Blumberg, K. (2004) Emissions Impact of Transit Technology Options for the Mexico City Metropolitan Area, Master Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley: Energy and Resources Group.
Cervero, R. (1998), The Transit Metropolis, Washington, DC, Island Press.
Cesar, H, et al (2003) Improving Air Quality in Metropolitan Mexico City An Economic Valuation, Washington DC, The World Bank.
Clark., N. et al (2005a), Final Report: Chassis Dynamometer Emissions Characterization of Buses in Mexico City, West Virginia University, Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions, March 31, 2005.
Clark, N., et al (2005b), Correlation between West Virginia University and Engine, Fuel and Emissions Engineering, Inc.’s RAVEM Emissions Measurements from Transit Buses, report under contract no. GDF-SMA-GEF-SC-027-04, Mechanical Engineering Dept., West Virginia University and Engine, Fuel, and Emissions Engineering, Inc., August, 2005.
Clark, N.N., Rivero, E., Mckain, D., Paramo, V.H., Wayne, W.S., Vergara, W., Barnett, R., Gautam, M., Thompson, G.J., Lyons, D.W., and Schipper, L., "Evaluation of Emissions from New and In-Use Transit Buses in Mexico City" Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington DC, Jan. 2006, TRB Paper 06-1092.
Cohen, J., Hammitt, J. and Levy, J. (2003, denoted Harvard 2003), Fuels for Urban Transit Buses - A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Environment Science Technology, pp 37, 1477-1484.
Comisión Ambiental Metropolitana (CAM) (2002), Proaire. Programa para Mejorar la Calidid del Aire de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México, 2002-2010, Mexico City, Mexico.
CTS (2006a), Sustainable Mobility: Metrobus. Mexico City, Mexico.
CTS (2006b), Final report to the US EPA on Retrofit of Mexico City Transit Buses. Mexico City. See also Cleaner Healthier Air: Retrofit, a Step Forward by CTS.
Frank, B., et al (2004), A Study of the Effects of Fuel Type and Emissions Control Systems on Regulated Gaseous Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines. SAE paper 2004-01-1085.
Hayes, R.R., Williams, A., Ireland, J, and Walkowidz, K, (NREL 2006), King Country Metro Transrit: Allison Hybrid Electric Transit Bus Laboratory Testing. NREL/TP-540-39996. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. See also http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/nrel_evaluating.html
Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE), The Benefits and Costs of a Bus Rapid Transit System in Mexico City, March 2006.
Islas, V. (1996), Llegando Tarde al Compromiso. Colegio de Mexico, Mexico, 1996.
Kasper, M., 2004 The Number Concentration of Non-Volatile Particles Design Study for an Instrument According to the PMP Recommendations. SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-0960. SAE, Warrendale, Pa., March 2004.
Lanni, T., B. Frank, S. Tang, D. Rosenblatt and D. Lowell 2003. Performance and Emissions Evaluation of Compressed Natural Gas and Clean Diesel Buses at NY City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority. SAE Paper 2003-01-0300.
Matter Engineering, 2006.. The Efficiency of DPF and Other After-Treatment Systems to Remove Nanoparticles from the Exhaust of Mexico City Urban Buses. March 2006. www.matter-engineering.com
Molina, L. and Molina, M., Air Quality in the Mexico Megacity: An Integrated Assessment. Kluwer Scientific, Dordrecht, 2002.
Rogers, J. (2006), “Mexico, Insurgentes Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Pilot Project.” Document version: 1.7. Document date: 4-Jan 06, Mexico City: Metrobus (see http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/JG4E4YKSZ09A2X1OZXTA8C7XTKQ6YQ)
Rogers, J. and Schipper, L., (2005), Measuring the Emissions Impact of a Bus Rapid Transport Project in Mexico City. Prepared for the 2005 TRB Annual Meeting. Washington DC, TRB.
Schipper, L., (2004), Re-Making Bus System into One that Works: Progress in Mexico City. Prepared for the 2004 TRB Annual Meeting. Washington, DC, TRB.
Schipper, L, and Golub, A., (2003), Transportation and Environment in Mexico City: Reviving a Bus System or Giving in to the Auto? Proceedings of the 2003 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy - Workshop. Paris: ECEEE.
Schipper, et al. (2007), Cleaner Buses for Mexico City: From Talk to Reality. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1987, pp. 62-72.
Secretaría del Medio Ambiente (SMA) (2002), PROAIRE 2002-2010: El Programa para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México 2002- 2010.
http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/sma/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=253
Secretaría del Medio Ambiente (SMA) (2006), Reporte Final Componente III. Pruebas De Tecnologías De Autobuses: Programa De Introducción De Medidas Ambientalmente Amigables En Transporte. (Final Report on Component III: Tests of Bus Technologies. Program of Introduction of Climate-Friendly Technologies in Transport.) Mexico City: SMA.
SETRAVI, (2002), Programa Integral de Transporte Y Vialidad 2001-2006 (PITU). Mexico. Sec. de Transporte y Vialidad.
Weaver, C.S., L.M. Chan and L. Petty, (2002a), Measurement of Air Pollutant Emissions from In-Service Passenger Ferries, report to the Water Transit Authority of San Francisco Bay.
Weaver, C.S., M.V. Balam-Almanza, D. Noriega, R. Rodriguez, and L. Petty, (2002b). "Medición de Emisiones a Vehículos Recolectores de Basura en la Ciudad De México" (Measurement of Emissions from Garbage Collection Vehicles in Mexico City), presented to the Interamerican Association for Sanitary Engineering, Cancún, Mexico.
Weaver, C.S. and L.E. Petty, (2004), “Reproducibility and Accuracy of On-Board Emission Measurements Using the RAVEM™ System “, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0965.
Weaver, C.S. and M.V. Balam-Almanza, (2004), “Development of the ‘RAVEM’ Ride-Along Vehicle Emission Measurement System for Gaseous and Particulate Emissions”, SAE Paper No. 2001-01-3644.
Weaver, C., and Balam, M., (2006), Measurement of Air Pollutant Emissions from Public Transport Buses in the Insurgentes Corridor. Mexico City Final Report.
World Bank, (2002b) Project Appraisal Document (PAD): Introduction of Climate Friendly Measures in Transport. Washington, DC.
World Bus. Council on Sustainable Development, 2003. Sustainable Mobility Project: Final Report. Geneva: WBCSD.
Table 1 – Characteristics and emissions from buses/fuels tested in Component 3, using RAVEM
(Source: SMA, 2006, Weaver and Balam, 2004)
Vehicle and emission norm Level
|
Fuel type (ppm sulfur diesel)
|
Emission control
|
No. Seat
|
Vehicle Capital Cost (USDc)
|
Average Emissions (g/km)
|
Fuel consumption diesel equivalent (g/km)
|
PM
|
NOx
|
CO
|
CO2
|
dRTP 1, EPA 98
|
50
|
|
85
|
$55,046
|
0.22
|
7.71
|
1.58
|
873
|
275
|
RTP 2, EPA 98
|
350
|
|
80
|
$55,046
|
0.26
|
15.73
|
2.56
|
1145
|
362
|
RTP 3, EPA 98
|
350
|
DPF
|
85
|
$55,046
|
0.05
|
6.86
|
0.95
|
815
|
257
|
RTP 4, EPA 98
|
15
|
DPF
|
80
|
$55,046
|
0.06
|
14.79
|
*
|
1263
|
396
|
Mercedes Benz, 10 meters,
EPA 2004
|
50
|
|
87
|
$64,220
|
0.12
|
5.40
|
1.65
|
612
|
193
|
Mercedes Benz, 11.4 meters,
EPA 98
|
15
|
|
80
|
$64,220
|
0.09
|
8.41
|
1.95
|
754
|
238
|
Mercedes Benz, 12.6 meter,
EPA 98
|
15
|
|
90
|
$69,725
|
0.19
|
14.11
|
4.27
|
1194
|
378
|
Volvo, 12 meters, EURO III
|
15
|
|
91
|
$73,394
|
0.63
|
10.67
|
11.39
|
917
|
294
|
Scania , 18 meters, EURO III
|
15
|
|
160
|
$264,548
|
1.82
|
7.30
|
8.51
|
1684
|
547
|
RTP Scania 18 meters length, EURO III
|
350
|
|
160
|
$251,513
|
0.45
|
12.16
|
2.48
|
1574
|
497
|
eCISA Volvo, 18 meters, EURO III
|
350
|
|
160
|
$253,322
|
0.33
|
16.94
|
8.10
|
1385
|
440
|
Parallel hybrid, 12 meters,
EPA 2004
|
15
|
DPF
|
110
|
$287,036
|
0.03
|
6.60
|
*
|
1132
|
356
|
Series hybrid, 12 meters, EURO II
|
15
|
|
80
|
$196,977
|
0.05
|
21.26
|
3.00
|
946
|
299
|
Busscar a, CW EPA 2004
|
CNGb
|
|
80
|
$134,294
|
0.02
|
5.53
|
*
|
928
|
333
|
FAW a , CW
EPA 2004
|
CNGb
|
|
120
|
$207,780
|
0.03
|
9.81
|
0.83
|
1142
|
410
|
Ankai a, CW
EPA 2004
|
CNGb
|
|
80
|
$134,294
|
0.02
|
4.92
|
0.28
|
939
|
337
|
a FAW is First Auto Works, China; Ankai is another Chinese manufacturer, Busscar assembles vehicles in Latin America. CW is Cummins-Westport, which supplied the engines.
b All CNG engines were by Cummins-Westport
c US$1 = 10.9 MP. (Source, SMA 2006)
d RTP public company that owns part of the bus fleet in Mexico City.
e CISA is private company that owns part of the bus fleet in Mexico City.
* Too low a value to be measurable by the equipment
Table 2 – Diesel Bus Retrofit Initiative buses and key results
(Source: Schipper et al. 2007)
Test Route
|
Emissions - g/km by Phase
|
PM
|
NOx
|
CO
|
Phase
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
Eight Mercedes Benz engine models 1991 (DOCs)
|
Modulo 23
|
2.74
|
2.39
|
1.52
|
20.13
|
17.31
|
19.12
|
38.60
|
22.10
|
22.00
|
Insurgentes Norte
|
1.70
|
1.32
|
---
|
12.94
|
11.67
|
NA*
|
22.50
|
6.20
|
NA
|
Montevideo
|
1.68
|
---
|
1.19
|
14.86
|
NA
|
13.10
|
31.70
|
NA
|
7.3.00
|
Eight International engine models 2001 (DPFs)
|
Modulo 23
|
0.24
|
0.05
|
0.02
|
14.47
|
15.85
|
14.63
|
4.20
|
N
|
0
|
Insurgentes Norte
|
0.27
|
0.02
|
NA
|
10.99
|
10.43
|
NA
|
4.70
|
0.10
|
NA
|
Montevideo
|
0.21
|
NA
|
0.02
|
10.33
|
NA
|
10.65
|
5.30
|
NA
|
0
|
*NA – only the first and third round of tests used Montevideo. 0 for the CO measurement means below limit of detection.
Figure 1. Vehicles first year capital cost per 1000 seat km.
Figure 2. Vehicles first year total cost per 1000 seat-km.
Figure 3. Vehicles PM and NOx emissions.
Figure 4. Vehicle fuel use per 1000 seat-km (gm diesel equivalent) and CO2 emissions per 100 seat-km for new buses.
i Readers interested in the important chassis dynamometer (CD) tests should consult Clarke et al. 2005a, Clark et al. 2006, Weaver et al. 2005, and SMA 2006. Certain vehicles were tested carefully with both the CD and the RAVEM in order to show the correlation between the two systems (Clark et al. 2005b). Indeed, the results of the actual measurements good to +- 5% or better depending on the species. But comparison of the results where the same bus was tested on both devices gave an R-squared for the correlation between observations on one system and the other between 75% and 90%, depending on the pollutant. While either system gave acceptable results, it made little sense to compare a bus tested with one system against another tested by the other system. Even if the intrinsic measurement error on either system is low, sample skew is probably high and cannot be ignored in interpreting the results.
ii The use of a different route from Insurgentes was necessitated by the successful opening of Metrobus on Insurgentes, which blocked 1 lane in each direction. Comparisons between the 2nd and 3rd phases tested in Modulo 23 suggest that the results were compatible with those from Insurgentes.
iii The use of 350 ppm sulfur diesel appears to be the villain, since the use of 15 ppm sufur diesel with DPF in other vehicles shows a much smaller increase or even a small decrease in NOx/pass-km and almost no increase in PM. Unfortunately the tests of a Scania 18m bus with 15ppm S diesel but no filter gave higher PM and CO but lower NOx than the Scania Metrobus, so no firm conclusions can be drawn for this particular vehicle.
iv An analysis (currently underway) of the semi-annual database of SMA obligatory emissions tests may yield more information on emissions from mini-buses.
Share with your friends: |