Time for Transit?
Mass transit ridership continues to rise and it looks like some momentum is building in congress to increase capacity to meet rising demand:
One should observe that while increased drilling can’t provide any immediate relief, increased transit funding can. Building a new rail line, obviously, is a long-term endeavor. But the existing supply of buses and rail networks could operate more frequently and on more extended hours very quickly simply by offering more overtime and hiring more staff. That would provide economic stimulus by creating jobs directly, while also decreasing the costs (either financial or in terms of time) of commuting to work, and by shifting some cars off the road would decrease congestion problems for the highest-value trips. Obviously, it would go against everything America stands for to respond to economic problems by enhancing bus service, but it’s still a good idea.
Meanwhile, relatively cheap transit enhancements such buying more buses, equipping them with fancier GPS and signal priority gadgets, and upgrading bus shelters works as stimulus as well and will give us even better service in the medium-term. And then there’s new rail construction. Like new drilling, that won’t help anyone’s transportation problems in the short run. But it will provide some construction jobs in the near-term. And unlike new drilling it’ll make the environment cleaner rather than dirtier.
62 Responses to “Time for Transit?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Meanwhile, relatively cheap transit enhancements such buying more buses, equipping them with fancier GPS and signal priority gadgets, and upgrading bus shelters works as stimulus as well and will give us even better service in the medium-term.
I definitely agree that leveraging GPS capabilities will increase the appeal of transit use for many people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve stood waiting for my bus, iPhone in hand, while dozens of GPS-equipped buses go cruising by while I wonder where mine is. Schedules are imperfect creatures, knowing, really knowing, if you have time to pop in the store for a roll of TP before your bus gets to the stop obviates a lot of the anxieties people have about using transit.
The trouble is, transit budgets are almost universally stretched at this point. Adding any functionality, even an iPhone app, is problematic. I suggest that transit enhancements receive different funding than transit operations. Any bus system worth its salt will funnel any money they get into operations. But useful enhancements will draw in the skeptics who are unfamiliar with transit use or uncomfortable about transit reliability.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
And then there’s new rail construction. Like new drilling, that won’t help anyone’s transportation problems in the short run. But it will provide some construction jobs in the near-term.
This is a false choice – why couldn’t you do both?
relatively cheap transit enhancements such buying more buses, equipping them with fancier GPS and signal priority gadgets, and upgrading bus shelters works as stimulus as well
I’m not sure you understand the difference between “stimulus” and “random government spending”. (And there is a difference — whether the government pays attention to it or not is a different question.)
September 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Forget buses. In the NYC subway (one of the largest in the world), often I am not even sure if the train I am waiting for is even running, let alone knowing how long I will be waiting for it to arrive.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I love this quote from the TIME article:
Oh, you mean like the financial burden placed on transit riders to support gas guzzling in Iowa? That kind of financial burden? Of course more people will still drive, but that’s in large part because the federal government has been subsidizing driving over public transit for half a century or more.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Environmental concerns aside, increased drilling is also bad in the long-term as well as the short-term. It’s been well observed by Matt and others that energy efficient countries probably are such because they didn’t quite have the ultra cheap energy we used to enjoy. If more drilling = cheaper gas in the long-term, then cheaper gas means less incentive to consume efficiently and/or use other means over the long-term. Insofar as this magical, elusive three thousand year supply of oil lurking somewhere beneath the surface doesn’t exist, cheaper gas in the long-term = bad.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Beetlejuice Beetljuice Beetlejuice”
(*poof* Mixner appears.)
September 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
That Ron Utt – what a mensch!
September 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Adam,
Oh, you mean like the financial burden placed on transit riders to support gas guzzling in Iowa?
Er, what financial burden placed on transit riders to support gas guzzling in Iowa?
Of course more people will still drive, but that’s in large part because the federal government has been subsidizing driving over public transit for half a century or more.
No it hasn’t. Transit receives vastly higher subsidies per passenger-mile of transportation benefit than “driving.”
September 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Ah, but should we limit the speed that these buses can travel?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Watch as I regurgitate my three talking points, make demands for evidence that I never apply to myself, and eventually start calling people names! Then, for my finale, I will light my own farts and retire to the corner of the basement that I call home.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Since increased rail lines will have no impact on ridership in the immediate future, it’s best not to even start building. We should not even discuss it. It’s a red herring. We should also reclassify every dollar the government spends as “stimulus” so everything looks like a good idea.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Matthew,
Mass transit ridership continues to rise
Well, it rose in the second quarter compared to the same period last year. Of course, some of the increase in ridership is simply the effect of population growth.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to transit ridership in the third and fourth quarters, now that gas prices have declined significantly from their peak, and as more and more people are trading in their gas-guzzling SUVs for smaller and more fuel-efficent vehicles.
And then there’s new rail construction. Like new drilling, that won’t help anyone’s transportation problems in the short run. But it will provide some construction jobs in the near-term.
As will new drilling.
And unlike new drilling it’ll make the environment cleaner rather than dirtier.
Nonsense. Rail construction consumes enormous quantities of energy and emits enormous quantities of greenhouse gases.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Jeffrey Davis wins the thread.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Jeffrey Davis wins the thread!
September 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Matt,
increasing staff hours is all well and good, but in reality, most transit agencies are putting all their excess cash into paying for more diesel fuel for their buses. In fact, here in Seattle we’re on the verge of cutting service, even as ridership surges, simply because there isn’t enough money to buy all the diesel fuel we need to run the buses.
Obviously, in the long term, more rail transit, hybrid buses, and electric trolleybuses are going to help out, but in the short term, the cost of fuel is sucking up all the money that would otherwise go to the types of employment stimuli you propose.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I agree, damnit!
Now what can I do about it?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Sorry about the double post. I just got so excited.
Mixner:
Well, it rose in the second quarter compared to the same period last year. Of course, some of the increase in ridership is simply the effect of population growth.
Ah, what percentage would that be? The CIA fact book estimates YOY population growth to be 0.883%. Lets see, 5.2% – 0.883% = still huge.
Nonsense. Rail construction consumes enormous quantities of energy and emits enormous quantities of greenhouse gases.
I think you are, once again, confusing net and gross.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Besides, look at the people in that picture. Yuck!
September 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
And for YTD data (as opposed to YOY), total transit ridership is up 4.36%, while traffic volume is down 2.84%.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Er, what financial burden placed on transit riders to support gas guzzling in Iowa?”
Highways, roads, bridges to nowhere…
September 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
In Brighton (England) for one, bus stops have electronic signs giving real-time information on the wait for the next few buses. This has been standard in metros for some time. Such systems can also be installed relatively quickly.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Jer,
Ah, what percentage would that be? The CIA fact book estimates YOY population growth to be 0.883%. Lets see, 5.2% – 0.883% = still huge.
As I said, some of the increase in ridership is simply the effect of population growth. 5.2 – 0.9 = 4.3. “Huge” is certainly a novel way to describe an increase of merely 4.3%.
I think you are, once again, confusing net and gross.
No, I’m not confusing them, although it’s hard to know exactly what you’re referring to by “net and gross.” If you think the statement in question is incorrect, then try to explain clearly why you think that.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Nonsense. Rail construction consumes enormous quantities of energy and emits enormous quantities of greenhouse gases.
I suppose roadway construction fairies use magic dust to build new highways, roads, cars, and parking facilities. No heavy construction emissions, nope.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Highways, roads, bridges to nowhere…
Highways, roads and bridges are funded primarily from the Highway Trust Fund, which also funds transit. The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline taxes paid by drivers.
As I said, transit receives vastly higher subsidies per passenger-mile of transportation benefit than “driving.”
September 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Mixner: No, I’m not confusing them, although it’s hard to know exactly what you’re referring to by “net and gross.” If you think the statement in question is incorrect, then try to explain clearly why you think that.
Let me use small words for you then:
Matt said: And unlike new drilling it’ll make the environment cleaner rather than dirtier.
You said: Nonsense. Rail construction consumes enormous quantities of energy and emits enormous quantities of greenhouse gases.
I said: I think you are, once again, confusing net and gross.
Gross: rail construction will use energy and create greenhouse gasses.
Net: (if ridership trends continue) rail will displace automobile use, and will therefore lead to a net decrease in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Next lesson, capital costs vs. operating costs. I hope you can make it.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Jer,
And for YTD data (as opposed to YOY), total transit ridership is up 4.36%, while traffic volume is down 2.84%.
Er, both your links refer to the same pdf document, which contains data on transit use but nothing about “traffic volume” (assuming the latter is supposed to refer to road and highway traffic). And what metric is “traffic volume” supposed to mean, anyway?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Whoops, that second link was supposed to be to the FHWA. My mistake. And from that linked document, traffic volume is defined as “vehicle miles”, and that 2.84% decrease amounts to 42.1 billion vehicle miles.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Jer,
Gross: rail construction will use energy and create greenhouse gasses.
Net: (if ridership trends continue) rail will displace automobile use, and will therefore lead to a net decrease in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Please show me your energy and pollution data and ridership projections that would yield a net savings in energy and pollution from new rail lines. How long would it take to recoup the energy and pollution costs of rail construction through the (alleged) energy and pollution savings in operation?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Jer,
Whoops, that second link was supposed to be to the FHWA.
So you’re comparing number of vehicle-miles travelled on roads and highways to number of unlinked passenger trips on transit. Apples and oranges. It’s meaningless. Well, not completely meaningless. It does convey the basic fact of a decrease in driving and an increase in transit use, but it provides no meaningful representation of the relative magnitude of the change for each mode.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Mixner: Please show me your energy and pollution data and ridership projections that would yield a net savings in energy and pollution from new rail lines. How long would it take to recoup the energy and pollution costs of rail construction through the (alleged) energy and pollution savings in operation?
No, find it yourself.
So you’re comparing number of vehicle-miles travelled on roads and highways to number of unlinked passenger trips on transit. Apples and oranges.
Actually, I was comparing percentage change in each, which is about as close as you can get to a textbook definition of “magnitude of change”.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Jer,
No, find it yourself.
You’re the one claiming that constructing more rail would produce a net benefit in terms of energy use and pollution. It’s up to you to support that claim with evidence. Presumably, you do not deny that the construction of a new rail line would require lots of energy and produce lots of pollution. If you seriously believe these huge energy and pollution costs incurred by construction would be recovered in energy and pollution savings over the operational life of the new rail line, then you need to produce data to support that claim.
Actually, I was comparing percentage change in each, which is about as close as you can get to a textbook definition of “magnitude of change”.
You’re comparing percentage change of two completely different measures of transportation. To make a meaningful comparison between the two modes, you have to use the same unit of measurement for both. The obvious unit is passenger-miles. Do you have data on the change in passenger-miles for each mode?
September 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Mixner: “You’re the one claiming that constructing more rail would produce a net benefit in terms of energy use and pollution. It’s up to you to support that claim with evidence.”
No, actually it’s Matt who’s claiming such. And you who are counterclaiming. But you don’t really want evidence; none would satisfy you. And as others have pointed out, you ask more of others than you’re willing to give of yourself. You are willing to pull numbers out of thin air to deride others’ arguments (5.2% ridership growth attributable to population growth?) while demanding extreme intellectual rigor from everyone else. So yes, go find the data yourself. Here’s a start.
To make a meaningful comparison between the two modes, you have to use the same unit of measurement for both.
No you don’t. Its sufficient to say that public transit ridership is up, and traffic volume is down. But since you are a pedant, in 2006, the average unlinked trip length was 5.2 miles. Now go find your “magic seat efficiency” numbers from a few days back for passenger cars. Multiply the unlinked trip length by the number of unlinked transit trips. Multiply the passengers per car by the number of vehicle miles. Voila. You have the same units for each. Ironically enough, after all these mathematical gymnastics, you have changed the percentage growth by not a whit.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Of course in my area transit is being cut back because of fuel expenses. Our local bus has gone from seven days a week, full day, to five days a week, commuter only.
Drivers need to realize that they don’t need to give up their car to support public transportation. Every person on the bus is a car which is not on the road. Drivers can reap the benefits of decreased traffic and improved travel times without ever setting foot on a bus or train.
I would compare new rail construction to equivalent new road construction and then compare the operation of the rail line to the operation of the road over the same time period. This is like the argument that hybrids are bad for the environment. While that’s essentially true, hybrids are better than the alternatives. If you take as a given that we need to move people from place to place then it behooves us to pick the best way possible.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Jer,
No, actually it’s Matt who’s claiming such. And you who are counterclaiming.
No, what Matt actually said was “And unlike new drilling, [new rail construction will] make the environment cleaner rather than dirtier.” That claim is clearly false. New rail construction consumes huge amounts of energy and produces huge amounts of pollution.
You asserted that what Matt meant to say, and what you yourself believe, is that new rail construction would eventually produce a net environmental benefit by “displacing automobile use” after it became operational. Neither Matt nor you has produced any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. You haven’t produced any evidence that the claim is even plausible, let alone that it’s actually true.
A further consideration that seems not to have occurred to you is the timescale of this alleged net environmental benefit. Even if a new rail line would eventually produce a net savings in energy and pollution, but would take 50 years or more of operation to realize that benefit, it’s not going to do much good, if any, for global warming, is it? In fact, if the critical window for reducing carbon emissions is the next few decades, a new rail line that would take several decades of operational energy and pollution savings to offset the energy and pollution costs of its construction would actually make global warming worse rather than better, wouldn’t it?
September 9th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Jer,
No you don’t. Its sufficient to say that public transit ridership is up, and traffic volume is down.
Huh? “Sufficient?” Sufficient for what? It’s certainly not sufficient to show that the total amount of travel by transit is up, or that the total amount of travel by road is down, let alone the magnitude of the change in each case. In fact, since most transit is buses, and buses are a component of VMT, it’s hard to figure out what the two numbers say even about just travel by bus. The first number suggests an increase, and the second suggests a decrease. Although, again, since they’re measuring two different things, it’s hard to usefully relate them. So exactly what are you claiming to be showing by comparing the two numbers you cited?
But since you are a pedant, in 2006, the average unlinked trip length was 5.2 miles. Now go find ….
Again, it’s not my job to look for data or perform calculations to support your claims. That’s your job. If you want to make a claim about changes in passenger-miles of travel for each mode, it’s up to you to produce the necessary data and calculations.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Mixner: You asserted that what Matt meant to say…
No, I pointed out why your objection was baseless. And you’re still just pulling at straws.
It’s certainly not sufficient to show that the total amount of travel by transit is up, or that the total amount of travel by road is down, let alone the magnitude of the change in each case.
Yes it is. In fact, it says exactly that. And the first PDF includes a breakdown in the increase in ridership by bus. So you’re plainly not paying attention.
Again, it’s not my job to look for data…
I’m not going to do your homework for you. I’ve given you all the data, and you’re still whining about me not doing some simple multiplication.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Neither Matt nor you has produced any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. You haven’t produced any evidence that the claim is even plausible, let alone that it’s actually true…
The average cost of a new car ($28,000) divided by the average lifespan of cars (17 years) results in an annual cost for the manufacture and delivery of a car of about $1640. The average annual cost for a transit pass is about $820, though this, of course, includes fuel costs that the $1640 for cars doesn’t. A fairer comparison would take 12000 miles per year (average miles driven) and divide by, say, 24mpg to arrive at an annual average consumption of 500 gallons ($1500?)of gas to add to the $1640. How could you possibly think, given this much greater than double cost differential, that a lower environmental impact for transit would be implausible?
No, don’t answer that. On second thought, I really don’t want to know how you work backwards from your opinion to rationalize to yourself the crap you peddle around here.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Transit receives vastly higher subsidies per passenger-mile of transportation benefit than “driving.”
Of course this is because the high initial costs of highway construction were paid decades ago, and most funding goes to maintenance and operations, while much of current transit spending is going towards new systems. Mixner’s argument here is the equivalent of noting that someone who bought a new car this year paid more per passenger mile this year than someone who bought their car two years ago.
He’s well aware of the difference between initial outlays and overall spending over time, as he demonstrates by writing New rail construction consumes huge amounts of energy and produces huge amounts of pollution. He’s just not honest enough to use the consistent methods of analysis, because of his ideological predisposition against transit.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
The obvious unit is passenger-miles.
No, it’s not. Because of the vastly greater land efficiency of transit, and its concentration in older areas built before World War Two, the average transit rider is closer to his destination than the average driver. The proper comparison is trips.
The fact that building transit promotes even greater efficiencies than those directly related to its operations is only counted as a strike against it by people with an irrational, ideological aversion to public transportation.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
DMonteith,
The average cost of a new car ($28,000) divided by the average lifespan of cars (17 years) results in an annual cost for the manufacture and delivery of a car of about $1640. The average annual cost for a transit pass is about $820, though this, of course, includes fuel costs that the $1640 for cars doesn’t. A fairer comparison would take 12000 miles per year (average miles driven) and divide by, say, 24mpg to arrive at an annual average consumption of 500 gallons ($1500?)of gas to add to the $1640. How could you possibly think, given this much greater than double cost differential, that a lower environmental impact for transit would be implausible?
This is all just utter nonsense. There is no meaningful relationship between the cost of a transit pass and the environmental impact of transit. Even if we were to assume that the relative environmental impact of cars and transit per passenger-mile of travel could be inferred from the total cost of that travel for each mode, the cost calculation would obviously need to include infrastcture, vehicle and operating costs. Transit fares rarely cover even operating costs, let alone total costs. But more importantly, we can’t infer anything about environmental impact from cost alone, anyway.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
joe from lowell,
Of course this is because the high initial costs of highway construction were paid decades ago, and most funding goes to maintenance and operations, while much of current transit spending is going towards new systems.
This nonsense again. Please produce the historical data on highway and transit subsidies demonstrating your claim above.
What’s that? You don’t have any data, and you’re just making things up, yet again? Gee, there’s a shocker.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Jer,
No, I pointed out why your objection was baseless. And you’re still just pulling at straws.
No, you asserted exactly the claim I described of an alleged “net” benefit from new rail construction. You wrote “(if ridership trends continue) rail will displace automobile use, and will therefore lead to a net decrease in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”
I’m still waiting for you to produce a shred of evidence that this claim is even plausible, let alone that it’s actually true.
To illustrate the implausibility of your claim, we may consider the Portland North Interstate light rail line. The environmental impact statement for that rail project estimated that the line would save about 23 billion BTUs of energy each year during its operation. The same report estimated that construction of the line would require 3.9 trillion BTUs of energy. Thus, under the official estimates of energy costs and benefits, it would take 172 years of operation for the rail line to yield any net energy savings at all.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“Highways, roads and bridges are funded primarily from the Highway Trust Fund, which also funds transit. The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline taxes paid by drivers.”
Oops.
Note: Many projects are only partially supported by the Highway Fund. Nearly 40% of the new connector highway in Maryland, which will almost entirely serve suburban drivers, is being financed by bonds and general fund spending.
Note also: the highway trust fund pays for building and maintaining roads. It does not provide any of the other infrastructure supporting the suburban communities that spring along up alongside freeways and whose very existence is subsidized by your gas taxes, regardless of where you live.
Note also the cycle represented by highway spending: initial subsidies increase capacity, which expands access, which increases demand, which increases receipts from user fees, which funds additional projects. This sent mass transit, which had boomed for over a century, into the opposite spiral.
It’s all good news for the highway system until the point where demand can no longer support the level of spending. That point has (at least temporarily) been reached this year. Given the declining quality of many of our roads and bridges, and the generally upward trend of fuel prices, the odds of the system continuing to be mostly self-sustaining are in doubt.
“The same report estimated that construction of the line would require 3.9 trillion BTUs of energy. Thus, under the official estimates of energy costs and benefits, it would take 172 years of operation for the rail line to yield any net energy savings at all.”
This is a classic Mixner argument. Yes, it is certainly true that building a new mass transit line will not create a net reduction in energy costs compared to a world that is exactly the same but does not contain the light rail line. But here in Reality World, a government that declines to build a light rail line is going to spend that money widening existing roads and building new roads. Developers will build houses and businesses along the new roads. All of those projects will also require energy usage and carbon emissions.
