All in all it was a great year for New York City's Livable Streets Movement. Here are the winners of our 2007 awards. See you in January...

• Best Livable Streets Project: The Ninth Avenue bike lane, Chelsea.
• Best New Public Space: DUMBO's Pearl Street Pocket Park. Honorable mention: Chelsea's Meat Market Plaza.
  
• Best Pedestrian Project: Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza. Honorable mention: Jewel Avenue, Fresh Meadows, Queens.
  
• Best Bicycle Project: Curbside automobile parking space in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is replaced by bike racks.
  
• Best Incremental Gain: Expansion of the Car-Free Space/Time Continuum in both Central and Prospect Parks.
  
• Best Bus Project: The MTA's real-time bus status signs. Honorable mention: DOT's painted bus lanes.
• Best Community Project: The Downtown Brooklyn Traffic-Calming mural.
  
• Best International Project: Vélib, Paris, France.
• Best International Transportation Policy: London's Low Emission Zone. Either your truck has a clean tailpipe or you pay £200 a day to drive in London (that's $400+).
• Activist of the Year: Ian Dutton. As a member of Manhattan Community Board 2's Transportation Committee Dutton eased the way for the new Lower Manhattan bike connector, the Ninth Avenue separated bike lane, Chelsea's Meat Market Plaza and Houston Street sidewalk widenings. Most significant, Dutton has helped to foster a truly rare phenomenon -- a New York City Community Board that encourages innovation rather than squashing it. Honorable mention: Robert Witherwax and Michael Cairl of the Grand Army Plaza Coalition.
• Elected Official of the Year: Councilmember David Yassky. After years of taxi industry foot-dragging, Yassky's hybrid taxi initiative was signed into law this year, ensuring New York City's taxi fleet will consist of low-emission, high mileage vehicles by 2012. Yassky has been one of the only Brooklyn politicians with the guts to speak up for congestion pricing.
• Worst Elected Official: Assemblymember Richard Brodsky. Despite loads of data showing otherwise, Brodsky says he opposes congestion pricing because it's an unfair tax on poor and middle class New Yorkers. Coincidentally, he represents the wealthiest car commuters in the entire metropolitan area. Manhattan-bound drive-to-work constituents in Brodsky's Westchester district earn, on average, $176,231 annually. Another funny coincidence: Brodsky gets more campaign money from the parking garage industry than any other state legislator. If, however, you mention any of this, it's a "personal attack."
  
• Biggest News of 2007: Circumstances allow Streetsblog to permanently shut down its Weinshall Watch category.
• Best News of 2007: Janette Sadik-Khan, a bona fide progressive transportation policy wonk and alleged "cycling radical" is hired to run New York City's Department of Transportation. As Mayor Bloomberg said in introducing Sadik-Khan, "She truly understands the role our streets and sidewalks play within our neighborhoods. She understands that they are not only a means to get somewhere else, they are a part of the fabric of life in all five boroughs." Amen.
  

Share this

Streetsblog editor Aaron Naparstek and StreetFilms' Nick Whitaker hit the intersection of Atlantic, Flatbush and Fourth Avenues Thursday morning to see what a "Gridlock Alert Day" looks like at one of New York City's most congested intersections.

After about 25 interviews with drivers it became pretty clear that if City Hall truly wants to reduce traffic congestion during the holiday season, it needs to do a whole lot more than just say, "Hey, everybody it's a Gridlock Alert!" 

What might the City do instead of issuing futile alerts? Here's one idea from London that seems to be working pretty well.

Share this

The assignment was wide open: Design something based on the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle, and develop it into a prototype product. The results ranged from simple mechanical devices to complex electronic machines, but all served that central purpose in original ways.

Green Building & Remodeling for Dummies is the perfect holiday gift for those of us who are interested in green building, but need a little expert help. Admittedly, the For Dummies® books are a smart start for anyone wanting to pick up a new trade or just learn the overall basics on any particular subject. With more than 150 million books in print and over 1000 topics, this new release by Eric Corey Freed of Organic Architect may be the best evidence out there that green is mainstream.

(more…)

The Environmental Protection Agency has denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The first to follow California's path was Vermont, and Gov. Jim Douglas says the EPA's ruling is misguided.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

During his recent visit to New York, Donald Shoup, professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, sat down with Open Planning Project's Mark Gorton to discuss parking policy and play with Matchbox cars on a miniature New York City street grid.

Shoup argues that charging higher fees for curbside parking would free up more parking space, reduce congestion-causing cruising and generate funds for local street improvement projects. And unlike congestion pricing, City Hall doesn't need permission from Albany to make it happen.

Check out the animation by StreetFilms' Elizabeth Press. Not bad, eh? And, as always, here is the Shoup theme song:

• Related StreetFilm: Dr. Shoup: Parking Guru

Share this

 
This scarifying nine-minute peek into an auto-enslaved Disney world of the future, as seen from 1958, is as amazing for what it gets right (like urban sprawl) as much as what is laughably off the mark (like urban sprawl = Utopia).

Notice how skinny everyone is, though no one ever walks (except dad, from his car elevator to his desk). And dig that Sun-Powered Electro-Suspension Car -- still right around the corner!

Addendum: Here's another look at what the future might have looked like as this cartoon was being produced. 

Video from YouTube via Polls Boutique

Share this

It ain't the Velib, but yesterday it was announced that Dutch team West 8 would design a 40-acre park for Governors Island, which will include a fleet of 3,000 wooden bicycles free for use by island visitors.

The Times reports:

The design, commissioned by the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, calls for transforming much of the flat, sober island, which is roughly a half-mile from Lower Manhattan, into green space. That includes a two-mile promenade at the water's edge, a new park on the southern flat expanse of landfill - where abandoned Coast Guard buildings are to be demolished - and an improved park in the island's northern historic district. The architects proposed using the detritus from the buildings that are to be destroyed to form hills that would exploit the island's views, which include the Statue of Liberty.

The Post, which says the Governors Island Gondola could also become reality, had a somewhat dispiriting quote from Mayor Bloomberg on the bike share feature, particularly when juxtaposed with designer Adriaan Geuze's comments.

Adriaan Geuze, founder of West 8, said the company's Dutch background made including bicycles in the plan a no-brainer.

"I am from Holland, where bicycles are an important part of street life, and everybody bikes," he said. "You could never walk the entire island, but the bikes will help get people to experience more of the island and go anywhere they want to."

Bloomberg said he was particularly impressed by the bike theme, joking "it's a great idea; you don't have to worry about them being stolen" because "you can't take them anyplace" off the island.

The Times says the park is expected to be completed by 2012.

Rendering: West 8/Rogers Marvel Architects/Diller Scofidio + Renfro/Quennell Rothschild/SMWM

Share this

"If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars."

So said Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, right about the time he unveiled his plan to charge motorists a fee to drive into Manhattan's central business district. Eight months later, as the mayor's original proposal mutates for better or worse, the MTA is hours away from raising transit fares. Neither idea has exactly caught fire with the public, and the fare hikes could actually end up a foil for congestion pricing -- a plan originally intended as a sustained financial boost for the transit system.

And then there's Theodore "Ted" Kheel. The environmentalist, philanthropist, and renowned labor attorney has lobbied for free transit in New York for over 40 years. Last February he commissioned a $100,000 study that, as it turns out, could put the city's money where the mayor's mouth is. A summary of findings released late last week shows that if the city were to impose a $16 congestion fee ($32 for trucks) below 60th Street in Manhattan, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, along with higher curbside parking fees and a taxi surcharge, the MTA could remove its turnstiles and fareboxes forever.

