Original source · versioned page text
2015-04-07 Item 2 - Attachment 1 - Pre feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Noosa Council & TransLink Division
Prefeasibility Study of
Electric Bus Routes in Noosa
Planning Report
December 2014
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 69 sections
Section 2
Section 3
Executive Summary
Objectives
Noosa Council has a track record of innovative approaches to the provision of
public transport and currently provides subsidised (free) public transport in
partnership with TransLink and Sunbus during peak holiday periods in an attempt
to alleviate congestion and parking issues, particularly in the heavily visited tourism
hotspots around Noosa.
Council has been following and researching the increasingly successful incidences
of electric bus trials within Australia and across the globe, and believes that this
technology is sufficiently mature and will offer significant economic and community
benefits to the area. Noosa Council and the TransLink Division of Transport and
Main Roads have therefore commissioned a joint feasibility study into electric
buses in Noosa.
There are a number of electric bus trials and services in operation around the world
and they are demonstrating that following initial investment, there are significant
savings arising through reductions in fuel consumption and maintenance whilst
also providing economic and social benefits including:
Reduced or zero emissions from buses
Supporting the development of renewable energy
Improved urban amenity and reduce noise pollution
Increased patronage and public transport mode share
Reduced operational costs, increase fare revenue, improve cost recovery and
better value for money for tax and rate payers
Reduced traffic congestion
Increased economic development and tourism visitation in Noosa
Improved social capital
To this end, Council is considering the use of electric buses as a “point of
difference” for Noosa in the tourism market and also as an innovative approach
towards the provision of clean and environmentally friendly public transport.
GHD has been commissioned to assess the feasibility of electric bus routes in the
Noosa area in order to provide sufficient evidence to justify a decision to progress
the project further. The study entailed an assessment of the available technology,
required infrastructure, network planning and passenger utilisation needed to
determine the future costs and operational effectiveness of such a service. A
Strategic Outline Case (SOC) in order to assess the feasibility of a 6 month trial
electric bus service in the Noosa area has been prepared including indicative
whole of life costing.
Market Research
The market research found that there were many companies involved either
directly or indirectly in the electric bus industry. Companies that were researched
were found to originate from New Zealand, Asia (China), Europe (Germany,
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 4
Luxemburg, Netherlands, Italy, and Poland) and the Americas (United States and Canada). In total twenty six (26) electric bus manufacturers were researched to develop comparative product (fleet) profiles comprising of twenty (19) international and seven (7) locally based manufacturers. To evaluate the companies that offer electric buses, a number of essential factors were required to be met to first shortlist companies for further evaluation. The essential factors included: Reputation of the company and tenure in the industry Proven electric bus technology with buses implemented in the field Availability to provide a vehicle for the 6-month trial expected in August 2015 Ability to complete the electric bus route with an approximate range of 280 km per day (23 [email protected] km round trip) Proven right-hand drive vehicles to suit the Australian driving conditions which minimises the additional cost of customising the electric bus Easily able to provide the after sales support, parts replacement and training of drivers Compliance with Australian Standards in terms of vehicle specifications including Australian Design Rules (ADR) standards and Disability Discrimination Act requirements Selection of the Preferred Electric Bus Solution Using the above mentioned selection criterion, four (4) electric bus manufacturers were shortlisted for further evaluation using a Multiple-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as below: Solaris (Poland) BYD (through Carbridge an Australia largest aviation bus company with operations in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports) Optare (through PATICO Automotive who are the Australian distributors for Optare headquartered in Dandenong, Melbourne and have been operating in Australia for 10 years) Olev (through Australian Electric Infrastructure Transport (AEIT) with an office located in Brisbane, Queensland. AEIT is a Brisbane based company established in 2012 to commercialise the Olev electric vehicles in Australia) A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach has been used to inform the selection of the preferred electric bus manufacturer. The MCA results were presented at a workshop with Council/TransLink on the 18 September 2014 and it was decided that the top two (2) manufacturers (i.e. Optare and BYD) would be invited through an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in a 6 month trial. More detailed information was gathered through the EOI process to select a preferred manufacturer. Most Appropriate Solution for Noosa The analysis conducted showed that Route 627 is most suitable for the electric bus trial. The location for the proposed layover and fast recharging station is in Pelican Street at Tewantin, next to Council’s office. This site is convenient for the western GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 5
terminus of Route 627 to use and has minimal impact on parking with
approximately three spaces to be removed in Pelican Street. There are many on-
street parking spaces available along Pelican Street (next to Council’s office) which
could be used as a fast charging station location.
Overnight storage and slow charging for the electric bus could be undertaken at
the existing Sunbus depot (Beech Street) at Marcoola, which is approximately 30
km south of the eastern terminus (start point of Route 627) at Sunshine Beach.
Drivers can start their first trip on Route 627 from Sunshine Beach (Ed Webb Park)
The Marcoola location is preferred because it is an existing secure fenced facility
with surveillance systems and it will minimise the dead running and the significant
cost of additional driver relief trips (compared to the Noosa Council depot at Bartlett
Road). In addition, repairs and maintenance of the electric bus could be done at
Marcoola similar to current diesel buses.
Cost of the 6 Month Trial
The trial is about assessing the technology and discovering the “actual” capability
and performance of the electric bus under local conditions in Noosa. If the trial is
found to be successful, decisions can be made to consider implementing the
electric bus in full.
The cost to run the trial is estimated to be $452,700 for Optare and $407,200 for
BYD. This is the net cost after the cost of operating the standard two (2) diesel
buses on Route 627 is considered.
The findings show that the trial would cost more than the current cost to operate
the two (2) diesel buses on Route 627. This is primarily because of the cost
incurred in providing the fill-in and standby diesel buses and driver relief trips to
ensure service reliability. An initial capital investment will be required to
“ground truth” the technology. It is recommended that both Optare and BYD
are considered for the trial. Optare has the advantage of scale and expertise in
the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable international brand, and
have a presence in Australia. BYD are global leaders in the development of battery
technology and battery management systems (BMS). Their battery technology has
shown a continuous improvement. The new generation of batteries is already
exceeding the older batteries in capacity, which is currently installed in buses
around the world.
Strategic Outline Case
A Strategic Outline Case (SOC) has been developed to identify and compare the
indicative longer term costs of the recommended electric bus options which are
likely to proceed to a live trial, together with consideration of potential funding
sources.
A financial model has been designed to provide an indicative cost comparison of
Optare and BYD buses over a 15 year investment horizon. It is designed to
evaluate and compare the upfront purchase costs of a single bus and the
anticipated energy and maintenance costs on a ‘like-for-like’ basis.
An operational model has been developed to compare the indicative costs of
running the selected electric bus options (Optare and BYD) as a fleet on Route 627
against the indicative costs of running the current Sunbus diesel buses. The time
period for the operational model is 10 years (based on TransLink’s initial leasing
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 6
period) which allows for a longer term operational comparison of the current Sunbus diesel bus with both electric bus models. Financial Model Results Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the BYD bus has been found to be the cheapest in terms of upfront purchase costs (Optare +12%). However, the Optare Solo 10M is likely to be the most cost effective option to run in terms of maintenance and servicing. There are marginal differences in fuel efficiency between the two buses, it was surmised that fuel efficiency is not a good basis to distinguish electric bus options. Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the total NPC discounted costs for the Optare electric bus came to an estimated -$624,849 and -$1,074,230 for BYD. The total NPC discounted cost per kilometre came to -$0.33 for Optare and -$0.56 for BYD, respectively. The cost analysis indicates that the Optare solution to be lower from a total NPC discounted cost and cost per kilometre standpoint. This outcome is due mainly to the extended operational life of the Optare with a stated operational life of 25 years as against the BYD at 15 years. Operational Model Results The operational model shows discounted fuel savings of $269,866 and $214,049 for Optare and BYD fleet deployment over the standard Sunbus diesel fleet for the 10 year leasing period. However, these savings were not sufficient to offset the additional operational costs incurred in deployment of electric buses on Route 627. The charging and scheduling limitations of the electric buses – requiring an additional bus to be run on the route – make electric bus deployment an expensive option. Project Risks Identified risks for the project include: New technology - The introduction of an electric bus brings higher degrees of technical and financial uncertainty due to higher up front capital costs combined with the implementation of new technologies Uncertainty surrounding battery life and the performance Uncertainty surrounding “real-world” performance outcomes during the trial given location specific variations in ambient temperatures, braking intensity, and accommodation of air-conditioning load Uncertainty surrounding the Green House Gas (GHG) performance of electric vehicles when powered using electricity generated by non-renewable energy sources Any loss of passenger carrying capacity given final configuration of the chosen bus option and capacity to accommodate unexpected fluctuations in route demand For the above reasons a trial is recommended to test this new technology Study Recommendations Route 627 is recommended to be used as the electric bus trial route GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 7
Two (2) electric buses and one (1) diesel bus will be required to maintain the
current 30 minute headway and 60 minute circuit time. A standby diesel bus is
recommended to attend to any breakdowns in order to ensure service reliability.
The existing diesel buses in the Sunbus fleet should be used as stand-by
spares should there be any breakdowns, accidents and other service continuity
issues
Overnight storage and slow charging of the electric bus is recommended to be at
the existing Sunbus depot at Marcoola. Layover and fast charge of the electric
bus recommended to be at Pelican Street (in front of Council office and would
involve the loss of approximately three (3) car parking spaces. Repairs and
maintenance proposed to be conducted at existing Sunbus depot at Marcoola
Route 627 should be exempt from the TransLink Contract Performance
Management Framework during the trial whilst an unproven technology is being
tested
A driver relief vehicle is hired (2 Nos) and included in trial costs, to transport
Sunbus drivers between the Marcoola depot and Noosa Junction to facilitate
driver shift changeovers
Dedicated electricity meters to be used for the trial to verify battery usage and
performance of the bus
It is recommended that both Optare and BYD buses are considered for the 6
month trial to confirm performance in the field and is estimated to cost $859,900
(excluding contingencies)
Should the trial succeed the permanent cost of operating the electric bus would
be less than the trial cost as standby buses and drivers would not be required as
the technology is proven as reliable. Consideration may also be given to using
more permanent recharging options that may negate the need for a third bus
Potential funding sources include:
– National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF)
– Introduce a Council Public Transport levy to fund the trial
– Seek a portion of the total funding from TransLink
– Advertising revenue
Electric buses for the trial will need to comply with all State and Commonwealth
government laws in in particular the Disability Standards for Accessible Public
Transport (DSAPT) 2002 and Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 2002
(DDA), and Australian Design Rules (ADR)
Council/TransLink should consider the involvement of Sunbus in the trial as
early as possible
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 8
Table of contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Study scope ................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Scope and qualifications .............................................................................. 2
1.4 Approach ..................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Report Structure .......................................................................................... 4
2. Transport planning framework ..................................................................... 5
2.1 Strategic planning ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Demographic trends .................................................................................... 7
3. Electric bus route selection for the trial ......................................................... 8
3.1 Existing bus network .................................................................................... 8
3.2 Route options for the electric bus trial ........................................................ 11
3.3 Assessment of the route options for the electric bus trial ............................ 15
3.4 Recommended bus route for the electric bus ............................................. 15
3.5 Layover, storage and maintenance facilities ............................................... 17
4. Review of electric bus technologies ........................................................... 20
4.1 Selection of electric bus suppliers and manufacturers ................................ 20
4.2 Electric bus questionnaire .......................................................................... 27
4.3 Case studies of shortlisted electric bus manufacturers ............................... 27
4.4 Case studies of selected electric bus operators and transit
agencies.................................................................................................... 31
4.5 Assessment of selected electric bus manufacturers ................................... 35
5. Review of legislation, policy standards, regulations and
contracts ................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Electric heavy vehicle standards in Australia .............................................. 39
5.2 Review of Legislation, Regulation and Policies........................................... 40
5.3 Consultation with industry stakeholders ..................................................... 41
5.4 Review of Sunbus contract ........................................................................ 42
6. Developing the most appropriate solution for Noosa .................................. 43
6.1 Preferred operating environment for Noosa................................................ 43
6.2 Expression of Interest (EOI) for the electric bus trial ................................... 44
7. Strategic outline case ................................................................................ 48
7.1 Assessment criteria framework .................................................................. 48
7.2 Financial model ......................................................................................... 49
7.3 Operational model ..................................................................................... 51
7.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 53
7.5 Risk assessment ....................................................................................... 54
7.6 Potential funding sources........................................................................... 55
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 9
7.7 Recommendations for an electric bus to be part of a live
train in Stage 2 .......................................................................................... 56
8. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................... 57
8.1 Conclusions............................................................................................... 57
8.2 Recommendations..................................................................................... 60
Table index
Table 1 Existing Bus Routes and Services in Noosa ................................................. 8
Table 2 Existing Number of Services for the Local Bus Routes in
Noosa.......................................................................................................... 9
Table 3 Assessment of the Routes for the Electric Bus Trial ................................... 15
Table 4 Estimated Daily Operational Requirements for Route 627 .......................... 16
Table 5 List of International Electric Bus Manufacturers contacted for
Market Research ....................................................................................... 24
Table 6 List of Electric Bus Manufacturing Companies with a base in
Australia contacted for Market Research.................................................... 26
Table 7 MCA of Electric Bus Manufacturers............................................................ 38
Table 8 Comparison of Optare and BYD for a 6-month trial .................................... 47
Table 9 Breakdown of Upfront Purchase Costs - 2014 ............................................ 49
Table 10 Upfront Purchase Costs and Estimated Maintenance and
Servicing- 2014 ......................................................................................... 50
Table 11 Estimated Direct and Indirect Electricity Costs - 2014................................. 50
Table 12 Financial Model Estimated Discounted Costs of Bus Options ..................... 51
Table 13 Upfront Purchase Costs and Maintenance and Servicing
Cost Assumptions...................................................................................... 51
Table 14 Operational Model Estimated Discounted Costs of Bus
Options...................................................................................................... 52
Table 15 Upfront Purchase Costs and Maintenance and Servicing
Cost Assumptions...................................................................................... 52
Table 16 Electric Bus Trial Risk Matrix ..................................................................... 55
Figure index
Figure 1 Existing Bus Routes in the Noosa area ........................................................ 8
Figure 2 Total Average Daily Patronage on the Noosa Bus Routes ............................ 9
Figure 3 Average Daily Patronage by Hour and Bus Routes .................................... 10
Figure 4 Average Daily Patronage on Route 626 by Section .................................... 10
Figure 5 Average Daily Patronage on Route 627 by Section .................................... 11
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 10
Figure 6 Four Local Bus Routes in Noosa................................................................ 12
Figure 7 Route 627 as the Recommended Route for the Electric Bus
Trial ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 Terminus in Pelican Street at Tewantin ...................................................... 17
Figure 9 Terminus for Layovers at Noosa Junction Bus Station................................ 18
Figure 10 Sunbus Depot at Marcoola ........................................................................ 18
Figure 11 Noosa Council Depot ................................................................................. 19
Figure 12 8-Month Old Break Pads on a BYD Bus ..................................................... 20
Figure 13 Location for Batteries in an Electric Bus ..................................................... 21
Figure 14 Schedule of deployment on Route 627 – Optare Electric Bus..................... 45
Figure 15 Schedule of deployment on Route 627 – BYD Electric Bus ........................ 46
Appendices
Appendix A Electric Bus Questionnaires
Appendix B Electric Bus Market Research Material/Manufacturer
Brochures
Appendix C Summary Comparison of Electric Bus Technology
Appendix D Bus Network Data
Appendix E EOI for the Electric Bus 6-Month Trial
Appendix F SOC Models
GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 11
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Noosa Council has a track record of innovative approaches to the provision of
public transport and currently provides subsidised (free) public transport in
partnership with TransLink and Sunbus during peak holiday periods in an attempt
to alleviate congestion and parking issues, particularly in the heavily visited tourism
hotspots around Noosa.
The Council has been following and researching the increasingly successful
incidences of electric bus trials within Australia and across the globe, and believes
that this technology is sufficiently mature and will offer significant economic and
community benefits to the area. Noosa Council and the TransLink Division of
Transport and Main Roads have commissioned a joint feasibility study into electric
buses in Noosa.
There are a number of electric bus trials and services in operation around the world
and they are demonstrating that following initial investment, there are significant
savings arising through reductions in fuel consumption and maintenance whilst
also providing economic and social benefits including:
Reduced or zero emissions from buses
Supporting the development of renewable energy
Improved urban amenity and reduce noise pollution
Increased patronage and public transport mode share
Reduced operational costs, increase fare revenue, improve cost recovery and
better value for money for tax and rate payers
Reduced traffic congestion
Increased economic development and tourism visitation in Noosa
Improved social capital
Towards this end, Council is considering the use of electric buses as an innovative
approach towards the provision of clean and environmentally friendly public
transport. The main drivers for the service are:
To provide a public transport point of differentiation as a tourism destination in
order to increase visitation and economic activity in the Noosa Shire area
To facilitate a modal shift in travel behaviour in order to mitigate significant
planning and environmental issues such as air pollution, congestion and parking
GHD has been commissioned to assess the feasibility of electric bus routes in the
Noosa area in order to provide sufficient evidence to justify a decision to progress
the project further. The study entailed an assessment of the available technology,
required infrastructure, network planning and passenger utilisation needed to
determine the future costs and operational effectiveness of such a service. A
Strategic Outline Case (SOC) in order to introduce a 6-month trial electric bus
service in the Noosa area has been prepared. This report presents the findings of
the study and presents recommendations for a potential electric bus provider for
Noosa.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 1
Section 12
1.2 Study scope
The scope of this study is to:
Determine the preferred operating environment for an electric bus service within
the Noosa area focusing in particular on topography, patronage history,
population, tourism visitation (peak and off-peak season) and route alignment
planning
Undertake a market sounding exercise to understand the Australian and
international electric bus market including interviewing electric bus
manufacturers to develop comparative product (fleet) profiles
Interview clients (bus operators and transit agencies) using electric buses to
understand costs and benefits, risks, opportunities, issues and lessons learnt
Determine the most appropriate solution for Noosa based on fleet size, and
recharging options
Develop an assessment criteria framework to guide decision making on fleet
procurement options
Undertake a literature review of legislation, policy, standards, regulations and
contracts to understand the parameters in which such a service may be
deployed
Develop a Strategic Outline Case (SOC) identifying indicative costs of
establishment and operations of a recommended fleet options to proceed to a
live trial, together with potential funding
Recommend one or more potential electric buses that should be part of a live
trial in Stage 2
1.3 Scope and qualifications
This report: has been prepared by GHD for Noosa Council & TransLink Division and may
only be used and relied on by Noosa Council & TransLink Division for the purpose agreed
between GHD and the Noosa Council & TransLink Division as set out in Section 1.2 of this
report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Noosa Council & TransLink
Division arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and
conditions, to the extent legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to
those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the
report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no
responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring
subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on
assumptions made by GHD described in this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any
of the assumptions being incorrect.
GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Noosa Council &
TransLink Division and others who provided information to GHD (including Government
authorities)], which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed
scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information,
including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in
that information.
2 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 13
GHD has prepared a Strategic Outline Case (SOC) set out in Section 7 of this report using
information reasonably available to the GHD employee(s) who prepared this report; and
based on assumptions and judgments made by GHD.
The SOC has been prepared for the purpose of providing indicative costs of establishment
and operations of a recommended electric bus to proceed to a live trial, together with
potential funding options and must not be used for any other purpose.
The Strategic Outline Case is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs and other
variables may be different to those used to prepare the SOC and may change. Unless as
otherwise specified in this report, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions
identified in this report. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the works/project
can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the SOC.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence,
notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level,
there remains a chance that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any
funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for
planning purposes will vary depending on the conservatism of the user and the nature of the
project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular
risk profile.
1.4 Approach
A review of transport plans of Noosa was conducted to provide the transport
planning context for the study including an assessment of the demographic profiles
in Noosa.
A review of the existing TransLink bus network in Noosa was undertaken in order
to select the most appropriate bus route for the trial in 2015. If proven feasible, a 6-
month trial for the electric bus is proposed in August 2015. A review was conducted
of the current bus routes and service, patronage, location of layovers and
maintenance location and bus driver amenities (toilets and meal rooms). Various
bus route options were assessed for the electric bus with a recommended bus
route including location of layover and charging stations.
A comprehensive market research of the current electric bus technology,
manufacturers and the users of electric buses both in Australia and internationally
was conducted. The market research was conducted via the internet and
telephone interviews (where possible) with electric bus manufacturers and
included:
Key local and global manufacturers and bus deployments in cities similar to
Noosa
Transport agencies and bus operators operating electric buses
Background on electric bus vehicles
Battery and charging technology review – latest trends
Performance characteristics including issues with after sales support,
operations, maintenance and power supply
Associated infrastructure required to implement the use of the electric buses
Indicative cost and financing of electric buses
In total, twenty six (26) manufacturers were researched comprising of 19
international manufacturers and seven (7) local manufacturers with a base in
Australia. A comparison of their product profiles was conducted which involved a
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of electric
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 3
Section 14
bus technology options. The finding of the SWOT was used to inform the Multi- Criteria Analysis (MCA) to determine the most appropriate solution for Noosa. In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with transit agencies and bus operators to understand actual implementation issues, potential risks and lesson learnt, which could inform the electric bus for Noosa. The case studies included: Tel Aviv, “Dan” bus operator, BYD pilot Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority – Optare e-bus pilot Schiphol airport pilot program – BYD K-9 Adelaide City Council -Tindo E bus Brisbane City Council To supplement the market research, an email questionnaire was sent to selected manufacturers, transit and government agencies in the electric bus Industry whom were based locally and abroad. A copy of the questionnaire and the responses are attached in Appendix A. A review was also undertaken of relevant State and Federal Transport policy, standards, regulations and contract which may potentially influence the implementation of the electric bus project. The review also involved consulting with key industry stakeholders to understand potential changes or directions in policy and regulations that may support the Strategic Outline Case. An assessment criteria framework was developed to identify factors which influenced the project’s success and included Council’s/TransLink’s financial priorities, financing requirements, CAPEX, OPEX, potential funding sources, optimal fleet size considerations, availability of preferential interest rates, age of the current fleet and maintenance cost, etc. The assessment criteria framework was used to inform the SOC which consisted of a: Project financial model with key assumptions and variables including the CAPEX, OPEX and funding arrangements Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) highlighting the potential benefits and constraints of the preferred option Project risk assessment identifying project strengths and weaknesses which will assist in development of a successful future funding application. A project schedule will be developed to outline the key next steps to take the project to a live trial. 1.5 Report Structure This report is comprised of the following sections: Section 2 – Transport planning framework Section 3 – Electric bus route selection for the trial Section 4 – Review of electric bus technologies Section 5 – Review of legislation, policy standards, regulations and contracts Section 6 – Developing the most appropriate solution for Noosa Section 7 – Strategic outline case Section 8 – Conclusions and recommendations 4 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 15
2. Transport planning framework
2.1 Strategic planning
Noosa is located at the northern end of the South East Queensland region,
approximately 130 kilometres (km) north of Brisbane. The level of development in
Noosa is less intensive when compared to other coastal settlements in the region
as a greater emphasis has been placed on the conservation and preservation of
open space. This approach to development is generally reflected in the strategic
planning documents prepared for the Noosa area.
The Noosa Plan 2006 outlines Council’s overall vision for the Noosa area to 2015.
According to this area-wide planning document, it is envisaged that Noosa will be:
“…an inclusive community renowned for its creativity, innovation, vision and
entrepreneurship where sustainability underpins excellence.”
Underpinning this vision are the following seven key principles:
Social cohesion and community well-being
A strong sustainable economy
Environmental excellence and sustainability
Artistic and cultural diversity and excellence
A commitment to maintaining a sustainable population
Quality, innovative and reliable infrastructure
Maintaining the “Noosa Style”
In addition to Council’s overall vision, the Plan also provides specific visions to
2015 for the Arts & Heritage, Economic, Environment, Social and Tourism sectors.
2.1.1 Noosa transport plans
The following transport plans guide the development of Noosa’s transport network:
Noosa Integrated Local Transport Plan 2016
Connecting SEQ 2031
The Noosa Integrated Local Transport Plan 2016 (ILTP) aims to ensure that by the
year 2016 there are a variety of safe, efficient and effective transport options
available that meet or exceed Noosa Council’s transport objectives and targets. To
achieve this aim, the ITLP is comprised of nine (9) policy objectives – ranging from
the integration of transport and land uses through to the provision of attractive
walkable environments – which seek to guide the development of Noosa’s
transport network up to 2016.
As South East Queensland’s official Integrated Regional Transport Plan,
Connecting SEQ 2031 establishes a long-term plan to develop a sustainable
transport system in the region. With respect to Noosa, a TransitWay corridor has
been proposed which is expected to provide a direct public bus link between
Noosa to the north and Caloundra (via CoastConnect) to the south. TransitWay
prioritises buses in an attempt to provide frequent, fast, efficient and reliable
services along the identified corridors.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 5
Section 16
2.1.2 Queensland Plan Queensland’s 30 Year Vision The Queensland Plan is a shared 30-year vision for the state – a roadmap to growth and prosperity. The 30-year vision for Queensland is to: Be home to vibrant and prosperous communities Be well planned with the right infrastructure in the right places, to support a population that has grown across every region Value education as a lifelong pursuit to enrich lives to be able to find secure jobs and improve the competitiveness of the economy Be the greatest state in which to live, work and play, and guardian of a sustainable natural environment that inspires an active lifestyle and supports healthy communities Have community spirit that embraces our diversity and unique culture and gives everyone the opportunity to shine Preserve and protect the environment so it continues to underpin the Queensland lifestyle and economy Encourage sustainable practices including green energy solutions and the responsible management of our growing communities Invest in and adopting sustainable and renewable solutions The Queensland government has identified tourism as one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy. The electric bus is a positive step towards the use of renewable transport solutions. 6 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 17
2.2 Demographic trends
2.2.1 Population and employment
According to the Queensland Government’s Statistician’s Office, Noosa Shire had
an estimated resident (2011) population of 51,038 people1. By 2016 this was
estimated to increase by 4,382 people with a total population of 55,419 people.
The population is forecast to increase to 61,824 by 2036. This represents an
average annual increase of 0.77% per annum over the 25 years from 2011 to
2036.
The forecast population will be housed in the existing urban settlements of Boreen
Point, Castaways Beach, Cooran, Cooroibah, Cooroy, Kin Kin, Marcus Beach,
Noosa Heads, Noosaville, Peregian Beach, Pomona, Sunrise Beach, Sunshine
Beach, Teewah and Tewantin.
In conjunction with this population growth, modest growth in employment is also
anticipated for Noosa. The total number of jobs in Noosa is expected to increase
from an estimated 20,586 in 2011 to 22,432 in 2021. This represents an average
annual increase of 0.86% per annum over the 20 years from 2011 to 2021.
According to the Noosa Plan 2006, this growth is expected to primarily be confined
to existing business centres, neighbourhood/village centres and mixed use areas
along Hastings Street and Gympie Terrace as well as at Sunshine Beach, Noosa
Junction, Noosaville, Tewantin and Cooroy.
In addition to the consolidation and infill of existing business centres and
commercial areas, a new Shire Business Centre off Eenie Creek Road in
Noosaville has been earmarked in the Noosa Plan 2006. Similarly, the South East
Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 identifies the Noosa Business Centre
Technology and Industrial Hub as a key employment area and has recognised the
potential to expand science and technology opportunities in the area.
Modest population and employment growth, primarily located in existing urban
areas, is expected in Noosa over the next 20 years. Future development in Noosa
is expected to be characterised by the consolidation of existing residential and
commercial areas through infill development in order to maintain the economic
viability as well as the unique social and environmental features of the area.
2.2.2 Visitors
The Noosa region is one of Australia’s most popular tourist destinations, with 2.2
million people visiting the region between September 2011 and September 20122.
Tourism is the single biggest contributor to Noosa’s local economy with
approximately $850 million being spent in the region for the year to September
20122. Domestic growth was predominantly from regional NSW, Melbourne and
Brisbane, whilst international growth was from New Zealand, UK, Germany and the
USA2. According to the Noosa Plan 2006, Noosa Heads and Noosaville will remain
the principal focus of visitor accommodation growth with some sites protected for
the exclusive use of visitor accommodation. In particular, Visitor Mixed Use Zones
have been identified at Hastings Street, Noosa Heads; Gympie Terrace,
Noosaville; Duke Street, Sunshine Beach; Heron Street, Peregian Beach and the
holiday accommodation centre at Beach Road, Noosa North Shore.
1
http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/subjects/demography/population-projections /
2
www.visitnoosa.com.au/_literature_118490/End_of_year_report_2012
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 7
Section 18
3. Electric bus route selection for the
trial
3.1 Existing bus network
For the electric bus trial, a review of the existing TransLink bus network in Noosa was
undertaken in order to select the most appropriate bus route for the trial in 2015.
The existing bus network in the Noosa area is part of the Sunshine Coast contract area
planned and managed by TransLink and operated by Sunbus or Transit Australia Group
(TAG) from a bus depot at 9 Bonanza Court in Marcoola.
3.1.1 Bus routes and services
Nine (9) bus routes currently operate in the Noosa area in the TransLink bus network as
shown in Figure 1 and are listed in Table 1. Four (4) of these routes operate exclusively in
the Noosa area.
Figure 1 Existing Bus Routes in the Noosa area
Source: TransLink website, 2014
Table 1 Existing Bus Routes and Services in Noosa
Route Description Route Type Service Frequency
620 Noosa Heads to Cross-regional Every 30 minutes from 6 am to 7 pm
Maroochydore via and hourly after 7 pm until midnight
Peregian Beach daily (late evening trips to Tewantin)
622 Maroochydore to Noosa Cross-regional Hourly from 6 am to 7 pm daily
Junction via Airport,
Coolum
626 Tewantin to Sunrise Beach Local Every 30 minutes from 7 am to 7 pm
via Noosa Heads daily
627 Tewantin to Sunshine Local Every 30 minutes from 7 am to 7 pm
Beach via Noosa Heads daily
628 Parklands to Noosa Local Hourly from 7 am to 7 pm daily
Junction via Noosa Civic
629 Tewantin to Noosa Local Hourly from 8 am to 6 pm
Junction via Noosa Civic weekdays; hourly from 9 am to 6 pm
weekends
630 Noosa to Nambour via Cross-regional Limited trips on weekdays and
Eumundi Saturdays; no Sunday services
8 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 19
Route Description Route Type Service Frequency
631 Noosa to Nambour via Cross-regional Limited trips on weekdays,
Eumundi and Cooroy Saturdays and Sundays
632 Noosa to Cooran via Cross-regional 2 to 3 trips daily in each direction
Cooroy and Pomona
The numbers of bus services in each direction for the four (4) local bus routes in Noosa are
given in Table 2. Routes 626 and 627 provide the higher number of services operating
between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm daily. All of these local routes operate within TransLink Fare
Zone 23 so that bus customers have a single zone fare for local trips between Tewantin and
Noosa Junction and within the Noosa Shire Council area.
Table 2 Existing Number of Services for the Local Bus Routes in Noosa
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
626 24 trips in each direction 24 trips in each direction 24 trips in each direction
627 23 trips in each direction 23 trips in each direction 23 trips in each direction
628 12 trips in each direction 12 trips in each direction 12 trips in each direction
629 11 trips in each direction 9 trips in each direction 9 trips in each direction
3.1.2 Bus patronage
The average daily bus patronage by route for the six (6) most regular and frequent bus
routes in Noosa, namely Routes 620, 622, 626, 627, 628 and 629, is shown in Figure 2.
Route 620 has the highest patronage because it has the highest frequency, the greatest
span of service hours and the longest route between Noosa Heads and Maroochydore. The
four (4) local bus routes (626, 627, 628 and 629) have an overall average of 850 daily
passengers with an average of six passengers per trip over the entire service period.
Figure 2 Total Average Daily Patronage on the Noosa Bus Routes
Source: TransLink GoCard ticketing data, March 2014
The average daily patronage for these six (6) bus routes by hour of the day is shown in
Figure 3. The patronage which is the sum of total boarding’s and alighting’s at all stops along
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 9
Section 20
each route is relatively even between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm with the highest patronage occurring between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm which includes the school peak. Figure 3 Average Daily Patronage by Hour and Bus Routes The average daily patronage on Route 626 is shown by section in Figure 4. The busiest section of the route occurs between Tewantin and Noosa Heads. The busiest boarding locations are located at the Noosa Heads bus station, which is close to the Hastings Street tourist precinct, and at the Noosa Junction bus station which is at the Noosa Plaza shopping centre with 15 and 10 percent of the patronage respectively. Tewantin Central in Poinciana Street has 10 percent of the eastbound patronage. The bus stops at Noosa Plaza in Sunshine Beach Road and the Noosa Junction bus station have about 20 percent of the boarding’s travelling to Sunrise Beach. Figure 4 Average Daily Patronage on Route 626 by Section The average daily patronage on Route 627 by section is shown in Figure 5. The busiest section of the route occurs between Tewantin and Noosa Heads. The busiest bus stops are located at: Noosa Heads bus station with 20 percent of the patronage Noosa Junction bus station with 10 percent of the patronage Noosa Plaza in Sunshine Beach Road with 10 percent of the patronage 10 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 21
Tewantin Central in Poinciana Street with 10 percent of the patronage
Figure 5 Average Daily Patronage on Route 627 by Section
3.2 Route options for the electric bus trial
Routes 626, 627, 628 and 629, that are shown in Figure 6 are more suitable for an electric
bus trial than other longer routes because they service the local suburbs connecting the key
local destinations of Tewantin, Noosa Civic, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction. Since they
operate entirely within the Noosa Shire Council area, they would be patronised mostly by
Noosa residents, tourists and visitors. An electric bus operating on these routes would have
higher visibility and access than the cross-regional routes to Maroochydore and Cooroy. The
longer routes would require multiple charging stations with higher implementation,
operational and maintenance costs for the trial and therefore they were excluded from the
trial assessment.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 11
Section 22
Figure 6 Four Local Bus Routes in Noosa Three (3) bus route options were developed and assessed for the electric bus trial. They are described with the advantages and disadvantages in the following sections. The key criteria that were considered in the assessment of the route options for the trial are: Maximise patronage for local residents, tourists and visitors with a route that connects key local destinations, such as Tewantin, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction Maximise the exposure for the general public to promote Noosa as a Shire with sustainable transport values and attract new patronage Minimise installation costs of the trial to be attractive for electric bus suppliers Support operational efficiency with the location of the recharging stations Minimise disruption to the existing bus routes and passengers with requirements to change timetables for only the trial period Minimise impacts on driver shifts, rosters and depot operations Test the physical capability of the electric bus with a mix of operating environments, terrains and street types and speed limits with and without traffic calming devices Minimise operational costs for the trial 3.2.1 Option 1 - Redesign local bus network Option 1 is a redesigned local bus network that includes a reconfiguration of Routes 626, 627, 628 and 629 to create a new dedicated high frequency route between Tewantin, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction via Pelican Street, Memorial Drive, Hilton Terrace, Gympie Terrace, Weyba Road, Noosa Parade, Noosa Drive and Sunshine Beach Road. This new Route 625 would be a merger of the sections of Routes 626 and 627 between Tewantin and Noosa Junction via Noosa Heads into one route. It would operate every 15 minutes from 7 am to 7 pm daily, which is the same as the existing combined service frequency of Routes 12 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 23
626 and 627 (currently each at every 30 minutes). However, customers in the Sunshine
Beach and Sunrise Beach areas and in the St Andrews Drive/Furness Drive sections (Route
626) would have a reduced service frequency from every 30 minutes to hourly. It could also
be extended north along Moorindil Street to service the Noosa-Tewantin Caravan Park if the
demand warranted.
The remaining sections of Routes 626 and 627 could operate as separate routes or be
merged into Routes 628 and 629 to cover the Sunshine Beach, Sunrise Beach and St
Andrews Drive sections that would be excluded from the new Route 625.
Advantages
A single route would cover the Tewantin to Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction section
making it more legible for customers
The electric bus would operate through the busiest section of the tourist and visitor
precinct in Noosa every 15 minutes
Recharging stations could be installed at multiple locations along the route at the Council
office in Tewantin, and at the bus stations at Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction, negating
the need for a charging station at the eastern terminus in a residential area
Disadvantages
A redesign of the TransLink bus network in Noosa will require extensive community
consultation on the route changes, especially for the other local routes to Sunshine
Beach and Sunrise Beach
Some passengers would be forced to transfer between a high frequency and low
frequency route
New timetables would need to be designed and printed which is an additional cost for the
trial
New driver shifts and rosters would be required for all of the Noosa bus routes operated
by Sunbus
Since the patronage on Routes 626 and 627 is relatively evenly spread with 20 to 30
percent of the patronage on the sections east of Noosa Junction, any change to the local
bus routes will have a major impacts on bus customers and would require detailed
assessments, community and stakeholder consultation
Bus drivers need to be trained on all affected bus routes, not only the electric bus route
3.2.2 Option 2 – Alternate electric bus on Routes 626 and 627
Option 2 is to operate an electric bus alternately on Routes 626 and 627 which both operate
every 30 minutes, seven days a week, whereas Routes 628 and 629 operate hourly.
Route 626 currently requires three (3) buses operating every 30 minutes on a 90 minute
circuit. Route 627 requires two (2) buses operating every 30 minutes on a 60 minute circuit.
Therefore, five (5) buses are operating on these two (2) routes that are currently interlined
with other bus routes in Noosa. The two (2) routes have a combined headway of every 15
minutes between Tewantin and Noosa Junction via Noosa Heads.
Advantages
Both routes cover the busy tourist and visitor precincts between Tewantin, Noosa Heads
and Noosa Junction with the same streets
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 13
Section 24
A single electric bus would operate through the busy tourist and visitor precinct in Noosa with 1 in 5 trips (as the existing Routes 626 and 627 require five (5) buses) A high frequency of every 15 minutes exists between Tewantin and Noosa Junction via Noosa Heads increasing the visibility for the general public if multiple electric buses are available in the trial By trialling the electric bus on both Routes 626 and 627, a variety of street types with roundabouts and terrains will be traversed providing a rigorous test of the electric bus Recharging stations could be installed at multiple locations along the route at the Council office in Tewantin, and at the bus stations at Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction New timetables would not need to be printed, saving on the implementation cost. Only a promotional flyer would be required No bus network changes are required after the trial if the electric bus is not continued after the trial period No community consultation on route changes is needed Bus drivers do not need to be trained on new routes; only the use of the electric bus Disadvantages The electric bus operating on multiple routes makes it less legible for the public and harder to have a recognisable service brand and livery Routes 626 and 627 are currently interlined with other TransLink routes which has a greater impact on the driver shifts and rosters 3.2.3 Option 3 – Only use Route 627 Option 3 is to only use Route 627 for the electric bus trial with no changes to the TransLink bus network or timetables. Advantages A single route makes it easier to inform customers which route will have the electric bus Route 627 has a mixture of street types with roundabouts and terrains to provide a rigorous test of the electric bus, including the local streets in Sunshine Beach Route 627 services the busy tourist areas between Tewantin, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction Recharging stations could be installed at multiple locations along the route at the Council office in Tewantin, and at the bus stations at Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction New timetables would not need to be printed, saving on the implementation cost. Only a promotional flyer would be required No bus network changes are required after the trial if the electric bus is not continued to be operated after the trial period No community consultation is required for the bus route changes Easy to implement with no changes to timetables or public information With 30 minute headway on a 60 minute circuit time, two (2) electric buses and one (1) diesel bus would be adequate to allow recovery time to recharge, driver breaks and to ensure service reliability Bus drivers do not need to be trained on new routes; only the use of the electric bus 14 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 25
The average speed and therefore travel time does not need to be adjusted to
accommodate the electric bus technology
Disadvantages
Since Route 627 only operates every 30 minutes, a high frequency service of every 15
minutes would not operate between Tewantin and Noosa Junction even if multiple electric
buses were available for the trial
Vehicle block is linked to other routes so there will be some de-optimisation of the Sunbus
network to have a separate fleet and driver shifts designated to Route 627
3.3 Assessment of the route options for the electric bus trial
A high-level assessment of the three route options for the electric bus trial was conducted
using a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach with the following key criteria:
Potential to maximise service coverage and patronage on the electric bus
A range of operating environments with different terrains, street types and speed limits to
test the physical capacity of the electric bus
Operational efficiency with suitable locations for recharging stations and layovers
Minimise network changes and implementation costs without community consultation
Ease of implementation for the bus operator with driver training and for the electric bus
supplier to install the recharging infrastructure
The results of the assessment are provided in Table 3. Option 3 has the most criteria scored
as Good and Option 1 is the least desirable.
Table 3 Assessment of the Routes for the Electric Bus Trial
Option 1 Network Option 2 Routes Option 3 Route
Key Criteria
Redesign 626 and 627 627 Only
Service coverage and patronage
Range of operating environments
Operational efficiency
Minimise network change
Ease of implementation
Legend
Score Description of Scoring
Good
Average
Poor or not acceptable
3.4 Recommended bus route for the electric bus
Route 627 as shown in Figure 7 is recommended for the electric bus trial because:
It is an existing route that already services the busy tourist and visitor precincts connecting
Tewantin, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction with no requirement for the rest of the
TransLink bus network to be modified. Community consultation on the route is not
required as the existing route, bus stops and service frequencies are not affected
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 15
Section 26
It is the shortest route with less daily service km than Route 626 and it would be easier to
implement with a lesser impact on driver shifts and rosters
It has a 30 minute running time with a 60 minute circuit time, and it terminates at the
western end at Tewantin Central next to the Council office, not in suburban streets
It requires only two (2) diesel buses on a 30 minute frequency. It is shorter than Route 626
with less distance which has a 40 minute running time and requires three (3) diesel buses
to maintain a 30 minute frequency. It operates with a shorter distance through suburban
streets than Route 626
It operates over a mixture of operating environments, street types and terrains to test the
physical capability and range of the electric bus
It provides multiple locations for potential recharging stations and is easier for an electric
bus supplier to trial a vehicle than with multiple routes
Figure 7 Route 627 as the Recommended Route for the Electric Bus Trial
The daily operational requirements to operate two (2) electric buses for all services on the
existing Route 627 timetable are shown in the calculations in Table 4. The proposed location
of the overnight storage is at the existing Sunbus depot at Marcoola. The estimated daily
distance per bus is approximately 350 km, including the dead running distance to reposition
for layovers and breaks each day.
Table 4 Estimated Daily Operational Requirements for Route 627
Distance Number of
Description
(km) Trips
Eastbound to Sunshine Beach 11.2 23
Westbound to Tewantin 12.5 23
Distance from Marcoola to Sunshine Beach 30 4
Total Distance with Marcoola depot 665
Daily Distance per bus with Marcoola depot with allowance for 350
16 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 27
Distance Number of
Description
(km) Trips
repositioning/layovers, etc.
3.5 Layover, storage and maintenance facilities
Options for the electric bus to layover between trips with a quick recharging station and for
secure overnight storage and maintenance activity were identified and assessed.
3.5.1 Layover locations
Two layover options at Tewantin near the Council office in Pelican Street and at Noosa
Junction bus station were identified. The location for the layover and recharging station in
Pelican Street at Tewantin is shown in Figure 8. This site is convenient for the western
terminus of Route 627 to use and has minimal impact on on-street car parking with
approximately three (3) car parking spaces to be removed in Pelican Street. This location is
located close to the western terminus of Route 627 at Tewantin.
Figure 8 Terminus in Pelican Street at Tewantin
Potential layover terminus in Pelican Street in On-street parking spaces to be removed for electric bus
front of the Noosa Council offices layover area (Google maps image)
The location for the layover at the Noosa Junction bus station is shown in Figure 9. This site
is not at the terminus of Route 627 so a recharging station would have to be for a quick
charge only so as not to inconvenience customers on board the bus travelling beyond Noosa
Junction.
Noosa Junction is not a suitable location for a charging station because it would not be a
“terminus” or layover location for the Route 627 which terminates at Sunshine Beach or
Tewantin. It would be more costly to hold a bus at Noosa Junction that is at a midpoint on
the trip. Also, the configuration of the layover at Noosa Junction is “off line”, i.e., the bus
must loop around to access it away from the street. It is not as convenient as an “in-line” or
on-street charging station (say at Tewantin) where the bus simply pulls around to the first
stop.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 17
Section 28
Figure 9 Terminus for Layovers at Noosa Junction Bus Station
Off-street layover area High quality driver facilities for short breaks
3.5.1 Overnight storage and maintenance facility options
Overnight storage and charging and maintenance activity for the electric bus could be
undertaken at the existing Sunbus depot at Beech Street, Marcoola, as shown in Figure 10.
It is located approximately 28 km south of the Noosa Junction bus station and approximately
35 km south of Tewantin which is the western terminus of the Route 627. This location would
generate additional dead running time and distance of at least 60 km daily if the electric bus
was to be stored overnight at Marcoola. However, there would be significant savings in
additional driver relief cost (for driver breaks) with the depot at Marcoola (compared to a
Noosa Council depot at Bartlett Road).
Figure 10 Sunbus Depot at Marcoola
Maintenance facility at Marcoola depot Overnight bus storage for up to 63 buses in the
current fleet
Overnight storage and charging for the electric bus could be undertaken at the Noosa
Council depot in Bartlett Road, Noosaville, as shown in Figure 11. It is located in an
industrial precinct in Noosaville, which is approximately 3.7 km south of the Noosa Council
offices in Pelican Street, Tewantin. This is an existing secure fenced facility with surveillance
systems. This location is not preferred due to the significant additional driver relief costs and
additional dead running between the Council depot in Bartlett Road and Sunshine Beach (Ed
Webb Park) as the first service starts at the eastern end of the route. In addition any major
maintenance/repairs would likely have to be done at the Sunbus depot in Marcoola.
18 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 29
Figure 11 Noosa Council Depot
Minor servicing facility at Council depot Secure space for the electric bus to be stored
overnight
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 19
Section 30
4. Review of electric bus technologies
4.1 Selection of electric bus suppliers and manufacturers
To assess the feasibility of electric bus routes in the Noosa area (in order to provide
sufficient evidence to justify a decision to progress the project further) a market research
exercise was undertaken to understand the Australian and International electric bus market.
The market research gathered information about vehicle general specifications, battery
details and associated charging infrastructure, procurement parameters, training support,
warranty and servicing details and finally costs.
Components of an Electric Bus
An electric bus uses electric motors and motor controllers in lieu of an internal combustion
engine. A key component of the electric bus is the battery which is charged through a
combination of an internal regenerative braking system (whereby some of the energy that
would normally be lost is recovered by the braking system) and “topped up” using an
external charging system on-route or at specific charging stations. These can be fast or slow
charge in nature.
Electric Bus Battery
Technology is advancing quickly in the development of electric bus batteries with batteries
becoming lighter and more efficient but is still considered to cost a significant proportion of
the capital outlay of the bus. For example, Adelaide City Council’s deployment of “Tindo”
required 11 Swiss made Zebra batteries (Sodium/Nickel Chloride technology) which weighed
160 kg and ran up to 200 km on a single charge. More recent buses use lithium iron or in
many cases lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO 4) batteries which offer a longer battery lifetime
and an improved battery density providing a longer driving range. Electric buses also
commonly have advance regeneration braking systems. Regenerative braking is an energy
recovery mechanism which slows down a vehicle by converting its kinetic energy into
another form, which can be used immediately or stored until needed. This contrasts with
conventional braking systems, where the excess kinetic energy is converted to heat by
friction in the brake linings and therefore wasted. Regenerative braking is ideal for hilly
terrains such as Noosa to recharge the batteries as they are going down the declines. This
also reduces brake wear and tear as the brake pads are used significantly less than a diesel
bus and therefore requires significantly less maintenance than a normal system.
Figure 12 8-Month Old Break Pads on a BYD Bus
20 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 31
Figure 13 Location for Batteries in an Electric Bus
Source: Battery packs of electric vehicle bus. (Photo: Guangzhou Daily/Chen www.lifeofguangzhou.com)
Range of Electric Buses
The ranges of electric buses can vary depending on the battery capacity, number of
batteries, the terrain of the bus route, the size of the bus, opportunities for charging en-route
and battery technology used to deploy the bus. Generally, most electric buses on urban
routes have a range of between 100 km and 200 km. The bus can be charged overnight to
100% capacity via depot based slow chargers (traditionally vary from 3-60 kW) and/or be
charged en-route or at the terminus of a route by fast chargers (ranging between 60-400kw)
Electric Bus Charging Infrastructure
Charging of the electric bus can be continuous during operation, at dedicated stations or
along the bus route. As indicated in Section 3.4, to accommodate the bus route proposed for
Noosa will require a range of approximately 280km per day (including “dead” running time)
which will require a fast charge during the day to make sure that the bus can complete the
required route. In general, a fast charge provides approximately 1 km of extra range per 1
minute of charge (rule of thumb). This means that during the day, a quick charge may be
required for a few hours in order to accommodate the suggested route (the exact time will
depend on the charger type and the battery capacity). Some buses can be charged via either
an overhead quick charger or an inductive underbody charger using a super charger
(between 200-400kW). This allows the bus to top up its charge in just a few minutes at each
charging point. It should be noted that the capital outlay for such systems is in the order of
$200,000-$300,000 and usually required a network of buses in order to support a business
case.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 21
Section 32
Image of Overhead Super Charger Image of Inductive Charger Wireless charging communications system between the bus and charging infrastructure enables fully autonomous charging where no driver input is required and is up to 10 times quicker than the traditional “plug in” slow charging systems. Image of Plug-in Charging System 22 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 33
Passenger Capacity
The electric bus has been designed with varying passenger capacities and is able to meet
the requirements of most transit agencies. The current capacity of the TransLink buses
(12.5m) in Noosa has a capacity for 58 passengers. A smaller bus would be able to meet
current demands at a lower operational cost to Noosa Council. However, it may not be able
to meet the demand during peak seasons and need to be considered in the evaluation of
options available.
Shortlist of Electric Bus Manufacturers
The market research found that there were many companies involved either directly or
indirectly in the electric bus industry. Companies that were researched were found to
originate from New Zealand, Asia (China and Korea), Europe (Germany, Luxemburg,
Netherlands, Italy, and Poland) and the Americas (United States and Canada).
In total twenty six (26) electric bus manufacturers were researched to develop comparative
product (fleet) profiles comprising of twenty (19) international and seven (7) locally based
manufacturers as provided in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively.
To evaluate the companies that offer electric buses, a number of essential factors were
required to be met to first shortlist companies for further evaluation. The essential factors
included:
Reputation of the company and tenure in the industry. This was an important
consideration specifically to make sure that we are dealing with an OEM that is capable
and reliable in delivery and quality. The nature of a new technology deployment comes
with a given level or risk and for this reason efforts have been made to mitigate the level
of risk by selecting reputable manufacturers that have the ability to overcome any
challenges of deployment of the new bus. . During the research process it was found that
some companies were slow to respond and unable to deliver the required specifications –
this was a process that helped to eliminate OEMs that are not likely to deliver the
appropriate level of service and product
Proven electric bus technology with buses implemented in the field (minimum 12 months)
Availability to provide a vehicle for the 6-month trial expected in August 2015
Ability to complete the electric bus route with an approximate range of 280 km per day (23
[email protected] km round trip). It was found that the quoted range of the electric vehicles by
electric bus manufacturers tended to be over-stated (compared to actual performance in
the field). As a minimum, a quoted range of 150 km was considered acceptable which
would yield an operating range of 100 km. This would require 3 (three) charges per day
as a maximum. If the bus range was at the higher range bracket of 150km of range this
would require only one full charge per day or 2 partial chargers (which would reduce
operational complexity)
Proven right-hand drive vehicles to suit the Australian driving conditions which minimises
the additional cost of customising the electric bus
Easily able to provide the after sales support, parts replacement and training of drivers
Compliance with Australian Standards in terms of vehicle specifications including
Australian Design Rules (ADR) standards and Disability Discrimination Act requirements
A summary of the findings from the market research is provided in Appendix B.
Manufacturer’s brochures are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the comparison of
the electric bus technology considered is provided in Appendix C.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 23
Section 34
Using the above mentioned selection criterion, four (4) electric bus manufacturers were
shortlisted for further evaluation using a Multiple-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as below:
Solaris (Poland)
BYD (through Carbridge the largest Australia aviation bus company with operations in
Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports)
Optare (through PATICO Automotive who are the Australian distributors for Optare
headquartered in Dandenong, Melbourne and have been operating in Australia for 10
years)
Olev (through Australian Electric Infrastructure Transport (AEIT) with an office located in
Brisbane, Queensland. AEIT is a Brisbane based company established in 2012 to
commercialise the Olev electric vehicles in Australia)
Table 5 List of International Electric Bus Manufacturers contacted for
Market Research
Name Model Origin Range Vehicle Battery Assessment
Length outcome
Designline Various United 200km 12m Sodium/Ni Tried to contact on
Bus Pacific Arab ckel/Chlori several occasions but
Emirates / de no response (no longer
New running out of NZ.
Zealand Solely in Middle East.
Not shortlisted
Zonda Model China 200km 12m Lithium– Tried to contact on
YCK6128H ion several occasions but
EC no response.
Not shortlisted
Thundersky Thunder China 200km 11.2m Lithium– Tried to contact on
Sky – ion several occasions but
EV010 no response.
Not shortlisted
AMZ-Kutno City Smile Poland na 12m na Tried to contact on
CS12 several occasions but
with minimal interaction
and limited interest in
being involved.
Not shortlisted
IVECO na Italy na na na Tried to contact on
several occasions but
no response.
Not shortlisted
VDL na Luxemburg na na na Had detailed discussion
Bus/Coach with them and they are
currently not looking to
24 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 35
Name Model Origin Range Vehicle Battery Assessment
Length outcome
service the Australian
market.
Not shortlisted
EBUSCO EBUSCO Netherland 250km 12m Lithium– No proven experience
Electric YTP1 s ion in right hand drive
Buses vehicles.
/China
Not shortlisted
Eurobus EuroBus Germany 250km 12m Lithium– Had detailed discussion
2.0 ion with them and they are
unlikely to be able to
support the Australian
market.
Not shortlisted.
Skoda Pure Czech 200km 12m na No proven experience
Perun Electric in right hand drive
Electric RUNner electric vehicles.
Not shortlisted.
Proterra Eco Ride US 46 – 12m na Short range (65km).
BE35 65km Small bus. No proven
experience in right
hand drive vehicles.
Not shortlisted.
Do not manufacture
Bombardier na Canada Variable 12m na buses so they need to
+ Primove work with a bus
manufacturer.
Involved in the
manufacture of
PRIMOVE on-board
equipment and
batteries.
Bombardier together
with Solaris (as bus
manufacturer) was
considered. But Solaris
was not shortlisted and
the opportunity to work
with Bombardier as less
likely for this specific
project
Not shortlisted.
New Flyer na Canada na 12.1m Lithium– No proven experience
(JV ion in right hand drive
Mitsubishi) vehicles.
Not shortlisted
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 25
Section 36
Name Model Origin Range Vehicle Battery Assessment
Length outcome
Volvo/ABB Only Sweden na na na Only offer hybrid or
Hybrid or trolley bus.
Trolley Bus
Not shortlisted
Techno bus Gulliver Italy 100km 5.3m na Short range (100 km).
Small bus. No proven
experience in right
hand drive vehicles.
Not shortlisted.
Solaris Urbino Poland Various 12m Lithium– Met essential criteria
electric ranges ion Shortlisted.
Seimens - Trolley bus Italy/ 150km 8m Lithium– Trolley bus only – not
Rampini ion shortlisted
Germany
Bredamenar Bus E Italy 200km 8m Lithium– Tried to contact on
ini Vivacity ion several occasions but
no response.
Not shortlisted
Salavador- Eco Bus Portugal 100km 13.9m Lithium– Short range (100 km).
Caetano electric ion
Not shortlisted
Note: na – information not readily available or provided by manufacturer
Table 6 List of Electric Bus Manufacturing Companies with a base in
Australia contacted for Market Research
Name Model Origin Range Vehicle Battery Assessment outcome
Length
BCI Energy China 150km 8.2m Lithium–ion Company no longer
Series E Bus involved in electric bus
manufacture as too cost
prohibitive.
Not shortlisted
BYD E Bus China 250km 12m Lithium–ion Met essential criteria
(through Shortlisted.
Carbridge)
Varley EV Citibus China 200 - 12m Lithium– ion Tried to contact on
YTP 250km several occasions but
magnesium
no response.
phosphate
Not shortlisted
Optare Solo United 150 - 7.2m – Lithium– ion Met essential criteria
(through Kingdom 180 10m Shortlisted
magnesium
26 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 37
Name Model Origin Range Vehicle Battery Assessment outcome
Length
PATICO) km phosphate
Bustech na Australia na na na Tried to contact on
several occasions but
no response.
Not shortlisted
Scania No longer Australia Nil Nil Nil No longer
Manufacture manufacture electric
EV bus
Not shortlisted
OLEV OLEV W Bus South 150- 12m Lithium– ion Met essential criteria
(through Korea 200km phosphate Shortlisted
AEIT)
4.2 Electric bus questionnaire
To supplement the market research, a tailored email questionnaire was sent to selected
manufacturers, transit and government agencies in the electric bus Industry whom were
based locally and abroad. A copy of the questionnaire and the responses are attached in
Appendix C.
4.3 Case studies of shortlisted electric bus manufacturers
4.3.1 Review of BYD E electric bus series
BYD is a Chinese automobile manufacturer based in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province. It
was founded in 2003 initially as a major battery manufacturer. Today its principal activity is
the design, development, manufacture and sale of passenger cars and buses under the BYD
brand.
Vehicle Performance
BYD’s K-9 E-bus series is listed with an urban range of 250 km per charge. However, this
can vary depending on the size of the battery installed in the vehicle (battery size varies
between 220-324 kWh). Based on our experience with other BYD buses it should be
assumed that an operational range of 150-160 km range per charge would be achieved
Full range of 193km was tested by the bus operator (Dan, Tel Aviv) until the bus stopped.
This is with the 324kWh battery pack but the new technology batteries are expected to be
significantly better - probably 20% improvement
The current bus is fourteen (14) tonnes which includes the weight of three (3) battery
packs. The new BYD buses have only two (2) packs with their newer technology batteries
Charge is 5 hours based on a 60kw charge for a 300 kwh battery
Top speed of BYD buses are 70km/h powered by an 180kW electric motor. The bus has a
grade limitation of 15% and a capacity of 30 seated passengers. The battery technology
on the BYD bus is state of the art Lithium-ion Phosphate manufactured and under
warranty by BYD
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 27
Section 38
Preferred operating environment for the bus is urban/city roads. The range drops
significantly outside the city with these buses mostly because of their additional battery
load (about 3 tonnes)
It is estimated that average electricity consumption per/km is 1.3 – 1.6 kWh/km (based on
a 324 kWh pack and a range of 250 km)
Right-hand drive (RHD) experience in the UK
Infrastructure Needs
Charging of the batteries will vary based on the equipment but with standard BYD
equipment they can be charged at 60kW which would take approximately 5 hours to fully
charge (based on an assumed 300 kWh battery pack)
Power supply for the BYD wall mounted charging station is 380V/400V (3 phase) for a dual
30kw charger (total 60kW). The unit is a touch-screen pod with Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) security features and a LED indicator and emergency stop button
Cost
Vehicle cost is $625,000 for one (1) electric bus. The price of a charging station (fast and
slow) is $10,000 each. This price is competitive with other buses on the market
Benefits
No bus emissions
Low noise (common to all electric buses)
BYD has significant experience in the deployment of electric buses around the world.
They are well resourced and are expected to be able to provide support for Australia.
They are looking to enter the Australian market and establish operations locally
Disbenefits
No presence currently in Australia
BYD will need to build a fully ADR compliant bus for the trial
Emerging Innovations
BYD are global leaders in the development of battery technology and battery management
systems (BMS). Their battery technology has shown a continuous improvement. The new
generation of batteries is already exceeding the older batteries in capacity, which is
currently installed in buses around the world. BYD are also focused on the development
of a eco-friendly systems for their buses and are working to optimize air-conditioning and
heating systems as well as improved bus telematics and diagnostics
Countries Deployed
Netherlands (Schiphol airport), Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong, China,
Israel, Italy, London, Finland, Spain, Denmark, Hungary
Electric bus soft launch confirmed (18 November 2014) for Sydney Airport, Australia
4.3.2 Review of Solaris Urbino 12M electric bus
Solaris Bus & Coach SA is a bus, coach, trolleybus and tram manufacturer based in
Bolechowo near Pozna , Poland. It is a family-owned business that has recently moved into
the manufacturing of electric buses.
28 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 39
Vehicle performance
The Solaris Urbino Electric 12M bus has a range of over 100 km. However, the range can
vary depending on the size of the battery installed in the vehicle. The top speed of the
bus is 70km/h powered by a 160kw electric motor. Capacity of the bus is up to 41
passengers. Battery technology is Lithium-ion. Estimated average electricity consumption
per kilometre is between 0.9-1.34 kWh/km
Infrastructure needs
Charging of the batteries will vary based on the equipment and can be done inductively
through a rapid overhead charger or through a simpler quick or slow plug-in style-charger
Power supply is standard for quick charge units. Specifications will depend on the specific
unit chosen
Cost
Vehicle cost is $850,000 per unit. Charging infrastructure cost is approximately $20,000
for a quick and slow plug-in charger. Quotes for inductive charging are based on
inspection of route and electricity connection. This can be done with Bombardier and is
estimated to cost $200,000 per unit with an expected three (3) units required to complete
the electric bus route
Benefits
No emissions, low noise (common to all electric buses). Solaris has the advantage of
scale and expertise in the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable
international brand
Disbenefits
No presence currently in Australia
Emerging innovations
Solaris is involved in the latest innovations in the world of electric buses; specifically they
are ensuring their buses are compatible with all infrastructure solutions in order to ensure
they are aligned with the latest cutting edge innovation in this space this includes both
inductive and conductive
Countries deployed
Germany, France, Poland, Australia, Sweden
4.3.3 Review of Optare (Versa and Solo) electric bus series
Optare is a bus and coach manufacturer with headquarters in Leeds, United Kingdom. They
have an Australian agents (PATICO Automotive) based in Dandenong Victoria. The
Company has been formed out of the former Leyland bus business in 1985. In recent times
they have been trialling non-electric buses with various TransLink bus operators in SEQ.
