Category Archives: Web Article Review

nurse trees

I find the idea of “nurse trees” interesting. From Wikipedia:

A nurse tree is a larger, faster-growing tree that shelters a smaller, slower-growing tree or plant. The nurse tree can provide shade, shelter from wind, or protection from animals who would feed on the smaller plant.

Eventually the younger plant outcompetes the older one, and the older one dies, or I suppose it can be cut down by humans. I am thinking about how to apply these ecological concepts to give a helping hand in more urban areas. In my professional work on stormwater management, we often dig up urban soils and replace them with a manufactured soil mix that is more permeable to water and better for plant growth. But all that digging and trucking and waste disposal has a cost and an environmental impact, when we are doing all this to try to help downstream water quality. Maybe we can use carefully chosen trees or plants early on to loosen and add organic matter to the urban soils, then come back a year or two later and plant the trees and plants that we want for the long term. Even better if there is some plant mix where the first phase is faster growing, but then gradually gets out-competed by the second phase, just like the nurse tree concept described above.

autonomous vehicles

Here are two articles on autonomous vehicles: a short one from Streetsblog USA saying they might just mean people will choose to live even further from work, and a long one from Eno Center for Transportation going into very detailed examination of potential costs and benefits.

My thoughts on the first possibility are that this may indeed happen. Some people might try to live way off in the countryside and not mind several hours in the car each day because they can now spend it sleeping, reading, working, being entertained or being social. Some people will like this idea and some will not. Some will like it but make the decision based on financial cost. Let’s remember that government policy is important here – if we tax people in cities and use that money to subsidize highways to the countryside, more people will choose to live in the countryside because the cost (to them) is lower, while the true cost is hidden. Also, if too many people decide to live in the countryside, it will not be countryside any more.

Here’s a quote from the second article:

AVs have the potential to fundamentally alter transportation systems by averting deadly crashes, providing critical mobility to the elderly and disabled, increasing road capacity,
saving fuel, and lowering emissions. Complementary trends in shared rides and vehicles may lead us from vehicles as an owned product to an on-demand service. Infrastructure
investments and operational improvements, travel choices and parking needs, land use patterns, and trucking and other activities may be affected. Additionally, the passenger compartment may be transformed: former drivers may be working on their laptops, eating meals, reading books, watching movies, and/or calling friends – safely.

After mentioning land use in this paragraph, the report never really returns to it, focusing instead on “congestion”. I think the potential for radical land use transformation is the biggest story related to autonomous vehicles, so the fact that it is left out of a report like this illustrates how critical it is to have the urban and regional planning profession involved alongside traditional minded transportation engineers.

the killer robots are coming, seriously

Wired says the robot future is really, truly almost here:

The robots are coming, and they’re getting smarter. They’re evolving from single-task devices like Roomba and its floor-mopping, pool-cleaning cousins into machines that can make their own decisions and autonomously navigate public spaces. Thanks to artificial intelligence, machines are getting better at understanding our speech and detecting and reflecting our emotions. In many ways, they’re becoming more like us.

There are a couple new and disturbing things I learned from this article. First, military drone technology has moved to police departments and corporate security departments. One example is

the Skunk Riot Control Copter, a drone armed with plastic bullets and pepper spray. The Guardian recently reported that the South African company that builds the Skunk has been selling it to an international mining company interested in using it to suppress labor riots.

There is also a developing robot sex industry, which I suppose should not be a surprise.

“a single, supple mesh of mobility”

I wrote recently about European cities considering a complete ban on private cars by 2050, and I said that didn’t sound so ambitious. Well, according to The Guardian, Helsinki has a plan “to transform its existing public transport network into a comprehensive, point-to-point “mobility on demand” system by 2025 – one that, in theory, would be so good nobody would have any reason to own a car.”

Helsinki aims to transcend conventional public transport by allowing people to purchase mobility in real time, straight from their smartphones. The hope is to furnish riders with an array of options so cheap, flexible and well-coordinated that it becomes competitive with private car ownership not merely on cost, but on convenience and ease of use.

Subscribers would specify an origin and a destination, and perhaps a few preferences. The app would then function as both journey planner and universal payment platform, knitting everything from driverless cars and nimble little buses to shared bikes and ferries into a single, supple mesh of mobility. Imagine the popular transit planner Citymapper fused to a cycle hire service and a taxi app such as Hailo or Uber, with only one payment required, and the whole thing run as a public utility, and you begin to understand the scale of ambition here.

Now, that’s ambitious! I love the vision. It’s not just about transportation – imagine, if all these transit vehicles are in motion, they won’t be parked. When they do park, they can do it in small, out-of-the-way spaces. If they are autonomous, they won’t need so much space to maneuver around each other and around people. If this is the city of the future, what are we going to do with all the extra space?

So it looks like the race to develop the most sustainable transportation vision is a race to the Finnish! Sorry.

21st Century Cosmopolis

This guy, Steven Colatrella, has drafted a new constitution for the world that abolishes nation-states in favor of city-states. It also abolishes debt, credit, wages, and big business. In short, it sounds like a return to the original concepts of idealized socialism or communism. I don’t know about all that, but there might be a few ideas worth pulling out. I do like the idea of treating metropolitan areas as our society’s core economic and social units – clearly that is what they already are, and our political system is not consistent with that. Another idea that is somewhat interesting is that each city has its local currency, with a universal currency available but used only in transactions between cities.

protected bike lanes

Continuing on my recent transportation theme, this article on Alternet has some really good statistics on protected bike lanes. I am convinced that biking (a.k.a. cycling) is just a more practical way to get around urban areas than cars – it gets more people from point A to point B with less infrastructure, less cost, less wasted space, and no pollution. Plus, it promotes a more healthful, active lifestyle and urban design that supports that.

But for all this to happen, we have to build cycling infrastructure that is truly safe, and the U.S. just hasn’t fully committed to that. There are signs of hope, however – here are some of the statistics I’m talking about:

  • 27% of all trips in the Netherlands are made on bicycles. The Dutch designs are not secret but are available here (although their manual costs 90 Euros and it is not clear to me whether an English version is available).
  • The “pioneering” American city in protected bike lanes is…Montreal with over 30 miles (I just remembered, Canada shares our North American continent). But New York City has caught up and surpassed them with 43 miles. Other cities are Chicago (23 miles), San Francisco (12 miles), Austin (9 miles), and D.C. (7 miles). (Here in my native Philadelphia, we have not built protected bike lanes but have closed some lanes to traffic and painted some new stripes on the streets that would allow us to eventually separate them. Philadelphia has a burgeoning cycling culture and I think eventually it will happen. We don’t like to do anything first, we always sit back and watch what New York is doing for a few years before we build up the courage to try something new.)
  • Studies are finding that bike infrastructure boosts retail sales – 49% for a street in New York, 24% in Portland – and 65% of merchants surveyed reporting positive effects in San Francisco. (I’m not surprised by this – there is less space wasted on car travel lanes and parking, less time wasted circling around looking for parking, less money spent on parking, more room for trees and fountains and sidewalk cafes – you have more people in a given space, yet less crowding, with more time and money on their hands and a nicer environment where they want to hang around.)
  • And…duh…protected bike lanes are safer for everyone, and add more capacity to move more people at much lower cost compared to new traffic lanes.

The article also links to this fantastic collection of articles and data on protected bike lanes from “peopleforbikes“.

the future of urban transportation

I like the vision of future urban transportation laid out in this article from Atlantic CityLab:

My utopian vision of how this could play out is to rededicate a lot of space in cities that was de facto applied to cars in the 1950s, after the death of the streetcars and the explosion of expressways, over to active transportation. Cars entering city limits would have to be autonomous or switched to driverless mode, as these will be deemed safe for all users of the transportation system and will operate in much less road space than drivers need now. (As a reference point, auto accidents are the leading killer of young people worldwide.) Parking needs could decrease dramatically, too, as most autonomous vehicles will be on-demand and active, compared to the 95 percent of time that current cars sit parked. We would have a transit backbone consisting of heavy and light rail/streetcars, and regional/arterial buses. The rest of the network and space would be slanted towards walking, bike-share, and other alternative modes.

I don’t necessarily think this is a “utopian vision”. I think a lot of it is just going to happen and is already happening. Enormous amounts of space that have been devoted to car maneuvering and parking are going to be available for other uses. The question is, are we just going to let all the space sit there or have a good plan for what to do with it? Some of it can be used for housing and economic activity, some for parks, wildlife habitat and movement corridors, and food growing, and some for managing water or harvesting solar energy. And of course, combinations of these are possible. But we do need to have a vision and a plan, which some can call “utopian” if they so choose.

EU considering ban on gasoline and diesel powered cars

According to Wired, the EU is floating the idea of a complete ban on gasoline and diesel powered cars in European city centers by 2050.

An ambitious set of goals, laid out in the document “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area” (PDF), calls for a gradual phase-out of gas-guzzling vehicles in favour of electric vehicles and improved rail networks. The EU wants to “halve the use of conventionally-fuelled cars in urban transport by 2030” before getting rid of them entirely by 2050.

This doesn’t strike me as all that ambitious. We can and will switch to electric, natural gas, and propane powered vehicles a lot faster than that if the economics begin to favor it. And they will if, for example, distributed solar energy comes online in a big way. And I expect to see that in decade, not four decades. However, just the fact that most people and governments see it as ambitious illustrates exactly why it is good to get it out there and in peoples’ minds – it may be more likely to happen that way.

fish passage on the Mekong

According to NPR, Laos is building several dams on the Mekong and there’s an argument about whether the fish passage systems that have been designed will be effective:

“I’m confident that the mitigation measures we can employ here will allow fish to pass the barrier we’re going to create. From studies we’ve done, the impacts people are saying the project will cause, change in flow, quality, sediment distribution, fish food, none of those things are going to arise from this project.”

The risks the dolphins downstream face are real, Hawkins says, but he says that’s because of bad fishing practices, tourism and poor management. As for migratory fish that use the Hou Salong channel, Hawkins says, the fish passageways his company, Megafirst, are building around the site should take care of the problem…

“The effectiveness of such fish passage mechansims is quite OK, let’s say, quite well proven for European or North American rivers, where we have small number of species that are well known,” Meng says. “But in the Mekong, we don’t have five fish species which we have to take care of, we have 70, maybe even more, and we have no clue about them. So building something for them to migrate up and down with, that’s just guessing at the moment.”

Trandem of International River says fisheries experts estimate that at least 43 species of fish are likely to go extinct because of the impact of the dam, including the Mekong giant catfish, the world’s largest. Sedimentation — the silt the river carries downstream to Cambodia and Vietnam — is another problem. The Xayaburi will have major food security implications as well, Trandem says.

“By blocking sediment, we know that where there’s a lot of agricultural productivity and rice growing, these areas are going to suffer a lot because they’re no longer getting the same nutrients,” she says. “And so this will have a significant impact, especially in the Cambodian flood plains but also in Vietnam’s ‘rice bowl,’ which is really the center of rice production for region.”

This is all interesting to me because of the question of whether technology like fish ladders can mitigate our environmental impacts. Even if it can, I don’t doubt for a second that there is a lot of bad development going on that will impact the ecosystem regardless of what is done with fish passage.

 

the trophic theory of money

This is Brian Czech on the “trophic theory of money”:

Due to the fundamental structure of the economy, the size of the economy – as measured by GDP – is a perfectly valid indicator of environmental impact. Agricultural and extractive sectors form the base, which must expand to support the growth of manufacturing and service sectors – yes even the “information economy.” This structure, which is the closest thing in economics to an inescapable law of physics, gives us the “trophic theory of money,” which says that the level of expenditure (GDP, in other words) is proportionate to environmental impact including such tangibles as biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution in the aggregate.

It makes perfect sense that the overall scale of human activity is proportional to environmental impact, at least for a given level of technological knowledge, which doesn’t change very fast. Where I think he is wrong is the idea that money is a good measure of that impact. If you drew a pyramid showing the environmental impact of various sectors of the economy, starting with the lowest “trophic levels” like agriculture, forestry, and mining, and continuing up to the service and information sectors, it would indeed be a pyramid – agriculture, forestry, and mining would have the biggest ecological footprints, then the footprint of various sectors would decrease as you worked your way up the scale.

However, if you drew the same pyramid based on the contribution of each sector to GDP, it would be inverted, with agriculture, forestry, and mining representing much smaller numbers of dollars changing hands, and higher-tech sectors much more. The reason, I think, is that agriculture and mining have been around forever, and have become very efficient from an economic perspective (although we certainly don’t count their true costs in an environmental sense). The rate of technological change is low in those sectors, and we have turned them over to a small number of firms that know how to operate very efficiently and drive costs down, making small profit margins on a large scale. Relative to historical levels, prices are low enough in these sectors that we can largely take these goods and services for granted, and the majority of us have some money left over to spend on more frivolous goods like electronics.

The high-tech industries are rapidly evolving and have many players competing against each other to come up with novel things that we have just figured out we are willing and able to pay for. The profit margins in these sectors, and the total number of dollars changing hands, are much larger. This allows a larger number of players to compete at smaller scales.

A fun place to look at these statistics yourself is the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s interactive tables.