6.26.15
Pittsburghers for Public Transit (PPT) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission’s long range transportation plan. We commend the acknowledgement of the vital role that public transit plays in our communities and recognize the valuable work being done to improve transit service in our region. We are very pleased that the Port Authority has responded to voices from the community to add transit service in the coming year, especially in transit deserts. We know there is demand for more service in many communities throughout our region and hope that the SPC is committed to ensuring this service is adequately provided.
We hope the commission, in consideration of highway and road projects, asks the following question: could the transportation need be better met and resources better allocated through a public transit infrastructure investment, rather than encouraging more private vehicles on roads further from the urban core?
With respect to transit projects listed in the plan, PPT is working to ensure that any transit infrastructure improvements in the Fifth Forbes corridor are responsive primarily to the needs of residents and transit riders, without allocating too many resources into one project at the expense of other communities. We support efforts to expand the busway in the most equitable way possible. And we support complete streets policies that help to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, people with disabilities, and transit riders.
We also expect that all land use, development, and transportation planning make equity a top priority. The recent P4 conference, hosted by the City of Pittsburgh and the Heinz Endowments, indicated the importance of equity and we hope that the SPC demonstrates its commitment to equitable development in its prioritization and implementation of projects. PPT asserts that all transit-oriented development projects, especially those that require public funding, should have inclusionary zoning and affordable units of housing. Otherwise, residents can be displaced from their communities and pushed to areas further from transit lines. Residents with housing vouchers should have the opportunity to rent or buy homes close to transit service.
PPT is concerned that the plan references privately run transit several times. For example, the plan names a potential operating deficit for transit operations in the region until 2040 that amounts to 5.9 billion dollars. It suggests that we could use federal sources to “contract for private companies that provide transit service.” Our own local history indicates the perils of privately run transit, which is the reason the Port Authority was formed in 1950s. When routes are privatized, fares go up and wages go down. When workers make less, the turnover is higher which requires more hiring and training. It also leads to less experienced staff, which can lead to worse service and more risk to the safety of riders. Private companies are accountable to their bottom line, not the public, which means they more often cut routes that aren’t profitable, stranding transit dependent riders. Publicly run transit is more accountable and, by definition, ensures better access and equity.
In its list of potential projects, the plan includes a Compressed Natural Gas garage facility for Port Authority, anticipating the need for 140 million dollars. The plan also names 190 million dollars in funding for CNG buses. As we have indicated at Port Authority board meetings, we have compiled research into alternatives to diesel-powered buses, which casts some doubt on the wisdom of converting the fleet to CNG.
Diesel buses, as we know, are relatively dirty, noisy, and inefficient. Their emissions include not only the particulates we see, but also the ozone and nitrous oxide that attack our lungs, as well as carbon dioxide, the major culprit in climate change. Their cost efficiency is not great, averaging about 3 – 4 miles per gallon.
CNG, which is also a fossil fuel, produces 20 - 45% fewer tailpipe emissions, which is why it has been promoted as a cleaner fuel. In assessing environmental and health impacts, however, researchers consider not just what comes out of the tailpipe, but what they call “well-to-wheel” emissions, that is, pollutants emitted not only during buses’ operation, but in the production and transmission of their fuel. In the case of CNG, the release of methane from drilling sites, pipelines, and fueling stations offsets any gain in tailpipe emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 - 100 times more potent than CO2.
New York City’s MTA has abandoned its CNG program in favor of an investment in diesel-electric hybrids. Philadelphia’s SEPTA plans to purchase 400 hybrids by the end of 2015, for which it claims a 95% reduction in particulate emissions, 56% reduction in NO2, and, of course, zero methane. Increases in fuel economy range from 14 to 48%.
Hybrid buses are not only efficient and clean, they operate more quietly, making them healthier for drivers and more pleasant for riders. Because they charge their batteries from the energy of braking, they are well suited to urban centers with repeated stops. According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association, “Diesel-hybrid buses appear to offer the greatest overall environmental advantage.”
We urge the SPC to be cautious of claims about the benefits of CNG. Please take a closer look at the performance of Port Authority’s current fleet of 32 hybrids and consider investing in more of them. Their purchase price may be offset by greater fuel efficiency, and their operation would not require construction of new maintenance and fueling facilities. The diesel hybrid buses are road-ready, and their economic and environmental benefits would be significant. Thank you.
PPT Public Comments on proposed Port Authority Service Guidelines
6.15.15
Pittsburghers for Public Transit (PPT) supports the move toward more inclusive and transparent processes. Public transit agencies cannot make decisions based on cost and efficiency alone, and we are pleased to see equity as a key category in the proposed service guidelines.
Our main concern about these guidelines is the lack of clarity over how the 3 categories (equity, efficiency, and effectiveness) are weighted in decision-making. We call for the prioritization of equity, and would urge that route report cards have an equity score added to them.
