Agenda 05/13/2025 Item #16B 7 (To approve and accept the Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan for Collier Area Transit)5/13/2025
Item # 16.B.7
ID# 2025-1318
Executive Summary
Recommendation to approve and accept the Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan for Collier Area Transit.
OBJECTIVE: To complete a requirement to expand federal funding opportunities and evaluate the transition of the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) fleet to alternative-fueled vehicles and identify strategies to support the adoption of zero-
emissions technology .
CONSIDERATIONS:
Collier County Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Department
staff have been working with the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and the consultant team, Benesch, to develop a Zero Emissions Vehicle
Transition Plan for the CAT system (the “Study”). This plan was developed to
meet federal requirements and position Collier County for increased grant
funding opportunities. As the transit industry moves toward sustainable
solutions, the transition to zero-emission vehicles is a critical step in
reducing operating costs, and improving service efficiency.
The approach of the Study included an evaluation of existing fleet composition,
service demand, and available alternative-fuel technologies, including battery-
electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses amongst other alternatives. The analysis
incorporated data from industry best practices, U.S. Department of
Transportation guidelines, and case studies from peer agencies that have
successfully incorporated zero-emissions fleets.
Additionally, the Study examined infrastructure needs, including charging and
fueling stations, facility upgrades, and workforce training requirements to
support the transition. Stakeholder engagement was a key component, with input
gathered from transit operators, community members, and regional partners to
ensure the Study aligns with local and regional sustainability goals.
Financial feasibility and funding strategies were also analyzed, exploring
federal, state, and local grant opportunities. Special emphasis was placed on
securing competitive grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
other funding sources to minimize financial impacts on the County. The Study
provides a phased implementation approach to gradually integrate zero-emissions
vehicles while maintaining service reliability and fiscal responsibility.
This initiative is consistent with Collier County’s strategic goal of protecting
our natural resources as well as designing and maintaining an effective
transportation system to reduce traffic congestion and improve the mobility of
our residents and visitors.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan does not commit the County to specific expenditures
but serves as a roadmap for securing competitive grant funding. If external funding is not identified, recommendations
within the Study may not proceed.
Page 1226 of 5243
5/13/2025
Item # 16.B.7
ID# 2025-1318
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This action supports the goals and objectives of the Transportation Element
of the Growth Management Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney. I have reviewed the Zero
Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan for Collier Area Transit and spoken with staff. Approval of the Plan will open grant
opportunities for the County. There is no commitment of funding. With that noted, this item is approved as to form
and legality. -JAK
RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan for Collier Area Transit.
PREPARED BY: Alexander Showalter, Planner II, Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ZEV - Final Draft
Page 1227 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle
Transition Plan
DRAFT for Review 4/1/2025
Page 1228 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | i
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 .............................................................................................. 6-16
Page 1229 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | ii
6.3 Model Results ............................................................................................................................ 6-22
6.4 Fuel Mix Recommendations...................................................................................................... 6-29
7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Financial Plan ............................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Potential Additional Funding ...................................................................................................... 7-9
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 .................................................................................................................... 8-9
8.7 Facilities Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 8-12
8.8 Workforce Training Considerations .......................................................................................... 8-13
8.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy ........................................................................................ 8-13
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
LIST OF MAPS
Map 6-1: CAT Routes ..................................................................................................................................... 6-5
Map 6-2: Routes with Layovers at CAT's Operations Center ..................................................................... 6-14
Map 6-3: Routes with Layovers at the Government Center Intermodal Transfer Facility ........................ 6-15
Map 6-4: Routes with Layovers at the Immokalee Transfer Facility.......................................................... 6-15
Page 1230 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Categorization of Major Alternative Fuel Technologies ............................................................. 2-1
Table 2-2: Alternative Fuel Technologies Comparison .............................................................................. 2-11
Table 3-1: Selection of Peers for Review....................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 6-1: 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 ........................................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-11: Descriptive Data from November 2024 Observed Runs ........................................................ 6-11
Table 6-12: Mileage Assumptions Used for Each Vehicle ......................................................................... 6-12
Table 6-13: CAT Depot and Transfer Facility Locations ............................................................................. 6-13
Table 6-14: Nominal and Strenuous Assumptions for Battery Electric Buses .......................................... 6-17
Table 6-15: Battery Life and Degradation Assumptions ............................................................................ 6-17
Table 6-16: Battery Capacity Improvement Assumptions ......................................................................... 6-19
Table 6-17: Summary of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Range Assumptions .................................................... 6-21
Table 6-18: Other Feasibility Considerations Made During Feasibility Assessment ................................ 6-21
Table 6-19: Support Vehicle Current Inventory and Their EV Equivalent ................................................. 6-21
Table 6-20: Service Range Assumptions Used for Each Vehicle Group .................................................... 6-22
Table 6-21: Currently Feasible Blocks By Operation Day ........................................................................... 6-23
Table 6-22: Future Feasible Blocks by Operation Day for Purchase Years 2025 and 2035 ..................... 6-23
Table 6-23: Charging Options and Time to Full Charge ............................................................................ 6-24
Table 6-24: Feasible Blocks by Fuel Type and Day of Operation .............................................................. 6-26
