Is Mass Transit Green?
That transit is a significantly greener way to get around than private car travel almost goes without saying in our thoughts and discussions. Disturbingly, this simply isn’t true. … City diesel buses and electric trolley buses are both mildly worse than the car in energy efficiency. Light rail systems are also slightly worse, on average, though it varies a lot from city to city. Commuter rail and subway (heavy rail) trains tend to be a bit better, but not a lot better.
Passenger Miles Per Gallon
What’s not in these numbers … energy to make and recycle cars and transit vehicles. … to build and maintain roads … and tracks … to extract, refine and ship fuel …
In spite of [these numbers], it is always the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car. That’s because the transit is running anyway, so the incremental cost of carrying one more passenger is indeed less than just about any private vehicle.
This is a common way to analyze marginal costs, but I wonder. When one rides mass transit one not only makes the train a bit heavier, one also makes it a bit more crowded, discouraging other passengers. Worse, one makes all future transit planners estimate that a slightly higher fraction of the population is willing to ride mass transit, encouraging them to build more and large transit systems. It seems to me that this last effect could bring the marginal cost of using mass transit back up to near its observed average cost, i.e., about the same than cars.
As a bus passenger, you should expect to observe a higher-than-average occupancy, since you're more likely to be on a more popular bus.
There are in fact massive government subsidies for construction of rail in Toko -- since 1962, about 70% of subway construction costs are covered by governments.
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr23/...
Since much of the ongoing cost of any large infrastructure project is the cost of capital, if you don't consider government subsidies for construction and possibly the provision of credit on relatively easy terms, you're missing a big part of the financial picture. What's the difference between a government subsidy and a loan at a rate of interest hardly above the inflation rate? You tell me. How about if you can remove capital costs from your balance sheet, report a "profit" as a result, and thus qualify for a subsidy proportional to that "profit? Well, then you use the subsidy payments to cover interest on the loan, right? Maybe even pay back some of the principal.
Don't get me wrong -- I love the train system here. I think it's the way to go. But mass transit has always required subsidies, and probably always will.