D2.1 Analysis of clean buses market - European Commission · c) The State of the Art Report The present State of the Art report represents the achievement of the work conducted during

COMPRO PROJECT EIE-06-200

D2.1

Analysis of the heavy duty clean vehicles (buses) market

ISIS, Nantes Métropole Communauté Urbaine, SEMITAN, Bremen, SBUV, Emilia Romagna, Gatubolaget

COMPRO

State of the art report

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 a) The COMPRO project .............................................................................................................4 b) The selection of the 2 technologies.........................................................................................5 c) The State of the Art Report .....................................................................................................6

A. State of the art of the partner cities/regions........................................................ 7

1. Overview of partners’ current network...........................................................................8

2. Technologies currently in use by the partners...............................................................9

3. Overview of the two technologies according to partners’ experience .........................10

B. State of the art by Country .................................................................................. 12

1. The French situation....................................................................................................12 a) Market organization...............................................................................................................12 b) Political and financial support................................................................................................14 c) Fleet overview .......................................................................................................................15 d) Vehicle types : technical specifications .................................................................................17 e) Tendency in terms of fuel technology ...................................................................................17 f) How alternative technologies are perceived in the country...................................................18

2. The German situation..................................................................................................19 a) Market organization...............................................................................................................19 b) Political and financial support................................................................................................20 c) Fleet overview .......................................................................................................................21 d) Vehicle type: technical specifications....................................................................................22 e) Tendencies in terms of fuel technology.................................................................................22 f) How alternative technologies are perceived in the country...................................................23

3. The The Italian situation..............................................................................................25 a) Market organization...............................................................................................................25 b) Political and financial support................................................................................................28 c) Fleet Overview.......................................................................................................................28 d) Vehicle type: technical specifications....................................................................................31 e) Tendencies in terms of fuel technology.................................................................................34 f) How alternative technologies are perceived in Italy ..............................................................34

4. The Swedish situation .................................................................................................36

a) Market organization...............................................................................................................36 b) Political and financial support................................................................................................37 c) Fleet overview .......................................................................................................................38 d) Vehicle type: technical specifications....................................................................................41 e) Tendencies in terms of fuel technology.................................................................................42 f) How alternative technologies are perceived in the country...................................................43

5. Synthesis of the 4 countries panorama.......................................................................45

C. Other European countries................................................................................... 47

1. General overview in European Countries....................................................................47 a) Fleet overview .......................................................................................................................47 b) Euro standards ......................................................................................................................48 c) Future trends .........................................................................................................................48

2. Case studies:...............................................................................................................48 a) State of the Art of the bus fleet in a “new” Member State: Romania.....................................48 b) State of the art of the bus market in an “old” Member State: the United Kingdom: .............49

3. The contribution of the COMPRO questionnaire.........................................................53 a) Methodology..........................................................................................................................53 b) Lessons learnt and next steps...............................................................................................55

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 57

Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 58

4

Introduction

a) The COMPRO project

The COMPRO project was conceived to enhance the clean vehicle market. The idea to pool together a group of local authorities to make a common procurement came from the partners’ experience that clean technologies for buses (notably CNG) were harder to purchase than “classical” technologies (diesel) and this was mainly due to a lack of homogeneity in the European market. Yet, as stated by the European Parliament and the Council in their revised proposal on a directive on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles1, “[...] public bodies and private operators collectively procuring clean and energy efficient vehicles under the same terms of reference, [would] provide a significant stimulus to vehicle manufacturers and provide assurance of a market for these types of vehicles [...]. The high visibility of public transport vehicles could stimulate a wider uptake by other market participants of this approach for internalising external costs in procurement decisions”. The aim of COMPRO is therefore to enhance the development of the clean vehicles market taking action on the demand side. In concrete terms COMPRO analyses the conditions for a common procurement of clean collective and public service transport vehicles at European scale by creating an international buyers consortium of local authorities. Gathering an initial number of 4 local authorities, COMPRO aims at widely enlarging the group of potential purchasers in order to reach the critical mass needed to allow for competitive prices, thus being in line with the ideas defended by the revised proposal: “Wider application of green public procurement using harmonised criteria at EU level could provide the market with significant assurance for the future of clean and energy efficient vehicles and thus provide a real stimulus to vehicle manufacturers. This could help to improve the economics of the production of these vehicles considerably by reaching a critical mass to achieve economies of scale.” As a result, COMPRO will provide for the identification of homogeneous terms and conditions for achieving common standards and sales as well as a common European definition of the criteria and key elements for a joint procurement of public clean vehicles. The structure of the project is divided in 3 mains phases: - A first phase dedicated to the selection of the technologies and to an overview of the current

situation of clean technologies Europe-wide; - A second phase dedicated to the organisation and facilitation of a group of committed cities,

which will contribute to agglomerating an appealing critical mass for the automotive industry;

1 Revised proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles, 19/12/2007

5

- A third phase, which will constitute in the analysis of conditions and the definition of criteria for setting up a joint procurement.

