TheThe TransitTransit BusBus NicheNiche MarketMarket ForFor AlternativeAlternative Fuels:Fuels:

ModuleModule 1:1: IntroductionIntroduction andand CharacterizationCharacterization ofof thethe TransitTransit BusBus BusinessBusiness

CleanClean CitiesCities CoordinatorCoordinator ToolkitToolkit

PreparedPrepared byby TIAXTIAX LLC,LLC, IrvineIrvine OfficeOffice

DecemberDecember 20032003

TIAX LLC One Park Plaza, 6th Floor Irvine, California 92614 949-833-7131 / [email protected] Name and Objectives of the Project

Official project name: “Market Analysis of Transit as an Alternative Fuel Niche Fleet” Objectives: • Assess the current status of alternative fuel use in transit bus applications • Provide Clean Cities Coordinators with the data and tools necessary to: – Better understand transit fleet operations involving alternative fuels – Identify opportunities and successful strategies to increase AF use in the sector – Work with the most-promising local transit agencies to begin using alternative fuels, or expand existing operations Deliverables:

ator rdin • Coordinator “guidebook” (Powerpoint Coo it rans T ook deb modules on CD ROM) Gui • Cost evaluation tool for transit fleets • Workshops at regional Clean Cities meetings

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 1 The Electronic Toolkit Includes the Following “Modules” of Information:

MODULES BY DESCRIPTION Module 1: Intro / Characterization of the Transit Bus Niche Module 2: Basics of Alternative Fuels for Transit Buses Module 3: CNG as a Transit Bus Fuel Module 4: LNG as a Transit Bus Fuel Module 5: Propane (LPG) as a Transit Bus Fuel Module 6: Biodiesel as a Transit Bus Fuel Module 7: Emerging Diesel Technology and Hybrids in Transit Module 8: Advanced Hybrid and Fuel Cell Bus Technologies Module 9a: Introduction to Transit Bus 1.0 Cost Model Module 9b: Transit Bus 1.0 Cost Model (MS Excel Program) Module 10: Emissions Benefits of Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology Transit Buses Module 11: List of Contacts and Resources Modules by file name Note: only the highlights can be discussed in a 90-minute presentation!

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 2 A key premise for this toolkit is: “Knowledge is power.” -Francis Bacon, 1597

The best approach to help a transit agency commit to alternative fuels / clean technologies is to gain as much knowledge as possible about

• The transit “niche” in general,

• The specifics of various available technologies, and

• Unique circumstances and operational characteristics of that particular agency.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 3 Also realize that: “It helps to feel their pain.” - William Jefferson Clinton, 1997 The transit business is very demanding and constantly in the public eye, sometimes for the wrong reasons. Pressures can be intense to keep buses running on time -- at low cost and with minimal environmental impacts. These goals may be conflicting.

Therefore, it helps to keep in mind the following:

1. Using alternative fuels and clean technologies is the right thing to do, but it may not be the EASY or CHEAP thing to do.

2. Alternative fuels may not be suitable for all transit agencies. Region- and agency-specific issues come into strong play. Customized programs and solutions are frequently necessary to achieve success.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 4 A Key Basic Point: Diesel is the Standard Fuel of the Transit Niche What is Diesel?

It’s a liquid hydrocarbon fuel packed with energy . . .

Rudolf Diesel (1858-1913) Inventor of Diesel Engine . . .while emitting . . . used in large heavy-duty engines harmful NOx and PM emissions.

. . that power our heavy-duty transportation sector . . . The diesel engine is the backbone of our economy and a threat to our health.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 5 Understanding the “competition” for alternative fuels is essential

Today’s diesel engines offer many advantages . . . • Safety - Diesel is a safer fuel than gasoline and some of the alternatives (less flammable and explosive). • Energy Density - Diesel fuel contains the highest energy per gallon of currently available transportation fuels. This delivers good vehicle range. • Efficiency - diesel engines operate in a “lean” (excess air) combustion mode,

which provides inherently high fuel efficiency and minimizes CO2 emissions. • Performance - Diesel technology has a greater power density than other fuels - it packs more power per unit volume than other fuels. • Durability - Diesel engines are renowned for their durability, lasting hundreds of thousands of miles. This helps conserve resources. • Continuous Improvements - Significant progress has been made in reducing emissions from diesel engines of all kinds. Today's trucks and buses are eight times cleaner than those built just a dozen years ago.

