Study: Public transit may not be as 'green' as you think

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

...

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that ... it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

...

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

...

Another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

...

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

[one...two...tree 2,762]

makes sense

[scandal 951]

I wonder if their study takes into account that typical automobile commuters spend much of their time idling their engines stuck in traffic on congested freeways and other traffic arteries. Even if your SUV is crammed to the gills with passengers, but you spend anywhere from 20-50% of your commute time just breathing fumes in stop & go traffic, I can't imagine that that is "efficient". In contrast rail based transport has rights of way along its tracks and (barring signal failures) can motor along.

Spoken as an ex-auto commuter of over 15 years, who has happily given it up for the joy of riding Metra, Chicago's suburban rail system. For me it's not about "green". It's more about the ability to commute stress-free and read the paper on the train rather than deal with traffic and high gas costs.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Most green things aren't very green.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

uscandual,

I don't use the train but my wife takes the train to grad school. It's sooooo much better than driving on what is an extremely congested stretch of highway.

Though the line she uses isn't heavily used by work commuters and has always been reported by NJ Transit as not being profitable. So she'd probably be more green if she drove.

That said, we don't care about being green. The train is just more convenient. I'll let the hippies *looking at Steven* worry about offsetting our carbon footprint.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most green things aren't very green.

Hi BW, how are you?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

San Francisco is greener and gayer than Boston. At least that's what I get from the article.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'll let the hippies *looking at Steven* worry about offsetting our carbon footprint.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Don't touch me, ya dirty hippie.

[scandal 951]

San Francisco is greener and gayer than Boston. At least that's what I get from the article.

Why do u hate green gheys?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't touch me, ya dirty hippie.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

San Francisco is greener and gayer than Boston. At least that's what I get from the article.

Why do u hate green gheys?

They're the worst kind.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From behind? Damn dude, I don't swing that way. Sorry. Try Marc.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

From behind? Damn dude, I don't swing that way. Sorry. Try Marc.

[NickD 203]

uscandual,

I don't use the train but my wife takes the train to grad school. It's sooooo much better than driving on what is an extremely congested stretch of highway.

Though the line she uses isn't heavily used by work commuters and has always been reported by NJ Transit as not being profitable. So she'd probably be more green if she drove.

That said, we don't care about being green. The train is just more convenient. I'll let the hippies *looking at Steven* worry about offsetting our carbon footprint.

But the question is, is public transportation cheaper than private transportation. I rather drive to the Chicago suburbs myself than drive to downtown even with three people. It's more expensive, but much quicker, can sleep, read, even stretch your legs, well not much more expensive, downtown Chicago robs you blind with parking. From Antioch, only about ten trains per day and those rails require lots of maintenance plus all those railroad crossings, stiff liability if they don't work each and everytime, a 3,000 HP engine, engineer, conductor, and all those train stations with some ticket sellers drawing a paycheck, all adds up.

Even with my Cavalier coupe can carry five people with more room for each than the airlines offer and the passenger mile is the cost criteria that is looked at, prefer that name instead of greener. Driving a 57 mph, can get 42 mpg, that is 210 mpg per passenger. Just with fuel cost considered, at three bucks per gallon, works out to 1.43 cents per passenger mile, see if public transportation can beat that. The other four can sleep or read, but stretching their legs is a problem.