This past week's poll question pertained to planning. The poll question was: You are asked to plan the potential use of a large plot of land outside of the downtown. Would you...
Plan a sub-division. People need housing and lots of space 1 (4%)
A golf course. Outdoor recreation is always appealing 2 (9%)
A condominium with over 600 units 3 (13%)
A Casino. Potential revenue generator and
source of entertainment for the community 4 (18%)
A city park offering recreation and green space for the community 10 (45%)
None of the above 2 (9%)
Total votes = 22
The main motivation for this poll question is my interest in urban planning. The question pertains to fundamental urban planning but is nonetheless an important one considering how complex and multidisciplinary planning is. Enviro Boys suspects that many of our readers and followers are environmentalists and/or progressive in their environmental thinking. Planning a city park offering recreation and green space for the community had the most votes (n=10). The casino, condo, golf, sub-division and none of the above were not as popular.
While the benefits (aesthetics, health, nature and protection of native species) are clear with the creation of parks and public spaces, they are not always a priority for a city's planning department. Planners are faced with stiff challenges endeavoring to facilitate development and ensure that numerous stakeholders are satisfied. Green spaces and parks are needed for any growing city, however, developers are not shy to propose condos, sub-divisions and even casinos to occupy the potential space and reap economic benefits from this. Such commercial, entertainment and housing options also increase the city's tax revenue base which is certainly appealing in a time when city's have constrained municipal budgets.
As a city urbanizes, arable land and resources become scarcer. Thus, when an open plot of land is available, planners are consulted to determine how they can best optimize the land use while looking at environmental, economic and social considerations. So, a condo, while contentious to many, can be appropriate given the city's growth patterns and housing market. It would lift with the property values of homes within the area and potentially make the local real-estate market more appealing. However, it could also cause car congestion, block off sunlight from reaching parts of the city and use more surface area for parking thereby creating more impervious surface and increasing the potential for flooding.
Every plot of land in a city is valuable. How we plan it is totally contingent on whose interests are part of the equation. As citizens, we always have a role to play in planning our respective communities. If a plot of land is being examined for best use (whether commercial, public, residential, industrial etc) we can throw in our opinions and thoughts regarding how it could be planned to maximize the best interests of the community. We can attend city council meetings and write letters to propose recommendations on how the plot of land could be better planned.
For every individual that gets involved with this process, eventually, it could lead to a more cohesive and unified community that is actively involved in shaping how the community is planned. This can help in reaching environmental, social and economic objectives.
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Poll results: The Optimal waste management solution...
The poll results are in. We wanted to take this time to thank everyone for continuing to participate in the weekly polls. It is always fun for us to come up with questions and to see the subsequent results.
The poll question was "what is the most optimal waste management solution to you?"
My city should invest heavily into a composting program 3 (14%)
Implement policy that requires more products to be recyclable 1 (4%)
Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use 8 (38%)
Make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce 8 (38%)
Send all of our garbage to waste incinerators 0 (0%)
Heavily tax our landfills to encourage conservation 1 (4%)
Total votes = 21
Disposing of municipal solid waste has historically been a challenging responsibility for cities across Canada. Municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an environmental issue pushing political agendas and having multiple implications for public policy decisions. I wrote a multi-criteria analysis on waste management options for a public policy course. It can be accessed here.
"Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use" and "make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce" were the two popular options in the poll, each with 8 votes. They are both critical waste management options. Making manufactures more responsible is a process known as extended producer responsibility, which we have blogged about before. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.
Making residents pay for each bag of waste is known as a user pay system. Like most user charges (plastic bags for example) the minute you start paying for something, consumers start to think about conservation or simply using less because it saves them money. These are the shifts in behaviour that we need to see for a more sustainable planet.
