Out of Tune - Industry Admits the Future of the Auto is not Green

Well, now it is really obvious, on the off-chance it was not obvious before.

All the ads with furry critters fawning in the forest over SUVs.
All the breathless claims that the electric car is finally here.
All the ads showing cars crumbling back to the earth leaving not a trace.
All pure propaganda.

While they may have be singing a green tune in New York in May, now, their actions and their wallets, or in GM's case, our wallets, are speaking louder than words. Even after being wiped out by high oil prices and an almost depression, only to be saved by taxpayers, the Wall Street Journal reports that Mileage Rules Prompt Backlash while Fox News states that Auto makers fight Obama's fuel standards.

Auto makers and car dealers, emboldened by rising profits and a more business-friendly Congress, say they will fight the Obama administration's proposal to boost average new-car fuel economy to as much as 62 miles a gallon by 2025.

Clearly, they would not be doing this if they had any faith that people would be buying electric vehicles in the next couple of decades. Clearly, they don't and people won't. As was the case for the last 40 years, when the electric car was continually "just around the corner", with the breakthrough in battery technology just months away, like lite and low-tar cigarettes, the electric car is simply a propaganda tool to convince the public that there is a fabulous future for the automobile age once fossil fuels are going, going, gone.

The Windsor Star on December 15, 1967 reported AMC out front electrically.

...indications are good that vehicles like those under serious consideration by a growing number of companies could be available in five years or sooner. ...AMC group vice-president in charge of engineering, told us that there are no major hurdles to jump to bring it to reality-firming up the final design and time-consuming proving and testing are all that remains to be done. It's that simple, he said.

Unbelievably,  further details from The Owosso Argus-Press December 12, 1967 seem identically to the claims being made today by the industry. As today, they are claiming lithium batteries are the major breakthrough.

Dr. Leslie K. Gulton said. "for the first time in half a century, the gasoline burning automobile is about the share the road with an electrically powered car whose performance needs no apologies.

Well, 43 years later, this car is still not here nor is AMC for that matter. It is that simple. I guess we should all be happy that the industry is so committed to the environment it seems to be recycling old AMC PR spin pretty much verbatim except for the part about taking it to the heliport. I guess if it still works, why bother changing it. Fool us once, shame on them, fool us over and over again every five years, well...

Speaking of which, they were at it again in March 1974. The Beaver County Times reported Electric Car Ready by June.

Improvements in the already patented battery will estend [sic] the range to 350 miles in two years. A prototype 18 months down the road includes a battery pack that could be charged in 5 minutes...

Paul Agarwa, head of General Motors, electrical-vehicle research and development, says that by the year 2000 almost all cars will be electric in and around cities....

Skipping forward to today, it looks like the PR departments still spinning the same old lines. Fortunately, we can get a better idea of what the industry really thinks the future holds from their high paid lobbyists. The industry lobby group, the Auto Alliance, knows that electric vehicles will not be economically viable especially in an economy with stagnant wages.

"If the economics for high fuel-economy vehicles is so overwhelming, why do so few consumers today choose to buy high fuel-economy vehicles?" the letter asks.

The alliance added that at the very least, the price of a car would increase $4,448 under the 62-mpg rule.

This is not surprising as the battery packs of even tiny electric cars like the Nissan Leaf cost around $18,000. Imagine what the battery for huge SUV's the industry is convinced Americans love that are two to three times the weight of the Leaf would cost. For a family with two of the these beasts, the batteries could cost more than their house in the post bubble market. While "economies of scale" could reduce this cost, high demand could also increase the cost of the resources required to make the batteries.

Even worse, GM, the so called Government Motors, that is owned by the US, Canadian and Ontario governments is now spending dollars that it would not have if it were not for taxpayer's support.

GM, which had stopped making campaign contributions as it underwent its taxpayer-funded bankruptcy restructuring, recently resumed such spending, giving thousands of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns in the midterm election. GM has said it is exercising its right to support lawmakers who will push policies that help the industry.

Looks like the industry created the best congress money could buy.

Even worser, in spite of ads bragging about how safe their products are, they are concerned far more concerned with profits than the safety of their customers or innocent victims of their products.

Auto makers lobbied heavily against a bill to mandate new safety technologies and increased government oversight, which was proposed in response to the uproar over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden acceleration recalls. That legislation now appears all but dead.

Unfortunately, not only is the legislation dead but tragically, the million people who are killed by motor vehicles each and every year will be as well.

