1

2011

Matt Sandidge and John Overman 

Texas Transportation Institute 

11/30/2011 

HoustonMETROCNGImplementationStudy

2

3

TableofContentsListofFigures.............................................................................................................................................................5 

ListofTables...............................................................................................................................................................6 

KeyFindings...............................................................................................................................................................7 

1.  Introduction...................................................................................................................................................11 

PurposeoftheStudy.......................................................................................................................................11 

OrganizationofReport...................................................................................................................................11 

2.  CNGStateofthePractice..........................................................................................................................13 

MethodologyforLiteratureReviewandPeerStudy.........................................................................13 

LiteratureReview........................................................................................................................................14 

PeerAgencySelectionandDataCollection......................................................................................14 

PurposeofUsingCNG.....................................................................................................................................17 

HistoricalContext........................................................................................................................................17 

FuelCost..........................................................................................................................................................17 

PeerAgencyObjectives.............................................................................................................................19 

CNGImplementation.......................................................................................................................................20 

CNGFuelingStation....................................................................................................................................20 

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

ElectricalSystemImprovements..........................................................................................................25 

HeatingVentilationandAirConditioningImprovements.........................................................25 

FacilityUpgradeCosts...............................................................................................................................25 

ContractversusOwnandOperate.......................................................................................................26 

PeerTransitAgencyExperience...........................................................................................................27 

CNGServicePlanning......................................................................................................................................28 

METROServicePlanning...............................................................................................................................30 

Short‐RangeServicePlanning................................................................................................................30 

Long‐RangeServicePlanning.................................................................................................................31 

FleetMix..........................................................................................................................................................31 

METROFacilityPlanning..........................................................................................................................32 

CNGIncentivesandTaxCredits.................................................................................................................34 

FederalIncentivesandTaxCredits.....................................................................................................34 

StateIncentivesandTaxCredits...........................................................................................................35 

EmissionsConsiderations.............................................................................................................................36 

4

HistoricalImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleets...............................................................36 

Modern‐DayImplicationsofUsingCNGinTransitFleets.........................................................36 

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTraining........................................................................................37 

CNGSafetyConsiderations......................................................................................................................38 

MaintenanceConsiderations..................................................................................................................38 

MaintenanceTrainingConsiderations...............................................................................................38 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................39 

ObjectivesforUsingCNG..........................................................................................................................39 

CNGImplementation..................................................................................................................................39 

ServicePlanning...........................................................................................................................................39 

TaxCredits......................................................................................................................................................40 

Emissions........................................................................................................................................................40 

Maintenance...................................................................................................................................................40 

3.  METROLife‐CycleCostComparison....................................................................................................41 

AbouttheLCCModel.......................................................................................................................................41 

LCCMethodology..............................................................................................................................................41 

Scenarios.........................................................................................................................................................41 

ModelInputs..................................................................................................................................................41 

ModelOutputs...............................................................................................................................................45 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................53 

4.  FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNG....................................................................55 

Fuel‐SelectionRiskOverview......................................................................................................................55 

CapitalCostExpendituresandCostRecovery.....................................................................................56 

PaybackPeriodandRateofReturn.....................................................................................................56 

LCCScenarioConsiderations.......................................................................................................................61 

KeyFindings.......................................................................................................................................................62 

References................................................................................................................................................................65 

AppendixA:Bus‐FleetInventory..................................................................................................................67 

 

5

ListofFiguresFigure2‐1FuelPrice:DieselversusCNG,September2000toJuly2011.....................................18 Figure2‐2GasDryeratRPTAinPhoenix,Arizona.................................................................................21 Figure2‐3CompressingStations...................................................................................................................21 Figure2‐4CNGBufferStorage.........................................................................................................................22 Figure2‐5FleetMix.............................................................................................................................................32 Figure2‐6MapofMETROFacilityLocations............................................................................................33 Figure3‐1LCCScenarioComparison...........................................................................................................50 Figure3‐2LCCScenarioComparisonII.......................................................................................................51 Figure3‐3LCCperBus.......................................................................................................................................52 Figure3‐4LCCperMile......................................................................................................................................53 Figure4‐1LCCof40‐footBusPurchaseScenarios.................................................................................59 Figure4‐2LCCof45‐footBusPurchaseScenarios.................................................................................60 FigureA‐1NumberofVehiclesbyType………………………………………………………………………...68FigureA‐2AverageFuelEconomybyVehicleType...............................................................................68 FigureA‐3NumberofVehiclesbyFacility.................................................................................................69 FigureA‐4MileagebyVehicleAge.................................................................................................................69 FigureA‐5AverageMileagebyFacility.......................................................................................................70 

6

ListofTablesTable2‐1PeerTransitAgencies.....................................................................................................................15 Table2‐2PeerAgencyCNGPrices.................................................................................................................19 Table2‐3PeerAgencyImplementationObjectives...............................................................................19 Table2‐4Peer‐AgencyFuelingStation........................................................................................................24 Table2‐5PeerAgencyFacilityModifications...........................................................................................26 Table2‐6ContractversusOwnandOperateOptions...........................................................................26 Table2‐7PeerAgencyContractversusOwnandOperate.................................................................27 Table2‐8MaintenanceCostofFuelStation..............................................................................................28 Table2‐9ContractorsforFuelSupplyandStationMaintenance.....................................................28 Table2‐10METROMaintenanceFacilities................................................................................................33 Table2‐112010CNGEngineEPACertificationTest.............................................................................37 Table2‐12GHGEmissionfrom2006CNGandDieselBuses.............................................................37 Table2‐13PeerTrainingExperience...........................................................................................................39 Table3‐1LCCMScenariosandInputs..........................................................................................................42 Table3‐2CalculationsUsedforCNGFuelEconomyAssumption....................................................44 Table3‐3LCCMOutputs.....................................................................................................................................47 Table3‐4LCCMOutputs(continued)...........................................................................................................48 Table3‐5NaturalGasPricesperDGE..........................................................................................................49 Table3‐6LCCTotals............................................................................................................................................53 Table4‐1PaybackPeriodwithandwithoutCredits.............................................................................58 Table4‐2LCCof40‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits).......................................................58 Table4‐3LCCof45‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits).......................................................59 Table4‐4METROProcurementPlan............................................................................................................60 Table4‐5BusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits)......................................................................................61 Table4‐6LCCHigh‐ImpactVariables...........................................................................................................61 Table4‐7CNGBreakevenFuelPricewithDiesel(NoCredits).........................................................62 Table4‐8DieselBreakevenFuelPricewithCNG(NoCredits).........................................................62 Table4‐9CNGMaintenanceBreakevenPricewithDiesel(NoCredits).......................................62 

7

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

AgenciesbeganusingCNG‐fueledvehicleslargelytoreduceemissions.AllpeeragenciesstatedthatemissionreductionwasthedrivingforcebehindswitchingtoCNG.

Agenciessaidasecondaryobjectivewastobenefitfromahistoricallylower,morestablepricefornaturalgasthandiesel.

PeeragenciesdidnotchooseCNGtoloweroperatingcosts.

TransitAgencyCNGImplementation PeeragenciestypicallyhaveacontractforfuelandareabletonegotiatetheCNG

pricebasedonpurchasequantities. PeeragenciesoperatingCNG‐fueledfleetshaveatleastonefuelingstationon‐site.

Ofthesevenagencies,fivehaveatleasttwofuelingstationsorplansfortwo. Twoagenciespurchaseliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)andconvertittoCNG,whilethe

remainingpeeragenciespurchasenaturalgasandcompressitintoCNG. Thecostofmaintenance‐facilitymodificationstoaccommodateCNGvehiclesis

drivenbythesizeandageofthefacility. Agencieshavemultipleoptionsindevelopinganarrangementfornatural‐gassupply

andcompression.Theseinclude“ownandoperate,”“ownandpartiallyoperate,”“leaseandoperate,”“leaseandpartiallyoperate,”and“turnkey.”Threepeeragenciesuse“ownandoperate,”andfouragenciesuse“ownandpartiallyoperate.”

ServicePlanningConsiderations

ModernCNGtransitvehicleshaveatotaloperatingrangesimilartothatofdieselvehicles—between350and450milesbetweenrefueling.

CNGvehiclesareheavierduetothefueltanks.Inaddition,CNGvehicleshavereducedlow‐speedtorqueascomparedtodieselvehicles.ThismakesCNGtransitvehiclesundesirableforregionswithsteepgrades.

Whenoperatinginfreewaysettings,representativesfromRPTAandFoothillstatedtheCNGvehiclesperformaswellasdieselvehicleswhenmergingontofreeways.

CNGtechnologyiscompatiblewithMETRO’sshort‐andlong‐rangeplans.

TaxCreditsandIncentives MultiplefederalandstategrantsandcreditsexistforimplementingaCNGbus

operation.

8

ThemostsignificantincentiveforoperatingCNGtransitvehiclesisthe$0.54perdieselgallonequivalent(DGE)federaltaxcredit.ThiscreditexpiresDecember31,2011;however,U.S.CongressH.R.1380proposestoextendthiscredit.

EmissionsConsiderations The2010emissionstandardsonheavy‐dutydieselenginesmaketheemissions

advantagesofoperatingCNGlesssignificant. The2010CNGenginereportedlyhasa17percentreductioningreenhousegas

(GHG)tailpipeemissionscomparedtothecleanestdieselengines(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

MaintenanceConsiderations The2010dieselengineshavehighermaintenancecoststhanpreviousdiesel

models.This,incombinationwithnewCNGenginetechnologyandreducedmaintenancecost,makesthemaintenancecostsofdieselandCNGenginescomparable.

Life‐CycleCost(LCC)Comparison TheCNGscenarioshavealowerLCCthanthedieselandhybridscenarios.The

followinglistprovidesthetotalcostforeachLCCscenario:o CNG40footbus—$105,354,275o CNG45footbus—$97,691,239 o Diesel40footbus—$128,440,600 o Diesel45footbus—$112,496,129 o Hybrid40footbus—$144,064,254o Hybrid45footbus—$132,386,944

WithoutthetaxcredittheTotalLCCfortheCNGscenarioswouldbe:o CNG40ft–$113,321,488(ascomparedto$105,354,275)o CNG45ft‐$103,291,239(ascomparedto$97,691,239)

FueleconomyandthepriceoffuelhavemajorimpactsontheoutputoftheLCCM.Minoradjustmentsmadetothesevariablesleadtosignificantchangesintheoutput.

Thecostofbuilding,maintaining,andoperatingaCNGfuelingfacilityissignificant;however,thepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoutweighstheinfrastructurecosts.

Fleetsizematters—infrastructurecostpervehicleisreducedforeachadditionalvehicle.