Sending our garbage to incinerators had no votes. Incineration is a semi-popular waste management option in Canada (although very controversial), it is more widespread in Europe and Japan. Composting programs are expensive but very important. They require a lot of monitoring and enforcement. Landfill taxes are a great instrument, however, it all depends on how the revenue (from the tax) is used. Ideally, most of this revenue should go towards waste diversion programs (recycling, composting etc).
Key message: All of these options have merit. Such options need secured funding (which should be consistent) and the political will! As environmentalists, be sure to pressure your institution, school, city, company and/or organization to consider one of these waste management options. Take the time to gather some information about your preferred option and start raising awareness and advocacy for it.
The poll question was "what is the most optimal waste management solution to you?"
My city should invest heavily into a composting program 3 (14%)
Implement policy that requires more products to be recyclable 1 (4%)
Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use 8 (38%)
Make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce 8 (38%)
Send all of our garbage to waste incinerators 0 (0%)
Heavily tax our landfills to encourage conservation 1 (4%)
Total votes = 21
Disposing of municipal solid waste has historically been a challenging responsibility for cities across Canada. Municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an environmental issue pushing political agendas and having multiple implications for public policy decisions. I wrote a multi-criteria analysis on waste management options for a public policy course. It can be accessed here.
"Make manufacturers more responsible for collecting their products after use" and "make residents pay for every garbage bag of waste they produce" were the two popular options in the poll, each with 8 votes. They are both critical waste management options. Making manufactures more responsible is a process known as extended producer responsibility, which we have blogged about before. In short, the industry, not the government, is responsible for internalizing waste management costs in their product prices. The EPR strategy is best epitomized by the Beer Store. All beer bottles that are purchased at the store by the consumer can be sold back to the manufacturer as the Beer Store will re-buy the bottles that they have sold you. Although they buy the bottle back from the consumer at a low cost, it still encourages recycling and reusing.
Making residents pay for each bag of waste is known as a user pay system. Like most user charges (plastic bags for example) the minute you start paying for something, consumers start to think about conservation or simply using less because it saves them money. These are the shifts in behaviour that we need to see for a more sustainable planet.
Sending our garbage to incinerators had no votes. Incineration is a semi-popular waste management option in Canada (although very controversial), it is more widespread in Europe and Japan. Composting programs are expensive but very important. They require a lot of monitoring and enforcement. Landfill taxes are a great instrument, however, it all depends on how the revenue (from the tax) is used. Ideally, most of this revenue should go towards waste diversion programs (recycling, composting etc).
Key message: All of these options have merit. Such options need secured funding (which should be consistent) and the political will! As environmentalists, be sure to pressure your institution, school, city, company and/or organization to consider one of these waste management options. Take the time to gather some information about your preferred option and start raising awareness and advocacy for it.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Poll Results: Wind turbines in your community...
Question: A company wants to put a few wind turbines in your community, do you...
Welcome it with open arms? We need more green energy -- 12 Votes (50%)
Learn more about them and get a community group together that could possibly invest in the project? Community power has its advantages -- 10 Votes (41%)
Go about your usual business? Who really cares anyway -- 3 Votes (12%)
Vehemently oppose it and fight the project to the death? They are an eyesore and could be dangerous to my health -- 1 Vote (4%)
Get the hell out of dodge? There's no way I'm hanging around near those behemoths -- 0 Votes (0%)
As expected, most people voted in support of the project. This is fairly common throughout Canada, as the majority of Canadians are generally supportive of wind power. However, things might change if it is in your community. Studies have found that support for projects can be very high initially, but as the details of the project come closer to reality, support can often drop drastically. Even the most staunch environmental supporters can find themselves opposing a project, especially when they didn't expect to in the first place -- which helps to explain why so few are opposed to any project.
The second most popular choice was to learn more about wind power projects. Most people don't know the ins and outs of these things and know only things through word of mouth. In many cases, these things can be false and exaggerated, be it supportive or oppositional to wind power, so it is very important that people get involved and start to learn the facts about that particular project. One of the best ways to do that is to get involved in the project itself by gathering up community members to invest in the project. Community ownership can influence the design of the project to make it more socially acceptable and appropriate in your community.
