LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE-
FUEL BUSES: A CASE STUDY OF THE DELAWARE AUTHORITY FOR
REGIONAL TRANSIT (DART)
by
Amirhossein Shahpar
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Civil Engineering
Summer 2010
Copyright 2010 Amirhossein Shahpar All Rights Reserved
LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE-
FUEL BUSES: A CASE STUDY OF THE DELAWARE AUTHORITY FOR
REGIONAL TRANSIT (DART)
by Amirhossein Shahpar
Approved: ______Ardeshir Faghri, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee
Approved: ______Harry Shenton III, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Approved: ______Michael Chajes, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Engineering
Approved: ______Debra Hess Norris, M.S. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Ardeshir Faghri for his encouragement, patience, and guidance throughout the course of my graduate study. His comments and advice not only helped me to stay on track but also assisted me to get the most out of my time at the University of Delaware.
I would like to thank Mr. Mark Glaze, Delaware Department of
Transportation’s project manager and Mr. Brett Taylor, Delaware Department of
Transportation’s financial and legislative policy advisor, for their comments and suggestions on my research work.
I am thankful for Mr. Stephen Kingsberry, Executive Director of DART, for his patience and providing the necessary information for this study. His advice also was invaluable and helped me to make right assumptions whenever needed.
I would like to thank Ms. Ellen Pletz. She treats me and the other graduate students as if we were her own children. I am also grateful for my fellow graduate students, Morteza, Sepideh, Reza, and Kadir for their support and friendship.
Finally, I would like to express my deep appreciation to my beloved wife,
Maryam Akhavan, for her unconditional support throughout my studies. Her motivation was certainly an inspiration.
iii
DEDICATION
To my lovely wife, Maryam Akhavan.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES...... ix ABSTRACT ...... xi 1. INTRODUCTION...... 15 1.1 Background...... 15 1.2 Problem Statement...... 16 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ...... 17 1.4 Scope ...... 18 1.5 Organization of Thesis ...... 20 2. INTRODUCTION TO DART...... 21 2.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.2 Fixed-Route Bus Routes...... 23 2.2.1 New Castle County...... 23 2.2.2 Kent County...... 31 2.2.3 Sussex County...... 33 2.2.4 Intercounty Service...... 34 2.3 DART’s Fleets...... 35 2.3.1 Vehicle Mode...... 35 2.3.2 Vehicle Technology...... 39 2.3.3 Vehicle Age...... 40 2.3.4 DART’s Future Fleet Expansion Plan...... 40 3. FLEET ACQUIREMENT CONSIDERATIONS ...... 44 3.1 Introduction ...... 44 3.2 Acts and Legislations ...... 45 3.3 EPA Regulations...... 50 3.4 Dominant Alternative-Fuel Buses in Practice ...... 54 4. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSION ESTIMATION ...... 62 4.1 Introduction ...... 62 4.2 Major Assumptions ...... 63 4.3 Life-Cycle Cost Estimation ...... 64 4.3.1 Capital Cost...... 65 4.3.1.1 Vehicle Cost...... 66 4.3.1.2 Infrastructure Cost...... 67
v A. Diesel (ULSD)...... 67 B. Biodiesel...... 67 C. CNG...... 68 D. Hybrid diesel-electric...... 73 4.3.2 Operating Cost...... 74 4.3.2.1 Fuel Cost ...... 75 4.3.2.2 Total Maintenance Cost...... 79 4.3.2.3 Facility Maintenance Cost...... 80 4.3.2.4 Compression Electricity Cost...... 81 4.3.2.5 Battery Replacement Cost ...... 81 4.4 Emissions Estimation ...... 85 5. EXPERT SURVEY ...... 91 5.1 Introduction ...... 91 5.2 Survey Objectives...... 92 5.3 Evaluation Criteria...... 93 5.4 Expert Selection...... 96 5.5 Questionnaire...... 98 5.6 Results ...... 99 6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 105 6.1 Summary and Conclusions ...... 105 6.2 Recommendations ...... 109 APPENDIX (QUESTIONNAIRE) ...... 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 118
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes...... 25
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 26
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 27
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 28
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 29
Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 30
Table 2. DART’s Kent County fixed-route bus routes...... 32
Table 2. DART’s Kent County fixed-route bus routes (continue)...... 33
Table 3. DART’s Sussex County fixed-route bus routes...... 34
Table 4. DART’s fleet database...... 37
Table 4. DART’s fleet database (continue)...... 38
Table 5. The DART’s transit buses based on their propulsion technology...... 41
Table 6. The latest EPA emission standards for heavy-duty engines ...... 52
Table 7. Capital Cost per Bus (50 Bus Fleet)...... 66
Table 8. DART operating facility location and characteristics...... 71
Table 9. Operating Cost per Bus (50 Bus Fleet and 12 year of active service) ...... 75
Table 10. The predicted emissions for the buses (gram/mile)...... 86
Table 11. Title and organization of the targeted experts in the survey...... 97
Table 12. The average weights and ranks assigned by experts to each criterion...... 100
vii Table 13. The relative importance of alternatives with respect to each criterion...... 101
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The contribution of different resources in the DART’s revenue...... 22
Figure2. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes...... 24
Figure 3. The number and frequency of the major vehicle types in the DART’s fleet...... 36
Figure 4. The frequency of buses with different sizes in the DART’s fleet...... 39
Figure 5. The distribution of buses in DART’s fleet based on their age...... 42
Figure 6. The sequence and duration of the transp. legislations passed by the U.S congress...... 47
Figure 7. The EPA emissions standard for the heavy duty engines since 1990...... 51
Figure 8. The level of ozone pollutant in the northeast reigon and Delaware state in 2008...... 53
Figure 9. The trend of PM2.5 in city of Wilmington, DE...... 54
Figure 10. The share of different technologies in the APTA’s 2009 transit bus database...... 55
Figure 11. Number of new transit buses acquired by transit agencies since 1980...... 56
Figure 12. Number of Transit Agencies per category ...... 58
Figure 13. a) an example of a CNG bus, b) an example of a hybrid diesel- electric bus...... 61
Figure 14. Direct fast fill CNG fueling station...... 69
Figure 15. The capital costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies...... 74
Figure 16. The estimated fuel economy in this study...... 77
ix Figure 17. Predicted fuel economy on CBD, Manhattan Cycle, and OCTA cycle...... 78
Figure 18. Predicted fuel price in this study...... 79
Figure 19. The operating costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies...... 83
Figure 20. Life Cycle Cost of the alternative-fuel buses (50 Buses in 12 Years in 2009 $)...... 84
Figure 21. The share of different sectors in production of GHG in the USA ...... 85
Figure 22. PM 2.5 emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses...... 87
Figure 23. NOx emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses...... 88
Figure 24. NMHC emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses...... 89
Figure 25. GHG emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses...... 90
Figure 26. Structure and relation of defined goals and criteria...... 94
Figure 27. The ranks of the alternative-fuel buses with respect to the first set of criteria...... 103
Figure 28. The ranks of the alternative-fuel buses with respect to the second set of criteria...... 104
x
ABSTRACT
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 motivated transit agencies to utilize alternative-fuel transit buses in addition to their popular diesel buses. The Delaware
Authority for Regional Transit (DART) has also planned to add a significant number of alternative-fuel buses to its current transit fleet. This study has been defined to assist the DART administration to make an optimal decision in this regard.
The information used in this study was gathered from the latest scientific and practical reports published by Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It also combined with the knowledge that the author gained from two major recent conferences related to public transportation; 1) BusCon 2009 in Chicago, Illinois, and
2) APTA annual meeting 2009 in Orlando, FL.
Among eight alternative-fuel buses introduced by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, this study recognized that only Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), biodiesel, and hybrid-diesel buses can be considered as the viable alternatives for the Ultra-Low
Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) transit buses.
For each of these technologies Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) and emissions are estimated and compared with the available information for the ULSD buses. The LCC
xi consists of capital cost and operating cost. The capital cost includes initial purchasing cost and infrastructure cost which is separated in two subsections, refueling station and depot modification. The operating cost includes fuel cost, total maintenance cost, facility (refueling station and depot) maintenance cost, compression electricity cost
(applicable to CNG buses only), and battery replacement cost (applicable to hybrid diesel-electric buses only).
The results show that buses propelled by hybrid-diesel engine have the least LCC ($/mile). Alternatives were ranked with respect to their capital cost as follows: 1) ULSD, 2) Biodiesel, 3) Hybrid diesel-electric, and 4) CNG. The ranks of alternatives changed with respect to their operating cost and it was as follows: 1)
CNG, 2) Hybrid diesel-electric, 3) ULSD, and 4) Biodiesel.
Although all the alternative-fuel buses meet the latest EPA emissions standard, the recent scientific reports prove that hybrid diesel-electric buses emit fewer air pollutants than their counterparts. This characteristic also gives hybrid buses an edge to consider as the most suitable alternative-fuel buses for DART.
This study found that CNG buses are the strongest competitor for the hybrid diesel-electric buses. The major problem with CNG buses for being utilized by
DART is their cost of implementation. The infrastructure (refueling stations and depot modification) cost of CNG buses is very high. This issue gets worse because DART demands more than one infrastructure to be able to operate CNG buses throughout the state of Delaware. Also, DART needs to wait until the required infrastructures have
xii been built meaning that the readiness index of CNG technology for DART is very low.
This study also conducted an expert survey in order to determine the relative importance of other criteria on the transit fleet expansion plan. Four major goals and twelve criteria were defined. A questionnaire was designed and distributed among the relevant decision-making experts from governmental agencies, bus manufactures, academic organizations, energy suppliers, and research institutes. They assessed the relative importance (subjectively) for each of the criteria. The collected data shows that energy independence criterion is the most important factor in evaluating the alternative-fuel buses; second in importance are energy availability and safety; third is energy efficiency, indicating the need for new alternative-fuel buses.
The survey also asked the respondents to rank the alternatives regarding each criterion. Based on the results, hybrid diesel-buses were ranked first in six criteria including energy availability, safety, energy efficiency, air pollution, noise pollution, and sense of comfort. Hybrid diesel-electric buses also were ranked second in two criteria including energy independence and cost of implementation. These buses were only ranked lowest with respect to the cost of maintenance criterion.
However, this observation is not supported by our estimation and comparative analysis reports published by other organizations.
The expert survey results clearly show that ULSD buses are the most reliable and capable alternative among other technologies. These buses were also
xiii ranked first with respect to the cost of implementation and cost of maintenance criteria. However, ULSD buses were ranked third and fourth (lowest) with respect to the most important criteria including energy independence, and energy efficiency.
These buses were also assumed to perform poorly with respect to noise pollution, sense of comfort, and air pollution criteria.
This study concludes that hybrid diesel-electric buses rate well according to the criteria of energy, environmental impact, industrial relationship, and implementation cost for DART.
The results of this study also confirm that each transit agency needs to consider its unique characteristics and facilities before deciding what alternative-fuel bus to invest in. Two major reasons that support this conclusion are 1) Capital cost varies based upon facilities that transit agencies already have in place, and 2) Even for one transit agency, the best option may change based upon the number of buses that will be acquired. Life-cycle cost is sensitive to the number of buses that will be purchased. However, transit agencies can use other transit agencies experience or studies such as this thesis to perform their own study.
xiv Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Public transportation systems are in serious funding crisis due to economic recession. Based on a survey released in March 2010 by American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) [1], since January 2009, 84 percent of public transportation systems have raised fares, cut services or are considering either of those actions. The report is based on a survey of 151 APTA transit system members representing more than 80 percent of the transit riders in the nation, and includes 19 of the top 25 agencies in terms of annual ridership.
The impacts of the recession on public transportation systems have been more severe than other transportation modes because these systems are mainly supported by State funds which have declined. For example, the revenue of the
Delaware Authority for Regional Transit (DART) is made up of 18 percent passenger fares, 77 percent State Funds, 3 percent Federal grants, and 2 percent bus advertising
[2].
In order to cope with the projected budget shortfall and provide critical services to passengers, it is critical to keep systems in a state of good repair. As stated
15 in the APTA’s report [1], more than 50 percent of public transportation systems have transferred funds from capital use to operations and maintenance to keep their current systems in a good condition.
Although urban transit buses are responsible for less than 1 percent of total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions produced in the United State [3], the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strictly controls transit agencies to make sure they comply with the latest environmental standards and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs).
In short, it is crucial that transit systems managers make smart decisions regarding to their future fleet expansion or renewal plans. They clearly know that paying the acquisition cost is just a first step. Life-cycle cost including capital cost and operating cost also play an important role. On the other hand, amount of emissions that transit buses emit to the environment are important as well. Federal and local governments, also citizens, are very sensitive in this regard and not paying attention to the EPA standards may lead to federal and state funding cut.
1.2 Problem Statement
Public transportation agencies usually consider different criteria for acquiring new fleets. Traditionally vehicle cost has been known as one of the most important factors that policy makers take it into consideration. However, other factors such as life-cycle cost, fuel efficiency, vehicle reliability, and environmental effects have captured the stage during last decade. Although federal agencies, e.g. Federal
16 Transit Administration (FTA), have published several reports investigating and comparing alternative-fuel buses, those reports do not directly suggest which technology is a dominant choice for a specific state.
This study investigates alternative-fuel buses and impartially ranks them exclusively for DART. It estimates life-cycle cost and emissions of alternative-fuel buses and also takes into account the facility that DART already has in place.
1.3 Purpose and Objectives
Transit authorities have started utilizing more alternative-fuel buses as part of their fleets in past two decades. However, the process of adopting new technologies has become difficult because there is a lack of study exclusively ranking alternative-fuel buses for each public transportation agency.
The purpose of this study is to estimate the life-cycle cost and emissions of the dominant alternative-fuel buses utilize in practice for DART. This objective is followed by using reliable and fairly accurate information collected from the latest scientific and practical reports published by Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In short this study will answer the following questions:
• Which alternative-fuel buses have been suggested by the United States congress to be considered for fleet expansion?
17 • Which alternative-fuel buses can practically be considered as viable replacement for conventional diesel buses?
• What is the life-cycle cost of the dominant alternative-fuels buses compare to conventional diesel buses taking into account the current facilities that
DART has in place?
• How do the dominant alternative-fuels buses compare to conventional diesel bus in terms of vehicle reliability, and environmental effects?
• How do transportation experts rank the relative importance of other factors such as energy independence, energy efficiency, vehicle capability, noise pollution and etc., for adopting a new technology by transit agencies?
By reading this thesis, the DART administration can determine which alternative-fuel bus will be the best option to go with in short and mid term. They can also use the results of this study to prepare their long-term strategic plan.
1.4 Scope
The direct user of this study is the DART’s administration. The results can be used by the DART management team as a reliable input to refine their urban transit buses expansion decision making process. This study does not cover paratransit vehicles. Other transit agencies can follow the same methodology to find out which alternative-fuel bus will be the best option for them.
The results of this study are valid under the following assumptions:
18
• DART has purchased 50 new transit buses in the year 2009, and the bus useful life is 12 years.
• The buses are all 40-ft in length, low floor designs, without elaborate equipment specifications.
• The buses are operated at average national conditions, speed of 12.5 mph and annual mileage of 35,000.
• When B20 biodiesel is used, the whole depot is converted, and additional, separate, fuel tanks are not required.
• Driver and mechanic training costs are not considered, but mechanic time is considered in maintenance costs.
• Driver operational costs are not considered.
• Benefits such as emissions credits, fuel tax credit or subsidies for having alternative technology vehicles are not considered.
• 80 percent federal subsidy for bus procurement was considered.
• The maintenance costs are constant (in 2009 dollar terms) for the 12 year life, and all data are presented as 2009 dollars.
• The fuel prices are constant (in 2009 dollar terms) for 12 years as follows: 1) 3.33 ($/gal) for ultra-low-sulfur diesel, 2) 3.40 ($/gal) for biodiesel, 3) 1.91
($/gal) for CNG.
19 1.5 Organization of Thesis
The rest of this thesis is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 will provide an introduction to DART organization. The DART fleets, transit network, network performance, and their current facilities will be presented.
Chapter 3 describes fleet expansion considerations that a transit agency should consider in order to acquire new transit buses. This chapter will provide a literature review into the key legislations and acts that the United States congress has passed related to the alternative-fuel buses. The latest EPA emissions standard for heavy-duty engine vehicles including urban transit buses will be discussed. The last section of this chapter is dedicated to find out what types of alternative-fuel buses are practically available for public transit agencies. This investigation is done based on the most comprehensive transit fleet database in the United State prepared by APTA.
Chapter 4 will present estimated life-cycle cost and emissions of the dominant alternative-fuel buses. This chapter presents the main results of this study.
Chapter 5 will provide the result of expert survey conducted to understand the relative importance of other criteria that might be important for transit agencies to consider during fleet expansion or renewal process.
Chapter 6 will provide summary about the study, results, and recommendations regarding possible future studies.
20 Chapter 2
INTRODUCTION TO DART
2.1 Introduction
The Delaware Transit Corporation, trading as DART First State is the primary public transportation system that operates throughout the state of Delaware.
DART First State is a subsidiary of the Delaware Department of Transportation.
Although most of its routes run in and around city of Wilmington and city of Newark in New Castle County, DART operates bus routes in the Dover area of Kent County, and six seasonal routes connecting Rehoboth Beach and other coastal resort towns in
Sussex County, and with Ocean City, Maryland [2].
The DART has experienced an increase in ridership or the past years. It has been mentioned [2] that the DART’s system wide ridership including transit buses and trains has grown from 6.7 million passenger trips in 1994 to 10.2 million in 2006.
This trend has continued, and in April 2010 DART announced that its transit services continue to gain ridership during this economic downturn, despite the drop in gas prices. Comparing ridership between April 2009 and April 2010, riding DART fixed- route buses grew by over 9 percent, or 59,922 passenger trips.
21 Most of public transportation systems in the country are being heavily supported by the Federal and States funds. DART is not an exception. The DART’s revenue is made up of passenger fares (18%), Federal grants (3%), Other-Bus
Advertising (2%), and State Funds (77%). Figure 1 shows the contribution of different resources in the DART’s revenue [2].
Bus Advertising Federal Grants 2% 3%
Passenger Fares 18%
State Funds 77%
Figure 1. The contribution of different resources in the DART’s revenue [2].
22 As it can be seen, DART is heavily subsidized by the State government and when this resource changes, DART has to implement the best strategy to keep the same level of service for its customer. It is interesting to know that DART has not raised its bus fares since the spring of 1989. However, it has made paying fares easier with its DARTCards, a stored value pass. The color-coded DARTCards are available in seven denominations and offer riders several discounted fare options up to 40% and, most importantly. DART has reported that 78 percent of its riders used the money saving DARTCards to pay their fare.
2.2 Fixed-Route Bus Routes
2.2.1 New Castle County
DART First State operates 43 fixed-route bus routes throughout New
Castle County, the majority of which hub in downtown Wilmington. Other major bus hubs in New Castle County include Newark and the Christiana Mall. Most routes operate Monday through Saturday with some Sunday service. All except 6 of these routes are directly operated by DART First State; the remaining 6 routes are operated by a third-party contractor utilizing cutaway buses. These routes are numbered between 1 and 65. Table 1 shows DART First State New Castle County fixed-routes bus routes [2]. Figure 2 also shows how these routes spread in New Castle County. It also shoes the load factor of each route meaning that wider lines carry more passenger than thinner lines [2].
23
Figure2. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes.
24 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes [2].
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes Rodney Square, Philadelphia Pike, Bellevue operates Monday-Sunday; Downtown Tri-State 1 Philadelphia Pike Park Corporate Center, Claymont, Claymont connects with SEPTA Wilmington Mall SEPTA Station, Presidential Towers Route 113 at Tri-State Mall Wilmington Brandywine Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, Commons operates 2 Concord Pike Train Town Center Concord Pike, Concord Mall, Brandywine Monday-Sunday Station Lea 26th Street/Lea Downtown Boulevard Street Rodney Square, Northeast Commons operates 3 Boulevard Wilmington and Wilmington Monday-Sunday Washington Barley Mill W. 4th Plaza or Monday-Sunday, limited Rodney 4 Street/Lancaster Agilent W. 4th Street, Lancaster Avenue weekday service to Agilent Square Avenue Technologie Technologies s Maryland Downtown Wilmington, Maryland Avenue, Avenue/Delawar Rodney Christiana 5 Newport, Stanton, Delaware Park, operates Monday-Sunday e Park/Christiana Square Mall Churchmans Crossing SEPTA station Mall Wilmington Kirkwood Downtown Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, 6 Train operates Monday-Sunday Highway/Newark Newark Prices Corner, Kirkwood Highway Station DuPont Wilmington Clayton Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, 7 Street/Clayton Train Street and operates Monday-Sunday Pennsylvania Avenue, St. Francis Hospital Street Station Cedar Street 8th and 9th Port of 9th Street / Christina Avenue, Downtown Wilmington, 8 operates Monday-Sunday Streets Wilmington Lincoln st. St. Francis Hospital
25 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes Boxwood Road / Prices Vandever Avenue, Rodney Square, Broom 9 Gander Hill operates Monday-Sunday Broom Street Corner P&R Street, Maryland Avenue, Boxwood Road Pennsylvania Delaware Wilmington Avenue and Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, operates Monday-Saturday, 10 Avenue/Kennett Train Rising Sun Delaware Avenue, Kennett Pike limited weekday service Pike Station Lane Washington Wilmington Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, 11 Street/Marsh Train Arden operates Monday-Sunday Washington Stree Ext., Marsh Road Road Station operates Monday-Saturday, departs for Miller Road Wilmington Miller Road Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, Baynard Shopping Center via 12 Train Shopping Wilmington Hospital, Baynard Boulevard, Boulevard Baynard Boulevard, Station Center Van Buren Street returns via Van Buren Street New Castle New Castle Avenue, New Castle, Basin Downtown Christiana 15 Avenue/Christian Road, New Castle Corporate Commons, operates Monday-Sunday Wilmington Mall a Mall Churchmans Road Downtown Wilmington, Wilmington Train Newark Express Rodney Station, I-95 Service Plaza, South College 16 Fairfield operates Monday-Sunday (via I-95) Square Avenue, Newark Train Station, University of Delaware DHSS Delaware Dunleith- Rodney Health and Downtown Wilmington, Wilmington Train 17 Holloway operates Monday-Sunday Square Social Station, Dunleith, Holloway Terrace Terrace/ Services Campus Rodney Polly Lancaster Avenue, Prices Corner, Kirkwood 19 Pike Creek Valley operates Monday-Sunday Square Drummond Highway, Limestone Road, Goldey Beacom
26 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes Wilmington Downtown Wilmington, Pennsylvania Lancaster 20 Train Hockessin Avenue, Delaware Route 141, Lancaster operates Monday-Sunday Avenue/Hockessin Station Avenue Cedar Tree Wilmington Apartments Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, 21 Foulk Road Train or Trinity operates Monday-Sunday Concord Pike, Foulk Road, Naamans Road Station Presbyterian Park & Ride Wilton Wilmington Train Station, DuPont Wilton/DuPont Rodney 22 Boulevard Highway, Delaware Route 273, Appleby operates Monday-Sunday Highway Square (Wal-Mart) Road operates Monday- University Computer New Castle Corporate Commons, Rodney Saturday, weekday night 23 Plaza/Corporate Sciences Christiana, University Plaza Shopping Square service to Wilton Commons Corp. Center Boulevard Wal-Mart 7th Street Kynlyn Governor Printz and Drive and 4th Street, Rodney Square, Governor Printz 24 operates Monday-Sunday Boulevard Woodlawn Prospect Boulevard Avenue Drive Tybouts Llangollen/DuPon Rodney Corner Park Wilmington, DuPont Highway, Airport 25 operates Monday-Sunday t Highway Square & Ride Plaza, Tybouts Corner Downtown A.I. DuPont Wilmington A.I. DuPont Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, 28 Hospital/Nemours Train Hospital For Augustine Cut-Off, Concord Pike, operates Monday-Saturday Clinic Station Children AstraZeneca
27 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes Polly Drummond Avenue, Amtrak Station, Prices Corner, Pike Creek Rodney 30 Shopping Kirkwood Highway, Limestone Road, operates Monday-Sunday Valley Square Center Goldey Beacom College Lancaster College Newark Square Downtown Newark, University of 31 Newark Trolley Municipal operates Monday-Sunday Shopping Delaware, Main Street, Elkton Road Building Center Wilmington Rodney Frawley Downtown Wilmington, Wilmington Train 32 operates Monday-Sunday Trolley Square Stadium Station, M.L. King Boulevard, Riverfront I-95, Christiana Mall, Christiana Hospital, operates Monday-Sunday, Christiana Rodney Downtown Churchmans Crossing SEPTA Station, limited weekday service to 33 Mall/Chestnut Square Newark Delaware Route 4, Newark Train Station, Churchmans Crossing Hill/Newark University of Delaware SEPTA Station Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Christiana operates Monday-Sunday, Marrows Rodney Downtown Mall, Chapman Road, Salem Church Road, limited weekday service to 34 Road/Christiana Square Newark Marows Road, College Square Shopping Churchmans Crossing Mall Center SEPTA Station Concord Wilmington Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, Brandywine 35 Pike/Shipley Train Concord Pike, Shipley Road, Brandywine operates Monday-Sunday Commons Road Station Town Center, Concord Mall Faulkland Rodney Eastburn Lancaster Avenue, Faulkand Road, Prices 36 Road/Milltown operates Monday-Sunday Square Acres Corner Park & Ride, Milltown Road Road Harvey Road Wilmington and Downtown Wilmington, Rodney Square, I- 38 Arden Express Train operates Monday-Sunday Philadelphia 95, Marsh Road, Arden Station Pike
28 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Christiana Chestnut Hill Rodney Downtown Mall, Delaware Route 273, Delaware Route 39 operates Monday-Sunday Road Express Square Newark 4, Newark Train Station, University of Delaware operates Monday-Saturday, connects to Community U.S. Route Rodney Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Christiana Transit "The Bus", which 40 40/Christiana Glasgow Square Mall, U.S. Route 40 provides service to Cecil Mall/Glasgow County, Maryland, at Peoples Plaza Rodney Downtown Wilmington, I-95 Christiana 41 US 40 Limited Glasgow operates Monday-Friday Square Mall, U.S. Route 40 Glasgow Express Rodney 42 Glasgow Wilmington, I-95, Delaware Route 896 operates Monday-Sunday Downtown Square Main Middletown- Wal-Mart, 43 St/Dupont Main St, Delaware Route 299 operates Monday-Sunday Odessa Shuttle Middletown Hwy, Odessa Rodney Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Delaware 45 Odessa Express Odessa operates Monday-Sunday Square Route 1 Rodney Wilton Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Christiana operates Monday-Saturday, Christiana Square or 54 Boulevard Mall, Delaware Route 7, Governors Square, limited service to Rodney Mall/Wilton Christiana Wal-Mart U.S. Route 40 Square Mall Rodney Downtown Wilmington, I-95, Christiana operates Monday-Saturday, Old Baltimore Square or Peoples Mall, Old Baltimore Pike, Chestnut Hill 55 limited service to Rodney Pike Christiana Plaza Road, Delaware Route 896, Pencader Square Mall Corporate Center
29 Table 1. DART’s New Castle County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals Stations Notes operates Monday-Friday, Wilmington provides connection to Mid-Day Rail Newark 59 Train Churchmans Crossing SEPTA Station SEPTA R2 train in Shuttle Train Station Station Wilmington, route operated by Krapf's Coaches Commons operates Monday-Friday, Claymont Concord Mall, Brandywine Town Center, 61 Naamans Road Brandywine route operated by Krapf's SEPTA Naamans Road, Tri-State Mall Coaches Station Churchmans operates Monday-Friday, Churchmans Christiana Crossing Borders, Del Tech, American Heart 62 route operated by Krapf's Shuttle East Mall SEPTA Association Coaches Station Churchmans operates Monday-Friday, Churchmans Christiana Crossing 63 Christiana Hilton, Christiana Hospital route operated by Krapf's Shuttle West Mall SEPTA Coaches Station operates Monday-Friday, US 40 Feeder Governors Shopping 64 U.S. Route 40 route operated by Krapf's Fox Run Square Center Coaches AVON Downtown Newark, University of operates Monday-Friday, Downtown 65 Newark/Elkton (Ogletown Delaware, Newark Train Station, Elkton route operated by Krapf's Elkton Road) Road, Maryland Route 279 Coaches
30 2.2.2 Kent County
DART First State operates 12 fixed-route bus routes within the Dover area. These bus routes operate Monday through Friday with some Saturday service out of the Water Street Transfer Center in downtown Dover as a hub-and-spoke system.
These routes are numbered in the 100-series. Table 2 shows DART First State Kent
County fixed routes bus routes [2].
Table 2. DART’s Kent County fixed-route bus routes [2].
Route Line Name Terminals stations Notes Forest Avenue, Forest Greentree Village Village operates 100 Avenue Shopping Center, Shopping Center Monday-Friday Greentree Walker Road, State Street operates Monday- State Street, Walker Saturday, Walker Road, Country Club Village departs via State 101 Road Apartments, Greentree Shopping Center Street and Greentree Village Shopping Walker Road, Center, Forest Avenue returns via Forest Avenue operates Forrest Avenue, Monday-Friday, Gateway West Gateway Gateway West departs via 102 Shopping Center, West Shopping Center Forest Avenue, Enterprise Business returns via Park, Simon Circle Simon Circle
31 Table 2. DART’s Kent County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals stations Notes New Burton Road, Rodney Rodney Village operates 103 Kesselring Avenue, Village Shopping Center Monday-Friday Rodney Village operates Governors Avenue, Monday- Camden- Rodney Village Saturday, shuttle 104 Mifflin Mifflin Meadows Shopping Center, connection to Meadows Camden, Wal-Mart Harrington at Supercenter Mifflin Meadows 105 Moores Gateway South South State Street, operates Lake Shopping Center Moores Lake Shopping Monday-Friday Shopping Center Center operates Base Gateway Delaware State Capitol, Monday-Friday, South Shopping DelDOT Dover Air limited service 106 Center or Adminastrative Force to Camden Wal- Camden Wal- Building, Dover Air Mart Mart Supercenter Force Base Supercenter Capitol Complex- Delaware State Capitol, operates Tudor Industrial 107 Blue Hen Bay Court Plaza, Blue Monday- Park Corporate Hen Corporate Center Saturday Center Towne Division Street, Dover operates 108 Kmart Point Park, Towne Point Monday-Friday 109 Luther Wal-Mart Loockerman Street, operates Towers- Luther Towers, The Monday- Dover Mall Centre at Dover Saturday Shopping Center, Dover Downs, Delaware State University, Dover Mall
32
Table 2. DART’s Kent County fixed-route bus routes (continue).
Route Line Name Terminals stations Notes Delaware Governors Avenue, Dover operates Technical & Dover Downs, 112 Downs-Del Monday- Community Delaware State Tech Saturday College University, Dover Mall Simon Circle, Gateway West Shopping Center, West Dover- operates 113 Dover Mall West Dover, Dover Dover Mall Monday-Friday Downs, Delaware State University, Dover Mall Mifflin Meadows, operates Polytech High School, Monday-Friday Harrington- Clark's Corner, 117 Woodside, Felton, (terminates at Dover Harrington Delaware State Mifflin Fairgrounds) Meadows North Gateway Shopping Center, Dover- Smyrna Rest Scarborough Rd Park operates 120 Cheswold- Park & Ride and Ride, Delaware Monday-Friday Smyrna State University, Dover Mall
2.2.3 Sussex County
DART First State operates a total of 9 bus routes within Sussex County.
Two of these routes offer year-round fixed-route bus service within Sussex County and connect at Georgetown. During summer months, DART operates 7 additional bus routes which hub at the Rehoboth Beach Park and Ride lot and offer connecting service to coastal communities along the Delaware shoreline and to Ocean City,
33 Maryland. These routes are numbered in the 200-series. Table 3 shows DART First
State Sussex County fixed routes bus routes [2].
Table 3. DART’s Sussex County fixed-route bus routes [2].
Route Line Name Terminals stations Rehoboth Rehoboth Beach 201 Rehoboth Beach Beach Rehoboth Beach Park & Ride Boardwalk Rehoboth Beach 203 North Local Tanger Outlets Rehoboth Beach Park & Ride Cape Rehoboth Beach Rehoboth Beach, 204 Lewes Henlopen Park & Ride Lewes Drive Cape Late night/ Rehoboth Beach Rehoboth Beach, 205 Henlopen Local Park & Ride Lewes Drive Rehoboth Georgetown/ Georgetown, Georgetown Beach 206 Lewes/ Lewes, Rehoboth Transit Hub Boardwalk/Par Rehoboth Beach k & Ride Rehoboth/Long Rehoboth Beach Massey's Rehoboth Beach, 207 Neck/ Park & Ride Landing Long Neck Pot-Nets Rehoboth Beach, Rehoboth/ Rehoboth Beach Ocean City, Dewey Beach, 208 Ocean City Park & Ride Md. Bethany Beach, Fenwick Island Georgetown/ Georgetown Laurel Bridgeville, 212 Laurel Transit Hub Commons Seaford
2.2.4 Intercounty Service
DART First State operates two inter-county bus routes which connect the three separate systems. Route 301 operates weekday service between Downtown
34 Wilmington, Christiana Mall, Middletown, Smyrna, and Dover, connecting the New
Castle and Kent County fixed-route systems. Route 303 operates between Dover and
Georgetown, connecting the Kent and Sussex County fixed-route systems. During the summer months, DART First State operates Route 305 on weekends, connecting
Wilmington and Dover with Rehoboth Beach [2].
2.3 DART’s Fleets
This section provides a comprehensive review into the DART’s transit fleet, and also presents the DART’s future fleet expansion plan using the APTA’s fleet database [1] and the DART’s website [2].
Urban transit buses can be categorized based on different factors, e.g. vehicle mode, type, age, dimension or capacity, and technology or power type. In this study the DART’s transit buses are divided into two major category, bus and demand responsive. The following subsections discuss the DART transit bus fleet characteristics.
2.3.1 Vehicle Mode
The DART’s urban transit fleets include two major types of vehicle. One of them is recognized as a regular transit bus which has its classic definition. These vehicles are being operated in fixed-route bus routes and follow predefined schedule.
On the other hand, demand responsive vehicles are usually smaller than buses and being operated when demand for some bus routes are high or pass a certain amount.
35 These vehicles do not belong to the specific transit route and may be utilized as needed for different routes and during several time periods. Figure 3 represents the number and frequency of these two vehicle modes in the DART’s current fleet. Table
4 also provides further information in this regard. As can be seen, conventional buses include 46 percent of the DART’s fleet [2].
Demand responsive, Bus, 214, 46% 251, 54%
Figure 3. The number and frequency of the major vehicle types in the DART’s fleet [2].
Based on Table 4 all buses except one are longer than 27 feet and have 35 seats on average. The DART’s buses include five different bus sizes. Figure 4 shows the total number of buses and number of active buses for each category. As can be seen, 40-foot buses constitute the majority of the DART’s fleet by 68 percent and followed by the 30-foot buses by 17 percent. It can be interpreted that 40-foot buses play an important role in DART operation [2].
36 Table 4. DART’s fleet database [1].
Length Width # Year Mode Vehcile Type Seats Body Manufacturer (ft) (in) active Built 40 102 40 7 2000 35 102 32 0 2009 30 102 26 4 2004 40 102 40 1 2008 40 102 40 10 2008 40 102 40 1 2007 40 102 40 1 2006 Bus Bus, transit (>=27’6”, 2 doors) Gillig Corporation 40 102 40 2 2004 29 102 26 0 2009 29 102 26 3 2008 40 102 40 48 2008 29 102 26 10 2008 29 102 26 3 2006 40 102 40 7 2006 45 102 57 0 2009 40 102 43 2 2004 Bus Bus, intercity (>=32’6”, 1 door) Motor Coach Ind. International 40 102 43 2 2006 40 102 43 6 1999 40 102 41 19 2002 Bus Bus, transit (>=27’6”, 2 doors) North American Bus Industries 40 102 37 44 2002 Small vehicle (<27’6”, minibus, 25 96 16 2 2005 Bus Goshen Coach van) 25 96 16 3 2004
37 Table 4. DART’s fleet database (continue).
Length Width # Year Body Manufacturer Mode Vehcile Type Seats (ft) (in) active Built 29 102 28 2 2005 Bus Bus, trolley replica Optima Bus Corporation 29 102 28 3 2002 30 96 26 12 1999 Bus Bus, transit (>=27'6", 2 doors) Champion Motor Coach 30 96 26 22 2000 25 96 16 0 2009 Small vehicle (<27'6", minibus, van) 25 96 16 102 2008 Allen-Ashley 25 96 16 1 2007 25 96 16 68 2006
Demand Response 25 96 16 29 2005
Small vehicle (<27'6", minibus, van) 25 96 16 34 2004 Goshen Coach
22 87 10 8 2003
25 96 16 9 2003
38
Figure 4. The frequency of buses with different sizes in the DART’s fleet [1].
2.3.2 Vehicle Technology
The DART’s buses are propelled by two types of power systems or technology which are diesel and hybrid diesel-electric. However, the majority of the DART’s buses are diesel by 94 percent [1]. DART's entire diesel fleet uses the low sulfur fuel. DART started using hybrid diesel-electric buses since 2004 in order to provide greener and newer for its riders. This action has also helped DART to increase its fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution and fuel cost. After testing hybrid buses,
39 DART purchased 10 new hybrid diesel-electric buses in 2008. Table 5 shows the DART’s current transit fleet based on their technology.
2.3.3 Vehicle Age
Currently DART utilizes transit buses with different ages. The oldest buses in the DART’s fleet are 11 years old. However, over the next two years, more than 48 percent of the existing transit buses reach the end of their useful lives which is
12 years. Therefore, DART should start renewing its fleet to comply with the FTA standards. Also, as buses are getting older, their maintenance cost increase. On the other hand their fuel economy decrease and they produce more air pollution. Figure 5 shows the distribution of buses with different age in the DART’s transit fleet.
2.3.4 DART’s Future Fleet Expansion Plan
DART has announced its plan to buy 28 new hybrid diesel-electric buses in two years [1, 2]. Six of these new hybrid buses are from FTA $3.12 million award to Delaware from the Clean Fuels Grant Program. The hybrid buses operate in its electric mode at speeds up to 25 mph. The diesel engine will then provide power solely or in combination with the electric motor as needed.
It is estimated that the electric hybrid buses can increase fuel economy by as much as 60 percent, reduce particulates, hydrocarbon and carbon emissions by up to 90 percent, as well as releasing 60 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen than older diesel vehicles [3].
