Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Archive for January 2014

“Beefing Up Population Density Won’t Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

with 4 comments

I have put the headline in quotation marks as it does not reflect  my opinion – nor does it seem to be based on a very reliable way of forecasting policy outcomes. The headline comes from Atlantic Cities but the research itself is published in Environmental Science and Technology. The title there is “Spatial Distribution of U.S. Household Carbon Footprints Reveals Suburbanization Undermines Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Urban Population Density” (citation shown at foot of this article). And of course you and I do not have the right credentials to actually read this on line unless you are willing to pay a very hefty fee. But at least Berkeley provides a longer item than Atlantic Cities does and this is where their quotes are lifted from

As you will note, other readers have already taken exception to the conclusions that are quoted by Atlantic Cities, so I am not alone at being troubled by the attention getting headline. Because it does not seem to be adequately supported. I also am troubled since I have been advocating and teaching the exact opposite for many years now. First as part of the Community Energy Planning activities of the BC Energy Aware Committee – now the Community Energy Association – and latterly as part of a program for  people wanting to become Sustainable Building Advisors under the the LEED program, sponsored by the Canada Green Building Council. The thrust of my message has been – and still is – the putting up the greenest building possible is not going to achieve emission reductions if you put it in the wrong place and everyone has to drive to get there. Sure the building itself may perform flawlessly but the trips the building’s activities generate will more than make up for the energy savings achieved over more conventional technologies.

Denser urban areas do indeed perform far better – in terms of energy consumption and hence reduce greenhouse gas emissions – than less dense ones, and that is exactly what the maps that accompany the article show.

carbon denver

This just happens to be Denver – and you can also see the smaller city of Colorado Springs off to the left (west) which shows the same doughnut ring pattern of carbon emissions. And they do observe “large metropolitan areas have a slightly higher average carbon footprint than smaller metro areas.” But that may just be that in the US (and the data they use only comes from there) the larger metro areas have proportionately more suburbs.

People who live in denser urban areas do not need to make as many trips by single occupant motor vehicles as those who live in less dense areas. People who work in city locations are much less likely to have drive during their work hours than those in suburban office parks. If you can get what you need within a short walk then you are less likely to need to drive. In places like downtown Vancouver, the vehicle most likely to be used for most trips is the electric elevator. Moreover building technologies and simple physics favour denser areas notably when the designers are thinking holistically. Community energy systems are more efficient than individual systems. The village on False Creek, for instance, gets some of the heat for its buildings from the sewers. Many buildings in city centres need more cooling than heating, so careful siting and interconnectedness produces a better overall outcome than locating them at greater distances where this is not efficient in economic or energy terms.

But there are also all sorts of other benefits from greater densities. Indeed density in and of itself may not be the answer. Better density – the right kind of density – is almost always going to have better results no matter what metric you use. We happen to be concerned in this case with reducing greenhouse gas emissions but exactly the same responses work if you are looking to create a happier human environment, or one that preserves land for food production or recreation, or reducing traffic congestion, or cutting public expenditures. The arguments made by Charles Marohn for Strong Towns are almost entirely financial.

Actually I think what is really at play here is Atlantic Cities looking for a headline rather than better understanding. What the researchers are actually saying is that there is no one size fits all solution and that increasing density does not of itself produce the best outcomes. But it is also clear that continuing with business as usual, widening freeways and building new ones, refusing to invest in transit, sticking with strategies that favour “drive until you qualify” suburbs and so on is a recipe for disaster. And increasing density is often going to be a significant part of the solution.


Christopher Jones *† and Daniel M. Kammen *†‡§
†Energy and Resources Group, ‡Goldman School of Public Policy, and §Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United States
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es4034364
Publication Date (Web): December 13, 2013
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society
*Phone: (510) 643-5048. E-mail:, *Address: Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050. Phone: (510) 642-1640. Fax: (510) 642-1085. E-mail:

Urine detection system installed in Atlanta transit station elevator

with one comment

This is not just a problem in transit elevators – but it is certainly the place where I notice it locally. I know Translink is short of cash, but MARTA has decided it is worth US$10,000 per elevator to install a system that detects, deters – and detains – offenders. And, according to the story, it is effective.

The kicker is in the final paragraph

“This week, they also reopened restrooms at four stations, so they hope that will help with the problem.”

There have not been public restrooms at SkyTrain stations since the system opened. Like bus loops, there are toilets, just not for public use. They are for staff, who have keys. But not for the rest of us. I think this is unconscionable in a public system. There are toilets in libraries, swimming pools, in concessions at beaches. We expect to be able to use them them in shopping centres, airports (where they are often overwhelmed and disgusting – yes, I am looking at you, Kansas City International) and of course on longer distance trains and even Greyhound buses. But despite some very long distances that can be travelled on Translink – Aldergrove to Horseshoe Bay for instance – there is no provision en route for a very basic human need. And there should be.

Of course there is a cost to that. It should be included as part of the basic operating cost. There is a lot that goes wrong when transit systems pare expenses – which currently is making journeys even longer and less easy to bear. We should not be made needlessly uncomfortable nor subject to the present levels of public urination. It is not confined to the transit system or its elevators, that is just where it is most apparent. When funding levels are restored, I fervently hope that Translink will follow MARTA’s example and not just install this system but also open public conveniences at every station and transit exchange.

Hat Tip

I first read about this story on an email newsletter called “This is True“. Published weekly by Randy Cassingham it is available as a brief free edition and a much more substantial Premium edition which I now pay for. And of course he asks readers not to cut and paste his content. But thanks to Google I tracked down the same source he used. I suggest you initially try the free version for a few weeks to see if you enjoy his style and humour. It took a while for it to grow on me I will admit, but I now think it well worth paying for.


Written by Stephen Rees

January 6, 2014 at 3:35 pm