The Department of Energy announced $10 million has been awarded to 16 cities for 40 new Solar America Cities Special Projects. The funds, made through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will enable the cities to increase solar energy use in their communities through innovative programs and policies that the government believes can be replicated across the nation.

The cities chosen for these awards came from the group of 25 large U.S. cities that are part of the DOE’s Solar America Cities program, which recognizes the participating cities as partners highly committed to solar technology adoption at the local level. Those cities already have been given millions of dollars in funds and technical assistance to accelerate solar adoption.

To this point, the cities have used the funding to develop solar financing models, improve solar permitting processes, and create training courses for solar installers, among other uses. The DOE said this new award will enable the cities to scale up their most promising projects and concepts to overcome key barriers to urban solar energy use. The DOE plans to share the lessons learned and best practices from these projects with local governments throughout the nation through a substantial outreach effort planned to launch in early 2010.

The DOE has selected the following Solar America Cities Special Projects:

Austin, TX

• Solar Curriculum Development and School Demonstration Projects

Berkeley, CA

• Smart Solar Regional Expansion and Solar Map Enhancements

Boston, MA

• Solar Evacuation Route

Madison, WI

• MadiSUN Community Solar Financing
• Target Marketing Solar to Businesses
• Solar Business Center

Milwaukee, WI

• Solar Hot Water Business Council
• Solar Water Heating Demonstration Projects and Best Practices Manual
• Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing
• Solar School Swap

Minneapolis – Saint Paul, MN

• Solar for District Heating and Cooling

New Orleans, LA

• Third Party Solar Tax Credit Implementation
• Sustainable Energy Financing District Implementation

New York City, NY

• Smart Solar City Data Acquisition System
• Community Solar Financing
• Smart Solar Virtual Community

Portland, OR

• Solar Now! Regional Outreach Campaign
• Neighborhood-Based Volume Solar Purchasing
• Residential Solar Power Purchase Agreement Model for Utility-Bill Financing
• Neighborhood-Scale Distributed Energy Systems

Salt Lake City, UT

• Solar Rebate Program Expansion and Third Party PPA Legal Analysis
• Financing Options for Mid to Large Scale Solar Systems

San Diego, CA

• Solar Financing Options for Multifamily Affordable Housing
• Solar-Powered Fire Shelter Integration into Disaster Response Planning

San Francisco, CA

• Debt-Financed Solar Water Heating Retrofits for Affordable Housing
• San Francisco Sustainable Financing Program (SF²)
• Commercial Solar Power Purchase Agreement Model
• Solar Financing for Public Schools

San José, CA

• Property Assessed Solar Financing through Joint Powers Authority
• Solar Loans for City Staff
• Qualified Energy Conservation Bond Financing for Revolving Solar Loan Fund
• Streamlined Regional Solar Permitting Process
• Solar Train the Trainer Internship Program
• Solar Career Training for At-Risk Youth
• Green Vision Education and Demonstration Center

Santa Rosa, CA

• Clean Energy Advocate

Seattle, WA

• Community Solar Financing through Municipal Utility

Tucson, AZ

• Creative Financing for Municipal Solar Installations
• Solar One Stop Shop
• Solar Integration into Green Building Codes and Infrastructure Planning

You know your car is a gas hound. But what about the water it requires?

Keeping a car clean, whether you rinse it off in your driveway or get it scrubbed at a professional wash, uses buckets of agua, more than you might realize.

If you’re careful, washing your car at home might use 10 gallons of water, but probably more like 25 or 50. A car wash can use much more, in the range of 75 to 100 gallons.

The International Car Wash Association says car washes are not a problem because the water consumed at car washes is recycled and reused. Water is properly disposed of via the sewer system where it can be treated and returned to circulation, the association says. (This is not the case with home car washing, which we’ll get to.)

However, just as foregoing paper is more effective at saving forests than using recycled paper, the greenest car wash is the one that doesn’t use water at all.

The cutting edge of the car cleaning biz has been spawning products that clean and polish your car without water, and lately, car washes that do the same.