40 Table 5. The DART’s transit buses based on their propulsion technology [1].
Year Length Total # Mode Type of Power Seats Built (ft) vehicles active 40 40 1 1 2008 Diesel and electric battery 40 40 10 10 Bus 2007 Diesel and electric battery 40 40 1 1 2006 Diesel and electric battery 40 40 1 1 2004 Diesel and electric battery 40 40 2 2 57 45 1 0 2009 Diesel fuel 26 29 19 0 26 29 3 3 2008 Diesel fuel 26 29 10 10 40 40 48 48 40 40 7 7 2006 Diesel fuel 26 29 3 3 43 40 2 2 16 25 2 2 2005 Diesel fuel 28 29 2 2 Bus 26 30 4 4 2004 Diesel fuel 16 25 3 3 43 40 2 2 28 29 3 3 2002 Diesel fuel 41 40 19 19 37 40 44 44 40 40 7 7 2000 Diesel fuel 26 30 22 22 43 40 6 6 1999 Diesel fuel 26 30 12 12
41
Figure 5. The distribution of buses in DART’s fleet based on their age [1].
The hybrid electric technology on DART buses consists of a highly efficient diesel engine, running on super low-sulphur fuel, in combination with an
Allison electric drive transmission system. Due to the smaller diesel motor and the use of an electric motor, hybrid buses are quieter than standard transit vehicles. The additional weight of the battery pack and additional cooling unit provides a more comfortable ride.
42 The DART’s future plans also include the upgrading of all bus stops and passenger shelters. Continuing efforts to go greener and protect the environment as well as cutting operating costs and maintaining a safe system for riders have also been mentioned as the DART strategies for future [2].
43 Chapter 3
FLEET ACQUIREMENT CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Introduction
Public transportation agencies usually acquire new transit buses in order to expand and/or renew their fleet. Fleet expansion is considered when transit demand or ridership of a transit network passes a certain number. Also, it may be considered when transit agencies are going to increase their service coverage due to the new land use development. However, transit agencies have to renew their fleet when their fleet reaches its maximum life-cycle defined by the FTA standards. The maximum useful life span for a transit bus, a heavy duty engine, is 12 years. This age has been defined based on the FTA studies that show operating transit buses over 12 years old are not economical and also these buses emit more pollution into environment [5].
No matter for which of the aforementioned purposes transit agencies want to acquire new transit buses, they have to take into account multiple considerations.
These considerations may derive from acts and legislations that have passed by the
United States congress or imposed by influential agencies such as the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
44 On the other hand, management team of transit agencies has to make a smart decision in order to obtain the best technology or combination of technologies which work best for their jurisdiction. Sine transit agencies receive 80 percent of a new bus purchasing cost as a Federal grant and have to operate the new buses for 12 years, this decision is very important. Therefore, having a clear understanding of strengths and weaknesses of available options is a must. They also can learn from other transit agencies experiences to make a smarter decision in this regard.
In this chapter some of the key legislations and acts related to transit fleet acquirement will be reviewed. Also, EPA emissions standard for heavy duty engines including urban transit buses will be discussed. In addition, the APTA’s database as the most comprehensive and up-to-date database related to the US urban transit buses will be analyzed. Finally, the dominant technologies for further analysis will be introduced.
3.2 Acts and Legislations
The overuse of fossil fuel products including gasoline and diesel during last three decades has caused serious national and international environmental issues.
Since the U.S. is one of the big oil importers, it has raised critical economical and political concerns such as up to what level the nation is energy independent.
Greenhouse gases and ozone production have both increased dramatically over the past 30 years, and shortages of oil and international crises resulted in rising fuel prices up to 4.9 dollar per gallon in 2008.
45 Alternative fuel vehicles including urban transit buses can help to improve the air quality and also decrease the nation dependency to foreign oil. These vehicles produce a smaller amount of emissions of Green House Gases (GHG) and other toxins such as carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides [3]. In addition, a switch to alternative fuels will allow local economies within the U.S. to grow, since the alternatives can be produced domestically. Using domestically resources will limit the risk associated with importing an extreme amount of fuel from foreign nations.
As a result of these issues, the U.S. congress has passed a number of legislations in order to improve the current environmental and financial problems in transportation. Figure 6 shows the sequence of passing these legislations. It also reflects the duration of the legislations.
46
ISTEA Planning Factors 1991 - 1997
TEA-21 Planning Considerations 1998 - 2004
SAFTEA-LU Planning Factors 2005 - 2011
Next ? 2011 - 2017
Figure 6. The sequence and duration of the transp. legislations passed by the U.S congress.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) is a United States federal law that posed a major change to transportation planning and policy, as the first U.S. federal legislation on the subject in the post-Interstate
Highway System era. It presented an overall intermodal approach to highway and
47 transit funding with collaborative planning requirements, giving significant additional powers to metropolitan planning organizations.
The major ISTEA Planning Factors can be summarized as follow:
1. Preservation & Efficiency of Existing Transportation
2. Emphasize Energy Conservation
3. Congestion Relief
4. Study Effect of Transportation Policy on Land Use
5. Study Effect of All Projects, Including Those Not Publicly Funded
6. Freight Efficiency
7. Life Cycle Costing in Design & Engineering
8. Overall Social, Economic, Energy, Environmental Factors
9. Expand Transit, and
10. Transit Security.
ISTEA legislation was followed by the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 authorized the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003.
The transportation equity act requires that seven planning factors be included in regional transportation plans. The plans must:
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning area
2. Increase the safety and security for the transportation system for
motorized and non-motorized users
48 3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and
for freight
4. Protect and enhance the environment promote energy conservation and
improve the quality of life,
5. Enhance the integration of connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight,
6. Promote efficient system management and operation,
7. Emphasize the efficient preservation of existing transportation system.
Factor 4 was expanded by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. SAFETEA-LU grants authority to the Secretary to make grants to assist State and local governmental authorities in financing capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus- related projects. Projects eligible for funding under the Livability Bus program are capital projects such as purchase and rehabilitation of buses, bus related equipment
(including ITS, fare equipment, communication devices), construction and rehabilitation of bus-related facilities (including administrative, maintenance, and intermodal facilities). SAFETEA - LU Planning Factors can be summarized as follows:
1. Support Economic Vitality
2. Increased Safety for All Modes, Users
49 3. Increased Security for All Modes, Users
4. Increased Accessibility & Mobility for People & Freight
6. Promote System Management
7. Emphasize Preservation of Existing System
3.3 EPA Regulations
EPA is one of the federal agencies that protect the environment by creating and enforcing regulations based on Congress laws. Regulations are mandatory requirements that can apply to state or local governments. One of the most important laws administered and enforced by EPA is the Clean Air Act (CAA) [4].
CAA is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources including heavy duty engine vehicles such as transit buses. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
One of the goals of the Act is to set standards for the different air pollutant sources in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The Act was amended in 1977 and 1990 primarily to set new dates for achieving attainment of
NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines.
50 The United State’s congress and EPA work closely to reduce air pollution through passing comprehensive legislations such as SAFE-TEA-LU and decreasing the maximum acceptable level of tailpipe emissions of vehicles. EPA has also enhanced its emissions standards and forced manufactures to comply with the new standards. Figure 7 shows how the EPA emissions standard for the heavy-duty engines has changed during past 20 years. Table 6 also represents the latest EPA standards for the heavy-duty engine vehicles including urban transit buses [3].
Figure 7. The EPA emissions standard for the heavy duty engines since 1990 [3].
51 Table 6. The latest EPA emission standards for heavy-duty engines [3].
CO HC NOx PM
(g/bhp-hr*) (g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) EPA emission requirement 2007- 15.5 0.14 0.2 0.01 2010 * grams per brake horsepower per hour
Based on these standards, any new transit buses acquired by transit
agencies should comply with the latest standard announced by EPA. However, the
proposed emissions standards usually affect bus manufacturers because if they cannot
attain the standards, they cannot sell their products in the United States market.
As stated before, EPA pollutant standards are backed up by the state
implementation plans (SIPs) in order to be met. Based on the Delaware Air Quality
Report [5], state of Delaware is an attainment area regarding to ozone level. Figure 8
shows that the whole northeast region is in a bad situation regarding to ozone gas.
Also, state of Delaware is categorized as unhealthy area for sensitive people. Also,
New Castle County especially city of Wilmington, DE, declared non-attainment for
PM2.5 pollutant. Concentrations were above the annual average air quality standard
during 2001 – 2003. Figure 9 shows the trend of PM2.5 in city of Wilmington, DE.
Kent and Sussex counties record concentrations below both the annual and 24-hour
standards. Other pollutants, i.e. SO2, CO, NO2, and PM10 were well below the
national standards.
52
Figure 8. The level of ozone pollutant in the northeast reigon and Delaware State in 2008 [5].
53
Figure 9. The trend of PM2.5 in city of Wilmington, DE [5].
3.4 Dominant Alternative-Fuel Buses in Practice
Since the Energy Policy Act of 1992, transit agencies have been implementing more alternative fuel buses within their bus operations [4]. The act listed eight fuels to be designated as alternatives: ethanol, methanol, Liquid Petroleum
Gas (LPG), pure electric, hydrogen (fuel cell), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), biodiesel, and hybrid (added in 1999). However, the current APTA’s transit bus database [1] shows that all of these alternative-fuel buses are not considered as a viable alternative for conventional diesel buses.
The U.S. urban transit database is prepared and managed by APTA and shows the contribution of different technologies (alternative-fuels). The APTA’s
54 database is an annual report of revenue vehicles by fleet characteristics, including date of manufacture, manufacturer, model, length, and equipment for approximately 250
U.S. transit agencies and 15 Canadian transit agencies. It includes summary tables which group vehicles by mode and list by manufacturer, size, year built, and equipment. A special section on the new vehicle market includes orders, planned orders, and vehicle costs. Figure 10 shows the share of buses with different technologies in the APTA’s 2009 transit bus database. It can be seen that 96 percent of transit buses are propelled by diesel, CNG, biodiesel or hybrid diesel-electric engines.
Figure 10. The share of different technologies in the APTA’s 2009 transit bus database [1].
55 Since the APTA’s database includes historical data, it can be used to see how transit agencies have responded to new propulsion technologies or innovation of alternative fuel buses. Figure 11 shows the number of new transit buses acquired by transit agencies in each category since 1980. This graph was prepared by the author of this thesis.
Figure 11. Number of new transit buses acquired by transit agencies since 1980.
It can be seen that transit agencies have sharply decreased their demand for purchasing conventional diesel buses since 1980. However, diesel transit buses still are the most popular type of transit buses in service. The same trend can be seen for biodiesel buses. This observation may show that transit agencies have not been
56 satisfied by the performance of the biodiesel buses or biodiesel buses have not performed better than conventional diesel buses as transit agencies have expected.
Demand for CNG bad been increasing until 2004 and then it was decreased between 2005 and 2009. Innovation and reliable performance of hybrid diesel-electric buses can be considered as the major reason that CNG buses’ demand decreased after 2004. Hybrid diesel-electric buses performed utilized by New York
City Transit Authority in late 1990’s and they become more popular as time went on.
As it can be seen the demand for hybrid diesel –electric buses sharply increase between 2005 and 2009.
Although figure 10 represents valuable information, this figure solely cannot provide a clear picture of the trend unless the number of transit agencies which acquired this vehicle also considered. Figure 12 shows the number of transit agencies that started acquiring these technologies. This graph was prepared by the author of this thesis.
57
Figure 12. Number of Transit Agencies per Category
The similar observation as figure 10 can be traced in figure 11 for conventional diesel buses. It means not only the demand for conventional diesel buses has decreased, the fewer number of transit agencies are intended for buying this technology. Several reasons can be considered for this observation. It can be said that legislations and acts make transit agencies to acquire more environmental friendly options or new technologies have outperformed conventional diesel buses.
Biodiesel and CNG buses also show the similar observation as diesel buses. Both technologies are in a steady situation. However, the number of transit agencies acquiring hybrid diesel-buses has sharply increased. It may show the
58 superiority of the hybrid technology in comparison to other alternative fuel transit buses.
It is very important to understand why the share of other technologies is so low. This study investigated reported weaknesses of other alternative-fuel technologies. Based on a comprehensive search of the literature documenting the latest information on bus transit technology from federal, state, academic, private, and national sources, the following comments highlight the major weaknesses of other technologies [6].
1. Ethanol and Methanol: Ethanol and methanol are an alcohol based fuel. They were large contributors in 1996, but their use has been dramatically decreased. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LACMTA), the transit agency operating the largest fleet of methanol and ethanol buses, has experienced significantly higher maintenance costs and reduced engine life with their alcohol-fueled buses compared with diesel baseline. The reason is the chemical compound that comes along with burning these fuels, forms a strong acid that makes corrosion.
2. Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG): Although Chicago’s LPG buses had demonstrated reliable operating performance and safety records in the past, their operation were ultimately ended due to lack of suitable commercially available engine.
Even the recent technological innovations make LPG a much more practical option for
59 small- to medium-sized transit buses, but not for full-size (40-foot long) buses.
Moreover, LPG offers a potential emissions performance similar to that of CNG.
3. Pure electric: Eclectic bus is a very promising technology for next generation of transit buses. This type of technology is in prototype design stage. There are only few numbers of these buses which are being commercially utilized in the whole USA transit bus fleet.
4. Hydrogen (fuel cell): This technology provides the only true zero- emission bus with excellent performance, acceptable range, and good maintainability and superior fuel utilization efficiency. However, hydrogen leaks are a serious concern, as the gas is quite buoyant and explosive. This concern and innovative technology make the buses with this technology very pricy with an average price of
$1,297,568. Also the cost of appropriate design for maintenance garage fueling facilities is high [1].
In this study four technologies were considered for the final assessment.
This selection was made based on superior performance, energy efficiency, safety parameters, and emissions reduction. These technologies are conventional diesel buses with ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD), biodiesel, CNG, and hybrid diesel- electric. In addition, the latest Federal Transit Administration (FTA) report [7] clearly states that these four technologies are the most viable ones for transit agencies to consider for their bus fleets. Figure 13 shows pictures of a hybrid diesel-electric and a
CNG buses.
60
a) an example of a CNG bus.
a) an example of a hybrid diesel-electric bus [2].
Figure 13. a) an example of a CNG bus, b) an example of a hybrid diesel-electric bus.
61 Chapter 4
LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSION ESTIMATION
4.1 Introduction
Due to economic recession and funding crisis, public transportation agencies are under great obligation to demonstrate their stewardship of taxpayer investments in fleet expansion and transportation infrastructure. Many transportation agencies are investigating economic tools that will help them choose the most cost- effective alternatives. Based on Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), life-cycle cost analysis is a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as maintenance, user, reconstruction, and rehabilitation costs, over the life of the project segment.
Heavy-duty engine vehicles including diesel trucks and buses have served transportation and freight needs for over 40 years because of their durability, reliability and relative efficiency. Since 1970, with the focus on air pollution and the setting of national ambient air quality standards, heavy-duty diesel engines have become less harmful for the environment. Manufacturers have redesigned their products to dramatically reduce air emissions. Despite this progress, the air pollution
62 from heavy-duty engine vehicles is still a health concern and contributes to continuing air quality problems.
In summary, combination of life-cycle cost and emissions of different transit bus alternative can be considered as the most important criteria that transit agencies take into account during fleet expansion or renewal process. This chapter estimates the life-cycle cost and emissions of the final three alternative-fuel buses
(CNG, biodiesel, and hybrid diesel-electric) and compares them with the life-cycle cost and emissions of Ultra-low sulfur diesel buses.
4.2 Major Assumptions
It is assumed that DART is going to buy 50 new buses in 2009. A bus 12-year life cycle cost (LCC) analysis for a fleet size of 50 buses was performed based on information available in the literature, manufacturers’ specifications, and fuel economy data reported by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Only technology-dependent factors relevant to bus propulsion were considered; driver and management cost were excluded. Bus price, equipment and infrastructure cost (to support novel technology), fuel cost, propulsion-related systems maintenance, facility maintenance, and hybrid bus battery replacement were considered. Little information was found on brake life extension for hybrid technology, but it was determined to be a relatively small cost factor. Buses were assumed operate at a national average speed of
12.5 mph, to travel for 35,000 miles per year, and to be low floor and seat 39 passengers for the purposes of calculation. Benefit such as emission credits, fuel tax
63 credit or subsidies for having alternative technology vehicles are not considered.
However, Federal subsidy for bus procurement price (80 percent) is considered.
4.3 Life-Cycle Cost Estimation
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCAA) is a tool that allows transit agencies officials to quantify the differential costs of alternative-fuel buses. LCCA considers all expenditures that transit agencies should pay throughout the life of an alternative, not only initial investments. LCCA demonstrates the economic merits of the alternatives in an analytical and fact-based manner. LCCA helps transit agencies to answer the following questions:
• Which design alternative results in the lowest total cost to the agency over
the life of the project?
• To what level of detail have the alternatives been investigated?
In this study alternatives life-cycle costs are divided in two major parts, capital and operating costs. Capital cost includes initial purchasing cost and infrastructure cost which is separated in two subsections, refueling station and depot modification costs. Operating cost includes fuel cost, facility maintenance costs, propulsion-related maintenance costs, battery replacement (for hybrid diesel-electric buses only), and compression electricity (for CNG buses only). For each alternative- fuel bus these costs are estimated during its useful life-cycle which assumed 12 years.
64 4.3.1 Capital Cost
In this section the capital cost of each alternative is estimated. The capital cost includes initial purchasing cost and infrastructure cost which is separated in two subsections, refueling station and depot modification. Except diesel and hybrid diesel- electric buses, other two alternatives demand construction of especial infrastructures which will be discussed in this chapter. Also, DART should modify its current depots to safely repair and maintain its future CNG and hybrid diesel-electric buses.
Table 7 shows the capital cost of the buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies. It includes costs for vehicle procurement, required infrastructure
(refueling station), and depot modification. The itemized costs are discussed below the table.
65 Table 7. Capital Cost per Bus (50 Bus Fleet)
Hybrid
ULSD* Biodiesel CNG Diesel-
Electric
Vehicle cost $68,682 $71,820 $82,158 $108,668 (with 80% federal subsidy)
Refueling $0 $16,000 $88,000 $0 Station Infrastructure Depot $0 $0 $48,000 $1,400 Modification
Total Capital Cost $68,682 $87,820 $218,158 $110,068
* ULSD: Ultra Low-Sulfure Deisel
4.3.1.1 Vehicle Cost
All bus procurement costs are the average prices calculated from the the
APTA’s 2009 transit bus database [1]. The bus prices use only the data from diesel, biodiesel, CNG and hybrid diesel-electric buses, which are 40-ft low floor and are newer than 2005. No costs were adjusted for inflation in preparing table 7. Since in many cases in the U.S. bus procurements are subsidized with federal funds, the effect of subsidy is considered table 7. Federal funds usually provide up to 80 percent of the price of a new transit bus. The bus purchase prices cannot be extended significantly
66 into the future, because changing production numbers and changing technology
(driven by regulation and innovation) will alter future costs.
4.3.1.2 Infrastructure Cost
The cost of required infrastructures (refueling stations and fuel supply system) were separately estimated for each of the alternative-fuel buses.
A. Diesel (ULSD)
Infrastructure costs for ULSD (diesel) buses are considered zero, because a diesel infrastructure is already baseline.
B. Biodiesel
Presently there is no refinery in the state of Delaware which produces enough biodiesel fuel for the DART operation in case of purchasing biodiesel buses in future. Although DART could provide its biodiesel demand from out-of-state sources, during our meeting the DART management team stated that they prefer to get their fuel from a domestic refinery. The total cost of a refinery that produces 1,000,000 gallons of biodiesel per year estimated $800,000. This price was derived from the auction price of the Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel Plant, Clayton, DE, which was sold for
$1,485,000 in 2009. This refinery could produce 5,000,000 gallon of biodiesel per year [8]. Since most of the DART fixed-route bus routes run in New Castle County, this study suggests that the proposed refinery is built in this county.
67 Biodiesel is nontoxic, nonvolatile, and it will naturally degrade if spilled or otherwise exposed to the environment. Biodiesel buses, if acquired, can maintain using the current facilities (depots) that DART uses for their diesel fleet. Therefore, the capital cost for depot modification for biodiesel buses is considered zero or insignificant number.
C. CNG
There are four general fueling station design approaches for CNG vehicles. These four approaches are direct fast fill, fast fill from storage, slow (or time) fill, and fast/slow fill. The cost of a gas compressor increases with its design capacity. Fleet fueling operations can vary greatly in terms of available time to fuel a vehicle and the number of vehicles fueled per day. Proper selection of the fueling approach allows fleet operational requirements to be met and also minimizes the capacity and cost of the compressor station [9].
After reviewing advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned methods with the DART management, finally the direct fast fill method selected as the most desirable option. The objective of the direct fast fill method is to fill the CNG tanks as quickly as diesel, in 3 to 10 min. Figure 14 shows the principal elements of a direct fast fill station. Gas is supplied by the local utility via underground pipeline. To minimize the cost of the compressor station and the energy needed to compress the gas to the design storage pressure, it is desirable that the gas be provided at the highest possible pressure. The gas line must also be sufficiently large in diameter to deliver
68 gas at the high rate demanded by the station. Unless the bus garage's design and construction anticipated CNG bus fueling, the gas line to the garage will likely have to be upgraded to meet the demand of the fueling station.
Direct fast fill is normally used when a fleet of 100 or more buses must be fueled within an 8-hour shift. Installation costs can vary, depending on several design variables. These include the following:
• The gas line pressure available;
• The flow rate desired;
• How extensively the gas is dried and filtered; and
Figure 14. Direct fast fill CNG fueling station [9].
Total installed costs reported for recent CNG fueling stations for transit bus operations have been between $1.5 million and $3 million. A common rule of
69 thumb for estimating compressor station capital costs is to assume that the cost will be between $800 and $1,000 per scf/min of capacity. For example, the cost of a 2,000- scf/min station would be between $1.6 million and $2 million [9].
Since DART is transit service provider for all three counties in Delaware state, it should be able to operate CNG buses in all these counties. This issue imposes a very strict restriction and makes DART to consider the cost of construction of more than one refueling station in its life-cycle analysis. In order to minimize the cost of infrastructure for CNG buses, this study takes into account the current DART operating facility location and characteristics. Table 8 shows DART operating facility location and characteristics. Among listed facilities in table 8, three of them were selected based on their location, size, and most importantly availability of CNG with desirable pipe line pressures. These locations are Wilmington, Dover and Georgetown.
However, these refueling stations will not serve the same number of CNG buses. The
Wilmington station will serve 50 CNG buses and two other locations only serve up to
25 CNG buses.
In this study the total cost of a refueling station with the direct fast fill capability meaning that a 40-foot long bus can be filled in less than 5 minutes, is estimated $2,000,000 [9]. Such station demands a compression capacity of at least
2,000 scf/min of natural gas. Since DART needs to build one full-size station in
Wilmington, one half-size station in Dover, and one half-size station in Georgetown,
70 the total cost of these fueling stations is estimated $4,400,000
($2,000,000+2*$1,200,000).
Table 8. DART operating facility location and characteristics [2].
Building Service # of Buses Name Address S. F. Bays Supported
Wilmington 1 South Monroe Street 25,000 11 123 Operations Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington 600 West Second Street Paratransit 13,000 5 --- Maintenance Wilmington, DE 19801 Mid County 1423 South Dupont Highway 14,975 3 33 Operations New Castle, DE 19720 900 Public Safety Boulevard Dover Operations 58,500 9 26 Dover, DE 19901
Georgetown 545 S. Bedford St Extended 8,800 3 8 Operations Georgetown, DE 19947
Rehoboth 20055 Shuttle Road 3,100 1 22 Operations Rehoboth, DE 19971
Fuel leaks from CNG vehicles can be very rapid, such as when a pressure relief device opens. Leaked CNG fuel will spontaneously mix with air. Although common belief holds that CNG leaks are less dense than air, recent works have pointed out that because of the tremendous expansion cooling effect, the leaked gas will be extremely cold and dense. The resulting mixture will not be very buoyant, and
71 it slowly rises toward the ceiling. Estimating the extent and cost of the modifications needed to safely convert diesel garages to CNG is made uncertain by the absence of definitive codes applicable to CNG. NFPA 88B, Standard for Repair Garages, and
NFPA 70, the National Electric Code, may be broadly applied to CNG garages with considerable interpretation. For example, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recently published Design Guidelines for Bus Transit Systems Using Compressed
Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel [9] which provides a comprehensive summary of applicable building and design code provisions, as well as design practices which are emerging from the transit industry's experience with CNG.
The primary objective in modifying maintenance garages for CNG buses is to ensure that ventilation rates are high enough to rapidly disperse potential leaks. In the CNG garage, a basic ventilation rate equivalent to 6 room air exchanges per hour is needed. Methane leak detectors are installed in or above the service bays. Upon detection of a leak, the ventilation rate is increased to 12 air exchanges per hour, all doors are automatically opened, and an alarm may sound. To eliminate ignition sources, the fire protection system may automatically shut off all nonemergency electrical systems at some methane concentration well above the detection limit.
DART needs to modify three depots to be able to maintain its CNG buses state wide. The average cost of a depot modification is estimated $875,000 [7]. This cost is the average cost that has been paid by Grater Cleveland regional transit
Authority (GCRTA) ($750,000) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation
72 Authority (LACMTA) ($1,000,000). The total cost of the depot modification is estimated $2,400,000.
D. Hybrid diesel-electric
Refueling station costs for hybrid diesel-electric buses are considered zero, because a diesel infrastructure is already baseline. However, maintenance facilities for hybrid buses need a variety of new tools and equipment. This will include diagnostic equipment for propulsion control systems, high-voltage power electronic systems, and propulsion motors. If hybrid electric propulsion allows for significant reductions in transmission and brake maintenance, fewer service bays and maintenance spares may be needed than with a similar sized fleet of motor buses.
Provisions for storing and replacing propulsion batteries may be needed.
As stated, hybrid diesel-electric buses require additional space and equipment for battery conditioning stations. The cost of each station is estimated
$70,000 [7]. DART already has two modified depots for utilizing diesel hybrid buses and only one more facility would be needed.
Figure 15 shows the capital costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies. It includes costs for vehicle procurement, infrastructure
(biodiesel and CNG buses only), and depot modification (CNG and hybrid diesel- electric buses only).
73
Figure 15. The capital costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies.
4.3.2 Operating Cost
In this section the operating cost of each alternative is estimated. The operating cost includes fuel cost, total maintenance cost, facility (refueling station and depot) maintenance cost, compression electricity cost (applicable to CNG buses only), and battery replacement coat (applicable to hybrid diesel-electric buses only).
74 Table 9 shows the bus operating costs in 2009 dollars. Data was not available for all technologies at one site, making the task difficult. Data was gathered from various reliable resources. The itemized costs are discussed below the table.
Table 9. Operating Cost per Bus (50 Bus Fleet and 12 year of active service)
Hybrid
ULSD Biodiesel CNG Diesel-
Electric
Fuel Cost $378,000 $408,000 $250,688 $314,292
Total maintenance $243,600 $243,600 $231,100 $201,600
Facility maintenance $20,432 $21,600 $23,625 $16,989
Compression $0 $0 $18,375 $0 Electricity
Battery Replacement $0 $0 $0 $60,000
Total Operating $642,032 $673,200 $523,788 $592,881 Cost
4.3.2.1 Fuel Cost
Fuel cost was calculated from the product of the DART annual average mileage (35,000 mile per year), estimated fuel economy, and predicted fuel price. All prices are in 2009 dollars, and CNG price data were all converted to the base of diesel
75 gallon (energy) equivalent (DGE). One DGE of CNG was equivalent to about 126 cubic feet of CNG
The DART annual average mileage is close to the national annual average bus mileage (37,000 miles) determined from the 2004 and 2005 National Transit
Profile in Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) National Transit Database (NTD)
[7]. This mileage was not altered for future years beyond 2007.
Fuel economy of alternative-fuel buses was predicted based on several resources mainly based on the latest FTA report released in 2008 and other FTA or
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reports comparing the performance of alternative-fuel transit buses [10, 11]. The FTA’s report prediction was based on the parabolic model that is known as the best fit for buses fuel economy as a function of average speed. However, other sources have reported the real fuel economy index achieved by different alternative-fuel buses during their operation. It is important to note that the fuel economy differences between different technologies or fuels will change on both a geometric or arithmetic basis as the duty cycle (and hence the average speed of operation) varies. For example, hybrid buses are known to offer a higher percent advantage in fuel economy at lower speeds. Figure 16 shows the estimated fuel economy for the four types of buses that this study uses for further calculations.
76 5 4.45
4 3.7 3.5 3.2 3
2 Miles Per Gallon Per Miles
1
0 ULSD Biodeisel CNG Hybrid Deisel-Electric
Figure 16. The estimated fuel economy in this study [10, 11].
To provide a background on fuel economy estimation, figure 17 shows chassis dynamometer fuel economy data available from different resources [7]. Figure
17 shows that the hybrid buses enjoy a higher percentage advantage over diesel buses on the Central Business District (CBD) (26%) and the Manhattan (MAN) cycle (37%) than on the 12.72 mph projection. The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) cycle has a similar average speed (12.3 mph) to the national average speed and shows an improvement of 18%. A recent summary [10,13] presented hybrid bus fuel economy advantages of 20% to 40% over a range of sites.
77
Figure 17. Predicted fuel economy on CBD, Manhattan Cycle, and OCTA cycle [7].
Fuel price was adopted from the latest FTA report released in 2008.
Actually this report is the updated version of another report released by FTA in 2007 predicting fuel price for alternative-fuel buses. The new report takes into account the fuel price jump that occurred in 2008 and tries to consider such problem in future. In that report fuel price was assumed fix at the average predicted fuel price between 2008 and 2020. The fuel price prediction has been done by the Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) from The Energy Information Administration (EIA) [11]. For the CNG buses
78 the fuel price is on the diesel equivalent gallon (DEG) of natural gas. Figure 18 shows the predicted fuel price for alternative fuel buses in this study.
4 3.33 $/gallon 3.40 $/gallon 3.33 $/gallon
3
1.91 $/gallon
2
2009 $ per Gallon $ per 2009
1
0 ULSD Biodeisel CNG Hybrid Deisel-Electric
Figure 18. Predicted fuel price in this study [7, 11].
4.3.2.2 Total Maintenance Cost
Maintenance cost includes the cost of parts and hourly labor cost of $50 per hour, and does not include warranty costs. The labor cost has been artificially set at a constant rate and does not directly reflect DTC’s current hourly mechanic rate.
The major source for collecting maintenance cost is National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) [10,13,14,15]. The summary of the NREL studies was
79 reported by the latest FTA report. NREL studies provided the maintenance costs from four sites: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) [14], New
York City Transit (NYCT) [10, 15], King County Metro Transit (KC Metro) in
Seattle, Washington [16], and Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Boulder,
Colorado [17].
To have more reliable numbers for the maintenance cost, this study also used a detailed report prepared by BAE SYSTEMS Lifecycle Tool ™ version 3 [18].
BAE Systems is a global defense, security and aerospace company with approximately
107,000 employees worldwide. The Company delivers a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services.
In November 2009, BAE System was generated a report using their
Lifecycle tool and based on the fleet data that Delaware Center for Transportation provided for them. This tool calculates total lifetime costs and benefits associated with conventional and hybrid propulsion technologies. The results can be used to compare the return on investment across technologies so that one can make a more informed decision.
4.3.2.3 Facility Maintenance Cost
No consistent basis was available for predicting facility maintenance costs. Three recent studies were used to obtain and estimate the costs of facility maintenance: The FTA transit bus life cycle cost, and the NREL CNG bus evaluation
80 projects at WMATA and NYCT [14, 19]. Based on these studies the facility maintenance cost for all types of fuels was estimated $0.18 per gallon or DEG of fuel used.
4.3.2.4 Compression Electricity Cost
The direct fast refueling system that was considered for the CNG buses demand a great amount of electricity in order to be able to compress the natural gas.
The cost of electricity for the CNG fuel station was estimated $0.14/DEG based on
WMATA study [14].
4.3.2.5 Battery Replacement Cost
Packs of nickel-metal hybrid (NiMH) batteries have a life cycle of 5 to 7 years and the replacement cost of one pack is $35,000 to $45,000. Thus, it was assumed that 50 percent of the buses will need one battery replacement, and the other
50 percent will need two battery replacements at the price of $40,000 [7].
Figure 19 shows the operating costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies. It includes fuel cost, total maintenance cost, facility
(refueling station and depot) maintenance cost, compression electricity cost
(applicable to CNG buses only), and battery replacement coat (applicable to hybrid diesel-electric buses only).
Figure 20 shows the summation of capital cost and operating cost of the buses during their life cycle which is 12 years. It should be noted that the size of fleet
81 assumed to be 50 and all the cost are presented in 2009 dollars. As it can be seen, among the alternatives, hybrid diesel-electric buses have the minimum life-cycle cost of $1.67 per mile. Ultra-low sulfur diesel, CNG and biodiesel rank 2 to 4 respectively.
It is important to note that CNG buses could be the best alternative if DART had the required infrastructure. It may take at least two years for DART to be able to operate
CNG buses statewide. The readiness of CNG technology for DART is much lower than hybrid diesel-electric buses.
82
Figure 19. The operating costs of buses employing different fuel types and bus technologies.
83
$2.00 $1.81 $1.77 $1.80 $1.69 $1.67
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
per mile (in per Life bus 2009 $ ) Tranist Cycle Cost Bus $0.20
$0.00 B20 Diesel ULSD CNG biodiesel Hybrid Total CC+OC 1.69 1.81 1.77 1.67 Compression Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Facility maintenance 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04
Total maintenance 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.48 Battery Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Fuel Cost 0.90 0.97 0.60 0.75 Depot Modification 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Refueling Station 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.00 Vehicle cost 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.26
Figure 20. Life Cycle Cost of the alternative-fuel buses (50 Buses in 12 Years in 2009 $).
84 4.4 Emissions Estimation
Transportation has been known as a major source of air pollution. Cars, trucks and buses constitute on-road mobile sources of air pollution. A report recently released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that transportation is responsible for production of 29 percent of total Greenhouse Gas
(GHG). Figure 21 shows the share of different sector in production of GHG in the
USA.
Figure 21. The share of different sectors in production of GHG in the U.S. [3].
The United State’s congress and EPA work closely to reduce air pollution through passing comprehensive legislations such as SAFE-TEA-LU and decreasing the maximum acceptable level of tailpipe emissions of vehicles. Currently transportation officials are responsible for finding ways to reduce emissions from on-
85 road mobile sources. EPA has also enhanced its emissions standards and forced
manufactures to comply with the new standards.
In this paper, the Particulate matter (PM2.5), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx),
Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) and Greenhouse Gas emissions of the
alternative-transit buses were estimated primarily based on recent emissions and fuel
consumption studies undertaken by the FTA [7, 15, 16, 17, 20] and BAE SYSTEMS
Lifecycle Tool ™ version 3 [18]. Table 10 shows the predicted PM, NOx, NMHC and
GHG emissions from the four bus types. As can be seen, hybrid diesel-electric buses
emit the lowest level of emissions in all the categories and are superior to other
alternatives. Figure 22 to 25 also show the amount of each pollutant for each
alternative.
Table 10. The predicted emissions for the buses (gram/mile)
Technologies PM NOx NMHC GHG
ULSD 0.021 4.31 0.09 2328
B20 biodiesel 0.017 4.45 0.08 2373
CNG 0.010 4.14 0.84 2303
Hybrid diesel-electric 0.006 4.41 0.02 1972
Although all the alternative-fuel buses meet EPA emission standards,
hybrid diesel-electric buses emit fewer air pollutants than their counterparts. This
86 characteristic also gives hybrid buses an edge to consider as the most suitable alternative-fuel buses for DART. Hybrid buses can help the state of Delaware to meet its environmental goals as stated in Delaware state implementation Plan (SIP).
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01 Gram per mile
0.005
0 ULSD B20 biodiesel CNG Hybrid diesel- electric
Figure 22. PM 2.5 emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses.
87
4.6
4.4
4.2
Gram per mile
4
3.8 ULSD B20 biodiesel CNG Hybrid diesel- electric
Figure 23. NOx emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses.
88
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 Gram per mile
0.2
0 ULSD B20 biodiesel CNG Hybrid diesel- electric
Figure 24. NMHC emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses.
89
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100 Gram per mile
2000
1900
1800 ULSD B20 biodiesel CNG Hybrid diesel- electric
Figure 25. GHG emission prediction for alternative-fuel buses.
90 Chapter 5
EXPERT SURVEY
5.1 Introduction
Traditionally cost of a new bus following by its scheduled maintenance cost have been known as the most important factors in public transportation officials’ decision making process. However, recent economic recession, environmental concerns, and availability of new technologies have changed the traditional fleet expansion strategies. Not only new factors such as energy independence have added to the set of important factors affecting decision process but also the rank of criteria have changed. This study estimated the life-cycle cost and emissions of the dominant alternative-fuel buses in the U.S. transit fleet database. Although the comparative analysis of the alternatives based upon these factors can help transit officials to make an educated decision, it cannot be said that an alternative with the least life-cycle cost or emissions is the best option. The reason is that there are other factors that can be more important than the aforementioned criteria.
To understand the relative importance of different factors on transit fleet expansion strategies, it is necessary to conduct a survey and ask influential experts on
91 decision process to rank different factors relatively. This process can be done by taking the following steps:
1- Defining a set of goals and criteria
2- Designing a questionnaire
3- Selecting experts to participate in the survey
4- Performing the survey
5- Analyzing the results
The following sections describe how this study has fulfilled the aforementioned steps.
5.2 Survey Objectives
Public transportation agencies are heavily subsidized and use federal and states funds which are strictly limited and regulated. Due to this fact, for decades, mainly between 1970 and 1990, public transportation officials have been more sensitive to procurement cost of new transit buses than other factors. However, recent issues including global warming, air pollution, sustainability and energy independency have captured the stage. In addition, EPA regulations and federal legislations such as
ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU ask public transportation officials to not only be sensitive to the procurement cost but also seriously investigate environmental impacts, energy efficiency and life-cycle cost of alternative-fuel buses in order to receive their annual grants. These grants can be used to assist State and local governmental authorities in purchasing buses, related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities.
92 Expert survey is one of the ways that help practitioners to determine the relative importance of different criteria in urban transit buses purchasing process [21].
Results of this survey reflect the rank of each criterion in this process. In this study four major goals are defined as follows: environmental and social, economic, technological, and transportation. Then, twelve criteria were defined under these goals. Figure 26 shows the structure and relation of defined goals and criteria.
5.3 Evaluation Criteria
This survey is aimed at gathering information from experts to evaluate the relative importance of the most viable alternative-fuel transit buses according to the predefined set of criteria. In order to evaluate the alternatives, twelve evaluation criteria are established, as follows:
1. Energy Availability
This criterion is based on the yearly amount of energy that can be supplied, on the reliability of energy supply, the reliability of energy storage, and on the cost of energy supply.
2. Energy independence
This criterion represents a condition in which a country is not beholden to foreign nations or fluctuations of the market in meeting its energy needs.
3. Energy efficiency
This criterion represents fuel economy of alternative-fuel buses.
93 Goals Criteria
Energy Availability (supply)
Technological Energy Independency
Energy Efficiency
Cost of Implementation (capital) Economic Cost of Maintenance
Noise Pollution
Social & Air Pollution Environment
Safety
Vehicle Capability
Vehicle Reliability Transportation Vehicle Serviceability
Sense of Comfort
Figure 26. Structure and relation of defined goals and criteria. 94 4. Costs of implementation
This criterion refers to the costs of infrastructure (refueling stations and depot modifications) that each alternative demand.
5. Costs of maintenance
This criterion refers to the maintenance costs of alternative-fuel buses.
6. Air pollution
This criterion refers to the extent that a fuel mode contributes to air pollution.
7. Noise pollution
This criterion refers to the noise produced during the operation of the vehicle.
8. Safety
This criterion defines the importance of providing a safe way of transportation by public transportation agencies. Since some of alternative-fuels buses are not as common, safety characteristics of each fuel are not well known. The chemical composition and properties of each fuel change the way they are handled as compared to conventional diesel.
9. Vehicle capability
This criterion represents the cruising distance, slope climbing, and average speed.
95 10. Vehicle reliability
This criterion refers to the bus’ ability to stay in operation without breaking down. A measure of vehicle reliability is a roadcall, which is an on-road breakdown that would require a replacement bus to complete the route.
11. Vehicle serviceability
This criterion defines preventive maintenance process that should be done in order to prevent a breakdown or failure. Serviceability measures can be taken in order to prevent roadcalls from occurring.
12. Sense of comfort
This criterion refers to the particular issue regarding sense of comfort, and to the fact that users tend to pay attention to the accessories of the vehicle (air- conditioning, automatic door, etc.).
5.4 Expert Selection
The selection of the experts is very important in the evaluation process. The selection of alternative-fuel buses is a problem related to the public affairs, and credible experts for evaluating this problem are really important. In this study, experts from manufacturing industries, and related departments of government, academics, and research institutes, are acknowledged as credible experts. Table 11 shows the title and organization of the experts who had been selected for this survey.
96 Table 11. Title and organization of the targeted experts in the survey.
Respondent Organization Title # 1 Director of Planning 2 Planning Supervisor 3 Chief of Administration 4 Delaware Department of Transportation Deputy Director, Planning 5 Project Planner 6 Project Planner 7 Financial and Policy Advisor 8 Executive Director 9 Procurement Manager Delaware Transit Corporation 10 Maintenance & Tech. Manager 11 Planning Manager Planner for Air Quality 12 Management Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Program 13 Environmental Control Administrator Environmental Program 14 Administrator 15 Executive Director 16 Wilmington Area Planning Council Senior Planner 17 Principal Planner 18 Director Delaware Center for Transportation 19 Engineer 20 Delaware Center for Fuel-Cell Research Director 21 Energy Supplier Business Development Manager 22 Bus Manufacturer Business Development Manager
97 5.5 Questionnaire
In order to achieve the objective of this survey, a questionnaire was designed. The original questionnaire can be found in the appendix of this study. The completion of questions takes fewer than 15 minutes. The questionnaire has four parts and the questions were asked in a way that respondents can be assured that they will not be identified. Also, it was mentioned that all responses remain confidential and no responses can be individually identified.
Part one asks three questions regarding to respondents’ profession, type of work or research area, and their amount of experience.
Part two asks one question. The question was designed in a form of table and it asks respondents to rank the importance of the predefined criteria if a public transportation agency decides to acquire new transit buses regardless of their technology. Respondents fill in their rank order in the spaces provided using the numbers 1 (extremely important) through 12 (not very important). They may assign a same rank to more than one criterion.
Part three also asks a question in form of a table. It asks respondents to rank the performance of the alternatives in each criterion. Respondents fill in their rank using the numbers 1 (being the best) through 4 (being the worst). The tables representing the results of this study also were provided in the questionnaire.
98 Part four, the final part of the questionnaire, is optional and it just provides a space for respondents to insert their point of view regarding to the usage of alternative-fuel transit buses in Delaware.
5.6 Results
In the assessment of criteria weights, the relevant decision-making experts participating were from the bus manufacturing, academic organization, energy supplier, and research institutes. They assessed the relative importance (subjectively) for each of the criteria. Eight valid questionnaires were retrieved from the evaluation process.
The average values of weights are presented in table 12. This data show that the energy independence is the most important factor in evaluating the alternative vehicles; second in importance are energy availability and safety; third is energy efficiency, indicating the need for new alternative-fuel buses. It is also interesting to see that the cost of maintenance criterion stands above cost of implementation criterion based on the survey result. It can be interpreted that life-cycle cost has become more important than capital cost. Vehicle related criteria such as vehicle reliability, capability, serviceability and sense comfort have earned low ranks. One major reason for this observation is that new transit buses are usually similar with respect to these criteria. Therefore, our experts did not consider high rank for these criteria. As stated, the survey also asked the respondents to rank the alternatives with respect to each criterion. The evaluation results are presented in table 13
99 Table 12. The average weights and ranks assigned by experts to each criterion.
Bus Academic Energy Research Criteria Manuf- Organizat Average Rank Supplier Institutes acturer ions
Energy Availability 3 2 6 7 4.50 2 Energy Independence 6 1 4.5 5 4.13 1 Energy Efficiency 2 7 3.5 6 4.63 3 Cost of 5 9 5.5 1 5.13 5 Implementation Cost of Maintenance 4 8 4.5 3 4.88 4 Air Pollution 4 7 5 5 5.25 6 Noise Pollution 10 4 8.5 4 6.63 9 Safety 7 6 2 3 4.50 2 Vehicle Capability 5 8 5 7 6.25 8 Vehicle Reliability 4 8 6 4 5.50 7 Vehicle Serviceability 6 9 5.5 8 7.13 11 Sense of Comfort 8 5 6 9 7 10
Figure 27 shows the alternative-fuel buses ranks with respect to the criteria ranked one to six in table 12. Figure 28 also shows the alternative-fuel buses ranks with respect to the rest of the criteria which ranked seven to twelve in table 12.
As it can be seen, hybrid diesel-buses were rank first in six criteria including energy availability, safety, energy efficiency, air pollution, noise pollution, and sense of comfort. Hybrid diesel-electric buses also were ranked second in two criteria including energy independence and cost of implementation. These buses were only ranked lowest with respect to the cost of maintenance criterion. However, this
100 observation is not supported by our estimations for this criterion. As discussed in chapter 4, the average cost of maintenance for hybrid diesel-electric buses was lower than ULSD and biodiesel buses and higher than CNG buses. Hybrid diesel-electric buses were rank third with respect to other criteria.
Table 13. The relative importance of alternatives with respect to each criterion.
Criteria Ultra-Low Biodiesel Compressed Hybrid Sulfur Diesel Natural Gas (CNG) Diesel- Electric Energy Availability 2.5 3.75 2 1.75 Energy Independence 4 2.3 1.5 2.25 Energy Efficiency 2.75 3.5 2 1.75 Cost of Implementation 1.75 2.5 4 2 Cost of Maintenance 1 3 2.5 3.5 Air Pollution 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Noise Pollution 3.5 3.5 1.75 1.25 Safety 2.75 2.75 2.95 1.75 Vehicle Capability 1.5 3.25 2.5 2.75 Vehicle Reliability 1 3.25 2.5 3.25 Vehicle Serviceability 1 3.25 2.5 3.25 Sense of Comfort 2.75 3.5 2 1.75
Based on the expert survey results, CNG buses can be considered as the strongest competitor for the hybrid diesel-electric buses. CNG buses were ranked first, similar to hybrid diesel-electric buses, with respect to the air pollution criterion. These buses were also ranked second in six criteria including energy availability, energy
101 efficiency, cost of maintenance, noise pollution, sense of comfort and vehicle capability. However, CNG buses were ranked lowest with respect to the cost of implementation which is supported by our findings. The survey results also show that experts had some concerns with respect to safety criteria when they assessed CNG buses. CNG buses were ranked as the lowest alternative in this regard.
The expert survey results clearly show that ULSD buses are the most reliable and capable alternative among other technologies. These buses were also ranked first with respect to the cost of implementation and cost of maintenance criteria. However, ULSD buses were ranked third and forth (lowest) with respect to the most important criteria including energy independence, energy efficiency. These buses were also assumed to perform poorly with respect to the noise pollution, sense of comfort, and air pollution criteria.
Biodiesel buses were ranked equal or even worse than ULSD buses which means these types of buses cannot be considered as a viable alternative for ULSD or conventional diesel buses.
102
4
Hybrid Diesel-Electric CNG Biodeisel ULSD a 3
2
1
Alternatives Rank With Respect toThe Criteri
0 Energy Energy Availability Safety Energy Efficiency Cost of Cost of Independence Maintenance Implementation
Figure 27. The ranks of the alternative-fuel buses with respect to the first set of criteria.
103 4
Hybrid Diesel-Electric CNG Biodeisel ULSD 3 a
2
1
Alternatives Rank Respect With to Criteri The
0
Air Pollution Vehicle Reliability Vehicle Capability Noise Pollution Sense of Comfort Vehicle Serviceability
Figure 28. The ranks of the alternative-fuel buses with respect to the second set of criteria.
104 Chapter 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary and Conclusions
This study aims to assist the DART administration in making an optimal decision regarding their future fleet expansion process. It exclusively reflects the amount of investment that DART needs to directly make to utilize the new technologies throughout the state of Delaware.
Among eight alternative-fuel buses introduced by the CAA of 1990, only
CNG, biodiesel, and hybrid diesel-electric buses can be considered as viable alternatives for the Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel transit buses. For each of these technologies Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) and emissions are estimated and compared with the available information for the ULSD buses. The information used for the estimations was gathered from the latest scientific and practical reports published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is also reflective of the knowledge that the author gained from two major recent conferences related to public transportation;
105 1) BusCon 2009 in Chicago, Illinois, and 2) APTA annual meeting 2009 in Orlando,
FL.
The LCC consists of capital cost and operating cost for each alternative-fuel bus. The capital cost includes initial purchasing cost and infrastructure cost which is separated in two subsections, refueling station and depot modification. Except diesel and hybrid diesel-electric buses, other two alternatives demand construction of special infrastructures. Also, DART should modify its current depots to safely repair and maintain its future CNG and hybrid diesel-electric buses. The operating cost includes fuel cost, total maintenance cost, facility (refueling station and depot) maintenance cost, compression electricity cost (applicable to CNG buses only), and battery replacement cost (applicable to hybrid diesel-electric buses only).
The results show that buses propelled by hybrid-diesel engine have the least LCC ($/mile). Alternatives ranks with respect to their capital cost are as follows:
1) ULSD, 2) Biodiesel, 3) Hybrid diesel-electric, and 4) CNG. The rank of alternatives changes with respect to their operating cost and it is as follows: 1) CNG, 2) Hybrid diesel-electric, 3) ULSD, and 4) Biodiesel.
The major problem with the CNG buses for being utilized by DART is their cost of implementation. The infrastructure (refueling stations and depot modification) cost of CNG buses is high. This issue gets worse because DART demands more than one infrastructure to be able to operate CNG buses throughout the
106 state of Delaware. Also, DART needs to wait until the required infrastructures have been built. The readiness index of CNG technology for DART is low as well.
Although all the alternative-fuel buses meet EPA emission standards, the recent scientific and practical reports show that hybrid diesel-electric buses emit fewer air pollutants than their counterparts. This characteristic also gives hybrid buses an edge to consider as the most suitable alternative-fuel buses for DART. Hybrid buses can help the state of Delaware to meet its environmental goals as stated in Delaware state implementation Plan (SIP).
This study also presents the results of an expert survey in order to determine the relative importance of other criteria on transit buses expansion or renewal plans. Four major goals and twelve criteria were defined. A questionnaire was designed and distributed among the relevant decision-making experts from bus manufactures, academic organizations, energy suppliers, and research institutes. They assessed the relative importance (subjectively) of each of the criteria. The collected data shows that the energy independence is the most important factor in evaluating the alternative vehicles; second in importance are energy availability and safety; third is energy efficiency, indicating the need for new alternative-fuel buses.
