Raise the Hammer Newsfeed - Articles Blogs

Siemens Factory to Shut Down

2010-03-11T12:00:00Z

Westinghouse/Siemens ends its long relationship with Hamilton. The Siemens factory on Sanford Ave will be shut down and over 500 well-paying jobs will disappear with it.

Sadly, this will end a long term presence in Hamilton. Siemens purchased Westinghouse Electric in 1997. Subsequently, the Hamilton facility was modernized to manufacture 60 Hz gas turbines next to Westinghouse's former Canadian corporate head office on Sanford Ave.

Former Westinghouse Canadian Head Office

Westinghouse originally manufactured air brakes for the booming rail industry, but over the years it evolved to make household appliances and in 1955 employed 11,000 people, second only to Stelco.

The 60 Hz turbine production will move to an existing manufacturing facility in Charlotte, NC. The company will invest $135 million in a new facility. Production of the 60 Hz turbines will start in the fall of 2011.

What does Charlotte have that Hamilton doesn't?

Charlotte is an expanding city with a healthy, diverse economy, including a hub of financial services. It represents a typical sunbelt sprawling automobile dependent city, but In 2007 it cut the ribbon on its light rail line, "The Lynx".

Charlotte Blue Line LRT: 'The Lynx'

In 1994 Charlotte opened its football stadium in the city center, choosing that site over a suburb in Mecklen County, another option at the highway intersection of I-85 and US-74 in Gaston County, and another possible site near the NASCAR Lowes Motor Speedway.

Charlotte located its foodball stadium downtown

Not all business decisions are made for purely financial reasons.

Searching for Signs of Inspiration

2010-03-11T12:00:00Z

I recently read in the Hamilton Spectator that something like eight out of the top ten employers in this city are public entities (amazingly, Tim Horton's was not on the list). For any professional navigating Hamilton's job market, that is certainly not a surprising figure.

As I've written before, the job market in Hamilton is not particularly inspiring if you are looking to inspire. Where there is an occasional, blessed opportunity, Hamilton's top "employers" are the types of entities bloated with sclerotic human resource bureaucracies that use computer programs to somehow find the most suitable employee from a vast number of desperate submissions.

From the exposure I've had to these "employers," I envision a scene out of Brazil in which HR robots look for other robots by feeding thousands of resumes like punch-cards into vacuum tubes.

And being public entities, the largest employers in this town are faced with budget cuts well into the future. Top-flight medical and educational systems are all well and good (and in fact necessary), but before regional elites try to take a page out of Pittsburgh's playbook by relying heavily on these two pillars, we must remember that in this country they are completely handcuffed by government appropriators.

Thus, if there ever is an economic recovery in the offing, the concern should be that it would skip over Hamilton.

'City of Entrepreneurs'

However, according to the Chamber of Commerce this is the City of Entrepreneurs. So, Hamilton is where you come to create your own job, not apply for one. Fair enough - the type of deregulated environment, progressive municipal policies and bold, inspirational thinking embraced by local leaders required to stimulate entrepreneurial economic activity are invigorating and sure to generate growth in the creative economy.

Except that this does not describe Hamilton at all.

With time and investigation, I now have a fairly good idea of how this city works. With municipal facilitation, private investment in this city swallows up its greenfields, while projects that are designed to help transform downtown rely primarily on government largesse (such as it is).

Despite elites' constant incantation of "Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh," a tremendously disproportionate amount of energy is devoted to paving paradise while, in the core, parking lots stretch as far as the eye can see and buildings crumble due to neglect with nary an implication to their "investors".

In this city, downtown councillors decry the presence of "hoodlums" walking around Jackson Square while doing nothing to actually develop or champion a transformative downtown strategy; "investors" sit on downtown land for no apparent reason with the tacit approval of our politicians; and speculators look to turn arable land into gold by clinging to outmoded notions of growth and feeding the re-election war chests of career politicians.

Standing in the Way of Progress

Though there are many people devoted to reviving the downtown core, too many politicians, entrenched interests and structural obstacles are standing in the way of progress.

With few exceptions, unless you are bulldozing farm fields to build tracts of subdivisions or using government grants to make a living off of Hamilton's vast poverty industry, you are not going to amass enough resistance to Hamilton's jurassic, tone-deaf and myopic political and institutional elite (even if the Mayor might be the best of the bunch).

When I first discovered that Hamilton has an undeserved image and reputation, I was inspired by the opportunities and potential that exists in this community. The more time I spend in this city, the more I learn that "potential" and "opportunity" exist mainly in the minds of the terrific people that press on with a change agenda despite the obstacles.

In this town, inspiration starts with citizen initiatives and then passes through consultant reports, where it gets watered down by bureaucrats and presented to councillors that are threatened by change.

A Bold and Inspirational Agenda

Will the Creative Catalyst ever emerge as a reality, even if it is a proven method to create a significant, long-term return on investment? Same with LRT. Will the Connaught eventually need to be torn down because it represents a hazard?

After reading the Spec today, because a few wealthy people lack any imagination, what are now the odds that the Pan Am Games will bring any appreciable benefit to the core?

When eight out of the top ten employers in this city rely on government caprice, a bold and inspirational agenda is required of our local leaders to attract private investment to transform and revive Hamilton's downtown, not expand its periphery.

The problem is that too many decision-makers in this city profit from the status quo. Unless their job security is at stake, Hamilton's job market and urban development will continue to rely on the whims (and health) of government entities.

Don't Let Narrow Interests Hijack Stadium Plan

2010-03-11T12:00:00Z

Today's Spectator carries a disturbing piece outlining a plan by some local businessmen to look at having Hamilton's Pan Am stadium built somewhere other than the West Harbour/downtown location currently proposed.

The thinking behind this "stadium coup" (as the Spec puts it) is so typical of Hamilton that it makes you wonder how we'll ever get ahead in the high tech, sustainable, urban world that we now live in.

There are several issues I have with this loosely outlined plan as presented in the article.

First, none of us will be surprised that a small group of Hamilton's elite are circling like vultures at the sight of public money.

I don't know who is involved in these talks, but I'm willing to bet that the names will be familiar when they are finally revealed. It seems that Hamilton's newest industry is filling the pockets of a few well-off developers with our tax dollars.

Even more disturbing is the continued notion that public money should be used to fill private pockets, even if it means sacrificing what's best for the city.

Go look at the disgusting exterior of city hall for one of many examples of this. Instead of spending the extra $2 million on decent limestone siding, we decided to save it as a kickback to the contractor upon the job being completed.

The seat of government in Hamilton and our most iconic public building ends up looking like crap so a few folks can jam their bank accounts with our money.

Location, Location, Location

My second beef is with the three alternative locations. Let me say this right off the bat: if a group of private builders wants to build a stadium on the LaFarge Canada property, do it on your own dime!

Think Hamilton has an image problem now? Wait until the folks from TO visit for a concert or Labour Day game and find themselves surrounded by smokestacks, polluted air, transport trucks and absolutely nothing else nearby to do in terms of entertainment.

Only in Hamilton could we find a way to spend tens of millions of dollars and end up further harming the city's image, instead of helping it.

Oh wait, I forgot. That doesn't matter. The trucks and cars flying by on the QEW will supposedly help fill the pockets of someone (not you, or I, or city hall coffers) who gets to slap their name on the side of the stadium.

I hope they use carbon resistant letters or power-wash their sign three times a day.

I have absolutely no interest in putting our prized stadium in a location that will leave visitors gasping at their surroundings ... and gasping on the soot they just swallowed with their hot dog.

If public money is going to be spent on this project, we need to look at the location that best serves the public interest. In this case that means looking at accessibility, spinoff effects, image building, legacy building - you know, all the reasons the site study recommended the West Harbour.

What kind of legacy are we building by putting our stadium in the middle of the spot that everyone else in the country wants to avoid like the plague?

I love our steel heritage and the jobs that the industry produces, but I don't really feel like sitting in between blast furnaces and highways on game day.

Cars, Cars, Cars

Another proposed location is a piece of land at Centennial and the QEW. Again, there is only one reason why such a location would be considered - cars, cars and more cars. Maybe out-of-towners could walk up Centennial to McDonald's after the game for a night on the town.

Oh wait, there are no sidewalks on portions of Centennial.

Again, I have no interest in spending a lot of public money on a project that will benefit exactly one person - the CEO of whichever company wants their name on the side of the stadium.

We know there is a small group of Hamilton elites who have no interest in city building and helping to turn this into a sustainable city with electric light rail, walkable neighbours and downtown redevelopment as priorities.

Thankfully much of our business community, including the Chamber of Commerce and other heavyweights, slowly seem to be coming around to the fact that quality of life draws new companies, jobs and residents.

Car Reigns Supreme

Finally, the Burlington St and Victoria site is most baffling. It's too far from downtown to have any spinoff effects. There is nothing nearby to walk to unless folks want tours of Bunge Canada after a game. Yet it's also too far from the QEW or 403 to offer any car-centric visibility.

This suggestion might be the most disturbing out of them all because it still involves the massive cleanup of a large Brownfield and yet offers absolutely nothing in terms of spinoff effects or city building.

Is someone really going to build a condo building with shops and cafes next to Bunge?

This location would seem to be on the list for one reason and one reason only - one-way highway access via Victoria and Wellington and Burlington Street. Again, the car reigns supreme.

Long Term, Public Interest Perspective

If we're going to build a stadium in Hamilton that might be around for another ninety years like Ivor Wynne, we'd better make sure that we have a long term perspective in mind.

When public money is largely going to pay for this project, there is also a moral obligation to all taxpayers to do what is best for our city.

Properly designed urban stadiums have become the rage in North America in recent years. Look at the incredible district that now surrounds Fenway, Camden Yards or PNC Park in San Fran.

I want a stadium district that is a short walk to the wonderful cafes on James North, the beautiful trails of the West Harbour and gives visitors a myriad of options for dining and entertaining from simple sunset strolls to a night in Hess Village.

Hamilton's downtown core and adjacent brownfields have been ignored for far too long and it's up to the residents and politicians to make the right decision based on the positive effects to be gained by our downtown neighbourhoods and businesses.

Twenty-First Century Thinking

A recent letter to city council from a local businessman suggested that the Pan Am Stadium be built in conjunction with the A-Line light rail system. This is proper thinking for a city in the twenty-first century.

Perhaps the one saving grace staring us in the face is the fact that the Pan Am Games committee wants to welcome the world and put on our best face while they are here.

It would be nice for Hamilton to make the right decision, but I'm hopeful that the larger committee responsible for the games and for securing the public money will wield some power and save us from the utter humiliation of welcoming our guests to the front gate of Columbia Chemicals for the games.

Cities stopped building stadiums out in the middle of nowhere, far removed from their urban cores many years ago. That alone scares me, due to the fact that Hamilton seems intent on remaining decades behind everyone else.

We can't let a small interest group hijack this process. Some decisions are huge and can only be made once. We either get it right, or we continue with our botched legacy of failed projects and misused tax dollars.

Make your voice heard and urge our council to make the right decision - for Hamilton.

Hamilton: A Love-Hate Story

2010-03-10T12:00:00Z

Ah, love-hate relationships. We city-dwellers know about those.

I shook the dust off of my feet when our family left Toronto - couldn't wait to leave it. We were living in a spot that was supposed to be up and coming, on the cusp.

It was a place where movie shoots took place pretty regularly (nothing flatters us Canadians more than being discommoded by an American movie shoot in which garbage is scattered around the faded main street of a neighbourhood to make it look like some kind of slum), and real estate agents called us Beaches West.

But the neighbourhood pretty much went nowhere for the eight years we were there, and was getting pretty rough in some pockets. Besides, we couldn't afford a house the size we needed, so we went to another apparently up and coming location: one where there were art galleries and theatres that we could actually afford to visit, as well as an affordable house which, similarly appointed, would have cost us over half a million dollars in Hogtown.

Having had occasion to visit Toronto a couple of times in the last few weeks, once not far from our old house, I found myself longing to return to that little bungalow where we could see the lake from our driveway, around the corner from the Polish bakery that made such delicious rye bread that it could hardly keep up with the demand of the out-of-towners who drove into the city to buy it.

The old neighbourhood is looking a little shinier, a little busier. There are signs of a burgeoning arts scene, or at least a group of people who are committed to establishing one. Do I regret that we left it? Perhaps I do.

Am I tired of Hamilton? Of inadequate transit, and a downtown that looks like one crazy jumble of well-intentioned and then ultimately aborted projects? Of trying to find someplace in our neck of the woods that's not called Tim Horton's but is open for a coffee after ten p.m.? Of the Lister block? Of no decent shopping except at the bloody power centres that bookend the Linc?

If I left it, would I regret leaving? Nope.

Well, maybe. I would come back to visit and remember summer nights on the front porch sharing a glass of wine with Stephen while the kids hollered to us about petty disagreements through the front window and we laughed and hollered back at them to get the heck up to bed, but not so loudly as to detract from the mellow pleasure we took in the bands playing the Festival of Friends, heard quite clearly from our house.

