the lack of space allotted to bicycles after the winter begins is a huge problem in this city that claims countless numbers of bicycles every year. I invite anecdotes from readers on their experience of losing a bike to this hazard, or others who may have witnessed some such accident. Perhaps we can build a case that might help persuade the powers-that-be to provide resources, infrastructure or at least public awareness about this problem.

But this is not the focus of my current blog entry; the snow-plough I’m thinking of was heading right for me, while I was riding… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Earlier this winter, as I biked home from downtown in the wake of a blizzard, I first started thinking about what I might write in this series of blog entries on biking, and winter biking in particular. On that ride, I was met with the rather daunting task of climbing a snow-covered bike path up Park Avenue next to the Mountain. Just getting started involved a lot of wasted energy as my rear wheel spun in the thick and chunky snow at the foot of the hill. But then I found my groove and began to climb, working up a lot of heat in doing so. I passed people walking, and I kept pace with rush-hour traffic (always nice), and then I had to stop. Straight ahead was the aforementioned snow-plough barrelling down the hill toward me. My only choice was to dismount and step aside. The driver, a woman in her thirties, was just doing her job, and couldn’t possibly have known that she broke my rhythm, destroyed my momentum, stole my thunder… but before I could even worry about any of that, she was gone and in her wake, all the way up the hill, lay a beautifully cleared trail of compacted snow with a sprinkling of pebbles for good measure. What can I say: the rest of the ride up was a breeze… I could only chuckle to myself, thinking as I pedalled how my ride was now freshly subsidised by diesel power.

Biking is one of the greenest ways to go in this day and age, hands down. But it’s humbling to be reminded just how the technology of the bicycle is thoroughly dependent on industrial systems, supply chains and ultimately – as with just about everything else in our industrial society – fossil fuel supplies. The studded tires that I champion so enthusiastically here are a prime example of petroleum products (as are all tires), which in turn contribute to pollution –in the form of particulate matter while riding, and later as landfill at the end of their usefulness.

Bikes themselves are also dependent on infrastructure for their practicality and mobility: mostly in the form of concrete (a major contributor to greenhouse gases emissions in its manufacture) and asphalt (a petroleum by-product), both of which are expensive (and energy-intensive) to maintain. On the other hand, arguably the right bike for the right conditions can handle the off roads in most kinds of weather – I can ride reasonably well along a foot path of compacted snow – but, this is not the “even playing field” that makes biking accessible to the majority.

I say all of this not to be down on the bicycle, but because I think it’s important to remind ourselves of these facts: that biking is really only more green in relation to the predominant, pervasive culture of the automobile, and like most every form of commonplace technology in the current era is thoroughly dependent upon the use of fossil fuels for it’s existence.

What’s interesting is that it is significantly and overwhelmingly so much more green, despite this revelation. In fact, in today’s global industrial world of resource depletion, energy challenges and global warming it would be an enormous progressive measure of conservation and to transition every able-bodied car driver to the bicycle as quickly as possible. A pipe dream, it may be, but it makes for a good thought experiment at least: imagine we could get past the cries of “injustice” and “hardship” and have every car driver trade in for a top-of the line bicycle. Think of how much less space would be required for infrastructure to accommodate all the commuters: probably less than half (the other half could be reserved for cargo transport and other specialty vehicles – which would not be tied up in congestion). Next think of the amount of energy would be saved: the volumes of gasoline not burnt off in the practice of shuffling about in one-tonne of plastic and metal every day would be staggering. Of course it would require a lot of physical exertion on the part of each and every commuter, but this has its benefits as well. But as reluctant as I am to admit it, for all practical and emotional purposes the idea is an impossibility.

It is however, worth thinking about just a little bit more… Consider if you will just how much room there is for improvement in our transportation formula; just how much cost could be absorbed by efficiency/ conservation measures alone. These costs could be measured in terms of public health, reduced carbon (GHG) emissions, and infrastructure wear and tear/maintenance.

In terms of public costs to society, biking is on record as one of the most beneficial practices one could take up. Contributing to the health and fitness of the public is just the start. I suppose if we had many more cyclists than we do, the statistics might be different, but generally a bike’s lower top speed and adept manoeuvrability means that it has a much better safety record than the car. And in fact, it has been shown that the presence of more bikes has a generally calming effect on all traffic across the board.

As far as “doing one’s part” to reduce, and otherwise limit carbon emissions in hopes of forestalling runaway climate change, it is well documented that the cost of doing nothing far outweighs the costs involved in making changes. And yet, biking represents one of the easiest, cheapest transitions available to nearly every citizen in the western world (health permitting). Changing our habits has long been one of the most recommended methods promoted by environmental groups, and, in the light of the international community’s repeated failures (Kyoto, Copenhagen, etc.), doing one’s own part may be the last line of defence in this struggle.

Which brings us to the cost to you, the consumer: a high-end bike costs about half or less than the cost of your run-of-the-mill scrap-box used car. Now, in my opinion, unless you have aspirations in the area of professional cyclist, you don’t need to go anywhere near “high-end” to be completely satisfied with your ride. In fact, the budget of a typical driver (purchase, insurance, gas, repairs, tickets etc.) amounts to an enormous windfall that most cyclists would be hard-pressed spend in its entirety, even if a trailer and a second (winter) bike was thrown in. What’s more you could cancel your gym membership once the practical use of your bicycle takes up the time and calories you would otherwise spend money to burn.

It may be true that as an industrial product of the global economy, the bicycle is not entirely neutral: it has a carbon footprint. And if we want to keep a whole lot of them rolling, there will always be costs to society to do so. But it is safe to say that the absence of a tailpipe that characterises the bicycle is a very attractive attribute which represents a very potent advantage over that other mode of transport that we somehow used to love so much. Isn’t it about time that love affair was put to rest?

Now, it is unlike me to go on so long on such topics without conjuring the notions of energy shortages and supply challenges in the years to come. I write these posts as a “peak-oiler” after all…. Next week I’d like to take a closer look here at the energy/ transportation equation, and why it just might be a good idea to have a “plan B” in your toolkit if the car is currently your primary mode of transport.

At the same time, it’s important to have a reasonable grasp on what the likely consequences of our society’s general inability to meet the challenges of reducing green-house gas emissions are, for it’s the consequences that will likely reshape the living arrangements of the future.

Biking Part II

2011-01-19T11:52:00.001-05:00

Part II
Biking Is Appropriate Technology

It’s funny how luck plays out. In the midst of my current entries on biking (this being the second), I happened to have the freakiest of technical failures with my winter bike, which will relegate me to walking and public transit for the next week. Now I certainly recognise these two venerable modes of transport as commendable and practical – so this will be a good opportunity for me to reacquaint myself with these – but I’ll miss the bike terribly…

Anyway, before I go on about this entry’s topic of appropriate technology, and how well bicycles fit the bill, I thought I’d indulge in a rant of sorts:

(Ahem).

After watching closely the anthropogenic global warming debate/drama unfold over the last seven or eight years, I have begun to reconcile myself with the fact that, humans being the way they are, living in a global, petro-/techno-industrial economy, will do their utmost to burn through the remaining half of the earth’s fossil fuels as quickly or quicker than they dispensed with the first half. As far as petroleum goes, that’s another ninety to a hundred years of ever-diminishing supplies. Coal in turn, which is ever dirtier, since the “cleanest” has already been burnt away, will be used to make up much of the shortfall as we transition to electricity (coal-fired power plants). Natural gas will likely help in this department, so long as we are willing to tolerate all the consequences of “fracking” or “gaz de schiste” as it’s known in Quebec. And we’ll likely tolerate an awful lot, lbeit under protest. We’ll tolerate the consequences of the rapid development of Alberta’s Tar Sands too, as horrendous as they may be. Our dependence on cheap – or no longer quite so cheap, but still relatively abundant – energy to grow our economy runs that deep.

As sad as this may be, it is even sadder to realise that a measurable amount of our precious reserves of fossil fuels will be completely squandered by clueless individuals who are in the habit of idling their car’s engine for inexcusable lengths of time – much more time than it takes to warm up the entire insides of the car on a cold day.

Idling happens in every neighbourhood, in every season with predictable regularity, despite there being a city bylaw on the books that makes this practice an illegal one subject to a municipal fine. With gas prices at $1.20 a litre, the habit is doubly puzzling. I suppose it takes a special kind of ignorance combined with just not caring… So people like you and I (Whether you’re car-free or not…) have our work cut out for ourselves as we remind our idling neighbours of the long list of reasons why this is unacceptable behaviour.
Recently I witnessed an utterly flagrant example of idling (Cadillac Escallade, at least 15 minutes) just outside my apartment. It struck me that this is a perfect way to start a discussion about appropriate technology: by looking first at this example of what one could call entirely inappropriate technology.
(End of rant).

Anthropologists classify societies often by the types of tools and technology that they use. But perhaps more important is the type of energy that different classes of tools employ. A hoe uses human muscle, driven by food energy. A ploughshare is pulled by a much stronger animal, but ultimately also driven by food energy. A windmill or a sailboat harnesses air movement ultimately driven by the sun. A combustion engine harnesses explosive energy stored in hydrocarbons condensed and concentrated by millions of years of geological pressure.

Our petro-techno- society uses concentrated energy fuels unlike any previous society, and it sets us apart: it defines the Industrial Age. But that does not preclude our access to technologies of the “past”, many of which have been perfected and refined by modern know-how… The bike is a perfect example. The basic design of two wheels, a frame, and a chain is a good hundred and twenty years old now. Improvements have been made in countless directions, making for specialty bikes for just about every kind of riding you can imagine. And yet, despite the advances made, the basic mechanics of a bike make for relatively easy up-keep and repair – if not by oneself, by a local mechanic at an affordable cost. This principle of relative autonomy in maintenance is a huge part of appropriate technology, making it hugely convenient, and rarely obsolete in the long run.

Often times the energy-intense technologies (including modes of transport) seem to be more convenient and effective in the immediate sense of the word, but are far less appropriate when you consider the amount of wasted energy involved. A single person driving one tonne of metal, plastic, vinyl and other dead-weight around (i.e. The vehicle itself) is rather extravagant and fairly absurd when that same one person with a simple backpack, saddle bags or even a modest trailer can easily take care of what most people need to schlep on an average day. Burning an exponentially greater number of calories to do the same amount of work may give the advantage of speed, so when long distances and multiple passengers or cargo are involved, the car begins to look a little more appropriate, but there are always other ways…

What then, makes the absurdity of our extravagant over-use of cars seem appropriate and utterly banal? For one thing, the vast outlay of investment in the form of infrastructure makes it possible to support this kind of activity as normal. But ultimately it’s the cheap and abundant fuel behind the infrastructure, and that same abundant, cheap energy which fuels the activity itself. It’s the utterly crucial element in the equation.

So? What if fuel is no longer cheap? What if it starts to become scarce? What if there are unintended consequences to the habit of running all those combustion engines? By now we should all know that these are the defining economic/ ecological themes of our newly hatched decade. Even if you don’t agree, as a reader, you should know that I for one take these as the basic premises to heart. From there I advocate changes to public and civic living arrangements.

In an era of global industrial economy increasingly faced with the problems of global warming and global energy shortfalls (wait for it), any given activity that ignores or otherwise exacerbates these stresses is problematic. Meanwhile making choices that do not draw down our petro- energy reserves quite so fast, and do not involve carbon emissions may help to “solve” these big problems.

But of course I did begin this entry with my own admission that it is probably too late in the game to avert global warming. Similarly (that is, for the same reasons of human nature and social inertia, as well as some fundamental matters of geology) the age of cheap and abundant energy will soon be behind us, starting approximately now. So I guess I have some explaining to do…

I embrace carbon-free activity and other appropriate technology as a means of building optimal immunity to the stresses caused by these two major ecological/ economic pressures; if it helps to delay or otherwise lessen their effects, all the better. The bicycle is a great place to start because it can be used just about every day of the year (see Part I). But really, the Bike is just my chosen symbol for the appropriate technology principle, as I understand it. Perhaps this is because it is so readily accessible to me, and because I am avid about riding. On the other hand, I am not yet in the habit of doing my cooking with a solar cooker (in the summer) or with a hay-box in the winter, though arguably, I would do well to get to know these methods as well. Nor am I in the position to install a windmill on the roof of my upstairs neighbour’s apartment –but we can all have our aspirations.

Interestingly, the appropriate tech principle can be applied to systems as well, such as food production, where agricultural practices and distribution methods can be held to the same test. As a first step, looking to the local producers shifts the scale of one’s own relation to that system. “Closer to home” may involve plenty of petroleum for transport, but it’s still a lot less energy intensive than flying produce half-way round the planet in January. At the completely human end of the spectrum is the balcony, back-yard, or community garden that can provide an astonishingly abundant quantity of certain foods. Supporting your local organic farmers through weekly basket programs is also a very rewarding, appropriate practice.

Appropriate technology also offers the benefit of building self esteem and empowerment, since it often involves a much more thorough understanding of how the given technology works, keeping most repairs within reach of a toolbox. Unfortunately for me, the broken rear axle I sustained last week, on my winter bike is beyond my skill-set – which is not to say that it’s beyond me to learn how to fix it, but since it involves rebuilding a wheel from scratch (an art I have not even begun to master) I will defer to the pros at the bike shop and wait…

Post Script
Stay tuned for part III, and maybe I’ll get around to relating the anecdote about the bike and the snow-plough that got me started thinking about writing this little series of posts…

Winter Biking

2010-12-28T18:55:00.004-05:00

When the snow came down in abundance earlier this month I was filled with the excitement of a child knowing that I would not have to dig out a car and play a game of musical chairs trying to park it half-way across the neighbourhood; What’s more, I had the pleasure instead of taking out my winter bike, sprucing it up with a bit of TLC and taking on the elements head-on with a single gear and studded tires.

For me, the pleasure of triumphing over the elements with what E.M. Schumaker referred to as appropriate technology is considerable. So I figured winter biking would be an excellent subject for this blog. Perhaps I could share a few insights and observations on the subject that may inspire others to join in on this liberating, self-empowering activity. Or, at least I hope to convince some of you that we who bike in the snow are not completely nuts (though I suppose I should not speak for everyone).

I’d like to cover some of the technical challenges, and a sort of check-list of necessary accessories. In addition a cost/benefit analysis could prove to be quite interesting: biking as compared to driving.

The idea of biking through Mother Nature’s ill will of a blizzard is really only for the hard-core cyclist equipped with a specialised bike and the experience to keep oneself safe amidst the traffic. On the other end of the winter-cycling spectrum are those who just plough ahead once the storm and the snow-removal crews have passed, with a business-as-usual approach, on the same bike they were riding before the leaves started to fall. They do this with some success, though in my opinion, at considerable risk of peril. I know, because this is an approach I tried years ago, and after two bad spills, abandoned. More recently, I discovered the wonders of studded tires, which truly do take the risk of sudden loss of control (on say, black ice) out of the equation. This is not to say you need not take extra care when biking in the cold, the snow, and the ice, even with winter tires.

You must.

You must also be prepared to get your hands dirty from time to time to keep your bike in good working order. The moisture and salt of winter streets can really take their toll on all moving parts from cables to bearings and, of course, the chain. A chain should never squeak, and so may need a dose of lubricant much more frequently than people are accustomed to, judging by the number of times I hear what I like to call “sparrow powered bikes” around town. All bikes require chains, but one way of reducing the amount of maintenance on moving parts is to go with a fixed gear . This way you eliminate two derailers, and their cables. It can also eliminate brakes (and more cables) if you have the proper skills to rely on your legs to stop. On the other hand one good front brake, especially a disc brake, can be very reliable in wet conditions. Again, you need to have the experience to go this route, which should best start with a thorough discussion with a qualified bike expert at your local bike shop or co-op. (http://www.bikegarage.org/ & http://theflat.wordpress.com/ )

Another must is good outer wear. Think wind chill, and think slush. And by all means think about good waterproof boots, or you’ll want to throw in the towel after one day. Some folks even go with a skier’s helmet and goggles, which is probably awesome, especially on the colder days.

Dressing warm is definitely a challenge, given that over-heating in very cold weather is always a possibility when enough exertion is required to get to where you’re going. Layers and a backpack are recommended so that you can bundle up for the downhill ride (little exertion) and then carry the extra sweater on the way back when you have to ride up-hill.

All in all, it is fairly bulky and rather messy, so you might want to have a change of clothes for where you’re going (I keep shoes and pants at work). Sometimes this is not possible, which may be the biggest drawback to winter riding. I often opt for the metro and lighter boots when I’m going “out.”

Once you are equipped for winter riding, you’ll be ready to conquer compacted snow, chunks of ice crystals and slush-covered ice, even while going up-hill. You will experience the feeling of the studs in your tires preventing you from skidding and falling down. What’s more, even though biking in the snow may be more work that “regular” biking it is most certainly faster and easier than walking on the slushy sidewalks. And, as always with active transportation, you’re getting your heart pumping and your muscles toned just getting to where you need to go.

By now you may well be tempted to give it a try, so you’d probably like to know how much it will cost you to get started. I recommend having a second bike for winter, so my answer is that the sky’s the limit. But fortunately with bikes, an excellent one can actually cost only a fraction of the cost of a car. Even for less than a thousand dollars at a reputable dealership, you can be entirely set to go, complete with all accessories.

Too rich for your liking? I tend to agree. On the cheap, you can tune up a beater at one of Montreal’s bike repair co-ops on a shoestring budget – but be prepared to spring for a new chain, and new cables and brake-pads (about $40 to $50). And then there’s expense of the winter tires. For the really thrifty ones out there, there are methods by which to convert a regular tire into a studded tire using screws and other basic hardware/supplies. Otherwise a pair of studded tires can cost you anywhere from $100 to $250. (But it truly is worth it!).

Next week I’ll continue on the subject of winter biking by considering where biking fits in the bigger picture of human ecology – that is, the ecosystem of the industrial/civilised world

Until then, if this inspires you to get out there and brave the elements on two wheels, Happy Riding, Happy New Year, and ride safe!

The War on the Car

2010-12-06T14:55:00.002-05:00

As I watched Rob Ford being sworn-in as mayor of Toronto last week I was reminded of just how unfortunate this turn of events is when he uttered his victory slogan: “The war on the car ends here.” As his supporters cheered I think I must have heard dear ol’ Jane Jacobs doing summersaults in her grave. Dark Age Ahead indeed for her adopted city.

Funny his choice of the one word: “war” – which conjures up images of destruction and death. It seems to me that the historic record shows clearly that it’s the car itself that has left a trail of destruction and, literally death in its path. But stats on casualties aside, let’s start to imagine just how “victimised” the car driver could actually feel, even if the statement is more of a manipulative trope and a ruse than anything else.

I suppose the argument suggests that this war is waged on many fronts, starting with gas prices, tolls and taxes, and rising insurance costs. What’s more, the auto industry has been faced with major financial losses putting its very viability into question. The official response of course has embraced anew the status quo under the banner of “restructuring”, which involves plenty of lip-service on environmental stewardship and “going green” – in short the usual smoke-and-mirrors type of spin that passes for success these days. But Ontarians know of the massive job losses as well as anyone. The question is, do they really want to hold their breath as they wait for the whole thing to “recover”? In this day and age, it’s making more and more sense to “think outside the car”, so anyone still determined to hang on to the out-going mode of operating must be feeling pressure from all sides, like the whole world is against them. I suppose attacking the car by looking at its ills inflicted upon public space and the environment is one way to be scapegoated by the likes of a Rob Ford.

Here in the Plateau Mont-Royal a battle in this ongoing “war” was recently fought ostensibly over the issue of parking spaces. Traffic reduction and calming being the goal, the proposed parking plan was designed to solve particular problems and enhance business. In fact, having read the proposals, I’m baffled to this day as to what the very vocal and dare I say militant opponents to the plan objected to. And then I thought about Rob Ford’s “war”. Of course he spoke in another context, in another city, but it struck me how emotionally and ideologically charged this particular point of view is. Perhaps this is at the heart of the matter where ever car culture and its enthusiasts (whoever they may be) feel threatened: it may be political, and said to be economical, but really, it’s ideological. These people love their cars, and what cars represent to them, and they resent those of us who challenge the car, and hold it up to the emerging standards of a changing world.

