DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Costs for Hybrid Versus Regular Transit Buses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Costs for Hybrid Versus Regular Transit Buses October 2012 Assessing the Costs for Hybrid versus Regular Transit Buses Authors INTRODUCTION Fuel costs are a significant portion of in 15 percent of the US transit fleet Shauna L. Hallmark transit agency budgets. Hybrid buses could reduce fuel consumption by Interim Director, Institute for Transportation; offer an attractive option and have the 50.7 million gallons of diesel annually. Professor, Civil, Construction, and However, purchase of hybrid transit Environmental Engineering potential to reduce operating costs for Iowa State University agencies significantly. buses requires a significant investment. 515-294-5249, [email protected] Hybrid technology has been available In addition, early estimates of cost Bo Wang and Yu Qiu in the transit market for some time. savings may not have materialized to Student Research Assistants As of 2009, there are more than 1,200 the extent transit agencies expected. Iowa State University hybrid buses in regular service in Other costs, such as the cost of North America in more than 40 transit replacing batteries and reduced Bob Sperry agencies (Transport Canada 2011). The maintenance, are also issues that Iowa Local Technical Assistance Program majority of these buses are regular 40 have not been substantiated with Iowa State University ft buses, although some smaller (20 ft) independent studies. To justify the shuttle buses and larger articulated (60 expenditure, agencies require more Sponsor ft) buses are also in service. quantitative information about the likely fuel economy, maintenance, and Iowa Energy Center The transit agency in New York, New other costs for hybrid buses. For More Information York has approximately 1,000 hybrid www.intrans.iastate.edu/ vehicles as of 2009 (Maynard 2009) and Toronto, Canada has approximately 33 OBJECTIVES percent (Transport Canada 2011). This technical brief summarizes The main reasons agencies consider information about the costs and benefits hybrid transit vehicles are fuel savings that have been attributed to use of and reduced emissions. Hybrid electric hybrid transit buses as found in the buses offer an attractive option and literature. Results from a demonstration have the potential to reduce operating project that compared fuel economy costs for transit agencies significantly. and emissions for 12 hybrid buses and 7 Wayne et al. (2009) estimated that control buses for the transit agency for use of diesel-electric hybrid buses Ames, Iowa and Iowa State University, CyRide, were also included. One of 12 hybrid CyRide buses Assessing the Costs for Hybrid versus Regular Transit Buses offset by participation in programs that fuel economy was 48 percent Costs and benefits include initial such as the American Recovery and higher for the hybrid buses. purchase cost differentials, savings Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or Clean A study by Battelle (2002) tested in fuel, reduced emissions, potential Fuels grant programs (EESI 2012). emissions using a dynamometer for reduced maintenance due to decreased Funding packages to offset the one diesel hybrid-electric bus and two engine and brake wear, and replacement purchase cost often make it much regular diesel buses (with and without costs for the hybrid battery pack. All easier for transit agencies to invest in catalyzed diesel particulate filters/ costs are listed in US dollars (USD). the technology that can reduce the DPFs). The researchers reported that lifecycle costs of hybrid buses. As an fuel economy for the hybrid bus was example, the CyRide agency in Ames COSTS 54 percent higher than the two regular purchased 12 hybrid buses through a diesel buses. The following sections discuss common Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas costs that transit agencies consider and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) grant In another study, two buses were tested in long-term cost analyses for hybrid sponsored by the U.S. Department of using a dynamometer at the National buses. Information was summarized Transportation. Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) from a survey of existing literature, web ReFUEL facility in Golden, Colorado resources, and the team’s experience Fuel Economy (Chandler and Walkowicz 2006). with evaluation of hybrid school buses Actual savings depend on usage and One bus was a conventional diesel and hybrid transit buses (Hallmark et and the other was a hybrid bus and al. 2010 and Hallmark et al. 2012). The fuel costs, but improved fuel economy is the main savings associated with use both were tested over several drive term “cost” is used in the generic sense cycles including Manhattan, Orange of being a positive cost or negative of hybrid transit buses. Early estimates of fuel savings for hybrid buses over County Transit A (OCTA), CBD, and cost (benefit). As a result, costs may be King County Metro (KCM) Transit in actual costs or reductions in costs. conventional buses were based on laboratory studies that demonstrated Seattle, Washington. Results indicate 30.3 percent lower fuel use for the KCM Purchase Cost significant fuel savings. cycle, 48.3 percent lower for the CBD The difference in initial purchase Chassis dynamometer tests were cycle, 50.6 percent for the OCTA cycle, price between a hybrid transit bus and conducted for 10 low-floor hybrid and 74.6 percent for the Manhattan regular transit bus can be substantial. buses and 14 conventional high-floor cycle. Fuel economy was reported as Based on 2011 values in the US, the diesel transit buses run by New York miles per gallon. purchase cost of a regular 40 ft bus is City Transit (NYCT) (Chandler and $280,000 to $300,000 compared to a Walkowicz 2006). Buses were evaluated In another study, Clark et al. (1987) hybrid bus that is between $450,000 over three driving cycles including evaluated six transit buses with and $550,000. Because of the difference, the Central Business District (CBD), traditional diesel engines, two powered agencies are anxious to recoup the cost the New York (NY) bus cycle, and by spark-ignited compressed natural gas differential through savings in fuel and the Manhattan cycle. The operating (CNG), and one hybrid transit bus in maintenance. costs, efficiency, emissions, and overall Mexico City using a mobile heavy-duty performance were also compared while emissions testing lab. Buses were tested In some cases in the US, the purchase both types of buses were operating on over a driving cycle representative of price of hybrid transit buses has been similar routes. The researchers found Mexico City transit bus operation, which was developed using global positioning system (GPS) data from in-use transit buses. Depending on how fuel economy was evaluated, the hybrid bus ranked fourth and first in fuel economy. Transport Canada (2011) evaluated hybrid transit buses for several transit agencies in Canada. In one laboratory study using the Manhattan Test Cycle, the authors found a reduction in fuel consumption of 36 percent. In a test track study, the authors found a 28 percent fuel reduction for hybrid transit buses compared to regular buses when the buses were operated at an average CyRide engine and electric motor setup (left) and battery pack configuration (right) speed of 10 km/h with 10 stops per 2 Hallmark, Wang, Qiu, and Sperry kilometer. As average speed increased, economy were laboratory tests that months of hybrid transit bus operation the differences in fuel consumption do not always replicate actual on-road in Montreal, no significant additional were smaller. conditions. maintenance issues occurred with hybrid buses. In a later test track study, the authors Fuel economy varies and is correlated found average fuel use reduction to to a number of factors including Although early maintenance problems be 28 percent. The researchers also number of stops per unit distance, road have been present, most of the initial reported that the Toronto Transit grade, surrounding traffic volume and maintenance is covered by manufacturer Corporation, which has about 500 conditions, environmental conditions, warranties and is not likely to hybrid buses, was only achieving a driving style, type of hybrid technology have additional costs to the transit reduction of 10 percent for in-use fuel (parallel versus series) (Liang et al. companies. consumption. 2009), roadway type, and passenger One study was available that load (Frey et al. 2007). Given driving A study was conducted by the Center summarized operating costs other than style can have a significant impact on for Transportation Research and fuel economy. KCM evaluated operating the fuel economy of hybrid buses, many Education (CTRE) at Iowa State costs using a cost of $1.98 per gallon transit agencies provide training for University (ISU) to study the fuel for diesel for 60 ft buses. For regular their drivers. economy of 12 hybrid transit buses. transit buses, they found that fuel costs Seven control buses with similar Short-Term Maintenance and were 79 cents per mile and maintenance characteristics were also evaluated. Operating Costs costs were 46 cents per mile, for a total operating cost of $1.25 per mile. Average fuel economy for hybrid buses Short-term maintenance costs have not In comparison, diesel-electric hybrid was 11.8 percent higher than for control been well quantified. Some agencies buses had fuel costs of 62 cents per buses (Hallmark et al. 2012). The study have experienced up-front maintenance mile with maintenance costs of 44 cents also showed that fuel economy was issues with hybrid buses. NYCT per mile for a total cost of $1.06 per correlated to number of passengers per reported initial issues with batteries mile (Chandler and Walkowicz 2006). route, average running speed, average and need for software modifications Hence, the savings were 19 cents per acceleration, average deceleration, (Chandler and Walkowicz 2006). The mile. percent of time spent in acceleration, Ames transit system, which purchased and season. 12 hybrid transit buses in 2010, has Long-Term Maintenance Costs reported the need for various software Fuel economy estimates from various Several long-term costs/benefits adjustments to achieve better fuel studies are summarized in Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agenda Item 4A – Discussion of the Hybrid Electric Bus and the 1:6 Ramp
    Agenda Item 4A – Discussion of the hybrid electric bus and the 1:6 ramp demonstration Bus improvements provided at the request of the Accessibility Advisory Committee: • The rear door operation was modified from a “push-open spring close” to an air operated system to provide easier passenger operation. • A new smaller pedestal for the farebox was provided to increase the turning radius at the front entrance door. • Installed a less steep 6:1 ratio wheelchair ramp from the 4:1 ratio. • Installed individual slim flip seats in the wheelchair securement area to provide increased aisle width. • The locking feature of the flip seats when in the down position was removed to improve operation. • Moved modesty panels outward to increase aisle width in these areas. • Added additional aisle facing flip seats to increase aisle width and provide additional areas for shopping carts and strollers. • Increased the amount of contrasting yellow material at interior rear steps. • Provided additional stanchions and hand-holds at interior rear step area. • Requested that the District receive the lowest kneeling level possible on new buses. Agenda Item 4B - Develop process to ensure AAC comment / review of vehicle procurements well in advance of the prototype arriving on scene. The planned AC Transit bus procurements over the next five years includes the following types of buses: • Gillig standard 40’ transit buses in FY17 – FY18 • Articulated buses (unknown manufacturer) • Double deck buses (unknown manufacturer) • Standard 40’ transit buses in FY20 (unknown manufacturer) Bus procurements include a bidding process where a bus manufacturer is selected to produce the buses, which is followed by a pre-production meeting, and the manufacturing of the buses.
    [Show full text]
  • New Energy Buses in China Overview on Policies and Impacts Published By: Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Gmbh
    New Energy Buses in China Overview on Policies and Impacts Published by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn Address Tayuan Diplomatic Office Building 2-5 14 Liangmahe South Street, Chaoyang District 100600 Beijing, P. R. China T +86 (0)10 8527 5589 F +86 (0)10 8527 5591 E [email protected] I www.sustainabletransport.org This publication is a product of the Sino-German Cooperation on Low Carbon Transport which, implemented by GIZ, is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI). The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. Author: China Automotive Technology and Reseach Center Co.,Ltd CATARC (Li Lumiao, Yao Zhanhui) Editing: GIZ (Sebastian Ibold, Sun Shengyang, Shen Lei) Layout: GIZ (Sebastian Ibold, Shen Lei) Sources and photo credits:: CATARC if not stated differently URL links: Responsibility for the content of external websites linked in this publication always lies with their respective publishers. GIZ expressly dissociates itself from such content. GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication. Beijing, 2020 New Energy Buses in China Overview on Policies and Impacts Table of Contents Background 5 1. Overview on the development of NEVs in China 5 2. Responsibilities of departments for the promotion of urban buses 6 3. Overview on policies and subsidies for the promotion of New Energy Buses 7 3.1 New Energy Bus policies on national level 7 3.2 New Energy Bus policies on provincial/municipal level 10 3.3 Policy implementation effects 12 4.
    [Show full text]
  • A Green Bus for Every Journey
    A Green Bus For Every Journey Case studies showing the range of low emission bus technologies in use throughout the UK European engine Bus operators have invested legislation culminating significant sums of money and in the latest Euro VI requirements has seen committed time and resources the air quality impact of in working through the early new buses dramatically challenges on the path to improve but, to date, carbon emissions have not been successful introduction. addressed in bus legislation. Here in Britain, low carbon Investment has been made in new bus technologies and emission buses have been under refuelling infrastructure, and even routing and scheduling development for two decades or have been reviewed in some cases to allow trials and more, driven by strong Government learning of the most advanced potential solutions. policy. Manufacturers, bus operators A number of large bus operators have shown clear and fuel suppliers are embracing leadership by embedding low carbon emission buses into the change, aware that to maintain their sustainability agenda to drive improvements into the their viability, buses must be amongst environmental performance of their bus fleet. the cleanest and most carbon-efficient vehicles on the road. Almost 4,000 There have, of course, been plenty of hurdles along the Low Carbon Emission Buses (LCEB) are way; early hybrid and electric buses experienced initial now operating across the UK, with 40% of reliability issues like any brand new technology, but buses sold in 2015 meeting the low carbon through open collaboration the technology has rapidly requirements. These buses have saved over advanced and is now achieving similar levels of reliability 55,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions as that employed in gas buses and conventional diesel (GHG) per annum compared with the equivalent buses, with warranties extending and new business number of conventional diesel buses.
    [Show full text]
  • Page. CLAIMS of the PRINCIPLE of RPTATION of TURBINE ONE
    Page. CLAIMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RPTATION OF TURBINE ONE. What to claim is: 1. Rotation is obtained of the cross axial and axial bearing mounted turbine rotors, by shielding the returnblades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely. 2. Rotation of horizontal and vertical mounted rotor operable in bearings comprising at least three rotor blades radial and axially projecting its form expending from the hub. Cross-axial rotation of turbine rotors by means of shielding vane, or wind screen shielding the return blades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely for fluid to be channelled cross axially trough the intakes and impact coaxial and horizontally on the transverse projecting turbine rotor blades causing rotation of the prime mover, drivetrain by the converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy and into electric energy by means of a constant transmission turbine gearbox and lubricant system mechanical coupled in rotational mode with the electric generator rotor, comprising a cylindrical permanent or electromagnet coupled electrically to the exciter electrically connected with the disk magnet and axially opposing stator coils or disk or plates or massive electric conductive material disk or cylinder. 3. Rotation of the horizontal and vertical turbine rotor is obtained in clockwise direction and in counterclockwiswise direction. Generating AC current or dc current. Defines the rotor by at least two axial halves exposed axially for cross-axial flow axial flow and/or for perpendicularly flow turbine rotors. A left and right axial halve, or upper and lower axial halve which form the returnblades section and the pushblades intake and exhaust sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Adopting Electric Buses
    BARRIERS TO ADOPTING ELECTRIC BUSES RYAN SCLAR, CAMRON GORGUINPOUR, SEBASTIAN CASTELLANOS, AND XIANGYI LI WRIROSSCITIES.ORG Barriers to Adopting Electric Buses i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABOUT THE AUTHORS This report was developed under the project “Transitioning to a zero-emission transport Ryan Sclar is a Research Analyst who world through bus electrification” along with its sister report, How to Enable Electric focuses on electric vehicles with the Ross Bus Adoption in Cities Worldwide. We are grateful for the financial support of Germany’s Center for Sustainable Cities program at WRI. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development for this project. Contact: [email protected] We would like to express our gratitude to the many people whose ideas and contributions were invaluable to the structure and content of this report. Several staff contributed to its Camron Gorguinpour is the Senior Global creation. Emma Stewart was instrumental in helping to structure and initiate the report. Manager for Electric Vehicles with the Ross Our internal reviewers at WRI helped guide the direction of the report: Anne Maassen, Center for Sustainable Cities program at WRI. Anusha Chitturi, Celina Bonugli, Eric Mackres, Jone Orbea, Sergio Avelleda, Su Song, and Tolga Imamoglu. We would particularly like to acknowledge Renata Marson, Laura Contact: [email protected] Malaguzzi Valeri, Maria Hart, and Emilia Suarez for their dedication and support in the Sebastian Castellanos is an Associate research and review process. We also thank Emily Matthews and Sarah DeLucia for timely with the Ross Center for Sustainable Cities and crucial editorial support. We would like to thank the communications team—Romain program at WRI.
    [Show full text]
  • NYCT Diesel Hybrid-Electric Buses
    HHybrid-ybrid- ElectricEElectriclectric NYCTNYCT DieselDiesel Hybrid-ElectricHybrid-Electric BusesBuses PrProgramogram StatusStatus UpdateUpdate CLEAN FUEL BUS COMMITMENTS New York City Transit Diesel Hybrid-Electric Buses The Cleanest Bus Fleet in the World to 646 buses at three depots by 2006 MTA Operations The New York City Metropolitan Transporta- ■ The retirement of all two-stroke diesel tion Authority (MTA), which includes New engines by the end of 2003 MTA operates the largest public trans- York City Transit’s (NYCT’s) Department of ■ The use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel portation system in the United States Buses, has committed to establishing the (less than 30 ppm) in all diesel buses, and transports nearly 7.8 million cleanest bus fleet in the world and dramati- which has already been accomplished weekday passengers via bus and rail. cally reducing air pollution in New York City. ■ The installation of diesel particulate filters NYCT’s 4,871 buses carry more than That commitment is supported by invest- on all diesel buses by the end of 2003 2 million of those passengers each ments of over $300 million in the MTA’s (see “About Diesel Particulate Filters and weekday along 235 bus routes. The 2000–2004 Capital Program. Engines” on page 9). buses operate from 18 depots The continuing development and Testing Clean Fuel Buses 24 hours a day, average 1,871 miles of deployment of diesel hybrid-electric buses is As the largest bus fleet in the United States, routes daily, and travel over 115 mil- one part of NYCT’s multi-faceted plan to operating in the most densely populated lion miles annually in revenue service.
