Toward a Full Accounting of GHG Transport Emissions

Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is no simple matter in urban transport. It is not as simple as the GHG emissions from the vehicles themselves. For example, there is the vehicle manufacturing process. There is also vehicle maintenance and the energy used to keep stations and administrative facilities open. There is simply no central source of information for such data, a situation that is a serious “GHG omission.”

Three decades ago, BART, the San Francisco area rapid transit system, published estimates of the full energy requirements for operating public transport and cars, including such factors as vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Generally, the analysis found that the rail mode required 41 percent more energy than is consumed in traction (transportation), buses 37 percent and cars 22 percent. These factors may be old, but they may be the only ones available (and it is possible that they are still valid).

If we assume the BART factors, then the comparison of GHG emissions between transport modes in Australia is even more favorable for cars. The average car would emit 229 grams of GHG per passenger kilometer, compared to 212 grams for buses and 148 grams for Sydney’s rail system. Cars meeting the 2010 National Average Fuel Consumption target would be better than both buses and rail in Sydney at 137 grams per passenger kilometer. The best hybrids could better buses by two-thirds and rail by one-half.

All of which points out the needed for objective, comprehensive analysis.

The previous post on GHG emissions by mode("Public Transport Greenhouse Emissions Similar to Cars", Wednesday, October 31, 2007) does not include any adjustment for vehicle maintenance, right of way maintenance, and stations. Its calculations apply only to direct transportation.

Posted by Demographia

Letter Published: Outrageous land prices

Sunday Telegraph 4 November 2007
It is astounding to learn that Landcom, an organisation set up by the New South Wales Government to offer affordable houses on the city fringe, is demanding up to an outrageous $380,000 for newly released housing lots in Helensburgh ("High-rise towers for the aged", Sunday Telegraph 28 October). Such prices cannot be justified as agricultural land sells for the equivalent of only $6000 per housing lot. Instead of releasing sufficient land to meet demand, Landcom’s role has deteriorated to hoarding land and making housing unaffordable for most people. Those seeking a home are forced to live packed in like chooks in battery cages or to move to another State. No wonder Sydney is now numbered among the world cities with the most unaffordable housing.

Tony Recsei
President Save Our Suburbs

Letters published - Power corrupts

North Shore Times 2 November 2007
Victoria Brookman (Labor candidate), the furore about Frank Sartor’s grab of Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning powers is no mere political beat-up (Times October 26). The community is objecting to the Department of Planning devising ever more despotic ways of forcing high-density into the community. There can be no doubt the residents overwhelmingly reject high-density, this was conclusively proved at the series of huge public meetings organised by Ku-ring-gai Council at Ravenswood School. What is more, imposed high-density is detrimental not only to the local community but also is indisputably bad for the public at large. This does not seem to concern the powers that be. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Tony Recsei
President Save Our Suburbs

Northside Courier 31 October 2007

Frank Sartor wants to take the planning powers of Ku-ring-gai Council in order to make it easier for his Department of Planning to force high-density into the local community. Over the last few years Council has bent over backwards to comply with his Department’s demands but it is never enough. Perhaps the councilors have at last discovered that it does not pay to cave in to bullies. They just hit you all the more. The community is now left with no alternative – stand up and fight. A determined campaign on all possible fronts by a united community of 100,000 people would make these would-be dictators think twice about any more despotic actions.

Tony Recsei
President Save Our Suburbs

Public Transport Greenhouse Emissions Similar to Cars

Contrary to the repeated claims of high-density advocates that public transport travel is environmentally far superior to travel in cars, it has now been found that this is not the case. Greenhouse gas emission data posted by Demographia shows that the average petrol car in Australia in 2006 emitted 188 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and the figure for the more efficient cars now is as little as 60 grams.

These figures should be compared with the average bus in Australia which emits 155 grams CO2 equivalent per passenger km and with the 105 grams for travelling by rail in Sydney.

The emission figures of the Toyota Prius and the Peugeot hybrid diesel cars are indications that even the surprisingly small advantage of public transport could soon be eroded away by technology.

The reality that public transport use is not significantly more environmentally sustainable is of huge importance for planning policies. For the past two decades the NSW State Government has been implementing a policy of forcing high-density into communities. The principal foundation of these policies has been the allegation that people living in high-density will be able to travel more sustainably by public transport instead of by car. We now know this is not so.

The rationale for the despotic policies that have destroyed home ownership and grossly overloaded existing infrastructure is baseless.

Car use keeps rising despite urban consolidation

Densification arising has not reduced automobile use in Australian urban areas, despite the claims and expectations of urban consolidation policy ("smart growth") proponents. Urban consolidation policies have been adopted in virtually all of Australia's large urban areas. Their principal focus has been to force new development away from the urban fringe, while densifying already developed areas. Urban consolidation theory holds that densification will lead to reduced automobile use.

However, data in an Australian Bureau of Statistics series beginning in 1999 shows that automobile use continues to increase in Australia's capital cities.

Among the five largest capital cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide), per capital automobile use rose 11 percent between 1999 and 2006. The smallest increase was in Melbourne, at 5 percent. The largest increase was in Perth, at 26 percent.

Among the three smaller capital cities (Hobart, Darwin and Canberra), automobile use increased approximately 10 percent per capita between 1999 and 2006. The smallest increase was in Canberra, at 1 percent, while the largest was in Darwin, at 33 percent.

This is not to suggest that urban consolidation policy has had no impact in Australia's cities. Housing affordability has been virtually destroyed, as house prices have risen 70 percent relative to household incomes in just 10 years. For example:

In Perth, the purchase and financing cost of the median price house has risen more than $500,000 in since 1996 (inflation adjusted). By comparison, in Austin, Texas, an urban area of similar size and with somewhat higher demand as Perth, there has been a reduction in the purchase and financing cost of the median priced house over the same period. Generally, land use policies in the Austin area are responsive to demand rather than prescribed by the planning visions that have turned into such nightmares in Australia (see Demographia Third Annual International Housing Affordability Survey).

Data from: Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 31 October 2006


Wendell Cox

"Demand" argument nullifies rationale for urban consolidation

Less than 0.3 percent of Australia's land area is in development. In the upside-down world of politics, it should come Less than 0.3 percent of Australia's land area is in urban development. In the upside-down world of politics, it as no surprise that public policy virtually bans urban development in the other 99.7 percent. Every large urban area has adopted "urban consolidation" policies ("smart growth" or "compact city" policies) to fight the dreaded demon, "urban sprawl," which, of course, is nothing more than the spreading out of urban areas to accommodate new population and maximize economic opportunity. The reality, however, is that urban consolidation is combating the middle-income quality of life, as housing prices have predictably exploded relative to incomes as a result of the land rationing. Any competent economist would have predicted this. No economist was asked.

The urban planning community is in denial, putting forth the view that their land rationing policies have not driven up prices. Perhaps the most invoked refuge is the view that people don't want to live on the fringe, where development is banned and that they prefer to live in the cores of urban areas. Everyone has abandoned the fringe and they are all bidding for properties in places like Sydney's eastern suburbs, driving up prices. This is both disingenuous and absurd.

Before the planners managed to seduce governments into destructive urban consolidation, Australians, like Germans, French, Canadians, Americans, Japanese and Swedes were moving to the urban fringe, where housing was affordable. Then came the development bans and the perpetrators tell us that Australians are somehow different — that young families with children would much rather live in rental units without gardens and have their children play on balconies (actually the research, ignored by the planners, says the opposite).

Indeed, if the market is no longer interested in less expensive housing (and home ownership) on the urban fringe then there is no need for urban consolidation policy. Eliminate the urban growth nooses and see what happens. If we are to believe the planners, the hundreds of thousands of renting and forming households will stay put in the core… perhaps two or three will take advantage of the cheaper housing on the fringe. This is the absurdity. The planning community, which has often been more inclined to act on personal impressions, while ignoring the data, hasn't anything to support this view but a statistically insignificant sample of opinions exchanged at their inbred conferences.

There are, however, signs of hope that some states may begin to release more land for develop and release the Great Australian Dream from captivity. The governments of Queensland, which is already receiving huge migration from overly regulated (even by Australian standards) New South Wales and South Australia, with its near zero population growth. Much more is needed, but it is a start.

