*5.3. Can Di*ff*erences in Transport Energy Use per Capita Be Explained through Reference to a Range of Other Important Transport Indicators in Swedish Cities?*

An examination of a wide range of other transport-related indicators has revealed insights into why Swedish cities differ between one another in passenger transport energy use and between other cities in the world. The key point to note here is that Swedish cities have similar levels of car use to other European cities and therefore similar per capita private transport energy use. This is despite Swedish cities being significantly lower in density than other European cities. However, unlike cities of similar density in North America and Australia, Swedish cities are still more centralized in work than their more auto-oriented cousins, thus favoring walking, cycling and public transport; they have significantly lower car ownership and they provide very good levels of public transport infrastructure and service, including competitive speeds with the car. They also have respectable levels of public transport use and very healthy levels of walking and cycling, especially considering their density.

Unlike most lower-density cities in North America and Australia, Swedish cities, being much older, do retain much more significant areas of "walking city" and "transit city" urban fabric and are therefore not uniformly low in density but rather have substantially higher density mixed-land-use areas, which are very supportive of public transport, walking and cycling [37]. For a more detailed explanation of how Swedish cities distinguish themselves from other cities in these matters, readers can refer to Kenworthy [21], which also contains photographic evidence of this urban fabrics' argument.

The variation in per capita private transport energy use between Swedish cities can generally be explained by the lower energy-consuming Swedish cities having a combination of (a) more energy-efficient cars, (b) higher density, or at least more extensive areas of walking and transit city fabric, (c) more centralized jobs in the CBD, (d) less parking in their CBDs, (e) less freeway availability, (f) lower car ownership, (g) lower car use, (h) lower car speed (which makes cars somewhat less attractive), (i) higher public transport service levels and (j) better public transport use. Higher public transport energy use per capita in Swedish cities generally relates to a combination of higher service levels and how much of that service is provided by buses compared to rail—rail modes have much lower energy use per passenger kilometer.

The data in this paper can be used to explore the transport energy conservation potential of a variety of different scenarios in Swedish cities.

**Funding:** The research reported in this paper was funded by two small research grants from K2: Sweden's National Centre for Research and Education on Public Transport.

**Acknowledgments:** The author is very grateful to K2 for providing the funding to support this research and the countless individuals in each of the cities who provided the requested data. I am especially grateful to Monika Brunetti, my research assistant, and Helena Svensson in K2 for her support in locating some key data.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