    [Show full text]
  • Proterra Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Report, Columbia Demonstration
    National Fuel Cell Bus Program: Proterra Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Report, Columbia Demonstration OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0003 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Leslie Eudy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Kevin Chandler Battelle Memorial Institute COVER PHOTO L. Eudy, NREL DISCLAIMER This document is intended as a technical assistance product. It is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. National Fuel Cell Bus Program: Proterra Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Report, Columbia Demonstration OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0003 PREPARED BY Leslie Eudy National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401 Kevin Chandler Battelle Memorial Institute Battelle, 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE http://www.fta.dot.gov/research FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or "t") (or "metric ton") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 5 (F-32)/9 oF Fahrenheit Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Bus Technology
    ELECTRIC BUS TECHNOLOGY TRANSPORT RESEARCH REPORT June 2017 BETTER TRANSPORT • BETTER PLACES • BETTER CHOICES in association with the Transport and Economic Research Institute 1 ATTACHMENT A - TTA17-005 RFQ: Passenger Transport Research and Strategic Advisory Services – March 2017 DOCUMENT INFORMATION Acknowledgements This research was undertaken with partial funding from Callaghan Innovation. For further information on the findings of this report please contact: Australia New Zealand Leslie Carter Jenson Varghese Managing Director Regional Manager New Zealand [email protected] [email protected] +61 7 3320 3600 +64 9 377 5590 This report has been prepared by MRCagney Pty Limited (MRCagney). It is provided to the general public for information purposes only, and MRCagney makes no express or implied warranties, and expressly disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to any data included in this report. MRCagney does not warrant as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included in the report and excludes any liability as a result of any person relying on the information set out in the report. This report is not intended to constitute professional advice nor does the report take into account the individual circumstances or objectives of the person who reads it. www.mrcagney.com ii Electric Bus Technology - Final Report - June 2017 CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Buses in Public Transport 1 1.2 Why Electric Buses, Not Improved Diesel
    [Show full text]
  • HOW to ENABLE Electric BUS Adoption in Cities Worldwide
    HOW TO ENABLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ELECTRIC BUS ADOPTION IN CITIES WORLDWIDE A Guiding Report for City Transit Agencies and Bus Operating Entities XIANGYI LI, CAMRON GORGUINPOUR, RYAN SCLAR, SEBASTIAN CASTELLANOS WRIROSSCITIES.ORG How to Enable Electric Bus Adoption in Cities Worldwide I ABOUT THE AUTHORS CONTRIBUTORS Xiangyi Li is a research analyst with the A number of individuals conducted interviews and were coauthors on the case studies, Ross Center for Sustainable Cities program which serve as the foundation for the report. They include Cristina Albuquerque, Berta at WRI. Pinheiro, Virginia Tavares, and Eduardo Henrique Siqueira from WRI Brasil for their work on the case studies of Belo Horizonte and Campinas, Brazil, and Bogotá, Colombia; Contact: [email protected] Lulu Xue from WRI China for her work on the case studies of Shenzhen and Zhengzhou, China; Anusha Chitturi and Pawan Mulukutla from WRI India for their work on the case Camron Gorguinpour is the senior global studies of Ahmedabad, Bangalore, and Manali, India; Jone Orbea from WRI Mexico and manager for electric vehicles with the Ross Ana Alcantara and Rafael Diaz who worked as consultants at WRI Mexico for their work Center for Sustainable Cities program at WRI. on the case studies of Mexico City, Mexico; Madrid, Spain; Quito, Ecuador; and Santiago, Chile; Celal Tolga Imamoglu and Tugce Uzumoglu from WRI Turkey’s Sustainable Cities Contact: [email protected] Program for their work on the case study of Izmir, Turkey; Gail Jennings, an independent Ryan Sclar is a research analyst with the researcher based in Cape Town, South Africa, for her work on the Cape Town case study; Ross Center for Sustainable Cities program and the team from Lucy Partners, a consulting firm based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for at WRI.
