Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Comments on "Urban Hazards and Their Mitigation"

Expand Messages
  • Todd Edelman
    Hi, ... NEW cities: First thing is to not build anything on a flood plain except parks and bikepaths, etc. Existing cities: * Basement under building for
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      > I was just reading "Urban Hazards and Their Mitigation", and I have a
      > few questions/comments for Joel or anyone else:
      >
      > "Flooding"

      > My grandparents used to live in Wildwood Crest, NJ--pretty low lying.
      > Town ordinance required houses to be built above a certain floodplain
      > level, so most houses had four-foot crawlspaces; that on dirt or on a
      > ground-level slab. While basements are impractical in many areas, it
      > would take a lot of encouragement (and a low price!) to get me to live
      > in a house without at least a crawlspace: no need to jackhammer if a
      > pipe starts leaking 40 years after construction.

      NEW cities: First thing is to not build anything on a flood plain except
      parks and bikepaths, etc.

      Existing cities:
      * Basement under building for storage of things which could be moved in an
      emergency... having space between street level and bottom floor is a
      problem for access (wheelchairs, small cargo, etc) to and from bottom
      floor. It would need expensive lifts or space-intensive ramps.
      * Better flood control
      * Skip the flood control, destroy anything in floodplain, densify, build
      metro and tram freight, etc.

      ------
      >
      > "The carfree city is nearly immune to car bombs..."
      >
      > A large bomb can always be disguised on a shipping pallet and wheeled
      > through the city on a walk-behind truck. However, there's no real way
      > to eliminate ALL terrorism hazards--there comes a point where we need
      > to simply hope that we're not so hated that we're at risk for bombing.
      > Heck, a truly determined person could buy a 2000sf house in a
      > district, pack the whole house with explosives, and cause a lot of damage.

      REDUCING energy demand will definately improve the "terrorist" situation.
      (That reminds me: IF anyone is interested in creating a carfree Jerusalem
      which is capital of a one-state "Holyland" with full democracy and
      religious rights (and right of return) please email me off list.

      ----

      >
      > "With respect to the Reference Topology, I have always thought that
      > six hospitals should be built, one in the center of each lobe, where
      > they can be entirely surrounded by green space and at the same time be
      > within quick reach of any part of the city."
      >
      > Joel--any chance you could map this into the Reference Topology? I'm
      > imagining a road four lanes wide--two for vehicles (ie, ambulances),
      > one for cyclists, and one for pedestrians and wheeled walk-behind
      > vehicles.
      >
      > Also, since your districts are ~0.5 miles wide each, the Reference
      > Topology seems to show a roughly 1.2 by 2 mile green area in the
      > middle. The hospital would probably be relatively small--say, 10 acres?
      >
      > Even if an ambulance has to travel two miles to reach the hospital,
      > how fast can an ambulance get going? 60 mph? Even at 30 mph, it's only
      > four minutes--much faster than what we'd expect in auto-centric
      > cities. Ambulanced placed strategically in the districts would cut
      > down on response time.
      >
      > Finally, I'd like to know...how will the hospital's staff and
      > non-emergency patients get there? It would be a half-mile walk from
      > even the closest district, making it about 3/4 mile from the metro
      > halt. That would be a pretty long walk--especially for someone in poor
      > health. Would it be possible to have a LRT between the hospital and a
      > district? Could each hospital have its own LRT from the central
      > transfer station to the hospital? Would there be enough demand to make
      > this cost feasible?

      MUCH better than emphasizing the central hospitals is to have lots of
      small clinics for ambulatory people (the vast majority of people visiting
      hospitals) and the return of doctors (and nurse practitioners, etc) who
      make house calls.

      I even think small emergency surgeries could be located/distributed in
      this manner (in addition to ambulances in stand-by mode). Hospital
      mega-complexes seem to be built more for the convenience of doctors and
      other staff rather than patients - and in a clean, carfree city they
      wouldnt need to be like an industrial revoluion-era sanatorium away from
      the smoke and haze, so no reason to build in green areas. Also a
      mega-complex would want to be very tall in order to not take up greenspace
      which would be expensive, block the sun etc.

      The mass casualty issue is a more difficult one. Of course a carfree city
      wont have road crashes to speak of and general health will go up so there
      may be fewer heart attacks etc. But there might be a train or metro
      bombing or an airplane might crash in city (or nearby), or a biogas
      reactor might explode (?). Perhaps some kind of "emergency mode" is
      possible for rail systems, where everyone has to get off the metro and/or
      trains with passengers skip their stops so a "ambulance-metro" can move as
      possible to a hospital with its own underground station? (I would think an
      automated metro could handle a shorter than 60 second interval for one
      small train and then re-set once situation was over). Maybe the solution
      is simply more helicopters (for "real" emergencies)?

      ****

      In case you were worrying, it is very unlikely a meteorite will hit a
      carfree city because the city will spend the money it saves on car-things
      on powerful radars and a laser and photon-cannon defense system!!... in
      addition to free bikes for everyone, and bike-riding reduces aggression.

      - T

      ------------------------------------------------------

      Todd Edelman
      International Coordinator
      On the Train Towards the Future!

      Green Idea Factory
      Laubova 5
      CZ-13000 Praha 3

      ++420 605 915 970

      edelman@...
      http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

      Green Idea Factory,
      a member of World Carfree Network
    • Sean Brooks
      A few thoughts on Emergency Management in the Reference City: Hospitals: I was just playing with hospital needs, here s some good info for reference design # s
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 12, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        A few thoughts on Emergency Management in the Reference City:

        Hospitals:
        I was just playing with hospital needs, here's some good info for reference
        design #'s
        US high average: 3 hospital beds per 1,000. (I'd think that the reference
        design would need slightly less than average, with all the walking, clean
        air, and accessibility).
        Hospital size (IMO best size). 50-100 bed (a large small hospital), ideally
        with a total staff of about 150. At least one cost study shows a lower
        per-patient cost for <100 bed hospitals than for >300 bed hospitals. This
        would mean that just about every other district had a hospital.

        Emergency Medicine:
        I'm not sure whether the reference city would need fewer or more ambulances
        than a 'normal' city. I believe the residents would be healthier, and would
        have better access to public transit, but would have less access to cars. I
        am absolutely sure that the reference city would require less service per
        capita than Washington, DC. A reasonable estimate is that 1 million
        citizens would generate roughly 100,000 calls for EMS service. Furthermore,
        with high geographical density, ambulances & paramedic units could have a
        relatively high utlization. At 50% use, and roughly 1 hour per call, an
        average of 23 ambulances would have to be in service. Using standard
        response speed calculations (approaching 35 mph as distance approaches
        infinity), and a 6 minute response goal, we have a maximum designed response
        distance of 2 miles, or generally 8 nodes. This would require roughly 12
        'depots' or stations, if they are used as such. Depending on EMS system
        design, though, ambulances could be stationed throughout the city at
        hospitals, or be quartered at one major depot and dispersed through the city
        as availability dictates. If quartered in individual EMS stations, units
        could respond throughout the city within 6 minutes from two stations in each
        lobe: one located in the Utility areas, and one located in the innermost of
        the 'loop' nodes, where the two outer boulevards join.

        Fire Suppression / Brigade.

        As a reference city, if built on a greenfield, building codes could be very
        strict from a fire safety standpoint, possibly with positive architectural
        side-effects. However, regardless of building codes, a Fire Department /
        Brigade would be required. In all but the densest of US cities, Fire
        Department response and coverage is dictated by geography, not demand.
        (unlike EMS) I suspect that the reference city would have fire stations to
        cover geography, with the availability to quarter multiple companies in each
        fire station, if the need to do so presents itself. Generally, fire
        department response has tighter time tolerances than EMS does, with a 4
        minute response being the industry goal in the US. Such a goal limits
        coverage to roughly 1.5 miles, or 6 nodes in a line from a central point.
        This means 3 stations per lobe: one at the border between the residential
        nodes and the utility area on the 'short side' of the loop, another midway
        down the long side of the loop, and a third, near the juncture of the two
        sides of the loop.