Share this

Last week, we criticized accounts of the death of 63-year-old cyclist David Smith, who was memorialized Wednesday with a Ghost Bike and a die-in on Sixth Avenue. Though Smith was riding in the bike lane and was knocked into traffic by an illegally parked driver who opened his door in Smith's path, initial media reports portrayed the crash as a blameless "freak mishap."

That was only a taste of what was to come. Here, verbatim, are the first five paragraphs of the Daily News story on Saturday, after another cyclist, Franco Scorcia, was killed at W. 40th and Broadway:

Only one person thought it was still safe for Franco Scorcia to take to the streets by bike - and that was Franco Scorcia.

For years, friends told the 72-year-old Bronx father to "leave the bike alone."

The ex-cabbie's two sons were so worried about their dad they offered him a car.

"We told him so many times, 'Don't ride the bike,'" Scorcia's son, Vito, 37, recalled Friday.

The elder Scorcia brushed such demands aside, saying he loved cycling too much to quit. It was that fondness for experiencing the city on two wheels that cost him his life Thursday night when he crashed into a charter bus in midtown.

Given such a loaded lede, you'd expect some exposition describing the mistakes Scorcia must have made that led to his death. But aside from strongly implying that Scorcia's age was somehow a factor, the article includes no details of the crash, other than to say the bus driver was issued six summonses. Regardless, to the writers and editors of this story, Scorcia's mistake was riding a bike on the streets of New York: "It was that fondness for experiencing the city on two wheels that cost him his life."

As such biased coverage is fairly commonplace, it's no wonder the causes of cyclist fatalities and the lack of consequences for motorists go unchallenged, especially when the driver is the sole living witness.

Negating the Daily News' own follow-up coverage that told of how David Smith was known as a safe rider, the Scorcia article links the two deaths -- not because they were both killed at the hands of drivers, but because they were both "elderly cyclists" who, readers are to presume, had no business being on bikes. In so many words, the piece says Scorcia was asking for it.

On average this year, a city cyclist has been killed about every 16 days. Conveniently for much of the mainstream New York press -- not to mention hostile police, indifferent prosecutors, and reckless motorists -- they can't defend themselves against such charges.

Photo: cultshaman/Flickr

Share this

The Bush administration blocked California's plan to put tighter limits on automobile tailpipe emissions, handing a victory to the auto industry on the same day the president signed an energy bill that mandates the biggest boost in federal fuel-efficiency standards in more than 30 years.

Late yesterday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson blocked California from going further than the federal government does in curbing auto emissions that contribute to global warming, setting up a clash with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sue the federal government over its decision not to allow a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he announced Thursday.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, refusing the state's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to cut emissions faster than a new federal plan the president signed into law Wednesday.

Congressional Democrats on Thursday announced an investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to let California implement its tailpipe emissions law, the first step in what will likely be a fierce legal and political battle.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson demanding "all documents relating to the California waiver request, other than those that are available on the public record."

Three days ago I suggested - naively - that perhaps the Bush Administration would turn in the right direction on climate change and grant California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. It hasn't and the EPA didn't. Continuing its record as the worst environmental administration in history, Bush's EPA yesterday denied California's request to implement its regulations. Without a waiver, the other 14-16 states that have either enacted or expressed interest in enacting the California regulations cannot do so either.

Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced he will sue the federal government. But the regulations -- one of the centerpieces of California's plan to roll back the state's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- will almost certainly not be implemented on schedule. The state's regulations are supposed to take effect for model year 2009 cars. A new president - who could reverse the EPA's decision - won't take office until January 2009. It seems highly doubtful that California's lawsuit to overturn the EPA decision will be decided before 2009 model year cars begin to roll off assembly lines. Meanwhile, the globe warms and greenhouse gas emissions grow at a rate even faster than predicted.

