Taking the Subway to Copenhagen - How Transit is Essential to Global GHG Reduction
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•744 views
NYS Public Transit Industry Fall Conference November 18, 2009 Projjal K. Dutta, AIA, LEED AP
![Taking the Subway to Copenhagen - How Transit is Essential to Global GHG Reduction ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/nyspta11-18-09-091216110316-phpapp01/85/Taking-the-Subway-to-Copenhagen-How-Transit-is-Essential-to-Global-GHG-Reduction-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Taking the Subway to Copenhagen - How Transit is Essential to Global GHG Reduction
Similar to Taking the Subway to Copenhagen - How Transit is Essential to Global GHG Reduction (20)
More from New York Public Transit Association
More from New York Public Transit Association (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (19)
Taking the Subway to Copenhagen - How Transit is Essential to Global GHG Reduction
- 2. Energy Consumption & Sustainability: Macroview
- 3. Energy Consumption by Sector, 2005 Source: World Resources Institute USA Germany China India
- 4. Total Energy Consumption per Capita, 2005 Source: Energy Information Administration Germany 178 MBTUs China 31 MBTUs USA 340 MBTUs India 14 MBTUs
- 5. California 232 MBTUs New York 217 MBTUs Texas 574 MBTUs Total Energy Consumption per Capita by State, 2005 Source: Energy Information Administration NYC 88.5 MBTUs
- 6. Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita, 2002
- 7. Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita, 1990–2004 Source: US Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
- 8. Energy Consumption & Sustainability: Microview
- 9. Energy Use: High-Rise vs. Low-Rise Development High-Rise Low-Rise Number of buildings 1 10 Average floor size 30,612 sf 36,000 sf Area of roof 88,000 sf 375,000 sf Area of ext wall 343,000 sf 385,000 sf Area of parking 0 sf 1,837,500 sf
- 10. Energy Consumption: Low-Rise Office Park vs. Tall Urban Building
- 12. 8,637 3,341 Transportation Building Operations Materials Low Density Auto - Oriented High Density Transit - Oriented GHG Per Person: Kg CO2E (Carbon dioxide equivalent) / Year Source: Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Norman, March 2006
- 14. The Choice
- 15. Transit GHG Emissions Typology APTA Climate Change Standards Working Group
- 16. Total: 2.7 million metric tons Revenue Fleet Fuel -Traction Electricity-Traction Non-Revenue Fleet -Traction Heating - Non-traction Electricity - Non-traction MTA GHG Emissions, 2007 Transit Effect Multiplier = 8.24 For every unit of GHG that the MTA emits It helps avoid 8.24 units In the net it helps avoid about 20million metric tonnes Currently un-recognized and un-compensated
- 17. Energy/ Carbon Facilities Smart Growth/TOD Materials Flow Climate Adaptation Water Management Greening the MTA
- 21. Energy Saving through Alignment Design: Humped Tracks Track Alignment
- 24. Materials Flow: Smart Fleets
- 25. Materials Flow: Smart Fleets
- 26. Energy Savings through Material Innovations: Al Third Rail Traction power Third Rail
- 28. Is Transit for Everywhere? Cincinnati’s Close Brush
- 29. Is Transit for Everywhere? Cincinnati’s Close Brush
- 30. Is Transit for Everywhere? Cincinnati’s Close Brush
- 31. 1905 1940 Is Transit for Everywhere? What happened in NYC
- 32. Subway Construction 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Manhattan Brooklyn The Bronx Queens 2008 Is Transit for Everywhere? What happened in NYC
- 33. Is Transit for Everywhere? What happened in NYC
- 34. Is Transit for Everywhere? What happened in NYC
- 35. Conclusions As societies develop/industrialize, their energy needs rise. Transportation emerges as a major consumer of energy. Automobile-based paradigm with corollary suburban sprawl is wasteful and unsustainable It negates the good effects of “green” building methods and technologies Sustainable urban growth has to embrace mass-transit and support density Designing the right carbon-constrained system can make this happen
Editor's Notes
- World average is 66 MBTUs/PC/Year
- USA average is 304 MBTUs/PC/Year
- Urban Office Uses 41,000 Btu/sqft-yr for Commute 30 mi. round trip Diesel Bus, 4 mpg, 20 passengers 300 sq.ft. per person, 252 days per year Suburban Office Uses 210,000 Btu/sqft-yr for Commute 30 mi. round trip Private Car, 15 mpg, 1 passenger 300 sq.ft. per person, 252 days per year
- [ADD TEXT]
- For offsets, we are using modified Kyoto protocols. The Clean Development Mechanism is too cumbersome so we are using survey or model based data. Mode shift is the shift from other modes to public transportation. These other modes include passenger cars, but also pedestrian, bicycle, not making the trip, etc. The CCX has indicated they will accept offsets from this change. Public transportation also provides significant congestion benefits. Reducing peak period travel provides greater speeds to other vehicles and therefore decreases emissions. Public transportation also encourages more compact development which reduces vehicle travel. Note -- CCX and other registries are measuring against a baseline. Only receive credit for changes from baseline. Changes can include new services, extensions, increases in ridership.
- The second category concerns energy and carbon reductions within the MTA system itself. The MTA has a history of pioneering cleaner, more efficient energy consumption at every level of operations, from the nation’s first all-CNG bus fleet at Long Island Bus to innovations in track design and green architecture. The sustainability gains show up in a number of statistics. For example, the MTA accounts for 65 percent of all New York City commutes, while using just 5 percent of New York City’s total energy consumption. Likewise, the fact that New Yorkers consume one quarter as much energy per capita as the average American is largely attributable to the MTA system. In other words, if the entire nation matched the energy/carbon profile of the MTA’s transit radius, we would cut foreign oil dependency dramatically and achieve the Kyoto Protocol carbon emission targets decades ahead of schedule.
- The MTA should draw 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. To achieve this, the MTA should join a consortium of public entities to pursue offshore wind farms capable of generating up to 1,500 megawatts of clean energy. The MTA should identify Carbon Avoidance as a revenue source to underscore the MTA’s role as a provider of climate stabilization services in its region and to establish the value of MTA services under any decarbonization policy (carbon tax, cap-and-trade, post-Kyoto/Copenhagen rules, etc.). The MTA should reduce operational energy use and GHG emissions by 25 percent by 2019 (on a per-passenger-mile basis) through energy retrofits, smart fleet technologies and more. The MTA should establish a “green” MetroCard contribution program, through which customers could make voluntary, tax-deductible donations to fund green aspects of sustainable capital and operating projects at the MTA. The MTA should field test and implement weight reduction and regenerative braking technologies, as recommended by the Commission’s Smart Fleets task force.
- Along with major fixed structures such as bridges, rails lines, and tunnels, the MTA maintains a highly diverse building portfolio of hundreds of facilities, including rail stations, subway stations, maintenance barns, office buildings, and such landmark properties as Grand Central Terminal. The MTA should adopt Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED™) Silver as its standard for all building projects, new construction, and major renovations wherever applicable and either recommission existing buildings or pursue LEED-Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EB) where possible. For all other transit facilities not covered by LEED Silver standards, the MTA should develop MTA Green Design Guidelines, based on the LEED system. The MTA should develop a green Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) system for facilities to track the upfront costs and longterm savings from high- performance and regenerative design features. The MTA should increase the number of LEED accredited employees. The MTA should seek LEED-EB Rating for Grand Central Terminal
- Explanation of background image: Von Mises Stress plot of rail car body helps identify areas where lighter materials can be used without compromising structural integrity. The Commission’s recommendations for greening the materials flow at the MTA can be expressed in three words: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Given the scale and diversity of its operations, the MTA must procure and dispose of thousands of tons of material goods each year. Collectively, the MTA agencies purchase some $2 billion worth of products and services annually in an operating budget of about $11 billion. In addition, the MTA must manage its customer-generated waste, process-generated waste, office waste, and construction and demolition debris. The MTA should institute a green Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) system to manage its procurements and waste flow, including purchasing guidelines for green products and services. The MTA should expand its recycling programs, with added waste recovery, pilot programs for site-separation bins at stations and more. The MTA should enhance its efforts to find practical uses and market opportunities for its waste flow. The MTA should use its flex market power to spur the creation of green goods and services in the mid-Atlantic region. The MTA should encourage the use of low-carbon, local materials at all agencies, and by local vendors. The MTA should expand the procurement of sustainable railroad ties at all rail agencies.
- In Quarter of a Century Land Value in NY increased 160%.
- Population in Manhattan Declined as Population in outer boroughs increased with the construction and expansion of the subways. Express and Local Services on the subways were available from the start.
- Improved quality of life: As the new subway lines and extensions opened, developers soon followed with the construction of decent, affordable and low-density housing for both middle-class and working-class families. The formerly bucolic, rural landscape of the City's outlying areas was quickly replaced by long lines of tree-shaded streets containing a mix of apartment houses, private single- and two-family homes, and open recreational spaces.
- Spurred commercial development: The subway has allowed there to be extraordinarily dense daytime populations of workers in Manhattan's central business districts. Without the capacity, speed, and affordability of Subway service, hundreds of thousands of people would have no other practical means of commuting to and from their jobs in Manhattan. Additionally, by spurring the development of many new residential neighborhoods in the outer boroughs, the Subway has provided