Mass Transit Affirmative 1AC
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Public transportation leads to less emissions and less money spent.
- Mass transit replicates car’s sense of autonomy using technology.
- New highway bill stifles mass transit – bigger fares and less money.
- CO2 levels are on the rise—expansion of overall US transit is key
Warming – Solvency ExtMass transit helps solve warming – greatly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.FTA (Federal Transit Association), 2010. (Public Transportation Produces Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions than Autos, Public Transportations Role in Responding to Climate Change, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf) National averages demonstrate that public transportation produces significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than private vehicles (see Figure 2). 1 Leading the way is heavy rail transit, such as subways and metros, which produce 76% less in greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). Light rail systems produce 62% less and bus transit produces 33% less. 2 Estimates are calculated from fuel usage and passenger mile data in the 2008 National Transit Database, standard emissions factors for different fuels are from the U.S. Department of Energy, and sub-regional electricity emissions factors are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see Appendix II: Methodology). The environmental benefits of public transportation vary based on the number of passengers per vehicle, the efficiency of the bus or train, and the type of fuel used (see Appendix I for estimates for transit agencies across the country). The number of riders greatly impacts transit’s emissions savings. 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 (28%) of its seats occupied on average, emits an estimated 33% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than the average U.S. single occupancy vehicle. The savings increases to 82% for a typical diesel transit bus when it is full with 40 passengers (see Figure 3). Public transportation leads to less emissions and less money spent.San Francisco Chronicle, 6/26/12. (Public Transportation Infographic: Make Life Simple and Green, The San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/Public-Transportation-Infographic-Make-Life-3663110.php). “When you ride the rails, bus, or carpool, the benefits are far-reaching,” says Charles Tran, founder of CreditDonkey.com, a credit card comparison and financial education website. “Public transportation impacts everything from your wallet to the global environment. Plus, in areas where people rely heavily on public transit, there is a noticeable reduction in traffic congestion and stress.” Key Takeaways: When you take public transportation, you are more likely to run other errands on your route, saving you time and money from additional trips with the car. Public transportation creates less congestion, saving money and the environment with shorter, less expensive trips for everyone. When used regularly, public transportation can reduce the need for some to have a second car (or a car at all). Imagine less debt, fewer car payments, less emissions, and less money spent on repairs and gas. Many transit agencies are now replacing old buses with hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell buses. Thus making public transit even greener, especially when connected to renewable sources such as solar. Mass transit replicates car’s sense of autonomy using technology.Thinkprogress, 7/9/12. (Top Three Ways Information is Making Transportation More Efficient, Thinkprogress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/09/511487/top-three-ways-information-is-making-transportation-more-efficient/) But information technology doesn’t just enable better use of cars. A study by Latitude found: “While users value the freedom and control a car provides, mobile information solutions could replicate this sense of autonomy without needing to own a car—primarily by helping users to make informed, in-the-moment decisions about what’s available near them and the best ways to get around.” As a city resident myself, this makes good sense. I have the choice between driving my car, riding my bike, or taking public transportation. The big hesitation with mass transit is the lack of control or information about the journey. Navigating timetables, bus stop locations, and metro closures can sometimes be difficult if you don’t have the proper information — or patience. But as the study shows, autonomy matters more than ownership, and information is the key to increased autonomy. Knowing where and when buses and trains are moving is a game-changer. There are a wide range of smart phone applications today that enable this kind of knowledge. Additionally, the study found that participants who ditched their car gained a sense of community. This shows that using information to maximize efficiencies isn’t just good for maximizing financial value, it’s also good for increasing the value of relationships and community. The emissions benefits of public transit over driving are well documented and defended, and the economics of increasing use of existing mass transportation infrastructure are simple: the marginal additional cost of adding more consumers is small, but the benefits are great. New highway bill stifles mass transit – bigger fares and less money.Keith Laing, 6/29/12, Congressional reporter at The Hill. (Transit union says highway bill will raise public transportation fares for riders, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/235607-transit-union-says-highway-bill-will-raise-public-transportation-fares-for-riders.) A union for employees of the public transportation system called the $105 billon highway bill a "death blow" to mass transit that will result in higher fares for riders. The Washington, D.C.-based Amalgamated Transit Union said the compromise between the House and Senate on a long-sought surface transportation spending bill will limit public transit systems from using federal money that had traditionally had been used for new construction to help pay for operations. The result will be higher fares for mass transit riders, ATU President Larry Hanley said Friday. "This transportation bill is a death blow to public transportation; it not only does nothing to address the American mass transit crisis, but will make it much worse,” Hanley said in a statement released by the union. “It’s actually a tax increasing bill that will impose hidden taxes on commuters and transit riders by raising fares while forcing cash-strapped transit systems to cut more service,” he continued. The ATU said the original transportation bill that was approved earlier this year by the Senate had a provision dealing with the capital funding requirements for public transit systems. But the language did not survive the contentious conference negotiations between the upper chamber and the House, the union said. The transit union is also taking issue with the elimination of a provision in the Senate's version of the transportation bill that would have restored a $230 tax credit for commuters who take public transit to work. The benefit, which was included in the 2009 economic stimulus, expired at the beginning of 2012. The credit has since been reduced to its original $125. Hanley said neglecting to restore the $230 benefit would stifle public transportation ridership. "More and more Americans are relying on public transportation to get to and from work, school, the doctor and other daily tasks and this bill will hit them right in the pocket,” he said. “We urge Congress not to pass this failed legislation which continues to starve mass transit and further weaken our economic recovery.” Lawmakers are expected to vote Friday on the compromise version of the highway bill. The measure is expected to be approved with bipartisan support. Mass transit proven to increase air quality – less emissions made. Meinardi, Nissenson, et. al., 2008. (Simone, Paul, Department of Chemistry University of California, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of California. Influence of the public transportation system on the air quality of a major urban center. A case study: Milan, Italy. Sciverse, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231008006341). The sampling campaign performed in Milan during the winter of 2004 was used to determine the impact of the public transportation system on air quality. The samples were collected during a 3-day period, with the last day of sampling occurring during a public transportation system strike. All of the NMHC concentrations were highly enhanced during the strike. These enhancements were a result of the presence of a stronger combustion source (i.e. vehicular emissions) throughout the city, as indicated by the recorded increase of circulating vehicles. Modeled ozone concentrations for the winter episode were in good agreement with measured values. Emission rates calculated using the winter measurements were then used to determine ozone concentrations during a public transportation strike in the summer. Box model simulations indicate that for summer months the public transportation strike in Milan resulted in 11–33% more local ozone. These calculated enhancements are in good agreement with the measured ozone peaks for the selected days, which showed that the measured ozone peak increased 21% on the day of the public transportation strike. Measurements and model simulations demonstrate that the public transportation system for Milan impacts air quality by reducing ozone levels during the photochemically active summer months. Milan is representative of other major European cities and it is expected that this result applies to other urban areas. Increasing the availability of public transportation has the potential to improve significantly the air quality of major metropolitan regions. People in urban areas have decreased EC exposure – less time in transit. Dhondt, Beckx, et. al., 2012. (Department of medical sociology and health sciences, Brussels, Belgium. Flemish institute for technological research, Mol, Belgium. Integration of population mobility in the evaluation of air quality measures on local and regional scales. Sciverse, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101200427X). In this paper we assessed the impact on EC exposure from a reduction in travelled kilometres resulting from a 20% increase in fuel prices. The decrease in concentrations was limited to zones near highways and urban centres. Taking into account people's mobility, we identified a decrease in exposure carrying much further than what was expected when assuming people are always at home. Further examination of the determinants in the dynamic exposure approach revealed that inhabitants of urban areas showed less hours in transport, while inhabitants of rural areas spent more hours outside the home zone. This spatial pattern influenced the exposure in the way that people from non-urban areas profited both from the higher decrease of EC concentrations at their work/shop/leisure destinations in more urban areas and an even larger decrease in concentrations during transport while getting there. People living in urban areas profited less from the decrease during transport, as they spent less time in transport. For some zones with a high decrease in concentrations, the decrease in exposure might also be lower than what would have been expected if all people were assumed to be at home all the time. These methods can help policy makers to predict