Getting to 'green' without the rails Friday, April 25, 2008 The Oregonian
Many Portlanders assume that spending more money on public transportation will help save energy. But in 1979, a University of California at Irvine economist by the name of Charles Lave showed in an article published in The Atlantic Monthly that persuading people to buy more fuel-efficient cars saves more energy than trying to get them to ride mass transit.
Today, advocates argue that we need to build more rail transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as save energy. But Lave's point is more valid than ever.
Driven by higher gas prices, America's auto fleet today is almost 40 percent more fuel efficient than it was in 1979. Yet we can go much further: Some hybrid cars now use only half as much energy as the average car on the road.
In contrast, the energy efficiency of both bus and rail transit has declined as transit services have reached into distant suburbs where fewer people use them. Despite the city's investment of billions of dollars in transit improvements, the share of Portland-area commuters served by transit has actually declined from 9.8 percent in 1980 to 7.6 percent today.
Even if transit attracted people out of their cars, it would not save much energy. The average TriMet bus today consumes as much energy and emits as much greenhouse gas, per passenger mile, as the average car.
While Portland's light-rail operations are more energy efficient, the energy cost and greenhouse gas emissions from building rail lines are huge. Metro has estimated that Portland's North Interstate light-rail line would require 172 years of operational savings to make up for the energy cost of construction. Highway construction also consumes energy, but because highways are more heavily used than rail, their energy cost per passenger mile is far lower.
Portland's light rail generates less greenhouse gas than buses because the trains are powered by hydro and other renewable sources of energy. But Portland could save even more with electric-powered trolley buses, which require far less energy to build than light rail.
At the end of the day, the biggest energy savings would be realized by focusing on the form of transport that people use most: automobiles. As economist Lave noted: "The biggest components matter most," so improving the transportation mode that carries 95 percent of travel would do far more than improving the mode that carries only 2 percent.
The most important thing Portland can do to save energy is relieve traffic congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that Portland congestion wastes 24 million gallons of fuel each year, in turn emitting 235,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
Traffic signal coordination and variable-priced toll roads are two excellent ways of relieving congestion. But Portland planners are making congestion worse by putting barriers in roads and doing other things to reduce roadway capacities.
There may be places in the world where rail transit works. There may be reasons to build it some places in the United States. But saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not among those reasons. If Portland wants to be green, it should look to other strategies that are far more cost-effective than investing in high-cost rail systems.
Randal O'Toole of Camp Sherman is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Comments
May 4th, 2008
Rebuttals, as Published in The Oregonian, April 30, 2008
Once again, Randal O'Toole has handpicked data to obscure the contribution of public transit to the Portland region's green successes ("Getting to 'green' without the rails," April 25).
The region's commitment to coordinate transit investments with mixed-use, easily accessible developments has already significantly reduced car trips, energy use and carbon emissions, as well as our reliance on fossil fuels.
Rather than forcing people out of their cars, regional policies have allowed people to choose the best transportation mode for their circumstances. As a result, we use less gasoline than other parts of the country, we've got the highest rate of bicycle commuting in the nation, transit ridership continues to grow, and more people are using car pools than ever before.
Policies and programs that increase auto use will only make our current situation worse. Better -- and wiser -- transportation choices have already started moving the Portland region toward a greener, more sustainable future.
-- EARL BLUMENAUER Member of Congress Northeast Portland
Randal O'Toole makes some curious claims in his article.
He first argues that by making vehicles more efficient, Oregon can cut enough greenhouse gases to avoid any need for offering alternatives to the car. But this is plain wrong.
Every analysis done for Gov. Ted Kulongoski and for the comprehensive set of committees and groups building his climate strategies shows that Oregon will require three legs of a transportation stool -- more efficient vehicles, lower carbon fuel and alternatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Increasing the fuel efficiency of Oregon's vehicle fleet only, without adding transit options, will not meet the state's goals.
But even more astonishing is O'Toole's advocacy for more efficient vehicles. The organization he represents, the Cato Institute, not only does not support an increase in national fuel economy standards, but also, in Washington, D.C., Cato repeatedly has sought to repeal existing fuel economy standards.
Just as Cato's free-market ideology frequently ignores real-world consequences, O'Toole's argument falls under the weight of its own contradictions.
-- JAMES EDELSON Northeast Portland
Randal O'Toole argues that "the most important thing Portland can do to save energy is relieve traffic congestion," and he suggests variable-priced toll roads as an excellent way of achieving this goal. Given our inability to fund local transportation needs, from fixing potholes to replacing the Sellwood Bridge, road pricing can't happen soon enough.
However, it's important to recognize that when road pricing inevitably comes to our region, bus and rail transit will become that much more indispensable for those who can't afford tolled roads.
It's true that transit systems become less efficient on a per capita basis as a metropolitan area sprawls further into the hinterlands. But the combination of rising fuel prices and Portland's urban growth boundary make bus and rail increasingly efficient and environmentally friendly choices.
To disinvest in transit, as O'Toole implies we should do, would be a terrible mistake for our region.
-- RAY DELAHANTY Northeast Portland