Use of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles by small urban and rural transit systems

A survey was conducted of small urban and rural transit agencies regarding their use of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles. Responses were received from 115 transit providers across the country, including 31 that use biodiesel, eight that use E85, 10 that use compressed natural gas (CNG), four that use propane, and 24 that own hybrid-electric vehicles. Larger agencies and those operating in urban areas tend to be more likely to adopt alternatives than smaller, rural providers. Improving public perception, reducing emissions, and reducing operating costs tend to be the greatest motivating factors for adopting these alternatives, in addition to political directives and incentives. Concerns about infrastructure development and costs, vehicle costs, maintenance, and fuel supply are the greatest deterrents to adoption. Those agencies that have adopted alternative fuels or hybrids have been mostly satisfied with their experience, but some problems were identified. An analysis of satisfaction with biodiesel indicates that agencies with a larger fleet size and those that have committed a larger percentage of their fleet to biodiesel have been more satisfied with the fuel. Findings provide useful information to transit operators considering adoption of alternative fuels and hybrids and to policy makers considering policies on alternative fuels and hybrids.

[1]  W. A. Bakar,et al.  Natural Gas , 2023, ACADEMIA - The magazine of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Del Peterson,et al.  Biodiesel Use in Fargo-Moorhead MAT Buses , 2008 .

[3]  Robert L. McCormick,et al.  100,000-Mile Evaluation of Transit Buses Operated on Biodiesel Blends (B20) , 2006 .

[4]  Leslie Eudy.  NATURAL GAS IN TRANSIT FLEETS: A REVIEW OF THE TRANSIT EXPERIENCE , 2002 .

[5]  Kimmo Erkkilae,et al.  TRANSIT BUS EMISSION STUDY: COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AND NATURAL GAS BUSES , 2004 .

[6]  Derek M. Vikara,et al.  Ultrafine Particle Number Concentrations from Hybrid Urban Transit Buses , 2006 .

[7]  Paul Schimek.  Reducing Particulate Matter and Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles: The Urban Bus Case , 1998 .

[8]  Harry C. Watson,et al.  Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels in Australian heavy vehicles , 2002 .

[9]  B Lane,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE AND CONVENTIONAL FUELS - THE REPORT OF THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS GROUP OF THE CLEANER VEHICLE TASK FORCE , 2000 .

[10]  L. G. Schumacher,et al.  Biodiesel Use and Experience among State DOT Agencies , 2004 .

[11]  Thomas A. King,et al.  Market Barriers to Natural Gas Vehicles and the Role of Clean Air Credits , 1999 .

[12]  Alternative Fuels in Public Transit : A Match Made on the Road , 2002 .

[13]  Stacy Cagle Davis,et al.  Transportation energy data book , 2008 .

[14]  Feng Zhen,et al.  Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation , 2007 .

[15]  Britt A. Holmén,et al.  Ultrafine Particle Number Concentrations from Hybrid Urban Transit Buses: Onboard Single-Diameter Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Measurements , 2006 .

[16]  Kevin Chandler,et al.  Assessment of Hybrid-Electric Transit Bus Technology , 2009 .

[17]  David Ripplinger,et al.  Technology Adoption by Small Urban and Rural Transit Agencies , 2010 .

[18]  Paul Schimek.  Reducing emissions from transit buses , 2001 .

[19]  Robert L. McCormick,et al.  St. Louis Metro Biodiesel (B20) Transit Bus Evaluation: 12-Month Final Report , 2008 .

[20]  Andrew Burnham,et al.  Propane vehicles : status, challenges, and opportunities. , 2010 .