Toban Black

In London, Ontario, Canada

——-

Blaine Harden (in this article — late last year) -

“In the United States, with the exception of a handful of cities … car-centric transportation policies and suburban sprawl continue to make bicycle commuting rare, arduous and relatively dangerous. Although millions of Americans recreate on bikes, they ride them for just 0.4 percent of their trips to work, according to the U.S. Census.”

“In recent months, bike shops across much of the United States have been flooded with new customers fed up with high gasoline prices.”

“Yet without major changes in U.S. transportation policy and infrastructure, an earnest desire to save money on gas is not enough to turn American bike owners into everyday cyclists who ride to work, according to [some] urban planners, transportation experts and bicycle company executives.”

——-

Some relevant statistics -
- According to a 2009 survey, 88% of Americans consider cars necessities (source)
- “Canadians and Americans use bikes for fewer than one in a hundred trips - although in Vancouver … it’s a bit higher, at about 2.3 per cent. Compare that to the 20 to 35 per cent of trips taken by bike in the European Union and 50 per cent in China. (Unfortunately, the trend is reversing in China as the country embraces car culture.)” (from a 2008 source)
- “Germans are 10 times more likely than Americans to ride a bike and three times less likely to get hurt while doing so.” (from the same 2008 article quoted above)

Of course, cycling is just one transportation alternative. Although I’m focusing on cycling in this post (as I have in other blog entries here, in the past), I also think that rail and bus systems are two more important alternatives to cars, trucks, and vans. I’m not going to try to summarize all of the constructive alternative transportation possibilities (right now, anyway); basically I’m just questioning the entrenchment of automobiles — while looking at cycling, as one positive alternative.

[Read more →]

—–

On cars as we know them -

Asher Miller (in this blog post) -
“Only about 15% of the energy that goes into your gas tank is used to move your car. And, because of the weight of an average car, only about 1% is actually used to move you.”

—

Alec Dubro (in this article) -

“The average car or light truck is two tons or so: 4000-plus pounds to move 200 pounds of people. OK, everybody out of the SUVs and F-150s and into a nice, green Prius. However, the curb weight of an unladen Prius is 2765 pounds, which means a ton and a half around to get you and a bag of groceries home. Not good.”

“Even if we were able to produce a … zero pollution vehicle, we’d still need to maintain the infrastructure of roads, bridges, and energy distribution. That means steel, concrete, asphalt and plastics. Just concrete production alone generates as much as 10 percent of all greenhouse gas. In 2007, the U.S. produced 95 million tons of cement by burning fossil fuels and, according to the EPA, is the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. (Scientific America, August 7, 2008) The production of asphalt – a petroleum product – also creates carbon. As does the production of motor oil, tires, and on and on.”

And there’s another intractable problem: the very thing that makes tires so useful – comfort, stability, adhesion – also produces immense rolling friction. In order for us to makes cars that are maneuverable and relatively safe, they have to grip the road, which takes buckets of energy to overcome. One reason trains are able to transport people using far less energy per passenger mile is that there are fewer wheels per person and steel wheels have much less rolling friction.”

—–

(Photo by Berd)

[Read more →]

By Stephanie McMillan

—

Here are some other posts about transportation issues -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?tag=transportation

—

Of course, car drivers don’t alway ‘veg out’ (in one way or another) after they reach their destinations,
but some sort of zombie-like relaxation often is what people are rushing towards, isn’t it?

In fact, aren’t people more apt to want to tune out like that after rushing around in cars?

(This isn’t to say that people can’t think and watch TV at the same time, however.  And it’s over the top to say that people who do rush toward some form of passive relaxation are headed “to nowhere.”)

—

There are more related posts here -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?tag=urban-sprawl

As a member of the steering committee in Post-Carbon London, I helped to write the following letter to the municipal government here in London, Ontario
(regarding issues that you can learn more about here and — if you dig through recent posts at the following site — here).

