Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS(Bureau of Transportations Statistics, 2002), and total daily miles traveled. For the train emissionscalculations, it was conservatively assumed that the train will haul six cars. In addition, trains wouldemit criteria air pollutants while idling. This idling currently occurs in Gilroy and San Francisco underthe No Project scenario. Under the Caltrain Extension Alternative, idling would occur in Salinas ratherthan Gilroy. The net difference in idling emissions is expected to be minimal. The calculated results oftrain cruising emissions are presented in Table 8-20.Table 8-20Emissions from Train OperationVOC**‡(g/mile)CO**(g/mile)NO X **(g/mile)PM 10 **(g/mile)SO X †(g/mile)Year 2010 ScenarioEmissions rates* 13.65 41.1 244.5 8.55 24.45Cruising emissions (tons/year) 0.58 1.75 10.42 0.36 1.04Year 2030 ScenarioEmission rates* 13.05 41.1 230.1 8.1 24.45Cruising emissions (tons/year) 1.11 3.50 19.61 0.69 2.08* Based on data published on BTS website from year 1995 to 1999 of Amtrak operation(http://199.79.179.77/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/html/table_rail_profile.html). It was conservatively assumedthat the train will haul six cars. Year 2030 scenario based on year 2014 emission rates.** Based on Technical Highlights of Emission Factors for Locomotives (USEPA, 1997).† Based on Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile Sources (USEPA, 1992).‡ Assume all hydrocarbons are VOC (volatile organic compounds). Assume all PM are PM 10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size).Emissions from Express Bus OperationThe estimated one-way trip mileage traveled by an average express bus trip between MontereyCounty and the San Francisco Peninsula is 68 miles. Vehicles are assumed to deadhead (returnempty) to the Monterey Bay Area Operations Center between the morning and afternoon commuteperiods. Year 1020 bus mileage is estimated to be 1,735,940 (revenue plus deadhead) miles. Year2030 bus mileage is estimated to be 3,329,830.The emission rates used for buses are based on a blend of uncongested and congested speedswhich average 35 mph for 2010 conditions and 30 mph for 2030 conditions. The calculated results ofexpress bus operations are presented in Table 8-21.Table 8-21Emissions from Express Bus OperationVOC(g/mile)CO(g/mile)NO X(g/mile)PM 10(g/mile)SO X(g/mile)Year 2010 ScenarioEmissions factor (g/mile) 2.245 17.963 12.277 0.128 0.016Cruising daily emissions (tons/year) 4.30 34.37 23.49 0.24 0.03Year 2030 ScenarioEmission factor (g/mile) 2.752 20.56 12.31 0.149 0.017Cruising daily emissions 10.10 75.46 45.18 0.55 0.06parsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 191
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISCommuter Vehicles Emissions from Home to Train StationEach working day, passengers will commute to the train or express bus stations from home usingvarious modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling, taking bus transit, driving to parking lotthen riding on the train or bus, or being dropped off and taking the express bus or train. No airemissions are associated with walking and bicycling. Changes in local bus transit emissions, if any,as a result of the project, would be expected to be minimal. Therefore, only park-and-ride and autodrop off will have air emissions associated with the proposed project. The emissions from commutervehicles traveling from home to train stations were calculated based on emission factors of grams permile multiplied by total daily miles traveled by vehicles from home to each of the three train stations orplatforms. Emission factors were derived from running the latest EMFAC2002 model version 2.2.EMFAC2002 is the emission factor model developed by CARB that calculates vehicle emissionsinventory and emission factors. The input parameters of EMFAC2002 include speed, temperature,humidity and other default data. The output of the EMFAC2002 contains emission rates or emissionfactors of criteria air pollutants. The total daily miles traveled by vehicles from home to each of thethree train stations/platforms were based on the average distance from home to each of the threestations/platforms and the mode of access. Table 8-22 specifies the percentage of commutersexpected to walk or bicycle, or take a bus, park-and-ride, or be dropped off.Table 8-22Estimated Mode of Arrival by StationMode Pajaro Valley Castroville SalinasWalk 4% 18% 20%Transit 54% 2% 15%Bicycle 5% 7% 5%Taxi — — —Auto drop-off 13% 9% 13%Park-and-ride 73% 64% 47%Source: Parsons, Caltrain Extension to Monterey County Project Study Report, Appendix B-2,Station Program RequirementsCalculated emissions for park-and-ride and to be dropped off category are presented in Table 8-23and Table 8-24 for year 2010 and year 2030, respectively.Table 8-23Emissions from Auto Access Commuter Vehicles (2010)VOC CO NO X PM 10 SO XEmission factor (grams/mile)—2010 0.169 3.833 0.487 0.014 0.003Daily emissions (pounds/day) at Pajaro location with total 1.02 23.04 2.93 0.08 0.02daily miles of 2,726Daily emissions (pounds/day) at Castroville location with 0.42 9.51 1.21 0.03 0.01total daily miles of 1,125Daily emissions (pounds/day) at Salinas location with total 1.36 30.83 3.92 0.11 0.02daily miles of 4,846Total (pounds/day) 2.79 63.38 8.06 0.22 0.05Total (tons/year) 0.36 8.08 1.03 0.03 0.01parsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 192
Page 4 and 5:
DRAFTCALTRAIN EXTENSIONTO MONTEREY
Page 6 and 7:
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
show all

Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?