New Law Promotes Health in Transportation Planning
Graphic Source: http://megacitysustainability.wordpress.com
On September 19, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown led California forward in creating transportation policy that supports health when he signed into law Assembly Bill 441. Authored by Assembly member Bill Monning (District 27), the new law instructs the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to create a summary of local transportation projects that promote health and equity in the state’s Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) Guidance. The bill, co-sponsored by the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN) and TransForm, was adapted from recommendations of the state Strategic Growth Council’s Health in All Policies Task Force.
“This new law will allow us to highlight what works in transportation planning to promote health and equity and implement those practices throughout the state,” stated Assembly member Monning. “By highlighting local best practices, we encourage innovation and ensure planning decisions incorporate health at the forefront rather than as an afterthought.” Assembly member Monning emphasized that incorporating health needs in the design of neighborhoods will help address some of the causes of chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.
In particular, the new law benefits California’s communities of color by addressing environmental factors that lead to health disparities. “Our health is largely determined by the physical, social, and economic environments in which we live, work, and learn,” said Ellen Wu, CPEHN's Executive Director. “Across the state, people of color are more likely to live in areas that negatively impact our health, such as neighborhoods with high traffic density, higher pedestrian accident rates, and poorer air quality. As a result, we see disproportionate rates of chronic health conditions among communities of color, including obesity and asthma. By highlighting local transportation projects that promote health and equity, we can create opportunities for all Californians to live healthier lives.”
Residents in regions across the state should see the benefits of emphasizing health through transportation. “Some of California’s regions have great programs that help kids safely walk and bike to schools, improve access to public transportation, or provide vanpools to allow agricultural workers to access jobs,” said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. “These programs can cut traffic congestion and save families money, all while promoting clean air and physical fitness. This law will help emphasize these successes and elevate them to a level where they can improve the lives of all Californians.”
AB 441 will become effective January 1, 2013. The sponsors of the bill are CPEHN, a multicultural advocacy organization working to improve the health of communities of color in California, and TransForm, a statewide transportation organization advocating for world-class public transportation and walkable communities. TransForm's report, Creating Healthy Regional Transportation Plans, includes several case studies of transportation projects that promote health and equity.
If you have any questions or comments, please email Sarah Mercer at smercer@cpehn.org
Assembly Bill 441: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_441&sess=CUR&house=B&author=monning
“This new law will allow us to highlight what works in transportation planning to promote health and equity and implement those practices throughout the state,” stated Assembly member Monning. “By highlighting local best practices, we encourage innovation and ensure planning decisions incorporate health at the forefront rather than as an afterthought.” Assembly member Monning emphasized that incorporating health needs in the design of neighborhoods will help address some of the causes of chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.
In particular, the new law benefits California’s communities of color by addressing environmental factors that lead to health disparities. “Our health is largely determined by the physical, social, and economic environments in which we live, work, and learn,” said Ellen Wu, CPEHN's Executive Director. “Across the state, people of color are more likely to live in areas that negatively impact our health, such as neighborhoods with high traffic density, higher pedestrian accident rates, and poorer air quality. As a result, we see disproportionate rates of chronic health conditions among communities of color, including obesity and asthma. By highlighting local transportation projects that promote health and equity, we can create opportunities for all Californians to live healthier lives.”
Residents in regions across the state should see the benefits of emphasizing health through transportation. “Some of California’s regions have great programs that help kids safely walk and bike to schools, improve access to public transportation, or provide vanpools to allow agricultural workers to access jobs,” said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. “These programs can cut traffic congestion and save families money, all while promoting clean air and physical fitness. This law will help emphasize these successes and elevate them to a level where they can improve the lives of all Californians.”
AB 441 will become effective January 1, 2013. The sponsors of the bill are CPEHN, a multicultural advocacy organization working to improve the health of communities of color in California, and TransForm, a statewide transportation organization advocating for world-class public transportation and walkable communities. TransForm's report, Creating Healthy Regional Transportation Plans, includes several case studies of transportation projects that promote health and equity.
If you have any questions or comments, please email Sarah Mercer at smercer@cpehn.org
Assembly Bill 441: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_441&sess=CUR&house=B&author=monning
| smart_growth_health_report_final.pdf |
| planning__public_health.pdf |
| sdoh_urban_planning.pdf |
| placemaking__community.pdf |
| localism__social_capital.pdf |
The Smart Cities Concept
Smart Cities Wheel developed by Boyd Cohen, PhD, LEED AP
"Most cities can agree that there is real value in having a smart economy, smart environmental practices, smart governance, smart living, smart mobility, and smart people. Within each of these goals, there are three key drivers to achieving the goal. There are over 100 indicators to help cities track their performance with specific actions developed for specific needs. How can a city use the Smart Cities Wheel (left) to develop and implement a smart cities strategy?
STEP 1: CREATE A VISION WITH CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
Vancouver’s Mayor Robertson, and many before him, have sought to take leadership in the green cities arena. Mayor Robertson and his Greenest City Action Team engaged 30,000+ citizens in a process designed to establish a 2020 goal for the city. The city used “social media and digital technologies to spark citizen-led public-engagement activities like kitchen table discussions at private homes, online discussion forums and workshops at community centers,” according to Straight.com.
The result is the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan, which has set a clear goal for the city to become the greenest in the world by 2020. Vancouver aspires to lead the world in at least one of the six goals of the Smart City Wheel (Smart Enviro). Smart cities would also make use of the latest technology to acquire citizen input, like CivicPlus, which offers a range of software and mobile tools for cities to communicate and engage citizens in a dialog about city projects (Castle Rock, Colorado used CivicPlus to get input on the plans for a new city park).
STEP 2: DEVELOP BASELINES, SET TARGETS, AND CHOOSE INDICATORS
Before creating numerical targets for achieving a smart city vision, it is helpful to actually benchmark where you are. Let’s take Smart Mobility as an example. The Smart Cities Wheel has three key drivers for Smart Mobility: mixed-modal access; prioritized clean and non-motorized options; and integrated information and communication technology (ICT). Each city has its own mobility needs and challenges based on density, topography, existing infrastructure, etc., and while they can learn from each other, cities must develop their own benchmarks and targets around areas of need and opportunity.
It is impossible to overlook Copenhagen’s efforts to promote and prioritize cycling. In 1981 the city developed its first cycling plan and it has been evolving its cycling and mixed-modal goals since 2002. Before establishing a forward-looking target, cities must establish the baseline. Copenhagen has been measuring cycling and mixed modal use for decades. Now the city has a target indicator: to achieve 50% of all trips to work or school by bike by 2015. The city has been making significant progress towards this goal, having already achieved 37% in 2009. Copenhagen also recently collaborated with MIT to create The Copenhagen Wheel, a hybrid bike wheel that leverages sensors in a bike wheel to monitor pollution, traffic congestion, and road conditions in real time. This is an example of an action within the other smart mobility driver--integrated ICT.
STEP 3: GO LEAN
Once a city has established quantifiable goals and selected the indicators to measure its progress, it needs to snag some early wins while also building plans for longer-term actions. The journey to becoming a smart city will stall without a major commitment to supporting efficient, multi-modal transit. Electric vehicles and the appropriate infrastructure appear in many smart-city strategies. However, few places have the resources or demand to install EV charging stations throughout the city. It makes sense for a city to start with a pilot project as a way to get feedback on their hypothesis that by putting charging stations in a particular location, the stations will be used and will actually grow the amount of EV vehicle purchases by citizens living or working in the area.
Toronto just announced a pilot charging station program at a cost of $65,000 to the city. Councillor Mike Layton recognizes the benefits of this small-scale action: “We all know that this is the direction that singular vehicle transport is going in," said Layton in the National Post. "Why we wouldn't at least try out something at very limited cost to the city, to get ready for the revolution that is going to happen, is beyond me.”
Smart cities are not one size fits all. Yet, the smart-cities movement could benefit from frameworks like the Smart Cities Wheel that allow a common language to develop among citizens, city staff, mayors, and the private sector."
For more information on Smart Cities by Boyd Cohen, PhD, LEED AP please visit http://smartcitieshub.com
STEP 1: CREATE A VISION WITH CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
Vancouver’s Mayor Robertson, and many before him, have sought to take leadership in the green cities arena. Mayor Robertson and his Greenest City Action Team engaged 30,000+ citizens in a process designed to establish a 2020 goal for the city. The city used “social media and digital technologies to spark citizen-led public-engagement activities like kitchen table discussions at private homes, online discussion forums and workshops at community centers,” according to Straight.com.
The result is the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan, which has set a clear goal for the city to become the greenest in the world by 2020. Vancouver aspires to lead the world in at least one of the six goals of the Smart City Wheel (Smart Enviro). Smart cities would also make use of the latest technology to acquire citizen input, like CivicPlus, which offers a range of software and mobile tools for cities to communicate and engage citizens in a dialog about city projects (Castle Rock, Colorado used CivicPlus to get input on the plans for a new city park).
STEP 2: DEVELOP BASELINES, SET TARGETS, AND CHOOSE INDICATORS
Before creating numerical targets for achieving a smart city vision, it is helpful to actually benchmark where you are. Let’s take Smart Mobility as an example. The Smart Cities Wheel has three key drivers for Smart Mobility: mixed-modal access; prioritized clean and non-motorized options; and integrated information and communication technology (ICT). Each city has its own mobility needs and challenges based on density, topography, existing infrastructure, etc., and while they can learn from each other, cities must develop their own benchmarks and targets around areas of need and opportunity.
It is impossible to overlook Copenhagen’s efforts to promote and prioritize cycling. In 1981 the city developed its first cycling plan and it has been evolving its cycling and mixed-modal goals since 2002. Before establishing a forward-looking target, cities must establish the baseline. Copenhagen has been measuring cycling and mixed modal use for decades. Now the city has a target indicator: to achieve 50% of all trips to work or school by bike by 2015. The city has been making significant progress towards this goal, having already achieved 37% in 2009. Copenhagen also recently collaborated with MIT to create The Copenhagen Wheel, a hybrid bike wheel that leverages sensors in a bike wheel to monitor pollution, traffic congestion, and road conditions in real time. This is an example of an action within the other smart mobility driver--integrated ICT.
STEP 3: GO LEAN
Once a city has established quantifiable goals and selected the indicators to measure its progress, it needs to snag some early wins while also building plans for longer-term actions. The journey to becoming a smart city will stall without a major commitment to supporting efficient, multi-modal transit. Electric vehicles and the appropriate infrastructure appear in many smart-city strategies. However, few places have the resources or demand to install EV charging stations throughout the city. It makes sense for a city to start with a pilot project as a way to get feedback on their hypothesis that by putting charging stations in a particular location, the stations will be used and will actually grow the amount of EV vehicle purchases by citizens living or working in the area.
Toronto just announced a pilot charging station program at a cost of $65,000 to the city. Councillor Mike Layton recognizes the benefits of this small-scale action: “We all know that this is the direction that singular vehicle transport is going in," said Layton in the National Post. "Why we wouldn't at least try out something at very limited cost to the city, to get ready for the revolution that is going to happen, is beyond me.”
Smart cities are not one size fits all. Yet, the smart-cities movement could benefit from frameworks like the Smart Cities Wheel that allow a common language to develop among citizens, city staff, mayors, and the private sector."
For more information on Smart Cities by Boyd Cohen, PhD, LEED AP please visit http://smartcitieshub.com
"Livability” vs. Livability: The Pitfalls of Willy Wonka Urbanism
"Making a city “livable” these days largely means appealing to a select group of folks so as to form “an attractive economic place”. This notion of “livability” really came on in the late 1980’s, and was done under the presumption that certain cities offered higher quality of life, read: better lifestyles. For instance, in 1989 geographer David Harvey wrote that cities need to “keep ahead of the game [by] engendering leap-frogging innovations in life-styles, cultural forms, products, and service mixes…if they are to survive.” This was a radical departure from previous societal efforts to make quality of life a priority (think: pollution remediation) in that “life” was swapped out for “lifestyle”.
You could argue, then, that the original sin of “livability”-driven economic development begins right there. Namely, the emphasis will not be on the people of a city, but on potential consumers, particularly high-valued consumers with means, subsequently referred to as the “creative class”. As for creative class wants? They are, according to Richard Florida, “[an] indigenous street-level culture – a teeming blend of cafes, sidewalk musicians, and small galleries and bistros…” In this sense, the idea of “livability” gets precariously slimmed out.
Nonetheless, this thinking has penetrated mainstream economic development, with cities attempting to one-up each other in their want to attract a slice of the “livability” electorate. The consequences have become predictable: more comfort for some, less comfort for most."
Full Article: http://richeypiiparinen.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/livability-vs-livability-the-pitfalls-of-willy-wonka-urbanism/
Image Source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/willy-wonka-and-the-chocolate-factory/images/642004/title/willy-wonka-fanart
You could argue, then, that the original sin of “livability”-driven economic development begins right there. Namely, the emphasis will not be on the people of a city, but on potential consumers, particularly high-valued consumers with means, subsequently referred to as the “creative class”. As for creative class wants? They are, according to Richard Florida, “[an] indigenous street-level culture – a teeming blend of cafes, sidewalk musicians, and small galleries and bistros…” In this sense, the idea of “livability” gets precariously slimmed out.
Nonetheless, this thinking has penetrated mainstream economic development, with cities attempting to one-up each other in their want to attract a slice of the “livability” electorate. The consequences have become predictable: more comfort for some, less comfort for most."
Full Article: http://richeypiiparinen.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/livability-vs-livability-the-pitfalls-of-willy-wonka-urbanism/
Image Source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/willy-wonka-and-the-chocolate-factory/images/642004/title/willy-wonka-fanart