    [Show full text]
  • 06. Technology and Future of Electric
    Technology and future of electric buses Eliptic project results of Szeged Transport Company (SZKT) Dr. Zoltán Ádám NÉMETH chief of public transport and railway safety Development of the electric buses Today’s battery energy density and specific power output 140Wh/kg Ikarus-Skoda (only 40 % is used) trolley (SZKT) 350 W/kg BYD e-busz 133 Wh/kg (Fe-P battery) 72 W/kg Development of the electric buses Can one expect a radical increase in battery carbohydrates | battery (kWh/kg) 1 kg petrol -> 14 kg air specific energy (with Energy density of different sources (kWh/kg) chemical energy storage)? NO Overnight charging bus category midi (6-8 m solo (12-13 m articulated (18-19 (200 km/day range) length) length) m length) typical empty/full weight 8/11 tons 13/18 tons 19/28 tons Consumption (w/o heating) 0,6-0,9 kWh/km 1,2-1,5 kWh/km 2,0-2,5 kWh/km nominal Li-battery weight for 250 km range approx. 1600 kg approx. 3000 kg approx. 4700 kg (w/o BMS & frame) The Evopro midibuses consume 0,6 kWh/km Consumption of solo Consumption of remark in all geographical trolleybuses in Budapest articulated trolleybuses circumstances in and Szeged in Budapest and Szeged Budapest Around 30 % of the load is used to carry batteries instead of passengers. Heating is with individual diesel stove (for electric heating + ~ 0,3-1 kWh/km) Opportunity/in-motion charging • Mass of the battery can be decreased, if charging is done on the termini or in motion. • With high-capacity autobuses this seems to be the only option, if we don’t want to carry 4-5 tons of battery on the vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Transportation Glossary A
    Appendix A: Land Transportation Glossary A Accessible A facility that provides access to people with disabilities using design requirements of the ADA. Generally, the ease with which an area can be reached. Technically, it is the distance between origin and Access to opportunities destination expressed in terms of time. Americans with Civil rights legislation passed in 1990 and effective July 1992. The ADA sets design guidelines for acces- Disabilities Act sibility to public facilities, including sidewalks, trails, and public transit vehicles by individuals with dis- (ADA) abilities. A study of a corridor or travel shed to determine viable transit alternatives, which is required in order to potentially receive federal funding for project construction. These studies examine potential alignments and modes, including enhanced bus ser vice. All alternative analyses include both bus and rail options. Alternatives Analysis Bus options include im provements to highways and roads that would provide transit advantages, such (AA) as bus-only shoul ders, signal priority or preemption, dynamic shoulder lanes, dynamic parking lanes, ramp meter bypass lanes, HOV or HOT lanes, or other advantages. Land use and zoning needs are also evaluated. Arterial routes Transit routes on major local streets. These routes typically have higher frequencies of bus service. A system that determines the location of vehicles carrying special electronic equipment that communi- Automatic vehicle cates a signal back to a central control facility. AVLs are used for detecting irregularity in service and are location often combined with a computer-aided dispatch system to improve on-time performance and provide (AVL) real time information for customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices and Key Considerations for Transit Electrification and Charging Infrastructure Deployment to Deliver Predictable
    BEST PRACTICES AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRANSIT ELECTRIFICATION AND CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT TO DELIVER PREDICTABLE, RELIABLE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE FLEET SYSTEMS JUNE 2020 AUTHORS Dr.Josipa Petrunic, President & CEO Dr. Elnaz Abotalebi, Researcher & Project Lead Dr. Abhishek Raj, Researcher 2 COPYRIGHT © 2020 Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium in accordance with Canadian copyright law. This report was prepared by the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium for the account of Natural Resources Canada. The material in it reflects the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium’s best judgment, in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. The Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium accepts no responsibility of such third parties. The Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. UPDATE: COVID-19 PUBLICATION IMPACT The publication of this report has been delayed by three months due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. This report, and the majority of research included within it, was completed primarily between September 2019 and March 2020 – prior to the novel coronavirus pandemic affecting local economies and transit revenue across Canada. While efforts have been made to include relevant announcements by Canadian transit agencies since that time, specifically as they relate to electric buses, many investment decisions and funding programs related to municipal green infrastructure deployments may change this year as a result of the financial crisis unfolding in cities across the country.
    [Show full text]