P. Sainath
Things are not as bad as they seem for the U.S. economy. They are worse.
On average, the United States has seen the loss of nearly 14,000 jobs each day since September 1. In 90 days from that date, close to 1.3 million Americans lost their jobs. After weeks of headline-grabbing events on Wall Street, these developments tend to recede into the background. Current estimates suggest that over half a million Americans lost their jobs in November alone. Something not seen in a single month since December 1974.
Things are not as bad as they seem for the U.S. economy. They are worse. As the data flow in, even estimates for earlier months have been revised sharply upwards. The September job loss figure was recorded as 159,000 two months ago. The Bureau of Labour Statistics now says the figure is 403,000. The first figure for October was 240,000 jobs lost. Now it is 320,000. The unemployment rate for teenagers, at 20.4 per cent, is three times the claimed national rate of 6.7 per cent. (This does not include those who have given up looking for work in despair. Nor does it count those working far fewer hours than they need or would like to.) A measure that includes such factors would raise the unemployment rate to 12.5 per cent. Yet, even with this flawed measure, the rate is at its highest in 15 years. There were 10.3 million jobless people in November and that was 3.1 million more workers unemployed than just a year ago. Worse, massive layoffs continue. Even the IT sector has lost thousands of jobs.
There are other icebergs ahead. This is winter, when at least two major sectors — agriculture and construction — do not hire much. Come spring, and there will be different benchmarks to test jobless figures against. There could also be a new round of layoffs (in Retail, for instance) starting January after the last two major holidays — Christmas and New Year — get over. Things might improve if the new administration has massive programmes running by spring that help millions return to work. Circumstances might force this administration to make choices that could in America be denounced as “Leftist.” Not impossible — but on current evidence, tough. Huge job stimulus programmes, even if brought in, would take time to work through. If Barack Obama’s plan to create 3 million jobs over the next two years works, it would still barely recover those that vanished over the previous two.
The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to between 0 and 0.25 per cent. (Leading one wit to declare that “the Fed is now the only institution truly attempting Islamic Banking.”) It believes the positive results of this will be seen in time. However, this will not solve the credit crunch — the problem of banks fearful or unwilling to lend to those who currently need it. The mortgage and other crises show no major signs of a let-up. Even if all the measures of the Bush and the incoming Obama administration work, it won’t be a return to business as usual. For tens of millions of people, life might never be the same again.
The housing mortgage crisis still burns. Six million people could lose their homes over the next two years. And the credit card crisis, already setting in, could strike sharply in a few months. That hit would encompass far more people than housing would, even if the amounts involved (and impact on the financial markets) are smaller. As Business Week puts it: “Making matters worse, the subprime threat is also greater in credit-card land. Risky borrowers with low credit scores account for roughly 30% of outstanding credit-card debt, compared with 11% of mortgage debt.” This is a country where almost everybody uses credit cards (often several of them).
If job losses continue to mount at their present pace, the card catastrophe will accelerate. Those out of work will not be able to meet their payments. They could also find it hard to purchase essentials and would likely fall deeper into debt. This was a sector already headed for crisis for quite some time. In some estimates, U.S. credit card debt grew from $211 billion in 2002 to $915 billion by the end of 2007. When this house of cards falls, it will spur further the home mortgage mess and the recession already under way. There are those making their housing payments off their credit cards — at huge interest.
Meanwhile, the emphasis right through has been on bailing out the financial giants. (An Institute for Policy Studies report notes that the U.S. and European governments are set to spend 40 times more to rescue financial firms than to fight climate and poverty crises in the developing world.) And yet, daily, new scandals emerge from Wall Street. Both from the banks and other types of operations. The billions paid out as bonuses to executives have not been reversed even when the ‘profits’ for which these bonuses were ‘rewards’ have proved illusory. Merrill Lynch, as the New York Times points out, handed out $5 billion to $6 billion in bonuses in 2006. “But Merrill’s record earnings in 2006 — $7.5 billion — turned out to be a mirage.”
It is only now that the obscene compensation for CEOs and top executives is a matter of — limited — debate. As for the hundreds of billions of dollars given to the banks in the bailout, there is no evidence of this money being used to ease the credit and mortgage crises at the level of the public. Not even a requirement that they make details of their use of the money public — though it is public money they make use of.
Meanwhile, the latest Wall Street scandal snowballing is that of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Madoff, a shining beacon of Wall Street enterprise and philanthropy, ran what has been described as “the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.” His own estimate of the fraud is in the region of $50 billion (more than three times India’s farm loan waiver). Huge charities, trusts and individuals, including billionaires, have lost massively in this rip-off. And there’s more to come. Yet again the question how such gigantic rackets thrived in Wall Street without the massive financial media ever noticing leaps up. The Madoff scam is only one among many things unravelling.
However, there is far more passion generated over the obnoxious Governor of Illinois who tried to sell the Senate seat that Mr. Obama vacated — for personal benefit. Governor Blagojevich’s action is neither new to Chicago, nor huge. It is a petty deal by a petty person, reeking of low corruption in high places. The energy it generates, though, is like focussing on the local pick-pocket when grand larceny proceeds next door. Maybe there is a need to hold businessmen to the same standards as elected representatives. Especially those dealing with untold sums of public money?
In this bleak landscape came a surprise at a factory in Chicago. “You got bailed out. We got sold out.” So read the banner at the sit-in strike of the workers of the Republic Windows and Doors factory. Having been robbed of their jobs in a stealthy shutdown, over 200 unionised workers and their families occupied the factory and demanded severance and vacation pay. They got it, too. The action drew national attention. In a sign of changed times, politicians, celebrities, and public figures turned up at the factory to declare support. Even Mr. Obama said he agreed with their demands. The media which, pre-meltdown, would have savaged the strike, were less hostile. “Prior to the economic crisis,” says analyst and columnist Carl Bloice who writes in the Black Commentator, “the police might have gone into the factory and evicted the workers as trespassers.” Post-meltdown, it was a different story. Bloice says the U.S. has not seen such a labour action in decades. Impressively, ordinary citizens went up with food hampers to help out the strikers. Could we be witnessing the start of more militant labour action in the U.S. after decades? And could we be seeing greater sympathy in the country for such actions after decades, as job losses mount?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Focus on rural infrastructure - The Hindu
The World Bank’s country assistance strategy (CAS) for India, 2009-2012 comes at a momentous phase. The focus on boosting investments in infrastructure and reducing inequalities is back on the economic agenda both globally and within India. The proposed $14 billion lending programme for the next three years is in line with national priorities, even if it is short of projected requirements. Quite independent of the global economic meltdown, India’s neglect of i ts physical infrastructure has been a malaise demanding radical treatment. This time of economic troubles serves to heighten the sense of urgency. Given the positive linkages between physical infrastructure and equitable growth, the country can ill afford any further neglect of the task of building decent infrastructure. The urgency behind investment in infrastructure is two-fold: its immediate pump-priming effect, and the longer-term importance of sustaining and boosting India’s high growth trajectory.
The infrastructure deficit is a major reason for India’s inability to spread the benefits of growth. For instance, even the 8+ per cent growth does not translate into much for the hundreds of millions of Indians who live below the official poverty line. That 40 per cent of India’s villages are not connected to a road is a shocking expression of India’s infrastructure deficit. Rural infrastructure should be a priority area as it will help narrow the urban-rural divide. One of the objectives of the Eleventh Plan is to construct 130,000 km of new rural roads. The Plan has earmarked nearly 30 per cent of the public investment (Rs.4,35,349 crore) for rural infrastructure development. A strong, focussed push in this area should be central to the country’s larger development plans.UNCTAD has estimated that to support an annual GDP growth of 9 per cent, India would need investment averaging $99 billion a year between 2007 and 2012 in 10 major infrastructure segments. Seen in this wider context, even with the World Bank’s proposed assistance, overall investment will fall short of the country’s infrastructure needs. Whatever the 15th general election may bring in five months, a key challenge for India’s planners will be to evolve strategies to bridge the infrastructure investment gap needed to fast-track development and, to an extent at least, even out growth.
The infrastructure deficit is a major reason for India’s inability to spread the benefits of growth. For instance, even the 8+ per cent growth does not translate into much for the hundreds of millions of Indians who live below the official poverty line. That 40 per cent of India’s villages are not connected to a road is a shocking expression of India’s infrastructure deficit. Rural infrastructure should be a priority area as it will help narrow the urban-rural divide. One of the objectives of the Eleventh Plan is to construct 130,000 km of new rural roads. The Plan has earmarked nearly 30 per cent of the public investment (Rs.4,35,349 crore) for rural infrastructure development. A strong, focussed push in this area should be central to the country’s larger development plans.UNCTAD has estimated that to support an annual GDP growth of 9 per cent, India would need investment averaging $99 billion a year between 2007 and 2012 in 10 major infrastructure segments. Seen in this wider context, even with the World Bank’s proposed assistance, overall investment will fall short of the country’s infrastructure needs. Whatever the 15th general election may bring in five months, a key challenge for India’s planners will be to evolve strategies to bridge the infrastructure investment gap needed to fast-track development and, to an extent at least, even out growth.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
NEW DEAL NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 2009 - newurbanism.org
http://www.urbandesign.org/newdeal2009.html
It's time for a New Deal for America - building the 21st century green economy to solve our problems and set us up for a prosperous, sustainable futureWe need to embark on a major government project to fix America like President Roosevelt initiated in 1933 and 1935. We need another New Deal that will create millions of jobs and stimulate our economy. But that's not enough. We also need to solve our oil dependence by reducing our car dependence, and we have to address global warming in a big way too. To accomplish all this, we need a new direction - we need all hands on deck! Can we do it? "Yes we can!"Investing in new roads IS NOT the solutionMore roads increase our oil and car dependence. Roads are the problem. We need a complete change of direction in spending on transportation. We have limited time, money, and resources, so we need to get this right by addressing all our problems together with the most comprehensive solutions - as quickly as possible. If we don't enact real, long term sustainable solutions, we will end up back in this same situation a year or two from now when oil prices skyrocket again. We are running out of time and options to permanently solve our problems.Investing in new trains IS the solutionTrain system construction has all the benefits of road construction in creating jobs, but train construction puts into place the solution to all the other problems at the same time. Trains take us away from our oil and car addiction, and move us towards a truely sustainable economy and country.
New high speed rail construction
Creating millions of green jobs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is Building a Massive National Rail System, QuicklyChina is well on its way converting their entire country to sustainable, green transportation. Abandoning their plan to create a car culture rivaling America, China quickly switched to building an extensive train system nationwide. They realized the era of cheap easy oil was over just as they had arrived to the party. China is currently building 5,000 miles of brand new high speed rail comparable to the French TGV (200+ mph), plus 36 brand new, full size metro systems - each to cover an entire city. The new Shanghai metro system will be the largest in the world when complete. This will all be open for business in just a few short years! China's massive, fast track green transportation construction project is unprecedented in the history of the world, and will completely transform China towards sustainability by drastically reducing their need for cars and oil. They have also begun large scale manufacturing of wind turbines to power the trains and green their nation's energy. If China can accomplish all this in such a short time, we can too... Yes we can! Watch video
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE MUST SOLVE QUICKLY
1. Failing economy and rising job lossesOur economy is crumbling right before our eyes. Major corporations are going bankrupt or dissappearing one after the other. Job losses are rising every day, and are predicted to get far worse. At the root of our economic problems is the cost of our oil addiction - $700 billion each year for the purchase of oil. This is unsustainable, and is expected to rise dramatically over the next couple of years. The big problem is that our entire economy - especially our transportation system - is built upon cheap and plentiful oil - which is now gone forever. 'Business as usual' is no longer possible.
Our economy in peril
2. Global warming and climate changeThe planet is in peril, and little has been done in America to deal with this crisis. In fact, there have been considerable efforts to delay any real action. Millions of lives are at stake, our cities, our prosperity, and our entire food supply is vulnerable to irreversible damage if we don't act quickly. We face a planetary emergency and we need to act as we would in any emergency with fast action and solutions as big as the problem. Building more roads adds to the problem.
Our cities in peril
3. Peak oil and energy securityAccording to leading experts, world oil supplies have peaked resulting in less oil available for our consumption each year from now on. We need fast action to drastically reduce our oil and car dependence. Many experts say peak oil is more serious than global warming. Our entire economy is dependent on oil, along with 98% of our transportation and 99% of our food supply. Our nation is dangerously vulnerable to the volatile global oil situation, which will only get worse as we move deeper into the era of world peak oil. We need to transition our society away from oil and cars - quickly. We are currently at war trying to secure the last remaining oil reserves, but this war has destroyed our economy and put us deep into debt. We can no longer afford the huge costs of war, both financially and in human lives and suffering. And we certainly can't afford to burn up massive amounts of the remaining scarce oil fighting wars for oil.
Peak oil is a national security threat to our nation
4. Crumbling infrastructureWe have neglected the repair and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure nationwide to the point where bridges are collapsing, roads are falling apart, and our rail systems are unable to function at a reasonable level of service, or meet the rapidly rising demand. The collapsing systems are due to age, poor maintenance, and being overloaded. The collapsed bridge was never designed to carry the loads it was carrying, and thousands more bridges are in the same condition. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation's infrastructure a 'D' rating, just above complete failure, and estimated the cost to repair it to a safe level at $1.6 tillion! This doesn't even include expanding the systems to meet the projected growth in demand. It will be far cheaper to build a new national rail system!
Minneapolis bridge collapse, 2007
5. Mobility crisis nationwideOur entire national transportation system is in disrepair and overloaded to a point near paralysis. It's a time-consuming nightmare to get anywhere in America. We waste countless hours of our time and billions of gallons of precious fuel sitting stuck in traffic on our roads and runways. We are spending more money on waste than it would cost to build a new national high speed rail system. We are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for an outdated transportation system that fails to provide reasonable, efficient mobility. Building more roads simply grows the problem, and has proven over and over to create more traffic, and digs us deeper into our oil and car addiction. We clearly need a new direction in transportation policy and funding.
Nationwide transportation paralysis, every day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONE SOLUTION FOR 5 PROBLEMS
NEW DEAL NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 2009A new direction! One project can solve all our problems together. Building a new world class rail system across America will address all 5 problems at once, and put us on a course to sustainability and prosperity. This is the fastest, most efficient way to deal with all these huge problems together. Solving 5 big problems with one solution is smart, and a real bargain compared to what it will cost in time and money to solve them individually.
21st century green transportation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SAFE, AFFORDABLE, GREEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMThis is not new in America - we already had an extensive rail system In 1922, America had more than 44,800 miles of green, electric streetcar rail systems in 80 cities, plus thousands of miles of regional and national rail systems. More than 90% of Americans lived in walkable cities with great train service right outside the door, transporting them everywhere.
Typical early American city with streetcars
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new national rail system solves many problems:
Creates millions of green jobs nationwide building the new rail infrastructure and manufacturing the rail cars
Pays for itself by significantly reducing our $700 billion a year oil purchase trade deficit
A major step toward solving global warming by reducing our oil consumption and emissions
Drastically reduces our oil addiction and lowers our risk from the coming peak oil crisis
Lowers our dependence on costly military operations securing oil flow around the world
Lowers our national security risk, and ends wars for oil
Freedom from oil - Powered by clean electricity from renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal, ocean/tidal
Safe, affordable, green transportation for everyone
Saves lives (43,000 Americans die each year in car accidents)
Provides efficient mobility that moves people and goods witout delay and waste
Puts in place a high quality infrastructure setting us up for prosperity, mobility, efficiency, and a sustainable future
It lays the foundation for building walkable, affordable green communities surrounding the train stations
Makes cities more livable, safe, and beautiful by removing cars, traffic, noise, pollution, and parking lots
Trains create walkable, affordable communities
Trains are affordable, safe, clean and green
A nationwide train construction project is neededGreen jobs to build it! Green energy to power it!
THE NEW RAIL PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A new safe, affordable, green transportation system for all Americans Build a new world-class national rail system made up of an extensive network of connecting train lines in a 3-tiered, seamless system. The trains would run on clean electricity powered by a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal renewable green energy.
A. National high speed rail system This top level train would serve as the national fast system now covered by airplanes and distance car travel. It would consist of all high-speed train lines connecting central cities together in a web of train lines across the nation. The trains operating at this level would be state-of-the-art TGV/Eurostar type trains that travel at 200–220 mph. This high speed rail system is a high quality, high capacity system transporting more passengers than highways and airlines put together - using a fraction of the energy, for less than a quarter of the cost.The 800-mile California High Speed Rail project - just voted in by the people - is the first piece of this national system. Propelling California into the 21st century, the new train will link all major cities from Sacremento to San Diego with 220 mph trains.
National High Speed Rail Network
B. Regional rail systemsThis level of trains would serve as the medium-speed regional system linking the many regional destinations together and to the high-speed train station. These regional trains would connect to all the smaller cities, towns, and significant destinations within each region. This includes metro systems as well as commuter and regional trains. These new trains would serve as the backbone of a new regional planning effort to convert low density suburban development into a series of walkable, transit oriented developments along the new train lines.
Regional rail systems for each region
C. Local light rail, streetcar, trolley & tram systemsThis level of trains would serve as the local collector system connecting to the regional trains. It would have stops in all parts of cities, neighborhoods and central gathering places, as well as employment centers, retail locations, and sports and recreation facilities within each community.Ideally, these trains would never be more than a few blocks walk from all locations within cities and towns. Much like the original 44,800 mile streetcar system in America, this new system would enable a large percentage of Americans once again to live in walkable cities without the need for a car.
Local rail systems for each city and town
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARTNERSHIPSA green retooling of the US transportation industry is needed. Our transportation systems were built around cheap oil - which is now gone for good. No amount of biofuels, used french-fry oil, hydrogen fuel cells, and hybrid cars are going to be able to move 300 million Americans into the future. We need a new 21st century transportation system for a new age! "We need all hands on deck!" All the companies now in transportation need to retool and be included in this new plan. This would save as many jobs as possible, and minimize competition and resistance to the new systems. The retooling would include train system design, manufacturing, operations, and maintenance, and could take place as follows:Companies now known as airlines, rather than limited to managing air travel, would become “transportation providers” and invited to operate train company franchises. Airplane and auto manufacturers could start building trains, track, and parts. Airport operators could become train station operators. The FAA could change into the agency that oversees the entire operation. The Department of Transportation could plan the train network, instead of planning roads. Road builders can become train infrastructure builders.There are also a number of other American companies outside the transportation industry that would benefit greatly by getting involved in a new train system. Real estate developers would build walkable urbanism surrounding the train stations. Resort, hotel, theme park operators, and travel companies would all see increased business. Shipping and delivery companies would all save money. Defense contractors could get involved building the energy, signaling, and control systems. In addition, there are many train operators and manufacturers in Europe and Japan that would be more than willing to participate in building and operating a high-speed train network in America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RETOOL AMERICA Retooling industry is essential for fixing America. We are in the midst of a sea change in our society that requires us to fundamentally change our transportation and many of our industries to build the new green economy. Continuing 'business as usual' is no longer possible.
1. Retool Car Manufacturers All three American car manufacturers are on the edge of bankruptcy and are pleading for a massive bailout from the government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars - far more then their total net worth. Even with the bailout, these companies are no longer viable entities, since continued car manufacturing makes little sense in light of peak oil and
Retool car manufacturing plants into producing trains
climate change. There is an enormous need for large scale manufacturing of trains in America. Retooling the car factories can be done quickly to build trains while saving millions of jobs. A complete retooling of the car factories was accomplished in a matter of months back in the 1940s to meet the wartime need for tanks and airplanes. We can do the same thing now just as quickly. Yes we can!
2. Retool Car Parts Suppliers In addition to trains, millions of bicycles will be needed in America as we transition away from cars. Rather than import them from China, we should manufacture them here in America and create millions of green jobs. Car parts suppliers can retool into making bicycles since there will be a big reduction in the need for car parts.
Retool auto parts suppliers into making bicycles
3. Retool Airplane Manufacturers There will be a great reduction in the need for airplanes as we enter the peak oil era. Since most trips will take place in trains, the majority of airplane manufacturing will become obsolete. Currently, there is a huge demand for wind turbines, and manufacturing is unable to keep up with this demand. Airplane manufacturing plants are ideal for retooling into producing wind turbines.
Retool airplane manufacturing plants into producing wind turbines
4. Retool Road Builders As we transition away from cars, it makes no sense to spend any more money building roads that have no future. Roads and cars for the masses only made sense when there was plenty of cheap oil, but it's now gone forever. Currently, the huge need is for new train systems all across the nation. We need many thousands of miles of train infrastructure built as quickly as possible.
Retool road builders into constructing train infrastructure
We need train tracks, train bridges and tunnels, and many new train stations built. This will be one of the nation's largest construction projects ever. Road builders are the ideal group to retool and lead the way building the nation's new green transportation system.
5. Retool Real Estate DevelopersSince the era of cheap oil is over, our drive-in utopia will no longer be possible. Future development needs to be compact walkable urbanism surrounding train stations. This designs away the need for cars and oil. Walkable urbanism and trains are the future, and the building blocks for a sustainable society - creating livable, affordable, healthy, and enjoyable communities for all.
Retool developers from building sprawl into building walkable cities and towns
6. Retool Defense ContractorsWe don't need any more bombs, missiles, or war. War products are of no benefit to our society and are a huge waste of money. United States defense spending eats up half our entire nation's annual budget! Peak oil and global warming represent a far greater national security threat than terrorism or any potential enemy. The majority of our
Retool defense contractors' weapons plants into producing solar panels, etc.
massive defense budget needs to be spent ending our car and oil addiction. To accomplish this, we need to retool defense contractors into manufacturing useful products that benefit society including solar panels, wind turbine parts, and train computer control systems.
Jobs + economy + equity + environment + mobility = REAL change for America
NEW DEAL NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 2009 It's the change we need! We can do it... "yes we can!" ... Pass it on!
It's time for a New Deal for America - building the 21st century green economy to solve our problems and set us up for a prosperous, sustainable futureWe need to embark on a major government project to fix America like President Roosevelt initiated in 1933 and 1935. We need another New Deal that will create millions of jobs and stimulate our economy. But that's not enough. We also need to solve our oil dependence by reducing our car dependence, and we have to address global warming in a big way too. To accomplish all this, we need a new direction - we need all hands on deck! Can we do it? "Yes we can!"Investing in new roads IS NOT the solutionMore roads increase our oil and car dependence. Roads are the problem. We need a complete change of direction in spending on transportation. We have limited time, money, and resources, so we need to get this right by addressing all our problems together with the most comprehensive solutions - as quickly as possible. If we don't enact real, long term sustainable solutions, we will end up back in this same situation a year or two from now when oil prices skyrocket again. We are running out of time and options to permanently solve our problems.Investing in new trains IS the solutionTrain system construction has all the benefits of road construction in creating jobs, but train construction puts into place the solution to all the other problems at the same time. Trains take us away from our oil and car addiction, and move us towards a truely sustainable economy and country.
New high speed rail construction
Creating millions of green jobs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is Building a Massive National Rail System, QuicklyChina is well on its way converting their entire country to sustainable, green transportation. Abandoning their plan to create a car culture rivaling America, China quickly switched to building an extensive train system nationwide. They realized the era of cheap easy oil was over just as they had arrived to the party. China is currently building 5,000 miles of brand new high speed rail comparable to the French TGV (200+ mph), plus 36 brand new, full size metro systems - each to cover an entire city. The new Shanghai metro system will be the largest in the world when complete. This will all be open for business in just a few short years! China's massive, fast track green transportation construction project is unprecedented in the history of the world, and will completely transform China towards sustainability by drastically reducing their need for cars and oil. They have also begun large scale manufacturing of wind turbines to power the trains and green their nation's energy. If China can accomplish all this in such a short time, we can too... Yes we can! Watch video
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE MUST SOLVE QUICKLY
1. Failing economy and rising job lossesOur economy is crumbling right before our eyes. Major corporations are going bankrupt or dissappearing one after the other. Job losses are rising every day, and are predicted to get far worse. At the root of our economic problems is the cost of our oil addiction - $700 billion each year for the purchase of oil. This is unsustainable, and is expected to rise dramatically over the next couple of years. The big problem is that our entire economy - especially our transportation system - is built upon cheap and plentiful oil - which is now gone forever. 'Business as usual' is no longer possible.
Our economy in peril
2. Global warming and climate changeThe planet is in peril, and little has been done in America to deal with this crisis. In fact, there have been considerable efforts to delay any real action. Millions of lives are at stake, our cities, our prosperity, and our entire food supply is vulnerable to irreversible damage if we don't act quickly. We face a planetary emergency and we need to act as we would in any emergency with fast action and solutions as big as the problem. Building more roads adds to the problem.
Our cities in peril
3. Peak oil and energy securityAccording to leading experts, world oil supplies have peaked resulting in less oil available for our consumption each year from now on. We need fast action to drastically reduce our oil and car dependence. Many experts say peak oil is more serious than global warming. Our entire economy is dependent on oil, along with 98% of our transportation and 99% of our food supply. Our nation is dangerously vulnerable to the volatile global oil situation, which will only get worse as we move deeper into the era of world peak oil. We need to transition our society away from oil and cars - quickly. We are currently at war trying to secure the last remaining oil reserves, but this war has destroyed our economy and put us deep into debt. We can no longer afford the huge costs of war, both financially and in human lives and suffering. And we certainly can't afford to burn up massive amounts of the remaining scarce oil fighting wars for oil.
Peak oil is a national security threat to our nation
4. Crumbling infrastructureWe have neglected the repair and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure nationwide to the point where bridges are collapsing, roads are falling apart, and our rail systems are unable to function at a reasonable level of service, or meet the rapidly rising demand. The collapsing systems are due to age, poor maintenance, and being overloaded. The collapsed bridge was never designed to carry the loads it was carrying, and thousands more bridges are in the same condition. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation's infrastructure a 'D' rating, just above complete failure, and estimated the cost to repair it to a safe level at $1.6 tillion! This doesn't even include expanding the systems to meet the projected growth in demand. It will be far cheaper to build a new national rail system!
Minneapolis bridge collapse, 2007
5. Mobility crisis nationwideOur entire national transportation system is in disrepair and overloaded to a point near paralysis. It's a time-consuming nightmare to get anywhere in America. We waste countless hours of our time and billions of gallons of precious fuel sitting stuck in traffic on our roads and runways. We are spending more money on waste than it would cost to build a new national high speed rail system. We are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for an outdated transportation system that fails to provide reasonable, efficient mobility. Building more roads simply grows the problem, and has proven over and over to create more traffic, and digs us deeper into our oil and car addiction. We clearly need a new direction in transportation policy and funding.
Nationwide transportation paralysis, every day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONE SOLUTION FOR 5 PROBLEMS
NEW DEAL NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 2009A new direction! One project can solve all our problems together. Building a new world class rail system across America will address all 5 problems at once, and put us on a course to sustainability and prosperity. This is the fastest, most efficient way to deal with all these huge problems together. Solving 5 big problems with one solution is smart, and a real bargain compared to what it will cost in time and money to solve them individually.
21st century green transportation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SAFE, AFFORDABLE, GREEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMThis is not new in America - we already had an extensive rail system In 1922, America had more than 44,800 miles of green, electric streetcar rail systems in 80 cities, plus thousands of miles of regional and national rail systems. More than 90% of Americans lived in walkable cities with great train service right outside the door, transporting them everywhere.
Typical early American city with streetcars
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new national rail system solves many problems:
Creates millions of green jobs nationwide building the new rail infrastructure and manufacturing the rail cars
Pays for itself by significantly reducing our $700 billion a year oil purchase trade deficit
A major step toward solving global warming by reducing our oil consumption and emissions
Drastically reduces our oil addiction and lowers our risk from the coming peak oil crisis
Lowers our dependence on costly military operations securing oil flow around the world
Lowers our national security risk, and ends wars for oil
Freedom from oil - Powered by clean electricity from renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal, ocean/tidal
Safe, affordable, green transportation for everyone
Saves lives (43,000 Americans die each year in car accidents)
Provides efficient mobility that moves people and goods witout delay and waste
Puts in place a high quality infrastructure setting us up for prosperity, mobility, efficiency, and a sustainable future
It lays the foundation for building walkable, affordable green communities surrounding the train stations
Makes cities more livable, safe, and beautiful by removing cars, traffic, noise, pollution, and parking lots
Trains create walkable, affordable communities
Trains are affordable, safe, clean and green
A nationwide train construction project is neededGreen jobs to build it! Green energy to power it!
THE NEW RAIL PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A new safe, affordable, green transportation system for all Americans Build a new world-class national rail system made up of an extensive network of connecting train lines in a 3-tiered, seamless system. The trains would run on clean electricity powered by a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal renewable green energy.
A. National high speed rail system This top level train would serve as the national fast system now covered by airplanes and distance car travel. It would consist of all high-speed train lines connecting central cities together in a web of train lines across the nation. The trains operating at this level would be state-of-the-art TGV/Eurostar type trains that travel at 200–220 mph. This high speed rail system is a high quality, high capacity system transporting more passengers than highways and airlines put together - using a fraction of the energy, for less than a quarter of the cost.The 800-mile California High Speed Rail project - just voted in by the people - is the first piece of this national system. Propelling California into the 21st century, the new train will link all major cities from Sacremento to San Diego with 220 mph trains.
National High Speed Rail Network
B. Regional rail systemsThis level of trains would serve as the medium-speed regional system linking the many regional destinations together and to the high-speed train station. These regional trains would connect to all the smaller cities, towns, and significant destinations within each region. This includes metro systems as well as commuter and regional trains. These new trains would serve as the backbone of a new regional planning effort to convert low density suburban development into a series of walkable, transit oriented developments along the new train lines.
Regional rail systems for each region
C. Local light rail, streetcar, trolley & tram systemsThis level of trains would serve as the local collector system connecting to the regional trains. It would have stops in all parts of cities, neighborhoods and central gathering places, as well as employment centers, retail locations, and sports and recreation facilities within each community.Ideally, these trains would never be more than a few blocks walk from all locations within cities and towns. Much like the original 44,800 mile streetcar system in America, this new system would enable a large percentage of Americans once again to live in walkable cities without the need for a car.
Local rail systems for each city and town
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARTNERSHIPSA green retooling of the US transportation industry is needed. Our transportation systems were built around cheap oil - which is now gone for good. No amount of biofuels, used french-fry oil, hydrogen fuel cells, and hybrid cars are going to be able to move 300 million Americans into the future. We need a new 21st century transportation system for a new age! "We need all hands on deck!" All the companies now in transportation need to retool and be included in this new plan. This would save as many jobs as possible, and minimize competition and resistance to the new systems. The retooling would include train system design, manufacturing, operations, and maintenance, and could take place as follows:Companies now known as airlines, rather than limited to managing air travel, would become “transportation providers” and invited to operate train company franchises. Airplane and auto manufacturers could start building trains, track, and parts. Airport operators could become train station operators. The FAA could change into the agency that oversees the entire operation. The Department of Transportation could plan the train network, instead of planning roads. Road builders can become train infrastructure builders.There are also a number of other American companies outside the transportation industry that would benefit greatly by getting involved in a new train system. Real estate developers would build walkable urbanism surrounding the train stations. Resort, hotel, theme park operators, and travel companies would all see increased business. Shipping and delivery companies would all save money. Defense contractors could get involved building the energy, signaling, and control systems. In addition, there are many train operators and manufacturers in Europe and Japan that would be more than willing to participate in building and operating a high-speed train network in America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RETOOL AMERICA Retooling industry is essential for fixing America. We are in the midst of a sea change in our society that requires us to fundamentally change our transportation and many of our industries to build the new green economy. Continuing 'business as usual' is no longer possible.
1. Retool Car Manufacturers All three American car manufacturers are on the edge of bankruptcy and are pleading for a massive bailout from the government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars - far more then their total net worth. Even with the bailout, these companies are no longer viable entities, since continued car manufacturing makes little sense in light of peak oil and
Retool car manufacturing plants into producing trains
climate change. There is an enormous need for large scale manufacturing of trains in America. Retooling the car factories can be done quickly to build trains while saving millions of jobs. A complete retooling of the car factories was accomplished in a matter of months back in the 1940s to meet the wartime need for tanks and airplanes. We can do the same thing now just as quickly. Yes we can!
2. Retool Car Parts Suppliers In addition to trains, millions of bicycles will be needed in America as we transition away from cars. Rather than import them from China, we should manufacture them here in America and create millions of green jobs. Car parts suppliers can retool into making bicycles since there will be a big reduction in the need for car parts.
Retool auto parts suppliers into making bicycles
3. Retool Airplane Manufacturers There will be a great reduction in the need for airplanes as we enter the peak oil era. Since most trips will take place in trains, the majority of airplane manufacturing will become obsolete. Currently, there is a huge demand for wind turbines, and manufacturing is unable to keep up with this demand. Airplane manufacturing plants are ideal for retooling into producing wind turbines.
Retool airplane manufacturing plants into producing wind turbines
4. Retool Road Builders As we transition away from cars, it makes no sense to spend any more money building roads that have no future. Roads and cars for the masses only made sense when there was plenty of cheap oil, but it's now gone forever. Currently, the huge need is for new train systems all across the nation. We need many thousands of miles of train infrastructure built as quickly as possible.
Retool road builders into constructing train infrastructure
We need train tracks, train bridges and tunnels, and many new train stations built. This will be one of the nation's largest construction projects ever. Road builders are the ideal group to retool and lead the way building the nation's new green transportation system.
5. Retool Real Estate DevelopersSince the era of cheap oil is over, our drive-in utopia will no longer be possible. Future development needs to be compact walkable urbanism surrounding train stations. This designs away the need for cars and oil. Walkable urbanism and trains are the future, and the building blocks for a sustainable society - creating livable, affordable, healthy, and enjoyable communities for all.
Retool developers from building sprawl into building walkable cities and towns
6. Retool Defense ContractorsWe don't need any more bombs, missiles, or war. War products are of no benefit to our society and are a huge waste of money. United States defense spending eats up half our entire nation's annual budget! Peak oil and global warming represent a far greater national security threat than terrorism or any potential enemy. The majority of our
Retool defense contractors' weapons plants into producing solar panels, etc.
massive defense budget needs to be spent ending our car and oil addiction. To accomplish this, we need to retool defense contractors into manufacturing useful products that benefit society including solar panels, wind turbine parts, and train computer control systems.
Jobs + economy + equity + environment + mobility = REAL change for America
NEW DEAL NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 2009 It's the change we need! We can do it... "yes we can!" ... Pass it on!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
‘Asia on the move: Energy efficient and inclusive transport’
ADB Transport Forum
‘Asia on the move: Energy efficient and inclusive transport’
Keynote address on Indian Urban Transport Policy
By
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy
Hon’ble Urban Development Minister, Government of India
It gives me great pleasure to be amongst you all on this important Transport Forum with focus on energy efficient and inclusive transport in Asia.
India is one of the emerging urban economies in the world with a specific shift in terms of contribution to GDP from agriculture to tertiary and manufacturing sectors, thus bringing urban areas to the centre stage of the development process. Because of high economic growth and low urban base, Indian cities are growing at a faster rate than in rest of the world. At present, India has second largest urban system in the world with 310 million people and 5,161 cities and towns.
For urban areas to be able to support the required level of economic activity, they must provide for easy, sustainable flow of goods and people. However, such flow of goods and people has been facing several problems of congestion, pollution and accidents coupled with lack of coordination amongst various agencies. Unless these problems are remedied, poor mobility can become a major hurdle to economic growth and cause deterioration in the quality of life.
Government of India has, therefore, approved a comprehensive National Urban Transport Policy which focuses on returning the roads to the people which have been colonized by the vehicles. The thrust of the policy is ‘to move people’ and not the vehicles. The overall objective of the policy is to ensure safe, affordable, quick, comfortable, reliable and sustainable access for the people to jobs, education, recreation and such other needs in our cities.
In a federal system of governance in India, urban transport is primarily a State subject. It means that the while the national policy offers guidelines and financial and fiscal incentives to the States and cities for designing their urban transport strategies; it is for the respective state governments to adopt and adapt such policy in their urban centres.
The policy focuses on integration of land use and transport planning. Unless planning of land use and transport is organically interlinked, whatever transportation measures we take later at best can only be a partial remedy. While in respect of new townships, transit-oriented development is being urged; in existing cities, a Comprehensive Mobility Plan prioritizing public transport, non-motorized transport and pedestrianization with the objective of reducing overall transport demand is being insisted. In order to facilitate preparation of such plan, we in the Central Government have a scheme under which 80% of the cost of such studies is being provided as grant by the Central Government.
An analysis of existing public transport facilities shows that most of the cities do not have even an organized city bus service. Even where the city bus-service is existing; the quality is not high enough to motivate commuters to prefer public transport to the personal. The dependence on large scale bus services appears to be unavoidable in developing countries of Asia. In fact, even the experience in the developed countries points to this inevitability. For example in a city like London, which is famously served by its underground metro system, about 50% of the public transport burden is borne by the buses. Having regard to this, the Central Government in India is emphasizing setting up of an ITS-enabled modern city bus service in all the cities. We are also laying due stress on quality so that the bus system can be sold to the public as a "Branded Product". For standardization of the quality of buses for urban transport, the Central Government has formulated Urban Bus Specifications. As the taxes have been found to be contributing a significant share of the cost of these modern buses, action has been initiated towards reduction of the taxes at the Central and State level. For the first time in 2008-2009, the Central Excise Duty stands reduced from 16% to 12% on buses. Since fare can never be sufficient for financial sustainability of quality public transport; Central Government is encouraging the cities to come up with an advertisement policy and parking policy to raise the resources. We are also urging the State Governments to set up of a Dedicated Urban Transport Fund—proceeds of which can come from earmarked state and local taxes—to exclusively meet investment requirements of urban transport.
In the advertisement policy, care is being taken to minimize the visual pollution in the cities and use well defined spaces such as buses, metros, foot over bridges and public utilities to maximize the advertisement revenue. Many cities are already using advertisement to fully fund foot over bridges including escalator-enabled foot over bridges, skywalks, road signages etc.
In the parking policy, it is envisaged that the parking fee should truly represent the value of the land occupied. A reasonably high parking fee should be used, not only to reduce travel demand but also to make public transport more attractive. The parking policy envisages a graded scale of parking fee depending upon the size of the car, higher parking fee for Central Business District (CBD) area and lesser in outside area, expensive on-street parking as compared to multi-storied parking etc. Such multi-storied parking lots would be provided with park and ride facility with motorized/non-motorized transport modes to facilitate decongestion of the CBD area. The funds so generated would be used to contribute to the Dedicated Urban Transport Fund for creating paid parking complexes wherever required and, for promoting public transport. Delhi is already in the process of implementing this policy and other cities are also being encouraged in this direction.
