It's interesting to observe the 'Peak Oil' debate, because it is a concern that unites both environmentalists and capitalists. See my previous posts here .
The latest organization to weigh in on the debate is the US Military, who say “By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.”
Maybe they're more concerned about the cost of fighting wars than the consequences of climate change, but the consequences of oil shortages on the world economy are very real.
Of course, the usual response in the UK to high fuel prices is to whine about the amount of tax on petrol and the effect on the poor put-upon motorist. This is counter-productive. Reducing the amount of tax on petrol simply puts off the evil day when we're actually going to have to address our over-consumption. It's a bit like giving a new credit card to someone who is heavily in debt.
It would be better to increase fuel taxes as it gives a clear signal to businesses and individuals that they should choose lower-emitting vehicles, drive less and choose more sustainable forms of transport.
Of course, we could wait for the market to do the job for us, but the problems with this are:
1. It takes time for the economy to adapt. If the US Military report is correct, we could have a crisis in 2015. The service life of a vehicle is 10 years plus, so the vehicles we buy today will still be in use in 2020. It will be bad for the economy to have to scrap vehicles 5 years before the end of their life simply because as a country we didn't invest in lower-emitting technologies while we had the chance. Similarly, it will take years to invest in low-oil infrastructure.
2. As the oil price increases, an larger and larger share of our national wealth will be diverted to the oil-producing countries, which are generally not the most savoury regimes.
3. The oil price may not rise in a gradual, smooth, linear manner. A sudden price shock could cause real problems for any economy that is dependent on cheap oil.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
NO CYCLING on Cannon Hill Common
A few brand new signs have sprouted up on Cannon Hill Common. Good to see our hard-earned council tax is going on such worthy projects:
"No Cycling on Cannon Hill Common". Why not? Cycling is a legitimate leisure pursuit. It's healthy and no more damaging to the Common than other activites. Like other sports such as kite-flying or ball games, and activities like dog-walking, it needs to be done responsibly and with consideration to other Common users.
So what's unique about cycling that makes it necessary to ban it? From a safety point of view, there's no evidence to show that cycling causes an undue number of accidents, compared to other activities such as dog-walking etc., and for cyclists it's likely to reduce accidents if the alternative is cycling on-road. There are plenty of other open spaces where cycling is permitted. In fact, on some of the paths on Cannon Hill Common, it is permitted. The council's stance makes no sense. The Council should be encouraging healthy activities - in which case it should be looking at what it needs to do (if anything) to permit cycling on the Common, rather than spending money putting up notices banning it.
"No Cycling on Cannon Hill Common". Why not? Cycling is a legitimate leisure pursuit. It's healthy and no more damaging to the Common than other activites. Like other sports such as kite-flying or ball games, and activities like dog-walking, it needs to be done responsibly and with consideration to other Common users.
So what's unique about cycling that makes it necessary to ban it? From a safety point of view, there's no evidence to show that cycling causes an undue number of accidents, compared to other activities such as dog-walking etc., and for cyclists it's likely to reduce accidents if the alternative is cycling on-road. There are plenty of other open spaces where cycling is permitted. In fact, on some of the paths on Cannon Hill Common, it is permitted. The council's stance makes no sense. The Council should be encouraging healthy activities - in which case it should be looking at what it needs to do (if anything) to permit cycling on the Common, rather than spending money putting up notices banning it.
London's Cycle Hire scheme go-live
A couple of reports have the go-live date for the London Cycle Hire Scheme as 30 July 2010.
It's always tempting to whine about delays, but 2 months late is about the minimum you could hope for in a London project.
30 July 2010 happens to be the last Friday in July, and therefore a Critical Mass day. I wonder if City Hall thought of that?
Anyway, I aim to be one of the first riders. Maybe we should organize some informal events...a team time trial?
It's always tempting to whine about delays, but 2 months late is about the minimum you could hope for in a London project.
30 July 2010 happens to be the last Friday in July, and therefore a Critical Mass day. I wonder if City Hall thought of that?
Anyway, I aim to be one of the first riders. Maybe we should organize some informal events...a team time trial?
Peak Oil - or not
I blogged before about the peak oil scenario here.
But it's by no means certain what's going to happen to the oil price over the coming years. Here's two possible scenarios:
1. The failure of the G20 Copenhagen summit to agree limits on CO2 emissions remains unaddressed. The developing economies, Brazil, Russia, India and China among them, continue expanding. Car ownership, air travel and domestic consumption in those countries increases, creating worldwide demand for oil that outstrips supply. The oil price rises above $200/barrel.
2. The world somehow gets its act together and agrees binding limits on CO2 emissions. As economies decarbonize, demand for oil drops, and with it the oil price, perhaps to $20/barrel.
You'll notice that in either of these scenarios, the availability of oil to the UK becomes restricted, in the first case by market forces, and in the second by regulation. Therefore, dependence on ready availability of oil at the current price is very risky in economic terms. That's a fact, and it doesn't matter if you're an environmentalist or a climate-change sceptic. Of course, the oil price could remain as it is today, if supply and demand remain in lock-step, but that doesn't seem likely. If we don't stop binge-drinking oil we'll have a massive hangover in a few years time...
But it's by no means certain what's going to happen to the oil price over the coming years. Here's two possible scenarios:
1. The failure of the G20 Copenhagen summit to agree limits on CO2 emissions remains unaddressed. The developing economies, Brazil, Russia, India and China among them, continue expanding. Car ownership, air travel and domestic consumption in those countries increases, creating worldwide demand for oil that outstrips supply. The oil price rises above $200/barrel.
2. The world somehow gets its act together and agrees binding limits on CO2 emissions. As economies decarbonize, demand for oil drops, and with it the oil price, perhaps to $20/barrel.
You'll notice that in either of these scenarios, the availability of oil to the UK becomes restricted, in the first case by market forces, and in the second by regulation. Therefore, dependence on ready availability of oil at the current price is very risky in economic terms. That's a fact, and it doesn't matter if you're an environmentalist or a climate-change sceptic. Of course, the oil price could remain as it is today, if supply and demand remain in lock-step, but that doesn't seem likely. If we don't stop binge-drinking oil we'll have a massive hangover in a few years time...
Friday, March 26, 2010
Smarter Travel Sutton
The BBC had a piece on the news a couple of days ago about Smarter Travel Sutton, which is an initiative of 'soft' measures ( knocking on doors and talking to people, handing out leaflets, promotions, that sort of thing, anything other than infrastructure investment) to "encourage residents and people who work in Sutton to choose to walk, cycle and use public transport more often, and their cars a little less."
The BBC is becoming more and more 'tabloid' in its coverage of news. For the real in-depth analysis, you have to come to this blog.
Now, Smarter Travel Sutton has spent something like £5M, which is not a small amount of money. With buses and trains, you can persuade people to them more because the services are there and they work. With cycling, the infrastructure isn't there. Most people don't want to cycle where they don't feel safe, and there is no way you will persuade them otherwise.
In terms of cycling, the BBC gushed that "in three years Sutton has seen a 75% increase in cyclists". What they don't tell you is that Sutton started with a pitifully small modal share of 0.6%. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out that 75% of bugger all is not a lot. The modal share now is 2.1%, around the national average, which remember is among the lowest in Europe. (source) Bear in mind also, there's an upward trend in cycling all over London. The real challenge is getting modal share up to the levels seen in certain European cities, and you cannot do that without substantial investment in cycle infrastructure. The BBC report showed 'Maria' cycling 2 miles to work along a segregated path. Trouble is, there's not many segregated paths in Sutton. If she ventures further afield she'll encounter the kind of conditions all regular cyclists have to deal with, and after a couple of near misses, she may be back in her car. If you promote cycling without first investing to make it a good experience, people will try it and find out how crap it is. In the words of Barack Obama, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
The great thing about 'soft' measures from a political point of view is they don't upset motorists. No-one's parking or driving is restricted, there are no speed limits or road closures. But the trouble with 'soft' measures is they're ephemeral. If you'd invested £5M wisely on improving cycle infrastructure, it would permanently advertise itself, and that infrastructure will be there for decades to come.
The BBC is becoming more and more 'tabloid' in its coverage of news. For the real in-depth analysis, you have to come to this blog.
Now, Smarter Travel Sutton has spent something like £5M, which is not a small amount of money. With buses and trains, you can persuade people to them more because the services are there and they work. With cycling, the infrastructure isn't there. Most people don't want to cycle where they don't feel safe, and there is no way you will persuade them otherwise.
In terms of cycling, the BBC gushed that "in three years Sutton has seen a 75% increase in cyclists". What they don't tell you is that Sutton started with a pitifully small modal share of 0.6%. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out that 75% of bugger all is not a lot. The modal share now is 2.1%, around the national average, which remember is among the lowest in Europe. (source) Bear in mind also, there's an upward trend in cycling all over London. The real challenge is getting modal share up to the levels seen in certain European cities, and you cannot do that without substantial investment in cycle infrastructure. The BBC report showed 'Maria' cycling 2 miles to work along a segregated path. Trouble is, there's not many segregated paths in Sutton. If she ventures further afield she'll encounter the kind of conditions all regular cyclists have to deal with, and after a couple of near misses, she may be back in her car. If you promote cycling without first investing to make it a good experience, people will try it and find out how crap it is. In the words of Barack Obama, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
The great thing about 'soft' measures from a political point of view is they don't upset motorists. No-one's parking or driving is restricted, there are no speed limits or road closures. But the trouble with 'soft' measures is they're ephemeral. If you'd invested £5M wisely on improving cycle infrastructure, it would permanently advertise itself, and that infrastructure will be there for decades to come.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
He giveth...he taketh away...
