First Name | Joyce |
---|---|
Last Name | Roy |
Email Address | joyceroy@earthlink.net |
Affiliation | |
Subject | Updates to the Zero-Emission Bus Regulations |
Comment | July 21, 2009 Oakland, CA Re: Updates to the Zero-Emission Bus Regulations. To the Air Resources Board: CARB is to be commended for analyzing ethanol, as the industry puts it, from the well (or, in this case, the cornfield) to the wheel. I think the same careful study is needed for hydrogen fuel cell technology. Particularly in view of the federal administration questioning its viability. Some questions about energy efficiency that come to mind for the production of hydrogen from natural gas or methane, is the energy needed to separate out the H. And how much methane, one of the worst GHG, leaks into the atmosphere? And a by-product, CO will become CO2, the main ingredient of GHG. So, if you look at the whole picture (well to wheel emissions), are hydrogen fuel buses really zero emissions? And if electricity is used for production of hydrogen, why not just eliminate the middleman and use the proven zero-emissions technology of electric trolley buses? My PG&E bill says only 2% of their energy comes from coal. AC Transit Program: I am most familiar with the AC Transit program because I have closely followed it for years. First of all, I want to correct one glaring error in the presentation at the May 21 workshop about the AC Transit program, which claims “positive public acceptance.” Most riders because of its treacherous seating on 12” high pedestals hate the Van Hool buses. (And I can document this because of the scores of letters written to newspapers and AC Transit, itself.) It has nothing to do with the fuel cell technology although these buses are particularly bad because there is not a single seat at floor level for the elderly and disabled. Even most drivers hate them and have a low opinion on their mechanical quality (and I can document that also). They are hard to service because the power unit is located in the passenger compartment. I have also noticed the fuel cell buses are underpowered and struggle up hills. I think the credibility of the AC Transit fuel-cell program should questioned. It is not run by an engineer. A high-pressure salesman who goes to Expos promoting Van Hool buses on AC Transit’s dime, heads it. The General Manager is gung-ho for more fuel cell buses because, it means buying more buses from Van Hool, because of the “special partnership” with the bus manufacturer. When the board was considering diesel electric hybrid, the GM claimed, “CARB would not accept them,” which is not true as many other California transit systems are buying hybrids. The real problem is Van Hool doesn’t them. From some source that I considered reliable, I heard that CARB paid $1 million to Van Hool to develop a 30-ft gasoline electric hybrid bus. Is this true? One million from US taxpayers sent overseas to re-invent the wheel? US manufacturers have been producing them for more than 8 years. At the APTA Expo in San Diego in October, which I attended, all manufacturers displayed hybrid buses. But Jamie Levin, head of fuel cell program, and Stuart Thompson, mechanical inspector, from AC Transit were promoting the Van Hool bus. In fact, for Stuart Thompson, AC Transit spent $5,482.21 for “Airfare and lodging expenses to attend APTA Expo (from Belgium) in San Diego.” This is an example of how intermingled AC Transit is with Van Hool. I understand the VTA fuel cell program during their full demonstration program had an uptime of 87%, which is much better than AC Transit’s 61%. As a public agency isn’t CARB responsible for monitoring the public funds it allocates to bus agencies? Shouldn’t it insist on bids for the purchasing of buses? But I can understand that some bus manufacturers might not be willing to bid because the frequent breakdowns of fuel cell buses make their buses look bad even tho it is not the fault of the bus itself. One such manufacturer is Gillig. This is no time for AC Transit to continue with a fuel cell program. The demonstration program proved it was very costly and ineffective. AC Transit is barely able to provide bread and butter service. According to the CMA, they are the only transit agency in the county to lose ridership, 2.8%. And they plan to cut service by 15%, down to ‘96 level. This would seem to cancel out any reduction from GHG from fuel cell buses. An item at a board retreat on 4/29 was: 5. Discussion regarding whether AC Transit’s service could be reduced to the extent that it’s no longer considered a viable system for an urban area. When AC Transit gets on its feet again, the best solution, in my opinion, for reducing pollution and GHG would be electric trolley buses on trunk routes and diesel electric hybrids on the other routes. JOYCE ROY 258 MATHER STREET, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94611 (510) 655-7508 EMAIL: joyceroy@earthlink.net |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/zbus709/6-to_carb_mtg.doc |
Original File Name | To CARB mtg.doc |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2009-07-22 11:51:06 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.