Table 6-25: Percentage of DR Trips Served Feasibly by Alternative Fuel Cutaways ................................ 6-28
Table 6-26: Feasibility of EVs to Serve the Maximum Daily Mileage of Support Vehicles ...................... 6-28
Table 6-27: Fixed Route Fuel Mix Recommendations ................................................................................ 6-30
Table 6-28: Demand Response Fuel Mix Recommendations .................................................................... 6-37
Table 6-29: Support Vehicles Fuel Mix Recommendations ....................................................................... 6-40
Table 7-1: Summary of Cost Savings by Scenario ........................................................................................ 7-4
Table 7-2: Assumed Capital Costs of Vehicles by Fuel Type (AFLEET Tool, 2023) ..................................... 7-4
Table 7-3: Assumed Operating Costs of Vehicles by Fuel Type* ................................................................ 7-5
Table 7-4: Assumed Costs of Alternate Fuel Infrastructure (AFLEET, 2023) ............................................... 7-5
Table 7-5: Summary of Potential Funding Sources for ZEV’s .................................................................... 7-10
Table 8-1: CAT Existing Fixed Route Fleet .................................................................................................... 8-1
Page 1231 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | iv
Table 8-2: CAT Fixed Route Vehicle Replacement Plan ............................................................................... 8-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Bus Vehicle Power Sources ......................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2: Mix of Alternative Fuels for US Buses (2024)............................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-3: Mix of Alternative Fuels for Florida Buses (2024) ...................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-4: FPL Electric Generation Fuel Mix Sources (2024) ...................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-5 Average Vehicle Range (miles) .................................................................................................. 2-12
Figure 5-1: Site Plan for CAT Administrative Building ................................................................................. 5-2
Figure 6-1: Distribution of Block Lengths for each Service Day .................................................................. 6-8
Figure 6-2: Distribution of Observed Runs By Trip Lengths ...................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6-3: Scenario 1A (No On-Route Charging) ................................................................................... 6-31
Figure 6-4: Scenario 1B (On Route Charging) ........................................................................................... 6-31
Figure 6-5: Scenario 2A (No On-Route Charging) ................................................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-6: Scenario 2B (On-Route Charging) ........................................................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-7: Scenario 3A (No On-Route Charging) .................................................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-8: Scenario 3B (On-Route Charging) ........................................................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-9: Scenario 4 .................................................................................................................................. 6-33
Figure 6-10: Fixed Route Estimated Capital Costs ..................................................................................... 6-34
Figure 6-11: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Fixed Route ............................................................ 6-35
Figure 6-12: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fixed Route Comparisons ............... 6-36
Figure 6-13: Demand Response Estimated Capital Costs .......................................................................... 6-38
Figure 6-14: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Demand Response ................................................. 6-39
Figure 6-15: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Demand Response Comparisons.... 6-39
Figure 6-16: Support Vehicles Estimated Capital Costs ............................................................................. 6-40
Figure 6-17: Estimated Annual Emissions Profile for Support Vehicles .................................................... 6-41
Figure 6-18: Well to Wheels Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Support Vehicle Comparisons ........ 6-41
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
Figure 8-1: 2025 Fuel Mix .............................................................................................................................. 8-2
Figure 8-2: 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
Page 1232 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | v
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
Fixed Route 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
Support Vehicles .......................................................................................................................................... 8-11
Page 1233 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 1-1
1 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 | 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 | Address the availability of current and future resources to meet costs for the
transition and implementation.
• Element 3 | Consider policy and legislation impacting relevant technologies.
• Element 4 | Include an evaluation of existing and future facilities and their relationship to the
technology transition.
• Element 5 | Describe the partnership of the applicant with the utility or alternative fuel provider.
• Element 6 | 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
Page 1234 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 1-2
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.
Page 1235 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-1
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 F UEL TECHNOLOGIES
Low-Emission Technologies Zero-Emission Technologies
• Biodiesel
• Compressed natural gas (CNG)
• Diesel and battery electric (hybrid)
• Gasoline
• Liquified natural gas (LNG)
• Propane
• Battery electric
• Hydrogen fuel cell electric
(FCE)
Note: While the term “hybrid technology” can refer to a myriad of combinations of fuels, for the purposes of this
report, hybrid refers solely to a combination of diesel and battery electric technologies.
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.
Page 1236 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-2
FIGURE 2 -1: BUS VEHICLE POWER S OURCES
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.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2023
Diesel CNG, LNG, and Blends Hybrid Biodiesel Gasoline Other (a)
Page 1237 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-3
FIGURE 2 -2 : M IX OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR US BUSES (2024)
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 B USES (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
CNG
40%
Hybrid
33%
Biodiesel
22%Battery
Electric
4%
Hydrogen
0.3%
Other Natural Gas
0.9%
Propane
0.3%
Other
1.5%
CNG
60%
Hybrid
27%
Battery
Electric
8%
Biodiesel
5%
Page 1238 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-4
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 20th 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 20th 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 Breeze Diesel Fueling Station
Source: Benesch
Page 1239 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-5
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, B10, and B20.
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.
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
www.nrel.gov
Page 1240 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-6
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 1.
