Urban density, public transport and the environment

Some sane words from Paul Mees; a senior lecturer in transport planning at RMIT. His book Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age will be released in December.

So it is possible to compare population densities and use of ”sustainable” transport (public transport, walking and cycling) across the three countries’ urban areas. Nobody has done this before, because the data did not become fully available until last year, but it can now be assembled. I have done this, using the most recent census (2006 for us and Canada; 2000 for the US).

The results are not what might have been expected. Far from being the paradigm of sprawl, Los Angeles is actually the most densely populated urban area of all. High-rise centres are not much of a guide to overall urban densities. The 8 million residents of New York City live at high densities, but the 13 million residents of the surrounding suburbs live in more spacious surroundings than their counterparts in Los Angeles, producing a lower overall figure.

The real reason Los Angeles is such an environmental disaster is not low density, but high density – combined with a huge population that depends on cars. This concentrates traffic and pollution, maximising the environmental impacts.

Melbourne, with nearly 16 people per hectare (not five), is a medium-density city, closer to the top of the table than the bottom. We are denser than Chicago, Boston and Portland, the American poster-city for ”smart growth”.

But relatively high densities have little to do with the use of sustainable transport. The best performer is the Canadian capital, Ottawa, which is much less dense than Los Angeles and about the same as Melbourne. Brisbane has barely half Melbourne’s density and a third that of Los Angeles, but use of sustainable transport is similar to Melbourne and more than twice the level in LA.

Sustainable transport use has more to do with transport policy than density, which is excellent news for anyone concerned about the environment. It would take many decades and vast expense to substantially change the density of a city of 4 million people, and we don’t have that much time. Climate change and insecure oil supplies are urgent problems, and we need solutions now. Fortunately, transport policies can be changed more quickly and with less disruption than urban form, so we might be able to keep our leafy suburbs and still save the planet.

Better Place Demo – Charging Station

From Earth2Tech:

Electric vehicle infrastructure company Better Place is planning on using largely standard technology to deliver its electric vehicle dreams: car companies’ plug-in vehicles and basic charging stations. But one of the startup’s key technology differentiators is its battery swap station, and Better Place thinks by sprinkling swap stations at the edge of communities it’ll solve the problem of the short range of electric vehicles. So what technological feat has gone into the production of the battery swap station? Well, you can have a look-see Tuesday night at 10:30 p.m. Pacific time, when Better Place will be showing off a live video feed on its web site of a demonstration of its first battery swap station in Yokohama, Japan.

Public vs Private Transport

In January 2008, when the Tata ‘Nano’ was unveiled with much fanfare, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) had come out clearly – as always — against the growing trend of private motor vehicles taking over our cities. Today, CSE reiterates its position once again – that it is against all cars, and not just the Nano. Our cities don’t need more cars; they need better public transport.

via The New Nation – Internet Edition.

Yes, India needs public transport. But who should be providing this? The govt. or the private sector. That is the issue.

Blaming the private sector for the mistakes of the govt. is ill advised.

Analysis: Nano Hypocrisy?

One car gets 46 miles per gallon, features fancy accessories, and sports two engines with a combined 145 horsepower. The other car reportedly gets 54 miles per gallon, runs on a diminutive 30-horsepower engine, and is positively spartan in its interior trimmings. The first is a darling of the environmentally conscious. The latter is reviled as a climate wrecker. These two vehicles are the Toyota Prius and the newly unveiled Tata Nano, dubbed “the people’s car.” Is there a double standard?

via Analysis: Nano Hypocrisy? | Worldwatch Institute.

Can anybody explain?

Electric cars start to power the grid

This month, the City of Newark, Delaware became the first electric utility in the US to use a car to store and provide power for the local electric grid.

In my view, the electric car system will change the entire pradigm of energy, costs, convenience and greenhouse issues.  Earlier I wrote about Shai Agassi’s plan.

Now, with the testing of the first cars in the US to power the grid, the entire electric car system is completing a full cycle.

This is an area to watch.

via City of Newark first in nation using cars to power grid.

Bicycle – The new green investment

Super Cheap Autos today announced the purchase of two bicycle retail chains for a combined $7.4 million, just a week after travel specialist Flight Centre announced the purchase of a bicycle brand and talks over a possible joint venture with the 99Bikes retail chain.

So what could be attracting the interest of two companies involved in the transport industry heavily dependent on fossil fuels?

The answer, according to Super Cheap Auto CEO Peter Birtles, is soaring energy costs and environmental concerns. Birtles says the bike retail and accessories market is worth around $1 billion a year, but is a highly fragmented market.
Bike sales grew by nearly 20 per cent last year and further growth is expected because of those environmental concerns, the rising cost of fuel and expected government investment in bike paths and the like.

A very forward thinking management at these companies. More from Business Spectator.

Krugman on public transport

Taking from where the Nytimes suggested the increase in public transport usage in America, Krugman says that:

But … as of 2005, only 4.7 percent of American workers took mass transit to work. So even a 10% surge in mass transit ridership would take only around half a percent of drivers off the road.

The point isn’t that nothing can be done — it’s just that serious reductions in driving would require a lot of long-term rearrangement of the way we live. It will come — but not quickly.

More on comparisons between, US, Canada and Europe,

A tale of three cities

What’s more, as far as I can make out from the data, a lot more Canadians than Americans (as a percentage of the population) have switched to public transit over the past year; because the system is there, they have more flexibility.

INSERT DESCRIPTION

All in all, this comparison is a reason not to believe apocalyptic warnings about the long-run effects of energy scarcity: there’s a lot of substitution possible. America’s main problem is that we have a capital stock — cars, public infrastructure, and housing — designed for dirt-cheap oil. And the transition may be nasty.

Petrol Price Protest – Feb 22nd (well sort of!)

Today I received this e-mail in my Inbox about a planned petrol price protest on the Feb 22nd in Australia. Real funny e-mail. Irrespective of the claims of the protest and its possibility lets look at the lack of economic thinking which has led to the creation of this mail.

The mail starts with this:

IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF PETROL FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.

Well, in fact it will tougher if there is more demand than supply than the other way round. They got this one wrong.

AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES.

It’s beyond me how you can go from low demand to a net loss and that for one day. The pent up demand will come back the next day. In fact, the most hit may be the distribution companies. Anyways, Australia is too small a player to make any difference. In fact, South Australia gets its oil from a refinery in Singapore. That low in demand!

THEREFORE FRIDAYFEBRUARY 22nd HAS BEEN FORMALLY
DECLARED STICK IT UP THEIR ASS’ DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF PETROL THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.

Try your luck…

WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES? IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISEDLONG AGO?

THE PRICES JUST KEEP GOING UP AND WE NEED TO STOP IT

PETROL PRICES ARE CAUSING OTHER EFFECTS; AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, AS ARE TRUCKING COMPANIES . THIS INCREASES PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON’T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY,WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE FEBRUARY22nd THE DAY CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA SAY ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’

Well, the connection of petrol prices to food and clothing is right. However, if we look at this from a carbon point of view in fact, we need to increase the price of petrol in order to curb its demand. Simple economics, price goes up and the demand should go down. This week’s BRW magazine (no online linking possible) has an article on how Australia has least expensive petrol after the US and China. That doesn’t help.

The interesting thing is that people do not understand simple economics and try to solve the big problems of the world.