**Mass Transit 1ac 1ac – economy advantage
Warming – Emissions Links
Download 0.91 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mass transit is substantially more fuel efficient – will decrease emissions
- Linking mass transit explicitly to land use decisions solves
- Public transportation reduces CO2 emissions
- Their arguments don’t account for the plan’s linkage of mass transit to land use decisions
- Lifecycle emissions from mass transit are substantially lower than automobiles per passenger mile
- Shifting to electric power reduces overall emissions – greater efficiency and renewable electricity
- Mass transit decreases emissions substantially – Portland empirically proves
Warming – Emissions LinksMass transit is the single most effective strategy available to reduce the CO2 emissions that are the cause of global warmingShapiro et al, 2 (Dr. Robert J. Shapiro is Managing Director of Sonecon, LLC, a non-resident Fellow of the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute, Dr. Kevin A. Hassett, Dr. Frank S. Arnold, 2002, “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” http://archives.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/Shapiro%20Study.pdf) As great as the current advantages are, far greater energy and environmental benefits could be derived through increased use of public transportation. Based on our findings, the study concludes that greater use of public transportation offers the single most effective strategy currently available for achieving significant energy savings and environmental gains, without creating new government programs or imposing new rules on the private sector. If Americans increase their use of public transportation, the study found dramatic benefits in energy conservation and a healthier environment. For example, if Americans used public transportation at the same rate as Europeans -- for roughly ten percent of their daily travel needs -- the United States would: Reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent or nearly the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia each year; Save more energy every year than all the energy used by the U.S. petrochemical industry and nearly equal the energy used to produce food in the United States. Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 25 percent of those directed under the Kyoto Agreement. Reduce CO pollution by three times the combined levels emitted by four high polluting industries (chemical manufacturing; oil and gas production; metals processing; and industrial use of coal). Reduce smog across the country by cutting NOx emissions by 35 percent of the combined NOx emissions from the four industries cited above, and cut VOC pollution by 84 percent of the combined VOC emissions from these four industries. Mass transit is substantially more fuel efficient – will decrease emissionsCenter for Neighborhood Technology, 3 – Report prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council (“COMBATING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ,” March, http://www.travelmatters.org/about/final-report.pdf)//DH Of the various modes of transportation that generate emissions, by far and away the largest segment consisted of the combined emissions of both automobiles and light trucks; almost 60 percent of transportation-related carbon emissions come from motor fuel consumed by these two classes of vehicle. For year 2000, cars generated 38.6 per cent of the U.S. transportation sector CO2 emissions; light trucks, 20.6 per cent; and buses, 13.7 per cent. The bulk of growth between 1990 and 2000 in transportation emissions was due to growth in the use of light-trucks – vans, pickups, minivans, and sports utility vehicles. 46 From a purely statistical point of view, then, a strategy for reducing global carbon dioxide emissions would do well to reduce emissions originating in the use of automobiles and light trucks in the United States. 47 One way of accomplishing this, (in addition to increasing the fuel efficiency of new vehicles) would be to encourage people who would normally drive on any given occasion to use mass transit, bicycles, or to walk instead. With such a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions originating in the transportation sector, and the largest proportion of those emissions originating in personal automobiles, improving the competitiveness of transit vis-à-vis the automobile could directly and significantly reduce collective CO2 emissions. The goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector overlaps with the aims of a variety of programs in urban planning, public policy, and within federal, state, and municipal transit agencies, all directed towards increasing public use of mass transportation. In the following chapters, various local strategies for encouraging the use of mass transit will be examined, including, most importantly, the land-use practices most supportive of transit use; effective market incentives, and transit agency policies. While the third chapter offers illustrations of the conditions necessary for optimal transit efficiency, the fourth chapter illustrates the concrete economic advantages that new low-emissions technologies can bring to a transit agency itself. The case of alternative transit technologies will illustrate a larger principle on a smaller scale: how multiple ends can be achieved through programs of energy efficiency. Reducing transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions by increasing transit use has the positive consequence of reducing regulated pollutants, and reducing transit agency operating costs. Linking mass transit explicitly to land use decisions solvesCenter for Neighborhood Technology, 3 – Report prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council (“COMBATING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ,” March, http://www.travelmatters.org/about/final-report.pdf)//DH Greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector can be significantly lowered by reducing passenger vehicle miles traveled. One of the most immediate and practical ways of reducing this figure is by filling buses and trains with people who would otherwise take their trips by automobile. Effectuating the shift from car to transit, however, is not as straightforward as adapting a comprehensive bus system to urban geographies designed around the automobile. To optimize mass transit’s competitive advantage in terms of speed, convenience, and desirability, urban planning and design are required to support the development of cities defined by frequent use of transit for work trips, and the greater choice of mobility options for personal ones. As travel demand research has demonstrated, the key to an expanded range of mobility options is a higher density of land use that is coupled with a transit and pedestrian friendly environment. In highly transportation efficient locations, auto trips are lower because higher density makes it more economical to make trips on foot, by bicycle, as well as using public transportation. The presence of transit can lower emissions not only from workrelated auto trips, but also from local trips made to meet the everyday needs of city residents. By making transit one of a number of equally desirable options for individual trip planning, automobile use – and emissions – could be greatly reduced. Public transportation reduces CO2 emissionsAmerican Public Transportation Association, 7 – Non profit organization (N/A, Public Transportation’s contribution to Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Post Carbon Cities, 12/5/12, http://postcarboncities.net/node/2115)//MBW In 2005, public transportation reduced CO2 emissions by 6.9 million metric tonnes. If current public transportation riders were to use personal vehicles instead of transit they would generate 16.2 million metric tonnes of CO2. Actual operation of public transit vehicles, however, resulted in only 12.3 million metric tonnes of these emissions. In addition, 340 million gallons of gasoline were saved through transit’s contribution to decreased congestion, which reduced CO2 emissions by another 3.0 million metric tonnes. An additional 400,000 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) were also avoided, including sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Their arguments don’t account for the plan’s linkage of mass transit to land use decisionsCenter for Neighborhood Technology, 3 – Report prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council (“COMBATING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ,” March, http://www.travelmatters.org/about/final-report.pdf)//DH The essence of sustainability is the integration of economic development and environmental improvement. As the Task Force for the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1997) described it, sustainable communities are those that “flourish because they build a mutually supportive, dynamic balance between social well-being, economic opportunity, and environmental quality.” 22 Of the many aspects of sustainability, transportation is central to the dynamic balance between economies and environments, since varying transportation policies have profoundly different effects on the urban landscape. In particular, the linkage of sustainability with mass transit now informs a range of policies intended to make more efficient use of urbanized land, reduce traffic congestion, cut back vehicle emissions, and improve pedestrian mobility. The examples that follow each illustrate how the use of transit or other nonmotorized transportation options are enhanced when travel demand factors are taken into consideration in the planning, marketing, design, and operation of transit. Aside from the potential economic benefits of reducing the consumption of resources associated with urban sprawl, these examples of transit-supported sustainability provide a solid basis for a range of geographically specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in America’s large urban centers. Global issues like climate change can be addressed by very local, very concrete actions taken to influence the way people build, and move through, their environment. Lifecycle emissions from mass transit are substantially lower than automobiles per passenger mileHodges, 9 - Office of Budget and Policy Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT (Tina, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change”, January, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf)//DH The more passengers that are riding a bus or train, the lower the emissions per passenger mile. For instance, U.S. bus transit, which has about a quarter of its seats occupied on average, emits an estimated 32% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than the average U.S. single occupancy vehicle. The savings increases to 83% for a typical diesel transit bus when it is full with 40 passengers (see fig. 3). When expanding transit service as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy, communities would likely want to ensure that passenger loads are sufficient to achieve efficiencies over the alternative of driving.2 For example, the average 40-passenger diesel bus must carry a minimum of 7 passengers on board to be more efficient than the average single-occupancy vehicle. Similarly, the average heavy rail car would need to have at least 19% of seats full to exceed the efficiency of a automobile carrying an average passenger load. Most rail transit systems are powered by electricity. Those relying on electricity from a low emissions source, such as hydroelectric, not surprisingly, have much lower emissions than those relying on coal power plants. (See Appendix I for emissions factors). Rail vehicles also vary in terms of energy efficiency due to weight and engineering factors. Emissions from bus systems vary due to the use of low carbon fuels, more energy efficient vehicles, and different operating environments (such as frequent stops in denser urban areas). In terms of vehicle efficiency for instance, many transit agencies are replacing older diesel buses with new hybridelectric buses, which consume 15% to 40% less fuel, and consequently produce 15% to 40% fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Taking lifecycle emissions into account also shows emissions savings from transit. Transit-based greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile are significantly lower than those from driving, even taking into account emissions from construction, manufacture, and maintenance. Life cycle emissions include a full accounting of all emissions generated over the full life of a transportation system. This includes emissions from building the highway or rail system, manufacturing the vehicles, maintaining the infrastructure and vehicles, producing and using the fuel, and eventually disposing of the vehicles and infrastructure. The previous graphs only showed tailpipe emissions, or solely the emissions from burning fuel or generating electricity to move a vehicle. Shifting to electric power reduces overall emissions – greater efficiency and renewable electricityHodges, 9 - Office of Budget and Policy Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT (Tina, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change”, January, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf)//DH Most rail transit is powered by electricity, which offers efficiency improvements over internal combustion engines. Rail agencies are looking to further reduce energy consumption by lowering the amount of electricity used in powering vehicles. In Phoenix, for example, the new light rail system uses regenerative braking to lower electricity consumption. As the electric power industry shifts to more renewable sources of energy as being mandated in several states, electric public transportation systems provide even more emissions reduction benefits. When the electricity is generated from a zero emissions source, such as wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, or solar, the public transportation systems that use these power sources are also zero emission. Mass transit decreases emissions substantially – Portland empirically provesRivera, 11 – staff writer (Dylan, “Density and mass transit can fight global warming, study says”, The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/density_and_mass_transit_can_f.html) If you want to fight global warming, one good way could be to live in a more compact neighborhood - with more neighbors and jobs close by, and where mass transit, biking and walking are accessible alternatives to the car. That's a main conclusion of a study out this week by the National Research Council, a unit of the authoritative National Academy of Sciences. The study used Portland as a case study for how denser development coupled with mass transit can reduce gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. "The evidence indicates that Portland's policies to steer growth into more compact, mixed use development have paid off, not only in revitalizing the downtown and many of its neighborhoods, but also in changing travel behavior, the primary concern of this study," the report says. Portland-area residents drive 17 percent less than the U.S. average, because denser development provides shorter travel distances and higher mass transit use reduces driving. From 1993 to 2003, the region's mass transit ridership grew 55 percent and housing density grew 18 percent, while the population grew 21 percent. The Congressionally mandated report's findings include: • Making denser residential and employment areas is likely to reduce driving and fuel consumption. • Doubling residential density across a region could reduce driving by 5 to 12 percent - or as much as 25 percent if accompanied by more employment, mass transit and mixed-use development. • Obstacles to more mixed use development include reluctance by local governments to zone for it and a lack of state and regional-level involvement in land use planning. • Americans' preference for low-density suburban homes also challenges the potential for denser neighborhoods. But how much of a difference could denser development make in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions? A little or a lot? It could cut emissions by 1 to 11 percent by 2050. That depends on whether the next generation of neighborhoods is built more compact than the dominant trend of sprawl across the nation. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.91 Mb. Share with your friends:
|