Engineering does indeed matter

I was reading the latest Urbanophile post, and it really struck me as relevant. I came away with a few important conclusions from his post and the resulting comments:

• Engineers should not take their responsibilities to aesthetic qualities lightly,
  
• The design of engineering works is important,
  
• civic leaders must require their engineering departments to meet the highest standards of quality.

Portland Transportation on PBS

Just so everyone interested in urban affairs is aware, PBS will be doing a show on the transportation system in Portland, Oregon tonight at 8PM.

photo from: WNET.ORG/Tim Tyler

Tune in, set your recorders to record, or read the transcript online tomorrow. Portland is the poster-child for progressive urban development in the US, so it should be a great show and hopefully fun to debate afterwards.

Also, I can't say enough good things about PBS, they are truly the best journalistic force we have in the country right now. But maybe I'm biased from all those formative years watching Sesame Street.

UPDATE 2009-05-22: The show was good as expected, they have the full episode online for anyone who missed it. I know Denver suburbs were kind of villified, but they are no worse than any of the similar areas surrounding cities in the US (esp Indianapolis). It was easy to contrast to Portland, where an active and engaged population has strongly supported the government initatives.

The Denver homeowners as well as the Portland property owners outside the Urban Growth Boundary are great examples of how unregulated growth is what causes the sprawl problem. The Denver family was quite happy with their decision to move to the suburb. The house was a great value and allowed them to live the "American Dream".

There is no way you will convince the entire population of the US to change their way of living and move in a new direction just by appealing to their sense of environmental justice. Most people in the US don't believe in large scale climate change yet, so it's a losing proposition. I think the only way to tackle this is through urban policies.

Portland's progressive urban policies have concentrated development and encouraged sustainable urban forms. Some may disagree with this, but there are simply too many people on the planet to allow reckless development to carry on unabated. Portland has shown us a way forward, so why not build on their efforts?

The appeal of urban transit systems is that it reduces dependence on automobiles, allowing the urban landscape forms to become more efficient. Less parking surfaces are required, pedestrians regain right of way, independent businesses thrive, and less gasoline (and gasoline distribution infrastructure) is needed. It is important to remember that it is not a matter of passenger mile economics, that is a red herring. It is about climate change, sustainable urban development, and quality of life.

Looking at the overall picture, we know that certain metropolitan areas like New York, London, and Paris are much more environmentally friendly than metropolitan areas like Atlanta or Houston. The US must adapt to the issues presented by climate change and increasing energy costs. This is not an optional response, we must become more efficient and less energy intensive. The question is how do we get there from here?

One of the most common arguments against urban transit is that it must be subsidized to be effective. It is patently obvious that the same argument can be made against the US paved road system. Both systems require an enormous capital investment. Everyone is aware of that, so let us make the commitment to urban transit, build fully funded transit systems, and move on to the next issue. What's the problem, America?

2 good weeks

I've been quite busy since my last post. In fact, I found time to:

• build a patio
• repair some leaking pipes
• pull out the motorcycle
  
• general house maintenance

It's been great with the perfect weather we've been having. No complaints whatsoever.

I did come across a new blog about bridge building in the UK. Thought it was good stuff, wanted to share it with everyone. It's also added to my sidebar. I strongly recommend everyone view the insightful posts about criticism in the engineering field.

A BLDG BLOG

Since I've been writing this blog now for about 1 year or so, I figured it was a good time to reflect. My first entry "structural engineering weblog manifesto" was the first step on my new adventure. While my scope of topics has grown somewhat as time passed, I am comfortable with the inclusive nature of the website.

My purpose in writing this blog was to show that structural engineers should be actively involved in the process of design. Engineering is not just another trade involved in construction. Engineers must be intimately involved from day one for optimal results. Strong communication skills and a synergistic relationship with the design team is the only way a project can move from adequate to sublime. Buildings that inspire, that push the boundaries of technology, or that serve as an icon for a community need more than just the best architects, they need the best engineers as well.

I have also learned to appreciate my role as a blogger. The typical stereotype of an engineer is someone who shuns public attention and concentrates on technical subjects even when humanistic problems are to blame. I am no different. It is a horribly frightening experience to put one's opinions on the internet and start discussions about sensitive topics. Even when someone tells me that they enjoyed a post or article it feels wrong. But I know it is absolutely necessary that we speak up for ourselves as individuals. Instead of shunning public attention, I have instead shunned anonymity. Since my profession is one of accountability, I feel it would be unethical to anonymously voice my opinions.

Our professional organizations do a great job speaking for our profession, but that is only one side of life. I encourage engineers (and indeed anyone who has something to say) to start a website. Maybe join up with a few like-minded individuals, either as a student group at an engineering school, or fans of architecture within a city. If that is still too far for the first step, then start small with a journal or notebook where you write down ideas for later use.

Engineers have the ability to change the built environment so that public welfare is dramatically improved. Civil engineers are the builders of civilizations. But we are also a part of that civilization. We need to show our social awareness in addition to our technical skills.

Global Warming Potential

In the past decade, scientists have presented solid proof that:

1. The Earth, on average, is warming
2. Humans are responsible
3. Disastrous consequences will occur unless we change our habits

These points are in agreement with the IPCC, the US EPA, and the majority of environmental scientists. However, it is a person's right to decide for themselves, so please encourage others to review the scientific findings and reports and then come to a conclusion. Anyone who remains a "global warming skeptic" should be made aware that they aren't necessarily wrong, but they are very unlikely to be correct.

The US must base its climate change policy on what is probable, not on fringe science or unproven technology. Global warming is not a risk for the planet, it is a risk to us. Rapid climate change could destroy cities and habitable land, result in massive extinctions that could unravel the ecological food chains we depend on, and cause great conflict over dwindling fresh water supplies.

This means we must cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply by 2030 if not earlier, and probably go carbon neutral by 2050 if not earlier. An example of good policy would be to follow the recommendations presented in an article in the latest issue of Nature (BBC discussion here). Eliminating coal-fired power plants is one of the most important ways to meet our goals. The total greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere in PPM is the number we need to focus on.

However, much of the discussion in the political sphere seems to completely reject current scientific understanding, and instead argue for more coal and cheaper energy. Bad idea. I am not interested in slinging mud on any of the political ideologies out there, I just wanted to go on the record as saying any policies out of this group would probably do a lot of harm. Politically, economically, and environmentally disastrous.

Last month, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, meant to "work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses." Helping lead the way toward finding those solutions? Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

Here are some interesting quotes pulled from Rep. Bachmann's public statements concerning greenhouse gas emissions:

"[T]here isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle." [4/22/09]

"And the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc." [3/22/09]

"The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax." [3/15/08]

"I don't think it has been established as a fact that global warming is the issue of the day. One thing we need to do is look at the science." [10/10/06]