An interesting interview on Treehugger with a proponent of high speed
rail in the US.
How much would a fast intercity rail service help in lowering overall
demand for automobiles, I wonder? (As opposed to merely taking
passengers out of airplanes.) If it did have this kind of effect,
might it help bring about a related demand for reduction of cars in
cities?

Obviously, if you live without a car in town, this would make it
easier to travel between major cities, but what about smaller routes
outside cities? Again you would have to depend on cars or buses.

This is going to be a long haul...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/stimulus-high-speed-rail-usa.php

=========================================================
Will Stimulus be Enough to Bring High-Speed Rail to America?
by Jesse Fox, Tel Aviv, Israel on 02.28.09
CARS & TRANSPORTATION

BUZZ UP!


Rail station in Shanghai, China (photo via thetransportpolitic.com)

About a year ago, TreeHugger interviewed Andy Kunz, an urban designer,
New Urbanist and rail advocate. Kunz laid out a pretty convincing case
for high speed rail as the solution for a number of problems facing
American transportation, includingoutdated infrastructure, peak oil
(or "energy independence," depending how you look at it), out of
control carbon emissions, and more.

In fact, Kunz said, we were at a fork in the road, and building a new
national high-speed rail network was the "single most important action
we can do to get us off the oil and change the direction of the nation
for the better." TreeHugger decided to catch up with Andy Kunz for
another conversation about rail and high-speed rail in America, now
that it seems the idea is finally catching on.

TreeHugger: Andy, a lot has happened since we last spoke about a year
ago. The concept of high-speed rail in America, which a year ago was
on very few people's agendas, has now become an almost mainstream
idea. Transit ridership is way up all over, and a high-speed rail line
has been approved in California. As an advocate for high-speed rail,
how have you experienced the events of the
past year?

Andy Kunz: With great excitement! It's really amazing what has changed
and how quickly! It's truly an unbelievable time in the history of
America - unfolding as we speak. I am of course very saddened to see
the suffering this recession is causing, and it's unfortunate that we
have to go through such a big disaster to change our ways. It would be
so much easier and less painful if we just planned these changes
during normal times.

Nonetheless, the fact that so many people are discovering rail as a
great form of transportation is spectacular! We are entering a new
green era that includes green living, green energy, and green
transportation. Out of this I see a huge opportunity to fundamentally
change America for the better with high quality rail transportation
and great walkable communities for everyone.

TreeHugger: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the
recently-passed stimulus package) allocates almost $18 billion for
public transportation projects, including $8 for high-speed rail.
According to reports, the new administration is also planning to
budget an additional $1 billion for high-speed rail projects every
year for the next five years. Rahm Emanuel is calling high-speed rail
Obama's "signature issue." Has high-speed rail's time finally come in
America?

Andy Kunz: I would say yes, high-speed rail's time has finally come to
America. I hope this does become Obama's "signature issue", and I'd
love to help him plan out the national system. But if we are going to
have high-speed rail anywhere near the levels that are operating today
across Europe and Asia, (and under development in 12 more countries),
we need to be thinking in much larger numbers to build this new system.

Recently, President Obama was in Florida talking to the people and
said: “You go to Shanghai, China right now, and they’ve got high-speed
rail that puts our railroads to shame.” He went on to say how America
has always had the best infrastructure in the world. I agree, and am
happy to hear such talk coming from Washington where rail has pretty
much been ignored for many decades in America.

TreeHugger: How much can be done with these budgets? What projects do
you anticipate will be promoted with the new funding?

Andy Kunz: It depends on how they are planning to divide up the money.
If they are putting the majority of the money into the California
system as the Federal match, then it makes total sense. The California
system will be funded by about a third each from the state, the
Federal government, and private industry. The benefit of this will be
the California project getting built faster, which will then help spur
other states into building their own systems and the new national
system will emerge.


Last year, California voters approved a $40 project to link up the
state's major cities via a network of high-speed trains. (image via
California High-Speed Rail Authority)

This money could also be planned for a couple of starter systems in a
few key corridors. France started this way by building their first
high-speed line in the busiest corridor - Paris to Lyon, a distance of
240 miles. This was their first piece of what is now a national system.

As a comparison, the California high speed rail project is about 800
miles and budgeted to cost $40 billion, which divides down to around
$50 million per mile. So if the $8 billion was spent in just 2
corridors at $4 billion each, that will only buy 80 miles of high
speed rail in each region. Two of our busiest corridors are Washington
DC - New York City (200 miles); and New York City - Boston (175
miles), so you can see this money wouldn’t even build half of both of
those corridors, unless this money is being used to attract private
funding, which could make up some of the balance.

If the money is being divided up among a number of states/regions,
very little will get done other than some studies and minor upgrades
to existing systems, which is certainly a start, but not really the
funding levels and speed at which we should be doing this.

TreeHugger: While the Obama administration is investing in new and
existing transit systems, existing public transportation services are
being cut back around the country, and California's budget woes may
even threaten the implementation of its newly approved plan for high-
speed rail. Will the stimulus money be sufficient to get the country's
existing transit systems back on track?

Andy Kunz: It should be, if we focus on what’s really needed. Keep in
mind this stimulus is only part of what will fund the transition to a
green transportation system for the country. We have road budgets that
can be drastically cut to help fund trains. We can also use some of
our massive defense budget to fund the train systems since getting the
nation off oil is certainly a matter of national security. Plus the
big transportation reauthorization bill is coming up for renewal later
this year - which will set the transportation spending priorities for
the next 5 years.

We do need a master plan for rail at the national level as well as
regional and local levels all across the country.
We really should also be looking at peak oil more seriously and how we
currently use around 20 million barrels of oil each day in America.
According to peak oil experts, the amount of oil we will be able to
consume will be reduced by around 9-10% each year starting now. So we
have to approach our rail planning to build up our passenger capacity
at the same rate as our oil is reduced.

In other words if we have 9% less oil each year, that means that 9% of
trips in cars, airplanes, trucks, etc will not be able to be made. So
if we are to maintain mobility and things like shipping food to our
stores, we have to be building rail capacity to expand at that same
rate (or faster) as oil depletion. This is the sort of planning we
need to be doing on a national scale all the way down to community
levels in our rail capacity.

TreeHugger: Back to the stimulus plan - in that same package, some $27
billion was allocated for new and existing highways and bridges. Why
are we still giving more funds to transportation projects that favor
the private car?

Andy Kunz: Because some of us are still stuck in the past, and still
think building more roads is going to solve congestion. Anyone who
understands peak oil and climate change realizes that we have reached
the end of the car/sprawl culture and we have to move on to build the
new train/walkable urbanism culture.

Granted some of the stimulus money is going to fix bridges before they
collapse like the one in Minneapolis, which is probably a good idea,
but there are plenty of road projects being put forward that no longer
make sense. The sooner we build more rail systems, including better
freight rail, the sooner we can relieve some of the pressure from
those failing bridges by taking a lot of the car and truck traffic off
of them.

Pouring tens of billions of dollars into the auto manufacturers
doesn’t make sense either, unless it forces them to retool completely
into manufacturing trains. In the 1940's, they stopped making autos
completely and retooled their factories in less than 4 months to build
the equipment needed for the war effort. They can do the same today to
build all types of trains from high speed to metros, to streetcars.
We need a new business for America to get in to, and we have a huge
need for many new trains, so instead of buying them from foreign
manufacturers, we should be building them right here in America and re-
energizing our industrial base. Train manufacturing could become a
huge industry, larger than the US auto industry ever was, and create
millions of green jobs while at the same time converting our nation to
real sustainability.



=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.koat.com/news/18838650/detail.html
--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From what I've seen and heard, these "safe paths to school" projects wind up as
feel-good/look-good projects that accomplish nothing, ignoring the real problem.
The newest high school here [built in 1999] follows the MO very well:

- New schools are built with as much consideration to pedestrian access as some
airports. Chiles High School has a campus roughly 1000 feet on each side--then
there's another 1000 feet or so of buffer woodland on three sides, with only one
accessible side on an access road parallel to a rural divided highway. The
entire campus is fenced, with only the gates on the front side open. High
schools tend to be very NIMBY, since nobody wants to be near high-school
students' anti-social behavior and dangerous driving habits.

