On Driving

There was an interesting article in Velonews. I think Charles Pelkey (The Explainer) is great. But I really liked the image, Space Taken by 60 People. It turns out that image is all over the Interlink Net thing-a-ma-jigy.

I am still, shudder, driving to work. I cannot stand the drive. Recently at a dinner with my parents my father said that several employers have relocated from the 'burbs to the city because the young people live in the city and do not want to drive to work. I asked my dad if he could pass that memo on to my employer. (Actually I have a number of complaints about my current employer, not the least among which is the drive to work.)

Mind you the drive home, at least I go against traffic, the disaster that is Toronto highways at rush hour, ouch! By six in the morning the inbound roads are clogged, just bumper-to-bumper stop and go, with cars, hardly moving at all. And by three the outbound roads are just as bad.

There is a fix for two issues here, one is Toronto's structural budget deficit of about $350m~$400m the other issue is the traffic. Road tolls, passing the money collected directly to transit and road repair, thus relieving the city of two massive line items from the budget. Enough pussy footing around this issue I say, it's time Mister "end of the war on the car" Mayor Rob Ford did something that required courage and enacted road tolls, and not just on highways, arterial roads too.

Here is how I see a system working, first bring back the hated vehicle registration tax of $60/vehicle/year. (That's about $60m in the city's books.) Then every person that pays the tax gets an E-ZPass transponder that works in both Toronto and the North Eastern US (see so you can go drive to say, Boston and you get to by-pass the toll booths on I-90). Now, make the vehicle registration tax more palatable, when you get your transponder, and every year thereafter the city credits your E-ZPass account with $60.

Okay, so we've got about a million cars with E-ZPass transponders and then we open it up to everyone who lives in the 'Burbs, they can also obtain an E-ZPass from the city and register it and all that, or they can get one from the Niagara Bridge Authority, but the point is everyone has the option of getting an E-ZPass, so it's fair. Next if you drive into the City of Toronto and do not have a transponder you pay a flat say $12 per weekday or $10 on Saturdays and $8 on Sundays and Stat Holidays to drive in the city for the day. (Use automated Toll collection, perhaps photograph licence plates, like on Highway 407.)

Now for motorists who have a transponder their licence is not photographed (or if it is by accident, because the licence is registered the photo is dropped by the OCR system when the image is received for processing.) Instead, at every major intersection (and highway interchange) in the city the transponder is recorded. For every, say kilometer the motorist drives they get a bill for perhaps ten cents, to a daily maximum of say, $8 on weekdays, and $4 on weekends and holidays.

Other considerations, well there are rental cars, rental car agencies would have to collect the tolls on behalf of the city, but that is trivial. There would also be people from out of town who drive in and stay for several days, well they might have say, a New Jersey E-ZPass, in which case they'd get the same billing as a Toronto resident (if they kept their car parked in the hotel, the transponder would not pass any major intersection so there would be no bill for that period.) If the out-of-towner had no E-ZPass, and drove in on a Friday and did not leave until Sunday then they would get a bill for $12 on Friday, $10 on Saturday and $8 on Sunday summing to $20 for the weekend. (Clearly both entering and exiting the city would have to be tracked for non-transponder based systems.)

Obviously the whole thing would have to be very carefully controlled to ensure the privacy of the motorists is respected and the security of the IT infrastructure is maintained but there are millions of cars that drive in the city every day. If the city collected an average of say $5/day times perhaps a million cars, over a 365 day year the city would collect $1.8bn, use perhaps $100m for maintaining the system, spend perhaps $400m on road repair, that leaves $1.3bn for building new subway lines, every single year. Within just a few years the city won't be collecting much in the way of road tolls because we will have the most remarkably effective subway system ever.

Isn't that a better way to get around?

More On Peak Oil

I am planning, if the weather cooperates, on going for a nice bunch of bike rides. In the mean time, just some statistics that really make me wonder if urban sprawl was worse than just a really bad idea.

According to Jeff Rubin Peak Oil is not so much a supply issue, it's a problem of price. We cannot get oil cheap enough to use for energy. But according to one of the people who posted a response it is a lot worse than that. (I will have to validate this data, so take it with a huge grain of salt, but...)

To paraphrase:

In 1930 humanity was drawing from the ground about 2 billion barrels of oil per year with an average EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) of about 100 to 1. Hence the amount of net energy available to humanity from oil was then of about 1.98 billion barrels energy units. (US Government figures indicate that one barrel of oil generates about 5.8 million BTUs).

