ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUM Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Santa Fe Ave., MS 63-4-1, Los Angeles, CA 90013
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: JAMES T. GALLAGHER PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE UPDATE ON ZERO EMISSION BUS PLANS
ISSUE
At the April 2016 Metro Board of Directors Meeting, Metro's CEO was asked to provide a status report on Metro's deployment plans for Zero Emission Buses, and to provide a comprehensive plan to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions by gradually transitioning to a zero emission bus fleet.
BACKGROUND
Metro's current deployment plan for Zero Emission Buses (ZEB's) and reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions(GHG) includes the following projects and activities:
1. Purchase of five (5) New Flyer all-electric articulated buses for deployment on Metro's Orange Line with expected delivery in late 2017.
2. Purchase of five (5) BYD all-electric articulated buses, also for use on Metro's Orange Line with expected delivery in late 2017.
3. Purchase of up to two hundred (200)ZE buses under RFP OP28167 for delivery between FY18 — FY22.
4. Expand use of Low NOx "Near Zero" CNG engines and Renewable Natural Gas (RCNG)for all new bus purchases and for mid-life engine repowers stating in FY18.
In addition to the ZEB projects, starting in FY18 it is recommended that Metro Operations adopt a policy of purchasing only "Near Zero" Cummins-Westport Low NOx ISL-G engines and renewable natural gas(RCNG) fuel for both new and repowered buses. According to the fleet emission modeling done by Metro's technical consultant, this step will have significant regional air quality benefits, including reducing criteria pollutants for Metro's bus fleet by 90%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 80°/o below 2010 current fleet emission levels. It is expected that nearly 100% of Metro's CNG powered bus fleet can be retrofit with Low NOx engines by 2024. Immediate implementation of this "Near Zero" RCNG program would have less than a 1 %annual impact on fleet operating costs, but it would provide immediate emission and regional air quality benefits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
From FY18-FY22, Metro has approximately $650 million programmed in the LRTP to support bus replacement needs Additionally, Metro expects to pursue a number of competitive federal, state and local grant funding opportunities; if additional grant funds are awarded to Metro for zero emission projects, such funding could be used to accelerate the delivery of ZEB's into Metro's fleet.
The five New Flyer buses are to be partly funded by an FTA "Low-No" grant of $4.275 million, and with $5.8 million in Measure R funding. The five BYD articulated buses will be partially funded by a $3 million "Buy Back" credit from BYD for the trade-in of Metro's original BYD 40' buses, and $4 million in Measure R funding.
Additional zero emission bus program recommendations are expected to be made under RFP OP28167, and funding for these projects will be identified when this contract is awarded. Specific quantities and types of ZE buses to be purchased under RFP OP28167 are to be determined based on Metro's operational needs, and these ZE buses may be a combination of 40' and 60' buses. All actions are subject to Metro Board approval and funding availability.
Funding for purchasing "Near Zero" CNG engines is expected to cost $15,000 per engine. Metro projects increasing Operations spending on engine replacements by $5.0 million annually to purchase these engines; some of these engine costs may be offset by local AQMD/MSRC programs and grants.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Staff considered increasing the quantities of zero emission buses that are included in our current RFP. The current technical specification includes options for up to 200 zero emission buses. This was not recommended because zero emission bus technology is developing rapidly, and zero emission technology that would be specified and procured under this RFP today would likely be surpassed after 3-5 years. If Metro Operations determines that there is a need for more than 200 ZE buses during this period, a new updated technical specification can be issued.
Staff considered an emission reduction program based solely on "Near Zero" CNG engines (and no ZEB's). Even though battery electric ZEB's are more expensive to purchase and operate today, battery electric bus technology is evolving rapidly, and there is a likelihood that ZE battery electric buses could become the more cost effective option for some of Metro's bus fleets in the future. There are also operational and training benefits to gradually bringing on a ZEB program so that operations staff can be trained on how to operate and maintain this equipment.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will return to the Board with award recommendations for purchasing new CNG and Zero Emission buses in early 2017. This will include recommendations for quantities and types of zero emission buses that are best suited far Metro's operational needs, and that fit within Metro's available funding.
Prepared by: John Drayton, Executive Vice President Steve Schupak, Program Manager, Zero Emission Bus Program Phil Rabottini, Senior Engineer, Zero Emission Bus Program
Attachment: Responses to Board Request for ZEB Plans 4/28/16
Copies: ATVC Board Members and Alternates Phillip A. Washington, Metro CEO Stephanie N. Wiggins, Metro Deputy CEO Jesus Montes, Sr. Executive Officer, Vehicle Acquisition ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO BOARD REQUEST FOR ZEB PLANS 4128!16
During the April 28, 2016 BOD meeting, stafF was directed to report back and provide detailed updates on several items at the October 2016 Board of Directors meeting. Attached are technical responses to these questions, and supporting data is also attached to this report.
A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: Metro's technical consultant, Ramboll/Environ, has provided a detailed assessment of options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for transitioning to ZEB's. Key recommendations from this analysis include focusing on using longer range ZE buses and immediately adopting the use of Low NOx "Near Zero" CNG engines and using RCNG for fueling. For certain corridors, such as Metro's Orange Line, there will be opportunities to use specialty ZEB's with en-route opportunity charging. Based on this technology assessment and state of ZE technologies in 2016, Ramboll/Environ does not recommend pursuing fuel cell buses at this time.
B. USA ZEB Transit Deployments: As of April 2016, staff identified 57 transit agencies that are operating a total of 280 zero emission buses in the US.
C. Current ZEB Manufacturers: Staff has identified five (5) major domestic US manufacturers that have produced heavy duty 40' or 60' zero emission buses for large transit agencies in the US: BYD; Proterra; Gillig; New Flyer: and Nova Bus (a subsidiary of Volvo). Of these manufacturers, BYD and Proterra solely produce electric buses; Gillig, New Flyer and Nova offer both electric buses as well as conventionally powered transit buses. In addition to these five manufacturers, there are several other smaller manufacturers that produce light and medium duty transit vehicles in a variety of configurations.
D. Additional Updates on Zero Emission Buses:
1. Greenhouse gases and air pollutant levels. All the programs identified for Zero and Near Zero Emission propulsion systems have impacts on criteria pollutants and GHG emissions. The most cost effective option for emission reductions today is Near Zero CNG engines. Refer to Ramboll/Environ report.
2. Noise levels (i.e. decibels): Attached is a comparison between conventional CNG and zero emission buses. Based on Altoona noise testing data, the average interior and exterior noise levels for Zero Emission buses are 4-8 dB lower than CNG buses.
3. Partnering and Scalabilitv: Production challenges and opportunities to partner with other agencies in large procurements to achieve economies of scale discounts; comparison of long-term maintenance costs.
Metro has identified over 50 transit operators who have initiated ZEB programs. No single US transit operator, even the largest operators like LA Metro, have the resources and means to single-handedly support ZEB commercialization. We have also surveyed the five major US bus manufacturers who have produced heavy duty 40' and 60' buses and will pursue any opportunities to leverage Metro's ZEB investments. We will also continue to reach out to regional municipal transit operators and provide opportunities to partner with Metro on our upcoming bus procurements.
4. Chronological timeline of the advancements and forecasts in zero emission bus technologies; refer to Ramboll/Environ report.
E. Metro Routes Suitable for ZEB's —Metro reviewed all lines and run assignments by operating division, and also looked at potential layover facilities to rank the best corridors for ZEB operation. Out of Metro's 1,900 weekly run assignments, 71 %are under 150 miles, and 99% are under 250 miles; many of these lines may be suitable to battery electric buses. However, many of these runs also have extended run times; almost every operating division has run assignments where buses don't return to the home division for 20 hours or more.
The top rated corridor for ZEB's is the Metro Orange Line (MOL) BRT which currently operates 43 articulated buses. The MOL corridor has several advantages for operating ZEB's, including a dedicated right-of-way with no traffic and Metro-owned terminals at each end that can be used for en-route opportunity charging. Metro is also looking at other BRT services like the Silver Line that have similar operational characteristics and advantages for deploying ZEB's.
Attached is a line-by-line assessment of all Metro bus routes and operating divisions to help determine suitability for ZEB operation.
F. ZEB Funding Sources —Attached is a listing of potential Federal, State and local funding sources that are eligible for the purchase of zero-emission bus vehicles.
G. ZEB Bus Procurements —Recommendations from Metro's Board for costing ZE options and considering seating capacity have been included in the new bus solicitation that is currently underway. The full RFP can be found on-line on Metro's Vendor Portal (here). Staff will report back periodically on the status of these items when they return to the Board with recommendations for contract awards) based on this solicitation.
Additional information related to Metro Board request -April 28, 2016:
A. Final Draft - Ramboll/Environ Fuel Options 201 ~-2055 Report (report also covers item D1, D3 and D4) B. List of transit operators running ZEB's C. Identified US ZEB Suppliers D2. Noise level comparison of ZEB and conventional buses E. Metro Routes Suitable to ZE operation F. Summary of ZEB Funding Opportunities Attachment A ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUAA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Santa Fe Ave., MS 63-4-1, !os Angeles, CA 90012
February 5,2016
To: ANC Board of Directors
From: John Drayton Executive Vice President, ATVC
Re: Draft Report from Ramboll/En~~ron -Zero Emisslon Bus OptJons 20152055
Attached is a draft report ftom Ramboll/Envlron that was commissioned last year by the Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium(ANC) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The purpose of this report was to Identify and evaluate potential future zero emission bus strategies and low ennissian alternatives for Metro's bus fleet.
This draft report is being circulated broadly among industry experts in the transit and air quality sectors far review and comment.Staff plans to finalize this report In 30 days before releasing a final report to the ANC Board of Directors.
Please gei back to John Drayton at 213-617-6285 with any questions or comments.
Attachment:Zero Emisslon Bus Opilons 20152055 (Draft) Co ies:
Phil Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Metro ([email protected]) Stephanie Wiggins, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Metro ([email protected]) James T. Gallagher, Chief Operations Officer ([email protected]) Michael Turner, DEO, Government Relations, Metro ([email protected]) Jesus Montes, Interim Executive Officer, Vehicle Acquisitions, Metro ([email protected])
Dr. Julia Lester, Rambol(/Environ ([email protected]) David Park, Ramboll/Environ ([email protected]} Dana Lowell, Rambol(/Environ ([email protected]) ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
FOIi A23V~d~I~YSTRATIaiE REVTEW ONLY
NEW TRANSIT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION (OP33203093)
Metro • ~ = ENVIRON ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Mr. John Drayton Acting President Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 470 Bauchet St, MS 30-Z-1 Los Angeles, CA 90012
REPORT TRANSMITTAL,"2ER0 EMISSIONS BUS OPTIONSs ANALYSIS OF 2015-2055 FLEET COSTS AND EMISSIONS"
Dear Mr. Drayton, Date 02/05/2016
Please find attached, the report,"Zero Emissions Bus Options: Analysis of 2015- 2055 Feet Costs and Emissions," prepared by Ramboll Envi~on, technical Rambolt Enviran consultant to the Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium {ANC). It is our pleasure to 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4950 6e of service. Los Angeles, CA 9pQ17 USA
T +1 213 943 6300 F +1 2.1.3 943 630E Yours sincerely, www.ramboU-enviro».com
~.~{~ 0. Lit Chan ]ulia Lester Principal Principal
D fi 415 899-0751 p +1 213 943-6348 M +I 916 337-179 M +2 949 614-622S Ichen @rainbol I:cori~ jlesEer@~antiollcom
Attachment
u~ DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehici~ Technolog(es and Advanced Technology Implementation (op332Q3093)
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. FLEET COST &EMISSIONS MODEL DESCRIPTION 5 I.1 Fleet Cosfi Model: 5 1.2 Fleet Emissions Model: 6 2. MA]OR ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES 8 3. RESULTS 19 3.1 FLEET COSTS 2015 - 2055 19 3.2 ANNUAL FLEET COSTS AFTER X055 20 3.3 FLEET EMISSIONS 2015 - 2055 22 3.4 FLEET EMISSIONS AFTER 2055 27
TABLES.
Table 1 IJ~CMTA Zero Emission Bus NPV of Estimated Total Fleet Costs 2015 - Z055 (2 15 $) 2 Table 2 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus EsCimated Total Fieet Emissions (tons) 2015 - 2055 2 Table 3 Zero Emission Bus Options Cost EfFectiveness of Emission Reductions ($/ton) 4 Table 4 Major Assumptions and Data Sources Used in Fleet Cost &Emissions Model 8 Table 5 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Total Fleet Costs 2015 - 2055 (nominal $) 19 Table 6 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Annua! Fleet Costs in 2055 (nominal $) 21 Table 7 Projected LACMTA Annual Fleet Emissions in 2055 (tons) 27
FIGURES
Figure 1 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Total Fleet Emissions 2015 — 2055 3 Figure 2 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Incremental Ffeet Costs 2015 - 2055 (nominal ~) 20 Figure 3 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Incremental Annual Casts in 2055 (nominal $) 21 Figure 4 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of in-basin NOx (tons), 2015 — 2055 22 Figure 5 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of out-of-basin NOx (tons}, 2015 — 2055 23 Fjgure 6 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of In-basin PM (tons}, 2015 - 2055 23 Figure 7 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of out-of-basin PM Ikons), 2015 - 2055 24 Figure 8 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of CH4 (tons), 2015 - 2055 24 Figure 9 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of COQ {tons), 2015 - 2055 25 Figure 10 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of GHG (tons CO2-e), 2015 - 2055 25 Figure 11 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Tatal Fleet Emissions {million tons) 2015 -2055 26 Figure 12 Projecfied LACMTA Feet Emissions in 2055 (tons x000) 28 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33Z03093~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Los Angeles County Metropol(tan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) currently operates an active fleet of 2,194 urban transit buses in fixed-route service throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area. AIi of LA[MTA's buses are compressed natural gas (CNG} buses which operate on standard natural gas procured from the local natural gas utility. LACMTA fuels these buses at eleven CNG fuel 5tattons located on LACMTA property at various locations throughout the city. LACMTA contlnuafly renews their bus fleet by purchasing new buses and retiring their oldest buses. Their general policy is to keep buses to service for 14 years; as such approximately 7% of the fleet is replaced each year with new buses. This report summarizes the results of modeling to estimate capital and operating costs, as welt as exhaust emissions, for the LACMTA bus fleet aver the period 2015 - 2055 under five different future bus technology/fuel purchase scenarios: 1) BASELINE: Continue to purchase standard CNG buses to replace retiring buses, and continue to purchase conventional natural gas. 2) RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS: beginning In 2016 start to phase in the purchase of renewable natural gas (RNG), with 100~ib of natural gas use by the bus fleet renewable gas after 2017. Continue to purchase standard CNG buses to replace retiring buses. 3) RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PLUS LOW NOx BUSES: In addition to phasing in the use of renewable natural gas, in 2019 begin to purchase new CNG buses with "Low NOx" engines (LNOx), certified to have NOx, CHa, and PM emissions 92%,72% and 50% lower, respectively, than emissions from "standard" natural gas engines that meet California Air Recourses Board new eng(ne standards. In addition, beginning in 2018 begin to repower old buses with new Low NOx engines during the(r mid-life overhaul. Under this scenario the entire fleet will turn over to Low NOx natural gas engines by 2028. 4) ELECTRIC BUSES: Starting in 2025 replace ail retiring buses with battery-electric buses. Under this scenario the entire bus fleet will turn over to electric buses by 2039. There are two options for battery charging under this scenario: 1) charging at the bus depot only, and 2) charging aC the bus depot and in-route throughout the day. 5) FUEL CELL BUSES: Start(ng In 2025 replace all retiring buses with hydrogen fuel cell buses. Under this scenario the entire bus fleet wli! turn over to fuel cell buses by 2039. There are two options for producing the necessary hydrogen fuel under this scenario: 1) produce hydrogen on•site at LACMTA depots using steam reformation of natural gas (SMR), and 2) produce hydrogen on-site at LACMTA depots using electrolysis of water.
Scenarios four and five represent current options avaflabfe to transit agencies under the California Air Resources Board's (GARB) proposed Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) rule. Scenario three is an alternative approach to reducing both GHG and NOx emissions that could be considered as an alternative method to meet the intent of CARB's ZE8 rule. Table 1 summarizes the net present value of total estimated fleet costs from 2015 - 2055 under each scenario in 2015 dollars. As shown, the use of RNG by itself is not projected to increase total fleet costs. The use of RNG and the transition to LNOx buses is projected to increase total beets costs by $161 million over the ne~ct 40 years, an increase of X0.002 per revenue seat-m(fe, which is 1.06 greater than projected baseline costs. The transition to electric buses Is projected to increase total fleets costs by $1.4 - $2.4 bfliton over the next 40 years, an increase of $0.012 - $0.020 per revenue seat-mile, wh(ch is 8°l0 - 14% greater than projected baseline costs. Exclusive depot charging is projected to be more expensive than depot and in-route charging. The transition to fuel cell buses is projected to Increase total fleets costs by $2.4 - $3.0 billion over the next 40 years, an increase of $0.021 - $0.026 per revenue seat-mile, which is 15% 18% greater than projected baseline costs. Production of hydrogen fuel for fuel cell buses using electrolysis is projected to be more expensive than hydrogen production using SMR. GRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Impiementation (op33203093)
Table 1 LACMTA~Zero Emission Bus NPV Estimated Total Fleet Costs 2015 - 2055.(2015 $ mllifon) ~W NOx CNG BUS & BASELINE RENEW NG EIECTHiC BU5 FUELCfLL BUS REPOWER Cost Element depot8 !n- Sid CNG Bus Std CNG Bus WOx Bus WOx ens pet Ni by ~~i~g H=bySMR ConvNG RNG ConvNG ~~ Ch~ging ~ectrolysls Bus Purchase 52.343.9 $2,393.9 52,42$.1 SZ.42B.1 53,607.1 $3,33b,4 S3,97a.8 $3,J72.9 BusRepowcr 5101.8 5101.8 as mid•Itfe ON S1~L0 S17L0 5180.5 518Q.5 5848.8 $710.1 5728.1 5728.1 Capiq) g Depot Mods 58A.7 $37.a 5518 SSLA Fuel infra 50.0 5~.0 $QO $0.0 $89.7 591.2 S1TL5 SI7L5 sub•rota/ 52,561.9 5 554.9 52,71Q5 52,71x5 St,63a3 54,176.5 54,924.3 Sd,924.3 BOla6or 510,6'71.9 510,671.9 $10,871.9 $10,87L9 $11,26fi.2 510,871.9 510,87L9 S10,B71.9 Fue! 51,036.6 51,036.6 S1.Q39.7 S1,Q39.7 5909.3 58$7.9 51,074.2 51.645.6 ~~'ng Maintenance $2,216.3 $2,216.3 5~,7Z8.9 SI,Z26.9 52.239.6 52,163.3 52,734,0 52,23A.0 sub-coial 524,124.8 514,1148 511,24Q5 S14,IQQ5 514,425.1 513923.1 SI4,18Q0 51x751.8 TOTAL $16,689.7 515,689.7 Sib,8S1.0 $16,851.Q $19,045.4 $18,Q44.6 $19,104.3 519,676A
INCREASE. NA $0.00 $161.29 $161.24 $2,355.70 $1i4Q9.95 $2,R14.fi1 $2,986.36
AVG S/m(lo $13.28 54.28 54.33 54.33 54.70 Sd.fiS 53.90 SS.QS A'te Value 5 .141 SD.141 5~.243 SQ.143 SU.161 50.153 SQ 16: 50.167 Sl~venue ~~,~~e 9Gdtff tobase(Inr NA 10Ltt~ii 102.054 20L09b 1141A6 IQ8390 114.5Y 21T9A6
Tabie 2 summarizes total estimated fleet emissions from 2015 - 2055 under each scenario. This data is also shown in Figure 1. As shown, compared to the baseline the use of RNG is estimated to increase NOx emitted within the South Coast Air Basins aver the next 40 years by 1°/a and reduce PM emitted within the bas(n by 128%. The use of RNG will also reduce NOx and PM emitted outside of the South Coast A(r Basin over the next 40 years by 82% and 600% respectively. PM emissions decrease by more than 100% because both in-basin and out-of-basin upstream PM emissions from production of RNG are negative due to credits, more than offsetting ail tailpipe PM emissions from CNG buses. The use of RNG will reduce CHa emissions by 2°!0, reduce COZ emissions by 81% and reduce total COZ-equivalent GHG emissions by 70%.
Table 2 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Total Fleet. Emissions (tons) 2015 - 2055
NOx CNG BUS& BASELINE RENEW NG ~W ELfCTRlCBUS FUELCELLBUS FifPOWER Pollutant Depot & in- Std CNG Bus Std CNG Bus LNOx Bus WOx Bus ~ of H b mute N2 bySMR Charging Elecuofysts Conv IVG Renew NG CanvNG Renew NG Charging NOx(iR•basiaj 5,296 6,385 3,483 3,573 3,444 3,431 6,228 3,792 PM (in-basin) 81.1 -22.8 79.0 -25.4 40A 39.7 723.5 49.1 CHI 69,59Q 87,A21 7b,590 74,414 41.124 40,965 59,292 45,b51 COZ 23,637,506 x,618,0$6 13,681.149 2,624,750 6,537,416 6,x386,030 11,106,350 8,011,017 GHG(CO s-e) 15,877,260 4,fs~3,5Q4 15,595,906 4,495,095 ~,Sb5,519 7,510,164 12,588,639 9,152,286
NOx(Out-of•basin) IQ,iS7 1,785 10,190 1,789 4,95A 4,41D 6,410 6,228 PM (out-of-basin) I1Q.4 -551.7 i1D.7 -553.5 70.1 68.3 73.0 117.5
Compared to the baseline the use of RNG and the transition to LNOx buses is projected to reduce NOx and PM emitted within the South Coast Air Basin over the next 40 years 6y 43% and 131°!0, respectively, and to reduce NOx and PM emitted oukside of the South Coasx Air Basin over the next 40 years by 82% and 602°r6, respectively. PM emissions decrease by more than 100%
1 The Seuth Coast A!r basin encompasses Grande County and parts of Los Mgetes, San Bernarcltno, and RfverStde counties in southern Callfomia, indudf~g the entire dty of Los Angeles. DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op332Q3093)
because upstream PM emissions from production of RNG are negative due to credits, more than offsetting all tailpipe PM emissions from LNOx CNG buses. The use of RNG and LNOx CNG buses will reduce CHQ emissions by 17%, will reduce COz emissions by 81°~ and will reduce total COz- equivalent GHG emissions by 72°!0. Compared to the baseline the transition to electric buses is projected to reduce NOx emitted within the South Coast Air Basin over the next 40 years by 45°~ -46%, and to reduce NOx emitted outside of the South Coast Air Sasin over the next 40 years by 51% - 5~%. It will also reduce PM emitted within the South Coast Air Basin over the next 40 years by 5i°!o, and reduce PM emitted outside of the South Coast Air Basin over the next 4Q years by 51% -52%. The transition to electric buses will reduce CH4 emissions by 5490, reduce COZ emissions by 52%, and reduce total COZ-equivalent GHG emissions by 52 6 - 53°l0. The use of depot and In-route charging will reduce emissions slightly more than the use of depot charging only, due to fewer tn- servfce bus miles. Compared to the baseline, the transition to fuel cell buses is projected to reduce NOx emitted within the South Coast Air Bas1n over the next 40 years by 1% - 4d%, and to reduce NOx emitted outside of the Sauth Coast Air Basin aver the nexfi 40 years by 37°l0 - 39%, The transit(on to fuel cell buses will also reduce CH4 emissions by 34% - 34%, reduce COZ emissions by 19% - 41°~6, and reduce total COQ-equivalent GHG emissions by 21% - 42°l0. Production of hydrogen using electrolysis will reduce NOx and GHG emissions significantly more than production of hydrogen using SMR. In addition, compared to the baseline, production of hydrogen using electrolysis will reduce PM emitted within the South Coast Air basin by 39%, but wilf increase PM emlt~ed outside of the South Coast Air Basin by 6%. Production of hydrogen using SMR will increase PM emikted within the South Coast Alr Basin by 792% while reducing PM emitted outside of the South Coast Air Basin by 34%.
Total Fleet Emissions 2x15 - 2055 (million tons) 20,E --:a Baseline ^~.T~_~.~.~ v_--~ i LNOx Bus &RNA ~~ ~._V t EV- Deput Charging♦ ■ EV-Depot & in•route Charging ~ FC •SiViR f[ FC -Electrolysis
r ~ 15.0 , 1 ~ i w j
10.0 {{{ ~~ ~ ~ e i :~ F" ,~ y ~ , 1 a y . ; ~ ~,~ S .; ~ ~ ,~: ; fs ~~ ~, ~ ~- ~'~ - ~.~ ~. ., _' ~ ; ;~x :~ t ;! !~ `~ ~ ~ ._ ~~ ,o~ .~ o.o .~! L !,4 ''t ~.,~ ~.a ~ ~
-s.o
-~.o.a GNG CO2 NOx (x1000) NOx(x1000 CH4(x 100j PM (x1Q~00) PM (x10000} Tata Total In•basin Out-of-basin Tata{ in•basin Out-of-basin
Figure 1 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Total Fleet. Emissions 2015 - 2055 DRAFT Zero Ett~ission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emisstoas New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203~93)
The modeling summarized here indicates that. Scenario 3, the use of RNG and transition to LNOx buses, will be more ~ffective at reducing in-basin PM, total COQ, total GHGs, and total NOx from the LACMTA fleet over the next 40 years than transition to either electric or Fuel cell buses, but will be slightly less effective at reducing in-basin NOx. This approach will also be significantly less expensive than transition to ether electric or fuel cell buses. See table 3 for a summary of the cost-effectiveness of emission reductions under each scenario. If all Incremental costs (above baseline) are attributed to GHG reduction, the use of RNG and transition to LNOx buses will cost $14/ton of GHG reduced over the next 40 years. The transition to electr(c buses will cost $ib9 - $283/ton of GHG reduced, and the transition to fuel cell buses will cost $444 —X734/ton of GHG reduced. If all incremental costs (above baseline) are attributed to NOx reduction, the use of RNG and transition to LNQx buses will cost $59,000/ton of in-basin NOx reduced over the next 40 years. The transition to electric buses will cost $492,000 -X825,000/ton of in-6as(n NOx reduced, and the transition to fuel cell buses will cost $1.2 million — $35 million/ton of in-basin NOx reduced.
