Rewarding Innovation: A Sample of Great Ideas from Around the Globe

One of the most interesting and inspiring aspects of urban planning is the act of discovering innovative solutions that cities around the world are implementing to solve commonly held urban problems. The innovations might involve cutting-edge technology, or they might be a re-commitment to an age-old principle. Solutions might be driven by community volunteers, business entrepreneurs, mayors and even heads of State.

In advance of this year’s Financial Times and Citibank Ingenuity Awards, I had the opportunity to revisit some of the creative, exciting, and inspiring examples of recent innovation that could be replicated in cities around the world to provide a more sustainable, livable future for us all. I’d like to share some of them with you here. I encourage you to nominate projects you feel are deserving of recognition and support for the 2013 FT/Citi Ingenuity Awards (the deadline for 2013 nominations is April 30th).

Transportation Alternatives: People around the world have a shared understanding of the effects that conventional fossil-fueled vehicles are having on our environment and well-being. Providing effective alternatives, however, is a great challenge that is absolutely necessary in order to expect a shift in transportation habits. Here are a few projects that are tipping the scales towards sustainable, people-powered modes of transportation.

Towards Equal Infrastructure for Bikes: In April 2012, the first leg of a 26-route bicycle superhighway opened in Copenhagen, Denmark. Wanting to promote bicycling along these routes as a serious alternative to taking the train, bus or car, Copenhagen worked with 21 other municipalities to create "contiguous, standardized bike routes into the capital across distances of up to 14 miles." The bike highways are designed with clever features such as traffic lights that are timed to suit the travel patterns of cyclists during rush hour, garbage cans tilted at the right angle for bikers and solar-powered lights to enhance the cycling experience and reduce environmental impact. In response to the new infrastructure, innovative local initiatives such as a “bicycle school bus” for children commuting to class together have been developed.

Cardboard Bike for All: In Israel, Izar Gafni has produced the prototype for a bicycle whose frame and wheels are made entirely from cardboard and reused rubber. This bicycle is durable, lightweight, made from recycled materials, and importantly, is very inexpensive to produce. A bicycle that can be sold for $20 or less could go a long way towards equipping communities all over the world with the benefits of human-petaled transport. His next projects include a children's bike and wheelchair made from cardboard.

Sanitation: The concentration of people in urban areas necessitates effective and hygienic waste management. In many cities, however, people don’t have access to some of the most basic human needs: clean water, electricity and toilets. 

Build a Better Toilet: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, dedicated to achieving universal access to sustainable sanitation services, recently put out a call for the best and brightest minds to design a low-cost toilet that doesn't require piped water, a connected sewer, or electricity and that transforms waste into usable materials. The California Institute of Technology won first prize in August 2012 for a solar-powered toilet that generates hydrogen and electricity. The April 2013 TED talk by Rose George underscores why finding solutions to the lack of basic sanitation is so vital and urgent.

Smaller Flush, Better Public Access: For cities whose residents already have access to indoor plumbing, a priority should be on systematic, large-scale water conservation: for an example of progress, see the pilot program in Queens, New York that has retrofit all toilets at two public schools. The program has cut water consumption by 70% and will save 700 million gallons of water per year. Access to public toilets, already commonplace in cities like Melbourne, Australia, are another important step towards urban livability—the Australian Government even has a website dedicated to finding and using public toilets! 

Solar Alternatives: Powering lights, homes and cars, renewable energy is being harnessed in innovative ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Some cities are leading the way, particularly in the area of solar energy. 

City Powered by the Sun: R. Rex Parris, the Republican Mayor of Lancaster, California announced two years ago that his city would become the “solar capital of the universe” by producing more electricity from the sun’s rays than it consumes. Lancaster is well on its way, in part by requiring new homes to either be “equipped with solar panels or be in subdivisions that produce one kilowatt of solar energy per house.” It is estimated that the city tripled the number of residential installations in the past 18 months. This progress in the residential sector combined with outfitting government and school buildings with solar panels has resulted in 39 megawatts already being generated and the 50 megawatts currently under construction (out of a necessary 126 megawatts).  

Clean Energy Economy: South Korea is also leading the pack in terms of its cities promoting and implementing renewable energy, including photovoltaic. Intending to be among the top 5 clean energy economies, the Republic of Korea is investing 40 trillion Won to develop sources of clean and renewable energy before 2015. My city of Daegu is home to an innovative concentrating solar heat tower, the first of its kind in Korea. This is how it works: 200 angled reflecting mirrors concentrate sunlight towards the top of the 60-meter tall tower. The tower’s receiver then reaches temperatures of 700-1000 degrees Celsius, which generates 200 megawatts of electricity. 

Data and Technology: In today's information age, we often have access to massive amounts of data without the means to adequately analyze what we have gathered. The following initiatives help to make good use of the information we have in order to promote the best possible actions and outcomes in our communities.

Using Technology for Management: City officials and residents need the ability to analyze data about their environment into actionable information--in real time. As Eduard Paes, Mayor of Rio de Janiero stated as one of his 4 commandments of cities, “A city of the future has to use technology to be present.” That’s why he created a command center for Rio that integrated the data and operations management of all major city functions into a single control room.

Harnessing Data for Social Benefit: Community or participatory mapping has emerged as a terrific way to put maps and data into the hands of individuals working to identify assets or challenges faced in their neighborhood. Excellent example of community mapping include the Center for Community Mapping and the youth mapping program IMSOCIO, both founded by Dr. Wansoo Im, President of VERTICES.  Some of their projects include a Safe Routes to School mapping event where high school students assessed and mapped the safety and pollution levels of sidewalks and crosswalks in Somerset, NJ, and an interactive gas station map where IMSOCIO students mapped the availability of gas at local gas stations immediately following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy.

Culling the Data: In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has created a small "geek squad" to find precious needles in the haystacks of big data at the new Office of Policy and Strategic Planning. By strategically analyzing data to answer a question such as "which restaurants are illegally dumping cooking oil into the City's sewers," members of the Office were able to achieve a 95% accuracy rate on a list of likely culprits. Used in this way, data can help cities be more efficient and effective.

The list of innovative and timely solutions to our city's challenges grows longer by the day. I'm grateful that awards programs such as the FT/Citi Ingenuity Awards give us an opportunity to think about all of the positive work being done around us, and urge us to keep sharing, thinking, working and implementing together.

Putting the “Rapid” into Bus Transit: Evaluating BRT in cities around the world

It has been a long-acknowledged fact that cities need to improve their public transit systems, both to improve the mobility of their residents and to move away from the greenhouse gas-emitting automobile centric planning of the 20th century. With many cities struggling to see how expensive and intensive transit projects such as subways and light rail can be implemented without the necessary funds in government coffers, existing modes of transit such as the bus have to be significantly improved upon in order to allow for rapid implementation and flexibility without the price tag.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an example of a re-designed transportation method that has achieved a lot of positive press lately. However positive some BRT developments have been, others have not realized some of the basic principles of an effective BRT and have left riders disillusioned with the concept. As Bill Gates recently urged in his 2013 Annual Letter, measuring and assessing our work to improve cities is crucial to invention. A number of cities and organizations have done just that, and their recently released assessments of bus rapid transit systems point to areas of excellence and places where there is room to improve.

Bus Rapid Transit corridor in Guangzhou, China. Credit: ITDP

Bus Rapid Transit, according to the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), is defined as “an integrated bus-based “rapid” transit system typically utilizing highly-flexible service and advanced technologies to improve customer convenience and reduce delays.” It aims to be a less expensive and more flexible alternative to “LRT” or Light Rail Transit.

Several characteristics of BRT systems set them apart from traditional bus transit. First, BRT systems often have dedicated lanes and the ability to skip to the front of the line when waiting at red lights. Their main arteries function as “trunk” lines, with a number of bus routes traveling along popular routes and sometimes meeting up with “feeder” buses that travel local routes.  Its stations typically mimic subway stations in their collection of fares before entering the station, automatic doors that open when the bus has arrived and station floors that are flush with bus floors, making for easy boarding and disembarking. Intelligent transportation systems help BRT buses provide accurate scheduling information and prevent “bunching.” Finally, BRT systems are usually branded separately from local bus routes to alert the public to their faster express routes.

