The Urban Country

Barriers to Cycling: Debunking the Myths

2009-11-10T22:55:00.001-05:00

Photo courtesy of sindändùne

Cycling is a great way to get around. It’s healthy, efficient, fun and sustainable. As such I’m always perplexed when people in North America find every excuse to avoid utilitarian cycling.

It’s not necessarily that people here are inherently lazy; in fact in many cases it’s on the contrary – many of these people who avoid cycling spend hours in the gym several times a week.

I am baffled as to why people would be willing to pay a monthly fee to sit on an exercise bicycle in the gym when they could instead be cycling outdoors for their daily commute or for running errands.

As someone who is fascinated by our addiction to the automobile, I wanted to find out what the rationale is for avoiding cycling in North America. My observations on this topic has resulted in the following list of 5 barriers to cycling in North America.

Barrier #5 – Perception of Danger

In North America there is a perception of danger whenever cycling is discussed. Just last week I rode my bike to a restaurant to meet up with an old friend. She saw me pull up on my bicycle and when I inquired to her if she ever cycled in the city, she responded that there was no way on earth she would ever ride a bicycle on the same roads as cars – far too dangerous.

A major contributor to this disinformation and fear-mongering in the media. Many of those who rely on automobiles in our cities feel threatened by the rise in interest in cycling and as a result they try to deter people from cycling by playing up the inherent dangers of cycling.

The truth is, you’re probably safer riding a bicycle in our city alongside automobiles than you are driving an automobile on the highway. But nobody would ever question driving their cars on the highway, nor would they respond “it’s far too dangerous” when asked about driving.

A 1994 study by the Consumer Products Safety Commission concludes that there are about 13.3 cycling fatalities per million versus 156.8 motor vehicle fatalities per million. Mighk Wilson points out in his essay that an average cyclist would need to ride non-stop for 456 years before experiencing a fatal crash. Over the last 5 years in Toronto, there have only been 13 fatal cycling collisions with motor vehicles.

Barrier #4 - Weather

There is a common misconception – especially in Canada – that there are only a few months of good cycling weather due to our long, cold winter. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In Toronto, there are only 2 months of the year where the average temperature is below freezing – January and February.

For the other 10 months of the year, cycling is very feasible. On colder days, cycling can help keep your body warm. In fact, I find it more comfortable to cycle in cooler weather (say 5-10 degrees Celsius) than in the middle of the summer.

Barrier #3 – Distance

All cities in North America have experienced urban sprawl due to the proliferation of cheap land in surrounding cities and the constant need for bigger, cheaper houses on large plots of land.

Therefore, commuting via bicycle isn’t always a feasible option. Nobody wants to cycle 50 kilometres each way to work. But who says you need to cycle the entire distance to work?

You could cycle to the sleepy commuter train station from your home, or you could cycle from the train station to your office. You could even ride your bike to your carpooling friend’s house. There are many occasions for using a bicycle.

Starting with small steps can help make cycling more of a habit that becomes more integrated into your lifestyle. It’s liberating – trust me.

Barrier #2 – Lack of Infrastructure

Many potential cyclists demand better cycling infrastructure before they would be willing to ride a bicycle to work. At the same time, cycling opponents are saying existing cycling infrastructure is under-utilized. It’s the classic cart before the horse problem.

Urban cycling is already relatively safe, and the best way to make it even more safe is to achieve a critical mass. If enough people cycle, the infrastructure will follow – but we shouldn’t be sitting around waiting for it to come before we take to our pedals.

Barrier #1 - Helmets

Helmets are a major barrier to cycling in North America. They are awkward to carry around, they mess up your hair, they usually stink, they often look quirky.

To make matters worse, the right wing media often tries to instil fear with the public that riding a bicycle without a helmet is dangerous and that helmets should be mandatory. More often than not, those who call for mandatory helmets are not cyclists.

The truth is, helmets are not as useful as you might think. For many people, they only provide a false sense of security. In serious cases of head injury, bicycle helmets won’t do much for you.

Bicycle helmets also tend to lead drivers to be more careless with cyclists. I find many drivers are a bit more careful when I am helmetless - it’s human nature to be more cautious when other people are more at risk (this doesn’t apply to all humans mind you).

There’s a reason why millions of people around the world safely ride bicycles without a helmet.

Copenhagenize, (the “bike culture blog”) frequently comments that anyone who pushes for mandatory bicycle helmets must also support mandatory driving helmets - it’s only fair.

Photo courtesy of Copenhagenize.com

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Cowboys Stadium: Everything is Bigger in Texas

2009-11-02T09:10:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I attended a Dallas Cowboys football game at the new Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

I am by no means a football fan, nor would I have attended this game under any other circumstance than the fact that my father is turning 60 years old and he has never seen the Cowboys play in Dallas (he has been a Cowboys fan since he was a kid).

Walking into a venue like Cowboys stadium brings me mixed feelings. On one hand it is amazing architecture, it’s very high-tech, and has some amazing features that really brings the outdoors in (large windows, open sections, retractable roof, high ceilings, etc.)

On the other hand the $1.2 billion dollar stadium requires a massive amount of the earth’s resources to construct and an exorbitant amount of energy to to operate.

As the saying goes, “everything is bigger in Texas” - and they mean it. On Saturday night we visited the “world’s largest Honky Tonk”, a 127,000 square ft venue in Fort Worth Texas featuring multiple concert stages, professional bull riding, billiards, casino, line dancing, and more.

Cowboys Stadium is no different – it boasts itself as the largest domed stadium in the world – with a capacity for 110,000 people (including 80,000 seats). It also has the world’s largest column-free interior, and perhaps most significantly - it has the world’s largest video screen stretching from 20 yard line to 20 yard line.

The video screen is 160 feet wide by 72 feet high and consists of 10,584,064 LED lights, consuming 635,000 watts. It provides a 1080P resolution - though the screen may seem even sharper than 1080P because of Diamon Vision’s “Dynamic Pixel” technology which smoothens out the picture between pixel clusters. Guinness World Records certifies the screen as the “World’s Largest High-Definition Video Display”.

Here are some photos of the screen to give you some perspective (though it seems much larger in real life than in the photos):

… and here’s a video I quickly stitched together of some video clips I took to provide you a quick tour of the stadium:

Is it really worth the impact it has on the earth simply to watch a sporting event? Was the old stadium no longer effective? Did they really need to build a new stadium and tear down the old one? Is a 60-yard dual-sided video screen really necessary?

These are the thoughts going through my mind while attending such an extravagant venue. To football fans the impact on the earth doesn’t matter because for them football is bigger than life. There’s no way you can argue anything to the contrary.

To my Dad, this was the best day of his life – a dream come true. Fifty years of his life as a Cowboys fan flashed before his eyes as he entered Cowboys stadium. How can I possibly criticize something so close to his heart just because I hold a different view?

To me, I can’t help but be amazed by the stadium and in particular the video screen, but I have a hard time accepting this as something positive in our society. So-called “progress” is only an excuse for people to consume more, leaving a trail of destruction along the way.

I am constantly assessing my needs versus my wants and I could never see myself spending my time watching sports for any other reason than to spend time with family or friends. I would prefer to play a sport than watch it on TV or attend a game.

This may seem idealistic. I can assure you that life would be simpler for me if I viewed things differently – I wouldn’t be in a constant internal battle between accepting society as it is versus speaking out when I feel something isn’t right.

I would rather walk through a park or ride a bike or paddle a kayak or read a book or throw a Frisbee or talk politics than watch any kind of sporting event whatsoever.

But it’s hard for me to rationalize something that I’m not passionate about. Football is to my father as biking or kayaking is to me. Watching a tear stream down my father’s face when he entered the stadium is enough to tell the other side of the story - it’s 50 years of his life - 50 years of memories, of ups and downs.

What more could I ask for this weekend than a happy father spending a weekend with his 3 children watching his favourite football team in their home city? Not much.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Traveling Water Bottles

2009-11-01T01:23:00.001-04:00

Packing for travel is an art: you don’t want to forget anything, but at the same time you don’t want to take hours to do it.

Over the past 3.5 years of working for a consulting firm, I have periodically traveled to client sites, attending conferences and for training. As a result, I have become very proficient in packing as I found out Thursday evening while packing last-minute for a vacation I’m taking in Texas this weekend.

My brother, sister and I flew down to Dallas to meet my father (who lives in Wisconsin) to celebrate his 60th birthday and attend a Dallas Cowboys football game (my Dad is a long-time Cowboys fan but has never seen them play in Dallas).

One of the first items I pack while traveling is a stainless steel water bottle (coincidentally, I had one stolen from me earlier this week while attending a work meeting).

While traveling, most people resort to drinking bottled water, but this is completely unnecessary in most situations. Only in extreme circumstances will I purchase a bottle of water and I would estimate that I consume no more than 5 plastic bottles of water each year.

Bringing a stainless steel bottled water with you allows you to refill it at the hotel by either using tap water, or by filling up at the hotel-provided filtration systems (most exercise rooms have said device).

I don’t leave home without mine and it has proven to be extremely convenient every time.

We can all do little things to reduce the amount of waste we generate and plastic water bottles are an easy target and can be cut out of our lives very easily. A travel bottle can help keep yourself hydrated while traveling and can help to reduce your footprint.

Next time you travel, remember to pack some extra undergarments and a reusable bottle of water for good measure.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Grocery Shopping Like a Champ

2009-10-24T15:09:00.001-04:00

Today, Saturday October 24th is the first annual “International Day of Climate Action”, organized by 350.org, an activist organization with the goal of cutting atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions to below 350 ppm (the current level is 389 ppm of CO2). There are more than 3000 events happening around the world in 160 countries.

In recognition of International Day of Climate Action, I would like to share a product that has proved incredibly convenient for grocery shopping since I purchased it earlier this year.

In the photo above you can see the basket I bring with me when I do my grocery shopping. The “Basket On-The-Go” is produced by planetforward.ca and can hold just under 50 lbs of groceries.

It’s great for those heavy canned items that can put wear on your typical reusable shopping bag and provides a soft grip handle for comfort. It can help you transport your groceries from the store to your home, or you can use it while you are walking the aisles in the store.

The Planet Forward basket on-the-go folds up and weighs a mere 2 ounces.

Planet Forward provides “Sustainable Essentials for the Urban Environmentalists” and encourages its customers to think outside the (recycling) box and to use products that don’t generate waste.

