Northwest Rail Environmental Evaluation. Governments Team. September 13, 2007

Transcription

1 Northwest Rail Environmental Evaluation Governments Team September 13,

2 Agenda Welcome and introductions Commuter rail technology discussion History Technology review Technology evaluation criteria Noise and vibration analysis Air quality analysis Visual impacts analysis Cost analysis Community input Preliminary Recommendations Next steps 2

3 Note The information contained in this presentation is to supplement the September 7, 2007, memo to the Governments Team and should be considered a draft. 3

4 Vehicle technology history 2001: US 36 MIS completed; includes Regional Rail (defined as diesel-powered locomotive hauled coaches) from Denver to Boulder 4

5 Vehicle technology history 2004: RTD FasTracks election held; measure passes; FasTracks plan assumes Commuter rail/dmu in US 36 corridor from Denver to Longmont 5

6 Vehicle technology history 2005: US 36 EIS reviews technology options and recommends diesel-powered commuter rail as part of its Build packages 6

7 Vehicle technology history 2006: Gold Line and East Corridor begin consideration of EMU due to railroad issues associated with light rail; RTD begins public education process on differences between DMU and EMU 7

8 Vehicle technology history 2007: RTD conducts initial cost-benefit analysis of DMU vs. EMU in FasTracks corridors RTD informed by BNSF about the railroad s major operating and construction requirements (and added costs) for implementing EMU in corridor more on this later $80 $70 Annual Cost ($ mm) $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 EMU DMU $10 $ Year 8

9 Technology review 9

10 Locomotive-Hauled Coaches Powered by one diesel-electric locomotive Traditional commuter solution in Western USA Most efficient for longer trains (more than 4 cars) Longest end-to-end time due to limited acceleration Highest energy use Sometimes perceived as environmentally unfriendly due to noise and smoke experienced with freight trains Not currently under consideration by RTD primarily for operational reasons (too much capacity) and grades 10

11 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) Power supplied by onboard diesel engines (similar to a bus) Each vehicle equipped with engines and transmissions Popular in USA in 1950 s and 1960 s on routes with limited ridership Very popular in Europe today Most efficient for shorter trains (less than 4 cars) Better end-to-end time than locomotive, but not as fast as EMU More environmentally friendly than locomotive, does not require electrification investment 11

12 Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) Power supplied by Overhead Contact System (25 kvac) Each vehicle equipped with traction motors Traditional commuter solution in Eastern USA Most efficient for shorter trains (less than 6 cars) Shortest end-to-end time due to high acceleration Lowest energy use Requires investment in electrification Suitable for most corridors with very frequent service 12

13 Common Features of EMU/DMU Height 14-1/2 feet Length 85 feet Weight 145,000 to 155,000 pounds 76 to 110 seats (layout dependent) Service brake rate 2.0 to 2.5 mphps Emergency brake rate 2.8 to 3.0 mphps Practical maximum grade 4% Maximum operating speed 79 mph 13

14 Differences -- EMU/DMU Attribute DMU EMU Power source Diesel Engines 25 kvac OCS Drive Mechanism Mechanical transmission Electric motor and gear box Energy recovery No Yes Acceleration rate 1.6 mphps 2.2 mphps 14

15 DMU Diesel Engines DMU engine is typically the size of a semitruck (600 hp) DMU can be equipped with up to three engines, two for propulsion and one to generate electricity for lights, air conditioning, etc Equipped with latest technology, maximizing efficiency 15

16 Technology Evaluation Criteria Noise Vibration Air Quality (Regional) Air Quality (Local) Visual Impacts Cost-Effectiveness Complexity Community Input 16

17 Results of Preliminary Analysis 17

18 Noise 18

19 Noise What is noise? Noise is unwanted/annoying sound. How is noise measured? Decibels (db) are the unit by which noise levels are measured. How are noise levels affected? Noise is affected by distance, speed, frequencies, barriers, gradient etc. 19

20 EMU vs. DMU Sources of rail transit noise: Noise source: Wheel and rail contact Vehicle propulsion Cooling fans Vehicle warning devices (horn) What does it mean (EMU vs. DMU)? Same type of contact Electric vs. diesel Same type of fans Same type of horns EMU vs. DMU -Similar noise levels at higher speeds. -DMU louder at lower speeds & stations. 20

21 Noise Comparison TRANSIT SOURCES OTHER SOURCES Train Horn Rail Transit At Grade (50 mph) City Bus (Idling) Rail Transit in Station Outdoor Rock Drill Jack Hammer Concrete Mixer Air Compressor Lawn Mower Lawn Tiller Air Conditioner 50 At 50 Feet 40 At 50 Feet Decibels (db) 21

22 Noise Basics DMU and EMU 22

23 Noise Exposure & Impacts Exposure: Maximum Sound Level (L max )- maximum sound level during a single noise event Day-Night Average (L dn )-cumulative noise exposure over a 24-hour period Impacts were: Evaluated using FTA Impact Criteria 23

