[sustran] Re: Electric Trolley Buses vs. Diesel

[Walter Hook]

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> 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> 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 <sudhir at cai-asia.org>>
>
> *To:* Simon Bishop <mailto:simon.bishop at dimts.in <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 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>
>
>
> 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').
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090617/655671a7/attachment.html