Budget time again, and a last throw of the dice for Darling. Anything for cyclists?
On transport we have:
"I am setting up a new Green Investment Bank.
It will control £2bn worth of equity.
The fund will focus first on investing in green transport and sustainable energy, in particular offshore wind power, where Britain is already the world-leader."
So far so good-to-average. What "green transport" amounts to isn't clear at this point, but I bet it's nothing to do with cycling. It'll be something very expensive that will take decades to come to fruition.
Second up:
"I have decided to stage next month's increase in fuel duties."
So effectively, the revenue that would have been raised by the fuel duty increase will be lost. So the green tax has been replaced by, well, something else that's not green. And the disproportionate winners will be the least green - those with the biggest, thirstiest cars.So much for "investing in sustainable transport".
And lastly:
"I am providing £100m to pay for vital repairs to local roads throughout the country, and £285m to pay for improvements in the motorway network, including by expanding capacity by allowing hard shoulder running."
"Vital repairs to local roads" would have happened anyway, over time, so really that's just cash that the government would have spent anyway, out of council budgets.
"Expanding [motorway] capacity" doesn't sit well with "investing in green transport" though. Everyone knows that if you increase road capacity at one location, you increase traffic levels in general, and with it congestion, as sure as night follows day. It would make more sense to act to reduce non-essential motor journeys. You could, for example, invest in cycle infrastructure! £285M would go some way to building a half-decent cycle network (it's 10 times the Sustrans budget for FY2009), whereas invested in roads, it's just about enough to build a couple of miles of bypass, and of course the Highways Agency get it wrong when it comes to assessing the benefits of new roads. £285M translates into roadworks as far as the eye can see, and a budget deficit as far as the eye can see.
On transport we have:
"I am setting up a new Green Investment Bank.
It will control £2bn worth of equity.
The fund will focus first on investing in green transport and sustainable energy, in particular offshore wind power, where Britain is already the world-leader."
So far so good-to-average. What "green transport" amounts to isn't clear at this point, but I bet it's nothing to do with cycling. It'll be something very expensive that will take decades to come to fruition.
Second up:
"I have decided to stage next month's increase in fuel duties."
So effectively, the revenue that would have been raised by the fuel duty increase will be lost. So the green tax has been replaced by, well, something else that's not green. And the disproportionate winners will be the least green - those with the biggest, thirstiest cars.So much for "investing in sustainable transport".
And lastly:
"I am providing £100m to pay for vital repairs to local roads throughout the country, and £285m to pay for improvements in the motorway network, including by expanding capacity by allowing hard shoulder running."
"Vital repairs to local roads" would have happened anyway, over time, so really that's just cash that the government would have spent anyway, out of council budgets.
"Expanding [motorway] capacity" doesn't sit well with "investing in green transport" though. Everyone knows that if you increase road capacity at one location, you increase traffic levels in general, and with it congestion, as sure as night follows day. It would make more sense to act to reduce non-essential motor journeys. You could, for example, invest in cycle infrastructure! £285M would go some way to building a half-decent cycle network (it's 10 times the Sustrans budget for FY2009), whereas invested in roads, it's just about enough to build a couple of miles of bypass, and of course the Highways Agency get it wrong when it comes to assessing the benefits of new roads. £285M translates into roadworks as far as the eye can see, and a budget deficit as far as the eye can see.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Cycle Paths and Street Cleaning
As autumn gave way to winter, the cycle path between North Road and Plough Lane became carpeted in a golden mantle of fallen leaves. Then, the fallen leaves gradually became a slippery brown slush, which has persisted until spring. When you're on a bike at any speed, wet leaves are a considerable danger.
Fair enough, I thought, Merton Council clearly have better things to spend their money on than clearing leaves.
Not true, it turns out. I spotted this pavement-sweeper (above) on Dorset Road in March this year. The council go to considerable lengths to clear the leaves from Dorset Road, which is fair enough in Autumn, but in March it's pretty clear of, well, anything at all in the way of foreign matter.
So how come the cycle paths are apparently NEVER cleared, despite the obvious safety hazard, when Dorset Road is subject to a stricter cleaing regime than a lot of hospitals?
Fair enough, I thought, Merton Council clearly have better things to spend their money on than clearing leaves.
Not true, it turns out. I spotted this pavement-sweeper (above) on Dorset Road in March this year. The council go to considerable lengths to clear the leaves from Dorset Road, which is fair enough in Autumn, but in March it's pretty clear of, well, anything at all in the way of foreign matter.
So how come the cycle paths are apparently NEVER cleared, despite the obvious safety hazard, when Dorset Road is subject to a stricter cleaing regime than a lot of hospitals?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)