|
Environmental__ Main article: Sustainable transport The Bus Rapid Transit of Metz uses a diesel-electric hybrid driving system, developed by Belgian Van Hool manufacturer.[39] Although there is continuing debate as to the true efficiency of different modes of transportation, mass transit is generally regarded as significantly more energy efficient than other forms of travel. A 2002 study by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute found that public transportation in the U.S uses approximately half the fuel required by cars, SUV's and light trucks. In addition, the study noted that "private vehicles emit about 95 percent more carbon monoxide, 92 percent more volatile organic compounds and about twice as much carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide than public vehicles for every passenger mile traveled".[40] A 2004 study from Lancaster University concluded that there was no environmental benefit to be gained from persuading car or plane travelers to switch to trains. Environmental group Friends of the Earth were skeptical of the findings, claiming the results are not in line with previous studies.[41] The study showed that trains had failed to keep up with the advances that the automotive and aviation industries had made in improved fuel efficiency. Express trains travelling from London to Edinburgh consumed 11.5 litres more fuel per seat than a modern diesel car and Pendolino trains weigh more per seat than the Airbus A380 airliner. A representative from Modern Railways magazine is reported as having said:[citation needed] "I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get." Studies have shown that there is a strong inverse correlation between urban population density and energy consumption per capita, and that public transport could facilitate increased urban population densities, and thus reduce travel distances and fossil fuel consumption.[42] A hybrid electric bus in Toronto Supporters of the green movement usually advocate public transportation, because it offers decreased airborne pollution compared to automobiles. A study conducted in Milan, Italy in 2004 during and after a transportation strike serves to illustrate the impact that mass transportation has on the environment. Air samples were taken between 2 and 9 January, and then tested for Methane, Carbon Monoxide, non-methane Hydrocarbons (NMHCs), and other gases identified as harmful to the environment. The figure below is a computer simulation showing the results of the study “with 2 January showing the lowest concentrations as a result of decreased activity in the city during the holiday season. 9 January showed the highest NMHC concentrations because of increased vehicular activity in the city due to a public transportation strike.”[43] Based on the benefits of public transport, the green movement has impacted public policy. For example, the state of New Jersey released Getting to Work: Reconnecting Jobs with Transit.[44] This initiative attempts to relocate new jobs into areas with higher public transportation accessibility. The initiative cites the use of public transportation as being a means of reducing traffic congestion, providing an economic boost to the areas of job relocation, and most importantly, contributing to a green environment by reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Using Public transportation can result in a reduction of an individual’s carbon footprint. A single person, 20-mile round trip by car can be replaced using public transportation and result in a net CO2 emissions reduction of 4,800 lbs/year.[45] Using public transportation saves CO2 emissions in more ways than simply travel as public transportation can help to alleviate traffic congestion as well as promote more efficient land use. When all three of these are considered, it is estimated that 37 million metric tones of CO2 will be saved annually.[45] Another study claims that using public transit instead of private in the U.S. in 2005 would have reduced CO2 emissions by 3.9 million metric tones and that the resulting traffic congestion reduction accounts for an additional 3.0 million metric tons of CO2 saved.[46] This is a total savings of about 6.9 million metric tones per year given the 2005 values. In order to compare energy impact of public transportation to private transportation, the amount of energy per passenger mile must be calculated. The reason that comparing the energy expenditure per person is necessary is to normalize the data for easy comparison. Here, the units are in per 100 p-km (read as person kilometer or passenger kilometer). In terms of energy consumption, public transportation is better than individual transport in a personal vehicle.[47] In England, bus and rail are popular methods of public transportation, especially London. Rail provides rapid movement into and out of the city of London while busing helps to provide transport within the city itself. As of 2006–2007, the total energy cost of London’s trains was 15 kWh per 100 p-km, about 5 times better than a personal car.[48] For busing in London, it was 32 kWh per 100 p-km, or about 2.5 times that of a personal car.[48] This includes lighting, depots, inefficiencies due to capacity (i.e., the train or bus may not be operating at full capacity at all times), and other inefficiencies. Efficiencies of transport in Japan in 1999 were 68 kWh per 100 p-km for a personal car, 19 kWh per 100 p-km for a bus, 6 kWh per 100 p-km for rail, 51 kWh per 100 p-km for air, and 57 kWh per 100 p-km for sea.