気候インフラとしてのバス：インド・欧州・米国における電動バス移行の比較
The Bus as Climate Infrastructure: Comparing Electric-Bus Transitions in India, Europe, and the United States (原題)
Maulsri Jha
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は「バス気候インフラ」枠組みを提唱し、インド・欧州・米国の電動バス移行を比較する。成功は車両目標よりも、車両・車庫・電力・運行・保守・労働・資本を調整する制度的能力に左右されると結論。ライフサイクル排出・乗客サービス・充電・財政・労働・分配衡平の評価指標を提案する。
English
This article proposes a 'Bus Climate Infrastructure' framework and compares electric-bus transitions in India, Europe, and the US. It finds success depends less on fleet targets than on institutional capacity to coordinate vehicles, depots, electricity, schedules, labor, and capital. It proposes performance measures spanning lifecycle emissions, service, charging resilience, fiscal sustainability, workforce, and equity.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では自治体・事業者による電動バス導入が進むが、車両購入偏重の議論が多い。本稿の統合的評価枠組みは、地域交通の脱炭素とGX投資の妥当性検討に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
For global disclosure scholarship, this paper links transport electrification to public-service and energy-system investment, complementing TCFD/ISSB transition-planning debates by emphasizing institutional capacity and distributive equity over nominal fleet targets.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:交通脱炭素を制度・インフラ統合の観点で評価する枠組みと比較事例を提供する。
🏢実務担当者:電動バス導入計画で、車両以外の車庫・電力・保守・人材・資金調達を統合的に検討する際の指標として活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:電動バス政策を車両購入補助ではなく公共サービス・エネルギー投資として評価する設計指針を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Electric buses are increasingly prominent in climate, air-quality, and industrial policy, yet vehicle replacement alone does not make a bus system effective climate infrastructure. Climate value depends on the electricity mix, service quantity and quality, operational reliability, depot and grid readiness, procurement and financing, workforce capacity, and the distribution of benefits. This article develops a Bus Climate Infrastructure framework and applies it through a structured comparison of India, Europe, and the United States. Case studies examine Mumbai and Bengaluru, London, California, and New York. India has used national aggregation, gross-cost contracting, and payment-security mechanisms to reduce acquisition barriers and extend electrification beyond the largest cities. Europe combines binding procurement targets, manufacturer standards, local operating contracts, and mature bus networks, while London demonstrates how fleet conversion can be joined to air-quality policy and service regulation. The United States relies on federal grants, state mandates, and agency transition plans, with California providing a regulatory model and New York illustrating the infrastructure demands of a large legacy fleet. The comparison finds that transition success is governed less by nominal fleet targets than by institutional capacity to coordinate vehicles, depots, electricity, schedules, maintenance, labor, and capital renewal. It also finds that electrification produces the greatest climate and public-health value when it protects or expands service and prioritizes routes serving highly exposed and transit-dependent communities. The article proposes performance measures for lifecycle emissions, passenger service, charging and energy resilience, fiscal sustainability, workforce outcomes, and distributive equity. It concludes that governments should evaluate electric-bus programs as integrated public-service and energy-system investments rather than as vehicle-purchase initiati
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i04.86965first seen 2026-09-25 04:37:00
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。