[sustran] Re: Electric Trolley Buses vs. Diesel
Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
edelman at greenidea.eu
Wed Jun 17 16:48:57 JST 2009
Hi Chris,
While I am sure your paper will have have useful results, a comparison
between trolley and Diesel buses only seems a little old fashioned.
Better, it seems, would be one between those with on- or "off-board"
traction, i.e. trolley buses with different sources of energy AND buses
which carry their own engine, or indeed engine and motors. For the
latter I am speaking of course of the various types of Diesel used in
Diesel-engined buses, but also CNG/Bio-methane buses and
Diesel-electrics with and without ultracapacitors. Or even
methane-electrics, if they exist. There are also trolleys with
supplemental engines to get through non-wired areas, but while becoming
more common (see Skoda transportation) are not a true "hybrid". All of
these are present in greater or lesser numbers in actual daily use, and,
given the relatively short lifespan of buses, appear as new solutions so
often in cities as to be almost untrackable.
I lived in San Francisco for a long time and found trolley buses vastly
superior in terms of audible noise compared to the Diesels there, but
somewhat inferior in terms of visual noise, i.e. all the wires and the
poles to support them.
I am also curious about trolley buses and transmission-loss, i.e the
relative energy efficiency of electric-powered buses in regards to the
actual physical location of a power source. This sort of look of course
also applies to buses with on-board power, i.e. is the fuel from
recycled waste cooking oil ? (and how much energy is embedded in that)
or imported across vast distances, e.g. natural gas from Russia to
Western Europe....
But also it seems that in systems with both trolley buses and Diesels,
etc. the former would have higher occupancy rates as they would tend to
operate more in central areas. This also effects affects. (Affects
effects?).
- T
Walter Hook wrote:
> i wrote a paper on trolley buses in sao paulo with some data. i think
> it is on our web site.
>
> seems like a reasonable option in many cases.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Chris Cherry <cherry at utk.edu
> <mailto:cherry at utk.edu>> wrote:
>
> I haven’t 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 SF’s 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. I’m 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 I’ll most likely have a more complete report
> to share in the fall if you’re 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 <http://web.utk.edu/%7Echerry>
>
> _
>
> On 6/15/09 9:36 AM, "Sudhir" <sudhir at cai-asia.org
> <http://sudhir@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
> <http://lutman@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
> <http://sustran-discuss@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 it’s 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
> metro’s 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 with… 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
> <http://simon.bishop@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').
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory
Urbanstr. 45
D-10967 Berlin
Germany
Skype: toddedelman
Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
edelman at greenidea.eu
www.greenidea.eu
www.facebook.com/toddedelman
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
CAR is over. If you want it.
"Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
- B. Brecht (with slight modification)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090617/8f003910/attachment.html
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list