APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by Mr Chris Ellis
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum concentrates on the key challenge
of conveying hundreds of thousands of spectators to their chosen
venues each morning, and then returning them safely and comfortably
to their hotels, etc.
The day after the announcement that London would
stage the 2012 Olympic Games, suicide bombers struck the Underground.
It now appears the attack on the No 30 bus only occurred because
the bomber was unable to reach his assigned Underground station.
The reason for targeting trains in preference to buses is simple;
while the casualties may be similar, the economic impact is much
greater. A bomb will stop a bus route for a few hours at most,
because the site of the incident can usually be bypassed, whereas
a bomb on a train may result in the closure of all or part of
a line for a week or more.
At this stage, seven years before the Games,
it may seem pessimistic to assume that the probability of an attack
on the transport infrastructure will still be high. However, it
is prudent to anticipate that the risk will remain, and plan appropriately
until we can be sure the threat has receded. We can always "dilute"
the plan once we are sufficiently confident. Also, there is an
old adage, dating from the Second World War, that "the bomber
will always get through", essentially stating that we wouldn't
be able to shoot all of them down. Even if al-Qaeda is officially
history by 2010, it will only take one determined terrorist to
destroy a complete railway station with the weapons technology
of 2012.
Consequently, we need to assume for the time
being that it will be necessary to provide a local transport infrastructure
for the Games which is resilient enough to shrug off all but the
most highly-organised and heavily resourced attacks. This means
beginning, now, to design, simulate and optimize such a solution,
to ensure it's in place in plenty of time to test it before our
visitors arrive. The ODA may also need time to publicize the transport
plan widely and well in advance, both to reassure potential visitors
and to help deter potential terrorists, who may think twice about
launching attacks that will prove futile.
All this sounds like a recipe for spending a
ton of money. The really good news is that it turns out to be
relatively inexpensive to put in place a resilient, flexible system
which will be a pleasure to use.
THEORY
One spectre for Games planners is investing
in venues and infrastructure way beyond the needs of the local
population and their ability to pay for them in the long term,
after the Games. Fortunately we can avoid this trap, for the transport
infrastructure at least, with the right mix of facilities. Essentially,
it involves investing in sufficient rail and other infrastructure
to meet the long term needs of the local population and to provide
ongoing access to the new sports facilities for the UK population
as a whole, after the Games have ended. We must then also assume,
in our "worst case scenario", that these fixed networks
have been completely compromised by several coordinated terrorist
incidents, at stations, in tunnels, etc. Consequently we will
need to have available, for the duration of the Games, a mesh
network of roads and enough extra bus capacity to carry all our
visitors safely, comfortably and rapidly to and from their chosen
venues, even with much of the rail network knocked out. This sounds
like a recipe for profligacy, but it need not be in practice.
PRACTICE
If we have chosen the appropriate types of buses
with the right sort of power units, then they will be ideally
suited for other urban routes throughout the UK, Europe and elsewhere,
after the Games. The large surplus of buses will have a much smaller
net financial cost than might first appear, provided their eventual
owners, bus companies across Europe, are engaged in the project
well before the Games. The core offer is that a bus operator will
receive one or more buses which it has helped specify and which
are almost new for a price below the best discounted price it
would have had to pay for new buses. With proper organisation,
most of the buses will have final owners committed before they
are even built, let alone delivered. Some may well enter service
in the year before the Games, to ease the load on the manufacturers.
It will be clear that the Olympic Delivery Authority should get
a better discount than any operator for such a massive, guaranteed
order (spread across several manufacturers, naturally). This is
a potentially a win/win/win deal for the manufacturers, the operators
and the ODA. The ODA will have the use of a massive, resilient,
flexible fleet of ultra-modern large buses for a stunningly low
net cost, certainly less than any alternative transport mode.
The advertising revenue alone from the many hundreds of "mobile
bill boards" will be able to offset much of the basic cost,
given the global multi-media exposure.
An optional part of any deal may well be that
a UK operator's own drivers may be responsible for driving the
buses from the word go. One can imagine there would be no shortage
of suitably qualified drivers willing to take a working (busman's)
holiday at the Games, particularly if tickets were part of the
package. Conceivably, and with plenty of time, this could be extended
to European bus drivers as well, assuming harmonisation has moved
along sufficiently by 2012. With careful planning, LHD buses would
be fine over certain routes.
PLANS A AND
B
Plan A assumes there is no terrorist activity
and that the local rail and all other systems are taking as much
load as customers demand. This implies a superabundance of buses
and their drivers, all effectively prepaid. The ODA will have
the luxury of deciding the quality of service it wishes to offer,
essentially a function of frequency of departure. Today's novel
communication systems will have matured by 2012 to provide Transport
Operations with a superb "command and control" facility.
The inherent flexibility of a bus system plus the sophisticated
C&C system will allow precise responses to the ebb and flow
of the popularity of the various venues as the Games progress.
As we shall show, the cost of fuel will be kept stunningly low
by a novel hybrid system, so it will cost the ODA very little
to put on a bus service that will be the envy of the entire world,
not just the civilised bit!
Plan B assumes that terrorists have struck at
some or all of the rail locations whose loss or damage could cut
passenger capacity and cut off venues. The first stage of Plan
B is triggered if a warning is received from the security services
of an imminent attack. For the buses, this will involve dispersal
from their bus depots so that they are parked singly or in small
numbers in secure locations overnight, near their morning start
points. This will also be the case following an attack without
warning. It must be assumed that bus depots are an obvious target,
and it may be judged prudent nearer the time to go to dispersal
before the Games begin, whatever the level of alert. With appropriate
planning, the loss of all the bus depots should have no real impact
on bus operations within the duration of the Games. Most of the
buses will be new, and will need no servicing. Cleaning can easily
be dispersed. The issue of refuelling is addressed below, in the
technical appendix.
Further analysis is required to determine whether
special measures will need to be taken in Plan B (such as temporary
one way streets, bus controlled traffic lights, etc) to ensure
that bus traffic continues to flow reasonably easily. Simulations
may show the need for certain minor routes to be upgraded before
the Games to reduce the risk of strikes against prominent bridges,
key junctions, etc. Each venue will need to be assessed to ensure
there are multiple independent access routes, to reduce to a minimum
the probability of a venue becoming completely cut-off.
SUMMARY
The most striking image of the atrocities of
7 July 2005 remains the No 30 double-decker with its roof blown
off. Around the world, millions of our once and future visitors
winced and knew London had been hit, without reading a word. Well
before the Games begin, we need to reassure potential visitors
that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure their comfort
and safety, even if terrorists do strike again. We need a strategy
that is simple to understand and convincingly robust; in essence,
we need to show that our transport capability will survive contact
with the enemy, even if our plans have to change.
One way of deterring an attack is to turn the
old adage around, so that it becomes "the buses always get
through". If there is no credible way terrorists can significantly
disrupt local transport for the Games, then this reduces the probability
of a concerted attempt, because it will be obvious that it is
likely to fail. Of course, there is always the possibility of
an "amateur" attack, but this will have minimal overall
effect if the proposed plan is in place. A well thought out, widely
publicised plan for the Games' bus services will actually help
to protect the rail system from organised attack as well as provide
the resilient transport services required to survive a series
of terrorist outrages, and help ensure the success of the Games,
come what may.
TECHNICAL ANNEX
This section is an initial look at some of the
technical issues. The author reserves the right to modify the
views expressed here as he becomes better informed of the detailed
requirements, which have yet to be decided by the key players.
WHAT SORT
OF BUSES?
