USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Alternative fuels implementation plan for Pinellas County

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Alternative fuels implementation plan for Pinellas County transit component : evaluation report
Physical Description:
iv, 104 leaves : charts ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines -- Florida -- Pinellas County   ( lcsh )
Buses -- Motors (Compressed-gas) -- Florida -- Pinellas County   ( lcsh )
Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition -- Alternate fuels   ( lcsh )
Air quality management -- Florida -- Pinellas County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-100).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Prepared for the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization in cooperation with the Florida Dept. of Transportation.
General Note:
"October 1995."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927289
oclc - 33326443
usfldc doi - C01-00316
usfldc handle - c1.316
System ID:
SFS0032388:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Alternative Fuels Implementation Plan for Pinellas County: Transit Component Evaluation Report This project i s funded through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, under a joint participati on agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization. This project is funded under the following ratio: 80% Federal, 20% State/FOOT. WPI No. 7616650 State Job No.15007-3812 Contract No. AA971 Federal Job No. CM8888 (100) MPO Resolution No. 93-19 Prepared for the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Centar for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida OCtober 1995

PAGE 2

I. II Ill. IV. v VI. VII. VIII IX. Tab l e of Contents Purpose Executive Summary Introduction to Fuel Types Pine llas County Air Quality Review A. In troduction to Air Pollutants B. Comparing Pinellas County Air Quality to National Standard s C. Status of Tampa Bay's Application for "Attain ment" Designation D. Frequency o f AQ Testing/ Rational for AQ Testi ng Locations E. Summary Literature Review A. Air Quality Impacts of Different Alternative Fuels B Summary of AFV Bus Pilot Projects C Summary of Tampa Bay Regional AFV Pilot Projects Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Fuel Type A. Regulatory Issues B. Fuel Availability C. Vehicle Availability D. Performance E Refueling Facilities F Cost G Safety a nd Maintenance H Summ a ry of Compa risons Detailed Feasibi lity Analys i s A. Methodology B Analysis by route by bus C Emission Rates D Unit Costs E. Summary Selectio n of the Preferred Im p l ementation Plan Recommendations and Conclusions Bibliography Appendix A List of Contacts Page 1 Page2 PageS PageS PageS Page 10 Page 13 Page 15 Page 16 Page 26 Page 26 Page 27 Page 34 Page37 Page37 Page37 Page 38 Page 38 Page 4 0 Page 41 Page 43 Page44 Page46 Page46 Page46 Page 77 Page 80 Page 86 Page 95 Page 97 Page 98 Page 101

PAGE 3

List of Tables Table 1 National Ambient Air Quality Sti!ndaii:is Table 2 Air Quality Impacts Table 3 1994 Passenger Fleet: Buses, Vans & Trolleys Table 4 Tampa Bay Regional A.F.V. Pilot Projects Table 5 AF Bus/Engine Availability Table 6 Miles Between Refueling Table 7 Preliminary Capital and Operating Costs Table 8 Fuel Assessment Matrix Table 9 Daily Miles By Route, By Bus Table 10 Refueling Requirements Table 11 Refueling Details By Route, By Bus Table 12 Feasibility of Conversion By Route, By Bus for Electric Table 13 Proposed Bus Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes in St. Petersburg Division Table 14 Proposed Bus Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes in Clearwater Division Tab l e 15 Feasibility of Proposed Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes for CNG and LNG fuels Table 16 Replacement Schedule By Route By Bus, By Fuel Table 17 Average Emission Rates by Fuel Type Table 18 Detailed Cost Data by Fuel type in 1994-95 Table 19 Distribution of Buses, Routes, Miles, Emissions and Costs by Fuel Table 20 Estimated Cost Comparison by Fuel Option Page 11 Page 26 Page 28 Page 36 Page 39 Page40 Page43 Page45 Page47 Page 56 Page 65 Page 67 Page69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 78 Page82 Page 88 Page 96

PAGE 4

List o f Fi gures Figure 1 Ambient Ozone Concentrations Page 17 Figure 2 Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Page 18 F i gure 3 Amb ient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (8-Hour Levels) Page 19 Figure 4 Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (1Hour Levels) Page20 Figure 5 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations(24 Hour Levels) Page 21 Figure 6 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations Page 22 (Annua l Mean Levels) Figure 7 Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations (3-Hour L eve l s) Page23 Figure 8 Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations Page24 (Annual Mean Level s) F i gure 9 Ambient Lead Concentrations Page 25 Figure 10 Average Emission Rates of Major Pollutants by Fuel Type Page 79 Figure 11 Fuel Cost Comparison by Fue l Type Page 83 F i gure 12 Mai ntenance Cost Comparison by Fuel Type Page 84 F i gure 13 Capital Cost Comparison by Fuel Type Page 85 Figure 14 Distribution of buses in PSTA with CNG as main fue l Page 89 Figure 15 Distribution of buses in PSTA with L N G as main fuel Page 90 Figure 1 6 Distr i bution of routes in PSTA with CNG as main fuel Page 91 Figure 1 7 Distribution of routes in PSTA with LN G as main fue l Page 92 Figure 18 D istribution of vehicle miles in PS T A w ith CNG as Page93 mai n fuel Figure 19 Distribut i on of vehic l e miles in PSTA w ith CNG as Page 94 main fuel

PAGE 5

I. PURPOSE On July 15, 1994, the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) issued notice-to-proceed to the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida (USF) for the development of an alternative fuels implementation plan for the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA). This evaluation report examines data on Pinellas County's air quality and ide ntifies the most pressing air quality problems that an alternative fuels implementation plan should address. This report also examines the state-of-the-art of alternative fuel vehicles in transit, and provides an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each fuel type. Finally, this report recommends the alternative fuel (or combination of alternative fuels) most feasible for implementation by PST A. Fuel types examined in this study are: reformulated gasoline and reformulated diesel (RFG and RFD) propane the main ingredient in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) compressed natural gas (CNG) liquefied natural gas (LNG) ethanol methanol biodiesel electric vehicles (including EVs with solar recharging stations) A general assessment is performed for the use of these fue ls In all types of vehicles in PST A's fleet: transit buses, passenger vans and other assorted non-revenue vehicles, with an emphasis on full-size transit buses. This general assessment (originally compiled in early 1995) is followed by a detailed analysis (i.e., by bus, by route), beginning in section VII, that was prepared in July 1995 based on December 1994 PSTA daily operations plan 1

PAGE 6

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report assesses eight different alternative fuel options ava il able to the P in ellas Suncoast Transit Authority for conversion of Its transit fleet, i n order to select an a l ternative fue ls Implementation p l an most feasible for PSTA. Of the eight different fuel options initially considered (reformulated gasoline and diesel, propane, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel and electricity,) two liquid/gas fuels -compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas show the greatest potential for successful conversion and were included in the detailed feasibility analys is. In addition electricity was also included in the detailed ana l ysis because of lo w cost availability, and applicability for short range routes The recommended alternative fuels implementation plan utilizes CNG as the primary fue l, w i th electricity and diesel as the secondary fuel for routes t hat either have short range an d low l oad factors or require a spare CNG bus from garage to resume operat i ons during refueling Table 8 contains a fuel assessment matrix wh ich evaluates each of the initial eight fuels according to the following criteria: air quality impacts, safety and maintenance Issues, fuel availability, vehicle availability, performance, refueling facilities vehicle costs, fuel costs, and regulatory requirements. Tables 19 and 20 describe the characteristics of the recommended CNG-Eiectric-Diesel implementation plan. Regulatory Issues The Energy Policy Act (EPACD of 1992 has an in direct but tangible effect on PS T A's options for alternative fuel conversion EPACT defines acceptable clean fue l s for AFV new purchase requirements of centrally fueled fleets. Although the Act currently exempts heavy-duty vehicles (weight greater than 8,500 pounds), it does serve as guidance for long term acceptance within the national program for conversion to non-petroleum based fue ls. The secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy still has the option of revoking the heavy-duty vehicle exemption, prior to January 1 2000. EPACT defines acceptable clean fuels as those which are "substantially not petroleum" i e. propane, CNG LNG ethanol methanol and electricity 2

PAGE 7

In July 1995, the EPA, leading manufacturers of heavy-duty diese l engines and the California Ai r Resources Board (CARB) signed a Statement of Principles requiring engine manufacturers to produce eng i nes by yea r 2004 that cut nitrogen oxides by half whi l e retaining the particulate matter standards for heavy-duty engines. As part of this agreement, EPA will propose a new heavy-duty emission reduction program later this year, to begin with yea r 2004 diese l and gasoline models Engine manufacturers will be able to choose one of two different comb i nations of hydrocarbon (non-Methane) and nitrogen oxide standards Air Quality T he review of Pinellas County air quality data concluded that the primary concern regarding pollutants from mobile sources in the county is chemicals wh i ch produce ground level ozone, i.e. volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)Although all fuel options except propane reduce VOCs emissions when displacing petroleum based f ue ls, only CNG and LNG have proven capability to address the NOx problem. E l ectricity is also holds s i gnificant promise to reduce ground-leve l ozone precursor pollutants, however a more deta i led environmental analysis of the method of electr i city generation i n Pinellas County i s needed. Secondary concerns included particulate matter under 10 microns in s ize (PM-1 0) and carbon monoxide All fuel options conside r ed reduce emiss i ons of these pollutants. Fuel Availability and Refueling Facilities All fuel options considered are available from some domestic U.S. source. However on l y propane, CNG and electricity have the refueling infrastructure already i n place i n Pinellas County. There are two public "quick-fill" CNG/propane refueling facilities located in Pinellas County, with two more planned plus several pub li c propane-only sites Electric buses and vehic l es can u ndergo a slow (8-hour) recharge at any 15-amp outle t. Vehicle Availability Only CNGand LNG-powered engines are available from a wide range of manufacturers, enabling PSTA to be assured of competitive bids B i odiesel and RFD, of course, can be 3

PAGE 8

used in any conventional diesel-powered bus engine. The wide range of manufacturers also enables these alternatively-fueled engines to frt into a wide range of bus sizes. Only the CNGand LNG-powered engines were guaranteed by the manufacturers to fit into buses rang i ng in size from 28-foot to 40-foot, which encompasses most percent of the PSTA bus fleet. Electric buses from Advanced Vehicle Systems come only in 22-foot and 31-foot sizes. Performance Wrth the exception of fuels derived from diesel, all the fuel options examined have a lower energy content than diesel. The lower energy content limits the distance the alternatively fueled buses can travel between refueling. Assum i ng that an alternatively-powered bus would have the same size 125-gallon tank as a conventional diesel-powered bus, only a subset of the fuels propane, LNG, ethanol, methanol and biodiesel would be ab l e to meet the average daily mileage requirement of the average PSTA bus (131 mi l es) However, buses running on CNG and LNG install large capacity fuel storage tanks to compensate for the low energy content of these fuels, boosting their range between retuelings to 250 miles and 350 miles, respectively. Electric buses have an average range of 50 75 miles between recharging. Biodiesel and RFD offer almost 100% of the energy content of diesel. Cost A l ternative fueled buses are now becoming available directly from bus manufacturers with the alternatively-fueled engine already installed. The additional cost of buses which run on CNG, LNG, ethanol and methanol is essentially the incremental cost of the a l ternatively fueled engine itself. An electric bus cannot be converted from a diesel-powered bus and must be purchased outright. Biodiesel and RFD can run on any regular diesel-powered engine with minimum modification. Typical base costs of a 35-foot regular diesel powered bus are currently in the $250,000 range, with ADA accessibility, communications equipment and other amenities. The maximum incremental costs of various types of alternatively-fueled buses vary from about 4

PAGE 9

$36,000 for a CNGor LNG-powered bus to $50,000 for an ethanol-or methanol-powered engine. Advanced Vehicle Systems' base price (February 1995) for a 31-foot electric bus is $230,000. This unit price was later revised upward to $280,000 to reflect July 1995 costs and add-ons for a i r conditioning and ADA require ments. Only electricity is estimated to be a less expensive fuel option than diese l in terms of both capital and operating costs. I t s hould be noted, however, that estimates for operating costs are taken from case studies in other areas of the country and will not necessarily be the case in P i nellas County. Safety and Maintenance Every fuel used to power transit vehicles, including gasoline and diesel, has its own safety considerations. However, methanol stands out as requiring extra safety precautions. Methanol is an extremely tox i c fuel; maintenance technicians must wear p r o te ctive clothing and gloves to keep the fue l from getting on their skin. I n addition, methano l is i n visibly flammable and heavier than air, so when leaked it poo l s on the floor causing a fire hazard. The fuels of the next h i ghest levels of concern are CNG and LNG because significant the properties of these fuels (the high storage pressure of CNG and low storage temperature of LNG) require significant retrofitting of refueling sites to meet safety guidel i nes. 5

PAGE 10

Ill. INTRODUCTION TO FUEL TYPES This report examines the most common types of alternative fuels available today, namely: reformulated gasoline (RFG) and reformulated diesel (RFD), propane -the main ingredient in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. This study does not deal with futuristic, still-experimental technologies such as hydrogen fuel-cells. Propane is the primary gas in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Precise gas mixtures vary, however a recent shipment of LPG from Siegel Gas was found to be composed of 91% propane, 2.7% methane, 1.35% butane, 0.93% propine, 0.3% inert gases, 0.02% hydrocarbons, and 3. 7% other substances. Propane is currently the most widely used alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuel in the United States. By 1993, there were over 350,000 propane powered vehicles in the U.S. Compressed natural gas, which is composed primarily of methane, is stored in fuel tanks at very high pressure, between 3,000 and 4,800 pounds per square inch. CNG must be stored in special tanks which take up space and add weight to the vehicle. Refueling of CNG vehicles can take longer than conventional vehicles because the fuel must be kept pressurized during the process Despite this limi tation, CNG has become a popular choice among transit agencies in Florida as an alternative fuel for their buses. Metro-Dade Transit Authority has five CNG-powered vehicles in operation, LYNX has six in operation (with an additional 10 on order), and HARTline is planning to purchase such vehicles. Liquefied natural gas is produced when natural gas is subjected to temperatures of 260F. The fuel turns to liquid and can be pumped directly into a fuel tank. LNG storage tanks do not need to maintain the same pressure requirements as CNG, but they do need special insulation to keep the fuel at the low temperature Methanol is a liquid fuel which can be produced from several sources, including natural gas, alcohol, wood, coal and biomass. Because methanol can be made from coal, it is a popular choice in areas with large coal reserves, such as the western United States. Since methanol-powered vehicles have difficulty starting in cold wea ther, the methanol is frequently mixed with gasoline at a 85 percent to 15 percent (of methanol) ratio (M85). 6

PAGE 11

Ethano l is a liquid fuel derived from organic substances such as oom. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline (at a rate of up to 5 percent) and run on conventional engines to reduce pollutants and decrease fuel oosts if ethanol oosts l ess than gasoline tOr a particular area. Dedicated vehicles with specially-made engines can operate on 1 00 percent ethanol. Biodlesel is currently described by the EPA as a "fue l oomponenf', an additive to fuels such as diesel. The bio component is made from renewable energy source s primarily vegetable oil through a process called "transesterifica tion", which separates the liquid from glycerine. Biodiesel, mixed with diesel at a 20 percent to 80 percent ratio, can be used In conventional diesel-powered engines without modification to the vehicle. Biodlesel advocates say that the 20 percent-80 percent mix s i gnificantly reduces diesel emi ss i ons : particu late matter by 31 percent, CO by 21 percent a n d VOCs by 50 percent. B iodiesel does not reduce NO. emissions. With e l ectric vehicles (EVs) energy is stored in a battery w hich must be recharged frequently. The distance EVs can travel between rechargings (l ess than 100 miles) I s much more limited than the distance between refuellngs provided by gasoline-or diesel powered vehicles. However, research and development of electric vehicles is popular among many start-u p firms in Florida, such as Renaissance Cars of Palm Bay, Solar Car Corporation of Melbourne and Energy Partners of West Palm Beach. See Appendix A for more detailed oontact information PSTA purchased a 22-foot electric vehicle in Apri l 1995 which will be rech a rged alon g its route by a solar recharge stat ion, operated by the C l ean Energy & Vehicle Researc h Center at the University of South F lorida. The USF Center is one of only a dozen s i tes In the oountry pursuing research, development and performance monitoring of solar r echarge stations for electric vehicles. The PSTA "solar bus" project will be the first in the country to use solar-genera ted electricity to recharge battery powered transit vehicles 7

