He’s cute, he’s adventurous, he’s reliable, and he’s closeted. What more could one ask of a folding bike?

My latest love interest is the Dahon Speed 7. I’d been eying him in the bike store for quite a while, examining his features, and comparing him with his strong-framed brothers. Finally, in the beginning of February I decided he was the one for me.

The Dahon - or “Speedy”, as I’ve come to call him - is the latest stage in the shift I’ve been making away from private ownership of a motorized vehicle. Now I look at the Vespa I bought two years ago as a way station on that path, and I’m planning to sell it once spring arrives in full bloom.

Last September I had to give up running because of foot problems. I was accustomed to getting around the city on foot, Metro, and bus, so originally I thought the folding bike would be mainly for recreation or workouts. But in the three-plus weeks I’ve had Speedy, I’ve used him a lot more than I’d expected for errands, and for getting to business meetings and dinner engagements. This February has been a relatively mild winter month by Washington DC standards, and Speedy has given me the freedom of the city in a way that I really hadn’t expected. Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Photo by mocodragon.

While the fuel economy standards in the latest energy bill are a welcome first step, giving us some relief from stagnation in fuel economy from vehicle fleet, the California approach, which treats greenhouse gases as pollutants, and sets performance standards, is the right way to go for the longer term.

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, we need to get to a full systems approach, looking at fuels and vehicles as a system, and set up a regulatory approach that can keep steady downward pressure on allowable emissions from the fleet of vehicles on American roads.

The EPA’s decision to deny California the waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes of passenger cars and trucks doesn’t bode well for the EPA’s own proposed rule making on the same issue.

Since the US EPA won’t lead, California - and the 17 other states that want to join it - will. And with past as prologue, the courts are likely to support California. Then the EPA will follow and we’ll have a national emissions standard for greenhouse gas emissions, eventually.

It’s just too bad that the Bush Administration is going to force everything into the courts, before the inevitable occurs.

Share This

Photo by mj*laflaca

In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences wrote a report suggesting a modest raise in new car fuel efficiency - from 28 miles per gallon to around 32 - was justified. The Bush Administration ignored this finding. A few years later it thumbed its nose at the environmental community by dissolving the “Partnership for a new Generation of Vehicles,” a joint government-auto industry initiative to put a super fuel-efficient, low-emissions diesel car on the road by the end of this decade. As if that weren’t enough, the Bush Administration has constantly opposed higher fuel taxes, ruling out an important step for reducing what the president calls our ‘addiction’ to oil. I must say that it’s strange that after repeatedly acknowledging the current energy problem he has so passively ignored or actively obstructed almost every effort to find a solution.

So it shouldn’t have come as a surprise yesterday when the EPA announced that it opposes California’s 2002 initiative to regulate CO2, a move that will once again put off the reckoning this country has with oil and carbon. Since this initiative in its original form has been law in California since 2002, it’s goals are no surprise to the Administration or automobile manufacturers. They’ve had roughly five years and little to show; perhaps instead of hiring the engineers to make their cars comply with the law, the auto industry hired the lawyers to take the law down.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Legislation passed by Congress to raise fuel effiency is a welcome first step. Photo by Storm Crypt.

As an engineer working in the field of sustainable transport I am very excited about the latest efforts to improve fuel efficiency, which will certainly help in the fight against climate change, a global phenomenon dating back to the start of the industrial revolution. (As an aside, the New York Times has a really neat graphic on this). One has to praise the US Congress for moving ahead legislation which will boost automobile and SUV fuel efficiency for the first time since 1975.

Nevertheless, as we have been claiming on this blog, this effort will not be enough! We have to do more. Lee Schipper, a colleague of mine and a fellow contributor to TheCityFix, says it well: “We also need to drive smaller, lighter vehicles. And we need to drive them less.”

The reason why he’s right has to do with an algebraic formula that’s really quite simple:

Using this equation, we can see that by improving fuel efficiency, we’re only effecting one of several variables related to total carbon emissions. But if people continue to buy more polluting cars, regardless of whether they are fuel efficient, and drive them longer distances, any gains in fuel efficiency might not do all that much.

The way the transport sector can fight climate change is by adopting a holistic approach that focuses on all three variables: total car travel, fuel efficiency, and carbon emissions per gallon of fuel. Here’s how we can do it:

• Reducing total car travel by promoting zero-emissions modes like walking and biking. Of course you can’t expect people to walk to work who live 50 miles from their office; after all, in the United States car commuters spend around 100 minutes on average getting to work and back. In many cases this is totally unnecessary because advances in telecommunications make telecommuting easier than ever. What’s more sprawling suburbs and satellite exurbs where walking is impossible are vestiges of the past. The urgency of global warming and energy insecurity demands that cities regulate the way that land is used, making mixed-use, high-density neighborhoods a priority.

• Reducing total car travel by improving public transportation. Currently, only 4.7% of people get to work using public transportation whereas 87.8% of people go by automobile. What this means is that buses, streetcars, and subways must be attractive alternatives to get people out of their cars. So they must come often, cover a large portion of the city, have seamless integration with other transit infrastructure like airports, and be comfortable and cost effective.
• Increasing fuel efficiency through technology improvements mandated by legislation.
• Increasing emissions standards through technology.

Even when considering all the various ways for reducing carbon emissions, raising the fuel efficiency standards, a move that was accepted by the auto industry, should still be considered a good step, especially considering the recent political environment. But with that said, we still need more!

Share This

Dulles Airport is infamous for those “mobile lounges.” Photo by Kaptain Krispy Kreme from Flickr.

In my continuing quest to identify the elements that make for an enjoyably car-free urban existence I definitely need to mention inter-modal connectivity. After all, what use is it to have a high-quality transit network within a city if you can’t easily get into and out of that city’s airport via public transport? This has been a perennial problem for anyone using Washington DC’s Dulles airport, where the ground transportation options are pathetic. At least the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (WMAA), which runs Dulles, added a Super Shuttle option there a couple of years ago, which makes life somewhat easier for car-free air travelers. But click on the “Metrorail and Metrobus” button there to learn how clunky and antediluvian the mass-transit connections to this important regional air hub are.

The contrast with just about any of the world’s other significant airports is enormous. For example, this past October I had occasion to fly into Dulles with my daughter from Madrid, via Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport. We had a four-hour layover at Schipol, so we killed time by jumping on one of the frequent rapid trains that connect the airport to downtown Amsterdam, checked out the city, and caught a train back to the airport in time for our outgoing flight.

Bike parking outside Centraal Station in Amsterdam. Photo by yvestown from Flickr.

The train whisked us over numerous highways, canals, and bike-routes, and past a small windfarm, into Amsterdam’s Centraal Station. Once there we had a fun morning walking along the canals, dodging the thousands of cyclists, and doing a bit of shopping. Centraal Station, like all train stations in bike-friendly places like the Netherlands or Japan, has massive bike-garages near the exits. The station also stands at the hub of a system of recently upgraded trams. The plaza in front of the station is a clanking mass of trams, pedestrians, and cyclists who whiz by along their lengthy networks of bike-paths. A newcomer definitely needs to stay alert as this traffic is nothing like the car-centered traffic on most streets in the United States! Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

In all likelihood corn from fields like this one in Iowa will be used to fuel American cars. Photo by Homemade.

In the last few months, high-profile senators like Obama, Clinton, Kerry, McCain, and Lieberman have all introduced important climate legislation, and consequently Congress has found itself center-stage in the struggle to find a solution to global warming. But while Congressional leaders continue to shine in the public spotlight, it’s important not to overlook recent developments in the other two branches of government.

The first happened earlier this year when the United States Supreme Court ruled that, under the Clean Air Act, CO2 and other greenhouse gases could be regulated as pollutants. This was a major setback to the Bush Administration, which had argued before the Court that C02 and the like aren’t pollutants and therefore can’t be regulated. This is particularly important because without the court’s ruling, the executive branch would be just twiddling its thumbs. But after the court’s ruling, President Bush was legally obliged to act. Issuing an executive order, he called on the EPA to work with other relevant agencies to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles and non-road engines, in a manner consistent with sound science.

The policy target set by the president’s so-called 20 in 10 plan aims to reduce US gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years. How does he plan to do this? By bringing in 35 billion gallons of renewable or alternative fuels by 2017 and improving efficiency of cars and light trucks by up to 4 percent per year.

If you look at the EPA’s public presentations on this, the EPA is taking an integrated systems approach, regulating both vehicles and fuels. Using green house gas performance standards for each, it will then allow for inter-industry trading. The EPA used a similar approach when it set the clean diesel rules, which have yielded among the highest benefit to cost ratios of any rules in US regulatory history. So this shows great promise! Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

According to Leinberger, Washington’s metro has encouraged walkability. Photo by MatthewBradley from Flickr.

According to a study put out by Christopher B. Leinberger of the Brookings Institute, Washington DC has the most “walkable places” - it has 20 - per capita of any city in the United States, when just 20 years ago it had a scant 2. Leinberger attributes Washington’s rise in walkability to two things: (1) the success of the metro system and (2) the use of “overlay zoning districts” that encourage walkability around metro stations.

Other factors that come in to play are the area’s robust economy, the city’s large population of university degree holders (who are more likely to live in walkable areas), and the throngs of 20 to 30 somethings who flock to the city for jobs.

How could New York with its canyons of glass and steel not be ranked first? Here’s the catch: New York has the most “walkable places” of any US city but because it’s population is so high and falls short on the per capita side.

Urban planner Richard Florida also has some thoughts of his own on his blog.

Share This