Budgets (Danger: Long and wonky!)

When I am thinking about how to re-order our society for the coming twin crises of energy and climate, I often find it useful to think in terms of several "budgets" that represent the resources we have to work with when performing said re-organization. This thought process, for example, is why I think that there is no alternative-fuel wondercar coming to save us. Let's take a look at a few of these "budgets" and how they point us towards a world that is increasingly walkable, bikeable, and transit-dependent.

1. Carbon Budget
So this is probably the big one. We will not be able to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide to 0-- for one, to survive we are going to have to keep breathing. What we need to do is to reduce our carbon footprint, not only to the point where our emissions match the planet's carrying capacity, but to a point that is actually below that carrying capacity, in order to reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon. 350.org has more, but basically, right now the concentration of CO2 is at ~400ppm and rising at 2ppm per year, meaning that we are adding carbon to the atmosphere. We need to reduce our emissions enough so that we return to a level below 350ppm no later than end of the century, so we need to get to the point where CO2 concentrations are falling by at least .57ppm per year, if we were able to re-shape our society overnight. More likely, we'll need to get to a point where, by mid-century, concentrations are falling by 1-1.5ppm per year or so.

So we have some absolute ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted into the atmosphere between now and 2100. Every ton of CO2 is "spending" that budget. I think it goes without saying that we aren't currently spending it wisely. But what would actually prioritizing our needs according to that budget look like? That is, we have limited CO2 that we can emit-- what things are worth spending that budget on?

First off, there are likely industrial processes that emit CO2, and that can't be feasibly switched off of the stuff. We should try to find replacements where we can, but I suspect that there are plenty of cases where it is chemically infeasible not to give off some CO2 during the process of producing modern conveniences that we'd like to keep around.

Second, and this is something a lot of people don't think about, but aviation is currently pretty much impossible without some form of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. (The Solar Impulse is certainly an impressive engineering feat, but the single-seat 40-knot gossamer craft is not a practical transportation machine, and likely won't be for some time.) The sheer power-to-weight ratios enabled by fuel-burning piston and jet engines make powered flight possible, and electric propulsion isn't likely to catch up for some time (although ion wind thrusters may be the next big thing). If we want to continue to live in a world where everything from traffic helicopters to intercontinental jet travel are still with us, we're not likely to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of the aviation sector.

There are also a myriad of other applications where CO2 emisisons are going to be necessary, from military operations to diesel-fueled generators at remote outposts and during power outages to oceanic shipping. While we should work at making these sectors more efficient, the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels are likely going to make carbon-generating combustion the only practical option for a great number of applications, all of which we'd like to keep around in our civilization.

Beyond that, there's also the CO2 emitted by our more biological operations-- livestock farming, and our own and our pets' respiration. Gotta keep that in mind.

And then there's our day-to-day transportation needs. We can certainly spend our carbon budget on in-city transportation, sure... but why should we? We know that putting people on electrified, zero-emission buses and trains, and on bicycles and their own two feet, can move them about without emitting any appreciable carbon dioxide. We know that, with proper land-use planning, huge majorities of our population could move around their daily lives in this manner. Why should we spend our carbon budget when we don't have to?

2. Energy budget
Sure, you say, but electric cars surely must be the answer! They spend very little of our carbon budget! Right, but they spend a lot of our energy budget, so they're not exactly a panacea. And they allow sprawl to continue, which further taxes our energy budget.

We know that we're going to have to start generating the overwhelming majority of our energy needs from renewable energy sources-- solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal power. (There is mixed opinion on whether next-generation nuclear power plants could meet some of these needs, but that's not important to this argument.) Given that, we are going to have to deploy a lot of solar panels and wind and tide turbines and geothermal boreholes in the next few decades. We are going to have to meet our current energy needs plus some appreciable fraction of powering our transportation system. So every inefficiency in the system results in having to deploy more renewable power generating capacity-- or, more likely, results in a lower probability that we'll be able to generate our power entirely off of renewables.

Single-occupancy motor vehicles, no matter their powerplant, are hugely energy inefficient-- you're spending a lot of energy moving the car itself, and very little moving the passenger. So if we go to electric cars, rather than electric transit, we are going to have to put up a lot more solar panels to power the cars.

Beyond that, electric cars would still enable sprawl. Beyond being land-inefficient and soul-crushing, sprawl is also really energy-inefficient. Urban apartments and rowhouses, dwellings that share walls, require significantly less energy to heat and cool. Small-lot urban single-family homes tend to be smaller and therefore more energy-efficient in terms of climate control. Toss in the energy required to extend and maintain utility infrastructure to a comparatively small number of people on a comparatively large amount of land, and you see that sprawl is a poor choice to spend our energy budget on.

3. Social Budget
The last budget is probably the closest to an actual, financial, budget in this list. Our society has a finite amount of resources in it-- physical, financial, and political. Each dollar spent, each political speech, each gram of silicon is an opportunity to devote resources towards the transformation of our civilization to meet the climate crisis. We can only afford so much revolutionary change. We could choose, for example, to heavily subsidize research into new battery technologies, to develop quick-charge electric car filling stations around the country, to give people massive tax credits for buying an electric car, to spend our resources effecting a transformation to a whole new way of getting around. But doing so has an opportunity cost-- after developing that new system, it is unlikely that we will be able to turn around once more and gain the political and financial support to once again transform how we get around.

