DOCSLIB.ORG

Capital Metro CNG Implementation Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capital Metro CNG Implementation Study 2011 Capital Metro CNG Implementation Study Matt Sandidge and John Overman Texas Transportation Institute 11/30/2011 Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Organization of Report ................................................................................................................................... 10 2. CNG State of the Practice .......................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology for Literature Review and Peer Study ......................................................................... 11 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Peer Agency Selection and Data Collection ...................................................................................... 12 Purpose of Using CNG ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Historical Context ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Fuel Cost .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Peer Agency Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 17 CNG Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 18 CNG Fueling Station .................................................................................................................................... 18 Gas Detection ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Electrical System Improvements .......................................................................................................... 23 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Improvements ......................................................... 23 Facility Upgrade Costs ............................................................................................................................... 23 Contract versus Own and Operate ....................................................................................................... 24 Peer Transit Agency Experience ........................................................................................................... 26 CNG Service Planning ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Capital Metro Service Planning .................................................................................................................. 28 Short‐Range Service Planning ................................................................................................................ 28 Long‐Range Transit Planning ................................................................................................................. 30 CNG Incentives and Tax Credits ................................................................................................................. 31 Federal Incentives and Tax Credits ..................................................................................................... 31 State Incentives and Tax Credits ........................................................................................................... 32 Emissions Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 33 Historical Implications of Using CNG in Transit Fleets ............................................................... 33 Modern‐Day Implications of Using CNG in Transit Fleets ......................................................... 33 Bus Fleet Maintenance, Safety, and Training ........................................................................................ 35 2 CNG Safety Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 35 Maintenance Considerations .................................................................................................................. 35 Maintenance Training Considerations ............................................................................................... 35 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Objectives for Using CNG .......................................................................................................................... 36 CNG Implementation .................................................................................................................................. 36 Service Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 36 Tax Credits ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Emissions ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................... 37 3. Capital Metro Life‐Cycle Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 39 About the LCC Model ....................................................................................................................................... 39 LCC Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Model Inputs .................................................................................................................................................. 39 Model Outputs ............................................................................................................................................... 43 LCC with Credits ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 4. Financial Risks Associated with Implementing CNG .................................................................... 51 Fuel‐Selection Risk Overview ...................................................................................................................... 51 Capital Cost Expenditures and Cost Recovery ..................................................................................... 52 Payback Period and Rate of Return ..................................................................................................... 52 Capital Metro Procurement Considerations .................................................................................... 55 LCC Scenario Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 56 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 57 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 59 Appendix A: .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 Bus‐Fleet Inventory and Rehabilitation Analysis .................................................................................... 60 3 List of Figures Figure 2‐1 Fuel Price: Diesel versus CNG, September 2005 to July 2011 ..................................... 16 Figure 2‐2 Gas Dryer at RPTA in Phoenix, Arizona ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Fuel News, Volume 6, Number 3
