Public Transportation

Many people in the United States use some form of public transportation. My question is: Does people using public transportation actually have an impact when it comes to the environment? In this paper I will focus on public transportation’s environmental impacts and compare that to automobile impacts. Also I will look at Metro Transit a public transportation network in Minneapolis, Minnesota and see how there operation works.

According to the Metro Transit website Metro Transit was established by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1967, and in 1998 the name was changed to its current name Metro Transit. For many years Metro Transit only ran buses. Today they have 910 buses running on 127 routes. The next big event came in 2004 when the Minneapolis Light Rail opened. The Light Rail line runs from the Mall of America to Target Field. In between there are stops at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, as well as stops through south Minneapolis, and other stops in downtown Minneapolis. They are planning to expand the line into St. Paul in the near future. Another big milestone accrued when the Northstar Train opened in 2009. The Northstar train runs from Big Lake to Target Field. There are stops in between in Elk River, Anoka, Coon Rapids, and Fridley.

Metro Transit receives its funding through a number of different components. It receives its funds through the State Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, the State General Fund, fares, and federal revenues. A majority of that funding comes from the fares people pay to ride the public transportation. The local fare is $2.25 during rush hours which is 6-9am and 3-6:30pm, and $1.75 during non rush hours and on weekends and holidays. There is a built in 2 ½ hour transfer that allows a person to ride on any bus or train without having to pay again. There are also special tickets that elderly people can buy for a reduced price, also there are special event tickets that last for six hours but they do cost fifty cents more. Also a person can buy a rail only pass that lasts for twelve hours but can be only used on the Light Rail.

According to Metro Transit’s website they have been launching a series of hybrid buses. The first one was launched in 2002. Today there are 67 hybrid buses with thee hopes being that there will be 75 by the end of this year. The Metro Transit hybrid buses are 28% better fuel efficient then the current buses. Also they have 85% fewer particulate emissions than the buses they replace. Lastly they run more quietly than the regular buses. Another environmental contribution from Metro Transit is their Light Rail. The Light Rail runs on electricity so there are no carbon fuel emissions from the trains. Also the trains are powered by renewable wind, hydropower, and biomass energy, which are renewable and cleaner.

There have been studies done that prove public transportation is more energy efficient and environmentally than personal automobiles. In a study done by the APTA in 2007, they found that carbon dioxide emissions from public transportation was 12.3 million metric tons less then that of automobiles. They also concluded that public transportation saved a net total of 3.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. In a separate study done by Linda Bailey in 2007 she concluded that current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year. Also that households that use public transportation save an average of $6,251 every year. This compares favorably to the effects automobiles have on the environment. Chester, Horvath, and Madanat did a study in 2010 and said “ Automobiles dominate total regional performance accounting for 86- 96% of energy consumption and emissions”. They also stated that fuel combustion is a large component of emissions. Coinciding with that EDF states that 600 gallons of gasoline gets consumed by one U.S. car each year. Also 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide is emitted from one U.S car each year, and it takes 240 trees to absorb the 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.

One major environmental impact from fuel emissions is air pollution. The study done by the APTA concluded that air pollution claims 70,000 lives a year. Also that the annual cost of health damage from a motor vehicle pollution is estimated to be between $29 billion and $530 billion. Another study done said air pollution can cause lung and heart disease, acid rain, that it can destroy trees and damage fruits and vegetables. The APTA study said that public transportation produces, on average, per passenger mile 95% less carbon monoxide than cars, 92% percent fewer volatile organic compounds than cars, 45% less carbon dioxide than cars, and 48% less nitrogen oxide than cars.

The goal of this project was to see if using public transportation made a significant difference when it comes to the environment. The fact that public buses, and trains hold more people than cars has a big impact. Studies showed that public transportation emit far fewer hazardous emissions into the air. The less hazardous chemicals in the air the cleaner the air, the cleaner the air the heather people can be. So to conclude it seems public transportation does have a significant impact on the environment and it is worth it to use public transportation.

References

Bailey, Linda (2007). Public transportation and petroleum savings in the U.S.: reducing dependence on oil. Retrieved from http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/apta_public_transportation_fuel_savings_final_010807.pdf on May 1st 2010.

Chester, M., Horvath, A., & Madanat, S. (2010). Comparison of life-cycle energy and emissions footprints of passenger transportation in metropolitan regions. Atmospheric Environment, 44(8), 1071-1079. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.012.

Ebi, K., Mills, D., Smith, J., & Grambsch, A. (2006). Climate Change and Human Health Impacts in the United States: An Update on the Results of the U.S. National Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(9), 1318-1324. doi:10.1289/ehp.8880.

Sallis, J., Frank, L., Saelens, B., & Kraft, M. (2004). Active transportation and physical activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research. Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 38(4), 249.

(2009). Going Green Facts. What's New In Your State: Going Green!, 1-6. Retrieved from Environment Complete database.

http://www.publictransportation.org/reports/asp/better_health.asp

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=6083

http://www.metrotransit.org/

Green Ad Analysis- Target

The ad I chose was a Target ad that I found in the April 18th, 2010 issue of the Star Tribune news paper. The ad was an eight page insert to Target’s normal Sunday ad that is found in all Sunday papers. The ad insert focused on sales Target was having on “green” products. The paragraphs that follow is my analysis of the ad insert.

