Bicycle friendly cities

The Copenhagen Index for the World's most bike-friendly cities has been released for 2011. Here is a bit context about the index:

Image Credit: mindbodygreen.com

"Early in 2011 a discussion arose at Copenhagenize Consulting about what cities really are the best cities for urban cycling. Over a period of six months our team has gathered information and statistics and developed an index with which we could rate cities for bicycle friendliness. It was originally meant to be a tool for internal use in the company but after a period of time we realised that the index was perhaps worth releasing on the internet".

The index is based on 13 criteria including bicycle culture, infrastructure, bike facilities, bike share programs, gender split, perception and safety and more.

Amsterdam took 1st place followed by Copenhagen and Barcelona. For North American cities, Montreal took first followed by Portland. Way to go Montreal!

Here is more information about how the index was created.

Bogata's rise in the 1990s

The video above is a story about the City of Bogota, Colombia and how the city transformed in the 1990s. This transformation took place under the leadership of two mayors: Antanas Mockus and his successor, Enrique Penalosa. Mockus was committed to reducing crime, violence, corruption, traffic congestion and fostering an ethic of citizenry and respect in society.

Peñalosa used the momentum of Mockus to bring about drastic changes to the city through urban design; this involved the creation of parks, public spaces, affordable housing, efficient and well maintained public transportation. The youtube video runs for about 60 minutes. I highly recommend it not least for its inspiration, but how two leaders collectively changed a city through building a sense of citizenship and through urban planning.

A scathing critique of Glaeser's article on the locovore's dilemma

Further to Darlene's well-thought out and well-written response to Edward Glaeser's article, Colin Cureton, a graduate student in Food and Energy Policy at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, offers a critical response on how urban farms do not displace people, decrease density, or increase emissions as much as people think or as much as Glaeser suggests.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

"The biggest assumption is the simplistic (and false) choice between urban land for people and urban land for food. While land is a scarce resource, most urban ag is thriving on what was or otherwise would be vacant urban land. The amount of vacant urban land is vast in cities across the country. For example, the New York City’s Department of City Planning figures show that 6% of NYC is considered vacant. In Detroit, this figure is an astonishing 25-30% (anyone wonder why a revolutionary urban food system is emerging there?). Chicago has 70,000-80,000 vacant lots. This list goes on.

Also, much of urban ag is practiced in spaces that does not disrupt nor would it disrupt urban development. Think boulevards, side yards, public parks, rooftops, and so on. These are the spaces where urban ag thrives. As an urban agriculturalist, all four of my farms are on previously vacant or underutilized land. Two are vacant lots, one is at a church, and one is in a public park. Are my urban farms displacing anyone?"

You can read the full post here.

The Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Rail is now operating

I have been following China's High Speed Rail (HSR) plans for quite some time now. It's been particularly fascinating tracking the development of the Beijing-Shanghai line which will link China’s two largest cities in just under 5 hours. Scheduled trains will make stops along the way in Tianjin, Jinan and Nanjing. It cost $33 billion and the trains can travel between 250-300 km/h over the 1,318 km of track between the two cities.

Despite the ongoing critiques of HSR in China (we have documented them before on this blog, you can view them here and here), this is an impressive achievement which will provide more transportation options for China's growing citizenry. Adam Mayer who blogs at "China Urban Development Blog" says:

"Linking China’s government/cultural center with its commercial/financial hub is a milestone on the path towards creating a connected nation. Airlines will certainly be hurt by the line, but because China’s air traffic is already at capacity, the train should help ease the strain on Beijing and Shanghai’s airports".

Now that the line is open, expect a diversity of discussion on Enviro Boys surrounding its environmental, planning, economic, social and political implications.

Read more here.

Planning insights from Zurich

Image credit: Fotolia.com

Elizabeth Rosenthal from the NY Times writes about how European cities such as Zurich are creating environments openly hostile to cars.

"Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter".

This certainly contrasts what we've been seeing in North America. While some North American cities have started to add more pedestrian friendly environments (New York City, Vancouver and San Francisco, for example), we still have a ways to go to make our cities more focused on providing livable spaces for people and not simple cars.

"Europe’s cities generally have stronger incentives to act. Built for the most part before the advent of cars, their narrow roads are poor at handling heavy traffic. Public transportation is generally better in Europe than in the United States, and gas often costs over $8 a gallon, contributing to driving costs that are two to three times greater per mile than in the United States, Dr. Lee Schipper said.

"Around Löwenplatz, one of Zurich’s busiest squares, cars are now banned on many blocks. Where permitted, their speed is limited to a snail’s pace so that crosswalks and crossing signs can be removed entirely, giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time".

Read more here.

Guest Entry: A View from Above: Examining Ottawa’s Greenbelt

By: Liam McGuire

Photo Courtesy and Copyright of Jason Walton

It takes a view from above to see what is happening below. This past December I was reacquainted with the snow covered landscapes of Ontario, as white terrain stretched out underneath my flight. As we descended, streetlights below illuminated the urban layout of my hometown Ottawa. As I craned my neck to the windowpane for a better look, my view from above told a story of how this city has grown. A large black swath of darkness interrupted the city lights, separating the urban core and the surrounding constellation of suburban communities.