I am of the opinion (completely unsubstantiated, but reasonable) that our society has the political will and physical resources for maybe one big transformation this century, before the oil starts running out and the oceans start rising. When we decide to finally embark on the path of that transformation, we had better be sure it's the right one, because if it isn't, we will find ourselves facing these crises unprepared.

For the many reasons that I've mentioned on this blog, I think that a move towards more urban living, enabled by active transportation and electric public transit, linked by electric freight and high-speed passenger rail, is the form that will make our civilization most resilient in the face of the coming future. I can only hope that we are not so distracted by promises that we can keep on doing what we are doing-- packaged in the form of electric or hydrogen or other wondercars-- to preclude this transition.

RTA GTFS Data Now Available!

They've apparently been quietly doing it since January of 2012, but I want to applaud RTA for officially making their GTFS (Google Transit Feed Specification) data available to the public, via the GTFS Data Exchange. Open data is really awesome. For those of you who know why open data is awesome, you can stop reading. For the rest of you, a basic primer.

So in this context, a GTFS feed contains the stop, route, and schedule data needed for a transit agency to get on Google Transit. Because Google is the all-powerful data-sucking beast that it is, and because they're really the first people to try to integrate multiple transit agencies' data on a massive scale, it's become a de facto standard for electronically publishing transit information. RTA has obviously had a GTFS feed for a while, since they've been on Google Transit since 2009. To my knowledge, however, while the feed URL was easily discovered with a little creative Googling, the data was not officially publicly available. That meant that the only people who could incorporate it were Google-- and that the vast ecosystem of transit app developers using public GTFS data couldn't incorporate RTA's information as well. This includes not only transit apps like HopStop, but also things like WalkScore, which incorporates transit information and travel times, and AutNo, which allows you to search for apartments within transit commute distance of your work.

Now, with publicly-available data, those tools can integrate RTA's transit schedules in order to give people a better idea as to what their transportation options are-- especially when looking for new housing choices.

What I'd love to see next is the integration of real-time arrival data (which, unbeknownst to many, RTA does have) into the GTFS feed, so instead of a trip plan based on schedules, Google Maps could give you a routing based on which buses were on time, which were late, etc. You might find that a connection that you should, on paper, just miss is actually running a few minutes behind, saving you a long wait, or that, because your bus is late, taking another route might get you there faster. Transit aficionados like myself already know that sort of information, but it'd be cool to make it available to anyone via their smartphones.

Still, though, kudos on the open data, RTA.

Fool Me Once...

RTA just released their proposed FY 2014-2016 Short Range Transit Plan. On the bright side, there are no cuts proposed, and (like the last few schedule changes) several minor schedule improvements are suggested. In particular, they plan on restoring service on "major holidays"-- specifically Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day-- beginning July 2013 (which conveniently misses Memorial Day 2013).

Another suggestion is the long-awaited expansion of night-time service, proposed on routes 1, 15, 16, 18, 20, 31 and 32. I would personally prefer that we confine our late-night transit efforts to routes with higher population density and ridership, as otherwise we'll get less service span where we need it in Riverside, and more out in the exurbs where we need it less. That said, I would love to see late-night service (until last call?) on 1, 15 and 16, and if that means that we run some empty buses in Hemet, oh well.

That said, this has been proposed before. In the FY2010-2012 SRTP, funds were actually secured from the federal Job Access and Reverse Commute program to provide late-night service, across a skeletal network serving the whole service area. The funds were moved to prop up frequencies on routes in Lake Elsinore and Mead Valley. So I'm not jumping for joy until this is actually approved by the board in June-- and even then, not really until I see the timetable.

Roadside Assistance for the Urban Advocate

So, for many people, it seems like my last post on AAA's lobbying efforts is news. Better World Club, admittedly a competitor to AAA, keeps a long list of AAA's egregious pro-car lobbying stunts, most of which have extensive third-party citations. But let's say you're convinced-- AAA is a major force for the highway lobby, and you want to give up your membership. But you also don't want to find yourself on the side of a road somewhere, with a broken-down car and no money for a massive tow-truck bill. What's an eco-conscious person to do?

The best alternative would be, of course, to give up your car altogether. Here's how to do that.

For those not ready to take the leap, one alternative is the aforementioned Better World Club. They provide similar services to AAA, including towing, maps, travel planning, and the like. Unlike AAA, they'll also cover either your motorcycle or your bicycle without a corresponding automobile membership. (For whatever reason, they won't cover your motorcycle and your bicycle without an auto membership though, which is why I'm not a member.)

Another likely possibility is your auto insurance provider. I have roadside assistance coverage on my scooter through Progressive, for something like $3 a month. Note that coverage through your auto insurer will likely only cover the insured vehicle, so if your friends give you rides in their clunker a lot, maybe stick with something else.

Finally, there are some unlikely places that might offer you roadside assistance. There are credit card providers that offer the service, as well as cell phone providers. My wife and I had-- and frequently used-- service through our cell phones through the first year of our marriage.

