Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14 06/18/2001 'JUN 1 4. CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL, •enda Title: Transit System ands Alternative Fuel. Tracking, Meeting.Dateerview of Existing Transit System.and Discussion of Alternative June 18,-2001 Fuels for Future Transit Bus Purchases Department: Director: Contact Person:. Phone Number: Public Facilities and Richard <NM James yan (707) 778-4303 Services Skladzien (707) 778-4421 Cost of Proposal: Account Number: Not to exceed $37,000 603-6310-6104 Amount Budgeted: Name of Fund: $37,000 .Fixed Route Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: Attachment #1, numbering approx. 23 pages, is not Fleet Assessment, Alternative Fuels Evaluation, included but is available at the City Clerk's office. In Capital Financial Plan Resolution an effort to reduce paper copies, we have not included this in the packet, but want to reinforce the fact it is available to you and the public upon request. Summary Statement: The City of Petaluma's (City's) transit fleet:is nearing the end of its useful life; therefore the City needs to make plans to replace the fleet. Seven of the current fleet of eight were urchased in 1989. Since that time, there have been many technological changes that may have an impact iiithe next generation of buses to be purchased by the City. In order to evaluate the changes and options available to the City, the City of Petaluma (City) has retained the services of Transit Maintenance Consultants (TMC) to perform an assessment of the City's existing fleet and to make recommendations regarding the Fleet's condition and future use. Specific areas to be reviewed include: • Assess existing transit fleet of seven (7) 1989 Orion II's and one (1) Flxible, the vehicles performance, efficiency, and emissions. • Evaluate and compare new alternative fuel technologies and maintenance and capital costs suitable for a transit system consisting of eight (8) buses. • Recommend appropriate type and size bus, incorporating input gained from Citizens, City Council, City,Staff, and Contractor Staff. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED To BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY To, ONE OR MORE OF THE:1999-2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999 AND MARCH 18, 2000. Priority(s): NA Recommended'City Council Action/Suggested Motion: Accept report. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed bvCity Attorney: Approved by City Manager: Date: Date: Al Date: V 'odav's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: June 8, 2001 # • 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 18, 2001 AGENDA REPORT FOR Transit System and Alternative Fuel Tracking, Overview of Existing Transit System, and Discussion of Alternative Fuels for Future Transit Bus Purchases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Petaluma's (City's)transit fleet is nearing the end of its useful life; therefore the City needs to make plans to replace the fleet. Seven of the current fleet of eight were purchased in 1989. Since that time, there have been many technological changes that may have an impact on the next generation of buses to be purchased by the City. In order to evaluate the changes and options available to the City, the City of Petaluma (City)has retained the services of Transit • Maintenance Consultants (TMC) to perform an assessment of the City's existing fleet and to make recommendations regarding the Fleet's condition and future use. Specific areas to be reviewed include: • • Assess existing transit.fleet of seven (7) 1989 Orion II's and one (1) Flxible, the vehicles performance, efficiency, and emissions. • Evaluate and compare new alternative fuel technologies and maintenance and capital costs suitable for a transit system consisting of eight (8) buses. • Recommend appropriate type and size bus, incorporating input gained from Citizens, City Council, City Staff, and Contractor Staff BACKGROUND The City of Petaluma owns a transit fleet that consist of seven (7) 1989 Orion II transit coaches and one (1) 1980 Grumman Flxible transit coach. The 1989 Orion II's were purchased new in 1989 and have been used in the City transit service continuously since then. The 1980 Grumman Flxible was acquired used from the County of Sonoma as a backup bus a few years ago. In addition, the operations contractor provides a few cut-away type buses provided as necessary under lease to the City. Although exact life mileage information was not available, based upon the annual miles of the City's system, all of the City-owned transit buses already have in excess of 350,000 total life miles. During the past several months, reliability of the fleet has significantly deteriorated. Major repairs such as engine and transmission overhauls, structural failures and a fire have resulted in lost service hours. 2 Petaluma Transit has hired Transit Maintenance Consultants to assess exisitng fleet, evaluate and P, recommend alternative fuel technologies suitable to a transit system our size and write specifications for eight new buses to be ordered and purchased in the FY's 01-02 and 02-03. ALTERNATIVE • Keep existing fleet with increasing maintenance costs. Eliminate local fixed route and paratransit service. Contract out service and buses to Sonoma County Transit or Golden Gate Transit. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Buses to be purchased through a variety of grants, include, but are not limited to the following: CMAQ Section 5311 TDA TFCA No general fund dollars will be used in purchase. CONCLUSION Replace transit vehicles. Establish a proactive, preventive maintenance program. Explore possibility of alternative fuels. i S 3 � . , - i! r r�r .ii �� ' Y�i fN r r' �,Ir 1! `• �' (s r i �'i r/ y `��s"��; rfe .ri' , '�• 4 i , ± iii"' P {} 44 '' - Ir • CITY OF PETALUMA • 1 k.' Fleet;,Assessment, Alternative Fuels Evaluation, Capital Financial Prlan June 1, 2001 N • 1 , Preparea,b . �� r 1 k=_ -'MAINTENANCE a c =_ _ CONSULTANTS: " • 1 •., _ (A Cal(ornia Corporation) P O Bax'7138 Cota ti,CA.-94931• >J Revision-Date \'lay 30,2001 ' 1 Final Issued`. Juice 1, 2001 ITIMC''Project 23,87' . o , I; 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS '• CITY OF PETALUMA Fleet Assessment,;Alternative Fuels Evaluation, Capital Financial Plan ' June 1, 2001 Revision Date: May 30, 2001 Final Date: June 1, 2001 TMC Project: #2387 ' Section Page No. Fleet Assessment 1 Alternative Fuels Technology 6 Capital Financial Plan 13 Tables Table 1: Fleet Status 2 Table 2: Lost Vehicle Service Hours 2 Table 3: Leased Vehicle Hours 3 Table 4: Alternative Fuel Evaluation 12 Table 5: Operating Costs All Scenarios 15 Table 6: Bus Replacement Plan—Diesel 16 Table 7: Capital Finance Plan—Diesel 17 Table 8: Bus Replacement Schedule—Baseline 18 Table 9: Bus Replacement—Alternative Fuel 20 ' Table I0:Capital Finance Plan— Alternative Fuel 21 Table 11:Capital Finance Plan—TFCA Facility 23 1 ,' .10 I, , pfltSSttSaSadtflSt • • • - Ttatigit Fleet Summary' 0 • U • • ', city of Petaluma Transit Fleet,Assessment June 1, 2001 lip City of Petaluma I Transit Fleet Assessment Background I. The City of Petaluma's (City's) transit fleet is nearing the end of its useful life; therefore the City needs to make plans to replace the fleet. Most of the current fleet was purchased in 1989. Since that time, there have been many changes that may have an I impact on the next generation:of buses to be purchased by the City. In order to evaluate the changes and options available to the City, the City°of Petaluma (City) has retained the services of Transit Maintenance Consultants (TMC) to, perform an assessment of the City's existing fleet;and to make recommendations regarding the Fleet's condition I and future use. Specific areas to be reviewed include; I )=- Assess existing transit fleet of seven (7) 1989 Orion Ils and one (1) Flxible, the vehicles performance, efficiency, and emissions. I > Evaluate and compare new alternative fuel technologies and maintenance and capital costs suitable fora transit system consisting of eight (8) buses. I > Recommend appropriate type and size bus, incorporating input gained from Citizens, City Council, City Staff, and Contractor Staff. • 1 Fleet Assessment The assessment included a site visit on April 16, 2001 to the maintenance facility in Petaluma, and included a visual inspection of vehicles at the yard, preventive ' maintenance records review of some of the vehicles and interviews with City staff and the contractor's operations:and maintenance staff. The City of Petaluma City owns a ' : u ; 4i -mow transit fleet that consists of seven - . st ; + (7) 1989 Orion II transit coaches acs or acnouc ' ' ; ).t .4-4,, and one (1) 1'980 Grumman tiltiret, a'/T . Flxible transit coach. The 1989 rya : 4 - Orion IIs were purchased new in ' I' • .r 1989 and have been used in the I °° „' ' City transit service continuously rc'r since then. The 1980 Grumman i E rM ' 4, y Flxible was acquired used from :- „. .. 't" the County of Sonoma as a + f backup bus a'few years ago. ' In addition, the operations contractor provides a few cut a- way type buses provided as necessary under lease to the City. • Page 1 ' City of Petaluma.Transit Fleet Assessment June.1, 2001 Although exact life mileage information was not available based upon the annual miles I of the City's system,"all o#the City owned transit,buses have in excess of 350,000 total life miles. During the past several months, reliability of the fleet has significantly deteriorated. ' Major repairs such as engine and transmission overhauls, structural failures and a fire have resulted in lost service hours. Table 1 reflects the Jservice status of the fleet on April 27, 2001. At that time, five (5) of the eight (8) buses were out of service. All of these buses were out of service for major problems,and will require significant work and repair to return to service. I Table 2 reflects lost vehicle service hours since December, 2000. These are hours for which no replacement bus was°.available. ' Table 3 reflects the number of service hours that have been operated using leased vehicles because City vehicles were not available for service. Due to the unavailability of buses, the City has made an arrangement to lease vehicles from the contractor to I use as a substitute when City owned vehicles are not available. It should be noted that the total number of .service hours either missed or operated using non-city buses has significantly increased over the past six (6) months. In April, ' 2001 more than 500 hours of an approximate total of 1,350 hours of service were either lost or operated using non-city owned