Some of You Nut Cases Are Making Us Serious People Look Bad

Some people criticized me last week for assuming that all the electricity needed for rail transit came from coal. This was a valid criticism, though less so than you might think. The last major hydroelectric dam in the Northwest was built in the early 1970s, but the first light-rail lines were built after 1980. So none of the incremental energy needed to power light rail came from hydroelectric sources. Wind power, maybe, but not hydro.

I am working on a revised version of my report on greenhouse gases and rail transit. To be fair, I will include both the assumption that electric power comes from coal and that it comes from a mix of sources. I’ll also try to show why, in most states at least, coal will be the source of power for any new electric rail lines. And I’ll compare transit with SUVs as well as conventional cars. I don’t expect these changes will greatly improve the outcome for rail transit, but we will see.

Yet a few other reports have come out about greenhouse gases that are far more questionable than my coal assumption. For example, a recent article in the Times (of London) asserts that walking “damages the planet more than going by car.” This claim is based on an assumption that someone gets all their energy for walking from eating beef. Since beef production emits all sorts of greenhouse gases, walking is supposed to produce more greenhouse gases than driving.

What about me? I don’t eat beef. I might ride my bike 50 miles today, but don’t blame me if your city has a heat wave tomorrow.
As nobody can predict an exciting moment can be just as harmful to the joints as levitra online usa is overuse and joint wear. So, last year vardenafil sale Read Full Report they decided to visit India. One can generic viagra online get this medicine from any local drug store. A thorough report next cheap viagra of your healing objectivesGood chiropractic doctors minister to your entire body.
I previously mentioned another report that claims that a Prius uses more energy, when the costs of manufacture and disposal are included, than a Hummer. But I’ve read this report in detail and I don’t think I am going to use it to win any arguments.

For one thing, the report counts energy costs in dollars rather than BTUs, Joules, or some other unit of energy. Dollars are not a unit of energy, so using dollars makes as much sense as measuring land area in kilograms or measuring speed in people per square mile.

The report also makes some assumptions about hybrid-electric cars that can’t be verified. It presumes, for example, that a Toyota Prius will be ready for the scrapheap after 109,000 miles. While the batteries might need to be replaced, it isn’t clear that the whole car will have to be junked at that time.

I appreciate it when people challenge the dominant paradigm. But I would like those challenges to make sense. Thanks to my faithful allies and loyal opponents for helping me keep my challenges grounded in reality.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

5 Responses to Some of You Nut Cases Are Making Us Serious People Look Bad

  1. Trumbull says:

    That Times article is pretty crazy. My favorite part was this:
    “— Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas”
    If this were true, don’t you think that the ice caps would have melted by now, considering trees have been around longer than man?

  2. Kevyn Miller says:

    The fundamental oversight in the silly walking versus driving article was the assumption that the average walking journey is the same length as the average trip by car.

    Unfotunately this assumption seems to underpin much of anti-higher density arguments. Trip length, comfort and safety are probably the main determinates of travel mode. Since getting from A to B is the purpose of any trip it follows that creating communities where most services are within a few minutes easy and safe walk or cycle ride from homes will generate lower usage of motorised transport and fewer miles travelled per trip and per annum. Most important is the time spent travelling. This may be no different from average suburban journeys (walking to the corner store or deli versus drivng to the mall). The value of the travel time is the same despite the journey being shorter. Ipto facto residents of high density developments aren’t more travel poor than residents of low density developments, even though distance travelled may suggest this. IMHO it is totally spurious to suggest that residents of high density areas travel less because they can’t afford to travel more. They travel less because they can afford to travel less not because they can’t afford to travel more. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. As long as cities are eliminating regulations prohibiting high densities I say go for it and let people make their own choices about where they want to live. Don’t force high density onto cities but equally don’t ban it either.

  3. msetty says:

    Randal-

    Even extremely modest carbon taxes (http://www.carbontax.org) of $0.01 per pound–$20.00 per ton, about $0,02 per KWH produced by coal–would reverse the current false economies of coal and improve the economics of all other options. The economics of wind power are steadily improving over time, and would jump another huge increment when “flow” batteries become commercially viable(http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/2077.

    Of course, implementing a carbon tax has to overcome the stiff opposition of the coal industry and the various economic game-players who want to dabble and speculate in the myriad ways that emissions permits and credits can be manipulated (as opposed to a simple tax on carbon pollution–hopefully offsetting many current, often more egregious taxes).

  4. Tad Winiecki says:

    There are many myths, false assumptions and neglected aspects in transport debates. You have done good service in pointing out many of them, Randall. Other blog contributors have mentioned even more.
    Some of my pet peeves in this area are:
    1. neglected aspect of the value of people’s time by mass transit advocates.
    2. assumption that we can’t do any better (go faster, quicker, safer, cheaper, more reliably) than present technology by many on all sides of the debates
    3. neglecting some modes with small market share, but as much share as mass transit in many markets – elevators, bicycles, motorcycles, jitneys, taxis, gondolas, chairlifts, boats, snowmobiles, horses
    4. provincialism – much of the world is not the same as urban US or Europe. In some places and seasons boats or snowmobiles have the most market share.

  5. johngalt says:

    A recent Oregonian article noted that transit nuts are now saying:

    “And, it might actually undercount some of the value of driving less, Litman said. That’s because as the region curbs the growth of car travel time, it also adds relatively pleasant transit travel time that is not figured in — and the pleasant travel time is less expensive to commuters, he said.”

    That is right my friends, your time is pleasant on transit but is wasted in a car. Nevermind the stinky bum urinating in the seat next to you or the bad weather. Sitting in a luxury car listening to your music, making phone calls, getting some valuable “alone time”, etc. is horrible!

    the article goes on…

    “Time spent alone in a car is largely unpleasant and costly, and therefore people are willing to pay to avoid it, Litman said. But time in high-quality transit environments is less unpleasant than driving — and Portland is adding those kinds of minutes, he said.”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1187576751202450.xml&coll=7

Leave a Reply