Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-17 (Regular) Meeting Agenda Packet1. Call to Order. 2. Invocation . 3. Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Roll Call. Agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Englewood City Council Monday, August 17, 2015 7:30 pm Englewood Civic Center -Council Chambers 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session. a. Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of August 3, 2015. 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment. {This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification, but there will not be any dialogue. Please limit your presentation to five minutes.) a. Englewood resident Garnett Stewart will be present to address City Council green initiatives in Englewood. b. Englewood resident Ann Cockrell will be present to address City Council regarding green initiatives in Englewood. c. Englewood resident Leroy Cockrell will be present to address City Council regarding green initiatives in Englewood. d. Englewood resident Cassandra Letkomiller will be present to address City Council regarding street car suburb economics. 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment. {This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification, but there will not be any dialogue. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Time for unscheduled public comment may be limited to 45 minutes, and if limited, shall be continued to General Discussion .) Please note : If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services , please notify the City of Englewood (303-7 62-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed . Englewood City Council Agenda August 17, 2015 Page 2 Council Response to Public Comment. 8. Communications, Proclamations, and Appointments. 9 . Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading. b . Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. c. Resolutions and Motions. 10. Public Hearing Items. (No Public Hearings scheduled.) 11. Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading. i. Council Bill No. 34 -Recommendation from the City Manager's Office to adopt a bill for an ordinance resolving discrepancies in the exhibits to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City and County of Denver to provide fire and ambulance protection for the City of Englewood. Staff Source: Eric A. Keck, City Manager. ii. Council Bill No. 43 -Recommendation from the Community Development Department to adopt a bill for an ordinance authorizing the sale of 2380 -2390 West Wesley Avenue. Staff Source: Harold Stitt, Senior Planner. b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. i. Council Bill No. 35 -Recommendation from the Public Works Department to adopt a bill for an ordinance authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District for Drainageway Master Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation in north Englewood . c. Resolutions and Motions. i. Recommendation from the Public Works Department to approve a resolution accepting the dedication of a section of an alley adjacent to 3220 South Ogden Street. Staff Source: Dave Henderson, Deputy Public Works Director. 12. General Discussion. a. Mayor's Choice. Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. Englewood City Council Agenda August 17, 2015 Page 3 b. Council Members' Choice. 13. City Manager's Report. 14. City Attorney's Report. 15. Adjournment. Please note: If you .have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of wheri services are needed . Lou Ellis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Leigh Ann Hoffhines on behalf of Council Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:30 PM #City Council Lou Ellis; Stephanie Carlile; Sharon Washington FW: Place on audio area of meeting 08.17.15 Garnett speech for 08 17 15 to put on web site and for nextdoor.doc FYI -Ms. Stewart forwarded her transcript of the missing audio from the August 17 meeting. I will post it on the website tomorrow. Leigh Ann Leigh Ann Hoffhines Englewoo d City Manager's Office From: Garnett Stewart [mailto:garnettstewart@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:15 PM To: Eric Keck; Council; Info Subject: Place on audio area of meeting 08.17.15 Final submission Audio missing this speech I will post this on next door Garnett 1 Monday 08.17.15 The audio portion of this speech is absent as well as the invocation and pledge. Here is a synopsis of the speech for the record. • Chain of command = a hierarchy of reporting, communicating and business resolutions. The higher position in this chain indicated the higher level of accountability and responsibility. • Randy Penn as the mayor of Englewood -you are the top of this chain. The council and mayor are not following chain of command. • When a citizen comes to council as a whole and you as the leader, we expect a reasonable level of accountability and responsibility • In the past few weeks citizen have come to council with concerns and most of these issues are not addressed, minimalized or dismissed. • Ex: Letkomiller asked for an immediate study of historic real estate issues and she was sent back to the very comm ittees that directed her to the mayor in the first place. • Ex: Three citizens asked about water issues with the EMRF land lease/ future sale. Their concerns for water contamination and loss of environmental excellence was dismissed. Your collective replies were about water rights. Council members did not even address their issue but reflected other answers to questions not answer. It was rude and insulting. I listened to the audio. • Ex 2 weeks ago I asked for a motion, mandate, resolution or whatever language is best used to direct all Englewood Employees to make every effort to go green. I was dismissed and ridiculed, insulted and received no acceptance for a critical first step to a better future for Englewood. • To address the letter on the record about the Gillit statements . This letter was not posted for all citizens and all the investigation materials were not posted either. All submissions met the standards of the city. The council did not make public these matters when directly asked to do this. • Gillit on the record stated that citizens should not work for the benefit of the city • Gillit says he wants the city manager to not respond to citizens . The city manager has time alone for council driven issues . Cit izens are not to be included. • I am told that this was Gary Sears approach to management of the city and we all know what his closed door policies did for the city of Englewood • Address the Letkomiller request for council to have a study session for real estate dev concerns in the Bates Logan area and not to send her BACK to committees . There is a sense of urgency as the development is ongoing and a request to preserve Englewood has been made several times w/o action plan from council. Deferring Letkomiller to boards and committees where she has been before was insulting and an ineffective use of a council riequest from a citizen. • SEE file:///C:/Users/Stewart/Desktop/GREEN%20MEM0%20FROM%20P UBLIC%20WORKS%20-%2011-27- 2013%20Council%20Newsletter.pdf Nov 2013 see PAGES 15-17 Council on the various boards Pages 20 GREEN issues from Public Works In this document there was no resolution mentioned. Three years ago Public Works just wrote an action plan . We need an official written directive for the mutua l clarity of citizens , council and all employees. • Ask again for a written resolution or motion for going green. Explain again that the employees must be directed or they will not feel secure in complying with citizens and their investigations and requests. • We are rebranding and make going green one of the major footprints for the new Englewood • Keep Englewood Beautiful has been approached and will not serve as the committee for Going Green. Mccaslin is retiring. • Create an ad hoc committee to investigate all methods of going green. Includes one or two councilpersons, city manager, city attorney, one member from KEB, various volunteer citizens and numerous experts in these fields local, national and international. The committee may invite guest speakers as they need to have full and complete knowledge of current and future green processes. Green Refuse, Green Lights, Green Vehicles and Greener Spaces. We need to make the infrastructure of Englewood greener with new building products for construction and repair. This includes streets sewer and walk/bikeways. This new ad hoc committee will need to work for 2 years with automatic renewal until such time as all green efforts are handled in the City with designated employees for this purpose. Until the budget allows for this team of city employees, the ad hoc committee will work for the benefit of the city. Garnett C Stewart 3675 S Cherokee Street Apt 506 Englewood CO 8011 O 12 Aug 2015 Re: City Council 08.03.15 and audible comments from Rick Gillit, Randy Penn and Linda Olson per audio recording on same date Dear Council: I am writing to all and asking that this letter be a part of the Council Materials for the meeting scheduled on 08.17 .15. This letter needs to have a public reply and available to all the citizens of Englewood . I spoke on 08. 03.15 regarding two key issues: Weingarten and Going Green Englewood Weingarten: Englewood has a 75 year contract with about 65 years remaining with Weingarten. The Civic Center is nearly vacant and local real estate employees of Weingarten seemingly are not leasing our property. It appears to me and others that they are leasing Sheridan at Riverpoint and not supporting Englewood. It also appears that Weingarten is using Englewood as a tax write off. Not being familiar with that 75 year contract, but understanding well the nuances of real estate development business, I discussed this matter with Councilman Yates, Councilman Jefferson and City Manager Eric Keck several times . The local Weingarten real estate agents met with our City Manager about four months ago. Weingarten sent a local agent only while all other developeirs sent executives and high ranking officials. They are Kimco, Wal-Mart, Alexan and Weingarten. This meeting to discuss a new future of Englewood Civic Center but it was obviously not a priority for Weingarten . The discussion was about the change and new development of our city center to enhance the retail values of this area. As we all know, city center could provide the bulk of the tax revenues for our city and we are sorely lacking the tax dollars from the Weingarten leases. There maybe 25 vacancies and one or two non-retail leases. Non- retail leases generate no tax dollars. Englewood citizens have paid for several consulting firms to suggest various ways to correct our city center issues . They are but not limited to: limited signage and visibility, quality retailers, parking and access to these spaces, and desirability for the potential retailers to gain successes if located at Englewood City Center. The issues about loss of tax dollars have been completely transparent and yet, Weingarten has not changed their approach to our city's request to get the spaces leased . None of my statements are contrary to any meetings, announcements or study sessions of 2015 . I have attended almost every meeting of 2015 as well as urban development meetings to hear firsthand what Englewood has and has not bE~en doing about this serious loss of tax dollars. On 08.03 .15, I told council that I had outreached to my lifelong friends for help. I said that Englewood is like our beloved Bellaire, Texas and that my friends, the Weingarten's, reacted well . They insisted that we have direct contact with the regional VP for Colorado. He was instructed to take a meeting and to assist Englewood with a new plan by his owners . I stated that Eric and I had a tale-conference last month and that we will meet again this month. Of course , we have had calls, emails and are working towards a face to face soon. I stated that the process has begun from the Weingarten family and was a downhill process not a local one . Secondly, I asked for a mandate for all employees to do everything that they could for a GREEN Englewood . About 1 O years ago, our council mandated E85 fuel and they need to mandate a new policy for all green efforts . T echnologic changes have been huge with new ones on the horizon . I explained that after working for seven (7) months on an effort for green vehicles, the Director of Public Works, Rick Kahm , told me about the State of Colorado Procurement website. That OUR city could not purchase vehicles that had not been vetted by the State of Colorado. This State of CO website was THE resource for our city Fleet Manager to use for purchases . When I checked this website I found THREE GREEN OPTIONS. California has three pages of approved options. We have only THREE options total. And, more importantly, Englewood DOES buy vehicles that have NOT been vetted because the State of CO does not vet all types of vehicles . FOUR weeks ago, we three green citizens wanted to block yet another purchase of another diesel bus. We wanted a GREEN option to be considered but our council did not support our efforts. The vote was 4/3 . The city council spent $126K on a diesel bus that would last about 10 years. The GREEN options were about the same price and could have be1en the city's step towards a GREEN policy. But since the employees were mandated to use old technology, no GREEN options for this bus were investigated or discussed. Our Director of Public Works and Our Fleet Manager were ask,ed to speak that night about what had been done since the Governmental Fleet Convention a few months ago. The Director did not speak. The Fleet Services Manager, Pat VVhite, did not present a thoughtful explanation about his recommendation. He was forewarned . The council asked many questions and then decided to buy old technology again . The unit in use was fully operational and the need was not emergent. Since we had no policy for GREEN Englewood, the employees are under the old policy. I asked city council to make a new updated one: motion, mandate, resolution, and ordinance but to take action . Imag i ne my astonishment that the actual barrier is this CO web site and not the city level. I attributed this lack of information to a failure of our council to open the flow of GREEN actions from all employees . I did not consider that Kahm or Pat 'Nhite were not forthcoming with information for some hidden agendas. I knew without this mandate, motion, resolution or ordinance that NO employee of the city was given the power to assist in the GREEN efforts . As usual, council had the time to question me after my five minute presentation. NO questions were asked. After the meeting Council Rick Gillit stated that he did not like that any citizen was working on behalf of the city and that he wanted a discussion around this situation . It did not smell right to him . He also stated that the City Manager works for council and he is not to use his time with citizens . Councilman Gillit stated that he did not think a citizen should work for the benefit of the city. He did not think the city manager should work with Englewood citizens but use his time elsewhere. Personally I would be delighted with any progress towards the city civic center being a thriving Mecca of business . It is NOT thriving now. It is a waste land. So this contact to my friends was rebuked by Councilman Gillit and verbally affirmed by our Mayor Randy Penn and our Mayor Pro Tern Linda Olson. Their voices are clear on the audio tape . Councilwoman Wilson was inaudible several times on the recording . I am told that she agreed as well. I did not hear Jefferson or Yates and since they had supported my work in the earlier comment time, I feel certain that: they did not agree. These are the same council representatives who were the BOSSES of the previous City Manager and they over saw the years of financial dealings for the~ benefit of the city. The end result was this year a serious closing of a 107 year old Fire and EMS department. Citizens and Council: The loss of tax dollars is approximately: 25 units x 12 months x 75,000 annual taxable income per unit per month x 3.50% tax or $787,500 & more for the Arapahoe County& the State of Colorado. As the businesses succeed, tax revenue could double over a five year period . That could mean the year 2021 we have over $1.6 MILLION ANNUAL TAX DOLLARS if Weingarten leases these shops. I REALLY CARE THAT THERE IS SUCCESS OF MY CITY. But to address these accusations, I have done no work inappropriately. The plan to contact the Weingarten's was discussed more than once with each Councilman Jefferson and Councilman Yates. Yet Gillit accused me of doing something that council did not approve . These council members had full knowledge and gave full approval to do "anything to help Englewood". I spoke to Jefferson three times and Yates twice~. if I remember correctly . When attacked by Gillit that night, neither council memb,er stated their supportive roles or their appeals leaving this offensive allegation unchallenged. I find this politicking disgraceful, shameful and totally unacceptable. So to answer your allegations, Councilman Gillit, I worked closely with our City Manager to make every effort a solid and appropriate one before initiating my contact to my lifelong friends. Of course, there are nuisances of government that I do not know and will never completely understand so I acted in concert with our City Manager. Not once was any representation made that I was an employee of the city. In all cases, I have made my position as a citizen working for my city to be a better place. Each contact made for our city's benefit was discussed with Jefferson and Yates and in all cases I received kudos for my hard work and due diligence. That is true for the GREEN efforts as well as Weingarten. My contacts with Ford GM Toyota Zenith , Altec and many other GREEN vehicle companies have been instrumental in the 2016 website list for vetted vehicles. Last week the VP of Zenith called me to say for a second time, how impressed he was that a citizen would work for her government without compensation and that he was sorry that I was leaving the states. He wanted to clone me . The GM National Governmental Fleet Director stated the same thing in front of your employees . I received kudos from Rick Kahm as wel l. Yet Gillit, Penn and Olson are on the record as being against a citizen working for the benefit of the city . Wilson was inaudible. Personally, I would dance an Irish gig if we could get Weingarten's spaces leased and receive tax revenue . I would celebrate a great victory for and with all citizens of our precious Englewood . Gillit stated that citizens should not work for the benefit of the city . I heard this elected official stating that the freedom of speech is not something he supports. He states that cit izens should NOT work for their government. That people cannot try to make their home a better place to live using any measures available . To quote my colleague Doug Cohn, you embarrass me and , I add , that you embarrass your-selves. As a citizen of Englewood working for the benefit of the city, I appreciate and validate the open door policy of the new city manager. Gillit, it seems , in my opinion that you want to return to the old Sears style of city management. I am told that Gary Sears did not discuss anything with citizens and rejected their input regularly . He rejected a request in 1999 to go green with financial options available from all areas : Federal State and County .. I know that I am not misspeaking . Be aware that the citizens of Englewood will not allow that! This election cycle we will change the council dramatically because we have lost a fortune , misused over years , and we need a team to rebuild the city. I look forward to the reply in writing and on the record . I await your official reply, Garnett C Stewart of S Cherokee Street 8011 O Lou Ellis ~: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Leigh Ann Hoffhines Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:31 AM #City Council Lou Ellis; Sharon Washington; Stephanie Carlile; Rick Kahm; Dave Henderson; Pat White Materials from Speakers at 8-17-2015 Council meeti ng Garnett Stewart Materials for 8-17-2015 Council Meeting .pdf Good morning, Mayor Penn and Members of City Council -Attached is a document containing a letter from Englewood resident Garnett Stewart, along with materials regarding green vehicles. Ms. Stewart is signed up to speak at Monday's City Council meeting and she wanted Council to have the materials to study ahead of time. Because the materials are quite voluminous, we opted to spare the expense of printed copies and are providing the materials electronically instead. Thanks, Leigh Ann Leigh Ann Hoffhines Communications Coordinator City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 303-762-2316 City of Englewood's Mission: To promote and ensure a high quality of life, economic vita lit y, and a uniquely desirable community identity . • 1 • • • Garnett C Stewart 3675 S Cherokee Street Apt 506 Englewood CO 80110 12 Aug 2015 Re: City Council 08 .03 .15 and audible comments from Rick Gillit, Handy Penn and Linda Olson per audio recording on same date Dear Council: I am writing to all and asking that this letter be a part of the Council Materials for the meeting scheduled on 08 .17 .15. This letter needs to have a public reply and available to all the citizens of Englewood . I spoke on 08 .03 .15 regarding two key issues: Weingarten and Going Green Englewood Weingarten: Englewood has a 75 year contract with about 65 years remaining with Weingarten . The Civic Center is nearly vacant and local real estate employees of Weingarten seemingly are not leasing our property . It appears to me and others that they are leasing Sheridan at Riverpoint and not supporting Englewood . It also appears that Weingarten is using Englewood as a tax write off. Not being familiar with that 75 year contract, but understanding well the nuances of real estate development business, I discussed this matter with Councilman Yates, Councilman Jefferson and City Manager Eric Keck several times. The local Weingarten real estate agents met with our City Manager about four months ago . Weingarten sent a local agent only while all other developers sent executives and high ranking officials . They are Kimco , Wal-Mart, Alexan and Wein~Jarten . This meeting to discuss a new future of Englewood Civic Center but it was obviously not a priority for Weingarten . The discussion was about the change and new development of our city center to enhance the retail values of this area. As we all know , city center could provide the bulk of the tax revenues for our city and we are sorely lacking the tax dollars from the Weingarten leases. There maybe 25 vacancies and one or two non-retail leases. Non- retail leases generate no tax dollars . • • • Englewood citizens have paid for several consulting firms to suggest various ways to correct our city center issues. They are but not limited to: limited signage and visibility , quality retailers, parking and access to these spaces, and desirability for the potential retailers to gain successes if located at Englewood City Center. The issues about loss of tax dollars have been completely transparent and yet, Weingarten has not changed their approach to our city's request to get the spaces leased . None of my statements are contrary to any meetings , announcements or study sessions of 2015 . I have attended almost every meeting of 2015 as well as urban development meetings to hear firsthand what Englewood has and has not been doing about this serious loss of tax dollars . On 08 .03 .15, I told council that I had outreached to my lifelong friends for help . I said that Englewood is like our beloved Bellaire , Texas and that my friends, the Weingarten's , reacted well. They insisted that we have direct contact with the regional VP for Colorado . He was instructed to take a meeting and to assist Englewood with a new plan by his owners. I stated that Eric and I had a tele-conference last month and that we will meet again this month. Of course , we have had calls, emails and are working towards a face to face soon. I stated that the process has begun from the Weingarten family and was a downhill process not a local one . Secondly, I asked for a mandate for all employees to do everything that they could for a GREEN Englewood . About 10 years ago , our council mandated E85 fuel and they need to mandate a new policy for all green efforts . Technologic changes have been huge with new ones on the horizon . I explained that after working for seven (7) months on an effort for green vehicles, the Director of Public Works , Rick Kahm, told me about the State of Colorado Procurement website . That OUR city could not purchase vehicles that had not been vetted by the State of Colorado . This State of CO website was THE resource for our city Fleet Manager to use for purchases . When I checked this website I found THREE GREEN OPTIONS . California has three pages of approved options. We have only THREE options total. And, more importantly, Englewood DOES buy vehicles that have NOT been vetted because the State of CO does not vet all types of vehicles . • • • FOUR weeks ago, we three green citizens wanted to block yet another purchase of another diesel bus . We wanted a GREEN option to be considered but our council did not support our efforts. The vote was 4/3. The city council spent $126K on a diesel bus that would last about 10 years. The GREEN options were about the same price and could have been the city's step towards a GREEN policy . But since the employees were mandated to use old technology, no GREEN options for this bus were investigated or discussed. Our Director of Public Works and Our Fleet Manager were asked to speak that night about what had been done since the Governmental Fleet Convention a few months ago . The Director did not speak . The Fleet Services Manager, Pat White , did not present a thoughtful explanation about his recommendation . He was forewarned . The council asked many questions and then decided to buy old technology again. The unit in use was fully operational and the need was not emergent. Since we had no policy for GREEN Englewood, the employees are under the old policy . I asked city council to make a new updated one : motion, mandate, resolution , and ordinance but to take action . Imagine my astonishment that the actual barrier is this CO web site and not the city level. I attributed this lack of information to a failure of our council to open the flow of GREEN actions from all employees. I did not consider that Kahm or Pat White were not forthcoming with information for some hidden agendas. I knew without this mandate, motion, resolution or ordinance that NO employee of the city was given the power to assist in the GREEN efforts . As usual, council had the time to question me after my five minute presentation . NO questions were asked. After the meeting Council Rick Gillit stated that he did not like that any citizen was working on behalf of the city and that he wanted a discussion around this situation. It did not smell right to him. He also stated that the City Manager works for council and he is not to use his time with citizens . Councilman Gillit stated that he did not think a citizen should work for the benefit of the city . He did not think the city manager should work with Englewood citizens but use his time elsewhere . Personally I would be delighted with any progress towards the city civic center being a thriving Mecca of business. It is NOT thriving now. It is a waste la nd . • • • So this contact to my friends was rebuked by Councilman Gillit and verbally affirmed by our Mayor Randy Penn and our Mayor Pro Tern Linda Olson . Their voices are clear on the audio tape. Councilwoman Wilson was inaudible several times on the recording . I am told that she agreed as well. I did not hear Jefferson or Yates and since they had supported my work in the earlier comment time , I feel certain that they did not agree . These are the same council representatives who were the BOSSES of the previous City Manager and they over saw the years of financial dealings for the benefit of the city . The end result was this year a serious closing of a 107 year old Fire and EMS department. Citizens and Council : The loss of tax dollars is approximately: 25 units x 12 months x 75,000 annual taxable income per unit per month x 3.50% tax or $787 ,500 & more for the Arapahoe County& the State of Colorado. As the businesses succeed , tax revenue could double over a five year period. That could mean the year 2021 we have over $1.6 MILLION ANNUAL TAX DOLLARS if Weingarten leases these shops. I REALLY CARE THAT THERE IS SUCCESS OF MY CITY . But to address these accusations , I have done no work inappropriately . The plan to contact the We ingarten 's was discussed more than once with each Councilman Jefferson and Councilman Yates . Yet Gillit accused me of doing something that council did not approve. These council members had full knowledge and gave full approval to do "anything to help Englewood ". I spoke to Jefferson three times and Yates twice, if I remember correctly . When attacked by Gillit that night, neither council member stated their supportive roles or their appeals leaving this offensive allegation unchallenged. I find this politick ing disgraceful , shameful and totally unacceptable . So to answer your allegations , Councilman Gillit, I worked closely with our City Manager to make every effort a solid and appropriate one before initiating my contact to my lifelong friends . Of course, there are nuisances of government that I do not know and will never completely understand so I acted in concert with our City Manager. Not once was any representation made that I was an employee of the city . In all cases , I have made my position as a citizen working for my city to be a better place . Each contact made for our city 's benefit was discussed with Jefferson and Yates and in all cases I received kudos for my hard work and due diligence . That is true for the GREEN efforts as well as Weingarten . • • • My contacts with Ford GM Toyota Zenith, Altec and many other GREEN vehicle companies have been instrumental in the 2016 website list for vetted vehicles. Last week the VP of Zenith called me to say for a second time, how impressed he was that a citizen would work for her government without compensation and that he was sorry that I was leaving the states . He wanted to clone me . The GM National Governmental Fleet Director stated the same thing in front of your employees. I received kudos from Rick Kahm as well . Yet Gillit, Penn and Olson are on the record as being against a citizen working for the benefit of the city . Wilson was inaudible. Personally, I would dance an Irish gig if we could get Weingarten 's spaces leased and receive tax revenue. I would celebrate a great victory for and with all citizens of our precious Englewood . Gillit stated that citizens should not work for the benefit of the city . I heard this elected official stating that the freedom of speech is not something he supports . He states that citizens should NOT work for their government. That people cannot try to make their home a better place to live using any measures available. To quote my colleague Doug Cohn, you embarrass me and , I add , that you embarrass your-selves . As a citizen of Englewood working for the benefit of the city , I appreciate and validate the open door policy of the new city manager. Gillit, it seems , in my opinion that you want to return to the old Sears style of city management. I am told that Gary Sears did not discuss anything with citizens and rejected their input regularly . He rejected a request in 1999 to go green with financial options available from all areas : Federal State and County .. I know that I am not m isspeaking . Be aware that the citizens of Englewood will not allow that! This election cycle we will change the council dramatically because we have lost a fortune , misused over years , and we need a team to rebuild the city. I look forward to the reply in writing and on the record. I await your official reply , Garnett C Stewart of S Cherokee Street 80110 • • • u .s. DEPARTMENT oF I Energy Efficiency & ENERGY Renewable Energy Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide • Natural Gas • Propane • Biodiesel • Electric • Hybrid • Ethanol Flex-Fuel ~ ®leah n Cities U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities • 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide • • Today more than ever before, auto manufacturers are helping drivers and fleets reduce petroleum use . save on fuel costs , and cut emissions by offering hundreds of light-duty vehicle models that take advantage of alternative fuels and advanced technolog ies. Inside this gu ide is a comprehensive list of such vehicles for 2014. Contents Introduction .................... 4 About This Guide ............. 5 Compressed Natural Gas ........ 7 Propane ....................... 12 Biodiesel ...................... 13 All -Electric ..................... 15 Plug -In Hybrid Electr ic .......... 18 Hybrid Electric ................. 21 Ethanol Flex-Fue l ............... 27 U. $. Department of Energy Disclaimers This report was prepared as an account of wo rk sponsored by an agency of the United St at es governmen t . Nei t her t he Uni t ed Sta t es governmen t nor any agency t hereof. nor any of t heir employees. makes any warranty, express or imp lied . or assumes any legal liabili t y or responsibility for t he accuracy, comple t eness. or usefulness of any infor ma t ion . apparatus. produc t. or process d isclose d . or represen t s that its use would not infrin ge privately owned righ t s. Reference here in t o any specific commercial product, process , or service by trade name. trademark. manufacturer. or otr1erwise does not necessarily constitu t e or imply it s endorsemen t , recommen d at ion . or favoring by the Uni t ed Sta t es governme nt or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors exp ressed herein do not nece ssari ly state or refle ct those of the United St at es governmen t or any agency t hereof. Photo on this page and front cover from iStock 78259572 • • • 4 Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide ·-------·-·-· Chevrolet Cruze Diesel. Photo from General Motors I n the United States today, the number of vehicles that use alternative fuels or advanced fuel-saving technologies continues to expand. More than 17 million of these vehicles are currently on the road, and their growth in popularity is fueled by a number of factors : • Alternative-fuel cost savings • Availability of more than 2,000 federal and state incentives • A rebounding economy • Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that encourage the production of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) • Continued interest in reducing environmental impacts . The growing pool of ava i lable AFV models gives consumers and vehicle fleets more options to use alternative fuels like biodiesel, natural gas, electricity, ethanol, and propane. Manufacturers are introducing new plug-in electric vehicles, and hybrid luxury cars are now in the marketplace. Early in the 2013 calendar year the number of all-electric vehicles on U.S. roads broke the 100,000 mark. Flex-fuel vehicles en- joyed growth as well , with nearly 1 million additional vehicles added to the light-duty vehicle fleet. A diesel option new this year is the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze. Its turbo diesel system helps reduce fuel consumption and emissions while maintaining power. The Cruze has a 151-horsepower engine and is approved for use with biodiesel blends up to 820. The network of fueling and charging infrastructure in the United States also con- tinues to expand. As of October 2013, the number of publicly accessible alternative fueling and charging stations surpassed 12,500. Because fuel availability is the most important factor in choosing an AFV, this growth opens up new possibilities for fleets and consumers. • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide Mercedes-Benz B-Class Elec tr ic. Photo from Mercedes-Benz USA About This Guide This guide presents a comprehensive list of 2014 light-duty alternative fuel and advanced vehicles, grouped by fuel and technology. It features model-specific infor- mation on vehicle specs, manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP), fuel economy, energy impact, and emissions. When you are ready to identify your options, com- pare vehicles, and find data to inform your buying decisions, this guide can serve as an unbiased resource. Fuel Economy This guide includes fuel economy estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) for both city and highway driving. These estimates are based on manufacturers' laboratory tests, which are designed to reflect typical driving condi- tions and driver behavior and are conducted in accordance with federa l regulations. EPA retests about 10% to 15 % of vehicle models to confirm manufacturer results. Ford E-150 FFV. Photo from Fo r d Motor Company For some types of AFVs l isted in this guide, fuel economy estimates are expressed in miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (mpge), repre- senting the number of miles a vehicle can travel using a quantity of fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline . For some vehicle models, EPA data were not available at the time of this guide's publication. EPA fuel economy estimates are also avail- able on Fuel Economy.gov. EPA establishes methods for estimating fuel economy using typical driving conditions and behaviors, but your fuel economy will still vary. This is because several factors can affect fuel economy significantly, such as how and where you drive, vehicle condition and maintenance, fuel and vehicle variations, and engine break-in . There- fore , the EPA ratings are a useful tool for comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles but may not accurately predict the average miles per gallon (mpg) you will 5 • • • 6 Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide Chevrolet Impala CNG Bi-Fuel. Photo from General Motors achieve. To find out what you can do to improve the fuel economy of your vehicle, see FuelEconomy.gov's Driving More Efficiently (fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp) and Keeping Your Car in Shape (fue!economy.gov/feg/maintain.Jsp). Energy Impact Scores Energy Impact Scores allow buyers to compare vehicles' annual estimated petroleum consumption. These scores represent the number of barre ls of petroleum a vehicle will likely consume each year. The scores are based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles. One barrel equals 42 gallons. Smog Scores Smog Scores, determined by EPA, reflect vehicle tailpipe emissions that contribute to local and regional air quality problems and related health issues. Scores are based on U.S. vehicle emission stan- dards for criteria pollutants, lnfiniti QX60 Hybrid. Photo courtesy of lnfiniti USA including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides, non-methane organic gas, and particulate matter. Scores range from 1to10, where 10 is best. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scores Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Scores reflect tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs, which contribute to climate change. Scores range from 1to10, where 10 is best. The GHG Scores in this guide do not reflect emissions related to the production or distribution of fuels or vehicles. • • • Clea n Ci t i es 2014 Vehic l e Bu yer's Gu i de Compressed Natural Gas e -------- Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles GMC Savana 2500/3500 2WD -6.0L 8 cyl engine -Starting MSRP: $31,365 -Em issions data and fuel economy not available Pho t o fro m Ge neral Mo t ors Compressed natural gas vehicles have low fuel costs and other benefits Compressed natural gas (CNG) is readily available from domestic sources, and its use as a vehicle fuel can support U.S. energy independence. CNG vehicles get about the same fuel economy as comparable conventional vehicles on a gasoline-gallon- equivalent basis, and CNG prices tend to be much lower than those of gasoline and diesel fuel. The resulting fuel cost savings can help offset the purcha se price of a CNG vehicle , and state incentives can provide additional f i nancial assistance (see page 26). Use of renewable natural gas (captured from landfills, sewage t reatment facilities , or agricultural waste) can translate to significant well-to-wheels green- house gas emissions reductions. Manufacturers are providing more CNG options Dedicated CNG vehicles are available directly from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The Honda Civic Natural Gas and the natu ral gas Ge neral Motors Chevrolet Express /GMC Savana are ready-to -go options. Gen eral Motors and Chrysler both of- fer direct-from-OEM bi-fuel vehicles, which can run on CNG or gaso line . The Chevro- let Silverado /GMC Sierra 2500HD and the Ram 2500 CNG operate on natural gas and Photo from Ford Motor Company Ford Super Duty F-250/350/450 -6.2L 8 cyl engine -Starting MSRP: $29,875 -Emissions data and fuel economy not available 7 • • • e Compressed Natural Gas Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 8 ··-···-.·---------· -· ·- Biodiesel Ethanol Hydrogen ··--·--------;--I "''"''' G'8 ....... j I Learn More about Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Information, data, and tools to help fleet managers and other transportation decision makers find ways to reduce petroleum con- sumption are readily available from Clean Cities' Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). A small sample of what's available from this helpful website includes up-to-date news on the latest manufacturer offerings, a selection of YouTube videos that share success stories from across the United States, and the basics of converting vehicles to run on alternative fuels. It's all online at afdc.energy.gov. --·----···-·-··-·······--·--·-----··-···---""'"---·---·---.