U.S. Transportation Energy Analysis of Modal Use and Trend

U.S. Tran gambolation sinew Analysis of Modal Use and TrendJoe WillieU.S. fomites travel over trey meg miles per family. The vast majority (99.64%) of these miles atomic number 18 traveled on U.S. roads, with the superior portion of these miles attributed to passenger and on the loose(p)-duty fomites (US Dept of Transportation, 2014). Transportation accounts for 28% of the expertness employ in the U.S. (US competency Information Administration, 2016) and 26% of U.S. glasshouse gas liberations equaling 1.786 cardinal tons of CO2 equivalent.(EPA 2016). U.S. vehicle travel increase from 724 gazillion miles in 1960 to the catamenia level by 2006, at which point the summarize vehicle miles stabilized (US Dept of Transportation, 2014). 90% of the discharge utilize for enjoyation in the U.S. is crude oil found (US power Information Administration, 2016).Transportation has become the leading and more or little-rapidly change magnitude contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both globally and the U.S (Schipper, Saenger, and Sudardshan, 2011). Between 1991 and 2006, or so half of the harvest-tide in U.S. speed of visible radiation emissions was attributable to expatriation. CO2 emission growth due to conveyance of title has been occupyn by several factors, including change magnitude accept for passenger and warhead transport, urban phylogenesis and sprawl, lack of complain off and plenty traverse and cycle infrastructure in m whatever regions, dismiss-in in effect(p) vehicles, comparatively low oil prices, and the special(a) availability of low-carbon renders (Brown, Southworth, Sarzynski 2008). Given the scope and growth of excursion and associated emissions, it is becoming change magnitudely important to understand and quantify impacts and trends in various back breaker modes. short trucks (pickups, minivans, and SUVs) and passenger cars account for 34% and 24% of U.S. transportation enkindle usage, respec tively (US ability Information Administration, 2016). Light trucks and passenger cars unite contribute 59% of U.S. transportation carbon emissions (U.S. Department of Energy, 2014). give the axe ability standards in the U.S. were initially established by Congress 1975. corporal Average provide Economy ( coffeehouse) standards set the average, sales- weighted, fleet sack deli genuinely for new vehicles starting with the 1978 model year, with the intention of doubling average fuel economy to 27.5 mpg by 1985. The Department of Transportation also established CAFE standards for light trucks ( pickups, minivans, and SUVs) beginning with the 1978 model year. In 2007, CAFE standards for light trucks were change magnitude to 22.2 mpg, with further increases scheduled. No increases were made beyond 1985 levels for passenger cars until until 2007, when the Energy independence and Security venture raised the fuel economy standards of Americas cars, light trucks, and SUVs to a combin ed average of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017). However, it seems likely that this standard will be scaled mount by the current administration before it is implemented.Minimum fuel efficiency standards for cars and light cars are set at different levels. A passenger car is any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is make principally for use in transporting 10 people or less(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal). A light truck is any 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel poking or is to a greater extent than 6,000 lbs. gvwr and has typically truck-like physical features) or which is designed to transport more than 10 people, return temporary housing, provide open rear transport, permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume, or with the use of tools keep be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor (NHTSA, 2006). The am biguity of this definition enables manufacturers to define vehicles as trucks or cars at their discretion. Many sport utility vehicles (SUVs) produced today which seem to meet the passenger car definition above are classified as light trucks, allowing their manufacturers far greater leeway to meet CAFE standards .It is useful to analyze vehicle carbon strong suit for cars and light trucks. This is defined as the amount of carbon dioxide emission per vehicle outdistance traveled. Carbon intensity is inversely proportional to fuel economy. From 1973 to 2008 carbon intensity rock-bottom 33% per vehicle mile and 15% per passenger mile. After 1973, new cars became much lighter, less powerful, and gradually more efficient. By 2007 a new cars and light trucks used half as much vim per unit weight as ones change in the 1970s. However, new car weight had change magnitude to 80% of the 1975 look upons for cars, and light truck weight increased above 1975 values. As a reply the spurn i n fuel usage per mile of new cars and light trucks sold in the 1990s was closer to 33% less than those sold in 1973 (Schipper, Saenger, and Sudardshan, 2011).Low- niggardliness suburban development, or urban sprawl, has dominated development in the U.S. since World War II. This also includes scattered and commercial slip-up development, as well as large expanses of single-use development . Suburban households apparent movement 31 share more than urban households, bit western households bugger off 35 percent than northeastern households (Kahn, 2000). Whats more, households in low density areas be given to own more cars, are more likely to own less fuel efficient vehicles such as SUVs and trucks, take a leak land vehicle occupancies, and use open transportation less than households in high density areas (Brownstone, 2008).Domestic wrinkle carrier usefulness accounts for 6% of the summation U.S. transportation brawniness use and 11% of the U.S. transportation carbon emiss ions. U.S. planes traveled 6 billion vehicle miles (608 billion passenger miles) for such travel in 2014. Domestic shipline mileage increased from 858 million vehicle miles (31 billion passenger miles) in 1960 to 6.7 billion vehicle miles (588 billion passenger miles) in 2006 before decreasing to current levels. (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016). It is interesting to note that although total vehicle miles pay off decreased by over 10% since 2006, total passenger miles have increased 3.4% during the same period. This is likely due to efforts by airlines to increase follow efficiency by change magnitude plane line of work. art object educatecarmobile fuel use was affected by efficiency standards, in that location were no similar policies for air travel. Instead, technological progress and efforts to support lucrativeness have led to reduced carbon intensity in air transportation. Many unprofitable non-stop flights between smaller cities have been eliminated in kick u pstairs of hub-and-spoke patterns developed by the major airlines, which increased plane loads. In addition, air travel intensity declined as plane occupancy increased to somewhat 80% capacity in 2006 from around 50% in the early 1970s. This created more crowding on aircraft, but led to right smart reduction in fuel consumption. As a result, the carbon intensity of air travel declined by 60% between 1973 and 2006, greatest for any major mode of transportation (Schipper, Saenger, and Sudardshan, 2011). direct and mint shares of U.S. transportation decreased from just over 7% in 1960 to around 4% in 2008, in terms of passenger miles. This is disconcerting given that the carbon intensities of carriage and racecourse travel are (potentially) earthshakingly lower than both passenger cars and air travel. Rail intensity can vary considerably. Heavily used intercity passenger (Amtrak) or commuter prepare lines (Metro northwestern, LIRR) typically have very(prenominal) low talent intensities, well below that of auto or air travel. Unfortunately, provided a a few(prenominal) large urban transit systems provide push intensities that are competitive with automobile travel. As a result, North American world transportation service is overall not very aught efficient (energy consumption per passenger-mile). Under current conditions, U.S. transit vehicles realise about the same energy per passenger-mile as cars, although less than vans, light trucks and SUVs (Litman, 2015) . great deal travel, including intercity buses, school buses, and urban buses, has a mixed record. In fact, because buses carried so few passengers, city buses released more CO2 per passenger-mile on average than cars/light trucks during periods in the 1990s. But by 2000, newer, more efficient buses used progressively less fuel/mile, to the point where the intensit of a bus with an average of 9 passengers drop down below that of automobiles again. (Steiner Mauzerall, 2006). expertness of public transit vehicles is highly dependent on passenger occupancy. A bus with seven passengers is about twice as energy efficient as an average automobile, while a bus with 50 passengers is about ten times as energy efficient. Rail transit tends to be about trio times as energy efficient as diesel bus transit. saucily hybrid buses are about twice as energy efficient as current diesel buses. Chester and Horvath (2008) and Chester, et al. (2013) calculate life cycle energy consumption and pollution emissions for various modes of transportation, including fuel used in their operation, and energy used in vehicle and facility construction and maintenance. age, public transit typically uses less than half the energy of a passenger car and a force of the energy of a light truck or SUV, these efficiencies vary significantly with on travel conditions. During peak periods, when occupancy is high, buses are the most energy efficient mode, but during off-peak, when occupancy ise low, bu ses are least efficient. (Litman, 2015)Although public transit is on average only modestly more energy efficient than automobile travel, and less efficient than some commercially available cars, this reflects the relatively low occupancies of transit vehicles. transportation services with high passenger occupancy rates are relatively energy efficient. Public transit improvements can provide significant energy savings and emission reductions by increasing operation efficiency, reducing traffic congestion, and substituting for automobile travel. Residents of transit-oriented communities tend to drive significantly less than they would in conventional, automobile-oriented locations. tour improvements support other energy conservation strategies, such as efficient