There's also the not insignificant question whether California will succeed in overturning the EPA's decision. From a legal perspective, there are several important questions. The first is whether the EPA followed statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act in deciding to deny the waiver. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to grant the waiver unless California "does not need" new greenhouse gas standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances." The EPA says California doesn't have compelling and extraordinary circumstances, that climate change is a global problem not unique to the state. California says the state is facing drought, water shortages, wild fires and worse smog and needs the regulations to address its contributions to global warming. Unfortunately, courts reviewing the question are likely to defer pretty heavily to the EPA's decision. On the other hand, EPA's own lawyers apparently believe that the agency is likely to lose the case. See Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902012.html?hpid=topnews

But California may have a better legal argument based on statements made yesterday by the EPA's head, Stephen Johnson. He says we don't need California standards because Congress just raised fuel economy standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We don't, he argues, need "a patchwork" of state regulations. As a factual matter his argument is plain wrong. California's standards regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; the federal government's fuel economy standards regulate fuel economy. While there's a correlation between fuel efficiency and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from gasoline-burning engines, the standards are regulating two separate things (a federal court decision in California made this clear just last week, http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20Files/Cases/05cv302.pdf , based on a United States Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf ). It's also more than curious that Johnson based much of his public justification for denying the waiver on legislation that passed just this week even though he's had almost two years to consider the California waiver request. Moreover, granting the waiver wouldn't produce a patchwork of standards but rather only two, the California standards (which many other states would adopt) and no standards (which the other states would follow). And finally, as a legal matter, Johnson and his EPA can't consider whether it's a good idea or not to let California have its own standards. Congress and courts that have considered the issue already have said the state can regulate separately as long as it meets Clean Air Act requirements.

So California may have a good legal claim. The better and faster route, though, is to elect a president who will reverse the EPA decision come January 2009.

This week, for the first time since he took office in 2001, George Bush and his administration offered two glimmers of hope in ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration agreed to commit to international talks to negotiate a post-Kyoto protocol treaty to take effect in 2012. Bush also signaled that he will sign an energy bill that will raise fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon, the first such increase in more than 30 years. Is this the beginning of at least a slight softening on climate policy overall ? Though I'm pessimistic given the Bush Administration's abominable environmental record, the Administration has the opportunity to demonstrate its new found environmentalism by allowing California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Here's how.

California is the only state in the country authorized to regulate tailpipe emissions from automobiles. It gets this authority from the federal Clean Air Act, which simultaneously prohibits all other states from issuing their own tailpipe standards. Other states can, however, choose California standards rather than federal standards, which are less stringent than the golden state's. In 2003 California used its special authority to pass legislation requiring the state's air agency to issue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars. The agency has now released its regulations, which will reduce carbon emissions by 22 percent by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. Equally important, at least 12 states have chosen to follow the California standards.

But there's a hitch. California can't implement its standards unless the federal Environmental Protection Agency grants the state a waiver. A waiver looked highly unlikely until a hugely important U.S. Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, was handed down in April. In the case, the EPA argued that the Clean Air Act - the same statute that gives California the right to regulate tailpipe emissions - didn't authorize regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars, only more traditional pollutants like carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. The Supreme Court rejected that position. Now that the EPA's legal position has been rejected, its chief grounds for denying California's waiver have evaporated. And federal courts in both California and Vermont have tossed aside automakers' challenges to the new rules, holding that the states will have the right to implement their regulations if the EPA grants a waiver.

The administration's new tactic seems to be delay. California applied for the necessary waiver two years ago. The EPA has yet to take action on it despite holding hearings and despite the fact that the Supreme Court has resolved the legal questions hanging over the waiver request. The delay has become so egregious that California, joined by 14 other states, sued the EPA in federal court last month in order to force the agency to take action.

The Bush Administration ought to welcome California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions. Republicans frequently complain about excessive federal regulation and argue that in a federal system states should be our laboratories of democracy. Here, the federal government has fallen down on the job. California and other states have stepped into the void, with the support of state politicians of both major parties and widespread support from the people those politicians represent. California should be given the authority to experiment with emissions reductions and see if they can be achieved cost effectively. And California's model for forcing reductions of carbon dioxide, if successful, can be used nationally, following a pattern the country has successfully used in reducing smog emissions. California's Republican governor wants the authority. Bush ought to give it to him.