b) The selection of the 2 technologies

The choice of the technologies which were going to be the object of the future joint procurement had to be defined during the 1st phase of the project. According to both their experience and expectations for the future improvement of their clean fleet policies, the partners agreed on focusing on the following two technologies: compressed natural gas (CNG) and hybrid. CNG Technology CNG technology is currently regarded as the most mature clean technology. In a report issued in November, 2006, the UITP emphasizes the positive ecological balance sheet of natural gas: with the exception of unburnt hydrocarbons CNG technology already complies with the EEV standard. No carbon dioxide emission reductions are achieved with gas operation. Furthermore, 2 of the 4 partners (Nantes and Emilia Romagna) already have an experience in the field of CNG buses, having made investments in this direction during the past 10 years. This experience allows them to have a clear view of the potential but also the difficulties to overcome in order to make further acquisitions. Specifically talking about overcosts, the UITP states, in line with the COMPRO partners experience, that the additional procurement costs for CNG vehicles are still between 20 and 25% and have not shown any reduction over recent years. These extra costs do not include the often high investments for fixed equipment (refuelling facilities, safety, etc.). This high investment costs are however balanced by the fact that the price evolution of natural gas does not follow the same pattern as for liquid fossil fuels. Some operators are already experiencing some relief from the favourable difference in price between CNG and diesel fuel on a km basis, the UITP notes. Hybrid technology: 2 Still according to the UITP, hybrid vehicles appear in the immediate future to represent a possible alternative technology. The technology is indeed regarded by manufacturers as a way to dramatically improve bus environmental performances. The twofold source of driving energy is understood as hybrid, where full power is obtained by addition of the power supplied by some energy storage system and by the fuel cell stacks. Energy storage systems offer a variety of alternatives, some still under intense research, or tests (supercaps, superconductors), and others needing some adaptation (flywheels). The semi-continuous or even continuous recharging of the batteries during the journey, allows the basic energy supplier (engines, fuel cells) to be much smaller (and cheaper) than in a conventional vehicle. Naturally, fuel saving depends upon the conditions under which the respective vehicle is used. Some manufacturers estimate the potential decrease in fuel consumption of 20 to 30%. Another advantage of the technology is the bus ability to run only on electric supply for a good share of 2 Transport public, mars 2008, n° 1078, p 34, 35, 36

6

the route, notably at bus stops where the diesel pollution shows to be the highest. Lastly, according to manufacturers, the overcost (about 30%, estimates Mercedes) should be paid of in less than 6 years. All manufacturers are now working on the development of this technlogy, with two technical choices available: series and parallel. The hybrid technology was chosen by the partners to be part of the work undertaken under COMPRO because of its promising development and its great potential in terms of energy consumption and environmental impact. Besides, the fact that two of the partners are planning to acquire hybrid buses in a near future was a further element of relevance in the selection of this technology. In the end, the decision made by the partners to select both the CNG and the hybrid technologies will allow them to develop their common procurement project on both: - A mature and well-established technology, into which some of them already have a strong

experience - and a developing technology, which is regarded by some of the partners as the best option

for future acquisitions. This balance between the two chosen technologies is one of the interests of the project.

c) The State of the Art Report

The present State of the Art report represents the achievement of the work conducted during the first phase of the COMPRO project. The aim of this report was to collect information on the different practices and tendencies over Europe in the field of clean technologies for buses and more specifically hybrid and CNG. The report is divided into 3 parts: the first part was elaborated from the data collected among the 4 COMPRO partners (see below for description) regarding the practices in use in their city / region. The second part is composed by the monographs of the 4 partner countries. The third part focuses more on the State of the Art in other European countries as well as in Europe in general.

7

A. State of the art of the partner cities/regions

Information collected through the questionnaire provided by Nantes Metropole to all partners (annex 1). The 4 partners of COMPRO, i.e. the city state of Bremen in Germany, the Nantes conurbation in France, the region Emilia Romagna in Italy and the city of Gothenburg in Sweden are all flagship players in the field of innovative transport policies and are strongly involved in the experimentation of clean technologies for buses. The Nantes conurbation started to build a strategy on clean and sustainable public transport as early as the 80's. Two major factors strongly influenced the willingness of the urban area to develop a large-scale policy of non-polluting public transport fleet: the implementation of the first tramline in 1985 and the experimentation of CNG buses within the Jupiter 2 project. Moreover, opinion polls conducted on public transport perception showed that it was necessary to enhance the image of buses, which had been left behind in comparison with the modern tram. By a convention signed in 2000, Nantes Métropole Urban Council mandated Semitan (PT operator) to conduct a bus fleet procurement programme for the three-year period 2001-2003. As a minimum, the specifications of the new buses had the same ones as those of standard diesel buses already operating on the network. Following the call for tender, 125 Heuliez GX317 GNV standard buses and 30 Volvo 7000 GNV articulated buses were delivered, all operating by the end of 2003. Some deviation occurred in this delivery and operating schedule, due to homologation, ratification, and operational problems. Despite these difficulties, Nantes Métropole decided in June 2005 to continue to purchase new CNG buses and to take the necessary steps to avoid such obstacles in the future. Over the last years, the City State of Bremen has been actively involved in the field of clean vehicles, by taking actions such as the implementation of a “clean zone”, where all Light and Heavy Duty Vehicles (> 3.5 tons) are banned, the extension of the tram network, the purchase of several EEV-Diesel busses. Bremen has also signed the commitment to reduce CO2-emissions. This project may contribute by developing a better market for less CO2-emitting busses – and their purchase under market conditions for Bremen. The key alternatives to reduce the consumption of mineral oil are

- CNG busses (which require as well a new refuelling infrastructure at the relevant depots of the BSAG);

- Diesel-electric serial hybrid propulsion with electric storage and recuperating brake energy: until 2010, it is planned to purchase about 10 hybrid busses.

For both alternatives, there are still very relevant additional costs, which can be reduced by economy-of-scale by developing joint market demand with other cities and PT operators. In economic terms, any solution will have to be economically comparable in operation costs to Diesel busses with special motor-management and after treatment fulfilling EEV standard. That high level of commitment will have to be kept also with potential joint procurement of busses with alternative propulsion. In order to reduce traffic air pollution, Regione Emilia-Romagna’s Directorate General Infrastructure network, Logistic and Mobility Systems - Urban Mobility Unit, (former ATP)

8

allocates incentives to local public transport either by contributing to the bus fleet renewal or supporting researches, meetings, and agreements. Its strategy aims notably at progressively creating local public transport fleets made up of eco-compatible vehicles. The low impact technologies on which the E-R Urban Mobility Unit is mainly engaged are CNG, electric and hybrid vehicles. As far as CNG vehicles are concerned ATP has promoted the implementation of new depots and refuelling stations in compliance with regulations and according to local needs. The results so far are very good, particularly in Bologna, since the number of circulating CNG buses is very high and two new refuelling stations have been realized. With reference to hybrid vehicles, former ATP has promoted them first of all in urban areas since they help to decrease noise and air pollution. The city of Göteborg has a long standing tradition in clean vehicles which recently was boosted by the participation to CIVITAS. Here, the city and three local companies (DHL, GreenCargo AB, Gatubolaget) purchased CNG heavy duty vehicles to be destined to local freight distribution (within the local environmental zone). The result so far has been 1 new fuelling station, 16 new distribution vehicles and 2 heavy duty vehicles. These figures are complemented by greater new acquisitions both in private fleets and in the context of the current biogas investments (EU project BiogasMax). Göteborg is an example showing that actors belonging to different part of the transport chain can cooperate toward the attainment of a switch from conventional vehicles to clean vehicles. Hence, the first step of the State of the Art was to retrace the experiences, perceptions and expectations of the partners in the field of clean technologies and hybrid and CNG in particular. This data was collected thanks to a questionnaire provided to all partners (see annex 1). This first part is a synthesis of the data collected through this questionnaire.

