Hello, dear colleagues. My research topic is the park-and-ride system (P&R). I have calculated the percentage of trips by private vehicles that the P&R system reduces in one day to the city center (about 17%). The question is how I could transform such a reduction of private vehicle trips to pollution reduction? I mean, what is the percentage that pollution is reduced by implementing a P&R system? Some suggestions. Thank you for your feedback.
https://books.google.iq/books?id=d-empYZ-M5cC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=What+is+the+
How accurate do you want your measure to be?
You already know there is a 17% general reduction...
You can also follow Zamir Mera 's suggestion and convert to specific pollutants.
You could also survey what kinds of vehicles are not being driven since, for example, carbon emissions would vary by vehicle efficiency, the type of car removed from the road would affect the CO2 emission differently.
Thank you, Zamir Mera , for your important comment. I will read more about this method. Very interesting.
Michael J. Lynch I would like to get a high accuracy rate because, with this argument, I could determine a real percentage of CO2 reduction when the Park and Ride areis implemented. My data includes the number of vehicles and their type. I would like to use a method that other researchers have applied to other modes of transport. (In my case, it's the P&R transport). Maybe a study: emissions by vehicle type and kilometers traveled. The problem is that I don't know how to relate the percentage reduction in trips to the kilometers traveled and the type of vehicle. Perhaps there is a method already used in other research for other transport modes. Or create a new method
Jairo Fabian Ortega Ortega -- I'm not sure exactly what data you have, but it seems like you will be estimating. Why do I say that? (1) how far are the cars NOT traveling once they are parked (how many km/miles were saved?) (2) you need more than the type of car, you need the exact vehicle to determine the co2 saved (e.g., a 2015, X car) because you would want the vehicle efficiency measure for each vehicle. If you read Zamir Mera 's suggestion, you will see how to do this for each vehicle. But, again, unless you have individual vehicle data, you can only estimate the savings. EG, you already noted you had a 17% reduction in traffic -- assuming that the vehicles that ARE NOT traveling are the same as the vehicles that are, you already know you have a 17% savings.
Thank Michael J. Lynch for your great help. I'd like to share with you an article that might be usefulArticle Policy packages for modal shift and CO2 reduction in Lille, France
. Since my research is the Park and Ride system. 1) it means that the journey from an origin to a destination involves two transport modes. One portion of the trip by private vehicle, using the "park and ride," finally arrive at the destination in public transport 2) there is a second option which is to make the entire trip from the origin to the destination by private vehicle 3) I have calculated this: The percentage of those trips from the private vehicle to the destination that will be changed to P&R, means that 17 percent less pollution at the destination by private vehicle. However, my question goes further. I can calculate the modal share that produces a P&R. However, if all those private vehicles were electric cars, pollution would be reduced entirely. What I mean is that a complex model with a set of variables to help identify which combination would best reduce pollution. The modal share is calculated through a mathematical model that I have already done, which is recommended as the next step to calculate this pollution reduction, a model, simulation, methodology, or a hybrid model. To make this new model that you recommend me to use. Thanks, Zamir Mera , T. H. Al-Noor , Michael J. Lynch
You should evaluate the avarage CO2 emission due to car usage . Therefore you can start from the stochiometric reaction of combustion to evaluate the theoretical CO2 emitted per kg of fuel, then you should check for an average combustion efficiency in order to account for higher emissions than theoretical one. In this way you are able to evaluate kg of CO2 /kg of fuel considered (I suggest to make an average between diesel and gasoline engines).
The next step is to use the average consumption of a car in km/ kg of fuel to get kg CO2 emitted/ km . Also in this case I suggest to use a mean value for consumption.
This analysis is only qualitative, if you want to get a complete overview of Life Cycle Assesment analysis LCA . In this way you are abe to make a complete and exhaustive comparison between cars and P&R
Thank you for your time in giving me this explanation Domenico Cristiano Mannino . It's very helpful. What I plan to do first is to apply the mathematical model to know the modal share that is produced when implementing a P&R and then to use most of the contributions mentioned in this discussion. In order to calculate the CO2 reduction when a P&R system is implemented.
It has been a pleasure , write me if you need anything else
I assume that you are already including the emissions from the NEW system. I only mention it because (of course?) all of the comments are specific to the individual vehicle reductions. Those comments should be helpful, BUT don't forget that while those emissions are reduced, the operation of the feeder system (trains, busses?) will be generating emissions that were NOT previously put out. SO, the REAL "reduction of emissions" from the SYSTEM is only the difference between the reduction and the increase - not at all the same as simply the car emissions reduction! To really be fair and honest, emissions from all sorts of activities to BUILD a transit system (rail, if it didn't exist before) should really be included for a "Life Cycle" assessment of reductions. Too many "green" projects only look at the LAST step incorrectly, and other alternatives may be better.
Thank you Steven Cooke in advance for your answer, it is correct to say that this leads us to make a more in-depth analysis since the P&R system is a connection point that allows intermodal transport, which would decrease the pollution of private vehicles but increase the pollution of public transport. What I mean is that this study implies a more in-depth investigation.
Dear Jairo,
Transformation depends upon area. Metropolitan and Urban area has changed in the last 30 to 40 years. Implementing PR system can imply 15- 23% of daily pollution reduction arose by vehicles everyday. Based on modeling of the metropolitan areas of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio, reduction in PM2.5 I/O ratio from 0.57 to 0.1 after adoption of in-duct HEPA filtration would lead to estimated annual decreases of 700 (0.014%) premature deaths, 940 (0.019%) hospital and ER visit, and 130,000 (2.6%) asthma attacks.
(1) An increase of fare will put an additional cars on the highway of the region and will result in reduction of 10 % about ridership.similarly in reduction in fare will likely to increase 14% of ridership as well.
(2) PR system is the cost of investment in public transport.
(3) Effective in health risk. These potential complications of partially effective personal interventions to reduce exposure or risk highlight the primary importance of reducing emissions of air pollutants at their sources. reductions in exposure at the population level, either due to natural experiments or long-term trends, improve health outcomes.
Ashish
Dear Jairo,
Transformation depends upon area. Metropolitan and Urban area has changed in the last 30 to 40 years. Implementing PR system can imply 15- 23% of daily pollution reduction arose by vehicles everyday. Based on modeling of the metropolitan areas of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio, reduction in PM2.5 I/O ratio from 0.57 to 0.1 after adoption of in-duct HEPA filtration would lead to estimated annual decreases of 700 (0.014%) premature deaths, 940 (0.019%) hospital and ER visit, and 130,000 (2.6%) asthma attacks.
(1) An increase of fare will put an additional cars on the highway of the region and will result in reduction of 10 % about ridership.similarly in reduction in fare will likely to increase 14% of ridership as well.
(2) PR system is the cost of investment in public transport.
(3) Effective in health risk. These potential complications of partially effective personal interventions to reduce exposure or risk highlight the primary importance of reducing emissions of air pollutants at their sources. reductions in exposure at the population level, either due to natural experiments or long-term trends, improve health outcomes.
Ashish
Jairo Fabian Ortega Ortega and Ashish Thakur As discussions of the post-pandemic economy begin to flourish, it brings to mind the fact that MANY of our previous "patterns" may no longer be valid! It may be an unfortunate situation for longitudinal research or correlations based on data sets that are simply no longer valid.
Modes, methods, and mechanisms of transport may be going through a major shift from a variety of social and economic forces. Despite a possible time-line setback for publication, it is important to be aware of it to avoid publishing anything that will be historical at best, and possibly irrelevant. Good Luck!
Thank you, Ashish Thakur , for your excellent explanation. I will take all of them into account in order to develop this study. I appreciate your detailed answers. I am currently working on a solid model for the near future.
Thank you Steven Cooke for your advice I will consider it and thank you for your valuable contribution
Please go to this link:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics