reasons to maximize trolleybus usage in edmonton

Reasons to Maximize Trolleybus Usage in Edmonton

* Extensive existing infrastructure in good condition; many good, low mileage vehicles.

* Lowers per unit cost of trolley operations and achieves better investment return

* Positive contribution to environmental initiatives and the city’s image:

- reduces toxic pollutants from city-owned vehicles; lowering effect on health costs

- lower noise levels

- better long-term potential to reduce greenhouse gases than other bus modes

- high level of environmental advantages for cost of investment

* Public preference for trolleys over diesels

* Congruent with Transportation Master Plan and Plan Edmonton:

- makes effective and efficient use of the transportation system and infrastructure

- mitigates community and environmental impacts of transportation

- enhances image as ‘smart’ city

(Overview)

(Chart 1)

Capital Annual Equivalent Vehicle Costs vs. Kilometres Operated

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

total annual kmoperated in millions

capital vehicle costannual equivalent in$ per km

Capital vehicle cost annual equivalent is based upon the purchase price of $21 million for 100 BBC trolleys (1982) spread over a 30 year expected life.

Note that the two figures are inversely related. The greater the annual decrease in km operated, the higher the capital vehicle cost annual equivalent per km will be. (Data Source: ETS)

(Chart 2)

Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million Kilometres(in tonnes)

Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999), Edmonton Power (1993)

33.07

18.82

9.31

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Diesel Fleet A

vg.

Clean Diesel

Trolleybus (Ed Pwr Avg.)

Trolleybus (wind pwr)

(Chart 3)

Toxic Air Contaminants include Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur Oxides, Particulate Matter.

Comparative Noise Levels by Mode(in decibels)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Diesel CNG Fuel Cell Trolleybus City Street

• Hearing loss occurs at levels of 90 db or higher

• The electric trolley measures around 175 times quieter than the diesel bus

• A Philadelphia study showed that the passing of a trolleybus could not be heard above the ambient street noise

Adapted from Coast Mountain Bus Company (Vancouver); KC Metro (Seattle).

(Chart 4)

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends(in g/km of CO2e*)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1990 1994 1997 2001 2005 2008

Diesel (Fleet Avg.)Trolley (Alta. Grid)

*CO2 Equivalent – includes greenhouse gas values for emissions of CO, NOx, N2O, CH4.

Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999), NAAVC, TransAlta Utilities

(Chart 5)

Transit Vehicle Preferences in EdmontonIn 1993, Edmontonians were surveyed to find out what kinds of transit modes they would like to see the City invest in for the year 2000 and beyond. Significant among the 504 responses relating to mode were the following:

0 50 100 150 200 250

Most Cost-Effective

More Diesel Buses

More Trolleybuses

More LRT

- 4/5 of all respondents to the survey preferred electrically powered transit modes (LRT, trolleybuses) over other choices.

- 60% of comments on diesel buses mentioned fumes, noxious smoke and air pollution as the main feature they noticed. Only 15% of comments about diesel buses were positive.

- A majority of respondents (59%) disagreed with investing in diesel buses.

- Around 2/3 (65%) of all respondents said they would stick with their choices of preferred vehicle investment even if the costs associated with those vehicles were higher.

(Chart 6)

Source: Edmonton Transit Vehicles Survey, Marktrend (1993)

Edmonton – Environmentally First Class

And in the Future!

Now . . .

(Chart 7)

Some Highlights from other Canadian and U.S. Cities

City Approx. Active Fleet Recent Developments Boston 40 Flyer (1976) Current fleet to be replaced w. new trolleys; new route planned east of Downtown

Boston to use Neoplan articulated low floor trolleys. Cleveland 30 Neoplan artic NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! 5 mile long route in planning for Euclid Avenue

to use articulated low floor trolleys. Trolley usage expected to boost ridership by at least 10% and help revitalize Euclid corridor.

Dayton 57 ETI/Skoda (1998-99) Fleet renewed in 1998-99; last of four new extensions opened August 20, 2000. Philadelphia 66 AM General (1979) $44 M in budget for new trolleys, 2004-2011. San Francisco 276 Flyer (1976-77)

60 Flyer artic (1993) Fleet currently undergoing renewal with new 40 and 60 foot trolleys from ETI/Skoda.

Seattle 102 AM General (1979) 46 MAN artic (1986 ) 236 Breda artic dual mode (1990)

AM General fleet to be ‘rebodied’ using 100 40 ft. Gillig bodies on order and updated/refurbished electrics and controls; construction on an extension to Rte. 36 to start within a year.

Vancouver 244 Flyer (1982-83) Over 200 new low floor trolleys to come in next five years; new 1 km extension into Stanley Park to be completed next year.

(Sept. 2000) Data sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine

Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene I

Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene II

- There are approximately 350 electric trolleybus systems worldwide - 37 new trolleybus systems were opened in the last decade

Some Highlights from around the World

Linz, Austria – New Volvo low floor articulated trolleys arriving; system expansion. Sao Paulo, Brazil – Eleven route extensions under consideration; work progressing on Fura Fila articulated

guided trolleybus line. Beijing, China – New route recently opened, another existing line recently extended. Guangzhou, China – $70 million trolley system expansion planned to include 49 km of new overhead. Fleet

will be expanded to 350 trolleybuses to operate on 11 routes. Hong Kong, China – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? Proposing to introduce trolleybuses to replace diesel

buses on heavily used routes to reduce pollution. Demonstration line to be ready in near future. Shanghai, China – New air conditioned low floor trolleybuses entering service. Brno, Czechoslovakia – New route to open in September, 2000; new Škoda trolleys arriving. Quito, Ecuador – 59 new trolleybuses entered service this year. Quito’s large, ultra-modern trolleybus line

that uses articulated vehicles, platform loading and operates on a right-of-way is being extended. London, England – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM? London Transport is considering implementing

trolleybuses on four routes for environmental reasons and to boost patronage. Nancy, France – New trolleys bearing the mark of the designer ‘Pinifarina’ to appear sometime in Fall 2000. Paris, France – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! A 6.5 km route is to be constructed for guided trolleybuses. Athens, Greece – Taking delivery of 200 brand new low floor trolleybuses in preparation for the Olympic

Games. Arnhem, Holland – Launched “Trolley 2000” last year, a public transportation plan that will place renewed

emphasis on the city’s trolleybus system in the 21st century as a practical and environmentally-friendly way of travel. Trolleybuses carry signs: “Arnhem – Trolley Stad” (“Arnhem – Trolley City”).

Naples, Italy – New fleet of low floor trolleybuses began arriving in February, 2000. Mexico City, Mexico – New Mitsubishi trolleybuses recently added to fleet. Moscow, Russia – 271 new trolleybuses were purchased in 1999, adding to a trolley fleet of over 1,000

vehicles. Bern, Switzerland – New batch of low floor Swisstrolleys now in operation. Lausanne, Switzerland – Extensions in progress; Neoplan to test a 25 m, three-section mega-trolleybus in

Lausanne in the near future. Merida, Venezuela – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! Construction of a new 18 km segregated, high platform

trolleybus route is underway.

(Sept. 2000) Data Sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine

Trolleybus Route Length per 1,000 Inhabitants in selected Cities (in Kilometres)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Mexico City

Quito

San Francisco

Athens

Brno

Lausanne

Sao Paulo

Edmonton

Zurich

Dayton

Source: Trolleybus Study for Hong Kong (Ecotraffic, 1999)

Comparative Average Power Consumption for 40 ft. Trolleybuses(in kWh per km)

2.62.8

2.52.7

22.22.4

2.62.8

33.23.4

3.63.8

4

Dayton SanFrancisco

Seattle Vancouver

• An accepted standard value for trolley power consumption is 3 kWh per km.

• The chart at the left compares average power consumption for trolleybuses in four North American cities.

• The highest power consumption recorded during San Francisco tests was on the 41 Union line which climbs the steep Union Street Hill. Tests showed a power consumption of 3.6 kWh/km on this line. Vehicles were not “chopper” control equipped.

Data Sources: LACTC and RTD Trolleybus Study (1991), BCTransit (1994)

Comparative Energy Consumption (in MJ per vehicle km)

24.1

9.84

0

5

10

15

20

25

Diesel bus Trolleybus

Source: BC Transit (1994)

Edmonton – A “Green” City?

Description of Transportation Emissions

Hydrocarbons: Essentially unburned fuel. Hydrocarbons are a significant contributor to poor air quality. In sunlight, they combine with NOx to form ground level ozone (smog). Carbon Monoxide: A toxic gas that induces headaches, loss of visual acuity, drowsiness and decreased motor coordination. Contributes to smog as it combines in the atmosphere with NOx. Also implicated in global warming as a greenhouse gas and typically assigned a GWP value of 1.6 or 3.0. Oxides of Nitrogen: A mixture of oxides of nitrogen, including nitrous oxide (N2O), that results in the brown composition of smog and is a significant contributor to poor air quality. A primary target of emissions reduction programs in urban areas. NOx has been shown to affect health, suppress growth of vegetation and corrode metals. It essentially combines with other pollutants to form ground level ozone, negatively affecting the air quality index. Ground level ozone or smog is a major concern in Canadian cities, particularly during the summer months. NOx also combines with atmospheric water to produce nitric acid, a component of acid rain. NOx is considered a greenhouse gas and is typically assigned a GWP value of 7. Oxides of Sulphur: Substances formed by the combustion of sulphur in fuel, including sulphur dioxide (SO2). Oxides of sulphur react with atmospheric water to form sulphuric acid and are thus considered a contributor to acid rain. They are also a lung irritant. In terms of global warming, they have been shown to exert a global cooling effect. Particulate Matter: Inhaleable particles like small particles of oil, fuel, carbon and soot. They affect the respiratory system, causing asthma and other respiratory ailments. (Respiratory ailments are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world and a growing health concern; asthma alone costs some $11 billion in health dollars annually in the U.S. and is a continuing health concern in Edmonton.) Diesel engines are responsible for a large percentage of particulate matter produced by transportation sources. Volatile Organic Compounds: Form noxious aerosols which are inhaled and can contribute to lung problems and asthma. Carbon Dioxide: A greenhouse gas, considered the primary contributor to global warming and climate change. Assigned a GWP value of 1. *GWP = Global Warming Potential, the potential of a substance to cause global warming relative to Carbon Dioxide. (Sources: NAAVC, TransLink, ETS, US Environmental Protection Association, Diesel Fuel News)

Toxic Air Contaminants by Mode – Current Diesel Fleet Average vs. Edmonton Power Total for Three Plants

(in g/km)

02468

101214161820

Diesel FleetAvg. 2000

Trolley(Edmonton

PowerAvg.)

HydrocarbonsCarbon MonoxideOxides of NitrogenSulphur OxidesParticulate Matter


Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power Source(in g/km)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Conv.Diesel

"Clean"Diesel

Trolley(coal)

Trolley(gas)



Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million Kilometres(in tonnes)

40.2

18.82

33.07

3.2

12.69.31

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Conv. Diesel Clean Diesel Current DieselFleet Avg.

Trolley (gas) Trolley (coal) Trolley (Edm.Power Avg.)

Trolley (w ind)


Toxic Air Contaminants include Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur Oxides, Particulate Matter.

Diesel Bus Fleet Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Kilometre

(in grams)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1987 2000 2008


Data Sources: ETS (1993), TransLink (1999), NAAVC (1999)

Toxins identified in Diesel Exhaust by the EPA

Acetaldehyde Inorganic lead Acrolein Manganese compounds Aniline Mercury compounds Antimony compounds Methanol Arsenic Methyl ethyl ketone Benzene Naphthalene Beryllium compounds Nickel Biphenyl 4-Nitrobiphenyl Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Phenol 1,3-Butadiene Phosphorus Cadmium Polycyclic organic matter including polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives Chlorine Propionaldehyde Chlorobenzene Selenium compounds Chromium compounds Styrene Cobalt compounds Toluene Creosol isomers Xylene isomers and mixtures Cyanide compounds o-xylenes Dibutylphthalate m-xylenes Dioxins and dibenzofurans p-xylenes Ethyl benzene Formalehyde

Diesel Exhaust is a complex mixture of hazardous particles and vapors, some of which are known carcinogens and other probable carcinogens.

The US Environmental Protection Association (California) has identified 41 substances in diesel exhaust listed by the State of California as” toxic air contaminants”.

A “toxic air contaminant”is defined as an “air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health”.

In addition to, or as part of the commonly referred to emissions of NOx, CO and particulate matter produced by diesel engines, the substances listed at the left have been identified.

The immediate health threat posed by the use of diesel engines in transit buses arises from the fact that the toxic emissions are released directly into the streets--right into the airways of pedestrians and transit patrons waiting at bus stops.

Studies of emissions from co-called ‘clean’ diesel engines reveal that, while NOx and CO levels may be lower, the levels of toxins such as dioxins, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene and PAH’s is essentially unchanged. While the weight of the particulate matter is reduced substantially, the total number of particles emitted by ‘clean’ diesel engines is 15 to 35 times greater than by conventional diesels. The particles are simply finer, not fewer. Finer particles are more likely to penetrate deeper into the lungs, where they would be trapped and retained.

Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council (1998), US Environmental Protection Association.

Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions in Health Dollars in Millions of Dollars per Million Kilometres

(calculated @ $75,000 per tonne)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Conv. Diesel Clean Diesel Current DieselMix

Trolley (gas) Trolley (coal) Trolley (Edm.Pow er Avg.)

Trolley (w ind)

The health impacts in dollars of vehicular emissions are difficult to quantify. Many dollar estimates exist. The above estimate of $75,000 per tonne originates from a California study and was quoted in a recent TransLink report. Here the figure has been applied to the contaminant emissions HC, CO, NOx, SO and Particulate Matter in the quantities emitted directly from the tailpipe or power plant. The resulting totals are doubtless high in performing the analysis in this way. However, whether the actual cost is $75,000 per tonne or $10,000 per tonne, the relationship between the columns will be the same: The health costs associated with diesel engines are much higher than for electric trolleys, even if the trolleys use electricity from a coal-fired generating station.

Trolley Coach Economics

Typically in North American and Western European trolley systems, trolley buses operate overall at a slightly higher cost than equivalent diesel buses on a cost per km basis. The higher cost mostly results from the expenditures to maintain the overhead plant. The extra cost associated with trolley operations is usually considered a small price to pay for the benefits of reduced pollution and quieter operation, particularly in areas with higher population density. The health costs saved through trolley coach operation most certainly outweigh any savings in operating costs associated with diesels. There are several factors which may influence the cost per km of trolley operations. One is the price of power, which may fluctuate just as the price of diesel fuel or natural gas changes over time. Another very significant factor is the number of km operated. Since the annual expenditure for overhead maintenance is a relatively fixed cost, the cost per km can be reduced simply by operating more km. On a cost per hour basis, the cost difference between trolleys and diesels is less significant. The cost per hour to operate a bus in Edmonton is currently around $60.00. Because the largest portion of this are costs associated with the operator, the type of vehicle used does not exert a huge influence on the hourly operating cost. One must keep costs in perspective. The additional cost of operating trolleys vs. diesels on most transit systems is actually a very small percentage of transit’s total operating expenses. In Edmonton, transit is a $100 million per year operation, with trolley operations accounting for only a small percentage of that. Increasing the use of trolleys, whether on the existing system or through the addition of extensions, would not result in vast increases in total operating expenses. But it would lower the cost per km of trolley operations. Edmontonians have an enormous capital investment in trolley infrastructure. Since the renewal and expansion of the trolley system in the early 1980’s, over $46 million dollars have been invested in vehicles, overhead upgrades, extensions and new power supply equipment. To build a trolley system of equivalent size to ours, at a cost of $750,000 to $1,000,000 per km, would run upwards of $60 million dollars. In other words, the trolley system represents a huge investment in environmentally friendly public transportation in Edmonton and ought to be used maximally. Because the trolley bus represents the cleanest proven bus technology available on today’s market and offers the greatest emissions reductions for the lowest added cost, the trolley system here must be considered a great asset. If we did not already have it, the cost of investing in this technology would most certainly be judged prohibitive. Considering the investment in trolleys that Edmonton has, the cost of building moderate extensions to put more trolleys into operation is small by comparison. Furthermore, consider that LRT costs around $17 million per km to install rails and overhead to operate LRT. When stations are included, the cost rises to $35 million per km. At $1 million per km or less for trolley overhead, the cost of building trolley extensions is cheap by comparison.

Kilometres Operated vs. Cost per Kilometre

Source: Edmonton Transit System

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

total annual kmoperated inmillions

total operatingcost per km in $

Operating and Overhead Costs vs. Kilometres Operated

Source: Edmonton Transit System

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 total annual kmoperated inmillions

overheadmaintenance perkm operated in$total operatingcost per km in $

Average Operating Costs by Modein $ per Km (1989 – 1997)

Vehicle Maintenance

0.36

0.41

Power/Fuel

0.18

0.20

Overhead Maintenance

0.36

0

Total Basic Operating per km

0.90

0.60

Trolley Diesel

Cost figures: Edmonton Transit System

Cost per Kilometre is a commonly employed measurement of vehicle operating expenses. It is important to recognize that cost per kilometre is not without bias when employed for purposes of comparing different modes, and therefore comparisons such as the above must be interpreted withthe following in mind:1. Any measurement of cost per kilometre will tend to favor the vehicle that operates the most kilometres. The fact that diesel buses operate over 25

million more km annually than trolleys in Edmonton will be reflected in a lower diesel figure. Maximizing trolley usage will tend to lower the cost per kilometre, primarily because the cost of maintaining the overhead will be spread over a larger base.

2. Cost per kilometre comparisons are based on fleet averages that ignore differing operating conditions. In Edmonton, trolley routes operate mostly through the downtown core where loads are heavier and stops are more frequent. By contrast, the highest percentage of diesel kilometres are logged in areas away from downtown where loads are lighter and stops less frequent. The latter conditions will tend to lower the cost per kilometre for the diesel bus more than if conditions were equal.

3. The cost per kilometre does not take into consideration the revenue generated by the vehicle. Consider that one could operate near empty diesel buses with few stops and fully loaded trolleys with frequent stops, and the fact that the trolley is working harder, earning more revenue and providing more service will not be reflected in cost per kilometre comparisons. The ideal operating conditions for the trolley are found on heavily travelled routes with high patronage and frequent stops, where its operating costs are offset by higher revenues.

4. Not all costs are included here. An important hidden cost is that associated with the health impacts of diesel bus emissions. Although these costs are not paid for from City coffers, they do represent an added financial burden to citizens and taxpayers, not to mention their negative effects on the quality of life for Edmontonians. Based on a figure of $75,000 per tonne of contaminant emissions (which some may view as high) the diesel bus would have an added health care cost of $2.46/km compared to 0.69/km for the trolley. In other words, the health costs associated with diesel bus operation, according to this formula, would be currently on the order of 3.5 times greater than those for the trolley. If added to the operating cost per kilometre, the trolley becomes more economical to operate inspite of the bias against it inherent in the cost per kilometre comparison.

If we examine operating costs on a cost per km basis for the above items, we find that the trolley operates at a slightly higher cost per km than the diesel bus. This is largely due to the expenditures associated with maintaining the overhead infrastructure.

Comparative Maximum Levels of Toxic Air Contaminants by Mode (in g/km)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Carbon Monoxide

Oxides of Nitrogen

Particulates

Sources: NAAVC (1999), Edmonton Power (1993). NAAVC figures based on tests using CBD cycle

Energy Requirements and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for a Subcompact Car

Fuel cell emissions based on hydrogen generated from natural gas or methanol. Note that fuel cell technology still results in 77% of the CO2 emissions produced by a diesel engine.Sources: Daimler-Benz (1994); Ian Fisher, Electric Trolleybuses in Vancouver, 1997

52

45 44

125

110

85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Gasoline Engine Diesel Engine Fuel Cell

Energy Requirements in kWh per 100 km

Carbon Dioxide Emissions in grams per km

Fuel Cells and GHG’s

Hydrogen needed to power fuel-celled vehicles is most readily obtained by stripping it from hydrocarbon molecules found in fossil fuels. The process results in the release of Carbon Dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas and the key target of the Kyoto Accord.

The chart below quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions produced in operating a Mercedes A-class automobile with different power sources:

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per 1,000 km (in kg of CO2e)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Natural Gas

Methanol

Advanced "Clean" Gasoline

Fuel Cell (H from fossil fuels)

Current Gasoline Engine

Source: The Economist (April 2000); Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development

reasons to maximize trolleybus usage in edmonton

Documents