Appendix Q: 

Energy

Discipline Report

Point Defiance Bypass 

Project

Energy

Discipline Report

September 2012

Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page i

Table of Contents

Summary........................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Operational Effects....................................................................................................................... 1

Construction Effects ..................................................................................................................... 2

Effects of Changing Climate on the Project.................................................................................. 3

Operational Minimization Measures ............................................................................................. 3

Construction Minimization Measures............................................................................................ 3

Chapter 1 – Project Description ........................................................................................................ 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4

Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 4

What alternatives are being considered for the Point Defiance Bypass Project?......................... 5

What’s happening in the bypass corridor today?.......................................................................... 6

What would happen if the Project were not built? ........................................................................ 6

What are the proposed improvements and related activities of the Point Defiance Bypass 

Project?........................................................................................................................................ 6

What are the proposed operational changes that would result from the Point Defiance Bypass 

Project?........................................................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 – Methodology.................................................................................................................. 9

Operational Analysis .................................................................................................................... 9

Train Fuel Use.......................................................................................................................... 9

Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................... 10

Construction Analysis................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 13

Energy Use ................................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 4 – Project Effects ............................................................................................................. 14

Operational Effects..................................................................................................................... 14

Construction Effects ................................................................................................................... 14

Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................... 15

Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 16

Effects of Changing Climate on the Project................................................................................ 16

Chapter 5 – Recommended Minimization Measures....................................................................... 17

Operational................................................................................................................................. 17

Construction............................................................................................................................... 18

References...................................................................................................................................... 19
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page ii Energy Discipline Report

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Alternatives Operation Comparison................................................................................... 2

Exhibit 2. Construction Energy and GHG Emissions......................................................................... 2

Exhibit 3. Build Alternative Components ........................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 4 .Train Fuel Efficiency.......................................................................................................... 9

Exhibit 5. Global Warming Potentials and Emission Factors........................................................... 10

Exhibit 6. Conversion Factors for Construction Analysis................................................................. 11

Exhibit 7. Existing Emissions .......................................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 8. Alternatives Operation Comparison................................................................................. 14

Exhibit 9. Construction GHG Emissions.......................................................................................... 15
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 1

Summary

Introduction

This Energy Discipline Report evaluates the energy consumption and 

related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the construction and 

operation of the Project. The study area for this analysis includes the rail 

line for both the existing service and the proposed new alignment. 

The Transportation sector is a significant source of GHG emissions and 

contributes to climate change primarily through the burning of gasoline 

and diesel fuels. National estimates show that the transportation sector 

(including on-road vehicles, construction activities, airplanes, and boats) 

accounts for almost 30 percent of total domestic CO2 emissions. However, 

in Washington State, transportation accounts for nearly half of GHG 

emissions because the state relies heavily on hydropower for electricity 

generation, unlike other states that rely on fossil fuels such as coal, 

petroleum, and natural gas to generate electricity. 

Operational Effects

Currently, there are four daily Amtrak Cascades round trips and one daily

Coast Starlight round trip through the study area, for a total of ten trips. 

The Project would add two daily Amtrak Cascades round trips for a total 

of 14 daily trips between Seattle and Portland. 

Exhibit 1 compares the energy and GHG effects of the Project alternatives. 

Although the Build Alternative accommodates two additional round trips 

per day, the Project alignment is 6.5 miles shorter and the trains are more 

fuel efficient allowing for more energy efficient travel than the current 

alignment. Therefore, the Build Alternative uses 37 fewer gallons of fuel 

per day. Additionally, due to more fuel efficient trains and a route 

reduction, the Build Alternative would produce fewer emissions per trip 

and fewer total emissions.
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 2 Energy Discipline Report

Exhibit 1. Alternatives Operation Comparison

Travel from Seattle to Portland

2009 2018

Existing No Action Build

Amtrak Cascades Trips Daily 8 8 12

Amtrak Coast Starlight Trips Daily 2 2 2

Distance through Study Area (miles) 26.5 26.5 20

Total Distance Daily (miles) 265 265 273

Diesel Fuel Use Daily (gal) 407 407 322

GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Daily 4.2 4.2 3.3

Annual Difference [Build Minus No Action] (MT CO2e ) -321

Construction Effects

Energy is required for construction of the Project. Construction machinery 

uses fuel in hauling materials and building the transportation facility. 