- Since parents [supposedly] want their children to be able to walk to school,
the school board, city, and county go in together on a "safe path" to the
school. In the case of the above school, the "safe path" is a narrow sidewalk
[fully ADA accessible, mind you] that exits the campus at a chain-link gate,
goes about 1000 feet down the access road, and dead ends.

- The sidewalk will ultimately see zero pedestrians. It couldn't anyway, since
students at the high school triple-park on the side of the road as if the
sidewalk wasn't even there.

My downtown alma mater, built in 1936, is the same thing, except on a more dense
scale. Three sides of the campus border public streets, and there used to be
walk-through neighborhood access to the fourth side--it's gated and locked now.

Just like its younger suburban cousin ten miles away, the only pedestrians
around the school are students walking between the school and wherever they
parked. At both schools, students drive away to buy lunch--and have a tendency
to not return for the 2-3 class periods after lunch.

The only difference? The downtown school is right across the street from a gas
station/convenience store that students and faculty walk to for snacks and
drinks. Because a lot of the students at this school park across an urban
divided highway, the Sheriff's Office sends deputies to write citations for
crossing mid-block. Which they continued to do after a student was hit crossing
at an intersection.

It goes without saying what the real solution. Unfortunately, a lot of people
like it Exactly The Way It Is--a lot of parents feel more "in control" of their
children by living in an auto-centric area.

> http://www.koat.com/news/18838650/detail.html

=v= Greetings from America, where our President has recently
stated that, "The nation that invented the automobile cannot
walk away from it."  Presumably because that would involve,
you know, walking.  None of us here remember how to do that.
    <_Jym_>

On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:

>  Greetings from America, where our President has recently
> stated that, "The nation that invented the automobile cannot
> walk away from it." Presumably because that would involve,
> you know, walking. None of us here remember how to do that.


Maybe he meant Germany, where the first functional automobiles were
invented and produced in the late 1800s....

So we CAN walk away!

Rick
--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Note to Christopher Miller: The next time you try to destroy a list by
participating in the disruption of a thread on it to join in on unprovoked ad
hominem attacks on Tom Frost as part of a promotion of how superior you and your
buddy Mr. Crawford think the Carfree_Cities list is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree/message/19445 , confine it to the
Carfree_Cities list.

JK/TF
-----


BICYCLISTS' RIGHTS TRIAD:


*************************
BICYCLIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT -


CYCLISTS SHALL ride in the same direction as the other
vehicles on their side of the road.

CYCLISTS SHALL obey traffic laws, including waiting at
red lights at all times regardless of convenience.

CYCLISTS SHALL not move sideways without first seeing
that there's no overtaking traffic that will be
surprised. If you use a rear-view mirror, remember it
is not a substitute for knowing when to turn your
head.

CYCLISTS SHALL at night, use at least a headlight and
rear reflector. A taillight is recommended in
addition, but there are no substitutes for a headlight
and rear reflector.

CYCLISTS SHALL note that the above items are a partial
list, to correct just the more common errors. When in
doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were driving any
other vehicle?"


*************************
MOTORIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT REGARDING BICYCLES -


MOTORISTS SHALL scan the roads for all potential
objects, not just big ones such as cars.

MOTORISTS SHALL when entering a road, guard against
underestimating the speed of a bicycle.

MOTORISTS SHALL not automatically overtake in the same
lane just because the vehicle they want to overtake is
a bicycle. Cyclists are very often able to share their
space with you as a courtesy, but this shall not be
abused.

MOTORISTS SHALL save their horn for emergencies and
rural greetings. If they have something to say about a
cyclist's driving, there are ways to say it other than
by road rage.

MOTORISTS SHALL note that the above items are a
partial list, to correct just the more common errors.
When in doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were
interacting with any other vehicle"?


*************************
BICYCLIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES -


A bicycle is a vehicle. Therefore, a bicyclist has the
same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator.


*************************

Hi All,

Sorry for the unpleasantness.

Measures have been taken.

Joel


At 2009-03-04 19:20, you wrote:

>Note to Christopher Miller: The next time you try to destroy a list by
participating in the disruption of a thread on it to join in on unprovoked ad
hominem attacks on Tom Frost as part of a promotion of how superior you and your
buddy Mr. Crawford think the Carfree_Cities list is
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree/message/19445>http://groups.yahoo.com/gro\
up/carfree/message/19445 , confine it to the Carfree_Cities list.
>
>JK/TF
>-----
>
>BICYCLISTS' RIGHTS TRIAD:
>
>*************************
>BICYCLIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT -
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL ride in the same direction as the other
>vehicles on their side of the road.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL obey traffic laws, including waiting at
>red lights at all times regardless of convenience.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL not move sideways without first seeing
>that there's no overtaking traffic that will be
>surprised. If you use a rear-view mirror, remember it
>is not a substitute for knowing when to turn your
>head.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL at night, use at least a headlight and
>rear reflector. A taillight is recommended in
>addition, but there are no substitutes for a headlight
>and rear reflector.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL note that the above items are a partial
>list, to correct just the more common errors. When in
>doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were driving any
>other vehicle?"
>
>*************************
>MOTORIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT REGARDING BICYCLES -
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL scan the roads for all potential
>objects, not just big ones such as cars.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL when entering a road, guard against
>underestimating the speed of a bicycle.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL not automatically overtake in the same
>lane just because the vehicle they want to overtake is
>a bicycle. Cyclists are very often able to share their
>space with you as a courtesy, but this shall not be
>abused.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL save their horn for emergencies and
>rural greetings. If they have something to say about a
>cyclist's driving, there are ways to say it other than
>by road rage.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL note that the above items are a
>partial list, to correct just the more common errors.
>When in doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were
>interacting with any other vehicle"?
>
>*************************
>BICYCLIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES -
>
>A bicycle is a vehicle. Therefore, a bicyclist has the
>same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator.
>
>*************************
>
>



-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@...                           http://www.carfree.com

Thanks Joel

Best wishes

Simon B

http://democracystreet.blogspot.com
http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/staff/baddeleys.htm



From: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:38:51 -0500
To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Bicyclists' Rights Triad





Hi All,

Sorry for the unpleasantness.

Measures have been taken.

Joel

At 2009-03-04 19:20, you wrote:

>Note to Christopher Miller: The next time you try to destroy a list by
participating in the disruption of a thread on it to join in on unprovoked ad
hominem attacks on Tom Frost as part of a promotion of how superior you and your
buddy Mr. Crawford think the Carfree_Cities list is
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree/message/19445>http://groups.yahoo.com/gro
up/carfree/message/19445 , confine it to the Carfree_Cities list.
>
>JK/TF
>-----
>
>BICYCLISTS' RIGHTS TRIAD:
>
>*************************
>BICYCLIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT -
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL ride in the same direction as the other
>vehicles on their side of the road.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL obey traffic laws, including waiting at
>red lights at all times regardless of convenience.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL not move sideways without first seeing
>that there's no overtaking traffic that will be
>surprised. If you use a rear-view mirror, remember it
>is not a substitute for knowing when to turn your
>head.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL at night, use at least a headlight and
>rear reflector. A taillight is recommended in
>addition, but there are no substitutes for a headlight
>and rear reflector.
>
>CYCLISTS SHALL note that the above items are a partial
>list, to correct just the more common errors. When in
>doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were driving any
>other vehicle?"
>
>*************************
>MOTORIST'S CODE OF CONDUCT REGARDING BICYCLES -
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL scan the roads for all potential
>objects, not just big ones such as cars.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL when entering a road, guard against
>underestimating the speed of a bicycle.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL not automatically overtake in the same
>lane just because the vehicle they want to overtake is
>a bicycle. Cyclists are very often able to share their
>space with you as a courtesy, but this shall not be
>abused.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL save their horn for emergencies and
>rural greetings. If they have something to say about a
>cyclist's driving, there are ways to say it other than
>by road rage.
>
>MOTORISTS SHALL note that the above items are a
>partial list, to correct just the more common errors.
>When in doubt, ask, "What would I do if I were
>interacting with any other vehicle"?
>
>*************************
>BICYCLIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES -
>
>A bicycle is a vehicle. Therefore, a bicyclist has the
>same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator.
>
>*************************
>
>

-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@... <mailto:mailbox%40carfree.com>
http://www.carfree.com








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I recommend that we not spurn "Safe Routes to School" or "Safe Routhes to
Transit". Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of lip-service projects
that waste a lot of money and accomplish nothing. The same can be said of many
carfree pedestrian streets or malls that were ill-conceived and
unsuccessful(typically due to single-use design: retail) and that set a bad
example for what we are trying to achieve.

