A report from the Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis (SIKA) finds that rail transportation may reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but at an extremely high cost. The report, which was prepared at the request of the Swedish government, is available only in Swedish, but an English summary is in this news report.
The report found that rail transportation emits about 20 percent less greenhouse gases than autos, but rail service is so expensive that it would be more effective to simply improve auto technologies. Reducing one ton of greenhouse gases with rail costs $6,500, said the report, while reducing it with auto improvements can cost less than $40 per ton. Nonetheless people should also know that this will provide you with the joy of sexual pleasure as an important part of a person’s healthy life. tadalafil online in uk see for more info Ejaculation time more than 4 minutes is normal and for the most part related to men levitra generic cheap who are sixty years and above. If taken 30 minutes to 1 hour before the sexual intercourse and works better if the stomach is empty. sildenafil pfizer is widely used by millions of men throughout the world suffer from erectile dysfunction. Your physician will probably see this link low priced viagra be the one particular to determine whether you should continue making use of the drug can be harmful and it can leave bad impacts to user. The news report does not make clear whether the SIKA report accounted for greenhouse gas emissions during rail construction, but if it did not, then rail’s cost per ton would be even greater.
In the US, however, the story is vastly different (graphic).
But I’m glad Randal likes the report, which advocates congestion taxes. Randal was implicitly against it yesterday, but what’s a flip-flop here and there among friends?
DS
Randal says
“Rail transportation may reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but at an extremely high cost.”
Then Dan calls him a flip floper for not talking about congestion taxes.
Did I miss something?
The just as important parts from the news report that The Antiplanner left out:
“A one tonne reduction in carbon dioxide emissions costs 50,000 kronor ($6,200) when achieved using high speed trains, SIKA finds.
In comparison, the same reduction costs only 2,200 to 5,000 kronor when achieved through other investments in the rail network, while a 0.70 kronor hike in the carbon tax costs even less; 300 to 1,000 kronor per tonne.
Of course, they only measured the direct energy consumption of trains. The real carbon reduction savings are the indirect declines from changed land use, which even minions of the Bush Administration’s FTA (of all people!) says is twice the impact of direct energy consumption of transit and rail, e.g., see this paper, particularly Pages 10-15.
If you want to see some reasonable papers on transportation policy check out this URL. http://www.vtpi.org/
Craig:
yes, you missed something.
HTH.
DS
DS You brought up congestion charges, Randal didn’t in the above opinion
Here, I’ll type slowly:
The Swedish article Randal liked so much recommended congestion charges as a solution.
DS
Yes it did, {I’m also typing as slow as I can) and I didn’t see anywhere that Randal agreed with that part of the article. I only saw where YOU brought it up and then accuse Randal of flip flopping.
I’m done, lets move on
Don’t sweat it, craig. Planner Dan lives in the world of either-or fallacies. This has had an unfortunate impact on his daily living. For example, we know Planner Dan prefers alternative modes of transporation but the poor guy insists on using EITHER rail transport OR the bicycle. None of his friends have had the decency to inform him he can support both without being contradictory. He also uses EITHER salt OR pepper to spice up his food, but not both, poor guy.
Selective attention OR selective quoting, Craig.
Move on, aye.
DS
Close Observer Says: Don’t sweat it, craig. Planner Dan lives in the world of either-or fallacies. This has had an unfortunate impact on his daily living. For example, we know Planner Dan prefers alternative modes of transporation but the poor guy insists on using EITHER rail transport OR the bicycle. None of his friends have had the decency to inform him he can support both without being contradictory. He also uses EITHER salt OR pepper to spice up his food, but not both, poor guy.
THWM: Close Observer, you know damn well that you are taking things out of context!