PAGE 12

IV. PINELLAS COUNTY AIR QUALITY REVIEW Pinellas County has begun the process of becoming redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from a marginal non-atta i nment area to an air quality attainment area. However, for certain criteria air pollutants, the margin available for incremental growth of pollution levels is modest with respect to exceeding the standards. Public health and welfare protection diminishes as pollution levels approach the standards The air quality data contained in this section is taken from Air Quality Reports published annually by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Air Quality Division. A. Introduction to Air Pollutants This section examines Pinellas County air quality data for the air pollutants for which gasolineand dieselpowered vehicles are a common source: ground-level ozone nitrogen dioxide (NOJ, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size (PM 1 0) carbon monoxide (CO) and lead. This section also examines sulphur dioxide (S02 ) which is a common by-product of electricity generated by burning coal (as is practiced by Florida Power in Pinellas County.) The Clean Air Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set and enforce air quality standards for the protection of the public health and welfare. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a number of air pollutants. Unlike emission standards, which regulate the quantity of pollutants at the source, the NAAQS prescribe minimum acceptable standards in terms of concentrations of pollutants in the ambient a ir. Ground-level ozone results when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with sunlight. Even low concentrations of {)Zone have been found to severely impa i r breathing and cause lung inflammation in healthy people according to the Environmental Protection Administration. Reduced lung function is often accompanied by chest pain, coughing nausea and congestion. 8

PAGE 13

Nationwide, more than one third of VOCs emissions come from transportation with the remainder produced by industrial and commercial sources, such as painting and dry cleaning. Volatile organic compounds is a class of chemicals which includes hydrocarbons (HC). The two terms ''VOCs" and "HCs" are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes used synonymously with "ground-level ozone." However, the three terms are not synonyms. Nitrogen oxides (NO.) are the secondary contributing po ll utant to ground-level ozone formation. In addition to contributing to acid rain, NO can irritate the lungs and lower people's resistance to respiratory infections l ike the flu Prolonged exposure to high concentrations of NO can cause acute respiratory disease in children The EPA has set national air quality standards for one type of NOx called nitrogen dioxide (N02). T he county Department of Environmental Protection measures N02 to ensure that Pinellas County meets the nationa l standard Particulate matter of less than 10 microns in size (PM 1 0) i s about half the diameter of a human hair. PM-10 can be toxic because it is small enough to be breathed i nto human -lungs. PM-1 0 is composed of soot, dust, smoke, sulfate and nitrate particles. Less than one-third of PM-1 0 pollution is caused by transportation sources. However of that one third, diesel exhaust is a main contr i butor. The r emainder of PM-10 pollution is caused by burning of fossil fuel for manufacturing and electricity generation. It is common knowledge that breathing large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) from automobile exhaust emitted in an enclosed space (such as a garage) can be lethal. Hemoglobin, an i r on-containing protein in red blood cells, is responsib l e for carrying oxygen to the body's organs. CO blocks hemoglobin's ability to carry oxygen. As a result, CO is most threaten i ng to people suffering from card i ovascula r disease, even at relatively low leve l s. At higher leve l s, CO can impair motor skills, visual perception and abi l ity to perform complex tasks. Because unburned gasoline is the primary source of carbon monoxide, the po ll utant is a particular prob l em in areas with co l d winters, when starting a co l d engine requires a richer gasoline-a i r mixture. 9

PAGE 14

Because of the removal of lead from most gasoline sold in th e United States, lead emissions have decreased 98% since 1970. As a heavy metal, le ad accumulates in the body tissue, including blood and bones. For children and pregnant women, low levels of lead can affect the central nervous system. At higher levels, neurological damage such as seizures, mental retardation and behavioral disorders can appear in adults. The EPA also sets national air quality standards for sulphur dioxide (502 ) because it is a major cause of lung disease and acid rain. However, only a small amount of the total 502 em issio ns come from transportation, with the majority being emitted by coal-burning electricity generation plants. B. Comparing Pinellas County Air Quality to National Standards Table 1 summarizes for each air pollutant: its contributing causes, national air quality standards, recent measurements in Pinellas County, and priority as a critical air quality issue i n this area. The remainder of this section compares the leve ls of each pollutant found in Pinellas County air to the national standards. Ozone Because it involves the mixing of large volumes of air in the atmosphere, ozone levels are generally fairly consistent across an airshed. A rece nt emission inventory of Pinellas County indicated that on-road vehicles account for over 40 percent of the VOC and over 50 percent of the NOx emissions. Figure 1 depicts ambient ozone readings at three monitoring locations for the three years 1991 through 1993. While it has been several years since Pinellas County experienced a violation of the national standard of 120 parts per billion (ppb), not to be exceeded more than one hour per year, the margins safety are very modest. As indicated, over the three year period, maximum readings have ranged between 85 ppb and 115 ppb -a narrow margin indeed. With the stochastic nature of ozone formation, including the influence of weather and atmospheric variability, this narrow margin dictates that the County place a major level of importance on continuing to control ozone precursors. 10

PAGE 15

Pollutant Grou n d-Level Ozone Nitrogen Dioxi de (N02 ) Parti c u late M atter (PM-10) Carbo n Monoxide (CO) Sulphur Dioxide (S02 ) Lead Source: T a ble 1 National Amb i e n t Air Qu a lity S tand ards C o ntrib uting Factors EPA Standard M a x im u m Readings Rank of in Pi n ellas Co unty Severi ty (1991-1993) MiXing of volati l e 120 ppb 85-115 ppb 1 organic compoun ds ( 1-hour) ( 1 -ho ur) (VOCs) and oxides o f n i trogen ( N O,) with sunlight Evaporation of 0 05 ppm 0 0 1 4 ppm 2 gasoline or d iesel fuel a t (annual mean) (an nual mean) gas pump Unbu r ned fuel from automobile tailpip es Emi ssions from 150 microg r ams/ 100 micrograms/ 3 diesel-powered vehi cles cubic meter cubic meter Burnin g o f fossil fuels (24-hour) (24h our) for manufactu r ing and 5 0 micrograms/ 20-30 electrtc i ty ge nerati on cubic meter micrograms/ cubi c (an nual mean) meter (an nual mean) Emissi ons from 35 ppm 8 ppm 4 a ulomobile tailpip es (1-hour) (1-hour) 8 ppm 5 ppm (8-h0ur) (8-hour) Coal-burning for 0 5 p p m 0.25 p p m 5 e l ectricity generation (3-ho ur) (3-hour) 0.03 ppm 0 005 015 ppm (annual mean ) (annual mean) Emissions from 1 5 m i crograms/ 0 007 micrograms/ 6 automotive tailpipes cubic meter cubic meter when fuel c o ntains lead (qua rt erly mean ) ( q uarterly mean) addit i ves Battery manufacturing plants Non-ferrous smelter s P i n e llas County Department of Environmental Managemen t and Center for Neighb orhood Technology. 11

PAGE 16

Nitrogen Dioxide The standard is set at an annual arithmetic niean of 0.05 parts per million (ppm), whi le readings at the County's monitoring site have been c onsistently in the 0.014 ppm range (annual arithmetic mean) for the past three years. See Figure 2. However Pinellas County set its own more stringent NO, emissions cap when demonstrating in the 1990 Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Inventory that it had achieved attainment of NAAQ S. The sli m margin of incremental growth for NO is of great concern. Although N O 2 levels in Pinellas County are far below the national standard, NO, Is a surrogate for tracking the emissions of nitrogen for the purpose of ozone formation. Carbon Monoxide Transportation sources are reported to account for over 98 percent of all carton monoxide (CO ) emiss i ons in Pinellas County. Ambient CO levels are depicted i n Figures 3 and 4 These are compared to the 1 hour maximum of 35 ppm and to the 8 hour maximum of 9 ppm. The ambient levels of CO are well below the standards prescribed in the NAAQS The highest reported 1-hour concentration of 8 ppm compares to the standard of 35 ppm. The highest 8-hour average concentration of 5 ppm compares to the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Particulate Matter (PM-10) Ambient l evels of PM-10 are depicted i n F i gures 5 and 6. The 24-hour maximum readings and the annual arithmetic averages are well below the NAAQS The 24-hour read i ngs of PM-10 are approaching two-thirds of the nat i ona l standard For the annua l arithmetic average, wh i ch has a standard of 50 milligrams per cubic meter readings of 20 to 30 have been typ i cal over the last few years Since one of the sources of particulates i s diesel fuel combustion, the potential for alternative fueled transit vehicles is notable. 12

PAGE 17

Sulfur Dioxide Since the potential replacement of gasoline or diesel vehicles by electric vehicles could require additional power generation, it is relevant to recognize the current ambient conditions for sulfur dioxide. Figures 7 and 8 depicts conditions for the last three years. The annual arithmetic mean is not to exceed 0.03 ppm, whereas readings are in the 0.005 ppm to 0.015 ppm range. Similarly, the maximum 3-hour average is not to exceed 0.5 ppm whereas the observed concentrations have been as high as 0 25 ppm. Even so, the monitored levels are generally significantly below the leve l s specified in the NAAQS. The emission characteristics of electric power plants are likely to be highly to the characteristics of fuels used for power generation, and only marginally r e l ated to demand created by electric vehicle recharging. Lead Lead is primarily emitted from sources such as nonferrous smelters, battery plants and from lead gasoline additives. Lead has been shown to be related to serious physiological problems, including birth defects, high blood pressure seizures and behavioral disorders : However concentrations of lead have been virtually zero (less than 0.5% of the national standard) for recent years. See Figure 9 This can probably be attributed to the reduction in lead additives to gasoline. C. Status of Tampa Bay's Application for "Attainment'' Designation For the past two years, efforts have been underway to have the Environmental Protection Agency designate the Tampa/ St. Petersburg/ Clearwater as an "attainment/maintenance" area. Receiving "attainment/maintenance" designation would mean that this area has officially met the EPA s nationa l air quality standards A 1 0-year air quality master plan has been prepared, presented in a public workshop in October 1994, and subjected to a public hearing review in December 1994. All review comments are being incorporated in the final plan, and were submitted to the EPA the end of January 1995. The expected time frame to complete federal review and approval is 12 to 18 months. 13

PAGE 18

According to a July 10, 1995 policy memorandum from FHWA, once attainment/maintenance" designation is granted, the CMAQ program will continue to fund projects for 2 years after re-designation only if these projects have previously been identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (nP). Existing regulations and programs in place a re expected to adequately control emission levels in the future However, continuing growth in adjacent counties, i.e. Pasco Hernando and Polk Counties, presents the greatest concern to Pinellas County air quality officials. Pinellas County has established a local CMAQ program, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Pinellas County CMAQ program serves as a means for attaining conformity with the national air quality standards. Because of the Tampa Bay area's current "marginal non-attainment" status, the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to develop strategies to reduce traffic congestion and pursue projects which will reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. Approximately $8 million of CMAQ funding is programmed under 7 different types of projects: intersection imp rovements new bus purchases (28 buses are currently programmed) development of an alternative fuels plan solar-energy electric vehicle demonstration traffic signal study seed funding for transportation management organization in the "Ga teway" area bicycle/pedestrian safety education Under the Transportation Enhancement program, another $3 million is programmed for further improvements to the Pinellas Trail, a former railroad right-of-way being converted to a bicycle path. The Pinellas County MPO has requested an additional $14.5 million in CMAQ funding for various projects: intersection improvements traffic signal re-timing 14

PAGE 19

transportation demand management measures (such as a regional van pool program and a guaranteed ride home program) new bus purchases (25 buses have been reques ted) development of a transportation management organization for downtown St. Petersburg The Pinellas County MPO has also submitted requests to the Florida Department of Transportation for development of several park-and-ride lots throughout the County. D. Frequency of AQ Testing/ Rational for AQ Testing Locations Pinellas County's air monitoring program, which the Environmental Protection Agency has approved, has been on-line since 1975. This program measures air pollution concentration levels by operating two networks of air sampling stations located through out the County. These networks consist of both manual and automatic (continuously operating) electronic measuring devices. Frequency of measurements depends on the type of NAAQS standards set for that pollutant. Depending on the source of pollutant, e.g. b usiness i ndustry, transportation, measurement devices are loca ted in both areas expected to contain maximum levels and areas expected to contain typical levels for each pollutant. All monitoring data and sampling locations are subjected to a rigorous quality control program to ensure that all data is accurate and representative of area conditions. For each pollutant, the number of monitoring sites, the frequency and technique of measurement, and the spacial representativeness of monitoring locations follows pre-estab lished guidelines known as the National Ambient Monitoring System (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). I n response to population growth in Pinellas County, the Air Quality Division has also developed a policy of continually evalua ting the appropriateness of the number a nd location of mon itors to ensure compliance with both NAMS and SLAMS guidelines. 15

PAGE 20

E. Summary I n terms of criteria ai r pollutants, it appears that primary cons i deration should be given to ozone which would dictate controlling emissions of volati l e organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The margin of safety with respect to the NAAQS for ozone is small, and the potential cost and inconven i ence to the region of continuing as a non-attainment area are substantial. Secondary consideratio n should be given to particulates whi ch seem to have risen dramatica l ly over the recent few years and which are approaching two th i rds of the levels specified in the NAAQS. 16

PAGE 21

Figure 1 Ambi ent O zone C on centratio n s 140 1-Hour Maximum Leve l s NAAOS 1-Hour Maximum level 120 + o 0 0 0 Stand?3d: 1 -Hour Maximum :r 120ppb 0 0 0 0 0 -.a 100 Q, Q, .. -.. > 80 0 N 0 60 ... c ., -.a E <( 40 20 0 SPJC Azalea Eastla k e SPJC Azalea Eastlake SPJC Azalea Eastlake 1991 1992 1993 17

PAGE 22

0.055 0.05 0.045 -0.04 E Q. Q. ..!!! 0.036 .. > .. ... 0.03 .. "0 ;; 0 0.026 i3 c .. 0.02 a> 0 .. 2 0.015 O.o1 0.005 0 Azalea 1991 Figure 2 Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Standard: Annu. Arith Mean level = 0.05ppm Annu Arith. Mean Levels -=-NAAOS Annu. Arlth. Mean Level 16 Azalea 1992 Azalea 1993

PAGE 23

10 9 8 E 8: 7 co 1 _, .. ., g c 0 c 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 3 -Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (8-Hour Levels) Standard: B Hour Average = 9ppm SHour Average Levels -=-NAAQS SHour Average Level Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eastlake 1991 Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eastlake 1992 19 Shariff Azalea Tyrone Curlew Gateway 1993

PAGE 24

40 35 30 E li -.!! 25 l: !l 20 ;c 0 c 0 :ii 16 5 -e 10 6 0 Figure 4 -Ambient Carbon Monoxide Co n c entrations (1-Hour Levels) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sta2J!a rd: 1 -sour 0 35pp"b 0 0 0 1 Hour Max. levels Sheriff Azelea Tyrone Eastlake 1991 Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Ea11laka 1 9 9 2 20 NAAOS 1 Hour Maximum L evel Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Curie w Gatoway 1993

PAGE 25

160 140 -M 120 .a 100 .. .. ..... i a 'e l. 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 5 Ambient P articulate Matte r Concentrations 124Hour L eve ls ) MSimum = a o o o a o o o o o o 24-Hour Maximum Levels -.o-N AAQS 24-Hour Max imu m Level F leet II) Flee t 121 EasUaka 1991 Reel 11 l fleet (21 Eastlak e Woodlawn Azaleo 1992 21 Fleet 1 1 ) Fklet (2) Eastl ak e Woodlawn Azalea 1993

PAGE 26

50 -(') 40 .E Cl :I !!l .. j 30 i :::!: .i 20 i:l 'f :. 10 0 Figure 6 -Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations (Ann. Mean Levels) Standard: Annu Arith. Mean = 50ugtm *3 111111 Annu. Arith. Mean L e vels Reet (11 Reet (2} Eastlake 1991 Aeet (1 l Fleet (2) Eastlake WoodlawnAzalea 1992 22 NAAOS Annu. Arith. Mean Level Fleet (1} Fleet 121 Eastlake Woodlawn Azalea 1993

PAGE 27

0.6 0.5 -E ... ... 0.4 -..!!! .. ., 0 3 -.. 2 Q ::0 -a 0.2 '3 Ul 0.1 0 Figure 7 Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations (3-Hour Levels) Standard: Max. 3Hour Average Level e 0.5ppm -Max. 3-Hour Ave. L evels -=-NAAOS Max. 3-Hour Ave. Level Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake 1991 1992 1993 23

PAGE 28

Figure 8 -Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations (Annu. Mean Levels) 0.035 0.03 -1o o 0 0 0 Annu. level = 0.03tpm 0 0 = 0 -E 0.025 c. c. -.. ., .., ;;c 0.02 2 O.Q15 Q ::0 .c .9-::0 Cl) 0.01 0.005 0 Annu. Arlth. Mean L evels -=NAAQS Annu Arith. Mean Level Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake Resource Derby T arpon Eastlake Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake 1991 1992 1993 24

PAGE 29

Figure 9 Ambient Lead Concentrations 0.008 NAAOS Quarterly Mean Level = 1.5ug/m .. 3 II Q u arterly Mean Levels 0.007 -0.006 I') g> 0.006 -.. c 0 0.004 .. .. c 0 (J 0.003 "0 .. j 0.002 0.001 0 1991 1992 1993 25

PAGE 30

V. UTERATURE REVIEW A. Air Quality Impacts of Different Alternative Fuels The Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, gives qualitative estimates for the ability of alternative fuels to reduce VOCs, N Ox, PM-1 0 and CO Additional estimates were available from AF bus and eng i ne manufacturers who would certify t hat their vehicles and eng i nes would meet California Air Resource Board (C ARB) standards for Clean Fuel Vehicle (CFV), Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Ultralow Emission Vehicle (ULEV) and Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV). Emissions estimates for newer fuels, such as blodlesel, were availab le from independent testing laboratories. These estimates are list ed in Ta ble 2. Table 2-Air Quality Impacts Fuel VOC production NOx produdlon PM production CO produdlon (compared to (compa': tl:! to to diesel) diesel diesel diesel Propane More Equal Less Less CNG 50% Less 50% Less Less 50% Less LNG 50% Less 50% Less Less 50% Less Ethanol Less More Less Less Methanol (M85) Equal Equal Less less Biodiesel 50% Less Equal 31% Less 20% Less RFG/RFO 24% Less 3% Less 9% Less 13% Less ElectricitY None None Less None does not include air quality Impacts for electricity generation. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Energy Information Association and National SoyDieseJ Development Board, Oxygenated Fuels Association . 26

PAGE 31

It should be noted that although the California Air Resources Board dassifies electric vehicles as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV), they could also be t enned Elsewhere Emitting Vehicle ( EEV)". EVs could contribute more carbon dioxide per m i le and add other pollutants not emitted by other AFVs, such as sulphur dioxide from coal-burning p lan ts and lead from batteries The environmental benefrts that could be gained from using electric vehicles depends on th e method of electricity generation for each urban area. A study conducte d by the Env i ronm ental Defense F und concluded that in Los Ange l es County the air quality benefrts gained from displaclng gasoline-powered vehicles wi th e!ectric vehicles outweighed the pollutants emitted during generation of electricity used to power EVs Florida Power the supplier of electricity to Pinellas County currently generates power from three key sources : coal burning power generation plants. a nuclear power plant located near Crystal River and natural gas An electric-powered vehicle ca n be a t rue zero emission vehicle if the electricity i s solar-generated. B Summary of AFV Bus Pilot Projects One out of every 25 transit veh icles in operation and one out of every 3 transit vehicles on order Is powered by an alternative fue l ; accord ing to a 199 4 survey conducted by the American Public Transit Association (APTA). A summary of the APTA survey appears In Table 3. The most popular alternative fue l among trans i t agencies is compressed natural gas followed by liquefied natural gas and propane Dedicated alternatively fueled buses ( exclusive to one fuel type) i s also the most preferred among the transit industry Th e APTA survey includes van s and trolleys as well as buses 27

PAGE 32

Fuel D ie sel w/o p. traps Diesel w/ p traps Propane: Dual-Fue l Propane: Dedicated CNG: Dual-Fue l CNG: Dedicated LNG: Dual-Fue l LNG: Dedica ted Ethanol: Dual-Fuel Ethanol: Dedicated Methanol CM85l Blodlesel Electric" Electric Trolley Other Tota l Total All Fuels' %Alt. Fuels Table 3-1994 Passenger Fleet Buses, Vans & Trolleys I n Operation In Operation On Order Vehicles Agencies Vehicles 49,342 285 1,595 2,012 38 511 19 1 0 251 10 163 197 15 76 327 35 399 207 1 0 100 6 397 67 2 0 19 2 0 35 1 7 12 35 2 0 31 4 2 368 5 36 162 3 0 53,488 3,191 2,134 1 ,085 4% 34% without solar rec h arge. On Order Agencies ? 2 0 5 4 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 All Fuels incl udes propane, CNG, LNG, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, electricity, electric trolleys and ot he r non-diesel fuels Source : American PubUc Transtt Association. 28 T otal Vehicles 50,937 2,523 0 414 273 726 207 497 67 19 363 35 33 404 162 56,679 3,219 6%

PAGE 33

It should be noted that all the fuels considered in this study have been used I n real-world transit applications, with the exception of electric buses powered by electr icity collected and supplied by solar recharge stations. PST A's "solar bus" will be the first transit agency p r oject in the cou ntry to use this kind of technology Pilot projects across the country have tested the use of the full range of alternative fuel options in rea l -wortd transit operations. PSTA can benefit from the experiences of various transit agenc ies in testing buses powered by propane CNG, LNG. ethanol methanol b i odiesel and electricity The following section describes the expe rie nces of selected transit agencies in the United States in experimenting with alternatively-fueled vehicles. It should also be noted that the alternative fue l technologies are not limited to buses, trolleys and paratransit vans Some transit agencies also have non-revenue vehicles operating on a l ternative fuels. Propane Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) of Orange County, California has been conducting the first tests of propane-powered transit buses in real-world transit operations. OCT A's evaluation has led to the formation of a unique public/private partnership to spur development and formal certification of heavy -duty propane-powered engines The partnership which includes the Orange County Transportation Authority Detroit Diesel a number of propane associations and the ADEPT group (an aHemative fuel development company) has created a comprehensive program to develop and certify a heavy-duty propane engine for transit use, at a cost of slightly more than $4 million. Public agencies are expected to provide one-third of the funding, and those participating inc l ude OCTA, the U .S. Department of Energy, the Alternative Fuels Research and Education Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas, and the Canadian Ministry of Energy Mi nes and Resources The South Coast Air Qua lity Management District i s also e x pected to participate by providing funding from its Technology Adva ncem ent Office. 29

PAGE 34

In addition to the public agency financial support, OCTA and a number of other transit agencies, Detroit Diesel, and the Propane Vehicle Council will provide matching and in kind support of more than $2 million. OCT A's interest in propane as an alternative fuel stems from its success in using the fuel to power its light-duty paratransit fleet since 1g81, with propane-powered vehicle miles traveled totaling more than 40 million miles. Propane has proven to be reliable and cost effective. Since propane is not stored at extremely low temperature or high pressure (like natural gas's other alternative fuels CNG and LNG), it requires a much smaller investment for fueling and storage. Compressed Natural Gas In 1993, the CNG-powered bus fleet run by Pierce Transit of Tacoma, Washington, completed two million miles of revenue service. Eventually, the agency plans to convert all of its vehicles to compressed natural gas. The system currently operates 49 buses on CNG, including thirty 40-foot coaches with Cummins L-10 engines, as well as one dial-a ride van and two support vehicles. Pierce Transit also favors the fact that engines which run on CNG run at a lower compression ratio than diesel, resulting a longer lasting engine and a more quiet ride. Pierce Transit sees these benefits as outweighing the weight added to the vehicle by the larger CNG tanks. To refill its CNG-powered vehicles, Pierce Transit constructed a CNG quick-fill station at a cost of $850,000. The quick-fill station can refuel an empty bus with CNG in 11 minutes. Pierce Transit keeps the same maintenance schedule as the diesel buses, and maintenance costs are equivalent. Pierce Transit performed a long-term fuel cost evaluation of the CNGversus diesel-powered buses. To fuel a CNG-powered bus 100 miles on CNG costs the agency $9.00, whereas fuel costs for a diesel-powered bus to go the same distance costs $12.18. It should be noted that the price per gallon of both diesel and CNG in this case study are extremely low. In addition, Pierce Transit reports that they are getting extremely high fuel efficiency out of their compressed natural gas (4.8 miles per gallon). 30

PAGE 35

Liquefied Natural Gas In 1993 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met), of Portland Oregon and Northwest Natura l Gas company unveiled two new 4 0-foot Gillig buses manufactured to run exclusively on LNG. This year. Tri-Met put eight Flxible LNG buses into service While initial Tri-Met LNG fuel costs per mile are about twice that of diesel, it has been producing fewer emissions than those from buses powered by fossil fuels. Tri-Met opted for LNG because of the distances the buses travel and the fuel quantity requirements. One cubic foot of LNG equals 640 cubic feet of natural gas vapor LNG is the same natural gas used in homes, but chilled to a liquefied state For more than 30 years Northwest Natural Gas Company has used LNG from its storage facilities to supp l ement its distribu t ion system during peak usage periods. Aside from the fuel on which they run LNG buses are very s i milar to diesel powered Tri Met buses Differences occur in the fuel tanks, fuel delivery systems and safety compo n ents. The engine block, drive train, and body are essentially the same as diesel powered 40-foot buses. The L NG -powered buses se a t 43 passeng ers and have accommodations for passengers who use wheelchairs. The LNG buses meet all state and federal safety standards. The gas tanks, located underneath the buses, meet strict safety standards and are safer than conventional gaso li ne tanks In the unlikely event of a fuel l eak, LNG is less flammable than gaso li ne As the gas warms it dissipates qui ckly in t o the atmosphere Ethanol In 1994 the Twin Cities Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, began testing two kinds of ethanol fuel on a fleet of 37 Gillig transit buses equipped with Detroit Diesel 6V92 engines MTC selected Battelle of Columbus, Ohio to eva luate the use of this fuel in real-world transit operations. West Virginia University's portable emissions laboratory and University 31

PAGE 36

of Minnesota's Mechanical Engineering Department are also working on the evaluation. The Federal Transit Administration Regional Transit Board and Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources are providing funding. The purpose of the demonstration is to present a clear set of findings about costs and operational effects of using alternative fuel transit buses. Specific areas of interest include emissions, safety, bus maintenance requirements and direct costs of parts and labor. The indirect costs for a higher spare parts rat i o will also be studied. Methanol Since 1991, the Regional Transportation District (RT D) in Denver Colorado has been operating five methanol buses. The methano l buses are powered by Detroit Diesel 6V92 methanol engines. More than 700,000 miles have been driven on the fwe-bus fleet. The buses are currently operated and fueled from RTD's Platte Facility and require additional care and safety precautions during refuel i ng and maintenance process. RTD has been instrumental in identify i ng and helping solve several of the technological problems with methano l As a result of this test and similar p r ograms i n Los Angeles and Phoenix, an eng i ne configuration was determined and certified by the Environmental Protection Agency for future production of methanol-powered engines. Overall RTD is satisfied with the safety and reliability of the methanol buses. However the buses are more costly to operate than the diesel buses. RTD experienced an average fuel cost and engine maintenance/repair cost of about 75 cents per mile or three times the cost of conventional diesel buses. RTD recently installed a methanol fueling facility which w i ll enable RTD to purchase methanol at a lower price and eliminate travel costs to and from the outside fueling facility which has been used in the past. 32

PAGE 37

Blodlesel The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORT A) has recently concluded an evaluation of biodiesel in transit operations The six-month field test and research project was sponsored by the Ohio Soybean Council. The project tested the fuel's performance on the road and Its value in reducing emissions. The transit authority operated six buses a total of 100,000 miles to test SoyDiesel's impact on engine performance and wear. A blend of 30 percent SoyDiesel and 70 percent regular diesel was used with the goal of reducing emissions at least 45 percent. The SORT A Maintenance Manager indicated that SORT A is pleased with the results. The SoyDiesel powered buses did not lose power when running on the cleaner-burning fuel, even up hills. There were no problems with the fuel line, even in severe winter conditions. SoyDiesel has a comparable fuel efficiency to petroleum-based diesel. There were no adverse effects on engine wear. Concurrent with this test, the University of Cincinnati's Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory conducted research on the optimal blend with regular diesel fuel to meet upcoming EPA requirements. Laboratory tests show that a 20 percent biodiesel mix reduced particulate emissions 20 percent, while a 30 percent biodiesel mix reduced emissions 27 percent. The results will be submitted to EPA in an effort to demonstrate the merits of biodiesel as an alternative fuel for transit buses. Electricity Chattanooga (Tennessee) Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) has been operating 22-foot electric buses for almost two years. Preliminary studies conducted by the Electric Transit Vehicle Institute have shown that the energy cost of operating a 22-foot electric bus in Chattanooga is 5. 7 cents per mile, versus 18 cents per mile common for a diesel bus. In Chattanooga, maintenance costs for electric buses are estimated to be roughly one-half of those for dies el vehicles, because electric buses simply do not have many of the parts which require maintenance compared to diesel buses, which have exhaust, cooling, fuel, emissions control and transmiss ion systems. A maintenance cost 33

PAGE 38

report will be available from Chattanooga by the end of 1995. Brakes on an electric bus l ast much longe r due to the regenerative breaking process that returns energy to the battery packs. Due to their low floors and pneumatic "kneeling" feature, many electric buses do not require a wheelchair lift. Passengers' reactions have been favorable, pointing to the EVs' quiet, non-polluting ride and the low floors. Electric bus ma_nufacturers are working to overcome the limitations in range that keep EVs from becoming competitive with diesel-powered vehicles in all applications. Through its Advanced Projects Research Agency (APRA), the Department of Defense is funding programs that will demonstrate high-tech propulsion systems rapid recharging stations and other ground-breaking technolog ies. Two ARPA-funded buses which utilize high performance wheel motors will be tested in Chattanooga th i s fall. C. Summary of Tampa Bay Regiona l AFV Pilot Projects PST A's alternative fuels program will continue a decade-old tradition in the Tampa Bay area of aggressive pursuit of AFV conversion. Since the early 1980's both public and private fleets in the region have been converting their vehicles to alternative fuels. Compressed natural gas and electricity are the most popular choices for conversion among area fleets, in part due to successful partnerships with local utility companies : People's Gas, Clearwater Gas Florida Power and Tampa Electric Company. Early efforts were funded almost entirely by the agencies themselves. Neighbo rly Senior Services (NSS), a transportation service provider for the elderly located in Clearwater, has spent over $250,000 of its own funds converting their 38 vans (six more are currently on order) to compressed natural gas. NSS has recently invested $65,000 for a new compressor and continues to be proud to be considered as a pioneer in conversion to C N G for paratransit operations since 1983 There are also in the process of trying to convert to a single, central ized re-fueling site. More recenUy, some Tampa Bay area agencies have taken advantage of funding opportunities available from the Florida Energy Office (FEO). The City of Sl Petersburg Police Department, the Tampa Port Authority and Florida 34

PAGE 39

Aquarium and the City of Tampa Police Department have received financial support through FEO's annual "Local Government Alternative Fuel Vehicle Initiative" grant competition in order to convert over 100 vehicles to CNG and propane. As a centrally-fueled federal fleet, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is requ i red by EPACT to begin new vehicle AFV purchases in 1996. The USPS I n Tampa is taking a pro active role by beginning in 1995 to convert 120 postal delivery vehicles to CNG. Both PSTA and the Hillsborough Regional Transit Authority (HARTline) are attempting to take advantage of the resources available from University of South Florida's Clean Energy & Vehicle Research Center. Both agencies are in negotiation with USF to test solar-powered "qu i ck-recharge" stations for electric buses. Table 4 summarizes current AFV pilot projects in the Tampa Bay area. 35

PAGE 40

Ta ble 4 -Tampa Bay Regional AFV Pilot Projects ProjecU Agency Date of Program Location Fuet Description Inception Tampa Electric Company 1974 Tampa Propane, 140 heavy-duty trucks on propane Electricity 1 heavy
PAGE 41

VI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH FUEL TYPE This section assesses the advantages and disadvantages of each of the fuel options considered Table 8 contains a fuel assessment matrix which evaluates each of the fuels according to the criteria discussed here. A. Regulatory Issues The alternative fuel vehicle requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 apply only to fleets in severe or extreme non-attainment areas whereas Pinellas County is classified as marginal and has applied for attainment. The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 requires that "fleets of 20 or more vehicles" located in "urban areas with a 1980 population of 250,000 or more" (which inc l udes the Tampa/St. Petersburg/ Clearwater metropolitan area) to reserve a percentage of new vehicle purchases i n a given year to be AFVs. As a municipally-owned fleet, 20% of new vehicles purchased by the Pinellas County government in 1999 must be AFVs; 30% of new vehicles purchased in 2002 must be AFVs; 40% of new vehicles purchased in 2003 must be AFVs; and so on However, the EPACT requirements do not apply to much of PSTA's fleet because heavy-duty vehicles (weight greater than 8,500 pounds) are currently exempted from these centrally fueled fleet requirements. EPACT defines acceptable "clean fuels" for these AFV new vehicle purchases as those that are "substantially not petroleum", i.e. propane CNG, LNG, ethanol, methanol and electricity : Although EPACT currently exempts heavy-duty transit buses from the centrally fueled fleet requ i rements, it does se!Ve as guidance for long-term acceptance with the national program. The U.S. Department of Ene rgy Secretary does have the option of revoking the heavyo{luty fleet exemption, but such as decision must be made no later than January 1, 2000. In addition, the Pinellas County government fleet is subject to these requ i rements. B. Fuel Availability All fuel options considered are available from some domestic U S. source: ethanol and biodlesel from the Midwest, methanol from coal rich areas etc. However, only propane, 37

PAGE 42

CNG and electricity have the refueling in frastructure already in place in Pinellas County. There are several public CNG and propane refueling facilities located in Pinellas County. I n addition, electric buses and vehicles can undergo a slow (8-hour) charge at any 15-amp outlet There is only one methanol dealer in Florida, Ashland Chemical, with a methanol refueling station in Miam i at Metro-Dade Transit Authority's ma in tenance facility. Th ere are no known ethanol distributors in Florida. C. Vehicle Availability Table 5 shows the availability of engines which operate on various types of altemative fuels. Only CNGand LNG-powered engines are available from a wide range of manufacturers, enabling PSTA to compare bids. Biodiesel and RFD, of course, will run on any conventional diesel-powered bus engine. The wide range of manufacturers also enables these altematively-fueled engines to fit into a wide range of bus sizes. Only the CNGand LNG-powered engines were guaranteed by the manufacturers to frt into buses ranging in size from 28-foot to 40-foot, which encompasses most percent of the PSTA bus fleet. Electric buses from Advanced Vehicle Systems are available only in 22-foot and 31foot sizes. D Performance With the exception of fuels derived from diesel RFD and biodiesei, all the fuel options examined have a lower energy content than diesel. The lower energy content limits the distance the altemalively-fueled buses can travel between refueling. Assuming that an altematively-powered bus would have the same size tank as a conventional diesel powered bus, only a subset of the fuelspropane, LNG ethanol, methanol and biodiesel would be able to travel more than the average daily mileage of the average PSTA bus 131 miles. However, buses running on CNG and LNG can install large capacity fuel storage tanks to compensate for the low energy content of these fuels, boosting their range between refuelings to 250 miles and 350 miles re.spectively. Electric buses have an average range of 50-75 miles between recharging. Biodiesel and RFD offer almost 100% of the energy content of d iesel. Range estimates for seven types of aitemative fuels are shown in Table 6. 38

PAGE 43

Table 5-AF Bus/Engine Ava il ability Fuel Ml!nufactur81' Bus size Propane S till unde r develclpment by Orange 40-ft County Trans
PAGE 44

Table 6 Miles Between Refueling ..... Fuel Energy Available Miles Btw. Refueling (as compared to diesel) (as compared to diesel) Diesel 100% 437.5 Propane 85% 371.9 CNG 21% 91.8 (250') LNG 59% 258.2 (350) Ethanol 55% 240.6 Methanol 40% 175.0 Blodlesel 100% 437.5 RFG/RFD 100% 437.5 Electricity NIA 50-75 'Buses run n ing on CNG and LNG install large capacity fuel storage tanks to compensate for the low energy content of these fuels. Source: Detrort Diesel Corporation, Advanced Vehicle Systems and National Soy Diesel Development Board, Oxygenated Fuels Association. E. Refueling Facilities As stated above there are currently no ethane_! refueling facilities and only one methanol refueling fac i lity in F lorida. People's Gas currently operates two public CNG/propane refueling stations In Pinellas County, a l ong with several other private refue ling facilities Clearwater Gas plans to open two public CNG/propane refueling stations in March of 1995. Small electric vehicles can be recharged at any 15-amp (240 volt) electrical outlet. However, without special equipment, a rech arge can take over eight hours. No special equipment is needed for a "quick-fill" refueling of liquid fuels such as LPG, ethanol and methanol. Special equipment is needed, however for "quick-fill" refueling (or recharging) of transit buses with CNG, L NG and electricity. For the purposes of this study, quick-fill is defined as the ability to refuel a standard 125-gallon bus fu. el tank in 15 minutes or less. "Slow-fill" would entail overnight recharging, and would take approximately eight 40

PAGE 45

hours. The public CNG/propane refueling faci l ities in Pinellas County owned by Peop l e's Gas and Clearwater Gas are "quick-fill" facilities. Since PSTA would require a large amount of whatever alternative fuel is selected. one option wou l d be for PSTA to build its own "quick-fill" refueling facility on its own dispatch site (or sites.) Another option would be to re-fue l off-site at a convenient location. but do all other bus servicing on-s i te. Accord i ng to AFV i ndustry analyst Stephen McCrea the cost of installing a "quick fill" CNG refue l ing facility i s approximately $200,000 The cost of installing a methano l refue l ing facility is $40,000 to $70 000 When choosing an appropriate site for a refueling faci l ity, i t i s impera ti ve to compare the range of the AFVs to the routes the vehicles usually run Will the veh i cles be able to run their norma l routes and return to the refue li ng facility without runn i ng out of fuel? If not, PSTA would need to consider (a) building a refueling facility i n a more centralized location (b) choosing an alternative fuel with a higher energy density (c) choosing a n AFV with more fuel storage capacity (d) constructing multiple sites CNG refueling facilities are covered by the Nat i onal Fire P r otection Association's (NFPA) Standard for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems (the "NFPA 52" requ i rements ) These requirements state that CNG r efueling tanks shall be at least 20 feet away from "aboveg r ound tanks containing flammable or combustible liquids", i.e. diesel refueling tanks. NFPA 52 requires that CNG comp r ession storage and dispensing equipment shall be at least 20 feet away from the nearest public street or sidewa l k, and 50 feet away from the nearest railroad track. NFPA 52 a l so requi res that the actual location where vehicles are refueled shall be at l east 10 feet away from the nearest publ i c street and 3 feet away from the CNG storage containers themselves. F. Cost Alternative fueled buses are now becoming avai l able directly from bus manufacturers with the alternative l y-fueled engine a l ready installed. The additional cost of buses wh i ch run on CNG, LNG, ethanol and methano l is the difference in cost of the alternat i ve l y-fueled engine compared to a diesel engine and the requ i red onboard fuel storage system. An 4 1

PAGE 46

electric bus cannot be converted from a diesel-powered bus and must be purch a sed oul!ighl Biod iesel and RFD ca n run on any regu l a r diesel-powered e ngine with min i mum modification T ypical costs of a 31..foot regular diesel powered bus would be about $250,000 The costs of various types of alternatively-fueled engines are listed i n Table 7 The costs of various types of alternatively-fueled engines vary from abou t $36,000 for a CNGor LNG-powered engine to $50,000 for an ethanol-or methanol-powered engine. Advanced V e hi cle Systems' base price for a 31-foot electric bus i s $230,000, which i s later updat ed in table 18 and 19 based on July 1995 base price, plus add ons for air cond i tioning and ADA requirements. Table 7 also l ists costs per mile of the fuel for the different types of a lternat ive fue l s The operating c
PAGE 47

Table 7 Preliminary Capital and Operating Costs Fuel Diesel Propane CNG LNG Ethanol Methanol Blodlesel RFG/RFD Electricity Source: . Capital Cost Operating Cost (3Hoot bus; of Fuel Per Mile compared to diesel) (Tampa ) $0.17 Still under development (Orange County CA) $0.31 $250, 000 for diesel bus, plus (various cities) $0.78 $36,000 for CNG engine $250, 000 for diesel bus, plus (various cities) $0.26 $36,000 for LNG enQine $250, 000 for diesel bus, plus ( Minneapo l is Peoria $50,000 for ethanol engine Des Moines) $0.60 $250, 000 for diesel bus, plus (Los Angeles Miami, $50,000 for methanol engine New Yor1< and others) $0.54 $250,000 for diesel bus /Cincinnati) $0.34 $250,000 for diesel bus (national estimate) $0.18 $230,000 for electtlc bus (Chattanooga) $0.05 People's Gas, Ethanol Resources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National SoyDiesel Development Board, Detroit Diesel Corporation U.S. Department of Energy and the Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority. These costs originally derived in late 1994, are expected to be u pdated during detailed analys i s (see tables 1 8 and 1 9). G. Safety and Maintenance When d i scussing safety considerations of transportation fuels, the dangers of gasoline and diesel are often overlooked. Gasoline is highly flammable; both are toxic when inhaled or left on exposed skin for long periods of time. Each fuel (including gasoline and diesel) has its own safety considerations. Ethanol and liquefied petroleum gas (whose main ingredient is propane) are both liquid fuels which can spill on the ground during refueling. Like gasoline, they are fire hazards, so care must be taken during the refue ling process. 43

PAGE 48

Because compressed natura l gas is stored at such h i gh pressures, if a fitting becomes l oose It can become a dangerous airborne projectile CNG maintenance workers must focus special attention when working with these vehicles To help detect l eaks some agencies install methane detectors or add an odorant to the odorless gas. CNG is lighter than air so good ventilation is needed near the roofs of refueling and mai ntenance faci l ities. CNG actually has a higher ignition temperature than gasol ine, making it less of a fire hazard Because liquefied na tural gas must be stored at such low temperatures LNG vehicles require spec i al insulated steel fuel tanks, sim ilar to giant thermos bottles. Maintenance technicians are requi r ed to wea r protective clothing when refuel i ng Methanol is an extremely toxic fuel-far more toxic than gasoline Maintenance technicians must wear protective cloth ing and g l oves to keep from ge tti ng the fuel on the i r skin. Methanol i s flammab l e and heavier tha n air, so when leaked it pools on the floo r causing a fire hazard. Therefore ground-level ventilat i on systems are needed at refueling and maintenance facilit ies: H. Summary of Fuel Comparisons Table 8 li sts several key attributes of each alternat ive fuel in order of importance, and a check (.I} is shown to signify a "Yes" answer to the comparison question Table 8 a l so establishes the basis for selection of the fuels carried forward (CNG LNG and electric) for more det ailed evaluation and comparison. 44

PAGE 49

Table 8 -Fuel Assessment Matrix I CNG LNG Propane Ethanol Methanol Electricity RFG/RFD Biodiesel AIR QUALITY: Reduces VOC emissions? .I .I .I .I .I .I .I Reduces NOx emissions? .I .I .I Reduces PM emissions? .I .I .I .I .I .I .I .I Reduces CO emissions? .I .I .I .I .I .I .I SAFETY & MAINTENANCE: Comparable to diesel? .I .I .I .I .I FUEL AVAILABILITY: Fuel available nationally? .I .I .I .I .I .I .I .I Fuel available locaUy? .I .I .I PERFORMANCE: Range meets dally average for PSTA buses (131 mnej? .I .I .I .I .I .I .I VEHICLE AVAILABILITY: Diversity of engine makers? .I .I .I .I Diversity of bus sizes (36')? .I .I .I .I REFUELING: No special equipment needed for quick-fill? .I .I .I .I .I COST:Vehicle costs<= diesel? .I .I .I Fuel costs < = diesel? .I LONG-TERM COMPATIBILITY: Classified as Clean Fuel by .I .I .I .I .I .I EPACT? 45

PAGE 50

VII. DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Of the eight different fue l options initially considered { ethanol methanol bio-d l esel refonnulated gasoline, electricity liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas) two fuels compressed natural gas and l i quefied natural gas showed the greatest potential for feasible implementation into current PSTA daily operations. In addition, electricity is also included in the detailed feasibility analysis process because of its zero emissions and lower fuel cost, irrespective of its limitations in rang e and vehicle size. In this section of the report, options for selecting alternative fuel implementation plans based on range, miles between refuelings and more detailed capita l and operating cos 'ts for each short-listed fuel by route by bus, for the PSTA fleet wer e assessed Th is assessment assumed al l existing PSTA route patterns and headways to kee p the e x isting level of service at same level. The detailed feas i bility analys is will be d iscussed in four parts in th is section of the report. A Methodology This section examines the PSTA fleet inventory and operations data provided in December 19 94, which includes operating schedules and headways to check the suitability or the short-listed fuels. As a part of this task a series of tables are prepared to document the methodology adopted in an easy manner explaining all possible difficulties that may be encountered d uring the selection of a short-listed alternative fue l. B. Analysis By Route B y Bus Table 9 illustrates the properties of the PSTA fleet {i.e. daily miles by route by b us basis) This table is the preliminary step to check the suitability of short listed fuels based on range between refuelings. This table shows details of all 51 PSTA routes and 123 buses in operation Most of these buses are work ing on weekdays and only a few work only on weekends. This table shows the total daily miles by individual bus which is varies from a low of 36 7 miles to a high of 313. 5 miles. This range ind icate s that buses running on specific routes can be rep laced with electric-powered buses and most of the remaining diesel buses can be replaced with either CNG or LNG-powered buses. 46

PAGE 51

Table 9 Daily Miles By Route, By Bus --Total Daily M iles Primary Roote Seconda(y Route Total Revenue Garage-based Tot a l Dail y on Route No on Route Bus No MUes on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus D ead-head Miles Bus 1 145. 2 9321 145.2 36.1 181.3 9 5 190.8 2 92.3 8 905 92 3 2 5.0 117. 3 29.1 146.4 3 275.4 8903 83.7 89.9 173 6 3.9 177.5 9318 78 9 100 .0 176. 9 12.4 189.3 9321 26.0 155 3 181 3 9.5 190.8 9419 88.8 69.9 158.7 5.6 164.3 4 599. 4 1 207 99. 9 99 9 5.6 105.5 1218 48.9 48.9 5.6 54.5 9313 246.6 246.6 5.6 252.2 9417 204.0 -204.0 5.6 209.6 5 2 69.9 8 903 89.9 83.7 1 7 3. 6 3.9 177.5 '. 93 18 100 0 76.9 176 .9 12 .4 169.3 9321 1 0. 1 1712 18 1 3 9.5 190.8 9419 69.9 88.8 158. 7 5.6 164.3 7 395.6 9314 19 1.7 191.7 5 6 197. 3 9418 203.9 -203.9 12.3 216.2 9 590 9201 1 93 3 1 93.3 7.8 201.1 9319 209 3 -209 3 5.6 214.9 9427 18 7 .4 1 87.4 5 6 193 0 11 1 74.9 8908 63.1 94 7 157 8 2 .4 1602 8912 42.5 122.9 165.4 54.1 219.5 47

PAGE 52

9 (Continued} Total Daily Miles Primary Route Se
PAGE 53

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Total Daily Miles Primary Route Secondary Route Total Revenue Garage-based Total Daily Miles on on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head Mlles Bus 8910 79. 7 95.9 175.6 72 182.8 9202 70.8 99.0 169. 8 5.6 175.4 23 762 1201 145.2 -145.2 12.0 157 2 1210 157 2 -157.2 8 8 166 0 8302 157 2 157.2 8 8 166.0 8913 157.2 -157.2 8.8 166.0 9432 157 2 -157 2 8.8 166 0 24 297.1 1223 246.3 -246.3 8.5 254.8 9431 250.8 -250.8 8 6 259.4 27 140 7 8906 140.7 140.7 23.6 164.3 28 257.4 8908 94. 7 63.1 157.8 2.4 160.2 8912 72.5 92.9 165.4 54.1 219. 5 9320 90.2 69.3 159. 5 7.0 166 5 29 289.9 8909 111.5 72.8 1 84.3 5 6 189 9 9205 892 81.9 171.1 5 6 176.7 9421 89 2 91.0 1802 5.6 185.8 30 274. 1 8904 79.2 77 9 157.1 8.4 165.5 8910 95.9 79. 7 175 6 7 2 182.8 9202 99 0 70.8 169.8 5.6 175 4 35 197.6 1206 197 6 --197 6 5 6 203.2 38 233.8 8914 109 9 109.9 5.6 115 5 49

PAGE 54

Table 9 (Continued) Route No T 00.1 Daily Miles Primary Route Secondaiy Route Total Revenue T ota1 Dally Miles on on Route Bus No M'Jies on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head Miles Bus 9207 123 9 -123 9 5.6 129 5 52 746 .8 1217 210 7 -210. 7 5.6 216.3 1220 196 3 196. 3 29.3 225 6 1221 154 6 -154 .6 9.5 164 1 9315 165.2 4.3 (WI<.Endl 189 5 25.4 214.9 74 230.0 9209 230.0 -' 230.0 15.6 245.6 92 30.6 8911 30. 6 -3 0 .6 33. 6 64. 2 96 200 .8 8901 75. 2 -75. 2 20. 0 95.2 8902 25. 0 -25. 0 11. 7 36. 7 8905 25. 0 923 1 1 7 .3 29. 1 146..4 8912 50.4 115.0 165. 4 54.1 219. 5 9206 25.2 72. 0 97.2 18. 9 116 1 100 547.4 1 224 128 8 -128 8 3 1 .2 160 0 8907 64.4 -64. 4 15 6 80 0 9316 193.2 1 93 2 15.6 208 8 9319 161.0 1 6 1 0 31.2 192.2 32 72 0 9206 72 0 25.2 97 2 18.9 116 1 50

PAGE 55

Total Daily Miles Primary Route RO
PAGE 56

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Total Da i ly Miles Pril!laly Route Secondary Route Total Revenue Garage -based Tota l Dally Miles on on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead -head Miles Bus 9408 271 7 271.7 8.0 279.7 60 401.3 9305 141.2 141.2 10.2 1 51.4 9403 168.8 1 6 (Wk. End) 170.4 10. 4 1 80.8 9404 91.3 -91.3 14.8 106.1 61 485. 2 704 172 8 172.8 17.2 190.0 1002 140 .9 26 4 167.3 32.9 200.2 9301 171.5 171.5 15.2 186.7 63 25 6 8 1010 91.1 80.4 171.5 14.8 186 3 9304 81.2 88 5 169. 7 19.1 188.8 9414 84.5 87 7 172.2 16.6 188.8 64 175.1 9409 175 1 --175.1 11 8 186 .9 66 718.3 1003 179.5 179 5 32 .0 211.5 10 14 1 62 7 162.7 22.0 164.7 9307 192.1 192. 1 29 0 221.1 9308 184.0 184.0 35.0 219 .0 67 597 9 702 204.2 204.2 19. 1 223.3 703 189 5 -189.5 19.1 208.6 707 204.2 204.2 1 9.1 223.3 69 316.8 9105 1 40.8 140.8 10.5 151. 3 9410 176.0 1 76 0 10.5 186.5 71 581.4 ... 9 _309 150.0 150.0 19.2 169.2 52

PAGE 57

Table 9 (Continued) Routs No Total Daily Miles Prima!'f Route Seconda.y Rout e Total Revenue Garage-based Total Daily Miles on on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head Miles Bus 9310 131.4 7 6 0 207.4 31.3 238.7 9405 150 0 68.4 218.4 23.6 242.0 9406 150.0 67.8 217 8 23.6 241.4 72 115.2 9107 115 .2 -115. 2 12.2 127.4 73 268.3 9104 74.3 "" 74.3 27.5 101.8 9411 194.0 "" 194.0 7.0 201. 0 74 351.2 1001 115.5 -115.5 23. 2 138.7 9312 235.7 -235.7 15.0 250.7 7 5 334.5 1005 1 7 2 8 -172 8 3 9 176.7 9412 16 1. 7 -161 7 11.9 173.8 76 256 6 1010 80.4 91.1 171 5 14.8 186.3 9304 88.5 81. 2 169 7 19.1 188.8 9414 87.7 84.5 172.2 16.6 188.8 78 192.7 705 192.7 -192.7 19.2 211. 9 79 404 9 9311 215.0 215 0 0.6 215.6 9413 189 9 -189 9 0.6 190.5 80 296.1 1202 4.1 39.4 43.5 42.8 86.3 9407 126.9 -126. 9 15.9 142.8 9415 165 1 -165 1 15. 9 181. 0 82 172.0 9108 172.0 172.0 19.1 189.1 93 48.8 9103 48 8 -48 8 46.2 95.0 53

PAGE 58

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Total Dally Miles Prinwy Route Secondmy Route Tota l Revenue Garage-based Total DaUy Miles on on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head Miles Bus 94 158.4 1205 26.4 .. 26.4 20.7 47.1 1013 26.4 -26.4 23.3 49.7 701 26 4 .. 26.4 20.7 47.1 706 52.8 -52.8 44.0 96.8 1002 26.4 140.9 167.3 32.9 200.2 97 39.4 1202 39.4 4.1 43.5 42.8 86.3 301 247.2 9108 133.9 -133 9 12.7 146.6 605 113.3 -113.3 12.7 126.0 ------54

PAGE 59

Table 10 was prepared to check the suitability of fuels in the form of their refueling requirements based on tota l daily miles on each bus. In deciding the refueling requirements, range for a CNG vehicle was taken as 250 miles between refueling, 300 miles in the case of a LNG vehicle and 50 miles in case of an e lectric bus. In the case of an electric bus, two battery replacements in the course of day were assumed, extending the electric vehicle range to an average of 150 miles. Refueling stations for CNG and LNG were assumed at PSTA garages and battery transfer points for electric vehicles were assumed at either passenger transfer points or end of routes (mostly shopping malls). At this time, however, some concern exists in obtaining the necessary permits to allow for battery pack replacement activities at the transfer points. Based on these refuel ing requirements, Table 10 also shows details on refueling dead head miles and number of trips that are going to be reduced due to refueling during the of a day. Based on the refueling requirements, Table 11 was prepared by summarizing on a by route, by bus, basis for all routes and buses that are affected by refueling during the course of a day. Details regard ing when the refuel ing is needed, where the refueling is needed, and number of trips that a bus is going to complete before refueling were also reported in Table11. Due to short range of electric buses, this alternate was eliminated from the primary consideration for conversion. Based on Table 11, only a few vehicles (thirteen in the case of CNG and two in the case of LNG) need refueling during the course of the day. This shows that the best alternate fuel for PSTA fleet may be either CNG or LNG fuel at this point. After considering electricity as a secondary alternative, from review of Table 9 results it was concluded that there are 28 buses from the entire PSTA fleet which can be converted to electric based on total daily miles Based on this information, Table 12 was prepared to check the feasibility of those electric routes and buses with consideration for maximum load ing factors. This check is needed for electric due to the limitation of elect ric bus size and capacity (28 passengers). This capacity check eliminated some of the possible electric route conversions, as indicated, from further consideration. 55

PAGE 60

Table 10-Refueling Requirements -Route Bus Total Dally No. of Refuels Needed Refuelino Slalion Refueling Dead-head Mil es No. of trips reduced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 1 9321 190.8 0 0 NP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8905 146.4 0 0 2 ---WP' 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8903 177 5 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9318 189 3 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9321 190.8 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9419 184 3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1207 105.5 0 0 2 ---WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 1218 54. 5 0 0 1 --WP 0 0 0 0 G 0 9313 2522 1 0 NP PS1' -5 6 0 0 1 0 0 9417 209.6 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 o 0 5 8903 177.5 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9318 189 3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9321 190.8 0 0 NP ----0 0 0 0 0 0 9419 184.3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 7 9314 197.3 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9418 216. 2 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NP = not practical z WP = Williams Park transfer 3 PSI =St. PetePSTAgarage 56

PAGE 61

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Tota l Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Dead-head MUes No. of tnps reduced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 9 9201 201.1 0 0 NP .. .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9319 214.9 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9427 193.0 0 0 NP . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8908 160.2 0 0 NP . -0 0 0 0 0 0 8912 219.5 a 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9320 166.5 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9204 95.6 0 0 1 . -TSM' 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1211 181.1 0 0 NP . .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9203 184.1 0 0 NP .. .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9420 1 75.2 0 0 NP -. 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8909 189.9 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9205 176.7 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9421 185 8 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 16 9208 211.1 0 0 NP . .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9422 207.6 0 0 NP . 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9317 257.2 1 0 NP PS1 5 6 0 0 1 0 0 9423 209.5 0 0 NP -.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9424 218.0 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9430 251.1 1 0 NP PS1 5.6 0 0 1 0 0 TSM = '!)Tone Square Mall 57

PAGE 62

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Slalion Refuefing Deadhead Miles No. of llfps redllced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 19 9425 283.6 1 0 NP 'PS1 .. .. 11.0 0 0 1 0 0 9426 306.8 1 1 NP PS1 PS1 11.0 11.0 0 1 1 0 9428 156.8 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9429 159.8 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1222 175.7 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 8915 175.7 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8904 165.5 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 8910 182.8 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9202 175.4 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1201 1572 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 o : 1210 166.0 0 0 NP .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8302 166.0 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 8913 166.0 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9432 166.0 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1223 254.8 1 0 NP PS1 . .. 5.6 0 0 1 0 0 9431 259.4 1 0 NP PS1 --5.6 0 0 1 0 0 27 8906 164.3 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 8908 160.2 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8912 219.5 0 0 NP .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9320 166.5 0 0 NP . .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8909 189.9 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 58

PAGE 63

Table 10 (Continued) Roote Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed RefueUng Station RefueUng Dead-head Mik!s No of trips redUCild No No MHes on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 9205 176.7 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9421 185.8 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 30 8904 165 5 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 8910 182.8 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9202 175.4 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1208 203.2 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 38 8914 115.5 0 0 2 -WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 9207 129 5 0 0 2 -TSM 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 1217 216.3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 1220 225.6 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 1221 164.1 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9315 210.6 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 74 9209 2.S5.6 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 92 8911 64.2 0 0 1 .. .. PS1 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 8901 95.2 0 0 2 .. . HW' 0 0 0 0 0 0 8902 36 7 0 0 0 --0 0 0 0 0 0 8905 146.4 0 0 2 .. WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 8912 219.5 0 0 NP .. .. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 9206 116.1 0 0 2 .. WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 HW = Honeywell (Route 96 end point) 59

PAGE 64

Table 10 (Continued) Roote Bus Total DaYy No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Dead h ead Miles No of trips reduoed No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG E LC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 100 1224 160. 0 0 0 NP .. o 0 0 0 0 0 8907 80.0 0 0 1 --GWM" 0 0 0 0 0 0 9316 208 .8 0 0 NP 0 0 0 0 0 0 9319 192 2 0 0 NP .. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 9206 116.1 0 0 2 . WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clearwater Division Route Bus Total Oaily No. of Refuels Needed station R efueling Dead head Miles No of trips reduoed No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 18 9302 213.0 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9303 221.8 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9401 269.4 1 0 NP PSI .. 5.6 0 0 1 0 0 19 9101 79 2 0 0 2 .. HA'J MP' 0 0 0 0 0 0 9306 313.5 1 1 NP PS1 PS1 -11. 0 11.0 0 1 1 0 9310 238.7 0 0 NP .. .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9402 284.0 1 0 NP PS 1 .. 1 1 .0 0 0 1 0 0 9405 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 GWM = Gateway Mall 7 HA Hue (one endofRoute 19) 8 MP =Maximo Plaza (oneend of Route 19) 60

PAGE 65

Table 10 (Continu ed) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refuel ing Station Refueling Dead-head Mijes No. of lrips reduced No No Maeson Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG E LC CNG LNG ELC 9406 241.4 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 52 1006 230.6 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 91.7 0 0 1 -PS"r 0 0 0 0 0 0 1012 165.7 0 0 NP -----0 0 0 0 0 0 1015 168.0 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 1203 230.7 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9416 234.6 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 59 1004 263.6 1 0 NP PS2"' 14 0 0 0 1 o 0 1011 227 6 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 1012 165.7 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 O 0 9109 88. 1 0 0 1 ----GWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9110 7 0.9 0 0 1 ---GWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9408 2 79.7 1 0 NP PS2 -1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 eo 9305 151.4 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9403 180 8 0 0 N P ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9404 108. 1 0 0 2 ---PST 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 704 190.0 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 PST= Park Street Terminal 10 PS2 = Cle!IIWater PSTA garage 61

PAGE 66

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Tolal Dally No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Dead-llaa d Miles No of trips N!duced N o No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 1002 200 2 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9301 186.7 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 I 63 1010 186 3 0 0 NP 0 0 0 0 0 0 I .. 9304 188.8 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9414 188.8 0 0 NP .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 64 9409 186.9 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 86 1003 211. 5 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 1014 184. 7 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9307 221. 1 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9308 219.0 0 0 NP .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 67 702 223.3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 703 208 .6 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 707 223 3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 69 9105 151. 3 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 9410 186 .5 0 0 NP . --0 0 0 0 0 0 71 9309 169 .2 0 0 NP .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 9310 238.7 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9405 242 .0 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9406 241.4 0 0 NP --0 0 0 ------_ 0 ____ 0 0 62

PAGE 67

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Slation Refueling DeacH!ead Miles No. of tnps reduced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 72 9107 127.4 0 0 2 .. PSM11 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 9104 101.8 0 0 2 -TSM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9411 201. 0 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 74 1001 138 7 0 0 2 -GWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9312 250 7 1 0 NP PS2 -14.0 0 0 1 0 0 75 1005 176.7 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 9412 173.6 0 0 NP --.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 1010 186.3 0 0 NP .. .. .. 0 0 0 0 a 0 9304 188.8 0 0 NP -.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9414 188.8 0 0 NP . . 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 78 705 211.9 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 9311 215 6 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 9413 190.5 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 80 1202 86.3 0 0 1 -PST 0 0 0 0 0 0 9407 142 8 0 0 2 .. PST 0 0 0 0 0 0 9415 181.0 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 82 9108 189.1 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 93 9 1 03 95.0 0 0 1 . PS2 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 701 47.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 PSM = Pinellas Square Mall 63

PAGE 68

Table 10 (Continue d ) RO
PAGE 69

Table 11 -Refueling Details By Route, By Bus Route Bus Refueling Stat ion No. No CNG LNG 2 96 8905 --4 1207 "" 4 1218 --4 9313 PS12 -12 9204 --18 9317 PS1 -18 9430 PS1 -19 9425 PS1 -19 9426 PS1 P$1 24 1223 PS1 -24 9431 P$1 "" 38 8914 --38 9207 "" 92 8911 96 8901 -32,96 9206 100 8907 1. W P e W!lliams Park Transfer Point 4. H. Well= Honeywell (Route 96 end point) Station Sl Petersburg Division Completed Trips Before Refueling Time of Day of Refueling Etc. CNG LNG W.P " W P W .P -29 TSM' "" -9 -8 -7 .. "" 6 " 30 "" 31 W.P T SM -P$1 H.Wel r -WP -GWM' -2 PSI e St.Pete Garago 5 GWM e Gateway MaU 65 "" ----8 "" " -Etc CNG LNG Elc. 8&16 -12:20p & 3:40p 4& 10 --1 :05p & 4:55p 4 --7:55a 10:30p " 10 " "" 1:25p 7:40p --6 : 50p "" " 5:50p -4:50p 8:50p 8:45p "" --9:15p --5&9 "" 10: 40a & 2:40p 5&9 "" -10:35a & 2 : 35p 1 -3:00p 1&2 -7:30a & 5:00p 2&8 "" "" 10:20a & 2.:50p 2 "" -5:4lln 3. TSM e Tyrone Square Mal l

PAGE 70

Tabl e 1 1 (Co ntinued) -. ----Route Bus Refueling Slallon CO!llf)leled Trtps Belo 7<4 1001 -GWM/SMM -<4&8 a:ooa & 4 :30o 7<4 0012 PS2 --20 -8:45o 80 97 1202 --PST 2 --4:30o 80 9407 .. PST -10&20 --1 1:05a & 3 :15o 93 9100 -PS2 . 1 .. 3:00 94 0706 H Well 1 -7:00a 30 1 9 106 -S M -7 & 15 -10:-45e & 2:35o 301 0605 --S M --7 & 15 6. HA Hue Ave. (One end of Route 19) 7 M P M aximo Plaza (One end of Roule 19} 8 PST Slreel Tetmfrull 9. PS2 Clearw a ler Garage 10 P S M = P i nellas S quare Mall 11. S M = Semin ole Mall 66 --------.. --

PAGE 71

Table 12 Feasibility of Conversion By Route, By Bus for Electric Sl Petersburg Division Route Bus Existing Bus Size Feasible Conversion to Number Number (LengUllCapacilY) Load Factor Bectric (Yes or No) 4 1207 40/45 40 No 4 1218 40145 40 No 96 8901 37/37 11 Yes 96 8902 37/37 11 Yes 2,96 8905 37/37 11 Yes 100 8907 37/37 22 Yes 92 8911 37/37 8 Yes 38 8914 37/37 22 Yes 12 9204 28/29 15 Yes 32, 96 9206 28/29 11 Yes 38 9207 28/29 22 Yes . Clearwater DIVISIOn Route Bus Existing Bus Size F easible Conversion to Number Number (Length/Capacity) Load Factor Electric (Yes or No) 301 605 36/36 8 Yes 80, 97 1202 40/45 51 No 94 1205 40/45 7 Yes 94 0701 35/37 7 Yes 94 0706 35137 7 Yes 74 1001 35140 18 Yes 52 1009 35/40 43 No 94 1013 35/40 7 Yes 19 9101 27/23 30 No 93 9 1 03 27/23 4 Yes 73 9 1 04 27/23 16 Yes 301 9106 27/23 8 Yes 72 9107 27/23 11 Yes 59 9109 27/23 14 Yes 59 9110 27/23 14 Yes 60,94 9404 35137 34 No 80 9407 35/37 51 No 67

PAGE 72

PSTA expressed some concern regarding operational and planning difficulties to refUel buses by replacing them with a bus from the garage. Two tables (Table 13 and 14) were . prepared with possible replacement schedules for the routes which need replacement either from the garage or replacement by another bus in close proximity which completed its scheduled trips for the day on other routes. Based on feasibility check by PSTA personnel, Table 15 was prepared showing the feasibility check for these routes. The feasibility check eliminated some replacement of diesel to CNG-powered buses because selecting a spare bus from the garage was found not to be acceptable due to the impact on general operations. An increase in the number of public access CNG/propane vehicle refueling sites across Pinellas County may change the aspects of this issue. After performing the feasibility check for electric, CNG and LNG buses, electricity was selected as a secondary fuel option along with the primary alternative fuel option In order to illustrate the time frame (or staging) for replacement, Table 16 was prepared showing the overall replacement schedule considering CNG or LNG as primary alternate fue l plus feasible electric buses. Table 17 shows the resulting distribution of buses, routes, and annual miles for PSTA with the options of CNG-electric-diesel and LNG-electric fleets. Comparable costs (reflecting updated average p rices) and estimated average annual emissions are also included. 68

PAGE 73

Table 13 -Proposed Bus Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes in St.Petersburg Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling Replace m ent Dead Head Revenue Total Trips No No Refueling T i me of Day Bus Number Miles Miles Miles Completed 4 9313 29 10: 30pm 94171 8 5 8.5 17.0 1 18 9317 9 7 : 40pm 94282 4 0 49.0 53.0 2 18 9430 8 6 : 50pm 9420' 0 49.0 49.0 2 19 9425 7 5 : 50pm Spare 8 0 102 0 110 0 3 19 9426 6 4:50pm Spare 8 0 97 0 105.0 4 24 1223 30 8:45pm 12246 3 0 22.2 25.2 3 24 9431 31 9:15pm 94187 0 21. 0 21. 0 3 LNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling Replace m ent Dead Head Revenue Total Trips No No Refueling Time of Day Bus Number Miles Miles Miles Completed 19 9426 8 8:50pm 93148 4.0 27. 0 31. 0 2 Spare Buses : 1200 1206 1209, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215 1216 1219, 8301, 8303 8304, 8307 9210 (Total of 14 buses ) 1. Bus no 9417 completes Its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 4 and replaces 9313 to complete remaining trips on route no. 4. 2. Bus no. 9428 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 19 and replaces 9317 to complete remaining trips on route no. 18. 3. Bus no 9420 completes scheduled revenue trips on route no 14 and replaces 9430 to complete remaining trips on route no 18. 4. Spare bus from garage replaces 9425 to complete remaining revenue trips on route no. 19. 5. Spare bus from garage replaces 9426 to complete remai n ing revenue trips on route no. 19. 6. Bus no. 1224 completes scheduled revenue trips on route no. 100 and replaces 1223 to complete remaining trips on route no. 24. 7. Bus no. 9418 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 7 and replaces 9431 to complete remaining trips on route no. 24. 8. Bus no. 9314 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 7 and replaces 9430 to complete remaining trips on route no. 19. 69

PAGE 74

Table 14. Proposed Bus Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes In Clearwater Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling Replacement Dead Head Revenue Total Trips No No Refueling Time of Day Bus Number Miles Miles Miles Completed 18 9401 10 8:55pm 9305' 20.0 25.0 45.0 1 19 9306 6 3:50pm Spare 24.0 120.0 144.0 4 19 9402 7 6:50pm 94123 25.0 51.0 76.0 2 59 1004 14 6:40pm 10104 6.0 1 8 0 24.0 1 59 9408 14 6:40pm Spare 16.0 36.0 52.0 2 74 9312 20 8:45pm_94138 8.0 12 .0 20.0 1 LNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling Replacement DeadHead Revenue Total Trips No No Refueling Time of Day Bus Number Miles MUes Miles Comoleted 19 9306 9 9:50pm 93017 20 .0 20 0 40.0 1 --------Spare Buses: 1204, 8305, 8306, 8308 10071008, 9102 (Total of 7 buses) 1 Bus no 9305 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 60 and replaces 9401 to complete remaining trips on route no. 18. 2. Spare bus from garage replaces 9306 to complete remai n ing revenue trips on route no 19. 3. Bus no. 9412 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 75 and replaces 9402 to complete remaining trips on route no. 19. 4. Bus no. 1010 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 76 and replaces 1004 to complete remaining trips on route no. 59. 5. Spare bus from garage rep. laces 9408 to complete remaining revenue trips on route no. 59 6 Bus no. 9413 completes Its scheduled revenue trips on route no 79 and replaces 9312 to complete remaining trips on route no. 74. 7. Bus no. 9301 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 61 and replaces 9306 to complete remaining trips on route no. 19. 70

PAGE 75

Table 15Feasibility of Proposed Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes By Route, By Bus for CNG and LNG fuels St. Petersburg Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Replacement Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Number Bus Number (Ye s or No) 4 9313 9417 Yes 18 9317 9428 Yes 18 9430 9420 Yes 19 9425 Spare No 19 9426 Spare No 24 1223 1224 Yes 24 9431 9418 Yes Clearwater Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Replacement Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Numbe r Bus Number (Yes or No) 18 9401 9305 Yes 19 9306 Spare No 19 9402 9412 Yes 59 1004 1010 No 59 9408 Spare No 74 9312 9413 Yes St. Petersburg Division LNG as an Alternate fuel Replacement Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Numbe r Bus Number (Yes or No) 19 9426 9314 Yes Clearwater Division LNG as an Alternate fuel Replacement Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Number Bus Number (Yes or No) 19 9306 9301 Yes 71

PAGE 76

T a ble 1 6 Replace ment Schedu le By Route, By Bus, By Fu e l b Dlvl I St. Peters urg son R o u te No. B u s No. CNG Fuel LNG F u e l E lectrtcity RePlacement Year 23 1201 Y e s Y es N o 1995 4 1207 Yes Y es N o 1995 35 1208 Yes Yes No 1995 23 1210 Yes Yes No 1995 14 1211 Yes Yes No 1995 5 2 1217 Yes Yes No 1995 4 1218 Y es Yes N o 1996 52 122() Y es Y es N o 1995 52 1221 Yes Yes No 1995 2() 1222 Yes Yes No 1 995 24 1223 Yes Yes No 199 5 100 1224 Yes Yes No 1 995 2 3 8302 Yes Yes No 1996 96 8901 N o N o Yes 1 9 9 6 96 8902 N o N o Yes 1 996 3,5 8903 Yes Yes N o 2001 22,3() 89()4 Yes Yes No 2001 2 96 8905 No No Yes 200 1 27 8906 Yes Yes No 2001 1 0 0 8907 N o N o Yes 2001 11, 28 8908 Yes Yes No 2001 1 5 29 8909 .Yes Y es No 200 1 22.3 0 8910 Yes Yes No 2001 92 8911 No No Yes 2001 11,28 96 8912 Yes Yes No 200 1 23 8913 Yes Yes No 2001 38 8914 N o N o Yes 2001 20 8916 Yes Y es N o 2001 72

PAGE 77

Table 16 (Continued) Route No. Bus No CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity Replacement Year 9 9201 Yes Yes No 2003 22,30 92()2 Yes Yes No 2003 14 9203 Yes Yes No 2003 12 9204 No No Yes 2003 15,29 9205 Yes Yes No 2003 32,96 9206 No No Yes 2003 38 9207 No No Yes 2003 16 9208 Yes Yes No 2003 74 9209 Yes Yes No 2003 4 9313 Yes Yes No 2006 7 9314 Yes Yes No 2006 52 9315 Yes Yes No 2006 100 9316 Yes Yes No 2006 18 9317 Yes Yes No 2006 3,5 9318 Yes Yes No 2006 9,100 9319 Yes Yes No 2006 11,28 9320 Yes Yes No 2006 1,3,5 9321 Yes Yes No 2006 4 9417 Yes Yes No 2007 7 9418 Yes Yes No 2007 3,5 9419 Yes Yes No 2007 14 9420 Yes Yes No 2007 15,29 9421 Yes Yes No 2007 16 9422 Yes Yes No 2007 18 9423 Yes Yes No 2007 18 9424 Yes Yes No 2007 19 9425 Yes Yes No 2007 19 9426 Yes Yes No 2007 73

PAGE 78

Route No. Bus No . 9 9427 19 9428 19 9429 18 9430 24 9431 23 9432 Route No. Bus No 301 605 80,97 1202 52 1203 94 1205 94 701 67 702 67 703 61 704 78 705 94 706 67 707 74 1001 61,94 1002 66 1003 59 1004 75 1005 52 1006 52 1009 63 76 1010 Table 16 (Continued) CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes. Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 74 Replacement Year 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 Clearwater Division Replacement Year Past Due 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

PAGE 79

Table 16 (Continued) 'No. :No. CNG Fuel I Year 59 1011 Yes Yes No 1998 oa 1012 Yes Yes No 1998 94 1013 No Yes 1998 66 1014 Yes Y&S No 1998 52 1015 Yes Yes No 1998 19 9101 Yes Yes 2002 93 Yes 73 9104 Yes 69 9105 Yes Yes No 2002 301 9106 No No Yes 2002 72 9107 No No Yes 2002 82 9108 Yes Yes No 2002 59 9109 No No Yes 59 9110 No No Yes 2002 61 9301 Yes Yes No 2006 18 9302 Yes Yes No 2006 18 Yes Yes No 2006 63. 7 6 Yes Yes 2006 60 9305 Yes Yes No 19 9306 Yes Yes No 2006 66 9307 Yes Yes No 2006 66 Yes Yes No 2006 71 Yes Yes No 2006 19,71 9310 Yes Yes 2006 79 9311 Yes Yes No 2006 74 9312 Yes Yea No 2006 18 9401 Yes No 2007 19 Yes No 75

PAGE 80

Table 16 (Continued) Route No. Bus No. CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity Replacement Year 60 9403 Yes Yes No 2007 60,94 9404 Yes Yes No 2007 19,71 9405 Yes Yes No 2007 19,71 9406 Yes Yes No 2007 80 9407 Yes Yes No 2007 59 9408 Yes Yes No 2007 64 9409 Yes Yes No 2007 69 9410 Yes Yes No 2007 73 9411 Yes Yes No 2007 75 9412 Yes Yes No 2007 79 9413 Yes Yes No 2007 63,76 9414 Yes Yes No 2007 80 94 15 Yes Yes No 2007 52 9416 Yes Yes No 2007 76

PAGE 81

C. Emission Rates The previous review of Pinellas County Air Quality data concluded that the primary concern regarding pollutants from mobile sources in the county is chemicals which produce ground level ozone, i.e. volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and nitrogen oxides (NOJ. Among alternate fuels short-listed, both CNG and L NG have proven capability to address the NOx problem. Electricity also holds significant promise to reduce ground-level ozone precursor pollutants because it is genera l ly known as a zero-emission vehicle Tabl e 17 compares the average emi ssions of diese l and natural gas (CNG and LNG) powered buses. From the table it can be understood that there is a significant reduction in NO,., part i culate matter and carbon monoxide emissions in the case of natural gas powered buses. Taking the average of these tabulated values Figure 10 was developed for comparison of emission rates between natural gas and diesel powered buses. Exact emission comparisons can vary based on actual testing, but they have been compiled from other sources for general comparison only 77

PAGE 82

Type of Fuel Diesel Natural Gas Electric Table 17 Average Emission Rates by Fuel Type (grams/mile) THC' NOx PM 1 .242 31.72 1 .232 2.43' 29.45' 1.55" 1.634 24.274 0.984 2.65 12.05 0.0255 8.96 18.8 0.0436 11.37 16.77 0.067 Not appUcable' Not applicable' Not applicable' 1. Total HydroC8lbons (THC) include non-reactive Melhane concenlrallons. 2 Emissions on Orange County transit buses with Cummins L 10 engines using #2 diesel as fuel. co 13.52 21. 13 9.94 0.0265 1.296 11.47 Not applicable' 3. Emission levels from four vetucles with Cummins L-1 0 engines using #2 diesel fuel, conducted by West Virginia Universi ty Transportable Heavy-Dtrty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory. 4. Emissions taken by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority's H eavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Facility on transit buses wilh Cummins L-10 using #2 diesel as fuel. 5. Emissions on Orange County Jransit buses with Cummins L-1 0 engines using CNG as fuel. 6. Emission levels from four vehicles with Cummins L-10 engines using CNG as fuel, conducted by West Wginia University Transportable Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing LeboratOI)I. 7. Emissions taken by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority's Heavy Duty VeJ'lk:le Emissions Testing Facility on transit buses with Cummins L-10 engines using CNG as fuel. 8. Not Applicable= Emissions generated by different sources of producing the electlicity are negligible. 78

PAGE 83

Figure 10Average Emission Rates of Major Pollutants by Fuel Type 30 25 .. = 20 T I CNGJLNG ----I ----I e Diesel -----"' = 15 -.. II: c 0 : e 10 w 5 ---0 Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter Total Hydrocarbons 79 -----'----

