APPENDIX G. Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Analysis

Similar documents
Introduction and Background Study Purpose

COST ESTIMATES: Curb-Running

Call for Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Emissions Formulas Technical Advisory Committee

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

SECTIO N 610 PAVEMENT SMO O THNESS

PN /21/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS

2 Min. Min. Edge of. Edgeline See Note 3 PLAN VIEW. See Note 3. This distance may vary

Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional

Agility Service Exchanges

April 27, FHWA/FTA Approval of an Amendment to the Kansas STIP to include WAMPO s April 14, 2009 TIP Amendment 6

CATEGORY 500 PAVING SECTION 535 PAVEMENT SURFACE PROFILE

Clarksville Street Department. Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation

DIXIE TIP CONCEPT REPORT APPLICATION FY 2015 (Due November 6, 2013) PROJECT INFORMATION

Northeast Pavement Preservation Partnership Burlington, Vermont. Rhode Island DOT

APPENDIX H. Transportation Impact Study

5. HORIZON YEAR TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN-COST ESTIMATES

Brigham City 1200 West Box Elder Creek Bridge - Widening Project Type Reconstruction

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Candidate Project List for Public Review

Table Existing Traffic Conditions for Arterial Segments along Construction Access Route. Daily

Alternative 3 Air Quality and Climate Change Calculations

PN 420-7/18/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS

Chapter III Geometric design of Highways. Tewodros N.

The key roadways in the project vicinity are described below. Exhibit displays the existing number of lanes on the study roadways.

The major roadways in the study area are State Route 166 and State Route 33, which are shown on Figure 1-1 and described below:

Unified Corridor Investment Study DRAFT Step 2 Scenario Analysis Report

The range of alternatives has been reviewed with the RTAC Subgroup and the preliminary analysis is proceeding on the following HCT alternatives:

Corridor Sketch Summary

DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION DS 3 STREETS

.MAINTENANCE. Strategic Initiative Four:

Speed Limit Study: Traffic Engineering Report

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

DIVISION V SURFACINGS AND PAVEMENTS

Road User Cost Analysis

EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION Howell Ferry Road Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia. WILLMER ENGINEERING INC. Willmer Project No

Project Application. General Information ODOT PID. Primary County (3 char abrv) ODOT District

M.D. OF PINCHER CREEK NO. 9. Approved by Council Date: March 22, 2016

1.1 Purpose of This Environmental Impact Report EIR Process Use of This Report Report Organization...

Technical Memorandum Analysis Procedures and Mobility Performance Measures 100 Most Congested Texas Road Sections What s New for 2015

AND LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

Current Corridor Characteristics. MN 62 Corridor Performance

January 13, 2012 AACE Annual Meeting, Wickenburg, AZ. I-15 in Arizona. Its Past, Present, and Future

Transportation. Background. Transportation Planning Goals. Level of Service Analysis 5-1

Appendix D. Airside and Landside Pavement Inventories

Memorandum. 1 Introduction. 2 O&M Cost Elements. 2.1 Service O&M Costs

Understanding Road Wear and its Causes

Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report

RE: S.P (T.H. 210) in Crow Wing County Located on T.H. 210 from Brainerd (R.P ) to Ironton (R.P )

opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this

FLAMBOROUGH QUARRY HAUL ROUTE STUDY HAUL ROUTE VIBRATION REPORT. itrans Consulting Inc 100 York Boulevard Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 1J8

Public Information Packet FY Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

2016 Congestion Report

Items Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Unit Price Total

Department of Planning and Land Services Development Engineering GATES PERMITTING, DESIGN & INSPECTION GUIDE

Appendix "A" Transit Bus Stop Accessibility Criteria & Guidelines

Western Land Area Programmatic Environmental Assessment. APPENDIX K: Climate

Tulsa Transportation Management Area. Urbanized Area Surface Transportation Program

CEE 320 Midterm Examination (50 minutes)

3.17 Energy Resources

A IR Q UALITY A PPENDIX

FINAL REPORT FORM 1 (Formerly titled Project Monitoring Form 1 - Ridesharing ) Total Project Cost: $

Open House. Highway212. Meetings. Corridor Access Management, Safety & Phasing Plan. 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. - Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition

CAPITAL FUND 9510 STREET & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS

Stakeholder Meeting #3. August 22, 2018

SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE PAVEMENT PROJECTS 2015 TxAPA Annual Meeting September 23, 2015 Austin District Mike Arellano, P.E. Date

