Search This Blog

Monday, July 30, 2018

Commute Times

Commute Times
Countries, Metro Areas, Cities
Let's Commute!!

In looking at commute times around the world and particularly in the US, we find that most people try to arrange their lives so that the time to get to work is on average about 30 minutes.
Summary:

This is part two of a series on commuting.  This part focuses on commute times.  Part one looks at commute distances.  Link to this post is:  https://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/07/commute-times.html

Link to part one is here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/06/commute-distance-in-us-metro-areas.html

Regardless of the transport mix or availability, the average time for each metro area in the US is very close to 30 minutes.  It is a little longer in other countries because more people there use public transit which is slower than driving.

This even carries across cities so that Chicago, LA, NY City, and San Francisco all have similar average commute times and distributions.  The latter two are compared in the graph below (click on graph to enlarge):

Second-by-Second Timing of Commute Times
NYC vs San Francisco

There is no point in broadly trying to shorten commute times because people everywhere adjust their lives so that commute times stay the same.

Discussion:

Everyone thinks their area has the worst commute times but in fact, most countries have longer commute times than the US as seen below (click image to enlarge):

Chart 1 - Commute Times in OECD Countries
OECD = Rich Countries
From OECD's "How's Life - Examining Well Being" 2011 edition
Red Box around USA and line at 30 minute mark.
Green Box around OECD and line at 38 minute mark.
In the above bar chart the average commute time for all the OECD Countries (developed economies) is just under 38 minutes (green boxed bar in the graph above).  This is probably because most other countries have better public transit than the US.  In dense older cities like Paris and London that developed before autos were common, public transit is the only viable way to get to work for many people.  Public transit is slower than automobile and lengthens the average commute time.
London Bus
We see in the following chart for the EU Capital Cities distinct differences with the US.  Far greater percentages use public transit, bike or walk to get to work. In 15 EU cities 50% or more use public transit to get to work.  Contrast this with the NY Metro Area where around 65% commute by car.  In the US, only 5% use public transit. 

In 17 of the major EU cities below, over 25% walk to work.  In the US as a whole, only about 3% walk to work.  The maximum combined walk/bike percentage in US cities is 17% in Boston and Washington, DC.  http://time.com/money/4244782/top-cities-walking-biking-to-work-2016/

(Click on chart to enlarge).

Distribution of Commute Modes
European Capital Cities
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_European_cities
Very few developed countries except the US were ever self-sufficient in oil.  Importing oil has a negative impact on their economy.  As a consequence, most European and Asian governments impose very high taxes on oil to lessen imports and consequent loss of foreign exchange.  With gas costing about $6 to $7 per gallon, commuting by car is far more costly in Europe than in the US.  The high gas taxes subsidize public transit.

Commuting in the US

From the US Census' American Community Survey we know that the average commute time in US is 26 minutes.  Here are the 20 longest commutes in US cities.  These average closer to 30 minutes.  California cities are 'boxed'.  (Click on chart to enlarge).

20 Cities With Longest Commute Times
Red boxes = Northern California, Blue boxes = Southern California
Average Commute time in US = 26 minutes
Majority use Transit in NYC, Jersey City, and Washington, DC
http://www.businessinsider.com/american-cities-with-longest-commutes-2017-10
A couple of things stand out in the charts above:
  • The commute times are almost all around 30 minutes.  Something called "Marchetti's Constant" says just this - that people will arrange their lives so that on average they will commute around 30 minutes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti%27s_constant
  • Note that the top three longest commutes are all in the NY Metro area.  The two longest commutes are the areas where most people use public transit.  The commutes take more time because public transit is slow.  Buses average about 12 mile per hour vs the average metro area commute driving speed of about 36 miles per hour.  The average commutes are a little above the 30 minutes in other cities where most people drive - Marchetti's Constant again.
  • Nine out of the top twenty long commute times are in California -  4 in the San Francisco Bay area, 4 in the LA area, and 1 in the San Diego Area.

US Major Metro Areas

The specific cities in the earlier chart on commute times are a small percentage of their respective metro areas.  Now we look at entire metro areas.  I (mostly) used the same 26 large and fast growing metro areas for commute time that I looked at for part 1 on commute distance (with a very few exceptions).  That represents 44 million workers and 100 million residents.

The commute times for these 26 metro areas is shown below (click graph below to enlarge).

Commute Times in 26 Largest Metro Areas
LA and SF Commute Times are the Same
28 Minutes by Car, 49 Minutes by Transit
Average Commute Times for 26 US Census Metro Areas by 3 Modes of Transit
Data taken from Governing.Com which derived data from the US Census Bureau.
CA cities are boxed and their data points are yellow
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-infrastructure/commute-time-averages-drive-public-transportation-bus-rail-by-metro-area.html
Above chart of 26 metro areas shows:
  1. The average commute times are almost all under 30 minutes by car and just under 50 minutes by public transit.  Since most people drive alone, the relatively few that take public transit raise the average to approximately 30 minutes.
  2. The average time by bus is just under 50 minutes.  Subtract 4 minutes to get to the bus stop and another 4 minutes to get from the bus stop to work (access time) gives 42 minutes actually on the bus.  At the 12 miles per hour avg. bus speed (see below) that would be 8 or 9 miles.
  3. Subways and streetcars are about the same as bus overall.  Part of this is because there are fewer rail lines per city than bus lines.  This means they are less accessible than buses so increased access time makes up for the higher speed of rail.
  4. The four biggest metro areas in California -  San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose-Sunnyvale, and San Diego - are right in line with other metro areas around the country.
  5. San Francisco and Los Angeles metro areas are identical in commute times at 28 minutes. (!?)
In the SF Bay Area there is a huge variation in commute times by community.  MTC (Metropolitan Transit Commission) has excellent data on each community and the Bay area as a whole as seen in the map below (click images to enlarge):

Drive Alone Commute Times - Residents
Sunnyvale residents average only 22 minutes driving time to work
Longest commutes are 35-40 minutes.  Shortest are 20 to 22 minutes.
High housing cost regions have shorter commutes.
Residents pay more to be close to work
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-time

Drive Alone Commute Time - Workers
Workers in Sunnyvale average nearly 40 minutes
Those who work in Sunnyvale and can't afford to live there commute.
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-time
Why do workers in Sunnyvale commute a lot more than residents of Sunnyvale?  Those with more money win the bidding process that determines rents and housing costs. Since Sunnyvale is in the center of Silicon Valley where the high paying tech jobs are, tech workers win the bidding wars to be closer to work.  Workers who can't afford to live in Sunnyvale commute further.  Sunnyvale residents may not work in Sunnyvale, but most don't travel far.

There is a certain amount of personal preference involved as well.  Some people just prefer a less dense "feel" for their home town and will commute from more rural areas even if they can afford a place closer to work.

Public Transit Usage

As a long time user of public transit of all sorts I can testify to the advantages.  It is usually less stressful than driving (not always).  With a set of noise-cancelling headphones and a book, the time flies by.  Still it takes more time and there is no getting around that.

Commute by Train and Enjoy the Views!
Commuting by train can be quite nice
(This is not CalTrain)
As seen in the chart below, US median and average bus speeds are below 13 miles per hour and going down.  This does not include access time, waiting for a bus, or any transfers.  In the San Jose, CA and San Francisco-Oakland metropolitan areas, buses are a little slower than average at 11 and 12 miles per hour, respectively: (click chart to enlarge)

Buses - 11 to 12 Miles per Hour
Select your favorite city here:
http://cityobservatory.org/urban-buses-are-slowing-down/
The much longer times for public transit (mostly buses) are due to a combination of time stopping to pick up and drop off riders, time getting to and from the nearest boarding point (access time), and the difficulty in maneuvering large buses on city streets.

