National Academies Press: OpenBook

Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice (2018)

Chapter: Appendix B - Survey Results

« Previous: Appendix A - Survey Questionnaire
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25061.
×
Page 189

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

125 A p p e n d i x B Survey Results

Fleet Information Transit Agency # BEBs Total Percentage 1 3 113 3% 2 1 1583 0.06% 3 30 370 8% 4 2 75 3% 5 2 68 3% 6 34 163 21% 7 16 31 52% 8 15 304 5% 9 6 66 9% 10 6 53 11% 11 3 1474 0.20% 12 5 681 1% 13 2 1870 0.11% 14 9 274 3% 15 4 185 2% 16 6 6 100% 17 14 105 13% 18 5 64 8% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-1% 2-10% 11-50% 51-100% Percentage of BEBs to Total Fleet Size Number of Agencies Transit Agency Information

BEB Fleet Size Distribution Transit Agency # 35' 40' 60' Cutaway Other Total 1 - 3 - - - 3 2 - 1 - - - 1 3 15 15 - - - 30 4 - 2 - - - 2 5 - 2 - - - 2 6 - 21 13 - - 34 7 5 1 - - 10 16 8 9 6 - - - 15 9 - 6 - - - 6 10 5 1 - - - 6 11 - 3 - - - 3 12 - 5 - - - 5 13 - 2 - - - 2 14 9 - - - - 9 15 - - - - 4 4 16 5 1 - - - 6 17 - - - - 14 14 18 - - - - 5 5 Fleet Information Transit Agency # Total BEBs Total Buses Percent BEBs 1 3 113 3% 2 1 1583 0.1% 3 30 370 8% 4 2 75 3% 5 2 68 3% 6 34 163 21% 7 16 31 52% 8 15 304 5% 9 6 66 9% 10 6 53 11% 11 3 1474 0.2% 12 5 681 0.7% 13 2 1870 0.1% 14 9 274 3% 15 4 185 2% 16 6 6 100% 17 14 105 13% 18 5 64 8%

Transit Agency Information 17% 39%22% 22% Procurement Standard bus procurement with suppliers competing through transit agency RFP. Through a federal or state competetive grant opportunity (i.e. - FTA TIGGER or LowNo program) Both None of the above 83% 6% 11% Transit Agencies’ BEB Status Currently operate battery electric buses in transit service. Have procured battery electric buses or have them on order, but have not received any of them. Have ordered and received some or all battery electric buses but have not put them into transit service. Other forms of procurement include: • Leased • Negotiated for no-cost bus from OEM • County Board of Supervisors gave a local grant to cover two electric buses • piggyback

Charging Characteristics 39% 50% 11% Route Charging Methods Depot Only Depot + On-route Overhead Conductive Depot + On-route Inductive/ Wireless Count: 18 Number of Chargers Minimum Average Maximum Number Agencies Responded Depot Only 1 10 89 17 On-route Overhead Conductive 1 2 5 9 On-route Inductive/ Wireless 1 7 13 2 Depot Overhead 1 1 1 1

Charging Characteristics 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <4 4-5 6-7 8-10 Hours Charging Charging Process Length at Night Number of Agencies n = 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50-100 150-200 200-250 Battery Size (kWh) TAS: Traction Battery Size Number of Agencies n = 15

05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Months TAR: Fleet Months in Service Fleet Characteristics n = 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Transit Agency #

0200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 Number of Miles TAS: Fleet Number of Miles Fleet Characteristics n = 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Transit Agency #

Continuously Pulse Schedule82% 18% Bus Departures from Layover Locations Route Characteristics Average Route Characteristics Minimum Average Minimum Response Value Average Maximum Average Maximum Response Value Route Length (miles) 15 2 18 64 365 Daily Range (miles) 136 65 188 258 600 Layover Duration (mins) 5 0 9 19 30 Route Speeds (mph) 12 5 18 32 60 Deadhead Distance (miles) 3 0 5 9 25 Deadhead Speeds (mph) 20 6 23 35 60

02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Did you previously do any maintenance on electric/hybrid vehicles? Did you have any existing high voltage infrastructure?* Is there staff available to manage the installation of charging infrastructure? Are there certified electricians on staff available to service infrastructure and/or equipment? Prior Ability to Service Buses and Infrastructure Equipment Yes No *All seven respondents also replied that they maintain the high voltage infrastructure

02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Provide audible or visual communication that the bus is approaching. Remote monitoring and control (charge fault notification, charge durations, shutdown capability, reset charge event) of charge events. Provide an audible or visual communication to on-board passengers that the bus is charging. Provide an audible or visual communication to pedestrians that the bus is charging. Bus Communication and Control Important Not Important Other recommendations include: • Flashing light and audible horn • Interactive signs and mobile application notifications • External speakers, bus approaching or bus turning • To provide a rocker switch so the driver can manually turn on/off the back-up alarm, and a front speaker • Crowd alert alarm • There are technologies that are available now that connect with bus IT systems which can monitor conditions that could communicate with pedestrians as the buses approach. I.e. - IO Controls