The Carfree conference in Portland changed my thinking about the value of small
incremental steps toward carfree cities. For several years, CarFree City USA has
been striving to jump straight to a full-fledged carfree project (neighborhood
scale or larger). We have been completely unsuccessful. Altering land use in an
urban setting is extremely difficult and expensive. In seeking this quantum
leap, I tended to pooh-pooh small incremental changes or one-day events as not
really altering the status quo. This included carfree days, critical mass,
cyclovias, bike boulevards, safe routes to schools, complete streets, changes in
parking requirements, new urbanism, etc.

In Portland, I noticed that all the success stories were with these same
incremental changes. And more importantly, they tended to change the most
important thing of all: people's minds. When a kid realizes they can bike easily
to school, they wonder why they shouldn't be able to bike easily everywhere.
When a non-cycling adult dusts off their bike to check out a cyclovia, they
realize that bicycling is fun and that the sky doesn't fall if the cars get
pushed out of the way. These incremental changes expand the collective awareness
of possibility and add to broad social support for alternatives to driving. That
support is a prerequisite for bolder steps, like converting blocks and
neighborhoods to carfree.

So rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, World Carfree Network and
all of its member groups should support incremental changes like Safe Routes to
Schools. Rather than criticize, we should promote ourselves as experts and offer
design advice so that the projects are successful and worthwhile.

Gus Yates
CarFree City, USA

Dear friends and colleagues,

A quick update on next week in Seville, together with a thought on how it
might be useful for you,

I have been invited to spend some time in Seville thanks to a kind
invitation of the organizers of a conference on public bicycle organized by
the office of the city's mayor together with the Spanish network of cities
for cycles ( ll Jornadas de la Bicicleta Pública de la Red de Ciudades por
la Bicicleta).  You can see the whole story on the conference at
www.bicicletapublica.org

My participation in the conference will revolve around my providing them a
brief analytic reminder on how public bikes have managed to get as far as
they have until now, and then to discuss some of the opportunities (and
oops-the pitfalls) of planning and implementing such systems.  My
"authority" for being able to do a reasonable job on this is not only a
result of the projects I have worked with and visited (including my four
times a day on average adventures with Velib), but also on the extensive
reports, brainstorming and information sharing we have had under the World
City Bike forum over the last two years (www.citybike.newmobility.org).

In parallel with this and the reason for this letter: after some discussion
with my Spanish colleagues I decided to be a great opportunity to use my
visit there to lay the base for the first of our World Streets City
Profiles, reporting on Seville's Transportation Greening Project.  In this
respect I have the good luck that the organizers are helping me arrange
visits and interviews.

But now my question to you: Are there one or two things that you might like
me to try to report to you on in the final World Streets  profile?
Likewise, if you have any sources or references that you think might help me
do a good job for all our readers and collaborators, now would be a great
time for me to have them.  After all Streets is a true collaborative effort
and this is one more good example of how that can work.

A quick word on the next edition of World Streets.  If you go to the site --
www.Worldstreets.org -- you will see in the upper left the interim results
of a reader poll in which we are asking our visitors to indicate what they
feel is the appropriate interval for new editions -- and the winner thus far
is the call for a fresh updated series of entries each week.  The plan for
now therefore is to organize here so that each Monday morning when you get
in it will be a fresh copy of Streets on your desk.  (Actually for now you
have to check into the site to pick it up, though we will shortly figure out
how to do this and more convenient manner.)

So thanks for sharing your thoughts and questions on Seville -- best done by
any other e-mail to editor@..., and if you do check into
Streets give a thought to recording your ideas about how often you think
should appear.

Saludos cordiales,

Eric Britton


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

Better have a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/nyregion/thecity/08bike.html?_r=1&hp

Joel


The Wild Bunch

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

SOMETIMES, when I am biking, I remember the ’80s, and I shudder. I remember, in
other words, when biking was an extreme sport, when, if you were a biker, you
had a lot of locks and a lot more nerve.
Skip to next paragraph

Just the other day, when I was enjoying the bike lane down Clinton Street in my
neighborhood, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, I stopped at a red light. And after the
crossing guard smiled and chatted with me, after the cars pulled up alongside me
and did not honk, I experienced a flashback from 1987: my regular trip from West
113th Street to Central Park, navigating honks and taunts, the mayhem that was
then on Cathedral Parkway.

In those days, when I got into the park, I thought I had really achieved
something, in terms not of stamina or increased heart rate, but of survival.
Riding a bike in New York was like spelunking or white-water rafting, and in
those days, bikers traveled best at night, when traffic was light. In the
absence of bike lanes, we looked for parks to move through; we stayed on the
side streets, and most New Yorkers then did not believe bikers should be
anywhere in the city, much less on the streets. This was what I was remembering
the other day when, as the light changed, I began to pedal and a biker went
racing by and nearly killed me.

Well, not literally. Literally, he only scared the bejesus out of me and brushed
my arm, no big deal. The crossing guard shook her head. “Jerk,” she said.

When I got to Atlantic Avenue, a street I would be nervous about crossing if I
were in an armored vehicle, I stopped to wait for the light as a helmetless man,
riding with his child on a seat, weaved wobbly between me, the taxi and the
pedestrians trying to cross, uttering not even an “on your right.” He pulled
silently out into traffic, stopping halfway across the intersection to let a
tractor-trailer wail by before he finished crossing against the light, the
toddler in back thinking heaven knows what.

Meanwhile, another biker was about to pass him, and pedestrians in the
intersection now scattered like deer. And I was thinking, “No wonder they hate
us.”

Because they do hate us, they being nonbikers and us being bikers.

Stimulus bills with federal money for transportation come and go, but we bikers
appear to be staying. For once in our biking lives, New York is really listening
to us, helping our numbers grow, with new bike racks, bike shelters, biking
incentives (a proposal for an indoor parking requirement for new buildings, for
instance) and, of course, bike lanes.

To be clear, cars are more likely to kill nonbikers; we still live in a world
ruled by the ruthless car. But as someone who has been knocked off his bike by
an S.U.V. making an illegal right on red (pretty hard, but I just got bruises
and a busted front wheel), who has been hit by a cab veering into a bike lane
(not that hard) and who has been knocked down as a pedestrian in a crosswalk by
a Ford Econovan (really hard, as in broken knee, lots of stitches in the head
and weeks of crutches and physical therapy), I admit that my knees feel wobbly
when I see a guy ride against the light in a busy intersection with a child in
the seat behind him.

As someone who has been honked and screamed at by drivers when I am proceeding
carefully along a wide, bike-friendly street, I acknowledge that my blood boils,
just from a public relations standpoint, when I see a guy do that. Because
again, they hate us.

The nature of the hate has changed. Once, they hated us because we were a
rarity, like a rat in the kitchen, a pest. Now, they hate us because we are
ubiquitous.

In a 12-hour survey one day last summer, the city counted 12,583 bikers on the
Staten Island Ferry, the East River bridges and the Hudson River bike path ­ up
35 percent from the year before in what Janette Sadik-Khan, the city’s
transportation commissioner, called an “unprecedented increase.” Transportation
Alternatives, an advocacy group, estimates that 131,000 bikers in the city
commute to work daily.

There was a time when bikers couldn’t imagine the city giving to us, even when
it tried. In a previous earth-friendly period, Mayor John Lindsay chickened out
on bike lanes after Fifth Avenue businesses complained. In 1980, before
“sustainable” was everybody’s middle name, Mayor Ed Koch put in bike lanes
separated by concrete and asphalt barriers on Fifth Avenue and Avenue of the
Americas, and then ripped them out after not seeing any bikers in them.

etc.


-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@...                           http://www.carfree.com

Hi again,

The sea-level rise issue is back on the front burner,
so to speak. A rise by 2100 of 20 to 60 cm now looks
like it might be as bad as 1.5 meters in the same
period.

Then there's this nugget:

"The US - which has roughly 12,400 miles of coastline and more than 19,900
square miles of coastal wetlands - would face a bill of around $156bn to protect
this land."

Hey, that's less than it cost to "save" AIG! No big deal, in today's
perverted way of thinking.

Best,

Joel


Published on Sunday, March 8, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

Scientists to Issue Stark Warning Over Dramatic New Sea Level Figures


Rising sea levels pose a far bigger eco threat than previously thought. This
week's climate change conference in Copenhagen will sound an alarm over new
floodings - enough to swamp Bangladesh, Florida, the Norfolk Broads and the
Thames estuary

by Robin McKie

Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by global
warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than previously estimated.
There is now a major risk that many coastal areas around the world will be
inundated by the end of the century because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets
are melting faster than previously estimated.

With much of the country already below sea level, even a small rise would be
devastating for the Dutch. (Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP)
Low-lying areas including Bangladesh, Florida, the Maldives and the Netherlands
face catastrophic flooding, while, in Britain, large areas of the Norfolk Broads
and the Thames estuary are likely to disappear by 2100. In addition, cities
including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defences.

"It is now clear that there are going to be massive flooding disasters around
the globe," said Dr David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey. "Populations
are shifting to the coast, which means that more and more people are going to be
threatened by sea-level rises."

The issue is set to dominate the opening sessions of the international climate
change conference in Copenhagen this week, when scientists will outline their
latest findings on a host of issues concerning global warming. The meeting has
been organised to set the agenda for this December's international climate talks
(also to be held in Copenhagen), which will draw up a treaty to replace the
current Kyoto protocol for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

And key to these deliberations will be the issue of ice-sheet melting. The
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - when it presented its most
up-to-date report on the likely impact of global warming in 2007 - concluded
that sea-level rises of between 20 and 60 centimetres would occur by 2100. These
figures were derived from estimates of how much the sea will increase in volume
as it heats up, a process called thermal expansion, and from projected increases
in run-off water from melting glaciers in the Himalayas and other mountain
ranges.

But the report contained an important caveat: that its sea-level rise estimate
contained very little input from melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
The IPCC forecast therefore tended to underestimate forthcoming changes.

"The IPCC felt the whole dynamics of polar ice-sheet melting were too poorly
understood," added Vaughan. "However, we are now getting a much better idea of
what is going on in Greenland and Antarctica and can make much more accurate
forecasts about ice-sheet melting and its contribution to sea-level rises."

From studying satellite images, scientists have watched the sea ice that hugs
the Greenland and Antarctic shores dwindle and disappear. Sea-ice melting on its
own does not cause ocean levels to rise, but its disappearance has a major
impact on land ice sheets. Without sea ice to prop them up, the land sheets tip
into the water and disintegrate at increasing rates, a phenomenon that is now
being studied in detail by researchers.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent from our studies of Greenland and
Antarctica that changes to sea ice are being transmitted into the hearts of the
land-ice sheets in a remarkably short time," added Vaughan. As a result, those
land sheets are breaking up faster and far more melt water is being added to the
oceans than was previously expected.

These revisions suggest sea-level rises could easily top a metre by 2100 - a
figure that is backed by the US Geological Survey, which this year warned that
they could reach as much as 1.5 metres.

In addition, in September, a team led by Tad Pfeffer at the University of
Colorado at Boulder published calculations using conservative, medium and
extreme glaciological assumptions for sea-level rise expected from Greenland,
Antarctica and the world's smaller glaciers and ice caps. They concluded that
the most plausible scenario, when factoring in thermal expansion due to warming
waters, will lead to a total sea level rise of one to two metres by 2100.

Similarly, a commission of 20 international experts, called on by the Dutch
government to help plan its coastal defences, recently gave a range of 55cm to
1.1 metres for sea-level rises by 2100. "Equally important, this commission has
highlighted the fact that sea-level rise will not stop in the year 2100," said
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "By
2200, they estimate a rise of 1.5 to 3.5m unless we stop the warming. This would
spell the end of many of our coastal cities."

This point was backed by Dr Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre, the UK's foremost
climate change research centre. "It is still not clear exactly how much the sea
will rise by the end of this century, but it is certain that rises will continue
for hundreds of years beyond that - even if we do manage to stabilise carbon
dioxide emissions and halt the rise in atmospheric temperature. The sea will
continue to heat up and expand. In addition, the Greenland ice sheets will
continue to melt," he said.

This latter effect could, ultimately, have a particularly destructive impact.
Scientists have calculated that if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases eventually produce a global temperature increase of
around 4C, there is a risk that Greenland's ice covering could melt completely.
This could take several hundred years or it might require a couple of thousand.
The end result is not in doubt, however. It would add around seven metres to the
planet's sea levels. The consequence would be utter devastation.

Such a scenario is distant, but real, scientists insist. However, at present,
the most important issue, they argue, is that of short-term sea-level rises:
probably around one metre by 2100. When that occurs, the Maldives will be
submerged, along with islands like the Sunderbans in the Bay of Bengal, and
Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific. The US - which has roughly 12,400 miles of
coastline and more than 19,900 square miles of coastal wetlands - would face a
bill of around $156bn to protect this land. Cities such as London would require
massive investments to provide defences against the rising waters. Others, such
as Alexandria, in Egypt, would simply be inundated.

Rising oceans will also contaminate both surface and underground fresh water
supplies, worsening the world's existing fresh-water shortage. Underground water
sources in Thailand, Israel, China and Vietnam are already experiencing
salt-water contamination.

Coastal farmland will be wiped out, triggering massive displacements of men,
women and children. It is estimated that a one-metre sea-level rise could flood
17% of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, reducing its
rice-farming land by 50% and leaving tens of millions without homes.

Such destruction would not be caused merely by rising sea levels, however. Other
effects of global warming will also worsen the mayhem that lies ahead: in
particular, the increase in major storms. "When we talk about the dangers of
future sea-level rises, we are not talking about a problem akin to pouring water
into a bath," added Dr Colin Brown, director of engineering at the Institution
of Mechanical Engineering. "Climate-change research shows there will be
significant increases in storms as global temperatures rise. These will produce
more intense gales and hurricanes and these, in turn, will produce massive storm
surges as they pass over the sea."

The result will be the appearance of the super-surge, a climatic double whammy
that will savage low-lying regions that include Britain's south-eastern
coastline, in particular East Anglia and the Thames Estuary, along with cities
such as London, Portsmouth and Hull, which are rated as being particularly
vulnerable to sea-level rise.

In addition to these hotspots, the country will also face massive disruption to
its transport and energy systems unless it acts swiftly, according to a report -
Climate Change, Adapting to the Inevitable - published last month by the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Many rail lines run along river valleys
that will be flooded with increased regularity while bridges carrying trains and
lorries often cross shipping lanes and may have to be redesigned to accommodate
rising water levels.

"Power supplies will also be affected," added Brown. "The Sizewell B nuclear
plant has been built on the Suffolk coast, a site that has been earmarked for
the construction of several more nuclear plants. However, Sizewell will
certainly be affected by rising sea levels. Engineers say they can build
concrete walls that will keep out the water throughout the working lives of
these new plants. But that is not enough. Nuclear plants may operate for 50
years, but it could take hundreds of years to decommission them. By that time,
who knows what sea-level rises and what kinds of inundations the country will be
experiencing?"

Most scientists believe Britain remains relatively well placed to combat
sea-level rises. "The government has been fairly far-sighted over this issue,
with projects such as Thames Estuary 2100 being set up to prepare flooding
defence projects," said Professor Robert Nicholls, of Southampton University.

This does not stop the controversy, however. In its report, the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers warned that many areas would have to be abandoned because
they are simply too expensive to protect. In particular, large areas of the
Norfolk coastline would be left to be inundated, a massive loss of human
habitat.

But this approach represents an abrogation of national duty to many people -
particularly those whose homes will be destroyed, individuals such as Martin
George, former chairman of the Broads Society. "A country that has the
technological know-how to extract oil and coal from below the North Sea should
surely be capable of finding a way to protect a concrete sea wall against the
effects of climate change. We should do our damnedest to safeguard our
heritage," he said.


-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@...                           http://www.carfree.com

One more for today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

The Inflection Is Near?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 7, 2009

Sometimes the satirical newspaper The Onion is so right on, I can’t resist
quoting from it. Consider this faux article from June 2005 about America’s
addiction to Chinese exports:

FENGHUA, China ­ Chen Hsien, an employee of Fenghua Ningbo Plastic Works Ltd., a
plastics factory that manufactures lightweight household items for Western
markets, expressed his disbelief Monday over the “sheer amount of [garbage]
Americans will buy. Often, when we’re assigned a new order for, say, ‘salad
shooters,’ I will say to myself, ‘There’s no way that anyone will ever buy
these.’ ... One month later, we will receive an order for the same product, but
three times the quantity. How can anyone have a need for such useless [garbage]?
I hear that Americans can buy anything they want, and I believe it, judging from
the things I’ve made for them,” Chen said. “And I also hear that, when they no
longer want an item, they simply throw it away. So wasteful and contemptible.”

Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis
and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much
more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole
growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable
economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall ­ when
Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more
stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China,
powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but
earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America
would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and
more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...

We can’t do this anymore.

“We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on
to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the
indispensable blog climateprogress.org. We have been getting rich by depleting
all our natural stocks ­ water, hydrocarbons, forests, rivers, fish and arable
land ­ and not by generating renewable flows.

“You can get this burst of wealth that we have created from this rapacious
behavior,” added Romm. “But it has to collapse, unless adults stand up and say,
‘This is a Ponzi scheme. We have not generated real wealth, and we are
destroying a livable climate ...’ Real wealth is something you can pass on in a
way that others can enjoy.”

Over a billion people today suffer from water scarcity; deforestation in the
tropics destroys an area the size of Greece every year ­ more than 25 million
acres; more than half of the world’s fisheries are over-fished or fished at
their limit.

“Just as a few lonely economists warned us we were living beyond our financial
means and overdrawing our financial assets, scientists are warning us that we’re
living beyond our ecological means and overdrawing our natural assets,” argues
Glenn Prickett, senior vice president at Conservation International. But, he
cautioned, as environmentalists have pointed out: “Mother Nature doesn’t do
bailouts.”

One of those who has been warning me of this for a long time is Paul Gilding,
the Australian environmental business expert. He has a name for this moment ­
when both Mother Nature and Father Greed have hit the wall at once ­ “The Great
Disruption.”

“We are taking a system operating past its capacity and driving it faster and
harder,” he wrote me. “No matter how wonderful the system is, the laws of
physics and biology still apply.” We must have growth, but we must grow in a
different way. For starters, economies need to transition to the concept of
net-zero, whereby buildings, cars, factories and homes are designed not only to
generate as much energy as they use but to be infinitely recyclable in as many
parts as possible. Let’s grow by creating flows rather than plundering more
stocks.

Gilding says he’s actually an optimist. So am I. People are already using this
economic slowdown to retool and reorient economies. Germany, Britain, China and
the U.S. have all used stimulus bills to make huge new investments in clean
power. South Korea’s new national paradigm for development is called: “Low
carbon, green growth.” Who knew? People are realizing we need more than
incremental changes ­ and we’re seeing the first stirrings of growth in smarter,
more efficient, more responsible ways.

In the meantime, says Gilding, take notes: “When we look back, 2008 will be a
momentous year in human history. Our children and grandchildren will ask us,
‘What was it like? What were you doing when it started to fall apart? What did
you think? What did you do?’ ” Often in the middle of something momentous, we
can’t see its significance. But for me there is no doubt: 2008 will be the
marker ­ the year when ‘The Great Disruption’ began.



-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@...                           http://www.carfree.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/nyregion/thecity/08bike.html

=v= There's much to like in this article, and I have no quarrel
with calls for civility or even his recommendations for same;
but I have to take issue with him using the tired old approach
of making sweeping statements about "us" bikers due to the
behavior of some individuals on bikes.  When any of the things
going on in his anecdotes are perpetrated by motorists, we hold
them responsible as individuals.  Bicyclists need to be treated
as individual human beings as well.

=v= To do less is self-defeating.  "Once, they hated us because
we were a rarity," he writes.  "Now, they hate us because we are
ubiquitous."  Once, however, the argument went that every last
bicyclist had to be exemplary or we'd never get anything.  Now,
the argument is that every last bicyclist has to be exemplary
because we've gotten something.

=v= The part I take strongest exception to is his claim that
"bikers have begun to treat people [pedestrians] the same way
the cars they used to do battle do -- in other words, like the
enemy."  Perhaps he could dig up some people who act that way,
but that's not what I've experienced as a bicyclist or as a
pedestrian in New York City.  What's more, bicycling advocacy
groups all over the country often do double duty as pedestrian
advocacy groups, and that includes the group he mentioned in
the article, NYC's Transportation Alternatives
     <_Jym_>

=v= I just want to add that New York City's street dynamics
are different from those in other U.S. cities, because the pace
is set by pedestrians.  In cities where the pace is set by cars,
the enclosed interiors and much higher speeds put severe limits
on people's ability to relate on a human level.

=v= A city mostly at human-powered speeds works differently.
When little cheap push-scooters burgeoned in popularity, there
was the fuss that always comes with the introduction of anything
new, but New Yorkers adapted quickly.  The best articulation
of this was published at the time in the _New_Yorker_ magazine:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2000/09/18/2000_09_18_070_TNY_LIBRY_000021694

So I think things are going to be okay in New York; this new
bike boom will ultimately fit right in alongside the scooters.
(Frankly, I'm more worried about cellphone-using zombies.)
     <_Jym_>

Great opportunity for proposing carfree re-development in Detroit.

From www.rousedetroit.com

[D]escription:
rouse[D] is a two part competition and exhibition.  rouse[D] will focus on
re-inventing the city of Detroit through the use of digital computation
methodologies!

This is an international open ideas competition challenging people to come up
with designs that will rouse the city of Detroit and encourage an evolution of
our understanding of its unique urban environment. We have studied, examined,
photographed, and proposed our ideas many times over, but how can we begin to
take action to improve the overall condition of what so many believe to be a
modern day ruins? Every city has its history and Detroit is no different, but
now it's our turn to "bounce back" and maybe not in the traditional or
conventional way, but in a new, unprecedented way that is specific to the
one-of-a-kind condition Detroit presents to us. So the solution too, will be
one-of-a-kind specific to our Detroit… let's see what you've got…

Ranging from macro to micro, explore all options; this project is not just about
the large scheme, but also the small details. We are looking for the most
CREATIVE and thoughtful designs that could help Detroit and make it better in
some way.  The competition does have one condition; the site or sites must be IN
Detroit proper.

Three images [minimum] are required for consideration:

1.  Plan view – Including the location of your site

2.  An elevation of your choice

3.  A perspective (the money shot) showcasing your idea

* * *

There are 3 prizes:

1st place - $500   Your work exhibited in rouse[D] Exhibition at the end of
August 2009 at a noteworthy gallery in Detroit.

2nd place - $300

3rd place - $200

Honorable Mention

* * *


For more details see the website.

To go with the crappy cellphone pictures I post of the BF blog, I
participated in a crappy cellphone interview with Eric Miller, the
publisher of the New Colonist, about living without a car in Los
Angeles...so go to the following link and turn it up!

http://www.newcolonist.com/vox/archive/00001004.html

Rick

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good short article from Transportation for America, along with an
excellent comment by Lee Watkins....

http://t4america.org/blog/archives/724

Rick

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The prognosis just seems to get worse each time new research results
come out.

The latest from the Copenhagen Climate Congress foresees greater than
expected sea level rises and the possibility - depending on what I
have read - of 10 to 17 percent of the wolrd's population affected.

Links:

1. Climate Change Congress – University of Copenhagen:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/

Treehugger synopsis:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/sea-level-rise-best-case-scenario-50cm-1\
0-percent-world-population-hit.php

An excerpt:
Half a Meter The Minimum That Will Occur, One Meter or More Possible
by 2100
Research presented today shows that by 2100 sea level rise could be
one meter or more at the upper end of the spectrum (assuming we don't
reduce carbon emissions quickly to hold temperature rise to 2°C). At
the lower end of the spectrum it looks unlikely that sea level rise
will be less than half a meter.

Uncertainty Over Ice Sheet Melt Kept IPPC Report Projections Low
In the 2007 IPCC report sea level rise was projected to be in the
range of 18-59cm. However, not all factors were included in these
projections (most notably uncertainty surround how ice sheets would
react to rising temperatures and interact with oceans) and are
consequently too low.

