http://prorev.com
THE TRUE COST OF TRAVEL
[Another in our series on important issues that are ignored or
suppressed by the establishment including the media. We will eventually
have a page devoted to this topic]
SOME YEARS AGO, your editor asked a transportation expert to name the
best form of mass transit. Without hesitation he replied, "Stop people
from moving around so much."
He was ahead of his time because even today the cost of mobility is
played down in transportation planning, environmental discussions and
urban design. For example, while contemporary urban planning gives some
attention to things like walkability and access, the same cities will
simultaneously be planning new mass transit or highway systems that will
encourage people to live further away from where they need to go.
Similarly, there is much talk of gas mileage but not as much about gas
use. Until recently, my wife and I had two cars, each 12 years old, that
did not do all that well in gas mileage but which we drove about half
the average annual mileage of an American car. Miles per year are at
least as important as miles per gallon.
And there are a lot of issues that don't even make it to the table. Such
as how do we redesign existing neighborhoods to allow more accessible
community services such as used to exist - like the corner deli,
convenience store or cleaners? Zoning and urban planning took many of
these away from urban neighborhoods. How do we get them back? My own
neighborhood - Capitol Hill in Washington - still has lots of these
services. I can walk to two hardware stores, a car repair shop, farmer's
market, post office and similar services.
And what about big box stores? How do you make them more accessible to
mass transit? What incentives can be used to encourage this? And why not
have shops inside subway stations and other insufficiently used
locations?
Here are some other ways our excess mobility affects our environment:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, 2006 - A huge change in how we travel is
desperately needed to halt a trend that will see the UK's air
dangerously and irreversibly polluted within 15 years if left unchecked,
according to a report by the UCL Bartlett School of Planning and the
Halcrow Group, commissioned by the Department for Transport.
A change in the behavior of UK residents will have more impact on
achieving the CO2 emission reduction required than advancements in
technology, say the authors of the report
Two possible policy routes the DFT could take to reach a proposed 60%
reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 were tested by UCL and collaborators
at the Halcrow Group. The first scenario focused on the impact of
technological advances - including hybrid cars and alternative fuels –
on lowering emissions. The second scenario considered changes in travel
behavior - from government and businesses to changes in residents'
lifestyles and travel patterns. This second scenario was far more
effective.
"To move towards these behavioral changes in the UK," said Professor
Banister, "we could expect heavy government investment in cycling and
walking; lower speed limits and national road pricing (similar to the
London congestion charge but on an environmental and emissions basis and
implemented across the whole country); better public transport and less
long distance travel, as well as new urban design to improve
accessibility to local services and facilities."
The report recommends that the government puts emissions at the centre
of its thinking, i.e. by encouraging less commuting and more working
from home; by providing better local facilities so that trip lengths can
be reduced, and by encouraging people to shift to public transport. . .
Technological change will work in parallel, so fuel-efficient vehicles
and hybrid cars as well as alternative fuels, such as compressed natural
gas, methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity are suggested as
possibilities.
Professor Banister said: "We don't believe that the hydrogen car, for
example, will be widely available before 2030, so we don't factor it in
to any of our calculations. . . One thing is for sure: technology won't
take us all the way there by 2030 – strong action on behavioral change
will be required as well".
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/co2
NEWS, AUSTRALIA - Holidaymakers may be ruining their favourite
destinations through pollution and greenhouse gases, making the tourism
industry one of the world's worst polluters, experts say.
A flight to that pristine beach and a few nights in an air-conditioned
hotel room, when repeated on the mass scale of modern tourism, is all it
takes to put the holiday business on a polluting par with heavy
industries.
"Tourism is unfortunately one of the vectors of (climate) change at the
moment and contributes, through its excesses, to the process of global
warming," World Tourism Organization director general Francesco
Frangialli told an international conference on meteorology in Madrid
this week.
In 2006, 842 million people took a holiday in a foreign country and 40
per cent of them flew to their destinations. That's 336 million people,
or more than the population of the United States, taking trips which
spew greenhouse gases that fuel global warming.
Total air transport still only accounts for two per cent of carbon
dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere, but its
contribution is growing and tourism is one of the driving forces behind
rising passenger numbers, Mr Frangialli said. He said 1.1 billion
tourists were expected to take trips abroad in 2010, and 1.6 billion by
2020. . .
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,23483,21426187-27977,00.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment