No surprise here, and this is something I've noticed. In the USA, every time a new LEED-certified "green" building is built on the outer edge of the city limits, the mayor/city commission go into spasms at some ribbon-cutting ceremony to introduce the city's "commitment" to the environment. The owner of the building typically gets a wad of taxpayer money and free publicity on page 1A of the local newspaper.
Of course, the mayor and city commission conveniently forgot to mention that the building was located where it is because no other land is available--thanks to the fact that it's probably illegal to subdivide large, low-density lots. Also, since the building owner was required by law to provide more parking spaces than they'll ever actually need, it was forced to a large, remote lot, since nobody wants to pay for the parking garage that would be required elsewhere.
> "This was a huge surprise," says Environmental Building News (EBN)
> executive editor Alex Wilson, author of the article. "I knew that
> transportation energy requirements were significant, but I was amazed
> at the differences." For the article, Wilson collected average U.S.
> data for commute distance, vehicle fuel economy, the split among
> different commuting options, and the number of square feet of building
> per office worker to normalize transportation energy intensity in Btu/
> square foot per year. He was then able to compare that transportation
> energy intensity to the average building energy use (also in Btu/ft2-
> yr) for average existing office buildings and energy code-compliant
> buildings (see table below).