National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14385.
×
Page 82

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CURRENT PRACTICES IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SAVINGS FROM TRANSIT SUMMARY Transit agencies have a key role to play in reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. Buses, trains, vans, and ferries can move passengers using less fuel than private vehicles can. Less fuel used generally means fewer GHGs emitted. Most U.S. transit agencies are already helping to reduce GHG emissions just by operating their current services, but transit agencies can further reduce GHG emissions and achieve other important goals by implementing strategies to increase ridership and improve the efficiency of their operations. This study describes the role of transit agencies in reducing GHG emissions and cata- logs the current practices of a sample of agencies. Research for this study included a lit- erature review, a survey of 62 transit agencies, with 41 responding (66%); and interviews with three agencies. Climate change is the broadest environmental challenge of the 21st century. Conse- quences of climate change expected in the coming years include rising sea levels, increases in average temperatures, changes in patterns of precipitation, and increases in the intensity and frequency of severe weather. These climatic shifts may reduce crop yields, increase the risk of invasive species, exacerbate drought conditions, and threaten endangered species. The built environment is also at risk. Human settlements in coastal and low-lying areas are particularly vulnerable to changes in sea level and to storm and precipitation events. Increases in global concentrations of GHGs, largely the result of human activities, are the predominant cause of climate change. Transportation is one of the largest sources of GHG emissions in the United States. Public transportation stands out as an important partial solution to the problem. Pas- senger travel in cars and trucks alone generates nearly two-thirds of transportation's GHG emissions in the United States. Public transportation can reduce these emissions by trans- porting passengers more efficiently than private vehicles can. Transit reduces GHG emis- sions in four principal ways. Transit displaces emissions from other modes by: 1. Reducing miles traveled in private vehicles; 2. Reducing on-road congestion, thereby reducing fuel burned when vehicles idle on congested roadways; and 3. Facilitating compact development patterns that lead to less GHG-intensive travel. Transit agencies can also: 4. Reduce the emissions that they generate from their vehicles and facilities. The net impact of transit on GHG emissions depends on the balance of emissions dis- placed and emissions released by vehicles and facilities. A crucial determinant of transit's net impact is the passenger load on individual transit services. Ridership on vehicles must

2 be high enough that more emissions are displaced from private travel than are emitted from the tailpipe of the transit vehicle. Balancing emissions produced and displaced, many transit agencies are already net reducers of GHG emissions. The U.S. transit industry as a whole produces an annual net reduction of GHG emissions roughly equivalent to emissions from all transportation in the state of Washington. In addition to the benefits of their existing services, every transit agency surveyed is plan- ning or implementing strategies that can further reduce GHG emissions. Interest in these strategies is widespread across agencies, and agencies are generally aware of the impact such strategies can have on GHG emissions. Types of strategies are as follows: · Expanding transit service (78% of respondents planning or implementing)--Agencies can increase ridership by expanding route coverage, increasing service frequency, and extending operating hours. These strategies will reduce GHG emissions as long as displaced emissions are not outweighed by higher emissions from transit vehicles. · Increasing vehicle passenger loads (93% of respondents planning or implementing)-- Strategies that boost passenger loads allow agencies to increase the emissions they displace without increasing emissions from transit vehicles, and without substantial new capital and operating expenditures. These strategies include improving transit access, comfort, and safety; improving service speed and reliability; providing transit information, marketing, and incentives to use transit; and optimizing existing transit routes (which could include reducing service). · Reducing roadway congestion (88% of respondents planning or implementing)--Most transit strategies that mitigate congestion are the same strategies that increase transit ridership. Some transit agencies are partnering with local, state, and federal govern- ments to provide transit service targeted to reduce congestion on specific corridors. · Promoting compact development (70% of respondents planning or implementing)--Tran- sit agencies can promote compact development in specific nodes around transit stations and by contributing to local and regional development and planning processes. These types of strategies typically require cooperation with other local and regional agencies. · Alternative fuels and vehicle types (90% of respondents planning or implementing)-- Some alternative propulsion technologies emit fewer GHGs per mile of travel than do conventional vehicles. Agencies can purchase new vehicles that use alternative propul- sion technologies. In some cases, alternative fuels can be used in existing vehicles. · Vehicle operations and maintenance (90% of respondents planning or implementing)-- Improvements to existing vehicles and changes to operating practices can increase the fuel economy of vehicles and thereby reduce GHG emissions. · Construction and maintenance (73% of respondents planning or implementing)-- Strategies that reduce emissions from construction and maintenance are those that reduce the use of virgin materials or reduce the use of fossil fuels in construction and maintenance processes. · Reducing emissions from facilities and nonrevenue vehicles (83% )--Agencies can reduce the use of fossil-based energy in their facilities through a variety of energy- saving measures and by using electricity generated from renewable sources. Agencies can help employees reduce their own GHG emissions. Analytical and planning processes related to GHG emissions are still nascent fields in the transit industry, and in the transportation industry as a whole. Major findings from the literature review and survey include the following: · GHG emissions are still a peripheral concern for transit agencies. Less than half of survey respondents said that reducing GHG emissions was a principal factor in pursu- ing any given strategy. Increasing ridership, reducing costs, and complying with envi- ronmental regulations were generally more important factors. Agencies are unlikely to

3 pursue strategies for the sole purpose of reducing GHG emissions, but many strate- gies that reduce GHG emissions have substantial co-benefits. · Guidance on calculating GHG emissions displaced by transit is still under devel- opment. The most robust methodologies use separate calculations for emissions displaced by mode shift, reduced congestion, and compact development. APTA's "Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit" is the first analytical guidance issued for transit agencies. There is particular uncer- tainty around techniques to estimate the impact of transit on compact development. New and better guidance may lead to greater recognition of displaced emissions by reporting organizations. · Many agencies have estimated some part of their impact on GHG emissions, or have had calculations performed by a partner agency. More than one-third of survey respondents have estimated or are estimating emissions generated by their opera- tions. Nearly half of respondents have estimated or are estimating some displaced emissions. Agencies most commonly estimate the mode shift effect of their services. Fewer agencies have estimated the benefits they provide through reduced congestion or compact development. · More research is needed on methodologies to estimate changes in emissions from specific improvements to transit. Most studies that have analyzed the impact of transit on GHG emissions have focused on existing services. Many of these are limited to analyses at the state or national levels. Very few analyses have covered a full array of strategies that transit agencies can implement to reduce GHG emissions. Even fewer have assessed the cost-effectiveness of such strategies. · Some transit agencies have initiated formal or semiformal efforts to address GHG emissions. A handful of agencies include GHG emissions in internal sustainability plans or have joined sustainability efforts organized by APTA and the International Association of Public Transport. A few agencies have drafted or plan to draft their own climate action plans. More than two-thirds of agencies have participated in talks or joint efforts with other transportation stakeholders on the topic of climate change. · A study on best practices, opportunities, and challenges for integrating climate change into transit planning would be helpful. Many transit agencies are struggling with how objectives to reduce GHG emissions will fit with their traditional planning objectives. Several recent studies have examined how metropolitan planning agen- cies and state departments of transportation integrate climate change into planning objectives and practices. No parallel research has been conducted on transit agencies and transit planning. Transit agencies can expect federal, state, and local policies on GHG emissions to affect the way they do business in the future. Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents are located in states and cities that have policies related to GHG emissions, including GHG reduction targets, vehicle-miles-traveled reduction targets, and climate action plans. Federal legisla- tion on GHG emissions is expected in the near future. These policies present challenges, as well as funding opportunities, for transit agencies. The uncertainty of future regulations could be addressed in research studies: · Transit agencies could benefit from focused research and guidance on new funding opportunities related to GHG emissions. A few agencies are actively considering new funding opportunities that might be created by emissions trading schemes or government grant programs. Such opportunities could become an important source of funding. · Some agencies are unclear about how reporting their emissions might affect their abil- ity to receive credit for current or future reductions. A research study could describe the risks and opportunities that reporting of emissions provides to transit agencies. Such a study might also engage third-party reporting agencies to think more criti- cally about the needs of transit agencies in reporting their emissions.

4 Many transit agencies see addressing GHG emissions as a challenge. Survey respondents see funding and staffing for GHG planning initiatives as the biggest obstacles. Uncertainty surrounding analysis methodologies, and a general lack of tools and guidance are also con- cerns. Still, many agencies are taking important first steps to further their role in reducing GHG emissions. Using existing research, agencies can begin to account for the benefits that their services provide to GHG emissions. Transit agencies can also develop new strategies that both reduce GHG emissions and meet other agency priorities.

5 CHAPTER one INTRODUCTION SYNTHESIS PURPOSE practices for planning and policies related to GHG emis- sions. This synthesis report draws on existing research to As concern about climate change grows in the United States, provide this knowledge base for transit agencies. all sectors of the economy are under pressure to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the change. The transportation sector is a major source of GHG impacts that their transportation habits have on GHG emis- emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly one- sions and global climate change. Public transportation is one quarter of the country's emissions. Policy makers, planners, option that Americans can take to reduce their GHG emis- and transportation agencies are increasingly considering sions. Transit agencies should be fully aware of this benefit how the transportation sector can reduce its GHG emissions and be able to capitalize on it to attract more riders and to in the short and long terms. make the case for more funding. TRB's 1997 Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future (1), identified transit investments as one of a hand- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ful of strategies to reduce and manage GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Subsequent reports from TRB, Research for this synthesis included a literature review, a APTA, and a number of universities, consulting firms, non- survey of transit agencies, and follow-up interviews with profit organizations, and individuals have continued to find selected agencies. The literature review covered a full range that public transportation reduces GHG emissions from the of research produced on the topic in the last decade. Sources transportation sector. included previous reports from TRB, APTA, and the FTA, as well as reports from universities, nonprofit organizations, The goal of reducing GHG emissions from the transporta- and consulting firms. National studies on the public trans- tion sector is a complex challenge with no one single solution. portation industry, as well as studies and reports from indi- Strategies needed to reduce emissions are based in technol- vidual states and transit agencies, were included. Ongoing ogy, planning, and policy. Transit agencies can contribute to research on the topic was identified through TRB's Research this goal by increasing ridership, boosting vehicle passenger in Progress (RIP) database, as well as through conversations load factors, and reducing their use of energy from fossil- with professionals in the field. based sources. This synthesis supplements the existing sub- stantial literature on these topics by explaining the benefits An original survey of transit agencies determined current of these and other strategies to reduce GHG emissions. practices related to reducing GHG emissions. The survey was developed and administered by means of a web-based The purpose of this synthesis report is to equip transit platform. Candidates for the survey were chosen based on agencies with knowledge of how their services and opera- agencies' expressed or likely interest in the topic. A range of tions specifically affect transportation GHG emissions. agencies of different sizes and geographies were included. Most transit agencies in the United States are already Candidates were identified with the help of panel mem- helping to reduce GHG emissions from transportation bers and APTA. Survey candidates were contacted largely just through their normal operations. Some agencies are through e-mail. Appendix A provides additional detail on actively seeking to further reduce GHG emissions. Other the survey process and a copy of the questionnaire. agencies are looking for guidance from policy makers and examples from their peers about how best to reduce GHG Respondents to the survey were transit agency person- emissions. This report provides agencies with a summary nel from such departments as environment, corporate and of the most current research and practices in reducing GHG public affairs, planning, operations and maintenance, civil emissions through public transportation. Transit agencies engineering, grants, energy and sustainability, business will benefit from the best information available about the development, safety, and risk management. Ultimately, specific ways that transit reduces GHG emissions, tech- 41 agencies responded, resulting in a 66% response rate. niques to estimate GHG emissions impacts of transit, and Responses were received from agencies in all geographic

6 regions of the United States, with a particularly high number pleted by only one individual within the organization. Thus, of responses from transit agencies in Florida. Figure 1 maps respondents may have answered questions that are outside the location of survey respondents. Agencies are grouped their areas of expertise. The reader should keep in mind that by size, as determined by annual passenger miles traveled individual responses reflect the respondent's best under- (PMT) in 2007. A full list of respondents to the survey is standing of his or her agency's activities and policies. provided in Appendix B. Based on information gleaned from the survey and litera- ture review, three transit agencies were selected for follow-up interviews. Agencies were selected for interviews based on their willingness to participate, their depth of experience with reducing GHG emissions, and their implementation of unique strategy types. Interviews with staff of these agen- cies were conducted over the phone. The results of these interviews are reported as case studies. REPORT ORGANIZATION This synthesis report is organized into eight chapters. Fol- lowing this introduction, chapter two provides a primer on the phenomenon of climate change and transportation's role in climate change. Chapter three describes the basic ways FIGURE 1 Map of survey respondents, by agency size (annual passenger miles traveled) [Source : Annual passenger that transit reduces GHG emissions. Chapter four describes miles traveled (PMT) from National Transit Database (2007)]. in greater detail the specific strategies that transit agen- cies can implement to reduce GHG emissions. Chapter five explains techniques to estimate the impact of transit and The survey included questions about a wide range of transit strategies on GHG emissions. Chapter six discusses topics such as long-range planning, transit facilities, envi- relevant planning and policy issues for transit agencies. ronmental functions, vehicle technologies, construction and Chapter seven presents three case studies of transit agen- maintenance, modeling and analyses, internal and external cies that have experience in planning and implementing GHG policies, and staffing. While some respondents con- measures to reduce GHG emissions. Chapter eight provides sulted other staff within their agencies to arrive at the best conclusions and suggestions for further research. answers to individual questions, many surveys were com-

7 CHAPTER two OUR CHANGING CLIMATE WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE? prevalent in the atmosphere. Other types of GHGs are more potent, though less common, than CO2. These include meth- Climate models predict that the global climate will shift ane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), in a number of ways over the next century. By 2100, we perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). are likely to see global average sea levels higher by 7 to 23 inches. Global average temperatures are expected to Climate scientists predict that global GHG emissions will rise by between 3.2°F and 7.2°F (2). Rainfall patterns are have to be reduced by 50% to 80% below 1990 levels by the likely to change, with some parts of the world becoming year 2050 to avoid the most catastrophic impacts associated wetter, especially during the winter months, and other parts with global temperature rise (3). An increasing number of becoming hotter and drier. The frequency and severity of nongovernmental organizations and U.S. states are now call- heat waves and storms may increase. Rising temperatures ing for this scale of reduction in emissions. and higher sea levels, the result of warming oceans and melting ice caps, are already observable in some areas over the last century. During the 20th century, global sea levels GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM PASSENGER TRAVEL rose about 5 to 9 in., and global average temperatures rose by about 1.4°F (2). In the United States, transportation is a leading source of the These phenomena are collectively known as climate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Figures change. Most climate scientists now agree that increases 2 and 3 show the relationship of transportation GHG emis- in global concentrations of GHGs, largely attributable to sions to other emissions sources. On-road transportation humans, are the predominant cause of climate change. accounts for more than a quarter of the United States' 7,150 Human activities, such as driving cars, producing and con- million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMtCO2e) annual suming energy, and clearing forests, are significant con- GHG emissions. Passenger travel in light-duty vehicles [cars, tributors to GHG emissions. The principal source of GHG sports utility vehicles (SUVs), and pickup trucks] accounts emissions from human activities is the combustion of fossil- for nearly two-thirds of U.S. transportation emissions. The based fuels, including oil, coal, and natural gas. remaining transportation emissions come from freight trucks and transportation by air and other modes. Public Climate change may have potentially catastrophic effects transportation also produces GHG emissions from buses, on both the natural and human environments as it dis- trains, and other transit vehicles, but these modes account rupts ecosystems and threatens buildings, infrastructure, for less than 1% of total emissions from the U.S. transporta- and human health. Expected shifts in climate may reduce tion sector, as calculated from 2005 U.S. transit emissions as crop yields, increase the risk of invasive species, exacer- estimated in Davis and Hale (4). [Total U.S. transportation bate drought conditions, and threaten endangered species. CO2 emissions in 2005 were 1,882 MMtCO2e, as reported The built environment is also at risk. Human settlements in by the EPA (5).] Transportation is also the fastest growing coastal and low-lying areas are particularly vulnerable to source of GHG emissions in the United States. From 1990 changes in sea level and to storm and precipitation events. to 2006, transportation emissions grew by 25%, although These areas will almost certainly be at higher risk from emissions have declined slightly since 2005. flooding as the climate changes. Transportation infrastruc- ture in particular will be threatened by shifts in the global Passenger travel in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks alone climate. Changes in temperatures, precipitation, and water accounts for about 18% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Ameri- levels threaten to strain asphalt roadways, railroads, air- cans use cars for the majority of trips to work, school, shop- ports, and shipping lanes beyond the design conditions they ping, and entertainment destinations, often driving alone. were built to withstand. Public transportation provides a lower-emitting alternative to car-based travel. GHG emissions per passenger mile are A number of GHGs contribute to global climate change. Of often substantially lower for public transportation than for these, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important and the most private vehicles.

8 FIGURE 2 U.S. GHG emissions by source, 2007. (Source : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990­2007, Apr. 2009). Note : "Other" includes rail, ships and boats, pipelines, and lubricants. FIGURE 3 U.S. GHG emissions by economic sector, 1990­2007 (with electricity distributed to end-use sectors) (Source : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990­2007, Apr. 2009). Figure 4 shows average emissions per passenger mile of U.S. transit services versus a single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). Transit emissions from each mode are lower than SOV emissions, because transit vehicles carry multiple pas- sengers at once. The relative GHG efficiency of transit vehi- cles is based on transit's higher occupancy rates. CO2 accounts for the vast majority of GHG emissions from transportation, making up approximately 95% of all GHG emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles. CO2 emitted from the tailpipes of vehicles is directly proportional to the amount of gasoline or diesel fuel consumed. These petro- leum-based fuels contain large amounts of carbon, which, when combusted, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere FIGURE 4 National average GHG emissions per passenger to form CO2. Vehicles also emit small amounts of CH4 and mile by mode (Source : Hodges, Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration, N2O from their tailpipes. Emissions of these gases depend on U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 2009.) the specific fuel and vehicle technologies, and on operating

9 conditions. Vehicles can also emit trace amounts of other CO2-equivalents (CO2e). CO2 equivalent measures of other GHGs, including HFCs and PFCs from air conditioning and greenhouse gases take into account the potency, or global refrigerated units and SF6 from electrical equipment. warming potential (GWP) of each gas. Table 10 in chapter five lists the potency of each gas. Emissions reported in this CO2 emissions are also the most easily estimated of GHGs. synthesis are provided in tons of CO2 or, if other gases are Discussion and analyses of GHG emissions from transporta- included in the figure, tons of CO2e. The term "GHG emis- tion are often limited to CO2 emissions. When other gases sions" refers to any or all GHGs. are included in calculations, they can be represented by

10 CHAPTER THREE ROLE OF TRANSIT IN REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Transit agencies can both reduce GHG emissions from the Figure 5 diagrams the impacts of transit on GHG emis- transportation sector and reduce their own GHG emis- sions, including emissions displaced by and emitted by tran- sions. Transit reduces, or displaces, emissions from other sit agencies. The following sections explain in more detail modes of transportation in three ways. First, buses, vans, the role of transit agencies in reducing their own emissions trains, and ferries can move more people with less fuel and displacing GHG emissions through travel mode shift, compared with private cars. By shifting passengers from mitigation of congestion, and compact development. private to public modes, transit saves energy and reduces GHG emissions. Second, transit service can reduce con- gestion on roadways and thus reduce emissions from vehi- TRAVEL MODE SHIFT cles idling in congested conditions. Third, transit service facilitates compact development patterns that allow people Shifting trips from private cars to transit vehicles is the most to walk and bike instead of drive, thereby saving energy direct way that transit service reduces GHG emissions. Each and reducing emissions. In addition to displacing emis- time someone decides to take an existing bus or train and sions from other modes of transportation, transit agencies leave his/her car at home, GHG emissions from that trip are also produce some GHG emissions of their own from their reduced immediately. Most Americans drive alone to work, use of electricity and vehicle fuels. Furthermore, transit an average distance of 10 mi each way. The average commuter agencies can also reduce and minimize their own GHG driving this distance can reduce GHG emissions from her car emissions by using efficient vehicles and alternative fuels, by 20 lb a day, or 4,800 lb per year, by switching to public and decreasing the impact of their auxiliary functions such transit (4). The more people transit agencies can lure out of as construction and maintenance. their cars and onto more efficient trains, buses, and other tran- sit vehicles, the more GHG emissions are reduced. FIGURE 5 Components of transit's impact on GHG emissions (Source : Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit: Draft, APTA Climate Change Standards Working Group, Mar. 2008, p. 12).

11 FIGURE 6 Per passenger GHG emissions of transportation options (Source : Hodges, Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 2009). (Note : Average vehicle occupancy for commute trips is 1.14. Average occupancy for all trips is 1.63. As reported by the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) (2001). Passenger loads on transit vehicles, or load factors, are an are not the only benefit, or even the main benefit, that transit important determinant of transit's net impact on GHG emis- systems provide (6 ). For example, CARTA provides travel sions. If a transit vehicle is largely empty, its efficiency is choices for those who cannot or choose not to drive, includ- eroded. Since most transit vehicles release GHG emissions ing people of low income, children, and seniors. CARTA from their own tailpipes, a bus with only a few passengers can should not be viewed as a failure just because it increases net actually emit more GHGs per mile than those passengers would GHG emissions. CARTA may have opportunities to reduce emit traveling in their own cars. Figure 6 shows the effect of GHG emissions by increasing ridership on its existing ser- vehicle occupancy on the GHG efficiency of various passenger vice or by restructuring its service to focus on more heavily transportation modes. A bus, train, or vanpool with average used routes, but the agency must consider impacts on the occupancy is more GHG efficient per passenger mile than an local community in addition to impacts on GHG emissions. average auto trip to work. On the other hand, a carpool of four people rivals or exceeds the GHG efficiency of an average bus, U.S. transit agencies can directly reduce GHG emissions train, or vanpool, but when transit vehicles fill all their seats, by increasing ridership on their existing services, so that more they are more efficient than a four-person carpool. A typical people leave their cars at home on a daily basis. Currently, the 40-seat diesel bus must carry around seven passengers at a time United States falls far short of other industrial countries in to be more efficient than the alternative of SOVs. The average transit ridership. A 2002 study found that the net impact of heavy-rail car must fill 19% of its seats to be more efficient than the travel mode shift induced by U.S. transit, weighed against an automobile carrying an average passenger load of 1.63 (3). emissions from transit, is a savings of 7.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMtCO2) per year, or about as much emit- Some transit systems in the United States have relatively ted by the transportation sector in the state of New Hampshire. low load factors; that is, vehicles typically carry few pas- If Americans increased their transit mode share to the level sengers at a time. These systems are inefficient in their GHG of Canadians, that reduction would increase to 50 MMtCO2, emissions. For example, a 2003 study of the Chattanooga about the amount emitted by transportation in Louisiana Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) found annually. If U.S. transit mode share increased to the level of that the transit agency produces a net increase in GHG emis- Europeans, the annual reduction would be 74 MMtCO2, as sions. Low ridership means that emissions from the agen- much as all transportation in Pennsylvania emits each year cies' buses outweigh savings in GHG emissions from mode (7,8). Although historical development patterns have facili- shift. GHG emissions in Chattanooga actually would fall if tated higher transit mode share in Canada and Europe than in bus service were discontinued and riders switched to driving the United States, the comparison demonstrates the scale of instead. The study also noted that reducing GHG emissions transit ridership achievable in industrial countries.

12 FIGURE 7 Transit share of regional transportation emissions (Source : "Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions: A Synopsis of the Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA," Metropolitan Transportation Authority, State of New York, Feb. 2009, p. 20). At the regional level, an expansion of well-used transit she drove their own car. Commuter rail systems and subway service will tend to increase GHG emissions from transit as systems free up even more space on the road. The scale of more miles are traveled by transit vehicles, but total trans- the benefit per vehicle depends on the passenger load. The portation GHG emissions will shrink as new transit riders Urban Mobility Report finds that transit reduces congestion- leave their cars at home. Figure 7 illustrates this relation- related delays an average of 31 million hours in each of the ship. When transit service is well used, more transit service country's 14 largest urban areas. In 2005, public transporta- increases transit emissions, but decreases emissions from tion reduced congestion-related combustion of gasoline by the rest of the transportation sector. The net effect is to lower 340 million gallons. A Science Applications International total transportation GHG emissions. Corporation (SAIC) study estimated that saving that amount of gasoline is equivalent to reducing GHG emissions by 3 MMtCO2, or twice the amount emitted annually by trans- CONGESTION MITIGATION portation in Washington, DC (4,8). Roadway congestion is an additional source of GHG emis- sions from transportation. Vehicles burn fuel not just when COMPACT DEVELOPMENT they are traveling, but also when they are idling in traffic. Driving at slower than optimal speeds also burns extra fuel Transit systems are associated with compact development and therefore emits extra GHG emissions. The Texas Trans- patterns. An extensive body of research finds that areas with portation Institute's (TTI's) Urban Mobility Report esti- higher population and employment density typically have bet- mates that congestion consumes an extra 120 million gallons ter public transportation systems than areas with lower popu- of gasoline annually on average in each of the nation's 14 lation and employment density (10). Transit systems tend to largest urban areas (9). That figure translates roughly to 1 be more robust and more highly used in compact urban areas. MMtCO2 per urban area. Transit stops in compact areas provide access to more destina- tions, including workplaces and shops, and are therefore more Transit reduces congestion on roadways by taking private convenient to use than stops in other areas. In compact areas, vehicles off the road. A full bus or light-rail car takes up more people can also live within easy access of transit stops, less space on the road than each passenger would if he or allowing transit systems to attract a higher ridership.