I'd remember the view from the top of the Kenilworth stairs, and the checkout ladies at the Delta No-Frills who knew us well enough to chat at the end of the weekly grocery run. The place would be crawling with art aficionados, and even by-law aficionados.

What do you know? I'd see that Gage Park was finally getting a facelift.

I might even ponder that no place where a person lives is going to meet every need all the time, and that even Paris is tiresome to Parisians, as much as they love it.

Much better to embrace the adventure of the inconvenient, and learn to love our less-than-perfect neighbourhoods.

Finies les balades le long du canal
les escaliers des cartes postales
c'est fini, Paris
c'est décidé, je me barre
finis le ciel gris, les matins moroses,
on dit qu'à Toulouse les briques sont rose
oh là-bas, Paris, les briques sont roses

-- Camille, "Paris", 2002

Uncertain Future for Green Energy

2010-03-09T12:00:00Z

In most OECD countries, climate change advocacy and carbon finance have gained high leverage, and corporate interests wrestle for the constantly changing government subsidies, aids, carbon credits, clean development offsets, feed-in tariffs and tax favors to develop alternate energy and make the economy "go green".

The base for these supports to carbon finance and trading, and to politically forced, very rapid development of "green energy" is government action, legislation and financial aid, depending on public funds, and these presently depend on public debt.

Debt financing of everything, especially the goal of energy transition, will continue being needed until and unless carbon taxes and trading attain annual turnover able to generate the funding needed for the ever larger targets announced by political leaders.

To date, the now complex and ramifying world of carbon finance is self-feeding and maintaining, with little to show in the way of falling CO2 emissions, but also generates relatively little spin-off from purely financial operations, to large and rapid development of "green energy", despite this being the nominal target of carbon finance and trading.

The goals of politically forced energy transition have attained extreme high levels, for example claimed targets of 80% reductions in CO2 emissions and implied cut of 80% in the dependence on fossil energy by 2040 announced by Obama, and the leaders of Germany, France and UK before the Copenhagen climate summit.

Financing of the programmes needed to achieve these extreme high goals will require much bigger financing than present methods and frameworks can deliver. Added to the costs of carbon finance, and presently small-scale carbon taxes, the net result will be energy prices rising, probably by large amounts.

Increasingly disconnected from reality, "going green" is presented by OECD political leaders as anideological quest "to save humanity" or "to save human civilization as we know it", in a forced march away from fossil fuels and a forced energy transition to energy saving and renewable energy.

The costs of this forced march, like national debts, are rarely announced and discussed, but are almost unlimited and can be estimated and analyzed. They are so high it is sure that a type of "Marshall Plan for Energy" would be needed, if the announced targets were treated as real, credible and feasible.

Cheap Oil Or Climate Catastrophe?

Several reasons exist for the energy focus of "preventing climate catastrophe", and these reasons especially include the oil price. Politically-motivated attempts to create widespread fear of climate change, and the culture shock of global warming extremism are however deemed to be the only politically correct ways to mobilize and channel the consumer herd into accepting forced energy transition.

When oil prices hit the level of USD 120 a barrel for the first time in May 2008, oil cornucopians knew they were in trouble: in the 5 years 2003-2008 oil prices had quadrupled, yet world oil production, in the exact same way as world mined gold production had not responded. Almost no new production was brought online.

World 'conventional crude' oil production flatlined at around 73 Mbd (million barrels per day), and stays close to that level today in 2010.

The sombre case for peak oil of course looks stronger with every new dollar rise in the barrel price, calling strenuous effort from the media and media-friendly 'experts' to explain this was an artificial situation, partly due to hostile anti-western regimes in oil exporter countries, and to 'demand side response' to unreaonably high oil prices by intelligent consumers.

The oil establishment, including major corporations such as BP and the Bush administration's favoured oil cornucopian Daniel Yergin of CERA, explained this non-response of world oil supply to a 300% price increase as due to modern IT-savvy consumers cutting their oil demand due to price rises, and more supply from the renewable energy alternatives like the basically uneconomic and high energy cost-to-produce food crop based biofuels.

The bottom line of oil cornucopians was and is simple: Peak oil will be neutralized by peak demand, increasing efficiency, biofuels, and most important and more real - by the worst recession, according to the IMF, since 1945 and an explosion of company failures and unemployment.

Star speakers working the climate change lode include Al Gore who continues to announce (in a February 27 interview with New York Times) that the world faces "unimaginable calamity" from global warming and must act now to save human civilization as we know it.

In recent high paid interviews, Al Gore now deftly extends his definition of "unimaginable calamity" to also include high oil prices, placed by him at a price level above USD 80 a barrel, describing the oil bill of the USA as costing "hundreds of billions dollars a year".

The most recent record annual net oil costs of the USA were around USD 220 billion in 2007. This can be compared with the USD 1300 billion US budget deficit for fiscal year 2010 recently announced by Obama, or the cumulative amount of financial bailouts to Wall Street by Poulson, under G W Bush, and Geithner under B H Obama in 2008-2009 and totalling about USD 1500 billion.

Similar government bailout of corporate financial gamblers in Europe has cost similar amounts, well above USD 1000 billion in 2008-2009.

Getting Others To Save Oil

Climate extremism reached its most-recent highwater mark and limit at the Copenhagen climate summit, but massively failed to move China and India into the forced march away from fossil fuels under the highly special terms dictated by the OECD countries, led by the USA, Germany, France and UK.

These terms included a rapid halt to oil-based and oil-fired economic growth in China and India, through immediate and uniform worldwide CO2 emissions limits being applied, whatever the energy intensity or average oil consumption per capita of the countries expected to join with the OECD countries.

The basic objective was simple: persuade China and India to reduce their growth of oil demand, to keep oil import prices down for OECD countries who can then maintain the consumer civilization party a little longer. To be sure, OECD politicians and media play act as if they are mesmerised by the fantasy of "unimaginable calamity" due to global warming, but this has an increasingly declared real world handle: act to stop oil prices from rising.

Chinese and Indian oil consumers are constantly increasing their consumption notably due to car production and ownership expanding at around 15% to 20% a year, every year, in both countries. Despite this feat of conventional economic growth, almost exactly the same as growth of car ownership in USA, Europe and Japan in the 'Trente Glorieuse' period of fast economic growth through 1950-1975, oil demand per capita in China and India trails very far behind consumption in the 'postindustrial' and 'ecological minded' societies of the OECD.

