November 10, 1994: Vol26n10: VIEWPOINT:  The Environmental Impact of Urban Transportation

By Sigmund F. Zakrzewski
To begin with, let us review briefly the historical events that led to
the recent status of urban transportation in most American cities,
including Buffalo. The introduction in 1908 by Henry Ford of the Model
T put America on wheels. Whereas before, automobiles were expensive
toys of the wealthy, they became now easily accessible to many. Yet,
the newly acquired mobility of ordinary citizens did not affect the
transportation system in American cities. There were electric
trolleys, mostly operated by electric utilities, and there were
suburban trains. One could get almost anywhere within the city or to
the suburbs by using public transportation.
	It was not until the mid-1930s that the desire for more profit
by a few greedy corporations lead to the dismantling of the
well-functioning public transportation. In 1935 the U.S. Congress,
acting to enforce the Sherman antitrust law, requested that electric
power companies divest themselves of the transportation business. So,
the systems went on sale. A conspiracy of General Motors, Standard Oil
of California, Philips Petroleum, Firestone Tire & Rubber and a bunch
of minor companies saw now a golden opportunity to augment their
profits. Gradually they bought out the transit system, city by city,
and under the pretexts of modernization, they tore down the
installations and replaced trolleys with buses. When the destruction
of the electric transit was completed, they divested themselves of the
unprofitable bus business. Now their goal was achieved; the public's
dependence on automobiles was assured.
	Ever since, three generations of Americans have grown up in
the era of automobile culture. There are some who firmly believe that
there is no other mode of urban transportation but a private
automobile. With the destruction of viable public transportation began
the demise of American cities. First the wealthy moved to the suburbs.
Then the businesses followed. The suburbs began to grow at the expense
of valuable farmland, and the inner-cities were left to the poor and
minorities. Apart from social repercussions of this polarization, now
we are paying the price in the excessive consumption of energy, in the
environmental despoilment, and as a result of the latter, in our
health.
	When comparing the environmental impact of different modes of
urban transportation one has to consider the direct and the indirect
impact. The direct impact is the amount of air pollutants emitted in
the process of operating the system. The indirect impact is: 1) The
consumption of energy, 2) the acquisition of land for highways and
parking lots, and 3) the water pollution caused by constructions of
the latter, and by the augmented water runoff from paved surfaces.
Since, we depend for energy almost exclusively on fossil fuels, the
energy efficiency should weigh heavily in decision making. In addition
to economic and national security reasons, there are also
environmental reasons for saving energy. For once, the amount of air
pollutants is directly related to the quantity of fuel burned. In
addition, mining and transportation of fossil fuels have also a
negative impact on the environment.
	The amount of air pollutants emitted by a light rail, a bus
and by a private automobile is shown in the table below.
	The inefficiency of an automobile in urban-suburban setting
becomes apparent when one compares the energy efficiency of these
three modes of urban transportation. Whereas a light rail requires 640
BTU per passenger per kilometer, a bus and a car require 690 and 4580
BTU, respectively. At the same time a light surface rail is able to
transport 50,000 passengers per hour whereas a bus can handle 30,000
passengers, and a car only 8,000 per lane of traffic. The data
published in the State of the World 1990 indicate that only 29.7
percent of our driving is for recreational purposes. We may assume
that part of this is urban driving, such as going to a show or a game,
the rest may be a weekend outing or vacation-travel. The remaining
driving, that involves commuting home to work (35.5%), shopping
(12.75%) and personal business (22.05%), is all in cities and/or
suburbs.
	Therefore, it is no wonder that (except for Canada) the U.S.A.
leads the industrialized word in the per capita use of gasoline.
Whereas Germans and Japanese consume 215 and 125 gallons per year per
person, Americans use 485 gallons. Our heavy dependence on automobiles
is also reflected in the overall energy inefficiency. The energy
consumption in the U.S.A. is 6 metric tons of oil equivalent per
$1,000 of the GNP. In Germany and Japan the corresponding values are
3.1 and 2.9, respectively. With such inefficient use of energy we can
remain competitive with other industrialized countries only by keeping
the cost of energy low. As it is now, the cost of energy considers
neither the environmental damage caused by mining, transportation and
burning the fuels, nor the damage to our health. It is estimated that
in the Midwest the crop losses due to ozone drifting from the cities
to rural areas are about $5 billion annually. The American Lung
Association estimates the annual health cost due to air pollution
caused by motor vehicles at between $4.5 and $92 billion.
	It makes me wonder why our planners, business leaders and
politicians remain blind to these facts. Why do they prefer to spend
taxpayers' money on construction of expensive highways rather than on
much less expensive, and environmentally friendly rapid transit? Why
don't they learn from the California experience? Road construction
solves transportation's problems only temporarily; new and wider
highways invite more traffic and after a few years we are again where
we started. Why do we have to wait until a California-type
transportation crisis arises before we smarten up? Many cities in the
U.S.A. already woke up to the reality, and are rebuilding their public
transportation system. Why can't we in Buffalo rebuild ours thus
preventing the crisis ahead of time? It is time that we emerge from
the nonsustainable automobile culture and step into the 21st century
with new ideas of sustainable living.
Sigmund F. Zakrzewski is professor emeritus of pharmacology,
University at Buffalo Roswell Park Graduate Division.