USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An un-cataloged item [C01-00600] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An un-cataloged item C01-00600 from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications USF.
Physical Description:
Book

Subjects

Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

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:
usfldc doi - C01-00600
usfldc handle - c1.600
System ID:
SFS0032472:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Alternative Fuels Implementation Plan for Pinellas County: Transit Component Evaluation Report Th i s project i s funded th rough the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAO) program, under a joint participation agreement between the F lorida Department of Transportation and the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Th i s project i s fu nded u nde r the followi ng ratio: 80% Federal. 20% State/FOOT. WPI No. 7816650 State Job No. 15007-38 12 Contract No AA971 Federa l Job No. CM8888 ( 100) MPO Resolution No 93-19 Prepared for the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida October 1995

PAGE 2

I. II. Ill. IV. v VI. VII. VIII. IX. Table of Contents Purpose Executive Summary Introduction to Fuel Types Pinellas County Air Quality Review A Introduction to Air Pollutants B Comparing Pinellas County Air Qual ity to National Standards C. Status of Tampa Bay's Application for "Attainment" Designation D. Frequency of AQ Testing/ Rational for AQ Testing 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 and Ma i ntenance H. Summary of Comparisons Detailed Feasibility Analysis A. Methodology B. Analysis by route, by bus C. Emission Rates D Unit Costs E. Summary Selection of the Preferred Implementation Plan Recommendations and Conclusions Bib li ography Appendix A List of Contacts Page 1 Page2 Page6 Page 8 Page 8 Page 10 Page 13 Page 15 Page 16 Page26 Page 26 Page 27 Page 34 Page 37 Page 37 Page 37 Page 38 Page 38 Page40 Page 41 Page 43 Page44 Page46 Page46 Page46 Page 77 Page 80 Page 86 Page 95 Page 97 Page 98 Page 101

PAGE 3

Li s t o f T a bles Table 1 National Ambient Air Q u ality Standards Page 11 Table 2 Air Qual ity I mpacts Page 26 Tabl e 3 1994 Passenger Fleet: B uses, Vans & Trolleys Page 28 Tabl e 4 Tampa Bay Regional A.F.V. Pilot Projects Page 36 Table 5 AF Bus/Engine Availab i lity Page 39 Table 6 Mil es Between Refue l ing Page 4 0 Table 7 Preliminary Capita l and Operat ing Costs Page43 Table 8 Fue l Assessment Mat rix Page45 Table 9 Daily Mi l es By Route, By Bus Page47 Table 10 Refueling Requirements Page 56 Table 1 1 Refueling Details By Rou te By Bus Page65 Tab l e 12 Feasibility of Convers i on By Route, By Bus for E l ectric Page67 Table 13 Proposed Bus Rep l acement Schedule fo r Reduced T r ip Page69 Routes in St. Petersburg Div i sion Tab l e 14 Proposed Bus Rep l acement Schedule for Reduced Trip Page70 Routes i n Clearwater Divis i on Tab l e 15 Feasibility of Proposed Replacement Sch edu l e for Page 71 Reduced Trip Routes fo r CNG and L N G fue l s Table 1 6 Replacement Schedu l e By Route By Bus, By Fue l Page 72 Table 17 Average Emission Rates by Fuel Type Page 78 Table 18 Detailed Cost Data by Fuel type in 1994-95 Page 82 Table 19 D i stribution of Buses, Routes, Miles, Em i ssions and Page 88 Costs by Fuel Table 20 Es ti mated Cost Comparison by Fue l Option Page 96

PAGE 4

L ist of Figur es Figure 1 Ambi e nt Ozon e Concentrations Page 17 Figure 2 Ambient Nit r ogen Dioxide Concent ra tions Page 18 Figure 3 Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (8-Hour Leve l s) Page 19 Figure 4 Ambient Carbon Mono x id e Concentrat i ons ( 1 -Hour Levels) Page 20 F i gure 5 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations(24-Hour Levels) Page 21 F i gure 6 Amb i en t Particulate M atter Concentrations Page 22 (Annual Mean Levels) Figu r e 7 Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations (3-Hour Leve l s) Page 23 Figure 8 Ambient Sulphur Dioxid e Concentration s Page 24 ( Annua l Mean Levels) Fig u re 9 Ambi e nt Lea d Concentrat i ons Page 25 Figure 10 Average Emission Rates of Major Pollutants by Fuel Type Page 79 Figure 11 Fuel Cost Compar i son by Fue l T ype Page 83 F i gur e 12 Maintenance Cost Comparison by Fue l Type Page 8 4 Figure 13 Cap i t a l Cos t Co m parison by Fuel Typ e P age 85 Figu r e 14 Distribu tio n of buses in PSTA w ith CNG as m ain f u el Page 89 Fig u re 15 Distribution of bu se s i n PSTA with L N G as main fuel Pa g e 90 Figure 16 Distribu t ion of routes in P STA wit h C N G as main f u el Page 91 F i gure 17 D i stributio n o f r outes in PSTA w ith LNG as main fuel Page 92 Figure 1 8 Dis t rib u tion o f vehicle miles i n PSTA w ith C N G as Page 93 mai n fue l Figu r e 19 D i stributio n of veh ic le m iles in PSTA wi th CNG as Page 9 4 m ain fuel

PAGE 5

I. PURPOSE On July 15, 1 994 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 qual ity and ident i fies the most pressing air qual ity problems that an alternative fuels implementation plan should address. This report a lso examines the state-of the-art of alternative fuel veh i cles in transit, and provides an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each fuel type. Finally this report recommends the alternative fue l (or combination of alternative fuels) most feasib l e for implementation by PST A. Fuel types examined in this study are: reformulated gaso li ne and reformu l ated diesel (RFG and RFD) propane the main ingredient in l iquefied petroleum gas (LPG) compressed natura l gas (CNG) liquefied natural gas (LNG) ethanol methanol biodiesel electric vehicles ( i ncluding EVs with solar recharging stations) A general assessment is performed for the use of these fuels 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 compi l ed i n 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 Decembe r 1994 PSTA daily operations p l an. 1

PAGE 6

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report assesses eight different alternative fuel options available to the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority for conversion of its transit fleet, i n order to select an alternative fuels implementation plan most feasible for PSTA. Of the eight different fuel options i nitially considered (reformulated gasoline and diesel, propane, compressed natural gas liquefied natural gas, ethanol, methanol biodiesel and electricity,) two l iquid/gas fuelscompressed natural gas and liquefied natural gasshow the greatest potential for successful conversion and were i ncluded i n the detailed feasibility analysis. In addition electricity was also included in the detailed analysis because of low cost, availability, and applicab i lity for short range routes. The recommended alternative fuels imp l ementation p l an utilizes CNG as the primary fuel, with electricity and diesel as the secondary fuel for routes that either have short range and low load factors or requ i re a spare CNG bus from garage to resume operations during refueling. Table 8 contains a fuel assessment matrix which eva l uates each of the in i tia l eight fuels accord i ng to the follow i ng criteria: air qua l ity impacts, safety and maintenance issues, fuel availabil i ty, vehic l e availability, performance, refuel i ng faci l ities vehicle costs fuel costs and r egulatory requirements. Tables 19 and 20 describe the characteristics of the r ecommended CNG-Eiectric-Diesel i mplementat ion plan Regulatory Issues The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 has an ind i rect but tang i ble effect on PST A's options for alternative fuel convers i on. EPAC T defines acceptable "clean fuels" for AFV new purchase requirements of centrally fueled fleets. Although the Act currently exempts heavy-duty veh i cles (weight greater than 8 500 pounds), it does serve as guidance for long-term acceptance within the national program for conversion to non-petro l eum based fuels. The secretary of the U.S. Department of E nergy sti ll has the option of revok i ng the heavy-duty vehicle exemption, prior to January 1, 2000 EPACT defines acceptab l e clean fuels as those wh i ch are "substantially not petro l eum ". i.e. propane, CNG, LNG, ethanol methanol and electricity 2

PAGE 7

In July 1995, the EPA, leading manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines, and the California Air Resouroes Board (CARB) signed a "Statement of Principles" requiring engine manufacturers to produce eng i nes by year 2004 that cut nitrogen oxides by half while 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 year 2004 diesel and gasoline models. Engine manufacturers will be able to choose one of two different combinations of hydrocarbon (non-Methane) and nitrogen oxide standards. Air Quality The 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 (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOJ. Although all fuel options except propane reduce VOCs emissions when displacing petroleum-based fuels, only CNG and LNG have proven capability to address the NO. problem. Electricity is also holds significant promise to reduce ground-level ozone precursor pollutants, however a more detailed environmental analysis of the method of electricity generation in Pinellas County is needed. Secondary concerns included particulate matter under 10 microns in size (PM-1 0) and carbon monoxide. All fuel options considered reduce emissions of these pollutants. Fuel Availability and Refueling Facilities All fuel options considered are available from some domestic U.S source. However, only propane, CNG and electricity have the refueling infrastructure already in place in P inellas County. There are two public "quic k -fi lr' CNG/propane refueling facilities located in Pinellas County, wit h two more planned, plus several public propane-only sites. Electric buses and vehicles can undergo a slow (8-hour) recharge at any 15-amp outlet. Vehicle Availability Only CNGand LNG -powered engines are available from a wide range of manufacturers, enabling PSTA to be assured of competitive bids. Biodiesel 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 L NG-powered engines were guaranteed by the manufacturers to fit i nto 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 come only in 22-foot and 31-foot sizes. Performance With 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. Assuming 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 able to meet the average daily mileage requirement of the average PSTA bus (131 miles). 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 refuel ings 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 Alternative fueled buses are now becoming availab l e directly from bus manufacturers with the alternatively-fue l ed engine already install ed. The additional cost of buses which run on CNG, LNG, ethanol and methanol is essentially the incremental cost of the alternatively 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 CNG-or 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 r evised upward to $280,000 to reflect July 1995 costs and add-ons for air conditioning and ADA requirements. Only electricity is estimated to be a less expensive fuel option than diesel in terms of both capital and operating costs. It should be noted, however that estimates for operat i ng costs are taken from case studies in other areas of the country and will not necessarily be the case in Pinellas County. Safety and Mai n tena nce Every fuel used to power transit vehicles, i ncluding gasoline and diesel, has its own safety considerations However, methanol stands out as requiring extra safety precautions. Methanol is an extremely toxic fuel; maintenance technicians must wear protective cloth i ng and gloves to keep the fuel from getting on their skin In addition, methanol is i nvisibly flammable and heavier than air, so when leaked it pools on the floor causing a fire hazard The fuels of the next highest 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 aHematlve fuels available today. namely: reformulated gasoline (RFG) and reformulated diesel (RFD), propane -the main ingredient in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefie d natural gas (LNG), methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. This study does not deal with futuristic, still-expe rimenta l technolog i es such as hydrogen fuel-cells. Propane is the primary gas in liq uefied 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 w idely 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 limitation, CNG has become a popular choice among transit agencies in F lorida as an aHemative fue l for their buses. Metro-Dade Transit Authority has frve CNG-powered vehicles in operation, LYNX has six in operation (with an additional10 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 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 fue l 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 weather, the methanol is frequently mixed with gasoline at a 85 percent to 15 percent (of methanol) ratio (M85) 6

PAGE 11

Ethanol is a liquid fuel derived from organic substances, such as corn. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline {at a rate of up to 5 percent) and run on conventional engines to reduce pollutants and decrease fue l costs, if ethanol costs less than gasoline for a particular area. Dedicated vehicles with specially-made engines can operate on 1 00 percent ethanol. Blodlesel is currently described by the EPA as a "fuel component", an additive to fuels such as diesel. The bio component is made from renewable energy sources primarily vegetab l e oi l through a process called "transesterification", which separates the liquid from glycerine Biod l esel, mixed with diesel at a 20 percent to 80 percent ratio, can be used in conventional diesel-powered engines without modification to the vehicle. Biodiesel advocates say that the 20 percent -SO percent mix significantly reduces diesel emissions: particulate matter by 31 percent, CO by 21 percent and VOCs by 50 percent. Biodiesel does not reduce NO. emissions. With electric vehicles (EVs), energy is stored in a battery which must be recharged frequently. The distance EVs can travel between rechargings (Jess than 100 miles) is much more limited than the distance between refuelings provided by gasoline-or diesel powered vehicles. However, research and development of electric vehicles is popular among many start-up 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 contact information. PSTA purchased a 22-foot electric vehicle in April 1995 which will be recharged along its route by a solar recharge station operated by the Clean Energy & Vehicle Research Center at the University of South Florida. The USF Center is one of only a dozen sites in the country pursuing research, development and performance monitoring of solar recharge stations for electric vehicles. The PSTA "solar bus" project will be the first in the country to use solar-generated 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-attainment 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 i n this section is taken from Air Qua l ity Reports published annually by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Air Quality Divis i on. A. Introduction to Air Pollutants Th i s section examines Pinellas County air quality data fo r the air pollutants for which gasolineand dieselpowered vehicles are a common source : ground-level ozone nitrogen dioxide (NO,), particulate matter smaller than 10 m i crons in size (PM 1 0), carbon monoxide (CO) and lead. Th i s section also examines sulphur diox i de (S02 ) which is a common by-product of electricity generated by burning coal (as is pract i ced by Florida Power in Pinellas County.) The C l ean Air Act directs the Env i ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set and enforce a i r quality standards for the protection of the public health and welfare. EPA h as established National Ambient A i r Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a number of air pollutants. Unlike emission standaids which regulate the quantity of pollutants at the source the NAAQS prescribe minimum acceptable standards i n terms of concentrations of pollutants i n the ambient a ir. Ground-level ozone results when volati l e organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with sunlight. Even low concentrations of ozone have been found to severely impair breathing and cause lung inflammation in healthy people, according to the Environmenta l Protect i on Administration. Reduced lung function is often accompanied by chest pain, cough i ng, nausea and congest i on. 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 (NOJ are the secondary contributing pollutant to ground-level ozone formation. In addition to contributing to acid rain, NOx can irritate the lungs and lower people's resistance to respiratory in fections like 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). The county Department of Environmental Protection measures N02 to ensure that Pinellas County meets the national standard. Particulate matter of less than 10 microns in size (PM-1 0) is about half the diameter of a human hair PM 1 0 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-10 pollution i s caused by transportat ion sources. However of that one third, diesel exhaust is a main contributor. The remainder 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 iron-containing protein in red blood cells is responsible for carrying oxygen to the body's organs. CO blocks hemoglobin's ability to carry oxygen. As a result, CO is most threatening to people suffering from cardiovascular disease even at relatively low levels. At higher levels, CO can impair motor skills, visual perception and ability to perform complex tasks. Because unburned gasoline is the primary source of carbon monoxide, the pollutant is a particular problem I n areas with cold winters, when starting a cold engine requires a richer gasoline-air mixture. 9

PAGE 14

Because of the removal of lead from most gasoline sold in the United States, lead emissions have decreased 98% since 1970 As a heavy metal, lead 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 (S02 ) because it is a major cause of lung disease and acid rain. However, only a small amount of the total S02 emissions 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 in th is 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 recent emission inventory of Pinellas County indicated that on-road vehicles account for over 40 pe rcent of the VOC and over 50 percent of the NO emissions. Figure 1 depicts ambient ozone readings at three monitoring locations for the three years 199 1 through 1993. While it has been several years since P inellas 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 of 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 Ground-level Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide (N02 ) PartictJlate Matter (PM-10) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulphur Dioxide (SO,) Lead Source: Table 1 N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards Contributing Factors EPA Standard Maximum Readings Rank of in Pine l las County Severity (1991-1993) Mixing of volatile 120 ppb 85 115 ppb 1 organic compounds (1-hour) (1ho ur) (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) with sunlight Evaporation of 0.05 ppm 0.014 ppm 2 gasoline or diese l fue l at (annual mean) (an nual mean) gas pump Unburned fuel from automobile tailpipes Emissions from 150 micrograms/ 100 m i crograms/ 3 diesel-powered vehicles cubic meter cub i c meter Burning of fossil fuels (24h our) (24-hour) for manufacturing and 50 micrograms/ 20-30 electri city generation cubic meter micrograms/ cub i c ( ann ual mean) meter (annual mean) Emi ss ions from 35 ppm Sppm 4 au t omobile tailpipes ( 1-hour ) (1-hour) 8 ppm 5 ppm (8-ho u r) (8-h our) for 0 .5ppm 0.25ppm 5 electricity genera t ion (3-hour) (3-hour) 0.03 ppm 0.005-{1.015 ppm (annual mean) (annua l mean) Emissions from 1.5 micrograms/ 0.007 micrograms/ 6 automotive tailpipes cubic meter cubic meter when fuel contains lead (quarterly mean) (quarter l y mean) additives Battery manufacturing plants Non-ferrous smelters Pinellas County Department of Envi r onmental Management a n d Center for Nei ghborhood Technology 11

PAGE 16

Nitrogen Dioxide The standard is set at an annual arithmetic mean of 0.05 parts per million (ppm), while readings at the County's monitoring site have been consistently 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 19go Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Inventory that it had achieved attainment of NAAQS. The slim margin of incremental growth for NO, is of great concern. Although NO 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 carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in Pinellas County. Ambient CO levels are depicted in 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 leve ls 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-1 0) Ambient levels of PM-1 0 are depicted in Figures 5 and 6. The 24-hour maximum readings and the annual arithmetic averages are well below the NAAQS. The 24-hour readings of PM-10 are approaching two-thirds of the national standard. For the annual arithmetic average, which has a standard of 50 milligrams per cubic meter, readings of 20 to 30 have been typical over the last few years Since one of the sources of particulates is diesel fuel combustion, the potential for alternative fueled transit vehicles is notab le. 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 levels 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 related 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 "Attainmenf' 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 national air quality standards. A 1 0-year air quality maste r 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 atta i nment/maintenance" designation is granted, the CMAQ program will continue to fund p r ojects for 2 years after re-clesignation only if these projects have previously been identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Existing regulations and programs in place are expected to adequately control em i ssion 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 lnte r modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Pinellas County CMAQ program serves as a means for attaining conformity with the nationa l air quality standards. Because of the Tampa Bay area s current "marginal non-attainmenf' status, the P i nellas County Metropolitan Planning Organ i zation (MPO) is required to develop strategies to reduce traffic congestion and pursue projects which will reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. Approx i mately $8 million of CMAQ funding is programmed under 7 different types of projects : i ntersection improvements new bus purchases (28 buses are currently programmed) deve l opment of an alternative fuels pl an solar-energy electric veh i cle demonstration traffic signal study seed funding for transportation management organ i za ti on i n the "Gateway" area bicycle/pedestrian safety education Under the Transportation Enhancement program. another $3 million is programmed for further improvements to the Pinellas Tra il, a former railroad right-of -way being converted to a bicyc l e path. The Pinellas County MPO has requested an additiona l $14 5 mill i on i n CMAQ funding for various projects: i ntersection improvements traffic signal re-timing 14

PAGE 19

transportation demand management measures (such as a reg i onal van pool program and a guaranteed ride home program) new bus purchases (25 buses have been requested) development of a transportation management organization fo r downtown St. Petersburg The Pinellas County MPO has also submitted requests to the F l orida 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-l i ne s i nce 1975. Th i s program measures air pollution concentration levels by operating two networks of air sampling stations located through out the County These networks consist of both manua l and automatic (continuously operating) electronic measuring dev i ces. Frequency of measurements depends on the type of NAAQS standards set for that pollutant. Depending on the source of po ll utant, e.g business, i ndustry, transportation. measurement devices are located in both areas expected to contain maximum levels and a r eas expected to contain typical l evels for each pollutant. All monitoring data and samp l ing loca ti ons 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 mon i toring sites the frequency and technique of measurement and the spacia l representativeness of monitoring locations follows pre-established guideli n es known as the Nationa l Ambient Monitoring System (NAMS) and the State and Local A i r Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). In response to population growth in P i nellas County the Air Quality D i vision has also developed a po l icy of continually eva l ua ti ng the appropriateness of the number and locat i on of monitors to ensure compliance wi th both NAMS and SLAMS guide l ines 1 5

PAGE 20

E. Summary In terms of criteria air pollutants, it appears that primary consideration should be given to ozone. which would dictate controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The margin of safety with respect to the NAAQS for ozone is small, and the potential cost and inconvenience to the region of continuing as a non-attainment area are substantial. Secondary consideration should be given to particulates, which seem to have risen dramatically over the recent few years, and which are approaching two-thirds of the levels specified in the NAAQS. 16

PAGE 21

Figure 1 Ambient Ozone Concentrations 140 .--------------------------------------------, 1-Hour Maximum Levels -=NAAQS 1 -H our Maximum Level 120 0 0 0 0 1 0 120ppb 0 0 0 0 -100 .a ... ... -.. o; > 80 .. .... 0 .. 0 60 ... c .. :s E ct 40 20 0 SPJ C Azalea Eastlake SPJC Azalea East l ake SPJC Azalea Eastlake 1991 1992 1993 17

PAGE 22

0.055 0 .05 0.045 e 0.04 a. a. -i 0.035 > ., ... 0.03 ., "tl ;c 0 0.025 Q c ., tl) 0 0 .02 0.015 0 0 1 0.005 0 A z a lea 19 9 1 Figur e 2 -Amb i en t Ni troge n Dioxide Con c en t ratio n s S tandard: Annu Arith Mea n L e v el = 0.05p p m f __ -:-NAAO S Annu. Level I 18 Azalea 1 9 9 2 Azale a 199 3

PAGE 23

10 9 8 E Q. 7 Q. -.. l 6 .. c 0 ::!E c 0 -e .. (J 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 3 Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (8-Hour Levels) Standard: 8-Hour Average 9ppm Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eastlake 1991 -----8-Hour Average Levels NAAOS 8-Hour Average .l Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eetstlake 1992 19 Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Curlew Gateway 1993