With thousands of “green” products on the market, consumers should be aware of “greenwashing”. The Urban Country is committed to promoting products that can help us live more sustainable lifestyles.

The Planet Forward shopping basket can help reduce the amount of waste we generate while at the same time providing convenience in transporting our groceries. The Basket On-The-Go costs $24.99USD and can be purchased online on the Planet Forward website. They also offer an array of other sustainable products.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Note: The Urban Country is not affiliated in any way with Planet Forward and is not being compensated for promoting its products.

All Photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

Diesel Trains Are NOT the Answer

2009-10-22T22:00:00.001-04:00

The downtown Toronto City Centre Airport has been a political hot potato for many years. Airport expansion advocates were pushing for a bridge to the Toronto City Centre airport that current Mayor David Miller quashed when he was first elected in 2003.

Environmentalists and local residents often refer to noise and air pollution as the primary reason for disapproval of the airport’s existence in this seemingly never-ending battle.

As someone who cares deeply about the current state of our world and the impact we have on the environment, the island airport has been a source of contradicting feelings for me. Here’s why:

Toronto’s main airport – Pearson International – serves more than 32 million passengers a year (more than 87,000 per day). Thousands of people each day drive or take taxis to Pearson airport – many of which originate from downtown Toronto, 25 kilometres away.

Is it such a bad thing to potentially take hundreds or thousands of cars off our roads by offering flights from the downtown airport? Hundreds of thousands of people live within 30 minutes walking distance from the downtown airport.

Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to commute a few kilometres to a downtown airport rather than driving or taking a taxi 25 kilometres to Pearson airport?

The passenger airliner operating out of the downtown airport in Toronto – Porter Airlines – operates a fleet of modern Bombardier Q400 turboprop planes – known for their low emissions, fuel efficiency and quietness compared to your typical jetliner.

Why wouldn’t the city promote the downtown airport for shorter flights within North America?

Well, as I mentioned previously, pollution is the major reason for disapproval. I guess having thousands of people sit in taxis on the way to the airport 25KMs away doesn’t contribute to pollution. Or what about the pollution caused by Pearson airport? I guess that doesn’t matter because it’s “not in my backyard”.

So how do we solve the problem of pollution and gridlock caused by all the cars driving to Pearson airport?

Many Torontonians think that the city needs a rail link from downtown to Pearson airport and the proposed plan to provide this service has been approved and is moving forward. But at what cost?

The rail link being proposed by Metrolinx involves hundreds of diesel engine trains traveling the 25KM from downtown to Pearson airport. The media often cites 400 trains per day, a seemingly high number given this would result in a train leaving every 3 and a half minutes, 24 hours a day (or a train leaving both Union station and the airport every 7 minutes).

Is this really the solution that we want? The Clean Train Coalition doesn’t think so.

Let’s think about this for a moment. Our solution to reduce gridlock and pollution is to run 400 diesel trains a day, primarily supporting downtown residents and visitors only? Does this really sound environmentally friendly? It sounds ridiculous to me.

If the trains were electrified, at least we would be adding less pollution to our skies, but running 400 diesel trains will only add more pollution.

Okay, okay, I’m not being totally fair because recently, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment (MOE) recently mandated the trains use cleaner Tier 4 diesel technology for the 400 daily trains - a more fuel efficient and environmentally-friendly technology (that doesn’t even exist yet). Yes, you heard it - we’re investing in a “less dirty” technology that doesn’t even exist yet.

Blah, blah, blah, “clean diesel”, “clean coal”, these are just oxymorons.

But still, something doesn’t add up. Our solution to reduce pollution is to run 400 diesel trains a day, using diesel fuel, and a technology that doesn’t even exist.

I have a simpler solution. Expand service at the downtown Toronto City Centre airport for flights within North America, and invest in electric technology that already exists to bridge a connection to Pearson airport.

All we would need to do create an above-ground electric rail link from Kipling subway station to extend an existing underground electrified system to the airport – a mere 11 kilometres away.

We have already invested billions of dollars in our subway system. Why not expand that system to reach the airport?

Over the years I have been on many business trips where I needed to fly. Almost exclusively, I ride the subway system - reaching the airport in merely 45-60 minutes from my downtown King West residence. An extension to the subway would cut that time down and improve reliability.

Alternatively, for flights within North America, I could walk to downtown airport - a mere 2KM away from my home.

Sometimes the simpler, cheaper solution is the better solution. At least until we are ready to invest in full electrification.

Photo courtesy of Never Was An Arrow II

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Shawano Vying to be America’s First LEED Gold Certified Elementary School

2009-10-18T23:51:00.001-04:00

All photos courtesy of @somervilleinc / Twitter

As we approach the holiday season when people are more inclined to over-consume, we should take a moment to reflect on how sustainable our lifestyles are (or aren’t). More importantly, we should consider the example we’re setting for our children – the future leaders who will be responsible for cleaning up the mess we’ve left behind.

Is it in our children’s best interest for us to teach them that an over-consuming lifestyle is acceptable?

Well I came across a great example of something they are doing in Wisconsin that teaches our children a more sustainable way of living.

The new Shawano Elementary School is under construction and they are seeking to achieve the LEED Gold status – the first elementary school in the United States to do so.

To achieve the LEED Gold status, the school would need a total of 60-79 points under the following main categories:

Sustainable Sites (26 possible points)
Water Efficiency (10 possible points)
Energy and Atmosphere (35 possible points)
Materials and Resources (14 possible points)
Indoor Environmental Quality (15 possible points)
Innovation in Design (6 possible points)
Regional Priority (4 possible points)

The project is being led by Miron Construction, a company that seems to have extensive LEED qualifications. Surprisingly, the Shawano school hasn’t received a great amount of media exposure, and it has been arduous to find detailed information about this project.

Thankfully the architect (Somerville Architect) has posted some photos on their twitter account. Here is the geothermal system under construction:

It’s great to see these types of projects happening, and there is no better way to achieve sustainability than to set an example for our children that it is important for us to care about their future.

Now if only we could convince parents to go through the holiday season without filling our homes with more junk.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Living a Comfortable Urban Life Sans Automobile

2009-10-15T23:54:00.001-04:00

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

In 2006 there were around 250 million automobiles in the United States. That is an average of about one car for every 1.2 people. Worldwide there were 590 million cars in 2002, or an average of about 1 car for every 10 people. As the economies in heavily populated countries such as India and China grow, that number will continue to increase.

Cars are simply not a sustainable method of transportation for a world with close to 7 billion people. Cars create pollution, consume vast amounts of the earth’s resources to build and operate, take up enormous (and valuable) space, and they encourage unsustainable suburban lifestyles where people travel hundreds of kilometres to work.

But cars aren’t going anywhere – they are here to stay.

The solution isn’t to eliminate cars completely – they will always have a purpose. The solution is to minimize car usage by providing alternate means of transportation that is so appealing that people can’t resist.

Many people in car-centric North America think that electrifying automobiles is the solution – but this is only a small first step and fails as a sustainable option until we eliminate coal-burning and nuclear power plants – and instead produce energy from 100% renewable sources. Not to mention there simply isn’t enough space to support everyone in the world owning a car.

For over 7 years now I have been trialing other methods of transportation as an alternative to the automobile. I’ve tried motorcycling, rollerblading, commuter trains, public transit, walking, and cycling.

Yamaha XT 225cc circa 2004

Public transit is a great way to provide an alternative to cars, but transit requires massive up-front investment and huge operating costs and an extensive amount of electricity to operate.

In Toronto, only 60% of total public transit operating costs are paid for by rider fares and in the United States it’s around 40%. That doesn’t even include the billions of dollars of capital investment that state/provincial and federal governments pay on behalf of taxpayers to build the infrastructure to support public transit. In other words, it’s not cheap.

Although it’s expensive, public transit is still extremely important. But it would be wiser to invest some of that money in infrastructure that supports the second most sustainable method of commuting (next to walking): the bicycle.

Just ask anyone in Amsterdam or Copenhagen what the best way to get around is, and they will tell you it’s cycling. It’s healthy, it’s cheap, it’s fun and it’s sustainable.

Many cycling opponents in Toronto refer to the winter climate as the primary deterrent to cycling, but Copenhagen isn’t much warmer. In December Toronto’s average low is –4C while Copenhagen is 0C. Toronto’s coldest month of January has an average low of –7.3C compared to Copenhagen’s –1C.

Furthermore, Montreal is one of Canada’s best cycling cities and they experience an average low of –10.4C, and –14.7C in December and January respectively. Cycling in sub-zero temperatures is not as uncomfortable as one might think (snowstorms aside). The pedaling helps to warm you up, and the constant action keeps you distracted from thinking about the cold.

For the last few years I was primarily riding my racing bicycle and my fiancé Han’s vintage commuter bicycle. Neither of these bicycles provided me a great deal of comfort or convenience in the city, so I often opted to walk instead of cycling.

Recently I purchased a second-hand Trek hybrid commuter bicycle ($180) that has afforded me both comfort and convenience for cycling around the city.

Last weekend I outfitted my bike with a rear basket ($35) and a second-hand kid’s chariot ($100) to tow heavier loads.

On Wednesday morning I traveled to my ice hockey game on my bike, with my hockey stick and full equipment in tow.

On the weekend I took my Jack Russell Terrier on a bicycle trail to a far away park, something that was previously inconvenient - often resulting in leaving my dog at home.

The purpose of all this is not only to keep active, stay healthy and reduce my impact on the environment – but to demonstrate that we can live comfortable lifestyles while reducing our impact on the environment.

My goal is to encourage people to consider this alternative method of transportation, and to permanently bury the stigma that is often attached to cycling that it’s for people who can’t afford a car - or that it’s too cold, or it’s too dangerous.

These fabricated myths only create more barriers to enter this form of healthy and sustainable living.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

KFC’s 60 Million Buckets of Waste

2009-10-12T19:09:00.000-04:00

Photo ‘KFC, Paris’ by sophiexphotography / Flickr

KFC’s recent marketing campaign highlights a significant issue in our fast-food society: unnecessary waste.

The latest commercial starts out with a black man with a white background holding a bucket of chicken where he nods to the camera and gleefully declares, “I’m in”. More people quickly join this man while holding their own buckets of chicken, stating: “We’re in too”, and “I’m a part of it” - as if eating at KFC is akin to belonging to some sort of secret society.

