Investigating Performance Improvements and True Costs of Alternative Fuel Buses in Florida Alexander Kolpakov Research Associate Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) University of South Florida Tampa, FL

2 About CUTR University Transportation Center (UTC) Public transportation focus Established in 1988 by Florida legislature Applied research, technical assistance, training, education Multi-disciplinary “Real world” experience (transit agencies, MPO, DOT)

3 CUTR Research Program 150+ active research projects $14 million expenditures (FY2014) from contracts and grants to support research, education, training, and technical assistance 45 full-time faculty students

4 CUTR Alternative Fuel Projects Tracking Performance and Costs of Alternative Fuel Buses in Florida Evaluation of FTA’s Electric Drive Strategic Plan (EDSP) Bus Fuels Fleet Evaluation Tool (BuFFeT) model Advanced Transit Energy Portal (ATEP) ( Tampa Bay Clean Cities Coalition (designated by DOE in 2014)

5 Background Many agencies introduced AFVs into their fleets  To reduce fuel consumption  save costs  To reduce GHG emissions  environmental benefits TIGGER grants and regular transit capital funds help with AFV acquisition FDOT funds 50% of non-federal share of bus capital Many propulsion technologies to choose from AFVs do not always provide desired efficiency gains and advertised cost savings to agencies

6 Tracking Costs of AF Buses Project Goals  Collect and analyze field data on performance and costs of operating alternative fuel transit vehicles in Florida  Research modification requirements for transit maintenance facilities to make them suitable for alternative fuel buses  Update BuFFeT model Research Approach  Request data from all fixed-route transit agencies in Florida  Standard data submission template  Quarterly reporting (since 2012)

7 Type of Data Collected Vehicle length Power plant Fuel type Date placed/removed from service Acquisition cost Life-to-date mileage Life-to-date parts cost Life-to-date labor cost

8 Reporting Status 8 of 26 Florida agencies provided data (typically 8-13 report regularly) Data covers 1,344 fixed-route vehicles (>50% of state fleet): – 986 are 40-foot buses – 31 are 60-foot articulated buses – Vehicle age from less than 1 year to 15 years Data on both fixed-route and paratransit vehicles are collected (1,344 - fixed route, 103 – paratransit) Focus on fixed-route fleet in this presentation

9 Transit Fleet Composition Diesel vehicles (89.2% of study sample)  78.1% of diesel buses are 40-foot buses  10.2%  35-foot buses  0.5%  60-foot articulated buses Diesel Hybrids (10.3% of study sample)  36.0% of diesel hybrids are 40-foot buses  28.8%  35-foot buses  18.0%  60-foot articulated buses Battery-Electric (5 vehicles, 0.4% of sample) Gasoline (1 vehicle)

10 Fleet Composition by Vehicle Size – Diesel vs. Diesel Hybrid The bulk of vehicles reported are either diesel or diesel hybrids (and a few electric buses) Comparison will focus mainly on these types of vehicles

11 Fixed-Route Fleet Performance Comparison – All Bus Sizes Diesel Hybrids vs. Diesel  Hybrids demonstrate 38.8% better fuel economy  27.1% lower parts cost per mile  61.8% lower labor cost per mile  Diesel hybrids cost 67.7% more to acquire Battery-Electric vs. Diesel  Electric buses demonstrate 311.1% better fuel economy  48% lower parts cost per mile  32.7% higher labor cost per mile  Battery-electric buses have 238.2% higher acquisition cost

12 Performance Comparison Observations Diesel hybrids typically have better fuel mileage, lower costs per mile, but higher acquisition costs Electric buses have significantly better fuel economy, lower parts cost, but higher labor cost and significantly higher acquisition cost Electric and hybrids are younger buses Vehicle size plays an important role in comparison

13 Performance Comparison – 40-foot Buses 40-foot Diesel Hybrid vs. 40-foot Diesel Bus  37.6% better fuel mileage  75.7% lower parts cost per mile  88.8% lower labor cost per mile  72.6% higher acquisition cost

14 Performance Comparison – 60-foot Buses 60-foot Diesel Hybrid vs. 60-foot Diesel Bus  43.0% better fuel mileage  86.6% higher parts cost per mile  548.7% higher labor cost per mile  32.0% higher acquisition cost Differential in fuel economy is greater for larger buses, but costs per mile increase substantially

15 Performance Comparison – 35-foot Buses 35-foot Electric vs. 35-foot Diesel  275.2% better fuel economy  7.6% higher parts cost per mile  523.4% higher labor cost per mile  259.3% higher acquisition cost 35-foot Diesel Hybrid vs. 35-foot Diesel  31.2% better fuel economy  44.0% lower parts cost per mile  44.9% lower labor cost per mile  68.7% higher acquisition cost

16 Life-Cycle Impact – Diesel Hybrid Bus Replacing a 40-foot diesel bus with a 40-foot diesel hybrid is projected to:  Provide savings of $358,285 (fuel + operating costs) to the agency over the life of the vehicle  Break even in 5.8 years  Reduce tailpipe emissions  NO x – by 2.1 tons  CO 2 – by 91.1 tons  Environmental benefits are worth $7,253 This projection takes into account costly battery replacement and diesel fuel price of $3/gallon As battery technology improves, potential savings will increase

17 Life-Cycle Impact – Battery-Electric Bus Replacing a 40-foot diesel bus with a 35-foot battery- electric bus is projected to:  Increase acquisition cost by $855,810  Increase operating costs by $21,182 over the life of the vehicle  Provide fuel cost savings worth $210,043  Net result: Increase in life-cycle costs by $666,948  Significantly reduce tailpipe emissions  NO x – by 11.9 tons  CO 2 – by 1,385.3 tons  Environmental benefits are worth $59,998 Price of battery-electric buses needs to drop significantly (or diesel price to increase dramatically) before agencies will be able to realize life-cycle benefits.

18 Limitations & Further Steps Limited number of AFVs in Florida fixed-route transit fleet (144 vehicles, 10.7%) Low variety of AFVs in the state transit fleet (diesel hybrids and a few battery-electric) Continuation of data collection is warranted Need to collect data from transit fleet nationwide  Bigger dataset  More variety of AFVs  Improved reliability of analysis Online data collection method

19 Thank you! Alexander Kolpakov Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Phone: (813)