Sustainable fleet management seeks to deliver the best service with a standard of service defined by state regulatory bodies by utilizing and managing large fleets of vehicles in the most efficient, productive, and cost-effective way. Public transport service providers thus seek alternative ways to minimize cost as well as air pollution and carbon emissions from the transportation sector. This study develops a total cost of ownership (TCO) framework for evaluation of different alternative fuel options (diesel, compressed natural gas [CNG], and electric) for bus public transportation based on real-world driving conditions. Electric, CNG, and diesel buses are compared from the life cycle perspective by quantifying a set of sustainability indicators including global warming potential, particulate matter formation, human health impacts, and TCO. According to the results, it was found that TCO of electric buses is less than that of diesel and CNG buses. Specifically, TCO of electric buses is 15% less than that of diesel buses, and compared with CNG it is 5% less over a period of 10 years of use. The proposed framework provides a quantitative basis for a sustainable fleet management approach for public bus service providers.
EllramL. M.Total Cost of Ownership; An Analysis Approach for Purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1995, pp. 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510099928.
2.
SenB.KucukvarM.OnatN. C.TatariO.Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Autonomous Heavy-Duty Trucks. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2020, pp. 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12964.
3.
TopalO.Nakirİ.Total Cost of Ownership Based Economic Analysis of Diesel, CNG and Electric Bus Concepts for the Public Transport in Istanbul City. Energies, Vol. 11, No. 9, 2018, p. 2369. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092369.
4.
ShethA.SarkarD.Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Electric vs Diesel Bus Transit in an Indian Scenario. International Journal of Technology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019, pp. 105–115. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v10i1.1958.
5.
FranckxL.Total Cost of Ownership of Electric Cars Compared to Diesel and Gasoline Cars in Belgium. Report. Federal Planning Bureau, Brussels, December2019. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18389.78561.
6.
LetmatheP.SuaresM.A Consumer-Oriented Total Cost of Ownership Model for Different Vehicle Types in Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 57, 2017, pp. 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.007.
7.
MillerM.WangQ.FultonL. M.Truck Choice Modeling: Understanding California’s Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Trucks Taking into Account Truck Technologies, Costs, and Fleet Decision Behavior. Research Report. National Center for Sustainable Transportation, UC Davis, CA, 2017.
8.
RitariA.VepsäläinenJ.KivekäsK.TammiK.LaitinenH.Energy Consumption and Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Electric City Buses With Multispeed Gearboxes. Energies, Vol. 13, No. 8, 2020, p. 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13082117.
9.
HarrisA.SobanD.SmythB. M.BestR.A Probabilistic Fleet Analysis for Energy Consumption, Life Cycle Cost and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modelling of Bus Technologies. Applied Energy, Vol. 261, 2020, p. 114422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114422.
10.
SuwartoF.NugrohoA.SusantiR.PurwadiD.Sensitivity Analysis of Road Roughness on Transportation Costs. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1444, No. 1, 2020, P. 012048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1444/1/012048.
11.
IslamA.LownesN.When To Go Electric? A Parallel Bus Fleet Replacement Study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 72, 2019, pp. 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.007.
12.
SuY.LiuX.LuG.FanW.Optimal Design of Bus Routes for Different Vehicle Types Considering Various Driving Regimes and Environmental Factors. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 299–316.
13.
BorénS.Electric Buses’ Sustainability Effects, Noise, Energy Use, and Costs. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 14, No. 12, 2020, pp. 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1666324.
14.
KrellingC.BadamiM. G.CNG and Diesel Urban Buses in India: A Life-Cycle Cost Comparison. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 14, No. 8, 2020, pp. 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1594468.
15.
DuJ.ZhangX.WangT.SongZ.YangX.WangH.OuyangM.WuX.Battery Degradation Minimization Oriented Energy Management Strategy for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Bus With Multi-Energy Storage System. Energy, Vol. 165, 2018, pp. 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.084.
16.
VepsäläinenJ.BaldiF.LajunenA.KivekäsK.TammiK.Cost-Benefit Analysis of Electric Bus Fleet With Various Operation Intervals. Proc., International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, IEEE, New York, 2018, pp. 1522–1527. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569583.
17.
HarrisA.SobanD.SmythB. M.BestR.Assessing Life Cycle Impacts and the Risk and Uncertainty of Alternative Bus Technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 97, 2018, pp. 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.08.045.
18.
RaposoH.FarinhaJ. T.FerreiraL.GalarD.Dimensioning Reserve Bus Fleet Using Life Cycle Cost Models and Condition Based/Predictive Maintenance: A Case Study. Public Transport, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2018, pp. 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0167-x.
19.