With a view to incentivising investment in public transport systems, the Central Government is providing substantial financial assistance for metro rail projects and Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRTS). In Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Chennai, Central Government is providing financial assistance up to 35% of the total project cost as equity and loan as joint project promoter with the respective State Governments. For encouraging Public Private Partnership, Central Government is also providing grant of 20% of the estimated project cost as viability gap funding. Metro projects in two cities of Hyderabad and Mumbai are being taken up under this viability gap funding scheme. The total estimated cost of these metro projects for 380 kms is about USD 21 billion. Apart from this, land is extensively being used in all these projects to make them viable while keeping the fares low. Central Government is also providing financial assistance for BRTS projects in nine cities namely Ahemadabad, Surat, Rajkot, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Vishakhapatanam, Pune, Indore and Bhopal for 360 kms at a total cost of about US$ one billion. All these BRTS projects have dedicated cycle paths and pedestrian paths. We are planning for BRTS in many more million plus cities of India since BRTS is typically many times cheaper than the Metro. I may add parenthetically that million plus cities are spawning by the year in India.
The National Urban Transport Policy envisages setting up of Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) in all million plus cities to facilitate coordinated planning and implementation of urban transport programmes and projects. Such UMTAs have already been set up in Hyderabad, Chennai, Mumbai, Jaipur and Bangalore.
I am fully aware that India’s urban transport is going to be the most difficult challenge if we want the urban centres to drive the country’s economic growth. I am happy that we have undertaken all major policy initiatives at the federal level to incentivize the states and local urban governments to align their policies and institutions in line with our National policy.
The key challenge, for quite some time to come, would be a paradigm shift in the way we view urban transport. The twin pillars of this shift would be: One, keeping the interests of the pedestrians/cyclists at the core of all urban infrastructure and transport projects. Second, aligning the land-use and urban planning with the transport requirements of our people. On both these counts, we need to alter our mindset and steer away from the personalized transport to the public transport.
We cannot but empathize with the urge of the newly emerging classes to acquire a personal vehicle of their own because a car means much more than a car to them in a self-validating way, more so when we, in India, have one of the lowest car-ownership per thousand people in the world. Here, I would like
to draw a substantive distinction between owning a car and using it frequently. We can surely, through appropriate policy framework, de-motivate the use of personal vehicles for majority of the trips, like business, employment, education etc.
I may not be entirely mistaken to assert that no city in the world has so far been able to solve the problems of urban transport by adding more roads. As such the focus has to be on increasing road-utilization capacity rather than on adding more flyovers and roads. I am convinced that if we provide attractive options of public transport, which can be a combination of pedestrian walks, cycle paths, metros and above all, comfortable and convenient bus services; it would persuade the urban commuters to shift voluntarily to the public transport systems.
In the end, a public transport costs less not only in terms of commuter’s pocket but also in terms of pollution which is one of the major problems of the globe. In one stroke we find a major solution to two major problems—urban transport and global warming. To use public transport and thus rub shoulders with people is surely one welcome way of leading a communitarian way of life rather than landing in elitist and secluded paradise.
Thank you!
‘Asia on the move: Energy efficient and inclusive transport’
Keynote address on Indian Urban Transport Policy
By
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy
Hon’ble Urban Development Minister, Government of India
It gives me great pleasure to be amongst you all on this important Transport Forum with focus on energy efficient and inclusive transport in Asia.
India is one of the emerging urban economies in the world with a specific shift in terms of contribution to GDP from agriculture to tertiary and manufacturing sectors, thus bringing urban areas to the centre stage of the development process. Because of high economic growth and low urban base, Indian cities are growing at a faster rate than in rest of the world. At present, India has second largest urban system in the world with 310 million people and 5,161 cities and towns.
For urban areas to be able to support the required level of economic activity, they must provide for easy, sustainable flow of goods and people. However, such flow of goods and people has been facing several problems of congestion, pollution and accidents coupled with lack of coordination amongst various agencies. Unless these problems are remedied, poor mobility can become a major hurdle to economic growth and cause deterioration in the quality of life.
Government of India has, therefore, approved a comprehensive National Urban Transport Policy which focuses on returning the roads to the people which have been colonized by the vehicles. The thrust of the policy is ‘to move people’ and not the vehicles. The overall objective of the policy is to ensure safe, affordable, quick, comfortable, reliable and sustainable access for the people to jobs, education, recreation and such other needs in our cities.
In a federal system of governance in India, urban transport is primarily a State subject. It means that the while the national policy offers guidelines and financial and fiscal incentives to the States and cities for designing their urban transport strategies; it is for the respective state governments to adopt and adapt such policy in their urban centres.
The policy focuses on integration of land use and transport planning. Unless planning of land use and transport is organically interlinked, whatever transportation measures we take later at best can only be a partial remedy. While in respect of new townships, transit-oriented development is being urged; in existing cities, a Comprehensive Mobility Plan prioritizing public transport, non-motorized transport and pedestrianization with the objective of reducing overall transport demand is being insisted. In order to facilitate preparation of such plan, we in the Central Government have a scheme under which 80% of the cost of such studies is being provided as grant by the Central Government.
An analysis of existing public transport facilities shows that most of the cities do not have even an organized city bus service. Even where the city bus-service is existing; the quality is not high enough to motivate commuters to prefer public transport to the personal. The dependence on large scale bus services appears to be unavoidable in developing countries of Asia. In fact, even the experience in the developed countries points to this inevitability. For example in a city like London, which is famously served by its underground metro system, about 50% of the public transport burden is borne by the buses. Having regard to this, the Central Government in India is emphasizing setting up of an ITS-enabled modern city bus service in all the cities. We are also laying due stress on quality so that the bus system can be sold to the public as a "Branded Product". For standardization of the quality of buses for urban transport, the Central Government has formulated Urban Bus Specifications. As the taxes have been found to be contributing a significant share of the cost of these modern buses, action has been initiated towards reduction of the taxes at the Central and State level. For the first time in 2008-2009, the Central Excise Duty stands reduced from 16% to 12% on buses. Since fare can never be sufficient for financial sustainability of quality public transport; Central Government is encouraging the cities to come up with an advertisement policy and parking policy to raise the resources. We are also urging the State Governments to set up of a Dedicated Urban Transport Fund—proceeds of which can come from earmarked state and local taxes—to exclusively meet investment requirements of urban transport.
In the advertisement policy, care is being taken to minimize the visual pollution in the cities and use well defined spaces such as buses, metros, foot over bridges and public utilities to maximize the advertisement revenue. Many cities are already using advertisement to fully fund foot over bridges including escalator-enabled foot over bridges, skywalks, road signages etc.
In the parking policy, it is envisaged that the parking fee should truly represent the value of the land occupied. A reasonably high parking fee should be used, not only to reduce travel demand but also to make public transport more attractive. The parking policy envisages a graded scale of parking fee depending upon the size of the car, higher parking fee for Central Business District (CBD) area and lesser in outside area, expensive on-street parking as compared to multi-storied parking etc. Such multi-storied parking lots would be provided with park and ride facility with motorized/non-motorized transport modes to facilitate decongestion of the CBD area. The funds so generated would be used to contribute to the Dedicated Urban Transport Fund for creating paid parking complexes wherever required and, for promoting public transport. Delhi is already in the process of implementing this policy and other cities are also being encouraged in this direction.
With a view to incentivising investment in public transport systems, the Central Government is providing substantial financial assistance for metro rail projects and Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRTS). In Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Chennai, Central Government is providing financial assistance up to 35% of the total project cost as equity and loan as joint project promoter with the respective State Governments. For encouraging Public Private Partnership, Central Government is also providing grant of 20% of the estimated project cost as viability gap funding. Metro projects in two cities of Hyderabad and Mumbai are being taken up under this viability gap funding scheme. The total estimated cost of these metro projects for 380 kms is about USD 21 billion. Apart from this, land is extensively being used in all these projects to make them viable while keeping the fares low. Central Government is also providing financial assistance for BRTS projects in nine cities namely Ahemadabad, Surat, Rajkot, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Vishakhapatanam, Pune, Indore and Bhopal for 360 kms at a total cost of about US$ one billion. All these BRTS projects have dedicated cycle paths and pedestrian paths. We are planning for BRTS in many more million plus cities of India since BRTS is typically many times cheaper than the Metro. I may add parenthetically that million plus cities are spawning by the year in India.
The National Urban Transport Policy envisages setting up of Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) in all million plus cities to facilitate coordinated planning and implementation of urban transport programmes and projects. Such UMTAs have already been set up in Hyderabad, Chennai, Mumbai, Jaipur and Bangalore.
I am fully aware that India’s urban transport is going to be the most difficult challenge if we want the urban centres to drive the country’s economic growth. I am happy that we have undertaken all major policy initiatives at the federal level to incentivize the states and local urban governments to align their policies and institutions in line with our National policy.
The key challenge, for quite some time to come, would be a paradigm shift in the way we view urban transport. The twin pillars of this shift would be: One, keeping the interests of the pedestrians/cyclists at the core of all urban infrastructure and transport projects. Second, aligning the land-use and urban planning with the transport requirements of our people. On both these counts, we need to alter our mindset and steer away from the personalized transport to the public transport.
We cannot but empathize with the urge of the newly emerging classes to acquire a personal vehicle of their own because a car means much more than a car to them in a self-validating way, more so when we, in India, have one of the lowest car-ownership per thousand people in the world. Here, I would like
to draw a substantive distinction between owning a car and using it frequently. We can surely, through appropriate policy framework, de-motivate the use of personal vehicles for majority of the trips, like business, employment, education etc.
I may not be entirely mistaken to assert that no city in the world has so far been able to solve the problems of urban transport by adding more roads. As such the focus has to be on increasing road-utilization capacity rather than on adding more flyovers and roads. I am convinced that if we provide attractive options of public transport, which can be a combination of pedestrian walks, cycle paths, metros and above all, comfortable and convenient bus services; it would persuade the urban commuters to shift voluntarily to the public transport systems.
In the end, a public transport costs less not only in terms of commuter’s pocket but also in terms of pollution which is one of the major problems of the globe. In one stroke we find a major solution to two major problems—urban transport and global warming. To use public transport and thus rub shoulders with people is surely one welcome way of leading a communitarian way of life rather than landing in elitist and secluded paradise.
Thank you!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Global financial crisis: reflections on its impact on India - The Hindu
S. Venkitaramanan
The relative freedom from the contagion spreading from the global tsunami on the Indian financial system owes much to the wise and judicious policies of our central bank and the Government of India.
The U.S. financial crisis has had its reverberations on both developed and developing world. It is not possible to insulate Indian economy completely from what is happening in the financial systems of the world. Effectively speaking, however, the Indian banks and financial institutions have not experienced the kinds of losses and write-downs that even venerable banks and financial institutions in the Western world have faced.
By and large, India has been spared the panic that followed the collapse of banking institutions, such as Fortis in Europe, and Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in the U.S.
The relative freedom from the contagion spreading from the global tsunami on the Indian financial system owes much to the wise and judicious policies of our central bank and the Government of India.
Discussions on this subject have proceeded on two lines. One is to point out that the Indian banks have taken less risks than their peers abroad. The less risk you take, the more will be safer you are. This, however, begs the question, “Why did the Indian banks take less risks?”
The answer lies in the wise regulations and meticulous supervision by the RBI. At a time when total deregulation was the order of the day in the 90s, Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister authorized a path-breaking study of the Indian financial system by an experienced central banker, M. Narasimham. He had the wisdom to foresee that the financial system had to be placed on a well-regulated basis. Mr. Narasimham’s classic reports gave the policy framework for the Government of India and the RBI to formulate the structure of India’s banks and financial institutions. Mr. Narasimham’s model was based on adequate capitalisation, good provisioning norms and well-structured supervision. Government of India and RBI accepted these recommendations and proceeded to implement them.
What was, indeed, important was that the model did not allow investment banking on the pattern of the American paradigm. In a sense, RBI enforced its own version of the U.S.’ Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which insulates banks from capital market exposures. The RBI enforced strict capital adequacy requirements and if any financial institution or bank exceeded the specified limits of exposure to stock markets, it would have to provide more capital. This effectively insulated the banks and financial institutions from volatility of the bourses. Enforcement of the above instructions has paid good dividends. Erosion of capital of the banks and financial institutions has been reduced. These exposure limits, however, deserve to be reviewed from time to time.
The RBI must be congratulated for imposing Basel-II norms impartially and in a flexible manner. They have kept it in line with the Indian financial system. Observation of these limits, however difficult it may be in practice, will definitely help the Indian financial system to escape the kind of trouble, which is afflicting the financial system in other countries.