Average Chinese and Indian per capita oil consumption in 2010 is around 75% lower for China, and 90% lower for India, than the OECD average of 14 barrels per capita per year. When or if 'postindustrial' consumers in the OECD countries wanted to only waste as much oil as average industrialising Chinese and Indians do today, they would need to cut their oil consumption by around 75% to 90%.

Until then, dictating a forced march to energy transition is likely to get continued resistance from China and India.

The Catastrophe Of High Oil Prices

Fast energy transition away from fossil fuels is no longer presented as simply desirable, but an urgent necessity for preventing catastrophe in the OECD countries. The definition of "catastrophe" as announced by high priest Al Gore is now and/or climatic or economic, with economic catastrophe redefined as paying USD 80 for a barrel of imported oil.

Oil consumers in OECD countries who pay very high taxes to the state on their final consumption currently pay as much as USD 275 a barrel at the filling station pump, making USD 80 a barrel somewhat cheap and low by comparison.

In the speeches of the presidents, prime minister and chancellor of USA, Germany, France and UK many times repeated in public debate and in interview before the Copenhagen climate summit farce, massively cutting CO2 emissions in the shortest possible timeframe is the "last chance to save the planet".

This may with hindsight merely have been allusion to to consumers and motorists perhaps paying another 30 US cents per litre at the pump in the coming year, under the worst case scenario for oil price rises in 2010. If pump prices rose 30 US cents a litre - and no new taxes were applied - this would need a rise of USD 48 dollars on each barrel imported, raising import prices to USD 128 a barrel.

OECD political leaders however prefer to whine at the microphone about "climate calamity" and saving polar bears from paddling in slush by using less oil, to keep the price down. Favored and distorted claims of climate change extemists and their media followers include the "possible" melting of "nearly all" ice sheets in an undefined period, possibly 75 years.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, without polar bears but holding about 77% of all world ice by weight, has in fact grown by a few percent (by about 10 000 cubic kilometres in volume) since 1960. Melting all the world's ice inventory under the most extreme imaginable global warming, of a sustained +7.5°C rise in average world temperature, itself not possible, would probably take more than 5,000 years.

The real world possibility of this incredible temp rise being sustained for 5,000 years is probably less than 0.01%.

Cutting oil demand to keep the oil price low and maintain the throwaway consumer society in existence a little longer, an artisitic 'prolonging the agony' call, is therefore the real world goal of the 'climate change fraternity' now including the political leaders of all OECD countries and most of the media.

The major problem is that present energy consumption in the OECD countries, about 85% based on fossil fuel burning, is directly linked to OECD economic performance and the maintenance of high rates of personal consumption, that is high rates of throwing away one-trip resources and whining about the environmental devastation this causes.

Another basic problem for a forced march away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is that the non-fossil alternatives, outside large-scale hydropower, are relatively difficult and costly to develop, relatively diffuse or non-concentrated. Under the most optimistic scenarios including large and long-term subsidies and financial aid from goverment, financed by debt in current conditions, the present crop of increasingly massive, increasingly impossible official programmes in the USA, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other OECD countries "to save human civilization as we know it" could only replace and substitute about 7.5% to 10% of present energy demand by 2030-2040, according to the IEA.

Realities such as the above are however ignored, eluded, or denied by present-crop political leaderships in the oil and energy intensive OECD consumer societies. Probable reasons include the painful refusal of facts to fit panic-driven fantasy.

Nuclear Power

In a recent Facebook post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu made the case the USA must develop more nuclear power because solar and wind power are variable resources, and can only provide about 25% of current US electricity demand by around 2035 unless there is massive, very costly and quite rapid development of what are called Smart Grids.

These would operate to "spread the pain" by quickly cutting off consumers when power supplies are too low, and force the most efficient possible use of electricity by very variable tariffs, changing rapidly with supply-demand balances.

Other tech gimmicks are added to Smart Grid business proposals, notably new types of electricity storage other than costly pumped water storage, like compressed air and flywheels, but the basis of the concept is to raise final electricity prices and ration supply to give clean energy investors a good return on their bets.

And of course "to save the planet from catastrophe", as Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, and presidents, prime ministers and chancellors line up to say with eye-popping sincerity.

Nuclear power expansion itself faces numerous limits, notably uranium supply, waste disposal, and the decommissioning of aged nuclear reactors - and of course 'nuclear proliferation' or weapons production from nuclear materials and wastes. The decision of the Obama administration of the USA to 'push the restart button' on nuclear power is a simple choice dictated by the lack of realistic alternatives, including the unrealistic and forced energy transition to energy saving and renewable energy.

Credibility Problems

This basic problem with near-term future energy limits on global economic growth is not enough supply, and too much demand. Government policy and legislative changes to prevent this real menace of "permanent supply shortage" should have taken place 35 years ago, but nothing happened.

The age-old and hallowed principle of laissez aller-laissez faire generates its inevitable real world result: chaos. Older generations decided to do nothing and use up the "low hanging fruit", or cheaper and more abundant energy resources, and following generations have to clear up the mess - if they can.

Austerity and long term economic crisis are two likely real world sequels to the growth economy based on cheap fossil fuels, but other and more sombre sequels of doing nothing too long are easy to describe.

This reality is carefully eliminated from any discussion on green energy and transition to sustainability, other than the clear implication and clear proof that the present is unsustainable, can only change, and must change.

The demand side of the equation, for electricity and all other forms and types of energy, is confronted by massive upward growth potential but supply is difficult to raise, expensive, complicated and slow. World oil demand, for example, would rise more than 50% if China and India attained even one-half today's oil intensity of the OECD countries, of 14 barrels per capita per year.

Radically cutting energy intensity in the OECD countries is therefore decreasingly an option, and increasingly a No Alternative, but of course is rarely and openly discussed.

The "zero option", which 35 years back in time could have included Zero Population Growth with massive positive impacts on near-term future energy demand outlooks of today, is the near-term future for OECD "postindustrial" consumer society, engaged in the intensive consumption of every possible and imaginable type of industrial good and energy intensive service.

Zero demand growth for total energy consumption, with a growing role of renewables, is the only rational solution.

Current energy transition policies and programmes, and government or corporate plans to "fight climate change" by reducing oil consumption imply a direct increase in total electricity demand, simply because most renewable energy sources deliver electricity as their final energy putput.

The electric power demand implication of transition away from fossil fuels includes the heavily-touted and subsidized transition to all-electric car fleets. Millions of these cars, each taking 4 kW or more to recharge every day, could or might be produced in many countries by 2015-2020.

