Metro accelerates transition to electric buses

Submitted by walkallover1991 t3_120noph in washingtondc

Moved up to 2042 from 2045 lmao...

I get it's a complex project with new technology constantly under development, but I cannot understand why it will take Metro nearly 20 years to acquire an all-electric fleet.

Nearly every other transit agency has announced an earlier transition date than WMATA...LA Metro announced it will transition to 100% electric buses by 2030 and the MTA in NYC will do so by 2040, both of which are far larger systems.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Zero-Emission-Bus-Plan-Announcement.cfm

40

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Veszerin t1_jdi3k9z wrote

>but I cannot understand why it will take Metro nearly 20 years to acquire an all-electric fleet.

Maybe it's because they're trying not to replace working buses prematurely? 🤔

59

smallteam t1_jdic57u wrote

That and maybe the fact that WMATA has multi-jurisdictional funding sources where the two states don't cover their fair share?

23

thebruns t1_jdj4eii wrote

Per federal guidelines, the lifespan of a city bus is 18 years.

1

Cythrosi t1_jdq7401 wrote

WMATA may rehab them like they do the railcars. The 2000/3000 series trains are around 40 years old now.

1

thebruns t1_jdrmxei wrote

Because those aren't buses. The federal rules related to lifespans of rail is different.

1

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdimsyn wrote

Throwing away working busses early in their life cycle to switch to electric is kinda the opposite of green. Use what we have till the wheels fall off and transition at the normal end of their life cycle. Which is exactly what it sounds like they're doing.

Same goes with cars. The lowest carbon footprint vehicle is a 1997 prius or camry, not a shiny new Tesla. Use existing vehicles until they die, but stop producing so many new ICE cars and slowly phase them out with natural life cycle.

Not to mention, until we figure out how to make high power, high capacity batteries without the use of Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel, and other very very dirty to mine metals, EVs aren't all that green anyways. They also do significantly more damage to roads due to weight, causing them to have to be repaved more often. Another environmental downside.

The electrification of transportation is inevitable, but I'm not sold that throwing away working hardware for super heavy battery busses is the answer. Honestly a lot of MetroBus routes would be well suited to become Trolleybuses with overhead lines. All the benefits of EV, without the weight and heavy metal mining, but you have to install wire infra.

32

ColonialTransitFan95 t1_jdinx4m wrote

I second trolly buses, used them when visiting friends in SF. They are really nice tbh

6

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdio7pi wrote

Yeah can you imagine Diesel busses climbing and descending SF hills all day every day. No one there would have hearing left after a few weeks.

5

ColonialTransitFan95 t1_jdioxka wrote

I think they early diesel buses couldn’t even do the hills without heavy mods, heard rumor that the buses they got to try in replace cable cars in the 50s needed to engines.

Edit: Grammar

4

walkallover1991 OP t1_jdj29ii wrote

Thank you for the well-detailed + informed response.

I've often wondered if trolleybuses could be utilized here to speed up the transition, but obviously, trolleybuses have numerous disadvantages...aesthetics, difficult to reroute, etc.

3

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdj45ip wrote

It's one of the reasons that blanket policies requiring the use of a specific thing are generally bad. Often times, it's better to just have seperate systems to fill individual niches than it is to try to stretch one system to do 20 things.

MetroRail is a prime example of that. It's a system that is trying to be 3 things at once and doesn't do a stellar job at doing any of them individually. It wants to be suburban commuter rail shuttling workers in and out of the city with a focus on peak rush hour service. It wants to be a rapid transit system for the urban core. And it wants to be regional rail servings things that are really too far for subway style cars and seating like Dulles airport. It accomplishes all three but to a mediocre level.

Battery EV busses, and vehicles in general, are the same thing. They serve a niche and have their place where they win, but there are roles where Diesel or Trolley busses may be a better solution.

4

sb2677 t1_jdoxovk wrote

Agree with all of these points. One other consideration is that we don’t have the grid capacity and currently along the East coast a lot of our electricity is powered coal lol

1

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdoyggv wrote

The grid will adapt. I always like to remind people that we went from no one having A/C to basically everywhere having A/C running all hours of the day in just a couple decades. The power companies enjoy their legal monopolies, so they'll spend just enough to provide what's needed.

As far as transitioning to renewables for power generation. I have my doubts about that ever happening in my lifetime. American politics are too fucked up to make any meaningful progress.

2

Yaratam t1_jdikm9k wrote

  • Half of WMATA’s fleet will be zero emission in 10 years and five of its nine garages will support zero-emission vehicles by 2031.

  • WMATA anticipates the lifecycle costs of transitioning to a fully zero-emission fleet through Fiscal Year 2055 to be $7.37 billion, which is $2.3 billion above what anticipated lifecycle costs of its internal combustion engine fleet would be through the same period.

12

Deep_Stick8786 t1_jdlvhu6 wrote

I think a bigger long term problem is the power load and sourcing the electricity. Right now about 40-50% of DC’s power comes from non-renewable and non-nuclear sources. Electric busses and cars are useless if we are burning more gas to power them. It just a cosmetic solution to carbon emissions

1