Good infrastructure should be able to serve people during a disaster, not exclude them
Hours-long queue reviews at airports caused chaos, supply chain shortages led to a range of essentials going out of stock, a number of major economically important events had to be canceled, and public **** transportation traffic dropped dramatically.
It is clear that our infrastructure has been caught off guard by a disaster like the new coronavirus. This virus is forcing people to keep their distance and reduce congregation.
In the past, when faced with many natural disasters, people tended to come together to help and support each other, and this was often the catalyst for bringing people closer together, both physically and emotionally. But the new coronavirus is actually creating physical and emotional distance.
Because of it, people have had to stock up on food and stay home, employers have had to close offices, and schools have had to close. Cities have banned large gatherings, and even churches have closed. This isolation of people from each other is essential to preventing and controlling the spread of coronaviruses and COVID-19, but it defeats the purpose of our infrastructure.
Our infrastructure, including public ****transportation systems, roads, buildings, utility infrastructure, power grids, railroads, and waterways, is designed to connect people and enable the flow of and access to information, goods, and services.
We rely on it for our daily lives and to help us recover quickly after other types of disasters. However, in pandemics like the new coronavirus, this infrastructure connectivity makes it easier for the virus to spread and work against us - crowded subways, busy airports, bustling retail centers, centralized workplaces, ubiquitous roads. These infrastructure systems are designed to connect people and are equally perfect vehicles for viruses.
Cities around the world have prioritized infrastructure innovation to ensure that they are strong enough and reliable in the face of natural disasters like hurricanes and fires. Unfortunately, the New Crown virus has proven that such infrastructure is virtually unusable during such biological disasters.
So what do we need to do to design this type of infrastructure in a way that prevents disease while ensuring the normal flow of society as well as the normal functioning of the economy? For government and private sector leaders, the following are important principles to keep in mind.
First, we should avoid making the assumption that all human interaction can be digitized and all commerce can be e-commerce. This is despite the fact that telecommunications and broadband networks have played a huge role in connecting people and disseminating information during this crisis. But it would be a mistake to think that digital infrastructure is a panacea or can replace face-to-face experiences altogether.
According to the U.S. Bureau?of?Labor?Statistics, only 29 percent of Americans have jobs that can be done from home, and even Amazon doesn't have many day-to-day items left. Moreover, digital interactions are not a substitute for face-to-face communication. For example, a 2010 study found that interaction on the Internet is not a reflection of higher quality of life; face-to-face interaction is. More recent studies have also found that face-to-face interactions lead to more positive impressions and better relationships. Digital interactions alone cannot meet our society's need for connectivity.
Assuming they can only normalize social distance - but that distance is unhealthy, even if necessary for the time being. The fact is, even in the US, not everyone has high-speed Internet access. Fifteen percent of families with school-age children (many of whom can't get out of the house) lack high-speed Internet, as do as many as a third of rural families.
So while we can't rely on digital infrastructure alone to support our economic and social needs, we must work to make broadband infrastructure accessible to all. Digital connectivity is not the only solution, but it is a key factor in being able to withstand the impact of a biological disaster.
Second, it's important to design in extra space in the underlying systems or retrofit older systems to eliminate single points of failure from the start. This is especially critical for public **** transportation departments and water utilities. Public ****transit agencies across the country have increased and strengthened their cleaning and sanitation efforts, but commuters in many major cities still desperately try to avoid public ****cars and trains.
Public ****transit systems are built to move large numbers of people, and last-mile commutes are often more personalized. For example, cars designed for individuals or small groups. For those who need to get around during an outbreak, these more personal options are more acceptable. However, many cities are limited in the modes of transportation they can rely on.
New York City, for example, has a robust public ****transit system, but fewer cars (and parking spaces) than most cities. This means fewer options for those who want to avoid crowds during an epidemic.
That's not to say that cars are better than public **** transportation. Big cities like Houston rely too much on cars. Micro-mobility vehicles like e-scooters and e-bikes offer a promising option for personalizing short- and medium-range trips in many cities, avoiding the congestion of public ****transit and the carbon footprint that most cars produce. Such solutions can help create more travel options and give people the flexibility they need, especially in the midst of a crisis.
The same principle must be considered for water companies, which are responsible for moving water from one place to others, just as transportation infrastructure moves people from one place to another. While coronaviruses have not yet been detected in the city's water, perhaps in the future a certain pathogen will not be filtered out by current water treatment and filtration technologies. These companies might consider systems that support multiple distribution methods to prevent potential biological disasters.
Third, we need to prioritize decentralized infrastructure. In decentralized energy production, the supply of electricity is often delivered through many smaller devices, rather than by large power plants and grids. In many decentralized energy models, the generating equipment feeds a local microgrid, which can be connected or disconnected from the main grid. This provides the microgrid with all the functionality of the larger system and also insulates it from shocks and interruptions. This same principle behind decentralized energy production needs to be applied to all forms of infrastructure.
However, most infrastructure used for crowd reception is highly centralized for efficiency. For tourism infrastructure it is airports, for retail infrastructure it is shopping centers, for automotive infrastructure it is parking lots, and for healthcare infrastructure it is hospitals. This centralization is crucial for space and time efficiency, but it also increases the risk posed by viral infections, especially those that don't require direct contact to spread.
A decentralized system that is more resilient in the face of biological disasters is going to have more high-performance smaller nodes. In the retail example, that means more local shopping centers with smaller stores so that people don't have to go to crowded big malls or supermarkets to get the necessary goods. In the hospital example, this means pushing high level community clinics closer to patients to avoid overwhelming large medical centers. In the automotive example, this means smaller, more spread out parking lots that create physical distance while providing more parking options for people. In the airport example, it means more local airports with the capacity to support larger, long-haul airplanes.
Theoretically, this approach would lead to more direct flights between places, meaning fewer people and less time spent in airport lines and connecting flights. With more small nodes, the government shutting down a specific line or isolating a place would not result in paralyzing the entire infrastructure system.
Some might argue that more airports mean that people with the disease can get to more places, but a person's final destination doesn't change because of more local airports, it just means that they are interacting and traveling with fewer people and passing through fewer places on their way to their destination.
While few people would complain about too many local airports, it's an economic burden for cities and airlines. But increasingly frequent biological disasters could weaken the economy even more. The U.S. has done a good job of interconnecting its various nodes, but a robust, decentralized system is necessary to ensure that each node can withstand the shutdown of the others.
Finally, given the current heightened awareness of bio-risks, there is a need for government and private sector leaders to rethink disaster preparedness. Unlike salt trucks in the winter and boats during hurricane season, health and medical services should be taken seriously year-round, especially given the difficulty of predicting infectious disease outbreaks.
Cities across the country have invested significant resources in preventing natural disasters such as fires, hurricanes and tornadoes. These environmental risks now rank alongside political, economic, social and technological risks as factors that business and civic leaders must consider. In the future, risks caused by bioinfectious diseases will also have to be included or categorized under a new category. Similarly, during a biological disaster, those resources that are used to ensure that infrastructure recovers during and after a disaster should be used to ensure that that infrastructure can serve people during a disaster, not exclude them.
There seem to be a lot of issues in terms of infrastructure systems that need to be reconsidered by the government when it comes to responding to a coronavirus pandemic. However, given the global impact the pandemic is having, it is rethinking these infrastructure systems that are allowing it to spread across the globe that is critical.
Ultimately, more innovative, more spacious, more flexible and decentralized infrastructures can help us reduce biological risks while maintaining economic stability. These systems are built to connect us, not divide us. However, while keeping social distance is healthy and necessary, our infrastructure can and should allow us to minimize human contact while living normal lives.
This article was sourced from the author of Motorhome Cars, and does not represent the opinion position of Motorhome Cars.