PAGE 84

D. Unit Costs The cost of operating alternative f uel buses versus d i ese l buses can be broken down i nto operating costs and capital costs. Operating costs can be sub-d i vided into fuel costs and ma i ntenance costs Capital costs can be div i ded Into vehicle capital costs and refueling facility costs. Based on the most recent industry examples low end and high end examples of costs from different lra!!Sit agencies were ut i lized An average of the range of costs was typically selected as the unit price for comparison Local fuel costs and ma i ntenance costs were used for diesel. Florida power and Peoples Gas unit prices for electricity and CNG were used, respectively. Additionally, in regards to added fuel costs and federal taxes on CNG and LNG fuels in Florida CUTR offers the following information. F i rst, according to Peoples Gas, No federal exercise tax is assessed if the customer is a state or local governmental agency, a non profit educational entity, or using CNG for schoo l bus and /or intracity bus transportation Second, according to Florida Statute 206.877(9), a state or local government is not requ i red to pay fuel taxes or annual decal fee for moto r vehicles powered by alternative fue l CUTR tabulated all the collected cost information from different sources as identified in Table 18. A series of graphs were developed by taking average va l ues for all costs given in the Table 18 to show graphica l representation of comparative costs for Diesel, E l ectric CNG and LNG. Figure 11 shows fuel cost comparison developed with average values, Figure 12 shows the maintenance cost comparison drawn from average values, and Figure 13 illustrates the capital cost comparison drawn from average values. Adding alternative fuel buses to a fleet requ i res both capital acquisition of buses and changes be made to the refueling, maintenance and storage facilities at the site. Figure 1 3 shows vehicle capita l cost comparison which was developed by taking average values for CNG, LNG, and Diesel-powered vehicles and high-end for Electric vehicle to attain some uniformity in vehicle sizes. Due to large variations in the refueling site costs which are mainly due to variations in acquiring right of way costs by different transit agencies in case of new stations, graphical cost comparisons were not done for refueling facilities It 80

PAGE 85

should be noted that Peoples Gas service mains exis t in close proximity to both PSTA garages, and further, Motor Fuelers, Inc is willing to provide off-site refuelin g for CNG (eliminating on-site infrastructure costs for refueling). However, according to current information from Peoples Gas and background interview with LYNX in Orlando, the following "incremental" approach (as CNG fleet size increases) i n detennining re-fueling infrastructure costs: Phase I $ 50,000 (ovemite-flll for six buses) Ph ase II $150,000 (small compressor units) Phase Ill $350 ,000 (single "quick-fiiY' compressor) Phase IV $750,000 (two "quick-fill" compressor stations, separate island for re-fueling, on-site storage tanks) CUTR recommends off-site refueling fro CNG initially, then on-site refue l ing infrastructure can be added as the number of CNG buses increase beyond 6 to 10. 81

PAGE 86

Table 1 8 Detai l ed Cost Data by F u e l Type i n 1994 9 5 Type of Range in Fuel Cost Fuel Mile s ( p e r Veh-Mile) low High C N G 250 $0 .08' $0.22' LNG 300 $0.1711 $0 .2712 Elect ric 50 "" $0.1410 Diesel 438 "" $0.17" l --.-.andol. 2. A-lilly-coot 1 IIU$ sioolndlco!Od In-._ 3 FortW orth, Texu. 4. M iami, F l orida 5 F o rt W orth, Texas. 6. M iaml Flortdl and Aus&l. Texas. 1 Au$10>. Toxulo< 4o.4ool bus. 8 Fort Worltl Texas 1 35-foot IIU$. 9 LYNX and Peoples G as 10. LYNX and Peopk!s G as 11. Houiton, Txu. 12. El Pno, Tuu. 1 3 Hotsslon T IXIS. M a intenanc e C-Mile) ( per Vehicle) (millions of dollars) Low H igh Low Hlgh Low High $0.1"7" $0. 2 41 $250 ,ooo' $266,700' $0.05' $0.75"' $0.25" $261,00014 $285,000" $0 45" $2.251 7 $0.4519 $0.5420 $180,00021 $2 30,00 022 $0" $0.224 $0.2624 $ 0.3627 $20 0 ,00 0'" $260,00029 -1. Hous1cn. Toxaalo< <40.fool bus. 27. A-...UiromPSTAioata. Cdlnia. (!Mselmainlenanc:o coot Is $0.47) 21. Advanced Velllde 5ystemo, Chattanooga, 22-loot bus. 22. Advanced Vehicl e 5ystemo, Chattanooga, 31-foot bus. 23. Rccru u g lng u n it Included in vOhlde cost. 2A. Estmated cost fot tolar s tation b y USF. 25. Based on PSTA-. 26 A\ittage costs from PST A for New buses. 82

PAGE 87

0.25 0 2 Jl 0 .15 i i 8 .s 0.1 0.05 0 + 1 -'.li1'.;'!1-.',Jr;r r/ 1 ; '{l"if/i' ('of I' )jl \t'. :$, .... ,,'. ,},. ... ; . :,t n 0!-- o:o:A r' '-ir'o''f' '(,.; ,.. :. '' : '' '\ ,,,._ '!j. .. ,,: _.: .!.,: ;r :!;dl''; /,,.,. I' l ... ,., : ,. 1 1 i 1 _. ,. .:; .;JIr ,'' 'l;)' .:. ./'-!./" li'' '.';!, :J'!''::('i'i., ,f,}J:j): -,!; ,.,,.,t I tl .. I t!''JI"';-lr . ,,.j :-..:-;:f-, .. 't!,;.-'1 '1\; ,,-:;,. f /;,JJ.'. . I, . ( ; ( ,-f ? :; ; : .. ,;,,. ,r:r 1:. 1/,f I .,-' ; 'j . _(' .. -;' ',f' 'i!' ,-J!.l: >)I .' '/ 't I > f" ' u .. i , j i ,, I 1,-. '-r, 1J,;;sl rj!,..rJ'l:( i(j." ,; .. r 1 /. f.I j,,, I ;:.:. ... CNG Figure 11 -Fuel Cost Comparison by Fuel Type r i !J' zyt'(;! r.n'JH 'I''' '1/ .,,, .,, 11 .. /'1 .. 'I ,_ ... :. n:ii !t ':t' j,f I",. 1.\ ,., .; t j /..!/f!i,',l, 'i!t il '?A:i';' .it"t .Pj:fl/;;1, r, /1{/'j 1,\J, ! l.uJr f 'i' 1 r '. I 1\( .. 1"' r. l'i { 1 .1i ( J f . I i ' l,'j f!l f .1 !, 'I/;'! I fl',''l .,, .,l..,_, / /' / Jjtd-J ,lr.ur ',r' '!' .,.I .. f\ I !, !; )f ;,r! i -'f ... ll,t).Jl(l, r/! ;1'''. f1'; tit ,.' . . 1,/:,'f.(l'f, J/, '''!',\; hl/''1 'i 'J''''I fii . ,-;_l,. \';. ,,,. /If ) j ,.).,,,., .. ""'' I } ,t,J"l'-'('if\"'. f!J.:,t\,, ,.,.;1 Jf{!-. . '''"lf, !.r;'U 1{/.1/ l'l o\i .L ...... ,;. I i .1 n,,, _!;){ 1; )1! f t l1; 111 / : I I ( 1 1 ''i'} ,:,; 4 '''t'' /I! II I 'I '11 f ''" /11 i .'_d_i;fi,/,fi.-tl LNG .,, .. 1 1 ; ,; .j :' ( f f I j I ,; 0 I :lijfJI"'(':j lnJ i'Pl .. r . !1i i1.iLi, ( '}II. i)r!IJ;t '/ r.-.,1 i !'llf.fr'!l!-!. .( 1/ ;1!1:' ,>,i"Jf,! It :-f.,._,,,;r r't . -,,.::; ''lt:(,!/1!li I ..:' .... j, .... ; I Ill;, .. ,,,,,,,,(! "':,.J. ,!., _:,1 .. 1.:r. ,., 1 :. I'' I''. 'l'):i,j,.,' J -;ll't'-t,, ..... 'J\f, 'I -. .1 I ... \ f \',. ..... "!"' "' f '' :.r- t-t'!'f( f j i'i;; i' :}.'-f_ .: l'f,J; 'lfr'l'' !''!' J I I ,, J ' , 1-.t.;Ji rr ,t:'t'' .. 1'i {1_1il:l/.li .. 1.Y ''tf. if;1!1 !;!IIJ1}, f'J I,.. .. ,.,,\ . ,,f I ;.,l,. i,f '!,.' . :J(:' 'l.A .tl I /,:,hJ' /-' ... ,/' IJ {'''' If i ii: _!f,f J[ :;;. .,1_:{1!:,. ';:.,}-;;r/ fl.., J I ( 'i' :1f"i.l I II, ,: /1-"!'.f 1 ;j .. J!:>t..J f .J.! J''.f{'' 1 \11,, rJ.111., 1 ;1 !i;.', .1 rr1 !/ '''/1 l .Ji.'.-Diesel Type of Fuel 83 ,,. 1 ;1!-;tl.l' I"'J; ,,. I I i I, >. : ' : pJ/ ..,J; ,, I i'' ;.".'1'1 J'' r' t .-d .. ,__, ... l:;);t!,. If! ,; I 1 I ,. ,, . .' l't'J' ,i';jr,.! 1. 1 1 :t_!_',IV 1 '' 1 ''' \,;f .'I' 'f t I t 'I ldl /J'fL-l"l"j:l,i.J ,,., .... 1\'f !.'!,<,!_ ... (} 1, :11f,' .)'1! I I ; i! i 1 ."J . ; :1.-r ; t,r < ''"II 1 :t)lf" ,., f; ;., '.' : t,. If I .. ' j $ . :/'' .. ,J '?ll: I 1 :'Jj J, -j '.<-( U:' l:.J. ,f,r\ I .(r. I" p-,J . :: ... ( i '; 't'''!' ,. \1 ';I.. l. , o;J. / II', J ' I t.f ,"1 1]!, -. II''{ ,_. .JJ.:J ... Electric

PAGE 88

0 Q. -CD = u. >. .1:1 c 0 .. c !. E 0 u .. 0 u CD ... c ... c J!l c .. ::e .... .... e = u. .., 0 "' ... 0 d a d 0 0 d 811WII8JI led SIIIIOO UJlSo:l r.JUIIU8lUIWW 0 (!) 2: -' (!) 2: 0 ... &. (!'

PAGE 89

Figure 13Capital Cost Comparison by Fuel Type 300,000 250,000 :c 200,000 .. Q. I! :!1 8 150,000 c i 100,000 ... lJ 50,000 0 CNG LNG Diesel Electric Type of fuel 85

PAGE 90

E. Summary This sectlon of the report highlights key attributes of each alternative fuel short-listed i n comparison to diesel fuel ch aracte ristics based on the tables and developed during the deta i led feasibility analysis, and also discuses the importance of cost i n selecting the a lt ernative fuel for conversion. A series of tables and figures were developed to s how the distribution of buses, routes, and vehicle miles for each fuel option. Table 19 summarizes all the quantitative comparisons between each fuel option. The values in table 19 have been taken directly or calculated from previous tables in this report This table also reflects those values by fuel type and combination option assumed in the detailed analysis portion of thi s report Figure 14 shows that with CNG as the primary alte rn ative fue l, approximate l y 8 0 percent of the buses can be co nve rted to CNG Similarly if LNG i s t h e ma i n alternate fuel, F i g ure 1 5 shows that more than 80 percent can be converted to LNG. F i gu r es 16 and 1 7 represents the graphical form of distribution of routes in PSTA with CNG-Eiectric D i ese l and LNG-electric options. Figures 18 and 19 shows th e distribution of annua l vehicle miles in PSTA based on type of options that a r e e"her C NG-electric-Oiesel or LNG-electric powered bu s combinations. Based on daily mileage, CNG and L N G fuel powered buses can perform approximately at the same level to give the same range as diese l fueled buses b etwee n refuelings This range between refueling may be enough to serve the present PSTA schedu les and h eadways on all days If CNG is selected as a primary alternative fuel four buses ( running o n rou tes 19 and 59 ) m a y need to run with diesel to avo i d refueling or rep l aceme n t from the garage during the course of the day I f LNG i s selected as primary alt e rn a tiv e fu el, there will be no buses operating with diesel. Overall, electricity can be used as a secondary alternative fuel to serve on some routes with l ess mileage, but not on all routes due to its lim itations in range. Ther efore, based on total dail y miles, the possible solution In select ing the a lt ernat ive fuel from the short list ed fuels ma y be either a combination of CNG -Eiectric-D iesel or LNG-Eiectric fuel po w ered buses 86

PAGE 91

On the other hand, costs and availability of fuel are the other attributes that will effect the selection of an alternative fuel. Therefore, based on the information provided in this section of the report and series of tables developed during the deta i led feasibility analysis were utilized in selecting the best suitable alternative, the recommended alternative fuels implementation plan is discussed in the next section of the report. 67

PAGE 92

Table 19 Distribution of Buses Routes Miles Emissions and Costa by Fuel Distribution of Buses.. Type of Option CNGFuel LNG Fuel Electricity Diesel Fue l C NG-E iectric-Diesel 97 -21 5 LNG-Eiectric 102 21 .. Di t ib ti s r u on o OU 8SWI ect C pt on:-fR t 'th C N G El rl Dl I 0 I CNG Fue l Electricity CNG/Eiectricity CNG/Diese l CNG/Eie ctrlc/Diesel 36 8 5 1 1 o t l b t1 IS r u o n o ou w c 1p1 on:-f R tes ith LNG-Eiectrl 0 tJ LNG Fuel Electricity LNG!Eiectricity 37 8 6 Distribution of Miles: Type of Option CNG M iles LNG Miles Electricity Miles Diesel Miles CNG/Eiectrlc/Diesel 5,784,971 -536,527 453,55 3 LNG/Eiec tri city 6,238,524 536 ,527 .. E stimated Annual Emissions (Kilograms : Type of Carbon Nitrogen Particulate Total Option Monoxide Oxides Matter Hydrocarbons CNG!Eiectricitv/Diesel 31, 248 104,510 304 44 767 LNG/Eiectricity 26 443 98 .7n 266 47 413 Diesel 100 497 192.908 8,491 11, 969 rl Coa t Compa sons:-Type of Fuel Fuel cost Maintenance Cost Vehicle Capital Cost per Veh-mile ger VehMile per Vehicle C N G $0 .15 $0.21 $258,350 LNG $0 .22 $0.25 $2 73,000 Diesel $0 1 7 $0.31 $225,000 Electricity $0.14 $0 50 $280,000 88

PAGE 93

Figure 14-Distribution of buses in PSTA with CNG as main fuel .. .. l : .. 79% 4% .',.j, ,:i! l -,1, 11-l,. c, .. ,, r 'HII.!J Hhl:;; !, '" I !;1 i'l:) 1;,1'1!].._ ".1:1, :!1:1:'1 :it.n!l!1,h:lll: ;---r-,-t.. .. \' (:'!! l!it;f)>:!lif JilL''. ":, . _,, ili.ll"' C. .,. ' __ .. ,, '- : .\ H '' :-_1,:,; nu; f' . . : .> .. Total number of operating B u ses= 123 89 1B Electricity 0CNG Diesel

PAGE 94

f ill 0 CD a c 'ii E Ill .. C) z "' ...I N = . .. II i : "' "' 0 .c 1/) "' a> Q. c:: c -en Ql 0 -en 0 :I J:l "' .c ... E 0 c c:: 0 (ij = 0 :I "" J:l -.1:1 .. c .., '#.... "' I!! CD :I u..

