Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-1 

3.4 ENERGY 

This section provides an analysis of the energy effects as measured in terms of 

estimated fuel consumption. The analysis also considers construction period energy 

usage. The evaluation is based on preliminary estimates of projected increases in 

rail ridership and related potential diversions from other modes of transportation, 

as well as estimates of energy consumption during construction based on data from 

similar projects. 

3.4.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Federal 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requires vehicle manufacturers to comply 

with the gas mileage, or fuel economy, standards set by the Department of 

Transportation (DOT). CAFE values are obtained using the city and highway fuel 

economy test results and a weighted average of vehicle sales. The EPA administers 

the testing program that generates the fuel economy data. The National Highway 

Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of DOT, is authorized to assess 

penalties based on the information EPA supplies and to modify the standards. 

Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural 

Gas 

Executive Order 12185 encourages additional conservation of petroleum and 

natural gas by recipients of Federal financial assistance.1

State 

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency 

Standards 

Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards, 

ensures efficient energy use in new buildings constructed, or for additions and 

alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings in California. The standards 

 

1

 December 17, 1979, § 44 F.R.75093 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-2 

regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and 

lighting. The standards are updated approximately every three years and are 

enforced through the local building permit process.2 These standards may apply to 

the proposed passenger stations included within the Build Alternative. 

Local 

Monterey County General Plan 

The Monterey County General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element provides 

policies to promote efficient energy use. The use of solar, wind, and other 

renewable resources in new buildings is encouraged, minimization of energy 

expenditure for transportation, and directed development to conserve energy is 

favored. 

San Luis Obispo County General Plan 

The San Luis Obispo County General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element 

contains policies and implementation strategies related to energy conservation. 

These policies prioritize increased conservation and efficiency in all sectors of 

energy use, development and use of renewable resources, local control of energy 

decisions and sources, decreasing energy consumption, offering incentives for 

energy conservation, and integrating green building practices and incentives. 

3.4.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION 

This section describes the methods used to estimate the potential energy-related 

impacts and benefits associated with the proposed rail improvements under study. 

Impacts resulting from construction and operation are identified and evaluated. 

Operational Energy Use 

Energy use from operations is the energy consumed in the actual operation of the 

train as it moves down the track. This energy usage accounts for more than half of 

the total energy used when analyzed in terms of the life of a project. 

 

2

 California Energy Commission, 2014 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-3 

The analysis of transportation-related energy consumption focuses on the 

estimated fuel consumption relative to the use of existing transportation modes 

(auto, air, etc.). The energy consumption factors for automobiles were obtained 

from the Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 32, which bases its estimates on 

national averages for road, traffic, and weather conditions and are intended for 

general comparisons.3

 The analysis utilizes ridership findings, diversions from other 

modes of transportation, and any difference in energy usage. Reviewing the 

ridership forecasts from the Coast Daylight SDP provides a quantitative basis for 

calculating the energy consumption from VMT reduction due to increased 

passenger rail ridership. 

Construction Energy Usage 

Construction energy usage is the energy needed to construct and maintain a facility, 

and manufacture and maintain vehicles using the facility. The primary construction 

energy consumption for this analysis is the energy that would be used to construct 

and maintain new rail infrastructure. This method uses construction energy 

intensity factors4

 to calculate energy consumption. Table 3.4-1 presents the 

construction energy consumption factors used in this analysis. These estimates are 

appropriate for comparison purposes.

Additional energy resources would be consumed by the manufacturing and 

transportation of materials and equipment to and from any work sites. The amount 

of energy resources cannot be reasonably estimated without detailed construction 

plans and greater certainty about which elements of the Build Alternative will move 

forward for further design and potential construction. Therefore, energy 

consumption associated with such uses would be evaluated during any subsequent 

project-level environmental review. 

 

3

 USDOE, 2013 

4

 U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; California State Department of 

Transportation 1983. 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-4 

Table 3.4-1. Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors 

Type of Facility Rural Compared to UrbangFactor (billions of BTUs)

Highway – At grade

Rurala17.07/one-way lane mile

Urbanb26.28/one-way lane mile

Highway – Elevated 

Rurala130.38/one-way lane mile

Urbanb327.31/one-way lane mile

Railway – At Grade

Ruralc12.29/one-way trackway mile

Urband19.11/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Elevated 

Ruralc55.46/one-way trackway mile

Urband55.63/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Tunnel NAd99.51/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Station NAe78f/station

a Estimates reflect average roadway construction energy consumption. 

b Estimates reflect range maximum for roadway construction energy consumption. 

c Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. 

d Estimates reflect energy consumption for BART system construction as surrogate for rail construction through 

urban area. 

e Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because the data 

used to develop the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference between the actual values 

might be expected. 

f Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for station consumption factors. 

g Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural settings reflect 

differences in construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc 

Source: U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; California State Department of 

Transportation 1983. 

