Let me first state that I have no idea where the tunnel is built or any why the light-rail has to go through a tunnel.

Bikes are always nice, but I see them more as complementary to light-rail. In my experience from a student town, biking is prefered (among the cash-strapped, generally fit) students for distances under 30 minutes. Over 30 minutes busses are considered, with different cut off times for different people. Assuming a biking speed of 20km/h that gives an effective biking distance of 10km. Less if you need to haul groceries.

Please note that these are just numbers extrapolated from my own experience and might not be relevant to the area in question.

a CO2 payback period for the tunnel on the order of 90 years

And how long will it be used?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

Calling DoDo....

Calling DoDo....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

public transport contribution to CO2 reduction is exagerated, because the US DoE Transport Data Book gives per passenger energy by rail as 2,784 BTU's vs 3,445 BTU's by car

You are misquoting him here - the article refers to "fuel efficiency" not CO2 reduction. It is undoubtedly a deliberate choice on his part. The reduction in CO2 emmisions from light rail may be far greater than is suggested by the comparative BTU values - it just depends on the source of electricity that is used. Even if you choose to burn fossil fuels to produce your electricity, at least with a fixed power station there is the option to try CO2 sequestration. That won't happen with cars any time soon.

Bundy's comments are being made to oppose what is called "Sound Transit 2," a new tax in the Puget Sound area to build roads and a major expansion of the light rail system finally under construction in the Seattle area.

The arguments are specious. A dead giveaway is the argument that buses are better. No, they're not. As anyone who has commuted by bus in the Puget Sound area knows, they get stuck in traffic a LOT. And spew forth their emissions there. Vanpools face the same problem. Light rail, on the other hand, offers much higher capacities along the major commuter corridors (Interstate 5, Interstate 90, the 520 bridge) with a far lower environmental cost, putting out much fewer CO2 because it does not have to share lanes with freeway traffic the way buses do.

Note "cost effective" - that's code for "I don't want to pay taxes for rails." The anti-tax crowd is happy to pay for more roads, and prefer it to rails. They gin up these arguments about carbon to try and derail expansion of the mass transit system.

Sound Transit's park-and-ride lots do not at all encourage sprawl. Bundy is being dishonest about this, because he almost certainly knows that King County has a VERY stringent set of land use policies that greatly limit sprawl. And as you noted, there's nothing stopping local planners from encouraging transit oriented development. Sound Transit is on record as favoring it.

Finally, bicycles. Bundy apparently has never tried a bike commute in the Puget Sound. It is a very hilly place, as I've mentioned. And available bike paths are not exactly widespread. Ultimately, of course, it rains a LOT there. Only a few die-hards commute on a bike in the rain. Most others turn to buses or cars. Light rail provides a much better option.

And the world will live as one

Assuming the BTU/Passenger is correct ...

and the train has the daily ridership of 2,500 people ...

2,500 x  2,784 = 6,860,000 BTU  (Train)

2,500 x  3,445 = 8,612,300 BTU  (Car)

This is what Bundy, et. al., is trying to obscure.  Differences don't seem so different when they are put on a per/unit basis.  To accurately assess the situation you need to look at the population (users) of the differing systems and establish the final figures.  

Here for more info regarding the Handbook.

Look at the supporting figures for the 90 year CO2 payback.  A lot of games can be played with long-term projections and extrapolations.  The most common is to load one side, such as light rail, with every conceivable cost and ignore costs for the side the argument supports.  Example, the cost of maintaining and repairing highways and other roadways is conveniently forgotten by the anti-rail people so if you are talking about establishing a light rail system it is legitimate to compare to the cost(s) of establishing alternative transportation systems - such as automobile/highway system.  (Don't forget to include inflation -- a billion don't buy as much as it used to.)

The way you write something is as important, so would say it is MORE important, as what is said.   For example, their own figures show the train has a 124% BTU efficiency compared to cars.  (Train BTU divided into Car BTU) using 0% efficiency as the baseline.)  

(ATinNM.  Sophist for Hire.  Have gun, will travel :-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

I was curious about this:

public transport contribution to CO2 reduction is exagerated, because the US DoE Transport Data Book gives per passenger energy by rail as 2,784 BTU's vs 3,445 BTU's by car

So I looked at the study what kind of capacity assumptions they were making for rail travel.

The study puts the following warning in a thick black box above every energy-use table:

Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible
to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal
of variability even within a mode.

So basically these are meaningless figures for evaluating your specific transit project.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

Also perhaps you could change the framing of the debate a bit by saying his focus is far too narrow (in much the same way that in figuring the GDP, a tree has no value until it's cut down).  When you figure in the benefits of light rail, you simply have to figure in the commute time saved, the increased health and productivity benefits to having workers/humans using light rail who get back time (to spend as they wish, those hours they don't spend in congested traffic) and avoid frustration, which leads to road rage, an antipathy for humankind (sort of kidding), high blood pressure and anxiety as appointments/flights/classes/concerts/whatever are at risk of being missed.
You also have to factor in the lives saved, as there are FAR fewer lives lost in rail accidents, aren't there?  I'm not sure about that one.  But if true, it cannot be ignored as a benefit.  
Why doesn't it surprise me that in framing the argument, they totally left out the human factors?

Karen in Austin

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher

A trojan must have ate my BS detector yesterday. How could I not respond to this:

Sound Transit promotes sprawl by providing ample free parking in suburban locations and heavily subsidized trips to the city

That may have been true in 1888, but since then sprawl (in the US) has been car-culture driven.

One could argue that the opposite proposition is demonstrably true, but it might be more fun to defy them to prove it.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

The DoT Transport numbers book that the linked article refers to:

Transportation Energy Data Book

Bikestations information:

Bikestation home page ... "Bikestation is a not for profit organization that offers secure bicycle parking and related services to make cyclists' lives easier. Park your bike at Bikestation and you can be assured that your vehicle is secure and covered."

Bikestation promotional material

The Instant Advocate Bikestation page


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Sorry for the long absence, but I had other duties (among them, an emergency 'callback' to work from the rest of my vacation...). Tomorrow, I will put together a comment here with some argument, and a whole diary with my light rail observations on vacation in West Europe, with urban development relevance (one point Bondy didn't cover correctly).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

A rambling diary is up on dKos ... as it says below the fold, I am going to go for a tighter op-ed as a follow-up.

Bikes and Trains: Greenwashing Anti-Rail in the Seattle Rail Debate
by BruceMcF, Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:06:23 AM EDT

On August 16, my attention was drawn to the article The carbon cost of building and operating light rail, by Emory Bundy, a board member of the Seattle anti-rail group, Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives.

What especially raised my ire was:

But the greatest harm to the environment and the public comes when you calculate the lost opportunities. ...

The leading forfeited opportunity is bicycling, the best possible transportation mode: cost-effective, energy-efficient, non-polluting, and healthy -- save for the danger from surrounding cars.

I thought I would, as a public service, wade through this one. Some of this is with the help of discussants from the Eurotrib, in the diary Help! w/Anti-Light Rail arguments ... ... of course, I selfishly appropriate all credit for any errors.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.