We know that one-third of the carbon emissions in the U.S. come from the end of a car, SUV or truck tailpipe. We know that any plan to reduce our carbon footprint must include a shift from using personal vehicles to alternatives like bus, train, biking and walking. One of the tasks of the GreenCityBlueLake Institute Climate Change project is figuring Northeast Ohio’s carbon reduction goals and how much change in our transportation habits we need to make to contribute to that goal.
When we think of a healthier balance of transportation, we often look to Europe with its dense, walkable cities, web of rail lines and families biking everywhere together. But, a comparison of Europe vs. America’s 'mode splits' between cars and cleaner forms of transportation may surprise and even serve to modify our expectations of how many car trips we need to reduce to be among the world's leaders.
From 1996 to 2006, passenger car trips grew at a much faster clip than trips by rail, bus or motorbike in 27 European Union nations, according to a report (418 KB pdf) from the European Commission. In Germany, 83.9% of trips are made by car, 6.4% by bus and 1.5% by urban rail (France is 83.9% car, 5.2% bus and 1.5% metro/urban rail).
In Europe, 4.602 billion passenger kilometer miles by car were logged in 2005 compared to 7.253 billion in the United States. More than half a billion passenger miles (or 9% of all trips) came by bus in Europe vs. a quarter of a billion miles by bus in the U.S.
Although better land use and policies that promote more transit are an important part of reducing the need for cars in everyday trips, we also need to recognize that just as effective in reducing GHG are strategies to improve the efficiency of our car fleet. If we’re traveling the same amount of miles, greater fuel efficiency will serve to reduce our emissions. Is it conceivable that we improve our overall fleet efficiency by a significant margin (from around 22 mpg today to 44 mpg)? And how much do we need to invest in alternative forms of propulsion, such as plug-in hybrid vehicles, and new, cleaner fuels?
Lead by Example
lmcshane Says:Marc, I am sure that you find some alternative way to work in UCI, but what about your coworkers and the administrators there at CMNH. Will CMNH just become another repository for people who talk, talk, talk GREEN, but never walk, walk, walk??
And engage in what process??? You call the Opportunity Corridor BS a process? Come on Marc--you and I both know that you are smarter than that. Besides, I have a lifetime of engagement in these "processes" for show. I worked at NOACA Marc. I have seen the "process."
Laura,
Marc Lefkowitz Says:Laura,
I will admit, Ohio Department of Transportation has not shown a willingness to try new ideas. Engaging in the process may come down to what you seek, a revolution. Are the state's elected officials open to considering better ways to invest our limited 'transportation' resources? With ODOT facing a budget shortfall and the Governor now supporting fewer highways and a 'fix it first' policy, it seems the time is ripe for Ohio to make a transition to a policy linking land use and transportation investment. David Beach here at GCBL has been a strong advocate meeting with state leaders to drive that point home. I'm reprinting his letter to ODOT Innerbelt Project Manager Craig Hebebrand below. In particular, the idea of demand-side transportation management seems far reaching, but then, why shouldn't ODOT invest in a downtown housing strategy that reduces the demand on the transportation network rather than 'Opportunity Corridor'? Btw, because of his involvement in the Innerbelt Scoping Committee and having a seat at the table during these planning processes, David was invited to sit on The Ohio 21st Century Transportation Priorities Task Force. He continues to argue for linking land use and transportation as state policy BECAUSE he's engaged in the process. Sure, as he writes, his pleas were largely ignored by the last administration. My hope is with a clear vision, a plan and strong advocacy we can convince this administration to reform ODOT to be a sustainable transportation and land-use agency.
Capturing heat to run cars more efficiently
GCBL staff Says:Auto companies are working with thermoelectrics researchers at Ohio State University to devise a way to capture and use the heat from a car's exhaust to improve its efficiency, GreenTech reports. Thermoelectric devices are already used in space exploration and in more commonplace applications, such as cooling car seats.
Opportunity Corridor
lmcshane Says:Can GCBL make a statement about UCI and it's misplaced priority on the Opportunity Corridor? We have inner city residents about to pay more for public transportation and lose vital transportation services, while our state representatives make car travel for society's elite the priority.
Qts. on Opportunity Corridor
GCBL staff Says:Laura,
We posted a page on the Opportunity Corridor that frames some of the concerns at this point in the discussion about this roadway.
As you've most likely heard, some University Circle institutions have come out in favor of seeing this road built.
One could argue that capital projects like this and operations funding to help RTA are separate pots of money (even RTA director Joe Calabrese is quick to point this out in his defense of the Euclid Corridor project).
But, serious questions about the Opportunity Corridor —how it gets funded and whether its goal is to improve conditions for commuters or to create a “main street,” a framework to create a place in the Forgotten Triangle—have yet to be aired for public consideration
Strickland
lmcshane Says:Marc, you provide a more balanced analysis of the Opportunity Corridor, but GCBL can't stand on the sidelines with no opinion and call itself an environmental organization. I want to know how a multimillion dollar project which will ultimately only shave a few minutes off our existing commute time--does not take away from state funding of other vital transportation services?
Engage in the process
Marc Lefkowitz Says:Maybe I’m just being optimistic, but I'm imagining how to shape this so that it's not about a single-use road, but an investment in new infrastructure and streetscape for E. 105 and Quincy and Woodland Avenue. Do I think that in and of itself that will spur the recovery of this area? I wonder if we spent the time engaging in the process of designing this Opportunity Corridor rather than tearing it down, and argued the value of using the existing street grid wherever possible how much that will translate to tangible benefit for the Fairfax neighborhood?
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) needs strong guidance from the city and the public on what type of street we want this to be. I think we should not ignore the planning process and rather engage and attempt to influence it. We must infuse it with sustainability principles, such as insisting that investments in transit-oriented development at E. 105 and Quincy and restoring the street (Woodland) are higher priority. Otherwise, we’ll end up with a six lane limited access roadway and a long stretch of faceless industrial parkway. How do we improve access to University Circle and improve once-proud commercial districts like Woodland Avenue?
The funding question is a fair one, although, like Euclid Corridor, 80% of the estimated $250 million in capital funds would come from the federal government. But, in this funding environment, the state needs to show a commitment to multiple modes of transportation: If we fund this study with $4 million, the state should consider at least the same in emergency funds to public transit agencies who are struggling to cover the increased cost of fuel.
Overall, we need a new design approach at ODOT and NOACA that would "complete the street" for any and all new road building project. We should not let Opportunity Corridor planning take another step without a commitment that it will be a complete street.
priorities
lmcshane Says:By acknowledging the proposal GCBL implicitly endorses it. It should not even be a point of discussion. We have far too many real and important priorities in this town.