The document summarizes initial findings from the first round of Scotland's Green Bus Fund (SGBF1). It finds that the low-emissions buses purchased through the fund traveled an average of 33,500 miles in 6 months and used 11,900 liters of fuel, representing a 26% increase in fuel efficiency and estimated savings of 11,500 tons of carbon dioxide emissions compared to conventional buses. While the low-carbon buses showed a 44.6% improvement in fuel efficiency for one model, another model only improved by 4.1%. Some individual bus performances deviated significantly from the averages, suggesting other impacting factors. The analysis is preliminary but suggests significant potential fuel, cost, and emissions savings, though purchase price

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