#
Portland Hybrid Electric Bus Project
Compiled by: Danny Capri, Antony Derkatch, David Lorenz,
Thang Vo, Scott Wagner
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………Scott
Wagner………………………..3
Purpose and Need……………..Danny
Capri…………………………4
Options at Hand……………….Antony
Derko………………………10
Financial Analysis……………..Thang
Vo…………………………..15
Environmental Impact…………David
Lorenz………………………20
Conclusions……………………Scott
Wagner………………………26
Bibliography………………………………………………………….27
Introduction
With the ever-rising need for a mass transit system, a clean,
non-harmful, economical decision must be made as to what is to be
done in the future. Humans inhabit cities across the planet. They
also drive cars. The result of the human settlement in cities is
traffic congestion, road damage, and pollution. One of the main
purposes of mass transit is to cut down on the amount of cars driving
during peak hours. Another purpose that comes with the decreased
number of cars is pollution control. Carbon monoxide emissions from
vehicles have become an issue in today’s society. Buses and cars
are major producer of carbon monoxide, so transportation must be
adjusted. Carbon monoxide is one of the greenhouse gases, which may
contribute to global warming. It is poisonous to warm-blooded animals
(including humans), bonding to the hemoglobin found in blood,
resulting in asphyxiation1.
The main problem with carbon monoxide is pollution, though. The
transit system must be looked at for one of the many possible
solutions. One billion dollars has been allocated for this project.
This is the approximate amount of money needed for the Westside
light-rail project completed a few years ago. Shorter rail lines such
as the airport and interstate light-rail projects obviously would
cost less. There are, however, shortcomings to the light-rail system.
This leads to the question of whether a better alternative exists.
Where would this alternative come from if it is not used in Portland,
a “clean” city? Scaling down the system for use on the
road&emdash;or electric buses. While it is difficult to find purely
electric cars currently, finding purely electric buses poses the same
problem. It is not feasible to run power lines all around the
Portland metro area to facilitate the needs of buses. Hybrid-electric
buses are the best option. They run on power that is generated
internally, they are cleaner than diesel buses, and they cost less
than light rail. The affects on the environment also play a big part
in this decision. Not only does pollution affect the environment, but
also installation of a system that does not use current facilities
requires destruction of some environment. Each option affects the
environment in a different way. What follows is a study of the use of
hybrid-electric buses for mass transit in Portland.
Purpose and Need
To better understand the issues at hand today with transit in the
Portland-Metro area, one needs to first look at its past. During the
1960s and 70s Portland began to go through significant changes. In
this time the population nearly doubled from 656,000 to 1,030,000 and
led to widespread suburban development with low densities and
increasing the use and dependence of the automobile for single
occupancy transportation to work. Increasing car use also caused
escalating levels of traffic congestion, noise, and air
pollution2.
As a solution to the problems associated with its growing population,
the regional government implemented several new steps to check
uncontrolled growth into Metro’s farming and wilderness areas
and curb the growing dependence on the automobile. In 1976 an urban
growth boundary was enacted that prohibited or drastically limited
development outside the boundary, while inside allowing for growth
over the next twenty years.
In 1976 and 79 two separate interstate highway construction projects
were scrapped and funds of approximately $500 million dollars were
reallocated to other transportation projects3.
Limits were put on an acceptable number of parking spaces in downtown
Portland4.
Both these steps were to discourage the use of single-occupancy
vehicles as the main method of transportation to and from work and
promote Tri-Met, the region’s transit system. In September 1986,
MAX light rail was added to the transit system as a faster, more
efficient, and less polluting option for downtown commuters5.
For all these steps the Portland region has often been hailed as
“a model of urban planning”6,
which appears to be the only urban area “most consciously trying
to shape itself as a new kind of American city”7,
rather than becoming another sprawled out concrete city like Los
Angeles. While the steps of the Portland metropolitan region sound
good and perhaps are good when compared with cities such as Phoenix,
Arizona8,
they are far from being perfect and actually obscure several of the
real facts about the region.
While the urban growth boundary has been successfully kept, with less
than forty square miles added over the ten-year period from 1980 to
90, the population has actually been decentralizing from its Portland
center. During the same time period the population grew over 14% but
the core city population actually decreased by almost two
percent9.
Within only six years, from 1989 to 95, the daily vehicle miles per
capita increased by almost 15%10.
What this data shows is a population that is becoming increasingly
decentralized from its center, Portland, and relying more on the
automobile as single occupancy vehicles to travel further distances.
As the population increases, so has employment, increasing by nearly
100 percent since the mid 1970s11.
However the employment, that used to be centralized in the core of
Portland, has shifted to outer areas of the metropolitan
region12.
As Tony Rufolo, a professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland
State University, pointed to in a class presentation, this means the
problem facing Portland’s transit system today is catering to a
growing, dispersed population that needs to travel to dispersed,
decentralized businesses.
At costs of light rail construction being upwards of $52 million a
mile13,
MAX light rail was supposed to contribute to a far better transit
system with lines running along major traffic corridors into
Portland, but it is rendered obsolete with the reasons mentioned
above.
MAX light rail combined with Tri-Met buses does take a fairly
significant number of automobiles, including single occupancy
vehicles, off the road. While Tri-Met shows high numbers, Professor
Rufolo pointed out the inaccuracy in reports due to the inclusion of
bus/MAX transfers and juvenile riders in counting. Tri-Met’s own
reports show increases up to sixty percent in traffic at areas. This
approximately matches the percentage of increase in population during
the same period14,
showing that ridership increase is not significant when compared to
population growth.
One of the main reasons for commuting through the transit system is
convenience, and as seen in class, the majority of people do not ride
buses or MAX because it does not save time and is not conveniently
located. As Professor Rufolo said, “People are willing to spend
money for convenience and time,“ and use their cars.
Taking automobiles off the road for environmental reasons is one of
the main reasons there is a transit system and one Tri-Met frequently
promotes for ridership. Environmental benefit of transit is being
threatened by use of Park and Rides, which combines the use of
automobiles and transit. While it allows some to reach bus lines and
reduce traffic, it also ends much of the environmental benefit of
transit.
Nearly ninety percent of the emissions of an automobile are produced
from the initial “cold” engine start15,
so with any use, even Park and Ride conjunction with transit, a vast
majority of the damage is done. The damage involved in vehicle
emissions and use in general is quite wide and affects nearly every
part of the environment.
In just one year the average automobile can produce up to:
-Two to three times its own weight in carbon dioxide16
-Nine pounds of hydrocarbons and a pound of particulates
-Five pounds volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxides
-Sixty-three pounds of carbon monoxide17
Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas that is believed to be
a major contributor to global warming. Volatile organic compounds and
nitrous oxides cause ground level ozone, or smog, which is not only
causes an ugly brown haze over the region, but also is harmful to
vegetation and humans18.
Nitrous oxides are also a main factor in the production of acid rain,
causing erosion, damaging lungs, and killing aquatic plants and
animals19.
Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas that also contributes to smog and
global warming.
Some of the other environmental hazards associated with automobiles
include:
-Air conditioners-which contain CFCs that are harmful to the
ozone.
-Gasoline-which includes several toxic substances, including a known
cancer causing agent.
-Oil-one liter of engine oil can contaminate two million liters of
water.
-Antifreeze-poisonous to humans and nearly all fish and wildlife.
The figures above are an average of all the various types and sizes
of automobiles. Tri-Met claims that their diesel buses emit a third
of the carbon monoxide per passenger mile than the average
car20,
what is left out of this statement is that this is true only when a
bus is at a full carrying capacity of approximately ninety people.
From my own experience, buses are full only in certain areas at
certain times of the day. For example, the bus I take in the morning
has on average six riders, only a small fraction of its capacity, so
it is actually emitting more per passenger mile than even a single
occupancy vehicle.
These are many of the problems plaguing today’s transit system.
So now, it is asked what can be done to improve the system and reduce
the carbon monoxide emissions. Looking at the material that has been
discussed in this section, inferences can be made on what steps need
to be taken to produce a transit system that will solve this
task.
A better transit system must first be able to reach all potential
riders, managing new population growth, and be convenient and time
saving to make them use transit rather than their automobiles. This
would void the need for Park and Rides and reduce much of the
emissions. A better transit system would significantly reduce traffic
and negate any need for expansion of roadways. Finally, a better
transit system would significantly reduce all the pollution and
emissions associated with all automobiles and transit.
Options at Hand
Light Rail
Light Rail, also known as MAX (Metro Area Express), certainly
seems like an excellent way of solving many problems surrounding
transportation and environmental concerns. In theory, this type of
transportation can begin decreasing the amount of air pollution being
currently put out by the gasoline-powered vehicles on the road. The
pollution of air pertains to the concept of global warming, which is
defined as an alteration of the chemical composition of the
atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases. The air pollution
mainly consists of several deadly gases that are a result of burning
fossil fuels. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide. What makes these gases harmful to the environment is
their ability to trap significant amounts of heat inside the
atmosphere. Some effects of global warming include rising sea levels,
shifting ranges of infectious diseases, and drastic habitat shifts
for plants and animals.
Over the past few years the population of Portland and of its
surrounding areas has increased dramatically, which also led to
greater number of cars on the roads, and this is the leading cause of
why the number of traffic jams has increased. This increase of the
number of cars has also led to the increase in accidents on
Portland’s roads. Light Rail can help solving many of these
traffic problems that plague the roads, highways, and freeways in
Portland and the surrounding Metro areas.
These are the major problems that Portland is facing right now, and
Light Rail sounds like a good answer to them. However, light rail is
not the only answer to these problems, and also may not be the most
efficient or the least expensive. Other options of transportation
include: electric vehicles/buses, hybrid electric vehicles/buses,
trolley buses, and the current system, which includes the diesel
buses.
Electric Vehicles/Buses
An electric bus is a vehicle that uses a rechargeable battery for
fuel instead of gasoline, diesel or other types of combustible fuels.
This type of vehicle uses an electric motor instead of an internal
combustion engine. In some applications, more than one motor is used
to propel the vehicle. An electric bus is also very similar to a bus
powered by a combustion engine in areas such as the chassis and the
body design.
The energy used to power an electric bus is usually supplied from the
rechargeable batteries to the motor controller, which is a device
that controls the amount of power supplied to the electric drive
motor(s) based on the position of the accelerator pedal. The
electrical power supplied to the electric drive motor(s) is used to
generate an electromotive force, which turns the shaft of the
electric motor(s). This shaft is coupled to the wheels of the
electric vehicle and causes movement either forward or reverse,
depending on the direction the shaft is turning.
The refueling of an electric vehicle usually consists of plugging in
the vehicle’s charge plug into an outlet that is specifically
designed for charging an electric vehicle. Recharging times vary,
depending on the battery type, capacity and the voltage/current
output of the charger. Most electric vehicles can be recharged in
about 6 hours.
An electric vehicle or an electric bus has several advantages over
vehicles that use internal combustion engines. An electric vehicle is
very clean. There are no type of gaseous emissions and other problem
pollutants such as oil, transmission fluid and radiator fluid.
The electric vehicles are also very efficient in terms of energy
used. For every 100 units of fuel that are expended in an ICE
(Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle, only 16 actually result in
propulsion, making an ICE vehicle less than 20% efficient. An
electric vehicle on the other hand converts virtually all of its fuel
energy into usable power; it will use almost 85 units out 100 for
driving the vehicle.
An electric vehicle is also quiet. Since the engine is electric the
vehicle operates at a virtually silent rate. This will also reduce
much noise pollution in a growing city like Portland.
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (HEV)/Buses
An electric hybrid vehicle uses two different energy sources.
This is a system designed to utilize either clean diesel engines,
alternative fuels engines, gas turbines or fuel cells in conjunction
with batteries.
The conventional combustion engines are very inefficient, using only
16% of the liquid fuel to propel the vehicle. The heat emitted in the
combustion process wastes the majority of the energy while frictional
losses from the hundreds of moving parts in the engine, transmission
and the mechanical connection to the drive wheels consumes the rest.
The electric hybrid vehicles on the other hand are designed with
energy efficiency in mind.
The main sources of energy used in the most common HEV today are
batteries. A battery contains no moving parts. The only energy wasted
is a very small amount of heat during the course of a discharge
cycle. As previously mentioned, hybrid electric vehicles utilize two
different energy sources. Batteries are usually the main energy
supplier for the vehicle and an auxiliary engine that burns gasoline,
diesel fuel, or alternative fuels such as methanol, ethanol, or
compressed natural gas provides the auxiliary power. In some cases,
the reverse is true with the batteries providing back up power during
times of high-energy demand.
A hybrid electric vehicle is also able to utilize energy produced by
it’s back up engine, when the vehicle in not moving. Storing the
energy produced during inactivity in the battery pack does this.
Additionally HEV can recover 10% or more of the energy consumed in
propelling the vehicle during deceleration by reversing the direction
of current flow from the drive motors. The motors become generators
and energy is placed back into the battery by a process known as
regenerative braking.
A hybrid electric vehicle also has its advantages over an ICE
vehicle. HEV is able to operate nearly twice as efficiently as
traditional internal combustion vehicles. A hybrid vehicle can also
travel twice the distance of a conventional vehicle on the same
amount of energy. Overall it provides the equivalent power, range,
cost and safety of a conventional vehicle, while reducing fuel costs
and harmful emissions.
Trolley Buses
Trolley buses are propelled by electric motors that receive their
power from an overhead wire system. These are full-size buses that
run on rubber tires and steered the same way other buses are.
The system begins with electrical rectifier substations, which
convert normal alternating current (a-c) electricity from the grid to
direct current (d-c) at 6000 to 700 volts. The power is connected to
twin wires suspended about 18 feet above the street, with a positive
and a negative wire spaced 24 inches apart. Two current collectors,
or trolley poles, are mounted side-by-side on the roof of the
vehicle, and each pole can swivel both vertically and horizontally.
Springs push the pole upward to keep the collector shoe in contact
with its wire. The shoes also swivel, so the bus can deviate about 12
feet from the wires to load passengers at the curb or get around
stopped vehicles.
The trolley buses basically have the same advantages over the ICE
vehicles as the electric buses do with only one exception, the
trolley buses can run nonstop because the energy is continuously
being fed to them. And the only disadvantage of having trolley buses
is that it is very expensive to install the system of wires and to
maintain them.
Diesel Buses
The diesel buses are vehicles propelled by internal combustion
engines, which use liquid fuel. The burning of this fuel produces
harmful gases, which contribute to global warming.
The internal combustion engine is also very inefficient, using only
16% of fuel to propel the vehicle. Also seem very inefficient when
compared to the electric engines that use more than 80% of energy to
propel the vehicle. The diesel buses are also loud, contributing to
the noise pollution as well as to the air pollution.
Since these buses are powered by diesel, most of the costs in
operating them go towards purchasing this fuel. Also due to the fact
that an internal combustion engine has many parts, the buses are
often in need of almost daily maintenance, which also add to the
costs of operation.
Overall, the diesel bus is the least efficient alternative to light
rail. It does not provide any advantages over the electric buses. The
disadvantages actually outweigh the advantages is this case.
With several different alternatives to Light Rail, only one seems to
fit all the categories and needs, and that is the electric bus.
Overall this type of transportation is very clean, has good range,
the comforts, and the safety of any conventional bus, but also is the
least expensive, especially when compared to the costs of installing
the light rail system or the system of wires for the trolley
buses.
Financial Analysis
July of last year, five hybrid buses were bought and authorized to
run in Portland Oregon. They are to be delivered by December
200021.
Only a small number of hybrid buses are being tested around the
country. Today, there are about 200 electric and hybrid buses
operating all over the U.S. The largest buses systems have impacted
the city's economy in which the run positively. Chattanooga,
Tennessee was one of the first cities to invest in hybrid buses and
electric vehicles. Chattanooga has a reputation as a leader in it
strong development in mass transit due to its use of electric and
hybrid buses. Chattanooga is well known throughout the world for
leading the way to the use of electric powered vehicles22.
Hybrid buses at this time almost twice the price of a diesel-powered
bus by some manufacturers. The hybrid buses tend to average around
$550,000, although one manufacturer offered a bus for a significantly
lower price of $400,00023.
A diesel bus has an average price of $280,000, significantly lower
than that of a hybrid bus. However, the cost of maintaining hybrid
buses is much lower than the cost of maintaining diesel buses.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that, just as other new
innovations arrive on the market, hybrid buses are expensive because
they are a new technology. As more cities start adapting hybrid buses
to their transit system, the price of the buses will fall.
Currently the cost of maintaining a hybrid bus is not lower than
maintaining a diesel bus. Again, as prices fall for hybrid buses, the
life-cycle cost will decrease as well. We should also take into
consideration that the life cycle costs are compared to diesel or
gasoline buses. A hybrid buses life cycle is significantly lower in
costs when compared to fuel buses (including infrastructure costs).
Maintenance costs will normally be much lower in that the buses are
properly maintained (this includes replacement batteries). Cost
reduction mainly incorporates the reduction in the amount of
lubricants, antifreeze, transmission fluid, oil, etc. Also, of the
three major propulsion components: motor, controller, and batteries,
only the batteries need to be maintained. Hybrid buses also save
money on fuel.
Because they use electricity to power them most of the time,
depending on local electricity rates, "fuel" can be up to sixty-six
percent less than diesel or gasoline buses. This factor can really
help our economy by reducing the demand for to import as much oil.
Brakes also require less maintenance. Regenerative breaking uses the
kinetic energy of the bus to generate energy and helps to slow the
bus down while minimizing use of the brakes. Hence, break replacement
becomes more scarce an event. Mr. Jim McDowell, Director of Advanced
Engineering at Nova BUS, had some very optimistic words to say: "Long
term technical objectives for this project included reducing
operating costs and emissions while improving performance,
reliability and maintainability. This is a welcome success!"
(Referring to the sale of five hybrid buses to the New York Transit
Authority24).
Nova BUS is confident that this technology will be widespread in the
future.
Another area that hybrid buses are bound to have a financial impact
is environmentally. If air pollution significantly decreases, the
government will have to spend less money trying to fix air pollution.
Cars and trucks make up two-thirds of the transportation emission
problem. In the United States, our vehicles alone contribute more
carbon dioxide to the air than most other small countries emit from
all their sources combined25.
So getting people out of their vehicles and onto a bus and providing
efficient vehicles powered by renewable fuel share are both high
priorities. With around 200 million cars on the road, electric and
hybrid buses probably will not have a tremendous impact on the
reduction of air pollution right away. However, people perceptually
see that it does, placing a higher value on public transit systems,
causing an increase in riders and a decrease in cars on the road.
Diesel buses, even when superbly maintained, leave behind a
recognizable trail of diesel exhaust. In many cases with public
transit systems, issues with vehicle exhaust reach board level and,
sometimes, even city hall! Electric vehicles are emission free,
reducing pollution by over ninety-eight percent, while hybrid buses
cut down on pollution significantly too. The Orion hybrid-electric
buses operating in New York on diesel fuel are cleaner than those
buses that operate on compressed natural gas26.
To many Americans electric vehicles represent the future. Range,
infrastructure, and economic base of the United States growth in
personal electric vehicles will most likely be slower than many of us
would like to see. As sales of electric vehicles are limited to the
Far West or the Southwest, the closest most of us will come to an
electric vehicle will be riding an electric or hybrid-electric bus.
The short-term growth of electric vehicles lies in fleet operations
such as transit systems. Because of the buses "futuristic appeal",
and are clean and quiet, they attract riders who would not normally
ride the public transit. Transit systems throughout the country have
discovered that the operation of electric and/or hybrid-electric
buses does increase ridership. A good example of this can be seen in
Miami's case. For many years Miami has been a hub of traffic.
Forty-foot buses operated on Miami's beach, a very congested area.
Ridership of the public transit system was limited. This was probably
the worst case on all of the East Coast. When electric buses were
introduced in 1998, ridership demand became unmanageable. During the
first twelve months, the electric buses carried over 1.5 million
passengers; thus making the highest ridership on electric buses ever
in U.S. history. In July 1999 Miami Beach TMA established a fare on
the "electrowave". Ridership for that year was projected to be 1.2
million27.
An important detail that also helped the Miami's situation is that
the low floors on these buses speeds up boarding which becomes vital
in heavy traffic28.
Santa Barbara, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee are two other
cites with an excellent electric bus system. They were estimated to
carry one million passengers each in the year of 1999, which is a
dramatic increase from the pre-electric period29.
The operation of a hybrid-electric bus system can, to a certain
measure, change the transit systems, and how they are viewed by
outside organizations. This is due to the decrease of noise,
pollution, and fuel costs. Electric and hybrid-electric buses also
have the ability to create plenty of free publicity. When
demonstrations of an electric bus took place in Knoxville, Tennessee,
the Tennessee department of transportation and the Electric
Transportation Vehicle Institute received plenty of attention. The
demonstration was covered on three television stations, five
different radio stations, a national broadcast, and the local
newspaper four different times. The local transit system could not
have paid for that kind of publicity, in which they had just received
for free, in four years. Hybrid-electric buses also save money in
advertisement and public relations. Electric buses have and will
continue to gain immediate support from elected officials, the riding
public, and news agencies30.
It is evident that hybrid-electric and electric buses will dominate
in the future. It is in Oregon's best interest to provide funding in
which we can move ahead and grasp this new technology. With sixty
million dollars we could purchase at least 12 new buses. It is
certainly in Oregon's best interest to start replacing our old buses
with new hybrid buses. The last two that Portland's Tri-Met purchased
actually cost us no more than the regular price of two diesel fueled
buses due to the manufacturer being late in delivering the buses. So
the penalty of the manufacturer brought the price back down for
us31. As
we do this, as said before, we will continue to see prices of these
buses fall, as life-cycle costs will fall as well. As time passes, we
will start to see a return on the money we invested in the hybrid bus
system.
Environmental Impact
In the movie Highlander 2: The Quickening, which was released
in the very early 90s, by the year 1999 the ozone layer has been
almost completely destroyed and people are dying left and right from
the intense rays of the sun. A group of scientists then covers the
earth with a protective shield that leaves the earth in a state of
darkness. The year 1999 has come and gone and we are a far cry from
being in such a state of distress. Although we are not in too much
danger of losing the services of the ozone layer, the increasing
amount of pollution generated can be a threat to future generations.
As transportation is one of the most essential parts of our daily
life, there is no place better to begin in cutting back the level of
pollution being emitted into the atmosphere. Another important thing
to consider is that environmental effects are not just based on
pollution. It is also important to consider any vegetation or
wildlife that could be affected by the expansion of existing public
transportation. Even if the amount of pollution emitted into the
atmosphere could be greatly reduced, if the expansion destroyed
wetlands, vegetation, or animals’ home, it could not be
considered environmentally efficient.
One of the most important factors of public transportation, when it
is used effectively is that it potentially can keep people from
driving their cars so much by providing convenient and affordable
means of traveling. Even though many users of public transportation
are youths who do not have a driver’s license, it does keep them
from having to ask parents for rides, thus reducing the number of
vehicles on the road. However, getting kids to use public
transportation is a lot easier than asking or expecting adults who
love their cars, to give them up and ride on a sometimes very crowded
and stuffy bus or max train surrounded by strangers. This is really
not a whole lot different then being in traffic, however at least
when an individual is in their car they can listen to tunes, they
might have air conditioning, and they are guaranteed a seat. Not only
that but driving is a lot more fun than just standing or sitting
around waiting for your stop.
When determining which form of public transportation to expand with
the $1 billion, it is not only important to determine which one is
most environmentally efficient, but also which one will be most
likely used by the public. If one form of public transportation were
only slightly less environmentally efficient than another, but would
be used by more people, then overall it would probably be the better
choice. Environmental efficiency is not only determined by the
pollution each method itself causes, but also by the number of people
who opt to not drive their cars and instead use public
transportation.
The first option to consider is the expansion of the already existing
MAX light rail. There are two qualities of the MAX that are extremely
attractive. The first is that the MAX itself does not give off any
emissions whatsoever; it is purely run by electricity. The second
attractive quality is that when out of the downtown area where there
are many traffic lights, it is not impeded whatsoever by traffic.
However, the MAX does have its negative qualities as well. The first
is its mobility; more or less the MAX only goes in a straight line
that runs east to west from Gresham to Hillsboro. People that do not
live close to the MAX, even if it is an efficient way to travel, are
more likely to find more convenient means of transportation.
In order to expand the MAX from North to South as some would like,
new tracks would have to be laid, and this would then mean clearing
away area, some of which would include the natural environment in
order to lay the new tracks. There are several areas that would be
affected by this North/South expansion, all of which will now be
covered. The first segment to discuss is the Clackamas Regional
Center Segment. The expansion here would cause loss of grassland
north of CTC and loss of deciduous trees both north and South of CTC.
This expansion would also interrupt a minor travel corridor for
wildlife and north of CTC would extend culvert for fisheries. For the
East Milwaukie Segment along both Railroad Avenue and Highway 224
there would be a loss of shrubs and deciduous trees, a loss of
habitat for wildlife, and increased runoff for fisheries. For the
Milwaukie Regional Center Segment along the Main Street/Tillamook
Branch Line there would be a loss of mixed forest and loss of
mitigation planted tree, a loss of habitat for wildlife, and
increased runoff for fisheries. There would be a loss of grassland
and extended culvert for fisheries caused by the McLoughlin Boulevard
Segment, and from the South Willamette River Crossing Segment there
would be a permanent vegetation clearing, an impact on a wildlife
travel corridor, and piers in water that would effect fisheries. From
the North Portland Segment there would be Vegetation loss due to
bridge shadow both along I-5 and Interstate Avenue and increased
runoff and piers in water that would affect fisheries from the Hayden
Island Segment. The only two areas of the proposed expansion that
would not have an effect on the environment are the Downtown Portland
Segment and the Eliot Segment32.
Although it seems there would be an extremely negative effect on the
natural environment because of MAX expansion it is not quite as bad
as it sounds. All the segments combined would impact less than 20
acres altogether of the natural environment33.
However, even a North/South line would not greatly increase the
mobility of the MAX as it would still be going in a straight line,
only instead of going East to West it would be going North to South.
Provided the North/South expansion did increase the number of people
using the MAX, improvements in traffic congestion could be expected
in certain areas and also a deduction in CO concentrations. However,
none of them seem to make a big enough difference to be worth
spending $1 billion on an expansion34.
The second option is the increase of the number of current Tri-Met
busses. An increase in the number of buses would allow busses to
arrive at stops more frequently, expand upon the locations the buses
travel to, and hopefully increase the number of people who ride the
bus, as it would become more convenient to ride. There are four
possible types of expansions of the Tri-Met bus system. The first is
the purchase of traditional diesel fuel buses; the second is the
purchase of busses that run on natural gas; the third is to purchase
buses that run solely on electricity; and the fourth and best option,
the hybrid-electric vehicles or HEVs.
Busses, regardless of what type are already a positive investment.
One of the most important aspects is that because buses drive on
roads there is no need to damage the natural environment because of
expansion necessities. For the city of Portland, currently 26% of
downtown employees take the buss to work, a daily average of 164,000
car trips are taken off the road, and the average Tri-Met bus uses
1/3 less carbon monoxide per passenger mile than the average
car35.
This is using traditional busses that have been modified so that they
already emit 90% fewer particulates and nitric oxides then they did
10 years ago and run on what is called “clean diesel” fuel
which has reduced sulfur emitted by 90%36.
Based on this information alone it is clear that the environment
would benefit from the expansion of the Tri-Met bus system. Add
busses that ran more frequently and expanded routes and the increase
in the number of users of Tri-Met buses that would lead to a further
decrease in the number of cars on the road would be imminent.
A sort of icing on the cake of this bus expansion would be if the
buses used were HEVs. Tri-Met is currently already looking into the
use of these vehicles but currently cannot afford their use because
of the expense37.
The advantages of using HEVs are numerous. With HEVs batteries are
the main energy suppliers for the vehicle and an auxiliary engine
that burns gas or alternative fuels proves the auxiliary power. An
HEV can use as little as 50% of the energy of a conventional vehicle,
which means that it could travel twice the distance using the same
amount of energy. Also unlike conventional vehicles, which continue
to use energy while idling, an HEV can store the energy produced into
the battery pack while idling, thus saving even more energy38.
One of the best examples of an HEV Transit Bus is the Thunder Volt
TB40-H. It is a forty-foot bus that is capable of meeting the 10-12
year life cycles of buses on urban routes with peak power ratings of
up to 300 horsepower. These busses can go up to 400 miles between
each charging of the batteries, and also has the ability to operate
in all-electric modes that result in zero emissions during periods of
low power usage. Because of its lighter weight and engine power it
has better acceleration and hill climbing ability than conventional
buses and competing electric and HEV buses. Another benefit of these
busses is that they offer an extremely quiet and comfortable
ride39.
By expanding the Tri-Met bus system there would be an almost certain
increase in the number of riders which would lead to a reduction in
the number of cars on the road and a decrease in the pollution
emitted into the air. The best part would be that the natural
environment would not be negatively effected in any way because of
the expansion and all wetlands, grasslands, trees, wildlife,
fisheries would remain unaffected. One last interesting fact to leave
with, is that for each commuter who leaves their car at home in order
to use Tri-Met for just one year spares us and the planet from 68
pounds of pollutants40.
That has potential to really add up.
Conclusions
While hybrid electric buses may be the way of the future,
the system would not be immediately implemented. The purchase of a
few buses a year would eventually result in the full implementation.
There are over 700 buses in Tri-Met’s fleet, that is more than
the current number of hybrid electric buses running in the country.
It will take a while to complete, but it will be more beneficial. The
current mass transit system will have to be revamped in the future.
Traffic congestion, air pollution, and road conditions will make this
necessary. Standards on emissions may change, so new propulsion
systems will be needed. Hybrid electric vehicles operate cleaner than
their purely internal combustion counterparts. This option is cheaper
than putting in a new light rail line, plus has more advantages. The
environment is not harmed by construction in new areas, and the buses
can go to different locations besides the one track. Hopefully,
reduced carbon monoxide emissions will result from the revamped
transit system. It will all depend on ridership. People will have to
ride the transit system to make it work. If more the system is made
more convenient, there is a higher chance of attracting new users. A
cleaner, quieter system may also help in this. Eventually, Portland
could be at the forefront of a cleaner, more efficient transit
system. The light rail lines have helped, but using hybrid electric
buses will be better. Many people do not even like the MAX who live
here. They prefer buses, or in some cases driving. Revamping the
system would be beneficial to the city of Portland in the long run,
even if the pinnacle of the system is still a ways away.
Bibliography
- http://godzilla.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/busprj.html
- Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 1999 edition.
- http://www.wri.org/wri/enved/suscom-portland.html
- Metro South/North DEIS- Chapter 1 February 1998.
- http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
- http://demographia.com/dm-seapor.htm
- http://hannahsmac.magnet.fsu.edu/curg/PortlandHardlineManaging.html#Portland
- http://hannahsmac.magnet.fsu.edu/curg/UrbanSprawlinWesternUS.html
- http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/epb/factsheets/drive.html
- http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/aeb/ssd/smog/smogfaq.html
- http://www.wri.org/wri/enved/urban-portland.html
- http://www.amcity.com/journals/demographics/reports/63/63-2d.html
- http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/airport.htm
- http://www.isecorp.com
- http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/07/st072909.html
- http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
- http://www.ocregister.com/community/features/1998/growth/transportation/hybri030w.shtml
- http://www.novabuses.com/Bulletin/english/Edition.asp?EdID=46
- http://www.ucsusa.org/transportation/cleantransit.html
- http://www.etvi.org/Just%20the%20Facts/Hybrid%20-%20JTF%20RIGHT.htm
- http://www.isecorp.com/40_foot_transit_buses.htm
1 Microsoft
Encarta Encyclopedia, 1999 edition.
2
http://www.wri.org/wri/enved/suscom-portland.html
3 Metro
South/North DEIS- Chapter 1 February 1998
4
http://www.wri.org/wri/enved/suscom-portland.html
5
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
6
http://demographia.com/dm-seapor.htm
7
http://hannahsmac.magnet.fsu.edu/curg/PortlandHardlineManaging.html#Portland
8
http://hannahsmac.magnet.fsu.edu/curg/UrbanSprawlinWesternUS.html
9
http://demographia.com/dm-seapor.htm
10
http://demographia.com/dm-seapor.htm
11
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
12
http://hannahsmac.magnet.fsu.edu/curg/PortlandHardlineManaging.html#Portland
13
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
14 Metro
South/North DEIS- Chapter 1 February 1998
15
http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/epb/factsheets/drive.html
16
http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/epb/factsheets/drive.html
17 Metro
South/North DEIS- Chapter 1 February 1998
18
http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/aeb/ssd/smog/smogfaq.html
19
http://atlenv.ns.ec.gc.ca/epb/factsheets/drive.html
20
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
21
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/07/st072909.html
22
http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
23
http://www.ocregister.com/community/features/1998/growth/transportation/hybri030w.shtml
24
http://www.novabuses.com/Bulletin/english/Edition.asp?EdID=46
25
http://www.ucsusa.org/transportation/cleantransit.html
26
http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
27
http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
28
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/07/st072909.html
29
http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
30
http://www.etvi.org/General/Benefits%20of%20Electric%20Buses.html
31
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/07/st072909.html
32 The entire
above paragraph from Table 5.6-2 of the South/North DEIS Ch. 5, Feb.
1998
33 Table 5.6-3
South/North DEIS Ch. 5, 5-55, Feb. 1998
34 Tables
5.4-1,2 South/North 5-39, Feb. 1998
35
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
36
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
37
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm
38
http://www.etvi.org/Just%20the%20Facts/Hybrid%20-%20JTF%20RIGHT.htm
39
http://www.isecorp.com/40_foot_transit_buses.htm
40
http://www.tri-met.org/envfacts.htm