In the case of the USA, if today's car fleet of around 215 million was only 10% substituted by all-electric cars (assuming the lithium-based battery supply was in place), these 21.5 million electric cars would need about 85 million kW, that is 85 000 MW, to recharge. Exactly the same reasoning applies to a forced, government-backed introduction of all-electric cars in the EU27 countries, with a present total car fleet around 200 million.

We can surely imagine along with Steven Chu and green energy boomers that Smart Grids could or might limit other uses of electricity, for example heating, cooling, cooking and refrigeration, and we could hope the lighting of office blocks and publicity hoardings all day, all night, at weekends, and on public holidays.

Smart Grids could save power, and could satisfy some of the huge new power demand that will come from all-electric cars. We can also imagine that "responsible minded citizens" anxious to save the planet could or might recharge their planet conscious electric cars in off-peak power periods, but power demand capacity needed for recharging electric cars will very surely raise total demand - unless energy saving becomes draconian.

Draconian energy saving in the road transport sector could be simply and quickly achieved through legislation to limit the weight and engine size of cars. This of course flies against the notion of "liberty", so the no win route to attempts at massively replacing oil-fuelled cars with electric cars will go ahead.

Developing the needed new power capacity for recharging these cars can be costed and programmed, in cash amounts and time needed.

At current wind electric (peak output base), or natural gas power capacity investment costs, we could estimate the shift to a 10%-electric car fleet for the USA would need at least 200 billion US dollars in electric power investment. Costs in Europe would be similar.

In both cases, we should note, it is imagined that there will be zero growth in total car fleet numbers to 2020, and only the replacement of 10% of present oil-fuelled cars, with all-electric or electric-hybrid cars not needing more than 4 kW each to recharge.

No Trace Of Reality

To be sure, following the massive deficit-fianced bailout of the finance sector, and massive aid to the car industry, to encourage consumers to buy new oil-fuelled cars, 400 billion dollars of electric power investment over 10 or 15 years in Europe and USA to cover about 10% of their zero growth car fleet's energy demand can seem quite modest, rational and entirely feasible.

The industrial and technology implications are however real world, and totally different from multi-billion bailouts of failed financial operators. Building the new power plants and developing advanced energy storage and the Smart Grid need heavy and real industrial effort, starting now, and continuing far past the first 10 or 15 years, to 25 years or more. In fact a nearly permanent global programme for energy transition would be needed.

This can be called a "Marshall Plan for Energy", but present confused action and spending, both by governments and the corporate sector shows no trace of this.

Steven Chu, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri and many other defenders of a forced march to energy transition either avoid any discussion of cutting energy consumption, or claim that growth in total energy consumption is entirely possible.

In the case of Chu, however, there is already de facto admission that "greening" electricity supply will need growth of nuclear power, the Smart Grid, and major advances in energy storage.

Again in the US case, the very fuzzily-defined and technologically fragile domain of "advanced energy storage" is already forecast as needing tens of billions of dollars investment, on top of the tens of billions of dollars that Obama has made available for nuclear power because of its ability to generate constant baseload power.

Smart Grid development, to be sure, is also forecast as needing tens of billion dollars investment in the next 10-15 years.

Exactly like national debt, budget deficits and bailouts for "too big to fail" finance sector gamblers, the dozens of billions add on to the hundreds of billions elsewhere. On the ground, almost nothing happens.

Apart from the critical and basic lack of realism of most targets and costs of current-crop plans for energy transition, the most basic unreality concerns a very simply question: Who will pay for the Brave New World of soft energy? An even more basic question is: Do we need energy transition?

High Energy Prices And Austerity

These simple questions with a simple answer are always eluded, because the net result is that energy prices have to rise, will rise, and could rise very fast by future shock spiraling back from the fantasy future, to the tormented present. Much higher energy prices will work their own magic on future energy demand trends.

Whatever the attractive spin that is obligatorily added to green energy proposals, energy prices will rise. When energy prices rise, consumers tend to use less of it, after a little heart-wrenching and soul-searching, and with plenty of collateral damage in the economy.

Reduced energy demand then trims energy prices, often by a lot, making investment commitment to very high cost new technology even less attractive to investors, unless Big Government is there to intervene with deficit-financed aids and subsidies.

When this doesn't work, which will be increasingly evident in the near-term future, governments will legislate for austerity.

Welcome to energy transition!

Open Letter to Terry Cooke: Please Intervene to Save Brantford Heritage

2010-03-09T12:00:00Z

Dear Terry,

It is getting increasingly clear, as Brantford's heritage crisis on Colborne Street unfolds, that one of the organizations which finds itself at the centre of this unfortunate event is none other than the YMCA, an organization of which are a member of the Governing Council.

This is a public appeal to your good conscience and urban awareness to intervene in this crisis. It is my hope that as an outstanding member of the governing council of the YMCA, you will advise your organization in bringing a resolute end to the blasphemy that is occurring in Brantford.

As this Memorandum of Understanding (PDF link) from the City of Brantford website clearly shows, the decisions made on Colborne South are not just morally and ethically flawed, but would not hold up against serious public scrutiny. It is now also re-opening some very old questions.

The messy outcome of this parochial approach has put in jeopardy the future of 41 historic buildings. It has also ended up making a mockery of federal funding meant to boost the economy. Further, the misapplication of expropriation powers to demolish historical assets used here could now be used as precedence by other municipalities, if they are inclined to act in a similar manner with their buildings.

It is beyond comprehension that an organization as venerable as the Y could get itself entangled in a deplorable situation that has the potential of decimating Canada's heritage.

Terry, as the Chair of the Canadian Urban Institute, you, more than most at the Y, have to be acutely aware of the forces that create true urban rejuvenation, and those that lead to crinky illusions of progress.

We know from our own recent urban past that the approach which Y has taken is fatally flawed. It is this flawed proposition that has empowered the Brantford City council in staking out an adversarial position with many from Brantford and across Canada who care enough to know that history matters.

Continuing on this foolish path is simply not acceptable and no longer an option for self-respecting Canadians.

Have our political and cultural lives reached such a low point where some in our midst have come to believe that it is only by expropriating private properties with taxpayers money, destroying built heritage, and then handing over the flattened lands to a private non-profit organization for free, with zero tax-assessment, that we are able to build a sustainable model of urban revitalization for the next generation?

For every Haussmann, there are two dozen examples of renewal-by-fiat that have failed miserably. These glaring failures - many in Canada itself - are on account of the fact that we in Canada have lost the instinct to rebuild our cities with any deeper meaning.

As an example of how shortsighted policies can lead to an expanding spiral of twisted thinking - here is what Mary Welsh of Brantford, who is anxious to raze Colborne South, has to say about our built heritage:

A sound business rule has always been, when something becomes a liability, get rid of it!

