IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2020i1p158-d468559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life-Cycle Assessment of Carbon Footprint of Bike-Share and Bus Systems in Campus Transit

Author

Listed:
  • Sishen Wang

    (College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310012, China
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • Hao Wang

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • Pengyu Xie

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • Xiaodan Chen

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

Abstract

Low-carbon transport system is desired for sustainable cities. The study aims to compare carbon footprint of two transportation modes in campus transit, bus and bike-share systems, using life-cycle assessment (LCA). A case study was conducted for the four-campus (College Ave, Cook/Douglass, Busch, Livingston) transit system at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ). The life-cycle of two systems were disaggregated into four stages, namely, raw material acquisition and manufacture, transportation, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life. Three uncertain factors—fossil fuel type, number of bikes provided, and bus ridership—were set as variables for sensitivity analysis. Normalization method was used in two impact categories to analyze and compare environmental impacts. The results show that the majority of CO 2 emission and energy consumption comes from the raw material stage (extraction and upstream production) of the bike-share system and the operation stage of the campus bus system. The CO 2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system are 46 and 13 times of that of the proposed bike-share system, respectively. Three uncertain factors can influence the results: (1) biodiesel can significantly reduce CO 2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system; (2) the increased number of bikes increases CO 2 emission of the bike-share system; (3) the increase of bus ridership may result in similar impact between two systems. Finally, an alternative hybrid transit system is proposed that uses campus buses to connect four campuses and creates a bike-share system to satisfy travel demands within each campus. The hybrid system reaches the most environmentally friendly state when 70% passenger-miles provided by campus bus and 30% by bike-share system. Further research is needed to consider the uncertainty of biking behavior and travel choice in LCA. Applicable recommendations include increasing ridership of campus buses and building a bike-share in campus to support the current campus bus system. Other strategies such as increasing parking fees and improving biking environment can also be implemented to reduce automobile usage and encourage biking behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Sishen Wang & Hao Wang & Pengyu Xie & Xiaodan Chen, 2020. "Life-Cycle Assessment of Carbon Footprint of Bike-Share and Bus Systems in Campus Transit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:158-:d:468559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Kayleigh B. & Brakewood, Candace, 2017. "Sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New York City," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 264-282.
    2. Cherry, Christopher R. & Weinert, Jonathan X. & Yang, Xinmiao, 2009. "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Electric Bikes in China," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt16k918sh, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Arnott, Richard & Inci, Eren, 2006. "An integrated model of downtown parking and traffic congestion," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 418-442, November.
    4. Balsas, Carlos J. L., 2003. "Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 35-49, January.
    5. Fanying Zheng & Fu Gu & Wujie Zhang & Jianfeng Guo, 2019. "Is Bicycle Sharing an Environmental Practice? Evidence from a Life Cycle Assessment Based on Behavioral Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Elliot Fishman & Simon Washington & Narelle Haworth, 2013. "Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 148-165, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peters, Luke & MacKenzie, Don, 2019. "The death and rebirth of bikesharing in Seattle: Implications for policy and system design," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 208-226.
    2. Wang, Jueyu & Lindsey, Greg, 2019. "Do new bike share stations increase member use: A quasi-experimental study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Zhao, Chunkai & Wang, Yuhang & Ge, Zhenyu, 2023. "Is digital finance environmentally friendly in China? Evidence from shared-bike trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 129-143.
    4. Umer Mansoor & Mohammad Tamim Kashifi & Fazal Rehman Safi & Syed Masiur Rahman, 2022. "A review of factors and benefits of non-motorized transport: a way forward for developing countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1560-1582, February.
    5. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    6. Böcker, Lars & Anderson, Ellinor & Uteng, Tanu Priya & Throndsen, Torstein, 2020. "Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal, age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 389-401.
    7. Wang, Mingshu & Zhou, Xiaolu, 2017. "Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 147-154.
    8. Kaplan, Sigal & Wrzesinska, Dagmara K. & Prato, Carlo G., 2018. "The role of human needs in the intention to use conventional and electric bicycle sharing in a driving-oriented country," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 138-146.
    9. Çelebi, Dilay & Yörüsün, Aslı & Işık, Hanife, 2018. "Bicycle sharing system design with capacity allocations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-98.
    10. Haitao Jin & Fengjun Jin & Jiao’e Wang & Wei Sun & Libo Dong, 2019. "Competition and Cooperation between Shared Bicycles and Public Transit: A Case Study of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    11. Kim, Kyoungok, 2023. "Investigation of modal integration of bike-sharing and public transit in Seoul for the holders of 365-day passes," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    12. Kim, Minjun & Cho, Gi-Hyoug, 2021. "Analysis on bike-share ridership for origin-destination pairs: Effects of public transit route characteristics and land-use patterns," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    13. Wang, Haoyun & Noland, Robert B., 2021. "Bikeshare and subway ridership changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 262-270.
    14. Shi, Xiaoyang & Li, Zhengquan & Xia, Enjun, 2021. "The impact of ride-hailing and shared bikes on public transit: Moderating effect of the legitimacy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Yuanyuan Zhang & Yuming Zhang, 2018. "Associations between Public Transit Usage and Bikesharing Behaviors in The United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Lucie Enochsson & Yuliya Voytenko Palgan & Andrius Plepys & Oksana Mont, 2021. "Impacts of the Sharing Economy on Urban Sustainability: The Perceptions of Municipal Governments and Sharing Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-31, April.
    17. Martin, Rebecca & Xu, Yilan, 2022. "Is tech-enhanced bikeshare a substitute or complement for public transit?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 63-78.
    18. Steve O’Hern & Nora Estgfaeller, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of Powered Micromobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Arnott, Richard & Inci, Eren, 2010. "The stability of downtown parking and traffic congestion," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 260-276, November.
    20. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & De Carlo, Angela & Morone, Andrea, 2015. "Individuals’ behaviour with respect to parking alternatives: a laboratory experiment," MPRA Paper 63815, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:158-:d:468559. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.