Eric Rignot, Professor of Earth System Science at the University of
California Irvine and Senior Research Scientist at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Lab:

The numbers from the last IPCC are a lower bound because it was
recognized at the time that there was a lot of uncertainty about ice
sheets. The numerical models used at the time did not have a complete
representation of outlet glaciers and their interactions with the
ocean. The results gathered in the last 2-3 years show that these are
fundamental aspects that cannot be overlooked. As a result of the
acceleration of outlet glaciers over large regions, the ice sheets in
Greenland and Antarctica are already contributing more and faster to
sea level rise than anticipated. If this trend continues, we are
likely to witness sea level rise one meter or more by year 2100.

Several Meters Sea Level Rise Possible in Coming Centuries
John Church from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate
Research added,

Unless we undertake urgent and significant mitigations, the climate
could cross a threshold during the 21st century committing the world
to a sea level rise of meters.

Those multiple meters Church is referring to would be in the years
past 2100, by the way. If mitigation efforts are not sufficient sea
level rise would continue in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. According to
one chart shown, possibly as much a 5 meters in the next two centuries.

No matter the exact amount of sea level rise, the message presented is
loud and clear: Even at the lowest levels of project sea level rise in
the 21st century mean that 10% of the world's current population will
be hit by rising seas.


2. Treehugger reporting on Climate change as a risk problem, not
mitigation problem:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/climate-change-not-a-prediction-problem-\
its-a-risk-problem-manage-it.php

One of the better descriptions of the problem of how we're not
adequately addressing climate change came early in the first day of
the Copenhagen Climate Congress came from Professor Katherine
Richardson, Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee and Vice Dean
at the University of Copenhagen.
After say that "climate change is not a prediction problem—scientists
understand that—it's a risk problem." Richardson went on to talk about
the level of certainty that climate change is man-made stated in the
2007 IPCC report:

Perhaps We Should Say There's a 10% Chance Humans Aren't Causing
Global Warming?
Saying that the 2007 report concludes that it is 90% certain that
human action, primarily in the form of burning fossil fuels and
chopping down forests, is causing climate change, Richardson elaborated:

90%. Turn that on its head. That means there's a 10% or less chance
that its not us that is doing this to the climate. A 10% chance. If
you were going to the airport, to take an airplane, and someone said
there was a 10% or less chance that that plane was going to get where
you wanted to go [...] would you take the plane? Very Unlikely.

You might find a technician who had his or her head deep into the
engine of that machine and could turn to you and say, 'Come on! I know
this baby. She's going to make it.'

Would you believe that technician, or would you believe the people
behind this that say there's a less than 10% chance or getting to
where you want to go?

That's where we are with climate change at the moment. and for some
reason scientists haven't been able to communicate that message,
through media, to the politicians.


We Manage Terrorism Risk, Why Not Climate Change Risk?
Normally in our society, when there's a risk [...] let's face it,
there are a lot of airports in this world. what are the chances of Al
Qaeda hitting any individual airport. Probably very small indeed, but
we spend an awful lot of money, a lot of effort in our society trying
to minimize that risk. What we need to do is to understand that we
need to minimize the risk of what we're doing to the climate on our
planet.

3. BBC: "Sea rise 'to exceed projections'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm

4. Globe and Mail/Associated Press: "Sea-level predictions more
dramatic"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wclimate0310/BNStory\
/International/home


Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada

An Australian-based website that has apparently been recently revived
after a period of inactivity. Well worth keeping tabs on for its
wealth of informative news:

http://www.sustainablecitiesnet.com/


Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada

http://www.wired.com/culture/design/magazine/17-03/pl_design#


=========================================================

Biggest Little Cities: Models for Urban Planning
By Terrence Russell

   ----------

   02.23.09

(photo)

Metropolitan growth worldwide has sparked a renaissance in models for
urban planning.
Photo: Zachary Zavislak
PLAY
PREVIOUS: Playlist: PolarClock, Vintage Typewriters, Baconnaise
NEXT: Alice's Adventures in Microscopic Wonderland
Michael Chesko is no architect. He's not a structural engineer or an
urban planner either. But he just spent more than 2,000 hours
constructing this highly detailed, nearly perfect scale model of
midtown Manhattan. Chesko cut, sanded, and glued the mini metropolis—
now on exhibit at the New York Skyscraper Museum—using only an X-Acto
knife, a nail file, and a Dremel (and lots of balsa wood). But the 50-
year-old software engineer was having fun; he's been building little
cities since he was a kid.
Model cities aren't just for show; they can have real utility. In 1957
the US Army Corps of Engineers created the Bay Model, a replica of the
San Francisco Bay and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta meant to simulate
the impact of public works projects and disasters—natural and man-made—
on currents and tides. Considered one of the most practical
applications of the craft, it's made of 286 one-ton slabs of concrete,
representations of all six bridges, and a computer-controlled
hydraulic system to manipulate the waterworks. Though retired from
active duty in 2000, the model is still on display in Sausalito.
The Bay Model let researchers study environmental impacts in the San
Francisco Bay before computer modeling. People the world over come see
the country's largest working hydraulic model.

(video)

For more, visit wired.com/video.

More recently, the growth of municipalities like Dubai, London, and
Sydney is stirring renewed interest in miniature cities as planning
tools. The new crown jewel of shrunken sprawl resides on the third
floor of the Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Center: At more than
6,500 square feet, the stunning depiction of China's most populous
city circa 2020 is one of the largest models of its type in the world.
Chesko is, of course, a fan of his medium's increasing popularity—
regardless of the purpose. He hasn't seen all the other bitty burgs
out there, but he'd like to. "It certainly figures into my vacation
planning," he says.
Chesko's NY
Although the skyscrapers are the attention grabbers in Chesko’s
Midtown Manhattan model, the real effort was in the details. Tackling
the block-by-block miniaturization of this district called for the
creation of more than 380 individual blocks.
Photos: Zachary Zavislak

(2 photos)

Shanghai
Shanghai's massive miniature is more than a feat of craftsmanship.
Model makers had to pore over numerous prospective building plans to
accurately depict the forward-looking cityscape. Of course, crafting a
physical snapshot of this scale isn't without its setbacks; even a
tiny change in construction can have a sizable impact on the face of
China's most populous city.
Photos: Adrien Hochet

(4 photos)

Bay Model
The US Army Corps of Engineers wasn't concerned with just scale while
constructing the Bay Model. After plotting the miniature landmarks,
engineers had to ensure that the hydraulics system accurately depicted
the sped-up effects of the Bay Area's tidal system. This attention to
detail guaranteed that roughly 15 minutes of standard time equated to
a lunar day on the Bay Model.

(2 photos)

Sydney
"Hidden in plain sight" is the best way to describe this scale model
of downtown Sydney. The keen-eyed can find it beneath the glass floor
of Sydney's Customs House. Though constructed in 1998, the Customs
House ensures its continued accuracy by having the model regularly
updated to reflect changes in the skyline.
Photos: Peter Murphy

(2 photos)

Chicago
Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry is home to this sprawling
model of the Windy City. The model covers 3,500 square feet and
captures the city’s historic rail system with 1,400 feet of track.
Photos: J.B. Spector

(4 photos)

=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Chris,



There are a bunch of good stories out there, I particularly enjoyed the
piece about square watermelons (even though its mostly fluff).





http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/technet/images/itshowcase/EmailS
igRule.gif

  <http://www.wonkothesane.net/blog/> Matt Thyer









From: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com [mailto:carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Christopher Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:48 PM
To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Christopher Ray Miller
Subject: [carfree_cities] Sustainable Cities Net



An Australian-based website that has apparently been recently revived
after a period of inactivity. Well worth keeping tabs on for its
wealth of informative news:

http://www.sustainablecitiesnet.com/

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not all politicians make you cringe when they open their
mouths...here's a quote from Connecticutt's Chris Dodd in his recent
speech to the American Public Transit  Association:

"While the Federal government is prepared to pick up 80 percent of
the costs for new highway capacity projects, it generally pays less
than half of that for new transit projects. "

He goes on to stress the importance of transit in building a
sustainable and equitable future.  To read the entire speech, go to:

http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/4832

Rick

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Have a look at Frank Zappa at the age of 22 playing the 'bicycles' in
1963:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9P2V0_p6vE&eurl=http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/

Pascal van den Noort
Velo Mondial

Beautiful post for Portland's Beth Hamon on bicycles, simple living,
and making your own new world now:

http://bikelovejones.livejournal.com/122068.html

Rick

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/

This and other materials are available at the above URL.