The main target of the ad I felt was mainly adults. I think that because the products the ad features are products for adults. The products are like laundry detergent and light bulbs. These products are mostly bought and used by adults and less so then by children. There is however a picture of a little girl smiling while holding a plant in the middle of the ad which I think was more geared towards children trying to say kids can help with the environment too. Besides that picture though I think the ad was definitely more for adults. I felt that the mood the article created was a happy one. The article used light and warm colors and the wording at the top that said “ Celebrate Earth Week & Save” gave me the impression that they were saying come buy Eco- friendly products and help save the environment and your money. I think they were trying to create a mood were people could do something good ( helping save the environment) while do something they love (shop).

The design of the ad is quite simple. It is eight pages long. On the front it has a picture of a big green reusable shopping bag and a picture of laundry detergent. On the next two pages there are pictures of products that were on sale last week. The fourth and fifth pages talk about a project that Target did about sending in plastic bags to receive a discount on a re use able bag. The sixth page gives tips on how Target is reducing waste, and the seventh page tells how Target is minimizing their carbon footprint and conserving water. The last page features more product sold at Target. On the pages were product is featured there is a picture of the product along with how much it costs and what makes it “green”. I think the words by the product help enhance the picture. I think this was done too allow the reader of the ad to see the product and know how it was green in an effort to persuade people to buy it. As I have mentioned before the ad was an eight page insert. Every page is either filled with product or Target’s “green” facts. They fit as much as they could into the pages and there was no “white space”. I think they did a good job filling the ad. There are two figures of people in this ad. One is a black women with curly hair and one is a little white girl with straight hair. I think this was done to appeal to black women and little children. The women is shown pouring water and smiling. I think this was done to say that helping the environment makes people feel good. The little girl is shown holding a plant and she is also smiling. I think this was done to show hoe little kids can also make a difference in the environment. The background of the ad is a light blue sky color. Also in the background are on some of the pages there are little birds, trees, clouds, windmills and on one page there is a sun. This background I think creates a warm feeling and helps further show that this ad is about the environment and environmental friendly products.

The main theme of the advertisement seems to be buy Eco- friendly products and help save the environment. All the products in the ad are all products that can be considered “green”. The language that is used goes along with the theme of the add. Some of the language includes “Celebrate Earth Week and Save”, “Eco- smart choices for your family and your budget”, and “Good for you: Organics and more”. These phrases clearly relate to the buy Eco products, save the environment. The wording is in bold writing and either at the top of the page or in the middle. I think this was done so it would be hard for the reader to miss these words. The items being advertise very. They range from laundry detergent to food. The one thing all the products in the ad have in common is that they are used everyday. I think this is important because if people use items that they use everyday and they are Eco-friendly then it would go along ways to helping the environment.

In my opinion Target did a good job with this ad. I think they did a good job with there pictures and words. Having the products and how they were “green” gives the reader a chance to see and know what they are buying before they buy it. Also I like the fact that they put the things Target is doing to be more “green”. That way you can see that Target really is trying to make a difference not just trying to make money by selling Eco- friendly products. Also the wording they used and where they put the words work and can catch the readers attention. Overall I think Target achieved what they were trying to do with this ad.

Environmental News Analysis

Environmental News Analysis

I choose an article titled “Forget Putting CO2 Under Rock- Let’s Turn It ‘Into’ Rock”. This article talks about a process that can turn CO2 into a solid and that this process will help with the pollution that CO2 causes. The author mainly focuses on the work Columbia University is doing on this process. From the headline of this article reader might get a sense that this is an opinion piece. The words “let’s turn into rock” sounds like that is the authors opinion. After reading it however the reader can tell it is not an opinion because the author never gives her personal view. In that sense the headline is a little misleading. Also CO2 might be confusing to some people who don’t recognize it as a chemical symbol, and might not know what CO2 is. The article opens and talks about how to deal with carbon emissions. It suggests one way to deal with it and that is putting it underground, and that would be a good way to clean up the carbon mess. The author starting with this tells me this is most important to the article that carbon emissions is a problem and there are ways to deal with it.

One disappointing thing about this article is that it is very short. There is a good amount of information given, but I would of liked to see more. This issue seems like a very serious issue but not much time is given to it in this particular article. There is a picture that goes along with this article and that is of a unnamed power plant with a ton of smoke coming out of it. I think this was done to show how much pollution carbon emissions cause.

To me the author seemed to be objective in her article. She didn’t seem to be taking sides in any way. She simple told what is being done to try to deal with carbon emissions. I do have several other criticisms when it comes to this article however. One is the lack of statistics and experts. She says that “Columbia University geochemists Peter Kelemen and Juerg Matter calculated that a single rock formation in Oman could store up to 10 percent of all human-generated carbon emitted in a year.” She also tells about how the process works on how to turn the carbon into a solid. She also talks about how a project in Iceland plans to inject carbon dioxide–infused groundwater into volcanic basalt about 1,800 feet underground. These are the only two instances she talks about. I would have liked to see maybe more instances of this process being done and more facts that show that this process actually works. The article also lacks a opposing view. The article doesn’t state any opposition saying something like it doesn’t work or there are better ways to get rid of carbon emissions. The article ends with the author saying that “Scientists from Columbia and elsewhere will monitor the project to see if this approach could expand to handle the 28 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide humans emit each year.” I think this ends the article well because it gives the reader a reason to keep updated on the story because it is still ongoing.

Overall I give this article a grade of a C. Positives are the author was objective and ended the article well. The negatives are that the article is very short and does not give enough statistics or experts facts.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/dec/10-forget-putting-co2-under-rock-let.s-turn-it-into-rock

First blog

This is my first blog.