MTA LOOKS AT OPTIONS FOR METHANOL-FUEL BUSES.

Byline: David Bloom Daily News Staff Writer

The MTA's disastrous foray into methanol-powered buses is continuing to haunt the agency as it explores ways to convert its 333-bus methanol fleet because the clean-burning fuel is too corrosive to the engines.

Among the options being considered is converting at least 200 of the buses back to diesel as a money-saving measure. But the idea is being opposed by environmentalists and criticized by some Metropolitan Transportation Agency board members.

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon, an MTA board alternate, said he doesn't want converted diesel buses ``spewing black smoke'' on his constituents, even if MTA staff members are touting the engines as ``clean diesels.''

``We think the term clean diesel is an oxymoron,'' said Linda Waade, executive director of the Coalition for Clean Air. ``It may be cleaner than it used to be, but it's not clean. We want to help the MTA find a solution, but it's not clean diesel. It's a step back.''

After investing $102 million to convert 333 buses to methanol fuel, the MTA in 1994 called a halt to the experiment because methanol corrodes engine parts so badly that buses break down twice as often. Mechanics found they had to completely rebuild the engines every year.

The methanol buses were converted in February to burn another clean-burning fuel, ethanol, for only about $100 per bus. But ethanol, which is chemically nearly identical to methanol, may provide only a modest improvement in breakdown rates.

Just last week, the MTA board approved the purchase of 100 new ethanol engines to replace some of the converted ones that have continued to fail.

Now, MTA board members would like to convert 200 of the buses to burn compressed natural gas, but staff members told the board last week that it will cost $30 million.

For just $10 million, the buses could be converted to state-of-the-art diesel, said Shaker Sawires, the MTA's deputy executive officer for operations.

``Businesswise, it makes sense to convert to clean diesel,'' Sawires said. ``We are not predisposed to diesel, but moneywise, servicewise this is the most reliable.''

Some board members agree with that view, citing the agency's need to get bus riders to their destination reliably and cheaply.

``Supervisor (Deane) Dana's No. 1 priority is getting the buses out on the streets,'' said his transportation deputy, Shane McLeod. ``If the MTA has to convert to clean diesel to get service out in the street, that option is far better than having people stranded. The board cannot ignore cost, and it cannot ignore the fact that buses are not even getting out of the yards.''

A final decision must wait until after the MTA completes testing of alternative engines in July, but Alarcon said he will oppose a return to diesel regardless.

``I'd say there's a strong desire to get to (compressed natural gas), but people seem to be acquiescing to clean diesel because of the costs,'' Alarcon said.

``I think buses spewing out dirty smoke are going to have a very detrimental effect on our image. We moved to clean fuels and ought to stay the course,'' he said.

Clean-diesel buses are much cheaper to operate than compressed natural gas. They have a long history of reliability and the lowest fuel costs of the four kinds of engines considered, Sawires said.

And while clean-diesel technologies are not as clean as ethanol or compressed natural gas, they are as much as five times cleaner than the older types of diesel engines that still predominate in the MTA's 2,050-bus fleet, Sawires said.

But Paul Wuebben, the clean fuels officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, questioned the emissions figures Sawires cited for clean diesel.

``Environmentally, it would be a significant step backward if they went to clean diesel,'' he said. ``As far as we're concerned, it would be great if they went to any alternative fuel.''