[sustran] Electric Trolley Buses vs. Diesel

[Chris Cherry]

I haven¹t done or seen much research on the relative effect of trolley buses
vis-a-vis diesel buses. One study conducted over a decade ago analyzes the
San Francisco Muni bus system, but direct comparisons are difficult because
of terrain issues and SF¹s use of trolley buses on the steepest routes
because of performance characteristics. Moreover, the most obvious problem
with direct comparisons is the regional differences of electricity
emissions, depending on source. One other issue that is gaining traction is
actually measuring exposure (and thus public health) differences (regardless
of emission rate) between presumably rural power plant emissions compared to
tailpipe emissions.  I¹m working on a conference paper that will be
presented at the PACE summer camp in Kunming in July, looking at this issue.
Initial results show that power plant emissions have one order of magnitude
lower exposure efficiency (intake fraction) in most Chinese cities compared
to tailpipe emissions in the city, so electric vehicles are at an initial
10x advantage regardless of emission rate. The PACE paper is early results
and I¹ll most likely have a more complete report to share in the fall if
you¹re interested.


Chris Cherry
Assistant Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Tennessee-Knoxville
223 Perkins Hall
Knoxville, TN 37996-2010
phone: 865-974-7710
mobile: 865-684-8106
fax: 865-974-2669
http://web.utk.edu/~cherry



On 6/15/09 9:36 AM, "Sudhir" <sudhir at cai-asia.org> wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> 
> Thanks for the mail and please note the  e-bike analysis from Chris Cherry
> from China - http://www.baq2008.org/system/files/sp5_Cherry+presentation.pdf
> ... 
> 
> its interesting to note about e-bus with battery and wires. i have not seen
> any research on this. It would be interesting to note the impact of electric
> bus in China considering the lifecycle analysis...  I am cc'ing chris if he
> can throw some light on the impact of e-buses.
> 
> the logic of seeing the transport problem from only emissions perspective is
> not good.. but continuing the discussions on emissions...
> 
> I would argue that buses and cars emissions are not the same on passenger km
> basis in Asia as the calculations depend on occupancies and we should never
> compare bad bus scenario with good car scenario.  And we need to take the
> scenario of " what-if" seriously..
> 
> thanks
> Sudhir
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/6/15 Peter Lutman <lutman at globalnet.co.uk>
>> Dear Sudhir,
>>  
>> I have been following the discussion about Beijing's pro-public transport
>> policies and I notice the comments about diesel-powered buses as almost as
>> polluting per passenger kilometre as private cars. While the first BRT route
>> in Beijing uses diesel buses as do the hundreds of suburban routes, it should
>> be remembered that the central areas of the Chinese Capital are served by a
>> very frequent and intensive Trolleybus network. Hundreds of new Trolleybuses
>> were acquired both before the 2008 Olympics and since - and these vehilces
>> produce neither noise nor air pollution at the point of operation. For the
>> weird people who do not like overhead wires and feel that 'visual pollution'
>> is as damaging to health and happiness as air pollution, the Trolleybuses
>> operate on battery power across the main boulevard and through the central
>> shopping streets, where there are no wires.
>>  
>> Peter Lutman FCILT
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>  
>>> From:  Sudhir <mailto:sudhir at cai-asia.org>
>>>  
>>> To: Simon Bishop <mailto:simon.bishop at dimts.in>
>>>  
>>> Cc: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>>>  
>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:55 AM
>>>  
>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss  Digest, Vol 70, Issue 12
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear Simon and Others
>>> 
>>> could not stop myself from sending  this mail in spite of looming project
>>> deadline....  :-)
>>> 
>>> 1.    On the question of Beijing - I agree with many  of your statements.
>>> Good public transport is not BRTS or Metro but one with  good NMT
>>> integration. For me both public transport and non motorized transport  are
>>> inclusive and exclusive. But I defer on Beijing initiatives. I see a major
>>> change in its focus and i am happy with this. I have never been to Beijing,
>>> but i believe that what they are doing is to negate their previous ring-road
>>> development strategy. If you look at this link (provided by Sujit-
>>> http://www.cctv.com/english/special/excl/20090610/110347_1.shtml)  it also
>>> talks about cycling...
>>> 
>>> More bicycle parking spaces will be  established in areas with heavy
>>> passenger flow
>>> Pedestrian and  bicycle service project: special cycle lanes and sidewalk
>>> network for  pedestrians will be constructed and more bicycle parking spaces
>>> will be  established in areas with heavy passenger flow. Around 1,000
>>> bicycle rental  service stands will be set up, with the number of bicycles
>>> available for rent  exceeding 50,000 units. 
>>> 
>>> I agree that it¹s not a major  investment and i even don't know as to how
>>> many bike lanes they are proposing  but yet you can feel the change in the
>>> mindset. They have been focusing  heavily on TDM from Olympics. We should
>>> get more insights from our Chinese  colleagues...We have had many sessions
>>> of metro vs BRTS in sustran and I  am  happy with either metro or BRTS as
>>> long as they put the money for NMT  and public Transport. For me whose
>>> master thesis was on flyovers (I made it  feasible in 2003 and and i believe
>>> it is congested again :-) ) and having  worked in infrastructure projects
>>> for long, White elephants like metro¹s are  much better than multi-level
>>> interchanges as seen in  Delhi.
>>> 
>>> 2.    Regarding free public transport - I believe  ( my personal opinion)
>>> that you don't have to provide free public transport to  only attract people
>>> but to reward people for traveling in an eco friendly  way... ( why should I
>>> pay when I am standing, since I did not get any seat,  struck in a jam
>>> because of the traffic by the people travelling in their own  car which was
>>> subsidized by government, consuming polluted air while making my  effort to
>>> clean the air which everyone breaths).  It should not be at the  risk of
>>> providing sub standard services... If people can afford to pay,  good... But
>>> considering the poor people paying for tickets i would argue for  subsidized
>>> or free yet comfortable services... It is much better than  subsidized fuel.
>>> 
>>> 3.    I don't again agree to London  example of high emissions buses
>>> applicable in any format to Asia. I had good  discussions with Mikhail
>>> Chester whose analysis is the topic of the month
>>> (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008/). If  you look at his
>>> paper and the media quotes ( there are several from past  week)... you can
>>> feel as to how story was modified withŠ We can calculate the  numbers from
>>> any Asian city and what you would see is that Cars can never be  compared on
>>> passenger km basis. With two wheelers ­ there may be  possibilities.. but
>>> again i am not sure..
>>> 
>>> 4.     Regarding Todd's comment on 25% share in cities, I think in Asia with
>>> high  probability of private vehicles being two wheelers, 25% of personal
>>> automobile  share would be okay ( i would be happy) as long as they get 25%
>>> of investments  and pay all external costs while people using NMT and PT get
>>> majority of  investment and priority.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> Sudhir Gota
>>> Transport  Specialist
>>> CAI-Asia Center
>>> Unit 3510, 35th Floor, Robinsons-Equitable  Tower,
>>> ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
>>> Metro Manila, Philippines  1605
>>> Tel: +63-2-395-2843
>>> Fax: +63-2-395-2846
>>> http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia
>>> Skype :  sudhirgota
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 2009/6/15 Simon Bishop <simon.bishop at dimts.in>
>>>  
>>>> Like  Carlos I am skeptical of this announcement.  From where I'm sitting
>>>> in  Delhi there is a tendency to see 'public transport', and by that I mean
>>>> motorized and electrified, through rose tinted glasses as if it is 'the'
>>>> solution to growing automobile use.  A huge amount of emphasis is put  on
>>>> the Metro and now BRT as ways to solve congestion (never mind about all
>>>> the other externalities).  Bicycles and legs are ignored despite  holding a
>>>> huge modal share.
>>>> 
>>>> I think it was the Indian economist  Dasgupta who showed that you could
>>>> make public transport free in the UK and  still only effect a very small
>>>> shift to it from the car (6%).  The fact  is that cars are damn convenient
>>>> and people will use them unless they are  literally prized away from doing
>>>> so.  The vast majority of people use  public transport in London and NY
>>>> because they have to, and parking control  is the main mechanism.  I hope
>>>> that Beijing's approach will witness  parking restraint and pricing as a
>>>> lynchpin of its policy, otherwise it will  be a funding drain and a white
>>>> elephant.
>>>> 
>>>> The rose tinted spectacles  also ignore the role of cycling as better and
>>>> faster than the bus over short  to medium distances.  Why swap a more
>>>> convenient form of transport for  a less convenient one?  The only thing
>>>> that can compete with the car  over these distances is the bicycle (and
>>>> motorcycle, which should also be  deterred for safety reasons).
>>>> 
>>>> In terms of our greatest challenge,  global warming I am perturbed.  Where
>>>> you have quality bus systems  (with good timetables in the off peak and
>>>> feeder services) they consume  amounts of per capita energy rivaling that
>>>> of the car.  Quoting London  again, the average actual CO2 emissions of a
>>>> bus is 40% that of a car, PM10  emissions are 3 times and SO2 emissions 25
>>>> times greater - that's not much  of an improvement.  In Taipei, taking
>>>> account of door to door  emissions, the Metro actually consumes more energy
>>>> than a car!  This  should not be construed as an argument AGAINST public
>>>> transport,  particularly buses, after all the more of us that use them the
>>>> better, and  there will always be a need for those who cannot cycle or
>>>> walk, but it IS an  argument for Beijing to prioritize Travel Demand
>>>> Management/Walking/Cycling/Land Use Planning as the key policy to  follow.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> To search  the archives of sustran-discuss  visit
>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
>>> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
>>> sustran-discuss and get full membership  rights.
>>> 
>>> ================================================================
>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS  is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>>> equitable and sustainable  transport with a focus on developing countries
>>> (the 'Global South').
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090616/bbc2851a/attachment.html