The Basics
California is known for being a state to set nation-wide environmental trends, and this November’s election is no different. A significant amount of election buzz has been circling around Proposition 1A, a measure formulated by nearly two-thirds of California’s legislative branch that calls for the implementation of a high speed rail stretching from Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento. The 45 billion dollar proposal—billion with a “b”—aims to reduce highway and airport traffic, boost statewide mobility, and conserve almost 13 million barrels of oil per year by 2030.1
The Environmental Impacts
One of the main driving forces—no pun intended—behind the idea of a high speed rail is to decrease green house gas emissions and to reduce the use of fossil fuels in California’s transportation sector. The Bay Area Economic Council Institute October 2008 report states that using the high speed train will use only one-third of the fuel used in flights and one-fifth of the energy of a car trip.2 The energy needed to operate the rail will be provided exclusively from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the goal being to make it the first zero-emissions high speed train in the world.3 The railway also suggests that they will remove twelve billion pounds of carbon dioxide by 2030, but what they are actually implying is that using the rail instead of automobiles or airplanes, will impede twelve billions pounds of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.4
But not all environmentalists see the high speed rail as a positive piece of California’s emissions plan. An organization called the Defense of Place argues that the rail would impede upon the protection of open space, wildlife refuges, and parks. Up to 180 areas have the potential to be negatively affected, either by the train directly cutting into the lands or by running too close to them, causing disturbance to species. The group asserts that the proposal contravenes the California Wilderness Act, which prohibits construction of roadways through designated wilderness lands.5 Other than this remonstrance, the high speed rail has overall been viewed as environmentally beneficial.
Steel vs. Concrete
Supporters of the transit plan insist that it will prevent the need to expand freeways and airport runways because it will provide transportation that will reduce travel in petroleum dependent industries—including use of airplanes and cars. I was curious: is the only benefit reduction of our oil dependence, or will replacing concrete production with steel production also prove to be less harmful to the environment?
The EPA’s 2008 Industry Performance Report compared the U.S. cement industry and steel industry, and using additional sources the amount per ton was able to be derived:
| Cement | Steel | |
| Btu (millions) used per 1 ton product | 4.7 | 12.6 |
| CO2 (tons) produced per 1 ton product | 0.66 | 1.24 |
| Tons of product needed per mile (per lane) | 20000 | 50 |
So even though cement uses three times less energy per ton of product, and produces about half of the carbon dioxide emissions per ton, one mile of one highway lane needs 40 times more cement than one mile of a single direction railway track. Steel has also managed to decrease its air emissions by almost 50% since 1998, but concrete has only decreased its air emissions by 4%.6 Steel wins this transportation contest hands down.
Economic Impacts
Because of the frightening downfall of the recent economy, the first thing on most people’s minds is how much this project is going to cost the tax payers. Creating this high speed rail will not be cheap by any means, as previously mentioned this will cost a total of $45 billion. Profits are expected to be $1 billion annually, meaning the track will pay itself off in less than 50 years and will operate without the need for subsidies, or with more government aid.7
Another economic positive not directly discussed is how a decline in green house gas emission by having less cars on the road will decrease state wide spending. Less emissions means less health problems, less money spent on and importation of petroleum, and more jobs created on the transit, as well as vendors located at transit stations. New jobs are good indicators of a healthy economy.
Voters in California will be making a serious decision and we will all find out very soon whether Proposition 1A will pass and California will be on its way to high speed rail!
