Yesterday Dalton McGuinty shuffled cabinet in a hope to improve operations of Ontario Governments. Although, that’s also what he said in January when he had again shuffled cabinet. Instead of efficient, reliable government Ontarian’s were sidled with an eco-fee debacle, a raid on ministries and a strengthened sense that our government is no longer serving the needs of the province.

The shuffle also saw the split of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI). Both with sizable mandates, they warrant having two ministers. Infrastructure is responsible for the implementation of sound infrastructure strategies for the province; given that the population of the province is exploding and our current infrastructure is aging and failing, this is no small feat to accomplish. Energy is responsible for developing the energy policy framework that is central to the building of a strong and prosperous economy for Ontario; green energy, smart-metering, conservation, etc … again more work than one minister should be responsible for. To be fair to Ontarian’s and to move this province in the right direction MEI needed a split, let’s just hope it wasn’t too late.

Now that the Ministry of the Environment has a new leader, will it be enough to undue the mistakes made with an Eco-fee?

An eco-tax was inevitable. To move from cradle-to-grave to cradle-to-cradle (i.e. eliminating and minimizing our waste) a fee was needed to encourage consumers to buy more eco-friendly products and to choose products with less packaging. My favourite criticism of the new tax (because it’s not a fee, it is a tax) is

“Taxpayers on the hook as eco fees scrapped.”

And who else was going to pay for it? I must have missed something but I believe that most people paying the eco-tax also pay their provincial taxes. Granted how the tax payments are distributed may not be as equal as if we all had bought our own products. But don’t blame Queens Park for that the media spun the eco-tax as evil. Why don’t we sidle them with the millions of dollars that will be generated from the eco-tax? But then again what’s the point?

Until there is transparency as to where our eco-tax is spent and who get’s what proportion of it, no one should be footing the bill.

Maybe the money generated from the eco-tax should be donated to those suffering from the flooding in Pakistan, Kashmir, China and all the other places we never hear about. After all at least we would know where are money was going.

It seems like most north-south routes through the core of the city are under construction (Bayview, Mount Pleasant, Yonge and Avenue). And a select few east-west streets are also under construction, namely the Gardiner Expressway and Bloor Street, Toronto’s main lateral arterials.

Construction is only adding to an existing gridlock problem. Last week the National Post reported that Toronto was rated the 2nd worst city in the world for traffic congestion by IBM. Johannesburg took the #1 spot for worst traffic. Residents perceive that traffic is getting worse (9% of commuters felt the quality of their commute had declined) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) estimated that Toronto lost $3.3 billion last year in productivity due to the congested roads.

Toronto’s gridlock is getting worse, between the increase in population and the increase in construction it is excruciating to travel through the city by car. And currently there is no public transit solution worth considering (would you rather be stuck on a crowded bus or in your own car?)

Someone said to me the other day,

Is all the construction a conspiracy by David Miller to convince Dalton McGuinty and Queens Park that we need Transit City Now?

The solution is not just a mass transit upgrade for Toronto. Part of the solution also includes a cultural shift (i.e getting people out of their individual cars and back on to buses, getting people to move back into the city and out of the suburbs). It should also include more bike lanes, but bike lanes with a buffer from traffic; Toronto’s driving culture still isn’t capable of sharing lanes.

Regardless of the outcome, Toronto is stuck with massive delays, congestion and, thus, pollution from the added construction to the gridlock. And while I understand that there is a huge infrastructure gap and the roads NEED to be fixed a better construction mitigation plan should have been sought out.

I’ll be there with the My Sustainable Canada team hopefully enjoying another epic day of skiing under blue sky and sunshine.

And as an added bonus it’s St. Paddy’s Day (my favourite holiday – ok it’s not a holiday, but a great day for celebration!) I’ll be drinking green beer in the village in honour of the earth and St Paddy’s Day!!

1. Climate change science, sources and trends
2. The importance of climate change to the state DOTs
3. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions from transportation
4. Climate adaptation for Transportation Agencies
5. Climate legislation and policy

Burbanks’s presentation began by discussing the unequivocal evidence of global warming, increased GHG emissions and the effect of humans on the rising levels of GHG’s. I won’t get into that much here. Although she agreed that there is some science out there disqualifying climate change, the science behind human effects on climate change is overwhelming. Her presentation on climate science was quite good and if you have a few minutes go through pages 12 to 18 of her slides.

What I thought was more interesting were her findings on climate change and its effects on DOTs.

