Back on July 8 I mentioned a 2004 paper, “Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives,” by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. I decided to read the paper more closely in preparation for a session on July 28 with our local city council to discuss the work plan for our task force on nonmotorized transportation.

The article provides an excellent summary of the many benefits of nonmotorized transportation, and it attempts to quantify some of them. Litman conservatively estimates that trips shifted from motor vehicles to walking or biking can yield a benefit of about 50 cents to about 5 or 6 dollars, and probably the benefits are much greater than this. Presumably some of these benefits accrue to an individual, while others accrue to a government or society in general.

Here are the main benefits that I would mention to decision makers in terms of how nonmotorized transportation can be an economic benefit to my city:

• Roadway cost savings: walking and biking do less damage to roads and lead to lower road maintenance costs
• Vehicle cost savings: driving a motorized vehicle is more expensive than walking or biking; money spent on vehicles and fuel typically leaves a community
• Air pollution reductions: these have a positive impact on health
• Health benefits from exercise

Here are some excerpts from the paper:

Read the rest of this entry »

Though the day is beautiful, the news is not: a poor economy, a deflating housing market, and wrenching changes forced by high fuel prices. Add to that this background noise: a lack of action by our leaders on the most important issues (federal debt, health care, climate change, etc.) and a feeling that the United States has passed the peak of its power and is in decline.

However, I’m taking some small actions today that buoy my spirits. They involve my energy-efficient strategy to keep the house cool in hot weather. They aren’t perfect and they won’t work for everyone or every situation, but they generally work for us. Here are the steps I take:

• Open the windows at night to let cool air in
• Close the windows during the day when the outside temperature is higher than the indoor temperature
• Close basement air vents, open air vents elsewhere in house
• Keep the dehumidifier in the basement running
• Turn on the furnace fan to circulate air through the house
• Use other fans as necessary

This strategy moves cooler air in the basement and ground level up to the top floor. The other day it kept our house at 80 degrees or cooler on a 95-degree day.

It’s a bit like a thrifty groundsource cooling solution: naturally cool air in the basement helps to cool the rest of the house. It may also work to some extent in houses without basements.

It may work better in our house than in others, because we share walls with neighboring townhouses. But still, I think it can help many people to minimize their air conditioner use.

How wonderful it is with summer at its height. The sun is out today, the purple blooms of our clematis are brilliant, and memories of a beautiful drive through the countryside of western Wisconsin on Sunday and Monday are still strong in my mind.

Our short trip took us only 100 miles or so from our home in Minnesota to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the largest city in western Wisconsin. We approached from the west, on scenic roads. Well, nearly every road is scenic in this beautiful area. Our route took us through Red Wing, Minnesota, to Highway 63, then Highway 72 and County Road C to Eau Claire. It’s a beautiful route through farming country and forest-covered hills, passing through the towns of Ellsworth, Rock Elm, Elmwood, Downsville, and Dunn. It includes some very hilly, thickly forested country - an area that was not covered by the most recent glaciers, and terrain that most people probably do not associate with the Midwest.

Two Minnesota organizations have released an important document, the Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan. Created by the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment and the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), the new plan makes policy and research recommendations that are intended to preserve the state’s natural resources in the face of increasing demands and impacts from our society, including climate change. Carbon emission reductions are one of the important goals of the plan.

I haven’t yet had time to do more than a cursory reading of the report’s executive summary and its transportation chapter. Here are a few excerpts from the executive summary:

The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) funded a unique partnership among the University of Minnesota and the consulting firms of Bonestroo and CR Planning to evaluate the state’s natural resources, identify key issues affecting those resources, and make recommendations for improving and protecting them. More than 125 experts, including University scientists and public and private natural resource planners and professionals, participated in the 18-month effort. …

• The key issues for which recommendations are made in this report are:
• Land and water habitat fragmentation, degradation, loss, and conversion
• Land-use practices
• Transportation
• Energy production and use, and mercury as a toxic contaminant related to energy production

Here are the three recommendations from the Transportation chapter:

• Transportation Recommendation 1: Align transportation planning across state agencies and integrate transportation project development and review across state, regional, metropolitan and county/local transportation, land use and conservation programs.
• Transportation Recommendation 2: Reduce per capita vehicle miles of travel (VMT) through compact mixed-use development and multi- and intermodal transportation systems.
• Transportation Recommendation 3: Develop and implement sustainable transportation research, design, planning, and construction practices, regulations, and competitive incentive funding that minimize impacts on natural resources, especially habitat fragmentation and non-point source water pollution.

The report clearly deserves closer reading and the attention of state leaders. Note especially the involvement of leading state scientists and planners.

For more information, see the official press release and a Star Tribune article.

A friend recently loaned me the spring 2008 issue of Yes!, a magazine dedicated to “Building a Just and Sustainable World.” This was a “Climate Solutions Special Issue” with one of my heroes, Bill McKibben, on the cover.

I haven’t yet read the entire section on climate solutions, but I did read its commentary on transportation, by Guy Dauncey. He proposes a future in which 5 percent of the United States’ surface transportation needs are met by walking, 10 percent by biking, 20 percent by transit, 5 percent by teleworking and teleconferencing, 5 percent by trains (presumably longer-distance), 5 percent by ridesharing, and the rest by personal motor vehicles.

What caught my attention more, however, was the magazine’s “The Page That Counts” section, one of those lists of facts that many magazines publish. For this issue, it begins with these three facts:

Amount of its roads budget that Copenhagen devotes to services and infrastructure for cyclists: 1/3 [1]

Amount of money that a community gains for every mile biked instead of driven: 50 cents [2]

Benefit to Norwegian society for each physically inactive citizen who chooses to bike or walk to work: $4,500 - $5,900 [3]

The quoted facts speak to the generally unrecognized benefits of walking and biking. I was especially drawn to the latter two, because they could capture the attention of elected officials, government staff, and other leaders.

Here are the sources for those facts:

1. “Livable Copenhagen: The Design of a Bicycle City,” Alyse Nelson, Center for Public Space Research, Copenhagen, 2007. This is a 7mb pdf file and will take a while to load depending on your internet connection.
2. “Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives,” Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 30, 2004.
3. “Walking and cycling track networks in Norwegian cities: Cost-benefit analyses including health effects and external costs of road traffic,” Kjartan Sælensminde, Institute of Transport Economics, 2002.

I hope to dig further into these sources and have already glanced at the second one, by Todd Litman, which is quite impressive.