        I'm under the impression that emergency vehicles would simply drive on the
        pedestrian areas. Without cars, sirens could be altered, and quieted.
        Strict dispatch procedures could reduce the need for loud responses as well.
        Ambulances can be made from Mercedes-Benz Sprinters, which currently have
        a hybrid model (meaning that an electric model is possible). Fire Trucks
        would likely have to be conventional, at least for some time, though they
        could be run on bio-diesel. Furthermore, the response of diesel powered
        fire trucks could be reduced by equipping stations with small electric
        utility vehicles, or even bicycles, with which to perform those tasks
        required of a fire department that do not depend on large fire apparatus /
        appliances.

        General Emergency Management:
        The relatively high density of the reference design allows a certain economy
        in using fixed chemical, biological, and radiological detectors, as well as
        fixed cctvs. Building codes can reduce the effect of tornados, hurricanes,
        and earthquakes. The density economizes on protective dikes and dams - I
        find it unlikely that humanity will cease to build on floodplains and below
        sea level.















        >From: "Todd Edelman" <edelman@...>
        >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Comments on "Urban Hazards and Their
        >Mitigation"
        >Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
        >
        >Hi,
        >
        > > I was just reading "Urban Hazards and Their Mitigation", and I have a
        > > few questions/comments for Joel or anyone else:
        > >
        > > "Flooding"
        >
        > > My grandparents used to live in Wildwood Crest, NJ--pretty low lying.
        > > Town ordinance required houses to be built above a certain floodplain
        > > level, so most houses had four-foot crawlspaces; that on dirt or on a
        > > ground-level slab. While basements are impractical in many areas, it
        > > would take a lot of encouragement (and a low price!) to get me to live
        > > in a house without at least a crawlspace: no need to jackhammer if a
        > > pipe starts leaking 40 years after construction.
        >
        >NEW cities: First thing is to not build anything on a flood plain except
        >parks and bikepaths, etc.
        >
        >Existing cities:
        >* Basement under building for storage of things which could be moved in an
        >emergency... having space between street level and bottom floor is a
        >problem for access (wheelchairs, small cargo, etc) to and from bottom
        >floor. It would need expensive lifts or space-intensive ramps.
        >* Better flood control
        >* Skip the flood control, destroy anything in floodplain, densify, build
        >metro and tram freight, etc.
        >
        >------
        > >
        > > "The carfree city is nearly immune to car bombs..."
        > >
        > > A large bomb can always be disguised on a shipping pallet and wheeled
        > > through the city on a walk-behind truck. However, there's no real way
        > > to eliminate ALL terrorism hazards--there comes a point where we need
        > > to simply hope that we're not so hated that we're at risk for bombing.
        > > Heck, a truly determined person could buy a 2000sf house in a
        > > district, pack the whole house with explosives, and cause a lot of
        >damage.
        >
        >REDUCING energy demand will definately improve the "terrorist" situation.
        >(That reminds me: IF anyone is interested in creating a carfree Jerusalem
        >which is capital of a one-state "Holyland" with full democracy and
        >religious rights (and right of return) please email me off list.
        >
        >----
        >
        > >
        > > "With respect to the Reference Topology, I have always thought that
        > > six hospitals should be built, one in the center of each lobe, where
        > > they can be entirely surrounded by green space and at the same time be
        > > within quick reach of any part of the city."
        > >
        > > Joel--any chance you could map this into the Reference Topology? I'm
        > > imagining a road four lanes wide--two for vehicles (ie, ambulances),
        > > one for cyclists, and one for pedestrians and wheeled walk-behind
        > > vehicles.
        > >
        > > Also, since your districts are ~0.5 miles wide each, the Reference
        > > Topology seems to show a roughly 1.2 by 2 mile green area in the
        > > middle. The hospital would probably be relatively small--say, 10 acres?
        > >
        > > Even if an ambulance has to travel two miles to reach the hospital,
        > > how fast can an ambulance get going? 60 mph? Even at 30 mph, it's only
        > > four minutes--much faster than what we'd expect in auto-centric
        > > cities. Ambulanced placed strategically in the districts would cut
        > > down on response time.
        > >
        > > Finally, I'd like to know...how will the hospital's staff and
        > > non-emergency patients get there? It would be a half-mile walk from
        > > even the closest district, making it about 3/4 mile from the metro
        > > halt. That would be a pretty long walk--especially for someone in poor
        > > health. Would it be possible to have a LRT between the hospital and a
        > > district? Could each hospital have its own LRT from the central
        > > transfer station to the hospital? Would there be enough demand to make
        > > this cost feasible?
        >
        >MUCH better than emphasizing the central hospitals is to have lots of
        >small clinics for ambulatory people (the vast majority of people visiting
        >hospitals) and the return of doctors (and nurse practitioners, etc) who
        >make house calls.
        >
        >I even think small emergency surgeries could be located/distributed in
        >this manner (in addition to ambulances in stand-by mode). Hospital
        >mega-complexes seem to be built more for the convenience of doctors and
        >other staff rather than patients - and in a clean, carfree city they
        >wouldnt need to be like an industrial revoluion-era sanatorium away from
        >the smoke and haze, so no reason to build in green areas. Also a
        >mega-complex would want to be very tall in order to not take up greenspace
        >which would be expensive, block the sun etc.
        >
        >The mass casualty issue is a more difficult one. Of course a carfree city
        >wont have road crashes to speak of and general health will go up so there
        >may be fewer heart attacks etc. But there might be a train or metro
        >bombing or an airplane might crash in city (or nearby), or a biogas
        >reactor might explode (?). Perhaps some kind of "emergency mode" is
        >possible for rail systems, where everyone has to get off the metro and/or
        >trains with passengers skip their stops so a "ambulance-metro" can move as
        >possible to a hospital with its own underground station? (I would think an
        >automated metro could handle a shorter than 60 second interval for one
        >small train and then re-set once situation was over). Maybe the solution
        >is simply more helicopters (for "real" emergencies)?
        >
        >****
        >
        >In case you were worrying, it is very unlikely a meteorite will hit a
        >carfree city because the city will spend the money it saves on car-things
        >on powerful radars and a laser and photon-cannon defense system!!... in
        >addition to free bikes for everyone, and bike-riding reduces aggression.
        >
        >- T
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >Todd Edelman
        >International Coordinator
        >On the Train Towards the Future!
        >
        >Green Idea Factory
        >Laubova 5
        >CZ-13000 Praha 3
        >
        >++420 605 915 970
        >
        >edelman@...
        >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain
        >
        >Green Idea Factory,
        >a member of World Carfree Network
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Todd Edelman
        ... WHAT about volunteer brigades, at least as supplements? Remember, we are talking about the return of real communities... ... Without cars, sirens could be
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 12, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Sean wrote:

          > A few thoughts on Emergency Management in the Reference City:

          > However, regardless of building codes, a Fire Department /
          > Brigade would be required.

          WHAT about volunteer brigades, at least as supplements? Remember, we are
          talking about the return of real communities...

          ---

          Without cars, sirens could be altered, and quieted.
          I THOUGHT of that as well. I think that sirens get louder as cars get more
          sound-insulated. This is insane, as it just makes drivers more...
          hearing-impaired.

          ----
          > Fire Trucks
          > would likely have to be conventional, at least for some time, though they
          > could be run on bio-diesel.

          DO you know how big are the engines on the biggest fire trucks (this would
          dictate fuel use, as all should use same fuel)? The biggest gas engines
          (CNG or biogas) for buses are about 10 litres.

          ------------------------------------------------------

          Todd Edelman
          International Coordinator
          On the Train Towards the Future!

          Green Idea Factory
          Laubova 5
          CZ-13000 Praha 3

          ++420 605 915 970

          edelman@...
          http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

          Green Idea Factory,
          a member of World Carfree Network
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.