Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [carfree_cities] Energy conservation in transport sector

Expand Messages
  • Todd Edelman
    Hi, ... (Dyer) 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
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 9, 2006
      Hi,

      >> 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.
      >
      > =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.
      <_Jym_> (Dyer)

      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
      course.

      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.

      - Todd
      >
      >
      >------------------ Old Message ----------------------
      Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400
      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.

      ------------------------------------------------------

      Todd Edelman
      Director
      Green Idea Factory

      ++420 605 915 970

      edelman@...
      http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

      Green Idea Factory,
      a member of World Carfree Network
    • chbuckeye
      ... Here are some results of a study in the US. Energy used for transportation is significant. Also note that almost all energy for transportion in the US
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 11, 2006
        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "ktsourl" <ktsourl@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > 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?

        Here are some results of a study in the US. Energy used for
        transportation is significant. Also note that almost all energy for
        transportion in the US comes from petroleum.

        http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.