Table.3, Zero Emission Bus Options Cost Effectiveness of Emission Reductions (~/ton) Electric Bus Fuel Ceil Bus LNOx Bus & Pot & Depot RNG ~n•route SMR Electrolysis Charging Charging Increased Cost(NPV $million) $161.3 $2,355.7 $1,409.9 52,414.6 62,986.4 Compared LNG Reduction (million ton) iLQ 8.3 8.4 to Baseline 3.3 6.7 In-basin NOx Reduction (ton x000) 2.72 2.85 2,86 Q.07 Z.50 Cast effectiveness of Emission S/ton GHG $1A.26 $283.42 $168.51 $734.23 $444.07 Reductions $/ton 18 NOx $59,221 $825,81Q $492,159 $35,443,858 51,192,390 DRAFT Zera Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Trans'st Vehicle Technolog(es and Advanced Technology Implementation top33203093)
1. FLEET COST &EMISSIONS MODEL DESCRIPTION
Both the fleet cost mode! and the fleet emissions model are based an a fleet assignment of 2,500 4d-f~ buses, which provides equivalent total passenger capacity (seat-miles) to LACMTA's current mixed fleet of 1,212 40-ft, 626 45-fr, and 356 60-ft buses. This fleet assignment is held constant throughout the analysis period; the models assume no growkh (or reduction} in LACMTA service during the 40-year analysis period. The starting fleet in calendar year 2015 is assumed to be composed of b25 buses w(th engines built prior to mode) year 2007, and 1,875 buses with mode) year 2007 - 2014 engines, consistent witf~ LACMTA's current fleet=. The model assumes that 178 older buses wfll be retired each year and replaced by new buses, to ma(ntain 7% annual fleet turnover. For all scenarios other than electric buses charged exclusively at the depot, the model assumes that old buses will be replaced ane-for one with new buses, so that total fleet size and total annual fleet miles will stay constant from year-to-year. Due to daily range restrictions the model assumes that one retiring bus will need to be replaced with more than one electric bus, if tf~e electric buses are charged only at the depot; the replacement ratio is based on assumed daily range between charging events relative to the minimum required daily range for current buses. For this scenario this results in an increase in fleet size over time, as well as an Encrease in annual fleet miles, because dead-head mileage is also assumed to increase due to the need to make more daily bus-swaps in service. For electric buses charged both at the depot and in-route using route-based chargers, the model assumes that the in-route charging will increase daily bus range above the minimum requirement, so that retiring buses can be replaced one-for one with new electric buses, and fleet size and annual fleet mileage will stay constant over time. As the fleet composition changes over time, the mode( calculates For each scenario tokal mileage and fuel use each year by all buses of each type (CNG, Low NOx CNG, Electric, Fuel CeII) in each of the following model year bins: Pre-MY2007, MY2007 - MY20I4, MY2015 - MY202~, MY2025 - MY2034, MY2035 - MY2044, MY2445 - MY2054. The model then applies cosfi and emission factors to calculate total costs and emissions associated wlfih the buses of each type in each model year bin that year, and sums the costs and emissions across the bins to get the calendar year annual fleet totals. The cost and emission factors used by the model are specific to each bus type and each model year bin. In khat way, the model accounts for changes in technical capability and purchase and operating costs, as well as changes in emissions performance, for the different technologies as they mature over time. For example, range between charging events is assumed to be greater for MY2035 - MY2044 electric buses Chan For MY2025 - MY2034 buses, resulting in a smaller replacement ratio. Similarly, purchase and maintenance costs for electric and fuel cell buses (in 2015$) are assumed to be lower for MY2035 - MY2044 buses than they are for MY2025 - MY2034 buses. 1.1 Fleet Cost Model: The fleet cost model includes capital and operating costs associated with each bus and fuel purchasing scenario. The included capital cost elements are: bus purchase, bus repower (low NOx CNG scenario oily), bus mid-life overhaul, depot upgrades and expansion, and new fueling infrastructure. Fueling infrastructure costs include purchase of battery chargers (electric bus scenarios), and purchase of hydrogen production and fueling stations (fuel cell bus scenarios). The model does not directly include any future costs associated with renewal or replacement of existing LACMTA CNG fueling stations. These stations are currently operated under contract by a third party, and the contract requires that the operator maintain these stations In full working order at all times. In effect, the future cost of upgrade and overhaul for these stations is included in the contract
~ The currenk t(eet has a larger number of older buses, but for the past few years LACMTa has been repowering odder buses with new engines during m!d-life overhauls. Engines built to model year 2007 and later have stgnttitantly lower nitrogen oxide(NOx} emissions than earlier model year engines. DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Optjonst Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit VehEcle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (ap33203093)
price of natural gas (dollars per therm3)and Is therefore captured ind(rectly In the model for all scenarios as part of natural gas fuel costs. Depot expansion is only required for the electric bus scenarios, For the depot-only charging scenario, in which fleet size increases, expansion of existing depots or construction of new depots Is required to accommodate the larger fleet. Expansion of depot parking areas is also required for both electric bus scenarios to accommodate the Installation of depot-based chargers in bus parking areas. Other depot upgrades include investments related to high voltage safety and diagnostic equipment (electric bus and fuel cell scenarios) and investments in hydrogen sensors and improved ventilations systems (fuel cell scenar(o), Neither the basel(ne nar Low NOx CNG bus scenarios require any depot upgrades. The Included operating cost elements are: bus operator labor (inciud(ng direct fringe benefits), bus maintenance (labor and material), and fuel purchase (including commadiry costs and operating costs for fueling infrastructure). The fleet cost model does nat include orig(na) purchase costs associated with any existing LACMTA fueling, maintenance, or bus storage fac(I(tles; operating costs associated with maintenance and bus storage facilities; overhead costs for maintenance and transportation supervision or management; or overhead costs associated with operations planning, market(ng, and revenue collection act(vlties. All of these costs are assumed to be substantially similar regardless of which future bus technology and fuel purchase scenar(o is followed. 1.2 Fleet Emissions Model: The fleet emissions model estimates, for each future bus technology/fuel purchase scenario, total annual emissions of carbon dioxide (C~~), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and methane (CH4). Using the global warming potential of methane over a 100-year period (GWPioo) the model also uses estimated CO2 and CH4 emissions to estimate total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions In terms of CO2-equivalent emiss(ans(CO Z-e}. For both NOx and PM emissions the model estimates separately the amount emitted under each scenario w(thin the South Coast Alr Basin, as well as the amount emitted outside of this air basin. The South Coast Afr Basin encompasses Orange County and parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties in southern California, The fleet emissions model estimates total emiss(ons associated with each bus technology/fuel purchase scenario on a "wells-to-wheels" Ilfe cycle basis. In addition to direct tail-pipe emissions from the engine of each in-service bus, the model estimates "upstream" emissions associated with the production and delivery of the fuel used by the buses each year. For CNG buses upstream emissions include those associated with natural gas production, processing, pipeline transport, and compression, For electric buses upstream emissions include stack emissions from electricity generation, as well as emissions associated with product(on, processing, and transport of the hydrocarbon fuels)(I.e. coal and natural gas} used for electricity generation. For fuel cell buses upstream emissions include emissions generated directly during production, storage, transport, and compression of hydrogen; these emission come mostly from generating the elect~-fcity used For both water electrolysis and SMR. For the SMR production path upstream emissions also Include emissions associated with production, processing, and transport of the natural gas used to produce the hydrogen. All tailpipe NOx and PM emissions are assumed to be emitted w(thln the South Coast Air Basin, as are upstream emissions from facilities and processes conducted within the basin (i.e. emissions from power plants located within the basin and from fuel production and transport activities that occur within the basin). Other upstream emissions (i.e, from natural gas e~ctraction and processing, and From power plants located outside of the basin) are assumed to be out-of-basin emissions. Emission factors used for upstream emissions vary by calendar year, to account far expected changes in the energy mix over time. For example, it is assumed that over the next 40 years
A therm Is an amount a/natural gas with 100,000 Br1Ush thermal units(BTU} heal content DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 201S5 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technolagfes and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
average emission rates for electricity generation in California will fall significantly, reflecting greater use of zero-emiss(on and renewable generating sources, in response to both government policy and market forces. DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
2. MA]OR ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Table 4 lists the major assumptions used in the fleet cost and emissions models, as well as the source of these assumptions.
Table 4 Major Assumptions and Data Sources Used.i~ Fleet Cost &.Emissions Model
Merrir Data Sources Values/Notes LACMTA, National Average Annual Total Transit database, 38,000 miles Miles per bus 2013 Average Annual LACMTA, National Revenue Miles per Transit database, 32,000 miles bus 2013 Fleet Spare Factor LACMTA policy 20% Average Daily Totaf 130 miles; (annual miles/bus = (365 day/yr x M]B&A analys(s Miles per Bus (1-spare factor)) Electric Bus Minimum 169 miles; current average daily mileage Required Daily Range M]B&A analysis o plus 30 /o reserve mileage contingency per Charge LACMTA, National Average In-service Transit database, 12.1 MPH; total bus miles =total bus hours Bus Speed (MPH) 2013 ~CMTA, National Average Daily in- 10.8 hours; average daily miles =average in- Transit database, Service Hours per bus service speed 2013; M]B&A analysis Bus Retirement age LACMTA policy 14 years In-service Bus Lay- LACMTA Service 10 minutes per hour of driving over Time Planning Total l.ay-over ~gCMTA Service 280 = 140 bus lines x 2 Terminal/line (one at (Terminal) Locations, planning each end) System-wide 2015 Bus Operator LACMTA Service $33.SQ/hour; includes direct fringe benefits Labor Cosr ($/hr} Planning Bus operator LACMTA Service 80% Availab(lifiy (%) Planning Bus Operator % of LACMTA Service 83% shift time driving Planning ORAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Casts and Emissions New Transit VehEcle Technalagies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
•
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes Actual average cost for 2015, $0.780/therm, Natural Gas (2015) LACMTA Fuel report includes cost of fuel station maintenance and operation. Assume that purchase cost of renewable natural gas will be the same as standard natural gas, at $0.780/therm in 2015. This is based on LACMTA market research showing that there are multiple providers willing to provide renewable gas at this rate today. The Renewable Natural ~CMTA Procurement actual net cost of renewable natural gas could Gas (2015) be even lower iF LACMTA monet)zes Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits accumulated for use of this fuel. This analysis does not account for the value of LCFS credits under any of the bus technology/fuel purchase scenarios. TOU-8 is the elecfiric rate applicable to Large commercial customers in Los Angeles with expected usage greater than 50d kW. The rate is composed of delivery and generation energy charges ($/KWh) which vary by time of day doff-peak, mid-peak, and high-peak) and season (summer, winter). There are also monthly facility demand charges ($/kW) based on over-aU peak demand w(thin the month and monthly time-based demand charges ($/kW} based on monthly peak demand within each daily rate period (off-peak, mid-peak, and high-peak) over the month. Southern California Based on an analysis of scheduled daily Edison, Schedule LACMTA service {9~0 of buses in service and at TOU-8, Time-of-Use the depot by time of day), M~B&A determined General-Service that approximately 64°l0, 32%, and 5~0 of Electricity (2015) Large; Cal. PUC Sheer electric bus depot charging would occur during No. 53221-E off-peak, mid-peak, and high-peak periods, and that approximately 24%, 65%, and 11°!0 of in-route charging would occur during off- M]8&A Analysis peak, mid-peak, and high-peak periods. Based on this charging distribution the average annual cost of electricity in 2015 under Southern California Edison's TOU-8 rate would be X0.1241/kWh for depot charging and $0.1465/kWh for in-route charging. Based on an assumption of constant daily production during only off-peak and mid-peak hours the average annual cost of electricity for hydrogen production in 2015 would be X0.1061/kWh under the TOU-8 rate. DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Casts and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
Hydrogen production via steam reforming (SMR) assumes 1.7 therms NG and 10 kWh electricity input per kg or hydrogen produced. The. model also assumes $0.25/kg maintenance and operating cost, which equates to approximately $300,000 per station/year with one station per depot. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Hydrogen production via electrolysis assumes H2FAST: Hydrogen 50 kWh electricity input per kg hydrogen Hydrogen (2015) financial Analysis produced in 2015, falling to 44.7 kWh/kg In Scenario Tool, April, ZOZS and later years. The 2025 value is 2015, Version 1.0 consistent with US Department of Energy research and development fiargets and equates to 75% net efficiency (the theoretical minimum energy requirement Is 33 kWh/kg). The model also assumes $0.35/kg maintenance and operating cast, which equates to approximately $420,000 per station/year with one station per depot. Energy Information projections for %change in annual nominal Administration, price of natural gas and electricity used for Annual Fuel Cosfi Annual Energy transportation preference case), through 2040; Inflation Oufilook 2015, Energy for 2041 - 2055 assumed average rate For Prices by Sector & 2p31 - 2040 Source • .•
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes Season -annual; 5ub_area -Los Angeles (SC); vehicle_class - UBUS; Fuel - NG; California Air Process - RUNEX; Speed Time -Weighted CNG bus tailpipe NOx, Resources Board, average of bins 5 through 30 to simulate PM, CH4 (g/mi) EMFAC2014 urban bus duty cycle with 12.5 MPH average speed. Values calculated for each model year In each calendar year NOx, PM, and CH,, g/mi emissions assumed to be proportionally lower than emissions from standard CNG buses of the same model year California Air based on model year 2016 certified engine Low NOx CNG bus Resources Board emissions For Low NOx and standard CNG tailpipe NOx, PM, CHa Executive Orders A- engines. NOx emissions assumed to be 92% (g/mi) 021-0531. and A-021- tower (O.Oi g/bhp-hr vs 0.13 g/bhp-hr), CH,~ 0629 g/ml emissions assumed to be 72°!a lower (0.56 g/bhp-hr vs 2.97 g/bhp-hr) and PM emissions assumed to be 50% lower (0.002 g/bhp-hr vs O.OQ2 g/bhp-hr). U.S. Department of 5,593 g COZ/therm, assuming NG with 22,453 CNG and Low NOx Energy, Alternative btu/Ib (high heating value) and 75.S~a carbon CNG bus tailpipe COZ Fuels &Advanced by weight(90% methane and 10°!o ethane by (g/mi) Vehicles Dada Center volume}. (www.afdc.energy.go v/afdc/fuels Gram/mile emissions = Fuei use (therm/mi) x COZ/therm /properties.htmi) 9 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — Z0155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology ImplementatEon (op33203093)
Natural Gas Upstream CA GREET was used to calculate upstream CO2i NOx, PM, CH4 emission rates (g/mmbtu, g/therm) for (g/therm} pipeline natural gas and renewable natural gas. The emission rates for renewable natural Renewable Natural gas assume the following mixture of Gas Upstream COQ, production sources: 100 0 landfill, 0% animal NOx, PM, CH4 waste, and 0% wastewater treatment plant. (g/therm) These assumptions are conservative; LACMTA has not yet determined actual production sources for commercially available RNG. Inclusion of gas produced from wastewater treatment plants and/ar Food waste would further reduce em(ssions of both GHG and NOx compared to current assumptions. CA GREET' was used to calculate upstream emission rates (g/mmbtu, g/kg) for production Argonne national of hydrogen using SMR. Laboratory, The All upstream emission rates for natural gas, Greenhouse Gases, renewable natural gas and SMR hydrogen are Regulated Emissions, assumed to be constant throughout the and Energy Use Jn analysis period. Transportation For production of hydrogen using electrolysis, (GREET} Model, as emission rates (g/kg) were determined by mod(fled by California mufttplying the electrical energy required for Air Resources Board production (kWh/kg) by emission rates for to reflect California electricity generation ~g/kWh). conditions(CAGREE~ For standard natural gas, including the natural gas used For p~aduction of hydrogen via SMR, G. Sour and A. the following components of upstream NOx and PM em(ssions are assumed to be emitted Hydrogen Production Milbrandt, Nations! within the South Coast Air Basin: 7.4°Yo of CO2r NOx, PM, CH4 Renewable Energy ~g~k~~ Laboratory, emissions from "natural gas transmission to Renewable Hydrogen fueling station"(50 out of 680 pipe{Ine miles) Potential from Blogas and 100°/a of emtss(ons from compression. In the United States, The following components of natural gas NREL/TP-5400-60283, upstream NOx and PM emissions are assumed July 2014 to be emitted outside of the South Coast Air Basin: 100% of emissions from natural gas recovery and processing; and 42.6% of em(ssions from natural gas transmission to fueling station (630 out of 680 pipeline miles). For RNG, 25% of NOx and PM emissions from "natural gas transmiss(on to fuel(ng statEon" (50 out of 20a pfpell~e miles} are assumed to be ln-basin, as well as 200% of emissions from RNG compression. Emissions from production and processing of RNG are attributed as In-basin or out-of-basin depending on the location of the RNG sources. The model assumes that (n 2016 100% of RNG will be from out-af-basin sources, but that over time a greater percentage of RNG will be from in-basin sources, rising to 30% by 2055. NREL's projections of bio-methane potential from all sources shows that a raximatel DRAFT Zero Err~issian Bus Optionss Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation top33203093}
30% of potential bio-methane in CaUfornia is attributed to sources located within the South Coast Alr basin. All emissions from production and compression of hydrogen produced vta SMR are assumed to be in-basin. CA GREET was used to calculate 2015 and 2020 emission rates (g/kWh) for each discrete electric generating source type used in California: wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, natural gas, and coal. For each pollutant in each calendar year the model uses source weighted average emissions factors calculated by mult(plying the emission factor for each source type by the assumed percentage of electricity produced by that source type in California that year. The assumptions for percentage of generation by source type match the Cal(fomia Air Resources Board's published targets for increases In zero- emitting and renewable resources through Argonne national 2050. For example, the model assumes that Laboratory, The there will be no electricity generat(on using Greenhouse Gases, coal after 2027, and that zero-emitting Regulated Emissions, sources will increase from 46% of total and Energy Use !n 9enerat(on In 2015 to 78% in 2050. At the Transportation same time, generation with natural gas will fall (GREET) Model, as from 53% of total generation in 2015 to 22°~ modified by Califomla ~n 2050. Electrtdty Generation Air Resources Board CA Greet indicates that emission rates COZ, NOx, PM, CH4 to reflect California (9/kWf~} of NOx, PM, COQ, and CN4 will fall (g/kWh) conditions (CAGREEi') between 2015 and 2020 far nuclear, natural ARB targets for gas, biomass, and coal generat(ng sources, renewable generation Presumably based on improvements in through 2050 ~~ciency and/or addlt(on of emission controls in response to regula~on. The difference in ABB Velocity Su(te~'" emission rates between 2015 and 2020 were database of electric used to calculate an annual adjustment factor g enerating uniks ~r each pollutant and generating source, within CAI50 Which was applied in each year of the analysis - i.e. emission rates were assumed to cont(nue to improve at the same annual rate through 2055, which Es a conservative assumption. To determine the percentage of Nix and PM emiss(ons em(tted within the South Coast Afr Basin from electricity generation under each scenario, the ABB Velocity Su1teT"' database was used to determ(ne the percentage of current generation {MWh) within the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) territory produced by generating plants located in the South Coast Air Basin. In 2013 approximately 22.2°0 of total CAISO eneratlo~ b natural as-fled lams was GRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technolagles and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
from plants within the basin, while Oslo of coal generation was from plants within the basin and 9.4°l0 of biomass generation was from plants within the basin. These percentages were applied separately to the emission factors for each type of generation to calculate weighted average NOx and PM emission factors (g/kWH) with(n and outside the basin. The analysis assumes that total gas generation vrill fall each year through 2050, while total biomass generation will Increase; however the percentage of total generation from plants of each type within the basin is assumed to stay constant.
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes X490,000 per bus. This is the actual price paid Purchase Cost LACMTA Maintenance by tACMTA for 40-ft CNG bus purchases in (2015 $) Department 2013 M1d-Life Overhaul LACMTA Maintenance $35,000 per bus. This is the actual average Cost(2015 $) Department cost for overhauls completed in 2014 ~CMTA maintenance Average cost of $0.850/mile For buses near Maintenance Cost records for 2013 - mid-llFe (7 years old). 10% of costs attributed ($/mi) 2014 to propuls(on system (engine, transmission) ~CMTA fueling Fuef Use (therm/mi) average of 0.476 fiherm/mi records •
Mefrlc Data Sources ValuesJNotes Incremental cost of Low NOx CNG bus Purchase Cast Environ discussion compared to standard CNG bus $10,000 (2015 $) with Cummins, Inc. through MY2~35, falling to $5,000 after MY2045 due to technology maturity Assume $112,000/bus For repowers in 2015 - 2034, falling ko $iQ2,000/bus for repowers in 2045 — 2054. Current cost of repowering LACMTA CNG buses averages $100,000/bus. Low NOx repowe~s assumed to be more ReP awer Cost LACMTA Mainkenance expensive due to incremental cost of Low NOx (2015 $) Department engine ($10,000) and $2,000/bus for up-front engineering and design work ($200,000 spread over 1,000 buses). Incremental cost of Low NOx engine assumed to decline over time as technology matures. Mid-Life Overhaul LACMTA Maintenance assume that mid-life overhauls for Low NOx Cost(2015 $) Department engine buses will be X38,000/bus, which is $3,000/bus greater than current mid-(ife overhaul costs for standard LNG buses. Costs assumed to be higher due to higher cost for re-building Lew Nix engine. DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Impfementatlon (op33203493)
Assume that non-propulsion maintenance costs will be the same as current CNG buses ($0.765.mi) and that propulsion related maintenance costs will be 18% higher Maintenance Cost LACMTA Maintenance (0.100/mi} for Low NOx engines purchased ($/mi) Department 2015 -- 2024, due to technology immaturity. Assumes that by MY2035 propulsion related maintenance costs for Low NOx engines will be the same as for current buses. ~sume that fuel use for Low NOx engines will California Air be 0.4% higher than fuel use oP current NG Resources Board engines, based on certified COz emissions of Fue( Use (therm/mi) Executive Orders A- model year 2016 Low NOx engines compared 021-0631 and A-02i- to standard engines (465 g/bhp-hr vs 463 0629 g/bhp-hr)
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes Current cost X760,000 per bus for depot-only charging and $810,000 per bus for depot and in-route charging. The increased cost For in- Air Resources Board, route charging is for Inductive charge receiver Mobile Source Control Q~ the bus. These costs were appped to buses Division, Advanced built in MY2025-2034. For buses built in later Clean Transit, May model years costs are assumed to decrease 2015 due to volume production and technology maturity, primarily technology improvements BYD bus purchase and cost reduction for batteries. Assumed Purchase Cost quote to LACMTA battery cost reductions are 259~o for MY2035- (2015 $) E, den Boer, et al, CE MY2044 and 35% For MY2045-MY2054, per Delft, Zero emissions estimates by CE Delft. At the same time the trucks: An overview model assumes that on-board battery packs ofstare -of-the-art delivered on new buses will increase in size as technologies and heir battery technology improves, to increase daily potential, Report mange between charge. Electric buses in Delft, ]uly 2013 MY2045 - MY2054 are assumed to cost 9% less than MY2025-MY2034 buses while being delivered with on-board battery packs with 24% greater energy capacity. New York. Truck - Voucher Incentive Program website, Based on pricing of current battery trucks with Truck Prices different sized battery packs, and recent BYD BYD replacement battery pack replacement quote, current battery pack purchase battery packs average $750/kWh. This value 9uote to LACMTA. was applied to buses Battery Pack Cost built in MY2025-2034. For buses built (~/kWh) E. den Boer, et al, CE in later model years battery DeIR~ Zero emissions pack costs are assumed to decrease due to trucks: An overview volume production and technology maturity. ofstafe-of-the-art Assumed cost reductions are 25% for MY2035- technologies and their MY2044 and 35% for MY2045-MY2054, per potential, Report estimates by CE Delft. Delft, July 2013 MJB&A analysis GRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
htid-life overhaul costs assumed to be the same as for CNG bus mid-life plus battery pack replacement. Battery pack replacement cost is based on pack size (kWh) and $/kWh cost. CNG bus mid-life Includes engine and BYD purchase quote transmission overhaul. BYD indicates to Mid-Life Overhaul to LACMTA LACh1TA that electric bus would require Cost(2015 $) M]B&A analysis replacement of Drive Motar, Inverter, Low Voltage Battery, HV Energy Storage Module, Drive Motor Controller Module, Power Battery Managemenfi System, Air Compressor Assembly, and High Voltage Distribution Box at hus mid-life. Non-propulsion related costs assumed to be Maintenance Cost same as CNG, $0.765/mi. MJB&A analysis ($/mid Propulsion-related costs assumed to be half the cost of CNG buses {0.043/mi) BYD 6a-f~ electric bus used an average of 3.2 kWh/mi in LACMTA service. Fuel use for BYD 60-f~ electric bus MY2025-MY2034 40-ft electric buses assumed Fuel Use (kWh/mi) in-service test at to be 2.1 kWh/mi(66% of 60-ft bus}. For LACMTA later mode! year buses assumed reduced fuel use of 5~ per decade, due to technology maturity. Assumed current range per charge (at 80°Ja depth of discharge) of 225 miles based on 324 kWh battery pack (BYD specificatfons~ and 2.1 kWhJmi. This value applied to MY2025- BYD 40-ft Electric Bus Range (mi/charge) MY2034 buses. Range per charge assumed fio specifications increase to 150 miles far MY2035-MY2044 buses and to 175 miles for MY2045 - MY2054 buses, due to improvements in battery technology.
Metric Oara Sources Values/Notes
Air Resources Board, ~~rrent cost $1,300000 per bus. This cost Mob(le Source Control Was applied to buses built in MY~025-2034. Purchase Cost Division, Advanced For buses built in later model years costs are (2015 $~ Gean Transit, May assumed to decrease due to volume 2015 production and technology maturity. Assumed cost reductions are 35°rb for MY2035-MYz044 E. den Boer, et al, CE and 50% for MY2045-MY2054, per estimates Delfts Zero emtssions by[E Detf~. MY2045 - MY2054 fuel cell buses trucks: An overview are assumed to cost $650,000 (2015 $). ofstate-of-the-art technologies and their potential, Report Delft, July 2013
LACMTA Maintenance Mid-life overhaul costs assumed to be the Department Mid-Life Overhaul same as for CNG bus mid-life plus the cost of Cost.(2015 $) E. den Boer, et al, CE replacing the fuel cell stack. Fue! cell stack Delft, Zero emTssfons replacement assumed to be $300,000 for trucks: An overview MY2U25 - MY2034 buses, $200,000 far CRAFT Ze~a Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs a»d Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technolog►es and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
of stare-of-the-art MY2035 — MY2044 buses, and $100,000 for technologies and their MY2045 — MY2054 buses, based on projected potential, Report future cast differentia! between CNG and fuel Deft, July 2Q13 cell buses at time of overhaul. M)B8cA Analysis Non-propulsion related costs assumed to be L. Eudy and M. Posh, same as CNG, $0.765/mi. National Renewable Current generation fuel cell buses have Energy Laboratory, propulsion related casts at least 33% higher Maintenance Cost Zero Emission Bay than diesel buses. ($/mi) Area (ZFBA) Fuel Ce!! For this analysis propulsion related casts Bus Demonstration assumed to be 20p/o higher than CNG buses far Results: Fourth MY2025 — MYZ034 buses, falling to only 10°/u Report, July 2015 higher for MY2045-MY2054 buses due to technology maturity L. Eudy and M. PosC, National Renewable Average HZ fuel use For current generation Energy Laboratory, buses is 0.156 kg/mi. This value used for hero Emission Bay MY2025 — MY2034 buses. Assumed 5% H~ Fuet Use (kg/mi) Area (ZEBA) Fuel CeJ! reduction for MY2035-MY2044 buses, and 10% Bus Demonstration reduction For MY2045 -MY2054 buses due to Results: Fourth technology maturity. Report,. July 2015
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes Installed cost of $2,000/kW, based on $40,000 for public, 20 kW DC fast-charger. agenbroad, Rocky Depot Chargers ~~ Model assumes 2,000 depot chargers will be ~~~kW~ Mountain Institute, required, one for each daily in-service bus. Pulling Back the Vel1 Daily in-service buses =Fleet assignment x on EV Charging (1-spare factor ~/a) Station Costs, April 29, 2014 Installed cost of $4,000/kW, based on $80,000 hrtp://blog.rmi.org/b! for public, 20 kW DC inductive fast-charger. og_2014 04_29_pu!!i On-route chargers assumed to be more ngback the veil on expensive than depot-based chargers due to _ev_charging_station need to secure right-of-way, longer feeder On-route Chargers _costs runs, and installation of inductive charging «~kW~ Recent lACMTA pad. experience installing Model assumes that 308 in-route chargers will chargers for 8YD be required, which is one at each terminal electric buses point of 140 bus routes, plus 10%; some existing terminal locations routinely hold more than one bus at a time and would require more than one charger. Charger size (depot and In-route) based on average daily energy requirement (kWh} and available charging time (hr). Average dally Size (kW) MJB&A analysis energy requirement based on average daily miles times average energy use (kWh/mi). Depot charger size ranges from 23 to 29 kW; re wired size Increases over time as buses DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20255 Costs and Emissions New Transit Veh(de Techno(og(es and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093}
with larger battery packs are delivered. In-route charger size is 29 kW.
_. Metric Data Sources 1lalueslNotes M. Melaina and M. Penev, National SMR Cost (~/kg/day) Renewable Energy Laboratory, Hydrogen Station Cost $5,150/kgjday for stations built 2025 — 2034, Esrlmates, Comparing and $3,370/day for stations built after 2034. Hydrogen St~arion These values represent a 70°/a and 8Q°/a Cost Calculator reduction in costs, respectively compared to Electrolyzer Cost Results with other recently built hydrogen fuel stations. ($/kg/day} Recent Estimates, Technical Report NREL/TP-540n-56412, September 2013 Required hydrogen production/dispensing capacity based on number of buses, daily mileage (mi/day), and average fuel use Required Capacity (kg/mi). M]B&A analysis (kg/day) Early buses will require 20 kg/bus/day and later buses wi(i require only 18 kg/bus/day based on improved fuel economy due to technology maturity. •. . , ..
Metric Data Sources Values/Notes $67500/bus, applicable only to fleet expansion for electric buses with depot-only charging. Fleet expansion Is required because electric buses cannot replace current buses Depot Expansion IACMTA Engine~ring one-for one due to limited range. This cost is ($/incremental bus) Department based on $500/sf for depot maintenance bays and $100/sf for bus parking areas, but is discounted by 50% due to potential excess capacity within the system based on future operational changes
Assumes that each depot-based electric charger will require 200 square Feet of space for installation in depot parking areas. This Depot Parking will require expansion of parking areas to ~q~MTA Engineering Expansion maintain bus parking capacity. Cost of new Department ($Icharger) bus parking areas assumed to be $100/sf. Total cost of additional bus parking space is $20,000 per charger.
BYD electric bus Maintenance & Average cost of $200/bus, applicable to ail uote to LACMTA for Diagnostic Equipment Q new Electric and Fuel CeU buses, based on electric bus diagnostic ($/bus) recent BYD quote equipment DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
L. Eudy and M. Post, National Renewable Average costs of $28,000/bus, applicable to all Energy Laboratory, H~ Detection and new Fuel Cell buses. This is based on costs of Zero Emission Bay Ventilation Upgrade X350,000 per maintenance bay incurred by AC Area (ZEBA) Fue! Cell Cost (S/bus) Transit, and an average of one maintenance Bus Demonstration bay per 12.6 buses. Results: Fourth Report, July 2015 •:~ • • ~ •
Metric Data Saurces Values/Notes
Energy Information Annual Inflation, Bus projections for %change in annual Wholesale Administration, and Infrastructure price Index, Industrial Commodities Excluding Annual Energy Purchase and energy (reference case), through 2040; for Outlook X015, Maintenance and Bus 2041 - 2055 assumed average rate for 2031 - Macroeconomic Operator Labor 2040. Indicators
Value of 4°'o intended to represent average borrowing cost for LACMTA capital bonds. Discount Rate for Net Note that this rate 1s generally consistent with Present Value LACMTA Policy the Energy Information Administ~ation's Calculations prajectlon of Interest rates for 10-year treasury notes over the next 25 years (AE02015 reference case).
Intergovernmental Methane Global Panel on Climate Global Nrarming potential of methane over 100 Warming Potential Change, Fifth years relative to COQ. Value is Z5 ~G~Pioo) Assessment Report, 2013 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20IS5 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technolog(es and Advanced Technology Impiementatio~ (op33203093)
3. RESULTS
This section summarizes the detailed results of the fleet cost and emissions analysis for each modeled bus technology/fuel purchase scenario.
3.1 FLEET COSTS 2015 - 2055
Table 5 summar[zes the total estimated fleet costs from 2015 - Z055 under each scenario in nominal dollars, during the transition to the different bus and fuel technologies. Incremental costs for each scenario compared to baseline are also plotted in figure 2. See the Executive Summary for the net present value of estimated fleet costs in current dollars (2015). As shown, the use of RNG by itself is not projected to increase total fleet costs. The use of RNG and the transition to LNOx buses (s projected to increase total fleet costs over the next 4d years by $273 mi(lian, an increase of 0.7°l0 over projected baseline costs. The increased costs are due to slightly higher fuel and maintenance costs, as well as slightly higher bus purchase and overhaul costs. The transition to electric buses is projected fio increase total fleets costs by $3.8 - $b.0 billion over the next 40 years, an increase of 10% - 16% aver projected baseline costs. Exclusive depot charging is projected to be more expensive than depot and in-route charging during the transition. The electric bus scenarios have increased costs relakive to the baseline projection primarily due to increased capital costs for- bus purchase and overhaul and for required depox modifications and installation of required fueling infrastructure. For electric buses total operating costs are projected to be only slightly higher than, or lower than, baseline operating costs due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. For depot-only charging these operating cost reductions are offset by higher bus operator labor costs due to the need to operate a greater number of buses because of electric bus operating range restrictions. Depot-only charging is projected to be more expensive than depot and in-route charging due to this increase In operator labor, as well as increased costs for purchasing a greater number of buses, which more than offsets higher infrastructure costs far route-based chargers.
Table 5 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Total Fleet. Costs 201.5 -2055 (nominal .million) ~W NOx CNG BUS & BASEiINE RFNEW NG ELECTRIC BUS FUELCfLL BUS REPOWEit Cost Element Std CNG Bus Std CNG Bus INOx Bus INOx Bus Depot & tn• i by H: by SMR [onv N6 RNG Canv N6 RNG ~Bj~B ~,~nQ Electrolysis
Sus ?urcf~asc 55,4GO.B S5,A60.8 55,536.6 55,536.6 58,416.4 57,993.4 $9,04L2 S9,04L2 Bus aepower 51379 5137.9 Busmid•IifeOH $390.1 5390.i $417.0 5417.0 SZ,438.3 S2.O70.Z 52,~25.R 5Z,OZ6.8 Cspital ~npot Mods 51622 $75.8 5145.0 $1~.0 Fucllnfra 54.0 50.0 SQO $QO 518Lf 5186.0 5337.9 $337.9 sub•tota! 55,8.SI29 $5,H'sQ9 $G,Q97.6 $~Q92.6 $21,2955 $20,3254 $I2,51Q9 522,SIQ9 BO tabor S2A,Eoo.a 52a,SOQ.4 524,800.4 $2Q.800.4 525,859.9 $24,60Q4 S2A,600,4 $24,800.4 Fuel 52.503.6 52,503.G 5.512.4 $2,5224 $2,025.4 51,958.0 $2,586.3 54,390.8 Operating Mainte~ancc 55,x55,8 SS,U55.8 55,0'i4.8 $5.019.8 SS.Q92,8 50,887.6 55,109.2 55,109.2 sub-iotat 532359.8 53 359.8 $3~39Z.6 531,3926 532,9782 531.556.0 532,495.9 53:t3Da4
TQTAL $38,210.7 $38,210.7 $38,484.2 538,484.2 $44,176.6 $41,981.5 $44,006.8 $45,811.3
INCREASE NA $0.00 5273A5 $Y73.45 $5,965.89 53,77Q.74 SS,T96.08 $7,600.57
The transition to fuel cell buses is projected to increase total fleets costs by $5.8 - $7.b billion over the next 40 yearn an increase of 15% - 20% over projected baseline costs,
:s DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Impiementatfon (op33203093)
Fuel cell buses are projected to have slightly higher maintenance costs and significantly higher capital costs than the baseline. Fuel costs are projected to be either only slightly higher or significantly higher than the baseline, depending an the method of hydrogen production; making hydrogen using electrolysis is projected to be sign(ficantly more expensive than making hydrogen using SMR. Capital costs are higher due to the projected cost of fueling infrastructure, as well as significantly higher bus purchase and overhaul casts.
'total incremental Bus Fleet Costs 2015 - 2Q5S Compared io Baseline CS billions) 59.00 ■ Cap{tai ■Operating ■TOTAL 58.00
X7.00
55.00
55.00
Sd.00 ~~.00 st.00 sl.00
-St.on •52.00 Depot [harging Depat & In•~aute SMR Electrc~lysfs Charging LNOx Bus & RNG Electric Bus Fur) Cell Bus
Figure 2 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus~Estimated Incremental Fleet Costs;2015 - 2055 (~ominat ~)
3.2 ANNUAL FLEET COSTS AFTER 2055
Table 6 summarizes the total estimated fleet costs (n 2055 under each scenario in nominal dollars. Incremental costs for each scenario compared to baseline are also plotted in Figure 3. This data represents projected ongoing annual costs for each bus/fuel technology affier fully transitioning the fleet. As shown, the use of RNG by itself is not projected to increase on-going annual fleet costs. The use of RNG and LNOx buses is projected to increase en-going annual fleet costs by $3.6 million (2055 $}, an increase of 0.3% over projected basel(ne annual costs. The increased costs are due to slightly higher annual fuel costs, as well as s((ghtly higher annual bus purchase and overhaul C05tS. The use of electric buses is projected to increase on-going annual fleet costs by $1i5 - $122 million, an increase of 8°!0 - 9% over projected baseline costs. The electric bus scenarios have Increased on-going annual costs relative to the baseline projection primarily due to continuing higher annual capital costs for bus purchase and overhaul. For electric buses annual on-going ope~afiing costs are projected to be lower than the bas~(ine due to significantly lower fuel costs and slightly lower maintenance costs; however, these
zo DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093}
operating cost savings do not outweigh the increased annual capital costs for bus replacement (Fleet renewal). Exclusive depot charging is prajected to be less expensive than depot and in-route charging after 2055. This is because the technology is assumed to have matured to the point that most of the electric buses in the fleet can operate far an entire day on the charge received at the depot, without the need for additional bus swaps in-service due to range restrictions. The higher cost of fn-route charging ($/kWh) during peak periods therefore outweighs any labor savings.
Table 6 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated Annual Fleet Costs in 2055(nominal ;million) ~WNQ~cCNGBUS& 8ASEIJNE RENEWNG ~Rp~~BUS FUELtELLBUS REPOW EA Ccit Element Std CNG Bus Std CNG Bns WOx Bus WDx Bus ~t~t ~ ~~- Routh H=hySMR Charging Conv NG RNG Conv NG RNG q~ug~ng ~ectrol~y is
Bus Purchase Sl~'2.6 51926 5194.6 5194.6 5272,0 529L7 5255.5 $255.5 Bus Rrpower 50.0 $0.0 Bus mid•tife OH 513.6 S33.s 514.9 514.9 593.2 593.2 $53.1 $53.1 Capital Ocpat tJ~ods $0.0 50.0 $OA 50,0 Euc! infra 50.0 SQ.O SQ.O $O.Q SU.O $a.0 S0.0 SQ.O sub-tcto! 52D6.3 SIAa3 5205 S2Q75 S3fi3.7 $3&1.9 $~5 53Qa5 801a6or $874.6 $874.6 $874.6 $874.6 5884.5 $874.6 $874.6 $87A.fi Fuel $114,9 S114.9 $f15.4 S115,A 568.1 $67.6 5100.3 S20Q.B Operattng maintenance S27$.3 5178.3 5178.3 5179.3 S17L3 Si69.4 518Q3 S1B0.3 subtotal 51.167.8 51,167,8 SL 1683 S1.I6S3 SI,1Z39 S1.111.6 51,Ifi3.2 51,253) TOTAL 51.374.2 $1,374.2 $1,377.8 $1,377.8 $1,489.1 $1,446.5 $1,471.8 $1,554.2
INCREASE NA $0.00 $3.61 $3.61 $114.41 $122.32 $9757 $190.07
Total Incremental Bus Fleet Costs in 20SS Compared to Baseline ($ miilions~ SZ:o ■ Capital ■ Qperatin, ■TUTAL
$20d
$150
Slt~
550
50 ..~
-5~0
-S100 Ocpot Charging Depot ~ ln•route SMR Electrolysis Charging
LNOx Bus & RNG Electric Sus Fuel CeN Bus
Figure 3 LACMTA Zero Emission Bus Estimated incremental Annual Costs in 2055 (nominal ;)
21 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
The use of Fuel cell buses is projected to increase on-going annual fleet costs by X98 - $190 million, an increase aF 7% - 14% over projected baseline costs, The Fuel cell bus scenarios have increased on-going annual costs relative to the basel(ne projection primari{y due to continuing higher annual capital cosks For bus purchase and overhaul, as well as slightly higher annual maintenance costs. On-going annual fuel costs for Fuel cell buses are projected to be lower than the baseline project(on iF hydrogen is produced using SMR, but stgnfficantly higher than baseline fuel costs if hydrogen is produced using electrolysis.
3.3 FLEET EMISSIONS 2015 - Z055
Annual estimated fleet emissions of In-basin NOx, out-of-basin NOx, in-basin PM, out-of-basin PM CH4i CO2, and GHG between 2015 and 2055 under each bus technology/fuel purchase scenario are shown in figures 4 - id. As shown in these figures, under the baseline scenario there is a significant reduction in annual in-basin NOx emissions, and a smaller reduction in CN.~ and GHG emissions, between 2015 and 2020, while CO=, out-of-basin NOx, and (n-basin and out-of-basin PM hold steady. This NOx and CH4 reduction Is due to the retirement of LACMTA`s oldest CNG buses, which have significantly higher tailpipe NOx and CH4 emissions than the new CNG buses that will replace them under the baseline scenario. After 2020 the baseline scenario shows only minor year-to-year changes (n annual emissions of all pollutants from the LACMTA bus fleet.
Annual In-basin Nix Emissions ~tonsj
6Q0
^--BASELINE ~ M~ ~ ~ ~V—LO~V NOx CNG F3U5 $c ftNG~V ~~ ELECTRIC aUS(DEPOT CNARGE) --DUEL CEI.I BUS(SMR) soa —FUEL CEIt E3U5 (CLECfRC1lYSiS~ —ELECi'R~G BU5 tUEPUT & IN-ROUTE}
aao
N
Q M ~ flu
C C
~Q~
140
a ~ ~'_ 2015 ZQ2Q 2DT5 2030 2Q35 X040 2045 ~Q50 2055
Figure 4 Estimated Annua) Fleet Emissions of in-basin NOx'(tons), 2015 — 1055
22 ORAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emjssions New Transit Vehicle Tech~o(ogfes and Advanced Technology Imp(ementatton (op33203043)
Annua! Out•of-basin NOx Emissions (tons) 3Qfl -•~- BASEL(f`!E —l+~W P10x CNG SUS & RNG ELECTRIC BUS(DEPQT & IN~RCIUTE) —ELECTRIC BUS(DEPOT CHARGE} ---rUEI GEIt BUS(SMR) =FUEL CEl!8U5 (ELfGi'ROLYSISJ
z~a
p
t tC 3 v C Q 100
0 2015 2Q20 2025 2Q30 2Q35 20A0 2QA5 2050 ~05~
Figure 5 Estimated'A~nua) Fleet Emissions o1` out=of-basin NOx (tons), 2015 = 2055'
Annual In-basin PM Emissions (tons
-----8A5EUNE —LQW NOx CNG 8U5 & RNG w~~ 5Q —ELECTRIC HUS {pEpOT CHARGE —ELECTRiG BUS(DEPOT & IN-ROUTE) ---FllEL CELL BtlS(SMR) —FUEL CELL BU5 (ELECTROLYSIS)
40
30
I!1
0 V •r
a ZO c c
10
0
•10 2015 2420 2025 2Q30 2035 ZC?40 2045 2050 2055
Figure 6 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of in-basin PM (tons), 2015 - 2055
23 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 201.5 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation {op33~03093)
Annual Out•of-basin PM Emissions (tons)
----BASEtlNE ~~ —LOW NOx CNG 8135 & RNG 20 — ELECTRIC BUS(DEPOT CHARGE) —ElECTR1C BUS DEPOT &!N -ROUTE} --DUEL CELL BUS(SMRj —FUEL CELL 6U5(ELEtTROLYStS)
10
~, 0
~ 0 c c
-10
-ZO ZOIS 20:0 21325 2030 ZQ35 2040 2045 2Q50 2055
Figure 7 Estimated Annual_ _ Fleei_ Emissions_ of out-of_.-basin PM (tons),.2015 - 2055
Annual CHA Emissions (tons)
BASELINE —lOW PJOx CNG Bus & RNG ELECTR{C E3U5(bEPOT ~ 1N-ROUTEy —ELEC3'RtC BU5(QEP07 ~NAAGE) 3,00 ---FUEL CELL BUS(SMRj —FUEL CEIL SUS (ELECTRC1LY515)
2,500
z,aao
C O
V I.aQ~
3 C G i,nno
Boa
o _ _. za~5 zaza znz5 zoo Zt]35 io~o 2oa5 aoso 2055
Figure,8 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of CH•(tons), 2025 - 2055
~a GRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Impfementatlon (ap33203093j
Annual COZ Emissions (tons)
m----BASELINE —LOW NOx CtdG BUS 8c RNG EL£CfRIC BUS(QEPOT CHARGE) —ELECTRIC SUS (DEPOT'& IN-ROUTE) aoo,000 ---fUEt CEII SUS(SMRr --FUEL CELL BUS {ELECTROi.Y51S)
350,Q1?0
300,0ti7Q
N 250,00 Q tii wj }~ ~'y'~ ~~ Zo U~{./1lU
m
Q 150,(}OU
20~,Qa0
sa,000
0 2D15 ZOZO X025 2030 2035 2040 ?045 aQ50 2055
Figure 9 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of CO3 (tons), 2015.-,2055
Annua! GHG Emissions (tons CO2-e}
-- ~~BA5ELINE ~~ —LAW NQx CNG BUS & RNG 450,OQ0 —ELEC~RI~ BUS(DEP07 CHARGE) —ELECTRIC 9U5(DEPOT & IN-ROUT) ---FUEL CELL BUS(SMR) —FUEL CELL BUS (ELECTROLYSIS) aoo.oaa
3 0,000
3oo,00a
N C Zso,00a Q zoa,oao
'~ 150,000
~aa.oaQ
~o,000
0 2415 2020 2025 203Q 203 ZO~p 2Q45 2450 2Q55
Figure 10 Estimated Annual Fleet Emissions of GHG (tons CO2-e),'2015 - 2055
ZS DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (ap33203093)
Under the LNOx Bus + RNG scenario annual estimated out-of-basin NOx and PM, ~H4i COQ and GHG emissions fall dramatically between 2016 and 2018 compared to the baseline, as the entire existing bus fleet is transitioned to RNG. These reduct(ons are the result of lower upstream emissions from RNG production and transport compared to production and transport of standard natural gas. Annual out-of-basin PM emiss(ons from this scenario are negative due to upstream PM credits for RNG production. Over the time period 2018 — 2028 annual In-basin NOx, in-basin PM, and CH4 emissions Continue to fall as the bus fleet. Cransit(ons from standard natural gas engines to Low NOx natural gas engines with lower tailpipe emissions of NOx, PM, and CH4. Between 2028 and 2055 in-basin PM and NOx under this scenario increase slightly year-to-year, while out-of-basin PM and NOx decrease slightly, due to assumed transition to a greater percentage of RNG produced by in-basin sources.
Under the electric bus and fuel cell bus scenarios annual NOx, ~H4r COzi and total GHG emissions start to fail in 205 compared to the baseline, with significant year-to-year reductions through 2038 as the fleet transitions to electric or fuel cell buses. After 2038 annual emissions continue to fail, but at a lower rate. These continuing annual reduct(ons after 2038 are due to continuing reductions in upstream emission rates (g/kWh} for electricity production, based on greater use of zero-emission renewable energy sources (solar, wind). With the exception of the fuel cell scenario with hydrogen fuel produced via SMR the electric and fuel cell scenarios produce significant reductions in both in-basin and out-of-basin NOx. When hydrogen is produced via SMR, out-of-basin NOx emissions fall year-to-year, but annual (n-basin NOx emissions are similar to those under the baseline scenario throughout the analysis period. With the exception of the fuel cell scenario when hydrogen is produced via SMR the electric and fuel cell scenarios also show reduced in-basin and out-of-basin PM emission compared to the baseline. When hydrogen production is by SMR out-of-basin PM emissions fall relative to the baseline, but in-basin PM emission increase significantly year-to-year through 2039 and then start to Fall slightly. These increased in-basin PM emissions are due to the upstream emissions from producing hydrogen via SMR at the depots, and they outweigh reductions (n tailpipe PM emissions From CNG buses.
Total Fleet Emissions 2015 - 2055 (million tons) ~.~_ _,._. _~-.._ . 2Q.0 ~__ 8~ Baseline ..... ~M~...... +... ~..._.._...r,.-~ LNQx Maus & RNG t EV- Depot Ci~argin~ ■ EV-pepAt & in•r~ute Chnrgin~ ~ FC - SMR ■ FC - Electrolysis
15.0 ~'
~ p~ L ' e
' ~ ~"!is { , .'~7 c ' ~ ~ 10.Q i I r i ~ ~ ` 1 iT ,` !'
S.a ~ ~ i e i~~ ;` F I r.q + fi .. ;'; t~ 1pp k ~ t ~: t 7 y
-5.0
-10.Q GHG CO2 NOx 01000) NOx (x1000} CH4(x 100) PM (x10000) PM {x10000)
Total Tota! in-basin ~ut-of-basin Total in-basin Out-af•basin
Figure'il CACMTA Zero~Ett~ission Bus Total Fleet Emissions (million tons) 2015 -2055
Z6 DRAFT Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 - 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle TechnologEes and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093~
Tota( fleet emissions from each scenario over the period ~Q15 - 2055 are summarized in Flgure li. As shown, over the next 40 years total estimated fleet emissions of in-basin and out-of- bas~n PM, out-af-basin NOx, CQZ, and GHG are projected to be lower from the use of RNG and transition to LNOx buses than from transition to electric or fuel cell buses, while total fleet emissions of in-basin NOx are projected to be slightly higher and total fleet emissions of CH4 are projected fio be moderately h(gher. Note that th(s analysis assumes that the RNG purchased by LACMTA will be 100% (andFlli gas, with 100% sourced from outside of the South Coast A(r Basin in the near term, transit(oning to 30% sourced from within the basin after 2050. According to the California Air Resources Board' RNG produced from wastewater treatment plants ar food waste would have lower NOx and lower GHG emissions than landfill gas. The use of RNG from these sources could further reduce total GHG and NOx emissions for the LNOx Bus + RNG scenario, compared to the data shown in Figure li. The proport(on of total NOx emitted in-basin and out-of-basin under the LNOx eus + RNG scenario would be affected by both the RNG source type and the RNG source location.
3.4 FLEET EMISSIONS AFTER 2055
Table 7 summarizes the total estimated fleet emissions in 2055 under each scenario; this data is also platted in Figure 12. This data represents projected on-going annual LA~MTA fleet emissions for each bus/fuel technology after fully transit(oning the fleet.
NOx CNG BUS & BASFUNE RENEW NG ~W ELECTRIC BUS FUFI.CE118U5 REPOWER Pollutant Std GNG Bus Std CNG Bus WOx Bus WOx Bus spot Depot ~ In- H= by Route HibySMR Conv NG Renew NG Conv NG Renew NG ~~Bing ~aBj~g Electrolysis
NOx(in-bastn~ 128.6 136,6 A2.5 SOS 5.1 5.1 119.6 16.4 PM (tn-basin) 1.94 -3.13 1.87 -3.2Z 0.13 0.13 27.87 0,42 CHI 2,157.3 2,1Q1.8 1,759.4 1,703.7 67.2 66.3 82Q.2 720.2 CO: 332,622 50,795 333,458 50,999 22,151 21,596 213,790 72,7Q8 GHG(CO =-eJ 386,554 103,340 377,9A2 93,541 23,879 23,554 234,395 7B,Z13
NOx (Out-cf-basin] 247.7 27.9 248.7 28.0 19.3 19.1 83.8 63,4 PM (out-cf-basin} 2.69 -11.83 2.7Q -11.68 0.63 0.63 1.05 Z,OS
Table 7 Projected LACMTA Annual Fleet Emissions in 2055 (tons)
In 2055 and later years electric buses are projected to have the lowest annual GHG emissions, approximately 94% lower than the baseline, and 75% lower than RNG plus LNOx buses. Fuel cell buses are projected to have GHG emissions 16% lower than RNG plus LNOx buses IF the hydrogen Fuel is produced by electrolysis, but 148% higher if the hydrogen fuel is produced by SMR. Despite higher annual emissions after 2055, total cumulative GHG emissions would be lower from the transition to RNG and LNOx buses than from the transition to electric buses through 2099 due to lower emissions between 2015 and 2055. After 2099 electric buses would start to accrue net GHG reductions relative to RNG and LNOx buses. Fuel cell buses would not start to accrue net GHG reductions relative to RNG and LNOx buses until 2358, even If hydrogen fuel was produced using electrolysis.
' Califomfa Low Carbon Fuel Standard Z7 DRAT' Zero Emission Bus Options: Analysis of 2015 — 20155 Costs and Emissions New Transit Vehicle Technologies and Advanced Technology Implementation (op33203093)
Annual Fleet Emissions in 2055 Sq~ (tons xOQQj zt Baseline ■ LNAx Bus & RNG i EV- Qepot Charging ■ EV-Depot & in•rout~e C}~argfn~ ~~ FC -SMR 1M FC - Eleetrolysis 40Q
ti~ '~ 3f1A ~
-~ F ~ '~ i ~ ~~ 'r .x.. ; , ~'~, _"-~ ion k~ ~I i ,~ ~ ~ ~. ~ :~ Q .,kk :,~'.. ~'~~~ _l~~I~I.i~ 1.1E w~~. ~ ~...,,..,' +.-. ~w~":~ I ` ,
~~~
'ZQ~ GHG CO2 NOx ~x1000) NOx (X20QOj CH4(x 10Q) PM (x10000) PM (x10000) Total Totat In•basin out-of-basin Tatai in-basin out-af-basin
Ftgurel2 Projected LACMTA Fleet Emissions in 2055(tons x000)
In 2055 and later years electric buses are projected Co have the lowest annual in-basin and out- of-basin NOx emissions, approximately 96% and 92% lower than the baseline respectively. In 2055 in-basin NOx emissions from electric buses are projected to be 90% lower than from RNG plus LNOx buses. Fuel cell buses are projected to have fn-basin NOx emissions 6fi% lower than RNG plus LNOx buses if the hydrogen fuel is produced by electrolysis, but 136% higher if the hydrogen fuel is produced by SMR.
Ze Attachment B. List of transit operators running ZEB's
CSutently State d Pro a ZFBT a Start Notes c ratln 1 Alabama Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority Fuel cell 2016 1-Fuel cell EVA bus. BYD or Proterra buses coming soon. 1 California Anaheim Anaheim ResortTransportation Battery 2D01 1D- 2:'troliey buses from Ebus in 2001.4-BVD leased buses. 4 3 Califomia Antioch TriDeltaTransit X016 AC Transit buses. 0 4 California Burbank Burbank Bus fuel cell 2012 1- Proterra plug in fuel cell bus demo. 0 S California Gardena Gardena Transit Battery 2015 1-BYD40'bus.l-CC~Ncanvertedbus.4-CCWbuzes onorderfor2017: 2 California Irvine OCTA Fucicell 2016 1~EIDoradobusfor2yeardemonstration 1 UDI Transportation and Distribution 6 California Irvine Services Fuel cell 2015 1- EI Doredo 40' bus with Ballard fuel cell 1 7 California Lancaster AVTA Battery 2015 2- BYD40' buses ZO15.Option from LA order 2 8 California Lon Beach Lang Beach Transit Battery 2016 10- BYD buses mmin in 2016 10 9 California Los Angeles Cal State LA Fuel cell 2015 Hydrogen fueling station installed 2014.2 • FC shuttle bus demo in 2015. 0 30 California Los Angeles LA Metro Battery :015 5• BYD 40' 6u,es 5 11 California Los Angeles LADOT Battery :014 ZO]4 • BYD demo for DASH. 0 12 California Mountain View Mountain View Community Shuttle Battery :Q15 4- 16 passengershuttle buses with Googie, Feb :015 4 13[alifomia Oakland ACTransit Fuel cell 2012 12-Van Hoo140' buses 12 14 California Pomona Foothill Transit Baticry 2010 15 ~• Proterra 35' buses. 2• Proterra 40' buses. Une 291 from Pomona. 17 15 Caltfomta Portarville Portcrvllle Transit Battery 2016 Z- Protena 40'buses. GreenPowerbuildinq a plant in Porterville 2 16Cafifomia Salinas/Monterey Salinas Transit Battery :016 lune2016,electrictrol~eybus 1 17 California San Francisco SFMTA Fucl cell 2011 1-Orion Vll bus. 0 20-battery buses of varous makes and sites. 14from ehus. Reached a 18 California Santa Barbara Santa Bart~ara Metro Battery 1991 million miles in 2002. 20 19 California Stanford Stanford University Battery 2014 23• BYD buses. 13 - 40', 10- 30' 23 20 California Stockton San Joaquin Ro tonal Transit District Battery 2013 Z~Proterca buses 2013, 5-40' Proterra buses 2016 7 A variety of fuel cell buses starting in :Od3. 3 - FC alder buses and 5 more Calitomia Thousand Palms Sunline Fuel cell 2003 from NFA. 1 battery bus demo from BYD is first battery bus. 9 21Califomia Vallejo SolanoCountyTra~sit Battery 2016 JulyZO1G-2~BYD40'buses 2 :2 Canada Montreal Societe de Transport Battery :016 3•Nova 40' battery electric with opportunity cha trig 3 23 Canada Winnipeg Winnipeg Transit Battery :016 4 - NFA 40' battery buses forairport 4 24[onnecticut Hartford CT Transit fuel cell ZD~7 5 buses. First bus in 2007, option orderon Attransit40' Van Hool buses 5 2- Daimlerfuel cell bus demo. University study on electric school buses. 1- 25 Delaware Newark University of Delaware Battery 2010 GE hybrid fuel cell bus. 6- Proterra buses forDelaware Transit 6 26 Florida Tallahassee Star Metro Battery 2013 5- Proterra buses since 2013 5 2- NFA 40' buses since 2014, On8ain8 procurement for20-306uzes. 1- 27 Illinois Chicago Chicago TransitAuthorsty Battery 2014 demo ElDoradofuel cell bus 2012. 2 :8 Indiana Indianapolis Ind GO Battery 2015 21 •buses from CCW,converted Gilligz. 21 Z9 Kentucky Lexington lezingtonTransitAuthority Battery 2015 5 • Proterra buses 5 30 Kentucky Louisville Transit Authority of River City Battery 2015 15•Protercabuses.6•~ InJuly:016. 15 31 Maryland Frederick County TransiT Battery 2016 5•GiiligbusesfromCCW 5 Regional Transit Authority of Centrel 32 Maryland Howard Maryland Battery 2D16 3-35' buses with WAVE charging 3 Massachu.etts Bay Transportation 29- Neoplan trolley buses. 1- NFA 60' battery buz next year. 1- ElDorado 33 Mazsachusetts Boston Authority Fuei cell 2004 40' fuel cell bus demo 2 34 Massachusetts Worcester Worcester Re ionalTransitAuthority Battery ZO15 6-Protema 6 35 Michigan Flint Mass Transportation Authority Fuei cell 2015 1- EI Dorado 40' bus with Ballard tuel cell 1 3G Minnesota Duluth Duluth Transit Authority Battery 2016 6-Proterra 6 37 Missouri Columbia CoMo Battery 2015 4-BVObuset 4 38 Missouri St. Louis Uni~eni of Missouri, St. Louis 2015 Usin CoMo buses 0 39 Montana Missoula ASUMTransportation Battery 2016 2-Proterrabuses. 2 40 Nevada Reno RTC Washoe County Battery 2015 4- Protetra buses 4 41 New York (theca Tompkins Consolidated AreaTransit Fuel cell 2015 1- EI Dorado 40' bus with 8ailard fuel cell 1 42 Ohio Canton Stark Arna Re tonal Transit Authority Fuel cell 2Q15 2 - EI Doredo 40' bus 2 43 Ohio Columbus Ohio State University Fuel cell 2015 1- SARTA bus used on University for a year.. Same as STARK? 1 44 Oregon Portland Trimet Battery 2015 4• NFA 40' battery buses -July 2016. 2 week BYD test in 2014. 4 Southeastern Pennsylvania 45 Pennt ivania Philadelphia Transportation Authority Battery 2017 :S- Proterra 40' buses forZ017. 0 4G S. Carolina Senep CatBus flattery :015 4• Proterra buses 4 Chattanoo8a Area RcBianal 47 Tennessee Chattanooga Transportation Authority Battery 1994 18 ••shuttle buses for downtown. Since 1994 18 48 Tennessee Nashville Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority Battery 2015 7- Proterra 7 49 Texas Austin Capital Metro Fuel cell X015 1- Proterra plug in fuel cell bus. 1 50 Texas Dal(as Dallas Arna Rapid Transit Battery 2016 7- Proterra 7 51 Texas McAllen McAllen Metro Battery 2015 2- CCW battery buses with WAVE. 2 52 Texas San Antonio VIA Metro Battery 2015 3 - Proterra buses 3 53 Utah Salt Lake City Utah Transit Authority Battery 2018 5- NFA battery buses in 2018 0 54 Washingtcn Richland Ben FrankfinTransit Battery 2013 1- CC U bus, 2013. 1 55 Washington Seattle King County Metro Battery 2016 3 - Proterra buses 3 56 Washington Wenatchee Link Transit Battery 2015 4-BYD35'6uaes 4 57 Washington DC DC GoargetownUnivenity Fuel cell 1994 3-30'and2-40'footfuelceilbusesuntil201L 0
...... ,,.....__.__..Y~.. _.!_...._ ._2E0 -
E
j
i
.~
~.
,
..
.
kWh
_____
~
300k1Nh
520
_._...... ~_..,__
to
to
kWh
kWh
_~
Up
Battely~
H2
48
I
€up
~
e3likWh
:
;210-400kWh ;40
~~_
_
_~._
_.
-____
____
..
~_
.
..
.
__.
..__
_
.
T.
. _..
_w-
_
---
_.
.___._.
~
._.__..
___
._._.._.
_~._...s._.._,.,w.~.
.._.._.
__
.
..._.~._.____~
._
..______
__.
..__
._..__..
__
eled~ic
__.
.~
__
._.
electric
electric
_
~-___
_.___
.._.,_~.._.._.
batted
electric
ft
battery
bus
buses
60
bus
rebuilt
oor
bus
bus
60ffbattery
fl
45,
batted
-l..~r~.~...... __..ww~-..~.
cell
rY_w~,~-.~
battery
40ft
45,
battery
40,
ft
low
40'
35,
batte
batte
40
40,
fuel
_~~..~.
60'
m,
~~__.rY___..
..~._
0' 0'
Models
20,30,
22,
30,
30, 12
35',
40
4 40' 4
~
_
_
BC
_.__
~~
_'__
..
_
_...... ,~.._--
.
..
_.
_
~
_
_
~
Vancouver,
._
_
St,
____...._.__
Belgium
......
_._..._...___-r---
...~
MN
-.____.___
-
ST240-209Carrall
_...._...__.
CA
CA
NY
Loningshooikt,
CA CA
Cloud,
CA
Finland
w._
St.
China.
.
r.
_
Downey,
Dr.,
__
Road,
_..._._.
Burlingame,
-.
Lancaster,
Riverside,
Rd,
Villande,
Riverside,
..
Suppliers
Plattsburgh,
.
Hoolstraat58,
Ct,
St,
Rd., --
~
East
Catlsen
Blvd,
..
Van
..
2,15540
.._.~.._.__-._
.
BYO
.
_
Rollins Washburn
Galena
Glenn
_
BankerRd,
Industry
_.___
..__
_.~.
_
ocation
_
L
1863Service
Bemard
46147
37-2Haijing
6200
X
~
1 ~Koritie
,9?50
;9670
;1815
'Z60
-..
--
w.__
..
.
..
America
__
__._.
.~
—Identified
N
N
N
Buy
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
,Y
C
._
_
.:
_
__
..__P
_
.
_
.
___....
_._~._
.
_
Hool
_.
,____
enPower
terra
_
Dorado
~__-_
_
FA
ova/Volvo
re
bus
an
YD
ompany CW
ro
-
inkker
N
N
EI B
V C C G
e P l
Attachment -2.2 -4.1
-6.3
-8.2
Electric
uses
or
Difference
B
f
70.8 72.3 65.1
64.7
Average
68.3 71.1
63.0
61.3
K9-
013
BYD
2
70.2 66.1 66.1
69.3
Electric
2014
Flyer
E40-
New
X
74.8 75.6
66.1
66.6
E40-
014
B
Proterra
2
73.0 76.4
71.3 72.8
buses
Average
71.5 74.0
71.5
77.7
xterior
Flyer
nterior
I
E
N60-
011
New
X
2
conventional
75.5
77.9
71.3 71.5
EPA
and
2011
0-
Orion
1
ZEB
of
CNG
74.8 74.8
67.9 68.9
2013
40-
-
FW
NABI
L
71.4 79.5
72.4 7~.Z
comparison
Bus
40-
level
FS
013
Nova
L
2
75.8
73.6 73.9
71.7
Noise
Flyer
N40-
D2.
014
New
X
2
data
test
Side
Side
dBA
easured
ltoon
river
urb
assengers
cale
treet
n
M
i
A
D C
P S
S
Attachment Weekday Metro Bus Mileage Summary by Division June 26, 2016 Attachment E
Weekday Bus Mileage Totals One•Way Total > 150 > 200 <250 Shortest Longest Weekday Off-Street DIV. Line Trio Mi. 81a[ks <150 <200 <750 and i1P Rein Timn Rnn Timp Rirlr+rchin Terminals Comments Div 1 1G 1Z.6 20 17 3 0 0 0:57 21:53 16,821 1 Maple lot Div 1 18 13.0 31 30 i 0 0 0:45 17:46 14,042 Z 6th and Oxford &Montebello Metro Link Sta Div 1 20 17.5 15 15 0 0 0 1:23 17:19 8,223 1 Maple Lot Div 1 45 Z0.2 12 9 3 0 0 2:04 18:03 13,034 0 Div 1 53 16.6 25 ZO 4 1 u 1:47 19'19 8,617 1 Beaudry &Temple Div 1 62 263 13 G S 2 0 2:15 19:40 3,681 1 Beaudry &Temple Oiv 1 66 13.0 25 24 1 0 0 1:03 19:20 35,663 2 6th and Oxford &Montebello Metro Link Sta Div 1 4G0 40.3 12 9 3 0 0 3:23 16:11 2,290 2 Maple Lot & Disneyland Div 1 760 11.5 12 6 6 0 0 1:40 16:30 2,290 0 Division 1 Vehicle Totals 165 136 26 3 0 104,661 Division 1 Percentages 82% 16% 2% 0 Div 2 4 20.7 7 7 ~ 0 0 3:25 15:25 15,869 1 Terminal 28 Div Z 10 19.9 13 9 4 0 G 1:51 19:31 13,036 1 On-Street Adjacent to Division 7 Oiv 2 55 13.2 14 10 4 0 ~ 1:36 17:36 8,566 1 Rosa Parks/Willo~vhrook Station Div 2 S1 17.6 45 39 6 0 ~ 1:2B 15:34 26,191 3 Harbor Gateway TC, R1LK TC Compton,6th & Shatto PI Div 2 60 25.6 31 30 i 0 v 1:42 16:10 15,678 1 Artesia Blue Station Div 2 105 16.0 16 12 4 0 ~ 2:44 19:08 11,280 2 Divison 7 Yard &Vernon Yard Div 2 Z00 6.3 17 15 1 0 ~ 1:44 20:44 13,291 0 Oiv Z 611 14.6 4 2 ~ 0 ~ 3:41 17:12 1,647 0 Oiv 2 612 163 4 2 C 2 G 8:30 2024 1,374 2 Clockwise Shuttle with Termial at Willowbrook Station. Div 2 705 14.8 9 8 1 0 0 2:08 15:51 6,363 2 Divison 7 Yard &Vernon Yard Division 2 Vehicle Totals 160 135 Z3 2 - 113,295 Division 2 Percentages 84% 14% 1% 0°0 Div 3 ZS 21.1 13 11 2 0 4 0:41 16:04 10,996 0 Div 3 45 Z0.2 15 15 0 0 0 1:59 15:05 16,149 0 Div 3 81 19.9 27 17 3 ~ 1:53 19:55 16,090 0 Div 3 83 15.1 7 7 C 0 0 1:32 17:18 2,888 1 Terminal 28 Oiv 3 175 5.2 2 2 C 0 0 1:Q8 4:06 864 0 Div 3 180 18.6 16 11 4 1 G 2:44 20:40 8,710 2 Hollywood Vine Sta. (Sierra Madre Villa Sta -Rte 181 only Div 3 ZO1 11.6 3 Z s 0 0 15:02 15:20 1,166 1 Wilshire /Vermont Red line Station Div 3 206 14.0 5 4 ~. 0 0 2:09 15:52 13,145 0 Div 3 251 14.6 15 13 ~ 0 0 0:51 17:11 8,739 1 On-Street adjacent to Division 3 Oiv 3 252 8.9 5 2 3 0 fl 0:52 16:12 2,453 0 Oiv 3 258 28.4 7 0 1 6 0 14:19 17:30 1,771 0 Div 3 751 10.2 9 9 G 0 d 3:27 14:52 5,533 2 Palm /Seville & On Street adjacent to Division 3 Oiv 3 780 22.1 21 9 12 0 0 2:40 15:31 9,045 1 Washington /Fairfax Terminal Division 3 Vehicle Totals 145 102 33 10 0 97,599 Division 3 Percentages 704'0 23% 7% 0% Div S 102 18.5 7 4 2 1 0 3:54 19:46 2,614 2 Lax City Bus Terminal &Palm and Seville Terminal Div 5 1D8 Z4.1 34 21 1Q 3 0 1:59 18:39 16,770 0 Div S 110 21.2 22 18 4 0 0 2:02 18:36 9,598 0 Div 5 204 12.6 12 12 0 0 0 2:07 15:55 22,173 0 Div 5 206 14.0 12 7 4 1 0 3:16 20:13 13,145 0 Div 5 2D7 14.2 12 10 1 1 Q 2:12 21:37 18,048 0 Oiv S 209 14.7 3 0 3 0 J 13:52 16:10 1,059 1 Oxford & 6th Terminal Div 5 212 14.7 26 23 3 0 d 1:52 20:00 13,476 1 On•Street adjacent to Holl}nvood /Vine Station. Div 5 740 12.7 9 4 5 0 0 1:45 17:41 2,781 1 South Bay Transit Center Div 5 754 12.5 20 17 3 0 0 2:31 16'30 20,575 0 Div 5 757 14.3 20 16 4 0 0 2:00 15:09 13,104 0 Division 5 Vehicle Totals 177 132 39 6 0 133,343 Division S Percentages 75% 22°/a 3% 0">a Weekday Metro Bus Mileage Summary by Division June 26, 2016
Weekday Bus Milear:e Totals One-Way Total > 150 > 200 <250 Shortest Longest Weekday Off•Street DIV. Llne Tt10 MI. Blo[k5 <15~ <200 <75❑ and l IP Run Timr Run Time giriarchin Terminals Comments Div 7 2 28.9 25 22 3 0 0 1:25 19:25 15,909 1 Terminal 28. Div 7 4 20.7 11 9 ~ 0 L~ 2:69 19:03 15,869 1 Terminal 28. Div 7 10 19.9 16 24 2 0 0 1:30 15:39 13,036 1 On-street adjacent to Division 7 Oiv 7 14 19.8 41 38 3 0 0 1;31 18:24 19,054 1 Washington /Fairfax Terminal Div 7 16 12.6 23 21 1 1 D 2:23 21:53 22,938 1 Maple Lot Div 7 20 17.5 11 11 C D 0 3:44 15:18 15,455 1 Maple Lot Div 7 28 21.1 13 12 I 0 d 1:17 17:50 10,996 0 Oiv 7 30 15.3 7 7 C 0 0 2:15 16:48 13,807 1 On-street adjacent to Division 7 Oiv 7 33 14.6 8 8 C 0 0 2:48 13:20 11,Ob2 2 Maple lot &Jackson st. Terminal Div 7 35 15.0 17 13 4 0 0 2:07 18:5B 9,715 2 Washington /Fairfax Terminal Div 7 217 14.5 15 15 0 0 0 0:56 17:14 7,QOZ 1 On-street adjacent to Hollywood &Vine Terminal Div 7 534 26.5 16 12 4 0 0 2:03 8:30 2,689 1 Washington /Fairfax Terminal Div 7 704 19.7 9 8 1 D d 2:44 15:54 12,369 1 Jackson Street Terminal Oiv 7 705 14.8 8 6 0 1 ? 2:06 19:44 6,363 2 On-street adjacent to Division 7 Yard &Vernon Yard. Oiv 7 733 19.7 5 5 0 0 0 4:27 4:46 11,451 1 Jackson Street Terminal Division 7 Vehicle Totals 225 201 21 2 1 187,735 Division 7 Percentages 89% 9°0 1% 0'a Div 8 150 18.1 20 10 8 1 1 2:12 21:59 9,189 2 /4 Universal /Studio City Sta./ On-Street Warner Cntr (Z of 4 Terms) Div 8 152 24.4 17 12 4 1 0 0:45 17:A8 11,780 1 North Hollywood Station Div 8 155 13.4 2 2 ~ 0 0 7:33 8:40 1,659 1 Burbank Station Div 8 156 18.9 S 2 Z 1 0 2:04 16:13 2,321 1 Chatsworth lVtation Div S 161 22.4 8 S 2 1 0 1:42 13:28 1,384 2 Thousand Oaks Transit Center & On-Street Warner Center Div 8 163 17.2 6 6 ~ 0 G 4:21 13:08 9,605 1/3 North Hollywood Station (1 of 3 Terminals) Div 8 164 23.5 12 8 1 3 0 2:15 18:06 6,696 1 Burbank Station Div 8 165 22.9 18 13 I 3 1 1:21 18:58 8,252 1 Durbank Station Oiv 8 166 16.7 9 6 1 Z 0 1:47 18:12 2,865 2 Divsiion 15 &Chatsworth Metrolink Station Div 8 169 33.1 7 2 2 3 0 0:59 17:OZ 2,497 2 On Street l'Varner Center &Burbank RITC Div 8 236 16.6 9 4 3 2 0 1:56 18:24 2,449 1 Sy~mar Station Div 8 237 Z2.2 3 0 Z 1 0 13:38 16:36 N/A 0 Div 8 239 16.1 2 2 0 0 0 2:15 6:08 976 0 Div 8 243 19.0 7 4 2 1 0 1:29 15:Ofi 1,857 0 Div 8 245 16.5 12 10 0 0 1:04 15:14 3,170 2 Chatsworth Station on both ends of the line. Oiv 8 750 16.1 12 7 ~ 3 0 1:52 15:58 3,17D 2 On Street 'Varner Center &Universal City Red Line Sta. Div 8 901 19.8 33 10 9 14 0 2:12 15:21 25,979 3/3 On Street ~'Uarner Center, North Hollywood Sta &Chatsworth Sta. Division 8 Vehicle Totals 182 1D3 41 36 2 93,859 Division 8 Percentages 57% 23% 20% 1% Div 9 70 16.5 17 9 8 0 0 1:58 18:10 11,064 2 EI Monte Station &Terminal 28 Div 9 71 8.3 7 6 ; 0 0 3:17 15:39 1,737 1 Terminal 28 Div 9 7b 16.3 17 14 ? 0 0 2:04 18:12 9,343 2 EI Monte Station &Terminal 28 Div 9 78 18.2 27 18 ? 1 I 1:44 20:55 70,OZ6 1 Terminal 28 Oiv 9 176 20.7 5 0 S 0 0 14:16 16:20 1,797 2 Terminal 28 to EI Monte Station Div 9 260 28.5 21 9 S 7 0 1:55 20:08 11,149 1 Artesia Blue Line Station Div 9 265 16.3 4 1 0 3 0 6:14 17:25 1,705 1 Jackson Street Oiv 9 267 17.5 8 0 S 3 0 14:16 16:30 3,217 1 E) Monte Station Div 9 268 23.0 15 11 ~ Z 0 1:15 17:32 1,906 1 EI Monte Station Div 9 487 31.6 18 it 4 3 0 1:45 15:43 3,709 1/3 EI Monte Station (1 of 3 terminals) Div 9 665 6.7 2 1 1 0 0 6:18 15:53 758 1 Cal State L.A On-Street Transit Station. Oiv 9 687 5.9 4 1 ~ 0 0 15:05 17:40 1,426 0 Div 9 762 25.0 11 4 Z 5 0 2:Z5 16:32 4,120 1 Artesia Blue Line Station Div 9 770 16.6 16 6 4 1 0 2:33 16:12 7.651 2 Terminal 28 to EI Monte Station oiv 9 910 38.9 33 21 0 a 8 2:19 21:04 16,355 Z/3 EI Monte Sta, Harbor Gateway Sta (2 of 3 terminals ~ Division 9 Vehicle Totals 205 112 55 29 9 53,793 Division 9 Percentages 55% 27% 14% 4% Weekday Metro Bus Mileage Summary by Division June 26, 2016
