2011

Matt Sandidge and John Overman 

Texas Transportation Institute 

11/30/2011 

CapitalMetroCNGImplementationStudy

2

TableofContentsListofFigures.............................................................................................................................................................4 

ListofTables...............................................................................................................................................................5 

KeyFindings...............................................................................................................................................................6 

1.  Introduction......................................................................................................................................................9 

PurposeoftheStudy..........................................................................................................................................9 

OrganizationofReport...................................................................................................................................10 

2.  CNGStateofthePractice..........................................................................................................................11 

MethodologyforLiteratureReviewandPeerStudy.........................................................................11 

LiteratureReview........................................................................................................................................12 

PeerAgencySelectionandDataCollection......................................................................................12 

PurposeofUsingCNG.....................................................................................................................................15 

HistoricalContext........................................................................................................................................15 

FuelCost..........................................................................................................................................................15 

PeerAgencyObjectives.............................................................................................................................17 

CNGImplementation.......................................................................................................................................18 

CNGFuelingStation....................................................................................................................................18 

GasDetection.................................................................................................................................................23 

ElectricalSystemImprovements..........................................................................................................23 

HeatingVentilationandAirConditioningImprovements.........................................................23 

FacilityUpgradeCosts...............................................................................................................................23 

ContractversusOwnandOperate.......................................................................................................24 

PeerTransitAgencyExperience...........................................................................................................26 

CNGServicePlanning......................................................................................................................................27 

CapitalMetroServicePlanning..................................................................................................................28 

Short‐RangeServicePlanning................................................................................................................28 

Long‐RangeTransitPlanning.................................................................................................................30 

CNGIncentivesandTaxCredits.................................................................................................................31 

FederalIncentivesandTaxCredits.....................................................................................................31 

StateIncentivesandTaxCredits...........................................................................................................32 

EmissionsConsiderations.............................................................................................................................33 

HistoricalImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleets...............................................................33 

Modern‐DayImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleets.........................................................33 

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTraining........................................................................................35 

3

CNGSafetyConsiderations......................................................................................................................35 

MaintenanceConsiderations..................................................................................................................35 

MaintenanceTrainingConsiderations...............................................................................................35 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................36 

ObjectivesforUsingCNG..........................................................................................................................36 

CNGImplementation..................................................................................................................................36 

ServicePlanning...........................................................................................................................................36 

TaxCredits......................................................................................................................................................37 

Emissions........................................................................................................................................................37 

Maintenance...................................................................................................................................................37 

3.  CapitalMetroLife‐CycleCostAnalysis...............................................................................................39 

AbouttheLCCModel.......................................................................................................................................39 

LCCMethodology..............................................................................................................................................39 

Scenarios.........................................................................................................................................................39 

ModelInputs..................................................................................................................................................39 

ModelOutputs...............................................................................................................................................43 

LCCwithCredits...........................................................................................................................................49 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................50 

4.  FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNG....................................................................51 

Fuel‐SelectionRiskOverview......................................................................................................................51 

CapitalCostExpendituresandCostRecovery.....................................................................................52 

PaybackPeriodandRateofReturn.....................................................................................................52 

CapitalMetroProcurementConsiderations....................................................................................55 

LCCScenarioConsiderations.......................................................................................................................56 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................57 

References................................................................................................................................................................59 

AppendixA:..............................................................................................................................................................60 

Bus‐FleetInventoryandRehabilitationAnalysis....................................................................................60 

4

ListofFiguresFigure2‐1FuelPrice:DieselversusCNG,September2005toJuly2011.....................................16 Figure2‐2GasDryeratRPTAinPhoenix,Arizona.................................................................................19 Figure2‐3CompressingStations...................................................................................................................19 Figure2‐4CNGBufferStorage.........................................................................................................................20 Figure2‐5CapitalMetroMaintenanceFacilities.....................................................................................30 Figure3‐1LCCScenarioComparison...........................................................................................................46 Figure3‐2LCCScenarioComparisonII.......................................................................................................47 Figure3‐3LCCperBus.......................................................................................................................................48 Figure3‐4LCCperMile......................................................................................................................................49 Figure4‐1LCCofPurchaseScenarios..........................................................................................................55 FigureA‐1Fixed‐RouteVehicleBreakdown.............................................................................................61 FigureA‐2Fixed‐RouteVehiclesbyFacility..............................................................................................62 FigureA‐3AverageAgeofFixed‐RouteBus..............................................................................................63 FigureA‐4AverageVehicleAgebyFacility...............................................................................................63 FigureA‐5AverageFixed‐RouteMileagebyType..................................................................................64 FigureA‐6AverageFixed‐RouteMileagebyFacility.............................................................................65 FigureA‐7AverageMileagebyModelYear...............................................................................................65 FigureA‐8AverageMilesperGallonbyBusType..................................................................................66 

5

ListofTablesTable2‐1PeerTransitAgencies.....................................................................................................................13 Table2‐2PeerAgencyCNGPrices.................................................................................................................17 Table2‐3PeerAgencyImplementationObjectives...............................................................................17 Table2‐4Peer‐AgencyFuelingStation........................................................................................................22 Table2‐5PeerAgencyFacilityModifications...........................................................................................24 Table2‐6ContractversusOwnandOperateOptions...........................................................................25 Table2‐7PeerAgencyContractversusOwnandOperate.................................................................26 Table2‐8MaintenanceCostofFuelStation..............................................................................................26 Table2‐9ContractorsforFuelSupplyandStationMaintenance.....................................................27 Table2‐102010CNGEngineEPACertificationTest.............................................................................34 Table2‐11GHGEmissionfrom2006CNGandDieselBuses.............................................................34 Table2‐12PeerTrainingExperience...........................................................................................................36 Table3‐1LCCMScenariosandInputs..........................................................................................................40 Table3‐2LCCMOutputs.....................................................................................................................................44 Table3‐3Natural‐GasPricesperDGE.........................................................................................................45 Table3‐4LCCMwithCredits............................................................................................................................50 Table3‐5LCCTotals............................................................................................................................................50 Table4‐1PaybackPeriodwithandwithoutCredits.............................................................................53 Table4‐2LCCofPurchaseScenarios............................................................................................................54 Table4‐3CapitalMetroProcurementScenario.......................................................................................55 Table4‐440‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits).....................................................................56 Table4‐5LCCHigh‐ImpactVariables...........................................................................................................56 Table4‐6CNGBreakevenFuelPricewithDiesel....................................................................................57 Table4‐7DieselBreakevenFuelPricewithCNG....................................................................................57 Table4‐8CNGMaintenanceBreakevenPricewithDiesel..................................................................57 

6

KeyFindingsThefollowingprovidesasummaryofkeyfindingsfromthestudyofthecompressednaturalgas(CNG)–fueledfleetattheCapitalMetropolitanTransitAuthority(CapitalMetro).TexasTransportationInstitute(TTI)researchersconductedaliteratureandpeerreviewtogaincurrentinformationontheuseofCNGintransitvehicles.Inaddition,TTIconductedalife‐cyclecostanalysiscomparingCNGtoothertransittechnologies.Thefollowinglistprovidesthekeyfindingsfromthereport.TransitAgencyObjectivesforUsingCNGVehicles

AgenciesbeganusingCNG‐fueledvehicleslargelytoreduceemissions.AllpeeragenciesstatedthatemissionreductionwasthedrivingforcebehindswitchingtoCNG.

Agenciessaidasecondaryobjectivewastobenefitfromahistoricallylower,morestablepricefornaturalgasthandiesel.

PeeragenciesdidnotchooseCNGtoloweroperatingcosts.TransitAgencyCNGImplementation

PeeragenciestypicallyhaveacontractforfuelandareabletonegotiatetheCNGpricebasedonusage.

PeeragenciesoperatingCNG‐fueledfleetshaveatleastonefuelingstationon‐site.Ofthesevenagencies,fivehaveatleasttwofuelingstationsorplansfortwo.

Twoagenciespurchaseliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)andconvertittoCNG,whiletheremainingpeeragenciespurchasenaturalgasandcompressitintoCNG.

Thecostofmaintenance‐facilitymodificationstoaccommodateCNGvehiclesisdrivenbythesizeandageofthefacility.

Agencieshavemultipleoptionsindevelopinganarrangementfornatural‐gassupplyandcompression.Theseinclude“ownandoperate,”“ownandpartiallyoperate,”“leaseandoperate,”“leaseandpartiallyoperate,”and“turnkey.”

o Threepeeragenciesuse“ownandoperate,”andfouragenciesuse“ownandpartiallyoperate.”

o “Ownandpartiallyoperate”providesstabilityinCNGfuelingoperationsbecausestationmaintenanceknowledgeisretainedthroughcontractwithathirdparty.

ServicePlanningConsiderations ModernCNGtransitvehicleshaveatotaloperatingrangesimilartothatofdiesel

vehicles—between350and450milesbetweenrefueling. CNGvehiclesareheavierduetothefueltanks.Inaddition,CNGvehicleshave

reducedlow‐speedtorqueascomparedtodieselvehicles.ThismakesCNGtransitvehiclesundesirableforregionswithsteepgrades.

CNGtechnologyiscompatiblewithCapitalMetro’sshort‐andlong‐rangeplans.

7

TaxCreditsandIncentives MultiplefederalandstategrantsandcreditsexistforimplementingaCNGbus

operation. ThemostsignificantincentiveforoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesisthe$0.54per

dieselgallonequivalent(DGE)federaltaxcredit.ThiscreditexpiresDecember31,2011;however,U.S.CongressH.R.1380proposestoextendthiscredit.

EmissionsConsiderations

The2010emissionstandardsonheavy‐dutydieselenginesmaketheemissionsbenefitsofoperatingCNGlessdramatic.

The2010CNGenginereportedlyhasa17percentreductioningreenhousegas(GHG)tailpipeemissionscomparedtothecleanestdieselengines.

MaintenanceConsiderations

The2010dieselengineshavehighermaintenancecoststhanpreviousdieselmodels.This,incombinationwithnewCNGenginetechnologyandreducedmaintenancecost,makesthemaintenancecostsofdieselandCNGenginescomparable.

Life‐CycleCost(LCC)Comparison TheCNGscenariohasalowerLCCthanthedieselandhybridscenarios.The

followinglistprovidesthetotalcostforeachLCCscenariowithoutcredits:o CNG40footbus—$135,440,657.o Diesel40footbus—$143,640,998.o Hybrid40footbus—$165,484,742.

FueleconomyandthepriceoffuelhavemajorimpactsontheoutputoftheLCCmodel.MinoradjustmentsmadetothesevariablesleadtosignificantchangesintheLCC.

Thecostofbuilding,maintaining,andoperatingaCNGfuelingfacilityissignificant;however,thepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoutweighstheinfrastructurecosts.

Fleetsizematters—infrastructurecostpervehicleisreducedforeachadditionalvehicle.

Withoutcreditsorincentives,thesavingsovera12‐yearvehiclelifeareabout$8.2million,oralmost$700,000peryear.

Withcreditsorincentives,savingsoverdieselareabout$21millionover12years,orabout$1.75millionperyear.

CNGFinancialRiskAssessment ThepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.54fortheLCCsofCNGand

dieseltobreakeven.Thiswouldrepresentanincreaseofabout23percentinthecostofCNGperDGE.

Thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$3.38fortheLCCsofCNGanddieseltobreakeven.Thisrepresentsadecreaseof14percentinthepriceofdiesel.

MaintenancecostsforCNGwouldneedtoincrease20percentto$0.90permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.

8

ToimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast11CNGvehiclestobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehiclesovera12‐yearvehiclelife.

WhenusingtheCapitalMetrobuspurchasescenariosintheLCC,thepurchaseof302CNGvehiclesinsteadofdieselorhybridvehiclesleadstoabout$22millioninsavingsoverthecumulativeservicelivesofthevehicles(12yearsforeachvehicle).

9

1. Introduction

PurposeoftheStudyThepurposeofthestudywastoprovidetechnicalassistancetoCapitalMetropolitanTransitAuthority(CapitalMetro)inevaluatingandimplementingacompressednaturalgas(CNG)–fueledbusfleet.TheTexasTransportationInstitute(TTI)completedthestudyinconjunctionwithasimilarprojectsponsoredbytheMetropolitanTransitAuthorityofHarrisCounty(METRO)inHouston,Texas.Thisstudyinvolvedthreeprimarytasks:

Conductstate‐of‐the‐practicescan,review,andpeerresearch.Thepurposeofthistaskwastoconductastate‐of‐the‐practicereviewofCNGbus‐fleetandservicepracticesusingonlinepublishedresourcesandpersonalcontacts.ThedesktopscanandreviewidentifiedCNG‐fleet‐implementationexperiencesattransitagenciesanddocumentedtheindustrystatusofCNGuseinbusfleets.

Assessfacility,serviceplanning,operations,andmaintenanceconsiderationsforimplementingaCNGbusfleet.

Estimatethelife‐cyclecost(LCC)ofaCNGfleet.ThepurposeofthistaskwastoconductanLCCanalysisforaCNGbusfleet.TheLCCanalysisusesthespreadsheetmodelfromTransitCooperativeResearchProgram(TCRP)Report132:AssessmentofHybridBusTechnology(2009)forestimatinglife‐cyclecostsforbothhybridandCNGbuses.

AsaresultofchangingconditionsatCapitalMetroduringtheproject‐performanceperiod,CapitalMetroandTTImodifiedthescopeofservices.Originally,CapitalMetrorequestedanLCCanalysisofabusretrofitandrepower.However,duringtheproject,CapitalMetroinsteadrequestedanLCCanalysisforthepurchaseofnewbuses(seeChapter3ofthisreport),usingCNGascomparedtootherfueloptionssuchascleandiesel.Thisanalysiswasrequiredtoconfirmorrevisethechoiceoffuelforfuturebusfleets.CapitalMetroisrequiredtocomplywithSenateBill650,signedbyGovernorRickPerryonJune17,2011.Thelegislationrequirestheauthoritytooutsourceanytransitservicesthatarenotprovidedwhollybyemployeesoftheauthority.TheeffectivedateofthelegislationisSeptember1,2012.ThecurrentemployeesofStarTran,Inc.,anentityincorporatedasastatenonprofit,arenotdirectemployeesoftheauthority.ThemembersofStarTran,Inc.,havedeclinedtoacceptemploymentasdirectemployeesoftheauthority;therefore,CapitalMetrowilloutsourcealltransitservices.TherequiredchangeintheCapitalMetrolaborstructuremeansthataturnkeycontractforCNGfuelingisthepreferredalternativeifCNGisthepreferredfuelchoice.ArevisedfinancialplanprovidesthatCapitalMetromayhavetheresourcestoprocurenewbusesinsteadofaretrofitandrepoweroftheexistingfleet.Thesechangesinconditionsaffectedtheworkdescribedintheoriginalscopeofservices.Inconsiderationofnewexistingconditions,amodificationtothescopeofserviceswasmade.

10

AppendixAcontainstheresultsofacost/benefitanalysisofaretrofitandrepowerconductedpriortothemodificationoftheoriginalscopeofservices.ThisanalysiswasdiscontinuedbutcontainsmeaningfulfleetinformationandsupportsworkconductedfortheLCConnewbusprocurementpresentedinChapter3.

OrganizationofReportThereportisorganizedintothreechapters.Thechaptersareasfollows:

Chapter2,“CNGStateofthePractice,”providesinformationonCNGtransit‐vehicleoperationandimplementationbasedondatacollectedfromrelevantliteratureandtheexperienceofeightpeeragenciescurrentlyoperatingsizableCNGtransitfleets.

Chapter3,“CapitalMetroLife‐CycleCostComparison,”providesacostcomparisonofthe12‐yearlifecycleoftwofleetpurchasescenarios.ThescenariosincludeCNG,diesel,andhybridpurchasescenarios.

Chapter4,“FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNG,”offersinformationonfinancialrisksassociatedwithimplementingandoperatingaCNGvehiclefleet.

Attheendofeachchapterisalistofkeyfindingsfromtheresearch.Thekeyfindingsserveasasummaryofeachchapter.

11

2. CNGStateofthePracticeThissectionprovidesareviewoftheCNG‐bus‐fleetstateofthepracticeandpeerresearch.TTIresearchersconductedaliteraturereview,andinterviewedandcollecteddatafromeighttransitagenciesoperatingCNGbuses.ThepurposeofthistaskwastoexaminecurrentliteratureonCNGuseandimplementationintransitfleets.Additionally,thistaskprovidedinformationonpeertransitagenciesthathaveimplementedCNG‐fueledfleets,andexaminedthekeyplanningfactorsthataffectCNGimplementationdecisions.Thesectionisdividedintothefollowingsubsections:

MethodologyforLiteratureReviewandPeerStudy—providestheTTImethodologyfortheliteraturereviewandpeerselection,andbasicdetailsoneachofthepeeragencies.

PurposeofUsingCNG—providesanoverviewofthereasonsagenciesconsiderusingCNGasafuelfortransitvehicles.Thesubsectionprovidesreasonsidentifiedwithintheliteratureandalsofeedbackfromthepeertransitagencies.

CNGImplementation—providesadiscussionofthedifferentwaysanagencymayimplementaCNGfuelingoperation.ThesubsectionprovidesinformationoncontractingouttheCNGfuelingstationandonfuelpurchasing.

CNGServicePlanning—providesthehistoricalconsiderationofusingtransitvehiclespoweredbyCNG.ThesubsectionalsoprovidesinformationonthelatesttechnologyforCNGbusoperation.

CapitalMetroServicePlanning—providesinformationonCapitalMetrocurrentandlongrangetransitplans.ThesubsectionprovidesinformationonhowCNGtiesintoCapitalMetro’sserviceplans.

CNGIncentivesandTaxCredits—providesinformationonthecurrentstateandfederalincentivesandtaxcreditsavailabletotransitagenciesoperatingCNGvehicles.

EmissionsConsiderations—providesadiscussionofthehistoricalemissionsbenefitsandinformationonnewtechnologyandemissionsstandards.

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTraining—providesinformationonthemaintenanceconsiderationrelatedtoCNGvehicles.ThesubsectionalsoprovidesinformationonsafetyandtrainingforaCNGfuelingandbusmaintenanceoperation.

KeyFindings—providesasummaryofthestateofthepracticeresearchconductedbyTTI.

MethodologyforLiteratureReviewandPeerStudyTTIsoughtcurrentresourcestouseinthestate‐of‐the‐practicereview.TTIusedacombinationofavailableliteratureandinformationgatheredfromtransitagenciesoperatingCNGtransitvehicles.ThissectionprovidesthemethodologythatTTIresearchersusedtogathertheavailableliteratureandcollectinformationfrompeertransitagencies.

12

LiteratureReviewAsoutlinedinthescopeofwork,TTIconductedareviewofonlineliterature.TTIuseddatabasesavailablefromtheTexasA&MUniversitylibraryasameanstocollectthemostrecentstudiesconductedontheuseofCNGincurrenttransitoperations.TTIresearchersalsousedtheTransportationResearchBoard’s(TRB’s)TransportResearchInternationalDocumentationdatabasetolocaterelevantliterature.AmainsourceofdataoriginatedfromTRB’sTCRP.TheTCRPreportsusedforthereviewincludeReport38:GuidebookforEvaluating,Selecting,andImplementingFuelChoicesforTransitBusOperations,andtheupdatetothatreport,Report146:GuidebookforEvaluatingFuelChoicesforPost‐2010TransitBusProcurements(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).TRBdevelopedthesereportstoguidetransitagenciesinfuelchoiceforfleets.

PeerAgencySelectionandDataCollectionTTIresearchersusedapeer‐selectionmethodologytooltoidentifypeersforcomparison.Inaddition,bothCapitalMetroandMETROidentifiedagenciesthattheywantedtolearnabout.ThepeerselectiontoolwascreatedbyTCRPReport141:AMethodologyforPerformanceMeasurementandPeerComparisoninthePublicTransportationIndustry.Thetoolcomparesanumberofcharacteristicstogetalikenessscoretoaparticularagency.Themethodisanobjectivewaytoselectpeeragencies.Thecharacteristicsusedforcomparisonincludethefollowing:

Rail(yesorno). Railonly(yesorno). Heavyrail(yesorno). Urbanareapopulation. Totalvehiclemilesoperated. Totaloperatingbudget. Populationdensity. Statecapital(yesorno). Percentageofcollegestudents. Populationgrowthrate. Percentageoflow‐incomepopulation. Annualdelay(hours)pertraveler. Freewaylanemilespercapita. Percentageofservicedemandresponse. Percentageofservicepurchased. Distancesfrompeercity. Serviceareatype—Agenciesareassignedoneofeightservicetypes,dependingon

thecharacteristicsoftheirservice(e.g.,entireurbanarea,centralcityonly,orcommuterserviceintoacentralcity).

Thetop25agencieswiththehighestlikenessscorewerethenfurtheranalyzedtodeterminethevehiclemix.TTIresearchersidentifiedpeersagencieshavingaminimumof50CNG‐fueledvehicles.

13

TTIresearcherscontactedmaintenancedirectorsfromeachoftheagencies,providedaquestionnairetoeachdirector,andtalkedthrougheachquestion.Inaddition,aTTIresearcherconductedasitevisitwithRPTAinPhoenix,Arizona,andSunMetroinElPaso,Texas,andspentseveralhoursdiscussingtheCNGfuelingprogramwithagencyrepresentatives.Table2‐1providestheagenciesparticipatinginthepeerreview.

Table2‐1PeerTransitAgencies

TransitAgencyServiceAreaSize

ServiceAreaPopulation

FleetSize1

CNGFleet %CNG

FoothillTransit  327  1.5million 303  270 89%NorthCountyTransitDistrict 

403  0.85million 120  90 75%

Omnitrans  456  1.4million 169  166 98%RegionalPublicTransitAuthority  732  2.5million 172  135 78%

SacramentoRegionalTransitDistrict  277  1.1million 212  212 100%

SunMetro  205  0.6million 163  150 92%

SunTran  230  0.5million 240  88 37%WashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority  692  3.3million 1,492  461 31%

Source:NationalTransitDatabase,20091.Peeragencyinterview

Thefollowingsubsectionsintroduceeachofthetransitagenciesusedinthepeeranalysis.CityofTucsonDepartmentofTransportation(SunTran).SunTranisthetransitagencyforTucson,Arizona,andisafunctionoftheCityofTucson.Theagencyprovidespublictransportationservicetoanareaof230squaremilesandincludesapopulationof544,000.SunTranprovideslocalfixed‐routeanddemand‐responseparatransitandpark‐and‐rideserviceforthearea.SunTranoperatesafleetof240fixed‐routetransitvehiclesthatinclude151biodiesel,88CNG,and1hybriddieselvehicles.SunTranbeganoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesin1991.SunTranownsandoperatestheCNGfuelingprogram.TheCityofTucsonsharestheCNGfuelingstationwithotherfunctionsoftheCityofTucson.SunTranhasnotpurchasednewCNGvehiclessince2000;however,withtherecentfluctuationsinthepriceofdiesel,theagencyisconsideringpurchasingnewCNGvehicles.Omnitrans.OmnitransislocatedinSanBernardino,California,andprovidesbustransitservicefortheSanBernardinoValleyinsouthernCalifornia.Theagencyprovidespublictransportationservicetoanareaof456squaremilesandincludesapopulationof1.4millionresidents.Omnitransprovideslocalfixed‐routeanddemand‐responseparatransitfortheservicearea.Omnitranshas169fixed‐routetransitvehicles,consistingof166CNGand3hybrid‐dieselvehicles.OmnitransbeganoperatingCNGvehiclesin1997andoperatestwoliquidcompressednaturalgas(LCNG)fuelingstations(itpurchasesLNGandconvertsittoCNG).Omnitrans’mostrecentCNGprocurementincluded272009NewFlyer40‐footvehicles,withoptionsforupto90vehicles.

14

CityofElPaso’sMassTransitDepartment(SunMetro).SunMetroisadepartmentoftheCityofElPasoandprovidespublictransportationtotheElPasocitylimits.SunMetroprovideslocalfixed‐routeanddemand‐responseparatransitforitsservicearea.TheSunMetroserviceareais205squaremilesandincludesapopulationofabout600,000.SunMetrooperates150fixed‐routeCNGvehiclesand13LNGvehicles.SunMetrobeganoperatingCNGvehiclesin1993.Theagencybeganfuelingusingaslow‐fillCNGoperation.TheagencynowusestheLCNGmethodbyconvertingLNGtoCNG.SunMetrohastwofuelingstationsforthevehiclefleetand78,000gallonsofLNGstorage,whichisreplenishedeachday.Theagency’smostrecentCNGvehicleprocurementincludedamixof10335‐footand40‐footNorthAmericanBusIndustriestransitvehicles.FoothillTransit.FoothillTransitisajoint‐powersauthorityof22membercitiesintheSanGabrielandPomonaValleysinsouthernCalifornia.TheFoothillTransitserviceareaencompasses327squaremilesandapopulationof1.5million.FoothillTransitoperateslocalfixed‐routebusservice,busrapidtransit,anddemand‐responseparatransitforitsservicearea.FoothillTransitoperates277CNG,23diesel,and3electrictransitvehicles.TheagencybeganoperatingCNGvehiclesin2002,andsincethenallprocurementshavebeenforCNGvehicles.Themostrecentprocurementincluded14NorthAmericanBusIndustries42‐foottransitvehicles.NorthCountyTransitDistrict(NCTD).NCTDislocatedinSanDiego,California,andhasaserviceareaof403squaremiles.Theserviceareaincludesapopulationof850,000.NCTDprovideslocalfixed‐routebusservice,demand‐responseparatransit,commuterrail,andlight‐railtransitservice.Theagencyoperatesamixofbustransitvehicles.Thefleetmixincludes30dieselvehiclesand90CNGvehicles.Theagencybeganoperating6CNGvehiclesin1991,andin2000,theagencybeganprocuringonlyCNGvehicles.Themostrecentprocurementincluded13NewFlyer40‐foottransitvehicles.RegionalPublicTransitAuthority(RPTA).RPTAislocatedinPhoenix,Arizona,andhasaserviceareaof732squaremilesandincludesapopulationof2.5million.RPTAoperateslocalfixed‐routebusservice,park‐and‐ridecommuterservice,busrapidtransit,anddemand‐responseparatransit.Theagencyoperatesafleetof172fixed‐routetransitvehicles,consistingof37dieseland135CNGvehicles.RPTAbeganoperatingCNGin2002.TheagencyhasbeenreplacingdieselvehicleswithCNGvehicles.RPTAmostrecentlypurchased3740‐footNewFlyerCNGtransitvehicles.WashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority(WMATA).WMATAislocatedinWashington,D.C.,hasaserviceareaof692squaremiles,andincludesapopulationof3.3million.WMATAoperateslocalfixed‐route,park‐and‐ride,bus‐rapid‐transit,anddemand‐response‐paratransitbusservice.Inadditiontobustransit,WMATAoperatesfiveheavy‐raillineswithintheservicearea.WMATAhasafixed‐routebusfleetof1,492vehicles.Thefleetconsistsof602diesel,461CNG,and429‐hybriddieselvehicles.WMATAbeganoperatingCNGvehicles2001,beginningwithafleetof64CNGvehicles.

15

SacramentoRegionalTransitDistrict(SACRT).SACRTislocatedinSacramento,California,hasaserviceareaof277squaremiles,andincludesapopulationof1.1million.SACRToperateslocalfixed‐route,park‐and‐ride,anddemand‐response‐paratransitbusservice.Inaddition,SACRToperatestwolight‐railtransit(LRT)linesthroughouttheservicearea.Theagencyhasafixed‐routefleetof212CNGvehicles.SACRTbeganoperatingCNGvehiclesin1993andbeganreplacingallexistingdieselvehicleswithCNGvehicles.Themostrecentvehicleprocurementconsistedof9140‐footOriontransitvehicles.

PurposeofUsingCNG

HistoricalContextTransitagenciesbeganusingCNGinthe1990sinresponsetothepoliticalrhetoricwarningaboutU.S.dependenceonforeignoilandtoimproveairquality.Atthefederallevel,threelawsencouragedthesegoals:

TheCleanAirActAmendmentsof1990requiredcitieswithsignificantair‐qualityissuestousevehiclesthatmetaspecificemissionsstandardstartingwithmodelyear1994buses.

TheEnergyPolicyActof1992promotedtheuseofalternative‐fueledvehiclestoreducethedependenceonforeignoil.

TheAlternativeMotorFuelsActof1998encouragedthedevelopment,testing,anddemonstrationofalternative‐fueledvehiclesandincludedaprovisionfortheDepartmentofEnergytoassistgovernmentagenciesintestingalternative‐fuelbusesinurbansettings(Eudy2002).

Inthe1990s,manystatesimplementedmorestringentrequirementsfortransitagencies.In1991,theTexasLegislaturepassedlegislationthatrequired30percentoftransit‐agencyvehiclestobepoweredwithcleanertechnologybySeptember1991(Eudy2002).InCalifornia,theCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(1998)required1996modelyearornewerbusestoreducenitrogenoxide(NOx),makingtheemissionstandardfortransitbusesmorestringentthantheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)standard(ArcadisGerahtyandMiller,Inc.1998).ByswitchingtousingCNG‐poweredtransitvehicles,agenciesreducedNOxemissions.TTIresearchersprovidedetailsoncurrentemissionsandenvironmentalconsiderationsmoreindepthintheEmissionsConsiderationsectionofthischapter.

FuelCostNatural‐gasretailsalesareofteninunitsoftherms,whereonethermisequalto100,000Britishthermalunits(atraditionalunitofenergy).Inordertocomparenatural‐gasusetodieseluse,TTIresearchersrefertonatural‐gasvolumeintermsofdieselgallonequivalent(DGE).Historically,thecostofCNGperDGEislessthandieselandisareasonmanyagencieshavechosentoimplementCNGbusfleetsoverdiesel‐fueledfleets.CleanCities,partoftheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy,producesaquarterlypricereportcalledtheCleanCitiesAlternativeFuelPriceReport(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011b).Thisreportprovidespricesforthe

16

regionalandnationwidefuelpriceaveragesforgasoline,diesel,CNG,ethanol(E85),propane,biodiesel(B20),andbiodiesel(B99‐B100).ThelatestreportreleasedwasforthequarterendinginJuly2011.Figure2‐1providesthehistoricpricesofbothCNGanddieselperDGE.

Source:CleanCitiesAlternativeFuelPriceReport,July2011

Figure2‐1FuelPrice:DieselversusCNG,September2005toJuly2011ThefiguredisplaysthatthepriceofCNGhastrendedlowerthandieselforthepast11years.ThefigurealsoshowsthatspikesinfuelpricesthathaveoccurredoverthelastdecadearetypicallylowerinmagnitudeforCNGthandiesel.Since2009,thepriceofCNGhasbeenrelativelystable,whiledieselhastrendedupward.Table2‐2providesasummaryofthepricepeertransitagenciesarecurrentlypayingforCNGintermsofDGE.ThepurchasepriceofCNGreportedbythepeeragenciesoftenincludesadditionalfeesbecauseofvarioustermsandconditionsinthepurchasecontract.Forexample,thesefeesmayincludepriceadjustmentstocoverthemaintenanceandelectricitycostsassociatedwithCNGdeliveryandfuelingfacilities.Additionally,notallagencieswereabletoprovidethecostofCNGintermsofDGE.Intheseinstances,researchersconvertedthereportedpricetoDGE.

