The URL can be used to link to this page

MPO Agenda 04/11/2025COLLIER COUNTY Metropolitan Planning Organization COLLIER Metropolitan Planning Organization EUMM11 Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 April 11, 2025 9:30 AM Commissioner Dan Kowal, Chair Council Member Tony Pernas, Vice -Chair Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Chris Hall Commissioner Rick LoCastro Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. Council Member Bonita Schwan Council Member Berne Barton Council Member Linda Penniman This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252-5814. The MPO's planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes that within the MPO's planning process they have been discriminated against because or race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file a complaint with the Collier MPO Title VI Coordinator Ms. Suzanne Miceli (239) 252-5814 or by email at: Suzanne.Miceli(&,,colliercountyfl.g_ov, or in writing to the Collier MPO, attention: Ms. Miceli, at 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104. Page 1 of 229 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of the Agenda, Previous Minutes, and Consent Items 4.A. March 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes (2025-1173) 5. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda 6. Agency Updates 6.A. FDOT 7. Committee Chair Reports 7.A. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report (2025-1164) 7.13. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report (2025-1165) 7.C. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report (2025-1166) 8. Regular Board Action (Roll Call Required) 9. Regular Board Action (No Roll Call) 9.A. Adopt FDOT's Revised Pavement and Bridge (PM2) and System (PM3) Performance Targets for the National Highway System (2025-1167) 9.13. Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged as a Citizens' Advocate (2025-1168) 10. Presentations (May Require Board Action) 10.A. Draft Transit Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan by Benesch (2025-1169) 10.B. Report on Return of Federal Carbon Reduction Grant Program Funds (2025-1170) 11. Distribution Items 11.A. MPO Advisory Council Weekend Institute (2025-1171) 12. Member Comments 13. Next Meeting Date 13.A. Next Meeting Date: May 9, 2025 1 Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 (2025-1172) 14. Adjourn Page 2 of 229 Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 14, 2025 1 9:30 a.m. MEETING MINUTES **HYBRID REMOTE — IN -PERSON AND VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kowal called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mr. Kingston called roll and confirmed a quorum was present in the room. Members Present (in BCC Chambers) Commissioner Dan Kowal, Chair Council Member Tony Pernas, Vice -Chair Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Rick LoCastro Council Member Bonita Schwan Council Member Berne Barton Council Member Linda Penniman Members Absent Commissioner Chris Hall MPO Staff Anne Mclaughlin, Executive Director Dusty Hansen, Senior Planner Suzanne Miceli, Operations Support Specialist II Sean Kingston, Principal Planner FDOT Wayne Gaither, Director, District 1 Southwest Area Office Erica McCaughey, Community Planner — Complete Streets Coordinator Others Present Scott Teach, Esq., Deputy County Attorney 1 Page 3 of 229 Trinity Scott, Department Head, Collier County Transportation Mgmt. Services Lorraine Lantz, Collier County Transportation Planning, TAC Chair Sonal Dodia, Jacobs Engineering Group Julianne Thomas, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Others Present via Zoom Teresa Parker, FHWA Michelle Avola-Brown, Naples Pathways Coalition Bill Gramer, Jacobs Engineering Group Colleen Ross, Jacobs Engineering Group 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Kowal led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PREVIOUS MINUTES AND CONSENT ITEMS 4.A. Approval of the Agenda and February 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes 4.B. Approve Change Order 1 for Capital Consulting Solutions for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Vice -Chair Pernas moved to approve the agenda, previous minutes, and consent items and Commissioner McDaniel seconded. Passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Avola-Brown reported she attended the legislative session for the bill for the Hands -Free Florida initiative. Representative Linda Chaney from St. Petersburg is the chair of the Florida House Government Operations Subcommittee. She supported the same bill for the initiative from last year but won't now. Ms. Avola-Brown would like to support hands -free legislation to prevent the bill from dying. Commissioner McDaniel asked Ms. Avola-Brown to email and forward materials for him to contact legislators. This Board can write a letter of support. Ms. Avola Brown agreed to send the contact information. Council Members Barton and Schwan indicated that they are delving into the matter from their respective city's perspectives. Commissioner McDaniel motioned to write a letter ofsupportforHands-Free legislation. Council Member Schwan seconded. Passed unanimously. rl� Rxi"e[aW0 9 �i 6.A. FDOT 2 Page 4 of 229 Mr. Gaither said he was standing in for the MPO's FDOT liaison, Marcellus Evans, and L. K. Nandam, District 1 Secretary. FDOT is still moving through the legislative period. With all the0 activity going on, FDOT is taking this opportunity to discuss things such as earmarks, an option that local governments have used to get additional funding. Transportation projects are limited in funding, unless it comes out of the general fund. FDOT has a history of not using the general fund over the past couple of years. It looks like that is a trend that will be continuing. There is about $90 million in earmarks in District 1. Funding them could affect MPO priority projects. Mr. Gaither addressed the questions from last meeting: • For US 41, he has been in touch with FDOT's asset management team for six locations. During this process, FDOT is looking to see if there are infrastructure impacts with the drainage system. FDOT has completed an analysis underground looking for washaways under the infrastructure, addressing those issues if needed, and working on surface repairs. Two sites are outside the existing drainage project, which runs from Golden Gate Parkway south to 5th Avenue, also known as the Four Corners intersection. He will have those for the next MPO meeting. • For the interchange at I-75 and 951, FDOT is in the process of working on Beck Blvd. From March 23rd through April 4 there will be closings with a detour using the existing road and pathways. There was a crane incident on site with no injuries or impacts to motorists. The crane has been removed. • Also on 951, there was a sign interfering with people making right turns, which FDOT was able to have addressed. It's been a busy month for February in Collier County regarding litter removal. 31 tons were picked up on state roads and 30 tons on 1-75. This has been a light month compared to January. FDOT will continue to work with Highway Patrol and will work on public outreach. Commissioner LoCastro asked if FDOT has a regular schedule for litter removal as it seems inconsistent. Mr. Gaither answered that there is a schedule. There are more cleanup crews under contract this year than there were in 2022. Commissioner Kowal noted that a lot of the litter looks to be from trash trucks, things blowing off trucks, not having the manpower to keep an eye on things. It seems more of an enforcement thing. Mr. Gaither said FDOT has a video of trash blowing off of trucks on the Interstate, indicating this is a known problem. Commissioner LoCastro said he spoke with Waste Management regarding items blowing off of their trucks. Chair Kowal asked who is responsible to handle a drainage issue near S.R. 84 and Kings Lake Blvd. Water runs off the road through the shopping center into a retention pond in the Kings Lake neighborhood and is often backed up. He would like to schedule a meeting with FDOT and Collier County Transportation Head, Trinity Scott, to discuss what the protocol would be for managing water drainage coming from state roads. There is also a question of responsibility for a drainage issue off Sandpiper Rd., which runs between the City of Naples and Collier County. Page 5 of 229 Mr. Gaither said FDOT had been in discussions with County staff regarding these issues, and he will schedule a meeting with Chair Kowal for further discussion. Council Member Barton would welcome a discussion with Chair Kowal regarding the drainage issue on Sandpiper Rd, as it is also a priority for the City of Naples. 6.B. MPO Ms. McLaughlin had nothing additional to report other than what is on the agenda. 7. CHAIR REPORTS 7.A. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) 7.A.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 7.B.1. Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.C. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) 7.C.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report Report presented in writing. 7.D. LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD (LCB) 7.C.1. Local Coordinating Board Chair Report Report presented in writing. 8. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (ROLL CALL REQUIRED) None. 9. REGULAR BOARD ACTION (NO ROLL CALL) 9.A. Approve Fourth Amendment to MPO Lease Agreement and the Amended and Restated Staff Services Agreement 4 Page 6 of 229 Ms. McLaughlin said this is an item that goes to the MPO Board every three years. The last time the agreements were updated was June of 2022. These two agreements are typically updated together. Regarding the MPO's current lease, the market rate of $23 per square foot was charged with an annual rental amount of just over $15,000 in 2022. This year, the market rate is $25 per square foot but the MPO has moved to a smaller area in the same building, resulting in a slightly reduced annual amount. The Staff Services Agreement is mostly a cleanup amendment brought up to date by staff and the County Attorney's Office. Once approved by the MPO Board, the agreements are required to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This was not taken to committees because it is administrative in nature. Commissioner Saunders moved to approve the Fourth Amendment to MPO Lease Agreement, and the Amended and Restated Staff Services Agreement and Council Member Penniman seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.13. Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee to Represent BCC District 1 Ms. Miceli reported that Becky Irwin has been a South Florida resident since 1980, currently residing in Marco Island where she served on their City Council from 2020-2024, is an active member of Leadership Collier and Leadership Marco, holds certifications as a Master Naturalist, Stormwater and Erosion Control Inspector, and is a licensed Real Estate Broker Associate. Commissioner LoCastro has expressed his recommendation of Ms. Irwin to serve on the CAC and MPO staff believes her vast knowledge and experience will be a great asset to the committee. Staff recommends her appointment for a three-year term. Commissioner LoCastro added that his district has an empty seat on the CAC, Ms. Irwin volunteered and is well qualified and excited to contribute to the community. Commissioner LoCastro moved to approve the appointment of Becky Irwin to the Citizens Advisory Committee and Commissioner McDaniel seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.C. Approve a New Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee to Represent City of Marco Island Ms. Miceli said that transportation safety has been Mr. Kevin Dohm's life work. He is a retired United Airlines Pilot, former aeronautical advisory board member for the State of Illinois, and he worked as a firefighter and paramedic prior to his career in aviation. He currently serves on the Marco Island Ad Hoc Bike Lanes and Shared Paths Committee, as well as the Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The MPO Director believes his participation on the CAC will be a benefit to both committees. Council Member Schwan added that she would like to give Mr. Dohm her highest recommendation. E Page 7 of 229 Council Member Schwan moved to approve the appointment of Kevin Dohm to the Citizens Advisory Committee to Represent City of Marco Island and Commissioner LoCastro seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.D. Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement for Calendar Year 2024 Ms. McLaughlin said this is another routine item. It is fortunately so, because the MPO received another positive report from FDOT. The Joint Certification process occurs every year about this time. Highlights of this year's joint certification review include that Collier MPO's risk assessment is 100%, meaning that the level of risk is low, and there are no recommendations or corrective actions to be addressed. These results are a continuation from prior years. FDOT mentioned that the MPO has had outstanding collaboration and has submitted all required documents timely throughout the year. Ms. McLaughlin noted her appreciation for MPO staff and for the County Grants Office who play a large role in ensuring compliance. FDOT and the MPO Chair are to sign the Statement to recommend certification of the MPO planning process for another year. Commissioner McDaniel moved to Approve Annual FDOT-MPO Joint Certification Statement for Calendar Year 2024 and Council Member Pernas seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.E. Update on Lee County and Collier MPO Consolidation Feasibility Study — Continued from February Meeting Ms. McLaughlin reported she had spoken with her counterpart in Lee County as directed by the Board, to inquire whether their Board had taken action on the proposed consolidation feasibility study. At the time, the Board had not taken action, but their executive committee did and recommended completing Phase 1 to evaluate if there is a point to continuing past that phase. Both MPO Directors support FDOT funding the study and having a third party prepare it. Commissioner McDaniel said the MPO decided there was no reason to continue with the study because there could be no rationale that would provide an equitable combination of the MPOs. In retrospect, the MPO does not yet have the data necessary to support this original concern. Council Member Penniman asked if the Board could have a special committee look at the proposed consolidation. Ms. McLaughlin responded that Commissioner McDaniel proposed having a high-level committee look at regional planning issues a few years ago, but the idea did not gain traction (with the other MPOs.) Lee MPO has an executive committee because their Board is so large. Commissioner Kowal asked who hired the University of South Florida (USF) and Jeff Kramer to run the study? Mr. Gaither responded that a commitment was made to put aside some funding through FDOT 0 Page 8 of 229 and FDOT has worked to find something the directors of both MPOs are looking for, primarily a third party, nonbiased entity and had an opportunity to find the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) which was acceptable for them. CUTR has experience in working with MPOs. CUTR is a third - party entity affiliated with the University of South Florida that conducts planning studies and research. CUTR can procure an academic talent pool, well versed in transportation and MPOs. Commissioner Kowal asked whether CUTR is used by other FDOT Districts, and Mr. Gaither answered that he does not think it is uniformly used. District 7 did not use this party. Commissioner Kowal said there should be consistency across the board if the state is paying for it. A third party by definition should be neutral and uniform to avoid bias. Commissioner Saunders said his opinion hasn't changed to support the merger and asked if Mr. Gaither knew of any MPOs that have merged. Mr. Gaither responded that in 2021 there was a legislative action to merge MPOs in District 7 (Tampa, Hillsborough, Pinellas). It did not get enacted for the same reason as Lee and Collier MPOs. This year has a similar bill that's coming forward. It does not include Lee and Collier. The full reason to have the study done is because the bill was in place, to take a preemptive step to have the MPOs have a look. This is the second location in Florida through legislative action. Commissioner Saunders asked if the first location's study had been completed and Mr. Gaither responded that District 7 is in the second phase of the study. Lee and Collier MPOs would get the benefit of them going through the process. Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Scott have been following their efforts, what they've learned and gathered, which this scope is based on. Commissioner Saunders asked to wait to see what the results of the District 7 study is before a study for Collier/Lee MPOs is launched. Mr. Gaither answered that the money is in place this fiscal year. If unused, FDOT would find another use for it. Commissioner Saunders said he doesn't see the logic in moving forward with this now but if it's the will of the MPO, he will support it. Commissioner McDaniel said he agreed with Commissioner Saunders. The MPO discussed this last month. The money is already in place. This is a preemptive strike to acquire data and to decide to see if a merger is viable, which is likely to support the opinion of the MPO. Commissioner McDaniel moved to approve through the Phase I process the Lee County and Collier MPO Consolidation Feasibility Study and Council Member Penniman seconded. Passed unanimously. 9.F. MPO Board Direction on Suspending New Calls for Projects Pending Completion of the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Ms. McLaughlin made a recommendation to temporarily suspend new calls for projects, referring to a chart in the agenda packet that showed the rotation schedule for allocating SU Box funds. The 2045 LRTP modified the Board's previous allocation formula to add safety and planning projects to the congestion management, bike/ped and bridge projects. This required some adjustment to form a 5-year rotation cycle. Now there has been a steep increase in costs for construction projects, with bicycle and pedestrian projects taking a large hit. Projects are being deferred out to future years because the MPO can only afford to do so many projects per year, and the MPO's SU priorities were programmed very 7 Page 9 of 229 aggressively up until this point. Two out of four of the congestion management projects prioritized in 2024 are funded in 2030 (in the draft FY26-30 Work Program) and two are waiting to be funded. A new bicycle/pedestrian priority project will come to the Board for approval this June. Collier County chose not to submit any new bike/ped projects for this rotation due to their backlog of partially funded projects and the cost increases, preferring to ensure that already submitted projects could be funded through construction. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee endorsed one viable project submittal for a $2 million shared use path on Marco Island for programming in 2031. If another call for projects were to add new congestion management projects according to the current rotation, it would compound the problem of having pre -committed the available funds to other projects. Costs are higher and State revenue projections are lower. Her recommendation is to wait for the Cost Feasible Plan to be developed for the 2050 LRTP to consider the highest and best use for SU funds before initiating the next call for projects. The Board could then decide whether to maintain the same allocation process or make adjustments. Council Member Penniman expressed concern about the process, asking what it would look like. Ms. McLaughlin responded that it depends on how the Cost Feasible Plan develops. MPO staff would typically issue the congestion management call for projects this March. The suggestion is that we instead pause calls for projects until the Cost Feasible Plan for the 2050 LRTP is completed. Mr. Gaither commented that from FDOT's perspective, this discussion shows the importance of the annual List of Project Priorities and the strategic planning that takes place with the MPO. This has been ongoing for a long time. As costs rise, funding has dipped a small amount. This emphasizes the importance of partnering to support the projects we agree on. We need to coordinate and be strategic and support the right projects through a schedule with a 10-year window of study through completion of construction. Commissioner McDaniel made a motion for approval of the recommended pause. The projects that have already been prioritized should be done first, whereas those projected for 15 years out are without accurate cost estimates or control over funding sources and expenses. He concurred with Ms. McLaughlin that the process needs to be adjusted. Commissioner McDaniel moved to Suspend New Calls for Projects Pending Completion of the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan and Council Member Penniman seconded. Passed unanimously. 10. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 10.A. Federal TMA Certification Review Report 2024 Ms. McLaughlin introduced Ms. Teresa Parker, Planning Team Leader of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), participating virtually to report on the outcome of the 2024 Federal Certification Review. Collier MPO is required to go through this federal review every four years as a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA), which is an urbanized area designated by the U.S. Census with Page 10 of 229 a population over 200,000. There is a letter in the agenda packet certifying the MPO's planning process through December of 2028. Ms. Parker reported that the site visit was held on July 23-24, 2024, with a federal review team consisting of FHWA staff members Carlos Gonzalez, Curlene Thomas, and Carrie Shepherd and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) staff member, Brandon Oliver. The final Certification Report was signed on December 30, 2024. The certification review involves four steps: Risk Assessment, Site Visit, Issuance of Formal Report, and Presentation to the Board. There were six noteworthy practices, no corrective actions, and one recommendation to improve the planning process. Ms. Parker read from the report (which is included in the attachment for this agenda item). 10.B. Update on 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan — Public Outreach, Socio-economic Data and Draft Needs List Ms. McLaughlin introduced Ms. Dodia. Ms. Dodia provided a presentation (which is included in the attachment for this agenda item). Commissioner Kowal said the 2019 population in the study showed 377,000 people for Collier County, whereas the 2020 census reported 405,000. Is it possible that this needs to be looked at? This is a statistical jump. Ms. Dodia said 2019 was used because of the outlier effects on travel patterns for 2020 due to the pandemic. Ms. McLaughlin added that 2019 base year population was set by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) and allocated to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) using the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) under a separate contract with another consultant. The point is well taken, but developing the LRTP is a 2-year process. The 2019 data represent a snapshot in time, a starting point to move on to the next stage in developing the LRTP. The LRTP is updated every five years, which allows for corrections to be made to previous projections. Commissioner McDaniel said the CIGM is more accurate than the BEBR projections. It can model based on populations and land use. He asked at what stage MPO Board members should comment on the project priorities in the LRTP. Ms. McLaughlin responded comments can be made during this meeting or in the following weeks. Board members can give comments to MPO staff or to their agency staff, such as County Transportation Planning staff. Comments are currently being sought for the Needs Plan and will be again during the development of the Cost Feasible Plan. Commissioner Saunders asked whether the widening of Old 41 has addressed the Board's recent direction that the two intersections at either end need improvement but not the very costly widening. The traffic is running smoothly on this road, and it doesn't seem like the MPO needs to pursue it. 0 Page 11 of 229 Ms. McLaughlin replied it's her understanding that FDOT needs to complete the Project Development and Environment (PDE) Study within the current budget and timeline but is preparing a cost estimate for the revisions the Board requested. Council Member Schwan asked MPO staff to please continue to reach out to Marco Island, especially where there is high attendance at the weekly farmers market. 11. DISTRIBUTION ITEMS None. 12. MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner LoCastro would like to put on the agenda a discussion about ebikes and scooters. The MPO Board is the audience to do something more visible and formal. A lot of citizens are asking about it. He would like to receive an email update to put in his newsletter. The MPO Board is a forum to invite people from the Sheriff's Office and BPAC to participate. This needs to be seen as a work in progress. It has a lot of complicated movements with some who disagree and some who agree. Commissioner Kowal said the simplest answer to this is that citizens need to contact the Sheriff's Department. The County Attorney's Office wrote the ordinance, and the Chair of BPAC was part of it. It died at the Sheriff's Attorney's office. It's time for the citizens to let the Sheriff know this is a priority. Commissioner LoCastro said the issue cannot be ignored. There have been fatalities throughout Florida. It can't just go unregulated. If this isn't the Board to support it, it would help to hold an open forum. Commissioner Kowal encouraged Board members to express their concerns about ebikes and support for the ordinance to the Sheriff. Commissioner LoCastro said the cities are waiting for the County to provide guidance. Council Member Schwan said the City of Marco Island has been waiting for leadership from the County on how to address the issue. She plans to bring it back to the next city council meeting on March 17. Commissioner Saunders said if there is willingness by the Commissioners to bring this forward, put it on the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) agenda and the public will have something to talk about. The BCC can then see if the ordinance should be advertised. 13. NEXT MEETING DATE 13.A. April 11, 2025- 9:30 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 10 Page 12 of 229 14. ADJOURN There being no further business, Chair Kowal adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:09 a.m. Page 13 of 229 Executive Summary Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Report 4/11/2025 Item # TA ID# 2025-1164 OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The CAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. PREPARED BY: Sean Kingston, AICP, PMP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: CAC Chair Report 3-24-25 Page 14 of 229 CAC Members: Karen Homiak, Chair (P); Fred Sasser, Vice -Chair (P); Harry Henkel (P); Neal Gelfand (P); Dennis DiDonna (P); Josh Rincon (P); Misty Phillips (P); Dennis Stalzer (P); Michelle Arnold (P); Becky Irwin (P); Kevin Dohm (P); Vacancy -City of Naples; Vacancy — District S. (P: present; N: not present) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair Report The Collier MPO held its regularly scheduled, in -person, CAC meeting on March 24, 2025; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Marcellus Evans had nothing to report. • MPO Director Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, made an announcement from news released at the noon hour that the State of Florida will give money back to the federal government, including federal transportation carbon reduction funds (CARE and CARD). Some of this is already spent. The FDOT work program unit is working to rebalance the state work program and project sheets for this Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which are not yet prepared, pending release of the April 9 work program Snapshot. Assumptions in the draft narrative portion of the TIP were based on the draft tentative work program from late last year. The TIP will need to be adopted by June and there may be changes on the date of release of the Snapshot. Committee Actions • Reviewed and commented on the First Draft narrative portion of the Fiscal Year 2026-2030 Transportation Improvement Program. Reports and Presentations • Received a presentation from Alfred Benesch & Company on the draft Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan study prepared for Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division. • Received a presentation by Sean Kingston, MPO Principal Planner, which was prepared by the project consultant, Capital, on the First Draft of the 2025 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This draft was presented as an action item at the February meeting where the Committee decided to have the BPAC see it a second time as an action item. Distribution Items - None The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 28, 2025, at 2:00 PM. Page 15 of 229 Executive Summary Technical Advisory Committee Chair Report 4/11/2025 Item # 7.13 ID# 2025-1165 OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The TAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. PREPARED BY: Sean Kingston, AICP, PMP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: TAC Chair Report 3-24-25 Page 16 of 229 TAC Members: Alison Bickett, Chair (P); Don Scott, Vice -Chair (P); Christopher Mason (P); Kathy Eastley (P); Omar De Leon (P); Ute Vandersluis (P); Justin Martin (N); Daniel Smith (N); Margaret Wuerstle (P); Dave Rivera (P); John Lambcke (N); Bryant Garrett (P); Bert Miller (P); Vacancy— Everglades City; Vacancy - Non -voting Member Representing a Local Environmental Agency. (P: present; N: not present) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair Report The Collier MPO held its regularly scheduled, in -person, TAC meeting on March 24, 2025; a quorum was achieved. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Marcellus Evans announced the upcoming public meeting for the State Road 78 project in Lee County on Wednesday, April 2 from 6-7 p.m., virtual and in -person. • MPO Director Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, had nothing to share beyond what was on the agenda. Committee Actions Reviewed and commented on the First Draft narrative portion of the Fiscal Year 2026-2030 Transportation Improvement Program. • Reviewed and commented on the First Draft of the 2025 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which was continued from the February meeting. Reports and Presentations Received a presentation from Alfred Benesch & Company on the draft Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan study prepared for Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division. Distribution Items - None The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 28, 2025, at 9:30 AM. Page 17 of 229 4/11/2025 Item # TC ID# 2025-1166 Executive Summary Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chair Report OBJECTIVE: For the MPO Board to receive a report from the Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) related to recent committee actions and recommendations. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff prepared the attached written report. The BPAC Chair may provide a verbal report providing additional information regarding recent committee activities. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Committee recommendations are reported in the Executive Summary for each action item and may be elaborated upon by the Chair in his/her report to the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. PREPARED BY: Sean Kingston, AICP, PMP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: BPAC Chair Report 3-18-25 Page 18 of 229 BPAC Members: Anthony Matonti, Chair (P); Michelle Sproviero, Vice -Chair (P); Joe Bonness (P); Alan Musico (N); Dayna Fendrick (N); Robert Phelan (P); Patty Huff (P); Mark Komanecky (P); Kevin Dohm (P); Robert Vigorito (P); David Sutton (P); Vacancy —At Large (P: present; N: not present) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory (BPAC) Committee Chair Report The BPAC held its regularly scheduled in -person meeting on March 18, 2025; a quorum was achieved. Public Comment • Ms. Avola-Brown of Naples Pathways Coalition expressed concern to contact the schools about educational safety training. The Committee then passed a motion to request the MPO Board to write a letter to the School District to pursue a safety education initiative. Agency Reports • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) o Tanya Merkle reported that she is filtering through the last of the SUN Trail applications before they go to Central Office. There is the Collier to Polk Trail, of which the consultants are being retained for the Project Development and Environment study. It's being done in three segments. • MPO Director o Sean Kingston, Principal Planner, reported on behalf of the MPO Executive Director the status of development of the MPO plans currently in process. The second tribal meetings with the Miccosukee Tribe will be held on April 2 and Seminole Tribe of Florida on April 8. Potential topics at next month's joint meeting with Lee MPO's Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinating Committee were discussed. Committee Action • The committee reviewed and commented on the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, a continuation from the February meeting. Reports and Presentations — None Distribution Items • Received a copy of the County Attorney Memo on Florida E-Bike Laws and Ordinances. The next meeting is a joint meeting on April 22 with the Lee County MPO's Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinating Committee (BPCC) at the meeting room in Collier County Government Services Center at Heritage Bay (to replace the regularly scheduled April BPAC meeting). Page 19 of 229 4/11/2025 Item # 9.A ID# 2025-1167 Executive Summary Adopt FDOT's Revised Pavement and Bridge (PM2) and System (PM3) Performance Targets for the National Highway System OBJECTIVE: For the Board to adopt Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) Revised Pavement and Bridge (PM2) and System (PM3) Performance Targets for the National Highway System (NHS). CONSIDERATIONS: The Board previously voted to adopt FDOT's revised PM2 and PM3 Performance Targets for the NHS on April 14, 2023. On October 1, 2024, FDOT's new PM2 and PM3 Performance Targets (presented to the MPO's at an FMPP meeting last July) went into effect. MPOs then had 180 days to adopt the new targets or establish their own targets. FDOT sent a reminder email on 3/25/25 noting that the 3/30/25 deadline for adopting the targets. (Attachment 1) The MPO Director informed FDOT that the earliest possible date for the Board to adopt the targets would be April 1 lth and was assured that transmitting the draft and final approval packet to FDOT would suffice. The adjusted PM2 target lowers the percentage of NHS bridges in poor condition from 10% to 5%. The adjusted PM3 target raises the Person -Miles Traveled on the Interstate that are Reliable from 70% to 75% and the Person Miles Traveled on the Non -Interstate NHS from 50% to 60%. (Attachment 2) The NHS within Collier County includes US 41/SR 45, I-75, SR 29 and CR 951/Collier Blvd. from I-75 to US 41. (Attachment 3) With the exception of CR 951, FDOT is responsible for maintaining NHS roadways. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to time constraints, this item will be brought to the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees at their April 28th meetings for endorsement after the fact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt FDOT's Revised PM2 and PM3 Performance Targets for the NHS and Authorizing Resolution 2025-03 (Attachment 4). PREPARED BY: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENTS: FDOT 3/25/25 reminder email from FDOT FDOT 2025 Revised Pavement and Bridge (PM2) and System (PM3) Performance Targets (strikethrough/underline) FDOT Bonita Springs Urban Area National Highway System Authorizing Resolution 2025-03 Page 20 of 229 Anne McLaughlin From: Colson, Regina <Regina.Colson@dot.state.fl.us> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 2:17 PM To: Harris, D'Juan; Leslie, Bekie; Gurram, Lakshmi N; SierraR@ccpgmpo.gov; Scott; Anne McLaughlin; Sean Kingston; Dusty Hansen; Marybeth Soderstrom; rranck@cfrpc.org; Jennifer Codo-Salisbury; Mike McDaniel; Scott, Donald; Gogoi, Ron; Calandra Barraco; Kordek, Ryan; Davis, Julia; Dave@mympo.org; Ryan Brown; Lindsay Heinrich; davidm@mympo.org; Wenonah Venter, Koons, Scott; Escalante, Mike; Sheffield, Jeff; edejesus@northfloridatpo.com; asession@northfloridatpo.com; clark letter; Jill Lavender; jill.strickler@ecrc.org; Slay, Greg; greg burke; john.kostrzewa@crtpa.org; Mitchell, Yulonda; Lex, Suzanne; Kandase Lee; dawn.schwartz@ecrc.org; Stuart, Greg; Peter Gies; Calvaresi, Paul; caletkab@browardmpo.org; Carl Ema; Christopher Bross; Flavien, Paul; Norma Corredor; Renee Cross; Brian Freeman; Beth Beltran; Ricardo Vazquez; Valerie Neilson; Andrew Uhlir; buchwaldp@stlucieco.org; Yi Ding; Woods, Michael; Balmes, Rob; Gary Huttmann; Alex Trauger; C Nicoulin; Stephan Harris; Pamela Blankenship; Gillette, Georganna; Carter, Laura; Boucle, Aileen; Salim, Zainab (TPO); Rosenberg, Christopher (TPO); ferry jackson2@miamidade.gov; Blanton, Whit; Favero, Chelsea; Mary Elwin; Robert Esposito; jturner@co.hernando.fl.us; wongj@plancom.org; Elizabeth Watkins; Sarah Caper; Amber Simmons; tgorman@mypasco.net; Ischaediger@mypasco.net; Gaither, Wayne; Smith, Kristi; Evans, Marcellus; Barr, Pamela; Kosheleva, Dasha; Durrance, Rachel; Maldonado, Carmen; Perez, Edith; Brown, Achaia; Kutney, Victoria; Bryant T. Paulk; Johnson, Christy; Collins, Kaylor; Smith, Aleah; Peters, Victoria; Norat, Tony; Taylor, Marsha; Budhu, Kelly; Ventura, Lissy; Shipley, Jennifer; McKinney, Melissa; Beckmann, Amy; Koppernolle, Charles; Lockwood-Herrscher, Laura; Powell, Kia; Scarfe, Jonathan; Jeffries, Ken; Baker, Tellis; Romero, Stephanie; Navarro, Melissa; Hunter, Brian; Olinger, Kelsey; Ziegler, Suzanne; Watkins, Caron; Joyner, Elisa; Scott, Carol; Brown Jr, James; Fine, Siaosi; Kavouklis, Katina; Williams, Victoria Cc: Marsey, Rebecca; Green, Donna; Neidhart, Mike; Dill, Romero; Valdes, Rolando Subject: PM2 and PM3 Targets Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good afternoon. This is a reminder that MPO targets for the PM2 and PM3 federal performance measures must be submitted by March 30, 2025, if they have not been submitted already. The FDOT adjusted the 2025 targets for: PM2: Percentage of NHS bridges in poor condition. PM3: Percentage of person -miles traveled on the Interstate and non -Interstate NHS that are considered reliable. Page 21 of 229 PM2: %OP NHS BRIDGES IN POOR 00N0rT10N (BY DECK AREA) < 5.q% Wa--PERSQN-MILESTINELEDONTHE rNTERSTATE T14ATARE REIMULE � 75.O% PMB. PERSON -MILES TRAVELED ON TWE NON-INTEP4TATE IYHS THAT ARE RELIABLE 4 60.0% The proposed changes were presented and discussed during the FMPP meeting on July 17, 2024. The adjusted targets became effective on October 1, 2024, giving MPOs a 180-day timeframe to set their targets. The deadline for submission is March 30, 2025. Regards, Regina Regina Colson Transportation Performance Measures Coordinator Systems Forecasting & Trends Office Florida Department of Transportation Direct: 850.414.5271 FDOT Forecasting & Trends Office Page 22 of 229 STATEWIDE PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE CONDITION PERFORMANCE (PM2) TARGETS 2025 revisio- AMON. BRIDGE Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) in good condition >_5)% >50% Percent of NHS bridges (by deck area) in poor condition 51,J% e I PAVEMENT IPercent of Interstate pavements in good condition >_6]% >_60% Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition <5% <5% Percent of non -Interstate NHS pavements in good condition ?44)% >_40% Percent of noMnterstate NHS pavements in poor conditon <_5% <_5% Source: FDOT STATEWIDE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND FREIGHT (PM3) TARGETS Percent of person -miles on the Interstate system that are >75% z7000 reliable 1lnterstate LOTTR) Percent of person -miles cn the non-Interstat3 NHS that are >_50% ?50% 60% reliable iNon-Interstate NHS LOTTR) Truck travel time reliability (TfTR) Index s1.75 s2 Source- FDOT Page 23 of 229 a 2 � ( 2 _ � - MPO RESOLUTION #2025-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ADOPTING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S ADJUSTED PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE (PM2) AND SYSTEM (PM3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025 WHEREAS, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act ("MAP-21" - P.L. 112-141), signed into law on July 6, 2012, Congress required the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") to establish measures to assess performance in twelve areas, including performance on the Interstate and non -Interstate National Highway System ("NHS") (see 23 CFR 490.507(a)); and WHEREAS, the National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program Final Rule; and the Final Rule Assessing Performance of the National Highway System and Freight Movement on the Interstate System with an original effective date of February 17, 2017, which effective date was delayed by the FHWA until May 20, 2017 [see 23 CFR Subpart C - §§490.301-319, Subpart D — §490.401-413, and Subpart E - §§501-515], state DOTS and MPOs were required to adopt performance targets for pavement and bridge conditions on the National Highway System; and WHEREAS, The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (the "FAST Act")(Pub. L. No. 114-94), signed into law on December 4, 2015, established timelines for state DOTS and MPOs to comply with the requirements of MAP-21; and WHEREAS, the MPO adopted the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") initial PM2 and PM3 targets on November 9, 2018; and WHEREAS, the MPO adopted FDOT's new four-year PM2 and PM3 Performance Targets on April 14, 2023; and WHEREAS, the FDOT made mid-term adjustments to its statewide PM2 and PM3 targets effective October 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, MPOs are required to set targets within 180 days after FDOT sets targets, or establish their own targets for the MPO planning area; and WHEREAS, MPOs must include the most recent reported performance and targets with each Transportation Improvement Program update and include a System Performance Report in the Long Range Transportation Plan that discusses the performance of the transportation system and progress achieved in meeting the targets over time; and WHEREAS, beginning with the initial deadline in November 2018, the Collier MPO has consistently voted to adopt the FDOT statewide PM2 and PM3 safety targets. MPO Resolution 2025-03 Page 1 of 3 n Page 25 of 229 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization that: 1. The FDOT adjusted PM2 and PM3 targets shown in Exhibit 1 are hereby adopted for calendar year 2025. 2. The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's Chairman is hereby authorized to execute this Resolution certifying the MPO Board's adoption of the FDOT adjusted PM2 and PM3 targets for transmittal to FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. This Resolution PASSED and duly adopted by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board after majority vote on this 1 It' day of April 2025. Attest: LIM Anne McLaughlin MPO Executive Director Approved as to form and legality: - S-C-0*•!it/ Scott R. Teach, Deputy County Attorney COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Commissioner Dan Kowal MPO Chairman MPO Resolution 2025-03 Page 2 of 3 Page 26 of 229 EXHIBIT 1 FDOT ADJUSTED PM2 AND PM3 PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR 2025 PM2: %OF N14M BRIDGES IN POOR CONDITION {BY DECK AREA) { $10% PM3: PERMON-PALL TRAVELED ON THE INTERSTATE THAT ARE RELWU Z 75.0% PM3: PERSON -WILES TRAVELED ON THE NON -INTERSTATE NHS TW ARE REUABLE a 60.0% MPO Resolution 2025-03 Page 3 of 3 '"bah Page 27 of 229 4/11/2025 Item # 9.13 ID# 2025-1168 Executive Summary Approve a New Appointment to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged as a Citizens' Advocate OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the appointment of a new member to the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (LCB) as a Citizens' Advocate/User or Non -User (of the CATConnect system). CONSIDERATIONS: As a disability professional and the Executive Director of the Employment Network of Southwest Florida, Idela Hernandez has been empowering individuals with disabilities to secure sustainable employment and achieve financial independence, while also working to advance workforce inclusion, for over two decades. She holds a Master of Science in Rehabilitation Counseling from the University of Kentucky and is a certified Rehabilitation Counselor and Community Partner Work Incentives Counselor, specializing in benefits advisement and vocational rehabilitation. She works with several local and state community organizations, including Collaboratory, State Agency of Vocational Rehabilitation, ROOF, STARability, Collier County Public Schools, Collier Autism, The Light House, Division of The Blind Services, and Leehealth. Staff believes Ms. Hernandez will bring a wealth of knowledge and understanding to the LCB. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the appointment of Ms. Hernandez to the LCB for a three- year term. PREPARED BY: Suzanne Miceli, Operations Support Specialist II ATTACHMENTS: Idela Hernandez - LCB Appointment Application Current LCB Roster as of March 3, 2025 Page 28 of 229 M . Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization -30 ADVISORY COMMITTEE/BOARD APPLICATION COLLIER Metropolitan Planning Organization Please complete this fellable application form and return to: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 252-5814 1 Email: Collier.mpo@colliercountyfl.gov Name: Idela T. Hernandez Address: 3050 Horseshoe Dr N Ste 158 City/State Naples, FL Zip Code: 34104 Phone: (239)452-3020 Best hours to contact you: AM (8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Email: idelahAenworks.org Referred By: Suzanne Miceli a, The Lighthouse event Date available: May 1st, 2025 Board/Committee for which you are applying: LCB for the Transportation Disadvantaged Please note: Year-round residents are eligible to apply. Your application will remain active in the MPO's Office for one (1) year. The application must be complete in order to be considered. Read "Important Information " section on the second page of the application, then sign and date the application. (Use additional pages as needed.) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY Date: 04/02/2025 Commission District #/City Naples Tribal Affiliation: N/A If you are a member of, or officially represent a nonprofit or public agency, identify here, and provide link to website (multi -line fellable text box) Employment Network of SW Florida ENSWFL 501 c 3 www.ENworks.or Please list any Advisory Committees or Boards on which you currently serve: 1. ENSWFL 3. 2. 4. Have you previously served on an MPO advisory committee or board? Please specify committee/board and dates served (multi -line fellable text box): No Occupation & Employer (if retired, please indicate) (multi -line fellable text box): President and Executive Director of ENSWFL Page 29 of 229 Please describe your background and experience which you feel provides a useful perspective for this Committee/Board. (multi -line fellable text box below): Education & Credentials: I hold a Bachelor of Science in Human Services from Florida Gulf Coast University and a Master of Science in Rehabilitation Counseling from the University of Kentucky. My qualifications include dual certifications as a Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) and Community Partner Work Incentives Counselor (CPWIC), reflecting specialized proficiency in benefits advisement and vocational rehabilitation. Professional Experience: As a disability professional and Executive Director of the Employment Network of Southwest Florida, I leverage over two decades of expertise in empowering individuals with disabilities to secure sustainable employment and achieve financial independence. My career is dedicated to advancing workforce inclusion through evidence -based strategies that bridge gaps between ability and opportunity. Please describe any public involvement or community service you've been involved in either locally or otherwise (in addition to Committees and Boards you currently serve on.) (multi -line fellable text box below): As a professional in the field of Vocational Rehabilitation and Social Security Benefits Work Incentives Advisor I collaborate with many community organizations, some examples include: De LaSalle Academy (Ft Myers), Collaboratory (Ft. Myers), State agency of Vocational Rehabilitation, ROOF, STARability, Collier County Public Schools, The MVP Autism Foundation, Collier Autism, The Light House, Division of The Blind Services, Leehealth, The WOW Center (Miami), and Miami Learning Educational Services (Miami), South FL Autism Charter School (Miami) , and Project Search. Are there MPO advisory committee(s) you would also be interested to serve ? (multi - line fellable text box below): LCB for the Transportation Disadvantaged Several of the MPO advisory committeesiboards have specific membership requirements. To assist the Collier MPO in its selection process, please check as many of the following categories that apply. 1. Year-round resident of: ❑✓ Collier County (unincorporated area) ❑ City of Naples ❑ City of Marco Island ❑ Everglades City 2. Member of one of the following organizations or groups: ❑ AARP ❑ Adventure Cycling ❑ Bicycling/Walking Advocacy Group: ❑ Professional Association: ❑✓ Chamber Of Commerce: Greater Naples Chamber ❑ Visitors & Tourism Bureau ❑ Community Redevelopment Agency ❑ NAACP ❑ Historical Preservation Society: ❑ Homeowners' Association: Page 30 of 229 ❑ Environmental Group: ❑ Home Builders Association ❑ Collier County Public Schools ❑ Other NGO, Community Association ❑ Agricultural Industry ❑ Trucking Industry ❑ Other, please specify 3. Representative of one of the following: ❑✓ Persons with Disabilities ❑ Major Employer in the MPO Region ❑ Small Business Owner ❑ State, City or County Department of Children & Families ❑ State, City or County Department of Health ❑ State, City, or County Department of Education ❑ Educational Institution ❑ Elderly Health Care Provider ❑ Other Health Care Provider ❑ Transit Rider(s) ❑✓ Developmental Disability Service Provider ❑ Elderly — Advocate/Instructor - Mobility and Access to Services ❑ Veterans — Advocate/Instructor — Mobility & Access to Services ❑ Family Service Provider ❑ Police, Sheriff Department ❑ Community Transportation Safety Team Member ❑✓ Minorities & Disadvantaged Populations, Advocate/Service Provider ❑ Tribal Member, Officially Designated Representative ❑ Tribal Member, Acting in Individual Capacity ❑ Representing Other, please specify 4. Professional/Career Credentials: ❑ Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Instructor ❑ American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) ❑ Registered Architect or Landscape Architect ❑ Licensed Attorney ❑ Licensed Engineer ❑ Licensed General Contractor ❑ Licensed First Responder or Health Care Professional ❑ Licensed Realtor ❑✓ Other professional credentials, please specify: CRC and CPWIC Page 31 of 229 5. Knowledge, training, background, interest or experience in: ❑ Natural Sciences, Environmental Conservation ❑ Mobility & Access for the workforce ❑ Public Finance, Grants, NGOs ❑ Sustainable Development, Sustainable Transportation ❑ Planning, Engineering, Architecture, Landscape Architecture ❑ Economic Development ❑ Land Development/Redevelopment ❑ Archaeological, Cultural & Historic Resources ❑ Mobility/Active Living (related to community health) ❑ Tourism Industry ❑ Parent, Advocate for Working Families ✓❑ Other knowledge & experience, please specify Disabaility Navigator The Collier MPO strives to ensure equal access and representation for minorities, women and those with disabilities to serve on advisor boards/committees. Questions 6 through 8 are OPTIONAL 6_ fender: ✓❑ Female ❑ Male 7. Race/Ethnicity: ❑ White ✓❑ Hispanic or Latino ❑ Black or African American ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander American ❑ Indian or Alaskan Native ❑ Other: 8. Handicapped/Disabled: ❑ Yes ❑✓ No Page 32 of 229 IMPORTANT INFORMATION: • Be advised that membership on certain advisory committees/boards may involve financial disclosure or the submission of other information. • Florida State Statute 119.07 designates that this application as a public document be made available for anyone requesting to view it. Your application is not complete until you answer the following question, sign and date the form. Are you related to any member of the Collier MPO? YES ❑ NO FV Applicant's Signature: Date Signed: 04/02/2025 Page 33 of 229 Last Updated December 4, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Meeting Location: Collier County Government Center Information Technology Training Room, 51" Floor 3299 Tamiami Trail E (Bldg. F) Naples, FL 34112 A Representative of, Voting Member Alternate MPO Council Member Tony Pernas No alternate pursuant to Chapter 427, City of Everglades City Florida Statutes, and Rule 41-2, 1. 410 Storter Ave. Florida Administrative Code. CHAIRPERSON Everglades City, FL 341392 Mobile: (305) 815-8849 Appointed by MPO Board on tpernas(c-r�,cityofeverglades.org 10/14/2022. 2. Vacant Elderly 3. Citizens Vacant Advocate/User or Non -User 4. Citizens Vacant Advocate/User Oscar Gomez 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 212 5. Naples, FL 34112 Veteran Services (239) 252-8387 Oscar. og mez(a�colliercount�fl Gov veterans eryice s(c�colliercount�fl. gov Page 34 of 229 Last Updated December 4, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 A Representative of, Voting Member Alternate Ms. Cheryl Burnham, Ms. Pa Houa Lee -Yang 6 Community Services Director The Agricultural and Labor Program, Florida The Agricultural and Labor Program, Inc. Association for Inc. 300 Lynchburg Road Community 300 Lynchburg Road Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2576 Action Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2576 PYan alpi.org (863)956-3491 x 224 CBumham@alpi.org John Lambcke Transportation Director 7. Collier County School Board Public Education Naples, Florida 34109 (239)377-0613 Fax (239) 377-0601 LambckJo&collierschools.com As of 9125123 Alternate: Victoria Upthegrove Stacy Booth Transit Projects Coordinator (863) 519-2562 FDOT stacy.booth@dot.state.fl.us 801 North Broadway Avenue, MS 1-39 Bartow, FL 33830 Secondary Alternate: 8 (863) 519-2484 Todd Engala FDOT victoria.upthe rg ove(&dot.state.fl.us (863) 519-2657 todd. engala(&dot. state. fl.us Tertiary Alternate: Dale Hanson 863.519.2321 Dale.Hansonkdot. state.fl.us 9. Tabitha Larrauri Florida 2295 Victoria Avenue, #332 Department of Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Children and (239) 895-0161 Family Services Tabitha.LarraurigMyflfamilies.com 10. Lisa O'Leary Patti Warren Florida Department Dept. of Education/Division of Dept. of Education/Division of of Education Division Vocational Rehab Services Vocational Rehab Services of Vocational Collier Place 11 Collier Place II Rehabilitation 3001 Tamiami Trail N, Ste. 102 3001 Tamiami Trail N, Ste. 102 Services Naples, FL 34103 Naples, FL 34103 239 260-6306 239 260-6305 Page 35 of 229 Last Updated December 4, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 A Representative of, Voting Member Alternate Fax: (239) 262-2548 Patti.warren(iDvr.fldoe.org Lisa. Oleary_(awr. fldoe. org IL Sarah Gualco Area Agency on Director of Programs & Planning Aging SWFL — Area Agency on Aging for SW FL Florida 2830 Winkler Avenue, Ste. 112 Department of Fort Myers, FL, 33916 Elder Affairs (239) 652-6926 Sarah. ug alco(&aaaswfl.org Michael Stahler Signe Jacobson 12 AHCA Medical/Health Care Prog Analyst Florida Agency for 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 319 AHCA Health Care For Myers FL 33901 2295 Victoria Ave., Suite 319 Administration (239) 335-1251 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Cell: 239-223-9955 (239) 335-1282 Michael. Stahler(&ahca.myflorida.com Sine.Jacobsonkahca.myflorida.com Brett Nelson Emily Kafle CCPS Director, Exceptional Student Education 13. 5775Osceola Trail CCPS Representative for es, 34109 Naples, 5775 Osceola Trail Children at Risk (239) 377 -0001 Naples, FL 34109 Nelsob2kcollierschools.com (239) 377-0135 kaflee col lierschools.com 14. Private Transportation Vacant Industry Charles E. Lascari 15. 6643 Vancouver Lane Appt: 4/12/2024 Disabled Naples, FL, 34104 Term expires: 4/12/2027 973-289-7009 charleslascarikamail.com Page 36 of 229 Last Updated December 4, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 A Representative of, Voting Member Alternate Marc Michel Monica Lucas 16. David Lawrence Centers David Lawrence Centers Local Medical 2806 Horseshoe Drive S 2806 Horseshoe Drive S Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34104 Community 239-351-6527 (239) 263-4013 Marcm ckdlcenters.org monical(kdlcenters.org Carmen Henry, Vice -Chair Disability Navigator CareerSource Southwest Florida 17 6800 Shoppes at Plantation Drive, Suite Southwest Florida 170 Regional Workforce Fort Myers, FL 33912 Development Board 239-931-8200 ext. 1803 Cell: 239-994-2904 CHenry(a)careersourcesouthwestflorida. co in Leah Watson 18 2295 Victoria Ave. Agency for Persons Fort Myers, FL 33901 with Disabilities Phone: 239-338-1378 Cell: 239-218-7217 Email: Leah.watsonkapdcares.org Technical Assistance for the Collier County Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged Advisory Members None at present Community Transportation Coordinator Collier County Board of County Commissioners C/O Omar DeLeon, Public Transit Manager 239-252-4996 Collier Area Transit https://www.collierptne.com/collier-area-transit Mark Moujabber - MV General Manager (239) 252-4983 Medicaid Transportation Provider 4 Page 37 of 229 Last Updated December 4, 2024 18 total Members, 4 Vacancies, 14 Current Members With a Quorum of 4 Medical Transportation Management (MTM) 759 S. Federal Highway, #301 Stuart, FL 34994 Office: 772-266-4971 Member Help Line/TTY: 1-844-239-5974 (TTY: 711) https://www.mtm-inc.net/floridaffs Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD): Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (850) 488-6036 sun/com 292-7279 https://ctd.fdot.gov Designated Official Planning Agency Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-5814 www.colliermpo.org Page 38 of 229 4/11/2025 Item # 10.A ID# 2025-1169 Executive Summary Draft Transit Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan by Benesch OBJECTIVE: For the Board to receive and be briefed on the draft Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan for transit prepared by Alfred Benesch & Company (Benesch). CONSIDERATIONS: In collaboration with Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Division, Collier MPO contracted with Benesch to conduct a Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan study for Collier Area Transit (CAT). The Plan is required for potential future federal grant application requests for low or no emission public transportation vehicles/infrastructure under 49 U.S.C. § 5339(b) and 49 U.S.C. § 5339(c). The Plan evaluates the prospect of deploying zero and low emission vehicles in CAT's fleet, including feasibility, the current state of alternative fuel technology and reliability, infrastructure needs, high-level cost estimates, and funding source opportunities. The Plan recommendations include a phased approach to incorporating hybrid and battery electric vehicles into CAT's fleet. Staff from Benesch will provide a presentation (Attachment 1) on the Plan (Attachment 2) and answer any questions the Board may have. CAT intends to subsequently present the study to the BCC for approval. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: CAT's Public Transit Advisory Committee voted to endorse the Plan at its March 19, 2025, meeting. The Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees received a presentation on the Plan at their March 24 meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board have the opportunity to review the draft Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan for transit and ask questions about it. PREPARED BY: Dusty Hansen, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Presentation by Benesch on the Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan Draft Zero Emission Fleet Transition Plan for transit by Benesch, Appendix Page 39 of 229 ►E LO N N a O L L a L W-Mlh-1 U) CU i >, co> cn '> cn 'cn co co O E w o }+' O >, Q co >% N >� O 0 cc N co Q L U cn 0- U a . . . . m L F m 4) L Q L O U Cl) N O N N O cn O 2 m ``L .L CWU o Z L Z3 O co M N O N N y co ..O � m O o • co L N C m C ~ Q m O co 0 M ) U Z3 O co O M N U N N • > co m C, a� c • � c o Co 76 +- O U x O U N � � X LL Q �L 0 C N N co o cn • co 0 Ln co c Z ca 0 `� 0 ■ o° o° O O O o0 a w e o° o°CD CD o° ID V N `_J W U a 0) 0 2 o° O M N N O N O N OI N co O N n O N O N O N V O N M O N O N O 0 N C) O N O N LU 0 V, O U) CD z U) O •w U� C� r N E Q _O N N • i_-' L O w • cu.O N Co L � `� ° Q OCo Q U p 0 C6 L O -P � U c p U N � U � — — ' }, U) co j N Q cc:L O L Q J ui X . . . . cc Q� Q w Z co CO O > U_ N z X U U Z ua N N :� O N � � Co Y O co Q U)co �--+ CL co co LL O N .0- O N O X O :3 N � � J U) L Co co U � x DC Q J o 0 � N N O • a� U LO co " h 0) LL r� �, N 0- x • cc C • L • � a ai co _ _0 a a� w i . ca m r - Hh 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Va 0 0 0 0 0 o mW �O LO Itt (Sal!W) glbual bole a� U � U c cc Q. • U O co _0 N U c aUU O � > CO � O � (n Q co COCM ca �� CU _N _0•� w N N O o U U Q +- +- > CO O co co N Q Ncc CU C U DC O Z M M > Cn U > cc cc U co O += U P- w 0 0 cc :3 � > LL Cy �+ LL W_ p J a • • • JO C.f 5 a--+ U) O U C co U co E L. O Q O L. N L Q O U L. L ca C� ca L �--� O j Z -0 u� =3 a� LJJ T N U O i Q E O U 0O Q Q — N O m CO co U Q U co U Q m N m M � m J O 75 O a) O a� O m N m O m U m i o i o i o i O O O O • . . • N T 0 O E N w c R O i6 ca a� O U) cc a� U) O U N m _D CO U � M ai O O � � N +, cc U) O > Co Co c L U � ( CO G) N N 5 U C O LO N U N U N O O W {N!} m a0i ■ a m w m = y N 5 V Un o Q, ._ CD A' �L (/} = O n Z U O LL ■ o U � N O v / N U Q O L }, Q m Q m Q m U € • C: (mil N cM M O C:y O O O O O O L O U L L L m L m L m L m L ccs c N N 0 C) C:c C:c C: c U) a LL C.) ` .) V/) U v) U V/) C.) ' ///) W Jp S C.f f .. N n 0 0 0 L co 0 0 0 O CM 0 0 0 u-S N I o o o ■ 0 N O U ■ o X CD0 CDLd Z ■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q m Q m Q m N N m CY) (3) O i O O O O O O L L .L .L .7 .L .L � 0 U c c c c c c C a U (n N r0^ V) '0 `U^ V) 'U^ 'U^ N ., U O U cv N U E L `.O T L N Q .cn co C6 L I..L cn /ca r O Z3 U m cB 0 Z C -0 Co w 0 cn +� C cn U) O O •� Q U o� tf UJ U ca. c� -0 0 U N cu m O cu LO CC N O o O .i o� .i O Ln O a� a� C� • C� C/) C/) • U) cm Lr) co L co Z N E U U Z oIR U Ln O> � C O C o O 00 .i o� O � � N C� • O U C ca U C c6 E L O L 0- ►u T Q) Q) U U LE LE +� O N > N > O � Q) CD- w Lr) w U o z U o > }, cn F, "O M c" U J O (ten O wnj mM Lr) m Lr) o O O O O 'i O o M 'i O OR I,- • V • V • C/) C/) • • i N N 0 La +� N C = N O aCL N LL m N N C C 5 C O U LO L6 r< N� c N O MEN N CD r- 0 �L c a� U N ;V ■ C'M 0 a c � O 0 U a N r— N cY) 0 0 0 .L .L L cu cc co V ) LQ N N o � o � 0 U) co CD 0 ■ Lq a� 0 0 m N Z Lo U ■ U) N a ■ c co O O co U Cl) V O co U r- I r- N M O O O V) ` V ) 0 N O O O O M N C O O O U) N co <J} CD ■ U �L r _ �} LU s ■ m � N N O UN LO Oh(3) _0 }' N N (n C C Ca Q + >G }, O N Q i O > O 0 O co � }, O c6 L 0 .� O U N _0 c6 co CL . a a--+ c6 _N O .� w CO Q U C) 0 . � =3 N Ca co i co I U O_ ' N y CO E O o — }+ � E _0 o � 0 _ +� co L cn L E cO U co o .x cu N LL Q cn W-pp C.f 5 � N N O M U ULO co C m 0- ` O O M N N X Q N _O� �� (V N O L C E cn M M co 'a -0 dO E N 0)d -0 0_ i Co a)C N U -0 ,d (O Co Q 'i Co O _0 _� Co � N L 7 E U a)U L N U m -0 U ate-+ ate+ _N N W co -0 Q O co C: ^ N co O O co O � N Co -0 � ai '0 V N NO E Qo) H W MW •� � �N N e � m U LU N = co }' > a 0U)� n O C �_0 cu � a� cn CD- 0- `� ca cn Q =3 0- a +� O) Ucm a� _ c co N c > \V O O O O C U) }+ f0 �N E E� �� N O U) N caca �N Q� Q� }, O c U v U O _N cu Co a N •� N >-.m (a f0 O M Q N a LU a) O a)U N N O S U co ia) m f0 >, f0 N CO co cm co CO CO (n -Fo -0 0 -0 a_ a U-0 w co Q 3 0 o� �f M O N 4) O a a N o A � O _ � c m o� O LO - N _N LL LL C a� C c M U� ■ LO O LO O O Lo CD co coN N (M O N co co O N N co O N M � O L N � A O m M W O m N ON 0 oco N Lr) Q) O N 0 O N ■ r- N O N N O N LO N O N c 0 cc T o c a c OC;9 W p Ja S f..f f � N N O U LO N 0) (10 M C N I </> ^^ O O y M N Li N cM V). M O O N N N N <a M O O N N N N M �p O N O O N O </> M > N � Q� v> V CD~ M� V). N ■ e � O N O U rn 76 00 O (/} N H O N � 0 </} N m o m N O > •� }� N N � O {Nj} N N �J} N a� o </> � N V In O Ln O Ln O Ln = M co N N </> </> </> </> _ C SUO!II!IN W LL 5 J C.f 5 0 � N N O UI- LO N 0) n (10 0- o' C C0 "' o LO N 00 M M {/} M LC) O N U ON U C M N N {/} M Q N W Q cv U N C'M O U � N t > co M }. r- . O H C N ■ ~ ~ Gl ON = U y �o n N L N cn N cry Q a, n 00 X X M {1} N W N m Q CL m O w CY)�C4C C� O `!' o \ N CU 00 ■ � cu "> No Q N ■ = O c � N � a cli N € m v o 00 kO N O W % NsuollpIN Da `- .� -ic 5 of C O cu C N E E O U U c LL 00 m co c O co C N E O U N 76 LL r- M co a� U N C O 7 U W L co W U C O L 7 U I 0 0 rn M C 0 o c=i� M O O co 0 0 C Sri O O O O c a 0 0 Sri U G � N N O U`° LO N 0) (10 a) 4 CD N 0 s i 'L^ V V ci N .r > J 0 0 C/) .V N 0 CD L O CL :3 v) F- 4-0 0 .y .y W f+ L Q CL m F— c 0 ca C N E E 0 U N ca C LL 0 co c a� U N C N L i O O M o 0 N O o 0 o r- O c O co C N E 0 U N co c Ll F co C O U N C N U U � � L O O L F N •6 co U U co � O U N U cn Q L O }+ I U � � cn •V 'co O N co a C/) E Q O U co O •co •� � � Q U O � U) U m - W O %+.- � ( Q ch C: C: Q co O N >� -0 L O-0 N L �U C) Cc • • > • i N U U co L O U It • VA Fkiltfi r 0 • .tee �.� T ,•,4W CC2' 20 • 1, - I - Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan DRAFT for Review 4/1 /2025 f owl$ - i ---- v rideCAT COLLIER ..,)Collier County Metropolitan Punning organization COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 STATE OF ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES.................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Recent Trends in Alternative Fuel Technologies........................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Alternative Fuel Technology Profiles.......................................................................................... 2-4 3 PEER EXPERIENCE................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Peer Review.................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Summary of Peer Interviews....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 National Case Studies.................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Key Takeaways for CAT............................................................................................................... 3-5 4 LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE INITIATIVES...................................................................... 4-6 4.1 Federal Transit Administration Low or No Emission Grant Program ....................................... 4-6 4.2 Florida's Energy & Climate Change Action Plan (2008)............................................................ 4-7 4.3 Florida Electric Vehicle Roadmap Executive Report(2020)....................................................... 4-7 4.4 FDOT EV Infrastructure Master Plan (2021)............................................................................... 4-7 4.5 CAT Transit Development Plan Major Update (2020) and Annual Progress Report (2024) ... 4-8 4.6 Collier County Comprehensive Plan (2023)............................................................................... 4-8 4.7 City of Naples Critical Assets and Facilities Adaptation Plan (2024)........................................ 4-9 4.8 LeeTran FTA Bus Low- and No -Emission Grant Award(2022).................................................. 4-9 5 UTILITY PROVIDER COORDINATION................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 FPL EVolution............................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Facility Analysis............................................................................................................................ 5-1 6 ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEASIBILITY......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Baseline Data............................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Feasibility Analysis Assumptions.............................................................................................. 6-14 j benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition pion I i Page 63 of 229 6.3 Model Results............................................................................................................................ 6-20 6.4 Fuel Mix Recommendations...................................................................................................... 6-27 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Financial Plan............................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Potential Additional Funding...................................................................................................... 7-6 8 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Vehicle Replacement Plan........................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Fuel Mix........................................................................................................................................ 8-2 8.3 Phasing of Implementation......................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4 Paratransit and Support Vehicle Fleet Plan................................................................................ 8-6 8.5 Financial Plan............................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.6 Emissions Reduction.................................................................................................................. 8-10 8.7 Facilities Recommendations..................................................................................................... 8-12 8.8 Workforce Training Considerations.......................................................................................... 8-13 8.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy........................................................................................ 8-14 +11ST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Categorization of Major Alternative Fuel Technologies.............................................................2-1 Table 2-2: Alternative Fuel Technologies Comparison..............................................................................2-10 Table 3-1: Selection of Peers for Review.......................................................................................................3-1 Table6-1: CAT Fleet Summary......................................................................................................................6-1 Table 6-2: Fixed Route Fleet By Fuel Type and Vehicle Length...................................................................6-2 Table 6-3: Fixed Route Fleet By Fuel Type and Purchase Year....................................................................6-2 Table 6-4: Estimated Fixed Route Vehicle Replacement Schedule.............................................................6-3 Table 6-5: Demand Response Fleet by Fuel Type and Vehicle Length.......................................................6-3 Table 6-6: Demand Response Fleet by Fuel Type and Purchase Year........................................................6-4 Table 6-7: Estimated Demand Response Vehicle Replacement Schedule.................................................6-4 Table 6-8: CAT Route Profiles........................................................................................................................6-6 Table 6-9: Fixed Route Service Blocks by Day of Week and Vehicle Length..............................................6-7 Table 6-10: Fixed Route Service Block Profiles.............................................................................................6-9 Table 6-11: Descriptive Data from November 2024 Observed Runs........................................................6-10 Table 6-12: Mileage Assumptions Used for Each Vehicle.........................................................................6-11 Table 6-13: CAT Depot and Transfer Facility Locations.............................................................................6-12 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition pion I ii Page 64 of 229 Table 6-14: Nominal and Strenuous Assumptions for Battery Electric Buses......... Table 6-15: Battery Life and Degradation Assumptions ........................................... Table 6-16: Battery Capacity Improvement Assumptions ........................................ Table 6-17: Summary of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Range Assumptions ................... Table 6-18: Other Feasibility Considerations Made During Feasibility Assessment Table 6-19: Support Vehicle Current Inventory and Their EV Equivalent ................ Table 6-20: Service Range Assumptions Used for Each Vehicle Group ................... ...........................6-15 ...........................6-16 ...........................6-17 ...........................6-19 Table 6-21: Currently Feasible Blocks By Operation Day ..................................................... Table 6-22: Future Feasible Blocks by Operation Day for Purchase Years 2025 and 2035 Table 6-23: Charging Options and Time to Full Charge ...................................................... Table 6-24: Feasible Blocks by Fuel Type and Day of Operation ........................................ Table 6-25: Percentage of DR Trips Served Feasibly by Alternative Fuel Cutaways .......... Table 6-26: Feasibility of EVs to Serve the Maximum Daily Mileage of Support Vehicles Table 6-27: Fixed Route Fuel Mix Recommendations............ Table 6-28: Demand Response Fuel Mix Recommendations Table 6-29: Support Vehicles Fuel Mix Recommendations... Table 7-1: Summary of Cost Savings by Scenario .................................................. Table 7-2: Assumed Capital Costs of Vehicles by Fuel Type (AFLEET Tool, 2023) Table 7-3: Assumed Operating Costs of Vehicles by Fuel Type* .......................... Table 7-4: Assumed Costs of Alternate Fuel Infrastructure (AFLEET, 2023) ......... Table 7-5: Summary of Potential Funding Sources for ZEV's Table 8-1: CAT Existing Fixed Route Fleet .............................. Table 8-2: CAT Fixed Route Vehicle Replacement Plan ......... LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Bus Vehicle Power Sources Figure 2-2: Mix of Alternative Fuels for US Buses (2024)........... Figure 2-3: Mix of Alternative Fuels for Florida Buses (2024).... Figure 2-4: FPL Electric Generation Fuel Mix Sources (2024) .... Figure 2-5 Average Vehicle Range (miles) .................................. Figure 5-1: Site Plan for CAT Operations Faclity........................ Figure 6-1: Distribution of Block Lengths for each Service Day Figure 6-2: Distribution of Observed Runs By Trip Lengths...... Figure 6-3: Scenario 1A (No On -Route Charging) Figure 6-4: Scenario 1 B (On Route Charging) ....... Figure 6-5: Scenario 2A (No On -Route Charging) Figure 6-6: Scenario 2B (On -Route Charging)....... Figure 6-7: Scenario 3A (No On -Route Charging) Figure 6-8: Scenario 313 (On -Route Charging)....... 6-19 6-19 6-20 6-21 6-21 6-22 6-24 6-26 6-26 6-28 6-3 5 6-38 .. 7-4 .. 7-4 ..7-5 ..7-5 .. 7-9 .. 8-1 .. 8-2 .. 2-2 .. 2-3 .. 2-3 .. 2-7 2-11 .. 5-2 .. 6-7 6-10 6-29 6-29 6-30 6-30 6-30 6-30 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Pl-- I iii Page 65 of 229 Figure6-9: Scenario 4..................................................................................................................................6-31 Figure 6-10: Fixed Route Estimated Capital Costs.....................................................................................6-32 Figure 6-11: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Fixed Route............................................................6-33 Figure 6-12: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fixed Route Comparisons ...............6-34 Figure 6-13: Demand Response Estimated Capital Costs..........................................................................6-36 Figure 6-14: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Demand Response.................................................6-37 Figure 6-15: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Demand Response Comparisons .... 6-37 Figure 6-16: Support Vehicles Estimated Capital Costs.............................................................................6-38 Figure 6-17: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Support Vehicles....................................................6-39 Figure 6-18: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Support Vehicle Comparisons ........6-39 Figure 7-1: Total Capital Costs by Fuel Mix Scenario (2025-2034).............................................................7-2 Figure 7-2: Total Operating Costs by Fuel Mix Scenario(2025-2034)........................................................7-2 Figure 7-3: Total Capital and Operating Costs by Fuel Mix Scenario(2025-2034)....................................7-3 Figure 7-4: CAT Operations Cost Feasible Plan (2025-2034)......................................................................7-7 Figure 7-5: CAT Capital Cost Feasible Plan (2025-2034).............................................................................7-8 Figure8-1: 2025 Fuel Mix..............................................................................................................................8-2 Figure8-2: 2034 Fuel Mix..............................................................................................................................8-2 Figure 8-3: Proposed Fixed Route Fleet Composition.................................................................................8-4 Figure 8-4: Proposed Fixed Route Vehicle Purchase Plan...........................................................................8-5 Figure 8-5: Proposed Fixed Route Vehicle Expenses...................................................................................8-5 Figure 8-6: CAT Operations Cost Feasible Plan (2025-2034)......................................................................8-7 Figure 8-7: CAT Capital Cost Feasible Plan (2025-2034).............................................................................8-8 Figure 8-8: Proposed CAT Financial Plan......................................................................................................8-9 Figure 8-9: CAT ZEV 2025-2034 Transition Plan Total Fixed Route Vehicle Capital and Operating Expenses.........................................................................................................................................................8-9 Figure 8-10: Annual Emissions Profile Comparison for the Final Recommendation of Fixed Route Vehicles.........................................................................................................................................................8-10 Figure 8-11: Well To Wheels Lifecycle Greenhous Gas Comparison for the Final Recommendation of FixedRoute Vehicles....................................................................................................................................8-10 Figure 8-12: Annual Emissions Profile Comparison for the Final Recommendation of Support Vehicles. 8- 11 Figure 8-13: Well To Wheels Lifecycle Greenhous Gas Comparison for the Final Recommendation of SupportVehicles..........................................................................................................................................8-11 ' IST OF MAP Map6-1: CAT Routes.....................................................................................................................................6-5 Map 6-2: Routes with Layovers at CAT's Operations Center.....................................................................6-12 Map 6-3: Routes with Layovers at the Government Center Intermodal Transfer Facility ........................6-13 Wbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition PI-- I iv Page 66 of 229 Map 6-4: Routes with Layovers at the Immokalee Transfer Facility APPENDIX A STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES APPENDIX B PEER AGENCY INTERVIEW NOTES APPENDIX C FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS APPENDIX D FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS (686 KWH BATTERY) APPENDIX E POTENTIAL ADDITONAL FUNDING PROGRAMS APPENDIX F VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN 6-13 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition pion I v Page 67 of 229 INTRODUCTION The transit industry is shifting from traditional diesel vehicles to various alternative fuel technologies due to a combination of increasing environmental awareness, availability and advancement of alternative fuel technologies, fleet diversification and flexibility, efficiency, and federal incentives (i.e., grant funding). Collier Area Transit, operating as CAT, is exploring options related to incorporating alternative fuel vehicles in its fleet. CAT provides fixed route services over 16 routes and paratransit demand response services through CATConnect for eligible individuals. CAT manages a fleet of 30 fixed route buses, 33 paratransit vehicles, and 6 support vehicles, a total of 69 vehicles. In 2021, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced that no -emission projects seeking funding under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339(b)) and the Low - or No -Emission Program (49 U.S.C. § 5339(c)) must have a Zero -Emission Transition Plan (ZETP). This report substantially meets this requirement in support of future FTA grant funding requests made by Collier County. A ZETP must meet the following six requirements: • Element 1 I Demonstrate a long-term fleet management plan with a strategy for how the applicant intends to use the current request for resources and future acquisitions. • Element 2 1 Address the availability of current and future resources to meet costs for the transition and implementation. • Element 3 1 Consider policy and legislation impacting relevant technologies. • Element 4 1 Include an evaluation of existing and future facilities and their relationship to the technology transition. • Element 5 1 Describe the partnership of the applicant with the utility or alternative fuel provider. • Element 6 1 Examine the impact of the transition on the applicant's current workforce by identifying skill gaps, training needs, and retraining needs of the existing workers of the applicant to operate and maintain zero -emission vehicles and related infrastructure and avoid displacement of the existing workforce. The purpose of this report is to develop a ZETP based on a selection of alternative fuel technologies identified in the following chapters and to meet the requirements of the FTA for competitive grants through the Low- or No -Emission Grant program. While the study evaluates the transition of the fleet, it is imperative to consider the value of diversifying the fleet. The community is dependent on public transit to support transportation needs during natural disasters, for this reason CAT has suggested that a balanced mix of technologies will be the goal of its transition plan, the details of which are documented in this ZETP. This balanced approach takes the transition to low -emission or zero - emission vehicles with thoughtfulness, remaining mindful of local climate challenges. The agency finds it appropriate that a portion of its fleet remains composed of diesel vehicles, as these vehicles would be critical to support mobility during power outages, especially after natural disasters such as hurricanes, which are common in the region. Development of the ZETP included a review of current transit fleet and analysis of recommended scenarios for determining the feasibility of a fleet transition. To ensure the decisions made during this 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 1-1 Page 68 of 229 process consider multiple aspects of the implementation, a Steering Committee was formed from representatives of multiple County agencies and departments. The feedback, guidance and input from the Steering Committee aided in developing the implementation plan for including lower emission fuel considerations for CAT. Brief summaries of the meetings held with the Steering Committee are included as Appendix A. The remainder of this report is divided into seven sections intended to meet the six ZETP elements listed previously: Section 2: State of Zero Emission Vehicles: A review of recent trends and adoption of fuel sources by transit agencies nationwide was conducted. A comparison and evaluation of multiple fuel sources along an Assessment of potential environmental and fiscal impacts is also included. Section 3: Peer Experience: Interviews were held with three transit agencies in Florida to better understand their experiences with alternative fuel sources and potential takeaways that can guide CAT's Transition Plan. A review of national case study examples is also included to provide a broader context of transit agency experiences. Section 4: Local, Regional, and State Initiatives: A summary of key national policy guidance for funding and implementation of low/no emission fuels is included along with key takeaways from Florida DOT studies and action plans for addressing vehicle emissions. Finally, guiding principles and policy guidance included in local planning documents are included. Section 5 Utility Provider Coordination: Contacts were made with Florida Power and Light and Lee County Electric Cooperative were made to identify potential opportunities for fleet conversion to electric was conducted. A brief summary of potential programs and future coordination actions associated with the Transition Plan are brought forward. Section 6 Alternative Feasibility Analysis: A review of the current vehicle fleet, including fixed -route, demand response and support vehicles was conducted. Several scenarios were developed and summarized to identify the potential capital and operating costs, and emissions profiles for each scenario was prepared. Section 7 Financial Analysis: High-level capital cost estimates for the recommended fleet conversion, recommended charging infrastructure, and maintenance/storage facility modifications were completed. In addition, this section provides a review of state and federal funding sources, including FTA's Low or No Emission Grants and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Community Change Grant Program. Impacts to certain funding sources remain uncertain based on recent federal actions. Availability of funding opportunities should be continually monitored by Collier County. Section 8: Implementation Plan: A 10-year capital plan was developed to support the recommended strategy for transitioning to a lower emission fleet. The implementation plan balances operational feasibility, financial sustainability, and environmental impact. This section outlines the key steps, timelines, and strategies for fleet conversion, infrastructure development, workforce training, and future decision points for monitoring and adjusting the transition plan based on changes in the state of practice and alternative fuel sources. 0 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 1-2 Page 69 of 229 2 STATE OF ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES The State of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) chapter explores various technology options to determine which technology or technologies are most appropriate for the agency to consider moving forward. This chapter documents the benefits and drawbacks of popular alternative fuel technologies and how they compare to diesel vehicles. 2.1 Recent Trends in Alternative Fuel Technologies There are two broad categories of alternative fuel technologies: low -emission and zero -emission. Low - emission technologies refer to any alternative technology or alternative fuel that emit lower amounts of harmful tailpipe emissions than diesel. Zero -emission (also known as no -emission) technologies do not rely on fossil fuels for operation and have zero (or nearly zero) harmful tailpipe emissions. Generally, these designations only account for the emissions produced during the usable lifecycle of vehicles and not the emissions produced during the production, disposal of the vehicles, or the production of the fuel source. Table 2-1 lists the selection of alternative fuel technologies discussed in this report by their respective emission category. TABLE 2-1 CATEGORIZATION OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES • Biodiesel • Compressed natural gas (CNG) • Diesel and battery electric (hybrid) • Gasoline • Liquified natural gas (LNG) • Propane Note: While the term "hybrid technology" can ref( • Battery electric • Hydrogen fuel cell electric (FCE) to a myriad of combinations report, hybrid refers solely to a combination of diesel and battery electric technologies. rposes of this There are multiple fuel alternatives to diesel, and each has evolved at a different pace. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) maintains a database of more than 450 transit agencies across the United States. The database has helped track various trends in public transportation including fleet fuel mix. Figure 2-1 shows the changes in fuel mix for buses (excluding commuter bus) between 2008 and 2023. It should be noted that transit agencies voluntarily provide data to APTA and may not update it every year; therefore, data is only as accurate as the agencies reporting. On average, diesel buses dropped by 1.5 percent annually between 2008 and 2023, beginning with a market share of 70 percent to a current share of 49 percent. The largest diesel decrease occurred between 2011 and 2018. Biodiesel adoption has wavered, with popularity in the past decade peaking at 9.9 percent in 2017 compared to the most recent figure of 3.6 percent. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-1 Page 70 of 229 FIGURE 2-1: BUS VEHICLE POWER SOURCES 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2023 ■ Diesel ■ CNG, LNG, and Blends Hybrid ■ Biodiesel ■ Gasoline ■ Other (a) Source: APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database Appendix A (2023) (a) Includes battery -electric, hydrogen, and propane powered buses Note: Data for 2012 is not available. The first alternative fuel technology to gain prominence among transit fleets was compressed natural gas, which increased from 3 percent of transit vehicles to 13 percent between 1996 and 2005. A greater increase in CNG vehicles can be observed between 2015 and 2019, growing about 7 percent annually to an overall 30 percent share in fuel mix, making it the most employed alternative fuel on the market. Hybrid vehicles (i.e., diesel and battery electric) have had a slow market penetration, with the first models introduced in the late 1990s. However, hybrid vehicles quickly gained traction between 2008 and 2014, growing from an overall fuel mix share of 3.8 percent to 17.9 percent. In 2023, the overall fuel mix share of hybrid vehicles was 18.3 percent. Other alternative fuel technologies have made marginal market penetration, only recently surpassing 2% of overall fuel mix in 2023. The other alternatives category includes battery -electric, hydrogen, and propane. Propane as a fuel alternative is often used for smaller buses while gasoline is relatively unpopular due to its fuel compression properties and its lack of emission benefits over diesel. The adoption rates of these and other fuel alternative technologies have been impacted either by their level of maturity, cost, or reliability. Figure 2-2 shows the current share that each alternative fuel technology has achieved among bus fleets in the U.S. in 2024. The most popular alternative fuel technology is CNG. Approximately 40 percent of the alternative fuel fleet is composed of CNG buses, followed by hybrid buses at 33 percent. Zero -emission buses make up close to 4 percent of all bus fleets, with 3 percent battery electric buses and less than 1 percent being hydrogen buses. Around 22 percent of buses use biodiesel and a combined 1.5 percent use some other fuel alternative such as propane, hydrogen, or another natural gas combination. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-2 Page 71 of 229 FIGURE 2-2: MIX OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR US BUSES (2024) Hydrogen 0.3% Other Natural Gas 0.9% Propane 0.3% Source: APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database (2024) Other Natural Gas includes compressed natural gas & diesel, compressed natural gas & gasoline, liquified natural gas propane & diesel, propane & gasoline, propane & compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas & diesel Similar to the national trend, transit agencies in Florida are increasing their adoption of alternative fuel technologies. Figure 2-3 shows the alternative fuel mix across buses in Florida in 2024. Among the various fuel alternative fuel technologies, CNG buses are the most common, followed by hybrid buses and battery electric buses. FIGURE 2-3: MIX OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR FLORIDA BUSES (2024) Source: APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database (2024) The continued transition away from diesel fuel is expected to accelerate in the coming decade due to state and federal initiatives incentivizing conversion. Nonetheless, an uptick in diesel bus fleet share is observed between 2017 and 2023. The reversal of this trend away from diesel in recent years is due to a combination of factors, including agencies not renewing certain alternative fuel vehicles after pilot programs, and supply chain and manufacturing delays experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have required extended diesel vehicle usage until this issue was corrected. This all indicates 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-3 Page 72 of 229 that zero -emission fuels remain challenging to adopt, although their current fuel mix share continues to grow slowly. It is expected that these technologies will gain greater traction in the coming decades as their respective technologies mature. Due to their low adoption rates, lack of readily available data and/or relatively small reductions in emissions, gasoline, propane, and LNG will not be explored further in this report. Section 2.2 provides greater detail on five alternative fuel technologies: hybrid diesel-electric, CNG, biodiesel, battery electric and hydrogen FCE. Hybrid, CNG and biodiesel fuel technologies are widely used by transit agencies in Florida. Battery electric and hydrogen FCE vehicles have not been adopted very broadly; however, they are projected to become more popular and are becoming more affordable. 2.2 Alternative Fuel Technology Profiles This section provides detailed profiles for each fuel type. Profiles include data related to the current state of the technology, a basic understanding of the fuel type, performance and reliability, and an evaluation of their impact on infrastructure and operations. Diesel is included below for comparison purposes. The various fuel alternative technologies are presented by category, starting with the low - emission category, and ending with the zero -emission category. 2.2.1 Technology Profiles 2.2.1.1 Diesel Diesel engines have been used for propulsion since the early 201" century. The maturity and reliability of this fuel has made it the primary choice for bus fleet propulsion over the last century. Fuel consumption increased in the later 201" century as modern features were introduced in bus models such as air conditioning, heating, wheelchair lifts and other features that required more engine horsepower. In recent decades, federal regulations and technological advancements have reduced the impact of the fuel's emissions. Current improvements in diesel technology are focused on increased fuel efficiency and a reduction in emissions. The latest changes in U.S. diesel engine standards occurred between 2007 and 2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed for the reduction of diesel emissions in a twofold approach. First, it required the reduction of sulfur content in diesel fuel by 97 percent. Second, it required vehicle exhaust emission controls like particulate filters and exhaust recirculation that reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. The latter approach required improvements in engine design, leading to higher vehicle costs, and added parts for bus repair. In March 2022, the EPA proposed rules to further reduce air pollution by lowering the emissions of NOx and PM from diesel engines to be introduced in diesel vehicles by model year 2027. Finally, the EPA suggests that for diesel vehicles in 2027, useful life periods and mileages be extended to reflect real -world usage, to extend the emissions durability requirement for heavy- duty engines and to ensure certified emission performance is maintained throughout more of an engine's operational life. These measures will likely impact bus operators by lengthening vehicle life 4 benesch Breeze Diesel Fueling Station Source: Benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-4 Page 73 of 229 spans, challenging current replacement schedules, increasing maintenance periods, and raising costs due to additional parts for emission control maintenance. Moreover, there is a notable drop in production of diesel vehicles, namely cutaways, meaning that such vehicles will be more challenging to find or replace in the future. 2.2.1.2 Biodiesel Biodiesel, not to be confused with renewable or green diesel, is a low -emission diesel alternative produced through transesterification, where biodegradable elements such as feedstock or restaurant grease react to alcohol in the presence of a catalyst such as lye. The resulting biodiesel is referred to as B100, an acronym that indicates the percentage of biodiesel present. Pure B100 usage is uncommon; usually, biodiesel is blended with regular diesel to reduce the diesel content in favor of a more biodegradable alternative. Popular biodiesel blends currently available include five percent, 10 percent, and 20 percent forms known as B05, 1310, and B20. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov B20 is the more broadly available and used blend today; higher grades are expected to become more common. Biodiesel functions similarly to diesel in compression -ignition engines. While current diesel buses can use certain biodiesel blends, higher blends may require engine upgrades, as pure biodiesel can degrade rubber parts, affecting hoses and gaskets, and causing potential leaks. Biodiesel's lower oxidative stability can also lead to degradation with metals like copper, lead, tin, or zinc, creating sediment that may clog filters. A cetane number (CN) is assigned to diesel and biodiesel fuels as a measure for identifying fuel ignition delay and related engine performance. Biodiesel fuels generally have a higher CN value than diesel and are considered a lower performing alternative which produces less energy. Biodiesel contains about 8 percent less energy per gallon than diesel. Nonetheless, fuel emissions are notably lower when using biodiesel blends and engines using them are notably cleaner because of a reduced amount of particulate matter compared to diesel. In freezing temperatures, biodiesel may congeal due to grease -based components, however this is not a concern in Florida's subtropical climate. Biodiesel blends below B20 are widely available and distributed and require no new infrastructure. The main considerations for any biodiesel fuel blend include specifying which biodiesel feedstock to use given the identified performance and maintenance concerns. 2.2.1.3 Compressed Natural Gas CNG buses use natural gas as a low -emission fuel for internal combustion, similar to diesel buses but with key differences in fuel type. First, because natural gas is in a gaseous state, it must be compressed for optimal use. CNG is considered one the most mature and well -established fuels available to transit agencies, but its gaseous state has limitations. ) benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-5 Page 74 of 229 CNG contains less energy than diesel, and its high-pressure cylinders connect to the engine via a fuel line with multiple valves and regulators. CNG engines require different mechanical parts than diesel, expanding the parts inventory and requiring specialized staff training. CNG is considered a low -emission fuel alternative as its main emission is limited to NOx. This fuel alternative is flammable and, because it is an odorless and colorless gas, an additive provides a distinct odor to help detect leaks. Garages supporting CNG vehicles require an extensive evaluation to adhere to guidance from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Additionally, maintenance facilities where CNG is stored or CNG vehicles are repaired require increased ventilation and gas detection systems that can detect and control gas leaks. While CNG may require additional safety infrastructure, issues related to gas leaks are rare. CNG fueling can occur off site or on site. CNG fueling is a time-consuming process. If a fleet is larger, CNG is ideally produced or pumped on site as it increases operational efficiency. The availability of CNG is contingent upon the local natural gas utility provider. Currently, Collier County may find it challenging to find private CNG fueling but may coordinate with the Florida Power and Light (FPL) subsidiary, FPL Energy Services (FPLES), to assess the availability of natural gas services. Alternatively, private companies such as Trillium or NoPetro are known to create public private partnerships through which transit agencies could benefit from their CNG stations. On -site CNG infrastructure involves substantial investment, including a gas dryer, compressor, and storage system, with costs ranging from $500,000 for a smaller CNG station to $2 million for a larger CNG station'. 2.2.1.4 Hybrid Hybrid, specifically diesel-electric hybrid, buses are low -emission vehicles that combine an electric motor with an internal combustion engine. While hybrid buses have an electric component, they operate more like diesel buses than battery -electric buses and don't require external charging, instead using a rechargeable battery alongside traditional mechanical parts. There are two types of propulsion system configurations in a hybrid bus: Parallel hybrid: Uses both the electric motor and internal combustion engine, switching between them based on driving conditions. Mostly, the electric motor is used in stop -and -go traffic, while the combustion engine powers the bus at higher speeds, such as on highways. Series hybrid: Relies solely on the electric motor for propulsion, with power supplied by a battery or a generator driven by an internal combustion engine. This configuration is better suited for stop -and -go conditions. Concerns have been raised about the impacts related to the mining of lithium, a component required in vehicle batteries. There are two primary concerns: (1) environmental destruction from drilling and mining and (2) water contamination from the refining process. Some environmental advocates contend ' Costs Associated With Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure, US Department of Energy, https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/cng_infrastructure_costs.pdf W benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-6 Page 75 of 229 that the negative impacts created by the mining process may outweigh the environmental benefits achieved by battery powered vehicles. In general, hybrid buses are known for their compromise in emissions and reliability between a diesel and a battery electric bus. Route characteristics and bus configuration may affect the performance of a hybrid bus, which often leads to lower reliability of the vehicle than their diesel and CNG counterparts. Nonetheless, most data shows that hybrids are much more fuel efficient than their diesel counterparts. 2.2.1.5 Battery Electric Battery electric buses are a zero -emission technology powered by electricity from rechargeable batteries, which draw energy from the local electric grid. The environmental impact of battery electric buses depends on the fuel mix used by the local utility provider, in this case, primarily FPL. Figure 2-4 shows the most recent fuel mix reported by FPL, CAT's primary local electric utility provider. FIGURE 2-4: FPL ELECTRIC GENERATION FUEL MIX SOURCES (2024) Purchased rc Power, 2.4% Source. Florida Power and Light, Energy News (2024) Battery electric buses are evolving rapidly with every year bringing new, more efficient models, but the technology is still not mature. Battery electric buses draw concern due to multiple factors: • Limited mileage range per charge • Battery production and life cycle • Lengthy charging times • Variability in electric consumption affected by factors such as load, terrain, and climate Buses carry large batteries that can be recharged and switched out as needed. These batteries require investments in charging infrastructure, with three main charging systems available 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-7 Page 76 of 229 1. Stand-alone Chargers: This is the most widely used charging system. Chargers can be placed either at the depot or on the right of way, where buses can park next to the chargers and plug into the adapter. 2. Pantograph Chargers: These chargers require overhead wiring and a pantograph, an extension that transfers electricity from the overhead wiring into the electrical unit on the bus. 3. Induction Chargers: These chargers provide electricity to buses via electromagnetic induction where buses park over coils that are placed in the street surface to transfer electricity on board. Most fleets start with stand-alone chargers, typically charging buses overnight at depots. Pantograph and induction chargers offer in-service boosts at stations with longer dwell times. These chargers may require facilities in the right of way and are more useful for larger battery electric fleets with high frequencies. Two forms of charging exist for buses: long-range charging or fast charging. Long-range charging is typically used overnight to charge vehicles for the following day. A full charge may require up to six hours, and the range may still be inadequate for some operational blocks. Overnight charging provides the cost benefit of lower electric rates, thereby keeping fuel costs down. Fast charging is generally used in -route to provide a quick recharge of batteries to extend range. To implement fast - charging, in -route facilities require careful coordination to provide enough time to recharge and an understanding that Source: APTA the boost may be minimal compared with energy output. Scheduling for the charging facility is needed to avoid overlap, which can be difficult for low frequency systems using a pulse schedule. Additionally, since fast charging facilities are used in -route, they draw energy during daytime hours when the cost of electricity is typically higher than overnight. Fast charging may also need grid upgrades, as battery electric buses require 480 volts in three phases, while typical commercial supply is 240 volts. Transitioning to battery electric buses involves considerations for maintenance and repair, with mechanics requiring specialized training. While battery electric buses theoretically need less maintenance due to fewer mechanical parts, practical experience may vary, and agencies often need to expand parts inventory. Moreover, complex repairs that cannot be addressed by local mechanical crews may require that a bus be taken out of service to be repaired by the manufacturer. As noted under the hybrid section, concerns have been raised about lithium mining needed to produce these batteries. 2.2.1.6 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Hydrogen FCE buses are zero -emission vehicles that use hydrogen to generate electricity, emitting only water vapor. Despite being the cleanest mobility technology, FCE buses have low market penetration due to high costs and the need for new parts. Hydrogen FCE buses expose hydrogen to oxygen to create electrical energy that powers the electric motor to propel the bus. While hydrogen is an abundant and renewable natural element, the gas is highly volatile and requires pressurization to be used as a fuel. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-8 Page 77 of 229 Hydrogen propulsion systems are similar to a battery electric bus, while its gas injection and maintenance is very similar to CNG buses. Hydrogen FCEs are in a stage of near maturity, but they remain expensive relative to other technologies. Fueling options include on -site or off -site hydrogen production, though off -site sources are rare. Moreover, on - site fueling requires a substantial investment in infrastructure to deliver hydrogen. Hydrogen, like CNG, may be provided through trailered cylinders acquired tSource: https://www.act-news.com/ locally. Hydrogen may also be stored in a liquid state. Finally, and more commonly, hydrogen may be created on site, using components similar to CNG such as a compressor, storage units, coolers and dispensers. The increased level of volatility requires more expensive materials, driving up costs significantly. Due to complexity and the low levels of both demand and supply, training for such a fuel alternative is more challenging than with other fuel alternatives. Moreover, manufacturers of hydrogen equipment possess a stronghold over maintenance and repairs, meaning that specialized crews provided by manufacturers are required to perform maintenance, leading to increased lifespan costs and operational inefficiencies. Still, hydrogen FCE buses have fewer mechanical parts than diesel engines and offer a longer range than battery -electric buses, making them an appealing alternative. Overall, nearly $3 to $5 million are required to build or modify facility conditions to adequately allow the use of hydrogen, while also requiring nearly 4,500 square feet of space. The cost of hydrogen equipment continues to drop overtime, making it more affordable. The initial investment in hydrogen as an alternative may be expensive, but larger hydrogen fleets reduce the investment per vehicle costs. 2.2.2 Technology Comparison The following section summarizes the data side -by -side to make comparing fuel technologies easier. Table 2-2 compares key considerations for the various alternative fuel technologies. Several factors are assessed and correspond to five broad categories of impact: • State of Technology: Evaluates the current state of each alternative fuel technology such as the level of technology maturity, current industry adoption rate, the coordination required with various parties to deliver services using the technology for each bus, etc. • Financial Impact: Considers the impact that each technology may have on agency finances, such as lifecycle costs, vehicle costs, and potential grant funding for each technology. • Impact to Facility Spaces: Assesses the impact that the adoption of each fuel alternative technology may have on existing facility spaces, like whether using the fuel alternative requires facility upgrades or if additional space may be needed for new facilities. • Operations and Maintenance Impact: Considers daily impacts of adoption such as the operational burden on the route network, reliability, and the number of unknown factors that may present themselves over time. • Regional Impact: Considers a technology based on regional factors, such as the successful adoption of a technology in the region or climate and terrain factors. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 2-9 Page 78 of 229 Z O _N a a O U N W_ O J O Z 2 U W J W D LL W H Q Z W H J a N N W J m a H a) i L CP co >, 0) C a) t t t j '— L a) O_7 L coco L L j o) "O a) '— E C C O cn22 a) _0) _0) _0) 222 a) 2Z _O1 2 �22 OCR J Z U, 0 co N N U a 0) (n 0) C E E E ::3 E co f6 a) J a) a) co @ J J a) C O >= o 2 2 2 J O O CD LU U > 0) 3. A E E ==� L a) � C E E E (n a) 7 L 7 7 3 .S co a) O J O M J 2 J O z a) 2 a) a) J E O J O m U w N Ln N 0 C N L co O E a �' 0)-0 0) 0) 0 E a) 0 w *:3 co J oo �� _� J a) 2 2 2 2 ca 2 2 2� 11 J 0 CO N co m L U cn LO c a) "M � 3 C E E > > � � 3 E m E cn c" 3: E .=.= 3 � a) E co O a) co co J LL LU 'O 'O O O a) a) J J O J O O a O = M J .� a) E I1 O J O N 2 2 U N 5 LO U 0 c 3� = 3 3 c c c CLo o c c - c — c m o a) n3 U- 0 0 0 J J 0 0 E �' c 0 0 a' O O O Z LJJ a) Z Z Z m Z Z= LO Z ZCO m O= d a fA m 0 = O O C 0 +J 0 N m p) _ V) LL cCa cn O 0 C > U d o 7 J} 0 U>- <0 +� N � L C O O O a) O >, t _= n } a cn E �' Q `L° a) n3 co a, L E U cc a Er- U O co a) > E ,F Q}' > a O O - U Ec p , aLn OO 0 c c c }ai' ai_Q_ O = O t ) � **@) ° a) c !E -0, o 'o o) o o) t ;r ,NU=2wUwli—j nn ) aco � (D a QLLOO>QQ ao— =��H� m aa a'= 3 O N a_ C O co C cv a� U_ \W C O E LU O L N rn N N O m a) c0 d Because vehicle range is so important to technology adoption, Figure 2-5 provides greater detail on the range of each technology. On a full tank, hybrid buses provided the greatest vehicle range, even an improvement over the vehicle range for diesel buses. CNG buses, offering a 400-mile range, perform similarly to diesel. Battery electric buses have a relatively low range, which can present a challenge for systems that operate on longer blocks and routes. Hydrogen FCE has a relatively short range as well. It should be noted that vehicle range is affected by many factors including load, use of auxiliary systems such as heating and cooling, terrain, weather, etc. Battery Electric Hydrogen FCE CNG Biodiesel Diesel Hybrid FIGURE 2-5 AVERAGE VEHICLE RANGE (MILES) 100 200 300 400 500 Sources. HART presentation, 'Adopting new Fuel Technologies" (2017); Fairfax County DOT presentation, "Electric Buses Overview" (2020); and Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Guidebook for Deploying Zero -Emission Transit Buses (2020) 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 2-11 Page 80 of 229 PEER EXPERIENCE The following section will review the profiles of Collier County's selected peers to understand the implementation of alternative fuels in their respective fleets. 3.1 Peer Review The selection of Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), Lee County Transit (LeeTran), and Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) as peers was informed by the ongoing CAT Transit Development Plan (TDP) as well as market research of Florida transit agencies with a history of alternative fuel adoption. PSTA, LeeTran, and JTA have already adopted or have plans to adopt alternative fuel technologies, making them relevant benchmarks for CAT's Zero -Emission Transition Plan. While PSTA and JTA were considered for their vast implementation of alternative fuel vehicles, LeeTran scored highly in the TDP's peer comparison criteria, which considered factors such as service characteristics, operational efficiency, and demographic similarities. Their experiences offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with transitioning to alternative fuels. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the peer agencies. TABLE 3-1 : SELECTION OF PEERS FOR REVIEW PSTA Pinellas County, FL 273 Diesel, Electric Hybrid, Electric, and Autonomous Vehicle Advantage (AVA) LeeTran Lee County, FL 91 Diesel, Electric Hybrid, Propane Compressed Natural gas (CNG), JTA Duval County, FL 225 Diesel, Renewable Natural Gas (Planned), Autonomous Electric Shuttles (Planned), Hydrogen (Exploratory) *Vehicles on Maximum Service 3.1.1 PSTA PSTA serves Pinellas County, Florida, a region with approximately 960,000 residents. PSTA operates 38 fixed routes, including local and regional express bus services, along with popular trolley services like the SunRunner Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Central Avenue Trolley, and Jolley Trolley routes. These transit options connect major destinations, including downtown St. Petersburg, Clearwater Beach, and Tampa, ensuring comprehensive coverage for residents and visitors. The agency also provides paratransit services for riders with disabilities. PSTA has been a leader in sustainability efforts, transitioning its fleet to more environmentally friendly technologies. While diesel buses remain the predominant fuel type, the agency has made significant strides in incorporating electric buses, supported by grants through programs like the Low- or No - Emission Vehicle Program. In addition, PSTA has experimented with autonomous vehicle technology, including the Autonomous Vehicle Advantage (AVA) pilot project, as part of its ongoing innovations in transit solutions reflecting its critical role in regional mobility and its commitment to sustainable and efficient public transportation. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 3-1 Page 81 of 229 3.1.2 LeeTran LeeTran serves Lee County, Florida, providing public transportation across an 820-square-mile area with a population of about 802,178. The system operates 24 fixed bus routes, seasonal trolleys, and paratransit services for individuals with disabilities. In 2022, LeeTran provided approximately 2.2 million trips and covered nearly 4.8 million revenue miles. Its transit offerings focus on connecting urban centers like Cape Coral, Fort Myers, and Bonita Springs. LeeTran's fleet includes 141 vehicles, primarily diesel -powered, with some hybrid -electric buses as part of efforts to improve sustainability. 3.1.3 JTA The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) serves Duval County and parts of Clay and Nassau Counties, providing public transportation to a population of approximately 1.6 million residents. JTA operates a diverse transit network that includes fixed -route buses, paratransit services, and the First Coast Flyer BRT system, which offers express service along key corridors. JTA has been a leader in alternative fuel adoption, prioritizing Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as its primary fuel source. As of 2023, JTA operates 225 vehicles in maximum service, with a fleet mix of CNG and diesel buses, ensuring operational flexibility and cost efficiency. As part of a plan to modernize Jacksonville's downtown transit infrastructure, the agency has also been at the forefront of autonomous vehicle technology as it is set to introduce 14 autonomous electric shuttles. Additionally, JTA is exploring Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Hydrogen technologies as part of its long-term sustainability strategy. By leveraging a combination of alternative fuels and cutting -edge transit solutions, JTA remains committed to enhancing service reliability, reducing emissions, and preparing for the future of urban transportation in Northeast Florida. 3.2 Summary of Peer Interviews Interviews were conducted to determine the peer agencies' experience with alternative fuel vehicles. The detailed interview notes are included in Appendix B. 3.2.1 PSTA The interview with PSTA representatives provided insights into the agency's transition to alternative fuel technologies. PSTA has been incorporating hybrid -electric buses since 2009-2010 and electric buses since 2016-2017, with a strategy aimed at reducing emissions, securing grant funding, and lowering maintenance costs. While most of their fleet consists of hybrid -electric buses, they are gradually expanding the electric fleet, though diesel trolleys continue to be part of the mix. They reported success with hybrids, minimal issues with electric buses, and a 270-mile range on some electric models, though challenges remain, such as charging infrastructure and limited deployment on express routes. PSTA secured initial funding through a BP oil spill settlement and demonstrated the viability of alternative fuel buses before seeking additional funding. Key points learned include avoiding inductive charging due to impracticality, ensuring leadership support for fleet transitions, and recognizing that hybrid vehicles serve as a good starting point before a full conversion to electrification. While some cost savings have been achieved through reduced maintenance, range limitations and infrastructure improvements remain ongoing challenges. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 3-2 Page 82 of 229 3.2.2 LeeTran The interview with LeeTran representatives revealed their experience with a diverse fleet mix, including aging hybrid buses (in service since 2013), propane vehicles (since 2015), and two electric buses expected in 2026. Their technology choices were driven by grant availability and fuel cost savings, although the hybrids did not meet expected fuel efficiency gains. Propane buses were initially attractive due to rebates but presented operational challenges, such as limited range, mid -day refueling needs, and maintenance delays, including frequent fuel pump replacements and long wait times for parts. Electric buses were selected to align with clean energy goals, particularly in downtown areas. Training needs varied, with propane fueling requiring only basic instruction while hybrid maintenance needs required certified technicians. The agency emphasized the importance of having backup plans due to potential breakdowns and high towing costs, noting that the overall costs of implementing and maintaining alternative fuel buses have been significant. 3.2.3 JTA The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) interview highlighted a predominantly compressed natural gas (CNG) fleet, making up 70% of their 197 fixed -route vehicles, with CNG adoption starting in 2013-2014 to support their BRT system. Their decision to use CNG stemmed from stable fuel costs and a successful public -private partnership for fueling infrastructure. While early adoption of battery - electric buses through a 2017 grant faced range limitations and charging infrastructure issues, JTA maintains a diesel fleet for operational resiliency. They plan to introduce 14 autonomous electric shuttles in June and are exploring renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen options. Challenges include underperforming electric vehicle ranges and facility space constraints for chargers. JTA values a mixed -fuel approach for safety and operational flexibility, treating its zero -emission bus plan as an evolving document to meet vehicle retirement schedules while leveraging various funding sources. 3.3 National Case Studies As markets across the U.S. continue to transition from gasoline/diesel to various types of alternative sources of fuel energy, it is important to understand how transit agencies have utilized new technologies to enable themselves to do so. To give a broader perspective on alternative fuel implementation at the national level, three case studies from other U.S. based transit agencies were reviewed. Each case study will provide details about the agency and its service, explain their efforts in transitioning to alternate fuel sources, and provide outcomes and lessons regarding the shift. The three transit agencies explored include: • Reno, NV: Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC Washoe). Albuquerque, NM: Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) Lexington, KY: Lexington Transit Authority (Lextran) 3.3.1 Reno, NV: Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC Washoe) RTC Washoe serves Reno, Sparks, and other parts of Washoe County, Nevada, providing public transit to a population of approximately 450,000. The agency operates fixed -route buses, paratransit services, and BRT. RTC has been a leader in alternative fuel adoption, with 80% of its fleet already hybrid or electric. However, the agency faced challenges with electric buses, including limited range (80-120 miles) and decreased efficiency in cold weather or on hilly routes. To address these issues, RTC recently benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 3-3 Page 83 of 229 introduced hydrogen fuel -cell buses, which offer a range of 300 miles, similar to diesel buses, making them suitable for longer routes. The agency is also building a hydrogen fueling station and providing innovative virtual reality training for mechanics to service the new buses. Lessons learned include the importance of matching fuel technologies to operational needs, scalability of infrastructure, and proactive workforce training. RTC's approach demonstrates how agencies can balance diverse technologies to enhance sustainability and reliability. 3.3.2 Albuquerque, NM: Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART), part of the ABQ RIDE system, serves Albuquerque, New Mexico, providing an essential transit backbone for the metropolitan area. ART is a BRT system that enhances connectivity along the Central Avenue corridor with high -capacity, efficient buses. ABQ RIDE overall provides over 13 million passenger trips annually, traveling approximately 160,000 miles daily. ART's fleet initially used clean diesel buses, but the city has explored alternative fuel solutions as part of its broader sustainability goals. Recent developments include deploying electric buses, although early efforts faced challenges, such as operational issues and infrastructure gaps. These experiences highlighted the need for thorough pre -deployment testing and comprehensive charging infrastructure. Lessons from ART include the importance of aligning technological upgrades with robust training for operators and maintenance staff. Albuquerque also demonstrated how transit projects like ART can serve as economic catalysts, fostering development along transit corridors. 3.3.3 Lexington, KY: Lexington Transit Authority (Lextran) Lextran, the public transit agency serving Lexington, Kentucky, operates with a strong focus on sustainability and modernization. Its service area includes the Lexington -Fayette region, which has a population of over 320,000. Lextran offers a range of services, including fixed -route buses, paratransit, and campus shuttles. In recent years, Lextran has made significant strides toward adopting alternative fuels. The agency has integrated CNG buses into its fleet, replacing aging diesel vehicles, and has introduced hybrid -electric paratransit vehicles. These initiatives were funded by federal programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program and the Low- or No -Emission Bus Grant Program. These upgrades not only reduced mobile -source emissions but also lower operational costs and improve service reliability for riders. For example, in 2024, Lextran received over $4 million in federal funding to acquire six additional low -emission CNG buses, furthering its commitment to sustainability. Lextran's transition to alternative fuel has provided valuable lessons. Leveraging federal grants has been key to modernizing its fleet without placing undue financial strain on the agency. Moreover, the focus on lower -emission vehicles aligns with broader environmental goals while enhancing community air quality and service dependability. 3.3.4 Summary of National Case Studies The three case studies —RTC Washoe, Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART), and Lextran—demonstrate the diverse approaches used by transit agencies in adopting alternative fuel technologies. RTC Washoe in Reno has strategically incorporated hydrogen fuel -cell buses to overcome range and terrain limitations, showcasing the importance of tailoring fuel solutions to specific regional needs. ART in Albuquerque initially faced reliability challenges with its electric bus fleet, highlighting the necessity of rigorous pre - deployment testing and robust infrastructure planning. W benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 3-4 Page 84 of 229 Meanwhile, Lextran in Lexington has successfully utilized federal grants to integrate CNG buses and hybrid -electric paratransit vehicles, emphasizing the role of funding in facilitating a sustainable transition. Across these agencies, alternative fuel adoption requires a thorough understanding of regional characteristics, proactive investment in infrastructure and workforce training, and strategic use of federal resources. By learning from these examples, other transit agencies can better navigate their own transitions to alternative fuels, balancing environmental goals with operational efficiency and reliability. 3.4 Key Takeaways for CAT The lessons learned from these agencies are important for Collier County and CAT as the possibility of transitioning to different fuel types continues to be explored. Some key takeaways include: • It is important to understand the range of EVs as buses may need to cover long distances daily. Use of EVs may need to be supplemented by other fuel and battery technologies to extend ranges. • Any new infrastructure or modifications to existing infrastructure supporting alternative fuel strategies, including its maintenance, should be planned in advance to ensure a smooth transition. • There are several alternate fuel types that may be explored using different vehicle types and fueling/EV infrastructure. Depending on the scale of changes, multiple fuel types may fit for different uses or route types. • Funding sources for EV or Low/No-Emission vehicles have been available in the past. Exploring current available funding may provide opportunities for CAT to begin the process of transitioning fuel types. • Other transit agencies are exploring alternate fuel types and the infrastructure that goes along with it. Even though there are issues that arise when doing so, these are efforts that agencies are utilizing to lower mobile -source emissions and to match community and infrastructure changes. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 3-5 Page 85 of 229 LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE INITIATIVES Understanding the broader landscape of initiatives that support alternative fuel vehicles or zero - emission vehicles (ZEV) implementation is critical to shaping CAT's decision -making and operational planning. This section provides a review of several local, regional, and state initiatives to provide valuable insights into best practices, infrastructure development, and strategic alignment for adopting electric and alternative fuel vehicles. The goal is to highlight key insights and opportunities that CAT can leverage as it transitions its fleet to alternative fuel types. The initiatives reviewed include: • Federal Transit Administration Low or No Emission Grant Program • Florida's Energy & Climate Action Plan (2008) • Florida Electric Vehicle Roadmap Executive Report (2020) • FDOT EV Infrastructure Master Plan (2021) • CAT Transit Development Plan Major Update (2020) and Annual Progress Report (2024) • Collier County Comprehensive Plan (2023) • City of Naples Critical Assets and Facilities Adaptation Plan (2024) • LeeTran FTA Bus Low- and No -Emission Grant Award (2022) To enhance collaboration and leverage existing resources, CAT is encouraged to engage with other County departments managing large fleets —such as fire, police, solid waste, and education —to explore their experiences with ZEVs and alternative fuel technologies. These cross -departmental discussions are essential for addressing potential challenges, such as shared infrastructure and redundancy planning, and will inform CAT's approach to sustainable transit solutions. 4.1 Federal Transit Administration Low or No Emission Grant Program The FTA's Low -No Program provides funding to help transit agencies purchase low- and zero -emission buses, such as electric or hydrogen -powered vehicles, and build facilities like charging stations to support these technologies. It also includes resources for workforce training to prepare transit workers to maintain and operate the advanced vehicles and infrastructure. The program aims to reduce air pollution, improve energy efficiency, and support climate goals while also promoting economic benefits like job creation and local manufacturing. By modernizing fleets, the program helps communities transition to cleaner, more sustainable public transportation systems, benefiting both the environment and public health. Key Takeaways • Provides critical funding to help transit agencies transition to low/no-emission technology. • Includes electric/hydrogen buses and their associated infrastructure. • Used to replace older, high -emission vehicles. • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves air quality, and aligns public transit with climate and sustainability goals. • Includes training in the maintenance and operation of low/no emission vehicles and their associated facilities. Promotes job creation and supports local manufacturing. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 4-6 Page 86 of 229 4.2 Florida's Energy & Climate Change Action Plan (2008) The Governor's Action Team on Energy and Climate Change developed a plan that will secure Florida's energy future, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and heavily support and sustain strategic economic development in the emerging "green tech" sector. The plan concluded that Florida will be significantly impacted if: the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions is not reversed; addressing climate change can present significant energy benefits; energy management can reduce energy costs; investments in sustainable energy can stimulate Florida's economy; and that market -oriented regulations can guide a low -carbon economy. Key Takeaways • Transportation is the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. • Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced through improving vehicle efficiency, shifting to more efficient fuel types, and reducing vehicle miles traveled. • Transportation planning efforts should consider reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. • Implementation of policies/strategies to include funding for non-SOV (single occupant vehicles) modes of travel. 4.3 Florida Electric Vehicle Roadmap Executive Report (2020) Examines the current state and future needs of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across Florida. The report highlights the critical role of EVs in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving public health, outlines gaps in charging infrastructure, and provides recommendations for site selection, planning, and regulatory improvements. It also addresses specific challenges, such as rural and underserved community access, emergency evacuation needs, and aging infrastructure. The roadmap emphasizes the importance of collaboration among public, private, and state entities to support the transition to electric transportation. Key Takeaways • Identifies the need to address gaps in charging infrastructure and to upgrade existing chargers. • Recommends temporary charging solutions for emergencies. • Education and incentives are necessary to increase support for EV implementation. • Collaboration among governments, businesses, and utility providers is important for successful implementation of EV infrastructure. 