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. ASCE Conference Wyndham Hotel North Little Rock Thursday, October 16, 2014

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS

SFMTA Energy Use by Vehicle Type: Transit Investments vs Life Cycle Costs

Three Year Engineering Factors, SFY 2017 Report: Overhead Costs per Total Construction Costs

Willamette River Transit Bridge. Portland - Milwaukie Light Rail Willamette River Bridge Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee

SFY Call for Projects MPO Staff Recommendation All Projects Submitted for Funding Funds Available: $57,075,000

State Avenue Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Appendix F-1 Description of the Long-Term Alternatives

2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan -- Table XVII-1

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (MEAN ROUGHNESS INDEX ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA)

North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study

Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Memo

EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT

2.0 Development Driveways. Movin Out June 2017

TOLL TRUCKWAYS: Increasing Productivity and Safety in Goods Movement. By Robert W. Poole, Jr., and Peter Samuel

Wentzville Parkway South Phase 2 & 2A

MEMORANDUM FPN: State Road: 91 County: Osceola (92)

CITY OF BELLEVILLE 2017 Capital Budget

Traffic Engineering Study

Table Standardized Naming Convention for ERD Files

Transit on the New NY Bridge

Effective [one year after date of adoption] the provisions of this rule shall apply to:

Pavement Thickness Design Parameter Impacts

I.D.O.T. Update Version -

ITEM 585 RIDE QUALITY FOR PAVEMENT SURFACES Description. Measure and evaluate the ride quality of pavement surfaces.

SPECIFICATION FOR SKID RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION AND TREATMENT SELECTION

CITY OF TORRANCE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE

Highway 18 BNSF Railroad Overpass Feasibility Study Craighead County. Executive Summary

Sustainability SFMTA Path to Platinum

INLAND NORTHWEST REGIONAL PAVEMENT CUT POLICY

MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN DESIGNATION INDEX OF SHEETS LENGTH OF PROJECT SHEET NUMBER

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Pavement Management Plan Update Report

Two years since our book

The Honorable Connie Bernardy, DFL Lead House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy Committee 253 State Office Building Saint Paul, MN 55155

Construction Noise Memorandum

Transcription:

APPENDIX G Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Analysis

GHG Running Exhaust and Fuel Cycle Emissions (CO2e) Year Emission Factor (g/mi)* ADT (vehicles per day) Length (mi) g/day MT/day MT/year 2015 638.13 17,700 4.2 47,438,743.92 47.44 17,315.14 2040 (No Build) 444.43 23,300 4.2 43,491,976.66 43.49 15,874.57 2040 (Build) 444.43 23,300 4.2 43,491,976.66 43.49 15,874.57 *Since only posted speed is provided, the rate for average speed and roadtype was used as a conservative estimate Conversion factor gr 1000000

Greenhouse Gas Analysis Assumptions Roadway AADT in 2040 23,300 AADT per lane mile 5,825 AADT per lane mile in 2040 reconstructed/resurfaced existing centerline miles 4.8 miles (includes ) existing lane miles 8.4 miles newly-constructed 0 centerline miles newly-constructed 8.4 miles additional lane miles Rural Principal Arterial analysis timeframe will be 25 years (2042) Year 1 new const and reconstruct existing 8.4 miles new construct additional lanes; 8.4 miles reconstruct existing lanes Year 15 - resurface 16.8 lane miles resurface + 2.5 miles of s resurfaced = 19.3 miles Bridge 4.2 miles centerline, new const. of shoulders 8.4 lane miles of new bike/ped const 4.2 centerline miles shoulder improvement resurface 8.4 lane miles bike/ped resurface Construct New 3,289 feet 2 12-foot travel lanes New multi-span 2-10 foot wide shoulders Counted as 6 total lanes (travel lanes, shoulders, multi-use path) 1 10 foot wide multi-use path Year 15 maintenance: New and Existing would both have maintenance year 15 New Const 0 construct additional lane 8.4 miles reconst existing lanes 8.4 miles shoulder improvements 8.4 miles Resurface 19.3 lane miles road Bike/Ped 16.8 miles (construct and resurface) Resurface decks (included in year 15 resurface above) project-days of lane closure Construction: Assume two years for project (widening and ) Rehab assume 90 days : 90 : 820 days Mitigation Inputs Preventative Maintenance 50% assumed planned deployment

