STAFF REPORT
DATE: Mar
ch 15, 2022
TO: Just
in Hess, City Manager
FROM: P
atrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director BY: Nick Burant, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT
: Review of the Arroyo Verdugo Transit Operators Bus Electrification Feasibility Study and Approval of a BurbankBus Electrification Transition Policy
RECOMMENDATION
Review of the Arroyo Verdugo Transit Operators Bus Electrification Feasibility Study and approval of a BurbankBus Electrification Transition Policy to convert the City’s BurbankBus services to zero-emission electric vehicles in accordance with California Air Resources Board regulations.
BACKGROUND
In December 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation. The ICT Regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100- percent (100%), zero-emissi on bus fleet. Zero emission buses have higher fuel efficiencies compared to internal combustion engine technologies that use gasoline or Compressed Natural Gas. The intention of the regulation is to help California meet its long-term air quality and climate mitigation goals, provide health benefits to local communities through reduced air pollution, and reduce petroleum and other fossil fuel use.
Small t
ransit ag encies, such as BurbankBus , must start their zero emission bus purchases by 2026. In 2029, all new bus purchases by transit agencies must be zero emission buses. CARB’s goal is that 100% of transit buses in California are zero emission by 2040. Burbank will need to start purchas ing zero emission buses in 2026, when 25%
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT 3-1
Attachment 3 - M arch 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report 2 of the City’s new bus purchases must be zero emission. The ICT Regulation also requires Burbank to create a zero-emission bus rollout plan, which will be due to CARB by July 1, 2023.
T
he ICT Regulation applies to both the City’s 17 fixed route buses as well as the nine cutaway buses used for the City’s Senior and Disabled Service. Transitioning from the City’s current fleet to a zero-emission fleet is not a simple task.
I
n 2020, the City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the Cities of Glendale and Pasadena to conduct the Arroyo Verdugo Transit Operators Bus Electrification Feasibility Study. This study was funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant, and the three cities contracted with the non- profit consulting firm CALSTART to conduct the feasibility study (Attachment 1). The purpose of the study is to outline the steps required by BurbankBus, Glendale Beeline, and Pasadena Transit to transition from a fossil fuel bus fleet to a zero-emission bus fleet. The report summarizes the results of that feasibility study as well as provides a menu of options for the BurbankBus on how to proceed.
DISCUSSION
Two zero emission bus technologies currently exist: the battery electric bus (BEB) which uses electricity stored in a battery to power the bus, and the hydrogen fuel cell electric bus (FCEB) which uses hydrogen to produce electricity to power the bus. The feasibility study identifies the BurbankBus energy requirements for BEBs and FCEBs, projects the energy costs (in kilowatt hours for BEBs and in kilograms of hydrogen for FCEBs) associated with each fuel type, identifies the infrastructure needed for both zero emission bus options, and methods to add resiliency to the required infrastructure. The feasibility study concludes with a financial analysis, cost estimates, strategies for financing the transition, and a recommended implementation plan.
T
he feasibility study recommends that the City pursue BEB technology to transition to zero-emission rather than pursuing FCEB. This is because BEB technology is more mature, less expensive to implement, and being deployed by most transit agencies to meet zero- emission requirements at this time. T his report also discusses cost and implications of investing in BEB technology; however, the feasibility study includes detailed information on implementing both technologies.
Energy Requirements
The study found that BEBs can be drop-in replacements for both types of service that BurbankBus typically runs. This means that the BEBs currently on the market can meet the usual range requirements of the BurbankBus service routes for both the fixed route and senior & disabled services.
ATTACHMENT 3-2
3 Energy Costs
The feasibility study explored the expected electricity costs for BEBs. The electricity costs anticipated for BEBs can be mitigated by performing sequential and managed charging.
Sequential charging involves charging the buses in groups, rather than all at once, to stagger the power demand on the grid over a longer period. Managed charging involves using software to direct electricity to buses based on their charging needs. Using sequential and managed charging can spread power demand across the night, and, consequentially, reduce charging costs. The annual BEB charging costs are projected to range from $270,000 to $350,000 per year, depending on the bus manufacturer selected.
Infrastructure
The City does not own a dedicated bus yard. The City’s nine Senior & Disabled buses are housed at the Public Works yard. The City’s 17 fixed route buses are housed at a transit operations facility owned by the City’s fixed route transit operator , MV Transportation. This presents the City with a critical problem because the City does not own a facility to invest in expensive electric vehicle charging infrastructure and cannot rely on a private contractor to invest in the type of infrastructur e needed to transition to zero emission buses as part of a typical short-term operations contract. Securing a City- owned transit operations facility will add significant costs to any transition to zero emission buses.