33% 17%17% 33% Charging Method Preference AC Charging DC Charging Don't Know No preference Agency Preferences n = 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Not Important (0-3) Important (4-7) Very Important (8-10) Slider Bar: How important are on- route charging interface standards to allow for interoperability of on-route chargers with BEBs? Number of Transit Agencies n = 17

What type of data/telemacs are you interested in? Select all that apply 94.1 94.1 94.1 88.2 23.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Legend Value Percent Count Range anxiety related (state of charge, range to recharge, charger status, traffic status, etc.) 94.1% 16 Operaons (passengers counted, outside and inside temperatures, energy this cycle, energy over life, energy over vehicle life, drive cycle specifics like hard braking) 94.1% 16 Maintenance (fault codes) 94.1% 16 Safety 88.2% 15 Other - Write In 23.5% 4

Planning and Procurement

Planning – Procurement General Slider Bar: How important do you believe continued public investment is to the deployment of BEBs? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Not Important (0-3) Important (4-7) Very Important (8-10) Number of Transit Agencies n = 16 Deployment Costs Minimum Average Maximum Buses (avg per bus) $579,000 $887,308 $1,200,000 Depot Charging Equipment (per charger) $2,000 $50,000 $100,000 Depot Charging Installation (per charger) $2,000 $17,050 $64,000 On-Route Charging Equipment (per charger) $330,000 $495,636 $600,000 On-Route Charging Installation (per charger) $50,000 $202,811 $400,000

What incentives or drivers contributed to your agency’s decision to purchase electric buses? Select all that apply. 50 55.6 50 33.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Environmental regulation Board direction Sustainability program Test applicability to your service Environmental regulation Board direction Sustainability program Test applicability to your service Value Percent Count Environmental regulation 50.0% 9 Board direction 55.6% 10 Sustainability program 50.0% 9 Test applicability to your service 33.3% 6 Percent Other incentives include: • OEM was motivated to showcase their bus in our environment • Right thing to do • Needed grant funds to purchase buses

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Was a life cycle cost analysis accomplished when procuring the BEBs? Did you factor electricity rates and/or demand charges into your decision to purchase BEBs? Did you purchase an extended warranty for the batteries? Planning Yes No n = 15, 16 Other recommendations include: • Vehicle weight, nominal/maximum passenger load, auxiliary energy demands, motor outputs and energy demands, battery energy and energy capacity • Battery life • Completed by CTE • We mainly reviewed the cost based on our hybrid experience. (e.g. benefits of removing engine + additional risk of replacing more batteries) • body, motor, batteries • controllers, motors, batteries, electrical rates

Months T r a n s i t A g e n c y # Traction Battery Warranty Base Warranty Extended Warranty n = 15

Method Used Evaluation of range with respect to route needs Account for variables when verifying range Determination of charge method Used Agency Experience 56% 50% 50% Used Consultant 28% 33% 6% Used OEM Predictions 56% 50% 44% Operated demo bus on routes 56% 50% 11% Modeling and simulation 39% 33% 22% Evaluation Methods Utilized by Agencies to Determine Vehicle Specifications, Operational Requirements, and Route Selection

How did you evaluate vehicle range with respect to your route needs? Check all that apply 55.6 27.8 55.6 55.6 38.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Used Agency experience Used Consultant Used OEM predictions Operated demo bus on routes Modeling and simulation Used Agency experience Used Consultant Used OEM predictions Operated demo bus on routes Modeling and simulation Value Percent Count Used Agency experience 55.6% 10 Used Consultant 27.8% 5 Used OEM predictions 55.6% 10 Operated demo bus on routes 55.6% 10 Modeling and simulation 38.9% 7 •

How did you account for variables (such as ambient temperatures, battery degradation, bus loading, grades) when verifying range capabilities? Check all that apply Value Percent Count Used Agency experience 50.0% 9 Used Consultant 33.3% 6 Used OEM predictions 50.0% 9 Operated demo bus on routes 50.0% 9 Modeling and simulation 33.3% 6

How did you determine which charge method was right for your needs (depot, on-route - overhead conductive, on-route - wireless)? Check all that apply 50 5.6 44.4 11.1 22.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Used Agency experience Used Consultant Used OEM predictions Operated demo bus on routes Modeling and simulation Used Agency experience Used Consultant Used OEM predictions Operated demo bus on routes Modeling and simulation Other methods include: • Did not have an option • Infrastructure capabilities • Collaboration with other agencies • Byproduct of procurement process – extended range operation was only available with one of the proposers • Experience with current BEBs

How did you develop your electric bus specifications? Check all that apply 55.6 16.7 22.2 11.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Develop your own procurement specifications Consultant Use other agency's procurement specifications Used a guide - Explain: Develop your own procurement specifications Consultant Use other agency's procurement specifications Used a guide - Explain: Value Percent Count Develop your own procurement specifications 55.6% 10 Consultant 16.7% 3 Use other agency's procurement specifications 22.2% 4 Used a guide - Explain: 11.1% 2 Other - Write In 22.2% 4 Other methods include: • Used current specifications as base • Only BEB manufacturer at that time & FTA grant allowed Sole Source • Procured the bus with the grant

76% 24% Driver information and control over managing remaining range and battery SOC Drivers should have more information/ control Drivers should have less information/ control Driver Information 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Not Important (0-3) Important (4-7) Very Important (8-10) Slider Bar: How important is the forthcoming APTA Zero Emission Bus Standard Bus Procurement Guideline? Number of Transit Agencies n = 17 n = 17

How did you select the routes to place the BEBs on? Select all that apply 55.6 16.7 16.7 22.2 5.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Relied on transit planning experience Used Consultant Trial and error Modeling and simulation Other analytical methods Relied on transit planning experience Used Consultant Trial and error Modeling and simulation Other analytical methods Value Percent Count Relied on transit planning experience 55.6% 10 Used Consultant 16.7% 3 Trial and error 16.7% 3 Modeling and simulation 22.2% 4 Other analytical methods 5.6% 1 Other methods include: • Available funding for disadvantaged communities • Replacing pre-existing routes • Initially ran pilot testing outside of revenue service, then started on shorter-range routes. Have since moved on to longer range and are studying all routes for future procurement. • Shortest and branding opportunity • Had to change bus schedule to accommodate BEBs, so the route with the lowest ridership to not impact schedule too much

02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Did you procure charging infrastructure with the vehicles under the same contract? Did you involve the local utility when making infrastructure procurement decisions? Did you involve the local utility when making infrastructure installation decisions? Procurement Yes No Procurement Infrastructure 22% 61% 17% Who was responsible for infrastructure installation? Bus OEM Transit Agency Infrastructure Provider n = 18

How did you coordinate deployment of infrastructure in conjunction with arrival of the BEBs? • Charger was installed before bus delivery • Scheduled construction milestones to coordinate with the BEB delivery schedule. • Timing was interrupted by regulations • Ensured infrastructure was in place prior to bus arrival as soon as PO was awarded for buses, the facility upgrade started. • Infrastructure had to be in place prior to delivery of the BEBs • Unfortunately BEBs arrived before infrastructure was established. • Worked with OEM to install fast charger prior to bus deployment. • Lots of meetings • We worked with New Flyer to ensure the chargers were provided and UL certified by the time of the arrival of the buses. • Our project manager worked closely with both OEMs to ensure that the deployment went smoothly. • Gantt chart developed at beginning of process to determine that chargers would be in place before buses arrived. • Upgraded charging infrastructure prior to new bus deliveries

Please describe what worked well and what didn’t work well form your experience procuring infrastructure. Worked well: • Charger installation was smooth. Power requirements must be well understood by all • Partnering with OEM, local utility and our A&E (accident and emergency) worked very well in design and construction of the charging infrastructure. • Communication with local utility company and learning curve of agency • Involvement of all stakeholders to determine locations (utility, public works, local and state DOTs, OEM, local planners) • For the previous e-bus installation, we didn't have to involve the local utility due to the depot chargers. However for the future en-route chargers, we are involving well in advance of any RFP. • Worked with same electrical engineer we have used for years. Didn’t work well: • We should have done a better job of determining our ultimate goal for BEBs. We had two restarts. • Still working with our Utility company. Full infrastructure has not begun. • Procuring property and ancillaries along with knowledge of systems are challenges. • Working with the local utility company became trying at times as well as agreeing on the actual installation of the equipment. • It was VERY expensive with unforeseen additional costs, the utilities and OEM were not as helpful.

82% 18% Who owns the on-route charging infrastructure? Agency, 9 Utility, 0 Public municipality, 2 Would you like to see the on-route infrastructure be made available to other medium and heavy duty vehicles? Planning – Deployment of On-Route Infrastructure n = 11 Explain: Would you like to see the on-route infrastructure be made available to other medium and heavy duty vehicles? No: • Making them available to other users will interfere with bus operations. In addition it will complicate the responsibility for electric bills. • We need the available time for the transit vehicles. • TI is on restricted access authority property Yes: • It is possible, but there are significant barriers. Shared use cannot jeopardize the ability of buses to dock, charge and run on schedule. A transparent method to segregate and assign charging costs to multiple entities would also be very important. • As we expand, on-route infrastructure could be a great option for the public to use. • Other city vehicles could go electric n = 10

