Monday, November 19, 2012

How Can Cities Focus More on Quality of Life and Less on Cars?

Are cars are over the hill? (Making Cities for People, Gehl Blog, Nov. 7, 2012)

Today we review a short article from an urban planning firm in Denmark that examines how cities in the OECD could and can shift from a car-centric plan for urban development and economics to one that both accommodates growth and improves the urban quality of life. This involves changing technology, tax policies, improved infrastructure and different objectives in urban planning- things that merit consideration in other countries who are seeing lowering rates of use of the car as the vehicle of choice in urban transportation and
  mobility.

   

Key Quotes:

‘If policy-makers are confident that car-use is waning they can focus on improving lives and infrastructure areas already blighted by traffic rather than catering for future growth.’  

“The average number of miles driven in a car in Europe and Japan has gone into decline suggesting that car-use has peaked in many developed societies. This trend is shown in a number of metrics pre-dating the economic crisis, decline in km travelled, a shift in the age of license holders towards older generations and a decrease in car sales.”

Examples of policy innovation:  

  • “Re-population of central urban areas - …invite people back to the central city with good affordable housing policies.  
  • Car manufacturers moment of innovation for the future - ….find models that re-explore how private transit can be shared and how public transit can be personalized.  
  • Government tax structures - …if people buy less gas there is less revenue available for improving infrastructure. 
  •  Urban Planning - …Mainstream urban planning has for half a century focused on the car, will this be the sea-change shift to focusing on people?”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, November 16, 2012

Why does Germany have More Sustainable Transportation?

Sustainable Transport that Works:Lessons from Germany(34 page pdf, Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, World Transport Policy & Practice, Apr. 2009)

Also discussed here: Demand for Public Transport in Germany and the USA: An Analysis of Rider Characteristics(27 page pdf, Ralph Buehler and John Pucher, Transport Reviews, Sept. 2012)

And here: Making Urban Transport Sustainable: Lessons from Europe and North America( Keynote speaker, Dr. Ralph Buehler, Carleton University, Oct. 18, 2012)

And here: City considers cuts to Bronson Ave. speed limit after fatal crash (Ottawa Sun, Nov. 2, 2012)

And here: Who owns the road in Montreal?(Pollution Free Cities, Feb. 11,2011)

Today we review a paper authored by Prof Buehler and John Pucher who have also published a book very recently about safer cycling in cities. The paper compares the degree of sustainable transportation in Germany to the USA and other countries and notes that “The USA is perhaps the best known example of unsustainable transport” for a number of reasons, ranging from much greater support for public transit as well as progressive land use and taxation policies in Germany that result in much less use of cars for commuting (5 times greater use of transit), as well as 2-3 times fewer traffic casualties and 80% fewer cycling casualties. Virtually all German cities have car-free zones and few have motorways that penetrate into the city core (unlike 99% of the large urban areas in the USA and Canada).

It is somewhat telling that shortly after an evening presentation on sustainable transportation by Prof Buehler at Carleton University in Ottawa, a student cycling home (perhaps after attending the presentation) was killed by a car on a 6 lane roadway that links the airport with the city core and lacks a safe bike lane (noting that a segregated bike lane is being piloted downtown and Ottawa currently has over 541 km of bike lanes including 258 km off road and is planning for 2,500 km, more than any other Canadian city).

There are many lessons to be learned here. 

   

Key Quotes:

“public transport accounts for five times as high a share of trips in Germany as in the USA: 8.5% vs. 1.6%”

 “Per-capita energy use for personal travel fell in Germany by 8.5% between 1999 and 2006, and CO2 emissions fell by 7%. Over the same period, transport energy use per capita rose by 4% in the USA and CO2 emissions rose by 2%”

“Traffic fatalities per capita in 2006 were 2.3 times higher in the USA than in Germany, indicating an important gap in overall travel safety”