Key Questions: Can H-D diesel engines meet the stringent 2010 NOx and PM standards? At what cost?

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 6 The Size of the Transit Bus Market Inherently Limits Advanced RD&D

• Developing new transit bus technologies can be very costly for vehicle manufacturers, especially advanced prototype RD&D • Given the limited market, the transit industry cannot perform the same level of manufacturer-led product development as the consumer auto industry – A total of about 7,500 buses (~5,000 transit) are built each year in the U.S. – GM alone built more than 5.5 million LDVs in 2002, with > 700,000 of the most popular model • Low volume prevents bus manufacturers from allocating the level of resources that auto manufacturers allocate for research and development • Buses are often built to each agency’s specification as opposed to building standard models that are available to all customers • Extensive on-road testing is unaffordable -- OEMs must instead rely on transit fleets that are willing to operate vehicles as they progress from prototypes to full commercial models • Order size also causes difficulties in the development process: smaller orders work well for transit agencies (helps workout the bugs), but less well for manufacturers

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 7 The Transit Business is Nearly an “Open Book” of Information

The public nature of the transit business makes it one of the best-documented fleet “niche” market for alternative fuels - a major advantage for Coordinators: • The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) produces extensive, agency-specific data and information from annual transit district surveys – Existing fleets by agency name, number of buses, size and type of buses, type of fuel / technology, price of buses, etc. – Buses on order and “potential” future procurements • Transit agencies conduct public meetings and operate informative web sites – Details about short- and long-term budgets – RFPs for upcoming bus procurements – Reports about bus performance • Federal, state, and local gov’t agencies carefully document transit activities e.g. – DOE / NREL Alternative Fuel Information Series and Tiger Team activities – Clean Cities success stories and niche fleet summaries • Media and trade associations (e.g., NGV Coalition) provide additional info

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 8 Overview of the Transit Bus Application • “Transit” entails virtually all types and sizes of on-road vehicles, but transit buses are the most common vehicle type used for local service: – Provide about 60% of miles traveled – Service approximately 160,000 directional route-miles (U.S.) • Roughly 57,000 transit buses are currently available for service – Nearly 75% of the fleet consists of 40 foot buses – About 8% are 35 feet in length – About 5% are 30 feet in length – About 4% are 60 foot articulated buses • About 2.4 billion total vehicle miles are traveled annually – Average trip taken: ~ 4 miles – Average speed in revenue service: ~ 12.8 mph • Total annual operating expenses: ~ $13.3 billion – ~ 19% goes toward vehicle maintenance – ~ 4% to 5% goes toward purchase of fuels and lubricants • On average, fare revenue covers ~22% of expenses (capital and operating)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 9 Definitions (from the American Public Transportation Association)

Transit Bus: – the most common bus (by far) used for local service – mostly 40 feet long, but 35-foot and 30-foot versions are also common in smaller cities and on lightly-patronized routes – 2 doors: front and center – rear-mounted engine (normally) – low-back seating, without luggage compartments or restroom facilities Trolleybus (Trolley Coach, Trackless Trolley): – rubber-tired electrically powered passenger vehicle operating on city streets drawing power from overhead lines with trolleys – used in Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, and a few other cities Articulated Bus (or Trolleybus): – extra-long (54 to 60 feet) bus with two passenger compartments, connected by a joint mechanism that allows the vehicle to bend during turns and curves – normally operated in local service in very large metro areas on very heavy routes Intercity Bus: – 40 to 45 feet buses with a front door, separate luggage compartments, restroom facilities (usually), and high-backed seats for use in high-speed long-distance service – used by the largest transit agencies and companies on limited-stop routes

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 10 Definitions from APTA (continued)