Ask around-- it's more likely than not that you can get roadside assistance without handing your money over to the highway lobby.

An Open Letter to AAA

I got a letter in my mailbox today from the Automobile Club of Southern California. You can guess that I didn't enclose the requested registration certificate and $49 membership fee. Here's what I sent back instead:

Dear Ms. Sabins:

I received your offer of pre-selected membership in the Automobile Club of Southern California today. I note that you began your letter with "Dear Fellow Driver." I am writing now to inform you that your membership selection process has gone horribly awry. While I am an enthusiastic participant of the United Airlines MileagePlus program, from whom you seem to have gotten my address, I am not, in fact, your fellow driver. Indeed, I do not own an automobile, and I am unlikely to do so in the future. The only vehicle I'm certain to use on any given day is my bicycle, and I like it that way.

Moreover, I was a former member of your organization, and I informed your employees at the time of my reasons for leaving your organization. Collectively, the Automobile Association of America is one of the largest anti-environmental and anti-active-transportation lobbying organizations in the nation, as you are no doubt well aware. AAA has a long history of advocating against progressive transportation policy and for sprawl-inducing freeway construction, road and parking lot expansion, and subsidies for the auto and oil industries. Your organization is one of the principal foes in the fight against the catastrophic specter of global climate change, a bastion of oil-economy cronyism in a world that desperately needs more forward-looking solutions.

I also find your organization's recruiting tactics reprehensible. The average AAA member does not know about the lobbying arm of your organization. Indeed, the letter that you sent me does not speak at all about the disproportionate influence that you wield in Washington. Instead it speaks of all the benefits I will receive from membership in the Club, including gold-plated roadside assistance, maps, travel guides, DMV services, and discounts. Your organization has built itself into a lobbying powerhouse, commanding the "53 MILLION" members you so enthusiastically tout, by lying to them in order to use their membership to inflate your power in Washington. Members join for the towing, and are unknowingly used for the political ends of your organization and the industries who support you.

In conclusion, I will not be returning the enclosed registration card, along with my "bargain" of a $49 payment. Please remove me from any and all mailing lists, customer databases, and lists of "selected" new members immediately and in perpetuity.

Sincerely,

Alethea Nelson, MA

No Streetcar is Better than a Bad Streetcar

Riverside's new Mayor, Rusty Bailey, has made the development of a streetcar network part of his platform. He mentioned it both during his campaign and in his State of the City address, and I have heard word of grants being written to study the issue. Obviously, the plan is very new, and so anything I say here is speculative at best, but I want to get out ahead of this thing. Streetcars are in vogue right now, and while they are undoubtedly cool, the details of the implementation of a streetcar plan are important to determine whether it will promote mobility and development, or whether it will simply be a shiny toy for City Hall to trumpet.

Here's the thing: streetcars in mixed traffic are usually worse for mobility than the buses they replace. This is because of the simple fact that buses can turn and get around obstructions (such as parking or turning cars, broken-down cars, traffic accidents, debris, etc.), while streetcars can't. There's some benefit to running streetcars in interior lanes with island platforms, or using off-board fare collection, but neither is intrinsic to streetcars per se-- buses stopping at the same island platforms and using the same off-board fare collection would also run faster. To really radically re-shape mobility in Riverside, streetcars would either need to run on a lower-traffic street, or need their own lane to run in. The former raises concerns, as lower-traffic streets are usually that way because few people want to be there, and I strongly doubt that there's enthusiasm for the latter at City Hall and among the automobile-attached residents of Riverside.

Second, the logical place for a streetcar is along the L-shaped corridor formed by UCR, downtown, and the Plaza (and in the future, perhaps as far as the Tyler Galleria). This is a route that is already served by RTA, and mobility along that route would likely be better-served by improving existing RTA service than building a local-stop streetcar along it. The streetcar will need to somehow do something that the current routes 1 and 16 don't do, and will also need to be well-integrated into the current transit system, both of which are a daunting proposition.

Furthermore, a streetcar is an expensive proposition. If the plan is a good one, by all means, we should turn our transit dollars towards that expensive proposition. I am, however, extremely wary of spending scarce transit dollars building and, more importantly, operating a streetcar that will not improve mobility in Riverside and that will cannibalize limited funds from desperately-needed transit expansion. I'd love to see good local rail service in Riverside, but I'd rather see all-night bus lines or additional frequency than a bad streetcar project.

Los Angeles' streetcar project is a great example of what happens when you don't take into account mobility outcomes when building a streetcar: you get giant one-way loops and low frequencies that will make the new streetcar less useful than the old DASH bus it's replacing, especially for the short downtown trips it's supposed to serve. And they're spending a bunch of money for little improvement. I don't want to see that kind of thinking move east.

As I said before, the plans for a Riverside streetcar are in their infancy-- but that just makes it all the more important to make our voices heard now, before a finalized plan becomes something that we can't live with. Better no streetcar at all than a bad streetcar.

They do not like the red light cam...

Dan Bernstein of the PE channels Dr. Seuss to talk about the ever-controversial red-light camera. Read it all the way to the end.