17

Table2‐2PeerAgencyCNGPrices

Agency PriceperDGE Comments

FoothillTransit$0.69Arcadia/$0.84Pomona

Maintenancecostswereremoved

NCTD $0.58 Commodityonly

Omnitrans NotavailableContractforfuelishedged;couldnotdisclose

RPTA $1.17 Includesmaintenanceandelectricity

SACRT $0.80

ThepriceincludesafeetoDepartmentofGeneralservices(about0.0065%)and0.0513perthermtoPG&Efordelivery

SunMetro $1.83PurchasedasLNGandconvertedtoCNG

ThepriceperDGEhassomevariationbetweentheagencies.Thisisaresultoffuelcontractsandthearrangementsinwhichfuelispurchased.SunMetroreportedthehighestfuelprice,andOmnitransreportedthesecondhighestfuelprice.BothoftheseagenciesactuallypurchaseLNGandconvertittoCNG.Therefore,thepurchasepriceperDGEistypicallydependentonthefuelsourcesupplierandthearrangementtheagencyhaswiththesuppliertopurchasefuel.Fuel‐purchasingarrangementsarediscussedinmoredepthinalatersectionofthisreport.

PeerAgencyObjectivesThepeerstudyidentifiedreasonstheagenciesuseCNGasatransitfuel.Table2‐3providesasummaryofthesereasons.

Table2‐3PeerAgencyImplementationObjectives

Agency EmissionReduction

LowerFuelPrice

StabilityofFuelPrice

LowerOperatingCosts

DomesticFuelSource

Comments

FoothillTransit X X X X X Emissionsrequirement

NCTD X EmissionsrequirementOmnitrans X EmissionsrequirementRPTA X X X X X SACRT X X EmissionsrequirementSunMetro X X X X SunTran XAlltransitagencieslistedemissionsreductionasareasonforimplementingaCNGfuelingoperation.Thesecondmostreportedreasonisthepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoverdiesel.FuelpricestabilityandtheadvantagesofusingadomesticfuelsourcearethethirdmoststatedreasonforusingCNG.Theleastimportantreasonreportedbytransitagencieswasloweroperatingcosts.Agenciesdiscussedthathistoricallythemaintenancecostsof

18

CNGvehicleshavebeenhigherthanthoseondieselvehicles,thusmakingoperatingsavingsonfuelnegligible.AdiscussionofthecostofmaintainingCNGvehiclesversusdieselvehiclesisprovidedinthesafetyandmaintenanceconsiderationssectionofthischapter.

CNGImplementationThissectionoftheliteratureandpeerreviewprovidesdetailsonCNGimplementation.TransitagencieshavetheoptiontocontractouttheCNGfuelingoperationtoathird‐partyprovider.Thesecontractarrangementsallowforflexibilityintheoperationsandfinancialstructureofvehiclefueling.Additionally,whenimplementingCNG,transitagenciesusuallyneedtomakemodificationstotheirbusmaintenancefacilities.Thissectionprovides:

DiscussionofthefacilityimprovementsandmodificationsnecessaryforCNGimplementation.

InformationonthecommoncontractarrangementsassociatedwithaCNGfuelingoperation.

Implementationstrategiesandexperienceofpeertransitagencies.

CNGFuelingStationTransitagenciesoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesmusthaveaCNGfuelingstationon‐sitedesignedtoaccommodatethecapacityofthefleet.Fuelingstationshavefourmaincomponents:

Gasdryertoremovemoistureinthenaturalgas(seeFigure2‐2). Compressorstocompressthegastoapressureof3600‐4500poundspersquare

inch(psi)(seeFigure2‐3). Bufferstoragetoallowcompressorstoremainrunningduringtheagency’sfueling

window(thisreducesstressoncompressorsfromconstantturningoffandon)(seeFigure2‐4).

Fueldispenserstoprovidefueltovehicles.

19

Figure2‐2GasDryeratRPTAinPhoenix,Arizona

Figure2‐3CompressingStations

20

Figure2‐4CNGBufferStorage

Agencieshavetheabilitytocustomizefuelingstationstomeettheirfuelingneeds.TheneedsaredependentonthenumberofCNGvehiclestorefuel,thefuelingwindowavailable,andthestaffavailabletorefuelthevehicles.Thefuelingneedsoftheagencydeterminethenumberandtypeofcompressorstheagencymusthave.Thetotalflowinstandardcubicfeetperminute(SCFM)fromthecompressorsdeterminesthenumberofbusesandhowquicklytheyarefueled.Agenciescandeterminethenumberofcompressorsandsizeofcompressorsrequiredbytakingthefuelloadperbus,multipliedbythenumberofbusesfueledpernight,dividedbytheproductivetimeduringafuelingshifteachnight.Agenciesmustalsoprovideredundantcompressors.Redundancyprovidesback‐upcompressionsothatifonecompressorfails,theredundantcompressorcanmakeupfortheloss.Thisisalsobeneficialwhencompressorsareundergoingroutinemaintenance(AdamsandHome2010).Dependingonthefleetreplacementorexpansionplans,thestationshouldhaveroomforadditionaldispensersandadditionalcompressors(AdamsandHome2010).AreportsponsoredbytheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)andconductedbyR.AdamsandD.B.Horne,titledCNGTransitBusExperienceSurvey,providedthesurveyresultsof10transitagenciesoperatingCNGtransitfleets.Thestudyrevealedpreferencesoftypesofcompressorsused—gasorelectricdrive.Thereportstates,“Sevenofthe10respondentseithercurrentlyorpreviouslyownedCNGstationswithnaturalgas‐engine‐drivencompressors.Twooftheseagencieshavealreadyconvertedtoelectric‐drivecompressors,andtwomoreindicatedthattheywouldgoelectriciftheycoulddoitover.”Thereportstatesthatelectric‐drivencompressorstypicallyhavelowerenergy

21

costs,arequieter,andrequirenospecialenvironmentalpermit.Thereportalsostatesthattheindustryisshiftingtowardelectriccompressors.TTIresearchersaskedpeeragenciesseveralquestionsaboutCNGfuelingstations.Table2‐4providesinformationoneachofthepeers’fuelingstationsandcompressors.ThetableshowsmanyoftheagencieshavemultipleCNGfuelingstations.Thetablealsoshowsthatthenumberofcompressorsateachstationvariesfromtwotosix.Eachofthepeeragencieshasafast‐filloperation,withthemajorityoftheagenciesabletofilleachvehicleinunder10minutes.SunMetro’sandOmnitrans’filltimesare15and8minutes,respectively.TheseagenciesconvertLNGtoCNG,andthereforethefuelingprocessisdifferentthantheotheragencies.SunMetroandOmnitransdonotusecompressorsinthefuelingprocess;therefore,notallagencieshaveinformationoncompressors.Ofthepeeragencies,onlyFoothillTransitoperatesastationusingagas‐drivencompressor.Allotherstationscontainelectric‐drivecompressors.Theelectricalexpensesforeachofthefuelingstationsvaries.RPTApays$0.06perthermofnaturalgasused.Infiscalyear2011,SACRThadanelectricityexpenseof$311,211foritsonestationoperatingfivecompressors.Infiscalyear2011,NCTDhadanelectricityexpenseof$271,133foritstwostationswithfourcompressorsintotal.Theagenciesreviewedcurrentlyhavefewfuelingcapacityissues.However,SunMetroandSunTrannotedthatcoldweatheraffectsthespeedandcompletenessofrefueling.SACRTnotedthatthesizeoftanksonsomevehicleslimitedthemileagerange;thesevehicleshadtocomeinformiddayrefueling.Adjustmentsinonboardtankcapacityandimprovementstothefuelingstation,enablingamorecompletefill,curtailedthefueling‐capacityissue.NCTDstatedthatfuelcapacitycouldbeanissueifadditionalvehiclesareaddedtotheEscondidofacility.

Table2‐4Peer‐AgencyFuelingStation

Agency 

CNG Fueling Capacity  Compressor Details 

Fueling Stations 

Natural Gas Inlet Pressure 

CNG Storage 

Compressors at Each Station 

Fuel Dispensers 

Fuel Time Vehicles Fueled per 

Night 

Midday refuel 

Capacity Limitations  Capacity Answers Electric or 

Gas Total SCFM 

Discharge Pressure 

Gas Expenses 

Annual Electricity Expenses 

Foothill Transit 

2  Unknown Buffer only 

8 (electric) and 6 (gas) 

P = 6  A = 4 

10 minutes or less 

P = 150  A = 129 

0  None  None  Both P = 5,648 A = 3,650 

4,500 psi Not 

separately metered 

Unknown 

NCTD  2 O = 256 psi E = 140 psi  

Buffer only 

2  2 at each 

O = 6 minutes  

E = 8 minutes 

O = 40 E = 30 

No 

Charges for electricity; fill time could be an issue if the fleet is 

increased at Escondido 

Enough labor at Oceanside to fill and clean vehicles 

fast enough 

Electric O = 1,200 E = 500 

3,600 psi Not 

separately metered 

$271,133  

Omnitrans  2  N/A 

60,000 and 

20,000 LNG 

N/A 2 at each station 

8 minutes  140‐150  No  None Maintain excess capacity for LNG 

N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

RPTA  1  100 psi Buffer only 

3  4  4 minutes  135  No  None Enough tank 

storage on vehicles to reach 480 miles 

Electric  1,500  3,600 psi Not 

separately metered 

0.06 per therm 

SACRT 

1 (#2 is being con‐

structed) 

400 psi Buffer only 

5 and 3  4 and 4 6‐7 

minutes 135  No  Initially yes 

The tank size on vehicles was increased, and improvements in 2002 to station allowed for all 

buses to be fueled in the evening.  Initially would 

swap out the bus midday. 

Electric  Unknown  3,600 psi Not 

separately metered 

$311,211  

Sun Metro  2  N/A 

60,000 and 

18,000 LNG 

N/A  4 and 1 

15 minutes or less; 

worst case 30 minutes 

150 Yes but not 

needed  

The cold weather impacts how quickly the bus can be fueled 

None  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 

Sun Tran  1  Unknown Buffer only 

4 2 fast fill and 1 slow fill 

5‐7 minutes; slow fill is 20‐30 minutes 

88  No Temperature impacts more complete fill 

Made 3600 psi intake to get more 

complete fill; improved this 

about 4 years ago 

Electric  Unknown  3,600 psi Not 

separately metered 

No 

GasDetectionNaturalgas(CH4)isignitableatconcentrationsinairbetween5and15percent.AgenciesmustmeetlocalandnationalfiresafetycodessuchasthoserequiredbytheNationalFireProtectionAssociationCode52whenimplementingaCNGfuelingoperation.Agenciesmusthavediscussionswiththefiremarshaltoensurethefacilitiesareuptolocalfirecode.TodetectandpreventconcentrationsofCNG,maintenancefacilitiesmustbeequippedwithmethanedetectionsensorsaboveallservicebaystodetectleaks.Thesesensorsareconnectedtoamastercontrolpanel.Twotypesofdetectionsystemsaretypicallyused—catalyticbeadandinfrared.Acatalyticbeaddetectionsystemhasaplatinumcoilembeddedinacatalyst.Whengasesreachthecoil,areactionoccurs,causingtheelementtoheatupandtriggerthesensor.Infraredmethanedetectionusesinfraredradiationtodeterminegaslevelsintheair(GeneralMonitorsn.d.).Infrareddetectionisthemostcommonlyinstalledtoday(RichardsonandMcAllister2009).TheCentralArkansasTransitAuthority(CATA)hadastudycompletedonimplementingaCNGfuelingoperationin2009.Thestudystatedthatthemainshopwouldneed24methanesensors(12bayswithtwosensorsperbay).Thesensorsarepositioneddirectlyovertheactualrepairbays.Thepaintboothandbodyshopalsorequiresensors.Eachfuelinglaneandwashbayrequiretwosensorseach,equalinganadditionalsixsensors.Sincethefuelingandwashbuildingisseparatefromthemainfacility,thebuildingrequiresazonecontrolpanelthatlinkstothemasterpanelinthemainfacility.Eachcompressorskidrequiresamethanesensorwithacontrolpanellinkedtothemastercontrolpanel.Ifthecompressorskidisanopen‐aircanopy,nomethanedetectionisnecessary(RichardsonandMcAllister2009).

ElectricalSystemImprovementsAgenciesmusthaveelectricalsystemimprovementswithinthemaintenancefacilitywhenCNGisimplementedtomeetNationalFireProtectionAssociationcodes.Thesecodesrequireelectricalconnectionsanddevicesfoundwithin18inchesofthelowestportionoftheceilingtobeclassifiedasexplosionproof(Class1,DivisionII).Tomeetthisrequirement,certainelectricalconnectionsareupgradedorthelightfixtureslowered.Theelectricalsystemmustbeconnectedtothemethanedetectionsystem.Ifthedetectionsystemdetectsagasleak,thesystemshutsdownelectricalsupply(RichardsonandMcAllister2009).

HeatingVentilationandAirConditioningImprovementsAgenciesoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesmusthavemechanicalventilationsystems.Theseventilationsystemsareresponsibleforventingtheroomatsixroomairexchangesperhour.Ifagasleakisdetected,theventilationrateincreasesto12airexchangesperhour,andalldoorsautomaticallyopen(ArcadisGerahtyandMiller,Inc.1998).

FacilityUpgradeCostsThecostofmodifyingthemaintenancefacilitiesforCNGoperationvarieswidelydependingonthesizeandageofthefacility.TheCATACNGstudyestimatesthecostofretrofittingits

24

facilitiestobeCNGcompliantwouldcostroughly$150,000.CATAoperatesafleetofabout50fixed‐routebuses,whichwouldindicatethesizeofthemaintenancefacilityissubstantiallysmallerthanotherlargeagencies(300+vehicles).TheCATAestimateislowerthanwouldbethecaseatlargertransitagencies.LeslieEudy,inthereportNaturalGasinTransitFleets:AReviewofTransitExperience,statesthatthecostsofmodifyingamaintenancefacilitytomakeitcompliantwithCNGcouldrangefrom$100,000to$10million.Eudyexplainsthemostimportantvariablesarethesizeandageofthefacility(Eudy2002). TTIresearchersaskedpeertransitagenciesaboutthemodificationsrequiredduringCNGimplementationandthecostsassociatedwiththosemodifications.ManyoftheagenciesimplementedCNGintheearly1990sandcouldnolongersupplyarecordofthefacilitymodificationcosts.Intheearly2000s,NCTDretrofittedaportionofanexistingfacilitytoaccommodatetheuseofCNG.TheNCTDretrofitcosttheagencyabout$75,000.Table2‐5providestheresponsestofacilitymodificationdiscussions.

Table2‐5PeerAgencyFacilityModificationsTransitAgency

YearofImplementation

FacilityModifications

FoothillTransit

2002 FacilitywasbuiltwithCNGfuelingability

NCTD 200110bayswithmethanedetection,twoautomaticroll‐updoors,exhaustfans,andfire‐proofdoortoseparatefromtheotherpartofthefacility

Omnitrans 1997 Methanedetection,fallprotection,LNGstorage,pumps,vaporizer,andCNGbufferstorage

RPTA 1998 FacilitywasbuiltwithCNGfuelingability

SACRT 1993Emergencyshutdownifmethanedetected,exhaustfans,andexplosion‐prooffixtures

SunMetro 1993Explosion‐prooffixtures,methanedetectors,airexchangers,fireextinguishers,andexhausthosetoventgas;lightswerelowered

SunTran 1991 Methanedetectionanddefuelingstation

ContractversusOwnandOperateTransitagencieshavetheoptiontoownandoperatetheCNGfuelingstationorcontractitouttoathird‐partyprovider.ACNGfuelingstationrequiresexpertiseandinstitutionalknowledgeformaintainingandtroubleshootingproblemsinnatural‐gascompression.TherequirementsofCNGfuelingoperationsaresometimesbettersuitedtoacompanythatspecializesinoperatingandmaintainingCNGfuelingstations.Thissectiondescribesthearrangementsavailabletotransitagenciesandprovidesinformationoneachofthepeertransitagencies’CNGfuelingoperations.TheCNGfuelingarrangementtypesincludethefollowing:ownandoperate,ownandpartiallyoperate,leaseandoperate,leaseandpartiallyoperate,andturnkey.Table2‐6providesthearrangementsavailabletotransitagencieswhenimplementinganon‐siteCNGfuelingoperation.

25

Table2‐6ContractversusOwnandOperateOptions

TypeofArrangement

FuelingStation

MaintenanceofFuelingStation

MaintenanceofVehicles

FuelingofVehicles FuelSupply

Ownandoperate In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house ContractedOwnandpartiallyoperate In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

Leaseandoperate Contracted Contracted In‐house In‐house ContractedLeaseandpartiallyoperate

Contracted Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

Turnkey Contracted Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

Athirdpartyprovidesfuelsupplyineachscenarioarrangement.Thefuelsuppliercanbethelocalgascompany,thelocalmunicipality,orthethirdpartyusedfornatural‐gascompressormaintenance.AsTable2‐6indicates,transitagencystafforcontractstaff(e.g.,FirstTransit,Veolia,etc.)conductthemaintenanceandfuelingofCNGvehiclesin‐houseineacharrangement.Acommonarrangementfoundinthepeerresearchisownandpartiallyoperate.Inthisarrangement,thetransitagencycontractsforcompressormaintenanceandmonitoring.Whenanagencyleasesthecompressorsfromathirdparty,thethirdpartymaintainsthecompressors.Thethird‐partycompanycanalsoupgradeoraddadditionalcompressorsifthetransitagency’sdemandsurpassesthefuelingstation’scapacity.ThereportNaturalGasinTransitFleets:AReviewoftheTransitExperienceprovidesinformationonthebenefitsanddownsidetoowningorcontractingouttheCNGfuelingstationoperations(Eudy2002).Forownandoperate,theadvantagesanddisadvantagesareasfollows:

Advantages:o Ownershipofthestationprovidestheagencycontrolofthefueling

operation.o Thetotalcosttotheagencyislowerifthestationisefficientlymanaged.

Disadvantages:o Up‐frontcapitalcostsarehighfortheagency.o Theagencyisresponsibleformaintenanceandoperation.

Forcontractingtoathirdparty,theadvantagesanddisadvantagesareasfollows:

Advantages:o Up‐frontcapitalcostsarelowornonexistent.o Stationmaintenanceisconductedbythecontractor.o Along‐termcontractcanprovideastablefuelprice.o Thecontractorhasexperience.o Continuingupgradestofacilitycanbeperformed.

Disadvantages:o Theagencymayhavepossibleissueswithproprietarytechnology.o Theagencytakesariskontheperformanceofthecontractor.o Contractingcanbepotentiallymoreexpensiveoverallthanownership.

26

PeerTransitAgencyExperienceTable2‐7displaysthearrangementsinwhicheachofthepeeragenciesoperateandmaintainCNGfuelingoperations.

Table2‐7PeerAgencyContractversusOwnandOperateTransitAgencies

FuelingStation MaintenanceofFuelingStation

MaintenanceofVehicles

FuelingofVehicles FuelSupply

FoothillTransit

In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

NCTD In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

Omnitrans In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

RPTA In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house Contracted

SACRT In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house Contracted

SunMetro In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house Contracted

SunTran In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house Contracted

Eachpeertransitagencymaintainsandfuelsvehiclesin‐house.Additionally,eachagencyownstheCNGfuelingstation(s).ContractorsspecializinginCNGfuelingoperationsallowforstabilityinfuelingwithinatransitagency.Thefunctionmostcommonlycontractedoutismaintenanceofthefuelingstation.Fuel‐stationcompressorsrequireongoingmaintenancethatmaybemoreappropriateforacontractortocomplete.RPTA,Omnitrans,FoothillTransit,andNCTDcontractoutfuel‐stationmaintenance.Theseagenciescontractformaintenanceonaper‐thermbasis.Maintenancecontractsnegotiatedbetweentheentitiesinvolvemultiplevariablestoreachacostperthermformaintenance.ThecostofmaintenanceperthermisdeterminedbythetotalnumberofCNGthermstheagencyusesaswellasthenumber,age,condition,andtype(gasorelectricdrive)ofcompressorshousedatthefuelingstation.Table2‐8providestheamounteachagencypaysforstationmaintenance.

Table2‐8MaintenanceCostofFuelStationAgency CostofFuelStationMaintenance

perDGENCTD $0.30FoothillTransit $0.39Arcadiaand$0.84PomonaRPTA $0.20Omnitrans* $270,000peryear

*OmnitransusesanLCNGoperationthatdoesnotusecompressors,soithasadifferenttypeofmaintenancecontract.Insomeinstances,thecontractorprovidingmaintenancetothefuelingstationisalsothefuelsupplier.NCTDandOmnitransusethesamecontractorforbothfuelsupplyandstationmaintenance.However,OmnitranshasthesamecontractorforeachfunctionbecausetheoriginalcontractorforthefuelsupplywasboughtoutafterOmnitranshadalreadyenteredintoacontractwiththem;therefore,Omnitranshastwoseparatecontractsforfuelsupplyandstationmaintenance.Table2‐9liststhecontractorsforthefuelsupplyandstationmaintenanceforthepeeragencies.

27

Table2‐9ContractorsforFuelSupplyandStationMaintenance

Agency FuelSupplier StationMaintenanceNCTD Trillium TrilliumFoothillTransit SouthernCaliforniaGas CleanEnergyRPTA CityofMesa CleanEnergy

Omnitrans*CleanEnergyandAppliedLNGTechnology

CleanEnergy

CNGServicePlanningThissectiondiscussestheserviceplanningimplicationsforCNGvehicles.ThesectionprovidesabriefhistoryofCNG‐vehicleserviceplanningandprovidesinformationonsomeoftheconsiderationswithtoday’savailabletechnology.Duringthelate1980sandearly1990s,manytransitagenciesintheUnitedStatesbeganoperatingCNGtransitvehicles.Manyofthesevehicleshadanoperatingrangeof150to200miles.Whenthebusrouterequiredmoremiles,thesebuseshadtorefuelatmiddaytocompletetheday’sservice.Anotherservice‐planningconcerninvolvedtheroadgradeonwhichtheCNGvehiclesoperated.WhenCNGvehiclesoperatedonhills,thevehiclesometimesstruggledtomakeitupthehill.TheweightoftheCNGfueltank—about3,000lb—contributedtothisproblemandaffectedtheperformanceofthevehicle.Inaddition,CNGenginesoperatedathighertemperatures,andoperatingonhotdaysledtotheriskofoverheating(Eudy2002).Agenciesconsideredtheseitemswhendevelopingserviceplans.Today,transitpropertiesoperatingbothCNGanddieselvehiclestypicallymixthetwobustypesontheroutesprovided.TheRegionalPublicTransitAuthorityinPhoenix,Arizona,hasafleetof135CNGvehiclesand37biodieselvehicles.Thebusesareintermixedandexpectedtooperateoneachofthefixedroutes.Theexceptionstothisarethebusesusedforbus‐rapid‐transit(BRT)service.ThesevehicleshaveaspecificdesignandoperateonlyontheBRTroutes.TheRPTAexpectstheCNGanddieselvehiclestohavearangeofmorethana400milesandsufficienthorsepowertotraverseallroutes(Hyinke2011).TheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratoryevaluatedWMATAin2006.WMATAhad232busesoperatingoutoftheBladensburgdepot,ofwhich164wereCNGpowered.ThedieselandCNGvehicleswereinterchangeableonallroutesthatused40‐footbuses(Chandleretal.2006).Oftheeighttransitagenciesusedinthepeeranalysis,threeoftheagenciesdonotoperatedieselvehiclesatall.Therefore,allvehiclesmustbeabletocompleteallroutes.CNGperformsataslightlylowerlevelthandieselinaccelerationandhillclimbing.CNGengineshavepeakpowerratingssimilartocomparabledieselengines;however,theyhavereducedlow‐speedtorqueduetothelowervolumetricefficiencyofCNGengines.Thelow‐speedtorquecombinedwiththeincreasedweightoftheCNGfueltanksleadstoaccelerationreductions.In2006,theCityofSanFranciscopurchasedhybridelectricratherthanCNGduetothehillyoperatingconditionswithinSanFrancisco(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).AccordingtoTCRPReport146:GuidebookforEvaluating

28

FuelChoicesforPost‐2010,thenewestCumminsWestportenginesclaimtohavea30percentincreaseinlow‐speedtorqueforitsstoichiometric,cooledexhaustgasrecirculation(EGR)enginecomparedtoitspreviousengine(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).ModernCNGtransit‐vehicletechnologyallowsforgreaterrangeduetofuelingandfuel‐storagetechnology.TheincreasedrangeisattributabletogettingamorecompleteCNGfillandincreasedfuelcapacity.SACRTstruggledwiththerangeofCNGvehiclesthroughthe1990s.In2002,thenewCNGbusesreceivedbytheagencyhadincreasedtankcapacity.Inaddition,SACRTmademodificationstothefuelingstationtoincreasethecompletenessoftheCNGfillonbuses(Barnhart2011).TCRPReport146documentsthefuelefficiencyofCNGvehiclesasbeingabout2.7milespergallon(mpg).Thefuelefficiencyofavehicleisdependentontheoperatingcharacteristicsofthebusroute.TCRPreport146providesthemilespergallonofdieselasbeingabout3.2.Oftheeightpeeragenciesreviewed,theaveragemilespergallonreportedfortheCNGfleetis3.42.Thelowvalueis2.7mpg,andthehighvalueis3.98mpg.CNGvehiclesrequireNGfuelingstationsforfuel.TransitagencieswithmultiplegaragesmayonlyhaveoneCNGfuelingstation.ThisusuallymeansthatCNGbusesmustbehousedoutofthesamegarageandarenotinterchangedwithbusesatothergarages.Oftheeightpeertransitagencies,threehavetwofuelingstation,andSACRTisintheprocessofconstructinganadditionalfacility.

CapitalMetroServicePlanningThepurposeofthissectionistodocumentCapitalMetro’sshort‐andlong‐rangeplansforbusserviceandexaminetheimpactsofCNGimplementationonexistingandfuturebusserviceplanning.

Short‐RangeServicePlanningCapitalMetrohasadetailedshort‐rangeserviceplan,ServicePlan2020,outliningtheagency’sstrategicplanningforthedecade.ServicePlan2020servesasacomprehensiveoperationsanalysisoftheentirefixed‐routesystem,outliningstrategicplansforbecomingmorecostefficientandeffectiveatserviceprovision,whileincreasingridership.Theserviceplantiesintotheoverallagencystrategytoimproveservicesystem‐wideandaddadditionalservicebasedupontheadoptedservicestandards.CapitalMetro’sregularservicechanges(occurringannuallyinAugust,January,andJune)aredesignedtoimplementtheelementsoftheplan,specificallytoenhanceserviceefficiencybystreamliningserviceandreducingand/oreliminatingroutesthatarepoorperformers.TherecommendationsofServicePlan2020includethefollowingsystem‐wideimprovements:

Designbusservicetobettermeetthetransitneedsoftheregion. Increasetransitridership,andinturnimprovetrafficcongestionandairquality. Increasethecost‐effectivenessofbusoperations.

29

Theservicechangesoccurringin2011willreallocateresourcessavedinthepreviousyear,improvespecificservices,andsimplifytheoveralltransportationnetwork.Inaddition,proposedservicechangesplaceemphasisonpotentialmarketopportunities,especiallyareaswhereresidentialandcommercialgrowthisoccurring.Anumberoflow‐ridershiptripsweretargetedbyCapitalMetrostaffin2010andselectedforeliminationin2011.Proposedservicewillbeaddedtoroutesexperiencingovercrowdingoron‐timeperformanceissues,ortoalleviatethefutureretirementofarticulatedbuses.ServicechangescanbesummarizedbygroupingthemintothethreeservicechangeperiodsforMetro:January,June,andAugust.RecentCapitalMetrochangesreflecttherecommendationsofServicePlan2020andtheServiceStandardsthatwereestablished,andcanbecategorizedas:

Routemodifications/realignments. Routeeliminations. Tripeliminations. Frequencyreductions/additions. Minorscheduleadjustments.

In2009,CapitalMetroimplementedservicechangesandrealignedrouteswithvaryinggarages,whichreducedoverallroutedeadhead.Forexample,Routes37and137,whichprimarilyserveeastAustintodowntown,wererelocatedfromthegarageat5thStreetandPleasantValleytoCapitalMetro’s51stStreetfacility,reducingtheamountofdeadheadrequiredtoreachtheendofthelineineastAustinatLoyolaandDeckerLane.Figure2‐5providesamapoftheCapitalMetrofacilities.

30

Figure2‐5CapitalMetroMaintenanceFacilities

Long‐RangeTransitPlanningIn2004,CapitalMetrointroducedAllSystemsGo(ASG),theagency’slong‐rangetransportationplan.AllSystemsGowasdesignedtobetheregion’slong‐rangetransportationplantoaddresstherapidpopulationgrowthoccurringinAustinandthesurroundingcommunities.TheASGplanlookedatbothlanduseandtransportation,andincludedplansforexpandedfixed‐routeservices,busrapidtransit,raillines,andpark‐and‐ridegrowth.AllSystemsGotiesintotheregional20‐yearplandevelopedbythelocalmetropolitanplanningorganization,CapitalAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(CAMPO).AlloftheprojectsoutlinedinCapitalMetro’sASGplanareincludedinCAMPO’s2035planandtheTransportationImprovementProgram(TIP),whichCAMPOmanages.AllSystemsGoidentifiestransitimprovementsandincludesthefollowingelements:

Long‐rangeserviceimprovements. New,relocated,andexpandedtransitpassengerfacilities. Streamlinedlocalfixedroutes. Futurebusrapidtransitonheavilytraveledcorridors. RedLinerailserviceexpansionandfuturerailserviceontheGreenLine. Expandedexpressserviceandnewpark‐and‐ridefacilities.

 

31

CapitalMetroiscurrentlybeginningtheprocesstoupdatethelong‐rangeplanfortheagency.Thenewsystemplanisslatedtolookatpotentialservicethroughtheyear2035fortheregion,whichwouldincludeananalysisoftransitserviceinuptofivecounties.Althoughfuturelong‐rangeplansaffectthetypeofvehiclesusedoncertainroutes—forexample,theline‐haulroutes1and3,whichwouldbeconvertedtoBRT‐typevehicles—thelocal‐routevehicleplanningwillmorethanlikelynotbeaffectedoverthelongterm.SinceCapitalMetromadeapreviousefforttoalignthelocalfixedrouteswiththenearestfacilities,thereshouldbenomajorlong‐termchangestothemajorfixed‐routealignmentsthatwouldpreventtheusageofCNGvehiclesonlocalfixedroutes.Further,althoughtherearesomerollinghillstothewestofAustin,noneofthecurrentorfutureplannedalignmentswouldlimitCNGvehiclesfrombeingintroducedintothefleet.

CNGIncentivesandTaxCreditsTransitagenciesusingalternativefuelssuchasCNGhavetheopportunitytoreceivefederalandstateincentivesandtaxcredits.Thissectionprovidesthemostcurrentinformationontheavailabilityofthosecredits.

FederalIncentivesandTaxCreditsAtthefederallevel,themostsignificantincentivefortheusersofCNGincludestheAlternativeFuelExciseTaxCredit.ThiscreditiseffectivethroughDecember31,2011,andprovides$0.54perDGEofCNGused.StateandlocalgovernmentsthatdispenseCNGfromanon‐sitefuelingstationforuseinvehiclesqualifyfortheincentive.Theagencymustfirstusethetaxcreditagainstanytaxliabilitytheagencyhas.Agenciesmayclaimtheexcessoverthefuel‐taxliabilityasadirectpaymentfromtheInternalRevenueService(IRS).Publictransitagenciesarenotliableforthefederalfuelexcisetax;therefore,agenciesoperatingCNGclaimtheentireAlternativeFuelExciseTaxCredit(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011a).AnadditionaltaxcreditavailableatthefederallevelistheAlternativeFuelInfrastructureTaxCredit.ThisisataxcreditavailableforthecostofalternativefuelingequipmentplacedintoserviceafterDecember31,2005.Alternativefuelsincludenaturalgas,liquefiedpetroleumgas,hydrogen,electricity,E85,ordieselfuelblendscontainingaminimumof20percentbiodiesel.Thetaxcreditprovidesupto30percentofthecost,nottoexceed$30,000,forequipmentplacedintoservicein2011.Equipmentplacedintoservicein2009and2010mayreceiveacreditfor50percentofeligiblecosts,nottoexceed$50,000.Agenciesthatinstallmultiplefuelingstationsatseparatelocationscanreceivethecreditforeachlocation.ThiscreditalsoexpiresDecember31,2011(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011a).AgenciesoperatingalternativelyfueledvehiclesareeligibleforImprovedEnergyTechnologyLoans.TheU.S.DepartmentofEnergyprovidestheseloansthroughtheLoanGuaranteeProgram.Eligibleprojectsincludethosethatreduceairpollutionandgreenhousegases,andsupportearlycommercialuseofadvancedtechnologies(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011a).

32

ThefederaltaxcreditsexpireDecember31,2011.Thereisproposedlegislationthataimstoextendthetaxcredits—H.R.1380:NewAlternativeTransportationtoGiveAmericansSolutionsActof2011.ThebillwasintroducedtotheHouseofRepresentativesonApril6,2011.Thebillincludesextensionsofexistingtaxcreditsandexpandedtaxcredits.Thebillcallsforthefollowingincentivesfornaturalgasoperations(Kalet2011):

Extensionoftheexcisetaxcredit($0.54DGE). IncreaseoftheAlternativeFuelInfrastructureTaxCredit(from30percent,upto

$30,000,to50percent,upto$100,000). Vehiclepurchases:

o Forlight‐dutyvehicles,80percentofthecostdifferential,upto$7,500.o Forheavy‐dutyvehicles,80percentofthecostdifferential,upto$65,000.o Additionaltaxincentivesfornatural‐gas‐vehicleoriginalequipment

manufacturers(OEMs).SeveralHousecommitteesarecurrentlyreviewingthebill.

StateIncentivesandTaxCreditsTheTexasCommissionforEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ)hasmultipleincentivesforagencieslookingtoimplementCNG.Thefollowinglistdetailstheavailablestate‐levelincentives(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011):

AlternativeFuelingInfrastructureGrantseffectiveSeptember1,2011,provide50percentoftheeligiblecosts,upto$500,000,toconstruct,reconstruct,oracquireafacilitytostore,compress,ordispensealternativefuelsinTexasair‐qualitynonattainmentareas.

NaturalGasVehicleandFuelingInfrastructureGrantseffectiveSeptember1,2011,providetheincrementalcostsofpurchasingCNG‐fueledvehicles.Thegrantalsoprovidesfundingforfuel‐stationdevelopment.Theinfrastructuregrantamountsmaynotexceed$100,000foraCNGfuelingstation,$250,000foranLNGstation,or$400,000forastationprovidingbothformsofnaturalgas.Stipulationstiedtothegrantfundsincludetherequirementofthefundedfuelingstationtobeopentothepublicandwithin3milesofaninterstatehighway.ThegrantprogramendsAugust31,2017.

EmissionsReductionIncentiveGrantsprovidefundsforclean‐airprojectstoimproveairqualityinthestate’snonattainmentareas.Eligibleprojectsincludethosethatinvolveheavy‐dutyvehiclereplacement,retrofit,orrepower;alternative‐fueldispensinginfrastructure;idlereductionandelectrificationinfrastructure;andalternative‐fueluse.

NewTechnologyResearchandDevelopmentGrantsprovidefundsforalternative‐fuelandadvanced‐technologydemonstrationandinfrastructureprojectstoencourageandsupportresearch,development,andcommercializationoftechnologiesthatreducepollution.

TheTexasCleanFleetProgramencouragesownersoffleetstoremovedieselvehiclesfromtheroadandreplacethemwithalternativelyfueledvehicles.The

33

programprovidesgrantfundstocovertheincrementalcostsofreplacingdieselvehicleswithalternativelyfueledvehicles.Thenewvehiclesmustreduceemissionsofnitrogenoxidesorotherpollutantsbyatleast25percent.

TheNaturalGasVehicle(NGV)InitiativeGrantProgramencouragespublic‐sectorfleetsincertaincountiestoincreasetheuseofheavy‐dutyNGVs.ThegrantsaimtocovertheincrementalcostofreplacingdieselvehicleswithNGVs.

TheNaturalGasProgramprovidedbytheTexasGeneralLandOfficeofferscompetitivepricesonnaturalgastoschooldistrictsandotherstateandlocalpublicentitiesforuseinNGVs.

EmissionsConsiderationsManyagenciesthatbeganusingCNGinthe1990sandearly2000sdidsofortheenvironmentalbenefitsCNGtransitvehiclesoffered.Thissectionprovidesinformationonthehistoricandcurrentimplicationsoftheair‐qualityimpactsofCNGtransitvehicles.

HistoricalImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleetsTraditionallyCNGtransitvehicleshavecleaner‐burningenginesproducingfeweremissionsthandieselvehicles.TheearlyCNGtransitvehicleswerecapableofhavingextremelylowparticulate‐matterrates.CNGvehiclesalsohadthepotentialtoachieveNOxratesabout50percentlowerthanthedieselbaselinewhenproperlycalibrated.TheloweremissionsratesarearesultofCNGengineshavingamorecompleteburnoflighthydrocarbons(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).However,theNOxratewassensitivetotheair/fuelratio.TheNOxratesofnatural‐gasenginescouldeasilyexceedthedieselbaselineintheeventthefuelsystemwasmiscalibratedorgiveninadequatemaintenance(ArcadisGerahtyandMiller,Inc.1998).Becauseofthepossiblesignificantair‐qualitybenefitsCNGtransitvehiclesoffered,manytransitagenciesimplementedCNGfleets.

Modern‐DayImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleetsEPAhasputmorestringentemissionsregulationsondieselengines;therefore,thegapbetweenCNGanddieselenginesisclosing.TheairpollutantsthatfallundertheCleanAirActincludehydrocarbons,NOx,particulatematter,non‐methanehydrocarbons,andcarbonmonoxide(CO)(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).Newemissionsstandardsbecameeffectivein2004,2007,and2010—eachtimebecomingmorestringent.Thechangesthatcamein2007and2010requiredsignificantchangesforCNGbuses.ThesechangesincludedsomemodificationstoCNGenginesandexhausttreatmentsystems(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).The2010emissionstandardshavecreateddifferencesintheemissionsofCNGanddieselvehicles.TCRPReport146saysthatatypical2006CNGbusemitslessCOandNOxthana2006dieselbus,butthe2010dieselbusmayhavelowerCOemissionsthannatural‐gasbuses.Toachievethe2010emissionstandards,dieseltransitvehiclesneedadieselparticulatefilterandaselectivecatalystreduction.CNGvehiclesmustusestoichiometriccooledexhaust‐gasrecirculationwithathree‐waycatalyst(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

34

The2010emissionstechnologyisrelativelynew,andthenumberofemissionstestsavailableislimited.However,TCRPReport146providesEPAcertificationdataavailableon2010CNGvehicles.Table2‐10providestheEPAcertificationtestresultsforthe2010CNGengine.

Table2‐102010CNGEngineEPACertificationTestEmissionType Grams/Mile

Carbonmonoxide 21.91Nitrogenoxides 0.22Particulatematter 0.00Non‐methanehydrocarbons 0.02

Source:(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011)

Transitagenciesmustalsoconsidergreenhousegases(GHGs).GHGsconsistofcarbondioxide(CO2),CH4,andnitrousoxide(N2O).TheGHGofmostconcernisCO2.TherearetwosourcesofGHGsfromvehicleoperations:

Well‐to‐tankemissionsarereleasedduringfuelexploration,development,production,refining,deliverytorefuelingsites,andtherefuelingprocess.

Tank‐to‐wheelemissionsoccurduringoperationofthevehicleandprimarilyescapefromthetailpipe.

Well‐to‐tankGHGemissionsrangebetween20to30percentofthetotallifecycleofGHGemissions.Well‐to‐tankemissionsareestimatedtobe12percenthigherforCNGthanfordiesel(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).TCRPReport146providesCO2comparisonsfor2006dieselandCNGtransitvehicles.Table2‐11providesinformationonGHGemissionsfrom2006transitvehicles.

Table2‐11GHGEmissionfrom2006CNGandDieselBuses CO2EquivalentGrams/Mile* Diesel CNG ChangewithCNGWelltotank Total 636 711 12%increaseTanktowheels CO2 2,258 1,872 17%reduction CH4 3 230 76‐foldincrease N2O 46 14 69%reduction Total 2,306 2,117 8%reductionTotalwelltowheels Total(net) 2,942 2,828 4%reduction

Source:(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011)*Assumes1gCH4=23gCO2;1gN2O=296gCO2

Whencomparing2006dieselandCNGvehicles,CNGhasaslightedgeoverall.CumminsWestportproducestheonlyCNGenginecurrentlyavailablefortransitvehicles.The2010CNGenginereportedlyhasa17percentreductioninGHGtailpipeemissionscomparedto

35

thecleanestcomparabledieselengines(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTrainingTransitagenciesthatimplementaCNGoperationprovideacertainleveloftrainingtomechanics.Inaddition,somestatesrequireadifferentlevelofcertificationformechanicstoworkonCNG.ThissectionprovidesinformationonCNGmaintenancetrainingandsafety.

CNGSafetyConsiderationsNaturalgasisignitableatconcentrationsinairbetween5and15percent.Odorantaddedtonaturalgasmakesitdetectableatconcentrationsbelow5percent.CNGleaksarecharacterizedassloworfastleaks.Slowleaksresultfromasmallgapsuchasaloosefuel‐linefitting.Fastleakscanoccurfromaruptureinahigh‐pressurelineintherefuelingsystem.Eachtypeofleakposesafirehazardrisk(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).ThehighpressureofCNGposesapotentialrisktomechanicswhileworkingonthevehicle.Gasreleasedfrompressureorthermal‐reliefdevices,oranimproperordamagedfittingorhigh‐pressureline,cancauseinjury.Animproperlyfittedordamagedrefuelinghosecandisconnectedandwhipindividualsstandingnear.

MaintenanceConsiderationsCNGtransitvehiclesrequireafewspecialmaintenanceconsiderations.TCRPReport146providesalistofthemaintenanceneedsthatarerelevantforCNGbuses(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011):

Periodicspark‐plugreplacementsforspark‐ignitedengines(incontrasttotypicallylower‐maintenancecompressionignitiondieselengines).

PossiblegreaterfrequencyofbrakeandsuspensioncomponentreplacementasaresultoftheheavierweightofCNGbusescomparedtodieselbuses.

AnnualvisualinspectionofonboardCNGfueltanks(perAmericanNationalStandardforNaturalGasVehicleContainers).

RecommendedemptyingofonboardCNGtanksbeforeworkingonthefuelsystem. Periodicmaintenanceofrefuelingequipment(gasdryer,compressor,etc.).

MaintenanceTrainingConsiderationsMechanicsrequiresomeadditionaltrainingwhenworkingonCNGtransitvehicles,andinTexasmechanicsmusthavecertificationthroughtheRailroadCommissionofTexas.TheTexasStatutesNaturalResourceCode116providesadditionalinformationregardingthelicensingandcertificationofCNGuseinTexas(TexasConstitutionandStatutes2011).Inthepeerstudy,TTIresearchersaskedagenciesaboutrequiredtrainingforCNGvehicles.Table2‐12providesthepeerresponsesaboutmaintenance‐trainingrequirements.

36

Table2‐12PeerTrainingExperience

TransitAgency TrainingRequired Cross‐trainedforMultipleTechnologies

SunMetroTrainingoneachnewbusorder(notCNGspecific);CNGcertification Yes

RPTA 40hours(notCNGspecific) YesOmnitrans 20hours(notCNGspecific) YesFoothillTransit Contractorresponsibility YesSACRT Safetybriefings,noCNGrequirement YesSunTran 8‐16hoursonCNGspecific;CNGcertification YesNCTD 4hours(notCNGspecific) Yes

Asseeninthepeerresearch,thereistypicallynorequirementbytheagencytohaveadditionalCNGtraining.SunTranandSunMetrohaveadditionalcertificationrequirements.Allpeeragencies’havemechanicstrainedtoworkoneachtypeofvehicletheagencyoperates.

KeyFindings

ObjectivesforUsingCNG

AgenciesbeganusingCNG‐fueledvehicleslargelytoreduceemissions.Secondarypurposesincludethefactthathistoricallynaturalgashashadalower,morestablepricethandiesel.AllpeeragenciesstatedthatemissionreductionwasthedrivingforcebehindswitchingtoCNG.

PeeragenciesdidnotchooseCNGtoloweroperatingcosts.

CNGImplementation

PeeragenciestypicallyhaveacontractforfuelandareabletonegotiateCNGfuelpricebasedonusage.

PeeragenciesoperatingCNG‐fueledfleetshaveatleastonefuelingstationon‐site.Ofthesevenagencies,fivehaveatleasttwofuelingstationsorplansfortwo.

OmnitransandSunMetropurchaseLNGandconvertittoCNG,whiletheremainingpeeragenciespurchasenaturalgasandcompressitintoCNG.

Thecostofmaintenance‐facilitymodificationstoaccommodateCNGvehiclesisdrivenbythesizeandageofthefacility.

Agencieshavemultipleoptionsindevelopinganarrangementfornatural‐gassupplyandcompression.Theseinclude“ownandoperate,”“ownandpartiallyoperate,”“leaseandoperate,”“leaseandpartiallyoperate,”and“turnkey.”Threepeeragenciesuse“ownandoperate,”andfouragenciesuse“ownandpartiallyoperate.”

ServicePlanning

ModernCNGtransitvehicleshaveatotaloperatingrangesimilartothatofdieselvehicles—between350and450milesbetweenrefueling.

37

CNGvehiclesareheavierduetothefueltanks.Inaddition,CNGvehicleshavereducedlow‐speedtorqueascomparedtodieselvehicles.ThismakesCNGtransitvehiclesundesirableforregionswithsteepgrades.

CNGtechnologyiscompatibletoCapitalMetro’sshort‐andlong‐rangeplans.

TaxCredits

MultiplefederalandstategrantsandcreditsexistforimplementingaCNGbusoperation.

ThemostsignificantincentiveforoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesisthe$0.54‐per‐DGEtaxcredit.ThiscreditexpiresDecember31,2011;however,H.R.1380proposestoextendthiscredit.

Emissions

The2010emissionstandardsonheavy‐dutydieselenginesmaketheemissionsbenefitsofoperatingCNGlessdramatic.

The2010CNGenginereportedlyhasa17percentreductioninGHGtailpipeemissionscomparedtothecleanestdieselengines.

Maintenance

The2010dieselengineshavehighermaintenancecoststhanpreviousdieselmodels.This,incombinationwithnewCNGenginetechnologyandreducedmaintenancecost,makesthemaintenancecostsofdieselandCNGenginescomparable.

3. CapitalMetroLife‐CycleCostAnalysisTTIresearchersusedtheLLCmodeldevelopedbyTCRPReport132todeterminethecapital,variable,andtotallife‐cyclecostofdifferentvehiclepurchasescenarios.TTIresearchersuseddataavailablefromCapitalMetroandnationallyestablishedassumptionsasinputsforthemodel.Thissectionofthereportoutlinesthemethodology,inputs,assumptions,andresultsoftheLCCmodelforCapitalMetro.

AbouttheLCCModelThe Life-Cycle Cost Model (LCCM) was developed as part of TCRP Report 132: Assessment of Hybrid-Electric Transit Bus Technology, published in 2009. The LCCM was developed using a variety of inputs, including literature reviews, surveys, and detailed data gathering from government agencies, the fuel industry, and transit agencies. The LCCM is being used here to compare the various upfront and recurring (life-cycle) costs of owning and operating diesel, hybrid, and CNG buses, in various configurations. The model allows inputs based on an agency’s actual operational experience, but also has default data inputs that were obtained from operating experience at several transit agencies. The input factors that have the greatest effect on LCC include fuel pricing, average speed, vehicle mileage, fleet size, and facility costs. Unpredictable future fuel pricing is the greatest challenge of reliable LLC prediction and has the most profound effect on LCC outputs. Input factors that have minor impact include tax and purchase incentives and air conditioning and heating use.

LCCMethodology

ScenariosTTIresearchersworkedwithCapitalMetrorepresentativestogatherdataanddevelopassumptionsfortheLCCM.Researcherscollecteddataonthreescenariosofbuspurchases:

CNG40‐footbuses. Diesel40‐footbuses. Hybrid40‐footbuses.

ThesethreescenariosrepresenttheplannedprocurementsofCapitalMetro.

ModelInputsTheLCCMallowsuserstoselecteitherdefaultvaluesorinputactualfleetagencydatafortheinputvariables.TTIresearcherssoughttogatherthemostcurrentdataavailablefromactualCapitalMetrofleetdata,literaturesources,ormutuallyagreed‐upondefaultvariableinputsandassumptions.Whenavailable,TTIusedactualfleetdataprovidedbyCapitalMetro.Fordefaultassumptions,TTIreviewedthevariousmodelinputswithCapitalMetrostafftoensurethemodelwasrepresentativeofthefleet.ThissectiondescribesthemodelinputsandhighlightstheinputvariableswiththegreatestimpactonLCC.Thissectionalso

40

detailstheassumptionsmadebyTTIwithineachofthemodel’ssections.Table3‐1providestheinputsusedforeachmodelvariable.

Table3‐1LCCMScenariosandInputs

# VariableInputs CNG40Foot

Diesel40Foot

Hybrid40Foot

1 Technology(typeofbus) CNG Diesel Hybrid

2 Numberofvehiclesinpurchase 100 100 100

3 Purchaseyear 2013 2013 2013

4 Annualmileagepervehicle 45,000 45,000 45,000

5 Fueleconomy

5A Averagespeed 13.3 13.3 13.3

5B Air‐conditioningload 9 9 9

5C Heaterload 6 6 6

5D Fueleconomies 3.1 3.6 3.8

6 Purchasecost(in1,000dollars) 440.33 405 580

7 Extendedpowertrainwarrantycosts 0 0 0

8Enginerebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime(6,4yearand7,5yearschedule) 35.5 35.5 17.88

9Transmissionrebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime 27.81 27.81 67.87

10 Trainingcosts(in1,000dollars) 70 0 0

11 Unscheduledmaintenancecosts 0.44 0.42 0.45

12 Scheduledmaintenancecosts 0.31 0.23 0.2

13 Infrastructure‐specificcosts

13A Neworadditionalinfrastructurecosts 2,500 0 0

13BOperatingandmaintenance(O&M)costsforfacilities 462.85 0 0

14 Hybrid‐specificcosts

14A Diagnosticequipment 0

14B Energy‐storagereplacement 52.06

14C Spareenergy‐storagepacks 154.27

15 Projectedaveragefuelcosts 2.07 3.93 3.93

16 Incentives,credits,andtaxes

16A Fueltaxes

Figuredintopurchaseprice 0.20 0.20

16B Fuelcredits 0 0 0

16C Purchasecredits 0 0 0

16D Miscellaneouscreditsandgrants 0 0 0

16E Miscellaneousfuture‐yearone‐timecosts 0 0 0

41

Thefollowingisanexplanationofeachvariableinput:1. Technology(typeofbus)—TheLCCMmakesrequiredcalculationsforeachtypeof

busselectedineachcolumn.ThebuseschosenfortheLCCMincludeCNG40‐foot,diesel40‐foot,andhybrid‐diesel40‐footvehicles.

2. Numberofvehiclesinpurchase—Tocomparethelife‐cyclecostsofvehiclepurchases,TTIresearchersused100busesforeachscenario.

3. Purchaseyear—TheLCCMmakesthenecessaryinflationcalculationsandother(technology‐based)calculationsbasedonspecificpurchaseyears.Thepurchaseyear2013isusedfortheLCCMbasedonCapitalMetro’spossible2013procurement.

4. Annualmileagepervehicle—TTIresearchersusedtheaverageannualmileageprovidedbyCapitalMetroforeachscenario.Averageannualmileageis45,000perbus.

5A. Averagespeed—TTIresearchersusedtheactualaveragespeedprovidedbyCapitalMetro.Theaveragespeedis13.3mph.

5B. Air‐conditioningload—TheLCCMallowstheusertoconsidertheeffectairconditioning(AC)hasonfueleconomybyselectinganumericvaluefrom0to10.CapitalMetroprovidedanair‐conditioningloadof9outof10.CapitalMetrooperatesthebusairconditionersthemajorityoftheyearandthoughtitwasnecessarytousealoadof9withinthemodel.

5C. Heaterload—Themodelallowsfortheaccommodationofheaterloadsonfuelefficiency.Thedefaultvalueis5,whichindicatesthebusisnotequippedwithanauxiliaryheater(oritisnotused);10indicatesthattheauxiliaryheaterisalwaysused(i.e.,afrigidclimate).SinceCapitalMetrooperatestheairconditionerthemajorityoftheyearandoperatestheheateronlyacouplemonthsoftheyear,theheaterloadis6.

5D. Fueleconomies—TTIresearchersusedactualfueleconomiesprovidedbyCapitalMetroforthe40‐footdieselscenario.Themilespergallonforthehybrid‐dieselscenarioistwo‐tenthshigherthandieselaccordingtoCapitalMetroexperience.CapitalMetrodeterminedthattheagency’soperatingconditionsaresimilartothatofElPaso’sSunMetro;therefore,theSunMetroaveragemilespergallonforCNGvehiclesisused.

6. Purchasecost—CapitalMetroprovidedtheaveragepurchasepriceofthevehiclesforeachscenario.Thepurchasepriceofthevehiclesisexpressedin1,000dollarsperbus.Additionally,annualfueltaxwasaddedtothecostofCNGvehicles.Thisis$444peryear.Overa12‐yearlife,thisequalsapproximately$5,328.

7. Extendedpowertrainwarrantycosts—Themodelallowsforaone‐timecostperbusforextendedwarranties.Researchersassumedtherewerenoextendedwarrantiesaddedtothepurchases.

8. Enginerebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime—Forallbustypes,thesecostsapplytorebuildingtheinternalcombustionengine(ICE),andarebasedonreplacingtheoriginalenginewitharebuiltunitobtainedfromanOEM‐authorizedrebuildingfacility.TTIresearchersandCapitalMetrostaffagreedtousethemediumdefaultfortheenginerebuildvariable.

9. Transmissionrebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime—FordieselandCNGbuses,thesecostsarebasedonreplacingtheoriginalautomatictransmissionwitharebuilt

42

unitobtainedfromanOEM‐authorizedrebuildingfacility.Forhybridbuses,costsarebasedonremovingtheoriginalhybriddrivesystemandreplacingitwithafactoryremanufacturedunit.TTIresearchersandCapitalMetrostaffagreedtousethemediumdefaultforthetransmissionrebuildinput.

10. Trainingcosts—ThecostsoftrainingoperatorsandmechanicsonnewhybridandCNGdieselbusesareincrementalto(aboveandbeyond)trainingcostsassociatedwithdieselbuses.CapitalMetroprovidedacostoftrainingcurrentstaffonCNGvehiclesofabout$70,000.

11. Unscheduledmaintenancecosts—TTIresearchersconsultedwithCapitalMetroonthemaintenancecostsofvehicles.Theagreed‐uponassumptionforunscheduledmaintenanceisthemediumdefaultavailablewithintheLCCMforeachvehicletype.

12. Scheduledmaintenancecosts—TTIresearchersconsultedwithCapitalMetroonthemaintenancecostsofvehicles.Theagreed‐uponassumptionforscheduledmaintenanceisthemediumdefaultavailablewithintheLCCMforeachvehicletype.

13. Infrastructure‐specificcosts—ThissectionoftheLCCMaccountsforthecostsassociatedwithconstructingafuelingfacilityandmodifyingotherbusfacilitiesalongwithcostsassociatedwithoperatingandmaintainingthefuelingfacility.TTIusedtheruleofthumbprovidedbyTCRPReport146forCNGinfrastructure.Thisis$1millionplus$15,000foreveryCNGvehicle.CapitalMetroagreedthatthisisanappropriateestimate.

13B.O&Mcostsforfacilities—ThissectionrepresentscostsneededtomaintaintheCNGfuelinginfrastructureonanannualbasisandincludescostsassociatedwithpoweringtheCNGfuelingcompressors,rebuildingthem,andmaintainingtheoverallCNGinfrastructure.TheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratoryconductedasurveyin2009and2010thatincludedamedianvalueformaintainingaCNGfuelingstation($0.18perDGE)andalsopoweringaCNGfuelingstation($0.18perDGE).Thisvaluewasappliedtothenumberofgallonsthefleetwoulduseoverayear,basedonthelistedmilespergallonandnumberofannualmiles.

14A.Diagnosticequipment—TheLCCMaccountsforhybriddiagnosticequipmentcostsincrementalto(aboveandbeyond)dieselandCNGbuses.CapitalMetrocurrentlyhasdiagnosticequipmentforhybridvehiclesandwouldnotneedtopurchasenewequipmentforadditionalhybridvehicles.

14B.Energy‐storagereplacement—Thissectionisonlyapplicabletohybridvehicles.CapitalMetrosaidthatthemediumdefaultwithintheLCCMisanappropriateestimateforthemodel.

14C. Spareenergy‐storagepacks—Thissectionaccountsforthecostsofkeepingspareenergy‐storagepacksininventory(asopposedtokeepingabusdownuntilareplacementpackisorderedandarrives).CapitalMetrosaidthatthemediumdefaultwithintheLCCMisanappropriateestimateforthemodel.

15. Projectedaveragefuelcosts—Thissectionestimatesthecostoffuelforthe12yearsofthevehicle’slife.Fuel‐costcalculationsinthissectiondonotincludetaxes.TTIusedthelatestpriceprovidedbytheCleanCitiesAlternativeFuelPriceReporttoestimatethepriceoffuel.

16A.Fueltaxes—Thissectionaccountsforthepriceoftaxesonfuel.Nofederaltaxwasadded.TTIusedonlystatetaxfordiesel.FueltaxforCNGiswithinthepurchasepriceofthevehicle.

43

16B.Fuelcredits—CNGreceivesapproximately$0.54perDGEthroughDecember31,2011.Thereisapossibleextension,H.R.1380.Thisfieldisleftblankinthe“nocredit”model.

16C,16D,and16Ewereleftblankinthe“nocredit”model.Themodelwithcreditsandincentivesincludes:

TCEQAlternativeFuelingInfrastructureGrants—$500,000incapitalassistance(ifAustinbecomesanareaofnon‐attainment).

TCEQNaturalGasVehicleandFuelingInfrastructureGrants—incrementalcostoftheCNGvehicle(about$30,000).

AlternativeFuelExciseTaxCredit—$0.54perDGEtaxcreditthroughDecember31,2011.

AlternativeFuelInfrastructureTaxCredit—upto$30,000onCNGinfrastructure.

ModelOutputsTheLCCMprojectsthe12‐yeartotalcostofeachpurchasescenario.Table3‐2providestheresultsofthemodel.Thecolumnsintheoutputtablereflectthethreepurchasescenarios.Therowsofthetableprovideeachoftheexpensesassociatedwiththepurchasescenarios.Thelastthreerowsofthetableprovidethecapital,variable,andtotalLCC.TheCNGscenariohasthelowestlife‐cyclecosts.Thedieselscenariohasalowertotallife‐cyclecostascomparedtothehybridscenario.Asstatedpreviously,certainvariableshaveagreatereffectonLCC.ForthisLCCMscenario,thevariableswiththegreatestimpactontheLCCare:

Annualmileagepervehicle. Fueleconomy. PriceperDGE.

Ultimately,theamountoffuelanagencyusesandthepriceoffuelhavethegreatestimpactontheLCC.The“fuelcosts”rowprovidestheamountoffuelusedineachpurchasescenario.Thiscategoryshowsthewidevariationinfuelcostbasedonthetypeofvehicleused.TheCNGscenariohassignificantlylowerfuelcostascomparedtotheotherscenarios.ThefuelpriceforCNGusedinthismodelscenariois$1moreperDGEcomparedtowhatmanypeeragenciescurrentlypayforCNGfuel.TTIresearchersandCapitalMetrostaffagreedtouseahigherthanaveragefuelpriceforCNG.Otherfuel‐pricingscenariosobservedintheliteraturehaveusedarangeoffuelpricingwithhigh,medium,andlowvalues.ThedecisiontousearelativelyhighCNGfuelpricevaluerepresentsamaximumanticipatedCNGfuelcost.

44

Table3‐2LCCMOutputs

Scenario Comparisons: Tabulated Results (All Medium Values) Overall Parameters

Base Year: 2011 Length: 40 foot Vehicle Life: 12 Purchase Scenario Number CNG 40 Foot Diesel 40 Foot Hybrid 40 Foot

Technology CNG Diesel Hybrid-Diesel Number of Units 100 100 100

Purchase Year 2013 2013 2013Mileage per Year 45,000 45,000 45,000

Cost Inputs

Purchase Scenario Number 1 2 3 One-Time Costs

Training (in 1,000 dollars) 70.00 0.00 0.00Hybrids—Diagnostics (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 0.00Fueling Infrastructure (in 1,000 dollars) 2500.00 0.00 0.00

One-Time Grants (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 0.00One-Time Costs per Bus

Purchase (in 1,000 dollars) 440.33 405.00 580.00Purchase after Discount (in 1,000 dollars) 440.33 405.00 580.00

Warranty (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 0.00ICE Replacement (in 1,000 dollars) 35.50 35.50 17.88

Transmission (in 1,000 dollars) 27.81 27.81 67.87Hybrids—Energy Storage Replacement (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 52.06

Hybrids—Spare Energy Storage (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 154.27Variable Costs

Facilities Operating Cost per Year (in 1,000 dollars) 522.58 0.00 0.00Unscheduled Maintenance Costs (dollars per mile) 0.44 0.42 0.45

Scheduled Maintenance Costs (dollars per mile) 0.31 0.23 0.20Total Maintenance Costs (dollars per mile) 0.75 0.65 0.65

Fuel Economy (miles per gallon) 3.10 3.60 3.80Gallons per Year per Bus 14,516 12,500 11,842

Fuel Costs (with Taxes) (dollars per gallon) 2.07 4.13 4.13Fuel Costs (with Taxes and Credits) (dollars per gallon) 2.07 4.13 4.13

Yearly Operating Grants (in 1,000 dollars) 0.00 0.00 0.00Total Lifecycle Costs (Base Year Dollars)

Purchase Scenario Number 1 2 3Subtotals

Vehicle Related Capital Costs 50,364,000 46,831,000 71,935,270 Other Capital Costs 2,570,000 - -

Vehicle Unscheduled Maintenance Costs 23,633,897 22,452,202 24,224,745 Vehicle Scheduled Maintenance Costs 16,543,728 12,407,796 10,635,254

Fuel Costs 36,058,065 61,950,000 58,689,474 Other Variable Costs 6,270,968 - -

Totals Total Capital 52,934,000 46,831,000 71,935,270

Total Variable 82,506,657 96,809,998 93,549,472

Total 135,440,657 143,640,998 165,484,742

45

Forexample,a2009NRELsurveyofCNGfleetsusedaCNGfuelpriceof$1.30DGE,andanotherNRELsurveyused$1.81DGE(AdamsandHome2010).Thelow,medium,andhighdefaultfuelpricesfortheLCCMare$1.66,$2.00,and$2.15,respectively.Table3‐3providesthenaturalgaspricesfoundinliteratureresearch,peerexperience,andfederalfuel‐pricesources.

Table3‐3Natural‐GasPricesperDGECNGPrice Source

$2.07 AlternativeFuelPriceReport,July2011

$0.60‐$1.80 Peerexperience$1.50 LCCMlowdefault$1.84 LCCMmedium default$2.02 LCCMhighdefault

Whenchoosingafuel,anagencymustalsoconsiderthecapitalinvestmentforvehiclesandinfrastructure.TheCNGandhybridscenarioseachhavehighercapitalcostsascomparedtothedieselpurchasescenario.Mostofthecapitalexpenditureisthepurchasecostofthevehicles;however,CNGrequiressignificantfuelinginfrastructure,andhybridvehiclesrequiresdiagnosticequipment.AdditionalcostsassociatedwithCNGareannualoperatingandmaintenancecosts.CNGfuelingfacilitieshavecompressorspoweredbyelectricityornaturalgas.Thesecompressorsrequireasignificantamountofenergyandongoingmaintenance.ThecostofoperatingandmaintainingtheCNGfuelingstationisonthe“othervariablecosts”line.Figure3‐1andFigure3‐2providethetotalLCCofeachscenario.Asdiscussedpreviously,bothCNGscenarioshavealowerLCCascomparedtoeachoftheotherscenarios.Thefiguresclearlyshowthatvariablecosts(whichincludefuel)arelowerintheCNGscenario.AsseeninFigure3‐3,thetotalLCCperbusforeachscenariorangesfrom$1.4milliontoalmost$1.7million.Sinceeachscenarioincludesabuspurchaseof100vehicles,thedifferencesbetweenthescenariosinLCCperbusissimilartothatofthetotalLCC.Figure3‐4providestheLCCpermileforeachscenario.Thecostpermileisdrivenbythetotalmilesthefleetisexpectedtotravel,dividedbytheLCCofthescenario.Thescenariostravelingthemostmileswhilemaintainingthelowestcosthavethelowestcostpermile.Thescenariowiththehighestcostpermileishybrid‐diesel,andthescenariowiththelowestcostpermileisCNG.

46

Figure3‐1LCCScenarioComparison

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

CNGCNG 40'

DieselDiesel 40'

Hybrid-DieselHybrid 40'

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Vehicle Related Capital Costs

Other Capital Costs

Vehicle Unscheduled Maintenance Costs

Vehicle Scheduled Maintenance Costs

Fuel Costs

Other Variable Costs

Total Capital

Total Variable

Total

47

Figure3‐2LCCScenarioComparisonII

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

CNGCNG 40'

DieselDiesel 40'

Hybrid-DieselHybrid 40'

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Total Capital Cost

Total Variable Cost

Total Life Cycle Cost

48

Figure3‐3LCCperBus

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

CNGCNG 40'

DieselDiesel 40'

Hybrid-DieselHybrid 40'

Mill

ions

of

Dol

lars

per

Bus

Total Capital Cost per Bus

Total Variable Cost per Bus

Total Life Cycle Cost per Bus

49

Figure3‐4LCCperMile

LCCwithCreditsTTIresearchersappliedavailablegrantstotheLCCtodetermineabest‐casescenariofortheCNGimplementationandoperation.Researchersappliedthefollowinggrantsandcreditstothemodel:

TCEQAlternativeFuelingInfrastructureGrants—$500,000incapitalassistance(ifAustinbecomesanareaofnon‐attainment).

TCEQNaturalGasVehicleandFuelingInfrastructureGrants—incrementalcostoftheCNGvehicle(about$30,000).

AlternativeFuelExciseTaxCredit—$0.54perDGEtaxcredit. AlternativeFuelInfrastructureTaxCredit—upto$30,000onCNGinfrastructure.

 Table3‐4containstheresultsofthemodelwithcredits.  

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

CNGCNG 40'

DieselDiesel 40'

Hybrid-DieselHybrid 40'

Dol

lars

Total Capital Cost per Bus Per Mile

Total Variable Cost per Bus Per Mile

Total Life Cycle Cost per Bus per Mile

50

Table3‐4LCCMwithCredits

Costs CNG Diesel Hybrid

Vehicle‐relatedcapitalcosts 47,364,000 46,831,000 71,935,270

Othercapitalcosts 2,040,000 ‐ 11,219

Vehicleunscheduledmaintenancecosts 23,760,000 22,680,000 24,300,000

Vehiclescheduledmaintenancecosts 16,740,000 12,420,000 10,800,000

Fuelcosts 26,651,613 61,950,000 58,689,474

Othervariablecosts 5,554,200 ‐ ‐

Totalcapital $49,404,000 $46,831,000 $71,935,270

Totalvariable $73,422,581 $97,050,000 $93,789,474

Total $122,826,581 $143,881,000 $165,724,744

Asseeninthetable,thecreditsprovidesubstantialbenefitstotheCNGtransit‐vehiclescenario.TheCNGscenariowouldexperienceabouta$21millionsavingsoverthe12‐yearlifeofthevehicles.

KeyFindings TheCNGscenariohasalowerLCCthanthedieselandhybridscenarios.Table3‐5

provideseachscenario’stotalLCCwithoutcredits.

Table3‐5LCCTotalsScenario TotalLCC

CNG40foot $135,440,657Diesel40 foot $143,640,998Hybrid40 foot $165,484,742

FueleconomyandthepriceoffuelhavemajorimpactsontheoutputoftheLCCM.MinoradjustmentsmadetothesevariablesleadtosignificantchangesintheLCC.

Thecostofbuilding,maintaining,andoperatingaCNGfuelingfacilityissignificant;however,thepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoutweighstheinfrastructurecosts.

Fleetsizematters—infrastructurecostpervehicleisreducedforeachadditionalvehicle.

Withoutcreditsorincentives,thesavingsovera12‐yearvehiclelifeareabout$8.2million,orapproximately$700,000peryear.

Withcreditsorincentives,savingsoverdieselareabout$21millionover12years,orabout$1.75millionperyear.

51

4. FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNGInherentfinancialriskscomewithoperatinganytypeoffueledvehicles.ThistaskidentifiesandanalyzestherisksassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfuelingprogram.Thetaskisdividedintothefollowingsections:

Fuel‐selectionriskoverview—providesinformationonavarietyofrisksassociatedwithfuelchoice.ThesourceoftheinformationisTCRPReport146:GuidebookforEvaluatingFuelChoicesforPost‐2010TransitBusProcurements.

Capital‐costexpendituresandcostrecovery—providesinformationonthepaybackperiodandrateofreturnwhenoperatingCNGvehicles.Thissectionalsoprovidesananalysisofthefleetsizeandcostsavingsexperienced.

LCCscenarioconsiderations—providesinformationonscenariosinwhichincreasesordecreasesinhigh‐impactcostvariableswouldmakeCNGoperationlessattractive.

Fuel‐SelectionRiskOverviewTCRPReport146providesanoverviewofrisksassociatedwithfuelselectionfortransitvehicles.Agenciesshouldconsiderfivetypesofriskwhenselectingafueltype:

Infrastructurerisks—theriskoflossthatmayoccurbecauseoftheunavailabilityofoneormoreuniquesupplycomponentsnecessaryforeffectiveoperationofasystem.Inthecaseoftransitfuelortechnology,itcanbeaninterruptioninthesupplyorunavailabilityoffuel,fuel‐specificequipment,maintenanceservices,warrantyservice,replacementofspareparts,etc.,withinareasonabletimeandatareasonablecost(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

Technologyrisks—risksfrommultiplefactorsassociatedwiththeintroductionofanewtechnology,suchasfuelcells,hybrid‐electricvehicles,CNGandLNGsystems,etc.Theriskscouldincludehigher‐than‐expectedcosts,lowerperformance,highermaintenanceandservicecosts,moreservicecallsanddowntime,safetyissues,durability,infrastructuredevelopmentandstability,trainedpersonnel,etc.,directlyattributabletothenoveltechnology(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

Performancerisks—risksduetothelossthatmayoccurfromtheinefficientoperationsofacomponent,subsystem,ortheentiresystem.Theseinefficienciesmaycomefromtechnologicallimitations,limitationsduetoconfigurationissues(e.g.,higherweightofaCNGbus),morefrequentfailures(e.g.,problemswithLNGcontainment),inexperiencedsupportpersonnel,inappropriatefuelquality,etc.(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

Safetyrisks—risksatthefirstlevelofimpactincludingdeath,injury,anddamagetoproperty.Safetyriskscanalsohaveseveresecondaryimpacts,andinthecaseoftransitbuses,justtheperceptionofasafetyissuecangroundafleetandimposesevereredesign,modification,insurance,andothercosts.Thefactorofsafetyisakeyriskconsideration(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

52

Fuelavailabilityrisks—theriskofanagencyexperiencingadisruptioninfuelsupply.Thisriskexistsforalltypesoffuel.However,whenoperatingCNG,agenciestypicallyhavenoon‐sitefuelstorage.ThismakesthethreatofdisruptionsmuchmoreseriousforthoseagenciesthatoperateCNGvehicles.Asdiscussedpreviously,natural‐gassuppliersprovidefuelthroughapipeline.Ifthepipelinebecomesrupturedordisruptedinanyway,thetransitagencymightnotbeabletofuelthevehicles.AgenciescanstoredieselandLNGon‐siteinlargestoragetanks.Agenciescanpurchasethesefuelsfrommultiplesources;therefore,theissueoffueldisruptionisreduced.However,TCRPReport142states,“CNG…whensuppliedbypipelineisanequalormoredependablesourceoffuelthandiesel”(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).Whendiscussingdisruptionsinfuelsupply,thebenefitofusingnaturalgasoverdieselisthefactthat80‐90percentofnaturalgasisproduceddomestically(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2011b).Whileadisruptionmayoccurinthepipelinesupplytotheagency,thepossibilityofthedisruptionlastinglongtermisverylow.Twoofthepeeragencies,SunMetroandOmnitrans,useLNGasafeedstockthattheyconverttoCNGfuel.Thisprocessallowseachagencytohavefuelstorageon‐site.

CapitalCostExpendituresandCostRecoveryAsseenintheLCCM,implementingaCNGfuelingoperationrequiresasignificantcapitalinvestment.ThissectionprovidesananalysisoftheamountoftransitservicerequiredtoseecostbenefitsfromoperatingCNGvehicles.Thissectionprovidesliteratureonthepaybackperiod,rateofreturn(ROR),andvaryingLCCMscenariosthatcouldcausefinancialimpactsontheuseofCNGinatransitfleet.

PaybackPeriodandRateofReturnThepaybackperiodandrateofreturnoninvestmentsprovideawaytomeasurethesuccessoftheinvestment.Thedefinitionsforpaybackperiodandrateofreturnare:

ROR—thedesiredannualreturnoninvestment.WhenchoosingatargetROR,manycompaniescompareittowhattheycouldmakeiftheyinvestedtheirmoneyinanotherprojectwithsimilarrisk.Tenpercentisagoodbaselineintheprivatesectorbecausethatiswhatthestockmarkethasaveragedoverthelongterm.Municipalgovernmentsgenerallyconsider6percentthebaselinebecausethatiswhatitcostsagovernmenttoraisemoneythroughbonds.

Paybackperiod—theperiodafterwhichtheinvestmenthasbrokenevenandisstartingtoturnprofits.Atthispoint,aninvestmentnolongercarriestheriskoflosingmoney.Stable,progressivefleetscanhaveatargetpaybackperiodofsevenyears,whilemorerisk‐adversefleetscanrequireathree‐yearpayback(Johnson2010).

ManyagenciesinvestinaCNGfuelingstationforcost‐savingsbenefits.Thecostsavingsarehighlydependentonthepriceoffuel.Otherfactorsincludethecostofmaintenanceofthevehiclesandthefuelingstation.AsseenintheLCCM,thecostofmaintainingCNGvehiclesissimilartothecostofmaintainingdieselvehicles.Thecostofmaintainingand

53

poweringtheCNGfuelingstationisonaverage$0.36perDGE.TomakeCNGeconomicallyviable,naturalgasmustbepricedtooffsetthehighercapitalandoperatingexpendituresseeninCNGfacilitiesandvehicles.ThereportBusinessCaseforCompressedNaturalGasinMunicipalFleetsbyCaleyJohnsonwithNRELprovidesinformationonthefinancialaspectsofoperatingCNGinmunicipalfleets(Johnson2010).JohnsondevelopedamodelthatcomparestheuseofCNGinvaryingmunicipalfleettypes—suchasrefusetrucks,transitvehicles,andschoolbuses.ThemodeliscalledtheCNGVehicleandInfrastructureCash‐FlowEvaluation(VICE)model.IntheanalysisofdeterminingtherateofreturnandpaybackperiodforCNGtransitvehicles,themodelinputsincludethefollowingvariables(amongothers):

Annualvehiclemilestraveled—35,286. Averagemilespergallon—fordiesel3.27,andforCNG3.02. Averagefuelprice—fordiesel$2.56,andforCNG$1.18. Stationcostandoperation—determinedinthemodelbythenumberofvehiclesand

annualmiles. IncrementalcostsofCNGvehicles—$50,502.

ThemodelalsoincludesincentivesandcreditsforpurchasingandoperatingCNGfleets.Thefollowinglistprovidestheincentivesandcreditsusedinthemodel:

$0.55taxcreditperDGE. Credittocover80percentoftheincrementalcostofaCNGvehicle. Creditof$50,000forinstallingaCNGstation.

Themodeldeterminedthatwhenatransitagencyhasapproximately50CNGvehicles,theagencycanexpecttoseeanRORofabout30percent,andwhenanagencyhas200CNGvehicles,theagencyhasanRORofabout50percent(Johnson2010).ThepaybackperiodforaCNGstationandvehicleinvestmentislargelydeterminedbythenumberofvehiclestheagencyoperates.WhenanagencyoperatesaCNGfleetofbetween10and20vehicles,thepaybackperiodmaybeinupwardsof15years.However,whenanagencyhasatleast30vehicles,thepaybackperioddropsprecipitouslytoaroundsixtosevenyears.Whenanagencyoperatesafleetof200vehicles,thepaybackperioddropstoaroundthreeyears(Johnson2010).JohnsondeterminedthatinorderforatransitagencytobreakevenbyreachinganRORofatleast6percent,theagencywouldneedtooperateatleast11vehicles(Johnson2010).Johnsonalsolookedatwhatthepaybackperiodwouldbewithoutthecreditsforafleetof100vehicles.TheresultsareprovidedinTable4‐1.

Table4‐1PaybackPeriodwithandwithoutCreditsCreditScenario AllCredits NoFuelCredit NoVehicleCredit NoStationCredit NoCreditsNumberofyears 3.6 5.9 5.5 3.6 9.1Asshowninthetable,thefuelcredithasthelargestimpact,followedbythevehiclecredit.Withoutanycredits,theexpectedpaybackperiodis9.1years.Basedontheresultsofthe

54

VICEmodel,thecostbenefits/risksassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfleetaredependentontheavailablecredits;however,withoutcredits,theagencyshouldseebenefitswithinthenormal12‐yearlifeofthevehicle.TTIresearchersexaminedtheLCCMtodeterminetherequirednumberofCNGvehiclesatagivenfacilityneededtojustifythecapitalinvestmentforCNG.ResearchersfoundthatinordertoimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast11CNGvehiclestobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehiclesovera12‐yearvehiclelife.Inthisscenario,thecapitalcostsoftheCNGfuelingstationarepricedtoincludecapacityforonly11vehicles,whichisabout$1.17million.Thisscenarioalsodoesnotincludetaxcredits.Thepriceofnaturalgasoverdieselprovidesenoughsavingsthatan11‐vehicleCNGfleetisviableatanyonefacility.Table4‐2providespurchasescenariosinincrementsoffivevehicles.BasedonthevariableswithintheLCCM,themorevehiclespurchased,thegreaterthecostsavings.

Table4‐2LCCofPurchaseScenariosNumberofVehicles CNG40Foot Diesel40Foot

PercentageDifference

11 $15,850,772 $15,800,510 0%

15 $21,225,599 $21,546,150 1%

20 $27,944,131 $28,728,200 3%

25 $34,662,664 $35,910,250 3%

30 $41,381,197 $43,092,299 4%

35 $48,099,730 $50,274,349 4%

40 $54,818,263 $57,456,399 5%

45 $61,536,796 $64,638,449 5%

50 $68,255,329 $71,820,499 5%

55 $74,973,862 $79,002,549 5%

60 $81,692,394 $86,184,599 5%

65 $88,410,927 $93,366,649 5%

70 $95,129,460 $100,548,699 5%

75 $101,847,993 $107,730,749 5%

80 $108,566,526 $114,912,798 6%

85 $115,285,059 $122,094,848 6%

90 $122,003,592 $129,276,898 6%

95 $128,722,125 $136,458,948 6%

100 $135,440,657 $143,640,998 6%Figure4‐1providesthepurchasescenariosingraphicform.Thefigureshowsthatastheagencypurchasesmorevehicles,thegapwidensbetweentheLCCofdieselandtheLCCofCNGgrows.

55

Figure4‐1LCCofPurchaseScenarios

CapitalMetroProcurementConsiderationsCapitalMetroisconsideringpurchasingCNGvehiclesbeginningin2015.Table4‐3providestheprocurementscenariobeginningwithaninitialpurchaseofdieselvehiclesin2012.ThetableshowstheadditionofCNGvehiclestotwofacilitiesbetween2015and2020.

Table4‐3CapitalMetroProcurementScenarioType 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Diesel 27

CNGFacilityA 45 46 54 36

CNGFacilityB 85 36

TodeterminethecostadvantagesofpurchasingCNGvehiclesoverdieselvehicles,TTIresearchersusedtheLCCMtorunmultipleprocurementscenariosforeachpurchaseyear.Theanalysisincludedtheproposednumberofbusesineachpurchaseyear.TheanalysisaccountsfortherequiredinfrastructureforeachCNGpurchase.Table4‐4providestheresultsoftheanalysis. 

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

11 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

CNG 40'

Diesel 40'

56

Table4‐440‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits)

Year NumberofVehicles

CNG Diesel Hybrid‐Diesel

2015 45 $63,741,263 $66,551,148 $76,465,682

2016 46 $64,739,010 $68,555,034 $78,686,462

2017 54 $76,716,798 $81,111,903 $92,978,489

2018 85 $122,901,969 $128,703,638 $147,293,961

2019 36 $52,185,614 $54,957,649 $62,920,129

2020 36 $52,716,869 $55,418,590 $63,381,071

Total 302 $433,001,523 $455,297,962 $521,725,794Ineachpurchase,themodeloutputshowsthecostsavingsofCNGoverdieselandhybrid‐diesel.Basedonthescenario,theagencycanexpectasavingsofabout$22millionoverthecumulativeservicelivesofthevehicles(12yearsforeachvehicle)byusingCNGoverdiesel.

LCCScenarioConsiderationsTousetheLCCMtoassessthefinancialriskassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfleet,TTIresearchersadjustedthehigh‐impactvariableswithinthemodeltodeterminewhentheLCCsfordieselandCNGareaboutequal.Researcherskeptallvariablesconstantwiththeexceptionofthehigh‐impactvariables,providedinTable4‐5.Researchersalsoassumednocreditsareavailable.ThistestscenariocomparesonlyCNG40‐footvehiclestodiesel40‐footvehicles.

Table4‐5LCCHigh‐ImpactVariablesInputs CNG Diesel Hybrid

SizeofFleet 100 100 100AnnualMileageperVehicle 45,000 45,000 40,000FuelEconomy(MilesperDGE) 3.1 3.6 3.8ProjectedFuelCosts(perDGE) $2.07 $3.93 $3.93UnscheduledMaintenance $0.44 $0.42 $0.45ScheduledMaintenance $0.31 $0.23 $0.20

Infrastructure$2.5million

‐ ‐

AnnualO&MforFuelingStation ‐ ‐ThefuelpricesperDGEusedintheLCCMare$2.07forCNGand$3.93fordiesel.Withallvariablesstayingconstant,includingthepriceofdieselfuel,thepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.54tobreakevenwiththecostofdiesel.Thisrepresentsanincreaseofabout23percent.Fromanotherperspective,ifthepriceofCNGremainsconstantat$2.07whiledieseldropsinprice,thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$3.38beforetheLCCsofCNGanddieselbreakseven.Thisrepresentsadecreaseof14percentinthepriceofdiesel.AsseeninFigure2‐1,thepricesofCNGanddieseltendtoincreaseanddecreaseatthesametime,soanincreaseinCNGpricewouldresultinanincreaseindieselpriceaswell.Table4‐6andTable4‐7providethethreescenariosusedin

57

theLCCanalysis.ThetableprovidesthebreakevenfuelpricesforCNGanddieselunderthe40‐footLCCscenarios.

Table4‐6CNGBreakevenFuelPricewithDiesel

VehicleTypeCurrentFuelPrice

Breakeven %+or‐ OriginalLCC TotalLCC

CNG40foot $2.07 $2.54 23% $135,440,657 $143,627,754

Diesel40foot $3.93 $3.93 0% $143,640,998 $143,640,998

Hybrid40foot $3.93 $3.93 0% $165,484,742 $165,484,742

Table4‐7DieselBreakevenFuelPricewithCNG

VehicleType CurrentFuelPrice

Breakeven %+or‐ OriginalLCC TotalLCC

CNG40foot $2.07 $2.07 0% $135,440,657 $135,440,657

Diesel40foot $3.93 $3.38 14% $143,640,998 $135,390,998

Hybrid40foot $3.93 $3.38 14% $165,484,742 $157,668,952

Table4‐5providesthescheduledandunscheduledmaintenance‐costestimatesforeachLCCscenario.Thetotalmaintenancecostspermile(scheduledandunscheduled)rangefrom$0.65to$0.75.Eachagencyexperiencesvaryingcostsassociatedwithmaintenancebecausemaintenancecostsarelargelydependentontheoperatingconditionsofthevehicle.TodeterminethecostinwhichmaintenanceonCNGvehicleswouldhavetoriseinordertobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehicles,TTIresearchersadjustedmaintenancecostswithintheLCCM.Allothervariablesinthemodelwereheldconstantwiththepreviousanalysisconductedinthisreport.Table4‐8providestheresultsofadjustingthecostofmaintainingCNGvehicles.

Table4‐8CNGMaintenanceBreakevenPricewithDiesel

VehicleTypeMaintenancepermile Breakeven %+or‐ OriginalLCC TotalLCC

CNG40foot 0.75 0.90 20% $135,440,657 $143,666,760

Diesel40foot 0.75 0.5 0% $143,640,998 $143,640,998

Hybrid40foot 0.65 0.33 0% $139,054,919 $139,054,919

Thetableshowsthatmaintenancecostswouldneedtoincrease20percentto$0.90permiletohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.Thisrepresentsasubstantialincreaseinmaintenancecosttobreakevenwithdiesel.

KeyFindings ThepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.54fortheLCCsofCNGand

dieseltobreakeven.Thiswouldrepresentanincreaseofabout23percentinthecostofCNGperDGE.

Thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$3.38fortheLCCsofCNGanddieselbreakeven.Thisrepresentsadecreaseof14percentinthepriceofdiesel.

58

MaintenancecostsforCNGwouldneedtoincrease20percentto$0.90permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.

ToimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast11CNGvehiclestobreakevenwithcostofoperatingdieselvehiclesovera12‐yearvehiclelife.

WhenusingthecapitalbuspurchasescenariosintheLCC,thepurchaseofCNGvehiclesinsteadofdieselorhybridvehiclesleadstoabout$22millioninsavingsoverthecumulativeservicelivesofthevehicles(12yearsforeachvehicle).

59

ReferencesAdams,R.,andD.B.Home.CompressedNaturalGas(CNG)TransitBusExperienceSurvey.

Golden:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,2010.ArcadisGerahtyandMiller,Inc.TCRPReport38:GuidebookforEvaluating,Selecting,and

ImplementingFuelChoicesforTransitBusOperations.Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard,1998.

Barnhart,Vern,directorofbusmaintenanceSacramentoRegionalTransitDistrict,interviewbyMattSandidge(August15,2011).

Chandler,K.,E.Eberts,andM.Melendez.WashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority:CompressedNaturalGasTransitBusEvaluation.Golden:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,2006.

Eudy,Leslie.NaturalGasinTransitFleets:AReviewoftheTransitExperience.Golden:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,2002.

GeneralMonitors.FundamentalsofCombustibleGasDetection:AGuidetotheCharacteristicsofCombustibleGasesandApplicableDetectionTechnologies.LakeForest,CA:GeneralMonitors,n.d.

Hyinke,David,fleetandfacilitiesprogramsupervisorRegionalPublicTransportationAuthority,interviewbyMattSandidge(August1,2011).

Johnson,Caley.BusinessCaseforCompressedNaturalGasinMunicipalFleets.Golden:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,2010.

Kalet,George.“2011APTABusandParatransitConferenceAlternativeFuelsTechnology.”Memphis:NaturalGasVehicleInstitute,2011.

Richardson,Steve,andBrooksMcAllister.ViabilityStudyforTransitioningtheDieselBusFleetofCentralArkansasTransitAuthoritytoCompressedNaturalGas.NorthLittleRock:CentralArkansasTransitAuthority,2009.

ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation.TCRPReport146:GuidebookforEvaluatingFuelChoicesforPost‐2010TransitBusProcurements.Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard,2011.

TexasConstitutionandStatutes.TexasConstitutionandStatutes.2011.http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.116.htm#116.011(accessedSeptember9,2011).

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.AlternativeFuelsandAdvancedVehiclesDataCenter.June15,2011a.http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/laws/US/tech/3253(accessedSeptember9,2011).

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.CleanCitiesAlternativeFuelPriceReport.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2011b.

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.NaturalGasBasics.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2010.

60

AppendixA:Bus‐FleetInventoryandRehabilitationAnalysis

61

CapitalMetrocontainsafleetofabout400fixed‐routeand120demand‐responsevehicles.Thefleetrangesfromoneto14yearsofageandcontainsamixofmakesandmodels.ThissubtaskprovidesabaselinesummaryofCapitalMetro’sfleet.

BaselineSummaryVehicleCountTheCapitalMetrofixed‐routefleetcontainsvehiclesrangingfrom30to45feetinlengthandconsistsofdieselsanddieselhybrids.Thefleetcontainsamixofbusesusedfordifferentservicetypes.Theseservicetypesincludelocalfixed‐route,UniversityofTexas(UT)Shuttle,flyer,andcommuterservice.FigureA‐1providesabreakdownofthefixed‐routefleetownedbyCapitalMetro.

FigureA‐1Fixed‐RouteVehicleBreakdown

Thefigureshowsthatmostvehiclesareeither35‐footor40‐footbuses.CapitalMetrousesthesebusesforlocalfixed‐routeserviceandtheUTShuttle.The45‐footover‐the‐road‐coach(ORC)busesareusedforpark‐and‐rideserviceservingnorthandnorthwestAustin.The40‐footSuburban(SUB)vehiclesprovidetheremainingpark‐andrideservicethroughoutAustinandsomeflyerservice.Thethree40‐foothybridbusesareusedforlocalroutes.CapitalMetrousesthe34‐footOpus(OPS)mainlyasUTShuttlebuses.Thefixed‐routevehiclesarelocatedatthreeseparatefacilities:theMainFacilityat2910East5thStreet,theNorthOperations(NorthOps),andthe51stStreetfacility.FigureA‐2providesabreakdownofthenumberofvehiclesbyfacility.

3530

118

185

3

28

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

30' 34' OPS 35' 40' 40' HYB 40' SUB 45' ORC

62

FigureA‐2Fixed‐RouteVehiclesbyFacility

Asseeninthisfigure,CapitalMetrohousesthemajorityofthefixed‐routefleetattheMainFacilityat2910East5thStreet.NorthOpscontainsthesecondmostvehicles.TheNorthOpsfacilityhousestheUTShuttlevehicles.The51stStreetfacilityisforvehiclesservingvariouspartsoftheCapitalMetroservicearea.

VehicleAgeCapitalMetrofixed‐routevehiclesrangeinagefromoneto14years.FigureA‐3providestheaverageageofeachvehicletype.Theaverageageforeachfleettypeismorethansevenyears—the40‐foothybridsfollowedbythe45‐footover‐the‐roadcoachvehiclesaretheyoungestcategoriesonaverage.Theoldestvehicletypeisthe30‐footvehiclecategory.FigureA‐4providestheaveragevehicleagebyfacility.TheNorthOpsfacilityhousestheoldestfleet.Thesevehiclesaveragealmost12yearsinage,whiletheothertwofacilitiesaveragearoundeighttonineyearsofage.

253

48

108

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 Total 5 Total 7 Total

63

FigureA‐3AverageAgeofFixed‐RouteBus

FigureA‐4AverageVehicleAgebyFacility

VehicleMileageThefleet‐wideaveragefixed‐routevehiclemileageisjustover300,000(302,016).FigureA‐5providestheaveragemileageforeachtypeofbus.WhencomparingFigureA‐3toFigureA‐5,theagecorrespondstothenumberofmilesofeachtypeofbus.The30‐footbusesaveragethemostmiles—closeto600,000.The30‐footbusesarealsotheoldest

14.4

7.4

10.5

8.8

7.1

10.4

7.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

30' 34' OPS 35' 40' 40' HYB 40' SUB 45' ORC

Age of Bus

Type of Bus

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1 5 7

Age of Bus

Facility

64

categoryofvehicle.FigureA‐6providesaveragefixed‐routemilesbyfacility.TheNorthOpsfacilityhasthelowestaveragemileage.Thesebusesarealsosomeoftheoldestwithinthefleet.ThesearetheUTShuttlebuses,whichhaveservicecharacteristicsleadingtolowerannualmiles.FigureA‐7providestheaveragemileagebymodelyear.Newvehiclesaveragefewermiles;however,vehiclespurchasedin1999haveanaveragemileageof78,009.Thevehiclespurchasedin1999are40‐footvehicleslocatedattheNorthOpsfacility.ThesearepartoftheUTShuttlebusesthathavefewerannualmilesthantheremainingfleet.

FigureA‐5AverageFixed‐RouteMileagebyType

573,206.0

171,175.7

362,993.2

235,061.0212,989.6

307,286.3276,443.5

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

30' 34' OPS 35' 40' 40' HYB 40' SUB 45' ORC

Mileage

Type of Bus

65

FigureA‐6AverageFixed‐RouteMileagebyFacility

FigureA‐7AverageMileagebyModelYear

376,887.8

258,638.7

145,899.1

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Facility 1 Facility 5 Facility 7

Mileage

573,206.0

465,022.4

78,009.3

259,409.1

405,220.3

298,508.4

171,175.7

211,929.0

100,879.9123,036.5

69,869.6

25,996.90

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

66

FuelEfficiencyThetwomostfuel‐efficientcategoriesofvehiclesincludethe40‐footSuburbanandthe45‐footover‐the‐roadcoach.Thesevehicleshavefewerstops,whichallowthemtohaveahigherfueleconomy.FigureA‐8providestheaveragefueleconomyforeachbuscategory.

FigureA‐8AverageMilesperGallonbyBusType

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

30' 34' OPS 35' 40' 40' HYB 40' SUB 45' ORC

Fixed Route