[48] These numbers from either country can be used in energy comparison calculations and/or life cycle assessment calculations. Public transportation also provides an arena to test environmentally friendly fuel alternatives, such as hydrogen-powered vehicles. Swapping out materials to create lighter public transportation vehicles with the same or better performance will increase environmental friendliness of public transportation vehicles while maintaining current standards or improving them. Informing the public about the positive environmental effects of using public transportation in addition to pointing out the potential economic benefit is an important first step towards making a difference. Land use__ Traffic jam in São Paulo Urban space is a precious commodity and public transport utilises it more efficiently than a car dominant society, allowing cities to be built more compactly than if they were dependent on automobile transport.[49] If public transport planning is at the core of urban planning, it will also force cities to be built more compactly to create efficient feeds into the stations and stops of transport.[50] This will at the same time allow the creation of centers around the hubs, serving passengers' daily commercial needs and public services. This approach significantly reduces urban sprawl. Social__ An important social role played by public transport is to ensure that all members of society are able to travel, not just those with a driving license and access to an automobile—which include groups such as the young, the old, the poor, those with medical conditions, and people banned from driving. Automobile dependency is a name given by policy makers to places where those without access to a private vehicle do not have access to independent mobility.[51] Above that, public transportation opens to its users the possibility of meeting other people, as no concentration is diverted from interacting with fellow-travelers due to any steering activities. Adding to the above-said, public transport becomes a location of inter-social encounters across all boundaries of social, ethnic and other types of affiliation. Economic__ Public transport allows transport at an economy of scale not available through private transport. Advocates of public transport claim that investing in mass transit will ultimately reduce the total transport cost for the public. Time saved can also be significant, as less cars can translate to less congestion, and faster speeds for remaining motorists. Transit-oriented development can both improve the usefulness and efficiency of the public transit system as well as result in increased business for commercial developments. Because of the increased traffic and access to transit systems, putting in public transit frequently has a positive effect on real estate prices. For example, the Washington DC Metro system has increased land desirability around its stations, and The Hong Kong metro MTR generates a profit by redeveloping land around and above its stations. Much public opposition to new transit construction can be based on the concern about the impact on neighborhoods of this new economic development.[citation needed] Few localities have the ability to seize and reassign development rights to a private transit operator, as Hong Kong has done. Investment in public transport also has secondary positive effects on the local economy, with between $4 and $9 of economic activity resulting from every dollar spent.[1] Many businesses rely on access to a transit system, in particular in cities and countries where access to cars is less widespread, businesses which require large amounts of people going to a same place may not be able to accommodate a large number of cars (concert venues, sport stadia, airports, exhibitions centres,...), or businesses where people are not able to use a car (bars, hospitals, or industries in the tourism sector whose customers may not have their cars). Transit systems also have an effect on derived businesses: commercial websites have been founded, such as Hopstop.com, that give directions through mass transit systems; in some cities, such as London, products themed on the local transport system are a popular tourist souvenir. Research in the Washington, DC area shows that public transport does a better job of providing high-skill residents with access to high-skill jobs than it does mid-skill residents to mid-skill jobs and low-skill residents to low-skill jobs.[52] However, public transport projects frequently have very large upfront costs, requiring large investments from either local government or private investors. Initial estimates of project cost and timescale are frequently underestimated, and nearly all public transport requires government subsidies and/or direct government support in order to remain operational. The existence of a transit system can lower land values in some cases, either through influence on a region's demographics and crime rate (actual or perceived), or simply through the ambient noise and other discomforts the system creates. |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 22:04 , Processed in 0.140649 second(s), 16 queries .