Wendell Cox

Sydney's Urban Consolidation (High-density) Depression

Brickworks, one of Australia's largest building materials suppliers, has warned that the Sydney area is about to enter its most prolonged housing construction downturn since the Great Depression, according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Sydney house prices have exploded relative to incomes. In just 10 years, the cost of the median price house, including mortgage interest, has risen $450,000 in Sydney (inflation adjusted). Sydney prices relative to incomes are now running three times prices in Atlanta, which is the fastest growing large urban area in the high-income world.

Some analysts have blamed higher interest rates for the downturn, apparently unaware of the fact that interest rates today remain well below post-World War II norms. Moreover, interest rates can hardly be cited as the cause of either the price run-up or the current Sydney depression, since neither has occurred in other markets, all of which have experienced the same global interest trends.

The problem is more fundamental and is the result of government land rationing and taxing policies, which are called "urban consolidation" (called "smart growth" in many other nations). All of this has contributed to an explosion in land costs, with little new housing being constructed. The result has been a virtual destruction of housing affordability,

Housing starts in New South Wales are at their lowest point today since 1958, according to the same article. This, in context, is extraordinary, given that there are more than twice as many households today in New South Wales as in 1958.

Wendell Cox
Demographia | Wendell Cox Consultancy - St. Louis Missouri-Illinois metropolitan region
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
France..33.6.10.59.59.92
USA..1.618 632 8507

Heart Bypass Operations a Mistake?

The efficient circulation of people and goods are as vital to a city as is the circulation of blood in the body. Restrict the flow and the results are harmful. Yet there are people who vigorously oppose the building of new roads - they say new roads will just fill up with traffic. But that indicates a pentup demand - people do not just drive around for the fun of it. The anti-road advocates say that public transport should be developed instead. But public transport cannot do the job - look at any city around the world (with the possible exception of Hong Kong where people mostly live in bird cages).

To these head-in-the-sand obstructionists Wendell Cox says:

You read it first here. I have been advised that prestigious medical research is soon to be published suggesting that heart bypass operations no longer be performed.

The problem is that the bypass arteries simply create more blood flow, creating no relief for the old arteries. It is said that researchers were first alerted to the problem when they were exposed to the theory of "induced" traffic, whereby building new roads just creates more traffic.

It is expected that medical insurance companies will soon remove coverage for heart bypass operations, since as soon as the new arteries are made available, they fill up with blood.

Dreaming About Rail in Norwest and Macquarie Park

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 September 2007 describes the exodus of jobs from downtown Sydney to suburban office parks like Norwest and Macquarie Park. This is simply the continuation of a trend that has long been underway, not only in Sydney, but also in Paris, Portland and Pheonix.

The clueless NSW State government, which oversees transport and planning, imagines somehow that they will serve these areas with new rail systems, and reduce automobile commuting. Norwest, probably the largest new business centre in Australia will be served by one rail station, while Macquarie Park will get three.

What they don’t understand, of course, is that rail transport is about the city centre --- that there is no way any government can afford to provide the level of service necessary to serve suburban office parks. What do they expect? Do they imagine commuters from Liverpool will somehow use the overcrowded (not to mention unreliable) rail system to travel through the city centre and then to Norwest or Macquarie Park? Will residents of Penrith choose travel by rail to Parramatta, then through the city centre or Chatswood and on, circuitously to Macquarie Park or Norwest?

What makes public transport viable, even if unreliable, to the city centre, is that routes converge there from all over the urban area. No urban area can afford that level of public transport investment in more than one centre. Rail stations in Norwest and Macquarie Park may get government ministers the odd favorable headline, but they will be of virtually no account in reducing automobile commuting.

Wendell Cox

Developers close ranks

The Housing Industry Association was one developer body that stood against higher densities, preferring the alternative of new homes on greenfield sites. No longer. In a press release today the organisation says there is an urgent need to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. That means high density.

Save Our Suburbs is issuing the following press release:


An Appalling Call says Save Our Suburbs

"Save Our Suburbs views with great concern the call by the Housing Industry Association (HIA) for the supply of rental housing to be increased (HIA press release 20 July 2007)" says Dr Tony Recsei, President of Save Our Suburbs NSW.

He asked "why is HIA promoting the investor rental market instead of home ownership? This can only result in yet more high-density being forced onto unwilling communities".

Dr Recsei asserted "The ‘Great Australian Dream’ has been home ownership, not home rental. Self-reliant home ownership, not dependant life time rental, has been Australia's overwhelming success story. It will be tragedy if the Australian way of life, the envy of the world, is to be abandoned."

