Re: [carfree_cities] Energy conservation in transport sector
> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some=v= This is a false dichotomy. Given the amount of carbon being
> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
the energy use in *all* sectors. Quibbling over which sector is
worse is a distraction.
=v= We see this all the time within a sector: Being able to run
an electric, or hybrid, or biodiesel engine becomes an excuse to
drive cars, drive SUVs, and drive them longer distances. That
kind of thinking impedes real progress.
=v= If you do find the type of studies you seek (including ones
that come to the opposite conclusion), analyze them. It's easy
for them to overlook variables. Also, consider the ways in
which the two overlap:
o What proportion of the building is being devoted to cars?
o Is the building situated in a location (e.g. a sprawling
suburb) dependent, by design, on car use?
>> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some<_Jym_> (Dyer)
>> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
>> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
> =v= This is a false dichotomy. Given the amount of carbon being
> pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
> the energy use in *all* sectors. Quibbling over which sector is
> worse is a distraction.
I DISagree that this is a false dichotomy. I think everyone on this list
... and a few others ;-)... would agree that we need to reduce energy use
and its effects in *all* sectors. The point Lloyd makes (original message
below) is quite right-on, and - though it is not clear if the Lisbon
Ecoproject With Convenient Parking energy use estimate includes a high or
decent percentage of public transport - I would argue that even public
transport-dependent development is a problem, as when someone cant or
doesnt want to take public transport their only option is a car. So,
sprawl can induce car use, even it has plenty of public transport to
another urban area.
Of course, if it is difficult to take a car to the centre, or if the new
site is relatively self-sufficient, things get improved. I think the best
distance is tram-distance, which is also bike-distance, or closer of
As some of you know I have been involved in the train/public transport
industry sector for a couple of years now, and I am really so sick of
sustainable transport this, sustainable mobility that... argghh!
Leading industry manufacturers, so proud of their magnificent trains and
such, say things like "cities are defined by the public transport systems"
in industry magazines. They talk about cities expanding and the need for
mobility and so on, and that trains are a solution. They want cities to
expand, or at least dont care, and are there with some nice commuter
trains and metros which make non-independent sprawl okay.
But really, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot (feet). I
would like to make an economic case for the industry for building public
transport for closer distances. So trams (and buses) plus infrastructure
making the industry more money than suburban trains and metros. Focusing
on proximity, which means way less people get tempted (because, as I said
above they live in long-distance transport dependent areas) to buy a car
and drive. And if everyone who is not walking or taking the tram (bus)
doesnt need a car, then you better bet they will have to take the train
between cities, and this makes them more money in that sector anyway.
>Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400
>------------------ Old Message ----------------------
From: Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...>
Subject: Lisbon project
The following article outlines a new project near Lisbon, Portugal to
develop a "sustainable" community for 30,000 people. Unfortunately,
they have chosen a greenfield site in a nature reserve. Besides the
obvious damage to the reserve, it would also seem that the development
(about 20 km) from Lisbon is also going to increase sprawl and long
commutes. I am surprised to see that WWF is behind the project.
I recall a study a few years back comparing the overall environmental
impact of highly energy-efficient homes in a suburban area to energy
inefficient homes in the city centre. The study took place in San
Francisco. The result was that the super efficient homes in a
suburban area produced many more emissions than an inefficient home in
the city centre. Basically, the extra energy consumed in the longer
commute blew away any savings from having an energy-efficient home.
It seems that the Lisbon project is repeating this mistake. Worse
still is the fact that the whole concept is being touted as being
"green" and "sustainable" by leading environmental organisations. It
seems to me that it would be significantly better to invest their 1
billion euros in a brownfield site in a low-income area of Lisbon.
Green Idea Factory
++420 605 915 970
Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network
- --- In email@example.com, "ktsourl" <ktsourl@...> wrote:
>Here are some results of a study in the US. Energy used for
> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study
> indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more
> sense, than conserving energy in residential sector. Does anybody have
> any clue how to find this or some similar study?
transportation is significant. Also note that almost all energy for
transportion in the US comes from petroleum.