In 1970 humanity was drawing from the ground about 17 billion barrels of oil per year; however, this oil came from more difficult wells to access with an average EROEI of about 30 to 1, thus total net energy was about 16.3 billion barrel units.

In 2005 humanity was drawing from the ground about 30 billion barrels of oil per year with an average EROEI of about 15 to 1. Hence the amount of net energy available to humanity was then of about 27.9 billion barrels energy units.

Looking forward now, Alberta tar sand oil has an EROEI of 1.5 to 1. Ultra deep water oil may not be much better, if it is even positive. The BP Macondo (Deep Water Horizon) well has shown how much technology was stretched and the newly found ultra deep water oil reservoirs off Brazil are much deeper and will be much more difficult to put into production. Furthermore, Arctic oil is at the moment only a dream because there is still a moving ice cap during the winter in that region). As for shale oil, like for shale gas, one will be lucky if its EROEI is even positive.

Many people who would know these things, for example, The Chairman of TOTAL, among others, have publicly stated that humanity will be lucky if it can reach an output volume of 100 million barrels per day i.e. 36.5 billion barrels of oil per year.Hence at some point in a not too distant future, humanity’s oil production will reach 36.5 billion barrels per year with an average EROEI of about 1.5 to 1. When that happens, the amount of net energy available to humanity from oil will only be of about 12.1 billion barrels energy units.

Thus we can see our total available energy in the not so distant future will be quiet a bit less than we had in 1970. Yet we still have to drive as far, and now India and China are on stream. Recall that in 1970 there was no outsourcing to India and China was in the middle of Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution. As a society we really have to start diverting funds from highways and auto manufacturers bailouts. Time to build more rail, more bike lanes, and critically, more transit infrastructure. The fact is, we cannot continue down our present course, while the numbers I cited above may be way off the mark, I'm sure we can all accept that we cannot continue with business as usual for all that much longer. We can either keep running until we run headlong into an impenetrable wall, or we can begin the transition away from fossil fuels.

On Crazy Motorists

I have to drive to work these days. I do not much like it but probably until next spring (when I will try to ride at least a couple times a week) I will be driving every day. At the best of times, the drive is very stressful. I leave super early each morning just to avoid the worst of the traffic. The best part, I live in the city for many reasons, one being, so I don't have to drive! Only I am working in the 'burbs so I guess I kind of do have to use the car. This morning there was a lovely accident on the highway, of the four lanes, two were closed. One of the guys, a really over weight, long beard, looked like he belonged in the Hells Angles type, in the accident was leaning against his car, apparently uninjured watching the cars crawl by. I would guess that one fat man caused several hundred million dollars in lost productivity and wasted fuel. Good job fatso!

Anyway I was watching a new episode of Top Gear last night. Clarkson and May were reviewing electric cars. After they discussed the high cost, up front, the cars were about thirty thousand pounds, then there's the short life span of the batteries (three to ten years depending on how well the batteries are treated) the short driving distance, the long recharge time and so on. Ultimately Clarkson suggested that petrol power was much better for cars, at which point Hammond asked what happens when the oil runs out. Of course the guys started waxing on about the joys of hydrogen powered cars.

Okay, lets get something straight here, hydrogen as a power source of fuel cells, is really potential chemical energy, that gets is potential energy from some other source. Typically we get hydrogen from breaking down natural gas, except natural gas is a fossile fuel that is also going to run out. We can get hydrogen from water, by electro-chemical seperation but where does the electricity come from? The Fukushima Daiichi power plant?, Chernobyl?, Three Mile Island? Okay, I know, Wind Power, only where will we put all those wind mills?, there's a lot of NIMBYism when it comes to wind power, and what happens when the wind doesn't blow? Or what about Solar? What happens when the sun doesn't shine? Coal? There's lot of coal in the world... do I need to spell out the problems with coal?

The bottom line is the days of the single user automobile are numbered, ten years from now there won't be bad traffic going to work becuase I don't think there will be anyone driving to work on a daily basis. Fuel for automobiles is already expensive, just watch the price of oil, we are still in dream land when it comes to the real price of our wasteful ways. Only here's another thought? How will we eat when fossile fuel fertilizers are too expensive? And the act of trucking the food from the farms to the cities, how will we eat? How will we stay warm in winter? I don't know the answers to any of those questions, I suspect because there is no good answer.