Demand Response: –aka“paratransit” or “dial-a-ride” – The most widely available transit service – Provided in the U.S. by more than 5,000 transit agencies – Vehicle dispatched to pick up the passengers and transport them to their destinations – Service usually limited to disabled persons (w/ attendants or companions) and senior citizens Operations Characterized by: – Response by demand to calls from passengers or their agents – Usually no fixed routes or schedules (exception: temporary basis for special needs) – Often dispatched for multiple parties with different destinations – Much more prominent use of gasoline-fueled vehicles (LDVs and MDVs) including passenger cars, vans or small buses – >97% of vehicles are less than 30 feet in length – Despite small size, most vehicles have two doors (including rear door used for wheelchairs) – Large transit districts frequently outsource paratransit portion of their operations to private companies – Some types of service are required by law (e.g., some fixed routes for disabled and elderly), while others are voluntary (e.g., general demand response service)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 11 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 2003 Transit Survey Survey and database involves transit-related passenger services only Transit Buses • 2,250 transit bus agencies exist in North America • 258 agencies (11.5%) responded, representing ~ 67% of all buses • Survey captured 90% of buses 35 to 45 feet, and 99% of articulated buses • Finding: 57,461 operational transit buses in U.S., 95.8% of which are “active” • APTA estimates that most vehicles NOT REPORTED are 30 feet or less in length and operated by small-city and rural agencies Demand Response (Paratransit) Buses • 5,000 paratransit agencies exist in North America • Fewer than 200 agencies responded (4%), representing ~ 22% of all paratransit vehicles • 10,810 paratransit vehicles are operational, 97.1% of which are “active” • Nearly all non-reported vehicles are taxis, vans, minibuses, etc.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 12 Nearly 89% of the fuel consumed in the U.S. transit bus sector is diesel

• Approximately 625 million gallons of diesel fuel are used annually • Approximately 78 million gallons of non-diesel fuels are used annually • On average, each vehicle consumes about 10,000 gallons (DGE) per year

U.S. Transit Bus Fuel Consumption, 1994-2001*

800,000

700,000 ons

l 600,000

l Other a Propane

G 500,000 LNG 400,000 Gasoline 300,000 CNG 200,000 ousands of Diesel h

T 100,000

0 1999 2000 2001 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year

*Data includes passenger vehicles; excludes non-passenger-vehicle and non-vehicle consumption 2001 data are preliminary. Source: APTA (http://www.apta.com/research/stats/bus/busfuel.cfm)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 13 U.S. Transit Providers Ranked 1st through 25th by Annual Passenger Miles (FY 2001)

4,500,000 4,000,000 r

) 3,500,000 nge 0s e s 3,000,000 s 00 1 a

( 2,500,000 P s l e l

i 2,000,000 M nua

n 1,500,000 A 1,000,000 500,000 0 t , t t , t - i y n y y n i a i a n y n i k t t y c on on s on of of o o i c e s on s of i a a a r t i i i i i n lis em r r t t t t n t ti y n n t i i a t t w a o nt un or t nt l a a a a a i e at an a a s v i s ol A ol p t r t r t e l o h r r e t i P g t y t a hori a T or y or t y or or or s m u or T m C op an D op e i h r p s t t u A r S t R r p p a p r t p d T r r y A i t l n n n u t t t t i i i

s s s o u s an a o b nn pi e t e A s t ol s i in i s i pa pa en p t m h e a l o i C A s an an an an e e a M s t o t on r r r r M M op R an c i i an t i ( gh r P r C p r r t y y A s t s an D D T T T ni T t t e n a il a o r o a l e r ( t Ad t T r r y u T y y n l u i c l T p t t t an e s an n y

a of an u un s n r r t u s nt e t ort . M t l a de A M d o i o n l t u f i n o un l p un ne o t a B T T a p o o as C p a o o un s o n r o s - on r C D e c i a t p o - o M A Li o r y ey an s i t C s he C T a-C C o t gt t T an i n y C T i t i s e H r D e n r R g l d l r e n r c eg t a u i al i s a t C n o ed n e e o g e n am e i T i o h it i ea em p a g e h n l a Y l r s D J on t K hu ol al r S o n k a o M y M a r N n am r u w ad l r gi t p A a op ac C on e A a c e au O e o i r A s W A n F r s S t s Y N t g A R t w a M a M s l r l e o i l e e N a o S L a M R M M P M D

Source: FTA, cited by APTA in Table 75 (http://www.apta.com/research/stats/bus/75largest.cfm)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 14 U.S. Transit Providers Ranked 26th through 50th by Annual Passenger Miles (FY 2001)

250,000 r e g ) 200,000 en s s 000s 1 a 150,000 ( P s e al l i u 100,000 M n n A 50,000

0 f ) t t ) t t y i y i y y n s i n s y y y i c n o of al al i al a) t t A l

it i e o a u a i o l i i r t t l LC b ne i C w B on on on o n ( a u ans ans ans on at ans at S om

i ount r h r r e hor r hor t Li genc t c V t t r it ( gh s T t T i P egi i egi ue egi i u a

T u u

s y l C opol v a tm y t A r i r s R y T po c rpor n i r A A t t H i

ut r e A

an T o a ar a ( t e t l t o c r D o t y an s i i i i g B p i unt en r i da R t y h ubl u C i h ans s e o t t r ount c M r and R ilit i dge, l l T u B hes a C D i ill T o P ans s n l r a O e an T s opol c C r h t t t ' r x ob opm n r t i o h C t A ount l o t a F ev an B t B a s ant o s T o l i e T t e i r e onne es c i e e api t v tr s S e t onal ral C a C uds e oeni e ol C Fo c a r M W hw gi oni om h an H onal e r ard C D er G ban M A D an T e op ent i P I ut f r

r e gi

b R t T o t C P V e noh ow o eat an M a M e a r r S t of R S ah S ubu den ty nt M B l t i y G S ubur t S a o - i U C i S S G C B

Source: FTA, cited by APTA Table 75 (http://www.apta.com/research/stats/bus/75largest.cfm)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 15 U.S. Transit Providers Ranked 51st through 75th by Annual Passenger Miles (FY 2001)

90,000 r

e 80,000 g )

n 70,000 0s

sse 60,000 100 a

( 50,000 P s l e a l

i 40,000 u M n

n 30,000 A 20,000 10,000 0 ) ) t t . ) t ) ) ) r ) . s i i T n o y y y D al J m d p s m r t e p Y D A A A s s it i c t r T v io O n e n e n e r no, n n t i n t K t o C P e V o (N M o o a o or

a a a d e s r R s ( ( D ( ( D pres r r h t h ( D gi t t C y m r y t t i s M i x y . to T ty e t h o u T u T t i e s i s nar s n l a ) s ( Ag hes S S c p R r y n nes ads s n A A t i t t e e e i i A

i C e s un r a o a t t an r n R r s r s i i s n o i r m an C ea E ( nge e on r n oac r

n B s s n a A a t v t T r ount T i r a i a n C n a y n R ge Li y r a ( h T r A s r t s L c A c s a an a y t r T o i i d a T ) i s r r r R i t u a n T e f T T r S i h C a e A p a C ar S D n t T T a l ( eac Los ille B B ubl r r and C A) C o - l m a e . o m v s io d e C o M B P as ont s e C Tr k a n

h n r o r th N c go c a ( an s H a Ar s t u i r l no ( ans u o eat e F TC t A r n r nt ans l O d a R s R T o T i tte a r ni Pa ke a es f K G Long ckso t A pol

r r i s o a hi G S t l a M r m s o r F L p J n El e n a aga O v e i ty ana i m a h i r C e N R di C C T n I M

Source: FTA, cited by APTA Table 75 (http://www.apta.com/research/stats/bus/75largest.cfm)

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 16 5,000 25 U.S. Transit Agencies Operate at Least 550 Transit Buses . . 4,500 •NYC Transit is the largest (4,513 buses) 4,000 •New Jersey Transit has about 3,500 buses 3,500 •Los Angeles County has about 2,700 buses 3,000 •Houston is #5 with ~1,700 buses, Denver is #9 with ~1,250

2,500 But, many smaller agencies exist (APTA survey):

2,000 •31 agencies operate between 250 and 550 buses •45 agencies operate between 100 and 250 buses 1,500 •155 agencies operate between 1 and 100 buses No. of Transit Buses in Operation No. of Transit Buses 1,000

500

0 ) ) t y t ty y it l ty on er) y e) re) si i ity ) e) ton) ton) aul) or nsi hil an land and) (IL lway os a rans MTA rtati mo thor thorit J (P uthori genc ti ak rtl u u uthority po O o Auth uthorityan J T t (Denv ttsburgh)t A St. P d Tr it it A A N t A (Hous t A ity (Bos si s on (Seattl t ( (P it si si ans r n oli ic o ns on A pal Rai (S NYC Tr n p on (Bal tr a ans ci ns an stric rtati s r ati r a es County .Authority utho unty (Pi o ati a Rapi T r uthority o tr re Metr ort uburband Bus T T . A s it Di al p uthority ngel A rea Tr nt of Tr C innea ni A ago Tra it M on co Muni LC) . A A s Trans ans ransp mi las rans ce S S a o A tme it ( a is ns tr f T T -County P h ( a Los Chic par portation Tr Di gheny ami-Dade Tra Dal ri r ani e ay e it Ad ta T anta Rapi ta Me ans ll Mi nd Regi U T tan Tranylv r A Trans la ey C D T ts B rans e an Franc l .C.) Y et ty Dept o a Cos nty (CA) Trans tan Atl S al enns N ty of n lev Metro nd T ntr a V P hus ori ou o gional la C e Cou ar Metropoli gton (D e ac th C - tern n R s eater C hi as t Au ing Mary r rang Metropoli M r K meda G O nta Cl la utheas Was Po Sa o A S D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 17 Breakout of Active U.S. Transit Buses by Year Built

7,000 3

Useful life is 12 years 20 6, 1

6,000 40 ses 5, 9

u Average age of U.S. fleet is 6.3 years 87 4, B 5,000 2 1 e 21 08 4 4, v 5 4, i 72 5 62 t 3, 8 3, 4,000 41 c 3, 15 3, 4 A f 8 56 548 , 3,000 0 2, 2 32 8 15 o 2, 2, 88 5 1 1, er 60

2,000 45 1, 1 b 8 1, 08 01 1, m 1, 7 6 u

1,000 65 2 49 N 31 0 62 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Year Built

Source: Table 16 from APTA 2003 Database. Note: 2003 is a partial year.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 18 The predominant seating capacities for transit buses are 43 and 40 passengers

Distribution of U.S. Operational Transit Buses by Seating Capacity

43 16.5%

40 14.0% 57 2.2% 46 2.9% 39 49 6.7% 3.1% 41 37 45 4.2% 44 42 4.2% 38 6.3% 4.3% 4.4% 5.1%

Source: APTA 2003 Database

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 19 Demand response (paratransit) vehicles typically seat 5 to 16 passengers

Distribution of U.S. Operational Demand Response Buses by Seating Capacity

12 11.4% 19 5 2.7% 10.5% 3 3.9% 13 3.9% 16 10.2% 9 5.0% 7 8 6.2% 9.0% 14 15 10 6.2% 6.4% 8.9%

Source: APTA 2003 Database

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 20 Distribution of U.S. Operational Transit Buses by Bus Manufacturer (late 2002)

10,000 9,000 8,000 Total Estimated Number in 7,000 U.S. Service = 57,431 Number of Buses 6,000 Reported in U.S. 5,000 Fleet 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 ) r n d. a s ig us o ic r us rs lye B MC In r o B F T s t ional Gill A Ori (DINA n USAme o t w Flxible l M ma e t' la A ti N n n Bu al -Na us Othe Note: this is NOT NOV I a op of r o p . c . e O eo d ri Ne d n the same as n e n h I s I Ge llan c market share ! a Bu ElDorad th Am r Misce r Co to No Mo

Source: APTA 2003 Database Table 9

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 21 Distribution of U.S. Operational Paratransit Vehicles by Manufacturer (2002)

2003 APTA % of Total Paratransit Bus Manufacturer Survey Total In-Use Fleet ElDorado-National (formerly ElDorado Bus & Natl Coach) 3,194 29.5% Goshen Coach 1,952 18.1% Coach and Equipment Manufacturing Company 881 8.1% Ford Motor Corporation 836 7.7% Supreme Corporation (Startrans) 704 6.5% Champion Motor Coach 571 5.3% Braun Corporation 523 4.8% Dodge Division, Chrysler Corporation 405 3.7% Ricon Corporation 279 2.6% Blue Bird Corporation 168 1.6% All Others (31 Separate OEMs) 1,297 12.0% 10,810 100.0%

Note: this is NOT the same as market share !

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 22 Distribution of U.S. Operational Transit Buses by Engine Manufacturer (late 2002)

37,917 40,000 35,000 30,000 No. of 25,000 Engines 16,863 Currently in 20,000 Use for U.S. 15,000 Transit 10,000 2,681 5,000 0 Detroit Diesel Cummins / Other Note: this is NOT Cummins the same as market share ! Westport

Source: APTA 2003 Database Table 10

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 23 Market for New Bus and Trolleybus Orders by Manufacturer, 2002-2007

Recent Trend: Market Share Shifts from Year to Year

BUILT IN 2002 ON ORDER POTENTIAL JANUARY 2003 ORDERS (a)

NUMBER PER CENT NUMBER PER CENT NUMBER PER CENT Gillig 1,101 26.0% 1,026 17.5% NA NA Motor Coach Industries 731 17.3% 339 5.8% NA NA New Flyer 629 14.9% 799 13.7% NA NA North American Bus 393 9.3% 1,698 29.0% NA NA Nova BUS 378 9.0% 3 0.1% NA NA Orion 334 7.9% 966 16.5% NA NA Neoplan 253 6.0% 496 8.5% NA NA All others 170 4.0% 86 1.5% NA NA Optima Bus 73 1.7% 47 0.8% NA NA El Dorado-National 65 1.5% 17 0.3% NA NA Thomas Dennis/Thomas 52 1.2% 63 1.1% NA NA BlueBird 50 1.2% 4 0.1% NA NA Van Hool 2 0.0% 189 3.2% NA NA Electric Transit 0 0.0% 113 1.9% NA NA Total 4,231 100.0% 5,846 100.0% 8,996 100.0%

Source: APTA survey, Table 59. Bus data are about 67% and trolleybus data 100% of national totals. (a) DATA ARE TENTATIVE; SOME POTENTIAL ORDERS MAY NOT OCCUR.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 24 New Bus and Trolleybus Market by Power Source, 2002-2007

Built in 2002 On Order January 2003 Potential Orders(a) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Diesel ICE 3,389 80.1% 4,026 68.8% 5,275 58.7% Dedicated CNG 641 15.2% 1,216 20.8% 2,432 27.0% Dual-Power* 44 1.0% 403 6.9% 307 3.4% Electric Catenary 88 2.1% 141 2.4% 0 0.0% Gasoline ICE 11 0.3% 1 0.0% 48 0.5% Dedicated LNG 52 1.2% 56 1.0% 154 1.7% Dedicated Propane 4 0.1% 3 0.1% 41 0.5% All others 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 73 0.8% Undecided NA NA NA NA 666 7.4% Total 4,231 100.0% 5,846 100.0% 8,996 100.0% Source: APTA survey, Table 60. Bus and trolleybus data are about 67% and 100%, respectively, of national totals. (a) Data are tentative. Some potential orders may not occur. *”Dual-power “ means hybrid buses in this case. APPARENT TRENDS: • Market share for conventional diesel ICE buses is declining • Market shares for CNG buses and hybrid diesel-electric buses (referred by APTA as “Dual-Power”) are increasing • Trend for LNG buses is less clear, but market share appears to be increasing

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 25 APTA: more than 7,600 transit buses are “potential”orders (next few years)

Number of "Potential" Orders (>27'6", 2-door transit buses) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

NYC Dept. of Trans portation 609 Marylan d Tran s . Au th ority 500 Chicago Transit Authority 425 Washington Metro Area Tr Auth 400 Regional Transportation Dist 284 Southwest Ohio Reg Tr Auth 237 Metro Atlanta Rapid Tr Auth 220 MTA New York City Trans it 220 Observations: Port Auth of Alleg heny County 220 Pace Suburban Bus 200 1) About 60% of these will be Westchester County DOT 190 City of Tucson MTS 187 conventional diesel buses, Me tro Tran s it 187 Utah Transit Authority 184 and about 27% will be CNG Sacramento Regional Tr Dist 140 buses (APTA survey) Greater Cleveland Reg Tr Auth 128 Connecticut Transit 116 El Paso Mass Transit Dept 114 2) About 7% of the potential OMNITRANS (S an Bernardino) 112 Milwaukee County Transit Sys 112 bus orders are “unknown” as Kans as City Area Trp Auth 107 to fuel type Central Florida Reg Trp Auth 106 Bi-S tate De ve lopme nt Ag e nc y 106 Charlotte Are a Trans it S ys te m 101 Key Question: Southeastern Pennsylvania TA 100 San Francisco Munic Railway 96 Which agencies are “on the Delaware Trans it Corp 95 Orange County Transp Auth 90 fence” and could best be Suburban Mobility Authority (Detroit) 87 Tri-County Metro Trp Dist 85 persuaded to purchase City of Phoenix PTD 83 MTA Long Island Bus 74 alternative fuels?

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 26 Sources of capital funds expended for total U.S. transit (Year 2000)

Nearly $10 billion was expended, from the following sources: 100% 90% 80% $4,885.70 ( 50.5% ) 70% % of total 60% (10.1% ) capital funds 50% expended $973.30 ($ Millions) 40% 30% $3,807.70 20% ( 39.1% ) 10% 0%

Local Funds State Funds Federal Assistance

Note: Federal assistance includes federal capital funds Source: National Transit Profile 2000, www.ntdprogram.com Funding programs for alternative fuel transit buses are region- specific, and they can be quite complex -- but also very effective to help agencies “buy down” the cost of their buses.

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 27 Transit Funding for FY 2004 - FY 2009 (tentative, as of December 2003) • Mid November 2003: House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) unveils TEA 21 reauthorization bill as part of overall U.S. Energy Bill – $69.2 billion over six years for the federal transit program • The bill follows TEA 21's general program structure and ratios • Some new programs are included (e.g., hydrogen fuel cell bus programs) • Annual authorized funding levels for transit portion of the program:

Preliminary TEA 21 Authorizations for Transit Programs (U.S. $ in billions) Update $14.8 $12.2 $13.4 December 2003: $9.7 $10.9 $8.2 Senate filibuster kills Energy Bill

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Fiscal Year

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 28 Chattanooga (CARTA) Program: Example of How Clean Buses are Funded • Federal Program Funding Received: – FTA Bus Modernization Program: 80% funding for electric & hybrid electric buses, 80% funding for intercept garages – FTA Alternative Fuels Program: ~$4M to develop and deploy purpose-built hybrid electric buses with microturbines – FTA Formula Grants: approximately 21% of ongoing maintenance costs for battery electric & hybrid-electric buses – DARPA: $350,000 to fund Capstone microturbines and all-electric air conditioning system – TVA: capital funding for Electric Vehicle Information Center • State Program Funding Received: – Tennessee DOT: 10% match to total FTA grant programs named above • Local Program Funding Received: – City: 10% match to FTA grant programs named above, 60% of funding for third intercept garage, operating assistance to CARTA

Source: Electric Vehicle Association of America, http://www.evaa.org/evaa/pages/who_carta.htm

D0059 Chicago-Atlanta 29