bus news

[tekebird]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080525/border_bus_plant.html

[Sojourner]

MCI/Hybrid:
http://www.mcicoach.com/fyiFromMci/story/0508f.htm

GM Allison Hybrid Ep 50 System:
http://www.allisontransmission.com/product/electricdrive/epsystem.jsp
More…
http://www.greencar.com/features/green-transit/
http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/allison_hybrid_drive.htm

They use smaller diesel that run steady rpm to charge batteries and propel via transmission at cruising speed.

Thanks tekebird.

FWIW

Sojourn for Christ, Jerry

[belfert]

Is the energy savings really enough to justify the extra $180,000 cost?  Even at a 15 year lifespan the bus would have to save $12,000 a year in fuel.  The local transit agency is buying hundreds of hybrid transit buses at an additional cost of $200,000 each.  The transit agency says they will save less than $4,000 a year on fuel, but the federal government paid for the buses so the local transit agency likes the money savings.

We are likely to see transit service get cut, not grow, unless new funding models are found.  Locally, routes are being cut and fares going up due to the cost of fuel to operate the buses.  Fares cover under 30% of transit expenses and taxes pay the rest.  Taxes are not going up and fares can only go up so much before ridership declines.

Still, this is good for MCI and all the companies making transit buses in the short run at least.

[tekebird]

Berlfert, I don;t agree.

although presently fare only pay for 30% of the cost, that is largely due to the low ridership.  "slight" increases in fare (from tyhe perspective of current fares) will hardly lose any ridership as fuel prices go up.

fact is the feds pay for the lions share of transit agencies operating budgets.

Generally going hybrid  costs are paid for directly by the feds as well.

No for alot of transit agencies it would not make sense, but that did not stop them and the feds from buying thousands of problematic CNG buses.

additionally, what needs to happen is for employers to mandate bus riding.

Here in harrisburg, PA the bus ridership is awefully low and always has been.  roads are not really even crowded at rush hour in comparison to some places..... the largest employer in the area is the State Gov......most of these workers drive,  which requires parking, so every few years another large parking garage gets built and many of these employees have thier parking paid for .  So there is no reason for them to take the bus.

Take away parking availibility, and ridership will grow.

locally the bus system is really a waste save for some of the poorer neighborhoods rush hour service...outside of that the whole system shuts down at like 7:00

[belfert]

The local bus service isn't too bad if your work in Downtown Minneapolis, MN or Downtown St. Paul, MN.  I tried it once when I had to pick up my bus from repair.  I took the bus to work in Downtown Minneapolis and then light rail and a taxi to get my bus.

My problem is the bus costs almost as much as I spend on fuel in a month and only half my driving is commuting.

My employer own four blocks of land used for parking in the downtown area.  I am am not union, but the union contracts specify that the company must charge all employees the same for parking and the parking costs can only cover costs of operations with no profit for the company.  Thus, my parking is $45 a month and is taken out of my check pretax.  The company is trying to sell all of the land and when that happens we anticipate parking to triple in price.  The bus probably makes sense when the parking costs go up.

[Tim Strommen]

...Is the energy savings really enough to justify the extra $180,000 cost?  Even at a 15 year lifespan the bus would have to save $12,000 a year in fuel.

Some math...

Assume $3 per gallon, and a 125 gallon fuel tank, let's assume the average MPG for a bus is about 11MPG (very high).

$12,000 fuel per year / $3 per gallon (this number is currently below the national average) = 4,000 gallons per year.

4,000 gallons per year / 125 gallons per fill-up = 32 fill ups.

Allison claims on their site a 60% fuel efficiency improvement with a hybrid.  11MPG + (11 x .6) = 17.6MPG for the very best hybrid bus (this is very, very high...)  Estimated range for the typical bus is: 125 x 11 = 1,357 miles per tank, for the hybrid: 125 x 17.6 = 2,200 miles per tank.

For a 4,000 gallon difference, this would equate to 26,976 miles of range to be traveled before that dollar ammount begins to materialize.

For giggles, if the bus was operated 14 hours per day on weekdays only at an average speed of 65 miles per hour, this would take just 6 weeks to accomplish...

So, if you have a fleet of these - and you run them more than 14 hours per day (with different shifts) 7 days per week, there would be significant cost savings - even at lower speeds (where hybrids are most effective) like at an average speed of 16 MPH, it would only take half a year (less than 24 weeks) to start seeing the savings...

With the reality of fuel costs (greater than $4/Gal) and the low average MPG (sub 9 MPG), these hybrids start to look better and better to the budget people .

Cheers!

-Tim

[belfert]

Transit buses locally average 3.86 MPG.  I am assume this is for 40 footers only and does not include the articulateds or the MCI D4500/D4505s used for express service.  The new hybrid 40 foot transits pruchased locally are expected to get 22% better MPG.  Based on fuel prices when they went into service this winter they expected to save less than $4,000 per bus per year on fuel.

I expect most MCI hybrid coach buses are probably used for express service and not 14 hours a day.  Further, I would expect that express buses spend a fair bit of time at a more consistent speed where hybrid doesn't help MPG much.

I'm sure there are situations where there can be large fuel savings with hybrid coach buses, but I suspect those are few and far between if a transit bus starting and stopping all day long only gains 22%.

[tekebird]

wow if they only expect to save 4k they sure are not putting alot of miles on them.

too bad they don;lt build em like they used to and run a bus for 25 years

I am ballpark guessing but a 4000.00 savings would be roughly 50 miles a day.  think they maybe ougth to do some new route modeling

[belfert]

I'm pretty certain our transit buses travel more than 50 miles a day, particularly since Downtown Minneapolis is clogged with buses during rush hour.  Sometimes the only way to turn left across a bus lane is to wait until the light turns yellow as the buses just keep coming and coming.

The less than $4,000 savings was in a bunch of press releases, but Tekebird is right that the savings seem low if you calculate it out.  I never figured it out before.  I wish I was paying their prices for diesel as they are still under $4 I believe, but they buy in bulk and presumably don't pay road taxes.

[tekebird]

at 15o miles a day 356 days a year savings would be 12k or so or 180k in a 15 year bus life

[RJ]

Don't feel like crunching the big numbers, but if somebody else wants to:

At the transit system where I worked, our average route speed was 5 minutes/mile, or 12 mph.  (This is a pretty common average speed in the transit industry, btw.)  First bus out was at 0530, last bus in was at 2345, most between 0600 and 2300.  75 coaches on the street all day, 95 during peak.  Extra 20 were parked off-peak.  This was M-F.  Saturdays were 0600 - 2200 with 75 vehicles, Sundays 0800 - 2100 with 50 vehicles.  No peak service Sat/Sun.

Fuel mileage averaged between 3 - 4 mpg, depending on the powertrain, so 3.5 would be fairly accurate to base calculations on.

So, on the average, our fleet ran:

M-F: 204 miles/day/bus
Sat: 192 miles/day/bus
Sun: 156 miles/day/bus

If you really want to keep the calculations simple, just figure 200 miles per day per coach, M-F, and go from there. . .  That will give pretty typical "real-world" average numbers.

FWIW & HTH. . .

 

[tekebird]

rj, roughly the numbers I used to do my guesstimate.