Weekday Bus Mileage Totals One-Way Total > 150 > 200 <250 Shortest Longest Weekday Off-Street Div. Line TrID MI. Blotks <150 <2D~ <250 and L►P Run Timn Rijn Times RirlPrchin Terminals Comments Div 10 2 28.9 5 S 0 0 ~ 2:25 11:05 15,909 1 Termina128 Div 10 30 15.3 3 3 Ci 0 0 1:26 5:26 13,807 2/3 Division 7 Yard &Pico Rimpau Terminal (2 of 3 terminals) Div 10 33 19.5 4 4 0 0 0 2:16 7:39 11,062 2/3 Maple Lot &Jackson Street Terminal (2 of 3 terminals) Div 10 68 11.3 4 4 0 0 d 1:08 14:02 5,737 3/4 Dozier/Rowan, Maple Lot, ELAC Transit CTR (3 of 4 termials) Oiv 10 106 7.5 2 2 C 0 0 15:05 15;27 N/A 2 ELAC Transit Ctr. & On Street USC Medical Center. Oiv 10 704 19.7 11 10 1 0 0 2:18 15:32 11,389 1 Jackson Street Div 10 728 13.3 16 14 2 0 0 2:04 17:35 5,979 1 Jackson Street Oiv 10 733 19.7 20 14 6 0 0 2:26 15:46 11,451 1 Jackson Street Div 10 745 11.3 8 6 ~ 0 D 2:00 15:59 6,278 2 Jackson Street &Figueroa and 117th (Green Line Station) Division 10 Vehicle Totals 73 62 11 0 0 82,612 Division 10 percentages 85:0 15:~ O;o 0°0 Div 13 2 28.9 25 20 5 0 0 1:31 19:22 12,689 1 Terminal 28. Div 13 4 20.7 9 7 2 0 0 1:56 20:17 15,869 1 Terminal 28. Div 13 30 15.3 13 12 1 0 0 3:13 20'14 13,807 2/3 Division 7 Yard &Pico Rimpau Terminal (2 of 3 terminals) Div 13 33 19.6 12 12 0 0 0 227 14.17 11,062 2/3 Maple Lot & Jackson Street Terminal (Z of 3 terminals) Div 13 55 13.2 4 3 2 0 0 4:31 15:Q9 8,566 1 Rosa Parks / ~Nilmington 81ue Line Station. Div 13 68 11.3 7 5 2 0 fl 3:16 21:11 5,767 3/4 Dozier/Rowan, Maple Lot, ELAC Transit RR (3 of 4 termials) Div 13 704 19.7 7 3 4 0 0 7:35 18:52 12,389 1 Jackson Street Div 13 720 24.6 64 47 11 6 4 2:15 21:13 35,512 0 Div 13 733 19.7 5 3 ~ 0 t3 9:51 19:20 11,451 1 Jackson Street Terminal Div 13 745 11.3 9 7 2 0 0 Z:14 14:36 6,278 2 Jackson Street &Figueroa and 117th (Green Line Station) Division 13 Vehicle Totals 155 119 30 6 0 133,390 Division 13 Percentages 77% 19% 4% OSb Div 15 90 3Z.4 18 7 8 2 Z 0:51 19:45 7,856 1 Termina128. Div 15 9Z 14.3 12 5 7 0 0 3:45 18:05 5,191 1 Burbank Station Div 15 94 26.0 13 4 2 4 3 2:50 21:34 5,084 1 Terminal 28. Div 15 152 24.4 10 5 5 0 0 2:Q0 12:53 11,780 1 North Holly~lood Station Div 15 154 18.0 3 0 3 0 0 14:09 15:20 1,021 1 Burbank Station Div 15 155 13.4 4 1 3 0 0 13:41 14:38 1,659 1 Burbank Station Div 15 163 17.2 14 11 3 0 0 2:11 16:36 9,605 1/3 North Holl}nvood Station (1 of 3 Terminals) Div 15 164 23.5 S 1 0 4 4 1:30 18:00 6,696 1 Burbank Station Div 15 165 22.9 7 5 1 1 ~ 1:46 17:07 8,252 1 Durbank Station Oiv 15 166 1G.7 11 9 2 0 0 1:~9 13:33 5,865 2 Oivsion 15 &Chatsworth Metrolink Station Div 15 183 22.4 6 Z 3 1 0 3:05 17:39 2,175 1 Glendale Transportation Center Div 15 222 17.4 10 7 1 1 1 1:00 20:58 1,801 0 Div 15 2Z4 16.9 12 10 1 0 1 Z:40 21:12 7,E81 1 Universal City Red Line Station Div 15 230 15.4 11 7 3 1 0 0:56 18:27 4,626 0 Div 15 233 13.7 16 13 3 0 0 2:29 19:13 12,105 0 Div 15 234 28.6 10 4 Z 2 2 2:09 21:17 5,576 0 Div 15 237 2~.2 6 4 2 0 0 1:28 15:53 N/A 0 Div 15 292 13.1 3 0 2 Z Q 13:12 17:22 2,374 2 Burbank Station &Sylmar Station Oiv 15 734 24.3 14 3 d 7 d 5:23 17:46 6,456 1 Sylmar Station Div 15 744 Z3.4 13 2 ? 4 0 8:06 18:15 9,587 0 Div 15 788 20.2 it 11 C 0 0 3:10 6:04 1,807 0 Div 15 794 26.0 12 4 5 1 2:50 17:16 4,569 2 Sylmar Station &Terminal 28. Division 15 Vehicle Totals 221 115 63 34 9 121,766 Division 15 Percentages 52% 29% 154 4% Weekday Metro Bus Mileage Summary by Division June 26, 2016
Weekday Bus Mileage Totals One-Way Total > 150 > 200 <250 Shortest Longest Weekday Off-Street ❑~v_ linP TrinMl. H~ntkc G7Sf1 ~~nn c7Sl1 ~nr111P R~~nTimo Ri~nTimo Rirlarchin Terminals [omments Div 18 40 20.9 25 17 7 1 0 2'17 20:14 17,671 1 Jackson Street Terminal Div 18 111 21.1 23 9 9 5 0 2:25 21:40 16,818 2 LAX City Bus Terminal &Norwalk Green Line Station Div 18 115 22.2 29 20 6 3 0 1:58 19:33 15,628 1 Norwalk Green Line Station Div 18 117 18.4 13 7 5 1 0 8:42 19:10 8,533 1 LAX City Bus Terminal Div 18 120 29.7 9 4 Z 3 Q 6:35 20:51 4,181 1 LAX Aviation /LAX Station Div 18 126 12.2 2 2 G 0 0 3:48 5:05 2D4 0 Div 18 127 10.3 3 1 2 D 0 1:12 14:30 93B 2 MLK Compton Transit Ctr &Downey Transit Center Div 18 202 18.3 3 3 C 0 0 3:15 4:50 245 1 Rosa Parks-Wilmington Station Div 18 20A 12.G 10 9 1 0 0 2:57 18:15 22,173 0 Div 18 207 14.2 8 8 G 0 0 2:22 15:12 18,048 0 Div 18 210 19.5 17 7 7 3 0 2:46 22:07 13,104 1 South Bay Transit Center Div 18 211 14.5 5 5 ~ 0 0 0:52 5:25 770 2 Marine Green Line Station, South Bay Transit Center Div 18 246 15.1 9 S 1 1 2 1:42 21:47 2,fi01 1 Harbor Gateway Transit Center Div 18 344 19.4 5 4 1 0 0 1:42 13:18 1,709 1 Harbor Gateway Transit Center Div 18 442 17.1 3 3 0 0 Q 2:02 5:44 233 1 Jackson Street Terminal Div 18 550 23.5 5 3 0 1 1 4:32 18:21 1,546 0 Div 18 710 15.9 16 10 6 0 0 1:47 15:54 7,285 2 South Bay Transit Center / 6th &Oxford Oiv 18 754 12.5 8 8 0 0 ~ 2:32 13:10 20,575 0 Div 18 910 38.9 7 4 D 0 3 2:~3 15:16 16,355 2/3 EI Monte Sta, Harbor Gateway Sta (2 of 3 terminals ~ Division 18 Vehicle Totals 200 1Z9 47 18 6 158,617 Division 18 Percentages 65% 24% 9% 3°~ System Vehicle Totals 1908 1350 390 146 27 1,336,780 System Percentages 71% 2d% 8% lY Attachment F ELIGIBLE STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ZERO-EMISSION BUSES
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AGENCY/TYPE Buses to be procured must provide benefits to disadvantaged communities by Zero-Emission Truck operating on routes located within or and Bus Pilot CARB/Competitive directly benefitting, these communities. Commercial Buses must meet applicable certification Deployment requirements of the California Air Resources Board (GARB). Buses to be procured must be located in a disadvantaged community. The voucher amount depends on the gross vehicle weight rating of the buses. The amount per voucher for azero-emission bus is Hybrid and Zero- currently $110,000 for maximum of 100 Emission Truck and CARB/First-come, buses and $45,000 for each additional bus Bus Voucher First-served {up to a maximum of 200 vouchers per Incentive fleet}. Buses must demonstrate a thirty- five mile all-electric range. If the bus is fast charge compatible, then it must demonstrate a twenty mile all-electric range. Buses must be GARB-certified. Buses to be procured must provide a California State Transit and Intercity direct, meaningful, and assured benefit Transportation Rail Capital within andlor to disadvantaged Agency/Competitive communities. Buses to be procured must be used to California support new or expanded service. At least Department of Low Carbon Transit 50% of the total funds an agency receives Transportation/ Operations must be expended on projects that will Formula benefit disadvantaged communities. Buses to be procured must benefit disadvantaged communities in transit Affordable Housing Strategic Growth oriented development or integrated and Sustainable o CounciUCompetitive community project areas. Requires 50 /o of Communities available funds to be invested in projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. The procurement of buses must not be to comply with any regulation, memorandum Carl Moyer of understanding, or other legal mandate. South Coast Air Memorial Air The maximum grant amounts for the Quality Management Quality Standards procurement of each bus for fleet District/Competitive Attainment expansion or for replacement are currently limited to 25% of the cost and $60,000, respectively. ELIGIBLE STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ZERO-EMISSION BUSES
SOURCE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AGENCY/TYPE Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Local Transportation and expansion are eligible expenses only State Board of Fund/Transportation under TDA Article 4 and must comply Equalization/Formula Development Actl with regional transportation plans. State Transit Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Assistance Fund/ and expansion are eligible expenses and State Controller's Transportation must comply with regional transportation Office/Formula Development Act1 plans. Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Public Transportation and expansion are eligible expenses Caltrans/Formula Account' funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program. Metro revenue from fares, advertisement, t lease and other general revenue sources General Revenues Metro/Discretionary may be used for fleet replacement and expansion. Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Proposition A and expansion are eligible expenses from Metro/Formula the 40% funding allocation category. Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Proposition C and expansion are eligible expenses from Metro/Discretionary the 40% funding allocation category. Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Measure R2 and expansion are eligible expenses from Metro/Discretionary the 35%funding allocation category. I. Funding source is currently programmed by Metro for other competing uses. 2. In June 2013 the Metro Board of Directors approved establishing alife-of-project budget of$30 M for zero-emission buses. ELIGIBLE FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ZERO-ENIISSION BUSES
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AGENCY/TYPE Buses to be procured must have a nexus With the large urbanized areas(UZA, as Section 5307 defined by the US Census) within Los Urbanized Area FTA/Formula ~geles County to which the funds are Formula Grantsl apportioned or allocated, as applicable.
Buses to be procured must be included as part of the initial acquisition of rolling stock for a New Starts/Small Starts bus rapid transit(BRT) system or associated with Core Capacity BRT corridor Section 5309 improvements that increase capacity by Capital Investment FTA/Competitive not less than 10/o. The procurement of Grants 1 buses only, and of buses to be assigned to routes operating on high occupancy vehicle lanes or on high occupancy toll lanes, is an ineligible expense.
Buses to be procured must be used to assist with meeting the transportation Section 5310 needs of the elderly and persons with Enhanced Mobility of disabilities who travel to/from or within FTA/Formula Seniors &Individuals ~e UZA within Los Angeles County to with Disabilities Which the funds are apportioned or Formula Grants allocated, as applicable.
Buses to be procured must be used to Section 5311 support public transportation in rural FTA/Formula Rural Areas Formula areas in Los Angeles County with Grants populations less than 50,000. Buses to be procured must be for replacements that either operate on Section 5337 existing BRT systems or are used for FTA/Formula State of Good Repair providing transit service on high Grants 1 occupancy vehicle lanes. Buses to be procured solely for expansion are not eligible. Buses to be procured must have a nexus v~'ith the large urbanized areas(UZA, as Section 5339 defined by the US Census) within Los Buses and Bus FTA/Formula ~geles County to which the fiends are Facilities Formula apportioned or allocated. Acquisition of Grants buses for fleet replacement and expansion are eligible. ELIGIBLE FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ZERO-EMISSION BUSES
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AGENCY/TYPE Section 5339 Buses and Bus Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement FTA/Competitive Facilities Competitive and expansion are eligible. Grants Section 5339 Acquisition of buses for fleet replacement Low or No Emission FTA/Competitive and expansion are eligible. Grants CMAQ funds "transferred" from the Section 149 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation FHWA/Formula ~FHWA)to FTA maybe used for the and Air Qualit~ procurement ofzero-emission buses due Improvement to their air quality benefit. STP funds "transferred" from FHWA to Section 133 FTA may be used for the procurement of Surface FHWA/Formula zero-emission buses for improving the Transportation Block conditions and performance of surface Grant transportation. TIGER funds maybe used for the Transportation procurement ofzero-emission buses if Investment Generating included as part of the scope of work of a USDOT/Competitive Economic Recovery BRT project that promises significant Grant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area or region. Requires community-based partnerships among state and local governments and Vehicle Technologies the private sector to accelerate the use of US Department of Multi-Topic commercially available electric drive and Energy/Competitive alternative fuel vehicles, including zero- emission buses. 1. Funding source is currently programmed by Metro for other competing uses.