So really, you aren’t even comparing apples to oranges. You’re comparing apples to fruitlessness.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Follette,
Oops.
That would be oops for transit in particular, since transit depends on the Highway Trust Fund so heavily for subsidies. Little wonder that 35% of transit agencies are considering cutting services.
Note: Many projects are only partially supported by the Highway Fund.
Note: Transit receives vastly higher government subsidies per passenger-mile of transportation benefit than highways. That’s why transit users are so much more vulnerable to declines in tax revenues than drivers.
Yes, it is certainly true that building a new mass transit line will not create a net reduction in energy costs compared to a world that is exactly the same but does not contain the light rail line.
You are confused. The energy estimates don’t assume “a world that is exactly the same” apart from the new mass transit line They assume a world in which there is less driving as a result of the new transit line. That’s where the estimated annual energy savings of 23 billion BTUs come from. The problem is that construction of the line consumes such vast amounts of energy that it would take decades or centuries to recover the energy costs of construction through energy savings from operation.
But here in Reality World, a government that declines to build a light rail line is going to spend that money widening existing roads and building new roads.
Highly implausible. Light rail lines carry such a tiny share of total traffic they are unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on road congestion, and therefore unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on road construction. In fact, there is evidence that light rail lines increase road congestion. They are frequently built along existing roads, reducing the road width available for buses and cars and restricting turns and traffic flow.
Again, if you seriously think you can produce evidence suggesting that it is even plausible, let alone actually true, that new rail construction produces a net decrease in energy consumption and pollution, then do so.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Please produce the historical data on highway and transit subsidies demonstrating your claim above./i>
OK. Construction on the Interstate Highway System began in 1956, and was completed in 2004. Done.
How did I know you were going to use a transparent data request to avoid addressing the point? Because that’s what you always do, because you are a hack.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Light rail lines carry such a tiny share of total traffic they are unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on road congestion
Ah, but congestion isn’t evenly spread throughout the day. There are things called morning and evening peak hours, during which congestion worsens considerably.
90% of the trips into Manhattan during the morning peak are transit trips.
Additionally, the relationship between traffic volume and congestion is not smooth, but operates via a series of tipping points. Lowering the volume of traffic on a road at 1 AM by 50, 60 70% isn’t going to reduce congestion at all, because there is no congestion to reduce. However, reducing the volume of traffic on a major arterial road by a very small amount during peak hours can drop you below that tipping point.
I suggest you read the AASHTO handbook before you make these inaccurate claims.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
‘No, what Matt actually said was “And unlike new drilling, [new rail construction will] make the environment cleaner rather than dirtier.” That claim is clearly false.’
If by “false” you mean “true”.
‘New rail construction consumes huge amounts of energy and produces huge amounts of pollution.’
What are your alternatives?
– “new road construction” — and new road construction consumes several times more energy than new rail construction, on a per mile basis, produces several times more pollution, and uses several times more oil and several times more land. You can look those numbers up yourself; the energy use and emissions from paving a single lane of an asphalt road with “hot asphalt” for a mile are ridiculous.
– “maintaining existing gigantic multi-lane roads” — same problem as new road construction. Oh, by the way, the lifetime of a road before replacement is on the order of 20 years; it’s on the order of 50 years for most of the stuff in a rail line.
– “allowing the roads AND rails to go to pot” — well, that is certainly an option. I think reverting to dirt trails and increasing transportation times massively *would* have a positive environmental impact, but the quality-of-life injury would be huge. That said, in areas with really low traffic volumes, we *should* revert to dirt roads — the asphalt is totally not worth it for even 10 cars a day.
When compared with the alternatives, the construction costs of new rail ARE environmentally beneficial (provided the rail gets used, of course). Though not as much as *maintaining or rehabbing old rail*, and there’s a lot of that we could do.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
‘The energy estimates don’t assume “a world that is exactly the same” apart from the new mass transit line ‘
Close enough. The proper comparison should include the elimination of road repaving costs for more-than-two-lane roads adjacent to the light rail line. The estimates don’t include the saved energy from NOT constructing new roads.
I see where your mistake comes from.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:06 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Incredible site! viagra