During the past 2 years, high-speed rail (HSR) has become a popular concept in the United States partially because of its perceived environmental benefits. Many states are competing for HSR funding after the federal government made HSR a domestic priority. Of course, the allocation of funding is subject to many constraints. Among them, one of the necessary considerations should be the environmental efficiency of each HSR line. Using the proposed lines in California (CAHSR) and Florida (FLHSR) as examples, this article details a method that can be used to assess the life-cycle energy usage and carbon emission efficiency for new HSR lines. Ridership is forecasted based on data from existing HSR lines, and energy and emissions are analysed with the Economic Input–Output–Life-Cycle Analysis tool. Calculation shows that the construction of CAHSR is more environmentally efficient primarily due to its higher ridership predictions.
Bek, B. H. and Sorenson, S. C. Future emissions from railway traffic, Report ET-EO-98-02, Department of Energy Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1998.
2.
Bradley (MJ) and Associates, Incorporated, and American Bus Association Foundation. Updated comparison of energy use & CO2 emissions from different transportation modes, 2010.
3.
LiuH.MaoB.DingY.JiaW.LaiS.Train energy-saving scheme with evaluation in urban mass transit systems. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol., 2007, 7(5), 68–73.
4.
MilfordR. L.AllwoodJ. M.Assessing the CO2 impact of current and future rail track in the UK. Transp. Res. Transp. Environ., 2010, 15(2), 61–72.
5.
Kalenoja, H. Energy consumption and environmental effects of passenger transport modes – a life-cycle study on passenger transport modes, Transportation Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, 1996.
6.
Chester, M. and Horvath, A. Environmental life-cycle assessment of passenger transportation: a detailed methodology for energy, greenhouse gas, and criteria pollutant inventories of automobiles, buses, light rail, heavy rail and air, Department of Civil And Environmental Engineering, University of California, 2008, 46–69.
7.
ChesterM.HorvathA.Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: the case of California. Environ. Res. Lett., 2010, 5(1), 014003–014003.
8.
Brand, D., Parody, T. E., Hsu, P. S., and Tierney, K. F. Forecasting High-Speed Rail Ridership. Transp. Res. Rec., 1992, 1342, 12–18.
9.
Vaca, E. Intercity rail ridership forecasting and the implementation of high-speed rail in California, Transportation Center, University of California, 1995.
10.
StopherP. R.MetcalfH.WilmotC. G.CatalinaA. J.SchimpelerC. C.Estimating patronage for a feasibility study of high-speed rail in Thailand. Transp. Res. Rec., 1999, 169112–18.
11.
Charles River Associates. Independent ridership and passenger revenue projections for high speed rail alternatives in California, 2000.
12.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Bay area/California high-speed rail ridership and revenue forecasting study ridership and revenue forecasts, Report for the CAHSRA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2007.
EIOLCAEconomic input-output analysis-based life-cycle assessment software, 2007, Carnegie Mellon University, Green Design Initiative, available from http://www.eiolca.net. (2 July 2010).
15.
LiX.ZhuY.ZhangZ.An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build. Environ., 2010, 45(3), 775–776.
WinEst Pro Plus (11), [WinEst], available from winest.com.
18.
Pratt, D. Measuring excavation and sitework. InEstimating for residential construction, 1996, ch.3, pp. 45–46 (Thomson Delmar Learning, Clifton Park, NY).
Pickrell, D. H. Urban rail transit projects: forecast versus actual ridership and cost. DOT-T-91-04. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC.
22.
PickrellD. H.A desire named streetcar fantasy and fact in rail transit planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 1992, 58158–176.
23.
MackettR. L.EdwardsM.The impact of new urban public transport systems: will the expectations be met?. Transp. Res. Pol. Pract., 1998, 32(4), 231–245.
24.
FlyvbjergB.Skamris HolmM. K.BuhlS. L.How (in)accurate are demand forecasts for public works projects?. J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 2000, 71(2), 131–146.
25.
Chester, M. and Horvath, A. Life-cycle energy and emissions inventories for motorcycles, diesel automobiles, school buses, electric buses, Chicago Rail, and New York City Rail, Department of Civil And Environmental Engineering, University of California, 2009.
Federal Railroad Administration. Vision for high-speed rail in America, 2009.
28.
Hendrickson, C. T., Lave, L. B., and Matthews, H. S. Environmental life-cycle assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach, resources for the future press, 2005.
29.
Jorgensen, M. W. and Sorenson, S. C. Estimating emissions from railway traffic, 1997.
30.
LevinsonD.MathieuJ. M.GillenD.KanafaniA.The full cost of high-speed rail: an engineering approach. Ann. Reg. Sci., 1997, 31(2), 189–215.
31.
MarinovM.WhiteT.Rail freight systems: what future?. World Transp. Pol. Pract., 2009, 15(2), 10–28.
