Livability vs. Cost Effectiveness

Administration officials said they were reversing guidelines put in place by the Bush administration that called for evaluating new transit projects largely by how much they cost and how much travel time they would save. . . .

Mr. LaHood said the administration would establish new guidelines that take what he called “livability” into account — evaluating projects not only by how much they shorten commutes but also by their environmental, community and economic benefits.

 

- Administration Loosens Purse Strings for Transit Projects, NY Times, 01/13/2010

Realizing, as its predecessors apparently did not, that alternative transportation is not simply about saving time and money, the Obama administration is altering the criteria by which transit projects will be scrutinized for federal funding.  Rather than a cost effectiveness model, the new guidelines hone in on environmental impacts as well as community benefits and economic development associated with the transit lines.  As posted on the Secretary of Transportation's blog, the DOT is moving away from the "narrow" performance criteria and moving to a set of six broader performance requirements that reflect "key livability factors" - "economic development, mobility improvement, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness and land use."  While cost certainly remains a consideration, it, rightly so, is not the only factor by which projects are judged.

 

I will admit that this new system could make individual projects more difficult to judge and could further open fund awards to back-room negotiations and political favors.  The key will be how clearly and thoughtfully the DOT can define some basis of metrics for evaluating the performance criteria that could become more ethereal than concrete.  But in any case, this is a step in the right direction, I believe.  In a land of freedom, liberty, and opportunity, one area where many citizens have no choice is transportation.  Hopefully this policy shift will become and remain an effective tool for providing that choice to more of America's people.

Official DOT Press Release

A report from Houston about how the new guidelines are affecting existing rail plans.

A Thought About Climategate

As the "ClimateGate" situation continues to unfold, there is one reason in particular why this whole hot mess troubles and disappoints me.  As I described to a friend earlier this week, not only has ClimateGate brought into question some knowledge or theory that some of us believed to be truth, it has also cast doubt on the very reasons why we believe what we believe.  As Ilya Somin writes on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, I think we often forget how much "truth" relies on social validation.  The fact that ClimateGate involves scientific knowledge makes the social validation proposition that much more troubling.  I - and I think there are others who agreed with me on this point - believe science to be one of the few terrestrial sources of truth, or something close to it.  I believe this because, while science certainly relies on theory, it strives to validate theory through data.  And, unlike words, numbers are not subject to interpretation.  Five is five - upside down or inside out.  The fickle and fleeting nature of words' meaning is famously illustrated by statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."  Thus, when circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of numbers, I start to notice little beads of sweat on my brow.

 

Sharing an Inspiring Podcast

I am regular listener of The Dirtbag Diaries podcast. Generally, the episodes are geared toward outdoor sports and various adventures found by those who participate in those sports. But the author, Fitz Cahall, also does a nice job of recognizing how these sports and athletes (of all levels) are intertwined with many of the conservation and environmental issues that make headlines. Maybe its directly in the areas where they recreate, or maybe its in lifestyle choices they make because of what they see, but there's no doubt that most outdoor enthusiasts exhibit a strong conservation ethic.

The most recent episode of the Diaries highlighted three stories about folks who took that attitude and ran with it, to varying degrees of success. I found the piece tremendously inspiring, so I thought I would share it.

You can listen to the podcast here. You can also find and subscribe to The Dirtbag Diaries at the iTunes store.

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.

The Everyday Conservationist

I just wanted to share a brief article about being an "everyday conservationist." This piece is from a fun blog that I read often, The Outdoor Parent. I share this article as some entertainment and as some encouragement to think about our daily choices that can make a difference. As I have commented several times already, the choices discussed in the article seem small and maybe insignificant. But if each of us sharing these ideas encourages one or two friends or family members to do likewise, the impact of these small decisions will begin to grow exponentially.

Happy reading!

Living With the Land: An Experiment Worth Watching

A new town is being developed outside Portland, Oregon, the goal of which is to chip away at the established boundary dividing urban and rural. This boundary is particularly pronounced in Oregon, where legally mandated urban growth boundaries (UGBs) set firm limits on the expanse of urban development into surrounding farmland and green space. If all goes according to plan in Damascus, the town will maintain active commercial farming in productive soils while less-productive tracts will sprout housing and other structures necessary in the town. There remain some questions as to whether the town will be able to legally accomplish its aims under Oregon's statewide land use regime. Proponents intend to be creative with the regulatory tools available to them, and, thus far, state regulators seem willing to at least entertain those ideas. Read more about Damascus in this article from OregonLive.com.

Aside from the legal and regulatory issues that I find interesting, the thing I want to applaud in the Damascus experiment is the idea of centering a community on the land where it exists - farmland - and fostering a lifestyle that incorporates what the land has to offer rather than subduing and altering the land to fit a lifestyle. Proponents in Damascas have visions of farmers' markets selling local produce, restuarants featuring those products, and education centers where residents can learn to cook with, use, and preserve the local items readily available to them. It would be a perfect model of the slow food movement here in the U.S., a movement that has quickly gained popularity in Oregon.

There are so many overlapping concepts embodied in the proposed development of Damascus that they are hard to segregate and pinpoint. Let me try to sum up my feelings with a few statements. Many of us spend a lifetime fighting against the land we inhabit and the habitat in which we exist. We want to grow green lawns in the desert. We want to raise crops suited to climates of far away regions. We want to do what we want where we want to do it, often without regard to the basic practicality of doing so, much less the myriad of potential consequences of that action. To an extent, the people of Damascus, Oregon, will be bucking those trends. Farming, already the predominant economic engine of the region, will continue to fill role because that is the use to which the land is suited. The products raised locally in accordance with local practices and climates will nourish the residents. As envisioned, Damascus would become a pocket of localization in a continually globalizing world. In doing so, that town would express to the world its commitment to community, to the environment, and to the general wellbeing that these concepts promote individually and in concert.

I will certainly be tracking the progress of the Damascus experiment.

Be sure to check out the OregonLive.com article, as it provides more details than I have in this post. "Bluring the Urban-Rural Line in Damascus," OregonLive.com, August 8, 2009.

Reducing Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions Through Building Code Reform

As Edward Mazria explores in his piece, "Oh, those sexy building codes," the real key to both reducing energy consumption and dependent carbon emissions in the U.S. is tackling the problem in the small scale. Mazria demonstrates, with projected data, how the building code requirements of Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) would have a greater impact on carbon emissions than would building 100 nuclear power plants. The nuclear plants would reduce carbon emissions; however, those plants would merely serve as a replacement for other energy sources and not affect actual energy consumption.

On the other hand, Mazria's article reveals an opportunity to dramatically impact both energy consumption and carbon emissions. The built environment is in constant flux, and Mazria states that between now and 2050, 75% of the current built environment will have either been renovated or rebuilt. According to Mazria, assigning energy requirements to each of these projects will, in concert, reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions by close to 50% of current projections by 2050.

Mazria's article illustrates a point that I made in my initial post discussing the concept of sustainability. Effective change at a small scale is much simpler and much more accessible at this time than a top-down, heavy-handed regulation scheme. The key, of course, to that statement is quantity. Individual decision makers must be convinced of the benefits - economics, environmentalism, morality, publicity, self-satisfaction, etc. - of making a sustainability decision in order for the concerted effort to be effective. To mandate that decision, to some extent, is certainly one solution, as is offering tax breaks, energy rebates, mortgage benefits, or other incentives. Ideally, an individual would examine her role in and her effect on her community and make decisions that are as mutually beneficial as possible. But, if some mandatory encouragement is necessary to spur such thinking, I can live with that.