Just leaving it to others and going on with your own routine was also popular for some. While we at Enviro Boys are fascinated by this stuff, it is likely that many people just don't care whether or not there are any wind turbines put up. This is completely fair. Everyone has their priorities.
Only one person elected to fight it vehemently. This is gaining ground in Ontario as more wind projects are being put up. Some wind developers have undercut communities over the years and left an unappealing mark on the industry, resulting in an all out battle against wind power in Ontario, regardless of the project type. Other regions face this, too. While it is important to recognize the drawbacks of projects, sometimes this opposition can get a little carried away and reject any type of compromise.
No one decided to leave, but it is a reality. Some people can't stand the sight, the sound or even develop health issues related to wind energy -- although the latter is still up for debate. Some also leave before their property values plummet.
Being supportive of wind in general is nice, but the game can change drastically when it becomes a reality in your community.
Welcome it with open arms? We need more green energy -- 12 Votes (50%)
Learn more about them and get a community group together that could possibly invest in the project? Community power has its advantages -- 10 Votes (41%)
Go about your usual business? Who really cares anyway -- 3 Votes (12%)
Vehemently oppose it and fight the project to the death? They are an eyesore and could be dangerous to my health -- 1 Vote (4%)
Get the hell out of dodge? There's no way I'm hanging around near those behemoths -- 0 Votes (0%)
As expected, most people voted in support of the project. This is fairly common throughout Canada, as the majority of Canadians are generally supportive of wind power. However, things might change if it is in your community. Studies have found that support for projects can be very high initially, but as the details of the project come closer to reality, support can often drop drastically. Even the most staunch environmental supporters can find themselves opposing a project, especially when they didn't expect to in the first place -- which helps to explain why so few are opposed to any project.
The second most popular choice was to learn more about wind power projects. Most people don't know the ins and outs of these things and know only things through word of mouth. In many cases, these things can be false and exaggerated, be it supportive or oppositional to wind power, so it is very important that people get involved and start to learn the facts about that particular project. One of the best ways to do that is to get involved in the project itself by gathering up community members to invest in the project. Community ownership can influence the design of the project to make it more socially acceptable and appropriate in your community.
Just leaving it to others and going on with your own routine was also popular for some. While we at Enviro Boys are fascinated by this stuff, it is likely that many people just don't care whether or not there are any wind turbines put up. This is completely fair. Everyone has their priorities.
Only one person elected to fight it vehemently. This is gaining ground in Ontario as more wind projects are being put up. Some wind developers have undercut communities over the years and left an unappealing mark on the industry, resulting in an all out battle against wind power in Ontario, regardless of the project type. Other regions face this, too. While it is important to recognize the drawbacks of projects, sometimes this opposition can get a little carried away and reject any type of compromise.
No one decided to leave, but it is a reality. Some people can't stand the sight, the sound or even develop health issues related to wind energy -- although the latter is still up for debate. Some also leave before their property values plummet.
Being supportive of wind in general is nice, but the game can change drastically when it becomes a reality in your community.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Poll results: talking transportation
The results are in. We had a total of 23 votes. The poll statement was “talking transportation: I think my city would benefit most through…”
The use of light-rail transit 5 (21%)
More bike lanes and bike paths 3 (13%)
A city-wide public bike rental system 3 (13%)
Improving the subway system 4 (17%)
Making buses more efficient and comfortable 8 (34%)
Making the downtown more walk-friendly 0 (0%)
None of the above 0 (0%)
Total = 23.
What’s important is that public transit and alternative transit methods (walking, biking) are all critical for any green city. However, not every city needs a subway system. Not every city needs light-rail transit. In a city like Peterborough (pop~80,000) the total land area and population density does not justify the need for these massive public transportation projects. However, Peterborough could benefit from more bike lanes, bike paths and making the overall downtown more walk-friendly. Walk-friendly means constant maintenance of sidewalks, having city parks and gardens and other aesthetic features that make the overall walking experience more enjoyable and safe for citizens.