---·------------------···-----·····-··--·---···-··--···--··-·····--··-··-·-·----···-···'"·-······--·-··-------------- then automatically switch to gasoline operation when the CNG cylinders are empty. General Motors plans to introduce a bi-fuel Chevrolet Impala in mid-2014. Ford offers propane/CNG prep packages for its E-150, E-250, and E-350 cargo and passenger vans (5.4L V-8 and 6 .8L V-10); its F-150 through F-650 pickups (3.7L V-6, 5.4L V-8, and 6 .8L V-10); its Transit Connect (2.5L 4 cy l); and its Transit van (3.7L V-6). A Ford-approved qualified vehicle modifier (QVM) can Courtesy of American Honda Honda Civic Natural Gas -l.8L 4 cyl engine -Emissions data, fuel economy, and MSRP not available convert these vehicles to run on CNG or propane for delivery through select Ford dealerships, without impacting OEM warranties or service agreements. Fueling infrastructure is an important factor If you are considering the purc hase of a CNG vehicle or converting a conventional ve- hicle to run on CNG, it's important to determine whether CNG fueling infrastructure is available in locations that are convenient to you. In December 2013, there were more than 500 publicly accessible CNG fueling sta tions across the country. See page 14 for information about finding stations in your area. I I • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide Compressed Natura l Gas e --- Before You Purchase, Compare Vehicle Costs and Emissions The true cost of a vehicle is more than just the number on its price tag. It also includes lifetime ownership costs for things like fuel and mainte- nance. The AFDC's Vehicle Cost Calculator can help you easily assess the full cost of a vehicle. In addition , this easy-to- use online tool , avail- able at afdc.energy.gov/ calculator, can perform a side-by-side comparison of multiple vehicles that includes the average current cost of conven- tional fuels, alternative fuels, and electricity. The AFDC's Vehicle Cost Calculator also allows us- ers to evaluate a vehicle's emissions benefits. The tool's capabilities help make vehicle-purchase decisions easier and more thorough. To find out how the price of alternative fuels com- pares to gasoline and die- sel prices, see the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, available online at afdc.energy.gov/ fuels/prices.html. ---·-------------·-···-··-·- ... " " ~ • i Average Retail Fuel Prices in the U.S. Average Retail Fuel Prices in the U.S. '.:" .. Vo hicla COIC C4kut.'llot Ail""-1. ... IN.'"'.U M l) :::,~;-:-.. :;::_u"'':;_ ,, .. r •)•v._.O.~ .....,.....,. '"• ... .,.., ..... ....,._ ... 11-......i· .. -:'.., ...... ,.. ........... ::""'O••·· "~ );'\, ....... _ .. ,..,;11..,.,, ,,.t.Jil.M ... "''"* <1 WU":il~ I ,~.,.. 1 l.1',,.. J .,,.. i/* ..... 1.'9 .. ~ ,_ ,,. ...... lfl.-~l ,,,.. ' .:.i:- ..-t~~ ,,., ......... +CNG -rro;.1w}o.' i I I _J + CN(", ..... f'r,1pMH· _________________ ,,____________ -----------------·----- 9 • • • e Compressed Natural Gas Clean Cities 2014 Vehic l e Buyer's Guide 10 Chevro let Expre ss. Photo f r om General Motors Converting Vehicles to Run on Alternative Fuels To convert a vehicle from using only gasoline to using alternative fuel, you have several options. Many conventional vehicles can be converted to run on natura l gas, propane, electricity, or other alternative fuels with little effect on horse- power, towing capacity, or factory warranty . All conversions must meet em issions and safety standards instituted by EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- istration, and relevant state agencies. Conversions should be performed by an authorized tech- nician associated with a manu- facturer that holds all relevant em issions-related certifications and tampering exemptions . Fo rd Transi t Connec t. Ph oto from Ford Motor Company Many new and used conventional vehicles can be converted to run on CNG or propane at a cost of about $8,000 to $12 ,000 per vehicle . The table on the ne xt page lists conversion companies that offer certified CNG or propane conversion systems for various 2013 and 2014 vehicles . Most conversion companies provide up-to-date information online about vehicle models and powertrains their systems are compatible with . The lists of systems cert ified by EPA and/or the California Air Resources Board are updated regu- larly. Visit epa.go v/otaq/con sume r/fuels/altfuels/altfuels .htm and arb.ca .go v/ msprog/a ftermkt/a ltfue l/altfuel.htm for the most current lists of certified sys- tems for vehicles of all model years. Find out mo re abo ut vehicle conversions at afdc. energy.go v/vehicle s/con vers i on s. html. • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide Compressed Natural Gas • -__ ,, 2013-2014 EPA-Certified Light-Duty Alternative Fuel Conversions As of October 2013 Conversion Fuel System Dedicated CNG Bi-Fuel CNG/Gasoline I Original Equipment Conversion Fuel Manufacturer (OEM) System Manufacturer Ford Motor Company General Motors Chrysler Ford Motor Company Altech-Eco Corporation BAF Technologies IMPCO Technologies, Inc. Landi Renzo USA Corporation IMPCO Technologies, Inc. LLC Altech-Eco Corporation BAF Technologies IMPCO Technologies, Inc. Landi Renzo USA Corporation NatGasCar, LLC Powerfuel CNG Systems, LLC Westport Light Duty, Inc. I 1MPCO Technologies, Inc . NatGasCar, LLC The CNG Store, LLC (dba Auto Gas Amer ica) , Chrysler 1 NatGasCar, LLC 1~~~~---i--~----------~1~~~~~~~-------- 1 Ford Motor lcom North America, LLC Dedicated Propane · Company Roush Industries , Inc. ·-·-·---···-··········--·---------··-··--+-------------·-----··--1 Toyota Yellow Checker Star Transportation ----------------·--·-.. -------·---····--------------··-··--·----!------------------··---·--------·------- Bi-Fuel Propane/ Gasoline Ford Motor Company General Motors American Alternative Fuel lcom North America, LLC IMPCO Technologies, Inc. American Alternative Fuel Blossman Services, Inc. lcom North America, LLC IMPCO Technologies, Inc . 11 • • • • Propane Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 12 Propane Vehicles Ford Super Duty F-350/450/550 Chassis Cab -6.2L 8 cyl engine or 6.8L 10 cyl engine -Starting MSRP: $30,230 -Emissions data and fuel economy not available Propane is used worldwide Propane is a clean-burning gaseous fuel that has been used in transpor- tation for decades. Also known as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), pro- ---------------------- Ford Super Duty F-450 avail ab le with LPG prep package. Photo from Ford Motor Company pane is the most commonly used alternative motor fuel in the world, and its prices are typically more stable than those of gasoline. Propane is nontoxic, safe to handle , and presents no threat to soil, groundwater, or surface water when leaked or spilled . As of October 2013, propane is available at more than 2,700 stations throughout the country. See page 14 for information on finding propane fueling stations in your area. Choose your path to propane In 2014, General Motors is offering dedicated propane options for the Chevro let Express and GMC Savana 3500 and 4500 cutaway vans equipped with 6.0L V-8 en- gines. These vehicles can be ordered directly through any General Motors dealership. Ford offers propane/CNG prep packages for its E-150, E-250, and E-350 cargo and passenger vans (5.4L V-8 and 6.8L V-10 ); its F-150 through F-650 pickups (3.7L V-6, 5.4L V-8, and 6.8L V-10); its Transit Connect (2.5L 4 cyl); and its Transit van (3.7L V-6). GMC Savana Cutaway 3500. Photo from General Motors A Ford-approved qualified vehicle modifier (QVM) can convert these vehicles to run on CNG or propane for delivery through select Ford dealerships without impacting OEM warranties or service agreements . See page 10 for more information about converting conventional vehicles to run on propane. • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 8iodiesel e ------- Biodiesel Vehicles Chevrolet Cruze Diesel -2.0L 4 cyl engine -Starting MSRP: $17,170 -27 mpg city, 46 mpg highway -Smog Score: 5 -GHG Score: 7 -Energy Impact Score 11.6 ' ! ----------= ,......,,,=-_______ __J Photo from General Motors Biodiesel is a renewable option for diesel vehicles 8iodiesel is domestically produced from a wide range of vegetable oils and animal fats. It is biodegradable, renewable, and nontoxic. Consumers typically buy biodiesel blends ranging from 85 (5% biodiesel, 95% diesel fuel) to 820 (20% biodiesel , 80% diesel fuel). 8100 must be produced to strict specifications (ASTM D6751) to ensure proper performance at any blend level. The use of biodiesel blends in place of con- ventiona l diesel can reduce tailpipe emissions, such as particulate matter and hydro- carbons . Relative to conventional diesel fuel , biodiesel can reduce life cycle emissions of carbon dioxide by more than half. All light-duty vehicle manufacturers have approved 85 for use in their diesel en- gines, and current ASTM standards al low conventional diesel fuel to contain up to 5% biodiesel. 820 has been shown to perform well in diesel vehicles, including in cold weather conditions and in older engines. More than 300 publicly accessible fuel- ing stations across the country offer biodiesel blends of 820 or above . The following vehicles are currently approved by their manufacturers for 820 use: • Chevrolet Cruze sedan, equipped with the 2.0L 4 cyl turbo diesel • Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 HD pickups and Express 2500/3500 vans, equipped with the 6.6L V-8 Duramax Turbo Diesel • GMC Sierra 2500/3500 HD pickups and Savana 2500/3500 vans, equipped with the 6.6L V-8 Dura- max Turbo Diesel Photo from Ford Motor Company Fo rd Transit -3 .2L 5 cyl engine -Emissions data, fuel economy, and MSRP not available 13 • • • e Biodiesel Clean Cities 2014 Ve hicle Buyer's Gu id e 14 --- • Ford Super Duty F-250 through F-750, equipped with the 6.7L V-8 Powerstroke Turbo Diesel • Ford Transit van, equipped with the 3.2L 5 cyl Powerstroke Turbo Die sel • Ram 2500/3500 HD Pickups , equipped with the 6.7L 6 cyl Cummins High Output Turbo Diesel (fleet calibration only). Straight vegetable oil is not biodiesel To produce biodiesel , vegetable oils o r animal fats are filtered to remove water and contaminants . The fats and oils are then mixed with alcohol and a catalyst to pro- duce biodiesel. It 's important to note that straight vegetable oil is not registered for legal use in vehicles, and its use can void vehicle warranties. Find an Alternative Fueling Station or Electric Charging Station Locating fueling sites across the country that provide alternatives to gaso l ine and diesel fue l is easy with the AFDC's Al- ternative Fueling Station Locator (afdc. energy.gov/stations). This online tool helps drivers navigate to stations that provide propane, biodiesel blends of 20% (820) or greater, natural gas, electric charging, E85 , and hydrogen. Users can also download the data into a spreadsheet, determine the number of stations in a given geo- graphic area, and plan a route with stations identified along the way. There's even a mobile version at afdc. energy.gov/stations/m and a new Station Locator iPhone app avail -J able for free download from the App Store . I -------· -------· ____ __J • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide All-Electric e -----------·-····----·~- Kia Soul. Photo courtesy of Kia Motors America All-electric vehicles can yield significant emissions benefits An all-electric vehicle (EV) uses a battery to store electrical energy, which powers one or more motors . EV batteries are charged by plugging into an off-board electri- cal power source . They can also be charged in part through regenerative braking, which generates electricity from some of the energy normally lost when braking. EVs produce no tailpipe emissions, but there are em issions associated with the major- ity of electricity production in the United States. In many geographic regions of the country, EVs have substantial well-to-wheels emissions benefits, based on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity. In 2014, EV models are being of- fered by nearly every OEM, and new to the fleet are models from BMW, Chevrolet, and Kia. Most cur- rently availab le EVs can travel 60 Photo from BMW Ford Focus. Photo from Ford Motor Com pany 15 • • • e All-Electric Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 16 --~·· ---------- to 100 miles on a single charge , depending on the model. EV drivers are now benefit- ting from a growing network of charging stations. In October 2013, there were more than 6,600 publicly access ibl e charging locations across the country. See page 14 for inform ation about finding sta t ions in your area. EV prices tend to be higher than those of Chevrolet Spark Photo from General Motors similar conventional and hybrid electric vehicles, but some costs may be recovered through fuel savings, a federal tax credit, or state incentives. See page 9 to find out how to calculate EV fuel savings, and page 26 for information about finding incentives. ~--------------- Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle combines hydrogen gas with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which drives an electric motor. Fuel cell vehicles produce no harmful tailpipe emissions. These vehicles are not yet commercially available, but some manufacturers produce them in very limited numbers for select organizations with access to hydrogen fueling stations. Photo from Mercedes-Benz USA Courtesy of American Honda Mercedes-Benz B·Class F-CELL Honda FCX Clarity -100 kW PEM fuel cell -100 kW PEM fuel cell -Emissions data, -MSRP not available fuel economy, -60 mpkg and MSRP not available -Smog Score: 10 -GHG Score: 10 • • • El . V h" 1 M d 1 Electric Motor; Energy Impact Score* Smog GHG Fuel Economy Starting ectric e 1c e o e . . Battery Size (barrels petroleum/year) Score** Score** (mpge) City/Hwy MSRP BMWi3 125 kW ; 21 kWh $41,350 Chevrolet Spark 104 kW ; 20 kWh 0.2T ~---10 10 128 I 109 $27,495 Fiat 500e 83 kW ; 24 kWh 0.2T __ _ 10 10 122 I 108 $31 ,800 Ford Focus Electr i c 107 kW; 23 kWh 0 .2 T,___ __ _ 10 10 110 I 99 $35 ,200 Honda Fit EV 92 kW ; 20 kWh 0.2 T..------10 10 132/ 105 Kia Soul EV 50 kW; 16.4 kWh Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric 100 kW ; 28 kWh ( Mitsubishi i-M i EV : 49kW;16 kWh 0 .2 T 10 10 126 I 99 $29 ,125 Nissan Leaf 80 kW ; 24 kWh $28 ,800 Scion iQ EV 47 kW; 12 .0 kWh 0.2 T i 10 10 138I105 smart fortwo electric drive 55 kW ; 17.6 kWh 0.2 T 10 10 122 I 93 $25 ,000 Tesla Model S 300 kW; 60 kWh 0.2 T 10 10 94 /97 $71,070 Toyota RAV4 EV 115 kW; 4 1.8 kWh 0.2 T 10 10 78 I 74 $49,800 •Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year. •• 70 =Best ::::j ' () ct) OJ ::I () ...... It> (J') N 0 ..... ~ < ct) ::::; n <I> OJ c '< <I> .... (J') G) c a. ct) I )> I m I ~ l q 1-· I n 1• • • • e Plug-In Hybrid Electric Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 18 --------· Chevro let Volt. Photo f rom General Motors Plug-in hybrids provide flexibility in fueling and charging Pl ug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) use batteries to power an electr ic motor and use another fuel, such as gasoline or diesel, to power an internal combustion engine. The batteries can be charged from an off-board electrical power source , through regenerat iv e braking, or by the internal combustion engine. Power i ng the vehicle with electr ici ty some or all of the time significantly reduc es operating costs, petrol eum use , and t a ilpipe emissions. PHEVs don 't have to be plugged in before driving. They can be fueled solely with gasoline, like a conven- tional hybrid . However, they will not achieve ma xim um fuel economy or take ful l advantage of their all-elec- tric capabilities without plu g ging in . Ford Fusion Ene rgi. Photo from Ford Motor Company Toyota Prius Plug-In. Photo from Toyota Motor Sales, US.A., Inc. • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehic l e Buyer's Guide Plug -In Hybrid Electric • ·--. -------- Honda Accord Plug-In Hyb r id. Courtesy of American Honda ---------------------,,_,, ___ ,,_,, ___ , __ _ Plug-In Vehicles and EPA Labels EPA labels for all-electric vehicles (EVs) display fuel economy estimates in kilo- watt-hours per 100 mi les and in miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (mpge). Mpge represents the number of miles a vehicle can travel using a quantity of fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline (33 kilowatt-hours). For PHEVs, EPA labels display separate fuel economy estimates for electric-only and gasoline-only modE?S. Estimates for gasoline-only operation are expressed in miles per gallon and in gallons per 100 miles. All this information allows for efficiency comparisons across different types of vehicles and fuels. For more information , visit fueleconomy.gov/label. EPA plug-in vehicle labels also contain information about GHG emissions and air pollution. This information reflects tailpipe emissions only. It does not account for emissions associated with the production of electricity, gasoline, or any other fuel that powers the vehicle. For information on comparing well-to-whee ls emissions of conventional and plug-in vehicles, visit afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/ electric_ emissions.php. -·-1 I I ~~ Fuel Economy and Environment ., Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Electrlclty-Gesollne __ J J\4\v..I rH~IC• Mii .ary t~r n1•1.,., ,._.ont. lnd11dbt;i drh-ln-.a wm;Mlona 1.nd how ygu d,tn •nd m•nlo!n fi>\11 f.tllt.'11 The •••r•t19 new Hhkl• g•b Z2 MPG snd wah $12 .GOO tofu•I ~-5 J90f t ~:tt o,.tlrnotH et• b .. ed on 15 000 m1liu per yur at •l 70 par gaUo" and $0 12 r r •W hr TMs l:t •dual fuoJ.-d automobl&e MPGe la mU• P4Jr u-•ollin• gaDon equtvaleont V•bkl• eftlll•~• are o •lgralfh:•nl CMl .. o of dim1te dung• and em09 !~~.1!:=!?.~~!?:!XJJ~~•ohicleo @ ~@ 19 • • • N I 0 1• I \J I ~ I :::J I ~ Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Model Energy Fuel Economy Gasoline Engine; Impact Score* Smog GHG Gasoline Only Electric + Gasoline Starting Electric Motor (barrels petroleum / Score** Score** (mpg) (mpge) MSRP CJ --,, year) City/Hwy Combined City-Hwy Q_ BMW i3 w/ Range Extender 0.6L 2 cyl; 125kW ---m ---' <t> () i I s-. BMW i8 Plug-In Hybrid 1.5L 3 cyl ; 96kW $135,700 () --I -- I Cadiiia c ELR l.4L 4 cyl; 111 kW $75 ,995 ' I Chevrolet Volt 1.4L 4 cyl; 111 kW 3.1 J 6 10 35/ 40 98 $34,185 I I Ford C-MAX Energi 2.0L 4 cyl ; 68 kW 4.2 ~ ' 10 44 I 41 100 $32,950 I Ford Fusion Energi 2.0L 4 cyl; 68 kW 4.2 .......,,,! 7 10 44 I 41 100 $38,700 '() ('!) OJ Honda Accord 2.0L 4 cyl; 124 kW ' 9 10 47 I 46 $39,780 19 4.8 : 115 Plug-In Hybrid I ,-· ('!) VI Mclaren Pl 3.8L 8 cyl; 132 kW ' ! $1.4M est. lg -I ---- I .J). Porsche Panamera S < 3.0L 6 cyl; 70 kW -----$99 ,000 ('!) E-Hybrid -:::;- (') ('!) Toyota Prius Plug-In l.8L 4 cyl; 38 kW 4.7 ' 7 10 51 I 49 I 95 -OJ I c: '< *Assu ming 75,000 miles d r iven per yea r •• 70 =Best. ('!) ...... VI~ Gl . c: 1 -· . 0.. i ('!) • • • Cl ea n Ci t ies 2014 Veh icle Buyer's Guide Hy brid Elect ric • Sub aru XV Cro sst rek Hybri d . Photo from Subaru Hybrid technologies can boost fuel economy Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are powered by an internal combustion engine and an electric motor that uses (~nergy stored in a battery. HEVs run on gasoline and can't be plugged in to recharge the battery. Instead, the battery is charged by the internal combustion eng in e and through regenerative braking . The extra power provided by the electric mo t or allows for a smaller engine , resulting in better fuel economy without sacrif icin g performance. Some HEVs ach ieve fuel economy rat ings of 40 to 50 mpg. They general ly produce lower levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions than similar conventional vehicles . Hybrid configurations vary among models HEVs range from mild to full hybrids. Full hybrids can run on battery power alone dur- ing stops and at low speeds. When speeds increase, the electric motor works with the gasoline engine to provide power. Full hybrids are 25 % to 40 % more fuel efficient than comparable convent ional vehic les. Mi ld hybrids use a battery and electri c mo- tor to help power the vehicl e, allowing the Fo rd C-MAX Hyb r id. Photo from Ford Motor Company Ho nd a Acco r d. Photo from American Honda 21 • • • • Hybrid Electric Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 22 Lexus ES 300h . Photo f rom Lexus U.S.A. engine to shut off when the vehicle stops at traffic signals and in stop -and-go traffic , thu s imp rov i ng fu el economy. But electric- ity alone cannot propel a mild hybrid . These vehicles usually cost less than full hybrids , but th ey provide more modest incr eases in fuel economy. Get More Info on Fuel Economy Information , data , and tools to support efforts to improve fuel economy are all available at FuelEconomy.gov. There you can compare conventional and alternative fuel vehicles using the Find a Car tool. You can also get extensive information on fuel economy ratings, emi ssions , energy i mpacts, annual fuel costs, and more for vehicles of current and past model years. To find out what you can do to improve the fuel economy of your car, see page 26 or visit Driving More Efficiently (fue/economy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml) and Keepin9 Your Car in Shape (fue/economy.gov/feg/maintain. shtm!). Dep en ding on such factors as vehicle condition, where and how you drive, and fuel variations , your fuel economy may vary. ~IC.•-1 r1 u.,pHt1tJOPt u.s~ DIYll1)HIUMTA1. 'AJt0i.t .1r•, 1,.oncno,; Actwcv n ooc, C:illW Comp•..., Side· by-Side 2G l 4 Aud1QS"'rt>rid I l 'C U~aC..mry I H\'..,W Xlr/H ):>~·''-....,,..,...,,,(f<.ilc )';1, .... ,1.~t"'!•lWUt>.• lC~ ... ..-••. A .,.....r.~1 ·•..,_.~ 10t.l.o· •~1.>U(Wt t.,,~ ~·••Ro•' !1«••••!>c!1' T~ 26 Cf>Arutit~.­ lti""••<i.uau·• 40 \IM • i.e ··~·tu ... C' t"O'I ,di •Jw• ..c. ~W-lf'I -l\d. vol R.i.••••G.uta&W 47 28 25 lJ '" -.~ .. ~•9' t...Kf !)I" l v«~ ~~ •·•.t.t.Mf t.•:>•"•"....,'-..... ~~~ ... ...,w 41.ll JM•~t..t"T<>tlna-1:~,ct •~A ••:l.tl<)r·•~o ••Mio! ,.,h. )6 " ., 'tou ....... .., ,~_.. Tcn.i JAW ... $0 To.,, S AY! .... ,,_o You SAvt t5,7SO ....... SA"'I' s 1 ,0l>O ""' '"'~n """'1 •'!',...._ .,.,_ u:u:~o·N o; , • ....,, ,,..,.,....,HU''C.~N J ,..__ ... tt....lt¥Ci.n v.-...-J,,_..,., '"'*"• !"-...o-•~>'11'•••"';'~ (~·,•10U'*••.r.1 •Ut-(-.•o;,,tWl"l'•••"•(f( <U--0v~Wlt>4••"''~ U).,.""°'""""..:••'-'~~- >''•!' -~ ......... "' ..... "' <"<"'••hof.k ,,.,.,.."" .,,. • • • H b "d El t . V h" 1 M d 1 Engine Energy Impact Score* Smog GHG Fuel Economy Starting y n ec nc e 1c e o e . . Size (barrels petro leum/year) Score** Score** (mpg) City/Hwy MSRP Acura ILX l .5L 4 cyl 8.7 ' 9 9 39 I 38 $26 ,900 Audi 05 Hybrid AWD 2.0L 4 cyl 12.7 .... = ' 5 7 i 24/ 30 , -SihC I $51,300 BMW Ac tiveHybrid 3 3.0L 6 cyl 11 .8 ' 5 7 25 I 33 $49 ,7 00 BMW ActiveHybrid 5 3.0L 6 cyl 12.7 ' 5 7 23/ 30 $61,400 BMW Acti veHybrid 7 3.0L 6 cyl 13 .2 ' 5 6 22 / 30 $8 4 ,300 Ford C-MAX Hybrid 2.0L 4 cyl --10 $25,200 Fo rd Fus ion Hybrid 2.0L 4 cyl 7.0 ·' 7 10 47 I 47 $26 ,200 Honda Acco rd 2.0L 4 cyl 7.0 ' 7 10 50 I 45 $29,155 Honda Civic Hy brid l.5L 4 cyl Honda CRZ l .5L 4 cyl 8.9 _,,, ... ~ ··-' I 9 9 36 I 39 $19 ,995 ' Hond a Insight 1.3L 4 cyl 7.8 ' 9 9 41 I 44 Hyundai Sonata 2.4L 4 cyl 8.7 ' 8 9 36 / 40 lnfin it i 0 50 Hybrid FWD /AWD 3.5L 6 cyl 10.6 ' 5 8 29 I 36 $43,950 --------·----·----·--------------·---- •Assuming 15,000 miles driven pe r year *' 70 =Best. N VJ () (I) QJ ::I () ...... ([) Vl "-.> 0 ..... ~ < (I) ::::r n I (j) CD s:::: '< (!) : Vl GI 1:. a. ([) :r: '< u Q_ m I ro . () ,..... -.. () • N ~ • • • H b 'd El . V h' 1 M d 1 Engine Energy Impact Score* Smog GHG Fuel Economy Starting y ri ectric e 1c e o e . . Size (barrels petroleum/year) Score** Score** (mpg) City/Hwy MSRP lnfiniti 050S Hybrid FWD/AWD i 3.5L 6 cyl 11.0 'f 5 8 28 / 34 $46,350 I lnfiniti QX60 Hybrid I 2.5L 4 cyl ' 12.7 WTFT'ti 'f 26/ 28 $44,550 5 7 lnfiniti OX70 Hybrid 3.5L 6 cyl Kia Optima 2.4L 4 cyl 8.7 ... ... 'f 8 9 36/ 40 $25,900 Lexus CT 200h 1.8L 4 cyl Lexus ES 300h 2.5L 4 cy l 8 .2 'f 7 9 40 I 39 $39,350 I Lexus GS 450h 3.SL 6 cyl 10 .6 'f 7 8 29/ 34 - Lexus LS 600h L 5.0L 8 cyl 'f I 19 I 23 16.5 ; 7 5 $120,060 Lexus RX 450h FWD/AWD 3.5L 6 cyl 11.0 'f 7 8 32 I 28 $46,410 Lincoln MKZ I 2.0L 4 cyl I 'f 45/ 45 $36,190 7.3 7 I 10 Mercedes-Benz E400 Hybrid ; 3.5L 6 cyl 12.7 'f 6 I 7 24/ 30 $56,700 Nissan Pathfinder Hybrid 2WD/AWD 2.SL 4 cyl 12.7 'f 5 I 7 25 I 28 $35 ,110 I Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid ' 3.0L 6 cyl ' 15.7 'f 5 i 5 20 I 24 $70,900 •Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year •• 70 =Best. •• I '< •a-l :::;. Q_ I ~ () ....... -. () I n (!) Qj :J () ,.... (!) V1 "' 1 0 ..... ~ < I ~ () (!) I ro c I ~ I ~ I !::. 0.. I (!) • • • H b .d El t . V h" 1 M d 1 Engine Energy Impact Score* Smog GHG Fuel Economy Starting y n ec nc e 1c e o e . . Size (barrels petroleum/year) Score** Score** (mpg) City/Hwy MSRP Subar u XV Cro ss trek Hybrid 2.0L 4 cyl $25 ,595 Toyota Avalon I 2.5L 4 cyl : 8.0 • -~-.. -! 9 40 I 39 7 Toyo t a Camry 2.5L 4 cy l 8 .2 s ·--T 9 43 / 39 $22,235 Toyota Highlander 3 .S L 6 cyl Toyota Prius 1.8L 4 cyl 6.6 •• -T 7 10 51 I 48 Toyota Pr ius c I l.5L 4 cyl Toyota Prius v 1.8L 4 cyl 7.8 m= 0 T 7 9 44 / 40 $26,750 I Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid I l.4L 4 cyl 7.3 .. -=nT 7 10 42/ 48 $24,995 Volk swagen Tou areg Hybrid 3 .0L 6 cy l 15.7 -· =-~ 5 5 20 I 24 $67,170 *Assuming 15,000 miles driven per year •• 10 =Best N CJ1 I :;; QI jg (t) (/) N 0 ..... ~ < It> I :!. n ' It> I OJ 1!2 13- CI I C: I 0: C1) I I ~ ~ 0.: rn I ~· :. • • • • Hybrid Electric Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide 26 uels Data Center , ,~ :"~ ~~~. .....°'. 'Ill' ,,,_;.,.i ,.~, -,:.I It• f • -,,_,;i ~illHf;:..~;~ r.:.. ,,........,.~ ::..:."'::.."',.. :Jo.IW4'" if ~·..i• """ ... V i ~u"~ I Optimize Incentives for a Shift to Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles The upfront costs of a trans ition to alternative fuels or advanced vehicles can, in many cases, be offset by lower operating costs and by federal, state , and local tax exemptions , re bates , grants , or other incentives. A comprehensive database of state and federal laws and incen- tives related to alternative fuels and vehicles , air qual ity, fuel efficiency, and other transportation topics is available at afdc.energy.gov/laws. Be sure to consult with your ta x advisor to deter- mine your eligibility for any tax incentive. ;. ..... ~, ---~~.............,o1 u_~,.,.,_--~._;_.;:=,:~.~-~-~------------------- Easy Steps to Improve Fuel Economy Driving behaviors significantly impact fuel economy. To get the most out of each gallon (or kilowatt-hour), follow these tips: • Don't drive aggressively: Avoid jack-rabbit starts, hard braking, and swift acceleration. • Remove excess weight: Don 't keep unnecessary items in your vehicle. Photo from iStock 3886863 • Keep tires properly inflated: Check the sticker inside your door or glove box for the proper pressure. • Don't speed: Fuel economy generally decreases at speeds above 50 mph . • Remove rooftop boxes and racks when not in use: Increased drag lowers fuel economy. • Avoid idling: Turn off yo u r engine when parked. • Keep the engine tuned: Delaying maintenance can impact fuel efficiency. • Combine trips: Several short trips from cold starts use more fuel than one multi-purpose trip . For more tips and informat ion, visit fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive .s html. • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide Etha nol Fl ex -Fuel Ford F-150. Photo from Ford Motor Company Flex-fuel vehicles can operate on gasoline or ESS Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are able to run on gasoline, E85, or any combination of the two. E85 is a blend of gasoline and ethanol, with the ethanol content ranging be- tween 51% and 83%, depending on geographical location and season.* According to EPA estimates, the fuel economy of today's FFVs is 25% to 30% lower when running on E85, becaus e ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. However, E85 is a high-octane fuel, so drivers typically experience better power and performance on E85 than on gaso line. An FFV is often distinguished by a decal on the back of the vehicle, and many FFVs have yellow fuel caps. As of December 2013, E85 is available at more than 2,300 pub li cly accessib le loca- tions. See page 14 for infor mation about finding E85 stations near you. ' The E85 fuel economy estimates presente d in this section are based on tests with blends conta ining 79%-85% ethanol. --···-------------~~-~ Audi AS quattro. Photo courtesy of Audi Buick Lacrosse . Photo from General Motors 27 • • • 28 Ethanol Flex-Fuel Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide -------- I --------- Chevro let Equinox_ Photo from Genera l Motors E15 and Intermediate Ethanol Blends EPA has approved the use of ethanol-gasoline blends up to E15 for use in all 2001 and newer ve hicles . Fuel containing more than 15% ethanol is only approved for use in FFVs. This includes various intermediate blends now available from stations with ethanol blender pumps. Using blends higher than E15 in non-FFVs may result in maintenance, safety, or performance problems. Blends of ElS and above are not approved for use in motorcycles; vehicles with heavy-d uty engines; off-road vehicles , such as boats and snowmobiles; off-road equipment, such as lawnmowers and chainsaws; or any conventional vehicles from 2000 or older. For more information, visit epa .gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e75/e75 -faq.htm. Me rcedes-Benz E350 4Matic Photo from Mercedes-Benz USA Jeep ,~, Grand Cherokee. Photo from Chrysler Group LLC N ill • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Audi A4 quattro Audi AS quattro Audi AS Cabriolet quattro Audi Allroad quattro Audi QS AWD Bentley Continenta l Supersports Bentley Continental GT Bentley Continental GTC Bentl ey Contin ental Flying Spur Engine Size 2.0L 4 cyl 2.0L 4 cyl 2.0L 4 cyl 2.0L 4 cyl 2.0L 4 cyl 6.0L 12 cyl 6.0L 12 cyl 6.0L 12 cyl 6.0L 12 cy l •A ssuming 75,000 miles driven p er year '* 70 =Be st. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline Cl'Z!!!!ll On £85 C==:J 13.7 ' 4.7 ' 14 .3 ' 4.7 ' 14 .3 ' =-------- 4.7 ' 14.3 ' S.O ' 14.3 ·-i "'-i..,-iliiiiiiiliiiii ' 4.7 -~' 22 ... -· -•"== _, 6 .8 ' 22 6.8 22 • -----i-&W'iiill&f 'illiliimW -~--' 6 .8 22 ..... "~---'illilililiillil"~·--·' 6.8 ' Smog Score ** 5 5 5 s s s s 5 s GHG Score** Gasoline/ £85 6/6 6/6 6/6 6/S 6 /6 2/2 2/2 2/2 2 /2 Fuel Economy (mpg) Gasoline E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy 20 I 29 14 I 20 20 I 29 14/20 20 I 29 14 / 20 20 I 27 14/18 20 I 28 14I19 12 I 20 9 I 15 12 I 21 9 I lS 12/ 20 9 /lS 12 I 20 9 I 15 • Starting MSRP $34,700 $39,000 $46 ,600 $40,700 $37,300 - - () (!) OJ :::::i () ...... ('!) (/) N 0 ..... ~ < (!) ::r I ~ OJ s::: !'< I (!) ..... (/) G) s::: a. ('!) m ',..,. ' ::y OJ ;:} Q 11 I ~ "Tl c I CD • • • VJ ! • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Chevrolet Equinox FWD/AWD Chevrolet Express 1500 2WD/AWD Chevrolet Express 2500 2WD Chevrolet Express 3500 2WD Chevrolet Impala Chevrolet Impala Limited Police Chevrolet Si lverado 1500 2WD/4WD Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD/4WD Chevrolet Suburban 2WD/4WD Engine Size 3.6L 6 cyl 5.3L 8 cyl 6.0L 8 cyl 6.0L 8 cyl 3.6L 6 cyl ' 3.6L 6 cyl 4.3L 6 cyl 5.3L 8 cyl 5.3L 8 cyl ·Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year. *' 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (ba r rels petroleum/year) On Gasoline C!!!!!!J On E85 c;::::J 16.5 ' 4.7 ' 22.0 . -.. ··' 6.8 ' 25.3 ' y---5 .... -. """FSJ""~"ZZtFT "WW-we 8.3 ' 27.5 ....... n 1 7DCH 8 .3 ' 15.0 ' 4.7 ' 16.5 ' 5.3 ___ , 17.3 y 5.3 19.4 ' 5.8 ' i Smog Score** 6 6 2 2 6 6 6 6 I GHG Score** Gasoline/ E85 5/6 2/3 l / l 1/1 5/6 5/4 4/5 3/4 Fuel Economy (mpg) Gasoline E85 City/Hwy I City/Hwy 17 / 24 13 / 22 13/18 10I13 11/16 8/11 I 11 /16 ! 8/11 19 / 29 14 / 20 18 / 24 12 /16 16 / 23 12/17 15 / 21 11/16 ! I • Starting MSRP $24 ,360 - - - $31,715 $31,715 . (') I ro I g; lg I ~ N 19 .f;>. < Cl) :::r n ' Cl) °' c .'< : Cl) ... VI i Cl I S:: I g: I ~ ::J'" I ~ 0 1 - I 11 <tl x I 11 c (1) • w . N Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model • Chevrolet Tahoe Police 2WD/4WD 5 .3L 8 cyl Chevrolet Tahoe 2WD/4WD 5.3L 8 cyl Chrysler 200 3 .6L 6 cyl Chrysler 300 FWD/AWD 3.6L 6 cyl Chrysler Town & Country 3.6L 6 cyl Dodge Avenger 3.6L 6 cyl Dodge Charger FWD/AWD 3.6L 6 cyl Dodge Charger Pol ice Pursuit 3.6L 6 cyl Dodge Durango 2WD/AWD 3 .6L 6 cyl *Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year •• 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline a::::::::i On E85 c:;:::J - 19.4 .• ._ -~~'i*?WF¥*¥tl"""'lt " ' 3.8 ' 15.0 w.~·v ' '"i:i:ft<'"''°' ~P W-: 4.7 ' 14.3 ' 4.4 ----~ 16.5 11 -·n1ar • _, .• ,. T 5.3 15.0 .. -.. -• 9 ·--' 4.7 ' 14.3 ' 4.4 ' - 17.3 ' 5.0 Smog Score** 6 6 6 6 6 6 - 6 GHG Score** Gasoline/ f 85 - 3/4 5/6 6/6 5/5 5/6 6/6 - 4/5 Fuel Economy (mpg) Gasoline E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy - 15 I 21 11I16 19 / 29 14/ 21 19 / 31 14/ 23 17 I 25 12I18 19 /29 14 I 21 19 I 31 14/ 23 - 17 / 24 13 /18 • Starting MSRP - $41,600 $21,195 $30,545 $30,765 $19,989 $26,295 - - m ,....,. ::; OJ ::J 0 .,., ([) x I 12 ~ I () I '° Qi I :::J I () 1 -· i ,....,.. I ;;)' VI I N l g 1.i:.. '< ('!) ::::; 1n· I ('!) OJ c: '< ('!) ""' VI- G) c: 0.. ('!) <.N <.N • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Dodge Durango Police Special Service Vehicle Dodge Grand Caravan Dodge Journey FWD Ford Police Interceptor Ford Police Interceptor Utility Ford E-150/250/350 Ford E-350/450 Cutaway Ford Expedition 2WD/AWD Ford Explorer 2WD/AWD Engine Size 3.6L 6 cyl 3.6L 6 cyl 3.6L 6 cyl 3.SL 6 cyl 3.7L 6 cyl 3.7L 6 cyl 4.6L 8 cyl 5.4L 8 cyl 5.4L 8 cyl 5.4L 8 cyl 3.5L 6 cyl •Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year. '* 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline ~-On £85 ·--- 16.5 -~-~--·-~ • -iii --... T 5.3 T 17.3 5.3 T - 22.0 T 6.8 T T 25.3 I I -= ,.,_ .. j w=m 7.5 ___J 20.0 T 6.2 T 16 .5 T 5.0 J Smog Score** 6 6 - 2 - 6 5 GHG Score** Gasoline/ £85 - 5/5 4/5 2/2 1I2 3/3 5/5 Fuel Economy (mpg) I Gasoline E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy - 17 I 25 12 /18 17 I 25 12/18 --i 13I16 10I12 12I16 9I12 14 I 20 10I14 17 I 24 13I18 • Starting MSRP - $19,995 $29,730 $27,030 $41,180 $29,600 (') ('[) I ~ lg I C'D VI N 1 0 . _. :~ 1< ('[) . ::J"" n : ('[) i OJ c 1'< I ('[) I .., I 111~ GI c I ~ m ,....,.. -:::;- Q) ::J Q Tl ro x I Tl c ! ro VJ -t:- • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Ford F-150 Ford Focus Ford Super Duty F-250/350 Ford Super Duty F-350 Ford Taurus FWD/AWD Ford Transit 150/250/350 Ford Transit 250/350 GMC Savana 1500 2WD/AWD GMC Savana 2500 2WD Engine Size 3.7L 6 cyl 5 .0L 8 cyl 2.0L 4 cyl 6.2L 8 cyl 6.2L 8 cyl 3.5L 6 cyl 3.7L 6 cyl 3.7L 6 cyl 5.3L 8 cyl 6 .0L 8 cyl *Assumin g 75,000 miles driven per y ear ** 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petro leum/year) On Gasoline • ,. On £85 e::;::J 17.3 ' ' 5.3 ---·------- 11.0 .. • •• -...... ' 3.3 ..,.J_ - - 14.3 ' 4.7 ' - - 22.0 ' 6 .8 25 .3 • llllililMr""i -'tiilti;i; ' 8.3 Smog Score** 6 6 - - 5 - - 6 2 GHG Score** Gasoline/ £85 4/5 8/8 2/2 - 6/6 - - 2/3 1I 1 I i ! Fuel Economy (mpg) Gasoline E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy 17 I 23 12 I 17 26 I 37 20 I 28 - -- 19 /29 13 I 21 -- - 13I18 10 I 13 11 I 16 8 /11 • Starting MSRP $24,070 $16 ,310 $29 ,875 $30,230 $26,700 - - - m ....... :::> I ~ 0 11 I ~ 11 1 C <1) '("') i IB ::;, ("') ...... (!) (/) ,N 0 ! ..... I .i:>. < ('!) I ;;;; I ~ i ('!) OJ c: "< I ro I """.. ' Vl G) I ~. '0.. (!) • • • (') ('[) Q) :::i (') ...... ('[) (./) Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model I Energy Impact Score* GHG Score** I Fuel Economy (mpg) Engine (barrels petroleum /year) Smog Gasoline/ Gasoline E85 Starting Size Score ** MSRP On Gasoline C:!!!I 0 n E85 c:::::::J E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy N 27.5 .. .---·· '. -··· ., I ~ GMC Savana 3500 2WD 6 .0L 8 cvl ' 2 1I1 11I 16 8I11 - 8.3 It> ::J" 16 .5 -,.--""' I ;::; GMC Sierra 1500 2WD/4WD 4.3L 6 cyl ' 6 5/4 18/ 24 12I16 $32,215 1- 5.3 i (1) ' O::J s::: i7 .3 T "< I CD GMC Sierra 1500 2WD/4WD 5.3L 8 cyl 6 4/5 16 I 23 12 /17 $32 ,215 I ""'t 5.3 ' I ~ I (.I) G) 12.7 ' I ~ GMC Terrain AWD 2.4L 4 cyl 6 7/6 22 I 32 15 I 22 $26,465 4.2 "'-·' I ('[) 16.5 . ' GMC Terrain FWD /AWD 3.6L 6 cyl 4.7 --' 6 5/6 17 I 24 13 I 22 $26,465 22.0 ' 0-M'"Z--' GMC Yukon Denali 4WD 6.2L 8 cyl wnmz 6 2/3 13I18 10I14 $59,815 6 .2 ' 19.4 ' GMC Yukon XL 2WD/4WD 5.3L 8 cyl .J 6 3/4 15 I 21 11 /16 5.8 20.6 "' ' I I m GMC Yukon XL 2WD/4WD 6.2L 8 cyl =wmn -i ww -e 6 3/3 14I18 10 /15 ' ...... :J"' 6.2 OJ :J Q 20 .6 -.. ' I,, GMC Yukon 2WD 6.2L 8 cyl Wr5 6 3/3 14 / 18 10I15 $42,955 ' I <D 6.2 I ~ Tl c *Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year '* 70 =Best. I <D {.J<.I U1 a • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model GMC Yukon 2WD/4WD Jaguar XF FFV Jaguar XF FFV Jaguar XJ FFV Jaguar XJ FFV Jaguar XJL FFV Jaguar XJL FFV Jeep " Grand Cherokee 2WD/FWD ~· Land Rover Range Rover Engine Size 5.3L 8 cyl 3.0L 6 cyl 5.0L 8 cyl 3.0L 6 cyl 5.0L 8 cyl 3.0L 6 cyl 5.0L 8 cyl 3.6L 6 cyl 3.0 L 6 cyl •Assuming 75,000 miles driven per year '* 70 =Best • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline ~ On £85 ·• ·- 19.4 --rm·szsx 'f ... 5.8 --' 15.7 • "'"""'"' ·~· '"-"'' 5.0 ' 18.3 -Hliil 18lllii·" · -T''liii':lilfi--.·' 5.8 J 15.7 = . ' x -~ 5.3 18.3 o.;;·· -nm;1 ... i1F .. ••1·=! 5.8 ' 15.7 ' 5.3 " 18.3 •&YR•ut•wp -' - 5.8 16.5 ' 4.7 ' 17.3 ! 5.3 ' Smog Score** 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 ' I ' I I ' GHG Score** Gasoline/ E85 3/4 5/5 4/4 5/5 4/4 5/5 4/4 5/5 4/4 Fuel Economy (mpg) Gasoline E85 City/Hwy 1 City/Hwy 15 I 21 11 /16 17 I 28 19I19 15 I 23 11I17 18 I 27 12I19 15 I 23 11I17 17 I 27 11I19 15 I 23 11I17 17 /25 14/ 19 17 I 23 12I16 • Starting MSRP $42,955 $46,975 $46,975 $73,200 $73,200 $73,200 $73,200 $22,995 $63,497 m ,.._,.. :::; CJ.J :::J 0 "TI ro x I 11 c (]) I i I n ct> QI :J () ,.... (!) VI I tv 1 0 '_. .j:l. I < ct> 16 I tt> OJ . c: I '< ('!) I """-. VI I ~ ,-· c.. ct> (.N -....J • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Land Rov er Range Rover Land Rover Range Rover Sport Land Rover Range Rover Sport Lincoln Navigator 2WD/AWD Mercedes-Benz C300 4Matic Mercedes-Ben z C350 Sedan/Coupe Mercede s-Benz E350 4Matic Sedan /Coupe Mercedes-Benz E35 0 Sedan/Coupe Mercedes-Benz ML350 4Matic Engine Size 5.0L 8 cyl 3.0L 6 cyl , 5.0L 8 cyl 5.4L 8 cyl 3.5L 6 cyl 3.5L 6 cyl 3.SL 6 cyl 3.5L 6 cyl 3.SL 6 cyl •Assuming 75, 000 miles driven per year. ** 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline E!!!!!!I On £85 c=::1 20.6 " 6 .8 " 17.3 ·-·------··-" " 5.3 20.6 ·-· -" 6.8 20.6 " 6 .2 15.0 ---· -A " 4.7 " 14.3 1111 ...... "' " 4.4 " 13.7 " 4.4 13.7 " 4 .2 17.3 " 5.0 _-l I ! Smog Score** 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 I I I GHG Score** 1 Fuel Economy (mpg) , Gasoline/ £85 3/3 4/4 3/3 3/3 6/6 6/6 6/6 6/6 5/5 I Gasoline E85 City/Hwy City/Hwy 14 /19 9I14 17 I 23 12 I16 14/ 19 9I14 14 / 20 10I14 20 I 27 14 / 20 20 I 29 15 I 21 20 I 29 15 I 21 21 I 31 I 16 I 23 i 17 I 22 13 I 17 • Starting MSRP $63,497 $63,497 $63,497 $57,8 75 $39,4 00 $42,100 $54,400 $51,900 $47,790 () ('[) OJ '::I I o. ..... ct) (/'I N 0 ..... ~ < '('[) ::r 1;:;;· l et> I OJ I ~ 13 G) I ~ ,m I I I I I I Im ..... :::;- QJ ::J Q Tl C'D x I Tl c I C'D (.N CX> • Flex-Fuel Vehicle Model Engine Size Niss an Armada 2WD/4WD 5.6L 8 cyl Nissan Titan 2WD/4WD 5.6L 8 cyl Ram 1500 2WD/4WD 3.6 L 6 cyl Ram C/V 3.6L 6 cyl Toyota Sequoia 4WD 5.7 L 8 cyl Toyota Tundra 4WD 5.7L 8 cyl 1 •Assuming 75,000 miles driven per y ea r .. 70 =Best. • Energy Impact Score* (barrels petroleum/year) On Gasoline c:::!!!!!'I On £85 c::::::::1 22.0 llllili-;,&1;11 ' 6.8 ' 22.0 ' 6.8 ' 16.5 5.3 ' 15.7 ' MW" -··~==' 5.0 ~ 22.0 . ' 6 .8 _,__J 22.0 I ~· .... ,._ _____ , 6.8 ' • , I GHG Score** ! Fuel Economy (mpg) ! Smog Gasoline/ Gasoline E85 Starting Score** I MSRP m ....... :::; OJ ::J ·O £85 City/Hwy City/Hwy Tl 'CD ,x ' I 5 2/2 12 I 19 9 I 13 $36,890 Tl ,c . CD ,- 5 2/2 13I18 9 I 13 6 5/5 17 I 25 12 I1 7 6 5/5 18/ 26 13 I 18 $21,360 5 2/2 13 I 17 9I12 $43 ,595 () <t> 'QJ ::J () 5 2/2 13I17 9I12 $25,920 'M" ' <t> Vl I N 0 ..... .i::. ·< I <t> ,~ (") <t> OJ c: '< <t> .... Vl~ G) c: 0.. <t> • • • Clean Cities 2014 Vehicle Buyer's Guide --- ..~lean Cities U.S. Department of Energy ------··---· Clean Cities advances the nation's economic, environmental, and energy security by supporting local actions to cut petro- leum use in transportation. A national network of nearly 100 Clean Cities coalitions brings together stakeholders in the public and private sectors to deploy alternative and renew- able fuels, idle-reduction measures, fuel economy improve- ments , and emerging transportation technologies. For more information, visit: • cleancities.energy.gov • fueleconomy.gov • afdc.energy.gov ti western Washington • Columbia-Willamette • Rogue Valley • Treasure Va lley Sacramento East Bay • • San Francisco':. Silicon Valley ' San Joaquin • Utah •• Yellowstone-Teton Northern Colorado • e Denver • Southern Colorado -: •Valley Las Vegas Central Coast•\ -\ e , Antelope Vaile~South<;rn California Winnipeg r • North Dakota Twin Cities e I ,Iowa• Kansas City·=] •Tulsa Capital District central New York ·xermont \ • • eMaine Genesee Region ' ' Granite State , , Western New York \ < ;1 •Ma~"achusetts W1Sconsm Lansing , • a.~ Ocean State i' • e Detroit _ New --........;,, Connecticut* ' e• NEO·h--e --' A 10 Jersey-' -Long Island Chicago• .-Ar~~: • Pittsburgh -1" Empire South Shore • '---~:,9i~n K~ Greater Philadelphia Greater Indiana e Clean Wes; ., ~ De laware Fuels Ohio e Virginia ~ State of Maryland •St Louis e ~ I Wash ington DC • Kentucky Virginia East Tennessee• _ -, ~Triangle i • • ' • Centrallna 1 Los Angeles T' , . Western Riverside County Long Beach 4' ' • Coachella •Valley of '• Land of Central Oklahoma• Middle -Land of Sky , Ark~nsas I Tennessee • Palmetto San Diego Region Valley -'the Sun Region Enchantment •Tucson Honolul~ •Connecticut Clean Cities Include: -Norwich -New Haven -Connecticut Southwestern Area -Capitol Clean Cities of Connecticut ! : • • State Al1bama \ Georgia '\ 1 Dallas/Ft Worth • Lone Star• Alamo Area• Louisiana• • Houston/ Galveston v •:Southeast ,. 'T'l;louisiana t ! e Central Florida \ • Southeast Florida 39 • • • U.S. Department of Energy • • • https ://www.colorado.gov/paci fi c/ energyoffice/ cng-fa gs The ALT Fuels Colorado grant program is designed to remove barriers to the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) by addressing the lack of fueling infrastructure. The program also addresses the initial costs of AFVs by providing incentives to offset incremental costs . ALT Fuels Colorado will provide $30 million over a 4 year period (2014 to 2017) through the Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program and the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) to advance Colorado's adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). Under the Colorado Energy Office's stewardship, $15 million of the CMAQ funds will be used to target investments in alternative fueling stations along major statewide transportation corridors with the goal of developing an intrastate system for AFV travel. The remaining $15 million will be distributed by the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) under a separate application and awarded to successful applicants for the purchase of natural gas, electric , and propane-powered fleet vehicles within the State 's air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas . Collectively , these grants will provide funding to advance the adoption of alternative fuels in the transportation sector.CNG Green Purchasing https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dfp/GreenPurchasing Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) or Green Purchasing, means to purchase a product that has a lesser or reduced negative effect or increased positive effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose . Incorporating EPP in the procurement process considers raw materials acquisition, production, fabrication, manufacturing , packaging, distribution, reuse , operation, maintenance, and disposal of the product. The EPP Policy was created in compliance with Executive Order 00012 07 to reduce consumption , waste , and possible environmental impacts by considering life cycle when making purchasing decisions . David Musgrave Supplier Diversity Liaison (303) 866-3640 David .Musgrave@state.co .us Natural Gas 101 In order to use natural gas as a transportation fuel, it must either be compressed or liquefied to provide energy density similar to gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas is put under pressure and stored at approximately 3600 psi. Liquefied natural gas is chilled to -260° F until it becomes a liquid. Neither liquefying nor compressing change the chemical properties of natural gas and it can then be burned just as in other applications , with only minor modifications needed to inject it into the engine . Approximately 5 .7 lbs of compressed natural gas provide the same energy content as an equivalent gallon of gasoline . Cost of a Gallon Equivalent of Compressed Natural Gas • • • Because it is a gas , CNG natural gas is often referred to in "gallon gasoline equivalents,'' or GGE, to provide a comparison between CNG and gasoline and diesel. Nationally , the price of a gallon equivalent of CNG has averaged $1 .90 since 2008, while gasoline and diesel have an average price of $2.86 and $2 .90 respectively. Additionally, crude oil is nearly 60% of the price of diesel at the pump; natural gas is only 1 /3 of the price of CNG, which acts as a natural hedge for CNG prices against commodity price shocks.