PAGE 24

40 35 -30 E .. o; 25 j 20 c 0 ::E 15 c (.) 10 5 0 Figure 4-Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (1-Hour Levels) 0o---<>---oe---o---J r. 0 1 5'our Ma3imum Maximum Lev; l ---------[------1-Hour Max. Levels -----Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eastlake Sheriff Azalea Tyrone Eastlake 1992 Sheriff Azalea Tyrone C u rtew Gateway 1993 1991 20

PAGE 25

160 140 -(') 120 .E "' .a 100 .. j i :!: i 5 f :. 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 5 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations (24Hour Levels) Oo--oCJ---" ""--oe; ,---< o 0 0 O 0 0 0 F leet (1) Fleet 121 Eastlake 1991 ----24-Hour Maximum levels -=.NAAQS 24-Hour Maximum level Fleet (1) Fleet (21 Eastlake Woodlaw n Azalea 1992 21 Fleet (1} Fleet (2) Eastlake Woodlawn Azalea 1993

PAGE 26

Figure 6 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentrations (Ann. Mean Levels) 50 + c Annu. Arith. Mean -50ug/m' -M 40 .E CD :l ., ] 30 i :!: 20 .. "B e :. 10 0 I Annu. Mean --:-NAAOS Annu. Arlth. Mean Level I Fleet (1) Fleet 121 Eastlake 1991 Fleet (1) Fleet t2J Eastlake Woodlawn Azalea 1992 22 Fleet 1 J Fleet (2) E astlake Woodlawn Azalea 1993

PAGE 27

Figure 7 -Ambient Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations {3-Hour levels) 0.6 Standa rd: Max. 3Hour Average L eve l = 0. 5ppm 0.5 + -E a. a. 0.4 -j .!1 .. "' 0.3 a Q :; -a 0.2 :; IJ) 0.1 0 [ -----" !!tf Max NAAQS Max. 3Hour Ave. Level Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake Resource Der by T arpon Eastlake Resource Derby Tarpon Eastlake 1991 1992 1993 23

PAGE 28

Figure 9 Ambient Lead Concentrations 0.008 E -----] arter1y Mean levels ----------NAAQS Quarterly Mean level = 1.5ug/m' 3 0.007 -0 .006 C") E .... g> 0.005 -.. c 0 .. 0 .004 u c 0.003 0 (J "0 .. .... 0.002 0.001 0 -+1991 1992 1993 25

PAGE 29

V. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Air Quality Impacts of Different Alternative Fuels The Energy lnfonnation Adminis tration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, gives qualitative estimates for the ability of alternative fuels to reduce VOCs, NOx, PM-1 0 and CO. Additional estimates were available from AF bus and engine manufacturers who would certify that their vehicles and engines would meet California Air Resource Board (CARS) standards for Clean Fuel Vehicle (CFV), Low Emission Vehicle (LEV), Ultralow Emission Vehicle (ULEV) and Z ero Emission Vehicle (ZEV). Emissions estimates for newer fuels, such as biodiesel, were avai l able from indep endent testing laboratorie s These estimates are l isted in Table 2. Table 2 -Air Quality Impacts F uel VOC production NOx productio n PM production CO production (compared to (compared to (compared to (com pared to diesel) diesel) diesel) diesel) Propane More Equal Less Less CNG 50% Less 50% Less Les s 50% Less LNG 50% Less 50% Less Less 50 % Less Ethanol Less More Less Less Methanol (M85) Equa l Equal Less Less Biodiesel 50% Less Equal 31% Less 20% Less RFG/RFD 24% Less 3% L ess 9% Less 13% Less Electricity None None Less None does nol incl ude air quality impact s for electricity g e nera tion. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Energy Information Association and National SoyDiesel Deve lopm e nt Board. Oxygenated Fuels Association. 26

PAGE 30

It should be noted that although the California Air Resources Board classifies electric vehicles as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV), they could also be termed "Elsewhere Emitting Vehicle (EEV)". EVs could contribute more carbon diox i de per mile and add other pollutants not emitted by other AFVs, such as sulphur dioxide from coal-burning plants and l ead from batteries The environmenta l benefrts that could be gained from using electric vehicles depends on the method of electricity generation for each urban area. A study conducted by the Environmental Defense Fund conc l uded that in Los Ange le s County the a ir quality benefits gained from displacing gaso l ine-powered vehicles with electric 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 souroes: coal-burning power generation plants, a nuclear power plant l ocated near Crystal River and natural gas. An electric-powered vehicle can be a true zero emission vehicle if the electricity is sol ar-generated. B. Summary of AFV Bus Pilot Projects One out of every 25 transit vehicles in operation and one out of every 3 transit vehicles on order is powered by an alternative fuel; according to a 1994 survey conducted by the American Public Transit Association (APTA). A summary of the APTA survey appears in Table 3. The most popu lar alternative fuel among transit agencies i s compressed natural gas, followed by liquefied natural gas and propane. Dedicated alternatively fueled buses (exclusive to one fuel type) is also the most preferred among the transit industry The APTA survey includes vans and trolleys as well as buses. 27

PAGE 31

Fuel Diesel w/o p. traps Diesel w / p. traps Propane: Dual-Fuel Propa ne: Dedicated CNG : Dua l -Fuel CNG : Dedicat ed LNG: Dual-Fue l L N G: Ded i cated Ethanol : Dual-Fuel Ethano l: Dedicated Methanol ( M 85) Biodlesel E l ectric" Elect ri c T roll e y Other T otal Total Alt. Fue ls' %Al t. Fuels Table 3 1994 Passenger Fleet Buses, Vans & Trolle ys I n Operatio n In Operation O n Order Veh i cles Age n c ie s V e hicles 49,342 285 1 595 2 012 38 5 1 1 19 1 0 25 1 10 163 197 15 76 327 35 399 207 1 0 100 6 397 67 2 0 19 2 0 351 7 12 35 2 0 31 4 2 368 5 36 1 62 3 0 5 3,488 3,19 1 2 134 1 065 4% 34% without solar recharge On Order A g encies ? 2 0 5 4 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 All Fuels Includes propan e C N G LNG ethanol, m e thano l, biodiese l e lectri c ity. e lectlic trolleys a n d othe r non-
PAGE 32

It should be noted that all the fuels considered in this study have been used in real-world transit applications, with the exception of electric buses powered by electricity collected and supplied by solar recharge stations. PST A's "solar bus" will be the first transit agency project in the country to use this kind of technology. Pilot projects across the country have tested the use of the full range of alternative fuel options in realworld transit operations. PSTA can benefit from the experiences of various transit agencies in testing buses powered by propane, CNG, LNG, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel and electricity. The following section describes the experiences of selected transit agencies in the United States in experimenting with alternatively-fueled vehicles It should also be noted tha t the alternative fuel technologies are not limited to buses, trolleys and paratransit vans Some transit agencies also have non-revenue vehicles operating on alternative 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 pub l ic/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 alternative 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 include OCTA the U S Dep artme n t of Energy, the Alternative Fuels Research and Education Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas, and the Canadian Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is also expected to participate by providing funding from its Technology Advancement Office. 29

PAGE 33

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 us ing the fuel to power its light-duty paratransit fleet since 1981, with propane-powered vehicle m iles traveled tota ling 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 fue l ing 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 rat io 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. I n 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 34

Liquefied Natural Gas In 1993, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met), of Portland, Oregon and Northwest Natural Gas company unveiled two new 40-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 supplement its distribution system during peak usage periods. Aside from the fuel on which they run, LNG buses are very similar to diesel powered Tri Met buses. Differences occur in the fuel tanks, fuel delivery systems, and safety components. The engine block, drive train, and body are essentially the same as diesel powered 40-foot buses. The LNG-powered buses seat 43 passengers 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 gasoline tanks. In the unlikely event of a fue l leak, LNG is less flammable than gasoline. As the gas warms, it dissipates quickly into 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 D i esel 6V92 eng i nes. MTC selected Battelle of Columbus, Ohio to evaluate the use of th is fuel in real-world transit operations. West Virginia University's portable emissions laboratory and University 31

PAGE 35

of Minnesota's Mechanica l Engineering Department are a l so working on the evaluation The Federal Transit Administration, Regional Transit Board and Leg i sla t ive Commiss i on on M i nnesota Resources are providing fund i ng . The purpose of the demonstration is to present a clear set of findings about costs and operational effects of us i ng alternative fuel transit buses Specific areas of interest include emiss i ons, safety, bus maintenance requ i rements, and direct costs of parts and labor. The i ndirect costs for a higher spare parts ratio will also be studied. Methanol Since 1991, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) i n Denver, Colorado has been operating five methanol buses. The methanol buses are powered by Detroit Diesel 6V92 metha n o l eng i nes More than 700, 000 miles have been driven on the five-bus fleet. The buses are currently operated and fueled from RTD's P l atte Facility and require additional care and safety precautions during refueling and maintenance process. RTD has been instrumental in identifying and helping solve several of the technological prob l ems with methanol. As a result of this test and s i milar programs in los Angeles and Phoenix, an engine configuration was determined and certified by the Environmental Protection Agency for future product i on of methanol-powered eng i nes Overall RTD is satisfied with the safety and rel i abi l ity of the methanol buses However the buses are more costly to operate than the d i esel buses RTD experienced an average fuel cost and engine maintenance/repai r cost of about 75 cents per mile, or three times the cost of conventiona l d i esel buses RTD rece n tly installed a methanol fue li ng facllity wh i ch w i ll enable RTD to purchase methanol at a lower price and eliminate trave l costs to and from the outside fue l ing facility which has been used in the past. 32

PAGE 36

Biodiesel 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 25 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 diesel veh icles, 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 transmission systems. A maintenance cost 33

PAGE 37

report will be available from Chattanooga by the end of 1995. Brakes on an electric bus last much longer due to the rege nerative 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, no n-polluting ride and the low floors. Electric bus ma nufacturers are wori
PAGE 38

Aquarium and the City of Tampa Police Department have received financial support through FEO's annua l "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 required by EPACT to begin new vehicle AFV purchases in 1996 The USPS in Tampa is taking a pro active role by beginning in 1995 to convert 120 postal delivery vehicles to CNG. Both PSTA and the Hillsborough Reg i onal 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 "quick-recharge" stations for electric buses. Table 4 summarizes current AFV pilot projects in the Tampa Bay area. 35

PAGE 39

Tab l e 4-T ampa Bay Regiona l AFV Pilot Projects Project/ Agency Date of Program Location Fuel Desc ription Inception Tampa E l ectric Company 1974 Tampa Propane. 140 heavy-
PAGE 40

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 d i scussed here A. Regulatory Issues The alternative fuel vehicle requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 app l y only to fleets i n severe or extreme non-attainment areas whereas Pinellas County i s classified as marginal and has applied for attainment. The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 requ i res that "fleets of 20 or more vehicles" located in "urban areas with a 1980 population of 250 000 or more" (which includes the Tampa/St. Petersburg/ Clearwater metropolitan area) to reserve a percentage of new vehicle purchases in 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 petro l eum", i.e propane CNG, LNG, ethanol, methano l and electricity Although EPACT currently exempts heavy-duty transit buses from the centrally fueled fleet requirements, it does serve as guidance for l ong-term acceptance with the national program. The U.S. Department of Energy Secretary does have the opt i on of revoking the heavy-duty 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 biodiese l from the Midwest, methanol from coal rich areas etc. However, only propane, 37