That may be one of the reasons why public transit use is declining around the US, including NYC, as seen in the graph below:
https://www.economist.com/international/2018/06/21/public-transport-is-in-decline-in-many-wealthy-cities
Speed of transit is important in job access.  We found in the study of commute distances in the US that solo driving commutes average about 18 miles.  See chart below:
From "Commute Distances" at
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/06/commute-distance-in-us-metro-areas.html
We have seen here that commute times average around 30 minutes.  Going 18 miles (on average) in 30 minutes (on average) means that the average commute speed by car is about 36 mph.  Contrast this with the average bus speed in San Jose of about 12 mph.  If you can go 36 mph in a car but only 12 mph in a bus, then simple geometry says a car enables you access to 9 times the area for a job search.  [ Because of geometry:  Area of commute = (Pi) R(squared) ]

In fact, however, people only drive an average 18 miles to work and take the bus about 9 miles.  This still means a huge difference in the job possibilities. Consider Los Angeles as seen below with the range for an 18 mile, 30-minute commute by car vs. a 9 mile, 50-minute commute by bus. (click graph to enlarge).

Los Angeles Commute Ranges
9-mile 50-minute bus ride vs. 18-mile 30-minute drive
The 9-mile commute circle contains 254 sq. miles
The 18-mile commute circle contains 1,018 sq. miles
Someone driving a car (big circle) has access to 4 times more area and presumably 4 times more jobs than if they take transit.  This is a second reason (the first being time) that cars are preferred by most people for commuting and bus ridership is declining.


Santa Clara County VTA Bus Ridership vs. Employment
Usually ridership goes up with employment - not any more
From VTA 2018-2019 Budget at:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/adopted_budget_fy1819.pdf
I cover the decline of transit usage in Santa Clara County and other areas here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-bit-on-buses.html

If commute times of around 30 minutes for most big US metro areas don't sound right to you, you are not thinking of averages, but of the two hours that comprise morning commute when almost half of all commuting to work is done.  This leads us on to the big issue of...

Commute Time Distributions

While most seem to think commuting in their particular area is much worse than other areas, it turns out to be pretty much the same for every city.

Pleasanton, CA
Pop. 70,000
Commute times similar to San Francisco

Travel Time Distributions Around SF Bay Area
Pleasanton = 32.7 Minutes, Central SF = 32.3 Minutes
http://www.city-data.com/zips/94566.htmlhttp://www.city-data.com/zips/94115.html
Outer San Francisco = 35.5 Minutes, Sunnyvale = 24.2 Minutes
http://www.city-data.com/zips/94122.htmlhttp://www.city-data.com/zips/94087.html
About the above charts.  The first chart on the upper left is for Pleasanton, CA - a suburban town of 70,000 people about an hour's drive from San Francisco.  It is worth noting that the majority of people there spend less than 30 minutes getting to work, although a significant number spend between 45 and 60 minutes and some spend over an hour.

The surprise from the above charts is that the commute time for Pleasanton residents isn't a whole lot different overall than "Outer San Francisco" (the chart below Pleasanton's) at 32.7 minutes for Pleasanton, vs 32.3 minutes for Central San Francisco - a 24-second difference.  And the distribution of times is very similar as well.

However, the next chart shows that transport preferences by residents of Pleasanton are very different from those of residents in San Francisco.  Data is from the city-data webs sites listed above.  Click chart below to enlarge.

How the Residents Get to Work
Most common is car - even in San Francisco

The population density in Pleasanton is too low to support mass transit so people there mostly drive.  No surprise that San Francisco commuters use public transit and bike/walk to work much, much more than those in either Sunnyvale or Pleasanton. Even so, commute times are very similar both on average (around 30 minutes) and in their distribution.


Outer San Francisco
Ocean Breezes - some short and some long commutes

And even "Central San Francisco" - where many more walk or bike to work - is very similar to both "Outer San Francisco" and Pleasanton in time distribution.

Central San Francisco
High Rise Buildings but similar commute time distribution

Of the four areas plotted above, the one area that has the smallest percentage of commuters commuting over 45 minutes is Sunnyvale, CA.  Sunnyvale is a suburb in the "Heart of Silicon Valley" (tm).  It combines a pleasant place to live with a mix of single family housing and two to four story apartments with close proximity to many technology workplaces so there is less reason to drive long distances.

Notable is that in all four areas, driving solo is still the most popular mode of commuting.

Other cities...
    ...are no different in their commute patterns.

The average commute time for various metro areas - California cities in red.
Above from:
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/average-commute-time

Here is the time distribution for Chicago which is very typical of big metro areas including the SF Bay Area. The green bars show the generally acceptable 34 minutes or less times, the yellow bar shows the longer 35 to 44 minute commute, and the pink and red bars show the more challenging longer commutes - with a dark red arrow indicating the average in the middle.  We see that most (57% of commuters) have a commute time of 10 to 35 minutes, and this doesn't even include those with less than 10 minute commutes: (click on image to enlarge)
Chicago Commute times

New York City vs. San Francisco  

The previous time distributions are from US Census data which comes from simply asking people how long they commute.  People tend to choose numbers ending in 0 and 5, perhaps distorted by a recent particularly bad commute.  The chart below from Chronos is derived from a second-by-second reading of cell phone GPS data so is about as accurate as you could wish for.  Discussion below (click chart to enlarge):

Commute Times SF vs. NYC
Using Cell Phone Info
Remarkably similar commute time distributions

As seen in the above chart, in both SF and NYC, the single most common commute time is about 25 minutes.  There are fewer in that range in NYC than in SF.  This is likely because NY City has nearly nine times the population, and over six times the land area as San Francisco so more people are traveling further.

The average for both cities is higher than 30 minutes because of the "fat tail" on the right of the chart stretching from 40 minutes to 1 hr 20 min.  Despite the vast differences in geography and population, the distributions are incredibly similar.  In both cases it appears the vast majority are keeping their commute time under 45 minutes, averaging about 30 minutes.

This suggests that people everywhere are making choices about where they live and work with regards to commute time with very similar outcomes.  This is important.  People make choices.  There are trade-offs with every choice.  For the same money you can...

1.  ... live in a big city in a small, expensive apartment and take transit to work ...

2.  ...or live in a large house in the suburbs and drive to work.  Same cost - personal preference as to which is better.

It is impossible to avoid that trade-off.  I discussed this in detail here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-there-housing-crisis.html

and here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/01/live-work-commute-2.html

To drive home the commonality of human behavior, we have the following very, very similar chart from cell phone data of commute distances (roughly equivalent to time) around the world - Ivory Coast, Portugal, Boston, Milan, and Saudi Arabia.  People are the same everywhere and make the same choices when faced with decisions about how far or long they are willing to commute.

Commute Distance Distributions
Very Similar Across Countries
Similar to US time distributions in NYC, SF, and Chicago
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096180
In probability and statistics this is known as a "Gamma Distribution".  It occurs naturally in modeling waiting times and the flow of items through a process - such as cars through a production distribution process or people shopping at a market.   See graph below.
Gamma Distribution with different parameters
https://www.statlect.com/probability-distributions/gamma-distribution
Here is Tokyo commute distribution:

Again, a very similar distribution to Chicago's although the average is much higher at 62 minutes for a commute.  This is because, at 38 million people, Tokyo is the largest metropolitan area in the world, and is very spread out.  Japanese want a single family detached house as much as Americans and need to commute further to be able to afford it.

Here is the cumulative distribution chart of the above data showing the average time, and 2/3 cut-off


SF Bay Commute Times by County

The San Francisco Bay Area "Metropolitan Transit Commission" has some great data on their web site showing commute profiles.  The following profile by county of commute times (for driving alone) gives a variety of insights discussed below.
Data from MTC website:
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-time
The top bars in the bar chart above in the "<15 Min" category clearly indicate that the less dense the county, the less the commute time.  People in rural areas don't have much public transit so they need to drive - driving is everywhere faster than public transit.

It also relates to the fact that density of people correlates with density of jobs.  The more jobs you have scattered around the more people commute from one place to another, so the greater the congestion for cars and the more people use (slooow) public transit.

On another graph from MTC's web site, I've highlighted some noteworthy points with boxes and arrows: (click image to enlarge):
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-time
In the above chart, we see...

...Under 30-Minute Commutes

If we look at the maroon line in the middle at the 50% mark, we see that for 8 of the 9 SF Bay counties, at least 50% of the population commutes less than 30 minutes.  The one exception is San Francisco with about 45% of commutes under 30 minutes (marked by green box with green-yellow arrow).  No surprise - more people in SF use public transit which is slow.

Looking at the two orange boxes (near orange-blue arrows), we find in the two rural counties of Napa and Sonoma about 70% of commuters commute less than 30-minutes.  There aren't many jobs there, nor many people, nor many towns.  If you live in one of the few towns there, you probably work there or very close, and have an easy commute along local streets and/or unimpeded highways.

...Over 60-Minute Commutes

The highest percentage of long commutes (over 60 minutes) in the SF Bay Area occurs in Contra Costa County as indicated in the above chart by the Blue Box (with blue and pink arrow) at around the 82% mark.  This is because Contra Costa County is a bedroom community remote from the job centers of Silicon Valley and San Francisco.  The 18% of commutes that are over 60 minutes long is in stark contrast to the 6% or 7% of commutes in Napa and San Mateo (Purple Boxes) that are over an hour.

We can see the disparity between the longest and shortest commutes and the difference between solo driving and public transit by state in this visualization (click to enlarge to readable size):

Average Commute to Work by State and City
Yellow bars are drive solo, brown bars are public transit, red lines are overall averages
Longest Avg. Commute = NY State = 33.4 Minutes
Shortest Avg. Commute = South Dakota = 16 Minutes

Red line "total averages" are almost all close to "solo driving" averages because (except for NY) only about 5% of commuting is done by public transit.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/average-commute-u-s-states-cities/
So what about all those horrible long distance commutes you always read about in the news media and on chat boards?  Some observations:
  1. Long commutes are the "man bites dog" aspect of news reporting.  That about half of all commutes are unexceptional and under 30 minutes is not newsworthy or likely to generate any conversation on social media.
  2. Most people don't "get" what an average is.  If the average commute time for two people is 30 minutes that could be that each has a 30 minute commute or it could be that 1 person has a 10-minute commute and the other has a 50-minute commute.  Same average but vastly different experiences.  One commute is a news item and one isn't.
  3. That it is "only" about 30 minutes by car in LA and San Francisco does not express the tension and frustration of stop-and-go freeway traffic on people.  Auto accidents are expensive and often deadly - this increases the tension as people try to drive.  Avoiding an accident on curving freeways with people changing lanes to save a minute or two is nerve-wracking and makes 28 minutes "feel like" 2 hours.
Driving in LA can be Dangerous

Driver assist technologies such as automated lane-keeping, "dynamic cruise control" (keeping a safe distance between cars), and collision avoidance can alleviate a lot of the tension from commuting.  With less stress, there should be fewer people engaging in dangerous (and rude!) behavior - which would make commuting nicer and far more tolerable.

But if half of all commutes are under 30 minutes, then what is all the concern about traffic?  What most people are thinking of when they talk about bad traffic is...

Rush Hour Congestion.  
The Nerve-Wracking Aspect of Commuting

I was going to cover congestion and long distance commuting (mega-commutes, stretch-commutes, etc.) but those topics turn out to be really complicated with a lot of variations.  They would easily double the length of this post so I will cover them in another post.

As a small preview of that post - one item is that around 40% or more people work what are called "anti-social hours".  That doesn't mean they don't like people but that they are working at times most people are sleeping.  Examples would be the midnight to 8 AM shift in a hospital, or coming at 5 AM to open a coffee shop at 6 AM then going home at 2 PM.  This means half the population never faces congestion.  They cruise to work on deserted streets and highways at (or above) the speed limit.

LA Freeway - Without Traffic


Conclusion:

The cost of commuting in terms of stress and money means some are willing to pay more to live closer to work.  Others, by preference and/or trade-offs between housing costs vs. commute time choose longer commutes.  You can't change people's preferences - everyone is different.

"You say To-MAY-to, I say To-MAH-to.."

We have looked at every state in the US, every country in the OECD (developed countries), some developing countries and various parts of each metro area.  Looking at the averages and distributions of times we found over and over and Over that most people arrange their lives so that commute times are somewhere under 30 to 40 minutes.


Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Sunnyvale's Climate Action Plan Progress Report

PermaLink: https://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/07/sunnyvales-climate-action-plan-progress.html

Climate Action Plan - Sunnyvale


On the agenda of the Sunnyvale City Council for July 17th, 2018 is the "Climate Action Plan Biennial Progress Report 2018" (CAPPR).  That report is available here:
https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3552015&GUID=3CD93CC3-AA38-4072-9A51-F76292721167

The report is supposed to show what Sunnyvale has done, is doing now, and plans to do in the future in reducing Green House Gases (GHGs).

The chart of GHG emissions is on page 2 of the report: (click chart ot enlarge)

"Emissions Sources and Trends"
GHGs from Commercial and Residential Electricity Significantly Down
GHGs from Transport & Natural Gas Use the Same or Higher
Transportation excludes CalTrain which is less than 2% of emissions.  Regrettably, transportation is not separated into commercial (trucking, delivery vans) and personal (buses, trains, and cars).

The big improvements have been in electricity generation, and that can "...be attributed to significantly cleaner electricity supplied by PG&E, more energy efficient buildings, and increased energy conservation efforts." (page 3 of CAPPR).

Basically, this says that in terms of GHG reduction, the city of Sunnyvale has on its own accomplished nothing at all.  All the main sources of GHG emissions except electricity are essentially unchanged with no plans to do anything significant about any of them.

The CAPPR states that demographics has driven most of the growth in GHG emissions.  Increase in population generated increased car use, more trucking of goods into Sunnyvale, and more homes and offices using natural gas to heat rooms and hot water.

The amount of commercial space has grown overall as has housing but that does not tell the entire story.  A lot of both commercial space and housing has been torn down and replaced with new buildings.  That provides a lot of opportunity to require the elimination of natural gas in favor of electrically powered heat pumps. (c.f., http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/01/home-energy-use-1.html ).  Since the electric grid seems to be quickly going to zero GHG emissions, electrically powered heating for rooms and water would eliminate that source of GHG emissions.  The CAPPR mentions a study on heat pumps to be completed soon.

It is a little hard to tell what the total GHG emissions from natural gas are in Sunnyvale since there are no numbers given in the text or on the charts in the CAPPR.  Reading the bar chart at the beginning, it appears that about 200,000 MTCO2e (Mega Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent) gases were from natural gas.  About 375,000 MTCO2e appears to be the number from transportation emissions.  So natural gas GHG emissions are about 53% of the GHG emissions from transport.  Taken as a combined number of 575,000 MTCO2e, natural gas is 35% of the combined total.  See pie chart below (click image to enlarge).

Sunnyvale GHG Emissions from Natural Gas + Transport
35% Natural Gas, 65% Transport

Transport:

Transport is the largest single generator of GHGs but since it is not broken out for Sunnyvale by commercial and personal we use the following chart as an approximate guide: (click chart to enlarge)

Global Transportation Sector GHG Emissions
54% Light Duty Vehicle, 46% Heavy Duty
https://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/a-world-of-thoughts-on-phase-2
The chart shows slightly more GHG emissions from light duty vehicles  (LDVs) like cars and pick-up trucks with the reminder from freight trucks and buses (heavy duty vehicles - HDVs).  But some HDVs like buses are used for personal transport and many LDVs are used by workers such as electricians and plumbers that need to carry around a lot of tools.  So let's approximate it all by estimating about a 50-50 split between commercial and personal.

That means that of the roughly 375,000 MTCO2e, only about 190,000 MTCO2e is due to personal transport such as commuting or shopping.  We have data below showing that only 19% of the person-miles per house hold (average 2 cars per household) is spent commuting.  Add in an additional 6% that is "Work Related" to get 25% of person-miles is commuting.

Person-Miles Traveled by Purpose
Work = 19.0%, Work-related = 6.3%
Combined work = 25%
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-annual-person-trips-person-miles-and-trip-length-household-purpose-2009
So of the 190,000 MTCO2e transport for personal use, 25% of that = 48,000 MTCO2e is for commuting to work.

The "Mobility" section of the CAPPR highlights things such as how many bike to work (1.6%) as seen below:


How much impact does biking to work have on GHG emissions in Sunnyvale?  From the US Census tool, "OnTheMap" we have the following breakdown for Sunnyvale of commute distances: (Click map to enlarge)
More on how to use the US Census too here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-to-use-onthemap.html
We see that:
69% commute less than 10 miles,
15% commute 10 to 24 miles,
10% commute 25 to 50 miles, and
  7% commute over 50 miles.

Computing person miles traveled, we use the mid-point of each commute range (5, 17, 38) and 60 for "Greater than 50" and get that out of every 100 residents,
69 persons x 5 miles   = 345 PMT
15 persons x 17 miles = 255 PMT
10 persons x 38 miles = 380 PMT
  7 persons x 60 miles = 420 PMT
---------------------------------------
Total = 1400 PMT (person miles traveled)

A typical biker averages 10 MPH so 5 miles is about a 30-minute bike ride.  The average commute in the US is under 30 minutes so we can estimate 5 miles as the maximum distance we can ask anyone to bike.  That is roughly half the 69% or equivalently that is half the 345 PMT so about 175 PMT.  Out of the total 1400 PMT per hundred resident workers, that is only 12.5% of the total GHG from commuting if everyone who reasonably can bikes to work.

We found earlier that only 48,000 MTCO2e was due to commuting, so 12.5% of that is 6,000 MTCO2e eliminated if the current 1.6% bike-to-work number becomes 35%.

In conclusion, we can say that of the 375,000 MTCO2e due to transport, 6,000 can be reduced by getting everyone who can bike to work to do so.  A reduction of 6,000 out of 375,000 = 1.6% of transport GHG emissions eliminated in the extreme case of everyone who could bike to work were to do so.

In comparison, natural gas is 200,000 MTCO2e, or 33 times more than can be eliminated by biking to work.

I covered "bike to work" in more detail here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/01/live-work-commute-3.html

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Green House Gases from Food Waste

Link for this post: https://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-house-gases-from-food-waste.htm

Sunnyvale "Food Cycle" Program

Summary:

Of all the options potentially available the Sunnyvale Food Recycling program is one of the least effective ways to reduce Green House gas emissions due to food waste.  This to some extent because of the processing energy and transportation of the food waste.  That is not to say other potential options were available at the time the Food Cycle program was chosen, but it does say we need to re-examine the issue when possible.

Discussion:

In an earlier post I put what I could find on Sunnyvale's Food Recycling program.  That post is here:
http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/06/food-scrap-separation.html

I decided to revisit the issue because of all the discussion on Sunnyvale's Food Recycle program.  I looked at what percentage of Green House Gases come from food waste at the home and how much of a difference the "FoodCycle" program might make.

The non-profit organization ReFED has calculated the impact of different ways to reduce food waste in terms of environment and GHG reduction.  They have a number of options to look at the issues of food waste.  One of them is GHG emissions which you select from a box-tab on their web site at:
https://www.refed.com/solutions?sort=emissions-reduced as seen below:


This will produce a number of solutions to the problem such as the example for Composting seen below: (click image to enlarge)

Their calculations cover a lot of options.  I selected those that the city could implement (at least in theory) and plotted the numbers they gave:

The last bar (in the red box) - "Animal Feed" - is the "FoodCycle" program.  It is the least effective of all the alternatives mentioned by ReFED saving 34 tons of CO2 equivalent (t CO2e) GHGs.  The top one, "Community Composting", was rated at 2,605 tCO2e or 77 times more GHGs removed.  The next one, "Anaerobic Digestion", was rated at 1,179 tCO2e or 35 times more GHGs removed.

This to some extent because of the processing energy and transportation of the food waste as mentioned below from https://www.refed.com/solutions/animal-feed


That doesn't mean that the other options are available to Sunnyvale right now, but it does suggest we should re-examine the issue when possible, and look for better ways of addressing GHG reduction.

The University of California notes that food waste contributes 6.7% of global GHG emissions.
C.f.:
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/what-you-need-know-about-food-waste-and-climate-change

This 6.7% is not all just due to the actual food spoiling and being thrown out.  The transport, processing, refrigeration, etc. of food emits GHGs.

If the food that went through that processing, transport , etc. is wasted, then those GHG emissions from the tractors, trucks, refrigerators, etc. are wasted GHG emissions as well.

Worldwide, about one third of all food is wasted in the shipping or processing before it even reaches the consumer.  (From the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/3/a-bb144e.pdf ).  So of that 6.7%, 2.2% is wasted before you or I even see it.  Now we're down to 4.4% of CO2 emissions from food waste directly due to the average consumer.

If tractors, trucks, food processing, etc., all run off of electricity from 100% non-GHG emitting sources like solar panels and wind turbines, then much of that 6.7% of GHG emissions attributed to food waste could be eliminated.  That 4.4% would shrink even further to perhaps 3%.

Cutting Food GHG Emissions

The main sources for GHGs world-wide are actually grains as noted in the UC web site above:
"Overall, because of the scale of their production, grains produce both the most waste and the most greenhouse gas emissions. Relatively little meat is wasted worldwide, but even small amounts of meat waste produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. Even among meats and dairy products, there is quite a bit of variation in levels of impact: Emissions are highest for beef and lamb, but much lower for pork, chicken, eggs and dairy."
We can see the impact of different diets.  Beef and lamb are the big GHG emitting food animals as seen below.  At 15.8 pounds of CO2e per day, eating a lot of meat emits about 250% of the CO2e compared to a vegan diet and over 180% of a "pescatarian" diet (vegetarian plus fish) - which latter is almost the same as the pure vegetarian diet.

46% lower CO2 emissions from switching from meat to fish. Almost the same as pure vegetarian
60% lower CO2 footprint by going all out vegan.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5865109/study-going-vegetarian-could-cut-your-food-carbon-footprint-in-half
Another way of looking at the same thing below with a little more detail. Vegans and vegetarians need to substitute more of other foods to get the necessary protein.

http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html
So if the average diet comprises no beef (or lamb) then we have cut our CO2 footprint by nearly half and along with it the CO2 emissions due to our own food waste - from the 3% we got to earlier to about half of 3% or 1.5% (we can round up to 2%) of GHG emissions due to our wastage of food.

The next question is how serious about cutting GHG emissions is the government that wants us to recycle food?  The Sunnyvale Climate Action Plan tells us that most of our GHG emissions come from commercial buildings (39%), followed by transport (35%), then residential (16%) as seen below.
From Sunnyvale "Climate Action Plan", page 15 of the PDF
So what about the industrial or residential sector which combined come to 55% of Sunnyvale's GHG emissions?  Solar panels are now a cheaper way to generate electricity than coal.  Has California, Santa Clara County, or the City of Sunnyvale mandated that new construction have solar panels as San Francisco did?

No.

About 52% of GHG emissions from residences in California come from natural gas to heat living spaces and hot water for bathing.  Natural gas is a huge source of methane which is about 24 times more potent a GHG than CO2.  Electric heat pumps can substitute for other forms of heating at less cost overall.  C.f. http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/01/home-energy-use-1.html  (see diagram below) 
Space Heating + Water Heating = 52% of CA Home Energy Use
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/
Has California, Santa Clara County, or the City of Sunnyvale mandated that no new construction have natural gas to heat water or living spaces?

No.

One has to ask why these governments which all claim to be on the side of the environment have not addressed the areas where they can have the most impact.  It would make many people feel a little better about the inconvenience of Food Recycling if they knew that all the billionaire developers putting up office buildings and apartments were being asked to do their part.