[i] [i] U.S . Energy Information Administration Environmental Performance Estimates of vehicle emissions can vary, depending on factors such as engine usage, model design, and even the characteristics of specific engines. Several recent models show the lifecycle reduction of greenhouse gases to vary in magnitude from 4-28% when switching from diesel engines to natural gas . While pre-2007 heavy-duty diesel engines are much more polluting than CNG in terms of regulated emissions (NOx, particulate matter, CO), the EPA's new heavy-duty diesel standards implemented in 2007 bring diesel engine compliance to similar levels as natural gas engines . Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are portions of gasoline and diesel that are often released by evaporation during fueling and storage; they contribute to formation of ground level ozone and are also greenhouse gases. Use of natural gas vehicles almost completely eliminates evaporative VOCs due to the sealed nature of the natural gas fueling and storage process , although there are occasional system leakages that result in the release of methane . Colorado Natural Gas Supply and Oil Imports Colorado has the 3rd largest natural gas reserves of any state . As a state we produce about 4 times more natural gas than we consume each year, but only produce 1 /3 of the state petroleum consumption. As a nation, 98% of the natural gas that we consume comes from North America. It is estimated that over 51,200 direct jobs in the State of Colorado come from the oil and gas industry, providing $3 .8 billion in income. Is CNG Safe? Natural gas has a narrow flammability range and, because it is lighter than air, dissipates quickly if released . NGV fuel tanks are strong and extremely puncture resistant and must meet standard safety specifications . All legal CNG vehicles and conversion kits must meet the same safety and environmental requirements as other vehicles . What is Different Between a CNG and Gasoline Vehicle? Natural gas vehicles are very similar in nature to gasoline and diesel vehicles that we drive today . Generally speaking, the biggest change is a hardened fuel tank that is capable of storing pressurized gas. Some modifications must be made to the engine and fuel delivery system as well, to allow for the efficient injection of gas into the cylinders . • • • How Much Does a CNG Vehicle Cost? Currently the Honda Civic Natural Gas is the only consumer vehicle that is available from automobile manufacturers, with the natural gas model costing approximately$6,900 more than its gasoline counterpart . In a transit application, estimates from one bus manufacturer approximate the incremental cost of natural gas buses to be $42,000. For comparison, a diesel- hybrid bus costs approximately $200,000 more than a pure diesel bus. How Does Colorado's Elevation Impact CNG Vehicle Performance? Advances in natural gas engine technologies have allowed CNG vehicles to run at high elevation just like diesels . At a recent conference for the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies , several bus manufacturers demonstrated this ability by taking CNG buses up Rabbit Ears Pass near Steamboat Springs . When do you use CNG or LNG? CNG is typically used in light to medium-duty vehicles as a substitute for either gasoline or diesel while LNG is typically used in medium to heavy duty vehicles as a diesel substitute. Because LNG is more energy dense, it can meet the needs of long-range heavy-duty vehicles using smaller sized tanks. How Stable are Compressed Natural Gas Prices? Forward markets provide the option to purchase fuel through 2018 with a price differential of nearly $2/gallon between diesel and CNG . The U.S . Energy Information Administration forecasts natural gas prices to remain under $5/mmBtu in real terms for over a decade whereas petroleum price increases are expected to be higher and more volatile . Is Hybrid Technology Compatible with Diesel and CNG Engines? Yes . Hybrid technology increases fuel efficiency and lowers the tailpipe emissions of a vehicle . While it is traditionally implemented on gasoline and diesel vehicles, hybrid technology is also applicable to CNG vehicles. Denver was the first to demonstrate this with CNG hybrid buses on the 16th Street Mall. THE MINOTOUR® CNG BUS EFFICIENT FUEL . EFFICIENT SIZE . • • • You're not simply responsible for transporting passengers from point A to school, and back. You're setting an example for them . Which is why we launched the Minotour® with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) offering our customers a green, customizable transportation solution. The Minotour CNG puts out up to 13% lower greenhouse gas emissions than diesel engines, while offering a range of options to meet the needs of drivers and passengers. Since 1936, Thomas Built has been building safe buses to meet the needs of passengers , drivers and the community . And with one of the most extensive dealer networks in the industry, there's always support nearby when you need it. FAST FACTS Seating Capacity Wheelbase GVWR Transmission Engine Warranty Up to 30 GM® Chassis 159" 14,200 lbs . 6-speed automatic GM 6 .0L Vortec powered by IMPCO Automotive 3-year/36,000-mile limited bumper-to-bumper warranty • • • Fuel Tank 4-tank system , 26 GGE THE MINOTOUR® PROPANE BUS EFFICIENT FUEL . EFFICIENT SIZE . Propane is the world's most popular clean-burning alternative fuel. In North America we have an abundant domestic supply . And it's 40% less expensive than a gallon of gasoline or diesel on a btu basis . So it just makes sense to consider propane for school bus fleets. Setting up the infrastructure is an easy and relatively low-cost proposition . PROPANE-FUELED VEHICLES PERFORM. You can expect exceptional power and quiet operation from your Thomas Built Buses propane- fueled Minotaur® bus . The fully-integrated fuel system is also backed by GM's warranty and service network. And this Minotaur bus is available with popular options like a wheelchair lift and air conditioning . FAST FACTS Seating Capacity Wheelbase GVWR Transmission Engine Power Warranty Fuel Tank Up to 30 159" 14,200 lbs . 6-speed automatic GM 6 .0L LPG with liquid propane injection system 332 hp @ 4 700 rpm Torque -370 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm 5-year/100, 000-mile transferable powertrain limited warranty and 3- year/36,000-mile limited bumper-to-bumper warranty 3-tank system, estimated 315 mile maximum range; gas gallon equivalent of 35 gallons • • • . .. Mu Bus · -il ~n<vA."<tw.Arr l '1t Today you will transport future teachers , soccer stars and scientists. When you travel safely to and from childcare or reach your mission trip destination, you 're not just driving , you're supporting dreams and building futures . And, while that's a big task, MyBus® is built to handle it. With features like Saf-T-Vue windows, exterior guardrails and roof crash rails, you get the safety features of a school bus, with the driving and maintenance ease of a van. Holds up to 30 passengers . Acts much bigger . • • • BUILT JUST AS STRONG AS BIGGER MEMBERS OF OUR FAMILY. • • At Thomas Built Buses, our mission is to provide transportation options that enable you to operate more efficiently. Our Minotour• bus offers flexibility without sacrificing safety or features. It truly is a big bus in a compact package -with safety cage body construction. one piece skirt-to-skirt roof bows and internal roof crash rails for rollover protection, As a result. this rugged bus meets all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses . The Minotour also offers a variety of benefits -from ergonomic driver controls and a Saf-T-Vue window to seating options for up to 30 passengers and easy serviceability. It can be equipped with a wheelchair lift. various seat options and flexible track seating. Put simply, the Thomas Minotaur offers a lot of bus in an efficiently designed package. And that's huge. • ·~1-... ~· ~ " l! mmntm m • u, 11: • t •'. I PLENTY OF STORAGE We offer standard stor.,e COllYeniently localed .-.... driwr area for personal items and emergency equipmenl The electrical $ystem was designed with your convenience in mind. Removable panels and printed circuit boards located above the drtvei:·s seat provide quick and easy access to the ' SAF-T-VUE WINDOW Continuous skirt-to-skirt 14-gauge roof ,,, rafters and root crash rails and a 1Z-gauge (3/16, concave rear bumper are jusl a few -.. that mak< this bus -dy and safe. • .11;; SRW I 9.900 lbs. SRW I 10.100 lbs. DRW041 l 10,050 lbs. ORW 041 I 12,300 lbs. DRW 041 l 11.500 lbs . DRW051 I 12.300- 14,200 lbs. access to the secure body master circuit breakers when troubleshooting or to stop battery drain for vehicles that are parked for extended periodS-Reoettkc is quick and easy. Up to 14 GM 139 Up to 16 GM 139 Up to 20 GM 139 Up to 24 GM 139 Up to 24 Ford 138 Up to 30 GM 159 Up 10 30 Ford 158 • Gas 4.8 liter, 285 bhp Gas 4.8 l iter. 285 bhp Gas 6.0 liter. 300 bhp Diesel 6.6 liter. 250 bhp Gas 6.0 liter, 300 bhp Diesel 6.6 liter. 250 bhp Gas 5.4 li1er. 255 bhp Gas 6.0 Liier. 300 bhp Diesel 6.6 Li ler. 250 bhp Propane 6.0 l iter Gas 6.8 liter. 305 bhp • • ~DI ~--:::::::;: ~ -- • BUILT FOR TODAY, TOMORROW AND NEXT MONTH'S ACTIVITY. The ~inotour is lhe safe choice for schools, child care centers. churches. aclivit y centers and youth organizations. Inside. the Minotaur is spacious and holds up to 30 people. Or it can be easily configured for a wheelchair lift and multiple seat in g styles. With a full-he ighl entrance door. the interior also offers a wide center aisle, 73 inches of headroom and interior dome lights. The Minotaur has been designed for funct io n and fle1C ibil ity. It comes equipped with a variety of standard features. Including daytime running lights. four-wheel ant i-lock brakes and a 42 " x 4r glass-paneled rear ~gency door. You can also choose from a seleclion of oplional convenience features. like dash and rear a ir condilioning. an electrically operated front entrance door and remote-controlled. heated mirrors. And the Minolour's sealing oplions provide plenty of added flexibility . even as needs change from year to year. Optional whfflchair liift with~· wide door: a variety of~llfts.•e&Y.a.ble. With optioMI tl"Kit sHtina, the lloor plln can euily be adtipted to s:uit )'QUI' c:hanginc need&. Ptssenlff suts can ~ quickly removed to allow for Mfditionel whreek:Nir .ecurements... THE THOMAS ADVANTAGE Founded in 1916. Thomas Built Buses is a leading manufactu ~~r of school buses in North America . Since the first Thomas Built bus rolled off the assembly line , the company nas been committed to delivering the smartest and most innovative buses in the industry. Each bus comes with thorough market exper ti se, an extensive dealer network and all the customer support. service and parts availabi lity you need . To learn more or find a local dealer, vis it www.thomasbus .com. ~. Because every mile matters~' "~IJ FSC www.fs~.Ol'9 MIX • • • www.governmentfleet.com Fuel Management -Hybrid Service Truck Reduces Fuel Costs November 2014, Government Fleet -Feature THE 2014 HINO 195H HYBRID SERVICE TRUCK Used and in use now : • Ford F-350 super-duty • Ford F-450 • Peterbilt 335 1. Saved more than 2,200 hours of staff time 2. Calculated repair $66,000 and $84,000 . 3. Reduced cost price $23,000. 4. The cost differential between a conventionally powered diesel model and the hybrid unit was $12,087 • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG (An updated compa rison of transit fleet alternatives) by: Ste ve R i c h ardso n, P r es i dent P ub l ic Solu t io n s G roup, Ltd. (Jan u ary 2013) N O TICE This paper was prepared as a comparative study. Neither Public Solutions Group, Ud .. nor any of its employees, makes any warranty. express or implied, ar assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product , or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Public Sol u tions Group. © 2013 by Public So lutions Group, Ltd. All rights reserved • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 2 Introduction Transit agencies across the nation have been faced with uncertain fuel prices and changes in environmental regulations that affect the continued use of diesel engines and diesel fuel. While trying to address rising fuel costs and environmental issues many transit agencies have introduced alternative fuel and vehicle technologies into their existing diesel-powered fleets. The challenge is to ensure that doing so does not compromise a transit agency's capital program . The alternatives range from biodiesel, compressed and liquefied natural gas, hybrid-electric, battery-electric and even hydrogen fuel cell technology. All of these alternatives have resulted in increased capital and operating costs and, thus, made the widespread adoption of alternative transit technologies more difficult. In 2006, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the performance of diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and hybrid-diesel transit buses at New York City Transit (NYCT). Although the CNG and hybrid-electric buses were clearly cleaner (emitted fewer pollutants) than their diesel counterparts each solution brought with it increased capital and operational costs and it is within these costs that the true argument for solution feasibility lies. When NREL conducted its study, NYCT was using older hybrid-electric and CNG technology than is available today. Also, with the advent of shale gas sequestration the cost of natural gas has decreased significantly since the time of their study. Therefore, an updated look at the overall viability of the two competing bus technologies is needed. It is to this end that Public Solutions Group has endeavored to compile the latest data available on both CNG and hybrid-electric technology and, combined with more than twelve years of its own professional experiences, produce the following comparative report. The intent of the analysis was to add to the ongoing evaluation of the costs and benefits of investment in advanced transit technologies rather than provide recommendations on a specific choice of a particular alternative fuel technology. Inputs to the analysis include but were not limited to diesel fuel and natural gas cost projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); transit bus operating and cost data from the American Public Transportation Association (APT A); estimates of tail-pipe nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4) emissions from EPA's MOVES emissions model; estimates of tail- pipe carbon dioxide (C02) emissions based on average in-use fuel use; and estimates of up-stream C02 and CH4 emissions for diesel and natural gas fuel production, from the GREET model. Executive Summary An analysis of available data for fixed-route buses revealed that a vast majority of transit buses in the • United States are regular diesel buses and that more than 80% of these are 40-foot buses. The data • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 3 also showed that alternative fuel buses continue to have higher (in some cases, significantly higher) acquisition costs compared to diesel buses. Hybrid buses have lower parts costs and maintenance costs per mile than comparable diesel buses and lower maintenance and infrastructure costs than CNG buses. In other words, there are a lot of issues that need to be considered by transit agencies prior to making a long-term decision on either CNG or hybrid platforms. Therefore, the following criteria was analyzed in the production of this white paper: • Vehicle Cost • Propulsion-related System Maintenance • Refueling Infrastructure • Cost of Maintenance Personnel Training • Maintenance Facility Modifications • Fuel Costs (DGE) • Compression Electricity • Battery Replacement At first glance, making the decision to incorporate diesel hybrids into an existing transit fleet might appear to be a relatively simple decision to make. With hybrid buses, fleets do not need to invest in expensive refueling infrastructure and maintenance depot modifications. Hybrid buses also have better fuel economy and emission profiles than regular diesel buses and fleet mechanics do not need to be trained on how to work on a completely new engine. Simply put, a diesel hybrid bus is a somewhat less intimidating choice than its CNG counterpart. PSG's analysis revealed that of the listed evaluation criteria, the two competing technologies were close in comparison with regard to system and facility maintenance and fuel costs. However, when combining all capital and operating costs criteria, a diesel hybrid solution averaged more than $180,000 to own and operate than an equivalent CNG vehicle. It is important for transit agencies to seriously evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing hybrid technology to CNG. Both technologies produce fewer pollutants. Both technologies help reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. And, both technologies have proven to be reliable transportation platforms, thus removing the need for "pilot" or "test" programs. But, the bottom line for transit agencies has always been costs. They must perform their daily routes without fail and do so at a price that its riders can afford. The only way a transit agency could recoup its investment in a fleet of hybrid buses would be to drastically increase its fares. This is why the economics of hybrid-diesel buses still do not work and it is why a thorough evaluation of all pertinent criteria must be performed prior to making any long-term platform decision. Comparing Technologies Hybrid-Diesel Buses Hybrid buses have options for both parallel and series drive train designs. In many ways, these buses • employ technology similar to that used in hybrid cars and trucks. These buses use regenerative • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 4 braking, electric motors, and battery storage. The main difference between transit hybrids and cars is that most hybrid buses are coupling diesel-fueled engines with electric motors instead of the typical gasoline-electric hybrid configuration found in light-duty hybrid trucks and cars . Therefore, taking full advantage of the benefits from hybrid buses entails optimizing the hybrid system for transit bus routes . In other words, diesel hybrid buses need to be used on routes that avoid extended freeway travel and, instead, concentrate on city streets and "stop-and-go" traffic. Using a diesel hybrid in this way ensures its electric motor does a majority of the work and not the diesel engine . When compared to conventional diesel buses, hybrid-diesel buses have been shown to produce lower emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other smog-forming toxins. But, the current U.S. EPA emission certification method is based on bench testing the diesel-fueled engine only and does not account for the bus configuration and the full benefits ofthe hybrid drive system. While waiting forthe EPA to update its testing methods, the state of California is crediting hybrid diesel buses with a 25 percent NOx emission reduction over the diesel engine certification values. Differences Between Parallel & Series Technologies • In a parallel hybrid bus, the combustion engine and the electric motor are connected to the transmission independently. The electric motor is designed to provide power during stop-and-go .... ....... _____ ____,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,. -------"'='-' traffic while at highway speeds, the vehicle is powered solely by the internal combustion engine . During acceleration, both the electric motor and the combustion engine power the transmission. In addition, through a process called regenerative breaking, energy lost due to braking is recovered and utilized to charge the battery. • A series hybrid bus is exclusively propelled by the electric motor . In a series hybrid bus, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is connected to an electric generator that converts the energy produced by the ICE into electric power. This electricity powers a motor that turns the wheels of the vehicle. The generator also recharges a battery pack that provides supplemental power to the motor. Since the ICE is not connected to the wheels, it can operate at an optimum rate and can even be switched off for short periods of time for a temporary all-electric operation of the bus . • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 5 One of the most important decision criteria of a hybrid bus is how it is to be driven the majority of the time it is deployed . In other words, will it be used in a downtown setting where stop-an-go driving conditions are prevalent or will it be used on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes where the majority of its time will be spent on interstates and highways? Parallel hybrids have greater fuel efficiency than series hybrids at constant high speeds (highway driving) while the series hybrids fare better in stop- and-go urban driving. So, if a transit agency purchases series hybrids and deploys them where very little stop-and-go traffic ex ists, then they will not experience the best possible fuel efficiencies . Conversely, if an agency purchases parallel series hybrids and deploys these vehicles on downtown or congested routes, then they will not experience the best possible fuel economy . In either case, it is critical that the right type of hybrid is deployed into the right work environment so that the maximum amount of fuel cost savings can be achieved. Without this, achieving any sort of return on investment will be impossible. Typical drivetrain components of a hybrid transit bus are: • Motive Drive Subsystems -electric drive motors, motor controller, gear reduction system, driveline and related components • • Auxiliary Power Unites (APU)-engine electric generator and related components Energy Storage System -integrated pack of either batteries or ultra -capacitors • Vehicle Control & Diagnostics -hybrid energy management controllers, dashboard displays, remote diagnostic tools and related components • Electrically-Driven Accessories -electrical power steering and braking systems, air conditioning systems and related components Fuel Economy As might be expected from the prev ious section, the fuel economy of hybrid transit buses varies considerably from city to city and state to state. But, all of the fuel efficiency data that has been collected is better than conventional diesel buses . There are reports of improvements from 10% to 50%1 depending on the variables such as series or parallel hybrid design, system optimizations, and the type of route the buses are being run on . An NREL study of over-the-road tests have shown results between 25% and 50% improvement in fuel economy over conventional diesel transit buses. However, a similar study by the Connecticut Department of Transportation has shown hybrid buses getting a 35% improvement in fuel economy over their fleet average, but only a 10% improvement over comparable -+-Diesel -CNG ..,._Hybrid (Figure 3: NREL Techn ical Report: NREL/TP-540-38843, January 2006) • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 6 diesel buses. So, the results are all over the map, which means that more real-world testing, and data collection is still needed. This, combined with improvements to the hybrid systems themselves, should result in better estimates of fuel economy comparisons of the different types of hybrid transit buses. Again, the main ad vantages of a hybrid bus are a reduction in em issions and an increase in fuel economy . In the 2006 New York Transit study regular diesel buses averaged 2.33 m iles per gallon while the hybrid buses averaged 3.44 miles per gallon for a 35% increase in fue l economy (Figure 3). It should be noted that, since the NYCT study was conducted, CNG engine technology has continued to mature . In January 2010 NREL compiled a new report entitled : "Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transit Bus Experience Survey " (NREL/SR-7A2-48814) in which the CNG transit buses that were stud ied showed an unweighted average of 3.2 mpg/DGE pulling them more closely in line with hybrid buses . (Note: In May 20111 the Altoona testing center reported that a 40' Gillig bus recorded an overall average fuel consumption of 1 .02 miles per pound, or a diesel gallon equivalent of 6.01 miles per gallon, the best mpg ever recorded at the testing center. This Gillig bus is equipped with a Cummins ISL-G engine, Allison 8400R transmission and Modine E-Fan cooling package .) Purchase Price Differentials The la rgest single capital expense for trans it agencies is buses . As buses in the United States are e xpected to last at least twelve years before being replaced, poor decis ions in the coach procurement process are not only costly but can doom an agency for years . In Janua ry 2012, the cost of a new, 40' hybrid-diesel bus purchased by an agency from the Gillig Corporation was $545,000 . A comparatively equipped clean d iesel bus cost an estimated $370,000, and its CNG counterpart cost an estimated $430,000. Indiv idual purchase price will vary depending on the make, model and load out of a bus but the following estimated cost ratios between diesels , diesel - electric hybrids and CNG buses can be used when performing basic cost comparisons : Table 1: Estimated Purchase Pr ice and Incremental Ratios: Description: Diesel Bus: Diesel-Electric Bus: CNG Bus: Est. Purchase Price (40' Bus) $340,000 $500,000 $380,000 -$400,000 Est. Incremental Ratios N/A Diesel : +32% Diesel : +17% N/A CNG: +18% Hybrid : <18%> Maintenance Costs Since purchase price of a bus is only one decision criteria, it is important to also consider the annual maintenance costs associated with a diesel-hybrid bus. Therefore, the intent of this section is to • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 7 provide an accurate estimation of the capital and known operations costs associated with hybrid buses. The analysis is not predict ive of maintenance costs assumed by any transit agency beyond the vehicle's initial warranty period. The general warranty on hybrids is two years from date of purchase, with some drivetrain components warranted beyond two years. The following maintenance analysis was performed in 2008 by NREL and compared Gen II hybrids and Gen I hybrids . In the first year of the evaluation, all buses were new enough that most of the maintenance was covered by the manufacturer's warranties and their distributor mechanics. So, these maintenance costs were not included in the cost analysis. This means that the evaluation of total maintenance cost did not represent the true maintenance cost, but the study did reflect the actual cost to the transit agency during the time period selected so its is shown here. The Total Maintenance Costs category includes the costs of parts and hourly labor costs (est. $50 p/hr .) and, again, did not include warranty costs. Cost per mile was calculated as follows: • Cost per mile= [(labor hours* $50) +parts cost]/mileage (Note: The labor rate was artificially set by NREL at a constant rate of $50 per hour so that other analysts can change this rate to one more simila r to their own.) The table below shows the total maintenance costs forthe Gen II and Gen I hybrids studied by NREL. During evaluation year 1, the Gen II hybrids total maintenance cost per mile was 39% lower than for • the Gen I hybrids. • Table 2: Summary of Propulsion-Related Maintenance Costs: Vehicle System Evaluation Year Exhaust Fuel Engine Electric Propulsion Non -Lighting Electrical Air Intake Cooling Transmission TOTAL : _Regenerati ve Braking Gen II Hybri d (S/mile) Gen I Hybrid ($/mile) Ge n I Hybrid ($/mile) 1 1 0.0169 0 .0241 0 .017 4 0,0176 0 .0150 0 .0331 0 .060 9 0.036 7 0.0387 0.1765 0 .1266 0 .0278 0.0416 0 .0613 0 .0087 0 .0056 0 .0054 0 .0 1 8 1 0.0309 0.068 9 0 .0008 0.0039 0.162 0.359 0.335 (Sour ce: "In -Use Peiformance Comparison of Hybrid Electric, CNG, and Diesel Buses at New York City Transit", NREL/CP-540-42534) Brake system maintenance costs for hybrid propulsion systems with regenerative braking are lower • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 8 than diesel or CNG buses. Th is is because regenerative braking allows electric drive motors to slow a bus down (similar to a transmission retarder). A transit bus application generally utilizes rear brakes more than the front brakes . So, a brake reline is most commonly performed on rear brakes first. (Note : While a "2-wheel reline" is the most common first reline activity, a "4-wheel reline" is also occasionally observed by many transit agencies.) In this comparison of brake maintenance, Gen I hybrids are compared to CNG buses on miles to first brake reline. The first brake reline for both groups occurred during evaluation year number 2. Gen II hybrids had not accumulated enough mileage to make an accurate comparison . CNG buses were used as the baseline (non -hybrid) in this comparison. Additional issues contributing to this comparison were : • The hybrids weighed 440 lbs. more than the CNG buses • The brake assembly and pad materials were the same for each group • The majority of braking was applied to the rear wheels, which is compounded by regenerative braking at the electric drive motor coupled to the rear drive axle Gen I Hybrid Bus: Avg. First Reline -55,067 miles CNG Bus: Avg. First Reline -25 1 554 m i les Vehicle Reliability Miles between road calls (MBRC) is a valuable rel iability metr ic in the transit industry. Below, Table 3 shows the cumulative average overall MBRC as well as the propulsion system MBRC findings . (Table 3): Study Group Gen II Hybrid Gen I Hybrid Gen I Hybri d CNG Evaluation Year 1 1 2 1 Total MBRC 5'445 5,188 6,250 5,73 8 Propulsion MBRC 8,678 8,153 8,669 8,885 It is an acknowledged expectation in the transit industry that a bus must at least meet or e xceed 41 000 tota l MBRC to be considered an acceptable solution . All bus technolog ies listed above met this requirement . Battery Life The batteries used by many manufacturers come with a 3-year life expectancy and the need for conditioning at 6-month intervals. Depots that operate hybrids are encouraged to have two battery conditioners. Each conditione r cost approximately $70,000 . It is also recommended that transit service personnel schedule traction battery conditioning as part of a hybrid bus fleet's preventive maintenance . • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 9 There is undoubtedly potential for significant fuel cost savings and emission reductions with hybrid transit buses. But, the question still remains, will these savings and reductions be enough to offset the total operational and capital cost that come with deploying this technology. For agencies looking to purchase only a few buses, hybrids may make sense. However, for those agencies looking to purchase a large number of buses, a closer look at the full life-cycle cost and emission benefits of hybrids versus natural gas buses is required in order to make sure an agency remains fiscally responsible and that more money isn't being spent for fewer emission reductions. CNG Transit Buses Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses make up the largest number of non-diesel transit vehicles in the nation. This is due, primarily, to the advances that have been made in CNG engine technology and the considerable cost savings the fuel provides. However, transit agencies that are considering making a move to CNG must first consider all benefits and detractions of the technology and fuel. CNG Engine Technology-Today The leading CNG engine manufacturer in North America is Cummins Westport. The Cummins Westport ISL G and ISX12 G are spark ignited natural gas engines that combine stoichiometric combustion (the theoretical or ideal combustion process in which fuel and oxygen are completely consumed, leaving no unburned fuel or oxygen in the exhaust), with cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and a Three-Way Catalyst (TWC). This technology was developed to meet the stringent 2010 EPA emission requirements and was introduced with the ISL Gin June 2007. The cooled-EGR system takes a measured quantity of exhaust gas and passes it through a cooler to reduce temperatures before mixing it with fuel and the incoming air charge to the cylinder. Stoichiometric combustion in combination with cooled-EGR creates the ideal combustion process with the chemically correct mixing of fuel and air, offering increased power density and thermal efficiency. It also reduces in-cylinder combustion temperatures and creates an oxygen-free exhaust, which then enables the use of a TWC for nitrogen oxide (NO x) control. A TWC is a simple, passive device that reduces three harmful emissions: hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). The end products are water (H20), carbon dioxide (C02) and nitrogen (N). Improving CNG Bus Fuel Efficiency In an "apples to apples" comparison, natural gas will never achieve the same fuel efficiency as diesel. Simply put, carbon is power and diesel has more carbon atoms than natural gas (C12H23 vs . CH4). However, in data supplied by the North American Bus Industries for a number of bus manufacturers tested over several years at the Altoona Bus Research and Testing Center benchmark drive train/fuel efficiencies were taken . Even though the data may not reflect the duty cycle of every bus in every • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 10 given transit application, since the tests were conducted under controlled conditions, so the relative fuel economy is fairly accurate. In the studies CNG fuel economy was 20% less than diesel. Historical-Test Fuel Economy Data : (Table 4): Bus Configuration: 40-ft. Bus 40-ft. Bus 60-ft. Bus 60-ft. Bus Fuel Diesel CNG Diesel CNG Altoona Bus Testing (mpg/mpg DE) 4.33 3.48 Efficiency Compared to Diesel 100% 80% 100% 79% With recent advances in engine technology, CNG buses are beginning to close the gap between diesel in terms of fuel economy. New CNG engines are achieving efficiency penalties of less than 10% compared with their diesel equivalents in full-load laboratory engine dynamometer testing (data from Cummins for CNG and diesel ISL engines); there is a need to use chassis/drive-cycle testing to compare the fuel economy of current CNG and diesel buses . Interestingly, the survey also asked transit operators what they believed was their average fuel economy. In every instance where raw data and calculated fuel economy data were provided, the raw data indicated higherfuel economy than the calculated data ... by as much as 1 mpg DE . So, it appears that CNG fleets are delivering higher fuel economy than their operators believe they are. Bus Reliability There still lingers the belief by some transit operators that diesel buses ach ieve higher Mean Distance Between Failures (MDBF) than CNG buses. In fleets where both diesel and CNG data is available, the CNG MDBF has been found to be as low as 58% of the diesel value . In most cases, this should not be seen as a surprise since the statistics, more often than not, are comparing conventional (older- technology) diesel buses to CNG counterparts. Older diesel buses are simpler, with no ignition systems and very few engine sensors. Additionally, MDBF addresses the entire bus and not just the CNG components, which means that non-CNG components may be reducing their MDBF . It is now estimated that only 30% of breakdowns are related to CNG components-primarily sensors and ignition. Adjusting for this 30% would make CNG and diesel MDBF approximately equivalent . Also , new clean diesel buses use soph isticated exhaust aftertreatment systems (e .g. PM traps, SCRs) that are expensive and that lower the overall reliability of the vehicle. This reinforces the importance of comparing equivalent-generation technologies when making comparisons between diesel and CNG buses. CNG Fueling • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 11 Average Cost of Natural Gas Fuel Natural gas has been used as a motor vehicle fuel since the 1930s but it was not until recent years that it has become cost effective enough for fleets across the nation to begin considering the long term cost savings moving to the fuel presents. However, calculating just how much any fleet will pay for CNG can be a bit cumbersome ... if not down right confusing at times. An average fuel cost was calculated over a recent 12-month period for several agencies by dividing the total gas cost by total gas use for a transit agency. In the study, fuel costs ranged from $0.71/DGE to $0 .94/DGE . This produced an unweighted average of $0.85 p/DGE for natural gas commodity delivered to the site. Several factors accounted for this range (outlined below): • A number of gas commodity purchasing plans were used by the agencies surveyed, including the following : o No contract-monthly purchases from the local utility o Six-to 12-month contract for half or all of expected consumption, additional fuel (if needed) was then purchased monthly at spot prices o All commodity gas purchased through contract, usually with a state agency managing purchasing for a large group of state and municipal fleets. • There does not appear to be a singular correct approach to gas purchasing because each approach can be the low-cost method, depending on the timing and trajectory of gas commodity costs . In the time frame included in the survey, it appears that agencies that purchased gas monthly had lower gas costs than those that contracted . This probably happened because the past 12-18 months saw a rapid decline in gas commodity prices . Also, those agencies that did operate under gas contracts may have • signed the contracts while the commodity was at higher prices. The advent of fracking has resulted in a huge surplus in natural gas and this, conversely, has pushed prices for the commodity to a 10-year low . This means that commodity pricing has fallen to a point where fueling with natural gas can will now cost less than it ever has. Station Power Costs When calculating how much the delivered cost of CNG is going to be, it is important to remember to add in the cost of electricity. In a survey conducted by the University of Nevada -Las Vegas, a small sample of data on the electrical costs to operate a CNG station was collected from agencies that metered the power separately from the rest of their facility. The costs included energy and demand charges, metering charges, and any penalties for peak-period operation. The resultant costs were $0.05-$0.15/DGE, with an unweighted average of $0.12/DGE. Typically, electrical costs are driven primarily by several factors : • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 12 1. Some areas in the United States (e.g. California & New York) have very high electrical costs and very high peak-period charges . 2. Inlet gas pressure at a station can have a marked effect on power requirements and the capital cost of compression equipment. In other words, the lower the inlet gas pressure the larger a compression system must be ... the more electrical energy it will use. In some cases bringing in higher-pressure gas, will pay dividends by reducing the compressor horsepower required to provide a specified flow. There may be an additional "pressure charge" from the gas utility or a capital cost for extending high-pressure lines to the site and these additional costs must be taken into consideration during the initial design phase of any refueling station. 3. Hours of station operation affect the electrical cost. To limit this expense, agencies should consider limiting the operation of station equipment during high or mid peak periods of the day. Station Maintenance Costs When trying to estimate CNG station maintenance costs there are many factors that could distort the costs from one agency to the next. • Agencies that perform most of their own maintenance do not always include this staff time in the maintenance total. • Some agencies that contract out maintenance on a throughput-charge basis have capital- recovery and/or power costs included in these numbers. Because these individual cost components were not available, these numbers were removed from the average calculation and are addressed separately. • Some agencies have an effective extended warranty included in their bundled maintenance costs. These total costs were used for analysis because agencies that performed their own maintenance included all subcontracting and parts even ifthose included major repairs in a given year. Costs were averaged over a 3-year period to smooth out unusual or infrequent expenditures. In the UNLV study, a cost of station maintenance cost was calculated on a per-OGE basis . The result was an unweighted average cost of $0.18/DGE. Recent surveys suggests that maintenance contracts are generally in the $0.20-$0.30/DGE range. Total Delivered CNG Costs Based on the previous cost factors, the average compressed cost of CNG at the nozzle is $1.30/DGE (using $0.27/DGE for maintenance). This figure does not account for capital cost recovery that, in many cases is paid for through non-agency funds (e.g. FT A funding). For accurate comparison to diesel, the difference in fuel economy must also be included. So, using a 20% efficiency penalty • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG : (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 13 results in an energy-and efficiency-equivalent cost of $1.63/DGE for CNG . It should be noted that in many surveys (including the UNLV study) the price for diesel included only the commodity cost of the fuel. Any applicable additives, delivery, and surcharges that m ight be levied in a given state were not part of the cost calculations. In addition, since 2008, due to fracking and the resultant glut of natural gas, the commodity has decreased in price by more than 60%. Therefore, a more realistic calculation for the cost of CNG/DGE would be: • $.47048 p/therm X 1.395 = $0.6563 p/DGE Using this revised commodity cost, results in an energy-and efficiency-equivalent cost of $1 .43/DGE at the nozzle . Finally, ongoing maintenance is traditionally absorbed in a general shop maintenance budget and not calculated in the overall per-diesel-gallon cost. So, this figure was not included in any of the previous calculations. Suggestions for CNG Bus Configurations • • • Roof-mounted cylinders -A majority of agencies believe that the placement of cylinders on the roof makes them less vulnerable to impact from road debris or collision . 