A study prepared by the World Bank determined that in those cities where the subway as an option for the public transportationreductions of CO2 emissions reach up to 50%.
The agency used as the basis for its research the data from carbon emissions based on satellites that quantify the impact of metro systems.
"We carefully examined about 1,500 cities that had more than 500,000 inhabitants. Of these, only 192 have subway systems. For those 192 cities we calculated their 'counterfactual' CO2 emissions, i.e. with and without metro. CO2 emissions are 50% lower with a metro than without. This translates into an 11 percent reduction in all global CO2 emissions," says a World Bank paper by Somik Lall, Susmita Dasgupta and David Wheeler.
However, they point out that public transportation systems are expensive to build and extremely costly to operate, especially the subway, as confirmed by a study of 207 subway projects in 47 countries, which details that extending the subway by one kilometer costs US$200 million.
KPMG Internationala world-renowned financial consulting firm, estimates that the annual cost for operations and maintenance of the metro is 2% of the initial investments.
The article in the World Bank The Committee stresses that as costly as this infrastructure is for cities, the cost of the traffic congestion erode business productivity, exacerbate morbidity and keep workers unemployed.
"Millions of people suffer health problems due to vehicular emissions of pollutants such as fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide. Clearly, subway systems can be beneficial in reducing congestion and improving health. Not only does the metro reduce congestion locally, it reduces carbon emissions globally," he says.
Invest now to save for the future
Investing in technology and infrastructure to reduce CO2 emissionsThe new metro, like the subway, now involves investing large amounts of resources, but the benefits come in reduced travel times and reduced costs. vehicle pollution and the factors that follow.
The World Bank article explains that the CO2 savings are valued depending on how the future is discounted.
"The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is the cost of the damages created by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions, but these damages will affect us in the future, and the social cost reflects what we are willing to spend today to avoid these costs," he says.
The World Bank calculated economic benefits using a range of SCC, from modest to ambitious. By calculating the annual difference in carbon emissions with and without a meter for 2020-2050, valued at the SCC, and accounting for investment and operation and maintenance costs, it estimated a net present value ratio (NPVR) to assess the return on investment.
Under modest benefit assumptions, where the social cost of carbon is estimated at $50 per ton and the cost of building a subway at $280 million per kilometer, subway projects provide co-benefits in 294 cities.
Under mid-range assumptions, where the social cost of carbon is estimated at $100 per ton and the cost of building a subway at $200 million per kilometer, subway projects provided co-benefits in 465 cities.
Under aspirational assumptions, where the social cost of carbon is estimated at $150 per ton and the cost of building a subway at $140 million per kilometer, subway projects provide co-benefits in 794 cities.
The agency stresses that by demonstrating an overall return on local investments, many more metro systems exceed the minimum rate of return an investor needs to continue with a project.
Supporting the metro in developing countries can help create jobs, connect girls to schools and help people live healthier, longer lives.
Source: World Bank