The Three-Part Challenge to State DOTs

1. Reduce transportation GHG’s: by as much as 60-80% by 2050
2. Adapt transportation infrastructure: most importantly to severe storms, but also rising sea levels, high temperatures and flooding
3. Find a new revenue stream: one based on low carbon fuels

In the US highway vehicles = 82% of Transportation CO2 emissions, 23% of total US CO2 emission

The Economist vs. Political Debate

Burbank is an economist and argued that GHG reduction should be done as cost effectively as possible. She stated that the evidence supports that an 80% reduction in GHG’s in transportation maybe more costly in some sectors than others. i.e. From an economic perspective transportation targets should probably be lower

BUT the political reality is that each sector will have to contribute its ‘fair share.’ Therefore the DOTs will likely be forced to achieve a reduction of GHG’s of 60-80% from current levels

Initially we thought of reduction strategies in terms of a 3 legged stool, which included vehicles, fuels and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). That has known grown to a five legged stool to include Operating Efficiency and Construction, Maintenance and Agency Operations. Brown notes that a 50% cut in GHG/mile is feasible from conventional technologies and biofuels by 2020-2030 (slide 25 has some worldwide GHG rates).

“In the long term, carbon free road transport fuel is the only way to achieve an 80-90% reduction in emissions.” Although the number of light duty vehicles in the developed world (OCED) will not dramatically increase over the next few decades, those in the developing world (non-OCED) will dramatically increase. We have to decarbonizes fuel because of their increased use of light duty vehicles.

To further reduce the carbon footprint of transportation the DOTs have to starting thinking about pricing schemes. As Burbank says “Without price signals, trying to reduce GHG is swimming upstream.” Pricing will encourage consumer purchase of lower carbon vehicles/fuels, business Investment in low-GHG technology, decreased VMT, Eco-driving
and more efficient land use.

And the pricing tools already exist; auto ‘feebates,’ carbon/fuel prices, PAYD insurance (Pay-as-you-Drive, i.e. by km/annum), mileage fees, increased parking pricing, and congestion Pricing (just like in London and Singapore)

Alongside pricing tools government’s will have to employ strategies to reduce GHG in light duty vehicles by 10-20%. These can include:

• Managing speed (35-55 MPH/56-88 KPH is optimal)
• Speed limits/enforcement (reduce fuel use by 2-4%)
• Eliminating bottlenecks
• “Active” Traffic Management to smooth traffic flow
• Improving signal timing (could reduce 1.315 MMT CO2/yr)
• Roundabouts
• Reducing Car and Truck Idling
• Work zone management to smooth flow
• Encourage eco-driving

Strategies to reduce GHG’s in our vehicles and fuels will not be enough. It will take a coordination of strategies for Construction, Maintenance and Agency Operations that will help to decrease GHG emissions. Some examples that governments can employ:  LED traffic lights, low carbon pavement, energy-efficient buildings (i.e LEED certified), solar panels along the right of way, alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles in agency fleets, and alternative fuel and hybrid buses.

Why do Agencies need to plan for Adaptation?:

Climate change is a reality that transportation agencies need to deal with . Those that are proactive will be the ones that spend less money over the long run.

The two presenters were PAULA HAMMOND – Secretary of Washington State DOT & Chair of AASHTO Climate Change Steering Committee & CINDY BURBANK – Vice President Climate Change Practice Leader, Parsons Brinckerhoff

If there was one thing I really took away from this presentation to combat climate change in the Transportation is to go with the ‘low hanging fruit,’ the things that are easy to achieve. Here were Cindy’s suggestions for starter initiatives for GHG strategies:

• Eco-driving programs
• Carpool/Vanpool Programs: provide them with priority parking in our lots
• Telework promotion
• Traffic Signal Synchronization
• Adaptive Signalization
• LED traffic lights
• Lower Carbon Pavements
• Reduced roadside mowing
• Partnering with local governments to better coordinate land use/transportation planning
• Truck stop electrification
• Roundabouts

Hammond was the first presenter she is the Chair of the Climate Change Steering Committee, which includes 17 state DOTS. The group is diverse and includes members from environmental planning, highway engineering, rail transportation, aviation, public transportation and the Centre for Environmental Excellence. Known as Climate Change Technical Assistance Program, Their Goal:

To Supply AASHTO members with timely information, tools and technical assistance to help them meet the difficult challenges that arise related to climate change

Along with her colleagues in Washington this was the approach Paula and her team used for GHG Mitigation

• Increasing travel option to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita
• Supporting improved vehicle technology
• Lowering the carbon content of fuel
• Improving the efficiency of the transportation system
• Adding capacity to complete critical corridors and support concentrated growth and transit oriented development

Although they are just entering into their climate change mitigation strategy Paula and her team had these Lessons Learned to offer up:

• Have a plan up front – being proactive instead of reactive
• Structure your program using defined priorities
• Don’t recreate the wheel
• Take some credit – get the word out about good and innovative work

.. tomorrow Part 2…

Yesterday a friend of mine at work ran a session on how the built environment influences our physical activity regimes, based on a Transportation Research Board Report from 2005. The premise of his presentation is that the world is becoming less active, obesity rates are on the rise, we are dependent on the car, more of us live in suburbs and overall we are less healthy and less happy.

