Environmental Impacts

The Environmental Impacts of Automobile Centric Urban Growth

The importance of living in a sustainable environment is clear to those concerned for the health of future generations.  Unfortunately, attaining sustainability in an automobile centric urban design is impossible; the automobile is wholly unsustainable.

 

Most people even agree in understanding that the automobile is environmentally unsustainable by looking at the air we breathe.  But, beyond poor air quality there are a myriad of other harvests of damage due to the automobile.  The automobile touches every aspect of our lives but, it is not possible to merely stop relying on the car in this society.

. 

From the book: The Geography of Transport Systems, author Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue points out that transport has a number of relationships between the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the ecosphere.  He further shows that transportation’s main factors considered in the physical environment are geographical location, topography, geological structure, climate, hydrology, soil, natural vegetation and animal life.

The amount of land consumption required to maintain a car culture urban design is untenable for large automobile centric populations.  Loss of fertile farm land through land consumption to maintain sprawl is common knowledge, its lingering effects are unknown. 

New findings of environmental concerns are often unpredicted.  As technology progresses, there is an increase of discoveries regarding the direct and indirect impacts to the ecosystem.  The discoveries have led to new policies which reduce the environmental harm from automobiles.  The consistency of studies linking health problems in air pollution to the automobile caused the State of California to legislate regulations in an attempt to lower automobile usage.

California legislation, AB32 (“The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006”, now CA State law in the Health and Safety Code, Section 38500) mandates 1990 levels of air quality by the year 2020.  This represents a 25% reduction under business as usual estimates.  Additionally, in October 2008, SB 375 was signed into law.  SB 375 gives the California Air Resource Board (CARB) authority to implement strict mandates to reach AB 32 air quality targets.  CARB is demanding the real estate and transportation industries to find viable environmental solutions for the harmful pollution resulting from combustion engine exhaust. 

As an extreme example of unsustainable land use and the indirect impacts; the Lake Tahoe area, in California, has an ongoing campaign which says: “Keep Tahoe Blue”.  Since the 1970s the water in Lake Tahoe has begun losing its pristine and crystal blue brilliance.  The water has taken a greenish tint with uncommon algae growth which has infiltrated into the formerly pristine waters.  The cause is merely disruption of the primitive earth water run off flow patterns due to road building and driveways for parking. 

An automobile is used 5% of its life; the other 95% it sets parked.  To accommodate this lack of use, the automobile centric land-use design has to allow for locations of the car’s idle time.  Parking lots are inefficient when empty and are inadequately inefficient when full.

There is concern in the dialog of environment about water contamination.  One of the biggest sources of contaminates into the water table is water runoff from the roads.  The heavy air particle pollutants of exhausted fumes fall to the ground and are gathered along the road ways.  This material is filtered in the soil but, some unfiltered water flows directly into water sources. 

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) recognizes that roads, highways, and bridges are a source of significant contributions of pollutants to the nation's waters. Contaminants from vehicles and activities associated with road and highway maintenance and construction are washed from roads and roadsides when it rains or snow melts. Large amounts of this runoff pollution are carried directly to water bodies.

The EPA identifies runoff pollution as that associated with rainwater or melting snow that washes off roads, bridges, parking lots, rooftops, and other impermeable surfaces. As it flows over these surfaces, the water picks up dirt, dust, rubber and metal deposits from tire wear, antifreeze and engine oil that has dripped onto the pavement, pesticides and fertilizers, and discarded cups, plastic bags, cigarette butts, pet waste, and other litter. These contaminants are carried into lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans.

When the oils and grease leaked onto road surfaces from car and truck engines, spilled at fueling stations are discarded directly onto pavement or into storm sewers, the rain and snowmelt transport these pollutants directly to surface waters.

Heavy metals come from some "natural" sources such as minerals in rocks, vegetation, sand, and salt but, also come from car and truck exhaust, worn tires and engine parts, brake linings, weathered paint, and rust. Heavy metals are toxic to aquatic life which can potentially contaminate ground water.

Legislatively in 1987, Congress established the Nonpoint Source Management Program under section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), to help States address nonpoint source, or runoff pollution by identifying waters affected by such pollution and adopting and implementing management programs to control it. These programs recommend where and how to use best management practices (BMPs) to prevent runoff from becoming polluted, and where it is polluted, to reduce the amount that reaches surface waters.

The cumulative effects of sprawl are a growing concern to uncontrolled urban expansion.  The necessity of land-use consumption with sprawl development is not ecologically possible to maintain.

Mankind’s technological progression has been able to take advantage of advanced inventions but, there is a limit to Earth’s acceptable damage.  The amount of harm is by no means insurmountable; however, the accumulative increase has reached the point in which a tolerable level has to be discovered.  Vegetation modification, hydric cycles, level of underground water resources, soil erosion, air purification, ecosphere capacity, food sources of agriculture, entertainment and tourism are points that Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue address as critical impacts effected by the car culture. 

Environmentally, for society to reach a point of sustainability its foundation has to be built upon an environmentally friendly transportation source. 

Changing of the Blog

This blog has been spent following the California High Speed Rail.  To simply comment on a government caused impending train wreck is masochistic; this blog will turn to discussing the importance of sustainable transportation.

Impacts of Automobile Centric Urban Growth

Automobiles serve as the center of our car culture society.  In the US, nearly every aspect of one’s life is affected by the car.  At the foundation of urban design is transportation; how a person gets from one place to another.  The automobile, however, is wholly unsustainable.  To base a society on an unsustainable foundation is problematic.  With the automobile centric urban land-use design (urban growth centered around the automobile) based on unsustainability; its effects are seen environmentally, economically and socially.   

In Western Society, today’s Car Culture is the victim of its own doing.  Automobile and related industries have far reaching cultural effects beyond what is easily seen from environmental damage.  Throughout the 100 year history of the automobile and the aggregate of related industries producers; financial success has been its primary goal, a reasonable business objective.  In an automobile centric society, however, there are further reaching consequences that effect its participants to this car culture and the simple goals aspired by product manufactures to increase sales.    

These negative impacts of an automobile’s inefficient nature are magnified over time when used as the base of society.  An automobile centric car culture is an amalgamation of inefficiencies that include land consumption for urban growth.  

In considering what makes the automobile unsustainable, one measure is its basic energy inefficiency.  An average car weighs three thousand pounds.  In terms of inefficient, this says it takes a 3,000 pound car to carry a 200 pound load (one occupant).  The larger the vehicle, the heavier it is and the more energy is spent carrying its own weight. 

The impact of a car’s ability to become more energy efficient regarding its fuel consumption, however, has no bearing on the inefficiency of travel time to society in traffic congestion and the reflecting lower local economic productivity.  This again, complies with the nature of building a society on an unsustainable foundation.

In an automobile centric society, land consumption is engulfed by the automobile. Including freeways, surface streets, driveways, shopping mall parking and other parking, a staggering seventy percent of all land in automobile centric urban land use design (sprawl) is consumed by the automobile.  The human component is insignificant and the automobile is parked 95% of its life.

In his book, The High Cost of Free Parking; UCLA Professor of Urban Planning, Donald Shoup, explains the many negative design issues associated with automobile parking.  He reasons that free parking is a terribly expensive public subsidy.

The result of basing our culture on an un-sustainable single source for mobility gives us uncontrollable traffic congestion, destructive stress-related behavior, reduced productivity due to commute time, increasingly negative social impacts from the isolationism of single-occupancy vehicles, sky-rocketing fuel costs, declining air quality, and loss of prime production farm land.

Automobile oriented areas are unfriendly to any other form of transportation.  Not only is walking on a freeway hazardous, it is illegal.  Freeway systems are visually intrusive, noisy, stressful to navigate, the vehicles generate negative impacts of poor air quality, and with the increase in fuel costs at the pump; have produced negative impacts to local economies.  Society needs transportation methods that alleviate all levels of harm to reach sustainability.  

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics there were 22,707 automobile fatalities in 2007.   Combining figures from the National Safety Council (NSA) show that for every 100 million miles traveled in 2007, there were 182.5 accidents and 2.19 fatalities.  (www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/) 

An October 21, 2004 article by Health Editor, Jeremy Laurance, in The Independent, a London newspaper headline states: “Car fumes and traffic stress trigger heart attacks”.  The article goes on to state: “Fumes from car exhausts, noise and stress brought on by traffic congestion are likely to be the main causes of the increase in risk, researchers say. Air pollution is known to be a factor in heart disease, which develops slowly over decades, and research has shown that people living close to a main road have twice the risk of dying from the condition.”

The air quality in the San Joaquin Valley is being worsened by a higher car count.  This higher car count has been concluded as the primary factor in air pollution.  In The Fresno Bee newspaper article: published 04/29/04, Barbara Anderson writes:

“Smog and tiny particles make area one of nation's worst, lung association finds”

“Smog in the Valley is blamed for contributing to asthma rates that are among the highest in the state and for increases in the number of people with lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis.”

As these regulations attend to the environmental aspects of an automobile’s inefficient nature there are two other aspects which have gone un-noticed.  Consider the automobile’s negative economic and social impacts.   

In reference to the unsustainable social aspects to an automobile centric society, there are situations that occur constantly while at the steering wheel of a car: for every driver.  The most common occurrence is the reassurance that everyone else is a bad driver.

Still in the news

The CA HSRA (California High Speed Rail Authority) is still at work, despite being cut off from its State bond issue funds.  On May 6 & 7 there was another board meeting where they approved its latest URS Corp 20,000 page EIR (environmental impact report) and cost estimate.

In its coverage of the meeting, the LA Times May 7, 2014 article is written like a humorous editorial.  One gets the impression that it is standard procedure for the CA HSRA to be comical; or an appalling pursuit of hostility against California residents displayed as political wrath in maintaining an insane agenda.  The political stance by the staff and HSRA Board doesn’t seem to believe the expensive costs of erecting its proposed antique train technology project.   The political will for building this 150 year old technology refuses to accept reality of high costs for steel, concrete and real estate procurement.    

When Jerry Brown became governor again, he announced that the HSR system would only cost $68billion, not the estimated $98billion.  His reasoning was that the $98billion was too expensive.  So he declared a lower cost to the public.  That’s like saying: “It’s going to cost less because I say it’s going to cost less.”  There is no justification for a lower cost.  Peer groups in the transportation industry were speculating normal government cost overruns would put the overall cost of completion at $212billion, not the conservative and more politically acceptable $98billion.

Most supporters of the proposed HSR work in other industries and rely on information provided by the multimillion dollar advertising campaigns from the CA HSRA.  The advertising companies don’t provide the staggering costs involved in building this type of antiquated heavy rail train system.  Average costs of building this type of heavy steel wheel on rail electric train is $70million per mile at grade (just laying the track on the ground), $150 million per mile elevated (17 ft above ground) and $300million per mile underground.

At the center of controversy is its cost.  Underlying cause of disputes about the costs is due to intended deception by particular politicians that felt the proposed project wouldn’t be supported by voters if its costs were honestly revealed.   This was seen when the original bond passed by a narrow margin in 2008.  That bond issue was for $9.1 billion to be spent on the HSR.  The HSRA arrived at their cost estimates ($25million spent by the HSRA to five separate transportation engineering consultant firms) by using the standard at grade cost estimate of building the 700 mile HSR project at $70million per mile; a total of $49billion.  It is mystifying that politicians would then sell the project to voters at $9.1billion.  Even with the unrealistic price tag of an at grade estimate the project was pushed to the voters at the deceptive rate of $9.1billion.  In the fine print of the 1A bond, the $49billion was mentioned, yet a definitive clarification where the lacking $40billion comes from has always remained void.     

Points in the lawsuits against the HSRA show perverse conflicts to the original bond issue promised to voters.  The presiding judge agreed with the plaintiff and froze the bond issues from being released to the market.  HSRA current funds are a grant from the US Dept. of Transportation. 
  

At the May 2014 meeting the HSRA board also approved the section’s 15% cost increase.  The new estimate falls short of standard implementation costs for this type of system.  At its 15% increase, URS estimates are $8million per mile lower than a typical steel wheel on rail train systems of this type.  The newly approved EIR includes a cost estimate for the 112 mile segment at $7.13billion.  Typical systems cost $70million per mile.  For URS to suggest $62million per mile is a significant savings.  It is the opinion of this writer that URS has done an exemplary job in reducing costs, however, in knowing the general procedure of how the government operates; estimates are always obliterated by blueprint conflicts, unforeseen obstacles and errors which lead to massive cost overruns amounting to double and triple original cost estimates.   

It appears that the opinion of the HSRA says their only required mandate is to approve the phase one valley section EIR of the proposed project in order to begin the work.

Court Ruling

There is a new song being sung after the most recent court ruling: “It’s My Time to Gloat”.  Meanwhile the opposing side is singing an old song: “It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to.”

The board remains steadfast with blind determination; pushing politics to maintain the quickest pace to exhaust the legislated allocation of $2.5billion and shoveling the cost of the antique behemoth onto the suffering public.  “Business as usual” was the quote used as the comment regarding the latest episode from the ongoing HSRA court battle as published in the Fresno Bee September 3. 

While a majority of the project opponents claim it is a “boondoggle”, this author; closely following the proposed project since 1993, refers to it as merely a political process having little to do with transportation.  

New financial figures haven’t been flowing as liberally as they were a year ago.  During the summer of 2012 the proposed HSR project boasted expenditures of nearly $800million.  It is currently unknown by this author how much the figure has increased at the summer of 2013.  With the cost of the first 20+ mile segment basic infrastructure at $1.5 billion, it can be assumed the running tally for money spent to the consultant now approaches $1billion spent?  It gets the politically connected and his wife nice Christmas cards. 

Six Months Gone

Six months has passed since the previous post.  What has transpired to the politics of California's HSR?  In a word: nothing.  The fighting continues; the supporters are delusional and the opponents are forced to accept the mandates of deception.

Yesterday one of the local radical political proponents posted a Facebook rant against California Congressman Jeff Denham for his act of fiscal responsibility in calling for the federal dollars to go to the Northeast corridor Amtrak instead of the blindly planned CA HSRA.  The ludicrous language used on the Facebook page written by the project support supporter is sustained by his followers with avid glee.  The post was filled with rage against the Congressman.  Jeff Denham is chairman of the railroads subcommittee in the House of Representatives.  As the June 7, 2013 article reports, posted at McCarthyDC.com; the greater need for federal money is in the Northeast Corridor.

The vitriol and contempt of people that support CA's proposed HSR is built upon ignorance.  It is sad to read comments filled with incorrect information.  The mass deception amounts to strengthening lies.  CA's HSR is nothing more than a continuation of the corrupt political process for building a monument to the way things are.

As the title of this blog states, the author is interested in the future of transit.  The 150 year old technology proposed by the CA HSRA is, to say the least: outdated.  A look at society's current transportation needs has to consider social patterns.  We, as a culture have grown more socially independent than where culture was 150 years ago when the train allowed urban growth.  Today people are more independent and our transportation demands are no longer centered at central station locations.  Los Angeles, for example, covers a very large geographic area but, the proposed train services this huge area with Union Station, which was built about 100 years ago.  This leads to the question: has LA grown in 100 years?

As society grows, so do the transportation needs.  Government was not the source of growth in the US.  The growth and expansion came from private enterprise.  What is different in our culture today that seems to require government be responsible to build transportation infrastructure.  The infrastructure of roads are synonymous to automobile centric urban growth.  With the automobile being wholly unsustainable, any culture whose foundation is based on an unsustainable source: that culture is doomed to decline.  Sustainable urban growth requires sustainable transportation.  

The people who blindly support the notion of California needing a transportation system to replace the unsustainable nature of the automobile must embrace practical solutions that afford sustainability.  There are many viable technologically advanced transportation systems.  One is ET3, here is an article from June 8, 20013 at Boomsy.com.

Many technologies are available to supply sustainable transportation alternatives to meet society's modern transportation requirements.

Let The Fighting Begin

According The Fresno Bee article today (January 14, 2013) the HSRA goes to the Public Works office today for approval to purchase property.  This is essentially the process of condemning privately owned property for all the people who don't have a desire to sell their property.  This is where the attorneys get involved and sue the State action.

The biggest issue against the project in terms of being realistic is that there is no plan from the State on how to pay for the proposed project.  There are various figures used by the HSRA as to how much the federal government is allocating, generally that figure ranges around $20billion.  Add the $9billion from the manipulated 1A bond legislation passed in 2008 and the figure comes to nearly $30billion from public taxation (public sources means people paid taxes).  The private sector is expected to pay for the remaining $38billion except that, according the the HSRA, no private entities are willing to obligate $38billion.  It is understood that the private sector will invest into a project that brings a profit but, where will the profit come from?  Current procedure for building projects of this type are only built with government guarantees, this, of course, means that the HSRA will have to obligate its projected annual operations and maintenance budget towards a private contractor.  This means that the government will 'lend' the money to a private contractor for the contractors participation.  Again, this is bond money, or money that the government borrows.

A good article for the financing arrangements can be found at California Common Sense in an article by Christopher Knight in July, 2012.   It explains specific details about the proposed CA HSR project.

Having followed the procedure and policy of the proposed HSR project, one finds the political force pushing the project is very strong.  It is very clear that the will of this very strong political force does not comprehend what is good for the people of California but, it seeks expensive contracts which bring profit to these elite politically connected organizations who find their profit at the expense of the taxpayer.  Again, the proposed CA HSR project has nothing to do with transportation; it is only the political process of high level income generation for the politically connected.

HSR Property Acquisition

Another HSR related story in the Fresno Bee 12/26/12.  The story talks about how eminent domain will be handled for the CA HSRA with a $34million contract to four law firms.  One located in the state of Virginia, one from Pismo Beach, one from Sacramento and the other in Oklahoma.

With an award of $34million the law firms should have enough motivation to obfuscate property owners in a similar manner that the EIR intimidates onlookers with its extraneous information.

California's HSR project has two distinct mindsets.  The dominating attitude of the State is revealed in the article: " Rail authority representatives believe they will be able to successfully negotiate with most of the affected property owners in the Valley and anticipate that relatively few will carry a contest all the way through to an eminent domain trial.

Attorneys say that is the norm nowadays when agencies seek to buy private land for public projects." 

The proposed HSR project is far from being a normal public project.  By hiring out of the area attorneys, is this a move by the HSRA to provides insight to the peculiar needs of the Valley's land owners?  With the strength of uniting, such as the Madera County Farm Bureau's claim to have a joined effort to be unwilling sellers, does this conflict with the remarks from the HSRA representatives that there will be no court litigation?  With additional court litigation, the State will have to pick up extra costs for unexpected court fees and first class air tickets back and forth to Virginia and Oklahoma.  As normal bureaucratic procedure goes, this will tally up to millions of unanticipated dollars beyond the $34million contract.  

There are so many unanswered questions regarding the HSR project's business plan, one has to ask how the project can move forward.  The litigation is growing and yet, so far, the HSRA has bounced back from all the  set backs that should have knocked this thing off the tracks.