General Information Infrastructure location (state) Analysis timeframe (years) 25 SC daily traffic per lane mile - for facilities that will be reconstructed or resurfaced 5,825 Roadway System existing centerline miles 4.2 existing lane miles 8.4 newly-constructed centerline miles 0 newly-constructed lane miles 8.4 Rail, Bus, and Bicycle Infrastructure existing track miles of light rail 0 existing track miles of heavy rail 0 newly-constructed track miles of rail 0 existing lane miles of bus rapid transit 0 newly-constructed lane miles of bus rapid transit 0 existing lane miles of bicycle lanes 0 newly-constructed lane miles of bicycle lanes 0 Roadways Facility type New Roadway (lane miles) Construct Additional Lane (lane miles) Re-Alignment (lane miles) Lane Widening (lane miles) Shoulder Improvement (centerline miles) Re-construct Pavement (lane miles) Resurface Pavement (lane miles) Rural Interstates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural Principal Arterials 0 8.4 0 0 8.4 8.4 19.3 Infrastructure location (state) SC Analysis timeframe (years) 25 daily traffic per lane mile - for facilities that will be reconstructed or resurfaced Parking existing centerline miles 42 5,825 Roadway Projects Roadway Construction Roadway Rehabilitation Accounting for the Full Roadway Lifespan The estimator tool accounts for, rehabilitation, routine maintenance, and preventive maintenance in different ways: New Construction (user provided): The user enters lane miles of projects. Rehabilitation (user provided): The user enters expected re and resurfacing projects on all existing and new roadways for the length of the analysis period. As a general rule of thumb, new roadways require resurfacing after 15 years and re after 30 years. Routine Maintenance (automatically estimated): The tool automatically estimates routine maintenance activity, such as sweeping, striping, deck repair, litter pickup, and maintenance of appurtenances, per lane mile of existing and new roadway. Preventive Maintenance (user provided): The user has the option to specify a preventive maintenance program as a mitigation strategy (in the Mitigation Inputs tab). Preventive maintenance techniques include crack sealing, patching, chip seals, and micro surfacing. Example: The user enters new of 10 lane miles of new freeway, with an analysis period of 40 years Assuming that all takes place in year 1

% roadway on rocky / mountainous terrain Bridge Structures Options 0% an analysis period of 40 years. Assuming that all takes place in year 1, the user enters 10 lane miles of freeway resurfacing (assumed to take place in year 15) and 10 lane miles of freeway re (assumed to take place in year 30). The tool automatically includes routine maintenance of the 10 newly constructed lane miles. The user has the option of specifying a preventive maintenance strategy, which will increase the longevity of the pavement surface and therefore reduce the amount of energy and emissions associated with resurfacing and rehabilitation. Construct New Bridge Reconstruct Bridge Add Lane to Bridge Bridge Structure Number of s number of spans per number of lanes per number of lane-spans Number of s number of spans per number of lanes per number of lane-spans Number of s number of spans per number of new lanes per Single-Span 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Two-Span 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Multi-Span (over land) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi-Span (over water) 1 3 6 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 number of lane-spans Approxim U.S. (less or double of spans assume a s. N importan emission different Longer b reliably e Rail, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities Rail Project Type Light rail Heavy rail New (underground - hard rock) - track miles 0 0 New (underground - soft soil) - track miles 0 0 New (elevated) - track miles 0 0 New (at grade) - track miles 0 0 Converted or upgraded existing facility - track miles 0 N/A New rail station (underground) - stations 0 0 New rail station (elevated) - stations 0 0 New rail station (at grade) - stations 0 0 Bus rapid transit New lane or right-of-way - lane miles 0 Converted or upgraded lane/facility - lane miles 0 New BRT Stations 0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project Type New Construction Resurfacing Restriping Off-Street Bicycle or Pedestrian Path - miles 0 0 N/A

On-Street Bicycle Lane - lane miles 8.4 8.4 0 On-Street Sidewalk - miles 0 N/A N/A Construction - Delay project-days of lane closure 820 daily traffic per directional segment for facilities requiring lane closure 5,800 Percentage of facility lanes closed during 50% Estimating Project Days of Lane Closure Estimates of project days of lane closure may be available from project documents. The tool assumes that lane closures occur in one mile increments. values for schedules (e.g., daytime versus overnight) are incorporated in the calculations. Estimates of emissions from delay are meant to provide a rough sense of the scale of emissions relative to the processes themselves, and are not meant to replace estimates derived from traffic