3.4.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The study area for energy use is the portion of the Coast Corridor between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo, including the areas inside and outside of the existing railroad 

ROW in which potential physical improvements could be constructed. 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-5 

Regional Environment 

The transportation sector consumes the most energy of all sectors in California, 

making up approximately 38 percent of the total energy budget.5 According to the 

California Energy Commission (CEC), the population in California is expected grow at 

an annual compound average rate of 1.1 percent between 2009 and 2030.6 By 

2020, California’s infrastructure will face increased demands given the estimated 11 

million more people and 98 million added intercity trips. This anticipated 

population growth is expected to result in increased demand for travel in California. 

In general, demand for transportation services (and, therefore, transportationrelated energy use) mirrors growth in population and economic output. In 

California, the CEC used historical trends coupled with current population and 

economic growth and gasoline price projections to estimate that on-road miles 

traveled will increase by 41 percent between 2003 and 2025 statewide—from 314 

billion to 446 billion. Notwithstanding this large increase, the CEC predicts that instate road transportation fuel gasoline usage is anticipated to remain steady at 

about 15 billion gallons of gasoline (315 million barrels of oil-equivalent) per year, as 

a result of the introduction of more fuel-efficient cars.7

Electricity Demand 

The portion of the Coast Corridor considered in this document is located within the 

70,000 square-mile service area of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), a large investorowned utility that serves 15 million people throughout northern and central 

California. PG&E produces or buys its energy from a mix of conventional and 

renewable generating sources, which is then delivered via 141,215 circuit miles of 

electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission 

lines. 8 

3.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative assumes that the only physical rail improvement that 

would be added between Salinas and San Luis Obispo would be the implementation 

 

5

 EIA, 2011 

6

 CEC, 2010, p. 11 

7

 CEC, 2005a

8

 PG&E, 2013 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-6 

of PTC. Construction-period energy use would be assumed during implementation 

of such improvements; operation of PTC would also require additional energy usage 

above existing levels. 

Under the No Build Alternative, enhancement of passenger rail operations between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo would not occur and existing passenger rail service 

would continue, including the Coast Starlight and Amtrak service to Southern 

California. Therefore, there would be little or no change in operational energy 

consumption related to passenger rail service in the Corridor. 

As set forth in Chapter 9 of the SDP, freight rail operations in the Corridor are 

projected to increase. As of 2013, 2 daily long-haul freight trains travel between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo. By the year 2020, the SDP projects that a total of 4 

daily long-haul freight trains would travel along the Corridor. Accordingly, energy 

consumption related to freight rail would likely increase over existing conditions, 

though new freight rail service could potentially utilize newer, more energy efficient 

locomotive technology. 

Build Alternative 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

The Build Alternative would result in construction energy usage for the manufacture 

of materials, construction activities and equipment associated with implementation 

of the proposed rail improvements, travel of construction workers, and potential 

traffic delays and/or detours (rail and auto) as a result of construction. 

Energy-related consumption factors for construction activities are presented in 

Table 3.4-1. Construction-related energy consumption for locomotives varies 

between 12 and 60 million BTUs, depending on the location of construction (i.e. 

urban/rural and elevated/at-grade). 

The energy used during construction would be any additional energy consumption 

beyond what is associated with the No Build Alternative. This would constitute 

irretrievable energy expenditure. Specific design and construction plans are needed 

to calculate the construction-related energy consumption associated with each 

physical improvement. 

Operational Energy Consumption 

The Build Alternative will result in operating two additional trains per day, which will 

result in additional energy consumption. 

Implementation of new service would likely result in increased ridership. It is 

expected that some, if not all of the additional passengers would have traveled via 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-7 

personal automobile or bus. Reviewing the ridership forecasts from the Coast 

Daylight SDP can provide a quantitative basis for calculating the energy 

consumption from VMT reduction due to increased passenger rail ridership. Table 

3.4-2 below from the Coast Daylight SDP presents annual ridership forecasts for 

2020 and 2040. 

Table 3.4-2. 2020 and 2040 Annual forecasts for Coast Daylight Service Options 

Forecast Year 2020 Forecast Year 2040

Baseline Build Baseline Build

 Annual ridership

Coast Daylight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 0 87,000 0 217,000

Markets Through San Luis Obispo 0 37,000 0 57,000

Total 0 124,000 0 274,000

Coast Starlight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 74,000 73,000 103,000 107,000

Markets Through San Luis Obispo 28,000 32,000 37,000 43,000

Total 102,000 105,000 140,000 150,000

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b 

The SDP forecasts increased ridership with the advent of new service, which could in 

turn potentially result in an overall decrease in automobile VMT. As shown in Table 

3.4-2, the SDP projects that Coast Daylight service would generate about 124,000 

annual person trips by 2020. This averages to about 300 person trips per day. The 

SDP roughly quantifies the increase in rail ridership into a projected reduction of 

about 11,000 daily VMT for the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region as a whole. The 

projected expansion of Coast Daylight service by the year 2040 would further 

reduce VMT in the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region by an additional 15,000 daily 

miles (26,000 daily miles total). It is expected that a portion of these passengers 

would be using the rail service in place of vehicle, bus, or air travel, thus reducing 

transportation-related energy consumption. These VMT reductions comprise 

relatively small amounts of total regional VMT and are thus expected to translate to 

small reductions in energy consumption. 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-8 

Table 3.4-3 presents energy use associated with various types of passenger travel 

from 2011. 

Table 3.4-3. Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2011 

Vehicle 

Miles 

(millions)

Passenger 

Miles 

(millions)

Load 

factor 

(persons/

vehicle

Energy Intensities

Energy Use 

(trillion 

Btu)

(Btu per 

vehicle 

mile)

(Btu per 

passenger 

mile)

Cars 1,561,400 2,420,325 1.55 5,214 3,364 8,140.0

Transit Buses 2,425 21,574 8.9 37,718 4,240 91.5

Air (certified 

route) 5,542 566,622 102.2 269,681 2,638 1,494.7

Intercity Rail 

(Amtrak) 296 6,670 22.5 49,080 2,214 15.5

Source: USDOE, 2013. 

As shown in Table 3.4-3, travel by rail is the most energy efficient mode of longdistance, intercity transportation. Intercity rail, such as Amtrak, consumes about 

1,000 to 2,000 BTUs per passenger mile less than bus or automobile. This would 

result in substantial BTU savings per passenger mile, which over the life of the 

project would result in notable energy savings relative to the No Build Alternative. 

Travel by airplane is also more energy efficient on a mile-by-mile basis when 

compared to automobiles and buses; however, air service is not a viable mode of 

transportation between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. Moreover, intrastate and 

other “short-hop” flights are generally considered less efficient on a fuel-per-mile 

basis, owing to substantial fuel requirements associated with take-off. 

It should be noted that the rail would be more energy efficient only when sufficient 

number of passengers use the train. An empty train would not reduce energy 

consumption. The addition of the Coast Daylight service would have the potential 

to reduce automobile and bus VMT and energy consumption, but it would also 

increase rail VMT and associated energy consumption. The displacement of 

automobile VMT to increased ridership on the railway would result in reduced 

transportation-related energy consumption. However, rail trips would occur 

regardless of whether a person would choose to travel by car or by rail. Thus, there 

would only be a decrease in energy consumption if the traveler chooses to travel by 

rail instead of automobile. 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-9 

Physical Improvements 

Track Upgrades 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

Construction of the track retrofits and upgrades would require manufacturing of 

steel to replace all lumber ties that are currently in place along the alignment. 

Manufacturing the steel and other materials for these track upgrades would 

increase indirect energy use. 

Moderate energy consumption would also result from the use of powered 

construction equipment and travel of workers to work sites. Diesel powered trucks 

and/or locomotives would be needed to bring equipment and supplies to active 

construction areas. Additional temporary energy consumption would result from 

idling or slowed locomotives due to construction related interruptions to the 

existing railway. 

Operational Energy Usage 

Upgraded tracks would result in greater efficiencies by reducing friction and 

vibrations. Furthermore, proposed steel rail ties are recognized to require less 

maintenance, thereby resulting in reduced energy consumption from maintenance 

vehicles and equipment. 

Signal Upgrades/New Powered Switches 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

Construction of the signal upgrades and new powered switches would result in 

minimal indirect energy consumption. Manufacturing the materials needed and 

delivering them to the construction site would require energy use; however, the 

quantity needed is dependent on the number of signals that would be 

replaced/upgraded, which is currently unknown. Some energy consumption would 

occur associated with worker travel to and from the construction sites, but 

extensive use of heavy machinery to install these improvements is not anticipated. 

Operational Energy Usage 

The signal upgrades and new powered switches will improve operational service and 

reliability. Under the current Track Warrant Control (TWC) portions of the 

alignment, train operators must wait for permission from UPRR dispatchers before 

moving from block to block, slowing train speeds and resulting in periods of idling. 