OrbaizP.van DijkN.NigroS.CosentinoN.OxenfordM.CarignanoN. M.A Technical, Environmental and Financial Analysis of Hybrid Buses Used for Public Transport. SAE International, Sae Technical Papers, 2018. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/86254
20.
RiechiJ.MácIanV.TormosB.AvilaC.Optimal Fleet Replacement: A Case Study on a Spanish Urban Transport Fleet. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 68, No. 8, 2017, pp. 886–894. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0236-1.
21.
BiZ.De KleineR.KeoleianG. A.Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Model for Comparing Plug-in Versus Wireless Charging for an Electric Bus System. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2017, pp. 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12419.
22.
AllyJ.PryorT.Life Cycle Costing of Diesel, Natural Gas, Hybrid and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Systems: An Australian Case Study. Energy Policy, Vol. 94, 2016, pp. 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.039.
23.
LiJ. Q.JinX.XiongR.Multi-Objective Optimal Energy Management Strategy and Economic Analysis for a Range-Extended Electric Bus. Energy Procedia, Vol. 88, 2016, pp. 814–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.133.
24.
ErcanT.ZhaoY.TatariO.PazourJ. A.Optimization of Transit Bus Fleet’s Life Cycle Assessment Impacts With Alternative Fuel Options. Energy, Vol. 93, 2015, pp. 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.018.
25.
WangN.LiY.LiuY.Economic Evaluation of Electric Bus Charging Infrastructure. Proc., 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC 2014, Qingdao, IEEE, New York, 2014, pp. 2799–2804. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958138.
26.
LiB. J.NiuD. X.HuaF. Y.QiuJ. P.ZhuG. R.The Benefit Analysis of Applications of Alternative Energy in Small Public Transportation System. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 644–650, 2014, pp. 6114–6117. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.644-650.6114.
27.
ChenY.HuX.LiuJ.Life Cycle Assessment of Fuel Cell Vehicles Considering the Detailed Vehicle Components: Comparison and Scenario Analysis in China Based on Different Hydrogen Production Schemes. Energies, Vol. 14, No. 15, 2019, pp. 7–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12153031.
28.
McKenzieE. C.Durango-CohenP. L.Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Transit Buses With Alternative Fuel Technology. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2012, pp. 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2011.09.008.
29.
GolubA.ZhenF.ClarkN. N.WayneW. S.SchiavoneJ. J.ChambersC.ChandlerK. L.Creation of Life-Cycle Cost Tool for Transit Buses to Evaluate Hybrid Electric Bus Technologies in Real-World Operation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2218: 19–26.
30.
BonillaO.MerinoD. N.Economics of a Hydrogen Bus Transportation System: Case Study Using an After Tax Analysis Model. EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010, pp. 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2010.11431870.
31.
HellgrenJ.Life Cycle Cost Analysis of a Car, a City Bus and an Intercity Bus Powertrain for Year 2005 and 2020. Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2007, pp. 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.10.004.
32.
BlynnK.AttanucciJ.Accelerating Bus Electrification: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Barriers and Drivers to Scaling Transit Fleet Electrification. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 577–587.
33.
VoraA. P.JinX.HoshingV.ShaverG.VarigondaS.TynerW. E.Integrating Battery Degradation in a Cost of Ownership Framework for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Design Optimization. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 233, No. 6, 2019, pp. 1507–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407018802663.
34.
TeichertO.ChangF.OngelA.LienkampM.Joint Optimization of Vehicle Battery Pack Capacity and Charging Infrastructure for Electrified Public Bus Systems. IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2019, pp. 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2019.2932700.
35.
KolodziejakD. P. H.PhamT. H.HofmanT.WilkinsS.An Optimization and Analysis Framework for TCO Minimization of Plug-in Hybrid Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles. IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 52, No. 5, 2019, pp. 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.09.077.
36.
GoswamiR.Chandra TripathiG. EconomicEnvironmental and Congestion Impact on the Life-Cycle Cost of Ownership: A Case Study in the Delhi Transit Bus System. International Journal of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2019, pp. 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEHV.2019.098719.
37.
RaposoH.FarinhaJ. T.FerreiraL.DideletF.Economic Life Cycle of the Bus Fleet: A Case Study. International Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2019, pp. 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHVS.2019.097109.
38.
MalnacaK.YatskivI.Impact of Critical Variables on Economic Viability of Converted Diesel City Bus Into Electric Bus. In Data Analytics: Paving the Way to Sustainable Urban Mobility (NathanailE. G.KarakikesI. D., eds.) Springer International Publishing, Cham, Vol. 879, 2019, pp. 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02305-8_102.
39.
MeishnerF.SatvatB.SauerD. U.Battery Electric Buses in European Cities: Economic Comparison of Different Technological Concepts Based on Actual Demonstrations. Proc., IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2017, Belfort, France, IEEE, New York, 2018, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2017.8331012.
40.
RoggeM.van der HurkE.LarsenA.SauerD. U.Electric Bus Fleet Size and Mix Problem With Optimization of Charging Infrastructure. Applied Energy, Vol. 211, 2018, pp. 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.051.
41.
KunithA.MendelevitchR.GoehlichD.Electrification of a City Bus Network—An Optimization Model for Cost-Effective Placing of Charging Infrastructure and Battery Sizing of Fast-Charging Electric Bus Systems. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 10, 2017, pp. 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1310962.
42.
KunithA.MendelevitchR.KuschmierzA.GoehlichD.Optimization of Fast Charging Infrastructure for Electric Bus Transportation – Electrification of a City Bus Network. Proc., EVS 2016 - 29th International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Montréal, Québec, Canada, June 19–22, 2016, pp. 1–12.
43.
GöhlichD.KunithA.LyT.Technology Assessment of an Electric Urban Bus System for Berlin. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol. 138, 2014, pp. 137–149. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT140121.
44.
FilhoP.SuhI. S.Implementation Cost Comparison of Electric Vehicle Energy Replenishment Technologies for Public Transit Bus Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2352: 11–19.
45.
NurhadiL.BorénS.NyH.A Sensitivity Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electric Public Bus Transport Systems in Swedish Medium Sized Cities. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 3, 2014, pp. 818–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.058.
46.
CaicedoB.OcampoM.Sanchez-SilvaM.An Integrated Method to Optimise the Infrastructure Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 11, 2012, pp. 1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.499951.
47.
ShaoyuX.XiuliW.ChongQ.XifanW.JingliG.Impacts of Different Wind Speed Simulation Methods on Conditional Reliability Indices. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2015, pp. 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.1851.
48.
KimuraK.TanakaY.IwamotoS.A Technique for SC Renewal Planning Considering Optimal Allocation and Life Cycle Cost. Proc., 9th International Power and Energy Conference, IPEC 2010, Singapore, IEEE, New York, 2010, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPECON.2010.5697120.
49.
CardulloM. W.Total Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Conventional and Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Vol. 2, 1993, pp. 75–80.
50.
JefferiesD.GöhlichD.Integrated TCO Assessment of Bus Network Electrification Considering Rescheduling and Delays – Modelling Framework and Case Study. Proc., 31st International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, EVS 2018 and International Electric Vehicle Technology Conference 2018, EVTeC 2018, Kobe, Japan, November, 2018.
51.
StempienJ. P.ChanS. H.Comparative Study of Fuel Cell, Battery and Hybrid Buses for Renewable Energy Constrained Areas. Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 340, 2017, pp. 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.11.089.
52.
KunithA.GoehlichD.TCO Assessment of Fuel Versus Electric Heating for Urban Electric Bus Systems. Proc., 30th International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, EVS 2017, 2017, pp. 1–9.
53.
GoehlichD.SpangenbergF.KunithA.Stochastic Total Cost of Ownership Forecasting for Innovative Urban Transport Systems. Proc., IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Bangkok, Thailand, IEEE, New York, 2014, pp. 838–842. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2013.6962529.
54.
MalnacaK.GorobetzM.Yatskiv (Jackiva)I.KorneyevA.Decision-Making Process for Choosing Technology of Diesel Bus Conversion Into Electric Bus. In Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication (KabashkinI.Yatskiv (Jackiva)I.PrentkovskisO. eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 91–102.
55.
KumarP.ChakrabartyS.Total Cost of Ownership Analysis of the Impact of Vehicle Usage on the Economic Viability of Electric Vehicles in India. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2020. 2674: 036119812094708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120947089.
56.
OnatN. C.KucukvarM.AboushaqrahN. N. M.JabbarR.How Sustainable Is Electric Mobility? A Comprehensive Sustainability Assessment Approach for the Case of Qatar. Applied Energy, Vol. 250, 2019, pp. 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.05.076.
57.
HuijbregtsM. A. J.SteinmannZ. J. N.ElshoutP. M. F.M.StamG.VeronesF.VieiraM. D. M.ZijpM.van ZelmR.ReCiPe 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level - Report 1: Characterization. RIVM Report 2016-0104. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2016.
KucukvarM.OnatN. C.HaiderM. A.Material Dependence of National Energy Development Plans: The Case for Turkey and United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 200, 2018, pp. 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.245.
60.
Cihat OnatN.AboushaqrahN. N. M.KucukvarM.TarlochanF.Magid HamoudaA.From Sustainability Assessment to Sustainability Management for Policy Development: The Case for Electric Vehicles. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 216, 2020, p. 112937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112937.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
