On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Devdas Bhagat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 06:11:58PM +0300, ashok _ wrote: > <snip> >> this argument of 'bigger is greener' seems very flimsy. Just because >> you have fewer stations makes it greener ? >> >> what about all the time / pollution / energy spent in traffic jams in >> the bigger cities and the sanitation output of the millions of people > > Bigger cities also tend to have better public transport infrastructure. > You save on a lot of traffic jams with mass transit. If you don't need to > reserve 50-100 sq ft of space per person, you don't need that much roadspace > and you don't need that much fuel either.
I had similar thoughts regarding public transportation. Taking the example of Bangalore, most of the growth has come from migrants, which means they are not traditional bangaloreans. Traditional bangaloreans are more likely not to use public transportation (which has improved vastly in last 3-4 years) and live in independent houses. Migrants are more likely to live in apartments and use public transportation (Anecdotal evidence - Most of the people I meet on Volvo buses are from Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata). Extending the data above the amount of fuel (or land used or cables used) per incremental growth will be less than 1. -- Vinayak