20-year-life cylinders-Given that all transit agencies are under budget constraints, many have/are considering ex t ending bus life beyond the traditional 12 -15 years. Therefore, these agencies are recommending the purchase of 20-year-life cylinders on new buses to make this possible. Maximized gas storage -A number of agencies are now equipping CNG buses with the maximum number of gas storage cylinders possible. The additional fuel storage makes it possible for all buses to operate on any route . The additional cylinders also allow some of these agencies the poss ibility of skipping a night's fueling in the event of a hard station outage . • Fueling location -The fueling location on buses is typically curbside rear. A proximity switch should also be installed to prevent the bus from starting if it is shut down or to activate an alarm at the driver's console and shut the bus down after 15 minutes if the bus is running . Immed iate shutdown is not recommended due to occurrences of people opening the compartment at bus stops. Important Considerations for CNG Station Design • Expansion Capability-It is advisable for new stations to be designed for expansion capability . o Over sizing the station initially • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 14 o Sizing the dryer, piping, and electrical systems so that redundant compressor(s) can be operated simultaneously with all other compressors o Installing an additional pad and services and sizing the dryer, piping, and electrical systems for a future additional compressor(s). o Providing space for additional dispensers and compressors to be installed at some future date. • Compressor Size -Compressors are generally sized to meet the average fuel load per bus, multiplied by the number of buses fueled per night, divided by the productive time during a fueling shift. Therefore, it is best that stations be equipped with enough compressors that the flow can be "scaled" to the fueling demand. This results in reduced cycling that will increase a compressor's reliability, electrical demand and increase the redundancy of a station. • Redundant compressors-Since no transit agency can afford to miss rollout, it is strongly suggested that a station provide redundancy by adding at least one more redundant compressor. • • Electric Compressors -Electric-drive compressors have several advantages over natural gas engine-driven packages. They are smaller, quieter, more reliable, more durable, have lower capital and maintenance costs, and require no special environmental permit . Standby Generator-Station design should include a diesel or natural gas powered standby generator, either permanently installed or trailered to the site to address power outages that would prevent fueling. CNG Maintenance & Training Maintenance Facility Safety Building modifications to the fleet maintenance facility will be necessary in order to meet fire and safety code restrictions and to provide a safe working environment for maintenance personnel. The national codes that cover vehicle maintenance facilities are the: • International Code Council's International Fire Code (IFC 2012) • International Mechanical Code (IMC 2012) • International Building Code (IBC 2012) • National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 30A (2012) Code for Motor Fuel • NFPA 52 (2010) Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code • NFPA 88A (2007) Standards for Parking Structures It is important to note that ICC code series and NFPA 30A, 52, and 88A are codes that, if adopted, are • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 15 adopted voluntarily by states and enforced by the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). It is also important to note that the codes and their enforcements are directly tied to whether or not a maintenance facility is considered a "Minor" or "Major" repair garage. Minor vs. Major Repair Garages Both NFPA 30A and the IFC exempt minor repair facilities from all of the code requirements specific to CNG. Therefore, there may be significant savings in the cost of modifications if the maintenance facility can be divided into separate designated areas for minor and major repair activities . This can be accomplished by either having separate buildings or separated areas within one facility. The codes do provide some guidance for separating the minor and major repair areas within a facility, such as: • Interior walls or partitions shall have a 2-hour fire rating and be continuous from floor to ceiling. • For the major repair area at least one wall shall be an exterior wall and primary access shall be from the outside through the exterior wall. • Interior access between the major and minor repair areas shall be through self-closing fire doors with the appropriate rating for the location installed as approved by the Fire Marshal. • The major and minor repair areas shall have separate ventilation systems as required by the codes. • If the major and minor repair areas cannot be separated, the entire maintenance garage should be modified as required to perform major repairs on CNG vehicles as needed. • Major and Minor Garage Activities: Code: IFC 2211.7 NFPA 30A 3.3.12 Major Repair Activities Work on the vehicle fuel system or use of open flames or welding Work including engine overhauls, painting, body and fender work and any repairs requiring draining vehicle fuel tanks. Minor Repair Activities All otherrepairs All work including lubrications, inspection, engine tune-ups, replacement of parts, fluid changes, brake system repairs, tire rotation and similar routine maintenance works . The following information reflects the existing national code requirements for liquid and gaseous fuels repair garages or maintenance facilities . There are seven main areas that are considered when reviewing the existing codes : ventilation, pits or basement ventilation, gas detection, heating equipment (sources of ignition), electrical classification, vehicle preparation for entering repair garage and maintenance, and decommissioning of fuel containers. In each area, the requirement for CNG is shown . Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 16 • • • • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 17 Ventilation -Code Requirements: Code: NFP30A IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities No specific requirements for CNG. Approved mechanical ventilation systems for CNG repair garages at 1 CFM/12 cuft (5 air changes per hour). Two exceptions : 1. Work is not performed on the fuel system and is limited to the exchange of parts and maintenance requiring no open flame or welding . 2 . Repair garages with Fire Marshal approved natural ventilation . Ventilation in Pits -Code Requirements: Code: NFP30A IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities No specific requirements for CNG. No specific requirements for CNG . Gas Detection -Code Requirements: Code: IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities Have no requirements for gas detection for odorized CNG. Have no requirements for gas detection for odorized CNG . Sources of Ignition -Code Requirements: Code: NFP30A IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities NFP 30A 7.6.6 Where major repairs are conducted on CNG-fueled vehicles, open flame heaters or heating equipment with exposed surfaces having a temperature in excess of 750 °F shall not be pe .rmitted in areas subject to ignitable concentrations of gas. -No specific requirements . • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG : (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 18 Electrical Classification -Code Requirements : Code: NFP 30A IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities NFPA 30A 8.2.1 In major repair garage~ where CN .G vehicles are repaired or stored, the area within 18" of the ceiling sh.all be designated a Class I, Division 2 hazardous location . Exception: This does not apply where the ventila!ion rate Is more than 4 air c~~nges per hour. No specific requirements for CNG. Preparation of Vehicle for Repair-Code Requirements: Code: IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities No specific requirements for CNG. IFC 2211.5 Close cylinder valve prior to repairing any portion of the vehicle fuel system . Where the fuel system has been damaged it shall be inspected and evaluated for fuel system integrity prior to being brought into the repair garage . Test the entire fuel system for leakage . Maintenance and Decommissioning of Vehicle Fuel Containers-Code Requirements: Code: NFP 52 -2012.6.14 IFC-2211.7.1, 2211.7.1.1 and 2211.7.1.2 Major Repair Activities Each major repair garage should install the proper defueling facility as outlined by this section of NFPA 52. No specific requirements for CNG. When adding CNG maintenance operations to a major repair garage, the code requirements must be evaluated to determine what types of modifications are necessary. For some code requirements, there may be more than one method to meet them . Code requirements set performance criteria to either reduce the presence of a flammable mixture and/or eliminate potential sources of ignition . This is why it is so critical that only properly odorized CNG is present on the vehicles to be serviced. (Note: It is also critical to the success of any CNG program that the local Fire Marshal is contacted early in the process and that a transit agency work closely with him/her throughout the fleet conversion process.) • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 19 CNG Training As with any new technology, it is critical to the success and safety of a CNG program that personnel receive adequate training. Agencies with technicians that have more current computer/electronics training adapt better to CNG engine work. So, it is important to provide technician training to ensure that technicians are adequately prepared for the arrival of new CNG buses . Training should include some level of hands-on practice/drill to provide the desired level of knowledge. Most equipment vendors provide initial training and then annual/periodic refreshers and new employee training using in-house trainers. • Bus Training-Bus training includes the following considerations : o 160-200 hours with each new bus order (approximately 40-60 hours to be engine related) o Cylinder inspection training (typically 2 days) for two or more technicians o Driver training related to the unique aspects of operating a CNG bus • Station Training -Initial station training should be provided by the station vendor and should include the following considerations : o Basic training in the safe fueling of CNG buses for all affected staff o Training in how to deal with emergency situations-emergency shutdown procedures, fire response, gas leak response, etc.-for all staff. 12-Year Lifecycle Cost Comparisons Description: "Clean Diesel" Diesel-Electric CNG Purchase Price (40' Bus) s340,ooo ssoo,ooo $400,000 Net Cost w/FT A Co-funding (80%, 83%, 83%) $68,ooo $85,000 $68,ooo Yearly OGE Use (4.0, 5.0, 3.6 mpg) 11,250 9,000 12,500 Fuel Cost/OGE -Non Taxed $3 .80 $3 .80 $1.43 Annual Fuel Cost $42,750 $34,200 c~17,8z5 Total Lifecycle Fuel Cost $513,300 $410,400 $214,500 " Annual Fuel Savings (Compared to Clean Diesel) N/A $8,550 $24,875 Annual Fuel Savings (Compared to D-E Hybrid) <8 ,550> N/A $16,325 Battery Replacement N/A $60,000 N/A 12-Year Lifecycle Cost with FT A Co-funding $581,300 $555,400 $282,300 • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs . CNG: (An updated compari son of transit fleet alternatives) I 20 As shown in the table above, a CNG bus has a 12-year lifecycle cost savings of $299,000 p/bus . Therefore, if an agency installed refueling infrastructure that cost $2 1 000,000 and converted just 10 buses to CNG, the station would be paid for through fuel cost savings in less than 8 years and 6 months . The station and project ROI would decrease with each additional CNG bus purchase. Conclusion For decades now, transit agenc ies have been holding their breath waiting for a "better bus" to come along . Surprisingly, in the 194o 's and so's, many transit agencies were impressed by the notion of "flexibility" touted by the diesel bus industry and replaced elect ric transit with diesel buses only to find that the diesel engine's slow performance, noise and fumes actually drove riders away. Today, while statements like "the hybrid bus holds a lot of promise" are true, they too do not tell the complete story . Simply put, there is no "perfect" transit solution. Any time an agency makes the decision to begin moving away from diesel they are going to incur costs . The key is for them to spend their money wisely, embracing technology that will be the most cost effective over an extended period oftime . This means that time must be spent exam ining facts and not rhetoric or sales pitches . Transit agencies that do this will discover that, when the total capital and operational costs are e xamined, CNG transit buses are the most cost-effective solution. CNG is also the only platform that can operate 100% free of the need to import foreign oil to support its fueling requirements . If hybrid-diesel and CNG technologies are compared fairly an agency will find that, while diesel-hybrid and CNG buses are cleaner alternatives to diesel buses, hybrids are clearly not as cost effective as the ir CNG counterparts . By investing in CNG technology transit agencies across the United States will reduce their dependence on expensive petroleum fuels, increase the sustainability of public transportation, and reduce their environmental impacts . • • • Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG: (An updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives) I 21 Sources: 1. "AR B's Study of Emissions from Two "Late Model" Diesel and CNG Heavy-Duty Transit Buses", California Air Resources Board, presented at 12th On-Road Vehicle Emissions 2. "Hybrid-Electric Drive Heavy-Duty Vehicle Testing Project-Final Test Report", West Virginia University and M.J. Bradley Associates, published by Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium, February 2000 3. Report No. 01-01 1 Heavy -Duty Emissions Laboratory, Heavy Duty Testing and Field Support Section, Mobile Sources Control Division, California Air Resources Board, July 30, 2001 4. "Briefing Paper on Interim Results and Tentative Conclusions for ARB's Study of Emissions from Two "Late Model" Diesel and CNG Heavy-Duty Transit Buses", California Air Resources Board, April 2002 5. "A comparison of Emissions from Hybrid -Electric and Conventional Drive Transit Buses", West Virginia University, submitted to Orange County Transit Authority, Orange County, CA, July 31, 2002 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. "Clean Diesel versus CNG Buses : Cost, Air-Quality, & Climate Impacts", Clean Air Task Force, February 22, 2012 NREL/CP-540-42534, "In Use Performance Comparison of Hybrid Electric, CNG, and Diesel Buses at New York City Transit", June 2008 "Compressed natural gas (CNG) transit bus experience survey: April 2009 -April 2010", University of Nevada, Las Vegas, September 1, 2010 "Natural Gas Delivers a Better Bottom Line", NGVC.org, February 2012 "Comparison of Clean Diesel Buses to CNG Buses", MTA New York City Transit-Department of Buses, August 26, 2003 "Proposed Exhaust Emission Rates for Compressed Natural Gas Transit Buses in MOVE2013- MSTRS MOVES Review Work Group", U.S. EPA Office ofTransportation & Air Quality, September 25,2012 12. "Electric, natural gas, diesel and hybrid buses weighed for new CARTA fleet", Printiss Findlay, The Post and Courier, September 21, 2012 13. "Official blasts SEPTA for choosing hybrids over CNG buses", Susan, Thetransitwire.com, June 11, 2012 14 . Table 5: Summary of Results from NREL Hybrid and Natural Gas Evaluations", U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006 15. "Transit on the Cutting Edge of Clean Technology", American Public Transportation Association, September 2012 16. "The Energy Rush", Clifford Kraus and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, October 20, 2012 NRELICP-540-42534. Posted with Permission. Presented at the 2008 SAE International Powertrains, Fuels & Lubricants Conference, June 2008, S hang hai, China 2008-01-1556 • In-Use Performance Comparison of Hybrid Electric, CNG, and Diesel Buses at New York City Transit Robb A. Barnitt National Renewable Energy Laboratory-U.S. Department of Energy Copyright© 2008 SAE International ABSTRACT The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the performance of diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and hybrid electric (equipped with BAE Systems' HybriDrive propulsion system) transit buses at New York City Transit (NYCT). CNG, Gen I and Gen II hybrid electric propulsion systems were compared on fuel economy, maintenance and operating costs per mile, and reliability. These comparisons are based upon comparable service years; the second year in service for CNG and Gen II hybrids, and the second and third years in service for the Gen I hybrids. Conventional diesel buses provided a baseline comparison for fuel economy . • . Both the CNG and hybrid propulsion systems are alternatives to standard diesel buses and allow for reductions in petroleum use and emissions (usually focused on reductions of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen). The Gen I hybrid buses exhibited 88% and 37% higher fuel economy than CNG and conventional diesel buses, respectively. The average fuel economy for the Gen II hybrid buses was 5.9% lower than the Gen I hybrid buses . Fuel economy decreased for all bus groups during summer operation due to air conditioning load . However, the hybrids exhibited the most dramatic seasonal fluctuation. The average total maintenance cost per mile for the Gen II hybrid buses was 39% lower than the Gen I hybrid buses, while the CNG buses' average was 5% higher than the Gen I hybrid buses. Total propulsion-related systems maintenance costs per mile were 55% lower for the Gen II hybrid buses than the Gen I hybrid buses, while the CNG buses were 5% lower than the Gen I hybrid buses . The Gen I hybrids experienced a 4.8% traction battery failure rate per year during evaluation year 1, and a 3.3% failure rate per year during evaluation year 2. BAE Systems utilizes lead-acid chemistry Hawker batteries. .Hybrid buses are expected to have reduced brake reline frequency because they use regenerative braking. The Gen I hybrid buses accumulated more than two times the mileage of the CNG buses before requiring their first brake reline . INTRODUCTION The U.S . transit market, including NYCT, has been under public and EPA pressure to reduce emissions from large transit buses-especially those in urban areas (see Table 1). Table 1: EPA Emissions Requirements For Transit Buses Model co HC NOx Years g/bhp-g/bhp-g/bhp-hr hr hr 1990 15 .5 1.3 6.0 1991-1992 15.5 1.3 5.0 1993 15.5 1.3 5.0 1994-1995 15 .5 1.3 5.0 1996-1997 15 .5 1.3 5.0 1998-2003 15 .5 1.3 4.0 2004-2006 15 .5 2.4 combined or 2.5 with a limit of 0.5 for NMHC 2007-2010 15.5 0.14 0.2 PM g/bhp- hr 0.60 0.25 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 Conventional diesel bus propulsion technology has made emissions reduction improvements and is required to become even cleaner in the next few years. The emissions of primary concern and subsequent regulation in diesel combustion are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). NOx levels were reduced from 4 .0 g/bhp-hr in 1998 to 2.4 g/bhp-hr combined NOx and HC in 2004 (CNG levels are 2.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC + NOx with a limit of 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC). The 2004 level was applied in 2002 based upon an agreement between EPA and diesel engine manufacturers. The emissions reduction requirement of 2.4 g/bhp-hr HC + NOx caused several diesel engine manufacturers to use EGR to help reduce NOx levels . The use of EGR has some effect on durability and fuel economy compared to non-EGR engines. PM levels have been restricted to a low level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr since 1996 and have been regulated even lower in 2007 . These PM regulations effectively require the use of diesel particulate filters (DPF) and require ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel (less than 15 ppm .sulfur). Some transit agencies have taken action ahead of federal regulation, targeting reduced em issions and fuel savings on a basis of public welfare and reduced operating costs . NYCT's Clean Bus Program was created in 1992 to lower bus fleet emissions . In 2000 , NYCT established a policy of only purchasing low emission buses for new bus orders . Th is policy, coupled with NYCT's desire to ach ieve the best fuel economy , has resulted in seve ral purchase orders of hybrid buses . Historically , the NYCT Clean Bus Program has included these activities : • Replacement of the oldest diese l eng ines (two- stroke) with newer low emissions engines • Use of low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel equipment (starting in 1998 w ith less than 30 ppm sulfur, and transitioning to 15 ppm ULSD in 2006) • Addition of DPFs to existing and new diesel buses • Use of CNG buses • Use of hybrid electric buses equipped with DPFs . Hybrid electric technology was tested at NYCT in an effort to explore options other than CNG technology . This • is because not all of NYCT's operating depots are cost- effective candidates for CNG infrastructure due to space constraints ins ide buildings and the proximity of neig hboring buildings . In early 2000 , NYCT ordered 260 CNG buses from Orion Bus Industries. At the same time , NYCT made a commitment to purchase two orders of buses with the BAE Systems hybrid propulsion system from Orion Bus Industries . One order was for 125 buses, the ot her for 200 buses . There are few quantitative studies of BAE Systems hybrid electric transit bus in-use performance [1 -3]. These studies are of value to transit fleet managers who are considering the purchase of vehicles that incorporate a new technology or utilize an alternative fuel. In-use evaluations of new technology such as this only cons ider the first few years of operation. A comprehensive life cycle cost analysis is not currently available. The development of diesel hybrid electric transit bus propulsion systems is exciting for the transit industry beca use the systems offer potentially improved fuel economy during a time of fuel economy penalties for diesel engines with added emissions control systems . These systems may also offer an alternative to CNG which offer improved emissions over conventional diesels, but suffer from a fuel economy penalty . OBJECTIVES .The first objective of this study was to compare hybrid electric transit buses, and those operating on CNG and 2 conventional diesel in terms of fuel economy , vehicle maintenance, reliability, and operating costs. Secondary objectives were to assess traction battery replacement frequency and costs , and quantify the benefits of regenerative braking with hybrid electric buses . The results help NYCT -and other potential hybrid electric-or CNG-powered bus users-understand the costs and benefits of using these alternatives to diesel , and any changes to maintenance and operating procedures that may be required . APPROACH INTRODUCTION -This project was conducted by NREL under the Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA). AVTA evaluation projects focus on using a standardized process for data collection and analysis, communicating results clearly , and providing an accurate and complete evaluation . A VT A evaluations focus on data collection and analysis of advanced propulsion systems compared to basel ine propulsion systems , and track multiple vehicles within a fleet in order to prov ide enough data samples to ensure some level of statistical significance . In this case , 10 vehicles of each technology were chosen for data analysis to provide accurate and statistically valuable results . The results from these evaluations are a snaps hot of experience and actual capital and operating costs at a given location and for a given period of time . At this time , the A VT A evaluations do not include an attempt at life cycle cost modeling . PROJECT DESIGN -This report is in effect a compilation of several A VT A evaluations conducted at NYCT. The focus is on hybrid electric transit buses purchased by NYCT in an order group of 200 (Gen II), and their performance during their first year of service. This latest generation exhibits several improvements, which allows an evolutionary comparison to similar hybrid electric transit buses purchased by NYCT in an order group of 125 (Gen I), which have now been in service for more than 3 years . In this case, Gen I buses are cons idered the baseline, and data from their first year of service are used for performance comparison . In addition , the performance of CNG buses is compared directly to Gen I hybrid electric buses, and extrapolated to Gen II hybrids . These CNG buses were purchased and put in service in concert with Gen I hybrids . Finally , older ( 1994 and 1999) diesel buses are included for comparison solely on a basis of fue l economy and roadcall rates, NOT maintenance costs . NYCT has not purchased diesel buses (which could be considered baseline) since 1999 , thus a full comparison of hybrid electric and CNG as alternatives to diesel baseline is not possible . NYCT expects the CNG buses to have diesel-like reliability and operating costs . The hybrid buses were expected to be slightly less commercial than the CNG buses due to the lack of industry experience with hybrid propulsion technology. However, NYCT operated the hybrid buses with the intent that they be treated like any diesel bus for reliability and operations. .Ten Gen II hybrid buses at the Manhattanville (MTV) Depot were evaluated . These ten Gen II buses (evaluation year 1) are compared to ten Gen I hybrid buses (evaluation years 1 and 2) from Mother Clara Hale (MCH) Depot. Performance was compared to ten CNG buses at the West Farms (WF) Depot (evaluation year 1 ), and the aggregate of ten diesel buses from MCH and ten diesel buses from WF. This comparison is appropriate for the following reasons : • All 40-ft buses at the depots included in this evaluation were dispatched randomly on all routes. • The overall depot average speeds are comparable: o WF 20.04-05 (CNG, diesel)= 6.4 mph o MCH 2004-05 (Gen I hybrid, diesel) = 6 .1 mph o MCH 2005-06 (Gen I hybrid)= 5.7 mph o MTV 2006-07 (Gen II hybrid) = 6.1 mph • There were no restrictions on the buses at the depots in this evaluation report. • NYCT operates and maintains its buses with the expectation that they operate and perform to NYCT standards, regardless of power-train type . The evaluation periods used to compare bus groups • considered in this report are : • • Hybrid Gen II (evaluation year 1 ): February 2006 through January 2007 • Hybrid Gen I (evaluation year 1): October 2004 through September 2005 • Hybrid Gen I (evaluation year 2): October 2005 through September 2006 • CNG: October 2004 through September 2005 • Diesel: June 2004 through May 2005 Each evaluation year represents a 12-month period of operation . Although some data exists outside the ranges noted above, and has been included in trends for better visualization, comparison of the bus groups is restricted to data specific to the evaluation periods cited . Vehicle-specific data for this evaluation were taken from NYCT's data system : Maintenance Information Diagnostic Analysis System (MIDAS). Data parameters included the following : • Diesel fuel consumption • CNG fuel consumption • Mileage accumulation • Preventive maintenance action work orders , parts lists, labor records, and related documents • Records of unscheduled maintenance, including roadcalls (RCs) and warranty actions by vendors (when available in the data system). 3 Two major interests in hybrid bus operations held by the transit industry are (1) determining traction battery replacement frequency and costs , and (2) quantifying the benefits of regenerative braking . To address these interests, this report also examines the second year of Gen I bus service with respect to traction battery maintenance. In addition, the benefits of regenerative braking, realized in less frequent brake relines and concomitant reduced maintenance costs, are evaluated using data from Gen I hybrids as compared to baseline CNG buses . VEHICLE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS -Ten CNG buses operating at WF Depot were selected from the order of 260 Orion VII low floor, model year 2002 CNG buses . The CNG buses use the DOC Series 50G engine . NYCT did not purchase the optional catalyst for emissions aftertreatment for these buses . Both the DOC Series 50 diesel and DOC Series 50G CNG engines are no longer available for new transit buses. In 2004, DOC discontinued the Series 50 diesel and CNG engine platform . For years, the diesel Series 50 engine was the workhorse of the transit industry. DOC reported to customers that the Series 50 diesel engine platform could not meet the next round of emissions regulations and was being discontinued after limited refinements in the last few years. Thus, the DOC Series 50G natural gas engine, operated by NYCT is not the newest technology natural gas engine (with fuel and electronic controls) currently available . Newer engines from other manufacturers may have shown better results . Although WF Depot is intended to be an all-CNG bus operating depot, some diesel buses have been operating there. The number of diesel buses operating at the depot decreased as the newer CNG buses were brought into service . The evaluation in this report used 10 Orion V high floor diesel buses for a limited comparison to the CNG bus evaluation of fuel economy and roadcall rate results. The diesel buses at MCH Depot are model year 1999 Orion V high floor buses, but from a newer bus order than those at WF Depot. The diesel buses have DOC Series 50 diesel engines retrofitted with a DPF . NYCT's hybrid buses are built by Orion Bus Industries (a part of DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses North America) and use the BAE Systems HybriDrive propulsion system (see Figure 1 ). • A: A 5.9-L diesel engine runs at an optimal controlled speed and is connected to a generator to produce electrical power for the drive motor and batteries. B : The electric drive motor drives the vehicle and acts as a generator to capture energy during braking. C: The batteries supply power during acceleration and hill climbing and store energy recovered during regenerative braking . D: The propulsion control system manages the entire system and optimizes performance for emissions, fuel economy and power. Figure 1. BAE Systems HybriDrive Propulsion System .In this series hybri? electric. system, .a relativ~ly small , downsized Cummins ISB diesel engine running at an optimal controlled speed is connected to a generator that produces electricity for the electric drive motor and batteries. The duty cycle application at NYCT does not allow for steady state operation of the d iesel genset. Rather, the engine is operated in power-following mode. Engine loading has been optimized based upon dynamic torque speed characteristics of the engine, provided to BAE by Cummins . The electric drive motor drives the vehicle and acts as a generator to capture energy during regenerative braking . The batteries supply additional power during acceleration and hill climbing and store energy recovered during regenerative braking and idling . The battery optimization subsystem monitors and maintains the charge of each individual battery. Battery State of Charge (SOC) is generally maintained between 70-75%, with some allowance for slightly deeper discharge on highway routes . The propulsion control subsystem manages the entire system and optimizes performance for emissions, fuel economy, and power . • 4 Additional details on the hybrid system are presented in Table 2 . Table 2. Hybrid Propulsion-Related Systems Category Manufacturer/integrator Motor and internal gear reduction Generator Energy storage Hybrid Bus Description BAE Systems (HybriDrive propulsion system) Type : Alternating current (AC) induction, high-power density Horsepower: 250 hp continuous (320 hp peak) Torque : 2,700 lb-ft@ 0 rpm Type : Permanent magnet Horsepower: 160 hp continuous Type : Sealed lead -acid, Hawker XT, 2 enclosures, 23 modules each, roof mounted Voltage: 520-700 voltage direct current (VDC) The Gen I hybrid and CNG buses are the same model and age (model year 2002). Some of the differences between these two bus study groups are : • CNG buses are taller (3 inches) • Gen I hybrid buses are heavier (440 lbs) • Gen I hybrid buses have a smaller engine (5 .9 liter diesel versus a 8.5 liter natural gas) • Gen I hybrid buses have a DPF; the CNG buses did not have additional emissions control • Gen I hybrid buses have regenerative braking and CNG buses have a retarder • Gen I hybrid buses have a smaller fuel capacity (100 gallons for hybrid and 125 gallons diesel equivalent for CNG) There are several subtle differences between Gen 11 and Gen I hybrids. According to BAE Systems, four subsystems on Gen II have been improved , including the engine, generator, propulsion control, and cooling and packaging . The company expects these refinements to result in lower emissions ; improved power; quieter operation; and improved reliability, durability, maintainability, and performance . Some of these differences are shaded and presented in Table 3. Details on the CNG and diesel buses are included for comparison . T I ab e 3. Vehicle Svstem Descriotions Bus Study Group Gen II Hybrid Bus manufacturer and Orion VI I, low model floor • Model year 2004 Length/width/height 40 ft/102 in./132 in. Gross vehicle weight 42' 540/31, 840 rating (GVWR)/curb lb weight Passenger capacity 38 seated, 32 standina Engine manufacturer Cummins ISB and model (EGR equiooed) Emission certification NOx2.5 level (g/bhp-hr) PM 0.05 Rated horsepower 270 bhp@ 2,500 rpm Rated torque 660 lb-ft@ 1,600 rpm Emissions equipment Johnson Matthey CRT DPF/HEV control Actively manaqed Motor/controller cooling Oil/Oil (integrated system) Retarder/regenerative Regenerative braking brakina • Generator mounting Direct mount (no couplinq) Fuel capacity 100 gal Bus purchase cost($)* 385,000 RESULTS IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE A CNG compression station was built at WF Depot to compress 6,600 scfm of natural gas and fuel a bus in less than 5 minutes. Combustible gas detection was added to the maintenance area to accommodate the use of natural gas buses. The total cost of facility improvements at West Farms was $7.4 million including the station, facility improvements, and $2 million for blasting through solid rock to bury the high pressure gas lines . The hybrid buses required additional space at MCH and MTV for two battery conditioning stations ($70,000 each, $140,000 total) per depot. An overhead crane was also added to enable mechanics to service the battery tubs on top of the hybrid buses . • NYCT reported that the implementation of the CNG and both hybrid (Gen I and II) fleets went well, and the buses were quickly put into full service . NYCT, Orion, and BAE Systems reported that the buses performed as expected. Gen I Hybrid CNG Diesel Orion VII, low Orion VII, Low Orion V, High floor Floor Floor 200~ 2002 1994, 1999 40 ft/102 40 ft/102 40 ft/102 in./132 in . in/135 in in/121 in 42,540/31,840 42,540/31,400 40,000/28,500 lb lbs lb 38 seated, 32 37 Seated, 39 Seated, standina 36 Standina 36 Standina Cummins ISB DOC S50G DOC S50 (not EGR (not EGR (not EGR equiooed) eauipped) eauiooed) ,NOx4.0 PM 0.05 270 bhp@ 275 bhp@ 275 bhp@ 2,500 rpm 2,100 rpm 2,100 rpm 660 lb-ft@ 900 lb-ft@ 890 lb-ft@ 1,600 rpm 1,200 rom 1,200 rom Engelhard Retrofit DPF, DPX None Johnson Matthev Actively NA NA manaqed Oil/WEG NA NA Regenerative Retarder Retarder brakina Coupling NA NA 100 gal 125 diesel equivalent 125 gallons qallons 385,000 $313 ,000 $290,000 The bus operators reportedly like both hybrid and CNG buses , and cited their appreciation of the hybrid acceleration characteristics. 5 BUS USAGE -Table 4 presents the average monthly mileage per bus for the Gen II hybrids, Gen I hybrids and CNG buses (evaluation year 1 ). The overall 12-month average monthly miles per bus for the Gen II hybrids at MTV depot is about 10% lower than for the Gen I hybrids and CNG buses . This is primarily a function of depot size and routes served. FUEL ECONOMY -The Gen I and Gen II hybrid fuel consumption and economy data are given in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 2. Comparing evaluation year 1 in both cases, the 12-month average fuel economy for the • Gen II hybrid buses is 5.9% lower than that of the Gen I hybrid buses (p-value = 0.002). There are several po tential reasons for this difference in fuel economy . The Gen II and Gen I buses are equipped with CM850 and VP44 Cummins engine versions of the ISBH260 rating, respectively . The CM850 is equipped with EGR, while the VP44 is not. At governed speed and maximum power, a 1-2% increase in fuel consumption is expected with the CM850 EGR-equipped engine . An 8% decrease in fuel consumption is expected at peak torque with the CM850 EGR-equipped engine . However, the engines are not operated at these three load po ints in this hybrid application -as noted above , engine loading has been optimized based upon dynamic torque speed characteristics of the engine . Cummins was unable to offer an expected increase in fuel consumption due to EGR, given the nature of the engine duty cycle in this hybrid application . In addition, BAE has updated both hardware and software from the Gen I to Gen II hybrid buses . Thus, the propulsion control system manages both the engine and the traction batteries differently for Gen II and Gen I buses . The Gen I hybrid fuel economy increased nearly 1 % from evaluation year 1 to evaluation year 2. Although this difference is statistically insignificant (p-value = 0.3), it does indicate that lead-acid battery pack degradation is not occurring, insofar as the degradation affects overall • in-use fuel economy. The section on traction batteries later in the report contains additional discussion . Table 5. G G b "dB F IE en II and en I Hy ri us ue conomy Bus Evaluation Mileage Diesel Miles Study Year (Fuel Gallons per Group Base) Consumed Gallon Gen II 1 246,926 82,213 3.00 Hybrid Gen I 1 258,826 81, 104 3.19 Hybrid Gen I 2 263, 130 81,677 3.22 Hybrid CNG 1 259,083 152,016* 1.70 Diesel 1 436,672 187, 157 2.33 *Diesel gallon equivalents Fuel economy of Gen I hybrids was measured previously using a chassis dynamometer [4]. Based upon the Manhattan drive cycle (average speed 6.8 mph), fuel economy was measured to be 4 .79 mpg . The average speeds considered for this in-use evaluation (6 .1 and 5.7 mph ) are slightly lower, which may contribute to lower fuel economy (3 .19 and 3.22 mpg). In addition, the effect of air conditioning was not measured in chassis dynamometer testing. Figure 2 shows average monthly fuel economy for the • two hybrid study groups using available data for a 28- month period . This span showcases the seasonal fluctuation in fuel economy experienced by both generations of hybrid buses . Note that these trends show 6 fuel economy data prior to the evaluation period for the Gen II hybrids, and after the evaluation (evaluation year 2) of the Gen I hybrids . According to BAE Systems, much of this decrease is caused by an increase in energy consumption for air conditioning . c .2 ;;; I!) " c. "' .! i 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 en Evaklatlan Year Number 1 0 .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SS~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..: :<t'<l'·"'"cJv"'ll'~':e-:<1 cf' QI' «" .,.~ )v .,_,,,-cf' Q" «'" .,_.., '>°" .,_v cf' Q «" f-+-Gen I Hybrils -II-Gen I Hybrids f Figure 2. Average Fuel Economy, Hybrid Study Groups Figure 3 shows average monthly fuel economy for the diesel, CNG and two hybrid study groups. Monthly fuel economy is presented in miles per diesel gallon, and adjusted for CNG buses by using the ratio of diesel and CNG energy contents . This comparison illustrates the seasonal fluctuation in fuel economy experienced by both generations of hybrid buses , which is not as pronounced in the diesel and CNG study groups . Although defining summer months can be subjective , if June through September are considered "summer" and the remaining eight months are "non-summer", there is a clear difference in seasonal fluctuation of fuel economy for the study groups . Hybrid Gen II , hybrid Gen I, CNG and diesel study groups had 15%, 18%, 1 % and 4% decreases respectively , in fuel economy during these defined summer months. Air conditioning is a belt-driven accessory for all bus groups, and the same seasonal air conditioning load is experienced by diesel , CNG, and hybrid bus groups. While the diesel and CNG buses had conventionally sized engines for a 40-foot transit bus, the hybrids utilize a down-sized engine . Air conditioning load has a more pronounced effect on this smaller diesel powerplant. • 4.0 3.5 c: 3.0 .Q ;;; 2.5 (.!) ~ 2.0 "' c. "' 1.5 .!! i 1.0 0.5 0.0 -+--~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~-.--! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ rif'"~f:!f.$. ~·,.;".f!:!i ~ ~_,.,r'"~cf-sl ..,~ ,...., o" <:> <c"' ,.Y ..,~ ,.<JV o" <:> «"' ,_q ..,~ ,.<JV o" <:>w-«"' I-+-Gen I Hybrids -ti-Gen II Hybrids...._ Diesel ""*'" CNG I Figure 3: Average Fuel Economy, All Study Groups MA INTENANCE COST ANALYSIS -The intent of this evaluation is to provide accurate actual capital and known operations costs associated with the hybrid and CNG vehicles for the time period selected . The diesel buses are older, and are therefore an inappropriate comparison due to their higher maintenance costs . This analysis is not predictive of maintenance costs assumed by the transit agency beyond the warranty period . The general warranty on these particular hybrids is two years from date of purchase, with some drivetrain components warranted beyond two years. The exact components and warranty periods , as negotiated by NYCT and Orion , are contractual . • The maintenance analysis in this section generally compares Gen II hybrids (evaluation year 1) to Gen I hybrids (evaluation year 1) and CNG buses (evaluation year 1 ). In evaluation year 1, all buses were new enough that much of the maintenance was done under warranty by the manufacturers and their distributor mechanics . These warranty maintenance costs are not included in the maintenance cost analysis . Not accounting for warranty repairs in the evaluation of total maintenance cost offers an incomplete picture of true maintenance cost, however this analysis reflects the actual cost to the transit agency during the time period selected . Total Maintenance Costs -This cost category includes the costs of parts and hourly labor costs of $50 per hour, and does not include warranty costs. Cost per mile is calculated as follows : Cost per mile = ((labor hours * 50) + parts cost)/mileage The labor rate has been artificially set at a constant rate of $50 per hour so that other analysts can change this rate to one more similar to their own . Th is rate does not directly reflect NYCT's current hourly mechanic rate. Table 6 shows total maintenance costs for the Gen II and Gen I hybrids, and CNG buses . During evaluation year 1, the Gen II hybrids total maintenance cost per mile was &39% and 42% lower than for the Gen I hybrids and CNG ~uses, respectively. These differences are explored further in the breakdown of maintenance costs by vehicle system that follows Table 6. 7 Table 6. Total Maintenance Costs Bus Evaluation Miles Parts Labor Cost Study Year (Maint. ($) Hours ($/mile) Group Base) Gen II 1 250,460 32 ,389 3,096 0.75 Hybrid Gen I 1 285 ,349 61 ,408 5,793 1.23 Hybrid Gen I 2 268 ,750 86 ,918 5,869 1.42 Hybrid CNG 1 275 ,444 99 ,980 5, 133 1.29 Propulsion-related Maintenance Costs -The propulsion- related vehicle systems include the exhaust ; fuel ; engine; electric propulsion ; nonlighting electrical (general electrical, charging , cranking, and ignition); air intake; cooling ; and transmission systems . A traction battery discussion can be found later in this report . Table 7 summarizes the cost comparisons among the study groups . Total propulsion-related systems ma intenance costs per mile for the Gen II hybrid buses were 55% and 54% lower than the Gen I hybrid and CNG buses, respectively . Table 7. Summary of Propulsion-Related Maintenance Costs Vehicle Gen II Gen I Gen I System Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid CNG ($/mile) ($/mile) ($/mile) ($/mile) Evaluation 1 1 2 1 Year Exhaust 0.0169 0.0241 0.0174 0.020 Fuel 0.0176 0.0150 0.0150 0.058 Enqine 0.0331 0.0609 0.0367 0.064 Electric NA propulsion 0.0387 0.1765 0.1266 Nonlighting 0.101 electrical 0.0278 0.0416 0.0613 Air intake 0.0087 0.0056 0.0054 0.012 Cooling 0.0181 0.0309 0.0689 0.053 Transmission 0.0008 0.0044 0.0039 0.036 Total 0.162 0.359 0.335 0.349 The lower Gen II hybrid maintenance costs are likely due to the improvemen ts made from Gen I to Gen II. However , an additional component may be that the NYCT mechanics became more familiar with maintaining the BAE system over time . TRACTION BATTERIES -The lead-ac id traction batteries used by BAE Systems are characterized by a 3- year life expectancy and the need for conditioning at 6- month intervals . Depots that operate hybrids are equipped w ith two battery conditioners, which have a per unit cost of approximately $70 ,000 . NYCT personnel schedule traction battery conditioning as part of the preventive ma intenance. Du ring the evaluation period (February 2006 through January 2007), the Gen II hybrid study bus group had • zero battery failures . In the months prior to the evaluation period, there were 13 single battery failures, which are assumed to be related to quality control issues . The Gen I hybrids experienced a 4 .8% failure rate per year during evaluation year 1, and a 3.3% failure rate per year during evaluation year 2. In April 2006 , BAE Systems released a software change for the hybrid propulsion system to make identifying faulty batteries less aggressive and to reduce the overall number of traction batteries removed with no true failure . This software change was applied just past the midpoint of Gen I evaluation year 2 (October 2005 through September 2006), and may have lowered the apparent failure rate during that time . The Gen I hybrid traction batteries are at their 3-year life expectancy . Given the lack of fuel economy degradation from evaluation year 1 to evaluation year 2, it appears that in this application, the traction battery technology is capable of reaching its projected life expectancy without dec reased performance . REGENERATIVE BRAKING -The brake system maintenance costs are expected to be lower for hybrid propulsion systems with regenerative braking. Regenerative braking allows the electric drive motors to ~ow down a bus, similar to a transmission retarder. On ~rion/BAE hybrid buses, energy from braking is taken at the rear (drive) axle into the electric drive motor, and then fed back to the traction batteries . NYCT does not use the maximum available regenerative braking capacity, preferring for safety reasons that nonhybrid and hybrid buses have a similar feel to drivers when they release the accelerator. The transit bus application generally utilizes rear brakes more than the front brakes, thus a brake reline is commonly performed on rear brakes first. While the "2-wheel reline" is the most common first reline activity, the "4-wheel reline" is also occasionally observed. In this comparison of brake maintenance, Gen I hybrids are compared to CNG buses on miles to first brake reline . The first brake reline for both groups occurred during evaluation year number 2. Gen II hybrids have not yet accumulated sufficient mileage to make this comparison . CNG buses serve as the baseline (nonhybrid) in this comparison . NYCT expects nonhybrid buses to have a four-wheel brake reline every 18,000 m iles on average . Additional issues contributing to this comparison are • • The hybrids weigh 440 pounds more than the CNG buses . • The brake assembly and pad materials are the same for each group . • The majority of braking is naturally applied to the rear wheels, which is compounded by 8 regenerative braking at the electric drive motor coupled to the rear (drive) axle . There is parity between hybrid and CNG buses in brake materials, and the hybrids have a weight disadvantage that should nominally contribute to a slight increase in brake wear . The focus of regenerative braking at the rear wheels will theoretically extend the two-wheel reline period, as well as the four-wheel reline period. Table 8 shows that the Gen I hybrid buses accumulated more than two times the mileage of the CNG buses before requiring their first brake reline . This -2x trend is also true when comparing first 2-wheel relines or first 4-wheel relines between groups. T bl 8 B k R r C a e ra e e me omparison Bus Reline Odometer Number Date Type ReadinQ Gen I Hybrid Buses 6367 02/21/2006 4-wheel 50,807 6368 07/25/2006 2-wheel 66,455 6368 12/28/2006 2-wheel 74 ,523 6369 05/04/2005 2-wheel 57,073 6375 04/11/2006 4-wheel 54 ,685 6378 09/26/2006 4-wheel 68,444 6379 03/13/2006 4-wheel 49,272 6380 01/26/2006 2-wheel 48,685 6381 02/28/2006 4-wheel 50 ,267 6382 11/02/2005 4-wheel 45,217 6387 0710712006 4-wheel 59,769 Average First reline 55 ,067 CNG Buses 7657 07/08/2004 4-wheel 20,288 7662 09/22/2004 2-wheel 20,043 7666 01/01/2005 4-wheel 28,759 7670 10/08/2004 2-wheel 25,924 7677 01/14/2005 2-wheel 24,730 7688 06/22/2005 4-wheel 33,581 Average First reline 25,554 RELIABILITY -Miles between roadcalls (MBRC) is an important reliability metric in the transit industry . Table 9 shows the cumulative average overall MBRC, as well as the propulsion system MBRC metric. NYCT's expectation is that all buses should meet or exceed 4,000 total MBRC . The Gen I and Gen II hybrids and CNG buses all exceed this expectation. T able 9. c umulative MBR cc omparison Study Gen II Gen I Gen I CNG Group Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Evaluation 1 1 2 1 Year Total MBRC 5,445 5,188 6,250 5,738 Propulsion 8,678 8,153 8,669 8,885 MBRC SUMMARY OF COSTS -Table 10 summarizes fuel and maintenance costs per mile for the Gen II and Gen I • hybrid study groups. The total operating cost per mile for the Gen II hybrid buses is 24% and 39% lower than the Gen I hybrids and CNG buses during each respective • • evaluation year 1. The discrepancy with Gen I hybrids is driven by the 39% lower maintenance costs in operating the Gen II hybrids . The discrepancy with CNG buses is driven by both fuel and maintenance costs. T bl 10 S a e um mar VO fO 1peratmo c t os per 1e Study Evaluation Fuel Maintenance Total Group Year $/Mile $/Mile $/Mile Gen II 1 0 .66 0 .75 1.41 Hvbrid Gen I 1 0.62 1.23 1.85 Hybrid Gen I 2 0 .62 1.42 2 .04 Hybrid CNG 1 1.02 1.29 2 .31 CONCLUSION The primary conclusions from this study are : • With similar usage and duty cycle, the Gen II hybrids exhibited a 5 .9% lower fuel economy than the Gen I hybrids . This is likely due to the MY2004 EGR-equipped engine in the Gen II hybrids, as well as differences in hardware and software related to propulsion control in the Gen II buses. The Gen II hybrids also exhibited 43% and 22% better fuel economy than the CNG and diesel buses, respectively . • The Gen I hybrid fuel economy was statistically the same over two years of evaluation up through year number three of service. This indicates that the lead-acid battery chemistry is capable of consistent performance in this duty cycle application, through the projected three year lifespan . • The total maintenance costs for the Gen 11 hybrids were 39% and 42% lower than the Gen I hybrids and CNG buses for each respective evaluation year number 1. • The propulsion-related maintenance costs for the Gen II hybrids were 55% and 54% lower than the Gen I hybrids and CNG buses for each respective evaluation year number 1. • The Gen I hybrid buses accumulated more than two times the mileage of the CNG buses before requiring their first brake reline . For NYCT, this indicates tangible advantage to regenerative braking in terms of lower brake system maintenance costs related to brake relines . However, it should be noted that brake wear is a function of duty cycle, driver behavior, and transmission retarder type and tuning . • The Gen II hybrids exhibited similar reliability (as measured in MBRCs) to the Gen I hybrids and 9 CNG buses. All three study groups exceeded NYCT's expectations in this arena . • Due to lower maintenance costs, but despite worsened fuel economy, the Gen II hybrids total operating cost per mile was 24% lower than the Gen I hybrids for each respective evaluation year I. The Gen II hybrids exhibited a 39% lower total operating cost per mile than the CNG buses in each respective evaluation year 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity Subprogram of the U.S . Department of Energy sponsored NREL's work on this project. Additionally, the author wishes to thank Steve Tilyou and Tom Webb at BAE Systems, and Shawn Whitacre at Cummins. REFERENCES 1. Barnitt, R. (2007). BAE/Orion Hybrid Electric Buses at New York City Transit, A Generational Comparison . NREL/TP-540-42217. Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2. Barnitt, R.; Chandler, K . (2006). New York City Transit (NYCT) Hybrid and CNG Transit Buses: Final Evaluation Results. NREL/TP-540-40125. Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 3 . Chandler, K .; Walkowicz, K .; Eudy, L. (2002). New York City Transit Diesel Hybrid-Electric Buses: Final Results. NREL/BR-540-32427 . Golden, CO : NREL. 4 . Environment Canada . (2004). Orion VII Transit Bus Equipped with BAE Systems HybriDrive Propulsion System Emissions and Fuel Economy Test Report. ERMD Report #2004-18. Ottawa, Ontario : Environment Canada. CONTACT Robb Barnitt can be contacted at robb barnitt@nrel.gov. DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AC: alternating current AVTA: Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity bhp: brake horsepower CNG: compressed natural gas CO: carbon monoxide CRT: continuously regenerating technology DOC: Detroit Diesel Corporation DOE: U.S . Department of Energy DPF: diesel particulate filter EGR: exhaust gas recirculation EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERMD: Emissions Research & Measurement Division (Environment Canada) • Gal: gallons g/bhp-hr: grams per brake horsepower hour GVWR: gross vehicle weight rating HC: hydrocarbons HEV: hybrid electric vehicle hp: horsepower lb-ft: pound-foot MBRC: miles between roadcalls MCH: Mother Clara Hale Depot MIDAS: Maintenance Information Diagnostic Analysis System mpg: miles per gallon mph: miles per hour MT A: Metropolitan Transportation Authority MTV: Manhattanville Depot NiMH: nickel metal hydride NMHC: nonmethane hydrocarbons NOx : oxides of nitrogen NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory NYCT: New York City Transit PM: particulate matter PMI: preventive maintenance inspection ppm: parts per million PTI: Pennsylvania Transportation Institute RC: roadcall rpm: revolutions per minute scfm: standard cubic feet per minute SOC: state of charge .ULSD: Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel VDC: voltage direct current WEG: Water Ethylene Glycol WF: West Farms Depot • 10 • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance MJB A CONCO!?.D, AJA -1-t'llSHINGTON, DC 47 ,JUNCTlON SQLJAREDIUV E CONCORD, MA01742 978-405-1275 www.mjbradley.com Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses • Table of Contents Executive Sum ma ry ......................................................................................................................... 2 1 Data Sources and Methodology .............................................................................................. 5 2 Results .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Fuel Economy ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Green House Gases ................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A Tabular Summary of Fuel Economy & Emissions List of Figures Figure 1 Altoona Measured Fuel Economy-New Flyer Buses .................................................... 10 Figure 2 Altoona Measured Fuel Economy-Daimler Buses ........................................................ 11 Figure 3 Altoona Measured NOx Emissions .................................................................................. 12 • Figure 4 Altoona Measured PM Emissions ................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 Altoona Measured NMHC Emissions .............................................................................. 14 Figure 6 Altoona Measured CO Emissions .................................................................................... 14 Figure 7 Estimated Long-term Wells -to-Wheels GHG Emissions -New Flyer Buses ................. 16 Figure 8 Estimated Long-term Wells -to-Wheels GHG Emissions -Daimler Buses ..................... 16 Figure 9 Estimated Short-term Wells -to-Wheels GHG Emissions -New Flyer Buses ................ 17 Figure 10 Estimated Short-term Wells -to-Wheels GHG Emissions -Daimler Buses .................. 17 List of Tables Table 1 40-foot Transit Buses Tested at ABRTC Since 2010 ........................................................... 5 Table 2 Specification of Buses Included in This Analysis ............................................................... 6 Table 3 Test Cycles Used by Altoona Bus Research & Testing Center ............................................ 7 Table 4 GWP Values Used in the Analysis ...................................................................................... 8 Table 5 Altoona -Measured Fuel Economy all Buses .................................................................... 20 Table 6 Altoona Measured Emissions, All Buses ........................................................................... 20 Table 7 Estimated Wells-to-Wheels GHG Emissions, All Buses ............................................................. 21 • MJB ' A ll Page • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses Executive Summary Transit managers today face complex decisions about what fuels and propulsion technologies to commit to for their fleets when purchasing new buses. There are two main engine/fuel options : 1) compression-ignition engines that operate on diesel fuel, and 2) spark-ignition engines that operate on natural gas. Both of these options are readily available commercially and are already well established in the transit industry. According to the Public Transportation Association there are more than 47,000 transit buses currently in service that burn diesel fuel and more than 12,000 that operate on natural gas 1 . Most natural gas powered transit buses store on-board fuel as a high-pressure compressed gas, so called "compressed natural gas", or CNG 2 . There are also two main options for propulsion system technology: 1) a traditional automatic transmission, and 2) a hybrid-electric system 3 . A hybrid-electric system combines one or more electric motors/generators with an energy storage system, power electronics, and controls to either replace or supplement an automatic or automated manual transmission. The use of a hybrid-electric propulsion system allows for collection and re-use of kinetic energy normally wasted in braking, and may allow for engine down-sizing and partial electric-only operation, • including engine shut-off at idle. All of this can result in reduced fuel use compared to a bus equipped with an automatic transmission . The transit bus industry was the first major heavy- duty vehicle market to implement hybrid-electric technology, and today there are more than 4,500 hybrid-electric transit buses in service 1 . • When evaluating the choice of fuel and technology there are many factors to consider, both economic and environmental. This report focuses on the environmental considerations of transit bus fuel and technology choice, including three issues atthe forefront of current US policy: efficiency, air quality, and climate change. This report compares the efficiency and environmental performance of modern transit buses equipped with the three most common engine/propulsion system options : diesel, hybrid diesel-electric {hybrid), and compressed natural gas {CNG)3 . All of the data used to compare these transit bus technology options was collected by the Altoona Bus Research & Testing Center under the Federal Transit 1 American Public Transportation Association, 2011 Pub I icTra nsportation Fact Book, 62"d Edition, Apri I 2011 2 It is a I so possible to store and use natura I gas in the form of a cryogenic Ii quid, so cal led Ii quefied natural gas, or LNG . Typica I ly natura I gas vehicles only store on boa rd fuel as LNG if more than 400 mi I es range between fueling events is required . Only a minority of current natural gas buses areLNG buses . 3 Fully electric buses that store on-boa rd energy in chemica I batteries that a re re-charged from the grid, and which do not includean internal combustion engine, are also beginning to become availableon a limited commercial basis . These types of buses were not included in this analysis becausecomparativeABRTC test data was not available . MJB A 21 Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses Administration's new model bus testing program. For each bus fuel economy {miles per diesel gallon equivalent, MPDGE) was measured on seven different test cycles with average speed ranging from 6.8 MPH to 38 .0 MPH. Emissions of nitrogen oxides {NOx), particulate matter {PM), non -methane hydrocarbons {NMHC), methane {CH 4 ), carbon monoxide {CO), and carbon dioxide {C0 2 ) were measured on three test cycles with average speed ranging from 6.8 MPH to 18 .9 MPH. Two sets of buses are compared , which represent the full suite of techno l ogy options as implemented on two different bus platforms by two different manufacturers . All of the tested buses were equipped with EPA 2010 compliant engines and are therefore representative of expected performance from new buses purchased in the future . The results of the compar ison , as described more fully in section 2, ind i cate that: EFFICIENCY & FUEL CONSUMPTION • CNG and diesel buses have similar over-all drivetrain efficiency. Of 14 direct comparisons {diesel and CNG versions on the same bus platform) the diesel bus had higher fuel economy over ten different tests, while the CNG bus had higher fuel economy on one test and the diesel and CNG versions had virtually identical fuel economy on three tests . • Hybrid buses consistently have higher average fuel economy than the d i esel and CNG versions of the same bus platform on slow-and medium-speed test cycles{< 18 MPH); on these cycles average fuel economy of the hybrid buses was between 7% and 44% higher than the average fuel economy of the diesel version of the same bus. On higher- speed test cycles the hybrid buses generally have the same or lower average fuel economy than the diesel version of the same bus. On slow-and medium-speed duty cycles the annual fuel savings from operati ng new hybrid buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 3,100 gallons per bus. According to data reported to the National Transit Database, approximately 75% of U.S. transit agencies, and 90% of U.S. transit buses on average operate in slow-and medium-speed duty cycles {<16 MPH). AIR QUALITY • CNG buses consistent ly have lower NOx emissions and higher CO emissions than diesel and hybrid buses across all duty cycles. Annual reductions in NOx emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 82 pounds per bus . Annual increases in CO emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 1,000 pounds per bus . • Hybrid buses generally have slightly lower NOx emissions than diesel buses, but on several tests hybri d NOx emissions were higher than from the diesel version of the same bus . MJB ') A 3I Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses • Diesel and hybrid buses both have very low PM emissions, equivalent to only about one third or less of the allowable EPA standard. PM was not measured for the CNG buses. • All three technologies have very low NMHC emissions, equivalent to only about one fourth or less of the allowable EPA standard . CLIMATE IMPACTS • Diesel and CNG buses emit very similar levels of C0 2 from their tailpipes (g/mi); while natural gas has lower carbon content than diesel fuel this advantage is eroded by generally higher fuel economy for diesels. This result is different than reported results for other heavy-duty vehicles (for example long-haul trucks) due to differences in engine technology and duty cycle . Hybrid buses generally emit lower C0 2 (g/mi) than diesel or CNG buses due to their higher fuel economy. • Total wells-to-wheels GHG emissions (g COre/mi) are generally slightly higher from CNG buses than from diesel buses, due primarily to the "upstream" impact of methane emissions from natural gas production and processing. The increase in total annual GHG emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 13.3 tons C02 -e per bus. • Total wells-to-wheels GHG emissions are generally lower from hybrid buses than from diesel or CNG buses due to their higher fuel economy. The reduction in total annual GHG emissions from operating new hybrid buses instead of new CNG buses could be as high as 54.5 tons CO r e per bus . MJ B (' A 41 Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses 1 Data Sources and Methodology This analysis uses data on fuel economy and exhaust emissions from different transit bus models, which was collected at the Altoona Bus Research & Testing Center (ABRTC), in Altoona PA . The ABRTC conducts required testing for all new transit bus models under the Federal Transit Admin i strati on's new model bus testing program. The goal of ABRTC is to "ensure better reliability and in-service performance of transit buses by providing an unbiased and accurate comparison of bus models through the use of an established set of test procedures"4 . The ABRTC conducts tests on a range of bus types, from 20-foot shuttle buses to 60-foot articulated transit buses . This analysis focuses only on 40-41 foot low floor transit buses ; this bus type makes up approximately 62% of the current U.S. fleet used for fixed -route service 5 . In addition, the intent of this analysis is to compare the efficiency and environmental performance of new buses that will be purchased in the future, so we have only included data from tests conducted since 2010 when the most stringent EPA emission standards went into effect; all of the buses included in th i s analysis were equipped with engines complaint with EPA 2010 standards . See table 1 for a summary of all 40-41 foot low-floor transit buses tested at ABRTC since 2010 . Table 140-foot Transit Buses Tested at ABRTC Since 2010 ABRTC Report Make Model Model Size Engine Make/Model Year (ft.) PTl-BT-R1205 New Flye r C40LF 2011 41 Cummins ISLG280 PTl-BT-R1211 New Flyer XD40 2011 40 Cummins ISL9 280 PTl-BT-Rl015 New Flyer XDE40 2010 40 CumminslSB6.7 280 PTl-BT-R1117 Daimler Or i on VII 2010 41 Cummins ISLG280 PTl-BT-R1202-P Daimler Orion VII 2012 41 Cummins ISL 280 PTl-BT-R1007 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 CumminslSB6.7 PTl-BT-R1016 Gillig Low Floor 2010 40 Cummins ISLG280 PTl-BT-R1206-P Gillig Low Floor 2012 41 CumminslSB6.7 280H PTl-BT-RlOll NAB! 416.15 2010 40 Cumm i ns ISL280 4 Altoona Bus Research & Testi ng Center website (http ://www .altoonabustest.com/) 5 Nationa I Transit Data base, 2011 data base, Revenue Vehicle Inventory MJ 8 t~ A SI P age Type CNG Diesel Hybrid CNG Diesel Hybrid CNG Hybrid Diesel • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses From this group of buses we chose to compare the first six, which provide a direct comparison of available technology options (CNG, Diesel, Hybrid) on each of two different bus platforms. See Table 2 for a summary of the specifications of these six buses, as tested at ABRTC. The last three buses shown in Table 1 were not included in the analysis because they do not provide a direct comparison of all technologies on the same bus platform. Table 2 Specification of Buses Included in This Analysis I I PTl-BT- I PTl-BT- I PTl-BT- I PTl-BT- I PTl-BT- I PTl-BT- R1205 R1211 R1015 R1117 R1202 -P R1007 Manuf New Flyer of America Daimler Buses North America Type CNG Diesel Hybrid CNG Diesel Hybrid Platform C40LF XD40 XDE40 Orion VII Orion VII Orion VII Curb Weight 31,2011b 27,730 lb 27,870 lb 31,610 lb 29,310 lb 29,730 MY2010 MY2011 MY2010 MY2010 MY2011 MY2010 Engine Cummins Cummins Cummins Cummins Cummins Cummins ISLG 280 ISL9 280 ISB 6 .7 280 ISLG 280 ISL 280 ISB 6 .7 280 Transmission Allison B400R Allison B400R BAE/ HDS200 Allison B400R ZF Ecol ife BAE Hybri Ori ve Goodyear Goodyear Fi res tone Michelin Michelin Goodyear Tires Metromiler Metromiler City Transport XZU2 XZU2 Metromiler B305/70R 22.S B305/70R 22.S 305/70R 22 .5 305/70R 22.S 305/70R 22.S B305/70R 22 .5 Delco Remy BAE/ Electronic Delco Remy EMP/ P450 BAE/BAE Alternator EMP/P450 Alternator 8600191 8600191 Supply Hybrid System Wabco Wabco Wabco Wabco Air Compressor Wabco HD 30 .4 4938827 Wabco 636CC CP9456 CP9686 CP9456 For this analysis we used data collected in two different types of tests at ABRTC, the Fuel Economy Test and the Emissions Test. In the fuel economy test buses are operated over a series of specific test cycles on a test track and, for liquid-fueled vehicles, average fuel use over each test segment is determined gravimetrically6 • For gaseous fueled vehicles average fuel use over each test segment is determined using a laminar type flow meter installed in the vehicle fuel system. For the emissions tests buses are mounted on a large-roll chassis dynamometer and exercised over a series of specific drive cycles. During testing the engine exhaust is routed to a full-scale dilution tunnel equipped with an emission sampling system. For all buses emissions analyzers 6 A portable fuel tank is installed on the vehicle and hooked to the engine. The fuel tank is weighed before and after each test segment to determine the weight of fuel consumed . MJB A GI Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses are used to determine average emissions (grams per mile, g/mi) of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C0 2 ), and hydrocarbons (HC) over each drive cycle . For diesel fueled buses particulate matter (PM) is also measured, and for natural gas fueled buses methane (CH 4 ) is measured. ABRTC does not measure PM emissions from CNG buses or methane emission from diesel buses. From measured C0 2 emissions average fuel use over each drive cycle is determined based on carbon balance 7 . See Table 3 for a summary of the different test cycles used for the ABRTC fuel economy and emissions tests. These cycles cover a wide range of potential operating conditions for transit buses, from very low speed urban operation with many stops per mile (Manhattan Cycle) to medium speed urban/suburban operation (CBD, OCC), to very high-speed commuter type service with few stops per mile (Arterial, Commuter, UDDS). According to data submitted by U.S. transit agencies to the National Transit Database, most transit buses operate in slow-or medium-speed duty cycles. The average in-service speed of transit buses in 2011was12 .9 miles per hour (MPH); for that year 75% of all transit agencies, which operated 90% of all buses, had average in-service speed of less than 16 MPH 8 . Table 3 Test Cycles Used by Altoona Bus Research & Testing Center Test Type Name Abbrev Max Speed Avg Speed Stops/mi (MPH) (MPH) Central Business District CBD 20.0 12.7 7.0 Fuel Arterial ART 40 .0 27 .0 2.0 Economy Commuter COM 40.0 38.0 0.3 Average of above cycles AVG 40.0 19.6 2.4 Manhattan Cycle MAN 25.4 6.8 10.0 Emissions Orange County Cycle occ 41.0 12 .0 5.0 Urban Dynamometer Drive Cycle UDDS 58.0 18 .9 1.3 This analysis uses the measured fuel economy from both the ABRTC fuel economy and emissions tests to compare the efficiency of the different bus types. For CNG buses ABRTC reports measured fuel use in units of miles per pound of natural gas. In order to compare 7 The tota I mass (grams) of carbon (CO pl us HC pl us C0 2 ) emitted in the exhaust must equa I the tota I mass of carbon entering the engine as fuel. The carbon content of the diesel fuel (gra ms/ga I Ion) is measured , and is used to ca lculatethe a mount of fuel (ga I Ions) used, based on the measured mass of carbon in the exhaust. 8 National Trans i tDatabase,Annual databaseRY2011 ; (www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data .htm). Average speed is ca I cu lated by di vi ding reported tota I vehicle mil es by reported total vehicle hours . This data covers 79,112 buses operated by 447 agencies . MJB '·A 71 Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses directly to diesel and hybrid buses, for this report these values were converted to units of miles per diesel gallon equivalent (MPDGE) using standard values of 128,450 btu/gallon for #2 diesel fuel and 20,269 btu/lb for natural gas 9 . To compare the environmental performance of the different bus types (g/mi emissions of NOx, PM, HC, CH 4 , CO, C0 2, GHG) this analysis uses data from the ABRTC emissions tests only. For each bus the following greenhouse gases (GHGs) are included in the analysis : carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ). In addition, for diesel buses the analysis includes the atmospheric warming effect of black carbon (BC) emitted from the tailpipe as particulate matter (PM)10 . This analysis assumes that 75% of the mass of PM emitted by diesel engines is BC 11 . While CNG buses also typically emit a small amount of PM and BC from their tailpipes the ABRTC test data does not include PM emissions from the tested CNG buses, so it was not included. In this analysis emissions of CH 4 and BC are converted to "carbon dioxide equivalents" (CO re) using their "global warming potential" (GWP)12 . For each bus, total GHGs per mile are calculated using equation 1: Total GHG (CO -e) [g/mi] =CO [g/mi] + (GWP x CH [g/mi]) + (GWP x BC [g/mi]) 2 2 CH4 4 BC Equation 1 Table 4 GWPValues Used inthe Analysis The GWP values used in this analysis are shown in Table 4; these are the latest values determined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 13 . GWP20 Carbon Dioxide (C02) 1 Methane (CH4) 86 Black Carbon 3,200 (BC) GWP100 1 34 900 Source Definition IPCC 2013 IPCC 2013 Most greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years -atmospheric scientists have therefore typically evaluated the effect of 9 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center (www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties .html). 6.34 lb natural gas= 1 DGE 10 Black carbon is a sol id, not a gas, and its effect on atmospheric warming is different than the effect of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide and methane. Black carbon in the air warms the atmosphere directly by absorbing sun I ight and radiating heat. Black carbon deposited on ice and snow reduces their reflectivity and accelerates melting, which indirectly contributes to further warming. 11 EPA Technology Transfer Network, Clea ri nghousefor Inventories and Emission Factors , Speci a ti on, Apri I 26,2005 12 GWPs are defined in relation to carbon dioxide. By definition the GWP of C0 2 = 1 eva I uated over al I time horizons. 13 I ntergovernmenta I Panel on Climate Cha n~e, 5th Assessment Report, September 2013 . These GWP values for methane are higherthan those in the IPCC4 1 assessment report (2007). The 51 h assessment report includes GWP values for black carbon forthe first time . MJB A SI Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Di esel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses GHGs over a 100-year t i me horizon, using GWPlOO . Recently, however, there has been growing evidence of the importance of "short-term climate forcers", including both CH 4 and BC, acting over a much shorter time horizon 14 . For that reason we have chosen to provide estimates of total GHGs from all buses using both a 20-year {GWP20) and 100-year {GWPlOO) time horizon - these are designated in this report as "short-term GHGs" and "long-term GHGs", respectively. As shown in Table 4, in the short term one pound of methane emitted to the atmosphere has 86 times the warming potential of one pound of carbon dioxide {GWP20 = 86), while in the long term it has only 34 times the warming potential {GWPlOO = 34). Black carbon is an even more potent climate warmer, particularly in the short term. Over a 20 -year time horizon one pound of BC emitted into the atmosphere is estimated to have 3,200 times the warming potential of one pound of C0 2 . When evaluating the total greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by each bus type we included emissions from the bus tailpipe (as measured by ABRTC) as well as estimated "upstream" emissions from recovery, production and transport of the fuel used by the bus -this provides a "total fuel cycle" or "wells-to-wheels" view of GHG emissions . Data on estimated upstream em i ssions was taken from the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model developed by the Argonne National Laboratory 15 . National level default values for each fuel pathway were used to calculate C0 2 and CH4 emissions (grams per megajoule, g/MJ) for the production of diesel fuel (for diesel and hybrid buses) and for the production of compressed natural gas (for CNG buses). These values were converted to mass of emissions per unit of fuel used (grams per diesel gallon equivalent, g/DGE) using a standard value of 135.52 MJ/gallon for diesel fuel 16 . To evaluate potential annual fuel and emission savings from operating one type of bus compared to another, th is analysis used 36,424 miles per year per bus . This is the average annual mileage for all U.S. transit buses , as reported by the American Publ i c Transportation Association 1 7 • 14 Bond, T.C., et a I, Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, Journa I of Geophysical Research ; Atmospheres , Volume 118, lssuell ,June 6, 2013 15 GREET 1 2013, October 25 , 2013 1 6 U.S. Department of Energy , Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center (www.afdc .energy .gov/afdc/fuel s/properti es .html) 17 American Public Transportation Association , 2012 Pub I i cTransportation Fact Book, Tables 7 and 8 MJB \. A 9I Page • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses 2 Results 2.1 Fuel Economy See Figure 1 for a comparison of ABRTC measured fuel economy from the CNG, diesel, and hybrid New Flyer buses and Figure 2 for measured fuel economy from the CNG, diesel, and hybrid Daimler buses. As shown, for 14 sets of measurements (two sets of buses times seven test cycles each), the diesel bus had higherfuel economy (MPDGE) than the CNG bus (same bus platform) on ten different tests, the CNG bus had higherfuel economy on one test, and the diesel and CNG buses had virtually identical fuel economy on three tests . For the test cycles overwhich the diesel bus had higherfuel economy than the CNG bus the increase in fuel economy ranged from 7% (Daimler buses on CommuterCycle) to46% (New Flyer buses on UDDS Cycle). For the test in which the CNG bus had higherfuel economy (New Flyer on CBD cycle) the increase i n MPDGE was 7%. Based on the data shown in Figure 1 and 2, a CNG bus with average annual mileage (36,424miles per year) could use between 600 gallons less and 2,900 gallons 18 more fuel annually than a diesel bus depending on the bus platform and duty cycle. w \.!:! 0 Cl. ~ -> E 0 c 0 u w Qi ::I u.. 9 .0 8 .0 7.0 6 .0 5 .0 4 .0 3 .0 2.0 1 .0 0 .0 CBD (12 .7 MPH) ALTOONA MEASURED FUEL ECONOMY -New Flyer Bus ART (27 .0 MPH) •NF CNG •NF DIESEL • NF HYBRID COM (38.0 MPH) AVG (19 .6 MPH) MAN (6.8 MPH) ace (12 .0 MPH) UDDS (18.9 MPH) Fuel Economy Test (Test Track) Emissions Test (Dynamometer) Figure 1 Altoona Measured Fuel Economy-New Flyer Buses 1 8 Diesel gal I on equiva I ents MJB :<,A lOI Page • • • 9.0 8 .0 7 .0 w ~ 6 .0 i 0 Q.. ! 5.0 e g 4 .0 0 u w Qi 3 .0 :J L&. 2 .0 1.0 0 .0 ·--~ CBD [12.7 MPH) Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses ALTOONA MEASURED FUEL ECONOMY -Daimler Bus ART [27.0 MPH) • DAIM CNG • DAIM DIESEL • DA IM HYBRID COM [38.0 MPH) AVG [19.6 MPH) MAN [6.8 MPH) occ [12 .0 MPH) UDDS [18.9 MPH) Fuel Economy Test (Test Track) Emissions Test (Dynamometer) Fi gure 2 Altoona Measured Fuel Economy -Da i mler Buses Over the 14 sets of measurements the hybrid bus had higherfuel economy than the diesel bus (same bus platform) on ten tests, the diesel bus had higherfuel economy on three tests, and the hybrid and diesel bus had virtually identical fuel economy on one test. The hybrid had higherfuel economythan the CNG bus on all but one test. There is a clear pattern to the differences in fuel economy between the CNG/diesel and hybrid buses : the hybrid buses always had higher measured fuel economy than the diesel and CNG buses on the slow-speed and medium-speed cycles (CBD, MAN , OCC) and fuel economy was the same, or higher, for the diesel bus than the hybrid bus on the high -speed cycles (COMM, UDDS). For the slow and medium-speed test cycles the increase in fuel economy for the hybrid buses compared to the diesel buses ranged from 7% (Daimler buses on Arterial Cycle) to 44% (New Flyer buses on Manhattan Cycle). For these same cycles the increase in fuel economy for the hybrid buses compared to the CNG buses ranged from 6% (Daimler buses on Arterial Cycle)to 85% (New Flyer buses on Manhattan Cycle). For virtually all cycles the Daimler hybrid bus had lower measured fuel economy than the New Flyer hybrid bus . On all but two test cycles the DaimlerCNG and diesel buses also had lower measured fuel economy than the New Flyer buses of the same technology. Based on the data shown in Figures 1 and 2, a hybrid bus with average annual mileage(36,424 miles per year) operating in a slow-or med i um-speed duty cycle could use between 549gallons and 3, 142 gal Ions MJB u A 11 I Page • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses less fuel annually than a diesel bus, or between 507 gallons and 6,052 gallons 19 less fuel annually than a CNG bus, depending on the bus platform and actual duty cycle. 2.2 Emissions 2.1.1 Criteria Pollutant'> See figure 3 for a comparison of ABRTC measured NOx emissions from both the New Flyer and Daimler buses. As shown, for both the New Flyer and Daimler bus platform, the CNGversion consistently had the lowest NOx emiss ions of the three technologies on all test cycles. The reduct i on in NOx emissions for the CNG buses compared to the diesel buses ranged from 0 .04 g/mi (Daimler Bus on UDDS cycle) to 1.22 g/mi (Daimler bus on Manhattan cycle). For buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual NOx reduction from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses ranges from 3 .2 -81 .8 pounds per bus . ALTOONA MEASURED NOx Emissions -New Flyer Bus ALTOONA MEASURED NOx Emissions-Daimler Bus 3 .0 ' 2 .0 ·e ...... ~ " 0 z 1.0 i 0 .0 ·- •NF CNG •NF DI ESE L •NF HY BRID MAN [6 .8 MPH] occ [12.0 MPH] Test Cycle NEW FLYER BUSES UDDS [18.9 MPH] Figure 3 Altoona Measured NOx Emissions 3.Q T 2.0 ·e ...... ~ " 0 z 1.0 0 .0 • DA IM CNG • DAIM DIESEL • DAIM HYBRID MAN [6 .8MPH] occ [12.0MPH] Test Cycle DAIMLER BUSES UDDS [18.9MPH] On all but two tests (Daimler bus on UDDS cycle and New Flyer bus on Manhattan Cycle) the hybrid buses also had lower NOx emissions than the diesel buses, but not as low as the CNG buses . The reduction in NOx em i ssions forthe hybrid buses compared to the diesel buses ranged from 0.08 g/mi (New Flyer Bus on UDDS cycle) to 0 .78 g/mi (Daimler bus on Manhattan cycle). On the Manhattan Cycle the New Flyer hybrid bus had 0.94 g/mi higher NOx emissions than the New Flyer Diesel bus . For buses w i th average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual NOx reduction from operating 19 Diesel gallon equivalents MJB ~A 121 Page • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses new hybrid buses instead of new diesel buses ranges from-75.5 pounds (increase) to 62.6 pounds per bus. ALTOONA MEASURED PM Em issions • New Flyer Bus •NF CNG •NF DIESEL •NF HYBRID 0 .06 . 0.0 5 -j ' 0.04 t- i 0,02 i r 0.01 f I o.oo r CNG Bu ses not tested fo r PM I MAN (6 .8 MPH) I ace (12.0 MPH ) Test Cycle NEW FLYER BUSES UODS (18.9 MPH) Figure 4 Altoona Measured PM Emissions 0.06 o.os 0 .04 ·e ..... ~ 0 .03 :ii; "' 0 ,02 0 .01 0.00 ALTOONA MEASURED PM Emissions· Daimler Bus • DAI M CNG • DAI M DIE SEL • DAIM HYB RID CNG Buses no t tested /or PM -1111111 .' -MAN DCC UDDS (6 .8 MPH) (12.0MPHJ (18 .9 MPH) Test Cycle DAIMLER BUSES See Figure 4 for a comparison of ABRTC measured PM emissions from both the New Flyer and Daimler diesel and hybrid buses ; ABRTCd i d not measure PMemissionsfrom the CNG buses. As shown, in some cases PM was higher from the diesel bus and sometimes it was higher from the hybrid bus . In all cases, however, PM emissions were very low, and were well below the EPA standard . Given the measured fuel economy from these tests, a bus wh i ch just meets the EPA new engine PM standard of0.01 g/bhp-hr would emit between 0 .03 and 0 .05 g/mi PM 20 . See Figure 5 for a comparison of ABRTC measured NMHC emissions from both the New Flyer and Daimler buses . As shown, in some cases NMHCwas highest from the diesel bus and sometimes it was highest from the CNG bus. In all cases, however, NMHCemissions were very lowfrom all three technologies, and were well below the EPA standard. Given the measured fuel economy from these tests, a bus which just meets the EPA new engine NMHC standard of 0.14 g/bhp-hrwould emit between 0.29 and 0.71 g/mi NMHC16 • See Figure 6 for a comparison of ABRTC measured CO emissions from both the New Flyer and Daimler buses . As shown, in all cases the CNG buses had significantly higher CO emissions than the diesel and hybrid buses. The increase in CO emissions forthe CNG buses compared to the diesel and hybrid buses ranged from 4.4 g/mi (Daimler Bus on UDDS cycle) to 13.2 g/mi (New Flyer bus on Manhattan cycle). For buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual CO increase from 2 0 This assumes 33%average engine efficiency . MJB A 13I Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel or hybrid buses ranges from 353 pounds to 1,060 pounds per bus . 0 .80 0.70 0 .60 a.so ·e ...... ~ 0.40 u J: ~ 0.30 0.20 0.10 0 .00 ALTOONA MEASURED NMHC Emissions -New Flyer Bus •NF CNG •NF DIESEL •NF HYBRID MAN [6 .8 MPH] m ace [12 .0 MPH] Test Cycle NEW FLYER BUSES UDDS [18 .9 MPH] Figure 5 Altoona Measured NMHC Emissions lS .00 14 .00 13 .00 12.00 11.00 10.00 ¥ 9.00 ~ 8 .00 0 7.00 u 6.00 S.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 .00 ALTOONA MEASURED CO Emissions -New Flyer Bus •NF CNG •NF DIESEL •NF HYBRID MAN [6 .8 MPH] ace [12 .0 MPH] Test Cycle NEW FL YER BUSES UDDS [18.9 MPH] Figure 6 Altoona Measured CO Emissions ALTOONA MEASURED NMHC Emissions -Daimler Bus 0 .80 0.70 0.60 _a.so ·e ...... ~ 0.40 u J: ~ 0.30 0.20 0 .10 t ! •DAI MCNG • DA IM DIESEL o.oo L·-----.. ~----L--------L...--- lS .00 14.00 13 .00 12 .00 11 .00 10 .00 ¥ 9.00 ~ 8.00 0 7.00 u 6.00 S.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 .00 MAN [6.8 MPH] ace [12.0 MPH] Test Cycle DAIMLER BUSES UDDS [18.9 MPH] ALTOONA MEASURED CO Emissions -Daimler Bus MAN [6.8 MPH] • DAIM CNG • DAIM DIESEL ace [12.0 MPH] Test Cycle DAIMLER BUSES UDDS [18.9 MPH] MJB (L A 14 I Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses 2.1.2 Green House Gases See Figures 7-10 for estimated total wells-to-wheels GHG emissions from the New Flyer and Daimler buses tested atABRTC. These figures include measured tailpipe emissions (C0 2, CH 4, and BC) and estimated upstream emissions from fuel production (C0 2, CH 4). In these figures all GHGs were converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (C0 2-e) using appropriate "global warming potential" values (see Section 1). Figures 7 and 8 show estimated GHGs over a 100-year yeartime horizon (long term), while Figures 9and 10 show estimated GHGs over a 20-year time horizon (short term). As shown, for all test cycles measured tail-pipe emissions of C0 2 from the New FlyerCNG bus were virtually the same, or slightly higher than, measured C0 2 emissions from the New Flyer diesel bus. For all test cycles measured tail-pipe emissions of C0 2 from the DaimlerCNG bus were slightly lower than measured C0 2 emissions from the Daimlerdiesel bus. Based on this test data, for buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual change in tailpipe C0 2 emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses ranges from a decrease of 10.4 tons per bus to an increase of 7.2 tons per bus (-15% to +14%). For the low-and medium-speed test cycles (Manhattan, Orange County) measured tailpipe emissions of C0 2 from the hybrid versions of both the New Flyer and Daimler buses were lowerthan from the diesel and CNG versions of the same bus; on the higher speed UDDS cycle measured tailpipe C0 2 emissions were lower for the New Flyer hybrid than forthe New Flyer diesel orCNG buses, but were higherforthe Daimler hybrid than forthe Da i mlerdiesel and CNG buses . This is consistent with the fuel economy results discussed in section 2.1. Based on this test data, for buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual reduction in tailpipeC0 2 emissions from operating new hybrid buses instead of new diesel buses in typical slow-and medium-speed transit duty cycles ranges from 10.1 tons per bus to 34.9 tons per bus (-12% to -31%). The potential annual reduction in tailpipeC02 emissions from operating new hybrid buses instead of new CNG buses in typical slow-and medium-speed transit duty cycles ranges from 2.5 tons per bus to 35 . 7 tons per bus (-3% to -31%). When measured tail pipe emissionsofCH 4 and BC, as well as estimated upstream emissions ofC0 2 and CH4, are added to measured tail pipe emissions of C02 total estimated wells-to-wheels GHGs (g C02- e/mi) are generally slightly higherforthe CNGversion of the New Flyer bus, but slightly lower for the CNG version of the Daimler Bus, compared to the diesel version of the same bus . This is primarily due to the effect of upstream CH 4 emissions from production and transport of natural gas fuel . Upstream C0 2 emissions are lower for natural gas than for diesel fuel. Tail pipe emissions of CH 4 (from CNG buses) and BC (from diesel and hybrid buses) are very low relative to total C0 2 emissions, and therefore do not contribute significantly to total wells-to-wheels GHG emissions for any of the buses . MJB A 15 I P age • • • 6,000 5,000 .E ........ Cll ,.:, 4,000 0 u ~ VI 3,000 z 0 ;:;; VI ~ 2,000 .... Cl :x: Cl 1,000 0 . Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (g C02-e/mile) -100 year Time Horizon •Tailpipe BC Tailpipe CH4 Upstream CH4 • Upsteam C02 •Tailp i pe C02 NF CNG NF Diesel NF Hybrid NF CNG NF Die se l NF Hybrid NF CNG NF Diesel NF Hybrid Manhattan Cycle (6 .8 MPH] Orange County Cycle (12.0 MPH] UDDS Cycle (18.9 MPH] Figure 7 Estimated Long-term Wells-to-WheelsGHG Emissions-New Flyer Buses 6,000 5,000 .E ........ Cll 4,000 ,.:, 0 u ~ 3,000 VI z 0 ;:;; VI 2,000 ~ .... Cl J: 1,000 Cl 0 . TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (g C02-e/mile) -100 year Time Horizon •Tailpipe BC Tailpipe CH4 Upstream CH4 • Upsteam C02 •Tailpipe C02 DAIM CNG DAIM DAIM DAIM CNG DA IM DAIM DAIM CNG DAIM DAIM Hybrid Dies el Hybrid Manhattan Cycle [6.SMPH) Diesel Hybrid Orange County Cycle [12 .0 MPH) Diesel UDDS Cycle [18.9 MPH) Figure 8 Estimated Long-term Wells-to-WheelsGHG Emissions-Daimler Buses MJB "{ A 16 I Page • • • 6,000 5,000 .E ....... o/ 4,000 N 0 u ~ VI 3,000 z 2 VI VI ~ 2,000 l.IJ \!I :r: \!I 1,000 0 Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (g C02-e/mile) -20 year Time Horizon •Tailpipe BC Tailpipe CH4 Upstream CH4 • Upsteam C02 •Tailpipe C02 __...., NF CNG NF Diesel NF Hybrid NF CNG NF Diesel NF Hybrid NF CNG NF Diesel NF Hybrid Manhattan Cycle [6.8MPH] Orange County Cycle (12.0 MPH] UDDS Cycle (18.9 MPH) Figure 9 Estimated Short-term Wells-to-WheelsGHG Emissions-New Flyer Buses 6,000 5,000 .E ....... Q) N 4,ooo 0 u ~ VI 3,000 " z 0 Vi Ill ~ l.IJ Cl :r: \!I 2,000 1,000 . 0 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (g C02-e/mile) -20 year Time Horizon •Tailpipe BC Tailpipe CH4 Upstream CH4 • Upsteam C02 •Tailpipe C02 DAiM CNG DAIM DAIM DAIM CNG DAIM DAIM DAiM CNG DAIM DAIM Hybrid Diesel Hybrid Manhattan Cycle (6.8MPH) Diesel Hybrid Orange County Cycle (12.0 MPH] Diesel UDDS Cycle (18.9 MPH) Figure 10 Estimated Short-term Wells-to-WheelsGHG Emissions-Daimler Buses MJB : A 17 I P age • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid -Electric Transit Buses As shown in Figures 9 and 10 the negative effect of upstream CH 4 emissions from natural gas fuel production are magnified in the short-term (20years) compared to the longterm (100 years) because methane is a short term climate forcer. Based on the data shown in figures 7 -10, for buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual change in long-term wells-to-wheels GHG emissions (C02 -e) from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses ranges from a decrease of 9.1 tons per bus to an increase of 13.3 tons per bus (-100.-b to +20%). In the short-term the potential annual change in wells-to-wheels GHG emissions (C0 2-e) from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses ranges from an increase of 2.5 tons per bus to an increase of 32.8 tons per bus (+2.5% to +17%). For buses with average annual mileage (36,424 miles per year) the potential annual change in long-term wells-to-wheels GHGemissions (COi-e) from operating newCNG buses instead ofnew hybrid buses ranges from a decrease of 23. 7 tons per bus when operating in higher-speed duty cycles to an increase of 54.S tons per bus when operating in slow-speed duty cycles (-23% to +25%). In the short-term the potential annual change in wells-to-wheels GHG emissions (C0 2-e) from operating new CNG buses instead of new hybrid buses ranges from a decrease of 13.3 tons per bus when operating in high-speed duty cycles to an increase of 81.2 tons per bus when operating in typical slow-speed duty cycles (-29% to +54%). Given that assumptions about upstream CH 4 emissions from natural gas production have such a large effect on the wells-to-wheels GHG analysis, it must be noted that there is continuing uncertainty as to the actual level of methane emissions from this activity. This analysis uses the most recent data available, from Argonne's GREET model (see Section 1), which is in turn based on EPA's most recent national greenhouse gas inventory. However, recent studies have indicated that EPA's inventory may over-state methane emissions from some natural gas production steps and understate methane emissions from others21 • Future revisions to EPA's inventory, and to the GREET model, could either increase or decrease estimated wells-to-wheels GHG emissions from the use of both diesel and CNG buses. 21 University of Texas, Center for Energy & Environmental Resources , Unprecedented Measurements Provide Better Understanding of Methane Emissions During Natural Gas Production, September 16, 2013 ; http ://dept.ceer.utexas .edu/metha ne/study/i ndex .cfm 181 Page • • • Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses REFERENCES • PTl-BT-R1205, PARTIAL STURAA TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from NEW FLYER of AMERICA MODEL C40LF, JUNE 2012; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program • PTl-BT-R1211, PARTIAL STURM TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from NEW FL YER of AMERICA MODEL XD40, NOVEMBER 2012; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program • PTl-BT-R1015, PARTIAL STURAA TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from NEW FLYER of AMERICA MODEL XDE40, DECEMBER 2011 ; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program • PTl-BT -Rlll 7, PARTIAL STURM TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from DAIMLER BUSES NORTH AMERICA LTD ., MODEL ORION VII EPA 10 CNG, FEBRUARY 2012; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program • PTl-BT-R1202-P, PARTIAL STURM TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from DAIMLER BUSES NORTH AMERICA LTD., MODEL ORION VII EPAlO DIESEL APRIL 2012; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program • PTl-BT-R1007, STURAA TEST 12 YEAR 500,000 MILE BUS from DAIMLER BUSES NORTH AMERICA LTD., MODEL ORION VII EPAlO, NOVEMBER 2010; The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Vehicle Systems and Safety Program MJB , A 191 Page APPENDIX A Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses • Table 5 Altoona-Measured Fuel Economy all Buses Altoona Measured Fuel Economy ABRTC Model Miles/OGE Make Model Type Fuel Economy Test Emissions Test Report Year CBD ART COM AVG MAN occ UDDS PTl -BT-R1205 New Flyer C40LF 2011 CNG 4.23 4.12 7.37 4.80 2.77 4.09 5.51 PTl-BT-R1211 New Flyer XD40 2011 Diesel 3.94 4.48 8.20 4.82 3.56 5.17 8.03 PTl-BT-Rl015 New Flyer XDE40 2010 Hybrid 5.46 5.11 7.79 5.84 5.14 7.05 8.04 PTl -BT-R1117 Daimler Orion VII 2010 CNG 3.87 4.12 6.65 4.44 2.82 4.17 5.44 PTl-BT-R1202 -P Daimler Orion VII 2012 Diesel 3.86 4.10 7.09 4.53 3.50 4.84 5.89 PTl-BT-Rl007 Daimler Orion VII 2010 Hybrid 4.64 4.37 6.80 5.00 4.26 5.50 5.06 Table 6 Altoona Measured Emissions, All Buses Manhattan Cycle ALTOONA Model Size Fuel EMISSIONS (g/mi) Make Model Fuel Economy REPORT Year (ft.) [MPDGE] NOx PM NMHC co CH4 C02 PTl-BT-R1205 New Flyer C40LF 2011 41 CNG 2.n 0 .72 NM 0 .05 13.41 0 .61 2,850 PTl-BT-R1211 New Flyer XD40 2011 40 Diesel 3.56 1.69 0.009 0 .08 0.20 NM 2,830 PTl -BT-R1015 New Flyer XDE40 2010 40 Hybrid 5.14 2.63 0 .002 0 .01 0 .25 NM 1,960 PTl-BT-R1117 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 CNG 2.82 0.44 NM 0 .03 9 .37 0.48 2,802 PTl-BT-R1202-P Daimler Orion VII 2012 41 Diesel 3.50 1.66 0.004 0.01 0.41 NM 2,882 • PTl-BT-R1007 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 Hybrid 4.26 0.88 0.004 0 .01 0 .20 NM 2,365 NM= Not measured Orange County Bus Cycle Model Size Fuel EMISSIONS (g/ml} Make Model Fuel Economy Year (ft.) [MPDGE] NOx PM NMHC co CH4 C02 PTl -BT-R1205 New Flyer C40LF 2011 41 CNG 4.09 0.30 NM 0.030 6.90 0.37 1,932 PTl-BT-R1211 New Flyer XD40 2011 40 Diesel 5.17 0.92 0.016 0.040 0.02 NM 1,950 PTl-BT-R1015 New Flyer XDE40 2010 40 Hybrid 7.05 0.82 0.001 0.003 0.15 NM 1,431 PTl-BT-R1117 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 CNG 4 .17 0.26 NM 0 .020 6.48 0.27 1,895 PTl-BT-R1202-P Daimler Orion VII 2012 41 Diesel 4 .84 0.99 0.006 0.005 0.28 NM 2,084 PTl-BT-R1007 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 Hybrid 5.50 0.68 0.008 0.008 0.14 NM 1,832 NM= Not measured UOOS Cycle Model Size Fuel EMISSIONS (g/mi) Make Model (ft.) Fuel Economy NOx NMHC co C02 Year [MPDGE] PM CH4 PTl-BT-R1205 New Flyer C40LF 2011 41 CNG 5.51 0.47 NM 0 .020 4.70 0.20 1,435 PTl-BT-R1211 New Flyer XD40 2011 40 Diesel 8.03 1.17 0.002 0.020 0.05 NM 1,256 PTl-BT-R1015 New Flyer XDE40 2010 40 Hybrid 8 .04 1.09 0.002 0 .006 0.11 NM 1,254 PTl-BT-R1117 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 CNG 5 .44 0.60 NM 0.02 4.44 0 .38 1,453 PTl-BT-R1202-P Daimler Orion VII 2012 41 Diesel 5.89 0.64 0 .002 0 .00 0.03 NM 1,713 PTl-BT-R1007 Daimler Orion VII 2010 41 Hybrid 5 .06 0.65 0.005 0 .01 0.12 NM 1,993 NM= Not measured • MJB , A 20I Page APPENDIX A Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel, and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses • Table 7 Esti m ated Wells-to-WheelsGHG Emissions, All Buses NEW FLYER BUSES unit Notes/Source s Fuel Economy MP DEG 2.77 3.56 5.14 4.09 5.17 7.05 5.51 8.03 8.04 Altoona Test Dato Fuel Use DEG/mi 0.361 0.281 0.194 0.244 0.193 0.142 0.182 0.125 0.124 =1 +MPDEG PM g/mi 0.000 0 .009 0.002 0.000 0.016 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.002 Tall pipe CH, g/mi 0.61 0.00 0.00 Emissions 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Altoona TMt Data co, g/mi 2,850 2,830 1,960 1,932 1,950 1,431 1,435 1,256 1,254 Upsteam co, g/MJ 10.32 17.92 17.92 10.32 17.92 17.92 10.32 17.92 17.92 GREET 2012 Emission co, g/DEG 1,399 2,429 2,429 1,399 2,429 2,429 1,399 2,429 2,429 = g/MJ x MJ/DEG Factors {Fuel CH, g/MJ 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 GREET 2012 Production) CH, g/DEG 42.0 14.9 14.9 42.0 14.9 14.9 42.0 14.9 14.9 = g/MJ x Ml/DEG UpsteamC02 gC02·e/mi 504 682 472 342 470 345 254 302 302 B CD2/DEG x DEG/mi SHORT-TERM Upstream CH4 gCO r e/mi 1,303 360 249 883 248 182 656 160 159 g CH4/DEG x DEG/mix CH4 GWP20 GHG PER MILE Tailpipe C02 g C0 2-e/mi 2,850 2,830 1,960 1,932 1,950 1,431 1,435 1,256 1,254 g C02/mi; Altoona Test Data BY SOURCE Tailpipe CH 4 g C0 2-e/mi 52 0 0 32 0 0 17 0 0 g CH4/mi (Altoona) x CH4 GWP20 TYPE Tailpipe BC g C0 2-e/mi 0 22 5 0 38 2 0 5 5 g PM/mi (Altoona) x BC GWP20 TOTAL gCO,-•/ml 4,709 3,893 1,686 3,189 1,706 l,960 1,361 J,n3 l,nO Upsteam C02 gCO re/mi 504 682 472 342 470 345 254 302 302 g C02/DEG x DEG/mi LONG-TERM Upstream CH. gCO re /mi 515 142 99 349 98 72 259 63 63 B CH4/DEG x DEG/mix CH4 GWPlOO GHG PER MILE Tailpipe C0 2 gCOre/mi 2,850 2,830 1,960 1,932 1,950 1,431 1,435 1,256 1,254 g C02/mi; Altoona Test Data BY SOURCE Tailpipe CH 4 gCO re/mi 21 0 0 13 0 0 7 0 0 g CH4/mi (Altoona) x CH4 GWPlOO TYPE Tailpipe BC gC024 e/mi 0 6 1 0 11 1 0 1 1 g PM/ml (Altoona) x BC GWPlOO TOTAL gCO,-e/ml 3,890 3,660 2,532 1,635 1,518 l,848 l,955 l,623 l,620 DAIMLER BUSES unit Notes/Sources Fuel Economy MP DEG 2.82 3.50 4 .26 4.17 4.84 5.50 5.44 5.89 5.06 Altoona Trsf Data • Fuel Use DEG/mi 0.354 0.286 0.235 0.240 0.207 0.182 0.184 0.170 0.198 =l ~MPDEG PM g/mi 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.006 0.008 0.000 0.002 0.005 Tall pipe CH, g/mi 0.48 0 .00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 Altoona Test Data Emissions co , g/mi 2,802 2,882 2,365 l,B95 2,084 1,832 1,453 1,713 1,993 Upsteiilm co , g/MJ 10.32 17.92 17.92 10.32 17.92 17.92 10.32 17.92 17.92 GREET 1013 Emission co , g/DEG 1,399 2,429 2,429 1,399 2,429 2,429 1,399 2,429 2,429 = g/MJ x Ml/DEG Fiilctors (Fuel CH, g/MJ 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 GREET 2013 Production) CH, g/DEG 42.0 14.9 14.9 42.0 14.9 14.9 42.0 14.9 14.9 =g/MJx Ml/DEG UpsteamC02 gC024 e/mi 496 694 570 335 502 441 257 413 480 g C02/DEG x DEG/mi SHORT-TERM Upstream CH4 g C0 24 e/mi 1,281 366 301 866 265 233 664 218 253 g CH4/DEG x DEG/mix CH4 GWP20 GHG PER MILE Tailpipe C02 g C024 e/mi 2,802 2,882 2,365 1,895 2,084 1,832 1,453 1,713 1,993 g C02/mi; Altoona Test Data BY SOURCE Tailpipe CH 4 g C024 e/mi 41 0 0 23 0 0 33 0 0 g CH4/mi (Altoona) x CH4 GWP20 TYPE Tailpipe BC gCOr e/mi 0 10 10 0 14 19 0 5 12 B PM/mi (Altoona) x BC GWP20 TOTAL gCO,-e/ml 4,620 3,951 3,145 3,110 1,865 1,515 1,407 1,348 1,738 UpsteamC02 gC02-e/ml 496 694 570 335 502 441 257 413 480 B C02/DEG x DEG/mi LONG-TERM Upstream CH4 gC024 e/mi 506 145 119 342 105 92 263 86 100 B CH4/DEG x DEG/mix CH4 GWPlOO GHG PER MILE Tailpipe C02 g C0 2-e/mi 2,802 2,882 2,365 1,895 2,084 1,832 1,453 1,713 1,993 g C02/mi; Altoona Test Data BY SOURCE Tailpipe CH 4 gCO re/mi 16 0 0 9 0 0 13 0 0 g CH4/ml (Altoona) x CH4 GWPlOO TYPE Tailpipe BC gCOre/mi 0 3 3 0 4 5 0 1 3 g PM/mi (Altoona) x BC GWPlOO TOTAL gCO,-</ml 3,810 3,n4 3,056 1,582 1,695 1,371 l,986 1,113 1,577 Gl.Of!AL ASSUMPTIONS & CONSTANTS 1 Diesel Equivalent Gallon (DEG)= 128,450 btu = 50.48 hp-hr= 135 .52 MJ Natural Gas Energy Content= 20, 268 btu/I b = 6.338 lb /OGE U.S. Department of Enerav, AlternaUve Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center (www.afdc.enerqy.qov/afdc/fuels/properties.html) GWP20 GWPlOO Methane 86 34 IPCC 5th Assess (2013) Black Carbon 3200 900 IPCC 5th Assess (2013) % PM that is BC= 75% EPA Trchnology Transfrr Nrtworlc Clrarlnghousr for /nvrntorirs and Emission Factors, Sp rdatlon, April 16,2005 947.817 btu/MJ 2,544.43 btu/hp-hr 453.59 g/lb • 21 I P age • • • 2016 Vehicle Replacements Unit Number Year/Make/Mode . lnservice Date Life (Months) Aquire Cost Estimated Replacement Cost 0421 2008 FORD F250 06/10/2007 96 $16,137 .00 $21,235 .19 1319 2002 DODGE DAKOTA 06/20/2002 96 $18,252 .00 $24,018 .39 1320 2003 FREIGHTLINER FL80 09/15/2002 156 $63,123.00 $101 ,061 .96 1341 1985 FORD F800 06/06/1985 348 $16,036 .00 $48,087.21 1342 1985 FMC FLUSH 6540 06/13/1985 348 $29,045.00 $87,097.34 1358 2001 SULLIVAN AIR COMP . 05/20/2001 144 $11,481 .00 $17,674.47 1409 2004 VOL VO L50D LOADR 05/10/2004 144 $76 ,046 .00 $117,069 .32 1426 2007 FORD F150 06/02/2007 84 $20,552 .00 $26 ,004 .84 1428 2008 GMC SIERRA 1500 03/01/2008 96 $22,968.00 $30 ,224 .32 1976 2005 CHEVROLET 1500 04/22/2005 108 $12,690 .00 $17,367.14 2378 2007 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 01/20/2007 84 $14,592 .00 $18,463.54 3056 2008 DODGE DAKOTA 06/01/2008 96 $18 ,748 .00 $24,671 .09 3226 2001 SULLIVAN AIR COMP. 05/20/2001 156 $11,481 .00 $18,381.45 3315 2008 FREIGHTLINER M2106 01/20/2008 96 $133,449 .00 $175 ,609 .78 3580 2001 FORD F150 09/20/2001 156 $21,961 .00 $35,160 .27 3581 2007 CHEVROLET COLORADO 04/28/2007 84 $13 ,309 .00 $16,840.13 4279 2007 CHEVROLET 2500 09/04/2007 84 $17,958 .00 $22,722 .60 4280 2007 CHEVROLET 2500 0910412007 84 $17 ,958 .00 $22,722 .60 5160 1990 VERMEER V430A TRCH 05/25/1990 252 $17,142 .00 $37,560.23 5220 2002 GMC SAVANA 07/04/2002 96 $19,765.00 $26 ,009 .39 5227 2004 HONDA TRX350FM4 11/19/2004 84 $4,907 .99 $6,210.17 5228 2004 HONDA TRX350FMA 11/19/2004 84 $4,824 .60 $6,104.66 5237 2006 POLARIS RANGER 05/19/2006 60 $6,900 .00 $8,072 .02 5238 2006 DODGE DAKOTA 06/29/2006 84 $16,093 .00 $20 ,362 .78 5240 2007 KUBOTA F3680 03/29/2007 84 $16,551 .00 $20 ,942 .30 5241 2007 KUBOTA F3680 03/29/2007 84 $16,551.00 $20 ,942 .30 5242 2007 DODGE RAM 3500 05/29/2007 84 $21,309 .00 $26 ,962 .68 5243 2008 FORD F250 09/24/2007 84 $23,691 .00 $29,976 .67 7356 2001 DODGE CARAVAN 04/16/2001 156 $18,715 .00 $29,963 .32 7413 2007 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 06/24/2007 84 $21, 134 .00 $26,741 .25 7974 2010 JACOBSEN LF3400 05/01/2010 60 $38,908 .83 $45,517 .83 Total $1 , 129,777.23 • • • 2016 Vehicle Replacements Unit Number Year/Make/Mode. lnservice Date Life (Months) 0421 2008 FORD F250 06/10/2007 96 1319 2002 DODGE DAKOTA 06/20/2002 96 1320 2003 FREIGHTLINER FL80 09/15/2002 156 1341 1985 FORD F800 06/06/1985 348 1342 1985 FMC FLUSH 6540 06/13/1985 348 1358 2001 SULLIVAN AIR COMP . 05/20/2001 144 1409 2004 VOL VO L50D LOADR 05/10/2004 144 1426 2007 FORD F150 06/02/2007 84 1428 2008 GMC S IERRA 1500 03/01/2008 96 1976 2005 CHEVROLET 1500 04/22/2005 108 2378 2007 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 01/20/2007 84 3056 2008 DODGE DAKOTA 06/01/2008 96 3226 2001 SULLIVAN AIR COMP . 05/20/2001 156 3315 2008 FREIGHTLINER M2106 01/20/2008 96 3580 2001 FORD F150 09/20/2001 156 3581 2007 CHEVROLET COLORADO 04/28/2007 84 4279 2007 CHEVROLET 2500 0910412007 84 4280 2007 CHEVROLET 2500 09/04/2007 84 5160 1990 VERMEER V430A TRCH 05/25/1990 252 5220 2002 GMC SAVANA 07/04/2002 96 5227 2004 HONDA TRX350FM4 11/19/2004 84 5228 2004 HONDA TRX350FMA 11/19/2004 84 5237 2006 POLARIS RANGER 05/19/2006 60 5238 2006 DODGE DAKOTA 06/29/2006 84 5240 2007 KUBOTA F3680 03/29/2007 84 5241 2007 KUBOTA F3680 03/29/2007 84 5242 2007 DODGE RAM 3500 0512912007 84 5243 2008 FORD F250 09/24/2007 84 7356 2001 DODGE CARAVAN 04/16/2001 156 7413 2007 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 06/24/2007 84 7974 2010 JACOBSEN LF3400 05/01/2010 60 To: City council August 17, 2015 From: Leroy Cockrell, 3 6 7 5 S. Cherokee St. Englewood I would li~e to. share the opening program I experienced b ~.°'."I~ cf' h'¥) • • at the op& z rasmai.Jll Executive MBA program at The University of Colorado. The class was divided into small groups of 5 to 6 people, and a natural leader evolved in each group. These leaders as do most leaders fell into two groups. Type "A" or autocratic leaders who were the sole decision makers in most cases and type "B" leaders who were participation type leaders. Type "B" leaders look for others in the group that had skills to offer and work to inspire them to use their skills to the benefit of the group. Our class demonstrated once a again that Type "B" leaders are more successful than their Type "A" counterparts. I hope you will search your own style and consider the experiences I have shared with you. The reason I bring this up is that I want Englewood to be a successful thriving community that works together for the benefit of the citizens that choose this place to call home. When I hear things happening in city government that focus on decisions without involvement of the citize ~o~itical of citizens participating and helping with projects in the community, it raises red flags to me. We need the talents of not only the city leaders but also the citizens in making this a successful and prosperous community. Only the city leadership can legally encumber the resources of the city to do projects,~he citizens can often contribute in surprising ways to help make things happen that may nofavailable to city leaders alone. A good type "B" leader will look for opportunities to involve groups of people who may well include both elected officials and citizens._~hey will work to inspire the best of all of them to work together for the benefit of the community. Potential ad hoc committees involving city people and citizens are: a. Green Refuse b. Green Lights c. Green Vehicles d. Greener Spaces In closing, I ask that all of you work toward being inspiring Type "B" leaders who involve people with talents to offer to solve our many problems. I hope you will consider involving citizens on committees to help us become a community that cares about and works toward being green and forward looking. 8/17/2015 Gmail -Hand Out for Council Jeremy & Cassie L <jershann@gmail.com> Hand Out for Council 1 message -----·----- Cassandra Letkomiller <cletko@hotmail.com> To: Jeremy Letkomiller <jershann@gmail.com> Why Off-Scale Buildings On Urban Lots Are BAD 1.) F l ooding & Foundation Damage- Mon , Aug 17, 2015 at 4 :44 PM -Old homes take up an average of 15-30% of the lot including garages, sheds , etc. New duplexes take up 60% plus of the lot. You are significantly altering permeable green space available for drainage. We are already at risk in Bates-Logan to flood . Harvard Gulch floods and our neighbors to the southeast are having flooding. If you let too much more overdevelopment occur we will likely flood in Bates-Logan too. -Some of the homes right next to large duplexes with less than 1 Oft of space from house to next door property house will suffer flooding and foundational damage just due to drainage issues between those two homes alone. -We have no where else to put our water run off and store its overflow because we are close in and do not have extra green space. Pipes draining to the Platte are at max capacity , and are cost prohibitive to increase in size. Ask Eric Keck about this, he is an intelligent man and knows a lot about this sort of thing so listen to him! ****Comparison FYI : Littleton, Denver, Lafayette , Broomfield, Arvada, Brighton, and CO Spgs etc ALL stipulate that only 25-40% of the lot in zones like Bates-Logan R-2-B can be covered by buildings . Denver and several of the other cities only allow for a 10ft bulk plane. Why then are we allowing a 60% lot coverage and 17ft bulk plane? That is more high density by definition than medium density which we should be . 2 .) Ample Green Space= Happy Humans & Happier Environment: -Englewood has no where to put lost green space. The new duplexes are so huge they don't have backyards, and since they take up 60% + of the lot the green space needs to be made up somewhere else or the environment , happiness, and children suffer. -Children without ample green space have health issues. If you would have read the references I sent almost two months ago in emails I had research proving this . Adults without ample green space suffer from health issues and mental issues significantly more. -The neighbors picked this area because they like green space, and taking so much away from them alters a huge reason they even want to live here. Building up 60% + of a lot is making something more high density than medium density. Old homes and duplexes were built to scale. Without green space environment takes a huge hit too . People fled to the suburbs post WNll because the cities were overcrowded, uncomfortable, and noisy. If we overcrowd our urban areas then human health takes a hit and people don't stay because they get sick of it. Green space defers lots of "noise pollution" too. 3.) Loss of Light. Privacy. & Decrease in Quality of Neighborhood: https ://mai l .google.com/mai l/u/O/?ui=2&ik=42d03fa713&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14f3dd67fcfdc21d&siml=14f3dd67fcfdc21d 1/4 8/17/2015 Gmail -Hand Out for Council · -Homes in old neighborhoods kept with a more cohesive, intact architecture and housing styles have been studied and found to have higher home values than areas where a hodge-podge of crud is put up in established neighborhoods . This is true per a 20yr Denver study and many national studies (again previously sent the references). -The lots in the streetcar burbs are small and extra small in size (2000-6000sqft). They are narrow rectangles (my lot is 37ft wide and 127ft long). That means you cannot cover as much of the lot with buildings, especially taller ones because you screw up light & privacy more easily . That is why Littleton, Denver, Lafayette, Broomfield , Brighton , and Arvada ALL have tighter rules on smaller lots than on larger lots so that light and privacy are not permanently destroyed because it hurts human health and harms house values . -How does a duplex with a total of 5580sqft in house with both units , and 1000sqft of garages on a lot with a total of 6100sqft make sense to you? It isn't the duplex per se that is the issue ... it is the proportion of house to lot, and how tall the building is in relation to the neighbors very, very close by as the lots are all small and extra small in size! (example is 2910 S Lincoln St units A &B). 4.) Neighbors HATE Oversized Homes/Plexes: -I can't find a neighbor that isn't mad about the scale of the new builds. They don't want to lose privacy, light, and character. They understand we can make a nice neighborhood with different ways of developing better. -Milennials cannot afford big houses. They can afford a 1 OOOsqft $300k bungalow. They don't want to share walls , t hey want a big yard, they are being out priced by big money investors paying cash, and they are losing the battle affording rent. One woman on S Sherman named Miranda Smith has wanted a home to own here for 6yrs. She is stuck renting due to cost, and in 6 yrs rent on a 600sqft place has gone from $800 a month to $1600 a month. Milennials like character better than McMansions of their parents generation. -About 75% of neighbors interviewed love the history of the homes and that is why they picked this area. The old homes are why they are here combined with high amounts of green space. 5.) Economically Harmful: -Duplexes (like 291 O S Sherman Units A & B) take 4-9 months to sell. Unit at 291 O S Sherman is still on the market and went on the market 12-23-14! No one can afford a $600k per unit duplex. The market is oversaturated with costly housing. Metro area is in top 5 most unaffordable housing areas in the NATION! Many lots with homes ripped down by developers are sitting vacant for over a year and a half. While these lots sit vacant and while we wait for these duplexes to sell there aren't families living in the homes spending money locally . Quicker tum over with higher home owner occupancy= more$!! We need houses for the middle class, because they will settle down here, have kids, and spend lots of money in our city. -Compare this to the old home bungalows. They sell in days to a couple weeks tops. Latest examples? Home on the southwest side of Acoma & Dartmouth. Up for sale just before Aug 4th-ish ... sold already. Fix and flip at the northwest corner of Bates & Sherman sold in less than a week. Lots of examples. -You need to get the milennials with their money in, and guess what? We can only afford smaller, old homes. We like the character, we dont like mcmansions, we have student loans . We want a yard for dogs, chickens, gardens , and maybe a kid or two. Fix and flips I have seen have milennials 99% of the time, and once they move in they stay put in these flips. -The new duplexes are indeed 60%-ish plus rentals . I challenge you Joe , look it up, I am right. Old duplexes are 90% rentals in this area. Old home fix and flips are home owner occupied nearly 100%. I have heard that Englewood needs to get its rental rates down a tad . Owned properties are better cared for. Therefore, a few rentals is just fine, but overbuilding of duplexes will lead to a lower quality neighborhood as they are overwhelmingly rentals. Cities with higher home ownership rates have better citizen voting and participation rates. Families spend more money locally and are more vested when owner occupied. -Studies show that when old homes are renovated and/or added on to it stimulates the local economy more than when an old house is ripped down and a new one is built. https://mai I .google.com/m ai l/u/O/?ui = 2&i k=42d03fa713&view= pt&search= i nbox&th= 14f3dd67fcfdc21 d&si m I= 14f3dd67fcfdc21 d 214 8/17/2015 Gmail -Hand Out for Council · -You can build a bigger square footage single family home on a small lot than a duplex , and you still end up with more room for green space! Huge duplexes ONLY benefit greed of developer wanting max bang for their buck! -Sma ll business are better stimulated by keep ing old buildings and the lay out grid of old areas (studies prove this, I have references). Joe, think about your situation? Case and point. 6.) Environmental Damage : -Old homes are more eco-friendly due to "embodied energy". Again, I already sent articles and studies proving this. -New homes take decades to make up for their damage done to our earth with materials made (40-80yrs). New homes are made to only last 25-30 yrs . -Old homes have "old growth wood". This wood has a lifespan of hundreds of years, and came from trees at least 120yrs old at the time of logging . Wasting this resource without re-purposing it is abhorrent as our present wood quality is horrible in comparison. -Over 30% of landfill waste is composed of ripped down buildings, most of which did not need to be torn down. Again, re-purpose, add on to , modernize old buildings. The American Planning Association says that high quality design of cities and areas requires sparing and re-purposing old homes/buildings due to the eco-benefits and character of old buildings. -The density grid of streetcar burbs is ideal as it was. There is enough density it is a tight and walkable grid (folks had to use streetcars & walking then prior to auto dominance), but there is enough green space that pollution from water run off is much lower, humans are healthier, and it is sustainable unlike post WWII sprawling suburbs. 7.) Loss of history: See article published in the Englewood Historic Preservation Society included in hand outs . ******WHY IS THIS A NON-ISSUE IN YOUR EYES?! This issue applies to ALL streetcar suburbs in Englewood ... even a single family home will be a problem if it is built too large and tall in relation to the size of the lot it is on . Too many homes built with this lack of care and the neighborhood suffers physically , mentally, economically, and culturally. I demand that council understand this issue better and help facilitate resolution for citizens hardest hit in Bates-Logan , then apply the lessons learned to the future problems that will face other streetcar burbs in the city (homes built from 1890-1930). *****Solutions: **Short Term/In Need of ASAP! -Come on! Discuss this in a study session & get up to date on development in these old neighborhoods by learning what Eric Keck, Chris Neubecker. & an architect trained in sustainable. smart planning like Korey Letkomiller know. I think you all have been developer brainwashed. and the rest of your info on what types of housing folks can afford and want is more from ideas popular in 2003/the late 90s more than in 2015!! -Decrease lot coverage allowed from 60% to no more than 40% -Change bulk plane back down to 12-10ft from 17ft so we are more in line with the national standard for a neighborhood with small/xs size lots and old homes. -Instead of a silly new city logo, ensure that neighborhoods have a strong, unique identity based upon age of https :/Imai I .google.com/m ai l/u/O/?ui= 2&i k=42d03fa713&view= pt&search= i nbox&th= 14f3dd67fcfdc21 d&sim I= 14f3dd67fcfdc21d 314 8117/2015 Gmail -Hand Out for Council . neighborhood and character of original architecture. **Long Term Needs -Conservation Overlay Zoning in Areas 75+ yrs old -Historic Preservation Board ****And as ALWAYS, I am more than happy to supply a host of references and to chatting in person, over the phone, text, or email with anyone on council. Come over, let me walk you around a few blocks and I can show you what I am seeing , and to see my (not so) "junky old house" .... haha shows how much of a knowledge gap there is when I hear frivolous comments like that! I don't bite , I am highly invested in making Englewood a lovely place to live in, and I do my research carefully . Cassandra Letkomiller (303) 260-8 249 cletko@hotmail .com 2856 S Lincoln Street https :/Imai I .google .com/m ail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=42d03fa713&view=pt&search= inbox&th= 14f3dd67fcfdc21 d&si ml= 14f3dd67fcfdc21 d 4/4 PUBLIC COMMENT ROSTER AGENDA ITEM 7 UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT < ---~··--··· Augu_st -~~-2~.t~ PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION TO THREE MINUTES PLEASE PRINT NAME ~ lA-aRPr fN;wJTIJJ6- ~ c ?ll1Af & )/ULJS .,... C:oc lL e\. \ ADDRESS TOPIC &fiW /J /}JG, eR/Jf&er Ne_w ~C(_-\.c;~c Ld._ 1\ e_5 PATXI'S PIZZA Let's Fundraise over Pizza, Salads and more! On Wednesday, August 19th, Patxi's Pizza will donate 10°/o of the entire day's sales to Englewood Historic Preservation Society. Please support us by dining at Patxi' s or placing a to-go, delivery or catering order on our fundraiser day! Patxi's is located at: Cherry Hills I 3455 S. University Blvd., Englewood, CO 303.783.2000 __. ~eff 52 Weeks of Giving is a program where each week at every Patxi's location, we host a fundraiser to give , , back to schools and organizations in our communities suppolling vouth education. health ;6 \: in'9 ~~n ~~ 0 Visit our website www .oatxisoizza.com for more details! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! Englewood Historic Preservation Society Preserving Englewood Colorado History 5oin ©Us! IN A HISTORY MAKING ADVENTURE! We have a broad-based mission, including the restoration and preservation of historic buildings, accepting, cataloging and displaying donated artifacts, recording, transcribing and publishing the oral history of Englewood and its residents, providing interesting and educational lectures each month on historical subjects, and reaching out to our local schools to assist with instilling a love of history in the students . SHOW YOUR SUPPORT AS A MEMBER, A VOLUNTEER, AND AN ADVOCATE! We welcome new members at all levels of involvement: positions ofleadership, administration, committee chairs and volunteers, or simply furthering our mission by supporting us with your annual dues. MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION We are a 501c3 non-profit organization . Dues and other contributions are tax deductible. Annual membership rates include: Individual $20, Family $35 . City ______________ State _____ Zip ________ _ Phone __________ Email _________________ _ New Member D Renewing Member D Englewood Historic Preservation Society Preserv ing Engl ew ood Colorado Hi story TEMPORARY MEMBERSHIP CARD Name _____________ _ Date Joined _____ (Expires 1 yr from date joined) $ ____ check enclosed to: Englewood Historic Preservation Society 501c3 P.O. Box 11234, Englewood, CO 80151 ENGLEWOOD HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY RECEIPT Thank you for joining us! Your membership dues help us to continue supporting our miss ion! Name _____________ _ Date ________ Paid: $20 D $35 D Authorized By ___________ _ A BRIEF HISTORY OF ENGLEWOOD The history of Englewood begins when gold was discovered on what came to be called Little Dry Creek by William Green Russell, an early settler of the high plains , in 1858. Two years later, Thomas Skerritt, considered to be the founder of the city, established a home in the area, which was called Orchard Place . Four years later the first road connecting Denver and Orchard Place was created by Skerritt himself using his own plough . In 1879 the first telephone arrived in the area . 1883 was an important year, as it was the year that the Cherrelyn horsecar path was laid. The Cherrelyn trolley was and is an important city icon, being carried up Broadway by horse and down by gravity. 190 3 brought incorporation , but Skerritt was edged out by J.C. Jones as the first city m ayor. Jones was a prominent landown- er, having originally owned almost all of wh at is now north Englewood . The next two years brought the establishment of the first newspaper in the city, soon to be named the Herald. In 1905 Swedish Nation- al Sanitorium was founded, soon to become the massive present-day Swedish Medical Center. 1906 brought the first pavement and street lights, and a year later the police and fire departments were established. In 1908 the famed Cherrelyn horse trolley stopped running. 1911 was a big year. John Valentine planted flowers and began a big business. He was the first to say "Say it with Flowers''. Then he began a national group called FTD. In 1917 Alexander Industries a movingmakingcompanysetuponBroadway. In 1924 , they began to make airplanes. The plane were called Alexander Eagle Rock. It was the most successful plane of its time . 1948 was a start of a great period of change for the city. 2,500 acres (1,000 ha) on the Platte Canyon were purchased, and soon McLellan Reservoir was created. This ensured water independence from the pow- erful Denver Water, and in fact , Englewood provides water to most of the south metro area now due to its vast, early-established water rights. Soon after, the city embarked on a huge building boom; most of the city was in fact built up by 1960. In 1965 City Park was sold to make way for Cinderella City, the largest mall west of the Mississippi River and one of the largest in the world when it opened in 1968. The de- veloper provided the funds to create a vast city park network to replace the single City Park that the mall was built on. Thirty years later, the city demolished the defunct mall in order to make way for a new, transit-orient- ed development that would also contain a new Civic Center, library, and the relocated city hall. The RTD completed its southeast light rail corridor in 2000 , and established passenger rail transit in Englewood. -compiled by Doug Cohn, adapted from- Wikipedia and the City of Englewood ........................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Englewood Historic Preservation Society Preserving Englewood Colorado History Like us on Facebook! www.HistoricEnglewood.org contact@historicenglewood.org 720-254-1897 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: August 17, 2015 11 a i Bill for ordinance resolving a discrepancy in Exhibits to the IGA with Denver to provide Fire and Ambulance protection. Initiated By: Staff Source: City Manager's Office Eric A. Keck, City Manager PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Ordinance No. 30, Series of 201 5 was approved on May 18, 2015, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City and County of Denver to provide the City of Englewood with fire and ambulance protection . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a bill for an ordinance resolving a discrepancy in Exhibits to the IGA with Denver to provide Fire and Ambulance protection . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Ordinance No. 30, Series of 201 5 was approved on May 18, 2015, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City and County of Denver to provide the City of Englewood with fire and ambulance protection. A discrepancy has been identified in the exhibits to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2015 between the City of Englewood and the City and County of Denver. The exhibit attached to the ordinance constitutes the actual distribution of equipment to Denver and the agreement between the parties. FINANCIAL IMPACT N /A LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed Bill for an Ordinance with Exhibit showing actual distribution of equipment. • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERJES OF 2015 BY AUTHORJTY COUNCIL BILL NO . 34 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE RESOLVING A DISCREPANCY IN EXHIBITS TO THE INTER GOVERNMENT AL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER TO PROVIDE FIRE AND AMBULANCE PROTECTION. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2015 was approved on May 18 , 2015 , which authorized an intergovernmental agreement with the City and County of Denver to provide the City of Englewood with fire and ambulance protection; and WHEREAS, a discrepancy has been identified in the exhibits to Ordinance No. 30 , Series of 2015 between the City of Englewood and the City and County of Denver; and WHEREAS , the City Manager retained former Battalion Chief Andy Fox to determine the actual distribution of equipment between Denver and Englewood; and WHEREAS , the attached exhibit constitutes the actual distribution of equipment to Denver and agreement between the parties . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby approves the attached Exhibit A which constitutes the actual distribution of equipment to Denver and agreement between the parties resolving a discrepancy in exhibits to the Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2015 . Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 17th day of August, 2015 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 20th day of August, 2015 . 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City 's official website beginning on the 19th day of • August, 2015 for thirty (30) days. Randy P . Penn, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 17th day of August , 2015 . Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • • • Denver Fire IGA Actual Distribution 6353 2009 Chevrolet Cut Away CC4V042 6354 2012 Dodge Ambulance 6488 2000 American La France Pumper 6493 2002 American La France Pumper 6490 2001 American La France Squirt 6494 2003 Freightliner M2106 6499 2005 Freightliner M2 Hazmat 6503 2008 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 6504 2009 Bauer TCOM-25 Trailer/Compressor 6501 2007 Crimson Pumper 6502 2007 Crimson Heavy Rescue Pumper Jefferon Station (1) 4'X9' dining table (8) dining chairs (7) recliners (1) side by side stainless steel refrigerator (1) electric range with oven (1) stainless steel dishwasher (1) full set of pots and pans (1) full set of kitchen utensils (1) full set of silverware (1) microwave oven (1) 54" flat screen television (purchased by local 1736) (1) natural gas grill (1) large rolling tool chest with tools office furniture in BC's office Cubicle style office furniture in Lt's office (27) mattresses all in Murphy beds John Deere lawn tractor used for plowing snow Acoma Station (1) 4'x7' dining table (6) heavy wooden dining chairs (5) recliners (1) side by side refrigerator (1) stainless steel dishwasher (1) gas range with oven (1) full set of pots and pans (1) full set of kitchen utensils (1) full set of silverware 1 (1) microwave oven (1) 42" flat screen television (purchased by COE) (1) natural gas grill office furniture (15) mattresses in Murphy beds (24) Nex-Gen 7 4.5 SCBA packs (UASI grant) (72) 1/2 hour carbon fiber wrapped cylinders (UASI grant) (8) 1 hour carbon fiber wrapped cylinders (UASI grant) (60) various size AV-3000 masks (55) CBRN MMR's (1) Porta-Count fit tester for SCBA (1) Posi-Check MMR calibration equipment for SCBA Spare SCBA parts inventory Tejon Station (1) full set of pots and pans (1) full set of kitchen utensils (1) full set of silverware 6 bottle cascade system Auto RAE calibration unit for gas detectors Miscellaneous 100 sets of bunker gear 60 helmets miscellaneous gloves, hoods 80 gallons of MicroBlaze foam 50 gallons of A/B foam Servicenter proprietary parts for apparatus Horn, Air Kit Repair Horn Air 6488 4 x Engine Keys Elevator keys ERG Run Books Backboard Carry all C-Spine Material 1/2" Static line in 2: Configuration -200ft. Non-Latex Gloves Engineer's 1 Spare Engine Key I xAP 50 Halligan Flat Head Axe (81b) Spare Mask/MMR 2 • • • • • Engineer's 2 Breaker Box Foam Aspirating Nozzle 2 1/2" Fog Nozzle 2 1/2" Solid Bore Handline Nozzle 2 1/2" Stacked tips for Deck Gun (13/8", 11/2", 1", 3/4", 2") Gated Wye 2 1/2" Siamese 2 x Storz Adapters (Female on 2 1/2" Side) 2 1/2" to 1" Adapter Trash Line with Garden Nozzle 2 x Hay Hooks 2 1/2" Double Male x 3 /Double Female Adapters x 3 1 3/ 4" Double Male x 2 / Double Female Adapters x 2 Flat Spanner Wrenches x 2 Dead Blow Shot Mallet (31b) 18" Pipe Wrench Hydrant Wrench 7 Way Spanners x 3 spare 2 1/2" Gasket Engineer's 3 2 x Broom Heads 2 x Extendable Broom Handles Flat Head Shovel 31" Bolt Cutters Cheap Ratchet Set Piercing Nozzle Hose Roller Engineer's 4 Empty Rear Roll Up Sampson Clamp Cones Cooper Hose Jacket 5" Pony Section 2 1/2" to 5" Storz Siamese Monitor Base Hydrant Bag Storz Adapter, Wrench , Littleton Wrench, 2 Spanners 2 1/2" Cap, 2 1/2" Dbl. Fem, 2 1/2" Dbl. Male Denver Thread Adapter Cones • 10 B/C C02 Extinguisher 3 Officer's 4 20 -A/ 120-B/C Dry Chem Extinguisher 2-A APW (Water Can) Fan Fuel 6.5 hp Honda PPV Fan 9ft. Exhaust Hose Officer's 3 Large Canvas Tarp Carry all Small Vinyl Salvage Cover Reflective Tarp Black Haz Mat Bag 50ft Bundle Electrical Cord 2x Portable Halogen Lights (500w) Officer's 2 Pick Head Axe Haligan Flat Head Axe (Sib) Pry-Axe A-Tool K-Tool and through lock set Officer's 1 Empty Misc: 4 x Spanners on Outside Rear 4 x Spanners on Outside Officer's Side 2 x 7-Way Spanners + Hydrant Wrench on Officer's Side Hose Loads: Bumper Line = 100 ft. x 1 3/ 4 " Single Jacket/Fog Nozzle Cross Lays = 200 ft. x 1 3/ 4" Double Jacket/Fog Nozzle Supply= 1000' x 5" / 800' x 2 1/2" (reverse lay) Bomberlines = 2 x 200", 2 1/2" +Smooth Bore Nozzle and Fog Dunnage: 8.5kW Hydraulic Generator 500 gal Water 40gal Foam Concentrate 5 gal Bucket Kitty Litter 5 gal Bucket Dirt Removable Deck Gun/ Monitor (Fog Nozzle) 2 x 6ft Drywall Hooks 14ft Roof Ladder 24 ft Extension Ladder 10 ft Attic Ladder 4 • • • • • 10 Ft Pike Pole 1xTelescoping1500 W Halogen Light Per side 2 x 500 W Halgoen Lights per Side 6493 Cab: 4 x Engine Keys ERG Run Books Backboard Cabinet: Carry All C-Spine Material 1/2" Static Line in 2: I Configuration-200ft. Non-Latex Gloves Engineer's 1: Spare Engine Key I xAP 50 Halligan Flat Head Axe (Sib) Engineer's 2: Breaker Box Foam Aspirating Nozzle 2 1/2" Fog Nozzle 2 1/2" Solid Bore Handline Nozzle 2 1/2" Stacked Tips for Deck Gun (13/8", 11/2", 13/4", 2") Gated Wye 2 1/2" Siamese 2 x Storz Adapters (Female on 21/2" Side) 2 1/2" to I" Adapter Trash Line with Garden Nozzle 2 x Hay Hooks 2 Yz" Double Male x 3 I Double Female Adapters x 3 I 3/ 4" Double Male x 2/ Double Female Adapters x 2 Flat Spanner Wrenches x 2 Dead Blow Shot Mallet (31b) 18" Pipe Wrench Hydrant Wrench 7-Way Spanners x 3 Spare 2 1/2" Gasket Engineer's 3: 2 x Broom Heads 2 x Extendab le Broom Handles • Flat Head Shovel 5 Spade Head Shovel 31" Bolt Cutters Cheap Ratchet Set Hose Roller Engineer's 4: Fan Fuel 6.5 hp Honda PPV Fan Rear Roll Up: Sampson Clamp Cones 5" Pony Section 2 1/2" to 5" Storz Siamese Monitor Base Hydrant Bag Storz Adapter, Wrench, Littleton Wrench, 2 Spanners Dbl Fem, 2 1/2" Dbl. Male, Denver Thread Adapter 10 B/C C02 Extinguisher Officer's 4: 20-A / 120-B/C Dry Chem Extinguisher 2-A APW (Water Can) 2x 50' 21/2 Officer's 3: Large Canvas Tarp Carry All Small Vinyl Salvage Cover Black Haz-Mat Bag SOft Bundle Electrical Cord 2x Portable Halogen Lights (500W) Officer's 2: Pick Head Axe Halligan Flat Head Axe (Sib.) Pry-Axe A-Tool K-tool and through the lock set Officer's 1: Empty Misc: 4 x Spanners on Outside Rear 4 x Spanners on Outside Officer's Side 2 x 7-Way Spanners+ Hydrant Wrench on Officer's Side Panel Hose Loads: Bumper Line= 100ft. x I 3/4"Single Jacket I Fog Nozzle (Foam Capable) 6 • • • • • • Cross Lays= 200ft. x I 3/ 4"Double Jacket I Fog Nozzle (Front Only= Foam Supply= 1000' x 5" / 800' x 2 1/2" (reverse lay) Bomberlines = 2 x 200", 21/2" +Smooth Bore Nozzle and Fog Dunnage: 8.5 kW Hydraulic Generator 500gal Water 40gal Foam Concentrate 5gal Bucket Kitty Litter 5gal Bucket Dirt Removable Deck Gun I Monitor (Fog Nozzle) 2 x 6ft Drywall Hooks 14ft Roof Ladder 24ft Extension Ladder 10ft Attic Ladder 10ft Pike Pole Ix Telescoping 1500W Halogen Light per Side 2 x 500W Halogen Lights per Side Utility Truck 6494 Passenger Side Front Tall: 12 Scott Low Pressure 30min. Air bottles Passenger Side Mid Tall 1: 3 Scott Low Pressure 60min. Air Bottles 12 Volt Power Supply/ Jump start Kit 2 Sets of tires chains 1 small blue tarp Passenger Side Mid Tall 2: 3 spade shovels 1 tool box w/ misc. hand tools 1 Junction box Passenger Side Wheel Well Double Door: 1 pick head ax 2 flat shovels 1 grain shovel 1 rake 4 sets of coverall's Kalina Case with Nikon camera w/ flash Passenger Side Back Tall: 1 small scene light Arson Kit containing: Large can Small can QuartJar Pint Jar 7 Small Jar Tire gauge Alcohol Paper Towels Disposable gloves Tools Putty knife Vapor Seal Bags Ruler/Tape Camera Film Syringes Property sheets Lab I es Evidence Tape Bottle w/ rubber stopper Fire Scene tape Bed of Truck: Wheelbarrow K2100/120/15A/single McGraw-Edison Power Unit MDG Fog smoke Gen Driver Side Front Tall: 2 Rescue Bag's EACH Containing: Class 3 Harness Set knee pads Helmet with Light Roll duct tape Radio harness Gloves 150' hardline 200' of rope Equipment Bag 1: 4 coveralls 2 sets knee pads 2 sets elbow pads 4 radio harnesses 2 flashlights 2 hard hat 2 sets leather gloves Equipment Bag 2: Four 50' hard line Equipment Bag 3: Two 50' Hardline 8 • • • • • Two iOO' Hardline Driver Side Mid Tall 1: One High Pressure Kart with 2 bottles and necessary hardware. Application manuals and protocol books Driver Side Mid Tall 2: 3 pigtails 2 tri-pod scene lights Driver Side Back Tall: Foam Inductor iOO' Cord Engine 21 6501 DOE outside cab front compartment XI radio lapel X2 spare mask X2 spare MMR DOE outside cab rear compartment Rags XI silicone lubricant Spare headset # ii2i" plate Scene light controller DOE side front compartment xiSCBA xi personal rope bag {60' 8mm static kern mantel rope, daisy chain i" webbing and aluminum carabir 23kN) xi Foam Jet-Lx tip {Foam aspirator, Foam Jet-low Expansicm-Mid Force Hand line} FJ-LX-HM xi"i/8 Smooth bore nozzle w/i i/2 breakaway (i"i/8: 266gpm@ 50psi) xi gated wye (ball valve)2 i/2 to double i 3/4." Xi2 W' Task Force tip Hand line adjustable pattern automatic fog nozzle (95-300gpm@ IOOpsi} xi 2 i/2 gate valve x2 mattress hooks (hay hooks) xi Siamese (double 2 i/2 to single 2 i/2.) xismooth bore nozzle w/i", i i/8, i i/4. orifice (2i0gpm, 266gpm, 328gpm@ 50psi) Xi garden hose {iOO', for decontamtnation operations) Xi duel 2 -to stortz (monitor base/Siamese) X1 stortz to 2 1/2 reducer/expander X1 Hydrant wrench X1 mallet (dead blow) Smooth bore master orifices: i 3/8, i i/2, i 3/ 4, 2" +stream straightener (502gpm, 598gpm,814m x2 LDH spanners xi set of irons {Xi Halligan, Xi 61b. fiberglass handled flat head axe) bressnan distributor nozzle (AKA CeHar nozzle 9 holes, 480gpm @iOOpsi, i8' broken stream radius, • measurements: 3 @ i3/i6" and 6 @ i/2" ) 9 ADAPTERS: i i/2" cap, x i i i/2"NH to NP (national hose to national pipe), xi i 1/2" NP to NH, xi : duel female NH, x2 NH to NP, xi 2i/2" smooth bore adaptor, x 5 2 i/2" duel male NH, x 5 2 1/2" due Underneath X2 tire chalks ('bear traps') DOE side middle compartment: Xi 5 gallon bucket w/absorbent Xi 3 1/2 gallon bucket w/ice melt XI Rehab cooler with water XI box repair putty sticks Xi 5 gallon bucket (empty/foam flush) Xi coffee can plug and dyke Xi 7' foam fill/flush hose X2 rolls garbage bags Stihl MS 46i chain saw with bullet chain Bar Oil DOE side middle drawer: XI reei'Danger tape X2 reei'Fire line' tape X2 duct tape XI roll of chem tape Xi6ib fiberglass handled pick axe Xii8" steel pipe wrench XllS" steel crescent wrench X4 hose straps XI K-tool unlock kit, XI Hazmat & terrorism emergency response book Front rear wheel compartment XI True Fuel XI packet of wipes XI funnel XI scoop Back rear wheel compartment Diesel fuel fill Floor dry fill and dispense underneath apparatus behind rear left tire DOE side rear compartment XI PPV Fan (SuperVac Model 7i8g4·h, 7 bladed 18" airfoil propeller, 4 cycle 6.5 horsepower engine, ra cfm, 3535rpm, approx: 82ibs, 94 decibels at 7 meters, iiO minute runtime) 18 degree optimum ope Xi Dewalt 20V drill & Sawzall Xi Tool Box Xi Husky ratchet set Xi Dewalt i20 V Sawzall Xi can liquid wrench silicon spray X2 extendable brooms ( 4'-8', 5') 10 • • • • • X1 expanding rake X1 flathead (square) shovel X1 spade shovel X1 piercing nozzle {125gpm@ 100psi, Maximum operating pressure of 200 psi, capable of penetratin cinderblock, two layers brick, 3/4" plywood or 1/16" thick steel plate) X113' little giant ladder {11' maximum working length, 3001bs capacity, NOT fire rated) Bag: Xi pouch of spare reciprocating saw blades X125' tape measure X1 20 V charger Dewalt Rear end compartment: XIO 19" traffic cones X1 monitor base with tie off strap and Safe-Tak valve) *do not use at less than 35 degrees* Edge protection (Edge Pro) X1 25' 5" (LOH) Hose x110' stick 2 1/2" light weight hose X1 Sampson hose clamp (can be used with 11/2", 1 3/4", 2", 2 1/2", and 3" double jacketed woven apparatus and 5' from coupling, always stand upside of stream while clamping) Hydrant Bag: X 1 5"/stortz adaptor X1 5" Denver thread adaptor X1 2 1/2" to double 1 1/2" gated wye X111/2" NH to NP adapter X111/2" NP to NH adapter Hydrant wrench Littleton Hydrant wrench X2 7 way spanners {couple hose, uncouple hose, nail puller, gas shutoff, door wedge, pry tool, striking X2 Large spanners X121/2" cap X1 2 1/2" double female adaptor (NH) X1 2 1/2" double male adaptor(NH) Officer side rear compartment: X1 351bs ABC extinguisher (rated: 20-A, 120-B, &C) X1 2 1/2 gallon water/microblaze mix extinguisher (rated: 2-A) X1 C02 261b. extinguisher (rated: 10-B, & C, with 4" horn orifice) X 2 High rise pack: 3' section of light weight 2 W' hose to gated wye to 100' light weight 13/4" hose tc Mid Force automatic fog nozzle (70-200 gpm@ 100 psi w/low flow setting of 30 to 70psi), X1 NH to NI X1 NP to NH 11/2" adaptor, X2 7 way spanners, X110" pipe wrench X2 50' sections of light weight 2 1/2" hose X1 Cooper hose Jacket (maximum operating pressure 150psi, classified 'tool' by IFSTA pg 649) X1 set of irons X1 rubbish hook • X1 Utility rope bag (150' braided rope NOT for life safety) 11 X2 Single person Hazmat bag X1 4 person Hazmat bag Officer side middle compartment: X2 portable floor lights (Halogen 500 watts 120v) X2 carry all's (5'x5' and 8'x8') X2 salvage tarps (12x 14) X1 roll of Visqueen {plastic cover 10' 4" wide) X3 50' electrical extension cords X1 junction box with 4 plug-ins X2 Pig tails {twist lock to 3 prong adapters} X2 2 prong to 3 prong (grounded) adapters Officer side middle drawer: X1 Duck bill lock breaker X1 Fire line tape X1 A-tool (with lock manipulator) X1 Officer tool/Crash axe/pry axe X161b. pick axe X1 Bib sledge hammer X1121b sledge hammer X1 36" bolt cutters {maximum cutting capacity of 7 /16 hard metals and 9/16 soft metals, with replac Wheel compartments front and back: • x6 air cylinders Officer front compartment: • X1 set of Irons X1 Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC: SCOTI Eagle lmager 160, 4.21bs., 4"1CD screen, three mode 'twist c free, hands on, and crawl. 1,100 degree dynamic range, Made of HHRP 'Heat & hit resistant polymer, battery approx\ 4 hr service life) X1 K-tool unlock kit X1 spare mask X1 box of cribbing X1SCBA X1 4" D-handled pike pole X1 personal rope bag {60' 8mm static ken mantel rope with aluminum carabineer) Officer side rear cab compartment: X1 cab tilt controller Officer side front cab compartment: X1 60 minute SCBA bottle (87 cubic ft of air at 4500psi) X1MMR X1 SCBA Mask X1 pair of trauma sheers X1 utility knife X1 pair channel-lock pliers X1 pair tin snips 12 • • • X1 heavy tow/haul strap (5', 12,000lbs) X2 aluminum carabineers X1 rope bag (150' 6mm kern mantel rope) Up top: X2 6' D-handled, fiberglass shaft, drywall hooks (AKA eat's paw or plaster hook) X1 backboard X1 Extend-A-Gun telescoping waterway to mounted deck gun w/stream straightener and variable stre; fog nozzle (150-1250gpm@ 100psi maximum operating pressure of 170 psi) X1 Hydraulic AC Generator Ladder Rack: X1 24' two section ladder X114' roof ladder X110' folding attic ladder X110', 8', 6' fiberglass handled pike pole Hose Bed: 1,000' of 5, LOH • 200' of lightweight 2 1/2" preconnected triple stack load with attached 7 way bale adjustable patter nozzle (50-350gpm @ IOOpsi) 800' of lightweight 2 1/2" hose. Pre-connects: X2 200', 13/4" hose lines with TFT Mid-Force nozzles {Both lines are foam capable) Inside Cab Roll-up cabinet in FF area: Top Shelf X1spare 02 cylinder X1spare c-collar X1 AC Hotstick {3 settings: high/low sensitivity & front focused, AC Frequencies of 20-100 Hz, lntrinsiclly safe PVC housing theoretically able to withstand a 50,000 volt shock) X2 signal light sticks {one red, one yellow) X1 SCBA Mask bag with 3 smoke detectors and a spare 9 volt battery Bottom Shelf TIF Combustible Gas Detector (Visual and Audible indicators, variable sensitivity as low as 5ppm (gasoline}, 30 second warm up time, instantaneous response-time, Approx. 4 hour run-time battery life, 15" probe, 16 oz weight, operating temp range 32-125 degrees F, 4.8v rechargeable Nl·Cad batteries) Q-ray 4 gas monitor (with battery charger} Digital Camera Bin of smoke detectors Bin of Educational information (Pamphlets, stickers) Spare Glucometer Netted Storage Area Top Shelf AED with adult and Peds pads • C-Collar Bag (four adult collars, four ped collars, Trauma shears, 2" medical tape, set of headblocks) 13 Orange Med kit Bottom Shelf 02/airway kit Main Compartment 02 Cylinder with regulator X3 non-rebreather masks X3 nasal cannulas X2 nebulizers each with 2 2.5 mg doses of albuterol and i dose of lsopro? Xi nebulizer with bag valve mask attachment (includes medications listed above) X2 CPAP Masks Front compartments Rope bag with i50' Kern Mantle Static life safety rope i/2" diameter Apparatus specifications Crimson engine/Spartan Chassis i500gpm Waterous pump (6 large diameter discharges at 250gpm) 500 gallon water tank X2 20 gallon foam tanks (Xi US foam class A/B, Xi Microblaze) Apparatus length 33' Extrication Equipment Specifications Res-Q-Jacks 2x Space Saver Adjustable Stand (4,000 lbs@ 72") 36.5" Collapsed 90" Extended 2 Cam Buckle Straps 750 lbs working load Weight49.5 2x Space Saver Adjustable Jacks (4,000 lbs lifting) 36.5" Collapsed 90" Extended 12" +Jack Travel 2 Cam Buckle Straps 750 lbs Channel, Round Point, Chain Grab End Fitting (CRG) Weight 42 lbs 4x Chain and hook assembly with 4' of chain (Hooks Rated 3,900 lbs) large 8" J Hook T Hook Small J Hook Chain Shortening 1x Chain and hook assembly with 4' of chain (hooks rated 3,900 lbs) Large i5" J Hook Small J Hook T Hook Chain Shortening 4x Small Clusters (No Large "J" Hook or 4' length of chain) 3,900 lbs 14 • • • • • 1x 16' Lifting Chain (7,100 lbs working load) 2x Picket anchor stakes 4' long and 20" long 2x 2" by 27' Heavy Duty Ratchet Straps 3,300 lbs (with 3/8" Chain) 3x 2" by 27' Medium Duty Ratchet Straps 2,000 lbs w/snap hooks 2x 2" by 27' Heavy Duty Ratchet Straps 3,300 lbs w/ wire hooks Holmatro (S22) 4050 NCT Cutter Model 4050-NCT, 10,500 psi allowable Operating Pressure, 208,000 lbs Max Cutting Force, 7 1/8" C at tips, weight: 40 Lbs, temp range -4 to +176 degrees F 4242 UL Spreader Model 4242-UL, 10,500 psi Allowable Operating Pressure, 19,595 Lbs Max and 8,800 Lbs min-Spre force measured at the back of tip, 11,200 Lbs max and 6,225Lbs Min-pulling force, 27 max spreadin1 distance, weight: 39 Lbs, temp range -4 to+ 176 degrees F DPU31 Hydraulic Pump DPU31, Honda 3.5 hp 4 stroke engine, Two stage pump senses leaks and shuts down, capabte of hot Holmatro "Core" Hydraulic lines COaxial Rescue Equipment Hose, High pressure line {10,500 psi) Completely encapsulated in low pre {363 psi} return line. 2x 32' hoses, max distance of 150' with reduced tool speed at 100' 4:1 safety fa , Amkus (S22) AMK-21 Cutter 10,500 psi operating pressure, 72,000 lbs max cutting force, 6" spread AMK-30CX Spreader 10,500 psi operating pressure, 16,950 lbs max spreading force, 32" max spreading distance, weight: AMK-40R Ram 10,500 psi operating pressure, 30,650 lbs extending force, 14,400 lbs pulling force, length 25.4" ret1 40" extended X2 100' Twin Line Amkus Hydraulic lines on electric rolls Amkus (S23) Amkus power unit: 4HP Honda Model P554-Amkus Model C, Mineral based hydraulic fiuid, 2 gal reservoir, 114 lbs, roll cage, two stage high pressure system 10,500 PSI Combi tool: C 15 15.5" spread, 13,100 lbs spread force, 7" opening, 57,000 lbs cutting force, 10,500 input, D-ring har Ram 30R 19.3" retracted, 29.1" extended, 30,6501bs push force, 14,4001bs pull force Pneumatic Tools Air Chisel, Impact wrench, Pneumatic Ratchet Ajax tool works 90-150 psi, 1,400 blows/min 120 psi average lampe High Pressure Air Bags (145 psi 16' long air hoses} x124"x24" 39.5 tons 16.6 cub/ft air 7-13.5"/ 13" rise x2 16"x16" 7.3 Tons 4.8 cub/ft air 5-9.6" / 9"rise x2 12"x12" 9.7 tons 2.2 cub/ft air 4-7.2" /7" rise • x19.5"x9.5" 5.7 tons .8 cub/ft air 3-5.6/5" rise 15 Lampe low Pressure Air Bags (14 psi 16' long air hoses) x1 48"x31" 9 tons 14 cub/ft air 12-20" rise Pillow#25 x133"x25" 8 tons 26 cub/ft air 25-35" rise High Lift #50 Engine 22 DOE outside cab front compartment X1 DOESCBA DOE outide cab rear compartment X1 Foam fill hose X1 Extension cord to plug truck shore line into trucks generator DOE side first compartment Pump Panel X2 Pre connects, 200', 1 3/4"hose lines with TFT Mid-Force nozzles (Both lines are foam capable) X2 7 way spanners (couple hose, uncouple hose, nail puller, gas shutoff, door wedge, pry tool, striking X2 LOH Spanners X1 set of Irons DOE side second compartment x1 Foam Jet-Lx tip (Foam aspirator, Foam Jet-low Expansion-Mid Force Hand line) FJ-LX-HM x11"1/8 Smooth bore nozzle w/1 1/2, breakaway (1"1/8: 266gpm@ 50psi) x1 gated wye (ball valve) 2 1/2, to double 13/4" Xi 2 1/2" Task Force tip Hand line adjustable pattern automatic fog nozzle (95-300gpm@ iOOpsi} xi 2 1/2" gate valve x2 mattress hooks (hay hooks) x1 Siamese (double 2 i/2 to single 2 1/2) x1 smooth bore nozzle w/ 1", 11/8, 11/4. orifice (2i0gpm, 266gpm, 3Z8gpm@ 50psi) Xi garden hose (iOO' 1 for decontamination operations) Xi duel 2 1/2 to stortz (monitor base/Siamese) X1 stortz to 2 1/2 reducer/expander Xi Hydrant wrench Xi mallet (dead-blow) Smooth bore master orifices: 1 3/8, 11/2 , 1 3/ 4, 2" +stream straightener (502gpm, 598gpm,814gr x2 LOH spanners Bressnan distributor nozzle {AKA Cellar nozzle 9 holes, 480gpm @100psi118' broken stream radius, measurements: 3 @ 13/16" and 6@ 1/2") ADAPTERS: 11/2"cap, x111/2"NH to NP (national hose to national pipe), x1 i/2" NP to NH, x11/2" duel female NH, x2 NH to NP, x12 1/2" smooth bore adaptor, x5 2 1/2" duel male NH, x5 2 1/2" duel Tool Box: Sprinkler Kit Rabbit Tool (Hydra-Ram) 2 Scoop Shovels Plug& Dike Bucket of dry sweep w/ trash bags Empty 5 gallon bucket Air Chisel, Impact wrench, Pneumatic Ratchet (Ajax tool works 90-150 psi, 1,400 blows/min 120 psi < 16 • • • • • Air Tool Kit: Hose and Regulator Plug Kit: Wax ring, Putty Underneath: X2 tire chalks ("bear traps") DOE side third compartment: X2 Rescue Saws (Stihl TS-400 Saw RPM at 5350 max, one with a steel blade the other with a Piranha X2 Chain Saws {Stihl MS 460, 3 in a row or 6 total, 2,500 rpm idle speed) X1 Acetylene Torch X1 Chain Saw Kit Spare Rescue Saw Blades {6 masonry, 5 metal cutting 5400 rpm) Spare Bullet Chains Hose Roller Edge protection (Edge Pro) DOE side middle drawer: X2 Push Brooms I handles X1 36" Bolt Cutter X112" Channel lock Pliers X1 61b. pick axe X115" Crescent (adjustable) wrench X1 8" Vise Grip Pliers X4 hose strap X1 roll duct tape X1 Hydrant Wrench TFT Piercing nozzle (125gpm@ 100psi, Maximum operating pressure of 200 psi capable of penetratir cinderblock, two layers brick, 3/4" plywood or 1/16" thick steel plate) Battering Ram Front rear wheel compartment Xi gas can 1 gallon {unleaded) X2 can 50:1 saw Pre-mix fuel X1 funnel X1 scoop X1 Cooper hose Jacket (maximum operating pressure 150psi, classified 'tool' by IFSTA pg 649) Back rear wheel compartment Diesel fuel fill Floor dry fill and dispense underneath apparatus behind rear left tire DOE side rear compartment Lampe High Pressure Air Bags (145 psi 16' long air hoses) x124"x24" 39.5 tons 16.6 cub/ft air 7-13.5" /13" rise x2 16"x16" 7.3 tons 4.8 cub/ft air 5-9.6" /9" rise x2 12"x12" 9.7 tons 2.2 cub/ft air 4-7.2" /7 " rise x1 9.5"x9.5" 5. 7 tons .8 cub/ft air 3-5.6/ 5" rise lampe low Pressure Air Bags (14 ps\16' long air hoses) x1 48"x31" 9 tons 14 cub/ft air 12-20" rise Pillow #25 • x1 33"x25" 8 tons 26 cub/ft air 25-35" rise High Lift #50 17 • X113' little giant ladder (11' maximum working length, 3001bs capacity, NOT fire rated) 2x High Rise Bags: 3' section of light weight 2 1/2" hose to gated wye to 100' light weight 1 3/ 4" hose • Mid Force automatic fog nozzle (70·200 gpm@ 100 psi w/iow flow setting of 30 to 70psi), X1 NH to NF X1 NP to NH 11/2" adaptor, X2 7 way spanners, X110" pipe wrench 2x 2.5" 50' lightweight hose Trash Hook Res-Q-Jacks 2x Space Saver Adjustable Stand (4,000 lbs@ 72") 36.5" Collapsed 90" Extended 2 Cam Buckle Straps 750 lbs working load Weight49.5 2x Space Saver Adjustable Jacks (4,000 lbs lifting) 36.5" Collapsed 90" Extended 12" +Jack Travel 2 Cam Buckle Straps 750 lbs Channel, Round Point, Chain Grab End Fitting (CRG) Weight 421bs 4x Chain and hook assembly with 4' of chain (Hooks Rated 3,900 lbs) Large 8" J Hook T Hook Small J Hook Chain Shortening 11x Chain and hook assembly with 4' of chain (hooks rated 3,900 lbs) Large 15" J Hook Small J Hook T Hook Chain Shortening 4x Small Clusters (No Large "J" Hook or 4' length of chain}3,900 lbs 1x 16' Lifting Chain (7,100 lbs working load) 2x Picket anchor stakes 4' long and 20" long 2x 2" by 27' Heavy Duty Ratchet Straps 3,300 lbs (with 3/8" Chain) 3x 2" by 27' Medium Duty Ratchet Straps 2,000 lbs w/snap hooks 2x 2" by 27' Heavy Duty Ratchet Straps 3,300 lbs w/ wire hooks Rear end compartment: X5 19" traffic cones X1 monitor base with tie off strap and Safe-Tak valve) *do not use at less than 35 degrees* X1 Sampson hose clamp (can be used with 11/2", 13/4"', 2"-150-300 psi flowing and 200 psi static psi flowing and 125 psi static, double jacketed woven hose do not use on plastic or rubber coated hos upstream when clamping 20' from apparatus and 5' from coupling, always stand upside of stream whi • X1351bs ABC extinguisher (rated: 20-A, 120-B, & C, Ammonium phosphate base, pressurized with nit1 • tested to 585psi, hose tested to 500psij operating pressure 250 psi) 18 • • X1 C02 261b. extinguisher (rated: 10-8, & C, with 4" horn orifice, Operating temps between -40-120 c test to 3000PS1, Operattng pressure 800-900psi at 70 degrees, operate 10' from fire PASS) Winch Winch kit (Containing tow strap and pulley) Hydraulic bottle Jacks (2x 20 ton, and 2x 10 ton) Hydrant bag: X1 5"/stortz adaptor X1 5" Denver thread adaptor X1 2 1/2" to double 11/2'" gated wye X1 11/2" NH to NP adapter X111/2" NP to NH adapter Hydrant wrench Littleton Hydrant wrench X2 7 way spanners (couple hose, uncouple hose, nail puller, gas shutoff, door wedge1 pry tool, strikin X2 Large spanners X12 1/2" cap X1 2 1/2" double female adaptor (NH) X1 2 1/2" double male adaptor (NH) Officer side rear compartment: Top Shelf: X2100' Twin Line Amkus Hydraulic Lines on electric rolls X1 Amkus Modei30CX Spreader (10,500 psi operating pressure, 16,950 lbs max spreading force, 32" max spreading distance, weight: 4 7 .5 lbs) X1 Amkus 21 Cutter (10,500 psi operating pressure, 72,000 lbs max cutting force, 6" spread) X1 Amkus Model 40R Ram (10,500 psi operating pressure, 30,650 lbs extending force, 14,400 lbs pulling force,. length 25.4" retracted 40" extended) X2 Holmatro "Core" Hydraulic Lines (32' long) Holmatro Spreader (Model 4242·UL, 10,500 psi Allowable Operating Pressure, 19,5951bs Max and 8,800 lbs min-Spreading force measured at the back of tip, 11,200 lbs max and 6,225 lbs Min- pulling force, 27 max spreading distance, weight: 39 lbs, temp range ru4 to +176 degrees F) Holmatro Cutter (Model 4050-NCT, 10,500 psi allowable Operating Pressure, 208,000 lbs Max Cutting Force, 7 1/8" Opening at tips, weight: 40 lbs, temp range -4 to +176 degrees F) Bottom Shelf: Holmatro Hydraulic Pump (DPU31, 3.5 hp 4 stroke, Two stage senses leaks and shuts down, capable of hot swap) Step Chalks Box of Cribbing (Various sizes) Officer side third compartment: Carry-alls Tarps Floor runners Savage covers • Hazmat bags 19 RIT Bag: X1 60 minute SCBA bottle (87 cubic ft of air at 4500psi) Rit Bag Containing: X1MMR X1SCBAMask X1 pair of trauma sheers X1 utility knife X1 pair channel-lock pliers X1 pair tin snips X1 heavy tow/haul strap (5', 12,000lbs) X2 aluminum carabineers X1 rope bag (150' 6mm kern mantel rope) Officer side middle drawer: K Tool X1 4' pike pole with d handle X1 panic door unlock tool X1 3611 bolt cutters (maximum cutting capacity of 7 /16 hard metals and 9/16 soft metals, with repl; X1121b Sledge hammer X1 33" pipe wrench X1 61b pick head axe X1 61b Flat head axe X2 utility knives X1 Pry bar X1 Crow bar Wheel compartments front and back: X6 air cylinders (30 min, bottles each holding 45 cu/ft air) Officer second compartment: Top Shelf: X2 SOOw Portable scene lights X2 50' extension cords Pig tails/adapters Middle Shelf: X1 Dewalt Battery charger and spare battery Ore mel tool X1110 v Reciprocating saw X1 hard case containing two Reep saw blade pouches, drill bits. Milwaukee Reciprocating Saw Dewalt Cordless Tools X1 Drill X1 Grinder X2 Reciprocating Saws X1 Flashlight X1 Circular Saw 20 • • • • • Bottom Shelf: X1 PPV Gas Fan (SuperVac Model718g4-h, 7 bladed 18" airfoil propeller, 4 cycle 65 horsepower engine, rated at 15,590 cfm, 3535rpm, approx: 821bs, 94 declbels at 7 meters, 110 minute runtime) degree optimum operating angle@ 6' X1 PPV Electric Fan (SuperVac 14,600 cfm) Officer's side front compartment: Pump Panel -5" Intake, 5" Discharge, 2 1/2" Discharge Mounted cord reel 200' with Junction Box X2 Pre connects, 200', 13/4" hose lines with TFT Mid-Force nozzles (Both ilnes are foam capable) X1 2 1/2 gallon water/microblaze mix extinguisher (rated: 2-A) X1 6' 0-handled, fiberglass shaft, drywall hooks (AKA eat's paw or plaster hook) X2 7 way spanners (couple hose, uncouple hose, nail puller, gas shutoff, door wedge, pry tool, striking X2 LOH Spanners X1 set of Irons Officer side rear cab compartment: Tool bag Officer side front cab compartment: Officer Air Pak Up top "coffin" compartment: X2 6', 8', 10' fiberglass handled pike poles Stokes Basket Stokes Basket rigging kit Back Board Tri-pod Water-vac with hoses X2 spade shovel X2 Square point shovel 5 gallon bucket of Absorbent 5 gallon bucket rehab misterfan Pop up shade tent Up top small compartment: Sump-pump (Positive displacement pump uses a geared mechanism for water movement, cannot plu while operating, 120 gal per hr. 10' max height) 50' section of 1 3/ 4" for sump-pump Visqueen Ladder Rack: X1 35' 3 section ladder X114' roof ladder X110' folding attic ladder X110', 8', 6' fiberglass handled pike pole Hose Bed: 1,000' of 5" LOH • 200' of lightweight 2 1/2" preconnected triple stack load with attached 7 way bale adjustable pattern 21 nozzle (50-350gpm @ 100psi) 800' of lightweight 2 1/2" hose. Pre-connects: X2 200', 13/4" hose lines with TFT Mid-Force nozzles (Both lines are foam capable) Inside Cab Roll-up cabinet in FF area: X1 AC Hotstick (3 settings: high/low sensitivity & front focused, AC Frequencies of 20-100 Hz, Intrinsically safe PVC housing theoretically able to withstand a 50,000 volt shock) X2 signal light sticks (one red, one yellow) X1 SCBA Mask bag with 3 smoke detectors and a spare 9 volt battery Heat Gun/Electrical sensor X1 Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC: SCOTI Eagle lmager 160, 4.2 lbs., 4"LCO screen, three mode 'twist change': hands free, hands on, and crawl. 1,100 degree dynamic range, Made of HHRP Heat & hit resistant poiymer, 'twist change' battery approx. 4 hr service life) TIF Combustible Gas Detector (Visual and Audible indicators, variable sensitivity as tow as 5ppm (gasoline), 30 second warm up time, instantaneous response-time, Approx. 4 hour run-time battery life, 15" probe, 16 oz weight, operating temp range 32-125 degrees F1 4.8v rechargeable NI-Cad batteries) Q-ray 4 gas monitor (with battery charger) Digital Camera N95 masks Chempro Chemical detector TIC battery charging station with spare TIC battery Netted Storage Area Top Shelf: AED with adult and Peds pads X1 spare 02 cylinder X1 spare c-collar Air Splints C-Collar Bag (four adult collars, four ped collars, Trauma shears, 2" medical tape, set of head blocks) Orange Med kit Bottom Shelf: 02/airway kit Rope bag with 150' Kern Mantle Static life safety rope 1/2" diameter 3:1 Apparatus specifications Crimson engine/Spartan Chassis 1500gpm Waterous pump (6 large diameter discharges at 250gpm) 500 gallon water tank X2 20 gallon foam tanks (X1 US foam ciass A/B, X1 Microblaze) Apparatus length Hammer 22 Inventory Left Front: Misc. Light Rubber Overbooties Green Chemical Resistant Boots 22 • • • • • Cotton Long Underwear Neoprene Overgloves Nitrile & Latex Undergloves 8 x Level A Suits 11 x Level B Suits Level C Suits Nomex Coverall's Terry Rags Chem Tape Various Helmets Center Compartment (Over the wheel, can be accessed from either side) Awning Rod 3 x D-Handled Flat Head Shovels 1 x Grain Scoop Long handled spade head shovel Push Broom 3M Surgical Masks APR Respirator Decon Shelter (1) Decon Shower (2) Portable Heater (Salamander) LevelC 8 x Plastic Stools Scott Air Purifying Filters 10 x Meth-Lab Filters Scott Mask Adapters Scott Mask Radios Scott SCBA Masks Air Pump (2) Chem Class Test Kit Containment Pools Radiation Detection Kit Drum Pump Haz Cat Test Kit (1) Mercury Test Kit (1) Plastic Sheeting Camera + Tripod Reference Box (Books) Drager Gas Detector Various Hand Tools Medical Kit Left Rear: • 250 lbs. Absorbent (Kitty Litter) 23 4 x lhr Scott SCBA's Large Non-Sparking Hand Tools (Sledge/Axe/Pipe Wrench/Adjustable Crescent) Right Front: Misc. Buckets Decon Solutions (Soaps etc .. ) File Cabinet Rehab. Water 2 x Handlights Tool Box w/Handtools 100' Garden Hose Laptop Decon Manifold +Nozzles Medical Assessment Gear (Scales etc .. ) Privacy Gowns Misc. Personal Privacy Gear Plastic/Bags RAE PID Tester 2 x Utility Rope 6 x Scrub Brushes Tools 2 x Weed Sprayers Right rear: Overpack Drums Electrical Cord Reel Hot Water Heater Misc. Patching Material Submersible Pump 9 x Traffic Cones Portable Halogen Lights Dunnage: Kerosene Sea Sweep Absorbent Pellets Absorbent Booms 4 x Dome Clamps 2 x Drum/Tank Patch 3 x Plastic Tarps Outer Proximity Suits PVC Pipe Spare Propane Bottle M iscel la neous: 2 x lhr SCBA Bottles on Each Side Engine 21 iPhone 24 • • • Medic 21 iPhone • Squirt 23 iPhone Medic 23 iPhone Amarsh iPhone Mstout iPhone Rpetau iPhone Swashington iPhone Truck 22 iPhone EMS Bureau Chief iPhone Batt 21 iPhone Kstovall iPhone Mertie iPhone JhehniPhone Gweaver DuraXT Wortiz Samsung Galaxy Ai rave Ai rave Ai rave Ai rave Jsvejcar modem Squirt 23 iPad • RPetau iPad Mertie iPad Jsvejcar iPad Staff iPad Wortiz iPad Batt Chief iPad Engine 21 iPad Amarsh iPad Engine 22 iPad Acoma Station Panasonic Acoma Station Panasonic Acoma Station Panasonic Jefferson Station Panasonic Jefferson Station Panasonic Jefferson Station Panasonic Jefferson Station Panasonic Jefferson Station Panasonic Tejon Station Panasonic Wild/and Fire Equipment x9 11/2" x 100' hose x4 1" x 100' hose • x2 3/ 4" x 50' pencil hose 25 x1 2 1/2" to 11/2" gated wye • x3 11/2" to 11/211 gated wye x4 2" to 11/2" reducers x11/2" to 1' reducers x3 11/2" plastic nozzles x4 1" plastic nozzles x11" metal nozzle x2 1" forestry nozzles x3 Hose pack bags x2 Hose clamps x1 Stihl MS440 20" bar chainsaw x1 Dual Fuel jug x1 Chainsaw bar cover cordura x1 Saw tools x1Chaps36" X2 spade shovel x2 Pulaskis x2 McClouds x1 Wisk brush x2 Weight vests x5 Web gear x2 Helmets • x3 Green duffle bags x6 BK Radio X3 Cloneing Cable X6 Radio harness X3 Rechargeable clam shells X12 AA Clam shells x1Pants30-34 x 34 x3 Pants 34-38 x 30 x3 Medium shirts x3 Large shirts x1 X Large shirts x6 True North Firefly Packs x2 True North Firefly Medic Packs Line Pack #1 Line Pack #2 Line Pack #3 Line Pack #4 Line Pack #5 Line Pack #6 Radio Medic Line Pack #1 • 26 Medic 21 and Medic 23 Inventory: • x3 Life Pak 15 x2 Stryker Power-Pro XT cot with charging system x2 Stryker Stair Chair x2 Backboards · x1 Ferno Scoop Stretcher x2 Adult K.E.D Extrication Device x2 Pediatirc K.E.D. Extrication Device x2 Pulsoximeter kit x2 Glucometer kit x2 Air splint kit x2 Vacuum splint kit x2 Porta Power Hydraulic Extrication Kit Airway 2.5 ET Tube Qty.2 3.0 ET Tube Qty.2 3.5 ET Tube Qty.2 4 .0 ET Tube Qty.2 4.5 ET Tube Qty. 2 5.0 ET Tube Qty.2 5.5 ET Tube Qty.2 • 6.0 ET Tube Qty.2 6.5 ET Tube Qty.2 7.0 ET Tube Qty.2 7 .5 ET Tube Qty.2 8.0 ET Tube Qty.2 8.5 ET Tube Qty.2 9.0 ET Tube Qty.2 Adult Stylettes Qty.5 Pedi Stylettes Qty.2 Adult ET Tube Holders Qty.5 Pedi ET Tube Holders Qty. 2 LP12 ETC02 Cannulas Qty.5 LP12 ETC02 ET adaptors Qty.5 Barn Cap Qty. 2 Cric Kit Qty.1 100mm OPA Qty.2 90mm OPA Qty.2 80mm OPA Qty.2 70mm OPA Qty.2 60mm OPA Qty.2 50mm OPA Qty.2 • 40mm OPA Qty.2 27 34fr NPA Qty.2 32fr NPA Qty.2 • 30fr NPA Qty.2 28fr NPA Qty.2 26fr NPA Qty.2 24fr NPA Qty.2 22fr NPA Qty.2 20fr NPA Qty .2 18fr NPA Qty.2 16fr NPA Qty.2 14fr NPA Qty.2 12fr NPA Qty.2 18fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 16fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 14fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 12fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 10fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 8fr Suction Catheters Qty.2 Yankauer Suction Tubing Qty.2 Yankauer Suction Tip Qty.2 20cc Mucus Trap Qty.2 KY Jelly Qty .10 • Pocket bougie Qty.1 #15 Scapel Qty.1 Airway and 02 Delivery Suction Canister/with lid Qty.2 Suction Easy manual suction Qty.1 10 Ga Decompression Needles Qty.2 King Airway Size #5 Qty.1 King Airway Size #4 Qty.1 King Airway Size #3 Qty.1 Adult Oxygen Masks Qty .20 Adult Nasal Cannulas Qty.20 Ch i ld Oxygen Masks Qty.5 Child Nasal Cannulas Qty.5 Infant Oxygen Masks Qty.2 Infant Nasal Cannulas Qty.2 Nebulizers Qty.5 Nebulizers-inline Qty.2 Adult BVM Qty.2 Pedi BVM Qty.1 Infant BVM Qty.1 CPAP, Large adult Qty.2 • 28 CPAP, Small adult Qty.2 • CPAP, Child Qty.1 JO Pedio 10 Qty.2 Adult 10 Qty.2 XL 10 Qty .2 Pressure Bag Qty.1 ECG Adult Electrodes Qty.3 boxes Pedi Electrodes Qty.2 pks Adult Quick Combo Pads Qty.2 Pedi Quick Combo Pads Qty.2 Lifepak-12 Paper Qty.2 Prep Razors Qty.5 C-Spine Adult Stifneck Select Qty.10 Pedi Stifneck Select Qty.2 Head Beds Qty.10 Head Blocks Qty.5 Spare Backboard Straps Qty.2 BS/ • Medium Latex Exam Gloves Qty.3 La rge Latex Exam Gloves Qty.5 X-Large Latex Exam Gloves Qty.5 Medium Latex-Free Exam Gloves Qty.1 Large Latex-Free Exam Gloves Qty.1 X-Large Latex-Free Exam Gloves Qty.1 Medical Gowns Qty.5 Goggles Qty.5 Medical Masks Qty.1 bx Face Shields Qty.10 Small TB Masks Qty.5 Large TB Masks Qty.5 Disinfectant Spray Qty.1 Disinfectant Wipes (Sanidex) Qty. 1 Hand Liquid Sanitizer Qty.1 Bandages Kerlix Qty.5 4x4's Qty.1 bx 2x2's Qty.1 bx Surgij Abdominal Pads Qty.5 Caban Qty.5 • Vaseline Gauze Qty.2 29 Triangular Bandages Qty.5 Sterile Eye Pads QtyA • 2" Bandaids Qty.1 bx 1" Bandaids Qty.1 bx Sam Splints Qty.2 Trauma Dressings Qty.2 1" Surgical Tape Qty.6 2" Surgical Tape Qty.3 IV 14 Ga Angiocath Qty.10 16 Ga Angiocath Qty.10 18 Ga Angiocath Qty.1 bx 20 Ga Angiocath Qty.1 bx 22 Ga Angiocath Qty.5 24 Ga Angiocath Qty.5 18 Ga Blunt Tip Needles Qty.10 18 Ga Needles Qty. 10 20 Ga IM Needles Qty.5 19 Ga Butterfly Needles Qty.2 21 Ga Butterfly Needles Qty.2 23 Ga Butterfly Needles Qty.2 25 Ga Butterfly Needles Qty.2 • Arm Boards Qty.2 Jamshidi lnterossious Needle Qty.1 Tourniquets Qty.10 Tourniquets (Latex Free) Qty.5 Macro drip Infusion Set Qty.30 Micro drip Infusion Set Qty.5 Blood Pump Qty.10 Surette 150cc Qty.2 Normal Saline 1000cc Qty.30 5% Dextrose 250cc Qty.2 Normal Saline 50cc Qty.2 Sterile Irrigation Solution Qty.2 Vacutainer Blood Tube Holders Qty.30 Alcohol Wipes Qty.1 bx Adult Veni Guards Qty.50 Accu-Check Test Strips Qty.1 Multi-sample Luer Adaptor Qty .1 bx Lancets Qty.1 bx 3 Way Stopcocks Qty.1 bx Sm Sharps Container (spare) Qty.1 • Wall Mount Sharps Box (spare) Qty.1 30 10cc Saline flush syringes Qty.2 • 1cc TB Syringe Qty.5 Syringes 3cc Syringes Qty.10 5cc Syringes Qty.10 10cc Syringes Qty.10 20cc Syringes Qty.5 30cc Syringes Qty.5 Misc Bio-Hoops Qty.10 Emisis Basins Qty.5 Tongue Depressors Qty.5 OB Kit Qty.2 Thermoscan Covers Qty.1 pk Hot Packs Qty.5 Cold Packs Qty.10 Ammonia Inhalants Qty.10 Permanent Black Marker Qty.1 Pen Light Qty.2 Ring Cutter Qty.1 Mucosal Atomization Device Qty.2 • Restraints Qty.4 Commercial tourniquet Qty.2 Meds Albuterol Qty.20 Adenosine 12mg Qty.2 Amiodarone Qty.3 Aspirin (bottle) Qty.1 Atropine Qty.3 Atrovent (lpratropium) Qty.10 Benadryl (Diphenhydramine) Qty.2 Dextrose 25% Qty.2 Dextrose 50% Qty.3 Dopamine (400mg) Qty.1 Epi 1:1 Qty.3 Epi 1:1 (multi-dose) Qty.1 Epi 1:10 Qty.6 Glutose Paste (tube) Qty.3 Haldol (Haloperidol) Qty.2 Calcium Gluconate Qty.2 Lidocane Jelly Qty.2 Lidocane for EZIO Qty.2 • Magnesium Sulfate Qty.2 31 Narcan (Naloxone) Qty.2 Nitroglycerine (spray/pill) Qty.1 Racemic Epi Qty.1 Sodium Bicarb 4.2% Qty.1 Sodium Bicarb 8.4% Qty.2 Solu-Medrol Qty.2 Intranasal {Phenylephrine} Qty.2 Topical Opthalmic Qty.2 Zofran Oral\IV Qty.6\4 Red top Qty.30 Green top Qty.30 Lavender top Qty.30 Blue top Qty.30 Squirt 23 #6490 DOE Side Front Upper Compartment; DOE Headset, 2 guide fl~shlights, 2 helmets (Rear tall board left side) Airpack with cylinder 6 lb flat head axe Halligan tool 10 lb sledge hammer Personal rope bag (approx. 