The “Green” Transportation Debate- Buses, Light Rail, Hybrid Cars, PRT?
Here’s the email from Sound Transit today:
“Earth Day 2008: Make your resolution for a greener commute!
Sound Transit is supporting a Sierra Club Transportation Transformation campaign on Earth Day, through which Sierra Club volunteers are distributing appreciation booklets to 5,000 transit riders, including coupons for free rides on ST Express and King County Metro buses.”
Read More>>> <http://www.soundtransit.org/x7777.xml>
If we are going to call one transit system “greener” than another, wouldn’t it make sense to actually measure the carbon footprint of the production and operation of said system(s) before proclaiming one is greener than another?
Sound Transit has repeatedly been asked to evaluate the carbon footprint of its light rail systems (the energy cost of materials production, assembly, & delivery, as well as light rail operations) and to provide that information to the public.
Here’s Randal O’Toole’s analysis:
“Most light-rail lines use as much or more energy per passenger mile as an average SUV, and many emit more pounds of CO2 per passenger mile than the average automobile. Moreover, the energy efficiency and CO2 emissions of automobiles are steadily improving, while the energy efficiency of both bus and rail transit are declining. Thus, cities that want to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions would do better to encourage auto drivers to buy more fuel-efficient cars than to build rail transit lines”
Read the whole article at: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=398
Which transportation system is greener? Let’s have that discussion.
Please include data from studies (cite sources and/or web addresses).
Actually O’Toole’s conclusions are badly flawed because his figures on cars’ energy efficiency included both highway and urban driving (the study doesn’t say so – I had to email him to find out). A valid comparison between transit and cars must be made on urban driving alone. Based on O’Toole’s distorted figures, transit is already more efficient than cars, so imagine how much better transit actually is.
Nor does O’Toole take into account the many ways that transit makes possible a greener lifestyle by facilitating dense urban development that requires fewer and shorter trips overall. For a full critique see here.
April 23rd, 2008 | #
Jake has a point. But two-thirds of driving is urban driving, and at least a third of urban driving is on freeways. Plus hybrids like the Prius actually get better mileage on city streets than on freeways due to regenerative braking. So my main point, which is that it is more effective to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build rail transit, remains completely valid.
As far as transit “making possible” a greener lifestyle, I am not convinced, first, that density is greener or second, that transit makes density possible (other than by giving planners an excuse to subsidize density). For detailed responses, see my Cato Institute report, “Debunking Portland,” available at http://cato.org/policyanalysis
April 25th, 2008 | #
> greener lifestyle by facilitating dense urban development
That’s a strange concept. Myself I prefer to look out the window and see my garden, not my neighbor in his underwear. Doesn’t quality of life enter into this debate at some point?
gary
http://www.PRTProject.com
May 2nd, 2008 | #
This whole argument is silly…there is NO human caused global warming…most “smog” (not greenhouse gases) is caused by government sponsored spraying of all kinds of poisonous substances…see carnicom.com
there is no “peak oil” crisis…there’s lots of oil in the world…if the US would quit it’s ridiculous imperialistic warmongering, the entire world could enjoy the same standard of living that the US had in the 50 – 70′s…
“Greenhouse gases” are mostly water vapor…humans exhale CO2 every time they breath…maybe that’s why the “global warming” Malthusian madness crowd wants to get rid of 2/3 of the world’s population
May 5th, 2008 | #