A BEB
transit operations facility requires the installation of a utility transformer, a main disconnect, a switchboard, power cabinets, and approximately 29 chargers. CALSTART has estimated that the City would need approximately 74 ,000 square feet to accommodate the chargers, driving lanes, utility equipment, employee parking, maintenance facilities, and office space for a BEB fleet depot.
Resiliency
CALSTART recommended adding resiliency infrastructure to prevent interruptions of bus service in the event of utility power interruptions. Solar power and diesel generators were considered for BEBs, but CALSTART recommended natural gas backup generators because they were the most cost-effective measure evaluated.
Cost Evaluation
The feasibility study mapped out the expected capital costs to provide BurbankBus transit services between now and 2040: 1) maintaining the current fossil fuel fleet, 2) transitioning to a BEB fleet, and 3) transitioning to a FCEB fleet. The expected capital cost to maintain the current CNG fleet is estimated to cost approximately $17 million over the next twenty years, which includes replacing the City’s 26 transit vehicles over time as each vehicle reaches its end of useful life. Transitioning to a BEB fleet is expected to cost approximately $30 million, or an additional $13 million on top of the status-quo CNG ATTACHMENT 3-3
4 scenario. Transitioning to a FCEB fleet is expected to cost approximately $32 million, or an additional $15 million on top of the CNG scenario. The costs covered by these estimates include the buses, bus driver and maintenance training, charging infrastructure, utility infrastructure, maintenance and repairs of the buses and infrastructure, and fueling costs. As discussed earlier, the feasibility study recommends that BurbankBus transition to a BEB fleet to meet the ICT Regulation requirements.
I
t is worth noting that the cost estimates to transition to zero- emission vehicles do not include the significant costs to secure a site and construct a transit operations facility to host the necessary charging infrastructure. As discussed earlier, the space requirements for a BEB facility are over 74,000 square feet. The CALSTART estimates do not include the costs of securing land, or the improvements required on a parcel of that size to build a bus yard. As an example of what this might cost, the City of Glendale recently finished construction on a new bus facility next to the Glendale Metrolink Station. That bus facility is approximately 100,000 square feet and is expected to house their fleet of 39 fixed route and nine senior & disabled buses. At the time the new facility broke ground, Glendale reported a project cost of approximately $20 million. Glendale constructed this facility by securing a series of federal grants and local Transportation Local Return funds.
Consequently, staff estimates that the transition to a BEB fleet would cost over $50 million and may reach $60 million through 2040 when the cost to construct a transit operations facility is included.
Funding Sources & Mechanisms
The City does not have any funds presently set aside for a transition to BEBs . The feasibility study identifies several potential funding mechanisms available for the transition to BEBs. These funding mechanisms include state and federal funding programs, as well as the State’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits. The full list and terms of the funding programs are on pages 42 – 46 of the full study. Staff expects these funding programs to be extremely competitive, however, recent actions at the federal level as well as passage of the federal infrastructure bill will likely provide funding opportunities to transition to BEBs.
Policy Options
The ICT Regulation requires Burbank to submit a zero-emission bus rollout plan to CARB by July 1, 2023. Given the large costs involved in making a transition to zero- emission, there are important policy choices the City must make on how to proceed with a transition to a zero- emission bus fleet. The BurbankBus operating budget is typically almost $4 million per year . Funding for transit capital is secured sporadically and is heavily dependent on grant funding provided by Metro. These funds are not sufficient to complete the transition to BEBs. Staff has identified four options for transitioning to BEBs:
ATTACHMENT 3-4
5 Option 1: Convert Current BurbankBus Service Model to Electric Buses.
Cost: $43 million. The estimated cost for this policy includes the $26 million to transition to BEBs and $34 million for the purchase, development, and construction of a bus yard, less the $17 million status-quo cost to maintain the current fleet.
This option includes con verting the City’s existing BurbankBus services to electric vehicles and operating the service under the current service model whereby the City owns the transit vehicles, operates fixed- route services through a private contractor, and operates senior and disabled services using City staff. This option would involve constructing a transit operations center and aggressively pursuing all potential funding sources to fully transition to a zero-emission fleet on the timetable required by CARB and laid out in the CALSTART report.
Advantages: The advantages of this approach are that the City will meet the requirements of the regulation, meet the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, all while maintaining transit service that is essential for residents and visitors to the City.
Disadvantages: The disadvantages of this approach are the high cost of the transition, the uncertain timetable under which it would take place, and the high competitiveness of the grant funds needed for this transition. All the other transit agencies across California are subject to the ICT Regulation, and the City may not be successful in obtaining the necessary grant funds to fund this transition. The absence of an identified bus storage and charging facility and the associated difficulties the City will see in acquiring a plot of land and improving it for a bus storage and charging facility may hinder the City’s ability to comply with the regulations. In addition, there are currently no staff resources or expertise to manage the significant infrastructure planning and implementation activities necessary to implement this option.
Option 2: Procure all transit services from a third -party transit operator that complies with the ICT Regulation requirements.
Cost: $12 million. The estimated cost of this policy option includes the cost to transition to BEBs and construction of associated infrastructure, less the $17 million status-quo cost to maintain the current fleet.
This option includes disposing of the City’s current CNG and gasoline transit vehicles and procuring all transit services through a third -party transit operator or other p ublic transit agency. The City would not own any capital costs but would lease all vehicles necessary through an operations contract. The cost of this option assumes the capital and infrastructure costs assumed for Option 1 but assumes that these costs w ould be paid ATTACHMENT 3-5
6 directly to a private transit operator through hourly service rates that incorporate capital costs, vehicle lease costs, and operations costs. These hourly rates would be substantially higher than the rates the City currently pays its operator to operate City vehicles. Further, since these costs are being paid as operations costs to a contractor , rather than as capital costs to procure vehicles, grant funding is likely unavailable to offset the costs.
A
dvantages: The advantages of this approach are that the City will not lose any transit service and will meet the requirements of the ICT Regulation. The City will also not have to incur the costs necessary to plan, design, and construct a transit facility, nor will it need to incur the costs necessary to procure funds to purchase transit vehicles because this responsibility would fall on the contractor. The City would also have lower overall financial risk to fund large capital investments for transit services that are currently seeing declining ridership and could more easily respond to changes in ridership by “buying” only the amount of service necessary to meet demand.
Disadvantages: The disadvantages of this approach are the uncertainty that a private operator or neighboring jurisdiction is willing to offer an “all -in-one” price to the City to operate an electric transit service, including assuming all the financial risks to invest in electric infrastructure and vehicles for a short-term operations contract. Also, the City may not have the same reliability and responsiveness in wholly contracting out its service to a contractor than it would for operating its own service directly, especially with regard to providing Senior & Disabled service.
O
ption 3: Cooperate with Glendale to electrify the Glendale Beeline transit facility and Co-Locate by 2026.
Cost: $12 million: The estimated cost of this policy option includes the cost to transition to BEBs and construction of associated infrastructure, less the $17 million status-quo cost to maintain the current fleet.
As mentioned earlier, the City of Glendale recently constructed its own transit operations facility to house their transit fleet. Burbank and Glendale staff have discussed the possibility of co -locating BurbankBus and Glendale Beeline services within Glendale’s transit operations center and assisting with the required conversion of that facility to serve BEBs for both cities . This would involve coordination with Glendale on seeking out government grants and other funding sources to install BEB infrastructure at their existing transit operations facility . It would also require coordination with Glendale to operate transit services and procure a common transit operator.
Advantages: The advantages of this approach are that the City would meet the requirements of the ICT regulation, meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, and maintain bus service. This option would not require funding a new transit operations ATTACHMENT 3-6
7 facility or the need to secure additional staff resources to manage that effort. Co-location with Glendale would also allow for better service coordination between the two cities so that transit users can seamlessly travel between Burbank and Glendale. Finally, while Glendale’s hourly transit service costs are currently higher than Burbank’s, coordination with a larger transit agency will likely improve service reliability, attract more operators to bid on future transit operations contracts, and possibly reduce overall operations costs because they are amortized over a larger fleet.
Disadvantages: The disadvantages of this approach are similar to Option 1 insofar as grant funding to electrify both transit fleets are expected to be competitive and staff resources and knowledge to implement a transit electrification capital program would need to be identified. In addition, depending on the level of co-location and coordination, BurbankBus could lose some autonomy to implement route changes, respond to service demands, and make other changes because thes e decisions would be somewhat dependent on Glendale Beeline operations decisions. These disadvantages could be mitigated by identifying the level of co-location and coordination desired.
Option 4: Discontinue all BurbankBus services by 2026.
Cost: $17 million savings. Annual Local Return Savings of approximately $4 million.
Under this option, the City would cease offering transit services and would therefore not need to meet the zero-emission mandates required by 2026. The $17 million capital cost to replace the City’s gasoline and CNG fleet between now and 2040 would not need to be spent. In addition, approximately $4 million per year in Local Return funds could be directed to other transportation priorities such as complete streets implementation.
Advantages: The advantages of this approach are that the City would not need to meet the requirements of the ICT regulation and the City would save local return funds for other transportation projects in Burbank.
Disadvantages: The disadvantages of this are that the City is not meeting the spirit of the ICT regulation and that mobility would decline in Burbank for residents and visitors alike. It would be difficult for the City to meet its existing and future Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Goals and provide options to offset the traffic caused by the City’s three- to-one jobs -housing imbalance. Burbank would be wholly reliant on regional transit services to provide mobility options and the City’s senior and disabled populations would see reduced transportation options.
Potential Senior & Disabled Service Impacts
As discussed above, policy Options 2 and 3 would require the City to contract out the BurbankBus Senior & Disabled Service, while Option 4 would require the service to be ATTACHMENT 3-7
8 eliminated altogether. Staff does not believe that the City can continue to offer in- house Senior and Disabled Transit operations using an all -electric fleet. Option 3, which involves cooperation with Glendale, would require Senior and Disabled Transit service for both cities to be operated in the same way. Glendale, as well as virtually every city or transit agency that offers curb-to-curb dial-a-ride service, provides the service by way of an operations contractor.
Staff Recommendation and Next Steps
Given the options presented in this report, and in comparing the relative costs, advantages, and disadvantages of each, staff recommends the City Council pursue Option 3 to cooperate with Glendale to electrify both city fleets and co- locate by 2026.
This option allows the City to maintain transit mobility, meet the ICT regulation requirements, and help achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Option 3 is a lower cost than Option 1, is more achievable than Option 2, and is more compatible with other mobility goals than Option 4. Further, Option 3 allows for a higher likelihood that the capital costs needed to transition to BEBs can be funded with grants. In addition, coordination with Glendale staff could lower the staff resources required to complete this transition, which could further reduce the overall cost.
T
o implement Option 3, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to begin more direct coordination with the City of Glendale, and to formally partner with that City to seek grant funds for the electrification costs. The City of Glendale has already begun to identify a project definition and scope of work to electrify their transit operations center and is even beginning to apply for grants to fund the transition. Staff also recommends that Burbank and Glendale begin to align procurement of its third-party operations contractor when the initial term of both contracts concurrently expire.
O
ption 3 would require the City to plan for a phased implementation to BEBs. CNG bus purchases would continue between now and 2026, which includes replacement of up to six buses with new CNG vehicles that are already grant funded and that would replace existing vehicles that are between 16 and 19 years old. Purchases of BEBs would begin in 2026 and the City’s fleet would be fully electric by 2040. Note that separately, staff is proposing that its transit fleet should be electrified by 2030 (10 years earlier) as part of the draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that Council will consider later this year.
Should this goal be approved, staff would need to accelerate electrification and would likely need to accelerate replacement of newer CNG buses to meet the earlier goal.
S
hould the Council accept staff’s recommendation, staff will begin more formal discussions with the City of Glendale regarding co-location. Further, staff would proceed with purchasing six new CNG buses within the next calendar year using existing grant funds to replace aging vehicles . Any formal cooperation agreements with Glendale, ATTACHMENT 3-8
9 acceptances of electrification grant funds, or joint procurements of transit operations services would be brought to Council for approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in adopting a specific policy to respond to the ITC Regulations.
Subsequent actions to implement the policy would be brought back to the City Council and the fiscal impact of those actions would be identified.
CONCLUSION
The ICT Regulation requires that the City transition its bus fleet to zero emission buses starting in 2026 with the goal of a complete transition to zero emission buses by 2040.
The feasibility study conducted by CALSTART identified battery electric buses as the recommended zero emission technology for BurbankBus. Staff recommends beginning formal discussions with Glendale to co- locate BurbankBus and the Glendale Beeline buses at the same facility and coordinate on finding funds to upgrade the Glendale transit facility to accommodate BEBs. Staff also recommends implementing a phased transition to BEBs. Staff will begin purchasing BEBs in 2026 and complete the transition to a fully electric fleet by 2040 . Adoption of more aggressive electrification goals , as part of the forthcoming Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, would require an accelerated electrification such that the fleet would be fully electric by 2030.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Arroyo Verdugo Transit Operators Bus Electrification Feasibility Study ATTACHMENT 3-9