The letter -

——–

London Councillors and City Staff:

The proposed big box retail complex — far from core areas of London, at 168 Meadowlily Road South — would further increase our dependency on automobiles and fossil fuels, while leading to further destruction of local farmlands and carbon sinks. This proposal is completely unacceptable, given how it is increasing clear that global warming and fossil fuel depletion (including worldwide “peak oil”) are realities that we must face. The sooner our city recognizes these facts and begins taking major steps toward embracing this reality, the better off we will be. While we proactively face fossil fuel depletion and global warming challenges, we also can confront smog, oil spills, and various other social and environmental problems associated with the consumption, distribution, and extraction of fossil fuels.

[Read more →]

A speech that I read at a September 6th rally against Wal-Mart a September 6th rally against Wal-Mart. (I since have touched it up a little).

—–

Hello everyone.
I’m Toban. I’m an organizer in Post-Carbon London (Ontario), and I’m a Phd student.

There are many important grounds to roll back Wal-Mart and other companies like Wal-Mart (because of unacceptable and even outrageous exploitation of workers, and many other problems), but today I’ll be raising issues surrounding fossil fuel consumption that we focus on in Post-Carbon London.

Basically, we promote alternatives to fossil fuel usage and dependencies –
through alternative energy sources (such as solar power), through improved energy efficiencies (in home appliances, in some cases), and — most importantly — through changes to our way of life. Rejecting big box stores and big box shopping is one way to challenge the fossil fuel consumption in our lives today.

[Read more →]

At a September 6th rally against Wal-Mart -

[Read more →]

(Photo by Grant Neufeld)

—

“The view attributed to H G Wells - ‘Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race’ - seems to me to go to the heart of it. A cyclist is an … instance of the human being at [her or] his noblest: vulnerable; somewhat absurd to look upon; modest in his consumption of energy and space and his [or her] output of noise; self-powered; independent.”

Sam Leith (in this article)

—

“Hordes of Americans think that the bicycle is just something their kids interact with, or that biking is just something they do on weekends (after loading their bikes in the car and driving to a park, no less) or that biking is just too dangerous.”

Mary Catherine O’Connor (in this article)

[Read more →]

Did you know that…

• Critics of drive-thrus don’t have “any proof”; in fact, they don’t “make sense”
• Fast foods — and drive-thru access to those fast foods — are “vital” “for the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children”; access to these fast foods is not just a matter of convenience; “many people need drive-thrus”
• All of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” have cars — as well as money for insurance and gas; and all of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” don’t have disabilities which prevent car-driving (as blindness does, for example); so all of these people have the option of using drive-thrus
• Drive-thrus are the only way that we can improve accessibility for all of “the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children” — even for disabled people whose mobility is not impaired in any way
• Cars only make people safer; no one is ever endangered by car driving
• It’s fine to encourage people to eat and drink while they drive after leaving a drive-thru
• The health of drive-thru window employees is not important; it’s OK that they inhale fumes from nearby exhaust pipes throughout their shifts
• It doesn’t matter that all of the employees and customers in establishments with drive-thru windows are exposed to the exhaust fumes that come in through these windows
• Drive-thrus are not an environmental problem in any way whatsoever; in fact, drive-thrus are an environmental asset
• People don’t travel to businesses by bicycle, by bus, or by foot; every customer who doesn’t use a drive-thru either will leave their car in a parking lot, or they will leave it idling outside of the building; so without drive-thrus that is what’s bound to happen
• Tailpipe emissions are the only environmental issue that is relevant here; other environmental consequences (e.g. ongoing oil spills) associated with extracting, refining, and shipping the oil used to make gasoline are a separate matter; and the materials (e.g. rubber) needed to manufacture and maintain vehicles (e.g. their tires) are not relevant either; so the extraction, transport, processing, and disposal of these materials also has nothing to do with drive-thrus; and the ecological implications of industrial manufacturing of vehicles and vehicle parts is unrelated as well
• Concerns about how oil profits often end up in the hands of authoritarian regimes (e.g. in Saudi Arabia) are irrelevant
• Drive-thrus don’t encourage additional car driving, so “banning drive-thrus won’t reduce the number of overall car trips”; drive-thrus thus have nothing to do with ongoing automobile collisions, or with other problems (e.g. increased obesity) associated with car driving
• Eat-in establishments are of no value; “quick service restaurants” are ideal; it’s not important that we sit together as a community rather than eating and drinking more privately (e.g. inside vehicles); we shouldn’t be concerned about how there are fewer jobs and less tips in “quick service restaurants” with drive-thrus
• It doesn’t matter that younger people who can’t drive cars on their own have less access to drive-thrus, and to establishments that are more accessible by car; poorer people who can’t afford their own cars — and everyone else who can’t drive on their own — also don’t deserve any consideration
• “The public” supports drive-thrus; “the public” does not have any concerns about drive-thrus
• Each name on the petition is actually from a separate person who has “read the facts“; there are no duplicate names on the petition, and no fake names were added to it
• There is grassroots activism in the “Drive-Thru Truths” campaign — as the protest signs show
• “The experts” dismiss concerns about drive-thrus and tailpipe emissions; “the experts” all agree on this
• Tim Hortons and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association — the people behind these messages — just want to help us all, while contributing to environmental causes; profit-making strategies have nothing to do with their stance on these issues; unlike “special interest groups,” Tim Horton’s and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association are concerned about the general interests — of “the people,” whose voices and whose empowerment are considered to be very important