CNGFinancialRiskAssessment ThepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.99fortheLCCsof40‐footCNG

anddieseltobreakeven.Thiswouldrepresentanincreaseofabout53percentinthecostofCNGperDGE.

Thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$2.53fortheLCCsof40‐footCNGanddieselbreakeven.Thisrepresentsadecreaseof31percentinthepriceofdiesel.

Maintenancecostsfor40‐footCNGwouldneedtoincrease58percentto$0.76permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.Maintenance

9

costsfor45‐footCNGwouldneedtoincrease74percentto$0.75permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.

ToimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast10CNGvehiclestobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehiclesovera12‐yearvehiclelife.

WhenusingtheMETRObuspurchasescenariosintheLCC,thepurchaseofCNGvehiclesinsteadofdieselvehiclesleadstoabout$92millioninsavingsovercumulativeservicelivesofthevehicles(12yearsforeachvehicle).

11

1. Introduction

PurposeoftheStudyThepurposeofthestudywastoprovidecasestudyresearchandtechnicalassistancetotheMetropolitanTransitAuthorityofHarrisCounty(METRO)inevaluatingandimplementingacompressednaturalgas(CNG)–fueledbusfleet.TheTexasTransportationInstitute(TTI)completedthestudyinconjunctionwithasimilarprojectsponsoredbytheCapitalMetropolitanTransitAuthority(CapitalMetro)inAustin,Texas.Thisstudyinvolvedthreeprimarytasks:

Task1—Conductstate‐of‐the‐practicescan,review,andpeerresearch.Thepurposeofthistaskwastoconductastate‐of‐the‐practicereviewofCNGbus‐fleetandservicepracticesusingonlinepublishedresourcesandpersonalcontacts.ThedesktopscanandreviewidentifiedCNG‐fleetimplementationexperiencesattransitagenciesanddocumentedtheindustrystatusofCNGuseinbusfleets.

Task2—Estimatelife‐cyclecost(LCC)ofaCNGfleet.ThepurposeofthistaskwastoconductanLCCanalysisforaCNGbusfleet.TheLCCanalysisusesthespreadsheetmodelforestimatinglife‐cyclecostsforbothhybridandCNGbusesasrecommendedinTransitCooperativeResearchProgram(TCRP)Report132:AssessmentofHybridBusTechnology(2009).

Task3—AssessfinancialplanningconsiderationsforCNGimplementation.Thepurposeofthistaskwastoassessstrategicprocurement,facility,andCNGmarketconsiderationsinfuelselection.

Theprojectwasinitiatedwithakick‐offmeetingonJune14,2011.Duringthekick‐offmeeting,METROstaffandTTIresearchersconfirmedtheworktasksandapproachespresentedinthescopeofservices.METROstaffandTTIresearchersalsoconfirmedworktaskprioritiesandestablishedinformationanddata‐sharingrequirements.ThesedatawerethebasisforconductingtheLCCanalysis.

OrganizationofReportThereportisorganizedintothreechapters.Thechaptersareasfollows:

Chapter2,“CNGStateofthePractice,”providesinformationresultingfromgatheringdatafromcurrentandrelevantliteratureregardingCNGtransit‐vehicleoperationandimplementation.Inaddition,thechapterprovidestheexperienceofsevenpeeragenciescurrentlyoperatingsizableCNGtransitfleets.

Chapter3,“METROLife‐CycleCostComparison,”providesacostcomparisonofthe12‐yearlifecycleoffivefleetpurchasescenarios.ThescenariosincludeCNG,diesel,andhybridpurchasescenarios.

Chapter4,“FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNG,”offersinformationonfinancialrisksassociatedwithimplementingandoperatingaCNGvehiclefleet.

12

Attheendofeachchapterisalistofkeyfindingsfromtheresearch.ThekeyfindingsserveasasummaryofeachchapterandofferguidancefortheMETROstaff.

13

2. CNGStateofthePracticeThissectionprovidesareviewoftheCNGbusfleetstateofthepracticeandpeerresearch.TTIresearchersconductedaliteraturereview,andinterviewedandcollecteddatafromeighttransitagenciesoperatingCNGbuses.ThepurposeofthistaskwastoexaminecurrentliteratureonCNGuseandimplementationintransitfleets.Additionally,thistaskprovidedinformationonpeertransitagenciesthathaveimplementedCNG‐fueledfleets,andexaminedthekeyplanningfactorsthataffectCNGimplementationdecisions.Thesectionisdividedintothefollowingsubsections:

MethodologyforLiteratureReviewandPeerStudy—providestheTTImethodologyfortheliteraturereviewandpeerselection,andbasicdetailsoneachofthepeeragencies.

PurposeofUsingCNG—providesanoverviewofthereasonsagenciesconsiderusingCNGasafuelfortransitvehicles.Thesubsectionprovidesreasonsidentifiedwithintheliteratureandalsofeedbackfromthepeertransitagencies.

CNGImplementation—providesadiscussionofthedifferentwaysanagencymayimplementaCNGfuelingoperation.ThesubsectionprovidesinformationoncontractingouttheCNGfuelingstationandonfuelpurchasing.

CNGServicePlanning—providesthehistoricalconsiderationofusingtransitvehiclespoweredbyCNG.ThesubsectionalsoprovidesinformationonthelatesttechnologyforCNGbusoperation.

METROServicePlanning—providesinformationonMETROcurrentandlongrangetransitplans.ThesubsectionprovidesinformationonhowCNGtiesintoMETROserviceplans.

CNGIncentivesandTaxCredits—providesinformationonthecurrentstateandfederalincentivesandtaxcreditsavailabletotransitagenciesoperatingCNGvehicles.

EmissionsConsiderations—providesadiscussionofthehistoricalemissionsbenefitsandinformationonnewtechnologyandemissionsstandards.

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTraining—providesinformationonthemaintenanceconsiderationrelatedtoCNGvehicles.ThesubsectionalsoprovidesinformationonsafetyandtrainingforaCNGfuelingandbusmaintenanceoperation.

KeyFindings—providesasummaryofthestateofthepracticeresearchconductedbyTTI.

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

14

LiteratureReviewAsoutlinedinthescopeofwork,TTIconductedareviewofonlineliterature.TTIuseddatabasesavailablefromtheTexasA&MUniversitylibraryasameanstocollectthemostrecentstudiesconductedontheuseofCNGincurrenttransitoperations.TTIresearchersalsousedtheTransportationResearchBoard’s(TRB’s)TransportResearchInternationalDocumentationdatabasetolocaterelevantliterature.AmainsourceofdataoriginatedfromTRB’sTCRP.TheTCRPreportsusedforthereviewincludeReport38:GuidebookforEvaluating,Selecting,andImplementingFuelChoicesforTransitBusOperationsandtheupdatetothatreport,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).

Thetop25agencieswiththehighestlikenessscoreswerethenfurtheranalyzedtodeterminethevehiclemix.TTIresearchersidentifiedpeersagencieshavingaminimumof50CNG‐fueledvehicles.

15

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

Table2‐1PeerTransitAgencies

TransitAgency ServiceAreaSize

ServiceAreaPopulation

FleetSize1

CNGFleet

%CNG

SunTran  230 0.5million 240 88 37Omnitrans  456 1.4million 169 166 98SunMetro  205 0.6million 163 150 92FoothillTransit  327 1.5million 303 270 89NorthCountyTransitDistrict 

403 0.85million 120 90 75

RegionalPublicTransitAuthority  732 2.5million 172 135 78

WashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority  692 3.3million 1,492 461 31

SacramentoRegionalTransitDistrict 

277 1.1million 212 212 100

Source:NationalTransitDatabase20091.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.

16

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,hasaserviceareaof732squaremiles,andincludesapopulationof2.5million.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‐responseparatransitbusservice.Inadditiontobustransit,WMATAoperatesfiveheavy‐raillineswithintheservicearea.WMATAhasafixed‐routebusfleetof1,492vehicles.Thefleetconsistsof602diesel,461CNG,and429hybriddieselvehicles.WMATAbeganoperatingCNGvehicles2001,beginningwithafleetof64CNGvehicles.

17

SacramentoRegionalTransitDistrict(SACRT).SACRTislocatedinSacramento,California,hasaserviceareaof277squaremiles,andincludesapopulationof1.1million.SACRToperateslocalfixed‐route,park‐and‐ride,anddemand‐responseparatransitbusservice.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

18

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

Source:CleanCitiesAlternativeFuelPriceReport,July2011

Figure2‐1FuelPrice:DieselversusCNG,September2000toJuly2011ThefiguredisplaysthatthepriceofCNGhastrendedlowerthandieselforthepast11years.ThefigurealsoshowsthatspikesinfuelpricesthathaveoccurredoverthelastdecadearetypicallylowerinmagnitudeforCNGthandiesel.Since2009,thepriceofCNGhasbeenrelativelystable,whiledieselhastrendedupward.

Table2‐2providesasummaryofthepricepeertransitagenciesarecurrentlypayingforCNGintermsofDGE.ThepurchasepriceofCNGreportedbythepeeragenciesoftenincludesadditionalfeesbecauseofvarioustermsandconditionsinthepurchasecontract.Forexample,thesefeesmayincludepriceadjustmentstocoverthemaintenanceandelectricitycostsassociatedwithCNGdeliveryandfuelingfacilities.Additionally,notallagencieswereabletoprovidethecostofCNGintermsofDGE.Intheseinstances,researchersconvertedthereportedpricetoDGE.

19

Table2‐2PeerAgencyCNGPricesAgency PriceperDGE Comments

FoothillTransit$0.69Arcadia/$0.84Pomona

Maintenancecostswereremoved

NCTD $0.58 Commodityonly

Omnitrans NotavailableContractforfuelishedged;couldnotdisclose

RPTA $1.17Includesmaintenanceandelectricity

SACRT $0.80ThepriceincludesafeetoDGS(about0.0065%)and0.0513perthermtoPG&Efordelivery

SunMetro $1.83PurchasedasLNGandconvertedtoCNG

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

PeerAgencyObjectivesThepeerstudyidentifiedreasonstheagenciesuseCNGasatransitfuel.Table2‐3providesasummaryofthesereasons.

Table2‐3PeerAgencyImplementationObjectives

AgencyEmissionReduction

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.AgenciesdiscussedthathistoricallythemaintenancecostsofCNGvehicleshavebeenhigherthanthoseondieselvehicles,thusmakingoperatingsavingsonfuelnegligible.AdiscussionofthecostofmaintainingCNGvehiclesversusdieselvehiclesisprovidedthesafetyandmaintenanceconsiderationssectionofthischapter.

20

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.

21

Figure2‐2GasDryeratRPTAinPhoenix,Arizona

Figure2‐3CompressingStations

22

Figure2‐4CNGBufferStorage

Agencieshavetheabilitytocustomizefuelingstationstomeettheirfuelingneeds.TheneedsaredependentonthenumberofCNGvehiclestorefuel,thefuelingwindowavailable,andthestaffavailabletorefuelthevehicles.Thefuelingneedsoftheagencydeterminethenumberandtypeofcompressorstheagencymusthave.Thetotalflowinstandardcubicfeetperminute(SCFM)fromthecompressorsdeterminesthenumberofbusesandhowquicklytheyarefueled.Agenciescandeterminethenumberofcompressorsandsizeofcompressorsrequiredbytakingthefuelloadperbus,multipliedbythenumberofbusesfueledpernight,dividedbytheproductivetimeduringafuelingshifteachnight.Agenciesmustalsoprovideredundantcompressors.Redundancyprovidesbackupcompressionsothatifonecompressorfails,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

23

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.Theelectricalexpensesforeachofthefuelingstationsvary.RPTApays$0.06perthermofnaturalgasused.Infiscalyear2011,SACRThadanelectricityexpenseof$311,211foritsonestationoperatingfivecompressors.Infiscalyear2011,NCTDhadanelectricityexpenseof$271,133foritstwostationswithfourcompressorsintotal.Theagenciesreviewedcurrentlyhavefewfuelingcapacityissues.However,SunMetroandSunTrannotedthatcoldweatheraffectsthespeedandcompletenessofrefueling.SACRTnotedthatthesizeoftanksonsomevehicleslimitedthemileagerange;thesevehicleshadtocomeinformiddayrefueling.Adjustmentsinonboardtankcapacityandimprovementstothefuelingstation,enablingamorecompletefill,curtailedthefueling‐capacityissue.NCTDstatedthatfuelcapacitycouldbeanissueifadditionalvehiclesareaddedtotheEscondidofacility.

GasDetectionNaturalgas(CH4)isignitableatconcentrationsinairbetween5and15percent.AgenciesmustmeetlocalandnationalfiresafetycodessuchasthoserequiredbytheNationalFireProtectionAssociationCode52whenimplementingaCNGfuelingoperation.Agenciesmusthavediscussionswiththefiremarshaltoensurethefacilitiesareuptolocalfirecode.TodetectandpreventconcentrationsofCNG,maintenancefacilitiesmustbeequippedwithmethanedetectionsensorsaboveallservicebaystodetectleaks.Thesesensorsareconnectedtoamastercontrolpanel.Twotypesofdetectionsystemsaretypicallyused—catalyticbeadandinfrared.Acatalyticbeaddetectionsystemhasaplatinumcoilembeddedinacatalyst.Whengasesreachthecoil,areactionoccurs,causingtheelementtoheatupandtriggerthesensor.Infraredmethanedetectionusesinfraredradiationtodeterminegaslevelsintheair(GeneralMonitorsn.d.).Infrareddetectionisthemostcommonlyinstalledtoday(RichardsonandMcAllister2009).

24

Table2‐4Peer‐AgencyFuelingStation

Agency

CNGFuelingCapacity CompressorDetails

FuelingStations

NaturalGasInletPressure

CNGStorage

CompressorsatEachStation

FuelDispenser

sFuelTime

VehiclesFueledperNight

Middayrefuel

CapacityLimitationsCapacityLimitationSolutions

ElectricorGas

TotalSCFM

DischargePressure

GasExpenses

AnnualElectricityExpenses

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 

25

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

26

Table2‐5PeerAgencyFacilityModificationsTransitAgency

YearofImplementation

FacilityModifications

FoothillTransit 2002 FacilitywasbuiltwithCNGfuelingability

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

Omnitrans 1997Methanedetection,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.TherequirementsofaCNGfuelingoperationsaresometimesbettersuitedtoacompanythatspecializesinoperatingandmaintainingCNGfuelingstations.Thissectiondescribesthearrangementsavailabletotransitagenciesandprovidesinformationoneachofthepeertransitagencies’CNGfuelingoperations.TheCNGfuelingarrangementtypesincludethefollowing:ownandoperate,ownandpartiallyoperate,leaseandoperate,leaseandpartiallyoperate,andturnkey.Table2‐6providesthearrangementsavailabletotransitagencieswhenimplementinganon‐siteCNGfuelingoperation.

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 ContractedAthirdpartyprovidesfuelsupplyineachscenarioarrangement.Thefuelsuppliercanbethelocalgascompany,thelocalmunicipality,orthethirdpartyusedfornatural‐gascompressormaintenance.AsTable2‐6indicates,transitagencystafforcontractstaff(e.g.,FirstTransit,Veolia,etc.)conductthemaintenanceandfuelingofCNGvehiclesin‐houseineacharrangement.Acommonarrangementfoundinthepeerresearchisownandpartiallyoperate.Inthisarrangement,thetransitagencycontractsforcompressormaintenanceandmonitoring.Whenanagencyleasesthecompressorsfromathirdparty,thethirdparty

27

maintainsthecompressors.Thethird‐partycompanycanalsoupgradeoraddadditionalcompressorsifthetransitagency’sdemandsurpassesthefuelingstation’scapacity.ThereportNaturalGasinTransitFleets:AReviewoftheTransitExperienceprovidesinformationonthebenefitsanddownsidetoowningorcontractingouttheCNGfuelingstationoperations(Eudy2002).Forownandoperate,theadvantagesanddisadvantagesareasfollows:

Advantages:o Ownershipofthestationprovidestheagencycontrolofthefuelingoperation.o Thetotalcosttotheagencyislowerifthestationisefficientlymanaged.

Disadvantages:o Up‐frontcapitalcostsarehighfortheagency.o Theagencyisresponsibleformaintenanceandoperation.

Forcontractingtoathirdpart,theadvantagesanddisadvantagesareasfollows:

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

Disadvantages:o Theagencymayhavepossibleissueswithproprietarytechnology.o Theagencytakesariskontheperformanceofthecontractor.o Contractingcanbepotentiallymoreexpensiveoverallthanownership.

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 ContractedOmnitrans In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house ContractedRPTA In‐house Contracted In‐house In‐house ContractedSACRT In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house ContractedSunMetro In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house ContractedSunTran In‐house In‐house In‐house In‐house ContractedEachpeertransitagencymaintainsandfuelsvehiclesin‐house.Additionally,eachagencyownstheCNGfuelingstation(s).ContractorsspecializinginCNGfuelingoperationsallow

28

forstabilityinfuelingwithinatransitagency.Thefunctionmostcommonlycontractedoutismaintenanceofthefuelingstation.Fuel‐stationcompressorsrequireongoingmaintenancethatmaybemoreappropriateforacontractortocomplete.RPTA,Omnitrans,FoothillTransit,andNCTDcontractoutfuel‐stationmaintenance.Theseagenciescontractformaintenanceonaper‐thermbasis.Maintenancecontractsnegotiatedbetweentheentitiesinvolvemultiplevariablestoreachacostperthermformaintenance.ThecostofmaintenanceperthermisdeterminedbythetotalnumberofCNGthermstheagencyusesaswellasthenumber,age,condition,andtype(gasorelectricdrive)ofcompressorshousedatthefuelingstation.Table2‐8providestheamounteachagencypaysforstationmaintenance.

Table2‐8MaintenanceCostofFuelStation

AgencyCostofFuelStationMaintenance

perDGENCTD $0.30FoothillTransit $0.39Arcadiaand$0.84PomonaRPTA $0.20Omnitrans* $270,000peryear*OmnitransusesanLCNGoperation thatdoesnotusecompressors, so it hasadifferenttypeofmaintenancecontract.

Insomeinstances,thecontractorprovidingmaintenancetothefuelingstationisalsothefuelsupplier.NCTDandOmnitransusethesamecontractorforbothfuelsupplyandstationmaintenance.However,OmnitranshasthesamecontractorforeachfunctionbecausetheoriginalcontractorforthefuelsupplywasboughtoutafterOmnitranshadalreadyenteredintoacontractwiththem;therefore,Omnitranshastwoseparatecontractsforthefuelsupplyandstationmaintenance.Table2‐9liststhecontractorsforthefuelsupplyandstationmaintenanceforthepeeragencies.

Table2‐9ContractorsforFuelSupplyandStationMaintenanceAgency FuelSupplier StationMaintenance

FoothillTransit SouthernCaliforniaGas CleanEnergyNCTD Trillium Trillium

Omnitrans*CleanEnergyandAppliedLNGTechnology CleanEnergy

RPTA CityofMesa CleanEnergy

CNGServicePlanningThissectiondiscussestheserviceplanningimplicationsforCNGvehicles.ThesectionprovidesabriefhistoryofCNG‐vehicleserviceplanningandprovidesinformationonsomeoftheconsiderationswithtoday’savailabletechnology.Duringthelate1980sandearly1990s,manytransitagenciesintheUnitedStatesbeganoperatingCNGtransitvehicles.Manyofthesevehicleshadanoperatingrangeof150to200miles.Whenthebusrouterequiredmoremiles,thesebuseshadtorefuelatmiddaytocompletetheday’sservice.Anotherservice‐planningconcerninvolvedtheroadgradeonwhichtheCNGvehiclesoperated.WhenCNGvehiclesoperatedonhills,thevehiclessometimesstruggledtomakeitupthehill.TheweightoftheCNGfueltank—about

29

3,000lb—contributedtothisproblemandaffectedtheperformanceofthevehicle.Inaddition,CNGenginesoperatedathighertemperatures,andoperatingonhotdaysledtotheriskofoverheating(Eudy2002).Agenciesconsideredtheseitemswhendevelopingserviceplans.Today,transitpropertiesoperatingbothCNGanddieselvehiclestypicallymixthetwobustypesontheroutesprovided.TheRegionalPublicTransitAuthorityinPhoenix,Arizona,hasafleetof135CNGvehiclesand37biodieselvehicles.Thebusesareintermixedandexpectedtooperateoneachofthefixedroutes.Theexceptionstothisarethebusesusedforbus‐rapid‐transitservice.Thesevehicleshaveaspecificdesignandoperateonlyonthebus‐rapid‐transitroutes.TheRPTAexpectstheCNGanddieselvehiclestohavearangeofmorethan400milesandsufficienthorsepowertotraverseallroutes(Hyinke2011).TheNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratoryevaluatedWMATAin2006.WMATAhad232busesoperatingoutoftheBladensburgdepot,ofwhich164wereCNGpowered.ThedieselandCNGvehicleswereinterchangeableonallroutesthatused40‐footbuses(Chandleretal.2006).Oftheeighttransitagenciesusedinthepeeranalysis,threeoftheagenciesdonotoperatedieselvehiclesatall.Therefore,allvehiclesmustbeabletocompleteallroutes.CNGperformsataslightlylowerlevelthandieselinaccelerationandhillclimbing.CNGengineshavepeakpowerratingssimilartocomparabledieselengines;however,theyhavereducedlow‐speedtorqueduetothelowervolumetricefficiencyofCNGengines.Thelow‐speedtorquecombinedwiththeincreasedweightoftheCNGfueltanksleadstoaccelerationreductions.In2006,theCityofSanFranciscopurchasedhybridelectricratherthanCNGduetothehillyoperatingconditionswithinSanFrancisco(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).AccordingtoTCRPReport146:GuidebookforEvaluatingFuelChoicesforPost‐2010,thenewestCumminsWestportengineclaimstohavea30percentincreaseinlow‐speedtorqueforitsstoichiometric,cooledexhaust‐gas‐recirculationenginecomparedtoitspreviousengine(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).TTIresearcherspokewithrepresentativesfromRPTAandFoothillTransitaboutCNGvehicleperformanceonfreewayon‐rampswithafullloadofpassengers.Therepresentativesstatedthevehiclesperformedaswellastheirdieselvehicleswhenmergingontofreeways.ModernCNGtransit‐vehicletechnologyallowsforgreaterrangeduetofuelingandfuel‐storagetechnology.TheincreasedrangeisattributabletogettingamorecompleteCNGfillandincreasedfuelcapacity.SACRTstruggledwiththerangeofCNGvehiclesthroughthe1990s.In2002,thenewCNGbusesreceivedbytheagencyhadincreasedtankcapacity.Inaddition,SACRTmademodificationstothefuelingstationtoincreasethecompletenessoftheCNGfillonbuses(Barnhart2011).TCRPReport146documentsthefuelefficiencyofCNGvehiclesasbeingabout2.7milespergallon(mpg).Thefuelefficiencyofavehicleisdependentontheoperatingcharacteristicsofthebusroute.TCRPReport146providesthemilespergallonofdieselasbeingabout3.2.Oftheeightpeeragenciesreviewed,theaveragemilespergallonreportedfortheCNGfleetis3.42.Thelowvalueis2.7mpg,andthehighvalueis3.98mpg.

30

CNGvehiclesrequireCNGfuelingstationsforfuel.TransitagencieswithmultiplegaragesmayonlyhaveoneCNGfuelingstation.ThismeansthatallCNGbusesmustbehousedoutofthesamegarageandcannotbeinterchangedwithbusesatothergarages.Oftheeightpeertransitagencies,threehavetwofuelingstations,andSACRTisintheprocessofconstructinganadditionalfacility.

METROServicePlanningThepurposeofthissectionistodocumentMETRO’sshort‐andlong‐rangeserviceplans,andexaminetheimpactsofCNGimplementationonexistingandfuturebus‐serviceplanning.Additionally,thissectionprovidesinformationonfleetmixandanoverviewoftheMETROmaintenancefacilities.

Short‐RangeServicePlanningMETROhasadetailedshort‐rangeserviceplan.MostofthefocusofMETRO’sserviceplanisonbecomingmorecostefficientandeffective.Theserviceplantiesintotheoverallagencystrategytoimproveservicesystem‐wideandaddadditionalservicebasedontheadoptedservicestandards.Theshort‐rangeplanprioritizesnewservicesandsetsimplementationtimeframes.Thepurposeoftheplanistoenhanceserviceefficiencybyreducingand/oreliminatingtripsthatarepoorperformers.Additionally,proposedservicechangesseektoaddressmajorcustomer‐servicerequestsandcomplaints.Theservicechangesoccurringin2011willreallocateresourcessavedinthepreviousyear,improvespecificservices,andsimplifytheoveralltransportationnetwork.Inaddition,proposedservicechangesplaceemphasisonpotentialmarketopportunities,especiallyareaswhereresidentialandcommercialgrowthisoccurring.Anumberoflow‐ridershiptripsweretargetedbyMETROstaffin2010andselectedforeliminationin2011.Proposedservicewillbeaddedtoroutesexperiencingovercrowdingoron‐timeperformanceissues,ortoalleviatethefutureretirementofarticulatedbuses.Servicechangescanbesummarizedbygroupingthemintothethreeservice‐changeperiodsforMETRO:January,June,andAugust.InJanuary,METROstaffworkedtoreallocateresourcessavedintheAugust2010servicechange.ServicechangesweremadetoaccommodatethegrowthoftheWashingtonAvenueentertainmentdistrictandresidentialdevelopmentonReedRoad.ServicewasalsodesignedtoaddressearlyworkstarttimesintheTexasMedicalCenter,expandservicesofferedbyNeighborhoodCenters,Inc.,improveweekendheadwaysonthe137NorthshoreRoute,andimproveserviceonGessner,Kempwood,andHammerly.Lastly,twounproductiverouteswereremovedfromservice.FortheJuneservicechange,METROfocusedadditionalserviceimprovementsonmarketopportunities,suchasimprovedaccesstoretailandcommercialservicesonHighway6,andgrowingthe32RenwickroutebyaddingSaturdayservice.Athirdbusroutewas

31

discontinuedduetolowproductivity,andstaffimplementedataxi‐cabvoucherpilotprogramasareplacementforthediscontinuedservice.TheAugustservicechangeemphasizedcontinuedimprovementsforcostefficiencies.The352SwingleShuttlewasreplacedwithanextensionofRoute52,andstaffmadeadditionalimprovementstoimproveon‐timeperformanceofseveralroutes.

Long‐RangeServicePlanningIn2004,METROcommissionedastudythatlookedatplansforninemajorcorridorsintheMETROarea.Thestudyemphasizedtheimportanceofalong‐rangetransitplan,andMETROusedthefindingsfromtheninecorridorstudiestodevelopasystem‐wide2025plan.The2025plan,knownasMETROSolutions,identifiestransitimprovementsandincludesthefollowingelements:

Bus‐fleetreplacement. Serviceimprovements. New,relocated,andexpandedtransit‐passengerfacilities. High‐occupancy‐vehicleextensionsandimprovements. Generalmobilityimprovements. METRORailfromDowntowntoReliantPark. Advancedhigh‐capacitytransitincandidatecorridors. 

 

Insummary,theplancallsfor72additionalmilesofrailservice,50percentmorebusservice,implementationofSignatureExpressbusservice,250milesofbi‐directional,all‐daypark‐and‐rideservice,9newpark‐and‐ridelots,and9newtransitcenters(H‐GAC2010).METROiscurrentlybeginningtheprocesstoupdatethelong‐rangeplanfortheagency.Thenewplan,METROVision,isslatedtolookatpotentialservicethroughtheyear2035.

FleetMixMETROhasapproximately1,200busesacrossseveraldifferentfacilities.METROhas80140‐footbuses,38345‐footsuburbanbuses,3260‐footarticulated‐stylevehicles,and2529‐footbuses.Thesebusesarefurtherbrokendownintoadditionalcategories,depictedinFigure2‐5.ForadditionalinformationontheMETROfleet,refertotheAppendixA.

32

Figure2‐5FleetMix

AccordingtoMETRO’sBusFleetReplacementPlan,theagencyplansonretainingroughlythesamenumberofvehiclesthroughtheyear2021.Thefleetwillaverageabout1,200vehicles,andMETROwillplantoretireapproximately85vehiclesannuallyandpurchase85newvehiclesannually.ThisconsistentfleetreplacementplanwillaidintheplanningandpurchaseofnewCNGvehicles.

METROFacilityPlanningMETROcurrentlyhassixbus‐maintenancefacilities.Thissectionprovidesabriefoverviewofthemaintenanceandoperatingcapacityateachfacility,anddescribestheimplicationsforoperatingCNGvehiclesoutofparticularfacilities.Table2‐10describesthecurrentbusfacilities,andFigure2‐6providesamapofthefacilitylocations.

582

219261

122

32 25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

40' diesel 40' Hybrid 45' diesel 45' hybrid 60' Artic (diesel)

29' diesel

33

Table2‐10METROMaintenanceFacilities

Facility AddressParkingSpaces

FuelingLanes

FuelingPumps

DieselStorage(Gallons)

ServiceBays

FallbrookBOF

111FallbrookDrive,Houston,TX77038

250 4 4 125,800 24

HiramClarkeBOF

4175UptownDrive,Houston,TX77045

250 3 3 142,200 21

KashmereBOF

5700EastexFreeway,Houston,TX77026

250 2 4 147,000 19

PolkBOF5700PolkStreet,Houston,TX77023 260 2 4 145,500 23

WestBOF 11555Westpark,Houston,TX77082

250 3 3 100,000 26

NorthwestBOF(ContractFacility)

5555DeauvillePlazaDrive,Houston,TX77023

300 4 3 144,000 23

Figure2‐6MapofMETROFacilityLocations

Asseeninthetable,METROhasseveralfacilitiestohouseits1200+vehiclefleet.Themajorityoftheservicefacilitieshave20+servicebays.Asdiscussedinthe“CNGImplementation”section,eachservicebayrequiresatleasttwomethanesensors.Thesizeandageofthefacilityhavethelargestimpactsonthecostofretrofittingafacilityfor

34

accommodatingCNGvehicles.Therefore,facilitieswithmoreservicebayswillcostmoretoretrofit.IfMETROplanstooperateamixofvehiclesincludingCNGataparticularfacility,theagencymaychoosetoretrofitonlytheportionofthefacilityinwhichtheCNGvehiclesaremaintained.

CNGIncentivesandTaxCreditsTransitagenciesusingalternativefuelssuchasCNGhavetheopportunitytoreceivefederalandstateincentivesandtaxcredits.Thissectionprovidesthemostcurrentinformationontheavailabilityofthosecredits.

FederalIncentivesandTaxCreditsAtthefederallevel,themostsignificantincentivefortheusersofCNGincludestheAlternativeFuelExciseTaxCredit.ThiscreditiseffectivethroughDecember31,2011,andprovides$0.54perDGEofCNGused.StateandlocalgovernmentsthatdispenseCNGfromanon‐sitefuelingstationforuseinvehiclesqualifyfortheincentive.Theagencymustfirstusethetaxcreditagainstanytaxliabilitytheagencyhas.Agenciesmayclaimtheexcessoverthefuel‐taxliabilityasadirectpaymentfromtheInternalRevenueService.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).ThefederaltaxcreditsexpireDecember31,2011.Thereisproposedlegislationthataimstoextendthetaxcredits—H.R.1380:NewAlternativeTransportationtoGiveAmericansSolutionsActof2011.ThebillwasintroducedtotheHouseofRepresentativesonApril6,2011.Thebillincludesextensionsofexistingtaxcreditsandexpandedtaxcredits.Thebillcallsforthefollowingincentivesfornaturalgasoperations(Kalet2011):

35

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.

StateIncentivesandTaxCreditsTheTexasCommissionforEnvironmentalQualityhasmultipleincentivesforagencieslookingtoimplementCNG.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.Theprogramprovidesgrantfundstocovertheincrementalcostsofreplacingdieselvehicleswithalternativelyfueledvehicles.Thenewvehiclesmustreduceemissionsofnitrogenoxidesorotherpollutantsbyatleast25percent.

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

36

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.CNGvehiclesmustusestoichiometriccooled‐exhaust‐gasrecirculationwithathree‐waycatalyst(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).The2010emissionstechnologyisrelativelynew,andthenumberofemissionstestsavailableislimited.However,TCRPReport146providesEPAcertificationdataavailableon2010CNGvehicles.Table2‐11providestheEPAcertificationtestresultsforthe2010CNGengine.

37

Table2‐112010CNGEngineEPACertificationTestPollutant 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.Table2‐12providesinformationonGHGemissionsfrom2006transitvehicles.

Table2‐12GHGEmissionfrom2006CNGandDieselBuses 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%reductionSource:(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011)*Assumes1gCH4=23gCO2;1gN2O=296gCO2

Whencomparing2006dieselandCNGvehicles,CNGhasaslightedgeoverall.CumminsWestportproducestheonlyCNGenginecurrentlyavailablefortransitvehicles.The2010CNGenginereportedlyhasa17percentreductioninGHGtailpipeemissionscomparedtothecleanestcomparabledieselengines(ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation2011).

BusFleetMaintenance,Safety,andTrainingTransitagenciesthatimplementaCNGoperationprovideacertainleveloftrainingtomechanics.Inaddition,somestatesrequireadifferentlevelofcertificationformechanics

38

toworkonCNG.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.Table2‐13providesthepeerresponsesaboutmaintenance‐trainingrequirements.

39

Table2‐13PeerTrainingExperience

TransitAgency TrainingRequired Cross‐trainedforMultipleTechnologies

FoothillTransit Contractorresponsibility YesNCTD 4hours(notCNGspecific) YesOmnitrans 20hours(notCNGspecific) YesRPTA 40hours(notCNGspecific) YesSACRT Safetybriefings,noCNGrequirement Yes

SunMetroTrainingoneachnewbusorder(notCNGspecific);CNGcertification

Yes

SunTran 8‐16hoursonCNGspecific;CNGcertification YesAsseeninthepeerresearch,thereistypicallynorequirementbytheagencytohaveadditionalCNGtraining.SunTranandSunMetrohaveadditionalcertificationrequirements.Allpeeragencieshavemechanicstrainedtoworkoneachtypeofvehicletheagencyoperates.

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

ModernCNGtransitvehicleshaveatotaloperatingrangesimilartothatofdieselvehicle—between350and450milesbetweenrefueling.

CNGvehiclesareheavierduetothefueltanks.Inaddition,CNGvehicleshavereducedlow‐speedtorqueascomparedtodieselvehicles.ThismakesCNGtransitvehiclesundesirableforregionswithsteepgrades.

40

Whenoperatinginfreewaysettings,representativesfromRPTAandFoothillstatedtheCNGvehiclesperformaswellasdieselvehicleswhenmergingontofreeways.

CNGtechnologyiscompatiblewithMETRO’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.

41

3. METROLife‐CycleCostComparisonTTIresearchersusedtheLCCmodeldevelopedbyTCRPReport132todeterminethecapital,variable,andtotallife‐cyclecostofdifferentvehiclepurchasescenarios.TTIresearchersuseddataavailablefromMETROandnationallyestablishedassumptionsasinputsforthemodel.Thissectionofthereportoutlinesthemethodology,inputs,assumptions,andresultsoftheLCCmodelforMETRO.

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 LCC 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

ScenariosTTIresearchersworkedwithMETROrepresentativestogatherdataanddevelopassumptionsfortheLCCM.Researcherscollecteddataonsixscenariosofbuspurchases:

CNG40‐footbuses. CNG45‐footbuses. Diesel40‐footbuses. Diesel45‐footbuses. Hybrid40‐footbuses. Hybrid45‐footbuses.

ThesesixscenariosrepresenttheplannedprocurementsofMETRO.

ModelInputsTheLCCMallowsuserstoselecteitherdefaultvaluesorinputactualfleetagencydatafortheinputvariables.TTIresearcherssoughttogatherthemostcurrentdataavailablefromactualMETROfleetdata,literaturesources,ormutuallyagreed‐upondefaultvariableinputsandassumptions.Whenavailable,TTIusedactualfleetdataprovidedbyMETRO.Fordefaultassumptions,TTIreviewedthevariousmodelinputswithMETROstafftoensurethemodelwasrepresentativeoftheMETROfleet.Thissectiondescribesthemodel

42

inputsandhighlightstheinputvariableswiththegreatestimpactonLCC.ThissectionalsodetailstheassumptionsmadebyTTIwithineachofthemodel’ssections.Table3‐1providestheinputsusedforeachmodelvariable.

Table3‐1LCCMScenariosandInputs

# VariableInputs CNG40Foot

CNG45Foot

Diesel40Foot

Diesel45Foot

Hybrid40Foot

Hybrid45Foot

1 Technology(typeofbus) CNG CNG Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid

2Numberofvehiclesinpurchase

100 100 100 100 100 100

3 Purchaseyear 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 20114 Annualmileagepervehicle 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,0005 Fueleconomy5A Averagespeed 13 18.5 13 18.5 13 18.55B Air‐conditioningload 9 9 9 9 9 95C Heaterload 6 6 6 6 6 65D Fueleconomies 3.66 4.05 4.00 4.43 3.86 4.94

6Purchasecost(in1000dollars)

450.33 530.33 438.71 515 602.5 745

7Extendedpowertrainwarrantycosts

0 0 0 0 0 0

8

Enginerebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime(6,4and7,5schedule)

33.7 33.7 33.7 33.7 28.7 28.7

9

Transmissionrebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime

22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 90 90

10 Trainingcosts 44.18 44.18 0 0 23.32 23.32

11Unscheduledmaintenancecosts

0.3 0.25 0.35 0.3 0.14 0.12

12 Scheduledmaintenancecosts 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.1913 Infrastructure‐specificcosts

13ANeworadditionalinfrastructurecosts

2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0

13BOperatingandmaintenance(O&M)costsforfacilities

442.62 311.11 0 0 0 0

14 Hybrid‐specificcosts14A Diagnosticequipment 0 0 0 0 117.42 117.42

14B Energy‐storagereplacement 0 0 0 0Figuredintoengine

rebuildcosts14C Spareenergy‐storagepacks 0 0 0 0 123.41 123.41

15 Projectedaveragefuelcosts 1.96 1.96 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65

16 Incentives,credits,andtaxes 16A Fueltaxes 0 0 0.20 .20 0.20 0.2016B Fuelcredits 0.54 0.54 0 0 0 016C Purchasecredits 0 0 0 0 0 0

16DMiscellaneouscreditsandgrants 0 0 0 0 0 0

16EMiscellaneousfuture‐yearone‐timecosts 0 0 0 0 0 0

43

Thefollowingisanexplanationofeachvariableinput:1. Technology(typeofbus)—TheLCCMmakesrequiredcalculationsforeachtypeof

busselectedineachcolumn.ThebuseschosenfortheLCCMarethebusesinMETRO’svehiclereplacementplanforthenext10years.TheseincludeCNG40‐foot,CNG45‐foot,diesel40‐foot,diesel45‐foot,hybrid‐diesel40‐foot,andhybrid‐diesel45‐footvehicles.

2. Numberofvehiclesinpurchase—Tocomparethelife‐cyclecostsofvehiclepurchases,TTIresearchersused100busesforeachscenario.

3. Purchaseyear—TheLCCMmakesthenecessaryinflationcalculationsandother(technology‐based)calculationsbasedonspecificpurchaseyears.Thebaseyear2011isusedfortheLCCM

4. Annualmileagepervehicle—TTIresearchersusedthebusrosterdatasuppliedbyMETROtodeterminedieselandhybridaverageannualmileageforeachtypeofvehicle.

5A.Averagespeed—TTIresearchersusedtheactualroutestatisticsprovidedbyMETROtodetermineaveragespeedsforeachtypeofvehicle.

5B.Air‐conditioningload—TheLCCMallowstheusertoconsidertheeffectairconditioninghasonfueleconomybyselectinganumericvaluefrom0to10.METROprovidedanair‐conditioningloadof9outof10.METROoperatesthebusairconditionersthemajorityoftheyearandthoughtitwasnecessarytousealoadof9withinthemodel.

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

5D.Fueleconomies—TTIresearchersworkedwithMETROtodeterminethefueleconomyofeachscenario.Thehybrid‐dieselscenarioisbasedonactualMETROfueleconomyexperience.METROusedWMATACNGfueleconomyexperienceasthebasisfordeterminingthe40‐footCNGfueleconomyfortheLCCmodel.Table3‐2showsthecalculationusedtodetermineCNG40‐footfueleconomy.Asshown,thepercentdifferencebetweenaWMATAsubfleetandaMETROsubfleetwasappliedtoactualWMATACNGexperiencetoarriveatthe40‐footCNGfigurefortheMETROLCCscenario.ActualMETRO40‐footdieselbusexperiencecomparedto45‐footdieselbusexperiencewasusedtodeterminethe45‐footCNGfueleconomy.METRO’scurrentexperiencewithpost‐2010dieselfueleconomyissimilartothatofMETRO’s2001modeldieselvehicles,thereforeacomparablefueleconomywasused.

44

Table3‐2CalculationsUsedforCNGFuelEconomyAssumption40‐footBusMPGCalculation

WMATAVehicles METROVehiclesYear Vehicle MPG Year Vehicle MPG %Difference2000 OrionDiesel 3.419 2000 NewFlyerDiesel 3.526 3.13%2005 OrionCNG 3.546 2011 METROCNG 3.657 3.13%

45‐footBusMPGCalculationMETRO40‐footBuses METRO45‐footBuses

Year Vehicle MPG Year Vehicle MPG %Difference2001 NFDiesel 3.946 2001 MCIDiesel 4.373 10.82%2011 METROCNG 3.657 2011 METROCNG 4.052 10.82%

6. Purchasecost—METROprovidedtheaveragepurchasepriceofthevehiclesforeach

scenario.Thepurchasepriceofthevehiclesisexpressedin1,000dollarsperbus.Additionally,annualfueltaxwasaddedtothecostofCNGvehicles.Thisis$444peryear.Overa12‐yearlife,thisequalsapproximately$5,328.

7. Extendedpowertrainwarrantycosts—Themodelallowsforaone‐timecostperbusforextendedwarranties.Researchersassumedtherewerenoextendedwarrantiesaddedtothepurchases.

8. Enginerebuild/replacementcostsforbuslifetime—Forallbustypes,thesecostsapplytorebuildingtheinternalcombustionengine,andarebasedonreplacingtheoriginalenginewitharebuiltunitobtainedfromanOEM‐authorizedrebuildingfacility.TTIresearchersgathereddataoneachenginescenariofromMETRO.ResearchersandMETROassumedCNGanddieselenginerebuildsaresimilarincosts.Researchersreceivedthetotalcostofrebuildingtheengine,propulsion,andassociatedpartsfortwodifferenttypesofhybridvehiclesovera12‐yearperiod.Thesetwototalswereaveraged.Thecostsofreplacingthehybridpropulsionsystemareinthetransmission‐rebuildingportionofthemodel.

9. Transmissionrebuild/replacementforbuslifetime—FordieselandCNGbuses,thesecostsarebasedonreplacingtheoriginalautomatictransmissionwitharebuiltunitobtainedfromanOEM‐authorizedrebuildingfacility.Forhybridbuses,costsarebasedonremovingtheoriginalhybriddrivesystemandreplacingitwithafactory‐remanufacturedunit.ResearchersreceiveddatafromMETROthattheaveragetransmissionrebuildforCNGanddieselisroughly$22,250.Researchersreceivedthetotalcostofrebuildingtheengine,propulsionsystem,andassociatedpartsfortwodifferenttypesofhybridvehiclesovera12‐yearperiod.Thesetwototalswereaveraged.Thecostsofreplacingthehybridpropulsionsystemareusedinthetransmission‐rebuildingportionofthemodel.

10. Trainingcosts—ThecostsoftrainingoperatorsandmechanicsonnewhybridandCNGdieselbusesareincrementalto(aboveandbeyond)trainingcostsassociatedwithdieselbuses.TTIresearchersusedthedefaultmediumtrainingcostsavailableinthemodelbasedonthenumberofMETROoperatorsandmechanicsavailableper100buses.Thisisabout315operators(at$15perhour)and31.5mechanics(at$20perhour)per100vehicles.Themediumdefaultvaluefora100‐vehiclepurchaseforCNGorhybrid‐dieselis$44,180and$23,320,respectively.

45

11. Unscheduledmaintenancecosts—TTIresearchersconsultedwithMETROonthemaintenancecostsofvehicles.Theagreed‐uponassumptionforunscheduledmaintenanceisthelowestimateavailablewithintheLCCMforeachvehicletype.

12. Scheduledmaintenancecosts—TTIresearchersconsultedwithMETROonthemaintenancecostsofvehicles.Theagreed‐uponassumptionforscheduledmaintenancefordieselandhybrid‐dieselvehiclesisthelowestimateavailablewithintheLCCMforeachvehicletype.Alternatively,TTIusedtheestimateprovidedinTCRPReport146(METROfelttheestimateswithinthemodelwerelowascomparedtoactualexperience)forCNGscheduledmaintenance.

13. Neworadditionalinfrastructurecosts—ThissectionoftheLCCMaccountsforthecostsassociatedwithconstructingafuelingfacilityandmodifyingotherbusfacilities,alongwithcostsassociatedwithoperatingandmaintainingthefuelingfacility.TTIusedtheruleofthumbprovidedbyTCRPReport146forCNGinfrastructure.Thisis$1millionplus$15,000foreveryCNGvehicle.

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

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

14B.Energy‐storagereplacement—Thissectionisonlyapplicabletohybridvehicles.METROsaidthatenergy‐storagereplacementisona12‐yearschedule.TTIdocumentedthisexpensewithintheenginerebuild.

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

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

16A.Fueltaxes—Thissectionaccountsforthepriceoftaxesonfuel.Nofederaltaxwasadded.TTIusedonlystatetaxfordiesel.

16B.Fuelcredits—CNGreceivesapproximately$0.54perDGEthroughDecember31,2011.ThereisapossibleextensionHR1380.

16C,16D,and16Ewereleftblankforthemodel.

ModelOutputsTheLCCMprojectsthe12‐yeartotalcostofeachpurchasescenario.Table3‐3providestheresultsofthemodel.Thecolumnsintheoutputtablereflectthefivepurchasescenarios.Therowsofthetableprovideeachoftheexpensesassociatedwiththepurchasescenarios.

46

Thelastthreerowsofthetableprovidethecapital,variable,andtotalLCC.Thetwoscenarioswiththelowestlife‐cyclecostsaretheCNG40‐footandCNG45‐foot.Thedieselscenarioshavealowertotallifecyclecostascomparedtothetwohybridscenarios.TheLCCMincludesthetaxcreditcurrentlyavailabletotransitagenciesoperatingCNG.WithoutthetaxcredittheTotalLCCfortheCNGscenarioswouldbe:

CNG40ft–$113,321,488(ascomparedto$105,354,275) CNG45ft‐$103,291,239(ascomparedto$97,691,239)

Asstatedpreviously,certainvariableshaveagreatereffectonLCC.ForthisLCCMscenario,thevariableswiththegreatestimpactontheLCCwere:

Annualmileagepervehicle. Fueleconomy. PriceperDGE.

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

47

Table3‐3LCCMOutputsScenarioComparisons:TabulatedResults(All MediumValues)

PurchaseScenarioNumber CNG40‐footCNG45‐foot

Diesel40‐foot

Diesel45‐foot

Hybrid40‐foot Hybrid45‐foot

Technology CNG CNG Diesel Diesel Hybrid‐Diesel Hybrid‐DieselNumberofUnits 100 100 100 100 100 100PurchaseYear 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

MileageperYear 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,000CostInputs

PurchaseScenarioNumber 1 2 3 4 5 6One‐TimeCosts

Training[1000dollars] 44.18 44.18 0.00 0.00 23.32 23.32Hybrids‐Diagnostics[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.42 117.42FuelingInfrastructure[1000dollars] 2500.00 2500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

One‐TimeGrants[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00One‐TimeCostsperBus

Purchase[1000dollars] 450.33 530.33 438.71 515.00 602.50 745.00PurchaseafterDiscount[1000dollars] 450.33 530.33 438.71 515.00 602.50 745.00

Warranty[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ICEngineReplacement[1000dollars] 33.70 33.70 33.70 33.70 28.70 28.70

Transmission[1000dollars] 22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 90.00 90.00Hybrids‐EnergyStorageReplacement[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hybrids‐SpareEnergyStorage[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 123.41 123.41VariableCosts

FacilitiesOperatingCostperYear[1000dollars] 442.62 311.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00UnscheduledMaintenanceCosts[dollarspermile] 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.30 0.14 0.12ScheduledMaintenanceCosts[dollarspermile] 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.19

TotalMaintenanceCosts[dollarspermile] 0.48 0.43 0.50 0.45 0.31 0.31FuelEconomy[milespergallon] 3.66 4.05 4.00 4.43 3.86 4.94

GallonsperYearperBus 12,295 8,642 11,250 7,901 11,658 7,085FuelCosts(withTaxes)[dollarpergallon] 1.96 1.96 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85

FuelCosts(w/TaxesandCredits)[dollarpergallon] 1.42 1.42 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85YearlyOperatingGrants[1000dollars] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

48

Table3‐4LCCMOutputs(continued)TotalLifecycleCosts(BaseYearDollars)

PurchaseScenarioNumber 1 2 3 4 5 6Subtotals

VehicleRelatedCapitalCosts 50,627,800 58,627,800 49,465,600 57,095,000 72,243,410 86,493,410OtherCapitalCosts 2,544,180 2,544,180 ‐ ‐ 140,740 140,740

VehicleUnscheduledMaintenanceCosts 16,200,000 10,500,000 18,900,000 12,600,000 6,480,000 5,040,000VehicleScheduledMaintenanceCosts 9,720,000 7,560,000 8,100,000 6,300,000 10,260,000 7,980,000

FuelCosts 20,950,820 14,725,926 51,975,000 36,501,129 53,860,104 32,732,794OtherVariableCosts 5,311,475 3,733,333 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TotalsTotalCapital 53,171,980 61,171,980 49,465,600 57,095,000 72,384,150 86,634,150

TotalVariable 52,182,295 36,519,259 78,975,000 55,401,129 70,600,104 45,752,794Total 105,354,275 97,691,239 128,440,600 112,496,129 144,064,254 132,386,944

49

Forexample,a2009NRELsurveyofCNGfleetsusedaCNGfuelpriceof$1.30DGE,andanotherNRELsurveyused$1.81DGE(AdamsandHome2010).Thehigh,medium,andlowdefaultfuelpricesfortheLCCMare$1.50,$1.84,and$2.02,respectively.Table3‐5providesthenaturalgaspricesfoundinliteratureresearch,peerexperience,andfederalfuel‐pricesources.

Table3‐5NaturalGasPricesperDGECNGPrice Source

$1.96 AlternativeFuelPriceReport, October 2011$0.60‐$1.80 Peerexperience$1.50 LCCMlowdefault$1.84 LCCMmediumdefault$2.02 LCCMhighdefault

Whenchoosingafuel,anagencymustalsoconsiderthecapitalinvestmentforvehiclesandinfrastructure.TheCNGandhybridscenarioseachhavehighercapitalcostsascomparedtothedieselpurchasescenario.Mostofthecapitalexpenditureisthepurchasecostofthevehicles;however,CNGrequiressignificantfuelinginfrastructure,andhybridvehiclesrequirediagnosticequipment.AdditionalcostsassociatedwithCNGareannualoperatingandmaintenancecosts.CNGfuelingfacilitieshavecompressorspoweredbyelectricityornaturalgas.Thesecompressorsrequireasignificantamountofenergyandongoingmaintenance.ThecostofoperatingandmaintainingtheCNGfuelingstationisonthe“othervariablecost”line.Figure3‐1andFigure3‐2providethetotalLCCofeachscenario.Asdiscussedpreviously,bothCNGscenarioshavealowerLCCascomparedtoeachoftheotherscenarios.Thefiguresclearlyshowthatvariablecosts(whichincludefuel)arelowerintheCNGscenarios.AsseeninFigure3‐3,thetotalLCCperbusforeachscenariorangesfromjustunder$1milliontoalmost$1.5million.Sinceeachscenarioincludesabuspurchaseof100vehicles,thedifferencebetweenthescenariosinLCCperbusissimilartothatofthetotalLCC.Figure3‐4providestheLCCpermileforeachscenario.Thecostpermileisdrivenbythetotalmilesthefleetisexpectedtotravel,dividedbytheLCCofthescenario.Thescenariostravelingthemostmileswhilemaintainingthelowestcosthavethelowestcostpermile.Thescenariowiththehighestcostpermileisthehybrid‐diesel45‐footvehicle.The45‐footscenarioshavethelowestmilesbecauseoftheoperatingcharacteristicsofroutesusing45‐footbuses.ThehigherLCCisdrivenbythecapitalcostsfromeachscenario.

50

Figure3‐1LCCScenarioComparison

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

CNGCNG 40'

CNGCNG 45'

DieselDiesel 40'

DieselDiesel 45'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 40'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 45'

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs Vehicle Scheduled Maintenance Costs

Fuel Costs

Other Variable Costs

Total Capital

Total Variable

Total

51

Figure3‐2LCCScenarioComparisonII

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

CNGCNG 40'

CNGCNG 45'

DieselDiesel 40'

DieselDiesel 45'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 40'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 45'

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

Total Capital Cost

Total Variable Cost

Total Life Cycle Cost

52

Figure3‐3LCCperBus

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

CNGCNG 40'

CNGCNG 45'

DieselDiesel 40'

DieselDiesel 45'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 40'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 45'

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs p

er B

us

Total Capital Cost per Bus

Total Variable Cost per Bus

Total Life Cycle Cost per Bus

53

Figure3‐4LCCperMile

KeyFindings ThetwoCNGscenarioshavealowerLCCthanthedieselandhybridscenarios.

Table3‐6provideseachscenario’stotalLCC.

Table3‐6LCCTotalsScenario TotalLCC

CNG40 foot $105,354,275CNG45 foot $97,691,239Diesel40 foot $128,440,600Diesel45 foot $112,496,129Hybrid40 foot $144,064,254Hybrid45 foot $132,386,944

WithoutthetaxcredittheTotalLCCfortheCNGscenarioswouldbe:o CNG40ft–$113,321,488(ascomparedto$105,354,275)o CNG45ft‐$103,291,239(ascomparedto$97,691,239)

FueleconomyandthepriceoffuelhavemajorimpactsontheoutputoftheLCCM.Minoradjustmentsmadetothesevariablesleadtosignificantchangesintheoutput.

Thecostofbuilding,maintaining,andoperatingaCNGfuelingfacilityissignificant;however,thepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoutweighstheinfrastructurecosts.

Fleetsizematters—infrastructurecostpervehicleisreducedforeachadditionalvehicle.

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

CNGCNG 40'

CNGCNG 45'

DieselDiesel 40'

DieselDiesel 45'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 40'

Hybrid-Diesel

Hybrid 45'

Do

llars

per

Mile Total Capital Cost per

Bus Per Mile

Total Variable Cost per Bus Per Mile

Total Life Cycle Cost per Bus per Mile

55

4. FinancialRisksAssociatedwithImplementingCNGInherentriskscomewithoperatinganytypeoffueledvehicles.ThistaskidentifiesandanalyzestherisksassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfuelingprogram.Thetaskincludesthefollowingsections:

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

Capitalcostexpendituresandcostrecovery—providesinformationonthepaybackperiodandrateofreturnwhenoperatingCNGvehicles.Thissectionalsoprovidesananalysisofthefleetsizeandcostsavingsexperienced.

LCCscenarioconsiderations—providesinformationonscenariosinwhichincreasesordecreasesinhigh‐impactcostvariableswouldmakeCNGoperationlessattractive.

Fuel‐SelectionRiskOverviewTCRPReport146providesanoverviewofrisksassociatedwithfuelselectionfortransitvehicles.Agenciesshouldconsiderfivetypesofriskwhenselectingafueltype:

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

Technologyrisks—riskfrommultiplefactorsassociatedwiththeintroductionofanewtechnology,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).

56

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.DepartmentofEnergy2011).Whileadisruptionmayoccurinthepipelinesupplytotheagency,thepossibilityofthedisruptionlastinglongtermisverylow.Twoofthepeeragencies,SunMetroandOmnitrans,useLNGasafeedstockthattheyconverttoCNGfuel.Thisprocessallowseachagencytohavefuelstorageon‐site.

CapitalCostExpendituresandCostRecoveryAsseenintheLCCMinthepreviouschapter,implementingaCNGfuelingoperationrequiresasignificantcapitalinvestment.Thissectionprovidesliteratureonthepaybackperiod,rateofreturn(ROR),andvaryingLCCMscenariosthatcouldcausefinancialimpactsontheuseofCNGinatransitfleet.

PaybackPeriodandRateofReturnThepaybackperiodandrateofreturnoninvestmentsprovideawaytomeasurethesuccessoftheinvestment.Thedefinitionsforpaybackperiodandrateofreturnare:

ROR—thedesiredannualreturnoninvestment.WhenchoosingatargetROR,manycompaniescompareittowhattheycouldmakeiftheyinvestedtheirmoneyinanotherprojectwithsimilarrisk.Tenpercentisagoodbaselineintheprivatesectorbecausethatiswhatthestockmarkethasaveragedoverthelongterm.Municipalgovernmentsgenerallyconsider6percentthebaselinebecausethatiswhatitcostsagovernmenttoraisemoneythroughbonds(Johnson2010).

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

ManyagenciesinvestinaCNGfuelingstationforcost‐savingsbenefits.Thecostsavingsarehighlydependentonthepriceoffuel.Otherfactorsincludethecostofmaintenanceofthevehiclesandthefuelingstation.AsseenintheLCCM,thecostofmaintainingCNGvehiclesissimilartothecostofmaintainingdieselvehicles.ThecostofmaintainingandpoweringtheCNGfuelingstationisonaverage$0.36perDGE.TomakeCNGeconomically

57

viable,naturalgasmustbepricedtooffsetthehighercapitalandoperatingexpendituresseeninCNGfacilitiesandvehicles.ThereportBusinessCaseforCompressedNaturalGasinMunicipalFleets,byCaleyJohnsonwiththeNREL,providesinformationonthefinancialaspectsofoperatingCNGinmunicipalfleets(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.

TheVICEmodelalsoincludesinputvariablesforincentivesandcreditsforpurchasingandoperatingCNGfleets.Thefollowinglistprovidestheincentivesandcreditsusedinthemodel:

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

TheVICEmodeldeterminedthatwhenatransitagencyhasapproximately50CNGvehicles,theagencycanexpecttoseeanRORofabout30percent,andwhenanagencyhas200CNGvehicles,theagencyhasanRORofabout50percent(Johnson2010).ThepaybackperiodforaCNGstationandvehicleinvestmentislargelydeterminedbythenumberofvehiclestheagencyoperates.WhenanagencyoperatesaCNGfleetofbetween10and20vehicles,thepaybackperiodmaybeinupwardsof15years.However,whenanagencyhasatleast30vehicles,thepaybackperioddropsprecipitouslytoaroundsixtosevenyears.Whenanagencyoperatesafleetof200vehicles,thepaybackperioddropstoaroundthreeyears(Johnson2010).JohnsondeterminedthatinorderforatransitagencytobreakevenbyreachinganRORofatleast6percent,theagencywouldneedtooperateatleast11vehicles(Johnson2010).Johnsonalsolookedatwhatthepaybackperiodwouldbewithoutthecreditsforafleetof100vehicles.TheresultsareprovidedinTable4‐1.

58

Table4‐1PaybackPeriodwithandwithoutCreditsCreditScenario AllCredits NoFuelCredit NoVehicleCredit NoStationCredit NoCreditsNumberofyears 3.6 5.9 5.5 3.6 9.1Asshowninthetable,thefuelcredithasthelargestimpact,followedbythevehiclecredit.Withoutanycredits,theexpectedpaybackperiodis9.1years.BasedontheresultsoftheVICEmodel,thecostbenefits/risksassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfleetaredependentontheavailablecredits;however,withoutcredits,theagencyshouldseebenefitswithinthenormal12‐yearlifeofthevehicle.TTIresearchersexaminedtheLCCMtodeterminetherequirednumberof40‐footCNGvehiclesatagivenfacilityneededtojustifythecapitalinvestmentforCNG.ResearchersfoundthatinordertoimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast10CNGvehiclestohavelowercostthanthatofdieselovera12‐yearvehiclelife.Inthisscenario,thecapitalcostsoftheCNGfuelingstationincludecapacityforonly10vehicles,whichisabout$1.15million.Thisscenarioalsodoesnotincludetaxcreditsforeitherfuel.Thepriceadvantageofnaturalgasoverdieselprovidesenoughsavingsthata10‐vehicleCNGfleetisviableatanyonefacility.Table4‐2providespurchasescenariosinincrementsoffivevehicles.BasedonthevariableswithintheLCCM,themorevehiclespurchased,thegreaterthecostsavings.

Table4‐2LCCof40‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits)

NumberofVehicles CNG40‐Foot Diesel40‐Foot Hybrid40‐Foot

%DifferenceBetweenCNGandDiesel

5 $6,658,045 $6,422,030 $7,454,155 ‐4%10 $12,271,911 $12,844,060 $14,644,160 4%15 $17,885,776 $19,266,090 $21,834,166 7%20 $23,499,642 $25,688,120 $29,024,171 9%25 $29,113,507 $32,110,150 $36,214,176 9%30 $34,727,372 $38,532,180 $43,404,181 10%35 $40,341,238 $44,954,210 $50,594,186 10%40 $45,955,103 $51,376,240 $57,784,191 11%45 $51,568,969 $57,798,270 $64,974,197 11%50 $57,182,834 $64,220,300 $72,164,202 11%55 $62,796,700 $70,642,330 $79,354,207 11%60 $68,410,565 $77,064,360 $86,544,212 11%65 $74,024,430 $83,486,390 $93,734,217 11%70 $79,638,296 $89,908,420 $100,924,223 11%75 $85,252,161 $96,330,450 $108,114,228 12%80 $90,866,027 $102,752,480 $115,304,233 12%85 $96,479,892 $109,174,510 $122,494,238 12%90 $102,093,757 $115,596,540 $129,684,243 12%95 $107,707,623 $122,018,570 $136,874,248 12%100 $113,321,488 $128,440,600 $144,064,254 12%

Figure4‐1providesthepurchasescenariosingraphicform.Thefigureshowsthatastheagencypurchasesmorevehicles,thegapwidensbetweentheLCCofdieselandtheLCCofCNGgrows.

59

Figure4‐1LCCof40‐footBusPurchaseScenarios

TTIresearchersranthesameincrementaltestusingthe45‐footbusscenarios.Table4‐3providestheresultsoftheincrementalpurchasescenarios.Theresultsaresimilartothatofthe40‐footbustest.METROwouldbreakevenonaninvestmentof10‐45‐footCNGvehicles.At15vehicles,METROwouldbegintoseesavingsoverthedieselscenario.

