So does reopening the #GreatWalkway to π have a climate impact? We can calculate that using the @NCST_Research induced travel calculator travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu. π§΅
Adding 2 mi x 4 lanes = 8 lane-mi of class 3 roadway in SF (if fully reopened) would mean 21 million more vehicle miles traveled each year.
Estimating 0.4 kg CO2/mi (lifecycle) from @TheICCT theicct.org/news/global-LC⦠yields 8000 tons CO2. /2
Estimating 0.4 kg CO2/mi (lifecycle) from @TheICCT theicct.org/news/global-LC⦠yields 8000 tons CO2. /2
That would counter the @SFEnvironment climate plan of reducing SF's transportation emissions from 2.5 to 1.2 million tons, primarily by getting people out of cars. sfenvironment.org/sites/default/β¦
In fact we need MANY MORE #StreetsForPeople like #GreatWalkway to get this done. /3
In fact we need MANY MORE #StreetsForPeople like #GreatWalkway to get this done. /3
Now, every time we talk about taking away or adding space for cars, we hear the same spurious objections. *This* road is a special snowflake and actually alleviates congestion. But the literature on this is quite robust.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117β¦
cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-bus⦠/fin
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117β¦
cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-bus⦠/fin
Seeing some questions in the thread. A more recent, general explainer from @CityObs: cityobservatory.org/the-fundamentaβ¦
@CityObs You can also download the policy brief from @volkerj2 at ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-produ⦠without fee.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
