Photo of an electric bus ~ Source: Wikipedia
I. Introduction
Long ago we reached a point where dramatic changes to how we function on our planet became necessary. This point required an increased need to mindfully use and harvest the natural resources available to us, a point where it became crucial to create energy in a more environmentally sustainable way. We are past that point now. The future of our planet rests on the crucial decisions we make in the next few years. Only through drastic measures can we hope to continue to thrive on this planet. According to the Climate Reality Project, global temperatures continue to break records year after year as human-based climate change ravages across the planet (2019). One fundamentally impactful way to make a difference is to cut carbon emissions and restrict the levels of “greenhouse gases” we release into the atmosphere. Restricting these levels is crucial because time is quickly running out to further avoid the dramatic and dangerous global temperature rises which fuel climate change.
In the United States, the largest share of carbon emissions stem from transportation habits. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), transportation accounts for 28.5 percent of total US carbon emissions, and this share has increased in recent years (2019). Between 1990 and 2016 the number of vehicle miles traveled by personal vehicles increased by 45 percent. The EPA concluded that this was due to population growth, economic growth, and “periods of low fuel prices.” In other words, the rise in the percentage share of CO2 emissions from transportation has been accompanied by a rise in personal vehicle use. This rise largely stems from a greater economic ability to do so. Because 90 percent of the fuel used in the United States to power these cars and trucks is fossil fuel based, this increased reliance on personal vehicles has contributed to high US CO2 emissions (EPA 2019).
The country and the world continue to battle with the issues of responsibility and efforts to make an impact. While China repeatedly pours the highest levels of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, it is the United States that has the highest per capita CO2 levels.[1] (Climate Reality Project, 2019). However, the facts cannot and should not be ignored. First, climate change has already created, and will continue creating, severe consequences for all life on Earth, including human life. Second, climate change will be expensive; accruing higher and higher economic and social costs the longer actions to combat it remain far below what is necessary. For these reasons the global community must curb its emissions immediately. In the United States a logical place to begin is transportation habits—where the highest levels of carbon emissions are generated. By revamping public transportation services country-wide, the average American citizens can severely decrease the oversized Carbon footprint they leave behind, and the country can quickly and effectively lower CO2 emissions.
II. Background
Climate change is a significant issue facing humanity. The problems and dangers of climate change stem from high emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other similar gasses, which have been dubbed “greenhouse gasses.” These gases gained their name because as they collect in the atmosphere they reflect solar energy and heat absorbed from the sun back down to the surface of the Earth, which causes the average global temperature to rise (Climate Reality Project, 2019). A phenomenon similarly observed in greenhouses. This rise in temperature has changed the climate and created many significant problems for life on Earth. These problems include very noticeable and far more frequent extreme weather events which leave in their aftermath high economic and human costs. Yet extreme weather is only one of many repercussions of a neglected and abused environment.
As the global temperature increases more of the polar ice-caps melt. This melting can lead to significant sea-levels rises, drowning many coastal cities, as well as releasing more carbon into the atmosphere (Brown 2009). This is because, as the ice-caps melt, carbon trapped within them is released, further increasing the levels of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere. Furthermore, these ice-caps serve as important habitats for many creatures, such as polar bears, which face increasing challenges to survival as their habitats melt. This kind of ecosystem destruction is not limited to the ice-cap melting; it is taking place all over the globe, resulting in animal population declines and extinctions. Environmentally reckless behavior is radically altering ecosystems in ways that are known to negatively impact humans and other animals, but this behavior is also creating ecosystem changes where full impacts cannot yet be known (Brown 2009). This is alarming.
The United States is today, and has historically been, a particularly high emitter of carbon. Given sustained high emission levels, it is imperative that the US significantly scale back such emissions and help lead the way to a global shift in environmental sustainability. As stated, transportation produces the highest share of US carbon emissions. These high emissions are the result of generally low fuel prices (especially compared to the global fuel market) and increasing car ownership, both of which encourage individuals to drive their own vehicles more and utilize public transportation less.