In the US there is a program called Healthy People 2010, which promotes physical activity and lowering obesity rates. From the site I navigated my way over to their Quick Guide to Healthy Living, which provides expert advice on nutrition & fitness as well as several other programs to help you live an active and healthy life.

In Canada we have the Health Goals whose overarching goal “As a nation, we aspire to a Canada in which every person is as healthy as they can be – physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.” Our Health Canada site seemed to have similar information on how to lead a healthy life.

The presenter is one who believes in active transportation, eating well and living life in a sustainable manner. He promotes cycling to work and being active with colleagues through the day. And he states that while vigourous activity may not be for everyone being a healthy person doesn’t require much effort. Under Healthy People 2010 the following constitutes healthy living:

30 minutes of light activity 5 times per week

Or

20 minutes of vigorous activity 3 times per week

Even better, you can divide those 30 minutes of light activity into 10 minute chunks. Take a break and walk for 10 minutes at work; you’ll probably be more productive for it. Park further away and force yourself to walk that extra distance to and from the office. Walk to lunch. Walk 5 flights of stairs before you get on the elevator. Simple things you can do to squeeze in some extra activity.

Work hours are longer. Driving times are increased as we drive from suburb to work and back again. No longer is the grocery store, drug store or restaurants within walking distance. Our time competes between exercise and the computer, internet and video games.

There are many programs in place to create healthy cities. Toronto has changed its mandate and now has pedestrians and cyclists at the top of it’s design hierarchy instead of cars and trucks. Under the Healthy Schools Program Ontario elementary school teachers are required to provide 20 minutes of vigorous activity to students each day.  And while our lives become busier and efficiency becomes necessity having the infrastructure in place to make our lives more active will promote a healthier society.

Recently friends of mine considered having their home designated as LEED certified. With local materials, recycled material, geothermal for heating and cooling and several other features under all the LEED categories this house would be sure to qualify for LEED certifications. They have applied and received all the government incentives for choosing environmentally friendly methods, balanced all the LCC and looked at the benefit-cost ratios and have decided not to apply to LEED Canada.

Why? LEED would become a marketing feature to their house. They are no incentives for being LEED certified. In the end it was just an extra $5000 to say that they were environmentally friendly.

I decided to do a quick Google search on why it is important to register your building with LEED. Here are some of the things that were returned.

• Buildings that are LEED certified almost always use resources more effectively when compared to traditional buildings that are built to code. Because of this, they are recognized as better for their surrounding environments.
• LEED certified buildings often provide healthier work and living environments, contributing to higher productivity and improved employee health and comfort.
• LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: (1. sustainable site development, 2. water efficiency, 3. energy efficiency, 4. materials selection and 5. indoor environmental quality)
• Encourages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria.
• Promotes integrated, whole-building design practices
• Building amenities include lush rooftop gardens, individual storage units, covered parking for bicycles, proximity to transit lines and direct access to car sharing.

This list could get quite lengthy. There are many benefits to having a LEED certified building.

My argument – if you’re willing to do all the environmentally friendly things to your house, do you really need the label of LEED? And what does that money that you pay for registration go towards?

In the end if we take the steps forward to think of the environment before we think of the bottom line, when we’re constructing, we are taking the right steps forward. LEED certification may only be a ‘label’ but it embodies what designers should be thinking when they start any new design.

Her presentation was twofold, to talk about some of the biomedical trends with new tissues and their future in Ontario as well as the future of the infrastructure, the hospitals.

New Biomedical Technologies

Gate Analysis. Functional Electrical Stimulation. Tissue Engineering. It’s all part of the future of medicine, not just here in Ontario. These methods are all designed to be preventative, to predict what your future may hold.

Did you know that by placing electrodes on your legs, having you walk and running it through a computer model can help to identify when and where you might have degeneration in your knees? You could change how you walk just to preserve the life of your knee.

You can stimulate the brain through functional electrical stimulation and rewake the muscles in a paraplegic’s body. Imagine giving them their freedom back? Aside from the savings in health care look at the personal enjoyment you just gave someone back in their life.

Re-grow degenerative spinal discs. Create a functional gallbladder from stem cells. Develop a polymer that can beat like heart tissue. And this is just a short list of examples of what is to come.

How to design a future hospital

The hospitals of the future should be more sustainable. Not only should they draw less energy they should produce less garbage. They should move patients through the hospital more efficiently. There may even come a time where patient and doctor do not meet, that the conversation happens through a computer.

