Article
citation information:
Alrawi, F., Alali, A., Alaa, S.,
Saad, S., Ameer, A. The impact of shifting towards eco-friendly transportation at the
University of Baghdad, Al-Jadriya Campus (UBAC). Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2019, 105, 5-14.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2019.105.1.
THE
IMPACT OF SHIFTING TOWARDS ECO-FRIENDLY TRANSPORTATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
BAGHDAD,
AL-JADRIYA CAMPUS (UBAC)
Summary. In recent years, the UBAC has seen severe traffic
congestion, resulting in various environmental and traffic problems at the
university and its environs. This congestion was due to the significant
expansions in buildings andan increase in the number of colleges in addition to
the extensive use of private transport modes by students and university
employees.
This research was an attempt to find a solution for
transportation problems in the UBAC, through studying the current
transportation system inside the campus, and then suggesting alternatives to
enhance the situation in the Campus and its environs as well. The study
solutions focused on replacing the current diesel buses with battery-electric
buses and restricting some of the private cars toward the Campus. This study
supposes this transformation will reduce the CO2 emissions by (54%)
in the morning peak hours and by (64%) in the afternoon peak hours, enhance the
Passenger Car Unit (PCU) by (31%) in the morning peak hours and by (41%) in the
afternoon peak hours, and will improve parking capacity by 114% inside the
campus.
Keywords: University of Baghdad,
transportation, eco-friendly transportation, traffic congestion, emission, PCU,
diesel and battery-electric buses
1. INTRODUCTION
Transportation is essential in our lives. However, the current
transportation systems have many problems including global warming,
environmental degradation, health problems (physical, mental, emotional,
spiritual), and emission of greenhouse gases [1-3]. Given these many problems
brought about by the transport sector, many countries sought to shift to
different types of transportation modes that are less harmful to the
environment [4-8].
1.1. Eco-friendly transportation
The priority of eco-friendly transport is shifting towards the use of
public transport. The public transport modes offer an efficient way of
transport when compared with the usage of a private car. The primary type of
public transport are buses, which keeps the space, energy, and emissions
efficient. A diesel bus at 20% capacity, for example, produces approximately
one-third of the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre compared to
the equivalent number of private vehicles required to transport the same number
of people. More so, the same bus at full capacity would have a steep reduction
of more than 90% in CO2 emissions. [9]
The
advantages of electric buses have been recognised in the policies being
implemented in several major cities around the world. The reason for considering
electric buses rather than diesel buses is their significant contribution to
greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, which is largely reduced using electric
buses. Electric buses are also attractive because they reduce local air
pollution, even efficient diesel engines release dangerous substances like
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10). Those pollutants are of
particular concern in dense urban areas. [9]
Electric vehicles that are powered by electricity do not emit any
dangerous gasses, even though plants generating the electricity might produce
toxic emissions. Alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies are used
instead of green vehicles as it puts less pressure on the environment when
compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles running on petrol
or diesel. [10]
The Columbia University, for example, changed its greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reduction goals by replacing its diesel-powered buses with six new
battery-electric buses for its campus shuttle network. Columbia's campus
shuttle network operates between many campus locations in Manhattan, New
Jersey, and Rockland County. These shuttles make over 1,400 rider trips daily
and travel about 180,000 miles per year. By moving to electric buses, a
reduction of over 270 metric ton of University shuttle GHG emissions is
expected – a 70% reduction from the diesel-powered shuttle buses. [11]
2. UBAC
The UBAC established in 1958 on a surface area of 320 hectares, was the
first university in Iraq to be built in a campus style including all university
facilities (academic, social, residential, and services). [12]
Presently, UBAC has the largest university campus in Baghdad. According
to the university administration in 2018, the total number of employees on the
campus were 3064, while students and faculty members were 22704 (Table 1). [12]
Tab. 1
Total number of students and faculty
members in UBAC in 2018
|
College |
Students and faculty
members in UBAC |
|
College of Media |
1166 |
|
College of Physical
Education |
1319 |
|
College of Science for Women |
1512 |
|
College of Education for Women |
3962 |
|
College of Engineering |
3451 |
|
Al-Khwarizmi College of Engineering |
655 |
|
College of
Agricultural |
4462 |
|
College of Political
Science |
1175 |
|
College of Science |
4396 |
|
Institute of Laser for Postgraduate Studies |
72 |
|
Institute of Urban and Regional Planning |
117 |
|
Institute of Genetic
Engineering |
114 |
|
Institute of Accounting & Financial Studies |
303 |
|
Total |
22704 |
Source: UOB Statistics Department
3. TRANSPORTATION, PARKING,
AND AUTOMOBILE POLICIES
3.1. General
overview
General
overview:
• The movement within the campus is divided with vehicles
(cars and buses) and pedestrians having separate routes.
• The campus was designed under the principle of having a
maximum walkable distance of not more than 10 minutes within the academic
areas.
• Parking distribution capacity of 2365 parking lots
across the university area.
• A campus bus system which comprises of 23 buses
operating within the university campus.
3.2. A
campus for cars
As shown in Table 2, the number of vehicles was more than the designed
parking lots, which caused a car-overcrowded campus with a deficiency of 1327
parking lots. [13]
Number of vehicles and available parking
|
Employees vehicles |
Faculty vehicles |
Students vehicles |
Total no. of vehicles |
Parking lots |
|
840 |
1337 |
1560 |
3737 |
2365 |
Source: UOB Transportation Department
3.3. Campus
transportation system
Twenty-three buses were used in transporting students, faculty
members, and visitors within the campus with eight bus stops as shown in Figure
1. [13]
Fig. 1. Buses and pedestrian movement inside the campus (source:
authors)
Table 3 Shows the type of transportation (trip destination) used by
students and employees to the university.
Tab. 3
Type
of transportation used to access the campus
|
|
Private car % |
Taxi % |
University transport % |
Public transport % |
|
Students |
42.6 |
23.5 |
22.6 |
11.3 |
|
Employees |
30.7 |
7.6 |
58.5 |
3.2 |
Use campus transport
Source: UOB Statistics Department
As shown in Table 3, the campus transportation system is used by
approximately 7900 students and employees, and 200 visitors daily.
Each bus contains 45 seats and 20 standing positions, which means each
bus makes an estimate of 10 trips per day inside the campus (Table 4).
Tab.
4
Distance
covered by buses inside the campus
|
No. of buses |
Trips for each bus |
Trip distance (km) |
Distance /bus/day (km) |
Total distance covered/day (km) |
|
23 |
10 |
3.5 |
35 |
805 |
Source: UOB Transportation Department
The cost of operation (services and fuel) for each bus per year is
estimated at $3,100 – Table 5.
Tab.
5
The
operation cost of a diesel bus
|
Tank capacity (litre) |
Diesel price ($/litre) |
Diesel cost ($/year) |
Service cost ($/year) |
Total operational cost ($/year) |
|
200 |
0.33 |
1600 |
1500 |
3100 |
Source: UOB Transportation Department
The buses operate from 7 am to 2 pm (Table 6). We can see that the peak
hours of traffic inside the campus were 7 am - 8 am and 1 pm - 2 pm.
Tab.
6
Traffic
inside on campus
|
Operation hours |
Buses |
Employees cars |
Faculty cars |
Students cars |
Total no. of vehicles |
|
7-8 |
20 |
672 |
802 |
858 |
2352 |
|
8-9 |
20 |
168 |
534 |
624 |
1346 |
|
9-10 |
11 |
42 |
80 |
31 |
164 |
|
10-11 |
6 |
0 |
66 |
31 |
103 |
|
11-12 |
9 |
42 |
133 |
31 |
215 |
|
12-1 |
10 |
126 |
534 |
546 |
1216 |
|
1-2 |
23 |
630 |
534 |
1092 |
2279 |
Source: field survey
4. PASSENGER CAR UNIT (PCU)
The Passenger Car Unit (PCU) is used in
transportation engineering to assess the traffic-flow rate. A Passenger Car
Equivalent (PCE) is essentially the impact a mode of transport has on traffic
variables compared to a single car, for example, typical values of PCE for cars
is 1 and 3 for buses. [14]
In Table 7, the PCU during peak hours inside the
campus is shown.
Tab.
7
PCU
in peak hours
|
Peak hours |
Type of vehicle |
No. of vehicles |
PCE |
PCU / hour |
Total PCU/hour |
|
7-8 |
Bus |
20 |
3 |
60 |
2392 |
|
Car |
2332 |
1 |
2332 |
||
|
1-2 |
Bus |
23 |
3 |
69 |
2325 |
|
Car |
2256 |
1 |
2256 |
Source: field survey
5. TRANSPORTATION POLLUTIONS
ON CAMPUS
Air pollution is one significant environmental health
problem affecting people. Individuals cannot control air pollutants, however,
these should be addressed by public authorities, at the national, regional, and
even international levels. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),
more than 2 million premature deaths each year is caused by urban outdoor air
pollution, with fuel combustion being a major contributor [15].
Traffic usually contributes 20-30% of CO2
emissions and other harmful emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate
matter. The hydrocarbon concentrations in diesel exhaust are generally low, but
diesel exhaust can contain toxic and smelly components. [16]
Table 8 shows different types of emission for diesel
buses and gasoline cars. [17]
Tab. 8
Frequent emissions of diesel buses and gasoline car
|
Vehicle type |
Fuel type |
CO (%) |
NO (ppm) |
SO2 (ppm) |
Smoke opacity (%) |
HC (ppm) |
|
Bus |
Diesel |
0.1 |
82 |
120 |
51 |
21000 |
|
Car |
Gasoline |
1.8 |
13 |
31 |
6 |
2800 |
For CO2 emission in a passenger gasoline
car, the average emission is about 220 g/km [18], while in diesel bus, the
average emission is estimated at 1150 g/km [19].
Tab.
9
CO2
emissions in peak hours
|
Peak hours |
Type of vehicle |
No. of vehicles |
CO2 (g/km) |
Total distance (km) |
Total CO2
(g/hour) |
|
7-8 |
Bus |
20 |
1150 |
280 |
1091560 |
|
Car |
2332 |
220 |
3498 |
||
|
1-2 |
Bus |
23 |
1150 |
322 |
1114780 |
|
Car |
2256 |
220 |
3384 |
Source: field survey
From Table 9, each bus makes about four trips in peak
hours, each trip is approximately 3.5 km making the total distance travelled by
each bus about 14 km. This number is multiplied by 1150 g/CO2/km and
by the number of buses to calculate the total CO2 emission caused by
buses operation in peak hours. For cars, each car travels for an average
distance of 1.5 km inside the campus in peak hours, multiplied by 220 g/CO2/km
and by the number of cars travels to calculate the total CO2
emission caused by cars. Thus, the total CO2 emission is 11091560
g/CO2/h in the morning peak and 114780 g/CO2/h in the
afternoon peak.
6. MOVING TO ELECTRIC BUS
In the past decade, electric vehicles have become a
hot topic. Capturing a small but growing share of the passenger-car market, and
an enormous amount of media buzz thanks to Tesla, the Electric Vehicle (EV)
industry has its sights on the bus market.
Several companies that manufacture battery-electric
buses (BEBs) sell their products to cities interested in zero-emission buses
that operate without trolley wire (Figure 2). Our vision is to have a
zero-emission campus transport system, which is both eco-friendly and
cost-efficient. This idea was first applied in the University of California
Irvine (UCI) by transforming their transportation system to electric using 20 electric
bus fleet.
The zero-emission
campus transport system can be achieved by applying two policies:
- Reducing passenger cars by preventing the
use of personal cars by students and have them use campus transport system
instead.
- Transform the current diesel buses into
battery-electric buses.
This transition will result in the reduction of 1560
vehicles (student vehicles) from the campus, which will be compensated by 20
additional buses to the campus fleet.
Effect of this
transition was discussed in three primary factors:
- Availability
parking lots.
- PCU
impact.
- Environmental
impact.
6.1. Parking
lots
The campus parks would not overcrowded with cars, a situation
helped by the barring of students’ cars on campus. Thus, a total of 188
vacant parking lots would be achieved rather than a deficiency of 1327 (Table
10).
Tab. 10
Number of vehicles and
available parking
|
Employees vehicles |
Faculty vehicles |
Students vehicles |
Total no. of vehicles |
Parking lots |
|
840 |
1337 |
0 |
2177 |
2365 |
Source:
authors
6.2. PCU
Impact
Our suggested policies could lead to a reduction in the total PCU
inside the campus from 2392 to 1646 during the morning peak hours and from 2325
to 1356 in the afternoon peak hours (Table 11).
Tab.
11
PCU
in peak hours after applying the policies
|
Peak hours |
Type of vehicle |
No. of vehicles |
PCE |
PCU / hour |
Total PCU/hour |
|
7-8 |
Bus |
43 |
3 |
129 |
1646 |
|
Car |
1517 |
1 |
1517 |
||
|
1-2 |
Bus |
48 |
3 |
144 |
1356 |
|
Car |
1212 |
1 |
1212 |
Source: authors
6.3. Environmental
impact
The main concern of this research was to reduce the negative impact
of vehicles especially diesel-operated buses on the campus environment to have
a sustainable campus site, and this can be achieved using the battery-electric
buses with zero-emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) (Table 12).
Tab.
12
Common
emissions of diesel buses and battery-electric bus
|
Vehicle type |
Fuel type |
CO (%) |
NO (ppm) |
SO2 (ppm) |
Smoke opacity (%) |
HC (ppm) |
|
Bus |
Diesel |
0.1 |
82 |
120 |
51 |
21000 |
|
Bus |
Battery-electric |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Source: authors and [17]
Using BEBs with zero emissions and reducing the number of cars,
the CO2 would be significantly reduced (Table 12).
Tab.
13
Estimated
CO2 emissions in peak hours
|
Peak hours |
Type of vehicle |
No. of vehicles |
CO2 (g/km) |
Total distance (km) |
Total CO2
(g/hour) |
|
7-8 |
Battery-electric buses |
43 |
0 |
602 |
500500 |
|
Car |
1517 |
220 |
2275 |
||
|
1-2 |
Battery-electric buses |
48 |
0 |
672 |
399960 |
|
Car |
1212 |
220 |
1818 |
Source: authors
Fig. 2. Suggested design of
battery-electric bus that will be used inside the campus [20]
7. CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis of the current transportation in the University
of Baghdad Campus, the research concludes that the problems of deficiency in
parking lots, high PCU and high CO2 Emissions can be eliminated by
applying the two policies suggested (reduction of vehicles and switching to
BEB). Expected benefits are:
1. Reducing vehicles inside the campus from 3737 to 2177 (41%).
2. Decrease in the percentage of parking usage by 114%, from a
deficiency of 1327 parking lots to 188 of non-occupied lots.
3. Enhancing the PCU by 31% in the morning peak hours, and by 41% in
the afternoon peak hours.
4. Total CO2 emissions were reduced by 54% in the morning
rush hours and 64% in the evening rush hours.
References
1.
Bukša Juraj, Alen
Jugović, Donald Schiozzi, Renato Oblak. 2019. “The compromise model
as a method of optimizing the operation of nautical tourism ports”. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei 74(6). ISSN: 1825-3997.
2.
Duran Javier, Lorena Pradenas,
Victor Parada. 2019. “Transit network design with pollution
minimization”. Public Transport
11(1): 189-210. ISSN: 1866-749X.
3.
Wierzbicki S. 2019. „Effect of the proportion of natural gas
in the feeding dose on the combustion process in a self-ignition engine with a
common rail fuel system”. Diagnostyka
20(4): 75-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29354/diag/114834.
4.
Jacyna M., J. Merkisz.
“Proecological approach to modelling traffic organization in national
transport system”. Archives of
Transport 2(30): 43-56.
5.
Jacyna M., M. Wasiak, K. Lewczuk,
G. Karoń. 2017. “Noise and environmental pollution from
transport: decisive problems in developing ecologically efficient transport
systems”. Journal of
Vibroengineering 19: 5639-5655. DOI: doi.org/10.21595/jve.2017.19371.
6.
Schmidt Marie, Stefan Voss.
2017. „Advanced systems in public transport”. Public Transport 9(1-2) Special Issue: 3-6. ISSN: 1866-749X.
7.
Mikulski M., S. Wierzbicki, M.
Smieja, J. Matijosius. 2015. „Effect of CNG in a fuel dose on the
combustion process of a compression-ignition engine”. Transport 30(2): 162-171. ISSN: 1648-4142.
8.
Mickevicius T., S. Slavinskas,
S. Wierzbicki, K. Duda. 2014. „The effect of diesel-biodiesel blends on
the performance and exhaust emissions of a direct injection off-road diesel engine”.
Transport 29(4): 440-448. ISSN: 1648-4142.
9.
MRCagney
Pty Limited. Electric Bus Technology
Transportation Research Report. 2017.
10.
Conserve
Energy Future. Available at:
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/modes-and-benefits-of-green-transportation.php.
11.
Columbia
Transportation. Available at: http:// transportation.columbia.edu.
12.
University of Baghdad – Statistics department.
13.
University of Baghdad – Automobiles and
transportation department.
14.
Lay
M.G. 2009. Handbook of road technology.
CRC Press. 4th edition
15.
Cooper
Erin, Magdala Arioli, Aileen Carrigan, Umang Jain. 2012. Exhaust Emissions of Transit Buses. EMBARQ.
16.
Nylund Nils-Olof, Kimmo
Erkkilä, Maija Lappi, Markku, Ikonen. 2004. Transit Bus Emission Study: Comparison of Emissions from Diesel and
Natural Gas Buses. VTT Processes. Research Report PRO3/P5150/04.
17.
Yasar
Abdullah, et al. 2013. “A comparison of engine emissions from heavy,
medium, and light vehicles for CNG, diesel, and gasoline fuels”. Pol. J. Environ. Stud 22(4): 1277-1281.
18.
Sullivan
J.L., R.E. Baker, B.A. Boyer, R.H. Hammerle, T.E. Kenney, L. Muniz,
T.J. Wallington. 2004. “CO2 Emission Benefit of Diesel
(versus Gasoline) Powered Vehicles”. Environmental
Science & Technology 38(12): 3217-3223, DOI: 10.1021/es034928d.
19.
Safar Zeinab, Labib Monuir. 2009.
“Evaluation of CO2 and other Pollutant’s Emissions in the Greater
Cairo (GC) area from Diesel Engine & CNG Buses”. Air and Waste Management Conference. AWMA 2009-CO2
Emissions-Paper #138.
20.
Proterra.
Available at: http://www. proterra.com/products/40-foot-catalyst/.
Received 05.09.2019; accepted in revised form 30.11.2019
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License