Regional Climate Protection Begins with Public Transit (Haller)

The following commentary appeared in Northwest Indiana Business Quarterly in Nov, 2007.

by Megan Haller, Executive Director, Quality of Life Council

I’m an “eco-pragmatist”. In response to visions of polar bears stranded in their once glacial retreats and media coverage of extreme weather events like Hurricane Katrina, I now drive a hybrid – albeit a hybrid SUV. Yeah, it seems a little warmer in northwest Indiana. But largely climate change seems like an issue “over there” – happening to someone else.  

It is from this perspective that I started preparing for our upcoming Quality of Life Council forum on climate change and the region (Dec 7^th at PNC). What did I learn? First, northwest Indiana is not immune but rather dangerously exposed to climate change risk. Second, we, as individuals, businesses, and a collective region – have hardly begun to consider the risk mitigation steps that we need to take to address global warming. Three, an investment in public transit is an excellent climate protection strategy and should be the first item on our collective mitigation action plan.

What will happen to our region if we don’t deal with climate change? Research suggests that climate change will cause lake levels to decline in both Lake Michigan as well as inland lakes. This will increase demand for already contentious Lake Michigan water as well as require more frequent dredging of channels and harbors. Severe weather events will become more frequent in Northwest Indiana as will periods of drought. Heat-related deaths will most likely increase as will certain infectious diseases causing rising health costs. Heavy rain-falls will stress levees, storm-water and wastewater infrastructure requiring greater public investment in each. Left unchecked, our climate is becoming more southwesterly and will be like Missouri in the not too distant future. It’s unclear whether that means we will have to become Cardinal’s fans.  

None of this is pretty. None of this is cheap.

What should we do?  Given the scope of the problem, it needs to be addressed from all sides. As individuals, we should take practical steps to address climate change (e.g. change to compact fluorescent light bulbs, energy efficient appliances, drive a hybrid). At the organizational level - businesses, schools, and local governments should implement climate protection measures. US Steel’s conversion of its fleet to alternative fuels, Lake Central School Corporation’s sustainability plan, and the City of Valparaiso’s commitment to a culture of energy fitness are models to emulate.  

Finally, regional policies which promote a reduction in carbon emissions should be supported where practical.  Number one on this list is public transit. Nearly a quarter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are produced by transportation. Commuter rail and bus are clearly better methods of getting our workers to our jobs than automobiles with one occupant. An idle carbon-spitting truck on a congested highway should become public enemy number one.

Fortunately, the ‘convenient truth’ of comprehensive public transit is that it spurs economic development. It seems the return on bus and rail is not found in the fare box but in the access to jobs it provides and the transit-oriented development it stimulates. Funding for public transit should be fully supported. It is the eco-pragmatic thing to do.

 

Comments

[Steve Dalton]

Meg, I agree and have posted quite a bit lately in support of the Connections program. "Eco-pragmatist" is very adroit.

[Meg Haller]

Reply to Sandy: A couple of additional points to consider. The commuter rail line is a MATCH. There is $500 million out there that we have already paid in as taxpayers that is either coming to us or some other city. Wouldn't you rather see your tax investment multiplied up to tenfold? Shouldn't we also consider return on investment when deciding where to allocate our tax dollars?
Point two: I sense in your comments that you view the situation as either/or. Either we invest in mass transit OR we revitalize the urban cities and densify the suburbs. Is there a possibility that we can achieve mass transit so that inevitable suburban growth is addressed in a sustainable way while ALSO pushing for comprehensive land use planning and investment in revitalizing the urban core? Is there a way to give attention to all three issues - or do I want my cake and eat it too?
Point three: I'm sad that you chose to characterize my commentary as 'knee jerk' reaction. The facts are that I have spent the last five years of my life trying to revitalize the neighborhoods of Gary so I have hands on appreciation for the importance of revitalizing the urban core. Further, I studied the mass transit issue in depth in preparation for our Sept QLC summit on the topic - not to mention a masters degree with an emphasis in logistics. Does that explanation change your views any?

[Sandy O'Brien, Dunelands Sierra Club]

It would be good not to go with the knee jerk reaction that a very expensive commuter rail expansion to the south and east is a good thing for global warming abatement. There might be other ways of spending that billion dollars and the additional $18 to 30 million? annual operating cost to get more bang for the buck for a greener and more equitable Northwest Indiana. Maybe further study would find that revitalizing the old northern cities and densifying suburbs so the whole region can be served by mass transit is better.