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 require higher investments than internal combustion 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 , 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 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 route- specific 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 ) or cost per hour. The use of cost per kilometer as a sole basis for modal cost comparisons was successfully refuted by engineers in 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 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 If we examine operating costs on a cost per km basis, we find the trolley operates at a slightly higher cost per Power/Fuel 0.18 0.20 km than the diesel bus. This is largely due to the expenditures associated Overhead Maintenance 0.36 0 with maintaining the trolley’s overhead infrastructure.

Total Basic Operating per km 0.90 0.60

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 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 high- patronage, 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 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 Diesel

Avg. cost/km = 0.90 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 The health cost associated with a Assume average of 1.15 million trolley km per year = 76,667 service hours similar number of diesel bus service hours is estimated at 76,667 service hours x $1.50 hourly cost difference = $115,000 per year extra cost for trolleys two to three times w this amount! according to recent scheduling and usage patterns*

$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 to ta l annual km 3. 5 o p e r a t e d in millio n s 3 to ta l o p erating co st pe r km in $ 2. 5 2 1. 5 Reducing the annual number of trolleybus 1 kilometres operated contributes to rising 0. 5 per-kilometre operating 0 costs.

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Data Source: Edmonton Transit System (Chart 27) Operating and Overhead Costs vs. Kilometres Operated

4 total annual km operated in 3.5 millio ns overhead maintenance per 3 km operated in $

2.5 total operating cost per km 2 in $

1.5 Reductions in the annual number of trolleybus 1 kilometres operated force the per-km costs of overhead 0.5 maintenance as well as 0 operating costs upward. Increasing trolley service km would lower per-unit costs and result in better cost efficiencies 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 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. 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 (, ) 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 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 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 total annual km operated in millions 2.5 capital vehicle cost annual equivalent in $ per km 2

1.5 Annual km operated and capital vehicle cost annual equivalent are inversely related. 1 Decreasing the annual km operated increases the capital vehicle cost annual equivalent. 0.5 A lower AE figure indicates a better investment return. 0 Increasing trolley usage would give Edmontonians a better return on their investment in quality, environmentally sound 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 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 , 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 moderate extensions to put more trolleys into operation is small. —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 de- investment 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 , Greece; and , Austria; Nancy, France; Quito, Ecuador; , Switzerland; as well as in the Chinese cities of , Guangzhou and , 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, 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 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 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 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 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 (Chart 33) - 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. , 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 . Trolleybuses carry signs: “Arnhem – Trolley Stad” (“Arnhem – Trolley City”). , Italy – New fleet of low floor trolleybuses began arriving in February 2000. Mexico City, Mexico – New Mitsubishi trolleybuses recently added to fleet. , 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; 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

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 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 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 ; 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 , 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 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 Approx. Active Fleet Recent Developments Boston 40 Flyer (1976) Current fleet to be replaced w. new trolleys; new route planned east of Downtown Boston to use Neoplan articulated low floor trolleys. Dayton 57 ETI/Skoda (1998-99) Fleet renewed in 1998-99; last of four new extensions opened August 20, 2000. Philadelphia 66 AM General (1979) $44 M in budget for new trolleys, 2004-2011. San Francisco 276 Flyer (1976-77) Fleet currently undergoing renewal with new 40 and 60 foot trolleys from ETI/Skoda. 60 Flyer artic (1993) Seattle 102 AM General (1979) AM General fleet to be ‘rebodied’ using 100 40 ft. bodies on order and 46 MAN artic (1986 ) updated/refurbished electrics and controls; construction of an extension to Rte. 36 to be 236 Breda artic dual mode completed by June 2001. (1990) Vancouver 244 Flyer (1982-83) 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)

80 (Chart 35) 70 Carbon M onox ide 60 Nitrogen O xides 50 40 30 20 10 0 d .) ) ) ) Alternatives to the conventional el el s i g d a br v ant ant diesel bus like ‘clean’ diesel, CNG es ies y in i l G r A w and hybrid technology are a long D ra H e d pl ( ic w ed pl e y way from being competitive with tu tr o ir ir ean D c -f -f lle l Na e P ro trolleys in terms of emissions. C l . as oal T /E m g c Trolleys can be made zero d ( ( el y y emission vehicles with a simple es (E le le i y ol investment in wind power, which D e r rol ll T T requires no vehicle modifications ro T 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 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 (.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 operates 50 CNG buses out of its 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 (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 stop- and-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 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 , 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 . 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 diesel- powered 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 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 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 Ener gy R equi r e ments in k W h per 100 k m Ca r bon D iox id e E mis s ions in gr am s per k m 60 52 45 44 40

20

0 G a s o lin e Engi ne Dies el Engi ne Fuel C e ll

Fuel cell emissions based on hydrogen Fuel cell technology still results in 77% of the CO2 generated from natural gas or methanol. 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 25- 40%.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 “A Cleanup for the Big Rigs,” The New York Times, December 26, 2000.

2 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 APTA Subcommittee Meeting, February 14-16, 1999. Notes.

6 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 2000 BC website at: http://vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/learning/vancouver/operating_stats.html.

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 Arnhem- Nijmegen,” Stadtverkehr International, June 1998.

16 City of Edmonton Collision Statistics, Edmonton Police Service at: http://www.police.edmonton.ab.ca.

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 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 Industries, , Manitoba, 1999.

26 “Diesel Exhaust and Air Pollution,” American Lung Association at: http://www.lungusa.org/air/airout00_diesel.html.

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 Discover, October 2000, p. 85.

29 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 Edmonton City Council Minutes, March 23, 1993.

32 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 Protection Association Website (http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/glossary.html#S)

42 “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 Herald, December 5, 2000. (http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanhearald/dec05/st1.htm)

49 “How Green is your Hydrogen?” The Economist, April 2000, p. 74.

50 “How Road Pollution pumps Asthma into Children’s Lungs,” Daily Mail, December 27, 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 “Libya urges cutting off oil supply,” The Oregonian, December 26, 2000.

57 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 —The Hydrogen Revolution. Chairman’s Address, The Automobile Division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, January 2001.

62 “More Trolleys for City,” Edmonton Journal, January 14, 1981.

63 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 at: http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/transit/about_edmonton_transit/ets_operating_statistics.html.

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. ( Special No. 58.) Press, Summer 1973.

76 Siuru, W. D. “Study Shows Advantages of Hybrid-Electric Buses,” Mass Transit, May 2000, p. 76- 81.

77 Slack, Chris. “The Euclid Corridor Improvement Project: Greater Cleveland Transit Authority Undertakes $292 Million Euclid Renovation,” Busline, January/February 2000.

78 Snell, 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. City of Edmonton, Department of Transportation and Streets, April 14, 1999.

85 Trolleybus Magazine (Journal of the National Trolleybus Association). Various issues.

86 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 EPCOR Project Development to K. Brown, June 5, 2000.

99 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.