Bicycle v. Train

This morning I received this abstract in my inbox:

Cycling is widely viewed as a transport mode with marginal environmental impacts. However, such a view fails to take account of such factors as the increase in carbon dioxide exhaled as a result of increased physical activity or the emission embodied in the manufacture of the bicycle. This paper presents estimates of emission factors for various forms of commuter transport in Ireland that allow comparison against emissions from cycling. When indirect energy is taken into account, the results presented here indicate that a cyclist commuting an equivalent distance to work releases an almost equal amount of carbon dioxide as that attributed to a passenger of an electrically propelled train at full occupancy during peak service times. Travel by bicycle is much less carbon intensive when compared to passengers travelling at off-peak times. Transport by car and sports utility vehicle is the most carbon intensive of the commuter modes of transport studied, however, travelling in a fully occupied car has an emission factor approaching that of off-peak bus transport.

Yeah, there have been a lot of arguments about how biking is not “green”. Most of them are fundamentally flawed. A very popular one is the assumption that people who bicycle eat more so that they can power said bicycle (than people who do not). Um, proof? Another is that “bicycle factories” are somehow worse than other types of factories. Duh, we know they exist, but don’t pretend to be well informed about them when you’re obviously not. (Quality bicycle frames, when properly cared for / barring accidents, should outlive their rider. Can we say the same of these electric trains? We certainly can’t about most cars.)

This carbon footprint one is funny because the people in the train are certainly releasing “emissions” at the same time that the commuter train is. Did they take that into account? Did they take into account that, over time, a train and its infrastructure will require more / added maintenance over an individual bicycle and its infrastructure (the roads everyone already use)? And of course the comparison uses an electrically powered train. As if that is even an option for most people.

Their comparison is tenuous at best. Maybe, just maybe, this mass transportation is more efficient than bicycling at peak times. However, they admit that “Travel by bicycle is much less carbon intensive when compared to passengers travelling at off-peak times.” (I.E. not rush hour, because the train is always belching out the carbon dioxide it takes to move several tons of steel and plastic even though the train itself may be empty or carrying only a few passengers!) They also gloss over the fact that trains aren’t an economical option in less populated, rural areas (that basically can’t support having a train). Bicycles can go anywhere. Populated or less populated. Infrastructure or no infrastructure.

The abstract also ignores factors like the health benefits of bicycling, which you can’t put an emissions price on. Or convenience: it is entirely possible that it will be more timely to commute by bicycle than by train. I can get to work in less than half the time it takes my bus to get me there. That ratio tips wildly in the bicycle’s favor during rush hour, when mass transit has reduced hours (pretty much all the time for the bus I would take, but predominantly evenings and weekends), or when mass transit strikes.

So, Conor Walsh, Phil Jakeman, Richard Moles and Bernadette O’Regan, stop trashing bicycles and start padding your resumes with worthwhile research. We don’t live in your fantasy world where the nations are already latticed with electric train systems that always run on time, often, and at full capacity.

:: Bibliography ::

• Science Direct – Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH8-4T83387-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9684227e0ee55e4dcbc (19 November 2008).

Recycling, tooth and nail

I like to recycle; I like recycling to be easy. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be, correct? Mine is the richest nation in the world. So why is it like pulling teeth to make sure that the recyclables I discard are actually recycled? (The problem across the board seems to be that practitioners of the janitorial arts find it easier to pitch the recycling. I’ve had to deal with this in both the public and University waste-management systems.) When we have programs in place specifically designed to facilitate recycling, I shouldn’t have to be a watchdog or whistle-blower.

In December of 2007 I observed that one of our departmental libraries has (almost exclusively) recycle bins at their circulation desk. Because the vast majority of the waste circulation creates is paper-based, there was a need for only one general waste bin. Inspired, I did a bit of research and learned that the University at which I work and study invites staff to recycle (in theory, as we shall see): “if you know of a good spot which needs one [a recycling container], or if you need a container for your work area, let us know by contacting us at recycle@fm.pitt.edu or at 412-624-952.” Feeling young, smitten with the environment, and encouraged, I sent them this concise and cordial e-mail on 21 December 2007.

Hello!
My name is [X] and I work at the [X] Library. I was reading our recycling website and noticed that we can request recycling bins for our workstations.
May I request two small, paper-only recycling bins to be kept behind the circulation desk at the [X] Library?

Thank you,
[Signature and standard contact info]

They never responded. Now, after a bit of proselytizing, I have converted someone with clout to my mission. I shouldn’t have had to, but sometimes one’s objectives must be achieved through proxies.

Also, by laying these cards on the table I realize that I’m opening myself up to being more easily identified by keyword searching. I figured this would happen eventually. Ah well. =\

:: Bibliography ::

Facilities Management. Facilities Management Recycling at the University of Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh. Last updated 7 January 2008. Accessed 4 February 2008. <http://www.facmgmt.pitt.edu/recycle.htm>.

Geurilla recycling

I was enervated, to say the least, after reading this article my boss sent me about recycling at my University. To have the editorial staff confirm that it’s a crapshoot whether my recycling efforts were for naught is dispiriting, as I can’t really shuttle the volume of paper my departmental library produces to some other place. (For those of you who don’t know, I’ve been encouraging recycling in the libraries I work in.) Not to sound holier than thou; I often have trouble remembering to take recycling only a few feet to a bin, because it’s just so easy to drop it into the trash sans second thought. (If you catch me picking paper out of the trash, that is probably what happened. I swear.)

Recycling isn’t a priority for the University, and it shows. Just look at the main library, which has removed all their recycling bins from the building! And it’s not like I can send an e-mail to feedback about it, because they’re my employers and I’m a student at the University. It’s just not a good idea to be seen as that boat-rocking, trouble-making environmenta(lis)t. (My friend who prefers to remain anonymous once sent an environmentally conscious e-mail to someone within the University system and the recipient CCed his rather crisp response to the library system’s director! Happily it wasn’t a big deal, but it was disturbing how defensive/aggressive the response was.)

So now I think the only way I can truly be sure that all my junk is getting recycled is to actually take it to a center myself. Christ, I’m so lazy!