PAGE 41

CNG and electricity have the refueling infrastructure already in place in Pinellas County. There are several public CNG and propane refueling facilities located in Pinellas County. In 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 Chem ical, with a methanol refueling station in Miami at Metro-Dade Transit Authority's maintenance facility. There are no known ethanol distributors in Florida C. Vehicle Availability Table 5 shows the availability of engines which operate on various types of alternative 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 alternatively-fueled engines to fit into a wide range of bus sizes. Only the CNGand LNG-powered engines were guaranteed by the manufacturers to fit 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 -foo t and 31foot sizes. D. Performance With the exception of fuels derived from diesel RFD and biodiesel, 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. Assuming that an alternatively-powered bus would have the same size tank as a conventional diesel powered bus, only a subset of the fuels-propane, 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 respectively 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 alternative fuels are shown in Table 6. 38

PAGE 42

Table 5-AF Bus/Engine Availability Fuel Manufacturer Bus size Propane Still under development by Orange 40-ft County Diesel & Adept Group CNG Detroit Diesel: Series 60, Series 506G, 20-ft 45-ft Series 30G, Series 6V.92 engines Hercules: GTA 3 .7, GTA 5.6 engines Mack Trucks: E7-300 NG engine Cummins: B59G Series engine Caterpillar: G3306, G3406 engines Navistar. T 444 Natural Gas engine LNG Detron Diesel: Series 60, Series 30G, 20-ft 45-ft Series 6V 92 engines Mack Trucks: E7 .JOO NG engine Cummins: B59G Series engine Caterpillar. G3306 G3406 engines Navistar. T444 Natural Gas engine Ethanol Detrott Diesel: GV92TA engine 30-ft 40-ft Methanol Detrott Diesel: GV92TA engine 30-ft 40-ft Biodiesel Can run on reQular diesel engines 23-ft 46-ft RFG/RFD Can ru n on regular diesel engines 23-ft 46-ft Electric ity Advanced Vehicle Systems: Model 22-ft & 3 1ft 5131, Model 5129, Model5122 buses Source: U.S. Department of Energy and engine/vehicle manufacturers. In general, AFVs powered by any type of alternative fuel do not perform as well as conventional vehicles in terms of pick-up and acceleration. Dedicated AFVs, on the whole, have better performance than vehicles which can run on either the conventional petroleum based fuel (gasoline or diesel) or the alternative fuel (bi -fuel conversions) or a mixture of the two (dual-fuel conversions) 39

PAGE 43

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 RFGIRFD 100% 437.5 Electric N/A 50.75 'B uses running on CNG and LNG install large capacity fuel storage tanks to compensate for the low energy content of these fuels. Source: Detroit Diesel Corporation, Advanced Vehicle Systems and National Soy Diesel Development Board, Oxygenated Fuels Association. E. Refueling Facilities As stated above, there are currently no ethanol refueling fac ilities and only one methanol refueling facility in Florida. People's Gas currently operates two public CNG/propane refueling stations in Pinellas County, along with several other private refueling 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, w ithout special equipment, a recharge can take over eight hours. No special equipment is needed for a "quick -fill" refueling of l iqu id fuels such as LPG ethanol and methanol. Special equipment is needed, however, for "quick-fill" refueling (or recharging) of transit buses with CNG, LNG and electricity. For the purposes of this study, quick-fill is defined as the ability to refuel a standard 125-gallon bus fuel tank in 15 minutes or less. "Siow-fitr' would entail overnight recharging, and would take approximately eight 40

PAGE 44

hours. The public CNG/propane refueling facilities in Pinellas County owned by People's Gas and Clearwater Gas are "quick-filr' facilities. Since PSTA would require a large amount of whatever alternative fuel is selected, one option would be for PSTA to build its own "quick-fill" refueling facility on its own dispatch site (or sites.) Another option would be to re-fuel off-site at a convenient location, but do all other bus servicing on-site. According to AFV industry analyst Stephen McCrea, the cost of installing a "quick-fill" CNG refueling facility is approximately $200,000. The cost of installing a methanol refue ling facility is $40,000 to $70,000. When choosing an appropriate site for a refueling facility, it is imperative to compare the range of the AFVs to the routes the vehicles usually run. Will the vehicles be able to run their normal routes and return to the refueling facility without running out of fuel? If not, PSTA would need to consider (a) building a refueling facility in a more centralized location (b) choosing an alternative fuel with a higher energy density, (c) choosing an AFV with more fuel storage capacity, (d) constructing multiple sites. CNG refueling facilities are covered by the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Standard for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems (the "NFPA 52" requirements .) These requirements state that CNG refueling tanks shall be at least20 feet away from "aboveground tanks containing flammable or combustible liquids", i.e. diesel refueling tanks. NFPA 52 requires that CNG compression, storage and dispensing equipment shall be at least 20 feet away from the nearest public street or sidewalk and 50 feet away from the nearest railroad track. NFPA 52 also requires that the actual location where vehicles are refueled shall be at least1 0 feet away from the nearest public street and 3 feet away from the CNG storage containers themselves. F. Cost Alternative 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 the difference in cost of the alternatively-fueled engine compared to a diesel engine and the required onboard fuel storage system. An 41

PAGE 45

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 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 in Table 7. The costs of various types of alternatively-fueled engines vary from about $36,000 for a CNGor LNG-powered engine to $50,000 for an ethanol-or methanol-powered engine. Advanced Vehicle Systems' base price for a 31-foot electric bus is $230,000, which i s later updated in table 18 and 19 based on July 1995 base price, plus add-ons for air conditioning and ADA requirements. Tab le 7 also lists costs per mile of the fuel for the different types of alternative fuels. The operating cost per mile of fuel was calculated from the local cost of various fuels divided by the miles per gallon energy content of the fuels themselves. The loc al cost of fuels per gallon was obtained from local fue l suppliers: People's Gas in Tampa for CNG LNG and propane; Ethanol Resources in West Palm Beach for ethanol, etc. The miles per gallon energy content of the fuels was obtained from various tests of these fue ls in re al-world transit operations. These figures were compiled by the Detroit Diesel Corporation which also supplied price estimates for the costs of various types of AF bus eng i nes. The Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority provided the estimate of operating costs per mile for their electric bus. It should be noted, however, that operating costs for electric buses in Pinellas County will vary according to the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity here. If electricity is selected as one of the more promising alternative fuels for PSTA buses, a detailed analysis of the cost of electricity in Pinellas County would be required in subsequent tasks of th is study. Only electricity is estimated to be a less expensive fuel option than diesel in terms of both capital and operating costs. 42

PAGE 46

Ta bl e 7 Preliminary Capital and Operating Costs* Fue l D i ese l Propane CNG LNG Ethanol Methanol Biodiese l RFGIRFD E l ectric ity Source : Capital Cost Operati n g Cos t (31foot bus ; of Fuel Per Mil e compared to d i esel) (Tampa) $0.17 Still under developmen t (Orange Countv CAl $0 3 1 $250 000 for diesel bus, p lus (various cities) $0 78 $36,000 for CNG eng i ne $250,000 for d iesel bus, p lus ( various c ities) $0.26 $36, 000 for LNG eng i ne $250, 000 for d iesel bus, plus ( M in neapo li s Peo ri a $50,000 for ethanol engi n e Des Moi n es) $0 .60 $250,000 for diesel bus, p lus ( Los Angeles Miami $50,000 for methanol eng i ne New York and others) $0.54 $250 000 for dleset b u s (Ci n c i nnat i ) $0.34 $250,000 for diesel b u s ( n ationa l estimate) $0.18 $230 ,000 for electric bus ( C h attanooga) $0.05 Peop l e s Gas, Ethanol Resources, Natio n al Renewab l e E n e rgy Labo r atory Nati o nal SoyD i esel Development Board Detroit Diese l Corpo ra tio n U.S Department of E n ergy a n d th e Chattanooga Area Reg i ona l Tran srt A u thority These costs originally d erived in late 1994, are expected to be updated durin g detailed a n a lysi s ( s ee tables 18 and 19) G. Safety and Maintena n ce When discussing safety considerations of transportation fue l s the dangers of gasoline and diesel are often overlooked. Gasoline i s highly flammable; both are toxic when inha l ed or left on exposed skin fo r long periods of time Each fue l ( i ncluding gasol ine and diesel) has its own safety considerations. Ethanol and liquefied petroleum gas (whose main ingredient is propane) are both l iqu i d fue l s which can sp i ll on the ground during refueling. Like gasoline, they are fire hazards so care must be ta ken during the refue l ing process 43

PAGE 47

Because compressed natural gas is stored at such high pressures, if a fitting becomes loose it can become a dangerous airborne projectile. CNG maintenance workers must focus special attention when working with these vehicles. To help detect leaks. 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 maintenance facilities. CNG actually has a higher ignition temperature than gasoline, making it less of a fire hazard. Because liquefied natural gas must be stored at such low temperatures, LNG vehicles requ ire special insu lated steel fuel tanks, similar to giant thermos bottles. Maintenance technicians are required to wear protective clothing when refueling. Methanol is an extremely toxic fuel-far more toxic than gasoline. Maintenance technicians must wear protective clothing and gloves to keep from getting the fuel on their skin. Methanol is flammable and heavier than air, so when leaked it pools on the floor causing a fire hazard. Therefore, groundl evel ventilation systems are needed at refueling and maintenance facilities. H. Summary of Fuel Comparisons Table 8 lists several key attributes of each alternative fuel in order of importance and a check (.I) is shown to signify a "Yes" answer to the comparison question. Table 8 also establishes the basis for selection of the fuels carried forward (CNG, LNG, and electric) for more detailed evaluation and comparison. 44

PAGE 48

Table 8 -Fuel Assessment M atrix CNG LNG Propane Ethanol Methanol Elecllicity RFG/RFD Biodiesel AJR QUALITY: Reduces VOC emissions? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Reduces NOx emissions? ./ ./ ./ Reduces PM emissions? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Reduces CO emissions? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ SAFETY & MAINTENANCE: Compa r able to diesel? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ FUEL AVAILABILITY: Fuel available nationally? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Fuel available locally? ./ ./ ./ PERFORMANCE: Range meets daily average for PSTA buses (131 mite\? ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ VEHICLE AVAILABILITY: Diversity of engine makers? ./ ./ ./ ./ Diversity of bus sizes (36' )? ./ ./ ./ ./ REFUELING: No special equipment ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ needed for quick-fill? COST: Vehicle costs <= diesel? ./ ./ ./ Fuel cos t s <= diesel? ./ LONG-TERM COMPATIBILITY: Classified as Clean Fuel b y ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ EPACT? 45

PAGE 49

VII. DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Of the eight different fuel options initially considered (ethanol, methanol, bio-diesel, reformulated gasoline, electricity, liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas) two fuels compressed natural gas and liquefied 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 range and vehicle size. In this section of the report, options for selecting alternative fuel implemen tation plans based on range, miles between refuelings, and more detailed capital and operating costs for each short-listed fuel by route, by bus, for the PSTA fleet were assessed. This assessment assumed all existing PSTA route patterns and headways to keep the existing level of service at same level. The detailed feasibility analysis will be discussed in four parts in this section of the report. A Methodology This section examines the PSTA fleet inventory and operations data provided in December 1994, which includes operating schedules and headways to check the suitability of 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 during the selection of a short-listed alternative fuel. B. Analysis By Route, By Bus Table 9 illustrates the properties of the PSTA fleet (i.e. dally miles by route, by bus 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 working on weekdays and only a few work only on weekends. This tab l e 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 indicates that buses running on specific routes can be replaced with electric-powered buses and most of the remaining diesel buses can be replaced with either CNG or LNG-powered buses. 46

PAGE 50

Table 9 -Daily Mile s By R ou te By Bus --. ........... T ota1 Datly Miles Primary Route SecondaJy Route T otal Rev.,_ Garage-based Total Daly M iles on Route No on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head Miles Bus 1 145 2 9321 145. 2 36 1 181 3 9 5 190.8 2 92 3 8905 92.3 25. 0 117 3 29.1 146.4 3 275 4 8903 83.7 89. 9 173 6 3 9 177 5 9318 76 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 1207 99 9 -99. 9 5 6 105 5 1218 46. 9 46. 9 5.6 54 5 9313 246 6 246 8 5.6 252 2 9417 204 0 204 0 5.6 209 6 5 269 9 8903 89. 9 83. 7 17 3 6 3.9 177 5 . 9318 100.0 76.9 176 9 12 4 189 3 9321 10 1 171. 2 181.3 9.5 190 8 9419 69. 9 88.8 158 7 5.6 164 3 7 395.6 9314 191 7 191. 7 5.6 197 3 9418 203.9 .. 203.9 12 3 216 2 9 590 9201 193 3 .. 193 3 7.8 201.1 9319 209 3 209 3 5.6 214 9 9427 187 4 -187 4 5.6 193 0 11 174 9 8908 63. 1 94. 7 157 8 2.4 160 2 891 2 42. 5 1229 165.4 54 1 219 5 47

PAGE 51

Table 9 (Continued) Total Daily Miles Primary Route Secondary RO
PAGE 52

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Tolal Dally Miles Primary Roule Secondary Roule Tolal Revenue Garage-based Total DaUy Miles on on Route Bus No on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Dead-head M iles Bus 8910 79.7 95. 9 175.6 7.2 182.8 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 -15 7.2 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 1602 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 8 184.3 5.6 189.9 9205 89.2 81.9 171.1 5 6 176.7 9421 89.2 91.0 180. 2 5.6 185 8 30 274.1 8904 79.2 77 9 157.1 8.4 185.5 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 1208 197 6 .. 197.6 5 6 203 2 38 8914 109,9 __ --109.9 5 6 115.5 49

PAGE 53

Table 9 (Continued) Route No T o t at Daily Mites Primary Route Secondary Route Total Revenue Garage -based Total Daily Miles on on Route Bus No M iles o n Bus Miles on Bus M iles On Bus Dead-head M ites Bus 9207 123.9 .. 123 9 5.6 1 29. 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 1 64.1 9315 18 5 .2 4.3 (VVk. End) 189.5 25.4 214. 9 74 230.0 9209 230.0 .. 230.0 15.6 245. 6 92 30.6 8911 3o.6 .. 30.6 33.6 64.2 96 200.8 6901 75. 2 .. 75. 2 20.0 95. 2 8902 25 0 .. 25.0 11 7 38.7 8905 25.0 92.3 117.3 29.1 148.4 8912 50.4 115.0 165.4 54.1 219.5 9206 25.2 72.0 97 2 1 8 .9 116.1 1 00 547.4 1224 128.8 -128 8 31. 2 160.0 8907 64.4 .. 64.4 15.6 80.0 9316 193.2 -193.2 15. 6 208.8 9319 1 6 1. 0 161.0 31.2 192.2 32 72.0 9206 72. 0 25.2 97 2 18.9 116.1 50

PAGE 54

Total Daily Miles Primary Route Route No on Route Bus No Miles on Bus 18 665.1 9302 201.2 9303 210. 0 9401 253. 9 19 869.7 9101 71.8 9306 309.1 9310 76.0 9402 276.6 9405 68.4 9408 67.8 52 958.5 1008 218.4 1009 78 6 1012 68.4 1015 142.7 1203 218.6 9416 231.6 59 810.7 9109 80. 1 9110 62.9 1004 255.6 1011 70. 2 1012 70 2 Table 9 (Continued) Se<:ondal'f Route T otal Revenue M i les on Bus Miles O n Bus .. 201.2 .. 210.0 -253.9 .. 71.8 .. 309.1 131.4 207.4 -276.6 150.0 218.4 150.0 217 8 -218 4 78.6 70. 2 138.6 142.7 218.6 -231.8 . 80.1 62 9 .. 255 6 143.4(Wk.End) 213 6 66.4 138.6 51 Garage -based Dead-head Miles 11.8 11.8 15.5 7.4 4.4 31.3 7.4 23.6 23.6 12.2 13.1 27.1 25.3 12.1 2.8 8.0 8 0 8.0 14 0 27 1 Clearwater D ivis ion Total Daily Miles on Bus 213.0 221.8 269.4 79.2 313. 5 238.7 284 0 242 0 241.4 230.6 91. 7 165.7 168.0 230. 7 234.6 88. 1 70.9 263. 6 227.6 165.7

PAGE 55

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Tot a l Daily M i le s Primary Route Secondal)' Route Total Revenue Garage-based Total D a i ly M i le s on on Route Bus No MUeson Bus M i les on Bus Miles On Bus Dead head MUes Bus 9408 271.7 -271 7 8.0 279.7 60 401 3 9305 141 2 -141.2 102 151 4 9403 168.8 1.6 (WitEnd) 170 4 10. 4 180.8 9404 91 3 -91 3 1 4 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 63 258. 8 101 0 91. 1 80. 4 171 5 14.8 18 6 3 9304 81.2 88. 5 169.7 19.1 188.8 9414 84.5 87. 7 172.2 16.6 1 88.8 64 175.1 9409 175 1 .. 175. 1 11.8 186.9 66 718.3 1003 179.5 179.5 32.0 211 .5 1014 162. 7 162.7 22 0 184.7 9307 192.1 -1 92.1 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 1 9 1 208.6 707 204 2 -204.2 19. 1 223.3 69 316 8 9105 140.8 .. 1 40 .8 10.5 151.3 941 0 176.0 .. 176 0 10.5 186.5 71 581.4 9309 150.0 .. 150.0 19.2 169.2 52

PAGE 56

Table 9 (Continued) Route No Total Daily Miles Primary Route SecondaJY Roule Total Revenue Garage-based Total Daily Miles on on Route Bus No Miles on Bus Miles on Bus Miles On Bus Deadhead Miles Bus 9310 131.4 76.0 207.4 31.3 238 7 9405 150.0 68.4 218.4 23.6 242.0 9406 150 0 67 8 2 1 7 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 27.5 101.8 941 1 194 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 75 334. 5 1005 172.8 172.8 3.9 176 7 9412 161. 7 161.7 11. 9 173 6 76 256.6 1010 80.4 91.1 171 5 14 8 186.3 9304 88. 5 81. 2 169 7 1 9 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 88.3 9407 126.9 -126.9 15.9 142 8 9415 1 65.1 --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 48. 2 95.0 53

PAGE 57

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 Mtles on Bus Milos 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 88 3 301 247.2 9106 133.9 .. 133.9 12.7 146 6 605 113 .3 .. 113.3 12 7 126.0 54

PAGE 58

Table 10 was prepared to check the suitability of fuels in the form of their refueling r equirements based on total daily miles on each bus In deciding the refueling requ i rements, range for a CNG vehicle was taken as 250 miles between refuel i ng 300 miles i n the case of a LNG vehicle and 50 m i les i n case of an electric bus In the case of an electric bus, two battery rep l acements in the course of day were assumed. extend i ng the electric vehicle range to an average of 150 miles Refueling stations for CNG and LNG were assumed at PSTA garages, and battery transfer po i nts for electric vehic l es were assumed at either passenger transfer points or end of routes (mostly shopping malls). A t this time however some concern exists i n obta i ning the necessary permits t o allow for battery pack replacement activities at the transfer points Based on these refueling requirements, Table 10 also shows details on refuel i ng dead head miles and number of trips that are going to be reduced due to refue l ing during the course of a day Based on the refuel i ng requ i rements Table 11 was prepared by summarizing on a by route, by bus, basis for all routes and buses that are affected by r efueling during the course of a day. Details regard i ng when the refueling is needed, where the r efueling is needed, and number of trips that a bus is going to complete before refueling we r e also reported i n Table 11. Due to short range of electric buses, this a lternate was eliminated from the primary consideration for conversion. Based on T able 11, only a few vehicles ( thirteen in the case of CNG and two i n the case of LNG) need refuel i ng during the course of the day This shows that the best alternate fuel for PSTA fleet may be e i the r CNG or LNG fuel at this point. After considering e l ectricity as a secondary alternative from rev iew of Table 9 results, it was concluded that there are 28 buses from the entire PSTA fleet which can be converted to electr i c based on total da ily miles. Based on th i s i nformation Table 1 2 was prepared to check the feasibility of those electric routes and buses with consideration for max i mum loading factors. This check is needed fo r electric due to the limitation of electric bus size and capacity (28 passengers). This capacity check elim i nated some of the possible electric route conversions, as ind i cated, from further cons i deration 55

PAGE 59

Route Bus Total Daily No 1 2 3 4 5 7 No Miles on Bus 9321 190.8 8905 146.4 8903 177.5 9318 189 3 9321 190 8 9419 164.3 1207 105.5 1218 54 5 9313 252.2 9417 209.6 8903 177.5 9318 189.3 9321 190.8 9419 164.3 9314 197 3 9418 216 2 1 NP = not practical 2 WP = Williams Park transfer PSI= St. Pete PSTA garage Table 10 -Refueling Requirements No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 0 0 NP' ---0 0 2 .. .. WP' 0 0 NP ---0 0 NP -0 0 NP .. -0 0 NP -0 0 2 --WP 0 0 1 --WP 1 0 NP PSI' 0 0 NP ---0 0 NP .. --0 0 NP .. 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 NP 0 0 NP ----0 0 NP .. -56 --.... ----Refueling Dead-head Miles No. of trips reduced CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 60

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Nee
PAGE 61

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Dally No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Dead-head Miles No. of trips reduced No No Miklson Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 19 9425 283.6 1 0 NP PSI -11 0 0 0 1 0 0 9426 306 8 1 1 NP PSI PSI .. 11. 0 1 1.0 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 17 5.7 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 157.2 0 0 NP -0 0 0 0 0 0 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 I 0 NP PSI -5 6 0 0 I 0 0 9431 259.4 1 0 NP PSI . 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 N P -----0 0 0 0 0 0 9320 166.5 0 0 NP ---0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8909 189.9 0 0 N P --.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 58

