2. 2
Abstract
This term paper analyzes Utah County resident public transportation usage and its impact
on the environment as well as the social benefits public transportation offers in Utah County.
Public transportation is an example of a positive externality. Left to its own devices, the market
will never produce the optimal amount of public transportation usage. There are potential
solutions that can be pursued, which involve government intervention that can help the market
supply and demand in Utah County reach the socially optimal equilibrium point. What are the
steps Utah County can take to reach this optimal equilibrium? What currently affects residents’
decisions to use public transportation in Utah County? Questions such as these are examined in
this term paper.
Sources for this work include a survey conducted of 53 Utah Valley University students
to understand if, since public transportation options available to these students are cheaper and
more convenient, a higher percentage of these students use public transportation compared to
Utah County as a whole. The paper also includes reports published by Utah Transit Authority
(UTA) and the Utah Division of Air Quality as well as other resources from sources outside of
Utah. Together, these sources shed light on the benefits of public transportation use as well as
information that give insight about consumer decisions to use public transportation throughout
America. These resources are examined, evaluated, and made relevant to the market in Utah
County by methodology included in the appendix and available online.
3. 3
Introduction
Utah Valley University currently offers extensive public transportation options to all
33,000 of its students. This offer is a great plan that all students can take advantage of. For $80 a
year, Utah Transit Authority offers unlimited access to its regular and express buses, rail, and
light rail trains (Utah Valley University, 2014). With this option so conveniently and affordably
available, an estimated 38.85% of UVU students use public transportation (Powell, 2015), as
opposed to 5% of Utah County residents as a whole (Utah County, Utah, 2010). What can Utah
County do to increase its public transportation use and bring it closer to the same percentage of
users that attend UVU?
Utah County has the second worse air quality rate in the state next to Salt Lake County
(7.8% of state total vs. 17.8%). Driving in Utah County accounts for 22% of carbon monoxide
and nitrogen monoxide emissions in the county, which are the two most harmful pollutants in the
atmosphere that are inhaled daily (Utah Division of Air Quality, 2014). Utah County residents
should increase their use of public transportation by 40% (from 5% now, to 7%) to decrease the
harmful emissions they cause from driving by 14.18%, (Utah Division of Air Quality, 2014), save
Utah County 6,829,249 more gallons of gasoline annually, and save 488 daily gasoline fill-ups
(Public Transportation Saves Energy and Helps Our Environment).
Source for population number: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49049.html
Population of Utah County 560,974
Public Transportation Users in Utah County 28048.7
Annual gasoline gallons saved from Public
Transportation Use
17,073,122
Daily Gasoline Fillup Savings in Utah County 1,219.51
Increase 40% of Public Transportation use - daily fill-
ups savings
1,707.31
Increase 40% of Public Transportation use -annual
savings per gallon
23,902,370
Daily Difference in UC 488
Annual Difference in UC 6,829,249
Nationwide Daily and Annual Savings in Utah County from Public Transportation
4. 4
Methodology for calculations published at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pT4QE7mg4bBq296lGiSCboz4rltwn1ud02TybTpJ7AU/
edit?usp=sharing
Public Transportation Helps the Environment
According to the Utah Division of Air Quality 2014 annual report, carbon monoxide
(CO),nitrogen dioxide (NO2),ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead affect Utah air
quality in a significantly negative way. The two most harmful pollutants of these are carbon
monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, which account for 79% percent of pollutants in Utah air (Utah
Division of Air Quality, 2014).
Driving alone accounts for 34.5% of the annual emission of these two pollutants. Carbon
monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that “Reduces the ability of blood to transport oxygen to
body cells.” This can lead to illness and death in some cases. Nitrogen dioxide is also a gas,
which “Can cause lung damage, illness of breathing passages and lungs.” It can also damage flora
and fauna in the ecosystem,as it is an active ingredient in acid rain. If the emission of these two
pollutants can be reduced, the environment in Utah will be heavily protected (Utah Division of
Air Quality, 2014).
Utah County’s environment and landscape are important not just to its residents, but to its
economy and overall success. Many people from around the world visit Utah County’s outdoor
recreational sites such as Utah Lake, Timpanogos Cave,and Provo Canyon. Outside of the
tourism that these sites attract,statistics in Utah show that 46% of Utah citizens regularly
Utah County Total Percentage From Driving (CO 36%, NOX 33%)
CO 63,421 50.74% 22,831
NOX 14,613 11.69% 4,822
Total 78,033 62.43% 27,654
Total emissions 124,995
Percent From Driving Driving down 40% % Reduction Total Reduction
29.26% 13,699 17.56%
6.18% 2,893 3.71%
35.44% 21.26% 14.18%
Tons and Percentage of Harmful Emissions Caused in UC
5. 5
participate in outdoor activities such as camping, skiing, hiking, wildlife viewing, river activities,
and bicycling. The experience of all people in Utah County who participate in Utah’s outdoor
activities will be improved if the amount of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in the air are
reduced. Less people will become sick, the scenery will have a better appearance,and the
experience of all people will improve (The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy).