Image courtesy of Vibragiel Going against the better judgment of his agency's legal and technical staffs, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson shot down California's proposed auto emissions waiver, arguing that the recently enacted energy bill would do more to combat global warming than "a confusing patchwork of state rules." That, of course, is blatantly wrong: yes, it does contain renewable energy requirements but, as California state officials have pointed out, the waiver would require a mileage average of 36 mpg by 2016 - as opposed to the energy bill's 35 mpg by 2020....

E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules

By JOHN M. BRODER and FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: December 20, 2007 in the New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency’s decision.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” he said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

The 17 states — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.

The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California’s proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”

He added, “California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”

Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California’s, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in the United States.

Automakers praised the decision. “We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program,” said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers.”

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.

The California attorney general, Edmund G. Brown Jr., called the decision “absurd.” He said the decision ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher air quality standards than those set nationally.

Mr. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said: “I find this disgraceful. The passage of the energy bill does not give the E.P.A a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the E.P.A. decision defied law, science and common sense. He said his committee would investigate how the decision had been made and would seek to reverse it.

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, called the ruling a “mockery of law and sound public policy.”

Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, said the state would challenge the decision.

Mr. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. “Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive,” he said.

Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, which had geared up to enforce the proposed emissions rules on 2009-model cars, said the reasoning was flawed. “Thirty-five miles per gallon is not the same thing as a comprehensive program for reducing greenhouse gases,” Ms. Nichols said.

David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that since 1984, the agency has not distinguished between local, national and international air pollution.

“All the smog problems that California has are shared with other states, just like the global warming problems they have are shared with other states,” he said.

Danny Hakim and Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.

The Smart Car is coming to the United States! And very soon too. The little car that could, manufactured by Daimler, is expected to join the ranks of available subcompact vehicles in the US in 2008, and hopefully, convince more people that when personal transportation is concerned, bigger is most certainly not better.

(more…)

Pacific Gas & Electric has inked a groundbreaking deal with Finavera Renewables, pledging to buy the equivalent of 2MW of wave energy-derived power by 2012 - becoming, in the process, the first U.S. utility to make such an investment. The purchase could lead to the construction of a wave farm 2.5 miles off the coast of Eureka in Humboldt County, in Northern California; the farm would create a network of "AquaBuoys," the Canadian company's wave turbines. Excitement over wave energy's rosy prospects in coastal states like California have led many to deem it this decade's new wind ...

Davis, California - University of California experts today released their much-anticipated blueprint for fighting global warming by reducing the amount of carbon emitted when transportation fuels are used in California.  This "Low Carbon Fuel Standard," designed to stimulate improvements in transportation-fuel technologies, is expected to become the foundation for similar initiatives in other states, as well as nationally and internationally.

Democrats warn of denial by EPA
Boxer, Waxman pressure officials on state's emission waiver ruling
By David Whitney

Excerpt:
Key Democrats on Capitol Hill are preparing for the Environmental Protection Agency to rule against California's application for a Clean Air Act waiver permitting it to proceed with tough reductions in car and truck emissions.

The decision could come any time. Despite congressional pressure and a California lawsuit filed in October seeking a quicker decision on the state's 2-year-old application, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has said only that the waiver decision will be made by the end of the year.

Asked whether she thought the decision would be made by the EPA or at the White House, Sen. Boxer said: "If you look at everything done on the environment, a lot of this leads back to the vice president's office."

[And the decision just came in that EPA and White House did SAY NO to California.]

HAHAHAH! I found this because I'm a LightWave 3D geek...not an EcoGeek...yet it is so perfectly applicable for both of these obsessions that I am 100% in LOVE!

Way to go to Cesar Montero, the eco/3D animation geek behind the project. Check out the hi-res version here.