equipment. • Table 1 Fleet Status Bus # Make/Model_ Out-of-Service j4-27-01) Estimated°Total Miles ' 11 Orion II Differential Noisy (Tripper) 350,000 12 Orion II Fire Damage 350,000 I 13 Orion II 350,000 14 Orion II 350,000 I 15 Orion II Engine Overhaul 350,000 16 Orion II Engine Overhaul 350,000 ' 17 Orion II Transitission'Overhaul 350,000 20 Flxible 500,000 + 1 Table 2 Lost Vehicle Service Hours Month Hours 1 December,.2000 1.5 March, 2001 20.5 April, 2001 Total 15.0 36.5 ' Page 2 I ' City.of,Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 ' Table 3 Leased.Vehicle Hours Month Hours December, 2000 137 January, 2001 71 ' March, 2001 162 April, 2001 500 Total 870, 1.1 Orion II Specific Problems and Issues ' ➢ Structural failures in the chassis and,suspension systems. Structural cracks have been identified in several of the Orions. The cracks have occurred in the power module structure and rear suspension axle attachment. The cracks occurring in the rear suspension area-are potentially serious safety issues. D Difficulty obtaining parts..The company that originally manufactured the Orion II 1 buses has changed owners several times during the past 10 years. As a result, support for the Orion II has not been adequate. Many of the parts on the bus are proprietary and cannot be obtained from any other'source. ➢ Difficulty finding vendors to perform major repairs. The Orion II is a unique design, low floor bus. At the time of purchase, the Orion II low floor design was considered to be an innovative vehicle. However, in order to achieve the low floor design, Orion chose to use a special front wheel drive configuration. This combination is unique to the Orion II. As such, it presents a challenge to maintenance personnel. Finding outside vendors to perform major work and 1 overhauls has proven to be a difficult task. ➢ Electrical problems have resulted in decreases in reliability and increases in ' maintenance downtime and repairs. It is believed by the contractor's maintenance department that the fire that damaged Coach 12 was caused by a worn electrical harness. These problems. appear to be the result of age and deterioration of wires, cables, harnesses and other electrical components. ➢ Air conditioning systems are inoperative. AC systems. were abandoned several. ' years ago due to difficulty obtaining parts and service. 1 • Page 3 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet A"ssessment June 1, 2001 • '• ' 1.2 Emissions Issues Recently enacted and proposed, regulations will make the engines in the City's buses ' obsolete. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has enacted legislation that requires public transit operators, such as the City, to.reduce,overall NOx emissions over the next several years. ' The goal of the GARB regulations, known as "Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies", is to proactively reduce diesel emissions statewide by requiring 1.) retrofit of existing diesel engines with approved emission reduction devices, 2) retirement of buses with engines ' that cannot be retrofitted, 3) use of ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel and 4) increased standards for new engines. ' At this time, the only bus that must comply with these requirements in the City's fleet is the 1980 Flxible. It must be retrofitted by October, 2002 in order to remain in service.. Re-powering this bus is an option, but would not be a cost effective decision based ' upon the age of the bus. The engines in the Orions fall just outside of the rule and do not require retrofitting at this time However, proposed CARB regulations, if enacted, will require emissions ' retrofits or re-power to comply. It is estimated that these new regulations may be in effect by 2004. Re-powering of the Orions would require a complete replacement of the engine to a model that complies with current emissions requirements. This would require application engineering and design work to accomplish this Because the age of the Orions and the limited numbers of these buses'in service today, it is likely the total cost of design would be born by the City. 1.3 Preventive Maintenance Records Review Review of the preventive maintenance records revealed several work orders reflecting continued occasions over the span of approximately a year, of the structural cracks and ' the down time for extensive maintenance for rebuilds of axles, repair of transmissions and engines that cannot be performed in-house by the Contractor. The Contractor's preventive maintenance records also reflect the 'Contractor's use of used parts to ' complete repairs due to the difficulty in obtaining new parts for these,coaches. 1 Page 4 1 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001. • 1.4 Findings 1 ➢ Based upon the information collected, the City's Transit Fleet has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer be relied upon to provide the required service. 1 ➢ All of the buses in the fleet have either met or exceeded their design and programmed useful life. The design useful life of the Orions was 10 years or 350,000 miles. The d esign useful life of the. Flxibles was 12 years or 500,000 1 miles. ➢ Most of the components and systems on the fleet are obsolete, parts, and 1 service are difficult if not impossible to find. ➢ Due to age and the deferral of maintenance, the buses are no.longer reliable. ' ➢ State and Federal emissions regulations will render all of the City's fleet's engines illegal within the next 4 years. Requiring expensive re-power of the engines in all of the fleet. 1.5 Recommendations ➢ Replace all eight (8) of the City's transit buses as soon`as possible. ' ➢ Establish a proactive;preventive maintenance program. ➢ Develop a short term program to bring the existing fleet up to serviceable 1� standards. If funding were available today, it would require from one to two years to complete a procurement and manufacture replacement buses. The City needs to continue service during that period. In order to do so, the City's Transit ' vehicles will require significant repairs. This may be characterized as a mini- rehabilitation. The needed repairs are clearly beyond the capability of the current maintenance department. As such, the City may choose to send the buses to a qualified rebuilder to make the repairs. 1 1 • 1 1 I. 1 Page 5 1 I H I II. I / s / \ , \ . y II 1 , Technology Alternative Fu i el echnology ,1 0 I I I I I II . I I ' City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 ' 2 Alternative Fuel Technology 2.1 Background ' Much research and development of alternative fuels has been completed over the past several years and continues today: As a result, there are many alternative fuels that are being used today in place of fossil fuels like oil. In addition, research and development has been focused on heavy-duty transit applications. Mostly seeking to find clean alternative to diesel fuel. ' In California, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and the Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) throughout the "state have made diesel emissions reduction from heavy-duty transit buses a priority enacting specific regulations and programs designed to virtually eliminate NOx and particulate emissions from transit buses within the next 10 years. These regulations have been called alternative fuel forcing due to the forecast by the ' diesel engine manufacturers that they will not be able to meet the more stringent California Urban Bus Transit Emissions Standards to become effective in 2004. Three ' years ahead of the Federal EPA.regulation. In the South Coast AQMD, regional fleet rules require most transit fleet operators to purchase only alternative fueled buses. With current increases in the price of fossil fuels, there is a renewed interest in alternative fuels as a part.of energy policy. ' Although diesel engine manufacturers have made great progress at the reduction of NOx and PM, the next round of reductions will require development of new technology and cleaner fuels. As a result the "low cost" of diesel engines to purchase and maintain will steadily increase. 1 1 t• Page 6 ICity.of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 Ili 2.2 Alternative Fuels 1 The U.S. Department of Energy classifies the following fuels as "alternative" to diesel and gasoline; I Biodiesel, Electric Fuel, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Methanol, Natural Gas {compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and propane (LPG)}, Propane (LPG), P-Series, and Solar Fuel. IAlthough there has been great progress in the development of alternative fuels, engines and infrastructure, most of the fuels are still in their infancy of development. However, I some have progressed to being;used on a daily basis in some the world's largest cities. In order for the City to consider any alternative fuel for use in it's transit fleet, the fuel, engine and infrastructure must have progressed in development past the research and Idevelopment (R&D)stage the commercially available stage. 2.2.1 Risks ' It can be assumed that the primary purpose of the transit system in the City of Petaluma is to provide safe, reliable, cost effective, clean transportation for the citizens of the I Petaluma. As such, the City has staff and other resources with the experience and expertise necessary to operate the transit system. Generally, this is a common goal of most transit operators. In addition, the City has expressed an interest in providing op vehicles to meet these goals that have the least possible impact on the environment, especially air quality. Because all alternative fueled 'transit vehicles are based on evolving technology, there I are unique risks that are not inherent to the more mature diesel or gasoline technologies. It is necessary for the City to evaluate and balance these risks with the goals and responsibilities of running the transit service. All currently available alternative I fueled transit bus technologies represent risks that operating diesel transit buses do not have. These risks can be defined in two ways, R&D Risk and Developmental Risk. I R&D Risk; This type of risk is that associated with vehicles and fuels that are in the experimental phase and has not achieved commercial viability. Buses built on this type of technology are characterized as demonstration projects to continue testing and I development of the technology in transit service. The testing and implementation of these vehicles requires a large amount of staff time. Developmental Risk; These vehicles and fuels have typically been through a lengthy Idevelopment and R&D phase and have demonstrated performance in transit service. These vehicles have been tested in daily transit service. These vehicles also require increased management and usually are not as reliable as their diesel counterparts. IShould the City choose to purchase alternative fueled transit vehicles, it is recommended that they be based upon commercially 'available technology that has demonstrated performance in transit,service. ' III I Page 7 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 2.2.2 Fuels Evaluation Criteria ' Based upon past experience and working with City Staff, criterion was developed to determine which alternative fuels might be applicable,for use in the City's transit service. Because diesel is the City's dominant transit fuel, alternative fuels have been ranked and compared to diesel fuel. Table 4 provides a listing ;of teach type of alternative fuel and a ranking for each of the ' criteria. Included below is°a brief description each criterion. 2.2.2.1 CARB Certified Heavy Duty Engines ' The CARB regulations require that all engines used in transit vehicles be certified to meet certain emissions standards. Engines that have received CARB certification are considered to be commercially available. CARB will provide exemptions for ' demonstration projects. However, these engines are not considered to be commercially available and are suited for use in the City's transit fleet. 2.2.2.2 Emissions; NOx, PM The CARB and Bay Area 'Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have targeted reduction of specific emissions from diesel engines. Those are oxides of nitrogen, ' known as NOx, and particulate matter, known as PM. These have been identified as health hazards and deemed necessary to take action to effect significant reductions. Not all alternative fuels or combinations of alternative fuels result in accomplishing these reductions. In fact, some, like BioDiesel, actually have higher NOx emissions than diesel. Therefore, only fuels that can meet the goals for NOx and PM reductions are considered. ' 2.2.2.3 Fuel Availability IA California Not all alternative fuels are commercially available in California. Fuels such as ethanol ' are based upon grain or'biomass sources and are dependent upon a supply of material to produce. Ethanol is commercially available in the Midwest but not in California. In order for the City to operate the transit system, the City needs a reliable supply of fuel. ' 2.2.2.4 Infrastructure Cost Infrastructure costs for all,alternative fuels is significant. Liquid fuels are generally not ' as expensive as gaseous fuels: The major costs are related to the fueling facility due to the fact that virtually no commercial alternative fuel facilities adequate to fuel the City's transit fleet exist in the Petaluma area. Therefore, the City would have to fund and construct a fuel facility for any alternative fuel. An additional cost is related to other facility modifications related to fire safety in the repair and storage areas. Most alternative fuels have significantly different flammability characteristics that diesel. ' Because of these differences, detection, fire suppression and modifications to electrical and heating system maybe required. Determining an accurate cost for each type of fuel will require a detailed engineering analysis of the facility and each fuel: It is likely that these costs will range from $100,000 to $1,000,000, depending upon the fuel selected 1. and the modifications required. Page 8 ' City,of Petaluma=Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 ' 2.2.2.5 Operating,Costs • Based upon limited available information, the operating cost of alternative fueled transit buses is higher than diesel counterparts. This is due in part to the higher cost of the fuels, but also due to the increased cost of maintenance. Fuel systems and engines for alternative fueled vehicles are in limited production. As a result, cost of the parts and equipment is higher simply due to the smaller quantities of production and lack of competition. 2.2.2.6 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Development The engines required for transit service are heavy-duty in design. Although there has ' been progress in the development of these types of engines using alternative fuels, not all alternative fuels are suited to heavy-duty applications. For example, electric vehicles do not have adequate range for daily transit service due to'battery life. Fuel cells show tpromise in automobiles but are still in the pre-commercial stage:of development. 2.2.2.7 Testing In Transit in California. ' In order to avoid some of the risks associated with infancy technology, application in transit in California was considered as criteria. Many other fuels may be available in other parts of the US and the world, however, conditions n California can be unique and ' successful demonstration in transit use in California is essential. 2.2.2.8 Demonstrated:Performance Because the City's primary task is to provide transit Jservices, it is important that the rIF vehicles used have a demonstrated performance. It would be desirable to include only those vehicles and technologies that have several years of demonstrated operation in ' public transit services like"the'City of Petaluma. 2.2.2.9 Stage of Development ' Based upon available information, this criterion reflects the stage of development of the fuel type in public transit service. 2.2.3 Summary of Alternative Fuels Findings Based upon the evaluation criteria, the fuels most likely to be available for use in the City's transit system include CNG, LNG, and LPG. Within this group, CNG is the alternative fuel most likely to meet the City's 'needs. Natural gas is readily available in California and most of the alternative fueled buses in California and the US are powered ' by CNG. As a result thereLare more engines and vehicles with demonstrated experience in heavy-duty transit operations. 1 1. 1 Page 9 ' City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 '• I . Photographs 1, 2 & 3 are,of the rear suspension trailing arm on the Orions. Note severe crack at axle mount. Contractor has reported that cracks have been found in most of the Orions in Ithese areas. Separation of this member would result in the loss of a rear wheel assembly. Photograph 4 is of the power module. Minor cracks have been noted on most of the City's ' Orion Fleet. Photograph 1 Photograph 2 IRear Suspension Rear•Suspension ice; 1 1 i 0 i Li I -L �� y -4 �. t 0-' I a Photograph 3 Photograph. IRear Suspension Power Module frit 1 d 4 "-*1 " ' , _: rc , - • I Page 10 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 ,. ' Photograph 5 is of the engine compartment on bus 12. It is believed that the fire was started by a frayed electrical harness or cable Photograph 5 Bus 12 Fire Damage 1 �5i� N7� I't� dYi �� p afi �' n �' f`?s qtr rzS n�a 1 1• 1 1 • 1• Page 11 I I • U c n X Stage of Development 0) 0 N N I Demonstrated Performance I o 0 Hill N I Testing In Transit in California m c j ii _ Heavy-Duty Vehicle Development Hui lull! , co t 1 o Li Infrastructure Cost lippipiiiiill 0 cr TD co li - w o 1— Fuel Availability In California t x. ca = L o = a; Emissions; NOx, PM IDEliiiipiiii c 111 cl. c I GARB Certified Heavy Duty Engines 11:1101:11111 g o° 1 s_., d a' U 0 N W 1 J _ 0 Fuels c o I Z' U O O .� , 4) 0 Nm W w) a N_ 0) D • 0 N ' � T a' - Q O CO W 2 2 J o it • 1 I 0: .I :I I . . . 4,„,:xotaym.,,22,,zvzwasaazz„„sas4 ,.,,,:„....7: ;I "aitzat.“—,..aza.2-7,=r4azaarateazazzi,.4 i ... ..,... I. I., I 'Capital Financial Plan. _ • I ..10 I. I I . . I' I 1 ... IW . ICity&Petaluma,Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 • 3 City of Petaluma -Capital Financial Plan 1 3.1 Summary Several scenarios were developed to determine the best purchasing and funding I strategy for the bus replacement program. The City of Petaluma fleet is due for replacement and because they own a bus that is considered a heavy-heavy duty engine, they need to determine whether or not'totake the alternative fuel path or not. IEvaluation of the difference between a diesel fuel bus replacement program and an alternative fuel (CNG) bus replacement program indicates that the City can afford to go I either way. Because the City has kept their annual operating cost under the total TDA allocation by approximately $400,000, a prior year reserve fund exists that can be used to support the capital program. 1 The choice of which fuel path to choose can be determined based upon local preference. If the City chooses the alternative fuel path, then buses are more expensive I (approximately $60,000 a bus) and a new fueling facility ($500,000) will be necessary. The tradeoff for these additional expenses is TFCA funding ($150,000 per bus) that becomes available when this path is chosen. IThe diesel fuel path is less expensive, however, TFCA funding is lost: At the end of FY 2003-04 when all the current fixed .route buses are replaced,,the cost difference is less lethan $100,000. 3.2 Basic Assumptions.Used In All Scenarios IFunding of Construction Projects: The City of Petaluma operates both fixed route and paratransit public transit service. Their capital program includes the ongoing replacement of buses, construction of a new Ioperations and maintenance facility, and the construction of a transit mall where bus transfers will take place downtown. For the purpose of this plan we have assumed in all scenarios that the two large construction projects are fully funded from the grant Iapplications already approved. Inflation and TDA Rate of Growth: IWe have assumed that operating costs (cost per hour) will grow at a rate of 5%. annually. In addition, we have assumed that the TDA Article 8 and local TFCA funds. ' will grow at a rate of 5%. Bus prices are assumed to grow at the rate shown in MTC's bus price list, which is equal to 2.6% over the next several years and.3.5% after 2005. I '. MTC bus price list revised 7/99 Page 13 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 '. 3.3 Diesel Fuel Path ' ➢ Basic assumptions listed above ➢ Fixed route and paratransit bus replacement in FY 2002-03 and P(2003-04 ➢ Fixed route buses diesel fueled ➢ No TFCA bus money The City has the ability to choose a diesel fuel path and forgo new TFCA funding for ' "clean air" buses. The trade off being that diesel buses are less expensive; $250,000 compared to $325,000 in FY 01-02 dollars. In addition, there.is no need to contract an alternative fueling facility. The capacity to fund each scenario was determined by evaluating the year-end fund balance after all the fixed route buses are replaced. This occurs at the end of FY 2003-04. The year-end°TDA fund balance then will be approximately $824,000. • 1 1 • 1 1 1• 1 Page 14 i IIble 5 City of Petaluma Finance Plan rations -Same for All Scenarios I 99-001 I 11-121 12-131 13-141 14-15 ".PERATING COSTS Actual a Local Fixed Route Revenue Hours 15,368 I 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Productivity 12.4 1 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Passengers 190,996 1 190,500 190,500 190,500 190,500 41 Cost 790,776 11,520,783 1,596,823 1,676,664 1,760,497 Cost per RVHr(5%inflation rate) 51.46 1 101.39 106.45 111.78 117.37 pi Paratransit Revenue Hours 5,864 I 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 a Productivity 2.45_ ! 207 2.07 2.07 207 Passengers 14,382_ 14,490 14,490 14,490 14,490 Cost 263',435 1 549,996 577,496 606,371 636,689 Cost per RVHr(5%inflation rate) 44.92 1 78.57 82.50 86.62 90.96 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 1;054,2111_2,070,7801 2,174,3191 2,283,0351 2,397,1861 IOPERATING REVENUE Fares Fares-Local FR 110,525 1 110,490 110,490 110,490 110,490 I Average Fare/Passenger-Local FR 0.58 ', 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Farebox ratio 0.14 1 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 Fares-Paratransit 26,343 I 33,762 33,762 33,762 33,762 1 Average Fare/Passenger-Paratransit 1183 I 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 I Farebox ratio 0 10 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 Total Fares 136,868 ! 144,252 144,252 144,252 144,252 1 ther Operating Revenues idle-8-Fixed Route 680;145 11,353,344 1,428,224 1,506,848 7,589,403 Article 8-Paratransit 142,974 II,219,344 230,311 247,826 253,978 STA 94,118 1 275,653 289,436 303,907 319,103 I Federal Planning Funds I 48,867 51,310 53,876 56,569 1 Advertising 17,500 I 19,547 20,524 21,550 22,628 , Interest 18,752 1 9,773 10,262 10,775 11,314 Total Operating Revenues 953,489 ;7,926,528 2,030,067 2,138,783 2,252,935 • II !Total Operating Revenues 1 I 1,090,3571 2,070,7801 2,174,3191 2,283,0351 2,397,186 • !Operating Balance(Subsidies•Net Cost) 1 -36,1461 i I I I i 1 I- I I I IPetaluma Table 6 Bus Replacement Plan - Diesel • r1-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Fixed Route.Buses (7) 1989 Orion II's 4 3 (1) 1980 35 foot Flexible ``I 1 Paratransit Vehicles (1) ?Yr. Ford Avastar I 1 1 1993 Ford Van - 1 1 I (1) 199 Ford Van I 1 _- 1 1997 7 Ford Van I 1 Total by Type I 25' Cut-awa •aratransit bus 1 2 2 30' Diesel Bus I -- 4 4 I IBus Price Unit 25' Cut-away paratransit bus Federal '3,669 79,352 82,130 85,004 87,979 Loca1Match 1,260 17,864 18,490 19,137 19,807 Total 0,929 97,217 100,619 104,141 107,786 I30' Diesel Bus Federal 4,824 284,443 294,398 304,702 315,367 it Local Match ,3,706 71,111 73,600 76,176 78,842 ITotal 3,530 355,553 367,998 380,878 394,208 note:MTC bus price for cut-aways(revised 7/99)andiFecenl otal Cost for Bus Replacement 125'Cut-away paratransit bus Federal 158,705 164,260 Local,Match t 35;729 36,979 I Total ! 194,434 201,239 130' Diesel Bus Federal I 1,218,809 1,261,467 I Local Match 1 304,702 315,367 1,523,511 1,576,834 'Total Bus Replacement Federal 1 158,705 164,260 1,218,809 1,261,467 I Total 35,729 36,979 304,702 315,367 Total 194,434 201,239 1,523,511 1,576,834 I I 1 I le,7 Capital Finance Plan - Diesel 99.0( 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 intenance.Facility-Cost I Revenues: I CMAQ-Maint. Facility . Other State Match-Maint. Facility Total Revenues I i . Transit Mall-Cost I Revenues: ISTEA-County-Transit Mall. I . Federal Earmark-Transit Mall TDA-Transit Mall Federal-5311 Funds-Transit Mall Total Revenues ( _ Replacement Vehicles -Cost Paratransit Vehicles 1 194,434 201,239 30' Diesel Buses I 1,523,511 Sub Total Bus Replacement I 194,434 201,239 1,523,511 t• (Total Cost-Vehicles 194,4341 201,239! 1,523,5111 'Revenues Available for Vehicles TDA Article 8 ( I TDA Article 8 Annual Apportionment(1) 031,218 2,132,779 2,239,417 2,351,388 2,468,958 Prior Year Fund.Balance 338,368 4,591,224 5,269,511 5,780,066 6,311,853 , Used for Operations 490,929 1,572,688 1,658,535 1,748,674 1,843,321 i ance Available .478456 5,151,315 5,850,394 6,382,780 6,937,490 I I Other Funds ' TFCA-local funds 112,568 118,196 124,106 130,312 136,827 CMAQ-Bus Replacement L2 buses) f Sub Total Other Funds 112,568 118,196 124,106 130,312 136,827 Total ;591,224 5,269,511 5,974,500 6,513,092 7,074,317 Balance for Vehicles .591,224 5,269,511 5,780,066 6,311,853 5,550,806 I I • I ' City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 '. 3.4 Alternative Fuel Path ' ➢ Basic assumptions listed above ➢ Fixed route and paratransit bus replacement in FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 ' ➢ Fixed route buses CNG fueled ➢ TFCA funding for buses = $150,000 each ➢ Fueling facility paid for with TDA and TFCA local funds 1 To determine affordability, the alternative fuel path scenario was developed that assumed replacement of the fixed route and paratransit fleet as soon as possible since all buses are due for replacement by 2002. The table below•shows the model year and scheduled replacement,year for the two fleets. Table8 Bus Replacement Schedule— Baseline 1 Fixed Route Buses Replacement Replacement Due (based Scheduled — Baseline ' upon 12 year life) (7) Orion II's - 1989 2001 2002:03 (1) 35 foot.Flexible-'1980 1992 2002-03 Paratransit Replacement Replacement Due (based Scheduled — Baseline upon 4 year life for vans; 5 yrs for cut-aways), (1) Ford Avastar-? Yr. ? 