We applaud the Port Authority’s recognition, in the proposed service guidelines, of the disproportionate importance public transit plays in low-income communities, and to the lives of transit dependent riders. And we expect the Port Authority to go beyond the minimum requirements of Title VI and the ADA to ensure our transit system strives to connect all the different people of Allegheny County to life.
We are concerned about the consequences of “low-performing routes,” for example, “under no circumstances is a route to continue unaltered after 24 months of failing to meet minimum productivity guidelines.”
We are concerned about the categorization of rapid, express, key corridor and local route, which seems to treat them as too separate and not integrated in the entire system.
We are concerned that the public won’t see the annual service report until May. If the board has to vote on any changes in June, that is a quick turnaround time.
Can the public see it sooner, such as in March or April, in order to provide feedback? The internal release of the report is in January; why does it take until May for the public release?
We are concerned that major service changes will not be released to the public until May, which is the same month the Board makes decision about changes. This leaves no time for the public to provide any feedback on the proposed changes, only to provide input collected in Nov and Dec, which seems limited.
We are concerned that there can be “substantial legitimate justification for proposed service change” even if there is disparate impact. Finally, what data does the Port Authority use to determine disparate impact?
PPT Position on Alternative Fuels for Buses and Service Priorities
4.24.15, public comment to Port Authority Board
Good morning. My name is Nick Coles and my name is Helen Gerhardt. We are research volunteers with Pittsburghers for Public Transit and we are addressing the Board on issues of sustainability and service priorities.
PPT is pleased that the Port Authority is considering sustainability as well as cost in making decisions about fleet purchases. Riders, residents, drivers, and maintenance workers all benefit when buses run cleaner, improving our local air quality. And we benefit again when operating costs are reduced.
Also, fossil fuels like gas and diesel are not renewable. They will eventually run out, and in the meantime they produce the greenhouse gases that drive climate change, causing the extreme weather events we are witnessing around the nation and the world.
We understand that Port Authority is considering a major investment in buses powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and in the infrastructure required to fuel and maintain them. So we’d like to share initial findings from our research into alternatives to diesel-powered buses, which cast some doubt on the wisdom of conversion to CNG.
Diesel buses, as we know, are relatively dirty, noisy, and inefficient. Their emissions include not only the particulates we see, but also the ozone and nitrous oxide that attack our lungs, as well as carbon dioxide, the major culprit in global warming. Their cost efficiency is not great, averaging about 3 – 4 miles per gallon.
CNG, which is also a fossil fuel, produces 20 - 45% fewer tailpipe emissions, which is why it has been promoted as a cleaner fuel. In assessing environmental and health impacts, however, researchers consider not just what comes out of the tailpipe, but what they call “well-to-wheel” emissions, that is, pollutants emitted not only during buses’ operation, but in the production and transmission of their fuel. In the case of CNG, the release of methane from drilling sites, pipelines and fueling stations offsets any gain in tailpipe emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 - 100 times more potent than CO2.
New York City’s MTA has abandoned its CNG program in favor of an investment in diesel-electric hybrids. Philadelphia’s SEPTA plans to purchase 400 hybrids by the end of 2015, for which it claims a 95% reduction in particulate emissions, 56% reduction in NO2, and, of course, zero methane. Increases in fuel economy range from 14 to 48%.
Hybrid buses are not only efficient and clean, they operate more quietly, making them healthier for drivers and more pleasant for riders. Because they charge their batteries from the energy of braking, they are well suited to urban centers with repeated stops. According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association, “Diesel-hybrid buses appear to offer the greatest overall environmental advantage.”
Technology is evolving and better options for sustainability may emerge. For instance, zero-emissions buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells are coming on line. In the meantime, we urge Port Authority to be cautious of claims about the benefits of CNG. Please take a closer look at the performance of your current fleet of 32 hybrids, and at improvements in the latest models. Their higher purchase price may be offset by greater fuel efficiency, and their operation would not require construction of new maintenance and fueling facilities. These buses are road-ready, and their economic and environmental benefits would be significant.
--
PPT is pleased to know that Port Authority is working on developing a more transparent and inclusive process for service planning. We appreciate that you are formalizing the process for receiving service requests from the public, which will be considered using a determined set of criteria. We value your attention to equity, and we expect it to be given priority in your service planning. During the People, Planet, Place, Performance conference last week in Pgh, Angela Glover Blackwell of Policy Link asserted: “We have to bake in equity—not do it on the side…Equity is no longer a moral imperative; it has become a national and economic imperative.” She continued, “When we solve problems for the most vulnerable, we solve problems for everyone.” She provided the examples of curb cuts that were meant to help those in wheel chairs, but also ended up helping parents with strollers, workers hauling equipment, travellers with luggage, and cyclists. Equity in the transit system benefits everyone.
We do want to share one main concern that we have about the current process for the development of service guidelines. While we appreciate that some stakeholders have seen and provided feedback on them, we would also like the wider public to have adequate time to review them and provide input before the guidelines are approved by the board. A document that will have such a significant impact on our public transit system should be more widely vetted. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment