
Available as a poster from Copenhagenize.com.

Available as a poster from Copenhagenize.com.

Carbon footprints in metropolitan Philadelphia
The basis for comparison is not entirely clear from the picture: it says “population + employment”, so if we use less carbon on the job than at home, the city center gets a bonus. But something similar has been found in other cases: for central vs. suburban Toronto, see Norman, Jonathan, Heather L. MacLean, and Christopher A. Kennedy. 2006. Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Urban Planning & Development 132 (1):10-21; for Dortmund, see Wegener, Michael. 1996. Reduction of CO2 emissions of transport by reorganization of urban activities. In Transport, Land-Use and the Environment, edited by Y. Hayashi and J. Roy. Dordrecht: Kluwer. There’s some discussion of this in my paper on road traffic externalities and the competitiveness of walkable retail.
For more discussion of the study behind the map, see Brendon Slotterback at streets MN.

Now cars only, soon no cars

In Atlantic Cities, Chris McCahill and Norman Garrick report a negative relationship between population and job growth (living, working), and driving within the city. This they attribute to a simple mechanism: cars (and, in particular, parking spaces) displace people. Note in particular the that the cities with declining median income, and people (jobs & residents), saw big increases in parking space & driving. The sample is small, but the story is plausible. Maybe Detroit really does need more parking!

It’s really depressing to be a pedestrian in an American city.
I am reminded by Streetsblog’s contest to find the Worst Intersection in America. Now they’ve announced the winner. Well done, Omaha!
Here’s my recent working paper Small, local and cheap? Walkable and car-oriented retail in competition. Parts are a bit technical but most of it is policy and, I’d like to think, compulsively readable.
Take a seat, and watch.