Energy / GHG reduction strategies Strategy Baseline deployment Planned deployment Maximum potential deployment Applied to Alternative fuels and vehicle hybridization Hybrid maintenance vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 44% Fuel use by maintenance equipment Switch from diesel to B20 in maintenance vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 100% Fuel use by maintenance equipment Switch from diesel to B100 in maintenance vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 100% Fuel use by maintenance equipment Combined hybridization/b20 in maintenance vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 44% Fuel use by maintenance equipment Hybrid vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 44% Fuel use by equipment Switch from diesel to B20 in vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 100% Fuel use by equipment Switch from diesel to B100 in vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 100% Fuel use by equipment Combined hybridization/b20 in vehicles and equipment 0% 0% 44% Fuel use by equipment Vegetation management Alternative vegetation management strategies (hardscaping, alternative mowing, integrated roadway/vegetation management) No No N/A Fuel use by vegetation management equipment Snow fencing and removal strategies Alternative snow removal strategies (snow fencing, wing plows) No No N/A Fuel use by snow removal equipment In-place roadway recycling Cold In-place recycling 0% 0% Asphalt and fuel use by equipment in 99% roadway resurfacing and BRT conversions Full depth reclamation 0% 0% Base stone and fuel use by equipment in 99% roadway re and BRT conversions Warm-mix asphalt Warm-mix asphalt 0% 0% 100% Asphalt use in all projects Recycled and reclaimed materials Use recycled asphalt pavement as a substitute for virgin asphalt aggregate 0% 0% 25% Asphalt use in all projects Use recycled asphalt pavement as a substitute for virgin asphalt bitumen 0% 0% 40% Asphalt use in all projects Use industrial byproducts as substitutes for Portland cement 0% 0% 33% Concrete use in all projects Use recycled concrete aggregate as a substitute for base stone 0% 0% 100% Base stone use in all projects Preventive maintenance

Preventive maintenance 0% 50% 100% Materials and fuel use in roadway resurfacing and re projects

Upstream Energy new Roadwayrehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. new Roadwayrehabilitation total Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. Materials 1,593 2,051 3,644 260 440 4,344 1,593 1,716 3,309 260 440 4,009 Direct Energy Unmitigated Annualized energy use (mmbtus), per year over 25 years Construction Equipment 616 325 941 1,010 82 2,033 616 272 888-82 970 Routine Maintenance 198 198 2,209 2,376 4,585 1,270 522 6,575 2,209 1,988 4,197 260 522 5,177 Mitigated Note: To convert mmbtu to the equivalent gallons of US conventional diesel, use the conversion factor of 7.785 gallons of diesel / mmbtu. Please keep in mind that this conversion represents the equivalent amount of energy required, which can be useful for informational purposes, but it does not necessarily represent actual gallons of diesel required. Upstream Emissions new Roadwayrehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. new Roadwayrehabilitation total Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. Materials 104 121 225 27 25 277 104 104 208 27 25 260 Direct Emissions Unmitigated Annual GHG emissions (MT CO2e), per year over 25 years Construction Equipment 45 24 69 8 6 83 45 21 66 8 6 80 Routine Maintenance 14 14 149 145 294 35 31 374 149 125 274 35 31 354 Mitigated

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Annualized over 25 Years Annual energy use (mmbtus) - total and by mode 6,575 4,585 4,197 5,177 2,209 2,376 1,270 522 2,209 1,988 260 522 Routine Maintenance Construction Equipment Materials new Roadway- rehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. new Roadway- rehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 - Unmitigated Mitigated Annualized over 25 Years Annual GHG emissions (MT CO2e) - total and by mode 374 354 294 274 149 145 149 125 35 31 35 31 Routine Maintenance Construction Equipment Materials new Roadway- rehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. new Roadway- rehabilitation Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. Unmitigated Mitigated

Construction delay Result Energy use (mmbtus) GHG emissions (MT CO2e) project-days of /lane closure 820 820 Project lifetime (years) 25 Additional energy use / emissions due to delay (per project-day) energy use / GHG emissions due to delay Annual energy use / GHG emissions due to delay, per year Pavement smoothness Result lane miles of roadway re / 28 resurfacing Project lifetime (years) 25 Reduced Energy use / GHG emissions due to smooth pavement Annual energy / emissions savings due to pavement smoothness Annualized Delay and Pavement Smoothness Impacts Energy use (mmbtus) Energy use (mmbtus) 6.5 0.6 5,321 474 212.8 18.9 GHG emissions (MT CO2e) 448 33 17.9 1.3 GHG emissions (MT CO2e) 194.9 17.6 Note: Energy and emission savings from pavement smoothness are automatically calculated for all resurfacing and re projects. Savings accrue after project completion.