Clean Air Benefits—Increasing public transportation in Utah County, where there is a
plethora of residents living in neighborhoods and cities who take advantage of the UTA system,
will dramatically improve the environment’s overall health. For example, studies show that buses
can be up to 23.7% more efficient than cars in protecting the environment. Light rails and trains
are even more efficient than buses (Public Transportation Saves Energy and Helps Our
Environment). Increasing public transportation in Utah County is a step that should be actively
pursued to protect the environment.
Promoting public transportation in Utah County will also go a long way to promoting
clean air in the state of Utah. Statistics shows that the following are advantages to using buses and
trains in regards to clean air:
“Buses emit only 20% as much carbon monoxide per passenger mile as a single-
occupant auto.
“Buses emit only 75% as many nitrogen oxides per passenger mile as a single-
occupant auto.
“Trains emit only 25% as many nitrogen oxides per passenger mile as a single-
occupant auto, and nearly 100% less carbon monoxides,” (DART First State,
n.d.).
As mentioned before,promoting clean air will help people breathe more healthily and
enjoy the outdoor life that Utah has to offer more fully.
Conserving Natural Resources—As faras the naturalresources that can be conserved
through increased public transportation use, the following report reveals this information:
6. 6
“Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline
annually—and more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day. Public transportation
saves the equivalent of 300,000 fewer automobile fill-ups every day,” (Public
Transportation Saves Energy and Helps Our Environment).
The aforementioned study tells a surprising story about how much public transportation
conserves natural resources. In addition to the aforementioned benefits of clean air and a better
environment, if 40% more of Utah County residents use public transportation, according to the
aforementioned article, this will increase the amount of gasoline gallons saved annually in Utah
County by 6,829,249 and save daily gasoline fill-ups by 488.
Supply and Demand of Public Transportation Use in Utah County
The majority of Utah County public transportation is buses, with some train options
available as well. UTA’s system is one of the best public transportation programs in the country,
16,769,565
23,477,391
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
Now With 40 % Increase in
PT Use
GasolineGallonsSaved Annually
in Utah County From Public
Transportation
1,197.83
1,676.96
-
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
1,600.00
1,800.00
Now With 40 % Increase in PT
Use
Daily GasolineFillupsSaved in
Utah County From Public
Transporation
7. 7
so there is no reason why Utah County residents should not be encouraged to use public
transportation on a regular basis.
Some of the barriers that may be stopping the increase of public transportation in Utah
County may be the price as well as the lack of convenience. In fact,in a survey I published, I
found that 88.24% of UVU students who do not use public transportation choose not to use
because they feel inconvenienced (Powell, 2015).
The overall convenience of public transportation use is a variable that can be explored in
the long-run (through increased infrastructure and improved technology). Cost and price of
supply and demand can be analyzed and adjusted in the short-run. For a regular monthly bus pass,
most Utah County residents have to pay $83.75 (Utah Transit Authority, 2015), which is more
than 12-times what a UVU student pays—80$ for an annual pass (Utah Valley University, 2014).
The improved price and convenience of passes available to UVU students have a definite
effect. An estimated 38.84% of UVU students use public transportation, according to a survey
that I conducted and published (Powell, 2015). Contrast UVU’s percentage with an estimated 5%
of Utah County residents, or about 28,000 residents, who use public transportation. If it were as
cheap and convenient for the public at large to use public transportation as it is for UVU students,
would more Utah County residents ride public transportation? The following is an analysis of
implementable incentives and ideas that could manipulate the current market in Utah County to
pursue the external benefit of public transportation use.
Supply-side Incentives—To lower prices of public transportation passes provided by
UTA,the Utah state government can subsidize UTA’s production costs so that it could provide
more infrastructure (which would provide more convenience) in the long-run and price cuts on
passes in the short-run. This would require a budget shift in the state’s fiscalplan, but it would
not be undoable. Price cuts and expanded infrastructure would encourage more Utah County
residents to use public transportation.
8. 8
Demand-side Incentives—Another option to pursue this externality would be to educate
consumers in Utah County about the benefits of public transportation. Education can come in the
form of public service announcements on TV and radio; pamphlets which outline the benefits of
public transportation listed in this report that could be handed out by UTA volunteers; job
training for all employees in Utah County, which would include the information about the
benefits of public transportation as well as encouragement to use public transportation when
possible; and through the encouragement of word of mouth advertising—offering a gift or
discount for public-transportation consumers who refer friends to purchase regular public
transportation passes.
Consumer demand can also be increased through tax write-offs for residents who use
public transportation. These tax write-offs can increase in amount with how much more
individual citizens use public transportation—someone with a weekly pass may only get a 15%
write-off on that pass,while someone with a monthly pass may get a 35% write-off, and etc.
Projected Results ofImplementation—Implementing either of the aforementioned
solutions could increase public transportation use by 40% in Utah County (which would be an
increase of 5% use to 7%—not an unreachable goal); pursuing all of these actions could increase
public transportation by up to 80% (from 5% use to 9%). The model below illustrates the supply
and demand interactions between UTA (the supplier) and UTA riders (the consumers) in Utah
County1
:
1 Graph Explanation: based on elasticity coefficient of demand of .14, which shows that demand for
public transportation is very inelastic and would require great price cuts to really make a difference.
This coefficient was calculated by assuming that the same percentage of adults in Utah County would
use public transportation as the percentage of the UVU student population if public transportation
were as cheap and convenient as it is at UVU. Demand 1 and supply 1 show public transportation use
in Utah County as it is now (about 28,000 current riders at an equilibrium point with the supplier).
Supply 2 represents the implementation of supply-side incentives explored above, and demand 2,
implementation of demand-side incentives. Implementing one of the two incentive options increases
public transportation use to about 40,000 riders, a 40% increase, while implementing both plans
increases public transportation use to about 50,000 users, an 80% increase and 9% of Utah County’s
total population of adults.
9. 9
Conclusion
With the promotion of public transportation use in Utah County, residents will be able to
materially benefit the environment. Harmful CO and NOXemissions will be reduced by 14.18%
with a 40% increase of public transportation use in Utah County; 6,829,249 gallons of gasoline
will be saved annually in Utah County; and 488 gasoline fill-ups will be saved daily. This will
lead everyone in Utah County to be healthier and happier.
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Price/Cost(monthly)
Quantity (in ten-thousands)
UTA Supply and Demand in Utah County
Demand 1 Demand 2 Supply 1 Supply 2
Price (monthly) Supply 1 Supply 2 Demand 1 Demand 2
123.53$ 6.16 8.4 1.68
108.52$ 5.04 7.28 0.56 2.8
95.33$ 3.92 6.16 1.68 3.92
83.75$ 2.8 5.04 2.8 5.04
72.17$ 1.68 3.92 3.92 6.16
62.18$ 0.56 2.8 5.04 7.28
53.58$ 1.68 6.16 8.4
46.17$ 0.56 7.28
Elasticity Coefficient of Demand Current Price Current Supply in UC
0.14 83.75$ 2.8
10. 10
In order to effect such a change,Utah should consider subsidizing UTA, educating
residents about these benefits, or offering tax breaks to manipulate the market and account for the
positive benefit of increased public transportation use.
Utah County is constantly growing, which means more people can constantly either help
or harm the environment. By encouraging public transportation, more people will become riders
of public transportation. I know first-hand these benefits, as I am a regular UTA rider. My hope is
that 40% more Utah County residents will regularly use public transportation also!
11. 11
Works Cited
DART First State. (n.d.). The Environmental Benefits of Riding Public Transit.Retrieved from
State of Delaware:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/dwhs/info/Pages/OzonePublicTrans.aspx
Powell, B. (2015). Utah Valley University and Public Transportation - Survey. Orem. Retrieved
from
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pT4QE7mg4bBq296lGiSCboz4rltwn1ud02Tyb
TpJ7AU/edit?usp=sharing
Public Transportation Saves Energy and Helps Our Environment. (n.d.). Retrieved from APTA:
http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/facts_environment_09.pdf
The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. (n.d.). Retrieved from Outdoor Industry Foundation:
http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchRecreationEconomyStateUtah.pdf
Utah County, Utah. (2010). Retrieved from City-Data.com: http://www.city-
data.com/county/Utah_County-UT.html
Utah Division of Air Quality. (2014). Utah Division of Air Quality 2014 Annual Report. Fox 13
News.
Utah Transit Authority. (2015). Current Fares.Retrieved from UTA:
http://www.rideuta.com/mc/?page=RidingUTA-PayingYourFare-Fares
Utah Valley University. (2014). UTA Bus Passes. Retrieved from UVU.edu:
http://www.uvu.edu/campusconnection/services/buspass.html
12. 12
Appendix 1 – Data Tables
Utah County Total Percentage From Driving (CO 36%, NOX 33%)
CO 63,421 50.74% 22,831
NOX 14,613 11.69% 4,822
Total 78,033 62.43% 27,654
Total emissions 124,995
Percent From Driving Driving down 40% % Reduction Total Reduction
29.26% 13,699 17.56%
6.18% 2,893 3.71%
35.44% 21.26% 14.18%
UVU Total % From Driving
CO 3,731 50.74% 1,343
NOX 860 11.69% 284
Total 4,590 62.43% 1,627
Total emissions 7,353
% 40% decrease in driving emissions 1.03% Total Reduction
1.72% 806 0.22% 40% Increase in PT
0.36% 170 1.25% 0.83%
2.08% 15% decrease in driving emissions 1.46%
1,142 0.31% 15% Increase in PT
241 1.77% 0.31%
Population of Utah County 560,974 Utah County 7.84%
Public Transportation Users in Utah County 28048.7 CO 63,421
Annual gasoline gallons saved from Public
Transportation Use
17,073,122
NOX 14,613
Daily Gasoline Fillup Savings in Utah County 1,219.51 Total 78,033
Increase 40% of Public Transportation use - daily fill-
ups savings
1,707.31
Salt Lake Co. 17.79%
Increase 40% of Public Transportation use -annual
savings per gallon
23,902,370
CO 145,225
Daily Difference in UC 488 NOX 31,941
Annual Difference in UC 6,829,249 Total 177,166
Population of USA 319,000,000 State Total 100%
Public Transportation Users in USA 6900000 CO 787,278
Public Transportation Users in USA from Utah County 0.41% NOX 208,373
Annual gasoline gallons saved from PT in USA 4,200,000,000 Total 995,651
Daily Gasoline Fillup Savings in USA 300,000
Utah County population percentage of USA 0.18%
UVU Students UC Residents% of CO and NOX emissions caused by UVU students3.77%
Total population 33000 560,974 Right now 1.81%
% who drive 64.15% 86% 40% increase in PT use 3.55%
% who use pt 35.85% 5% Difference 0.22%
Amount who use pt 11,830 28,049 15% increase in PT use 2.94%
40 % increase in pt 16,562 465,999.90 Difference 0.84%
Difference 4,732 UC emissions NOT caused by UVU students
15% increase 13,605 463,042 Right now 98.19%
Difference 1,775 15% increase in PT use 99.16%
% of UC Whole 5.88% 100% 40% increase in PT use 99.78%
Emissions in UC and UVU - Comparing population of drivers and harmful emissions caused by driving
Nationwide Daily and Annual Savings in Utah County from Public Transportation Comparrison of Harmful Emission in UC with SLC & State
Tons and Percentage of Harmful Emissions Caused in UC
Formulas and calculations based on cited sources
Tons and Percentage of Harmful Emissions Caused in UC by UVU Students
14. 14
Appendix 2 – Survey Results – Based on 53 UVU student respondents
n 53
%
Yes 19 Total 35.85%
No 34 53 64.15%
%
Move convenient 7 Total Applicable 36.84%
Cheaper 12 19 63.16%
Helps the environment 4 21.05%
Other 6 31.58%
%
Too expensive 3 Total Applicable 8.82%
Driving is easier 30 34 88.24%
Proximity to buses or trains 7 20.59%
Takes too long 18 52.94%
Too confusing 3 8.82%
Other 2 5.88%
Users Total % Total %
Yes 17 53 89.47% 60.38%
No 2 10.53% 39.62%
Non-users
Yes 15 44.12%
No 19 55.88%
Users Total % Total %
Yes 19 53 100% 81.13%
No 0 0 18.87%
Non-users
Yes 24 70.59%
No 10 29.41%
Users Total % Total %
Yes 18 53 94.74% 69.81%
No 1 5.26% 30.19%
Non-users
Yes 19 55.88%
No 15 44.12%
Note that a good sample size is considered to be 40 in statistical
models. Visit
http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/PAGES/nsamplesize.html for more
information.
1. Do you use public transportation?
2. Why do you use public transportation?
3. Why don't you use public transportation?
4. If it helped environment, would you increase use?
6. If it were free, would you use public transportation?
5. Do you know of the public transporation options at UVU?
