Policy

The Electric Bus Trap: Why Good Climate Intentions May Lead to Bad Policy

A former Massachusetts transportation secretary has written an opinion piece arguing against the rush to electric buses for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). He is not a climate change denier, so what is his argument, and are there lessons for other jurisdictions?

Key Takeaways

• In law, the MBTA cannot purchase any new bus other than an electric bus beginning January 1, 2031, and can only operate electric buses as of January 1, 2041.
• The bus mandate is a laudable goal, but all US transit agencies pursuing a similar policy are in the position of being forced to purchase the wrong vehicles at the wrong price at the wrong time.
• The over-reliance on electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions stems from the mistaken assumption that the environmental damage caused by cars is attributable predominantly to carbon emissions from internal combustion engine vehicles. This commonly held view ignores particulate matter emissions.
• For all their carbon emissions advantages, EVs will continue to emit particulates in the air, primarily from non-exhaust sources: brake and tire friction, as well as road wear and re-suspended road dust – all of which are exacerbated by the heavier weight of EVs
• Mode shift (getting drivers to reduce driving and shift to public transportation) is a quickly scalable option for both carbon and particulate matter reductions.
• If an agency chooses to use federal money to purchase electric buses, it cannot purchase any bus that comes from (or has parts made in) China. Yet these are the best, least expensive electric buses on the market today and for the foreseeable future.
• Most tailpipe carbon emissions are coming from private automobiles, not from buses. The MBTA has already moved to compressed natural gas and electric/hybrid buses, which have reduced bus emissions by 90 per cent. Buses are inconsequential to the production of carbon emissions.
• Spending limited resources to support the acquisition and garaging of very expensive electric buses is an irresponsible use of money.
• Massachusetts would do substantially more to reduce carbon emissions if it invested in an electric regional rail system with 15-30 minute frequencies.
• Other major US transit agency leaders feel the same way.

Comment

Electric Buses, per se, are not a bad idea. However, almost every jurisdiction needs to do a lot more on mode shift, and if successful, this would have a much bigger impact on reducing carbon emissions. Given that we are still spending vast sums on making the world better for cars through spending on roads, it should be possible to invest in bus electrification, rail and active transport by reducing our spending on roads.

What next?

Are your current transport investments the best way to reduce carbon emissions? In particular, are you investing in mode shift?

Change

From Temporary to Permanent: What Makes Tactical Urbanism Stick?

Tactical urbanism, using low-cost temporary improvements on our streets to generate momentum for bigger and more permanent changes, was supercharged by the pandemic. How successful has tactical urbanism been at facilitating permanent change? A new study has reviewed the evidence.

Key Takeaways

• The review looked at 92 papers covering a range of temporary street-space reallocation projects supporting a shift to active travel modes.
• The success of temporary projects is inconsistent, ranging from complete removal, degradation, reworking, expansion, to accepted permanence.
• Despite the ease of implementation, tactical urbanism interventions still encounter much of the same resistance as their permanent counterparts.
• Economic concerns make business interests powerful opponents to restrictions on vehicle traffic, and ought to be key partners in achieving permanence.
• For cities with poor cycling provision, tactical urbanism should focus on providing routes where most useful, as initial successes can rationalise expansion.
• In cities with existing networks, tactical urbanism is used radically to strengthen weak points or missing links, creating safe routes for complete journeys.
• Positive results for children have enabled the continuation of temporary projects. Programmes such as School Streets can clearly articulate and evaluate their success.
• While COVID-19 permitted the introduction of many measures, when this served as the only justification, it functioned poorly as a driver for transformative change.
• Presenting a clear, shared understanding of the problem and how success should be measured increases the chances of permanence.
• Aesthetics play a role in success. Some temporary materials quickly degrade and require regular maintenance.
• Common blockages to permanence were:

1. The temporariness of funding schemes and governance;
2. A lack of how the intervention fits into a long-term vision for mobility;
3. Inadequate engagement with both supporters and critics of change; and
4. Inattention to network principles of urban mobility.

Comment

Whilst tactical urbanism can be a powerful catalyst for change, it needs to be done thoughtfully and with clear communication to gather support for a permanent change. I would particularly emphasise the need to get businesses on board.

What next?

Have you incorporated tactical urbanism into your toolbox for change, and have you got the processes around it to enable success?

Leadership

Transport Solutions Every Place Should Consider

The Urban Design Forum has created a platform for the New York mayoral election called Vision for a Better City. Many of its transport recommendations would apply to many places:

Idea #9: Save more lives through better street design

• Launch pedestrian corridors
• Build community buy-in
• Make schools the heart of our street design revolution
• Don't settle for temporary
• Allocate street space for people
• Create bicycle superhighways:

Idea #10: Enforce safer streets for all

• Automate enforcement
• Crackdown on dangerous car drivers
• Address reckless e-bikes
• Clear bike lanes and sidewalks
• Reform parking and curb use
• Minimize oversized cars in the city

Idea #11: Speed up city buses

• Build dedicated bus lanes
• Develop a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network
• Improve boarding experience
• Expand Congestion Pricing

Idea #12: Build the world’s cleanest transportation network

• Strengthen multimodal connections
• Legitimize informal transit
• Simplify regional connections
• Bring cargo bikes to every block
• Expand water transit
• Explore innovative transit infrastructure

Idea #17: Invest in healthy public spaces and mobility

• Develop a Citywide Active Corridor Plan
• Incentivize public transit
• Use public spaces to combat loneliness:
• Invest in public art:

What Next?

How many of these ideas and actions would apply to your area?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what I came across this week:

• Many of us look to the Netherlands as a haven from car dependency. However, a closer look reveals that this is not the case. This essay from an urban planner at the Municipality of Amsterdam makes the case against cars. (Note: it is in Dutch, so you may need to translate it).
• How effective is a low-cost flat public fare at getting people out of their cars? This paper from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney looked at Queensland in Australia. Not very is the simple answer.
• How good is Mexico City's Metrobús? Really good. See here.

Blog

How to Build Support for Transforming Transport In Car-Dependent Regions

This week, my blog considered how you can build support to tackle car dependency in places where the traffic is not terrible (yet). I am hosting a webinar to discuss the topic in more detail. If you would like to participate, reply to this newsletter or email me: russell@transportlc.org

Innovation

We have 3D printers. How about a road printer?

See here.

Tool

The Copenhagen Cycling Infrastructure Guide

Last year, Copenhagen upgraded its cycling infrastructure guide. The English version has just been released.