3 ms·
I don't see how that's relevant. If it were true that driving is more energy efficient than walking, then if all you cared about was energy efficiency, you'd pr
by x1798DE 12y ago
I don't see how that's relevant. If it were true that driving is more energy efficient than walking, then if all you cared about was energy efficiency, you'd prefer to drive the shorter distance, assuming the result holds even when driving short distances (which it very well may). (Though the author of the article is suggesting instead that you may want to somehow increase the energy efficiency of walking by more efficiently producing food.)
- bunderbunder 12y agoYou might prefer to drive the shorter distance, but that's not a realistic option. Car-centric infrastructure tends to take up a lot of space. The wide multi-lane streets and seas of parking lots you get in communities where driving is the primary mode of transportation massively increase the amount of land area needed to provide the same amount of services, which in turn greatly increases the actual distance being covered. Last time I lived in the 'burbs, the nearest grocery store was 5 miles away, and accessible only by roads with speed limits of 45mph+. Walking or riding a bike to buy a loaf of bread simply wasn't an option. Whereas part of the reason why it's common for people to not own cars (or own fewer than one car per adult household member) in more walkable communities is that it's simply not practical - cars take up a lot of space that can't be used for other things, and making a community dense enough to permit easy walkability doesn't leave a lot of space left over the swaths of 200 square feet that it takes to temporarily store a car that isn't currently being driven. So the laws of supply and demand place those spaces at a premium.