| Dear
EarthTalk: How
does congestion toll pricing, used in some cities around
the world, cut down on vehicle traffic and promote green-friendly
public transit?
-- Bill Higley, via e-mail
| |
Congestion
pricing -- also known as variable toll pricing --
has worked wonders in cities like Singapore, London
and Stockholm in relieving traffic, cutting commuting
times, reducing pollution and promoting public transit
ridership. Could New York City be next?
© Getty Images |
Despite
increasing green awareness and steadily rising gasoline
prices, Americans and other denizens of the developed world—not
to mention millions of new Chinese and Indian drivers hitting
the road every week—are loath to give up the freedom
and privacy of their personal automobiles. But snarled traffic,
longer commute times and rising pollution levels have given
city transportation planners new ammunition in their efforts
to encourage the use of clean, energy-efficient public transit.
One of the newest tools in their arsenal is so-called congestion
pricing (also called variable toll pricing), whereby cars
and trucks are hit with higher tolls if they access central
urban areas at traditionally congested times.
Singapore
was the world’s first major city to employ congestion
pricing in 1975 when it began charging drivers $3 to bring
their vehicles into the city’s central business district.
The system has since expanded citywide, with toll rates
at several locations changing over the course of a day.
Funds generated by the program have allowed Singapore to
expand and improve public transit and keep traffic at an
optimal flow. Some of the tangible benefits of the program,
according to Environmental Defense, include a 45 percent
traffic reduction, a 10 miles-per-hour increase in average
driving speed, 25 percent fewer accidents, 176,000 fewer
pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, and a 20 percent
increase in public transit usage.
London
implemented a similar plan in 2003 that was so successful
it was extended to some outlying parts of the city in 2007.
Today, drivers pay $13 to bring their vehicles into certain
sections of London during peak traffic hours. According
to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, London’s
plan has significantly reduced traffic, improved bus service
and generated substantial revenues. Environmental Defense
says the plan reduced congestion by 30 percent, increased
traffic speed by 37 percent, removed 12 percent of pollutants
from the air and cut fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
by 20 percent.
A
2006 congestion pricing experiment in Stockholm produced
similar results, shrinking commute times significantly,
reducing pollution noticeably and increasing public transit
use during a seven-month test. The day after the trial ended,
traffic jams reappeared, so Stockholm voters passed a referendum
to reinstate the plan. Today the city has one of the most
extensive congestion pricing systems in the world.
Perhaps
the next major city to implement congestion pricing will
be New York, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way. In
July 2007, the state legislature rejected Bloomberg’s
first such proposal—which would have used funds collected
to pay for expansions and improvements to the regional public
transit system—but ever-increasing congestion and
pollution might force lawmakers’ hand in the future.
“A
congestion pricing plan is the most cost-effective way to
jump-start transit improvements and reduce traffic congestion,”
says Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives, one of
a handful of groups working with Bloomberg to craft a version
of the plan that will fly with state lawmakers. With two-thirds
of New Yorkers opposed, it looks like an uphill battle for
now, but advocates say passing such rules is inevitable.
CONTACTS:
Environmental
Defense Fund; Transportation
Alternatives.
Dear
EarthTalk: I’ve
read that plastic bottles are not always safe to reuse over
and over as harmful chemicals can leach out into the contents.
I’m wondering if the same issues plague Tupperware
and other similar plastic food storage containers.
-- Sylvie, Dawson City, Yukon, Canada
| |
The
vast majority of Tupperware products are considered
safe, but some of its food storage containers use
polycarbonate (plastic #7), which has been shown to
leach the harmful hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol
A (BPA) into food items after repeated uses. |
The recent hubbub
over plastic containers leaching chemicals into food and
drinks has cast a pall over all kinds of plastics that come
into contact with what we ingest, whether deserved or not.
Some conscientious consumers are forsaking all plastics
entirely out of health concerns. But while it is true that
exposure to certain chemicals found in some plastics has
been linked to various human health problems (especially
certain types of cancer and reproductive disorders), only
a small percentage of plastics contain them.
According to
The Green Guide, a website and magazine devoted to greener
living and owned by the National Geographic Society, the
safest plastics for repeated use in storing food are made
from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or plastic #2), low-density
polyethylene (LDPE, or plastic #4) and polypropylene (PP,
or plastic #5). Most Tupperware products are made of LDPE
or PP, and as such are considered safe for repeated use
storing food items and cycling through the dishwasher. Most
food storage products from Glad, Hefty, Ziploc and Saran
also pass The Green Guide’s muster for health safety.
But consumers
should be aware of more than just a few “safe”
brands, as most companies make several product lines featuring
different types of plastics. While the vast majority of
Tupperware products are considered safe, for example, some
of its food storage containers use polycarbonate (plastic
#7), which has been shown to leach the harmful hormone-disrupting
chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) into food items after repeated
uses. Consumers concerned about such risks might want to
avoid the following polycarbonate-based Tupperware products:
the Rock ‘N Serve microwave line, the Meals-in-Minutes
Microsteamer, the “Elegant” Serving Line, the
TupperCare baby bottle, the Pizza Keep’ N Heat container,
and the Table Collection (the last three are no longer made
but might still be kicking around your kitchen).
Beyond BPA, other
chemicals can be found in various food storage containers.
Containers made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET or
PETE, or plastic #1)—such as most soda bottles—are
OK to use once, but can leach carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting
phthalates when used over and over again. Also, many deli
items come wrapped in plastic made from polyvinyl chloride
(PVC, or plastic #3), which can leach cancer-causing dioxins.
Swapping foods out of such wraps once the groceries are
at home is advisable.
Containers made
of polystyrene (PS, or plastic #6, also known as Styrofoam)
can also be dangerous, as its base component, styrene, has
been associated with skin, eye and respiratory irritation,
depression, fatigue, compromised kidney function, and central
nervous system damage. Take-out restaurant orders often
come in polystyrene containers, which also should be emptied
into safer containers once you get them home.
If your head
is spinning and you can’t bear to examine the bottom
of yet another plastic food storage container for its recycling
number, go with glass. Pyrex, for instance, does not contain
chemicals that can leach into food. Of course, such items
can break into glass shards if dropped. But most consumers
would gladly trade the risk of chemical contamination for
the risk of breakage any day.
CONTACTS:
The
Green Guide; Tupperware. |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
