Comment Log Display

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