Vehicle performance
The Optare Solo Electric buses vary in lengths from 7.2m to 10m and have a range of 150
to 180km. However, this can vary depending on the size of the battery installed in the
vehicle. Top speed of the bus is 95km/h powered by a 205kw electric motor. Passenger
capacity of 65 with seating capacity of up to 35 passengers. Battery technology is
Lithium-ion / Magnesium Phosphate. Charging of the batteries will vary based on the
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 29
Section 40
equipment and can be done inductively or plug-in (i.e. through a rapid 60 minute charger or a 6 hour slow plug-in charge). The on-board charger has dual compatibility mode. Estimated average electricity consumption per kilometre is projected to be 0.8-1.0 kWh/km Infrastructure needs Power supply is standard for quick charge units. Specifications will depend on the specific unit chosen Cost Vehicle cost is $595,000 per single unit. Combined slow and fast charging infrastructure cost is approximately $30,000 per unit. The charger is built into the bus and only requires a three phase connection Benefits No bus emissions Low noise (common to all electric buses) Optare also has the advantage of scale and expertise in the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable international brand Already have a presence in Australia Availability of 10m buses to negotiate tight corners at intersections Disbenefits Fast charge of 60 minutes is too long for en-route without needing to inject a new bus into the cycle to maintain a 30 minutes headway Emerging innovations The only ISO9241 certified driver area with proven reduction in driver fatigue and class leading fuel consumption in metropolitan and regional areas Countries deployed England, Scotland, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland and Korean and Chinese orders on the way 4.3.4 Review of OLEV electric bus series OLEV is a bus and coach manufacturer originated in Korea but represented by Australian agents (AEIT) based in Brisbane. It is has been involved in the manufacture of electric buses since 2009. Vehicle performance The OLEV WBus Electric Bus is 12m in length and has a range of 150 to 180km from a single charge. However, the OLEV buses has unlimited mileage when both the “In- Motion” charging and stationary charging strategies are adopted. Effectively, the vehicle does not really have to stop and plug in to charge as the bus wirelessly charges as it passes over road embedded charging infrastructure Top speed of the bus is 90 km/h powered by a 120 kW electric motor Passenger capacity of 66 passengers with seat capacity of 51 seats and provision for three (3) wheelchair spaces. Battery technology is Lithium-ion / Phosphate. Charging of 30 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 41
the batteries will vary based on the equipment and can be done inductively through a fast
45 minute charger or through a simpler slow plug-in charger. Estimated average
electricity consumption per kilometre is 1.5kWh/km
Infrastructure needs
Power supply is standard for quick charge units. Specifications will depend on the specific
unit chosen
Cost
Vehicle cost is $680,000 per unit. Wireless charging infrastructure cost is approximately
$300,000 per unit. However, this technology is not essential and as charging can occur
via the traditional “plug in” method and would cost in the order of $8,000. This can be
connected to a standard 15A power point
Benefits
No emissions, low noise (common to all electric buses). OLEV also has the advantage of
scale and expertise in the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable
international brand
Disbenefits
Fast charge of 45 minutes is too long for en-route without needing to inject a new bus into
the cycle to maintain a 30 minutes headway
Imbedded recharging technology not good for a short term trial
Emerging innovations
Similar to other companies, OLEV is involved in the latest innovations in the world of
electric buses; specifically the road embedded wireless charging infrastructure and other
solutions in order to ensure they are aligned with the latest cutting edge innovation in this
space this includes both inductive and conductive
Countries deployed
South Korea,( Seoul City, Gumi City and Daejeon City)
4.4 Case studies of selected electric bus operators and transit
agencies
In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with transit agencies and bus operators to
understand actual implementation issues, potential risks and lesson learnt, which could
inform the electric bus for Noosa. The case studies included:
Tel Aviv, ‘Dan’ bus operator, BYD pilot
Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority – Optare e-bus pilot
Schipol airport pilot program – BYD K-9
Adelaide City Council -Tindo E bus
Brisbane City Council
The findings of this assessment are presented below.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 31
Section 42
4.4.1 Tel Aviv, ‘Dan’ bus operator, BYD pilot Dan is the second largest bus operator in Israel. It is the principal operator within metropolitan of Tel Aviv area (Gush Dan), and also several intercity lines to Jerusalem. Pilot details and feedback Currently running Dan Route 5 (Tel Aviv) and route 61 (Ramat Gan-Tel Aviva) Focused on two (2) key routes that are inner city very high load routes. Bus goes approximately 160km per day on this route This is the first pilot bus for Dan. Planning on expanding the electric fleet Current trial is 12 months. 8 months already conducted Considered Solaris and VDL, but both were more costly than the BYD vehicle and could not compete with the specs and the service levels No indication of price they paid, but cheaper than European models Key criterion was based on the current performance of the diesel bus on the same route. Key was to provide a reliable bus with a good experience for the driver and passengers Maintenance has been very low cost. Expected to be a significant saving compared to diesel fleet Driver training is critical – for the same bus route, some drivers returned the bus with 7% and others with 40% residual charge. Training is critical in order to maximize range and create more consistency across the fleet Target of pilot is reduction of emissions and improvement in maintenance cost - so far this is being achieved Key issues and problems with the bus related to the development of specific requirements to fit Israeli standards. Significant modifications were required on this front. Important to note that BYD were very good with dealing with these modifications and were actively flying people over to manage the process in a very proactive and professional way Air-conditioning can be an issue as it is quite energy intensive (i.e. 10-15 kW). Some issues with the air conditioning system were repaired. The system is generally very energy intensive and BYD are working to develop an improved system Maintenance teams were very responsive often flying people to Israel within 24 hours Infrastructure A 60 kW charger (2x30kW) is deployed at the depot. This is charged at the end of the day with an overnight charge. Drivers are responsible for charging. There have been some issues with drivers not plugging in properly, so there is need for training on this front. The system provided by BYD is quite advanced with automatic and pre-set timers, but the experience is that the system should be used in its simplest form so that the driver gets a real time confirmation of charging. Generally a simple and effective charging solution There has been an issue with the accuracy of the charging unit metering devise. Therefore, the operator has deployed an external meter provided by the utility to measure the exact amount of electricity being charged Some issues with deploying charging infrastructure in public areas, but the depot installation was smooth 32 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 43
4.4.2 Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority – Optare e-bus
pilot
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is the top-tier administrative body for
the local governance of Greater Manchester, England. It is a strategic authority with powers
over public transport, skills, housing, regeneration, waste management, carbon neutrality
and planning permission.
Pilot details and feedback
Information provided was from Head of Electric Vehicle programme for Manchester
Greater Transport Services
Pilot conducted is with Optare Versa (current model)
Conducted for both environmental reason and to save costs compared to diesel models
The batteries provide only about 100km instead of the expected 130-140 km
presented to the authority as the available range
Three (3) buses currently in the network. Very similar to the hybrid version currently in
operation with Manchester
Route of the pilot is Orange Metroshuttle 1 route, which links to Piccadilly station
Manchester Council ran a survey to understand customer satisfaction as well as driver
feedback
Bus drivers were generally happy with the new electric bus. They pushed back on the
training, but once it was done, the process was very smooth. Note that Manchester has
an identical bus already in a hybrid version which is exactly the same experience but
without the need to charge. This made the transition to the Optare electric easier and
smoother
The authority had some issues with the auxiliary battery not charging and battery
going flat constantly
Note that significant changes and modifications were required as part of this process
Infrastructure
Pilot conducted using electricity from the depot. Slow overnight charge or plug-in quick
charger along the route
The authority had some issues with the cable compatibility and also an issue with the
software of the bus which was preventing from charging. All teething issues were
fixed quickly, however, for a short while they were required to have a backup bus
available
Manchester recommends using a separate meter for the charging point to ensure
accuracy of electricity consumption
4.4.3 Schipol airport pilot program – BYD K-9
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is the main international airport for the Netherlands, located 20
minutes southwest of Amsterdam. It is the fourth busiest airport in Europe in terms of
passengers.
Pilot details and feedback
40 diesel buses currently operating at the airport. Bus network covers very small 900m
distances at slow speed (17km/h) and distances (50km per day). The engine never warms
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 33
Section 44
and costly due to extra fuel and wear and tear (estimated to cost $200,000 over 10 years).
Therefore, needed to upgrade to new technology. Airport decided to review new
technology. After conducting a cost and benefit analysis and taking into account the
environmental and social benefits the electric bus was determined as the best option
Route is 50km per day (i.e. 900 meter routes @ 50 trips a day)
Pilot was conducted with two (2) buses with the key criteria being kWh/km. Two
manufacturers participated namely; BYD and contract buses
6 week trial period with two (2) buses
Passengers were engaged to get feedback – overall very positive response
Key criteria was reliability of buses, ability to operate daily without any issues, use of
power, noise, size of the bus to be suitable for airport bus dimensions (wider and longer
than standard buses), driver and passenger experience
Cultural difference dealing with BYD in China. Some training was undertaken to deal
with cultural differences between the authority and BYD
Experienced significant delays in prototype (i.e. 7 months late). 35 remaining buses
due in December were 4 months late. However, the delay was not just BYD as there were
modifications to interior/exterior requirements which had to be addressed
BYD had difficulty meeting demands for the exterior of the bus and this required
additional modifications and follow up
Airport staff has visited BYD five (5) times and another further two (2) visits were required
In Netherlands, there is a strong advantage for purchasing bus compared to leasing due
to government incentives
Tender included maintenance for next 10 years (responsibility of BYD), local maintenance
company to carry this out. Airport supplied nearby maintenance contacts to BYD
Infrastructure
Tender included installation of charger poles, underground electrical infrastructure
installed by local company (charging capacity – 60kW)
Chargers were not deployed along the route. Airport used overnight charges at the base
Airport has moderate sea climate. Generally between 15°C and 30°C, so climate impacts
on the bus or infrastructure could not be accounted for
Solar field at the airport powers the buses. Solar field is large enough to power all buses.
There was no business case for solar panels on roof as no profits generated
4.4.4 Adelaide City Council -Tindo E bus
The Adelaide City Council is the capital city’s administrative body for local governance in
South Australia. It commenced operating an electric community bus in February 2008
following tests conducted during 2007. This was the first electric vehicle in the world to be
charged using solar power. Council’s electric bus was named “Tindo” based upon a local
indigenous Kaurna term for the sun.
Pilot details and feedback
Information provided was from Council’s project team members involved in the set up and
operation of the electric bus
34 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 45
Pilot was conducted with a Designline electric bus manufactured in New Zealand based
on specifications originating from the United Arab Emirates
Conducted for both social and environmental reasons to enhance its community bus
services
The route is a circuit through North Adelaide and the Adelaide CBD linking key retail,
commercial, cultural and transport nodes
Adelaide City Council conducted surveys to understand customer satisfaction as well as
driver feedback
Bus drivers were generally very happy with the new electric bus (Single Unit Only). They
received comprehensive training similarly to the Council maintenance staff; however the
procurement of parts when required has been problematic and meant the vehicle has
been off line for weeks at a time. During these periods a lease vehicle was required
Council has had some issues with the battery charging software not distributing an
even coverage and as such life span of batteries has been inconsistent. Batteries lasted
about 4.5 years in lieu of the 10 year expectation
Infrastructure
Recharging was via a solar electric charge at the bus depot. Slow overnight charge using
a 35kW system designed by the manufacturer Designline. Although a fast charge of
70kW was also obtained; however not used to date. The bus has been off the road since
January 2014 as new operation procedures are being negotiated with the State
Government to take over ownership and operation of the bus
Air conditioning drained power significantly and the vehicle was taken off the road on
consecutive days over 40 degrees
Vehicle is currently off the road due to DDA compliance not being met (including the
fact that the wheelchair space 100mm too narrow) as such a DDA Audit has been
undertaken to seek advice about what improvements need to be undertaken
Inverter capacity has been an issue at times. More power to weight ratio provides
excellent torque
At a 20% charge, the bus is limited to speeds of 25 -30 km/h (safety mode) which was
adequate only to get back to depot for recharging. This is to ensure that the batteries
are not fully depleted and reducing their longevity
4.5 Assessment of selected electric bus manufacturers
4.5.1 Multiple-Criteria Analysis of electric bus manufacturers
The MCA process forms part of the overall methodology of options filtering. MCA is a
technique that is commonly used to evaluate a project whereby project performance is not
solely measured in single monetary units but on the basis of performance against multiple
assessment criteria. It is a widely accepted evaluation method where all the impacts cannot
be fully quantified in monetary terms and objectives may be in conflict. The MCA process
measures the effectiveness i.e. efficiency and not the absolute worth of an option, and
makes use of quantitative and qualitative measures.
The form of the MCA proposed for this study is known as the Goals Achievement Matrix
(GAM) method. GHD has used this approach on many other jobs with satisfactory outcomes.
The primary focus of the GAM method is on the selected project outcomes as opposed to
the effects of the project per se.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 35
Section 46
The approach does not seek specifically to focus on sectoral interests, and does not require effects to be expressed in monetary values. Objectives can be weighted to reflect their relative importance to the central task of developing a feasible heavy vehicle alternative route option. Weights for an MCA are assigned for each of the criteria to reflect their relative importance to the decision and scored in terms of priority. These scores and weights were combined for each route option to derive a ranking for the route. A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach has been used to inform the selection of the preferred electric bus manufacturer. The following criteria and weighting were agreed and adopted for the assessment. The assessment criteria and weighting for the assessment was developed and refined through consultation with Noosa Council/TransLink. Vehicle performance (Motor Power nominal, Motor Power peak, Max Speed, Gradeability) – 15% weighting Battery Performance (kWh/km) – 15% weighting Charging infrastructure (i.e. complexity of deployment, flexibility of network, proven reliability of charging equipment, speed of charging, simplicity of operation) – 15% weighting Capital cost (Capex) of the electric bus – 25% Operating cost (Opex) of the electric bus – 5% Cost of charging infrastructure (Capex and Opex) – 10% weighting After sales support and warranty – 15% weighting A ranking system with a rank of 1 lowest score and rank of 4 highest score was adopted. Ranking is on a 1 to 4 scale with a higher overall weighted score indicative of a preferred technology. Vehicle Performance – 15% weighting The average gradient of Route 627 is between 2.4% to 2.5% with the steepest sections at 12%. All four electric buses technologies have the capability to negotiate this gradient and is not a differentiator. In order to differentiate between the manufacturers, the top speed of the bus was used with a preference for a higher speed indicative of motor power. Top speed of the Optare bus is 95km/h powered by a 205kw electric motor (Rank=4) Top speed of the Olev bus is 90 km/h powered by a 120 kW electric motor (Rank= 3) Top speed of the BYD bus is 70km/h powered by an 180kW electric motor (Rank=1) Top speed of the Solaris bus is 70km/h powered by a 160kw electric motor (Rank=1) Battery Performance (kWh/km) – 15% weighting The batteries are an essential component of the electric bus and its performance is an important consideration. Battery performance per kilometre travelled was used to compare between manufacturers. Optare bus average electricity consumption is 0.9 kWh/km (Rank=4) Solaris bus average electricity consumption is 1.14 kWh/km (Rank=3) BYD bus average electricity consumption is 1.45 kWh/km (Rank=2) Olev bus average electricity consumption per kilometre is 1.5 kWh/km (Rank=1) 36 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 47
Charging infrastructure – 15% weighting
Optare, BYD and Solaris buses can be charged using a plug-in connection via DC
Connection with external charger or AC connection with on-board charger. Therefore, all
three (3) manufacturers were ranked equally. A wireless charging system is proposed by
Olev which limits flexibility of deployment and has been scored lowest at 1.
