free parking and why good people are misled by the forces of darkness

Here’s a nice quote from a blog called Saporta Report:

Parking causes sprawl. The vast amounts of parking required at locations push businesses and other uses further and further apart. Free parking encourages us to drive to the grocery store, and we insist on having ample amounts of parking.

As the amount and size of our parking lots decreases, our businesses can move closer together. A business that couldn’t previously open in a neighborhood as a corner grocery because of required parking minimums could now open to serve walk-up customers.

This is exactly right. Free parking is an enormous hidden subsidy to unsustainable land use practices and unhealthy lifestyles. It does all of us far more harm than good. If we eliminated these subsidies and let our cherished “free market” set a fair price on parking, the equation would be fundamentally changed.  The problem is that a majority of people still don’t see this. They perceive (correctly in many cases) that the way their community is designed, they would be unable to get around quickly or safely without a car, and they can’t envision their community changing its design, or living in another community with a different design. Even in places where walking and cycling are relatively safe and fast, like in or near Center City Philadelphia (see this Washington Post* article), and many people understand that 100%, the voices of the car culture are still louder and more politically influential at the moment. Here in Philadelphia, I see that being characterized in the media sometimes as an old vs. young, rich vs. poor, black vs. white struggle, which is very unfortunate because that is not what it is about at all. It is about health, safety, sustainability, community, competitiveness, innovation, and joy.

* Note that the Washington Post article above is unfortunately titled “Why cars remain so appealing even in cities with decent public transit”. It goes on to conclude that it can take a long time to get around by public transit, if you live far from your job. Then it concludes that walking and cycling are better than both driving and public transit, if you live near your job. But busy people who only have time to read headlines are likely to miss that point entirely, aren’t they?

how to write a letter to an elected official

I’m a little disenchanted with TED Talks these days, because I think most of them could be reduced to a sentence, if not a phrase, that I could understand in 10 seconds rather than wasting 15 minutes of my life waiting for some Tediot to get to the point. But here is an interesting one about how to write a letter to an elected official. First, it says to use an actual pen. Second, it says that politicians are not rational, moral creatures, and you have to understand their interests and then cater to them. It recommends these steps:

  1. Show appreciation for the politician, if not the person then at least the complexity and difficulty of their job.
  2. Don’t pull punches in stating your position, but avoid personal attacks.
  3. Explain that other people are giving them bad information about the issue. Then give them the good information you think they need.
  4. Offer to provide them with lots of additional good information in the future.
  5. Sign with lots of titles and credentials.
  6. Send the original to the district office and cc the main office (something about the main office might ask the district office for the original and it might get more attention, don’t know if I buy this).

green infrastructure reminder

The American Society of Landscape Architects reminds us that green infrastructure is more than what we used to call stormwater management practices. It’s a network of designed and natural ecosystems linked together to perform critical functions cheaper and better than purely manmade systems could:

Green infrastructure includes park systems, urban forests, wildlife habitat and corridors, and green roofs and green walls. These infrastructure systems protect communities against flooding or excessive heat, or help to improve air and water quality, which underpin human and environmental health…

Here are just some of the many benefits that these systems provide all at once: green infrastructure absorbs and sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02); filters air and water pollutants; stabilizes soil to prevent or reduce erosion; provides wildlife habitat; decreases solar heat gain; lowers the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and provides flood control; and reduces energy usage through passive heating and cooling. In contrast, grey infrastructure usually provides just a single benefit.

“All at once” and “single benefit” are key phrases. You have entities like wastewater authorities, transportation authorities, parks and wildlife agencies that are each trying to maximize the single benefit they have been tasked within the limited budget each has given. Each is trying to be efficient, but together they are inefficient, redundant, and even working at cross purposes. There is nothing responsible or ethical about sitting inside your bubble making “cost-effective” decisions that ignore everything happening outside your bubble.

This article drills down to a fantastic wealth of references that we should all take a year off and read.

(By the way, this article also contains some questionable numbers about at least one program I happen to be familiar with. But never mind, the concepts are right even if the numbers are questionable.)

National Geographic “Greendex”

National Geographic has developed an index that tracks the green-ness of consumer behavior worldwide.

“Greendex 2012: Consumer Choice and the Environment—A Worldwide Tracking Survey” measures consumer behavior in areas relating to housing, transportation, food, and consumer goods. Greendex 2012 ranks average consumers in 17 countries according to the environmental impact of their consumption patterns and is the only survey of its kind.

The top-scoring consumers of 2012 are in the developing economies of India, China, and Brazil, in descending order. Those in emerging economies continue to round out the top tier of the Greendex ranking, while the lowest scores are all earned by consumers in industrialized countries. American consumers’ behavior still ranks as the least sustainable of all countries surveyed since the inception of the study, followed by Canadian, Japanese, and French consumers.

Meanwhile, consumers in developing countries with the highest Greendex scores are the most likely to agree that they “feel guilty about the impact [they] have on the environment,” despite having the lightest footprint as individuals. The research finds a positive relationship between the extent to which people feel guilty about their impact and the Greendex scores of average consumers in the same countries. Consumers with low Greendex scores, i.e., those demonstrating the least sustainable behavior as consumers, are least likely to feel guilty about the implications of their choices for the environment.

I don’t doubt the validity of their conclusion that the average person in China, India, and Brazil has a much lower environmental impact than the average person in Canada, Japan, France, and the United States. I am surprised though by their finding that people in developing countries express more guilt about their own personal ecological footprints. That is not my impression based on some time living and working in Asia. The small, unscientific sample of people I have interacted with are definitely concerned about air and water pollution, for health and safety reasons, and if they belong to a generation that still remembers the land they tend to feel some sadness about urbanization. But concern about health and safety is not the same thing as guilt. People are demanding cleaner air, water, and food for themselves and their families, but that doesn’t mean they are thinking much about their impact on the environment for the environment’s sake. It’s a great story to tell that as these billions of people catch up in wealth and spending to their more industrialized, urbanized neighbors, they will do so without adopting those neighbors much larger ecological footprint. I want to believe it, but I don’t believe that is the path we are on.

 

telepathy

According to the BBC, telepathy is here, sort of. Human brain waves can be read by machines, then transmitted by machines to other human brains, which can perceive them. At the moment, they are perceived only as light, not the original thoughts that they were. Before we get too excited, the researchers say they think the technology will eventually allow perception of the original thoughts, but not in our current lifetime. I can see another implication though – if brain patterns are already being read into computers, we will eventually figure out how to have computers interpret them. Assuming progress in computing power continues to be exponential or super-exponential, I wouldn’t be so sure that we won’t see this relatively soon. Lots of exciting, and scary, implications, of course.

walking and creativity

This article in the New Yorker talks about how walking stimulates thinking and creativity.

Because we don’t have to devote much conscious effort to the act of walking, our attention is free to wander—to overlay the world before us with a parade of images from the mind’s theatre. This is precisely the kind of mental state that studies have linked to innovative ideas and strokes of insight. Earlier this year, Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz of Stanford published what is likely the first set of studies that directly measure the way walking changes creativity in the moment. They got the idea for the studies while on a walk.

It goes on to talk about differences between walking in natural and park-like settings vs. city streets. But is it too much to ask for safe, park-like city streets where people can stroll and think and interact? Does this sound crazy? No, it just means picking some streets and getting all or most car traffic off them, which can be done if people live near where they work and shop. Then you drastically slow down the remaining motorized traffic, if any, plant lots of trees and provide occasional places to sit. Make those public investments, and complementary private investments will pop up. Even from a cynical economic perspective, the cost-benefit is there, I sincerely believe. And the more subtle effects that cost-benefit analysis will miss – a more creative, innovative, less-stressed society – will follow, I sincerely believe. These are really the fundamentals, I am pretty sure. Maybe we can unleash a new wave of creative problem solving. Let’s stop thinking cynically about how we can make cities a little less bad, and start thinking about how we can unleash their potential.

innovation units within big companies

According to the BBC, some big companies are forming small internal units to act more like startups:

Kassir Hussain, director of connected homes at British Gas, says Hive was founded on the “lean start-up principles” espoused by Eric Ries in his book The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.

In practice, this means developing a product or service step by step, constantly consulting with customers so that money isn’t wasted on features they will not want. Each stage of development is tested – so-called “validated learning” – so that future success is almost built in to the process. Normal management structures don’t apply.

“We believe that job titles can actually prevent co-operation and teamwork,” says Mr Hussain. “It’s about encouraging an entrepreneurial mentality throughout the business. Hive’s product development is in days and weeks, not months and years.”

Hive’s Active Heating system, which lets you remotely control your home heating via smartphone, now has about 80,000 customers. But the service could not have come about from within British Gas’s complex corporate structure, Mr Hussain believes.

“Nearly three-quarters of Hive’s business is staffed by people with digital backgrounds from outside the group,” he says.

I see a few lessons here. First, the group has outsiders. Second, it is protected from the internal bureaucracy. Third, it has permission to take risks, which implies permission to fail. But it tries to limit the size of failures by staying in constant touch with customers. Not mentioned here is the idea that it has adequate resources, but that must be the case.

The other important question is how you would take this concept that seems to work well with consumer products and apply it to other sectors like, say, services or government.

Herman Daly

Herman Daly has a graph explaining his concept of “uneconomic growth”.

From the graph it is evident that increasing production and consumption is rightly called economic growth only up to the economic limit. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer, not richer. Unfortunately it seems that we perversely continue to call it economic growth! Indeed, you will not find the term “uneconomic growth” in any textbook in macroeconomics. Any increase in real GDP is called “economic growth” even if it increases costs faster than benefits.

 

meat

Here is the BBC raising the alarm about meat consumption:

Global consumption of meat needs to fall to ensure future demand for food can be met and to help protect the environment, a study says.

Research from two universities estimates greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80% if meat and dairy consumption continues to rise at its current rate.

Meanwhile National Geographic has a long, interesting article about what our ancestors actually ate. The answer: pretty much everything and anything they could get their hands on. Some societies ate a lot of meat while others did not. Some made a big deal of meat, but filled up on a steady diet of twigs and berries in between successful hunts.

In other words, there is no one ideal human diet. Aiello and Leonard say the real hallmark of being human isn’t our taste for meat but our ability to adapt to many habitats—and to be able to combine many different foods to create many healthy diets. Unfortunately the modern Western diet does not appear to be one of them.