Jack May
2008-04-14 20:55:00 UTC
The MTC in the SF Bay area (and probably others) are pushing for tax
increases to build rail to reduce CO2. Its a grab for money and won't be
effective.
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/489015.html
In the last 15 years, American cities have spent $100 billion on new rail
transit projects. Proponents now justify the expense with claims that rail
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but these projects fail to meet their
promised reductions, a new Cato Institute study reports.
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."
increases to build rail to reduce CO2. Its a grab for money and won't be
effective.
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/489015.html
In the last 15 years, American cities have spent $100 billion on new rail
transit projects. Proponents now justify the expense with claims that rail
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but these projects fail to meet their
promised reductions, a new Cato Institute study reports.
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."