So, although the parking plan in and of itself may not have been actually threatening (if you actually read it), it did garner a knee-jerk, emotional response from those who are threatened more generally by what they know Projet Montreal to represent, which is focused largely on traffic reduction and curtailment through a shift to active transport and public transit, but I digress. You can check out the party’s platform and objectives for yourself on their website. If you ask me it may well amount to real change that enjoys broad-based democratic support, but only time will tell.

The knee-jerk response is actually predictable, since it’s well documented elsewhere (Copenhagen being my favourite example) that most challenges to the status quo (especially those involving cars) are met with misconceptions, false assumptions and over-reactions. As predictable as it should be, Projet Montreal certainly failed to present their recent proposal in a way that might have nipped the objections in the bud. A lot of misconceptions about the plan were allowed to circulate, not least of which was the budgetary context in which the new arrangements were drawn-up. Where were the leaflets and adverts outlining all the good sense that Luc Ferrandez so eloquently details in his blog? Does he have a P.R. strategy for the unveiling of his next round of implementations?

It was stunning how quickly his opponents mobilised with posters that crept their way into the Mile End soon after the battle began. These opponents framed the issue with a misinterpretation of the facts, and probably fooled a lot of people along the way. But, again, it’s important to stay away from oversimplifying. And I’m certain that Ferrandez understands this. But the public does require an accessible and easily read outline of this sort of proposal early on so that the debate can start off on the right foot.

I wish I could have been the fly on the wall when Ferrandez and his opponents were ironing things out behind closed doors. My guess is that a fair bit of humble pie was served up to the detractors who were finally made to read the reasonable details outlining the purpose and the methods of the proposed changes, which should in fact to be to their benefit, as Plateau merchants.

The media has it that they were able to save face, which is good, because my guess is that in a few years time they will be backing the plan whole-heartedly, even if they don’t yet believe it themselves.

What’s all the Fuss?

2010-11-26T22:40:00.000-05:00

Free parking?

On the Plateau it may soon be a thing of the past. And those of you who have been following the controversy, know that this has made some people very upset, and it has caused mayor Gerald Tremblay to rescind the boroughs’ newly granted power to administer their own parking fees, and allocate the revenue as they see fit. Putting the debate on ice, somewhat, for now, at least.

But surely that will not be the end of it – though we may have to endure a different s**t-storm in the interim.

When the Plateau’s parking quandary does come back to the table, it might be useful to expose ourselves to some facts, ideas and opinions surrounding the issue.

So, what does one need to know?

Well, as far as the nuts and bolts of the proposed plan goes, it’s all there on Luc Ferrandez’s site. His recent blog entry spells-out the reasoning behind the new parking proposals – and they are really quite reasonable measures coming from a democratically elected mayor who ran on a platform of doing exactly what he is doing and has done since the votes were tallied. His parking plan can only be shocking on the grounds that politicians don’t usually follow through with their promises. I call it refreshing.

So what’s the threat? Why are merchants so up in arms about these measures that they have resorted to smear campaigns and behind-closed-doors meetings with the mayor at ville centre? The particularities of power politics and conspiracies I will leave to other commentators, for I have no idea whether Gerald Tremblay is trying to collaborate with wealthy business owners to oust or otherwise ruin the one borough mayor who is re-writing the rules in municipal politics in Montreal, for that is an area of speculation in which I am not an expert.

I am (I believe) considerably more informed on matters surrounding automobile dependence and the many ills associated with its predominance in the urban environment. Urban planning and municipal politics combined with grass-roots community initiatives in the right circumstances can combine to address and solve many of these ills. This is what I believe we are witnessing here with this parking controversy in Plateau Mont-Royal: we are actually experiencing one form of the ever-vaunted “change” that politicians promise but rarely deliver upon.

What people find so very threatening with the actual proposed changes to the way parking is administered and allocated is something of a mystery. Having read the details of the proposal I can’t imagine where some people are getting the impression that this is an insensitive cash-grab and a threat to the livelihood of small businesses. On the contrary, the more you read the more you understand that these proposals stem from a real and inspired vision of what an administration can achieve in governing public space in an equitable and reasonable fashion, with the clear objective of improving the quality of life in the plateau, while transforming it into a truly world-class, functional community – and generating revenue in a form other than property taxes.

That these objectives should involve the curtailment of automobile dependency, the general reduction and calming of traffic, and an emphasis on improved public transit should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the historical record and the demands of the 21^st century. There are a great many examples where similar proposals have caused businesses to react with fear and misgivings at first, only to be convinced later once the changes were implemented, by experiencing the benefits first hand. The most famous examples include Copenhagen’s pedestrianisation of the city centre, and Portland Oregon’s similar measures. The proof is in the pudding as they say: life and business goes on quite well (thank-you very much) even in the absence of automobiles, when you’ve got a plan.

We have the plan before us.

Fear mongering and smear-campaigns represent a failure to embrace change at a time when change is clearly needed. Reducing our dependence on gasoline, and reducing our carbon emissions can only happen if we chart a new course. In short, we are talking about aiming for real success measured by quality of life that doesn’t just happen on its own. The definition of success can and must be reclaimed, one parking spot at a time. We need politicians and business leaders with the courage to move toward a vision of reality that comports with, er, reality. And who are willing facilitate change that amounts to real, and progressive, er, change.

For once!

Change What?

2010-11-19T10:54:00.002-05:00

Car Free Mile End was hatched as an idea in July of 2009. At the time the main, albeit nebulous, idea was that of a car-free section of Mile End: probably a portion of St. Viateur Ouest turned into a pedestrian zone. Once the discussion began to evolve into an actual group of people actively brainstorming about urban planning, community activism and politics, we began to realise that a simplistic model of a closed-to-traffic street was not necessarily the best objective to have in mind.

This has actually been our stance for quite some time now, and we’ve even considered changing our name to reflect that. But after considerable debate, we agreed that no better name has materialised, so we’re committed to our slightly provocative name that will forever require that we explain ourselves every time that name is uttered.

And so, it may (still) be news to many readers that turning St. Viateur into the next Prince Arthur is not our goal. I’m guessing that as this news sinks in, it will provide many of the merchants along the street with relief: Car Free Mile End is not a threat to the level of commerce that they are accustomed to. Indeed, we are committed to developing ways to enhance business in the area, and we’re convinced that exploring car-free ideas and options is the best way to achieve this.

So what do we have in mind? This is the question that we are continuing to answer as we proceed, hopefully in collaboration with all the stakeholders in the neighbourhood. It is the process by which this gets done that is what we are currently developing as a group. One key objective, for example, is to set up a workshop with as many stake-holders (especially merchants) as possible, which will allow for us all to brainstorm and troubleshoot together.

Make no mistake, we may not wish to install permanent barricades on the street, but we do wish to usher in some permanent changes to the current arrangements surrounding the public space that is the Street and how it is used. There is much in the way of precedent around the world that proves time and again that fears and assumptions we cling to when it comes to such change are often wildly unfounded. There are countless world-class car-free spaces around the world that represent the way of the future in an age where the carbon footprint of human activity is fast becoming the primary criterion by which we do business and conduct our lives.

Our job at Car Free Mile End, therefore is to explain what exactly the problem is with the way things are and the path we are on as individual consumers, as a neighbourhood and as a society. In answering this we inevitably turn to the combustion engine, and more importantly, the individual ownership and perpetual use of automobiles.

The car

We start with the premise that with respect to the car, the way things are right now is not desirable. Things could be so much better. But instead, for reasons that are too numerous and complex to go into here, we have grown to accept and celebrate the presence the car in our lives despite its great many drawbacks. Please allow me to rattle off some of the more salient negative aspects of “car culture” that typically get downplayed or lost in the sophisticated marketing campaigns and the general cultural acceptance of the car’s seductive qualities.

Most obvious is its horrific safety record, and ongoing potency as a lethal force, physically as well as a source of toxic pollution. But it is also on the record as the destroyer of communities by the sheer physical dominance of its presence and speed. It is the culprit behind sprawl and population flight from the classic downtown neighbourhoods, leaving ghettos, and ghost towns behind. It is that which commuter bottleneck traffic jams are made of, adding enormously each and every day, to carbon emissions and all the consequences of that.

The car is the symbol of independent consumer expression, and is a huge part of a driver’s identity and status. It has been the mode by which consumerism largely unfolds, and as an industry has been one of the pillars of the entire economy. This may seem like a positive attribute, until you consider the predicament of being over-dependent on the non-renewable fuel that cars run on. If indeed the extraction of petroleum is running up against the hard limits of geology these days, then it may well prove that the automobile represents an over-investment in a way of life that has no future.

To be fair, the Mile End is not a suburb, and it probably still has more non-car households than car owners (not actually sure about that). But one thing is for sure – even if just anecdotally, the Mile End is far more over-run by cars now, than ever before in its history. Indeed, it was originally built as a neighbourhood served well by an extensive tramway system that linked the residents and workers to the downtown and the rest of Montreal.

Before the car, yes there were things we could not do, and yes, the car is a fantastically liberating tool. But there are other ways –through progressive business models and new methods ownership and of sharing – in short, by better design and planning we could model our community and living arrangement as an expression of knowing better: having a better idea of what to do given the circumstances.

Obviously no-one can hope to eradicate all cars in the world overnight, nor would we want to, but we can work to provide incentives – moral and otherwise – to do without, or to do a lot less with a car and much more without one. Hopefully, eventually it will be enough for some to rid themselves of their car entirely.

Looking back, looking forward

This past summer was punctuated by three events that took place last summer under the banner of Journées des bons Voisins. They stand as Car Free Mile End’s main achievement to date. Each date was planned as a street-closure that we affectionately referred to as “street-openings, and were designed to get a sense of the public space in the absence of cars. We believe we successfully fostered good old-fashioned neighbourhood activity without resorting to cheap commercial activity (as seen during other street closures elsewhere in the city), and without staging a full-blown party or festival. Yes there was music, and there was an artists’ market, but in general, there was (hopefully) a sense of normal neighbourhood living – sans automobiles.

Some of the most enticing design concepts that inspires us is to take this car free type of space (and attitude), and only allow the presence of cars into it on a whole new set of terms where the pedestrian sets the pace and rhythm of the Street, which is an extension of the sidewalks. Drivers who do enter must do so with patience and respect, and may find that they’d rather be walking.