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
1 Costs Associated With Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure, US Department of Energy,
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/cng_infrastructure_costs.pdf
Page 1241 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-7
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 F UEL MIX SOURCES (2024 )
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
Natural Gas, 70.9%Nuclear, 19.6%
Solar, 6.6%
Purchased
Power, 2.4%
Coal,
0.4%
Oil, 20.0%
Page 1242 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-8
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 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.
Source: APTA
Page 1243 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-9
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.
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
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 over time, 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.
Source: https://www.act-news.com/
Page 1244 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-10
• 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.
Page 1245 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-11
TABLE 2 -2 : ALTERNATIVE F UEL TECHNOLOGIES COMPARISON Diesel Biodiesel CNG Hybrid Battery Electric Hydrogen FCE
State of Technology
Current Adoption
Rate
Phasing Out Stagnant Steady Steady Growing Growing
Maturity Mature Mature Mature Evolving Evolving Almost Mature
Emission Reduction None Low Low Low High High
Coordination Level Few Few Some Some Many Many
Ease of Adoption Easy Easy Challenging Easy Challenging Challenging
Financial Impact
Lifecycle Cost Medium Medium Low Medium Low High
Vehicle Cost Low Medium Medium Medium High High
Infrastructure Cost Low Low High Low Medium High
Grant Security None Low High High High Medium
Impact to Facility Spaces
Added Footprint None Low High Low Medium High
Facility Upgrades None Some Many None Many None
Operations and Maintenance Impact
O&M Cost High High High Medium Low High
Vehicle Range Standard Standard Standard High Low Standard
Additional Training None Low High Medium High High
Added Inventory None Minimal High Medium Medium High
Reliability High Medium High Low Low Medium
Refueling Time 5 mins 5 mins 5-15 mins 5 mins 4 to 6 hours 7-20 mins
Unknown Factors None Few Few Some Many Many
Regional Impact (Florida)
Regional Climate and
Terrain Impact
None Low Low Low Medium Low
Regional Agencies
with Technology
Broad Some Broad Broad Minimal None
Page 1246 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 2-12
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.
FIGURE 2 -5 AVERAGE VEHICLE RANGE (MILES)
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)
525
475
475
400
250
185
0 100 200 300 400 500
Hybrid
Diesel
Biodiesel
CNG
Hydrogen FCE
Battery Electric
Page 1247 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 3-1
3 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 R EVIEW
Agency Location VOMS* Fuel Types
PSTA Pinellas County, FL 273 Diesel, Electric Hybrid, Electric, and
Autonomous Vehicle Advantage (AVA)
LeeTran Lee County, FL 91 Diesel, Electric Hybrid, Propane
JTA Duval County, FL 225
Compressed Natural gas (CNG),
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.
Page 1248 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 3-2
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.
Page 1249 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 3-3
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
Page 1250 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 3-4
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.
Page 1251 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 3-5
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.
Page 1252 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 4-6
4 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.
Page 1253 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 4-7
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
Page 1254 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 4-8
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.
Page 1255 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 4-9
• 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.
Page 1256 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 5-1
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.
Page 1257 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 5-2
FIGURE 5 -1: SITE PLAN FOR CAT OPERATIONS FACLITY
Page 1258 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-1
6 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 Number of
Vehicles
Fixed Route 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.
Page 1259 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-2
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.
T ABLE 6-2 : FIXED ROUTE FLEET B Y FUEL TYPE AND VEHICLE LENGTH
Vehicle Length Diesel Gasoline Battery Electric Total
30’ 18** 2 0 20
35’ 10** 0 1* 11
40’ 4 0 0 4
Total 32 2 1 35
*In Procurement **Two in Procurement
T ABLE 6-3 : FIXED ROUTE FLEET B Y FUEL TYPE AND PURCHASE YEAR
Purchase Year Diesel Gasoline Battery Electric Total
2025 4* 0 1* 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.
Page 1260 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-3
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 : E STIMATED FIXED R OUTE VEHICLE R EPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
Replacement Yr. Diesel Gasoline Battery Electric Total
2037 2 0 1 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 : D EMAND RESPONSE FLEET BY F UEL TYPE AND VEHICLE L ENGTH
Vehicle
Length Diesel Gasoline Total
17’ 0 3 3
23’ 6 20 26
24’ 0 4 4
TBD 0 4* 4*
Total 6 31 37
* In Procurement
Page 1261 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-4
TABLE 6-6 : D EMAND RESPONSE F LEET BY F UEL TYPE AND PURCHASE Y EAR Diesel Gasoline Total
2025 0 4* 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 : E STIMATED DEMAND R ESPONSE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT S CHEDULE Diesel Gasoline Total
2029 0 3 3
2026 0 6 6
2025 0 7 7
Total 0 16 16
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.
Page 1262 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-5
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.
M AP 6-1 : CAT ROUTES
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
Page 1263 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-6
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.
T ABLE 6 -8 : CAT ROUTE PROFILES
Route
Number Description Route
Type
Route
Length* Route Profile
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
Mall Fixed 15.7 mi Urban/High Traffic
15 Golden Gate City (Santa
Barbara) Fixed 28.3 mi Urban/Medium Traffic
16 Golden Gate City (Santa
Barbara) Fixed 42.2 mi Urban/Medium Traffic
17 Rattlesnake to FSW Fixed 23.6 mi Suburban/Medium Traffic
19/19X Golden Gate Estates and
Immokalee Fixed 40.4 mi Suburban/Low
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 Express 134.6 mi Suburban/Low
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
Page 1264 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-7
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.
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 D AY OF WEEK AND VEHICLE LENGTH
Vehicle Length Weekday Saturday Sunday
30’ 16 12 9
35’ 4 4 3
40’ 1 1 1
Total 21 17 13
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.
Page 1265 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-8
FIGURE 6 -1: DISTRIBUTION OF BLOCK LENGTHS FOR EACH SERVICE DAY
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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Block Length (Miles)Weekday
Blocks
Saturday
Blocks
Sunday
Blocks
Max Feasibility Range
Page 1266 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-9
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.
Page 1267 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan |
6-10
TABLE 6-10: FIXED ROUTE SERVICE BLOCK PROFILES
Block
No.
Vehicle
Length Assigned to Route(s)
Weekday Saturday Sunday
Time
(Hours)
Distance
(mi.)
Time
(Hours)
Distance
(mi.)
Time
(Hours)
Distance
(mi.)
1 40’ 19/12 14:39 258.79 14:39 258.79 06:24 265.89
2/20 30’ 25/19 Express 13:58 276.59 11:17 203.8 03:15 76.62
3 30’ 19 Express/11 14:54 274.95 14:54 274.95 12:50 229.16
4 35’ 19 17:55 510.62 17:55 510.62 10:16 146.04
5 35’ 16 13:40 218.96 13:40 218.96 03:19 98.4
6 30’ 121 06:24 265.89 06:24 265.89 12:08 211.6
7 30’ 15 14:43 244.21 14:43 244.21 09:01 144.46
8 30’ 11 12:23 185.94 12:23 185.94 10:53 161.3
9 30’ 17 11:51 188.14 11:51 188.14 08:56 137.05
10 30’ 24/19 13:09 338.74 06:29 170.69 07:13 130.84
11 30’ 13 13:26 185.82 13:44 226.93 09:37 119.5
12 30’ 27 13:56 244.1 11:14 192.16 08:39 141.62
13 35’ 21 04:53 116.54 13:26 185.82 06:18 183.39
15/21 30’ 20 11:14 192.17 12:50 229.16
16 30’ 22 12:50 229.16 11:35 161.92
17 30’ 14 11:35 161.92 12:50 229.48
18 35’ 23 12:50 229.48 09:18 268.37
19 30’ 24 12:44 212.64
22 30’ 21/24 04:08 88.76
Totals 231:12 4423.42 209:12 4015.83 108:49 2045.87
Page 1268 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-11
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: D ESCRIPTIVE D ATA FROM NOVEMBER 2024 OBSERVED RUNS
Values Miles
Minimum 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.
F IGURE 6 -2: DISTRIBUTION OF OBSERVED RUNS B Y TRIP L ENGTHS
N=739
Source: Collier Area Transit
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Miles 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400Count of RunsPage 1269 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-12
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.
T ABLE 6 -12: MILEAGE ASSUMPTIONS U SED FOR EACH VEHICLE
Vehicle ID Vehicle Type
Observed
FY24
Mileage
Estimated
Average Daily
Mileage
Assumed
Maximum Daily
Mileage
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
Page 1270 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-13
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.
T ABLE 6 -13: CAT DEPOT AND TRANSFER FACILITY LOCATIONS
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.
Depot / Transfer Station Stop 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
and Goodlette Frank Rd.) 471 5920 Goodlette-Frank Rd, Naples, FL 34109
Coastland Center 50 Fleischmann Blvd, Naples FL 34102
Page 1271 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-14
MAP 6-2 : ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT CAT'S OPERATIONS CENTER
Page 1272 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-15
M AP 6 -3 : ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER INTERMODAL TRANSFER FACILITY
MAP 6-4 : ROUTES WITH LAYOVERS AT THE IMMOKALEE TRANSFER FACILITY
Page 1273 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-16
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).
Page 1274 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-17
TABLE 6-14: NOMINAL AND STRENUOUS A SSUMPTIONS FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC B USES
Variable Description Assumption
Nominal Energy
Consumption
Energy required to operate the vehicle under
nominal conditions
1.85 kWh/mi for all FR
0.9 kWh/mi for all DR
Strenuous Energy
Consumption
Energy required to operate the vehicle under
strenuous conditions
2.14 kWh/mi for all FR
1.0 kWh/mi for all DR
Nominal Auxiliary
Power
The amount of power needed to operate
auxiliary systems under nominal conditions
6.5 kW for all FR
3.2 kW for all DR
Strenuous
Auxiliary Power
The amount of power needed to operate
auxiliary systems under strenuous conditions
27 kW for all FR
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.
T ABLE 6 -15: BATTERY LIFE AND DEGRADATION ASSUMPTIONS
Variable Description Assumption
% of Original
Capacity
Percentage of the original battery’s capacity that is useable
at the end of battery life 80%
Useful Life of
Battery The number of years of a battery’s useful lifecycle 10 years
Annual
Degradation The annual Rate of Battery Degradation -2%
Reserve Energy
(kWh)
Estimated energy required to travel approximately 10 miles
to the depot from an on-route location; a “safety net” to
ensure the bus can return to the depot if a bus experiences
an issue on-route, causing it to use more energy than
expected.
20 kWh for all FR
9 kWh for all DR
Page 1275 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-18
Variable Description Assumption
New Battery Scenario (2025)
Total Battery
Energy (kWh) The total energy contained in the battery upon purchase
30’ FR: 350 kWh
35’ FR: 420 kWh
40’ FR: 500 kWh
DR: 113 kWh
Useable Energy
(kWh)
The total energy that can be withdrawn from a new battery
before needing to stop
30’: 280 kWh
35’: 336 kWh
40’: 400 kWh
DR: 90 kWh
Service Energy
(kWh)
Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service for
buses with new batteries (“Useable Energy” minus “Reserve
Energy”)
30’ FR: 260 kWh
35’ FR: 316 kWh
40’ FR: 380 kWh
DR: 81 kWh
End of Life Battery Scenario (2035)
Total Battery
Energy (kWh)
The total energy contained in the battery at the end of
battery life
30’ FR: 286 kWh
35’ FR: 344 kWh
40’ FR: 409 kWh
DR: 93 kWh
Useable Energy
(kWh)
The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery
before needing to stop
30’ FR: 229 kWh
35’ FR: 275 kWh
40’ FR: 327 kWh
DR: 74 kWh
Service Energy
(kWh)
Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service
(Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy)
30’ FR: 209 kWh
35’ FR: 255 kWh
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
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.
Page 1276 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-19
TABLE 6-16: B ATTERY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Variable Description Assumption
Annual Battery
Capacity
Improvement
The annual rate of battery capacity improvements due to
increased research and development in the industry over the
current year’s energy assumptions
+3.5%
2030 Battery Improvement Scenario
Total Battery
Energy (kWh) The total energy contained in the battery
30’ FR: 416 kWh
35’ FR: 499 kWh
40’ FR: 594 kWh
DR: 110 kWh
Useable Energy
(kWh)
The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery
before needing to stop
30’ FR: 326 kWh
35’ FR: 399 kWh
40’ FR: 475 kWh
DR: 88 kWh
Service Energy
(kWh)
Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service
(Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy)
30’ FR: 306 kWh
35’ FR: 379 kWh
40’ FR: 455 kWh
DR: 79 kWh
2035 Battery Improvement Scenario
Total Battery
Energy (kWh) The total energy contained in the battery
30’ FR: 495 kWh
35’ FR: 592 kWh
40’ FR: 706 kWh
DR: 130 kWh
Useable Energy
(kWh)
The total energy that can be withdrawn from the battery
before needing to stop
30’ FR: 396 kWh
35’ FR: 474 kWh
40’ FR: 565 kWh
DR: 104 kWh
Service Energy
(kWh)
Maximum energy that should be used in revenue service
(Useable Energy minus Reserve Energy)
30’ FR: 376 kWh
35’ FR: 454 kWh
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
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.
Page 1277 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-20
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.
Page 1278 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-21
TABLE 6 -17: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE RANGE ASSUMPTIONS
Variable Description Fuel Alternative Assumption
Fuel Reserve
The policy of having a fuel reserve
for vehicles as a “safety net” to
ensure the bus can return to the
depot if a bus experiences an issue
on-route requiring added fuel.
All Fuel Types 25% or ¼ Tank
Equivalent
Total Vehicle
Range
Estimated maximum range of travel
for all buses on a full tank or
equivalent for each respective fuel
type
Hydrogen FCEB 250 miles for FR
NA for DR
CNG 400 miles for FR
275 miles for DR
Biodiesel 475 miles for FR
350 miles for DR
Hybrid Diesel-Electric 525 miles for FR
NA for DR
Service Range
Maximum range of travel achievable
for use in revenue service (Total
Vehicle Range minus Fuel Reserve)
Hydrogen FCEB 188 miles for FR
NA for DR
CNG 300 miles for FR
225 miles for DR
Biodiesel 357 miles for FR
263 miles for DR
Hybrid Diesel-Electric 394 miles for FR
NA for DR
TABLE 6-18: OTHER F EASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS M ADE D URING FEASIBILITY A SSESSMENT
Fuel Other Consideration
Hydrogen FCEB Fuel Cell Efficiency may degrade over time
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: S UPPORT VEHICLE CURRENT I NVENTORY 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
Page 1279 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-22
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 G ROUP
Vehicle Group Nominal Range 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 10th 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.
Page 1280 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-23
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 F EASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION D AY
Block Vehicle
Length
Block Feasibility by Operation Day
Weekday Saturday Sunday
2 30’ ✓
4 35’ !
5 35’ ✓
13 35’ ✓
22 30’ ✓
✓ = 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.
T ABLE 6 -22: FUTURE FEASIBLE BLOCKS BY OPERATION D AY FOR PURCHASE YEARS 2025 AND 2035
Block Vehicle
Length
Block Feasibility by Operation Day
Weekday Saturday Sunday
2025 2035 2025 2035 2025 2035
2 30’ ✓ ✓
4 35’ ! ✓
5 35’ ✓ ✓
7 30’ !
8 30’ !
9 30’ ✓
10 30’ ✓
11 30’ ✓
12 30’ !
13 35’ ✓ ✓ ! !
16 30’ !
17 30’ !
22 30’ ✓ ✓
✓ = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible
Page 1281 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-24
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
Charger Type Power
Output (kW)
Time to Full Charge
350 kWh 420 kWh 500 kWh 686 kWh
DC Fast Charger (50 kW) or
Induction Charger (60 kW) 50 kW 7h 8h 25m 10h 13h 45m
DC Fast Charger (150 kW)
Induction Charger (180 kW) 150 kW 2h 20m 2h 50m 3h 20m 4h 30m
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 10th 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 10th 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
Page 1282 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-25
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.
Page 1283 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-26
TABLE 6 -24: FEASIBLE B LOCKS BY F UEL TYPE AND DAY OF OPERATION
Block Vehicle
Length
Block Feasibility by Operation Day
Hydrogen FCE CNG Biodiesel Hybrid
Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun. Wkd. Sat. Sun.
1 40’ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2/20 30’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3 30’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4 35’ ✓ ✓ ✓ ! ! ✓
5 35’ ! ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6 30’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
7 30’ ! ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
8 30’ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9 30’ ! ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10 30’ ✓ ✓ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
11 30’ ✓ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
12 30’ ! ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
13 35’ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
15/21 30’ ! ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
16 30’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
17 30’ ✓ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
18 35’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
19 30’ ! ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ = 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.
CNG BUSES
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.
Page 1284 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-27
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.
Page 1285 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-28
TABLE 6-25: PERCENTAGE OF DR TRIPS S ERVED FEASIBLY BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL CUTAWAYS
Observed Trips Miles CNG Cutaways Biodiesel (Using Diesel Cutaways)
First Percentile 70 ✓ ✓
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 M AXIMUM DAILY MILEAGE OF SUPPORT VEHICLES
Vehicle ID Vehicle Type EV Feasibility
CC2-2106 Minivan ✓
CC2-2107 Minivan ✓
CC2-2019 SUV ✓
CC2-1553 SUV ✓
CC2-1662 Pickup Truck ✓
CC2-1402 Pickup Truck ✓
✓ = Feasible ! = Maybe Feasible
Page 1286 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-29
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.
Page 1287 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-30
TABLE 6-27: FIXED ROUTE FUEL MIX RECOMMENDATIONS
Block
No.
Recommendations
Scenario 1: Least
Harmful Emissions
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.
Page 1288 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-31
A variation of Scenario 1 (1B) 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 1B.
FIGURE 6 -3: SCENARIO 1A
(NO ON-ROUTE CHARGING)
FIGURE 6 -4: S CENARIO 1B
(ON ROUTE CHARGING)
6.4.1.2 Scenario 2: Optimized Vehicle Function
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 (2B) 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.
Hybrid
74%
BEB
10%
Diesel
16%
Hybrid
53%
BEB
31%
Diesel
16%
Page 1289 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-32
FIGURE 6-5: SCENARIO 2A
(NO ON -ROUTE CHARGING)
FIGURE 6-6: SCENARIO 2B
(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 (3B) 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)
FIGURE 6 -8: S CENARIO 3B
(ON-ROUTE CHARGING)
CNG
32%
Hybrid
42%
BEB
10%
Diesel
16%
CNG
31%
Hybrid
21%
BEB
32%
Diesel
16%
Biodiesel
32%
Hybrid
42%
BEB
10%
Diesel
16%
Biodiesel
31%
Hybrid
21%
BEB
32%
Diesel
16%
Page 1290 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-33
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
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 1A: The purchase of four Level 2 Chargers for overnight depot charging as well as the
cost of installing these chargers.
• Scenario 1B: 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 2B: 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.
Biodiesel
84%
Diesel
16%
Page 1291 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-34
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 3B: 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 E STIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
*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 1B being the costliest, and Scenario 4
being the least costly, even when compared to the current scenario. Scenario 1A 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
$17
$3
$3
$3
$3
$3
$3
$3
$7
$7
$1
$19
$14
$11
$5
$11
$5
$1
$4
$11
$4
$11
$4
$11
$6
$6
$16
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
Current*
Scenario 1A
Scenario 1B
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 3A
Scenario 3B
Scenario 4
Millions
Diesel CNG Hybrid Gasoline BEB Biodiesel
Page 1292 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-35
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
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 1A and
1B present the lowest carbon footprint overall although the NOx profile for 1B is lower than 1A.
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 1B has the lowest
emission profile for fuel production, largely due to the lithium batteries, and a reduced overall use of
diesel.
8,897
8,643
6,609
5,745
3,711
8,643
6,609
9,660
6,614
3,833
3,066
29,136
28,369
4,983
4,217
7,285
445.8
468.8
464
468.8
464
468.8
464
471.2
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Current
Scenario 1A
Scenario 1B
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 3A
Scenario 3B
Scenario 4
Pounds
NOx CO PM10
Page 1293 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-36
FIGURE 6 -12: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS F IXED ROUTE COMPARISONS
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.
4,622
4,449
4,207
4,673
4,432
4,520
4,278
4,758
3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,300 4,400 4,500 4,600 4,700 4,800
Current
Scenario 1A
Scenario 1B
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 3A
Scenario 3B
Scenario 4
Short Tons
GHG Emissions
Page 1294 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-37
TABLE 6 -28: D EMAND RESPONSE FUEL MIX R ECOMMENDATIONS
Vehicle
Type
Current
Scenario
Recommendations
Scenario 1: Balanced
Emissions and Costs
Scenario 2: Lowest
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.
Page 1295 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-38
FIGURE 6 -13: DEMAND R ESPONSE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
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.
$344
$344
$600
$1,875
$1,173
$344
$950
$950
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Thousands
Diesel CNG Biodiesel Gasoline
Page 1296 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-39
FIGURE 6 -14: ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE FOR D EMAND RESPONSE
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 G AS E MISSIONS D EMAND RESPONSE
COMPARISONS
144
43
597
177
2,344
2,498
1,650
2,293
77.1
75.9
82.5
77.5
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Pounds
NOx CO PM10
699
696
545
620
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Short Tons
GHG Emissions
Page 1297 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-40
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: S UPPORT VEHICLES FUEL MIX RECOMMENDATIONS
Vehicle
Type
Current
Scenario
Recommendations
Scenario 1: Lowest
Emissions (and
Lifecycle Cost)
Scenario 2: Operations
Limited
Scenario 3: Lowest Capital
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 E STIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
$376
$217
$111
$210
$70
$140
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Thousands
Electric Gasoline
Page 1298 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 6-41
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 A NNUAL E MISSIONS PROFILE FOR S UPPORT VEHICLES
FIGURE 6 -18: WELL TO WHEELS LIFECYCLE G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS SUPPORT VEHICLE COMPARISONS
4
1
2
263
88
176
7.2
7.7
6.8
7
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Pounds
NOx CO PM10
34
18
21
27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Short Tons
GHG Emissions
Page 1299 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-1
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.
Page 1300 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-2
FIGURE 7 -1: TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS BY FUEL M IX SCENARIO (2025-2034)
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 F UEL MIX S CENARIO (2025-2034)
$61 $64
$68 $70
$62 $64
$56 $55
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing
ServiceMillions
$155 $156
$153 $154
$158 $158
$162
$166
$146
$148
$150
$152
$154
$156
$158
$160
$162
$164
$166
$168
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing
ServiceMillions
Page 1301 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-3
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 1A, 1B, 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)
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 1A 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.
$216
$220
$222
$224
$220
$222
$218
$221
$212
$214
$216
$218
$220
$222
$224
$226
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 Existing
ServiceMillions
Page 1302 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-4
TABLE 7 -1 : S UMMARY OF C OST SAVINGS BY SCENARIO
Scenario Fuel Mix Scenario Est. Cost
Savings
Percent
Savings
1A Least Harmful Emissions (No On-Route
Charging) $4.3 Million 2.0%
1B Least Harmful Emissions (On-Route
Charging) $0.3 Million 0.1%
2A Optimized Vehicle Function (No On-Route
Charging) $-0.7 Million -0.3%
2B Optimized Vehicle Function (On-Route
Charging) $-3.3 Million -1.5%
3A Balanced Approach (No On-Route
Charging) $1.1 Million 0.5%
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 : A SSUMED CAPITAL COSTS OF VEHICLES BY FUEL TYPE (AFLEET TOOL, 2023)
Service Type Fuel Type Vehicle Cost
Fixed Route
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)
Page 1303 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-5
TABLE 7-3 : A SSUMED OPERATING COSTS OF VEHICLES BY F UEL TYPE*
Service Type Fuel Type Cost per Mile
Fixed Route
CNG $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.
T ABLE 7 -4 : ASSUMED COSTS OF ALTERNATE F UEL I NFRASTRUCTURE (AFLEET, 2023)
Service Type Infrastructure Type Per Vehicle Cost Flat Cost
Fixed Route
CNG Station and Dispensers
(Medium) $66,660
Overnight Chargers (and installation) $60,000
On-Route Chargers (and installation) $163,30
0*
Biodiesel Tank and Dispensers $97,935
Demand
Response
CNG Station and Dispensers (Small) $27,700
Overnight Chargers (and installation) $11,900
*per location
Source: 2023 AFLEET Tool
Page 1304 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-6
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
Page 1305 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-7
FIGURE 7 -4 : CAT OPERATIONS COST F EASIBLE PLAN (2025-2034)
Page 1306 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-8
FIGURE 7 -5: CAT CAPITAL COST FEASIBLE PLAN (2025-2034)
Page 1307 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-9
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.
Page 1308 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 7-10
TABLE 7 -5 : S UMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ZEV’S
Type Agency Funding Program Funding
Available
Funding Eligibility
Facilities Bus
Purchase
Charging
Infrastructure
Federal USDOT
Discretionary Grant Program for
Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure
$2.5 B (FY23)
Federal FHWA
Advanced Transportation and
Congestion Management
Technologies Deployment
Program
$60 M
(FY2025)
Federal USDOT
Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure Discretionary Grant
Program
$700 M (FY25)
Federal FHWA
Advanced Transportation
Technologies and Innovative
Mobility Deployment
$60.0 M (FY25)
Federal DOE
Title XVII Renewable Energy and
Efficient Energy Projects
Solicitation
$4.5 B
Federal FTA Low or No Emission Vehicle
Program $1.22 B (FY24)
Federal FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Formula
Funds $604 M (FY24)
Federal FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility N/A
Federal USDOT
Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity
Grants
$1.5 B (FY24)
Federal EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act $92.0 M (FY24)
Federal IRS Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax
Credit N/A
Federal IRS Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax
Credit
30% tax credit,
up to $100,000
Federal FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility $10 M (FY25)
State FHWA National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Formula Program $198 M (FY23)
Federal HUD Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) $ 3B (FY25)
State FDOT FDOT Transportation Alternatives
Program $80 M (FY25)
Federal EDA EDA Economic Adjustment
Assistance Program $37M (FY25)
State DEO Rural Infrastructure Fund $25M (FY25)
Page 1309 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-1
8 IMPLEMENTATION 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
Make Model Length (ft.) Quantity
Ford Villager 7.3L V8 30 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.
Page 1310 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-2
TABLE 8-2 : CAT FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Number of Vehicle
Replacements 5 3 5 3 2 2 0 5 4 1
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 F UEL MIX
FIGURE 8-2: 2034 FUEL MIX
Diesel
93.3%
Gasoline
6.7%
Diesel
67.7%
Gasoline
6.5%
BEB
6.5%
Hybrid
19.4%
Page 1311 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-3
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.
Phase 1: 2025 –2029 (BEB Pilot)
•Purchase and implement one battery electric bus
•Purchase and implement overnight chargers for two battery electric buses
•Evaluate the feasibility of operating and maintaining the battery electric bus
•Address and resolve any issues with the operation and maintenance of the battery electric bus
Phase 2: 2029 –2032 (Second BEB)
•Purchase and implement an additional battery electric bus
•Revisit the ZEV Transition Plan based as part of the 2031 TDP major update vehicle replacement plan
Phase 3: 2032 –2034 (Hybrid Pilot)
•Purchase and implement six hybrid electric buses
•Evaluate the feasibility of operating and maintaining the hybrid electric buses
•Address and resolve any issues with the operation and maintenance of the hybrid electric buses
Page 1312 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-4
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.
FIGURE 8 -3 : PROPOSED FIXED R OUTE FLEET COMPOSITION
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.
28 28 28 28 27 27 27 25
21 21
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2 2
1 1 1 2 2 2
2
2 2
2
6 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Diesel Gasoline BEB Hybrid
Page 1313 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-5
FIGURE 8 -4: PROPOSED FIXED R OUTE VEHICLE PURCHASE PLAN
FIGURE 8 -5: PROPOSED FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE EXPENSES
3
5
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Diesel Gasoline BEB Hybrid
$1.8
$3.0
$1.9
$0.6
$2.0
$0.7
$1.3
$1.2
$1.8
$3.8
$-
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Millions
Diesel Gasoline BEB Hybrid
Page 1314 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-6
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.
Page 1315 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-7
FIGURE 8 -6 : CAT OPERATIONS COST F EASIBLE PLAN (2025-2034)
Page 1316 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-8
FIGURE 8 -7: CAT CAPITAL COST FEASIBLE PLAN (2025-2034)
Page 1317 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-9
FIGURE 8 -8: PROPOSED CAT FINANCIAL PLAN
FIGURE 8 -9: CAT ZEV 2025-2034 TRANSITION PLAN TOTAL FIXED ROUTE VEHICLE CAPITAL AND
OPERATING EXPENSES
8.6 Emissions Reduction
$16
$21
$31
$17 $17 $17 $16
$20 $20
$30
$21
$23
$32
$19 $20 $20
$22 $21 $21
$23
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Millions
Total Costs Total Revenue
$13.1 $13.6 $14.0 $14.3 $14.6 $14.9 $15.2 $15.4 $15.4 $15.8
$1.8
$3.0
$1.9 $1.9 $1.3
$3.9 $3.8
$0.7
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$18
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Millions
Total Operating Expense (Existing Services)Total Vehicle Capital Expense
Page 1318 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-10
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
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
R ECOMMENDATION OF FIXED R OUTE VEHICLES
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.
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
7117.6
6863.4
5367.6
4600.5
347.2
358.4
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Current Scenario
Final Recommendation
Pounds
NOx CO PM10
3942.4
3827.6
3,760 3,780 3,800 3,820 3,840 3,860 3,880 3,900 3,920 3,940 3,960
Current Scenario
Final Recommendation
Short Tons
Page 1319 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-11
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: A NNUAL EMISSIONS PROFILE COMPARISON FOR THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF S UPPORT
VEHICLES
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
R ECOMMENDATION OF S UPPORT VEHICLES
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.
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.
3.6
2.4
263.4
175.6
7.2
7.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current Scenario
Final Recommendation
Pounds
NOx CO PM10
33.6
27.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Current Scenario
Final Recommendation
Short Tons
Page 1320 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-12
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.
Page 1321 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-13
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | A charging protocol will be established for and evaluated when the
vehicles are put into operation.
8.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy
Page 1322 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-14
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
Page 1323 of 5243
Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan | 8-15
• Review and report monitoring and evaluation biannually to transit agency leadership
Page 1324 of 5243