Abstract
In this study, energy efficiency and environmental impacts of railway and bus transportation are applied in three steps. While comparison between railway system and bus transportation options is discussed in first and second steps, indirect, energy consumption changing of railway system with person number and gradient rate is studied in the last step, direct. Firstly, energy efficiency of railway systems is compared with bus transportation in urban transportation in Istanbul in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2). Then, energy consumptions and cost analysis of both systems are evaluated by calculations on the basis of numerical data, received from certain organizations. And finally, they are compared in terms of the number of passengers and gradient rate energy consumptions by using SimuX simulation program. Preferring railway systems in transportation becomes more important because of best environment impacts (CO2 per capita will decrease 244.6 g), energy cost (bus transportation is 2.66 times lower than railway systems), and energy efficiency (energy consumption with gradient value increases by 18.62 and with passenger number increases per capita by 3.63).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- CO2 :
-
Carbon dioxide
- EU:
-
European Union
- IETT:
-
Istanbul electric tramway and tunnel establishments
- OECD:
-
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
- TEP:
-
Ton equivalent petrol
- UIC:
-
International Union of Railways
- UNCBD:
-
United Nations Convention to Biologics Diversity
- UNCCD:
-
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
- UNFCCC:
-
United Nations Framework Convention to Climate Change
References
EİEİ Bina Enerji Yöneticileri Eğitimi Cilt 1 (2008)
Landwehr M, Marie-Lilliu C (2002) Transportation projections in OECD regions detailed report, İnternational energy agency
Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438
Sims CA (1972) Money, income and causality. Am Econ Rev 62:540–552
Kraft J, Kraft A (1978) On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energ Dev 3:401–403
Akarca AT, Long TV (1979) Energy and employment: a time series analysis of the causal relationship. Resour Energ 2:151–162
Akarca AT, Long TV (1980) On the relationship between energy and GNP: a re-examination. J Energ Dev 5:326–331
Yu ESH, Hwang BK (1984) The relationship between energy and GNP: further results. Energ Econ 6:186–190
Yu ESH, Choi JY (1985) The causal relationship between energy and GNP: an international comparison. J Energ Dev 10:249–272
Erol U, Yu ESH (1987) Time series analysis of the causal relationships between US energy and employment. Resour Energ 9:75–89
Erol U, Yu ESH (1989) Spectral analysis of the relationship between energy and income for industrialised countries. J Energ Dev 13:113–122
Yu ESH, Jin JC (1992) Cointegration tests of energy consumption, income and employment. Resour Energ 14:259–266
Asafu-Adjaye J (2000) The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: time series evidence from Asian developing countries. Energ Econ 22(6):615–625
Pietzsch W (1979) Strassenplanung 3. Neuearbeitete und Erweiterte Auflage. Werner
Gökdağ M (2005) Kentsel Ulaşımda Karayolu ve Raylı Taşıma Sistemlerinin Bazı Önemli Faktörlere Göre Karşılaştırılması. Ulaşım ve Trafik Kongresi—Sergisi, Sayı:1 chapters: 394–400
http://www.İETT.gov.tr. Accessed 30 Aug 2012
IEA Key Energy Statics (2005)
Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (2006)
Accardo L (2009) Energy saving onboard. Energy efficiency days France
Sussmann JM (2005) Perpesctives on intelligent transportation systems. Springer, New York
Kumbaroğlu G, Arıkan Y (2009) Türkiye’nin CO2 Salımları Açık Toplum Vakfı, İstanbul
Açıkbaş S (2008) Çok Hatli Çok Araçli Rayli Sistemlerde Enerji Tasarrufuna Yönelik Sürüş Kontrolü, İTÜ
Energy Technology Life Cycle Analysis that Takes CO2 Emission Reduction into Consideration (1995) Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry annual research report, Japan
Doneset al R (2003) Greenhouse gas emissions from energy systems: comparison and overview, Paul Scherrer Institut Annual Report 2003, Annex IV (Table 2, page 38)
Spadaro JV et al (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions of electricity generation chains: assessing the difference, IAEA Bulletin 42/2/2000 (page 21)
Enviromental Product Decleration of Electricity from Torness Nuclear Power Station, British Energy (2005)
İstanbul Ulaşım a.ş. interviewed at 25 Sept 2012
Kuşdoğan Ş et al. (2012) Energy efficiency in rail systems and comparison between rail system in istanbul and bus transportation in terms of carbondioxide (CO2) emission GCGW, İstanbul
tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_260. Accessed 15 Aug 2012
Öztürk T, Öztürk Z (2010) Istanbul İçin Kara Ulaşımı Üstyapı Maliyetlerine Bir Yaklaşım İMO Teknik Dergi. 330 Short Announcement. doi: 2012 5059-5064
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sertsoz, M., Kusdogan, S., Altuntas, O. (2013). Assessment of Energy Efficiencies and Environmental Impacts of Railway and Bus Transportation Options. In: Dincer, I., Colpan, C., Kadioglu, F. (eds) Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global Warming. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0_48
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0_48
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7587-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7588-0
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)