PAGE 95

Figure 16 Distributio n of routes in PSTA with CNG as main fuel 2% 2% 16% r 70% Total number of operating routes: 51 91 Electric routes 0 CNG routes CNG/Eiectrlc routes C NGIOiesel routes II C NG/Electrlc/Oi esel routes

PAGE 96

Figure 17 -D i stribution o f rout es In PSTA with LN G as m ain fuel cil''l'\{'f c/1 /1( : fil:i; i., :I !r := .. ... !-:' If, -cJII'(I';,J l!j,;fl''l! ,, i i l j II,, -b 1 I 72% Total number of operating rootes =51 92 16% Electric routes 0 LNG routes 1J1 LNG/Eiectric routes _,.. __

PAGE 97

Figure 18-Distribution of vehicle miles in PSTA with CNG as main fuel 8% l"'lfillll.j'' q!; till m : '<.11>, :, t.t u \ 'l >I l ; ,, f, I ' { j! ,, . 'k;i ..:,_ I o 'l Annual Vehicle Miles= 6,775,051 (Estimated from a per b u s basis) 93 85% 0 CNGmiles Diesel miles lllD Electric miles

PAGE 98

Figure 19-Distribution of vehicle miles In PSTA with LNG as main fuel 8% 92% Annual Vehicle M iles= 6,775,051 (Estimated from a per bus basis) 94 0 LNG miles Electric miles

PAGE 99

VIII. SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This section of the report assesses the suitability of the two options I.e. eNG-Electric Diesel and LNG-Eiectric that are detailed in the previous section of this report to select the final implementa tion plan which will have the greatest potential for successful conversion for PSTA fleet. In terms of improving air quality, it appea rs that both options offer the same benefits, and both of these fuels will emit less primary pollutants (discussed in the second section of this report) with respect to diesel fuel powered buses. If fuel availability is considered both fuel options considered are available from some domestic U.S. sources. However, only CNG and electricity have the refueling infrastructure already in place in Pinellas county. There are several public CNG refueling facilities In operation in Pinellas county. In addition, electric buses can undergo a slow charge at any normal 15 amp, 240 volt, outlet. On the other hand there are no LNG suppliers and refueling facilities available in Pinellas County .. Based on this fuel availability information CNG-electric-Diesel fuel combination is preferred. Based on the information available on vehicle availability, both CNG and LNG powered engines are available from a wide range of manufacture rs, enabling PSTA to get a competitive price. At the same time, electric vehicles are also available from two manufacturers. Electric buses are available in 22-foot and 31-foot sizes from Advance Vehicle Systems, Inc. and in 22-foot size from U.S. Electricar, Inc. (U.S. Eleclricar, Inc. Has recently gone out-of-business, and will not be used as a cost source in this report). Based on the vehicle availability Information, both options are favorable in the selection of a final implementation plan. One other factor that will affect the selection of a final implementat ion plan is reliability. One measure of reliability in a bus i s the average number of miles on a bus betwee n road calls. These road calls include all types of events, from engine failure to simply running out of gas. Based on the information provided by National Renewable Energy Laboratory Vehicle Evaluation Program, LNG powered buses operated by Houston transit agency are 95

PAGE 100

experiencing a higher number of road calls than the diesel powered buses, on the other hand buses operated by Tacoma, Washington with CNG fuel have less road calls when compared to diesel powered buses. Therefore, based on reliability, CNG-Eiectric-Diesel option is preferred to other option in selecting the fina l implementat ion plan The final factor that effects the selection is cost. Fuel cost represents the largest portion of the total operating cost of a transit bus. Capita l costs can vary depending on the actual replacement schedule followed and the percent of the existing fleet that is actually replaced. As a final comparison for both options, using fuel costs, maintenance costs and capita l costs shown in Table 19, costs for the entire fleet conversion are determined and are given in the Table 20. T able 20 shows that the CNG-Electric-Diesel combination has lower costs than the LNG-Eiectric fuel combination. Table 20 Estimated Cost Comparison by Fuel Option Fue l Option Annual Annual Total Total Fuel Cost Maintenance Cost Vehicle Capital Cost CNGElectric-Diese l $ 1 ,019,963 $1,623 709 $32,064,950 LNG-Eiectric $ 1, 447,589 $1,827,895 $33,726 000 Diesel $1,151,759 $2,100,266 All costs are calculated based on PSTA Annual Vehicle M1les and Costs reported 1n Table 19. Based on all this information related to both fuel options, the CNG-Eiectric-Diesel fuel option is more favorable and recommended for PSTA for fleet conversion 96

PAGE 101

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the detailed feasibility performed by bus, by route for the PSTA fleet, the following recommendations and co nclus ions are offered: 1. The most favorable conversion to alternative fuels is a combination of CNG-Eiectric and diesel. (97 converted to CNG, 21 to electric, and five remaining as diesel) 2. The greatest benefrt in conversion to alternative fuels will be in red uced emissions compared to an all diesel fleet. Nitrogen oxides will be reduced by approximately one-half, carbon monoxide by two-thirds, and particulate matter would be virtually eliminated. 3. This conversion plan require 36 routes to operate exclusively on CNG, eight exclusively on electricity, fiVe on CNG and electricity, one on CNG and diesel, and one on CNG, electricity and diesel. 4. For total PSTA fleet replacemen t (all in 1994), costs would include $32.1 million in capital and approximately $2.65 million in annual total operating costs (fuel and maintenance). For comparison, total all diesel PSTA fleet replaceme nt in 1994 would be approximately $28 million, with estimated annual diesel operating costs of $3 25 million. Refueling facility cost will vary depending on on-site or off-site refueling and size of CNG fleet. 97

PAGE 102

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Advanced Vehicle Systems Inc brochure 2. Amer i can Public Transit Associatlo .n. 1994 Transit Passenger Vehicle Fleet Inventory Washington, D.C : American Public Transit Association. April 1994 3. "Biodiesel Completes Seven Million." Passenger Transport (May 16, 1994): pp 16-17. 4 "Denver's 'Real-World' Testing Reveals Costs, Benefits, Problems." Passenger Transport(July 19, 1993): pp. 5-9. 5. Detroit Diesel Corporation brochure 6 Domin i ck A. Venne! and Christopher Ferrone Natural Gas Engine Deve l opment for the Fleet Operator.' Bus Operator ( January 1995 ): pp 9-17 7. "In Chattanooga Electric Buses Are Here Now." Passenger Transport ( May 16 1994) : p. 12. 8 Herbert Fox. "A Look at Alternative Fuels : Comparisons and Projects Bus Ride (April1995): pp. 54-56. 9. Lauren S. Dunlap, Vince Pellegrin, Randal Lkeda, Ray Wilson, Sylvia Stanley, and Harvey Porter. "Chassis Dynamometer Emissions Testing results for Diesel and Alternative-Fueled Transit Buses.' Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board Washington January 1993. 10. Office of Technology Assessment. Replac ing Gasoline : Alternative Fuels fo r Ught-Duty Vehicles. Washington D C .: Office ofTechnology Assessmen t. Septembe r 1990. 11. Matthew Kitchen., and William Damico. Development of Conversion Factors for Heavy-Duty Bus Engines GIBHP-HR to GIMILE.' A report prepared for the Engine and Vehicle Regulations Branch July 1992. 12. McCrea, Stephen. "Preparing for the Post-Petroleum Era: What Policy Analysts Need to Know About Alternative Fuel Vehicles." Environmental and Urban Issues. (Winter 1994): pp. 17-25. 13. "Multiple Fuels Compete for Trans i t's Attention Passenger Transport (July 19, 1993): pp. 5-15. 98

PAGE 103

14. National Fire Protection Association NFPA 52: Standard for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems. Quincy, MA: Nat i onal Fire Protection Association. August 14, 1992 15. "Partnership Spurs Propane Engine Development: Orange County Forefront in Test i ng." Passenger Transport (May 16, 1 994) : pp."9-20. 16. Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1g89/1990 Air Quality Report. Clearwate r FL: P i nellas County OEM Air Quality Division. September 1991. 17. P i nellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1991 Air Quality Report. Clearwate r FL: Pinellas County OEM Air Qua l ity Division. March 1993. 18. P i nellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1992 Air Quality Report. Clearwa t er, FL: Pinellas County OEM Air Quality Division. December 1993. 19. Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1993 Air Quality Report. Clearwater FL: Pinellas County OEM Air Quality Division. DRAFT Aug ust 1994. 20 Pinellas Suncoast Transit-Authority Bus Fleet Inventory. 21. "Portland Continues LNG Testing Passenger Transport (May 16, 1994): p. 21. 22. Rubin, John. "Fuel Emission Standards and the Cost-Effective Use of Alternative Fuels in Californ i a Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 73 Annual Meeting, Wash i ngton, D.C., January 9-13 1 994 23. Safe Operating Procedures for Alternative Fuel Buses: A Synthesis of Transit Practice Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board 1993. 24. Safety is Prime Concern in Switch to Alternative Fuels." Passenger Transport (May 16 1994): pp. 9 19. 25. "Southern Ca li fornia Alternative-Fuel Projects ." Automotive Engineering (March 1995) : pp. 63-66 26 Thomas Fowler, and Mark Euritt. T he Feas i bility of Electric Bus Operations for the Austin Capita l Metropolitan Transportation Authority :" Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Transportation Research Board Wash i ngton, January 1995. 99

PAGE 104

27. 'Transportation, Air & Health." The Neighborhood Works. (December 1994/ January 1995): pp 22-23. 28. "Twin Cities Tests Ethanol Clean Diesel Technologies." Passenger Transport (May 16, 1994): p. 10. 29. U .S. Department of Energy Alternatives to Traditional Transportation: An Overview Washington D.C. : Energy Information Administration. 30. U.S. Department of Energy. Comparative Alternative Fuel/Clean Fuels Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Washing t on, D.C: National Alternative Fue l s Hotline. 31. U S Department of Energy. Facts About CNG and LPG Conversion Washington, D.C.: National Alternative Fuels Hotline. 32. U.S. Department of Energy. Heavy-Duty Engine Manufacturers. Washington D.C.: National Alternative Fuels Hotline. 33. U.S. Department of Energy. Ethanol and Methanol: Just the Facts. Boulder CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. February 1992. 34. U.S. Department of Energy. Alternative Fuel Transit Buses. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. May 1995. 35. Wenguang Wang, Xiaobo Sun, Reda Bata, Mridul Gautam, Nigel Clark, Michael Palmer, and Donald Lyons. "A Study of Emi ssions from CNG and Diesel Fueled Heavy-Duty Vehicles." Paper presented at the annua l meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington January 1993. 36. Wenguang Wang, Mridul Gautam, Xiaobo Sun, Reda Bata, Nige l Clark Michael Palmer, and Donald Lyons "Emissions Comparisons of Twenty-Six Heavy-Duty Vehic les Operated on Conventional and Alternative Fuels." Paper presented at the annual mee ti ng ofthe Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 1993. 100

PAGE 105

Appendix A List of Contacts Federa l. State and Non -Profrt Informati on Resources Federal Transit Administration 400 7th Street, S W ., Room 6423 Washington D C 20590 Tel: ( 202 ) 366-0090 Contact: Vincent DeMarco Director of local Transit Authorities Alternative Fuels Initiatives Program U.S. Department of Energy National Alternative Fuels Hotline P O Box 12316 Arlington VA 22209 Tel : ( 800) 423-1363 U .S. Department of Energy Energy Information Administration 1 000 Independence Ave. S W Washington, D .C. 20585 Tel: ( 202) 586-8800 Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle & Fuel Em issions laboratory 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Ml48105 Te l : (313) 668-4270 Contact: Philip Carlson American Public Trans i t Association 1201 New York Ave ., N .W. Washington, D.C 20005 Tel: (202) 898-4089 Contact: Rose Gandee 101 National SoyDiesel Development Board MidWest Biofuels Topeka, KS Tel: ( 913 ) 599-0800 Co n tact Gary Wi l son Oxygenated Fuels Association 1330 Connecticut Ave N.W ., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-1702 Tel: (202) 296-4200 California Air Resources Board P O Box 2815 Sacramento CA 95812 Te l : ( 818 ) 575-6845 Contact : Sara Santoro Office of Mobile Sources Florida Energy Office Florida Department of Community Affairs 27 40 Centerview Drive Ta l lahassee Fl32399-2100 Tel: ( 904 ) 4 88-2475 Contact : Jan R i ckey Manager of Transportat i on Programs Altematlve Fuels Information and Training Center CUTR, Un i versity of South Florida Tampa Fl33620 Tel: ( 813 ) 974-3120 Contact John Bradley

PAGE 106

Eye! Syopliers Clearwater Gas 2551 Drew St., Suite 304 Campus Walk Plaza CleaJWate r EL 3462 5 Tel: (813) 462-6340 Contact: J a mes Lewin Director o f Marke tin g and P l a nning People's Gas 111 Madison St. P O. Box2562 Tampa EL 33601-2562 Tel: (813) 272-0034 Fax: (813) 272-0369 Contact: Ke ith Gruetzmacher Manager o f Market De velopment Slagel Gas P.O. Box 30309 Palm Beach Gardens FL 33420 Tel: (305) 691-441 1 Fax: (305) 835 -22 83 Contact: Kennan Siegel Florida Power Corporatio n P .O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 T el: (813) 866-4700 Con tact : Joe Scala Tampa Electric Company 3007 N 5oth Stree t T ampa FL 33619 Tel: (813) 288-411 1 Contact Chris S lane 102 Engine Manufacturers Detroit Diesel Corporation 1 3400 Outer Drive West Detroit, Ml 48329-4001 Tel : (313) 5927046 Fax : (313) 592-56 04 Contact: Stanley Miller Manager o f Altematlve Fuels P roject Center Hercules Engine Company 101 Eleventh Street, S.E Canton, OH 44707 Tel: (216) 438-1361 Contact: Kim Boyer Mack Trucks, Inc. 2100 Mack Boulev a rd Box M Allen t own. PA 18105 Tel: (215) 439-3815 Contact: Kevin Flaherty, Director of OEM Sa l es Cummins Engine Company 1000 Fifth Street Columbus I N 47202 Tel: (812) 377-3694 Fax : ( 8 12) 377-5 532 Con t act: Carl Koons, D i rector of Alternative Fuel Support Caterpillar, Inc. P .O Box 610 Moosev ille IL 6153 2 -0610 Tel : (309) 578-4929 Fax: (309) 578-2053 Contact S t eve McCorm ick

PAGE 107

Navistar International 10400 West North Avenue Me l rose Park, IL 60160 Tel: (708) 865-4154 Fax : (708) 865-3330 Contact: John Haggard, Eng i ne Division Advanced Vehicle Systems, Inc. 3101 Parker Lane Chattanooga TN 37419 Tel : (615) 821-3146 Contact : Joe Ferguson Transit Agencies Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth Texas. Tel: (817) 871-6221 Contact : Anthony Johnson and Ron Anderson Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Austin, Texas Contact : Doyle Young or Will Jayne Tel: (512) 389-7566 Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Tacoma, Washington. Conlact: Ron Shipley Tel: (206) 581-8080 Hamilton Street Railway Company Hamilton Ontario (CANADA) Contact: Roy Duncan Tel: (905) 528-4200 103 City of El Paso Mass Transit Corporation El Paso, Texas. Contact: Eugene Chavez Tel: (915) 534-5870 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County H ouston, Texas. Contact: Russell Pentz or Larry L uttrell Tel: (713) 635-0237 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Portland, Oregon Contact: Mike Grove Tel: (503) 239-6410 Sacramento Regional Transit District Scramento, California Contact: Mike Cook Tel: (916) 321-2839 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Orlando, Florida Conlact: Deborah A. Cooper Tel: (407) 8412279, Ext. 3207 MOTA Santa Barbara, CA Contact: Paul Griffith Tel : (805) 963-3364

PAGE 108

Electric Vehicle Start-Uo Firms Rena issanc e C al'S Inc. 2300 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 1 Palm Bay, El 32905 Tel: { 407) 676-2228 Fax : { 407) 676-2229 Contact: D e n nis Kaiser Director of Marke ting Solar Car Corporation 1300 Lake Washington Road Me lbourn e Fl 32935 Tel: { 407) 254-2997 Fax : ( 407) 254-4773 Contact: Doug Cobb, President Energy P artnei'S 1501 N orthpoint Parkway Suite 102 Technology Center West Palm Beach, Fl 33 4 07 Tel: { 4 07) 688-0500 Fa x : (407) 688-9610 Contact: Rhett Ross, Vice President Electric Power Technology, lnc.(E PTI ) At lant a, GA. Contact: Karen Robinson T el: {404)4491104 104


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200301Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001927289
005 20080327151921.0
008 951018s1995 flud b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00316
2 local
035
(OCoLC)33326443
040
CBT
c CBT
d OCL
OCLCQ
FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE5633.P566
b A48 1995
0 245
Alternative fuels implementation plan for Pinellas County :
transit component : evaluation report /
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1995]
300
[iv], 104 leaves :
charts ;
28 cm.
500
Prepared for the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization in cooperation with the Florida Dept. of Transportation.
"October 1995."
504
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-100).
530
Also available online.
650
Bus lines
z Florida
Pinellas County.
Buses
Florida
Pinellas County
x Motors (Compressed-gas)
Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition
Alternate fuels.
Air quality management
Florida
Pinellas County.
1 710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.316