Answers

Will high-speed trains promote clean air or reduce the emissions that cause global warming?

HIGH-SPEED TRAINS ARE EARTH FRIENDLY
Global warming and unsustainable rates of natural resource usage pose serious threats to California, the nation and the world community. They threaten our economic well-being, the public’s health and the environment in which we live. The potential adverse impacts of global warming, including worsening air quality, reductions in water supply and quality, disruptions to ecosystems and damage to the natural environment, pose significant threats to California’s major industries, activities and quality of life. We currently are consuming more of the Earth’s resources than any other nation or society in human history and at this rate of use and growing usage rates in other countries, coupled with growing population, development and affluence, we will deplete the Earth of the resources that are essential for sustaining life.

California has been an international leader in combating global warming, conserving energy and preserving natural resources. Continuing these activities and initiating others will encourage similar conservation and mitigation actions by others while reaping environmental, economic and life-sustaining benefits for California and its citizens. The development of the high-speed train system is one of many strategies that we can and must employ to reduce global warming and bring under control our resource consumption to preserve the Earth for future generations.

Recent environmental analysis* and studies comparing California’s proposed high-speed train system against building more highways and airports to meet California’s projected growth in intercity travel found that the high-speed train system would have the following benefits by 2030:

  • Reduce CO2 emissions by 12 billion pounds a year by 2030.
  • At a price of $75/barrel, savings in oil costs would approach $1.65 billion annually.
  • Comparing the energy required by each mode to carry a passenger one mile, the high-speed train needs only 1/3 of the energy used by an airplane, and 1/5 the energy of an automobile trip.
  • Thirty-four percent less energy use to construct the high-speed train system than additional freeways and airport facilities to meet the growing intercity travel demand.
  • Less impact on biological resources, including lower or fewer impacts on wetlands and special-status species, than expanding our airports and highways to meet future travel demands. The train would have lower potential impacts on water resources such as floodplains, streams and groundwater.
  • The expansion of highway and air travel facilities generally would have potential impacts in all regions on public parks, wildlife areas and recreational resources on a greater number of resources than the high-speed train.

The High-Speed Train EIR/EIS also concluded that:

  • The high-speed train would result in denser development, which would accommodate more population on less land and limit the sprawl induced by expansion of other transportation modes. The train would stimulate in-fill development, make more efficient use of land and resources and better sustain population growth.
  • The high-speed train would cost less than half the cost of expanding freeways and airports to meet future intercity travel demand.
  • The high-speed train would eliminate the need to construct 2970 lane miles of highways, 91 airport gates and five additional airport runways.
  • The high-speed train would lower the number of intercity automobile passengers on highways by up to 70 million annually.
  • The train would be highly compatible with local and regional plans supporting rail systems and transit-oriented development, and would improve intermodal connectivity with local and commuter transit systems.
  • The high-speed train would result in the construction of substantially fewer miles of transportation rights-of-way than highways or airports, lessening the impact on sensitive land uses and populations.
  • The high-speed train provides sustainable capacity and would offer greater opportunities to expand service and capacity with minimal expansion of infrastructure.
  • The high-speed train system would be less susceptible to many factors influencing travel reliability such as capacity constraints, congestion and incidents that disrupt service. Because the high-speed trains could operate in all weather conditions, their on-time reliability would be superior to travel by either auto or air.

* Draft Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) released July 2007 and Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Proposed California High-Speed Train System
(Certified November 2005).