The limits to clean air

[Rick Shea]

Page 11 of the City of Kelowna 2003 State of the Environment report contains this statement:

"Burning practices and increasing population are of greatest concern for maintaining good air quality throughout the region."

And...

"Population within the City of Kelowna has surged from approximately 20,000 in 1970 to 103,425 in 2004. An increased number of registered vehicles have accompanied population growth. Registered vehicles in Kelowna rose from 79,482 in 1998 to 82,309 in 2001 (ICBC, 2001). The rising number of registered vehicles contributes to deterioration of air quality in the Okanagan Valley."

Changes in burning practices have created some local improvements (because we now send the pollution off to the rest of the world), but even the city acknowledges that increasing population threatens our air quality.

I can see the future now where, similar to the criticisms some now level at those who use more water than others, people will stand on the side of the road and heckle joggers for using too much air, or harass seniors who use their cars for those extra trips to drive out to the golf course.

[prodevlp]

If you lived in a more urban area, you could walk to most amenities.

[John Zeger]

But most studies show that after increasing densities only about 10% of residents choose alternate modes of transportation to cars. You are living in a dream world if you think otherwise. Look at the mess that the planners made of Porland, Oregon thinking that densification would be the "smart" solution. Go to our links page at www.saveparadise.com and read "Portland: Smart Growth's Bad Example."

[cathy]

Whether or not they chose alternate modes of transportation, people would have less far to drive in a higher density area. Rather than driving into town to carry out simple tasks, they would have the option of walking, or driving the short distance to where they need to go.

[prodevlp]

Or what would make it better is an "actual" transit system. Not like the one we have now. That is another reason many people don't choose an alternative to driving, it's because there aren't many.

[John Zeger]

Hey Cathy, more cars in a smaller, denser area means more traffic congestion, doesn't it? Also cars travelling at slower speeds translate into more air pollution as research has indicated. Have you had a look at the research or are you shooting from the lip, as always?

[cathy]

Hey John, "'Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation,' by the Smart Growth Network says when communities are created that double household density, vehicle travel is reduced by 20 to 30 percent, as people use convenient and cheaper alternatives to the car."
realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20020509_highdensity.htm
As a young person just learning to drive, I can tell you that the cost of driving a car is barely managable, and, with the cost of living fees and tuition on top of that of gas, parking, insurance, etc., university and high school students are very likely be relying heavily on public transport. Unless something changes dramatically, would the high cost not disuade many people from regular private vehicle use in the future? With the large numbers of students currently using public transit, will this not encourage continued use as they get older? As long as it is conveniant, available, and considerably cheaper than owning a car, I think future generations are much more likely to use public transit.
Also related to cost is the idea that "cars travelling at slower speeds translate into more air pollution." If going a short distance becomes a huge cost factor, wouldn't people be more likely to walk or get the bus, especially if they were in the habit of doing so from being unable to own a car?

[Rick Shea]

Thanks for providing the link, Cathy, because following it up shows me how out of date the "information" used by the dumb growth people really is.

Here's something a bit more current regarding San Francisco -- an example touted by the author of that "information"

"The significant increase in parking and traffic problems in San Francisco continues to degrade the quality of life of the resident and visitor. It is difficult to get around town during the extended rush hour, or to find parking in many of our mixed residential and commercial areas."

From www.sfgov.org/site/courts_page.asp?id=3725

[cathy]

So... the article titled "The High-Density Solution For Tight Markets" published May 9, 2002 is more out of date than the Report of the 2000-2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury? Or do they just contradict each other, so the latter had to be right?
I will not vouch on the information being correct, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily out of date.

[John Zeger]

Cathy, I appreciate comments backed up by research. The original work you cited is 104 pages and a quick skim didn't come up with the quote about a 20-30% reduction in vehicle use by doubling density. What page can I find it on? I am very suspect of this figure as it makes no sense at all. Think about it. If you double the density in an area (twice as many people) you say that there will be a net reduction in auto usage. That would have to mean that 20-30% of people who were previously using cars decided to stop using cars and none of the new residents to the area are using cars but rather are all busing or walking. To me that seems totally incomprehensible.

But there are other interesting items in that article. It recommends to "Provide examples of mixed-use development at scales that are appropriate to your community." If this was Toronto or Vancouver, I might me forced to admit that highrises were appropriate, but it's not, its Kelowna where we have a beautiful landscape that would be obstructed by highrises. One of the planning principles mentioned in the article is "Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place." Again, erecting highrises would be a violation of our sense of place because they are not compatible with our aesthetic environment. To learn more about "sense of place" go to our Links page and click on the article on Sense of Place.

Your article also frequently cites Boulder, Colorado as an example of good planning. Boulder has implemented a 35' height restriction on all buildings because of their promoximity to the Rocky Mountains. Don't you think we could learn something from the planning in Boulder?

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

So... the article titled "The High-Density Solution For Tight Markets" published May 9, 2002 is more out of date than the Report of the 2000-2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury? Or do they just contradict each other, so the latter had to be right?
I will not vouch on the information being correct, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily out of date.

You see, if you bother to look up the study cited as showing a "20 to 30 percent" reduction in vehicle travel, what you come up with is a June 1994 document, author John Holtzclaw.

Here is what that study really says:

"a community with double the density will have 25-30% less driving per family."

So, here's a little bit of analysis.

Suppose we start with 100 families in a given area in the downtown, who drive a total of 100 trips per day (the numbers really don't matter for this argument, just the proportions). So, now we double the number of families to 200. What is the effect on the number of car trips?

It doesn't increase to 200, but it does increase to 140 or 150 (70 or 75 percent of 200). So, increasing the number of families (what Hotlzclaw points to as densification) increases the number of car trips. Anyone who argues that the number will actually decrease with densification is either lying, or doesn't understand simple mathematics.

Thus, there will be a significant impact on air quality. Even the city of Kelowna acknowledges that, and has pointed out that the fundamental problem is sheer population growth.

Cathy, if you have a different analysis, I welcome it. But pointing to an 11 year old study and saying that it shows that car trips will be reduced by densification is, as I said earlier, disingenuous.

[Rick Shea]

prodevlp said:

Or what would make it better is an "actual" transit system. Not like the one we have now. That is another reason many people don't choose an alternative to driving, it's because there aren't many.

Interestingly, in cities cited as examples of "smart growth" where there are actual transit systems (the example I mentioned earlier of San Francisco as a case in point), it is clear that the problems have not gone away and in fact have only gotten worse.

And, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are many alternatives to driving. In one week, I walked, bicycled, and rode my motorcycle to work, even though it's a distance that many would only drive a car. When was the last time you walked and bicycled 15.6 km more than twice in a 5 day period? Honestly.

It seems that people generally only consider that sort of thing if they are in training for some athletic event, but it's something that most of us can easily do, simply by choosing to do so.

You might consider what that means about our culture and our values -- yes, really think about that.

[John Zeger]

I just had did a quick check on the John Holtzclaw data myself and a cautious conclusion that may be drawn is that increasing densities results in a somewhat reduced PER CAPITA rate of auto use. The actual per capita reduction is a function of the prevailing density of the city i.e, communities with already high densities will experience a higher per capita reduction of auto usage with further increases in density.

Two points should be made about this. First, as increasing densities only result in a per capita reduction in the rate of vehicle usage, there is still an absolute increase in the number of vehicles on the road with increases in population resulting in more (not less) traffic congestion and air pollution. Second, in order to achieve a meaningful reduction in per capita vehicle use you aleady have to be at a pretty high density such as that of Toronto or Vancouver to yield a significant further reduction. To get to those densities just in order to go to a higher per capita reduction in vehicle use would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face as people are leaving high density cities like Toronto and Vancouver because they find them too crowded and unlivable.

Thus the only way to stop worsening traffic congestion and air pollution is to stop population growth because as long as the population is growing so will the total number of vehicle trips.

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

The link I posted was to
tp://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20020509_highdensity.htm
If you scroll down to "Transportation Cost-Related Benefits", you will find the quote.
'Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation,' is an internal link from that site, and not what I intended as a link to my information. It is, of course, also interesting to look at, and since it has many sites in the bibliography dated 2000/2001, I'm wondering how it is an 11 year old study. Either way, this is not what I was pointing to.

Now, Cathy, let me make this easy for you.

1. Go to that document you mention at

www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf

2. Go to page 10 of that pdf document, where the 20 to 30 percent reduction is mentioned and note the little "5" there.

3. Follow down to the bibilography for that section, where the "5" refers to Holtzclaw's work and clearly states "1994."

That's how you follow up on these things.

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

What I'm interesting in receiving a response to is the idea that, as the population ages, the young generations who are accustomed to public transit are much less likely to be using cars, as the cost of owning a vehicle continues to increase.

Actually, that's irrelevant, as the city planning documents, statistics Canada, various publications at the college and university, and even "common sense" (for what it's worth) tells us that we have an aging population in Kelowna and Canada, and that it will only continue to age more. And those same young people you mention won't be able to afford to live in Kelowna anyway -- not that they'd want to as I hope they are aware of the health impacts of our increasingly poor air quality.