There is another observation, which has to be kept in mind in judging the relative freedom of Indian banking system from the catastrophic mess in the U.S. This is based on the important fact that the Indian banking system is basically owned by the public sector. The State owns many of the banks and financial institutions in the country. There is greater confidence of depositors in a state-owned bank than in a privately-owned bank. This is evident from the fact that in the latest version of the rescue package in the U.S., the government has come forward to infuse capital into distressed banks and financial institutions. Maybe, we can congratulate ourselves that India had already done what Washington is now doing in the midst of the crisis and therefore escaped much of the confidence problems.
Credit is also due to the Government of India and the RBI for having avoided the temptation of total capital convertibility. Had we embarked on total capital convertibility, we would have been exposed to much greater contagion from the current mess than we have been so far. The lesson is that in economic reforms, we have to proceed with caution. Striking the right balance between boldness and caution is where wisdom lies.
A continuing process
It is, however, fair to point out that we should not be complacent in regard to the process of reform. Reform is a continuing process. The latest contribution to the process of reform is a report produced by Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan, former Counsellor of IMF and at present Professor at Chicago Business School. The report incorporates a number of useful suggestions. Although one may have differences of approach with certain aspects, the report deserves to be examined and implemented to the extent possible to keep the Indian financial system modern and efficient.
In this connection, it is only appropriate to refer to the stabilising role of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in managing the difficult task of regulating our stock markets. Especially, attention has to be drawn to the role of Participatory Notes. In the present context in which private capital from abroad has been responsible for many problems in the Indian stock markets, SEBI must be congratulated for its cautious line on this subject, making appropriate relaxations as needed.
While the RBI is to be congratulated for its cautious and nuanced stance in regard to its regulation, one can argue that its regulation can sometimes be a little bit oriented towards management of banks. Whether it is appropriate for the central bank of a country to decide on where the branch of a bank should be located is a matter for discussion. In a recent debate, Dr. Raghuram Rajan had pointed out that a well-known foreign bank, which had applied for opening its branch in a rural area, was refused permission, notwithstanding the fact that no Indian bank had asked for permission to open a branch in that area. It is perhaps time to put a stop to such management of minutiae by the central bank, which should have its hands full with other more pressing issues.
While the RBI may legitimately pride itself on better regulation than the U.S. Federal Reserve, there are two topics on which it has to follow the example of U.S. Federal Reserve. One is concerning the distribution of profits of the central bank. The U.S. Federal Reserve had a profit of nearly $39 billion in 2006-07 out of which it had transferred $34 billion to the U.S. Treasury. This is in sharp contrast to the behaviour of the RBI, which appropriates the bulk of its profits of nearly Rs.50,000-60,000 crore to the so-called contingency fund and transfers only Rs.10,000 crore to the Government. If the RBI could follow the example of the U.S. Fed in this matter, Mint Street can fix half the fiscal problems of the North Block.
Another issue on which the Federal Reserve offers a good example to follow is regarding the measurement of inflation. U.S. Federal Reserve measures inflation on the basis of consumer price index and not on the basis of wholesale price index. This makes a substantial difference. In the U.S., in the last year the consumer price index increased only by 2 per cent, measured on the basis of what the Fed calls “headline inflation,” excluding fuel and food. Even if the consumer price index including fuel and food is considered in India, the RBI will come out with an inflation of 7 per cent as against the figure of 12 per cent, on the basis of wholesale price index. If we follow the consumer price index in measuring inflation, India can afford to have an interest rate of roughly 5 per cent lower than the one in force at present. This can make a significant difference to the fiscal fortunes and the growth of the Indian economy.
(S. Venkitaramanan is a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India.)
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
The relative freedom from the contagion spreading from the global tsunami on the Indian financial system owes much to the wise and judicious policies of our central bank and the Government of India.
The U.S. financial crisis has had its reverberations on both developed and developing world. It is not possible to insulate Indian economy completely from what is happening in the financial systems of the world. Effectively speaking, however, the Indian banks and financial institutions have not experienced the kinds of losses and write-downs that even venerable banks and financial institutions in the Western world have faced.
By and large, India has been spared the panic that followed the collapse of banking institutions, such as Fortis in Europe, and Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in the U.S.
The relative freedom from the contagion spreading from the global tsunami on the Indian financial system owes much to the wise and judicious policies of our central bank and the Government of India.
Discussions on this subject have proceeded on two lines. One is to point out that the Indian banks have taken less risks than their peers abroad. The less risk you take, the more will be safer you are. This, however, begs the question, “Why did the Indian banks take less risks?”
The answer lies in the wise regulations and meticulous supervision by the RBI. At a time when total deregulation was the order of the day in the 90s, Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister authorized a path-breaking study of the Indian financial system by an experienced central banker, M. Narasimham. He had the wisdom to foresee that the financial system had to be placed on a well-regulated basis. Mr. Narasimham’s classic reports gave the policy framework for the Government of India and the RBI to formulate the structure of India’s banks and financial institutions. Mr. Narasimham’s model was based on adequate capitalisation, good provisioning norms and well-structured supervision. Government of India and RBI accepted these recommendations and proceeded to implement them.
What was, indeed, important was that the model did not allow investment banking on the pattern of the American paradigm. In a sense, RBI enforced its own version of the U.S.’ Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which insulates banks from capital market exposures. The RBI enforced strict capital adequacy requirements and if any financial institution or bank exceeded the specified limits of exposure to stock markets, it would have to provide more capital. This effectively insulated the banks and financial institutions from volatility of the bourses. Enforcement of the above instructions has paid good dividends. Erosion of capital of the banks and financial institutions has been reduced. These exposure limits, however, deserve to be reviewed from time to time.
The RBI must be congratulated for imposing Basel-II norms impartially and in a flexible manner. They have kept it in line with the Indian financial system. Observation of these limits, however difficult it may be in practice, will definitely help the Indian financial system to escape the kind of trouble, which is afflicting the financial system in other countries.
There is another observation, which has to be kept in mind in judging the relative freedom of Indian banking system from the catastrophic mess in the U.S. This is based on the important fact that the Indian banking system is basically owned by the public sector. The State owns many of the banks and financial institutions in the country. There is greater confidence of depositors in a state-owned bank than in a privately-owned bank. This is evident from the fact that in the latest version of the rescue package in the U.S., the government has come forward to infuse capital into distressed banks and financial institutions. Maybe, we can congratulate ourselves that India had already done what Washington is now doing in the midst of the crisis and therefore escaped much of the confidence problems.
Credit is also due to the Government of India and the RBI for having avoided the temptation of total capital convertibility. Had we embarked on total capital convertibility, we would have been exposed to much greater contagion from the current mess than we have been so far. The lesson is that in economic reforms, we have to proceed with caution. Striking the right balance between boldness and caution is where wisdom lies.
A continuing process
It is, however, fair to point out that we should not be complacent in regard to the process of reform. Reform is a continuing process. The latest contribution to the process of reform is a report produced by Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan, former Counsellor of IMF and at present Professor at Chicago Business School. The report incorporates a number of useful suggestions. Although one may have differences of approach with certain aspects, the report deserves to be examined and implemented to the extent possible to keep the Indian financial system modern and efficient.
In this connection, it is only appropriate to refer to the stabilising role of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in managing the difficult task of regulating our stock markets. Especially, attention has to be drawn to the role of Participatory Notes. In the present context in which private capital from abroad has been responsible for many problems in the Indian stock markets, SEBI must be congratulated for its cautious line on this subject, making appropriate relaxations as needed.
While the RBI is to be congratulated for its cautious and nuanced stance in regard to its regulation, one can argue that its regulation can sometimes be a little bit oriented towards management of banks. Whether it is appropriate for the central bank of a country to decide on where the branch of a bank should be located is a matter for discussion. In a recent debate, Dr. Raghuram Rajan had pointed out that a well-known foreign bank, which had applied for opening its branch in a rural area, was refused permission, notwithstanding the fact that no Indian bank had asked for permission to open a branch in that area. It is perhaps time to put a stop to such management of minutiae by the central bank, which should have its hands full with other more pressing issues.
While the RBI may legitimately pride itself on better regulation than the U.S. Federal Reserve, there are two topics on which it has to follow the example of U.S. Federal Reserve. One is concerning the distribution of profits of the central bank. The U.S. Federal Reserve had a profit of nearly $39 billion in 2006-07 out of which it had transferred $34 billion to the U.S. Treasury. This is in sharp contrast to the behaviour of the RBI, which appropriates the bulk of its profits of nearly Rs.50,000-60,000 crore to the so-called contingency fund and transfers only Rs.10,000 crore to the Government. If the RBI could follow the example of the U.S. Fed in this matter, Mint Street can fix half the fiscal problems of the North Block.
Another issue on which the Federal Reserve offers a good example to follow is regarding the measurement of inflation. U.S. Federal Reserve measures inflation on the basis of consumer price index and not on the basis of wholesale price index. This makes a substantial difference. In the U.S., in the last year the consumer price index increased only by 2 per cent, measured on the basis of what the Fed calls “headline inflation,” excluding fuel and food. Even if the consumer price index including fuel and food is considered in India, the RBI will come out with an inflation of 7 per cent as against the figure of 12 per cent, on the basis of wholesale price index. If we follow the consumer price index in measuring inflation, India can afford to have an interest rate of roughly 5 per cent lower than the one in force at present. This can make a significant difference to the fiscal fortunes and the growth of the Indian economy.
(S. Venkitaramanan is a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India.)
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
Monday, August 18, 2008
Indian Economy and Inclusive Growth
http://www.techsatish.net/2008/08/15/vijay-tv-neeya-naana-independence-day-spl/
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Driving to Green Buildings - BuildingGreen.com
The Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings
Since the late 1990s, Portland’s Pearl District has been transformed from a largely abandoned industrial area into a bustling mixed-use neighborhood. Local developers actively promote alternative forms of transportation, evident in the giant neon “Go By Streetcar” sign atop this multi-use complex.
As the world’s first LEED Platinum building, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center is loaded with green features: photovoltaic panels, rainwater harvesting, composting toilets, and bamboo flooring, to mention just a few. However, moving the organization’s staff of around 100 into the new building meant that many employees who had been able to walk to work in the older downtown facility now have to drive roughly ten miles (16 km) to get there. To their credit, the organization spent two years looking for a downtown building to house their growing staff, and they tried to mitigate the increased use of cars in the new building with bicycle and kayak racks, showers, and loaner vehicles for non-automobile commuters, among other strategies. The fact remains, however, that the additional energy use from more employees driving to work may well exceed the energy savings realized by the green building.
Designers and builders expend significant effort to ensure that our buildings use as little energy as possible. This is a good thing—and very obvious to anyone who has been involved with green building for any length of time. What is not so obvious is that many buildings are responsible for much more energy use getting people to and from those buildings. That’s right—for an average office building in the United States, calculations done by Environmental Building News (EBN) show that commuting by office workers accounts for 30% more energy than the building itself uses. For an average new office building built to code, transportation accounts for more than twice as much energy use as building operation.
This article takes a look at the “transportation energy intensity” of buildings and the influence of location and various land-use features on this measure of energy use. While the focus will be primarily on energy (and the associated environmental impacts of energy use, such as pollution), we will see that measures to reduce transportation energy use can have very significant ancillary benefits relating to water runoff, urban heat island mitigation, and habitat protection, while creating more vibrant, livable communities.
Transportation Energy Intensity as a Building Performance Metric
“Transportation energy intensity” is a metric that has long been used to measure such things as how efficiently freight is transported. We’re proposing it here as a metric of building performance. The transportation energy intensity of a building is the amount of energy associated with getting people to and from that building, whether they are commuters, shoppers, vendors, or homeowners. The transportation energy intensity of buildings has a lot to do with location. An urban office building that workers can reach by public transit or a hardware store in a dense town center will likely have a significantly lower transportation energy intensity than a suburban office park or a retail establishment in a suburban strip mall.
Comparing Transportation and Operating Energy Use for an Office Building
[enlarge image]
In the table, we compare the transportation energy intensity of an average commercial office building with the building operation energy intensity of such a building. We use average figures for commute distance, fuel economy, work days per year, gross square footage per employee, and commuting transportation mode to calculate the average transportation energy use per square foot of building floor area. For that average building, the transportation energy use exceeds the building energy use by 30%. When compared with a new, more energy-efficient building built to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy code, the transportation energy use exceeds the building energy use by nearly 140%. (Note that this analysis examines only site energy; if it compared primary energy or source energy, the differences would be smaller—largely due to the significant electricity use in commercial buildings and the inefficiency of electricity generation.)
We will see in this article that about eight factors, largely controlled by planners, designers, developers, and regulators, dramatically affect the transportation energy intensity of buildings. While far from a comprehensive treatise on the topic, this article introduces these issues and makes the case that, first, we need to pay far more attention to location and land-use planning as a part of green development, and, second, that this is an area deserving a great deal more research attention.
Environmental Impacts of Automobile Travel
Transportation Share of U.S. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (2002)
[enlarge image]
Transportation energy use and the environmental impacts associated with that energy use are huge. In 2006, transportation in the U.S. consumed 28.5 quads of energy (84 trillion kWh), or 28.5% of total national energy use, according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. Both the total energy and the percentage of transportation energy use have been rising in recent years, while industrial energy use (currently the largest share at 32.1%) has been dropping. The transportation share of carbon dioxide emissions is slightly greater at 32.9% (2005 data) and higher than that of industrial, commercial, and residential sectors, with the share rising slightly since 1990.
Environmental impacts of transportation are not limited to energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The table below shows transportation’s share of certain criteria pollutants.
In addition to these direct emissions from transportation, there are many other environmental impacts associated with the infrastructure needed to support transportation and with development patterns. Our roadways create impervious surfaces that result in significant pollutant runoff into waterways—in fact, non-point source water pollution from stormwater runoff is now the nation’s leading source of water pollution to estuaries and the third largest to lakes. Highways fragment ecosystems and wildlife habitat. Paved areas, including roadways and parking lots, absorb solar energy, contributing to localized heat islands that exacerbate smog and increase air-conditioning requirements in urbanized areas. And stormwater runoff from these surfaces creates thermal pollution that makes many waterways unsuitable for trout and other cold-water fish.
Land development is occurring at a far higher rate than population growth, resulting in sprawl. In the nation’s 34 metropolitan areas with populations greater than one million people, between 1950 and 1990 the population increased 92.4%, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality, while the urbanized land area grew by 245%, or 2.65 times the population growth rate. In Atlanta, the developed land area grew almost tenfold during this period, while the population grew a little over threefold.
As our urban and suburban areas spread out, vehicle travel increases. Transportation planners use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to measure automobile use. In the U.S., VMT per household has increased from 12,400 miles (20,000 km) per year in 1969 to 21,200 miles (34,000 km) per year in 2001, a 70% increase. During the same period, VMT for commuting to work increased from 4,180 miles to 5,720 miles (6,730 km to 9,200 km), or 37%.
Reducing the Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings
While most measures to reduce building energy use relate just to that particular building, most measures to reduce the transportation energy use of buildings relate to the broader land-use context. They help to achieve what is often called transit-oriented development (TOD) or smart growth. (The terms new urbanism and neo-traditional development are also used, though with slightly different connotations.) Among the goals of these development paradigms are communities, towns, or urban areas that are pedestrian-friendly and accessible with minimal use of the automobile.
Features used to achieve this sort of development are typically beyond the control of building designers and, to some extent, even building owners. Location is critical. “The transportation performance of buildings is all about location,” says Doug Farr, AIA, of Chicago, author of the forthcoming book Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
We’ll now explore eight key factors that can reduce the transportation energy intensity of buildings, primarily by reducing VMT. Transportation and land-use planners often talk about the “D-factors,” including density, distance to transit, diversity of uses, and design of streetscapes; we’ll look at these and others.
Density
Density vs. Vehicle Travel for U.S.
[enlarge image]
Per capita vehicle travel tends to decrease with increases in density.
Most experts put density at or near the top of the list of measures for reducing vehicle use. Hank Dittmar, executive director of the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment and chair of the Congress for the New Urbanism, points to density as the first priority in achieving location efficiency. Research he conducted with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) in the 1990s “showed a fairly dramatic reduction in VMT as you moved from seven to 10–12 units to the acre,” he told EBN. The reduction curve begins to flatten out at 40–50 units per acre; the benefits of mixed use remain, Dittmar explains, but the residents of those units may still have to travel for work and other trips throughout the region, which density does not affect. This correlation between density and VMT is shown in the graph above.
Reid Ewing, Ph.D, a widely published author on transportation planning and traffic calming and director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research at the University of Maryland, says that in the most compact, densely populated places like Chicago, VMT can be as much as 90% less than in sprawling suburbs. Among the innovative strategies for encouraging density are density transfer mechanisms, which enable planners to manage development rights by trading them from environmentally sensitive areas to areas that can be developed. This mechanism is being used in Montgomery County, Maryland; Sarasota, Florida; and Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Transit availability and access
Everyone agrees that the availability of rail and bus transit is a key requirement for getting people out of cars. Distance to transit addresses how far someone must walk to get to a bus stop, light rail or trolley stop, or train station. “The first problem is that it isn’t there for most people,” says Dittmar. When public transit isn’t available, or convenient, or comfortable enough to be used, some companies are taking it upon themselves to satisfy the need. Information technology giant Google maintains a fleet of alternative-fuel buses that it uses to shuttle employees from many locations throughout the San Francisco Bay area to its office park; the company encourages ridership by offering such amenities as comfortable seats and wireless access.
To be effective, transit stops have to be close to where people live. “Generally speaking,” according to John Thomas, Ph.D., of the Development, Community & Environment Division at EPA, “one-quarter to one-half-mile range is the distance people will walk to transit.” People can be expected to walk further to reach rail transit stops compared with bus stops, but rarely will people walk more than a half-mile.
While transit is the key word in transit-oriented development, it’s really more about walking. “I think of transit as connecting walkable districts,” says Ellen Greenberg, a coauthor of The New Transit Town (Island Press, 2004) and the past director of policy and research at the Congress for the New Urbanism. “Everyone winds up being a pedestrian somewhere in the travel day,” she told EBN. Even people who commute by car walk to and from their cars, she points out, “but transit riders are on foot a bigger part of their day, so transit-oriented developments have, by their very nature, a bigger component of the walking trips than conventional development.”
In a discussion of transit, it’s worth noting that some forms of transit are no more energy efficient than private automobile commuting (see chart below). On a Btu per passenger-mile basis, buses actually use more energy per passenger mile than cars, assuming average occupancy of both, while all forms of rail use less and vanpools use a lot less. The number of passengers makes a huge difference in the energy intensity (Btu per passenger mile). For example, by increasing the assumed ridership of a transit bus to 40 people, the energy intensity drops to less than 1,000 Btu per passenger mile. Note that even though buses with average ridership may use more energy per passenger mile than cars, bus transit is still beneficial as a public service, because it can make urban areas more walkable.
Mixed uses and access to services
The Energy Intensity of Different Forms of Travel
[enlarge image]
Diversity has to do with the mix of residential, commercial, and retail land uses and whether key services can be met within easy walking distance of residences and workplaces. In the LEED for New Construction rating system, one of the considerations for awarding a credit is whether a residential area is within a half-mile of at least ten out of 22 listed services, including banks, convenience grocery stores, daycare, restaurants, pharmacies, laundry, schools, libraries, and parks. Farr calls this area a “pedestrian shed”—a play on the term “watershed”—referring to a surrounding area in which everyday needs can be met on foot.
This diversity also affects the success of transit. “It’s very important for people who ride transit to be able to accomplish multiple things on foot once they arrive at their destination,” notes Greenberg. “You need to have a mix of uses to satisfy people’s needs,” she told EBN.
In addition to having a diversity of services and land-use types in a community, it is beneficial to have a diversity of housing to serve all socioeconomic groups. According to Ewing’s book Best Development Practices (American Planning Association, 1996), “promoting affordable housing serves transportation as well as social purposes.” He notes that low-skill-level workers tend to be concentrated in cities, while low-skill-level jobs are concentrated in wealthier suburbs. This mismatch results in a lot of commuting by those who have the hardest time affording it.
Parking management
For transit-oriented development to succeed, many experts call for good parking management. Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, calls parking management the top priority in reducing VMT. “Once you build generous parking,” Litman told EBN, “you have very little incentive to provide alternatives.” Brett Van Akkeren, a smart growth analyst at EPA, told EBN that in suburbs there are nine parking spots for every car.
Greenberg agrees, saying that the first priority “is definitely constrained or expensive parking supply. It has been shown that expensive parking acts as a deterrent to commuters.” In the book Parking Management Best Practices (Planners Press, 2006) and in a summary paper, “Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning” (Victoria Transport Policy Institute), Litman lays out more than 20 strategies that can be used alone or in combination to reduce parking by 20% to 40%.
As with many of these strategies for encouraging transit-oriented development, parking affects more than just VMT. “Not only will more parking encourage more driving,” says John Holtzclaw, a widely published transportation researcher in San Francisco and chair of the transportation committee for the Sierra Club, “but curb cuts along sidewalks make walking less interesting and less safe and make buildings less interesting.” Surface parking also takes up a lot of space, forcing pedestrians to walk further to get where they want to go. Where you do have parking, suggests Holtzclaw, “have it underground. Don’t take up the first two floors with parking; that just deadens the neighborhood.”
Walkability, traffic calming, and site design
As noted earlier, walkability is key to the success of transit-oriented development. “Walkability and public transit go hand-in-hand,” argues Holtzclaw. He suggests that planners place themselves as pedestrians: “Think about how it feels to walk. Are there places to walk to? How are the streets laid out? Are there sidewalks on both sides of the street? Is the traffic calmed? Are the buildings close to the sidewalk, or do you have to walk through a parking lot to get inside?”
Hank Dittmar notes that while transit is a key aspect of smart growth and transit-oriented development, not all communities are there yet. For communities without transit, measures can be taken to prepare for a transit future. “They ought to be getting those neighborhoods ready,” he said. “At the core must be a connected, strong network that works for pedestrians.”
Traffic calming is another aspect of walkable communities. “By slowing traffic, you create a nicer pedestrian environment,” notes Reid Ewing, whose book Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1999) remains the authority on the topic. “Also, when you slow down traffic, you make trips shorter, which reduces VMT,” he told EBN. (For more on traffic calming, see EBN Vol. 12, No. 3.)
Along with traffic calming, it helps to create streetscapes that are comfortable, safe, relaxing, and enjoyable to spend time in. Good lighting, park benches, outdoor tables at cafés, shade tree plantings, pedestrian courts that are closed off to automobiles, and public wireless access can all help to create vibrant, pedestrian-friendly outdoor spaces where people will be glad to walk a few blocks from a transit stop to get to their workplaces, and glad to walk to a restaurant for lunch, thus helping to reduce VMT.
Connectivity
Connectivity is about designing—or redesigning—communities so that pedestrian connections are better. It can mean breaking up “super-blocks” into smaller, more walkable blocks, and replacing connector streets and cul-de-sacs with a network of interconnected streets that spread out traffic flow, slow down vehicles, and make walking more pleasant.
“The smaller the block dimension, the more people will walk,” notes Farr. Ewing agrees that limiting block size favors pedestrians. “You ever walk on a super block? They’re endless,” he says. “With small blocks, it’s much easier to walk.” To evaluate the connectivity of a community, Ewing created a “connectivity index,” which is determined by dividing the number of roadway links (street segments between intersections) by the number of roadway nodes (intersections). The higher the connectivity index, the greater the route choices and the better the pedestrian access. Using this formula, a minimum connectivity index of 1.4 is considered necessary for a walkable community.
Connectivity can also be achieved for pedestrians by creating pathways that cut between cul-de-sacs or that bisect long blocks. Such connections don’t spread out vehicle traffic, but they improve walkability. Providing appropriate lighting and attractive landscaping along those pathways can increase usage.
Bicycle accessibility
In Copenhagen, Denmark, more than 30% of workers commute by bicycle. Since the 1970s, planners, traffic engineers, and politicians have worked hard to keep road infrastructures from growing, which has reduced VMT by 10%.
While a much smaller percentage of Americans bicycle than walk, bicycle access is an important strategy in achieving the kind of communities envisioned with transit-oriented development. While walking is limited to sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, a significant portion of bicycling occurs on roadways, where it competes with motor vehicles.
There are areas in Europe, particularly The Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, where bicycling accounts for up to 40% of all trips, and in the U.S., bicycling is widely used on many campuses and in a some urban areas. A big limitation to greater bicycle usage in the U.S. appears to be that our streets and communities are not bicycle friendly. According to the 2004 publication Getting to Smart Growth II by the Smart Growth Network, a 2003 poll by the American League of Bicyclists found that over half of the respondents would like to bike more often, and three-quarters of them would increase their biking with safer bike paths and other amenities.
The most important strategies for increasing bicycle use relate to where people bike: bicycling lanes and designated bicycle paths and trails. But some bicycle-access measures relate more to buildings. Covered bicycle storage allows people to bike to work and not worry about their bicycles getting wet. Changing and shower facilities at workplaces are essential for bicycling to be realistic as a commuting option.
Improved efficiency of transportation options
The strategies addressed here focus primarily on land-use and transportation planning issues. The transportation energy intensity of buildings can also be reduced by making our motorized means of transportation more energy efficient. Natural-gas-fueled and hybrid diesel-electric buses are increasingly appearing in cities around North America, offering both improvements in fuel economy and reductions in pollution emissions. New, more efficient light-rail and heavy-rail train cars are improving the energy efficiency of rail travel; most of those serving as commuter transit are now electric, so they have very low emissions (at the place of use).
Checklist:
Select Strategies for Achieving Transportation-Efficient Communities
With both bus and rail transit, the best way to improve the energy efficiency of operation is to increase ridership. While a packed train, subway, or bus may be somewhat less pleasant for riders, it’s far better from the standpoint of energy use and pollution emissions per passenger-mile.
With private automobiles, the same arguments apply—for both energy efficiency and ridership. Hybrids and biodiesel-burning cars are generally better than conventional gasoline-powered cars, but even the lowest fuel-economy SUV carrying four carpool riders to work will use less energy and emit less pollution per passenger-mile than a hybrid Prius carrying only a driver.
Developing Building-Specific Metrics for Transportation Efficiency
One reason that location efficiency or transit-oriented development isn’t more front-and-center in the design community is that it’s too easy to consider it someone else’s problem. The common sentiment is that it’s a land-use issue that’s beyond the scope of a particular building project. Specific metrics that measure the transportation energy intensity of a building would help change that perception. “What’s needed is to develop a set of adjustment factors that a planner or designer could apply that indicate the reduction of vehicle travel,” Litman told EBN. From these, one could calculate the reduction in energy consumption associated with those factors, he suggests.
Portland planners predicted in 2001 that the new streetcars would serve about 3,500 riders a week, but 9,000 people now ride them daily. Over half of the city’s development in the last decade has occurred within one block of the streetcar route, and property values within a block of the route are 35–40% higher than those just two blocks away.
For example, if one could define the baseline transportation energy intensity for a building type and attach a number to that, it should be possible to modify that value by a series of adjustment factors—much as is done with energy performance ratings of buildings. These adjustment factors would be based on the measures covered in this article: distance to transit, presence of bicycle pathways, traffic calming, etc. In such adjustment factors would be implicit weightings: distance to transit might be worth more than existence of bicycle racks, but both could be applied numerically.
One could argue that the transportation energy use of a building is too dependent on occupant behavior to warrant this sort of treatment (that even if the building is located right next to a light-rail station, there is nothing to stop workers from driving to work anyway). This is a reasonable concern that needs to be addressed, but the same concern exists with building energy use—albeit to a lesser degree. We are learning that the modeled energy use of buildings often varies considerably from the actual energy use—because doors are left open, workers use electric resistance heaters at their workstations and leave their computers on 24/7, or the facility managers use more air conditioning than predicted. Despite the reality that user behavior influences the actual transportation energy intensity of a building, such modeled transportation energy intensity would provide a good means of comparing one building to another in terms of expected performance.
Such metrics could be used in energy and environmental rating approaches for buildings, from Energy Star to LEED—permitting such certification programs to become more performance-based. Clearly, there would be a lot of details to work out, but the opportunities for providing metrics that help us reduce the environmental impacts of buildings are huge.
Final Thoughts
Conventional wisdom has it that the U.S. population is expected to increase by forty million people over the next two decades, 80% of whom will settle in developments like this car-dependant Denver suburb. More and more communities are recognizing that transit-oriented development offers a better option, particularly among an aging population.
The green building movement is making tremendous strides at improving the environmental performance of buildings. Pushed by building codes and pulled by voluntary programs like LEED, buildings are getting better and better. But, as this article shows, if we want to continue reducing the ecological footprint of buildings, we need to focus much more actively on the transportation impacts that are associated with our buildings. With average new code-compliant office buildings “using” twice as much energy getting occupants to and from the buildings as the buildings themselves use for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy needs, the green building community needs to focus greater attention on the transportation dependency of our buildings.
Farr takes these ideas one step further: “It’s unconscionable to do any new development that’s auto-dependent,” he told EBN, suggesting that the architects’ oath should address these location issues in some way. “I think you should lose your license for laying out sprawl,” he said, only half in jest.
Increasingly, a key driver of such changes is likely to be demographics. According to Sam Zimmerman-Bergman at Reconnecting America, a national organization providing resources on transit-oriented development, by 2030 there will be “demand for 10 million more housing units for people who want to live near transit.” When you add in such factors as a possible increase in transportation fuel cost, demand could be even greater.
“What we’re talking about is a fundamental paradigm shift,” according to Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The benefits of reduced VMT would extend well beyond energy savings. “If we get people to drive less through building location and building management strategies,” says Litman, “there’s a huge range of benefits beyond energy conservation and pollution reduction. Until we develop a more holistic model that takes [these added benefits] into account, we’ll undervalue transit demand management.”
It’s time for the green building community to embrace the transportation energy intensity of our buildings much more directly. Where we build should be given greater attention, and our tools for evaluating building performance should include metrics that relate to transportation.
– Alex Wilson with Rachel Navaro
For more information:
Congress for the New Urbanism
Chicago, Illinois
312-551-7300
www.cnu.org
Reid Ewing
National Center for Smart Growth
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland
301-405-6788
www.smartgrowth.umd.edu
Reconnecting America
(and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development)
Oakland, California
510-268-8602
www.reconnectingamerica.org
Smart Growth Network
International City/County Management Association
Washington, D.C.
202-962-3623
www.smartgrowth.org
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
250-360-1560
www.vtpi.org
Since the late 1990s, Portland’s Pearl District has been transformed from a largely abandoned industrial area into a bustling mixed-use neighborhood. Local developers actively promote alternative forms of transportation, evident in the giant neon “Go By Streetcar” sign atop this multi-use complex.
As the world’s first LEED Platinum building, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center is loaded with green features: photovoltaic panels, rainwater harvesting, composting toilets, and bamboo flooring, to mention just a few. However, moving the organization’s staff of around 100 into the new building meant that many employees who had been able to walk to work in the older downtown facility now have to drive roughly ten miles (16 km) to get there. To their credit, the organization spent two years looking for a downtown building to house their growing staff, and they tried to mitigate the increased use of cars in the new building with bicycle and kayak racks, showers, and loaner vehicles for non-automobile commuters, among other strategies. The fact remains, however, that the additional energy use from more employees driving to work may well exceed the energy savings realized by the green building.
Designers and builders expend significant effort to ensure that our buildings use as little energy as possible. This is a good thing—and very obvious to anyone who has been involved with green building for any length of time. What is not so obvious is that many buildings are responsible for much more energy use getting people to and from those buildings. That’s right—for an average office building in the United States, calculations done by Environmental Building News (EBN) show that commuting by office workers accounts for 30% more energy than the building itself uses. For an average new office building built to code, transportation accounts for more than twice as much energy use as building operation.
This article takes a look at the “transportation energy intensity” of buildings and the influence of location and various land-use features on this measure of energy use. While the focus will be primarily on energy (and the associated environmental impacts of energy use, such as pollution), we will see that measures to reduce transportation energy use can have very significant ancillary benefits relating to water runoff, urban heat island mitigation, and habitat protection, while creating more vibrant, livable communities.
Transportation Energy Intensity as a Building Performance Metric
“Transportation energy intensity” is a metric that has long been used to measure such things as how efficiently freight is transported. We’re proposing it here as a metric of building performance. The transportation energy intensity of a building is the amount of energy associated with getting people to and from that building, whether they are commuters, shoppers, vendors, or homeowners. The transportation energy intensity of buildings has a lot to do with location. An urban office building that workers can reach by public transit or a hardware store in a dense town center will likely have a significantly lower transportation energy intensity than a suburban office park or a retail establishment in a suburban strip mall.
Comparing Transportation and Operating Energy Use for an Office Building
[enlarge image]
In the table, we compare the transportation energy intensity of an average commercial office building with the building operation energy intensity of such a building. We use average figures for commute distance, fuel economy, work days per year, gross square footage per employee, and commuting transportation mode to calculate the average transportation energy use per square foot of building floor area. For that average building, the transportation energy use exceeds the building energy use by 30%. When compared with a new, more energy-efficient building built to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy code, the transportation energy use exceeds the building energy use by nearly 140%. (Note that this analysis examines only site energy; if it compared primary energy or source energy, the differences would be smaller—largely due to the significant electricity use in commercial buildings and the inefficiency of electricity generation.)
We will see in this article that about eight factors, largely controlled by planners, designers, developers, and regulators, dramatically affect the transportation energy intensity of buildings. While far from a comprehensive treatise on the topic, this article introduces these issues and makes the case that, first, we need to pay far more attention to location and land-use planning as a part of green development, and, second, that this is an area deserving a great deal more research attention.
Environmental Impacts of Automobile Travel
Transportation Share of U.S. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (2002)
[enlarge image]
Transportation energy use and the environmental impacts associated with that energy use are huge. In 2006, transportation in the U.S. consumed 28.5 quads of energy (84 trillion kWh), or 28.5% of total national energy use, according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. Both the total energy and the percentage of transportation energy use have been rising in recent years, while industrial energy use (currently the largest share at 32.1%) has been dropping. The transportation share of carbon dioxide emissions is slightly greater at 32.9% (2005 data) and higher than that of industrial, commercial, and residential sectors, with the share rising slightly since 1990.
Environmental impacts of transportation are not limited to energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The table below shows transportation’s share of certain criteria pollutants.
In addition to these direct emissions from transportation, there are many other environmental impacts associated with the infrastructure needed to support transportation and with development patterns. Our roadways create impervious surfaces that result in significant pollutant runoff into waterways—in fact, non-point source water pollution from stormwater runoff is now the nation’s leading source of water pollution to estuaries and the third largest to lakes. Highways fragment ecosystems and wildlife habitat. Paved areas, including roadways and parking lots, absorb solar energy, contributing to localized heat islands that exacerbate smog and increase air-conditioning requirements in urbanized areas. And stormwater runoff from these surfaces creates thermal pollution that makes many waterways unsuitable for trout and other cold-water fish.
Land development is occurring at a far higher rate than population growth, resulting in sprawl. In the nation’s 34 metropolitan areas with populations greater than one million people, between 1950 and 1990 the population increased 92.4%, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality, while the urbanized land area grew by 245%, or 2.65 times the population growth rate. In Atlanta, the developed land area grew almost tenfold during this period, while the population grew a little over threefold.
As our urban and suburban areas spread out, vehicle travel increases. Transportation planners use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to measure automobile use. In the U.S., VMT per household has increased from 12,400 miles (20,000 km) per year in 1969 to 21,200 miles (34,000 km) per year in 2001, a 70% increase. During the same period, VMT for commuting to work increased from 4,180 miles to 5,720 miles (6,730 km to 9,200 km), or 37%.
Reducing the Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings
While most measures to reduce building energy use relate just to that particular building, most measures to reduce the transportation energy use of buildings relate to the broader land-use context. They help to achieve what is often called transit-oriented development (TOD) or smart growth. (The terms new urbanism and neo-traditional development are also used, though with slightly different connotations.) Among the goals of these development paradigms are communities, towns, or urban areas that are pedestrian-friendly and accessible with minimal use of the automobile.
Features used to achieve this sort of development are typically beyond the control of building designers and, to some extent, even building owners. Location is critical. “The transportation performance of buildings is all about location,” says Doug Farr, AIA, of Chicago, author of the forthcoming book Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
We’ll now explore eight key factors that can reduce the transportation energy intensity of buildings, primarily by reducing VMT. Transportation and land-use planners often talk about the “D-factors,” including density, distance to transit, diversity of uses, and design of streetscapes; we’ll look at these and others.
Density
Density vs. Vehicle Travel for U.S.
[enlarge image]
Per capita vehicle travel tends to decrease with increases in density.
Most experts put density at or near the top of the list of measures for reducing vehicle use. Hank Dittmar, executive director of the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment and chair of the Congress for the New Urbanism, points to density as the first priority in achieving location efficiency. Research he conducted with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) in the 1990s “showed a fairly dramatic reduction in VMT as you moved from seven to 10–12 units to the acre,” he told EBN. The reduction curve begins to flatten out at 40–50 units per acre; the benefits of mixed use remain, Dittmar explains, but the residents of those units may still have to travel for work and other trips throughout the region, which density does not affect. This correlation between density and VMT is shown in the graph above.
Reid Ewing, Ph.D, a widely published author on transportation planning and traffic calming and director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research at the University of Maryland, says that in the most compact, densely populated places like Chicago, VMT can be as much as 90% less than in sprawling suburbs. Among the innovative strategies for encouraging density are density transfer mechanisms, which enable planners to manage development rights by trading them from environmentally sensitive areas to areas that can be developed. This mechanism is being used in Montgomery County, Maryland; Sarasota, Florida; and Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Transit availability and access
Everyone agrees that the availability of rail and bus transit is a key requirement for getting people out of cars. Distance to transit addresses how far someone must walk to get to a bus stop, light rail or trolley stop, or train station. “The first problem is that it isn’t there for most people,” says Dittmar. When public transit isn’t available, or convenient, or comfortable enough to be used, some companies are taking it upon themselves to satisfy the need. Information technology giant Google maintains a fleet of alternative-fuel buses that it uses to shuttle employees from many locations throughout the San Francisco Bay area to its office park; the company encourages ridership by offering such amenities as comfortable seats and wireless access.
To be effective, transit stops have to be close to where people live. “Generally speaking,” according to John Thomas, Ph.D., of the Development, Community & Environment Division at EPA, “one-quarter to one-half-mile range is the distance people will walk to transit.” People can be expected to walk further to reach rail transit stops compared with bus stops, but rarely will people walk more than a half-mile.