    Vol. 6 - No. 3 U. S. DEPA R T MENT of ENERGY An Official Publication of the Clean Cities Network and the Alternative Fuels Data Center From the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy A LTERNATIVE F UELS A CROSS A MERICA SUCCESS STORIES FROM EVERY STATE PLUS: INSIDE: Sales Success Tips for AFV Dealers Cummins Westport Drives Progress CMAQ Funding on Long Island Dear Readers: Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” The Clean Cities Program is defined by two very clear facts: By 2010 we will have 1 million AFVs on the road and we will be displacing 1 billion gallons of petroleum annually. As 2003 dawns, so does the realization that we have seven years to meet these ambitious goals. So, where are we and how are we going to get there? The pliability of statistics aside, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we have to get serious about documenting the impact that AFVs have on petroleum displacement. The first goal articu­ lated in the new strategic plan of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the Department of Energy is to “Dramatically Reduce, or Even End, Dependence on Foreign Oil.” That alone is a compelling reason to show the impact that Clean Cities coalitions and stake- holders have had across the country. Equally significant, though, is using statistics to strategically determine where our potential market growth is both by geography and niche markets. Two noteworthy developments are in the works that will help us more accurately capture fuel and vehicle sales.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas in Transit Fleets: a Review of the Transit Experience
    February 2002 • NREL/TP-540-31479 Natural Gas in Transit Fleets: A Review of the Transit Experience Leslie Eudy National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 February 2002 • NREL/TP-540-31479 Natural Gas in Transit Fleets: A Review of the Transit Experience Leslie Eudy Prepared under Task No. FU23.5620 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tucson Smart City Demonstration Proposal Part 1: Vision Narrative
    Tucson Smart City Demonstration Proposal Part 1: Vision Narrative February 4, 2016 Table of Contents 1 Smart City Vision 1 7 Tucson Smart City Team 14 A. Existing Challenges and Proposed Solutions 1 A. Partners and Key Stakeholders 14 B. Program Management, Implementation,and Operation, and B. Governance Processes 14 Approach 2 C. Existing and Potential Public-Private-Partnerships 17 C. Tuscon Smart City Challenge Organizational Chart 3 8 Existing Transportation Infrastructure and Features 18 2 Tucson is an Ideal Smart City Candidate: Population 9 Data Collection, Use, and Policies 19 Characteristics 4 A. Data Currently Collected by the City of Tucson 19 3 Tucson is an Ideal Smart City Candidate: Additional B. How Data Will Be Used and Integrated Across Departments to Characteristics 5 Address City’s Challenges 21 A. Robust Public Transportation System with Frequent Service 5 C. Existing Policies Applicable to Data Collected 22 B. Tucson has a Conducive Demonstration Environment 6 D. Data Collection, Management, and Sharing 23 C. Tucson has Committed and Steadfast Leadership 6 E. How Data from Outside Organizations and Interests will be D. Tucson’s Smart City will be Deeply Integrated with Collected, Managed, and Shared Across Sectors the Sharing Economy 6 or with the Public 23 E. Smart City Data will be Accessible, Discoverable, and Usable 6 F. Terms and Conditions 24 4 Preliminary Site Map 7 10 Approach for Use of Existing Standards, Architecture, A. Selection of Demonstration Area 7 and Certification Processes 25 B. Proposed Technology Solutions 8 11 Smart City Goals, Objectives, and Performance 5 The Tucson Smart City Vision 9 Measures 27 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandardized Bus Fleets
    IO Ni W LtC-WPE RIER EEI&1LD~IEE LPLE iTjøGR& Nonstandardized Bus Fleets [NATIONAO RESEARCjOUNCIL WN TRANSPORTATIQN RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COM!TTEE 1990 OFFICERS Chairman: Wayne Mur,. Chief Engineer, Missouri Highway & Transportation Department Vice Chairman: C. Michael Walton, Bess Harris Jones Centennial Professor and Chairman, College of Engineering. The University of Texas at Austin Executive Director: Thomas B. Deen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS JAMES B. BUSEY IV, Federal Aviation Administrator, US. Department of Transportation (ex officio) GILBERT E. CARMICHAEL, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex OffiCIO) BRIAN W. CLYMER, Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) JERRY R. CURRY, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) FRANCIS B. FR.ANcoIs, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JOHN GRAY, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association (ex officio) THOMAS H. HANNA, President and Chief Executive Officer, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 'Association of the United States. Inc. (ex officio) HENRY 3. HATCH, Chief of Engineers and Commander. U.S. Army corps of Engineers (ex officio) THOMAS D. LARSON, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) GEORGE H. WAY, JR., Vice President for Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) ROBERT J. AARONSON, President, Air Transport Association of America JAMES M. BEGGS, Chairman, Spacehab, Inc. ROBERT N. BOTHMAN, Director, Oregon Department of Transportation J. RON BRINSON, President and chief Executive Officer, Board of Commissioners of The Port of New Orleans L. GARY BYRD, Consulting Engineer, Alexandria, Virginia L. STANLEY CRANE, Retired, Forner Chairman & chief Executive Officer, Consolidated Rail Corporation RANDY DOI, Director, IVHS Systems Motorola Incorporated EARL DOVE, President, Earl Dove Company LOUIS J.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston METRO CNG Implementation Study
    2011 Houston METRO CNG Implementation Study Matt Sandidge and John Overman Texas Transportation Institute 11/30/2011 1 2 Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Organization of Report ................................................................................................................................... 11 2. CNG State of the Practice .......................................................................................................................... 13 Methodology for Literature Review and Peer Study ......................................................................... 13 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Transit Management Models Agency and Service Delivery Options
    Alternative Transit Management Models Agency and Service Delivery Options September 14, 2016 City Manager’s Transit Stakeholder Advisory Group Alternative Transit Management Models Agency and Service Delivery Options Contents Advisory Group Listing ................................................................................................ 3 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of Key Questions .......................................................................................... 4 Agency Options ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Service Delivery Options ............................................................................................................................ 5 Comparison of Agency Options................................................................................... 6 Comparison of Service Delivery Options .................................................................... 9 Current Management Contracts ................................................................................. 10 Attachments A. City of Tucson (Status Quo) Option ...................................................................... 11 B. Regional Public Transportation Authority (RTA) Summary and Legislation .... 25 C. Joint Powers Organization (JPO) Summary and Legislation.............................. 41 D. Metropolitan Public
    [Show full text]
  • MARCH MEETING • APRIL MEETING CTA Bus Tracker
    OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE OMNIBUS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC. MARCH/APRIL 2009 $5.00 bus routes. CTA Bus Tracker is a web-based program Welcome to another issue of The Green Pennant Special, that uses global positioning system (GPS) technology to the official publication of The Omnibus Society of America. provide customers with the locations and estimated arrival Through this publication we hope to keep our readers times of buses operating along activated bus routes. informed of events happening in the transit industry in Chicago and other cities in the United States. "Data gathered by CTA staff indicates that Bus Tracker's popularity is continuing to grow as a tool for customers, Visit the Omnibus Society of America website at with more than 2.7 million visits since the program ..www.osabus.org...At osabus.org we will be posting launched in April 2008," said CTA President Ron upcoming fan trips and meetings information, as well as Huberman. "As CTA ridership continues to grow, we membership information. remain focused on improving the overall travel experience Please visit our site when you have a chance and give us and quality of information for our customers. With Bus your opinions and comments. Tracker and the rail digital displays launched last week, customers have improved access to very specific CTA • MARCH MEETING service information to better plan their commutes." The March meeting of the Omnibus Society of America Information analyzed by CTA also indicates the number of was held on March 6, 2009, in the Anderson Pavilion of visitors to the CTA Bus Tracker web site has steadily Swedish Covenant Hospital, 2751 W.
    [Show full text]
  • ALTERNATIVE FUEL NEWS Volume 6 Number 3 January 2003
    Vol. 6 - No. 3 U. S. DEPARTMENT of ENERGY An Official Publication of the Clean Cities Network and the Alternative Fuels Data Center From the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy A LTERNATIVE F UELS A CROSS A MERICA SUCCESS STORIES FROM EVERY STATE PLUS: INSIDE: Sales Success Tips for AFV Dealers Cummins Westport Drives Progress CMAQ Funding on Long Island Dear Readers: Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” The Clean Cities Program is defined by two very clear facts: By 2010 we will have 1 million AFVs on the road and we will be displacing 1 billion gallons of petroleum annually. As 2003 dawns, so does the realization that we have seven years to meet these ambitious goals. So, where are we and how are we going to get there? The pliability of statistics aside, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we have to get serious about documenting the impact that AFVs have on petroleum displacement. The first goal articu- lated in the new strategic plan of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the Department of Energy is to “Dramatically Reduce, or Even End, Dependence on Foreign Oil.” That alone is a compelling reason to show the impact that Clean Cities coalitions and stake- holders have had across the country. Equally significant, though, is using statistics to strategically determine where our potential market growth is both by geography and niche markets. Two noteworthy developments are in the works that will help us more accurately capture fuel and vehicle sales. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised January 13, 2020 Page I City of Tucson ID 9033 Title VI Triennial Program
