An Overview on Costs of Shifting to Sustainable ...
115
electric buses is exemplified by Project Transport electrification in Europe, which
invests in the development of a retrofit system for battery and recharger of the fully
electric drive system for an 18-ton bus and capable of traveling 160 km, with a total
cost of US$ 2,728.60 directed to the project.
Sheth and Sarkar [74] has explored the life cycle costs involved in the procurement
and operation of electric buses as opposed to diesel buses through Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) calculations and Net present value (NPV) analysis, where the
external cost of environmental pollution was calculated separated. According to the
analysis, it was observed that when evaluated over a life cycle of 25 years, which
is the normal life of transport infrastructure such as pavements in India, the TCO
for electric buses (INR 36.6 million, or US$ 571,875) is significantly lower than
that of diesel buses (INR 39.1 million, or US$ 610,938) even if the external costs of
pollution are ignored.
The migration of mopeds and motorcycles to EVs technology is also part of the
solution to the challenges of sustainable urban transport, as they meet the needs of
door-to-door travel and short trips that are not suitable for fixed route traffic systems
with very low emissions, as they represent almost 30% of the total motorized vehicles
worldwide, varying between 50 and 90% in cities in developing countries [28].
Electric-powered modes, such as LRT, HRT, and electric-trolleybus-powered
BRT, can be cheaper to power in countries with a plentiful, stable and low-cost
electricity supply (such as those with ample hydroelectric power) than in countries
with high cost, unstable electricity supplies. BRT systems can also introduce new
buses that use hybrid-electric technology, CNG, LPG, ethanol blends, hydrogen fuel
cells, or other alternative fuels [40]. The costs of vehicle energy efficiency and fuel
switching are shown in Table 7.
5.7 Synthesis of Results
It is noted that certain mitigation actions are more limited than others to achieve
sustainable transport. For example, the construction of walking and cycling infrastructures has a low implementation cost, while the implementation of BRT lines has
a high implementation cost.
However, it is also emphasized that mitigation actions, even the most expensive
ones, can fit better in the region under study. For example, areas with limited road
space may present the implementation of a metro as a more attractive option. Therefore, it is important that the transport decision makers carry out an in-depth study of
each of them in order to choose the best option available.
115
electric buses is exemplified by Project Transport electrification in Europe, which
invests in the development of a retrofit system for battery and recharger of the fully
electric drive system for an 18-ton bus and capable of traveling 160 km, with a total
cost of US$ 2,728.60 directed to the project.
Sheth and Sarkar [74] has explored the life cycle costs involved in the procurement
and operation of electric buses as opposed to diesel buses through Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) calculations and Net present value (NPV) analysis, where the
external cost of environmental pollution was calculated separated. According to the
analysis, it was observed that when evaluated over a life cycle of 25 years, which
is the normal life of transport infrastructure such as pavements in India, the TCO
for electric buses (INR 36.6 million, or US$ 571,875) is significantly lower than
that of diesel buses (INR 39.1 million, or US$ 610,938) even if the external costs of
pollution are ignored.
The migration of mopeds and motorcycles to EVs technology is also part of the
solution to the challenges of sustainable urban transport, as they meet the needs of
door-to-door travel and short trips that are not suitable for fixed route traffic systems
with very low emissions, as they represent almost 30% of the total motorized vehicles
worldwide, varying between 50 and 90% in cities in developing countries [28].
Electric-powered modes, such as LRT, HRT, and electric-trolleybus-powered
BRT, can be cheaper to power in countries with a plentiful, stable and low-cost
electricity supply (such as those with ample hydroelectric power) than in countries
with high cost, unstable electricity supplies. BRT systems can also introduce new
buses that use hybrid-electric technology, CNG, LPG, ethanol blends, hydrogen fuel
cells, or other alternative fuels [40]. The costs of vehicle energy efficiency and fuel
switching are shown in Table 7.
5.7 Synthesis of Results
It is noted that certain mitigation actions are more limited than others to achieve
sustainable transport. For example, the construction of walking and cycling infrastructures has a low implementation cost, while the implementation of BRT lines has
a high implementation cost.
However, it is also emphasized that mitigation actions, even the most expensive
ones, can fit better in the region under study. For example, areas with limited road
space may present the implementation of a metro as a more attractive option. Therefore, it is important that the transport decision makers carry out an in-depth study of
each of them in order to choose the best option available.