Since today seems like a day of posting, I might as well get right to it. Read Bob Macdonald's Quirks and Quarks blog post on gridlock and streetcars. I think he highlights a few interesting points without rubbing people's faces into it. (Segue: zealotry doesn't really help anything - I appreciate when people attempt influence my opinion with reasoned arguments, not threats, blackmail and Armageddon. This post was an example and plea for something better). I work in London, Ontario and it is a place that has seen the steady increase in traffic volume over the years. Although the roads are not as efficient nor as full as they are in Toronto, I now notice distinct "rush hour" traffic times. The threat of gridlock is greater (mainly from people that don't know how to stay out of an intersection when the lights change), road closures are not as dramatic simply because they are so frequent. But let's move on to the interesting part of the article - streetcars and rail transit.
I can't point to myself as a paragon of environmental living (let's get that out of the way). I live about 25 km away from my workplace, in a small town. That's cardinal sin number one, but then I commute, alone, in my car there and back. I really have no choice, given where I choose my home. However, the railway is something I can comment on.
My parents moved to this same small town, there was a passenger train stop. That was quickly removed, but wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of simple local service that allowed local residents to use the train to get to work? The city where I work is a central hub for the railway and several lines that pass through the smaller villages nearby. If there was a morning and evening shuttle (a la Go Transit), many people could travel to and from work without cars - despite living in a rural or bedroom community.
Such trains would be extremely local and would not be the fastest way of getting to work, but that's not the point really. The various levels of government could setup a "green commute" tax rebate, similar to what the federal government has proposed for bus passes, such a program may be very attractive. Personally, our family has two vehicles, as we have two small children. If such a program was available, I could envision myself running only one vehicle, a major personal savings and a small reduction in emissions.
Mr. Macdonald also comments on all the cars waiting and idling during the traffic snarls. I guess this is one of the times when hybrid vehicles are beneficial - they stop the gas engine when the vehicle stops. In London there are too many level crossings which leads to the occasional tie up with a train passing. Personally, I turn my car off (leaving the radio on) and wait until the train has passed. Given that this time is usually measured in minutes, I don't understand why more people don't do it as well. Cars start reliably - I can start my car and get it moving in about 10 seconds, so it isn't any more of a delay than I experience at most traffic lights. I guess people don't realize that by turning off the engine, they won't be burning fuel.
Utilizing our rail infrastructure more fully makes good environmental sense. First off, the rails are there. Secondly, it is easier to make a large system (i.e. a train) more efficient than a smaller one (i.e. a car). These arguments are well worn in city context where buses take the place of trains. Let's hope we can find ways to use things we already have more fully.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Somewhat related to your point about zealotry, the Ryerson Review of Journalism has an interesting item on QQ in this quarter's issue... among other things, it points out that Bob's just a normal guy who thinks this science stuff is kinda cool. :)
Post a Comment