Public transit systems are often accepted as energy and environmental improvements to automobile travel, however, few life cycle assessments exist to understand the effects of implementation of transit policy decisions. To better inform decision-makers, this project evaluates the decision to construct and operate public transportation systems and the expected energy and environmental benefits over continued automobile use. The public transit systems are selected based on screening criteria. Initial screening included advanced implementation (5 to 10 years so change in ridership could be observed), similar geographic regions to ensure consistency of analysis parameters, common transit agencies or authorities to ensure a consistent management culture, and modes reflecting large infrastructure investments to provide an opportunity for robust life cycle assessment of large impact components. An in-depth screening process including consideration of data availability, project age, energy consumption, infrastructure information, access and egress information, and socio-demographic characteristics was used as the second filter. The results of this selection process led to Los Angeles Metro’s Orange and Gold lines.

In this study, the life cycle assessment framework is used to evaluate energy inputs and emissions of greenhouse gases, particulate matter (10 and 2.5 microns), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. For the Orange line, Gold line, and competing automobile trip, an analysis system boundary that includes vehicle, infrastructure, and energy production components is specified. Life cycle energy use and emissions inventories are developed for each mode considering direct (vehicle operation), ancillary (non-vehicle operation including vehicle maintenance, infrastructure construction, infrastructure operation, etc.), and supply chain processes and services. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the inventories are linked to their potential for respiratory impacts and smog formation, and the time it takes to payback in the lifetime of each transit system.

Results show that for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, the inclusion of life cycle components increases the footprint between 42% and 91% from vehicle propulsion exclusively. Conventional air emissions show much more dramatic increases highlighting the effectiveness of “tailpipe” environmental policy. Within the life cycle, vehicle operation is often small compared to other components. Particulate matter emissions increase between 270% and 5400%. Sulfur dioxide emissions increase by several orders of magnitude for the on road modes due to electricity use throughout the life cycle. NOx emissions increase between 31% and 760% due to supply chain truck and rail transport. VOC emissions increase due to infrastructure material production and placement by 420% and 1500%. CO emissions increase by between 20% and 320%. The dominating contributions from life cycle components show that the decision to build an infrastructure and operate a transportation mode in Los Angeles has impacts far outside of the city and region. Life cycle results are initially compared at each system’s average occupancy and a breakeven analysis is performed to compare the range at which modes are energy and environmentally competitive.

The results show that including a broad suite of energy and environmental indicators produces potential tradeoffs that are critical to decision makers. While the Orange and Gold line require less energy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile traveled than the automobile, this ordering is not necessarily the case for the conventional air emissions. It is possible that a policy that focuses on one pollutant may increase another, highlighting the need for a broad set of indicators and life cycle thinking when making transportation infrastructure decisions.

Dr. J. Russell Nelson came to ASU in 1981 to be University President and he retired in 1989. He was born in Oregon but grew up in California and Utah. He received his PhD from UCLA and proceeded to teach at the University of Minnesota. He honed his administrative skills at the University of Colorado. When he arrived at ASU he was given the task of moving the university to a research university. In the interview he talks about the lack of teaching space and the effort required to reorient the faculties’ focus. Nelson spoke at length about several buildings, Hayden Library and the Nelson Fine Arts Center. There is discussion about getting around the Regents to get funding for the West Campus and the effort required to clean up the athletic department.

Roy Doyle was born and raised in Arizona, the son of a cotton farmer and a teacher. Roy’s father passed away when he was in the 6th grade leaving his mother to raise 3 boys and a daughter. Roy began his working career as a morning and evening paper boy for the Arizona Republic and the Gazette. After high school, he enrolled in what was then Arizona State Teachers College to pursue a degree in Education. His college career was interrupted by the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the war, he returned to ASTC, along with his new bride, to complete his degree.

His first position after graduation was at the Madison School in Phoenix. During the summers, he attended the Teachers College at Columbia University where he earned his masters and PhD in Education and Administration. He returned to now named Arizona State University where he began his career in the College of Education. His first position was as Principal of the Payne Training School, an on-campus K-8 school designed as a training school for future teachers. He served as assistant and associate dean for the College of Education prior to his retirement.

Born in Arizona, the son of educators, Lattie F. Coor was the 15th President of ASU. He attended NAU for his undergraduate degree and went on to receive his masters and PhD from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. He remained at Washington University as a faculty member, eventually becoming its Vice Chancellor. In 1976, Lattie left to become the 21st President of the University of Vermont. In January of 1990, Lattie returned to Arizona to become the 15th President of ASU, remaining as President until 2002. After his retirement as President of ASU, Lattie stayed as a Professor and Ernest W. McFarland Chair in Leadership and Public Policy in the University's School of Public Affairs. He also co-founded the Center for the Future of Arizona where he continues to serve on the Board of Directors.

In his interview, Lattie recaps his life growing up in Arizona during the war years, providing many stories of his experiences with the various prisoner of war camps located in Arizona. He indicates that originally he thought he would become a lawyer and perhaps enter a political career, but then early on in his post-secondary work, he was greatly influenced by one of his professors at NAU and turned to pursuing a career in academics. From there he unfolds the story of his life as a professor and an academic administrator.

James W. Elmore will always be remembered as the founding dean of the College of Architecture at Arizona State University. Jim’s original intent in coming to Phoenix in 1948 was to work as an architect for Guirey & Jones. Jim came to ASU in 1949 to a non-existent department at then Arizona State College. He nurtured the department into a nationally prominent design school in less than 20 years. Jim was also instrumental in the design and development of the Rio Salado Project. After retirement from ASU, he continued to promote his design for aerial (elevated) transit and a city for Phoenix and greater Phoenix area.

Jim is a native of Nebraska receiving his BA degree in architecture in 1938 from the University of Nebraska. After spending six years with the US Army Corp of Engineers, he went back to school on the GI Bill and received his Masters in Architecture from Columbia University. This interview has Jim telling us about his road to becoming an architect, to becoming a teacher, developing the College of Architecture and his continued community involvement after retirement.

The leading source of weather-related deaths in the United States is heat, and future projections show that the frequency, duration, and intensity of heat events will increase in the Southwest. Presently, there is a dearth of knowledge about how infrastructure may perform during heat waves or could contribute to social vulnerability. To understand how buildings perform in heat and potentially stress people, indoor air temperature changes when air conditioning is inaccessible are modeled for building archetypes in Los Angeles, California, and Phoenix, Arizona, when air conditioning is inaccessible is estimated.

An energy simulation model is used to estimate how quickly indoor air temperature changes when building archetypes are exposed to extreme heat. Building age and geometry (which together determine the building envelope material composition) are found to be the strongest indicators of thermal envelope performance. Older neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Phoenix (often more centrally located in the metropolitan areas) are found to contain the buildings whose interiors warm the fastest, raising particular concern because these regions are also forecast to experience temperature increases. To combat infrastructure vulnerability and provide heat refuge for residents, incentives should be adopted to strategically retrofit buildings where both socially vulnerable populations reside and increasing temperatures are forecast.