The first BRT system was built in Curitiba, Brazil in 1974, and became the inspiration for BRT systems in other cities around the world. Unfortunately, a number of bus systems based themselves only lightly on Curitiba’s BRT system while still utilizing the BRT name. Poor outcomes frustrated riders and tarnished the reputation of BRT systems to deliver rapid transportation at lower costs than light rail. Consequently, the establishment of new BRT systems slowed in the 80s and 90s. In 2001, Colombia’s TransMilenio BRT system opened in Bogota, and its high performance characteristics again invigorated hopes that effective BRT was possible.

BRT Rating System. Credit: ITDP

In order to avoid another series of disappointing BRT designs, the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) have developed, tested and published a Bus Rapid Transit rating system. Similar to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, the BRT rating system version 1.0, released in January 2012, awards varying numbers of points for particular features in five categories: service planning; infrastructure; station design and station-bus interface; quality of service and passenger information systems; and integration and access. In this rating system, projects can lose points for drawbacks such as low commercial speeds, low peak passenger numbers, overcrowding and poor maintenance of buses and stations. BRT systems are then awarded ratings of Gold (85-100 points), Silver (70-84 points) and Bronze (50-69 points).

ITDP has developed a number of BRT systems internationally, including recent work that I learned about while in Guangzhou, China. Opened in February, 2010, the 22.5 kilometer Guangzhou BRT features fully segregated bus lanes and serves 805,000 passengers per day and 27,000 passengers per hour carried in a single direction. This is a greater daily use than most subway systems in China, with the exception of Beijing. The Guangzhou BRT utilizes twenty six pre-pay stations that accept popular fare cards that can also be used to purchase community services, including renting shared bicycles. According to Karl Fjellstrom, of ITDP, “It’s the first BRT system in China to include bicycles in the design.  So now we have 5,000 bikes in 113 stations along the BRT corridor…[a] public bike system.  And there are also about 5,500 bike parking positions included in the BRT design.” The thirty one bus routes of the Guangzhou BRT are “direct service,” meaning that the routes also travel outside of the main BRT corridor. Passengers can arrive at their destination without being required to transfer buses, or can easily plan a multi-modal trip. Guangzhou’s BRT is the first in the world to have a direct tunnel connecting a bus station with a subway system, and four more subway lines are accessible from BRT stations. A five minute Street Film shows off the features of the BRT and how passengers have reacted to the new service.

In order to properly measure the results of the BRT in Guangzhou, ITDP released its Guangzhou, China Bus Rapid Transit Emissions Impact Analysis report in May, 2011. The report states that the Guangzhou BRT system has produced a number of positive results, including a 29% faster trip time for bus riders and 20% faster trip time for drivers in the corridor. This translates into an aggregate annual time savings of 52 million hours, and has been calculated to an economic value of 158 million yuan (over U.S. $25 million). ITDP also estimates that Guangzhou’s BRT will lead to a reduction of approximately 86,000 tons of CO₂ per year over its first ten years and about 4 tons of particulate matter emissions annually. Finally, implementation of the BRT resulted in savings for both the rider and the government. “The BRT’s total capital cost was 950 million yuan (USD 103 million), or about 30 million yuan (USD 4.5 million) per kilometer constructed. This is about one-tenth to one-twentieth of the per-kilometer cost of recent metro projects in Asia.” Additionally, the government’s subsidy has been reduced by 66% from the previous bus system, saving the government over 93 million yuan (USD 14 million) in annual operating costs. At the same time, fares were reduced by making all tickets a uniform 2 yuan (USD 0.30) rather than previous fares of between 2 and 5 yuan based on the length of the journey.

The report also highlighted four areas of improvement. First, to address overcrowding on buses and in stations, plans are in progress to upgrade 12-meter buses to 18-meter buses, increasing carrying capacity and ease of boarding. Second, the report highlights the need to reduce the number of buses in the BRT system in order to reduce traffic congestion, as there are currently more buses using the segregated BRT lanes than were originally recommended. Thirdly, most BRT stations are wheelchair inaccessible, creating a major barrier to participation for a segment of the society. Finally, the report found that “a relatively small portion of BRT riders had shifted from other motorized modes: only 1.4% of BRT riders switched from private auto, 3% from taxi, and 11% from metro (which actually has a lower emission factor than BRT).” Thus, it is important to note that the annual reduction of 86,000 tons of CO₂ came largely from converting buses from diesel to LPG, though even the small reduction in vehicle use still equates to 30,000 auto trips avoided daily because of the BRT. The expectation is that as the BRT system expands and becomes less crowded, the system will be able absorb a greater shift from automobiles to bus transit.

Other cities are also collecting and analyzing their own data regarding the effectiveness of BRT implementation. The Korea Transport Institute released a publication in 2012 that analyzed successes and shortcomings of the bus system reform in Seoul in 2004. In order to improve the traffic congestion problem, increase bus and subway ridership and discourage the use of private vehicles, the Seoul city government entirely restructured its bus system. The City redesigned its routes into trunk and feeder lines; updated its fare structure (to offer free transfers between bus-bus and bus-subway for travel of up to 10 kilometers) and smart-card payment system; introduced a semi-private operation scheme; constructed public transit centers; and implemented an exclusive median bus lane system (the number of routes with dedicated bus lanes increased from one (7.6 km) to fourteen (177.6 km). (Source: Kwang Sik Kim and Gyeong Chul Kim. Korea's Best Practices in the Transport Sector: Bus System Reform in Korea. Published 2012 by The Korea Transport Institute.)

After analyzing Seoul’s bus restructuring project, some of the following positive results were recognized:

• Expanded spatial operation and improved reliability of bus system.
• Increased equity in fares between subway and bus riders.
• Integrated fare system led to an integrated public transport network of community shuttles, buses and subways. 
• Adjusted fares reduced need for municipal subsidies.
• The exclusive median bus lanes improved bus speeds, punctuality, and vehicular speed in morning hours, as well as reduced the number of accidents.

However, the following matters were highlighted as needing improvement:

• Attempts to reduce the number of unprofitable lines resulted in frequent route closures or changes, thus disrupting the travel of some riders.
• The fare system is complicated, not well integrated with the greater metropolitan area, and is excessively reliant on computerized equipment.
• User convenience could be improved at transit centers.
• Insufficient capacity of median bus lanes and bus stations.

Data was collected that showed that ridership in the first year after the BRT redesign rose 9%. Again, as in Guangzhou, questions arose about the extent of the shift from vehicular use to public transportation. After further analysis, KOTI determined that “the increase in bus ridership is attributable, to a considerable extent, to the growth in the number of transfers, rather than a modal shift from personal vehicles to bus.” KOTI concludes that “public transport reform alone cannot solve the traffic problems of Seoul. Therefore, it is necessary to pursue a transport demand management policy designed to rationally control the use of private vehicles as well as to implement a land use policy based on the concept of transit-oriented development.”

The lessons learned through the bus rapid transit overhaul in Seoul were recently shared at a CITYNET  and Korea Transport Institute-organized workshop in which I participated.  City planning officials from India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and elsewhere were invited to discuss the steps South Korea took to establish its high-class transit system, and how this knowledge could guide the planning efforts of other Asian countries. Representatives of GIZ also presented best practices from around the region.

Now that ITDP and GIZ have made significant progress in distilling the best practices of BRT, others are forging ahead with the task of popularizing this method of transportation infrastructure. In March, 2012, the Institute for Sustainable Communities released the report Accelerating Bus Rapid Transit: a Resource Guide for Local Leaders ahead of its Climate Leadership Academy. The report aims to “help local, state, regional practitioners do their jobs better by showcasing effective models and strategies for implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems.” It cites the growing challenge to curb greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle exhaust and trends of increasing public transit ridership as primary reasons for promoting BRT in the United States. The bulk of the report is devoted to case studies of BRT planning and implementation in Cleveland, Ohio; Montgomery County, Maryland; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Brisbane, Australia; Springfield and Eugene, Oregon; York, Ontario, Canada; and Chicago, Illinois.