2002-2003 ' (1) Ford Van -'1991 1996 2002-2003 (1) Ford Van - 1993 1998 2003-2004 (1) Ford Van - 1997 2002 2003-2004 Alternative Fuel:Path:Chosen: In the case of the fixed route fleet replacements we assumed that CNG buses would be ' purchased to take advantage of the Air District's TFCA funding for alternate fuel replacement buses. Based negotiations with the Air District, it will be possible for the ' City of Petaluma to obtain $150,000 in TFCA funding per fixed route bus if the alternative fuel path is chosen. Based upon a cost per bus of $325,000 (FY 01-02 dollars) TDA funds would only need to pay for $175,000 of the total bus price. Along with the choice to purchase CNG buses comes the requirement to construct a • CNG fueling facility. We have estimated a total cost of $500,000 for this based upon recent experience in Union City and other recent installations. Page 18 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment June 1, 2001 me In the past the City and the .Petaluma People Services Center have both funded bus replacement however, in our baseline scenario we assumed that the paratransit fleet replacement would be the responsibility of the City. The capacity to fund each scenario was determined to evaluating the year-end fund balance after all the fixed route buses are replaced. This occurs at the end of 1 FY 2003-04. The TDA fund balance for this scenario will be approximately $901,000. The capacity to fund this capital plan as well as the others'is due a starting balance of $1,056,191 TDA funds in FY 2001-02. i 1 1 1 • 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Page 19 1 I i7./?® Petaluma // Table 9 Bus Replacement Plan -Alternative Fuel.Pr `, • Re � IFixed Route Buses / `© (7) 1989 Orion II's / ``` 1980 35 foot Flexible I �`` I (1)Paratransit. Ford Vehicles / © in (1) 1993 Ford AVantar 1 `© ` (1) 1993 Ford Van / ` I (11) 1991 Ford Van / ` (1) 1997 Ford Van ,2 09 ®` Total Units b T pe /%929 ® 82 730 I 25 Cut-away paratransit bus 7gg13 n 30'CNG Bus _7'277® 700,6jg 04 Bus Price Unit .'589�� 10 70 25'Cut away paratransit bus Fed-' -786 I Loci Tot' 99028 4p9,97 I t 7pZ*Ski 130'CNG Bus ' F, 05 I , Inote:.MTC bus price for cut-sways(r= ` ` ISCost for Bus Replace ! ` 125'Cut-awayparatransit.bus 1 ass158,70$ ` 94 30'CNG Bus / ® 20,239 1,98 3994'4 I / ,584 0997 2 049884 (Total Bus Replacemen' I 1 'I 1 01 1 ■ 1 , � v i. ■ 1. 1 1 ■ ■ 1 I \ 1 i � 1 I I - .le 10 Capital Finance Plan -Alternative Fuel Path I 99-06 10-11 I 11.12! 12-13 13-14 14-15 .intenance Facility- Cost Revenues: CMAQ.-Maint. Facility Other State Match-Maint. Facili Total Revenues _ Transit Mall-Cost ' Revenues: ISTEA-County-Transit Mall Federal.Earmark-Transit Mall TDA-Transit Mall Federal-5311 Funds-Transit Mall Total Revenues ---- Replacement Vehicles-Cost Paratransit Vehicles I 194,434_ 201,239 30'CNG Buses i 1,980,564 Sub Total Bus Replacement I 194,434 201,239 1,980,564 Fueling facility-Cost I I I I I Total Cost-.vehicles and fueling I I 1 1 194,4341 201,2391 1,980,564 Revenues Available for Vehicles and-Fueling Facilit) I TDA Article 8 I I _ TDA Article B Annual Apportionment(1) 031,218 2,132,779 2,239,417 2,351,388 2,468,958 or Year Fund Balance 014,765 4,667,621 5,345,908 5,856,463 6,388,250 d for Operations 490,929 1,572;688 1,658,535 1,748,674 1,843,321 I Balance Available 555,053- 5,227,712 5,926,791 6,459,177 7,013,887 1 ' Other Funds I I TFCA-Bus Replacement($150;000/bus I 600,000 TFCA-local funds I 112,568 118,196 124,106 130,312 136,827 ' CMAQ-Bus Replacement(2 buses) — 1 Sub Total Other Funds 112,568 118,196 124,106 130,312 736,827 I Total - 667,621 5,345,908 6,050,697 6,589,489 7,750,714 II I _ Balance for Vehicles and Facility 367,621 _ 5,345,908 5,856,463 6,388,250 5,770,150 ) 1 City of Petaluma Transit Fleet Assessment • June 1, 2001 I. 3.7 TFCA. Facility • Basic assumptions listed above • Fixed route buses CNG fueled • "New" TFCA funding for fueling facility ' In this version of the alternative fuel capital plan we assumed that the.City of Petaluma would be able to attract $350,000 of additional TFCA funding to support the construction ' of the CNG fueling facility (total cost $500,000). The result is an end of FY 03-04 year balance of approximately $1,250,000. 1 1 1 t• 1 1 i 1 1 ' • Page 22 i I ' - ' -�9 J Table 11 Capital Finance Plan-TFCAFat'i� , •intenance Facility-.Cost i enues: i MAO-Maint.Facili / Other State Match-Maint.Fa;.% Total.Revenues --;i3`so / �, Transit Mall-Cost 3s i Revenues: o� ISTEA-Coun -Tpo Federal Earmar 4 000 TDA-Transit ' 29,2> Federal-53 ' Total'.Revery' ss2� _ Replacer �>>o Paratr,t 3prr so Is r OF i / / 4. I L ' TED-. TFCA'-IL TFCA-Fue.. I ' - CMAQ'=.Bus R. Sub Total Other.1-,. Total '; Balance for Vehicles and Facili 1 I 1 1 ■ ■ .1 1 1 1 \, 42 _1 \, 1 1• DISTRIBUTION CITY OF PETALUMA ' Fleet Assessment, Alternative Fuels Evaluation, Capital Financial Plan June 1, 2001 TMC Project#2387 Revision: May 30, 2001 ' Final Issued: June 1, 200I Distributed To: No. Of Copies 10 Mr. Jim Ryan 12 * Budget, Grant, and Project Manager ' City of Petaluma City Clerk's:Office 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94953 Project File: 2387,C 1 Transit Maintenance Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 7138 Cotati, CA 94931 * Copies to be distributed to City Council members I . 1 i. 1