This simple description conveys our basic impression of existing models that work in places like the Netherlands where they use the term woonerf. It’s a name that we’ve adopted, even if the specifics to the Dutch version are not necessarily part of our vision. In fact, as suggested earlier, our vision has yet to be fully defined, and should be fleshed out with your help.

Help us to define woonerf on our own terms.

P.S.

I am back at my post of writing weekly entries here. Next week we'll discuss the outrage expressed about the proposed changes to parking in the Plateau.

Deepwater Horizon, a second look.

2010-06-06T15:36:00.005-04:00

I hadn’t expected to follow up on my last post with another on the same subject, but the continued disastrous consequences of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill have not allowed me to focus on much else.

I will point out off the bat that two of my favourite bloggers helped keep these fires burning. One entry by Dmitri Orlov, which I hadn’t read until this week, makes the canny comparison of Deepwater Horizon to Chernobyl [http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/05/american-chernobyl.html], and the other by John Michael Greer which puts the disaster in perspective, as usual, also touches on nuclear technology, and delves into musings on magic [http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/06/magical-thinking.html]. I recommend both highly.

And now for musings of my own…

The world may now be learning something the oil and auto giants have kept hidden all these years: with petroleum, only the illusion of green is really possible. With persuasive P.R. and marketing, coupled with the sophisticated and refined technology of power, comfort and convenience and you have the very seductive gasoline-powered automobile. Enshrined in the popular culture of our times with god-like status, the car comes complete with a collective blind spot for its drawbacks. Could a singular event spell the undoing of this trance we are under?

Like the Chernobyl core meltdown did for nuclear energy, the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil disaster promises to deliver a severe blow to Big Oil and the auto-makers. It will remove much of the blind spot shielding the industry from common-sense scrutiny.

The immediate consequence of peak oil is that the industrial, economic pressures for sustaining growth demand that any energy shortfall be made up from the next best source of energy. The conventional economic wisdom is that the higher price per barrel will encourage development of the more hard-to-reach sources. If true on paper, it is only thanks to the omission of external costs (to the health of people and the environment). Disastrous accidents put those externalities in the spotlight.

It’s a crying shame that the understanding and acceptance of the facts of this new reality have to come at the cost of the biosphere – almost as a sacrifice – since it is the biosphere itself (of which we are a part) that we are trying to preserve.

Arguably, climate change is supposed to fulfill the role of the global wake-up call, but apparently humans need to see cause and effect spelled out for them in graphic, indisputable events, with a bit of corporate malfeasance on top.

So Deepwater Horizon it is.

But let it serve to remind us that there is nothing particularly green or friendly about the oil industry to begin with: from extraction, to refinery, to the tailpipe, oil is a nasty, persistent and toxic substance. The chemicals derived from it, not limited to petroleum, such as plastic and industrial fertilizers, have had a huge impact on the biosphere in their own right, with plastic-filled oceans and topsoil erosion the respective legacies of each. But like global warming, these are end-use and consequential issues that tell us of the biosphere’s elastic constraints that limit our growth. But they are hard to perceive through the din of the seductive automotive and petroleum industries’ spectacle of marketing – if you took them at their word, you’d see them as the self-appointed custodians of the environment.

Peak oil is a supply related issue. It speaks of the geological constraints that also limit our industrial growth. But it too is hard to perceive, because as the people in the peak oil community will tell you, the taps will not simply run dry over-night.

Conveniently, Deepwater Horizon encapsulates the two: it is the supply of risky and difficult to get oil (post peak source, by definition) transformed instantly into an externality, without the bother of pumping, shipping, refining, marketing, transporting, selling and burning. It’s instant pollution for all to see. The event spells out in plain imagery the nature of our predicament: continued reliance on petroleum is challenging, risky, and expensive, pretty much unacceptable, and for all practical purposes, eventually untenable.

Deepwater Horizon is an industrial disaster of enormous proportion, involving likely disregard for already lax regulation, and complete incompetence and unpreparedness made worse by the most challenging environment on the planet – a mile deep at sea!

And of course it is an environmental nightmare: with the use of dispersants minimising the impact on beaches (not very well, mind-you, but reducing the most visible aspect of its impact – a public image priority for B.P. to be sure), but possibly compounding the effects of the spill in the underwater ecosystems of the Gulf. The whole thing is a high risk experiment with some of the world’s most persistent and toxic chemicals.

Apparently British Petroleum has deep enough pockets that it will go to any length to stop the flow of oil. Little thanks goes to them however when it comes to clean-up efforts, where the incompetence of the corporation has again become self-evident; and where volunteers and the state have had to pick up the slack.

It’s a shame that such gargantuan resources have to be spent on damage control to begin with. Obviously a regulatory preventative measure would have been preferable. Better still, taking away the incentive for oil companies to develop high-risk sources by reducing demand could at least help prevent the risk of future accidents.

Dependence on oil is woven into the way we have set up our living arrangements in the cities and suburbs of North America. We should know better by now. Arguably, at least some of us do. If ever there was a time when we had the technological ability, the intellectual capacity and the moral imperative to change those arrangements by design, it is now. Instead we in Canada have a political leader who pushes the country forward as a petro-state propped up by the dirty oil of the Athabasca tar sands. How much longer will we follow our noses down this path?

Fortunately, as has been said here before at Car Free Mile End, we do have the power to act in many ways in our proverbial back-yard. Living arrangements start in households, and move outward into communities and beyond. Perhaps some of the events that we have planned for our neighbourhood this summer will inspire your participation in the myriad of solutions that will break the dependence that must not continue.

A Dirty Rotten Shame

2010-05-18T23:35:00.001-04:00

Day twenty six:

You wouldn’t know it by any observation of the immediate surroundings here, in the pleasant ambience of the summer-like spring morning: birds are chirping, the air is still and the sun is pushing the temperature up into the range of perfectly comfortable… no you wouldn’t know it at all but possibly one of the worst environmental disasters of the industrial era is well under way.(http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52828)

Ever since April 22, when the burning remains of an exploded deep-sea oil rig collapsed into the waters off New Orleans, 5000 barrels (about 760 thousand litres) of crude oil have gushed forth into the Gulf of Mexico each day (Deep Water Horizon Explosion Oil Spill and Why You Should Care ) – at least those are the official numbers; there seems to be reason to believe that estimate is much too low. (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0514/76111/ )

Astonishingly it is not the world’s worst oil spill ever, yet. The worst spill occurred in 1979, also in the Gulf of Mexico. In a very similar accident involving the Mexican Ixtoc 1 oil rig, as much as 3.5 million barrels of oil leaked into the tropical waters by the time the well was brought under control nine months later. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I)

The only spill worse than Ixtoc 1 was the deliberate dumping of crude oil into the Persian Gulf by Saddam Hussein’s forces, at the tail end of the first Gulf War in 1991, where easily 10 million barrels of oil were released. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills)

The oceans are already in a bad way, with fish stocks depleted by as much as 90%, acidity levels being thrown out of balance by general warming, and huge portions of open water riddled with a mind numbing quantity of plastic debris. Historically the world’s oceans have had to absorb as much as 42 million barrels of oil spilled since World War Two.(ibid)

As enormous as this quantity is, it represents only two days of current consumption by

the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption), and about twenty-eight days of production from the Athabasca Tar Sands of Alberta (http://oilsands.alberta.ca/519.cfm). On the one hand, it’s a drop in the bucket, as they say. On the other hand it is quite literally much more than a drop in the ocean. In other words, since we consume such stupendous quantities of crude oil each day (about 80 million barrels world wide) allowing even just a fraction of one per cent of it to find it’s way into the oceans is no negligible failure. And the most troubling aspect of this, is that the risk of further spillage is bound increase since most of the equipment being used is old and aging (engineerlive.com)and most of the remaining off-shore oil to be had is deeper and deeper at sea.

Every barrel of crude oil spilled has to be taken seriously since the cumulative effect of industrial activity on the biosphere in general is the number one limiting factor on the viability of that activity. Indeed, oil spills happen in the context of our global project (called “civilisation” I think). Every barrel of oil that does not get spilled gets transformed into fuel (for the most part), plastic, or other chemical products. And most of the fuel gets converted into Green House Gases – and I’m guessing you know where these numbers are heading…. To put it succinctly, the biosphere is pushed to the limit on all fronts.

Elsewhere, in the case of the Athabasca Tar Sands, the spillage is, in a sense, simply part of the process: For every barrel of synthetic crude oil produced, the industry uses 2 to 4 barrels of fresh water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Water), which ends up in enormous tailings ponds utterly contaminated. What has become the largest industrial endeavour in history comes with exorbitant environmental impact under normal operations. For Canadians, this is happening in our “own back yard,” but it too is far removed from our daily experience.

Oil is what they call a fungible commodity. Once it is on-line, it is functionally interconnected with all oil on the global market, and the price is set globally according to the costs of production and speculation, all around the world. In this model, any given litre of gasoline stems from the global pool. You can’t separate it from one geographical location or another. It is fitting since the end product of exhaust spewing from a tailpipe knows no geographical bounds either. Let’s hope at least that the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico does meet with some degree of containment in the weeks to come.

Got Gas?

2010-04-06T22:30:00.008-04:00

Gas Prices in a Car Free World

It was announced this week that Montrealers will pay just a little more tax at the pump (2¢/litre) to help offset such things as public transit and infrastructure costs. And of course there was a typical outcry from motorists who appeared in the news on T.V. – already having to cope with prices pretty much permanently above one dollar a litre. With crude oil stuck around the $80 per barrel mark, there’s little chance of relief in this department any time soon. But people of all walks of life should view this state of affairs as a good thing, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, we need to drive less (for countless reasons) and the greater the cost of fuel the more likely we are to eliminate frivolous uses of our motor vehicles. The more we explore the alternatives to driving the more we rediscover the fabric of urban community that the automobile so efficiently disintegrates. What’s more, chances are that it will involve getting more exercise.

The other main reason that this tax should be welcomed is that motorists really are the ones who should pay for the solution to traffic woes, which we all agree are acute. Let’s not forget that for years drivers have benefitted from subsidies in the form of highway infrastructure investment defrayed over the broadest taxpaying base. Why should someone who does not drive, or drives very little pay as much as someone who is a carbon/ asphalt glutton?

Another point worth considering is that if everyone used public transit (and the service was equal to the demand) there would likely be no transit system fiscal deficit, no traffic jams, and much less pollution.

Imagine that! In a car-free world gas prices would be largely irrelevant; and there may even be a glut in the supply of crude oil once again, bringing the cost of your monthly bus-fare, or train-fare down considerably!

But the main point I think should be emphasized here is that at $1.15 per litre, gasoline is still cheaper than most other liquid commodities I can think of. Even bottled water can cost as much, if you’re willing to pay for it. Milk is approximately the same. Though I realise the two are not interchangeable, a litre of gasoline contains far greater amount of energy than a litre of milk. In terms of energy it is pretty much the most rich and precious commodity we have come up with. So why is it so cheap?

I don’t want to try and answer that just now, but I thought a mental illustration might help us appreciate the real value of gasoline – it’s literal bang for the buck:

You’re stuck at the bottom of Av. des Pins and Av. du Parc and your Communauto car, stuffed with goodies from the flea market, has run out of gas. How are you going to return to the Mile End? Just the thought of pushing the car up the hill make your knees quiver – I don’t care how fit you are this is not an option. Therefore hiring some extra muscle may be the way to go. It would take four or five beefy guys to accomplish the task, and it may take them the good part of an hour to get you there. If they’re nice, they may do it for free; but if you have to pay them any more than 28¢ each for their services you’ll be exceeding the price of a litre of gas. And for sure that litre of gas will get the job done in about five minutes, whether the traffic lights work in your favour or not.

So why do we gripe so much when it comes to the price of gas? Would it not be more progressive to accept that gasoline’s preciousness deserves to be reflected in the price we pay for it and the way we use it?

And let’s not forget that for every benefit of easy motoring, there is a drawback in the form of pollution and danger. So perhaps using gasoline is a necessary evil at best.

As an alternative to cars, bike trailers are pretty incredible. There is so much dead weight in the structure of a car that would make the task of pushing I described above very unmanageable. But a trailer and a bike are not encumbered by any superfluous trappings, and make the proposition of transporting at least the stuff from the flea market quite doable. Unfortunately in this case the car would remain at the bottom of the hill.

So allow me to close with this plug for a local business who will take on the arduous task of pedalling, and moving your stuff with no carbon footprint whatsoever.

http://www.demenagementmyette.ca/

There is also the Cycle Bird http://www.thecyclebird.com/, an eco-friendly courier company offering a variety of services in and around the island of Montreal.

image from http://www.thecyclebird.com/

Or you may also consider the option of buying your own cargo-hauling supplement. I have a Burley trailer, or you might like to buy a three-wheeled cart, like the depanneurs use.

Also worth looking at:

http://www.biketrailershop.com/catalog/index.php

…A commercial hub for several trailer manufacturers, where you’ll find an extensive comparison of some of the best designs for bike trailers.

Let the Games Begin!

2010-03-10T16:12:00.001-05:00

With the spectacle of the Winter Games behind us we can look back on some favourite moments (or not), and (or) we can choose to remind ourselves that the rain-soaked games proved to be yet another instance of climate change creeping up on us. We seem to be so incredibly enamoured by the blockbuster events of our times that we lose sight of the fact that there may be more important (albeit mundane or – god forbid – real) things simmering on the backburner of civilisation’s hot-stove.

Where do we begin?

Where else but in our own back yard! For us at Car Free Mile End, and for our friends and neighbours in the Mile End, now is an exciting time, since we are in the midst of the run-up to our next public event – potentially our biggest to date.

On Monday March 22 Le Cagibi (5490, boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montreal 514 509-1199) will host an evening of “participatory democracy in action” featuring a presentation (by our very own Matt Vick) on the car-free possibilities that exist for the Mile End, followed by a Discussion Forum open to all citizens and stake-holders implicated in the initiative.

Regular readers of this blog will know that we at CFME are motivated in large part to find and provide a framework that will have real, long-term impact on the neighbourhood, one that will help address some of the causes and symptoms of our society’s over-use of the car and fossil fuels in general. Mile End is obviously no car-dependent suburb, and is probably a pretty progressive minded place, from what I have experienced. It has a good vibe to it. But if we are going to keep it safe and clean, why not consider the benefits of Car-Lite arrangements now, when all signs point to the need for change?

We have said many times that CFME is all about getting the conversation going. Creating dialogue, and showing by example are our best tools. The example we seek to implement will hopefully take the form of a street closure (of St. Viateur W.) for one or more days over the course of the summer ahead. Kick-starting the collaborative process needed to achieve this will be one of the objectives of the Café Citoyen.

I like to think of the frame-work for closure as a sort of “festival of active transportation”. This could be limited to a day of events or spread out for a number of days, and would feature the many recreational, practical and utilitarian options there are for getting mobile. It could be a neighbourhood exploration of all the alternatives we can think of: Does any one know how to connect a stationary bike to a generator? Come talk to us! Do you give workshops on how to change a flat or tune up a bike for little to no cost? Who wants to set up a skateboard half-pipe in the street?! How about bean-bag races, or a “mile-end-athon” run around the neighbourhood? Or walking tours? And of course we should think about all those things that make the daily life of the street fun and liveable to begin with: terasses and green spaces, enhanced by music, art and theatre. All in all, what this will include is ultimately up to anyone who cares to help shape the event. And this is one of the many things that will be discussed on the 22^nd.

I hope to see a lot of people there. There seems to be a certain movement afoot, gathering momentum. More and more people are cluing-in to the fact that we don’t have to simply accept what we have taken for “normal” all our lives. We can shape our own living arrangements together.

So on the 22^nd of March, let’s get started!

What’s in a Name?

2010-01-31T22:08:00.001-05:00

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

Peak – Take Two

2010-01-08T12:23:00.004-05:00

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.

Peak – Take One

2010-01-08T12:17:00.002-05:00

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/]

Climategate, Denial and Copenhagen

2009-12-12T21:22:00.002-05:00

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.

Wishful Thinking?

2009-11-11T21:54:00.002-05:00

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 Copenhagen (if all goes well there). Car free culture, sustainable communities and other solutions will emerge as one obvious route to take.

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 Montreal’s urban environment is the perfect way for citizens (businesses and residents alike – as well as their politicians) to help shift the momentum and point our society in a different direction.

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.

IN DEFENCE OF CARS

2009-10-29T16:37:00.002-04:00

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

Parc and Bernard Take One

2009-10-08T22:45:00.001-04:00

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

SCALING DOWN

2009-10-01T22:35:00.001-04:00

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.

ATSA: Encore seul(e) dans ton char

2009-09-28T22:08:00.006-04:00

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

Clearing Some Election Haze

2009-09-20T20:29:00.003-04:00

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!

Vancouver : Une initiative conscientisée qui montre l’exemple

2009-09-15T22:02:00.007-04:00

Il va sans dire que nos homologues de la Colombie-Britannique ont une longueur d’avance lorsqu’il s’agit d’initiatives écologiques et avant-gardistes. En scrutant le web, j’ai trouvé plusieurs projets intéressant qui pourraient facilement être implémentés ici à Montréal. Outre le prolongement récent du Sky Train vers l’aéroport (à quand le prolongement du métro jusqu’à Trudeau !?!) et le projet Air Care, il y un projet en particulier qui a retenu mon attention, soit le le projet Woodward’s.

Le projet Woodward’s est une initiative largement conçue et modelée par la communauté locale via un processus de consultation publique à grande échelle. Le but du projet était de réconcilier les écarts grandissant au sein de l’hiérarchie sociale en redéfinissant le concept habituel du quartier. Dans cette optique, l’espace anciennement occupé par le magasin Woodward’s (fermé en 1993) a été remplacé par un complexe multi-usage qui rassemble des condos de luxe, des logements sociaux, des espaces commerciaux, une garderie commune et la Faculté des arts contemporains de l’Université Simon Fraser. De plus, le complexe recevra la cote LEED argent, un point d’exclamation écologique sur ce projet novateur.

Pourrions-nous envisager une utilisation similaire des espaces abandonnés du quartier Mile-End Est ?

Mathieu

The Somebody Else Will Do It Paradox

2009-09-06T17:33:00.002-04:00

A recent study out of the UK found that 81 % of respondents were fairly or very concerned about Climate Change and that 75% of them said they'd change their habits in order to help combat it. Although we may not enjoy our afternoon tea and scones as much as they do, I'm sure the numbers would be quite similar this side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, whether here or in the UK, these changes never amount to much more than recycling the morning paper.

Why is this?

Is it because environmentalists fail to convey the urgency of the matter?

Although some studies suggest that problems might arise as late as 2050, anybody who pays a little attention to what they're reading will see that we must act now in order to avert such changes, and that these changes might very well arise sooner rather than later. Moreover, other studies suggest that emissions must be cut within the next 5-6 years if we wish to avoid crossing the Rubicon (ie. 2 degrees of warming).

Is it because people feel that recycling is enough?

We've all heard Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The order is actually important here. Sure recycling is better than not recycling, but it's sort of like using a beach ball to plug a volcano. The problem is over-consumption.

Or maybe people feel their individual contribution is insignificant?

I agree that it might all seem quite overwhelming in the grand scheme of things, but it's brick by brick that you build a home (pardon the somewhat lame cliché). It has been through individual consumption that we have arrived at the present crisis, so individually we will have to turn things around. Not being part of the solution is being part of the problem.

My theory is that people, in general, always hope somebody else will do it.
Especially when it comes to making even the smallest sacrifice.

Luckily, not everybody likes idling on the sidelines. Here 's a few little things you can do tomorrow to help make a difference:

Try to use biodegradable laundry and dish soaps.
Save your kitchen scraps for the compost pile.
Use re-usable containers to store foods, not plastic wraps and foil.
Use public transit.
Ride your bike or walk instead.
Check your lifestyle and think about the effects of your daily actions on the environment.
Pick up one piece of trash off the sidewalk each day.
Choose at least one food item to always buy local and/or organic.
Turn off the faucet when brushing your teeth.
Talk about these things with your friends and neighbors.

Any of these.

...or, you can send us an e-mail with your thoughts, or better yet, volunteer with Car Free Mile-End - a real and tangible effort to think globally and act locally ;)

Mathieu

Stop Signs Are Here!

2009-09-01T09:20:00.001-04:00

Let’s pause to applaud a step in the right direction.

It may have taken a long time to cut through the red tape of the city, but at last the two streets of Bernard and St. Viateur are now adorned with stop signs at every intersection between Av. du Parc and St. Urbain, putting vehicular traffic, at least to some degree, in its proper place: as secondary to pedestrian traffic. There may still be large SUVs idling while double parked from time to time, but at least they won’t be much able to reach speeds in excess of 40 km/h once they move on, since they’ll be forced to stop every 50 metres or so.

There was a fair bit of anticipation since ample signage had been posted well over a month before the changes were scheduled, not to mention the additional waiting period of about a week because the work was late. My head aches to think of the bureaucracy that necessitated the advance warning signs (ARRET IMPLANTE+DATE) in the first place. Why not just put up the darned stops with their fancy “nouvelle signalization” notice? Are bureaucrats so worried that people really aren’t very adaptable? The way I see it, we lost about six weeks of stop signs because of this inability to just “decide and do”.

Oh well. I know it’s not worth getting too worked up about, but for someone whose objective is to promote and see the full closure of a city street to vehicular traffic, I cringe at the kafka-esque absurdities that await Car Free Mile-End sans voitures in the halls of the municipal government.

As for the lateness of the work, I won’t complain. There’s probably some reasonable (ish) and mundane explanation, even though to my imagination it seems to represent the immense inertia of the status quo, trying desperately to hang on to “the way thing always were.” I comfort myself with the thought that there actually is a sea-change afoot: that the inertia is finally giving way.

I am glad that the stop signs are there; they represent to me the very beginning of change in the direction of a public, pedestrian urban space.

Maclean

Transport Quebec Responds

2009-08-20T20:52:00.002-04:00

A few weeks back I posted an opinion piece about the fanfare surrounding the construction of highway 30 that began just recently. I sent the same text as a letter to the Ministere des transports via their website, and to my surprise they responded in a fairly personal manner – it wasn’t just a form letter assuring me that someone would take my comments into consideration. Instead, what I got was a “clarification”. Apparently I wasn’t directing my concerns to the right level of government. The smell of “passing the buck” was overpowered, however, by the rot of status quo rationalisation that followed. Apparently the Gouvernement du Quebec is doing enough “for the environment” and I should not be concerned by the development in question (la 30). According to the official line, this highway will indeed make the world a better place.

We may choose to believe that the economic/ecological stewardship of our future is in good hands, and return to a life of routine that never questions that choice. On the other hand, we can choose to wake up to the fact that things just ain’t right, and a dose of the problem won’t cure what ails us. How many more times will we repeat the same mistakes that have contributed to the mess we’re in?

I am including the letter I received here, for your reading pleasure. I have also composed my reply to this, in hopes to engage the department in further discussion. For the original text please see “La 30”.

Please feel free to comment for yourself, either on the blog page or on our facebook page.

Cheers,

Maclean.

Letter from Transports Quebec:

Dear Mr. Maclean:

We have carefully read and noted your comments concerning the article dated August 3, 2009 in le Journal de Montréal.

We would, however, like to clarify some information. The initiatives that you propose, such as car-free areas, do not fall under the purview of the gouvernement du Québec, but rather, that of the municipalities. We, therefore, ask that you send your comments on these points to the municipalities concerned.

Furthermore, we wish to inform you that the gouvernement du Québec invests a considerable amount of funds yearly through grants to public transit organizations. During the past few years, the ministère des Transports has also developed the "Route verte", a bicycle network of over 4,000 km throughout Québec.

We wish to point out that the completion of Autoroute 30 will have several benefits, in addition to providing the metropolitan Montréal region with a bypass route. In fact, Autoroute 30 will facilitate export, making it possible to support trade with Ontario, the United States and the Maritime Provinces. This support will better enable the integration of western Montérégie into Montréal’s socio-economic sphere. We do not claim that the construction of this new bypass route will eliminate traffic congestion on Montréal’s Metropolitan Autoroute. However, we are convinced that it will be used mostly by motorists travelling east-west in the province, and, thereby, partly reduce traffic congestion on Montréal Island as well as reduce certain accident risks.

We hope that this information will answer your questions.

…and my reply:

Thank-you kindly for your considered reply to my criticism. So much for my cynicism that such complaints fall on deaf ears! I would like to take the opportunity at this point, to carry the exchange one step further with a few observations about your reply. They are somewhat general, since i am compelled to look at policy in the context of "the big picture".

First of all, I stand corrected if it is true, as you say, that you do not claim the 30 will eliminate traffic congestion on the Met. We can agree on that.

Also, it is true, as I am well aware, that certain specific initiatives do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Gouvernement du Quebec, whereas others, such as the ones you mentioned do. But there is certainly a link between municipalities and provincial governments, since the former depend upon the latter for a great deal of their operating budget (for better or worse). Public transit is a case in point. To brush aside the idea of a car-free zone is perhaps convenient and tidy for le Ministere du Transport, but it suggests no moral sympathy for a progressive measure that may prove to be urgently needed in due time. It is certainly within the realm of the imagination that the Gouvernement du Quebec might indeed get involved with such a plan, if it was politically advantageous to do so.

I applaud support of both public transit and bicycle path networks: they are worthy and essential recipients of public money; but I question you on the use of the term “considerable amount of funds” since such numbers are always relative. How do these amounts compare to the money spent (or to be spent, in this instance) on highway development? (The short answer is they are dwarfed by this allocation.) What other alternative measures stand in the wings waiting in vain for funds that they badly need?

Governments at all levels seem to be compelled to believe that all economic activity must involve the automobile. Worse still, “economic development” itself is always measured as a positive no matter how regressive its consequences are with respect to community and the environment.

My point of view may well represent a challenging one to the managers of the status quo, since it is predicated on a thorough questioning of the economic-growth paradigm. While you may dismiss this (and this letter) out of hand, it must go down as a matter of record that at least some people have made connections between blind support of the status quo and the three big crises that we face – namely climate change, peak oil and financial/ economic recession/ depression.

Building another highway in hopes of making some last ditch effort to recover the out-going consumer/ debt society that has begun to die, will do nothing to meet our moral obligations on Global Warming, nor (as an over-investment in fossil-fuel based activity) will it build resilience toward the coming crunch in energy supply.

A massive investment in train and other public transit could effectively get off-island commuters out of their cars and free up enormous amounts of highway space, making them safer and more efficient for commercial transport. Further benefits are aplenty: Existing infrastructure would endure less wear and tear; the economic engine of the greater Montreal region would emit less CO2, and other pollutants; and would-be drivers will not be over-committed in the event that oil prices skyrocket, or worse, oil supply itself becomes sporadic.

As much as I’d like to believe that this letter might have some effect on policy, I know it can only serve a different purpose at this stage. I hope you (whoever does read this) can appreciate the value of the public dialogue, and of questioning assumptions. Your replies are greatly appreciated. At Car Free Mile End sans voitures we are all about the ongoing conversation.

Cheers,

Maclean

Pourrons-nous réaliser les changements nécessaires?

2009-08-18T15:07:00.005-04:00

Bien sûr... mais certaines de nos habitudes devront changer.

Dans un récent article de Richard Heinberg (en français; in english), l’environnementaliste dresse une liste de statistiques et de faits divers qui suggère que la récente crise économique a été bénéfique quant à la santé de notre planète. Bien qu’il soit convaincu (et, par ses textes, tel The Party’s Over, très convaincant!) que l’humanité devra entreprendre plusieurs transformations afin de réussir à vaincre les problèmes éventuels liés au réchauffement planétaire et à une éventuelle crise du pétrole, il stipule que le récent déclin économique a engendré (bien qu’involontairement) une tendance qui, si elle est maintenue, pourrait permettre d’éviter la catastrophe.

Il mentionne par exemple que la consommation mondiale d’énergie a diminuée et par conséquent les émissions de CO₂ ont probablement aussi diminuées (bien qu’il n’y ait toujours pas de statistiques à l’appui sur les émissions de CO₂). Par ailleurs, il explique que la consommation en général est en déclin, ce qui a permis de conserver une quantité importante de ressources naturelles qui approchent l’épuisement telles l’eau potable, les terres arables, le lithium, le zinc et, bien sûr, le pétrole. Par ailleurs, il indique que pour la première fois depuis des décennies, l’utilisation et l’achat de voitures ont chuté! En fait, le nombre d’achats de vélos dans les 4 premiers mois de 2009 a surpassé le nombre d’achats de voitures et de camions réunis!

Finalement, il souligne que le système financier basé sur la croissance perpétuelle et la dette est en train de s’écrouler (la crise économique en est la preuve). D’ailleurs, ce système n’est pas viable à long terme puisqu’il implique une croissance infinie d’énergie et de consommation afin d’assurer sa stabilité. Malheureusement, le déclin de la production d’énergie fossile est inévitable et nous sera imposé par la planète elle-même. Bien que le remplacement de ces énergies par des alternatives renouvelables est envisageable, voire même nécessaire, il ne s’agit pas vraiment d’une solution puisque les quantités d’énergies renouvelables qui seront générées dans le futur proche ne pourront probablement pas combler la baisse de la production d’énergies fossiles provoquée par la raréfaction des ressources. Bref, une diminution généralisée de la consommation et, par conséquent, une mutation conscientisée de nos habitudes seront bientôt à la fois nécessaires et inévitables !

Phase One: the Conversation

2009-08-12T22:17:00.004-04:00

The Barricades go up tonight!

Okay, just Kidding. Phase One of Car Free Mile End is a little more subtle and more sophisticated. The cars will continue to roll down St. Viateur – for now.

As of today, we begin to hash out the details of the project, for which we are seeking help from you, the public. Without you, Phase One (the Conversation) will surely stall. Please allow me to take a few moments to outline what I think this dialogue must entail.

As always, we must work in context: Global Warming is not going away. It’s a huge problem that is largely unattended to by all manner of government. We cannot wait for their action for meaningful progress on this. Instead, projects like CFME, provide opportunity to accomplish something ourselves on this front.

Not unrelated to the issue of climate change is the pending crunch in energy supply known as Peak Oil. With every day that passes this becomes less controversial and hopefully a little better understood (there are many excellent web resources, click here for one). This problem can be summed up as the historic period at which oil production begins to fall from one day to the next, which translates into the industry’s inability to meet growing global demand. While the science and numbers are fairly complicated, the implications are relatively clear and important: It stands to impede the plausibility of perpetual economic growth. As with Global Warming, reduction of our use of fossil fuels is a huge part of the solution.

These two major global issues together should be enough to compel all nations, communities and individuals to seek new ways of going about their business; to move away from carbon-intensive, fossil fuel dependent activities, and to pursue alternative living arrangements.

Fortunately alternatives and precedents exist. We’ve got to keep them alive in conversation and eventually in practice, lest they be smothered by the status quo. Only through increased demand for alternatives will there be enough incentive for providers (both public and private) to pony-up for investment in alternatives for the future.

There is also the benefit of individual ingenuity and inventiveness. The more we rely on hand-on creativity and learned technical skills for solving the problems that come with excessive use of cars, the more resilient we may become as a community.

Car Free Mile End must exist as a forum for sharing ideas and advocating for alternative possibilities. As such the urban design of the car-free St. Viateur Ouest we envision will prove to be the best it can possibly be. Now is the time for your input. Let the brainstorming begin!

Should government invest in hybrids?

2009-08-08T10:32:00.004-04:00

But first, a little humor.

A wind turbine walks into a bar to meet his old college buddy the oil refinery. The turbine arrives, the refinery is sitting alone at the bar, nursing an empty glass. The refinery says: 'I'm out of juice. I can't get no more, I have no money, there's no barman, what are we gonna do?' But the turbine was late because he'd been to the dep, to get some extra beers. When the refinery starts sobbing into its glass, the turbine gets a beer from its bag. The oil refinery was over-joyed: 'Where did you get this?' it said. The turbine shrugged: 'Alternative sources.'

And now back to the subject...

In a study out of UBC, it was found that an important fraction of hybrid car buyers (66%) would have purchased the vehicle whether or not there was any monetary incentive (ie. 1000-2000$ dollar rebate). It was also found that the actual reduction in carbon emissions when going from a fuel efficient vehicle to a hybrid vehicle is not very large. Moreover, climate change works in absolutes, not relatives. Though the relative carbon emissions from the car industry could be reduced if all cars would suddenly become hybrid, if the number of cars keeps increasing, the amount of carbon in the air will also increase (carbon is naturally extracted from the atmosphere via the carbon cycle on timescales that span many centuries....that's why we are working in absolute numbers!).

The solution? Well, if we consider the total cost of the hybrid incentive program last year we end up with 195$ spent per tonne of carbon that was reduced. Instead, the government should invest the money in green energy alternatives which are known to have amounts that range from 3$ to 40$ per tonne of carbon saved.

And we, as citizens, can simply use our cars a little less! Bike to work on sunny days, or take the bus an extra few times a week!

Mathieu

Jimmy Carter: ''Malaise speech''

2009-08-06T14:34:00.004-04:00

Il y a plus de 30 ans, Jimmy Carter, alors président des États-Unis, prononçait un discours avant-gardiste annonçant un plan américain pour combattre les problèmes imminents reliés à la crise du pétrole. Il expliqua que cette génération (la nôtre finalement) est définie par ce qu'elle appartient, plutôt que ce qu'elle fait. En mentionnant que cette transition demanderait à chaque citoyen et citoyenne de modifier légèrement leur mode de vie afin de diminuer la consommation et la demande d'énergie, le public s'est retourné contre lui. Le symbole même de ce refus envers l'idée du changement fut celui de Reagan, qui, à la suite de son élection, ce chargea aussitôt de détruire les panneaux solaires installés sur la Maison Blanche par Carter.

Ce discours pourrait facilement être repris aujourd’hui, mais cette fois il est primordial que l’on écoute.

Voici la vidéo et le détail, en anglais, de ce fameux discours, ainsi qu'un deuxième discours, prononcé 2 ans plus tard, que l'on désigna désormais comme le 'Malaise speech':

millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3398

millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3402

La 30

2009-08-04T11:59:00.001-04:00

It was not surprising that the Journal de Montreal would put the news of the public/private development of highway 30 on its front page (03 Aug. 2009). The mainstream newspapers are all great cheerleaders when it comes to the “unquestionable” merits of car culture and its requisite infrastructure. After all, these newspapers have traditionally been very well funded by automotive advertising. The recent nose-dive by the Big Three has probably hurt the papers’ ad revenues, so cheerleading this megaproject becomes imperative. In fact it’s a no-brainer by virtue of the fact that with new highways and bridges comes more traffic. If this means more car sales, then it also means more ads in the future.
However, the big problem with the proposed highway 30 is of course the promise of more traffic. But nowhere does this reality actually get mentioned in print. Instead, the argument goes, the 30 is a long overdue remedy for the congestion caused by funnelling all highway traffic through the city along the Metropolitain (located on hwy 40) or the 20 – which includes traffic lights (god forbid!) just before the Island of Montreal, and which leads drivers eventually to the infamous Turcotte interchange – also slated for mega-project development, but that is a topic for another post…
It’s true that the Metropolitain Boulevard is required to do much more than what it was designed to do – which is a generous statement, since design is exactly what the Met is lacking: Ill-conceived construction based on assumptions and an exuberant hubris characteristic of the times (c. 1967) resulted in a highway system that guarantees gridlock on a daily basis. The fact that over a distance of several kilometres the Met is expected to carry the traffic of both the 15 (north/south) and the 40 is a clear indication that short-sightedness was abound when the whole thing was built.
The question now is will the proposed 30 solve our daily problems on the Met? To which the conventional answer is a resounding Yes! And it’s quite possible that, for some time the new 30 may provide a significant re-routing of traffic that the Met will be less congested. But to be satisfied with this answer is to accept the repetition of the same old mistakes that have been plaguing most cities in North America for almost half a century. That’s because there are always unintended consequences that, by now, are so predictable that to ignore them is simply not acceptable.
The promise of alleviation from traffic woes through construction mega-projects such as bridges and highways has consistently spurred the growth of suburban sprawl, which is an invitation for people to add to the over-all number of vehicles and to the overall distance traveled per vehicle. Building more roads invariably results in more traffic.
One glance at the map of the proposed highway 30 and you can see a number of ‘burbs that will inevitably be more attractive to developers once the highway is in place: from Salaberry de Valleyfield through Beauharnois, Mercier and Chateauguay, the tendency will be to expand and cater to the commuter, possibly at the continued expense of the local farmer and most certainly at the expense of the urban centre. Meanwhile up on the Met, the reduced traffic will be a selling point for developers of sprawl that relies on this artery for commuter access to downtown Montreal. Eventually another repeat episode in the ongoing saga of urban sprawl will have been aired, but no-one will have heeded its message.
Political leaders should know better. They should know that outward sprawl is backward progress. They should know that a solution that calls for more of the problem is no solution at all. And they should know that solutions do exist. What’s more, they should know that a real solution to the problem of traffic congestion (on the Met or anywhere else) is part of the solution to the two much bigger problems of climate change and fossil fuel dependence/ depletion*. They should know that they themselves are faced with the political, legal and moral obligation of addressing these problems.
So in case they don’t yet know, here is a short list of where public money should be spent long before said money (billions) goes to highway infrastructure expansion:
· Introducing pay tolls for cars entering the downtown core and crossing major bridges and tunnels (individual car deterrent)
· Re-inventing public transport infrastructure and networks; developing trams, &/or LRT; micro-/ taxi-buses with flexible routes and schedules; etc. (generally making transit more comfortable, convenient and more enticing)
· Launching a public awareness campaign linking carbon emissions and fossil-fuel dependence with climate change and diminishing supply – peak oil (again stressing the importance of switching to public transport services)
· Incentivising the selling of one’s automobile through taxation (tax breaks for a low-carbon lifestyle)
· Ever-greater emphasis on bicycle ridership and its own infrastructure & maintenance (promoting a utilitarian bike culture)
· Tax incentives and grant or low-interest loans for green businesses – especially in the transport sector (alternative energy-driven fleets)
· Facilitating the creation and development of car-free zones within the city, linked by effective transit and promoted as a resource (building on a post-carbon vision of community)
*For those of you unfamiliar with Peak Oil (or the cresting energy supply curve) you may like to read up on the issue. It just so happens that this is in the news today:
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10001772/iea-economist-warns-of-oil-shortfalls/
see also http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/207-peak-oil-day/

Crisis = Opportunity

2009-07-31T12:24:00.003-04:00

I believe we all share at least a hint of a feeling that when you consider “the planet” the economy and its political leadership; we all suspect that at least something is not quite right. If you’re like me, and you’ve looked into some of the details about the environmental impact of industrial globalisation developed over the past century, you know that a number of challenges loom very large. But I believe most people shut this out from their lives so as to stave off depressing thoughts and to not disrupt the flow of their already busy lives. Denial and inertia are possibly invaluable survival mechanisms, but if so, they may also prove to be tragic flaws.

In January 2007 I played hockey outside. Ball hockey, in running shoes and shorts. The heat wave had everyone talking about global warming. Al Gore’s film was very popular.
Later that year I saw Mr. Gore give his famous talk to a very large crowd of enthusiastic supporters. In hindsight I wonder if it sadly wasn’t just the topic of the day a fad that has passed into the shadow of the financial crisis.

Just before the financial crisis got bad (on July 11 2008), oil hit 147.27$ per barrel. While this doesn’t mark the date of “peak oil” it is most certainly not unrelated. (see Heinberg). Though peak oil itself still receives too little attention and tends to be misunderstood, the price shock certainly received much attention and ire across the board. We quickly forgot that a high price for gasoline is part of the solution for the problem we were so worried about in January 2007.

Then the bank giants started to fall, and a TARP was cast over our eyes.