Energy is also used in the production of materials used for construction. 

Construction energy analysis involves the various activities, and types and 

quantities of materials used in the construction of the project, such as 

excavation, embankment, and structural materials. The total amount of 

construction energy calculated for the Project is a summation of the 

energy used for each type of construction activity. 

The construction analysis also included both on-site emissions from 

construction equipment operation and emissions produced off-site to 

create and transport construction materials. Off-site energy use is called 

“embodied energy,” and is included in the factors used to calculate 

construction energy and emissions. The majority of construction emissions 

are from fuel combustion from equipment used on-site. Project 

construction would produce minor GHG emissions as a result of the 

operation of construction equipment, worker vehicles, and trucks 

transporting equipment, parts, and materials. These emissions would be 

temporary and short-term.

There is a rough relationship between the dollar cost and energy costs; 

thus, the alternatives can be compared for cost efficiency. Construction 

energy and GHG estimates shown in Exhibit 2 are therefore based on 

Project costs.

Exhibit 2. Construction Energy and GHG Emissions

Existing and 

No Action Build

Construction Energy Requirements (MBtu) 0 539,000 

Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e ) 0 41,000 
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 3

Effects of Changing Climate on the Project

FRA and WSDOT acknowledge the effects of climate change may alter 

the function, sizing, and operations of transportation facilities. In addition 

to mitigating GHG emissions, FRA and WSDOT must also ensure that 

transportation facilities can adapt to the changing climate. To ensure that 

transportation facilities function as intended for their planned lifespan, 

they should be designed to perform under the variable conditions expected 

as a result of climate change. 

FRA and WSDOT considered the information on climate change with 

regard to preliminary design as well as the potential for changes in the 

surrounding natural environment. The Project is designed to more than 50 

years. As part of its standard design, the Project has incorporated features 

that would provide greater resilience and function with the potential 

effects brought on by climate change. For example, shifting the rail line 

inland would protect the Project from sea level rise.

Operational Minimization Measures

FRA and WSDOT and its transportation partners are working to reduce 

energy consumption and GHG emissions from the transportation sector 

throughout the state, including the rail system.

Additional fuel efficiency would be realized with the use of the new 

models of locomotives being built for this route in the future. The F59PHI 

locomotives currently being used were state of the art when they were 

introduced 13 years ago. However, existing freight locomotives being 

introduced today are 10-12 percent more energy efficient than locomotives 

built in the mid-1990s. Therefore, it is assumed that new passenger 

locomotives purchased in the next several years would be at least 10 

percent more fuel efficient than the existing F59PHIs.

Construction Minimization Measures

Measures that reduce energy use would also reduce GHG emissions. 

Construction practices that minimize roadway congestion and encourage 

efficient energy use would be implemented and possible measures may

include the following:

• Limit equipment idling

• Encourage construction workers to carpool

• Locate staging areas near work sites

• Schedule the delivery of materials during off-peak hours to allow 

trucks to travel to the site with less congestion and at fuel-efficient 

speeds
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 4 Energy Discipline Report

Chapter 1 – Project Description

Introduction

Under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program and 

pursuant to a programmatic Tier I Environmental Assessment (EA) the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has approved an application from 

the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to improve 

the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC), a federally designated 

high-speed rail corridor. One project included in the PNWRC application 

is the Point Defiance Bypass Project (the Project), which would respond to 

deficiencies in the existing rail operations around Point Defiance. This 

Discipline Report has been prepared in support of the project-specific EA 

for the Point Defiance Bypass project.

