TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS
Michigan / Grand River Avenue TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 From: URS Consultant Team To: CATA Project Staff and Technical Committee Topic: Projected Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Emissions 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the methodology and results of the analysis of potential change in carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions in Year 2035 associated with each of the Build alternatives for the Michigan/Grand River Avenue. The estimated change in CO 2 emissions is one of the primary evaluation measures of the Study, with comparison made relative to the Baseline alternative. The following alternatives were evaluated: Baseline Light Rail Transit (LRT) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar. As background, the Greater Lansing Go Green! Initiative has made reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including CO 2, a goal of the Lansing Region. 1 Mobile sources, including vehicles, produce 31 percent of greenhouse gas. 2 According to the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) fuel economy compliance tests, CO 2 emissions represent 90 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. 3 Therefore, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of any transportation improvement in the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor is an important in achieving this regional goal. 1 City of Lansing, 2010, About Go Green!, http://www.lansingmi.gov/gogreen/about_go_green.jsp. 2 Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.htm 3 Ibid. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 1
2.0 Methodology 2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives This analysis entailed evaluation of each alternative at the Corridor level and per passenger mile. The change in CO 2 emissions at the Corridor level would assist in determining each alternative s ability to meet the Corridor and regional goals for CO 2 emissions established in the Greater Lansing Go Green! Initiative. The latter is a measure of an alternative s efficiency. Table 1 presents the thresholds used for the evaluation. Table 1: Evaluation Criteria: CO 2 Emissions Percent Change Annual in CO 2 Emissions Compared to the Baseline Grams of CO 2 Emissions per Passenger Mile Rating Definition More than 2 percent reduction Fewer than 300 grams Good Alternative meets criterion very well 1 to 2 percent reduction 300 to 400 grams Fair Alternative meets criterion sufficiently Less than 1 percent reduction More than 400 grams Poor Alternative significantly does not meet criterion 2.2 Estimating CO 2 Emissions Estimates of CO 2 emissions are developed using a two-step process: transit contribution vs. automobile contribution. For this Study, the first step determined CO 2 emissions for each of the transit vehicle types associated with each alternative. For purposes of this analysis, four types of transit vehicles were analyzed: Three types of buses - Forty-foot diesel - Sixty-foot diesel articulated - Sixty-foot diesel-hybrid articulated. This category also encompasses BRT vehicles. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2
Light rail and modern streetcars vehicles were grouped together based on reporting statistics from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 4. 2.2.1 Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Transit Vehicles Carbon dioxide emissions for each transit vehicle type were sourced from Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition The Potential for BRT to Reduce Transportation-Related CO 2. 5 Table 2 shows the weight of CO 2 emissions per vehicle mile in kilograms (kg), as identified in the reference document. These values are used to estimate annual CO 2 emissions by alternative based on transit vehicle miles. Table 2: CO 2 Emissions per Vehicle Mile by Vehicle Type 6 Vehicle Type 40-foot diesel bus 60-foot diesel bus 60-foot hybrid diesel bus and BRT vehicles Light rail vehicle/modern Streetcar 7 CO 2 Emissions per Vehicle Mile 2.942kg 4.617kg 3.080kg 4.883kg Transit vehicle miles were estimated based on inputs such as route length, hours of service, headways, and fleet size. This information is detailed Technical Memorandum #6: Transit Operating Plans Annual vehicle miles traveled by each type of transit vehicle were multiplied by the CO 2 emissions produced by each type of vehicle, and shown in Table 3. 4 Light Rail and Streetcar are considered to have the same CO 2 emissions per vehicle mile because the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) operating reports statistics for Light Rail and Streetcar as a single category. American Public Transportation Association, 2010. 2010 Public Transportation Fact Book, Appendix A: Historical Tables, http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/documents/factbook/2010_fact_book_appendix_a.pdf 5 Vincent, William, Lisa Callaghan Jerram, Breakthrough Technologies Institute 2006. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition The Potential for BRT to Reduce Transportation-Related CO 2. Tampa, FL. http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/jpt%209-3s.pdf 6 Ibid. 7 Source: 2010 Public Transportation Fact Book, Appendix A: Historical Tables. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3