CTC manages this centrally via remotely controlled signals and switches, reducing 

the amount of time trains spend idling, ultimately increasing the efficiency of the 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-10

railway infrastructure.9 These upgrades would likely improve the safety, efficiency, 

and reliability of service, which could result in greater ridership due to improved 

service, as well as allow for denser rail use (more trains on the railroad due to 

greater traffic control and efficiency). This could result in more energy consumption 

with more trains using the rail, but operations would run more efficiently and thus 

consumption could be offset by increased ridership (less individual VMT), and less 

time spend idling on the rail. 

Curve/Track Realignments 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

Construction of the curve and track realignments would result in increased indirect 

energy consumption from materials manufacturing. Operation of potential 

construction equipment, construction worker travel, as well as delays and detours 

during construction of the track realignments would also lead to additional energy 

consumption. Some of this increased energy consumption could be offset by 

improved service efficiency and subsequent increased ridership and related 

reduction in VMT. Given that the curve realignment designs are schematic, specific 

energy reduction resulting from improved service cannot be quantified. 

Operational Energy Usage 

Operational energy use may increase from improved train speeds along the Corridor 

resulting from track straightening. If one or more curve realignments ultimately 

reduce the length of the railway, this could offset some of the increased energy 

consumption related to higher speeds. Furthermore, increased train speeds could 

serve to improve train service, resulting in increased ridership and reduced 

consumption from personal automobiles. 

Sidings/Siding Extensions and New Second Mainline 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

Construction of new sidings, siding extensions, and the new second mainline would 

increase indirect energy consumption from new materials manufacturing. 

Operation of required construction equipment and construction worker travel 

would also lead to additional energy consumption. Some of this increased energy 

consumption could be offset by improved service efficiency and subsequent 

increased ridership and related reduction in VMT. 

 

9

 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 9-4 
Coast Corridor 

Draft Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy 

3.4-11

Operational Energy Usage 

Operational efficiency would increase with new and improved siding extensions and 

the new second mainline. There would be fewer passenger train delays as the new 

sidings would accommodate longer freight trains. Increased freight train delays 

could occur, resulting in increased freight rail energy consumption due to idling. 

However, overall less train idling could potentially occur due to more optimal 

locations of siding and increased train speeds. Operation of the new second 

mainline, along with improved signaling, would increase train speeds and result in 

increased locomotive efficiencies (in mpg), and could potentially reduce overall 

operational energy consumption. Personal automobile VMT and associated energy 

consumption would likely be reduced by improving the passenger rail service, and 

result in increased rail ridership. 

New Stations 

Construction-Period Energy Usage 

Construction of the new passenger stations in Soledad and King City would increase 

indirect energy consumption resulting from manufacturing, operation of required 

construction equipment, and construction worker travel. However, the stations 

themselves would consist of a platform and minimal amenities, thus requiring 

nominal construction materials. Some of this increased energy consumption could 

be offset by increased ridership and related reduction in automobile VMT. 

Operational Energy Usage 

Operation of the new passenger stations would consume some energy, mostly to 

operate ticket stations, restrooms, and other general daily building energy needs. 

Both stations are anticipated to be simple, thus energy requirements will likely be 

low. Additional train stations would introduce new stops along the alignment, and 

could be expected to use more energy to accelerate and decelerate in these 

locations. Increased accessibly to the new stations would likely increase ridership, 

and could offset some of the added energy consumption by reducing personal 

vehicle VMT. 

3.4.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be developed and 

implemented as specific improvements are implemented to reduce potential energy 

related impacts. Such strategies may include the following: 
Coast Corridor 

3.4 Energy Draft Program EIS/EIR 

3.4-12

MIN-TRA-1. Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

MIN-TRA-2. Explore the opportunity to use newer, more energy efficient 

construction equipment and materials. 

MIN-TRA-3. Consider, as feasible, acquisition of energy-efficient rolling stock to 

provide new passenger service. 

MIN-TRA-4. Implement a program to encourage construction workers to carpool or 

use public transportation to get to and from active work sites. 

MIN-TRA-5. As feasible, minimize grade changes in steep terrain areas to reduce the 

use of diesel fuel. 

MIN-TRA-6. Encourage the development of intermodal transit connections to 

reduce automobile VMT associated with the railway. 

3.4.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS 

As specific components of the Build Alternative are further designed, a more refined 

analysis of operation and construction energy usage should be conducted. 

Evaluation and identification of appropriate mitigation measures will be conducted 

during project-level review where the impacts to energy usage would be substantial.