Those are the messages that you’ll find at drivethru truth .ca, a pro- drive-thru propaganda site (which I have archived here on my own web site). The above points are about what is said on that pro- drive-thru site — as well as what isn’t said on that site.

(Their banner image is at the top of this post; their original banner is a little larger.)

[Read more →]

On Tuesday night there was a forum (at a local hall) about drive-thrus in London, Ontario.

A mob was there wearing blue t-shirts associated with this pro- drive-thru lobbying web site. (In the next post I’m going to write about that web site and those blue-shirted people; that post will show up above this one).

The local campaigners challenging drive-thrus have been taking pioneering steps, so industry lobbyists have tried to stamp out the campaign. (This aggressive lobbying has come from Tim Hortons and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association, in particular.) London thus has been made into a sort of flashpoint–within the province of Ontario at least. (I don’t know how contested drive-thrus are elsewhere.)

Several local environmentalists went out to the event to speak. One of them was there on behalf of Post-Carbon London, which I’m part of as well. Others (like the gentleman in the photo, who is from a neighbourhood association) also came out to raise different concerns about drive-thrus.

—

Before the event the Council of Canadians sent out this announcement:
http://londonontario.indymedia.org/?q=node/582

They also distributed these posters:
http://www.relocalize.net/files/drivethru-idling.pdf
http://www.relocalize.net/files/drivethru-oil.pdf

[Read more →]

Brendan Smith, Tim Costello and Jeremy Brecher - “Unsafe at Any Price …”

Exerpts -

“Transportation has the fastest growing carbon emissions of any economic sector and automobiles are largely to blame with more than 600 million passenger vehicles now cruising the world’s roads. ”

“Today, the real task is … to create … a ‘people’s transport system.’ Addressing the climate crisis requires entirely new approaches to moving people and goods–one not based on cars and trucks. The US created an automobile culture during the 20th century at enormous long term costs. The automobile brings with it not just greenhouse gas emissions but an entire infrastructure that is devastating to the social and natural environment–roads, the oil industry, urban congestion, and suburban sprawl. It’s a system the US and other rich countries now must transform and one which the developing world can still avoid.

Public policies and new technologies should be directed at developing the least polluting mode of transport at each scale of distance. That means promoting walking and biking, especially in cities; building new and better public transit systems; and revitalizing intercity rail for both passengers and freight. And since, for the foreseeable future, automobiles and trucks will continue to play a major transportation role, developing and mandating low emission vehicles remains a key goal.”

[Read more →]