Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 96-136
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 96... ...
96 C H A P T E R 7 This chapter describes case studies for which MMPASSIM was used to model the energy consumption of specific door-to-door passenger trips using passenger rail and the competing passenger travel modes available in each region. The constructed case studies represent very specific individual commuter, regional intercity, long-distance intercity and high-speed rail (HSR)
|
From page 97... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 97 on service availability, regional differences and trip characteristics. The competing mode of a trip was defined by the mode of travel used for the main travel segment of the door-to-door trip.
|
From page 98... ...
98 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes ridership of each evaluated passenger service and also highway-vehicle occupancy. Ideally, the ridership load factor (percent of seats occupied)
|
From page 99... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 99 the competing mode is more energy efficient. In general, the area above the line of equal energy intensity corresponds to load factor pairs for which rail is the less energy intense (more energyefficient)
|
From page 100... ...
100 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes direct energy efficiency and emissions of the main travel segment in isolation. These values are presented per trip, per seat-mile, and per passenger-mile.
|
From page 101... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 101 downtown center over a distance of approximately 40 miles (Table 7-3)
|
From page 102... ...
102 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes the advantage of the rail option, and longer auto access distances would increase this effect. The automobile trip time is 1.5 times longer than the equivalent rail trip because of the congestion on the highway route during the peak commuting hours.
|
From page 103... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 103 energy consumption (Table 7-6)
|
From page 104... ...
104 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes comparisons have been made for a local train; a zonal train with improved energy efficiency would perform even better when compared to the automobile trip. 7.3.3 Oceanside–Los Angeles, CA This case study illustrates a longer commuter trip for a party of one between Oceanside, CA, and the larger downtown metropolitan area of Los Angeles, CA (Table 7-7)
|
From page 105... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 105 train as a commuter service with the same access/egress legs is also compared to the Metrolink commuter rail trip. The automobile trip uses the performance average of the 2013 Driven Fleet with seating for four occupants.
|
From page 106... ...
106 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes Compared to the Pacific Surfliner regional intercity train functioning in commuter service, the Metrolink trip has lower direct energy and emissions intensities per seat-mile, slightly mitigated for door-to-door trips with and without including upstream energy. Although the Surfliner trip has a higher average load factor and fewer stops than the Metrolink, it has heavier passenger cars with less seating.
|
From page 107... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 107 in this case uses the MARC Penn Line service with a diesel-electric locomotive on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, accessing the origin station by automobile and egressing at Washington Union Station by subway. The baseline rail trip also is compared to the same service but with an electric locomotive along the same route and with the same access/egress legs.
|
From page 108... ...
108 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes Compared to the case with the electric locomotive, the diesel-electric trip is less energy and emissions intense for the modal leg and door-to-door trips. This is because of the increased speed of the electric train (125 mph maximum speed versus 79 mph maximum speed for the diesel-electric train)
|
From page 109... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 109 Figure 7-8 shows that the electric service can outperform the diesel-electric (1) in emissions, if the electric train has a 0.67 load factor to match a fully loaded diesel-electric train, and (2)
|
From page 110... ...
110 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes Heartland Flyer service with the push-pull NPCU consist and both access and egress via automobile. The automobile alternative uses the performance characteristics of the 2013 Driven Fleet with seating for four occupants.
|
From page 111... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 111 Using a Heartland Flyer consist without an NPCU produces an interesting effect on the modal comparison. Because there is no NPCU to facilitate push-pull operation, this consist requires an extra distance of 3.5 miles to turn the train around, but the train doesn't have the extra resistance of the control unit.
|
From page 112... ...
Figure 7-9. Oklahoma City, OK–Fort Worth, TX (NPCU consist)
|
From page 113... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 113 have shifted down and to the right, increasing the amount of area above each line. This indicates that, even with the extra travel distance to turn the train, the non-NPCU consist is inherently more efficient than the NPCU consist and is even less energy and emissions intense than auto mode or air mode.
|
From page 114... ...
114 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes air following. For the case study load factors, the energy intensity and GHG emissions intensity of regional intercity rail is roughly three times less than that of air or automobile trips.
|
From page 115... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 115 7.4.3 New York City–Buffalo, NY This case study illustrates the regional trip from New York City to Buffalo, NY, for a party of one. A large disparity exists in potential trip distance depending on the selected mode (Table 7-16)
|
From page 116... ...
116 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes (a) Modal Intensity Comparison (modal leg only, direct activity only)
|
From page 117... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 117 Comparing per-trip metrics including access and upstream consumption to the rail trip, the bus saves 20% on energy and emissions. This performance difference can be largely attributed to the rail route being 20% longer than the bus route.
|
From page 118... ...
118 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes (a) Modal Intensity Comparison (modal leg only, direct activity only)
|
From page 119... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 119 a rail trip at a low load factor of approximately 0.15. An automobile with four occupants is still unable to match the energy and emissions performance of the rail trip when the rail load factor exceeds 0.69.
|
From page 120... ...
120 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes The bus alternative is the least energy intense mode for the modal leg, the door-to-door trip, and the door-to-door trip including the upstream energy consumption (Table 7-21)
|
From page 121... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 121 Table 7-21. Modal comparison: Bethesda, MD–New York City.
|
From page 122... ...
122 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes Figure 7-14. Bethesda, MD–New York City, energy intensity load factor sensitivity chart (including access/egress and upstream energy)
|
From page 123... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 123 Table 7-23. Modal comparison: Chicago, IL–Los Angeles, CA.
|
From page 124... ...
124 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes performance given the load factor of 0.63. At the average rail load factor, a full automobile with four passengers can be more energy efficient than the rail trip (Figure 7-16)
|
From page 125... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 125 Table 7-24. Modal comparison: Chicago, IL–Los Angeles, CA (all-coach)
|
From page 126... ...
126 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes and corresponding load factors, with access by auto and egress by taxi at LAX. The bus trip uses a 45-ft.
|
From page 127... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 127 Table 7-26. Modal comparison: Fresno–Los Angeles, CA.
|
From page 128... ...
128 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes factor of 0.54. Auto and air trips produce seven times the emissions of a trip by CAHSR at the simulated load factors.
|
From page 129... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 129 and rail mode is observed for the electrified passenger rail operation on the Northeast Corridor between Bethesda, MD, and New York City and, despite its circuitous route, the California HSR trip between Fresno and Los Angeles. For most of the diesel-electric routes, auto trip energy intensity is two to four times rail trip energy intensity.
|
From page 130... ...
130 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes 7.7.3 Bus and Rail Figure 7-22 shows the bus mode energy and GHG emissions intensities per trip, including access and upstream energy, indexed to rail values and plotted across all case study routes where bus service is an option. To better show the data, this plot has been prepared on a different scale than the previous two figures.
|
From page 131... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 131 The first experiment, Scenario A, involved increasing the access and egress distances in diverging directions away from the terminals such that the overall distance for the equivalent auto trip alternative increased. The second experiment, Scenario B, increased the access and egress distances in converging directions between the rail terminals to decrease the overall distance for the equivalent auto trip alternative.
|
From page 132... ...
132 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes The results of this experiment indicate that the auto alternative becomes less energy intense than rail after increasing the access and egress distances in the direction B nearly 30 miles for each of the access and egress stations. At this point, the auto trip is only 120 miles long, whereas the rail trip consists of 180 miles via rail plus a 30-mile auto access leg and a 30-mile auto egress leg, for a total trip of 240 miles.
|
From page 133... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 133 Figure 7-26. Effect of access mode choice on Metrolink Orange Line.
|
From page 134... ...
134 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes changes. Although only access modes were assessed in this experiment, the findings would be equally applicable to egress modes if the egress trip length were similar to the access trip length.
|
From page 135... ...
Modal Comparisons of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions 135 average load factors. This extreme case is unlikely in practice, however, as most regional intercity lines feature stations spaced less than 60 miles apart.
|
From page 136... ...
136 Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes Analysis of the regional and long-distance intercity case study routes relative to air suggests the following: • A compromise between trip time and energy consumption is apparent. Air alternatives reduce travel time by 25% to 90% relative to the equivalent rail trip, but increase energy intensity per passenger by as much as four times in some cases.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.