What the Northwest Does Right
Whatever our transportation foibles -- and we have plenty of them -- Northwest cites are not exactly in the Texas League of transportation planning. A ribbon-cutting ceremony yesterday inaugurated a big new freeway in the Houston area. I mean it's almost comically big:
Opponents of the project have noted its extreme size — 18 lanes, counting toll and frontage lanes from Texas 6 to Washington, and more lanes at entrances and exits. The widening uprooted numerous businesses along the route and took two streets in the city of Spring Valley. Opponents also say the widening will increase emissions and noise and contribute to suburban sprawl.
Yikes -- 18 lanes wide and it's 23 miles long. In fairness, 4 of those 18 lanes will operate as 2-person HOV lanes for a few hours each day. And some of the lanes will be subject to variable tolls that should ease congestion. But that's not exactly progressive planning. I mean, check out Congressman Culberson's position:
Culberson, whose ability to get federal dollars was crucial to the widening project, pledged not to give up a single freeway lane for Metro rail.
I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad to see my tax dollars put to good use. And although the project cost $2.8 billion, that's probably just the down payment.
Transit: A Full Ride
The typical Seattle-area bus has 42 seats. One of the big, articulated buses has as many as 64 seats. But on a commute the other day, I counted at least 92 passengers in my bus, including folks who were standing in the aisles. There were so many folks on the bus that the driver had to leave a few would-be riders at the bus stop.
And then there's rail. Seattle's soon-to-be-opened Link Light Rail will have 74 seats per car. But including standing passengers, each car can hold as many as 200 passengers. If transit ridership stays high, and commuters take to rail as much as some people hope, I imagine that many of the rail cars will be close to full during peak hours.
I mention all this because of the ongoing debate over the climate impact of various forms of transit. In particular, I've gotten some very reasonable pushback on the chart to the right, which we published last year. The chart compares the climate impacts of different transportation modes: the blue lines represent CO2 emissions, measured per passenger mile traveled.
But as you may notice, I don't estimate the impacts of buses or trains that are full to capacity. That may be an oversight, since quite a few buses are over-full at this point! If I were to bump the ridership figures up to actual peak levels that we're experiencing now, the climate impacts of rush-hour transit would look even better.
Now, new research out of UC Berkeley confirms these findings: when a transit vehicle is reasonably full, it's a fantastic deal for the climate. And that's true even when you consider the entire "life cycle" impacts of travel -- including the CO2 released from manufacturing vehicles, and building roads and rail lines.