1. Overview of partners’ current network

Nantes Nantes Métropole is a “Communauté Urbaine”, that is to say the most integrated level of conurbation: the cities delegate most of their competences, among which transport. Nantes’ network covers the whole conurbation area, which gathers 24 cities and a population of 575 000 inhabitants. The fleet is owned by the Organizing Authority (Nantes Métropole) and the network is operated by SEMITAN, a semi-private company. The energy selection is also under the transport authority responsibility whereas the operator details and write technical specifications, in a view to best match operating constraints and technical requirements. The network includes 60 bus lines, 3 tram lines and 1 BRT line (BusWay line 4). It carries nearly 110 million passengers per year. Bremen Bremen, with a total population of 547 000 inhabitants, has a network carrying 97 million passengers per year (266 000 daily). The network includes 8 tram lines and 46 bus lines, with a rolling stock of 334 vehicles divided as follows:

- 121 trams (24 high-floor trams and 97 low-floor trams); - 213 buses (149 articulated buses and 64 two-axle buses).

The operator in Bremen is responsible for the acquisition of vehicles within the framework set by the authority in the operation contract.

9

Emilia Romagna The Emilia Romagna region is divided into nine provinces, i.e. an intermediate administration level between the regional and the municipal one. In each Province, there are two different subjects managing local public transport: the Mobility Agency and the Public Transport Operator. The division of competencies between agency and operator is different in each Province. In few cases the fleet is owned by the agency (ATR Forli-Cesena and ACT Reggio Emilia) whereas in most provinces the fleet is owned by the operator (ATC Bologna, Tempi Piacenza, TEP Parma, ATCM Modena, ACFT Ferrara, ATM Ravenna, TRAM Rimini). Other key subjects in Emila Romagna’s public transport are local governments such as provinces, Municipalities and the Region itself, which is the main investor in the purchase of new vehicles for local public transport and traditionally promotes the procurement of clean buses. Göteborg Göteborg is a city of almost 500 000 inhabitants, with a network of trams and buses. The network carries 135 million passengers annually. The network is organised as follows:

- 13 tram lines, carrying 92 million passengers per year (with 204 vehicles); - 46 bus lines, carrying 43 million passengers, with a fleet of 403 buses.

Like for Bremen, the operator is responsible for the acquisition of vehicles within the framework set by the authority in the operation contract.

2. Technologies currently in use by the partners

Nantes bus fleet is mainly running on CNG, with 235 CNG-powered vehicles out of 348. The conurbation has 2 fuelling stations at the 2 main depots, with a third station planned for early 2008. The current strategy (until end of 2008) is to replace diesel buses with CNG vehicles (16 more standard vehicles expected). The next strategy is yet to be defined. As for the German side, Bremen has made the choice so far to have only diesel-powered buses. The idea was to invest in the best available serial technology of Diesel buses, with a self commitment to buy only buses with at least EEV standard, rather than in CNG buses. In fact, the extra cost required for the latest was far higher, with additional issues such as aftermarket problems. Nevertheless, Bremen is considering the diesel – electric hybrid option provided that reliable models can be purchased with reasonable additional costs. In Emilia Romagna, the choice of technology depends on the specific needs of each city. However, even though diesel gets the greatest share of the bus fleet, most cities are combining it with on or several other technologies: CNG, LPG, hybrid CNG / electric, hybrid diesel / electric, diesel electric. CNG is the 2d best represented fuelling system, with 8,5% of the Region bus fleet, and is used by most cities. As for hybrid, it has also been quite evenly adopted by most cities (5 out of 9) in its diesel / electric version, whereas only one city (Ferrara) owns 4 buses with CNG / electric hybrid technology.

10

Göteborg already owns a few CNG buses (50 out of 403), with the rest of the fleet running on diesel. Furthermore, about 25 % of the buses use biogas, ethanol or biodiesel. The public transportation system has now a new goal of decreasing the CO2 emissions with 70 % to the year 2020. The entrepreneur Västtrafik will set demands on their local entrepreneurs of having environmental friendly vehicles which will give new demands on the bus manufactures. In the town of Göteborg over 30 % of the buses run on CNG but for the long distance buses the situation is different because of the lack of filling stations. The effectiveness and capacity of the CNG engine also needs to increase to allow the buses to run at a higher speed during long distances. Västtrafik foresees a continued use of diesel with a successive transition to biodiesel. Hybrid buses would be a good alternative for the city buses as the noise reduction is preferable.3 The situation in the 4 partner cities / region in terms of bus technologies can be summarized as follows:

• Apart from Nantes, diesel is the main fuelling system in use for buses

• CNG is currently the leading clean technology in Emilia Romagna and is constantly expanding.

• Some cities in Emilia Romagna (Ravenna and Forlì)are also experimenting hybrid buses: both diesel/ electric and CNG / electric systems.

3. Overview of the two technologies according to partners’ experience

A synthesis of positive and negative aspects of both technologies according to partner’s perception is presented in the table below:

CNG vehicles

Strengths Weaknesses

Same range of autonomy, reliability and operating costs as diesel buses;

Lower fuel cost;

Total cost lower (- 19% in Nantes) than a full diesel buses situation;

Reduction of pollutant emissions damageable to human health, specifically in

urban areas;

Higher starting investment than diesel buses of the same category;

Construction of specific filling stations required;

Necessary upgrade of security systems of garages and depots;

Aftermarket problems;

3 ”Inom några år dominerar förnybara energislag”, Metro 12th of March 2008

11

Increased level of customer satisfaction on items such as journey comfort: less noise,

less vibrations, less fumes;

Less reliable buses (depending on the model);

Legal authorisations difficulties in some countries (France for instance);

Hybrid vehicles

Strengths Weaknesses

Same autonomy as diesel vehicles;

Can cover short distances only by electric supply: possibility to circulate in pedestrian

areas in the city centre

Higher operating costs than diesel vehicles (maintenance, battery to change or to

restore);

Lack of reliability;

12

B. State of the art by Country

1. The French situation

a) Market organization

On the French territory, 3 organizing authorities are in charge of transport: • The Region for local trains; • The Department for all transport outside the urban transport perimeter; • The City or most commonly the conurbation for transport inside the urban transport perimeter.

For urban transport, the operator is selected through a public procurement procedure. Two missions are committed by the Organising Authority (OA):

• The construction of transport infrastructure, through several contracts; • The operation of the transport network, through a Delegated Management of Public Service.

The share of responsibilities between the OA and the operator in the context of the Delegated Management of Public Service is generally divided as follows: The Organising Authority:

- Defines the general strategy; - Leads strategic studies and supply management studies - Decides on the level of service to be implemented; - Defines the fare policy; - Is in charge of the investments; - Controls the operator’s missions.

The Operator: - Operates the network, with an objective of quality of service; - Carries out all studies required by the OA in order to:

o Gain a better knowledge of the market and the expectations o Optimize the transport supply o Improve the “overall” product o Increase intermodality

- Commercialises and promotes the services; - Operates the tools provided by the OA:

o The fleet of vehicles o The buildings and infrastructures.

According to this organization, the bus fleet generally belongs to local transport authorities (85%), except in Ile de France where the fleet entirely belongs to RATP.

13

Fleet ownership in France

> 250 000 100 000 to 250 000

< 250 000

2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 Local Authority 86% 90% 83% 83% 72% 69%

Transport company 14% 10% 17% 17% 28% 31%

Source UTP professional day 29 may 2007 The fleets are operated mainly by private companies, even though local authorities often constitute semi-private companies (economie mixte) involving the big transporting companies (see below). Typology of buses operators

71%

19%

10%

PrivéesEconomie mixtePubliques

Source : UTP, January 2004

Regarding operators, the profession is organised into 7000 private companies, 80% of which count less than 20 employees. On the other side, the 3 main groups operate 40% of all buses and coaches (RATP excluded). These big groups are:

• Keolis (SNCF-CARIANE) • CONNEX (Veolia Environment) • Transdev (Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations)

14

Share of the market between operators.

12%11%

15%

26%

36% KeolisAutres entreprisesAgirTransdevVeolia Transport

Source : UTP, January 2004

Regarding manufacturers, on January 1st 2006, two constructors which are tightly linked represented 82% of the operating fleet.

• Irisbus, with little less than 60% is present in 112 networks; • Heuliez, with 25% of the fleet, present in 10 networks;

In regional areas, for smaller size cities, the less established constructors are better represented, due to their offer in small and medium size vehicles (Van Hool or Gépébus for midibuses) In Ile de France, Irisbus represents 86% of the market.

b) Political and financial support

In France, public transport is mainly financed by local authorities and local taxes and receive very few incentives to influence the choice of fuelling technologies or to adopt specific transport systems (dedicated lanes, etc.).

15

Evolution of urban public transport financing since 1999 (in Euro 2003)

0500

10001500

20002500

30003500

40004500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

StateLocal authoritiesTransport taxCommercial revenue

Source: GART (31/12/2003) In terms of general recommendations, Public Transport organizations tend to consider, in line with the UITP position, that no universal solution can be advised but that the local context, needs but also assets should be taken into account in the decision process. However, these organizations (the Ademe – environmental agency- for instance) recommend that the choice of fuel take into account the “well-to-wheels” environmental impact (see the Starbus European project).

c) Fleet overview

The French professional organisation UTP (Union pour les transports Publics) has conducted a survey among 119 French networks, representing more than three quarters of the market (16 000 buses among an estimated total of 20 000). 55% operating buses are considered as being “clean”. This means that they use one of the following technologies: particles filters, bio fuels, water and gasole, CNG, GPL, electricity, Hybrid. In 2002, this proportion was reaching only 20%. The particle filters is the most spread out solution, probably due to the fact that it is the easiest and cheapest one to implement: 5 314 buses are equipped with filters, and 350 more run on diester . CNG solution is now considered as a mature one. It reaches a stable part of 10% of the national fleet. Nice is the only city to have stopped using CNG, but Lille confirms this option and intends to achieve the whole fleet running on CNG and bio gas. In Nantes the fleet comprises 191 CNG buses out of 334 buses. In France the GPL fleet has reached a “statu quo” situation since 2002. 137 GPL buses in 2006 compared to 102 in 2002.

16

Aquazole Gecam etc.. currently feed, like diester, 4% of the bus fleet, generally the most ancient ones which cannot be equipped with particle filters. This proportion has remained stable since 2002. The electric fleet is not progressing quickly (211 vehicles) Number of Trolleys and buses

Gaz

ole

Gaz

ole

+ pa

rticl

es

filte

rs

Die

ster

Die

ster

+

parti

cles

fil

ters

CN

G

GP

L

Elec

tric

Hyb

rid

Emul

sion

s

Tota

l bus

Tota

l cle

an

Cle

an fl

eet

shar

e

Pop > 250 000 3269 1505 106 156 1046 41 145 29 159 6456 3187 49%

100000<pop<250000 1910 629 151 87 381 21 52 8 120 3359 1449 43%

Pop <100 000 1122 137 125 35 25 18 2 6 89 1559 437 28%

Regions 6301 2271 382 278 1452 80 199 43 368 11374 5073 45%

Ile de France (Ø RATP) 311 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 56 8%

RATP 506 3017 0 72 90 57 12 0 310 4064 3558 88%

Total 2006 7118 5314 382 350 1542 137 211 43 678 15775 8657 55%

% of total fleet 45,1 33,7 2,4 2,2 9,8 0,9 1,3 0,3 4,3 100%

Source UTP 2006 survey in “Transport Public” N°1072 In summary for 2006:

Diesel CNG (natural gas) LPG Hybrid Electric Biogas Biofuel Other Total

in % 78,8% 9,8% 0,9% 0,3% 1,3% 0% 4,7% 4,3% 100%in n° of buses 12432 1542 137 43 211 0 732 678 15775

In terms of Euro norms, among 15 015 vehicles ( 95% of the fleet)

Euro 0 Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Total in % 16 17 36 26 0,1 0 0 95.1

17

d) Vehicle types : technical specifications

Accessibility for people with reduced mobility has been made compulsory by French legislation4, and notably:

- Access ramps or other systems to overcome potential obstacles between the vehicle and the sidewalk;

- At least one door per vehicle accessible to wheeling chairs; - Inside the vehicle at least one space dedicated to wheeling chairs and seats attributed to

PRMs closed to the doors, clearly indicated; - On board information needed to ensure the good course of the trip has to be delivered

under both visual and vocal formats and be adapted to the perception and understanding capacities of the disabled and the PRM.

All transport services will have to be fully accessible to PRMs by 2015. Currently, the French fleet is characterized by:

- A large part of standard low floor buses (64%, 9831 vehicles in 126 networks): 60% in Regional cities, 76% in RATP;

- An accessibility optimized by other equipments such as: o Wheel chair pallet: 33% o Leaning system: 33% o Dedicated space for wheel chairs: 35% o Vocal announcements: 35% o Visual announcements: 46%

e) Tendency in terms of fuel technology

Interviewed by Robert Viennet in Transport Public, Gabriel Plassat from Ademe makes the following statement on the French clean bus fleet market an its potential evolution

• There has been a large improvement in terms of engine performances. Currently, the euro 4 vehicle emissions are very low and some industries already propose Euro 5 and EEV. The system performance has also improved with consumption that have not increased or even have decreased.

• There also have been a multiplication of solutions proposed both in the engine and in the

fuels. This multiplication of investigation is necessary to be able to “move over petrol” and taking into account that there in no certitude about hydrogen becoming the unique substitution solution after petrol.

• The current Lille experimentation of using local production of biogas coming from the

human wastes is particularly interesting and efficient in terms of CO2 reduction objectives.

4 LOI n° 2005-102 du 11 février 2005 pour l'égalité des droits et des chances, la participation et la citoyenneté des personnes handicapées / Décret n° 2006-138 du 9 février 2006 relatif à l’accessibilité du matériel roulant affecté aux services de transport public terrestre de voyageurs

18

f) How alternative technologies are perceived in the country

In France, alternative technologies are generally well-perceived with the exception of bio diesels, which topic is indeed polemical. Bus et Car magazine n°789 headlines “ l’inquiétant appétit des bio carburants” summarize the French situation regarding bio fuels. Interviewed in this magazine, Corinne Lepage, president of the Cap 21 party, and ex environment Minister in France insists on the secondary effects coming form first generation biofuels (E85, Ethanol) and considers that the global ecological and human impacts of these fuels are not satisfactory at all (agricultural surfaces necessary, water consumption, usage of fertilizers, impact on forests in Brazil and Indonesia etc..). She states that France is subject to agricultural lobbies for first generation fuels that directly match the State interests, who could present immediate visible results and reduce their contribution to agriculture. Her conclusion favours the choice towards an open technology which would be able to adapt to the second generation of bio fuels (agrofuels).

19

2. The German situation


Nearly in all greater cities (above 100.000 inhabitants) the public transport companies are municipal property (see annex 2: table of main German operators and fleets). This will be changing partially within the next years. In middle-size and smaller cities as well as in the regional transport there are both municipal and private companies. Some big private companies (for example Veolia, Arriva, Keolis, Abellio, and others) have bought some smaller municipal or private companies. This trend will continue. Buses are owned by the public or private enterprises and therefore companies are mainly responsible for buying or tendering buses. For some kind of buses private or public owned companies can get subsidies from the state. But this way of financing has been cut down in the last years. Nowadays buses have to be mainly financed by the companies themselves and therefore the investments have to be in line with the economic perspective of the enterprise, defined by board or owner. There are two different ways of offering public transport services in Germany. First of all: Public Transport companies may develop these services themselves (historically or by new services). For all public transport services companies have to get a public permission, which is limited up to 8 years for bus services. Normally enterprises are getting such permission when the foreseen services: • Are in line with the general public transport plan (“Nahverkehrsplan” - made by local

authorities), • Can be offered without public subsidies, • And there is no better economic alternative.

The possibilities for authorities to influence this sort of public transport services are for the moment mainly restricted to the “Nahverkehrsplan”, where the main targets of the public transport offer can be fixed. Where there are no public transport services in some areas, public authorities may tender such services. These tender may include different specifications, e.g. requirements concerning the bus fleet. In this case, authorities could (indirectly) influence the bus standards, used in their territory. As this sort of public transport services has to be paid by the authorities, they often tend not to give to much priority to other than economic perspectives when tendering bus lines. Furthermore public authorities may influence the public transport services and conditions in the companies they own. But as public enterprises - as result of the so called Altmark Justice – may get money from their public owners only for “special requirements of general interest at comparable costs” the authorities have to describe these special (e.g. ecological or technical) requirements and compensate the costs. A last “speciality” of the German public transport market is the “Verkehrsverbund”. Verkehrsverbünde are legally separated organisations, owned by enterprises, authorities or both. The Verkehrsverbund covers a defined area including several cities or regions, where all

20

enterprises, engaged in this area, tend to offer a “one face to the customer” approach. This means for example that the customer has to pay only one ticket, when using the different services of the different enterprises. In Germany for the moment about 60 Verkehrsverbünde are existing. In order to get a “one face to the customer approach” Verkehrsverbünde tend to define specific quality standards for all enterprises, engaged in the area. Nevertheless the Verkehrsverbünde may not intervene in the economic decisions of the enterprises. In some regions enterprises decided to co-operate, when tendering new busses. But mostly the decisions are taken autonomously by the individual enterprise.. Regarding manufacturers in Germany, three major companies share the most of the market: • The first is Mercedes-Evobus (strength now and in future: clean diesel buses, CNG buses,

hydrogen/fuel cell buses). • The second is Neoman (clean diesel buses, CNG buses, hybrid buses, hydrogen/fuel cell

buses). • The third is Solaris (clean diesel buses, hybrid buses).

