POSITION PAPER TROLLEYBUS
Regarding the EU-directive on the allocation of public service contracts
for passenger service.
Regional capital Salzburg / Austria
March 2004
The Mayor Dr. Heinz Schaden
General manager Gunter Mackinger
Introduction: Preface:
In 60 European cities the trolleybus takes over the major part of the
ÖPNV, the local public transport. This system of local public transport
is especially popular among customers and local residents because of its
environmental compatibility and it is increasingly esteemed by traffic
analysers and transport companies due to its high customer acceptance,
its „relatively“ low costs for construction compared to classical
suburban railway transport systems, due to the „trolleybus bonus“,
i.e. higher utilization through customers as compared to comparable bus
systems and due to its excellent environmental compatibility and its acceptability
by local residents.
Because of its technology, technical development and the infrastructural
requirements the trolleybus can be classified as a railway transport system
like suburban railway or underground. This classification should be taken
into consideration in the regulations and directives of the European Union.
The environmental aspect must not be neglected, as the ambitious goals
of the Kyoto agreement regarding exhaust emissions call for innovative
approaches in the organization of the local public transport. Such an
approach can certainly be found in the mature and reliable technology
of the trolleybus.
Dr. Heinz Schaden
Mayor of the provincial capital Salzburg
1. Historical
development:
Only a few years after the first electrical tramway started to operate
in Berlin, the first trolleybus was put into service in the same town
in 1882, then called „railless“ tram. At first this transport
system was coming along very slowly because of bad road conditions and
poor tyres. A short heyday all over Europe before World War I could be
revived only in the thirties of the 20th century. The „railless“
tram, called trolleybus in most of the countries and languages in the
world, turned into a sister system of the suburban railway because of
its technology and the applied legal enactments.
In 2004 360 cities all over the world are using this ecofriendly transport
system, employing 41.000 trolleybuses. In the European Union the trolleybus
is the mainstay of urban public transport in 60 cities, but more cities
are expected to put trolleybuses into service (e.g. Rome is going to take up service again in autumn 2004). In addition
Switzerland is running
14 trolleybus companies and the Swiss are among the leading countries
in trolleybus technology.
2. Systems engineering
Compared to suburban railway systems the trolleybus offers cost-effective
infrastructural facilities. In comparison with conventional bus systems
the structural requirements for the operation of a trolleybus system can
be equated with those of a suburban railway system.
By way of example the capital costs for catenary systems and electric
power systems are quoted as follows:
| Item |
structural
requirements |
unit |
appr.
price in  |
comments |
| 1 |
two-track catenary system |
km |
210.000,- |
catenary system |
| 2 |
catenary crossing |
unit |
20.700,- |
crossing trolley-
bus/trolleybus |
| 3 |
electrical catenary
switchgear |
unit |
55.000,- |
junction trolley-
bus/trolleybus |
| 4 |
mechanical catenary
switchgear |
unit |
20.100,- |
conjunction trolley
bus/trolleybus |
| 5 |
track separator |
unit |
14.800,- |
mounting on tower |
| 6 |
feeding point |
unit |
6.400.- |
mounting on tower |
| 7 |
catenary support
|
unit |
3.500.- |
including base |
| 8 |
rectifier substation |
unit |
430.000.- |
for power supply,
incl. building |
The above mentioned prices are guide prices on the basis of the best
bid, February 2004.
It is obvious from this that the operating authority must reckon with
substantial expenses for a trolleybus system, ensuing from the complexity
of the facilities. The infrastructural equipment is especially adapted
to the respective local conditions (= the local road network), the relation
between labour costs and costs of materials has to be calculated by
2/3 to 1/3. That means that 2/3 of the costs of erection have to be
budgeted for the removal of a trolleybus system, without the possibility
to supply the material for reclamation.
For a new acqisition of a solo-trolleybus at present
400.000.- have to be budgeted, for an articulated trolleybus
500.000,-. Because of the low number of pieces the price is about twice
as high as the price of a comparable diesel bus. Depreciable life and
service life are on average 15 respectively 20 years. As the trolleybus
technology is closely connected to the existing infrastructure, trolleybuses
are, like suburban railways, bound to their own system and thus the
market for used trolleybuses is quite restricted
The complexity of a trolleybus system is reflected in an eventual tendering
procedure analogous to diesel busses:
 The infrastructure
of a trolleybus would have to be divided into:
(a) power supply, catenary system, electricity workshops assigned to
the operating authority
(b) Vehicles and mechanical workshops to best profferer
This – simply theoretical – separation into operation and
infrastructure brings about considerable economic and organizational
disadvantages for the operating authority. The synergies of an integrated
trolleybus operation analogous to those of suburban railway systems
or underground systems are forfeited, endanger the continuing existence
of trolleybus technology and do not result in any (financial) advantages
for the operating authority. Another question to be considered as for
suburban railway and underground systems, is where to draw the dividing
line between operation and infrastructure, as the different technical
parameters of the various local trolleybus systems (like voltage of
catenary system, polarity, control of switchgears, regenerative braking
etc.) cannot be interchanged at random.
