Op-ed: Thinking too narrowly about emissions risks undermining public transit, carbon reduction

[Damocles]

Many users of this forum are rightly concerned with the energy efficiency of our transportation system as it pertains to the wider effort to reduce our collective carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore mitigate the worst consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Those who approach the problem of decarbonization and emissions reductions do so with the most noble of intentions, and do earnestly have the concerns of themselves and their neighbors at heart. This post will not discount, defame, or de-legitimize those efforts, and I will not engage in such counterproductive behavior.

Instead, this post will mainly be my perspective on the issue of public transit and emissions reduction from a supply chain and operations management point-of-view, including the different stages of requirement generation, sourcing, procurement, operations, service provision, process improvement, maintenance, sustainment, staffing, and retirement. I will make the case that in attempting to aggressively reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, we often have far too narrow a perspective on public transit, which leads us to solutions that are either far too limited in scope, too difficult to access for the majority of residents in a mainly suburban country, or unlikely to gain the political backing and support to be sustainable in the long term.

Firstly, we must understand that transportation is not an end unto itself, but an action taken which supports other economic activity. The choice to go somewhere using a method of transportation, necessarily, implies an increase in demand for transportation as a service. In making a decision about how to satisfy transportation needs in this country dominated by Levittowns, most people are left with what amounts to a Hobson's choice: either get in your car and drive 25 minutes or so to wherever it is you are going, or not take that trip at all. In making the latter choice, we are faced with losses on multiple fronts: a loss in jobs taken, a loss in retail purchases, a loss in chance meetings and social outings, and a loss in other trips that are, if anything, necessary for our urban and suburban residents to live full lives.

Secondly, we must understand that the methods we use to satisfy our collective transportation needs are not fungible: 150 people traveling in their own, private cars is a much, *much* different transportation problem than 150 people traveling in three 50-passenger buses. The former will necessitate the construction of enormously expensive stroads, elaborate congestion control schemes, and wildly over-engineered interchanges and intersections that drive up the cost of maintaining this public infrastructure. The latter just requires perhaps a dedicated lane and some differentiated signal timings to transport the same number of people, while actually reducing congestion for motorists.

Seen in this light, then, we uncover several "hidden" operational requirements for public transit agencies to make a meaningful impact in this space, both from an economic and a carbon emissions reduction perspective. It must not only be available in the first place, but it must also be flexible enough to access a wide variety of destinations, it must be convenient enough for most people to access and use it, it must be frequent and visible enough for most people to subconsciously consider it as a viable alternative, it must be reliable enough for most people to plan and integrate its use into their daily routines, and it must be adaptable to a wide variety of operational conditions and contexts. It must also do this to such an extent that it not only induces a substantial mode shift from private cars towards public transit, but also reduces transportation barriers to economic opportunity to such an extent that its presence confers a net benefit to the metropolitan economy.

When turning our attention to procuring the appropriate transit vehicle, then, we are faced with a choice, assuming that the procurement budget from the state government is fixed: do we procure many diesel buses with lower initial capital expenditure costs and higher operational costs, or do we procure a few electric buses with higher initial capital expenditure costs and lower operational costs? This is a classic procurement dilemma that many municipalities are faced with, assuming that the political will to constitute, fund, and operate a transit agency exists.

A well-meaning public transit advocate and environmentalist may well advocate for the latter solution, since this reduces direct emissions from the vehicle itself, and such reductions in this context are a noble goal. However, I contend that this may prove to be short-sighted. Reductions in the available number of transit vehicles due to higher capital expenditure costs mean the total size of the fleet may be limited. This, in turn, reduces the total amount of seating capacity in the fleet. This, in turn, reduces number of available routes that the agency could run. This, in turn, reduces the number of people who could be served by public transit. This, in turn, reduces the number of people who may be persuaded to ditch their car in favor of public transit.

Ultimately, this means that more people are still using carbon-intensive private cars to meet their transportation needs, despite the well-meaning intention behind using electric buses to reduce direct carbon dioxide emissions from the public transit fleet. Indeed, the choice is not between 150 people in three 50-passenger diesel buses, and 150 people in three 50-passenger electric buses. Instead, the choice is between 150 people in three 50-passenger diesel buses, and 150 people in one 50-passenger electric bus, with the remaining 100 people still using their private cars. I would hazard a guess that the former is ultimately the one that still ends up reducing aggregate carbon dioxide emissions the most, especially considering budgetary impacts and operational considerations - despite the vehicles themselves still emitting exhaust.

This seemingly simple procurement decision, therefore, induces a wide range of effects on the overall viability and utility of the public transit system that may not be so obvious on first glance. It is simply throwing public money away if we cannot build a system which will gain widespread adoption, and one of those barriers may well be the huge capital costs involved. Obviously, procurement is only part of the puzzle to building resilient, convenient, flexible, and environmentally friendly public transit systems that help us meet our emissions reductions targets. I hope that this may have given you some food for thought, and that you may discuss more of this in the replies. As always, thank you for riding with me through this post, and I hope to see you soon.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Good post.