4.4 FDOT EV Infrastructure Master Plan (2021) The Master Plan details a comprehensive course of action to efficiently and effectively provide EV charging infrastructure, supporting the goals of F.S. 339.287. This document serves as a starting point for both public and private entities to become familiar with the challenges and opportunities associated with EV charging infrastructure. It also serves as a guide for future legislative, agency -level and public engagement efforts. By advancing the use of EVs to improve air quality and foster economic development by encouraging the expansion of the labor force to support EV infrastructure, this Master Plan also supports the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP). The EVMP supports opportunities to lower the total cost of vehicle ownership per household and enhances transportation equity. The primary objectives of the EVMP include: support short-range and long-range EV travel as well as emergency 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 4-7 Page 87 of 229 evacuation in the state; adapt state highway infrastructure consistent with market demand; ensure availability of adequate and reliable EV charging stations. Key Takeaways • Charging a transit bus will require an electric grid with an output between 150kW - 350kW • About 5 megawatts (MW) of power will be required to support 30-35 150kW chargers, which would support a 100-bus depot on a daily basis. • The most common method of vehicle charging comes from on -site chargers; enroute charging is also used to extend bus range and improve operations where beneficial. • Multiple buses may be necessary to run routes traditionally run by diesel, depending on battery size and charging strategy. 4.5 CAT Transit Development Plan Major Update (2020) and Annual Progress Report (2024) The Transit Development Plan (TDP) is a 10-year plan for transit and mobility needs, cost and revenue projections, and community transit goals, objectives, and policies. The TDP major update occurs every five years with annual updates outlining progress the transit agency has made over the past year in achieving the goals and objectives identified in the last major update. CAT is currently updating the TDP for adoption later in 2025. Key Takeaways • Supports CAT transition to cleaner, alt-fuel vehicles. • Establishes need for EV charging infrastructure to be used as vehicle chargers as well as public emergency generators during disasters. • Explores solar energy as source for EV and operations of transit facility. • Identifies previous and ongoing CAT grant funding for EV acquisition as well as assumptions on future funding availability. 4.6 Collier County Comprehensive Plan (2023) The Collier County Comprehensive Plan emphasizes creating a safe, efficient, and sustainable multimodal transportation system while protecting natural and coastal resources. The Transportation Element focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through improved traffic circulation, mixed land -use zoning, and enhanced pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit options. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element prioritizes climate adaptation and resiliency, with strategies to address flooding, storm surge, and sea -level rise while conserving water, energy, and biodiversity. Both elements encourage sustainable development and infrastructure improvements to support long-term environmental and community health. Key Takeaways • Transportation strategies include reducing vehicular trips, supporting transit/active transportation, and compliance with statewide goals and objectives. • Calls for integration between local efforts and regional planning agencies. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 4-8 Page 88 of 229 • Long term climate resilience through monitoring sea -level rise, low -emission travel infrastructure, and sustainable land use. • Emphasizes a balanced approach to development and environmental stewardship for enhanced community resilience and sustainability. 4.7 City of Naples Critical Assets and Facilities Adaptation Plan (2024) Outlines strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate hazards, particularly flooding and extreme heat. The plan builds upon prior vulnerability assessments and identifies critical infrastructure, community facilities, and natural and cultural resources that require adaptation. Strategies are categorized into tiers based on priority, with actions ranging from policy updates to infrastructure projects. The plan emphasizes community and stakeholder engagement, as well as regional partnerships, to ensure effective implementation and resiliency enhancement. Key Takeaways • Ranks 47 strategies into high, medium, and low priority for addressing climate risks. • Focuses on urgent needs to reduce the negative effects of weather events, such as flooding and extreme heat. • Combines physical infrastructure upgrades with policy updates. • Community input identified flooding as the greatest concern. • Aims to secure funding, protect health, and enhance the city's resiliency and livability aspects. 4.8 LeeTran FTA Bus Low- and No -Emission Grant Award (2022) In 2022, FTA announced $1.66 billion in grants to transit agencies, territories and states across the U.S. to invest in bus fleets and facilities. Majority of funded projects use zero -emissions technology, which reduces air pollution. LeeTran, as one of the recipients of this grant, received nearly $3.9 million in funding for new battery electric buses, replacing diesel hybrid vehicles at the end of their useful life. Key Takeaways • Awarded $3.9 million for LeeTran to purchase battery electric buses. • Includes additional charging infrastructure. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 4-9 Page 89 of 229 5 UTILITY PROVIDER COORDINATION The transition to electric vehicles within CAT's fleet requires the development of electric charging infrastructure as well as an overall greater use of the local power grid. To better understand the amount of electricity and its associated infrastructure needed when working towards the electrification of the CAT fleet, communication with Florida Power & Light (FPL) and the Lee County Electric Cooperative (LCEC) was established. The goal of communicating with these electricity providers is vital in gathering information regarding necessary infrastructure upgrades, in -route charging options, planning level -cost estimates, and future maintenance requests. FPL's Power Distribution Group focuses on larger, commercial industry projects within the Collier County area. This group may work with CAT in developing their site for possible projects that would develop the capacity for on -site EV charging. Currently, the FPL Distribution Group is conducting an internal site review of the Collier Area Transit Administration Office at 8300 Radio Road, Naples, Florida 34104 to determine their local grid's capacity and availability to grow. Continued communication with FPL will provide CAT options for the establishment of EV charging on -site through the local power grid. Future expansion of charging needs at the administration office will require a larger transformer to ensure sufficient power to meet the needs. The current site review is intended to provide direction regarding the timing of this need, in terms of number of chargers, and the maximum need for converting the entire fleet to battery electric buses. The agency will report any determinations from further evaluations beyond the scope of this plan as these take place. 5.1 FPL EVolution FPL's Evolution program provides comprehensive EV charging at residential and commercial levels. While the program is designed primarily for personal vehicles, fast charging and level 2 charging infrastructure can be provided, which may be used in the overnight charging of an EV bus or support vehicles. The EVolution Fleet program was created for commercial businesses to electrify their fleets. The program provides public fast charging stations at no cost, charging the driver of the EV based on the amount of electricity used for charging. 5.2 Facility Analysis CAT has developed a site plan to include EV charging infrastructure at their administrative office. Figure 5-1 highlights where the infrastructure will be located on the site. According to the plan, two new battery storage units will be installed on the west side of the site and are highlighted in a yellow circle. CAT also plans on retrofitting two of its current bus parking spaces to include EV charging stations, which may be used during buses' downtime to refuel the vehicle. The location of these spaces on the site is highlighted in a red circle. Overall, these electric infrastructure upgrades do not hinder the ability of the site, as the batteries are out of the way of vehicular traffic and CAT currently provides its vehicles with ample parking. In addition to the administrative office, CAT also has transfer facilities located in Immokalee and at the Government Center. Assessment of these facilities was not included at this time. Scenarios developed for the transition plan contemplated in -route charging at these transfer facilities, but were not included in the recommendation. Future decisions regarding in -route charging would require review of each location and the opportunities for adding charging infrastructure for battery electric buses. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 5-1 Page 90 of 229 e 9� a 'a SSEB S 888 -=-RF AA I \ I 1 I I I I i N Lo C cu a c U)0 r_ N U_ L N C O Ln E W O L N m N N O m N (6 d ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEASIBILITY This section presents the findings of a comprehensive feasibility analysis conducted to evaluate the potential implementation of ZEVs and other alternative fuel vehicles within CAT's current transit network. The analysis includes a detailed assessment of fixed -route bus operations, demand -response paratransit operations, and equipment or support vehicle services. By modeling weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service levels, the analysis explores the operational feasibility of battery electric, hydrogen, hybrid electric, and compressed natural gas vehicles. Specific emphasis has been placed on evaluating battery electric vehicles under nominal and strenuous energy demand scenarios, while also considering factors such as battery degradation over the lifecycle of the vehicle. This analysis aims to provide actionable insights into how fuel alternatives may align with CAT's operational needs and network requirements. Key considerations include the feasibility of vehicle block schedules, the potential addition of mid -route or off -site charging infrastructure, and the number of vehicles required to maintain efficient operations. The findings will support decision -making regarding the transition to a ZEV fleet, with the ultimate goal of achieving sustainable and efficient transit solutions. 6.1 Baseline Data CAT provides service throughout Collier County through a total of 16 bus routes: 12 fixed routes, three circulators, and one express route. Fixed route service is provided seven days a week by CAT along with paratransit services through CATConnect for ADA clients and Transportation Disadvantaged clients. The following information was provided by CAT Staff to understand service provision, fleet size and other data that will help generate an understanding of the feasibility of introducing alternative fuel vehicles. 6.1.1 Fleet CAT owns a fleet of 69 vehicles composed of revenue (rolling stock) and non -revenue (equipment) vehicles. Table 6-1 summarizes CAT's current fleet composition by asset class and number of vehicles. TABLE 6-1 : CAT FLEET SUMMARY Asset Class Fixed Route Number of Vehicles 30 Demand Response 33 Rolling Stock Total 63 Support (Equipment) Total 6 TOTAL FLEET SIZE 69 The following section describes the fleet by asset class with considerations regarding vehicle lengths, fuel types, and purchase years, as well as replacement period policies. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-1 Page 92 of 229 6.1.1.1 Fixed Route At the time of this study, CAT's fixed route consisted of the following vehicles which are split into vehicle lengths and fuel types. The fixed route fleet is composed of 30-foot, 35-foot, and 40-foot buses. In total, CAT has 30 buses for fixed route service, with five additional buses currently in procurement. CAT's current fixed route fleet is largely made up of diesel buses, although CAT has experience with one hybrid diesel-electric bus and a new battery electric bus. Table 6-2 presents the fixed route fleet by fuel type as well as vehicle lengths. Table 6-3 presents the purchase year of the various buses in CAT's fleet. The largest purchases were made in 2022 and 2012, with six and five vehicles in each year respectively. TABLE 6-2: FIXED ROUTE FLEET BY FUEL TYPE AND VEHICLE LENGTH Vehicle Length Diesel Gasoline Battery Electric Total *In Procurement **Two in Procurement TABLE 6-3: FIXED ROUTE FLEET BY FUEL TYPE AND PURCHASE YEAR Purchase Year 2025 Diesel 4* Gasoline 0 Battery Electric 1* Total 5* 2024 1 0 0 1 2023 4 0 0 4 2022 6 0 0 6 2020 0 2 0 2 2019 1 0 0 1 2018 1 0 0 1 2017 4 0 0 4 2016 3 0 0 3 2015 1 0 0 1 2014 2 0 0 2 2012 5 0 0 5 Total 32 2 1 35 *In Procurement CAT follows FTA and FDOT's Minimum Useful Life guidelines for the replacement of its vehicles: CAT replaces its 30-foot buses every 10 years, and its larger 40-foot buses every 12 years. CAT regularly evaluates its rolling stock's maintenance records to determine if a bus needs to be replaced, including if the bus has reached the indicated minimum replacement mileage, which would be 350,000 miles for the 30-foot buses or 500,000 miles for the 35-foot and 40-foot buses. For this analysis, the assumptions are based on the minimum useful years, but this does not preclude CAT from replacing vehicles as needed. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-2 Page 93 of 229 Based on these assumptions, CAT's current fixed route fleet is expected to be replaced as indicated in Table 6-4. The information in this table is important in building a replacement schedule that strategically moves CAT towards its vision for a low and zero -emission future. TABLE 6-4: ESTIMATED FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE Replacement Yr. 2037 Diesel 2 Gasoline 0 Battery Electric 1 Total 3 2036 1 0 0 1 2035 2 0 0 2 2034 1 0 0 1 2033 4 0 0 4 2032 5 0 0 5 2031 0 0 0 0 2030 0 2 0 2 2029 1 0 0 1 2028 3 0 0 3 2027 5 0 0 5 2026 3 0 0 3 2025 0 0 0 0 2024 5 0 0 5 2023 0 0 0 0 Total 32 2 1 35 6.1.1.2 Demand Response At the time of this study, CAT's demand response fleet consists primarily of 23-foot cutaway buses, with a handful of either 24-foot or 17-foot buses. In total, CAT has 33 cutaway buses for demand response service, with four additional vehicles currently in procurement. CAT's current demand response fleet is largely fueled by gasoline, with a number of diesel -fueled cutaways. All six diesel cutaways are 23 feet in length. Table 6-5 presents information regarding the demand response fleet by fuel type and vehicle lengths. Table 6-6 presents the purchase year of the various cutaways in CAT's fleet. The largest purchases were made in 2019 and 2020, with eight and seven vehicles each year. TABLE 6-5: DEMAND RESPONSE FLEET BY FUEL TYPE AND VEHICLE LENGTH Vehicle Length Diesel 0 Gasoline Total 0 � 0 � 0 * In Procurement jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-3 Page 94 of 229 TABLE 6-6: DEMAND RESPONSE FLEET BY FUEL TYPE AND PURCHASE YEAR 2025 Diesel 0 Gasoline 4* Total 4* 2024 0 3 3 2021 0 6 6 2020 0 7 7 2019 4 4 8 2018 0 4 4 2016 2 2 4 2012 0 1 1 Total 6 31 37 * In Procurement CAT follows FTA and FDOT's Minimum Useful Life guidelines for the replacement of its cutaways from its fleet every 5 years, regardless of vehicle length. CAT regularly evaluates its cutaway's maintenance records to determine if they need to be replaced, including if the cutaway has reached the indicated minimum replacement mileage, which would be 200,000. For this analysis, the assumptions are based on the minimum useful years, but this does not preclude CAT from replacing vehicles as needed Following CAT's vehicle replacement guidelines, the current demand response fleet is expected to be replaced as indicated in Table 6-7. This information is useful in building a replacement schedule that strategically phases out conventional fuel vehicles, such as diesel and gasoline, for alternative fuel vehicles. The table does not reflect all vehicles that will be replaced since some will not be replaced until they have met the minimum replacement mileage. Additionally, some vehicles were not replaced at the desired time due to delays in the supply chain during COVID-19. TABLE 6-7: ESTIMATED DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE Diesel Gasoline Total � 0 6.1.1.3 Support Vehicles CAT operates a total of six support vehicles, all of which are gasoline fueled. Support vehicles include one sedan automobile, one sports utility vehicle (SUV), two minivans, and two pickup trucks. Two support vehicles were purchased in 2016, one in 2017 and three in 2018. Following FTA's minimum useful life policy of five years, however, asset management rules are generally less stringent about the useful life of support vehicles since they are not in revenue service. Additionally, it takes support vehicles a longer time to accumulate enough mileage before replacement is needed. CAT will be replacing its two minivans for two electric SUVs in the near future, both of which were purchased in 2018. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-4 Page 95 of 229 6.1.2 Fixed Routes and Service Blocks CAT provides fixed route transit services across Collier County on 16 routes. Map 6-1 presents the geographical coverage of CAT's fixed route system. Services generally cover the western, urban and suburban sectors of Collier County, including Naples, Marco Island, Pelican Bay, Golden Gate, North Naples, and other communities. Another set of routes and circulators serve Immokalee and Ave Maria which are in the northeastern portions of Collier County. Direct connections to Immokalee are provided by Route 19 to Collier County Government Center in Naples, and by Route 121 to Marco Island. MAP 6-1: CAT ROUTES _ 1 Immokalee CAT Routes — Route 27 Le Corkscrew Route 25 Swamp Sanctuary - Route 24 - — Route 22/23 — Route 21/121 Ave — Route 20 Maria — Route 19 — Route 17 — Route 16 — Route 15 Pelican — Route 14 Bay — Route 13 Route 12 Golden — Route 11 Gate Managed Land Naples Federal Collier Local Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve State Lei Park Private esort Municipality Water Picayune Strand Slate Forest = Preserve Rookery Bay -_ National EStuari =i - Research Rescr Collier -Seminole State park Marco Ten Thousand N Island Islands National Wildlife Refuge _ 0 2 4 S (Niles Everglades National Park --- Source: Collier Area Transit Table 6-8 presents a profile of each CAT Route, identified by the numerical route designation along with a description of where these routes operate, service type, and route length. The table also includes a brief route profile, which subjectively categorizes each route by describing the level of land use intensity as well as traffic along main corridors. Land use categories include urban (mainly serving incorporated areas), suburban (entering, leaving, or straddling incorporated areas), or rural (passes through primarily unincorporated areas between destinations). Traffic categories are O benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-5 Page 96 of 229 determined based on the primary level of vehicular traffic on each route's corridors, which includes low (traveling on roads with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) less than 20,000), medium (primarily on corridors with AADT between 20,000 - 40,000), and high traffic (primarily on corridors with AADT of greater than 40,000). It also establishes routes which travel to destinations outside of the greater Naples urban area long-distance as commuter routes. TABLE 6-8: CAT ROUTE PROFILES 11 US 41 to Creekside Commerce Park Fixed 27.6 mi Suburban/High Traffic 12 Airport Road to Creekside Commerce Park• Fixed 31.4 mi Suburban/Medium Traffic 13 NCH & Coastland Center Mall Fixed 17.4 mi Urban/High Traffic 14 Bayshore Drive to Coastland Fixed 15.7 mi Urban/High Traffic Mall 15 Golden Gate City (Santa Fixed 28.3 mi Urban/Medium Traffic Barbara) 16 Golden Gate City (Santa Fixed 42.2 mi Urban/Medium Traffic Barbara) 17 Rattlesnake to FSW Fixed 23.6 mi Suburban/Medium Traffic 19/19X Golden Gate Estates and Fixed 40.4 mi Suburban/Low Immokalee Traffic/Commuter 20 Pine Ridge Road Fixed 29.2 mi Urban/High Traffic 21 Marco Island Circulator Circulator 37.4 mi Urban/Low Traffic 22 Immokalee Circulator Circulator 22.2 mi Urban/Low Traffic 23 Immokalee Circulator Circulator 22.2 mi Urban/Low Traffic 24 US 41 to Charlee Estates Fixed 30.1 mi** 17.6 mi*** Suburban/Medium Traffic 25 Golden Gate Pkwy & Goodlette-Frank Fixed 30.2 mi Urban/High Traffic 27 Immokalee Road Fixed 32.1 mi Suburban/Medium Traffic 121 Immokalee to Marco Island Express 134.6 mi Suburban/Low Express Traffic/Commuter * Represents the total inbound and outbound route lengths ** Represents the long route configuration *** Represents the short route configuration The Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan requires evaluating the feasibility of alternative fuel vehicles within existing operations. This assessment must consider not only route profiles but, more importantly, the number of trips a single bus completes on a route or a combination of routes, as determined by the agency's operations unit, referred to as a block. A service block, vehicle block, or simply, a block, is a group of scheduled trips assigned to a single vehicle. These blocks are subject to the organization of the service provider and may follow a single route or may be split among multiple different routes. Blocks are designed with careful consideration for the number of available vehicles in a fleet, the maximum hours a driver can operate a bus, and miles before refueling, among other things. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-6 Page 97 of 229 To conduct this study, it is essential to determine the number of blocks CAT operates and the total miles a vehicle travels per block, including both revenue miles and deadhead miles. CAT currently operates weekday service on 16 routes using 21 vehicle blocks. Four of these blocks are paired, with each pair served by a single vehicle. The operating hours for each block vary across weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, with some blocks not running on one or both weekend days. On Saturdays,17 of the 21 blocks are in service, while 13 blocks operate on Sundays. Table 6-9 presents the number of blocks in service by day and by vehicle length. Vehicle length is a key consideration for battery electric buses, as each length corresponds to a different battery capacity. This variation requires distinct assumptions when analyzing energy needs and operational feasibility. TABLE 6-9: FIXED ROUTE SERVICE BLOCKS BY DAY OF WEEK AND VEHICLE LENGTH Vehicle Length Weekday Saturday Sunday Figure 6-1 illustrates the distribution of block lengths in miles for each day of operation. On weekdays, most blocks fall between 100 and 300 miles, with two exceeding this range. Saturday blocks are generally longer, primarily ranging from 150 to 300 miles, with one block extending just over 500 miles. Sunday blocks are the shortest, typically between 100 and 250 miles. A general reference on electric vehicle feasibility range is added at around 125 miles as a quick reference to understand the distribution of blocks that may feasibly be served by battery electric buses. FIGURE 6-1: DISTRIBUTION OF BLOCK LENGTHS FOR EACH SERVICE DAY 500 400 o)300 m J U m 200 Max Feasibility Range 100 11 • i • Weekday • • Saturday i • Sunday benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-7 Page 98 of 229 CAT service blocks are assigned simple integer identifiers ranging from 1 to 22, excluding Block 14 which is used for route maintenance purposes. Collectively, weekday blocks cover approximately 4,423 miles, including deadhead miles, and covering over 231 hours of total service, which accounts for deadhead and layover time. Table 2-2 presents a comprehensive overview of service blocks, assigned routes, vehicle lengths, and operational details by day. Highlights of the operating conditions for the block schedule are listed below. WEEKDAY SERVICE Among weekday service blocks, Block 4 (assigned to Route 19) covers the longest distance at approximately 510 miles, followed by Block 10, which serves Routes 24 and 19, at around 339 miles. Route 19 is a long-distance commuter route that is nearly 50-miles long connecting Immokalee to the Collier County Government Center in Naples, contributing to Block 4's high mileage. Route 24 extends south of the government center along Tamiami Trail to Six L's Farm Road. At the other end of the spectrum, Block 21 (serving Route 20) covers the shortest distance at 82 miles, followed by Block 22 (assigned to Routes 21 and 24) at 89 miles. Route 20 primarily operates along Santa Barbara Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, while Route 21, the Marco Island Circulator, connects the Super Walmart on Collier Boulevard with Marco Island. SATURDAY SERVICE On Saturdays, service blocks cover a total of 4,015 miles over 209 hours. Block 4 remains the longest, operating the same distance and weekday schedule Route 19. The second -longest block, Block 3, is assigned to Route 19's express service and Route 11, which runs along Tamiami Trail north to Immokalee Road. The shortest Saturday block is Block 16, serving Route 22, at 162 miles, followed by Block 10. Route 22, known as the Immokalee Circulator, operates as a loop serving various points around Immokalee. SUNDAY SERVICE Sunday service covers 2,046 miles and operates for 109 hours. The longest block, Block 1, is assigned to Route 13 and covers 266 miles, followed by Block 3, which spans 230 miles. The shortest block, Block 2, runs Route 25 for 77 miles, followed by Block 5, which serves Route 16 at 98 miles. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 16-8 Page 99 of 229 U LLI J_ LL O a Y V O J m LLI _.) W N LLI H O C W X LL O LLI J m Q O (01% N � � � � M Ll) � U.) N � 0^0 N^ N N r o r O N Gl i LO O .O ON 00 CO %O M I'� ON 00 E N u) O O u) u) M M O -,0 M N O M N& O 00 Il & 00 1.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Cl 00 LO N kO M r- � � ON M �O N %O N M I- � C ^. I- . M kO M M NM r-� ON r- 00 r- ON 't M .4 CD 00 Lo Lo 00 CD ID NU-) � L1 al 00 LO 00 MOr-, EA .� 0 Ln IM M r*,N ON M N %0 N %O % N N N Ln N N N N N N N CD i ON I- M O� M M ON ,O CD L O O 00 r 3 M L!i V) � N� N LO N� N LO M LO O r, co ,O -�t N �.O M M N N m _ O O O N O ON ON M N %.O ON N I*, %D N 00 It'o 04 ^. I*, M ON %.0 ON 00 N CY% r*, CO LO ON %0 2 £ 00 '-0 � SD 00 u-)l1j 00 00 LO '-0 N a; N (Cl %n o0 LO I- r- r r %.D M M co 00 04% N %.O N r 0 N N N M N N N CY) N N � N N M i ON M'tt M O'cT M M C'% %D %D M';T O LO OIqT 00 E M u) u)f N N In O N m m m M In O .. O"t M"t r, M�t N N N E 2 � � � r--- r--- CD r-- r-- r--r- r- r-- CD r- � � � � O N U U � N \ N Q ON xLJJ o N m r, M r� , O N M t N � Q N N N N N N O' X N N LU lf� ON N fA O H ------------------- _ 0 0 o Ln Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 o Ln o 0 o Ln o 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O r NM V L1) %O I� 00 0 O � N M N %O I, 00 � N ��N N � 6.1.3 Demand Response Service Details Demand Response operations are not served by routes or blocks, rather they are served by service runs. A service run is the total miles that a vehicle operates for a specific trip on a given day. Because the nature of this type of service is not fixed but based on demand, service details are less predictable. To account for the randomness of trip lengths, a sample of CAT's daily demand response run productivity was analyzed for the month of November 2024. Table 6-11 provides a few descriptives from this data sample. TABLE 6-11: DESCRIPTIVE DATA FROM NOVEMBER 2024 OBSERVED RUNS Values Minimum Miles 35 First Quartile 166 Median 193 Average 196 Third Quartile 228 Maximum 400 Sample Size N=739 The observed trip lengths range from 35 to 400 miles, with the most frequently occurring trips falling between 166 and 228 miles. The average trip length is 196 miles. Figure 6-2 illustrates the distribution of trip runs in 25-mile intervals. The assessment compares the feasible service range to the various mileage values presented including average run, quartiles, percentiles, minimums and maximums. FIGURE 6-2: DISTRIBUTION OF OBSERVED RUNS BY TRIP LENGTHS 180 160 140 120 c 100 0 c 80 0 U 60 40 20 0 Miles 0 N=739 Source: Collier Area Transit W benesch _ ■ 1 1111 25 50 75 100 125 150 1, - - '5 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-10 Page 101 of 229 6.1.4 Equipment/Support Mileage Details Support vehicles are operated as needed, with each serving a distinct function, resulting in varying mileages across the support vehicle fleet. Data from the observed FY 24 mileage report for each vehicle is available, however, there is a lack of more detailed information such as daily vehicle usage data, which makes predicting service details for these vehicles challenging. A set of conservative mileage estimates were developed to assess the feasibility of electric vehicles replacing the current support vehicle fleet. First, an estimated average daily mileage value is needed, which is the observed FY 24 mileage for each vehicle, divided by the number of service days (359), assuming operation of these vehicles occurred every day except for holidays. Since actual daily mileage is assumed to be random, a value resembling the estimated maximum daily mileage was necessary for a robust feasibility analysis. To determine this, daily mileage values over the year were assumed to follow a normal distribution. The assumption takes that a value approximately one standard deviation from the mean encompasses a significant portion of the observed travel. Given the absence of a calculated standard deviation in the dataset, the empirical rule was applied, which assumes that one standard deviation is roughly 50% of the average value. Given these assumptions, the assumed maximum daily mileage is expressed as follows: Estimated Maximum = Average + (1 X (0.5 X Average)) which is also 1.5 X Average The resulting estimated maximum values used in the feasibility analysis are indicated for each vehicle in Table 6-12. TABLE 6-12: MILEAGE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR EACH VEHICLE CC2-2106 Minivan 21,975 59.6 89.3 CC2-2107 Minivan 20,625 55.9 83.8 CC2-2019 SUV 5,102 13.8 20.7 CC2-1553 Sedan 5,972 16.2 24.3 CC2-1662 Pickup Truck 24,222 65.6 98.5 CC2-1402 Pickup Truck 20,100 54.5 81.7 6.1.5 Facilities and Infrastructure CAT operates seven key facilities throughout Collier County, serving as important stops or transfer stations. The largest of these include the CAT Operations and Transfer Station, which serves as the bus depot, the Intermodal Transfer Facility at the Collier County Government Center in Naples, and the future CAT Transfer Facility in Immokalee. Table 6-13 shows the names and location of CAT's various facilities. When incorporating electric vehicles into a fleet, potential locations for charging infrastructure must be carefully evaluated. Charging site selection should consider service operations across the transit system, prioritizing layover points and locations where multiple routes converge for at least five minutes as strategic recharging hubs. Additionally, a spatial analysis should be conducted to determine optimal placement for charging infrastructure and necessary electrical system expansions. While CAT 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-11 Page 102 of 229 has identified seven transfer locations for its services, only three of these facilities are owned by Collier County, where the introduction of electric infrastructure could be facilitated. The three county owned facilities include the CAT Operations and Transfer Station, the Intermodal Transfer Facility at the Government Center, and the future CAT Transfer Facility in Immokalee. Map 6-2 through Map 6-4 indicate the location of these transfer facilities and the routes that have an established layover of at least five minutes at each location. TABLE 6-13: CAT DEPOT AND TRANSFER FACILITY LOCATIONS Depot• •• ID Address CAT Operations and Transfer Station 161 8300 Radio Rd, Naples, FL 34104 Intermodal Transfer Facility (Government Center) 1 3355 Tamiami Trail E, Naples, FL 34112 CAT Transfer Facility - Immokalee 398 155 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, FL 34142 Creekside (Immokalee Rd.) 66 Immokalee Rd / Arthrex Way - North Naples, FL 34108 Walmart Plaza (US41 / CR951) 235 6650 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34114 Magnolia Square Plaza (Pine Ridge 471 5920 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples, FL 34109 and Goodlette Frank Rd.) Coastland Center 50 Fleischmann Blvd, Naples FL 34102 Source: Collier Area Transit Examining these locations can help in strategizing both slow and fast charging approaches for electric vehicles and can provide understanding for which locations would have a higher demand for charging infrastructure. 4 benesch MAP 6-2: ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT CATIS OPERATIONS CENTER 1 I inmokaI,n CAT Routes LC Ave Maria Pelican - Bay Golden Gate Naples Collier akeAarm�5lfana � Preserve SW to � Lely Palk P esort -\ - w�aw�e sterna — Sl Rookery Bay \ National Eat�efl e Research R6e e Collier-Semirnle S�ta[e aF Marco r amo�ea�a N _ island [Rands Nadoaal '-_ Wild re Refuse —� . O UT Cps — Route 20 Route 19 Managed Land Federal Loral State Private Municipality Water sly cvv,,,, rvaz�onal P�eservi 0 2 A 8 Miles I I I Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-12 Page 103 of 229 MAP 6-3: ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER INTERMODAL TRANSFER FACILITY \ Immokalee CAT Routes O CAT Govt Center Le areurew zwar,P � Route 24 se.�:.�r.l —Route 19 — Route 17 Route 16 Ave — Route Is Maria Route 14 Route 13 Route 12 Route 11 Percan Managed Land Bay Federal Local Golden state Gate Private Naples - Municipality Collier rakohatchna water Preserre Slatetete Lei Park esort stTaaa — Natiprni - State For— Prexrvc Rookery Bay - — - � Natlonal ESNarI e Research Rese a - -- ' — — Co311er-Semimfe _ Stale Raa� -March -.•: renmg�und N island - ,. Islands Natoaal _ ... wild;& ReR,ge - � 0 �....-.I 2 A 8 Miles Everglades I k Natlonal Pare — MAP 6-4: ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT THE IMMOKALEE TRANSFER FACILITY Immokalee CAT Routes OCAT Immokalee Le Cork rew swamp — Route 22/23 Managed land Federal - Ave Local - Maria state Private Municipality Water Pelican Bay C,olden Gate Naples - Collier " P,,;._ Le1y �k ,Resort Rookery Bay rvannnal Em,an . e. Res°arrh Rme CONer-Semmwle� Stare Parts -, - Marco raa Th.—d \ N _ island „ 151dna5 NdrlPnal WIIdiRe Refuge --__ 0 � ...I 2 4 8 Miles I l Ever9lads Naygnal PaM ' benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-13 Page 104 of 229 6.2 Feasibility Analysis Assumptions The following section outlines the assumptions used in the feasibility analysis, focusing particularly on those related to battery electric buses, which require special consideration. Assumptions for other fuel alternatives are addressed subsequently. 6.2.1 Battery Electric Assumptions and Considerations The battery electric bus analysis evaluates the feasibility of transit operations considering multiple factors at the same time. Battery Electric Vehicles are susceptible to a few challenges in operation due to their low travel range output from a full charge compared to the experience of agencies with vehicles operating on conventional fuels such as gasoline or diesel which provide a longer range. Additionally, strenuous service conditions such as heavy loads, elevated terrains, and hot or cold weather, have adverse impacts over the energy output, limiting the range of operations that are actually able to be served. Moreover, batteries are known to experience degradation over time due to recharging cycles. This additional factor can have impacts over the expectation of service operations of a bus in its later years or may trigger the need to purchase a new battery. These factors are examined further in the following discussion. 6.2.1.1 Nominal and Strenuous Conditions The battery electric bus analysis evaluates the feasibility of transit operations under two conditions, Nominal and Strenuous. These two conditions reflect the impact that external conditions may have on energy consumption. Energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per mile (kWh/mi, analogous to miles per gallons, mpg) as a way to understand energy efficiency. Additionally, the auxiliary power is also evaluated. While an alternator in diesel buses is responsible for recharging the battery that powers auxiliary systems in those vehicles, there is generally no such system to support the auxiliary power in a battery electric bus. Therefore, auxiliary power is drawn from the same battery that powers the bus for propulsion, adding to the total consumption of energy drawn from the battery. Assumptions for vehicle energy consumption and auxiliary power are detailed in Table 6-14 in both nominal and strenuous conditions. Assumptions were developed for the average battery electric bus operating on terrains and climates similar to those in Collier County. These assumptions are used in the model for all vehicle lengths. Assumptions will specify the vehicle types they apply to. "Fixed Route" (FR) will generally refer to all buses, but when a specific vehicle length is indicated (e.g., "30' FR"), it applies only to buses of that specific length. All cutaways will be designated as "Demand Response" (DR), regardless of length. Assumptions for the support/equipment fleet will be categorized separately by vehicle type, such as minivans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), or pickup trucks and may be jointly be described as Electric Vehicles (EV). 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-14 Page 105 of 229 TABLE 6-14: NOMINAL AND STRENUOUS ASSUMPTIONS FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES . Variable Description . . Nominal Energy Energy required to operate the vehicle under 1.85 kWh/mi for all FIR Consumption nominal conditions 0.9 kWh/mi for all DR Strenuous Energy Energy required to operate the vehicle under 2.14 kWh/mi for all FIR Consumption strenuous conditions 1.0 kWh/mi for all DR Nominal Auxiliary The amount of power needed to operate 6.5 kW for all FIR Power auxiliary systems under nominal conditions 3.2 kW for all DR Strenuous The amount of power needed to operate 27 kW for all FIR Auxiliary Power auxiliary systems under strenuous conditions 13.1 for all DR 6.2.1.2 Battery Utility and Degradation The analysis also considers the impact of battery utility and degradation on the operational capabilities of battery electric buses. It has been observed that the nominal energy capacity labeled on a battery does not account for the energy that can be used reliably. A certain amount of energy is reserved for internal battery use, reducing the usable energy to a figure lower than the stipulated total battery energy. Additionally, the feasibility model considers an additional reserve energy of 20 kWh, which acts as a safety net for buses to travel in cases of emergency or unexpected circumstances. Moreover, battery degradation has also been observed over the years of battery usage. This degradation is responsible for the slow decrease in battery capacity over time. Experience of use suggests that batteries have a 10-year useful life and that within this period, the battery's original energy capacity is reduced by 20%, giving an annual average degradation rate of 2%. Higher rates of degradation can be mitigated by proper battery recharging protocol, which will be discussed in another section. Table 6-15 presents the assumptions regarding battery degradation and reserve energy used in the model. Additionally, the table reports the nominal (or total) battery energy for each bus length based on vehicle models available in the market in 2024, as well as the amount of usable energy available, and service energy for each vehicle. These battery capacities are presented in kWh and are also modeled for a new battery scenario in analysis year 2025, and in the end -of -life year 2035 considering the full impact of battery degradation over the years. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-15 Page 106 of 229 TABLE 6-15: BATTERY LIFE AND DEGRADATION ASSUMPTIONS VariableDescription Assum• • % of Original Percentage of the original battery's capacity that is useable 80% Capacity at the end of battery life Useful Life of The number of years of a battery's useful lifecycle 10 years Battery Annual Degradation The annual Rate of Battery Degradation -2% Estimated energy required to travel approximately 10 miles Reserve Energy to the depot from an on -route location; a "safety net" to 20 kWh for all FIR(kWh) ensure the bus can return to the depot if a bus experiences 9 kWh for all DR an issue on -route, causing it to use more energy than expected. New Battery Scenario (2025) 30' FR: 350 kWh Total Battery Energy (kWh) The total energy contained in the battery upon purchase 35' FR: 420 kWh 40' FR: 500 kWh DR: 113 kWh 30': 280 kWh Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from a new battery 35': 336 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop 40': 400 kWh DR: 90 kWh Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service for "Reserve 30' FR: 260 kWh 35, FR: 316 kWh (kWh) buses with new batteries ("Useable Energy" minus 40' FR: 380 kWh Energy") DR: 81 kWh End of Life Battery Scenario (2035) 30' FR: 286 kWh Total Battery The total energy contained in the battery at the end of 35' FR: 344 kWh Energy (kWh) battery life 40' FR: 409 kWh DR: 93 kWh 30' FR: 229 kWh Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery 35' FR: 275 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop 40' FR: 327 kWh DR: 74 kWh 30' FR: 209 kWh Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service 35' FR: 255 kWh (kWh) (Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy) 40' FR: 307 kWh DR: 65 kWh 6.2.1.3 Battery Improvement Although battery electric vehicles may currently seem limited in their ability to directly replace conventional fuel vehicles, ongoing research and development aimed at improving battery capacity is making this replacement more achievable each year. Studies show that battery capacity has increased by about 7% annually since 2012, with this rate accelerating as new technologies emerge. For this analysis, a 3.5% annual improvement in battery capacity was used to project which service blocks benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-16 Page 107 of 229 might become feasible over the next 10 years. Total, usable, and service energy data for each vehicle length are provided in Table 6-16 for the model years 2030 and 2035. CAT has procured an electric Gillig bus which at the time of this writing is being built. Notably, the bus has a significantly higher capacity than the average electric bus models available in the current market. Additional analysis based on a 686 kWh battery capacity was conducted, and the results are included in Appendix D. TABLE 6-16: BATTERY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS Variable Annual Battery The annual rate of battery capacity improvements due to Capacity increased research and development in the industry over the +3.5% Improvement current year's energy assumptions 2030 Battery Improvement Scenario 30' FR: 416 kWh Total Battery The total energy contained in the battery 35' FR: 499 kWh Energy (kWh) 40 FR: 594 kWh DR: 110 kWh 30' FR: 326 kWh Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery 35' FR: 399 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop 40' FR: 475 kWh DR: 88 kWh 30' FR: 306 kWh Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service 35' FR: 379 kWh (kWh) (Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy) 40' FR: 455 kWh DR: 79 kWh 2035 Battery Improvement Scenario 30' FR: 495 kWh Total Battery The total energy contained in the battery 35' FR: 592 kWh Energy (kWh) 40' FR: 706 kWh DR: 130 kWh 30' FR: 396 kWh Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery 35' FR: 474 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop 40' FR: 565 kWh DR: 104 kWh 30' FR: 376 kWh Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service 35' FR: 454 kWh (kWh) (Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy) 40' FR: 545 kWh DR: 95 kWh 6.2.2 Other Fuel Alternatives Assessing the operational capacity of alternative fuel vehicles is generally less challenging than evaluating battery electric vehicles. Unlike battery electric vehicles, the performance of vehicles using other fuel types does not degrade significantly over their lifecycle and is more predictable. While external factors such as load, terrain, application scenarios, and climate do affect these vehicles, their impact is not as pronounced as it is for battery electric vehicles. Furthermore, refueling alternative fuel benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-17 Page 108 of 229 vehicles is typically a more straightforward and simple process, enabling these vehicles to cover greater distances without significant downtime for recharging or refueling. 6.2.2.1 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Bus (FCEB) Hydrogen buses operate with very limited impacts to service. Factors that can influence a FCEB include passenger load, terrain, and the efficiency of the fuel cell. A FCEB requires 10 to 20 minutes for refueling, making it easy to introduce into operations. The range of a FCEB is about 250 miles, which will be used as an assumption on vehicle range in the feasibility analysis. 6.2.2.2 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) CNG buses operate with limited impacts to service. Factors that impact fuel efficiency include passenger load, terrain, and importantly, driving patterns. Urban stop -and -go routes have a reduced range compared to highway or long drives. CNG buses can be applied more efficiently over suburban routes with less stop -and -go conditions, but not long commuter routes. A CNG bus requires about 10 to 20 minutes for refueling, making it easy to introduce into operations. The range of a CNG bus is about 400 miles. 6.2.2.3 Biodiesel Biodiesel fuel is very much a direct substitute to diesel experiencing the same impacts to fuel efficiency that diesel buses do. Biodiesel fueled buses experience a slightly lower range due to the reduced energy density of biofuel compared to diesel, but the difference may be negligible. The most important consideration for a biodiesel fueled bus is that it may perform less efficiently in cold climates when no additives are introduced into the biodiesel mix since this fuel tends to coagulate in colder temperatures. The range of a bus running on biodiesel fuel is 475 miles. 6.2.2.4 Hybrid Diesel -Electric Hybrid Diesel -Electric buses also act as a substitute for diesel with limited impacts to service. The Hybrid bus operates best in urban stop -and -go environments due to regenerative braking maximizing the efficiency of the bus. As such, the longest ranges are experienced in these urban settings, and less in highway settings. The hybrid battery will also play a role in efficiency but may be negligible if well maintained during the vehicle's useful life cycle. The range of a hybrid diesel electric bus is 525 miles. Table 6-17 presents a summary of alternative fuel vehicle range assumptions used for the feasibility study. The assumptions only consider a quarter tank equivalent of reserve fuel for each vehicle in case of any emergency. Additionally, the total vehicle ranges are also considered for each vehicle type, as presented in the previous discussion. Assumptions are made for both fixed route buses and demand response cutaways. If an alternative fuel type configuration is not in the market for demand response vehicles, these are excluded from the analysis as not available or "NA." The metric used to assess feasibility is the assumed service range which is simply the difference between the total vehicle range for each vehicle type, and the fuel reserve assumption that is applied to all vehicle types. Table 6-18 outlines additional qualitative factors considered during the feasibility assessment. These factors complement the route profile evaluations by offering strategic insights into the most suitable fuel alternative for each service block. While these considerations are particularly important when developing recommendations for Low or Zero -Emission transition strategies or scenarios, they do not preclude the use of alternative fuel vehicles on blocks that may not fully align with these factors. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-18 Page 109 of 229 TABLE 6-17: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE RANGE ASSUMPTIONS Variable Description The policy of having a fuel reserve for vehicles as a "safety net" to 25% or'i4 Tank Fuel Reserve ensure the bus can return to the All Fuel Types Equivalent depot if a bus experiences an issue on -route requiring added fuel. Hydrogen FCEB 250 miles for FR NA for DR Estimated maximum range of travel CNG 400 miles for FR Total Vehicle for all buses on a full tank or 275 miles for DR Range equivalent for each respective fuel Biodiesel 475 miles for FR type 350 miles for DR Hybrid Diesel -Electric 525 miles for FR NA for DR Hydrogen FCEB 188 miles for FR NA for DR Maximum range of travel achievable CNG 300 miles for FR Service Range for use in revenue service (Total 225 miles for DR Vehicle Range minus Fuel Reserve) Biodiesel 357 miles for FR 263 miles for DR Hybrid Diesel -Electric 394 miles for FR NA for DR TABLE 6-18: OTHER FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS MADE DURING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Fuel Hydrogen FCEB Other Consideration Fuel Cell Efficiency may degrade overtime CNG Great for Suburban Routes, with mostly go conditions Biodiesel Cold climate impact over fuel Hybrid Diesel -Electric Operates best in urban stop -and go conditions 6.2.3 Assumptions used for Support Vehicle Assessment Assumptions for support vehicles take into account the various vehicle models currently used by CAT and their electric vehicle equivalents available in today's market. The most common fuel alternatives available today are hybrid gasoline -electric and full -electric vehicles; hybrid models are not available for all vehicle types, so they were not considered in further analysis. Each vehicle's make and model was categorized under a group, and a suitable electric vehicle model was chosen to assess the impact of replacing it with a comparable electric option. Table 6-19 presents this information. TABLE 6-19: SUPPORT VEHICLE CURRENT INVENTORY AND THEIR EV EQUIVALENT Vehicle Group Current Inventory Electric Model Equivalent Minivan Ford Transit Ford E-Transit SUV/Sedan Ford Escape / Ford Taurus SEL Chevrolet Equinox EV Pickup Truck Ford F-150 XL/XLT F-150 Lightning 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-19 Page 110 of 229 The assessment of electric support vehicles followed a more simplified approach than the analysis conducted for fixed -route buses and cutaways. While usable energy, reserve energy, and strenuous energy consumption were thoroughly detailed for buses and cutaways, this data is not readily available for the selected support vehicle models. To address this, a conservative assumption was applied to estimate a feasible service range. Specifically, 70% of the total available energy for all electric vehicle models was designated as the assumed safe service range. Table 6-20 presents the nominal ranges for each vehicle model based on the manufacturer's specifications, along with the service range assumption used to evaluate feasibility. TABLE 6-20: SERVICE RANGE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR EACH VEHICLE GROUP Vehicle • • Nom i. • Service Range Assumption Minivan 159 miles 111 miles SUV/Sedan 319 miles 223 miles Pickup Truck 240 miles 168 miles 6.3 Model Results The following section presents the results of the block feasibility model. The section first looks at results from the battery electric bus model for fixed route service blocks, followed by results for other fuel alternative vehicle types. The results are then presented in the same order for demand response vehicles, and equipment vehicles. 6.3.1 Fixed Route Block Results The fixed route block feasibility model considers all the assumptions and considerations in the previous sections for fixed route buses. Assumptions for each of the three vehicle lengths are considered and tabulated separately for each service day. 6.3.1.1 Current Electric Bus Feasibility The first scenario evaluates the potential implementation of battery electric buses in the current year (2025). The model is performed for each vehicle length testing for the various energy capacity assumptions determined, and accounting for battery degradation up to the 101h year of battery usage (2035) as well as nominal and strenuous conditions. Feasibly was determined as follows: • Feasible: bus can feasibly operate the entire length of a block in strenuous conditions without tapping into reserve energy even after the potential amount of battery degradation in that given model year. Maybe: The bus may be able to operate but could potentially run into occasional issues where the reserve energy may need to be used. This indicator can also suggest the feasibility of a block if in -route or off -route charging were implemented. Unfeasible: The bus will likely fail to operate the entire length of a block unless major operational changes are made such as splitting a block, adjusting scheduled operations, reducing number of trips, or making the alignment shorter. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-20 Page 111 of 229 Table 6-21 lists blocks that are or may be feasible in this scenario. Detailed results can be found in Appendix C for each block. TABLE 6-21: CURRENTLY FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION DAY Block Vehicle _ _ Block Length • . Feasibility by Operation .. Day . . = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible 6.3.1.2 Future Electric Bus Feasibility The second scenario evaluates the potential implementation of battery electric buses starting in a future year. Considering that electric battery capacities are improving at a rate of 7% annually, the availability of new blocks that can be feasibly served by battery electric buses can increase. The model looks at the purchase year's battery capacity and accounts for degradation as well as projected improvements until the battery's tenth year. This tenth year is then analyzed for feasibility. As an example, for a bus purchased in 2025, feasibility is evaluated using the tenth year of its operation, which would be 2035. Therefore, the future scenario model identifies if a block can reliably support a bus throughout the entire ten-year period after it has been purchased. Table 6-22 summarizes the various blocks will be or may be feasible for vehicles purchased in either 2025 or 2035. This will indicate which blocks flip from previously unfeasible to feasible in the next ten years. Detailed results from this analysis can be found in Appendix C. TABLE 6-22: FUTURE FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION DAY FOR PURCHASE YEARS 2025 AND 2035 N Weekday �. Saturday Sunday 2025 2035 2025 2035 2025 2035 2 30' J J 4 35' ! J 5 35' J 7 30' ! 8 30' ! 9 30' J 10 30' J 11 30' J 12 30' 13 35' J J ! 16 30' 17 30' ! 22 30' J = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-21 Page 112 of 229 Based on the results of the service modeling, one additional weekday block would become partially feasible by 2035: Block 17. Block 17 is expected to become partially feasible due to improved battery capacity for vehicle model years 2035 and beyond. Additional in route charging support could make this block fully feasible with the increased battery capacity. 6.3.1.3 Electric Re -Charging Scenario A selection of blocks was further analyzed to understand the ability to support on -route or off -route charging strategies. Charger types were analyzed for their power output and by battery capacities to assess the amount of time required to charge a battery using one of these. Fast charging is best provided by fast chargers with outputs between 150 kW and 350 kW. When looking at the recharge speed based for each charger, a broad assumption that one -minute of vehicle recharging is equivalent to one -mile gained in range was developed to encompass the overall recharging capacity which can range between a .8-mile gain to a 2 mile gain. The results are found in Table 6-23 TABLE 6-23: CHARGING OPTIONS AND TIME TO FULL CHARGE ;, • kWh 500 kWh 686 kWh DC Fast Charger (50 kW) or 7350kWh420 50 I< 8h 25m 10h 13h 45m Induction Charger (60 kW) DC Fast Charger (150 kW) 150 kW 2h 20m 2h 50m 3h 20m 4h 30m Induction Charger (180 kW) DC Fast Charger (350 kW) 350 kW 1h 1h 12m 1h 30m 2h Overhead Pantograph (450 kW) 450 kW 45m 55m 1h 5m 1h 30m Overhead Pantograph (600 kW) 600 kW 35m 40m 50m 1h 10m Additional assumptions for the on -route charging scenarios include the implementation of fast DC chargers, with the only constraint being that the layover facility must be a county -owned property. Three main locations were identified: CAT Operations Center, Government Center, and Immokalee Transfer Facility. Blocks analyzed needed to have a layover at one of these locations. Vehicles traveling off -route to access a layover location needed to have more than 15 minutes, including deadhead to the off -route location to be considered a feasible off -route recharge location. The following briefly describes the selected routes and the assessment. • Block 2/20 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 2/20 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 15/21 would comfortably benefit from on -route charging at the CAT Operations Center through the 101h year in the current scenario. This block would be an excellent candidate for the on -route charging. • Block 17 would comfortably benefit from on -route charging at the Government Center through the 101h year in the current scenario. Considerations include the addition of chargers at the transfer station. • Block 11 in the current scenario would not benefit from recharging at the Government Center after the fifth year of purchase, when battery degradation will have impacted recharging jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-22 Page 113 of 229 capacity significantly. However, Block 11 is expected to benefit from recharging starting in a future scenario. • Block 5 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 5 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 16 may be able to complete most of its trips after recharging at the Immokalee transfer station but could fail during its final deadhead trip back to the CAT Ops Center in the current scenario. Adding between 15 and 45 minutes of layover time in the schedule could make this possible. It is, however, possible that battery improvements make on -route charging feasible for Block 16 in a future scenario. • Block 18 may be able to complete most of its trips after recharging at the Immokalee transfer station but could fail during its final deadhead trip back to the CAT Ops Center in the current scenario. Adding between 15 and 45 minutes of layover time in the schedule could make this possible. It is, however, possible that battery improvements make on -route charging feasible for Block 18 in a future scenario. • Block 7 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 7 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. It is expected that the on -route charging approach will allow 2 blocks (15/21 and 17) to operate comfortably with Battery Electric Buses. Three additional blocks (11, 16, and 18) will become feasible through on -route charging in a future scenario. 6.3.1.4 Current Alternative Fuel Vehicle Feasibility The alternative fuel vehicle feasibility model assesses the viability of implementing alternative fuel buses in 2025, using vehicle range assumptions outlined previously in Table 6-17. Unlike battery electric buses, this model assumes that fuel type does not significantly impact vehicle range. Additionally, external factors affecting fuel efficiency, such as strenuous operating conditions, are not accounted for, as their impact is considered negligible for modeling purposes. Tables 6-24 summarizes the model results based on the day of the week. Feasibility is categorized as follows: • Feasible: The bus can operate the entire length of a block under most conditions without relying on fuel reserves. Maybe: The bus may complete the block but could occasionally require fuel reserves. This classification also applies to blocks that may be feasible if refueling is possible during layovers. Unfeasible: The bus is unlikely to complete the block without depleting fuel reserves unless major operational adjustments are made. These could include splitting the block, modifying schedules, reducing trips, or shortening the route. More detailed information regarding each block and for each analysis year can be found in the Appendix C. 0 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-23 Page 114 of 229 TABLE 6-24: FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY FUEL TYPE AND DAY OF OPERATION rJ4 Hydrogen FCE CNG . . I . - . . Biodiesel Hybrid Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun. 0' ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2/20 30' I ! v I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 3 30' I ! I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 4 35' I ✓ I ✓ I ✓ I ! ! `� I 5 35' I ! ! ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 6 30' I ! I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 7 30' I ! ! J I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ J ✓ I 8 30' I ✓ ✓ J I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 9 30' I ! ! J I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 10 30' I ✓ ✓ I ! ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 11 30' I ✓ ! ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 12 30' I ! ! ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I 13 35' I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I 15/21 30' I ! ! I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I 16 30' I ! ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ J I 17 30' I ✓ ! I J ✓ I ✓ ✓ I ✓ I 18 35' 19 30' I ! I J I ✓ = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible HYDROGEN FCE Based on the results of the service modeling, 5 weekday blocks are feasible (24% of blocks), 9 may be feasible, and 7 are not feasible. Only two blocks, Blocks 8 and 13 are feasible on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The results of the service modeling indicate that all weekday blocks are feasible except for Block 10, which may be feasible, and Block 4, which is unfeasible. On Saturday, only Block 4 remains unfeasible, and on Sunday, all blocks are feasible. BIODIESEL Biodiesel fueled buses can feasibly serve all weekday and Saturday blocks except for Block 4, which is unfeasible. All Sunday blocks can be served feasibly. HYBRID DIESEL ELECTRIC All weekday blocks can feasibly be served by a hybrid bus on weekdays and Saturday except for Block 4 which may be served under certain conditions. All Sunday blocks can be served feasibly. jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transitior pig 6-24 Page 115 of 229 6.3.2 Demand Response The following section presents feasibility results for demand response trips. The feasibility model considers all the assumptions and considerations previously presented for demand response cutaways. Assumptions are considered separately for each service day. 6.3.2.1 Current Electric Cutaway Feasibility The feasibility assessment for electric cutaways differs from that of buses. To evaluate their viability, a month's worth of service runs was analyzed to represent typical trip lengths for demand response services throughout the year. Given that trip lengths vary based on client needs and locations, understanding the distribution of trips by length as a percentage of total trips during the observation period is crucial. This analysis provides insight into how effectively an electric cutaway can accommodate demand response trips as a percentage of accomplishable trips. In the current scenario, the model results indicate that up to 1 % of trips currently served by CATConnect can be feasibly served through 2030. This suggests that the technology is not capable of supporting a reliable amount of services for CAT's demand response unit. This is because most cutaway batteries have low capacities and may be impacted by the use of electric lifts and other additions common in demand response fleets, which in turn drain the battery quicker in addition to the fact that average trip lengths far exceed both nominal and strenuous mileage. Conversely, CATConnect may be serving longer than average demand response trips relative to its peers. This could be a factor due to land use distribution, where origins and destinations may be further apart from each other than in more urban settings. 6.3.2.2 Electric Results Future Scenario The second scenario evaluates the potential implementation of battery electric cutaways in future years. Considering that electric battery capacities are improving at a rate of 7% annually, the ability for an electric cutaway to serve a larger share of demand response trips feasibly is possible. The model uses the assumptions of the current year's battery capacity (2025) and builds upon the battery's improved capacity over the next ten years (2035). It is evident that electric cutaways will not be able to reliably assist the demand response fleet in the long-term, as improvements in battery capacity do not seem sufficient to cover even five percent of trips through 2035. Unless drastic operational changes were made to accommodate this challenge, it is strongly recommended that CAT not look into replacing any part of its DR fleet with electric cutaways. 6.3.2.3 Alternative Fuel Results Unlike buses, alternative fuel cutaways are available in fewer configurations. To reduce operational limitations, this study evaluates CNG and biodiesel models, as these fuel types are also available for use by buses, enabling shared fueling infrastructure across the fleet. The analysis follows the same methodology applied to electric cutaways, assessing the distribution of demand response trips by length to determine the vehicle's effectiveness in meeting service needs. Table 6-25 presents the results of this assessment. ) benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-25 Page 116 of 229 TABLE 6-25: PERCENTAGE OF DR TRIPS SERVED FEASIBLY BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL CUTAWAYS Observed Trips First Percentile Miles 70 CNG Cutaways Biodiesel• Diesel Cutaways) ✓ Fifth Percentile 110 Tenth Percentile 135 25th Percentile 165 Median 193 Average 195 50th Percentile 195 75th Percentile 230 ! �/ 85th Percentile 245 ! �/ All Trips 400 = Feasible = Maybe Feasible The results indicate that CNG cutaways can reliably serve up to 85% of trips currently provided by the DR fleet, making them a strong replacement option for a significant portion of operations; gasoline or diesel cutaways would still be necessary to accommodate the longest trips. Similarly, biodiesel-fueled cutaways are capable of serving nearly all DR trips, with only a few exceptions for the longest trips. This suggests that biodiesel could effectively replace the entire DR fleet with minimal operational disruptions. 6.3.3 Equipment/Support Vehicle The following section presents feasibility results for CAT's equipment/support vehicles. The feasibility model considers all the assumptions and considerations previously presented for various vehicle models that best represent current vehicle types. Assumptions are considered separately for each vehicle depending on the observed annual mileage for each. The feasibility is only assessed for battery electric vehicles as models in other fuel types are uncommon. 6.3.3.1 Electric Results Electric vehicle feasibility is assessed using the annual mileage observed for each vehicle. Because daily travel data for each vehicle is unavailable, feasibility is examined through a simple method where the individual vehicles assumed maximum daily mileage is compared with an assumed safe service range. The methodology and assumptions used for this analysis can be found in Sections 6.1.4 and 6.2.3. Table 6-26 shows the results by vehicle. TABLE 6-26: FEASIBILITY OF EVS TO SERVE THE MAXIMUM DAILY MILEAGE OF SUPPORT VEHICLES Vehicle 1 CC2-2106 Vehicle Type• Minivan CC2-2107 Minivan CC2-2019 SUV CC2-1553 SUV CC2-1662 Pickup Truck CC2-1402 Pickup Truck = Feasible = Maybe Feasible jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transitior pig 6-26 Page 117 of 229 The results indicate that electric vehicles can reliably replace minivans, SUVs, sedans, and pickup trucks in the existing support vehicle fleet, even on days when these vehicles travel long distances. If sufficient downtime is available throughout the day, recharging could maximize the usability of any of these vehicles. 6.4 Fuel Mix Recommendations After reviewing the results of the feasibility model in the previous section, the output was considered for the development of possible fuel mix configurations that CAT can adopt to achieve a low or zero emission objective. The following looks at various approaches that CAT can consider for the replacement of its diesel and gasoline vehicles. 6.4.1 Fixed Route Several possible scenarios can be considered when determining the fuel mix recommendations for the fixed route blocks. The first scenario is the most visionary approach, attempting to replace vehicles in a way that achieves the lowest emissions possible while accounting for reduced capital and operational challenges such as adding vehicles and blocks. The second scenario mimics the first scenario but simplifies the diversification of fleet, compromising for keeping two fuel types with minimal capital investment while maintaining a commitment towards battery electric buses. The third scenario minimizes the impact of capital costs but commits to a soft transition towards a low emission bus fleet. Finally, the fourth scenario also minimizes costs, committing to lowering emissions with the lowest capital cost. Table 6-27 presents the recommendations under each scenario, proposing a replacement fuel type that best serves the stated objective. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-27 Page 118 of 229 TABLE 6-27: FIXED ROUTE FUEL MIX RECOMMENDATIONS Scenario 1: Least Harmful Emissions Recommendations Scenario 2: Optimized Vehicle Function Scenario 3: Balanced Approach Scenario 4: Lowest Capital Cost 1 Hybrid CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 2/20 Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Biodiesel 3 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 4 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 5 Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Biodiesel 6 Hybrid CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 7 Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Biodiesel 8 Hybrid CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 9 Hybrid CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 10 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 11 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2030 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2030 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2030 Biodiesel 12 Hybrid CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 13 Battery Electric Battery Electric Battery Electric Biodiesel 15/21 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging Biodiesel 16 Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Biodiesel 17 Hybrid/BEB 2035+ or BEB with On -Route Charging Hybrid/BEB 2035+ or BEB with On -Route Charging Hybrid/BEB 2035+ or BEB with On -Route Charging Biodiesel 18 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2035 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2035 Hybrid or BEB with On- Route Charging after 2035 Biodiesel 19 CNG CNG Biodiesel Biodiesel 22 Battery Electric Battery Electric Battery Electric Biodiesel 6.4.1.1 Scenario 1: Least Harmful Emissions This scenario is designed to minimize the impact of harmful emissions in the environment given the operational conditions that CAT can provide within the study period. This maximizes the use of Battery Electric Buses, paired with the least harmful fuel alternative. When modeling the impacts of overall carbon emissions, Hybrid vehicles paired well with battery electric vehicles, due to their balanced profile of carbon emissions, as well as hybrid vehicle's well -to -wheels lifecycle cost on the environment, which is overall slightly lower than CNG buses for example. Additionally, Hybrid vehicles have a reliable range to accommodate CAT's current operations. Finally, a small portion of blocks would remain diesel. Figure 6-3 demonstrates the expected fuel mix assigned to blocks for Scenario 1A. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-28 Page 119 of 229 A variation of Scenario 1 (1 B) was also evaluated, which also aims to minimize the impact of harmful emissions in the environment. This variation maximizes the use of Battery Electric Buses by adopting on -route charging. When modeling the impacts of overall carbon emissions, Hybrid vehicles remained a choice support for battery electric vehicles, due to their balanced profile of carbon emissions. In this scenario, the objective is to flip as many blocks towards Hybrid as possible. A small portion of blocks would remain diesel, representing the longest blocks, as well as the need to retain a portion of the fleet fueled with diesel buses in the case of emergency operations in the absence of electricity. Figure 6-4 demonstrates the expected fuel mix assigned to blocks for Scenario 1 B. FIGURE 6-3: SCENARIO 1A FIGURE 6-4: SCENARIO 1 B (NO ON -ROUTE CHARGING) (ON ROUTE CHARGING) BEB 31% 6.4.1.2 Scenario 2: Optimized Vehicle Function Diesel 16% Scenario 2 focuses on optimizing vehicle functions by assigning them to the environments and route profiles where they operate most efficiently. This approach minimizes unnecessary strain on the vehicles, potentially reducing breakdowns and extending fleet longevity. This scenario presents a more experimental approach with a largely diverse fuel mix. This scenario suggests the implementation of CNG as the low -emission fuel of supporting some of CAT's longest blocks with consideration of the suburban nature of parts of the county. This scenario also maximizes the inclusion of battery electric buses without on -route charging. Figure 6-5 demonstrates the expected fuel mix assigned to blocks for Scenario 2A. A variation of Scenario 2 (213) is presented which also aims to maximize the functionality of each vehicle type with regards to operating environment. This variation maximizes the use of Battery Electric Buses by adopting on -route charging. A small portion of blocks would remain diesel, representing the longest blocks, as well as the need to retain a portion of the fleet fueled with diesel buses in the case of emergency operations in the absence of electricity. Figure 6-6 demonstrates the expected fuel mix assigned to blocks for Scenario 2B. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-29 Page 120 of 229 FIGURE 6-5: SCENARIO 2A (NO ON -ROUTE CHARGING, FIGURE 6-6: SCENARIO 2113 (ON -ROUTE CHARGING) 6.4.1.3 Scenario 3: Balanced Approach Scenario 3 balances capital costs and emissions to achieve the optimal balance between both. This scenario represents a commitment to reduced emissions while also controlling costs. This scenario was best achieved by including biodiesel fuels which reduce capital costs based on the need to only purchase a tank to hold the fuel and its dispensers, which can be added to existing diesel fueling infrastructure. It also retains a larger portion of diesel vehicles in the fleet than other scenarios. A variation of Scenario 3 (313) was also evaluated, with the inclusion of battery electric buses. Scenario 3B demonstrates that a continued increase of electric vehicles that are feasible for each block, a decrease in the hybrid fleet is observed. Meanwhile the diesel and biodiesel group is maintained, controlling capital costs. The fleet fuel mix for Scenario 3A and Scenario 3B are shown in Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8. FIGURE 6-7: SCENARIO 3A (No ON -ROUTE CHARGING) 7 Biodiesel 32°io fbrid 42% FIGURE 6-8: SCENARIO 3B (ON -ROUTE CHARGING) ;el benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-30 Page 121 of 229 6.4.1.4 Scenario 4: Lowest Capital Cost Finally, Scenario 4 examines the lowest capital cost approach towards a fleet transition. Without constraints, it is expected that the lowest capital cost is incurred by transitioning to a biodiesel fleet. This scenario minimizes the diversity of the fuel mix and controls the capital cost at the same time. An increase in emissions is expected due to the nature of the organic material related to biodiesel, however, a reduction in lifecycle greenhouse emissions due to fuel production are lower than the current scenario. Figure 6-9 illustrates the fuel mix. FIGURE 6-9: SCENARIO 4 Diesel 16 Biodiesel 84% 6.4.1.5 Fixed Route Fuel Mix Scenario Comparison The following compares estimated financial profiles for each scenario as well as annual emissions outputs, and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions incurred during the production of the fuel type. These all help to balance considerations and benefits as well as challenges related to each scenario. The first comparison looks at the total capital cost incurred in the implementation of each vehicle type. Assumptions for these estimates were drawn from the 2023 AFLEET tool, which models capital costs for each vehicle type. The assumptions were made for the generic transit bus assumption built in the tool and considers the vehicle cost (assuming about two vehicles per block) and the cost of additional infrastructure to accommodate the introduction of new fuel types. Described below are the assumed infrastructure needs for each scenario. • Scenario 1 A: The purchase of four Level 2 Chargers for overnight depot charging as well as the cost of installing these chargers. • Scenario 1 B: The cost of installing 12 Level 2 chargers for overnight depot charging as well as 3 fast chargers to be installed at the CAT Operations Facility, Government Center Transfer Station, and Immokalee Transfer Station, as well as the cost of installation and electrical grid upgrades. • Scenario 2A: The purchase of four Level 2 Chargers for overnight depot charging as well as the cost of installing these chargers; and the installation of a small to medium slow -fill CNG facility, gas dryers and 12 dispensers at the depot. • Scenario 213: The cost of installing 12 Level 2 chargers for overnight depot charging as well as 3 fast chargers to be installed at the CAT Operations Facility, Government Center Transfer Station, and Immokalee Transfer Station, as well as the cost of installation and electrical grid upgrades. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-31 Page 122 of 229 Also, the installation of a small to medium slow -fill CNG facility, gas dryers and 12 dispensers at the depot. Scenario 3A: The purchase of four Level 2 Chargers for overnight depot charging as well as the cost of installing these chargers; and the addition of a fuel storage tank for biodiesel and a few added dispensers. Scenario 313: The cost of installing 12 Level 2 chargers for overnight depot charging as well as 3 fast chargers to be installed at the CAT Operations Facility, Government Center Transfer Station, and Immokalee Transfer Station, as well as the cost of installation and electrical grid upgrades. The addition of a fuel storage tank for biodiesel and a few added dispensers. Scenario 4: The addition of a fuel storage tank for biodiesel and a few added dispensers. Figure 6-10 presents these estimated costs for comparison purposes. FIGURE 6-10: FIXED ROUTE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Current* Scenario 1A Scenario 1 B Scenario 2A Scenario 2B Scenario 3A Scenario 3B Scenario 4 Millions $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 ■ Diesel ■ CNG ■ Hybrid ■ Gasoline ■ BEB Biodiesel *The current scenario reflects the fleet composition prior to the retirement of the Hybrid Diesel -Electric bus Costs range between $18 million and $28 million, with Scenario 1 B being the costliest, and Scenario 4 being the least costly, even when compared to the current scenario. Scenario 1 A is the median costing approach at just over $25 million. The estimated annual emissions output was analyzed for each scenario, varying based on the fleet's fuel mix. These figures serve as planning estimates rather than exact values. The emissions evaluated are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrous Oxide (NOx), and Particulate Matter (PM10). Carbon Monoxide is found in natural and organic material in abundance and is released when incomplete fuel burning occurs. Carbon Monoxide is, however, less problematic in open air and is harmful in larger quantities when compared to NOx which can cause acid rain, smog, and ground level ozone. Moreover, NOx can cause respiratory issues and inflammation when inhaled. Finally Particulate Matter is most impactful on human health, which can be introduced into the human tissue and the bloodstream, causing severe 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 6-32 Page 123 of 229 problems including a premature death. Figure 6-11 shows the estimated emissions profile for each scenario and should be interpreted cautiously. FIGURE 6-11 : ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE FOR FIXED ROUTE Current Scenario 1A :. Scenario 1 B .. Scenario 2A Scenario 2B Scenario 3A :. Scenario 3B .. Scenario 4 • .. Pounds 0 5,000 .. 445.8 468.8 464 Qii`i 468.8 464 471.2 464 468.8 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 ■ NOx ■ CO ■ PM10 Scenarios 2A and 2B have the highest CO impact due to the release of methane and carbon monoxide from incomplete burning of natural gas in the fleet. While CO may disperse, the figures are significant. On the other hand, these scenarios also show the greatest reduction in NOx due to a large movement away from diesel. Finally, the particulate matter is standard relative to other scenarios. Scenario 1 A and 1 B present the lowest carbon footprint overall although the NOx profile for 1 B is lower than 1 A. Scenario 4 has the highest NOx emissions due to maintaining diesel fuel, and the largest particulate matter emission, being more harmful in every respect to the current scenario. For further consideration, a well -to -wheels lifecycle analysis was also assessed. This analysis looks at the greenhouse gas emissions that are generated during the fuel production and distribution process. In the case of battery electric vehicles, this includes lithium mining for batteries, and petroleum extraction for diesel, biofuel activation for biodiesel, and natural gas extraction for CNG. Figure 6-12 provides a comparison of the various fuel types in short tons. The current scenario has the greatest overall impact due to the petroleum extraction process. All other scenarios present a decrease in emissions by comparison. Most notably, Scenario 1 B has the lowest emission profile for fuel production, largely due to the lithium batteries, and a reduced overall use of diesel. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-33 Page 124 of 229 FIGURE 6-12: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FIXED ROUTE COMPARISONS Current Scenario 1 A Scenario 1 B Scenario 2A Scenario 2B Scenario 3A Scenario 3B Scenario 4 Short Tons 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,300 4,400 4,500 4,600 4,700 4,800 ■ GHG Emissions 6.4.2 Demand Response Several possible scenarios can be considered when determining the fuel mix recommendations for the transition of the demand response fleet. None of the scenarios propose the addition of electric cutaways, as these seem to be inadequate for adoption given the current demand response fleet's operations. The first scenario is the most visionary approach, attempting to replace vehicles in a way that achieves the lowest emissions possible while accounting for operational challenges such as long DR trips out of range for certain fuel types. The second scenario mimics the first scenario but simplifies the diversification of fleet by keeping two fuel types with minimal capital investment with a commitment towards low emissions. The third scenario minimizes the impact of capital costs but commits to a soft transition towards a low emission cutaway fleet. Table 6-28 summarizes the existing fuel mix for Demand Response vehicles and resulting mix for each of the scenarios. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-34 Page 125 of 229 TABLE 6-28: DEMAND RESPONSE FUEL MIX RECOMMENDATIONS Scenario 1: Balanced Scenario 2: Lowest Emissions and Costs Capital Cost Scenario 3: Strong CNG Diesel 25% 8 0% 0 25% 8 0% 0 Gasoline 75% 25 75% 25 0 0 0% 0 Biodiesel 0% 0 0% 0 75% 25 25% 8 CNG 0% 0 25% 8 0 0 75% 25 6.4.2.1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 aims to balance the emissions output and capital costs. This scenario envisions maintaining 25 gasoline vehicles, which is the current composition of the gasoline fleet, and replacing diesel cutaways with CNG cutaways. 6.4.2.2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Aims to reduce capital costs while transitioning into a fuel alternative. This scenario maximizes the diesel fleet and applies the use of biodiesel fuel in the fleet. 6.4.2.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 aims to take a strong approach or investment into CNG. 75% of the demand response fleet would transition to CNG, with a selection of biodiesel cutaways to serve the longest trips. 6.4.2.4 Scenario Comparisons The capital costs range between $1.5 million and $2.2 million, while the current fleet cost is currently about $1.3 million. Scenario 3 is the costliest due to the added infrastructure that would be required in addition to the vehicle purchase. Scenario 2 is the least expensive, only requiring the addition of a biodiesel tank. Assumptions regarding capital costs include: • Scenario 1: the installation of a small CNG facility with dispensers • Scenario 2: The purchase and installation of a biodiesel tank • Scenario 3: The installation of a small to medium CNG facility with dispensers. Figure 6-13 presents the capital costs for the various scenarios proposed compared to the current scenario. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-35 Page 126 of 229 FIGURE 6-13: DEMAND RESPONSE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 M I Scenario 3 Thousands $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 ■ Diesel ■ CNG ■ Biodiesel ■ Gasoline $2,500 Emissions profiles were also developed for the various demand response scenarios proposed. Variation in emission output is less pronounced compared to fixed route scenarios. The largest observable change is Scenario 2's large increase in NOx and Particulate Matter emissions compared to other scenarios, even though it does achieve a reduction in CO. This could be an alarming counterintuitive approach due to its relatively higher NOx output. Figure 6-14 presents the comparison. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-36 Page 127 of 229 FIGURE 6-14: ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE FOR DEMAND RESPONSE Current 77.1 Scenario 1 • • 75.9 Scenario 2 82.5 Scenario 3 77.5 Pounds 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 ■ NOx ■ CO ■ PM10 A well to wheels emissions profile was also developed and assessed for the demand response scenarios. Scenario 2 has a clear advantage in its reduction of lifecycle emissions from the well, in this case, the production of biofuel. Meanwhile, the CNG Scenario 3 is also a clear reducer of emissions overall. Figure 6-15 presents these profiles. FIGURE 6-15: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DEMAND RESPONSE COMPARISONS Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 I Short Tons 0 u'i benesch 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ■ GHG Emissions Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-37 Page 128 of 229 6.4.3 Equipment/Support Vehicle Three recommended scenarios were developed for the Equipment/Support Vehicle fleet. The first scenario commits to the lowest possible emissions, while adding an additional minivan as backup for important operator shift rides in the absence of one vehicle. The second scenario is similar to the first scenario but is cautious about the limitations in operations that can be experienced by minivans. The third scenario attempts to commit to the transition towards zero emissions while limiting the capital cost by reducing the number of EVs, as well as maintaining a cautious approach to emergency backup fleet needs during storms, maintaining enough Gasoline fueled vehicles for this scenario. Table 6-29 summarizes the recommendations. TABLE 6-29: SUPPORT VEHICLES FUEL MIX RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicl- Scenario 1: Lowest Type• Emissions (and Scenario 2: Operations Scenario 3: Lowest Capital Lifecycle Cost) Limited Cost Gas EV Gas EV Gas EV Gas EV Minivan 2 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 SUV 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 Pickup Truck 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 Transitioning from gasoline to electric vehicles has its cost benefits. Going full electric is currently almost $375,000 for CATs DR fleet. However, Scenario 3 presents a balanced approach to the support vehicle fleet that is less than $50,000 more expensive than the current scenario. Figure 6-16 presents the cost comparisons. Cost assumptions only consider the installation of small commercial chargers for these vehicles, and no additional fuel tanks for any gasoline vehicles. FIGURE 6-16: SUPPORT VEHICLES ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Thousands $o $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 ■ Electric ■ Gasoline benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-38 Page 129 of 229 When evaluating the estimated emissions output for support vehicles, going all electric is nearly feasible and can be the first part of CATS total fleet to have a low impact overall. Adding electric vehicles is a clear step away from emissions as observable in Figure 6-17. Following a similar pattern, the integration of electric vehicles reduces the overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, although these are still present in all electric scenarios, likely due to lithium mining and transferring demand to local energy sources. See Figure 6-18 for the comparisons. FIGURE 6-17: ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE FOR SUPPORT VEHICLES Current Scenario 1 ' 7.7 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Pounds 0 6.8 50 100 150 ■ NOx ■ CO ■ PM10 7 200 7.2 250 300 FIGURE 6-18: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SUPPORT VEHICLE COMPARISONS Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 I Short Tons 0 4 benesch 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ■ GHG Emissions Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 6-39 Page 130 of 229 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Incorporating the findings from the feasibility analysis, this financial analysis examines the same fuel mix scenarios to assist in the preparation of a vehicle replacement plan for fixed -route, paratransit and support vehicles. These financial estimates, in conjunction with input from the Steering Committee, determined the percentage of vehicles desired to be transitioned to ZEV. The resulting vehicle replacement plan, included in the ZEV transition plan, covers ten years to ensure all current vehicles are replaced with the recommended technology based on the percent replacement desired. Included in the financial analysis are high-level capital cost estimates for the recommended fleet conversion, recommended charging infrastructure, and maintenance/storage facility modifications. In addition, this section provides a review of state and federal funding sources, including FTA's Low or No Emission Grants and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Community Change Grant Program. 7.1 Financial Plan Prior to finalizing the vehicle replacement plan and ZEV transition plan, a high-level ten-year financial plan was developed for each scenario by estimating vehicle costs and operating expenses, and assuming all other capital and operating expenses as presented in CAT's FY 2024 Transit Development Plan Annual Progress Report (TDP APR).The Argonne National Laboratory's Alternative Fuel Life -Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool was used to develop capital vehicle cost assumptions for this financial analysis. Additionally, a 2.51 % annual inflation rate was assumed to reflect the average annual inflation rate over the past ten years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Despite these assumptions, this financial analysis does not account for confounding variables such as unforeseen maintenance expenses. Figure 7-1 summarizes the estimated ten-year total capital expenses for CAT for each fuel mix scenario. Total capital expenses assume each scenario to differ by fleet fuel mix (and associated infrastructure expenses) while all other expenses remain constant. Scenario 4 and the status quo boast the lowest estimated capital expenses, as a fleet with predominately standard internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (fueled by diesel and biodiesel) is less expensive than those comprised of other ZEV's. Each of the other scenarios require an extra $5 to $14 million investment over ten years for costlier capital expenses such as battery electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. W benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-1 Page 131 of 229 FIGURE 7-1: TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS BY FUEL MIX SCENARIO (2025-2034) $80 $70 $68 $70 $61 $64 $62 $64 $60 $56 $55 $50 w o $40 $30 $20 $10 1 A 1 B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing Service Figure 7-2 summarizes the estimated ten-year total operating expenses for CAT by fuel mix scenario. Total operating expenses assume each scenario to differ by fleet fuel mix (and associated operating expenses) while all other expenses remain constant. Scenarios 2A and 2B boast the lowest estimated operating expenses, as these propose fleets with the lowest levels of diesel consumption, in contrast to the highest levels of diesel consumption experienced with the existing fuel mix, which is projected to cost an additional $14 million over ten years to operate when compared to Scenario 2A. FIGURE 7-2: TOTAL OPERATING COSTS BY FUEL MIX SCENARIO (2025-2034) $168 $166 $166 $164 $162 $162 $160 $158 $158 $158 $156 o $156 $155 $154 $153 $154 $152 $150 $148 $146 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing Service benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-2 Page 132 of 229 Considering the sum of capital and operating expenses, Figure 7-3 visualizes the estimated grand total cost for CAT over ten years, by fuel mix scenario. Scenarios 1 A, 1 B, 3A, and 4 are likely to be the most affordable overall, as the fuel mix for those fleets are comprised by a limited number of battery electric vehicles, a limited number of vehicles exclusively powered by diesel, and do not require on -route charging. For an extra $6.3 million over ten years, the status quo is the most expensive scenario to operate as the predominantly ICE fleet experiences higher operating costs due to the high consumption of diesel fuel. FIGURE 7-3: TOTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS By FUEL MIX SCENARIO (2025-2034) $226 c $224 $224 2 $222 $220 $222 $221 $220 $220 $222 $218 $218 $216 $216 $214 $212 - — 1 A 1 B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing Service 7.1.1 Cost Savings Each proposed fuel mix scenario presents a either a slight increase or a slight decrease in cost savings when compared to the status quo, with an estimated net difference between $-3 and $4 million over ten years depending on the scenario, as indicated in Table 7-1. Despite potential savings or increased costs of over a million dollars, each fuel mix scenario offers only differs in cost by a rate of no more than two percent when compared to status quo, depending on the scenario. Scenario I presents the greatest potential cost savings because of its relatively low amounts of capital investment and low amounts of operating expenses associated with a fixed -route fleet with many hybrid vehicles and a demand response fleet with many gasoline vehicles. On the other end of the spectrum, Scenario 2B represents the greatest cost increase due to its high amounts of capital investment required for on -route charging, CNG, vehicles, and battery electric vehicles. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-3 Page 133 of 229 TABLE 7-1: SUMMARY OF COST SAVINGS BY SCENARIO •Percent Scenario • EN11111111iWavings Savings Least Harmful Emissions (No On -Route 1 A $4.3 Million 2.0°i° Charging) 1 B Least Harmful Emissions (On -Route $0.3 Million 0.1 Charging) 2A Optimized Vehicle Function (No On -Route $-0.7 Million -0.3°i° Charging) 2B Optimized Vehicle Function (On -Route $-3.3 Million -1.5°i° Charging) 3A Balanced Approach (No On -Route $1.1 Million 0.5°i° Char in g) g 3B Balanced Approach (On -Route Charging) $-1.1 Million -0.5% 4 Lowest Capital Cost $2.3 Million 1.1 % Existing Service $0 0.0% 7.1.2 Vehicles Listed below are the vehicle cost assumption made for the financial analysis by fuel type. Table 7-2 documents the assumed capital costs of vehicles and Table 7-3 documents the assumed operating costs of vehicles. TABLE 7-2: ASSUMED CAPITAL COSTS OF VEHICLES BY FUEL TYPE (AFLEET TOOL, 2023) Service Type Fixed Route FuelType• CNG $704,000 Battery Electric $1,058,000 Biodiesel $580,000 Hybrid $783,000 Diesel $580,000 Gasoline $580,000 Demand Response CNG $316,000 Battery Electric $282,000 Biodiesel $181,000 Diesel $181,000 Gasoline $160,000 Equipment/Support Vehicles Battery Electric $74,000 Gasoline $45,000 Source. AFLEET Tool Per Unit Cost Assumptions (2023) jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plar 1 7-4 Page 134 of 229 TABLE 7-3: ASSUMED OPERATING COSTS OF VEHICLES BY FUEL TYPE* Service Type Fixed Route FuelType CNG Cost per Milel $3.18 Battery Electric $3.26 Biodiesel $3.49 Hybrid $2.79 Diesel $3.96 Gasoline $3.96 Demand Response CNG $3.46 Battery Electric $2.86 Biodiesel $3.91 Diesel $3.91 Gasoline $3.91 Equipment/Support Van/SUV Battery Electric $0.10 Gasoline $0.33 Equipment/Support Pickup Truck Battery Electric $0.11 Gasoline $0.39 *Sources for assumptions include the National Transit Database (2023), FTA/King Co. (2017), HART (2017), King Co. (2018), NREL (2019), FTA/HART/NREL, FTA/King Co., Mountain Line ZEB Plan (2020), Transfort ZEB Plan, ICF 2019 Report (Table II-11), DOE, NREL, and the 2023 Federal Fleet Report 7.1.3 Infrastructure/Facility Upgrades Rolled into the overall capital costs estimates for the purpose of this financial analysis, Table 7-4 outlines infrastructure cost assumptions associated with the implementation of each fuel type. TABLE 7-4: ASSUMED COSTS OF ALTERNATE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE (AFLEET, 2023) Source: 2023 AFLEET Tool *per CAT quote of similar infrastructure **per location 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-5 Page 135 of 229 7.1.4 Cost Feasible Plan Figure 7-4 lists the ten-year operating expenses and revenue sources from CAT's Cost Feasible Plan and Figure 7-5 lists the ten-year capital expenses and revenue sources from CAT's Cost Feasible Plan. This Cost Feasible Plan, from the CAT's FY2024 TDP APR, was used as the framework for this financial analysis. Per the cost feasible plan, the following funding sources contribute to CAT's revenue stream: • Capital o Federal Grants 5307, 5310, 5339 o Local Match for 5310 • Operating o Federal Grant 5311 o Local Match for 5307, and 5311 o Federal Grant 5307 o FDOT Transit Block Grant o Transportation Disadvantaged Funding o Collier County CAT Enhancements o FDOT Direct Match for 5307 (including toll revenue credits match) and 5310 o Fare Revenue o Other Local Revenues 7.2 Potential Additional Funding This section provides an overview of the grant opportunities available to fund the vehicle and infrastructure needs related to the transition plan. Match requirements vary so CAT will have to work with its governing board to identify funds to match grants received. Grant opportunities are primarily available through FTA, which has allocated greater funding for the Low- or No -Emission Vehicle Program under Section 5339(c). Other federal agencies also provide similar funding opportunities. These funding sources are summarized in Table 7-5. A Detailed summary of each funding program is listed in Appendix E. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-6 Page 136 of 229 mf� ��ppN O mO1 ttpp ul m NlD W �1N N W V �DNQ l0I NN�+Iti.« lDM W N N M .-I n W 15N V V min V lOp N ti01�0 N V u�.-I N�+1 �f1 I� ul V mmMn ul0• V NNN�S V 1 O lD N �+1 N M W M Nd'N N N n V Om m Q DAWO- 1l N o M o I — Mmmm-Eq M N Q Q 11f 11 iEMp 00 ppD -W rl OM O m mO t0 ♦\ QNc-1 �/t rl NM �I1 rlc-Ic-INrl Nilf MlO ISM CO 000�I�N c-I N 00 M N ti M N n O �mC+1 N m �lMDlf m tp QMI� n 1+1 mpO NlD W �1N N WpEO� Vvl�DNtD l0 l�lDM NN�+Iti.« V W •+m N W nv N01 W 1�5N.-I v v�n V Nti NQIa u•1 .-I �f1n m�ON lD N lD i11 NCdN WMmOn pN �+ I� N 916 0 Nioo mmm-M "MNDMsmOg M pp 1MM p a Eno �y Q O •Y W Nm 1N n 4 rn N m 0 m 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ N m m N ID m vaiti lD W ti Q eQ-I ~ tD M 00 m W O O M O rl M lD O W N n oo W W �n Ln LD 6 pMp o pppp r NO Lr II o N � rl W` M m O00 ----- ----O--- ----- ----N rn MiA- -I M N � E000�0n00�O 6 �D 111 N mmm M�rr n lD ilM1 O M n p O1 tD M m l0 I� m rl m rl n N 'i ry� .d rl CO M m lD M W a0 l0 01 pppp M L1 M O N W � .ti L/1 N N Qpf O n O Q� O.ti t0 ENO u1 N W 0000000000000O V 000 c0000c O ooc tDmm.v 1 8 i N DEN O 1 m Q O V7 O Q Qf 1 00✓1 EOO CO ON D— aa_0 momo Oi I� OE wwoi N N - .-I m zWis .-I 1/! .+ ti LF iA N o EE Q� I� O I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i/? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Q r l m .- I O m m o O 1 m m M n v� M M Q� 1 N D C T N N O O O � l 1 0 M 0 0 f Q N a n t0 l0 W W• N N N I� lD n m N Q n— �D W pap W o N �n W �n W W Dnl co n Onl O np pnp M OE pnp poppp M VT .-i oo O N o N m O 4n o 4nD .�-i M O0 O Eed W .�-i fn� F ti N e~-i A N .N-i 9,9 pp 1m O O n N �D �m O tp n �D v1 �D V v1 M W m W W ul m u'1 l0 Q lD N EE W mmONn N N m O N m N r1 t D M 00 ma M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a/? O O O O O O O O O O O O o n O n t D Vf i A m O m N� o� 11 N l0 I� m lD lO O O Q t O N O m O� O n,� p N M C C E E W W@@ O N F N S O N On1 N mn ,tititi.y 't Epti R�QII `• '-I 0 If1 rl E� W m m nN N N n N m m V} VT ai uNi m rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 M O Q1 ulm O a SS��m .qm rn n m utai tai tai a J N � Va1 A 2 Z 2 z z _LL ....... ccvvwv u u u u u uo uo s0«a `�`� Q �59>> z z2222•Z•Z ci LL mE ooLL�«nE �«n 9 o J_a �n w LL mio" u 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 S x 0 v 2 vt v a vt of a v N VI v v V1 vt v Vt v a a 3 a a 3 a a v v v w v a v v a a v v v 3 v 3 3 v a 3 3 a a 3 3 a v 3 v c c c c -- "a5a c a a v z az zzzzzzzz c - c c ------ c c c c - - - c .- c c .-.- 3 x o w zz 0 oa rc 0a QEc c d________ c c v c c v a c c c c ______ddddd4dd c c c c aaaaaaaa caaa-O-O -O yh�-'««««N'�-333 u�u u w u'� u� Z Z ZwZwu�Z n3v«i"3 ,a.« a c O ��oo as c d ' -° zo o z ¢ E� a ggo all c �m '0 -0 > .tia ,Sao A = L« o °v� E Y ayLaE: c o 'm c c c c c c c v +' c .yoa>> o« or wrvo v r— Ec c av '= w oo>a Ew z o uu o �£Ov EEEEEE +• din 0 m c ° c_ 3 E E-� ouloo�n in �_ E � J 0 �xx J--2za� v � c7� � � a ¢ z m m a3i •= c'c v c vv vlya act—OE'000000"1 c Q oxxxcc .-'u� aaaaa wccccod,y O n dl7 nY O w a � naa av«zwy ££Jy�� •N« Zcm 0mV.-v+1Emc ov V M.vn.is..m+«a.' om�An omuR1 oMu ¢vYcv LL u�°f6' m.+ w¢.JC� �m.JG� gyOa --.odoc< E o —ymo� o` Ywo..a-.+I 00000 .0N.«a� N O O O EJcaEEei �n�i O — nQm O C7 l7 `22EF a c Hwmc l7O �` >o 9 0 mCc " J J0oo 3 3 3Daaa —Emc —Emc —Eics �u 0 .v v jI a Ou 2 00 2zzz a ZY 0000000 C Czcss 0 wcwzszzzz22F«Aw—u 000 v vm° .0 aovo 0 0 zwO aFom3civ Q L U N c a) IN .-1 N.p-p0p Oil r assRsa «I Nh O - O CO O M r N e0.1 N88 Nl�i'1 N N N N W r � pp 00 W � a m oo co M N � 001 CO l� V} � N W pOp ONO � Ilt M ry �D M 00 ra. M 00rM W y� M N .~I N N 00 N IO M a O r a a N �Rn� N W In m .�vti000000000ln000Mca w n �n0000000000a aN�i 2, oO1i a W N1 W rl M c0 iA W Vi N O O O M ei �pp➢pp ^�O N M M 000000000000 • mt0 N OI O O O O 000 O O N N ,O 1V OM N r m o n o m � + vi v> O�� •000 0000000 • M N1 m p�p N N11 N m .-I VT 11111 a M m V1 r � V} n a O N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � V OOr�� N O O O. o O O O O O N N n N r In p S a N N-W n ' .Ni n n .a ��$ M V IrON O 00 O 00000 N r m 0000 O O a O r 44NYY o wm�Oo 9 MR OOO n N o000000a r. m^ N o v .n pp m co 00 uNi If1 .-I ago m I1100000 u1Oi 00000000 N ate+ OI g n o r 0 0 0 0 0 00 CO O N w N `� u00i tp .�'.� IAA N r O O r y�j off N pp O vt O 6Nl iplpi M _ mN C) �O N in m in N m w "' m p� 10000 0000000 • F g i110 0 0 0 000 0 0 O pur~pi M N cd 1-4M 8 m Inp N pppp l0 .~i tr0 _ R N N lO N N N N o Oi 61 Ol M VF V1 .-I �••� N _u 01 N O1 O1 N Z a N N C C C G C N C Wc ✓d ry `W 'O C O a O W m N O a0-1 y Ol - O a C C C +R+ aR+ C v NW xx V l00 N -� V vl vl of h wn V v� r m act « �vE o ma E� LLxo Q Q a �, Q '^ d C i u tC0 X G O c a A R R R R Q v E 2 vNa� O a G va NL W aLj dV1Z 6- cc Q � N « m Omm.-I ul a LLR OrC_ cm 3 O rnomo`n w Eani30 o � ° �1} 9a1a >u c 0 R R R Ln C m V C r r r �y r M mwaci>vL+ Ul H N W R N Q LI R R EEE�-m" N m $—�`o`o'� - ta�ppc +v-' o 000�m�v'-� t� t� c7 c7 �a d u u C N in pRp Q Z v. ` dQ W U au+ C ou C Laa iva iLLss >> 333 La L_a uO �0tv uo .a aa >KKKdK ZZZZ 2NAQ r✓LL Ha HNUi UI ih H R LL V u C W > C e -0Q/��i R 3 a TABLE 7-5: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ZEV'S Type Agency -.A Funding Program Funding vai I �ab gle Facilities Bus Charging Discretionary Grant Program for Purchase Infrastructure Federal USDOT Charging and Fueling $2.5 B (FY23) ✓ ✓ ✓ Infrastructure Advanced Transportation and Federal FHWA Congestion Management $60 M ✓ ✓ Technologies Deployment (FY2025) Program Charging and Fueling Federal USDOT Infrastructure Discretionary Grant $700 M (FY25) ✓ ✓ Program Advanced Transportation Federal FHWA Technologies and Innovative $60.0 M (FY25) ✓ ✓ ✓ Mobility Deployment Title XVII Renewable Energy and Federal DOE Efficient Energy Projects $4.5 B ✓ ✓ Solicitation Federal FTA Low or No Emission Vehicle $1.22 B (FY24) ✓ ✓ Program Federal FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Formula $604 M (FY24) ✓ ✓ Funds Federal FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility N/A ✓ ✓ ✓ Rebuilding American Infrastructure Federal USDOT with Sustainability and Equity $1.5 B (FY24) ✓ ✓ Grants Federal EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act $92.0 M (FY24) ✓ Federal IRS Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax N/A ✓ Credit Federal IRS Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax 30% tax credit, ✓ Credit up to $100,000 Federal FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility $10 M (FY25) ✓ State FHWA National Electric Vehicle $198 M (FY23) ✓ Infrastructure Formula Program Federal HUD Community Development Block $ 3B (FY25) ✓ Grant (CDBG) State FDOT FDOT Transportation Alternatives $80 M (FY25) ✓ ✓ Program Federal EDA EDA Economic Adjustment $37M (FY25) ✓ Assistance Program State DEO Rural Infrastructure Fund $25M (FY25) ✓ 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 7-9 Page 139 of 229 IMPLEMENTATIO PLAN Transitioning the fleet to a low or zero -emission fleet may be a desired outcome, yet after evaluating the feasibility of this ideal, the key to achieving such an outcome is in a structured and phased implementation plan that balances operational feasibility, financial sustainability, and environmental impact. This section outlines the key steps, timelines, and strategies for deploying zero -emission technologies, including fleet conversion, infrastructure development, workforce training, and other considerations. By coordinating efforts with stakeholders, securing funding, and leveraging technological advancements, the implementation plan ensures a smooth and efficient transition while maintaining service reliability and performance standards. This implementation plan considers the first ten years of this transition, allowing CAT to be able to pivot in the best possible direction at the end of this first approach. A detailed vehicle replacement plan schedule for the fixed -route, demand response, and support vehicles has been included in Appendix F. 8.1 Vehicle Replacement Plan The ten-year fixed route fleet management plan is based on a partial and gradual transition to a resilient fleet with a diverse fuel mix. This permits CAT to pilot low- and zero -emission vehicles with minimal investment and commitment and allow plenty of time to plan for a complete transition to low - and zero -emission fleet. The transition commences with a pilot of a battery electric bus followed by a partial transition to multiple low -emission vehicles. At the time of writing, CAT has a total of 30 buses in its fleet of fixed route vehicles, one of which is a battery electric bus. See Table 8-1 for CAT's fixed -route fleet details. TABLE 8-1: CAT EXISTING FIXED ROUTE FLEET Ford OR •• Villager 7.3L V8 Length (ft.) 30 Quantity 2 Freightliner Legacy 30 1 Gillig G27B102N4 35 3 G27D102N4 40 3 G27E102N2 30 15 G27E102N2 40 1 (TBD— Diesel) 30 2 (TBD— Diesel) 35 2 (TBD— Electric) 35 1 Table 8-2 shows the fixed -route vehicle replacement plan based upon CAT's estimated vehicle retirement dates. CAT follows FTA's Minimum Useful Life guidelines as its policy for vehicle replacement. That means the agency replaces its 30-foot buses every 10 years and its larger 35-foot and 40-foot buses every 12 years. This replacement plan will gradually guide the transition to a low- and zero -emission fleet. jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Dion 1 8-1 Page 140 of 229 TABLE 8-2: CAT FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN Number of Vehicle 5 3 5 3 2 2 0 5 4 1 Replacements Within the transition plan timeframe, 30 vehicles will be retired and replaced, maintaining a fixed route fleet size of approximately 31 vehicles. The transition plan incorporates low- and zero -emission vehicles by replacing select diesel vehicles at the end of their useful lives. 8.2 Fuel Mix In order to achieve the desired partial transition to low- and zero -emission fleet with minimal impact on existing infrastructure and operations, a 2034 fuel mix was devised to reflect this. Figure 8-1 depicts the fuel mix of the current CAT fixed route fleet and Figure 8-2 depicts the fuel mix of the proposed 2034 CAT fixed route fleet. Two-thirds of the fleet will remain as diesel buses, but the proposed fleet will incorporate approximately six hybrid buses, two battery electric buses, and two gasoline trolley buses. FIGURE 8-1: 2025 FUEL MIX 4 benesch FIGURE 8-2: 2034 FUEL MIX Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-2 Page 141 of 229 8.3 Phasing of Implementation Based on the vehicle replacement plan and proposed fuel mix presented in this plan, the transition occurs in three phases. It is important to note that internal and external factors may impact the timing and details of this approach. The three main phases of the 2025-2034 transition plan are as follows: Once Phase 3 is complete, CAT will seek to maintain the mixture of vehicle technologies or expand the fleet of low- and zero -emission vehicles. To maintain service quality, no routes will be reconfigured due to the adoption of low- and zero -emission vehicles, but service needs and shifts in transit demand may require changes to route structures. Figure 8-3 provides an overview of the transition to low- and zero -emission vehicles in the CAT Fleet. The fleet composition transition is provided for planning purposes and reflects the aforementioned vehicle replacement plan and proposed fuel mix. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-3 Page 142 of 229 The actual replacement schedule may differ based on the availability of replacement vehicles as well as CAT's ability to secure funding. The size of the fleet may also change with the implementation of new or different types of services, therefore affecting the transition. 15 10 5 0 FIGURE 8-3: PROPOSED FIXED ROUTE FLEET COMPOSITION 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 ■ Diesel ■ Gasoline ■ BEB ■ Hybrid To achieve the fleet composition mix shown in Figure 8-3, vehicle purchases will occur as provided in Figure 8-4. The ten-year plan begins in 2025, which follows the purchase of four new diesel vehicles and one new battery electric bus in 2024. Figure 8-5 provides planning level cost projections related to the vehicle purchase plan noted in Figure 8-4. This implementation plan incorporates the same cost assumptions used in the financial analysis, which were derived from sources that generated estimates for average costs and may not accurately reflect each individual expense an agency may incur. jbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition pior ' 8-4 Page 143 of 229 2 5 3 4 1 0 FIGURE 8-4: PROPOSED FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE PURCHASE PLAN 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 ■ Diesel ■ Gasoline ■BEB ■ Hybrid FIGURE 8-5: PROPOSED FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE EXPENSES 2034 $4.5 c 0 $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 6. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 ■ Diesel ■ Gasoline ■ BEB ■ Hybrid benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition pier ' 8-5 Page 144 of 229 8.4 Paratransit and Support Vehicle Fleet Plan CAT has not identified a suitable alternative fuel for its demand response paratransit services, which typically use cutaway vehicles. Although CAT purchases and owns its vehicles, any changes made to the technology the vehicles use would need to be negotiated with the operator because CAT's transit services are operated by a third -party vendor. The agency will continue to review options, but there is no intent to transition the paratransit fleet to a low- or zero -emission technology at this time. This transition plan assumes the replacement of demand response vehicles at the end of their useful lives with vehicles of the same fuel type (diesel or gasoline). For support vehicles, there are low- or zero -emission vehicle options to replace these vehicles. At the time of writing, CAT has six support vehicles. These vehicles include sedans, vans, and pick-up trucks. While this transition plan focuses on the fixed -route fleet transition, CAT will replace two of its retiring support vans with two battery electric sport utility vehicles (SUVs). 8.5 Financial Plan Incorporating the CAT's operating and capital expenses and revenues as presented in Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7, the financial plan in Figure 8-8 captures the estimated total expenses and revenue for CAT from 2025 to 2034, reflecting the low and zero -emission vehicle transition. Figure 8-9 zeroes in on vehicle capital and operating expenses, which are the only expenses directly affected by this transition plan. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-6 Page 145 of 229 Q O N Ln N O N Z ¢ a J m a W LL N O U N Z O F ¢ W Q U mr llppN mO ttpp r v1 m Nl0 W NN Nmal0Na00 lOrIOM NNu1 .-I N .ti M M ra Mm W I�.i Q aminv mNlOam N.-I N.-IOrO NQNMr N.-I If1 Q vi mmTn v100Q aNNN�S o r rl O � M N u1 N OO M M O r •" r RO OOO IOltI V m p pp�� Np N .-I 0 Q rI c ppQpp mrl M• mO Mn i e- -t2- rl N rr rr .-I TO WWOOOMW- OC"jN-1Q0N m r.-1 - ^Nm N 4 O N m m ttpp N v1 N-Q W m N -1 l�lpM N N u1 .-I N .-I r Q w D] I�.i Q Q N.-I W lOO N' Yl rl O r lfln o 00 pp O)ON pp M M V/ N l0 M ul Ill pp N w r M N VI �?m ID V ^ m 8 Nma ��N 10Na00 g� � .-I � �.+ M O Nm NOO mmm mNlOammN NtiNmry m.+m.. m aNIllrlll in �O •.m OOr� �D �i � OON u�inM �.+.+co N✓1 MM ono N M Rl O `+�' m V a N n m MQO u1�q m l0 O � .-� M e-I rl � '-I N m m N N N r N '4-I Q m 'i V 1 '-I l0 N l[I 4O N 71 N^ N N rlm N N lO 1p D]lpv l0 m w m i l 1 O O O O1 Opp 1 n O '+ Q 11111 GO .6 M M m •i c0 M m a0 Vf III l0 m N N IA �O l0 IA N �••; O 11YY�� M CO — O pp M CO a lA � 1p I� R O Il1 N_ N' N VF O M IA .-I M m e•1 M T O M 10111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m m D TIfl l D I 1 IA lON M r l N M N N r 0 0 Ill 0 0 V I O O r 0 l0 0 In vet O m .-I npp m mm In Ol mm �o n Ql:i Orn r .-I :,j 4m co m omo n m c6 Ls m Vi N m cr 9 Ll . O w fV r �j ei N N .-I .-i i~A N �4 ~ pp ei �nr fO+I 00000000 V 00000 O• H •O 00000000000.••i ^ r a O I� rrN 3 NCNOQ4 m r m r VIfl :9 O M mM m 00 m O N 00 Ill e^ N r � O O .••I M lgp N- 00000000 V 00000t0 � O O O O O O O O O O O O N N _ N m b 80N01 p mp O N N N O O C my pNp � O o 'Q-�I N M I!1 l!1 Q O rl n 1!1 M W N N n y O O N O W Om0 0 0 0 M M N 00 r l ' i �N•I N pOp ��D r 0 r ---- 0 00000 0 000000000 W l 00000 m Q rl L D '+OOmMn l p m m m I A M M C V I N iO m N N 00 011t 00 M m Q O M ul lD W QQO W O N vl W vl OD W Orl CO r Orl O pr prp M 00 Ipp� M t�A 00 O� O N m O O N n r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a ny r r� N M N Q r I A pM O O n^ V Q 1p O m M �O r N rl �D In m ID Q lnmmmroo m mmON O M m n 00 00 r r N 4/� VI I!1 Oi In r m 0 V! VF 9 N l0 01 m ^ N eY t0 M 00000000 00000 O 000 000000 00000 r t0 I110 m 0 u1 r m 00 m O N 00 lz V O V pp�� 00 r W N •-I CMO W� e•I O O m r1 N F Ol I� N irA Yf Ill � O N Q Or1 h N V '-IQ N m Y1 wwmmnrlQ CO N Y1 -1 N N r ri m M t0 Ot NIA 0 a -I M O �If Q 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 Vf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N of N N itl N m 0 N M vl m m M N IO Ifl r I[ 1 N Vf IA r 1A rl M O O K V ^m oti a .� 8899t99m mmmwm.�r rn .+vt•�25 m m .� m m a .� V V V V V 3 N � VOI l0 N N Gl W v v d ry w 0 0 0 O O u_ u_ u_ �_ �_ u a u a u •° ry ry u ti t� a u voo u i L s EEE"E." 3>>>>>>> aGi aGi aGi aGi a0i aGi 3i�� _u cOi Ii�Ii��i •.« UIM� o Ii inJJI1Oi Ii 00 -- is Oe 3 v 3 v v a m v v m m v v v v v v v 3 m 3 3 m m 3 3 a w 3 3 w v 3 v c c c c c v Z v Z c c c c c «e .[..x. c c «y «�«c«e c "x c c "y W W W W W 3S 3 3S Z 3 3 Z ZdIZuL 3"e IZS 3 o a i g g 50 A o oac z E a a o c ca } 2 - Xv vYv.-I° tippO° +'cz—� ¢ i•A av m E mi°vovoi ° S7 "�o�coY4a"'ccccc+' c000C� os'�L5O Y — 'o `= ro}vE z o u m m EEEEEE, E�C`^oo ° 1Ouoo In — mm `v m O c eolnn `Y' — c v V cEO`w_ E-� E 39xx �ooaa 3•c0 zz� a� 0 ` 0mv'- c Z2c,—o— vv a a E aonoonn o u NQmmQQ o 0 0 0 0 o $ a o °xx x c v c v d�2 "'uvc � -o�aa� m O a� O c w a v wLLZw a s +• y} ° vc m •- a i N vv c 000 00 o Ioi vaa ccc""mr3� w—InomEEEE wvvm °°N..Ioro� ueM..m o o m¢ ~ oLLLL'-EEc�v �oov—z H ccc _ z31n z za mm��mm E E E E E ESi E m.v. x,'�'� a`{u Ea000 m•,„ vinmin �i in— culn a" " v > N °i� tIi C O c Ux x N IONNNN¢ N v ai w v 0 0 0 0 0 0 v c i «_ "� C C i V V r C c o« i 0 m C •� w C C •i w C CNN C O O O ON'i titi•Q-I•m-I-I .�I .r-I N.i .T-I�.Ni� N V ««« C� N� 14� C C �:a V Ii R O O tJ N iEa O N } mm N U } N W N C C �•vvtr C>> tr rt�vvvvvvv v vvvvvv-maz_---O�ppm�c c��s OO m 6 0 N N W N J> > J J J O J J 3>> J JUp 0 O��CL K Z ZZZCL K C C21'K L' SKK C zGZZZ Z ��FOIi JIY Jay 0 0 O J U Ii 2 W -- H Q N U d 0 O N m C LU N N t u AN, W C a)/� -0 n ffl ti N 1000n m v o o o oo0000 IS o A •i MO10 N n- o m n oa gE N N N N yM S O a ON1 Oo0 M N Q 0�0 v Q�l WIR VT pOp N I N V` le Vml L.6 MM0W1 O 19 Oo000 +N-I e v v ` �� m • � o t/} y�y +i ei .-1 w �.-I OOO OOOOOOn000 m 5t nm W r O 0009 a O m '"vim` O m0�� 1.0000 o o o- o o o o o o mo�oo o o o o o oN 88 m Nmm m u1 m m m h n m m� N 0n N ttIN1O10 lO0 Oa0 tm0 01 � N ON1 ONl m � a n ti V O a n 000 00 0 0 000000 0000000 01 ✓1 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Uf N N N n N O n N N m vet Nit ti 61 nN N Vf I!1 ti h NNE 8 ui mRG3N0000 m ti 00000000 2 n n n ^m rn o000 ooa 0 Z& m 0 a a Ta `0m N m pipp O n1 W 000000 i[1 F N O o a 0 m N N rn�N �. v ry Grp d � m io Z +h N c-1 n VN N O 8 O ^.� OO O u� o o o o O o o 0 0 o 0 o g Q m g, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N aq 0 N OM N N N r O O n h M O vl M ON1 M G t0 L! •i .n v� .ti m ao a -I .y N N r VT N LF ih m NpFF F}�8u� 000g ca m iA O 01 a M Ol O Q 00 M �R O m i/Y [A to a � G C G C G N C G R C R L1 9 W XX yy W W xx �n W W eN-I `w m y a ��c RVR� xi'i oR-mA «_ «_ '«_ «_ a O O G_ C rl a •- d a a o � Z 2 3 ,a, o aO z c m % V o A .'� Z2" R u R R u v R u nz y g d L W„ i L to N Z 1 .R C L `l N a V O M M M O = C CCd HL pdaaQr CNUZ�a YL N��Qi p i�0 .�� RVC C CCC R O V vvv>dLL y a a a R N H a G R v, O-._ R Z i.� w w $ R a CC r 0 0 0 O O N r _ i R =z��->�a Y N a d '-�' R m Q Z Vl N lJ a Y. C C C C •• `} V - d °10 3333wmmQ aaa a0 oLz r R rya v w a a ob Z Z Z Z N N Q V 1 LL aaaaaa.�.��.�.o C O N H H H H f N V 1 V 1 N H LL LL LL J U_ L N 0 O N M C w 0 a) N ACA,, � W c Q FIGURE 8-8: PROPOSED CAT FINANCIAL PLAN $35 - $31$32 $30 $30 $25 $23 $23 $21 $21 $22 $20 $20$21 $19 $20 $20$21 $20 $17 $17 $17 $16 $16 $15 $10 $5 $ 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 ■ Total Costs ■ Total Revenue FIGURE 8-9: CAT ZEV 2025-2034 TRANSITION PLAN TOTAL FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENSES $18 0 $16 $14.9 $15.2 $15.4 $15.4 $15.8 $13.6 $14.0 $14.3 $14.6 $14 $13.1 $12 $10 $8 111 in $6 3.9 3.8 $4 3.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 $ 2 1 1 ■ 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 ■ Total Operating Expense (Existing Services) ■ Total Vehicle Capital Expense benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-9 Page 148 of 229 8.6 Emissions Reduction Based on the final transition approach, the following emissions profiles were estimated to understand what the overall emissions would look like compared to the current scenario. Emissions profile is based on previously described emission references found in Section 6.4.1.5 regarding NOx, CO, and PM10. Figure 8-10 compares the reduction in pounds of annual emissions output for fixed route vehicles in the current scenario and in the transition scenario. Figure 8-11 compares the reduction in short tons of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for fixed route vehicles in the current scenario and in the transition scenario. FIGURE 8-10: ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE COMPARISON FOR THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF FIXED ROUTE VEHICLES Final Recommendation Current Scenario 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Pounds ■ N0x ■ CO ■ PM10 358.4 409.2 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 It is expected that a net annual reduction of about 1,000 pounds of harmful emissions will be experienced as a result of the current transition over the fixed route fleet. FIGURE 8-11: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUS GAS COMPARISON FOR THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF FIXED ROUTE VEHICLES Final Recommendation Current Scenario 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Short Tons It is expected that a reduction of about 114 short tons of greenhouse gas emissions will be saved over the lifecycle of the fixed route fleet as a result of the current transition. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-10 Page 149 of 229 Since no demand response vehicles are planned for transition in this plan, no comparison in emissions reduction is presented. It is estimated that the output of harmful emissions from the demand response fleet is about 2,560 pounds annually, while the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for this fleet is estimated at almost 700 short tons. Figure 8-12 compares the reduction in pounds of annual emissions output for support vehicles in the current scenario and in the transition scenario. Figure 8-13 compares the reduction in short tons of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for support vehicles in the current scenario and in the transition scenario. FIGURE 8-12: ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE COMPARISON FOR THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT VEHICLES Final Recommendation 7.0 Current Scenario 7.2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Pounds NOx ■ CO ■ PM10 It is expected that a net annual reduction of about 90 pounds of harmful emissions will be experienced as a result of the current transition over the support vehicle fleet. FIGURE 8-13: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUS GAS COMPARISON FOR THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT VEHICLES Final Recommendation Current Scenario 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Short Tons It is expected that a reduction of about 6 short tons of greenhouse gas emissions will be saved over the lifecycle of the support vehicle fleet as a result of the current transition. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-11 Page 150 of 229 In total, it is expected that the current transition will amount to a decrease in harmful emissions of about 1,100 pounds annually, and about 120 short tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of CAT's entire fleet. 8.7 Facilities Recommendations A review of CAT's Operations Facility was undertaken to understand what a low- and zero -emission transition would require and how it would be physically implemented at CAT's various facilities. The Operations Facility, located on Radio Road, will be undergoing a facility reconfiguration in the near future which will replace the maintenance building. At approximately 8 acres, this facility currently houses the full fleet, administration, operations, and maintenance functions. The current facility already includes a fuel depot with existing diesel fuel storage infrastructure and dispensers and will soon be adapted to include unleaded gasoline. A series of recommendations were developed based on any given scenario, both the recommended, and other potential scenarios to be explored. Only the operations and maintenance facilities are explored since this is the location of bus staging where vehicles will be recharged or refueled. Considerations for the new maintenance facility include: • Electric Charging Infrastructure - The following explores considerations regarding the inclusion of electric charging infrastructure at the Radio Road facility. o Overnight Charging Locations - It is expected that the reconfiguration will provide for a total of 40 bus parking spots, two of which have been explicitly identified for electric charging capabilities. These spots are located at an adequate distance from the fueling depot. It is recommended that CAT look into the possibility of an additional ten spots beyond these two that could be transformed into electric charging spots if necessary. The facility is otherwise limited to the expansion of additional electric bus charging spots. o Fast Charging Infrastructure - Fast charging would best be recommended under the canopy structure where buses stop during layovers. o Grid Expansion - The electric grid will be reconfigured and expanded to handle the new electric output. This system will be placed closer to the administration building and will be able to accommodate the expansion as the electric utility providers deem necessary. • CNG Fueling Infrastructure - If a CNG fueling station were to be considered, this would be challenging under the new configuration and should only be considered if CNG becomes a viable option for this facility. Based on the future configuration of the facility, CNG would best be delivered to the facility for on -site dispensing. • Biodiesel Fueling Infrastructure - The inclusion of biodiesel would require installing an additional fuel storage tank near the fueling depot and reconfiguring the dispensers. This would not be an intensive reconfiguration of the facility area. • Hybrid Buses and Vehicles - There are no substantial requirements over the facility to consider for hybrid vehicles. • Additional Spare Parts for any Alternative Fuel Vehicle - Dedicated space for the inclusion of spare parts for electric vehicles or other alternative fuel vehicles should be considered at the maintenance building. 'i benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-12 Page 151 of 229 8.8 Workforce Training Considerations As CAT shifts toward an alternative fuel future, workforce training will be essential to ensure a smooth and timely transition. The training requirements will differ based on each position and current skill level. By following the prompts from FTA's Workforce Evaluation Tool, CAT maintenance and administration staff can strategically assess the impact of the transition to low- and zero -emission technologies on the current workforce. The following information outlines the findings and conclusions derived from using the tool. First, the training needs for various CAT employee groups were identified. • Training Instructors I CAT will employ a train -the -trainer approach to ensure all technicians and maintenance employees receive the training that they need. Technicians who provide training to other CAT technicians will require training related to all aspects of the new skills required for the individuals that they train. • Mechanics and Technicians I Identified through the agency interviews as the group with the most impact on a low- and zero -emission transition's success, the speed with which these staff members adapt to working with the new technologies is critical. Their transition impacts the speed with which vehicles are returned to revenue service. For these reasons, the most intensive training needs will be related to the mechanic and technician staff. At present, none of the mechanic and technician staff have been trained in electric vehicle needs. CAT is committed to training current staff as opposed to replacing staff to acquire these skills. CAT intends to secure training as part of the purchase price of the vehicles. CAT staff should take full advantage of this training and any other training offered by the manufacturer. Most likely, a subset of the current workforce in this department will be trained first and then they will train the other members of the team. Any additional employee training needed beyond the manufacturer training will be acquired and paid for by CAT. Operators I In order to ensure the best fuel economy, operators will be trained on how to best operate the vehicles. Buses will be purchased with feedback mechanisms on the dashboard. Typically, manufacturers do not offer operator training so training will be conducted internally. Other Staff I It is not anticipated that any other staff will need to be trained on the new technologies beyond basic safety training. Second, CAT will operate with the following policies in mind: Displacement Prevention I If certain technicians or mechanics are not interested in training on the electrical components of the vehicles (e.g., due to impending retirement), they will not be penalized by the agency. Charging Protocols I A charging protocol will be established for and evaluated when the vehicles are put into operation. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-13 Page 152 of 229 8.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy The following strategy is proposed to CAT as a way to identify key performance indicators that should be tracked and analyzed to evaluate vehicle performance. The goal of a monitoring and evaluation strategy is to compare hybrid, battery electric, and conventional diesel technology vehicle performance. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) tracks the performance of low- and zero -emission buses for several transit agencies across the nation. The proposed strategy below follows the template used by NREL, which tracks progress over time toward meeting the various technical targets set by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). To support data collection, CAT should negotiate with bus manufacturers during the purchase process for manufacturers to share data that is being collected on the vehicle. There is valuable information being collected and can be used to support these monitoring and evaluation efforts. To ensure that the data generates meaningful analysis the following points should be considered: Keep separate data for each technology type: diesel, hybrid, and battery electric vehicles; revenue vehicles separate from support vehicles. This data should include: o Miles o Revenue hours o Miles between road calls for all types of breakdowns and for propulsion -related breakdowns o Fuel cost/revenue mile o Maintenance cost/revenue mile o Bus availability rate (percentage of days the buses are available as a percentage of days that the buses are planned for passenger service) o Fuel economy (in diesel gallon equivalents for battery electric buses) Generate the following analytics in a biannual report: o Data summary o Total miles and hours for each technology type o Average monthly mileage for each bus within each technology type o Availability Analysis ■ Days available ■ Days unavailable ■ Reason for unavailability o Fuel Economy and Cost Analysis ■ Miles per diesel gallon equivalent for battery electric buses compared to miles per gallon for hybrid buses ■ Fuel/electricity cost per mile for each technology type o Roadcall Analysis ■ Compare total miles between roadcalls for each technology type ■ Compare total miles between propulsion roadcalls for each technology type o Maintenance Analysis ■ Compare total cost of parts and hours of labor per mile for each bus under each technology type ■ Compare the maintenance types by technology types o Generate a summary of findings and comparisons for each analysis Review and report monitoring and evaluation biannually to transit agency leadership benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan 1 8-14 Page 153 of 229 APPENDIX A STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES Steering Committee #1— Thursday January 23, 2025 Meeting Summary Attendees: Chad Ward, Collier County Pollution Control Manager Dusty Hansen, Collier MPO Tonia Selmeski, Collier County Community Planning & Resiliency Omar Deleon, Collier County PTNE Wally Blain, Benesch Yousi Cardesco, Collier County Juan Suarez, Benesch PTNE 1. Introductions • Members made introductions and provided a description of their roles and responsibilities. • A broad range of experience and interests are represented on the steering committee that will provide a comprehensive assessment of the analysis and recommendations for the ZEV Transition Plan. 2. Review of Scope and Schedule (See attached Schedule) • Benesch briefly provided an overview of the scope with an overview of current activities and activities to be completed. • Regarding the coordination with the local electricity providers, Tonia mentioned that she could provided contact information for the Lee County Electric CoOp (LCEC). 3. State of Zero Emission Vehicles • Benesch provided an overview of the alternative fuel types that were assessed for the ZEV study, including Battery Electric, Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Diesel Electric Hybrid, and Compressed Natural Gas, noting the current conditions and limitations of each. • Information regarding recent trends by transit agencies according to the APTA database were presented that showed roughly 50% of transit fleet vehicles are fueled by alternative fuels. • The national trends for alternative fuel adoption were similar to those for Florida transit agencies. While the percentages varied, CNG is the most commonly used alternative fuel. Battery Electric is a small percentage of the alternative fuels used, but a larger percentage in Florida than nationwide. • Yousi asked if there was any information available regarding the experience of peer agencies in using hybrid electric vehicles. CAT has hybrid vehicles in 2010, but didn't find the savings to be as great as expected. Additional information was provided later during the Peer Agency item regarding this question. • Chad asked if emissions would be a consideration in making a recommendation for the ZEV study As a Zero Emission Transition Plan, this should be a consideration along with the cost for implementing. • Juan shared that the AFLEET tool provides general estimates for costs as well as emissions resulting from the fleet characteristics. Benesch will incorporate additional details during the upcoming steering committee meeting to discuss the feasibility analysis. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-1 Page 154 of 229 • Dusty mentioned that the State of ZEV chapter included a high-level summary of emissions for each fuel type in a comparative format. 4. Current Local, State, Regional initiatives • Bensch provided an overview of the local, state, and regional initiatives that are currently in place. A review of these initiatives has provided some key takeaways and considerations for the study team to consider. • Available funding options were also discussed. Chad asked if the federal grant programs had a local match requirement. • Omar indicated that there is usually a 20% local match requirement for federal grants. However, in Florida there is a toll credit program that can be used to offset some or all of the local match requirements. Specific details of grant funding would need to be worked out with FDOT for specific funding requests. 5. Peer Agency Interviews • Benesch provided a sum m ay of the selected peer agencies and how they compare with CAT. • Yousi asked in JTA (Jacksonville) was considered as a peer agency since they have discussed and considered switching to electric in the near future. • Benesch will enquire about adding them for the peer interviews. This would be a good consideration since not all of the selected peer agencies have responded to the initial request. • Results from the PSTA interview were shared. Key takeaways included the need to have a diverse mix of fuels for Florida communities given the need to address storm recovery efforts. Flooding and water intrusion were strong considerations for avoiding in -road induction charging. • CNG is seen as a more reliable option based on fewer maintenance and operational challenges. However, it is a higher cost alternative. • An initiative previously led by the former Fleet Director evaluated conversion to CNG. Estimates at that time were $800,000 for construction of a refueling station. Recent information suggest that Waste Management may have a CNG fueling station in Collier County. Benesch will look into the current status of this and identify if this is an opportunity for consideration during the feasibility analysis. 6. Discussion: What does this study need to include to be successful? • Previous discussion during the meeting identified two topics to consider as the study progresses. Analysis of the cost and financial feasibility. It will be important to have a realistic timeline for implementation. ii. As a Zero Emissions Study, consideration of emission reduction should be included and not merely cost -savings for identifying a recommended alternative 7. Upcoming Meetings (dates for discussion) • The group agreed that February 13t" would work for scheduling the next meeting. • There are known conflicts for March 131". Benesch will send an meeting poll out to identify a tentative time for the third meeting. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-2 Page 155 of 229 Zero Emissions Transition Plan Steering Committee #2 Agenda — Thursday February 13, 2025 Attendees: Dusty Hansen, Collier MPO Omar Deleon, Collier County PTNE Yousi Cardesco, Collier County PTNE Alex Showalter, Collier County PTNE Agenda Meeting Summary Chad Ward, Collier County Pollution Control Manager Tonia Selmeski, Collier County Community Planning & Resiliency Wally Blain, Benesch Juan Suarez, Benesch 8. Peer Agency Interview Updates 9. Outreach to Electricity Providers 10. Feasibility Review 11. Financial Analysis 12. Discussion: 13. Upcoming Meetings Summary - Benesch provided a status update on the peer agency interviews. The response from ECAT indicated that receipt of vehicles was delayed and they have not been able to implement any alternative fuels. The interview with LeeTran was completed on February 7th. Much of the feedback received was focused on the mileage limitations observed with first generation propane buses. Experience with hybrid buses did not have the same limitations, but these were best suited for long distance express routes. - An interview with JTA is scheduled based on direction previously provided by the Steering Committee. An additional interview has also been set up with the City of Hallandale Beach. - Initial contact was made with both FPL and LCEC for evaluating current electrical service and an assessment of needed upgrades to support a conversion to battery electric buses. - An overview of the assumptions and considerations that fed into the feasibility analysis was presented. In describing the results of the feasibility analysis, Benesch provided an overview of the fixed route service blocks that would be feasible based on the assumptions. An assessment was completed based on current expectations, especially in regards to battery life, as well as an extrapolated evaluation based on improved battery conditions under assumed future conditions starting 10-years in the future. - Based on the assumptions and assessment of fuel technologies, four scenarios were developed to identify potential fleet mix options using the various alternative fuels. - Yousi asked about the impacts to maintenance if multiple fuel types were involved as well as the need to maintain multiple additional spare vehicles for each fuel source. Any change or addition of new fuel sources will require additional training and equipment to support fleet operations. Adding multiple fuel sources complicates the need for additional training and infrastructure and could result in higher costs. - Omar mentioned that in conversations with Collier County Fleet, that availability of bio-diesel fuels s a primary concern. - The team reviewed the recommendations for each scenario which include a mix of fueled vehicles for the fixed route fleet, demand response, and support vehicles. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-3 Page 156 of 229 Based on the mix of fuels from each scenario, anticipated capital costs, annual emissions, and lifecycle emissions were presented. Alex asked about the assumptions supporting the feasibility results for the battery electric buses. The analysis used an assumption 420KwH for the total battery energy of a 35' bus. CAT currently has a spec sheet for a GILLIG bus on order that has 686KwH of energy based on a 7-battery pack. Alex asked if changing this assumption would affect the number of potentially feasible service blocks. - Benesch will evaluate the assumptions used and provide feedback regarding impacts to the feasibility analysis and results from the scenario recommendations. - The team also reviewed the initial results from the financial analysis which looked at initial capital costs and 10-year operating costs. - When considering a preference for transitioning the fleet to zero emissions, several topics for consideration were raised which included. o Added costs for multiple fuel types o Need to carrying additional spare vehicles as backups for each fuel type. o Consideration of vehicle availability during storm emergencies or other times when power may be out for an extended period. - The group did feel that converting some of the support vehicles to battery/electric could be a good test case for easing into a vehicle transition. - Chad noted that much of the feedback from the peer interviews seemed to focus on the negative impacts to maintenance. Juan agreed that much of the feedback was influenced by maintenance representatives and demonstrated the somewhat experimental transition that some agencies had experienced. Feedback from non -maintenance staff were more favorable. PSTA for example mentioned that their experience suggested the vehicle KwH for battery electric seemed to be conservative and they were finding additional battery charge remaining than expected. This could be indicative of the Florida geography and operating conditions compared to other areas. The team agreed to schedule for the next steering committee meeting for March 7tn 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-4 Page 157 of 229 Zero Emissions Transition Plan Steering Committee #3 Agenda — Thursday March 7, 2025 Attendees: Dusty Hansen, Collier MPO Omar Deleon, Collier County PTNE Yousi Cardesco, Collier County PTNE Alex Showalter, Collier County PTNE Agenda 1. JTA Peer Experience 2. 10-Year Implementation Plan 3. Questions and Group Discussion 4. Next Steps Summary Meeting Summary Chad Ward, Collier County Pollution Control Manager Tonia Selmeski, Collier County Community Planning & Resiliency Wally Blain, Benesch Juan Suarez, Benesch - Benesch provided a status update on the final peer agency interview that was conducted. The interview with JTA was held following the previous Steering Committee Meeting. JTA has had a positive experience using CNG and is moving forward with plans to deploy 14 autonomous electric shuttles later this year. JTA's decision to begin with CNG in 2013 was to support Bus Rapid Transit service. - Like other agencies, JTA maintains a fleet of diesel buses to maintain operational resiliency. - JTA has experienced challenges with underperforming EV ranges and facility space for electric charging equipment. Their experience to transition towards zero emissions is an evolving process aligned with their vehicle replacement schedule and funding opportunities. - Benesch provided an overview of the 10-year implementation plan based on the selected fueling plan. CAT has chosen to use the current electric bus that is in production as a test pilot to evaluate the feasibility and long-term viability of transitioning to alternative fuel sources. o Transition of the fixed route fleet is being approached through a phased implementation. o Demand response vehicle will continue to be a fuel mix comprised of gasoline and diesel fuels. o CAT is planning for the replacement of two support vans to electric SUVs. By 2034, the transition plan would move the fixed route fleet to 68% diesel, 19% hybrid battery electric, 7% gasoline, and 6% battery electric. Currently the fleet is 93% diesel. Phase 1 of the implementation would extend through 2029. During the phase, the battery electric bus that is on order would be delivered and two overnight chargers would be purchased. After evaluation of this new vehicle, and assessment of the buses operating performance and maintenance needs could be conducted prior to proceeding with a second purchase. Later in the meeting, Omar explained that charging of the battery electric bus and two support SUVs would need to be put on a rotation which would allow all three vehicles to be charged using the two chargers. Phase 2 would extend through 2032 when CAT would purchase a second battery electric bus. The next 5-year major update to the Transit Development Plan will be due in 2031. At that time, the ZEV Transition Plan should be re-evaluated based on then, current range and vehicle performance expectations. A consolidated vehicle replacement plan would be updated based on the TDP analysis and needs. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-5 Page 158 of 229 Phase 3 as currently defined would include replacing six existing buses that reach their end of useful life with hybrid electric buses. As a new technology component is added to the fleet mix, operating performance and maintenance needs would again need to be evaluated. As part of the facility assessment, CAT already has preliminary plans for the conversion of two spaces dedicated to electric buses. Based on space limitations, on -site incorporation of CNG or bio-diesel isn't feasible at this time due to the need for fuel storage and on -site refueling. As new fuel technologies are introduced, maintenance staff will need to be trained. CAT desires to maintain the existing workforce and provide the necessary training. Immediate implementation of a battery electric vehicle requires dependence on the vehicle manufacturer for warranty work and support. - In response to the proposed transition plan, Yousi appreciated and supported the slow implementation. She noted that thinking ahead and preparing for future infrastructure needs is necessary for budgeting and preparing grant funding requests. She also noted that developing partnerships, like JTA did, plays a big part in reaching a successful outcome. - Omar indicated that conversation has continued with FPL in regards to electrification and needs at the Operations/Maintenance Facility. Ultimately a new transformer would be needed with the addition of battery electric buses. The intent is to identify the maximum future need in order to right -size the transformer. - Chad asked if the transition plan would include emissions level expectations for the recommended approach in addition to the cost information. Benesch is wrapping up the documentation and will incorporate the same level of information for the recommended transition as was used for the comparison of feasibility scenarios. - The schedule of next steps was discussed. The draft transition plan will be submitted to MPO, CAT, and the Steering Committee for review. A final draft for review by the Public Transit Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee is due on March 12tn Comments by the Steering Committee can be provided by March 215t in order to be included in the information that will be presented to the MPO Board on April 11tn. Final action on the transition plan will be made by the Board of County Commissioners at their April 22nd meeting. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix A-6 Page 159 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER .,,,)Collier � y ride CAT Metropolitan PlanningOrganizatiaa COLLIER AREA TRANSIT APPENDIX B PEER AGENCY INTERVIEW NOTES Name: Christopher Cochran and Jacob Labutka Organization: PST Interview date and time: 1 /14/2025 1:00 P 1. Please give us an overview of the fuel technologies and fleet mix that you currently employ. The oldest buses are diesel, mostly will be phased out. Newly ordered trolleys are diesels. Most buses are hybrid electric (Gillig). Incrementally increasing the size of the electric fleet (Gillig and formerly BYG 2. Why did you choose the mix of technologies that you chose? Partially motivated by reducing emissions, practical to fund things through grants. Wanted to expand electric fleet with the hope of decreasing maintenance costs. Moving in the direction of a diverse fleet (hybrid and electric), this is important in times of natural disaster. Battery works well in warmer climates. 3. How long have you been operating each technology? Hybrids- around 2009 and 2010. Electrics- around 2016 and 2017. 4. Are the fuel technologies that you employ tied to a specific type of service? Or conversely, are there any services for which you would not use these alternative fuel vehicles? Not necessarily tied to a specific service. Electric buses can handle approximately 70% of service blocks. We would not deploy electrics on express routes to Tampa. The hybrids pretty much go anywhere. Some newer buses (electric) cannot clear the obsolete terminals. 5. How did you convince your decision makers to move forward with this technology? We received $600k from the BP oil spill to build charging infrastructure. We demonstrate to decision makers that we continue to be innovative. We bought the first couple alt fuel buses with our own fun demonstrating that we can successfully use external funds for these vehicles. 6. Overall, what has been your experience with these technologies? From a user perspective: We have had minimal issues with hybrids, given the increased fuel efficiencies. With EV's, we are satisfied with the range. 270 miles range for some of them. Our longer routes usually come back with about 15% left. We are looking to deploy on -route chargers. We have had some issues with chargers, not performing to expectations. We are looking at plug in charging instead of inductive charging, it is very complicated and impractical. Add battery capacity instead of inductive charging_ 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix R-1 Page 160 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER �1 Y rideCAT Metropolitan Planning Organization COLLIER AREA TRANSIT Have you had sufficient vendor support or have there been implementation challenges? (ie: warranty of parts, on -site support, cost over -runs for implementation, etc). Issues with BYD buses, sent one back due to batterypack going through flooding_ 7. Are you getting the expected and/or promised travel range per charge (if applicable)? Yes. See question 6. given flat conditions and warn weather. 8. If you had to start over, what would you do differently? Has your chosen mix of the technologies been beneficial or would you change the mix of technologies? There were issues with BYD buses. We developed a statewide template for procuring electric buses. Our current fuel mix is good, it is not practical to expand infrastructure to include additional fuel types. 9. Do you see any advantage to doing a transition by starting with hybrid or is it better to go all in with a ZEB full transition? Driving habits of the driver really affect the performance of the battery electric, and hybrid to a lesser extent. It matters especially more on limited range battery electrics. 10. What facility improvements were required to implement the technology? Training maintenance staff (including additional certifications), adding chargers in depot, coordinating with utility_ provider for electric capacity, especially the latter. We have all 200kwh ChargePoint chargers & 45kwh boxes per unit). Several power stations were added onsite by utility provider. In the future, we will convert unused induction charging into plug in charging stations, done with ChargePoint and Duke. 11. What operational constraints has your agency run into? The main issue is range. We have not overcome this issue completely, but the vast majority of our blocks can accommodate electric. Block schedules can vary greatly (3 to 12 hours). 12. What training was required for operators? Maintenance staff? Operators were trained on the slight differences on the buses. Maintenance staff were trained on how to work on a completely different vehicle. �benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix B-2 Page 161 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER Ma `-f J Metropolitan Planning Organization rideCAT COLLIER AREA TRANSIT 13. Have you experienced any cost savings or conducted a return on investment study to assess the financial impacts resulting from planned or implemented fleet changes? (What specifically have you seen as the result and is there information you could share with us). We have saved some money in terms of maintenance. 14. Are there any additional thoughts or perspectives you have now related to the use of zero emission propulsion that wish you knew sooner? Would not have gone down the path of the inductive charging. Leadership needs to be on -board with implementing the alt fuel vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are a good place to start. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix B-3 Page 162 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER .,,,)Collier � y ride CAT Metropolitan PlanningOrganizatiaa COLLIER AREA TRANSIT Name: Julie Parker, Matt Kinninger Organization: LeeTran Interview date and time: 2/7/2025; 9:00 AM 1. Please give us an overview of the fuel technologies and fleet mix that you currently employ. Fixed route buses: 8 hybrids, getting up in age, close to being phased out; 2 EV buses on order — will likely receive in 2026; some aging propane vehicles that are reaching their life expectant .. 2. Why did you choose the mix of technologies that you chose? For hybrids, they were able to get grant funding for them, and they were advertised as more fuel efficient (mpg), but that turned out to not be true. Cost for propane was because fuel was very cheap and they were able to get rebates for propane fuel, extra funding that was able to be used for alternate fuels vehicles. 3. How long have you been operating each technology? Since 2015. 10 years for propane; 2013 was the hybrid buses; EV will be 2026. 4. Are the fuel technologies that you employ tied to a specific type of service? Or conversely, are there any services for which you would not use these alternative fuel vehicles? The first aeneration of propane was limited on miles. but have areatly improved since. It does take time and money to bring these in for fuel and the propane had to be brought in midway through the day. There were occasionally heating issues that would make vehicles stall in hot weather for propane. They did not discriminate hybrid routes, as long as fueling was not an issue. These vehicles are made for long routes with less stop -and -go ability, so they were better for express type services. 5. How did you convince your decision makers to move forward with this technology? The decision was about overall cost, the savings from government funding led to the purchases of propane and hybrid vehicles. For electric buses, the decision -makers were looking for clean energy to use in the downtown area, so they led the way. 6. Overall, what has been your experience with these technologies? There has been a need for extra training. The range has for these propane and hybrid vehicles have created a level of uncertainty within the agency. The propane vehicles must be towed if they run out of fuel. If it is left at a dealer, there needs to be fuel brought to and available on site. Propane vehicles get plugged up easier, so there are new fuel pumps being brought in around every 80k miles. Lately, it has been very lengthy to get parts in for vehicles that need maintenance. Waiting two weeks for a fuel puma, is frustrating to them. For hybrids, they get 1 extra mpg, so they don't think it is worth the extra costs. Also, only certified technicians are able to work on hybrid bus tops, so they would have to send the vehicle into a dealer if there was damage. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix R-A Page 163 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER �� Y ride CAT ao Metropolitan Manning Organization COLLIER AREA TRANSIT 7. Are you getting the expected and/or promised travel range per charge (if applicable)? Not meeting the expectation for hybrid, propane is not as bad but is a little bit. They think gasoline for vans is best and diesel for buses. Extra Q) are vendors improving in technology enough to supplement these issues? They have competition to do the best they can, but LeeTran does not know about the details of that. 8. If you had to start over, what would you do differently? Has your chosen mix of the technologies been beneficial or would you change the mix of technologies? 9. Do you see any advantage to doing a transition by starting with hybrid or is it better to go all in with a ZEB full transition? 10. What facility improvements were required to implement the technology? For propane, they had to put in a tank on the property to provide daily fueling; they had to install a drive- thru type of system because the propane is temperature sensitive. There is also safety gear required to do it, but the tank itself is the same for gas and diesel. 11. What operational constraints has your agency run into? 12. What training was required for operators? Maintenance staff? Propane — a crash course for fueling; same for typical gasoline and diesel training for fueling. 13. Have you experienced any cost savings or conducted a return on investment study to assess the financial impacts resulting from planned or implemented fleet changes? (What specifically have you seen as the result and is there information you could share with us). It costs a lot to implement these buses and keep them maintained. Propane engines are hard to get, so they've had times where buses have had to sit for months while new engines are on backorder. 14. Are there any additional thoughts or perspectives you have now related to the use of zero emission propulsion that wish you knew sooner? You need to have a really good backup plan; breakdowns are big costs since towing is a cost that quickly adds u�. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix R-s Page 164 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER .,,,)Collier � y ride CAT Metropolitan PlanningOrganizatiaa COLLIER AREA TRANSIT Name: Alexander Traversa Organization: Interview date and time: 2:00pm 02/14/25 1. Please give us an overview of the fuel technologies and fleet mix that you currently employ. 197 vehicles in FIR, predominately CNG. This started in 2013/2014. This was done for BRT. P3 with clean energy for MPO funded CNG fueling station. This was chosen for stability and fuel costs. At the time CNG buses were not costly compared to diesel. This was highly successful. 70% CNG right now. The remaining 35 to 40 are diesel (hybrid and low sulfur diesel). 2017 LNE grant for two battery electric buses. Not so successful with our service, with long-distance blocks. Our entire fleet is Gillig. 175-mile range for BEB, with the best drivers. Diesel fleet is there for resiliency. CNG station can accommodate 150 buses. JTA will launch an automated vehicle system in June. 14 retrofitted autonomous electric vans, for shuttle, circulator and MOD service. JTA has considered propane for demand response fleet, as it is successful in other agencies. We have had hydrogen conversations as well. 2. Why did you choose the mix of technologies that you chose? (Answered in question 1 � 3. How long have you been operating each technology? (Answered in question 1 y 4. Are the fuel technologies that you employ tied to a specific type of service? Or conversely, are there any services for which you would not use these alternative fuel vehicles? (Answered in question 1 � 5. How did you convince your decision makers to move forward with this technology? In regard to EVs and Hydrogen, hands on training with maintenance and ops convinces them to get on board. CNG switch was easy (operates similar to diesel). EVs are logistically more complicated to implement. Overall, building confidence in the technology. CNG has developed to a point where JTA is comfortable, but not quite yet with electric or hydrogen. 6. Overall, what has been your experience with these technologies? (Answered previously). Have you had sufficient vendor support or have there been implementation challenges? (ie: warranty of parts, on -site support, cost over -runs for implementation, etc). Wbenesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix P-r- Page 165 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER �� Y ride CAT ao Metropolitan Manning Organization COLLIER AREA TRANSIT Gillig has been supportive with the CNG, and their entire Gillig fleet (benefit with one manufacture). Early issues with Gillig Gen 1 EV. Many issues with chargers, though. Most are DC level 3 charge points) 7. Are you getting the expected and/or promised travel range per charge (if applicable)? They are getting range less than advertised (300 vs 150/175) (due to strenuous operation like A/C. The optimal use of electric (stop and go) is not quite easy to pull of in Jacksonville). 8. If you had to start over, what would you do differently? Has your chosen mix of the technologies been beneficial or would you change the mix of technologies? Do not really need to change it major. Have heard horror stories about replacing whole fleet with alternate fuels. Policy ramifications as well. But it would be nice for more options (more American manufacturers), because of Buy America restrictions. 9. Do you see any advantage to doing a transition by starting with hybrid or is it better to go all in with a ZEB full transition? 10. What facility improvements were required to implement the technology? Transformers required for EV charging, needed to find space for chargers as well, as their yard was full. 11. What operational constraints has your agency run into? CNG was painless in this respect. But we are considering adapting operations for other fuel types. May need to expand/add ops and maintenance facilities to accommodate growth and new fuel types. 12. What training was required for operators? Maintenance staff? Manufacturers provide support for this. CNG and EV Gilligs needed training for maintenance and needed new equipment for elevated maintenance work. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix R-7 Page 166 of 229 Collier Count COLLIER �1 Y rideCAT Metropolitan Planning Organization COLLIER AREA TRANSIT 13. Have you experienced any cost savings or conducted a return on investment study to assess the financial impacts resulting from planned or implemented fleet changes? (What specifically have you seen as the result and is there information you could share with us). Not formally. Looked at emissions implications. JTA is credited for emission reductions, which was high because of RNG. 14. Are there any additional thoughts or perspectives you have now related to the use of zero emission propulsion that wish you knew sooner? RNG. Would be nice see if RNG can be integrated with CNG, while waiting for EV and Hydrogen technology to advance. This would be relatively easy to implement. It is important to understand grants, what they are for, and why they exist. Consider community health considerations but strongly consider economic aspects under this new administration. JTA's advantage with their ZEB plan did not call out a specific fuel type, but just a retirement plan. Mixed fuel fleet can have safety and resiliency benefits. Agencies doing it now have funding hurdles to clear. Given the useful life of buses, focused on dates of vehicle replacement to meet zero emissions by a certain date. It was a light plan for the low no grant only. Funding was less competitive for CNG than EV for that grant. Treat a ZEB plan as a living document. 5339, formula grants, low/no is TBD for 2025. Look into P3 route for fueling infrastructure, public private partnerships. p 1 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix R-R Page 167 of 229 APPENDIX C FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS This appendix to Task 6 for ZEV feasibility details the results generated by each of the models used for the analysis CA Model Results The following section presents the detailed results of the block feasibility model. The first set of tables presents the results from the battery electric bus model for fixed route vehicle blocks split by vehicle length. This is then followed by results for other fuel alternative vehicle types. The results are then presented in the same order for demand response vehicles, and equipment vehicles. C.1.1 Fixed Route Block Results The following presents results from the model for all fixed route block analysis. C.1.1.1 Current Electric Bus Feasibility Tables C-1 through C-9 show the model results and demonstrate their feasibility by day of week. Results can be interpreted as follows: • Feasible: bus can feasibly operate the entire length of a block in strenuous conditions without tapping into reserve energy even after the potential amount of battery degradation in that given model year. • Maybe: The bus may be able to operate but could potentially run into occasional issues where the reserve energy may need to be used. This indicator can also suggest the feasibility of a block if in -route or off -route charging were implemented. • Unfeasible: The bus will likely fail to operate the entire length of a block unless major operational changes are made such as splitting a block, adjusting scheduled operations, reducing number of trips, or making the alignment shorter. Block 2/20 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15/21 16 17 19 22 TABLE C-1: 30-FOOT WEEKDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible q* benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-1 Page 168 of 229 TABLE C-2: 30-FOOT SATURDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 20 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 TABLE C-3: 30-FOOT SUNDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible 2032 Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible 203 Feasible Feasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TABLE C-4: 35-FOOT WEEKDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) 2029 20 ,6 2033 2034 2035 5 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 4 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 18 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible TABLE C-5: 35-FOOT SATURDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) W 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2d= 2034 2035 5 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 4 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 13 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 18 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-2 Page 169 of 229 TABLE C-6: 35-FOOT SUNDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 2026 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 35 95 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 4 Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 13 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible TABLE C-7: 40-FOOT WEEKDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 203 2035 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible TABLE C-8: 40-FOOT SATURDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible TABLE C-9: 40-FOOT SUNDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031�OM29113?m _03. ____ =1 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible C.1.1.2 Future Electric Bus Feasibility Figures C-1 through C-9 demonstrate how many blocks will be feasible up to the tenth year from purchase for bus purchase years 2025 and 2035. FIGURE C-1: 30-FOOT WEEKDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 16 14 12 Y U m 10 co -0 8 ,C N N 6 0 4t 4 2 0 benesch 2025 Puchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-3 Page 170 of 229 FIGURE C-2: 30-FOOT SATURDAY BLOCKS 10-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 16 14 0 12 U m 10 4t 4 2 9 16 14 0 12 U m 10 1* 4 2 0 0 benesch 2025 Puchase End Battery 1 2035 Purchase End Battery FIGURE C-3: 30-FOOT SUNDAY BLOCKS 10-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 3 2025 Puchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-4 Page 171 of 229 ztt 4 4 FIGURE C-4: 35-FOOT WEEKDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery FIGURE C-5: 35-FOOT SATURDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 0 benesch 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-5 Page 172 of 229 4 ztt FIGURE C-6: 35-FOOT SUNDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery FIGURE C-7: 40-FOOT WEEKDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) benesch 2025 Puchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-6 Page 173 of 229 FIGURE C-H: 40-FOOT SATURDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 2025 Puchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery FIGURE C-9: 40-FOOT SUNDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 2025 Puchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery C.1.1.3 Electric Re -Charging Scenario Results from this analysis are documented were extracted from excel for each block configuration analyzed. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-7 Page 174 of 229 E.. o a o z i z z s"s"s�nmm >m. '. o o a o f -zz' e--a- ..mn�e� Y � i tB r FF E E E E EE z I I I I u S E E i s 3 E E m S € F C L n 22 E— � maHH�oYY Y_�h.LLLL Hw��-w �LLLL CP U x c N Q Q Q c m U .N m N U L N C 0 .N w 0 a) N 1aJ 0) N N O LO n N 0) m a ea T E E E E E z . O1 n m m ry . q uv E._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m m m v d v E E E o o S$ S m m is m .. ^ v� `o m U W 5 ¢ �dy 5 2 2 d E 0) N N O n N LT m a O E s E.z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y E i i z a i i z o z z s z z 5 = e E � _ m _ mm�mmm.,am m=�m�LL��mww.w��LL=hm=; e T� C O 9 U a Z e „s s - � mmymmm�� LLm LLmww w; LLm�3 40 0) N N O co n N cv a }\\\\\\\\\\\}\\}\\\\/\//\ §\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}\}}\ a � 4 j % E / a Z E . r I-` r F` r - a 2 e s z s E E i 7 9 `se Es` _ O 9 U „s s" mmymmm�� LLm LLmwzwo�mE Cl) 1aJ }\\\\\\\\()()\\\\\\\}\\\\ !!seas |{{{{!!§:§=........ \\\\\\\ �- \\\{{{\/\/\\\\ # � j 5 Q / a - E E E E E E E z T aaaava �aaaaaa�-�� anaanaaaa a Z e 0) N N O N 00 N (6 a -------- i ------------------------ > u o. o u u o u o o u u o o i 5 i'w 1aJ --------- i F i s" E E s 9 E E s° s` 00 1aJ 0) N N O LO 00 N m a !•l;;:;•:;4 )f\\\\§\\\{\{{{{{{{{{{{{{ \ 44 j 5 m / a \\\\\\(}\\\ MOM \((\{((((!§!!§!§!!! � 5 / J .......... ((/......\ \§ {k\\ ;;;;;r;;;� § � C.1.1.4 Current Alternative Fuel Vehicle Feasibility The alternative fuel vehicle feasibility model results are presented in tables A-10 through A-12. Feasibility can be interpreted for these results as follows: • Feasible: The bus can operate the entire length of a block under most conditions without relying on fuel reserves. • Maybe: The bus may complete the block but could occasionally require fuel reserves. This classification also applies to blocks that may be feasible if refueling is possible during layovers. • Unfeasible: The bus is unlikely to complete the block without depleting fuel reserves unless major operational adjustments are made. These could include splitting the block, modifying schedules, reducing trips, or shortening the route. TABLE C-10: CURRENT ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE FEASIBILITY BY WEEKDAY BLOCK Block Hydrogen FCE CNG Biodiesel Hybrid Diesel Electric 1 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 2/20 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 3 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 4 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe 5 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 6 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 7 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 8 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 9 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 10 Unfeasible Maybe Feasible Feasible 11 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 12 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 15/21 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 16 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 17 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 18 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 19 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 22 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-22 Page 189 of 229 TABLE C-11: CURRENT ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE FEASIBILITY BY SATURDAY BLOCK Block Hydrogen FC Biodiesel 'W Hybrid Diesel Electric 1 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 2 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 3 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible q Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe 5 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 6 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 7 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 8 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 9 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 10 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 11 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 12 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 15 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 16 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 17 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 18 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible TABLE C-12: CURRENT ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE FEASIBILITY BY SUNDAY BLOCK Block Hydrogen FCE CNG ■ Biodiesel Hybrid Diesel Electric9M 1 Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 2 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 3 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible q Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 5 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 6 Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible 7 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 8 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 9 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 10 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 11 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 12 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible C.1.2 Demand Response The following section presents feasibility results for demand response trips. C.1.2.1 Current Electric Cutaway Feasibility Table A-13 presents the results of this analysis by each percentile of trips. Result interpretations are the same as those for electric buses previously presented. 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-23 Page 190 of 229 TABLE C-13: PERCENTAGE OF DR TRIPS SERVED FEASIBLY BY A CURRENT ELECTRIC CUTAWAY Trips Miles 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 First 70 Percentile Fifth Percentile 110 Tenth Percentile 135 First 166 Quartile Median 193 Average 196 Third Quartile 228 85th Percentile 245 All Trips 400 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible C.1.2.2 Electric Results Future Scenario Table A-14 presents the results of this analysis, indicating what percentage of trips can be served feasibly up to the tenth year from purchase for bus purchase years 2025 and 2035. TABLE C-14: PERCENTAGE OF DR TRIPS THAT MAY BE SERVED FEASIBLY BY FUTURE ELECTRIC CUTAWAYS Trips Miles W028 2029 2030 2031 2032 20 First 70 Maybe Maybe Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Percentile Fifth Percentile 110 Tenth Percentile 135 First Quartile 166 Median 193 Average 196 Third Quartile 228 85th Percentile 245 All Trips 400 2035 Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-24 Page 191 of 229 C.1.2.3 Alternative Fuel Results Table A-15 presents the results of the alternative fuel assessment for CNG and biodiesel fueled cutaways. TABLE C-15: PERCENTAGE OF DR TRIPS SERVED FEASIBLY BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL CUTAWAYS �. . I Worm•. First Percentile 70 Feasible . 