Why is flying the most sustainable?

The triple bottom line analysis consider the economic (the raw cost of travel), the environmental (my carbon footprint) and equity (the social cost).

The Economic Cost

I decided to redeem some travel rewards so the flight cost me $161.88 (for taxes, security and admin fees). The least expensive ticket one can book according to Expedia this morning was $499. When I looked earlier in the week both Air Canada and Porter had seat sales on; flights were $338. Given that I booked the flight earlier in the week I’ll use the $338 value in my analysis.

Via rail is Ontario’s only rail carrier. You can take the GO train within the Greater Toronto Area but it does go beyond the GTA borders. When I looked at booking it was $155, but when searching today it was $202.50. (And knowing me I would have bought my ticket at the station today!)

If I was going to drive I’d have to spend $117.68. According to fueleconomy.gov my car requires premium gasoline and goes 11.5km/L on the highway. The round trip distance is 888km and for simplicity I’ll say that the drive is all highway kilometres (10km total is not on the highway). Thus it will require 78L of fuel (round up to 80L and ignore any congestion encountered on the way). Gas was $1.47.1 at my corner gas station according to Toronto’s Gas Prices this morning.

Summary: Flight: $161.88, Train $155, Drive $117.68

The Environmental Cost

The carbon footprint cost. How much damage am I doing by going to Ottawa? According to Carbon Finance one could sell a tonne of carbon on the European market for €12.32 or $16.64CAD today.

When I booked my flight Air Canada stated me that the total carbon footprint for my portion of the flight round trip was 0.21tonnes of CO2 emissions for a value of $3.49.

According to CarbonFund.org each km of long distance rail travel emits 0.49lbs/mile or 0.12kg/km. The Toronto Travel Guide says it’s 446km, which totals 107kg (.107tonnes) of CO2 emissions round trip or $1.78.

The footprint of my car is 174g/km according to NextGreenCar but that is based on a combined urban and highway driving. For simplicity I’ll use this value, so for my 888km my calculated footprint would be 154kg (.154tonnes) of CO2 emissions, bringing the total cost to $2.56.

Summary: Flight $3.49, Train $1.78 or Driving $2.56.

The Equity Cost

It comes down to what I value my time at. I remember when I wrote my thesis (in 2007) that the average value for an hour of work was $20. I could have valued at what my current salary pays me at, or I could have been a little more conservative and used my ski coaching salary. Both of these were greater than $20 so I think I’ll stick with that (Note: I do value my time more than $20/hr! )

Ignoring the time it takes to get to each mode of travel here is what the cost breakdown is for travelling to Ottawa.

My flight is 1hr gate to gate, probably 40mins in the air. Roundtrip, $40.

The train varies between a 4 hr&24min trip and 4hr&48min trip, for an average of 4hrs&36mins. Cost of my time to take the train roundtrip is $184.

For the drive lets assume I drive the speed limit, the 444km trip would take just under 4.5hours. Round trip the total cost would be $190.

Summary: Flight $40, Train $184 or Drive $190.

From the table you can see that the cost of flying is by far the cheaper option. Even if I only valued my time at $10 it is still significantly cheaper to fly, driving is $30 more than flying and taking the train is more than $60 more. However, if I’d had to pay for the full price ticket (at $338) it would make flying the least viable option; I guess that reminds us all to collect and redeem those travel miles!

(Note: This was a quick, basic way to calculate my triple bottom line total cost of travel. I do not claim that it is the most accurate method to calculate the cost of traveling. This exercise was merely meant to demonstrate the ability to account not just for economic costs but also the environmental and equity (social) cost).

According to Commute Solutions: The True Cost of Driving it costs me $18.50 per day to drive to work!

Driving is not just the cost of gas and the amortization of your vehicle; do not forget to include insurance, license and registration, tires, maintenance, etc. And there are all the other things we so frequently forget to include, the costs to maintain the roadways, pollution, noise, etc.

Although I drive to work most days I have made changes to try and reduce my carbon footprint. I am fortunate and have some flexibility in my schedule, so I either work and earlier or later shift to avoid peak congestion. I also plan to start split commute; subway and biking, again at off peak times to bring my bike on the subway and to avoid as many cars as possible. If I get really adventurous I may even start running to or from work to try and bump up my running mileage!

Gridlock isn’t the issue. The issue is lack of a provincial public transportation network. People live in the suburbs because it’s cheap, they have more space and can afford bigger homes.

Isn’t that the tradeoff? One trades the freedom of space for the freedom of time?

But the fault doesn’t lie entirely with the commuters. They are forced to drive their cars to and from work since there is no viable transportation network in and around the cities. By downloading public transit infrastructure to the municipalities the result is a disjointed  system. Transit systems should be uploaded to the provincial governments and a costsharing agreement should be worked out between the provinces and the municipalities, based on ridership demographics.

While I endorse gridlock as an election issue, it should not be a standalone issue. It should be raised with public transit and land use plans; it should be a part of the connectivity issue.

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.

As much as we try in North America, it is almost impossible to give up driving. Not because we aren’t trying but because we lack the infrastructure to get anywhere without a car.

Tips for efficiency

Thanks to Sierra Magazine’s The Green Life: Daily Tips for Living Well and Doing Good for providing these simple tips.

I think the most important tip of all is to drive a fuel efficient car. With the ‘cash for clunkers’ program in the US individuals can trade in their old, gas-guzzling, monsters for smaller more efficient cars; unfortunately at this time Canada does not have a similar program, but Chrysler Canada is offering an incentive.

