Regarding the impending oil scarcity there is a surprisingly small difference in fuel energy usage per passenger km between public and private transport modes, reinforced by the fact that transport energy constitutes only 10% of peoples’ emissions. Total lifetime energy (the energy used for construction and operation of vehicles) varies little between public transport and private transport. In 1999 this energy per passenger km was found to be 2.8 mega joules per passenger km for public buses, for light rail 2.1, for heavy rail 2.8 and for cars 4.4 ("Total requirements of energy and greenhouse gases for Australian transport", Manfred Lenzen, Transportation Research Part D (1999), 265-290, Pergamon). All indications are that under pressure from this growing scarcity and the possibility of global warming private transport will become much more energy efficient than public transport. As mentioned, Volkswagen are to market a car next year with a fuel consumption of only one litre per 100km (less than 1/10 of what is was in 1999) and which of course will be able to go the shortest distance to where one wishes to go resulting in further savings.

As previously mentioned no one can name a high-density city that has any significant reduction in car use and does not suffer from congestion problems, long average travel times, pollution and high greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, quoting instances of newly developed medium-density in limited areas does not justify forcing high-density onto people in established suburbs. In the past many crazy impositions have been made onto people, often with tragic results. What we need are facts to prove this is to the greater public good and these facts are sadly lacking. It is preferable to quote primary factual numerical sources of information rather than rely on what may be ideologically driven opinions. Unfortunately very few of these articles are directly available on the Internet.

Eclipse Now refers to Professor Peter Newman who responded to an article that I had written in the journal "People and Place" in 2005. I replied to his response but there has been no further reaction from him.

TonyR,

“Regarding the impending oil scarcity there is a surprisingly small difference in fuel energy usage”
Which is it, fuel or energy? Cars currently require *liquid fuels*, which is a problem. It takes 16 years to change the fleet over. Trolley buses run on *electricity*, which can be amply supplied by green sources.

You also seem to select the "studies" that suit your purposes. MJ per passenger-km is 3.7 for cars, but .015 for electric trams, according to the “Australian Greenhouse Office, AGO Factors and Methods Workbook 2006.”
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/greenhouse.shtml

Some denser plans focus on neither cars or rail, but walking. http://villageforum.com/ Coming soon to southern NSW.

I agree that transport is only a part of our emissions, but *medium* density and DIVERSITY can have all sorts of spin-off effects. Less need for cars means less cars manufactured, and saves on energy and materials. Closer communities enables walking and cycling.

As for endlessly repeating the myth that there is no dense city where people drive less? Hello? Manhattan? (And I’m not recommending a Manhattan style density, but the New Urbanism in my last post, or Village Towns at the link above).

“New Yorkers, like many city dwellers, tend to have a lighter per-capita carbon footprint than other Americans — in large part because they drive less and walk more.”
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/taking-the-woe-out-of-walking-in-new-york-city/

“New Yorkers' Carbon Footprint Reportedly Among Smallest in U.S.”
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/new-yorkers-carbon-footprint-reportedly-among/78949/

“City Dwellers Live Longer, Save More by Driving Less”
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007191.html

Portland is another example. They save $2.6 billion annually compared to other cities, live closer to work & home in compact communities, and save time and money.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007191.html

You failed to address the point Peter Newman made on the Science Show about young people flocking into vital city cores, or the 220 EU scientists finding FOR *denser* and diverse city plans.

In my opinion all these arguments about infill verses urban spread are moot. The fact is that as long as population growth in Australia is not seriously curbed (and a significant start could be made almost immediately by drastically reducing immigration as well as replacing baby bonus type incentives with disincentives)there will be unrelenting pressures to both spread outwards and inwards. The other possibility is decentralization which of course may relieve some of the pressure in the shorter term.

Both land and conventional energy sources are becoming ever scarcer leading to ever increasing prices of both resources. Restrict spread and you have less land and housing affordability. Allow spread and you have decreased transport affordability, increased commuting times, decreased natural habitat and often decreased arable farmland.

Whatever "plan" evolves it is obvious that the authorities will need to pay more than lip service to addressing social and environmental concerns. I hold out very little hope though that we will get any more than the vested interest driven, but discredited "business as usual" solutions both major parties keep dishing up.

If we can't avoid giving birth to more Beijings, Mexico Cities or Sao Paolo's we should do our utmost to postpone them for as long as possible

Your right Kulu.At least we can all agree that a sustainable population is the way to go.

Unfortunately both major parties seem determined to break all records on immigration.After the latest revelations in Queensland re politicians standards and the revelations in NSW over the last few years ,time to give the Libs and Labor the flick.They have a gentlemens club mentality,giving each other jobs for the boys when the other is not in government.Even the latest attempt to bring in 16 as the voting age is an attempt to entrench Labor in power.Both Libs and Labor are still taking high rise developer donations ,the real driver behind this high rise frenzy.

This "Buy an Australian Passport' student visa scam was started by Howard and continued by Rudd.350,000 overseas students means 350,000 less jobs for our youth, as the visa holders have to work 1500 hours as part of their agreement.They're studying phoney courses like hospitality that our own youth could easily be taught at TAFE.

Then when they get their Passport that they have paid thousands for-we don't know what percentage get it-they get permanent jobs and take away more jobs from Australians.The next years batch comes in to study,but next year it will be 400,000, as the scheme is rapidly increasing,so 400,000 jobs are taken from our youth.

Mr Rudd's 50,000 job initiative for young workers, compared to these figures, is a farce.

Vote for the best other candidate is what I have done at the last few elections.My only other problem is who to put last and second last out of Liberal and Labor.

Regards from Tony2

Eclipse now,

There is a hell of a lot of ground between what we have now and the 100% insulated boxes and buzz cars you think we would need.

An increase in energy costs, and subsidies for smaller cars (such as lower tolls into the city) would reduce the use of gas guzzlers to recreational use as opposed to daily use.

In engineering there is the Pareto principle which suggests that 80% of the benefit can be achieved with 20% of the effort.

Your all or nothing approach will simply cause resentment and a back lash.

Hmmm, let's see. Methinks you're trying to straw-man my argument (especially with the "insulated boxes" remark!)

Energy costs? How does $300 a barrel oil sound in about 5 years? Or maybe *oil shortages*? Remember, 97% of freight in this country is done by truck. Peak oil is an established, peer reviewed scientific reality and we're about 5 to 10 years away from PERMANENTLY decreasing production!

Talk about hitting a "Limit To Growth!" And you're worried about resentment?

How does young people moving into vital city cores (New Urbanism, not high-rise boxes that you were referring to) square with your view of "resentment"? What about the longed-for arrival of more and more New Urbanist regions across the USA, with 600 more New Urbanist townships in the pipeline?

Claude Lewenz spoke at Sydney's TEDx this year on his "Village Town" concept for south of Sydney. 500 people / village, 20 villages / "Village-Town", and 80% local economy meeting local needs and all agriculture coming from the beautiful farms surrounding the village. See 15 minute video here.
http://villageforum.com/

Afterwards a young mother thanked him in heartfelt tears of gratitude for such a beautiful town plan and car-free lifestyle concept! This is *not* about appealing to the hippies, but something anthropologically deep within us that relates to smaller groups of human beings, and having an intimate sense of "place" that we still enjoy when we visit places in old Europe or places like Venice.

How does the marketplace *growth* of New Urbanism in a die-hard car-culture like America relate to your "resentment", and how does the intense emotional connection established by such places bear on your *theory*?

Ultimately, we will have 9 billion people by 2050 wanting the "good life", and you want to give it to them gift-wrapped in the most land and energy greedy town plan ever invented? Good luck!