[sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean?

[hfabian at adb.org]

Hi Lee, 

What was the cost of retrofitting a bus using the JM particle filters, or 
for the older buses DOCs, from your experience in Mexico? Are there 
experiences in retrofitting buses in areas where sulfur in diesel is 
500ppm? Diesel in the Philippines has 500ppm sulfur. 

In Metro Manila, the most pollutive are buses, jeepneys, and 2-stroke 3 
wheelers. There are some on-going efforts to address the pollution from 
2-stroke 3 wheelers. Increasing car ownership and usage has also 
contributed substantially to the air pollution problem. It is clear that 
several parallel efforts/ measures are needed in order to fully address 
this problem. 


Bert

Herbert G. Fabian
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities 
Asian Development Bank, Manila
tel: + 63 2 632 4444 loc. 7666
fax: + 63 2 636 2381
e-mail: hfabian at adb.org
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia





"Lee Schipper" <schipper at wri.org>
Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+hfabian=adb.org at list.jca.apc.org
02/02/2006 06:55 AM
Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport

 
        To:     <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public 
transportbuses clean?


The joker in the deck is contained in what Eric said. If you only put in
a new engine, but not a completely new power train, you risk a total
mismatch of power, power train, and load. For example, repowering an old
bus with just a new engine will lead to far less than optimal
performance

We in EMBARQ retrofitted buses in Mexico City -- the 2001 buses had a
huge decline -90% n an already low PM emissions, as measured by Chris
Weaver's RAVEM. WE got something like 0.02 gm/km using ultra low sulfer
diesel (15 PPM) and JM particle filters. Older 1991 buses got a 20-30%
reduction in PM from a much higher level -- the numbers are on EMBARQs
web site. These older buses only had diesel oxidation catalysts, because
the partile filters would not work right on them.  Original fuel, btw,
was 350 PPM, clean by Manila standards.

Our take away from this -- retrofit (with some repowering), or
replace!

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 2/1/2006 5:40:47 PM >>>
To add to what Walter said: 
 
I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but
the drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have
a new or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function
largely like a new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to
have lots of other maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and
transmission. 
 
If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body
added, its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what.
Anything without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded
will destroy both the chassis and the drive train.
 
Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the
single most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are
inferior to petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that
should be given immediately.
 
One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates
without subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence
level to maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my
family over cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution
can not be separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my
opinion, anyone who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't
care about the environment very much.
 
Eric Bruun


-----Original Message----- 
From: Walter Hook 
Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM 
To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' 
Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
oldpublictransport buses clean? 


v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}       Clean  Clean  DocumentEmail 
 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } /*
Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table
Normal";                 mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;               mso-style-noshow:yes; 
mso-style-parent:"";             mso-padding-alt:0in
5.4pt 0in
5.4pt;           mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;  
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;             font-size:10.0pt; 
font-family:"Times
New Roman";}     I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most
US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal
Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they
are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them
to smaller towns and foreign countries.  What FTA says is that some 10
year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much
newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply
testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would
be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond
the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the
Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction.  They can
probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower
concentrations of ambient air pollution.  -----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Brendan Finn
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora,
 
In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance
regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the
absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I
would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the
first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the
manufacturer's recommendations. 
 
I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or
to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in
another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is
concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with
the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the
context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure
good performance from older vehicles : 
 
a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic,
and measurable
b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose
escalating penalties on their owners
c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies
that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some
technical assistance if needed)
d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include
emissions-related work and testing within such a regime
e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when
good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications
(and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than
sold on somewhere else)
 
On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the
arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions.
For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and
owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned
enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite
effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I
think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses!
 
If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be
interested to receive it.
 
With best wishes, 
 
 
Brendan Finn. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
>From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd.   e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel :
+353.87.2530286
----- Original Message ----- 
From: aables at adb.org 
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM
Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old
publictransport buses clean?
 
Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on
this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables
Transport Researcher
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Asian Development Bank
Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
Fax (632) 636-2381
Email aables at adb.org 
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia 

www.adb.org 

----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM
----- gbathan at adb.org 
01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to
cai-asia at lists.worldbank.org
To"Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" <cai-asia at lists.worldbank.org>
cchfabian at adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" <bggozun at hotmail.com>,
chuizenga at adb.org, majero at adb.org, mrco at adb.org, aables at adb.org
Subject[cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport
buses clean? 



Dear friends, 

In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia
was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question --
"Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses
remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of
engine manufacture. 

Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. 

Glynda Glynda Bathan
Coordinator
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Asian Development Bank
Tel (632) 632-5151
Fax (632) 636-2381
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia 

www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables
Transport Researcher
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Asian Development Bank
Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
Fax (632) 636-2381
Email aables at adb.org 
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia 

www.adb.org 


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/85205ce0/attachment.html