3 ms·
I just pulled numbers from some of the public transit buses that DoubleMap tracks. I see annual usage of 40k-50k miles on a single bus. Given 2013's diesel pric
by erjiang 12y ago
I just pulled numbers from some of the public transit buses that DoubleMap tracks. I see annual usage of 40k-50k miles on a single bus. Given 2013's diesel prices and standard diesel bus efficiency, that might be about $1/mile, so let's say $50k/yr in fuel for a single bus.
If they claim to save 20% on fuel, then a single bus would save about $10k/yr, and if the system can pay for itself in three years, then it would cost about $30k.
These mileage numbers aren't for London, so that estimate could be off by quite a bit. Still, consider than a standard diesel bus may cost $250k in the US while a hybrid 40' bus could cost $600k,[1] and this looks like a great deal.
[1] http://www.intercitytransit.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/hybrid-fact-sheet.pdf http://www.intercitytransit.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/hybr...
- erjiang 12y agoI should add that driving in dense urban areas means fewer miles, lower speed, and more frequent stopping and starting, so the savings in a smaller city would be smaller.
- wlesieutre 12y agoMore frequent stopping and starting would actually be an advantage here. If you're driving a long route between bus stops and don't brake frequently, you're only taking energy out of the flywheel when you initially get up to speed, and you're only putting it back in when you stop at the end. Regenerative braking is a lot more valuable in stop and go traffic. Every time you accelerate out of a stop light you're burning less fuel.
- erjiang 12y agoRight, that's why I said in a smaller city (less dense, more long stretches of roads) there would be fewer savings from a flywheel or hybrid.
- wlesieutre 12y agoSo you did, I must have misread your comment before.
- seanflyon 12y agoSmaller city means less dense. I missed that at first.