Currently, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, cars and trucks contribute approximately one-fifth of total US CO2 emissions, emitting 24 pounds of carbon and other “greenhouse gasses” for every gallon of gasoline burned (“Car Emissions and Global Warming” 2016). It is likely that this share of emissions from transportation will rise as consumers increasingly turn to “dirtier” sources of oil, such as tar sands oil. Because of the difficult extraction process required to harvest tar sands oil, these oils have approximately 15 percent more CO2 emissions per gallon of gas than conventional crude oil (“What are Tar Sands?” 2016). As conventional oil sources reach depletion without a decrease in the demand for fossil fuel based energy, there will be a shift in reliance to more carbon intense sources of oil, increasing the overall emissions in turn.
Additionally, fuel prices in the United States are often kept artificially low (Brown 2009). Here, fuel costs only reflect the direct costs of oil companies to extract and refine crude oil into gasoline. Meaning the cost US citizens pay per gallon does not include the “… costs of climate change as well as the costs of tax subsidies to the oil industry.” Because of this, while “… burning gasoline is very costly, the market tells us it is cheap, thus grossly distorting the structure of the economy” (Brown 2019, 16-17). The artificially low costs of fossil fuel based gasoline and diesel has driven up the demand for such fuels and given them the appearance of a good market product, which they are not. Ultimately, this artificially low price has paved the way to a greater reliance on personal vehicles and increased overall transportation related emissions.
As previously stated, an increase in individual vehicle use has contributed to a decline in public transit use. As discussed in a Washington Post article, decreases in public transit ridership have been observed in 31 out of the 35 major US metropolitan areas (Lazo 2017). Also exacerbating this trend of decline is the rise of ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft which do a better job of meeting consumer transit demands than public transportation systems. Unfortunately, these ridership declines result in lower revenue raised from transit fares and this leads to further declines in services and thus further declines in ridership. It is a classic case of spiraling decline. There is a marked need for investment, development, and progress in the public transportations system nationwide in order to bolster confidence, increase reliability, and ensure that the great environmental benefits of public transportation are not lost. What is needed is higher levels of government investment in public transportation and a greater effort on the part of such transit systems to increase consumer appeal. However, at the moment, there are too many more attractive alternatives meeting consumer demands (Siddiqui 2018).
III. Improvement
How can the USA rapidly lower transportation related carbon emissions, and how can it be done in a way that offers the high level of convenience and benefits that cars provide? Part of what creates a viable shift to more environmentally sustainable transportation behavior is not needing to sacrifice too much convenience. This can be accomplished by revamping the public transportation systems, increasing their convenience and usability as well as lowering their environmental impact. After all, increased ridership on public transit will reduce carbon emissions. However, if those transit systems are still relying on fossil fuels such as conventional diesel, than those transit systems are still contributing to the overall problem (Siddiqui 2018).
A great place to begin with decreasing public transit emissions is to transition bus fleets to electric buses, specifically, battery electric buses. Such buses gain their “fuel” from rechargeable electric batteries, which do not produce any tailpipe emissions, such as the tailpipe exhaust found with diesel use (Nunno 2018). Despite their benefits, a higher initial price tag for these electric buses can deter local transit authorities who are facing ridership declines and a lack of funds. To remedy this the US federal government and state governments should provide grants to public transit authorities to aid in the purchase of new electric buses. However, with very real constraints on economic capital it is not always feasible to immediately transition every diesel powered bus to an electric powered one. With this in mind, such transitions should occur as transit authorities seek to replace diesel buses that can no longer effectively function as a part of their fleets. In the interim, transit authorities transition from conventional diesel (the fuel source for the majority of municipal buses) to biodiesel.
Biodiesel is a useful alternative to conventional diesel because its use in diesel engines does not require extensive modifications, save for more frequent exchange of the engine’s rubber components, more quickly worn if using 100 percent biofuels (EIA 2019). Furthermore, biodiesel offers a comparable performance to petroleum diesel while only marginally lowering fuel economy (EIA 2019). Additionally, biodiesel can be made by converting vegetable oil waste from restaurants into a viable fuel source, eliminating a portion of unnecessary waste from the restaurant industry while further decreasing carbon emissions.
According to a University of Vermont meta-study, switching bus fuel to biodiesel from conventional diesel can result in 70 to 80 percent less carbon emissions over the course of fuel production and use (“Biodiesel Buses Project” 2004). Although biodiesel has similar carbon emissions when burned as petroleum diesel, the emissions that biodiesel emits are not more than what is absorbed by the crops used to create the original vegetable oil. That is in contrast to conventional diesel which emits carbon into the atmosphere without capturing carbon at any point during its lifecycle. Conventional petroleum-based diesel is made from previously captured carbons recovered from the ground, rather than from crops that can capture carbon from the atmosphere while they are grown (“Biodiesel Buses Project” 2004; DOE 2019).
According to the same University of Vermont study, even mixtures of bio and conventional diesels can produce environmental benefits. A low level B20 mixture (20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent conventional) still leads to an 11 percent reduction in unburned hydrocarbons; however, more preferable still would be the use of B99 or B100 mixtures (99 or 100 percent biodiesel), which can lead to “90 percent reductions in total unburned hydrocarbons and a 75-90 percent reduction in aromatic hydrocarbons,” a far better outcome in terms of decreasing carbon emissions (“Biodiesel Buses Project” 2004).”
So far, the methodologies discussed could be utilized to create more environmentally sustainable public transportation systems. However, in addition to creating more sustainable transit systems the USA needs to ensure such systems are being utilized to an extent that significantly decreases the rate of personal vehicle usage. Otherwise the observed environmental impacts will be lower. This higher ridership can be achieved in three primary ways. First, by embracing the user-friendly features so popular with ride-shares such as Uber, second by increasing the “perks” to choosing public transit through means such as providing free WiFi, and finally by ensuring that buses receive traffic priorities, thus increasing their level of convenience (Small 2017; Zanghi 2017).
One municipality has not experienced the trend of falling public transit ridership—Seattle, Washington. Seattle has instead seen an increase in ridership, and this is largely credited to inventive approaches Seattle has taken (Small 2017; Zanghi 2017). One of these approaches was bringing in the user-friendly phone app services popular with ride-share usage, an approach that other cities have seen success with as well. These apps offer a greater level of convenience to transit consumers through mobile ticketing, route planning, and perhaps most importantly, by enabling real-time bus locations and far more accurate arrival time estimations through the use of GPS positioning technology. This real-time location information eliminates much of the unpredictability of public transit usage, a major drawback to its services (Small 2017; Zanghi 2017). In addition to the implementation of phone app options, adding conveniences to public transit travel such as free access to WiFi has also helped increase the allure of public transit.
Additionally, Seattle has made the decision to prioritize buses over personal vehicles during peak traffic times, often creating an easier commute by bus than by car. The city has done this by closing off streets to cars during peak traffic times and only allowing buses to travel on these key strategic streets. Furthermore, the city began to identify trouble areas within a bus’s route that cause delays and eliminated such delays by creating “transit only” lanes. These lanes allow for a greater level of bus maneuverability through traffic congestion and thus create an additional benefit to taking the bus. If other transit authorities are able to implement many of these same strategies it is likely that they can create increased demand for their public transit systems (Small 2017).
IV. Cost
The cost estimates for a significant overhaul of public transit systems are hard to calculate simply because the costs will vary based on the needs of individual systems. For example, every city requires a different number of buses based on population, which varies between cities. However, it is possible to determine some of the costs on a per bus basis. To replace a diesel powered bus with a battery powered electric bus costs approximately $750,000 to $770,000 per bus. Though this price is higher than diesel buses ($435,000 - $445,000 per bus) the operating costs for an electric bus are lower and can save a transit authority approximately $26,000 to $46,000 per year per bus, versus diesel operating costs. This results in overall financial savings over the course of the average 12 year lifespan of a bus. Additionally, many electric bus companies offer leasing options to help negate the higher initial costs (Blanco 2019; Marcacci 2018).
As proposed above, the United States federal government could help public transit systems in the US acquire new electric buses and the necessary charging equipment through grants. In the fiscal year 2018 the federal government gave state departments of transportation and individual transit authorities a combined total of $84 million in grants, approximately $1.5 to $2.3 million for 52 individual projects. One case example of a fund recipient with great potential for improvement is Whatcom County, Washington. Federal grants here included a $2,290,000 grant to Whatcom County’s Whatcom Transit Authority, which received funds to aid in the purchase of electric buses and their accompanying charging stations. This endowment gives a cost estimate for comparably sized transit systems (Blanco 2019; FTA 2018). If the federal government gave a similar amount in combined grants every fiscal year for this purpose it would make tremendous inroads on transitioning to more environmentally sustainable transportation fleets.
As previously discussed, even though electric buses can result in overall lower costs, they are still a substantial investment for a transit system. It is unrealistic to assume that fleet transitions can take place in a short time period. Thankfully, transitioning petroleum diesel powered buses to biodiesel powered buses is quick and cheap, with virtually no investment costs. It requires only the minimal investments of more rubber engine components. Additionally, fuel costs for biodiesels, on average, are not much higher than petroleum diesel costs—and in some cases they are lower. Average costs for B20 biodiesel is $3.06 per gallon and costs for B99 or B100 biodiesel is $3.55 per gallon, compared with the $3.24 per gallon price of conventional diesel (“Biodiesel FAQ” 2011). All this means that even as a total transition to electric buses is not feasible in the short term, a greater level of environmental sustainability is feasible almost immediately.
Lastly, it is important to examine the costs of implementing WiFi and GPS location tracking onto buses. In a project in Montgomery County, MD to equip buses with free WiFi access, the cost was about $2,300 per bus (Lazo 2017). A relatively low per-bus cost to increase ridership. The GPS implementation costs, however, are steeper. The instillation costs for such programs in Baltimore and Kalamazoo were approximately $2.7 million (“How we Saved” 2015) and $2.8 million respectively (Davis 2011).
The transportation improvements and revamping suggested here could be funded through a variety of sources: government grants—both federal and state, moderately increased transit fares, and/or through taxpayer-approved tax increases. It is important that the society invest in its future. Fares are not high enough to cover the necessary costs to develop a superior public transportation service, and those costs should not be the burden of riders. The goal is to encourage more riding, not discourage it. As such, any fair raises should be kept to a minimum.
V. Feasibility
Transportation is the largest contributor to United States’ carbon emissions, and this is in large part because of the increasing reliance on personal passenger vehicles. Increasing public transit ridership decreases the number of cars on the road and thus contributes to lower overall carbon emissions. Furthermore, even with increased public transit ridership, if the harmful environmental impacts of relying on petroleum diesel fuel are not addressed then substantial levels of CO2 will continue to be emitted from transit use. Thus, transitioning bus fuels to the alternative fuel source of biodiesel continues to decrease emissions further than increased transit ridership alone can.
The science and technology required to ensure my proposed overhauls of US public transit systems is successful includes the following: first, battery powered electric buses and the ability to produce larger amounts of biodiesel fuel from restaurant cooking oil waste; second, technological upgrades to city buses in the form of GPS tracker installations and the accompanying technology to transmit the location data to transit phone apps; finally, WiFi “hotspots,” allowing riders to easily access the internet during their commutes.
Thankfully, all of this equipment exists at this point in time and has already been implemented in some municipal transit systems, though I advocate a much larger implementation country-wide. As public transit authorities increase the convenience of using their systems and respond to the consumer demands that have made other alternatives so attractive, an increase in total ridership can be expected, as witnessed with Seattle’s experiences. Seattle has implemented many of the changes to their public transit system suggested here, and this has resulted in higher levels of transit consumers during an overall downward ridership trend country-wide.
VI. Conclusion
Seattle’s ability to increase its public transit ridership does not just demonstrate a level of economic feasibility; it also demonstrates a level of political feasibility. Severe traffic conditions in the city created a high enough demand for increased public transit service, Seattle citizens actually voted to raise their own taxes (by way of increasing sales tax and collecting fees from car tabs) in order to create a more effective transit system (Small 2017). This occurrence demonstrates a higher level of political feasibility by showcasing that decreased carbon emissions does not have to be the lead charge to expand public transit systems. These expansions can also be promoted by the charge to create better traffic conditions and better commutes.
An ABC News collaborative public opinion poll in 2018 demonstrated that 61 percent of the U.S. public asserts that the federal government should be doing a “great deal” or “a lot” about global warming, while that same poll demonstrated that only ten percent of the public argues that the government is meeting this expectation. Additionally this poll revealed that 8 out of 10 Americans want to make “deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions” (“Public Backs Action”). These polling results and a history of federal grants to public transit authorities for increased sustainability of transit systems demonstrates public support for consistent federal grants.
One common fear among those championing for climate efforts is that these efforts will come at a higher economic cost (“Public Backs Action”). However, through projects like the one proposed here, costs are minimized, the environment is safeguarded, and transportation alternatives are convenient and practical. For individual consumers, relying on cars for transportation comes at a much higher cost than public transit because of the expenses associated with fuel purchases and vehicle maintenance. Thus, a renewed reliance on public transportation offers the opportunity for the public to offset increasing costs elsewhere as the U.S. begins to seriously address climate change—a benefit for all.
Note
[1] Furthermore, while developed countries continue to press developing countries to limit their fossil fuel consumption and industrialization, in the name of combating global temperature rises, developing countries can easily counter it took industrialization and a massive reliance on fossil fuels for the world’s leading countries to reach their current level of development. As such, it should be the responsibility of developed countries, such as the United States, to lead the way on combating climate change – rather than insisting that developing countries remain in such a state in order to stave off further temperature rises.
Works Cited
“Biodiesel Buses Project.” University of Vermont. 2004. LINK
“Biodiesel FAQ.” Biodiesel Cooperative of Los Angeles, Inc. 2011. LINK
“Car Emissions and Global Warming.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 2016. LINK
Climate Reality Project. 2019. LINK
“How we Saved Baltimore $600,000 in One Day.” Medium. 2015. LINK
“Public Backs Action on Global Warming – but with Cost Concerns and Muted Urgency.” Langer Research Associates. 2018. LINK
“What are Tar Sands?” Union of Concerned Scientists. 2016. LINK
Blanco, Sebastian. “The US Just Spent $84M on Electric Buses.” Forbes. 2019. LINK
Brown, Lester R. Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. 1st edition. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2009.
LINK
Davis, Paula M. “Metro Transit to Install GPS Tracking System Allowing Passengers to Track Bus Locations.” Mlive: Michigan. 2011. LINK
DOE. “Biodiesel Vehicle Emissions.” US Department of Energy. 2019
LINK
EIA. “Use of Biodiesel.” US Energy Information Administration. 2019. LINK
EPA. “Biodiesel.” Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2010. LINK
EPA. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. LINK
FTA. “Fiscal Year 2018 Low or No-Emission (Low-No) Bus Program Projects.” Federal Transit Administration. 2018. LINK
Lazo, Luz. “Montgomery County Rolling out Ride on Buses with Free WiFi for Riders.” The Washington Post . 2017. LINK
Marcacci, Silvio. “Electric Buses can Save Local Governments Billions. China’s Showing us how it’s Done.” Forbes. 2018. LINK
Nunno, Richard. “Fact Sheet: Battery Electric Buses: Benefits Outweigh Costs.” Environmental and Energy Study Institute. 2018. LINK
Siddiqui, Faiz. “Falling Transit Ridership Poses an ‘Emergency’ for Cities, Experts Fear.” The Washington Post. 2018. Date Accessed: 10 March 2019. LINK
Small, Andrew. “How Seattle Bucked a National Trend and got More People to Ride the Bus.” City Lab. 2017. LINK
Zanghi, Brian. “How Smart Cities can Increase Public Transit Ridership (Industry Perspective).” Government Technology. 2017. LINK
|
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Carolyn Stewart is an undergraduate sophomore currently pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Political Science at Western Washington University, in Bellingham WA. She ultimately hopes to earn a Juris Doctor (J.D.) and become an immigration lawyer, working with refugees and asylum seekers. Carolyn is passionate about increasing civic engagement, particularly in regards to encouraging greater levels of voter participation and increased momentum in combating climate change.
Dr. Adam Golob is an instructor at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham, WA. He teaches Political Science. He holds advanced degrees in Latin American Studies and Government from the University of South Florida. His research focuses on social justice, marginalization, inequality, and human rights and advancement. He is passionate about environment issues and teaches a class on Interdisciplinary Sustainability.
|
|Back to Title|
LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE
LINK TO THE HOME PAGE
| 
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)