Peter Newman, an environmental scientist from Perth, Australia, recently visited Portland, Oregon to gather materials for the book he's writing on sustainability and urban development. He sees similarities between the two cities – they're both on the countries' west coasts, have transitioned away from their natural resource-based industries, and are national leaders in their focus on alternative transportation.

The goal for modern cities, as Newman describes it, is to move beyond “sustainability” to “resiliency.” The model of constant consumption needs to stop and cities need to be constructed in such a manner as to make this possible.

One of Newman's main targets is a decrease in oil consumption and, not surprisingly, minimizing the use of cars. Building of suburbs should be scrapped in favor of denser urban settings than enable mass transit, walking, and biking.

As Newman told the Oregonian:

Suburbs on the fringe built with all the certainty of the future are now very uncertain because people living there sometimes have to spend 40 percent of their household budget on transport, and 40 percent is not sustainable. If you're going from $3.50 a gallon gas to $6 a gallon, which is the price of fuel in Europe . . . many of these suburbs will be abandoned. They are not resilient.

Newman also took the US presidential candidates to task. While they have all chimed in that the country needs a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050. however, according to Newman:

None of them actually say, 'That means less oil.' It tends to do with this vague goal about power plants and industry and stuff like that.
But less oil? That comes straight home with less cars, less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in cars. There are no magic-bullet alternatives, like biofuels and so on, so we have to reduce VMT by 50 percent by 2050.

Photo via flickr by Magalie L'Abbé.

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

brian Goldner said:

so, I'm definitely one of those people who romanticize Portland for their progressive transit stances. However, they are not perfect. Isn't there still congestion on the highways there, and isn't the car still the dominant form of transportation (>90%) I've looked at census data ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw6p2.htm#por ) and it really doesn't suppport the idea that Portland is that great...what gives then? Will Portland become better given time? The city I love, Sacramento, may be characterized by sprawl on all sides an an underutilized mass transit system, but we're #2 in the country in % of bike commuters and we have just as good of a transit infrastructure as Portland, plus it doesn't rain as much! So...why do we all give Portland such a good rep?

April 05, 2008

brian Goldner said:

also, as a sidenote, hearing the year 2050 thrown about is dizzying. I'll be 65 in 2050. I can't even comprehend that. Worse yet, I can't even imagine waiting that long for America to get a carectomy. Seriously, a part of me just dies to think that transit won't see at least a 25% nationwide (urban) market share by 2025 or sooner. if not, I'll have to abandon my patriotic fervor and go somewhere that isn't obsessed with cars. of course, it'll take my a while to find anywhere as awesome as America...

April 05, 2008

WilliamDaniel said:

"American life" is only awesome when the main thing people are in awe of is the ability to consume natural resources and convert them into pollution and landfill.

April 05, 2008

brian Goldner said:

actually william, that isn't my "American Life."

April 05, 2008

Josh said:

Brian: You're dead on re: Portland. Although they've made some steps in the right direction (and I love it there, minus the damp), they have a long way to go. As you commented - cars still reign in Portland. The city has, however, made progress with decent mass transit, and is consistently ranked among the most bike-friendly spots. Newman's visit to Portland didn't reflect on any assessment that it was the US' best example, however. In his interview with the Oregonian, he says that Portland has quite a ways to go and, in terms of "resilience," Manhattan is the country's shining example (great transit, less per capita car use).

April 05, 2008 | url

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment