Professionals Make Mistakes, Need Oversight
Via Green Car Congress comes an interesting story. It seems the transit agency for the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove bought a fleet of 17 hybrid buses for “high-speed commuter transport on freeways.” Smart move? Well, not really. It seems none of the professionals that approved the plan stopped to consider that hybrid vehicles perform better in stop-and-go traffic.
I think most people grasp the basic concept that hybrids are able to regenerate the electrical power they need through braking. This is why their in-town mileage is often as good or better than the highway mileage. Putting hybrid buses on highway commuter lines is simply foolish.
Yet an entire transit agency and likely some sort of regional agency that disburses federal funds had to approve the project. Apparently the folks in the Seattle area realized the same thing after they received their diesel-hybrid buses (full story):
At times, the New Flyer hybrid articulated buses have gotten worse mileage than the often-maligned 1989 dual-mode Breda buses they are replacing. Yet the hybrid buses cost $200,000 more each than a conventional articulated diesel bus.
The Elk Grove agency is now contracting to purchase CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) buses for the commuter routes into Sacramento. I’d love to know if anyone pointed out to the professionals behind this blunder the potential problems? This is exactly why we need citizens and critics watching the process and questioning logic along the way.
– Steve
All public transit districts have boards of directors. Most boards are appointed, typically populated by elected officials who usually have only a passing interest in the nuts and bolts of running a transit system. My (limited) experience is that staff is typically well-versed in the pluses and minuses of systems, technology, whatever, but need to defer to the direction and, at times, micro-management of their board. Denver’s answer to this is an elected board (not an appointed one). This certainly doesn’t guarantee greater competence, but it sure makes the board more accountable to the electorate!
As for Seattle, they need dual mode buses to work in a unique environment. They have an underground transitway downtown to separate transit from general rush-hour traffic (think Metrolink dowtown here, only with buses). And unlike San Francisco, they have either no or limited electrification of bus routes outside the central core. The original solution (Breda dual-mode) switched from diesel (on the highways) to direct electrification (in the tunnel). Apparently, the decision was made to switch from this to a hybrid system to eliminate the need to stop and attach/detach the trolley wires when entering/leaving the tunnel. This saves time and simplifies life (much like how hybrid cars are more appealing than true, plug-in electric cars), but I can’t explain the differences in over-the-road milleage. My guess would be higher vehicle weights (the weight of the battery packs, if nothing else) combined with slightly-lower mileage inherent in the new, tighter emission standards for diesel engines.
In Sacramento, my guess is that board set the course, either through limited knowledge and/or through persuasive lobbying. In Denver, we were heavily lobbied on the virtues of clean diesel versus CNG in the last fleet replacement solicitation. (We went with clean diesel.) As the general manager points out, there’s a difference between being on the leading edge and the bleeding edge of technology . . .
Reminds me of the scene from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Parking lot attendant (to Cameron): Trust me. I’m a professional.
Cameron: Professional what?
Hybrid technology is beginning to attract a lot of attention in the transit industry. NYCTA has purchased around 400 hybrid diesel vehicles and seems very pleased with them. Over time, the vehicle mileage will probably improve.
Metro tested a NYCTA style hybrid on 70 Grand for several weeks. Unfortunately the vehicle (which used the newest low sulfur fuel) had worse fuel mileage than Metro’s standard clean diesel Gillig vehicles. We were disappointed and Orien, the owner, was apoplectic.
If we were testing the hybrid against a vehicle using the same fuel, it might have had a different result. Metro will ultimately have to use the ultra low sulfur fuel which will result in lower fuel mileage. NYCTA was comparing mileage against a fleet with a different engine-transmission package that has decidedly lower fuel mileage than Metro’s engine-transmission system.
We were planning to test the vehicle on a little higher speed route with fewer stops, but unfortunately the little darlings on Grand bricked out the windows to many times on the test vehicle and Orien took it back.
As far as oversight, it would be good if someone in Missouri was concerned about the public transit system. Metro’s board has generally not micromanaged vehicle platforms. However, Metro management is evaluated annually based upon targets for cost per mile, accident rates, customer complaints, ridership trends. As such, the internal recommendations for major procurements and changes in operating platforms are evaluating intensively. You can’t hide from the economic numbers. As such, if and when Metro decides to invest in hybrids, I am sure that we will be convinced that it is going to be a good economic decision.
What I find “funny” is California allowing hybrids in the car pool lanes as an incentive to buy hybrids. If you want to save gas, lower pollution, then having hybrids cruising their own lanes isn’t too bright. They belong stuck in traffic.
Tom, I don’t get it . . .