Climate Capitalism

New York times reporter, Elisabeth Rosenthal had an article in the New York Times today which makes me rethink my excitement for Seattle’s shinny new light-rail line.  The article highlights Bogotá Colombia’s bus rapid transit system (BRT.)

The basic idea behind BRT sytems is that building light-rail or subway systems are very capital intensive, not very flexible and don’t take advantage of the millions of miles of pavement we already have.  Use of buses instead of trains makes a lot of sense in terms of basic economics and getting the most out of our car-centric infrastructure — but the negative stereotype of “riding the bus” keep us laying tracks and issuing government bonds in cities all over the first-world.

The concept is not new, but BRT system do seem to be gaining some momentum. I remember reading about them in the State of the World 2007 by the World Watch Institute.  One of the overarching themes in the report: traditionally first-world nations have exported knowledge and expertise to the developing world. Recently the roles are starting to reverse.  As cash-strapped cities in the developing world are forced to come up with creative solutions to the problems of urbanization they are creating the new models of sustainble developent.  One of the chapters focused on a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the city of Curitiba, Brazil similar to the one discussed in the NYT article today.  The Curitiba system was origional designed in the mid-1960’s. Like the NYT article, the authors pointed out the importance of building these systems “right.”  These are not your typical city bus.  You need dedicated lanes for speed, platform stations for quick loading and unloading.   Cities like Curibiba and Bogata have figured this out while attempts to uses buses in places like Los Angeles have fallen flat since these key ingredients were left out. It has to feel like riding the subway.

In Seattle, during the 10+ year debate around the new light-rail system, many oppoents argued our bus system was just fine, buy more buses, light-rail was just too expensive. The counter argument was that the roads are the problem.  Buses can’t move in gridlock any faster than cars.  I wonder what would have happened if a true BRT system had be proposed instead?  Perhaps I missed it or perhaps I’m just having buyer’s remorse.

I’ll be interested to follow this topic as more cities around the world wrestle with the collision of climate change,  traffic congestion.  I’m not sure how many American’s will be trading in their car keys for bus passes just yet, but until we get flying cars, there may be more BRT systems in our future.

In yet another example of the complexities of combatting climate change, a study conducted by environmental engineers at the University of California at Davis raises questions about the true carbon reduction benefits of using public transportation as compared, for example, to driving an SUV, according to this article from AFP.  The study focused on the overall carbon production of public transport including the impacts of building and maintaining the infrastructure for the transportation system.  The study doesn’t appear to discourage investment in mass transit, but rather appears to be aimed at raising awareness among consumers and policymakers about all of the factors that impact carbon emissions.