Passenger Rail: not so good for the envrionment

A new study by two professors at the University of California, Berkeley argues that when assessing the environmental impacts of a transportation system, one should include life cycle costs of infrastructure, fuel production and supply chains, not just the simple measure of tail pipe emissions.

In doing so, the researchers conclude:

We find that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation.

Why is rail so much more harmful to the environment than other modes?

          Ranges in passenger occupancy can easily change the relative performance of modes.

This means transit modes that don't carry a lot of people are more harmful to the environment when compared to other transportation modes that are more efficient, like air travel or private vehicles. This is the point we try to make in our analysis of Sound Transit's Light Rail system and High Speed Rail.

Yet rail advocates continue to push for greater public spending under this false premise of environmental stewardship. Consider this statement from the campaign folks supporting the 2008 ballot measure to expand light rail in the Puget Sound:

"One thing that really struck me is, when people get a sense of the greenhouse gas levels that will be reduced, that will be a compelling argument," said Alex Fryer of the group Mass Transit Now.

Yet our analysis shows ST2's poor ridership would only reduce CO2 emissions by 1.11%. Randal O'Toole made similar findings in his remarks about High Speed Rail. And these don't even include the life cycle costs of infrastructure or supply chains that the Berkeley researchers count.

You can find the full U.C. Berkeley study here.