Another List puts Tulsa near the bottom

[kwa3]

This time its for sustainability. Here is a bit of the article.

This is a Tale of Two Types of Cities.
One type of city has a dense, walkable center with cultural attractions, jobs, farmers markets, and residential neighborhoods easily accessible by foot, bike, or public transit. The other type has lower density, a poorly or undefined center, separate centers of business and residential life, and is generally only accessible by car.  

We compared these two fundamental types of cities' underlying infrastructure, food and mobility as part of an economic competitiveness analysis.  With gas prices on the rise and $3 or $4 a gallon gas on the horizon, SustainLane.com took a close look at the 50 largest U.S. cities to see which are most prepared and which are most vulnerable to an extended gas price shock in the $3 to $8 dollar a gallon range.

Tulsa ranked 41 out of the 50. I think their methodology is questionable. No doubt food and cars are important issues but sustainability has a lot more to it than how walkable your center  or how local your food. Here is a blog response from Theoildrum (an excellent blog by the way). I think what this person says about Omaha is also true for Tulsa. The car issues can be addressed when your fundamental infrastructure (Port of Catoosa anyone) is solid.



Okay I looked at the list and can't figure out their rationale for ranking.
Las Vegas is ranked Higher than Omaha.

This is FLAT IMPOSSIBLE.

Omaha has multiple rail lines linking it to the rest of the country, freight and passenger.  It has the Missouri river running through it and the Platte river close.  Freight can come from the ocean to Omaha direct by water.  Within 20 miles of downtown in any direction there is some of the most fertile farmland in the country.  Meat animals can be maintained year round outside if needed.  Omaha gets plenty of rain to raise crops without irrigation.  Winters are cold but easily survivable for both humans and animals and summers are mild.  Omaha can be a manufacturing hub, food hub or business hub.  

Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert.  Almost nothing grows without irrigation and water is scarce.  All food must be brought in year round.  Summer conditions are life threatening without climate control and lots of water.

Ranking a desert city above Omaha makes no logical sense in an energy scarce world.  Just because a lot of people prefer Las Vegas over Omaha now, doesn't mean it is a better city to be in after peak oil, when food and survivability quality of life will be more important than entertainment quality of life.