All other manufacturers are only with small amounts or not at all active for the German market. Share of manufacturers on the German market

Daimler ChryslerNEOMANSolarisBovaVolvoIrisbusTemsaScaniaOther

Source: VDV, 2005


There are some signs from the political side in Germany that there will be an extension of hybrid bus fleets in different cities in the upcoming years. Some financial incentives will probably be made. The VDV (Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen – Association of the German Public Transport companies) at the moment recommends to its members to use clean diesel buses. Medium-term they recommend hybrids in combination with biofuels. And long-term they recommend hydrogen. Further, the VDV refer to CNG technology as follows: Regarding CO2 and local emissions there is no advantage of CNG buses over clean diesel technology.

21

c) Fleet overview

The VDV has carried out a special survey in 2006 with the focus on energy consumption because of the brisance regarding the fiscal and environmental aspects. It is planned to repeat this survey regularly by the VDV. 196 public transport companies have participated in the survey, which represent 68 % of all VDV companies. Some companies had problems answering the questions because they are collaborating with several subcontractors. The missing answers were extrapolated to the collectivity of the VDV companies. In terms of technologies in use, the results of the survey present the following numbers: 97,8 % of a total of 37.287 buses are diesel buses. About 60 % of them are equipped with particulate filters. The whole bus fleet has travelled in total 1.885 million kilometres and consumed thereby 772,4 million litres diesel. From these 772,4 million litres 98,2 % are fossil diesel, which represent 758,3 million litres. 1,3 % are biodiesel, 0,4 % PPO and 0,1 % synthetic diesel. In the end of 2006 the aggregated number of CNG buses among all VDV companies in Germany amounted to 818 buses in use, that is to say 2,2 % of the total bus fleet. Nearly all CNG buses were using fossil CNG: only less than 0,1 Nm3 of the used gas was biogas. Only three small towns have trolley buses in use (Eberswalde, Esslingen und Solingen). The 73 buses drive in total 6,2 million kilometres. Till now in Germany only very few hybrid or hydrogen buses are in use. They are about 10 hybrid buses in some pilot projects and a few hydrogen buses in the city of Hamburg.

Diesel CNG

(natural gas) LPG Hybrid ElectricBiogas Biofuel Other Total in % 97,80% 2,20% 0 0,02 0 0 0 0

in n° of buses 36 467 818 10 37287 In terms of Euro standards, the VDV fleet (about 25.000 buses) in the beginning of 2008 is motorised as follows:

Euro 0 Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4, 5 & EEV Total

in % 0 1 30 50 19 100% Regarding the buses rented to subcontractors the actual data in terms of Euro norms is thought to be worse than for the VDV owned fleet. The subcontractors are indeed small private companies with less financial capacities (see table below for further details on rented buses).

22

d) Vehicle type: technical specifications

The following table gives an overview of the buses in use in 2006: Buses in use VDV-

companies owned buses

thereof low-floor buses

Rented buses

thereof low-floor buses

total thereof low-floor buses

CITYBUS Standardbus 8.575 7.627 4.392 2.855 12.967 10.482 High-capacity bus

325 304 17 15 342 319

Articulated bus 5.610 5.020 556 436 6.166 5.456 Midibus 342 289 163 137 505 426 Minibus 126 42 406 18 532 60 Double decker 425 167 5 2 430 169 Other 95 29 180 9 275 38 total 15.498 13.478 5.719 3.472 21.217 16.950 Interurban buses Standardbus 6.624 3.135 6.587 1.172 13.211 4.307 High-capacity bus

448 155 105 26 553 181

Articulated bus 793 357 288 108 1.081 465 Midibus 130 96 108 13 238 109 Minibus 72 25 375 20 447 45 Double decker 2 - 17 - 19 - Other 218 14 230 10 448 24 total 8.287 3.782 7.710 1.349 15.997 5.131 Trolleybus 73 59 - - 73 59 total 23.858 17.319 13.429 4.821 37.287 22.140 Source: VDV Statistic 2006

e) Tendencies in terms of fuel technology

In line with the recommendations expressed by the VDV, the general tendency for German municipalities is to favour clean diesel buses over CNG buses. On the hybrid side, most of the bus producers (Solaris, MAN, EvoBus, Volvo, Scania, van Hool, Hess/Vossloh usw.) and their suppliers (Siemens, ZF, Voith usw.) are working for the moment on concepts for buses with Hybrid Technologies. Some bus producers like Solaris, van Hool, MAN and Hess/Vossloh are testing their systems in cooperation with local public transport providers in Germany (see list). The technological concept of the bus producer differs a lot. None of the buses which have been tested until today is able to fulfil the operational and technical requirements for a daily transport service. Therefore most of the buses which are attempted are not reliable and therefore not used by public transport enterprises regularly. They were tested in special relations but always having a “regular” (Diesel-) bus in reserve. The aim of the operating buses with hybrid technology in Germany for the moment is primarily to gain more information and experiences in the daily behaviour of the buses.

