I struggled with the paper because the graphs are bad. Either the authors or the journal need a golden-pie award, maybe silver, at least they're not "3d".

From what i read it is a bit of a rambling mess of scale, scope and measures- and i couldn't really figure out if they did anything novel or just summarized a random load off other stuff in terrible graphs. It's not that new to say that induced demand works both ways, and that improving transit reduces congestion and makes cars more effective too.

Their headline measure in conclusion - reducing total VKT is not usually what i'd expect transit policy to be about. It's normally about adding capacity, i.e. more potential trips per amount of land used. and yes we'd expect HSR creating a new fastest route to induce demand? so what, if some shifted from car or plane, did that not impact GHG emissions? I didn't see them directly compare Frances policies to limit internal flights and swap to HSR.

If they were supposed to be writing about climate change you'd have thought they'd have tried to estimate or comment on GHG per VKT over time or in different scenarios.

This is a very strange paper. I cant say i read it it enough detail. But what i have read made me think i was wasting my time and hurting my eyes from all the bad graphs. I'll also judge any paper that uses the term 'carbon emissions' to refer to 'greenhouse gas emissions' - but I think that's because I'm a dick.

Might be useful to read the underlying studies though, if they are a good representative sample . . . who knows.