Last week I had the opportunity to attend the second day of the Ontario Bike Summit (#OBS2012) in downtown Toronto. I went as part of the Morning Glory Cycling Club’s Advocacy Committee, but I was thinking as a cycling commuter, recreational cyclist, driver, engineer and planner. It was a great event to promote cycling in Ontario. #OBS2012 is the brain child of Share the Road [www.sharetheroad.ca]. This year Share the Road set the following mandate for the conference (partial):

• To share information on how to develop a “Share the Road’ campaign in partnership with local law enforcement, media and other community partners
• To demonstrate innovative methods for mobilizing community resources, creating momentum and achieving success
• To share research and information on the connection between public health and the built environment
• To share tips and ideas on how to work more effectively with local governments to advance cycling – including strategies for securing more support from the province
• To share data and research that you will help you “make the case” for enhanced cycling
• To Inspire bicycle friendly cities on the 5 “Es” of a Bicycle Friendly Community: Environment, Encouragement, Environment, Education and Evaluation and Planning

Here are some of the great things I learned at the Conference:

1.  CAA Bike Assist Program: Have a CAA membership? Good news, it covers you on your bike! “If you run into a problem that cannot be fixed on the spot, CAA will transport you and your bicycle to wherever.” More on the CA Bike Assist program can be found here
2. More people would ride more if cycling was Safer and there was more cycling Infrastructure (i.e bike lanes, shared lanes, etc). Some numbers from CAA: 60% of members and non-members from CAA want to see more cycling infrastructure in cities, 70% of Ontario’s population thinks more needs to be done for cycling (i.e. Share the road campaigns, safety, awareness, etc). Share the Road is asking the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to dedicate $25M (1/8th of 1% of MTO’s budget) of their budget to cycling infrastructure.
3. Cycling safety and an increase in infrastructure will only be improved through collaboration. Partnerships must be formed with municipal, provincial and federal governments. Governments must work together and not in silos; health care, transportation, planning, municipal housing and affairs, culture, tourism, etc. Partnerships must be made with the public and private sectors.

Ask The Tough Questions:

I challenged the members of parliament on their current cycling strategy. A lot of the discussion on Wednesday circled around the ‘war on cars’. I know that it has been at the forefront of discussion in Toronto because of Mayor Ford. I challenged the MPPs to move away from the polarized discussion of cycling commuters and cars. I asked why cycling as a recreation was not a part of their discussion. I tabled my question stating that I was an engineer, an environmental planner, occasionally a cycling commuter but I was asking the question as a recreational cyclist.

What I heard back. Recreational cycling used to be a part of the discussion, but cycling was not a popular sport at the time. The shift was then to commuters since they were the most visible. But no MPP answered the question! Share the Road Board Members and a few other key speakers really appreciated the question. The idea of bringing recreational cycling back into the conversation is on the horizon. Let’s see what happens next.

Share the Road:

Learn more about Share the Road and sign up for their newsletter here. Share the Road’s goal is to make Ontario more bicycle friendly for everyone by: Enhancing access for bicyclists on roads and trails, Improving safety for all bicyclists, and Educating citizens on the value and importance of safe bicycling for healthy lifestyles and communities. Share the Road represents all cyclists – children, tourists, commuters, recreational riders, mountain bikers and racers.

I had a great time at #OBS2012 and look forward to attending again next year. If you have any other questions about the conference send me an email and I’d be happy to try and answer your question.

Happy Cycling.

(A slightly different version of this blog post can be found on the Morning Glory Blog Site)

Different government agencies are developing individual green manuals for their jurisdictions, since each jurisdiction faces unique climate and construction constraints. These manuals are much like the LEED manual; the points system for constructing sustainable buildings. Buildings are a simpler than highways, while the foundation may change the general construction as the building goes up remains the same. It’s why each road jurisdiction necessitates its own individual manual.

What can we expect on the greener roads?

• Reduced raw material: recycled pavements, long life pavements, life cycle assessments of the road structure, etc
• Improved Human Health and Safety: intelligent transportation systems, pedestrian and cycle friendly road and highway intersections, etc
• Water: reduced water use during construction, proper storm water management, etc
• Optimized land  and habitat use: crossings for wildlife, minimize the width of roads and clear zones, protect streams and wetlands, etc

Greener roads will continue to evolve. Our traditional way of road construction cannot continue, not just due to the environmental hazards, but the cost to build and maintain our current infrastructure is not possible.

Much has been written and commented on in the news recently. Although as the time passes from the disaster we hear less and less about Fukushima. But there is still much we can learn from the recent tragedy.

Why there will should never be a Nuclear disaster to that scale in Ontario

With the events that unfolded in Japan it was understandable that residents living at or in the vicinity of a nuclear plant were afraid. Some of the plants, including Ontario’s Pickering nuclear plant, were the same vintage as the Fukushima Dai-Chi Complex. Unlike Japan, Southern Ontario is more insulated from a meltdown resulting from a natural disaster.

For one thing Ontario is not located along a fault line, Japan is located on the ‘Pacific Ring of Fire.’ The Pacific Ring of Fire represents an area where many of the world’s tectonic plates diverge and move through subduction (in contrast mountains are created by collisions and convergence). Ontario is located in the middle of a continental (tectonic) plate and while it is generally a stable area sometimes small earthquakes occur in regional stress areas. In simple terms the ground in Ontario rebounds or moves up and down. These movements are no where as severe as the horizontal movements along fault lines; the regional stress zones cannot hold as much energy as the fault lines.

Ontario will also not see a tsunami because there is no body of water big enough to create a wave that large. A tsunami is a great sea wave produced especially by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption. Since it is unlikely that there will be a massive disturbance in the Ontario bodies of water, and their volumes are too small, Ontario is insulated from the effects of a tsunami.

Transport of Nuclear seems like suicide

Today the G&M published an article on ‘The Right Size of Nuclear‘ but the article raised a more important issue, where Canada is planning to store its nuclear waste. Currently the nuclear plants house their waste on site, but the Federal Government, under the leadership of Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is trying to create a national dump site. Some potential sites have been selected in Northern Saskatchewan and Northern Ontario.

While the notion of a central dump site is logical, transportation of nuclear waste is unreasonable. Would you want to be sitting alongside a truck carrying nuclear waste? I certainly would not.It’s not the threat of leaked radiation from the truck that frightens me but the impending disaster if one of those trucks gets into an accident.

Possible solutions to be tabled should include a direct rail line to a long-term waste facility. Or storing the nuclear waste at the site where it is created. All the social, economic and an environmental factors should play a role when deciding where to store the nuclear waste.

I do not want to debate the necessity of nuclear power or whether it should be considered ‘green’ power; currently governments (worldwide) view it as a viable way to power our future. But as we proceed to plan, design, build and decommission these nuclear plants the life cycle of the plant should be considered in greater detail. It’s not just about powering today, it’s about powering long term, dealing with the ramifications (from any type of power) long-term, dealing with waste, managing growth and managing people’s expectations.

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.

On October 25th all of Ontario goes to vote their municipal leaders. Here in Toronto the race for mayor seems to be cooling down. While candidates continue to campaign, Rob Ford seems to be storming ahead with the lead.

What? Rob Ford? The man who has insulted at least half of the city’s population; he announced he was opposed to gay marriage and does not support immigrants coming to Toronto. He’s been arrested for impaired driving. But this blog is not meant to be about bashing Ford (I’ll save that for another day).

When we go to the polls on October 25th we will all be voting for the future of our cities and towns. Toronto is at a cross-roads. With construction having started on the Spadina Subway extension and the current transit system somewhat in limbo the city needs a mayor that will revitalize transit and make it a priority of their term.

What does the city need for Transit?

Last week I vented about Rossi’s proposal to tunnel the Allen expressway down to the Gardiner. My theme with transit is similar; Toronto needs to work with what it has before unrolling expensive, ostentatious, impossible transit.

Currently Toronto is serviced by 3 subways, a Rapid Transit line (an extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway line), 11 streetcars and (≈) 144 daily bus routes. Wow, sounds pretty robust. But it’s still inefficient and people opt for their car over transit.