more precisely the impact of proposed actions to reduce air pollution levels and shows the importance of taking into activity-travel patterns when planning future actions. In other words, a static exposure approach alone underestimates exposure and the impact of possible policies and may lead to inappropriate management of public health risks. CO2 levels are on the rise—expansion of overall US transit is keyCenter for Neighborhood Technology, a leader in promoting urban sustainability, ’03 (COMBATING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY FINAL REPORT; travelmatters.org; http://www.travelmatters.org/about/final-report.pdf) A majority of scientists now agree that the earth’s climate is warming, as indicated by a¶ rise in the average surface temperature of the earth. Positive (warming) climate change is¶ thought to be the result of human-generated emissions, principally of carbon dioxide (CO2).¶ Carbon dioxide, like the greenhouse gases methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) allows solar¶ radiation to pass through the atmosphere, but prevents surface radiation from escaping to outer¶ space, effectively “trapping” it, leading to an overall increase in surface temperature. The¶ observational evidence for positive climate change is circumstantial, but extensive: direct¶ measurement has established that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased since the¶ industrial revolution and the related surge in fossil fuel consumption. The gas physics behind the¶ “heat-trapping” greenhouse effect is not disputed, and the man-made exacerbation of the¶ greenhouse effect is considered to be very likely. The ultimate effects, however, remain¶ uncertain. The premise of the report, based on a review of climate change science summarized¶ in Chapter 2, is that enough is now known, despite the uncertainties of measurement and¶ forecasting, to warrant prudent actions to moderate or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.¶ Much of what can be done in this regard will have the multiple effect of improving air quality, in¶ addition to improving human physical health and increasing fuel efficiency. While improving¶ personal and transit vehicle fuel efficiency is one tactic in any future greenhouse gas reduction¶ strategy, another equally important tactic involves expanding the overall share of transit in U.S.¶ transportation. It is with such transit-related strategies that this report is most concerned. Travelling by transit plays a major role in improving our nation’s environmental quality Shapiro, Hassett, Arnold published economists ’02 (Robert J. Shapiro, Harvard University; Kevin A. Hassett, Columbia Business School; Frank S. Arnold, Harvard University; Conserving Energy and Preserving¶ the Environment: The Role of Public¶ Transportation; archives.eesi.org; http://archives.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/Shapiro%20Study.pdf) The role of transportation in our nation’s energy consumption and environmental quality is¶ immense. Americans use more energy and generate more pollution in their daily lives than they¶ do in the production of all the goods in the economy, the operations of all commercial¶ enterprises, or the running of their homes. Any serious effort to reduce our dependence on¶ foreign oil and make significant environmental progress must address the way Americans travel.¶ The vital role of public transportation in improving energy efficiency and the environment is¶ often under-appreciated. With its fuel and pollution advantages, increased use of transit offers¶ the most effective strategy available for reducing energy consumption and improving the¶ environment without imposing new taxes, government mandates, or regulations on the economy¶ or consumers.¶ Public transportation needs to be an essential element in sound national energy and¶ environmental policies. Potential threats to the supply and price of foreign oil as a result of¶ terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, and OPEC decisions underscore the need for a public¶ transportation strategy that reduces our nation’s dependence on imported oil. Likewise, ongoing¶ efforts to reduce harmful emissions from our air can be more effective when they include ways¶ to increase use of public transportation.¶ “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation”¶ demonstrates that traveling by transit, per person and per mile, uses significantly less energy and¶ produces substantially less pollution than comparable travel by private vehicles. The findings¶ provide clear and indisputable evidence that public transportation is saving energy and reducing¶ pollution in America today -- and that increased usage could have an even greater impact in the¶ future.¶ Current Benefits¶ At our current levels of use, the study found public transportation is reducing Americans’¶ energy bills and keeping the air cleaner. For example:¶ Energy savings from public transportation contribute to our national and economic security by¶ making America less dependent on foreign oil or on new sources for drilling.¶ • Public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline a year, or 45 million¶ barrels of oil. These savings equal about one month’s oil imports from Saudi Arabia and¶ three months of the energy that Americans use to heat, cool and operate their homes, or half¶ the energy used to manufacture all computers and electronic equipment in America. Public Transportation Key to Rural Economies APTA, 2010, American Publican Transportation Association http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTABrochure_v28%20FINAL.pdf Public transportation offers mobility for residents of rural America, particularly people without cars. In 2008, residents of small urban areas and rural areas made 621 million¶ trips on public transit.¶ 1¶ However, access to public transportation in these areas needs to be greatly expanded. Two-thirds of rural Americans—60 million people—have inadequate access to public transportation.¶ 22¶ They live in counties¶ that have either no service or so little service that they can¶ only be characterized as isolated.¶ Provides Access for Isolated Residents¶ For the third of Americans in rural areas who do have access to public transportation, public transit systems offer better access to employment, education, health care, social services, shopping, entertainment, and friends/relatives. If these transit systems no longer existed, people who use them would have to¶ find alternative transportation or discontinue some activities.¶ RIDES (Rural Initiative Development of Effective Services)¶ Mass Transit District, the transportation provider for ¶ 11 southeastern Illinois counties, coordinates transportation needs for clients of 80 agencies to meet job, service,¶ and training needs.¶ In the Robertsdale, AL, region, the Baldwin Rural Area¶ Transit System provides more than 400,000 trips per year.¶ 24 Public transportation enhances local rural economic growth in many ways, increasing the local customer base for a range of services—shopping malls, medical facilities, and other services. In South Carolina, the 43 member agencies of the¶ Chesterfield County Coordinating Council share vehicles¶ on fixed route and dial-a-ride services and allow adults to¶ ride school buses.¶ 25¶ In Lebanon, NH, 65 percent of the riders on Advance¶ Transit services are commuters going to work Public Transportation Astronomically Increases Property Value APTA, 2010, American Publican Transportation Association http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTABrochure_v28%20FINAL.pdf Residents and community leaders across the nation are recognizing that high-capacity, regional public transportation services are essential to grow America’s communities in a way¶ that enhances and promotes real estate development. In addition, communities that invest in public transportation attract¶ more visitors and shoppers, public events, commercial businesses, and employers, realizing enhanced development and¶ high economic returns. ¶ Communities around the nation are encouraging residential¶ and commercial development near public transit. Transit-oriented development is mixed-use residential and commercial¶ development that brings housing, shopping, educational institutions, and working opportunities within walking distance¶ (usually defined as 1/4 to 1/2 mile) of a transportation hub.¶ ▼ In Arlington, VA, development in two Metrorail corridors¶ is concentrated on 6 percent of the land in the county¶ but produces almost half the county’s tax revenue.¶ 34¶ ▼ The city of Dallas had $3 billion in transit-oriented development (TOD) projects in 2005. By 2008, it was $7 billion—¶ associated with an additional $78 billion in tax revenues.¶ 35¶ ▼ In Charlotte, NC, there is $1.8 billion in projected ¶ TOD investment, expected to produce an additional ¶ $24.1 million annually in tax revenue.¶ 36¶ ▼ In San Diego, TOD has meant that retail property values have¶ increased 167% within 200 feet of the trolley station.¶ 37¶ ▼ Metro in Los Angeles has a very successful joint program¶ representing more than $4 billion in local development¶ investment.¶ 38¶ Benefits of Public Transportation: ¶ Increases Real Estate Values and Development ¶ Boosts Real Estate Values¶ Real estate—residential, commercial or business—that is served by public transportation is valued more highly by the public than similar properties not as well served by transit.¶ A University of North Texas study found that the total value of projects that are attributable to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit¶ light rail system from 1999 through 2007 is $4.26 billion. Area¶ school districts will potentially receive $46 million annually from increased taxable property values.¶ 35 ¶ A 2008 Center for Transit-Oriented Development survey of previous research studies found that a property value premium for single-family residential property near public transit was as high as 32 percent, for condominiums near transit as high as¶ 18 percent, for rental apartments near transit as high as¶ 45 percent, for commercial property near transit as high as¶ 120 percent, and for retail property near transit as high as 167 percent. Health and Safety of People Dramatically Increases with Public Transportation APTA, 2010, American Publican Transportation Association http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTABrochure_v28%20FINAL.pdf Increased investment in and use of public transportation can directly improve and protect the health of all Americans.¶ Our car-centered transportation system has led to pollution¶ and poor air quality. Emissions from road vehicles are the¶ largest contributors to smog.¶ Air pollution from vehicles has been directly linked to a variety¶ of health problems and reductions in air pollution have been¶ associated with greater longevity.¶ 39¶ America’s public transportation systems can play a vital role in creating a healthier nation. Providing significant environmental benefits—by reducing smog-producing pollutants, greenhouse gases, and runoff from paved surfaces that degrade the water supply, and by conserving ecologically sensitive lands and open spaces—public transportation is helping to meet national air quality standards. Increased use of public transportation could have an even greater impact in the future. In addition to reduced pollution, direct health benefits of public transportation include: Lower rates of respiratory and heart disease. The health effects of mobile source pollution can be severe and even life-threatening, particularly to children, older adults, and adults with respiratory illnesses. Many groups¶ are at greater risk because of chronic lung or cardiovascular disease, including people with diabetes, whose cardiovascular systems are threatened by particle pollution.¶ Lower accident rates. The national statistics show that a person is many times safer traveling on public transit than in an automobile.¶ Quality of life. Public transportation fosters a more active¶ lifestyle, encouraging people to walk and bike to transit¶ stops. Walking to public transit maintains personal activity¶ needed for good health. The median daily walking time of¶ a transit user is 19 minutes, and 29 percent of all transit¶ users reach the recommended minimum of 30 minutes of¶ physical activity solely by walking to transit.¶ 40¶ A study of auto and rail commuters from New Jersey to¶ New York City found that the “auto commuter showed¶ significantly higher levels of reported stress, had more¶ negative mood, indicated the trip required significantly¶ more effort, and found their trip significantly less predictable than did train commuters.” Core Infrastructure Is Damaged – Need to Revive Economy with New Infrastructure James Heintz, Associate Research Professor, 2009, How Infrastructure Investments Support the U.S. Economy: Employment, Productivity and Growth http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/green_economics/PERI_Infrastructure_Investments The United States system of civilian public infrastructure has deteriorated badly over the past generation. The breaching of New Orleans’ water levees in 2005 in the wake of Hurricane ¶ Katrina and the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in 2007 offered tragic testimony ¶ to this long-acknowledged but still neglected reality. After this generation of neglect, the project of rebuilding our infrastructure now needs to be embraced as a first-tier economic policy priority, and not simply to prevent repetitions of the ¶ disasters in New Orleans and Minneapolis. The more general point is that infrastructure investments are essential for the functioning of the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, total public assets, excluding defense, were valued at $8.2 ¶ trillion in 2007. This represents approximately 50 percent of the stock of all non-residential private assets—a formidable asset base which underpins the national economy. ¶ Core economic infrastructure—in the areas of energy, transportation, and water and ¶ sewerage—is particularly important in maintaining economic performance. However, the ¶ rate of public investment in these core areas began falling in the 1970s and has not returned ¶ to its previous levels since then. As an average since 1980, the growth of infrastructure ¶ investment has lagged behind overall economic growth. The result has been a worsening ¶ infrastructure deficit and mounting investment needs. ****Public transportation has big effects – economic and environmental. APTA 2008, Public Transportation Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Conserves Energy, Greenhouse Brochure, http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/greenhouse_brochure.pdf -AF Those who choose to ride public transportation reduce their carbon footprint and conserve energy by eliminating travel that would have otherwise been made in a private vehicle. The result is fewer vehicle miles of travel and reduced emissions. A single person, commuting alone by car, who switches a 20-mile round trip commute to existing public transportation, can reduce his or her annual CO2 emissions by 4,800 pounds per year, equal to a 10% reduction in all greenhouse gases produced by a typical two-adult, two-car household. By eliminating one car and taking public transportation instead of driving, a savings of up to 30% of carbon dioxide emissions can be realized. Public transportation use reduces congestion. Public transportation serves some of the most congested travel corridors and regions in the country. Increased use of public transportation in these areas eases congestion; as a result, automobiles traveling in these same corridors achieve greater fuel efficiency. Public transportation use is one of the most effective actions individuals can take. Public transportation offers an immediate alternative for individuals seeking to reduce their energy use and carbon footprints. This action far exceeds the benefits of other energy saving household activities, such as using energy efficient light bulbs or adjusting thermostats. Public transportation gives people energy efficient choices. Public transportation reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions without reducing the mobility so vital to our nation’s economic health and our citizens’ quality of life. The increasing cost of fuel makes driving private vehicles even more prohibitive for many. Public transportation households save an average of $6,251 every year 3 —even more as the price of fuel rises. Public transportation is essential to energy efficient land use patterns. Efficient land use produces results far beyond the immediate benefit of increased use of public transportation. It has the potential to significantly change the way we live and travel, reducing our individual carbon footprints while preserving and enhancing our mobility. • Higher densities allow for closer proximity of housing, employment and retail, reducing driving distances and enabling communities to plan for and support alternative travel options. • In many central business districts, trips taken for shopping, dining or other non-commuting purposes are often made on foot—even by those who drive to work. • Higher density development—including transit-oriented development (TOD), multi-use buildings, and compact apartments and office space—is more energy efficient and extends public transportation’s contribution by integrating it with other sectors of our economy. This indirect “leverage effect” of public transportation is estimated, conservatively, at three to four times the direct effect of transit service. With this leverage effect, transit is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 37 million metric tons annually. In addition, public transportation reduces energy consumption by the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year, the equivalent of 320 million cars filling up—almost 900,000 times a day.6 Public Transportation Requires Investment to Further Reduce CO2 Emissions and Conserve Energy Protect and preserve public transportation service where it exists today. Public transportation ridership has increased by 30% since 1995—a growth rate more than twice that of population, and greater than vehicle miles of travel. As transit ridership has increased, a number of systems are struggling to maintain the quality of assets and consequently the quality and reliability of service. Systems must be adequately funded to allow people who are choosing public transportation, more than 10 billion trips annually, to stay on public transportation. Expand capacity of existing public transportation services. In many parts of the country, public transportation systems are operating beyond their design capacity. With future annual ridership growth projected at 3.5% annually, it will be difficult for a number of these systems to carry additional riders without significant new investment. Systems that are investing to expand capacity and attract new riders include: • Charlotte, NC, recently opened its first modern light rail system. • The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is in the process of constructing the Second Avenue Subway Line to relieve severe crowding. • Cleveland’s bus rapid transit system is expected to open in late 2008. • Salt Lake City is expanding its light rail and will soon add commuter rail. Expand the geographic coverage of public transportation services. According to U.S. Census data, 46% of American households do not have access to any public transportation.7 Public transportation must expand geographically to capture shifts in population, both within regions and across the country. Individuals cannot be asked to reduce their vehicle miles of travel without options. On a national scale, those regions experiencing rapid increases in population must have the resources available to enable public transportation to viably serve local travel demands. Public transportation agencies are reducing their carbon footprints—even more can be done with additional investment. • The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is investing in improvements to several maintenance facilities that will use solar energy. • In Portland, OR, Tri-Met has implemented procedures to reduce idling and improve vehicle maintenance, lowering vehicle fuel use by 10%. • Throughout the country, bus systems are adding hybrid diesel-electric vehicles. • In Grand Rapids, MI, The Rapid was the first system to construct a LEED-certified facility. • Metro in Cincinnati, OH, runs its entire 390-bus fleet on a blend of 50% soy-based biodiesel and 50% regular diesel fuel. Climate change and energy legislation should specifically target public transportation as a national priority. Public Transportation:Is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 37 million metric tons annually. Saves fuel, reduces an individual’s carbon footprint, and reduces congestion. Provides an immediate option individuals can take to reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Use by solo commuter a switching his/her commute from a private vehicle can reduce CO2 emissions by 20 pounds per day—more than 4,800 pounds in a year. Use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually—more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day. Provides an affordable alternative to driving. Households that use public transportation save an average of $6,251 every year. Ridership has increased 30% since 1995, with more than 10 billion trips taken annually. Is a national priority that should be specifically targeted by climate change and energy legislation. We all have a stake in expanding public transportation use. CO2 levels are on the rise—expansion of overall US transit is key Center for Neighborhood Technology, a leader in promoting urban sustainability, ’03 (COMBATING GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY FINAL REPORT; travelmatters.org; http://www.travelmatters.org/about/final-report.pdf) A majority of scientists now agree that the earth’s climate is warming, as indicated by a¶ rise in the average surface temperature of the earth. Positive (warming) climate change is¶ thought to be the result of human-generated emissions, principally of carbon dioxide (CO2).¶ Carbon dioxide, like the greenhouse gases methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) allows solar¶ radiation to pass through the atmosphere, but prevents surface radiation from escaping to outer¶ space, effectively “trapping” it, leading to an overall increase in surface temperature. The¶ observational evidence for positive climate change is circumstantial, but extensive: direct¶ measurement has established that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased since the¶ industrial revolution and the related surge in fossil fuel consumption. The gas physics behind the¶ “heat-trapping” greenhouse effect is not disputed, and the man-made exacerbation of the¶ greenhouse effect is considered to be very likely. The ultimate effects, however, remain¶ uncertain. The premise of the report, based on a review of climate change science summarized¶ in Chapter 2, is that enough is now known, despite the uncertainties of measurement and¶ forecasting, to warrant prudent actions to moderate or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.¶ Much of what can be done in this regard will have the multiple effect of improving air quality, in¶ addition to improving human physical health and increasing fuel efficiency. While improving¶ personal and transit vehicle fuel efficiency is one tactic in any future greenhouse gas reduction¶ strategy, another equally important tactic involves expanding the overall share of transit in U.S.¶ transportation. It is with such transit-related strategies that this report is most concerned. Travelling by transit plays a major role in improving our nation’s environmental quality Shapiro, Hassett, Arnold published economists ’02 (Robert J. Shapiro, Harvard University; Kevin A. Hassett, Columbia Business School; Frank S. Arnold, Harvard University; Conserving Energy and Preserving¶ the Environment: The Role of Public¶ Transportation; archives.eesi.org; http://archives.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/Shapiro%20Study.pdf) The role of transportation in our nation’s energy consumption and environmental quality is¶ immense. Americans use more energy and generate more pollution in their daily lives than they¶ do in the production of all the goods in the economy, the operations of all commercial¶ enterprises, or the running of their homes. Any serious effort to reduce our dependence on¶ foreign oil and make significant environmental progress must address the way Americans travel.¶ The vital role of public transportation in improving energy efficiency and the environment is¶ often under-appreciated. With its fuel and pollution advantages, increased use of transit offers¶ the most effective strategy available for reducing energy consumption and improving the¶ environment without imposing new taxes, government mandates, or regulations on the economy¶ or consumers.¶ Public transportation needs to be an essential element in sound national energy and¶ environmental policies. Potential threats to the supply and price of foreign oil as a result of¶ terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, and OPEC decisions underscore the need for a public¶ transportation strategy that reduces our nation’s dependence on imported oil. Likewise, ongoing¶ efforts to reduce harmful emissions from our air can be more effective when they include ways¶ to increase use of public transportation.¶ “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation”¶ demonstrates that traveling by transit, per person and per mile, uses significantly less energy and¶ produces substantially less pollution than comparable travel by private vehicles. The findings¶ provide clear and indisputable evidence that public transportation is saving energy and reducing¶ pollution in America today -- and that increased usage could have an even greater impact in the¶ future.¶ Current Benefits¶ At our current levels of use, the study found public transportation is reducing Americans’¶ energy bills and keeping the air cleaner. For example:¶ Energy savings from public transportation contribute to our national and economic security by¶ making America less dependent on foreign oil or on new sources for drilling.¶ • Public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline a year, or 45 million¶ barrels of oil. These savings equal about one month’s oil imports from Saudi Arabia and¶ three months of the energy that Americans use to heat, cool and operate their homes, or half¶ the energy used to manufacture all computers and electronic equipment in America. Use of public transportation reduces our nation’s dependence on foreign oil—dissipating potential threats of terrorism Shapiro, Hassett, Arnold published economists ’02 (Robert J. Shapiro, Harvard University; Kevin A. Hassett, Columbia Business School; Frank S. Arnold, Harvard University; Conserving Energy and Preserving¶ the Environment: The Role of Public¶ Transportation; archives.eesi.org; http://archives.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/Shapiro%20Study.pdf) Public transportation needs to be an essential element in sound national energy and¶ environmental policies. Potential threats to the supply and price of foreign oil as a result of¶ terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, and OPEC decisions underscore the need for a public¶ transportation strategy that reduces our nation’s dependence on imported oil. Likewise, ongoing¶ efforts to reduce harmful emissions from our air can be more effective when they include ways¶ to increase use of public transportation.¶ “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation”¶ demonstrates that traveling by transit, per person and per mile, uses significantly less energy and¶ produces substantially less pollution than comparable travel by private vehicles. The findings¶ provide clear and indisputable evidence that public transportation is saving energy and reducing¶ pollution in America today -- and that increased usage could have an even greater impact in the¶ future.¶ Current Benefits¶ At our current levels of use, the study found public transportation is reducing Americans’¶ energy bills and keeping the air cleaner. For example:¶ Energy savings from public transportation contribute to our national and economic security by¶ making America less dependent on foreign oil or on new sources for drilling.¶ • Public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline a year, or 45 million¶ barrels of oil. These savings equal about one month’s oil imports from Saudi Arabia and¶ three months of the energy that Americans use to heat, cool and operate their homes, or half¶ the energy used to manufacture all computers and electronic equipment in America. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|