In contrast to the above position, is a living example from Copenhagen of what can be achieved by making built heritage a partner in progress. Here is a look at how a for-profit company turned what Mary calls a liability into an asset (PDF link) - Carlsberg City.

It is only by leaving a small footprint on our past that we can take meaningful leaps into the future.

As reported yesterday in the Spectator, "Ontario wants a bigger share of the billions of dollars in revenue from out-of-country students, to help generate funds for cash-strapped colleges and universities."!

This is the new reality of our province. In these times, is destroying our built heritage to build gyms the way to attract foreign students?

Foreign students from various countries who know more about the implicit benefits of coexisting with heritage are watching thesse hijinx unfold on the Internet in real time.

Laurier Brantford, after saving over 14 heritage buildings, has become an inadvertent ally in the worst possible heritage faux pas any educational institution has committed in the world.

Laurier was smart to backtracking on this issue to retain its viability in the eyes of its students. However, it just couldn't resist muddying the waters of Academic freedom while itself caught blinded in the public glare!

Veritas Omnia Vincit. Truth conquers all, so the Laurier University's motto tells us. Now, if only, we can find it fast enough in Brantford!

For the Y, there are many way out of this snafu. The first is to offer an apology to all those it has caused much grief and whose time and energy it has ended up wasting by the pursuit of a patently foolish strategy.

The next is to invite professionals from all walks of life, especially the field of psychology, to ascertain as to how things came to this point, just to ensure that such events do not occur again.

And lastly, is to tell the people of Brantford that the Y indeed respects the heritage of our country, and in a renewed spirit of collaboration, is inviting relevant ideas from them which can truly lead to the revitalization of the spirit and form of Colborne.

Without your timely intervention, the Y may have an extremely difficult time extracting itself from this mess.

Getting to the Bottom of Toyota's Sudden Acceleration Problem

2010-03-09T12:00:00Z

As a materials and manufacturing engineer with decades of experience in failure analysis of manufactured products - and as an owner of a Toyota vehicle - I am saddened by the lack of expertise and insight shared with the US Congress and the public about the sudden acceleration problem.

When products fail due to a systemic design, materials or manufacturing flaw, large and statistically significant levels of problems emerge fairly rapidly. This is definitely not the case with the Toyota problem.

With many millions of Toyota models on which even more millions of miles have been driven, if there had been an inherent materials or manufacturing design defect, then we would have seen untold thousands of cases of sudden acceleration. It literally would have been almost a daily event happening all over the country in many Toyota models.

In fact, little more than 1,000 Toyota and Lexus owners have reported since 2001 that their vehicles suddenly accelerated on their own. This is a tiny, minuscule percentage of Toyotas.

This infrequent runaway car problem is not analogous to a serious case of bacterial contamination of a major food product causing many thousands of cases of food poisoning in a relatively short period. It is even more difficult to find the cause.

Nonsensical Guesswork Servicing

Understanding this nature of defects also means that the so-called solutions of replacing floor mats and gas pedals are sheer nonsense. Indeed, it did not surprise me to read recently that there have already been cases of sudden acceleration in cars that had received fixes by Toyota.

More than 60 Toyota owners have complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about cars already repaired under the two major Toyota recalls, saying they aren't fixed and their throttles can still race out of control.

While recognizing the agony and suffering of sudden acceleration accidents and deaths, it is also necessary to appreciate the statistically rare occurrences of this problem. Only by doing so is it possible to understand that the ultimate explanation - and solution - to the sudden acceleration problem will be a non-systemic flaw or defect in a critical component.

In other words, either a random defect in a material or some unusual and infrequent deviation in a manufacturing process of some critical component.

Only such a situation can logically explain so few sudden acceleration problems in so many millions of cars being operated for many more millions of hours and miles.

Rare Defect, Not Systemic

In my professional opinion, the likely scenario is a defect in a semiconductor chip used in the electronic control system - a defect that was caused by some infrequent flaw in a raw material or manufacturing process that would not show up in routine quality control testing of raw materials or components.

That so many different Toyota models over many years have been found defective signifies the likelihood of a particular problem component made in a specific factory that has been used for quite a while.

Moreover, the defect obviously does not ordinarily impair vehicle performance but only manifests itself under some infrequent conditions, as yet undetermined.

Rita Taylor of Fort Worth, Texas experienced runaway acceleration, took her car to a Toyota dealer, and had the floor mats removed. A few months later she had another frightening runaway episode. Ditto for Eric Weiss in California, who also had a second episode months after the first one and after removing the mats. Others who have not died and kept using their Toyotas have also had repeat events.

Thus, perfectly normal vehicle performance is possible between runaway events.

Accelerator Override System

Make no mistake, the precise cause of such a sporadic event will be incredibly difficult to pin down and even more difficult to remedy. An extremely intense and costly investigation is necessary. It is the classic needle-in-the-haystack problem. If my thinking is correct, it is sheer folly to believe that replacing floor mats or gas pedals can solve the sudden acceleration problem.

However, there is one aspect to the sudden acceleration problem that also is crystal clear and, in some ways, even more aggravating than the acceleration problem.

This is the absence of an override system that absolutely prevents fuel being fed to the engine when brakes are employed while a car is accelerating.

It is gratifying that the US federal government is seriously considering requiring such an override system in all vehicles.

An effective override system might, in the long run, be a faster and more cost-effective solution than chasing-the-defect strategy, especially for retrofitting many millions of vehicles.

Failed Toyota Autopsy

Alternatively, finding the cause of the sudden acceleration problem requires a standard failure analysis methodology: obtain absolutely every Toyota vehicle that has experienced sudden acceleration, and then meticulously examine through microscopic and other types of analysis and testing all critical components of the electronic system (called by Toyota the Electronic Throttle Control System with intelligence).

Think of it like an autopsy.

This does not appear to have been done. To the contrary, the firm hired by Toyota tested several ordinary vehicles and components. One of the primary authors of the Exponent report said they did not examine any vehicles or components that had the unintended accelerations.

This makes no sense whatsoever if the defect is rare and, therefore, its finding that there was nothing wrong was meaningless.

Worse, it was a deception and distraction.

Small Jump From Pad Thai to Cinnamon Buns

2010-03-09T12:00:00Z

A couple of years ago, on my way to the Formula 1 race in Indianapolis, I stopped at an Appleby's Restaurant in the middle of a car park just outside Cleveland. What I saw inside weighed me down. You know those moments that are captured in your brain like a photograph? I'm looking at one now:

There's a lady - a very large lady - sat across from her generously rounded husband. The two of them have just finished a Steak and Fries main. They are staring at a pair of humongous cinnamon buns which the waitress has just plonked down in front of them.

