Monthly Archives: August 2007

The numbers in the rail summary spreadsheet show that rail transit often, but not always, uses less energy per passenger mile than buses. But this is deceptive because most rail lines are built in heavily traveled corridors, while many bus lines serve suburban routes and run nearly empty much of the day. The master spreadsheet shows fourteen different bus operations use less energy per passenger mile than the most energy-efficient rail operation. Thus, it is likely that many new rail lines use more energy per passenger mile than the buses they replaced.

The numbers in this week’s analyses also show that less than half of all U.S. rail transit lines use less energy per passenger mile than the average passenger car, and only three rail lines in the entire country use less than a Prius or other high-mileage auto. Thus, building rail transit provides no assurance of saving any energy.

My previous reports, Great Rail Disasters and Rail Disasters 2005 showed that San Diego and Boston are the only cities that have built new rail lines in the last 30 years that have seen an increase in transit’s share of total travel or commuter travel since 1980. If all rail transit does is divert riders of energy-efficient bus routes to less energy-efficient rail routes, then it is a complete waste of energy.

Meanwhile the energy cost of building rail transit can be huge, especially if tunneling is required. Even if rail operations save energy, it can take decades for that savings to make up for the energy cost of construction. Since rail lines have to be largely rebuilt every 30 years or so, any energy savings that does not repay the construction cost within 30 years is likely to be a net loss.

A few new rail lines, such as the San Diego light rail, do seem to save a small amount of energy, though it is likely it will take years if not decades for that savings to cover the cost of construction. The high dollar cost of rail transit, combined with the high risk that there will be no real savings, eliminates any notion that rail can be a cost-effective way of reducing energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.

If saving energy and reducing CO2 emissions are worthy public goals, then there are many transportation policies that can achieve these goals with greater assurance and at a far lower public cost. Here are three ideas.

Continue reading →

Let’s say you want to build a rail line and you are convinced, despite all the evidence in my previous posts, that operating it will use less energy per passenger mile than buses or cars. Before you start construction, first ask: How much energy will it take to build the rail line?

Sound Transit, which is building one of the most expensive light-rail lines in the country and is asking voters for money to build another 50 miles that will cost even more, estimates that one of these lines will save 14,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year. But, based on the environmental impact statement for the line, a group called the Coalition for Effective Transit estimates that constructing the line will use enough energy to emit 640,000 tons of CO2. That’s about 45 years’ worth of savings.

Continue reading →

Yesterday, we found that light-rail systems in Houston, Minneapolis, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, and St. Louis seemed to be energy efficient compared with automobiles. But are they really?

When transit agencies open light-rail lines, they don’t usually make significant reductions in bus service. Instead, they convert corridor bus lines to feeder buses for the light rail. Since many people end up driving to light-rail stations, these feeder buses end up carrying far fewer riders than the corridor buses that the light-rail replaced.

Thus, rail transit’s energy and CO2 cost per passenger mile savings are potentially offset by increased energy and CO2 costs per bus passenger mile. I first noticed this for Salt Lake City. The Utah Transit Authority brags about the great success of its light rail, and it did lead to a modest increase in total transit ridership (although ridership was growing even before it opened the line).

Continue reading →

In an press release Monday, Madison Wisconsin Mayor Dave Cieslewicz announced that he was giving up on the idea of building a streetcar in downtown Madison. This must be a big disappointment for former Portland City Commissioner Charles Hales, who is trying to put two kids through college by selling streetcars to cities like Madison.

Continue reading →

Does rail transit save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Based on the results for 2005, the answer seems to be mostly “no.” These results are found in two downloadable spreadsheets: the National Transit Database summary (1.4 MB) and a summary spreadsheet for rail cities. You can also download a spreadsheet with the calculations of BTUs and CO2. A brief explanation of the spreadsheets and a guide to abbreviations can be found at the end of this post.

Here is a summary of the results:

.   Mode            BTU/PM    CO2/PM
.   Guideway        10,573     2.05
.   Commuter Rail    2,766     0.50
.   Light rail       3,458     0.67
.   Heavy rail       2,692     0.52
.   Motor Bus        3,733     0.66
.   Trolley bus      4,004     0.77
.   All transit      3,276     0.60
.   Automobile*      3,445     0.54

* As noted in part 1, “automobile” is the average for passenger cars, not including light trucks (pickups and SUVs).

Continue reading →

One reason often put forward to build rail transit is that it will save energy. Lately, rail advocates have added the claim that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many people accept these statements without question. A recent NPR story argued that “part of the solution (to global warming) is light rail.” The Antiplanner previously noted a magazine that declared Portland the second-greenest city in the world partly on the strength of the reduced greenhouse gases emitted by its light-rail lines.

This week, the Antiplanner is going to look at these claims in detail. Today we will set up the problem. Tomorrow, we will look at actual energy consumption and CO2 emissions by various transit systems in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available. Later we will look at the construction costs of rail transit and examine energy consumption and CO2 emissions before and after light-rail lines are put into operation. Finally, we will compare rail transit with alternative policies that might be able to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at a far lower cost.

Continue reading →

Taxpayers for Common Sense was created as sort of a left-wing counterpart to the National Taxpayers Union. Back when the Antiplanner was still a mainstream environmentalist, Taxpayers for Common Sense asked me to be on its board of advisors — and I am still listed there, although they don’t ask me for advice very often.

Anyway, while I don’t agree with everything they say, they are taking the right approach on transportation. They are not impressed by proposals to raise gasoline taxes in order to repair decrepit bridges.

Continue reading →