road and parking determine policies. Without high quality transit such strategies are less legal and less politically acceptable. Current demographic and economic trends are increasing demand for high quality public transi t and transit-oriented development (Litman, 2015).American railroad passenger traffic grew steadily from the late 1800s until the 1920s, when long distance travel shifted to private automobiles and rail travel began a long decline. This decline was interrupted briefly due to gasoline rationing and the suspension of auto production during World War II when railroads were put back into service to transport the great volume of soldiers and war workers. Intercity bus service, which had been very limited before 1940, expanded during this period, as well. After the war, however most rail companies discontinued passenger service entirely. passenger stations were demolished or deserted, and railroad cars were taken out of service. In an effort to preserve rail service, Congress created Amtrak in 1970 and provided national funds to support the new rail system. Commuter lines provided the remaining service. This was followed within a few years with the federal governments deregulation of U.S. airlines. The great increase in air travel that began after mid century is projected to continue indefinitely, offering speedy and expert transportation that strain air transit facilities. Bus travel provided a low-cost alternative airplane or train travel and has hold a small but relatively stable niche (Caplow, Hicks and Wattenberg, 2000).The MTA, which is the New York Metropolitan areas transit system, is a noteworthy case study of a large US public transit system. The Metropolitan Transportation position is North Americas largest transportation utmostwork, providing service for 15.3 million people in 5,000 hearty miles including New York City, Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. MTA undergrounds, buses, and railroads provide 2.73 billion trips individually year to New Yorkers, including about one in every three users of passel transit and two-thirds of the rail riders in the U.S. While 15 percent of the commonwealths workers use public trans it to get to their jobs, four of every quintuple of New York Citys central business district rush-hour commuters use transit service, most of it operated by the MTA (MTA, 2017). The MTA accounts for 65 percent of all New York City commutes while using just 5 percent of New York Citys total energy consumption (MTA, 2008).The MTA also boasts the largest bus fleet in the U.S. and more subway and rail cars than all the rest of the countrys subways and commuter railroads combined. According to the MTA, ridership on its mass results in a 15 million metric ton net reduction of pollutants, making New York the most carbon-efficient state in the nation (MTA, 2017). New Yorkers catch one quarter as much energy per capita as the average American, largely attributable to the MTA system (MTA, 2008). While the energy and carbon emission efficiencies of the MTA system is impressive, the economy of such an operation poses significant ongoing challenges. Fares and tolls provide 53% of the MTAs $14. 6 billion dollar annual in operation(p) revenue, but the system relies on taxes and subsidies for the remaining operating funds (MTA, 2015). In addition the agency relies heavily on debt to fund capital projects, with debt payments consume a growing share of the MTAs annual operating budget, increasing the likeliness of fare increases and, creating an estimated debt service cost of $3.5 billion a year by 2030 (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2017). It seems that the inspiring environmental and fuel efficiency gains attributed to a large-scale public transportation system comes with a burdensome cost. weight accounts for about 26% of all petroleum-based fuels consumed in the U.S. transportation sector. Freight transportation demand is typically measured in tons, ton-miles, and value (dollars) of goods moved by the committal sector. The Federal road Administration estimates that 18.5 billion tons of goods worth $16.7 jillion were moved in the unify States in 2007, for a tota l of 5.4 trillion ton-miles of travel (U.S. DOT). Trucks moved about 72% of all shipment tonnage, be for 42% of all ton-miles and 70% of freight commodity value. Rail accounted for only 11% of tons moved, but 28% of ton-miles and 3.5% of total value, reflecting rails cost effectiveness in trucking heavier, but generally lower-value, commodities, such as coal and grain, over long distances. Excluding international maritime shipments, waterborne transportation accounted for a smaller percentage of tons and ton-miles. Air freight transportation constituted an even smaller share, except when measured by value (Grenzeback, Brown, Fischer, Hutson, Lamm, Pei, Vimmerstedt, Vyas, Winebrake, J.J., 2013).Between 1960 and 2008, the share of trucks to almost 42% of ton-miles, while rail dismiss from 36% of freight in 1960 to 33% in 2008. The share of waterborne freight decreased significantly while air freight grew ten-fold over the entire 48 year period, despite accounting for less than 1% of total freight travel in 2008. Disconcertingly, the modes of travel and freight that consume the most energy per unit grew faster than those that use the least energy. Freight demand is estimated to grow to 27.5 billion tons in 2040 and to nearly 30.2 billion tons in 2050, requiring ever-increasing amounts of energy. In the coming decades, all modes of domestic freight transportation are expected to increase significantly, but truckings share, when measured in both tons and ton-miles, is projected to continue to grow at the write down of rail and waterborne freight (Grenzeback, Brown, Fischer, Hutson, Lamm, Pei, Vimmerstedt, Vyas, Winebrake, J.J., 2013).The cost and volatility of fuel prices in the past decades as well as increasing interest by shippers in decreasing fuel costs and carbon emissions from goods movement have led the motor carrier industry to search for better fuel efficiency. The U.S. environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) SmartWay Transport Partnership program wo rks with the deportation and trucking community to reduce fuel use and emissions by promoting unstained and more efficient engines and transmissions, more aerodynamically clean truck shapes (including nose cones, skirts and perturbation fairings), idle reduction technologies, low rolling resistant and single-wide tires, lower weight components and aluminum wheels, driver training, and more efficient routing and dispatching (EPA 2011).Railroads spend relatively less than trucks on fuel, due to the economies of scale and fuel savings by hauling very large volumes of freight over long distances. In 2008, railroads consumed about 320 Btu per ton-mile, compared to trucking, which used approximately 1,390 Btu per ton-mile. The difference in fuel use is reflected in the generally higher price of trucking services and the generally lower price of rail services, but the services provided by truck and rail also differ substantially in load capacity, routes and destinations served, frequen cy of service, transit time and reliability of travel time (Grenzeback, Brown, Fischer, Hutson, Lamm, Pei, Vimmerstedt, Vyas, Winebrake, J.J., 2013).Understanding trends in fuel consumption by mode of travel merits an analysis of public enthronization in transportation and transportation infrastructure. In the U.S., transportation infrastructure is funded primarily by user-related taxes and fees which support construction and maintenance. Congress created the passage Trust stock (HTF) in 1956 to provide money for construction and maintenance of the Interstate Highway System. In 1982, the heap pass over figure (MTA) was created to invest in public transportation systems. Taxes paid by channel users are credited to the HTF and are used solely to pay for highway and mass transit improvements. Currently, a federal excise taxes on gasoline, gasohol, diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, and taxes on heavy trucks and truck tires provide revenue for this fund. Revenue from motor fuel taxes are divided between the Highway Account (HA) and the Mass Transit Account, while all revenues from heavy truck taxes are dedicated to the Highway Account. In recent years, revenues have totaled $38 billion to $42 billion per year, with about $5 billion for the Mass Transit Account and the rest for the Highway Account. In 2015, Congress passed the $305 billion Fixing Americas prove Transportation (FAST) Act, a five year plan to increase highway investment from $40 billion per year to $46.4 billion per year and increased public transportation funding from $10.7 billion per year to $12.6 billion per year (The American Road Transportation Builders Association, 2016).There is also a federal Airport and Airways Trust Fund, payd by fees on air travelers and taxes on air power fuels.which finances airport improvements and the air traffic control system. State governments finance highway construction and maintenance through a variety of primarily user-related taxes and fees includ ing taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, vehicle registration fees, driver evidence fees, sales taxes on motor vehicles and heavy trucks, and traffic violation fines (The American Road Transportation Builders Association, 2017).Given the considerable and increasing concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, understanding and adapting energy use seems increasingly urgent. The transportation sectors share of energy usage and carbon emissions makes it ripe for such analysis. While improvements in fuel efficiencies in all modes of transport, conservation efforts, and elaborateness of non-carbon based fuels provide hope for long term sustainability of transportation in the U.S., of import underlying factors make significant and meaningful improvement difficult to achieve. A U.S. landscape and infrastructure which was initially designed with an emphasis on rail-based public transportation has shifted over the last century to an auto-based transportation system. The N ortheast United States is littered with bike paths that used to carry an extensive rail mesh that has been largely abandoned. Remaining public transit systems such those run by the Metropolitan Transit Authority have provided extensive, well utilized bus and subway service, and salvaged right of way remnants to recover rail for commuter service that is also heavily utilized. Unfortunately, high operating and capital costs combined with a dependence upon public funds make them difficult to sustain, especially during periods of economic difficulty. Whats more, the cost of maintaining the nations extensive highway, road, and bridge infrastructure is becoming increasingly burdensome, crowding out funding for public transit systems.Similarly, shifts in freight transport modes to more carbon-intensive forms such as heavy trucking, and the rapid expansion of air travel over the last 60 years have led to an increase in fuel usage and carbon emissions in trends that are difficult to reverse . And while the introduction of CAFE requirements for autos and trucks have meliorate efficiency, increases in vehicle and passenger miles and vehicle weights have limited these benefits. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 promises a future fleet of significantly more efficient cars and trucks by 2020, but this gain could be abandoned by the current Congress and President. Despite great advances in technology and awareness, sustainable transportation in the U.S. will require greater opening night on the part of the public and government. Until that occurs, transportation sustainability will remain elusive.ReferencesAmerican Road Transportation Builders Association Fixing Americas SurfaceTransportation Act A Comprehensive Analysis 2016 http//www.artba.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FASTAct_ issuing.pdfBen Steiner Professor Denise L. Mauzerall. Achieving Vehicle Fuel Efficiency The CAFE Standards and Beyond May 10, 2006Brownstone, David, and Thomas F. Golob. The Impa ct of Residential parsimony on Vehicle Usage and Energy Consumption Journal of urban Economics, 2008EPA. 2011. EPA and NHTSA Adopt First-Ever programme to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. EPA-420-F-11-031. Washington, DCGrenzeback, L.R. Brown, A. Fischer, M.J. Hutson, N. Lamm, C.R. Pei, Y.L. Vimmerstedt,L. Vyas, A.D. Winebrake, J.J. (March 2013). Freight Transportation Demand Energy-Efficient Scenarios for a Low-Carbon Future. Transportation Energy Futures Series. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO) for the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/GO-102013-3711. 82 pp.Jay Young stand Mass Transit in 19th- and 20th- snow Urban America Subject 20th atomic number 6 Pre-1945, 20th Century Post-1945, Urban business relationship, History of Science and Technology Online Publication Date Mar 2015 DOI 10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.28 PRINTED FROM the O XFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, AMERICAN HISTORY (americanhistory.oxfordre.com). Oxford University rouse USA, 2016.Kahn, M. E., 2000. The Environmental Impact of Suburbanization. Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management 19, 569-586. downwind Schipper, Calanit Saenger, and Anant Sudardshan. Transport and Carbon Emissions inthe United States The Long View. Energies 2011, 4, 563-581 doi10.3390/en4040563Marilyn A. Brown, abrupt Southworth, Andrea Sarzynski Shrinking The Carbon Footprint Of Metropolitan America. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, May 2008Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Greening Mass Transit Metro Regions The FinalReport of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA, 2008 http//web.mta.info/sustainability/pdf/SustRptFinal.pdfMetropolitan Transportation Authority Adopted Budget February Financial broadcast 2015 2018,2015 http//web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2017 http//web.mta.info/mta/network.htmMikhail Cheste r and Arpad Horvath (2008), Environmental Life-cycle Assessment of PassengerTransportation A Detailed Methodology for Energy, Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Inventories of Automobiles, Buses, Light Rail, Heavy Rail and Air v.2, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport,Mikhail Chester, Stephanie Pincetl, Zoe Elizabeth, William Eisenstein and Juan Matute (2013),Infrastructure And Automobile Shifts Positioning Transit To Reduce Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts For Urban Sustainability Goals, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, pp. (2013)National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. CAFE Overview.http//www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm, 2006.The American Road Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) 2017http//www.artba.org/Theodore Caplow, Louis Hicks and Ben J. Wattenberg, The First Measured Century An Illustrated Guide to Trends in America, 1900-2000, American Enterprise Institute Press, 2000, 2000Todd Litman. Evaluating Public Transit As An Energy C onservation and Emission ReductionStrategy 17 April 2015 Victoria Transport Policy InstituteTri-State Transportation Campaign, Transportation ci Whats up with the MTA? 2017http//www.tstc.org/101/mta.phpUnion of Concerned Scientists, A Brief History of U.S. Fuel Efficiency Standards, 2017http//www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economyU.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book, remit 2.5, 2014.U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database,http//www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm Apr. 26, 2016.US Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review, April 2016