The lady is emptying a bottle of syrup all over her bun. Squirt, plop, squirt...round and round it goes, up and down, zig and zag. Mmmm...

Snap!

Like most memorable pictures this one has a message beyond the lens. The lady appears lost, melancholy, alone. It's as if she doesn't want to be there, with him, eating all that food. I remember the two of them never spoke a word throughout the whole meal. Even the waitress was silent.

Weird.

I remember wanting to ask the lady: Why are you eating all that crap? Why do you need sugar on top of your sugar? I wanted to yell: Stop!

I saw a lot of weird things on that trip. At the circuit, waves of waddling Americans clutching hotdogs, cans of coke, Slushies or Budweisers. Everyone was holding something. It was as if they were worried they would fall over if they weren't held upright by something drinkable or edible.

I remember the quaint little food signs, like the one hanging over the Souvlaki stand: 'Meat on a stick'.

This excursion came back to me today after my wife showed me a little snippet from the Toronto Star. Every week the Star analyzes a dish from a local restaurant or fast food place.

Normally the health statistics relate to the usual junk food suspects, burgers, breakfast biscuits - something beginning with 'Mc'. And normally the stats are pretty grim.

Today's dish though, was a relatively posh affair - Pad Thai from Spring Rolls.

Here are the stats:

Pad Thai

Serving size: 790 grams
Calories: 1,382
Fat: 49 grams
Sodium: 3,160 mg
Carbohydrates: 187 grams
Protein: 48 grams

Recommended daily allowance (Men/Women)

Calories: 2,500/2,000
Fat: 60 to 105g/45 to 75g
Sodium: 1,500 to 2,300 mg
Carbohydrates: 300g

Two days' worth of sodium and almost a whole day's worth of calories - in one meal!

As I read this I got angry. How we are supposed to live a healthy life, I wondered, when even our more reputable dinner joints are serving us this fodder. Isn't anyone looking out for our interests?

My wife struggles with her weight. So, it seems, does half the planet. More than half of America is obese.

While it is common knowledge, I hope, that anything that takes less than three minutes to take out is probably not the healthiest fare, the amount of crap contained in some of our supposedly 'healthier' dishes - Pad Thai? Noodles? What could be less fattening? - is worrying indeed.

Same goes for packaged food. How many countless hours have you wasted scouring the labels in the supermarket, only to have to throw half the stuff back on the shelf? That '50% less fat' label doesn't tell the whole story. 'Low in sodium'? High in carbs.

And don't get me started on carcinogens. How is that we can know about the effects of these additives and yet do nothing to remove them?

Whenever I'm feeling paunchy or shielding my wife's eyes from the digital readout on the bathroom scale, I think back to the Appleby's lady and wonder: If only it were that simple.

Foxcroft's Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

2010-03-12T12:00:00Z

Today's Spectator has a column by Andrew Dreschel in which he quotes Ron Foxcroft expressing concern about the West Harbour location for the Pan Am / Ti-Cats Stadium:

We can talk all we want about public transit but, in North America, we drive cars.

Of course, the principal reason we North Americans drive cars is that we talk about building public transit but spend our money building all-you-can-drive roads, highways and parking lots.

Foxcroft's transit defeatism merely advocates continuing to do what we've always done because it's what we've always done.

The Greenest Building

2010-03-10T12:00:00Z

Congratulations, Brantford: your urban renewal idiocy has now attracted international attention.

Many small towns are experiencing a comeback these days; a combination of aging boomers and the green movement, combined with technology that lets people work just about anywhere make them a viable alternative to urban and suburban life. [...] Smaller cities also have character, walkable main streets, apartments above shops that could be attractive to relocating urbanites.

Then there are towns like Brantford, Ontario, that think old buildings are impediments to progress, and are planning to tear down 41 of them, city blocks worth of them, to make way for...nothing.

Sigh.

Google Maps Adds Bike Routes

2010-03-10T12:00:00Z

Great news: Google is adding bike route information to Google Maps. For now it's rolling out to 150 American cities, but we can expect that they will eventually extend it beyond the US border.

Now all a city like Hamilton needs is a viable bike network in place so cyclists can actually have their choice of safe routes.

Toyota's Troubles and Media Vultures

2010-03-01T12:00:00Z

I've been amused by the newsmedia's recent attempted dismantling of Toyota's reputation. Has Tiger Woods traded his dented Cadillac for a Toyota?

Toyota has had an awful lot of recalls lately, and has done a poor job of post-marketing quality control. But recalls are generally relegated to the fine print on page 17 of the automotive section. Would all the media attention then mean that Toyota has lost its edge on quality or is it unwarranted criticism?

Reliability is one of the most important factors people cite for buying a car. I argue brand reputation should be based on something more solid than marketing hype or media spin.

Consumer Reports tracks problem data from millions of owners in 17 categories over the previous six model years. From this they come up with a single metric of predicted reliability for the new model year, not including discontinued and completely new models.

There are five categories, which I've assigned a number so we can analyze them.

Reliability Categories
CR Reliability Description	Numeric Score
Much worse than average	1
Worse than average	2
Average	3
Better than average	4
Much better than average	5

Every model has a unique score, and these have been grouped according to manufacturer. Let's look at the results, ranked by mean reliability score:

Automobile Models by Mean Reliability Score
Manufacturer	1	2	3	4	5	Total models	Mean Reliability Score
	<< Av	< Av	Av	> Av	>> Av
Scion	0	0	0	0	3	3	5.0
Infiniti	0	0	0	0	2	2	5.0
Honda	0	0	0	6	5	11	4.5
Toyota	0	0	4	5	9	18	4.3
Lexus	0	0	1	5	1	7	4.0
Acura	0	0	0	5	0	5	4.0
Mitsubishi	0	0	0	1	0	1	4.0
Hyundai	0	0	2	5	1	8	3.9
Kia	0	1	1	2	1	5	3.6
Lincoln	0	0	2	2	0	4	3.5
Mazda	0	0	5	2	1	8	3.5
Mini	0	0	1	1	0	2	3.5
Nissan	0	1	7	4	2	14	3.5
Saab	0	0	1	1	0	2	3.5
Subaru	0	0	2	2	0	4	3.5
Suzuki	0	1	0	0	1	2	3.5
Ford	0	0	11	3	1	15	3.3
Mercury	0	1	3	1	1	6	3.3
Volvo	0	1	2	2	0	5	3.2
BMW	0	2	1	2	0	5	3.0
Buick	0	1	1	1	0	3	3.0
Hummer	0	0	1	0	0	1	3.0
Pontiac	1	1	3	0	1	6	2.8
Porsche	1	0	1	1	0	3	2.7
GMC	0	3	3	0	0	6	2.5
Mercedes	2	0	6	0	0	8	2.5
VW	1	3	2	1	0	7	2.4
Chevrolet	3	2	8	0	0	13	2.4
Audi	1	1	2	0	0	4	2.3
Dodge	4	0	2	1	0	7	2.0
Chrysler	3	0	2	0	0	5	1.8
Jeep	3	1	0	1	0	5	1.8
Cadillac	2	1	1	0	0	4	1.8
Saturn	2	1	1	0	0	4	1.8
Land Rover	1	0	0	0	0	1	1.0

Toyota products are shown in green, along with Honda nearly sweeping the top of the chart. Also mentionable is the lone 'much better than average' score for Pontiac might be because it belongs to the sister model of a Toyota.