A few seconds later there are dozens, then thousands, then millions of people lined up to declare their own affiliation with the secret KFC society.

The purpose of this commercial is to highlight the fact that more than 60 million people have eaten the all new Kentucky “grilled” chicken that KFC launched back in April 2009 when health-conscious Americans finally generated enough demand for KFC to offer a health(ier) alternative to deep fried chicken.

They are calling the latest marketing campaign “grilled nation”, and there is even evidence of a gradual shift from KFC to being known as KGC. It doesn’t quite have the same ring, but perhaps after years of repetition we will become more accustomed to it.

It’s possible I see things differently than most people, but when I see millions of people standing in an endless line - each carrying their own bucket of chicken - all I can think about is the amount of unnecessary waste generated by KFC and other fast food chains.

A major root cause of the damage we are causing to the planet is laziness. We are too lazy to cook so we eat fast food; we are too lazy to walk or bike so we drive everywhere; we are too lazy to carry food containers or coffee mugs, so we use disposable cups and food packaging.

I can’t blame KFC for basking in such a radical extension to a core menu that hasn’t changed a whole lot over their 50+ years of operations. A KFC grilled chicken breast only has 4 grams of fat compared to 21 grams of fat in the Colonel’s original deep fried recipe - so there are substantial health benefits to the new recipe.

But what we really need is a radical change to how we handle fast food waste, and the first fast food chain who is progressive on reducing its waste will win the hearts and minds of eco-conscious individuals – a core value that is spreading to more people each day.

There are several ways that a fast food chain can actively reduce its waste footprint. One option would be to offer dine-in plates, cups and cutlery with on-premises dish washing. If only half of KFC’s 12 million daily customers were served on re-usable plates, it would cut their customer waste generation immediately in half.

Another revolutionary (yet simple) idea would be to offer discounts for customers who bring their own re-usable containers. Furthermore, they could sell re-usable eco-friendly containers to customers who don’t bring their own. This could accommodate the other half of those 12 million daily customers.

Lastly, I suggested earlier this year that fast-food chains could use fallen leaves as sustainable food packaging as an alternative to paper or plastic.

KFC has proven that a fast-food restaurant can evolve to offer more health-friendly options for those health-conscious individuals. Perhaps we could take a similar approach to accommodate eco-conscious individuals. When enough of us care, fast-food restaurants will have to choose whether they want to evolve or die.

When that day arrives, I just may decide to try KFC again.

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Cyclists Paving the Way for Ungrateful Drivers

2009-10-08T22:31:00.001-04:00

Photo by earcos / Flickr

Sitting at a red light, a car driver yells out his window “Excuse me, is this the bicycle lane?”. The cyclist passively shrugs and slowly rolls his bike closer to the curb. The light turns green and the driver stomps on the gas pedal flying past the cyclist with less than a foot in between.

Many drivers feel that cyclists have no right to use the roads because drivers pay for the roads through fuel taxes and license fees. This couldn’t be further from the truth and reminds me of a modern-era tobacco industry-like outright fabrication.

Last week a National Post bigot columnist wrote a grossly ignorant and irresponsible article suggesting that cyclists should be licensed and taxed.

“But bike riders pay nothing, even though the cost of urban bicycle infrastructure, operating risks and potential liabilities are mounting. Bikers are getting a free ride that all non-bikers are paying for.”

I find it extremely sad that a journalist working for a national newspaper with 200,000+ daily circulation would make such a claim. At best it’s sheer ignorance; at worst it’s a contrived lie - both leaving Terence Corcoran absent of any sort of journalistic conduct.

The truth is, cyclists pay more than their fair share for roads. In fact, in many cases cyclists are actually subsidizing the cost of roads for drivers. Imagine that Terence, cyclists are subsidizing the cost of the roads for you – not to mention cyclists take up less space, reduce gridlock and don’t pollute.

But telling this to Terence would be fruitless. This is the same writer who made the outrageous claim that cyclists should be held accountable for the carbon emissions that they output from their breath while cycling. If this was an attempt at humour, Mr. Corcoran failed miserably.

“And then there's the carbon footprint. When car drivers cruise Yonge Street on Saturday night, their metabolisms are more or less flat-lined. They just sit there, burning up little energy personally but paying for the cost of their automobile's carbon footprint via taxes and fees. Bike riders grinding up the same route burn up a lot more carbohydrates, which their bodies convert into carbon dioxide and exhale, adding to their carbon footprint. The volumes are small, but it all adds up, and bicyclists don't pay.”

Let’s get back to the topic on hand since this dense National Post columnist doesn’t deserve any more of our time.

A 2004 study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute found that cyclists and pedestrians are subsidizing drivers:

“Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes,
people who rely primarily on nonmotorized modes tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.”

Let’s look at how roads are funded. It is true that drivers support a substantial amount of the funding for highways. The Victoria study found that about 60% of highway funding comes from fuel taxes and vehicle taxes and 40% comes from general taxes and bonds. But more than 90% of cycling and walking happens not on highways, but on local roads - so the highway argument is inconsequential.

When we look at local roads, the study found that “in 2002, $27.9 billion dollars were spent on U.S. local roads, of which only $3.1 billion was from user fees.” The other $24.8 billion dollars were paid for by general taxes, of which cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all pay.

Cyclists and pedestrians pay income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (directly if owners and indirectly if renters) and other taxes that contribute to local roads – all while automobiles are putting substantially more wear-and-tear on these roads, driving the costs even higher.

If anyone should be outraged it should be those who don’t drive but pay into the vast funds that subsidize drivers.

Instead of spreading lies, those in the media should be encouraging what they know in their heart to be the better way.

While sitting at the red light, with a streetcar directly to my left - another cyclist sits between me and the streetcar. The driver of a car behind us sticks his head out the window and says to the cyclist to my left, “is this the bike lane?”. The cyclist grudgingly rolls his bike to the curb without responding to the driver.

I turn my head to the left and say, “Excuse me, is this the asshole lane?”

James D. Schwartz is the editor of The Urban Country and appears on most Sundays and Thursdays, and sometimes in between. View all of James’ articles here.

Social Change: the Forgotten Contributor

2009-10-04T20:59:00.001-04:00

Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

A recent ABC News article claims that the financial crisis has driven down global carbon emissions, leading to the largest fall in emissions in more than 30 years.

Although this article concedes that carbon trading schemes – such as those implemented within the European Union - are likely a contributing factor to reducing emissions, it fails to acknowledge one of the most important and effective aspects of the environmental movement: social change.

Fair enough, I mean, a massive change in society’s concern for mother nature is not something that can be easily quantified. But it is irresponsible to fail to even mention this important phenomenon.

I agree with the assessment in this article that a rise in emissions correlates strongly to a rise in the economy or the wealth of a nation. People consume (and waste) more when they have more disposable income. But a decline in emissions doesn’t have to only be caused by a declining economy.

Let’s look at some potential causes of a decline in emissions:

Declining economic wealth – I don’t disagree that this is a strong contributor – it clearly will impact carbon emissions.
Carbon trading schemes – Since the intention of these programs is to reduce carbon emissions they should have a positive effect on reducing emissions.
Improved technology – We can’t ignore that technological advancements can (and do) contribute to reducing emissions.
Social awareness – This one is generally overlooked in the media, but can have an enormous impact on reducing emissions.

The social awareness aspect is the very reason this website - and thousands of other websites alike – exist. We’re here to increase awareness. The Urban Country’s objective after all is to “help readers (and ourselves) become more aware about how we can all help to make a positive impact.”

Often overlooked in the media, a change in society is the only way we will achieve the lofty goal of living truly sustainable lifestyles and minimizing and eventually eliminating our footprint to the earth – if mankind survives long enough.

A deep recession isn’t the answer to solving this challenge, but it can however remind us that we are living beyond our means, and certainly beyond our needs.

The rise in environmental awareness can be seen all around us. The President of the United States of America admits that something has to be done: “We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations”.

I have personally seen changes in people’s attitudes all around me and I feel we are beyond the 5-year-old arguments about whether climate change is real or not. The bottom line is that we are on a path that isn’t sustainable and we need to change our lifestyles.

Our air and water is polluted, wildlife threatened, landfills are filling up, and we are consuming massive amounts of non-renewable resources simply to sustain this “middle class” lifestyle that has become the norm in our society.

From the frequent news articles promoting environmentalism, to the CBC’s 1 million acts of green, to the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in “green technology” – initiatives that promote the preservation of the environment are becoming extremely common in today’s society.

It’s a good feeling to see the majority of grocery shoppers finally using reusable bags. Most people I know avoid bottled water, and reusable coffee mugs are far more common now than 5 years ago. I see a lot of people doing their best to drive less, bike to work more, and using public transit when they can.

Buildings that meet the LEED Gold rating are going up in record numbers, green roofs are becoming more common, wind farms are popping up all over North America and Google is renting sheep to mow its lawn.

In the past, people would rarely question the expectation set by the corporate marketing geniuses. But now, more than ever people are questioning their own consumption. Do I really need a new car every two years? Do I really need to fill the laundry detergent cup up to the recommended level?

No, probably not. Your two-year-old car still gets you from point A to point B; and if you use a quarter of the recommended amount of laundry detergent, you will find your clothes will still end up clean.

Photo by midnightglory / Flickr

We have to realize that auto manufacturers tell us that we need to buy new cars every two years because they want to maintain high profits in a more competitive market. We shouldn’t succumb to this level of consumption just because Ford said we should - it takes us so far beyond what our needs really are.

These are the types of questions that I see people questioning more and more these days. You might say it’s an indirect result of the recession, but there is no denying that our society is changing and we are perhaps only a decade (or less) away from hitting an environmental tipping point where we will see major changes in how the average person views mother nature.

It is a very exciting time for us to celebrate the small accomplishments we’ve made and continue in a positive direction.

Tell The Urban Country what you’re doing to reduce your footprint.

Recycling That Delivers...er...Takes Away

2009-10-01T22:13:00.002-04:00

Photo by kino-eye / Flickr

Living as I do in a high-rise apartment, I've often been disappointed by the fact that my recycling options have been limited. For example, composting my organic waste is simply not viable since I don't have a garden, there is no green bin collection scheduled in my area, and I doubt that the users of my local city park would appreciate me spreading a bunch of partly-decomposed garbage throughout the trails.

So this last weekend, I was elated when the city made a municipal recycling program available to my apartment complex - the ElectroVan and HazMobile.

In spite of being named like a pair of ludicrous Marvel-franchise superheroes, the goal of these programs is to extend hazardous household waste and technology-recycling to multi-family dwellings.

Two large trucks come with trained operators on a weekend and park in an open area adjacent to the numerous high-rises in the area. Residents are given a couple weeks notice to assemble their used paints and solvents or graveyard-ready hardware and are encouraged to walk their wastes to the trucks who courteously take the products away from their owner's concern.

Not only does this allow for proper capture and treatment of materials that should not find their way into landfills, it reduces the carbon footprint of collecting these materials at the same time!

According to earth911.com, "(e)lectronic waste accounts for 70 percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills. In addition to valuable metals like aluminium, electronics often contain hazardous materials like mercury. When placed in a landfill, these materials (even in small doses) can contaminate soil as well as drinking water."

For example, cathode-ray tubes used in large, non-flat panel televisions contain between 4 - 8 pounds of lead per unit. Mercury, a highly toxic and carcinogenic element is found in computer batteries and circuit boards. The sad fact is that event very small amounts of lead and mercury in landfill can seep into water tables, and become aggregated through the food chain to rather toxic levels that impact our entire eco-system.

And think about it a little more - I've had a dead inkjet printer/fax sitting in my foyer for the past three months, waiting for me to drive it to a computer drop-off depot. That's a trip of about 20km (there and back) that I and any one of the 5,000 neighbours (I live in a very densely packed collection of high-rise apartments) of mine might make in the course of a year. That's roughly 35 tonnes of CO2 emissions at an upper limit just to recycle dead electronics!

This week, Mayor David Miller announced that he would not be seeking re-election as Mayor of Toronto. While he has had a fair share of detractors over the six years that he has been Mayor, he has certainly done much to foster a greener Toronto and he has set a high bar for his successors with programs like the ElectroVan and HazMobile.

Charlie Sheen’s Conspiracy Theory

2009-09-27T21:10:00.001-04:00

Photo “September 11th” by hankplank / Flickr

Charlie Sheen has been on the offensive lately, demanding answers to questions surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001. Careful to distance himself from being just another “deluded Hollywood liberal”, Sheen simply wants answers from the government and is demanding a “truly independent congressional investigation into 9/11 and its aftermath”.

Sheen is using his celebrity to attempt to garner the attention of President Obama. However Sheen lost any credibility he had when his “partner-in-crime”, Inforwars.com’s Alex Jones posted a fake 20-minute interview between Charlie Sheen and President Obama.

Not that there is anything wrong with posting a fake “mock” interview, but it should certainly be identified as such. The problem with Jones’ fake interview is that when the interview was first published there was no mention that it was a fake. This was obviously a cheap, deceptive publicity ploy that backfired.

Under pressure from more credible news agencies, Sheen/Jones inserted a line at the end of the fake interview stating “Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.”

I must admit that I was fooled when I first read it. I found it odd however that there were few media agencies reporting on Sheen’s “interview with the President” while searching on the topic. This would certainly generate a lot of buzz in the media if Sheen did in fact sit down with President Obama.

To further confuse and deceive readers, the fake interview includes the following paragraph at the beginning:

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44^th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

Although the fake interview is extremely deceptive, they did a good job in their characterization of the President and his answers were very realistic and believable.

As someone who has read the 9/11 Commission report, I have a very high level of interest in the investigation of 9/11.

In the fake interview, Sheen lays out 20 bullet points for the President to consider. Here are a few (paraphrased):

Why wasn’t the 9/11 Commission report interested in the “Doomsday plane” that was spotted and video taped on 9/11?
WTC building 7 appears to be a controlled demolition.
Three months before 9/11 Dick Cheney usurped exclusive control of NORAD and didn’t give the shoot down orders until 10:10-10:20AM. Three months after 9/11 he gave control of NORAD back to the military.
In 2004, 2 New York firefighters claiming they had found black boxes at the World Trade Center but were told to keep their mouth shut by the FBI.
Hundreds of witnesses described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.
Ted Olsen said his wife called him twice from the hijacked airplane when technology to use cell phones from high altitudes was not created until 2004 and there were no airplane phones on her airplane.
The Pentagon impact zone is only 16-feet wide, even though the Boeing 757 is 125ft in width.
What is the meaning behind the folllowing quote attributed to Dick Cheney?
- “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?””
Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11^th on September 10^th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.
The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cell phones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.

Although I think Sheen has some good questions, I don’t agree with the conclusion that he’s alluding to - and it’s not because I believe the US Government is transparent and not deceptive.

At worst, Sheen is suggesting the US Government orchestrated the events of 9/11. At best he’s suggesting that the US Government had prior knowledge of the impending attack and turned a blind eye and even engaged in clandestine subversion to disrupt actions that could have prevented the attack.

First of all, I think we can completely dismiss the first allegation – that the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 attack. In order for the US Government to orchestrate the attack and its cover-up, thousands of personnel would need to be involved. Coordinating a planned demolition of two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world and keeping it secret from the buildings tenants is no small feat – and that’s only one small aspect of the allegation.

We’re talking about a government that can’t even keep a foreign coup d'état secret. To give credit to the government for coordinating the events of 9/11 and keeping it secret puts an tremendous level of faith in the ability, efficiency and effectiveness of the US Government’s operations.

Addressing the second allegation – that the US Government had prior knowledge of the impending attack and did nothing to prevent it is also a damning allegation. Like the first allegation, it suggests that certain officials within the US Government would be willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent civilians in order to win over its populace to support an offensive on two countries in the Middle East that provide a strategic advantage in the balance of world power.

This allegation is perhaps more realistic than the first. Turning a blind eye to known events requires far less personnel than actually orchestrating the attack – making it far easier to keep a secret from the general public.

I’m certain that there exists classified information about 9/11 that would be embarrassing for the government to release. What if the people of the United States found out that the US Military was in fact training at least 5 of the hijackers to fly airplanes? That doesn’t mean the government knew they would later become hijackers or that a plan to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center existed.

But it is substantial enough that releasing this information to the general public would be a political disaster, even if released by President Obama.

For this reason, there is classified information that will never be released to the public about the 9/11 attacks - even if the President has the best of intentions to be transparent and open to his people. It’s like a husband who starts lying to his wife, and has to continue digging deeper into his web of lies. After a while a small disclosure about an innocent lie could compromise the husbands bigger lie and that would be the end.

The US Government is no different – it has to engage in some level of deception in order to retain its status as the world’s superpower.

Having said that, my opinion on the events of 9/11 is that the government was sloppy in handling the situation due to complex bureaucracy and lack of cooperation between government entities. There is no doubt in my mind that the government’s hands aren’t completely clean on the events that led to 9/11, but I don’t think government officials willingly authorized or allowed mass murder on their own people.

Regardless of government’s involvement in the events of 9/11, the tragedy was certainly exploited as a means to achieve the vision laid out by the Project for the New American Century – a now inactive group that many of Bush’s senior administration members belonged to. PFNAC made no attempt to hide the fact that they wanted a war in Iraq to protect “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil”. They asked for a war and they got one.

I would love nothing more than to see Sheen’s questions answered by President Obama – but I’m not going to hold my breath. We may never know the answers to Sheen’s questions.

Maybe we don’t want to know the truth.

Second-Hand Secret to Sustainability?

2009-09-23T23:55:00.001-04:00

Photo “Harlem Trash” by loan Sameli / Flickr

The Urban Country explores whether purchasing second-hand products can help save ourselves, our society, and the world as we know it.

In a speech yesterday to a special summit on climate change at the United Nations, President Obama claimed that fighting climate change is more difficult during the recession: “We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work”.

I respectfully disagree with the President. The recession provides an opportunity for us as consumers to assess our needs and look at ways to reduce our consumption – if for no other reason than to cut down our expenses in difficult economic times.

It’s no coincidence that the world’s wealthiest nations have the largest ecological footprints and consume the most resources from the earth. If you take away some of that wealth (recession), the natural result would be less consumption.

The US Government is in a strong position to help stimulate the economy by investing in “Green Technology” – a pledge that Obama had made prior to the election last November and was enacted in the form of a (very progressive) stimulus bill that was signed on February 17th.

At the UN summit, China ‘stole the show’, flaunting its $100 billion+ stimulus package dedicated to clean energy. The US isn’t far behind however – Obama’s stimulus bill commits at least $78 billion toward green initiatives. The absence of Stephen Harper only affirms Harper’s indifference to environmental initiatives.

Government investment in green initiatives makes a great story, but addressing these tough challenges in a difficult economy isn’t only the government’s obligation. There’s much more that can be done on an individual level to address climate change and our deteriorating environment.

During a deep recession, people tend to find ways to reuse products rather than buying new – a virtue of the Chinese that I admired while visiting China. In China, very little goes to waste – they find ways to reuse products that would end up in landfills in North America.

Here in North America, the success of Craigslist has most definitely had a substantial impact on reducing and diverting waste from landfills – a possible unintentional side-effect of an otherwise conventional business venture.

Within a few hours I can easily find a buyer who would be thrilled to take a product from me that I no longer need - at a fair price. Likewise, I can find a second-hand product that I’m looking for - with very little effort – as an alternative to contributing to the overconsumption that has plagued our society.

Think about a product’s lifecycle: it starts out as raw materials that are extracted from the earth before being manufactured into a useful product. The product is then shipped (typically overseas) to a satellite distribution warehouse before being shipped to a retail store.

Each stage in the development and distribution of the product uses a substantial amount of energy and resources. But it’s not over yet - at the end of its useful life that product is either shipped to a landfill or down-cycled into a lesser-quality product - consuming even more energy.

Buying a second-hand product eliminates the majority of the environmental costs that are required to produce the product new - not to mention it cuts the amount of waste in half. The second-hand product would likely have ended up in a landfill and you’ve eliminated the environmental impact associated with developing a new product.

As we grind through a difficult economy, we should be asking ourselves whether we really need to engage in the consumerism that society prescribes us. A second-hand product usually has more character than a new product and it can give you comfort in knowing that not only did you save some money – but you also helped reduce the impact on our precious planet.

Tell The Urban Country what you’re doing to reduce your footprint.

