The solution for Houston's traffic lights, transit doesn't reduce emissions, HSR terrorism risk, and Colorado's bad transportation policy
Apologies for taking a break from blogging over the summer. Looking forward to picking up the posting again in the fall. Today just a few small items:
- Bill King: Mass Transit Has a Negligible Effect on GHG Emissions. Great takedown of the pro-transit argument for emissions reductions. Some key excerpts:
"In other words, if we eliminated every passenger automobile in the U.S. in favor of a transit alternative and use completely unrealistic assumptions, the total estimated reduction would be barely out of the margin of error for total estimated GHG emissions. ...
I believe we need an efficient and effective transit system as part of the basic social safety net. Providing some mobility for those who cannot afford to own and operate their own vehicle and those who are physically not able to operate one is the right thing to do. It also helps the local economy by providing a way for employees to get to their jobs.But transit does little to relieve traffic congestion and virtually nothing to improve air quality. We need to start having an honest conversation about the purpose of transit and what we can reasonably expect it to accomplish. And we need to stop lying to the public and voters about fanciful, non-existent benefits."
- NYT: Olympics Precautions Failed to Halt Rail Sabotage. One of the issues I've pointed out in the HSR vs. planes debate is the near impossibility of securing hundreds of miles of HSR rail from sabotage or terrorism.
- WSJ: The Smart, Cheap Fix for Slow, Dumb Traffic Lights - Most cities can’t afford smart traffic signals. Fortunately, data from new cars—and even drivers’ smartphones—can make old-fashioned traffic lights work a lot better. "the system yields a 30% reduction in stop-and-go traffic at intersections" Can we get this for Houston please?!?
- NYT: Colorado’s Bold New Approach to Highways — Not Building Them. I really disagree with this. Studies have shown that highways are the great enabler of opportunity and upward social mobility for the working class to get access to better jobs and newer, more affordable, higher-quality housing in better school districts. Massive transit expansions, like LA, have not increased rideshare and don't work. Environmental solutions focused on reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be an economic disaster. Instead, gas stations should be required to charge at the pump for the necessary carbon capture to offset the gas, currently ~$1 per gallon.
Labels: environment, high-speed rail, mobility strategies, planning, rail, transit
posted by Tory Gattis @ 5:55 PM
11 Comments:
Sigh, Colorado, people who have never known hardship. Kill the very thing that made Colorado great, highways. They'll replace them with highly subsidized transit that no one will ride, wasting so much tax payer money. In the end making life worse for everyone, in their anti-car quest. Its not about climate, its about eliminating cars. I wouldn't move to Colorado as the people are angry as they enshitify their state.
P.S. this is the same state that things they can improve congestion on I-70 by lowering the speed limit. Genius!
Colorado was so worried about being "Texanized" that it ended up being "Californicated". I wish them joy in their choice. Perhaps we should send them some "Welcome to Texas, Now Go Home" stickers. ;)
Except, of course, we would be joking. We're not that kind of people.
That was from Bill R too. Must pay better attention.
Interesting thoughts on mobility vs density.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/08/mobility-vs-density-in-american-history.html
Bill King's analysis of greenhouse gas reductions from transit is a good example of how to lie with statistics - so many things wrong in such a short analysis. First of all, if you look at the sources, his data is fifteen years old: a lot has changed in the GHG emissions of centralized electric power since then. Wind and solar were insignificant, and battery powered vehicles didn't exist. In a changing situation, plans have to project trends, and not use static snapshots of the past. But more importantly, his conclusion is backwards, even if you take his data as OK and his method as valid. King concludes that transit reduces per-passenger-mile emissions to a level within the margin of error, and says "no effect". If he were unbiased, he'd recognize that transit reduces those emissions from a significant contributor to indistinguishable from zero. This is exactly what we need!
Comment about Houston roads. I wonder how much damage to surface streets is due to the unoccupied huge busses? Is there a smaller mass transit vehicle that would save money and roads?
Yes, like any large vehicle (esp trucks) they cause damage, but METRO also sends a lot of money to the City for streets (25% of their sales tax) - probably more than balances out. There's a good argument for smaller vehicles on some routes, but it's tricky because they still have to be big enough to handle rush hour surges. Then they run mostly empty other times of the day...
Thanks for that link Bill - really great thoughts by Cowen. I made a comment over there: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/08/mobility-vs-density-in-american-history.html?commentID=160805551
Thanks for that link Bill - really great thoughts by Cowen. I made a comment over there: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/08/mobility-vs-density-in-american-history.html?commentID=160805551
Post a Comment
<< Home