Edmonton Sun's Coverage of the TPW Committee Mtg
Environmentalist raises the bar on idling debate and it's not a pretty picture, but don't expect bylaw to clear the air
By ANDREW HANON
If your car spewed solid waste instead of toxic smoke, a turd the size of an Oh Henry bar would drop out the tailpipe every 60 seconds.
That's the cringe-inducing image environmentalist Myles Kitagawa wanted to convey when he brought a grocery bag of the chocolate bars to City Hall yesterday.
The Toxics Watch spokesman wanted to show city council's transportation committee what 62 grams - the amount of pollution the average vehicle belches out every minute while idling - looks like.
On any given day, Kitagawa said, Edmontonians take 1.9 million vehicle trips. Simply reducing idling by one minute per trip, he said, would eliminate 117 metric tonnes of pollution each day.
Too bad the city's proposed anti-idling bylaw will do little to help.
The bylaw, which will be voted on by council next Tuesday, is draconian, poorly conceived and unenforceable.
"I'm all for reducing idling and reducing emissions," says Coun. Tony Caterina, the most strident critic on the committee. "But this bylaw, the way it's proposed, will not do that."
The bylaw would forbid anyone idling their cars for more than three minutes, but it comes with a list of exceptions so long that they almost render it meaningless.
Among them: buses and taxis, all emergency vehicles, armoured cars, reefer trucks, vehicles that take longer than three minutes to defrost and any vehicle whose manufacturer's specs dictate more idling time.
If the temperature dips below -10 C, the bylaw would no longer apply to anyone.
In other words, the biggest idlers can continue idling, while the only people it applies to are commuters who just want to get into a warm car.
Then there's the question of enforcement. The proposal relies on neighbours to report violators. No bylaw officers will ever investigate, but the accused will receive a letter of warning. If a second complaint is lodged, they will get slapped with a $250 fine.
Then, if they decide to fight the ticket in court, it will be up to the accused to prove his innocence. As Caterina puts it, this bylaw could become a bludgeon for a neighbour with a grudge.
Meanwhile, people who get stuck in traffic - say, at a railway crossing - must shut off their cars if they're waiting more than three minutes.
But as Coun. Bryan Anderson pointed out, if you're in the 15th car of a drive-thru lineup, you are, in effect, emitting just as much pollution, but because you're inching forward every minute or two it's not a violation.
Confused yet?
Everyone who supports the bylaw argues that whether or not the bylaw is enforced at all isn't important - its biggest asset is the public awareness it will raise.
As King's University College sociologist Randolph Haluza-DeLay puts it, the bylaw would "make not idling the new normal."
But is it really necessary to make laws in order to change public attitudes? Bylaw supporters compared it to tighter smoking restrictions which, over the years, have led to drastically fewer people taking up the habit.
But the last time I checked, warming up your car wasn't addictive.
A better comparison would be Edmonton's renowned recycling program. Rather than outlaw throwing recyclables out with household trash, the city made recycling easy with blue boxes and promoted public awareness about the ecological benefits.
Rather than rely on a bad bylaw, maybe City Hall could take a chapter from Myles Kitagawa's book and find innovative ways to get the public onside voluntarily.
City Hall might want to forget about the stick approach and try carrots - or in this case, candy bars.
Video at: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/01/14/8017351-sun.html
By ANDREW HANON
If your car spewed solid waste instead of toxic smoke, a turd the size of an Oh Henry bar would drop out the tailpipe every 60 seconds.
That's the cringe-inducing image environmentalist Myles Kitagawa wanted to convey when he brought a grocery bag of the chocolate bars to City Hall yesterday.
The Toxics Watch spokesman wanted to show city council's transportation committee what 62 grams - the amount of pollution the average vehicle belches out every minute while idling - looks like.
On any given day, Kitagawa said, Edmontonians take 1.9 million vehicle trips. Simply reducing idling by one minute per trip, he said, would eliminate 117 metric tonnes of pollution each day.
Too bad the city's proposed anti-idling bylaw will do little to help.
The bylaw, which will be voted on by council next Tuesday, is draconian, poorly conceived and unenforceable.
"I'm all for reducing idling and reducing emissions," says Coun. Tony Caterina, the most strident critic on the committee. "But this bylaw, the way it's proposed, will not do that."
The bylaw would forbid anyone idling their cars for more than three minutes, but it comes with a list of exceptions so long that they almost render it meaningless.
Among them: buses and taxis, all emergency vehicles, armoured cars, reefer trucks, vehicles that take longer than three minutes to defrost and any vehicle whose manufacturer's specs dictate more idling time.
If the temperature dips below -10 C, the bylaw would no longer apply to anyone.
In other words, the biggest idlers can continue idling, while the only people it applies to are commuters who just want to get into a warm car.
Then there's the question of enforcement. The proposal relies on neighbours to report violators. No bylaw officers will ever investigate, but the accused will receive a letter of warning. If a second complaint is lodged, they will get slapped with a $250 fine.
Then, if they decide to fight the ticket in court, it will be up to the accused to prove his innocence. As Caterina puts it, this bylaw could become a bludgeon for a neighbour with a grudge.
Meanwhile, people who get stuck in traffic - say, at a railway crossing - must shut off their cars if they're waiting more than three minutes.
But as Coun. Bryan Anderson pointed out, if you're in the 15th car of a drive-thru lineup, you are, in effect, emitting just as much pollution, but because you're inching forward every minute or two it's not a violation.
Confused yet?
Everyone who supports the bylaw argues that whether or not the bylaw is enforced at all isn't important - its biggest asset is the public awareness it will raise.
As King's University College sociologist Randolph Haluza-DeLay puts it, the bylaw would "make not idling the new normal."
But is it really necessary to make laws in order to change public attitudes? Bylaw supporters compared it to tighter smoking restrictions which, over the years, have led to drastically fewer people taking up the habit.
But the last time I checked, warming up your car wasn't addictive.
A better comparison would be Edmonton's renowned recycling program. Rather than outlaw throwing recyclables out with household trash, the city made recycling easy with blue boxes and promoted public awareness about the ecological benefits.
Rather than rely on a bad bylaw, maybe City Hall could take a chapter from Myles Kitagawa's book and find innovative ways to get the public onside voluntarily.
City Hall might want to forget about the stick approach and try carrots - or in this case, candy bars.
Video at: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2009/01/14/8017351-sun.html