Metro staff gets kudos for suggestion on fuel
Bill King says the conversion of buses from diesel to compressed natural gas is a great idea that should be implemented quickly.
There have been few harsher critics of Metropolitan Transit Authority over the last decade than yours truly. But there is one development at Metro that while overdue is certainly welcomed: The recommendation by staff to begin the conversion of buses from diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG).
In the early 1990s, Metro ran an unsuccessful pilot program with buses fueled by liquefied natural gas (LNG). At that time, natural gas engines were just regular diesel engines that had been slightly modified to run on natural gas. The performance was poor and the range limited. In addition, handling LNG at its extremely low temperatures has its own set of challenges.
So Metro decided that using natural gas to power buses was a bad idea. It was probably the right decision at the time, but Metro rigidly held on to that position for nearly two decades without any serious re-examination of the issue. In that interim, there were very significant advances in natural gas engine design as well as storage and drivetrain systems specifically designed to work with natural gas. As a result of the improved technology, much of the rest of the country began to make the switch to natural gas while Metro continued to turn its back on it. By 2011, about 30 percent of all new transit buses were built to be powered by natural gas.
Fortunately, the new board appointed in 2010 by Mayor Annise Parker made an early commitment to take another look at natural gas. That commitment got sidetracked with all the problems the board inherited (and a few it created itself ) over their first couple of years on the job. But, better late than never, the report on the staff findings from its study was finally presented to the Metro board last year.
It found what other fleet operators have been finding for some time now: Natural gas is considerably cheaper than diesel. It burns cleaner, resulting in fewer emissions (about a third less carbon emissions). The cleaner burn also results in less buildup in the engine and, therefore, lower maintenance costs. There are some higher upfront capital costs. Natural gas buses are more expensive, although that difference is rapidly coming down. Also, refueling stations must be constructed; they are not cheap. But some natural gas suppliers will build the stations in exchange for long-term supply contracts. When all the factors are weighed, the Metro staff concluded that CNG clearly had the edge.
Accordingly, Metro staff recommended that the agency begin purchasing CNG buses in 2014 and gradually work ultimately toward an all-CNG fleet. The board has not yet acted on the recommendation, but Metro officials told me recently that they expect to shortly have a request for proposals for the board to consider. Based on the board’s public comments and some conversations I have had with individual members, the staff’s recommendation seems likely to win board approval.
I wish it had not taken this long to get here and, frankly, it would be nice to see a little more aggressive implementation schedule than the Metro staff is currently contemplating. But for an organization that was dead-set against natural gas just a couple of years ago, this is real progress.
Now maybe the city, county and other government agencies in the region will follow Metro’s lead and begin exploring opportunities to switch their fleets to natural gas. After all, Houston is arguably the natural gas capital of the world. Should we not be the first to embrace and herald its advantages? Email King at weking@weking.net and follow him at twitter.com/weking.