Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 40


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 39
39 systems analyzed were San Francisco's BART (heavy rail), sions produced by transit. Of those agencies not estimating California's commuter rail system Caltrain (heavy rail) San GHG emissions displaced by transit, some are still estimat- Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) (light rail), and Bos- ing a closely related impact. Because CO2 emissions are ton's Green Line (light rail). directly proportional to fuel use and are very closely cor- related with VMT, agencies were asked about their efforts The researchers found that including full life cycle greenhouse gas emissions increased estimates by as to analyze impacts on fuel and VMT as well. Nearly two- much as 70% for autos, 40% for buses, 150% for light thirds of respondents said that they are estimating or have rail, and 120% for heavy rail. While including emissions estimated the displacement effect (GHG emissions, fuel use, from construction of infrastructure has a larger impact or VMT displaced) of their existing service or planned ser- on rail transit than on automobiles, the results still show significant emissions savings from average occupancy vice improvements. Nearly half of respondents said that they rail and bus transit over average occupancy sedans, are estimating or have estimated GHG emissions produced SUVs, and pickups. by their existing operations or the impacts of strategies on those emissions. Figure 18 charts the results of the analysis. Agencies were asked specifically whether they are esti- mating or have estimated the displacement effect of their existing service offering. Table 13 summarizes the survey responses. Nearly half of all agencies surveyed have analyzed or are analyzing the displacement effect of their existing ser- vice. Fewer agencies are analyzing the specific impacts via compact development or reduction of congestion. TABLE 13 AGENCIES ANALYZING DISPLACEMENT EFFECT OF EXISTING SERVICE (% of 41 respondents) Analysis FIGURE 18 Life-cycle analysis of GHG emissions from rail Displacement effect on VMT, fuel use, or 44% systems: grams CO2e per PMT (Source : Chester, Life-cycle GHG emissions from private autos Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the Compact development effect 34% United States, Institute of Transportation Studies, Dissertations, University of California, Berkeley, 2008. Chart taken from Congestion mitigation effect 32% Hodges, Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 2009). Agencies were also asked whether they are analyzing the Further research could simplify Chester's aggregate impact of specific strategies on displaced emissions. More results for transit agencies to use in calculating their own than one-third of agencies surveyed are analyzing specific life-cycle GHG emissions benefits. For example, life-cycle strategies. Table 14 shows analyses that agencies have con- emissions multipliers could be developed for each transpor- ducted or are conducting. The most commonly analyzed tation mode. At present, transit agencies have only applied strategies are those that transit agencies tend to analyze for life-cycle emissions analysis to transit fuels. conventional route planning purposes, including new ser- vice types, expanded route coverage, and increased service For other transit emission reduction strategies, analyses frequency. All strategies are analyzed by at least one agency. are less readily available. To quantify the impact of most of GHG analyses are in all cases less common than analyses of these strategies, transit agencies need to measure or estimate VMT or fuel impacts. In some cases, partner agencies may a strategy's impact on the use of fuel, energy, or materials. perform the analyses. Metro, the MPO for Portland, Oregon, FTA's forthcoming Transit Greenhouse Gas Emissions Man- is performing most of the analyses of strategies for TriMet as agement Compendium should provide some analysis of the part of the update to Metro's Regional Transportation Plan. emissions reductions possible from such strategies. Agencies were asked whether they are analyzing or have analyzed the impact of any strategies on their own emis- ANALYSES CONDUCTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS sions. About one-quarter of all respondents are analyzing some strategies. Table 15 shows the specific analyses con- Many transit agencies surveyed have conducted or are con- ducted. All types of strategies, except changes to construc- ducting at least a partial analysis of the impacts of their tion equipment and materials, are analyzed. Again, agencies services and operations on GHG emissions. Agencies are more commonly analyze the fuel or energy impact of strate- estimating both emissions displaced by transit and emis- gies than the GHG impact of strategies.

OCR for page 39
40 TABLE 14 AGENCIES ANALYZING DISPLACEMENT EFFECTS OF TRANSIT STRATEGIES (% of 41 respondents) Strategy Types VMT Fuel GHG Any Analysis Expanded route coverage 24% 15% 15% 27% Increased service frequency 24% 12% 15% 27% Increased hours of operation 15% 5% 7% 17% New service types (e.g., BRT or LRT) 27% 17% 22% 32% Transit marketing campaigns 12% 7% 5% 17% Provision of transit information 7% 2% 2% 12% Improved transit shelters and station stops 5% 0% 2% 7% Improved transit access for bicycles and pedestrians 17% 10% 15% 22% Improved transit access for the disabled and elderly 10% 2% 5% 12% Improved vehicle comfort 2% 0% 0% 2% Service improvements; e.g., timed transfers, reduced travel times, improved 20% 7% 10% 24% modal integration Changes in fare structures or payment methods 10% 2% 2% 10% Safety improvements 7% 0% 0% 7% Optimization of existing routes and services 22% 12% 15% 24% Other strategies 2% 2% 2% 5% 39% Any analyses (16 agencies) TABLE 15 AGENCIES ANALYZING EFFECTS OF STRATEGIES ON EMISSIONS FROM AGENCY OPERATIONS (% of 41 respondents) Strategy Types Fuel/Energy Use GHF Any Analysis Expansion of transit service 20% 12% 20% Changes in transit vehicle fleets and/or fuel mix 17% 15% 17% Energy efficiency measures for office buildings 15% 7% 15% Energy efficiency measures for maintenance yards 12% 7% 12% Changes to construction equipment and/or fuel mix 0% 0% 0% Changes to construction materials 0% 0% 0% Other strategies 0% 0% 0% Any strategies 22% (9 agencies) In conducting analyses of GHG emissions listed in Tables agencies. Individual comments from agencies included the 1315, transit agencies used several different guidance doc- following: uments. APTA's methodology was the most commonly cited guidance document. Nearly half of agencies surveyed said "Hard to quantify congestion and land use effects; that they are aware of APTA's guidance, and many said that thus, transit's emissions reduction potential is likely they are using or planning to use the guidance. Other sources underestimated." cited included climate action plans and guidance from Wash- "It is difficult to estimate GHG reductions resulting ington State. from transit oriented land use. Much easier to examine our own fleet and do estimates based on our own data. Agencies were asked what particular challenges they face However, our fleet impact is small when considering in analyzing the impacts of their services on GHG emissions, the significant changes needed to reduce our region's and what would help to address those challenges. Agencies carbon footprint." cited a number of challenges related to calculation meth- "The capacity to link travel demand forecasts to GHG odologies and tools. Calculation of compact development emissions is just emerging in our region and is still and congestion impacts is particularly difficult for some struggling to account for multiple modes. Getting

OCR for page 39
41 good data from our MPO in this regard will help out "We have completed our GHG emissions inventory enormously. Good sketch planning tools for various for CY2007, but given current budget situation, we are development scenarios would be very helpful. Isolating not completing the inventory for CY2008. Funding is the ridership impact of various strategies for the pur- an issue. We've done some work on comparing cost- poses of associating emission reductions with them has effectiveness in various actions, but more information proven difficult. Accounting for construction-related would be helpful. A sample Climate Action Plan would emissions (mobile and embodied) across life cycle is also be helpful." quite an in-depth analysis...We haven't been able to "We have only analyzed GHG impacts at a very gross move beyond simple default values...due to resource level to date. Tools that do not require a lot of staff time constraints. A tool that would enable some level of tai- or data gathering would be beneficial." loring for specific inputs would be very helpful." Finally, some agencies expressed challenges related to A few other agencies mentioned the need for new analysis communication: tools and guidance: "[Challenges include] . . . relating to stakeholders the "We used FHWA and FTA averages for occupancy and inverse relationship between transit increase and VMT average fuel efficiency when calculating the emissions decrease; agency coordination." avoided. A standard formula for calculating this would "Our emissions from our fleet are the largest contribu- be helpful, as we could ensure we are using the same tor to GHG emissions. This can become a public per- figures as other agencies. A transit specific carbon cal- ception issue." culator would be a helpful tool." "We will have to look at the APTA guidance to see Other comments included the following: how . . . [our agency] compares to other agencies. Compilations of information pertaining to different "Establishing the base-line year [is a challenge]." engine manufacturers and engine types would be ben- "Methodologies should be based on real testing of eficial. GHG impacts on typical items such as the new vehicles as opposed to just dynamometers. Include green tip fluorescent tubes and other common items life-cycle cost. Develop feasible cost-effectiveness would be beneficial." range for all projects." "An electronic calculator like a `Turbotax' program to "Newness of issue [is a challenge]. Need to get every- input NTD data to complete the calculations for a car- one involved when there is so much other necessary bon footprint would be useful. An option to use actual work to be done. Dire budgets and recession." bus emissions instead of factors would be useful to account for replacement of old buses." Research on the best techniques to evaluate transit's impact on GHG emissions is ongoing. The Florida DOT has A few agencies have had difficulty collecting the data contracted Florida State University to pilot APTA's guid- required for detailed GHG analyses. Comments included the ance on a sample of transit agencies in Florida. The research following: has calculated emissions reductions from mode shift and congestion reduction from each agency. The researchers are "The greatest challenges are those of education and still considering the appropriate means to evaluate emissions data collection. The operational information we col- reduced through changes in land use. The project will cal- lect is not all that is needed for GHG impacts. Getting culate operational emissions from transit in a future phase the organization to collect that additional information, (Melanie Simmons, Florida State University, personal com- especially during times of fiscal constraint, is very munication, March 2009). difficult." "Boundary issues are important (whose emissions are The Florida DOT is also sponsoring the development of these?). Data issues for older information have been a toolkit for a carbon footprint that integrates transit. The complex. NTD data is only a part of our total emissions; research will develop a framework for analyzing GHG emis- NRV [nonrevenue vehicles] for example not reported. sions within existing planning processes, including processes Breadth of services requires data from many sources. managed by MPOs, state DOTs, and local governments. The Calculating impact on regional emissions difficult." tool is not intended for use by transit agencies specifically, but it is expected to highlight the benefits of transit in mul- Some agencies have insufficient resources to con- timodal transportation planning (Sarah Hendricks, Florida duct detailed analyses. Individual comments included the State University, personal communication, March 2009). following: