Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[esquire]

^ I can see the merit in that idea. Normally punting something to a study is a good way to say no while making it seem like you're doing something (see Katz council hemming and hawing over which mode to use for rapid transit), but in this case there are a lot of moving parts and considering them together could be a good idea.

[Ando]

FP article on Winnipeg Transits inexplicably pathetic electric bus usage - only one of the 4 test buses still on the road. In a city where they are made.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ci...497975461.html

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Ando

FP article on Winnipeg Transits inexplicably pathetic electric bus usage - only one of the 4 test buses still on the road. In a city where they are made.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ci...497975461.html

"While electric buses are more expensive than diesel — $800,000 versus $500,000 — a University of Manitoba professor's analysis that appeared in the Free Press in 2017 concluded that the transit department could expect see a dramatic decline in greenhouse-gas emissions and annual fuel and maintenance savings of $17,500 per vehicle. "

It would take over 17 years to actually see savings if you go with the electric buses

"Chaudhary said the three electric buses that were taken off the road had been experiencing service problems."

Sounds more like a product defect problem then a CoW problem. If New Flyer stands by there products and fixes them then I'm sure the city would love to take them back. It still speaks to the over all quality of the product. If it takes 17 years to see savings on these buses then they had better have a maintenance and life span greater then that 17 years. These issues kind of point out that the long term maintenance make it a poor investment.

Though, the feds apparently are offering up cash to buy green which would lower the cities upfront costs in which case it could make it viable and cost neutral but we shouldn't think that the city would be saving money by switching to electric.

[bomberjet]

I was thinking about the cost vs savings. It's definitely not the best. Takes a long time to realize the savings and there will likely be maintenance such as battery replacement during that time.

Financially it doesn't make sense based on those numbers. It's more the environmental part of it.

[esquire]

^ 17 years is probably nearing the end of the life cycle of the typical bus?

I guess it's a bit like electrics and hybrids in the consumer car market. Initially higher upfront cost that you can make up after several years. But most would rather pay less upfront and then just deal with fuel costs as they go.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I was thinking about the cost vs savings. It's definitely not the best. Takes a long time to realize the savings and there will likely be maintenance such as battery replacement during that time.

Financially it doesn't make sense based on those numbers. It's more the environmental part of it.

And that's the hard dollar figure you have to put on these buses. How much much of a premium are we willing to put on that? I don't have an answer to that. I'd probably be ok with a 20% premium, right now the electric bus is at a 60% premium. At a life span of 10 years, with the $17,500 savings per year it amounts to a 25% premium, That's not too bad, New Flyer just needs to prove it can make a bus that reliable. At this point, with 3 of there 4 buses down, are they reliable enough to save on maintenance?

[cheswick]

These costs also don't address the infrastructure needed to recharge the busses. I believe the one route we have charges as it waits at its terminus, how would this work for all the routes. Where would they charge? How many additional busses would be needed to deal with delays caused by charging vs refuelling.

[bomberjet]

They need to put charging stations at the end of routes (or key locations) and adjust routes as needed. Drivers gets breaks so they'd have to charge the bus at that time. It would limit where and when breaks could be taken. Those charging stations are quite expensive as they require high power output for fast charging. Maybe go back to catenary system?? (ya right, never happen)

Kildonan Place bus loop for example. Polo Park. Somewhere downtown near Graham.

In general seems the price of buses needs to come down. How are other Cities making a go of this? Just paying the premium for the buses and dealing with it?

[optimusREIM]

We could easily fix this once and for all by building railbased transit.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They need to put charging stations at the end of routes (or key locations) and adjust routes as needed. Drivers gets breaks so they'd have to charge the bus at that time. It would limit where and when breaks could be taken. Those charging stations are quite expensive as they require high power output for fast charging. Maybe go back to catenary system?? (ya right, never happen)

Kildonan Place bus loop for example. Polo Park. Somewhere downtown near Graham.

In general seems the price of buses needs to come down. How are other Cities making a go of this? Just paying the premium for the buses and dealing with it?

Other cities in North America that are switching to electric are purchasing electric buses in similar volumes as Winnipeg. No other city in North America has, or is planning to switch to "entirely electric" bus fleets.

The main issue is money. Buying electric buses is only a small component of the overall cost. The additional electrical infrastructure and charging stations required are going to make up the largest, long term share of costs associated with the switch. You can't just buy 100 electric buses and have them running the next day. You need mechanics and techs familiar with the new electric technology, you need people who can install the new infrastructure, and you need the space to charge all those buses.

Other cities who have more public funds to work with and throw at their transit system can more easily respond to adding charging capacity, facilities, and hiring new mechanics. Winnipeg, not so much, so the transition to an increasingly electric bus fleet is going to take longer. The City is likely also waiting for certain technological aspects to become more standard and for a little more advancement on the battery capacity front before increasing its commitment to electrification of the fleet. But what Transit is considering in the near-term is in the ballpark of what other cities are also considering.

Winnipeg just gets the stereotype of being "less progressive" attached to it no matter what it's doing, so it makes sense that people are going "Oh Toronto just ordered 40 electric buses that are made in Winnipeg, why aren't we doing the same?" The truth is that we're probably making the same consideration, it's just going to take longer for it to materialize due to the fiscal constraints the city faces.

[Ando]

Wow, what a bunch of apologists, Winnipeg Transit can easily thrive in its non-progressive bus strategy in this environment. That fact is that many other cities are buying electric buses, made in Winnipeg by the way, so supplement their fleet. Here they spend several years "testing" a few with no apparent results. The federal government is ready to hand out big bucks for transit. Some governments are taking advantage. But if you have a population that just accepts the mundane, then that is what you will get.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by dmacc

And that's the hard dollar figure you have to put on these buses. How much much of a premium are we willing to put on that? I don't have an answer to that. I'd probably be ok with a 20% premium, right now the electric bus is at a 60% premium. At a life span of 10 years, with the $17,500 savings per year it amounts to a 25% premium, That's not too bad, New Flyer just needs to prove it can make a bus that reliable. At this point, with 3 of there 4 buses down, are they reliable enough to save on maintenance?

According to Winnipeg Transit, the average lifespan of a bus is 18 years. So over the span of 18 years, using the figure of $17,500 per year, the savings would offset the additional initial capital costs of the buses.

A Transit Toronto article states regarding the past operation of the trolleybuses in Toronto that the lifespan of the electric buses was much longer than that of diesel buses, generally over 30 years vs. up to 18 for diesels. If the technology proves reliable, and it continues to improve in order to negate the service reliability issue (because at present the necessity to recharge is too frequent), which is the main problem with the new generation of electric buses, there is every reason to expect that there will be additional savings beyond the 18 year period. The expected $70,000 cost of each charging station would be offset by the life expectancy of the fleet beyond 18 years.

And then there are the very significant benefits of reduced emissions and additional demand for Manitoba Hydro's excess power production. Also, there is no certain predictor of future fuel prices. A sharp rise in fuel prices will give extra advantage to the electric buses, although to be fair, the fears of peak oil would appear to have been negated and there are suggestions that prices should remain flat well into the future due to oversupply. Overall I think it is a good investment and makes sense to convert all medium to high volume routes to electric operation over a medium time frame and as diesel buses require replacement. Diesels, for many years to come, will likely be more practical to provide service to lower revenue areas with infrequent service.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

According to Winnipeg Transit, the average lifespan of a bus is 18 years. So over the span of 18 years, using the figure of $17,500 per year, the savings would offset the additional initial capital costs of the buses.

A Transit Toronto article states in an article about the past operation of the trolleybuses in Toronto that the lifespan of the electric buses was much longer than that of diesel buses, generally over 30 years vs. up to 18 for diesels. If the technology proves reliable, and it continues to improve in order to negate the service reliability issue (because at present the necessity to recharge is too frequent), which is the main problem with the new generation of electric buses, there is every reason to expect that there will be additional savings beyond the 18 year period. The expected $70,000 cost of each charging station would be offset by the life expectancy of the fleet beyond 18 years.

And then there are the very significant benefits of reduced emissions and additional demand for Manitoba Hydro's excess power production. Also, there is no certain predictor of future fuel prices. A sharp rise in fuel prices will give extra advantage to the electric buses, although to be fair, the fears of peak oil would appear to have been negated and there are suggestions that prices should remain flat well into the future due to oversupply. Overall I think it is a good investment and makes sense to convert all medium to high volume routes to electric operation over a medium time frame and as diesel buses require replacement. Diesels, for many years to come, will likely be more practical to provide service to lower revenue areas with infrequent service.

I could get behind that assuming what the CoW has already learned from its trial is positive. We could start on RT Routes? Maybe the end of the east and end of South corridor could have these charging stations? These chargers don't necessarily have to charge to 100%. As long as each time they charge they get enough of a charge to slow the decline of the battery so it can last until the end of the shift/day.

[buzzg]

I agree it’d make the most sense to start rolling out electric on RT lines.

I’ve seen numerous nice non-WInnipeg Transit NF electric busses being tested (posted pics a couple months ago). What the CoW should do (but isn’t good at) is entering a partnership with NF to allow them open-source data to WT busses and use actual WT busses as their test fleet. Instead of each running their own tests, use WT as real world testing, so both save some money.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Drivers gets breaks so they'd have to charge the bus at that time.

Drivers get breaks? LMAO! Routes in Winnipeg have recovery time built into the schedules at terminals. In Winnipeg the amount of recovery time is half what it should be. In many cases it's only 2 to 3 minutes at each terminal. That would have to be increased to 20 minutes at a terminal with a charging station. That alone increases the number of buses, and bus operators, required to provide the same level of service.

[ILYR]

Winnipeg Transit spends about $18 million dollars on fuel each year. All of this fuel is imported from out of province.

https://winnipegtransit.com/en/about...gtransitfacts/

I wonder what the equivalent electricity costs would be for a fully electric fleet. One key advantage for an electric fleet is that transit would buy power from Manitoba Hydro. Thus, instead of sending 18 million out of the province that money would stay within Manitoba. If the buses are bought (in whole or in part) from New Flyer that would also support jobs and industry in Manitoba. Building the infrastructure and adapting the network to support an electric fleet will cost money. However, it also opens up opportunities for local industries to step in and develop this technology.

In the short term overall costs may benefit the existing fleet and infrastructure. However, long term I think the net benefit would be a fully electric fleet with respect to both cost and a more effective and efficient transit system. I hear a lot of people complaining about Winnipeg Transit. Switching to a fully electric fleet and redesigning the network presents and major opportunity to update and modernize the system.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Winnipeg Transit spends about $18 million dollars on fuel each year. All of this fuel is imported from out of province.

https://winnipegtransit.com/en/about...gtransitfacts/

I wonder what the equivalent electricity costs would be for a fully electric fleet. One key advantage for an electric fleet is that transit would buy power from Manitoba Hydro. Thus, instead of sending 18 million out of the province that money would stay within Manitoba. If the buses are bought (in whole or in part) from New Flyer that would also support jobs and industry in Manitoba. Building the infrastructure and adapting the network to support an electric fleet will cost money. However, it also opens up opportunities for local industries to step in and develop this technology.

In the short term overall costs may benefit the existing fleet and infrastructure. However, long term I think the net benefit would be a fully electric fleet with respect to both cost and a more effective and efficient transit system. I hear a lot of people complaining about Winnipeg Transit. Switching to a fully electric fleet and redesigning the network presents and major opportunity to update and modernize the system.

Except when hydro rates double. THats a lot more money that transit doesn’t have.

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Except when hydro rates double. THats a lot more money that transit doesn’t have.

True. If we assume 1) the cost for "fuel" to run a bus for a day on the same route would be cheaper with diesel/CNG and 2) that diesel prices remain flat.

Electric buses are already on par or cheaper for fuel/energy costs per kilometer than diesel or CNG. Add in improvements in battery storage, charging and discharging capacity and other key factors such as regenerative braking it is likely that cost per kilometer will go down further for electric buses. The potential for energy efficiency of an electric vehicle is high and the options for electricity generation, storage and distribution allow for greater flexibility.

Manitoba Hydro (and Manitobans) will benefit substantially if more buses, delivery vehicles, cars etc. are electric as this is a huge untapped market for Hydro or potentially new private wind and solar developments within the province. Such an increased market could very well result in lower electricity costs in the future.

Why limit yourself to oil when the province has abundant renewable energy capacity.

[buzzg]

The reason Hydro prices are expected to rise is because of mismangement at the crown corp, and also building Bipole 3 – without any guaranteed buyers of all the new energy. If WT were to switch to local electricity (along with many other industries of course), that would help to keep costs down.

I know WT's electricity spend would only be a tiny fraction of the sales MH needs to make up, but it's one example of ways the province should be looking to sell/use more of the energy MH is producing – locally.

Another thing I don't think has been factored in is all those busses with faulty emissions regulators that are requiring constant maintenance.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by ILYR

True. If we assume 1) the cost for "fuel" to run a bus for a day on the same route would be cheaper with diesel/CNG and 2) that diesel prices remain flat.

Electric buses are already on par or cheaper for fuel/energy costs per kilometer than diesel or CNG. Add in improvements in battery storage, charging and discharging capacity and other key factors such as regenerative braking it is likely that cost per kilometer will go down further for electric buses. The potential for energy efficiency of an electric vehicle is high and the options for electricity generation, storage and distribution allow for greater flexibility.

Manitoba Hydro (and Manitobans) will benefit substantially if more buses, delivery vehicles, cars etc. are electric as this is a huge untapped market for Hydro or potentially new private wind and solar developments within the province. Such an increased market could very well result in lower electricity costs in the future.

Why limit yourself to oil when the province has abundant renewable energy capacity.

For the same reason why Winnipeg didn't get its first UHF television station until 2006 in CIIT-Tv on ch. 35.

We didn't need it.

Of course it would have been nice for CBWFT ch. 3 to move to the UHF band when Videon and Greater Winnipeg Cablevision added KGFE (Prairie Public) on ch. 3 back in the mid-1970s to avoid "co-channel interference".

No one thinks of these things until it's too late.

Remember. This is Manitoba that we live in. Welcome to Stupid.