The financial crisis seems to have hit the US much more directly than much of Canada. So far. All things considered, the longer the US founders, the more inevitable does our own descent become. Will a debt-based consumer economy come back to life and float all ships? Is that really how we want to proceed anyway? Rather, it is possible that down-scaling and localising our immediate economy is the best solution to the crisis. It is an appropriate response to problems of unemployment, the credit crunch and dependence on the energy-intensive practices of globalised trade. What better to replace both foreign production and disappearing credit than real work through local productivity here at home? *

David Suzuki also spoke at the symposium where I saw Al Gore – with profound and moving urgency. Two salient points he made resonate strongly in my memory. One is that it is no coincidence that economy and ecology share the same prefix, but that there is an alarming disconnect between the two in our ideological view of the world. This must be bridged. The second point was that interestingly the Japanese word for crisis also means opportunity. If this is true, then in an age where several large crises are converging there must be opportunity aplenty.

In the same spirit, Car Free Mile End is all about localising. Whether through political or community involvement we will develop our concept and shape our project ourselves with the aim of creating business and services where now there exists only a vague opportunity, and a bunch of unnecessary traffic.

(*Thanks here to Jane Jacobs’ account of import replacement for this musing of mine.)

Quelques raisons à considérer: Mile-End sans voitures

2009-07-27T11:02:00.004-04:00

Il va sans dire que les pays industrialisés ont fait fausse route lorsqu'ils ont adopté l'automobile comme moyen de transport par excellence dans les milieux urbains. Le design urbain a certes connu une période "creuse" lorsque les stationnements ont proliférés aux dépends des places publiques et des parcs. Ceci dit, les problèmes découlant de la sur-utilisation des voitures dans nos villes ne se limitent pas à l'esthétique. Voici une liste des maints soucis occasionnés par l'automobile:

- Danger pour les piétons (notamment les enfants), les vélos, et les autres voitures (1ère cause des décès accidentaux)
- Requiert une infrastructure qui prend beaucoup d'espace et consomme beaucoup de ressources naturelles (en moyenne
42% d'un centre ville est occuppé par l'infrastrucutre liée à l'automobile)
- Exacerbe le réchauffement climatique et la dégradation de la qualité de l'air
- Augmente le taux d'asthme et de bronchites (parmi d'autres maladies respiratoires)
- Favorise l'expansion des banlieues
- Fragmente le tissu social d'une communauté
- Isole les gens
- Élimine la vie et le dynanisme dans les rues et ruelles
- Gaspille de l'énergie par son inefficacité
- Très bruyant
- Disposer des voitures inutilisables pose plusieurs problèmes (contamination des sols, accumulation de pneus, etc)
- ...et gâche la beauté d'une ville!

Quelques statistiques qui font réfléchir:

- Près de 44% des voyages en voiture font moins de 3 km. Pourquoi ne pas prendre un peu d'air et dépenser quelques
calories au moins une 1 fois sur 2?

- Tourner au ralenti pour plus de 10 secondes consomme plus de carburant que de repartir la voiture.

- Un embouteillage de 20 voitures, et donc quelques 20-30 personnes, occupe l'espace qui
pourrait sans doute accueillir 500 personnes confortablement

Car Free Mile End: Who, Why and Where?

2009-07-18T19:26:00.015-04:00

Who is car free Mile-end?

Well, for now, we are myself, Mathieu (or, Matt if you’re in a hurry), and Maclean (just Maclean). Year round Montreal inhabitants, and professional Mile-Enders, we felt that it was time to create a project that might unite our community while promoting awareness of issues that are threatening our well being. If you have to create a project, make it a big one, right?

Ideally this project would mobilize volunteers, artists, students, families, elderly, businesses, urban planners, architects, politicians, and this guy:

That is everybody, and more.

Why a car free Mile-end?

The reason is multifaceted, the question two pronged: Why cars, and why Mile End?

Here are some facts. Cars, and, to an extent, car culture, are a problem approaching ‘critical mass’ on three fronts: resource depletion, pollution and climate change.

1. Oil is definitely running out: oil production might have peaked last summer (other time estimates vary) but the overwhelming consensus is that the cheap, easy-flowing stuff is gone. What’s left is going to be much less plentiful, and therefore more expensive (the subject of a future post).

2. Breathable air quality everywhere is deteriorating, even more so in urban areas, and you can’t tell me that’s nothing to do with the clouds of exhaust gas coming from your chevy as you sit in traffic, then race away from the lights.

3. Global Warming: We know that these gases are contributing to the planet heating up (unfortunately this is not good like in NBA jam, ‘more heat’ in this context is more like gangsters getting pressure).

Also, did you know that 80% of a car's fuel consumption is lost through heat generation? That means only 20% actually moves the car, and only 1% actually moves the driver! We put people on the moon, and 7 year old kids can solve a rubik's cube in 70 seconds :
I think we can build more efficient modes of transportation.

With all this in mind doesn't it seem irrational that every morning in Montreal tens of thousands of cars slowly drive in the same direction just to flow in the opposite gridlocked direction 8 hours later?

What makes it even worse is that the world is quickly flattening, which means that despite the recession, more and more people in developing and emerging economies are able to adopt the North American way of life. Cell phones, stuffed crust pizza, electric can openers… and cars. In China and India, car sales are soaring. Experts predict that 19 million extra cars will cruise China’s roads next year (double that of this year). But to put things in perspective, this means that there will only be about 48 cars per 1000 people in China; there are 770 per 1000 people in the US. I don't know karate, but that's KARAZY! (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/grandtheftautosanandreas/thepayback.htm)
More on this in a future post.

So what's to do? We propose to start in the proverbial backyard:

Make Mile End car free.

Therefore the primary reason for this project is to decrease the number of cars in our living area, not only by closing off a street to car traffic (or eventually multiple streets), but by creating an area which promotes awareness, sustainable living, public transport and green urban communities. This could be a perfect marriage with projects such as Bixi (http://montreal.bixi.com/accueil/accueil-info) and Compost Montreal (http://www.compostmontreal.com) which are pushing in the same direction. Let Montreal be a beacon of hope for urban communities across North America, and the world. We are already lagging behind many cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver…

Secondly, in this ever extending individualistic, virtual and fast paced world, a gaping disconnect is growing between people and a sense of ecology. We have to reconnect with place, and we have to reconnect with nature -- which shouldn't be perceived as driving a Pathfinder or a Tundra through the forest. We can learn to reconnect with nature, with community, and with place in our very own backyard by creating a hub for people to enjoy urban ecology, safe communal areas, and an increased sense of identity. This can be achieved by ensuring that there is no top down decision making, and that the project will be driven by grass roots efforts and participatory democracy.

Lastly, local businesses (the more they are involved) could benefit from extra foot and bicycle traffic which could be generated by transforming the street into even more of a specialized destination of choice. Various initiatives (events, spaces, projects) which will eventually colour our streets could include buskers, urban ecology, extended terraces, mini-festivals, side-walk art, etc.

Where?

The Mile-End is already populated by an important forward thinking and creative population. It is natural that it should lead the way in creating multiple green urban communities in Montreal. Furthermore, as St-Viateur Ouest is already strongly sustained by pedestrian traffic, it is an ideal area to initiate such a transition. This would be a great first step.

How?

That's the question. For that we need your feedback. And we need to gather some troops. Our plan is to send out some sort of press kit (in the works) to certain designated organizations and (of course) the City in order to make our intentions known, and to learn what methods might be used. Of course, before we can do this, we need to gather and define the intentions of the community through networking and building a dialogue among residents and other involved citizenry.

And we need help!

At this stage we are calling out for brainstorming ideas, and support in various forms (things to spice up the blog space). Lend us your talents! If you have ideas, or would like to help in any way at all, send us an e-mail (carfreemileend@gmail.com). And spread the word!

Thanks for reading,

Mathieu

The Beginning

2009-07-13T10:58:00.000-04:00

Judging by the astounding increase in the number of cars in the Mile-End this idea may seem quite radical. Or far fetched. We fully understand the extent to which cars are a part of people’s lives, work and identity, so we know that the idea of a Car Free Mile-End requires a lot of imagination, and suspension of disbelief and of doubt. But if you will indulge us and allow us to flesh-out the idea in this blog-space over the weeks and months ahead, with our considered opinion and discerning scrutiny of the facts, we think you will begin to come around, eventually.

- Maclean & Matt

When I started research into global warming and energy dependence I had little substantial knowledge – only a hunch. I am not a trained specialist in the science – I’ve spent my life making works of art. What I did have was a burning desire to understand and to “do something” about a problem that seemed to be looming. In this, I know that I am not alone. Nor am I alone in feeling a nagging sense of hopelessness at times. When problems seem too big, solutions seem vague and out of one’s hands. But this feeling diminishes the more involved and determined I become. I have come to understand that complacency and fatalism are both traps. I no longer blindly assume that “they will think of something.” I have not chosen escapism through distracted partying or other diversions; nor have I given up, passively awaiting some fate beyond my control. I have my mind set on a constructive approach, and I hope you can help in some way too.

The problems are indeed very big, and we are constantly at risk of losing sight of that. A sense of urgency will have to be part of the equation if the momentum is going to shift in favour of solutions. But it is not to act out of fear. So when I refer to hypothetical scenarios of calamity looming in the not-too-distant future, it is intended as a smelling salt, to bring us back to the here-and-now, in order to get things done.

What we are proposing for development is a plan that will take on a life of its own as more and more people get involved. It is a vision for a new living arrangement that will be tailored to the dynamics of a carbon-reduced economy and ecosystem. It is not intended as an imposition. On the contrary it is proposed in anticipation of some great impositions that Mother Nature has in store for an energy profligate and carbon intensive society. As I will try to elucidate in the posts to come, we are entering a period of economic contraction which is in step with peaking and diminishing global energy resources, against the backdrop of a climate crisis caused by industrial/ economic activity and rampant consumption of resources. The three are interconnected, and the implications are vast. Al Gore says it is a moral issue. He is right. But it is also a practical one. Self-centered consumer activity is going to prove to be a self-evident liability in the near future.

By envisioning a tangible project that will involve the community, and change its shared, public space, we stand to empower ourselves greatly; to build connections throughout the city; and to take real steps toward practical solutions to the emergent problems of a Carbon-Challenged era. What better way than to take a good long look at ourselves and our car-dependent habits, shake them off and lead by example?

Maclean