1/ Regardless of background, the closer people live to green space, the more likely they are to experience good physical/mental health, improving lives & reducing NHS costs.

THREAD on how we can address the 'green gap' & the climate crisis by radically reimagining our streets!
2/ Unfortunately, 'minority ethnic and low-income families are significantly less likely to have access to green space.' (More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229; England's Green Space Gap - @friends_earth)
3/ So, in addition to the environmental necessity of investing in green infrastructure, there is also a strong social & public health case for expanding access to green space. In London, the scope for this appears limited, but that's because we're looking in the wrong places.
4/ Even if there were vast tracts of brownfield land ripe for conversion to parks - which there are not - that may not meaningfully reduce the distance many people are living from green spaces. We need to bring parks to the people, not people to the parks.
5/ Fortunately, in London there is a huge, untapped land resource, currently monopolised by one group of residents to the exclusion of others, which is waiting to be reimagined. Yes, you guessed it - our roads.

In fact, there's almost 15,000km of them in the capital.
6/ At the moment, those 15,000km of roads are used for the movement/storage of motor vehicles, which contributes to increasing inactivity, social alienation, emissions, and air pollution. What if we could address the the green space deficit and motor vehicle dominance together?
7/ Well, we can. As I demonstrated through the design and funding of Hackney's first 21st Century Street, in Dalston - one of the most green space deficient areas of Inner London - it's possible to do both...
8/ By exchanging space that has primarily been used by drivers in recent decades, with a non-exclusionary neighbourhood park, featuring play infrastructure immediately in front of a school, Hackney will achieve the following...
9/ Although designs would need to vary between 'street end' neighbourhood parks and build-outs into one lane of the public carriageway, a 21st Century Street on every residential road in Hackney would hand everyone a neighbourhood park and eliminate circa 20,000 parking spaces.
10/ If we extended this scheme to the whole of London, we could remove 1.5m of the capital's 6.8m parking spaces, reducing land transport emissions by constraining car growth, while enabling safe (socially-inclusive) play, walking, & cycling through beautification of our streets.
11/ The capital cost of such a scheme would be circa £6 billion - or three Silvertown Tunnels. Given the high labour-intensity of highways and landscaping, much of that investment would accrue to SMEs and workers, not shareholders or Big Construction.
12/ With an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.6 for capital spending - based on World Bank data - and the high accrual rate to labour, 21st Century Streets for London would generate £8.4 billion of economic activity, putting money into the tills of London's shops...
13/ ...aiding a sustainable, post-Covid recovery, while also reducing emissions in line with the Govt's legally-binding decarbonisation targets. And, fortunately, we don't have to speculate about the benefits of such schemes. The concept is already proven.
14/ ...and, indeed, is being rapidly adopted by visionary city leaders all over the globe... dezeen.com/2019/06/26/par…
15/ London has lagged behind other world cities on liveability for decades. Now that people will increasingly no longer need to live in the capital in order to work here, municipal leaders need to give them a reason to stay, as I note here... ft.com/content/d7c6cd…
16/ In addition to the social, public health, & decarbonisation benefits of radically reimagining London's public realm, appropriate specimen selection and hardstanding removal would deliver huge biodiversity and cooling benefits in a rapidly warming city.
17/ 21st Century Streets is the kind of Green New Deal project that the Chancellor should be funding. We can address unequal access to green space and ballooning transport emissions by reallocating the billions set aside for new roads to the transformation of our existing ones.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jon Burke

Jon Burke Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jonburkeUK

12 Nov 20
1/ In 2017, the London Assembly Transport Committee, Chaired by @CarolinePidgeon, undertook a scrutiny into congestion in London. In the fine tradition of pun-based City Hall committee investigations, they called it "London Stalling - Reducing traffic congestion in London"... Image
This scrutiny mainly uses data from the first five years of past decade, but concludes that long before the new LTNs...

🚘 Congestion in London was getting worse.
🛻 Vehicle speeds on main roads were down and journey time reliability worse.
🚐 Delays were up, including buses. Image
3/ Crucially, London Stalling concludes:

"Fundamentally, London’s road network is increasingly hosting more traffic than it has the capacity to cope with."

That was 2017.

In 2019, there were 1.3 billion more miles driven on London's roads than in 2017. Image
Read 11 tweets
4 Nov 20
@RupaHuq 1/ Hi Rupa, with the greatest respect, I won't be taking lessons in comradely behaviour from somebody who has actively undermined a Labour Council attempting to address the huge environmental, social, and health costs of Ealing's 130,000,000 mile increase in driving since 2012.
@RupaHuq 2/ As regards my earlier tweet, I made no direct reference to you, nor did I tag or tweet at you. It was fine for Madelaine Albright to use the term “special place in hell", so I'm not sure why it should be off-limits for any other politician.
@RupaHuq 3/ Frankly, I think your attempt to sabotage Low Traffic Neighbourhoods is shamefully populist. But, it's easy for you do because you won't be at the Full Council when parents turn up to asking who is going to prevent their kids from being crushed by a 4x4 on the way to school.
Read 4 tweets
27 Oct 20
1/ You'll have recently come across claims that '#LowTrafficNeighbourhoods cause congestion', so I thought it might be useful to show that the real cause of traffic jams on London's roads is the vast increase in the number of car journeys in recent years, in almost every borough.
2/ So, let's get started

Between 2008 and 2019, the number of miles driven on Barking and Dagenham's roads increased by 150,000,000.

One hundred and fifty million miles.
3/ Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on Barnet's roads increased by 280,000,000.

Two hundred and eighty million miles.
Read 37 tweets
25 Oct 20
Stop letting drivers tell you people like you don't cycle. Image
Stop letting drivers tell you people like you don't cycle. Image
Stop letting drivers tell you people like you don't cycle. Image
Read 5 tweets
26 Jun 20
1/ Labour should drop it; it's a goal that can't be delivered. Labour should match Hackney's target of <45% decarbonisation against 2010 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040. This matches the higher confidence threshold of the IPCC's 1.5C report.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
2/ I don't wish to diminish the achievements of the Labour GND people who managed to defeat the dinosaurs at Labour Conference, but the motion is a flawed exercise in tech utopianism that naively scopes-out aviation and land transport emissions, meaning it fails on its own terms.
3/ The 2030 target essentially came out of XR, which at the time was run by people like Roger Hallam (who I met at Hackney Town Hall) who are extremely anti-politics, and it's my suspicion that this target was more about showing that politics couldn't deliver than that it could.
Read 6 tweets
23 Jun 20
1/

⚠️ World population has doubled since 1970 and may hit 10 billion by 2050 (from 7.5 billion today)
⚠️ OECD predict meat and resource consumption to double by 2050
⚠️ ICAO predict flights will increase by 300-700%.

This is where we are already. bbc.co.uk/news/science-e…
2/ Carbon pricing is not the only tool in the box - massive energy system decarbonisation is up there, too - but a universal price on carbon (with appropriate exemptions to prevent hardship) would have the greatest short-term impact on CO2 emissions and resource depletion.
3/ If you're opposed to carbon pricing, you're not really serious about rapid decarbonisation within the time scales we have, and you're not serious about embedding responsibility for our consumer choices within the prices we pay.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!