Comments on: Light rail systems create as much pollution as SUVs

By: Scott Mercer

Scott Mercer — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:43:04 +0000

I feel that Randal O’Toole has a bias against rail which flies in the face of most cities’ experiences with light rail in the past ten years. Portland, Los Angeles, Salt Lake, are among the cities where light rail has succeeded and is well-liked by the public. I’ve read many of Mr. O’Toole’s writings and to me they seem rather “out there” and detached from reality. Just my opinion.

By: Daniel Rodriguez Escobar

Daniel Rodriguez Escobar — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:40:08 +0000

This is a good example of the innuendo that is beign propagated by those who want to keep the light rail revolution from happening. The assertion that is made by Mr. Randal O’Toole is not only misleading but downright false. The per person consuption of energy in a light rail vehicle is far less than that of ANY internal combustion engined vehicle (that includes Hybrids!). Also , Mr O’Toole failed to say that while there is only ONE source of fuel for an SUV (or any other car). There are MANY environmentally friendly sources of the electric energy that is required by Light Rail. The thing is…. There are some interested parties that want to stop light rail from replacing buses or highways in several cities priority lists.Mr. O’Toole should pick his check from GM and find some other special interest group to lobby for.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:33:04 +0000

Huh? What kind of comparison is that? How many passengers can an SUV carry, compared to a light rail line? An SUV can carry what, 4 people (and usually only carries one) – while a light rail line is a mass transit with hundreds or more. Randal O’Toole is comparing apples to oranges, and it sounds as if he is being purposefully manipulative with his “facts” (though not doing a very good job of it since even a child could figure out the difference between a train and a car in terms of carrying potential).