Low-density development in the U.S. consumes 85% more energy, 70 times more water, 50 times more lumber and 40 times more land than higher-density development of the same square footage

This is the source of the indirect oil (and energy) savings that building Urban Rail creates. A substantial minority of people WANT the TOD (Transit Orientated Design) choice IF it is available today, with low oil prices.

As we shift into post-Peak Oil that minority will grow. But we are FAR from satisfying that demand today.

Best Hopes,

Alan

My plan to reduce US oil use by 10% in ten to twelve years

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

A list of "on-the-shelf" Urban Rail projects that I have developed (any oversights welcomed)

Albuquerque – Light Rail and Commuter Rail plans
Atlanta - Beltway Light Rail, Northern suburbs Light Rail extension, downtown streetcar
Austin - Two Light Rail Lines plus Commuter rail and downtown streetcars
Baltimore - East-West Light Rail Line, 4 mile extension to current subway
Birmingham AL – Streetcar lines
Boston - All rail plans promised as environmental offset to "Big Dig" Buffalo - Planned extensions to current light rail subway
Charlotte - All plans currently scheduled
Chicago – Expansions to Metra, South Shore Line
Cincinnati –Light Rail plans voted down
Columbus OH – Light Rail and streetcar lines
Corpus Christi TX – Streetcar line
Dallas - All plans through 2015 and all 2015-2030 options (roughly 145 mile system)
Dayton OH – Streetcar plans
Denver - 117 miles of Light Rail and Commuter Rail (already locally funded)
El Paso – Downtown to Border Light Rail
Ft. Lauderdale – Light Rail and streetcar plans under active development
Honolulu – Line currently under development
Houston - All plans voted for, 65 new miles light rail 8 miles commuter
Indianapolis – Light Rail Line plans
Kansas City – Light Rail Line proposed
Las Vegas – Light Rail plans
Little Rock – Short extensions of existing streetcar line, Light Rail line
Los Angeles - Red Line "Subway to the Sea", Vermont Avenue subway, XX miles of Light Rail, electric trolley bus plan, electrify commuter rail
Louisville KY – Light Rail line plans
Madison WS – Streetcar and Commuter Rail plans
Memphis – At least two Light Lines in comprehensive plan
Miami - 103 miles of elevated Rapid Rail (subway type) + Miami Beach streetcar (already locally funded) 90% of the population would be within 3 miles of a station, half within 2 miles of a station
Minneapolis-St. Paul - Central Light Rail connector between the cities, Northstar commuter rail
Missoula MN – Commuter Rail
Nashville – Commuter Rail in process
New Orleans – Desire Streetcar Line, Riverfront Streetcar Line extensions
New York City - 2nd Avenue Subway, 3rd Tunnel under Hudson, Penn to Grand Central connection, Staten Island Light Rail, New Jersey Light Rail extension, commuter rail improvements
Norfolk – Light Rail Plans in progress
Ogden UT – Streetcar plans
Orange County CA – Center Line Light Rail plan voted down
Orlando – Light Rail plan voted down
Philadelphia – City Branch, Roosevelt Blvd. extension of Broad Street subway
Phoenix - 90 miles of Light Rail already approved Pittsburgh - Two Light Rail Lines north from current, under construction line Portland - Green Line (both routes, one funded, other "studied" for future), Streetcar both sides river
Raleigh-Durham NC – Streetcar plans
Sacramento – Additional Light Rail expansion
San Antonio – Light Rail plans voted down
St. Louis - All plans evaluated, perhaps 100 mile system
Salem OR – Streetcar plans Salt Lake City - 90 miles of Light Rail, streetcar and Commuter Rail (vote soon to accelerate)
San Diego - Light Rail spur to North, another to West
San Francisco - New TransBay tunnel, trolley line, BART extension, eBART, Marin-Sonoma commuter rail, CalTrain extension to downtown TransBay Terminal
San Jose - BART extension, several Light Rail extensions
Seattle – Proposed north extension
Spokane – Light Rail line planned
Tampa – 1992 and later plans
Toledo OH – Streetcar plans
Tuscon AZ – Streetcar plans
Washington DC – Tyson’s Corner-Dulles extension, Purple Line, 40 miles of streetcar lines in DC, Columbia Pike Light Rail Winston-Salem NC – Streetcar plans

Are you sure that a minority want the Transit Oriented Design? I know that at least in sweden is it hardest to find an a apartment in the three largest cities and it is in these cities the best public transport is avaible.

I've assembled a review of market preference surveys and forecasts at The Market for Mixed Use & Walkability. In general, about one-third of the American public has a preference for transit- and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods with attached and small-lot housing. However, the preference rates for specific features vary considerably, from 15% all the way up to 75%, depending on the population sampled and the features in question.

What's more, the forecasts for market preferences over the next 20-35 years project big changes in the demographic makeup of the American population, and an associated increase in demand for transit/pedestrian oriented communities. Some researchers are forecasting there will be no demand whatsoever for new, large-lot, exurban McMansions by the year 2025.

I am afraid that at this late date, we are kind of stuck with what housing we have. Once peak oil ( and natural gas) hits, there will be much less building. If nothing else, (people and businesses) will not be able to get 20 or 30 year mortgages. As a result, if we want more density, it will have to be families moving together into a subset of the existing housing stock. If this is planned correctly, it can greatly reduce the fuel needed for natural gas heating. It might also make public transportation more feasible.

With 2/3rds the building materials used in 2006 (and related energy), I believe that we could build much more energy efficent housing (comfortable, desireable) for twice as many people.

The fellow I am helping repair & improve his shotgun house (12' x 36' + 7' x 8' bathroom added on) lives comfortably as do I in my small apartment (1890s house cut up into 6 apartments). So existing housing & commerical.industrial structures can be adapted to denser living; although even this takes copper, labor, insulation, walls, etc. Just less energy & materials.

The annual energy savings by boarding up most McMansions could build housing for a large # of people. So I do not see the US as being completely trapped with our current Urban Form.

The US made a major transition in Urban Form from 1950 to 1970+. We can do it again.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Alan,

I love your posts. I like your thinking. But at heart, you are a cornucopian who is trying to maintain the status quo. The core of your beliefs, I believe, is that the changes you suggest will somehow allow a consumptive, consumer society to continue. If that isn't the case, why do people need the kinds of transport you advocate? And, I might include goods transportation.

We could pack a zillion people into a compact cube where they never had to go anywhere. Ever. And, it would sure be energy efficient. But this isn't what I believe you believe.

I would argue that, to use the trite expression, it might be better to give the "man" 40 acres and a mule than the direction you essentially advocate.

Todd

If your root goal in using this site is to plot the downfall of society, do it somewhere else. A cabin on 400 acres, perhaps.

Most of us prefer finding a way to preserve human life and our current way of life - anything that can mitigate peak oil and global warming is a blessing, not a stumbling block on the way to apocalypse/communism/hippydom.

BTW Alan: you might have missed my reply in our last discussion, as it was posted a few days after the thread was.

it might be better to give the "man" 40 acres and a mule than the direction you essentially advocate

We do not have enough mules ! And given the population shifts from rural to urban and then to suburban; I support a shift back to urban from suburban more than a shift all the way back to rural.

Quite frankly, a human scale urban life can be more rewarding and socially benefical than an isolated rural or suburban existance for most people.

I think that the social isolation of suburbia results in much of the shopping mall "entertainment"/consumptive behavior. I think that a walking neighborhood with Urban rail can result in a significantly higher quality of life with far fewer resources being consumed. That may make me cornucopian, but that is *N*O*T* the "status quo" (except for me personally and a few other New Orleanians :-)

OTOH, After the ASPO conference, I toured (with a group) the soon to be opened Greenbush commuter rail project south of Boston. It linked a series of New England villages with an average population (guess) of 20,000; Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset, Scituate and Greenbush. Another alternative, suburban living on a human scale that could become low energy. Cluster more around the new train station; walking and biking locally. Not for me, but a viable low energy alternative post-Peak Oil for others.

And the "40 acres & a mule" with a trip to town every other Friday (weather permitting) will satisfy others.

We have 300 million Americans. One size does not fit all. But my solution could fit a majority (perhaps a slim majority) of Americans.

Best Hopes,

Alan

A 12' x 36' home with a 7' x 8' bathroom added on is not what I would consider a "consumptive" lifestyle. Yes, in-door plumbing (which I like and support :-) aand more space than the average Chinese (or Japanese) but not dramatically more.