While transit is the key word in transit-oriented development, it’s really more about walking. “I think of transit as connecting walkable districts,” says Ellen Greenberg, a coauthor of The New Transit Town (Island Press, 2004) and the past director of policy and research at the Congress for the New Urbanism. “Everyone winds up being a pedestrian somewhere in the travel day,” she told EBN. Even people who commute by car walk to and from their cars, she points out, “but transit riders are on foot a bigger part of their day, so transit-oriented developments have, by their very nature, a bigger component of the walking trips than conventional development.”
In a discussion of transit, it’s worth noting that some forms of transit are no more energy efficient than private automobile commuting (see chart below). On a Btu per passenger-mile basis, buses actually use more energy per passenger mile than cars, assuming average occupancy of both, while all forms of rail use less and vanpools use a lot less. The number of passengers makes a huge difference in the energy intensity (Btu per passenger mile). For example, by increasing the assumed ridership of a transit bus to 40 people, the energy intensity drops to less than 1,000 Btu per passenger mile. Note that even though buses with average ridership may use more energy per passenger mile than cars, bus transit is still beneficial as a public service, because it can make urban areas more walkable.
Mixed uses and access to services
The Energy Intensity of Different Forms of Travel
[enlarge image]
Diversity has to do with the mix of residential, commercial, and retail land uses and whether key services can be met within easy walking distance of residences and workplaces. In the LEED for New Construction rating system, one of the considerations for awarding a credit is whether a residential area is within a half-mile of at least ten out of 22 listed services, including banks, convenience grocery stores, daycare, restaurants, pharmacies, laundry, schools, libraries, and parks. Farr calls this area a “pedestrian shed”—a play on the term “watershed”—referring to a surrounding area in which everyday needs can be met on foot.
This diversity also affects the success of transit. “It’s very important for people who ride transit to be able to accomplish multiple things on foot once they arrive at their destination,” notes Greenberg. “You need to have a mix of uses to satisfy people’s needs,” she told EBN.
In addition to having a diversity of services and land-use types in a community, it is beneficial to have a diversity of housing to serve all socioeconomic groups. According to Ewing’s book Best Development Practices (American Planning Association, 1996), “promoting affordable housing serves transportation as well as social purposes.” He notes that low-skill-level workers tend to be concentrated in cities, while low-skill-level jobs are concentrated in wealthier suburbs. This mismatch results in a lot of commuting by those who have the hardest time affording it.
Parking management
For transit-oriented development to succeed, many experts call for good parking management. Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, calls parking management the top priority in reducing VMT. “Once you build generous parking,” Litman told EBN, “you have very little incentive to provide alternatives.” Brett Van Akkeren, a smart growth analyst at EPA, told EBN that in suburbs there are nine parking spots for every car.
Greenberg agrees, saying that the first priority “is definitely constrained or expensive parking supply. It has been shown that expensive parking acts as a deterrent to commuters.” In the book Parking Management Best Practices (Planners Press, 2006) and in a summary paper, “Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning” (Victoria Transport Policy Institute), Litman lays out more than 20 strategies that can be used alone or in combination to reduce parking by 20% to 40%.
As with many of these strategies for encouraging transit-oriented development, parking affects more than just VMT. “Not only will more parking encourage more driving,” says John Holtzclaw, a widely published transportation researcher in San Francisco and chair of the transportation committee for the Sierra Club, “but curb cuts along sidewalks make walking less interesting and less safe and make buildings less interesting.” Surface parking also takes up a lot of space, forcing pedestrians to walk further to get where they want to go. Where you do have parking, suggests Holtzclaw, “have it underground. Don’t take up the first two floors with parking; that just deadens the neighborhood.”
Walkability, traffic calming, and site design
As noted earlier, walkability is key to the success of transit-oriented development. “Walkability and public transit go hand-in-hand,” argues Holtzclaw. He suggests that planners place themselves as pedestrians: “Think about how it feels to walk. Are there places to walk to? How are the streets laid out? Are there sidewalks on both sides of the street? Is the traffic calmed? Are the buildings close to the sidewalk, or do you have to walk through a parking lot to get inside?”
Hank Dittmar notes that while transit is a key aspect of smart growth and transit-oriented development, not all communities are there yet. For communities without transit, measures can be taken to prepare for a transit future. “They ought to be getting those neighborhoods ready,” he said. “At the core must be a connected, strong network that works for pedestrians.”
Traffic calming is another aspect of walkable communities. “By slowing traffic, you create a nicer pedestrian environment,” notes Reid Ewing, whose book Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1999) remains the authority on the topic. “Also, when you slow down traffic, you make trips shorter, which reduces VMT,” he told EBN. (For more on traffic calming, see EBN Vol. 12, No. 3.)
Along with traffic calming, it helps to create streetscapes that are comfortable, safe, relaxing, and enjoyable to spend time in. Good lighting, park benches, outdoor tables at cafés, shade tree plantings, pedestrian courts that are closed off to automobiles, and public wireless access can all help to create vibrant, pedestrian-friendly outdoor spaces where people will be glad to walk a few blocks from a transit stop to get to their workplaces, and glad to walk to a restaurant for lunch, thus helping to reduce VMT.
Connectivity
Connectivity is about designing—or redesigning—communities so that pedestrian connections are better. It can mean breaking up “super-blocks” into smaller, more walkable blocks, and replacing connector streets and cul-de-sacs with a network of interconnected streets that spread out traffic flow, slow down vehicles, and make walking more pleasant.
“The smaller the block dimension, the more people will walk,” notes Farr. Ewing agrees that limiting block size favors pedestrians. “You ever walk on a super block? They’re endless,” he says. “With small blocks, it’s much easier to walk.” To evaluate the connectivity of a community, Ewing created a “connectivity index,” which is determined by dividing the number of roadway links (street segments between intersections) by the number of roadway nodes (intersections). The higher the connectivity index, the greater the route choices and the better the pedestrian access. Using this formula, a minimum connectivity index of 1.4 is considered necessary for a walkable community.
Connectivity can also be achieved for pedestrians by creating pathways that cut between cul-de-sacs or that bisect long blocks. Such connections don’t spread out vehicle traffic, but they improve walkability. Providing appropriate lighting and attractive landscaping along those pathways can increase usage.
Bicycle accessibility
In Copenhagen, Denmark, more than 30% of workers commute by bicycle. Since the 1970s, planners, traffic engineers, and politicians have worked hard to keep road infrastructures from growing, which has reduced VMT by 10%.
While a much smaller percentage of Americans bicycle than walk, bicycle access is an important strategy in achieving the kind of communities envisioned with transit-oriented development. While walking is limited to sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, a significant portion of bicycling occurs on roadways, where it competes with motor vehicles.
There are areas in Europe, particularly The Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, where bicycling accounts for up to 40% of all trips, and in the U.S., bicycling is widely used on many campuses and in a some urban areas. A big limitation to greater bicycle usage in the U.S. appears to be that our streets and communities are not bicycle friendly. According to the 2004 publication Getting to Smart Growth II by the Smart Growth Network, a 2003 poll by the American League of Bicyclists found that over half of the respondents would like to bike more often, and three-quarters of them would increase their biking with safer bike paths and other amenities.
The most important strategies for increasing bicycle use relate to where people bike: bicycling lanes and designated bicycle paths and trails. But some bicycle-access measures relate more to buildings. Covered bicycle storage allows people to bike to work and not worry about their bicycles getting wet. Changing and shower facilities at workplaces are essential for bicycling to be realistic as a commuting option.
Improved efficiency of transportation options
The strategies addressed here focus primarily on land-use and transportation planning issues. The transportation energy intensity of buildings can also be reduced by making our motorized means of transportation more energy efficient. Natural-gas-fueled and hybrid diesel-electric buses are increasingly appearing in cities around North America, offering both improvements in fuel economy and reductions in pollution emissions. New, more efficient light-rail and heavy-rail train cars are improving the energy efficiency of rail travel; most of those serving as commuter transit are now electric, so they have very low emissions (at the place of use).
Checklist:
Select Strategies for Achieving Transportation-Efficient Communities
With both bus and rail transit, the best way to improve the energy efficiency of operation is to increase ridership. While a packed train, subway, or bus may be somewhat less pleasant for riders, it’s far better from the standpoint of energy use and pollution emissions per passenger-mile.
With private automobiles, the same arguments apply—for both energy efficiency and ridership. Hybrids and biodiesel-burning cars are generally better than conventional gasoline-powered cars, but even the lowest fuel-economy SUV carrying four carpool riders to work will use less energy and emit less pollution per passenger-mile than a hybrid Prius carrying only a driver.
Developing Building-Specific Metrics for Transportation Efficiency
One reason that location efficiency or transit-oriented development isn’t more front-and-center in the design community is that it’s too easy to consider it someone else’s problem. The common sentiment is that it’s a land-use issue that’s beyond the scope of a particular building project. Specific metrics that measure the transportation energy intensity of a building would help change that perception. “What’s needed is to develop a set of adjustment factors that a planner or designer could apply that indicate the reduction of vehicle travel,” Litman told EBN. From these, one could calculate the reduction in energy consumption associated with those factors, he suggests.
Portland planners predicted in 2001 that the new streetcars would serve about 3,500 riders a week, but 9,000 people now ride them daily. Over half of the city’s development in the last decade has occurred within one block of the streetcar route, and property values within a block of the route are 35–40% higher than those just two blocks away.
For example, if one could define the baseline transportation energy intensity for a building type and attach a number to that, it should be possible to modify that value by a series of adjustment factors—much as is done with energy performance ratings of buildings. These adjustment factors would be based on the measures covered in this article: distance to transit, presence of bicycle pathways, traffic calming, etc. In such adjustment factors would be implicit weightings: distance to transit might be worth more than existence of bicycle racks, but both could be applied numerically.
One could argue that the transportation energy use of a building is too dependent on occupant behavior to warrant this sort of treatment (that even if the building is located right next to a light-rail station, there is nothing to stop workers from driving to work anyway). This is a reasonable concern that needs to be addressed, but the same concern exists with building energy use—albeit to a lesser degree. We are learning that the modeled energy use of buildings often varies considerably from the actual energy use—because doors are left open, workers use electric resistance heaters at their workstations and leave their computers on 24/7, or the facility managers use more air conditioning than predicted. Despite the reality that user behavior influences the actual transportation energy intensity of a building, such modeled transportation energy intensity would provide a good means of comparing one building to another in terms of expected performance.
Such metrics could be used in energy and environmental rating approaches for buildings, from Energy Star to LEED—permitting such certification programs to become more performance-based. Clearly, there would be a lot of details to work out, but the opportunities for providing metrics that help us reduce the environmental impacts of buildings are huge.
Final Thoughts
Conventional wisdom has it that the U.S. population is expected to increase by forty million people over the next two decades, 80% of whom will settle in developments like this car-dependant Denver suburb. More and more communities are recognizing that transit-oriented development offers a better option, particularly among an aging population.
The green building movement is making tremendous strides at improving the environmental performance of buildings. Pushed by building codes and pulled by voluntary programs like LEED, buildings are getting better and better. But, as this article shows, if we want to continue reducing the ecological footprint of buildings, we need to focus much more actively on the transportation impacts that are associated with our buildings. With average new code-compliant office buildings “using” twice as much energy getting occupants to and from the buildings as the buildings themselves use for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy needs, the green building community needs to focus greater attention on the transportation dependency of our buildings.
Farr takes these ideas one step further: “It’s unconscionable to do any new development that’s auto-dependent,” he told EBN, suggesting that the architects’ oath should address these location issues in some way. “I think you should lose your license for laying out sprawl,” he said, only half in jest.
Increasingly, a key driver of such changes is likely to be demographics. According to Sam Zimmerman-Bergman at Reconnecting America, a national organization providing resources on transit-oriented development, by 2030 there will be “demand for 10 million more housing units for people who want to live near transit.” When you add in such factors as a possible increase in transportation fuel cost, demand could be even greater.
“What we’re talking about is a fundamental paradigm shift,” according to Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The benefits of reduced VMT would extend well beyond energy savings. “If we get people to drive less through building location and building management strategies,” says Litman, “there’s a huge range of benefits beyond energy conservation and pollution reduction. Until we develop a more holistic model that takes [these added benefits] into account, we’ll undervalue transit demand management.”
It’s time for the green building community to embrace the transportation energy intensity of our buildings much more directly. Where we build should be given greater attention, and our tools for evaluating building performance should include metrics that relate to transportation.
– Alex Wilson with Rachel Navaro
For more information:
Congress for the New Urbanism
Chicago, Illinois
312-551-7300
www.cnu.org
Reid Ewing
National Center for Smart Growth
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland
301-405-6788
www.smartgrowth.umd.edu
Reconnecting America
(and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development)
Oakland, California
510-268-8602
www.reconnectingamerica.org
Smart Growth Network
International City/County Management Association
Washington, D.C.
202-962-3623
www.smartgrowth.org
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
250-360-1560
www.vtpi.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)