23

Many local public transport providers in Germany are willing to test buses with hybrid technology because they hope that this new kind of technology is able to get better ecological results. Nevertheless the busses have firstly to be reliable and economic. For the moment the investment for hybrid busses is about 50% higher than regular Diesel-Buses. Important targets for enterprises which want to introduce buses with hybrid technology:

− fuel reduction − reliability and shelf life of components − storage capacity of energy − amortization of higher investment costs − reduction of maintenance costs − acceptance by customers, drivers etc

Asking producers of buses with hybrid technology most of them believe that batch production of this type of bus with ecological and economic advantages may not be reached before 2012. In the meantime most of local public transport enterprises are operating prototype hybrid buses. Giving a recent example from Dresden: A SOLARIS prototype hybrid bus did run for 6 month in the city of Dresden without reaching the foreseen targets. Some modifications have been done by the producer and in May 2008 a further (modified) SOLARIS hybrid prototype will run in the city of Bremen. Hybrid buses in German Public Transport Enterprises

City Bus Manufacturer State Technology

1. Dresden articulated Solaris in use diesel-electric 2. Leipzig articulated Solaris in use diesel-electric 3. Bochum articulated Solaris in preparation diesel-electric 4. Bremen articulated Solaris in preparation diesel-electric

5. Berlin articulated EvoBus testing hydrogene-electric

6. Nürnberg standard MAN in use diesel-electric 7. Nürnberg standard MAN in preparation diesel-electric 8. Stuttgart articulated EvoBus in preparation diesel-electric

9. Hamburg standard van Hool testing ended hydrogene-electric

10. several cities double-articulated Hess/Vossloh testing diesel-electric


Since mid 2007 in Germany the discussion about biofuels is getting more and more negative. The whole outcome of an intensive extension of the biofuel production worldwide will have more negative effects on the environment then positive ones all in all. The 10% target from the EU is becoming more and more criticised. The target of raising the share of biofuels in transport from current levels of 2% to 10% by 2020 was agreed last year by EU leaders. It was initially considered a good means of incentivising

24

governments and industry to invest in biofuels, in order to reduce Europe's dependency on imported oil and contribute to the fight against climate change. Yet a plethora of studies and impact assessments produced by various sources in the past year have raised the alarm, namely that increasing biofuel production to these levels based on current technologies – which mainly involve transforming food and feed crops into fuels – could have more negative consequences for the environment than positive ones. Among others, the concern is that the agricultural sector would be deprived of the arable land it needs to meet rising food demand at a time when global warming is already causing desertification in many areas. What's more, many question biofuels ability to deliver any significant greenhouse gas emission cuts compared to conventional fuels. On the other side, plans for certification are taking shape. The German Federal Government has for instance passed a (draft) biofuel sustainability ordinance. Under this ordinance, biofuel producers will in future enjoy fiscal and administrative support only if certain sustainability criteria are adhered to. Furthermore, in 2007, the Cologne-based consultancy méo presented the results of a BMELV-funded project (German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection). The proposal focuses on certificates which guarantee that sustainability standards are kept in the production of biofuels and the relevant raw materials and specific GHG emissions occurring along the value chain can be calculated. Thus, while a great deal of work remains ahead, hopes are high that, in future, compliance with sustainability standards can be proven in a reliable way5.

5 Source: Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (FNR) e.V. supports and manages research, development and market introduction projects on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV).

25

3. The The Italian situation


Italian LPT companies which provide urban and suburban bus services are 1200 (stand 2005, source White Book, November 2007, by Anfia, the Italian associations of bus manufacturers,). In 2005 50% of the companies were located in Southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia and operated through 36% of the total amount of the public and collective transport sector employees and 33% of the circulating buses, 30% were located in Northern Italy and operated through 39% of the employees and 45% of the circulating buses, while 20% were located in Central Italy and operated through 25% of the employees and 22% of all in Italy circulating LPT buses. The majority of Italian Local Transport companies are small, namely 62% of them operate through not more than 10 employees, while companies with more than 100 employees and buses do not exceed 11,4 % of total amount. 57% of the 1200 LPT companies provide only suburban services, 24% only urban services, while 19% provide both suburban and urban services. With reference to “who is responsible for what” in Italy there is no national regulation to define the duties of the various subjects involved. As far as vehicle quantities and typologies to be purchased are concerned, it is the public transport operators who make the choice and are competent for call for tenders, with the exception of the Campania Region. Namely, in Campania there is an autonomous body – Ente Autonomo Volturno – who is responsible for tendering (on the basis of public transport operators’ requests). As far as the bus fleet ownership is concerned, the following graph below shows how the situation is rather differentiated regionally. In Lombardia (the region whose capital town is Milan) local authorities are the main bus fleets owners, while in Lazio (the region whose capital town is Rome) the main owner is Rome’s public limited company. In Italy Public limited companies’ shareholders are generally the local municipality and the province. Share of bus ownership per Region:

Regions Region Local

Authorities Public Limited

Company Private

Company

Number of

Buses Abruzzo 104 19 855 406 1.384Basilicata 83 0 0 940 1.023Calabria 311 0 300 1108 1.719Campania 0 0 3150 1126 4.276Emilia Romagna 77 0 2801 288 3.166Friuli Venezia Giulia 0 0 0 938 938Lazio 0 0 4518 1008 5.526Liguria 2 1 1691 18 1.712Lombardy 0 3193 2708 454 6.355Marche 0 48 774 397 1.219Molise 0 0 0 419 419Piemonte 0 46 2039 1487 3.572Provincia Autonoma Bolzano 576 0 0 0 576

26

Provincia Autonoma Trento 0 0 694 90 784Puglia 256 770 1700 2.726Sardegna 0 34 1281 370 1.685Sicilia 0 0 2039 1500 3.539Toscana 0 18 2176 826 3.020Umbria 12 1 701 108 822Valle D'aosta 0 0 0 192 192Veneto 0 0 2734 557 3.291TOTAL 1421 3360 29231 13932 47.944Source: Ministry of Transport, stand 2007

Share of bus ownership:

3% 7%

61%

29%Region

Local authorities

Public LimitedcompaniesPrivate companies

Source: Ministry of Transport, stand 2007

In terms of manufactures, the Italian market is shared by national and foreign companies.