Table 3: Estimated Year 2035 Annual CO 2 Emissions from Transit Vehicles Alternative Transit Vehicle Type CO 2 Emission per Vehicle Mile Annual Transit Vehicle miles Annual CO 2 Emissions (Kilograms) Baseline Alternative 2,480,000 Route 1/Route 1 Ltd. 60-foot diesel bus 4.617 kg 536,774 2,480,000 BRT Alternative 2,290,000 BRT 60-foot hybrid diesel bus 3.080 kg 516,200 1,590,000 Route 1/Route 1 Ltd. 40-foot diesel bus 2.942 kg 238,608 700,000 LRT Alternative 2,140,000 LRT Light rail vehicle 4.883 kg 295,200 1,440,000 Route 1/Route 1 Ltd. 40-foot diesel bus 2.942 kg 238,608 700,000 Modern Streetcar Alternative 3,030,000 Modern Streetcar Streetcar 4.883 kg 607,000 2,960,000 Route 1/Route 1 Ltd. 40-foot diesel bus 2.942 kg 24,174 70,000 2.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Personal Vehicles In addition to examining the change in CO 2 emissions related to transit vehicles, implementing the transit improvements would result in a reduction in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by personal automobiles and small trucks within the Corridor. For the purposes of this analysis, the Corridor is being defined as the area within one-half mile of the proposed alignment. Personal vehicles in the United States average 20.3 miles per gallon (mpg) 8 based on the EPA s MOBILE6.2 model. 9 The EPA also reports that vehicles burning one gallon of gasoline emit 8.877 kilograms of CO 2 gas. 10 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. http://epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm#step1 9 U.S. Environmental Protection agency s model used to estimate highway vehicle emissions. 10 Ibid. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 4
Using these figures, the average personal vehicles in the United States would produce 473 grams of CO 2 gas per mile. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) travel demand model was used to estimate the VMT within the Corridor for each of the alternatives for personal vehicles. TCRPC s Wise Growth demographic data was used for the analysis. Table 4 presents the annual CO 2 emissions from personal vehicles in each of the alternatives in 2035. Table 4: Estimated Year 2035 Annual CO 2 Emissions from Personal Vehicles Alternative CO 2 Emission per Vehicle Mile Annual VMT from Annual CO 2 Personal Vehicles 11 Emissions Baseline 0.437 kg 282.37 million 123.48 million kg BRT 0.437 kg 277.38 million 121.30 million kg LRT 12 0.437 kg 277.43 million 121.32 million kg Streetcar 0.437 kg 277.27 million 121.25 million kg 2.3 CO 2 Emissions per Transit Passenger Mile The amount of CO 2 emissions per transit passenger mile is a measure of the efficiency of how each alternative would move people through the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor. This was determined by dividing the annual transit related emissions for each of the alternatives by the annual projected ridership for that alternative. This provided CO 2 emissions per transit rider. A survey of transit riders in the Corridor in October 2009 determined that the average transit trip in the Corridor was 3.02 miles. 13 It was assumed that the average trip pattern in the Corridor would remain constant across all alternatives. Carbon dioxide emissions per transit rider were divided by 3.02 miles to 11 Source: TCRPC travel demand model estimates of average weekday VMT. Average weekday data was annualized at a rate of 300, consistent with FTA guidance. 12 Personal VMT for LRT was projected because ridership modeling for LRT had different demographic data built into the model. 13 Source: Michigan/Grand River Avenue : Technical Memorandum #4 Transit Rider Survey Final, URS Consultant Team, 2010. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 5
determine CO 2 emissions per transit passenger mile. Table 5 presents CO 2 emissions per transit passenger mile by alternative. Table 5: Estimated CO 2 Emissions per Transit Passenger Mile Alternative Annual CO 2 Emissions Range of Annual Corridor Ridership 14 CO 2 Emissions per Transit Rider 15 CO 2 Emissions per Transit Passenger Mile 16 Rating Baseline 2.48 million kg 2.22 million - 2.04 million 1,125g - 1,225g 375kg - 400kg BRT 2.29 million kg 1.98 million - 2.34 million 975g - 1,150g 325kg - 375kg LRT 2.14 million kg 1.83 million - 2.10 million 1,025g - 1,175g 325kg - 375kg Modern Streetcar 3.03 million kg 2.34 million -2.67 million 1,125g - 1,300g 375kg - 425kg The ridership estimates generated by the model for Route 1 in the Baseline and various Build alternatives are presented as a range to demonstrate variations between Base Year 2010 Route 1 s modeled and observed daily ridership. 3.0 Findings and Conclusions Based on the information on Table 6, which summarizes the estimated CO 2 emissions for each alternative, following are findings and conclusions of this analysis: In Year 2035, 126.0 million grams of CO 2 for the Michigan/Grand River Avenue Corridor are associated with the Baseline alternative. Each of the Build alternatives would decrease CO 2 emissions relative to the Baseline. Each of the Build alternatives would result in relatively similar CO 2 emissions, and thus, reductions in CO 2 emissions vs. the Baseline alternative. 14 The TCRPC travel demand model estimates travel, on the average weekday. Average weekday data was annualized at an annualization rate of 300. 15 Rounded to the nearest 25g of CO 2 emissions. 16 Ibid. Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 6
The Modern Streetcar alternative would have the highest CO 2 emissions per passenger mile (see Table 5 between 375g and 425g), despite having the highest ridership. This is reflective of the higher CO 2 emissions per mile of a modern streetcar vehicle than a hybrid bus. (See Table 2 4.9kg and 3.1kg, respectively). In addition, the Modern Streetcar alternative would have more than twice as many vehicle miles as the LRT alternative because it has more stations (28 vs. 16), resulting in an increase in the travel time. The Modern Streetcar alternative would also have more frequent service than the LRT alternative (every six minutes during the peak vs. every 10 minutes), which would also increase the number of transit vehicle miles. Table 6: Summary of Estimated Year 2035 Annual CO 2 Emissions Alternative Transit Vehicles Annual CO 2 Emissions Personal Vehicles Total Percent Change 17 Rating Baseline 2.48 million kg 123.48 million kg 125.96 million kg Not applicable Not applicable BRT 2.29 million kg 121.30 million kg 123.59 million kg -1.88 percent LRT 2.14 million kg 121.32 million kg 123.46 million kg -1.98 percent Modern Streetcar 3.03 million kg 121.25 million kg 124.28 million kg -1.33 percent 17 Relative to the Baseline alternative Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions 7