The relationship between the systems of trolleybuses and suburban railways
/undergrounds and the technical difference between trolleybus and diesel
bus makes it obvious to classify trolleybuses analogous to suburban
railway systems or undergrounds.
3. Environmental compatibility
The trolleybus is among the most ecofriendly transport systems as regards
exhaust emissions as well as noise pollution. The ecological advantages
are further enhanced by the regenerative braking effect (braking energy
is transformed into electrical power and fed back into the network),
which means that up to 25% of the required traction power can be produced
during operation.
According to statements of Dr. Hendlmeier (University
of Munich) the following considerable environmental impacts can be avoided
per 100 passenger kilometers (kilometers in relation to number of seats
in the bus) by using a trolleybus instead of a conventional bus with
diesel motor:
- 4,8 grams carbon monoxide (CO)
- 17,9 grams nitric oxides (Nox)
- 3,3 grams sulfur dioxide (SO2)
- 11,1 grams hydrocarbon (CH)
In addition a petrol consumption of 0,68 l diesel fuel per 100 passenger
kilometers can be avoided.
On the assumption that a 5 km suburban bus route has on working days
12 operating hours with a bus frequency of 10 minutes and 3 operating
hours with a frequency of 15 minutes, and on Sundays and holidays 15
operating hours with a frequency of 15 minutes, a pollution burden of
130 t per year can be avoided. In a medium-sized city like Salzburg, with an average trolleybus system, a conversion to diesel
busses would result in an incredible increase of 5.600 t of carbon dioxide.
It has also been taken into consideration that in many cases electric
power required for the operation of trolleybuses has been recovered
exclusively from renewable energy sources.
4. Legal and operational situation
Because of its technical and operational origin as „railless“
tram the trolleybus is treated like a railway in national legislation.
In Austria this is
laid down by the Eisenbahngesetz 1957, §5 art.3 as follows:
(3) Electric trolley busses are regarded as tramways, unless it concerns
liability for damages during operation of an electric trolleybus, even
though in connection with fixed local railway system facilites.
The fact that the trolleybus basically resembles the suburban railways
in operation and construction, has been taken into consideration in
several countries of the EU and in Switzerland
in a trolleybus regulation added as an amendment to the respective railway
laws.
As regards operation the trolleybus system is run like a suburban railway
system, irrespective of its legal classification:
- Clearly defined routes because of a fixed catenary system
- Fixed succession of busses depending on the existing power supply
- Special instruction and training of employees
- U-turns only in special places provided for turning, depending
on the catenary system
- Possibility to influence right of way in traffic through catenary
system
- Management of interferences and hazards with regard to active catenary
systems (600 – 1000 Volt DC)
in public areas
These basic conditions which are similar to those of suburban railways
and undergrounds are also reflected in health and safety regulations
for employees and in labour law (e.g. employees of an Austrian trolleybus
company are automatically subject to the collective agreement for the
Federal Railways).
5. Economic aspects
Economic aspects of the operation of trolleybuses are taken into consideration
not only „per se“ but also in comparison to concrete alternatives.
The trolleybus is competing mainly with the diesel bus, consequently
the following economic aspects are presented in comparison with diesel
busses:
Benefits
for the customers „Rails in the sky“
The investment disadvantages of the trolleybus of about 10 to 20
per cent are compensated on the market by an improved income. Concrete
scientific results showed, that the reception of the trolleybus on the
market differs from that of the diesel bus. The catenary system gives
the trolleybus and the public local transport system a constant visual
presence in public areas. The apparent network of routes makes the accessibility
by public transport systems more obvious and noticeable. The market
presence of the trolleybus can be equalled to that of the suburban public
railway – it has its „rails in the sky“.
Accident
statistics
The choice between trolleybus and diesel bus is not a choice between
two alternative vehicles but between alternative systems. This is further
backed up by the fact that the accident statistics of the trolleybus
correspond to those of the suburban railway and not to those of the
diesel bus. The proportion of injured road users per passenger kilometer
is 1:2 between trolleybus and diesel bus.
External
effects
According to an investigation by Prognos/Basel concerning external
costs of various transport systems, the trolleybus is ranking only about
7 per cent per kilometer above the diesel bus despite its costly infrastructure.
That means that cost effectiveness is in balance between diesel bus
and trolleybus.
In summary one can say that the advantages of the trolleybus as regards
costs increase with the frequency of service on the routes.
6. Aspects regarding the EU-regulation concerning the allocation
of public service contracts for passenger services
At present the trolleybus is not explicitly quoted in the draft for
the regulation of the European Parliament and the council of Europe
concerning measures of the member states in connection with demands
on civil service and the allocation of public service contracts for
passenger service by rail, road or inland navigation.
Expert legal opinions refer to the fact that due to national legislation
the trolleybus must be classified as suburban railway. The legal recognition
would on the one hand create legal certainty and on the other hand strengthen
the position of the trolleybus with regard to environmental policy.
An amendment of the following paragraphs or articles would be required:
Article
4a (e): this paragraph refers especially to trolleybus operating
authorities
Article
6c: the term for trolleybus contracts must be equal to
that of rail traffic and inland navigation – 15 years
Note: this term corresponds to the average depreciable life of
trolleybuses, which is about twice as high as that of diesel busses
because of higher acquisition costs and a longer service life.
This applies also to art. 6 c (i) and (ii) as the trolleybuses like
railways, suburban railways and undergrounds require special vehicles
- and there is no real market for that. As mentioned above the depreciable
life of a trolleybus is twice as high as that of a diesel bus –
on average in Europe 15 years.
Article
7.2: Because of the connection between infrastructure, vehicles
and employees in the operation of trolleybuses, the regulation in art.
7.2 should be extended to trolleybus operating authorities. No competition
with diesel busses will arise because of the local restriction of trolleybuses
and their largely differing characteristics. The regulations of art. 7.2
(a) and 7.2. (b) therefore fully apply to the trolleybus. The same applies
to art. 7.3 – as in 100% of EU trolleybus operating authorities
the competent authority has constructed and is operating the trolleybus
system with public funds.
Article
9.2: Because of the specific aspects of trolleybus operation this
paragraph should include trolleybuses besides suburban railways and undergrounds.
7. Conclusion
Also in the European Union the trolleybus constitutes an alternative
system to suburban railway and diesel bus. The trolleybus system is
especially recommendable for medium-sized cities without trams. In narrow
streets an (electronic) track guide can be installed. The trolleybus
offers interesting future perspectives as regards alternative drive
systems (fuel cell), as future-oriented drive concepts mainly turn to
the trolleybus technology.
With regard to the goals of the Kyoto Agreement the trolleybus is of
great importance in the solution of this problem in centres of population
with high exhaust gas pollution.
It will be decisive for the future development of this transport system
whether it will be possible to take the specific requirements of a trolleybus
system into account in European and national legislation and to grant
it the status of a suburban railway.
 Salzburg
- POSITION PAPER TROLLEYBUS (pdf - 470kb)
8. Bibliography
- Dittemer,T.: Vergleich Obus/Dieselbus, Universität Kaiserslautern,
Fachgebiet Verkehrswesen; Kaiserslautern 1985
- Leitich, F.: 50 Jahre Obus in Salzburg, Eigenverlag der Salzburger
Stadtwerke AG, Salzburg 1990
- Hondius, H.: Obusse in der westlichen Welt, in: DER NAHVERKEHR
9/99
- VBZ: Controllingbericht der Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich – Ist-Fahrzeugkosten
2000, Zürich 2001
- Hondius, H.: Übersicht über die technische Entwicklung und die
Position der Obusse und Duobusse in der westlichen Welt, in: Stadtverkehr
5/96
- Theis, R.W. und U. Langer: Obus: Energie- und Emissionsbilanz,
in: DER NAHVERKEHR 5/95
- Erni, K. und U. Geiser: Der Trolleybus, in: Verkehrszeichen 1/00
- Heimerl, G., H. Dobischinsky, H.U. Mann und B. Götz: Standardisierte
Bewertung von Verkehrswegeinvestition des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs,
Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut an der Universität Stuttgart 1993
- Heimerl, G.: Standardisierte Bewertung von Verkehrswegeinvestitionen
des ÖPNV und Folgekostenrechnung, Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut
an der Universität Stuttgart 2001
- VSE: Europäischer Strom zu 15 Prozent erneuerbar, Pressemitteilung
der VSE 1997
- BVR: ÖPNV-Fahrgasterhebung 1996 – Städtische Buslinien, im
Auftrag des Landes Salzburg, Innsbruck 1998
- Brandl, P.: Obus mit positiven Perspektiven, in: DER NAHVERKEHR
9/01
- Rinder, F.: Die Salzburger Verkehrsbetriebe von 1975 bis heute,
Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Straßenbau und Verkehrsplanung,
Innsbruck 1996
- Seminar papers on the occasion of the VÖV-Trolleybus conference
in Luzern 2003
|