How did you select the location of your on-route charging stations? • We determined the transit center was the perfect location for the charging station since it was mid- point of the route. In addition, it provided us with a safe location to install the chargers considering its height limitations. • They are located at the 2 main transit centers/park & ride facilities in the Antelope Valley. • Selection was made based on route structure, recovery areas and demands. • Proximity to layover points on existing routes, availability of low-cost real estate, availability of adequate utility infrastructure, adequate right-of-way for safe docking • Our Central Hub is the transfer station for all WRTA routes • End of the line of a route. • Real-estate availability • This was based off of the need of the agency as well as took into consideration future expansion options. • As utility owner, we looked for locations on separate parts of grid for redundancy. Locations are at existing stops. One is located at planned service expansion location. • It was the only location that we could make work • Route analysis, available transit owned property, availability of power, and ease of installation

Where is the on-route charging infrastructure located? Select all that apply 27.3 72.7 36.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Side of public street Transit center Agency owned property Side of public street Transit center Agency owned property Value Percent Count Side of public street 27.3% 3 Transit center 72.7% 8 Agency owned property 36.4% 4 Other location: • Mid-point of the route

What type of entrance/exit do you use for on-route infrastructure? Select all that apply 30 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 On-road Pull-off lane Pull-in driveway On-road Pull-off lane Pull-in driveway Value Percent Count On-road 30.0% 3 Pull-off lane 20.0% 2 Pull-in driveway 30.0% 3 • •

What alignment method for charging is used? 72.7 9.1 45.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Visual cues on road or roadside Video cues on dash Semi-automated control Visual cues on road or roadside Video cues on dash Semi-automated control Value Percent Count Visual cues on road or roadside 72.7% 8 Video cues on dash 9.1% 1 Semi-automated control 45.5% 5 Other - Write In 18.2% 2

45% 27% 18% 9% Street Traffic Density at the Infrastructure Location None Light Medium Heavy Planning – Deployment of On-Route Infrastructure n = 11 18% 18% 9% 55% Available Footprint at the Infrastructure Location Sidewalk space, 2 25 sqft, 0 50 sqft, 2 100 sqft, 0 150 sqft, 1 200 sqft or more, 6 n = 11

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Are there any clearance requirements or height restrictions surrounding curbside infrastructure? Was a height clearance restriction bar installed? Have there been any incidents associated with other vehicles colliding with the infrastructure? Clearance Requirements Yes No n = 11 n = 9 n = 11

55% 45% Flexibility to have irregular charge schedules Yes No 0% 55% 0% 45% Minutes of Charge Time per Hour at One Layover up to 5 mins 5-10 mins 10-15 mins more than 15 mins Scheduling n = 11 n = 11

02 4 6 8 10 12 14 Did you plan in advance for scale up of your BEB fleet and associated charging infrastructure? Do you anticipate issues with having adequate physical space for charging BEBs at scale? Do you anticipate issues with having adequate electrical power for charging BEBs at scale? Do you anticipate issues with having adequate resources (scheduling, manual plugging) for charging BEBs at scale? BEB and Infrastructure Scalability Yes No n = 18

How did you plan in advance for scale up of your BEB fleet and associated charging infrastructure? • Parking location and distance from utility service. • We started with 3 BEBs as a demo program knowing in advance that electrifying line 291 will require 7 buses during peak periods. • We had two restarts as we went from 16 to 50 to 85 • 24 year roadmap and model simulations were produced • City's agreement to provide more service for increased demand. • Planned on doing as much underground work as possible. Take advantage of the open trench and concrete work to lay electric foundation. • We are planning future routes and locations based on maximum scalability based on the real estate and number of potential buses. • adding one more on route charger • Recently we were awarded a Low-No grant to procure four (4) more electric buses and one (1) additional in route charge. • location of chargers to serve existing and planned routes. Development of bus maintenance facility to accommodate fleet expansion. • Our site was constructed fifteen years ago with excess electrical capacity in expectation of BEB growth Do you anticipate issues with having adequate electrical power for charging BEBs at scale? Yes: • Depot charging is limiting in terms of space if a charger is needed for each bus • As we move forward with our initiative of 100% fleet electrification by 2030, we are faced with depot space availability to accommodate a bank of charging stations necessary to charge our fleet. • As fleet increases, we'll have to look into induction and on-route charging options. • Adequate space for charging is a significant issue for on-route charging because we don't own any appropriate real estate. • We already know sites where charging will be an issue if we scale. • All charging infrastructure is on perimeter of yard, and agency does not have any other available land and will need to pay for ROW. • Many reasons. Impact to maintenance and dispatch operations, footprint requirements, power requirements, time to upgrade power distribution infrastructure to name a few No: • We are a tier 2 fleet with over 10 acres of property • We are installing the full system at the beginning • Bus barn capacity is large enough to upgrade • Adequate planning in OEM contract for increased fleet size • Planned on expanding solar panels to provide post for depot chargers to be mounted on.

