Freight train mess in Chicago gets stimulus help

(Photo of freight trains passing through Chicago from Flickr and photographer Kumar McMillan)


Believe it or not, a freight train can take as long to get through Chicago as it does to go on to the West Coast. This railroad hub is so congested, with its 40,000 rail cars passing through each day, that trains usually travel at 9 mph or less. They have been known to take 36 hours to get through the area.

So it was good news to hear last week that the U.S. Department of Transportation was giving a $100 million recovery grant to improve the situation.

The money will be used to upgrade traffic control systems, switches and signals, build a bridge and otherwise facilitate trains in moving through one of the world’s busiest hubs. Only Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai see more freight train traffic. And estimates say rail traffic could almost double here in 20 years.

The DOT money is expected to attract an additional $62 million from non-federal sources. (I hope that doesn’t mean the state, because we know what kind of fiscal shape it is in.)

CREATE
Back in 2003, following a 1999 winter storm that had trains backed up for 500 miles, a program called CREATE (Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) was agreed to by the city, the state and the 6 railroad companies that go through Chicago. CREATE hasn’t been able to do much so far, for lack of money. So, thank you, President Obama and Ray LaHood (Transportation Secretary, who happens to be from Illinois.)

Most of the $1.5 billion in announced TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants went for rail and public transit rather than highways.

Chicago is not the only region to get a large grant. Two other freight corridors got similar amounts – one in Tennessee and Alabama, the other in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. And there are many other small projects throughout the country.

More fuel-efficient
Freight train companies (if you’ve seen the recent ads) boast they can carry a ton of goods 436 miles on a gallon of gas. They also say by taking truck traffic off the road they can ease highway congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute says trains are 3 times as efficient as trucks.

Truckers argue they can move things faster and can go anywhere. Over the past 20 years freight has been moving from rail to trucks and planes. And trucking’s carbon footprint has grown.

Quebec and some European countries are subsidizing a move back from trucks to rail. And the White House has put a priority on rail – both passenger and freight.

The cost to complete all the CREATE projects planned for the Chicago area is estimated by DOT at about $3B, and last year it was running $2.6B short of its goal. The $162M won’t get them there, but it will be a start.

And it’s nice railroads are getting some respect.

Read more about the TIGER grants at DOT.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Medill Reports, U. S. Department of Transportation)

China’s CO2 emissions 14% higher than U.S. in 2007

(Photo of coal stored in Beijing power plant from Flickr and photographer kafka4prez/JJ W)

News Update 1: China emitted 14% more carbon dioxide last year that the U.S., according to a Dutch report published last week. China, which passed up the U.S. in 2006, saw its emissions rise 8% year over year, while those in the U.S. grew 1.8%. China’s emissions came mostly from burning of fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas; its electricity is 80% coal-fired. China was responsible for 24% of new CO2 emissions, compared with 21% from the U.S., 12% from the EU’s 15 oldest countries, 8% from India and 6% from Russia. The U.S. still ranks highest in per-capita emissions however – with the typical American's carbon footprint 19.4 metric tons. Russia is next with 11.8 tons, followed by the EU 8.6, China 5.1 and India 1.8. The study did not include carbon emissions from deforestation. (Source: Greenwire)

Hawaii, West Coast metro areas have lowest per capita residential carbon footprints -- why?

(Photo of Honolulu from Flickr and photographer Christopher Dale.)

News Update 1: If you want to reduce your personal carbon footprint, it might be a good idea to move to the West Coast, or possibly Hawaii. In a study of the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S., measuring highway driving and residential energy use, Honolulu came in first. California, Oregon and Washington all did well – in part because of the mild climate and use of hydropower, but also because of aggressive policies on energy pricing, efficiency, and availability of mass transit. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana was second, Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton third and New York City-Long Island-Northern New Jersey 4th. In California, 8 of the 10 largest metro areas were in the top 25. Washington, D.C. ranked last and had a per capita footprint 10 times that of Seattle, which was sixth. Also low on the list were Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Toledo. Among the study’s recommendations for the federal government:
• Set a price on carbon emissions
• Pass a renewable electricity standard
• Invest more in research and development
• Help states reform electricity regulations to reward efficiency
• Give more support to mass transit
For more on the carbon footprint of the 100 metro areas see the Brookings site. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times)

Dying to end your carbon footprint?

(Photo of St. Mary's Cemetery in DeKalb, Ill., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan.)

Worried about your carbon footprint? Think it will go away when you die? Think again. A cemetery in Australia has calculated the carbon emissions of cremation versus burial. Cremation releases more CO2 immediately – about 353 lbs. – while burial is only 86. But perpetual care of the grave site adds up over the years and can turn out to emit 10% more. So what’s a body to do? (excuse the pun) Well, the Centennial Park cemetery in Adelaide figures you can offset the whole thing by planting one tree. (Reuters)