PAGE 62

Table 10 (Continued) Roote Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Dead-head Miles No of lllps reduced No No Miles 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 18 5 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 0 122 1 164.1 0 0 NP . 0 0 0 0 0 0 9315 2 1o.6 0 0 NP .. .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 9209 245.6 0 0 NP . -0 0 0 0 0 0 92 8911 642 0 0 1 .. -PSI 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 l HW = Honeywell (Route 96 end point) 59

PAGE 63

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Sta tion Refueling Dead-head Miles No. of trips reduood No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC 100 1224 160.0 0 0 NP ---0 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 118.1 0 0 2 -WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----Clearwater Division Route Bus Total No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueting Dead-head Miles No. of trips reduood No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG E LC 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 PS1 --5.6 0 0 1 0 0 19 9101 79.2 0 0 2 ---HA1/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 PS1 --11.0 0 0 1 0 0 9405 242.0 0 0 NP --0 0 0 0 0 0 6 GWM =Gat eway Mall 7 HA = Hue Ave. (one end of Route 19) MP = Maximo Plaza (one end of Route 19) 60

PAGE 64

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Total Daily No. of Refuels N eeded Refuelina Station Refueling Dead head M i les No. of trips reduced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG ELC CNG LNG E L C 9406 24 1.4 0 0 NP -.. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 1006 23Q.6 0 0 NP -.. -0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 91.7 0 0 1 --.. 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,o .. -14.0 0 0 1 0 0 1011 227 6 0 0 NP .. .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1012 165.7 0 0 NP .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 9109 88.1 0 0 1 .. GWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9110 70.9 0 0 1 -GWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9408 279.7 1 0 NP PS2 .. 14. 0 0 0 1 0 0 60 9305 151. 4 0 0 NP . .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 9403 180.8 0 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9404 106.1 0 0 2 .. PST 0 0 0 0 0 0 L__6:\__ 704 __ 1_90,Q __ L....J) 0 NP .. -0 0 0 0 0 0 9 PST= Pari< Street Terminal 1 0 PS2 = Cle!liWater PST A garage 61

PAGE 65

Table 10 (Co ntinued ) Route Bus Total Daily No. o1 Refuels Needed Re -Sialion Refueling Oea!Wlead Miles No. oftt1>s reduced No No Miles on Bus CNG LNG ELC CNG L N G E lC 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 63 1010 186.3 0 0 NP .. .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 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 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 164. 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 66

Table 10 (Continued) Route Bus Tota l Dally No. of Refuels Needed Refueling Station Refueling Deadhead Miles No. of trips 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 . -PSM" 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 .. -GIM.1 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 0 0 9304 188.6 0 0 NP .. --0 0 0 0 0 0 9414 188.6 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 1 42 .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 169.1 0 0 NP .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 9103 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 67

Table 10 (Continued) RO
PAGE 68

Table 11 -Refueling Details By Route, By Bus Sl Petersburg Division Route Bus Refueling Station Colllj)leted Trips Before Refueling Time of Day of Refueling No. No. CNG LNG Etc. CNG LNG Be. CNG LNG Elc. 2,96 8905 . .. W.P1 .. 8 &16 .. . 12:20p & 3:40p 4 1207 .. .. W.P 4 & 10 .. . 1 :05p & 4 : 55p 4 1218 -W P 4 .. .. 7:55a 4 9313 P$12 -.. 29 -10:30p -12 9204 .. TSM' -10 .. .. 1:25 p 18 9317 P$1 -.. 9 -7:40p 18 9430 PS1 .. .. 8 . 6:50p .. 19 9425 PS1 .. .. 7 .. 5 :50p .. .. 19 9426 PS1 P$1 .. 6 8 .. 4:50p 8:50p 24 1223 PS1 .. .. 30 .. .. 8:45p .. .. 24 9431 PS1 .. .. 31 9:15p .. 38 8914 W.P -5&9 .. .. 10:40a & 2 :40p 38 9207 .. .. TSM .. 5&9 -.. 10:353 & 2:35p 92 8911 .. -PS1 1 .. 3:00p 95 8901 -1 &2 -.. 7 :30a & S:OOp 32.96 9208 .. WP .. 2&8 -.. 10:20a & 2 :50p 100 8!l07 .. .. GWM .. 2 .. 5:40o 1. W.P =Will iams Park Transfer Poinl 2. PS1 = St. Pete Garage 3. TSM = Tyro ne Square M a l l 4. H.Well =Honeywell (Roule 95 end poinl) Slation 5 GWM = Gat eway Mall 65

PAGE 69

Table 11 (Continued) Clearwater D ivision Route Bus Refuelina Stat ion Comoleted Trios Before Time of Dav of Refuelina No. No. CNG LNG E lc. CNG LNG Elc. CNG LNG Elc. 18 9401 PS1 -10 ---8:55o -19 9101 ---H.A'JM.P1 ---1&2 3:20o & 5:2Co 19 9306 PS1 PS1 --6 9 3:50n 9:50D --1 9 9402 PS1 --7 6:50o ----52 1009 --PST' --2 --5: 59 1004 PS2' -14 6:40D --59 9109 --GWM --3 -8:10a 59 9110 --GWM --2 --4 : 100 59 9408 PS2 --14 -6:40D --60 9404 --PST --6& 12 -1:20D & 5 :50o 72 9107 --PSMto ----4&8 ----11:15a & 2 : .350 73 9104 --TSM --2&6 --7:50a & 5 :40D 74 1001 --GV'M/SMM ---4&8 -8:00a & 4:30D 74 9312 PS2 20 --8:45D --80 97 1202 --PST ----2 --4:30o 80 9407 --PST ---10& 20 --11:05a & 3:15o 93 9103 PS2 --1 --3 : 000 94 0706 H.Well ----1 -7 :00a 3 0 1 9106 S.M11 ----7 & 15 10:458 & 2:35o 301 0605 --S.M ---7 & 15 --10:458 & 2:45p -6. H A Hue Av e (One end o f Ro u te 19) 7 M P Maximo P laz a (One end of Route 19) 8 PST Pall< Street T enninal 9 PS2 =Clearwater Garage 10. PSM = Pinellas Square Mall 11. S.M = Sem inole Mall 66

PAGE 70

Table 12 -Feasibility of Conversion By Route, By Bus for Electric Sl Petersburg Division Route Bus Existing Bus Size Feasible Conversion to Number Numbe r (Lena!h!Capacity) Load Factor Electric (Yes or No) 4 1207 40/45 40 No 4 1218 40/45 40 No 96 890 1 37/37 11 Yes 96 8902 37137 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 Feasib l e Conversion to Load :/Yes or Nol 301 605 8 Yes 80.97 1202 on 51 No 94 _gQ_ 7 Yes 94 0701 35137 7 Yes 94 0706 35/37 7 Yes 74 1001 18 Yes u 43 No 94 1013 35/40 7 Yes 19 9101 27/23 30 No 93 9103 4 Yes 73 9104 16 Yes 301 9106 27/23 8 Yes 72 9107 27/23 11 Yes 59 91 14 Yes 59 9110 27/23 14 Yes 60.94 9404 35/37 34 No 80 9407 35137 51 No 67

PAGE 71

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 fo r the routes wh i ch 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, Tab l e 15 was prepared showing the feasibility check for these routes. The feasibility check elim i nated 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 orde r to illustrate the time frame (or staging) for replacement, Table 16 was prepared showing the overall rep l acement schedule considering CNG or LNG as primary alternate fuel, 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-e l ectric fleets. Comparable costs (reflecting updated average unit prices) and estimated average annual emissions are also included 68

PAGE 72

Table 13 Proposed Bus Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes in StPetersburg Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling R eplacement Dead Head Revenue Total Trips No No Refue ling Time of Day Bus Number Mites Miles Mi les 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 12248 3.0 22.2 25.2 3 24 9431 31 !):15pn1 94187 0 21.0 21.0 3 -LNG as an Alternate fuel Route Bus Trips Before Refueling Replacement Dead Head Revenue Total T rips No No Refueling Time of Day Bus Number M i les Miles M iles Completed 19 9426 8 8:50pm 93148 4.0 27.0 31.0 2 Spare Buses : 1200, 1206 1209, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215 12 16, 1219, 8301, 8303 8304, 8307, 9210 (Total of 14 buses) ----1 Bus no. 9417 completes its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 4 and replaoes 9313 to complete remai n i n g 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 its scheduled revenue trips on route no. 14 and replaces 9430 to complete remaining trips on route no. 1 8 4. Spare bus from garag e replaces 9425 to complete remaining revenue trips on route no. 19. 5. Spare bus from garage replaces 9426 to complete remaining revenue trips on route no. 19. 6. Bus no. 1224 completes its 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 73

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 93051 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 1010' 6.0 18.0 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 Dead Head Revenue Total Trips No No Refueling Time of Day Bus Number Miles Miles Miles Completed 19 9306 9 9:50pm 93017 20.0 20.0 40. 0 1 -------------------Spare Buses: 1204, 8305, 8306, 8308, 1007 1008 9102 (Total of 7 buses) 1 Bus no. 9305 completes 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 tts scheduled revenue trips on route no. 75 and replaces 9402 to complete remaining trips on route no. 19. 4. Bus no. 1010 completes tts scheduled revenue trips on route no. 76 and replaces 1004 to complete remaining trips on route no. 59. 5. Spare bus from garage replaces 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 74

Table 15Feasibility of Proposed Replacement Schedule for Reduced Trip Routes By Route, By Bus for CNG and LNG fuels s p t. eters urg b Di .. VISIOn CN G as an Alternate fue Replacemen t Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Number Bus Number (Yes or No) 4 9313 9417 Yes 18 9317 9428 Yes 18 9430 9420 Yes 19 9425 Spare No 19 9428 Spare No 24 1223 1224 Yes 24 9431 9418 Yes Clearwater Division CNG as an Alternate fuel Replacement Feasible replacement Route Number Bus Number 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 Number 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 75

Table 16 Replacement Schedule By Route, By Bus, By Fuel St Pete b 01 lslo n rs urg v Route No. Bus No. CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Eleclrieity Replacement Year 23 1201 Yes Yes No 1995 4 1207 Yes Yes No 1995 35 1208 Yes Yes No 1995 23 1210 Yes Yes No 1995 14 1211 Yes Yes No 1995 52 1217 Yes Yes No 1995 4 1218 Yes Yes No 1995 52 1220 Yes Yes No 1995 52 1221 Yes Yes No 1995 20 1222 Yes Yes No 1995 24 1223 Yes Yes No 1995 100 1224 Yes Yes No 1995 23 8302 Yes Yes No 1996 96 8901 No No Yes 1996 96 8902 No No Yes 1996 3 ,5 8903 Yes Yes No 2001 22.30 8904 Yes Yes No 2001 2,96 8905 No No Yes 2001 27 8906 Yes Yes No 2001 100 8907 No No Yes 2001 11. 28 8908 Yes Yes No 2001 15,29 8909 Yes Yes No 2001 22,30 8910 Yes Yes No 2001 92 8911 No No Yes 2001 11,28,96 8912 Yes Yes No 2001 23 8913 Yes Yes No 2001 38 8914 No No Yes 2001 20 8915 Yes Yes No 2001 72

PAGE 76

Table 16 (Continued) Route No. Bus No. CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Elecmcitv Replacemen t Year 9 9201 Yes Yes No 2003 22.30 9202 Yes Yes No 2003 14 9203 Yes Yes No 2003 12 9204 No No Yes 200 3 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 1 1 28 9320 Y es 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 77

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 6 1 704 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 Elecbi Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricitv 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 N o 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 D u e 1995 19 95 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

PAGE 78

Table 16 (Continued ) Route No. Bus No. CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity Replacement Year 59 1011 Yes Yes No 1998 52.59 1012 Yes Yes No 1998 94 1013 No No Yes 1998 66 1014 Yes Yes No 1998 52 1015 Yes Yes No 1998 19 9101 Yes Yes No 2002 93 9103 No No Yes 2002 73 9104 No No Yes 2002 69 9 105 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 2002 59 9110 No N o Yes 2002 61 9301 Yes Yes No 2006 18 9302 Yes Yes No 2006 18 9303 Yes Yes No 2006 63,76 9304 Yes Yes No 2006 60 9305 Yes Yes No 2006 19 9306 Yes Yes No 2006 66 9307 Yes Yes No 2006 66 9308 Yes Yes No 2006 71 9309 Yes Yes No 2006 19 ,7 1 9310 Yes Yes No 2006 79 9311 Yes Yes No 2006 74 9312 Yes Yes No 2006 18 9401 Yes Yes No 2007 19 9402 Yes Yes No 2007 75

PAGE 79

Tabla 16 (Continued) Route No. Bus No. CNG Fuel LNG F uel Electricity Replacement Year so 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 73 941 1 Yes Yes No 2007 75 9412 Yes Yes No 2007 79 9413 Yes Yes No 2007 63 ,7 6 9414 Yes Yes No 2007 80 9415 Yes Yes No 2007 52 9416 Yes Yes No 2007 76

PAGE 80

C. Emission Rates The llrevious 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 (NO,). Among alternate fuels short-listed, both CNG and LNG have proven capability to address the NOx problem. Electricity also holds significant promise to reduce ground-level ozone precursor pollutants because it is genera lly known as a zero-emission vehicle Table 17 compares the average emiss ions of diesel and natural gas (CNG and LNG) powered buses. From the table it can be understood that there is a significant reduction in NO particulate 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 81

Tab l e 17 -Average Emission Ra t es by Fue l Type (gra m s/ m ile) !te!_of Fuel THC' NO, PM Diesel 1 .24' 31.7' 1 232 2.43' 29.45' 1.55' 1.63' 24.27' 0.98' Natural Gas 2.65 12 .o' 0 0256 8 .9' 18.88 0 0436 11.31 16.7' 0 061 Electric --------------Not applicable' Not applicable' Not appUcable8 1 Total Hydnlcamons (THC) lnciiJde non-reactive Melhane c:oncentratioos. 2 Emissions on Orange Counly lransil buses with O o.mminsl 10 engines using 12 diesel asluel co 13 52 21.1' 9.9' 0 .026' 1.29' 11.47 Not applicable' 3 Emission levels from lour vehiciM with Cummins L 10 e n g ines using 112 diesel fuel, oonclucled by W.st Virgini a University Transpor1able Heavy -Duty Vohlclo Emissions T esling Laboraloly 4 Etnisslonslaken by the Los Angeles CO
PAGE 82

Figure 10 -Average Emission Rates of Major Pollutants by Fuel Type 30 25 - I CNG/LNG e 2o I I I Diesel ... = 1 5 12 g I 10 w 5 0 Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen O xid es Particulate Matter Total Hydrocarbons 79

PAGE 83

D. Unit Costs The cost of operating alternative fuel buses versus diesel buses can be broken down in to operating costs and capital costs. Operating costs can be sub-divided into fuel costs and maintenance costs. Capital costs can be divided 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 transit agencies were utilized. An average of the range of costs was typically selected as the unit price for comparison. Local fuel costs and maintenance 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 infonnation. Firs t 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 school bus and /or intracity bus transportation. Second, according to Florida Statute 206.877(9), a state or local government is not required to pay fuel taxes or annual decal fee for motor vehicles powered by alternative fuel. CUTR tabulated all the collected cost infonnation from different sources as identified in Table 18. A series of graphs were developed by taking average values for all costs given in the Table 18 to show graphical representation of comparative costs for Diesel, Electric, 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 requires both capital acquisition of buses and changes be made to the refueling, maintenance and storage facilities at the site Figure 13 shows vehicle capital cost comparison which was developed by taking average values for CNG, LNG, and Diese l-powered vehicles and high-end for Electric vehicle to attain some unifonnity in vehicle sizes. Due to la rge variations in the refueling site costs which are mainly due to variations in acquiring r ight of way costs by different transit agencies in case of new stations, graphical cost comparisons were not done for refueling facilities. It eo

PAGE 84

should be noted that Peoples Gas service mains exist in close proximity to both PSTA garages, and further, Motor Fuelers, Inc. is willing to provide refueling 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) in determining re-fueling infrastructure costs: Phase I $ 50,000 (overnite-fill for six buses) Phase II $150,000 (small compressor units) Phase Ill $350,000 (si ngle "quick -fi ll' compressor) Phase I V $750,000 (two "quick-fill" compressor stations separate island for re-fue l ing, on-site storage tanks) CUTR recommends off-site refu eling fro CNG initially, then refueling infrastruct ure can be added as the number of CNG buses increase beyond 6 to 10. 81

PAGE 85

Table 18 -Detailed Cost Data by Fuel Type In 1994 95 Type of Range in Fuel Cost Maintenance Cost' Capital Cost' Refueling Site Costs Fuel Miles (per Veh-Mile) (per Veh-Mil e) (per Vehicle) (millions of dollars) Low High Low High Low High Low High CNG 250 $0. 083 $0.22' $0. 17. $0.24. $250 0007 $266, 7008 so.o5 $0.75'0 LNG 300 $0.17" $0.27" -$0.25" $261,000" $285,000" $0 45 .. $2.25" Electric 50 $0.14" $0.45'. $0.5420 $180 ,000" $230 ,000" $0Z' $0 22 Diesel 438 $0.17" $0. 26"' $0.36 $200,000" $250,00020 ----1 Include parts. tabor, and oiL 14. Houston, Texas for .Ofoot bus. 27. Average eosls from PSTA for Older buses 2. Average fulty-loaded cost tot bus size Indicated In 15. El Paso. 'Texas for 40-lool bus. 28 PSTA fot b us. 3 Fo rt Worth, Texas 16 Relr<>-fit cost from HOU$1on, Te)(as (1 dispense). 29 PSTA for 4Q--foot bus. "' Miami Florida. 17. New site cos t s from El Paso, Texas (5 d i spensers) S. Fort Worth, Texas. 18 Es t i mate based on Florida Power Co1p. rates 6. Miami, florida aod Austin Texas 19. Chattanooga. Tennessee 7 Austin, Texas for 4().{oot bus 20. Santa Barbara, Cllifomia (Dies el main.t&nance oost is $0. 47) 8. Fort WOrth, Texas tor 35-foot bus 21. Advanced Vehicle Systems, Chattanooga. 22-foot bus 9 LYNX a n d Peoples Gas 22. Advanced Vehicle Systems, C hattanooga, 31-foot b u s 10. LYNX and Peoples Gas 23. Re charging u nit included i n vehiae CO$l. 11. Houston. Texu 2 4 Estimated cost for sol ar station by USF 12. El Paso, Texas. 25. s ued o n PSTA costs 13. Houston, Texas. 26 OO$tS from PSTA for New buses. 82

PAGE 86

Figure 11 Fuel Cost Comparison by Fuel Type 0.25 0.2 J! 0.15 l I! J! 0 Q .5 0.1 a 0 .05 0 CNG LNG Diesel Electric Type of Fue l 83

PAGE 87

Figure 12 Mainten a nce Cos t Comparison by Fuel Type 0 5 0.45 .I 0.4 J 0 .3 5 !. I! .!1 0.3 8 .5 0 25 0.2 0 1 5 c j 0 1 0 .05 0 .-CNG LNG Diesel Electric Type of Fuel 84

PAGE 88

.. Q, .. :I ... >. .c c: 0 ., .. .. Q, E 0 0 .. ., 0 0 --Q, .. 0 .., .... e :I Cl ... 0 0 g 0 0 0 "' .., N 0 0 g g 0 0 q g' 0 0 8 g 0 "' N -Jed &111!10(] UJISO!) !lll!d:> 0 0 (!) z _, (!) z (.) ;; ... 0 .. ... It) co

PAGE 89

E. Summary This section of the report highlights key attributes of each alternative fuel short-listed in comparison to diesel fuel characteristics based on the tables and figures developed during the detailed feasibility analys i s, and also discuses the importance of cost in selecting the a l ternative fuel for conversion. A series of tab les and figures were developed to show 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 this report Figure 14 shows that with CNG as the primary alternative fuel, approximately 80 percent of the buses can be converted to CNG. Similarly if LNG is the main alternate fuel, Figure 15 shows that more than 80 percent can be converted to LNG. Figures 1 6 and 17 represents the graphical fonn of d i stribution of routes i n PSTA with CNG Eiectric-Diesel and LNG-e lectric options. Figures 18 and 19 shows the distribution of annual vehicle miles in PSTA based on type of options that are either CNG-electric-Diesel or LNG-electric powered bus combinations Based on daily m ileage, CNG and LNG fuel powered buses can perfonn approximately at the same level to give the same range as diesel fueled buses between refuelings This range between refueling may be enough to serve the present PSTA schedu les and headways on all days. If CNG is selected as a primary alternative fuel four buses (running on routes 1 9 and 59) may need to run with diesel to avoid refueling or replacement from the garage during the course of the day. If LNG is se l ected as primary alternative fuel, there will be no buses operating with diesel. Overall, electricity can be used as a secondary a l ternative fuel to serve on some routes with l ess mileage, but not on all routes due to its limitations in range. Therefore, based on tota l daily miles, the possible solution in selecting the alternative fuel from the short listed fuels may be either a combination of CNG-Eiectric-D i esel or LNG-Eiectric fuel powered buses. 86

PAGE 90

On the other hand, oosts 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 detailed feasibility analysis were utilized in selecting the best suitable alternative the reoommended alternative fuels implementation plan is discussed in the next section of the report. 87

PAGE 91

Table 19-Distribution of Buses, Routes, Miles, Emissions, and Costs by Fuel Distribution of Buses- Type of Option CNG Fuel LNG Fuel Electricity Diesel Fuel CNG-EiectricDiesel 97 -21 5 LNG-Eiectric 102 21 -Distribution of Routes with CNGEiectrlc-Diesel Option. CNG Fuel Electricity CNG/Eiectricity CNG/Diesel CNG/Eiectric/Diesel 36 B 5 1 1 r __ -t--...:L::.N;.:G::.IE=.I:.:;.:::ctri:.:.:::city"---l l Distribution of Miles- Type of Option CNG Miles LNG Miles Electricity Miles Diesel M iles CNG/Eiectric/Diesel 5,764,971 -536,527 453,553 LNG/Eiectricity -6,236,524 536,527 Estimated Annual Emissions (Kilograms) .. Type of Carbon Nrtrogen Particulate Total Option Monoxide Oxides Matter Hydrocarbons CNG/Eiectricity/Diesel 31,248 104,510 304 44 767 LNG/Eiectricity 26,443 98,n7 266 47, 413 Diesel 100,497 192,908 8,491 11,969 Cost Comparisons Type of Fuel Fuel cost Maintenance Cost Vehicle Capital Cost per Veh-mile per VehMile per Vehicle CNG $0.15 $0.21 $256,350 LNG $0.22 $0.25 $273,000 Diesel $0.17 $0.31 $225,000 Electricity $0.14 $0.50 $280,000 88

PAGE 92

u (!) li ., z .!!! ill (.) 0 0 Gl .2 c .. E .. .. (!) z (J "' = N .j II ., "' ::> (X) II) "' a. "' c "" -!!! .. "' Gl c. .. 0 -:s 0 .a '$. ... ... 2l 0 E c ::> 0 ;;; :s 0 .a 1-c: .. !!! c "' ,... ... ... :s = -IL

PAGE 93

Figure 15 Distribution of buses in PSTA with LNG as main fuel 17% 83% ______________ ___ Total number of operati n g buses = 123 90 Electricity 0 LNG

PAGE 94

Figure16 D i stributi o n of routes in PSTA with C NG as main fue l 2% 2% 10% 16% 70% Total number of operating routes = 51 91 Electric routes 0 CNG routes CNG/Eiectric routes C NG/Diesel routes C N G/Electrlc/Diese l rout es

PAGE 95

Figure 17-Distribution of routes in PSTA with LNG as main fuel 12% 16% 72% Total number of operating routes= 51 92 Electric routes 0 LNG routes LNG/Eiec:tric routes

PAGE 96

Figure 18-Distribution of vehicle miles In PSTA with CNG as main fuel 8% Annual Vehicle Miles= 6, 775,051 (Estimated from a per bus basis) 93 86% 0 CNG miles Diesel miles Electric miles

PAGE 97

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

PAGE 98

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 implementation plan which will have the greatest potential for successful conversion for PSTA fleet. In terms of improving air quality, it appears that both options offer the same benefrts, and both of these fuels will emit less primal)' pollutants (discussed in the second section of this report) with respect to diesel fuel powered buses. If fue l availability is considered, both fuel options considered are available from some domestic U .S. sources. However, only CNG and electricity have the refue ling 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 normal15 amp, 240 volt, outlet. On the other hand there are no LNG suppliers and refue ling 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 manufacturers, enabling PSTA to gel a competitive price. At the same time, electric vehicles are also available from two manufacturers. Electric buses are available in 22-fool and 31-foot sizes from Advance Vehicle Systems, Inc and in 22-foot size from U.S Electricar, Inc. (U.S. Electricar, Inc. Has recently gone out-of-business, and will not be used as a cost source in this report). Based on the vehicle availability informa tion, both options are favorable in the selection of a final implementation plan. One other factor that will affect the selection of a final imp lemen ta tion plan is rel iabi lity. One measure of reliability in a bus is the average number of miles on a bus between 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 99

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 implementation 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. Capital 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 fue l costs, maintenance costs, and capital costs shown in Table 19, costs for the entire fleet conversion are determined and are given in the Table 20. Table 20 shows that the CNG-Eiectric-Diesel combination has lower costs than the LNG-Eiectric fuel combination. Table 20 -Estimated Cost Comparison by Fuel Option Fuel Option Annual Annual Total Total Fuel Cost Maintenance Cost Vehicle Capital Cost CNG-Eiectric-Oiesel $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 Veh1cle Mles 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 100

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the detailed feasibility performed by bus, by route for the PSTA fleet, the following recommendations and conclusions 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 benefit in conversion to alternative fuels will be in reduced 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 replacement (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 replacemen t 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 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Advanced Vehicle Systems, Inc. brochure. 2. American Public Transit Association. 1994 Transit Passenger Vehicle Fleet Inventory. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transit Association. April1994. 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. Dominick A. Vermel, and Christopher Ferrone. "Natural Gas Engine Development 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 (April 1995) : pp 54-56. 9 LaurenS. 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. Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Ught-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment. September 1990. 11. Matthew, Kitchen., and William Damico. "Development of Conversion Factors for Heavy-Duty Bus Engines G/BHP-HR to G/MILE." 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 F uel Vehicles." Environmental and Urban Issues (Winter 1994) : pp. 17-25. 13 "Mul tiple Fuels Compete for Trans it's Attention." Passenger Transport. (July 19, 1993): pp. 5-15. 98

PAGE 102

14. National Fire Protection Association NFPA 52 : Standard for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems Qu i ncy MA: National F i re Protection Association. August 14 1992 15 "Partnersh i p Spurs Propane Eng i ne Development: Orange County Forefront in Testing ." Passenger Transport (May 16 1994) : pp. 9-20. 16 Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. 198911990 Air Quality Report. Clearwater, FL: Pinellas County OEM Air Quality Division September 1991. 17. Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1991 Air Quality Report. Clearwater, FL: Pinellas County OEM Air Quality Divis i on. March 1993 18. P i nellas County Department of Environmental Management. 1992 A i r Quality Report Clearwater FL : P i nellas County OEM Air Qua l ity Divis ion. December 1993 19 Pinellas County Department of Env i ronmental Management. 1993 A i r Quality Report Clearwater FL : P i nellas County OEM Air Qua l ity Divis i on DRAFT August 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 Cal i fornia Paper presented at the Transportation Resear c h Board 73 Annual Meeting Wash i ngton D C ., January 9-13, 1994 23 Safe Operating Procedures f o r Alternativ e Fu e l Buses : A Syn thes is of Tra nsit Practice Wash i ngton D C .: Tra n sportat ion Research Board 1 993 24 Safety is Prime Concern i n Sw i tch to A l ternative Fuels." Passenger Transport (May 16 1994): pp. 9-19 25 Southern California Alternative-Fuel Projects ." Automotive Engineering (Mar c h 1995): pp. 63-66 26. Thomas Fowler, and Mark Euritt. "The Feasibility of Electric Bus Operations for the Austin Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington January 1995 99

PAGE 103

27. ''Transportation, Air & Health." The Neighborhood Worlcs (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 1g9o. Washington, D.C: National Alternative Fuels 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 Clar1<, Michael Palmer, and Donald Lyons. "A Study of Emissions from CNG and Diesel Fueled Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 1993. 36. Wenguang Wang, Mridul Gautam, Xiaobo Sun, Reda Bata, Nigel Clar1<, Michael Palmer, and Donald Lyons. "Emissions Comparisons of Twenty-Six Heavy-Duty Vehicles Operated on Conventional and Alternative Fue l s ." Paper presented at the annua l meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 1993. 100

PAGE 104

Appendix A Ust of Contacts Federal. State and Non-Profit Information 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 HoUine P.O. Box 12316 Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: (800) 423-1363 U S. Department of Energy Energy Information Administration 1000 I ndependence Ave., S.W. Washington, D C. 20585 Tel: (202) 586-8800 Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle & Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, M l 481 05 Tel: (313} 6684270 Contact: Philip Carlson American Public Transit Association 1201 New York Ave., N.W Washington, D.C 20005 Tel: (202} 8984089 Contact: Rose Gandee 101 National SoyDiesel Development Board MidWest B iofuels Topeka, KS Tel: (913) 599-0800 Contact: Gary Wilson Oxygenated Fuels Association 1330 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-1702 Tel : (202) 2964200 California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Tel: (818) 575-6845 Contact: Sara Santoro Office of Mobile Sources Florida Energy Office Florida Department of Community Affairs 27 40 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Tel: (904) 488-2475 Contact: Jan Rickey, Manager of Transportation Programs Alternative Fuels Information and Training Center CUTR, University of South F lorida Tampa, FL-33620 Tel : (813) 974-3120 Contact: John Bradley

PAGE 105

Eye! Syppljers Clearwater Gas 2551 Drew St., Suite 304 Campus Walk Plaza Clearwater, EL 34625 Tel: (813) 462-6340 Contact: James Lewin, Director of Marketing and Planning People's Gas 111 Madison St. P.O. Box 2562 Tampa, EL 33601-2562 Tel: (813) 272-0034 Fax: (813) 272-0369 Contact: Keith Gruetzmacher, Manager of Market Development Siegel Gas P O Box 30309 Palm Beach Gardens, EL 33420 Tel: (305) 691-4411 Fax: (305) 835-2283 Contact: Kennan Siegel Florida Power Corporation P.O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Tel: (813) 866-4700 Contact: Joe Scala Tampa Electric Company 3007 N. 50th Street Tampa, EL 33619 Tel: (813) 288-4111 Contact: Chris Slane 102 Engjne Manufacturers Detroit Diesel Corporation 13400 Outer Drive West Detroit, Ml 48329-4001 Tel: (313) 592-7046 Fax: (313) 592-5604 Contact: Stanley Miller, Manager of Alternative Fuels Project Center Hercules Engine Company 101 Eleventh Street S.E. Canton, OH 44707 Tel: (216) 438-1361 Contact: Kim Boyer Mack Trucks, Inc. 2100 Mack Boulevard, Box M Allentown, PA 18105 Tel: (215) 439-3815 Contact: Kevin Flaherty, Director of OEM Sales Cummins Engine Company 1000 Fifth Street Columbus, IN 47202 Tel: (812) 3n-3694 Fax: (812) 3n-5532 Contact: Carl Koons, Director of Alternative Fuel Support Caterpillar, Inc. P.O Box 610 Mooseville, IL 61532-0610 Tel: (309) 578-4929 Fax: (309) 578-2053 Contact: Steve McCormick

PAGE 106

Navistar International 10400 West North Avenue Melrose Park, IL 60160 Tel: (708) 865-4154 Fax:(708)865-3330 Contact: John Haggard, Engine 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 o r Will Jayne Tel: (512) 389-7566 Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Tacoma, Washington. Contact: 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 Chevez Tel: (915) 534-5870 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Houston, Texas. Contact: Russell Pentz or Larry Luttrell 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. Contact: Deborah A. Cooper Tel: (407) 841-2279, Ext 3207 MOTA Santa Barbara, CA Contact: Paul Griffith Tel: (805) 963-3364

PAGE 107

Electric Yehicle Start-Uo Finns R enaissanc e Cars, In c. 2300 Commerce Park Drive Suite 1 Palm Bay, FL 32905 Tel : ( 407) 676-2228 Fax : ( 407) 676-2229 Contact : Dennis Kaiser D i rector of Marketing Solar Car Corpo ratio n 1300 Lake Wash i ngton Road Me l bourne FL 32935 Tel : ( 407) 254-2997 Fax : ( 4 07) 254-4773 Contact Doug Cobb Pres ident Energy Partners 1501 Northpoint Parkway Su ite 102 Technology Center West Palm Beach, FL 33 4 07 Tel: (407) 688-0500 Fax: (407) 688-9610 Con t act: Rhett Ross, Vice President Electri c P ower Techno logy, lnc.(E PT I ) Atlanta GA. Contact: Karen Robinson Tel : ( 4 04) 449 1104 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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00600
2 USFLDC DOI
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00600] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
500
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.600