60' of ?mm static kern mantel rope) "Yak Trax" shoe chains Spare mask (AV3000) Red Tool Box Duct tape Lock outjtag out kit K-tool unlock kit Can of dry lube David Clark headset connection K-12 Stihl TS-400 1x metal and 2x masonry blades 5400 RPM (RR upper compartment) Front Lower Compartment: Dead blow shot mallet (on the door) 2 -7 way spanners (on the door) 1-multi-use hydrant wrench (on the door) 1-18" steel pipe wrench (on the door) 1-2 1/2" gate valve 1-19 1/2" long 2 1/2" stinger section of hose (upper hose bed) 3-5" storz to 2 1/2" female reducer (2-flat, 1 with elbow) 1-foam jet nozzle (F J=foam Jet, LX= low expansion , HM=mid force hand line) 1-2 1/2" to 2 1/2" siamese 2-2 1/2" to 13/4" gated wyes • • 1-Bressnan Distributor Nozzle (aka cellar nozzle, 9 holes 6@ 13/16", 3@ 1/2", 480gpm@ 100 psi, i. • 2 1/2" to 11/2" reducer National Hose thread 32 • • 1-11/2" National Hose Thread Double Male 1-11/2" National Hose Thread Double Female 2-11/2" National Pipe Female thread to Natinal Hose Male thread 2-11/2" National Hose Feamle threse to National Pipe Male Thread 2 1/2" TFT 7 position ball valve bale, smooth bore handline, at 50 psi (1" tip @ 210gmp, 11/8"@ 266; 2 1/2" TFT 7 position ball valve bale, smooth bore, with 11/8": tip (266gpm) 11/2" (for 13'4" hand lines) TFT 7 position slider valve bale, combination nozzle, straight stream and pressure @ 70-200 gpm, low pressure @ 30-70 gpm 2 1/2" TFT 7 position ball valve combination nozzle, straight stream and fog stream @100 psi, 50-350 1-5 " hydrant cap 4-2 1/2" double males 4 -2'12" double females 1-2 1/2" to garden hose reducer 50' section of cotton jacketed garden hose 2 -7 way spanners 2-LDH spanners/ large multi. use spanners 2 1/2" Msater Stream Smooth Bore tips 80 psi (13/8" @502 gpm, 11/2" @598 gpm, 13/4" @814 g1 3-11/2" rubber gaskets 5-2 1/2" rubber gaskets 3 hose straps Circuit panel for moutned lights and outlets (on wall) Spare key in "hide-a -key (On wall) Upper Middle: Rit Bag(utility knife, trauma sheers, 145' of 6mm static kern mantel rope , yellow rescue strap, 8" chan 5' orange loop webbing, mask with MMR, double male air adapters, 5 1/2' UAC connection, 60 minute cubic feet of air, 3 carabiners 4500 lb max.) Black Bag of Webbing: 2-20' (yellow} lengths of tubular webbing 4-15' (blue) lengths of tubular webbing 3-5' (green) lengths of tubular webbing 1 yellow anchor strap (9'-8,000 lb max} with d-rings 1 blue bungee web 1-6' flat webbing strap with hooks and tensionor Black Mesh Bag of Prusiks and Caribeeners: 5-"8" plate 6"2' prusik loops 2 small rescue pulleys (blue and purple) 1 large pruslk minding pulley (red) 7-carabineers (4100 kg max) Grey webbing bag 2-5 ' green webbing 3-10' red webbing • 6-15' blue webbing 33 4-20' yellow webbing 3-10' XL anchor straps 3-20'yellow 5-15' black 1-5' green 2-15' 2" black 6-10' red Orange Bag of Prusiks and Caribeenrs 18-2' prusik loops (5 orange, 5 purple, 7 green) 3-11 8 11 plates 2 red prusik minding pulleys 2 small rescue pulleys (blue and purple) 3-20'yellow 5-15' black 1-5' green 2-15' 2" black 6-10' red 21 carabineers (2-4,100 KG, 1-9,000 lb, 2-46 KN, 7-72 KN, 2 not marked) 2 red rope rollers with 2 carabineers (linked together) Large Black "Scott" Bag: 4 green level 8 hazmat suits Chem tape 4 blue barrier jumpsuits 4 scon air purifying cartridges green nitrile gloves brown containment bags 3 tubes of repair putty epoxy 4 pair of yellow splash protection booties Roll of black trash bags Lower Rear: PPV/PPA (Fan Honda 5.5 hp, 4 stroke, PPV/PPA Fan17bladed18" airfoil propeller, 14,800 cfm, Modi 18 degree optimum operating angle@ 6', 10-15 psi tires) Pre-mix fuel cans (50:1 mtx for saws) Red fuel can (gas for 4 stroke engines) Bar oil (upper compartment) Funnel (upper compartment) White rags (upper compartment) 4 yellow door chocks on fan Upper Rear: Chain saw with Carbide tipped chain (Stihl MS 460, 3 in a row or 6 total, 2,500 rpm idle speed) Rotary saw with steel blade (Stihl TS 400, 5350 RPM, auto tensionor Inboard/outboard blade position Coffee can full of plug and dyke (right rear upper compartment)· 2 extendable broom handles 34 • • • • • • TFT Piercing nozzle (7 position ball valve, 125 gpm@ IOOpsi, Maximum operating pressure of 200 psi, capable of penetrating one layer cinderblock, two layers brick, 3/4" plywood or 1/16" thick steel plate; 1 black bag with 2 part putty, bees wax, various diameter wooden plugs (right rear upper compartmen 2 rolls of yellow "fire line tape" 4 broom heads Stihl saw wrench/ flat head screw driver 2-4' shovels (1flat,1 spade tip) Roll of red "DANGER" barrier tape 1 spare bullet chain in box 1 yellow tub of gojo hand cleaner . black trash bags duct tape Chem Tape Officer's Side Rear Top Compartment: 5x5 carry all 4 handle 11x16 salvage cover 5x18 Floor Runner 10 x 24 blue tarp 10 x 25 visqueen ( plastic sheet) 100' extension cord 2 -25' extension cords 500 watt portable lights x2 junction boxes 24" /36" bolt cutters 4x8 salvage 3.5x6 carryall Sampson hose clamp (up to 2" hose to 150-300 psi flowing, 200 psi non-flowing. Up to 3" 100-500 ps flowing, 125 non flowing) Cooper hose jacket (max operating pressure 150 psi) Box with drill bits, paddle bits, screw driver tips 2-hay/mattress hooks Dewalt 20 volt, 2 speed, 18 setting, cordless Dewalt drill Drill Bits Dewalt 28 volt single speed recip saw (DC315) Husky socket set (upper left engineer compartment) 4' fiberglass d-handled pike pole 100' cord reel Hose roller w/ tie off rope Ice Melt Rear Bottom Compartment: 2.5 gallon water extinguisher 100 PSI 2A, B Hydrant bag: storz with threaded 5", Denver threaded 5", hydrant wrench, 14" bolt cutters, 2.5" NH double male/ double female, 2.5" hydrant cap, 2.5" dischargeR intake cap, 2 LDH spanners, 2-7 way~ 35 50' 2.5" to go with high rise pack High rise pack: 3' section of light weight 2 1/2" hose to gated wye to 100' light weight 13/ 4"" hose to ; • Force Tip Mid Force automatic fog nozzle (70-200 gpm @ 100 psi w/low flow setting of 30 to 70 psi), ) to NP 11/2" adaptor, X1 NP to NH 11/2" adaptor, X2 7 way spanners, X110" pipe wrench Dry Sweep/Trash Bags Forward Bottom Compartment: Amkus power unit: 4HP Honda {Model P554-Amkus Model C, Mineral based hydraulic fluid, 2 gal rese1 1141bs, roll cage, two stage high pressure system 10,500 PSI) Ram 30R (19.3" retracted, 29.1" extended, 30,650 lbs push force, 14,400 lbs pull force) rocker channel cover for ram use Forward Top Compartment: 1-K-tool (upper engineers compartment left) 1-pryaxe Irons pick-head axe Officers SCBA 1-A-tool Cambi tool: C 15 ( 15.5" spread, 13,100 lbs spread force, 7" opening, 57,000 lbs cutting force, 10,50 Rear of Squirt: Right side-10:BC Carbon dioxide extinguisher Class Ill Harnesses x5 3-Ladder Belts Left side-10: A 80: BC dry chem. Extinguisher Tech rescue helmets x2 light sticks x2 6-traffic cones David Clark headset connection Top of Squirt: 24' Extension ladder 14' Roof ladder 10' Attic ladder 10" Pike Pole 5' Plaster Hook Cribbing High rise pack with carabineer for fadder trp attachment 2.5" pony section 5" pony section 10K onan generator Cab: XI FLIR-TIC w/ extra battery Q-ray 4 gas monitor (with battery charger) • TIF Combustible Gas Detector (Visual and Audible indicators. variable sensitivity as low as 5ppm (gaso second warm up time, instantaneous response-time. Approx. 4 hour run-time battery life, 15" probe, 11 • 36 • • • • weight, operating temp range 32-125 degrees F, 4.8v rechargeable NI-cad batteries) Orange Med Kit e AirwayBag AED Intubation Kit Pub Ed kit Backboard C-Collar Xi AC Hotstick (3 settings: high/low sensitivity & front focused. AC Frequencies of 20-100 Hz, lntrinsi( PVC housing theoretically able to withstand a 50,000 volt shock) Spare 02 Bottle N-95 Resprltors Radiac Plus Squirt Specs Aerial General: Vertical Reach 65'@ 75 degrees {recommended) capable of 85 degrees Horizontal 60' up to -9 degrees below grade Rotation 360 degrees continuous, Shear ball bearing 33" turn-table Weight capacity 500 lbs at above 45 degrees, 250 lbs at below 45 degrees Nozzle General: Flow capacity 300 to 1000 GPM @ 85 to IOOpsi Vertical travel 200 degrees Horizontal travel 180 degrees Hose: 800' of 5" supply line 1200' of 2.5" accordion loaded 200' of 2.5" triple load with 2.5" fog nozzle 50-350 gpm at 100 psi 200' of 1. 75" cross-lay 1 foam capable 200' of 1 75" cross-lay 2 100' bumper line foam capable 37 • • • Date August 1 7, 2015 INITIATED BY: COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 11 a ii STAFF SOURCE: Subject: Ordinance to Authorize Sale of 2380 -2390 West Wesley Avenue Community Development Department. Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved Ordinance 45, Series 2005 purchasing 2394 West Wesley Avenue. Council approved Ordinance 28, Series 2007, authorizing an IGA with the Arapahoe Community College/Area Career and Technical School to build one single family residence at 2370 West Wesley Avenue. Council approved Ordinance 9, Series 2008, authorizing the sale of the single family residence constructed at 23 70 West Wesley Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve a bill for an ordinance authorizing the sale of 2380 -2390 West Wesley Avenue. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The property originally known as 2394 West Wesley Avenue was purchased by the City in 2005 and subsequently re-subdivided administratively into three smaller sites known as 2370, 2380 and 2390 West Wesley Avenue. This property was purchased to provide building sites for the joint Arapahoe Community College/Area Career and Technical School (ACTS} City of Englewood student housing construction program. At the start of the 2007-2008 school year the ACTS, in cooperation with Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Program staff, began the construction of a single family house at 2370 W . Wesley Avenue . This house was then sold later in 2008. The ACTS program was canceled in 2010 and the remaining two lots, 2380 and 2390 West Wesley Avenue remain vacant. The Community Development Department lack the staff to manage development of the two remaining lots. Therefore, the lots will be offered for sale with Council approval. The sale proceeds will be returned to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 46). FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no other financial impact to the City. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A Bill for an Ordinance • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2015 COUNCIL BILL NO. 43 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2380 AND 2390 WEST WESLEY AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood approved the City purchasing 2394 West Wesley Avenue by the passage of Ordinance No . 45 , Series 2005; and WHEREAS, the property originally known as 2394 West Wesley Avenue was subdivided administratively into three smaller sites known as 2370 , 2380 and 2390 West Wesley Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood authorized and IGA with the Arapahoe Community College/ Area Career and Technical School to build one single family residence at 2370 West Wesley Avenue with the passage of Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2007; and WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council authorized the sale of the single family residence constructed at 2370 West Wesley Avenue by the passage of Ordinance No. 9, Series 2008, with the proceeds of the sale returned to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund; and WHEREAS, the ACTS program was canceled in 2010 and the remaining two lots -2380 and 2390 West Wesley Avenue remain vacant; and WHEREAS, the passage of this proposed Ordinance will approve the sale of 2380 and 2390 West Wesley Avenue properties and the proceeds from the sale of these 2 properties will be returned to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood hereby authorizes the sale of 23 80 West Wesley Avenue which property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Southlawn Gardens Annex, Filing No. 6 County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado Section 2 . The City Council of the City of Englewood hereby authorizes the sale of 2390 West Wesley Avenue which property is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex, Filing No. 6 County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to sign the deeds. Section 4. The City Manager is authorized to sign the closing documents necessary to complete the sale. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 17th day of August, 2015. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 20th day of August, 2015. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 19th day of August, 2015 for thirty (30) days. Randy P . Penn, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 17th day of August, 2015. Loucrishia A. Ellis • • • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: 2ND READING -Intergovernmental August 3, 2015 11 b i Agreement with UDFCD for Flood Study in North Englewood Initiated By: Staff Source: Department of Public Works Dave Henderson, Deputy Public Works Director COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Staff discussed the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement at the July 13 and July 20 Study Sessions. The agreement was approved on first reading at the August 3, 201 5 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve, on second reading, a Bill for an Ordinance to enter into an Agreement with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) for Drainageway Master Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) in North Englewood. The total estimated cost is $10,000. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Dry Gulch, in NE Englewood, is a tributary to Harvard Gulch . The area along Dry Gulch has been identified as an area of probable flooding in studies performed in 1971 and 1999. Rainstorms have caused flooding of private property in some of the areas identified in the previous studies. UDFCD has previously engaged with the City and County of Denver in an "Agreement Regarding Funding of Major Drainageway Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation for Harvard Gulch". This study began in January, 2015 and is expected to be complete by the end of 2015. Matrix Design was selected by UDFCD as the consultant for this project. Subsequent to recent reports of property damage in Englewood from recent rainstorms and property owner requests to help mitigate damage, staff contacted UDFCD to see if we could join the study. UDFCD responded positively, however the time frame is short for us to participate as their study is already underway. Joining the larger study now will require a much smaller contribution than an independent study. The project will define the FHAD for Dry Gulch and develop a master plan, with cost estimates, to mitigate or eliminate flooding of Dry Gulch. Property owners will be notified and invited to a public meeting during the study. UDFCD will not submit the FHAD to FEMA without written authorization from the City of Englewood. Defining the FHAD without submitting it to FEMA will eliminate the mandatory flood plain insurance for property owners. City Floodplain Regulations and Building Codes will require properties located within the 100 year floodplain, as defined in the FHAD, to submit a "Floodplain Development Permit" application. A few highlights of the existing Floodplain Regulations are: • A Floodplain Development Permit has to be obtained before a building permit can be issued or before construction or development begins on land within a special hazard area. • A Floodplain Development Permit is required prior to beginning any construction or other development to ensure conformance with the Floodplain Regulations. • One of the purposes of the Floodplain Regulations is to prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers, including fences, which may unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards to other areas. • Substantial repairs, improvements, or alterations to structures have to meet the minimum flood proofing criteria and elevation criteria in the regulations. • As part of the Floodplain Development Permit the applicant has to show that the lowest floor, including the basement, of any structure to be built, reconstructed, or moved within a special flood hazard area will be constructed at or above a point one foot (1 ') above the 100-year flood elevation for that particular area. • All new construction and substantial improvements must be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure and to withstand hydrodynamic loads. • Once construction is complete, the applicant must provide certification by a registered Colorado professional engineer that the finished fill and building floor elevations, flood proofing measures, or other protection factors were done in compliance with the Floodplain Regulations (Floodplain Certificate of Compliance). FINANCIAL IMPACT Englewood's portion is estimated not to exceed $10,000. The total study cost estimate is $210,000 with the City of Denver contributing $100,000 and Urban Drainage contributing $1 00,000. Funding for Englewood's portion is available in the Storm Water Utility Fund. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for an Ordinance Intergovernmental Agreement • • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2015 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 35 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING FUNDING OF MAJOR DRAINAGEW A Y PLANNING AND FLOOD HAZARD AREA DELINEATION FOR DRY GULCH IN ENGLEWOOD. WHEREAS, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in a policy statement previously adopted (Resolution No. 14, Series of 1970), expressed an intent to assist public bodies which have heretofore enacted floodplain zoning measures; and WHEREAS, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control district has previously engaged with the City and County of Denver in an "Agreement Regarding Funding of Major Drainageway Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation for Harvard Gulch" (Agreement No. 14-10.04); and WHEREAS, Parties now desire to proceed with development of a drainageway master plan and a flood hazard area delineation (FHAD) report for Dry Gulch (tributary to Harvard Gulch) within the City of Englewood (hereinafter caller "Project"); and WHEREAS, the project will define the FHAD for Dry Gulch and develop a master plan, with cost estimates, to mitigate or eliminate flooding of Dry Gulch; and WHEREAS, property owners will be notified and invited to a public meeting during the study; and WHEREAS, the UDFCD will not submit the FHAD to FEMA without written authorization form the City of Englewood; and WHEREAS, Parties desire to engage an engineer to render certain technical and professional advice and to compile information, evaluate, study, and recommend design solutions to such drainage problems for "Project" which are in the best interest of Parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes an Intergovernmental Agreement regarding funding of Major Drainageway Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation for Dry Gulch in Englewood between the Urban Drainageway and Flood Control District and the City of Englewood, Colorado, as attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to sign said Intergovernmental Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of August, 2015 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of • August, 2015. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of August, 2015 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 17th day of August, 2015 . Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2015, on the 20th day of August, 2015. Published by title on the City 's official website beginning on the 19th day of August, 2015 for thirty (30) days. Randy P. Penn, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I , Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2015 . Loucrishia A. Ellis • • • • • AGREEMENT REGARDING FUNDING OF MAJOR DRAINAGEWA Y PLANNING AND FLOOD HAZARD AREA DELINEATION FOR DRY GULCH IN ENGLEWOOD Agreement No. 15-07.02 THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2015, by and between URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (hereinafter called "DISTRICT") and CITY OF ENGLEWOOD (hereinafter called "ENGLEWOOD"); (hereinafter ENGLEWOOD shall be known as "PROJECT SPONSOR" and DISTRICT and PROJECT SPONSOR shall be collectively known as "PARTIES"); WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, DISTRICT in a policy statement previously adopted (Resolution No . 14, Series of 1970), expressed an intent to assist public bodies which have heretofore enacted floodplain zoning measures; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT has previously established a Work Program for 2015 (Resolution No. 51, Series of2014) which includes master planning; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT has previously engaged with City and County of Denver in an "Agreement Regarding Funding of Major Drainageway Planning and Flood Hazard Area Delineation for Harvard Gulch" (Agreement No. 14-10 .04); and WHEREAS, PAR TIES now des ire to proceed with development of a drainageway master plan and a flood hazard area delineation (FHAD) report for Dry Gulch (tributary to Harvard Gulch) within the City of Englewood (hereinafter called "PROJECT"); and WHEREAS, PAR TIES desire to engage an engineer to render certain technical and professional advice and to compile information, evaluate, study, and recommend design solutions to such drainage problems for PROJECT which are in the best interest of PARTIES. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, PARTIES hereto agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement defines the responsibilities and financial commitments of PARTIES with respect to PROJECT. 2. PROJECT AREA DISTRICT shall engage an engineer and obtain mapping as needed to perform or supply necessary services in connection with and respecting the planning of PROJECT of the area and watershed shown on the attached Exhibit A dated July 2015, (hereinafter called "AREA"). 3. SCOPE OF PROJECT The purpose of PROJECT is to develop a drainageway master plan and FHAD, including hydrologic information and the locations, alignments, and sizing of storm sewers, channels, detention/retention basins, and other facilities and appurtenances needed to provide efficient plan\Agreement\ 15\150702 E x H I B , I ! T A stormwater drainage within AREA. The proposed work shall include, but not be limited to, mapping; compilation of existing data; necessary field work; and development and consistent evaluation of all reasonable alternatives so that the most feasible drainage and flood control master plan can be determined and justified for AREA. Consideration shall be given to costs, existing and proposed land use, existing and proposed drainage systems, known drainage or flooding problems, known or anticipated erosion problems, stormwater quality, right-of-way needs, existing wetlands and riparian zones, open space and wildlife habitat benefits, and legal requirements. Schematic alternative plans shall be developed such that comparison with other alternatives can be made. Drainage system planning shall be done in three phases by the engineer engaged by DISTRICT, culminating in a drainage master plan report. During the first phase, the selected engineer shall perform all data gathering and modeling needed to prepare the baseline hydrology section of the master plan report containing an introduction, study area description and hydrologic analysis description. During the second phase, the engineer shall perform all studies and data gathering needed to prepare the alternatives analysis sections of the master plan report containing a hydraulic analysis discussion, schematics of alternatives developed and their costs along with a discussion of the pros and cons of each alternative and a recommended plan. A single alternative will be selected by PARTIES after the review and evaluation of the alternatives analysis report. The FHAD report preparation and submittal will be concurrent with the second phase of the master plan. During the third phase, the engineer shall be directed to prepare a conceptual design for the selected alternative and prepare the conceptual design section of the master plan report. 4. PUBLIC NECESSITY PARTIES agree that the work performed pursuant to this Agreement is necessary for the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare of all the people of the State, and is of particular benefit to the inhabitants of PARTIES and to their property therein. 5. PROJECT COSTS PARTIES agree that for the purposes of this Agreement PROJECT costs shall consist of, and be limited to, mapping, master planning, FHAD and related services and contingencies mutually agreeable to PARTIES. Project costs are estimated not to exceed $10,000 . 6. FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF PARTIES PARTIES shall each contribute the following percentages and maximum amounts for PROJECT costs as defined in Paragraphs 5: DISTRICT ENGLEWOOD TOTAL plan\Agreementl 151150702 Master Plan Percentage Share 0 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Maximum Contribution $0 $10.000 $10,000 • • • • • • 7 . 8. MANAGEMENT OF FINANCES Payment by by ENGLEWOOD of$10,000 shall be made to DISTRICT subsequent to execution of this Agreement and within thirty (30) calendar days of request for payment by DISTRICT. The payments by PAR TIES shall be held by DISTRICT in a special fund to pay for increments of PROJECT as authorized by PARTIES, and as defined herein. DISTRICT shall provide a periodic accounting of PROJECT funds as well as a periodic notification to PROJECT SPONSOR of any unpaid obligations. Any interest earned by the monies contributed by PARTIES shall be accrued to the special fund established by DISTRICT for PROJECT and such interest shall be used only for PROJECT and will not require an amendment to this Agreement. In the event that it becomes necessary and advisable to change the scope of work to be performed, the need for such changes shall first be discussed with PARTIES, and their general concurrence received before issuance of any amendments or addenda. No changes shall be approved that increase the costs beyond the funds available in the PROJECT fund unless and until the additional funds needed are committed by PARTIES by an amendment to this Agreement. Within one year of completion of PROJECT if there are monies including interest earned remaining which are not committed, obligated, or dispersed, each party shall receive a share of such monies, which shares shall be computed as were the original shares. PROJECT MAPPING No new mapping is anticipated under this Agreement for PROJECT. Upon execution of this Agreement, PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide copies of the most recent mapping within their jurisdictional area in digital format to DISTRICT to the extent such mapping is available without additional cost. 9. MASTER PLANNING AND DFHAD Upon execution of this Agreement, PARTIES shall select an engineer mutually agreeable to PARTIES. DISTRICT, with the approval of PROJECT SPONSOR, shall contract with the selected engineer, shall administer the contract, and shall supervise and coordinate the planning for the development of alternatives and of conceptual design. 10. PUBLISHED REPORTS AND PROJECT DATA DISTRICT will provide to PROJECT SPONSOR access to the draft and final electronic FHAD report files and draft and final electronic report files. Upon completion of PROJECT, electronic files of all mapping, drawings, and hydrologic and hydraulic calculations developed by the engineer contracted for PROJECT shall be provided to PROJECT SPONSOR upon request. 11. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall commence upon final execution by all PARTIES and shall terminate two years after the final master planning report is delivered to DISTRICT and the final accounting of funds on deposit at DISTRICT is provided to all PAR TIES pursuant to Paragraph 7 herein. plan\Agreement\15\150702 3 12. LIABILITY Each party hereto shall be responsible for any suits, demands, costs or actions at Jaw resulting from its own acts or omissions and may insure against such possibilities as appropriate. 13. CONTRACTING OFFICERS A. The contracting officer for PROJECT SPONSOR shall be the Deputy Public Works Director, 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110. B . The contracting officer for DISTRICT shall be the Executive Director, 2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156B, Denver, Colorado 8021 l. C. The contracting officers for PARTIES each agree to designate and assign a PROJECT representative to act on the behalfofsaid PARTIES in all matters related to PROJECT undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. Each representative shall coordinate all PROJECT- related issues between PARTIES, shall attend all progress meetings, and shall be responsible for providing all available PROJECT-related file information to the engineer upon request by DISTRICT or PROJECT SPONSOR. Said representatives shall have the authority for all approvals, authorizations, notices, or concurrences required under this Agreement. However, in regard to any amendments or addenda to this Agreement, said representative shall be responsible to promptly obtain the approval of the proper authority . 14. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES DISTRICT shall be responsible for coordinating with PROJECT SPONSOR the information developed by the various consultants hired by DISTRICT and for obtaining all concurrences from PROJECT SPONSOR needed to complete PROJECT in a timely manner. PROJECT SPONSOR agrees to review all draft reports and to provide comments within 21 calendar days after the draft reports have been provided by DISTRICT to PROJECT SPONSOR. PROJECT SPONSOR also agrees to evaluate the alternatives presented in the alternatives analysis sections of the report, to select an alternative, and to notify DISTRICT of their decision(s) within 30 calendar days after the alternatives analysis report is provided to PROJECT SPONSOR by DISTRICT. 15. AMENDMENTS This Agreement contains all of the terms agreed upon by and among PARTIES. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by PARTIES hereto to be valid and binding. 16 . SEVERABILITY If any clause or provision herein contained shall be adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of any applicable law, such invalid or unenforceable clause or provision shall not affect the validity of the Agreement as a whole and all other clauses or provisions shall be given full force and effect. 17. APPLICABLELAWS This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Jurisdiction for any and all legal actions regarding this Agreement shall be in the State of Colorado and venue for the same shall lie in the County where the Project is located. plan\Agreement\15\ 150702 4 • • • • • • 18. ASSIGNABILITY No party to this Agreement shall assign or transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the nonassigning party or parties to this Agreement. 19. BINDING EFFECT The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and shall inure to the benefit of PARTIES hereto and to their respective successors and permitted assigns . 20. ENFORCEABILITY PARTIES hereto agree and acknowledge that this Agreement may be enforced in law or in equity, by decree of specific performance or damages, or such other legal or equitable relief as may be available subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Colorado. 21 . TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30) days' written notice by any party to this Agreement, but only ifthere are no contingent, outstanding contracts. If there are contingent, outstanding contracts, this Agreement may only be terminated upon the cancellation of all contingent, outstanding contracts. All costs associated with the cancellation of the contingent contracts shall be shared between PARTIES in the same ratio(s) as were their contributions. 22. PUBLIC RELATIONS 23. It shall be at PROJECT SPONSOR's sole discretion to initiate and to carry out any public relations program to inform the residents in PROJECT area as to the purpose of PROJECT and what impact it may have on them. Technical information shall be presented to the public by the selected engineer. In any event DISTRICT shall have no responsibility for a public relations program, but shall assist PROJECT SPONSOR as needed and appropriate. GOVERNMENT AL IMMUNITIES The PARTIES hereto intend that nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver by any PAR TY of any rights, limitations, or protections afforded to them under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Section 24-10-1-1, C.R.S., et seq.) as now or hereafter amended or otherwise available at law or equity. 24. NO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT In connection with the performance of work under this Agreement, PAR TIES agree not to refuse to hire, discharge, promote or demote, or to discriminate in matters of compensation against any person otherwise qualified on the basis ofrace, color, ancestry, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, military status, sexual orientation, marital status, or physical or mental disability and further agrees to insert the foregoing provision in all subcontracts hereunder. 25. APPROPRIATIONS Notwithstanding any other term, condition, or provision herein, each and every obligation of PROJECT SPONSOR and/or DISTRICT stated in this Agreement is subject to the requirement ofa prior appropriation of funds therefore by the appropriate governing body of PROJECT SPONSOR and/or DISTRICT. plan\Agreement\15\150702 5 26 . NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to PAR TIES, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of action by any other or third person on such Agreement. It is the express intention of PAR TIES that any person or party other than PROJECT SPONSOR or DISTRICT receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only. 27. ILLEGAL ALIENS PARTIES agree that any public contract for services executed as a result of this intergovernmental agreement shall prohibit the employment of illegal aliens in compliance with §8-17 .5-101 et seq C.R.S. The following language shall be included in any contract for public services: "The Consultant or Contractor shall not and by signing this Agreement certifies that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. Consultant or Contractor shall not enter into a subcontract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Consultant or Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this public contract for services . Consultant or Contractor affirms that they have verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Employment Eligibility Verification Program (E-Verify) previously known as the Basic Pilot Program (created in Public Law 208 , 104th Congress, As Amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108tll Congress, As Amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security that Consultant or Contractor does not employ illegal aliens. Consultant or Contractor shall not use the E-Verify procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the public contract for services is being performed. In the event that the Consultant or Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant or Contractor shall be required to: A. Notify the subcontractor and PARTIES within three days that the Consultant or Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and B. Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days ofreceiving the notice required ifthe Subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant or Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the Subcontractor if during such three days the Subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Consultant or Contractor is required under this Agreement to comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDL) made in the course of an investigation the CDL is undertaking pursuant to §8-17.5-102(5) C.R.S. plan\Agreement\ 15\ 150702 6 • • • • • • DISTRICT may terminate this agreement for a breach of contract if Consultant or Contractor does not fully and completely comply with these conditions. If this Agreement is so terminated, the Consultant or Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to PARTIES. WHEREFORE, PARTIES hereto have caused this instrument to be executed by properly authorized signatures as of the date and year above written. (SEAL) ATTEST: (SEAL) ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis City Clerk plan\Agreement\15\ 150702 7 URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Title Executive Director Date. _____________ _ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD By _____________ ~ Randy :P. Penn Title Mayor DMe _____________ _ N W.E • s EXHIBIT A DRY GULCH Major Drainageway Plan & FHAD J. 2015 • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: 11 c i Alley Right of Way Adjacent to August 1 7, 2015 3220 S. Ogden St. Initiated By: Staff Source: Public Works Department Dave Henderson , Deputy Public Works Director COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION No recent previous Council Action. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution accepting the dedication of a section of an alley adjacent to 3220 S . Ogden St. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The property owner of 3220 S. Ogden Street, through his real estate agent, approached the City's Community Development Department with a residential redevelopment proposal. As part of the plan review and subsequent title work, the owner discovered that the Arapahoe County Assessor's map indicated he owned the alley adjacent to this property. The owner's deed does not indicate any title interest to the alley. We believe the Assessor's Map may have carried forward private ownership of the alley due to a statement on the original subdivision plat from 1892. This note showed the alleys in this subdivision as "Reserved" and not dedicated to the public. All of the alleys in the "Evanston Broadway Addition " have the "Reserved" note on the plat. Staff believes the owner in 1892 may have placed this notation on the plat to protect his interest in the alley land in case alleys were not constructed as part of the residential development. All of the alleys were eventually constructed and are used as such . The City has maintained these alleys, garages have been constructed, and utilities were installed. Regardless of the note on the plat, the Public has a prescriptive easement for the use of these alleys. The property owner has agreed to provide the City with a quit claim deed for any interest he may have in the alley land (signed copy attached). This will clear up his title issue before transferring the property to the developer and, when recorded, the County will revise their maps to show this section of the alley as Public Property (see attached copy of the County Map). Note that another section of alley in this block, adjacent to 3210, is also shown as a private ownership. Staff has contacted the owner of this property and provided them a quit claim deed to sign. If the owner executes the document, staff will present this to Council at a future meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact is associated with this action . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS • County Assessor Map Resolution and Easement Documents • • 0 0 ___ , ~~ 48g ----· 7 0 U1 460 --- ·45 440 0 -----43 ~ 42 6 oft.. • V> .,.: II) z w c c:> 0 125.0(J 26 ~ 0 0 12 24g i::!S'----------~ U1 t 2S.DO 25 EASTMAN AVE. A VE. 8 I Lw .VV 1 0 ~), , 12~.UQ 4!3 ----OOf---..9-----Q24------ 125,oo 2 $; 12:..00 4 7 ~ ~ 002 JI~ g 023 46 8 -I . ...: . ------· i/f -----------I ...... r5 -----0 141 .00 4 --t-ti) 12~,00 45 ~ -----------5 ~ g . 022 4 --,t+7---4 --2-1-----.-6 10 D .J 43 ~ I~ ~ 1 -_ -----------~-q ' 0 00.3 71~. 021 41 ------------~ -----~----, I . - 141.00 8 ! ~ 125.00 41 ~ ____ o4 __ 9_EJ L~~-02q_4~_s. ~ ~ 1 25.00 39 ~ 019 JB 0 60' 0 19 • U) I ----q I- ll) <( z a a .._ _____ _ ~ o ~ ~ 0 0 04 u ------ lO 12 8 0 05, ~---- i N SC ALE : 1 i nch = 50 feet " DATE : Augu s t 5 , 2 015 -. c •.. L..JO crr\WN 8~·; JDl • • • RESOLUTION NO . SERIES OF 2015 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A SECTION OF AN ALLEY ADJACENT TO 3220 SOUTH OGDEN STREET BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. WHEREAS, the property records at the Arapahoe County Assessors Office, shows a portion of alley directly behind 3220 South Ogden Street as being owned by the current property owner; and WHEREAS, the owner has expressed a desire to Quit Claim his interest in this portion of the alley to the City in order to address this discrepancy and to clean up any title issues; and WHEREAS, the passage of this Resolution authorizes the acceptance of the section of the alley located in the 3200 block of South Ogden. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby approves the acceptance of a Quit Claim Deed for a section of alley located at 3220 South Ogden Street executed by Carl Edward Palmer, attached hereto as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to accept the Quit Claim Deed for the section of an alley located in the 3200 block of South Ogden Street for and on behalf of the City of Englewood, Colorado . ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 17th day of August, 2015. ATIEST: Randy P. Penn, Mayor Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above is a true copy of Resolution No. __ , Series of 2015 . Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk ------··---~------ QCIT CLAlM DEED THIS DEED, made this3D day of~ " , 201 5, between C\RL EDWARD PAL'.\IER whose legal address is 11 13 1\ort High-way 10 l, Cnit :':t21, Depoe Bay, Oregon 97341-9344 of the County of Lincoln and State of Oregon, grantor, and CITY OF E:.JGLEWOOD, COLORADO , a H ome Rule Municipality, whose legal address is 1000 Englewood Parkv.-ay , Englewood, Colorado 80 110 of the County of Arapahoe and Sta te of Colorado, grantee_ "1T.'.\"ESS, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS the receipt and sufficiency of \\-hich is hereby acknowledged, has remised , released, sold, conveyed and QUT CLAl\ffD, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAThJ unto the grantee, its successors and assign s, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand \\-hich the grantor has in and to the real property, together \Vith improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado , described as follows: All that portion of the reserved alley located in Block 23, EVAJ'1STON BROADWAY ADDITIO:\', adjacent to the south 4.5 feet of Lot 4 , and all of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 Also known as 3220 South Ogden Street. Said property contains 1,6 72 square feet more or less. As sho,xn on the attached map (Exhibit A). TO HA VE A.1"\'D TO HOLD the same , together with all and singular the appurtenan ces and privileges thereunto belo nging or in anY',vise thereunto appertaining , and all the estate, right , title, interest and claim v;.-·h atsoever, of the grantor, either u1 la w or equity, to the benefit and behoof of the grantee, its heirs and assigns forever. Il\ WITl\'ESS WHEREOF, The grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above . CARL EDWARD PALMER ()&jJ QL~j}c~ STATE Of {)_~C . , (. : SS. CountyofL ~Y\CD D_ __ Carl Edward Palmer ~ _ The fure2oin2 instrnmem was a.:kr10\vled2ed before me this~-=--dav of ~J-,., ~ ~ ~ ~ . l !.1. .\ ·~ . 2 015. by Car} Edward Palmer. .\Iy commission expires: Dd-( DL/[;;>bl ~ a OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICIA L EISLER NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ., COMMISSION NO. -465129 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 04, 2016 A T T A c ·~ • • E N T l wx:r-m-1-<{ m .--OJ ::i <.n ..-+ 0 ::i 0 ::i 0 'P.. >n -i )> :n r .. m 104 .SO' w N N 0 OGDEN ST. 45.50' CORONA ST. 5 ' .... N "! m l> Vl -I s: l> z l> < m - • • • • • • Legal description for the alley behind 3220 South Ogden Street All that portion of the reserved alley located in Block 23, EVANSTON BROADWAY ADDITION , adjacent to the south 4 .5 feet of Lot 4, and all of Lots 5, 6, 7,and 8 (also known as 3220 South Ogden Street) .