Land Us and Taxation policies in Germany that support sustainable transportation:
  • “taxes and restrictions on car use help limit car use and mitigate its harmful impacts.
  • the provision of high-quality, attractively priced, well coordinated public transport services offers a viable alternative to the car for many trips, especially in large cities.
  • infrastructure for non-motorized travel has been vastly improved to increase the safety and convenience of walking and cycling.
  • urban development policies and land useplanning have encouraged compact, mixed-use development, discouraged low-density suburban sprawl and thus kept many trips short enough to make by walking or cycling
  • motor fuel taxes in 2006 were nine times higher in Germany than in the USA…petrol cost about 70% more in Germany than in the USA”
“Even though Germany has the fastest and third largest motorway network in the world, German motorways rarely penetrate into the city centre”

 “roughly 70-80% of the road network in German cities and small towns has speed limits of 30km/hr or less”

 “Virtually all German cities have created car-free zones in their centres, mainly intended for pedestrian use.. Wide sidewalks, safe pedestrian crossings, and car-free zones facilitate pedestrian access to bus and rail stops"

 “the number of cyclist fatalities fell by almost 80% in Germany over the past 35 years, compared to a decline of only 30% in the USA”

 "A reduced speed limit, coupled with increased enforcement, will play a key role in reducing the number of accidents on this stretch of road.. It will also be an important part of implementing some of the expected recommendations of the operation and safety review of this stretch of Bronson Ave. that city staff is undertaking."( Capital Ward Councillor David Chernushenko, Ottawa)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

How is Noise Regulated in Ontario?

Zoning v. Land Use

 What’s all the noise about?(48 page pdf, Dianne Saxe, Ontario Bar Association, Oct. 31, 2012) 

 In today’s review article, a leading environmental lawyer, Diane Saxe provides, a very useful overview of how the law at the federal, provincial and municipal levels is applied to noise with many examples of how this is enforced and regulated in Canada. A key aspect is the definition of noise as a “nuisance”.  

Key Quotes: Regulation: Federal
  • Noise labeling - Noise from products, equipment,vehicles, bars
  • Highway Traffic Act
  • Liquor License Act
  • Environmental Protection Act
  • CSA: Noise Emission Declarations for Machinery - Limits noise from products/ equipment/vehicles
  • Canada Labour Code –federally regulated workplaces
  • Health Canada advises on health effects
Province
  • OHS: noise in workplace
  • Building Code Act - Noise control guidelines --‐‑land use
  • Planning Act - Official plans, zoning by--‐‑laws
Municipalities
  • Municipal Act, 2001 – can regulate /prohibit noise
  • Land-use planning
  • Public health boards: is noise a health hazard?
  • Provincial Policy Statement
  • Noise from products, equipment, vehicles, bars
  • Highway Traffic Act
  • Liquor License Act
  • Environmental Protection Act”
  “Enforcement
  • MOE
  • By‑law
  • OMB”
  Definition of Nuisance
  • Focus on harm suffered
  • Unreasonable interference with the use of land:
  • Must be intolerable to ordinary person
  • nature, severity, duration of interference; character of neighbourhood; sensitivity of plaintiff’s use; utility of the activity
  • Substantial, not trivial interference”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, November 12, 2012

How Do Trees in Cities Affect Mortality?

Urban nature: Human psychological and community health(22 page pdf, Matsuoka, R. & Sullivan, W.C., In Douglas, I. & Goode, D., Houck, M., & Wang, R. (Eds), The Routledge handbook of urban ecology, 2011)

Also discussed here: Trees Are a Matter of Life and Death(The Dirt, American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Nov. 1, 2012)

Some people link the presence of trees in cities with improved health because they assume a positive link with reducing high air pollution levels- which others find questionable, citing research that coniferous trees near traffic emit hazardous pollutants. Today we review an article that points to more substantive evidence that urban forests and parks reduce mortality especially among lower income groups because of beneficial
 social impacts lowering stress and reducing crime.

 
   

Key Quotes:

 “Everyday exposure to trees enhances your health now and promotes health across your entire lifespan,”

 “Social ties are what glues us together. And people with stronger social ties have better health outcomes.”

 “ social support buffers stress hormones, reduces blood pressure, increases chances of adopting healthy patterns, all of which lead to reduced mortality and morbidity rates and healthier lives”

 “Smaller spaces with trees were a big predictor of people hanging out.”

“[in Chicago] there was 52 percent less crime in high-tree density areas”

“For medium income group, the presence of trees means they “are less likely to die.” For low-income residents, green spaces means they are “much less likely to die.”

 “While big central parks matter, they are not enough. Too many people live in barren landscapes. A 30-40 percent tree cover adds a lot to health. We need trees at every doorstep.”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, November 9, 2012

How Do Skyscrapers Affect Where Urban Pollution Goes?

Wind tunnel investigation of the downwash effect of a rooftop structure on plume dispersion (Abstract, Amit Gupta, Ted Stathopoulos, Patrick Saathoff, Atmospheric Environment, Jan. 2012) 

Also discussed here: Air Pollution, Gone With the Wind: Proposed New Building Guidelines to Clean Up the Air We Breath(Science Daily, Nov. 1, 2012)

And here: Tracer Gas dispersion in an Urban Environment:Scaling Considerations in wind tunnel testing(13 page pdf, Amit Gupta, Ted Stathopoulos, Journal of Wind and Engineering, Jan. 2012)

And here: Air pollution, gone with the wind -Concordia researchers propose new building guidelines to clean up city air(University Communications Services, Concordia University, Nov. 2, 2012)

And here: Why skyscrapers are polluting our cities(FirstPost, Nov. 2, 2012)

Today we review award winning research in Montreal that uses wind tunnels to examine the circulation of pollution from one building to another. Suggested solutions include better spacing between buildings and better location of air vents.

Key Quotes: 

“This paper investigates the downwash effect of a rooftop structure (RTS) representing a typical RTS on plume dispersion. The effect of wind direction, exhaust speed, stack location, stack height, and RTS crosswind width on the severity of the downwash effect on the plume is assessed”

 “We created model configurations consisting of buildings of various sizes and shapes…We then placed our models downwind of a building that was emitting toxins to trace the path from polluter to polluted. That allowed us to see how much pollution was being absorbed by buildings downwind and where on those buildings that pollution was most concentrated.”

“the turbulent properties of the approaching flow are important for proper modelling of plume dispersion in the near wake of a building”

 "three main guidelines for the placement of stack and intake in order to minimize the amount of air pollution that makes its way into downwind buildings:
 *intake vents on buildings downwind of a polluter need to be placed upwind of that building's stack, and closer to its more sheltered wall.
 *air intakes should not be placed on rooftop locations downwind of a low stack and the protected wall of the emitting building.
 *increased spacing between buildings can reduce the possibility that pollutants from one will be re-ingested by another."

 "While our research may not reduce the amount of outdoor pollution in our cities,..it can certainly help ensure that this same dirty air is not re-circulated indoors."

“awarded the prestigious Davenport Medal by the International Association for Wind Engineering in September 2012”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

What is Paris Teaching the World about Sustainable Transportation?

“What are the top 3 things Paris has done in the last 10 years to deliver a genuinely sustainable transport system?”(World Streets: The Politics of Transport in Cities, Nov. 2, 2012)

What makes Paris so great when it comes to the way they deal with cars and traffic? Today we review a post on a leading sustainable transportation blog, World Streets, that asks and answers the question. It seems to be a matter of consistency and perseverance that not only works in Paris but throughout many other cities in France. Only 17% of Parisians choose their car to commute compared to over 60% and 46% to walk in car-addicted Torino (and to cities in the USA and Canada).  

Key Quotes:

 Key Policy Elements:
  1. Modesty –“making their city a great place to live and get around. But not perfect and still much to be done”
  2. Continuity- “maintaining course with a minimum of discursive political side-tracking”
  3. Politics- “the result of a certain creative tension over the last decade between the Socialist majority and their decision to work with the Greens”
Key Projects:
  1. VĂ©lib-“The rule-breaking world-first mega public bike project which worked well out of the box on the first day”
  2. Mobilen – “reserved lanes bus priority system.”
  3. Parking- “the poor man’s congestion charge”
  4. Go slow- “slow down top speeds, and ..use street architecture to make sure that they are respected”
Enhanced by Zemanta