Eastern Suburbs to get "their share" of high-density

The Sydney Morning Herald 20 July 2007 reports that 20,000 houses are to be "squeezed into some of Sydney's most densely populated areas". Botany Bay has to cram in 6500 more homes, Randwick 8400, Waverley 2200 and Woollarha 2900. This is a rude shock for some of the residents who were hoping that their current high densities would quarantine them from more impositions. They can now look forward to further overloading of the locality infrastructure - clogged roads, overflowing sewers, power failures and water reticulation problems. And of course vanishing gardens and open space.

SOS Adelaide - Patrick Troy addresses AGM

SOS in Adelaide report on some points made by Patrick Troy (Emeritus Professor and Visiting Fellow, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU) in his address at their April 2007 AGM:


"Developers have inordinate influence"


"We must make the planning process public."


"Granny-flats were built in back-yards in the 1970s. Advocates said this would free up big houses for families. There never were enough grannies to go around. Dual occupancy has had a devastating effect with single houses replaced with six-packs. All the trees are gone and sites are concreted over."


"The replacement of trees and shrubs by concrete is resulting in the greying of Australian suburbs."


"The McMansion phenomenon is tragic. We’ve destroyed our own sporting capacity through the removal of back-yards where kids can play. And there’s not been a murmur about it."


"Developers almost never live in the developments they put up."


"The quite infantile idea that all you need to do is increase the density of the city and that everything will be all right is really quite bizarre."

Portland Fantasies

It seems like I encounter the fantasies preached by Portland missionaries on every shore. Unlike their 19th century counterparts, the Portland evangelists promise not a Paradise-in-the-Hereafter, but rather a Paradise-Now. In their zeal, they mistake their delusions for reality.

One of the more recent such Epistles is "Portland's Green Dividend," by Joe Courtwright . A verse-by-verse rebuttal is unwarranted; however, a few points may be of interest.

Portland: Less Compact than Los Angeles, Phoenix, Etc., Etc.: The claims that Portland is dense (or even compact) are absurd. According to U.S. Census data, Los Angeles is more than twice as dense. Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are 90 percent as dense. Phoenix, Fresno, Bakersfield and Modesto are more dense. Among western urban areas with more than 1,000,000 population, only Seattle is less dense than Portland

Portland's Falling, Miniscule Transit Market Share: Portland's use of transit is not remarkable. Census data indicates that Portland's work trip transit market share is less than before the first light rail line was opened. Portland's overall transit market share is less than before the first light rail line was opened. Portland's transit market share is little more than two percent, which is not bad for the United States — somewhat ahead of Los Angeles, slightly behind Seattle and 80 percent less than New York. Portland's transit market share is 50 percent to 80 percent less than that of the five major Australian urban areas (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide).

Driving More Inside the Urban Growth Boundary: The over-regulated Portland side (Paradise) of the metropolitan area uses cars more than the less regulated Washington side, according to Federal Highway Administration data.

Portland: Auto Trend Follows Austin, Atlanta, Etc.: Portland's comparatively stable per capita car travel, said to have peaked in 1996, is nothing unique. Atlanta's peak came in 1994, Austin in 1986, Dallas-Fort Worth in 1995, Seattle in 1992 and Washington in 1996, according to Federal Highway Administration data as reported by the Texas Transportation Institute. Portland's per capita driving has increased at among the greatest rates since data became available in 1982.

Planning Malpractice: Traffic Congestion is our Friend: Portland's traffic congestion has become legendary. No primary urban area (urban areas not sharing a metropolitan area with a larger urban area, such as Riverside-San Bernardino in the Los Angeles area and San Jose in the San Francisco area) in the 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 size classification has worse traffic congestion except for much more dense Las Vegas. It is, of course, to be expected that higher density urban areas like Las Vegas (and Los Angeles) will have worse traffic congestion. Portland's unenviable traffic is the direct result of policies that spend far too much money on the two percent of travel on transit and far too little on the 98 percent who travel by car. Residents of Portland's west side are witness to this, having long since learned how risky it is to get on the Sunset Highway in either direction at about any time of the work day. That particular freeway has a Travel Time Index worse than any urban area in the United States except for Los Angeles, according to Texas Transportation Institute data. Recent reports indicate that Portland's transportation short sightedness is hurting its competitiveness and there are moves afoot to begin expanding highways again.

Portland: Are We in Texas Yet? Despite the claim that Portland has among the lowest consumer expenditures per household on transportation, the latest US Department of Labor data indicates otherwise . In 2004-5, Portlanders spent more on transportation than the national average. Indeed, Portland sits right in the middle of Texas — transportation expenditures per household are less than in Houston, but more than in Dallas-Fort Worth. Perhaps the ultimate insult is that Portland households spent 40 percent more on transportation than households in Atlanta, the world's least compact large urban area.

All Job Growth Suburban: A census of downtown Portland shows declining employment levels. Since 2001, all new employment growth has been outside the downtown area.

Escaping the Urban Growth Boundary: Approximately 80 percent of Portland's net inward domestic migration has been to areas outside the urban growth boundary since 2000.

Avoiding the City of Portland: Approximately 90 percent of Portland's growth since 2000 has been to areas outside the city of Portland (read "suburbs").

Planners to Young and Minority Households: Rent!: Most importantly, Portland's planners are working hard to destroy the American Dream. They are succeeding. Portland's "smart growth" land rationing has driven median house prices up 60 percent relative to historic levels, even while forcing new houses onto postage stamp lots. All of this means that younger households and lower income households (which are disproportionately minority, even in elitist Portland) have less hope of climbing on the home ownership ladder of opportunity. Were it not for the safety valve of Clark County, Washington, beyond the jurisdiction of Portland's planners, housing affordability would be even worse.

In short, "Nirvana" it is not (….oops, got my religions mixed up).

Finally, Randal O'Toole's exceptional Cato Institute study Debunking Portland casts the shortcomings of "Paradise" in the light of sordid reality.

Wendell Cox
21 July 2007

Portland Myths

The myths of Portland (Oregon) which claims to be the archetype of "SmartGrowth" policies (termed "Urban Consolidation" in Sydney) continue to be propounded. In an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald (13 June 07) Elizabeth Farrelly breathlessly writes about a visit from one of its ambassadors, Susan Anderson who raved that "Portland's remarkable achievements are expressed as savings in money, congestion, time and air quality".

Contrast this with Randal O'Toole's eye-popping report which can be accessed at:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf

Wendell Cox comments on the disappearance of Neil Goldschmidt, the former United States Secretary of Transportation (equivalent to a Cabinet Minister in Australia), Governor of Oregon and Mayor of Portland, who zealots give so much credit for the development of Portland's planning system. Public disclosure of the Secretary/Governor/Mayor's activities earned "Willamette Week," an alternative weekly newspaper, the Pulitzer Prize, while the establishment "Oregonian" appears to have revealed what it knew only after it was clear that the story would come.

A following posting on this blog by Wendell Cox provides a rebuttal of some of the claims made by Portland disciples.

Public Transport Losses Accelerate In Sydney

In spite of more than a decade of the State Government forcing high-density into Sydney communities on the pretext that people would use public transport instead of cars, Wendell Cox finds that the share of travel by public transport is not only dropping but this decline is accelerating. He discusses the reasons for this.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT LOSSES ACCELERATE IN SYDNEY
By Wendell Cox

For years, the New South Wales government has been hectoring residents to get out of their cars and get into public transport. For a variety of reasons, it just has not happened.

A review of data made available by the New South Wales Department of Planning shows not only that public transport’s share of travel is declining in Sydney, but that its decline is accelerating.

From 1999 to 2004, public transport’s share of person kilometers dropped from 16.0% to 14.9%, a minus 1.5% annual rate. Between 1991 and 1998, the annual rate of loss was less, at 1.3 percent.

Why is it that Sydneysiders do not use public transport more? The fundamental reasons are often lost in the public forum, but are clearly outlined in Department of Planning documents. The Department of Planning asked people why they use their cars.

Twelve answers were possible, of which eight related to the advantages of the car in completing door to door trips more quickly. Getting the most votes was the faster travel time of the car, followed closely by service being unavailable. Other reasons were no waiting time, the ability to travel when one likes, that the car arrives closer to the destination and that the car is either needed for work or for other trips. None of the reasons can be classified as demonstrating love for the car, though perhaps “more comfortable” comes close.

The third most popular reason for car use was “problems with public transport.” Indeed, the Sydney public transport system is obtaining an unenviable record for service reliability. This is astounding, considering the billions of dollars that Sydney area residents have poured into the system through their fares and taxes.

Public transport is losing market share in Sydney because it is not a substitute for the car. The car is faster and makes it possible for people to do more with their scarce time. Public transport is fine for getting people to work in the central business district, but cannot hope to compete for most trips to the 85 percent of jobs that are in Chatswood, Parramatta, Norwest or the rest of the area.

University of Paris research has shown that the productivity of an urban area improves as the number of jobs that can be reached in a specified time (such as 30 minutes) increases. Given the slower travel times of public transport (in Sydney and virtually all western world urban areas), a call for people to give up their cars for public transport is a call for reduced productivity and all that it entails (such as greater poverty).

Sydney’s failure to improve its public transport market share should give pause with respect to over-zealous plans to extend the expensive rail system. Recently, the United States federal government certified an analysis indicating that the construction of a new rail system in Seattle would produce so much in greenhouse gas emissions that it would take 45 years for the projected reduced automobile use to make up for it. Even that is unlikely, however, since public transport ridership forecasts are routinely high. It may take 100 years, 200 years or perhaps never.

Sydney would be better off with urban transport policies based upon reality instead of ideology.

Data at: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-syd-ptshare.pdf

Climate Change Surprise

Wendell Cox has been surveying the latest information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and observes that the Australian Conservation Foundation's findings on the emissions from different areas provide some surprising results. People living in the higher density Eastern and Inner Northern Suburbs emit more greenhouse gases than do people living in the lower density single-residential Western suburbs:

WESTERN SYDNEY: CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL

For many years, the urban elites of Australia and Sydney particularly have cast aspersions on western Sydney. Indeed, their distorted views about western Sydney have been a principal foundation of the urban consolidation policies that have destroyed home ownership in Sydney and around the nation. They claim that western Sydney was unplanned, they have divined all manner of phony society costs that were not paid by the residents. To hear the elitist newspaper columnists and cabinet ministers talk, one would imagine that pictures of shantytowns on the banks of a Jakarta river could be substituted for western Sydney photographs without anyone noticing.

This kind of elitism has no place in any nation, and certainly not in a nation with perhaps the world’s strongest egalitarian streak. Indeed, there is much to be proud of in western Sydney. Western Sydney has provided hundreds of thousands of people the opportunity to own their own homes and climb on the ladder of opportunity. If the offense of urban consolidation had been visited upon the city in the 1950s, there would have been no western suburbs. Not only would urban consolidation have priced the next generation out of the housing market, but the generation of their parents and grand-parents.

The imperative now, of course, is to greenhouse gas emission reduction. The crowd that sends off scientists to gather Greenland ice cores at the slightest suggestion of anything that would make middle income lives better is committed to using climate change as the mechanism to engineer people into the life styles that planners prefer. Thus, we must all move out of our detached houses to flats. We must give up our cars for public transport. And on and on and on. And, western Sydney is exactly the kind of place that will have to change, at least according to the creed of the elites.

It must thus have come as something as a surprise for all of this arrogance to be interrupted by reality. The reality is to be found The Australian Conservation Association’s Consumption Atlas, which allocates all of the greenhouse gas emissions based upon their final point of consumption. In fact, the western suburbs do very well indeed. In the western suburbs the annual emission of greenhouses gases is approximately 18.1 tonnes per capita. This is approximately 25 percent less than the favored eastern suburbs at 25.8 tonnes. Among Sydney’s regions, only the southwest does better, at 17.2 tonnes. The southwest includes Campbelltown and Camden, which area really not suburban – they are rather exurban.

The admirable record of the western suburbs does not stop there. The Consumption Atlas shows them to consume less water per capita and to have a smaller ecological footprint. So much for the conventional wisdom.

The reality is that residents of the eastern and near northern suburbs should be standing in line to buy carbon credits from the environmentally more favorable western suburbs (or at least the urban elites should). Rather than being a model to be avoided, as the planners have so wrongly concluded, the western suburbs have proven themselves to be a model for the future.

Data at: http://www.demographia.com/db-sydareaGHG.pdf

Political double talk

From the Australian Financial Review, 5 July 2007

The Labor Party argues its stingy land release policies did not drive up housing prices, then claims it would be unwise to release more land because that would drop the prices that would not have risen if they had had not been so stingy about releasing land. It is time to move from double talk to the land releases that would restore housing affordability.

Sincerely,

Wendell Cox

Save my suburb

From the Inner West Courier, 27 June 2007

DAVID Champ is only eight years old, but he is already fighting for the preservation of his neighbourhood.


Along with his mum, Susan McGrath-Champ, and 10-year-old sister Michelle who has collected signatures on three petitions, David is part of a groundswell of opposition to plans to dramatically increase the population of Burwood.

David has made his own submission to Burwood Council, which is currently seeking public comment on its draft Town Centre Local Environment Plan (LEP).

``It's a very sunny day but the skyscraper blocks the sun from our house on the left,'' he wrote in his submission.

``The shadow comes down and will `spook' Burwood.

``The cars and crashes will increase.''

David drew a picture and wrote his accompanying letter the day after a family dinner-table discussion about the LEP.

The McGrath-Champs live in an area earmarked for 10-storey developments under the LEP.

One block from their back fence, a vacant site stands in an area that could include developments to a maximum height of 17 storeys.

Dr McGrath-Champ told the Inner-West Weekly she was one of several residents doorknocking neighbours to raise awareness of what council officers have proposed.

These include up to 20-storey developments in a ``central area'' around Burwood railway station; up to 17-storey developments in a ``core area'' of the CBD; and 10-storey developments to the boundaries of the town centre.

``Everyone we've spoken to about this has been more than concerned,'' Dr McGrath-Champ said.

``But most of them didn't have a clue about it before we told them.''

More than 100 residents have attended information sessions held by Burwood Council to discuss various issues, including traffic congestion and building heights.

The meetings have been managed by an independent adjudicator, who will make recommendations to council staff when everyone has had their say.

Mayor John Faker said the feedback had been largely positive.

``Some people are concerned with the height of the buildings but unfortunately that's the cost of meeting the population growth figures we've been set,'' he told the Inner-West Weekly.

``If we set the building heights shorter, they'd be spread out more.''

The LEP is on public exhibition until Thursday, July 5.

There is no global trend to increase density

We also need to firmly reject the claim that densifying cities is happening all over the world.

In a recent radio interview Professor Schlomo Angel, Adjunct Professor of Urban Planning, New York University said that densities are coming down in the great majority of cities all over the world. As people get richer they live better and for most living better means living in suburbs. Cities are not densifying, on the contrary they are reducing the densities, even in India, China, Sub-Saharan Africa.

Suburbs are expanding in all countries and are no longer something that you just find in the US and in Australia.

He says planners think their own cities are each a special case ... that they can densify. But there are no special cases. Planners have to recognise that cities are going to grow and and they have to prepare for it.

This used to be the case. The future population was projected, the area for growth decided upon and prepared. The minimal required preparation is an arterial road grid 1 km apart and rights of way acquired before the development occurs. If this is not done now will be impossible to do later. If development comes before the road then you can never get the road through.

He said something we have been saying for years. If you restrict the land on the periphery inevitably you increase land prices and housing becomes unaffordable and becomes unaffordable mostly for the poor. There are constraints on land supply in Australian cities that lead to increases in land prices. This is due to the regulatory environment of those cities.

Professor Angel concluded by saying that this anti-urban attitude is our major enemy. It is always taken by city people who live in the city and just don't want more people coming there.

Sustainability

We need to firmly reject the deceitful propaganda of the overdevelopment brigade. For example they keep on claiming, or insinuating that high-density is "more sustainable".

But my research shows single residential is more sustainable.

A recent study shows the energy use per person in high-rise is double that of those living in single-residential dwellings. Think of power-hungry lifts, clothes driers, common lighted areas and air contitioning.

Further, my calculations show that the energy embodied in the construction of high-rise is four times that of single residential dwellings (assuming in both cases the buildings last for 70 years).

These two factors far outweigh any energy saved in transport in high-density areas.

The net result is that carbon dioxide emitted resulting from living in high-rise amounts to 9.2 tonnes per person per year, compared to only 6.2 tonnes per year in single residential - about 50% more!