The "London bus", always a red double
decker, is an icon, and must feature in the Olympic fleet or many
visitors will feel short-changed. Large single-deckers may also
be required to enable the use of certain backup routes with low
bridges, etc. However, we can expect our particularly athletic
visitors to rush for the top deck whenever a double-decker pulls
up. "Bendibuses" may be preferred by some operators
for future use, but may be impractical over some routes. There
will also be a requirement for a large number of mini-vans, pickups,
etc. Whatever the final mix of vehicles in the Olympic fleet,
the rest of the technical solutions considered below apply equally
well to buses and trucks of all shapes and sizes, as well as passenger
cars and light vans.
WHAT SORT
OF FUEL?
At this stage, there is no single, obvious "wunderfuel",
although there may be by 2012. Even the proponents of fuel cells
and hydrogen now admit that a realistic timeframe for fuel cells
in the mass market is probably well beyond 2015. Of course, there
are good arguments for suggesting urban buses should be on an
earlier schedule. However, the initial "hydrogen hype"
has now given way to a realisation that hydrogen is an energy
carrier, not a primary fuel, and that when a full well-to-wheel
analysis is carried out using feedstocks such as natural gas,
the desirability of the so-called "hydrogen economy"
begins to dim. If we consider the particular requirements for
dispersed refuelling and the safety issues, real and imaginary,
surrounding hydrogen, it is far from clear at this early stage
that hydrogen is "the" fuel for the 2012 Olympics.
The default choice is diesel. By 2012, hybrid
diesel buses will be much more economical than today, and cleaner
and quieter. Using diesel fuel, the bus dispersal plan will be
simple to execute, at low additional cost. Continuing to use diesel
engines but in hybrid buses is the lowest risk approach technically,
but it will not be the least expensive solution nor the most environmentally
friendly.
The Transport Committee's 2004 report was emphatic
that the Treasury should adopt a fuel taxation policy based largely
on net CO2 output per kilometre. This thinking is not confined
to the UK, and is likely to be fully implemented across most of
Europe by 2012. The figures in the report indicate the particular
appeal of biofuels in this regard. Lord Oxburgh, the recently
retired chairman of Shell, has suggested that HMG should impose
a mandatory target for biofuels almost twice that set by the European
Commission. Such a move is vital if the UK is to stand any chance
of meeting its medium and long-term CO2 targets. It is also likely
that by 2008 there will no longer be any doubt in rational quarters
that Climate Change is real and serious, that the human race is
largely responsible, and that we should be pursuing solutions
aggressively. Given this country's unique role in initiating both
the Industrial Revolution and the oft forgotten agricultural revolution
that released the manpower to make it possible, this country has
a particular responsibility to help find and implement the solutions
to Global Warming. This theme might be woven into the Opening
Ceremony.
It turns out that the timing is ideal to make
the 2012 Olympics a perfect showcase for technology which is part
of the solution, and which will have just become ready for mass
deployment. Visitors who are impressed by London's "superbuses"
will be able to go home and order cars, vans and SUVs with similar
super-economical, low-CO2 powertrains. As usual, the `technology
gold' is within Britain's reach. As usual, we are already in danger
of giving it away. Let's make sure it doesn't happen this time.
WHAT WE
HAVE ALREADY
HMG is funding a superior form of hybrid technology
as part of the Ultra Low Carbon Car Challenge (ULCCC), a solution
which has also caught the attention of the US Department of Energy.
If it hadn't been for the intervention of the European Commission
at the end of 2004 and the subsequent suspension of all DfT-funded
programmes (including Powershift and the ULCCC), a prototype would
already be up and running. As it is, Imperial College has built
a related system which is being tested now, allowing an exploration
of some of the performance boundaries. Hopefully, the EC will
soon get around to approving the DfT's revised funding programmes,
and we can get on with the engineering. The ODA should take care
to ensure that it doesn't trip over similar "interest"
from Brussels.
The ULCCC-winning technology is potentially
more efficient than any battery- or capacitor-based hybrid system,
promising even better fuel consumption. It should also prove more
durable than any battery and usually last the life of the vehicle,
like a normal engine or gearbox. This should then ensure that
the residual value after the first few years should be up there
with diesel vehicles, helping to ensure even lower cost of ownership.
The PowerBeam hybrid technology works well with any type of engine
and also particularly well with fuel cell systems, so is likely
to feature in future ground vehicles whatever their fuel or engine
type. Finally, in full mass production it should prove significantly
less expensive per horsepower than anything the Japanese have
offered to date, with the potential to reach the majority of the
family car market at low marginal cost.
The PowerBeam allows a radical reduction in
the size of the engine used in large buses (and most other vehicles,
including family cars). Where a typical large urban bus might
have a diesel engine of 6 to 9 litres capacity, a PowerBeam-equipped
bus of similar size might need a diesel engine of only 2 litres
or less. This is because the PowerBeam provides the lion's share
of power on acceleration, using energy it recovered during braking.
The engine no longer needs to be sized to provide over 200 bhp
for acceleration, just around 50 bhp while the vehicle is moving,
and perhaps 10 bhp to keep ancillaries like air-conditioning going
while stationary.
Let's assume for the moment that the ODA is
sponsored by HMG (and the likes of Shell and BP?) to promote biofuels.
Because of the foresight of the Swedish government, biofuel engines
suitable for installing in PowerBeam-equipped large buses are
already in production, and have just begun to trickle into the
UK market. The key attribute of these engines is their remarkably
low level of net CO2. For example, Ford Sweden claims that the
Flexifuel Focus emits only 32 g/km, against 127 g/km from the
equivalent diesel Focus. Even a hybrid Toyota Prius emits 104
g/km, more than three times as much. Clearly, Europe's proposed
100 g/km target is easily achievable and not very ambitious. Similar
engines are already capable of meeting the US SULEV (Super Ultra
Low Emission Vehicle) targets in passenger cars, way below those
demanded anywhere for commercial vehicles. It is quite possible
emission levels approaching those of SULEV can be met by buses
equipped with cellulosic hybrid powertrains well before the Games.
The SULEV standard demands emissions lower than that of ambient
air on a "bad air" day in Los Angeles or London. Consequently,
a SULEV actually helps to clean the air on a bad day, unlike a
fuel cell or battery vehicle.
So we already have some of the engines we will
need, and we will soon have the theoretically "perfect"
PowerBeam hybrid system to enable them to make light of heavy
buses. Now consider how desirable the surplus buses of the Olympic
fleet will be, measured simply by the prices they can command
in a market where all other buses will be obsolete. Clearly, there
will be no problem in selling the surplus, at prices which will
get close to covering costs. With the European Commission encouraging
the use of biofuels and most European governments responding enthusiastically
by 2012 with an array of incentives, the market pull will be strong.
It is the opinion of the writer that the growing
consensus that "cellulosic hybrids" are an important
and near-in answer to the triple challenge of Climate Change,
Peak Oil and Energy Security will have become the main thrust
of road transport fuel policy in Europe and the Americas by 2008.
The practical problems of large scale production of cellulosic
ethanol will have been largely overcome by 2012, and significant
acreage of crops such as switchgrass will have been planted, specifically
to provide feedstock for biofuels. Following the lead of Brazil,
Sweden and the US, the UK will probably have its first public
E85 (85% ethanol, 15% petrol) pumps installed during 2007. Note
that, if the Olympic buses have flexible fuel engines, they will
be able to run on straight petrol or any mix up to E85, and the
engines will automatically adjust their settings. This will greatly
simplify dispersal.
With the correct powertrain choices, the ODA
can ensure the provision of a superb, resilient, local transport
service for the Games, achieved at a cost lower than any credible
alternative. It will also serve to showcase a technical solution
which be a precise fit with requirements we expect to see made
mandatory by 2012. Specifically, the principal fuel will be E85,
the hybrid systems will PowerBeam-based, and the engines will
be ruggedised variants of the flexible fuel engines produced at
low cost in large volume for family cars. The technical risk now
is already low, apart from PowerBeam. By the end of 2007, the
technical risk for PowerBeam should have fallen sharply, well
before a final decision on the powertrains will be required. By
2008, the choice should be very obvious.
|
