It is no surprise that your risk of heart attack increases for up to 6 hours after exposure to high levels of vehicle exhaust pollutants.
Simplistically put, this presents us with a couple of questions:
1. Do we deal with the source and opt for low carbon technology-low polluting cars?
or
2. Do we look at the design of our streets, plant more trees, open up airflows by keeping buildings low alongside major roadways?
Health Impact Assessments are now used as part of the planning toolkit for new developments. Alone they cannot change public opinion, let alone industry preference for profit. Knowing the health impact, the cost to society, individual cost (potential for someone we love suffering a heart attack), in conjunction with public and corporate education we can make a difference. Option 2 will provide short term benefits. In the long term option 1 has to be the way forward as greenhouse gas levels rise, costs increase, and public health diminishes. One without the other, in any timeframe, is a poor solution however.
Studies from all around the world continue to show us that without urban greenspace we suffer reduced public health. When that greenspace is well designed to include cycleways, walkways, play areas, community ammenities our demand for motorised trasnsport is reduced, while we gain from an increased sense of wellbeing.
Sustainable communities thrive on coherent street-scapes, routeways where wildlife-friendly planting, the elderly, children, bikes and play can happily coexist. Our generation is the last to remember free play, schools without allergy advisors. The doomsayers believe we have tipped the balance too far and can do nothing to change the environment our children will inherit. I believe we can make a difference. Options 1 and 2 are happening now. We just need to be get with the program!
Urban design, sustainable development, musings and observations