Data from a new IBM survey reveals we as consumers would be willing to pay more for environmentally friendly energy options if more information could be made available to educate themselves. The results of this survey, titled "Plugging in the Consumer: Innovating utility business models for the future," drew its results from consumers in developed nations.

IBM concluded 2/3 of those asked said they'd be more willing to pay a higher premium for these types of options if it could be shown to definitely lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Consumers, said Big Blue, want more of an active hand in energy decision making. Consumers have some footwork to do though in moving towards being more mindful of their energy choices. Only a small percentage globally have taken a hard look at their personal environmental impact. This is coupled with not being able to or not knowing how to choose an electric or gas utility provider which cannot meet their energy desires.

It was also noted by IBM that "the promise of reduced energy costs would impact how and when consumers heat and cool their homes, do their laundry and cook their meals." This, plus the desire to see a positive environmental impact from changes, are thrusting consumers into what is being called a "plug in" role in which we more actively engage in choosing the energy we use and how it effects the world around us.

Hyundai seems to pretty happy with themselves right now for having what appears to be one of the world's better fuel cell electric vehicles. The auto manufacturer achieved this status with its Tucson Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) by getting a perfect score this year's Challenge Bibendum held in Shanghai from November 14 to 17.

The Challenge Bibendum is put on by Michelin as a way to promote "sustainable road mobility." Vehicles rated in this competition are judged in the areas of noise, fuel efficiency, pollutants and CO2 emissions, said Hyundai. Its Tucscon FCEV beat out other teams representing auto manufacturers Daimler AG, GM and Nissan, among others.

Hyundai noted its Tucson is its second generation fuel cell electric vehicle. It is driven by a 80kW fuel stack and can get a max. speed of 150km/hr and a range of 350km. The auto maker is testing this vehicle in two fleets - one here in the United States and one in Korea.

The New York Times just released its 7th annual Year in Ideas round-up, and there are some interesting inclusions.
Amidst short articles on airborne wind turbines, Islam in outer space, UPS's ban on left-hand turns – all of which have been explored on BLDGBLOG before – and even so-called "marijuana mansions," we're asked to consider "whether full-scale lightning farms might one day become a meaningful source of electricity."

Practically speaking, the NYTimes explains, building a lightning farm would entail the construction of an entire specialty landscape. You could probably even patent it.
There would be "a tower, an array of grounding wires to shunt off most of the incoming energy and a giant capacitor. Theoretically, if enough energy is delivered to the capacitor, it can be stored, converted to alternating current and transferred to the power grid."
Unfortunately, the article explains, lightning farms don't really work.
But no matter: BLDGBLOG would like to propose turning the entirety of Paris into a lightning farm. The Eiffel Tower would loom over a network of grounding wires. Groves of steel poles – orchards of power, virtually harnessing the sky – would stand amidst cobblestones, spiraling up hills, and the outermost streets of the city, connecting cafe to cafe down stairways, leading up to bars and scenic overlooks, glow every fortnight as that great central spike gets thrashed with aerial electricity. You can toast bread with all that power, draining the clouds, awaiting storms with videocameras in hand to film that apocalypse of alternating currents in the sky.

[Image: Front Studio. "Sunflowers aid in the bio-cleansing of land in preparation for crop farming"].

Last month, Front Studio architects gave a talk at the University of Pennsylvania Department of City & Regional Planning. There they outlined "Farmadelphia," their now widely known proposal for the transformation of Philadelphia, in which that city's vacant and abandoned lots are turned into a thriving agricultural zone – complete with crops grown for local consumption and soil remediation, and with an eye toward future tourism, including surreal petting zoos, hay rides, and even corn mazes.

[Image: Front Studio].

Philadelphia would become "an 'edible landscape'," we read, "with vast crop fields, and free roaming farm animals."

[Images: Front Studio. "Free roaming city cows graze on locally owned pasture" (top); chickens hang out amidst lettuce (bottom)].

The project would also address – or is intended to address – "the rehabilitation of the existing city fabric by proposing ideas for vacant buildings that would allow the present-day character to remain while creating new uses."

[Images: Front Studio].

From the project description:

For example, an abandoned building could have its walls and ground lined with a non-permeable membrane to prevent soil contamination for new plantings. Then layers of a weed barrier, soil bed, loam and mulch are added on top. The nurseries would provide: year-round job opportunities, high profit yields from selling flowers and the adaptive reuse of abandoned buildings.

Whole sections of the city would thus be deliberately cultivated. Or, from a slightly different perspective, it's the controlled re-wilding of the city.

[Image: Front Studio. Philadelphia's "urban voids interwoven with agricultural patchwork"].

This urban re-wilding would also include "the rehabilitation of abandoned buildings into stables to house animals."

[Images: Front Studio].

"Looking into Philadelphia’s past," Front Studio writes, one finds "a green legacy dating back to William Penn’s pastoral vision of a 'green countrie towne'."
But what about Philadelphia's green future – not its past or some distant legacy it's passively inherited?
How might Philadelphia actively re-green itself for the future?
Some appropriate crops for the proposed agricultural stabilization of the city might include the following, the architects suggest:

—start with low maintenance, easy to grow, and profiting crops; consider perennial crops such as asparagus, shallots, garlic and herb varieties
—other crops include shade tolerant, easy to grow kale, sweet potatoes, lettuce
—other crops that do well in Philadelphia climate: collard greens, broccoli, mustard greens, corn, raspberry bushes

Those plants, in particular, would form a biosystem that could help push the city onto a seven year agricultural plan – after which this newly implanted ecosystem would level off, forming something like a cultivated permaculture.

[Images: Front Studio's seven year plan for agricultural stabilization].

More about the project can be found on Front Studio's own website (under "Work" and then "Competition").
See also Roof-farming southeast London, earlier on BLDGBLOG, as well as Going Agro.

(And don't miss Sarah Rich's write-up of the project, nearly 2 years ago, over on Inhabitat).

Architect Taketo Shimohigoshi has overcome the challenge of finding green space among dense, urban skylines with an elevated installation of vegetation. His design concept frames the city sky with slices of moss-covered beams, which define and connect the cityscape in a greener perspective. His vision has earned him a 2007 AR Award for Emerging Architecture - the definitive honor for young architects.

(more…)

We already know that the New York Rangers' center Sean Avery loves riding his bike. Now we learn that forward Brendan Shanahan and several other teammate take the subway to the office. From yesterday's New York Times:

"Still, Shanahan, a 20-year veteran, said he liked the atmosphere in the Rangers' half of the empire. He likes that they make their news almost exclusively on the ice. He likes that most of his teammates live in the city. He likes riding the subway from his home on the Upper West Side.

"'What other team does that?' he said, smiling. 'We're New York's team.'"

And what about that other team that plays at the Garden? Apparently, the Knicks' parking skills are on par with their 6 and 15 record. Here's a report from the employee parking lot:

"You see a lot of Rolls-Royces down there, big trucks with nice tires and rims on them," Rangers forward Ryan Hollweg said.

As forward Brendan Shanahan added: "The difference is, we're in parking spaces and they just park anywhere. We actually park in the lines. They just pull up to the door and get out of the car."

Photo: musiquenonstop/Flickr

Share this

You may have noticed the new tab at the top of Streetsblog and StreetFilms with a link to NYCstreets. If you haven't checked it out yet, it's worth a look. NYCstreets is a place where people interested in improving New York City's streets and public spaces can find online tools, resources and, most importantly -- other people -- to help get organized and make change happen.

NYCstreets is part social network, part directory of local Livable Streets initiatives and part project management tool box for civic groups. It is the first working example of the open source community-building tools being developed by Streetsblog's non-profit, parent organization, The Open Planning Project.

Here is what you can do on NYCstreets:

• Join an existing Livable Streets project: There are already a bunch of Livable