Upload
dwight-francis
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
San Diego County: Towards a Reliable and Sustainable Public Transportation System
Franco BoscoloResearch Associate, Global Energy Network Institute (GENI)
Under the supervision ofPeter MeisenPresident, Global Energy Network Institute (GENI)
Summary
• Fleet information
• Population trends
• Suggestion for a more reliable system
• Suggestion for a more sustainable system
Fleet information• MTS
• Bus
• Trolley
• NCTD• BREEZE
• COASTER
• SPRINTER
• Amtrak• Pacific Surfliner
Population trends
76%
10%
6%3%
3%
2%
Driving Alone
Carpooling
Work at home
Public Transits
Walking
Other
Modes of commuting to work (2010)
Population trends
San Francisco Los Angeles Orange County San Diego CALIFORNIA0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2009
2010
mile
s
Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per capita
Population trends
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mill
ions
of m
iles
Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Population trends
New York City
Chicago San Francisco Los Angeles Washington San Diego0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mill
ions
of r
ider
ship
Transit ridership by city
Population trends
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 20550.0
500000.0
1000000.0
1500000.0
2000000.0
2500000.0
3000000.0
3500000.0
4000000.0
4500000.0
5000000.0
Population Jobs Housing
Population, jobs and housing growth
Proposal: reliable systemComparison of perception of mode performance
Source: SANDAG 2008, San Diego Region – Public Transit Opinion Study, Encinitas, True North Research.
Proposal: reliable system
20.2
15.0
13.9
10.8
9.8
8.5
8.0
5.14.24.5
No travels to necessary areas
Stops locations are inconvenient
General inconvenience of transit
Takes too long
No transit options near home
Schedule inconvenient
Prefer other modes
Too expensive
Do not need / Rarely travel
Other
Motivations for not using transits
Proposal: reliable system2050 regional development plan
Source: SANDAG 2011, 2050 Regional Transportation Plan – Our region, Our Future, San Diego.
• Area improvement
• Transit development
• Fast connections
Proposal: reliable system
12th & Imperial12th & Petco Pk.
12th & KPark & J
Park & IslandPark & Market
Park & GPark & FPark & E
Park & BrodwayC & 11thC & 10th
C & 9thC & 8thC & 7thC & 6thC & 5thC & 4thC & 3rdC & 2ndC & First
C & FrontC & India
Average
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50secondsBus lanes and automatic light systems
• Toll lanes on
highways
• Bus lanes on
city centres
• Active signal
priority system
Proposal: reliable system
Source: TfL (Transport for London) 2012a, Timetable of Bus 159 towards Paddington Basin (W2), Accessed on 15 August 2012, <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/>.
• More transit options
• Higher transit frequency
Proposal: reliable system
• GPS-tracked transits:
• Online and mobile Apps:
Source: Apple Inc. UK 2012, iTunes Preview – App Store > Navigation, Accessed on 15 August 2012, <http://itunes.apple.com/gb/genre/ios-navigation/id6010?mt=8&letter=L&page=3#page>.
Proposal: sustainable system
CO NOx PM0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Euro3 Diesel Early CNG
g/km
Diesel vs. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Reduction: 25.45% 28.45% 98.12%
Proposal: sustainable systemDiesel vs. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
SourceEmissions (gCO2eq/km)
Diesel CNG Reduction
Beer et al. 2001 1,759 1,604 8.81%
Sliva et al. 2006 2,277 2,070 9.09%
Cost DetailsCNG ($) Clean Diesel ($)
Per Bus Per Fleet Per Bus Per FleetIncremental CNG Fuel 2,860 0.6 x 106 - -CNG Fuel Station Maintenance - 0.9 x 106 - -Incremental Bus Maintenance 5,200 1.0 x 106 - -Incremental Cleaning Technology - - 1,040 208,000Diesel Fuel Station Maintenance - - - 92,000Clean Technology Replacement - - 137 27,400Annual Technology Cleaning - - 670 134,000TOTAL 2,500,000 461,400
• When both engine types are retrofitted with cleaning technologies, reductions decrease
• Costs do not justify CNG choice:
Source: DEER (Directions in Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research) 2003, Comparison of Clean Diesel Buses to CNG Buses, New York City Transit Department of Buses, from August 26, 2003 DEER Conference, Newport, RI.
Proposal: sustainable systemElectrification of the railway system
Service Company Travel (mi) Weekly Trips Yearly Travel (mi)
Coaster NCTD 41 46 98,072
Sprinter NCTD 22 132 151,008
Pacific Surfliner Amtrak 63 154 504,504
Total 753,584
• Rail and light-rail services powered by Diesel engines:
• Electrification has the benefits of:
- Reducing environmental impacts
- Improving the reliability of the service
- Increasing the capacity of trains
- Reducing maintenance, fuel and wear and tear costs
Proposal: sustainable system
Electric
Diesel
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500CO2 Emissions (g/mi)
Intercity
Regional
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
DieselElectric
Distance (miles)
• CO2 reduction by electrification: 20% - 35% (no local)
• Reliability improvement by electrification: 29% - 57%
• Reduced operating costs (35%) and leasing costs (20%)
Proposal: sustainable systemRegenerative braking system
Proposal: sustainable systemCycling and walking Type Miles %
Bike Path 159.3 11.9
Bike Lane 890.2 66.4
Bike Route 243.9 18.2
Freeway Shoulders 47.4 3.5
Total 1340.8 100
• Current San Diego availability
• Development of more bike and pedestrian paths
• Development of a bike docking station system