Green group says scrappage plans are bad business
One of Spain's most important green groups is claiming that scrappage (aka cash for clunkers) schemes, such as the new one in Spain, are bad business. According to Ecologistas en Acción, driving a car is not only bad for the environment, but it's also bad for administrations expecting to reap big paybacks. The ecologists claim that three studies - one in Spain, one in France and one in Germany - state clearly that investing money in mass transit systems returns twice the yield than money invested in private transport, such as cars. These studies take into consideration several factors. For instance, car factories can be delocalized easily (and the work oursourced) while a subway system necessarily stays in place. Another point mentioned by the green group is the impact cars have on society. According to their figures, the associated costs of having cars can make up 10 percent of a country's GDP: medical care for pollution-related respiratory problems, accidents, climate change, etc. Quite a high bill. Despite all these numbers, most European countries invest more in roads than in railways. Surprised?[Source: Ecologistas en Accion]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt 10:55AM (5/19/2009)
People that live their entire lives in densely populated areas tend to have a hard time understanding personal transportation. I am a huge fan or public transit in cities and in-between cities. What doesn't work is public transit in rural areas, aka 90% (made up that number) of the US. Why should we compare the two as if they are competing interests? Isn't the scrapping plan working toward a better environment also? Sure, it may not be as good as public transit in some situations, but I'll bet that the good people of Selma, AL prefer their tax dollars to be invested in something they can actually use. We can't expect them to move to a more convenient location to take advantage of the benefits of public transit. Where do you think lumber comes from, or cattle, or corn, or virtually every other raw material? We need our rural areas, and we need to help them move to cleaner transportation along with our cities.
Reply
mapoftazifosho 11:01AM (5/19/2009)
You sir are spot on!
paulwesterberg 12:03PM (5/19/2009)
According to the 2000 census 79% of US citizens live in Urban areas.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm
Rural areas do grow a lot of food, but that is due to the use of modern farming techniques, not an overwhelming number of farmers. Electric railways that transport passengers between cities could also be used to efficiently transport crops to market.
Matt 12:25PM (5/19/2009)
Railways do transport the crops, they just aren't electric. Even more efficient than rail, there are barges that probably use even less energy than electric rail when construction and maintenance of the railway is factored in. My point is, there are people that live where public transit is not feasible and we should support environmental progress everywhere. We're all working towards a cleaner world and there are multiple pieces to the puzzle. Ecologistas need not criticize the scrappage plans for being less good than public transit.
Matt 1:03PM (5/19/2009)
Oh, and the Census Bureau definition: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)." This definition applies to almost every small town, including Selma, AL. There are thousands of small towns that make up most (my "90%") of the US, and they are simply too small to make practical/efficient use of a public transit system. On the same web page you'll see that this is actually at least 40% of the country (see urban area categories). That's assuming that every person in the urban areas large enough to support public transit used it on a daily basis. In reality it's only practical for a fraction of even the most dense populations to use public transit with any regularity. Even at it's best public transit can not serve the majority of people, and we will continue to need personal transportation. Why not provide incentives for making it cleaner? Why do they have to be competing interests? I say they are not. I say one is beneficial to one group, one is beneficial to another, let's do both.
Reply