These data are based on the 2003-2008 model years, and therefore don't account for recent recalls. I will revisit this in a year or two to see if Toyota has a precipitous fall from the top. Don't hold your breath.

Now What, Canada?

2010-03-01T12:00:00Z

Dear Canadian friends and colleagues,

Last evening just before midnight here in Paris, when that third Canadian goal came rocketing into the US cage - and once I stopped sobbing and gnashing my teeth - it occurred to me that it was just about the greatest way in which this year's Olympic Games could have come to an end: with a bang and certainly not a whimper.

Vancouver 2010. Who would have ever guessed what this might mean for so many? What a splendid and truly international event, how important for a needful world at a time in which the Olympic ideal has just about been entirely lost, and what a wonderful present that you Canadians have given yourselves and your country.

There are times when those of us who care and keep our eye on you feel uncertain about whether Canada is in fact there at all. I guess now we know.

As I reflect on all that has taken place over these last several years to bring this about, what strikes me as possibly the main lesson for the rest of the world to glean from your experience, is the extent to which all those involved combined high ambition and real modesty (a great Canadian attribute from which we just to your south have much to learn).

You accomplished this through hard work day after day and more than once in the face of adversity, and a capacity for quiet teamwork in the face of these unanticipated twists and turns that turned out to be exactly what was needed to face all of those unexpected challenges - including perhaps most famously our second goal, the one I believed was the beginning of the end for your hockey team. (So much for my self-proclaimed ability to foresee future events.)

I share these words with you on this morning after, because I feel very strongly that the qualities you have shown in this event are the same ones that are so much needed in the face of the enormous challenges of climate, sustainable development and social justice that face us all.

If I had one thing to ask as far as your performance before these challenges is concerned, it would be that you Canadians might perhaps do us the favor of being just a tad less modest when you are doing important things to show the way for others, eh?

Now, what is your next act?

History Only Repeats When it is Allowed

2010-02-26T12:00:00Z

Two cities in Ontario - Hamilton and Brantford - are presently witnessing lots of dirt being shoveled around in the name of progress.

Both cities, quite distinct and yet similar in their obtuse public ways, are on a development trajectory that has left their citizens gasping for breath from incomprehensible political actions.

One is hell-bent on destroying its past in the name of progress. The other is hell-bent on building an unsustainable future upon the toxic remains of its past.

For societies that are already thriving in many parts of the world on social enterprises that achieve public good while making a profit, understanding the current development approach of Hamilton and Brantford can be confusing.

They rightfully ask: Aren't such things supposed to happen only in the Third World?

Both these stories are unfolding in the First World in slow motion, under the hesitant glare of public scrutiny - both under the assumption that their brittle claims of transparent governance are good enough to continue governing.

Watching these two unguided projectiles hurtling through space, fueled by arrogance and ignorance, can be very sad and scary for those who already know better.

Sitting back and cynically watching these projectiles implode is now entertainment, for the many Ontarians who have been numbed out of their senses.

With the Canadian parliament prorogued, the province in deep debt, and municipal governance on a self-destructive trajectory, never before has a more clear path to self-organizing behavior been posed to the people of Hamilton and Brantford, than this moment.

I once again draw the attention to The Facelift and the Wrecking Ball: Urban Renewal and Hamilton's King Street West, 1957-1971 (PDF link) by Margaret T. Rockwell. Political futures and legacies depend on a successful reading of this document.

Before calls for heritage conservation and fiscal prudence turn into indignant international calls to protect the very ideals that Canada has projected to the world, we hope sanity will prevail in Hamilton and Brantford.

History only repeats itself when it is allowed to.

Ontarians can do better than this. Canadian politicians can do better than this. Canadian educational institutions can do better than this.

Let them look to the past, but let them also look to the future; let them look to the land of their ancestors, but let them look also to the land of their children.
-- Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Bike Lanes Already a Toronto Election Wedge Issue

2010-02-25T12:00:00Z

The first wedge issue of the Toronto municipal Mayoral campaign has been introduced, and it is - bike lanes!

"Rocco Rossi was virtually unknown to most voters two months ago when he entered the race to become Toronto's next mayor," writes the Star's Bob Hepburn.

Now, seemingly overnight, Rossi has emerged along with George Smitherman as one of the two leading candidates to replace David Miller, gaining increasing coverage by the media and growing awareness by voters.

He's achieved this feat by shrewdly riding the wave of anger expressed by many motorists over city hall's plans to install more and more bike lanes on major city streets, most notably Jarvis St.

With an eye to raising his profile, the former federal Liberal party fundraiser is marketing himself as the champion for all those voters, especially those living outside the downtown core, who oppose bike lanes on the grounds they slow traffic and add to rush-hour gridlock.

How convenient. As I recall, Rocco Rossi was not particularly vocal during the Jarvis Street Bike Lanes debates of last year. And yet here he is, just months later, claiming to be the drivers' champion.

We shouldn't be surprised. The subject of walk- and bike-ability has been well and truly hijacked by the media.

Instead of, as [Michelle Martin recently put it](/article/1023/#comment-38444), discussing how we can move people around more safely in our various transportation modes, we are instead pitting the wants of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians.

Without wishing to reiterate it - our needs are all the same! This should not be a wedge issue. It should be a civil discussion about what kind of city we want.

Do we want downtown expressways like Hamilton, or a balanced transportation infrastructure?

Somehow I doubt the shallow, media-hyped Mayoral campaign is going to help us decide.

Canada Walks Hamilton Case Study

2010-02-22T12:00:00Z

Canada Walks has prepared a report on walkability in Hamilton that they will present to the city's Board of Health today. You can download a copy (PDF link) of the study.