Is mass transit THE “answer”?
The internal combustion engine is one of the single most significant devices contributing to climate change around the world. Of course, it’s not the only such contributing device, but its use and spread are pervasive. Climate “activists” and politicians, however, have been almost silent about that widespread usage despite its technical deficiencies, except for some general “bleatings” about “clean energy” and legislatively coerced fuel mileage. Most want to make operating one’s own internal combustion engine more “friendly” to the climate, not to replace it and thus piss off the driver-voters.
The internal combustion engine is, at most, 20% “efficient.” That means at least 80% of all the energy contained within a burnt gallon of refined gasoline (or Diesel fuel) is shed through the radiator as heat, or radiates off the engine block and exhaust manifolds as heat, or goes out the tailpipe as heat and incompletely-burned fuel, spewed all over the place, coating windshields, vehicle paint and the inside surfaces of the alveoli in our lungs. That is absurd!
(For the sake of full disclosure, I own six gasoline-powered motor vehicles, four of which weigh over 3,900 pounds, three of which have quite thirsty, quite powerful V-8’s and, sadly, five of which are in various states of disrepair. I am also a certified automobile mechanic, having passed the eight ASE “Master Mechanic” exams twice. Regrettably, “the cobbler’s children have no shoes.”)
Most personal transportation, at least in the US, is provided by 3,000-plus-pound motor vehicles, powered by arguably more “efficient” internal-combustion engines yet individually operated by the owners, driving alone or occasionally with another passenger. RARELY are such vehicles occupied by more than one adult person, regardless of the purpose of the journey. Car-pooling is the exception, not the rule. Why is that so?
For one, it’s obviously more convenient to jump into one’s own car WHENEVER one wishes and drive to WHEREVER one wishes to go. And park closer. And do as little walking as possible. For another, very few people want to have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi who usually ride whatever public transit is available. It’s just “nicer” to be able to ride alone in one’s own vehicle. With gasoline selling (currently) around $2.00 per gallon, the “global“ consequences are utterly irrelevant for most.
BUT—
Driving one’s own motor vehicle, especially at night and on weekends, entails individual risks and consequences. Going out to a bar or restaurant or live-music venue (absent current COVID concerns) entails a not-insignificant risk of drunk-driving injuries and deaths AND/OR criminal-defense and insurance costs and difficulties! And, there is the congestion created by other drivers and their vehicles. And, there is the annoying WASTE of time AND FUEL looking for a parking space, and the costs thereof, and the probable WALKING therefrom to the desired venue. And, most of those undesirable risks and consequences are present, even without the burdens of dealing with one’s own impaired driving. There are always the risks presented by the impairments of other drivers, as well as those risks that have NOTHING to do with anyone’s impaired driving. Many drivers are simply riding around, utterly distracted, not paying attention to what is happening NOW!
CONVENIENT mass transit, especially rail transit, could make most of those serious problems much less annoying and risky. “Convenient” means operating until late in the evening, frequently, AND on weekends, with transit rail beds going everywhere. Shouldn’t all divided roads and streets hereafter built or “improved” have rail beds routinely constructed in the medians?
We already know how inefficient individual vehicles are. They must routinely climb and descend grades that are mostly eliminated with rail transit. Individual motor vehicles leave brake dust and smog in their wakes. Rail transit does not. Rail transit can move more people with less energy consumption and less local pollution. I don’t know the energy “efficiency” of a rail transit vehicle, measured in person-vehicle-mile costs, but I would guess it is much better than “20%”!
There are also the associated costs of of private vehicle maintenance and storage vs. public transit vehicle maintenance and storage. The latter are mostly paid by TAX DOLLARS, but the former come out of our individual pockets. As for tax expenditures, I suspect the costs of street and highway building and maintenance are higher than the costs of rail transit building and maintenance.
I also suspect that the polluting effluent of motor vehicles (including Diesel buses) in a congested urban space is much worse than emissions from electrically-powered rail transit, considering that the electricity may be generated at remote sites away from urban congestion. TAX-FUNDED public health costs imposed by urban vehicle pollution are significant.
So, what about convenience and tax costs? Yes, one might have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi on occasion, but most personal vehicle usage might be eliminated with truly convenient rail transit, ESPECIALLY if fuel costs $6 or $7 per gallon, as it does in most other places in the world. Yet, too many people are dependent on their motor vehicles to earn a living, so they would have no choice about paying more for vehicle fuel first if they want to keep their jobs. Thus, the availability of reasonable alternatives SHOULD precede a legislatively-imposed fuel-cost increase to avoid a horrible economic crunch that would adversely affect local economies. Too many “tree-huggers” are advocating a higher fuel tax FIRST! As the Queen of Hearts said, "first the sentence, then the verdict”!
The typical cost-benefit analysis is rife with exceptions and deviations. Getting an “honest” rendering thereof is problematic, not necessarily attributable to bad intentions. The variables are gargantuan in number and many are elusive. So, it may be cheaper right now to travel by one’s own vehicle than to pay for mass transit, ESPECIALLY if politicians foolishly declare that mass transit will “pay its own way,” as they did with Amtrak. Unfortunately, mass transit is NOT going to “pay its own way.” NO such system I know of anywhere in the world accomplishes that, and I have ridden rail transit in a lot of different countries and places. Postponing the acceptance of that reality carries its own ADDITIONAL costs. Taxpayers will simply HAVE to subsidize mass transit. Otherwise, lower-income people won’t be able to afford a ticket to ride! What’s the point of that?
Unfortunately, the poor ”unwashed masses” just don’t morally DESERVE such subsidies in the minds of many, never mind how much sense it makes! And many voters will surely take out their ire on the “bleeding-heart” politicians who support them. Understandably, no politician with half a lick of sense will go out on that limb and press for SUBSIDIZED mass transit! Most of the “unwashed masses” don’t vote!
So the status quo prevails.
But many taxpayers have not fairly considered the many indirect governmental subsidies of private vehicle usage (and air travel) coming right out of their pockets. Fuel taxes don’t BEGIN to cover the full costs of highway- and road-building or maintenance, nor do gate fees (substantially passed through to passengers as higher ticket costs) pay the full costs of airport construction and maintenance. There is no “free lunch”! Get over it! IF transit provides substantial benefits not reducible to dollars and cents (like cleaner air and lower climate temperatures), perhaps SUBSIDIZED (dare I say “socialized”?) mass transit is the way to go. Literally.
Voters must be led to “buy in” to the concept. Voters must be persuaded that, in the long run, such a system will operate to THEIR advantage, both economically AND health-wise. It’s not enough to pitch the smarmy altruistic purpose. People are sick and tired of that crap! They want to know what’s in it for THEM!
But, all that will require smart and COURAGEOUS “leadership,” which translates as a willingness to risk political defeat! Worldwide, but it needs to START in the US, because we already have the financial resources to do it. We can set the good and smart example. For a change.
Unless AND UNTIL those realities prevail, all the "tree-hugging" blather about “fixing climate change” is just pecking at the margins.
(10/9/20)
