Green Bus Fund - a review of effectiveness to date

1. Scottish Green Bus Fund
Initial findings from Round 1

2. • Overview
• Aggregate Performance
• Detailed Analysis
• Concluding Remarks

3. • Overview
• Aggregate Performance
• Detailed Analysis
• Concluding Remarks

4. Scottish Green Bus Fund
• Aim to support the wider roll out of low
emissions buses
• Reduce GHG emissions from bus fleet and
help meet wider climate change reduction
targets.
• Must reduce emissions by more than 30%
against the chosen emissions benchmark

5. Scottish Green Bus Fund
• Low carbon engine technology is more
expensive
• SGBF will meet up to 80% of the purchase cost
differential
• Will be a number of additional costs and
potential savings, particularly in the near-term

6. Scottish Green Bus Fund 1
• Condition of grant includes a performance
data return
• Data returns – 6 monthly
• Returns needed for at least 3 years
• Evaluation limited to companies with
significant purchases under the SGBF 1

7. In God we trust……. but everyone else must
bring data

8. Data Returns
• Not all buses were bought at the same time in
the year
• Do not have all returns for SGBF 1 but
sufficient for an emerging picture

9. Data Returns – key features
• All using the same make of bus
• 2 double – decker bus fleets
• 2 single deck fleet
• Covers a total of 44 bus purchases
• Analysis that follows has been anonymised

10. • Overview
• Aggregate Performance
• Detailed Analysis
• Concluding Remarks

11. Routes and Models
• All running city centre/urban - or mainly urban
routes
• Two different models of bus
• Each covers a different area of Scotland

12. Aggregate SGBF headlines
• The ‘average’ green bus travelled just under
33,500 miles in each 6 month period
• Range 21,000 – 46,000 kilometres
• Used 11,900 litres of fuel per period
• 21,000 miles (13,000 – 29,000 miles)
• 2,600 gallons of fuel

13. Average SGBF performance
• 2.83 km/l
• 8.04 mpg
• Maximum variation around mean performance: +16%;
-30%
Are a few data issues with some individual
and collective returns suggesting -23% not -30%
• 80% of SGBF buses within 10% of the 8.04 mpg average

14. Fleet comparator
• 6.37 mpg
• 2.24 km/l
• Maximum 9.89 mpg**
• Minimum 5.00 mpg
• An average 26% increase in fuel efficiency

16. Bus Model
• ‘Bus Type 1’ improvement in fuel efficiency
44.6%
• ‘Bus Type 2’ improvement in fuel efficiency 4.1%
• Over a third of Type 2 buses showed a worse
outcome
• Why? Number of different possibilities

17. Emissions impact
• Estimated cumulative savings in carbon
dioxide emissions for SGBF 1 returns to date
• 11,500 tonnes of CO2e …..
• ….and counting
• Soon the data will overlap with future Funds

18. Data anomalies
• Maximum in comparator fleet is above
maximum in hybrid fleet (9.89 mpg compared
to 9.29 mpg)
• A number of what look like ‘data entry errors’

19. • Overview
• Aggregate Performance
• Detailed Analysis
• Concluding Remarks

20. Detailed Analysis
• Looked at data returns from individual
companies.
• Considered data by:
– Individual bus,
– 6 month period,
– Bus and 6 month period,
– Distance and performance,
– Season, and
– bus performance ranking

21. Detailed Analysis
• Also compared findings against the average
• Happy to discuss any of this work 1:1 with any
company that has sent returns under SGBF1

23. • Overview
• Aggregate Performance
• Detailed Analysis
• Concluding Remarks

24. Concluding Remarks
• Preliminary (incomplete) analysis of SGBF1
data
• Importance of the benchmark
• Is the bus additional or an alternative
purchase?

25. Concluding Remarks
• Suggests significant fuel (and running cost)
savings are possible
• Suggests significant emissions savings per bus
• Not considered other costs (and uncertainties)
• Looking at data by period, bus model and trends
suggests other factors impact on performance

26. Concluding Remarks
• Is the purchase price gap between a low
emissions bus and standard bus reducing?
• New (additional) maintenance system needed
• Battery replacements costs and replacement
timing uncertain
• Risk (large company vs small company)

27. Concluding Remarks
• Positive impact on patronage and revenues
• Welcome further discussions on findings with
companies involved (any SGBF round)
THANK YOU