The reality is everyone does have to drive at times. By reducing the amount we drive and following these simple tips we can all help to reduce the footprints of our cars.

…when you close a road you create mass congestion on the parallel routes.

On Friday I had one of those frustrating drives home at 2pm. Usually there is a little congestion at this time of the day on a Friday but last week it was unbearable. With Lakeshore Blvd closed, between British Columbia Drive and Strachan, people were forced on to the Gardiner Expressway, King Street, Queen Street and any other parallel route they could find. At the root of the congestion, street parking on these parallel routes.

Temporary parking limitations

In the future Toronto should consider eliminating the street parking on for the two week days leading up to the Indy event. For any major event that closes a major thoroughfare the city should consider limiting street parking on weekdays on these major routes. Given that these street parking closures are temporary businesses should be willing to cooperate; especially considering that there are usually additional revenues from the influx of people drawn to the event.

Events are a huge part of Toronto but more planning is always needed. With congestion due to out limited public transportation system and mass numbers of people commuting it is imperative to keep our roads from reaching those critical volumes.

What about turning your car off while you’re waiting for the train to pass?

I had the opportunity to live in Switzerland for a summer and I was always amazed at how environmentally conscious the Swiss were. Get to a red light, turn your car off. Get to a rail crossing, turn your car off. No matter what the idling circumstance they always turned their car off. How come Canadian’s can’t adopt the same habits?

Congestion costs Toronto $2.2 BILLION per year

Congestion in Toronto is almost unbearable at times. It is not only the highways that are congested it is the city streets. And much of that congestion leads to idling – where you sit in your car and go no where. Unfortunately it is somewhat unreasonable to turn your car off on the highway, wait ten minutes and then drive again. The idling I’m referring to is when you’re waiting for a friend, picking something up, dropping something off, etc … or waiting for a train!

In Toronto there is a by-law that prohibits idling. If your car is sitting still for more than 3 minutes out of every 60 minutes than you could be charged with idling.

Of course there are those people that believe that idling is necessary. There are individuals who believe that you need to warm your car up for at least 10 minutes on a cold day. Modern technology and modern cars actually only need 30 seconds to warm up. Or the individuals that believe that is uses more gas when you stop and start the car. The reality is that you use more gas when you idle for more than 10 seconds. More on these myths can be found here.

In the end the message really is to turn your car off whenever you can. Perhaps in the future Toronto will have a fourth colour to the traffic lights, so we can turn our vehicles off and turn them back on when it is our time to drive again.

The traffic in the city has been a cause for much of the stress in my days, and there is lots going on in my life right now. I cannot believe the amount of construction and the lack of organization – Toronto shouldn’t paralyze the city by allowing construction on parallel routes. The City also needs to consider eliminating on street parking on routes where it is impossible for a car to travel adjacent to the parked cars.

With over 4 million people living in the GTA and a lacking, inefficient transit system it is essential to have a working road infrastructure system.

Here are my suggestions for moving traffic more efficiently in Toronto.

1. Construction can occur during the day – City officials should coordinate construction programs such that parallel routes are unaffected to allow traffic to more efficiently.
2. Consider night construction: I think in the city you can do ‘noisy’ construction until 9pm. If you do all the ‘loud’ stuff between 7 and 9 you could place concrete, asphalt, etc the less noisy activities. This way traffic disruptions are minimized
3. Eliminate on Street parking on regular two lane, major roads: Think of Bayview Avenue south of Eglinton to Davisville. There is always traffic there because people can park on the street. It’s time this came to an end our traffic volumes demand it
4. Construct more and bigger parking lots at some of the major transit stops. Promote people to be multi-modal.
5. Allow people to ride their bicycle at less than 15km/hr on sidewalks on major roads. I would bike to school if I didn’t have to ride on Wilson after getting off the subway to get to work. Wilson, which runs parallel to the 401, is busy and scary, it is impossible to ride a bike on it safely

I’m sure I’ve forgotten many ideas here, this really was more of a way for me to vent

The new laws
As of May 1st new legislation came into effect that should help to deter people from drinking and driving. Before May 1st if you were caught drinking and driving with a blood alcohol concentration between 0.5 and 0.8 you received a 12hr suspension, now the offence is much more serious.

• First Time: 3-day licence suspension and a $150 Administrative Monetary Penalty
• Second Time (within 5 years): 7-day licence suspension, Mandatory alcohol education program and a $150 Administrative Monetary Penalty
• Third Time (within 5 years): 30-day licence suspension, Mandatory alcohol treatment program, Six-month ignition interlock licence condition and a $150 Administrative Monetary Penalty
• Subsequent infractions (within 5 years): 30-day licence suspension, Mandatory alcohol treatment program, Six-month ignition interlock licence condition, Mandatory medical evaluation and a $150 Administrative Monetary Penalty

Not only that but instead of retrieving your license from the police station now if you are caught drinking and driving you have to go to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Licensing offices.

How do you know how much you can drink before driving?
The safest thing to do is have a designated driver that doesn’t drink. Of course this isn’t always the case. The way your body absorbs and handles alcohol varies amongst individuals; it is very difficult to assess your own BAC or impairment. Generally speaking impairment from drinking is affected by:

• How fast you drink
• Gender
• Body Weight
• Amount of food in your stomach
• Tiredness
• Mood

Last summer I lost my cousin in the horrific drinking and driving accident up in Muskoka. His fate was an unfortunate lesson to us all.

(More on the MTO news release can be found here and here)