Capex of the electric bus – 25% weighting
Capital cost is a key consideration in the selection of a preferred manufacturer with the lower
cost preferred.
BYD vehicle cost is $651,000 (Rank=4)
Optare vehicle cost is $741,000 (Rank=3)
Olev vehicle cost is $782,000 (Rank=2)
Solaris vehicle cost is $850,000 (Rank=1)
Opex of the electric bus – 5% weighting
Maintenance cost of the electric bus has been assumed to be similar between the electric
bus manufacturers as there are not many moving mechanical parts in the power train.
Therefore, all manufacturers were ranked equally.
Capex and Opex of charging infrastructure – 10% weighting
The capital cost of the charging infrastructure has been taken into account for each
manufacturer excluding the maintenance cost. Once constructed the maintenance cost of
the charging infrastructure is likely to be minimal and unlikely to be material to the final
decision outcome.
BYD cost is $26,000 (Rank=4)
Olev cost is $32,000 (Rank=3)
Optare cost is $76,000 (Rank=2)
Information not provided assume Solaris cost is same as BYD (Rank=4)
After sales support and warranty – 15% weighting
After sales support is critical for the successful implementation of the project particularly
given the new technology aspect of the electric bus. After sales support will be needed to
address bus operational and performance issues, vehicle customisation to comply with
Australian Standards, road worthiness, driver training, replacement parts, and so on. All
manufacturers offer comparable warranties which can be bought at a cost so unlikely to
impact the outcome.
Solaris (Poland). Company has no representatives in Australia and is ranked the lowest at
1
BYD (through Carbridge an Australia largest aviation bus company with operations in
Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports ) (Rank=3)
Optare (through PATICO Automotive who are the Australian distributors for Optare
headquartered in Dandenong, Melbourne and have been operating in Australia for 10
years) (Rank=4)
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 37
Section 48
Olev (through Australian Electric Infrastructure Transport (AEIT) with an office located in
Brisbane, Queensland. AEIT is a Brisbane based company recently established in 2012
to commercialise the Olev electric vehicles in Australia) (Rank=3)
A summary of the MCA results is shown in Table 7.
Table 7 MCA of Electric Bus Manufacturers
Vehicle Battery Charging Cost Cost Cost of After Weight
Performan Performan Infrastruct s of s of Charging Sales ed
ce ce ure EB EB Infrastruct Supp MCA
Deployme Cap Ope ure ort Score
nt ex x
Optar 4 4 3 3 1 2 4 3.25
e
BYD 1 2 3 4 1 4 3 2.80
Olev 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 2.05
Solar 1 3 3 1 1 4 1 1.90
is
Note: Rank of 1 lowest score, Rank of 4 highest score. Ranking is on a 1 to 4 scale with a higher overall weighted
score indicative of a preferred technology.
4.5.2 Selection of electric bus manufacturers
A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach has been used to inform the selection of the
preferred electric bus manufacturer. A ranking system with a rank of 1 lowest score and rank
of 4 highest score was adopted. Ranking is on a 1 to 4 scale with a higher overall weighted
score indicative of a preferred technology.
The results showed that Optare scored highest with a weighted score of 3.25, followed by
BYD with a weighted score of 2.80 and Olev with a weighted score of 2.05. Solaris scored
the lowest at 1.90. The technology employed by Olev (i.e. wireless road-embedded
charging) is new technology which still has to be proven in terms of performance and will be
cost prohibitive to implement for the trial (i.e. multiple road-embedded charging stations will
be required en-route to fast charge the battery) and was discounted.
The MCA results were presented at a workshop with Council/TransLink on the 18 September
2014 and it was decided that the top two (2) manufacturers (i.e. Optare and BYD) would be
invited through an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in a 6 month trial. More detailed
information was gathered through the EOI process to select a preferred manufacturer.
38 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 49
5. Review of legislation, policy
standards, regulations and contracts
5.1 Electric heavy vehicle standards in Australia
A literature review was undertaken to review all relevant State and Federal Transport policy,
standards and regulations which will potentially influence the project. The review also
involved consultation with key industry stakeholders to understand potential changes or
directions in policy and regulations that will support the Strategic Outline Case (SOC).
There are seven (7) Australian Standards related to electric vehicles that specify a number of
safety and electric charging requirements (listed below). The Australian Standards (AS) is
based on standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization and the
International Electrotechnical Commission and hence contains requirements that are familiar
to international electric vehicle manufacturers. Confirmation will need to be sought from the
bus provider that the electric bus and recharging station for the trial will be compliant with
relevant Australian and international standards. The current standards are as follows.
AS ISO 6469.1:2014 Electrically propelled road vehicles - Safety specifications - On-board
rechargeable energy storage system (RESS)
AS ISO 6469.2:2014 Electrically propelled road vehicles - Safety specifications - Vehicle
operational safety means and protection against failures
AS ISO 6469.3:2014 Electrically propelled road vehicles - Safety specifications -
Protection of persons against electric shock
AS ISO 8713-2012 Electric road vehicles - Terminology
AS IEC 61851.23:2014 Electric vehicle conductive charging system - D.C. electric vehicle
charging station
AS IEC 61851.24:2014 Electric vehicle conductive charging system - Digital
communication between a direct current (DC) electric vehicle charging station and an
electric vehicle for control of DC charging
AS IEC 62196.2:2014 Plugs, socket-outlets, vehicle connectors and vehicle inlets -
Conductive charging of electric vehicles - Dimensional compatibility and
interchangeability requirements for alternating current (AC). pin and contact-tube
accessories
Beyond the seven (7) existing Australian standards, electric vehicle standards are still being
developed in Australia. As yet there are no specific standards regulating the use of electric
buses. In 2014, Standards Australia released standards on key definitions relating to electric
vehicles, many of which relate to safety and the protection of users against electric shock.
The standards were adopted from ISO 8713:2005; Electric road vehicles – Vocabulary,
AS/NZS 3000; Vehicle Standards Bulletin 14, Australian Design Rules and UN-ECE
Regulation 100.
In a process funded by the Victorian Government, the new standards were released with an
announcement which progresses Australia towards a uniform set of operating standards in
this area. The standards specifically dealt with:
Vehicle standards and occupant protection in a crash
Electrical safety
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 39
Section 50
Standards for aftermarket electric vehicle conversions Standards for recharging infrastructure Energy efficiency of electric vehicles Batteries and their supporting supply chain A study for the Victorian Department of Transport (2010) highlighted the need for standards regarding electric vehicles to be developed in order to ensure success of electric buses and charging infrastructure in Australia. The three points it mentioned were: Development of standards surrounding the safe and efficient operation of electric vehicle batteries The acceleration in development of renewable electricity supplies in Victoria The development of standards and regulations for electric vehicle charge points Likewise, the Queensland 30-year Electricity Strategy (2012) identified the need for efficient regulatory frameworks to create efficient supply chains that accommodate innovative technology, such as embedded generation technology, battery storage and electric vehicles. It also discussed the need for addressing the impact that electric vehicles have on network infrastructure. 5.2 Review of Legislation, Regulation and Policies A literature review was undertaken to identify any electric vehicles specific requirements and standards that would be applicable for the trial. The following legislation and regulations were reviewed: Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Traffic Regulation 1962 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Dangerous Goods) Regulation 2008 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Driver Licensing) Regulation 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012 Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland) Heavy Vehicle (Fatigue Management) National Regulation Heavy Vehicle (General) National Regulation Heavy Vehicle (Mass, Dimension and Loading) National Regulation Heavy Vehicle National Law Regulation 2014 40 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 51
Heavy Vehicle (Transitional) National Regulation
Heavy Vehicle (Vehicle Standards) National Regulation
Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989
Motor Vehicle Standards Regulations 1989
Australian Design Rules
The above legislation and regulations above contain numerous requirements for buses.
However, specific requirements for electric buses were not identified. A broad definition of a
bus is used in the legislation i.e. “motor vehicle with seating capacity for 9 or more
passengers”. Buses in the legislation are not defined on the basis of fuel type or propulsion
system (e.g. battery).
The electric bus for the trial will also need to comply with all State and Commonwealth
government laws in relation to vehicle accessibility standards and vehicle emission
standards, and in particular with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport
(DSAPT) 2002 and accompanying guidelines under the Commonwealth Disability
Discrimination Act 2002 (DDA).
International Jurisdictions
The situation in international markets in terms of legislation is more advanced, with selected
legislation available and roadmaps regarding light duty electric vehicles in development. In
the United States, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has established a
standardisation roadmap for electric vehicles, with version 2.0 published in 2013. The
roadmap, which is only concerned with light duty vehicles, aims to develop standards in the
safety, performance and interoperability surrounding electric vehicles and their supporting
charging infrastructure.
In 2002, the State of California issued an interim certification procedure for model hybrid-
electric vehicles in the urban bus and heavy-duty vehicle classes. However, regulations for
heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles are still in development. During the interim,
manufacturers are permitted to sell hydrogen fuel cell or electric battery heavy-duty vehicles
in California without an Executive Order from the Air Resources Board.
In the European Union, a draft directive endorsed by the Transport and Tourism Committee
in 2013 requires that member states install a specified number of electric vehicle, hydrogen
and natural gas stations by 2020. Electric vehicle charging point targets for Germany are
86,000, Italy – 72,000 and the UK – 70,000.
The operation and maintenance of electric road vehicles are regulated usually at national
levels but also on the EU level such as through Regulation No. 100 of the Economic
Commission for Europe of the United Nation (UNECE) which is concerned with the approval
of battery electric vehicles. However, EU legislation largely tends to avoid differentiating
between different types of fuels or vehicle types. Reports have noted that electric vehicles
are largely compatible with regulation for convention fossil fuel vehicles with exception in the
electrical and fire safety regarding batteries
5.3 Consultation with industry stakeholders
Industry consultation informed the study in regard to the electric vehicle standards,
legislation and policy described above. As the trial is taking place in Queensland we also
contacted the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (Transport Regulation
Branch). They noted that any electric bus used in the trial will need to comply with the
requirements for buses under the relevant legislation. Additionally, they noted that the
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 41
Section 52
electric bus may need to satisfy any performance levels outlined in a services contract as per Chapter 6 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. As noted above, we were not able to locate any additional requirements that an electric vehicle must meet under Passenger Transport legislation to provide a public passenger service at this time. The only further consideration arising from our consultation being that bus operators must ensure that their drivers are provided with appropriate training to operate an electric vehicle (if the function of the vehicle is different to existing vehicles).The intent of the training would be to ensure drivers could operate the vehicle in a safe manner. 5.4 Review of Sunbus contract We undertook a review of some of the existing arrangements with Sunbus who operate public transport buses in the Noosa area under a contract arrangement with the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). This was not a full legal review of these arrangements but the following operational points are worth considering for the purposes of the feasibility of an electric bus trial at Noosa: The current arrangements establish Sunbus as the incumbent provider of urban bus services in Noosa and BusLink as the provider of school bus services. Therefore, the council should consider the involvement of Sunbus in the trial as early as possible Sunbus maintain existing infrastructure that the electric bus will require in its operations such as depots and maintenance facilities Sunbus employ drivers familiar with the routes and who hold all the necessary approvals and accreditations to operate buses in the Noosa area Under current arrangements Sunbus must maintain any vehicle in its fleet in accordance with certain mandated DoT standards, these standards It should be noted from late December 2014, all Sunbus buses must with fitted out with new CUBIC DCU3 models to support the Passenger Plus Project (real-time passenger information). As such any electric buses being trialled will also need to be fitted out with CUBIC ticketing and GPS equipment Under current arrangements, Sunbus must maintain each vehicle used to provide their services in a safe and roadworthy condition and in accordance with all applicable laws Sunbus must seek approval from TMR under current arrangement to replace or acquire a new vehicle to provide public transport services Sunbus must meet certain performance standards such as serviced delivered and on-time running or they are penalised The Sunbus contract is due to expire in September 2015 The Queensland Government is committed to the recommendations of The Costello Report which recommends contestability of bus services. No further detail has been provided by government at this time 42 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 53
6. Developing the most appropriate
solution for Noosa
6.1 Preferred operating environment for Noosa
The development of an appropriate solution for Noosa has focused on the selection of a
suitable electric bus route, storage and layover location, slow and fast charging station
locations, maintenance facility and a preferred manufacturer.
Route 627 is recommended for the electric bus trial because:
It is an existing route that already services the busy tourist and visitor precincts connecting
Tewantin, Noosa Heads and Noosa Junction with no requirement for the rest of the
TransLink bus network to be modified. Community consultation on the route is not
required as the existing route, bus stops and service frequencies are not affected
It is the shortest route with less daily service kilometres compared to Route 626 and it
would be easier to implement with a lesser impact on driver shifts and rosters
It has a 30 minute running time with a 60 minute circuit time, and it terminates at the
western end at Tewantin Central (next to the Council office) and at Sunshine Beach at the
eastern end, not in suburban streets
It requires only two (2) electric buses and (1) one diesel bus on a 30 minute frequency. As
the technology is unproven, it is recommended that at least one existing Sunbus diesel
bus be on stand-by at Noosa Junction bus stations, should there be any breakdowns of
the electric bus
It operates over a mixture of operating environments, street types and terrains to test the
physical capability and range of the electric bus
It provides multiple locations for potential recharging stations and is easier for an electric
bus supplier to trial a vehicle than with multiple routes
The average gradient of Route 627 is between 2.4% to 2.5% with the steepest sections at
12% as per the Google Earth elevation profile below. The electric bus has the capability to
negotiate these gradients.
Google Earth elevation profile of Route 627
The location for the proposed layover and fast recharging station is in Pelican Street at
Tewantin, next to Council’s office. This site is convenient for the western terminus of Route
627 to use and has minimal impact on parking with approximately three (3) car park spaces
to be removed in Pelican Street.
Overnight storage and slow charging for the electric bus could be undertaken at the existing
Sunbus depot (Beech Street) at Marcoola, which is approximately 30 km south of the
eastern terminus (start point of Route 627) at Sunshine Beach. The Marcoola location is
preferred because it is an existing secure fenced facility with surveillance systems and it will
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 43
Section 54
minimise the dead running and the significant cost of additional driver relief trips (compared to the Noosa Council depot at Bartlett Road). In addition, repairs and maintenance of the electric bus could be done at Marcoola similar to current diesel buses. 6.2 Expression of Interest (EOI) for the electric bus trial Council/TransLink decided that the top two (2) manufacturers (i.e. Optare and BYD) would be invited through an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in a 6 month trial. The purpose of the EOI was to obtain more detailed information from the two manufacturers to understand the cost incurred with a 6 month trial (Appendix E). For the trial, two (2) electric buses, a fill-in diesel bus (to be injected into the service when one of the electric buses is charging at Pelican Street) and a standby diesel bus (should the electric bus breakdown) has been assumed. The following elements have been included in developing the cost comparison to run the trial for 6-months with the electric buses: Cost of leasing the electric bus and diesel bus Cost of the plug-in charging infrastructure including installation costs Cost of installation of the CUBIC ticketing and GPS equipment on the electric bus Vehicle registration and insurance costs Cost of training drivers and mechanics Bus driver costs Driver relief cost for the electric bus (e.g. hire car, wages and fuel). Relief trips will be required from Marcoola to Noosa junction to allow for driver meal breaks (every 4 hours) Electricity and fuel costs Cost of general repairs & maintenance (i.e. wages for mechanics) Marketing and communication costs Schedule of electric bus deployment on Route 627 as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 for Optare and BYD, respectively Table 8 summarises the estimated cost to run the trial for the Optare and BYD electric buses. It is estimated that the cost to conduct the 6-month trial with Optare is $838,100 and $792,600 with BYD (excluding contingencies). BYD is cheaper mainly due to the lower lease cost and charging infrastructure which has been heavily discounted for the trial. However, drivers and mechanics require significant more training (and cost) with the BYD bus. The cost to run the existing two (2) diesel buses were provided by TransLink and is estimated to cost approximately $385,400 for 6 months. Therefore, the “actual” cost to run the trial is estimated to be $452,700 for Optare and $407,200 for BYD. This is the net cost after the cost of operating the standard two (2) diesel buses on Route 627 is considered. It should be noted that the cost estimates provided herein are high level (indicative) and may vary when compared to the actual cost to run the electric and diesel buses. Contingencies should be allowed to cover unforseen costs 44 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 55
Figure 14 Schedule of deployment on Route 627 – Optare Electric Bus
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 45
Section 56
Figure 15 Schedule of deployment on Route 627 – BYD Electric Bus 46 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 57
Table 8 Comparison of Optare and BYD for a 6-month trial
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 47
Section 58
7. Strategic outline case
7.1 Assessment criteria framework
A Strategic Outline Case (SOC) has been developed to identify and compare the indicative
longer term costs of the recommended electric bus options which are likely to proceed to a
live trial, together with consideration of potential funding sources.
Within the SOC, costs are assessed on a financial basis using a Net Present Cost (NPC)
approach. NPC is used rather than Net Present Value (NPV) because it is assumed that
ticket revenues would be the same for all bus types.
Within the SOC, the financial model is designed to provide an indicative cost comparison of
Optare and BYD buses over a 15 year investment horizon. It is designed to evaluate and
compare the upfront purchase costs of a single bus and the anticipated energy and
maintenance costs on a ‘like-for-like’ basis. Accordingly, where the 15 year investment
horizon (corresponding to the shortest operational bus lifetime) results in a residual value,
this value is deducted from the final NPC figures. In this way, residual value can be thought
of as an allocation of value for the increased expected operational life of one electric bus
against another. Within the financial model, the deprecation of upfront purchase costs and
anticipated fuel, maintenance and servicing cash flows are discounted (at 7%) over this 15
year time period. This allows for aggregated costs of each bus option to be compared as a
net present cost.
The financial model does not take into account some costs that whilst significant are not
subject to considerable variation across bus options such as insurance, registration costs,
wages of drivers and maintenance staff. Other factors that are not currently incorporated into
the financial model but which may have significant project cost impacts include:
The choice to purchase or lease of the electric vehicle
Any non-routine vehicle maintenance
Vehicle storage and security requirements to lease space from the bus depot or allocate
space at the Council depot in Noosa
Driver training and operations
Branding and marketing of the trial
The SOC operational model, compares the indicative costs of running selected electric bus
options (Optare and BYD) as a fleet, on Route 627 against the indicative costs of running the
current Sunbus diesel buses only. Optare and BYD were selected as the final two (2) electric
buses likely to be deployed for the trial following a presentation and meeting with Noosa
Council. The time period for the operational model is 10 years (based on TransLink’s initial
leasing period) which allows for a longer term operational comparison of the current Sunbus
diesel buses with both the Optare and BYD electric bus models. Based on data provided by
TransLink as well as the electric bus providers, this analysis include comparisons with some
of the major operational costs of running buses on the current Route 627. Data on the
operation of a diesel bus on Route 627 is also helpful as the roll out of electric bus options
on the route requires the support (and related costs) of at least one diesel bus due to
charging and electric bus operating constraints. Operational model costs include estimates
of repair, maintenance and driver costs per kilometre. Excluded costs include but are not
limited to, wear and tear and staff training costs.
48 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 59
It should be noted that, although the models seek to achieve the most accurate figures for
comparison of options that are currently available, an NPC analyses using actual
performance data from the trial will be the most reliable indicator of the long term commercial
viability of an electric bus service for Noosa. This is due to the NPC’s reliance on data from
providers in the present case, who do not have the benefit of experience in operating their
bus on Route 627. Fuel or energy consumption in particular will be highly dependent upon
the bus design specifics and their interaction with the route, drivers and operating conditions
in Noosa. Accordingly, actual results may vary significantly to the estimates generated by the
financial and operational models.
7.2 Financial model
The main cost driver delaying the widespread adoption of electric vehicles in Australia has
been the upfront purchase costs of the technology, particularly the battery technology
relative to diesel alternatives1. As battery technology evolves and increasingly becomes
proven in Australian operating conditions the costs and financial risks associated with the
significant upfront investment in an electric bus is reduced. In the present case, an
alternative financial arrangement to mitigate upfront battery costs might be to arrange for
leasing of batteries from providers as part of the electric bus trial negotiations.
The cost benefits to be found in the operation of electric buses usually manifest in terms of
reduced operating and maintenance costs over the longer term life of the vehicle2. Therefore,
the longer an electric bus is able to be operational, without significant maintenance (e.g.
battery replacement), the more significant these benefits become in terms of the lifetime
costs.
Upfront purchase costs and estimated maintenance and servicing costs were calculated in
the financial model based on data received from manufacturers in response to the EOI. The
results of the NPC on these data are tabulated in Table 9. These costs were discounted (at
7%) for ease of comparison. Upfront purchase costs include capitalised costs of necessary
infrastructure installation for each bus (e.g. two charging stations).
BYD was found to be the cheapest upfront purchase option (Optare +12%) but this was only
after accounting for additional battery capacity (provided as an option for Optare).
Table 9 Breakdown of Upfront Purchase Costs - 2014
Upfront purchase Optare BYD
costs
Bus $595,000 $625,000
Additional Battery $70,000
Costs
Charging station $30,000 $10,000
1
Charging station $30,000 $10,000
2
Charging station $5,500 $5,500
1 - Install
Charging station $5,500 $5,500
2- Install
TOTAL $736,000 $656,000
Note:- *Additional battery cost and charging station installs assumed from Optare costs due to non-provision of cost data
1
Forecast Uptake and Economic Evaluation of Electric Vehicles in Victoria, AECOM, 6 May 2011
2
Assessment of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies for the Victorian bus fleet, a discussion paper, Rare
Consulting Pty Ltd, January 2011
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 49
Section 60
NPC maintenance and servicing costs over the investment horizon were cheapest for Optare
compared BYD (+15%) - see Table 10.
In summary, the final comparative costs provided by the financial model indicated that the
Optare Solo 10M is likely to be the most cost effective option to run in terms of maintenance
and servicing and BYD the best choice in terms of upfront purchase costs.
Table 10 Upfront Purchase Costs and Estimated Maintenance and
Servicing1- 2014
Provider Model Upfront Purchase Estimated Maintenance
Cost & Servicing Costs
Optare Solo $736,000 $79,674
BYD E Bus $656,000 $91,338
Estimated direct and indirect electricity costs were calculated in the financial model, based
on input data provided by bus manufacturers, these data are tabulated in Table 11. Bottom
of the range fuel efficiency was equivalent for both Optare and BYD buses. Cost per
kilometre for all options was calculated as $0.09 over the 15 year investment horizon. As
such, the derived nature of indirect electricity costs results in an equal first ranking against
these cost criteria for Optare with BYD only slightly behind. In the absence of actual
performance data and given the marginal differences in fuel efficiency between all three
buses, it was surmised that fuel efficiency is not a good basis to distinguish these electric
bus options.
Table 11 Estimated Direct and Indirect Electricity Costs2 - 2014
Provider Model Estimated direct Estimated direct
and indirect and indirect
electricity costs electricity
costs/km
Optare Solo $168,5733 $0.09/km
BYD E Bus $179,811 $0.09/km
Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the total NPC discounted costs for the Optare
electric bus came to an estimated -$624,849 and -$1,074,230 for BYD. The total NPC
discounted cost per kilometre came to -$0.33 for Optare and -$0.56 for BYD, respectively.
As shown in Table 12 below, the cost analysis indicates that the Optare solution to be lower
from a total NPC discounted cost and cost per kilometre standpoint. This outcome is due
mainly to the extended operational life of the Optare with a stated operational life of 25 years
as against the BYD at 15 years. It should be noted however, the stated operational life of
each bus is proposed by the manufacturer and has yet to be tested under operating
conditions in Noosa.
This NPC assessment is made on the basis of manufacturer inputs and the best available
data provided to date. As costs are assessed over the 15 year horizon, this assessment
provides some degree of comfort if the decision is made to extend the operation of the
chosen bus beyond the end of the trial period. However, as noted above, these estimates
are indicative only and the best measure of the commercial viability of running an electric
1
Over a common investment horizon of 15 years.
2
Over a common investment horizon of 15 years.
3
Energy consumption may increase with additional battery due to additional battery weight.
50 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 61
bus on Route 627 should be based on actual performance in Noosa operating conditions
during the proposed trial period.
Table 12 Financial Model Estimated Discounted Costs of Bus Options1
Summary of Analysis BYD eBus Optare Solo 10M
Expected bus lifetime 2 15 years 25 years
Assumed common investment horizon 15 years 15 years
Cost comparison (Not discounted)
Investment cost -$1,868,551 -$1,761,502
Residual value $108,000 $1,428,800
Total investment Cost (Not discounted) -$1,760,551 -$332,702
Discounted costs
Discounted investment cost -$1,109,244 -$1,040,566
Discounted residual value $35,014 $415,717
Total discounted investment cost -$1,074,230 -$624,849
Discounted cost per km (2014 dollars) -$0.56 -$0.33
The model assumptions relied upon in the cost analysis is detailed below in Table 13.
Table 13 Upfront Purchase Costs and Maintenance and Servicing Cost
Assumptions3
Summary of Assumptions Per Annum
General Assumptions
Interest rate 5.00%
Discount rate 7.00%
Specific Assumptions (Annual increases)
Maintaining plant 4.30%
Bus maintenance 4.30%
Bus servicing 4.30%
Wear and tear 6.00%
Fuel price 6.00%
7.3 Operational model
The SOC operational model, compares the indicative costs of running selected electric bus
options (Optare and BYD) as a fleet on Route 627 against the indicative costs of running a
fleet of current Sunbus diesel buses.
The time period for the operational model is 10 years (based on TransLink’s initial leasing
period) which allows for a longer term operational comparison of the current Sunbus diesel
fleet on Route 627 with both the Optare and BYD electric bus fleet options. The operational
model assumes that all buses are subject to a standard TransLink lease of 10 years with a
20% residual. Other model parameters such as assumed fuel consumption and kilometres
travelled per annum remain the same as used in the financial model.
1
Over a common investment horizon of 15 years.
2
Common assumed investment horizon of 15 years
3
Over a common investment horizon of 15 years.
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 51
Section 62
An estimated repair and cost per kilometre of $0.37 has been applied to all model instances
of Sunbus diesel buses in fleet calculations. This figure is based on information provided by
TransLink. A cost figure of $0.10 per kilometre has been applied to electric buses based on
data provided by manufacturers. A driver cost per kilometre of $1.41 has been provided by
TransLink, this has been applied across all of the modelled fleet options. All costs have been
discounted (at 7%) for ease of comparison.
As with the financial model, upfront purchase costs and estimated maintenance and
servicing costs were calculated in the financial model based on data received from
manufacturers in response to the EOI. The results of the 10 year operational model NPC on
these data are tabulated in Table 14. Once again, the upfront purchase costs include
capitalised costs of necessary infrastructure installation for each electric bus (e.g. two
charging stations).
Table 14 Operational Model Estimated Discounted Costs of Bus Options1
Fleet Sunbus Sunbus Sunbus
Rigid Rigid Rigid
Optare Solo BYD eBus Sunbus
10m Rigid
BYD eBus
Optare Solo
10m BYD
eBus
Expected lease lifetime 10 years 10 years 10 years
Number of Refuelling / Charging Stations 2 2
Total Estimated Fleet Cost (discounted) $6,730,264 $6,806,152 $5,063,627
Total Estimated Fleet Saving (discounted) -$1,666,638 -$1,742,525 $0
Total Estimated Fleet Fuel Costs (discounted) $716,401 $772,218 $986,266
Total Estimated Fleet Fuel Saving (discounted) $269,866 $214,049 $0
The model assumptions relied upon in the cost analysis is detailed below in Table 15.
Table 15 Upfront Purchase Costs and Maintenance and Servicing Cost
Assumptions2
Summary of Assumptions Per Annum
General Assumptions
Interest rate 5.00%
Discount rate 7.00%
Specific Assumptions (Annual increases)
Charging station electricity inefficiency 8.00%
Fuel prices 6.00%
1
Over an assumed lease period of 10 years with 20% residual. Costs include estimates of repair, maintenance and
driver costs per km. Excluded costs include but are not limited to, wear and tear, staff training and operating costs,
vehicle storage and security requirements to lease space from the bus depot or allocate space at the Council depot
in Noosa, support labour costs, meal allowance and various labour on costs.
2
Over an assumed lease period of 10 years with 20% residual.
52 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 63
In summary, the operational model shows discounted fuel savings of $269,866 and
$214,049 for Optare and BYD fleet deployment over the standard Sunbus diesel fleet for the
10 year leasing period. However, these savings were not sufficient to offset the additional
operational costs incurred in deployment of electric buses on Route 627. The charging and
scheduling limitations of the electric buses – requiring an additional bus to be run on the
route – make electric bus deployment an expensive option.
As costs are assessed over the 10 standard leasing period, this assessment provides some
degree of comfort if the decision is made to extend the operation of the chosen bus beyond
the end of the trial period. However, as noted above, these estimates are indicative only and
the best measure of the commercial viability of running an electric bus on Route 627 should
be based on actual performance in Noosa operating conditions during the proposed trial
period.
A copy of the financial model is enclosed in Appendix F of this report.
7.4 Benefits
The potential benefits of an electric bus on Route 627 for Noosa include:
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions
Fully electric drivetrains, as opposed to diesel powered combustion engines, can achieve
fuel and emissions reductions of up 80% for electric buses if the electricity is sourced from
renewable sources1.
Ambient noise reduction
Electric buses typically reduce operational noise by up to 70 dB. Urban areas of Noosa will
benefit significantly where traffic noise may already be acknowledged problem. Mixed use
developments along Route 627, with residences built above commercial premises in closer
proximity to major transport routes and hubs, will similarly benefit from noise reduction.
Air quality and odour reductions for populated areas due to the zero tailpipe
emissions
In addition to CO2 emissions reduction, the elimination of black diesel exhaust smoke, soot
and odour is a significant benefit to the community’s enjoyment of our urban areas.
Fatigue related transport incidents
Drivers of electric buses report significant reductions in fatigue due to elimination of the
vibration and noise caused by a diesel engine. Given that fatigue is identified as a significant
cause of road incidents and accidents, any reduction in fatigue for the drivers of vehicles
which are heavy road users can be expected to have a positive impact.
Improved OH&S outcomes for drivers
As much as the factors of noise, air quality and odour and in-cab noise and vibration
described above have positive environmental impacts, they also make a very strong
contribution to the OH&S outcomes for operators and their drivers.
Additional social and community benefits
Additional social and community impacts should be assessed during the trial period, perhaps
using targeted market research of the passenger base. Market research will assess the
1
Assessment of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies for the Victorian bus fleet, a discussion paper, Rare
Consulting Pty Ltd, January 2011
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 53
Section 64
experience and perceptions of the bus passengers, along with the outlook towards the introduction of new technologies into public transport applications. Supporting the development of renewable energy In line with the government’s plan to encourage sustainable practices including green energy solutions by investing and adopting sustainable and renewable solutions Increased economic development and tourism visitation in Noosa Enhance Noosa as a tourism destination with a strong environmental focus which may increase visitation and economic activity in the Noosa Shire area 7.5 Risk assessment A risk assessment was undertaken as part of the SOC. Risks were first identified and then ranked in a risk matrix (Table 16) to qualitatively assess the relative likelihood and consequences of risk eventuating during the trial of an electric bus at Noosa on Route 627. 7.5.1 Risk identification Identified risks include: New technology - The introduction of an electric bus brings higher degrees of technical and financial uncertainty due to higher up front capital costs combined with the implementation of new technologies Uncertainty surrounding battery life and the performance Uncertainty surrounding “real-world” performance outcomes during the trial given location specific variations in ambient temperatures, braking intensity, and accommodation of air- conditioning load Uncertainty surrounding the GHG performance of electric vehicles when powered using electricity generated by non-renewable energy sources Any loss of passenger carrying capacity given final configuration of the chosen bus option and capacity to accommodate unexpected fluctuations in route demand Untested design life - none of the electric buses have been in operation for 15 years so the life of the bus is untested 54 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 65
Table 16 Electric Bus Trial Risk Matrix
Almost
Descriptors Rare Unlikely Moderate Likely
Certain
Catastrophic
New Battery
Major
Technology Performance
Operational
Moderate
Risks
Bus Capacity
Minor
Risk
Not Realising
Positive
Insignificant
GHG
Impacts
7.6 Potential funding sources
In recent years, the scale of available grants and funding to support initiatives such as the
Noosa electric vehicle trial has been scaled back considerably. Entities which may have
previously provided grants or funding such as Australian Renewable Energy Agency
(ARENA) or the Commonwealth Department of Industry are responding to increased
budgetary pressures and a reduced emphasis on carbon mitigation policy in recent years.
Although more general in nature, the following recently announced grant may be available
for the trial and is worth exploring:
National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF)
The NSRF offers $1 B over the next five (5) years to support investment in priority economic
and infrastructure areas. The fund is targeted at local government and incorporated not-for-
profit organisations. The NSRF is the successor to the Regional Development Australia Fund
(RDAF), the comparable nature of the two programs means it may be rolled out as follows:
RDAF provided $438.5M averaging just over $200M per year, and the new NSRF looks to
continue this with $1B over 5 years
Under NSRF, the grants will be between $20,000 and $10M. Under RDAF, the smallest
grant was $69,870 and the largest grant was $15M with the overall average being just
over $2.5M1
Noosa Council Public Transport Levy
The option of a Public Transport levy to fund the trial is also open to Council. However, as
this is for provision of new technology on an existing bus route, it may be difficult to gain
1
GrantReady
http://community.grantready.com.au/Find_Grants/Search/index.aspx?itemDetails=11189&cId=&itemDetailsSubTopi
c=228
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 55
Section 66
community support for this option. The option of user-pays charging would also be difficult
for the same reasons.
TransLink funding
Another option may be to seek a portion of the total funding from TransLink based on the
differential between the lifetime costs of the new electric vehicle and the current diesel
vehicle. That is TransLink would be asked to reinvest savings from fuel back into the trial to
effectively be a cost neutral outcome for Queensland taxpayers. Building this case may be
assisted by analysis already completed as part of this SOC.
Advertising
There is the option to sell advertising on the electric bus to generate revenue.
7.7 Recommendations for an electric bus to be part of a live
train in Stage 2
The trial is about assessing the technology and discovering the “actual” capability and
performance of the electric bus under local conditions in Noosa. If the trial is found to be
successful, decisions can be made to consider implementing the electric bus in full.
The cost to run the trial is estimated to be $452,700 for Optare and $407,200 for BYD. The
findings show that the trial would cost more than the current cost to operate the two (2)
electric buses on Route 627. This is primarily because of the cost incurred in providing the
fill-in and standby diesel buses and driver relief trips to ensure service reliability. To match
the performance of the two (2) diesel bus, inductive charging and/or supercharging
technology en-route is likely to be required. However, inductive charging and/or
supercharging technology are yet to be proven and too costly to implement for the trial.
An initial capital investment will be required to “ground truth” the technology. It is
recommended that both Optare and BYD are considered for the trial. Optare has the
advantage of scale and expertise in the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable
international brand, and have a presence in Australia. BYD are global leaders in the
development of battery technology and battery management systems (BMS). Their battery
technology has shown a continuous improvement. The new generation of batteries is already
exceeding the older batteries in capacity, which is currently installed in buses around the
world.
Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the total NPC discounted costs for the Optare
solution came to an estimated -$601,284 and -$922,730 and -$1,049,093 for Olev and BYD,
respectively. The total NPC discounted cost per kilometre came to -$0.37, -$0.56 and -$0.64
for Optare, Olev and BYD, respectively.
The cost analysis indicates that the Optare solution to be the lowest from a total NPC
discounted cost and cost per kilometre standpoint. This is outcome is due mainly to the
extended operational life of the Optare with a stated operational life of 25 years as against
the Olev at 20 years and the BYD at 15 years.
The analysis conducted showed that Optare Solo 10M is the most cost effective option to run
and the best choice on a theoretical whole of life cost basis, and is recommended for the 6-
month trial.
56 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 67
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
The analysis conducted showed that Route 627 is most suitable for the electric bus trial. The
location for the proposed layover and fast recharging station is in Pelican Street at Tewantin,
next to Council’s office. This site is convenient for the western terminus of Route 627 to use
and has minimal impact on parking with approximately three (3) car park spaces to be
removed in Pelican Street.
Overnight storage and slow charging for the electric bus could be undertaken at the existing
Sunbus depot (Beech Street) at Marcoola, which is approximately 30 km south of the
eastern terminus (start point of Route 627) at Sunshine Beach. The Marcoola location is
preferred because it is an existing secure fenced facility with surveillance systems and it will
minimise the dead running and the significant cost of additional driver relief trips (compared
to the Noosa Council depot at Bartlett Road). In addition, repairs and maintenance of the
electric bus could be done at Marcoola similar to current diesel buses.
The market research found that there were many companies involved either directly or
indirectly in the electric bus industry. Companies that were researched were found to
originate from New Zealand, Asia (China), Europe (Germany, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Italy,
and Poland) and the Americas (United States and Canada).
In total twenty six (26) electric bus manufacturers were researched to develop comparative
product (fleet) profiles comprising of twenty (19) international and seven (7) locally based
manufacturers. To evaluate the companies that offer electric buses, a number of essential
factors were required to be met to first shortlist companies for further evaluation. The
essential factors included:
Reputation of the company and tenure in the industry.
Proven electric bus technology with buses implemented in the field
Availability to provide a vehicle for the 6-month trial expected in August 2015
Ability to complete the electric bus route with an approximate range of 280 km per day (23
[email protected] km round trip)
Proven right-hand drive vehicles to suit the Australian driving conditions which minimises
the additional cost of customising the electric bus
Easily able to provide the after sales support, parts replacement and training of drivers
Compliance with Australian Standards in terms of vehicle specifications including
Australian Design Rules (ADR) standards and Disability Discrimination Act requirements
Using the above mentioned selection criterion, four (4) electric bus manufacturers were
shortlisted for further evaluation using a Multiple-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach as below:
Solaris (Poland)
BYD (through Carbridge an Australia largest aviation bus company with operations in
Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports)
Optare (through PATICO Automotive who are the Australian distributors for Optare
headquartered in Dandenong, Melbourne and have been operating in Australia for 10
years)
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 57
Section 68
Olev (through Australian Electric Infrastructure Transport (AEIT) with an office located in Brisbane, Queensland. AEIT is a Brisbane based company established in 2012 to commercialise the Olev electric vehicles in Australia) A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach has been used to inform the selection of the preferred electric bus manufacturer. The MCA results were presented at a workshop with Council/TransLink on the 18 September 2014 and it was decided that the top two (2) manufacturers (i.e. Optare and BYD) would be invited through an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in a 6 month trial. More detailed information was gathered through the EOI process to select a preferred manufacturer. The trial is about assessing the technology and discovering the “actual” capability and performance of the electric bus under local conditions in Noosa. If the trial is found to be successful, decisions can be made to consider implementing the electric bus in full. The cost to run the trial is estimated to be $452,700 for Optare and $407,200 for BYD. This is the net cost after the cost of operating the standard two (2) diesel buses on Route 627 is considered. The findings show that the trial would cost more than the current cost to operate the two (2) diesel buses on Route 627. This is primarily because of the cost incurred in providing the fill- in and standby diesel buses and driver relief trips to ensure service reliability. To match the performance of the two (2) diesel bus, inductive charging and/or supercharging technology en-route is likely to be required. However, inductive charging and/or supercharging technology are yet to be proven and too costly to implement for the trial. An initial capital investment will be required to “ground truth” the technology. It is recommended that both Optare and BYD are considered for the trial. Optare has the advantage of scale and expertise in the manufacturing of buses with a strong and reputable international brand, and have a presence in Australia. BYD are global leaders in the development of battery technology and battery management systems (BMS). Their battery technology has shown a continuous improvement. The new generation of batteries is already exceeding the older batteries in capacity, which is currently installed in buses around the world. A Strategic Outline Case (SOC) has been developed to identify and compare the indicative longer term costs of the recommended electric bus options which are likely to proceed to a live trial, together with consideration of potential funding sources. A financial model has been designed to provide an indicative cost comparison of Optare and BYD buses over a 15 year investment horizon. It is designed to evaluate and compare the upfront purchase costs of a single bus and the anticipated energy and maintenance costs on a ‘like-for-like’ basis. An operational model has been developed to compare the indicative costs of running the selected electric bus options (Optare and BYD) as a fleet on Route 627 against the indicative costs of running the current Sunbus diesel buses. The time period for the operational model is 10 years (based on TransLink’s initial leasing period) which allows for a longer term operational comparison of the current Sunbus diesel bus with both electric bus models. Financial model results Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the BYD bus has been found to be the cheapest in terms of upfront purchase costs (Optare +12%). However, the Optare Solo 10M is likely to be the most cost effective option to run in terms of maintenance and servicing. There are marginal differences in fuel efficiency between the two buses, it was surmised that fuel efficiency is not a good basis to distinguish electric bus options. 58 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report
Section 69
Over the investment horizon of 15 years, the total NPC discounted costs for the Optare
electric bus came to an estimated -$624,849 and -$1,074,230 for BYD. The total NPC
discounted cost per kilometre came to -$0.33 for Optare and -$0.56 for BYD, respectively.
The cost analysis indicates that the Optare solution to be lower from a total NPC
discounted cost and cost per kilometre standpoint. This outcome is due mainly to the
extended operational life of the Optare with a stated operational life of 25 years as against
the BYD at 15 years.
Operational model results
The operational model shows discounted fuel savings of $269,866 and $214,049 for Optare
and BYD fleet deployment over the standard Sunbus diesel fleet for the 10 year leasing
period. However, these savings were not sufficient to offset the additional operational
costs incurred in deployment of electric buses on Route 627. The charging and
scheduling limitations of the electric buses – requiring an additional bus to be run on the
route – make electric bus deployment an expensive option.
The review of relevant State and Federal Transport policy, standards and regulations which
will may potentially influence the project yielded the following:
As yet there are no specific standards regulating the use of electric buses
Specific requirements for electric buses were not identified in the review of current
legislation and regulations
Queensland 30-year Electricity Strategy (2012) identified the need for efficient regulatory
frameworks to create efficient supply chains that accommodate innovative technology,
such as embedded generation technology, battery storage and electric vehicles. It also
discussed the need for addressing the impact that electric vehicles have on network
infrastructure
Electric bus for the trial will need to comply with all State and Commonwealth government
laws in in particular the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT)
2002, Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 2002 (DDA) and Australian Design
Rules (ADR)
Qld Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) - need to satisfy any performance
levels outlined in a services contract as per Chapter 6 of the Transport Operations
(Passenger Transport) Act 1994
Bus operators must ensure that their drivers are provided with appropriate training to
operate an electric bus. The intent of the training would be to ensure drivers could
operate the vehicle in a safe manner
Identified risks for the project include:
New technology - The introduction of an electric bus brings higher degrees of technical
and financial uncertainty due to higher up front capital costs combined with the
implementation of new technologies
Uncertainty surrounding battery life and the performance
Uncertainty surrounding “real-world” performance outcomes during the trial given location
specific variations in ambient temperatures, braking intensity, and accommodation of air-
conditioning load
Uncertainty surrounding the GHG performance of electric vehicles when powered using
electricity generated by non-renewable energy sources
GHD | Feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa - Planning Report | 59
Section 70
Any loss of passenger carrying capacity given final configuration of the chosen bus option
and capacity to accommodate unexpected fluctuations in route demand
Untested design life - none of the electric buses have been in operation for 15 years so
the life of the bus is untested
For the above reasons a trial is recommended to test this new technology
8.2 Recommendations
Route 627 is recommended to be used as the electric bus trial route
Two (2) electric buses and one (1) diesel bus will be required to maintain the current 30
minute headway and 60 minute circuit time. A standby diesel bus is recommended to
attend to any breakdowns in order to ensure service reliability. The existing diesel buses
in the Sunbus fleet should be used as stand-by spares should there be any breakdowns,
accidents and other service continuity issues
Overnight storage and slow charging of the electric bus is recommended to be at the
existing Sunbus depot at Marcoola. Layover and fast charge of the electric bus
recommended to be at Pelican Street (in front of Council office and would involve the loss
of approximately three (3) car parking spaces. Repairs and maintenance is proposed to
be conducted at existing Sunbus depot (Beech Street) at Marcoola
Route 627 should be exempt from the TransLink Contract Performance Management
Framework during the trial whilst an unproven technology is being tested
A driver relief vehicle is hired (2 Nos) and included in trial costs, to transport Sunbus
drivers between the Marcoola depot and Noosa Junction to facilitate driver shift
changeovers
Dedicated electricity meters to be used for the trial to verify battery usage and
performance of the bus
It is recommended that both Optare and BYD buses are considered for the 6 month trial to
confirm performance in the field and is estimated to cost $859,900 (excluding
contingencies)
Should the trial succeed the permanent cost of operating the electric bus would be less
than the trial cost as standby buses and drivers would not be required as the technology is
proven as reliable. Consideration may also be given to using more permanent recharging
options that may negate the need for a third bus
Potential funding sources include:
– National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF)
– Introduce a Council Public Transport levy to fund the trial
– Seek a portion of the total funding from TransLink
– Advertising revenue
Electric buses for the trial will need to comply with all State and Commonwealth
government laws in in particular the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport
(DSAPT) 2002 and Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 2002 (DDA), and
Australian Design Rules (ADR)
Council/TransLink should consider the involvement of Sunbus in the trial as early as
possible
60 | GHD | Proposal for Noosa Council & TransLink Division - Planning Report