24 Preliminary Results: Noise No severe impacts recorded with either DMU or EMU, but several moderate impacts Severe impacts: a significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the new noise. * Moderate impacts: noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community * DMU has more impacts than EMU *Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, May

25 Preliminary Results: Noise Summary of Noise Impact Estimates for the Northwest Rail Corridor Corridor Section No. of Mod. Impacts (DMU) No. of Mod. Impacts (EMU) SF Res. MF Res. Total SF Res. MF Res. Total Denver Adams Westminster Broomfield Louisville Boulder Boulder Longmont TOTAL Note: This analysis is based on the assumption that horn noise at crossings will be 90 decibels. Noise impacts will be substantially higher if FRA requires RTD to sound horns at 109 decibels. RTD is awaiting a response from FRA on this issue. 25

26 Possible Mitigation Measures Quality track design and construction; Sound walls or berms; Sound insulation on muffler for DMU; Directional horn devices; and Quiet zones (Community must apply). Noise Path Without Mitigation Sound Wall Sound Berm 26

27 Quiet Zones FRA Rules state that trains must sound their horns when approaching grade crossings. Quiet Zone Definition: Segments of railroad lines where train crews are exempt from sounding the horn at grade crossings. The Municipality must apply for the quiet zone, in coordination with other involved agencies. Note The grade crossing must be made as safe without the horn as with the horn. RTD will hold workshops on quiet zone process as part of NW Rail project. 27

28 Vibration 28

29 Vibration What is vibration? Vibration is energy that is transmitted through the track support system into the ground. How is it measured? Velocity decibels (VdB)-indicates the intensity of groundborne movement How are impacts determined? Based on FTA Impact Criteria How are vibration impacts mitigated? Maintenance, planning and design, vehicle specifications, and special track support systems 29

30 Preliminary Results: Vibration Summary of Vibration Impact Estimates for the Northwest Rail Corridor Corridor Section No. of Vibration Impacts (DMU) SF Res. MF Res. School Total No. of Vibration Impacts (EMU) SF Res. MF Res. School Total Denver Adams Westminster Broomfield Louisville Boulder Boulder Longmont TOTAL Note: Louisville impacts primarily from coal mines in area 30

31 Air Quality 31

32 Fuel Standards Year of Phase-In Low Sulfur Fuel (500 ppm)* Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel (15 ppm)* Currently in use since * Parts per million (ppm) is the content of sulfur in the fuel. One ppm is the same as 1 minute in 2 years or 1 cent in $10,

33 Emissions Standards Comparison Bus / Tractor Trailer DMU Locomotive Emissions Rate (g/bhp-hr) CO PM10 NOx + NMHC CO PM10 NOx+NMHC Current EPA Emission Standards 2011 EPA Emission Standards Bus / Tractor Trailer DMU Locomotive Tier IV requirements will reduce NOx and PM10 by 90 percent. NOTE: PM and NOx are the focal points of the EPA future emissions standards, to control smog, ground-level ozone, and respiratory disease. Modern diesel engines inherently produce low CO levels; actual emissions are much less than EPA regulations. 33

34 Air Quality Analysis (Regional) DMU emissions per mile/engine: VOC: grams/mile NOx: grams/mile CO: grams/mile SO 2 : grams/mile PM 10 : grams/mile 34

35 Air Quality Analysis (Regional) DMU emissions in NW Rail corridor (2-car trains, 2030): VOC: 28.1 pounds/day NOx: pounds/day CO: pounds/day SO 2 : pounds/day PM 10 : 2.7 pounds/day 35

36 Air Quality Analysis (Regional) EMUs are powered by electricity: Emissions from electric power plants cannot be measured as a practical matter. Electricity comes from a dispersed power grid, and the power used for a transit line would likely come from a continually shifting network of coal plants, gas plants, or even nuclear power plants. 36

37 Air Quality Analysis (Regional) Overall net benefit to regional air quality regardless of technology due to reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) More detailed analysis to be conducted in EE 37

38 Air Quality Analysis (Local) CO hotspot analysis conducted for two representative stations in corridor (South Westminster, Boulder Transit Village) CO concentrations at stations, with autos and trains, would be well below national air quality standards DMUs represent less than 1% of CO at stations; more than 99% is from autos entering and leaving the station No significant difference between DMU and EMU 38

39 Visual Impacts 39

40 Visual Impacts Both DMU and EMU would result in visual impacts (note: fencing not analyzed at this stage; not a discriminator between technologies; will be examined in EE) EMU: overhead catenary system, and sound walls to mitigate noise impacts in certain locations sensitive visual areas, especially those with Front Range vistas, would be affected by a catenary 40

