King County Trolley Bus Evaluation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
KING COUNTY TROLLEY BUS EVALUATION MAY 2011 King County Trolley Bus Evaluation May 2011 Prepared by: P LTK Eneeri Sices Contents 1. Executive Summary .............................................. 1-1 2. Introduction ......................................................... 2-1 3. Bus Technology and Vehicle System Assessment .......................................................... 3-1 4. Life-Cycle Cost Comparison ................................... 4-1 5. Environmental Comparison .................................. 5-1 6. Auxiliary Power Unit Evaluation ........................... 6-1 7. Federal Funding Sources....................................... 7-1 8. Conclusions .......................................................... 8-1 i | King County Metro Trolley Bus Evaluation Study Exhibits Exhibit 1-1. Trolley Bus Service Area in Seattle ............ 1-1 Exhibit 4-8. Total Maintenance Costs Applied to Exhibit 6-1. Representative APUs ................................ 6-3 Exhibit 1-2. Environmental Impacts and Benefits the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ................................ 4-12 Exhibit 6-2. Comparison of APU Off-Wire Summary ............................................................. 1-3 Exhibit 4-9. TOH System Maintenance Costs Capabilities .......................................................... 6-5 Exhibit 1-3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Summary............. 1-4 Applied to the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ............... 4-14 Exhibit 6-3. Estimate of Life-Cycle Costs for Battery Exhibit 1-4. Fixed Guideway Funding Influence on Exhibit 4-10. Sensitivity of Major Cost Variables ........ 4-15 EPU and Diesel Generator APU, per Bus ................ 6-7 Life-Cycle Cost ...................................................... 1-4 Exhibit 4-11. Annualized Cost Comparison ($ Exhibit 1-5. New Electric Trolley Bus Operating in millions) Using Different Life-Cycle Cost Model Vancouver, B.C. .................................................... 1-5 Assumptions ....................................................... 4-16 Exhibit 2-1. Existing Trolley Bus Service Area in Exhibit 5-1. Summary of Potential Comparative Seattle.................................................................. 2-1 Environmental Effects ........................................... 5-2 Exhibit 2-2. Bus Procurement and Evaluation Exhibit 5-2. Steepest Existing Trolley Bus Route Timeline ............................................................... 2-2 Segments ............................................................. 5-3 Exhibit 2-3. Telephone Interview Summary ................ 2-5 Exhibit 5-3. Sound Testing on Current Fleet Buses Exhibit 3-1. Factors Affecting Vehicle Flexibility .......... 3-5 and Other On-Street Vehicles (dBA) ...................... 5-4 Exhibit 3-2. Impact of Grade on System ....................... 3-6 Exhibit 5-4. Follow-up Sound Testing on Current Exhibit 3-3. Impact of Weight on Road ........................ 3-7 Fleet Buses and Other On-Street Vehicles Exhibit 3-4. Rider Satisfaction ..................................... 3-7 (dBA) .................................................................... 5-5 Exhibit 4-1. Overview of Life-Cycle Cost Model ............ 4-2 Exhibit 5-5. Second Follow-up Sound Testing on Exhibit 4-2. Consumer Price Index Applied to Life- Current Fleets (dBA).............................................. 5-5 Cycle Cost Analysis................................................ 4-2 Exhibit 5-6. Air Quality and Energy Analysis Results ..... 5-6 Exhibit 4-3. Base Rolling Stock Unit Capital Costs ........ 4-5 Exhibit 5-7. Percent of Minority and Low-income Exhibit 4-4. Total Rolling Stock Unit Capital Costs........ 4-5 Populations in Census Tracts Containing Exhibit 4-5. Removal of TOH Construction Cost Trolley Bus Routes Compared to King County Estimate ............................................................... 4-6 Total Population ................................................... 5-8 Exhibit 4-6. Modification of Atlantic Base Exhibit 5-8. Trolley Bus Wire Anchored to Historic Construction Cost Estimate ................................... 4-7 Structures ............................................................. 5-8 Exhibit 4-7. Projected Fuel and Energy Costs Exhibit 5-9. Map of Historic Sites in Proximity to Applied to the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ................. 4-9 Trolley Bus Routes................................................. 5-9 King County Metro Trolley Bus Evaluation Study | ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ac alternating current kW kilowatts SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit ADA Americans with Disabilities Act kWh kilowatt-hours Authority AEO Annual Energy Outlook LNG liquefied natural gas SFMTA San Francisco Metropolitan Transit APR annual percentage rate Metro King County Metro Authority APU auxiliary power unit mpg miles per gallon TES traction electrification system ATC automatic traction control mph miles per hour TOH trolley overhead (system) BRT bus rapid transit NEPA National Environmental Policy Act U.S.C. United States Code CAA Clean Air Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act VOC volatile organic compound CE Categorical Exclusion NiCad nickel cadmium WSST Washington State Sales Tax CMBC Coast Mountain Bus Company, Vancouver, NiMh nickel metal hydride B.C. NRHP National Register of Historic Places CNG compressed natural gas NTD National Transit Database CO2 carbon dioxide NO nitric oxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents NO2 nitrogen dioxide CPI Consumer Price Index NOx nitrous oxides dBA A-weighted decibel O3 ozone dc direct-current O&M operation and maintenance DCE Documented Categorical Exclusion OCS overhead contact system EIA Energy Information Administration PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency EPU emergency power unit RTA Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority ETI Electric Trolley, Inc. SAFETEA-LU Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient FHWA Federal Highway Administration Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy FTA Federal Transit Administration for Users GHG greenhouse gas SCL Seattle City Light HVAC heating, venting, and air conditioning SEPA State Environmental Policy Act hybrid diesel hybrid iii | King County Metro Trolley Bus Evaluation Study Appendices Appendix A: Public Involvement Report: Trolley Bus System Evaluation Appendix B: Interview Questions for Manufacturers and Other Transit Agencies King County Metro Trolley Bus Evaluation Study | iv 1. Executive Summary Exhibit 1-1. Trolley Bus Service Area in Seattle REPLACING THE TROLLEY KING COUNTY METRO’S BUSES TROLLEY BUS NETWORK King County Metro’s (Metro) electric The 14 trolley bus routes carry 20 percent trolley bus fleet is scheduled to begin of Metro’s weekday riders on 159 trolley replacement in September 2014. Before buses. The routes have 70 miles of purchasing new buses, an in-depth, two-way overhead wire. Exhibit 1-1 interdisciplinary evaluation of vehicle shows the trolley bus service area in options was conducted by Parametrix to Seattle. Currently, five trolley bus systems determine relative costs, limitations, are operating in the United States: environmental impacts, and benefits and Seattle, San Francisco, Dayton, is summarized in this report. The study Philadelphia, and Boston. evaluated each technology using the WHY THE TROLLEY BUSES current route structure as a base. The findings from this evaluation will inform NEED REPLACEMENT the technology decision for replacement Metro’s 159 electric trolley buses are of the trolley buses. reaching the end of their useful lives. The buses have outdated electrical systems, cracked non-structural overhead frames, and some parts that will be difficult to replace once they fail. There is no longer manufacturer support for the existing propulsion systems. 1-1 | King County Metro Trolley Bus Evaluation Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES with steep grades such as Capitol Hill and impact than diesel hybrid buses were Queen Anne. reasons this propulsion technology was EVALUATED eliminated. The electric trolley bus would be Six propulsion technologies were equipped with an auxiliary power unit Hydrogen Fuel Cell evaluated as part of the initial screening (APU) to increase flexibility by permitting Hydrogen fuel cell propulsion systems analysis. Two were selected for further off-wire travel. This study evaluated both were removed from further evaluation evaluation as follows: diesel and battery APUs—the battery because hydrogen fuel is not APU was recommended based on Diesel Hybrid Bus commercially available, it is expensive, performance and cost. and it has a reduced travel range and Diesel hybrid buses are common and reduced reliability. currently comprise a growing portion of Bus Technologies Eliminated from Metro’s fleet. Bus maintenance facilities Further Evaluation currently exist to perform necessary maintenance, although additional fueling The diesel technology was eliminated capacity would be needed to from further evaluation because it is less accommodate the increased fleet size. fuel efficient and has a greater environmental impact than diesel hybrid This technology was selected, but may buses. require modification to the drive train system for travel on the steep hills in Electric Battery Seattle, which would limit the hybrid bus’ The electric battery technology was top speed on level grades. eliminated because the propulsion system is not commercially available, Electric Trolley Bus vehicles have a reduced travel range, and Electric trolley buses have been operating the technology has not been proven to on urban routes in Seattle since the