By Tillie Owen, Isabel Limão, and Filipe Limão
Earlier this week, I saw an article in The New York Times that said the Great Salt Lake is drying up. The article explains that, among other effects, this could lead to the air in the area occasionally turning poisonous as wind storms pick up arsenic in the exposed lake bed and carry it around the highly populated area. This dystopian-seeming event could become a reality if we don’t act soon enough to change it. This truth applies to various aspects of the climate crisis, especially public transportation. If DC wishes to meet its ambitious agenda to switch to renewables, we need clean transportation and we need it fast.
The current zero emissions transition plan is moving too slowly. Metro, or Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are one of the biggest bus providers in D.C. Additionally, transportation makes up 40 percent of D.C.’s carbon pollution, meaning that if the city is going to reach net-zero carbon emissions, transport emissions also need to hit net-zero (Our Transportation Future).
Metro currently has a plan to switch all 1,595 of their buses to zero-emission technology. Some buses will be electric, which will significantly reduce carbon emissions because D.C. currently gets about 60 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and has a goal to be 100% renewable by 2032, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Besides the benefit to the environment of switching to zero-emission technology, doing so will also greatly benefit the residents of D.C. Reducing tailpipe emissions will improve air quality, which is especially important because it is a problem that disproportionately affects BIPOC communities (Washington Post, 2021). The Washington Post also explained that this pollution has proven to lead to health problems such as respiratory and heart diseases. Aside from health benefits, zero-emission busses will allow for a more comfortable and quiet ride according to Metro’s plan.
However, Metro’s transition won’t be completed until 2045. This is much too late. So is it possible to make the switch faster? I believe so. First of all, other cities have said they are going to transition to zero-emission buses much sooner. For example, Los Angeles plans to switch their much larger fleet of 2,320 buses by 2028 (DCist, 2021). Other large cities like San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Seattle will all complete their transitions five to 10 years before Metro plans to in D.C., according to the article (DCist, 2021).
One reason that Metro’s plan is going to take so long is that they want to wait for technology to further develop. They only plan to begin buying electric vehicles in 2030. That’s eight years away. Metro points out that buses that run on electric and other zero-emission technologies have not reached quite the levels of buses currently in use when it comes to things like lifespan, reliability, and travel range (Zero-Emission Bus Update – April 2022). However, these discrepancies are not so great that they will create unsafe or unsatisfactory conditions. In fact, many places are already using zero-emission buses successfully, such as Los Angeles (DCist, 2021). The technology is already proficient, and we do not have time to wait for it to improve further. But if technology is really a burden, we urge the city to invest in research and renewable development, or subsidize companies looking to redesign the energy grid and improve sustainable technology. Metro should begin purchasing zero-emission buses sooner rather than later so that as these buses reach the end of their lifespan, they can be replaced with newer models.
Similarly, Metro’s plan incorporates two years of testing these new buses, which will last until the end of 2024. However–– as an article from The Source, Metro’s news outlet, shows–– the city of Los Angeles and even D.C itself have already deployed buses using this technology. Metro knows they work or at least knows it’s possible if the funding is there. This being the case, Metro could use these buses which they know work, as a starting point to begin getting more zero-emission buses on the road. They could still use the testing as a way to learn more about newer technologies as they develop, but not for the first batch.
One problem with accelerating the transition, however, is the cost. Currently, Metro is receiving funding from the D.C. government and other grant programs to pay for new buses and infrastructure. According to Metro’s April update, electric buses cost 30 to 45 percent more than the ones that run on diesel and compressed natural gas which they are currently using. They also estimate it will cost hundreds of millions in infrastructure. However, as with all solutions to the climate crisis, once we make the initial investment, operating and maintaining zero-emission buses will actually be cheaper than the others. Metro thinks that electric buses will save about 40 percent on fuel and 10 to 20 percent on maintenance in the long term. However, this doesn’t solve the problem of Metro needing more money, sooner. I think that, in addition to the grants they are receiving, Metro should try to borrow money and use the savings that will result from using zero-emission buses to pay off the loans. The best thing though is for the city to prioritize funding renewable development that will help residents and our earth.
It is great that Metro is dedicated to serving the community and to becoming more sustainable. The transition just needs to happen faster. And it can. By using other cities as a model, beginning the purchase of zero-emission technology sooner and more completely, and securing more financing, Metro can continue to meet their high standards of service while also helping the environment.
About Author