This observation reignited old thoughts about the Greenbelt that surrounds Ottawa’s core urban region. The greenbelt in itself is not a new idea. Among other influences, the idea of an environmental buffer zone comes from the Garden City concept of Ebenezer Howard. In Howard’s time, overpopulation was a huge worry for cities, and the residential communities on the other side of the greenbelt offered relief to the bustling industrial core. Lewis Mumford sums it up well: “the Garden City, as Howard defined it, is not a suburb but the antithesis of a suburb: not a more rural retreat, but a more integrated foundation for an effective urban life.”

Garden City Plan (Ebenezer Howard)

If urban planners wish to preserve that foundation for an effective urban life, they need to sit down and think about the green belt in a contemporary sense. My view from above observed communities that had leapfrogged, trading density for the greenfield development of former farmland. Abundant green space is by all means necessary to keep a strong ecological balance, however the city’s inability to enforce urban density has allowed exponential amounts of sprawl. Population forecasts for the outer greenbelt communities are high. By 2031, Orlean’s population will grow by 25%, Kanata/Stittsville by 83%, and Riverside South Leitrim by 381%. Inside the Greenbelt, the population will grow a meager 7%. So much for “smart growth.”

Ottawa's Greenbelt (City of Ottawa)

Ottawa in 1955 (Natural Resources Canada)

Ottawa in 2002 (Natural Resources Canada)

Inevitably this will place huge pressures on the infrastructure of the city. Jobs will continue to be located in the urban core, and highways will need to expand rapidly. Judging by Ottawa’s track record with municipal light rail, there will be no mass transit solution anytime soon. It's time to rethink Ottawa’s master plan, and the upcoming National Capital Commission (NCC) greenbelt review is the perfect time to do it. Starting thoughts range from planning for density in the core to speeding up mass transit plans, however my purpose is just to get the conversation started. Ottawa is a beautiful city, and we pride ourselves on it. I’m not advocating tearing down our Greenbelt, I’m advocating that we start to make it a functional part of the city’s ecology. The City of Ottawa and the NCC need to consider the view from above as they plan for the future. This requires an approach of balancing environmental and infrastructural considerations, and finding city officials and community leaders who are up to the challenge.

Liam McGuire is a Master's student in Urban Geography at the University of British Columbia. He completed his Honour's BA at Trent University in 2009 in Human Geography and Political Science. Liam is very passionate about cities; their development, spatial growth and demographics. He has many opinions and insights about how cities should develop and could be contacted at: liam.mcguire@geog.ubc.ca

Climate Change and Transportation

In this video, Michael D. Meyer, a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, delivers a lecture at the University of Kansas about the link between climate change and transportation. In essence, he discusses how transportation contributes to climate change and the opportunities we have to mitigate its impact and better adapt our transportation systems to become more resilient to floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. The video is long but very educational and informative.

The focus of his talk in on the United States. Nonetheless, he still presents a number of ideas and opportunities that apply to Canada and other jurisdictions. In the U.S., transportation is 28% of national GHG emissions. In Canada, it's about the same. Within the transportation sector, highway vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) account for 82% of the GHG emissions.

He also talks about how various states are now writing aggressive climate change plans to address how they will reduce their emissions on the transportation front. Some are very ambitious indeed.

The most interesting part of his lecture to me was his discussion of adapting to climate change from a transportation perspective. Floods, earthquakes and hurricanes can bring about serious damage to our municipal and provincial infrastructure. To learn about how transport engineers and planners are dealing with this, and the various opportunities for improvement, check out the video. The Alaska Department of Transportation is now re-designing their highways because the foundation of their roads are sinking due to permafrost.

HSR in Canada?

A recent article from CTV news titled "Trainwreck: Canada's high-speed rail failure" provides a detailed summary of the current debate surrounding high speed rail in Canada. Here is a quick refresher on the benefits of HSR (courtesy of the article):

• They're fast. Japanese and French high-speed trains have both reached mind-boggling speeds of over 575 km/h. The Chinese, who are quickly becoming a leader in high-speed rail, had a recent test of a passenger train that hit 486 km/h on a soon-to-be-opened link between Shanghai and Beijing.

• Dedicated high-speed rail lines are ridiculously efficient -- at least in Japan. Officials there point out that trains are punctual down-to-the-minute, even with 300 million riders a year.
  
  
• They're safe. There has not been a single fatality in either the Japanese or French system. An average of seven Canadians die in road accidents every day.

• Environmentally, there is no better way to move a large amount of people, unless someone builds a really, big bike.

• Major economic benefits. Study after study says high-speed rail creates significant numbers of permanent jobs and massive residual benefits. An Alberta government report suggested a Calgary-Edmonton high-speed line could be worth $33 billion to the economy.

• Canada has the home-grown expertise in a company such as Bombardier.

While I recognize the drawbacks and limitations of HSR, I don't think it's worth criticizing this transport mode right now when they are starting to be recognized as a sustainable transportation solution. There is no shortage of ideas on how we can make HSR feasible and operational in Canada, or North America more broadly. My friend Leonard, shared a great idea on this blog a few weeks ago on how we can make progress on the HSR front. Alas, money and budget constraints often limit funds for sustainable and innovative infrastructure projects like HSR lines.

Many HSR proponents do not advocate for a national HSR line in Canada. That would be too expensive and impractical considering the geography and low population density of this country. The two corridors in Canada that would be suitable for an HSR line include Calgary-Edmonton and the Quebec-Windsor corridor, where half of Canada's population lives.

Jeff Casello, a prof of transportation planning and engineering at U of Waterloo, says "the capacity of Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and Highway 401 is maxed out, making high-speed rail an attractive alternative. I think there's very strong consideration on the (Quebec-Windsor corridor) considering the limits on Pearson and its ability to handle any more traffic and the unwillingness to invest in widening the 401. There's realization that there needs to be some redundancy in our transportation network, so we can't rely on a single mode to satisfy all our transportation needs".

Read more here.

City Planning: Melbourne and Toronto

I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail yesterday that discussed contemporary city planning issues in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada. The article, structured in a question and answer format, featured two urban experts discussing what their cities have done and what their cities need to do on the urban planning front. Robert Adams, director of city design for Melbourne is a huge proponent of pedestrian traffic and bike lanes (Don Cherry would call him a pinko). Mr. Adams vehemently lobbied to make public transit in Melbourne free before 7 am and cars were banned from the city's busiest street. A really progressive and visionary leader who has made Melbourne the third most livable city in the world, according to The Economist.

The urban expert interviewed from Toronto is Gary Wright, the current chief planner for the City of Toronto. In my undergrad, Gary spoke as a guest lecturer in one of my geography courses (summary of that lecture found here). Gary is very proud of what the Dundas Square has become (under his leadership) in terms of a public open space in which people can appreciate and gather together to enjoy the city's culture, night life and artistic events. This is what some would call experiential consumption whereby citizens and tourists can experience and enjoy the culture and vitality of the city through public spaces and not through shopping and material consumption.

He also commented on the planning of the forthcoming Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2015. He says that the athletes' village is going to require close collaboration with developers to ensure that everything goes well. The city's waterfront reinvention plan is underway and will have many implications for waterfront development in the coming years. In sum, he supports greater involvement of the developers because of their knowledge and expertise. Last and unsurprisingly, he is a big advocate for better transit in Toronto. Transit is a very salient issue these days but in a time of financial uncertainty, and with a new mayor, we'll have to wait and see how things play out on the transit agenda.

The rest of this post will focus on the great city planning work of Robert Adams and what other cities could learn from him. To begin, as a design enthusiast and supporter for greater pedestrian traffic, Adams recognized the importance of widening sidewalks. Trees were planted along the widened sidewalks which eventually led to a proliferation of sidewalk cafes.

From the Globe: "Adams closed Melbourne's main thoroughfare, Bourke Street, to cars before 7 p.m., transforming it into wide lanes for pedestrians, bikes, streetcars and buses. More than 35,000 pedestrians now walk the street each day, up from 12,000 ten years ago and businesses have returned as well."

Adams says we need more residential development around existing transit lines (something Hong Kong has mastered). He also thinks that municipal plans are too technical and thus non-transparent to the public. Plans need to have more visual components to show people how their communities are going to change in the coming years due to urban development and population growth. Finally, Adams, as a designer and planner, is really effective and engaging and leveraging public sentiment. One example from the article is a time when he announced his desire to pull down a freeway standing between the city centre and the Yarra River. Many thought this was not possible. He slowly developed green spaces around the freeway and Melbourne's citizens, quite some time later, saw the benefits of this and demanded that the road be pulled down.

City planning can drastically transform our cities into healthier, more transit friendly and enjoyable places. Both Adams and Wright have done remarkable things for their respective cities. Planning is inherently a political process with multiple stakeholders and multiple perspectives. This mix of interests is healthy but challenging for the planner who must consult and facilitate disparate and contested views.

Finally, Melbourne and Toronto are unique in that they have historic streetcar systems. Personally, I have come to appreciate streetcars not only because they have contributed to Toronto's identity, but also because they effectively complement other transit forms such as subways, buses and walking. For you transportation nerds out there, I would encourage you to read a paper by Currie and Shalaby on the successes and challenges in modernizing streetcar systems in Melbourne and Toronto. For the paper, click here.

Metro Vancouver Walkability Index

The physical activity of walking is becoming a central part of discussion today in fields such as public health and transportation research. It is a very topical theme in general as cities prides themselves on being "walkable". Indeed, a report on the world's top ten most walkable cities was just released. In June, Chris blogged about urban walkability and a software called Walk Score. Walkability, believe it or not, is becoming very popular because it has economic, social, health and environmental implications.

A team of UBC researchers recently wrote a report titled "Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver". The research was led by a professor in my program named Dr. Larry Frank.

Professor Frank and his team developed the Metro Vancouver Walkability Index (VWI) to measure neighbourhood urban form characteristics in Metro Vancouver. The report summarizes results from local studies that have applied the VWI to explore associations between neighbourhood design and travel behaviour, physical activity, obesity, and air pollution exposure.

The walkability index specifically measures residential density, commercial density, land use mix and street connectivity. Without getting caught up in this jargon, the key point is that neighbourhoods that are well serviced by public transit, are in close proximity to amenities (grocery stores, schools, community centres, shopping areas, entertainment), and are close to major street intersections are all conducive for walking.

Generally, compact and mixed use neighbourhoods allow for shorter trips (that can be done by walking or cycling) to access local amenities and services. If amenities are a 10 minute walk from someone's house, cycling and walking become much more desirable options and the physical health benefits of this are enormous.

Image credit: The South Fraser Blog

The map above shows the walkability of Metro Vancouver. It's fairly evident that the City of Vancouver is more walkable than Surrey, or Richmond. There are many reasons why this might be, but I can tell you that Vancouver has higher density than the aforementioned cities and is also better serviced by public transit.

Why is this important? Measuring walkability has implications for public health policy and transportation. Larry Frank's study looks at the relationship between walking and active transportation i.e. adults living in the top 25% most walkable neighbourhoods drive approximately 58% less than those in more auto-oriented (less walkable) areas. They are probably more physically active as a result.

The report also looks at neighbourhood walkability and air pollution exposure. Nitric oxide (NO) levels are highest in urban areas of high residential density and on arterial roads where more vehicles in a smaller area result in higher concentrations of this pollutant. What does this mean for the walkers who are exposed to air pollution?

It is a really dynamic and informative study. I would encourage you to read it if you have some time on your hands. While the focus is on Metro Vancouver, it is critical to understand why walkability is important in our cities so that we can do smarter planning for active transportation and a healthier society.

Check out the report here.

Urban Planning Innovation in NYC

The video below, courtesy of The Infrastructurist, discusses a number of urban planning initiatives underway in New York City. With Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the city has done a remarkable job at creating more space for pedestrians in Times Square. Once riddled with non-stop motor traffic, Times Square has become safer for pedestrians, a more enjoyable social space for people of New York and has had a positive impact on businesses (more foot traffic instead of motor traffic). There are also many transit initiatives underway which you can see in the video. Well done, NYC.

Masdar City: Revisted

In May 2009, I blogged about Abu Dhabi's planned Masdar City. It is claimed to be the world's first city powered solely by renewable energy.

The video above is informative and highly promising. However, be critical of the city's viability. On an unrelated note, water consumption per capita will be significantly less than a conventional city. Of course it will be less, they have less water than the average city!

There is no mention of the residents who will be living there. We know that the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology will provide residence space for its students. This is important but they must provide residence space for its students because they do research on the renewable technology. This planned city will cost $22 billion dollars. I am really curious to know what kind of residents it attracts. I suspect wealthier residents who will have the amenities and advanced renewable technologies associated with the city, and continue to live a profligate lifestyle through heavy air conditioning use and frequent visits to places like Dubai.

I don't mean to be too critical, but a city that strives to be sustainable must ensure that it has a diverse population base composed of poor and rich alike. Everyone should be able to benefit from the green technology, sustainable transit options and low-carbon lifestyle. With all of the capital that has been invested into this planned city, I hope that citizens of the country will recognize the merits of a greener lifestyle and adopt more sustainable and green-minded habits.

Bill Rees, The Ecological Footprint and Climate Change

Bill Rees is a prominent academic ecologist who co-created the Ecological Footprint concept back in the mid-1990s. Bill is also a distinguished professor in my graduate program (SCARP) and is well-known at UBC and in the City of Vancouver.

The 9-minute clip above is an introduction to a lecture he delivered at the World Federalists' Meeting this past April.

Bill draws on the problematic impacts that humans have had on ecology and explains the notable climate change implications. He also summarizes the ecological footprint concept very succinctly. Some of the points are a bit pessimistic but will hopefully give you an idea of the great challenges that planners and other professionals are currently confronted with. Bill works with a number of students in my program to develop ideas that will have salient policy impacts that alleviate human stresses on ecosystems.

India's infrastructure challenges

A recent article from the NY Times titled "A High-tech Titan Plagued by Potholes" discusses India's dire need of civil engineers to fulfill its long-term infrastructure goals. Software engineering and IT have taken off in India - they are far more profitable industries (better salaries) than civil or structural engineering.

"Young Indians’ preference for software over steel and concrete poses an economic conundrum for India. Its much-envied information technology industry generates tens of thousands of relatively well-paying jobs every year. But that lure also continues the exodus of people qualified to build the infrastructure it desperately needs to improve living conditions for the rest of its one billion people — and to bolster the sort of industries that require good highways and railroads more than high-speed Internet links to the West."

Both China and India are world's fastest growing economies. China however, unlike India, is rapidly advancing its infrastructure projects; high speed rail, hydro-electric dams, wastewater treatment plants etc. India has a long way to go especially in terms of bringing about infrastructure (like public transportation) that could boost its tourism industry and help improve living conditions for the country's poorest.

Along with the desire for civil engineering, urban planning will also be critical for India in the coming decades. From an environmental perspective, infrastructure improvements -- like those being done in China -- will bring about numerous environmental benefits including improved health and sanitation, a reduction in national carbon emissions and an improvement in air pollution in the urban areas.

What should India do? Any thoughts?

Water in China Part III

Image above: The Yangtze River. China's longest river, 6,397 km in length. The Yangtze River flows across 13 provinces, with many branches, such as Min River, Wu River, Xiang River, Han River, Huangpu River and more.

Image credit: Odd and Funny Blogspot.

**Lcd: litres per capita per day**

This post will conclude the three part series of water in china. You can read part one here, and part two here. Most of this information is derived from Peter Gleick's publication titled "China and Water".

China is slowly starting to introduce water pricing to induce conservation. Such measures in water management have already been brought about in places like Guelph, Ontario. For a long time, water utilities have been subsidized by the Central government which has reduced the need to encourage water conservation. But now, with sustainable water management as a long-term national goal, Chinese cities are slowly implementing water pricing. In Beijing, price for domestic water use have more than doubled 4 yuan per cubic meter. For water intensive activities such as commercial car washing, it cost 45 yuan per cubic meter.

In Shenzhen (Southern China) local government officials have called for initiatives to recycle water, introduce rainwater harvesting and cut back on overall water use. Price-driven quotas are being introduced in Southern China, which means that urban homes that use more than 210 lcd (Canadians use about 343 lcd) will have to pay a surcharge on additional use. The more you consume past the 210 maximum, the more you pay for.

Separate quotas are being imposed on the various water users which includes industrial, agriculture, residential and commercial. The key point is that local governments in Southern China (where water is more abundant) are adopting flexible pricing systems based on different water users; this is an important step because the industrial and agriculture sectors use lots of water and constitute a greater share of GDP output. The greatest cuts need to happen in the residential sector; but this can only happen with education and good incentives to use less. Moreover, Northern cities should follow Beijing's initiatives and adopt smarter pricing systems. Northern cities have less water than southern ones yet they are slower to bring about water management initiatives. Reducing national water use requires participation from each city.

According to Peter Gleick, China has invariably experienced poor public participation grades for water projects and water policy. The Three Gorges Dam is notorious for its non-existent public consultation process which led to the displacement of 1.3 million people. Gleick writes:

“A major environmental law passed in China in 2003 for the first time ostensibly encouraged public participation in environmental decision making. This law, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law requires all major construction projects to undertake an impact assessment". Further, it states “The nation encourages relevant units, experts and the public to participate in the EIA process in appropriate ways”. In addition, the law states that “the institutions should seriously consider the opinions of the relevant units, experts and the public” and “should attach explanations for adopting or not adopting the opinions".

Sounds like a well thought out law; however, its effectiveness is questionable. Some citizens have taken many matters into their own hands; some have sued chemical plants to force compensation for health and environmental damages (due to polluted water supply) or to make more environmental information accessible to the public. With China's explosive growth -- in economy and population -- and with the indispensable role water plays for economic growth –through dams, wastewater, agriculture, irrigation and forthcoming desalination—it is clear that it is a extremely valuable resource that will shape China’s future.

With sensible pricing structures being introduced, and with wastewater treatment plants helping provide cleaner water, the test for China will be whether it can engage more of its citizens in an equitable and efficient manner. Public participation should not be viewed as a hindrance to dam construction; citizens are demanding that such construction be built in a way that minimizes harm to their livelihoods and that effective compensation measures are in place for those affected by it.

As Gleick says “Sustainable water management has long taken a backseat to the Chinese for economic growth. With supplies dwindling, the Chinese will start conserving it through pricing and through desalination construction" (which is problematic but necessary considering China’s population).

Patricia Adams, an executive director of Probe International says that cities like Beijing can't keep going further with larger engineering projects to take water from other peoples' watersheds. "Beijing needs to implement regulatory and pricing regimes that reflect the scarcity of water in their own watershed and induce conservation and watershed rehabilitation". Clearly, the country needs some sort of water education program to inform people not only about conservation but about the impact of certain chemicals and contaminants to reduce health impacts from exposure.

Key message: If China truly wants to achieve sustainable water management, it will need to ensure that its central governments puts pressure on local governments to develop the legal, technological, and institutional tools to clean up water pollution, reduce wasteful and inefficient uses of water, restore natural ecosystems, and develop sustainable sources of supply.

** China is spending 500 billion yuan (77 billion Canadian) on the South-North Water Diversion Project. It will be completed by 2050 and is the largest scheme of its type in the world. It will divert about 44.8 billion cubic meters of water per year from various rivers. Hopefully, this project is accompanied with extensive water conservation education and with water pricing systems. You can read about this project here.

Tolling Cross-Harbour Tunnels in Hong Kong

has become a hot issue lately. Specifically, the Western Harbour Crossing –one of Hong Kong’s three Victoria Harbour crossing tunnels-- is increasing its toll rate.

“Fees for private cars, taxis, and light buses using the Western Harbor Tunnel (WHT) will increase HK$5 to HK$50, HK$45, and HK$60 respectively, and single-decked buses and double-decked buses will each see HK$10 and HK$13 toll rises”

“The company faces increasing operating costs and need to raise sufficient cash flow to repay debts and earn a reasonable return. To ensure continuous viability, the company needs to adjust the level of its tolls”.

The Western Harbour Crossing is private, unlike the Cross Habour Tunnel which has been operated by the government since it was built in 1972. What’s the issue? The issue is that all three cross habour tunnels have different toll rates. Instead of discussing the price differences between types of transport modes, I will use “private cars” to illustrate the rate difference:

Eastern Harbour Crossing (private): $25 per car
Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT): $20 per car
Western Harbour Crossing (private): $50 per car

For more info see here.

Which one do you think has the highest usage? You probably guessed correctly, the CHT. I live fairly close to the tunnel and have witnessed the egregious traffic congestion. Indeed, its capacity is 78,500 and it has over 120,000 cars passing through it everyday. The Western Harbour Crossing has about 50,000 cars go through it everyday and a capacity of 118, 000.

From reading the newspaper it is quite evident that the public is not content with the toll increase. They argue that it is already too high and hence why the western tunnel is severely underused. Given that the CHT is used the most –because it is the most central, convenient and cheapest—the City needs to figure out a way to redistribute traffic to increase efficiency and alleviate the pollution problem associated with idling cars around the CHT. The government could also choose not to intervene and let the market take care of itself. Overtime, it’s possible that people will adjust and start using the western tunnel because of their frustration with congestion and long-waiting times at the CHT.

But, a toll increase could risk even fewer cars using the tunnel. Usually, if you want to increase demand and usage of a road/tunnel, you lower the price, not increase it. There have been many solutions put forward by HK citizens. The one that makes the most sense is a peak hour tolling system for the CHT. In short, the busiest hours in the morning and evening would have a higher toll rate simply for the purpose of decreasing traffic congestion. Despite Hong Kong's impressive public transit system, there are still a lot of cars on the road. While peak hour pricing may seem like a progressive idea, it certainly has merit and could complement Hong Kong’s sustainable development goals.

We need to keep three things in mind (or more) when we talk about tolls. 1) Prices must be adjusted to maintain an optimum speed for reducing pollution. Intense traffic congestion at the CHT means long line-ups of cars and a greater concentration of pollution. 2) Drivers using the shortest and most convenient route should pay for the privilege. As mentioned, the CHT is the most convenient because it is centralized; thus it should definitely be priced accordingly. 3) Extra revenue from the increased tolls could be used for the replacement of new buses with cleaner fuel or to subsidize private tunnels like the western tunnel to help with traffic redistribution.

Last, toll increases also risk fare increases for taxis and mini-buses. These methods of public transport also use the cross harbour tunnels. Thus, toll increases produce ripple effects that could be mitigated with some sense of progressive imagination.

Key message: Hong Kong has three cross harbour tunnels that have different toll rates. They also have drastically different rates of usage. Introduce peak hour pricing for the most congested cross harbour tunnel as an experiment to see what happens.

Development charges and the urban growth fund

In June 2009, I was reading a book by Jeb Brugmann titled Welcome to the Urban Revolution: How cities are changing the world. It was very thought provoking and well-written providing an excellent analysis of the historical, contemporary and future salience of cities in shaping the world. The book presents a thorough overview of the connection between high density areas in the developing world and the influence this has on establishing both local markets and globalization.

Here is excerpt from the book that inspired a section of my honours thesis and a fourth year research paper:

“There are two aspects to density in the growth of cities. Proximity reduces time and energy and therefore the cost required to move people and materials around to achieve any objective. Take an urban water system. If we are building a water system for a suburban neighbourhood where homes are 120 feet apart versus a downtown neighbourhood where homes are twenty feet apart, we have to use one hundred feet of extra pipe for each home in the lower-density neighbourhood. If each neighbourhood has one hundred houses, then a higher-density neighbourhood saves an impressive two miles of pipe – not to mention the costs for installation and maintenance and for pumping the water through it. But in my city, a person living in a low-density neighbourhood pays the same rate for water as the people in my high density neighbourhood. The water department loses money on the low-density neighbourhood, and our neighbourhood must help make up the difference through our water rates and tax payments”.

Jeb is referring to Toronto in this case. While this sort of system may not be true for all jurisdictions, it nonetheless provides an illustration of the link between density and public service payments associated with housing location and water distribution.

To remedy this inequitable system, and to encourage growth in urban areas, I wanted to share a proposal with you. As I learned from my research, in Peterborough, when developers want to build sub-divisions in the fringes of urban areas, they are required to pay development charges for the houses to cover the costs of piping installation, water delivery, treatment and storage. Why? Because it costs the City's water utilities a lot more money to build additional (and longer pipes) and to deliver the water to those homes because they are farther away from the water treatment plant. Longer distance from the plant means more money. So in theory, the development charges cover these infrastructural costs.

Under my proposed system, sub-division developers would continue to pay the respective development fee per sub-division lot. However, 10-15 percent of this charge would go toward an “urban growth fund” used to encourage and subsidize developers wishing to build in the city’s built area (i.e. areas that are already paved over and could use redevelopment).

To illustrate a fictitious situation, let’s say a developer was paying $5,000 per lot in development charges. The sub-division has about 200 lots. Therefore, $5,000 x 200 lots = $1,000,000.
Therefore, 0.15 x 5000 (per sub-division lot) = $750. $750 per lot x 200 lots (total number of lots in subdivision) = $150,000. Thus, of the $1,000,000 raised in development fees from the sub-division, $150,000 would be directed towards the urban growth fund.

This would be used to subsidize developers wishing to build in the urban growth area and overtime, this can significantly alleviate pressure on public service provision. Remember, even if the development charge is paid by the developer, over time, it still costs more money and uses more energy to distribute water to those homes farther away from the system. The urban growth fund is for long-term sustainability to encourage more urban development and to keep public service provision more efficient and more local.

The $5000 figure is simply an arbitrary fee; the cost of the development charges for each sub-division could be different and set by the city. Setting the development charges for each sub-division can be raised or lowered depending on the topography of the sub-division’s land, distance from public facilities (water, wastewater and electricity), amount of impervious cover already on site and other factors as well. I propose the arbitrary fee of $5000 to illustrate how revenue could be generated, especially if the city wishes to intensify land uses and create a more compact urban form.

The proposed urban growth fund can raise significant revenue and provide more budgetary flexibility for a city. This could be one solution for cities (such as the one Jeb describes) to ensure that water departments are not unfairly charging higher water rates for those high-density neighbourhoods while concomitantly encouraging more urban growth (which could save costs in the long-term). Whether such a system would ever materialize is up for debate; I figure there are many policy tools we could use, but putting them into practice can be a difficult and laborious process.

Key message: Water rates in any jurisdiction should be adjusted based on density and proximity to water mains and pipes; this is an equitable approach to public service provision. If a jurisdiction has set suburban development charges for public service provision, then it would be wise to redistribute some of this revenue to mechanisms that can encourage more urban growth and overtime reduce pressure on undeveloped land.

An air pollution argument against density

Civic Exchange, a well-known think tank in Hong Kong, argues that increasing density through constructing taller buildings might actually do more harm than good. Their reasoning, which is based on Hong Kong's geography, is contrary to what many urban planners and scholars advocate as “building up” is the urban planner’s dream.

The think tank explains how more densely developed and poorly ventilated neighborhoods with insufficient open space and blocked ventilation corridors, can absorb more heat which intensifies the urban heat island effect. In essence, with less ventilation and more impervious cover, less rainwater is absorbed into the ground and thus the temperature will feel warmer in the urban area.

The tall buildings that form the concrete jungle, will contain more of that heat which really intensifies air pollution as the wind is blocked by the buildings and thus the dirty air is trapped and inhaled by the public. Because the temperature in the urban area increases, it will inevitably be warmer and lead to a greater need for air conditioning. Hong Kong has many areas that have bad air pollution and high density (Mong Kok for example, with high levels of nitrogen dioxide and over 130,000 people per square kilometer).

With complete dependence on air conditioning, this results in more electricity consumption and emissions of hot air; both of which increase the urban temperature. Thus, this leads to a vicious cycle of pollution causing activities (driving and profligate AC use) which warms the temperature in the urban area where people live, and people need cool air to live comfortably which will release more pollution and then repeat the cycle again and again and again.

Higher density through taller buildings means more people living closer to public transit, amenities and social infrastructure. Thus, greater density can lead to more supply and help satisfy demand. This can help lower housing costs for the poor. But, it all depends on design because if those buildings are too close together (lots of examples of this in Hong Kong) then they can block ventilation corridors and thus there are greater air pollution exacerbation risks.

Civic Exchange calls for decreased plot ratios to improve ventilation. In essence, by decreasing a building's plot ratio, the developer is forced to construct smaller units to abide by the zoning laws. Smaller units might take the form of smaller buildings with less people and therefore lower density. My argument: decreasing plot ratios will inevitably make real estate more expensive by constraining supply and increasing demand; this has been argued by Ed Glaeser time and time again.

It is extremely tricky to decrease a building's plot ratio in a City that has such constrained land supply. Where I do agree with the think tank is their vehement support for more open and green space in Hong Kong. This would mean that municipal zoning laws would require more open space around a development. Having more open space for the public to enjoy is a great idea. It will also expand ventilation corridors thereby allowing wind to pass through the concrete jungle more naturally.

Maybe a quick lesson from their publication and this analysis is that buildings (commercial and residential) must be subject to providing recreational and open space in greater quantities. Depending on the jurisdiction, there should be mandated requirements for constructing open space when building a development. Indeed, this is challenging because there is only so much room. Higher plot ratios, as analyzed by the Civic Exchange will not help the air pollution problem in Hong Kong. It is those high density areas like Mong Kok that need to witness the construction of open space such as public parks and sports facilities to prevent further development from exacerbating the air pollution problem.

Key message: Would such urban planning and policy making mean that there is a trade-off between lower density (potentially keeping housing costs unaffordable) and better air quality?

Apps from Google Maps...

The Planning Pool blog recently published a post on the top ten google map tricks that you should know; from planning a bike trip (as Chris is doing) to getting real time traffic information in your area. "My Maps" has an application called Roof Ray, which lets people find their house on Google Maps, draw their roof, and then calculate the cost and payback period for installing solar panels. I found this application the most intriguing.

You can view more "tricks" here.

Water in China: Part II

Water quality in China is in need of desperate revitalization. For such a large developing (arguably now developed) country that has made immense economic progress over the past 20 years, it is no surprise that water quality has been a victim of such economic development. As discussed in part 1, the priorities of economic growth in China have superseded the priorities of environmental protection and ecological balance. Like part 1, all of the information in this post is derived from Peter Gleick's "China and Water" publication.

As reported by Peter Gleick, there is not a lot of information or data available on China’s water quality. However, China’s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have published some data on China’s water quality and have made it available to the public. The data and resources reveal that many of China’s rivers are grossly polluted by human and industrial wastes. An uncounted number of aquatic species have been driven to extinction. An estimated 20,000 chemical factories, half of which are along the Yangtze River (China’s longest river) are dumping uncontrolled or marginally controlled pollutants into China’s rivers.

In 2006, nearly half of China’s major cities did not meet state drinking water quality standards. China’s 10th 5-year plan (2001-2006) mandated the construction of thousands of new wastewater treatment plants, yet a 2006 survey by SEPA revealed that half of the new plants actually built were operating improperly or not at all. In 2005, China’s experienced 1,400 environmental pollution accidents of which half involved water pollution. Water quality has been deteriorating in main rivers including the Songhua, Hai He, and Huai He rivers.

On a positive note, drinking tap water in Beijing has been declared “safe” under the country’s new national drinking water standards for 106 contaminants in spite of some local complaints about its taste. Unfortunately, the OECD has reported that hundreds of millions of Chinese are drinking water contaminated with inorganic pollutants such as arsenic and excessive fluoride including toxins from untreated factory wastewater. Some concerned farmers, living in contaminated regions grow grain with poor water quality, sell that grain and purchase grain from other parts of China they believe have safe water.

Make no mistake about it, untreated wastewater is so problematic affecting every facet of life including social, economic and personal development. Approximately 4.4 billion tons of untreated or partially treated wastewater are dumped into the Huai He River annually.

Now over to the positive and promising. So, we know that wastewater treatment is indeed a critical indicator of public health, environmental and economic progress. Even countries like the U.S. have had issues treating certain contaminants to improve water quality. Wastewater progress must be concomitant with the country’s other development indicators as it plays an indispensable role in ameliorating social and personal well-being.

Fortunately, the government has recognized this challenge and has pledged to commit more capital and labour towards the construction of more wastewater and water treatment plants. The country is also looking at private companies from abroad to assist with wastewater financing and construction.

“More traditional water-supply and treatment infrastructure is also being built rapidly, including water and wastewater treatment plants. Officials announced plans to build ten sewage disposal plants in northwest China’s Shaanxi province, along the Weihe River, the largest tributary of the Yellow River. Another 30 plants are to be built by 2010”.

In one agreement, French Water Company Veolia has set up a joint French-Chinese venture to build a series of water projects, including urban and industrial wastewater treatment plants, desalination facilities, water-treatment equipment, and water-management services in the northern city of Teda. This is just one example, other joint ventures will become more commonplace as the Chinese turn to foreign technical expertise to assist with such essential water projects to improve water quality. What is now needed is a clear institutional and legal framework committed to reducing industrial waste and using a more sustainable approach to water management.

While massive water companies like Veolia and Suez have earned notorious reputations –namely because of water privatization—they will nonetheless have an important role to play in countries like China for increasing public health standards and taking China into a more prosperous water future.

The final part of the series will feature discussion around the economics of water in China along with the importance of public participation in water projects.