On Rides and Work

Well work has been gobbling up all sorts of my time. I used to be I could pack in a good three quality rides a week as well as pile of shorter rides. Now I'm lucky if I get two rides in. Sigh, recessions suck. (And anyone who doubts we are now in a recession boy have I got bad news for you!)

So I've been thinking about the post I made back in August, about the SUV and the Vegan. Some people, who don't know the Vegan, disagree with me. A Vegan is allowed to own a monstrously unsafe machine that is vastly wasteful.

Then again, I'm not saying a person isn't allowed to own an SUV, this person made what, to them I am sure, was an adult decision. And as an adult I am entirely within my right to point out that I think it is extremely hypocritical. To give so much regard for every earth worm and toad, and to remind everyone around them of their fondest regard for the birds and the bees, then turn around an buy an SUV.

I'm sorry but if you want to tell everyone about the virtues of veganism, I should think that you should keep your choice in motor vehicles restricted to the very modest. Then again, I would think that anyone who cares about our dear planet should keep their choice of vehicle restricted to the most modest vehicle that will accommodate their needs. (That's why I drive a diesel four door car, the one and only family car, and it is small.)

Anyway I found some lovely new routes, I hope I get to ride more. I am really sick of the inside of my car.

On Trees

So the story goes, in February I moved. The new house has a tree in the back, it's a Ailanthus altissima or 'Tree of Heaven'. Now permit me a rather long quotation from Wikipedia about this 'Tree of Heaven'.

Ailanthus altissima, commonly known as tree of heaven, ailanthus,[...] is a deciduous tree in the Simaroubaceae family. It is native to both northeast and central China and Taiwan. [...] The tree grows rapidly and is capable of reaching heights of 15 metres (49 ft) in 25 years. However, the species is also short lived and rarely lives more than 50 years.
[...]
The tree was first brought from China to Europe in the 1740s and to the United States in 1784. [...The tree] was initially hailed as a beautiful garden specimen. However, enthusiasm soon waned after gardeners became familiar with its suckering habits and its foul smelling odour. Despite this, it was used extensively as a street tree during much of the 19th century. Outside of Europe and the United States, the plant has been spread to many other areas beyond its native range. In a number of these, it has become an invasive species due to its ability to quickly colonise disturbed areas and suppress competition with allelopathic chemicals. It is considered a noxious weed in Australia, the United States, New Zealand and several countries in southern and eastern Europe. The tree also resprouts vigorously when cut, making its eradication difficult and time consuming. In many urban areas, it has acquired the derisive nicknames of "ghetto palm" and "stink tree".

Yes sir, that's what I had growing in my backyard. Well in late May there was no evidence the tree was even alive, there were no leaves but lots of fungus growing on the tree. I sent in an application to remove the tree, on the grounds that it was dead. I transcribe below a copy of an arbourist report that I paid, frankly a lot of money to obtain.

MR. MICHAEL COLE IS THE OWNER OF [Address redacted] AVE TORONTO AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT A DEAD TREE LOCATED 8 METRES FROM THE BACK OF HIS HOME. THE THE TREE IS A 97 CM DBH ALIANTHUS TREE AND IS DEAD THERE ARE NO LEAVES OR VIABLE BUDS, TREE HAS GIRDLING ROOTS AND HAS SUFFERED FROM POOR PRUNING PRACTICES. TREE HAS CO-DOMINANT STEMS 2.6 METRES ABOVE GROUND WHERE SEVERE DECAY EXISTS. LACK OF BARK AND FRUITING BODIES CAN BE SEEN IN PHOTO. TREE IS DEAD AND HAZARDOUS AND IS THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM CITY OF TORONTO TREE BY-LAWS. TREE SHOULD BE REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Then there were some pictures, here they are.

So I sent a scanned copy of my arborist's report along with the images to the City of Toronto Forestry Services department. Here is my cover note.

Michael Cole 31/05/2011 9:12 am
Dear Sirs,

Sorry for the delay however the scanner at my office was broken for the past couple weeks.

Please see the attached arborist report as well as images of the tree in my back yard at [redacted]. It is my intention to remove the dead Alianthus tree and plant two saplings, likely one maple and one oak, further from any structure. If this request could be expedited so that I can plant the new saplings before the summer (give them extra time to take root) I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you

Michael

Never underestimate a tree's ability to start growing when you least want it to, at least if it's a Tree of Hell.

Dear Mr. Cole,

I have reviewed your request for an exemption including photos attached for the 97 cm diameter Tree of Heaven tree located at the above noted property.