1 Feasible Fifth Percentile 110 Feasible Feasible Tenth Percentile 135 Feasible Feasible 25th Percentile 165 Feasible Feasible Median 193 Feasible Feasible Average 195 Feasible Feasible 50th Percentile 195 Feasible Feasible 75th Percentile 230 Maybe Feasible 85th Percentile 245 Maybe Feasible All Trips 400 Unfeasible Unfeasible C.1.3 Equipment/Support Vehicle Equipment/Support Vehicle data was presented sufficiently in the document and will not be presented here. C.2 Additional Data Table A-16 presents the assumptions used for the electric vehicle analysis. These assumptions are provided by vehicle length and type to help provide reference to Collier Area Transit regarding the mileage limit recommendations for nominal and strenuous conditions. In this way, if CAT wishes to analyze blocks in the future, CAT can use these figures as reference to the suggested maximum operational mileage that they should operate their electric vehicles on for vehicles purchased in or near 2025. Service Range (in miles) for Vehicles Purchased in 2025 Vehicle I Condition 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 2030 12031 2032 2033 12034 12035 Nominal 141 137 135 131 129 126 123 121 118 116 113 30'Bus Strenuous 121 119 116 114 111 109 107 104 102 100 98 Nominal 171 168 164 161 1157 154 150 147 144 1141 138 35'Bus Strenuous 148 145 142 139 136 133 130 127 124 122 119 Nominal 205 201 197 192 189 185 181 177 173 170 166 40'Bus Strenuous 178 174 170 166 163 160 156 153 1 150 147 143 Nominal 90 89 87 86 83 81 80 78 77 74 I 72 Cutaways Strenuous 78 77 75 74 72 70 69 67 66 64 62 Minivan All 111 SUV All 223 Pickup Truck All 168 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix C-25 Page 192 of 229 APPENDIX D FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS (686 KWH BATTERY) This appendix to Task 6 for ZEV feasibility details the results generated for the 35-foot Gillig Battery Electric bus model, with a manufacturer battery capacity of 686 kWh. CAT has procured an electric Gillig bus which at the time of this writing is being built. Notably, the bus has a significantly higher capacity than the average electric bus models available in the current market. This is due to the fact that the technology employed in the development of this battery includes new materials that greatly improve upon much of the lithium batteries available in the market. These lithium -ion nickel, manganese, and cobalt (NMC) batteries are new in the market and have not been broadly adopted but are expected to be the new standard in the very near -future, replacing the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) composition in many batteries currently in production for electric vehicles. NMC batteries have an increased energy density compared to LFP batteries, meaning that they have a higher energy capacity. While NMC batteries improve on the existing battery capacity that is available among LFP batteries, they do not improve the battery's cycle life. This essentially means that NMC batteries will degrade more rapidly for every recharging cycle, leading to a larger variation in a vehicle's service range over the years. NMC batteries are impacted by two major factors, heat, and state of charge (SoC). NMC batteries are more sensitive to heat than LFP batteries. This is because the internal materials used breakdown faster when exposed to high temperatures, reducing the battery's lifecycle. The range at which significant degradation occurs over NMC batteries is above 86 degrees Fahrenheit, which is important to consider in Collier County where the mean daily maximum temperatures reach 86 degrees Fahrenheit or higher between May and October. Fast charging through direct current (DC) chargers can also have an impact over battery degradation as DC charging generates more heat than slow charging methods. NMC batteries are also more sensitive to SoC management. Keeping a battery fully recharged for prolonged periods can degrade the battery over time. Research suggests that maintaining batteries charged at 80 to 90% optimizes the battery's lifespan. In order to examine the feasibility of the 35-foot Gillig bus, a few assumptions will be adjusted, mostly those that model battery degradation. The starting battery capacity will be 686 kWh, and the battery will be modeled for a 10-year period. In order to model battery degradation better for this battery, a 4% annual degradation factor will be implemented. No SoC assumptions will be made, with the model reflecting maximum battery recharge. TABLE D-1: BATTERY LIFE AND DEGRADATION ASSUMPTIONS (35 FOOT GILLIG) Variable Description Assumption % of Original Percentage of the original battery's capacity that is useable 60% Capacity at the end of battery life Useful Life of Battery The number of years of a battery's useful lifecycle 10 years Annual Degradation The annual Rate of Battery Degradation -4% Reserve Energy Estimated energy required to travel approximately 10 miles 20 kWh (kWh) to the depot from an on -route location; a "safety net" to 0 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-1 Page 193 of 229 1 . ensure the bus can return to the depot if a bus experiences an issue on -route, causing it to use more energy than expected. New Battery Scenario (2025) Total Battery Energy (kWh) The total energy contained in the battery upon purchase 686 kWh Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from a new battery 549 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service for "Reserve (kWh) buses with new batteries ("Useable Energy" minus 529 kWh Energy") End of Life Battery Scenario (2035) Total Battery The total energy contained in the battery at the end of 487 kWh Energy (kWh) battery life Useable Energy The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery 366 kWh (kWh) before needing to stop Service Energy Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service 346 kWh (kWh) (Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy) *All assumptions in bold have changed from the 35' model used for the feasibility analysis D.1 Model Results The following section presents the detailed results of the block feasibility model for the 35-foot electric Gillig Bus with a 686-kWh battery capacity. The tables present the results from the battery electric bus model for fixed route vehicle blocks split by day of operation. D.1.1 Fixed Route Block Results The following presents results from the model for all fixed route block analysis. D.1.1.1 Current Electric Bus Feasibility Table D-2 through Table D-4 show the model results and demonstrate their feasibility by day of week. Results can be interpreted as follows: Feasible: bus can feasibly operate the entire length of a block in strenuous conditions without tapping into reserve energy even after the potential amount of battery degradation in that given model year. Maybe: The bus may be able to operate but could potentially run into occasional issues where the reserve energy may need to be used. This indicator can also suggest the feasibility of a block if in -route or off -route charging were implemented. Unfeasible: The bus will likely fail to operate the entire length of a block unless major operational changes are made such as splitting a block, adjusting scheduled operations, reducing number of trips, or making the alignment shorter. Table D-5 summarizes the results. 0 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-2 Page 194 of 229 TABLE D-2: WEEKDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR 35-FoOT 686 KWH BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 r 2031 2032 2033 2034 20�rm 1 Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2/20 Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 3 Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 4 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 5 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 6 Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 7 Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 8 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe 9 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible 10 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 11 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe 12 Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 15/21 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible 16 Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 17 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 18 Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 19 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 22 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible TABLE D-3: SATURDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR 35-FOOT 686 KWH BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) 1 Maybe Feasible Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe 2026 Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe 2027 Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Maybe Unfeasible 2028 Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Maybe Unfeasible 2029 Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Maybe Unfeasible 2030 Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Feasible Maybe Feasible Maybe Unfeasible 2031 Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Unfeasible Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2032 Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2033 Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Feasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2034 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2035 1 Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Maybe Unfeasible Feasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 10 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-3 Page 195 of 229 TABLE D-4: SUNDAY SERVICE MODEL FOR 35-FoOT 686 KWH BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES (2025) Block 2025 20 2029 2030 �r 2031 2032 1 Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 2 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 3 Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 4 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 5 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 6 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Unfeasible Unfeasible Unfeasible 7 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible g Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 9 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 10 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 11 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 12 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible 13 Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible Maybe Maybe Maybe TABLE D-5: CURRENTLY FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION DAY Sol Weekday Saturday Sunday 35' 7 7 2/20 35' 3 35' 4 35' 5 35' 6 35' 7 35' V 8 35' ! ! V 9 35' J 10 35' ! V 11 35' ! V 12 35' 13 35' 15/21 35' 16 35' 17 35' 18 35' 19 35' 22 35' = Feasible = Maybe Feasible Based on the results of the service modeling, only three weekday blocks are feasible through 2035: Blocks 13, 17, and 22, and four blocks may possibly be feasible (8, 9, 11, and 15/21) up to 2035. On Saturdays, Block 16 is feasible, and five blocks may possibly be feasible. On Sundays, only blocks 1, 3, and 6 are not feasible. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-4 Page 196 of 229 D.1.1.2 Future Electric Bus Feasibility Figures D-1 through D-3 demonstrate how many blocks will be feasible up to the tenth year from purchase for bus purchase years 2025 and 2035 due to continued improvements on the 686 kWh battery. Table D-6 summarizes the results. FIGURE D-1: 35-FOOT WEEKDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 20 18 16 U) 2 Y 14 U - O m 12 co Y 10 a� 8 4 O 6 0 4 2 0 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery FIGURE D-2: 35-FOOT SATURDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 18 16 14 3 6 12 m a 10 a 8 O 6 *k 4 3 4 0 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery 0 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-5 Page 197 of 229 FIGURE D-3: 35-FOOT SUNDAY BLOCKS 1 O-YEAR FEASIBILITY (2035) 14 12 10 U O m • >, 8 f6 Y ai 6 O 4 *� 1 0 1 2025 Purchase End Battery 2035 Purchase End Battery TABLE D-6: FUTURE FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION DAY FOR PURCHASE YEARS 2025 AND 2035 • Weekday Saturday Sunday • 2025 2035 2025 2035 2025 1 2035 35, ! ! ! 1 2/20 35' ✓ J 3 35' J 4 35' J J 5 35' J J J 6 35' ! ! J 7 35' ! ! J J 8 35' ! J ! J J J 9 35' J J J J 10 3 5' ! J J J 11 3 5' ! J J J J 12 3 5' ! J J J 13 35' J J ! J ! J 15/21 3 5' J J 16 3 5' J J 17 3 5' J J J 18 35' J 19 35' J 22 35' J J = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-6 Page 198 of 229 Based on the results of the service modeling, 10 total weekday blocks would become feasible by 2035 and four may be feasible. These latter blocks can benefit from additional in route charging support, making them fully feasible with the increased battery capacity D.1.1.3 Electric Re -Charging Scenario An electric on -route recharging scenario was also assessed over this current configuration. Several weekday blocks were selected for further analysis to understand the impact of mid -route recharging. Results from this analysis are documented were extracted from excel for each block configuration analyzed. The following briefly describes the selected routes and the assessment. • Block 1 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 1 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 2/20 in the current scenario would not benefit from recharging at the CAT Operations Center after the fifth year of purchase, when battery degradation will have impacted recharging capacity significantly. However, Block 2/20 is expected to benefit from recharging starting in a future scenario. • Block 3 in the current scenario would not benefit from recharging at the CAT Operations Center after the fifth year of purchase, when battery degradation will have impacted recharging capacity significantly. However, Block 3 is expected to benefit from recharging starting in a future scenario. • Block 4 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 4 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 5 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 5 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 7 would comfortably benefit from on -route charging at the Government Center through the 101h year in the current scenario. Considerations include the addition of chargers at the transfer station. • Block 12 Neither in the current scenario nor in the future scenario does Block 12 confidently complete a trip in the most strenuous circumstance. This would lead to failure in a worst -case scenario. • Block 16 would comfortably benefit from on -route charging at the Immokalee Transfer Stations through the 101h year in the current scenario. Considerations include the addition of chargers at the transfer station. • Block 18 would comfortably benefit from on -route charging at the Immokalee Transfer Stations through the 9th year in the current scenario. It's recommended to add 5 minutes in layover before the final deadhead, especially in the later years of the purchase. Considerations include the addition of chargers at the transfer station. It is expected that the on -route charging approach will allow 3 blocks (7,16 and 18) to operate comfortably with Battery Electric Buses. Two additional blocks (2/20 and 3) will become feasible through on -route charging in a future scenario. Detailed results can be found in the following pages. benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-7 Page 199 of 229 ,-A------ ;iAA UU - iA »z»2t2»JtJ � j % \ / a � 0 i »!!!!!lrrIII < „ :l:'IEli :,!!, \\\\\\\\}\\\\--\\\\\\\\\\ j % \ / a \\\\\\\\\\\\\ §4]§]§;;;n21§ B"§;§§;;n;§§ ......,...z'o \\\}\\\\\\\\ -C U q @ c @ -0 E m � » % & J CN 5 j & J Cl) ;_!_!!;•§; ;§"Is �; .� j % \ / a � j % / / a .E;;■;«§§ -C U q @ c @ -0 E g 5 S & 2 j % \ / a {\{\\{\EEE'EE !{!|!!!!! /\{ /\{j{/{\\\\ :;§r;;;§■/§§§§ _ {\�/)ItTT {/)|i)}| .� \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ j % 0 G / a \\\\\\\\\\ ;;;;•;;;; >.. -C U q @ c @ -0 E g 5 & & J § .� CL 9 CL / \ \ / f \ / S 2 0 N -C U q @ c @ -0 E m � » & & J - r!!&f-!7�::;E71 E $ (! !!;!`!`!`!!!;!! !!!�®)f!!{!;(:):/I;l:::! ; 2f !]rz!!!!!!!!!z!!r 3-, ! 5 \ 2 D.2 Comparison with Chapter 6 Models In Chapter 6, Table 6-10 identifies four blocks —Blocks 4, 5,13, and 18—that were assigned to 35-foot buses. The Chapter 6 model assumes these 35-foot buses have an original battery capacity of 420 kWh, whereas the 686-kWh bus offers nearly 270 kWh more energy capacity. Despite this increase, no improvements were observed in the ability of either model to serve these four blocks on weekdays, suggesting that the 686-kWh bus does not provide a significant advantage over the 420-kWh model in this scenario. However, improvements due to the increased battery capacity are observed on Sundays for Block 4 in the current scenario, as well as on both Saturdays and Sundays for Block 13 in both the current and future scenarios. Additionally, the 686-kWh bus improves the feasibility of Block 18 when on -route charging is available. When compared to the smaller 30-foot buses with 350-kWh batteries, the 686-kWh model demonstrates substantial improvements in the current weekday scenarios. Most notably, it enables Block 17 to become feasible and likely improves feasibility for Blocks 8, 9,11, and 15/21. The addition of on -route charging further enhances service feasibility for Blocks 7 and 16 when compared to the 350-kWh 30-foot buses. Finally, when comparing the 686-kWh bus to the larger 40-foot buses with 500-kWh batteries, no improvements were observed in serving Block 1 in the current scenario. This suggests that the increased battery capacity of the 686-kWh model does not offer an operational advantage over the 500- kWh 40-foot bus in this case. D.3 Additional Data Table D-7 presents the assumptions used for the electric vehicle analysis. These assumptions are provided by for the 686 kWh 35-foot Gillig bus that CAT has procured to help provide reference to regarding the mileage limit recommendations for nominal and strenuous conditions. In this way, if CAT wishes to analyze vehicle blocks in the future, CAT can consider these figures as reference to the suggested maximum operational mileage that they should operate their electric vehicles for the 35-foot bus that is in the procurement process. TABLE D-7: SERVICE RANGE OVER THE YEARS Service Range (in miles) for Vehicles Purchased in 2025 Vehicle I Condition I Yr. 1 Yr. 2 I Yr. 3 I Yr. 4 I Yr. S I Yr. 6 I Yr. 7 I Yr. B I Yr. 9 I Yr. 10 35' Gillig Bus Nominal 286 274 263 252 242 232 222 213 204 195 (686 kWh) Strenuous 247 237 227 218 209 200 192 184 176 169 ©benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix D-22 Page 214 of 229 APPENDIX E POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING PROGRAMS E.1.1 Low- or No -Emission Vehicle Program, Section 5339(c) The Low- or No -Emission Vehicle Program provides funding to state and local governments for the purchase or lease of low- or no -emission transit buses as well as acquisition, construction, and leasing of required supporting facilities. The program aims to assist in the deployment of low- or no -emission vehicles. According to FTA, the projects should aim to comply or maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to achieve maximum federal share for the cost of acquiring, installing, or constructing, vehicle -related equipment or facilities. Grants are awarded based on several criteria such as a demonstration of needs and benefits, consistency with long-range plans, and local financial commitment, among others. If a project is related to zero -emission vehicles (e.g., buses or depot), 5 percent of the requested grant award must be used for workforce development to retrain the existing workforce and develop the workforce of the future, including registered apprenticeships and other joint labor management training programs. • Apportioning Entity: FTA • Period of Availability: 4 years • Funding Available: $1.1 billion (FY 24). From this amount, FTA has set aside $357 million (21.5%) for low -emission technologies annually. In FY 23, this amount was rolled over since a few agencies applied for low -emission projects in FY 22, essentially making $714 million available for such purchases in FY 23. • Program Match: o Total Vehicle Cost (Lease): 85% Federal, 15% Local o Net Equipment and Facilities Cost: 90% Federal, 10% Local • Eligible Activities: o Purchasing or leasing of low- or zero -emission buses o Acquiring low- or zero -emission buses with a leased power source E.1.2 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program The NEVI Formula Program is designed to provide dedicated funding to states to strategically deploy electric vehicle charging infrastructure and help create a national electric vehicle network. In the current funding stage, NEVI funds are being directed towards the one -mile buffer surrounding designated Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFC). In Collier County, there are three such corridors: 1-75, U.S. 41, and SR 29. Funds may be used to purchase and install publicly available electric vehicle charging infrastructure, operating expenses, purchase, and installation of traffic control devices located in the right-of-way, on -premises signage, development activities, and mapping and analysis activities. The 2021 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Master Plan has information on the state strategy for the implementation of an electric vehicle network throughout Florida. • Apportioning Entity: FDOT • Period of Availability: Until funds are expended • Funding Available: $198 million (FY 24) • Program Match: 80% Federal, 20% Local 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan Page 215 of 229 • Eligible Activities: o Publicly Available electric vehicle Chargers o Projects within the buffer area that would support the availability of public electric vehicle chargers. E.1.3 Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary Program, 5339(a) The Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary Program makes federal resources available to states and direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate, purchase, or lease buses, vans or related equipment and construct bus -related facilities. The program aims to support the replacement or enhancement of existing buses and bus facilities based on age and asset condition. Recipients can use up to 0.5 percent of the requested grant award for workforce development including on-the-job training, labor management partnership training, and registered apprenticeships. • Apportioning Entity: FTA • Period of Availability: 4 years • Funding Available: $1.66 billion (FY 22) • Program Match: o Total Vehicle Cost (Lease): 85% Federal, 15% Local o Net Equipment and Facilities Cost: 90% Federal, 10% Local • Eligible Activities: o Constructing or leasing facilities and related equipment o Constructing new public transportation facilities to accommodate buses. o Rehabilitating or improving existing public transportation facilities. E.1.4 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grants RAISE grants are intended to help state, municipal and tribal entities fund projects that are not easily or readily funded through other transportation grant programs. The statutory criteria require evaluation based on safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, mobility and community connectivity, economic competitiveness and opportunities including tourism, state of good repair, partnership and collaboration, and innovation. Successful projects have included electric vehicles and charging facilities including a $20 million grant for the Clearwater Multimodal Transit Center submitted by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority for FY22. • Apportioning Entity: USDOT • Funding Available: $1.5 billion (FY 23) • Program Match: 80% Federal, 20% Local (Areas of Persistent Poverty or Historically Disadvantaged Communities have reduced Federal match requirements) • Eligible Activities: o Capital projects including but not limited to: ■ Highway, bridge, or other road projects eligible under title 23, United States Code ■ Public transportation projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code Q benesch ■ Passenger and freight rail transportation projects Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan Page 216 of 229 ■ Port infrastructure investments ■ Intermodal projects ■ Any other surface transportation infrastructure project that the Secretary considers to be necessary to advance the goals of the program. o Planning projects which include planning, preparation, or design (for example: environmental analysis, feasibility studies, benefit cost analysis (BCA), and other pre - construction activities) of eligible surface transportation capital projects. E.1.5 Advanced Transportation Technologies and Innovative Mobility Deployment (ATTIMD) The ATTIMD provides competitive grants for the development and deployment of advanced or emerging technologies and support systems that are geared towards improving safety, efficiency, system performance and infrastructure return on investments. This opportunity also includes efforts to increase connectivity to employment, education, services, and other opportunities. • Apportioning Entity: FHWA • Period of Availability: One to four years • Funding Available: $60 million (FY 23) • Program Match: 80% Federal, 20% Local • Eligible Activities: o Advanced Traveler Information Systems o Advanced Public Transportation Systems o Transportation system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems o Advanced mobility and access technologies, such as dynamic ride sharing and information systems to support human services for elderly and disabled individuals. E.1.6 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) The DERA program funds grants and rebates that are geared toward replacing diesel engines with cleaner fuel alternatives. This program awards reimbursements which are granted over a two-year cycle and may be fully or incrementally funded as deemed appropriate. For eligible vehicles, DERA will reimburse up to 45 percent of the cost for electric vehicles that replace certain diesel vehicles. The purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure can be included in an electric vehicle replacement project. State, local, or tribal agencies with jurisdiction over transportation or air quality may apply. • Apportioning Entity: EPA • Period of Availability: Two years • Funding Available: $46.0 M (FY21) • Program Match: Federal Match: Up to 45% of the total electric bus replacement cost including charging infrastructure. • Eligible Activities: o Replacement of diesel engines on: ■ Buses ■ Class 5 — Class 8 heavy-duty highway vehicles ■ Locomotive engines benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan Page 217 of 229 • Marine engines ■ Non -road engines, equipment or vehicles used in construction, cargo handling, etc. E.1.7 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides a tax credit for fueling equipment for most alternative fuel infrastructure. The credit may be used for one or various locations where infrastructure is implemented, and the credit may be carried backwards one year or forwards for 20 years. The equipment must be installed in locations that meet at least one of these requirements at the census tract level: the area is not urban, the poverty rate is at least 20 percent, or the median family income is less than 80 percent of the state medium family income level. Apportioning Entity: IRS Period of Availability: Up to 20 years Tax Credit provisions: o Before 2023: 30% of the cost of equipment not to exceed $30,000. o After 2023: 30% of the cost of equipment or 6% of property that is subject to depreciation, not to exceed $100,000. E.1.8 Title XVII Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy (REEE) Projects Solicitation The Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO) has issued a supplement to its Title XVII REEE solicitation in the form of a loan guarantee. REEE solicitations are provided to projects that support innovative, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The continued deployment of electric vehicles has been impeded in recent years due to a lack of charging infrastructure and battery prices. As a result, the LPO supplement is aimed at providing assistance in the deployment of electric vehicle projects. • Apportioning Entity: DOE Loan Programs Office • Funding Available: $4.5 B • Program Match: Federal Match: Up to 45% of the total electric bus replacement cost including charging infrastructure. • Eligible Activities: o Charging infrastructure o Batteries o Associated hardware or software E.1.9 Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program Through Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), FHWA established the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program to make grants available for the development of model deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of advanced transportation technologies to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investment. Up to 5 percent of funds are allowed to be used each fiscal year to carry out planning and reporting requirements under the program. • Apportioning Entity: FHWA • Funding Available: $60 M 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan Page 218 of 229 • Program Match: 50% Federal, 50% Local • Eligible Activities: o Advanced traveler information systems o Advanced transportation management technologies o Infrastructure maintenance, monitoring, and condition assessment o Advanced public transportation systems o Transportation system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems o Advanced safety systems, including vehicle -to -vehicle and vehicle -to -infrastructure communications o Technologies associated with autonomous vehicles, and other collision avoidance technologies, including systems using cellular technology o Integration of intelligent transportation systems with the smart grid and other energy distribution and charging systems o Electronic pricing and payment systems o Advanced mobility and access technologies, such as dynamic ridesharing and information systems to support human services for elderly and disabled individuals. E.1.10 Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) FTA's AIM initiative promotes forward -thinking approaches to improve transit financing, planning, system design, and service. The program also supports innovative approaches to advance strategies that promote accessibility, including equitable and equivalent accessibility for all travelers. • Apportioning Entity: FTA • Funding Available: $14 M (FY20) • Program Match: Federal Match: 80% Federal, 20% Local • Eligible Activities: o Planning and developing business models o Obtaining equipment and service o Acquiring or developing software and hardware interfaces to implement the project. o Operating or implementing the new service model o Evaluating project results E.1.11 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program The CFI Discretionary Grant Program aims to strategically deploy publicly accessible electric vehicle charging and alternative fueling infrastructure in the places people live and work as well as along designated AFCs. The awards are structured as cost reimbursement grants. There are two funding categories: Community Charging and Fueling Grants and Alternative Fuel Corridor Grants. For the Community Grants, infrastructure must be located on a public road or a publicly accessible location. For the AFC grants, battery electric charging infrastructure must be located within a mile of an AFC, while infrastructure for other alternative fuels must be located within five miles of an AFC. Compressed Natural Gas AFC status is pending for Interstate 75 and Electric Vehicle AFC status is pending for Interstate 75, U.S. 41, and State Road 29. • Apportioning Entity: FHWA benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan Page 219 of 229 • Funding Available: $700 M (FYs 22 and 23) • Eligible Activities: o Electric vehicle charging infrastructure o Hydrogen fueling infrastructure o Propane fueling infrastructure o Natural gas fueling infrastructure E.1.12 Recent Federal Actions On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order rescinding all diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives within the Federal government, within federal funding initiatives, and encouraging the private sector to do the same. The next day, January 21, 2025, President Trump issued an order rescinding Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations). Both of these actions suggest that the use of the words "diversity", "equity", "inclusion", or "accessibility" should be discouraged in federally funded documents and reports. Similarly, another Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025, titled "Unleashing American Energy" attempted to halt funding under the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act specifically for electric vehicles, and also rescinded multiple prior executive orders related to climate change. This executive order did not discourage the development of electric vehicles but rather promoted freedom of choice by consumers. As rulemaking and guidance are released in response to these Executive Orders, CAT should continue to monitor funding opportunities and grant eligibility criteria for successfully securing additional funding. 4benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I E-6 Page 220 of 229 APPENDIX F VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN This appendix to the Implementation Plan details the suggested Vehicle Replacement Plan (VRP) for years 2025 through 2034, for each vehicle in the current fleet by vehicle ID 131 ZT31 zU3z ZU33 ZU34 CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 868 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1115 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1117 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demand 1376 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Resp Resp Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 1377 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1412 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1411 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1843 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1842 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1844 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 1845 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2194 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2195 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2196 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2197 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2342 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2345 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2344 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix F-1 Page 221 of 229 Vehicle 1 2025 20261 128 2031 20321 CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demaonse nd Demandonse Demand Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2343 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Response Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2393 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2480 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2481 Response Response Response Response Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2478 Response Response Response Response Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2482 Response Response Response Response Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demaonse nd Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2477 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2 Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2479 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demaonse nd Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demand 2700 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demand 2701 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand 2702 Response Response Resp Resp Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2703 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2704 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand 2705 Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 7008 Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 7013 Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 7006 Demand Demand Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demandonse Demand Demandonse Demand Demand Response Response Respsp Re Resp Resp Response Resp Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 7005 Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 800 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 799 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1122 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel �benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix F-2 Page 222 of 229 CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1008 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1621 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1620 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1623 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1622 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1409 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1408 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1719 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 1917 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric CC2 Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2569 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2568 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2725 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2726 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2727 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2729 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric Electric CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2728 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric Electric CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2864 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2865 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2866 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric �benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix F-3 Page 223 of 229 ID CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2867 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 2601 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel TBD 30' Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Bus 2 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel TBD 30' Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Bus 1 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel CC2- Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 3017 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel TBD 35' Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Bus 2 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel TBD 35' Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Bus 1 Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel TBD 35' Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Electric Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 1553 Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car (sedan) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 2019 Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car (SUV) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 1402 Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup (Pickup) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 1662 Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup Pickup (Pickup) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 2106 Van Van Van Van Van Car Car Car Car Car (van) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric CC2- Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support 2107 Van Van Van Van Van Car Car Car Car Car (Van) Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Battery Battery Battery Battery Battery Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric 4 benesch Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan I Appendix r7 Page 224 of 229 4/11/2025 Item # 10.13 ID# 2025-1170 Executive Summary Report on Return of Federal Carbon Reduction Grant Program Funds OBJECTIVE: To provide information on projects in the MPO's current FY25-29 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in FDOT's Draft Tentative Work Program for FY26-30 that have carbon reduction program funds. CONSIDERATIONS: Governor Ron DeSantis announced on 3/21/25 the return of $878 million in carbon reduction program funds to the U.S. Department of the Treasury after meeting with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). FDOT's Central Office notified the MPO Director the following week that $320 million in carbon reduction grant program funds had been returned, of which $49 million had been expended going back to 2022. FDOT is in the process of rebalancing the FY26-30 Draft Tentative Work Program (DTWP) with the goal of meeting the previously announced target date of 4/9/25 to download the project data MPOs are to use in building their FY26-30 TIPs. The relevant funding codes in Collier MPO's DTWP are CARB (Carbon Reduction Grant Program) and CARU (CARB for Urban Area greater than 200,000 population). The two tables provided in Attachment 1 identifies ten projects in the DTWP that have collectively lost a total of $5.64 million in funding and two projects identified in the FY2022 and 2025 time period that received an approximate $1.1 million. The MPO Director will report on the April 9th download and any additional changes made to state and federal funding at the Board meeting. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provided for informational purposes. PREPARED BY: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENTS: CARB/CARU in Draft Tentative Work Program FY-26-30 Page 225 of 229 0 O 0 0 Sri M I� O N EA O N 00 M Co C O � N [f3 00 N C O C0 L( LO C, C 00 C W h N N 0 N ER EPr Ef N n ((00 O " LO o0 I� (C c0 c`')' O N V' O w N r, coe�- I O~ N tR (fi EH EPr b4 a U ° ac oc s oc s oc s oc s a LL ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ G U U U U U U U U U C W co N (O L N N N N N N N N N U a U U U U U U U U U C ti V 0 N ♦+ d i C � J o Y s L (D o m a u) Q c[ a ° c m D a) ° co a M o m> N N _ _ (D J E O O iO C N � y m O � m LL ° o a) w m m U c a a_ m o o J o} m s ty — > L by u a w ° a > a u) m oc a o o (D c m ¢ c m Y o o N>> w N a) c 3 3 0 o LL. > 7 Y bA a) -(D N m U E U J N CO (D o Y a Ll w c bA `o 0 ° m m a_ m N a R H :0.) N (D V L b ai ai Q m m u ° c n n n ,� > U L N U Z Z Z a)) � E of 7 Q rl M rl c-I rl c-I rl c-I rl C\ N n ((00 N N COti 00 ((00 C O M O " rl " LO lf) O cl Q d c`^') co V V V V Cr) V LNO LL( v 0 0 v -a L3 (0 c c a) a) � m m � a a 0 0 v3 0 0 0 0 Lo J )O ¢ n r 0 iPr O Lo o La O c O N Co M N Y) o0 M M N N � O N fR Lo N O (M0 M ~ o N n M N N N o N iPr o U LL U U U N m t N N a U U N o o o N a Yo N m > uo o c � a Co co Y N cc -a a cc cc in U cc p` `o m m m Q Y c U o Or r U > y N N O O a) CL a v co Executive Summary MPO Advisory Council Weekend Institute 4/11/2025 Item # 11.A ID# 2025-1171 OBJECTIVE: For the Board to be aware of the MPO Advisory Council's (MPOAC) upcoming Weekend Institute training opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: The MPOAC has announced the first Weekend Institute of 2025 scheduled for May 16th and 17th in Tampa. There is an opportunity to reserve a space now, by following the link provided in the email shown in Attachment 1. The MPO can reimburse registration costs, lodging costs for staying at the venue, map mileage for travel to and from the training, and per diem meal allowance, subject to federal and state grant requirements. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Newly appointed Board members are encouraged to attend. (Please notify the MPO in advance of the training if you would like to seek reimbursement of any costs.) PREPARED BY: Anne McLaughlin, Executive Director ATTACHMENTS: MPOAC Weekend Institute Announcement Page 227 of 229 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carpenter, Amanda Boucle, Aileen; Alex Trauger; Andrew Uhlir; Anne McLaughlin; Balmes, Rob; Beth Beltran; Brian Freeman; Favero, Chelsea; Rosenberg, Christopher (TPO); C Nicoulin; Dave Hutchinson; Schwartz, Dawn; Harris, D"Juan; Scott, Donald; Dusty Hansen; Gary Huttmann; Gillette, Georaanna; Gogoi, Ron; Slav, Grea; Stuart, Greg; Sheffield, Jeff; Johnny Wong; Davis. Julia; Kandase Lee; Gurram, Lakshmi N; Linda Fisher; Stone, Lisa O.; Marybeth Soderstrom; Woods, Michael; Pamela Blankenship; Calvaresi. Paul; buchwaldp(a stlucieco.org; Robert Esposito; Ryan Brown; Kordek, Ryan; Salim, Zainab; Kraum, Sarah; Sean Kingston; Stephany Garcia - T. Gorman"s Asst.; Tammy Neal; Gorman, Tania; Tiffany Bates; Valerie Neilson; Blanton, Whit Stone, Lisa O.; Reiding, Dana; Green, Donna; Nichols, Harrison M OAC, Weekend Institute Tuesday, March 25, 2025 10:21:37 AM image001.pnng EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good morning Staff Directors! We are thrilled to announce the revamp of the MPOAC Weekend Institute content and the planning of our first MPOAC Weekend Institute of 2025 in Tampa at the Embassy Suites Tampa Airport Westshore! Schedule of Events: • Friday, May 16, 2025: Optional Meet & Greet (details to be finalized) • Saturday, May 17, 2025: All -day training session starting at 9:00 am EST This year's MPOAC Weekend Institute will provide your Governing Board Member with invaluable insights into the transportation planning and decision -making processes. Given the high interest and limited space, we encourage you to reserve your Board Member's spot as soon as possible using the link below. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MPOAC Weekend Institute Don't miss out on this opportunity to enhance your Board Member's knowledge. We look forward to seeing them there! Best Regards! -Amanda Amanda Carpenter Community Planning Administrator Office of Policy Planning Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee St. I Tallahassee, FL 32399 Office: 850-414-4821 1 Cell: 850-841-0420 0 Page 228 of 229 Page 229 of 229