So they record the use of transportation within their everyday experiences.

This is interesting because it meets the idea they started with of improving public health through the use of public transportation but in an unexpected way. The author initially expected to see this with the effects of carbon emissions and pollutants on people's general health but instead it's the physical action of getting to the bus stop.

This reminds me of the article on car culture in suburbia. Maybe it is easier to implement in those situations because there is not already a pre established culture surrounding public transportation there.

This is very similar to the article on Shenyang China and how they attempted to find transportation with smaller carbon emissions with a benefit of improving general health.

The way this is phrased feels like a scientist writing a hypothesis in a lab journal.

Is this a culture that can easily be changed in any way?

Outings in this nature can be a great way to promote local businesses and direct costumer foot traffic towards those businesses.

Is the author saying that public transportation industry heads should be organizing social events to promote the use of their transportation services? I wonder if these companies have a brand image or history with event planning in this nature for this to be something people with choose to or enjoy going to.

This reminds me of the health and financial benefits of the previous article on cng busses and taxis.

Shouldn't cultural perceptions of a service be an important factor in how, when, or if that service is implemented?

I think this is something that all public transportation spots could benefit from. Is this something that the author was stating in his writing or was it for public transportation in suburban areas??

For some places this would mean busses operating on major high ways. I wonder if safety becomes an issue when the suggestion of switching to busy arterial roads comes up.

This sort of change is systematic.

Its an connected issue and joint effort that cannot just be solved with a change in the type of vehicles used.

If these busses cannot quickly recharge they might not keep as reliable a schedule. Reliability and punctuality is important when it comes to public transportation.

Scenario analysis is a method for predicting the possible occurrence of an object or the consequences of a situation, assuming that a phenomenon or a trend will be continued in the future

This is interesting. In the case of the taxi's its not about cost but efficiency of product in the goal of lowered carbon emissions. There isn't an alternative that has lower carbon emissions or overall environmental impact than the CNG taxi.

I see why this wouldn't be an as effective solution. It's extremely costly compared to the fossil fuel alternative.

The electric bus is substantially more expensive than the hybrid or the diesel bus Its annual fuel cost is ~40% of a diesel bus. Its maintenance costs are also much more expensive. I wonder what maintenance work is being done on an electric bus that creates such a huge difference in price.

Is this the net cost each vehicle takes to run yearly?

These issues are so interconnected yet they've been separated by policy makers in the conversation. Was this intentional? Is it easier to give the appearance of addressing these issues than to actually talk about them? This feels a lot like American politics; deeply divided, and never making any progress

Are there financial co-benefits to this. For nations with universal healthcare, would this reduce the amount of sick citizens seeking care because of side effects of pollutants?

Is the government liable in deaths or illnesses that can be linked back to the pollutants of public transportation or is making that connection impossible?

This reminded me of this article that covered a temporary policy in China that caught a lot of attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-ration-license-plates-in-effort-to-curb-traffic-congestion-air-pollution/2013/03/22/bd99ebe6-9313-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html

Since this has such a global impact have global organizations like the United Nations addressed this issue in any of their meetings?

How is this being addressed globally. It's hard to understand why such a huge issue can be acknowledged but not addressed. If we as a nation spend trillions on our military how much would it cost to implement "greener" public transportation or have bigger restrictions on the manufacturing of privately owned vehicles?. In our country, it might be harder to do this with privately owned vehicles as the majority of Americans, myself included, would not be able to afford these vehicles or afford to replace their existing vehicles.

At what point could this be implemented. What criteria would have to be met where policymakers and taxpayers would feel comfortable implementing these changes?

Embodied carbon refers to the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials.

Would policy makers consider this a justifiable cost? Could they see a return or reach a net zero in this investment through fares or ads as we see in the nyc subway system.

Why have we continued to use these vehicles if we understand the volume of their emissions. Is it because of affordability?