I would rather consume good music, great tasting food, beautiful architechure and enjoy my neighbors than mall shopping, etc. None of the above requires large amounts of energy or other material resources.

Good music takes no more energy (perhaps less) than Britney Spears, great tasting food (using mainly local ingredients) may use less resources than a Happy Meal from McDonalds, Beautiful architecture takes little more than strip malls & McMansions and spending time with your neighbors uses far less energy than commuting alone everyday in a SUV.

Yes, I want to "consume", but not the stereotypical American pattern of consumption.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Metric: 3.7 m x 14.75 m home with 2.1 m x 2.2 m bathroom

That whole quote taken from the conference was very confusing to me:
"In the United States, for example, 80% of the population lives in cities. Their buildings, transportation and urban infrastructure account for 80% of U.S. energy consumption, and 70% of that amount is determined by how and where Americans design their neighborhoods. Low-density development in the U.S. consumes 85% more energy, 70 times more water, 50 times more lumber and 40 times more land than higher-density development of the same square footage.

Note the first part "In the United States, for example, 80% of the population lives in cities. Their buildings, transportation and urban infrastructure account for 80% of U.S. energy consumption..." Now, as the quote goes on to say " Low-density development in the U.S. consumes 85% more energy", would this not mean that as a percent of their population, city dwellers would consume far less than the one to one match of their poplulation by percent that is the 80% of America living in the city would not consume the full 80% percent of America's energy? In fact, if less dense dwelling folks consumed 85% more, then most at least half of all energy would be consumed by the percent living in less densely poplulated areas (!?) (Unless of course much of the "less dense" areas are being incorporated into the "city", thus confusing an already confused count)

The whole advantage of massively increased population density as somehow being of advantage in reducing fossil fuel consumption needs a great deal more study. There are the Kunstler types who hated the suburban development pattern to the core of their being long before the "peak" issue was even thought of, and much of what passes for an "energy" discussion is actually an aesthetic preference debate. There are those who hate the city and those who hate the suburbs and rural living. In many cases their conjecture begins from the point of their hatred for these living arrangements and NOT from any factually demonstrated proof of energy consumption per se, given the wide variety of living/consumptive arrangements in both town and country.

Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.

Ultimately the best reason to live in a town or urban neighborhood is because it has a better quality of life, in the view of the people who choose to live there. Freedom of choice is what there should be more of.

Academic studies have shown that well designed neighborhoods with a minimum density (around 6-8 dwellings per acre) have substantially less VMT, gasoline use, and emissions. But that's just lagniappe for most people, assuming they have even heard about it.

I too would like to see the research support for the quote about buildings, transportation and urban infrastructure. The numbers imply much greater benefits for high-density development than I have seen in the literature.

I used to live in a city that had about 10 dwellings/acre. It covered 45 sq mi. Just about anything I wanted to buy was within 10 miles. I worked for the local transit authority and knew how to get pretty close to wherever I wanted to go without using a car. I rarely used the bus unless I was going where I had to pay to park. Therein lies a conservation incentive rarely talked about which is what I would call a parking space tax. People drive because there is no charge for parking at Walmart and the malls. The cost of parking along with available public transit is why car use is much lower in NYC. Add a $5 parking charge to every purchase at Walmart and people will take fewer trips but purchase more per trip. Use the money to eliminate bus fares and improve the service and watch gasoline use go down.
I now live at the edge of a small Iowa town 30 miles from the nearest Walmart. It currently costs me about $5 worth of gas to make the round trip a few times per month. The population density around here is 1/100th what it is in the city I used to live in. Public transit is a twice a day stop by a bus that goes between Des Moines and Kansas City. The 20% who do not live in urban areas must continue to use cars. We may find ways to use them less but we must still use them.

I agree that there needs to be more research on energy savings via Urban Form. When I have time I will contact the author.

However, I simply KNOW, by living, that I use far less than, say my brothers (Phoenix & Austin). I am unsure about my sister (Manhatten).

Pre-Katrina, New York City and New Orleans were statistically tied for the fewest miles driven per capita by residents (excluding suburbanites driving in). New Orleans was on a far more human scale and should serve as a model for the rest of the nation. I live in one of the best "Old Urbanism" neighborhoods in New Orleans (Lower Garden District). In many ways, the "creme de la creme" of fine, low energy living :-))

Best Hopes,

Alan