Several manuals, handbooks, and web resources provide varied guidance on planning for and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, yet there are no specific indications which treatments in these guides work well for users. In this study, best practices are highlighted and program characteristics associated with high levels of nonmotorized travel are identified, with an emphasis on bicyclists and pedestrians in the California communities of Davis, Palo Alto, and San Luis Obispo, cities known for being bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Analyses of a user preference survey of more than 630 residents in the case study communities, interviews with operators, and review of related literature reveal several factors that matter most to stakeholders for creating bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly places. These factors include (a) acceptable bicycling and walking distances to desired activities, (b) direct routes, (c) good route connectivity, and (d) separation of motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. Recommendations are presented as key considerations for integrating bicycling and walking facilities into urban infrastructure and are arranged to correspond to the trip-making cycle, from the decision to engage in an activity through the choice of route to arrival at the destination. Findings indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians alike strongly desire automobile-separated facilities on streets. This finding suggests that these kinds of projects may merit priority over purely recreational paths. Although roadways may generally need to be friendly for bicycling and walking, the emphasis should be on linking activity locations and transit stations that are purposely placed to be within acceptable distances for these activities.

No abstract

No abstract

Driven by concerns centred on the potential impacts of new development on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, the management of effluent from Sewage Treatment Plants is a growing issue for regulators, communities and Sydney Water Corporation. Conventional users of recycled water such as golf courses, parks and on-site uses are making way for more innovative and sustainable approaches. Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant and the Picton Agricultural Reuse Schemes are two examples where Sydney Water has adopted a different approach to water recycling. With both schemes now in operation, demand for the product has surpassed expectations and has already begun to exceed current availability. Faced with the option of expanding the schemes in the near future, SWC is continuing to look for new ways of providing sustainable water services to the people of Sydney.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of bus emissions associated with a variety of fuel types, specifically for developing countries. A large data set of in-use transit bus tests is compiled for commonly regulated transportation emissions including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Carbon dioxide is included to help in understanding greenhouse gas emissions. A meta-analysis technique is used with 25 studies to find a range of emissions values for various fuel and exhaust aftertreatment combinations to determine which combinations provide the greatest emissions reduction. The fuels considered are diesel with various concentrations of sulfur, biodiesel (100% and 20% blend with diesel), compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and ethanol. The standard internal combustion engine, the internal combustion engine–electric hybrid, and a variety of exhaust aftertreatment technologies are considered. The analysis shows that no single fuel is best for reducing all emissions if the appropriate exhaust aftertreatment technologies are used. The technologies showing the lowest emissions in important categories (nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide equivalents) are compressed natural gas with a three-way catalyst, 100% biodiesel, and ultralow sulfur diesel with selective catalyst reduction. Other factors, such as altitude, drive cycle, and mileage, also affect emissions values. A wide range of emissions values is found, even for the same fuel and technology. The variations and factors should be understood for accurate evaluation of results from further emissions testing.