Anyway, I’d like to make a map like this, but I don’t quite have the mapping/programming chops.  Its something like combining a spider diagram combined with Network Analyst’s best route analysis but doing it thousands of times.

Anyone else doing anything with this data?

SOME teamwork is fine and offers a fun, stimulating, useful way to exchange ideas, manage information and build trust.

But it’s one thing to associate with a group in which each member works autonomously on his piece of the puzzle; it’s another to be corralled into endless meetings or conference calls conducted in offices that afford no respite from the noise and gaze of co-workers. Studies show that open-plan offices make workers hostile, insecure and distracted. They’re also more likely to suffer from high blood pressure, stress, the flu and exhaustion. And people whose work is interrupted make 50 percent more mistakes and take twice as long to finish it.

I find this particularly relevant in working in the public sector, where it is anathema to the current trends to make decisions independently or trust the detail work of “technical experts”.  Current trends seem to be towards trusting in the ultimate wisdom of the group.  Humans are not built to resist the downside of groupthink.

The reasons brainstorming fails are instructive for other forms of group work, too. People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure. The Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns found that when we take a stance different from the group’s, we activate the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection. Professor Berns calls this “the pain of independence.”

The article notes that the internet and electronic communication may provide an antidote for groupthink.

The one important exception to this dismal record is electronic brainstorming, where large groups outperform individuals; and the larger the group the better. The protection of the screen mitigates many problems of group work. This is why the Internet has yielded such wondrous collective creations. Marcel Proust called reading a “miracle of communication in the midst of solitude,” and that’s what the Internet is, too. It’s a place where we can be alone together — and this is precisely what gives it power.

It didn’t hurt, says Murley, that “we live under constant climate events.” Much of South Florida is crisscrossed with drainage canals, built to turn swampland into solid ground. The canals were built at a time when sea level was lower; now, during particularly high tides, or in the aftermath of heavy rains, the canals can’t drain properly into the ocean. “We get water backing up along the beaches,” he says. “People see that and they ask officials, ‘What’s going on?’”

Rising seas have also begun to have an impact on drinking water, as the salty ocean forces itself into underground aquifers. City planners all along the coast are now laying out plans to retreat from the contamination by drilling new wells further inland. “The point,” says Murley, “is that you can do all sorts of adaptation [to climate change] without using the term” — raising coastal roadbeds, for example, in the name of highway improvement rather than climate adaptation, even though that’s what it really is. The pumps installed by the South Florida Water Management District on some of the region’s canals to handle backups during high tide or torrential rains are another good example.

Planners and elected officials are going to have to talk about climate change, whether they say the words or not.

Policy Link, Take Action MN and Isaiah have released a health impact assessment for the coming Central Corridor light rail line.  In my opinion, this seems more like an economic impact assessment, but the argument can be made that economics drives health.

My summary of the findings:

• Jobs in the corridor will increase, particularly retail and office.
• Population and housing will increase.
• Jobs with skills matching those of current residents will be low-paying.  Higher wage jobs will increase too, but won’t be available to many current residents.
• Low-skill, higher paying jobs (in manufacturing, for example) will be forced out.
• Commercial rents may rise, forcing out small/independently-owned businesses.
• Additional density could be in the form of housing affordable to current residents, but not without careful planning.
• More people walking and biking is good, but existing pedestrian conditions are “hazardous”.  The city (St Paul) has some plans to address this.

I question comments like this: “The reduction in allowable densities east of Lexington Parkway along University Avenue, however, will help to reduce the pressure on existing small and minority-owned businesses in the east submarket.”  I understand the issue of redevelopment pushing out existing businesses (they might not be able to afford rent in new mixed-use buildings), but isn’t density good for any business (save auto dealers)?

The report also has five policy recommendations for creating a healthier environment moving forward.  Here’s my (very abbreviated) summary:

• A modified inclusionary zoning ordinance.
• Codify affordable housing goals in the Traditional Neighborhood zoning category.
• Give a density/height bonus or reduced parking requirements to developments with affordable housing component.
• Allow temporary parking lots on vacant lots during construction.  In theory, this would help businesses during LRT construction.
• A local hiring action program giving preference for construction jobs.

What this seems to leave out is any recommendation on how to incorporate small businesses into new development.  Is it impossible/very difficult to program space in new mixed use developments for small/independent businesses?  Do developers only want chains?  Are rents simply too high?  Has any city every adopted an affordable commercial space policy to set aside a certain portion of commercial space for smaller businesses?  Smarter folks than I surely must have thought about this.

As climate change alters the temperatures of reptile habitats around the globe, tests of one lizard species suggests warmer nests could make some reptiles smarter.

When researchers incubated the eggs of Bassiana duperreyi, a mountain-dwelling Australian skink, at warmer-than-usual temperatures, they grew up to perform especially well on a learning task.

…

As global temperatures continue to shift, Amiel thinks some reptile species living in warming climates may become innately smarter. In cooling climates, they could become less intelligent.

The mechanism by which intelligence shifts is unclear, but Amiel suspects warm temperatures alter the production of hormones that regulate reptilian brain development.

It’s finally here. The first overt economic deterrent aimed at US consumers for their emissions of greenhouse gases has arrived on our shores. Figuratively, at least.

This past week, most major US airlines levied a $3 ticket surcharge on all flights to and from European Union (EU) nations after a European court determined that the “EU Aviation Directive” can and should apply to them. This means that US-based airlines will need to acquire and submit carbon emission permits in line with their emissions, consistent with the EU emissions trading scheme.

Boulder has actually had a carbon tax since 2007, but the airline fee is the first with a national impact.

Of course make sure to do the Twitter and Facebook thing too.

Much has already been written about the 2011 bike counts: the great news that counts continue to climb, how we might use them to prioritize infrastructure improvements, and even what grains of salt we should consume along with the data.  But I haven’t seen anyone map them yet.

So here’s my contribution.  Circle size represents 2011 count totals.  These are also the true counts, not extrapolated to annual numbers (I don’t think those numbers have even been released yet).

Cross-posted at streets.mn

According to the European Cycling Federation, if the whole of the EU cycled like the Danes, they could achieve significant emissions cuts.

If the EU cycling rate was the same as it is in Denmark, where the average person cycles almost 600 miles (965km) each year, then the bloc would attain anything from 12% to 26% of its targeted transport emissions reduction, depending on what forms of transport the cycling replaced, according to the report by the Brussels-based European Cycling Federation (ECF).

This figure is likely to be a significant underestimate as it deliberately excludes the environmental impact of building road infrastructure and parking, or maintaining and disposing of cars.

These figures are for the EU’s 2050 emissions reduction target.  The figures are even greater for 2020 targets.

Bikes are not a new technology that would require long adoption periods and high initial capital costs.  Almost everyone knows how to use them, and they are cheap.  They also have myriad co-benefits, not least of which is increased physical activity.  To get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we should take a close look at the bike as a potential solution.

Using ECF’s study as a model and making some estimates, the Twin Cities metro could see some significant emissions reductions if we biked like the Danes, but getting there would be tough.  I’ll get to that, but first some initial thoughts on the Europeans.

• Europeans already cycle a lot more than Twin Citians in total miles.  According to the study, in 2000 they rode 188 km (117 miles) per person, per year.  Using data from the Metropolitan Council’s Travel Behavior Inventory, I estimate that TC residents (the TBI included 20 counties) ride close to 60 miles per person, per year.  That’s probably higher for 7 county residents, but still pretty lackluster compared to our Old World counterparts.  This could relate to a lot of things – the cost of travel, origin/destination density, infrastructure design or climate.  It’s likely a combination of all of these that make cycling more attractive in Europe.They also bike a lot more as a share.  Twin Cities residents drive close to 6,000 miles per person per year and 89% of our trips are made in a car.  Biking makes up 1.5% of our trips (again, 20 county).  The ECF study mentions a 2010 survey of EU-15 residents which says that 7% of citizens say a bike is their main mode of transport.
• The Danish are crazy (in love with the bicycle).  Imagine riding your bike ten times as many miles as you do now in a year (and probably cutting your car use by as much or more).
• The EU goal for cutting transport emissions is 10% below 2005 levels by 2020.  This significant as we start to compare Twin Cities numbers, since our State plans identify a 30% emissions reduction in transport emissions by 2025.  When you start comparing percentages of percentages, it’s useful to keep these different targets in mind.

So what about us?  Although you might not know it, the State of Minnesota adopted an emissions reduction target in 2007.  Assuming we could increase local cycling rates significantly, what might be the impact?  How close would that get us to the State’s emissions reduction target?

Because I’m familiar with the TBI, I focused on the Twin Cities metro and looked at the percentage of emissions we’re responsible for by population.  I think it’s also more likely (though I’m not sure) that we can be more successful increasing bicycle usage in the metro versus the state given densities and the state of infrastructure.  I used population data from Met Council and the State Demographer.

Assuming trip distances have stayed flat since 2000, we probably cycled about 150 million miles in 2005, which is close to 60 miles per person per year.  The emissions savings (versus an automobile) would have been about 70,000 metric tons, which becomes a baseline which we can subtract from future calculations of savings (in other words, how much was bicycling saving us in 2005).

If we were to double the percent of trips made by bicycle by 2025 (to 3%) in the 7-county metro, we would save 190,000 metric tons from 2005 levels, which is about 2.5% of the metro’s share of reduction identified by the state for the transportation sector, and a 0.5% of the total reduction needed from the metro area.  Tripling the cycling rate (to 4.5% of trips) would save 290,000 metric tons and get us to almost 4% of the transportation emissions reductions needed for the metro and 1% of the total reduction needed.  (Unlike the ECF study, I didn’t break out the miles that were replaced between walking, busing and the car; I assumed they were all car trips.  However, I also didn’t include any lifecycle impacts of automobiles, which the ECF study did.)

If we got all the way up to Danish level of cycling (600 miles per year, per person) we might save 900,000 metric tons, which is close to 20% of the transport sector emissions reductions needed for the metro and almost 4.5% of the total metro emissions reductions needed.  To reach 600 miles per person per year would require something north of 15% of all trips to be made by bicycle, which is possible without increasing the average trip distance for which people tend to use a bicycle.  The average trip by bike according to the 2000 TBI was 2.3 miles while 28% of all trips were 2 miles or less.

(My back of the spreadsheet calculation doesn’t include an estimate of induced demand, the idea that more people riding bikes will free up more road space for autos which will likely be filled lacking additional disincentives (like a carbon tax).  If biking truly did increase significantly, you could expect some auto lanes to be converted to bike lanes, but certainly not enough to counteract the newly freed road space (cars take up a lot more room than bikes).  I’m also assuming total VMT remains flat, because if it goes up at the same time the share of trips made by bike goes up, we might not see an overall emissions reduction.)

Twenty percent of the reduction needed from transport is a significant figure.  But is this really doable?  Can we possibly increase individual use of the bicycle 10 fold over current levels?

There are northern (snowy) cities that have significantly higher bike mode share.  The Montreal region has a 7% bike mode share for trips to work, which probably indicates that the percentage of all trips is above 7%.  However, the Montreal region has 3.5 million people living at 2,200 people per square mile while the Twin Cities (7-county) is under 1,000 people per square mile.  The Twin Cities land area is also almost double that of the Montreal CMA.  No doubt those densities make a difference in how accessible destinations are by bike.

Besides density, urban design is probably the other major barrier.  Outside of the core cities, accessing destinations outside of your residential subdivision almost universally requires traveling on high-speed arterials which rarely have accommodations for bikes, and certainly don’t have the design features that make riders feel safe.

Building a 7-county region that could accommodate/encourage a 15% trip mode share for bikes would be a massive undertaking.  Infrastructure can be changed rapidly (theoretically), but land use patterns can’t.  It would probably be better to target sub-regional areas with higher densities and well-connected street grids and promote infrastructure and land use changes that would move active transportation (walk, bike, bus) shares well beyond 15%.

Cross-posted at streets.mn

“It was literally just imagining Washington, and all of a sudden, you wake up tomorrow, and the transit system isn’t there, Antos says. “What would you do?”

People, it turns out, do something very interesting. They stop making long car trips because the traffic is so bad. In one hypothetical scenario, Antos took away the transit but kept the rest of the area’s road infrastructure the same. People were allowed to change their trip patterns – to chose different jobs or shopping centers – and most of them stopped crossing the region to get to those things.

“The congestion was forcing people to regress into a more local economy,” Antos says. “We looked at that and realized we were watching the economy splinter. All of a sudden, we weren’t watching a regional economy function where workers could find jobs in the whole region.”

People weren’t crossing county lines – or even rivers – to get anywhere.