GCC: CARB approves zero-emission airport shuttle rule

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
G

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/06/20190628-arbzev.html

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved a rule that will require fixed route airport shuttles serving the state’s 13 largest airports to transition to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The regulation applies to public and private fleets, including parking facilities, rental car agencies and hotels.

With almost 1,000 airport shuttles in operation, ARB expects the regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 500,000 metric tons. ARB also projects a beneficial economic impact for shuttle fleets owners of an estimated $30 million in reduced fuel and maintenance costs. . . .

Zero-emission shuttles are already operating throughout California. Six airports as well as private businesses serving nine airports have purchased ZEV airport shuttles.

In addition to 48 ZEVs currently operating, nearly 100 additional zero-emission shuttles have been ordered, many of which have been awarded incentive funding through the state.

Combined, on-order and currently operating ZEV shuttles represent more than 15% of all airport shuttles in California. However, increased adoption of these technologies is needed to meet air quality and climate goals, ARB warns.

The rule will be phased in over a 13-year period. Beginning in 2022, shuttle fleets will be required to report the details of their vehicles. Starting in 2023, if fleets are replacing a ZEV shuttle, the replacement vehicle must also be a ZEV. . . .

CARB is also developing a proposal that would achieve additional emission reductions by requiring zero-emission airport ground equipment.
Click to expand...
 
Good for CARB, if it means that purchases from ~ today are all zero emissions in order to avoid stranded assets.
 
Nubo said:
SageBrush said:
Good for CARB, if it means that purchases from ~ today are all zero emissions in order to avoid stranded assets.
Click to expand...

For 1000 vehicles. Woo-hoo!
Click to expand...
Next up: every vehicle purchase the state can influence.
I imagine that CARB chose the airports due to the concentrated pollution but they have to think bigger !
 
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
SageBrush said:
Good for CARB, if it means that purchases from ~ today are all zero emissions in order to avoid stranded assets.
Click to expand...

For 1000 vehicles. Woo-hoo!
Click to expand...
Next up: every vehicle purchase the state can influence.
I imagine that CARB chose the airports due to the concentrated pollution but they have to think bigger !
Click to expand...

I imagine their goal was appearance. They chose the largest airports so that first experience for visitors to the state would be these EV shuttles. I can see the logic but I really don't believe legislation should focus on such small niches. It's just grandstanding, imho.
 
^^^ I imagine they chose the largest airports first because they serve the biggest metro areas, which also tend to have the worst air pollution. Or it might just be that there are only 13 airports in California that have enough traffic volume and large enough parking areas to need shuttles. CARB is also requiring ports, which also serve those metro areas, to clean up both the ship's own emissions by requiring them to use shore-side power while docked (and cleaner fuel while offshore), the MHE in the ports (dem/val projects underway now), the trucks ditto, and I imagine eventually the trains serving those ports. And it's not just 1,000 vehicles; as the article mentioned they're also working on regs for the airport MHE, i.e. all the baggage/fuel/food/tow etc. tractors and trucks; the shuttles are just one step.

I've been unable to find a list of the 13 airports involved, but the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_California,

which includes Tijuana, probably has all but one of them.

CARB has also been providing funds (forget if it's yet a requirement) to replace school buses with ZEVs in the most polluted districts, and eventually that will apply across the state, as will be the case with buses generally. What CARB's been doing seems to be working pretty well, although much more remains to be done:
California slashes emissions, hits major greenhouse gas goal years early
Click to expand...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...ts-2020-greenhouse-gas-reduction-13066821.php
 
Nubo said:
Silliness. Legislating the inevitable. CARB has too much time on their hands.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda surprised by this attitude on an EV forum.

It's not "inevitable." There is still a significant cost penalty associated with going all-electric, not just from acquisition, but also of charging infrastructure and also of disposal. I suspect the depreciation curve will be even steeper for an obsolete all-electric shuttle bus than for an all-electric passenger car.

Having sat at LAX for significant amounts of time waiting for my "FlyAway" bus to show up, it's hard to not notice the vast amount of mostly empty shuttle buses circling the roadway system. These buses only go a few miles outside of airport property and then back again. Electrification makes sense in this application, and I'm glad that CARB is pushing for it in the same way that CARB forced everybody's hand with ZEV mandates many years ago. Fuel prices in the US are simply too low to make it happen organically.

Now if/when LAX's own People Mover system with associated centralized Rental Car Center ever gets built, it will remove some of these shuttle buses. But then there's the matter of the off-airport parking lots and also the shuttles for the area hotels.
 
GRA said:
^^^ I imagine they chose the largest airports first because they serve the biggest metro areas, which also tend to have the worst air pollution. Or it might just be that there are only 13 airports in California that have enough traffic volume and large enough parking areas to need shuttles.

(snip)

I've been unable to find a list of the 13 airports involved, but the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_California,

which includes Tijuana, probably has all but one of them.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, these are likely the airports involved. Even Tijuana's airport could be involved, if that airport authority is running shuttles from the terminal extension on the US side. Per Wikipedia, a couple of the airlines do have shuttle services:

Aeroméxico provides a shuttle service from San Diego, California, United States[18] to General Abelardo L. Rodríguez International Airport to allow San Diego residents make connections within Mexico, China, while Volaris provides a shuttle service between the airport and San Diego International Airport to allow passengers travelling to the United States reach their final destination. You cannot board this shuttle at San Diego International Airport.
Click to expand...

(That Wikipedia list also needs to be updated to reflect that BUR no longer uses the "Bob Hope" name. It reverted back to the old "Hollywood Burbank" Airport name a few years ago.)
 
RonDawg said:
Nubo said:
Silliness. Legislating the inevitable. CARB has too much time on their hands.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda surprised by this attitude on an EV forum.

It's not "inevitable." There is still a significant cost penalty associated with going all-electric, not just from acquisition, but also of charging infrastructure and also of disposal. I suspect the depreciation curve will be even steeper for an obsolete all-electric shuttle bus than for an all-electric passenger car.

Having sat at LAX for significant amounts of time waiting for my "FlyAway" bus to show up, it's hard to not notice the vast amount of mostly empty shuttle buses circling the roadway system. These buses only go a few miles outside of airport property and then back again. Electrification makes sense in this application, and I'm glad that CARB is pushing for it in the same way that CARB forced everybody's hand with ZEV mandates many years ago. Fuel prices in the US are simply too low to make it happen organically.

Now if/when LAX's own People Mover system with associated centralized Rental Car Center ever gets built, it will remove some of these shuttle buses. But then there's the matter of the off-airport parking lots and also the shuttles for the area hotels.
Click to expand...

Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this. But they never did have a lot of sense. When I moved to CA I was forced to hand over $300 because my car (which was mechanically identical in all 50 states) didn't have a "california emissions sticker". Later they helped "kill the electric car". Screw CARB.
 
Nubo said:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this. But they never did have a lot of sense. When I moved to CA I was forced to hand over $300 because my car (which was mechanically identical in all 50 states) didn't have a "california emissions sticker". Later they helped "kill the electric car". Screw CARB.
Click to expand...
You mean rules like requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one? Or requiring power plants to clean up their act? Or having (and fighting the current administration to retain) the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country? Or requiring a shift to zero carbon electricity? Or or or . . .

They're doing all of that, too, but as areas with large numbers of trucks and buses (most of which have diesel engines) moving at slow speeds with frequent stops such as airports and ports tend to have the highest concentrations of emissions, especially particulates, as well as the largest numbers of low-income people living nearby or along the route, you get a tremendous bang for the buck by mandating changes in those locations, not to mention the environmental justice angle. Airport shuttles are particularly well-suited for a switch to ZEVs, as they travel only one or two short, flat routes at slow speeds with frequent stops all day long with well-known traffic peaks, and charging and maintenance can all be concentrated in a small area.
 
Nubo said:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this.
Click to expand...

And what rules are those? Keep in mind CARB has no power outside of California, and even within the state there are things they can and cannot do.

And I don't consider this "silly little stuff." Every little bit helps, especially in the most populous state in the Union. "Think globally, act locally."
 
GRA said:
Nubo said:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this. But they never did have a lot of sense. When I moved to CA I was forced to hand over $300 because my car (which was mechanically identical in all 50 states) didn't have a "california emissions sticker". Later they helped "kill the electric car". Screw CARB.
Click to expand...
You mean rules like requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one? Or requiring power plants to clean up their act? Or having (and fighting the current administration to retain) the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country? Or requiring a shift to zero carbon electricity? Or or or . . .

They're doing all of that, too, but as areas with large numbers of trucks and buses (most of which have diesel engines) moving at slow speeds with frequent stops such as airports and ports tend to have the highest concentrations of emissions, especially particulates, as well as the largest numbers of low-income people living nearby or along the route, you get a tremendous bang for the buck by mandating changes in those locations, not to mention the environmental justice angle. Airport shuttles are particularly well-suited for a switch to ZEVs, as they travel only one or two short, flat routes at slow speeds with frequent stops all day long with well-known traffic peaks, and charging and maintenance can all be concentrated in a small area.
Click to expand...

This is LA traffic. Not sure EV airport shuttles are going to make a dent in emissions.
sjvGXR1.jpg
 
CARB's mandates will slowly improve the air quality situation, even if the traffic worsens.

I grew up in LA. I remember in the 1970's just how bad the air quality was. First Stage Smog Alerts were frequent, Second Stage ones were occasional. There was a time in 1974 when we even reached the Third Stage Smog Alert: https://www.sierraclub.org/planet/2017/01/lets-not-let-socals-history-smog-repeat-itself

Nowadays First Stage alerts seem to happen at about the same rate as Second Stage ones were in the 1970's. And Second Stage ones are extremely rare. It's even more incredible given how much LA's population has grown, no exploded, in the last 45 years.

So CARB HAS been making significant progress. You just haven't been to LA long enough to see it happen.
 
RonDawg said:
So CARB HAS been making significant progress. You just haven't been to LA long enough to see it happen.
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed that CARB has not helped make progress. And I've witnessed the LA cleanup personally. Yet I still think the special airport-shuttle regulations are unnecessary and not particularly meaningful. And taking my $300 for no legitimate reason was stupid. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

By the way, the out-of-state fee was later ruled unconstitutional and the money paid back with interest. So at least someone agreed with me in that particular case of CARB overreach.
 
Nubo said:
GRA said:
Nubo said:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this. But they never did have a lot of sense. When I moved to CA I was forced to hand over $300 because my car (which was mechanically identical in all 50 states) didn't have a "california emissions sticker". Later they helped "kill the electric car". Screw CARB.
Click to expand...
You mean rules like requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one? Or requiring power plants to clean up their act? Or having (and fighting the current administration to retain) the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country? Or requiring a shift to zero carbon electricity? Or or or . . .

They're doing all of that, too, but as areas with large numbers of trucks and buses (most of which have diesel engines) moving at slow speeds with frequent stops such as airports and ports tend to have the highest concentrations of emissions, especially particulates, as well as the largest numbers of low-income people living nearby or along the route, you get a tremendous bang for the buck by mandating changes in those locations, not to mention the environmental justice angle. Airport shuttles are particularly well-suited for a switch to ZEVs, as they travel only one or two short, flat routes at slow speeds with frequent stops all day long with well-known traffic peaks, and charging and maintenance can all be concentrated in a small area.
Click to expand...
This is LA traffic. Not sure EV airport shuttles are going to make a dent in emissions.
sjvGXR1.jpg
Click to expand...
See "requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one", as well as "the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country", not to mention funding ZEV mass transit. As it is, a 500,000 metric ton reduction (total lifetime, I assume) from only 1,000 vehicles is a fair-sized dent, considering there are about 35 million registered vehicles in California. Of course, as California's annual GHG emissions in 2016 were 429.4 million tons, the lifetime reduction from those 1,000 buses is only about 0.11% of a single year for the state, and no one's claiming that this alone is enough, which is why CARB has all their other requirements. Then there's the local air pollution effects, e.g.
Study: Air Pollution From LAX Affects Residents Up To 10 Miles Away
Click to expand...
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/201...om-lax-affects-residents-up-to-10-miles-away/

A study published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal found that pollution levels within nine square miles of the airport are 10 times higher than in other parts of LA and affects neighborhoods up to 10 miles east of the airport.
Click to expand...
Now, that's mainly concerned with aircraft emissions of ultrafine particles rather than DPM, but you can bet wherever there's a concentration of heavy diesel vehicles, the particulate emissions will be strongly elevated.

Do you consider CARB's requirement that drayage trucks at ports not idle but instead use electric power hookups to run their reefers while waiting, while writing regs athat will eventually require drayage trucks to be ZEV, to also be "like pissing in the ocean"? Having worked at container loading docks in the port of Oakland a long time ago, I can tell you that between trucks, trains and ships all blowing diesel exhaust, the air quality could sometimes be pretty bad, and unlike the residents of West Oakland who had to breathe that crap all the time, I didn't live there.
 
Nubo said:
And taking my $300 for no legitimate reason was stupid. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

By the way, the out-of-state fee was later ruled unconstitutional and the money paid back with interest. So at least someone agreed with me in that particular case of CARB overreach.
Click to expand...

It sounds like your disagreement with CARB is more for personal reasons than anything substantive.
 
RonDawg said:
Nubo said:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this.
Click to expand...

And what rules are those? Keep in mind CARB has no power outside of California, and even within the state there are things they can and cannot do.

And I don't consider this "silly little stuff." Every little bit helps, especially in the most populous state in the Union. "Think globally, act locally."
Click to expand...

Spot on with your comments, except for CARB reach. The CARB compliant states to varying degrees give CARB clout outside of CA.
Personally, I like CARB reaching into airports for an additional reason: it is a perfect opportunity to give people a chance to take their first EV ride
 
RonDawg said:
Nubo said:
And taking my $300 for no legitimate reason was stupid. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

By the way, the out-of-state fee was later ruled unconstitutional and the money paid back with interest. So at least someone agreed with me in that particular case of CARB overreach.
Click to expand...

It sounds like your disagreement with CARB is more for personal reasons than anything substantive.
Click to expand...

Their shennanigans regarding electric cars weren't personal to me.
 
GRA said:
Do you consider CARB's requirement that drayage trucks at ports not idle but instead use electric power hookups to run their reefers while waiting, while writing regs athat will eventually require drayage trucks to be ZEV, to also be "like pissing in the ocean"?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about "drayage trucks" to answer that question. It'd be nice if the cargo ships weren't emitting their plumes of bunker-oil exhaust in port. THAT is some nasty ****.
 

Similar threads

G
GCC: ICCT report quantifies emissions benefits if 12 states & DC adopt slate of California medium- and heavy-duty vehicl
Replies
0
Views
3K
GRA
G
G
GCC: ICCT briefing paper estimates infrastructure cost and buildout required for 100% sales of zero-emission tractor-tra
Replies
0
Views
3K
GRA
G
G
GCC: California ARB considering adopting Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle regulation; 100% ZEV by 2035
Replies
3
Views
2K
RonDawg
R
G
ABG: States get final OK to build highway EV charging network A charger at least every 50 miles on interstates
Replies
1
Views
4K
GRA
G
G
GCC: IEA report calls for no investment in new fossil fuel supply and end to sales of ICE cars by 2035
Replies
0
Views
3K
GRA
G

Latest posts

Back
Top