So, it is time to face the reality that the age of the automobile is over. It is merely a symptom of cheap oil. With the auto industry fighting mileage standards and unwilling or unable to bring fuel efficient cars to bring anywhere enough electric and fuel efficient cars to market in the next couple of decades, lets stop wasting limited taxpayer's dollars on roads and begin the transition to real sustainable transportation including high speed rail, rapid transit, cycling and walking.

Transit is Fun

Who would have thought. Transit has the rep of being cost effective, practical, green and healthy. Now, thanks to the Olympics, it is time to add fun to the growing list of benefits of public transit. This is perhaps one of the least expected results from the Olympics. I did expect that the games would transform how we get around in Vancouver, but I thought the impact would be more incremental than obviously transformational.

I must admit that I enjoyed getting around the city fast on my bicycle, avoiding the line-ups and crowds. Some drivers also figured out that driving was quicker than expected because pretty much everyone was packed onto rails, buses and boats. However, it slowly dawned on me, that sharing the ride with hundreds of thousands of strangers was becoming a great part of the Olympic experience. Line-up became temporary communities. People broke out into spontaneous choruses of Oh Canada on SkyTrain cars. Transit not only facilitated the party by moving millions of people around, it became part of the party. Getting around by a car or on a bike, while quick, was not so fun anymore. Perhaps this is why many more people than expected were using transit.



Clearly, the success of the Canada Line became a big part of the buzz. Contrast this with Sea to Sky Highway. While it is dutifully mentioned as a legacy of the games, people's experience on the highway was not part of the buzz to say the least. The only comment I saw was how, in spite of the great scenery, people seemed to be likely to sleep through the ride. In fact, Alberta scored big by chartering the train to Whistler. Seems like the VIPs that Alberta wanted face time with, preferred a relaxing train ride to Whistler over being chauffeured up. So rail seems to offer a great experience for everyone. Cost to BC taxpayers of upgrading the Highway - $8 billion. Cost of Alberta renting the train - $6 million. Alberta scores great business connections - Priceless.

In spite of the trillions of dollars being spent on marketing individual transportation, as very social beings, it is clear that we like to be around lots of other people while we get around, especially if everyone is having a great time. Now, it helps that during the Olympics, people were more likely to be traveling with friends and family than during the daily commute. The take away, perhaps, is to focus much more effort on marketing transit for social and entertainment trips in the evenings and weekends, when there is plenty of capacity.

The other takeaway is, that in spite of the marketing hype, driving in the city is just not that much fun anymore. It is becoming a more and more miserable experience. Congestion on roads is no fun. Congestion in trains and transit stations is fun. Congestion on roads creates angry, isolated people. Congestion in trains and transit stations can lead to happy people talking to former strangers.

Provide Solutions and Avoid Gas Tax Pains and Carbon Tax Attacks

It all sounds so nice and green and fair. A revenue neutral carbon tax for British Columbia, the Best Place on Earth. The greens loved it. The first government in North America to give carbon taxing a shot. If it worked here, it would spread like wildfire across North America.

Well, the organic manure hit the windmill. It is fair to say that it was not a popular move. In a move that still seems rather surreal, the left leaning New Democratic Party borrowed a page from the neo-cons and starting an “Axe the Tax” campaign. The bad timing of the summer’s high gas prices certainly didn’t help. People were mad and looking for fight.

Now, with falling oil prices, there is concern that people will quickly return to their SUV lovin’ ways. Both for environmental, security and economic reasons, there is talk about gas or carbon taxes to discourage overuse of the precious black gold.

In going forward with such politically tricky ideas, it is important to learn from the BC experience. It would be easy enough to draw the conclusion that people just are not willing to except such taxes. This would be a mistake. The problem is not with the concept of a carbon tax, it is how it was implemented that caused the pain.

First of all, while it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, making the tax revenue neutral proved to be a bad idea. The anti-tax crowd, likely the ones the government was trying to bring onboard with revenue neutrality just simply does not like taxes, especially new ones, especially ones that they perceive as social engineering. On top of that, many just don’t trust government. They fully expect the money to be used for something and thus were not convinced.

People want solutions. If they feel they have no options to avoid paying the tax, they will feel like they are being unfairly targeted for actions they have little control over. They will fell like they are being punished for driving and they feel they have no alternatives, they will get mad.

Instead of returning the money from the carbon tax, a better idea would be to use it to fund transit improvements and other public measures that can help people reduce their carbon emissions. Five billion in transit improvements will get peoples attention. Construction companies, consultants and unions will be onboard. Drivers will feel that they have an option or at least will think that other drivers with leaving them with more space on the road. People waiting in the cold while packed trains and buses pass them by will certainly be excited about increased transit funding.

Using funding from a tax to improve public transit creates a lot of big winners who will provide the public support needed for the tax to be successful. A revenue neutral tax will create a lot of small winners who, given the small amount they receive, will not really care much one way or the other.

People don’t mind pay more taxes if they know the money will be used for something they want. If the last election was any indication, people clearly want money to be spent on rail and rapid transit. Voters in Seattle, Los Angles and Honolulu approved tens of billions of dollars in tax increases for rapid transit. California approved ten billion dollars for high-speed rail.

No one really gets that excited about receiving a hundred dollars in the mail. It is no big deal these days. Pretty much everyone will pay some of that in carbon tax so really no one really benefits that much.

Congestion charging has been a success in London because transit improvements where on the ground when the charges came into effect. Pricing without improvements is rather cruel. Without alternatives, it is just another tax that is unlikely to change people’s behavior.

Pooling our resources to create a better transportation system is a far more compelling idea than giving everybody a hundred bucks and hoping against all hope they can use this small amount of money to somehow provide themselves with a greener transportation solution.

Ironically, the province did announce a transit plan before the carbon tax was implemented. Which is all fine and good. Only problem is that they didn’t have a plan to fund it. Without such a plan, it is hard for people to take the plan that seriously especially when they are staring a carbon tax in the face. Only now is the province looking at revenue sources to fund the transit improvements. Up on the list are bright ideas like a cell phone tax (I don’t get it either) and of course gas taxes, congestion charges and road pricing.

So when governments are considering carbon taxes, road pricing and other similar measures, here are a few suggestions:

• Create many big winners
  
• Provide people with solutions so they have an option to avoid paying
  
• Clearly tie the tax or charge to the solutions
  
• Announce the solutions and the tax or charge at the same time
  
• Have solutions on the ground when the tax or charge starts
  
• As the solutions improve, increase the tax or charge
  

Good Luck!

The Relentless March of Inevitability

2010 will mark a turning point. The people of Vancouver will be able to celebrate accomplishment of Olympic proportions. The calling of our age. A legacy ensuring hope for the future. It won’t be celabrated by the lighting of a flame, the raising of a flag or the playing of a national anthem. Instead it will be marked by the routine chime of a SkyTrain door, the chirp of a pedestrian button, the squeak of a chain or a simple “No thanks, I’ll take the bus.”

Late in the morning of Thursday February 11, 2010, a coffee mug will be placed in a holder and an engine will sputter to like marking the last time ever that the majority of the people of Vancouver will take a car to work. The next day, someone will make the choice to walk, cycle, or take transit thus culminating the relentless march of inevitability that began with the defeat of the freeways in the early 70’s.

The automobile will join transit, walking and cycling as alternate transportation. A choice for some, a necessity for a few, but no longer dominant.

With streets still jammed with traffic, this may seem unlikely. However, the 2006 Census reported the total being a mere 51.5% of people drive to work. Chances are that high gas prices have already reduced that to under half. Still another 6% are passengers so a bit over half still commute by car so still over half get to work by car. Many of the steps of inevitability are already in motion. The high price of gas, the higher price of housing, climate change, the Central Valley Greenway, South East False Creek, wider sidewalks on Burrard Bridge. In the end, it will likely be the Canada Line that will make the final difference. The much maligned little mini metro that could can and will likely be the nudge that pushes the automobile over the cliff of eternal minority status.

As the auto follows the horse to pasture, we still will fondly reminisce the summer drive on the open road. On the weekend we may even take the country train to enjoy a cruise down memory lane. The new hobby horse.

Worshiped and loved. The heart and soul of the twentieth century. Or was it. In reflection, the age of the automobile will appear as the illusion it was. Never an option for the majority of the people in the world. Never the dominate form of transportation in the world.

A strange love at that. A love proclaimed but not with patience. In reality, a tool of convenience, the less time spent with the better, lest one explodes with rage with the least of unintended provocation. We deserve better love than that.

Never before in history has a creation burned so bright, rose so high so fast, burned out so fast and fell to the ground so hard. It soared but never flew. So much for hydrogen and hybrids, the hyped, hapless, hopeless harbingers of non-change. Automotive margarine. In the end, it simply just ran out of gas. It lasted only a hundred years. A mere blip in human history. Will it even be remembered in the passage of time, our age of strip malls, cul-du-sacs and drive-ins.

Vancouver is ahead but Burnaby and New West are not far behind. Vancouver will be the first city in Canada and on the west coast to relegate the automobile to minority status. We follow in the footsteps of New York City and Washington DC. One by one, the rest will fall, the bastions of Buick, Benz and BMW under the boots of the relentless march of inevitability. The driving beat marking the end of the age of the automobile.