American Public Transit Association Research Articles

Renewable Energy System: Alternative Fuel Usage in the Energy Market of the US Public Transportation System

The U.S. transportation sector is the second largest energy consumer in 2020 with about a 35% usage rate. However, the sector accounted for the largest proportion (29%) of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. Compared with the use of personal automobiles, public transportation is believed to be cost-effective and provides low emissions, which tends to reduce the need to travel long distances and lower the carbon footprints of transit operations. This study examined the impact of alternative fuels (various blends of biodiesel, hydrogen, methanol, and ethanol) versus conventional fuels on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. public transit system. The research was anchored by three regression models to analyze the joint and individual impact of both conventional fuel and alternative fuel. Secondary data were extracted from the American Public Transit Association 2021 Fact Book, the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1999-2019 (EPA 2021). The descriptive statistics, correlation, and stationarity tests were established on the variables, and the regression models were estimated using ordinary least squares. The findings revealed that while conventional fuel expands the flow of carbon emissions, alternative fuel is a drag on the total emissions from public transportation. However, it was concluded that the utilization of alternative fuels in the U.S. transportation industry is still very low, thus there is a need to put all machinery in motion to embrace this fuel type to reverse climate change issues, especially in the public transit system.

Transit Industry Gears Up and Responds to Climate Change Challenges

The transit industry in the United States is preparing for growth as the world deals with climate change and it is applying various methods to measure and monitor its impact on the environment. Working with local, state, and federal governments, transit agencies have adapted many commonsense solutions. Now the American Public Transportation Association is putting together standards and best practices to encourage the industry and inform the public about the benefits of public transportation to the environment, helping our nation join the rest of the world. It is also developing and applying new transit strategies that will attract more riders and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met, New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the Utah Transit Authority are leading the industry. Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met General Manager, who chairs the industry's Sustainability Committee for the American Public Transit Association has been leading by example with an Environmental Management System that addresses greenhouse gas, pollution, waste, inefficiency, and congestion. New York and Utah are recording greenhouse gases with the Climate Registry. Many agencies are developing new strategies that are attracting more riders and experiencing an intermodal shift to buses and trains. Meanwhile, developing countries are able to increase service and pay for it by selling carbon credits.

The making of a mega project in the neoliberal city

Canadian cities are widely recognized for their effective provision of public transportation. Both Montreal and Toronto are often cited as models of public transit, with system performance and ridership figures comparable to the best in the world, including Europe, the USA and Australia. The busway network in Ottawa is internationally acclaimed as an innovative and successful alternative to capital‐intensive urban rail systems (Cervero, 2001). In 1996, Vancouver was acknowledged as the North American Transit System of the Year by the American Public Transit Association. These Canadian transit systems experienced their greatest capital expansion as a result of public‐sector planning and financing, and each system is currently operated predominantly by public‐sector corporations. Yet at the beginning of the 21st century, private‐sector involvement in the planning, financing and operation of public transit has become increasingly popular in Canada. Seen as latecomers in experimenting with private‐sector involvement in the public transit industry, some Canadian systems have now begun to outsource the operation and maintenance of bus or rail services to private firms.

Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Transit Noise Impact Estimates per Federal and Industry Criteria

Design work for a transitway proposed in suburban Maryland near Washington, D.C., using an abandoned railroad right-of-way was begun, then halted, then resumed over a period of time. An initial environmental noise evaluation was performed using the American Public Transit Association (APTA) guidelines. When work resumed, the FTA guidance manual was available. Consequently, noise impacts were assessed via methods from both documents. Three alternative vehicle types to serve the transitway were considered: light rail vehicles, conventional articulated diesel buses, or dual-propulsion (electric motor/diesel engine) articulated buses. Passby noise measurements were performed to quantify or verify the noise emissions of each of the vehicle types, and measurements were compared to other available data. At 15 m (50 ft) and 56 km/h (35 mph), the diesel bus is noisiest; the light rail vehicle is slightly quieter. The electric bus is significantly quieter although its emissions are known with the least confidence. Line operation sound levels were predicted for each of the vehicle types for the entire length of the proposed project. The predictions were in terms of both maximum passby sound levels for comparison to the APTA criteria and day-night average sound levels for comparison to the FTA criteria. For the local land uses and ambient noise conditions, the distances for the unmitigated passby noise exposures to attenuate to the APTA and FTA criteria limits were estimated and the number of included dwellings counted. For the transitway project with 16 percent nighttime operations and proposed vehicle alternatives, the FTA impact-onset (i.e., “some impact”) criterion curve yielded significantly greater noise-exposed areas; the APTA criteria yielded results intermediate to those from the FTA “some” and “severe” impact curves.

Application of FTA criteria to assess transit noise and vibration impacts in residential areas

This paper presents the results of noise and vibration analyses that were performed at six residential sites adjacent to two rail tracks in an active suburban rail corridor to assess the potential impacts of proposed widening of the corridor in the year 2010 to accommodate a third track. The proposed third track would bring the trains closer to residences and would also increase the total number of train movements during a 24-h period. The project noise and vibration impacts were assessed in conformance with recently published FTA (Federal Transit Administration) manual ‘‘Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’’ (April 1995). Since the sites are exposed to both roadway noise and train noise, monitored hourly Leq noise levels were used to estimate the existing and the future Ldn noise levels. The FTA procedure replaces the maximum single passby noise standards used by APTA (American Public Transit Association) for over 20 years. Following the procedures outlined in the FTA manual, noise impacts were identified at three of the six residential sites, and noise walls at the three affected sites were recommended as mitigation. Also, mitigation options were recommended at two residences where potential vibration impacts were identified.

American Federalism and the Management of Radioactive Wastes

18. UMTA, Summary Report, p. 70. It is also interesting to note that although the accessible transit policy is focused primarily on wheelchair users, who constitute a 5.5 percent vocal minority of all transportation handicapped, surveys show that a majority claim to be unable to use it due to other barriers. 19. Elderly and Handicapped Transportation: Local Government Approaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, March 1979, pp. 11-12. 20. Federal Register: Vol. 44, No. 106 (1979), p. 31456. 21. This estimate is based on assumptions of operating six days per week and 12 hours per day, a load factor of 6 passenger trips per vehicle hour, and a spare ratio of 1.13. The capital cost of $15,000 per van was amortized at 10 percent over a seven-year vehicle life. These assumptions were drawn from David T. Hartgen and David L. Weiss, Cost-Effective Bus Transit Barrier Removal Policies for Elderly and Handicapped. Preliminary Research Report 118, New York State Department of Transportation, July 1977, pp. 10-13. 22. Guidelines for Public Transportation Levels of Service and Evaluation, Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1978. p. 70. 23. Among transit agencies that have put substantial numbers of accessible buses into service to date, the St. Louis system has the most experience. Wheelchair users have been averaging from 4 to 8 trips per day on a system which was operating 90 to 180 accessible buses. This is the equivalent of 1 wheelchair trip per 320 scheduled accessible bus runs. As one analyst pointed out, this number of trips could have been handled by one demand responsive van at less than 10 percent of the operating cost and less than 2 percent of the capital cost. Robert Casey, Overview of Accessible Transit, presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1979. 24. National Research Council. Transbus Study, Part II, Mobility Options for the Transportation Handicapped, Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. 48. 25. Port Authority of Allegheny County, Section 504 Transition Plan for Handicapped Accessibility for the Pittsburgh Urbanized Area, July 1980. 26. Rhea Dopico et al. v. Neil E. Goldschmidt et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 80 C. 4562. 27. American Public Transit Association et al. v. Brock Adams et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and APTA et al. v. Neil Goldschmidt et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 80-1497. 28. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Neil Goldschmidt, U.S. District Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 80-98.