=========================================================

Key Messages from the Congress

12 March 2009

Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific
Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended
by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary
messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress? Scientific
Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis
report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime
Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will
host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand
over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.

The six preliminary key messages are:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed
emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse)
are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is
already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which
our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters
include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice
sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events.
There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate,
leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support
discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show
that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate
change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk.
Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary
societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate
disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global
and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change?
regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the
risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050
targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation
actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic
costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects
on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation
and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world.
An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those
people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a
common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the
poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and
approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to
deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be
vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal
transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of
benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy
now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health
and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of
ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate
change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints
and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in
social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for
governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit
subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase
emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective
governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in
government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society
in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.



=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,

This happy news was in today's Common Dreams.

Joel



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/13-0

Published on Friday, March 13, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
Climate Change? Try, Climate Breakdown


What's clear from Copenhagen is that policymakers have fallen behind the
scientists: global warming is already catastrophic

by George Monbiot

The more we know, the grimmer it gets.

Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show
that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important
respects:
Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea
levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with
grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than
the rest of the planet) could trigger a massive bacterial response in the soils
there. As the permafrost melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic
material that was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most powerful
positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming.
Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate the Amazon rainforests, with
appalling implications for biodiversity and regional weather patterns, and with
the result that a massive new pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the
atmosphere. Trees are basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the
carbon oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have
been underestimated in the last IPCC report.

Apart from the sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things
jumped out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC assessments
that are years out of date even before they are published, as a result of the
IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends
its reports great scientific weight, but it also means that the politicians
using them as a guide to the cuts in greenhouse gases required are always well
behind the curve. There is surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim
reports every year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its
implications for global policy.

The second is that we have to stop calling it climate change. Using "climate
change" to describe events like this, with their devastating implications for
global food security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a
foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted deliveries. It's a
ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential catastrophe humankind has
ever encountered.

I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a
better idea?
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited


-----                           ###                            -----
J.H. Crawford                                         Carfree Cities
mailbox@...                           http://www.carfree.com

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106732/Suburbia-R-I-P;_ylt=A0wNc803\
RbpJG84A3rm7YWsA

The new urbanists seem to have won the hearts and minds of those
seeking an alternative to mindless suburbia with their early 20th
century garden city concepts.

The car free movement is at a critical juncture.  The opportunity we
currently face, with an economic and environmental crisis happening
concurrently is forcing people to seek alternatives to the dominant
paradigm.  For those that are exposed to it, car free cities offer a
compelling solution to both problems (and once the riots start, a good
solution to that problem as well).  For those only exposed to new
urbanism, it looks like one hell of an improvement over the current
scheme we run.

I think it's high time that us car free folks develop a media strategy
to promote some sensible alternatives to the public.

-Jon

article below:

Suburbia R.I.P.

The downturn has accomplished what a generation of designers and
planners could not: it has turned back the tide of suburban sprawl. In
the wake of the foreclosure crisis many new subdivisions are left half
built and more established suburbs face abandonment. Cul-de-sac
neighborhoods once filled with the sound of backyard barbecues and
playing children are falling silent. Communities like Elk Grove,
Calif., and Windy Ridge, N.C., are slowly turning into ghost towns
with overgrown lawns, vacant strip malls and squatters camping in
empty homes. In Cleveland alone, one of every 13 houses is now vacant,
according to an article published Sunday in The New York Times
magazine.

The demand for suburban homes may never recover, given the long-term
prospects of energy costs for commuting and heating, and the
prohibitive inefficiencies of low-density construction. The whole
suburban idea was founded on disposable spending and the promise of
cheap gas. Without them, it may wither. A study by the Metropolitan
Institute at Virginia Tech predicts that by 2025 there will be as many
as 22 million unwanted large-lot homes in suburban areas.

The suburb has been a costly experiment. Thirty-five percent of the
nation's wealth has been invested in building a drivable suburban
landscape, according to Christopher Leinberger, an urban planning
professor at the University of Michigan and visiting fellow at the
Brookings Institution. James Howard Kunstler, author of "The Geography
of Nowhere," has been saying for years that we can no longer afford
suburbs. "If Americans think they've been grifted by Goldman Sachs and
Bernie Madoff, wait until they find out what a swindle the so-called
'American Dream' of suburban life turns out to be," he wrote on his
blog this week.

So what's to become of all those leafy subdivisions with their
Palladian detailing and tasteful signage? Already low or middle-income
families priced out of cities and better neighborhoods are moving into
McMansions divided for multi-family use. Alison Arieff, who blogs for
The New York Times, visited one such tract mansion that was split into
four units, or "quartets," each with its own entrance, which is not
unlike what happened to many stately homes in the 1930s. The
difference, of course, is that the 1930s homes held up because they
were made with solid materials, and today's spec homes are all hollow
doors, plastic columns and faux stone facades.

There is also speculation that subdivision homes could be dismantled
and sold for scrap now that a mini-industry for repurposed lumber and
other materials has evolved over the last few years. Around the
periphery of these discussions is the specter of the suburb as a ghost
town patrolled by squatters and looters, as if Mad Max had come to the
cul-de-sac.

If the suburb is a big loser in mortgage crisis episode, then who is
the winner? Not surprisingly, the New Urbanists, a group of planners,
developers and architects devoted to building walkable towns based on
traditional designs, have interpreted the downturn as vindication of
their plans for mixed-use communities where people can stroll from
their homes to schools and restaurants.

Richard Florida, a Toronto business professor and author of "Who's
Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most
Important Decision of Your Life," argues that dense and diverse cities
with "accelerated rates of urban metabolism" are the communities most
likely to innovate their way through economic crisis. In an article
published in this month's issue of The Atlantic, he posits that New
York is at a relative advantage, despite losing a chunk of its
financial engine, because the jostling proximity of architects,
fashion designers, software writers and other creative types will
reenergize its economy.

Copyrighted, Mansueto Ventures LLC. All rights reserved.

1. Regarding Joel's posting from Monbiot, I remember, a number of
years ago, reacting to something Joel had written in a pre-publication
draft of Carfree Times about "stopping climate change" or something
along those lines. I proposed that all we could do at the stage we had
reached by then, given the available knowledge, would be to mitigate
the extent of climate change. Thinking that "climate change" was too
neutral a term, I proposed "climate destabilization". Unfortunately,
that doesn't fall trippingly off the tongue... But something like
"climate crash" or "world climate emergency" might work better to
communicate the seriousness of the problem in a nutshell.  "Climate
crash" is a bit sensationalist sounding, but the second choice seems
to encapsulate pretty well what we are up against.

More than ten years now we have known what we have been up against,
battling to be heard by "mainstream" public thought managers who
prefer to embed their heads in the sand and converse over the
fascinating interactions of the ants they see scurrying about
underground. Sorry to mix so many incompatible metaphors, but it gets
disheartening being among the Cassandras on the Titanic when the
people in charge at this stage think the most important thing is
getting the gas flowing again into the stoves in the galley so
everyone can continue to gorge themselves on hot food in the
magnificently appointed dining room.

2. About Jon Koller's posting:

This appearet a couple of days ago on a business-centred blog:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/michael-cannell/cannell/suburbia-rip

To give you an idea of the reception it got, here are the comments
reacting directly to the story itself:

=========================================================

March 11, 2009 at 11:40am by Debra DiEdwardo
Quite frankly, I'm exhausted from reading the doom and gloom. We're
obviously in economic crisis. But day in and day out to be flooded
with snippets of panic about our retirement funds, the neighborhoods
we live in, and the wonderful vision of squatters inhabiting our
vacant homes, just leaves me cold. I'm not ignorant on the subject,
just tired of the herd mentality. Let's write about what we can do
within our communities to prosper, instead of plying the masses with
fear. With love from rural suburbia.
Report Content
March 11, 2009 at 12:07pm by Amber Vongsamphanh
I couldn't agree with Debra more. And frankly I think this type of
gloom and doom journalism is irresponsible. I think we all remember
the principle of "Self Fulfilling Prophecy" from Econ 101. This
suburbanite will be unsubscribing from your RSS feed.
Report Content
March 11, 2009 at 3:38pm by gary griffin
This article is a prime example of the "chickens coming home to
roost". And the whiny comments of the NIMBY's who are afraid of
"squatters"(read: minorities and such) need to wake up and smell a cup
of reality; The "American Dream" is slavery and subjugation of the
populace, pure and simple. These are the sheep who allowed dictators
like Bush, Cheney, et. al. to drive us over this cliff by refusing to
see the truth. Well, ladies, better brush up on your Espanol and plant
some veggies in your suburbayards; and while you're at it, look up
compassion and sympathy in your dictionaries and practice a lot of
both to your new neighbors. You might find you have more in common
with them than you think.......
Report Content

   ----------



March 11, 2009 at 7:38pm by Laura Olesen
Sure - there is too much gloom and doom out there. No doubt it taints
the markets. But this article raises issues of which we should all be
aware. One, way-out suburbs can be a gamble. Try reselling a house
when buyers can get a brand-new one with tons of upgrades for the same
price. Outskirts mean plenty of room for future competition/
development. If your city keeps growing and growing, great! All of a
sudden, you'll be in the center of it all. But if you're really out
there and future growth is uncertain/unlikely, be careful. Two, the
U.S. belief in suburbs is based on faith in cars. Gas prices are OK
right now, but what about in the future? Should we be relying on an
hour-long auto commute to get to work? That can be costly. Three, the
American dream is a goal I most certainly believe in (I wouldn't be a
Realtor otherwise!), but we should all approach it knowing our own
limitations (just because you want 2000 SF doesn't mean it's the right
thing) and the risks. Best of luck to everyone!
Report Content

   ----------



March 12, 2009 at 8:47am by Tom Sachdeva
What a story to depress more of the already dead (sorry depressed
souls) I think the article writer should use some ingenuity to see the
glass as half full ,not empty . Give everybody some hope ,some light.
Enough of this recession to sell your articles.
http://www.TheTorontoRealEstate.com
Report Content
March 13, 2009 at 4:51am by Morgan Whitehead
Before we get too up in arms, let's look at who's being quoted in this
article: New York Times, The Brookings Institution, Virginia Tech. All
with an arguably left/liberal agenda to one degree or another. There's
certainly no doubt that high fuel prices will put pressure on suburban
appeal, but to proclaim it's outright death seems rather ridiculous.
Hasn't Fast Company (along with legions of others) been championing
the concept of telecommuting for years now? Companies large and small
will surely look to expand this concept in these tough times, because
it saves them money. More telecommuting = less real commuting. Less
real commuting = less fuel expense. Less fuel expense = more money for
suburban housing.

=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From Fast Company online, this article about plans by Foster +
Partners to build a "sustainable" skyscraper development in Paris:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/foster-partners-bu\
ilding-sustainable-twin-skyscrapers-paris

Foster + Partners are the same group responsible for the overall
design of Masdar in Abu Dhabi. Seems they are taking Old Paris to Abu
Dhabi and transporting the suburbs of New Dubai to Paris...

The end of the article online has a link to an opinion piece in
todayy's New York Times at
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/the-lorax-was-wrong-skyscrapers-are\
-green/?hp
   which argues  that  urban density is greener than living in
suburbia. Various points in this article can be contested but one
important thing among them is the author's simplistic contention that
skyscrapers are possibly the most sustainable building form. He seems
to ignore the fact that the most prominent skyscrapers in New York
City are nonresidential, and that density (high overall F[loor]/A[rea]
R[atio] can be achieved other ways, i.e. by mid-high density
residential building more evenly distributed over a given area rather
than superhigh density building alternating with very low density
automobile transportation corridors.

=========================================================

Foster + Partners Building Sustainable Twin Skyscrapers in ParisBY
Ariel SchwartzFri Mar 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM


   ----------


Mixed-use buildings are becoming increasingly popular, and now famed
architecture firm Foster + Partners is tossing its hat into the ring
with the tallest mixed-use towers in Western Europe.
Hermitage Plaza will consist of the two 1,060-foot high buildings and
a public piazza running to the River Seine. The towers will house
everything from a hotel and spa to apartments and offices. Shops will
be built at the base of the structures.
Foster + Partners hope to achieve an BREEAM "excellent" rating --
comparable to a high LEED rating--with help from the towers' glazed
facade panels that catch light throughout the day and promote self-
shading. Vents can also be opened to bring fresh air inside. And of
course, mixed-use, high-density buildings always deserve kudos for
minimizing transportation needs by providing multiple services in one
place. As a recent Green Inc. post speculated, maybe skyscrapers
really are the most sustainable buildings around.
[Via Inhabitat]

   ----------


Tags: Innovation, Technology, Ethonomics, skyscrapers, Foster +
Partners, pars

=========================================================

Here is the NYT "green density" piece. Again, the comments at the
online article contain a series of very good rejoinders:
March 10, 2009, 7:04 AMThe Lorax Was Wrong: Skyscrapers Are GreenBy
EDWARD L. GLAESER

   ----------



Edward L. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.

In Dr. Seuss’ environmentalist fable, “The Lorax,” the Once-ler, a
budding textile magnate, chops down Truffula to knit “Thneeds.”

Over the protests of the environmentally sensitive Lorax, the Once-ler
builds a great industrial town that despoils the environment, because
he “had to grow bigger.” Eventually, the Once-ler overdoes it, and he
chops down the last Truffula tree, destroying the source of his
income. Chastened, Dr. Seuss’s industrialist turns green, urging a
young listener to take the last Truffula seed and plant a new forest.

Some of the lessons told by this story are correct. From a purely
profit-maximizing point of view, the Once-ler is pretty inept, because
he kills his golden goose. Any good management consultant would have
told him to manage his growth more wisely. One aspect of the story’s
environmentalist message, that bad things happen when we overfish a
common pool, is also correct.

But the unfortunate aspect of the story is that urbanization comes off
terribly. The forests are good; the factories are bad. Not only does
the story disparage the remarkable benefits that came from the mass
production of clothing in 19th-century textile towns, it sends exactly
the wrong message on the environment. Contrary to the story’s implied
message, living in cities is green, while living surrounded by forests
is brown.

By building taller and taller buildings, the Once-ler was proving
himself to be the real environmentalist.

Matthew Kahn, a U.C.L.A. environmental economist, and I looked across
America’s metropolitan areas and calculated the carbon emissions
associated with a new home in different parts of the country. We
estimated expected energy use from driving and public transportation,
for a family of fixed size and income. We added in carbon emissions
from home electricity and home heating. We didn’t try to take on the
far thornier issues related to commercial or industrial energy use.

This exercise wasn’t meant to be some sort of environmental beauty
contest, but an estimate of the environmental costs and benefits
associated with living in different parts of the country. In a recent
City Journal article, I gave a brief (and somewhat polemical) synopsis
of the results.

In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents
emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and
San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less
carbon annually because it drives less. In Nashville, the city-suburb
carbon gap due to driving is more than three tons. After all, density
is the defining characteristic of cities. All that closeness means
that people need to travel shorter distances, and that shows up
clearly in the data.

While public transportation certainly uses much less energy, per
rider, than driving, large carbon reductions are possible without any
switch to buses or rails. Higher-density suburban areas, which are
still entirely car-dependent, still involve a lot less travel than the
really sprawling places. This fact offers some hope for greens eager
to reduce carbon emissions, since it is a lot easier to imagine
Americans driving shorter distances than giving up their cars.

But cars represent only one-third of the gap in carbon emissions
between New Yorkers and their suburbanites. The gap in electricity
usage between New York City and its suburbs is also about two tons.
The gap in emissions from home heating is almost three tons. All told,
we estimate a seven-ton difference in carbon emissions between the
residents of Manhattan’s urban aeries and the good burghers of
Westchester County. Living surrounded by concrete is actually pretty
green. Living surrounded by trees is not.

The policy prescription that follows from this is that
environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller
skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density
development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in
downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

Of course, many environmentalists will still prefer to take their cue
from Henry David Thoreau, who advocated living alone in the woods.
They would do well to remember that Thoreau, in a sloppy chowder-
cooking moment, burned down 300 acres of prime Concord woodland. Few
Boston merchants did as much environmental harm, which suggests that
if you want to take good care of the environment, stay away from it
and live in cities.

=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]