The Project is located in Pierce County along an existing approximately 

20-mile rail corridor between Tacoma and Nisqually.1 The Project would 

provide for the re-routing of Amtrak passenger trains from the BNSF rail 

line that runs along the southern Puget Sound shoreline (Puget Sound 

route) to the Point Defiance Bypass route, an existing rail corridor that 

runs along the west side of I-5. The Project would consist of railroad track 

and support facility improvements, and relocation of the Tacoma Amtrak 

Station to Freighthouse Square in Tacoma.

Purpose and Need

As described above, the Point Defiance Bypass route is part of the larger 

PNWRC. Within Washington State, the vision for the PNWRC is to 

“...improve intercity passenger rail service by reducing travel times and 

achieving greater schedule reliability in order to accommodate growing 

intercity travel demand...”2.

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable highspeed intercity passenger rail service along the PNWRC between Tacoma 

and Nisqually. In conformity with the decisions under the Tier 1 

Programmatic EA, the PNWRC Improvement Program has reduced the 

overall environmental effects of providing improved passenger rail service 

with the use of an existing transportation corridor and associated 

infrastructure, rather than creating a new corridor. 

 1 The three owners of the project corridor are Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, and BNSF. 2 WSDOT 2009
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 5

The Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail 

alignment around Point Defiance. The existing alignment (Puget Sound 

route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and is 

therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity 

passenger rail service without substantial improvements. In addition, the 

existing alignment has physical and operational constraints that adversely 

affect both passenger train scheduling and reliability.

Improving intercity passenger rail service in the project area and meeting 

the Project needs would be accomplished by:

• Enhanced Frequency: Increasing Amtrak Cascades round-trips from four 

to six by 2017 to meet projected service demands.

• Improved Reliability: Reducing scheduling conflicts with freight trains 

that often result in delays, and by minimizing or avoiding operational 

delays (e.g., drawbridge openings) and weather-related delays (e.g., 

mudslides), and improving on-time performance from 68 percent to 88 

percent.

• Enhanced Efficiency: Enhancing the efficient movement of people by 

decreasing trip times by 10 minutes, and reducing the amount of time 

passenger trains spend yielding to freight movements.

• Improved Safety: Constructing at-grade crossings with upgraded safety 

features, including wayside horns, median barriers, advance warning 

signals, and traffic signal improvements.

What alternatives are being considered for the Point 

Defiance Bypass Project?

FRA and WSDOT conducted an evaluation of three build alternatives: the 

Point Defiance Bypass Alternative, the Shoreline Alternative, and the 

Greenfield Alternative. Two of the alternatives (the Shoreline Alternative, 

and the Greenfield Alternative) were eliminated from further study. 

Although both alternatives could meet the Project’s purpose and need, 

they were determined to be impracticable and unfeasible due to technical 

constraints, high construction costs, and significant environmental effects. 

Grade separations were also evaluated for further consideration. FRA and 

WSDOT’s preliminary analysis revealed that current and projected future 

traffic volumes do not warrant the construction of new grade-separated 

crossings. 
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 6 Energy Discipline Report

What’s happening in the bypass corridor today?

The rail line between TR Junction and East “D” Street in Tacoma hosts 

both freight and commuter trains, including freight operators Tacoma Rail 

and BNSF, and Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service. Freight 

train traffic between TR Junction and East “D” Street averages under two 

trains per day, while Sound Transit currently operates 18 trains per day

between Freighthouse Square and Seattle each weekday, and also offers 

occasional special event trains, usually on weekends, to serve sporting and 

other events in Seattle. Sounder service to Lakewood begins in late 2012.

What would happen if the Project were not built?

If the Project were not built (the No Build Alternative), Amtrak’s 

Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would continue to 

use the existing Puget Sound route. The No Build Alternative includes 

only the minor maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the 

existing Puget Sound route operational. With the No Build Alternative, it 

would be expected that as freight traffic increases, congestion would 

adversely affect Amtrak service reliability, and the travel time for Amtrak 

trains between Seattle and Portland would increase.

Along the Point Defiance Bypass route, the Tacoma Rail and BNSF 

freight services would continue. The at-grade crossings at Clover Creek 

Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street 

Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue Southwest would 

not be upgraded.

Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter passenger trains will become 

operational in late 2012 between the Tacoma Dome Station at 

Freighthouse Square in Tacoma and Sound Transit’s Lakewood Station 

(on the Point Defiance Bypass route) with as many as 18 Sounder trains 

per day.

What are the proposed improvements and related activities

of the Point Defiance Bypass Project?

The Project consists of railroad track and support facility improvements, 

and the relocation of Amtrak’s Tacoma Station. Exhibit 3 shows the 

components of the Build Alternative. The following details specific 

components of the Build Alternative.

• Construct New Track Adjacent to the Existing Main Line – A new 

3.5-mile track adjacent to the existing main line would be constructed 

from South 66th Street (Rail MP 6.9) in Tacoma to between Bridgeport 
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 7

Way SW (Rail MP 10.4) and Clover Creek Drive SW (Rail MP 10.9) in 

Lakewood.

• Reconstruct and Rehabilitate the Existing Main Line – Starting just 

southwest of Bridgeport Way Southwest (Rail MP 10.4) in Lakewood, the 

existing track would be reconstructed to a location southeast of the I5/Mounts Road Southwest interchange (Rail MP 19.8) at Nisqually 

Junction.

• Improvements at at-Grade Crossings – Several grade crossings would 

be improved with wayside horns, gates, traffic signals and signage, 

sidewalks, median separators, and warning devices. These crossings 

include Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, 

Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive and Barksdale Avenue.

• Tacoma Amtrak Station Relocation – The existing Tacoma Amtrak 

Station would be relocated from its Puyallup Avenue location to the 

Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square, at 430 E. 25th Street in 

Tacoma.

What are the proposed operational changes that would 

result from the Point Defiance Bypass Project?

Amtrak’s existing Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service 

would be rerouted from the Puget Sound route along the Puget Sound 

shoreline to the Point Defiance Bypass route. The Project would also 

provide for additional Amtrak Cascades service by increasing the number 

of round trips provided from 4 to 6, or a total of 12 Cascades service train 

trips. Amtrak Coast Starlight would also travel on the Point Defiance 

Bypass route for a total of two Coast Starlight service train trips. The 

speed of these passenger trains would be up to 79 mph.
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 8 Energy Discipline Report

Exhibit 3. Build Alternative Components
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 9

Chapter 2 – Methodology

The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the WSDOT 

Guidance for Project-Level Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change 

Evaluations dated October 2010. 

The study area for this analysis includes the rail line for both the existing 

service and the proposed new alignment. The Project office provided data 

on train frequency and Project costs.

Train efficiency information was drawn from the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor Program (PNWRC) EA (WSDOT, 2009).

Operational Analysis

Operational energy use was estimated from train fuel efficiency 

information prepared as part of the PNWRC EA, combined with route 

distance through the study area. GHG emissions were derived from the

energy use and based on emission factors from The Climate Registry’s 

General Reporting Protocol. 

Train Fuel Use 

Exhibit 4 reports the trip length and average fuel use for Amtrak Cascades

trains running between Portland and Seattle in both 2009 and 2018. The 

2009 values were used to determine existing conditions and 2018 values 

were used to estimate future fuel requirements. 

Exhibit 4 .Train Fuel Efficiency 

Travel from Seattle to Portland

Existing (2009) and

No Build (2018) Build (2018)

Fuel Use per Trip (gal) 286 212

Trip Distance (miles) 186 180

Fuel Economy (mpg) 0.7 0.8

The Project would reduce the distance trains travel through the south 

Tacoma area from 26.5 miles to 20.0 miles. 
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 10 Energy Discipline Report

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Diesel combustion results primarily in CO2 emissions, but also produces 

small amounts of other gases. Of those other gases, methane (CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (N2O) are both GHGs. 

Global Warming Potential

Global warming potentials (GWP) compare the ability of other gases to 

warm the atmosphere to the ability of CO2. For example, CH4 warms the 

atmosphere 21 times more, per unit, than CO2. The GWPs for gases 

considered in this analysis are shown in the Exhibit 5. 

Emission Factors

Emission factors describe the quantity of GHGs released during fuel 

combustion. The quantity of carbon dioxide is determined by the chemical 

properties of the fuel. The quantities of other GHGs depend on both the 

type of engine and the type of fuel used. Emission factors used in this 

analysis are shown in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5. Global Warming Potentials and Emission Factors

Gas GWP3 Emission Factors4

CO2 1 10.15 kg/gallon

CH4 21 0.8 g/gallon

N2O 310 0.26 g/gallon

Construction Analysis

Construction energy use was calculated using the California Department 

of Transportation (CalTrans) methodology that correlates project cost 

information to project energy use. The energy factors were also developed 

by CalTrans5 and include the energy used to obtain the raw materials, 

manufacture and transport the supplies, and construct the facility. 

Embodied emissions are not directly calculable but are part of the energy 

factors. 

Energy factors are based on 1977 dollars and were updated to current 

project cost estimates using the most current CalTrans Index for Selected 

Construction Items.6

 3 The Climate Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Appendix B. 4 The Climate Registry. General Reporting Protocol. 

5 California Department of Transportation. “Energy and Transportation Systems.” July 1983. 6 California Department of Transportation. “Price Index for Selected Highway Construction 

Items.” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contract_progress/cost-index-summary.pdf.
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 11

Factors are available for the following project types: 

• Urban highways

• Rural highway widening

• Interchanges

• Steel girder bridges

• Concrete girder bridges

Specific factors are not available for rail projects so the Project was 

qualitatively compared to the type of work and materials used for a 

highway project. An urban conventional highway widening project was 

chosen for the Project to reflect conservative results. 

The GHG emissions analysis assumed all construction energy would be 

provided by diesel and used the diesel CO2 emission factors provided by 

The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol.

7 N2O and CH4

emissions were assumed to be a similar proportion as for a highway 

project and estimated to be 5 percent of the total CO2 emissions. N2O and 

CH4 emissions were converted to CO2 according to their GWP and 

reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e represent the various GHG

emissions as a single unit.

Conversion factors for CO2e construction GHG emissions are listed in 

Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6. Conversion Factors for Construction Analysis

Conversion Factor

Dollars to Btu 5,920 Btu/$

Diesel Energy Content 139,000 Btu/gal

GHG Emissions 10.66 kg CO2e/gal

 7 The Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008.
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 13

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Energy Use

A passenger train consumes about 55,000 BTUs of energy per vehicle 

mile; in comparison, a typical automobile consumes about 5,517 BTUs of 

energy per vehicle mile. The energy for a passenger train is in the form of 

diesel fuel, a hydrocarbon-based petroleum based product. As discussed in 

Chapter 2, Exhibit 4, the average fuel economy of a passenger train is 

approximately 0.7 miles per gallon (mpg).

The Amtrak Cascades currently makes four daily round trips between 

Seattle and Portland. In addition, the Coast Starlight travels through the 

study area on its daily round trip between Seattle and Los Angeles, CA. 

Information regarding current trip distance, fuel and energy use and GHG 

emissions are shown in Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7. Existing Emissions

Train Travel Through the Study Area Existing (2009)

Daily Amtrak Cascades trips 8

Daily Amtrak Coast Starlight trips 2

Distance Through the Study Area (miles) 26.5

Total Distance Through the Study Area (miles) 265

Fuel use at 0.7 mpg 186 (gallons)

Energy Use (Mbtu) 57

GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 4.2

Yard operations also consume diesel fuel; however, since the Project does 

not include rail yard operations, fuel consumption quantities are not 

included as part of the analysis for the Project.

Motor vehicles also consume fuel as they move through the study area and 

wait for trains to pass. Energy use depends on the number and type of 

vehicles. Because of this variability, vehicle energy use is assumed to be 

minimal and is not part of this analysis. Electrical energy is used on the 

right-of-way to operate switches, crossing guards, and communication 

devices. Each train also operates electrical equipment; however, this 

energy is generated through on-board power generation and is not 

included in this analysis.
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 14 Energy Discipline Report

Chapter 4 – Potential Project Effects

Operational Effects

Currently, there are four daily Amtrak Cascades round trips and one daily

Coast Starlight round trip through the study area, for a total of ten trips. 

The Project would add two daily Amtrak Cascades round trips for a total 

of 14 daily trips between Seattle and Portland. 

Exhibit 8 compares the energy and GHG effects of the Project alternatives. 

Although the Build Alternative accommodates two additional round trips 

per day, the Project alignment is 6.5 miles shorter and the trains are more 

fuel efficient allowing for more energy efficient travel than the current 

alignment. Therefore, the Build Alternative uses 37 fewer gallons of fuel 

per day (based on the Fuel Economy rates in Exhibit 8). Additionally, due 

to more fuel efficient trains and a route reduction, the Build Alternative 

would produce fewer emissions per trip and fewer total emissions.

Exhibit 8. Alternatives Operation Comparison

Travel from Seattle to Portland

2009 2018

Existing No Action Build

Daily Amtrak Cascades trips 8 8 12

Daily Coast Starlight trips 2 2 2

Distance through the Study Area 26.5 26.5 20

Total Distance 265 265 273

Fuel Use per Day (gal) 379 379 341

Energy Use (Mbtu) 57 57 45

GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 4.2 4.2 3.3

Annual Difference in Energy Use (MBtu) – – -4,360

Annual Difference in GHG Emissions (Build Minus No 

Action) (MT CO2e ) – – -321

Construction Effects

Energy is required for construction of the Project. Construction machinery 

uses fuel in hauling materials and building the transportation facility. 

Energy is also used in the production of materials used for construction. 

Construction energy analysis involves the various activities, and types and 

quantities of materials used in the construction of the Project, such as 

excavation, embankment, and structural materials. The total amount of 
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 15

construction energy calculated for the Project is a summation of the 

energy used for each type of construction activity. 

The construction analysis also includes both on-site emissions from 

construction equipment operation and emissions produced off-site to 

create and transport construction materials. Off-site energy use is called 

“embodied energy,” and is included in the factors used to calculate 

construction energy and emissions. The majority of construction emissions 

are from fuel combustion from equipment used on site. Construction 

activities would include demolition of pavement and other structures, 

earthwork, new rail construction, and new paving. Equipment to be used 

for construction would include a TLM, truck cranes, vibratory oscillator, 

dump trucks, loaders, excavators, and typical paving equipment such as 

graders, asphalt pavers, and rollers. Construction equipment powered by 

gasoline and diesel engines generate CO and NOx in exhaust emissions.

Project construction would therefore produce minor GHG emissions as a 

result of the operation of construction equipment, worker vehicles, and 

trucks transporting equipment, parts, and materials. These emissions 

would be temporary and short-term.

There is a rough relationship between the dollar cost and energy costs; 

thus, the alternatives can be compared for cost efficiency. Construction 

energy and GHG estimates shown in Exhibit 9 are therefore based on 

Project costs.

Exhibit 9. Construction GHG Emissions

2018

No Action Build

Construction Energy Requirements (MBtu) 0 539,000

Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e ) 0 41,000

Indirect Effects

The Project is located within an existing rail corridor and urbanized area. 

The only potential indirect effect tied to the Project is that it may 

indirectly influence redevelopment near the relocated Amtrak Station at 

Freighthouse Square (see Land Use Discipline Report8). Such 

redevelopment would be consistent with local zoning and approved by 

state and local agencies and would take place in previously disturbed 

areas. The energy requirements for the Project and subsequent 

redevelopment of the area near Freighthouse Square are small in 

comparison to state energy resources. Thus, there would be no indirect 

effects to energy from the Project.

 8 WSDOT 2012.
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 16 Energy Discipline Report

Cumulative Effects

The long-term energy use associated with the Project would be reduced 

from current conditions. Thus, there would be a beneficial cumulative 

effect to energy from the Project.

Effects of Changing Climate on the Project

FRA and WSDOT acknowledge that effects of climate change may alter 

the function, sizing, and operations of our facilities. Therefore, in addition 

to mitigating GHG emissions, FRA and WSDOT must also ensure that its 

transportation facilities can adapt to the changing climate. To ensure that 

our facilities can function as intended for their planned lifespan, they 

should be designed to perform under the variable conditions expected as a 

result of climate change. For example, drainage culverts may need to be 

resized to accommodate more intense rainfall events or increased flows 

due to more rapid glacial thawing.

The climate projections indicate that Washington State is likely to 

experience some or all of the following effects over the next 50-100 years:

• Increased temperature leading to more frequent extreme heat 

events, worsened air quality, and glacial melting 

• Sea-level rise, coastal erosion, salt water intrusion

• Changes in the volume and timing of precipitation resulting 

in reduced snow pack, increased erosion, and more frequent 

and severe flooding

• Ecological effects of a changing climate including the 

spread of disease, altered plant and animal habitats, and 

negative effects on human health and well-being

FRA and WSDOT considered the information on climate change with 

regard to preliminary design as well as the potential for changes in the 

surrounding natural environment. The Project is designed to more than 50 

years. As part of its standard design, the Project has incorporated features 

that would provide greater resilience and function with the potential 

effects brought on by climate change. For example, shifting the rail line 

inland would protect the Project from sea level rise.
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 17

Chapter 5 – Recommended 

Minimization Measures

Operational 

The Project is expected to reduce operational energy consumption from 

passenger train on between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. 

Energy use is expected to decrease with the Build Alternative because of 

the reduced distance traveled per trip and more efficient operating speeds.

Additional fuel efficiency would be realized with the use of the new 

models of locomotives being built for this route in the future. The F59PHI 

locomotives currently being used were state of the art when they were 

introduced 13 years ago. However, existing freight locomotives being 

introduced today are 10-12 percent more energy efficient than locomotives 

built in the mid-1990s. Therefore, it is assumed that new passenger 

locomotives purchased in the next several years would be at least 10 

percent more fuel efficient than the existing F59PHIs.

FRA, WSDOT and its transportation partners are also working to reduce 

energy consumption and GHG emissions from the transportation sector 

throughout the state, including the rail system. Examples of these activities 

include the following:

• Providing alternatives to driving alone (such as carpooling, 

vanpooling, and transit); 

• Developing transportation facilities that encourage transit, HOV, 

bike, and pedestrian modes; 

• Supporting land use planning and development that encourage 

such travel modes (such as concentrating growth within urban 

growth areas); 

• Optimizing system efficiency through measures like variable 

speeds; and 

• Using alternative fuels. 
September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project

Page 18 Energy Discipline Report

Construction 

Construction practices that minimize roadway congestion and encourage 

efficient energy use would be implemented. Minimization measures that 

reduce energy use would also reduce GHG emissions. Possible 

minimization measures might include:

• Limiting equipment idling

• Encouraging carpooling of construction workers

• Locating staging areas near work sites

• Scheduling the delivery of materials during off-peak 

hours to allow trucks to travel to the site with less 

congestion and at fuel-efficient speeds
Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012

Energy Discipline Report Page 19

References

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, 

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/ccscenarios.shtml

Energy Information Administration. 2011. Washington State Energy Profile: 

Consumption. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=WA

NHTSA and EPA Establish New National Program to Improve Fuel Economy and 

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFEGHG_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008.

Washington State Department of Commerce [formerly Community, Trade, and 

Economic Development]. 2008. 2009 Biennial Energy Report with 

Indicators. December 2008. Available at: 

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTED

PublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemID=6814&MId=863&wversion=St

aging.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2009. Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor Tier 1 Environmental Assessment. Available at: 

http://wadot.wa.gov/Freight/publications/PNWRCReports.htm

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2010. Guidance for ProjectLevel Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Evaluations. October 2010. 

Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/73ADB679-BDA6-

4947-93CA-87C157862DD7/0/GreenHouseGasGuidanceOct2010.pdf.

Washington Department of Transportation. 2012. Point Defiance Bypass Project 

Land Use Discipline Report. September 2012.