Table4‐3LCCof45‐FootBusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits)

NumberofVehicles CNG45Foot Diesel45Foot Hybrid45Foot

%DifferenceBetweenCNGandDiesel

5 $6,156,533 $5,624,806 $6,870,290 ‐9%10 $11,268,886 $11,249,613 $13,476,429 0%15 $16,381,239 $16,874,419 $20,082,569 3%20 $21,493,592 $22,499,226 $26,688,709 4%25 $26,605,945 $28,124,032 $33,294,848 5%30 $31,718,298 $33,748,839 $39,900,988 6%35 $36,830,651 $39,373,645 $46,507,128 6%40 $41,943,004 $44,998,451 $53,113,267 7%45 $47,055,357 $50,623,258 $59,719,407 7%50 $52,167,710 $56,248,064 $66,325,547 7%55 $57,280,063 $61,872,871 $72,931,686 7%60 $62,392,416 $67,497,677 $79,537,826 8%65 $67,504,768 $73,122,484 $86,143,966 8%70 $72,617,121 $78,747,290 $92,750,105 8%75 $77,729,474 $84,372,096 $99,356,245 8%80 $82,841,827 $89,996,903 $105,962,385 8%85 $87,954,180 $95,621,709 $112,568,524 8%90 $93,066,533 $101,246,516 $119,174,664 8%95 $98,178,886 $106,871,322 $125,780,804 8%100 $103,291,239 $112,496,129 $132,386,944 8%

Figure4‐2providestheincrementalpurchasescenariosingraphicform.

$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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Total LCC

Vehicles

CNG 40 Foot

Diesel 40 Foot

Hybrid 40'

60

Figure4‐2LCCof45‐footBusPurchaseScenarios

METROisconsideringpurchasingCNGvehiclesbeginningin2014.Table4‐4providesthepossibleprocurementplan.ThetabledisplaysMETRO’splantopurchaseadditionalhybridsand60‐footarticulatedtransitvehicles.METROisconsideringpurchasing524CNGvehiclesbetween2014and2020.

Table4‐4METROProcurementPlanType 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

45‐FootHybrid 20 45‐FootHybrid 70 40‐FootHybrid 40 40‐FootHybrid 80 40‐FootHybrid 100 60‐FootArtic 80 60‐FootARTICS 3045‐FootCNG 45 45‐FootCNG 45 45‐FootCNG 49 45‐FootCNG 2540‐FootCNG 100 40‐FootCNG 10040‐FootCNG 55 40‐FootCNG 5540‐FootCNG 51 40‐FootCNG 7540‐FootCNG 100Total 140 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

TTIresearchersusedtheLCCMtorunmultipleprocurementscenariosforeachpurchaseyear.TheanalysisincludedtheproposednumberofbusesineachpurchaseyearandaccountedfortherequiredinfrastructureforeachCNGpurchase.Theinfrastructurecostsforeachpurchasearecalculatedbasedon$1,000,000+($15,000×thenumberofbuses).Table4‐5providestheresultsoftheanalysis.

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

CNG 40 Foot

Diesel 40 Foot

Hybrid 45 foot

61

Table4‐5BusPurchaseScenarios(NoCredits)Year #of40‐foot #of45‐foot CNG Diesel Hybrid‐Diesel2014 100 0 $113,321,488 $128,440,600 $144,064,2542015 100 0 $113,321,488 $128,440,600 $144,064,2542016 55 45 $109,852,056 $121,265,588 $139,073,6142017 55 45 $109,852,056 $121,265,588 $139,073,6142018 51 49 $109,450,846 $120,627,809 $138,606,5222019 75 25 $111,858,106 $124,454,482 $141,409,0762020 100 0 $113,321,488 $128,440,600 $144,064,254Total 536 164 $780,977,528 $872,935,267 $990,355,588

Ineachpurchase,themodeloutputshowsthecostsavingsofCNGoverdieselandhybrid‐diesel.Basedonthescenario,theagencycanexpectsavingsofabout$92millionontheLCCforCNGoverdiesel.

LCCScenarioConsiderationsTousetheLCCMtoassessthefinancialriskassociatedwithimplementingaCNGfleet,TTIresearchersadjustedthehigh‐impactvariableswithinthemodeltodeterminewhentheLCCsfordieselandCNGareaboutequal.Researcherskeptallvariablesconstantwiththeexceptionofthehigh‐impactvariables,providedinTable4‐6.Researchersalsoassumednocreditsareavailable.ThistestscenariocomparesaCNG40‐footbusestoadiesel40‐footbuses.

Table4‐6LCCHigh‐ImpactVariables

InputsCNG40‐Foot

CNG45‐Foot

Diesel40‐Foot

Diesel45‐Foot

Hybrid40‐Foot

Hybrid45‐Foot

SizeofFleet 100 100 100 100 100 100AnnualMileageperVehicle 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,000 45,000 35,000FuelEconomy(MilesperDGE) 3.66 4.05 4.00 4.43 3.86 4.94ProjectedFuelCosts(perDGE) $1.96 $1.96 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65UnscheduledMaintenance $0.30 $0.25 $0.35 $0.30 $0.14 $0.12ScheduledMaintenance $0.18 $0.18 $0.15 $0.15 $0.19 $0.19Infrastructure $2.5million $2.5million ‐ ‐ ‐AnnualO&MforFuelingStation $442,620 $311,110 ‐ ‐ ‐ThefuelpricesperDGEusedinthisLCCMscenarioare$1.96forCNGand$3.65fordiesel.Withallvariablesstayingconstantincludingthepriceofdieselfuel,thepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.99tobreakevenwiththecostofdieselinthe40‐footbusscenario.Thiswouldrepresenta53percentincreaseinthecostofCNGperDGE.Inthe45‐footbusscenario,CNGwouldneedtoincrease45percentto$2.85perDGE.Fromanotherperspective,ifthepriceofCNGremainsconstantat$1.96whiledieseldropsinprice,thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$2.53beforetheLCCsof40‐footCNGanddieselscenariosbreakeven.Thisrepresentsa31percentdecreaseinthepriceofdiesel.Inthe45‐footbusscenario,dieselwouldneedtodecrease27percentto$2.68pergallon.AsseeninFigure2‐1,thepricesofCNGanddieseltendtoincreaseanddecreaseatthesametime,soanincreaseinCNGpricewouldresultinanincreaseindieselpriceaswell.Table4‐7andTable4‐8providetheCNGanddieselscenariosusedintheLCCanalysis.The

62

tablesprovidethebreakevenfuelpricesforCNGanddieselunderthe40‐footand45‐footLCCscenarios.

Table4‐7CNGBreakevenFuelPricewithDiesel(NoCredits)

VehicleTypeCurrentFuelPrice

Breakeven %+or‐ OriginalLCCLCCafterAdjustment

CNG40‐Foot $1.96 $2.99 53% $113,321,488 $128,518,209Diesel40‐Foot $3.65 $3.65 0% $128,440,600 $128,440,600CNG45‐Foot $1.96 $2.85 45% $97,691,239 $112,520,869Diesel45‐Foot $3.65 $3.65 0% $112,496,129 $112,496,129

Table4‐8DieselBreakevenFuelPricewithCNG(NoCredits)

VehicleType CurrentFuelPrice

BreakevenPrice

%+or‐ OriginalLCC LCCafterAdjustment

CNG40‐Foot $1.96 $1.96 0% $113,321,488 $113,321,488Diesel40‐Foot $3.65 $2.53 ‐31% $128,440,600 $113,320,600CNG45‐Foot $1.96 $1.96 0% $103,291,239 $103,291,239Diesel45‐Foot $3.65 $2.68 ‐27% $112,496,129 $103,299,740

Table4‐6providesthescheduledandunscheduledmaintenancecostestimatesforeachLCCscenario.Thetotalmaintenancecostspermilerangefrom$0.31to$0.50.Eachagencyexperiencesvaryingcostsassociatedwithmaintenancebecausemaintenancecostsarelargelydependentontheoperatingconditionsofthevehicle.TodeterminethecostinwhichmaintenanceonCNGvehicleswouldhavetoriseinordertobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehicles,TTIresearchersadjustedmaintenancecostswithintheLCCM.Allothervariablesinthemodelwereheldconstantwiththepreviousanalysisconductedinthisreport.Table4‐9providestheresultsofadjustingthecostofmaintainingCNGvehicles.

Table4‐9CNGMaintenanceBreakevenPricewithDiesel(NoCredits)

VehicleType MaintenanceperMile

Breakeven %+or‐ OriginalLCC LCCafterAdjustment

CNG40‐Foot $0.48 $0.76 58% $113,321,488 $128,441,488Diesel40‐Foot $0.50 $0.50 0% $128,440,600 $128,440,600CNG45‐Foot $0.43 $0.75 74% $103,291,239 $112,531,239Diesel45‐Foot $0.45 $0.45 0% $112,496,129 $112,496,129

ThetableshowsthatCNG40‐footmaintenancecostswouldneedtoincrease58percentto$0.76permiletohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.TheCNG45‐footmaintenancecostswouldneedtoincrease74percenttohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.

KeyFindings ThepriceofCNGperDGEwouldneedtoaverage$2.99fortheLCCsof40‐footCNG

anddieseltobreakeven.Thiswouldrepresentanincreaseofabout53percentinthecostofCNGperDGE.

Thepriceofdieselwouldneedtodropto$2.53fortheLCCsof40‐footCNGanddieselbreakeven.Thisrepresentsadecreaseof31percentinthepriceofdiesel.

63

Maintenancecostsfor40‐footCNGwouldneedtoincrease58percentto$0.76permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.Maintenancecostsfor45‐footCNGwouldneedtoincrease74percentto$0.75permilefortheCNGscenariotohavethesameLCCasthedieselscenario.

ToimplementaCNGfuelingoperation,theagencyneedsatleast10CNGvehiclestobreakevenwiththecostofoperatingdieselvehiclesovera12‐yearvehiclelife.

WhenusingtheMETRObuspurchasescenariosintheLCC,thepurchaseofCNGvehiclesinsteadofdieselvehiclesleadstoabout$92millioninsavingsovercumulativeservicelivesofthevehicles.

65

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.

67

AppendixA:Bus‐FleetInventory

68

FigureA‐1NumberofVehiclesbyType

FigureA‐2AverageFuelEconomybyVehicleType

582

219261

122

32 25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

40' diesel 40' Hybrid 45' diesel 45' hybrid 60' Artic (diesel)

29' diesel

4.027 3.864.254

4.94

2.27

4.238

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

40‐foot diesel

40‐foot Hybrid

45‐foot diesel

45‐foot hybrid

60‐foot Artic (diesel)

29‐foot diesel

69

FigureA‐3NumberofVehiclesbyFacility

FigureA‐4MileagebyVehicleAge

199

229

136

199

172

281

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FALLBROOK HIRAM CLARKE

KASHMERE NW POLK WEST

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mileage

70

FigureA‐5AverageMileagebyFacility

326,503275,126

362,692

481,167430,685

309,202

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Mileage