Recent interest in and establishment of BRT systems in cities around the world is a positive development, as BRT provides a useful mechanism for increasing the speed and functionality of public transit at a lower cost than subway or light rail. However, past experience and new research has shown that not all BRT systems are perfect. There is room to improve.  Furthermore, BRT alone may not incentivize car drivers to switch to public transportation, and should be used in conjunction with other measures to discourage automobile use. Fortunately, we now have an abundance of resources to help determine the best practices and greater considerations for the successful design of future BRT systems.

Asian Green City Index Highlights Opportunities for Improvement

Seoul, by Hyunwoo Sun

Earlier this year, a major report was published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that dug into current trends among major cities in Asia.  In the Asian Green City Index, the EIU looked at 22 Asian cities (capitals and other leading business centers) and compared them against each other in key areas of environmental performance. Each city received both an overall ranking and a breakdown of what contributed to their scores in each key area. The following data from one city, Seoul, demonstrates what the study highlights.

The report, sponsored by Siemens, concluded that Seoul ranked “above average” (receiving a score of 4 out of 5), and shares this distinction with Hong Kong, Osaka, Taipei, Tokyo and Yokohama. The city of Singapore was the only city to achieve the score of “well above average.”

Seoul, the third most densely populated city in the study, ranked well in areas of energy and carbon dioxide, transportation, water, land use and buildings, sanitation and environmental governance. Seoul was lauded for having one of the best transportation networks of buses and subways, and for having minimal water leakage problems coupled with one of the highest rates of access to sanitation and wastewater treatment. The City is also at the top of the class (compared to cities with similar income levels) for low carbon dioxide emissions and high energy efficiency.

Seoul Traffic, by JimTheGiantEagle

However, the study revealed that “[Seoul] produces the most waste among all 22 cities in the Index, at an estimated 996 kg per person per year, well above the Index average of 375 kg.” Seoul also only scored “average” on its air quality because of the amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions. “It has the second highest concentration of this pollutant in the Index, at 71 micrograms per cubic metre, compared to the average of 47 micrograms. This is due to Seoul’s over-reliance on cars — automobiles are a main source of nitrogen dioxide — and they are responsible for almost three quarters of Seoul’s air pollution.” Seoul also boasts less green space than the study’s average.

The report highlighted figures from the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank revealing that Asian cities are becoming more concentrated as people migrate to urban centers (over the last five years over 100,000 residents moved to Asian cities every day). Overall, the study sought to determine the environmental strength of these leading cities and offer areas for improvement.

A Bike, When You Need One

How many city folk have experienced the sudden need to get to another part of town, and quickly--the race is on, you think, as you calculate the time it will take to get your car out of the parking garage or flag down a taxi. "If only I had a bike right now," you lament, "I could just hop on and zip over."

Luckily for the health--and perhaps sanity--of urban dwellers, the system of bike sharing has caught on, and is spreading.

Yesterday, I was strolling in Busan when I ran into my first U-Bike stand. An inconspicuous rack of about 25 bikes with a screen kiosk made it easy for pedestrians to hop on and ride off to another part of the city (which, I must say, experiences snarling traffic rough enough to put a Manhattan-bred driver ill at ease).

The U-Bike stand in Busan is one of eight pilot programs in Korea, modeled after South Gyeongsang's Nubija (Nearby Useful Bike, Interesting Joyful Attraction) program of 20 stations, 430 bicycles for rent and over 3,000 users a day. Nubija, in case you're curious, was modeled after Paris' Vélib' program that launched in the summer of 2007 and now boasts "1,750 stations across the city and neighbouring suburbs [and has] a maximum of 24,000 bikes in operation at any one time," according to a 2010 Guardian Article by Leo Hickman.