41 Visual Impacts DMU: may require sound walls to mitigate noise in certain locations 41

42 Visual Impacts: Simulations Big Dry Creek: existing 42

43 Visual Impacts: Simulations Big Dry Creek: with DMU 43

44 Visual Impacts: Simulations Big Dry Creek: with EMU 44

45 Visual Impacts: Simulations East FlatIron Circle: existing 45

46 Visual Impacts: Simulations East FlatIron Circle: with DMU 46

47 Visual Impacts: Simulations East FlatIron Circle: with EMU 47

48 Visual Impacts: Simulations South of Niwot: existing/with DMU 48

49 Visual Impacts: Simulations South of Niwot: with EMU 49

50 Cost-Effectiveness 50

51 Cost Comparison Technology DMU ($mil) EMU ($mil) Cost per Vehicle $3.65* $3.17* Cost per trainset (2-car) $7.3* $6.34* Fleet cost (opening day) TBD TBD Electrification capital cost per mile NA $4.32** * Includes soft costs (testing, management, etc) ** Results in total electrification cost of $177 million for 41-mile corridor 51

52 Lifecycle Cost Comparison $80 $70 Annual Cost ($ mm) $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 EMU DMU $10 $ Year Note: This graphic does not take into account the additional $405-$565 million associated with bridge reconstruction to meet BNSF required clearances see details later 52

53 Cost and Economic Comparison DMU is least expensive up-front EMU is least expensive to operate and maintain, but no payback on initial investment within 30 years 53

54 Complexity 54

55 Complexity BNSF letter in July 2007 specified design requirements to implement EMU in NW Rail alignment: 26-foot high catenary (typical light rail height: feet) for safety clearance for freight, maintenance equipment Most bridges in corridor are 23 feet above rail to meet typical non-electrified freight clearance requirements Would require reconstruction of at least 9 bridges in corridor, causing schedule delays 55

56 Complexity Estimated Cost (in millions) Bridge Low High I-76 $60 $80 Federal Blvd. $35 $50 Sheridan Blvd. $35 $50 92nd Ave. $35 $45 US 36 $40 $60 US 287 $55 $70 Northwest Pkwy. $40 $60 Foothills Pkwy. (S of Pearl) $35 $50 Foothills Pkwy. (N of Pearl) $35 $50 Pratt Pkwy.* $35 $50 Total $405 $565 * Clearance of Platt Pkwy. bridge has not yet been verified 56

57 Analysis of Community Input 57

58 Analysis of Community Input Project received about 300 comments since July, 145 on technology More than half of comments from July public workshops about technology indicated a preference for one over another Comments expressed preference for EMU over DMU by a ratio of 3/1 (EMU=26, DMU=9) Those who prefer EMU cite air and noise impacts of DMU and concern about future fuel supply and source to operate DMU Those who prefer DMU express concerns about visual impacts of EMU and costs 58

59 Analysis of Community Input Most comments submitted since July were from Northwest Denver residents and express a preference for EMU on all FasTracks corridors Remaining comments continue to express support for EMU over DMU 59

60 Summary of Analysis Criteria EMU DMU Noise Fewer impacts than DMU More impacts than EMU Vibration Fewer impacts than DMU More impacts than EMU Air Quality (Local) Minimal local impacts Minimal local impacts Air Quality (Regional) Similar Similar Visual Impacts More impacts than DMU Fewer impacts than EMU Cost Not affordable within Affordable FasTracks corridor budget Complexity Extreme complexity related Simple to construct to bridge reconstructions Community Input Strong support for EMU Some support for DMU 60

61 Preliminary Recommendation Initiate service in 2015 with DMU Lower up-front capital cost than EMU Lower life-cycle cost than EMU over horizon year of project (2030) Less complexity for construction than EMU Current FasTracks schedule and budget cannot accommodate construction of infrastructure needed for EMU RTD will re-examine the use of electric or other advanced technology or alternate fuels if it is deemed advantageous to do so in the future. 61

62 Commuter Rail Decision- Making Process August 2007 September 2007 October/ November 2007 Ongoing environmental analysis of noise, air quality, and visual impacts of EMU and DMU RTD Board Technology recommendation for corridor Public Outreach (Small group meetings) NW Rail Governments Team Public Workshops NW Rail Governments Team Gather public input on DMU/EMU Provide most current technology information Discuss criteria for technology decision Review criteria Review public input Preview cost & environmental analysis Present preliminary technology recommendation Present criteria Present cost & environmental analysis Present preliminary recommendation Collect input to recommendation Review public input Collect input to recommendation Assess support for preliminary recommendation Forward input & recommendation to RTD Board 62

63 Next Steps Public Information Workshops: September 19, 20, and 24 Relay findings and preliminary recommendation to public Gather comments Governments Team Meeting: Thursday, September 27 Review public comments Comments on preliminary recommendation to RTD Board 63

64 Next Steps RTD Board Planning and Development Committee (tentative: October 3) Review findings, preliminary recommendations, and comments from Governments Team and public Proposal final recommendation for Board action RTD Board: October 16 Review findings, P&D Committee recommendations, and comments from Governments Team Make final recommendation (support or oppose recommendations) 64

65 Q&A 65