A city-wide public bike rental system. There is only one in Canada, it’s in Montreal and it’s called Bixi. I am not too sure how popular or successful this initiative is but I will get some insight when I visit Montreal on Friday. A city-wide public bike rental system can be expensive to implement. This too would be justified in a city with relatively high cycling ridership, or cities that have decent bike lanes for cyclists. There have been talks about having such a system in Toronto but nothing has come about.
Light-rail transit…. Well it is expensive. Toronto is currently creating 7 new light-rail transit routes across the city. I spoke with a civil engineer from the Toronto Transit Commission and he told me that it costs $30 million for every kilometer of installation (much cheaper than the $150 million/kilometer for subway).
Making buses more efficient and comfortable had the most votes (8 votes). I think everyone can relate to this irrespective of where you live. Both small and large cities alike have some form of a bus system. Peterborough has a bus system that is mostly used by low-income citizens, seniors and students. The buses are decent but many students complain because their scheduling and logistics are horrendous. Making them more comfortable, spacious and efficient in terms of their routes and scheduling times would be great.
Last, when evaluating alternative transit and public transit options in any city, it is critical to get the public perspective. If the city’s planning department thinks that a public bike rental system would be beneficial, then some sort of survey must be done to gather the public point of view. Transit services (especially in Peterborough) need to do a qualitative study looking at the experiences and feelings of students, low-income citizens and seniors when they take the bus. These studies might help inform policymakers about the importance of ensuring efficient, comfortable and diverse transit choices.
Key message: The key to a successful transportation system is multiplicity of choice.
The use of light-rail transit 5 (21%)
More bike lanes and bike paths 3 (13%)
A city-wide public bike rental system 3 (13%)
Improving the subway system 4 (17%)
Making buses more efficient and comfortable 8 (34%)
Making the downtown more walk-friendly 0 (0%)
None of the above 0 (0%)
Total = 23.
What’s important is that public transit and alternative transit methods (walking, biking) are all critical for any green city. However, not every city needs a subway system. Not every city needs light-rail transit. In a city like Peterborough (pop~80,000) the total land area and population density does not justify the need for these massive public transportation projects. However, Peterborough could benefit from more bike lanes, bike paths and making the overall downtown more walk-friendly. Walk-friendly means constant maintenance of sidewalks, having city parks and gardens and other aesthetic features that make the overall walking experience more enjoyable and safe for citizens.
A city-wide public bike rental system. There is only one in Canada, it’s in Montreal and it’s called Bixi. I am not too sure how popular or successful this initiative is but I will get some insight when I visit Montreal on Friday. A city-wide public bike rental system can be expensive to implement. This too would be justified in a city with relatively high cycling ridership, or cities that have decent bike lanes for cyclists. There have been talks about having such a system in Toronto but nothing has come about.
Light-rail transit…. Well it is expensive. Toronto is currently creating 7 new light-rail transit routes across the city. I spoke with a civil engineer from the Toronto Transit Commission and he told me that it costs $30 million for every kilometer of installation (much cheaper than the $150 million/kilometer for subway).
Making buses more efficient and comfortable had the most votes (8 votes). I think everyone can relate to this irrespective of where you live. Both small and large cities alike have some form of a bus system. Peterborough has a bus system that is mostly used by low-income citizens, seniors and students. The buses are decent but many students complain because their scheduling and logistics are horrendous. Making them more comfortable, spacious and efficient in terms of their routes and scheduling times would be great.
Last, when evaluating alternative transit and public transit options in any city, it is critical to get the public perspective. If the city’s planning department thinks that a public bike rental system would be beneficial, then some sort of survey must be done to gather the public point of view. Transit services (especially in Peterborough) need to do a qualitative study looking at the experiences and feelings of students, low-income citizens and seniors when they take the bus. These studies might help inform policymakers about the importance of ensuring efficient, comfortable and diverse transit choices.
Key message: The key to a successful transportation system is multiplicity of choice.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Poll Results: Do you support a ban on the sale of bottled water?
Here are the results from last week's poll:
Question: Do you support a ban on the sale of bottled water?
Yes - 10 (52%)
Sale?!? Ban the production completely! - 3 (15%)
Shut up hippie! Give me more bottles - 3 (15%)
Only in public buildings - 2 (10%)
No - 1 (5%)
Total Votes: 19
An overwhelming majority of voters support a complete ban on the sale of bottled water. This is becoming an increasingly popular movement throughout the world, although very few jurisdictions have fully implemented such laws. Given the negative aspects of bottled water -- health concerns because health standards for bottled water are lesser than tap water; environmental impacts because of plastic bottles; and cost concerns because of how outrageously more expensive it is than tap water -- more and more places are looking to ban the sale of bottled water.
At Trent University, both Sustainable Trent, an environmental student group, and the Trent Central Student Association, the student union on campus, have been advocating for a ban on the sale of bottled water by Aramark, the school's main food supplier. In a meeting between ST and an Aramark representative, Aramark stated that it would not be opposed to a ban, but is supportive of the availability of alternatives before a ban takes place. For Trent students and staff, this means accessible water fountains and the availability of reusable bottles. If there are no alternatives on campus, Aramark worries it would take the heat when bottled water couldn't be sold.
It is important to recognize that the infrastructure has to be put in place before a ban on anything can be implemented. When the groups first proposed the ban over a year ago, plans were held back largely because water fountains had not yet been introduced. (They have since been built).
The second most votes were garnered from the views on the extremes. On one side, some people believe banning the sale of bottled water is ludicrous as it impinges on the consumer's right to product choice. There will always be people on that side, regardless of the issue. On the other side, some felt that only banning the sale of bottled water isn't going far enough. One problem with banning the production of bottled water is that it is appropriate in some situations, specifically emergencies -- say, a flood -- when water has to be brought in when local water resources are deemed unfit to drink.
Banning the sale of bottled water in public buildings has been considerably more successful than all out bans. Because the movement is driven primarily by members of the public, bans can exist in places the public owns. Banning the sale in private buildings is a little more difficult. Moreover, it can serve as a testing ground on the impact of banning the sale of bottled water.
Question: Do you support a ban on the sale of bottled water?
Yes - 10 (52%)
Sale?!? Ban the production completely! - 3 (15%)
Shut up hippie! Give me more bottles - 3 (15%)
Only in public buildings - 2 (10%)
No - 1 (5%)
Total Votes: 19
An overwhelming majority of voters support a complete ban on the sale of bottled water. This is becoming an increasingly popular movement throughout the world, although very few jurisdictions have fully implemented such laws. Given the negative aspects of bottled water -- health concerns because health standards for bottled water are lesser than tap water; environmental impacts because of plastic bottles; and cost concerns because of how outrageously more expensive it is than tap water -- more and more places are looking to ban the sale of bottled water.
At Trent University, both Sustainable Trent, an environmental student group, and the Trent Central Student Association, the student union on campus, have been advocating for a ban on the sale of bottled water by Aramark, the school's main food supplier. In a meeting between ST and an Aramark representative, Aramark stated that it would not be opposed to a ban, but is supportive of the availability of alternatives before a ban takes place. For Trent students and staff, this means accessible water fountains and the availability of reusable bottles. If there are no alternatives on campus, Aramark worries it would take the heat when bottled water couldn't be sold.
It is important to recognize that the infrastructure has to be put in place before a ban on anything can be implemented. When the groups first proposed the ban over a year ago, plans were held back largely because water fountains had not yet been introduced. (They have since been built).
The second most votes were garnered from the views on the extremes. On one side, some people believe banning the sale of bottled water is ludicrous as it impinges on the consumer's right to product choice. There will always be people on that side, regardless of the issue. On the other side, some felt that only banning the sale of bottled water isn't going far enough. One problem with banning the production of bottled water is that it is appropriate in some situations, specifically emergencies -- say, a flood -- when water has to be brought in when local water resources are deemed unfit to drink.
Banning the sale of bottled water in public buildings has been considerably more successful than all out bans. Because the movement is driven primarily by members of the public, bans can exist in places the public owns. Banning the sale in private buildings is a little more difficult. Moreover, it can serve as a testing ground on the impact of banning the sale of bottled water.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Poll results: climate change communicators
We express our gratitude to those who continue to vote in our polls. Chris and I enjoy this new poll feature and hope that it stimulates your on-going interest in the environment. It's always good to see the diversity of responses.
The recent poll question was "who of these individuals has been most effective at communicating the importance of taking action on climate change to you?"
David Suzuki (7 votes)
Al Gore (8 votes)
Nicholas Stern (2 votes)
Elizabeth May (2 votes)
Barack Obama (1 vote)
Oprah Winfrey (0 votes)
None of the above (1 vote)
Number of people who voted = 16
Number of total votes = 21
Climate change is one of those subjects that can make you feel depressed, pessimistic and frustrated with the world. Finding consensus on the issue through agreements has proven to be a difficult task. Canada, the US, China and India continue to be the world's largest C02 emitters. However, as individuals striving to make an environmental difference, surely we can live with some optimism. You have to be the change yourself and lead by example. The individuals listed above have all inspired me in some sort of way (with the exception of Oprah) to think more pro-actively about climate change.
Nicholas Stern wrote a report in October 2006 about the 7 trillion dollar warning on global warming. In essence, not taking action on climate change would be more expensive for the world than taking action on climate change. He told us a lot about the economics of it. Al Gore, despite the widespread criticism, raised international awareness over the issue and got people thinking about it. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" illustrated some of Stern's concerns but more importantly, exposed many to this global issue. I commend him greatly for doing that.
I heard David Suzuki and Elizabeth May (Federal Leader of the Green Party of Canada) speak in my year of university. They talked to a large university audience about why we should care about climate change and emphasized how we can take individual action and educate others about it. Education and awareness are fundamental for mobilizing change and getting society to think about climate change more holistically. Suzuki has been Canada's man at articulating the contemporary issues around the environment to all audiences. He continues to inspire me.
Last, Barack Obama, well, he hasn't done much but I am confident that he will take climate change more seriously than his predecessor. He has worked towards increasing fuel economy standards and is more enthusiastic about biofuels and cellulosic ethanol, unlike corn ethanol whom Bush was obsessed with.
Key message: Our optimism and solidarity around climate change needs to be desperately re-invigorated. We have more pessimists today than optimists (especially after Copenhagen). If you are displeased with your leaders and their unwillingness to act, then take action yourself by educating, creating awareness and sharing your knowledge with your community.
The recent poll question was "who of these individuals has been most effective at communicating the importance of taking action on climate change to you?"
David Suzuki (7 votes)
Al Gore (8 votes)
Nicholas Stern (2 votes)
Elizabeth May (2 votes)
Barack Obama (1 vote)
Oprah Winfrey (0 votes)
None of the above (1 vote)
Number of people who voted = 16
Number of total votes = 21
Climate change is one of those subjects that can make you feel depressed, pessimistic and frustrated with the world. Finding consensus on the issue through agreements has proven to be a difficult task. Canada, the US, China and India continue to be the world's largest C02 emitters. However, as individuals striving to make an environmental difference, surely we can live with some optimism. You have to be the change yourself and lead by example. The individuals listed above have all inspired me in some sort of way (with the exception of Oprah) to think more pro-actively about climate change.
Nicholas Stern wrote a report in October 2006 about the 7 trillion dollar warning on global warming. In essence, not taking action on climate change would be more expensive for the world than taking action on climate change. He told us a lot about the economics of it. Al Gore, despite the widespread criticism, raised international awareness over the issue and got people thinking about it. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" illustrated some of Stern's concerns but more importantly, exposed many to this global issue. I commend him greatly for doing that.
I heard David Suzuki and Elizabeth May (Federal Leader of the Green Party of Canada) speak in my year of university. They talked to a large university audience about why we should care about climate change and emphasized how we can take individual action and educate others about it. Education and awareness are fundamental for mobilizing change and getting society to think about climate change more holistically. Suzuki has been Canada's man at articulating the contemporary issues around the environment to all audiences. He continues to inspire me.
Last, Barack Obama, well, he hasn't done much but I am confident that he will take climate change more seriously than his predecessor. He has worked towards increasing fuel economy standards and is more enthusiastic about biofuels and cellulosic ethanol, unlike corn ethanol whom Bush was obsessed with.
Key message: Our optimism and solidarity around climate change needs to be desperately re-invigorated. We have more pessimists today than optimists (especially after Copenhagen). If you are displeased with your leaders and their unwillingness to act, then take action yourself by educating, creating awareness and sharing your knowledge with your community.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Poll results: If you were to create a sustainable/green city, what's the first thing you would bring about?
The results are in. There were votes for all options with the exception of “none of the above”. A good subway system was quite popular with 5 votes, followed by 3 votes for the bus system, 3 votes for a city-wide recycling/composting program, and 1 vote each for an extensive bike path system and green roofs for all buildings.
Any sustainable or green city in the world must have at least one of these components. Public transit is absolutely critical especially if the city has a population over 1 million people. Subway systems are expensive...the internationally accepted value for the cost of a subway per kilometre is $100 million. This cost accounts for construction, labour, maintenance and so. By contrast, the more efficient and well financed bus route systems such as the one in Curitiba, Brazil cost about $1.3 million per km. What’s more effective? They both work well but international evidence suggests that subway systems are simply more efficient, have high ridership rates, and are well-financed i.e. London, Paris and Berlin. They all work pretty effectively if you ask me.
Composting and recycling are becoming more popular programs for growing municipalities. Indeed, usually when a Canadian municipality hits a certain population (usually over 100,000), the city has an easier time starting a curbside composting program. Recycling can be found in most municipalities in Canada because it is a practical and smart approach to waste management. Finally, green roofs and bike path systems. Well Toronto recently passed a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. Their benefits are extensive and enviroboys has talked about them before. Cities that have been progressive with green roofs (Berlin, Chicago, Portland) have had tremendous success.
Bike paths are also desperately needed for any green metropolis. Why? Because they are an excellent green alternative to driving. Bike paths need to be properly maintained and need to be plentiful! They should feed into cities just as main arterial roads and highways do. Let’s keep our cyclists a safe distance away from the motorists as best as we could.
Key message: Green cities are full of innovation and opportunity. If you are living in a city with even one of these components, be grateful... but learn about the numerous benefits accrued from other green options too.
Any sustainable or green city in the world must have at least one of these components. Public transit is absolutely critical especially if the city has a population over 1 million people. Subway systems are expensive...the internationally accepted value for the cost of a subway per kilometre is $100 million. This cost accounts for construction, labour, maintenance and so. By contrast, the more efficient and well financed bus route systems such as the one in Curitiba, Brazil cost about $1.3 million per km. What’s more effective? They both work well but international evidence suggests that subway systems are simply more efficient, have high ridership rates, and are well-financed i.e. London, Paris and Berlin. They all work pretty effectively if you ask me.
Composting and recycling are becoming more popular programs for growing municipalities. Indeed, usually when a Canadian municipality hits a certain population (usually over 100,000), the city has an easier time starting a curbside composting program. Recycling can be found in most municipalities in Canada because it is a practical and smart approach to waste management. Finally, green roofs and bike path systems. Well Toronto recently passed a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. Their benefits are extensive and enviroboys has talked about them before. Cities that have been progressive with green roofs (Berlin, Chicago, Portland) have had tremendous success.
Bike paths are also desperately needed for any green metropolis. Why? Because they are an excellent green alternative to driving. Bike paths need to be properly maintained and need to be plentiful! They should feed into cities just as main arterial roads and highways do. Let’s keep our cyclists a safe distance away from the motorists as best as we could.
Key message: Green cities are full of innovation and opportunity. If you are living in a city with even one of these components, be grateful... but learn about the numerous benefits accrued from other green options too.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Poll results: How much would you be willing to pay for water?
Dear readers,
The poll results are in. We had a total of 13 votes (not bad for the first poll). Chris and I will be posting poll questions more regularly now to provoke thought and some debate. Our first poll question was "How much would you be willing to pay for water?". This question was based on paying for water on a monthly basis:
$1.00= 0 votes
$5.00= 2 votes (15%)
$20.00= 5 votes (38%)
$50.00= 0 votes
Nothing. It should be free= 6 votes (46%)
Total votes = 13
While the sample is small it still speaks to some variation in the results. Every household in Peterborough pays roughly $18-$45 a month for water. I pay $18 a month but a house on a larger lot with more "rooms" might pay a lot more than me. As mentioned in the past, the water rate for Peterborough operates on a fixed amount i.e. you pay the same amount for water every month so consuming 10,000 litres or 15,000 litres of water will not make a difference to the amount you pay because you are not metered.
Enviroboys recognizes the fundamental importance of water. Some people think we shouldn't pay anything for water (because Canada has so much of it). That's true in theory, but it all depends on where you are getting your water from. The other side to that argument is that water is a human right and everyone should be entitled to it. Also a valid point but how realistic is this in a future where water supplies are dwindling and people are fighting over it?
For those who responded to the poll and are water metered, I envy you. Because ultimately, both you and I can be consuming the exact same amount of water monthly but I pay $18 and you pay $10 (based on whatever the price is on units consumed). Because I pay a flat rate, I am not rewarded for using less water (in fact I could use as much as I want).
Sooner or later, everyone in Canada is going to start paying for how much water they consume i.e. water metering. This can allow for sustainability and the conservation of Canada's most precious natural resource.
The poll results are in. We had a total of 13 votes (not bad for the first poll). Chris and I will be posting poll questions more regularly now to provoke thought and some debate. Our first poll question was "How much would you be willing to pay for water?". This question was based on paying for water on a monthly basis:
$1.00= 0 votes
$5.00= 2 votes (15%)
$20.00= 5 votes (38%)
$50.00= 0 votes
Nothing. It should be free= 6 votes (46%)
Total votes = 13
While the sample is small it still speaks to some variation in the results. Every household in Peterborough pays roughly $18-$45 a month for water. I pay $18 a month but a house on a larger lot with more "rooms" might pay a lot more than me. As mentioned in the past, the water rate for Peterborough operates on a fixed amount i.e. you pay the same amount for water every month so consuming 10,000 litres or 15,000 litres of water will not make a difference to the amount you pay because you are not metered.
Enviroboys recognizes the fundamental importance of water. Some people think we shouldn't pay anything for water (because Canada has so much of it). That's true in theory, but it all depends on where you are getting your water from. The other side to that argument is that water is a human right and everyone should be entitled to it. Also a valid point but how realistic is this in a future where water supplies are dwindling and people are fighting over it?
For those who responded to the poll and are water metered, I envy you. Because ultimately, both you and I can be consuming the exact same amount of water monthly but I pay $18 and you pay $10 (based on whatever the price is on units consumed). Because I pay a flat rate, I am not rewarded for using less water (in fact I could use as much as I want).
Sooner or later, everyone in Canada is going to start paying for how much water they consume i.e. water metering. This can allow for sustainability and the conservation of Canada's most precious natural resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)