13 High-quality public transit also has the ability to influ- before moving to the area (13). TCRP Report 128 examined ence urban development. High-quality transit reduces the TODs in four metropolitan areas and found that TOD hous- need for more road lanes and large parking lots. Higher land ing produced considerably less traffic than conventional prices around transit stations promote more compact devel- development. TODs surveyed averaged 44% fewer vehicle opment as residents and businesses economize on space. In trips on a weekday than predicted by the ITE Trip Genera- addition to market forces, good urban planning also dictates tion manual, the standard resource for estimation of vehicle that development should be focused around transit nodes trips in conventional developments (8). Many more stud- to maximize the use of transit. Thus, transit and compact ies have examined the impacts of TOD on residents' travel development tend to beget one another in a virtuous feed- behavior, the potential for TOD to shift travel patterns at a back loop. regional or national scale, and design characteristics of TOD. TCRP Report 128 contains an extensive literature review By encouraging compact development, transit indirectly and bibliography. affects even the travel patterns of people who do not take transit. Compact communities typically allow people to travel shorter distances to get from place to place, as homes EMISSIONS FROM AGENCY OPERATIONS and businesses are closer together. Those who do drive can drive fewer miles. Compact communities also tend to be In addition to displacing emissions from private vehicles, friendly places for walking and biking, which eliminate transit produces its own GHG emissions. These emissions vehicle trips altogether; and areas rich in transit tend to have come from the tailpipes of transit vehicles and nonrevenue lower rates of car ownership than other areas. These impacts vehicles owned by the agency, from office buildings and of transit on the travel patterns of nontransit riders have maintenance yards, from transit stations and other facilities, been demonstrated in various urban contexts. A 2000 paper from construction of transit systems, and from the travel by Holtzclaw reviewed six previous studies that compared patterns of transit agencies' employees. The following sub- travel patterns in major urban areas in the United States and sections discuss these sources of emissions in greater detail. abroad. The studies showed that impacts of transit systems Strategies to reduce emissions from agency operations are on travel patterns were greater than miles traveled on transit discussed in chapter four. alone by a factor of 1.4 to 9. Older transit systems tended to have greater impacts than newer transit systems (11). The Transit Vehicles and Fuels sum of such impacts on travel patterns is substantially less driving in compact communities. Tailpipe emissions from transit vehicles are the primary source of GHG emissions from transit. All transit vehicles Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of compact are responsible for some GHG emissions. Vehicles pow- development explicitly associated with transit. TOD is usu- ered by conventional fuels and most alternative fuels emit ally characterized by above-average densities, orientation to GHGs from their tailpipes. Vehicles powered by electric- pedestrian activity, and easy walking access to a major pub- ity are responsible for some GHGs emitted from electric lic transit station or stop. The objectives of TOD can include plants. In 2006, U.S. transit vehicles used 735 million gal- the following: lons of diesel fuel (see Table 1). Combusting that amount of diesel produces roughly 7.4 MMtCO2, or about as much · Increasing opportunities for travel by transit, emitted by transportation in the state of New Hampshire · Attracting new riders to transit, each year (8 ). · Shifting transit access trips from driving to walking, · Reducing automobile activity associated with new TABLE 1 developments, and DIESEL FUEL USE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, 2006 · Reducing energy use and associated emissions from Mode Million Gallons transportation. Bus 536.7 TODs can exist in urban or suburban areas; mix office, Commuter Rail 78.6 retail, and residential space; and provide access to rail or Paratransit 86.8 high-quality bus service (12). Ferry Boat 33.5 A significant body of research is devoted to the impact Other 0.2 that TODs have on the travel habits of residents. Most stud- ies find that residents of TODs use transit more and drive Total 735.1 less than their counterparts in other types of developments. (Source: Neff, 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book, Part 2: Residents of TODs typically drive fewer miles to work than Historical Tables, APTA, Washington, D.C., June 2008).

14 In addition to the emissions from energy used to propel Although tailpipe emissions account for the majority of transit vehicles, the vehicles themselves are also sources of life-cycle emissions for each mode examined, nontailpipe GHG emissions "upstream" from the point of use. The man- emissions from vehicles can be substantial. An average tran- ufacture of transit vehicles requires raw materials includ- sit bus emits 1,240 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) ing glass, rubber, plastics, steel, and other metals. Energy from the tailpipe in its 12-year lifetime. The manufacture, is needed to extract, process, and assemble these materials. repair, and maintenance of the bus over its lifetime produce Emissions associated with these steps are known as embod- another 183 MtCO2e, or an additional 15%. An average ied emissions. Materials and energy are also required to sedan emits 69 MtCO2e from the tailpipe in its lifetime. The maintain vehicles throughout their lifetimes, as they require manufacture, repair, and maintenance of the sedan produce tune-ups and new parts. At the end of a transit vehicle's another 13 MtCO2e, or an additional 19% (14). useful life, energy is required to disassemble and scrap the vehicle. Each of these processes within the life cycle of the Facilities, Stations, and Maintenance Yards vehicle uses carbon-based energy and is therefore respon- sible for GHG emissions. Transit agencies use energy not only in transit vehicles, but also in all buildings and structures that they maintain. Every A research team at the University of California, Berkeley, transit agency requires office facilities, which consume conducted an extensive analysis of GHG emissions from each energy for heating, cooling, lighting, and computers and life-cycle component of auto, bus, light-rail, and heavy-rail electrical equipment. Office facilities also consume materi- transportation. Figure 8 shows the relative life-cycle impacts als (particularly paper) that require energy to produce, trans- of cars, SUVs, pickups, and buses, as calculated in that study. port, and discard. Larger transit agencies and agencies with A typical bus running during peak hours, with 40 passengers, rail transit also maintain transit stations that require heat- has the lowest emissions per passenger mile traveled. A typi- ing, cooling, lighting, and energy for electrical equipment. cal bus running during off-peak hours, with only five passen- Finally, transit agencies require maintenance yards to keep gers, has the highest emissions of GHGs per passenger mile up their fleets of buses and trains. Any energy used in these traveled. The study assumed average passenger loads of 1.58 maintenance yards that is derived from carbon-based fuels for sedans, 1.74 for SUVs, and 1.46 for pickups. results in GHG emissions. FIGURE 8 Vehicle and infrastructure life-cycle emissions by mode (grams of CO2e per passenger mile traveled) (Source : Chester, Life-cycle Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the United States, Institute of Transportation Studies, Dissertations, University of California, Berkeley, 2008.)

15 FIGURE 9 New York MTA GHG emissions by source, 2007 (draft) (Source : Greening Mass Transit & Metro Regions: A Synopsis of the Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA , Metropolitan Transportation Authority, State of New York, Feb. 2009, p. 22). While transit vehicles account for the majority of energy are attributed to nonrevenue vehicles (see Figure 9). Many used by a typical transit agency, buildings are also important employees of transit agencies emit GHG emissions from consumers of energy. Of the 2.7 MMtCO2e emitted by the their own vehicles as they commute to and from their jobs, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYMTA) although these emissions may or may not be attributed to in 2007, 18% are attributed to electricity and heating in the the agencies themselves. agency's facilities, stations, and maintenance yards. Figure 9 illustrates the sources of the agency's emissions. Traction energy, or energy used to propel transit vehicles, accounts for NET IMPACT OF U.S. TRANSIT ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 79% of emissions. All other energy is considered nontrac- tion. NYMTA's inventory does not include embodied emis- sions related to the agency's vehicles and infrastructure. Four recent studies have estimated the net amount of GHG emissions that U.S. transit services save each year. All have Construction and Maintenance found that American public transit significantly reduces GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Each of the Depending on the modes used, transit systems may require studies accounted for the travel mode shift effect of tran- significant construction efforts. Rail systems are the most sit and for transit vehicles' emissions. Some of the studies construction intensive, often requiring that miles of new track also accounted for the compact development and conges- and new stations be constructed as systems are initiated or tion mitigation effects of transit. Reductions range between expanded. Transit agencies also construct and maintain bus 6.9 MMtCO2 and 36.6 MMtCO2, depending on the scope of stations, bus shelters, and park-and-ride lots. Construction displaced emissions considered. For comparison, emissions and maintenance of all transit offices, facilities, and infra- from all on-road transportation in the state of Washington in structure use energy and produce GHG emissions: 2005 totaled 32.3 MMtCO2e (15). · From on-road transportation of materials, construction Table 2 provides the results of individual studies. Esti- workers, and waste; mates of mode shift and congestion reduction impact are · From construction equipment; and similar across the studies. Of the two studies that estimated · Emissions embodied in any materials used. the impact of compact development, the study by ICF Inter- national calculates the greatest reduction. The statistical Other Emissions technique used by ICF to capture land use effects of transit is more comprehensive than that used in the California's Public Transit agencies also maintain nonrevenue vehicle fleets Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) study (see chapter five, used for maintenance and local travel. These vehicles Compact Development for more information). The results of emit GHGs as well. At NYMTA, 3% of GHG emissions the CALPIRG study are buoyed by two other factors:

16 TABLE 2 AGGREGATE GHG REDUCTIONS FROM PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES Emissions Impact (MMtCO2) Congestion Compact Transit Study Author Study Date Mode Shift Net Reduction Development Emissions ICF Intl. 2008 -15.8 -3.0 -29.9 12.1 -36.6 CALPIRG 2008 -- -- -- -- -25.8 Shapiro et al. 2002 -16.5 N/A N/A 9.1 -7.4 SAIC 2007 -16.2 -3.0 N/A 12.3 -6.9 Sources: Bailey et al., The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, ICF International, 2008 (10); Davis and Hale, Public Transportation's Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Science Appli- cations International Corporation, 2007 (4); Baxandall et al., A Better Way to Go: Meeting America's 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit, California's Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, 2008 (16); Shapiro et al., Con- serving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation, 2002 (7). Note: Figures from the ICF study are calculated from figures in Tables 2 and 3 in that report using a conversion of 1 billion gallons of gasoline = 8.8 MMtCO2. A dash (--) indicates that separate figures were not provided. N/A indicates that the effect was not included in the calculation. 1. CALPIRG did not include demand response services, on analysis of a sample of 503 U.S. transit systems, the which tend to be inefficient in GHG emissions, in its CALPIRG study concluded the following: estimate. The authors reasoned that including demand response in the estimate would mask the benefit of · Rail transit systems reduce emissions the most, in large fixed-route services. part because of the land use impacts of rail in dense urban settings, and because of the use of electricity as 2. CALPIRG estimated lower emissions from electric a transportation fuel. transit vehicles in some regions, because it accounted · Bus systems have smaller, but still important impacts for regional variations in sources of electricity. The to reduce GHG emissions. other studies assumed an average national mix of · Vanpool programs provide relatively high savings on a electricity generation. per passenger basis. · Even most small transit agencies also provide GHG Results also vary between the studies depending on the savings (16 ). year of data used and modes included. For example, the Sha- piro study (7 ) used older data than the other studies, and From a sample of 50 of the largest transit agencies, the study included only bus and rail modes. found that agencies' impacts ranged from a net reduction of 10.5 MMtCO2 per year to a net increase of 0.07 MMtCO2 per Individual transit agencies have different net impacts on year. Only one agency produced a net increase in GHG emis- GHG emissions, depending on their sizes, types of service, sions. Appendix C provides estimates from CALPIRG of the fleets, sources of energy, and operating parameters. Based impact of individual transit agencies on GHG emissions.

17 CHAPTER FOUR TRANSIT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Transit agencies can reduce GHG emissions from transpor- ridership or reducing energy consumption. Transit agencies tation by reducing the amount of miles traveled in private typically pursue these strategies primarily to broaden their vehicles, by reducing congestion, by catalyzing compact customer base, improve customer service, and reduce costs. development patterns, and by reducing their own emissions. Some strategies also reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, Agencies can pursue specific strategies to achieve reduc- as required by existing environmental regulations, or reduce tions in each of these areas. Some strategies reduce GHG congestion, in keeping with federal transportation planning emissions through more than one of the four mechanisms. statutes. Reducing GHG emissions is often seen as a co- Ultimately, any strategy that reduces the consumption of benefit, rather than a goal, of strategies. For each category fossil-based energy will reduce GHG emissions. This chap- of strategies, survey respondents indicated how GHG emis- ter provides an overview of the various types of strategies, sions factored into decision making. Respondents chose one results from the survey, and specific examples of strategies of four options: from some transit agencies. 1. Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the Results from the survey of transit agencies in Table 3 agency's decision to pursue these strategies. demonstrate the prevalence of different strategy types. Strategies that increase vehicle passenger loads are the most 2. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's common among survey respondents, followed by strategies decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal that improve transit vehicle fuel economy through opera- one. tions and maintenance techniques. Use of alternative fuels was cited least frequently, but all strategy types were cited 3. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these by at least two-thirds of survey respondents. Note that some strategies on GHG emissions. individual strategies may fall into more than one of the cat- egories in Table 3. 4. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. TABLE 3 AGENCIES PURSUING STRATEGIES THAT REDUCE GHG Results are reported in each subsection. EMISSIONS (% of 41 respondents) Planning or A principal way that transit agencies can reduce GHG Strategy Categories Implementing emissions is to increase transit ridership so that fewer people Increasing Vehicle Passenger Loads 93% drive their cars to reach their destinations. Existing transit agencies can increase ridership in two primary ways: offer- Vehicle Operations and 90% ing more transit service, and enticing people to make better Maintenance use of transit service. Agencies often pursue the two strategy Mitigating Congestion 88% types in tandem, to ensure that new services are well used. Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Types 90% Some factors that affect transit ridership are beyond the Other Energy Efficiency/Renewable immediate control of transit agencies. For example, existing 83% Energy Initiatives urban forms, the price of fuel, and the price of parking all Expanding Transit Service 78% influence transit ridership. Although fuel prices fluctuate in Construction and Maintenance 73% response to broad economic trends, local agencies do control urban development patterns and the price of publicly owned Promoting Compact Development 70% parking. Local agencies can use such levers to support the use of transit. The most successful transit systems are not a Many strategies that reduce GHG emissions are already product of one transit agency working alone, but of a part- common across agencies because they address agencies' tra- nership of transit and other public agencies supporting tran- ditional goals. A number of the strategies work by increasing sit through good urban planning and policy. Nevertheless,

18 transit agencies can take some steps on their own, and can · New Bus Transit Systems initiate some strategies with the help of partners, to increase · Comprehensive Service Expansion ridership and reduce GHG emissions. · New Coverage in Urban Areas · New Suburban Connections · New Circulator/Distributor Routes EXPANDING TRANSIT SERVICE · New Feeder Routes · New Routes Connecting Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Expanding transit service, or increasing the supply of pub- to Jobs lic transportation, allows more people to use transit for a greater number of miles traveled. Agencies can expand tran- Based on a sample of empirical studies, the report found sit service by increasing the geographic coverage of routes, that ridership on most systems will increase by between 0.6% increasing service frequencies, extending operating hours, and 1% for every 1% increase in bus miles or bus hours oper- and adding new transportation modes. Adding route miles ated. Some studies show response rates well outside of this might include establishing new modes of public transporta- band. These figures suggest that passenger load factors fall tion within a given area, such as light rail transit (LRT) or on average as service increases, but results will vary from bus rapid transit (BRT), that provide higher quality service agency to agency and depend on the time scale of analysis. than the traditional bus services that account for the majority In general, ridership increases tend to be greater on systems of transit in the United States. with below-average service levels (20 ). To reduce GHG emissions, expanded transit service must A 2007 study by ICF International found that approxi- achieve some minimum vehicle occupancy rate. The net mately 51% of American households in 2001 had access to impact of each individual strategy on an agency's GHG emis- transit within 0.75 mi of their home. A household within this sions depends on the balance of new ridership and tailpipe band tends to drive 11.3 mi less each day than an identical emissions from additional transit vehicles. Agencies should household outside the band. That study found that, between consider both factors in planning any expansion strategies to 1999 and 2004, two-thirds of the ridership increase on U.S. reduce GHG emissions. transit services came from new route miles. The remaining one-third came from increased ridership on existing route Expanding Route Coverage miles. If transit agencies added 11,700 bidirectional route miles of rail transit and bus transit, the proportion of house- Expanding the coverage of transit routes both increases holds within 0.75 mi of transit would increase to 64%, and the number of people who can access transit and reduces public transit ridership would approximately double. As average times to access transit. The proximity of transit of 2007, about 3,858 route miles of rail service were at the service is a major factor determining Americans' use of stage of engineering, construction, planning, or proposal. public transit. Statistical analyses show, for example, that The equivalent amount of high-quality bus route miles was the density of rail service in a given area is positively cor- unknown (21). related with the distance traveled by public transportation (17 ). The distance from a person's home to the nearest tran- Increasing Service Frequency sit stop is particularly influential. A number of studies have found that people's willingness to walk to a bus stop drops Increased frequency of service can attract more riders to off dramatically at distances greater than one-quarter mile. existing transit route miles. More frequent service reduces People may travel several miles by bicycle to access tran- the average time that passengers spend waiting at stations sit (18 ). Expanding the number of households within these and bus stops, thereby reducing the total time needed for transit-accessible boundaries encourages more households travel, reducing the time that passengers may have to spend to use transit. in inclement weather conditions, and reducing the need to plan around infrequent service schedules. The EPA COMMUTER model estimates changes in tran- sit mode share based on variables including the proximity of Frequency of public transportation has a measurable impact transit. The model draws on empirical studies in a number of on ridership. A 2004 study found that the share of trips made U.S. urban areas. Depending on the specific urban area, the by automobile decreases significantly as service frequency at model predicts that the mode share of transit will increase the nearest bus stop increases (22). A separate TCRP study by between 0.02% and 0.09% for every 1 min decrease in found that for a 1% increase in bus service frequency (or average walk time to transit (19). decrease in headway), ridership increases between 0.3% and 1%, with an average of 0.5%. For a 1% increase in train ser- A TCRP report examined the impact of expanded cover- vice frequency (or decrease in headway), ridership increases age of bus service on ridership. Specific types of expansion between 0.08% and 0.9%. These figures indicate that passen- include the following: ger load factors are likely to fall as frequency increases, but

19 results for individual agencies vary based on current service TABLE 4 levels (23). The COMMUTER model estimates that a 1 min AGENCIES PURSUING SERVICE EXPANSION STRATEGIES decrease in average transit wait time will increase transit (% of 41 respondents) mode share by between 0.02% and 0.1% (19). Planning or Strategy Types Planning Implementing Implementing An analysis by ICF International used the Transportation Expanded route Demand Model Evaluation Model to predict the impact of 61% 32% 68% coverage increased transit service frequency on transit ridership and Increased ser- corresponding GHG emission reductions. The analysis was 46% 27% 51% vice frequency based on a proposed increase in funding for U.S. agencies. Increased hours ICF estimated that the funding increase would reduce aver- 24% 10% 27% of operation age waiting times for transit vehicles by 1.6 min in most met- New service ropolitan areas, and by 0.3 min in large metro areas with types (e.g., BRT 61% 20% 68% robust transit service, by 2020. The additional ridership or LRT) expected from reduced wait times would reduce 600,000 Other strategies 17% 0% 17% metric tons of GHG emissions in 2020, not accounting for any increase in emissions from transit vehicles (24). 78% Any strategy (32 agencies) Extending Operating Hours Although strategies to expand service can increase the Agencies can also extend their hours of operation to attract GHG savings that transit agencies provide, individual agen- more riders. Most transit agencies provide the highest level of cies consider those savings to different degrees. Agencies service during peak and midday hours, with less service in the were asked to characterize the role that GHG emissions early morning and late evening hours. Restricted operating played in the decision to pursue these strategies. Almost all hours typically force people who must make trips in the early agencies expanding or planning to expand transit service are morning and late at night to drive. Expanded hours provide an aware that these strategies can reduce transportation GHG opportunity for those people to take transit instead. Extending emissions. Nearly half said that reducing GHG emissions operating hours can also include adding weekend service. was a factor in the decision to expand service. Five agencies, Montgomery County Department of Transportation (DOT), Some transit agencies have measured systemwide TransLink, Sound Transit, Los Angeles County Metropoli- ridership increases in response to extended operating hours. tan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), and Lee County The Whatcom Transportation Authority in Washington Transit, reported that GHG emissions were a principal factor State increased ridership substantially by adding a single in their decisions to expand service. These responses indi- new evening route. In Dallas, new weekend service on sub- cate that most expansions of transit service are not driven urban shuttles prompted a measurable increase in weekday by the benefits of reduced GHG emissions; but many transit ridership (23). agencies do consider GHG emissions as a co-benefit. Of the 41 transit agencies who responded to the survey, about three-quarters are currently increasing or planning to INCREASING VEHICLE PASSENGER LOADS increase their service offering. Table 4 summarizes agen- cies' responses. The most common ways that agencies are In addition to increasing the supply of public transportation, increasing transit service are by increasing the geographic transit agencies can also implement strategies to increase the coverage of service and by adding new types of transit ser- number of riders on transit vehicles. Vehicle passenger loads vice, such as BRT or LRT. More agencies are at the stage are a crucial factor in determining the net impact of transit of planning transit expansions rather than implementing on GHG emissions. Transporting more riders per vehicle is expansions. For example, the Denver Regional Transporta- a particularly effective way to reduce transportation GHG tion District (RTD) is planning a new commuter rail service. emissions, because it does not require operating additional Agencies noted that their budget problems are a particular buses or trains, which themselves emit GHGs. Increasing concern for expansion plans. King County Metro is recon- ridership on existing vehicles also tends to be a more cost- sidering plans to expand service in light of budgetary short- effective way to reduce GHG emissions than increasing the falls. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority supply of public transit. New vehicles and supporting infra- (WMATA) and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit structure are costly for transit agencies. District (BART) are among agencies considering cutting service. Portland's Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation To attract riders, it is important that transit not merely be District of Oregon (TriMet) is cutting some services even as an option for travel, but that it be an attractive option that com- it expands light-rail service. petes, in particular, with the private auto. Transit agencies can

20 boost ridership on their vehicles by improving access to tran- cle circulation. The guidebook also includes ways to increase sit, improving the comfort and safety of transit, improving passengers' perceptions of safety at bus stops (26 ). Use of the speed and reliability of service, and providing informa- such guidelines can form part of an overall GHG reduction tion about and incentives to use transit. Agencies may also strategy for transit agencies. be able to increase ridership, without expanding total service, by optimizing their service routes. Some individual strategies Improving Service Speed, Reliability, and Convenience may fall into more than one of these categories. Improvements to service speed and reliability can make transit Improving Transit Access, Comfort, and Safety as attractive as or more attractive than travel by private auto- mobile. Longer trip times and less reliable trip times on transit Various strategies can boost transit ridership by improv- are a major deterrent for many would-be transit users. To the ing riders' experiences traveling to and from transit stops. extent that agencies can reduce travel times and improve reli- Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian pathways to stops ability, they may attract more riders. Waiting times for transit and stations, with the collaboration of local governments, vehicles and in-vehicle trip times have measurable impacts make transit a viable and attractive travel option for more on ridership. The COMMUTER model predicts that for each people. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit can minute average wait times at transit stops are reduced, transit both attract new riders and encourage people who previ- mode share will increase by 0.02% to 0.1%. For each minute ously drove to transit stops to walk or bike instead. Parking that average in-vehicle trip times are reduced, transit mode and drop-off and pick-up facilities at transit stations can also share increases by 0.01% to 0.05% (19). attract more riders, but strategies that encourage nonmotor- ized connections to transit generally have a higher potential Strategies to reduce time spent waiting for transit and trav- to reduce overall GHG emissions. One agency surveyed, eling on transit include express bus services, timed transfers, Sacramento Regional Transit District, is working with its consolidating bus stops, regularized schedules, and improved city and county on a "Complete Streets" policy. Complete adherence to schedules. Specific ways to improve speed and Streets include robust facilities for pedestrians and bicy- reliability include establishing priority for transit vehicles at clists, in addition to transit vehicles and private vehicles. traffic signals, creating bus-only lanes, and using automatic vehicle location and control (AVLC) systems. Many of the Improvements to transit vehicles also improve access to agencies surveyed are planning or implementing such mea- transit for some people. Bike racks at transit stops and on sures. More than three-quarters of respondents are planning buses improve access for bicyclists. Providing wheelchair or implementing changes to traffic signals. For example, the ramps and lifts and low-floor buses improves accessibility Utah Transit Authority initiated a new BRT line in 2008 that for elderly and disabled patrons. includes signal timing. BART encourages local jurisdictions to consider signal priority for surface transit, though the Changes to transit stations and stops can improve pas- transit agency does not control such decisions. More than sengers' experiences while waiting for buses and trains. Pas- two-thirds of agencies surveyed are planning or implement- sengers spend between 10% and 30% of a typical transit trip ing bus-only lanes. One agency, Sacramento Regional Tran- waiting for vehicles. This time can be made more pleasant sit District, is implementing queue jump lanes to allow buses by providing comfortable and clean waiting areas that pro- to bypass general traffic at intersections. tect passengers from the weather, minimize exposure to traf- fic, provide transit information and amenities, and address Measures to improve the speed and reliability of transit security concerns by providing visibility and emergency need not require changes to operating systems and infra- response (24). For example, the Congestion Mitigation Air structure. Even improved enforcement of traffic regulations Quality (CMAQ) program provided funding for improved can speed up travel times. For example, the San Francisco bus waiting areas in Kansas City, Missouri, with the intent Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) recently con- of increasing bus ridership. The project constructed shelters ducted an experiment on parking enforcement on one bus at 100 bus stops that featured a coordinated look and feel and corridor. By intensifying parking enforcement at bus stops, provided route and schedule information (25). as well as ensuring full availability of drivers and vehicles for all scheduled runs, on-time performance on the route A guidebook from the Florida DOT provides design improved from 81% to 88% (27 ). Yield-to-bus laws, which guidelines for high-quality public transit stations and shel- oblige drivers to give the right-of-way to buses entering traf- ters as well as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, fic, also improve bus travel time, especially during peak the disabled, and elderly. The resource provides specific hours. The states of California, Washington, Oregon, and parameters for coordination of elements at bus stops includ- Florida all have yield-to-bus laws in place (28). ing signs, benches, shelters, lighting, landscaping, and ame- nities. At the street level, the guidebook provides parameters In addition to attracting more riders, preferential treat- on connecting bus stations and stops to pedestrian and bicy- ments for buses also reduce emissions from buses by reduc-

21 ing the time spent idling at traffic lights or waiting to enter assists transit users in determining the best routes and traffic. A study in Southampton, England, found that bus timing for their transit trips. signal priority systems reduced CO2 emissions from buses · Real-Time Transit Information --Delivers real-time by 13%. On the other hand, preferential treatments for buses arrival times, information on delays, and other infor- tend to cause additional delay for general traffic. The study mation through changeable message signs, telephone, found that CO2 emissions from other traffic increased by or websites. This information allows riders to plan their 6%. The net effect of the system was to increase CO2 emis- trips more precisely. sions by 3% (29). A forthcoming TCRP Synthesis will report on the costs and benefits of transit preferential treatments in Very little information is available on the effectiveness U.S. transit systems. of these strategies at increasing ridership. Transit agencies typically find it too difficult or too costly to track riders' Agencies can make bus service more convenient for responses to individual initiatives (31). passengers through flex-routing. Flex-routing allows buses to deviate from their fixed routes a short distance (around Incentives to use transit include reduced fares and more three-quarters of a mile) to pick up and drop off passen- convenient payment options. A TCRP study assessed the gers. Passengers can reserve stops in advance through a impact of changes to transit prices and fares on transit rider- real-time reservation system. The OmniLink bus in Prince ship. Strategies assessed included the following: William County, Virginia, is an example of a flex-route bus. OmniLink uses advanced global positioning system (GPS) · Changes in General Fare Level--Increases or decreases technology to ensure that buses remain on schedule. Flex- in average transit fares. routing allows the OmniLink to provide transit access to a · Changes in Pricing Relationships --Institutes discounts larger area, and it is more cost-effective than running both for various fare categories including multiple-ride tick- traditional bus services and paratransit services (30 ). ets, off-peak travel, and tickets for senior citizens. · Changes in Fare Categories--Adds new types of fares Transit Information, Promotion, and Incentives such as multiple-ride tickets and unlimited-ride passes. · Changes in Fare Structure Basis --Includes flat fares, Providing more and better information on transit educates zone-based fares, or distance-based fares. potential transit users and also makes transit more conve- · Free Transit--Eliminates transit fares altogether. nient to use. Both information provided in advance and real- time information can increase ridership. Transit agencies The study finds that bus ridership increases an average of can conduct outreach and provide a variety of incentives for 0.4% for each 1% decrease in fare. Rail ridership increases people to take buses and trains instead of driving. an average of 0.18% for each 1% decrease in fare. Changes in fare have roughly twice the impact on off-peak ridership A TCRP study assessed the impact of transit information as on peak ridership (32). and promotion on transit users. Strategies assessed included the following: Some transit agencies offer transit benefits programs in conjunction with local employers. Such programs often · Mass Market Information --Develops awareness of include discounted monthly transit passes as an incentive for various services available among the general popula- employees to use transit. A TCRP study of the effectiveness of tion. Information can be broadcast in newspapers and transit benefits programs found that such programs generally on the radio, television, and billboards. increase transit ridership, although the effects of individual · Mass Market Promotion --Goes a step beyond mass programs vary widely. Transit ridership typically increased market information by including incentives such as between 10% and 50% at worksites after implementation of free or reduced fares. benefits programs. The cost implications of such programs for · Targeted Information --Targets particular types of transit agencies are not well understood (33). transit users or potential transit users. Information can be distributed by direct mailing, brochures, local news- Alerting potential riders to the GHG benefits of taking papers, and other techniques. transit is one way to promote transit use. Online calculators, · Targeted Promotion --Goes a step beyond targeted including one available at www.travelmatters.org (developed information by including incentives such as free or through a previous TCRP project), help individuals calculate reduced fares. the impact they can have on their personal GHG emissions · Ongoing Customer Information --Includes bus stop by taking transit. These calculators can be integrated into signs, telephone information services, and Internet transit agencies' websites. For example, San Francisco's sites. For example, many transit agencies are adding BART has added a GHG calculator to its online trip plan- online trip planning software to their websites, which ning software (www.bart.gov).

22 TABLE 5 AGENCIES PURSUING STRATEGIES TO INCREASE VEHICLE PASSENGER LOADS (% of 41 respondents) Planning or Strategy Types Planning Implementing Implementing Transit marketing campaigns 56% 71% 85% Provision of real-time transit information or trip planning software 59% 44% 83% Improved transit shelters and station stops 54% 51% 83% Improved transit access for bicycles and pedestrians 46% 61% 76% Improved transit access for the disabled and elderly 44% 56% 73% Improved vehicle comfort 41% 41% 61% Service improvements; e.g., timed transfers, reduced travel times, 56% 37% 71% improved modal integration Changes in fare structures or payment methods 39% 44% 63% Safety improvements 41% 41% 59% Optimization of existing routes and services 51% 56% 76% Other strategies 5% 2% 5% Any strategy 93% (38 agencies) Optimizing Transit Routes software, and making improvements to transit stations and shelters were the most commonly cited strategies, but every Agencies can make better use of their existing service by strategy was cited by more than half of the respondents. On optimizing routes to increase the efficiency of service and some highly used transit services, vehicles are already travel- focus service in corridors with a higher ridership potential. ing with maximum passenger loads and have problems with Individual transit agencies may find that they can selectively overcrowding. Faced with this problem, BART is removing cut underutilized service to reduce net GHG emissions, but some seats from trains to accommodate more passengers on the GHG impacts of service cuts depend on the broader net- each vehicle. work effects of reducing transit service. Early morning bus service may be GHG inefficient, whereas peak and midday Of the transit agencies taking steps to increase ridership bus services are highly utilized and are much more GHG or load factors, almost all are aware that these strategies can efficient than auto travel. However, just as extended service reduce transportation GHG emissions. Nearly half of these hours can increase ridership on peak services (see Extending agencies noted that reducing GHG emissions was a factor in Operating Hours in this chapter), reducing off-peak service their decision to increase ridership or load factors. Three agen- can decrease peak ridership. Other key services that tran- cies--Montgomery County DOT, Sound Transit, and LACM- sit provides, such as access to jobs, may be compromised TA--reported that GHG emissions were a principal factor. by a reduction in off-peak service. Agencies may be able to reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of services with- out cutting service altogether by using smaller vehicles on STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE CONGESTION less heavily traveled routes. Most transit strategies that mitigate congestion are the same A systemwide optimization of transit service can increase strategies that increase ridership. Transit mitigates conges- overall ridership levels without changing the total supply of tion primarily through travel mode shift, as removing private service. For example, SFMTA plans to reconfigure its ser- vehicles from roadways tends to reduce congestion. Transit vice routes beginning in 2009. SFMTA predicts that shifting agencies, in partnership with other local and regional agen- service from underused routes to the busiest corridors will cies, sometimes implement mode shift strategies to relieve increase ridership by 9% by 2015 without increasing operat- congested conditions in specific areas. ing costs (34). Transit agencies in eight urban areas have partnered with Almost all survey respondents reported that their agencies other local agencies and the U.S.DOT to reduce roadway were taking some steps to increase ridership or load factors on congestion as part of U.S.DOT's Integrated Corridor Man- existing transit service. Table 5 summarizes the specific strate- agement pilot program. The eight urban areas are Dallas, gies that agencies are pursuing. Transit marketing campaigns, Texas; Houston, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Montgom- providing real-time transit information and trip planning ery County, Maryland; Oakland, California; San Antonio,

23 Texas; San Diego, California; and Seattle, Washington. abandoned because of objections from the local community. Making better use of existing transit capacity in the selected In cooperation with community stakeholders, BART even- corridors, and improving transit service through intelligent tually developed a TOD on the property that incorporates transportation system strategies will relieve both routine retail, affordable housing, and public space (39) (see Figure congestion and congestion related to roadway incidents, 10). BART has several more TOD projects now in various construction, and special events. Specific transit strategies stages of construction. included in the pilot programs will expand transit service, reduce transit travel times, provide real-time transit infor- mation, and provide incentives to use transit (35). The impact of transit service on congestion is dem- onstrated in statistical analyses. A 2004 study found that congestion costs in a city decline as rail transit mileage expands, but that congestion costs tend to increase as bus mileage expands (36 ). Another study, comparing cities of similar sizes, found that cities with larger rail systems tend FIGURE 10 BART's Fruitvale TOD (Source : BART) to have lower congestion costs (37 ). A third study found that growth in congestion slowed in Baltimore, Sacramento, WMATA has a joint development program to support and St. Louis after rail service began (38). The congestion TOD. The program markets properties owned by WMATA impacts of individual transit services and changes to service to developers with the aim of promoting developments that will depend on such factors as existing levels of congestion reduce dependency on automobiles, increase the share of trips and passenger load factors on vehicles. made by walking and biking, foster safe areas around stations, enhance connections to transit, and provide a mix of land uses. Thirty-six of 41 agencies surveyed said that they are plan- WMATA's Joint Development Policies and Guidelines estab- ning or implementing strategies that can reduce congestion lish the objectives and procedures of the program (40). on roadways. Most are aware that such strategies can reduce GHG emissions, and almost half said that reducing GHG Transit agencies can contribute to other local planning emissions is a factor in their decision to pursue such strate- efforts that promote TOD and compact development. These gies. Sacramento Regional Transportation District noted that, efforts include planning for individual sites as well as con- although GHG emissions were a factor in its pursuit of pref- tributions to broader local and regional planning exercises, erential treatments for transit vehicles, the main goals were such as local comprehensive planning and regional land use to increase ridership and reduce congestion. Five agencies-- and transportation visioning exercises. For example, the Montgomery County DOT, Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Authority, TransLink, Sound Transit, and LACMTA--listed Jose, California, fosters compact TOD through its Develop- reducing GHG emissions as a principal factor for pursuing ment Review Program. VTA works with cities in the region strategies that help to reduce congestion. to ensure that individual projects will be compatible with existing and proposed transit services. VTA also has an out- reach program that promotes compact development through STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE COMPACT DEVELOPMENT local planning exercises (41). The mere presence of transit in a region may promote more Strategies to promote compact development differ from compact development patterns, but transit agencies can play most of the other strategies discussed in this chapter in that an active role in facilitating compact development patterns. transit agencies typically have no capacity to implement Indeed, compact development patterns are best planned in these strategies on their own. Transit agencies do not have conjunction with transit service. Transit agencies can pro- control over land use and typically do not develop residen- mote TOD around their transit stations. Metropolitan plan- tial and commercial properties. Therefore, coordination with ning organizations (MPOs), city and county governments, other public and private agencies is necessary to achieve any and developers also have roles to play in establishing com- direct impact on development patterns. pact developments complementary to transit. Almost three-quarters of survey respondents are either Transit agencies can establish TODs on property they planning or implementing strategies to promote compact own surrounding transit stations and major transit nodes. development patterns or TOD complementary to their tran- BART developed a TOD on surplus agency-owned prop- sit services. Table 6 summarizes the survey responses. All erty at its Fruitvale station in Oakland, California. BART of these agencies said that they are coordinating their own originally proposed to use the land for parking to increase service planning with broader local or regional develop- the number of park-and-ride commuters, but plans were ment decisions. Most are engaging in planning exercises for

24 specific transit stations. One agency, Sacramento Regional · Compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas Transit District, is developing TOD guidelines. (LNG), and propane/liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) -- Specially designed vehicles can burn these types of fossil TABLE 6 fuels. CNG is the most commonly used in transit buses. AGENCIES PROMOTING COMPACT DEVELOPMENT (% of 41 · Biodiesel--Biodiesel fuel, made from soy, cooking respondents) grease, or other sources, can be blended with conven- Planning or tional diesel and used in standard diesel buses. Some Strategy Types Planning Implementing Implementing changes to maintenance procedures may be necessary. Station area · Hydrogen --Hydrogen is an emerging transportation 54% 39% 59% planning (TOD) fuel. A few transit agencies have hydrogen buses, typi- Coordination with cally for demonstration purposes. local/regional · Hybrid propulsion systems --Hybrid systems gener- 61% 44% 71% development ally supplement a diesel-fired engine with a battery and decisions electric motor that recapture some energy from normal Other strategies 0% 2% 2% vehicle motion and braking. Electric motors can also be combined with bus engines that burn other types 70% of fuels. Any strategies (28 agencies) · Electricity --Electricity is typically drawn from over- head catenaries by trolley buses, but is also used in bat- All agencies taking steps to promote compact develop- tery powered electric vehicles ment patterns or TOD complementary to transit services are aware that these strategies can reduce GHG emissions. Half TCRP is currently updating its Guidebook for Evaluat- of these agencies indicated that reducing GHG emissions ing, Selecting, and Implementing Fuel Choices for Transit was a factor in their decision to promote compact develop- Bus Operations. The revised guidebook will include basic ment. Sarasota County Area Transit characterized its efforts information on the life-cycle GHG impacts of various alter- to promote compact development as part of the county's native fuels and on the cost of various fuels. efforts to promote sustainability. Five agencies--Montgom- ery County DOT, Sound Transit, LACMTA, Massachusetts Electricity differs from other fuel types in that emis- Bay Transportation Authority, and San Francisco's BART-- sions do not come from the transit vehicles themselves, but noted that reducing GHG emissions was a principal factor in rather from the point at which the electricity is generated. promoting compact development patterns. Emissions depend on the source of electricity. Traditional fossil-fired generators release CO2 emissions as they burn coal, oil, or natural gas. Other types of electricity genera- VEHICLE EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES tion, including nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar, pro- duce little or no GHG emissions in operation. The GHG Transit agencies have substantial opportunities to reduce emissions associated with electricity therefore depend on GHG emissions from transit vehicles by making changes to the specific mix of generation facilities. Transit agencies transit vehicles, fuels, and operations. Alternative vehicle in regions of the country with relatively low-emitting elec- technologies and fuels have received particular interest in tricity supplies, such as King County Metro in Washing- the transit industry, but conventional vehicles and fuels also ton State, benefit from lower electricity emissions. Some can reduce vehicle emissions. agencies make direct purchases of cleaner electricity from known generation sources, rather than using the standard Alternative Vehicle and Fuel Technologies mix from the local electricity grid. Although electricity is generally considered an alternative energy for transit, it is For road-based transit systems, alternative fuel and vehicle a standard power source for many rail-based transit sys- technologies can significantly reduce the amount of GHG tems, including light rail, subways, and some commuter emissions per mile of vehicle travel. Nearly 80% of U.S. rail systems. transit buses are powered by conventional diesel engines (see Figure 11). Conventional diesel-fired internal combus- The use of alternative fuels in transit vehicles has risen tion engines are one of the most carbon-intensive technolo- sharply in recent years, as shown in Figure 12. Use of elec- gies that buses can use. An average 40-ft diesel bus with a tricity increased by 18% from 1995 to 2006. Use of CNG fuel economy of 3.5 mpg emits 6.5 lb of CO2 per mile trav- increased by a factor of 14 over the same period. Consump- eled (3). Alternative propulsion technologies currently avail- tion of other alternative fuels also increased, in all cases more able for transit buses include the following: rapidly than consumption of diesel fuel, which grew by 8%.

25 FIGURE 11 Distribution of active transit buses by fuel/propulsion system (Source : Neff, 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book, Part 2 : Historical Tables, APTA, Washington, D.C., June 2008). FIGURE 12 Alternative fuel consumption by transit vehicles, 1994­2006--millions of gallons (diesel equivalent) (Source : 2008 National Transit Database, Fuel consumption table, Federal Transit Administration). The impact of alternative fuel and vehicle technologies on degree to which alternative bus propulsion technologies and GHG emissions varies by fuel and vehicle type as well as by fuels can reduce GHG emissions on a per mile basis. These operating conditions. A number of studies have assessed the studies typically analyze emissions across the full life cycle

26 of the fuels, beginning with the production of fuel feedstock. experimented with lighter weight buses. By one estimate, the Production of feedstock includes growing soybeans, in the use of lightweight materials can reduce fuel consumption by case of most biodiesel, or extracting fossil fuels, in the case one-tenth of a gallon per mile. The report found that the cur- of diesel and CNG. Life-cycle assessment also accounts for rently available technology in a hybrid-electric propulsion emissions from the refining of fuels, transportation of fuels system burning diesel or biodiesel, installed in a lightweight to the point of distribution, and combustion of fuel in vehi- composite fiber body, is a particularly promising option for cles. This type of assessment is also known as a "well to low-GHG buses (45). wheels" assessment. There is some uncertainty about the extent to which CNG A 2007 report commissioned by the California Energy buses reduce GHG emissions. The methane burned in these Commission (CEC) contains the most comprehensive assess- vehicles is also a GHG and, when released uncombusted, has ment to date of GHG impacts of alternative fuels in buses. a greater GWP than CO2. An empirical trial by the Northeast That study compared a total of 13 vehicle and fuel combina- Advanced Vehicle Consortium on year 2000 buses found that tions for buses in California. In addition, it assessed a num- CNG buses produced higher GHG emissions on a simulated ber of fuel production pathways for each fuel type. The fuel New York City duty cycle, as well as on a central business pathway, or the process by which a fuel is produced, affects district cycle, than did diesel buses. Vehicle cycles in these its life-cycle GHG emissions. For example, it takes less areas include slower average travel speeds and more stop- energy to produce biodiesel from canola than from soy. The ping and starting than cycles in other areas. Some models origin and destination of fuels is also important. The farther suggest that existing CNG buses produce little to no GHG feedstocks are transported, the higher are life-cycle emis- benefit over conventional diesel buses; however, improve- sions. The CEC report uses a number of assumptions spe- ments to CNG bus technologies are expected to offer more cific to fuel consumption in California. The report assesses substantial benefits in the future (45). the impact of fuels in various future years, given expected improvements in vehicle technologies over time (42). In rail transit, regenerative braking is the technology with the greatest potential to reduce energy consumption Table 7 summarizes the study's findings on the reduc- and thereby reduce GHG emissions. Regenerative braking tion in GHG emissions in urban buses using various alterna- systems on rail cars allow vehicles to capture energy as they tive fuels. Electric vehicles provide the greatest reduction slow or stop and store it for later use or transfer it to vehicles from conventional diesel, at 55% less GHG emissions per elsewhere in the system. Current technologies only allow mile. (This figure assumes the average electricity generation the transfer of energy to nearby trains, but with technology mix in California.) A blend of 20% soy-based biodiesel with improvements, trains should be better able to store energy conventional diesel reduces GHG emissions the least of the on board (45). Both BART and NYMTA are exploring options examined, at 12%. Note that results for individual new regenerative braking technologies for their rail transit transit agencies can vary based on a wide range of assump- systems. tions. For example, the electricity generation mix in a region has a substantial effect on the level of emissions associated Almost all survey respondents are either currently using with electric vehicles. or planning to use alternative vehicles or fuels in their transit fleets. More than three-quarters are operating or planning to More recently, several studies have questioned the ability purchase hybrid electric vehicles. About one-third are oper- of a large-scale shift to biofuels to provide a net reduction in ating or planning to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles GHG emissions. Fuels produced from crops, including corn- powered by conventional technologies, such as lightweight based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel, cause some additional diesel buses. Another third are operating or planning to pur- GHG emissions from the conversion of natural lands to agri- chase electric vehicles. More than two-thirds of agencies are cultural lands. Fuels produced from waste products have an using or planning to use alternative fuels in transit vehicles. advantage in this regard. Taking conversion of natural lands Biodiesel was the most common alternative fuel type cited into account, some studies have found that crop-based bio- by transit agencies, followed by CNG, electricity, and hydro- fuels are responsible for more GHG emissions than conven- gen. None of the agencies surveyed are pursuing or using tional fuels (43,44). The data in Table 6 do not take these LNG or LPG. additional emissions from land use change into account. Agencies cited a variety of initiatives to use alternative TCRP Report 93 assessed the state of research and devel- vehicle technologies and fuels: opment of various alternative bus propulsion technologies as well as likely future trends in adoption. The report also · SFMTA and TriMet currently fuel their entire bus examined the possibility of using lighter materials in buses fleets with biodiesel blends. to reduce the weight of the vehicle and improve fuel effi- · SFMTA has a goal to convert its entire fleet to electric ciency. Both Houston Metro and LACMTA have successfully drive vehicles by 2020.

27 TABLE 7 REDUCTION IN LIFE-CYCLE GHG EMISSIONS AND PETROLEUM USE IN URBAN BUSES, COMPARED WITH DIESEL FUEL (Year 2012 Vehicles) Liquefied Compressed Biodiesel Natural Gas Hybrid Electric Natural Gas Fuel/Vehicle Type (B20) (LNG) Methanol Vehicle (CNG) Fuel Cell Electricity Petroleum Reduction from Diesel 16% 100% 97% 20% 100% 100% 100% GHG Reduction from Diesel 12% 16% 18% 20% 23% 24% 55% Source: TIAX LLC, Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts, California Energy Commis- sion, 2007 (42) [Online]. Available: www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-004/CEC-600-2007-004-REV.PDF. · AC Transit (Alameda­Contra Costa Transit District) TriMet). King County Metro notes that it receives credit for uses gasoline hybrid buses. use of biodiesel on the Chicago Climate Exchange. · VTA is currently testing biodiesel in buses. · RTD plans to use hybrid CNG­electric buses. Operations and Maintenance · Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority is consider- ing biodiesel derived from palm oil, which may reduce Transit agencies can improve the fuel efficiency of their GHG emissions more than typical soy-based biodiesel. existing transit vehicles, and thereby reduce GHG emis- · Foothill Transit, a small agency in the Greater Los sions, largely by improving the operations and maintenance Angeles area, plans to convert its entire bus fleet to of vehicles. Operational strategies include the following: CNG and to test electric buses. · Driver education--Vehicle operators can be trained in One challenge for some agencies in using alternative fuel-efficient driving techniques, such as smoother accel- fuels is finding a sufficient supply of the fuel and finding eration and deceleration and avoiding vehicle idling. The funds to purchase alternative fuels, which sometimes can Canadian Urban Transit Association's SmartDRIVER be more costly than conventional fuels. The affordability of program has provided instruction on fuel-efficient driv- alternative fuels can change from month to month with fluc- ing to more than 100 transit system representatives (46). tuations in petroleum markets and markets for other fuels · Anti-idling policies or technologies --Unnecessary and feedstocks. Both King County Metro and TriMet report idling of transit vehicles may occur at stations, stops, that their use of biodiesel has been constrained by cost fac- and maintenance yards. Technologies that automatically tors. King County Metro is investigating long-term contracts shut off vehicle engines after several minutes of idling, with biodiesel providers to stabilize the volume and price of or policies that instruct drivers not to idle unnecessar- their fuel supply. ily, can reduce fuel consumption. New Jersey Transit is reducing idling of diesel train engines by switching All agencies pursuing alternative vehicle or fuel technolo- trains to electric power when in railyards. gies are aware of the impact that these strategies can have on · Maintenance programs--Routine vehicle maintenance transit vehicle emissions. Of those agencies operating alter- programs can improve vehicle efficiency. Keeping native vehicle types, more than three-quarters cite reducing bus tires properly inflated is one simple maintenance GHG emissions as a reason that vehicles were purchased, measure to improve fuel efficiency. In 2005, TriMet and more than one-third cite reducing GHG emissions as a maintenance crews boosted gas mileage on buses by principal factor (Montgomery County DOT, Southwest Ohio approximately 10% by adjusting transmissions, front- Regional Transit Authority, Jacksonville Transportation end alignments, and steering control arms, and main- Authority, Community Transit, TransLink, Sound Transit, taining a set tire pressure. LACMTA, Transit Authority of River City, Lee County Tran- · Vehicle retrofits --In some cases, retrofits to existing sit, Hampton Roads Transit, Sarasota County Area Transit, vehicles may improve energy efficiency and reduce Massachusetts Bay Area Transit Authority, and BART). GHG emissions. For example, Palm Tran in Palm Beach County, Florida, is installing electric fan kits Of the agencies using or planning to use alternative fuels, on bus vehicle engines to improve fuel efficiency. again more than three-quarters cite reducing GHG emissions LACMTA is considering installing improved batteries as a reason, and more than one-third cite reducing GHG emis- on their CNG buses to reduce idling, and is converting sions as a principal reason (Montgomery County DOT, South- some of its buses to run on electric power. west Ohio Regional Transit Authority, LYNX, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, King County Metro, Council on Other improvements to bus fleets and operations can Aging of St. Lucie, TransLink, Lee County Transit, Hampton improve fuel efficiency or reduce the amount of vehicle travel Roads Transit, Sarasota County Area Transit, Palm Tran, and needed. GPS technologies on transit vehicles can help transit

28 agencies optimize vehicle movements to reduce delay and Almost all agencies pursuing these strategies are aware fuel usage. Traffic signal preemption and queue jump lanes that they can reduce GHG emissions. More than two- for transit vehicles also reduce idling (46 ). Additional strate- thirds responded that reducing GHG emissions is a factor gies cited by survey respondents include the following: in their agency's decision to pursue fuel-efficiency strate- gies. Ten agencies indicated that GHG emissions are a · RTD has an intelligent shifting program for buses, principal factor in their agencies' decisions to pursue fuel- specific to different topographical conditions, to maxi- efficiency improvement strategies for their existing transit mize engine efficiency. fleet (BART, Community Transit, Hampton Roads Transit, · The Sunshine Bus Company in St. Johns County, LACMTA, Lee County Transit, Montgomery County DOT, Florida, is switching to smaller vehicles to reduce Sarasota County Area Transit, Sound Transit, Southwest energy consumption. Ohio Regional Transit Authority, and TransLink). A few · Chicago Transit Authority is developing a model to agencies noted that reducing operating costs and complying measure and help minimize bus fleet operating costs with environmental regulations are key factors in pursuing and emissions. these strategies. · Sound Transit has a midday bus storage program; buses are stored close to the central business district between the morning and afternoon commutes to reduce dead- STRATEGIES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE head mileage. This program reduces bus fuel consump- tion without changing the amount of service provided. Construction of facilities and infrastructure, as well as main- Agencies may be able to reduce GHG emissions through tenance of facilities, infrastructure, and transit vehicles, is a specific measures targeted at non-CO2 gases. For example, source of GHG emissions. While these activities probably fugitive emissions of CH4 from CNG buses and of HFCs represent a small share of transit agencies' total emissions, from air-conditioning systems also contribute to global they can nonetheless be improved to shrink agencies' GHG warming. Adjusting maintenance procedures may reduce emissions. The strategies discussed in this section apply gen- such emissions from transit vehicles. erally to any industry that provides infrastructure services. There has been little research to date on how these strategies Almost all agencies surveyed are pursuing some strategies apply to transit agencies specifically. Still, a number of agen- that reduce emissions from existing transit vehicles. Table cies are implementing or planning these types of strategies. 8 summarizes survey responses. Nearly three-quarters of agencies surveyed are improving the fuel efficiency of their Agencies can reduce GHG emissions from construction existing transit fleet by implementing anti-idling policies and maintenance in three primary ways: or technologies and by implementing vehicle maintenance programs. Nearly two-thirds are planning or implementing · Reduce emissions embodied in any materials used -- driver education programs. Almost half of the agencies sur- This strategy typically involves changing the types of veyed are planning or implementing vehicle engine retro- materials used or the source of materials used. Often, fits to improve the fuel efficiency of their transit fleet. More recycled construction materials have lower embodied agencies are in the implementation phase rather than the emissions, because the energy required to reprocess planning phase of these strategies. waste materials is less than that required to process vir- gin materials. For example, both BART and NYMTA TABLE 8 are planning to use rail ties made from recycled materi- AGENCIES PURSUING VEHICLE OPERATION AND als in future construction and maintenance. Recycled MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES (% of 41 respondents) plastic can be incorporated in bus shelters, benches, Planning or and signposts. Fly ash can be substituted for a portion Strategy Types Planning Implementing Implementing of the portland cement that typically goes into concrete Anti-idling policies to reduce GHG emissions. Materials drawn from local 29% 63% 73% or technologies sources require less energy to transport than materials Vehicle mainte- drawn from farther away. Transit agencies can contrib- 22% 66% 76% ute to lowering overall GHG emissions from the con- nance programs Vehicle engine struction industry by recycling waste from their own 24% 24% 44% construction activities. retrofits Driver education 27% 44% 61% · Reduce emissions from on-road transportation of materials, construction workers, and waste --Any Other strategies 17% 20% 29% measures that reduce the amount of materials and 90% waste transported will reduce GHG emissions. Use of Any strategies (37 agencies) biofuels in heavy-duty vehicles that transport materials

29 and waste also can reduce GHG emissions. Emissions Almost three-quarters of agencies surveyed are planning from transportation of construction workers can be or implementing strategies to reduce energy consumption reduced by implementing carpooling plans or encour- or GHG emissions from construction and maintenance (see aging workers to use transit. Table 9). Nearly two-thirds of agencies surveyed are tak- · Reduce emissions from construction and maintenance ing steps to recycle construction waste. Half are taking steps equipment--Construction equipment and maintenance to use alternative construction materials. About one-third vehicles also typically burn fossil fuels that release of agencies surveyed are investing in changes to their con- GHG emissions. The same types of strategies that can struction equipment, vehicles, or fuels. More than a quarter reduce emissions for transit vehicles, including using are using locally sourced materials. One agency, the Utah biofuels and reducing idling, also can reduce GHG Transit Authority, is developing a sustainability design stan- emissions from construction and maintenance equip- dards program to maximize use of recycled materials in ment. If transit agencies use contractors for construc- construction. tion and maintenance work, these types of strategies may be more difficult to control. TABLE 9 AGENCIES PURSUING CONSTRUCTION AND Portland's TriMet has instituted a number of sustainable MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES (% of 41 respondents) construction practices for a light-rail extension, the Inter- Planning or state MAX Yellow Line. These practices will help reduce Strategy Types Planning Implementing Implementing GHG emissions, and many also save money for the agency. Use of alternative Practices include the following: fuels/technologies 20% 29% 44% in non-revenue · Plastic railroad ties --TriMet installed 6,000 plastic vehicles ties made of recycled automobile gas tanks, instead of Changes to con- steel (see Figure 13). struction equipment, 20% 17% 32% vehicles, or fuels · Plastic bollards --Interstate MAX is the first light-rail line to use recycled plastic bollards, instead of rein- Changes to con- 0% 0% 0% forced metal stanchions, in the paved trackway. The struction materials recycled bollards saved $100,000 in purchasing costs Use of alternative over steel, and saved an additional $150,000 in instal- construction 27% 29% 49% materials lation costs. · Using existing materials--TriMet pioneered an inno- Recycling con- 29% 39% 61% vative practice of using the existing road-base con- struction waste crete and adding a new layer of asphalt. This reduced Sourcing materials 10% 17% 27% demolition, trucking, and disposal fees by nearly $2.4 locally million. Changes to con- · Recycling pavement and track--Where the existing struction equip- 0% 0% 0% road base could not be reused, TriMet used recycled ment/vehicles or fuels asphalt and concrete as base materials, recycling enough material to cover a 50-ft wide strip, 5 mi long Other strategies 5% 5% 7% and 1.5 ft deep. These measures resulted in savings of 73% Any strategies $186,000 by buying recycled materials instead of new (30 agencies) materials. All of the agencies planning or implementing these mea- sures are aware that they can reduce GHG emissions. More than two-thirds noted that reducing GHG emissions is a factor in their agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Almost one-third of agencies indicated that reducing GHG emissions was a principal factor in their decision (Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Jacksonville Transporta- tion Authority, Community Transit, TransLink, Sound Tran- sit, LACMTA, Hampton Roads Transit, Sarasota County Area Transit, Foothill Transit, and TriMet). Sacramento Regional Transit District noted that reducing life-cycle costs FIGURE 13 Recycled plastic railroad ties used in construction was the primary driver of its construction and maintenance of TriMet's Interstate MAX Yellow Line. strategies.

30 OTHER ENERGY-EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE Chicago Transit Authority cited cost savings as the primary ENERGY MEASURES driver for implementing such strategies. Other energy-efficiency measures can reduce emissions Specific energy-saving strategies being pursued include from transit agencies' facilities and administrative func- certification of facilities under the Leadership in Environ- tions. Agencies can reduce energy consumption in office mental Design (LEED) standard, a widely used green-build- buildings, stations, shelters, and maintenance yards through ing and energy-efficiency design standard. Many agencies a variety of energy-saving measures. These include changes already have LEED-certified buildings or policies requiring to lighting, heating, and cooling systems in existing facili- LEED certification of new buildings: ties, as well as building new facilities to a higher standard of energy efficiency. Recycling waste from office buildings, · WMATA has a policy goal of LEED Silver certifica- especially paper, can also help to reduce GHG emissions. tion for all new buildings and major renovations. Nonrevenue vehicle fleets can incorporate alternative fuels · Sacramento Regional Transit District consolidated its and technology to reduce emissions. Transit agencies can headquarters into a LEED-certified building. offer programs for employees to reduce their own emis- · King County Metro is pursuing LEED Silver certifica- sions from their commutes by taking transit themselves or tion or better for any new construction. by carpooling. · Lee County Transit will use LEED construction guide- lines for a new facility. Thirty-four of 41 respondents are planning or implement- · LACMTA plans to adapt the operation and main- ing strategies to reduce energy consumption and/or GHG tenance of its existing buildings according to LEED emissions from their facilities and administrative functions. principles. Table 10 summarizes survey responses. Three-quarters of respondents are either planning or implementing strategies Another option for transit agencies is to increase the to reduce the energy used in their office buildings. Almost amount of electricity they use from renewable sources. two-thirds of respondents are pursuing strategies to reduce Renewable energy, including solar, wind, and tidal energy, emissions from employee commuting and the energy used in has a much lower GHG impact than energy generated from maintenance yards. About half noted that they are working burning fossil fuels. Transit agencies can install renew- to reduce employee travel. able energy infrastructure on their own property and can purchase more of their electricity from renewable sources. TABLE 10 Individual solar cells can be used to power lighting for bus AGENCIES REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM FACILITIES AND shelters, information signs, and emergency telephones. Some NON-REVENUE VEHICLES (% of 41 respondents) agencies, including LA Metro, have installed solar photovol- Planning or taic cells on the roofs their buildings. Community Transit Emissions Source Planning Implementing Implementing in Washington State is incorporating solar panels in its new Employee facilities. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 20% 49% 61% commuting is considering building sources of renewable energy to power Employee travel 15% 34% 44% its transit facilities. Other initiatives to reduce GHG emis- sions from administrative functions include the following: Energy used in 41% 56% 76% office buildings · Utah Transit Authority installed timers for lights in Energy used in maintenance yards 37% 39% 63% park-and-ride facilities to reduce consumption of electricity. Other 5% 5% 10% · Chicago Transit Authority retrofitted lighting in build- 83% ings to reduce energy consumption. The agency also Any strategies (34 agencies) uses flex-fuel nonrevenue vehicles, which can burn alternative fuels. Almost all agencies pursuing such strategies are aware · In 2008, King County Metro significantly expanded that their efforts can reduce GHG emissions. Three-quar- its outreach programs to help employees reduce their ters indicated that reducing GHG emissions was a factor in energy consumption. their agency's decision to pursue these reduction strategies. · BART and New Jersey Transit use hybrid vehicles in Reducing GHG emissions was a principal factor for almost a their nonrevenue fleets. quarter of these agencies (Montgomery County DOT, South- west Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Jacksonville Trans- A report commissioned by the FTA will supplement portation Authority, Sound Transit, LACMTA, Hampton current knowledge on strategies to reduce emissions from Roads Transit, Sarasota County Area Transit, and Foothill transit agencies' operations. The Transit Greenhouse Gas Transit). Both Sacramento Regional Transit District and Emissions Management Compendium will guide transit

31 managers in planning and decision making. The compen- GHG emissions were a principal factor in decision mak- dium will cover strategies to reduce emissions from opera- ing more often for strategies that reduce agencies' emissions tions, maintenance, and construction. The compendium will than for strategies that reduce emissions from the transpor- provide information on the scale of emissions reductions tation sector. GHG emissions were a principal factor most possible and typical costs of strategies. It will include an frequently in decisions to use alternative fuels. GHG emis- emissions profile of a transit agency, as well as case studies sions were a principal factor least frequently for strategies of strategies implemented by agencies. that increase vehicle passenger loads. This result probably reflects the central role that increasing passenger loads plays in achieving traditional goals of transit agencies. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN DECISION MAKING GHG emissions were more likely to play even a small Transit agencies may implement strategies that reduce GHG role in decision making for strategies that reduce agencies' emissions for many other reasons than reducing GHG emis- emissions than for strategies that reduce emissions from the sions. Many of the strategies discussed provide important transportation sector. Approximately half of agencies said customer service benefits, compliance with existing envi- that GHG emissions were a factor or a principal factor in ronmental regulations, and cost savings. Reducing GHG decisions to pursue strategies to expand service, increase emissions should not be seen as the only or principal rea- vehicle passenger loads, mitigate congestion, and promote son to undertake such strategies, but rather one of many co- compact development. Upwards of two-thirds of agencies benefits. GHG emission reductions alone typically are not said that GHG emissions were a factor or a principal factor sufficient to justify pursuing such strategies under current in pursuing alternative fuels or vehicles, vehicle operations agency planning practices and constraints. In addition, some and maintenance strategies, construction and maintenance strategies may provide no net benefit to GHG emissions, but strategies, and other energy-efficiency and renewable energy may be important for other reasons. Buses that serve disad- strategies. Awareness of the GHG impacts of strategies was vantaged neighborhoods may have low passenger loads and very high among agencies planning or implementing strate- therefore emit more GHGs than they save, but they provide a gies. For every strategy type, nearly all agencies were at least valuable social service nonetheless. aware of the potential impacts on GHG emissions. In planning and implementing strategies, agencies con- sidered GHG emissions benefits to different degrees. Figure EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSIT STRATEGIES 14 compares the role that GHG emissions played in various types of strategies. Strategies are grouped together depend- Transit strategies' effectiveness at reducing GHG emis- ing on whether they primarily reduce emissions from the sions depends on the design of strategies and the context of transportation sector as a whole or reduce emissions from regional transportation systems. Several recent studies have transit agencies. quantified the potential impact of broad transit strategies on FIGURE 14 GHG emissions in decision making (percent of agencies planning or implementing each strategy type) [Source : ICF analysis (unpublished)].

32 GHG emissions, and more studies are ongoing. These stud- Several national studies are investigating the potential ies generally have found that transit strategies would reduce of various transportation strategies, including broad transit transportation GHG emissions at both the state and national strategies, to reduce GHG emissions. Three studies will be levels, and have highlighted some key factors in determining released in 2009: strategies' net impact on GHG emissions. · Moving Cooler, a forthcoming report from the Urban Many states have undertaken their own research on strat- Land Institute, will investigate strategies that could be egies to reduce transportation GHG emissions, including implemented to reduce GHG emissions from personal transit strategies, as part of climate action plans. Plans from travel. Improvements in public transportation are one a sample of five different states have estimated the potential category of strategies that the work will assess. The of those polices to reduce GHG emissions at between 0.2 project does not address technology-based strategies and 5.8 MMtCO2e per year in 2020 (47 ). For comparison, for vehicles and fuels. Individual measures and bun- all transportation emissions from the state of Delaware total dles of strategies will be analyzed for their cost-effec- 5.4 MMtCO2e per year (8). Results vary by state depending tiveness in reducing GHG emissions. on analysis techniques, the size of the state, existing urban · A study for TRB, Potential Energy Savings and development and transportation patterns, and the aggres- Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Transportation, is siveness of policies proposed. A 2008 study by the Uni- reviewing policies and strategies to affect behavior versity of Minnesota found that comprehensive transit and and improve fuel economy for passenger and freight smart growth policies will be essential to meeting Minne- vehicles across all modes. sota's goal to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2005 levels · A study for the U.S.DOT is being completed in coor- by 2015. The study found that construction of an extensive dination with the EPA and the U.S. Global Change LRT or BRT network in the Twin Cities region could reduce Research Program. The report will summarize trans- statewide vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by 2.2% in 2025. portation's impact on climate change and strategies Improvements to the region's existing transit system could to reduce the impact. It examines the GHG reduction reduce statewide VMT by 0.3% (48). effects of alternative transportation strategies, and the potential fuel savings and reductions in air pollution ICF International recently estimated the GHG impacts associated with these strategies. of a package of bus transit improvements for Washington's Climate Action Plan. The scenarios considered as part of the Generally transit plans, whether they are for individual analysis included a doubling of transit ridership, an increase stations, corridors, or entire systems, will include a range in vehicle load factors, and a shift toward the use of hybrid of the strategies described in this chapter. The GHG impact buses. The analysis found that the benefits of reduced VMT of plans depends on the net effect of many elements. A bus from increased transit ridership in Washington may be offset expansion plan might include elements to increase the provi- by an increase in emissions from an expanded diesel bus sion of bus service, increase ridership, and switch to more fleet. As shown in Figure 15, the net effect on GHG emis- fuel-efficient buses. Strategies must be evaluated concur- sions depends on assumptions for improvements in bus pro- rently to determine their composite effects on transporta- ductivity (load factors) and bus fuel economy (through the tion GHG emissions. For example, a BRT system can reduce introduction of diesel hybrids). Expanding the transit fleet greenhouse gas emissions by-- without increasing load factors or using cleaner vehicle tech- nologies would produce a net increase in GHG emissions. · Using newer, more fuel-efficient high-capacity buses; Converting the bus fleet to 75% diesel hybrids would gener- · Drawing more riders out of their cars and onto faster, ate a net decrease in emissions. Simultaneously increasing more convenient transit; load factors would reduce emissions even further. FIGURE 15 GHG impacts of transit expansion scenarios in Washington State, 2020.

33 · Capturing operational efficiencies through dedicated Chapter five describes techniques to analyze the impact lanes and signal timing, as well as centrally managed of transit on GHG emissions through mode shift, reduced dispatching; and congestion, compact development, and reductions from · Potentially switching to low carbon alternative fuels transit vehicles and agency operations. (49).

34 CHAPTER five ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS SAVINGS FROM TRANSIT Transit agencies can estimate both the impacts of entire tran- CO2 is the most commonly analyzed gas, accounting for sit systems on GHG emissions and the marginal impacts of 95% of U.S. transportation GHG emissions (5). Emissions specific strategies on GHG emissions. Impacts of systems of CO2 are typically the easiest to calculate. CH4 and N2O generally can be quantified using existing data and analysis are also commonly included in calculations. The remaining techniques. Estimating the impact of specific transit strate- gases are less commonly included, although estimates of gies is more complex in some cases. This chapter provides an these are required by some registries. overview of analysis frameworks and some agencies' expe- riences with quantification, as well as references to more TABLE 11 detailed calculation methodologies. TYPICAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS Global Several recent studies have provided methodologies for Typical Sources for Warming calculating the GHG impacts of transit service. The most Gas Transit Agencies Potential (GWP) robust of these is a methodology developed by APTA's Cli- Gasoline and diesel mate Change Standards Working Group and funded by FTA. combustion The methodology, Recommended Practice for Quantifying Carbon dioxide Combustion at stationary 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit, was released in (CO2) sources; e.g., maintenance 2009. This chapter draws heavily on that document. More yards detail on many of the calculation methodologies described Electricity purchases here is available within APTA's methodology (50 ). Gasoline and diesel combustion Methane (CH4) 21 Quantifying the impacts of transit systems and of transit Fugitive emissions of strategies on GHG emissions is a relatively new effort. For natural gas years, state DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies have esti- Nitrous oxide Gasoline and diesel 310 mated the impact of transit strategies on criteria pollutants, (N2O) combustion as required by the Clean Air Act; however, there is no regu- Hydrofluorocar- Leakage of refrigerants 12­11,700 latory requirement to estimate the impacts of transit on GHG bons (HFCs) emissions. Still, transit agencies may find it useful to quan- Perfluorocarbons tify impacts on GHG emissions for the following purposes: Leakage of refrigerants 6,500­9,200 (PFCs) Sulfur hexafluo- Leakage from electrical · Reporting to the Climate Registry and other agencies 23,900 ride (SF6) equipment · Preparing for possible state and federal reporting Source: Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse requirements (e.g., Washington State is currently Gas Emissions from Transit: Draft, APTA Climate Change developing a rule that will require reporting by any Standards Working Group, Mar. 2008, p. 16 (50). agency that operates an on-road vehicle fleet that emits at least 2,500 metric tons of GHG annually). Analyses of transit's impact on GHG emissions can · Supporting internal efforts to reduce emissions include any of the four components discussed in chapter · Communicating the benefits of transit to the public and three. Transit displaces emissions through travel mode to legislators shift, compact development, and reduced congestion. · Ensuring eligibility for new funding sources Transit produces emissions from vehicles, facilities, and · Preparing for the implementation of new state GHG regula- construction and maintenance (see Figure 5 for a diagram tions, such as California's SB 375, which requires MPOs to of components). Analyses of individual transit strategies plan for reduced GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles incorporate emissions produced by transit vehicles and · Preparing for possible new federal regulations. emissions displaced by transit to measure the net impact of strategies. Emissions displaced include, at a minimum, the Analyses can include any of the six GHGs listed in Table impact of travel mode shift. To provide a more complete 11. Within analyses of GHG emissions from transportation, account of displaced emissions, the benefits of reduced

35 congestion and compact development may be included in age trip length for transit trips and for displaced vehicle trips an analysis of strategies. These components have more will be the same. The impact of displaced vehicle trips on often been included in analyses of the impacts of transit GHG emissions is then estimated using figures for aver- systems than in analyses of transit strategies. age light-duty fuel efficiency from the Energy Information Administration or EPA, and standard factors of GHG emis- The following sections describe proposed and commonly sions per gallon of fuel. used methods for estimating each of the four components of analysis. These techniques generally can be applied to indi- Some recent studies have used a simplified approach to vidual transit projects or strategies, to entire transit agen- calculate displaced travel. Assuming that every trip made cies, or to an aggregate of all transit service in a state or the on transit would be taken by car if transit were not available, United States. The basic analytical principles are the same at these studies have applied national ratios of average vehicle each level, although the specific techniques for data gather- occupancy to calculate the number of car trips displaced. ing and forecasting vary. This approach ignores the possibilities of walking, biking, or not taking a trip as alternatives to transit (16,21). TRAVEL MODE SHIFT Analyses of the total mode shift provided by a transit agency or agencies typically can use empirical data on PMT To estimate the impact of mode shift to transit, transit agen- as reported in the National Transit Database (NTD). Analy- cies must determine how many private vehicle trips are dis- ses of the benefits of specific lines and services require more placed by trips on buses and trains. Some trips on transit detailed data. For large projects, displacement of VMT is remove private vehicles from the road. Other trips made on often analyzed as part of ridership projections or environ- transit would have been made by carpool, walking, biking, mental analysis. For smaller projects, sketch planning tech- or not made at all, if transit were not available. niques may be more appropriate. There are three general approaches to estimating the The Region of Waterloo, which provides transit services mode shift effect for a given transit agency. First, agencies in Waterloo, Ontario (in the greater Toronto region), recently can use regional travel demand models that predict trip pat- estimated the impact of a new bus line on GHG emissions. terns based on transportation networks, land uses, and other The Region of Waterloo used a survey of riders and pas- factors. MPOs typically maintain the travel demand model senger counts to estimate the mode shift effect of the new for a region. Using a travel demand model to calculate mode service. The bus line, termed the iXpress, is a BRT system shift is relatively labor intensive. In addition, many urban that replaced a conventional bus system beginning in Sep- areas' travel demand models do not include a robust meth- tember 2005. The iXpress service was implemented in con- odology for calculating transit trips and are therefore inad- junction with transit signal priority measures, a web-based equate for this type of analysis. trip planner, an automatic passenger counting (APC) sys- tem, an AVLC system, community-based marketing initia- A second approach uses evidence from "natural experi- tives, and inter-modal integration measures. The APC and ments." For example, where transit service has been tempo- AVLC systems will be used specifically to monitor rider- rarily eliminated by strikes or power outages, the empirical ship and to optimize routes and schedules in the future. The impacts on VMT can inform an estimate of travel mode shift. iXpress route extends 35 km (22 mi) and serves 13 stations. The iXpress' better quality service, faster travel times, and A third approach applies a mode shift factor to data on improved connections for pedestrians and bicyclists all con- the transit agency's passenger mileage. APTA's methodol- tributed to increasing ridership on the route. ogy recommends this approach. A mode shift factor is a ratio of transit passenger trips to displaced private auto trips. For The Region of Waterloo, in partnership with the Univer- example, a mode shift factor of 0.5 means that for every 100 sity of Waterloo, estimated the impact of the iXpress service trips made on transit, 50 vehicle trips are avoided. Locally on mode shift by recording the daily passenger boardings on appropriate mode shift factors can be estimated using out- the service and surveying passengers to determine how they puts from a regional travel demand model or from rider made their trips before iXpress became available. Results surveys. In the absence of these types of information, agen- of the survey are presented in Figure 16. Assuming that all cies can use average mode shift factors available in APTA's auto trips are made by SOVs, we can estimate from these methodology. Mode shift factors are provided for various data a mode shift factor of 0.136 for the iXpress. With the sizes of transit agencies. benefit of the detailed individual survey responses, the tran- sit agency conducted a slightly more complex analysis than Applying the mode shift factor to the total number of pas- recommended by APTA's methodology. The analysis used senger trips, agencies can calculate the number of vehicle individual trip lengths by nontransit mode to calculate dis- trips they displace. Typically, analyses assume that the aver- placed emissions, rather than using an average length for all

36 nontransit trips. This technique requires matched data on APTA's methodology offers three approaches to calculat- alternative mode and length of trip for each rider. ing the benefits of reduced congestion: Based on this analysis, the transit agency estimated that · Applying a mode shift factor directly to data reported the iXpress service eliminates 1.5 million km (932,000 mi) in the TTI Urban Mobility Report--This approach is of auto travel annually, and thereby displaces 500 metric the simplest. It requires only that the transit agencies tons of GHG emissions through travel mode shift. The net correct the mode shift factor that TTI uses to calculate impact of the iXpress, accounting for an increase in emis- the transit congestion reduction benefit (0.8). Agencies sions of transit vehicles from the former conventional bus should use mode shift factors specific to their regions. service to the BRT service, is a reduction of 450 metric tons · Extrapolating from data in the Urban Mobility of GHG emissions annually. Report--This is a more sophisticated estimation tech- nique requiring the application of basic statistical mod- Although empirical data can be used to estimate emis- eling to a time-series of data in the Urban Mobility sions displaced by existing transit service, analyzing pro- Report. posed improvements requires the use of ridership forecasts. · Applying regional travel demand models --With At the time of the analysis, the Region of Waterloo had not this approach, a regional travel demand model is run fully implemented all technology measures on the iXpress. assuming no transit service, and the increase in vehicle Based on projected increases in ridership, the transit agency hours of delay and/or fuel consumed in congestion is expects that the mode shift effect of the service will rise to measured. As with the modeling approach for travel 750 metric tons of GHGs reduced annually 1 year after full mode shift, the results of this approach depend on the implementation of all technologies (51). sophistication of the model, and substantial resources may be required to run the model. CONGESTION MITIGATION The recent CALPIRG study used TTI's figures for fuel savings without adjusting for regional mode shift factors. Transit agencies can use several different techniques to esti- That study produced estimates of GHG emissions reduced mate the additional GHG emissions reduced by their service by individual transit agencies across the country. Where a through mitigation of congestion. Most analyses rely on data city had more than one transit agency, the benefits of reduced from the TTI's annual Urban Mobility Report, which pro- congestion were divided among agencies using each agency's vides congestion data for 85 metropolitan areas in the United share of regional PMT (16 ). Benefits might also be divided States (9). The Urban Mobility Report includes an estimate using the share of regional passenger trips. (CALPIRG's for each urban area of the amount of gasoline saved by tran- results for individual transit agencies are provided in Appen- sit's reduction in congestion on roadways. dix C.) Both the ICF and SAIC studies, which only calculated FIGURE 16 iXpress rider survey results--Mode used prior to availability of iXpress. (Source : Hellinga and Cicuttin, "Impacts of New Express Bus Service in Waterloo Region," submitted for the Transportation Association of Canada Annual Conference, Session, Integrating Transit Service into Communities, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Oct. 14­17, 2007, p. 16).

37 aggregate impacts of all transit in the United States, also The preferred method to calculate the leverage factor used TTI's figures for fuel savings without modification. for a specific region is to conduct an SEM study specific to that region, using a household travel survey specific to the region. NYMTA is currently conducting such a study to best COMPACT DEVELOPMENT quantify the unique relationship between transit and land use in the New York metropolitan region. This type of study Several methods have been used to quantify the impact of requires a significant effort. An alternative method, avoiding transit on GHG emissions through compact development, a unique SEM study, uses the default national multiplier of but none have yet been widely accepted. The most common 1.9 calculated by the ICF study. This figure should be viewed way to account for the effect of transit on compact develop- as a placeholder, because land use patterns and transit service ment is through the use of a leverage factor, also known as vary substantially from region to region. APTA is currently a land use multiplier. The leverage factor accounts for the developing more detailed guidelines on how to evaluate the indirect benefit that transit provides to those people who do impact of transit on emissions through compact develop- not travel on transit, but whose walking, biking, and driving ment. The guidelines will provide instruction in conducting trips are made shorter by the influence of transit on land use. a tailored regional study, including required resources and To account for this indirect benefit, a leverage factor is used statistical techniques (50 ). to scale up the emissions reduced by direct mode shift of trips to transit. Leverage factors can be applied to mode shift effects cal- culated for existing services or to mode shift effects projected Leverage factors can be estimated for specific urban for specific strategies, although transit agencies should take regions, for specific transit modes, and for individual transit care in interpreting the latter. By using a leverage factor, services. Estimating unique leverage factors is often a com- transit agencies take credit for land use patterns that have plex and data-intensive exercise. Therefore, many analyses co-evolved with transit over many decades. Any new transit use average leverage factors drawn from the literature. A strategies would likewise take decades to realize their full recent CALPIRG study used individual leverage factors for effects on land use. A leverage factor therefore should be light-rail and heavy-rail transit (factor of 2), commuter rail treated as a long-term benefit of any strategies to improve (factor of 0.4), and bus and other transit (factor of 0). In this or expand transit. For TOD strategies, which directly affect case, a leverage factor of 2 means that each passenger mile compact development patterns, the benefits of land use could traveled on light or heavy rail reduces automobile VMT by 2 be calculated more easily. solely through the indirect effect of transit on land use (16 ). To be conservative, CALPIRG's study assumed that only Some regional agencies have conducted advanced mod- rail transit had an effect on land use patterns. CALPIRG's eling of how GHG emissions from transportation would leverage factors were based on assumptions drawn from change under various scenarios for development of land two previous studies (11,52). Empirical studies have found, use and transportation systems. The exercise is known as in different urban areas and for different transit corridors, land use­transportation scenario planning. Types of sce- leverage factors between 1.4 and 9 (4). narios evaluated typically include compact development and expansion of transit. The Sacramento Council of Govern- Another recent study used structural equations model- ments conducted such a study in 2004, using a sophisticated ing (SEM), a sophisticated statistical technique, to quantify software package, to establish a preferred scenario of growth the impact of transit on GHG emissions through compact for the region. Compared with a base case scenario in 2050, development. That study found that, nationwide, the com- Sacramento's Preferred Blueprint Scenario substantially pact development impacts of transit reduce GHG emissions increases the percentage of new jobs and housing near tran- by 29.9 MMtCO2 per year, or as much as all emissions from sit, reduces the number of trips taken by car by 10%, and all transportation in the state of Colorado (8) (see Table 2). reduces per capita CO2 emissions by 14% (53). A 2005 study The leverage factor calculated by the study was 1.9 (10 ). reviewed the results of this exercise and similar exercises in other regions in the United States. The study found that APTA's methodology considers SEM to be the most median impact on VMT for alternative scenarios was a 2% robust means to calculate a leverage factor, because it iso- to 3% reduction below base case scenarios (54). lates only the effects of transit on development patterns. Leverage factors calculated through other means tend to Analyses of land use­transportation scenarios are sub- capture characteristics of land use that are correlated with stantially more complex than the calculations described in but not necessarily induced by transit. Transit infrastructure APTA's methodology. In addition, there is no existing meth- is sometimes integrated into preexisting compact develop- odology to isolate the benefits of transit from those of land ment areas. SEM does not credit transit with the effects of use planning within such a study. Nevertheless, such exer- preexisting land use patterns on travel habits. cises can provide robust analyses of the combined impacts

38 of transit expansion and land use measures on transportation TABLE 12 GHG emissions. IMPACT OF INCREASING ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES TO 15% OF THE TRANSIT FLEET IN 2009 Fuel Consumed EMISSIONS FROM AGENCY OPERATIONS Alternative Fuel CO2 tons Thousands of Gallons Clean Diesel 35,251 2,664 Emissions from agency operations, including emissions from CNG -220,758 2,154 transit vehicles, facilities, and construction and maintenance activities, are a standard component of emissions inventories Diesel Hybrid -491,352 -50,658 for transit agencies. In most cases, estimation of these emis- Gasoline Hybrid -74,114 2,833 sions simply requires data on the use of fuel or electricity, typically available from agencies' records or from the NTD. Biodiesel (B20)a 25,087 3,876 Standard factors of GHG emissions are applied to these data Change relative to 2009 baseline. to calculate GHG emissions. aImplemented in the older diesel buses of the fleet. Source: Wayne, W.S., Environmental Benefits of Alternative The APTA methodology provides guidance on estimat- Fuels and Advanced Technology in Transit, Federal Transit ing the following: Administration, 2007 (55). · Direct emissions from stationary combustion (e.g., on- Another study sponsored by FTA examined the GHG site furnaces) emissions performance of various bus propulsion technolo- · Direct emissions from mobile combustion gies over a 12-year lifespan. The study assumes that buses · Indirect emissions from electricity use were purchased in 2007. In this case, the study did use life- · Other indirect emissions (e.g., steam purchases) cycle (well to wheels) emission factors. Figure 17 provides the · Fugitive emissions (e.g., refrigerant leaks) results of the study. The study again shows diesel hybrids as · Embodied emissions from construction materials. the lowest emitting type of bus on a CO2 per mile basis. CO2 emissions per mile tend to increase in future years, presum- For a quick snapshot of an individual transit fleet's GHG ably because fuel efficiency declines as the vehicles age. emissions, agencies can visit www.travelmatters.org. The online transit calculator provides instant estimates for most agencies, based on 2002 NTD data. Once baseline emissions from any source are calculated, agencies can estimate the impact of specific strategies that reduce emissions. Of those strategies that reduce emissions from agency operations, alternative fuel and vehicle technol- ogy strategies have been analyzed most extensively. Changes in fuel or vehicle technologies produce measurable changes in GHG emissions on a per mile basis. Simple reduction fac- FIGURE 17 Life-cycle GHG emissions from various propulsion tors, such as those provided in Table 7, can be applied to the technologies (Source : Clark, et al., Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation, Federal Transit target vehicle population to estimate emission reductions. Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007, p. 34). The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation model, from which the factors in that table are drawn, can be used to calculate emission reduction A life-cycle emissions analysis of transit can account for factors for additional fuel types and fuel pathways. Emis- all emissions from the transit system, including emissions sions can be calculated on a life-cycle basis or on a tailpipe from building the highway or rail system, manufacturing the basis only. vehicles, maintaining the infrastructure and vehicles, pro- ducing and using the fuel, and eventually disposing of the A recent study commissioned by the FTA examined a vehicles and infrastructure (3). Comparing the same life- hypothetical case in which the proportion of alternative fuel cycle components for SOVs allows for a full life-cycle evalu- buses was increased to 15% of the entire transit bus fleet by ation of the benefits of shifting auto-based transportation to 2009. The study examined changes in emissions from this bus and rail transportation. scenario on a tailpipe emissions basis only. Results are pro- vided in Table 12. The study found that diesel hybrid tech- A study from the University of California, Berkeley, com- nologies would be the most effective by far to reduce tailpipe pared the actual life-cycle emissions of four rail transit sys- CO2 emissions from buses (55). tems with average emissions from buses and SOVs. The rail

39 systems analyzed were San Francisco's BART (heavy rail), sions produced by transit. Of those agencies not estimating California's commuter rail system Caltrain (heavy rail) San GHG emissions displaced by transit, some are still estimat- Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) (light rail), and Bos- ing a closely related impact. Because CO2 emissions are ton's Green Line (light rail). directly proportional to fuel use and are very closely cor- related with VMT, agencies were asked about their efforts The researchers found that including full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions increased estimates by as to analyze impacts on fuel and VMT as well. Nearly two- much as 70% for autos, 40% for buses, 150% for light thirds of respondents said that they are estimating or have rail, and 120% for heavy rail. While including emissions estimated the displacement effect (GHG emissions, fuel use, from construction of infrastructure has a larger impact or VMT displaced) of their existing service or planned ser- on rail transit than on automobiles, the results still show significant emissions savings from average occupancy vice improvements. Nearly half of respondents said that they rail and bus transit over average occupancy sedans, are estimating or have estimated GHG emissions produced SUVs, and pickups. by their existing operations or the impacts of strategies on those emissions. Figure 18 charts the results of the analysis. Agencies were asked specifically whether they are esti- mating or have estimated the displacement effect of their existing service offering. Table 13 summarizes the survey responses. Nearly half of all agencies surveyed have analyzed or are analyzing the displacement effect of their existing ser- vice. Fewer agencies are analyzing the specific impacts via compact development or reduction of congestion. TABLE 13 AGENCIES ANALYZING DISPLACEMENT EFFECT OF EXISTING SERVICE (% of 41 respondents) Analysis FIGURE 18 Life-cycle analysis of GHG emissions from rail Displacement effect on VMT, fuel use, or 44% systems: grams CO2e per PMT (Source : Chester, Life-cycle GHG emissions from private autos Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the Compact development effect 34% United States, Institute of Transportation Studies, Dissertations, University of California, Berkeley, 2008. Chart taken from Congestion mitigation effect 32% Hodges, Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 2009). Agencies were also asked whether they are analyzing the Further research could simplify Chester's aggregate impact of specific strategies on displaced emissions. More results for transit agencies to use in calculating their own than one-third of agencies surveyed are analyzing specific life-cycle GHG emissions benefits. For example, life-cycle strategies. Table 14 shows analyses that agencies have con- emissions multipliers could be developed for each transpor- ducted or are conducting. The most commonly analyzed tation mode. At present, transit agencies have only applied strategies are those that transit agencies tend to analyze for life-cycle emissions analysis to transit fuels. conventional route planning purposes, including new ser- vice types, expanded route coverage, and increased service For other transit emission reduction strategies, analyses frequency. All strategies are analyzed by at least one agency. are less readily available. To quantify the impact of most of GHG analyses are in all cases less common than analyses of these strategies, transit agencies need to measure or estimate VMT or fuel impacts. In some cases, partner agencies may a strategy's impact on the use of fuel, energy, or materials. perform the analyses. Metro, the MPO for Portland, Oregon, FTA's forthcoming Transit Greenhouse Gas Emissions Man- is performing most of the analyses of strategies for TriMet as agement Compendium should provide some analysis of the part of the update to Metro's Regional Transportation Plan. emissions reductions possible from such strategies. Agencies were asked whether they are analyzing or have analyzed the impact of any strategies on their own emis- ANALYSES CONDUCTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS sions. About one-quarter of all respondents are analyzing some strategies. Table 15 shows the specific analyses con- Many transit agencies surveyed have conducted or are con- ducted. All types of strategies, except changes to construc- ducting at least a partial analysis of the impacts of their tion equipment and materials, are analyzed. Again, agencies services and operations on GHG emissions. Agencies are more commonly analyze the fuel or energy impact of strate- estimating both emissions displaced by transit and emis- gies than the GHG impact of strategies.

40 TABLE 14 AGENCIES ANALYZING DISPLACEMENT EFFECTS OF TRANSIT STRATEGIES (% of 41 respondents) Strategy Types VMT Fuel GHG Any Analysis Expanded route coverage 24% 15% 15% 27% Increased service frequency 24% 12% 15% 27% Increased hours of operation 15% 5% 7% 17% New service types (e.g., BRT or LRT) 27% 17% 22% 32% Transit marketing campaigns 12% 7% 5% 17% Provision of transit information 7% 2% 2% 12% Improved transit shelters and station stops 5% 0% 2% 7% Improved transit access for bicycles and pedestrians 17% 10% 15% 22% Improved transit access for the disabled and elderly 10% 2% 5% 12% Improved vehicle comfort 2% 0% 0% 2% Service improvements; e.g., timed transfers, reduced travel times, improved 20% 7% 10% 24% modal integration Changes in fare structures or payment methods 10% 2% 2% 10% Safety improvements 7% 0% 0% 7% Optimization of existing routes and services 22% 12% 15% 24% Other strategies 2% 2% 2% 5% 39% Any analyses (16 agencies) TABLE 15 AGENCIES ANALYZING EFFECTS OF STRATEGIES ON EMISSIONS FROM AGENCY OPERATIONS (% of 41 respondents) Strategy Types Fuel/Energy Use GHF Any Analysis Expansion of transit service 20% 12% 20% Changes in transit vehicle fleets and/or fuel mix 17% 15% 17% Energy efficiency measures for office buildings 15% 7% 15% Energy efficiency measures for maintenance yards 12% 7% 12% Changes to construction equipment and/or fuel mix 0% 0% 0% Changes to construction materials 0% 0% 0% Other strategies 0% 0% 0% Any strategies 22% (9 agencies) In conducting analyses of GHG emissions listed in Tables agencies. Individual comments from agencies included the 13­15, transit agencies used several different guidance doc- following: uments. APTA's methodology was the most commonly cited guidance document. Nearly half of agencies surveyed said · "Hard to quantify congestion and land use effects; that they are aware of APTA's guidance, and many said that thus, transit's emissions reduction potential is likely they are using or planning to use the guidance. Other sources underestimated." cited included climate action plans and guidance from Wash- · "It is difficult to estimate GHG reductions resulting ington State. from transit oriented land use. Much easier to examine our own fleet and do estimates based on our own data. Agencies were asked what particular challenges they face However, our fleet impact is small when considering in analyzing the impacts of their services on GHG emissions, the significant changes needed to reduce our region's and what would help to address those challenges. Agencies carbon footprint." cited a number of challenges related to calculation meth- · "The capacity to link travel demand forecasts to GHG odologies and tools. Calculation of compact development emissions is just emerging in our region and is still and congestion impacts is particularly difficult for some struggling to account for multiple modes. Getting

41 good data from our MPO in this regard will help out · "We have completed our GHG emissions inventory enormously. Good sketch planning tools for various for CY2007, but given current budget situation, we are development scenarios would be very helpful. Isolating not completing the inventory for CY2008. Funding is the ridership impact of various strategies for the pur- an issue. We've done some work on comparing cost- poses of associating emission reductions with them has effectiveness in various actions, but more information proven difficult. Accounting for construction-related would be helpful. A sample Climate Action Plan would emissions (mobile and embodied) across life cycle is also be helpful." quite an in-depth analysis...We haven't been able to · "We have only analyzed GHG impacts at a very gross move beyond simple default values...due to resource level to date. Tools that do not require a lot of staff time constraints. A tool that would enable some level of tai- or data gathering would be beneficial." loring for specific inputs would be very helpful." Finally, some agencies expressed challenges related to A few other agencies mentioned the need for new analysis communication: tools and guidance: · "[Challenges include] . . . relating to stakeholders the · "We used FHWA and FTA averages for occupancy and inverse relationship between transit increase and VMT average fuel efficiency when calculating the emissions decrease; agency coordination." avoided. A standard formula for calculating this would · "Our emissions from our fleet are the largest contribu- be helpful, as we could ensure we are using the same tor to GHG emissions. This can become a public per- figures as other agencies. A transit specific carbon cal- ception issue." culator would be a helpful tool." · "We will have to look at the APTA guidance to see Other comments included the following: how . . . [our agency] compares to other agencies. Compilations of information pertaining to different · "Establishing the base-line year [is a challenge]." engine manufacturers and engine types would be ben- · "Methodologies should be based on real testing of eficial. GHG impacts on typical items such as the new vehicles as opposed to just dynamometers. Include green tip fluorescent tubes and other common items life-cycle cost. Develop feasible cost-effectiveness would be beneficial." range for all projects." · "An electronic calculator like a `Turbotax' program to · "Newness of issue [is a challenge]. Need to get every- input NTD data to complete the calculations for a car- one involved when there is so much other necessary bon footprint would be useful. An option to use actual work to be done. Dire budgets and recession." bus emissions instead of factors would be useful to account for replacement of old buses." Research on the best techniques to evaluate transit's impact on GHG emissions is ongoing. The Florida DOT has A few agencies have had difficulty collecting the data contracted Florida State University to pilot APTA's guid- required for detailed GHG analyses. Comments included the ance on a sample of transit agencies in Florida. The research following: has calculated emissions reductions from mode shift and congestion reduction from each agency. The researchers are · "The greatest challenges are those of education and still considering the appropriate means to evaluate emissions data collection. The operational information we col- reduced through changes in land use. The project will cal- lect is not all that is needed for GHG impacts. Getting culate operational emissions from transit in a future phase the organization to collect that additional information, (Melanie Simmons, Florida State University, personal com- especially during times of fiscal constraint, is very munication, March 2009). difficult." · "Boundary issues are important (whose emissions are The Florida DOT is also sponsoring the development of these?). Data issues for older information have been a toolkit for a carbon footprint that integrates transit. The complex. NTD data is only a part of our total emissions; research will develop a framework for analyzing GHG emis- NRV [nonrevenue vehicles] for example not reported. sions within existing planning processes, including processes Breadth of services requires data from many sources. managed by MPOs, state DOTs, and local governments. The Calculating impact on regional emissions difficult." tool is not intended for use by transit agencies specifically, but it is expected to highlight the benefits of transit in mul- Some agencies have insufficient resources to con- timodal transportation planning (Sarah Hendricks, Florida duct detailed analyses. Individual comments included the State University, personal communication, March 2009). following:

42 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES AND REPORTING for details). One agency, Sound Transit, reported that they have estimated emissions associated with employee com- Emissions from agency operations are the core component muting and air travel, and emissions from the nonrevenue of GHG emission inventories for transit agencies. An emis- fleet. Agencies reported using guidance from the California sions inventory is a detailed account of emissions attribut- Climate Action Registry, APTA, The Climate Registry, the able to an agency, subdivided by source category. Standard Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Sacramento Air Quality definitions of responsibility for emissions are emerging as Management District to estimate their emissions. part of GHG reporting schemes, such as The Climate Regis- try, a nonprofit emissions reporting agency, and the Chicago TABLE 16 Climate Exchange, a voluntary program for trading of emis- AGENCIES ESTIMATING OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS sions credits. (% of 41 respondents) Included Emissions Percent The APTA methodology is intended to guide transit Transit vehicle emissions 41 agencies in preparing emissions inventories for submission Emissions from office buildings 27 to The Climate Registry. The Climate Registry uses conven- tions developed by the World Resources Institute to divide Emissions from maintenance yards 34 emissions into three scopes: Construction equipment emissions 7 · Scope 1: Direct Emissions --For transit agencies, direct Emissions associated with production or emissions include anything combusted or emitted on transportation of materials (embodied 2 the agency's premises or in the agency's vehicles. emissions) · Scope 2: Indirect Emissions --Emissions from pur- Other emissions 2 chased electricity, heating, cooling, and steam. 41 · Scope 3: Optional--For transit agencies, this scope Any inventory component (17 agencies) includes ­­ displaced emissions from mode shift to transit, con- gestion relief, and the land use multiplier; Eight agencies surveyed indicated that they have reported ­­ emissions from transit access trips (e.g., to rail sta- or are planning to report their GHG emissions to a carbon tions or park-and-ride facilities); registry. Agencies are reporting to the California Climate ­­ emissions from employee commuting and business Action Registry, the Chicago Climate Exchange, and The travel; Climate Registry. The San Jose Valley Transportation ­­ life-cycle emissions from vehicle manufacture and Authority reports its emissions to a local group called Sus- disposal; tainable Silicon Valley. ­­ upstream (well-to-tank) emissions from fuel extrac- tion, refining, and transportation; and Some within the transit industry are concerned about ­­ emissions from waste disposal. accounting conventions in emissions inventories for tran- sit agencies. The focus to date among carbon registries has The Climate Registry requires agencies to report only been on emissions from agency operations, with little atten- Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Reporting emissions displaced tion paid to emissions that agencies displace. This focus can by transit, which fall under Scope 3, is entirely optional. be challenging for agencies. For example, the Chicago Cli- APTA's methodology strongly recommends that transit mate Exchange currently requires members to show a net agencies reporting their emissions to The Climate Regis- 6% reduction of base 1998­2001 carbon emissions by 2010. try include Scope 3 emissions to provide a full picture of Displaced emissions are not considered in the calculation. transit's GHG impacts. Transit agencies preparing detailed This requirement would be difficult for agencies to meet if emissions inventories should see APTA's guidance docu- they are seeking to expand service. The focus on emissions ment for further direction on how to categorize and estimate from operations can be challenging to agencies in dealing the agency's GHG emissions impacts. with public perception and policy makers locally, if agencies are seen as emitters of GHGs and their benefits in displacing Some transit agencies have already compiled emissions GHG emissions are not fully recognized. inventories, either for internal use or for reporting to The Climate Registry or other organizations. More than one- Agencies are responding to these challenges both pas- third of agencies surveyed have estimated or are estimat- sively and proactively. Some agencies are adopting a wait- ing baseline or historical GHG emissions produced by their and-see approach before joining any carbon registries, agency. Of those agencies, all have included transit vehicle because they would like a formal method of accounting for emissions in their estimates. Other components of agen- displaced emissions before joining. Other agencies are con- cies' emissions are included less frequently (see Table 16 sidering joining the Chicago Climate Exchange to possibly

43 amend the rules of the organization to account for displaced · Strategies that require large outlays of capital and/or emissions (3). APTA's methodology, which focuses on increases in operating costs. Strategies that expand reporting to The Climate Registry, should advance standard transit service are often among the most expen- procedures for calculating displaced emissions. sive because of large capital and operating costs. Expanding the coverage of fixed-route services can require millions or even billions of dollars per mile. COST ANALYSES Purchasing new vehicles is also costly. Even oper- ating existing vehicles for longer hours increases The cost of strategies that reduce GHG emissions is a key operating costs for fuel and wages; very few transit factor for agencies deciding which strategies to pursue. Tran- services can pay these costs using fares alone. Both sit agencies are heavily constrained by their annual budgets. route expansions and increases in service frequency Strategies that can reduce emissions at relatively low cost or can cost upwards of several thousand dollars per ton can even save money are of particular interest. Cost analyses of GHGs reduced. compare the fiscal impact of various strategies and aid in decision making. Various factors determine the cost-effectiveness of spe- cific strategies: Two general types of cost analysis applied to transit are cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Cost- · Strategies that increase vehicle passenger loads can be effectiveness measures the impact of a strategy on GHG relatively inexpensive, because they make use of exist- emissions in dollars per ton reduced ($/ton). A highly cost- ing transit capacity. Marketing campaigns and minor effective strategy has a low $/ton value; for example, a strat- improvements to vehicles, stops, and stations may be egy that costs $50/ton can reduce twice the GHG emissions relatively inexpensive. for the same dollar amount as a strategy that costs $100/ton. · Strategies that promote compact development may Cost-effectiveness for some strategies also can be expressed require additional staff effort in planning and devel- as $/VMT reduced. Although analyses of cost-effectiveness opment functions, but typically do not require major typically consider only monetary cost and emissions impact, capital outlays by transit agencies. cost-benefit analyses tend to be much broader. CBA compares · Use of alternative fuels may save money if the alterna- multiple impacts of strategies by converting each impact to tive fuel of choice is locally available at a lower price terms of dollars, and in doing so can account for other envi- than conventional fuels. For example, King County ronmental impacts of transit, such as reduced emissions of Metro has seen the cost-effectiveness of biodiesel fluc- criteria pollutants, and societal impacts such as time saved tuate between more than $100/ton and less than $0/ton and improved safety. CBA is more appropriate for evaluating (cost savings) as fuel prices have changed. However, transit strategies across multiple objectives, whereas cost- if new alternative fuel vehicles must be purchased at effectiveness is a simpler and more common framework for higher cost than conventional vehicles, the net cost of evaluating just the impact of strategies on GHG emissions, such strategies will be higher. Currently, a hybrid bus relative to cost. costs roughly $500,000 and trolley buses cost around $850,000, whereas a conventional diesel bus costs Although existing research on cost-effectiveness of strat- about $350,000 (56 ). egies provides few general conclusions, a few strategies · The net cost of many strategies that reduce fuel con- stand out for their fiscal impacts: sumption in existing vehicles depends on the cost of new training programs, maintenance programs, and technol- · Strategies that generally save money for agencies and ogy upgrades, as well as on the amount of fuel saved. also reduce GHG emissions. Strategies that reduce the use of electricity and fuel through either operational Cost-effectiveness of individual strategies can vary changes or relatively inexpensive upgrades to facilities widely. For example, BRT systems in Los Angeles, Califor- and equipment typically save money in the long term. nia, and Vancouver, British Columbia, are estimated to cost Switching to high-efficiency lighting is one example. $117 per ton and $3,238 per ton, respectively (57). Vanpool New lighting fixtures typically pay for themselves in services for agricultural workers in Kings County, California, energy savings within a relatively short period. Using cover their own operating costs with fares and save 413 tons recycled materials in construction also can save money of CO2 emissions per month. In addition, the Kings County for agencies. For example, TriMet saved millions of dol- Area Public Transportation Agency estimates that the service lars by using recycled materials in the construction of a produces indirect cost savings, such as savings for riders and new light-rail line (see Strategies to Reduce Emissions businesses in the area, of $59 million per year (30). from Construction and Maintenance in chapter four). These strategies produce cost savings for each ton of To analyze the cost-effectiveness of a strategy, agencies emissions reduced. must calculate both the cost and the emissions impact of the

44 strategy. The most desirable transit strategy for cost-effec- While New York's study used a price of $149/ton, any tiveness reduces the most emissions for the least money. An price assigned to GHG emissions currently is largely specu- expensive strategy may be cost-effective in terms of $/ton lative. Estimated prices may be based on the costs of emis- if it reduces a large volume of emissions. Depending on the sion reduction strategies, economic forecasts, or results from purpose of the analysis, agencies may wish to consider only fledgling emissions markets. One agency surveyed, New internal costs and savings to the agency, or may consider Jersey Transit, has conducted cost analyses assuming that costs borne by and savings accrued to other stakeholders and the cost per ton of GHG will fall in the range of $4 to $50 the public as well. between now and 2020. These analyses will become part of the state's climate action plan. Assigning a cost to GHG emissions allows GHG impacts to be included in a CBA of strategies, in which all impacts Although more than a quarter of all agencies surveyed of a given strategy are monetized. A CBA analysis includ- reported that they have estimated or are estimating the cost- ing GHG emissions was conducted for conventional diesel, effectiveness of strategies in terms of $/VMT or $/ton, very hybrid diesel-electric, and CNG buses used by the New York few transit agencies have yet to undertake a comprehensive City Transportation Authority. For each bus technology, the analysis of cost-effectiveness for a range of GHG reduction analysis included capital expenditures, operations and main- strategies. BART is one of the first. In a recently released study, tenance expenditures, and environmental impacts, as well as BART compared the cost-effectiveness of measures that are several smaller categories of costs and benefits. The study fully within the control of BART (including those related to used a value of $149/ton of GHG. The analysis was conducted fares, access, and service) with measures that require coordi- during the period of operation of alternative bus types, when nation with other regional partners for broader land use and empirical data were available to inform the calculation. Eval- transportation changes (including transportation pricing and uating all cost components of a strategy is generally more land use policies). BART's analysis assessed only public sec- difficult before the strategy is implemented (58). tor costs, and not costs to individuals or businesses. FIGURE 19 Cost-effectiveness of BART strategies (Source : Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, BART Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 2008, p. 2).

45 A summary of results from the study is provided in Figure There has not yet been a cost-effectiveness analysis of 19. The study found that the least cost-effective strategies for many transit strategies over a variety of contexts, which BART are those requiring significant new capital or opera- could provide some generalizable conclusions across transit tions spending, such as new parking facilities, increased ser- agencies. A forthcoming study from the Urban Land Insti- vice frequency, and system extensions. More cost-effective tute, Moving Cooler, will include national-level estimates strategies include fare incentives, marketing, and feeder of GHG cost-effectiveness for some broad types of transit shuttle service. The study found TOD strategies on BART strategies, as well as many other transportation GHG reduc- property to be net generators of revenue for BART, and also tion strategies. to have high potential to reduce GHG emissions (59). Analy- ses were based on empirical results from actual strategies Ideally, transit agencies would conduct their own cost- tested or implemented by BART and other transit agencies. effectiveness analyses of GHG reduction strategies. But little guidance is available for agencies desiring to conduct cost- SFMTA also compared the costs of some strategies that effectiveness evaluations. TCRP Report 93 does include a reduce GHG emissions in its recently published Climate suggested methodology to compare the cost-effectiveness Action Plan; however, the plan does not provide information of various alternative vehicle technologies to reduce GHG on the cost-effectiveness of strategies, in $/ton. emissions (6 ). In general, estimating the cost-effectiveness of technology-based strategies, for which the scope of cost Washington State explored methods to assess the cost-ef- and cost savings is largely limited to the transit agency and fectiveness of a proposed transit expansion (see Effectiveness from which there are few co-benefits, is simpler than estimat- of Transit Strategies in chapter four), although no methodol- ing cost-effectiveness for strategies with broader impacts on ogy was sanctioned for inclusion in the Climate Action Plan. transportation systems. Agencies can adapt cost-effective- Cost elements considered included increases in agencies' ness methodologies intended for other air pollutants to esti- operating, capital maintenance, and capital expansion costs. mate $/ton of GHG. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority in Cost savings included a reduction in the variable costs of St. Petersburg, Florida, is planning to adapt methodologies owning and operating a vehicle (for transit users), reduction prepared by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for in congestion costs (for the traveling public), reduction in cost-effectiveness evaluation of criteria pollutants. (CARB's parking costs (for transit users), and reductions in vehicle guidance documents are available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ crashes and air pollution costs (for the public). planning/tsaq/mvrfp/mvrfp.htm.) Agencies interested in conducting cost-effectiveness evaluations should see the Although agencies may find cost analyses conducted by Victoria Transportation Policy Institute's Evaluating Public other organizations informative, they should take care when Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook (2008) applying findings to their own circumstances. Both costs for more background on types and amounts of cost and cost and GHG impacts of strategies can vary substantially based savings (60 ). on the specific design and context of strategies. In addition, different analytical scopes and methodologies can produce Agencies should also keep in mind that GHG cost-effec- widely varying results. The results of cost-effectiveness esti- tiveness is a limited metric for evaluation of strategies. Tran- mates depend heavily on the assumptions used, including sit service provides many co-benefits--including reducing factors such as energy prices, scale and aggressiveness of congestion, reducing emissions of criteria air pollutants, strategies, and the types of costs considered. Cost analyses and providing access to jobs and schools for disadvantaged can account for costs to transit agencies, other government communities--that are not accounted for in terms of $/ton of agencies, transit users, businesses, the public, or any sub- GHG reduced. Transit provides a relatively high level of co- set of these groups. Some strategies may appear relatively benefits when compared with other types of transportation cost-effective to reduce a few tons of GHG emissions, but GHG reduction strategies. Therefore, $/ton analyses across become less cost-effective as they are scaled up. Comparison different modes tend to disadvantage transit. A full CBA is of cost-effectiveness across different strategies and applica- more complicated, but it is better able to account for multiple tion of cost-effectiveness results from one context to another types of benefits. require particular caution.

46 CHAPTER six GREENHOUSE GAS POLICIES AND PLANNING Many transit agencies reduce GHG emissions from trans- Some state governments have established policies requir- portation through their existing public transportation ser- ing a reduction in GHG emissions. Beginning with Califor- vices. When agencies implement strategies that further nia's Assembly Bill (AB) 32, passed in 2006, 21 states have reduce GHG emissions, customer service, cost, and exist- adopted targets to reduce GHG emissions. Figure 20 shows ing environmental regulations are often the primary drivers. states that have adopted targets. Many states have also joined Targeted planning for GHG reductions is relatively rare at regional multistate GHG emissions trading schemes, includ- transit agencies. At the same time, many states and even the ing the Western Climate Initiative, the Regional Greenhouse federal government are moving toward regulation of GHG Gas Initiative in the northeast, and the Midwestern Green- emissions from transportation and other sectors. A few tran- house Gas Reduction Accord. So far only the Western Cli- sit agencies are developing policies and planning procedures mate Initiative plans to include transportation emissions in for GHG emissions. its trading scheme. Thirty-six states have developed or are developing com- STATE AND FEDERAL GREENHOUSE GAS POLICIES prehensive climate action plans to reduce GHG emissions (61). These plans typically propose and analyze the emis- Pressure is now mounting within the federal and state gov- sions impacts of strategies for the transportation, energy, and ernments for the transportation industry, as well as other agriculture and forestry sectors. Most states have included industries, to manage and reduce their GHG emissions. In transit strategies in their climate action plans. particular, the Obama administration has called for Con- gress to pass legislation to reduce GHG emissions. Legis- A few states are beginning to implement transportation lation that would affect the transportation industry could measures to achieve their GHG reduction goals. California come in the form of amendments to the Clean Air Act, reau- passed landmark Senate Bill (SB) 375 in 2008, which will thorization of federal transportation funding, or a separate establish regional targets to reduce GHG emissions from piece of legislation devoted to climate change. Congress has passenger travel for California's 18 MPOs. As part of their already devoted substantial attention in recent years to the long-range transportation planning processes, MPOs will possibility of an emissions trading scheme for GHG emis- be required to prepare strategies that identify how they will sions. Ten bills containing emissions trading provisions were meet these regional targets and to use their transportation introduced during the 110th Congress; some of these bills funding authority to achieve the targets. MPOs will have to included the transportation sector. quantify the impacts of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. FIGURE 20 States with GHG reduction goals (Source : Pew Center on Global Climate Change, "Climate Change 101: State Action," Jan. 2009.)

47 SB 375 is likely to encourage investment in transit in Cali- · WMATA stated that its local jurisdiction has instituted fornia's urban regions. a requirement for LEED certification that affects the agency's design and construction activities. Washington State enacted House Bill (HB) 2815, Climate Action and Green Jobs, in 2008. One provision of the bill Transit agencies may benefit from any GHG emissions requires the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) to adopt goals trading schemes at the national or state levels. Emissions to reduce statewide VMT. The bill sets the following targets: trading schemes allow parties to buy and sell emissions "credits." Entities' eligibility to participate in such a carbon · Reduce annual per capita light-duty VMT 18% by 2020 market would depend on the exact design of such a scheme. · Reduce annual per capita light-duty VMT 30% by 2035 Some schemes could allow transit agencies, as net reducers · Reduce annual per capita light-duty VMT 50% by 2050 of GHG emissions, to generate and sell emissions credits. Sales of emissions credits would be a new source of fund- The targets are applied to a baseline of 75 billion VMT, ing for transit. Sacramento Regional Transportation District, roughly the total VMT projected for the state in 2020. In pre- New Jersey Transit, and BART all cited potential revenue liminary implementation efforts, WSDOT has established from trading schemes as a factor in their efforts to reduce transit strategies as a key element of plans to meet the VMT GHG emissions. reduction targets (62). HB 2815 also requires reporting of GHG emissions by POLICY AND PLANNING AT TRANSIT AGENCIES any agency that operates an on-road vehicle fleet that emits at least 2,500 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. This To date, no significant research has documented transit agen- rule will affect most transit agencies in the state. The Wash- cies' experiences with planning for reduced GHG emissions. ington State Department of Ecology is tasked with issuing Most research on transportation planning and GHG emissions a reporting rule; 2010 will be the first year of reporting. has focused on the roles and processes of MPOs and state The Department of Ecology will use a simplified method of DOTs, and has largely focused on road-based transportation. reporting based on fuel usage. While transit agencies are partners in the transportation plan- ning and funding exercises led by these agencies, their roles Transit agencies will inevitably be involved in the imple- and their internal processes have received less attention. mentation of VMT and transportation GHG standards, and may receive more funding as a result. Transit agencies have The survey asked transit agencies several questions about already contributed to the first implementation steps for HB their experiences planning and implementing strategies to 2815 in Washington. Representatives from King County reduce GHG emissions. This section includes responses to Metro provided policy input and technical expertise to esti- those questions. The reader should keep in mind that few mate the amount of VMT and GHG reduction that could be agencies have extensive experience with targeted initiatives achieved from various transit expansion packages in Wash- to reduce GHG emissions. For most transit agencies, GHG ington State. In California, SB 375 likely will cause MPOs emissions are an emerging concern and have been addressed to direct more regional transportation funding to transit sys- only when they overlap with other priorities, such as reducing tems. MPOs will need to quantify the GHG savings from costs or reducing emissions of criteria pollutants. The reader transit, most likely using input from transit agencies. should keep in mind that agencies with more robust initia- tives to reduce GHG emissions are more likely to respond to Agencies were asked whether they are affected by any the survey. Individual responses reflect the respondents' best state, regional, or local policies on GHG emissions. Twenty- understanding of their agencies' activities and policies. five agencies, or nearly two-thirds of respondents, answered yes. Agencies cited policies including state and local GHG Agencies expressed a high degree of interest in issues reduction targets, state and local climate action plans, and related to GHG emissions. When agencies were asked alternative fuel mandates. The balance of responses suggests whether they are considering how they can reduce GHG that most of these agencies are not yet facing specific legal emissions from their own operations or from the transporta- requirements, but that they are anticipating new require- tion sector, 38 of 41 respondents answered yes. ments as legislation is implemented over a period of several years. Specific policies cited include the following: Agencies were asked how and where they considered GHG emissions in decision-making processes. Nearly half · California's AB 32 and SB 375 said that they consider GHG emissions in long-term or short- · New Jersey Global Warming Response Act term planning, which might include strategic plans and sys- · Arizona's Executive Order 2006-13 tem development plans. Nearly one-quarter said that they · Oregon's state goals for GHG reduction consider GHG emissions in planning for specific lines or ser- · Florida Executive Order 07-127 vices, which might include consideration of GHG emissions

48 in studies related to route expansion. One-third of respon- menting GHG reduction strategies. Some strategies to dents said that they consider GHG emissions only infor- reduce emissions require transit agencies to coordinate with mally. Informal consideration might be as simple as a single other agencies. Compact development strategies and conges- staff member recognizing or promoting the GHG benefits of tion mitigation strategies in particular require cooperation, strategies. Only two agencies said that they do not consider but other strategies over which transit agencies have more GHG emissions at all in decision making. One agency, AC immediate control can benefit from interagency coopera- Transit, noted that it is beginning to consider GHG emis- tion. In addition, some types of policies over which agencies sions during the planning of capital projects and in leasing have no control, such as parking pricing, can have substantial agreements for buildings and vehicles. impacts on the ability of transit to reduce GHG emissions. Some transit agencies have specific policies in place or are Agencies were asked whether they had engaged in any developing policies to reduce GHG emissions. Such policies discussions with regional stakeholders on climate change can be important drivers to incorporate GHG emissions in deci- issues. Twenty-eight agencies, or more than two-thirds of sion making. Agencies were asked whether they had adopted survey respondents, answered yes. Agencies cited initia- or begun to develop policies to reduce GHG emissions. About tives, including the following: one-third of survey respondents answered yes. Agencies cited policies and initiatives, including the following: · Participating in the drafting of city, regional, and state climate action plans and GHG inventories · Sustainability policies and programs · Discussing regional transportation plans with MPOs · Alternative fuel policies · Hosting summits for local and regional agencies · Environmental management systems that incorporate · Discussing GHG policies and measurement tools with GHG policies and reduction strategies state, regional, and local governments · Climate action plans · Efforts to comply with state or regional reduction targets Although many efforts that reduce GHG emissions are · Joining the APTA Sustainability Pilot Program part of the conventional staffing load at transit agencies, new efforts on GHG emissions, such as policy and strategy devel- A handful of transit agencies are helping to pilot APTA's opment, analysis, and reporting, require significant staff Sustainability Commitment. Signatories to the Commit- resources. Agencies were asked whether they have specifi- ment will agree to establish goals to reduce GHG emissions. cally designated any staff to address GHG issues. Fourteen APTA provides sample text on which transit agencies can agencies, or about one-third of respondents, have designated base their goals, including goals related to the agency's entire staff. Agencies were also asked in what departments the carbon footprint, carbon emissions from agency administra- designated staff is housed. Agencies cited a wide variety tion, electricity use, and fuel use in transit vehicles. Sample of departments, including departments of planning, envi- commitments include the following: ronment, technology, development, maintenance, and risk management. Several agencies have spread responsibilities · Reduce your organization's carbon footprint in terms across multiple departments. For example, BART spreads of emissions per passenger mile by __ percent over responsibilities across offices of planning, operations, envi- baseline by 20__ ronmental compliance, and system development. · Reduce overall carbon emissions of administrative function of organization by ___ percent over baseline Staffing efforts to reduce GHG emissions are one pos- · Reduce electricity use by ____ percent over baseline sible challenge for transit agencies. Agencies may face a · Reduce fuel use per unlinked passenger trip by _____ number of other challenges in trying to reduce GHG emis- percent over baseline by 20__ sions. Agencies were provided a list of potential challenges · Reduce VMT per capita in your community by __ per- and asked to rank the challenges they see as most impeding cent over baseline by 20__ (63) . efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Table 17 provides a sum- mary of responses. The largest number of agencies cited lack At least one agency surveyed, the Utah Transit Author- of funding and lack of staff capacity (in terms of person- ity, is a signatory to the International Association of Pub- hours) within the top three concerns. These concerns are lic Transport's Sustainability Charter. The charter commits closely related, as additional funding is often required to hire signatories to fostering environmental protection, social staff to perform new functions related to GHG emissions justice, and economic sense. Signatories pledge to measure strategies. Funding is also important for capital and operat- their progress in reducing GHG emissions and improving ing budgets needed to maintain and improve transit service. energy efficiency (64). Challenges related to planning functions, such as internal policies and decision-making processes and coordination Coordination with other transportation stakeholders is with other agencies, were cited least frequently among agen- likely to be an important element to planning and imple- cies' top concerns.

49 TABLE 17 CHALLENGES AGENCIES ARE FACING IN REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS (% of 41 respondents) Challenge One of Top Three Concerns Is a Concern Lack of funding 61% 73% Lack of staff capacity (person-hours) 51% 63% Lack of appropriate tools, data, or analysis techniques 29% 68% Lack of staff know-how 22% 59% Technical barriers to implementation of emissions reduction strategies 22% 56% Lack of organizational mandate/policy 20% 63% Planning mechanisms/procedures do not consider GHG emissions 12% 56% Difficulty describing the GHG benefits of strategies to stakeholders/decisions makers 10% 59% Insufficient partnerships with other regional players (e.g., cities, MPOs, and other transit 5% 56% agencies) Other 5% 7% Agencies were asked what they would need to overcome the challenges they cited. Not surprisingly, many agencies said they needed more funding, more staff, and more train- ing for staff. Several agencies cited a need for clear, consis- tent methodologies to calculate GHG emissions produced and displaced by transit agencies. A standard approach would be beneficial, and might help transit agencies get more recogni- tion for the role they play in reducing GHG emissions. The APTA Climate Change Working Group's recommended prac- tice might serve as such a standard approach. One respondent cited the need for an internal policy on GHG emissions to make the issue a bigger priority throughout the organization. Transit agencies' policies and planning processes related to GHG emissions are likely to be an important factor in reducing GHG emissions in the future. Although transit typi- cally provides a net GHG reduction benefit already, planning efforts that target GHG emissions can increase that benefit. Targeted policy objectives and planning exercises, and coor- dination with other stakeholders, foster strategies that fur- ther reduce GHG emissions. Many transit agencies surveyed showed a substantial interest in developing more robust plan- ning mechanisms that take GHG emissions into account. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Climate Action Plan FIGURE 21 SFMTA climate action plan (Source : "Climate SFMTA released a draft of its Climate Action Plan in Decem- Action Plan," San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco, Calif., 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www. ber 2008 (see Figure 21). The plan provides details of the sfmta.com/cms/rcap/capindx.htm. agency's strategies to reduce transportation GHG emissions. Transit strategies include optimizing existing routes and service, providing real-time transit information, implement- SFMTA prepared its Climate Action Plan in the context ing transit signal priority, and making fare payment more of several legislative and regulatory requirements. A 2007 convenient for customers. The agency has other strategies to municipal referendum called for the transportation sector in reduce its own emissions, including using biodiesel, hybrid- San Francisco to reduce GHG emissions by 20%, and required electric, and fuel cell buses; improving energy efficiency in SFMTA to prepare a climate action plan. In addition, the city facilities; recycling waste from facilities; and using green of San Francisco has called for all city departments, of which construction techniques. SFMTA is one, to reduce carbon emissions levels 20% below

50 1990 levels by 2012. SFMTA expects to meet the goal for operational emissions. Transit service would need to double, in conjunction with other strategies, for the transportation sector to meet its overall goal. The Climate Action Plan pro- poses a number of indicators to measure progress toward the established GHG reduction goals. The current draft plan does not include any quantitative analyses of strategies, but discusses the need for quantification (56 ). New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Sustainability Plan NYMTA, North America's largest mass transit network, recently completed a sustainability planning document enti- tled Greening Mass Transit and Metro Regions (65). The agency's Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the FIGURE 22 Solar roof, Roosevelt Avenue Station, MTA New MTA, appointed by the executive director, was charged with York City Transit (Source : Greening Mass Transit & Metro developing recommendations for the agency. Energy and Regions: A Synopsis of the Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA , Metropolitan Carbon is one key area designated for action. Reducing CO2 Transportation Authority, State of New York, Feb. 2009). emissions is one of the report's principal concerns. The report contains more than 100 recommendations, recycling initiatives, and preparing for adaptation to the including a recommendation that the agency draw more than expected effects of climate change. Priorities for legislation 80% of its operating energy from clean, renewable sources and policy at the federal, state, regional, and local levels are by 2050, including solar, wind, and tidal energy. MTA has also proposed. The report estimates reductions in emissions already more than 300 kW of solar panels at two subway sta- that can be achieved through some of its recommendations. tions and one bus depot (See Figure 22). The report also rec- For example, retrofitting existing rail cars with regenerative ommends a major expansion of regional transit access. braking technology could save 165,000 tons of CO2 per year. Two-thirds of the region's new development should be clus- The report recommends that the agency pursue reducing tered within a quarter-mile to a half-mile of MTA transit CO2 emissions as a potential source of revenue and proposes access. The agency should reduce GHG emissions per pas- a new metric to assess investment decisions, a sustainable senger mile by 25% by 2019. Other recommendations include return on investment model, that would include a price for achieving LEED standards for facilities, enhancing CO2 (65).

51 CHAPTER seven CASE STUDIES This chapter presents three case studies of agencies that are BART is one of the first transit agencies in the coun- working to reduce GHG emissions: try to study the cost-effectiveness of a range of options to reduce GHG emissions (see Cost Analyses in chapter five). · BART--San Francisco, California The study is intended to prepare BART to take advantage of · LA Metro--Los Angeles, California any funding opportunities that may arise for strategies that · LYNX--Orlando, Florida reduce GHG emissions. BART is actively monitoring legis- lative and regulatory developments that affect GHG emis- sions, including California's AB 32 and SB 375. The agency SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT sees a potential to sell credits under an emissions-trading scheme. The information on strategy cost-effectiveness may BART provides commuter rail service in the metropolitan prepare BART to apply for any grant funds that may become region of San Francisco and Oakland, California, with a total available to reduce GHG emissions. urban area population of 3.2 million. BART provides 1.4 bil- lion passenger miles of service annually on 209 directional BART is conducting a separate exercise to estimate its route miles. own emissions from operation of service vehicles, facilities, and associated administrative functions. BART intends to BART has begun to consider its role in reducing GHG incorporate the cost-effectiveness and inventory studies into emissions just in the past two to three years. A representative a comprehensive Climate Action Plan that will inform deci- from BART sits on the APTA Climate Change Standards sion making. BART has not yet conducted a comprehensive Working Group. BART is planning and implementing a full assessment of emissions displaced by its service. range of strategies that can reduce GHG emissions from the regional transportation footprint and from the agency's BART is also conducting an initiative to publicize the own operations, although many of these strategies are pur- benefits of its service to GHG emissions, as well as other sued primarily to improve air quality and accessibility, and environmental benefits, as part of a marketing drive. BART's reduce costs. BART's current and future strategies include internally released "Green Facts" sheet provides information the following: on the impact that an individual can have on GHG emissions by taking BART. It also provides information on some of · TOD planning --BART is planning and constructing the strategies that BART is using and planning to reduce TOD at several of its rail stations, in partnership with its own energy use and GHG emissions. BART has added a local and regional governments and with other regional carbon calculator to its web-based trip planner (www.bart. transit agencies. BART views this strategy as particu- gov) and has received positive reactions from users (see Fig- larly important to reducing regional GHG emissions. ure 23.BART hopes that publicizing the GHG benefits of its · Energy-efficiency measures for rail cars and stations--A services will improve public opinion of the agency and even- study jointly commissioned by BART and the local elec- tually bring more funding to the agency. tric utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, found that BART could save substantial electricity through measures such as improved regenerative braking and lighting and improvements to heating and air-conditioning systems in rail cars and stations. These measures also would help to reduce GHG emissions. · Renewable energy --BART already draws about two-thirds of its energy from low-GHG hydroelectric plants. The agency is considering expanding its use of clean energy. FIGURE 23 BART CO2 calculator.

52 BART has adopted several internal policies relevant to has completed construction of a LEED Gold­rated building, GHG emissions. BART's sustainability policy includes a goal and is currently constructing other environmentally friendly to decrease consumption of energy and resources by using buildings. Metro has begun incorporating sustainability sustainable materials in BART facilities. BART's Strategic design guidelines into transportation projects such as the Plan, adopted in 2008, incorporates a goal to reduce GHG Metro Orange Line Extension in the San Fernando Valley. emissions per BART vehicle-mile and a goal to contribute to The agency has partnered with a number of joint developers a reduction in VMT in the San Francisco Bay Area. to build TOD around its stations. Metro completed a GHG inventory in December 2008. LOS ANGELES METRO The inventory accounts for emissions from transit vehicles, office buildings, and maintenance yards, but not emissions LACMTA, or Metro, is the manager of a major transit sys- displaced by Metro's services. The agency is awaiting fur- tem for Los Angeles County and is the county's regional ther guidance on how emissions displaced can be incorpo- transportation planning authority. Public transportation pro- rated into emissions inventories for transit agencies. Metro vided by Metro serves the urban areas of Los Angeles, Long has chosen not to report its emissions to a registry such as Beach, and Santa Ana, California, with a total population of The Climate Registry or the Chicago Climate Exchange 11.8 million. The agency operates more than 2,000 buses, until reporting protocols are clarified. 32 directional route miles of heavy rail, and 110 directional route miles of light rail. Metro operates the second-largest In late spring 2009, Metro completed a baseline sustain- bus fleet in the nation after NYCMTA. More than 2 billion ability report that analyzes its environmental performance passenger miles are traveled on Metro service every year. and the economic costs of its core activities. The report includes an update of Metro's GHG emissions inventory, Metro has launched an agencywide sustainability initia- proposes sustainability indicators through which the agency tive that incorporates reducing GHG emissions as a prin- can track progress toward sustainability, and outlines rec- cipal component. In July 2007, the agency established an ommendations to further reduce Metro's overall environ- Ad-Hoc Sustainability and Climate Change Committee. In mental impact. 2008, the agency published the Metro Sustainability Imple- mentation Plan (MSIP). That plan recognized the need to Metro plans to monitor and provide input to various local, centrally organize, identify, measure, and report on strate- state, and federal organizations developing climate change gies to reduce GHG emissions and otherwise improve the policies that will affect Metro. Metro is actively considering agency's sustainability record. The MSIP contains specific the impact that existing and future GHG policies--including deliverables to advance the sustainability agenda. AB32 and SB375 (California's central GHG emissions regu- lations), regulations for the California Environmental Qual- Metro's board of directors authorized funding for two ity Act, and forthcoming federal transportation and climate staff positions to support its sustainability efforts. One staff change legislation--will have on the agency. person will act as a legislative and policy coordinator within Metro's Planning Business Unit, while the second staff Metro also acts as a regional facilitator of sustainability person will work in Metro's Construction Business Unit to efforts. The agency recently hosted its Second Annual Sus- support the implementation of projects that improve sustain- tainability Summit. The summit brought together cities in and ability and reduce GHG emissions. Metro has organized its adjacent to Los Angeles County, as well as regional agencies, sustainability efforts into four distinct efforts: (1) Legislative to discuss sustainability issues including GHG emissions. and Policy Coordination, (2) Climate Change and Green- house Gas Emissions Reduction, (3) Energy Efficiency and In addition to Metro's Sustainability Implementation Plan, Renewable Energy Efforts, and (4) Environmental Manage- the agency has adopted policies, including the following: ment Systems. · Energy and Sustainability Policy --Commits the Metro is planning and implementing a full range of strat- agency to striving for LEED standards in its buildings egies that reduce GHG emissions, including strategies to and to conducting energy audits. expand service, increase passenger loads, reduce congestion, · Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and promote compact development, and reduce emissions from Reuse Policy --Commits the agency to pursue recy- its transit vehicles and other functions. A few of Metro's cling of construction waste. flagship operations that reduce GHG emissions are its CNG · Environmental Policy --Incorporates the intent of the bus fleet, the largest in North America, and its solar energy specific sustainability and recycling policies and com- program. Metro has solar photovoltaic arrays that currently mits the agency to reducing GHG emissions from its generate 1.85 MW of electricity. Metro has initiated energy- own footprint and from the transportation sector, in efficiency retrofits in its headquarters and other facilities, addition to other environmental goals.

53 Metro is working to educate both its employees and the LYNX is installing a blending facility for biodiesel at public about the issue of climate change and the impact of its bus refueling station. The blending facility will consist Metro's service on GHG emissions. The agency is running of a tank for biodiesel and mechanisms to blend the fuel at an ad campaign to that end. One of the agency's ads is shown the point of refueling. With the blending facility, LYNX in Figure 24. Metro has developed a training program on will gradually convert its entire bus fleet to a mix of 20% sustainability awareness and is working with other regional biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel, which will replace learning institutions to further enhance the number of classes 800,000 to 1.2 million gallons of conventional diesel fuel that will deal with the issue of climate change. every year. The blending facility is funded by a renewable energy grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. LYNX targeted this particular initiative because it requires minimal changes to infrastructure, vehicles, and maintenance procedures. An additional benefit of the pro- gram will be greater fuel security for the agency, during times of restricted access to conventional fuels. LYNX will source its biodiesel from a local facility if possible. While GHG emissions reduced were not formally considered in planning and proposing the initiative, LYNX has roughly FIGURE 24 Metro marketing materials (Source : Metro calculated, using online calculators, that its use of biodiesel Sustainability Implementation Plan, Los Angeles County could save up to 26 million lb (11,813 metric tons) of CO2e Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2008, p. 11). emissions annually. LYNX (ORLANDO, FLORIDA) LYNX recognizes that reducing these emissions is con- sistent with state and local policies, even though no such policies place specific requirements on LYNX. Florida's The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, or Governor Charlie Crist issued an executive order requir- LYNX, is the transit agency for the region of Orlando, Flor- ing state agencies to reduce GHG emissions 10% by 2012, ida. More than 1.5 million people live within the area served increasing to 40% by 2025. Orange County, which is part of by LYNX. LYNX operates a fleet of 290 buses that support LYNX's core service area and is a key funding partner for 146 million passenger miles of travel annually. the agency, also has a GHG reduction policy. LYNX does not have any formal efforts to reduce GHG LYNX is considering compiling a GHG emissions inven- emissions, although the agency is gaining awareness of GHG tory. Depending on the cost and level of effort required, the issues. No staff person at the agency is assigned to GHG inventory might include emissions from all of the agency's issues. Still, LYNX is planning and implementing strategies functions, as well as displaced emissions. LYNX would like that likely will reduce GHG emissions, including expanded to be able receive credit for its biodiesel conversion strat- service, strategies to increase vehicle passenger loads, strat- egy under any future GHG emissions trading schemes, but egies to reduce congestion and promote compact develop- it is not clear how an emissions inventory might support that ment, and strategies to reduce emissions from the agency's goal. The agency may or may not report emissions to a cli- fleet and facilities. mate registry.

54 CHAPTER eight CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY NEEDS Climate change and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions about the same amount emitted by all transportation in that contribute to climate change are a major new environ- the state of Washington. mental concern for the transportation industry. Rising seas, · Every transit agency surveyed is planning or imple- warming temperatures, changes in patterns of precipitation, menting strategies that can further reduce GHG emis- and increases in severe weather all threaten to reshape our sions. Interest in these strategies is widespread across planet's natural systems and to disrupt our cities and rural agencies, and agencies generally are aware of the areas. Releasing more than a quarter of the United States' impact such strategies can have on GHG emissions. annual GHG emissions, the transportation sector has a Types of strategies, along with their prevalence among clear role to play in reducing the severity of climate change. survey respondents, are as follows: Federal regulation requiring the transportation industry to ­­ Expanding transit service (78% of respondents are reduce emissions is likely in the near future. planning or implementing) ­­ Increasing vehicle passenger loads (93% of respon- Public transportation stands out as an important partial dents are planning or implementing) solution to the problem. Passenger travel in cars and trucks ­­ Reducing roadway congestion (88% of respondents alone generates nearly two-thirds of transportation's GHG are planning or implementing) emissions in the United States. Public transportation can ­­ Promoting compact development (70% of respon- reduce these emissions by transporting passengers more dents are planning or implementing) efficiently than private vehicles can. Transit reduces GHG ­­ Alternative fuels and vehicle types (90% of respon- emissions in four principal ways. Transit displaces emis- dents are planning or implementing) sions from other modes by-- ­­ Vehicle operations and maintenance (90% of respondents are planning or implementing) 1. Reducing miles traveled in private vehicles, ­­ Construction and maintenance (73% of respondents are planning or implementing) 2. Reducing on-road congestion, and ­­ Reducing energy use in facilities and nonrevenue vehicles (83% of respondents are planning or 3. Facilitating compact development patterns that lead implementing) to less GHG-intensive travel. · GHG emissions are still a peripheral concern for transit Transit agencies can also: agencies. Less than half of survey respondents said that reducing GHG emissions was a principal factor in pur- 4. Reduce the emissions that they generate from their suing a given strategy. Increasing ridership, reducing vehicles and facilities. costs, and complying with environmental regulations were more important factors. Agencies are unlikely to This synthesis reviewed the literature on transit's impact pursue strategies for the sole purpose of reducing GHG on GHG emissions and on transit strategies to further reduce emissions, but many strategies that reduce GHG emis- GHG emissions, and surveyed agencies about their current sions have substantial co-benefits. efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The research concluded · Guidance on calculating GHG emissions dis- the following: placed by transit is still under development. APTA's "Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse · Many transit agencies are already net reducers of GHG Gas Emissions from Transit" is the first guidance issued emissions. The net impact of an agency depends on the for transit agencies. There is particular uncertainty balance of emissions displaced and emissions released around techniques to estimate the impact of transit on by vehicles and facilities. The U.S. transit industry as compact development. New and better guidance may a whole produces a net reduction of around 30 million lead to greater recognition of displaced emissions by metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMtCO2) annually, or reporting organizations.

55 · Many agencies have estimated some part of their · Transit agencies could benefit from focused research impact on GHG emissions or have had calculations and guidance on new funding opportunities related to performed by a partner agency. More than one-third of GHG emissions. A few agencies are actively consider- survey respondents have estimated or are estimating ing new funding opportunities that might be created by emissions generated by their operations. Nearly half emissions trading schemes or government grant pro- have estimated or are estimating some displaced emis- grams. Such opportunities could become an important sions. Agencies most commonly estimate the mode source of funding. shift effect of their services. Fewer agencies have esti- · Some agencies are unclear about how reporting their mated their congestion reduction or compact develop- emissions might affect their ability to receive credit for ment benefits. current or future reductions. A research study could · More research is needed on methodologies to estimate describe the risks and opportunities that emissions changes in emissions from specific improvements to reporting provides to transit agencies. Such a study transit. Most studies that have analyzed the impact of might also engage third-party reporting agencies to transit on GHG emissions have focused on existing ser- think more critically about the needs of transit agen- vices, and many are limited to analyses at the state or cies in reporting their emissions. national levels. Very few analyses have covered a full array of strategies that transit agencies can implement Transit agencies can expect state and federal legislation and to reduce GHG emissions. Even fewer have assessed regulation of GHG emissions to affect the way they do busi- the cost-effectiveness of such strategies. ness in the future. A growing number of states have legisla- · A number of transit agencies have initiated formal or tion that applies to GHG emissions from transportation. Both semiformal efforts to address GHG emissions. Several California and Washington State have legislation requiring a agencies have included GHG emissions in internal sus- reduction in light-duty vehicle-miles traveled. Washington's tainability plans or have joined sustainability efforts law will require most transit agencies to report their GHG organized by industry associations. Some agencies emissions beginning in 2010. These regulations present chal- have drafted or plan to draft their own climate action lenges and opportunities to transit agencies. Transit agencies plans. More than two-thirds of agencies have partici- will need to both understand and estimate the impact of their pated in talks or joint efforts with other transportation service on GHG emissions. Compiling an inventory of emis- stakeholders on the topic of climate change. sions is likely to be an important first step. · A study on best practices, opportunities, and chal- lenges for integrating climate change into transit Planning for reduced GHG emissions is still a nascent planning would be helpful. Many transit agencies are field at transit agencies, but one that is developing rapidly. struggling to fit GHG reduction objectives with their As regulation of GHG emissions becomes more robust, and traditional planning objectives. Several recent studies as public interest in GHG emissions increases, GHG emis- have focused on how metropolitan planning organiza- sions likely will become a higher priority for transit agen- tions and state departments of transportation integrate cies. Using existing research, agencies can begin to account climate change into planning objectives and practices. for the benefits that their services provide to GHG emissions. There has been no parallel research on transit agencies Transit agencies can also develop new strategies that both and transit planning. reduce GHG emissions and meet other agency priorities.

56 ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill LEED Leadership in Environmental Design APC automatic passenger counting (system) LNG liquefied natural gas AVLCautomatic vehicle location and control LPG liquefied petroleum gas (system) LRT light rail transit BARTSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Orlando, Florida) BRT bus rapid transit MPO metropolitan planning organization CALPIRG California's Public Interest Research Group MSIP Metro Sustainability Implementation Plan CARB California Air Resources Board MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority CARTAChattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority MMtCO2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide CBA cost-benefit analysis MMtCO2emillion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent CEC California Energy Commission N2O nitrous oxide CH4 methane NTD National Transit Database CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality NYMTANew York Metropolitan Transportation CNG compressed natural gas Authority CO2 carbon dioxide PFC perfluorocarbon CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents PMT passenger miles traveled DOT Department of Transportation RIP Research in Progress EPA Environmental Protection Agency RTD Denver Regional Transportation District GHG greenhouse gas SB Senate Bill GPS global positioning system SAIC Science Applications International Corporation GWP global warming potential SEM structural equations modeling HB House Bill SF6 sulfur hexafluoride HFC hydrofluorocarbon SFMTASan Francisco Municipal Transportation IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Agency Change SOV single-occupancy vehicle LACMTALos Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- portation Authority SUV sport utility vehicle

57 TOD transit-oriented development VTA Valley Transportation Authority TTI Texas Transportation Institute WMATAWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ULSD ultra-low-sulfur diesel WSDOTWashington State Department of VMT vehicle-miles traveled Transportation

58 REFERENCES 1. Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future, Trans- 13.Arrington, G.B. and R. Cervero, TCRP Report 128 : portation Research Board, National Research Council, Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Trans- Washington, D.C., 1997, 275 pp. portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2008, 66 pp. 2. "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis. Summary for Policymakers," Contribution of Working Group I to the 14.Chester, M., Life-cycle Environmental Inventory of Pas- Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel senger Transportation in the United States, Disserta- on Climate Change, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www. tions, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf [accessed Apr. 8, 2009]. California, Berkeley, 2008. 3. Hodges, T., Public Transportation's Role in Responding 15. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Pro- to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. jections, 1990­2020, Center for Climate Strategies, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Jan. Washington, D.C., Dec. 2007. 2009. 16.Baxandall, P., T. Dutzik, and Joshua Hoen Frontier 4. Davis, T. and M. Hale, Public Transportation's Contribu- Group, A Better Way to Go: Meeting America's 21st Cen- tion to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Science Appli- tury Transportation Challenges with Modern Public cations Internal Corporation, San Diego, Calif., 2007. Transit, California's Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG) Education Fund, Sacramento, 2008. 5. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990­2007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17. van de Coevering, P. and T. Schwanen, "Re-evaluating Washington, D.C., Apr. 2009. the Impact of Urban Form on Travel Patterns in Europe and North-America," Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3, 6. Feigon, S., D. Hoyt, L. McNally, R. Mooney-Bullock, S. 2006 as cited in Bailey et al., The Broader Connection Campbell, and D. Leach, TCRP Report 93: Travel Mat- between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation ters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sustainable Sur- and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, ICF International, Fair- face Transportation, Transportation Research Board and fax, Va., 2008. Center for Neighborhood Technology, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, 89 pp. 18.Replogle, M. and H. Parcells, Linking Bicycle/Pedes- trian Facilities with Transit, National Association of 7. Shapiro, R.J. K.A. Hassett, and F.S. Arnold, Conserving Railroad Passengers and Federal Highway Administra- Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of tion, Washington D.C., 1992. 105 pp. Public Transportation, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2002, 39 pp. 19. COMMUTER v.2.0 Model Coefficients, Office of Trans- portation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional 8. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, 2005 data, World Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Avail- Washington, D.C., Oct. 2005. able: http://cait.wri.org/ [accessed May 14, 2009.] 20.Pratt, R.H. and J.E. Evans, IV, TCRP Report 95: Chapter 9. Schrank, D. and T. Lomax, The 2007 Urban Mobility 10 : Bus Routing and Coverage, Transportation Research Report, Texas Transportation Institute and The Texas Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., A&M University System, College Station, 2007. 2004, 74 pp. 10.Bailey, L., P.L. Mokhtarian, and A. Little, The Broader 21. Bailey, L., Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings Connection between Public Transportation, Energy in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil, ICF Interna- Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, ICF tional, Fairfax, Va., 2007. International, Fairfax, Va., 2008, 34 pp. 22.Dargay, J.M. and M. Hanly, "Land Use and Mobility," 11. Holtzclaw, J., Does a Mile in a Car Equal a Mile on a presented at the World Conference on Transport Train? Exploring Public Transit's Effectiveness in Reduc- Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 2004. (As cited in Bailey et ing Driving, Sierra Club, San Francisco, Calif., 2000. al., The Broader Connection between Public Transpor- 12.Evans, J.E., IV, and R.H. Pratt, TCRP Report 95, Chapter tation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas 17: Transit Oriented Development, Transportation Reduction, ICF International, Fairfax, Va., 2008.) Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- 23.Evan, J.E., IV, TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit ton, D.C., 2007, 138 pp. Scheduling and Frequency, Transportation Research

59 Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 35.Baltes, M., et al., "Managing Congestion with Integrated 2004, 42 pp. Corridor Management," Mass Transit Magazine, April/ May 2008 [Online]. Available: http://www.masstransit- 24."Transit Station Improvements," Victoria Transport Pol- mag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Managing-Congestion-with- icy Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada, Aug. 2008 [Online], Integrated-Corridor-Management/1$5923 [accessed Apr. 4, Available: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm127.htm 2009]. [accessed Apr. 8, 2009]. 36.Winston, C. and A. Langer, The Effect of Government 25.ICF International with R. Kuzmyak, SAFETEA-LU Highway Spending on Road Users' Congestion Costs, 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase I Final Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004 (As cited in Report, Prepared for the Federal Highway Administra- Litman, T., Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria tion, Fairfax, Va., Sep. 2008. Transport Policy Institute, Nov. 2008.) 26.Accessing Transit: Design Handbook for Florida Bus 37. Litman, T., Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria Passenger Facilities, Florida Planning and Development Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada, Nov. Lab, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Flor- 2008. ida State University, Tallahassee, 2008. 38.Garrett, T.A., Light Rail Transit in America: Policy 27."San Francisco Transit Effectiveness Project: SFMTA Issues and Prospects for Economic Development, Fed- Board Update," San Francisco Municipal Transportation eral Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Mo., 2004. (As cited in Agency, Sep. 24, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www. Litman, T., Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria sf mt a .c om / c m s / mt e p / do cu me nt s /10.10.07 % 20 Transport Policy Institute, Nov. 2008.) SFTEP%20Operations%20Review%20ppt.pdf [accessed June 12, 2009]. 39.Jacobson, J. and A. Forsyth, "Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented 28.King, R.D., TCRP Synthesis 49: Yield to Bus--State of Development Projects," Journal of Transportation and the Practice, Transportation Research Board, National Land Use, Vol. 1, No. 2, Fall 2008, pp. 51­88. Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, 78 pp. 40.WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines, 29.Southampton University and the University of Ports- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Wash- mouth Transport Research Laboratory, Monitoring and ington D.C., revised Nov. 2008. Evaluation of a Public Transport Priority Scheme in Southampton, Transport Research Laboratory, 41. "Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program," Santa Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1999. Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, Calif., 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.vta.org/projects/ 30.Burgess, E. and A. Rood, Reinventing Transit: American tod.html [accessed Apr. 8, 2009]. Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Trans- portation Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund, New 42.TIAX LLC, Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels York, N.Y., 2009. Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts, Califor- nia Energy Commission, Sacramento, 2007. 31. Turnbull, K.P. and R.H. Pratt, TCRP Report 95, Chapter 11: Transit Information and Promotion, Transportation 43.Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tillmand, S. Polasky, and P. Haw- Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- thorne, "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt," ton, D.C., 2004, 71 pp. Science, Vol. 319, No. 5867, Feb. 29, 2008, pp. 1235­1238. 32.McCollom. B.E. and R.H. Pratt, TCRP Report 95, Chap- ter 12: Transit Pricing and Fares, Traveler Response to 44.Searchinger, T.D., et al., "Use of U.S. Croplands for Bio- Transportation System Changes, Transportation fuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- from Land-Use Change," Science, Vol. 319, No. 5867, ton, D.C., 2004, 59 pp. Feb. 29, 2008, pp. 1238­1240. 33.ICF Consulting and Center for Urban Transportation 45.Feigon, S., D. Hoyt, L. McNally, R. Mooney-Bullock, S. Research, TCRP Report 107: Analyzing the Effective- Campbell, and D. Leach, TCRP Report 93, Travel Mat- ness of Commuter Benefits Programs, Transportation ters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sustainable Sur- Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- face Transportation, Transportation Research Board, ton, D.C., 2005, 75 pp. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, 59 pp. plus appendices. 34.San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, "2009 Climate Action Plan: Draft for Public Review," Dec. 46.Public Transit: A Climate Change Solution, Issue Paper 2008. 16, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, Dec. 2005.

60 47. Gallivan, F., J. Ang-Olsen, and D. Turcheta, "Innova- 56."Climate Action Plan," San Francisco Municipal Trans- tions in State-led Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas portation Agency, San Francisco, Calif., 2009 [Online]. Emissions from Transportation: The State Climate Available: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rcap/capindx. Action Plan," presented at the Annual Meeting of the htm [Accessed Apr. 8, 2009]. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 57. Millard-Ball, A., Bus Rapid Transit and Carbon Offsets, 13­17, 2008. Issues Paper prepared for California Climate Action 48.Boies, A., et al., Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Registry, Los Angeles, Nov. 2008. from Transportation Sources in Minnesota, University 58.Ochoa, M.C., "New York City Fleet Upgrades: Con- of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Min- ventional Diesel, Hybrid or CNG?" In Media Res Cost- neapolis, 2008, 60 pp. Benefit Analysis, Department of City and Regional 49. Baseline Methodology for Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 2008. Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board, United 59.Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, BART Actions Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to Reduce GHG Emissions: A Cost Effectiveness Analy- (UNFCCC), Bonn, Germany, 2006. sis, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San 50. Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse Francisco, Calif., Nov. 2008. Gas Emissions from Transit: Draft, Climate Change 60.Litman, T., Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, Standards Working Group, American Public Transpor- Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, Can- tation Association, Washington, D.C., Mar. 2008. ada, 2008. 51. Hellinga, B. and J. Cicuttin, "Impacts of New Express 61. "Climate Change 101: State Action," Pew Center on Bus Service in Waterloo Region," submitted for the Global Climate Change, Arlington, Va., Jan. 2009. Transportation Association of Canada Annual Confer- ence, Session, Integrating Transit Service into Commu- 62.Appendix 4: Leading the Way: Implementing Practical nities, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Oct. 14­17, 2007. Solutions to the Climate Change Challenge, Transporta- tion Implementation Working Group, Washington State 52.Litman, T., Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Climate Action Team, Olympia, 2008. Evaluation of Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Insti- tute, Victoria, BC, Canada, Aug. 31, 2006. 63.2009 Pilot Phase of APTA Sustainability Commitment, American Public Transportation Association, Washing- 53. Sacramento Region Blueprint Transportation Land Use ton, D.C., 2009. Study, Special Report: Preferred Blueprint Alternative, Sacramento Council of Governments, June 2007. 64.A Low Carbon Future with Public Transport, Interna- tional Association of Public Transport, Brussels, Bel- 54.Bartholomew, K., "Integrating Land Use Issues into gium, Jan. 2007. Transportation Planning: Scenario Planning--Summary Report," University of Idaho, Salt Lake City, and Federal 65. Greening Mass Transit and Metro Regions: A Synopsis Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005, 34 pp. of the Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA, Metropolitan Transporta- 55.Wayne, W.S., Environmental Benefits of Alternative tion Authority, State of New York, Albany, Feb. 2009. Fuels and Advanced Technology in Transit, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2007.

61 Appendix A SURVEY Survey Process An initial generic e-mail was sent to all survey candidates, asking them to fill out the survey within two weeks. An additional reminder e-mail was sent to those agencies that had not yet responded after one week. Finally, one third set of personalized e-mails was sent to those agencies that had not responded after two weeks. In addition, project panel members were asked to fol- low up with survey candidates as far as possible. Additional assistance was offered to agencies that were having difficulty meet- ing the specified deadline. The response deadline was ultimately extended by two weeks for agencies that needed extra time. The survey was administered using on online survey tool, SurveyMonkey. The length of the survey varied depending on participants' responses to individual questions. The survey used "skip logic" to present only the relevant questions to each respondent. For example, if a respondent answered that her agency is pursuing a particular type of strategy, she was presented with two additional questions to gather further detail on those strategies. If not, these questions were automatically skipped. Because the scope of this study is broad, the survey included a large number of questions. Depending on responses to indi- vidual questions, a completed survey ranged in length from 37 questions to 72 questions. A few agencies did not complete the entire survey. Participants were provided with the option of completing the survey in either an online or printable format. Completed surveys were accepted from February 13 through March 17, 2009. Survey Questionnaire Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit: Basics Research Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to gather information about the efforts of transit agencies to reduce green- house gas (GHG) emissions from transportation, as part of a Synthesis of Practice being prepared for the Transportation Research Board. The following questions will ask what specific strategies your agency is pursuing and whether you have estimated the emissions savings that will result from strategies. Strategies that reduce GHG emissions typically encompass those that reduce energy consumption or use alternative forms of energy. Based on the results of this survey, some agencies will be asked to serve as case studies. Additional case study research will be conducted by telephone interview. Survey Instructions: Please expect to spend 30­45 minutes to complete the survey in full. You can exit the survey at any point and return later to fill in skipped questions or change answers to questions. Your responses will be automatically saved. Please note that you must continue the survey from the same computer on which you started. 1. Please complete the information below. Transit Agency:______________________________ Contact Name:_______________________________ Title:_______________________________________ Email:______________________________________ Telephone:_ _________________________________

62 2. Is your agency considering how it can reduce GHG emissions from its own operations and/or from the regional trans- portation footprint (e.g., through formal or informal discussions, quantification of GHG emissions, or participation in state, regional, or local climate planning)? Yes No Strategies: New Service The following questions ask about specific strategies that your agency may be planning or implementing. 3. Are you planning or implementing measures for new, expanded, or increased transit service? Yes No 4. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Expanded route coverage Increased service frequency Increased hours of operation New service types (e.g., BRT or LRT) Other (specify below): 5. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Improve Existing Service 6. Are you planning or implementing strategies that would increase ridership or load factors on existing transit service? Yes No

63 7. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Transit marketing campaigns Provision of real-time transit information or trip planning software Improved transit shelters and station stops Improved transit access for bicycles and pedestrians Improved transit access for the disabled and elderly Improved vehicle comfort Service improvements, e.g. timed transfers, reduced travel times, improved modal integration Changes in fare structures or payment methods Safety improvements Optimization of existing routes and services Other (specify below): 8. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Compact Development 9. Are you planning or implementing strategies to promote compact development patterns or transit oriented develop- ment (TOD) complementary to transit service? Yes No 10. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Station area planning Coordination with local/regional development decisions Other (specify below): 11. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions.

64 The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Congestion Mitigation 12. Are you planning or implementing strategies that would reduce roadway congestion (e.g., bus lanes, bus pull-outs, signal timing for transit vehicles), in addition to any service changes previously noted? Yes No 13. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Bus-only lanes Signal preemption/signal timing for transit vehicles Bus pull outs Other (specify below): 14. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Vehicle Fuel Efficiency 15. Are you planning or implementing strategies to improve the fuel efficiency of the existing transit fleet? Yes No 16. For each applicable category are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Anti-idling policies or technologies Vehicle maintenance programs Vehicle engine retrofits Driver education Other (specify below): 17. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies,

65 but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Lower Emitting Vehicles 18. Are you currently operating or planning to purchase low GHG-emitting transit vehicles (e.g., high mpg buses, hybrid buses, CNG buses)? Yes No 19. For each applicable category, are you planning to purchase, purchasing, or currently operating these vehicles? (Check all the apply.) Planning to Purchase Purchasing (i.e., Currently (i.e., in short or long funding secured Operating range plan) or orders placed) Higher efficiency conventional (ICE) vehicles Hybrid-electric vehicles Electric vehicles Alternative fuel/flux-fuel vehicles (vehicles designed for alternative fuels) Vehicle conversion kits Other (specify below): 20. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to purchase these vehicles? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to purchase these vehicles. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to purchase these vehicles, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these vehicles on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these vehicles on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Alternative Fuels 21. Are you using or planning to use alternative fuels in any transit vehicles? Yes No

66 22. For each applicable fuel type, are you currently using the fuel? Are you planning to begin or increase use of the fuel? Planning to Begin Currently Using or Increase Use Ethanol Biodiesel Electric vehicles Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Hydrogen Electricity Other (specify below): 23. Please describe any plans to increase use of alternative fuels in transit vehicles. 24. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to use alternative fuels? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these fuels. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these fuels, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these fuels on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these fuels on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Construction and Maintenance 25. Are you planning or implementing strategies to reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions from your agency's infrastructure construction and maintenance activities? Yes No 26. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Use of alternative fuels/technologies in non-revenue vehicles Changes to construction equipment, vehicles, or fuels Use of alternative construction materials Recycling construction waste Sourcing materials locally Other (specify below):

67 27. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Other 28. Are you planning or implementing strategies to reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions from the agency's administrative functions? Yes No 29. For each applicable category, are you planning or implementing measures, or both? Planning Implementing Employee commuting Employee travel Energy used in office buildings Energy used in maintenance yards Other (specify below): 30. What role have GHG emissions played in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies? Reducing GHG emissions is a principal factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies. Reducing GHG emissions is a factor in the agency's decision to pursue these strategies, but not a principal one. The agency is aware of the potential impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. The agency has not considered the impact of these strategies on GHG emissions. Comments Strategies: Additional Detail 31. Please describe any additional strategies that your agency is planning or implementing to reduce GHG emissions. 32. Please describe in more detail your agency's top 3 (if any) strategies intended to reduce GHG emissions, either from operations or from the regional transportation footprint. Analyses: Emissions Displaced by Transit The following questions pertain to techniques used to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of GHG reduction strate- gies. For each strategy that you indicated your agency is considering or implementing, please indicate which if any types of quantitative analysis have been performed.

68 33. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) the impact of exiting transit or planned improvements to transit service on VMT, fuel use, or GHG emissions from private autos? Yes No 34. Have you forecast (or are you forecasting) the impact of new transit service or improvements to existing service on VMT, fuel use, or GHG emissions from private autos? Yes No 35. For each applicable category, which impacts have you analyzed or are your analyzing? GHG Emissions Vehicle Miles Traveled Fuel Use in from Private in Private Autos Private Autos Autos Expanded route coverage Increased service frequency Increased hours of operation New service types (e.g., BRT or LRT) Transit marketing campaigns Provision of transit information Improved transit shelters and station stops Improved transit access for bicycles and pedestrians Improved transit access for the disabled and elderly Improved vehicle comfort Service improvements, e.g., timed transfers, reduced travel times, improved modal integration Changes in fare structures or payment methods Safety improvements Optimization of existing routes and services Other (specify below): 36. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. 37. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) the impact of your existing transit service on VMT, fuel use, or GHG emis- sions from private autos? Yes No

69 38. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. 39. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) the additional impact of transit service on travel in private autos due to related land use changes (i.e., compact development facilitated by transit)? Yes No 40. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. 41. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) the additional impact of transit service on private auto fuel use or GHG emissions due to reduced congestion? Yes No 42. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. Analyses: Emissions Produced by Transit 43. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) baseline or historical GHG emissions produced by your transit agency? Yes No 44. Which emissions are included? (Check all that apply.) Transit vehicle emissions Emissions from office buildings Emissions from maintenance yards Construction equipment emissions Emissions associated with production or transportation of materials (embodied emissions) Other (specify below) 45. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation.

70 46. Have you reported or are you planning to report your GHG emissions to the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), The Climate Registry, or other carbon registries? Yes No 47. Briefly describe your experience with reporting your GHG emissions to carbon registries. 48. Have you forecast (or are you forecasting) the impact of any strategies on your transit agency's fuel use or GHG emissions? Yes No 49. For each applicable strategy category, which impacts have you forecast or are you forecasting? Fuel/Energy Use GHG Emissions from by the Transit Agency Vehicles and Agency Operations Expansion of transit service Changes in transit vehicle fleets and/or fuel mix Energy efficiency measures for office buildings Energy efficiency measures for maintenance yards Changes to construction equipment and/or fuel mix Changes to construction materials Other (specify below): 50. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. Analyses: Cost Analyses 51. Have you estimated (or are you estimating) the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce VMT or GHG emissions ($/ VMT or $/ton)? Yes No

71 52. Briefly describe the analyses and methodologies. Please provide references to guidance documents and any other writ- ten documentation. Analyses: Additional Information 53. Have you used any additional resources or guidance documents, other than those already mentioned, to quantify GHG emissions? Yes No 54. What additional resources or guidance documents has your agency used to quantify GHG emissions? 55. Are you aware of the draft APTA guidance on quantification of GHG emissions? Yes No 56. In conducting any analyses of GHG impacts, what challenges have you faced? What additional information, research, and tools are needed? Planning and Implementation Issues 57. How are GHG emissions considered in your agency's decision making? (Check all that apply.) In long term planning In short term planning In plans for specific lines/services Informally considered Not considered Other (specify below) 58. Has your agency adopted or begun to develop policies to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., reduction targets or a climate plan)? Yes No 59. Please describe these policies. 60. Is your agency affected by any state, regional, or local GHG policies? Yes No

72 61. What are the relevant policies? How is your agency affected by them? 62. Has your agency discussed climate change issues with state, regional, or local governments? Yes No 63. Briefly describe the discussion's scope and context. Which agency initiated discussions? 64. What are the greatest challenges your agency faces in reducing GHG emissions? (Rank all that apply, where 1 is the greatest challenge.) Rank Difficulty describing the GHG benefits of strategies to stakeholders/decisions makers ­ Insufficient partnerships with other regional players (e.g., cities, MPOs, other transit ­ agencies) Lack of staff know-how ­ Technical barriers to implementation of emissions reduction strategies ­ Planning mechanisms/procedures do not consider GHG emissions ­ Lack of staff capacity (person-hours) ­ Lack of organizational mandate/policy ­ Lack of appropriate tools, data, or analysis techniques ­ Lack of funding ­ Other (specify below): ­ 65. What does your agency need to overcome these challenges (e.g., specific training, research, additional staff hires, etc.)? 66. Does your agency have a designated staff person to address climate change/GHG emissions issues? Yes No 67. In what department is the staff person housed? 68. Does your agency have any additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions, other than those already mentioned? Please describe.

73 Synthesis Report 69. If selected, would you be willing to serve as a case study for this TCRP Synthesis report? Yes No 70. Do you have any suggestions of other agencies that we should survey and/or consider as case studies? Please provide contact names. Agency Name/ Contact Name: Agency Name/ Contact Name: Agency Name/ Contact Name: 71. What information would you most like to see provided in this TCRP Synthesis of Practice? 72. Please describe. Please provide any additional comments below. Thank You! If you would like to submit additional information or documents, or you have questions or comments about this survey, please contact Frank Gallivan (fgallivan@icfi.com). Thank you!

74 Appendix B Survey Participants Transit Agency Region State/Province Respondent Title Sun Tran Tucson AZ Environmental Manager British TransLink Vancouver VP Corporate and Public Affairs Columbia Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- Environmental Compliance and Services Los Angeles CA portation Authority (LACMTA) Department Manager AC Transit Oakland CA Environmental Engineer Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento CA Director of Planning San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit San Francisco CA Deputy Planning Manager - Stations District San Francisco Municipal Transportation San Francisco CA Manager, Environmental Planning Agency (SFMTA) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Manager, Environmental Programs & San Jose CA Authority (VTA) Resources Mgmt Foothill Transit West Covina CA Director of Operations and Maintenance Denver Regional Transportation District Denver CO Civil Engineering Project Manger (RTD) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Manager, Environmental Management & Washington DC Authority Industrial Hygiene Brevard Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) FL Director County Lee County Transit Ft. Myers FL Transit Director Regional Transit System (RTS) Gainesville FL Transit Director Jacksonville Transportation Authority Jacksonville FL Assistant Director of Mass Transit Ocala/Marion Transit Inc. DBA Ocala FL General Manager SunTran Okaloosa Okaloosa County BCC FL Transit Coordinator & Grants Manager County Central Florida Regional Transportation Orlando FL Government Affairs Project Manager Authority d/b/a LYNX Palm Beach Palm Tran FL Maintenance Manager County Bay Town Trolley Panama City FL Senior Planner Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Pinellas FL Director of Planning Council On Aging of St. Lucie Inc., Transit Vehicle Maintenance & Security Port St. Lucie FL Community Transit Director Sarasota Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) FL General Manager County

75 Transit Agency Region State/Province Respondent Title St Johns County Public Bus Service, The St. Johns FL Transit Planner Sunshine Bus Company County StarMetro Tallahassee FL Superintendent of Transit GoLine Indian River Transit Vero Beach FL CEO/Pres. Project Manager, Planning and Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL Development Transit Authority of River City (TARC) Louisville KY Director of Planning Massachusetts Bay Transportation Boston MA Director of Environmental Affairs Authority Montgomery County DOT, Ride On Rockville MD Division Chief Transit Services Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Charlotte NC Grants Management Analyst NJ TRANSIT Newark NJ Director, Energy and Sustainability Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Cincinnati OH Director fleet & facilities Authority (SORTA) TriMet Portland OR Strategic Planning Analyst Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporta- Philadelphia PA Director, Business Development tion Authority (SEPTA) Metropolitan Transit Authority Of Har- Houston TX Associate Vice President ris County Manager of Safety and Environmental Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT Protection Director of Energy Management and Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Hampton VA Sustainability King County Metro Transit Seattle WA Senior Project Manager Sound Transit Seattle WA Environmental Compliance Manager Snohomish Community Transit WA Risk Management Analyst - Environmental County

76 Appendix C GreenHouse Gas Emissions Savings from Selected Transit Agencies Results provided in this appendix are drawn from a 2008 study by CALPIRG. That study calculated emissions reductions for a sample of transit agencies using data from the National Transit Database and the Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Mobility Report. Calculations accounted for mode shift, congestion reduction, and compact development impacts. Agency Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Agency Name State Abbreviation Reductions (thousand metric tons) MTA New York City Transit NYCT NY 10,470 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit WMATA MD 1,852 Authority San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit BART CA 1,711 District Chicago Transit Authority CTA IL 1,293 Massachusetts Bay Transportation MBTA MA 1,213 Authority New Jersey Transit Corporation NJ TRANSIT NJ 1,201 MTA Long Island Rail Road MTA LIRR NY 950 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- LACMTA CA 862 portation Authority Metro-North Commuter Railroad Com- MTA-MNCR NY 725 pany, dba: MTA Metro-North Railroad Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporta- SEPTA PA 713 tion Authority Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit MARTA GA 644 Authority Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Metra IL 632 Railroad Corporation Port Authority Trans-Hudson PATH NJ 395 Corporation Maryland Transit Administration MTA MD 245 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation TriMet OR 274 District of Oregon San Diego Trolley, Inc. MTS CA 281 Dallas Area Rapid Transit DART TX 164 San Francisco Municipal Railway MUNI CA 198 Miami-Dade Transit MDT FL 130 Southern California Regional Rail Metrolink CA 178 Authority Metro Transit MN 88

77 Agency Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Agency Name State Abbreviation Reductions (thousand metric tons) Bi-State Development Agency METRO MO 125 Utah Transit Authority UTA UT 121 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris Metro TX 104 County, Texas Denver Regional Transportation District RTD CO 85 Sacramento Sacramento Regional Transit District CA 99 RT Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board PCJPB CA 106 The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit GCRTA OH 73 Authority King County Department of Transpor- tation - Metro Transit Division King WA 88 County Metro Port Authority Transit Corporation PATCO NJ 88 Academy Lines, Inc. NJ 73 City and County of Honolulu Depart- DTS HI 54 ment of Transportation Services Northern Indiana Commuter Transpor- NICTD IN 56 tation District Orange County Transportation OCTA CA 35 Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation VTA CA 53 Authority Central Puget Sound Regional Transit ST WA 50 Authority Virginia Railway Express VRE VA 53 Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, NY 20 dba: MTA Long Island Bus Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. Short Line NJ 47 Port Authority of Allegheny County Port Authority PA 22 Regional Transportation Commission of RTC NV 32 Southern Nevada MTA Bus Company MTABUS NY -72 Pace - Suburban Bus Division PACE IL 33 South Florida Regional Transportation TRI-Rail FL 25 Authority Suburban Transit Corporation Coach USA NJ 34 City of Detroit Department of DDOT MI 29 Transportation Southwest Ohio Regional Transit SORTA / OH 15 Authority Metro North County Transit District NCTD CA 24

78 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System MTS CA 1 Westchester County Bee-Line System NY 23 The Bee-Line System Source: Baxandall, P., T. Dutzik, and Joshua Hoen Frontier Group, A Better Way to Go: Meeting America's 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit, California's Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Education Fund, 2008.

Abbreviations used without definition in TRB Publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI­NA Airports Council International­North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETY-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-14303-5

Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 84: Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit explores the role of transit agencies in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and examines the current practice of a sample of transit agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!