derrible s - energy use of subway networks in the sustainability...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy Use of Subway Networks in the Sustainability era
Sybil Derrible, Ph.D. Candidate, [email protected] of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
CORS-INFORMS International Conference – Toronto ON
1
CORS INFORMS International Conference Toronto, ONJune 15, 2009
Rationale
Current Work: Networks Effects – Coverage, Directness, Connectivity
250.00
200.00
150.00
per c
apita
100.00
Boa
rdin
gs
y = 59.613Ln(x) + 258.27
50.00
2
y 59.613Ln(x) 258.27R2 = 0.4672
0.000.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000
Coverage Area / Total Area
Rationale
Networks Effects - Applied
TTC Network in 25 years?
Getting to Carbon Neutral:
- Best Practices
3
- Rules of thumb
Context
- In the battle towards reducing GHG emissions, cities are of paramount importance (Copenhagen climate conference, December 2009)
- Transportation is one of the core issues
- Due to their environmental benefits, public transit systems are likely to grow
It i l th t bli t it i t ft i t ll t i bl- It is clear that public transit is most often more environmentally sustainable than private automobiles, but:
What is the impact of network growth on energy use of
subway networks?
4
Framework
What does energy use mean?- A larger network will emit more because it carries more riders, is it more sustainable or less?sustainable or less?
- If we account for passengers: should we use energy per ride (boarding) or per passenger kilometres travelled (PKT)?
- Note: talk about energy use, not emissions of tCO2e because the energy grid is not known, and does not add information about the sustainability of subway networks
Energy-use per PKT (MJ/PKT) Streetcar LRT Subway Commuter Rail Toronto 0.31 0.69 0.96 Montreal 0.41 2.25 Ottawa Calgary 0.25 Vancouver 0.38 0.73 European Avg 0.58 0.69 0.48 0.87 North-American Avg 0.65 0.60 0.60 1.37
5
→ prefer to use energy use per ride (total boardings or boardings per capita)
Framework
What directly influences energy use?
- Size of the network (route length)
Tokyo (292km) vs. Toronto (69km)
- Number of operating subway/metro units (wagons)
London (3900) vs. Athens (216)
- Vehicle Technology
6
Framework
How to use network characteristics- Absolute Values (as collected)
City Route length (km) Metro UnitsToronto 68.747 641.98Montreal 60.858 758.99….. ….. …..
Subway
- Relative Values (route length by population, metro units by population)PKT per track-km
Streetcar LRT Subway Commuter Rail Toronto 13,309,671 15,364,738 1,969,227 Montreal 42,702,148 966,966 Ottawa 3,369,765 Calgary 10,007,934 V 19 130 976 800 175
f b l t lth h id diff d i th l i
Vancouver 19,130,976 800,175European Avg 3,383,406 26,339,997 5,875,131 North-American Avg 7,935,681 16,166,881 1,817,752
7
→ prefer absolute although consider differences during the analysis
Dataset and Sources
Dataset:
- Originally planned to study 19 subway networks in the workd
- Narrowed down to 15 cities due to data availability
Sources:
- Route length: from each individual transit authorities (2008 data)
- Energy Use and Metro Units: Millennium Cities Database (1995 data)
Note: consider systems that have undergone few changes only
8
Results - partial
City Boardings (million)
Route length (km)
Metro Units
Total Energy Use in TJ
Energy per unit (MJ/km)
Toronto 265.3 68.747 641.98 893.43 13.22
lMontreal 278.2 60.858 758.99 573.90 9.57
Chicago 186.8 173.075 1133.99 1102.99 15.13
Washington DC 259.4 171.143 763.98 1246.98 18.63
San Francisco 99.3 182.252 610.99 773.54 10.96
Mexico City 1417 177.1 2540.95 3009.24 9.69
London 1078 438.725 3901.06 2212.03 6.32
Paris 1860.9 256.8 3419.90 1705.23 9.11
Lyon 96 5 29 3 184 00 117 02 9 43Lyon 96.5 29.3 184.00 117.02 9.43
Berlin 475 216.967 1513.99 995.07 7.65
Athens 92 52.003 216.00 103.97 6.93
Stockholm 297 109.48 873.01 843.27 10.10
Tokyo 2974 292.376 3241.06 2529.49 7.94
Osaka 912 125.419 1414.96 1179.41 9.64
Seoul 2264 287 2119.97 2397.30 10.22
9
Vehicle Technology20
15.13
18.63
16
18
13.22
10.9610.2210.1
12
14
er w
agon
km
Average = 10.30
6.32
9.11 9.43
7.656.93
7.94
9.57 9.69 9.64
6
8
10
Ener
gy u
se p
e
2
4
0
Toronto
Montre
al
Chicag
oW
ashin
gton D
CSan
Francis
coMex
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
Stockh
olm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
10
Should we take it in account?
We will see that network characteristics are more relevant
Boardings and Network CharacteristicsI t f R t L th
250.00
Impact of Route Length
200.00
150.00
ings
per
cap
ita
100.00
Boa
rdi
50.00
11
0.000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Route Length (km)
Boardings and Network CharacteristicsI t f R t L th
3500
Impact of Route Length
2500
3000
2000
oard
ings
(mill
ion)
1000
1500
Tota
l Bo
y = 124.28e0.0074x
R2 = 0.4759
500
12
00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Route Length (km)
Boardings and Network CharacteristicsI t f N b f M t U itImpact of Number of Metro Units
250.00
200.00
150.00
ings
per
cap
ita
100.00
Boa
rdi
50.00
13
0.000.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00 4500.00
Metro Units (wagon)
Boardings and Network CharacteristicsI t f N b f M t U itImpact of Number of Metro Units
3500
2500
3000
2000
ardi
ngs
(mill
ion)
1000
1500
Tota
l Boa
y = 0.149x1.1455
R2 = 0.8098
500
14
00.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00 4500.00
Number of Metro Units (wagons)
Network CharacteristicsR t L th N b f M t U itRoute Length vs. Number of Metro Units
4000 00
4500.00
TokyoParis
London
3000 00
3500.00
4000.00
n)
Seoul
Mexico City
2500.00
3000.00
met
ro u
nits
(wag
on
OsakaBerlin
Chicago
1500.00
2000.00
Num
ber o
f m
Stockholm
AthensLyon
San Francisco
Washington DCMontrealToronto
y = 9.5091x - 118.73R2 = 0.7602
500.00
1000.00
15
0.000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Route length (km)
Energy Use and Network CharacteristicsE d R t L th
Mexico City
3500.00
Energy and Route Length
Seoul
Tokyo
London
2500.00
3000.00
Seoul
Paris
London
1500 00
2000.00
Ener
gy U
se (T
J)
Osaka
StockholmBerlin
San Francisco
Washington DC
ChicagoToronto1000.00
1500.00
Tota
l E
AthensLyon
San FranciscoMontreal
0.00
500.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Route Length (km)
16
Energy Use and Network CharacteristicsE d N b f M t U it
Mexico City
3500.00
Energy and Number of Metro Units
SeoulTokyo
London
y
2500.00
3000.00
Paris2000.00
Ener
gy U
se (T
J)
Osaka
Stockholm
Berlin
S F i
Washington DC
Chicago
Toronto1000.00
1500.00
Tota
l E
AthensLyon
San Francisco
Montreal
0 00
500.00
0.000.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00 4500.00
Metro Units (wagons)17
Energy Use and BoardingsE d B di
Tokyo
3500
Energy and Boardings
Seoul
Tokyo
2500
3000
Is there a Relationship?
Paris
Mexico City1500
2000
oard
ings
(mill
ion)
Osaka
London
y
1000
1500
Tota
l Bo
Stockholm
Athens
Berlin
Lyon San Francisco
Washington DCChicago
Montreal
Toronto
0
500
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00
Total Energy Use in TJ
18
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
nerg
y U
se p
er ri
d
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0.85
1.291.06
1 00
2.00
3.00En
0 85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
ngton
DC
rancis
coxic
o City
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
tockho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
19
T Mo CWash
ing
San Fr
a
Mexi L A
Sto
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
Perhaps the San Francisco BART is too long or network
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
gdesign could be optimized
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
ergy
Use
per
ride
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0 85
1.291.06
2.00
3.00En
0.92 0.85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
gton D
C
ancis
co
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
ckho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
To
Mo ChWash
ingto
San Fr
an
Mexic Lo B At
Stoc T O S
20
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
Perhaps Chicago is too “long”, similar to San Francisco
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
But still, it is has long as Mexico city, are there any other reasons
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
ergy
Use
per
ride
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0 85
1.291.06
2.00
3.00En
0.92 0.85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
gton D
C
ancis
co
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
ckho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
To
Mo ChWash
ingto
San Fr
an
Mexic Lo B At
Stoc T O S
21
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
Are these networks “under-utilized”?
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
(Characterized as Regional Coverage and Directness)
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
ergy
Use
per
ride
What about Network Design?
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0 85
1.291.06
2.00
3.00En
0.92 0.85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
gton D
C
ancis
co
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
ckho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
To
Mo ChWash
ingto
San Fr
an
Mexic Lo B At
Stoc T O S
22
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
Could these networks be “over-utilized”?
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
The smallest systems (Athens and Lyon are along with the largest (Tokyo, Paris).
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
ergy
Use
per
ride
What about their design?
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0 85
1.291.06
2.00
3.00En
0.92 0.85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
gton D
C
ancis
co
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
ckho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
To
Mo ChWash
ingto
San Fr
an
Mexic Lo B At
Stoc T O S
23
Energy Use and Boardings
7.798.00
9.00
What about these networks?
5.90
4 81
6.00
7.00
e (M
J)
3.37
4.81
2 84
4.00
5.00
ergy
Use
per
ride
2.06 2.12 2.05
0.921.21
2.09
1.13
2.84
0 85
1.291.06
2.00
3.00En
0.92 0.85
0.00
1.00
Toronto
Montre
alChic
ago
gton D
C
ancis
co
ico C
ity
Lond
on
Paris
Lyon
Berlin
Athens
ckho
lm
Tokyo
Osaka
Seoul
To
Mo ChWash
ingto
San Fr
an
Mexic Lo B At
Stoc T O S
24
Conclusion
- We looked at 15 subway networks in the world to investigate the impact of network size on energy use
- Evidently, Total Energy Use of Subway systems is highly correlated with network size
- However Energy Use per Ride seems to be relatively independent of network size
- Emphasis is put on NETWORK DESIGN since it is correlated with Ridership
- New projects should therefore focus on network design in order to favour ridership, which will in turn minimize energy use per ride
25