Please be advised that the noted tree does not qualify for an exemption under the Private Tree Bylaw as it is neither dead (100%), terminally diseased or imminently hazardous. You may obtain a permit to remove the subject tree based on its condition.

Please submit the required application to injure or destroy trees on private property, application fee ($100), payable to the Treasurer, City of Toronto, in form of certified cheque or money order and replanting plan, in order that we may proceed with the permit issuance process. You may obtain a permit to remove the subject tree based on its poor structure condition.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,


Jetmir Balashi,

I had to reply, although it turned out Balashi had inspected the tree between when I last looked at it, and it grew it's first leaves. (Great timing.)

The attached, for the second time, arborist report explicity states “tree is dead”. Now I may not be a biologist but being dead is a binary state, the tree is either dead or it is not dead. How can it be something other than 100% dead? Please read the end of the second line of the arborist report, or if you do not have Adobe Acrobat I will transcribe the entire report here:

[See the arborist report above]

Why do I need a permit to remove this tree?? My neighbor reports that last summer parts, i.e. entire branches, of the tree blew into his yard and nearly damaged his property. If property damage occurs because I could not remove what a certified arborist tells us is a “hazardous” tree who is going to take the financial and legal responsibility???

Well either I can see the future, or the truth is, I was right and the city arborist doesn't know a hazzard when it flies eight meters across the backyard.

Bring out the disgust.

I wrote another email to the city,

Sirs,

I am attaching a copy of my correspondence (attachments.zip) with the city from late May and early June of this year. At that time I requested permission to remove what was thought to be a dead tree from my yard. I noted that branches of the tree had fallen in past years, as it would turn out this problem has become steadily worse.

I was told "...that the noted tree does not qualify for an exemption under the Private Tree Bylaw as it is neither dead (100%), terminally diseased or imminently hazardous." By:

Jetmir Balashi,
Urban Forestry Assistant Planner
Tree Protection & Plan Review
Toronto & East York District

I am attaching images taken in the immediate aftermath of the recent storm (20110822.zip). I do not yet have a quote on the cost of repairs; however, I suspect the amount to be in the range of many thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. I should also note that what is left standing is very definitely a hazard. As this opinion is shared not only by an arborist, but an engineer (myself), I sincerely hope you will not present further impediments to my urgent request to get rid of what is left of the tree.

Frankly we are lucky, my wife was standing near the window when the tree became airborne. If she had been hurt I would not be sending this email, instead I would be calling for criminal charges of negligence against those responsible for what would have been an entirely preventable disaster.

Yours,
Michael Cole

And here is Balashi's reply:

Subject: 12 Coleman Avenue - Request to remove damaged tree before it causes more property damage

Hi Michael,

Please be advised that I visited your property earlier this morning and confirmed that due to the damage incurred during a recent windstorm, the Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) tree situated at the rear of your property, is imminently hazardous and therefore exempt from the City's Private Tree by-law. Attached is a copy of the Confirmation of Exemption form.

As you indicated in your email, Urban Forestry staff did previously inspect this tree based upon receipt of a request for exemption from the Private Tree by-law to remove a dead tree received from yourself. The tree was inspected and it was determined at that time that the tree was neither; dead, terminally diseased or imminently hazardous and therefore not exempt from the by-law. The results of this inspection were conveyed to you via e-mail on June 3, 2011. At that time you were advised that the tree was in poor condition and that Urban Forestry would issue permit authorizing its removal should you apply to do so.

It is import to understand that trees are living organisms and their condition is in a constant state of change. Also, we are unable to fully predict how trees, in any condition, will react when exposed to extreme weather conditions such as those we experienced this past weekend.

Please let me know if you need any further information or would like to discuss this matter further.

A question: Why do these guys get salary? I never would have imagined a job description of:

• Go uninvited onto other people's property.
• Examine the local fauna.
• Deny home owners the ability to protect their own property.

I wish I worked for the city sometimes!

On SUVs

The trouble with large organizations is that to get anything done requires a mountain of paperwork. My employer has contracted me out for an extended period to a very large company that requires reams of officialdom to get anything accomplished. I have done perhaps two hours of useful work over the past three days, the rest of the time I have spent waiting for the tools I need to do the useful work. It occurs to me, you want 100% employment? Just have one employer, they would be so dreadfully inefficient there would be a labour shortage.

In other news, someone I know (and that’s about as much hint as to who they might be that I am willing to give) is a vegan. Okay, so far no biggie. I mean I am a liberal progressive kind of guy, stands to reason I’d know a few vegans. Not that I am a vegan, or even a veggie, sorry, I like my chicken, hamburgers, and a good steak is always welcome! Anyway this person I know, the vegan, got themselves a new car. Well not great, but you know, North America, we kinda need motor vehicles, sucks but what can you do? It’s a large car, well alright, needs to transport the kids… no this vegan doesn’t have children… okay the bicycle? Sure why not – driving a bicycle is silly if you ask me but then I name my bikes so I cannot be an authority on things sane. Except, and here’s the kicker this person bought an SUV.

Okay, I concede if you have kids big cars make sense, I figure a station wagon, or as the English call them, an estate car is probably the most sensible thing, lots of passenger space, low centre of gravity means it can corner faster and safer, reasonable fuel economy. Or if you have lots of kids and (or) lots of cargo clearly a minivan or people carrier would be the right thing to buy. But when to buy an SUV? Well I will concede SUVs make sense if you drive on the dirt roads a lot, but other than that, lousy fuel economy, dangerous tendency to roll over, small passenger and cargo space (yes it’s true, you get more interior volume in a minivan than an SUV, and probably more space in the average estate car than in a mid-sized SUV as well). So why buy one of these things, particularly if you are a proud vegan? Doesn’t the damage done by burning the extra gasoline rather offset any good done by going vegan?

One lame excuse I hear from time-to-time, SUV drivers will talk about how efficient modern engines are. So lets look at VW/Audi, since I have a Jetta. True, the 2.0L engine that one finds on say the Audi Q5 or VW Tiguan, is the very same engine found on the 2.0L A4, 2.0L Passat and so on. Heck the chassis on the Tiguan is probably the A4 chassis. But funny thing, that aerodynamic drag of a big body way up in the air, just clobbers the fuel economy numbers. Don’t believe me, check out the EPA ratings. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/) Just comparing a 2.0L standard Tiguan with a 2.5L Jetta SportWagen, the Tiguan gets 18mpg city to the Jetta’s 23mpg, the Tiguan gets 26mpg on the highway, the Jetta, 33. The EPA estimates the average Tiguan driver will burn 16.3 barrels of oil per year, the same amount of driving in a Jetta, 13.2 barrels per year. Of course the Jetta’s got the bigger engine and it weighs less so it will be more fun to drive. But what about interior volume, well it is true the Tiguan has 95.3 cubic feet of passenger space to the Jetta’s 91.7 cubic feet, but once we discuss cargo there’s a slightly bigger issue, the Tiguan has 28.3 cubic feet (or 56.1 cubic feet if you fold the back seats down) to the Jetta’s 32.8 cubic feet (or significantly 66.9 cubic feet with the back seats down). In other words, not only is the Jetta cheaper, faster, burns less fuel (and I haven’t even discussed the possibility of a diesel Jetta) but it’s got an extra ten cubic feet of cargo space yet looses only four cubic feet of passenger space to the Tiguan. So the numbers would suggest, get the Jetta. And I have yet to look at the NHTSA safety rating, let me see, well apparently both cars get four out of five stars. Okay SUV fans, same manufacturer, comparable vehicle, yet I can discern no good statistical reason why a person should favour the SUV over the estate car. Unless that four cubic feet of passenger space actually matters that much, in which case, why aren’t you looking at the Minivan?

I think I’m going to take up Veganism, then maybe I’ll understand the attraction of the Stupid Ugly Vehicle.

On A Long Ride

Apparently the BCC went for another ride up to Lake Simcoe on Sunday. Ironically I did not go with. Well the weather was supposed to, and apparently did rain, a lot, up north. Down in the city it did not rain much, if at all. I spent the day mostly resting actually, it was nice. Of course Saturday I rode about 110km (GPS hiccuped and reported almost 700km, so I will stick with 110km, since that is about what it measures to with Gmaps.) Then on Simcoe (holiday) Monday I rode 196.1km to the Forks of the Credit which is the prettiest six and a half kilometers of road in Ontario.

I said it was ironic that I did not go with the BCC to Lake Simcoe, it was ironic because I created the route they took. But then the new route, to the Forks is even better than the one to Simcoe. Sure there is more built up city riding, but my route makes up for that with the country riding that is in there too.

Anyway here is the route I took, and having done it once, I have already revised it to make it even better, here is my new route. I have to admit, I am really looking forward to my next ride out there.

I promise, I will write up a review, if I get a chance but work is keeping me very busy lately.