City of Windsor Hybrid Bus Report

After last evening’s council meeting, I requested administration’s report on the topic and was little surprised to receive it today.

The full report can be found here.

First and foremost, the decision to implement the hybrid technology appears to be based upon a subsidy provided by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation of 33% of the cost of the first 9 buses – some $1.8 million.  This is in addition to the gas tax revenue the city receives, some $3.7 million this year, which must be split 50/50 between operational and capital costs; and the one-time grant of $2.3 million to the city (March 1, 2008, Windsor Star) that, “must be spent on the transit system for something beyond the current spending, such as expanded routes.”   This is a total of $7.8 million for 2008. 

But I wonder – would these hybrid buses be eligible to use this $2.3 million grant since hybrid buses were not part of the 2008 budget?

The report highlights the City of Ottawa’s feasibility study as well as the experience of Seattle, Washington, Toronto, Ontario, New York City and Kelowna B.C..

One criticism of the report is that adminstrators fail to inform councillors as to whether or not the comparisons used with other cities were apples to apples. 

By this I mean, in comparing the effectiveness of hybrid-electric buses in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diesel engines, were they comparing fleets that used ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel or simply, “standard diesel engines” as the report indicates?  New Flyer does not indicate this either in their brochure.  How much have emissions been reduced utilizing ultra-low sulphur diesel in conjunction with catalytic converters?  How many buses of the existing fleet utilize these components?

Transit Windsor acknowledges that hybrid-electric buses are most effective on “stop and go congested” routes.  They claim that Windsor is a “moderate” stop and go environment.  How they came to this conclusion is not clear as documentation was not provided nor cited; nor have any trials been conducted utilizing the hybrid technology in Windsor as other cities have done.

However, perhaps the most concerning aspect of the report were the financial projections – and it is well and good the Councillor Dilkens attempted to defer debate on the issue because councillors should be made aware of what possible financial implications may be down the road to Windsor’s budget.

First is the lifespan of the battery used to power the bus – it is six to eight years – at a replacement cost of $25,000 per battery.  Worst case scenario is that the battery would have to be replaced 3 times in the stated 18 year life-span of the bus for a total additional cost of $75,000.  For 18 buses that would be $1.35 million over 18 years.

With regards to the life-span of the bus, media reports from Chicago, who have been using New Flyer buses and has 150 on order, suggest:

Furthermore, because the newer buses are 20% more fuel efficient than the buses they are replacing, the total savings to the CTA over the anticipated 12-year life span of the buses is nearly $80 million.

This coincides with the statement made by Daimler Buses CCO to USA Today that, “While better mileage saves money over the 12 years that a bus is intended to last, it doesn’t make up the cost of buying the more-expensive hybrids.”

The report warns that, “the potential for higher costs for repair components has not been quantified as yet, since the technology is evolving.  All reports we have reviewed to date have been positive and suggest overall savings.”

If the City of Windsor intends on keeping these buses in operation 6 years beyond their life-span – how much additional maintenance or replacement of the fleet would be required?  How long is the warranty for these new buses?  The report does not address this.

Also of interest was this little statement, which could explain the sudden urgency to Councillor Postma’s Notice of Motion:

At the last moment, the MTO significantly altered the program and increased the subsidy to 33.3% while spreading out the payment to the largest nine transit systems over 18 years.  Transit Windsor’s allocation was $1,828,690 payable in the year of intended delivery.

When did the last moment occur?  It is interesting to note that municipalities were advised in February 2008 that there was a surplus of funds under the Ontario Bus Replacement Program initiated in 2007.

But it appears municipalities were informed of the changes to funding for 2008 at the earliest in May.

Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien announced the funding levels on his blog with a press release from the province on May 21, 2008.

Sudbury media reported the 33% cost-sharing on June 13, 2008 announcing the purchase of 5 new buses:

The investment comes from the Ontario Bus Replacement Fund. In 2008, Ontario is investing $50 million in 47 municipal transit systems, providing up to one-third the cost of bus purchases, said Bartolucci.

The question then is, why did the Transit Windsor board wait so long to make this decision in a hastily called 2 minute meeting on July 17, 2008? 

There are many variables that could affect the outcome that would determine whether or not these will achieve a cost savings over the long-term.  The questions would be more easily answered had city council approved a pilot study two years ago, but that hasn’t happened.

In short the benefits:

1. Reduced emissions (though I question the amount based upon the above as well as the even stronger diesel emissions standards)
2. 33% subsidy towards the purchase price
3. Fuel cost savings

The Unknowns:

1. Actual life-span of the bus and terms/length of the warranty
2. Unforeseen mechanical issues and/or costs because of the relatively new technology

Do the savings outweigh the costs?

Councillors would need to determine the life-span of the vehicle since it does not appear it is 18 years – that is a significant amount of potential savings lost should there be problems after 12 years.  Maintenance data is not available for that time period as these buses have not been in long-term operation anywhere.

When it comes to emissions, as I’ve indicated, there are more affordable methods available as well as the benefits received from the mandated ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel already in effect across North America for on-road vehicles.

The New York experience (although dated 2002 under Orion, a different manufacturer) indicates in pilot studies that maintenance costs were 150% higher with hybrids than regular diesel.  Not directly applicable, but a cause for some concern as with any new technology. 

During a two-year study of New Flyers in Seattle, it was concluded that, in conjunction with fuel savings, total operating costs for the hybrid were $1.09 per mile versus $1.25 per mile with diesel for a total savings of $0.16 cents per mile.  However, there is no mention of the impact of capital costs.