Promoting the Trolleybus in Edmonton

NOTICE:
This pdf document contains a number of complex graphics; it has
been divided into two parts in order to speed downloading times.
This is Part II of a two-part document.
In order to read the complete document, you require both parts.
Please ensure that you have also downloaded Part I.
4.0 COST ISSUES
4.1 Modal Cost Comparisons and Hidden Biases
North American transit agencies agree that trolleybuses require higher investments than
internal combustion vehicles because of the requirement for fixed infrastructure.92 However,
comparing operating costs between the two modes is a matter that is fraught with
complications. In Edmonton, any cost comparison will be skewed by the fact that there are
some very fundamental differences between the trolley and diesel systems. A significant
portion of the trolley system is located in the central core, where average ridership is heavier,
stops are more frequent, traffic congestion is greater and speeds are slower. The diesel system
spans the entire city and encompasses the majority of routes serving residential and suburban
areas where average ridership is lighter, stops are less frequent, traffic congestion is less of a
problem and speeds are faster. As might be expected, any vehicle operating under the
conditions that characterize the trolley system will incur greater operating costs because it
is working harder.
No truly unbiased means exists of comparing costs by mode using figures derived from the
current standardized methods of data collection, recordkeeping and cost measurement
employed by most transit systems, including ETS. Only average figures for the entire trolley
system and the entire diesel system can be derived from the data collected, and no routespecific cost data has hitherto been tabulated.
Transit systems typically measure operating expenses either as cost per kilometer
(coincidentally, a measurement made popular several decades ago by manufacturers of the
diesel bus) or cost per hour. The use of cost per kilometer as a sole basis for modal cost
comparisons was successfully refuted by engineers in Seattle in 1966 because it does not take
into account the work done by the vehicle or the revenue earned.91 A transit vehicle making
no stops and carrying no passengers, for instance, will show a comparatively low cost per km
because it is doing very little work, but it will also accrue a substantial operating deficit.91, 19
Despite the problems identified with relying solely on cost per kilometer comparisons, this
yardstick continues to turn up in local comparisons of Edmonton’s two bus modes without
any caution being made about its inherent bias. Cost per hour has been touted by some as
being a fairer measurement for comparisons because it can take into account the vehicle
speed, and thus to some extent the work done in hauling passengers.91 In addition, transit
service in Edmonton is funded on the basis of service hours, not km traveled, which tends to
give cost per hour figures greater practical value. But even cost per hour figures do not take
revenue earned into account.91
According to ETS records, for the eight years from 1989 to 1997, Edmonton’s busy, mainline
trolley coach routes cost an average of 0.30 more per km to operate than the average operating
cost per km on the diesel system. The average cost per kilometer for the Edmonton trolley
and diesel systems are broken down on Chart 24, and the biases inherent in cost per km
comparisons are explained in detail. When the health costs associated with diesel bus
emissions are factored in ($1.90 per km for diesels vs. 0.69 per km for trolleys according to calculations
made in section 3.2.7 above), the trolley comes out with a lesser cost per km despite the bias in
favor of diesel that is associated with cost-per-km comparisons.
Average Operating Costs by Mode
in $ per km
(Chart 24)
1989 – 1997
Trolley
Diesel
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
If we examine operating costs on a
cost per km basis, we find 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 trolley’s
overhead infrastructure.
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 with
the following in mind:
1.
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. In other words, the trolley’s cost per km is higher partly because it is doing more work than the average bus on
the diesel system.
2.
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 trolleys are found on heavily travelled routes with
high patronage and frequent stops, where its operating costs are offset by higher revenues.
3.
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.
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. On a per km basis, health costs associated with diesel buses are currently at least 2.5 times greater than those
associated with the power plant emissions produced in operating trolleys.
Cost figures: Edmonton Transit System
4.2 Trolley Costs in Relation to Overall Operating Budget
The cost per hour of bus operations in Edmonton has hovered around $ 60.00 – 65.00 in recent
years.68 Trolleys, again, currently show a slightly higher cost. However, because the largest
portion of hourly operating costs are associated with the operator (wages, benefits), the hourly
cost differences linked to vehicle type are relatively insignificant.91 The vehicle-related costs
in the cost per hour equation work out to around $12.00 to $14.00. An hourly difference
between diesel and trolley operations of even, say, $1.50 in a sixty-dollar-plus figure amounts
to a cost difference of only some 2%. Most importantly, because only specific highpatronage, mainline routes are candidates for trolley operation and these routes form a
small (but important) part of the entire transit system, any extra costs related to vehicle type
incurred annually by using electric as opposed to diesel units on these routes will be
negligible in the overall operating budget of ETS. Chart 25 provides some calculations to
illustrate this point: The additional cost of operating trolleys on seven routes in Edmonton
constitutes only 0.1% of the annual $100,000,000 transit operating budget. The oft-held view
that the operation of trolleybuses is horrendously expensive is unfounded.
4.3 Effect of Level of System Use on Unit Costs
Cost efficiencies on the trolley system itself could be improved by increasing the total trolley
kilometers operated, either through increased use of the existing system and vehicles or the
construction of extensions. Until the late 1970’s, both the average cost per kilometer and
cost per hour for trolleybus operations were less than or very similar to those for diesel bus
operations in Edmonton.44, 17, 18 A primary reason for the increase in trolley operational costs
has been a gradual decrease in total annual trolley kilometers operated.88 In 1973, Edmonton
Transit System operated over 3 million km of trolley service.17 The average annual trolley
kilometres operated typically remained above 3 million until the mid-1980’s.88 After 1986, it
drops off steadily, falling below 2 million km by 1991 and below 1.5 million by 1995.88
Currently, the annual total mileage for trolley operations hovers just above 1 million km.68
Chart 26 illustrates the steady decline in annual trolley km operated and the consequential
increase in cost per km for the years 1986 to 1997.
“Economies of scale” are created in trolley operations primarily by taking advantage of the
necessity to maintain fixed infrastructure. The cost of maintaining the overhead system is
negotiated on contract for a specific time period (say, ten years, as in the case of Edmonton’s current
contract) based on expected operations and is therefore a relatively fixed annual sum. This
makes the relationship to cost per km an inverse one: Any reduction in the total number of
km operated will increase the cost of overhead maintenance per km and therefore the total
operating cost per km. There will also be some increase seen in the cost per hour. On the
other hand, increasing service levels will have a lowering effect on per-unit costs. The
relationship among annual km operated, maintenance cost per km and operating cost per km
for 1986 to 1997 is illustrated on Chart 27.
It is important to understand that the real cost of overhead maintenance to the service provider
(EPCOR) does not rise directly in proportion to the number of additional km operated. Thus
if one proposed to increase service levels on the trolley system beyond the maximum
expectations at the time when the maintenance contract was negotiated, one would not
typically expect this to result in a higher maintenance cost per km upon renegotiation of the
contract. Rather, one would anticipate increased service levels to produce better cost
efficiencies in terms of the overhead maintenance cost per km.
Cost of Trolley Operations
(Chart 25)
as a % of Total Transit Operating Budget
Trolley
Avg. cost/km = 0.90
Diesel
Avg. cost/km = 0.60
Avg. per hour vehicle-related cost = $13.50
Avg. per hour vehicle-related cost = $12.00
Avg. hourly vehicle-related cost difference = $1.50 per hour
Assume average of 1.15 million trolley km per year = 76,667 service hours
76,667 service hours x $1.50 hourly cost difference = $115,000 per year extra cost for trolleys
according to recent scheduling and usage patterns
*
The health cost
associated with a
similar number of
diesel bus service
hours is estimated at
two to three times
this amount!
w
$115,000 ÷ $100,000,000 total annual budget for transit operations x 100 = 0.1% of total
operating budget
Even with present scheduling and usage patterns, the total extra
operational costs incurred by using trolleys vs. diesels on 7 Edmonton
routes is insignificant in the overall costs of transit operations.
* Better scheduling and increased use of trolleys would have a lowering effect on the hourly cost difference. Trolleys operate in more heavily travelled
corridors; diesels operating in these same corridors would also have higher hourly costs than the diesel system average used in these calculations.
(Chart 26)
Kilometres Operated vs. Cost per Kilometre
4
t o t al annual km
o p erat ed in millio ns
3.5
3
t o t al o p erat ing co s t
p er km in $
2.5
2
1.5
Reducing the annual
number of trolleybus
kilometres operated
contributes to rising
per-kilometre operating
costs.
1
0.5
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
0
Data Source: Edmonton Transit System
(Chart 27)
Operating and Overhead Costs vs. Kilometres Operated
4
3.5
to tal annual km o p erated in
millio ns
o verhead maintenance p er
km o p erated in $
3
2.5
to tal o p erating co s t p er km
in $
2
1.5
1
Reductions in the annual
number of trolleybus
kilometres operated force the
per-km costs of overhead
maintenance as well as
operating costs upward.
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
0.5
0
Increasing trolley service km
would lower per-unit costs and
result in better cost efficiencies
on the system.
Data Source: Edmonton Transit System
4.4 Return on Capital Investments
If the capital costs associated with the purchase of the trolleybuses themselves are distributed
over the expected lifetime of the vehicles and divided by the number of km operated each
year, one can derive a capital vehicle cost annual equivalent. The lower the figure, the better
the return on the capital investment. The capital vehicle cost annual equivalent varies exactly
inversely with the number of km operated. On Chart 28, the capital vehicle cost annual
equivalent is shown to rise over the years as the total number of trolley service kilometres has
declined. The return Edmontonians are getting on their investment in clean, quiet trolley
vehicles would be improved if trolleybus usage were increased. Environmental factors aside,
the economic advantages that could be realized for trolley operations by increased usage
ought to make finding ways of more fully utilizing the current system and of completing
extensions very worthwhile goals.
4.5 The Effects of Declining Petroleum Resources
Public transportation experts generally agree the greatest opportunity to create efficient,
effective and attractive transit exists in cities with multi-modal systems.92 In particular, there
is an advantage to a system that is not completely dependent on one energy source.18 While it
may be the case that electricity costs in Alberta have risen markedly since the provincial
government introduced deregulation, bringing new power generation facilities on line and
increasing supply is likely to have at least a stabilizing, if not a lowering effect on prices.
Calgary Transit feels that an investment in wind generated electricity to power its electric
transit vehicles will help ensure lower electricity costs over the long term.70 On the other
hand, dramatic increases in oil prices (diesel fuel, gasoline) in the future are absolutely
assured.28 According to projections, illustrated on Chart 29, world petroleum production
will reach its peak around 2012, after which production will steadily decline and prices will
skyrocket.28 Even in the short term, oil prices are by no means stable. For instance, in
December, 2000, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi sought the support of Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez to persuade oil-producing nations to stop pumping for one to two
years to prevent any attempts to lower oil prices.56 Such political actions have the potential to
plunge oil-dependent nations like the United States and Canada into another energy crisis of
similar magnitude to that experienced in the 1970’s.
The financial viability of the diesel bus will be limited to a time frame where diesel fuel
remains relatively cost effective. The decline of world oil supplies and consequential rise in
prices will eventually become effective drivers in moving transportation away from its
current heavy reliance on oil products.61 Electricity, as the most versatile of all energy forms,
is destined to figure prominently in providing motive power in the future. Given the
certainty of decreasing dependence on petroleum fuels in this century, allowing electrically
operated street transit to decline in favor of oil-dependent modes such as diesel buses is
clearly short-sighted and unwise.
Chart 30 summarizes a number of key points from the above discussion relating to trolley
coach economics.
The Washington Society of Professional Engineers made several key findings when they
undertook to assess the continued economic viability of the Seattle trolleybus system some
years ago, and their conclusions have much in common with many of the points raised above
(Chart 28)
Capital Annual Equivalent Vehicle Costs vs. Kilometres Operated
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
0
to tal annual km o p erated in
millio ns
cap ital vehicle co st annual
eq uivalent in $ p er km
Annual km operated and capital
vehicle cost annual equivalent
are inversely related.
Decreasing the annual km
operated increases the capital
vehicle cost annual equivalent.
A lower AE figure indicates a
better investment return.
Increasing trolley usage would
give Edmontonians a better
return on their investment in
quality, environmentally sound
bus transit.
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.
Data Source: Edmonton Transit System
(Chart 29)
Projected Worldwide Oil Production
1950 - 2050
Early in this century, half the world’s known oil supply will have been used, and
oil production will slide into permanent decline. This will result in price increases
far above current levels.
The importance of other transportation fuels like electricity will grow.
Source: Discover, October 2000
$ Trolley Coach Economics In Brief $
(Chart 30)
There are a number of factors which may affect the cost of trolley operations. One is the price of power, which may
fluctuate just as the price of diesel fuel or natural gas. Another is the work done by the vehicle. Vehicles that operate in
heavy traffic conditions with frequent stops and heavy loads will have higher operating costs than those running where
traffic is lighter, stops are less frequent and ridership is lower. The former are typical of most routes on the trolley
system. A third significant factor is the total number of km operated. Since the annual expenditure for overhead
maintenance is relatively fixed, the unit costs of trolley operations will vary inversely with the annual number of km
operated. More trolley km mean lower per unit costs and better cost efficiencies.
Vehicle operating costs are usually measured in terms of cost per km or cost per hour. Cost comparisons between
trolleys and diesels are very difficult to make because the only cost figures available are based on system averages, and
the two systems have fundamental differences. It is generally agreed that in North America and Western Europe
trolleybuses have slightly higher operating costs associated with them overall than equivalent diesel buses. This higher
cost mostly results from the expenditures to maintain the overhead plant. Cost comparisons based solely on cost per km
may well show higher costs for trolleys, but such comparisons are inherently biased because cost per km cannot take
into account the work done by the vehicle. On a cost per hour basis, the slightly higher cost of Edmonton’s trolleys is
not very significant because the largest portion of hourly costs are those associated with the operator, not the vehicle
type.
In the overall cost of operating the transit system, the extra expenses associated with operating trolleys instead of
diesels are insignificant. Furthermore, the health costs associated with diesel bus emissions tend to negate any savings
achieved with diesels at the operating level, so the trolley’s higher operating costs are actually a small price to pay for its
environmental benefits. As an electric vehicle, the trolleybus reduces dependency on world oil reserves. Significant
increases in the cost of diesel fuel are imminent as these reserves become depleted.
Edmontonians have an enormous capital investment in trolley infrastructure which warrants maximal use of the system.
Since the early 1980’s, over $47 million dollars have been invested in vehicles, overhead upgrades, extensions and new
power supply equipment. The expenditure to build a trolley system of equivalent size to ours today would run upwards
of $70 million dollars. 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, Edmonton’s trolley system must be
considered a great asset. Considering our existing investment in trolleys, the cost of building moderate extensions to
put more trolleys into operation is small. Light Rail—which does not eliminate the need for buses—costs between $17
and 35 million per km. At around $1 million per km or less for trolley overhead, the cost of expanding the trolley system
is a relative bargain, and it would add utility value and increase efficiencies on the trolley system.
with respect to promoting the trolleybus in Edmonton. Some statements made by the
Washington engineers that are applicable to any trolleybus operation today are included on
Chart 31.
5.0 TROLLEYBUS USAGE WORLDWIDE
5.1 General World Trend
As was previously mentioned in connection with Chart 19, many North American trolleybus
systems were abandoned in the 1950’s and 60’s as part of a general trend toward deinvestment in public transit.92, 63 This also occurred in other parts of the world as a result of
budgetary changes or reductions in transit funding that made cheaper diesel buses more
attractive economically.92, 85 Most of these abandonments occurred at a time or under
conditions when the environmental impacts of operating internal combustion engines were not
given much consideration.75 Nor was the fact that potential riders tend to favor higher quality
services like trolleybuses of great importance in a climate where public transit was not highly
valued nor highly supported financially. The trend toward abandoning trolleybus systems
had essentially been reversed by the late 1970’s as a result of the energy crises, environmental
concerns and a gradual reinvestment in transit.92 The abandonment of an existing trolleybus
system would currently be out-of-step with the general industry trend:63 Chart 32.
5.2 Outside Canada and the United States
There are currently around 350 trolleybus systems operating worldwide.63, 85 37 brand new
trolleybus systems opened in the last decade, a total of 101 new systems have been placed in
service since 1980.85 A review of systems outside Canada and the U.S. reveals that many
have reaffirmed their commitment to the trolleybus with either route extensions or the renewal
of infrastructure and the purchase of new vehicles.63 The city of Arnhem in the Netherlands
launched its “Trolley 2000” program last year to place increased emphasis on its commitment
to clean and quiet transit vehicles.15 All vehicles carry the slogan “Arnhem – Trolley Stad”
(Arnhem – Trolley City). Some noteworthy renewal programs have also been carried out in
Athens, Greece; Linz and Salzburg, Austria; Nancy, France; Quito, Ecuador; Lausanne,
Switzerland; as well as in the Chinese cities of Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai, just to
name a few.85 The trolleybus has been gaining increased attention globally in light of
growing environmental concerns, and several cities are now seriously considering or even
testing trolleybuses. These include Hong Kong, Rome and London, England; some examples
of new systems currently under construction include Paris and Merida, Venezuela.85 Sao
Paulo, Brazil, which already has a fairly extensive trolleybus system, recently opened an ultra
high capacity line that runs on a right-of-way similar to LRT.85 Some highlights from the
trolleybus scene around the world are recorded on Chart 33.
5.3 Within Canada and the United States
In Canada and the U.S., every single city that operates trolleybuses except Edmonton has
taken some steps toward the continuation and renewal of its system in the longer term.
Dayton, Ohio just completed major extensions to its overhead system in 2000 and has a brand
new fleet purchased in 1998.85 San Francisco is in the process of buying a new trolleybus
fleet and is currently completing the evaluation of prototypes.85 Seattle is extending its wires
and will upgrade the propulsion systems from its existing vehicles and install them in new bus
bodies.85 Vancouver has clearly indicated its intent to renew and expand its trolley fleet by
Statements of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers
with regard to trolleybus operations and the replacement of trolleybuses by
diesel-powered vehicles
(Chart 31)
- 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 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 management’s 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
(Chart 32)
Number of Passenger Trolleybus Systems Worldwide
The number of
trolleybus systems in
the world has been
increasing steadily
since the early 1970’s!
Source: Alan Murray, World Trolleybus
Encyclopedia, 2000
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene I
-
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 to reduce pollution. Demonstration line.
Shanghai, China – New air conditioned low floor trolleybuses entering service.
Brno, Czechoslovakia – New route opened in September 2000; new Škoda trolleys arriving.
Quito, Ecuador – 59 new trolleybuses in service. Extensions to Quito’s large, ultra-modern trolleybus line
that uses articulated vehicles, platform loading and operates on a right-of-way.
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’ appeared in Fall 2000.
Paris, France – NEW TROLLEY SYSTEM! A 6.5 km route is to be constructed for guided trolleybuses.
Athens, Greece – Took delivery of 200 brand new low floor trolleybuses in preparation for the Olympic
Games.
Arnhem, Holland – Launched “Trolley 2000” in 1999, 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 1,600
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.
(Dec. 2000)
Data Sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
(Chart 33)
2005-2006, although the realization of these plans has been dogged recently by funding
problems.83, 85 Trolleybus service will be returned to Stanley Park by constructing a 0.8 km
extension this year.101 Boston has new trolleybuses on order with Neoplan; government
officials ruled against the purchase of any new diesel powered vehicles at all in that city
because of environmental concerns.29 And Philadelphia has included $44 million in its budget
for the years 2004-2011 to purchase new trolleybuses.6
Various American cities have expressed an interest in trolleybus technology in recent years,
although no plans have been realized. Such cities include Los Angeles; Louisville, Kentucky
and Cleveland, Ohio.34, 85, 77 Cleveland expected the installation of a trolleybus-operated
Transitway on Euclid Avenue would have the best chance of attracting significant new
ridership,77 but the scope and focus of the project appears now to have shifted, and the
emphasis on transit has been lost. In California, AC Transit is currently looking at cleaner
options for public transit in the Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro corridor and is considering
trolleybuses as one of its options.11
The developments in Canadian and U.S. cities are summarized on Chart 34.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES
In the foregoing comparisons, the diesel bus was the mode against which the trolleybus was
compared and contrasted. This is essentially because the diesel constitutes the only other bus
mode in use in Edmonton at this time, and it constitutes the most common bus technology.
However, there are other technologies available that merit discussion here. (Refer to Chart
35 for common air contaminant emissions comparisons for Compressed Natural Gas and
Hybrid Diesel-Electric vehicles discussed below.)
6.1 Compressed Natural Gas
For some years now, buses operated on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) have made headlines
in various cities in Canada and the United States. They have been touted as an
environmentally friendly vehicle on the grounds that their emissions profile is leaner on
common air contaminants than the diesel’s.39, 3 Emissions tests have generally shown that
CNG buses produce less NOx and carbon monoxide than equivalent conventional or even
‘clean’ diesel buses.57 The particulate matter released is markedly less by weight, although it
is much finer and has different characteristics than diesel particulate matter.3, 20 The number
of fine particles produced by CNG vehicles is greater than diesel.3 Compared to the
trolleybus, the total CAC emissions from CNG still appear to be greater than those released
by Edmonton-area power plants in supplying trolley power. Specifically, the amounts of NOx
and CO emitted by a CNG vehicle per km would still exceed power plant emissions.
Like any other internal combustion vehicle, the CNG releases its emissions directly into the
streets for pedestrians and transit users to inhale. In spite of reduced CAC emissions
compared to diesel, CNG emissions present considerable cause for concern. Studies
conducted in both the United States and the UK have linked compressed natural gas
emissions to cancer, citing ultra-fine particulate matter and a formaldehyde component in the
exhaust as the main culprits.3, 4, 20, 23 A recent Swedish study claimed the cancer risks from
CNG were actually higher than from ‘clean’ diesel buses equipped with particulate traps.4 A
(Chart 34)
Recent Developments on the Trolleybus Scene II
Some Highlights from other Canadian and U.S. Cities
City
Boston
Dayton
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Vancouver
Approx. Active Fleet
40 Flyer (1976)
57 ETI/Skoda (1998-99)
66 AM General (1979)
276 Flyer (1976-77)
60 Flyer artic (1993)
102 AM General (1979)
46 MAN artic (1986 )
236 Breda artic dual mode
(1990)
244 Flyer (1982-83)
Recent Developments
Current fleet to be replaced w. new trolleys; new route planned east of Downtown
Boston to use Neoplan articulated low floor trolleys.
Fleet renewed in 1998-99; last of four new extensions opened August 20, 2000.
$44 M in budget for new trolleys, 2004-2011.
Fleet currently undergoing renewal with new 40 and 60 foot trolleys from ETI/Skoda.
AM General fleet to be ‘rebodied’ using 100 40 ft. Gillig bodies on order and
updated/refurbished electrics and controls; construction of an extension to Rte. 36 to be
completed by June 2001.
Over 200 new low floor trolleys to come in next five years; new 0.8 km extension into
Stanley Park to be completed by Fall 2001.
(May 2001)
Data sources: International Trolleybus News List, Trolleybus Magazine
Every “ trolley city” in Canada and the United States except Edmonton has
made some long term plans to ensure the renewal and continued operation of
trolleybuses.
Comparative Maximum Levels of Common Air Contaminants by Mode of Propulsion (in g/km)
(Chart 35)
80
70
Carbon Monoxide
60
Nitrogen Oxides
50
Particulates
40
30
20
10
D
ie
C
se
le
l
an
D
ie
se
D
N
ie
a
l
tu
se
ra
Tr
l/ E
lG
ol
le
le
as
ct
y
r
(E
ic
dm
H
yb
Tr
.P
rid
ol
ow
le
y
er
(g
A
Tr
as
vg
ol
.)
f
le
ire
y
d
(c
pl
oa
an
l-f
t)
ire
d
pl
an
Tr
ol
t)
le
y
(w
in
d)
0
Alternatives to the conventional
diesel bus like ‘clean’ diesel, CNG
and hybrid technology are a long
way from being competitive with
trolleys in terms of emissions.
Trolleys can be made zero
emission vehicles with a simple
investment in wind power, which
requires no vehicle modifications
or investments in new technology.
Sources: NAAVC/OTT (1999), Edmonton Power (1993). NAAVC/OTT figures based on tests using CBD cycle
recent item in the journal Professional Engineering cautioned that a thorough evaluation of
the health effects of the ultra-fine particulate from CNG vehicles is necessary before a
massive switch to CNG should be endorsed.72
A salient point about CNG buses is that they are worse offenders than diesels in terms of
greenhouse gases.3, 57 CNG engines release methane as a product of incomplete
combustion.57 Methane has a value as a greenhouse gas (Global Warming Potential) that is 21
times higher than CO2.41 There is also little gain in the reduction of noise pollution with
CNG vehicles; their noise level values differ little from those of a diesel bus.57, 83
CNG buses require expensive refueling infrastructure to permit their operation and specially
equipped facilities to store and repair them because of the volatility of the fuel.102 They are
also much more maintenance intensive than either diesel or trolleybuses, not only because
the engine and fuel system require more maintenance, but the higher vehicle weight also takes
its toll on the braking system.102 Data from TransLink (B.C.) indicates that CNG buses
consume about 20% more fuel than diesels and are much less energy efficient than either the
diesel or the trolley.102 Their reliability is poorer than trolleys or diesels.102 Because of the
weight of the CNG fuel tanks, the ability of a compressed gas vehicle to handle heavy
passenger loads is reduced compared to diesel or trolley vehicles of equivalent size.102 In
essence, one pays higher costs to operate CNG buses for a loss in energy efficiency and in
many respects questionable and certainly very limited environmental gain. In some cases,
the operational costs of CNG buses are cited as being higher than for diesels or trolleys.5, 3
Coast Mountain Bus Company in British Columbia operates 50 CNG buses out of its Port
Coquitlam garage. They do not plan to purchase any more of these vehicles because of the
very limited advantages they provide.102 The Toronto Transit Commission operates 125
CNG buses and has ten years of CNG experience. The TTC discovered that the supposedly
‘clean’ emissions profile of the CNG bus rapidly deteriorated after about two years of service,
reducing any assumed value as a ‘clean air’ vehicle.4 They have found the operating and
maintenance expense of CNG vehicles, together with rising natural gas prices, quite
daunting.4 TTC Chairman Howard Moscoe issued a statement in August 2000 that the
transit authority regretted the abandonment of its clean electric trolleybus system some
years ago under the erroneous assumption that CNG would provide a relatively clean and
viable alternative.4
The MBTA in Boston is currently acquiring CNG vehicles, as are several other transit
operators in the United States--particularly in California--as an alternative to diesel-powered
transport.29 Unlike Edmonton, these cities lack an extensive investment in trolleybus
infrastructure.
6.2 Diesel-Electric Hybrid
Hybrid diesel-electric drivetrains represent a brand new technology in the bus industry,
although this concept has been used to power railroad locomotives for several decades. There
are some differences among the various hybrid drive trains, but essentially this technology
employs a diesel engine (of smaller displacement than for a regular diesel bus) operating at a
constant speed.25 This engine charges a battery pack which supplies power to an electric
traction motor(s).25 At cruising speeds, the diesel engine generates enough electricity to move
the bus, while additional power is drawn from the batteries for acceleration.25 New York City
Transit, among others, has been testing such vehicles and intends to begin replacement of part
of its diesel fleet with them.6 The MBTA in Boston also intends to place hybrids in service as
a diesel substitute.29 (The MBTA has no intention of using hybrids to replace trolleybuses on
its four Cambridge electric lines.)29 Experience with the hybrid in a wide range of service
conditions is still not that extensive at this time, so it is really not yet a proven technology in
the same sense as diesel propulsion, trolleybus or even CNG. Some problems have been
cited under heavy load conditions as well as when ascending steep grades. The long-term
maintenance cost profile for these vehicles is still unknown, but one must consider there are
essentially two separate systems to maintain.
So far, New York City has given the hybrid a very favorable rating. Fuel consumption
compared to standard diesel buses is reduced by around 30%;76 noise is also reduced
compared to standard diesel because of the fact that the engine is not placed under additional
load during acceleration. Performance has been rated favorably on flat surfaces and in stopand-go traffic. CO and NOx emissions are reduced below the levels of both conventional
diesels, ‘clean’ diesels and even CNG buses, but the hybrid still fares poorly against the
cleanliness of trolleybuses with respect to these pollutants.24, 51, 76 The hybrid still releases
harmful particulate emissions into the streets, although in lesser amounts that straight diesel
buses.24 There may be a consequential reduction in health impacts, but this vehicle would still
appear to have greater negative health repercussions than using trolleybuses. With hybrids,
the greenhouse gas CO2 is reduced considerably over standard diesel bus levels.
In short, the hybrid diesel-electric appears hold much promise as an alternative to straight
diesel buses on routes with lower ridership or where erecting overhead wires is not feasible.
It is conceivable that with sufficient development, these vehicles could one day displace the
diesel bus as the industry standard. The hybrid, however, makes a poor substitute for a
trolleybus whose environmental impacts are much less; this is particularly true in a city like
Edmonton where considerable investments in an overhead power system have already been
made.
6.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell
A developing technology is seen in the much talked about hydrogen fuel cell bus, engineered
by such well-known companies as Ballard Power Systems. The fuel cell bus is essentially an
electric vehicle that uses a set of hydrogen fuel cells to generate its own electricity on board.
Typically, hydrogen is stored in large tanks mounted on the vehicle’s roof, but it is also
possible to produce hydrogen on board from fossil fuels using a special device called a
“reformer”.61 The electricity is stored in a battery pack, from which it is fed to an electric
traction motor(s). Recent engineering efforts have sought ways to eliminate the battery pack
as it has been labeled a source of problems.6 Similar to CNG buses, hydrogen fuel cell buses
must be equipped with leak detectors because hydrogen is extremely volatile.57, 61
It may come as a surprise to learn that the fuel cell concept is, in fact, older than the lead-acid
battery and dates back to a discovery by the British physicist Sir William Grove in 1839.61
Difficulties in adapting fuel cells for practical use have severely limited their application, in
particular as mobile fuel sources for transportation. It must be emphasized that the use of fuel
cells for powering transit vehicles is absolutely experimental at the present time. While they
may indeed hold promise for the future, technologies with a proven track record will always
be the most desirable choice for any transit authority simply for reasons of reliability and the
relative predictability of costs. There are still too many unknowns about fuel cells to make
them worth the investment risk on a large scale.
Hydrogen fuel cell buses face a number of tough obstacles that must be overcome to make
them truly viable and worthwhile as transit vehicles:
Weight: A complete fuel cell powerplant for a transit vehicle has five to ten times the weight of
an equivalent internal combustion powerplant.61 This means that without a single passenger on
board, a 40 foot fuel cell bus has practically the weight of an equivalent diesel bus with a fully
seated load. Because of vehicle weight limitations, a fuel cell vehicle cannot currently handle
the passenger volumes found on typical mainline bus routes.6, 57
Performance and Reliability: Acceleration was cited as a problem on early fuel cell test
buses in Vancouver and Chicago. In Vancouver, fuel cell buses had difficulty ascending hills.
Subsequent adjustments and modifications to the vehicle managed to overcome this, but to the
detriment of fuel consumption.6
Fuel cells are extremely sensitive to impurities in the hydrogen. Even the best fuel cells degrade
quickly if there is more than 10 ppm of carbon monoxide in the hydrogen.61 Whether the cells
are fed by hydrogen stored in tanks on board the vehicle, or whether the hydrogen is
manufactured from fossil fuels using an on-board reformer, impurities appear unavoidable and
pose a serious problem for the fuel cell’s reliability and durability.61 Special ‘clean-up
treatments’ to purify the hydrogen carry a substantial cost penalty and their effectiveness may be
limited.61
In Vancouver, the range and reliability of test vehicles was such that they were only permitted to
remain in service for a maximum 4.5 hours at a time.6 This contrasts sharply with a dieselpowered bus that can remain in service for 1 to 1.5 days before refueling and a trolleybus which
has no refueling requirements at all and can provide continuous service.
Cost: Vehicular fuel cell powerplants are extremely expensive, costing about $5,000 per kW.61
This is about three times the cost of an internal combustion powerplant.61 Similar to CNG
buses, fuel cell vehicles require expensive infrastructure.40 This may include equipment to
produce and store hydrogen as well as special refueling stations. The fuel costs alone for the
operation of the test buses in Vancouver were found to be at least three times those of a diesel or
trolleybus.6 The investment of large sums of money in fuel cell infrastructure may be considered
questionable at this time, particularly when one considers that a similar investment in trolleybus
infrastructure would at least result in adopting a proven technology. In British Columbia, the
provincial government offered an annual subsidy of $40 million to TransLink for the
operation of fuel cell buses. The transit authority felt these funds would be better spent on
adding 40 km of overhead to its trolleybus system each year.6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The operation of large numbers of fuel cell vehicles requires a
large and steady supply of hydrogen. Currently, the most readily available and most economical
sources of hydrogen are fossil fuels.49, 61 The hydrogen molecules are removed by a process
called “stripping”.49 This process of making hydrogen creates considerable quantities of the
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and thus contributes to the greenhouse effect. The amount of
CO2 produced is, in fact, only slightly less than for internal combustion vehicles operating on
gasoline or diesel fuel. Using data gathered by Daimler-Benz, Chart 36 shows that hydrogen
production for the operation of a subcompact car would yield around 77% of the CO2 emissions
generated by the same car with a diesel engine.40 In the near future, the ability to effect
substantial reductions in greenhouse gases and to slow the rapid depletion of fossil fuel
resources by implementing fuel cell buses is debatable. The prospect of reducing CO2
emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants using new technologies appears better than the
(Chart 36)
Energy Requirements and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for a Subcompact Car
140
125
120
110
100
85
80
Energy Requirements in kWh per 100 km
Carbon Dioxide Emissions in grams per km
60
52
45
44
40
20
0
Gasoline Engine
Fuel cell emissions based on hydrogen
generated from natural gas or methanol.
Diesel Engine
Fuel Cell
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
(Chart 37)
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
most feasible methods of hydrogen extraction. While it is possible to make hydrogen for fuel
cells from electricity produced by renewable sources like biomass, wind, water and the sun, this
process is not nearly as efficient as using this clean energy for powering transit vehicles directly
from overhead lines.
Some problems associated with fuel cell vehicles are unlikely to be overcome. The most
significant of these relates to energy use: Fuel cell vehicles are practically a non-starter in
terms of energy efficiency. The fuel cell bus requires at least 9 kWh of electricity to produce
1 kWh of tractive output at the wheels of the bus.80 A trolleybus without regenerative braking
needs only 1.56 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of tractive output, making it around six
times more energy efficient than a fuel cell bus.80 Factoring in the reduced passenger capacity
of a fuel cell bus makes the trolleybus currently about 12 times more efficient!80 Even in the
most optimistic scenario of fuel cell development, the trolleybus is still likely to remain at
least 5 times more energy efficient.80
Chart 37 compares the energy efficiency of the fuel cell bus to a trolleybus and a battery bus
in terms of number of vehicles that can be driven by one unit of power. Chartered
Mechanical Engineer (Eur Ing) Irvine Bell estimates the overall energy efficiency of a fuel
cell bus currently at around 11%96 The most optimistic predictions of fuel cell development
point to a potential total energy efficiency in vehicular applications of 20-30%, taking into
account the hydrogen production process.96, 40 This compares with a diesel bus at about 2540%.95 A trolleybus driven by electricity generated by the latest high technology gas-powered
turbines can achieve total efficiencies between 40 and 60%;95, 73 trolleys can also be efficiently
powered by renewable sources. Fuel cells would prove much more efficient in supplying
electricity for public transit vehicles if installed in large stationary power plants than if used
on board vehicles.52, 69
7.0 SUMMARY
As has become evident in the foregoing, there are very solid reasons to support the retention
and expansion of the trolleybus system in Edmonton and to encourage its use to the maximum
extent possible. Concisely stated, a basis for support can be built on the following key points
(Chart 38):
♦ Edmonton already has extensive trolleybus infrastructure in good condition
♦ The City has made a sizeable investment in this technology over the past 20 years
♦ There is good potential for expansion of the system in well-travelled transit corridors
♦ Trolleybuses are twice as energy efficient as diesel buses
♦ The operation of trolleys results in less common air contaminant emissions per km than are
produced by internal combustion buses; trolleys are environmentally superior
♦ Trolleys produce no in-street emissions
♦
In-street diesel bus emissions cause cancer and are linked to asthma, chronic respiratory
disease and heart disease; there is no safe level of diesel exhaust exposure
♦ Trolleys have lower health costs associated with their operation
♦
Trolleybuses have greater potential to reduce greenhouse emissions in the long-term
♦
♦
♦
It is possible to make trolleys totally emission-free with wind power technology
Trolleybuses produce markedly less noise, contributing to better communities
The goals of the Transportation Master Plan with respect to limiting the environmental
and community impacts of transportation support the continued and expanded use of
trolleybuses
♦ Trolleybuses are favored by citizens and have a greater potential to increase transit
ridership than diesel-powered vehicles
♦ The additional cost of operating trolleys vs. diesels is negligible in the overall operating
costs of transit
♦ Increasing the number of trolleys on the road will reduce per-unit operating costs on the
trolley fleet
♦ Electrically powered street transit provides security against future price rises associated
with the depletion of world oil reserves
♦ The popularity of the trolleybus around the world has been growing over the past 20 years
♦
All other trolley systems in Canada and the U.S. have moved in the direction of renewing
their trolleybus fleets with new trolleybuses
♦ Although cleaner than diesel buses, none of the existing and new alternative technologies
(CNG, hybrid) can really compete with the trolleybus in terms of the overall toxic emissions
profile, load capacity, reliability. Fuel cell buses are currently unproven, but are not likely
ever to match the trolley in terms of energy efficiency
Continuation and expansion of trolleybus service will ensure a commitment toward better
public transit, better quality of life and a better environment for Edmontonians (Chart 39).
Reasons to Support Trolleybus Usage in Edmonton
(Chart 38)
♦ Edmonton already has extensive trolleybus infrastructure in good condition
♦ City has made a sizeable investment in this technology over the past 20 years
♦ Good potential for expansion of the system in well-travelled transit corridors
♦ Trolleybuses are twice as energy efficient as diesel buses
♦ Trolleybuses result in less contaminant emissions per km of travel; they are environmentally superior
♦ Trolleybuses produce no in-street emissions
♦
In-street diesel bus emissions cause cancer, heart disease and contribute to asthma and respiratory diseases;
there is no safe level of diesel exhaust exposure
♦ Trolleys have lower health costs associated with their operation
♦ Trolleybuses have greater potential to reduce greenhouse emissions in the long-term
♦ Trolleys can easily be made totally emission-free with wind power technology
♦ Trolleybuses produce markedly less noise
♦ Goals of the Transportation Master Plan support the continued use of trolleybuses
♦ Trolleybuses are favored by citizens and have a greater potential to increase transit ridership than diesel vehicles
♦ The additional cost of operating trolleys vs. diesels is negligible in the overall operating costs of transit
♦ Lower per unit costs and better trolley system efficiencies could be achieved with more trolleys operating
♦ Electrically powered street transit is a security against future price rises associated with declining oil reserves
♦ The popularity of the trolleybus around the world has been growing over the past 20 years
♦ Other trolley systems in Canada and the U.S. have moved in the direction of renewal of their systems/vehicles
♦
None of the existing and new alternative technologies like CNG and Hybrid buses can compete with the
trolleybus in terms of emissions, load capacity, reliability. Fuel cell buses are unproven and
are unlikely ever to match the trolley in terms of energy efficiency
Edmonton – Quality, Environmentally Sound Bus Transit
(Chart 39)
Now . . .
And in
the
Future!
Photo credits: Upper-M. Parsons,
Lower-D. Pigeon/A.Bruce
8.0 Key Sources
(Note: Superscripted numbers in document text refer to source numbers below.)
I. Articles, Books, Documents and Web Documents
1
2
“A Cleanup for the Big Rigs,” The New York Times, December 26, 2000.
Ambient Particulate Matter—An Overview. Environment Canada, February 1998.
3
Analysis of Alternative Fuel Technologies for New York City Transit Buses. NYC Transit Riders
Council, February 2000.
4
“Another Major City Sours on CNG; Advocate Report attacks Clean Diesel,” Diesel Fuel News,
August 14, 2000.
5
6
APTA Electric Bus Subcommittee Meeting, February 14-16, 1999. Notes.
APTA Electric Bus Subcommittee Meeting, November 8, 1999. Notes.
7
“ARB cuts Emissions from Transit Buses,” News Release of the California Environmental
Protection Agency—Air Resources Board, February 24, 2000.
8
“Automobile Fuels”, Toxics Link Website at: http://www.toxicslink.org/facts_autos.htm.
9
Bakker, John J. A Submission to the City of Edmonton regarding Trolley Buses on behalf of
Transport 2000 Canada (Alberta Branch). Submitted to the Utilities and Public Works Committee of
City Council, March 16, 1993.
10
“BC Transit Operating Statistics for 1994-95,” Transport
http://vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/learning/vancouver/operating_stats.html.
2000
BC
website
at:
11
“Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro Major Investment Study,” Community Connections (published by
AC Transit, http://www.actransit.org/mistudy.html), Spring 2000.
12
Better Public Transit: An Essential Economic Strategy for Canada. Canadian Urban Transit
Association, 2000.
13
Beyond Kyoto: TransAlta’s Blueprint for Sustainable Thermal Power Generation. TransAlta
Utilities, March 2000.
14
Bunting, Alan. “Change is in the Air,” Automotive Engineering, February 2001, p. 71-76.
15
Burmeister, Jürgen. “KAN Masterplan und Trolley 2000: Nahverkehr in der Region ArnhemNijmegen,” Stadtverkehr International, June 1998.
16
City
of
Edmonton
Collision
http://www.police.edmonton.ab.ca.
Statistics,
Edmonton
Police
Service
at:
17
Clark, Robert. "Comparison of Trolley and Diesel Buses,” NATTA (North American Trackless
Trolley Association) Special Bulletin, April 1975.
18
Clark, Robert. "Comparison of Trolley and Diesel Buses," Transit Canada, September/October
1975.
19
Clark, Robert. Guidelines for the Planning and Operation of Trolley Bus Service in Edmonton.
1984.
20
“Clean Diesels less a Cancer Threat than CNG,” Green Diesel Technology (by International Truck
and Engine Corporation) at http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/news24.shtml.
[Originally
published in Diesel Fuel News, September 11, 2000.]
21
“C-Train Customers to Ride the Wind Soon,” The City of Calgary website at:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/ctrain_wind_sail.html.
22
Death, Disease and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage due to Air Pollution from Power
Plants. Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA, October 2000.
23
“Debate heightens over Compressed Gas,” The Earth Times
(http://www.earthtimes.org/aug/environmentdebateheightensaug3_00.htm), August 3, 2000.
24
Diesel-Electric Hybrid Buses: Addressing the Technical and Public Health Issues. Clean Air and
Energy, Transportation Policy Papers of the Natural Resources Defense Council, April 1999.
25
Diesel Electric Hybrid 40’ Low Floor Coach DE40LF. Information pamphlet produced by New
Flyer Industries, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1999.
26
“Diesel
Exhaust
and
Air
Pollution,”
http://www.lungusa.org/air/airout00_diesel.html.
American
Lung
Association
at:
27
“Diesel Exhaust Contributes to Lung Cancer,” Mediconsult/Reuter’s Health Information
(http://www.mediconsult.com/mc/mcsite.nsf/condition/general~reuters+news~mstg-4mdv4n), July 19,
2000.
28
29
Discover, October 2000, p. 85.
Duffy, Jim. “Silver Lining in Boston,” Mass Transit, November/December 2000, p. 10-26.
30
“Early Warning: Class Actions possible from Diesel Fumes,” Transport Topics
(http://www.ttnews.com/members/printEdition/0003047.html), November 10, 1999.
31
32
Edmonton City Council Minutes, March 23, 1993.
Edmonton City Council Minutes--Transportation and Public Works Committee, November 7, 2000.
33
Edmonton Transit Vehicles Survey - Public Opinions. Edmonton Transit Marketing and Planning,
Customer Services, April 1992.
34
Electric Trolley Bus Study for RTD and the LACTC, Final Report, Part A. Booz, Allen and
Hamilton, June 1991.
35
“Electronic Trolley First in Canada,” Edmonton Journal, November 11, 1981.
36
Enhancing the Image and Visibility of Transit in Canada, Canadian Urban Transit Association,
November 2000.
37
Engwicht, David. Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns. New Society Publishers, 1993.
38
EPCOR Voluntary Action Plan 1999. Produced for Canada’s Climate Change Voluntary Challenge
and Registry Inc., October 31, 1999.
39
Exhausted by Diesel: How America’s Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens our Health.
Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition for Clean Air, April 1998.
40
Fisher, Ian. Electric Trolleybuses in Vancouver: Past, present and future alternatives. Transport
2000 BC Website (http://vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/learning/_trolleybus/trolleybus_essay.html), 1997.
41
“Global
Warming”
U.S.
Environmental
(http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/glossary.html#S)
42
Protection
Association
Website
“Green Diesel is Harmful to Earth,” The Belfast Telegraph, November 18, 2000.
43
Hass-Klau, Carmen and Graham Crampton, Martin Weidauer, Volker Deutsch. Bus or Light Rail:
Making the Right Choice. Environmental and Transit Planning, 2000.
44
Hatcher, Colin K. and Tom Schwarzkopf. Edmonton’s Electric Transit. Railfare Books, 1983.
45
“Health Costs of Suburban Sprawl” and “Environmental Costs of Suburban Sprawl,” Sierra Club-Prairie Chapter website at: http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/Sprawl/health.htm and
http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/Sprawl/enviro.htm.
46
Herzog, Lawrence. “When the Whip comes Down,” Westworld (Alberta), November/December
1999, p. 37-43.
47
“How Carcinogenic is your Car?” Centre for Science and the Environment News Releases at:
http://www.oneworld.org/cse/html/au/au4_20000504.htm.
48
“How good is your Diesel Engine?”
Deccan
(http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanhearald/dec05/st1.htm)
49
50
Herald,
December
5,
“How Green is your Hydrogen?” The Economist, April 2000, p. 74.
“How Road Pollution pumps Asthma into Children’s Lungs,” Daily Mail, December 27, 2000.
2000.
51
Hybrid Electric Drive Heavy-Duty Vehicle Testing Project—Final Emissions Report. Northeast
Advanced Vehicle Consortium, West Virginia University, February 15, 2000.
52
Kenward, Michael. “The Power to Clean Up,” Professional Engineering, June 9, 1999.
53
“L.A. Study links Cancer and Diesel Particulates”, Transport Topics
(http://www.ttnews.com/members/printEdition/0003075.html), November 17, 1999.
54
Lawrence, Llew. “Why have Trolley Buses?” Transit News, November/December 1982.
55
“Legislation to Prevent NYC Transit Diesel Bus Purchases,” Mobilizing the Region
(http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/19950421/mtr03107.htm), April 21, 1995.
56
57
“Libya urges cutting off oil supply,” The Oregonian, December 26, 2000.
Lythgo, Chris. Bus Technology Review. TransLink, September 1, 1999.
58
MacDonald, Donald L. Edmonton Transit Trolley System Review (Initial Report). November 30,
1989.
59
MacDonald, Donald L. Edmonton Transit Trolley System Review - 1990. Lea Associates, February
1991.
60
Making the Case for Senior Government Support for Public Transit (Speakers’ Package). Large
Urban Communities Forum, UBCM Convention. October 24, 2000.
61
Monaghan, M. L. Fuel Cells for Passenger Cars—The Hydrogen Revolution. Chairman’s Address,
The Automobile Division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, January 2001.
62
63
“More Trolleys for City,” Edmonton Journal, January 14, 1981.
Murray, Alan. World Trolleybus Encyclopedia. Trolleybooks, 2000.
64
National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Matter (Executive Summary). Health
Canada/Environment Canada, 1998.
65
Natvig, Carl. 5 Year Plan 1977-82, Issue Paper No. 3: The Environmental and Economic
Feasibility of Trolley Coach Expansion. San Francisco Municipal Railway Planning Division, July
1978.
66
Newman, Peter and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Winning back the Cities. Pluto Press, 1992.
67
Office of Transportation Technologies Heavy Vehicle Emissions Testing – Bus Emissions Database
(http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/heavy_vehicle/emissions.html).
68
Operating
Statistics,
Edmonton
Transit
System
http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/transit/about_edmonton_transit/ets_operating_statistics.html.
at:
69
Perkins, Terry. “Fuel Cells for Power Plants under Development,” Office.com (www.office.com),
September 1, 2000.
70
“Pincher Winds to Power Transit”, The Echo, January 24, 2001.
71
“Plan to Cut South Side Trolleys has Group riled about Pollution,” Edmonton Journal, February 19,
1993.
72
Porteous, A. “Of Particulate Concerns”, Professional Engineering, January 31, 2001, p. 22.
73
Reducing Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution: A Menu of Harmonized Options. State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officers, October 1999.
74
Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fuelled Engines and
Vehicles. California Environmental Protection Association – Air Resources Board, October 2000.
75
Sebree, Mac and Paul Ward. Transit’s Stepchild: The Trolley Coach. (Interurbans Special No.
58.) Interurban Press, Summer 1973.
76
Siuru, W. D. “Study Shows Advantages of Hybrid-Electric Buses,” Mass Transit, May 2000, p. 7681.
77
Slack, Chris. “The Euclid Corridor Improvement Project: Greater Cleveland Transit Authority
Undertakes $292 Million Euclid Renovation,” Busline, January/February 2000.
78
Snell, Bradford C. American Ground Transport: A Proposal for Restructuring the Automobile,
Truck, Bus and Rail Industries. Presented to the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Washington: U.S. Committee on the Judiciary,
February 1974.
79
“Study:
Diesel Exhausts cause Cancer,” Health – The Station of the People
(http://www.channel2000.com/sh/health/cancercenter/health-cancercenter-20000315-170549.html),
March 15, 2000.
80
“The Fuel Cell, Trolley and the Hybrid Bus – Where Should We Invest?” Transport Canada 2000
Western Newsletter, November 2000.
81
Trans-Action 2001: Towards Economic and Environmental Health. Published by the Canadian
Urban Transit Association in cooperation with Moving the Economy, the Regional Municipality of
Ottawa-Carleton and Pollution Probe. March 2001.
82
TransAlta’s Action Plan: Fourth Report (Voluntary Challenge and Registry Program at:
http://www.vcr-mvr.ca/ClientDetail.cfm?No=58), October 1999, p. 28-29.
83
TransLink Capital Plan: Trolley Bus Service Replacement--Fleet Assessment Report, TransLink,
June 2000.
84
Transportation Master Plan—Solutions for the Future.
Transportation and Streets, April 14, 1999.
85
86
City of Edmonton, Department of
Trolleybus Magazine (Journal of the National Trolleybus Association). Various issues.
Trolley Electrical System Assessment. Edmonton Power, April 1992.
87
Trolley Expansion Program – SEPA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/NEPA
Environmental Assessment. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, June 1993.
88
Trolley Operation Review. Edmonton Transit, Marketing and Planning, February 1993, and earlier
draft versions.
89
“Trolley System gets Second Look,” Edmonton Journal, March 18, 1993.
90
Trolley System Review - Final Report. City of Edmonton Transportation Department, Operational
Planning Section, May 1985.
91
Van Ness, E. E. et. al. An Analysis of Simpson and Curtin’s Report to the Mayor’s Transit Study
Committee of Seattle called “Financial Requirements of Seattle Transit System.” Seattle Civic Affairs
Committee of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers, February 1966.
92
Vuchic, Vukan. Urban Public Transportation—Systems and Technology. Prentice-Hall, 1981
93
World Wide Trolley Bus Technology Development: A Preliminary Report to the Hong Kong
Environmental Protection Department. Ecotraffic Research and Development, March 1999.
II.
Correspondence, Interviews
94
Atkinson, Dr. S. (Director of Public Health for London) interviewed on London Live Radio re.
“Report on Annual Death resulting from Air Pollution in London, England,” October 12, 2000.
95
Bell, Irvine (Eur Ing) to Alan Millar, Editor, Buses, re. “Fuel Cell Buses?” January 3, 2001.
96
Bell, Irvine (Eur Ing) to Editor, Professional Engineering, re. “Warming, What Warming—reducing
global warming through fuel cell vehicles,” January 18, 2001.
97
Charles, R. J. (Director of Equipment, ETS) to G. G. Atkins (Acting General Manager, ETS) re.
“Draft Urban Traffic Noise Policy Report,” April 8, 1983.
98
99
EPCOR Project Development to K. Brown, June 5, 2000.
EPCOR Sustainable Development to K. Brown, April 23, 1999.
100
Kernahan, Dr. J. A. to Dr. G. Kelly (President of Grant MacEwan College) re. “Downtown Trolley
Bus Loop,” November 14, 1994.
101
Klotzbach, Forrest (City of Vancouver Engineering Department) to John Wollenzin re. “New
Stanley Park Bus Loop and Trolleys,” February 1, 2001.
102
Leicester, Glen (Manager, Implementation Planning, TransLink), extract from letter re. “Natural
Gas vs. Electric Power for Buses” at: http://members.home.net/dearmond/Natural_Gas.htm.
103
Millican, Rick (General Manager, City of Edmonton Transportation and Streets Department) to
K.Brown re. “Specific concerns regarding use of trolleybuses,” June 11, 1997.