The Environmental Cost of Tickets

2009-09-20T10:59:00.001-04:00

(Photo “Return Ticket to Hell” by aslakr / Flickr )

A friend and fellow contributor to The Urban Country made an interesting comment the other day. Nariman feels that anything that requires a ticket is outrageous. Be it driving, airplanes, concerts, sports, musicals, cruises, opera, etc.

This may seem an extreme stance, but the idea does have some merit – many activities that require a ticket can be viewed as unnecessary indulgences that more often than not have a substantial impact on the environment.

U2 has been recently criticized for their impact on the environment with their extravagant production on their 360 tour.

Last year we profiled a band called the Ginger Ninjas who travelled 5000 miles on bicycles, generating electricity for their concert as they pedaled.This obviously could never work for a large band like U2, who paid $40 million dollars to construct the stage for their tour. But being conscious of the impact is the first step and U2 is actively looking for ways that they can cut down on the footprint caused by their tour.

I believe that human survival depends on us simplifying our lives and reducing the wasteful consumerism that has plagued us over the last several decades.

Cut-throat-style capitalism and bullish (and effective) marketing has established the expectation in our society that we need to engage in a level of consumerism that simply isn’t sustainable.

I don’t think we need to live like cavemen – everybody needs to indulge in their own pleasures. But if we do these things in moderation, it will help reduce our impact on the earth.

Here are 5 activities that can offer a substitute next time you’re thinking about indulging yourself on something that requires a ticket:

1. Go for a walk in the park

It’s life’s simple pleasures that are often the most tranquil, romantic and memorable.

Nariman asks, “What’s better than a walk in a nice park?”

(Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country)

2. It’s raining outside? Pull out a deck of cards!

Playing cards is a great, low-impact activity that everyone can enjoy.

(Photo by Somerslea / Flickr)

3. Play a musical instrument

Banging away on your bongo to a Bob Marley tune or singing “Sweet Caroline” with your acoustic guitar is a great way to have fun without harming old earth.

(Photo by DMull / Flickr)

4. Dust off your bicycle and go for a pleasure ride

Cycling is a great way to improve your health while enjoying the outdoors. Many cities have trails that provide exclusive use without the danger of automobiles.

(Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country)

5. Paddle in a canoe or kayak

Next time your rich friend asks you to go out in his or her yacht, think about the impact that the big engines are going to have on the environment and consider a low-impact activity such as kayaking or canoeing instead. However, if your friend brings the bikini swimsuit team, then you might want to reconsider.

(Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country)

Bicycles and Sidewalks Can Get Along

2009-09-16T19:41:00.001-04:00

Bicycles and sidewalks can (and do) get along well together. All it takes is a little bit of common sense, etiquette and mutual respect.

Two very unfortunate incidents in Toronto have provoked additional tension between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Two months ago I would have thought it absurd that tensions could escalate in a city where many drivers already have contempt for anyone who straddles a bicycle seat.

The first incident happened on August 6th. A woman in Toronto was struck by a 15-year-old cyclist (on a sidewalk) and died from her head injuries. The second incident happened on August 31st. A bicycle courier named Darcy Allan Sheppard had an altercation with the former Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant. Witnesses saw Sheppard hanging from the driver’s side door while Bryant drove erratically apparently trying to knock Sheppard off his car. Sheppard was eventually knocked off the car and left for dead before Bryant pulled into a parking lot a block away and called 911.

Surveillance video footage shows what apparently started the altercation: Bryant appears to deliberately run into Sheppard not once, but twice. Sheppard was knocked onto the hood of the car, and then Bryant appears to back up and race off, narrowly missing Sheppard.

Both of these deaths were unnecessary and avoidable.

Myself being a pedestrian, cyclist and driver (in that order), I can appreciate the perspectives from all sides. But the fact to the matter is that the damage that a car can cause to a cyclist or pedestrian far exceeds anything a cyclist or pedestrian could do to a car (short of arming themselves and engaging in urban warfare).

Spacing Magazine’s Matthew Blackett points out in a Toronto Sun article that in the last 5 years, there has only been 1 bike-on-pedestrian death in Toronto, while 13 cyclists and 131 pedestrians have been killed by automobiles.

Too many drivers in Toronto have animosity towards cyclists. The most common excuse for their antipathy is that cyclists don’t obey any of the rules of the road - as if displeasure at a small number of cyclists is a valid excuse for using an automobile as a weapon to threaten all cyclists.

I’ve been in the Washington D.C. area for the last week, renting a bicycle for commuting and sight-seeing. Upon arrival, I was shocked to learn that cycling on the sidewalks is both accepted by society and perfectly legal. The only exception is that you’re not allowed to ride on sidewalks in high-density areas – so I stay off sidewalks on the core downtown streets.

So far, I haven’t worn a helmet and I haven’t even had a single incident where I felt threatened. To put this into perspective, on a typical 30-minute bike ride in Toronto I would feel threatened at least 2-3 times. Including the past weekend, I’ve racked up more than 20 hours of cycling since I arrived 6 days ago.

On my first day here - to my dismay - I had a pedestrian apologize for unwittingly blocking the sidewalk as I approached behind him. Imagine how it must feel for a cyclist from Toronto to have pedestrians willingly share their sidewalks without animosity. Furthermore, while biking on the road, cars always leave me plenty of space and always grant me the right-of-way.

At first I thought it was perhaps because there are less cars here and people aren’t in as much of a hurry. That theory doesn’t hold up however, because traffic here is at least as bad as in Toronto. The greater D.C. area has a population of over 5 million people with many commuting from outside the city and trust me, their commute time is no better than their counterparts in Toronto.

Then I thought that perhaps pedestrian courtesy stems from wider and less busy sidewalks. Again, not necessarily the case. Sidewalks are for the most part comparable in width to Toronto and I’ve had several situations where the pedestrians had to move over to the side to let me by. Not once have I received as much as even a grimace from a pedestrian.

How could this be? How can pedestrians and drivers grant so much courtesy to cyclists?

Perhaps one problem in Toronto is the perception that all cyclists are a menace because of a small minority of cyclists who disobey the law. Many drivers refer to bicycle couriers as being the renegades of the Toronto streets.

But at the end of the day, if a dumb cyclist runs a red light in a high-traffic intersection, guess who’s going to get injured and perhaps die? It’s not going to be the person sitting in the 5000-pound SUV. Furthermore, if a cyclist rolls through a vacant four-way stop, who cares? I don’t understand why drivers in Toronto care if a cyclist breaks a rule if it doesn’t impact them.

There will always be a minority of cyclists who disobey the laws, just like there are a minority of drivers who disobey the laws. It doesn’t give drivers the right to drive around with “bicycle-rage”.

A couple weeks ago in Toronto I saw an angry red-faced driver of a BMW yell at a cyclist for crossing the road in the pedestrian area. How ironic is it for a driver to yell “Hey, don’t you think that’s dangerous?” before dropping his foot on the gas pedal and squeeling his tires, barely missing the cyclist. The cyclist was pedaling no faster than a pedestrian while he crossed the intersection. Who’s the one being dangerous here again?

In Virginia, they post signs that contain “User Ethics” along the pedestrian/bicycle trails along the Potomac river. These ethics define the common courtesy that cyclists and pedestrians should have for each other. In my experience, people generally conform to these ethics and everyone seems to get along as would be expected in a civil society.

Toronto also has shared trails where pedestrians and cyclists generally get along. Why is it then that cyclists who aren’t in a hurry can’t share a low-density sidewalk with pedestrians as long as they are courteous while passing pedestrians? In Virginia, I always slow down to a crawl before passing a pedestrian.

Of course the right answer is that the city should invest in proper bicycle infrastructure so that bicycles can stay off the sidewalks and not feel threatened by angry drivers. It’s already happening in Montreal and New York City and there are model cities in Europe – like Copenhagen - where this has been proven to work.

But in lieu of proper bicycling infrastructure, let’s use Virginia/D.C. as a model for how the different breeds of commuters can get along. The lesson I’ve learned in the last 6 days is that cyclists, drivers and pedestrians need to show each other more courtesy and respect. If this doesn’t happen, more unnecessary injuries and deaths will occur on our streets.

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

Keeping my God, Guns and Healthcare

2009-09-12T18:47:00.001-04:00

Today’s rally at Capitol Hill in Washington DC brought together a passionate group of “patriots” who are fed up with their leader. Hundreds of thousands of people flocked to America’s capital for the last stop in the Tea Party Express – an anti-tax, conservative movement that toured across the country over the last 16 days.

The common theme at the rally seemed to be Obama’s controversial healthcare plan. Everyone I encountered at the rally were staunchly opposed to any form of government-provided healthcare.

Other protesters were rallying to abolish taxes, impeach Obama and some even went as far as to allude to an assassination being the answer to this country’s problems.

Some of the protesters bordered on poor taste in their assessment of their President by painting Hitler moustaches on Obama’s photo, and one comment I overheard was as sad as it was offensive: “That’s insulting to Hitler” (referring to the Hitler moustache on Obama).

The activists at today’s rally believe in a free market system where industries are self-regulating and the government doesn’t interfere in anyone’s business. Many believe that they earned their dollar and they deserve to keep their dollar without the government taking anything away from them.

Given the healthcare debate that’s at the forefront of people’s minds, I had my share of discussions at an Irish pub last night regarding Obama’s plan. It seems that most people believe that a public-run healthcare option would put private healthcare providers out of business.

Coming from Canada, I think that it would be quite to the contrary. Those who can’t afford insurance will use the public option and those who have insurance or are willing to pay to receive better healthcare will go through the private healthcare providers and they will experience shorter wait-times and better technology.

One complaint many people have in Canada is about the long wait times. Many Canadians would prefer to pay for private healthcare to shorten their wait times and have access to better medical technology.

Given the threat that public healthcare presents to private healthcare providers, the lobbyists and PR agencies for these providers are kicking into high gear, saying almost anything to attempt to manipulate public opinion. David Suzuki once said in a speech I attended: “If you want to know what someone’s real motivation is, just check who writes his pay cheque”.

Today’s rally united a group of people who all have a common point of view that Obama, taxes and socialism are all bad things. One protester made a very simple statement to Obama: “Keeping my God, Guns and Healthcare”.

If there’s anything Obama can’t take away, it’s definitely God and guns. But only time will tell how Obama’s healthcare plan will work out for the average American. Like many other times when people opposed change, we’ll probably look back on this and say ‘it didn’t turn out so badly after all’.

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country – Washington DC, Sept 12, 2009

09.09.09: Dubai grows up and gets a Metro

2009-09-10T20:02:00.003-04:00

Dubai Metro on the first day. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Yesterday, on the ninth day of the ninth month of the ninth year of this century at 9:09 pm Dubai matured from a city to metropolis by running its first metro train. The Dubai Metro consists of one partially-functioning Red Line, four under-construction future lines and a network of feeder buses. Once the Red and Green lines are completed they will give Dubai’s Metro the distinction of being the world’s longest driverless rail network. The stations are posh and futuristic looking and the trains are sleek with a maximum speed of 90 km/hr.

This is a major step forward for Dubai to establish itself as a legitimate city and touristic spot. This network was dreamt up when Dubai was on top of the world, being hailed as the Las Vegas of the East and shocking the world with its larger-than-life real estate projects like the man-made palm-shaped islands and the world’s tallest tower, Burj Dubai. However, Dubai is now in the midst of an economic downturn. Hundreds (sometimes thousands) of lower and middle class expatriate families are leaving Dubai each month after either losing their jobs or seeing disheartening losses in business.

The metro does offer hope of making this city more commutable. At the moment Dubai has massive congestion problems due to the sheer volume of cars travelling from the city to the Jabel Ali Free Zone (the main industrial area), a less-than-desirable network of buses and terribly planned infrastructure. Dubai is infamous for creating spectacular malls and buildings and leaving the actual transport infrastructure to connect the various parts of the city as a mere afterthought. I have always imagined someone in their meetings saying ‘Hmmmm, so how will someone get to Burj Dubai?’.

Photo by Kimi Sokhi of the Gulf News Metro Special

The new metro consists of five travel zones and tickets are based on the distance one travels, ranging in price from 0.90 Dhs – 13.00 Dhs (approximately $0.24 – $3.55). Student/senior/child discounts are available. There are also four different types of fare cards one can purchase:

Gold (rechargeable, access to Gold Class Cabins)
Silver (rechargeable)
Blue (same as Silver but personalized with user’s photo)
Red (rechargeable up to 10 journeys)

I am the first one to hail a good public transit system, but I see more than a few issues with the Metro. Not only does it bother me that they have created ‘Gold’ cabins for those that can afford to pay almost double the normal fare, but I doubt that the people who are meant to use the Gold cabins will ever set foot on the Metro. When gas is $0.25/litre, I don’t see the local Emiratis and the upper and middle class expatriates opting for a public transit system that costs about the same and doesn’t quite match up to their chauffeur-driven cars.

Oh and another thing. News flash: Dubai gets HOT! The kind of hot that makes the walk across the street unbearable. Many of the metro station are not in the highly populated spots where people live or want to go. With driving and taxis being reasonably cheap, what would inspire someone to walk in the sweltering heat to a bus station, wait for a bus, take the bus to the metro station, take the train to your destination (almost) and then taking another bus from there?

Photo of Bur Juman station courtesy of Wikipedia

Many of the stations are located near Dubai’s popular malls. However, a majority of the malls that will be connected by metro have started charging for parking! There is either a time-limit on the free parking or you need to show proof of purchase. As a commuter this would deter me from using the metro if I have to pay for parking at my base station. I can also see this backfiring on the malls since it will upset patrons as they cannot stay at a mall for more than 2-3 hours without having to pay for parking. They should be prepared to lose customers such as young teens or housewives that spend their afternoons socializing at malls - a significant part of the Dubai culture. Why not build ample parking for commuters at each station instead of waiting until it becomes a ‘problem’ down the line? Alas, this is indicative of the short-sighted, reactive thinking that the city has become known for.

[side note: another example of their short-sighted, money-making schemes is charging toll on the ONLY highway in the city and all the bridges that connect the old part of the city (Deira) to the new (Bur Dubai) without providing viable alternatives and two years before the start of the metro]

Public transit is a great social equalizer. In Toronto riding the subway is a multicultural experience. People of all ages and backgrounds ride the rocket each day. You can get stuck next to an emo-teen listening to his depressing tunes loud and proud or a mother nursing a baby that just won’t shut up. But that’s the beauty of it. When you get into the subway car, you are one of the crowd, you are all just folks trying to get from point A to point B. I really hope that the metro in Dubai will act as a catalyst for bringing together the labourer who toiled all day in the heat of a construction site and the Sheikh whose house was being built.

The sceptic in me thinks otherwise. This is a city that has neatly demarcated class lines and social realms. Appearances matter more than reality in Dubai. There is a huge social stigma in taking a bus, which explains the existing bus system only being used by those that have no other viable options. Comfort and luxury trumps the environment. But this sceptic will keep her fingers crossed when she rides the metro this week and hopes to spot the elusive signs of diminishing egos, disappearing class structures and respect for the environment.

The Urban Country Sustainability Survey

2009-09-09T18:01:00.000-04:00

Eco-Living Tip: Automobile Idling Myths

2009-09-08T22:48:00.001-04:00

The year is 1969. Yasser Arafat is appointed the leader of the PLO, Apollo 11 lands on the moon, the Concorde jet breaks the sound barrier and 500,000 hippies congregate on Max Yasgur’s dairy farm in New York.

While all of this was happening, a father somewhere was teaching his son how to drive:

“Now listen here son. I reckon some day you’re going to be the best damn driver this town has ever seen - just like your pops. Now if there’s something you should know about driving, it’s this. Don’t turn your car off if you don’t need to. It takes more gas to start the car than to let it idle. So next time you’re at the store buying your old pops a pack of Camels, just let the car idle instead of shutting it off. You got that now son?”

Fast-forward 40 years. It’s 2009 and somehow the flawed logic that perhaps applied 40 years ago still persists even to this day. People still believe that they need to idle their car for 2, 5 and sometimes 10 minutes at a time – I still see it every day.

The only fathomable excuse that has any sort of possible validity is the harsh winter weather conditions - but even this excuse warrants some level of scrutiny except on the coldest of days.

It’s commonly accepted by automobile experts that idling a car that was built in the last 30 years for more than 10 seconds uses more gas than turning it off and starting it again.

There are few other forms of unnecessary pollution than that of idling an automobile. This isn’t anything new - it’s actually quite embarrassing that I’m writing an article in 2009 to explain something that should have been common knowledge for more than 2 decades – which is why I think it’s inexcusable to idle a car unnecessarily.

Drive-thru coffee shops are a hotbed for this breed of drivers. Here in Canada, a moderately successful Tim Horton’s coffee shop will see long lineups of cars persistently throughout the entire morning.

Little do these “idlers” realize that in most cases they could get out of their car, walk into the coffee shop and get back into their car before even reaching the drive-thru window.

An idling engine burns about 3.5 litres of gasoline each hour and idling engines emit almost double the amount of toxic emissions than a moving vehicle. Furthermore, warming up your car by idling is another myth that also hasn’t been relevant in decades either.

Many cities have had idling by-laws for many years – Toronto first adopted its idling By-law in 1996. Although a long list of exceptions were amended to the By-law in 1999, drive-thru restaurants were not included - so the police could theoretically hand out fines for people in long drive-thru lineups if their idling time exceeded 3 minutes.

To enforce the By-law, Toronto uses a 4-pronged approach: train city staff, educate the public, implement blitzes, and establish a complaint process.

I’m begging people out there to have some respect for the world and your neighbours and think twice before sitting out front of the grocery store idling your car for 10 minutes.

If the taxi drivers in Toronto can consistently comply, then it can’t be so hard for everyone else to resist the urge to idle.

Photo by manyhighways on Flickr

Operation Imani – Ideas for Sustainable African Development

2009-09-02T22:38:00.001-04:00

Between 2005 and 2007, Greg John had a life changing experience. He lived in Tanzania while working on a CIDA internship to help the impoverished African country develop its infrastructure.

Coming from a cushy life in Canada, living in one of the top 10 poorest countries in the world was an eye opener for the activist, author, teacher and independent filmmaker:

“In resource-limited countries there is a huge number of people that no matter how hard they work or how clever they are, they will still never get the chance to lift themselves out of poverty - simply because there is so little opportunity available (be it spaces in high schools/universities, or financial loans).”

Each year, billions of dollars in foreign aid is sent to Africa. Although this money brings short-term benefits to those who need it, it often doesn’t have the longer-term effect of lifting them out of poverty.

At a time when people are questioning whether foreign aid in Africa should be scrapped, Greg John’s film proposes a better solution.

What John highlights in his film is the notion that African aid doesn’t need to dissolve into thin air. He shows us that there are programs out there that can become self-sustaining – having long-term benefits for people who would otherwise be entrenched in poverty.

These programs can eventually become self-reliant and no longer dependent on foreign aid or handouts.

In the film, John spends a month in northern Tanzania at Imani Vocational Training Centre. Imani teaches youth aged 14-25 how to do a trade - preparing them to contribute to society and enjoy a lifestyle that they may otherwise not have been able to enjoy. They serve disabled and non-disabled youth and one third of the student body is either physically or mentally disabled.

Imani is run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Kilimanjaro – the famous mountain lurks near the African school. At the head of the school is Sister Placida Mosha – a remarkable woman who has devoted the last 40 years of her life serving Tanzania’s rural poor. Sister Placida began the construction of the Vocational Training Centre in 2002, now serving as its Director.

At the core of Imani is the notion that everything they teach the children helps contribute to the sustainability and independence of the school. Think of Imani like a small community.

Imani provides 3-year training programs in carpentry, tailoring, knitting, welding, bricklaying and catering. The students use their training to develop products that can be sold to the local community in order to pay for the expenses of running the school. The documentary focuses on the school’s efforts to eliminate itself from outside support.

One of the staple features of the school is its 3-acre garden that is used to feed the students as well as generate some revenue to supplement funding.

Given Africa’s limited resources, Imani practices environmental sustainability by re-using the waste output from one system and using it as an input into others. John takes us on a journey of wood turning into wood chips, which turn into ashes which turn into soil. Very little waste is generated at the school. John also highlights an innovative home-grown approach to watering the garden with minimal water waste.

While watching the film it’s obvious that filmmaker John is very passionate about Imani becoming self-reliant. He is so dedicated to this cause that he has committed 100% of the proceeds of his film to be donated directly to the school.

I caught up with the altruistic filmmaker to ask him a few questions about himself, the film and the school (see below).

Operation Imani is a must-see documentary that highlights a wonderful example of how a developing country can be productive with its limited resources and contribute to a better future for impoverished children, while reducing and eventually eliminating the need for outside aid.

The Operation Imani DVD can be purchased online for $15 (including shipping/handling) on the Operation Imani online store.

Following the photo is an exclusive interview with the filmmaker, Greg John:

The Urban Country: When returning from a developing country such as Tanzania, do you look at things differently in Canada?

Greg John: Absolutely. Like most people, I realized how lucky we are to have been born in Canada. There are many obvious privileges that we have here that are missing in other places, such as access to great education and health care. Those are some of the obvious differences, but living in a place like Tanzania for two years enabled me to see some of the less obvious ways in which we have it so good. We have so much opportunity here in Canada. While there are people in Canada that are disadvantaged and not in a strong position to take advantage of opportunity (for education, employment, etc.), most people, if they set their mind to it and work hard, can carve out a relatively comfortable life. In resource-limited countries there is a huge number of people that no matter how hard they work or how clever they are, they will still never get the chance to lift themselves out of poverty - simply because there is so little opportunity available (be it spaces in high schools/universities, or financial loans). As a teacher, it is hard to see students taking their education for granted.

The Urban Country: Do you feel that many of our quarrels are trivial compared to the dilemmas that they deal with in Tanzania?

Greg John: Again, definitely. It's striking to see what sorts of things become a "big deal" to us in Canada compared to the things that Tanzanians deal with everyday. The so-called rainy season in Tanzania is often one of the toughest times for people from a mental point of view. If the rains are not sufficient or are too heavy, it means they won't be able to harvest much corn. Since subsistence farming is the primary source of income for the majority of Tanzanians, that will mean that the coming year will be particularly difficult. It will means that a family will not be able to continue building its house (perhaps replacing a leaky straw roof with an iron sheet roof) or sending a child to school. There are Canadians that need to deal with stresses of this nature. But for a huge number of Canadians, the issue of providing the basics for a family (food, shelter, education, etc) is not really an issue. These are taken for granted, and we found more trivial items to complain about - though in our mind these items are not trivial. It's tough to avoid. I remember when I first got back from Tanzania it bothered me when people would complain about relatively minor issues. But as time goes by I find I get softer on these issues myself, and I even catch myself bothered that websites are down or something is out of stock at a store. That's what makes travel so important, it reminds us of how lucky we have it.

The Urban Country: When and how did you decide that you would make a documentary?

Greg John: After my two years spent in Tanzania (2005-2007) I came back and organized a series of fundraisers at which I spoke about Imani. But I didn't feel that my stories and pictures did justice to the place and its unique approaches (unique at least in my experience). I also wanted to do a better job of capturing Sister Placida. I feel she is a one of a kind gem that has great wisdom that we can all learn from. A documentary seemed to be a good way to help spread some of her ideas. So when I went back to Tanzania in the summer of 2008 I brought a video camera with the idea of making the documentary. I wasn't exactly sure what form it would take, all the detailed planning of the various scenes and themes of the documentary came together in my month over there.

The Urban Country: Is there a filmmaker out there who inspired you to make this film?

Greg John: Not really. It was mostly inspired by Imani Vocational Training Centre, Sister Placida, as well as all the fine Tanzanian people I met with good ideas but without the capital to act on their ideas.

The Urban Country: Do you have some real-life samples (in Canada) that you'd like to share where we could apply some similar techniques to re-use waste?

Greg John: This area is definitely not my expertise, but it's a very good question. Actually, I myself would be interested in learning more about this topic. I do hear about farmers using the gases generated by decomposing cow manure to power their farms, and even sell power back to the grid. The artificial soccer fields I play on have small rubber pellets to soften the surface. I'm told that these pellets are made from old tires, though I can't confirm that. If true, that would be a good example of using a waste product from one system as a useful input to another.

The Urban Country: What's your next project after this?

Greg John: The Imani project is still very much ongoing, and I plan to continue working with Sister Placida on the implementation of food- and income-generating activities. My primary role with Imani is to work with them to plan and build these projects (eg. garden irrigation, fish ponds, pig raising, etc.). The documentary was very much secondary, a means to expose the work we were doing together. There is still much more work to be done to help Imani become self-sufficient. Sister Placida and I have talked about building a chicken house, expanding the garden irrigation, starting a project to capture the gases released from pig manure to use for cooking, further workshops, micro-credit for students, and much more. I will hopefully make it back to Imani in the summer of 2010 to work on these.

As for the next project after the documentary, that is unknown. I very much enjoyed making the film, and could see myself doing another one at some point in the future. Subject unknown, but it could very well be the further exposure of good ideas that people in developing countries have implemented that we in Canada just don't realize. An important part of the documentary is donor education, convincing people that there are other productive ways to spend money internationally than child sponsorships and humanitarian aid.

All photos by Greg John / Operation Imani

Rolling Up Sustainable Energy

2009-08-30T17:33:00.001-04:00

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country

Imagine sitting on a dock on a beautiful lake with a laptop, performing your everyday job functions. You don’t ever have to worry about commuting to work and the only factor that can deter you from staying outside is the weather.

This is my dream - and with today’s technology for telecommuting, this is becoming closer to reality. For years - even decades - many people around the world have already been doing some form of telecommuting – from the remote software development “factories” in India, to stock brokers trading from the comfort of their own home.

Telecommuting dates back to the 1970’s where early telecommuters would use telephone lines and a network bridge to connect in remote locations.

Telecommuting has obvious environmental benefits and most people would agree that it results in higher employee satisfaction. In my experience, I’ve found that telecommuting helps boost productivity as well.

Telecommuting does however have its limitations (outside of the obvious limitation of not having face-to-face contact with your co-workers). You typically need to have an active phone connection, electrical outlet and an Internet connection. With large-scale investments in cellular tower infrastructure and a major increase in network speed, it’s now conceivable to work outside of your typical indoor “terminal”. Working outdoors or in a remote location is now a realistic possibility.

With even more groundbreaking technology, new barriers in telecommuting are being overcome.

A new technology I recently became acquainted with is rollable solar power technology. Prior to my 11-day kayak trip earlier this summer, I was researching personal solar panels to keep my electronics charged throughout my trip - knowing that I wouldn’t have easy access to electrical outlets for the entire 11 days.

I spent hours trying to find a portable solar panel that met my needs both in its physical dimensions and energy output.

I visited my favourite outdoors store Mountain Equipment Co-Op, but couldn’t find anything with sufficient power output. The solar panels they carried were only capable of about 1.5 watts output - which wouldn’t have met my electricity needs.

So I searched online and came across the PowerFilm line of rollable solar panels. Manufactured in Iowa, PowerFilm inc. offers several versions of its rollable solar panels with different output – 7 watt, 14 watt, 21 watt and 28 watt. The physical width of each solar panel is the same for each model, but the higher the output, the longer the panel. For example, the 7 watt panel that I purchased is 23 inches long, while the 28 watt model is 79 inches long (close to 7 feet).

The PowerFilm rollable panel is a great match for a kayak because you can safely unroll the panel and strap it to the top of the kayak to charge your electronics while you paddle under the hot sun. It is weather-proof and built with marine-grade connectors, so I didn’t have to worry about the panel getting wet from the waves.

Instead of plugging my Blackberry and MP3 player directly into the solar panel, I brought with me a battery pack that would store the solar electricity and at night I would charge my electronic devices. Plugging your electronic devices directly into the solar panel is another option that helps reduce the eventual battery waste that would result from the battery pack but sometimes it isn’t feasible to use your electronics while they are charging.

One word of caution I can offer is to be cautious to keep your electronics dry. During my trip, I had a leak in a ziplock bag that resulted in a non-working battery pack for the remainder of the trip. It wasn’t until I dried out the battery pack for a few days before it started charging again. Because the battery pack was a single point of failure, I was “offline” for the last 4 days of my trip so I lost my internet connection and GPS tracking.

This was more a result of my own negligence than anything else – the solar panel became wet several times on the trip without its performance being affected.

The PowerFilm rollable solar panel creates new opportunities in the area of telecommuting. The scenario of working on the dock on a beautiful lake is very feasible with the PowerFilm panel charging your laptop and phone. It helps you stay mobile so if (for example) you get tired of working on the dock, you can pick up your things and move to the beach.

The US Military is already capitalizing on the opportunities that the PowerFilm panel creates. The military uses these solar panels in remote operational tents in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep their gadgets charged. This provides flexibility on where army bases can be setup and allows the army to be more agile and mobile.

I’m committed to making this new form of telecommuting in a remote location feasible by investing in and testing the technology that can make it happen. In future articles I’ll be profiling my progress on making this a reality.

If you’re in the market for a solar panel, you have my stamp of approval on the PowerFilm technology – whether you use it for camping, paddling trips, cycling, or for your cottage, you won’t be disappointed in this product.

The R-7 PowerFilm solar panel can be purchased from modernoutpost.com for $159.99, or from homedepot.ca or for $249.99. According to James Alden from Transformative Technologies Inc., the PowerFilm product line should reach mainstream stores in Canada in 2010.

Wolfe Island Sustainable Energy Haven

2009-08-26T00:33:00.001-04:00

Photo courtesy of Julep67 / Flickr

On June 26th, 2009, 86 high capacity wind turbines began operation on Wolfe Island near Kingston, Ontario. Each turbine is capable of 2,300 kilowatts and the expected capacity is more than 593,500 megawatt-hours of clean, renewable energy each year.

I first stumbled across Canada’s second largest wind farm on Day 6 of my Toronto to Montreal kayak adventure last month. It was definitely a sight to see – I was amazed, mesmerized, and extremely excited that such an ambitious initiative had taken place in my province and country.

I was tempted to stop paddling and setup camp among the large turbines, falling asleep to the soft hum of the spinning 45-meter blades. Unfortunately I had a lot of ground to cover to stay on course and make it to Montreal, so I continued paddling on that day without even taking a break on Wolfe Island.

Photo by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country – Toronto to Montreal kayak adventure

Perhaps the most fascinating and unique aspect of the Wolfe Island wind farm is the method in which the energy is transmitted to the mainland. It uses a 7.8 km long submarine cable that sits on the bottom of Lake Ontario. The cable has a diameter of about 235mm and weighs roughly 736,000 kg. The weight of the cable alone holds it in place on the bed of the lake.

