The Benefits of Electric Transit

After a few posts where people have been wondering about the benefits of electrification, I thought it might be useful to post on here the reasons why electrification is not just an energy argument, but rather an efficiency and operations benefit.

1. Point Source Pollution

It has been revealed in the last few years that higher rates of respiratory ailments including asthma occur near freeways, especially places like the Port of Oakland where diesel trucks and ships move in and out near the West Oakland neighborhood. In terms of transit, these emissions occur along a complete corridor. With electric propulsion, it occurs at one source, the power plant. This point source pollution is the issue and in the next 30 years of any project, we have to assume that alternative energy sources will come on line (if they haven't already, San Francisco for example gets electricity from hydro, Calgary is 100% wind) or better scrubbing technology will be available on coal and natural gas plants.

2. Operations Efficiency/Accelerations

Electric drive transit also has faster acceleration and stopping. According to TCRP report 59, 50% of energy for buses specifically is used for acceleration. Hybrid electric buses are able to capture 25% total through regenerative breaking. This type of system is available for rail systems as well, recently being introduced in Sacramento.

Electric motors also create more torque for faster acceleration. For example, the DART Kinky Sharyo LRV accelerates at 3 miles per hour per second(mphps). The Colorado railcar DMU accelerates at 1.44 mphps (1.6 according to Caltrain specs). Buses typically get around 1.5 mphps.

Caltrain has put together a matrix of all the specs for cars they are looking at for the future. DMU is 1.6 mphps, EMU is 2.0-2.5 mphps, the savings by using EMUs over a 15 stop run estimated for Caltrain is 10 minutes every run. That is a big time difference that would allow for more runs every hour. If the run takes about an hour. That means they can have 1o minute headways with 6 vehicles. You would have to add another vehicle with another driver to get the same with diesel.

If you've ever been on a PCC, they have high torque and accelerated at one time at 4 mphps often tossing patrons to the ground. It was later revised to 3.5 mphps. This is at the expense of top speed, but since they stop more often its not as necessary.

Another benefit is the lighter cars used because of electric motors being lighter which reduces wear and tear on the track as well. The electric motors also have less moving parts meaning they last much longer. The official amortization period for rail vehicles is 24 while buses are 12. However there are still PCC cars still in operation and some rapid transit vehicles like BART are reaching their 40 year mark (they should really be replaced soon though).

3. Energy Conservation

Another issue is energy conservation. In addition to regenerative breaking, there is the power draw during stops and at the end of runs. Commenter NJH mentions that when passing Diridon Station, trains are always idling, wasting energy. Electric vehicles do not need to do this, especially at stops.

Electrification is not that expensive either. Even with copper costing more and more, NJH makes the calculation.

Regarding the price of copper, you have: 3.4$/lb*pi*(0.5cm)^2*mile*9g/((cm)^3)

Definition: 8526.9645 US$

So we're looking at $8.5k/mile for the conductor. Double it, add in connections and throw a bit out for waste. The copper is not going to be a big part of the cost (given that estimates are usually around $1M/mile).

I've heard about $1.5 million per mile is somewhat normal, which is small change when you think about the benefits as mentioned above.

The Option of Urbanism: Subsidizing the Rich

Here is another view of it from the Option of Urbanism. We've been taking quotes for the last week from the book.

According to Myron Orfield's Metropolitics, the affluent outer-ring suburbs in the favored quarter "dominate regional economic growth and garner a disproportionate share of the region's new roads and other development infrastructure." Orfield also pointed out that much of the funding for this infrastructure is raised from the region as a whole. For example, all car-driving residents in the region pay gas taxes to partially support the building of highways, and taxpayers of the region as a whole pay the rest of the money through their income, property, and sales taxes.

So this happens for roads, but people yell and scream bloody murder when they are taxed for transit and "it doesn't help me directly". The worst part about this as well is that cities are slowly signing on to their own declines.

The unlikely consequence of this pattern of infrastructure development is that the whole region pays for infrastructure that tends to be placed in the favored quarter; the poor pay for the infrastructure of the rich. According to Orfield, the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, for example, pay $6 million a year to help move their middle class households and businesses to the edge of the region.

Part of the problem is the regional competition for jobs. Minneapolis has a tax base sharing program that might alleviate this a little, but most regions are not so lucky. And there is still exporting going on to places like Bloomington and Eden Prairie.

M1ek has discussed this before and James Rowen covered a similar issue for Milwaukee in talking about how much they give to the regional planning commission, and how little they get out of it. Perhaps this is something that needs to be put in mayor's and city council members faces. DC, for all its flaws has the right idea of trying to take care of its citizens instead of the folks who take advantage of their services during the day, but drive back out at night.

It's That Time: Olympics!

Oh man I've been waiting for a while for this. Friends of mine are competing so I'm going to be reporting on what they are doing. I should also note that the head track coach at the Olympics, Bubba Thornton, was one of my coaches in college. It was cool to see him on TV.

Exciting news tonight is that Lopez Lamong got to carry the American Flag. He, as I was, is a 1500 meter runner. I've met him before and he's a great guy. As one of the Lost Boys of Sudan, he was able to escape that country and come to America for a better life. Here's a video of Lopez talking about hardship. He does have a bit of a reputation for elbows, but we won't hold that against him.

Weekend Homework: HSR Action

If you live in California, here's your chance to get involved. Let your assembly member and Arnold know how you feel. See CAHSR for details.

Caltrain Must Hike Fares Too

Caltrain is going to raise fares in order to cover diesel fuel cost spikes. Imagine if it were already electrified. Less cost and cleaner air. Why do cities still think DMU's are a good idea?

Kansas City Will Vote on Light Rail

Looks like we have another ballot measure to watch on Election Night. If you're just catching up on this whole KC light rail rollercoaster, here's a cheat sheet.

BRT Will Kill Your Children and Drink Their Blood

Ok. I'm not a huge fan of BRT as you know, but this is ridiculous. Some people are just over the top. Yes I know it's the Berkeley Daily Wacko, but the fact that there are people out there like this shouldn't come as a shock.

BRT is bigger than you think. Its pattern follows the national trend that General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, famously named the military/industrial complex. Eisenhower (a Republican dedicated to preserving the Constitution) said government and private industries are determined to feed the war machine at the expense of all else and would ruin this country and the world if not checked by an alert citizenry.
...

“Policy-makers” care nothing for the residents and businesses along Telegraph Avenue. Not only does BRT mean turning Telegraph into an un-bike-able traffic nightmare; it also means large scale re-development under the rubric of turning Telegraph into a ‘transit corridor’: goodies for developers, fees for the city, and “closed” signs for existing businesses, many of which are likely to be replaced by corporate chains that duct money out and away from the local economy.

Because there's nothing like improving transit and slowing down cars for killing a streetscape!

Another Short Film: What If the Trams Were Gone?

A very cool video that probably saved Melbourne's Tram system from the usual suspects back in the day. Visit Keep Melbourne Moving for More...

What's Going On Out There

In case you missed it:

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the affects of gas prices on housing. Great graphic as well.

Federal spending is about 4 to 1 in favor of highways over transit. Today, more than 99 percent of the trips taken by U.S. residents are in cars or some other non-transit vehicle, largely as a result of decades of such unbalanced spending.

I do wonder how long Alan Pisarski will keep drinking his own cool aid. He mentions that the trend of driving will continue and that jobs will keep pushing towards the periphery. Technology will save us!

Pisarski and others say technological advances, telecommuting, flexible scheduling, carpooling and stringing errands together can reduce vehicle use. After all, most vehicle trips and miles are compiled not on commutes to work but on other trips.

Not only will this continuation of sprawl exacerbate the problem, his reasoning of shorter trips proves the need for more walkable communities. He also derides apartments in a complete misunderstanding of demographic trends and market preferences as well as a bit of snobbery.

In other news, the New Republic has an article about demographic inversion about people moving back into cities.

Chicago is gradually coming to resemble a traditional European city--Vienna or Paris in the nineteenth century, or, for that matter, Paris today. The poor and the newcomers are living on the outskirts.

Option of Urbanism: Real Development Subsidization

Another interesting quote from the book. We've covered the costs of sprawl, but there are some fun analogies in here.

A 2004 Albuquerque assessment of the marginal cost of drivable sub-urban development found that it was twenty-two times more costly than walkable urban development for four categories(roads, drainage, public safety, and parks). Yet generally the taxes and fees mandated by municipal law dictate that all development, high-density or low-density, has to pay about the same. The result is that high-density development, as well as the general taxpayer is subsidizing drivable suburbanism. It is just as if by law all restaurants have to be all-you-can eat; those customers who eat very little subsidize those who eat a lot.

During a dinner conversation, a power company CEO was asked what it cost the company to build and service low-density development versus high-density development. He at first looked confused, then responded, "we don't look at our cost structure that way." Because his company is regulated by the state public utility commission, it adds up its costs and divides them evenly across the housing units that it serves, charging all residential users the same per kilowatt. There is no reason for the company to even worry about its marginal cost of doing business, something taught in accounting 101 during the first year of business school.