 |
Re: LA Metrolink partial commute electrification costs? So whatt has changed?
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-06-2018 - 08:38
Art Leahy has been making the rounds with these new ML proposals. I have not attended any of these "dog and pony" shows, as of yet. But, I have read several of the articles, and I've been sent some write ups about this service plan, and the electrification proposal.
As someone who has authored an electrification requirement, based on "best available control technology" (BACT) air quality legislation for inclusion in an "Air Quality Management Plan" (AQMP), I must note that the economics and Air quality benefits of Metrolink electrification on a couple of routes would be among the most costly air quality measures, in terms of volume of air quality reductions for nitrous oxide or particulate emissions you could find to spend money on.
As was also been found in all three RR electrification studies that I participated in, and/or reviewed, in my professional career, over the last 30 years, the emission reductions would be marginal for NOx and particulates, compared to Tier III locomotive emissions technologies. And it gets even worse, when compared to Tier IV technologies, currently mandated by ML, which make emission reductions from partial Commute RR electrification, ever a smaller differential, and makes the cost benefit analysis look even worse.
As a CO2 reduction measure, partial commuter RR electrification is a very poor purchase of carbon emissions in terms of the "cost per ton" criteria environmental economists use (or should use...?) to evaluate cost effectiveness, to compare to other "more efficient" investments to achieve those reductions. The likely emission reductions in health pollutants and especially CO2 are miniscule (statistically "white noise"), compared to really big CO2 emissions that could come, say from a tax rebate policy, where the State would give everyone a $1000 tax credit, to replace all air conditioning compressors over 10 years old.
Commuter RR electrification is almost as bad an investment, in terms of cost effectiveness for greenhouse gas emissions, as the greenhouse gas money that we are pissing away on the CHSRA fiasco. So, unless there is a more comprehensive regional system of electrification, including LOSSAN), with much higher service levels (with higher costs for more coverage, but maybe at a lower "average" system wide operating cost saving, this seems like a very expensive "luxury", in a list of things we'd probably "like" to do, but don't really "need" to do.
Maybe it's just me again....? But, just maybe, before we spend billions of taxpayer dollars, that we don't have, on "luxury" goods, like partial commuter rail electrification, for miniscule reductions in GHG's and NOx, that we might want to actually finish things like the LAUPT run-through Phase I project, that will save ML and LOSSAN time and real operating costs, speed up travel for 50,000 passengers, and that is "necessary" to allow for the service improvements and expansion Leahy has also called for, and that is the most cost effective rail improvement in CA?
As someone who has authored an electrification requirement, based on "best available control technology" (BACT) air quality legislation for inclusion in an "Air Quality Management Plan" (AQMP), I must note that the economics and Air quality benefits of Metrolink electrification on a couple of routes would be among the most costly air quality measures, in terms of volume of air quality reductions for nitrous oxide or particulate emissions you could find to spend money on.
As was also been found in all three RR electrification studies that I participated in, and/or reviewed, in my professional career, over the last 30 years, the emission reductions would be marginal for NOx and particulates, compared to Tier III locomotive emissions technologies. And it gets even worse, when compared to Tier IV technologies, currently mandated by ML, which make emission reductions from partial Commute RR electrification, ever a smaller differential, and makes the cost benefit analysis look even worse.
As a CO2 reduction measure, partial commuter RR electrification is a very poor purchase of carbon emissions in terms of the "cost per ton" criteria environmental economists use (or should use...?) to evaluate cost effectiveness, to compare to other "more efficient" investments to achieve those reductions. The likely emission reductions in health pollutants and especially CO2 are miniscule (statistically "white noise"), compared to really big CO2 emissions that could come, say from a tax rebate policy, where the State would give everyone a $1000 tax credit, to replace all air conditioning compressors over 10 years old.
Commuter RR electrification is almost as bad an investment, in terms of cost effectiveness for greenhouse gas emissions, as the greenhouse gas money that we are pissing away on the CHSRA fiasco. So, unless there is a more comprehensive regional system of electrification, including LOSSAN), with much higher service levels (with higher costs for more coverage, but maybe at a lower "average" system wide operating cost saving, this seems like a very expensive "luxury", in a list of things we'd probably "like" to do, but don't really "need" to do.
Maybe it's just me again....? But, just maybe, before we spend billions of taxpayer dollars, that we don't have, on "luxury" goods, like partial commuter rail electrification, for miniscule reductions in GHG's and NOx, that we might want to actually finish things like the LAUPT run-through Phase I project, that will save ML and LOSSAN time and real operating costs, speed up travel for 50,000 passengers, and that is "necessary" to allow for the service improvements and expansion Leahy has also called for, and that is the most cost effective rail improvement in CA?