The wind farm’s output - 593,500 megawatt-hours of renewable energy - sounds like a big number. But let’s drill down to see exactly what this amount of electricity is capable of.

In 2005, Canada consumed about 540 million megawatt-hours in 2005 (CIA World Factbook). At a population of 32 million, that’s about 16.74 megawatt-hours/year on average. Therefore, this wind farm is capable of supplying about 35,000 residents with renewable energy each year.

Now keep in mind that Canada has one of the highest average energy consumptions per capita in the world. The United States – although one of the highest energy consumers in the world – only consumed an average of about 12.8 megawatt-hours/year in 2005 per person. Therefore a wind farm of this capacity could support about 46,000 people in the United States.

Wow, that’s a lot of people right? Not so fast. The average Chinese citizen consumed an average of only 2.17 megawatt-hours per year, so this wind farm could provide electricity for 273,502 Chinese citizens each year.

A wind farm with such capacity doesn’t come cheap however. The project was funded by Calgary-based Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. – at a cost of about $478 million with a 20-year supply contract with the Ontario Power Authority. Canadian Hydro also developed Canada’s largest wind farm – Melancthon – located about an hour north of Toronto.

Such a bold initiative doesn’t come without protest. As comical as it may seem to someone who finds wind farms breathtaking, there are those out there who vehemently disagree.

The website entitled “Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment” have their share of complaints about the wind farm. Among their complaints are that the “waterfront views will be negatively impacted” by the turbines. They claim the Kingston Yacht club has major concerns that “these turbines may have negative effects on fresh-water sailing in Kingston” – stating that the turbines are likely to change wind patterns.

They also discuss the impact on migratory birds, the health hazards of the wind turbines and they claim wind power is not reliable or efficient and that these turbines are a waste of tax dollars – stating that European countries are cancelling wind energy development due to the high costs for little benefit.

Unfortunately for them, I do not agree with their assessment, nor do I share their same concerns. I think these wind farms are a great investment and it is worth the extra cost to have clean, renewable electricity. I’m looking forward to the development of more of these wind farms in the near future, and you can count on me to show up in town hall meetings in support of them.

Human-Powered Public Transportation?

2009-08-21T11:15:00.001-04:00

Cycling is a healthy and sustainable method of transportation, but one of its limitations is that you’re susceptible to less-than-ideal weather conditions. What if you could cycle to work in any weather conditions without having to worry about your safety or comfort? Furthermore, what if you could cycle to work in a reclined, comfortable seat with an aerial view of your city?

This is the possibility that inventor Geoffrey Barnett had envisioned when he first thought about the idea while working in Tokyo. He wanted to find a more efficient means to cross the city. Six years later, in November 2007, the Shweeb monorail amusement ride opened for business at Agroventures in New Zealand, about 3 hours from Auckland.

The Shweeb is the world’s first human-powered monorail. One to four people can use the Shweeb and it uses about half of the energy required to ride a racing bike, or about 1/3 of the energy required to ride a mountain bike. The Shweeb is enclosed - thus shielding the rider from poor weather conditions - and they say it is as comfortable as lying in a hammock.

The Shweeb creates an array of potential opportunities for the future. In the short term, the Shweeb could provide an alternative to shuttling around large amusement parks - for example Disney World. In the longer term, the Shweeb could provide an alternative to underground subway lines for commuters. The first city to adopt such a system would surely benefit from the publicity.

There are however a number of logistical constraints that will make the Shweeb a difficult system to implement.

Although being enclosed has its benefits to prevent poor weather from impeding you in your journey, it also has its downside. Being enclosed on a hot summer day or cold winter night is less than ideal, so the capsules would need to be cooled in the summer and heated in the winter.

The inventors claim:

“The result is the most efficient vehicle on earth, the most inexpensive infrastructure of any proposed urban transit and one of the highest capacity systems available – potentially delivering thousand's of people per hour in a very small airspace. All this with zero carbon emissions and no parking worries or cost!”

Although the Shweeb may be the most inexpensive infrastructure of any proposed urban transit, it would surely still have a significant price tag to build and maintain. But then again, what transit system in the world is truly inexpensive to implement or operate? (Besides a bicycle-sharing system of course).

One blogger states an obvious concern about what happens if a capsule breaks down mid-trip: “Imagine if a pod breaks down mid trip: the person inside would be trapped, and all the people behind it would be stuck until it’s fixed”. It’s not that he doesn’t like the concept, he just doesn’t think it could be viable, “As an amusement park attraction, the Shweeb is pretty cool; as mass transit system, it’s stupid”.

I believe that some day this system could be a viable method of transportation once all of the possible constraints have been considered and resolved. The great minds of the world have come together to solve difficult challenges before, so I don’t see why they couldn’t find a way to re-engineer the Shweeb system to make it a viable method of transportation in a major city.

All photos from Shweeb

Mountain Equipment Co-op Takes Home Gold

2009-08-17T23:59:00.001-04:00

Mountain Equipment Co-op is known for its commitment to sustainability, but its new Burlington, Ontario store sets the bar high for retail store energy-efficiency.

For a company that diverts 92% of its waste generated at its stores and offices by recycling, composting and donating, it's difficult to raise the bar even higher. But MEC - a co-operatively owned business - did just that with the opening of its Burlington store last November.

After learning about the high-tech features that earned this retail store a LEED Gold rating - the second highest standard in the LEED certification - I had to see it for myself.

So I hopped on my fiancé Han's small-framed ladies commuter bike tonight and headed to my friendly neighbourhood train station. Sixteen dollars and ten cents bought me a return ticket to Burlington - a 56KM, 46-minute trip. I arrived at the store at 8:00PM – a full hour before closing time.

The new MEC store features a variety of sustainable characteristics - most notably its summer air conditioning unit. It uses a revolutionary system that uses ice blocks to leverage off-peak cooling - a more environmentally-friendly alternative to a conventional air conditioner (though I doubt this system has been leveraged to its capacity this year, given how cool a summer it has been).

The “Ice Bear” system was developed by the California-based company Ice Energy Inc. The Ice Bear system has two modes: Ice cooling and Ice charging mode. At night the Ice Bear will freeze the 450 gallons of water in each of the 4 tanks. The units will turn off as soon as the ice is frozen and will be distributed when cooling energy is needed. This reduces energy consumption at peak times and achieves a lower rate per KWh.

Photo courtesy of Ice Energy Inc.

Another staple feature of the Burlington store is its photovoltaic and solar thermal system that generates electricity and heats the water. The electricity is then sold to Ontario Hydro for a profit while the store's electricity is purchased exclusively from wind-powered sources.

When the building reaches the end of its useful life, the structure and envelope can be disassembled and repurposed, achieving the cradle-to-cradle design that we frequently discuss on The Urban Country.

In the parking lot of the store, you’ll find a rather unique exclusive parking spot for hybrid, low emission and car sharing vehicles. Stationed right next to the handicap parking spots, this parking spot provides further incentive for people to drive low-emission vehicles.

The idea comes from the LEED certification – specifically it can be found in Credit 5.1 under the “Sustainable Sites” section of the LEED Canada rating system.

As nice as the hybrid parking spot may seem, nothing makes you feel like more of a king than rolling into the best parking spot that exists – the bicycle rack. I was literally the only patron at the store using the bicycle rack and perhaps not surprisingly, the lovely low-emissions parking space was also vacant.

Yes, we do still have a long way to go.

After paying for a pair of swimming goggles and a heavy-duty bicycle lock - a $63.28 tab - I paid a visit to the bathroom which features the storm water collected from the roof of the building. Many of you have heard me gripe about how silly and wasteful it is that we pee in filtered drinking water. Now we don't have to. Just pay a visit to your local Mountain Equipment Co-Op store and feel proud to take a whiz in pure rain water!

Sustainitiatives is a section on The Urban Country where we highlight companies or individuals who are taking initiatives to help reduce our harm on the environment.

All photos by James D. Schwartz / The Urban Country (except Ice Energy Inc’s diagram)

Happy Birthday India!

2009-08-15T16:09:00.005-04:00

Photo courtesy of www.indianveterans.com

Today, August 15th 2009, India celebrates it’s 62nd Independence Day from the 350-year British rule. India is the world’s largest democracy (I call it a ‘Democrazy’!) and has the second largest population in the world. In spite of our large numbers we do miserably in the summer Olympics and are non-existent in the winter Olympics (India being a tropical country and all…that’s our excuse and we are sticking to it!). We are a nation known for it’s brain drain of math geniuses and computer geeks, not athletes. Indian parents push their kids to be doctors, engineers or businessman, not swimmers, trampoline jumpers or track athletes. The mostly vegetarian diet doesn’t help either.

My theory is that we are just such a unique nation with a distinctive culture that normal sports like gymnastics, long jump and synchronized swimming are just not our cup of chai :) However, I do think there are some “sports” that we could give the Chinese and Americans a run for medals at the next Olympics. I have a few suggestions for sports to be added to the summer Olympic roster that I am sure a lot of other Asian countries can relate to and be excited about as well:

Endurance:

Holding your pee during a day of shopping (finding a clean public bathroom should be some sort of a treasure hunt as well).
Eating street food (and not getting sick).
Riding all day in an auto-rickshaw without puking (also applicable in the adventure sport category).

Skill:

Putting on trousers in the bathroom without getting the bottoms soaked in the water that you just bathed with (there is no concept of a shower stall or bath tub in India, everything happens in one space).
Bargaining.

Adventure:

Riding in an auto-rickshaw. Do you like roller-coasters? Bungee-jumping? Do you like the feeling of your stomach jumping up to into your mouth and back again? Do you like the feeling of feeling of terror like your life is about to end, your loved one’s faces flash before your eyes and then feeling a huge sense of temporary relief? Then riding an auto-rickshaw could be the sport for you!
Driving in Delhi. As crazy as riding an auto-rickshaw except that you are behind the wheel and (hopefully) there are doors that protect you from falling out.
Driving a scooter in Delhi. God bless and God speed! This is not for the faint of heart!
Crossing the road (it’s sort of like that video game Frogger, but much much much more dangerous and nerve-racking).

So there you have it, some sports that I think India can make it’s mark in to take home a respectable number of medals in 2012. In a true democracy where have as much a right of way as vehicles do, I think it’s expected that the choice of sport be a bit unorthodox :)