IN THIS ISSUE
Since the inception of the Federal
Transit Administration' s (FTA)
Alternative Fuels Initiative (API)
Program in 1988, 61 grants have
been awarded to purchase over
1000 alternative fueled vehicles.
FTA' s AFI Program has provided
over $185 million in Federal funds
for this deployment of alternative
fueled vehicles into transit revenue
service operations.
The AFI Program approach has
always been to allow the local tran-
sit decision-makers the choice of
the technology and fuel that is best
suited for their particular operation.
As a result, a variety of technolo-
gies and fuels are being tested in
diverse locations across the coun-
try.
This Technical Brief profiles four
AFI project sites, each testing a
different alternative fuel: Pierce
Transit's compressed natural gas
(CNG) buses, Houston Metro' s liq-
uefied natural gas (LNG) buses,
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority' s (LACM-
TA) methanol buses, and Greater
Peoria Mass Transit District's (GP
Transit) ethanol buses.
The case studies were selected in
order to discuss four different alter-
native fuels that are under primary
consideration in localities across
the country. For the most part,
each of the sites have significant
operating experience with their fuel
of choice.
Pierce Transit is currently operat-
ing 30 full sized CNG buses from
Bus Industries of America and 21
small buses from El Dorado that
have been converted to operate on
CNG. The full sized Orion buses
use the Cummins L10-240G natur-
al gas engine.
Houston Metro is currently operat-
ing over 50 full sized buses using
LNG with a diesel pilot ignition sys-
tem. The Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA
engine is being used.
The LACMTA (the new umbrella
agency that absorbed SCRTD) is
testing and evaluating a variety of
alternative fuel technologies. The
LACMTA operates the largest fleet
of methanol buses in the country,
o v e r 3 0 0 b y t h e e n d o f 1 9 9 3 .
T h e s e b u s e s u s e t h e D e t r o i t
Diesel 6V-92TA methanol engine.
Greater Peoria Transit is conduct-
ing a demonstration and evalua-
tion of 14 ethanol fueled buses,
about 25 percent of their fleet. The
engine used is the Detroit Diesel
6V-92TA ethanol engine.
By showcasing specific experi-
ences with alternative fuels, other
transit agencies should have a bet-
ter understanding of the implica-
tions of operating their transit fleets
with these alternative fuels.
Alternative Fuels Initiative Clean Air Program
2
Pierce Transit' s experience with
alternative fueled buses began
with a conference visit. In 1986,
Director of Maintenance Ron
Shipley attended an international
conference in Vancouver, Canada
and realized the U.S. was not
experimenting with mass transit
alternative fuel systems as much
as other countries. Pierce Transit
in Tacoma, Washington has been
testing compressed natural gas
(CNG) in buses ever since.
The transit district considered
many fuels. It wanted a fuel that
was more environmentally benign
than diesel. The transit district
was concerned about meeting the
1991 EPA emission standards for
particulate matter. Also, it wanted
a plentiful, domestically produced
fuel so that costs could be stabi-
lized. While many alternative
fuels met these requirements,
CNG provided the best solution
for Pierce Transit, said Ed Harvill,
Maintenance Technical Analyst. It
was readily available. The infra-
structure in the region was estab-
lished (many houses depend on
natural gas). The infrastructure
only needed to be expanded, not
developed. It provided energy
independence and it was safe.
(Continues on page 4)
Houston METRO serves 1,275
square miles and a population
of 3.5 million people. METRO
is organized as an indepen-
dent authority responsible to a
board of commissioners. It
operates 1,160 buses. Fuel
costs are approximately 4.5%
of operating costs.
Houston METRO began con-
sidering an alternative fuels
bus program in response to
Texas clean air legislation
which mandated that 30% of
transit authority vehicles be
clean-burning by September
1991. "We were looking for all
the things we enjoyed with
diesel that we didn' t want to
give up," said Systems Assur-
ance and Engineering Director
Jim Patrick. LNG came the
closest. The chart on page 3
shows the replacement criteria
c o n s i d e r e d f o r a l t e r n a t i v e
fuels.
The transit district investigated
four fuels: methanol, propane,
compressed natural gas and
liquefied natural gas. Alterna-
tive fuels such as methanol
and propane were considered
to have too many handling
hazards. The high mainte-
nance costs of methanol were
a major deterrent, as well as
concerns regarding aldehyde
(Continues on page 5)
Greater Peoria Mass Transit
(GP Transit) serves a popula-
tion of 230,000 people in a 56
s q u a r e m i l e a r e a w i t h 4 9
buses. It has just started an
Alternative Fuels Initiative pro-
ject that will run 14 mass tran-
sit buses on ethanol fuel. Of
the four case studies featured
in this Technical Brief, the GP
Transit ethanol bus program is
the newest. As such, it is a six-
year field test that intends to
provide performance data on
ethanol buses.
GP Transit chose ethanol fuel
for two primary reasons, said
GP Transit General Manager
Michael L. Brown. Due to its
Midwestern location, ethanol
fuel is produced nearby. Two
major ethanol manufacturers
are located close to the mass
transit district. Illinois is a lead-
ing state in the production of
ethanol from corn, and the pro-
ject will assess the economic
impact of using ethanol pro-
duced by locally grown and
processed corn.
Second, ethanol needs to be
evaluated as a viable alterna-
tive fuel. Brown said, "Several
methanol projects are under-
w a y , a n d i t w a s o r i g i n a l l y
thought that those studies
would provide information for
ethanol as well, but the indus-
try is realizing that there
(Continues on page 7)
Pierce Transit
H o u s t o n M E T R O
Greater Peoria Transit
Alternative Fuels Bus Program-Four Case Studies The Los Angeles County Metro-
politan Transportation Authority
(LACMTA) also became involved
with alternative fueled buses due
to state legislation. California
commissioned a study on the use
o f a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s ( s u c h a s
methanol) to promote United
States energy security. LACMTA
has a fleet of 2,632 buses and a
services area of 1,442 square
miles. This coupled with Southern
California's notoriously poor air
quality, made LACMTA a prime
candidate for testing a new tech-
nology.
Methanol fueled engines were
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a t t r a c t i v e
because of their low NOx and
particulate matter emissions.
Methanol produces half as many
nitrous oxides (NOx) as diesel
fuel, with 80% less smoke and
soot.
In 1989, FTA awarded a grant to
LACMTA to convert 12 Detroit
Diesel Corporation (DDC) 6V92
engines and 2 C~ L - 10 engines
to run on methanol. These buses
were operated for two years.
South Coast Air Quality Manage-
ment District and International
Chemical Industries each con-
tributed funds towards the differ-
ential cost in fuel. LACMTA
currently has 180 methanol buses
in service, and plans to have 340
buses in operation by ~e end of
1993.
The methanol bus demonstration
project centered around the devel-
op-
(Continues on page 6)
Clean Air Program
3
LACMTA Clean Air Program
4
PIERCE TRANSIT
(CONTINUED)
The original project began with two
retrofitted TMC buses. The project
went well and two years later, Pierce
Transit officials decided they would like
to move beyond the demonstration
phase to a dedicated system. Unfor-
tunately, in 1988 engine manufactur-
ers were not ready to release engines
that could be used in full-time revenue
service provided for by the Alternative
Fuels Initiative Program. Pierce Tran-
sit was forced to consider a bi-fuel sys-
tem. It bought bi-fuel El Dorado
coaches that could operate on either
unleaded gasoline or CNG. These
buses cost about $ 15,000 more per
bus with the CNG conversion which
included regulators, piping, and six
CNG tanks.
"People have to realize that clean air
costs money," Harvill said. "The feder-
al grant covers 80% of the cost of the
bus, and the district is depreciating the
rest over 20 years. Also, as the chart
below shows, the CNG buses run
more cheaply than diesel buses.
CNG is less expensive than diesel,
and since it runs more cleanly, main-
tenance costs are lower."
Unfortunately these buses had trou-
ble controlling the air-to-fuel ratio in the
CNG system which led to several
problems. The engines were difficult
to start when cold. They tended to
backfire, destroying cleaners and
housings. The buses were slow to
accelerate and were plagued with
generally unreliable operation. As a
result of the slow acceleration and
unresponsiveness, operators were
reluctant to drive the buses in the
CNG mode.
Pierce Transit spent several months
trying to resolve the prob-
lems, and finally decided to try another
conversion system. The El Dorado
buses were test driven for approxi-
mately 10,000 miles with a system
produced by MOGAS Sales Inc.
The tests