Light Rail is the Answer To...
Politics
| September 19, 2007
| Tim
... what, again?
When taken as a whole, then, most transit systems with light rail use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger kilometre than they did when they operated only buses. Most also use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide, per passenger kilometre, than typical automobiles.
More here.
It'd be nice if they had actual footnotes.
A study funded by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration found that "rail transit investments rarely 'create' new growth, but more typically redistribute growth that would have taken place without the investment." Such redistribution, the study found, was usually to downtowns from other parts of the city.
So how is a higher concentration of population not environmentally friendly?
In fact, street closures during construction and parking limits after light rail opens put many shops and restaurants out of business.
The same thing happens with road repairs. Any cost-benefit analysis being done here?
When taken as a whole, then, most transit systems with light rail use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger kilometre than they did when they operated only buses. Most also use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide, per passenger kilometre, than typical automobiles.
citation? Numbers?
What this article states might very well be true. Light rail might be overused or might be useless. But I don't think they gave clear evidence of that.
It'd be nice if they had actual footnotes.
I agree. Or hyperlinks. On the other hand, when doing research, I can usually start with a template like this and, with judicial search engine use, either find supporting links, or (when I smell a rat) more clearly demonstrate how the article is distorting the info.
For example, just by searching on the one sentence excerpted from the study ("rail transit investments rarely 'create' new growth") I was able to find another article which then linked me to a copy of the study itself.
So how is a higher concentration of population not environmentally friendly?
The study isn't arguing that a higher concentration is environmentally friendly (or not). They're answering the contention that light rail systems create growth -- by showing: no, they don't, they just move existing money around.
I'm familiar with the phenomenon, as the same thing was used to argue for city-funded stadiums and casinos: the owners promise "growth", but, according to an Ohio (I think it was) study, they just move money from mom & pop businesses to the wealthier owners.
Your second mistake here is that you assume the light rail system produces "a higher concentration of population". Whether that's true or not, it's not being said, above. The statement above is talking about economic growth, not population density.
In Denver, for example, people who might have wanted condos near popular bus stops or park-'n'-rides will now try to move near the train instead. A neighborhood served by a bus suddenly gets less popular, a neighbor or bit of land near a train stop suddenly gets more popular.
And if the contention of the article is true: that such transit system cut back on main bus lines, it means that there will be fewer areas which are near mass transit -- possibly forcing some people to switch lifestyles (because the time has gotten to long) move further away (because it's cheaper) and buy a car.
The same thing happens with road repairs.
Except in extreme cases (like "The Big Dig" disaster in Boston), non-Interstate road repairs generally take days or months at worst. The worst case I've personally seen is a section of Forest Park Parkway in St. Louis which was closed for over five years -- used to be quite an important thoroughfare.
Why was it closed so long? Because they were putting in a length of light rail track.
Taking a look at the study in question, it seems to confirm confirm that light rail actually does not concentrate populations:
New rail systems have also been a force toward decentralization of population and employment, rather than toward urban containment. Large subcenters or "edge cities," have formed around stations in a number of North American rail cities...
Moreover, the main impact apparently concerns where business move, not where people live...
There have been fewer changes in residential land uses than in commercial land uses as a result of rail investments....
There are a number of barriers to higher density residential development near rail stations, including community opposition and weak markets for multifamily housing. However, there is evidence that accessibility to rail becomes capitalized into higher residential land values.
It makes properties worth more, but doesn't necessarily concentrate populations.
For the most part, studies show recent light rail investments to have little land-use impacts outside of downtown areas...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Voting Against One's Values |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Ahmedinejad at Columbia University? »
|
It'd be nice if they had actual footnotes.
A study funded by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration found that "rail transit investments rarely 'create' new growth, but more typically redistribute growth that would have taken place without the investment." Such redistribution, the study found, was usually to downtowns from other parts of the city.
So how is a higher concentration of population not environmentally friendly?
In fact, street closures during construction and parking limits after light rail opens put many shops and restaurants out of business.
The same thing happens with road repairs. Any cost-benefit analysis being done here?
When taken as a whole, then, most transit systems with light rail use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger kilometre than they did when they operated only buses. Most also use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide, per passenger kilometre, than typical automobiles.
citation? Numbers?
What this article states might very well be true. Light rail might be overused or might be useless. But I don't think they gave clear evidence of that.
Posted by: Ryan W. on September 20, 2007 11:45 AM