    City of Tucson ID 9033 Title VI Triennial Program Revised January 13, 2020 Page i City of Tucson ID 9033 Title VI Triennial Program Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Statement ............................................................................................................................. 2 Requirement to Provide an Annual Title VI Certification and Assurance ....................................... 2 Requirement to Prepare and Submit a Title VI Program ................................................................ 2 Requirement to Notify Beneficiaries of Protection under Title VI ................................................. 3 Requirement to Develop Title VI Complaint Procedures and Complaint Form ............................. 4 Title VI Complaint Guidelines .................................................................................................. 4 Title VI Complaint Internal Process ......................................................................................... 4 Title VI Complaint Form .................................................................................................................. 6 Completing the Title VI Complaint Form ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Accounting for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Transportation Models
    Accounting for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Transportation Models Task 3: Magnitude and Distribution final report prepared for Federal Highway Administration prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Dr. Harry Cohen Dr. Arun Chatterjee November 2003 www.camsys.com final report Accounting for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Transportation Models Task 3: Magnitude and Distribution prepared for Federal Highway Administration prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 with Dr. Harry Cohen Dr. Arun Chatterjee November 2003 Accounting for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Transportation Models Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Types of Commercial Vehicles.............................................................................. 2 Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 3 Magnitude and Distribution ................................................................................. 4 Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Approach .....................................................................................................1-2
    [Show full text]
  • April 2017 Introduction
    April 2017 Introduction The Regional Arts & Culture Council (RACC) established the Design Team Roster as an on-line resource that can be used by anyone seeking an artist for a project – community groups, business or property owners, schools, architecture firms, private developers or other public art programs. The Roster provides a pool of highly qualified artists, and increases the efficiency of the selection process. The intent of the roster is to provide users a range of artistic styles from which to select an artist that fits the needs of a particular project -- creating an art plan for a site; collaborating on early design along with having a budget to create artwork(s); identifying opportunities for other artists to provide design elements within the construction budget and/or complemented with public art funds; or, for creating a distinctive artwork for a site. These artist have demonstrated skills, experience and interest in commissioned projects. As you review this roster, please read the artists’ statement and view details of up to three past projects to get a feel for their work. You are strongly encouraged to visit the artists’ websites and social media outlets to further explore their practice. Please note that there are two different PDF versions you can view/download with the larger PDF containing artists’ resumes. Questions? Contact Public Art Managers: Kristin Calhoun [email protected] | 503.823.5101 Peggy Kendellen [email protected] | 503.823.4196 Cover artists clockwise from upper left: Anne Marie Karlsen, Lawndale, CA, 2008; Adam Kuby, Aberdeen, WA, 2013; Norie Sato, San Francisco, CA, 2011; Napoleon Jones-Henderson, Bruce C.
    [Show full text]
  • Tcrp Report 66
    TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM REPORT 66 Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration Effective Practices to Reduce Bus Accidents TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2001 SELECTION COMMITTEE OFFICERS CHAIR LINDA S. WATSON Chair: John M. Samuels, Senior VP-Operations Planning & Support, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA Corpus Christi RTA Vice Chair: Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director, Utah DOT Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS DANNY ALVAREZ Miami-Dade Transit Agency MEMBERS GORDON AOYAGI WILLIAM D. ANKNER, Director, Rhode Island DOT Montgomery County Government THOMAS F. BARRY, JR., Secretary of Transportation, Florida DOT JEAN PAUL BAILLY JACK E. BUFFINGTON, Associate Director and Research Professor, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Union Internationale des Transports Publics Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas J. BARRY BARKER SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC Transit Authority of River City E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary of Transportation, Kansas DOT LEE BARNES JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America Barwood, Inc. JAMES C. CODELL III, Transportation Secretary, Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY RONALD L. BARNES JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads Central Ohio Transit Authority ROBERT A. FROSCH, Sr. Research Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University GERALD L. BLAIR GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Oklahoma Transportation Center, Oklahoma State University Indiana County Transit Authority GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles ANDREW BONDS, JR. LESTER A. HOEL, L. A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Depart. of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. H. THOMAS KORNEGAY, Exec.
    [Show full text]