Comprehensive Analysis of Transit Energy Conservation Benefits

Todd Litman's picture
Blogger

A recent report by the libertarian Cato Institute, Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, claims that public transit service improvements are ineffective at conserving energy and reducing pollution emissions. But this conclusion is based on faulty analysis.

Such analysis should compare modes under the same travel conditions. It is inappropriate to compare the fuel efficiency of public transit travel, most of which occurs under congested urban conditions, with average automobile travel efficiency, much of which occurs under uncongested conditions. Under congested urban conditions, public transit tends to be much more fuel efficient than driving.

Even more important, high quality transit service has a leverage effect by stimulating transit-oriented development, where people own fewer vehicles, drive significantly less, and consume less transportation fuel than occurs in more automobile-dependent communities. Studies indicate that each rail transit passenger-mile typically reduces 2-7 automobile vehicle-miles of travel.

In addition, efforts to reduce energy consumption by increasing automobile fuel efficiency, as the Cato report advocates, tend to provide less benefits than expected due to rebound effects: increased fuel efficiency makes driving more affordable, stimulating more annual vehicle miles. A 40% fuel efficiency increase typically stimulates about 10% more annual mileage by affected vehicles, offsetting a portion of energy savings and increasing urban traffic problems.

Transit service improvements provides many benefits (congestion reduction, parking cost savings, consumer savings, basic mobility for non-drivers, in addition to energy conservation and emission reductions), so its cost efficiency cannot be evaluated based on any single objective. When all impacts are considered, public transit improvements often turn out to provide high returns on investment, much higher than what is currently experienced by highway investments.

Public transit energy efficiency can be increased with supportive policies such as transit priority systems, commuter financial incentives and parking management. Described differently, part of the reason that North Americans consume far more transportation energy per capita than consumers in most other developed regions is because our current transportation and land use markets are distorted in various ways that stimulate inefficient automobile travel – correcting these distortions tends to increase economic and energy efficiency, in part by shifting travel from automobile to public transit.

 For more information see:

Linda Bailey (2007), Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil, ICF International for the American Public Transportation Association.

Todd Davis and Monica Hale (2007), Public Transportation's Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Reduction, American Public Transportation Association.

Reid Ewing, et al. (2007), Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth America.

ICF International (2008), The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, American Public Transportation Association. 

Todd Litman (2005), Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies, Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129.

Todd Litman (2006), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Todd Litman (2007), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

TRB (2004), TravelMatters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sustainable Surface Transportation, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board.

VTPI (2008), Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Todd Litman is the executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Comments

Comments

One more link

Here's another rebuttal to O'Toole, this time just about Portland:

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/DebunkingCato.pdf

This report evaluates rail

This report evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It finds that cities with large, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service. This indicates that rail transit systems provide economic, social and environmental benefits, and these benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This report discusses best practices for evaluating transit benefits. It examines criticisms of rail transit investments, finding that many are based on inaccurate analysis.

___________________
Submited by : Bebe

very convincing

MR Littman:
your opinions give me something to think about it. i'm a urban tranport economy consultant for goverment in Beijing.
i think it is important to make a transport cost analysis on a fair and comprehensive stand?neither private car or Public transport. Expecially in developing city, it is more crucial for a long term.
Hope to have opportunity to communicate this topic with u.
liu ying

One more concern

Todd,
Good post, you raise many of the same issues I had. One more though:

How sensitive are CATO's numbers to the average vehicle occupancy used to get from an auto car-mile to a passenger-mile? If I read this correctly, the analysis uses 1.6 to 1.7. The NHTS and metro areas' traffic models say that for on-peak commute trips, vehicle occupancy is closer to 1.2 people per car.

How does CATO's analysis change if 1.2 is used? Check my math, but I think it means that autos look (1.7/1.2)-1 = 40% worse per passenger mile.

Prepare for the AICP Exam

Join the thousands of students who have utilized the Planetizen AICP* Exam Preparation Class to prepare for the American Planning Association's AICP* exam.
Starting at $199
Planetizen Courses image ad

Planetizen Courses

Advance your career with subscription-based online courses tailored to the urban planning professional.
Starting at $14.95 a month
Wood necklace with city map

City Necklaces

These sweet pendants are engraved on a cedar charm with a mini map of selected cities. The perfect gift for friends and family or yourself!
$28.00
Book cover of Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning

Contemporary Debates in Urban Planning

Featuring thought-provoking commentary and insights from some of the leading thinkers and practitioners in the field.
$18.95