Most importantly the big campuses we build in the future must be built by a collaborative team. It will take doctors, engineers, mechanics, biologists, architects, technologists, etc to design the best and most efficient hospital. It should not be built as a band-aid to correct the mistakes of our previous hospitals; it should be innovative and design for the future. Remember the hospital we can build isn’t just here for today and the next few years, it will be a centre of treatment for the next forty to fifty years.

Barriers

What stands in the way of a state of the art hospital? Most importantly costs. It will not come with a small price tag to build for the future. But that initial upfront cost of the innovative hospital over a lifetime should be less than a traditional energy-sucking, inefficient traditional hospital.

Another barrier is sources. Sources of tissue. Unfortunately it takes quite a lot of work to grow just a small amount of new tissue. We aren’t currently able to do this in mass-production. Add to that the current best source of stem cells is the placenta and now fewer of these are being donated to science. (Dr. Woodhouse joked casually to look up recipes online. I think I should be afraid!)

Another potential barrier is our lack of planning. Planning doesn’t happen over the forty to fifty-year time frame, it happens in four-year, election blocks. Although the politicians may change, the doctors, engineers, architects and patients will be in it for the duration.

What will the future look like?

There will come a time when we no longer head off to our family doctor. Instead from a different clinic, we’ll have our blood pressure, heart rate, ears and eyes checked. This will all be diagnosed electronically and sent to your physician. Instead of a visit there will be a note on your file. You will be able to get into your electronic file and look at the results.

Of course for acute care and serious disease people will still need to see a specialist. But instead of waiting all that time in a family doctors office, you’ll be able to take the middleman out and just go to your specialist.

Emergency rooms will triage patients differently. Already with some e-health infrastructure the number of hospital visits will decrease.

Car crash and other similar victims will be able to have surgery to repair their broken limbs. new bone and other tissues will be grown in your body to replace the broken. Dr. Woodhouse commented on the increased healthcare costs due to psychological treatments to patients to have great facial damage. Understandably if you weren’t confident in how you looked, especially with damage to your face, you would need some support.

To Plan For the Future Hospital

It will take entrepreneurs, bold thinkers and a government that is not afraid to take a risk. It will be a greener, leaner building. The old, inefficient hospitals can hopefully be a thing of our past. Innovate, educate, involve and you a project can evolve.

Through the month of January Toronto was plagued by a string of tragic pedestrian deaths. In total there were 14 deaths in Toronto, some of them quite tragic. Between transport trucks, streetcars and busses the pedestrians stood no chance.

Who was to Blame?

The debate as to who was at fault in these accidents has been a topic of discussion in the media. Whether it is the cars or the pedestrians who are not paying attention is the question. But either way isn’t it both parties faults?

As a pedestrian I don’t think I’m would want to play chicken with a transport truck. Even a SmartCar!

In 2007 the City of Toronto did a study, The Pedestrian Collision Study. Here is a selection of the conclusions of the study:

• 83% of pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions resulted in either minimal or minor injuries
• 12% of pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions resulted in major injuries or fatalities
• 50% of fatalities in pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions were seniors (aged 65+).
• 72% of pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions involved male drivers versus 28% for female drivers.
• Pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions occurred most during the autumn and winter seasons.
• Pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions occurred more often in the downtown area.
• Pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions occurred more often along arterial roads.
• Pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions distributed as follow: at intersections (47%), at non-intersections (37%), and other/unknown (16%).

The City of Toronto did a similar bike-car collision study in 2006. The results can be found here.

What I was reminded of yesterday was does it really matter who is at fault? In the end the pedestrian ends up dead or seriously injured.

How Can we Prevent Future Deaths

1. Alertness: Most importantly both drivers and pedestrians need to be more aware – pedestrian’s in particular. Again as a pedestrian if you play chicken with an automobile the automobile always wins
2. Turning – Left or right, as drivers we should be more aware when turning. Right turns are often worse. On a red light drivers are only looking for on-coming traffic. When lights are green drivers often forget about pedestrians and rush to make the turn
3. Updating Our Intersections: The ‘Scramble’ intersections of downtown Toronto are great, but we can make them even safer. In New Zealand and Japan pedestrians are only allowed to cross when all lights are red. In this manner cars and pedestrians are not competing entities
4. Slow Down: the issue of decreasing speed limits in cities has been raised. Unofficially people in Toronto drive 15-20km/hr over the speed limit so decreasing the speed limit would give drivers more response time
5. Txt Msgs, Email and iPods: Pedestrian’s cannot just walk in oblivion. Be aware of your surroundings and focus on the busy road around you, instead of the latest gadget.