Do you anticipate issues with having adequate electrical power for charging BEBs at scale? Yes: • At this time we are not sure if we have the appropriate electrical infrastructure at our bus depots. • There is a clear capacity limit for extended range bus charging at our single depot. No: • We know how much power the ultimate system needs, that how much we are starting with • Adequate planning with provider • No, we worked with Utility Company, to size correctly. • COMED has indicated that providing the power will not be an issue. The issue is the cost to bring the power. • We have adequate power • Up to 30% of our fleet could be charged using current facilities • Adequate power is available from our two utility companies Do you anticipate issues with having adequate resources (scheduling, manual plugging) for charging BEBs at scale? Yes: • Securing funds are limited and require commitment to renewal • There are clear capital and operating costs associated with charging. The question has to do with the trade-off with costs associated with diesel use. • We expect to have some issues. However, we are trying to plan around them based on our technical specs. • Impacts to footprint, maintenance process, etc. No: • Utility staff are trained how to manage the charging cycle • With depot charging on route charging and long range buses we will be able to operate without issue • already worked into standard SOP • Adequate planning • Easier process to plug in than to fill with gasoline pumps. • we have adequate resources • Connectors do wear out

02 4 6 8 10 12 Bus OEM only Bus OEM, Transit Agency Equipment OEM, Bus OEM, Third Party, Transit Agency Equipment OEM, Bus OEM, Transit Agency Bus OEM, Third Party Third Party, Transit Agency Transit Agency Equipment OEM Equipment OEM, Bus OEM N u m b e r o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Who provided operator and maintenance training? BEB Operators and Maintenance Training Charging Infrastructure Maintenance Training 61% 39% Were first responders trained on responding to BEB incidents? Yes No Training n = 18 n = 18 What percentage of your personnel has been trained on the BEB fleet? • Drivers: average 70% • Maintenance workers: average 58%

Training What worked well and didn’t work well when training for BEBs? • Working with third party trainers worked well. Initially Bus OEM trainer needed help • training first responders was most important and went very well. • OEM was well prepared and trained all areas well and in groups, for more one on one time. • The biggest issue is the unknown nature of the SOC for new operators. It would be best to have an estimated range (time of operation remaining) for the operators. Additionally, the bus is top-heavy due to the batteries. • Train the trainer went well and training material was well organized • Shadowing the service gave us the flexibility to pull BEB's offline to train personnel. • training sessions for drivers and first responders together worked well. • Range capacities of different battery chemistries • Hands on with bus on site worked well. Having factory technical rep on site worked well. Covering all shifts since we operate 24/7 was challenging. The training manuals were not ideal Other • We are still in the process of expanding our maintenance training. More detailed diagnostic training is still required. • We are currently in the process of completing our training for our recently delivered BEB; presently, we cannot provide an accurate assessment of our training until the training has completed. • No issues with driver training on BEBs

Operations Experience n = 13 Reasons: Not Important: • It is much easier to plug in a BEB than fuel a CNG bus. • Redundant system, hasn't been used. Important: • It is much less of an issue for depot charging. • Easier to have connections be automated. Reliance on humans for manual connections generally introduces higher risk of error or oversight. Very Important: • Avoid injury and errors • Needs a good connection to charge, trained employees on what to look for. • Route timing & safety concerns Other: • We want to minimize Manual connections (e.g. plug-in depot chargers) as much as possible. • Manual charging is fine. We have used it for years • We will have depot charging for all buses State of Charge Minimum Average Maximum Depart for service (%) 83 93 98 Return from service (%) 45 60 73

Which of the following, if anything, did you have to change to accommodate the BEBs? Select all that apply 20 60 40 13.3 33.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bus Blocking Schedule Layover Times Number of Buses Serving a Route Nothing Bus Blocking Schedule Layover Times Number of Buses Serving a Route Nothing Value Percent Count Bus Blocking 20.0% 3 Schedule 60.0% 9 Layover Times 40.0% 6 Number of Buses Serving a Route 13.3% 2 Other - Write In 13.3% 2 Nothing 33.3% 5

05 10 15 20 25 30 35 M i s a l i g n m e n t B e h i n d S c h e d u l e B l o c k e d P a t h L o s s o f P o w e r t o C h a r g e r M e c h a n i c a l M a l f u n c t i o n o f C h a r g e r I n t e r f a c e P e r c e n t a g e o f C h a r g e s M i s s e d Causes of Missed On-Route Charges (%) How did you manage continued operations during missed charges? • They returned for a second attempt to dock and charge. • Used alternate charger • In some cases, we re-route to alternate charger. On circulator routes, where the issue is that the charger is occupied or the bus is behind schedule, we simply perform another loop. In extreme cases, we operate diesel buses. • We didn't and had to wait for repair • The routes are short so the buses can miss a charge and not impact service • We shadowed our service until we felt the reliability of the buses and infrastructure was stable. • Express bus has priority, other buses have another charging opportunity at second fast charger 2.5 miles away. • Send out fossil fuel bus

Please describe what worked well and what didn’t work well when operating BEBs. • The good buses are very reliable, over 92% availability rate. The not so good - operator training. on board monitoring of consumption rate would help. • The buses can operate on route 24 hours 7 days a week. We have not experienced any major operational issues. Driver training related to the docking as an early issue. • winter is a small issue. Need additional heat requirements for cold weather areas. • We have had minimum problems. • Our inability to locate on-route charging equipment where it would be most efficient is a significant issue. Driver's configuration was not to our typical specification and was challenging • The issues are ensuring you have ample time to charge when various factors happen (e.g. late pull-in) and also ensuring charging is occurring when it should be. (e.g. charging operation may stop) • We sometimes have issues with making pull out when the charger is down or when we loose access during special events. • Inability to avoid layover time has affected route schedules when traffic or other delays occur. • Worked well—passenger experience Didn't work, long term support from component manufacturers Please describe what worked well and what didn’t work well for charging with on-route infrastructure. • With in-route charging we can practically operate the BEBs 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The BEBs are always charged without having to return to the depot. What didn't work well is a single point of failure. If the chargers go down, it impacts delivery of service. If one of the two chargers goes down, charging of buses is impacted and on-time performance. • We are just now putting on-route chargers in service • The system generally works well. • Adequate testing, training and PRACTICE docking. • On route charging works well; buses are able to charge quickly and not cause long layovers • Managing the unknown issues that arose during the implementation of our service. • Electrical demand costs caused transit managers to instruct drivers to avoid using the second charger in order to save money. Non-demand pricing fixed that. • Getting operators trained worked well. When operators forget the procedures it was a challenge

Explain how the availability of the BEBs has affected operations. • High availability has been positive for ops. • The BEBs replaced the CNG buses that were initially operated on Line 291. We have sufficient spare ratio to supplement service when BEBS are going through PMIs. • We had issues with one rear wheel hub • Great, they're available and more reliable than the diesel buses • In general, reduced maintenance cost and increased reliability. Where used for local service, it has also increased operating cost due to the alteration in scheduling. • Has caused service delays, as we often need to swap bus out when it has a low SOC. • Missed trips and spare fleet vehicle availability • When the bus\charging isn't available, we will operate normal buses • There has not been any impact because we still are able to use our older diesels buses when the BEB's are not available. • Spare factor=no effect • when we add the remaining buses to the fleet we will have to change the schedule of the route Explain how the availability of the charging infrastructure has affected operations. • Vehicles operate 95 miles in the AM peak and return to facility at 10am. buses are topped up and do 95 miles in the PM peak. • The charging infrastructure did not have any impact on operations. Buses charge at the charging station at the Transit Center while passengers board and alight. • Location of the infrastructure has increased route length for local (non-circulator) service • Missed trips and spare fleet vehicle availability • When the bus\charging isn't available, we will operate normal buses • Increased our number of missed trips. • Redundancy=no effect • Only minor charging problems

02 4 6 8 10 12 BEBs Depot Charging On-route Number of Transit Agencies After shakeout and initial deployment, what has been the availability of the BEBs and infrastructure during normal operating hours? <50% 50-85% 86-95% >95% n = 15 n = 14 n = 9

Maintenance Experience 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Bus propulsion system preventative maintenance Bus propulsion system repair Charging infrastructure preventative maintenance Charging infrastructure repair P e r c e n t a g e o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Who provides the following services and maintenance? Bus OEM Third Party Transit Agency: In-house n = 14

Traction Battery Experience How do you track the degradation? • OEM tracks • OEM software/report • We have asked New Flyer to review recently; and they provide the current capacity vs. initial capacity. • comparing battery data with expected 6 year battery life. • Fleet maintenance software 21% 79% Have you had any issues with the traction battery? Yes No 46% 54% Do you track battery degradation/ end of life? Yes No

Spare Parts Requirements Explain • No transmission (for instance), and brake life is longer with BEBs • already have same model year buses • No transmission or engine spare parts are needed. • Far fewer parts to stock • Parts availability is an issue • This is hard to perfectly evaluate since we only have 2 buses vs. a much larger fleet. • Too early to determine. • Fewer moving/wearing parts means lower need for propulsion inventory, however bus body discontinuation means having more body parts available for 12 year bus life. • Long lead times, smaller manufacturers • Fewer parts needed for BEBs 8% 46% 46% Are your spare parts inventory needs greater, the same, or lower for BEBs? Greater The same Lower

Please describe what worked well and what didn’t work well when maintaining BEBs. • We had initial issues with the low voltage side of the system. This required programming changes to ensure the low voltage batteries remained charged • BEBs PMIs are labor intensive similar to other vehicles. BEBs do not require consumables such as oil, transmission fluid, filters, belts, etc. So, maintenance costs are cheaper around 9 cents per mile versus 12 cents per mile on CNG buses. This is based on scheduled maintenance and does not account for any unscheduled maintenance costs. • We have not had any significant issues with the buses, so all is going well. • All went well • Working very well, operating at a 98% rate. Down time is usually due to issues other than maintenance. Also, maintenance costs are down significantly. • We didn't train early enough, relying on OEM tech support. Techs with electrical engineering backgrounds would be helpful, which we don't have. • Parts availability is an issue; change in technology and associated training • For the most part, there hasn't been any issue in maintaining them. • BEB have been very reliable and good customer service • Parts availability for discontinued body design, including windshields, doors. • No established maintenance parameters. Had to create them. • We have only had the buses in service for less than a month • Well: simpler to work on; not as well: new technology is a challenge

Cost Experience

Cost Tracking n = 13 n = 14 Costs ($/mile) Minimum Average Maximum Scheduled Maintenance $0.09 $0.36 $0.92 Unscheduled Maintenance $0.09 $0.28 $0.55 Fuel/electricity for BEB Fleet $0.27 $1.52 $0.47

Explain costs and benefits • Electric bus maintenance and “fuel” costs are less than diesel. • The capital cost has to date been about 2:1 for BEBs. The maintenance costs are lower due to the elimination of standard diesel PMs and less frequent brake maintenance. There is not yet enough data to validate life cycle cost savings. • Capital costs: charging and other infrastructure upgrade costs are not included. Ops and Maint costs: Not enough data to know yet. Life cycle costs: not enough data to know yet • We did a very high level analysis of the BEB’s cost. However, we are trying to fine tune that as we implemented sub-meters to take data more accurately. • Budgets were based on diesel bus operation and have not yet been modified. More operation time with BEBs is needed to ensure that costs will continue to be lower.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capital Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Life Cycle Costs P e r c e n t a g e o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Cost Comparison: Actual BEB Cost to Original Budgeted Amount (%) Greater than Less than About the same Not sure n = 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capital Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Life Cycle Costs N u m b e r o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Cost Comparison: Actual BEB Cost to Original Budgeted Amount (#) n = 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capital Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Life Cycle Costs N u m b e r o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Cost Comparison: BEBs to Existing Diesel/CNG Buses (#) n = 12n = 11 n = 12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Capital Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Life Cycle Costs P e r c e n t a g e o f T r a n s i t A g e n c i e s Cost Comparison: BEBs to Existing Diesel/CNG Buses (%) n = 13n = 12 n = 13 Greater than Less than About the same Not sure Greater than Less than About the same Not sure Greater than Less than About the same Not sure

n = 12 n = 14 n = 14 Explain: Was it difficult selecting an optimum electricity rate structure for your services? Yes • We do not select our electric rate structure. That is developed and determined by So. Cal. Edison. We have been working with Edison for the past 4 years to determine a suitable and lowest possible rate for our EBs. • Worked with local utility • The optimum rate still has to be determined. • Demand vs. non-demand charge No • We have fantastic support from the two utilities we work with • Had to negotiate with the City. • We were given a very limited choice, which made very little difference. • We have nighttime TOU metering

Technical Support Tools n = 15 n = 15 What did you use? • OEM support and staff support. • We used CTE (Center for Transportation and Environment) • We used a software called Viricity. It records and provides real time electric data, SOW, speed, miles, Kwh etc... • We worked with the OEM using their route projection information software. This looked at speed, grade, average speed to determine a safe range of travel. • We utilized our route data in order to make an informed decision. • Proterra supplied software

n = 15 Please describe those benefits. • We calculated the GHG emission reductions in utilizing BEBs in fully electrifying Line 291. • Because most of our funds for the project have come from the State of California, we have had to calculate GHG reductions. • Environmental & Health benefits: Decreased the CO2 emissions and other Greenhouse Gases. • We know that compared to the buses they replaced we are avoiding over 3,000 lbs/year of criteria air pollutants, depending on miles in service per year. • 504 tons of carbon monoxide saved in 40 months • We have put this both in advertising on bus, press, and web. We utilized EPA's DEQ calculator for this. http:// www.transitchicago.com/electricbus/ What are some of the environmental benefits? The new electric buses will replace two 6400- series Nova buses purchased in 2001. When comparing these two different model buses, each electric bus is expected to yield significant reductions in harmful emissions and air-borne pollutants. Reduced emissions lead to reduced occurrences of illness, such as respiratory diseases. According to the EPA's Diesel Emissions Quantifier Health Benefits Methodology, the reduction in particulate matter from just one electric bus is equivalent to about $55,000 in health benefits savings annually; and over the anticipated 12 year lifetime of the bus, annual health benefit savings are estimated at about $660,000 in health benefits. Reductions in other harmful emissions include: Carbon dioxide (CO2): a 121-ton reduction per year, per electric bus. Over the anticipated 12 year lifetime of the bus, this equates to 1,452 tons per bus. Hydrocarbons (HC): reduced by 0.0428 tons per year or 0.5136 tons over the 12 year lifespan of each bus. Carbon monoxide (CO): reduced 0.310 tons annually or 3.72 tons over the lifetime of the bus. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): less 0.5938 tons per year, or 7.1256 tons over the lifetime of the bus. Particulate matter (PM): reduced by 0.0274 tons per year, or 0.3288 tons over the 12 year lifespan of each electric bus. • Merchants and residents like the quiet buses

Public Relations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Negative (0-4) Positive (5-8) Extremely Positive (9-10) Slider Bar: Public's Reaction to BEB Deployment Number of Transit Agencies n = 15

Resiliency and Emergencies n = 14 n = 7 Explain Yes: • We will be able to charge up to 25 buses at a time. Our BEB can be used in the case of an emergency as a power source VGI: V2B, V2L, V2G. • We have immediate assistance in place...with another charger on a separate part of the grid and additional assistance with a local facility that has generators that can handle the load. • Within two hours, I would hope to have some buses available to assist in any manner. • We provide shelter and evacuation service. With a fleet of BEBs we would need back-up power regardless of these services but to keep regular service running. • We provide buses for special events, for emergencies (e.g. warming/cooling buses), and for evacuation. • We have back up generators for EV's in place No: • The current and near term BEB percentage of the fleet is far too small to require planning of that nature. • We have contracts to provide assistance but have not considered additional power provision to accommodate long distance evac. • We would not use the BEB in these situations, and likely would not go to a 100% fleet for that reason.

Conclusion

n = 14 n = 13 Explain: Do you plan to purchase additional BEBs? Yes: Foothill Transit has an order for 13 more 40 ft. Catalyst buses with Proterra slated for delivery between June 2017 and October 2017. Foothill Transit won State and Local grants for 20 Proterra electric buses and for demonstration of 2 Alexander Dennis double-decker electric buses. Foothill Transit's Executive Board approved an initiative to fully electrify by 2030. The goal is to be 100% BEB fleet by the end of 2018 -- a fleet of 79 buses. Annual replacement moving forward We have currently won a Low-No Grant to purchase additional BEBs...and our long range goal is to make our fleet entirely BEB by the year 2025. Dependent on availability of additional discretionary funds and budgetary exigencies, increasing the size of the BEB fleet is definitely being considered. Between 2-6 over the next 5 years We just ordered 70 more BEBs. Twenty of those will be fast charge and the additional may be fast or slow charge. In addition we plan on buying up to 9 long range buses to help determine if the slow charge long range bus would be a better option for our type of service. 2017/2018 purchase of 4 additional BEBs experience and savings are positives We plan to replace our 17 year old BEBs with new BEBs soon As grant funds allow No: Fleet at capacity for BEBs • • • • • • • • • • • • • Not at present time

Are there any lessons learned for management or motivation of the various stakeholder groups (utilities, operators, unions, communities, executive boards, regulatory agencies, etc.) to engage in BEB procurement and deployment? • It is recommended for agencies to early on engage the utilities, executive boards, and regulatory agencies to engage in BEB procurement and deployment. We had fantastic Board Support. It is easy if you demonstrate the savings • Engaging operators • The use of environmental effects and cost savings. Implementation of BEBs, especially when considering taking it to scale, requires strategic planning to determine type of BEB (FC or ER), as well as most effective placement of charging stations. • You have to work very closely with the BEB manufacturers during the entire build process. Hold them accountable to the specs they agreed to provide. • don't know • There needs to be help with demand charges and infrastructure costs. • Not everyone is for these vehicles, and many question their value and that they are not really reducing emissions because of increased use at power plant. The initial costs are too high to justify without any real success—would not have gone in this direction without grant funds Final Comments

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED ISBN 978-0-309-39017-0 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 9 0 1 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 Battery Electric Buses— State of the Practice TCRP Synthesis 130 TRB

Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 130: Battery Electric Buses—State of the Practice documents current practices of transit systems in the planning, procurement, infrastructure installation, operation, and maintenance of battery electric buses (BEBs). The synthesis is intended for transit agencies that are interested in understanding the potential benefits and challenges associated with the introduction and operation of battery electric buses. The synthesis will also be valuable to manufacturers trying to better meet the needs of their customers and to federal, state, and local funding agencies and policy makers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!