The survey also asked the respondents to rank the alternatives regarding each criterion. Hybrid diesel-buses were ranked first in six criteria including energy availability, safety, energy efficiency, air pollution, noise pollution, and sense of comfort. Hybrid diesel-electric buses also were ranked second in two criteria
107 including energy independence and cost of implementation. These buses were only ranked lowest with respect to the cost of maintenance criterion. However, this observation is not supported by our estimations for this criterion.
Based on the expert survey results, CNG buses can be considered as the strongest competitor for the hybrid diesel-electric buses. CNG buses were ranked first, similar to hybrid diesel-electric buses, with respect to the air pollution criterion. These buses were also ranked second in six criteria including energy availability, energy efficiency, cost of maintenance, noise pollution, sense of comfort and vehicle capability. However, CNG buses were ranked lowest with respect to the cost of implementation which is supported by our findings. The survey results also show that experts had some concerns with respect to safety criteria when they assessed CNG buses. CNG buses were ranked as the lowest alternative in this regard.
The expert survey results clearly show that ULSD buses are the most reliable and capable alternative among other technologies. These buses were also ranked first with respect to the cost of implementation and cost of maintenance criteria. However, ULSD buses were ranked third and fourth (lowest) with respect to the most important criteria including energy independence, and energy efficiency.
These buses were also assumed to perform poorly with respect to the noise pollution, sense of comfort, and air pollution criteria.
108 Biodiesel buses were ranked equal or even worse than ULSD buses which means these types of buses cannot be considered as a viable alternative for ULSD or conventional diesel buses.
The results of this study also confirm that each transit agency needs to consider its unique characteristics and facilities before deciding what alternative-fuel bus to invest in. Two major reasons that support this conclusion are 1) Capital cost varies based upon facilities that transit agencies already have in place, and 2) Even for one transit agency, the best option may change based upon the number of buses that will be acquired. Life-cycle cost is sensitive to the number of buses that will be purchased. However, transit agencies can use other transit agencies experience or studies such as this thesis to perform their own study.
6.2 Recommendations
There is a tremendous need and interest in making the DART fleet as energy efficient and air quality friendly as possible. Many of the expected advances in energy efficiency and emission reduction technologies are expected to occur in the diesel vehicle category. Therefore, this study compared alternative-fuel buses with respect to their life-cycle cost and emissions. As part of the results, it also obtained how energy efficient each alternative would be. Although utilizing alternative-fuel buses such as hybrid diesel-electric improves the DART energy efficiency index, there are other ways that can improve this index.
109 It is suggested that redesigning of the DART fixed-route bus routes is defined as a new project. In transportation planning literature this effort is known as transit network design. Presently DART has required information that can be used as inputs. Also new technological advances such as transit buses prioritization systems can be combined with traditional transit network planning to improve the results.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems can also be studied. It has been proven that BRT systems can be as effective and efficient as Light Rail Train (LRT) systems with fraction of LRT systems cost. It is suggested that DART defines a feasibility study to evaluate its fixed-route bus routes and determines if BRT can be considered as a viable, economical and environmental friendly alternative.
It is also suggested that a similar study is conducted for paratransit system. DART and other transit agencies spend a large portion of their annual budget to provide paratransit services. Paratransit vehicle are usually smaller than conventional transit buses and provide door-to-door service for their customer. It is very crucial for transit agencies to increase their energy efficiency for this part of their operations.
110 APPENDIX
EXPERT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
111 This study is being conducted by the Delaware Center for Transportation, one of the research centers at the University of Delaware, in order to determine the dominant alternative-fuel transit bus to be utilized by Delaware Transit Corporation.
Experts from related departments of government including Delaware Department of
Transportation and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, manufacturing industries, academic and research institutes will be the target audience.
This survey is aimed at gathering information from experts to evaluate the relative importance of the most viable alternative-fuel transit buses according to predefined set of criteria. Your answers will be incorporated into the emissions and life-cycle cost assessment of alternative-fuel transit buses study currently underway.
The tables found on the last two pages of this survey reflect the emissions and life- cycle cost of the alternative-fuel transit buses (12 Years, 50 Bus Fleet). Please note that these tables have been specially prepared for the Delaware Transit Corporation, i.e. the cost of required infrastructure has been justified for each alternative. On page five of the survey, you will have the opportunity to provide any additional feedback.
The survey will take fewer than 15 minutes to complete. After completion, please use the return envelope provided. It will be helpful to receive the survey before
June 15, 2010.
Please be assured that all responses are confidential and no responses will be individually identified. The results of the survey will be reported in a summary
112 format, i.e., in terms of percentages, proportions, ratios and total numbers. While the results of the study will be incorporated into a report and may be published, no identifying information will be used. Your participation in this survey is voluntary, and you may end your participation at any time.
Thank you in advance for your time and willingness to participate in this survey. If you have any questions, please contact Amir Shahpar, Research Assistant at [email protected] , or (302) 690-2377.
Part 1: General Information
Question 1: What is your profession? (mark all that apply) Manager Planner Designer Operator Manufacture Professo Researche Other
Other: ……………………………….
Question 2: What is your work or research area? (mark all that apply) Transportation Financial Mintenance Public Development Research Planner Advisor & Operation Transportation & Technology & Education
Other: ……………………………….
Question 3: How long have you been in this position? (number of years) 0-2 2-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 More than 20
113 Part 2: Criteria Ranking The evaluation of alternative-fuel transit buses can be performed according to different aspects. Four aspects of evaluation criteria are considered in this study: social & environment, economic, technological, and transportation. Twelve evaluation criteria are defined and the definition of each has been provided on the next page. Please rank the importance of the following criteria if a public transportation agency decides to acquire new transit buses regardless of their technology. Please fill in your rank order in the spaces provided using the numbers 1 (extremely important) through 12 (not very important). You may assign a same rank to more than one criterion.
Please rank the importance of each criterion using the numbers 1 (extremely important) through 12 (not very important) Rank Criteria (1 to 12)
1 Energy Availability (supply)
2 Energy Independence
3 Energy Efficiency
4 Cost of Implementation (capital)
5 Cost of Maintenance
6 Air Pollution
7 Noise Pollution
8 Safety
9 Vehicle Capability
10 Vehicle Reliability
11 Vehicle Serviceability
12 Sense of Comfort
114 Definitions:
(1) Energy availability: This criterion is based on the yearly amount of energy that can be supplied, on the reliability of energy supply, the reliability of energy storage, and on the cost of energy supply. (2) Energy independence: This criterion represents a condition in which a country is not beholden to foreign nations or fluctuations of the market in meeting its energy needs. (3) Energy efficiency: This criterion represents the efficiency of fuel energy. (4) Costs of implementation: This criterion refers to the costs of production and implementation of alternative vehicles. (5) Costs of maintenance: The maintenance costs for alternative vehicles are the criterion. (6) Air pollution: This criterion refers to the extent a fuel contributes to air pollution, since vehicles with diverse types of fuel impact air quality differently. (7) Noise pollution: This criterion refers to the noise produced during the operation of the vehicle. (8) Safety: This criterion defines the importance of providing a safe means of transportation by public transportation agencies. Since alternative fuels are not as common, safety characteristics of each fuel are not well known. The chemical composition and properties of each fuel change the way they are handled as compared to conventional diesel. (9) Vehicle capability: This criterion represents the cruising distance, slope climbing, and average speed. (10) Vehicle reliability: This criterion refers to the bus’ ability to stay in operation without breaking down. A measure of vehicle reliability is a roadcall, which is an on- road breakdown that would require a replacement bus to complete the route.
115 (11) Vehicle serviceability: This criterion defines preventive maintenance process that should be done in order to prevent a breakdown or failure. Serviceability measures can be taken in order to prevent roadcalls from occurring. (12) Sense of comfort: This criterion refers to the particular issue regarding sense of comfort, and to the fact that users tend to pay attention to the accessories of the vehicle (air-conditioning, automatic door, etc.). Part 3: Performance of the Alternatives According to each Criterion In this part of the survey, we would like you to rank the following alternatives using the aforementioned criteria. For your information, the life-cycle cost and emissions of the alternatives have been provided on the last two pages of this questionnaire. 1) Diesel bus with ultra-low sulfur fuel 2) Biodiesel 3) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 4) Hybrid diesel-electric
For example, you may rank the alternatives based on the energy efficiency criterion as follow: This table is provided as an example.
Diesel with Ultra- Compressed Hybrid Diesel- Criteria Biodiesel Low Sulfur fuel Natural Gas (CNG) Electric
4 1 3 2 Energy Efficiency
This table ranks biodiesel as the most energy efficient technology, followed by hybrid diesel-electric, CNG and ultra-low sulfur diesel respectively. However, this order may be different for other criteria.
116 Now please rank the alternatives regarding to each criterion using the numbers 1 (being the best) through 4 (being the worst).
Diesel with Ultra- Hybrid Criteria Biodiesel CNG Low Sulfur fuel Diesel- Electric
Energy Availability (supply) Energy Independence Energy Efficiency Cost of Implementation (capital) Cost of Maintenance Air Pollution Noise Pollution Safety Vehicle Capability Vehicle Reliability Vehicle Serviceability Sense of Comfort
Part 4: Your point of view regarding to the usage of alternative-fuel transit buses in Delaware (optional). Please add your point of view and/or list your concerns regarding to the usage of alternative-fuel buses in Delaware.
117 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Public Transportation Association (2010), Impacts of the Recession on Public Transportation Agencies Survey Results, American Public Transportation Association, [Online]. Available: http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/ Impacts_of_Recession_March_2010.pdf [Accessed: April 2010]. 2. Delaware Transit Corporation (2010), Customer Service Information Site, DART First State [Online]. Available: http://www.dartfirststate.com/information/getting_there/faq/ index.shtml [Accessed: April 2010]. 3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2008, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US-GHG- Inventory-2010_Upfront.pdf [Accessed: April 2010]. 4. 102nd Congress H.R.776.ENR, abbreviated as EPACT92, The Energy Policy Act of 1992, U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992 [Accessed: Oct. 2009]. 5. Delaware Annual Air Quality Report (2008), Air Quality Management Section, Division of Air and Waste Management, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Doc. No. 40-0902/09/11/01 6. Rukowicz, S. F. (2006), COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR BUS TRANSIT, Master Thesis, University of Delaware. 7. Federal Transit Administration (2007), Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation, FTA-WV-26-7004.2007.1. 8. Mass companies Inc., The Mid-Atlantic Biodiesel Plant is on the Auction Block, [Online]. Available: http://www.maascompanies.com/brochures/Maas_Companies_Brochure_147.p df [Accessed: Sep. 2009]. 9. Transit Cooperative Research Program (1998), Transit Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing Fuel Choices for Transit Bus Operations, TCRP Report 38.
118 10. Barnitt, R. A. (2008). In-Use Performance Comparison of Hybrid Electric, CNG, and Diesel Buses at New York City Transit, SAE Paper No. 2008-01-1556. 10 pp.; NREL Report No. CP-540-42534. 11. US DOE Energy Information Administration (2007), Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2007), US DOE Energy Information Administration, [Online]. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html [Accessed: Feb. 2009]. 12. Chiang, P. (2007), Two-Mode Urban Transit Hybrid Bus In-Use Fuel Economy Results from 20 Million Fleet Miles, SAE Paper 2007-01-0272, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 13. Federal Transit Administration (2005), Analysis of Electric Drive Technologies for Transit Applications: Battery - Electric, Hybrid - Electric, and Fuel Cells, US DOT Federal Transit Administration, FTA-MA-26-7100-05.1. 14. K. Chandler, E. Eberts and M. Melendez (2006), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Compressed Natural Gas Transit Bus Evaluation, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-540-37626. 15. Chandler, K., Eberts, E., and Eudy, L. (2006), New York City Transit Hybrid and CNG Transit Buses: Interim Evaluation Results, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-540-38843. 16. Chandler, K. and Walkowicz, K. (2006), Emissions, Fuel Economy, and In-use Performance Evaluation of King County Metro Transit’s Hybrid Buses, Presented at 2006 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference, Orange County, CA. 17. Proc, K., Barnitt, R., Hayes, R., Ratcliff, M., McCormick, R., Ha, L., and Fang, H. (2006), 100,000-Mile Evaluation of Transit Buses Operated on Biodiesel Blends (B20), NREL/CP-540-40128. Posted with permission. Presented at the Powertrain and Fluid Systems Conference and Exhibition, Toronto, Canada.
18. BAE SYSTEMS Lifecycle Tool ™ version 3 (2010), [Online]. Available: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_106920104911.html [Accessed: Feb. 2010]. 19. Lyons, J., Austin, T., Delaney, S., and Heirigs, P. (2000), A Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and Cost of Compliance with Potential Future Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using Diesel or Natural Gas, Sierra Research, Inc., Sacramento, CA, Sierra Research Report No. SR00-02-02.
20. Energy Information Administration (2007), “Comparison of Global Warming Potentials from the Second and Third Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” [Online]. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html [Accessed: Feb. 2010].
119 21. Tzeng G., Cheng-Wei L., Serafim O. (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative- fuel buses for public transportation, Journal of Energy Policy, Elsevier, Vol 33, PP. 1373–1383.
120