In addition each of the suburban communities has a transit system, Mississauga, Brampton, Viva (servicing York Region), as well as, GO Transit and VIA Rail (servicing a variety of communities). And while the transit operations are starting to ‘work’ together (under PRESTO) there is no seamless system for transit riders to move between the systems (something else to take into consideration when voting).

What can we do better?

1. Work with what we’ve got: When you look at the system map it’s clear that Toronto has the means to have a great transit system, it just needs some tweaks (see suggestions below). London, UK drastically improved reliability when it introduced a congestion charging scheme. First people chose transit over cars due to the cost savings. With fewer cars on the road and dedicated bus lanes, transit was more efficient, even faster than your personal automobile so people switched to transit for efficiency.
2. Dedicated streetcar and bus lanes: Not only do they improve transit times, they also improve transit reliability
3. Signal Priority: As a bus approaches an intersection the lights change in favour for the bus. This is necessary with dedicated lanes to keep transit vehicles moving on schedule
4. Add to the system: Not new routes, just more vehicles on the routes. People opt for their personal vehicle in off-peak hours because their bus runs every 30mins to hour. Reduce that to ten minutes and more people will choose transit over their vehicles.
5. Permit bicycles on subways during peak hours: The new buses and street cars are equipped with bicycle racks, but you’re still not permitted to bring on the subway during peak hours. People would be much more inclined to switch out of their cars given the means to travel efficiently through the city, which means bringing your bike on the subway any time of the day.

Aside from suggestion 4 all of these examples are very low cost to implement and can improve the reliability of the TTC. But what would cost more having more buses in a dedicated transit lane with signal priority or constructing dedicated streetcar and subway lines?

What are the Candidates Saying

Rob Ford: Ford wants to see more streetcar lines, but as the Transit Toronto blog argues this will only increase congestion. He also wants to see an additional 12km of subway lines along Sheppard Avenue. His final comittment was to for 100km of bike trails (rumour has it these are not to be on Toronto roads). His transit plan was released on youtube and just like the quality of the video, his plan is lackluster.

George Smitherman: Smitherman’s plan is called the Integrated Transit Plan. At the heart of the plan is customer service; including free service for seniors between 1oam and 2pm, a transit charter, and a promise to keep vehicles clean and maintained. Looking at a longer term horizon (10- and 20-years out) Smitherman is committed to extending subway lines and adding more LRT lines.

Rocco Rossi: Rossi has a 5 priorities for improving transit in Toronto, #1 being to build more subways. He also recognizes that Toronto cannot continue to operate as a silo, under priority #2 Rossi recommends a stronger partnership with Metrolinx. While this will improve regional transportation, Rossi ignores a massive part of our current local system, buses.

Sarah Thomson: Again she sees subways as queen bee. She’s going all-out, stating that the city needs another 58km of subway lines (the current system is 70km so she’s trying to almost double it). Thomson does have the most aggressive cycling plan with more than 1000km on-road and 40km off-road through utility corridors.

None of them look to our existing system and how to make it better. Instead they’re promising unrealistic, expensive systems. Smitherman’s plan seems best, work on the small things before tackling the big ones, create a better sense of ‘community’ our transit system and while he spells out big ticket plans, he understands that Toronto needs to keep moving – ‘faster, better, easier and safer’.

Over the next few weeks I’ll look at some of the other relevant issues for Toronto’s Mayoral campaign including municipal taxes, city roads and anything else relevant to sustainable cities and transportation.

A little history…

The Allen Expressway was originally designed to be a connection from the 401 all the way down to the Gardiner, known as the Spadina expressway. Construction began in 1963. Homes were demolished, neighbourhoods destroyed and air pollution was increasing for surrounding residents. Opposition continued to mount. Modifications to the Spadina Expressway were made in 1964, it meant the expropriation and demolition of more homes. by 1966 the city opened the first section from Wilson Avenue down to Lawrence, with a massive, highly efficient connection with the 401. Construction down to Eglinton continued but in 1969 a group led by Alan Powell and Jane Jacobs known as the “Stop Spadina, Save Our City Co-ordinating Committee” (SSSOCCC) formed committed to halting the progress of the Spadina Expressway.

Based on the Eglinton terminus the SSSOCCC won.

What does Toronto really need?

Does Toronto need a buried expressway? Didn’t we learn enough from Boston’s Big Dig? The multi-billion dollar project was way over budget, has not improved efficiency and has not helped reconnect citizens to the waterfront.

Toronto needs roads to function more efficiently, better bus transportation on existing roads and traffic engineers to work together to get our city moving again, from pedestrians, to cyclists, to buses and finally vehicles.

Toronto needs a mayor who can think about what the citizens really need. Do they need their taxes raised to fund more projects? Or do they need a mayor who can work with what the city already has and make it better?

Give me a KISS

Do you remember when you were much younger and someone told you to follow the KISS principle? Keep It Simple Stupid. While I was driving back from class I thought of a few things the city could do before it was forced to construct an underground expressway

• Eliminate illegal parking/stopping on streets during day hours: Bathurst was crawling today. Why? Because a delivery truck decided to park facing south on the northbound lanes. Instead of two lanes of traffic, it was reduced to one. In addition the one lane competed for right turn space, since the driver had parked so close to the intersection. Flow would have been uninterrupted without the truck illegally stopped.
• Dedicated Pedestrian Crossing at all major intersections: I wrote a blog on this before. The Dundas square intersection almost ‘gets’ it. But instead there should be no pedestrian crossing when traffic is moving. It is safer for pedestrians to cross when the intersection is completely stopped.
• Eliminate Street Parking: You cut capacity in half with street parking. Facilities can be built in nearby areas. I see the other side of the argument, that it hurts businesses where street parking has been eliminated. However, the loss of business due to congestion is likely greater than the cost of lost business.
• Dedicated Bus and Carpool lanes: Their benefits are well documented and require little infrastructure for implementation.
• Signal Timing: Ever feel like you get a green light as the one in front of you turns red? City Traffic Engineers need to set routes as ‘main lines.’ Consecutive green lights would allow people to come into and out of the city easily.

Instead of dreaming of elaborate, expensive, complicated infrastructure, lets go back to the basics. Instead the city should work with its existing infrastructure. Make the roads move efficiently. Make buses move along those routes efficiently. Make it attractive to live in the city again. Work with all the great infrastructure that exists in the city before we bring in more.

Maybe Rossi has a vision. Or maybe he thinks a massive elevator will transport vehicles up to meet the Gardiner.

While his end of camp tag line seems comical now, Toronto’s bus system is depleting so rapidly that it might take a year for you to see your friends again (ok, not really). Unless you live directly on the subway there is little hope that you can travel on the transit system efficiently.

40 minutes to go 5 kilometers?

Reported in the Globe and Mail yesterday, Toronto’s bus routes “fail those who need it most.” According to their research only those who are part of the ‘creative class‘ can afford to live on the subway routes. The remainder, the working and the service class can’t afford to live along the subway, despite needing it the most. Unable to afford a car, insurance and parking these people are forced to use ‘The Better Way‘.

Would a Congestion Charging Scheme Improve Bus Scheduling in Toronto?

In early 2003 London introduced a congestion charging scheme; camera’s were installed and charged people who drove into the city. Rates varied by time of day and day of the week. People who lived in Central London were charged a tax to own a car. And more buses were added to there vast route network just prior to the congestion charging scheme implementation.

The overall result: there was a 30% reduction in automobile traffic. Reliability of the buses increased. With reliability increasing more people saw buses as an attractive alternative to get in and an around town.

Toronto currently does not have a congestion charging scheme. Individuals commute to and from the suburbs, local Toronto residents drive anywhere and everywhere with no other viable option available. In the end the TTC, along with individual automobiles, competes for space on the road.

Forget “fancy, European-style light-rail transit” and subways. Create dedicated bus lanes and carpool lanes during rush-hour. Implement a congestion charging scheme. Promote living where we work. Once again make all aspects of the TTC ‘The Better Way.’

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.

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.