Transit Strategies and Alternatives for Reducing Green House Gas Emissions

     In my vision of a perfect world, one where climate change is not a question of concern and transit congestion would never total an average of 80 kilometers daily in a city such as in Sao Paulo (“VEJA”), most of the population would use public transit paired up with alternative forms of transportation such as bicycling and walking to access activity sites. However, being realistic, that is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, goal to achieve since we live in an intense car dependent culture and only through governmental regulation we would be able to change that, and our politicians need to get reelected every four years. They will hardly ever adopt such unpopular policies. Changes are its not going to happen. Therefore, since it is unviable to change the method our population moves itself then the only practical solution to reduce green house gas emissions is to change and innovate the method itself.

     It comes with no surprise the finding that cars are the transit mode that produces the most green house gas emissions per mile (Weigel); therefore it is of uttermost importance that automobiles be innovated and adapted to the needs of our 21^st century.

     One possible solution, which already exists in the market in its embryonic state, is the creation of higher-efficiency cars such as the diesel-electric hybrid. This is a viable option in our present time since these automobiles are more efficient in producing less green house gas emissions and our industries already have some products that have developed this technology to a usable and dependable standard. However, this option has a significant setback. These automobiles would be reducing green house emissions however not to an extent in which it would be satisfactory enough to achieve our nation’s aim regarding green house emissions since most of the electricity used to power these automobiles would come from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore producing green house gases still the same.

     In the fields of futuristic technologies lies the key to solve this problem. There are innumerous options for what mankind can create and innovate; however, already being developed are alternative fuels for automobiles such as bio-diesel, natural gas, and hydrogen. Personally, a hydrogen-fueled car is what I believe, and hope, will become the answer in the future. As its name suggests, these automobiles are fueled by hydrogen hydrolyzed from regular water. This technology already exists however it is expensive and most people think it’s dangerous as hydrogen is highly reactive. I would be lying if I said that this technology is not expensive, however it is possible for it not to be dangerous. Most of the problems with hydrogen explosions are that hydrogen stored, from crashed vehicles or sites, leak and react with other chemicals causing big and dangerous explosions. For these cars, hydrogen would be stored as water, and production of hydrogen would occur while the automobile is being used. Therefore, the automobile would only produce as much hydrogen as it needs to use, thus not storing any additional hydrogen and reducing to almost zero the risks of explosion from crashes and leaks. This technology already exists and would be a final solution for reducing green house gas emissions, however its biggest obstacle, once again, is that it is expensive.

     Finally, many small-scale solutions could be implemented to lower green house gas emissions. These solutions would not solve the problem by its entirety, however if highly adopted, they could respectably lower green house gas emissions. Some possible solutions include regularly inflating tire thus reducing higher fuel consumption derived from deflated tires, readjusting commonly used routes for shorter routes thus decreasing fuel consumption, and reducing idling consumption of fuel by stopped vehicles (Weigel).

     My vision of an attainable perfect world in my generation is one in which our scientists will be worried about finding a cure for cancer instead of lowering green house gas emission. With the help of new technologies such as hydrogen-fueled automobiles and small routine changes, such as regularly inflating tires, our generation can significantly lower these emissions. Now, it is up to us to embrace and adopt these solutions that will change our lives.

Work Cited

Weigel, Brent. Lecture. ENGL 1101: Rhetoric of Mass Transportation. Georgia Institute of Technology, 30 Sept. 2011

"Em Profundidade: Transito." VEJA. n.d. n. page. Web. 5 Oct. 2011. <http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/exclusivo/transito/contexto1.html>.

Automobiles and Environment

William Ruckelshaus once said and I quote-"Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." Since times immemorial, man's activities have been incessantly degrading the environment that we live in. The insatiable nature of man's wants, coupled with limited availability of resources, has led to this pitiful present day scenario. Man exploits resources in an injudicious manner, thereby debilitating the environment.

Back in the day, the surrounding countryside was preserved for farming or natural open spaces such as wood lots and forests (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). However, the present picture is drastically different. Bridges and highways have replaced farmland and forests. The high growth rate of population has led to deforestation in order to accommodate more automobiles. Deforestation in turn leads to climatic change causing Global Warming. The picture above portrays the practice of indiscriminate felling of trees.

The Chinese city is changing dramatically from a walking and cycling environment to one which is conducive to automobiles. This has severely disrupted the environment for pedestrians and cyclists (Kenworthy and Hu, 2002; Kenworthy and Townsend,2002). Moreover, people find themselves locationally disadvantaged in a transport sense and they are compelled to purchase cars in order to traverse the realms of this 'Automobile city'. In this process, the rights of cyclists and pedestrians have been trampled (Kenworthy, 1997).

The automobile facilitated the uninhibited outward expansion of the city because people and businesses were no longer constrained to the fixed-track public transport systems or walking-scale environments of earlier times. Thus, cities encroached upon farmland and waterways and other natural spaces. This process, known as Urbanization, has grave impacts upon the environment.

Automobiles release toxic fumes into the environment, which leads to air pollution. Moreover, they also contribute to other forms of pollution such as noise pollution. The automobile culture also leads to 'time pollution'-the ways in which excessive mobility robs people of valuable time in a variety of insidious ways (Whitelegg, 1993, 1997). Automobiles run on fossil fuels, which are non-renewable sources of energy. The petroleum supplies are rapidly diminishing. It is estimated that at the present rate of consumption of fossil fuels, we will be extinguished of our fossil fuel supplies in about 50 years!

Researcher Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy analyzed the relationship between urban form, infrastructure and auto-mobility (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989, 1999), and found that the more that cities attempted to accommodate auto-mobility through road expansion and a variety of traffic engineering gimmicks oriented to keeping traffic flowing freely, the more congestion, sprawl and pollution they created. Because we must drive, we are oblivious to the realities of cars as agents of pollution and environmental degradation.

The media is often termed as a 'Watchdog of Society'. However, I beg to differ. This is because the media often misleads the people into believing what is wrong. In a way, the media promotes the car culture instead of highlighting its negative impacts. The same argument applies to Cinema, Television and Radio. Some advertising aims to create a feeling of satisfaction among consumers that they have been smart in their choices-even after learning that they have purchased a product that is defective, dangerous or environmentally harmful. Radio traffic rappers encourage orinduce unnecessary driving when they pronounce a freeway to be 'wide open' or promote a 'good time to drive.'

We also see the reshaping of architecture and urban design for automobile cities. This is evident in Atlanta itself. The Dutch architect, Koolhaas, referred to Atlanta as a 'splintered, sprawling, fragmented region.'

Man and nature should live in communion with each other. We must devise ways and means to reduce the burden on the environment. The following are some examples of ways and organizations which help in reducing the impact upon the environment: -

The Georgia Conservancy is an NGO, which works towards the protection of the environment. It promotes sustainable growth and good urbanism. Moreover, the Atlanta Beltline integrates land use and transportation. It helps in the revitalization of the environment. By creating connectivity and density, people are given the options that may include a car but could also include transit, biking and walking. This ensures environmental sustainability.

WORKS CITED:

1) Meyer, Michael. Lecture. ENGL 1101: Rhetoric of Mass Transportation. Georgia Institute of Technology, 30 Sept. 2011.

2) Murphy, Deanna. Lecture. ENGL 1101: Rhetoric of Mass Transportation. Georgia Institute of Technology, 23 Sept. 2011

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjxvt_834g&feature=player_embedded

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZbaQ7M8-4&feature=related

5) Scheller, Preston, Eric C. Bruun, and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning and Implementation. London: Earthscan, 2010.

People Can Make a Difference

Voters need to be educated on transportation issues. Talking to the average person on the Georgia Tech campus gives the overall impression that they simply do not know about transportation issues. Transit issues need to be made known to the people that can make a difference, the voters. By educating more people about transit issues, politicians can be elected who can make a difference in improving public transit.

Atlanta public transit may fall short in many aspects. In fact right now most people would say that is a flop compared to other systems, but one thing Atlanta is not short on is plans. According to Deanna Murphy, many different groups have devised many different plans. City planners have devised many complex improvement plans for public transit in Atlanta, but the problem is actually getting these plans into action. This is done by electing politicians who are for improving public transit.

An impressive example of this is found on the Citizens for Progressive Transit or CfPT website. CfPT outlines a system of transit and includes light rail, heavy rail, street cars and buses. It reaches all parts of Atlanta and has many stops (CfPT).

But the problem is not that the plans are not there, it is that they are not being put into action. Current transportation issues need to be more public. CfPT currently has some plans to educate people on transit issues, such as handing out pamphlets related to current issues, but this is not enough. They need to be more prominent in news and advertising. More people who know about it will cause more people who support it.

Advocators of public transportation are starting to gain more ground. Areas that have previously been anti-transit are now showing a majority for transportation. These are of course just polls, but it is a good sign for the next election (Torres). If more voters learn about these potential plans and how they can benefit them then more people will vote for politicians who will carry out these plans.

“Debbie Dooley, a Dacula resident and co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party, disagrees, and thinks the poll numbers are ‘drastically off.’ She hopes supporters of the tax believe the poll, she said, ‘because they’re going to be in for a rude awakening on Election Day. We have not yet begun to educate voters’" (Torres). If Dooley is correct, then transit will continue to be stuck where it is now.

In addition to getting funding now, funding needs to be available in the future. With public transit receiving almost no state funding in Georgia, this is a very large issue. MARTA currently has a source of funds for the next five or so years, but what will happen once those funds run out? By electing politicians who can try to bring in more money or public transit, hopefully this will not be an issue (Murphy).

The future of public transit in Atlanta is starting to look better, but there needs to be more push for improvement by carrying out the transit plans. Creating these plans is not enough, public transit systems need funding to improve which should come largely from the state government but unfortunately does not. Informing the general public on current issues could help sway the votes for public transit advocates. By getting the word out there voters can cause actual action to be taken rather than just talking about it.

Works Cited

Murphy, Deanna. Lecture. ENGL 1101: Rhetoric of Mass Transportation. Georgia  Institute of Technology, 23 Sept. 2011.

Torres, Kristina, and Janel Davis. "Metro Atlanta Voters Warm to Mass Transit, Poll Shows" AJC.com. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. < http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/metro-atlanta-voters-warm-1188799.html >.

"World Class Transit Vision." Citizens for Progressive Transit. Web. 05 Oct. 2011. < http://www.cfpt.org/projects/wctv >.

The BeltLine and Atlanta’s Car Dependency

Atlanta has notoriously bad public transit. This transit system serves only a small fraction of the metropolitan area. The Atlanta metropolitan area has 10 counties. (Atlanta Regional Roundtable) Only two (DeKalb and Fulton) are served by MARTA, the region’s primary provider of public transit. Another three (Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett) have independent bus services. Even within these counties, public transit is sparse, infrequent, and inconsistent.

Atlanta’s transit has not expanded significantly in decades, even as the city has grown rapidly. This stagnation is finally coming to an end. Georgia’s state legislature is currently debating the Transportation Investment Act. This act will allow the Atlanta metropolitan area to hold a referendum on an additional 1% sales tax that would be devoted to a list of planned infrastructure projects. (Meyer) This list includes several light rail projects within the city of Atlanta. The largest of these is the BeltLine, “a network of public parks, multi-use trails and transit along a historic 22-mile railroad corridor circling downtown and connecting 45 neighborhoods directly to each other.” (BeltLine)

The BeltLine lists eight specific goals. These goals include contributing to a unified Atlanta transit system, promoting economic development and affordable housing, connecting communities within Atlanta, expanding green space, and promoting environmental sustainability. (BeltLine Environmental Statement) Although the Beltline may meet these goals, it will do little to wean Atlanta from a car dominated society. Neither Atlanta’s horrible interstate congestion nor its ubiquitous car dependency will be much affected.

The BeltLine will be entirely within the city of Atlanta; it will provide no service to the suburbs. This limited service area will allow the BeltLine to fulfill its stated goals and prevent it from fulfilling the broader goals of public transit.

The BeltLine will connect many of central Atlanta’s neighborhoods to each other and to MARTA. Atlanta’s high population density allows the BeltLine to connect a large number of people to a large number of opportunity sites, so it should be well used. The parks and green space that will surround the BeltLine will also encourage people to come to the BeltLine. This high ridership provides an incentive for businesses to open along the BeltLine, promting economic development in the area.

The city of Atlanta provides unusually low costs for constructing transit. Unlike most other cities, central Atlanta still has land easily available for transit lines and expanded green space. This available land in the heart of a major city can only be explained by Atlanta’s history.

Atlanta was founded as an intersection of railroads. Because the railroads were there first, the city grew around them. Even though many of these railroads are now unused, the right of ways remain undeveloped. The BeltLine will be built entirely on existing rail lines. (BeltLine)

Atlanta only became a major city in the last 50 years; its period of explosive growth occurred after cars became the dominant form of transportation in America. The growth therefore occurred almost entirely in the suburbs. Atlanta never had a period of rapid growth during which a lack of transportation opportunities restricted housing options to within the central city. Because of this, Atlanta has fewer high density downtown neighborhoods and more unused land than other major cities.

The available land that the BeltLine has to work with is vital to the success of the project. Without the land, the capital costs would be prohibitively high. Even if this capital were raised, the BeltLine would have to evict people to build the rail line and green corridor. Evictions are politically unpopular, further reducing the chance of the BeltLine’s completion.

Despite all of the success the BeltLine may have in completing its goals within the city of Atlanta, it will prove ineffective at addressing the traffic problems or car dependency of the metropolitan area. These problems are more endemic to the suburbs than to the central city, so no transit system based exclusively in the central city can resolve them.

The BeltLine will encourage residents of central Atlanta to use transit more than they currently do. This could reduce traffic on the roads used predominantly by residents of the central city. However, most of the traffic in the city of Atlanta is arterial: people from the suburbs commute into and out of the central city. The BeltLine will have little or no effect on this traffic. Only major arterial and intra-suburb transit lines could have a significant impact on Atlanta’s traffic problems.

Atlanta’s car dependency, although prevalent throughout the metropolitan area, is especially prominent in the suburbs. The central city has a higher density population, more access to public transit, and less car ownership, and thus is already less car dependent than the suburbs. The BeltLine would help the central city lessen its car dependence further. It will have no effect on the car dependency of the suburbs. Because the majority of the population lives and works in the suburbs, this marginal change in the inner city will have little effect on the car dependence of the metropolitan area as a whole.

Atlanta is beginning to develop its transit system again after a long hiatus. The BeltLine is the first of several light rail or streetcar lines planned for central Atlanta. These transit lines can help to fulfill local economic, social, and environmental goals. However, their limited scope will prevent them from alleviating the problems of a car dominated society for the entire Atlanta metropolitan area. In order to relieve the problems of car dependency, a much more comprehensive and better coordinated transit system must be developed for all of Atlanta’s metropolitan area.


Works Cited

"Atlanta BeltLine Draft Environmental Impact Statement - YouTube." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

Atlanta Regional Roundtable - Penny Sales Tax Referendum to Fund Transportation Projects. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

BeltLine, Atlanta. Atlanta BeltLine Home. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

"Metro Atlanta Georgia Map." Georgia's Premier Recreation and Adventure Website. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.

Meyer, Michael. Lecture. ENGL 1101: Rhetoric of Mass Transportation. Georgia Institute of Technology, 30 Sept. 2011.