Take Houston’s new car detailing service and car wash, Eco-Suds Hand Car Wash.

This new service in Northwest Houston, uses a water-based cleaning solution that is non-hazardous and biodegradable. The formula dissolves dirt and the residue is easily wiped off with a microfiber cloth. The process doesn’t scratch because polymers enwrap the dirt. The car is wiped clean and buffed, leaving it smooth and shiny (see photo above), says Kevin Dunn, co-owner of the Eco-Suds Hand Car Wash.

Dunn touts the service as eco-friendly on two counts — it avoids toxic runoff because the cleaning solution does not contain any oil, mineral spirits or kerosene, harmful chemicals that turn up in competitor’s formulas. And, the process is virtually water-less (there’s some water in the solution), saving the community dozens of gallons of water for each car and truck cleaned.

“According to our estimates, we believe we have saved roughly 90,000 gallons since we opened in mid-February,” he said. “Not too bad for one single location in just three months.”

As the Eco-Suds website notes, conventional car washes cannot compete with that level of water conservation because even their recycled water is typically mixed with 40 to 80 gallons of fresh water for each new car washed.

Eco-Suds is frugal with natural resources, but uses significant human capital, employing hand washers. It competes with both mass-market and luxury detailing services, with packages starting at $25 for an exterior wash and interior cleaning, ranging up to $225 for the “platinum package” with various levels in between.

Eco-Suds bills itself as the nation’s “first full service, eco-friendly car wash and detail” — and it is a unique stand alone facility — but it is not the first enterprise to try to create a greener model for the car wash business.

Several have gone eco by switching to greener cleaning ingredients and polishes and adding water recapture capabilities, but they’re still using large quantities of water.

A few select car washes are getting more aggressive about water use.

The Eco-Pit in San Diego is another virtually water-less car wash that uses a line of Earth-friendly products.

Seattle has Advanced Mobile, a car detailing service that uses biodegradable soaps and comes to clients, washing their cars at their location and reclaiming all the water used. The mobile aspect of this business throws a wrench into the process of assessing its carbon imprint (would it be more or the same as a drop in car wash?), but the EPA was impressed enough with its water conservation to award it a Water Efficiency Leader award in 2006.  Advanced Mobile also has outlets in Portland and Chicago.

In Nevada, the Southern Nevada Water Authority promotes car washes that reclaim or recycle their water on its Water Smart program by offering coupons to these businesses on its website.

Now, about washing your car at home. The Environmental Protection Agency and some state agencies warn against it. At least, they tell us not to wash the car or truck in the driveway because the runoff is hazardous to  the environment. The phosphates in some soaps can harm fish down the line, because they act as fertilizers, making algae grow and choking off oxygen for aquatic life. And that oily sheen you see in the rivulets running toward the storm drain (from undercarriage goo and petroleum distillates) can be a real problem for many life forms.

If you must wash at home, park on grass or gravel, so the runoff can be reabsorbed by the soil, the experts say. And use a phosphate-free soap.

It’s better to use commercial carwash, the EPA notes, because that water can be recycled and will be cleansed by local water treatment facilities before being returned to the water system or the environment.

Charity groups should do the same. Instead of setting up a DIY venture in a school parking lot, school and church groups should operate on grass or gravel, or partner with a local commercial car wash.

Even better — work with a commercial car wash that doesn’t use water.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Paul Dorn knows that getting Americans to ride a bike to work instead of driving a car is quite the uphill battle. Even on a good day, he says, only a tiny percentage of the nation’s commuters use pedal power to get to their jobs.

He remains undeterred.

Given that this is national Bike to Work Week, it’s an apt time to pick Dorn’s brain on the subject. Between co-authoring a book (The Bike to Work Guide: What You Need to Know to Save Gas, Go Green, Get Fit) his bike commuting advice Web site and his commuting tips blog, he is well-versed in the subject.

“I’m fairly typical of most Americans in the sense that the day I got my driver’s license, the bike went into the garage. I didn’t really touch it again until my mid-30s, when I was living in San Francisco, and didn’t have a car,” he said. His frustrating mass transit commute took 90 minutes. So he hopped on a bike, cut the commuting time in half, felt healthier, stopped paying bus fare and just generally started having more fun.

He’s still doing it at age 48, (now living in Sacramento and working at The University of California at Davis) and hasn’t owned a car since 1992.

Of course, starting out in San Francisco helped. It’s a generally bike-friendly city, and Dorn (pictured at left) found  a supportive cycling community to tell him about equipment, routes to avoid traffic and other advice. He started the website in 1997 as a class exercise. “People started finding it and at the time there weren’t a lot of online resources on the subject,” he said. So he offered guidance in bikes and equipment, dealing with bad weather and traffic and now has a loyal following.

“I’m just trying to provide inspiration and information for people who might be traveling by bike.”

Bike to Work Week is the brainchild of the League of American Bicyclists (which traces its roots to 1880). The organization offers support, advocacy, resources, education and information to their 300,000 affiliated cyclists. It’s all about creating a more bicycle-friendly America.

To that end, they have a project guide for cyclists interested in organizing events and support for Bike to Work Week as well as Bike Month (which is now). Part of the guide includes suggestions for overcoming excuses not to ride your bike to work (if you say you’re too out of shape, they say ride at an easy pace, and try it on a weekend; if you say it will take too long, they respond that car commuters travel an average 10 mph, and you’ll eventually go faster on the bike; it’s too far, you say – then combine riding and mass transit to shorten your commute).

Cars.com recently released its second Green Cities Index, ranking cities on their interest green vehicles. The list was calculated by evaluating the number of hybrid searches as a percentage of overall car searches in each market, then ranking them.

West Coast buyers, particularly the Pacific Northwest, showed the greatest interest in hybrid vehicles. Eight of the top 10 cities on the list are in Oregon, California or Washington, with Eugene, Ore.; Portland, Ore.; and Santa Barbara, Calif., taking the top three spots.

“What’s interesting to note is, aside from the cities on the West Coast that one might guess would have a very strong interest in hybrid technologies, college towns rank high on the list for their interest in hybrid technologies,” Cars.com senior editor Joe Wiesenfelder said in a statement. “Among the top 15 cities on the list are a group of smaller cities with large state universities where hybrids are very popular, including Charlottesville, Va., home to the University of Virginia; Gainesville, Fla., home to the University of Florida; and Madison, Wis., home to the University of Wisconsin.”

The Cars.com Green Cities Index monitors hybrid-vehicle shopping in all 210 designated market areas across the country. Here are the complete rankings:

RANK CITY
1 Eugene, Ore.
2 Portland, Ore.
3 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-San Luis Obispo,
Calif.
4 Monterey-Salinas, Calif.
5 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, Calif.
6 Charlottesville, Va.
7 Medford-Klamath Falls, Ore.
8 Chico-Redding, Calif.
9 Juneau, Alaska
10 Seattle-Tacoma, Wash.
11 Boise, Idaho
12 Eureka, Calif.
13 Gainesville, Fla.
14 Austin, Texas
15 Madison, Wis.
16 San Diego, Calif.
17 Phoenix, Ariz.
18 Butte-Bozeman, Mont.
19 Salt Lake City, Utah
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, Calif.
21 Lexington, Ky.
22 Denver, Colo.
23 Honolulu, Hawaii
24 Helena, Mont.
25 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.
26 Glendive, Mont.
27 Idaho Falls-Pocatello, Idaho
28 Rochester-Mason City, Iowa-Austin, Minn.
29 Portland, Maine
30 Fairbanks, Alaska
31 Burlington, Vt.-Plattsburgh, N.Y.
32 Billings, Mont.
33 La Crosse-Eau Claire, Wis.
34 Duluth, Minn.-Superior, Wis.
35 Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque, Iowa
36 Missoula, Mont.
37 Reno, Nev.
38 Bangor, Maine
39 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), N.C.
40 Palm Springs, Calif.
41 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, Md.)
42 Springfield-Holyoke, Mass.
43 Columbia, S.C.
44 Tucson (Sierra Vista), Ariz.
45 Lafayette, Ind.
46 Lansing, Mich.
47 Boston, Mass. (Manchester, N.H.)
48 Bend, Ore.
49 Fresno-Visalia, Calif.
50 Tallahassee, Fla.-Thomasville, Ga.
51 Ft. Wayne, Ind.
52 Spokane, Wash.
53 Los Angeles, Calif.
54 Kansas City, Mo.
55 Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, Wash.
56 Sioux Falls (Mitchell), S.D.
57 Casper-Riverton, Wyo.
58 Harrisonburg, Va.
59 Charlotte, N.C.
60 Nashville, Tenn.
61 Wilmington, N.C.
62 Great Falls, Mont.
63 Bowling Green, Ky.
64 Anchorage, Alaska
65 Louisville, Ky.
66 Syracuse, N.Y.
67 Las Vegas, Nev.
68 Albuquerque-Santa Fe, N.M.
69 Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney, Neb.
70 Greenville-Spartanburg, S.C.-Asheville,
N.C.-Anderson, S.C.
71 Omaha, Neb.
72 Terre Haute, Ind.
73 Fargo-Valley City, N.D.
74 St. Louis, Mo.
75 Cincinnati, Ohio
76 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y.
77 Jacksonville, Fla.
78 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Mich.
79 Wausau-Rhinelander, Wis.
80 Ft. Myers-Naples, Fla.
81 Des Moines-Ames, Iowa
82 Champaign-Springfield-Decatur, Ill.
83 Columbus, Ga.
84 Green Bay-Appleton, Wis.
85 Tulsa, Okla.
86 Springfield, Mo.
87 Topeka, Kan.
88 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, Fla.
89 Panama City, Fla.
90 Roanoke-Lynchburg, Va.
91 Charleston, S.C.
92 Mankato, Minn.
93 Indianapolis, Ind.
94 Oklahoma City, Okla.
95 Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers,
Ark.
96 Chattanooga, Tenn.
97 Rochester, N.Y.
98 Milwaukee, Wis.
99 Colorado Springs-Pueblo, Colo.
100 Dayton, Ohio
101 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, Fla.
102 Providence, R.I.-New Bedford, Mass.
103 South Bend-Elkhart, Ind.
104 Knoxville, Tenn.
105 Peoria-Bloomington, Ill.
106 Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo.
107 Hartford-New Haven, Conn.
108 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, Va.
109 Richmond-Petersburg, Va.
110 Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson (Williston), N.D.
111 Evansville, Ind.
112 Pittsburgh, Pa.
113 Lubbock, Texas
114 Joplin, Mo.-Pittsburg, Kan.
115 Dothan, Ala.
116 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), Fla.
117 Binghamton, N.Y.
118 Columbus, Ohio
119 Macon, Ga.
120 Jackson, Tenn.
121 Bakersfield, Calif.
122 Biloxi-Gulfport, Miss.
123 San Angelo, Texas
124 Rockford, Ill.
125 Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas
126 San Antonio, Texas
127 Abilene-Sweetwater, Texas
128 Johnstown-Altoona, Pa.
129 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, Pa.
130 Salisbury, Md.
131 Davenport, Iowa-Rock Island-Moline, Ill.
132 Greenville-New Bern-Washington, N.C.
133 Buffalo, N.Y.
134 Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa), Ala.
135 Grand Junction-Montrose, Colo.
136 Columbus-Tupelo-West Point, Miss.
137 Sioux City, Iowa
138 Baltimore, Md.
139 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, N.C.
140 Atlanta, Ga.
141 Philadelphia, Pa.
142 Augusta, Ga.
143 Chicago, Ill.
144 Marquette, Mich.
145 Toledo, Ohio
146 Wichita Falls, Texas-Lawton, Okla.
147 St. Joseph, Mo.
148 Watertown, N.Y.
149 Traverse City-Cadillac, Mich.
150 Utica, N.Y.
151 Twin Falls, Idaho
152 Presque Isle, Maine
153 Memphis, Tenn.
154 Erie, Pa.
155 Little Rock-Pine Bluff, Ark.
156 Wichita-Hutchinson, Kan.
157 Elmira, N.Y.
158 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), Ohio
159 Tri-Cities, Tenn.-Va.
160 Huntsville-Decatur (Florence), Ala.
161 Quincy, Ill.-Hannibal, Mo.-Keokuk, Iowa
162 Sherman, Texas-Ada, Okla.
163 Amarillo, Texas
164 Ottumwa, Iowa-Kirksville, Mo.
165 Paducah, Ky.-Cape Girardeau, Mo.-Harrisburg,
Ill.
166 Rapid City, S.D.
167 Youngstown, Ohio
168 Wilkes Barre-Scranton, Pa.
169 Parkersburg, W.V.
170 Savannah, Ga.
171 Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, Mich.
172 Tyler-Longview (Lufkin & Nacogdoches), Texas
173 Hattiesburg-Laurel, Miss.
174 Cheyenne, Wyo.-Scottsbluff, Neb.
175 Houston, Texas
176 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
177 Mobile, Ala.-Pensacola (Ft. Walton Beach),
Fla.
178 New York, N.Y.
179 Charleston-Huntington, W.V.
180 Detroit, Mich.
181 Baton Rouge, La.
182 Myrtle Beach-Florence, S.C.
183 Clarksburg-Weston, W.V.
184 Lima, Ohio
185 Yuma, Ariz.-El Centro, Calif.
186 Montgomery-Selma, Ala.
187 Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
188 Waco-Temple-Bryan, Texas
189 Odessa-Midland, Texas
190 Monroe, LA-El Dorado, Ark.
191 Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, W.V.
192 New Orleans, La.
193 Jackson, Miss.
194 Wheeling, W.V.-Steubenville, Ohio
195 Jonesboro, Ark.
196 Shreveport, La.
197 Lafayette, La.
198 Corpus Christi, Texas
199 Zanesville, Ohio
200 El Paso, Texas
201 Albany, Ga.
202 Lake Charles, La.
203 Alpena, Mich.
204 Alexandria, La.
205 Victoria, Texas
206 Meridian, Miss.
207 Greenwood-Greenville, Miss.
208 Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen, Texas
209 North Platte, Neb.
210 Laredo, Texas

MORE FROM GRN

Learning not to waste – whether it’s food, electricity or water – is not only good in these economic times, but even more important, it’s beneficial for the environment.

The Nalgene Least Wasteful City Study, released this week, ranks the country’s 25 largest metropolitan areas on wasteful behavior. San Francisco led the group with the least wasteful habits, while Atlanta ranked at the bottom.

The survey of 3,750 people, commissioned by Nalgene (the maker of reusable water bottles), looked at 23 waste-focused habits of city dwellers ranging from recycling and use of public transportation to shutting off lights and eating leftovers. The results were weighted, says Eric Hansen, senior business manager of Nalgene-Outdoor. “We gave more credit to behaviors that had an immediate and significant impact on the planet, such as reduced driving and recycling trash.”

One conclusion of the study is that the easier and more convenient an action, the more frequently it’s practiced. Convenience trumped prudence, the report says. Shutting off lights was easier to do than hanging clothes on a clothesline.

“This study highlights habits that our society has adopted out of convenience, but on a whole can have a huge impact on the sustainability of the planet,” says Hansen.

The survey also notes that despite the economy, saving money is not the main reason urbanites are changing their wasteful ways. More than half of those surveyed said it is their responsibility to ensure the health of the planet for future generations. “Being frugal and helping the planet, these behaviors tend to go hand in hand,” says Hansen.

The top five least wasteful cities were San Francisco; New York City; Portland, Or.; Seattle and Los Angeles. The five most wasteful major cities were Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis, Houston and St. Louis.

The good news, according to the study, is that urban Americans are increasingly taking everyday steps to cut waste. The top five areas where most people comply: saving leftover food to eat again; shutting off lights when not in the room; turning off water when brushing teeth; using energy efficient light bulbs; and recycling glass, metal, plastics on regular basis.

The areas where people are less likely to be concerned with wasteful ways: avoiding drying clothes in a dryer, using a rain barrel, composting, taking public transportation and not driving a car for trips that are less than two miles from home.

These latter five areas are what the top cities had in common. For instance, San Francisco residents were not only good about turning off water, but also excelled at not using their car for short trips. The cities that did not score well, were not energy efficient with even the simple things such as recycling. In Atlanta, residents threw out more than two bags of trash each week and didn’t use as many energy efficient light bulbs.

The study, which was compiled over two months by the independent research firm Greenfield Online, also had several recommendations for folks – urban or not – on reducing waste:

• Small changes such as reusable containers and water bottles (not surprising, since that is what Nalgene manufactures) or walking instead of driving.
• Compost yard trimmings and food leftovers. The EPA estimates that 24 percent of the U.S. municipal solid waste stream is made up of yard trimming and food leftovers. Composting avoids filling the landfills and is environmentally beneficial.
• Rain barrels. Even in the city, rain barrels can be installed in a building. They save money on water that can be used to water the yard.
• Bikes. Help the environment and get some exercise by skipping the car.
• Public transportation. Even if using public transportation a few times a week, this has an impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
• Buy used or Freecycle. Thrift stores, libraries, used book stores are all good ways not to waste and to support local businesses. And if there’s a Freecycle group in your zipcode, that’s another good way to avoid waste.

Related story:

• See the full list of America’s least wasteful cities

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

1. San Francisco, CA
2. New York City, NY
3. Portland, OR
4. Seattle, WA
5. Los Angeles, CA
6. Denver, CO
7. Minneapolis, MN
8. Washington, D.C.
9. Boston, MA
10. Philadelphia, PA
11. Chicago, IL
12. Baltimore, MD
13. Detroit, MI
14. Pittsburgh, PA
15. Orlando, FL
16. Cleveland, OH
17. Sacramento, CA
18. Miami, FL
19. Tampa, FL
20. Phoenix, AZ
21. St. Louis, MO
22. Houston, TX
23. Indianapolis, IN
24. Dallas, TX
25. Atlanta, GA

It can be a challenge to update an historic building, let alone transform it into a model of green modernity. Rattling pipes crowd walls that need new duct work; old fixtures adhere stubbornly to aging walls and facades retain character, but heating and cooling – not so much.

Still, the historic Heathman Hotel in downtown Portland has recently undergone two green upgrades, and is determined to become a model of sustainability, while sacrificing none of its landmark historic elegance.

The 81-year-old Heathman, like most vintage urban hotels, has been through many nips and tucks over the decades. It got its first green redo about three years ago with the renovation of the guest bedrooms and living areas and the addition of a new heating and cooling system. The project, which won financial incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon, and included switching to CFL light bulbs, proved enlightening: The changes trimmed energy usage by 20 to 30 percent at the 150-room hotel.

“My return on investment, we realized that in less than two years; a year and half for the HVAC investment,” said hotel general manager Chris Erickson. “It was a wise idea and now as we move into the future, it’s all straight to the bottom line.”

Green redo Number Two, is currently underway as the Heathman overhauls its guest bathrooms, all 155 of them, which will save thousands of gallons of water every day. New low-flow shower heads and water-wise commodes (which use 1.5 gallons per flush instead of 3 gallons) are expected to cut bathroom water use in half, without guests even noticing.

Having witnessed during his career how most hotel renovations send tons of refuse to the dump, Erickson decided to turn this latest bathroom project into a study of converting to a more sustainable operation, sustainably.

He contracted with Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects to design the new look of the bathrooms, and also with the non-profit ReBuilding Center of Portland, to whisk away the outgoing material.

The Center sent “deconstruction” experts to assess how everything coming out of the bathrooms could be reclaimed, thus giving the used sinks, fixtures and doors a second life through the center’s resale program, and also reducing the impact on the landfill.

The program they came up with has produced a nearly waste-free, or 99 percent landfill-free, remodel that diverted an estimated 15 tons of debris. Only the mirrors that were accidentally broken while being removed had to be discarded.

While the vast majority of Americans are car bound, rising numbers are getting on board with public transit, commuter and light rail, trolleys and buses.

Those riding the rails and buses took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation in 2008, a 4 percent increase over the number of trips taken in 2007, according to a ridership report by the American Public Transportation Association.

During the same period, the number of vehicle miles traveled on roadways declined by 3.6 percent, the group reported, citing the U.S. Department of Transportation.

While the road miles driven could simply reflect fewer people commuting to work combined with lower driving levels resulting from last summer’s soaring gas prices, the APTA sees the increase in ridership as a continuation of a longer term trend.

“Public transportation use is up 38% percent since 1995, a figure that is almost triple the growth rate of the population (14 percent) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on our nation’s highways (21%) for that same period,” the association explained in a news statement released Monday.

In sheer numbers, the 2008 ridership was the greatest since 1956; though today’s higher population means the percentage of riders is still much less than it was at that time.

APTA president William W. Millar noted that those switching to public transit can save themselves more than $8,000 a year in gasoline and car maintenance costs, as well as helping lessen their carbon footprint.

“Now, more than ever, the value of public transportation is evident and the public has clearly demonstrated that they want and need more public transit services,” Millar said. “Public transportation is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for energy independence and now is the time for the federal government to increase its investment in public transportation.”

Light rail — which includes trolleys and modern street cars — saw the biggest percentage increases in ridership.

The city of Charlotte, with a light rail system that opened in late 2007, saw an 862 percent increase.

Charlotte was followed by New Orleans’ light rail system, still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, with an annual increase of 218 percent.

The first daughters’ new school, Sidwell Friends in Washington, has been awarded the top LEED rating of platinum. But learning institutions across the nation are joining the ranks of LEED-qualified schools, as educators recognize both the health benefits for children and the long term energy savings of building greener.

Sidwell earned 57 out of a possible 69 points on the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rankings. At the recent Green Build conference in Boston, the USGBC recognized several schools, including Sidwell, for their green advances.

Photo: U.S. Green Building Council

Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins, Colo., received a silver LEED (36 points) designation for new construction in 2005 by becoming 60 percent more energy efficient and saving $11,500 in annual water savings. They accomplished this by putting in lighting occupancy sensors, connecting heating and air conditioning systems to occupancy and using “heat wheels” for heat recovery.

The school makes and stores ice during the night so it can cool the building during the day. Carbon offsets are achieved by wind power purchases. Since water conservation is a huge issue in Colorado, the school uses a raw water pond for campus irrigation, installed low-flow faucets and toilets and also uses artificial turf for the athletic field.

The Ethisphere Institute, publisher of the quarterly Ethisphere magazine, today announced a list of what it calls the “Global Sustainability Centers of 2020.”

Listing ten large and ten mid-sized cities (a population of 600,000 was the dividing line), the report honors municipalities who have built “strong and principled foundations” and long-term city planning. While environmental and sustainability considerations are listed first among the criteria, they weren’t the only factors considered; the think tank also evaluated quality-of-life issues like arts and education, transportation, and business planning. For large cities, they break each ranking down into Olympics-like scorecards that weigh each category both as things stand now and as they’re projected for 2020, like this one that scores Toronto.

Among the rankings where environmental planning is singled out, three cities tie for the highest score, 9.7: New York (up from 9.1 today), London, and Curitiba Brazil, which already scores 9.6 and is described here as “the largest sustainable city you’ve never heard of.”

Small cities on the list include Portland in the US, an obvious pick because of its long adherence to controlled growth and foot-friendly avenues, as well as cities in Europe such as oil-free Reykjavik, Iceland, and fjord-minding Oslo, Norway, cited for its “blue green” awareness.

While noting the downsides of city life (“Some studies suggest that buildings and infrastructure associated with buildings are responsible for about 30 percent of all energy use in North America, and probably 40 percent of all material use,” according to a professor they cite), the authors point out that since life in the suburbs — where cars are indispensible — isn’t exactly impact-free, and that the attractions inherent in city life aren’t likely to stop drawing people away from rural areas, “we need role models.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

There’s no doubt that community gardens, a tradition that first surfaced in the United States in the early 1900’s, are at the grassroots of today’s urban “buy local/grow local” movement. But today, in places as diverse as New York City and Madison, Wisc., community gardens are also a socio-cultural equalizer, bringing together plot farmers from all backgrounds and ethnicities.

In Madison’s historic Eagle Heights Community Garden (circa 1962) near the University of Wisconsin, if all gardeners were present on a busy spring weekend, you could hear up to 60 different languages and encounter gardening techniques from around the world. Stop by Boulder’s Growing Gardens near the Iris Gardens, where more than 1,000 gardeners are involved, and you’re liable to hear Hmong mingled with English, Spanish and various other languages. And there’s no point in trying to estimate how many float on the breezes above New York City’s 1000+ community gardens.

Across the United States, community gardens are attracting people accustomed to providing some of their own sustenance; retirees who finally have time for gardening, church members providing for the low-income and young urbanites seeking a closer connection to their food. Many gardens have waiting lists, as people seek a way to reconnect with what they eat.

“People want to grow their own organic food and know where it comes from,” says Bill Maynard, vice president of the American Community Gardening Association and the coordinator of Sacramento’s five city-owned community gardens.

What’s more, they enjoy the social aspect of gardening alongside others who might come from different backgrounds, but share this common interest. “They don’t know each other, but now they’re friends,” says Maynard.

“We have legislative aides who come down from the Capitol and water (their plot) in their suits. We have retired people. We have families. And we have ADA accessible beds, raised beds” set aside for people with disabilities, and people from Asian cultures with the know-how to farm acres, he said. All turn up at the city’s gardens, particularly the city’s oldest and recently renovated Fremont Community Garden in the urban center, which is being transformed into a neatly arrayed city-operated garden and gathering spot.

There is no perfect way to gauge the current upswing in community gardening in the United States because the majority of gardens are not officially registered with the ACGA. It’s, shall we say, an organic movement? But organizers in several locales report robust participation. Madison’s 31 community gardens have grown by about 50 percent in the past five years, adding more than 500 participants, according to the Madison area’s Community Action Coalition that helps low-income residents with their plots. Sacramento reports waiting lists for its community gardens; Maynard says he could easily fill two new gardens in design phase.

Website Greener Computing reports today that three U.S. departments — NASA, the Department of Defense, and the General Services Administration — have announced plans to limit future computer purchases to models that meet the environmental standards of EPEAT.

EPEAT, a program based in Portland, Oregon, is designed to help computer buyers find the most environmentally responsible electronics available and to give manufacturers a straightforward, hype-free area to categorize their offerings according to how well they meet EPEAT’s public standard. That standard evaluates 51 specific criteria, including: the type of materials used in making the device and the way they are labeled for eventual disposal; sensible packaging and available take-back service; and, of course, energy efficiency. In the interest of getting the most use out of computers before they’re discarded, one of the criteria even insists on models’ being “upgradeable with common tools.”

One of the longest categories of criteria deals with “Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials,” a hot topic in the electronics industry, given how much e-waste enters landfills: there are bullet points regarding “elimination of intentionally added” cadmium, mercury, lead, PVC, and hexavalent chromium, although EPEAT’s “bronze” certification doesn’t require meeting this part of the standard.

A product registry lets users search through which devices meet one of three levels of certification (bronze, silver, and gold); while manufacturers list products on the registry themselves (in the interest of eliminating any time-consuming test/approval period in this notoriously fast-paced industry). Each entry is subject to verification by EPEAT.

Since the federal bureaucracy buys computers on such an enormous scale — Greener Computing quotes a figure of 2.2 million new systems a year, and one would assume NASA and the Defense Department are responsible for a sizable chunk of that number — manufacturers are bound to take notice of the new requirement. If past experience with the Energy Star program is any indication, the eventual result will likely be more efficient and eco-conscious computing products for ordinary consumers, as well.