My mother lives in Charlottesville and marvels at the pedestrian and bicycle friendly features it has. Google Maps with bicycle paths does a good job of showing this off.

Unfortunately, this feature is NOT YET available for Montreal. However, Google does provide walking directions which should be a decent substitute until Google makes this feature available for us. To request that Google make bike paths available for Montreal, send them an email.

In Montreal, traveling from the west to east, or vica versa, is relatively easy due to the topography. Any bicyclist knows to just take deMaisonneuve or Sherbroke St. But how about traveling north and being able to avoid the steep grades due to the Mont? This is where Google needs to help cyclists.

Giving cyclists the same type of support tools as motorists for finding their way in a busy world is a step in the right direction towards making the world a better place. For more info, see Google Maps Bike There.

Source: Discovering Urbanism

Google has released a “Grab Your Bike and Go” feature to give cycling directions for all maps. Google’s Shannon Guymon is the opening plenary speaker at the National Bike Summit and she’s expected to announce the new feature this morning and give a demonstration.

The feature:

• Identifies cycling facilities (for now in “hundreds of US cities”)
• Shows which routes are considered safer than others, including paths that have limited or no driving
• Uses elevation grades to estimate times and recommend routes

It shouldn’t be too long before many localities and non-profit organizations are able to feed their information to Google. Unlike transit routes, there’s nothing proprietary about safety recommendations. Right now Google lists the Charlottesville pedestrian mall as a recommended route, although it is actually prohibited to cyclists. Google accepts feedback on all of these recommendations, so we can all take part in building the most accurate and useful mapping tool.

When I was growing up, my mother bought a “beaker-brush” Christmas tree. It was all white and made of plastic and wire. Basically a bunch of beaker brushes from a high school chemistry class attached to an aluminum frame. Every year we didn’t have to buy (and kill) a baby spruce tree. It seemed like a sensible idea: buy a renewable tree that could be re-used year after year.

But a new study from a Montreal firm, ellipsos inc., says that buying natural trees for xmas is actually more sustainable in the long run. Here are their conclusions from the report:

The natural Christmas tree has lower impacts on the environment than the artificial tree, according to an independent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted by ellipsos inc., a firm of experts in sustainable development…“The results are astonishing”, says Jean-Sébastien Trudel, president of ellipsos and co-author of the study. “Considering that the artificial tree is reusable for many years, one would think that this choice is best since the natural tree requires annual trips to purchase it.”

While natural trees also have environmental impacts, the LCA shows that an artificial tree would need to be kept for at least 20 years to be equivalent! Currently, people keep it for six years, on average.

Interestingly, to compensate for the impacts of a Christmas tree, be it natural or artificial, one can offset the carbon emissions by carpooling or biking to work only one to three days per year, according to ellipsos. “Knowing this, the most ecological choice between the natural and the artificial Christmas tree becomes anecdotal. Regardless of the chosen type of tree, the impacts on the environment are negligible if compared to other activities, such as driving solo to work on a daily basis”, concludes Jean-Sébastien Trudel.

Still, getting no tree is the most sustainable solution of all.

Download the full report from ellipos: Christmas Tree Life Cycle Analysis