Comparative Energy Consumption (in MJ per vehicle km)

1
Comparative Energy Consumption (in MJ per
vehicle km)
Source BC Transit (1994)
2
Description of Transportation Emissions
3
Toxins identified in Diesel Exhaust by the EPA
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
contaminantis 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 PAHs 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.
4
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions by Mode/Power
Source(in g/km)
Data Sources ETS (1993), TransLink (1999),
Edmonton Power (1993)
5
Total Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions per Million
Kilometresin Vancouver (in tonnes)

Toxic Air Contaminants include Hydrocarbons,
Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur
Oxides, Particulate Matter.
Data Sources TransLink (1999)
6
Comparative Maximum Levels of Toxic Air
Contaminants by Mode (in g/km)
Sources NAAVC (1999), Edmonton Power (1993),
TransLink (1999). NAAVC figures based on tests
using CBD cycle
7
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends(in g/km of CO2e)
CO2 Equivalent includes greenhouse gas values
for emissions of CO, NOx, N2O, CH4. Data Sources
ETS (1993),, NAAVC
Larger, more powerful diesel engines tend to
result in a slight increase in the average CO2
emission levels from diesel powered transit
buses. On the other hand, the trolleybus,
powered by hydroelectric power, does not
contribute any greenhouse emissions to the
environment.
8
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Kilometre
in 2005 by Mode(in grams/km of CO2e)
Sources TransLink.
9
Comparative Noise Levels by Mode(in decibels)

• 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).
10
Trolley Coaches attract Riders
Trolley Bus Benefits . . .
OTHER CITIES OPERATING TROLLEY COACHES REPORT
RIDERSHIP INCREASES IN THE 10 TO 15 RANGE ? SF
MUNI - Conversion of No. 1 line to trolley
completed in 1981 18 increase in ridership
between 1979 and 1982. - No. 3, 4 and 55
lines also converted to trolley in 1982 with
increases in patronage of approximately 10 to
15. - California and Jackson lines
temporarily converted from trolley to diesel in
1970s with a 10 to 15 decrease in ridership. ?
SEATTLE METRO - Approximate 10 increase in
ridership when a line is converted from diesel to
trolley coach operation. ? CLEVELAND -
Expects to realize at least a 10 increase in
ridership with the installation of a trolley bus
line along Euclid Avenue early in the present
decade.
Sources Booz, Allen Hamilton, Trolley Bus
Study for the RTD and LACTC (1991) San Francisco
MUNI, Seattle METRO and Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority.
11
Statements of the Washington Society of
Professional Engineerswith regard to trolleybus
operations and the replacement of trolleybuses by
diesel-powered vehicles
- The . . . general belief that the diesel
engine is the most efficient and adaptable of all
motive units for urban transit vehicles is a
modern-day phenomenon that finds a parallel only
in such well-known misconceptions of the past as
the world is flat! - A major function of an
urban transit system is to transport patrons to
and from the central business district--without
strangling it! This cannot be done with the
motorbus, particularly the diesel because of the
offensive odor and high toxicity of its
exhaust. - Subsidizing an all-diesel system is
tantamount to subsidizing the motor coach
industry and air pollution. - No urban community
can afford to use the diesel bus for transit
purposes . . . from the standpoint of . . . air
pollution and public health. - The complete
failure of any type of IC engine in urban transit
duty is no fault of the technology, but rather a
result of the narrow limits imposed by the laws
of physics on the extent to which this type of
machine can be improved. Its greatest single
reason for failure as a transit unit is the fact
that its engine speed must be maintained if its
tractive effort and horsepower is, also, to be
maintained. By contrast, maximum tractive
effort, in the case of the electric vehicle, can
be realized without any engine speed
whatsoever. In other words, the IC engine is
incapable of achieving the energy efficiencies
possible with the electric motor. - The ultimate
in poor transit management is the practice of
scheduling motorbuses under the wires, when
trolleys are left standing idle in the barn. -
Those who contend that the cost per mile is
meaningful as a method of evaluating equipment
either do not have adequate knowledge to express
an opinion on the matter, or their motives must
be suspect. - Cost of power and maintenance of
trolley overhead track and feeder are negligible
in the overall costs of operating. The three
largest costs, by far, are platform hours,
equipment maintenance and garaging and
administrative and general expense. Whatever
managements reason for conversion to diesel,
economy of operation and service to the patron
have nothing whatsoever to do with it! - Any
proposal contemplating the retirement of an
efficient trolley coach operation of assured
longevity and utility value and the abandonment
of its newly constructed substation system not
only indicates a lack of moral responsibility to
the public and a sister city utility, but also a
complete disregard for the realities of
economics. (S. M. Shockey)


Source WSPE and
Seattle Civic Affairs Committee
12
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene I
13
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene II
     
14
Energy Efficiency of Fuel Cell Vehicles
Ten units of power produced at a power plant will
power - ten direct electric vehicles ( e.g.
trolleybuses) - five lead-acid battery
vehicles - one fuel cell vehicle
Source Eur Ing Irvine Bell BSc CEng MIMechE
CDipAF PGCE
15
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
16
Fuel Cells and GHGs
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. Presently, fuel cells would
result in little reduction in greenhouse gases
over internal combustion engines. 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)
Source The Economist
(April 2000) Pembina Institute for Appropriate
Development