At the end of October, both New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg and, believe it or not, Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott, passed their cosponsored bill in the Senate to allocate $1.9 billion per year for six years to expand passenger rail in the U.S. According to Parade magazine (yes, the one that's inserted into Sunday newspapers), the main goal is "to develop high-speed, short-haul rail corridors modeled on the European city-to-city routes. They could run between Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, N.C.; Portland and Seattle; Chicago and Detroit; Miami and Jacksonville, Fla." In addition, the Senate wants to give Amtrak a solid long-term financial foundation. (Imagine!)
The same Parade article, entitled "A better way to travel," extols the benefits of rail:
Many transportation experts insist that the best answer to transportation gridlock is efficient intercity rail travel. Trains use one-fifth less energy than cars or planes ... Amtrak ridership was up for the fifth year in a row, reaching record levels -- despite the fact that a third of trains arrived late last year ... Severe weather will further add to the transportation turmoil, leading travelers to look for alternatives to air travel.
And what about global warming? The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) released a report in September 2007, "Public Transportation's Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Reduction" which directly addresses the issue. According to their calculations, public transit, use saves 37 percent of the CO2 that would have been emitted had private transportation been used (19.2 million metric tons, including traffic congestion) instead of public transit ( 12.3 million metric tons). And that's including a lot of diesel-powered trains and buses.
Furthermore:
U.S. CAFE standards alone do not adequately deal with the rising emissions from the rising levels of VMT [vehicle miles traveled]. If the growth rate of VMT continues at historical growth rates, the transportation share of GHG emissions will not decline ...
According to APTA data, emissions from mobile sources rose from 1,523 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 1,960 million metric tons in 2004. That's a 22 percent increase, about 80 percent of which came from light trucks, SUVs, and trucks.
The APTA study also finds, not surprisingly, that:
... to optimize mass transit's competitive advantages in terms of speed, convenience, and desirability, urban and suburban planning and design are required to encourage greater use of public transportation. There are a number of examples and case studies in public transportation of recent initiatives that have been successful in accomplishing this ...
They go on to list efforts in the Seattle and Grand Rapids area, as well as the continued increase in energy efficiency of the NYC metropolitan region. Since "the carbon footprint of a typical U.S. household is about 22 metric tonnes per year ... reducing the daily use of one low occupancy vehicle and using public transit can reduce a household's carbon footprint between 25-30%."
Running below the radar, even conservative Trent Lott has jumped on board (pun intended) the movement to increase rail use. Unless public transit is increased along with more stringent CAFE standards, better fuel efficiency won't have much of an effect because of the constant increase in vehicle-miles-traveled. Solving the greenhouse-gas emission problem in transportation must be a two-pronged approach -- more efficient cars and trucks and more rail.
Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September
MoveOn calls on Senate to preserve Clean Air Act in climate bill
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments
View as Flat
Matt G Posted 8:42 am
12 Nov 2007
As a nice bonus
With current security restrictions, riding rail could be faster than air travel for even intra-state travel.
Example: Currently it takes about 3.5 hours to take the train from Seattle to Portland (at a liesurely 50mph, assuming they aren't late), 3 hours to drive (assuming no traffic), or 50 minutes to fly. Of course with flying you have to get to the airport an hour early, making this 2 hours. Add to that time to get out to the airport and then back from the airport on the other side, since airports are never located downtown (unlike rail stations). I generally consider a plane trip to Portland to take about 3 hours thanks to these headaches.
Now, if we built some standard fast rail such as England's 225's we could reduce the rail time down to 1.5 hours. Or we could (dare to dream) copy Shanghai's Maglev and get there in 50 minutes without needing to add the time for security and with leaving right from downtown Seattle.
Permalink
danielbell Posted 9:58 am
12 Nov 2007
Ride the rails
On my recent trip to greenbuild in chicago from the bay area, I took a train ride from Iowa into Chicago. It was lovely, compared with the flights I took.
Steel on steel is much more efficient than rubber on concrete. Congress and republicans in particular have been systematically underfunding Amtrak for years. We need high speed trains in this country so that flights aren't the only practical solution to cross-continent travel. A train ride from the bay area to chicago would take over 50 hours. That's a lot of lost opportunity cost for an hourly worker like myself.
We need high speed trains in the major corridors between cities and more intra-metropolitan trains. Lets install some light rails in our HOV lanes and get commuters to park and ride. Where are the rail centered developments? The friend who stayed with in chicago lived directly next to an el train and it was fantastic for mobility, I could bike or train or combo those to any place I wanted in the city with no problem.
wiserearth.org/user/danielbell
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:27 pm
12 Nov 2007
Tubes
Light electric rail in tubes running in the freeway median is the hot setup. Regular rail is fine for freight, but to compete with air travel you need high speeds. Going 200 mph in a tube with no obstructions or inclement weather on the electric rails would be safe and easy.
The electrical contact is never interfered with by water or animals on the track. That way the trains can be renewably powered. No GHG emitted with solar panels mounted on the sunny side of the tubes feeding the renewable grid that feeds back to the trains when the sun isn't shining.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
racc Posted 2:41 am
13 Nov 2007
Not Nearly Enough Money
The $1.9 billion per year is not enough to make much of a difference at at and is just a drop in the bucket compared to federal expenditures on highways. Just the high-speed rail in California from San Diego to San Francisco is estimated to be $40 billion.
The federal government needs to divert all funding from highways to high-speed rail and public transit to make up for the years of underfunding. Spending on highways just increases ghg emissions
Permalink
kwolph Posted 11:52 am
15 Nov 2007
Energy Bill 2007
This is good news to hear. I hate the 4hr drive from Detroit to Chicago, which is traffic heavy and stressful. I gladly take the train and hopefully the expansion and update of the Amtrak rails will convince more individuals to choose this alternative transportation method.
There is still time for readers to get behind the Energy bill currently being debated in Congress. Check out www.energybill2007.org and learn more about the benefits of upgrading fuel and energy standards.
Permalink