A 2005 study by ABC News/Time magazine/Washington Post indicated Public Transportation is unlikely to reduce road congestion and CO2 emissions. People love their cars (they actually love their cars) because it offers freedom and convenience. 93% indicated they enjoy the freedom their car provides. In cities where public transportation is available, only 4% use it to commute to work. Car pooling is only slightly better as 6% use it to commute. High density cities such as New York and Chicago are the exception where public transit works.
When I worked in downtown Denver, I used public transportation because it gave me the opportunity to read the paper, do research, or read a book. The commute time was identical to driving plus I saved about $140/month excluding wear and tear costs associated with driving. The problem I noticed with public transportation is it is used heavily during rush hour, but rarely used outside of rush hour. Approximately 80% of the time, the system is under utilized.
Many cities focus on the environmental benefits associated with public transit. Denver is in the process of implementing a city-wide light rail system (FasTracks) that is now estimated to cost $7.0 billion, up from the up from the 2004 price tag of $4.7 billion. In addition to higher costs, the city discovered it is not reducing CO2. Several FasTrack lines are up and running and the city has discovered that the CO2 emissions (based on passenger mile) are higher for light rail than automobiles. Light rail still emits CO2 and when very few people are on it, the emissions per person are very high.
The other problem with positioning public transit as a solution to CO2 emissions is most people don’t believe their driving has much of an impact. The ABC study determined many people don’t believe that the exhaust from their driving contributes to pollution. 67% of the people surveyed believe exhaust contributes to pollution, yet only 40% believed their exhaust contributes to pollution.
So what’s the best way to reduce traffic and CO2? Companies need to strongly consider telecommuting programs for their staff that has a suitable working environment at home and has the type of job (i.e. sales) that can easily be managed from afar. Telecommuting should be positioned as a benefit to the company as well as their staff. Companies benefit because less office space is needed which improves their bottom line. Another benefit is improved productivity and morale. Telecommuters demonstrated higher productivity than their office dwelling counterparts. IBM, CISCO, Accenture, and Best Buy are examples of companies that use telecommuting effectively. Morale and productivity are both higher because telecommuters tend to have a better work life balance. Reducing expenses is much more powerful message to companies than reducing CO2.
Employees benefit because they have more time to spend with their families and expenses are lower. The average commute time is just under an hour. Imagine using that hour to do productive things like spend time with your family or exercise. One of my colleagues is using Green IT solutions that allows her to perform all her job functions from her home office. She eliminated a 2 hour round trip commute, saved well over $250/month, and is exercising daily. With fewer distractions, she also accomplishes a great deal more.
I’ve talked to a lot of companies about environmental solutions and while most are interested in doing their part, solutions have to reduce operating expenses. Telecommuting does that and more.