Bus manufacturers Up to 1990

1991 - 1993

1994 - 1996

1997 - 1998

1999 - 2000

2001 - 2002

2003 - 2004

2005 - 2006 N.I. Total

Fiat/Iveco 19.909 4.595 4.389 3.854 4.879 4.832 4.379 3.577 202 50.616

Mercedes 2.674 679 731 1.012 1.250 1.919 1.791 1.643 13 11.712

Setra 1.489 446 263 584 832 758 779 641 1 5.793

Bredamenarinibus 1.809 370 620 668 660 477 593 709 2 5.908

Man 95 124 285 438 427 597 318 322 1 2.607

Siccar 1.763 378 62 14 2 2.219

Volvo 563 266 192 185 332 190 152 207 2.087

Renault 375 200 199 209 193 175 135 118 1 1.605

Scania 1 4 20 45 212 392 401 318 1.393

Neoplan 49 13 18 81 128 125 106 82 1 603

Ford 415 2 5 5 9 12 44 29 4 525

Kaessbohrer 66 42 253 66 25 33 13 3 501

Om 328 1 2 81 11 1 19 443

Simonini 33 46 72 40 69 5 1 266

27

Altre Marche 1.837 323 538 1.046 1.765 1.917 1.001 1.360 34 9.821

Totale 31.406 7.489 7.649 8.314 10.792 11.446 9.713 9.009 281 96.099

N.I.= not identified Source: ACI The table below reports the bus manufacturers on the Italian market according to 2007 new registrations. Italian new bus registrations – January/December 2007

Interurban

MAKE Urban

Line Turism Minibus TOTAL

Class I Class

II Class III 2007 % 2006 %

IRISBUS 532

402 179 788 1.901 43,1 2.078 42,7

BMB 256 - - - 256 5,8 402 8,3

DE SIMON 14

97 - - 111 2,5 65 1,3

FIAT - - - 42 42 1,0 83 1,7

CACCIAMALI 3

24 - - 27 0,6 49 1,0

TECNOBUS 8

- - - 8 0,2 - 0,0

RAMPINI 3

- - - 3 0,1 10 0,2Total national

manufacturers 816 523 179 830 2.348 53,2 2.677 55,0

EVOBUS 174

294 243 380 1.091 24,7 1.125 23,1

NEOMAN 35

145 97 7 284 6,4 361 7,4

SCANIA 12

89 73 - 174 3,9 179 3,7

TEMSA -

100 7 14 121 2,7 59 1,2

VOLVO 8

16 85 - 109 2,5 144 3,0

RENAULT - - - 78 78 1,8 90 1,9

VDL -

14 33 - 47 1,1 137 2,8

FORD - - - 27 27 0,6 16 0,3

VAN HOOL 17 - 6 - 23 0,5 2 0,0

KING LONG -

- 22 - 22 0,5 3 0,1

BMC -

6 13 - 19 0,4 7 0,1

LEXEA -

- 18 - 18 0,4 6 0,1

VOLKSWAGEN - - - 18 18 0,4 7 0,1

TOYOTA - - - 9 9 0,2 18 0,4

ALTRE 1

3 1 21 26 0,6 33 0,7Total foreign

manufacturers 247

667 598 554 2.066 46,8 2.187 45,0

2007 1.063 1.190 777 1.384 4.414 100,0 4.864 100,0

2006 1.444 1.041 864 1.525

Var.% 2007 / 2006 = -9,4%

28

var.% 07/06 -26,4% 14,3% -10,1% -9,2%

Prepared by ANFIA from the data of Ministry of Transports


(1) The Emilia Romagna Region incentive framework

According to a decision approved in 2004, the Emilia-Romagna Region (Directorate Infrastructure network, Logistic and Mobility Systems - Urban Mobility Unit, former ATP) encourages the bus fleet renewal through an incentive framework which favours clean and low impact vehicle procurements. In other words, the highest incentives (70% and 65 % of total cost of each bus are paid for the cleanest vehicles, that is trolley buses, electric, hybrid, LPG and CNG vehicles up to the emission EEV standard. A threshold is foreseen for each incentive paid for a single vehicle.

(2) Ministry for Environment’s funding for bus fleet renewal

In order to support the bus fleet renewal through the procurement of clean vehicles, in the recent years the Ministry for Environment has allocated 52.3 milion Euros for bus procurement. These funds have been invested for the purchase of 494 new vehicles (205 electric buses; 133 hybrid buses; 109 CNG buses; 40 LPG buses; 7 Trolley buses).

(3) Ministry of Transport funding for LPT vehicle procurement co-funding

The Italian Ministry for Transport has created a national fund for LPT vehicle procurement co-funding (up to 75% of total cost). For the years 2007-2009 the Italian Government has allocated 653 milion euros to this fund for the procurement of rolling stock for regional rails; rolling stocks and vehicles for undergrounds, tramways and trolley buses; low impact and unconventional fuel powered vehicles. The bus typologies to be co-funded are the Euro 4 provided with anti-particulate filters and DOBD (diagnostic on board disposals); CNG and LPG buses; biofuel powered buses (such as biodiesel, bioethanol, etc…); electric vehicles; hybrid vehicles and the EEV (Enhanced Enviromentally-Friendly Vehicle) vehicles.

c) Fleet Overview

In 2005 ASSTRA, the Italian Local Public Transport (LPT) companies' association, carried out a survey on the LPT bus fleets collecting data from 137 companies out of the 216 ASSTRA members. The survey has shown that the LPT vehicles circulating in Italy are mainly diesel-powered buses (92.99%), followed by CNG buses (4.17%).

29

Diesel CNG LPG Hybrid Electric Biogas biofuel Other Total

in % 92,99% 4,17% 0,26% 0,82% 1,17% 0 0 0,58% 100% in n° of buses 30983 1388 88 275 388 - - 194 33,317

Urban and suburban buses fuel split:

% Diesel CNG LPG Hybrid Electric Other Total Urban Service 86.90% 7.82% 0.47% 1.53% 2.10% 0.91% 17,745 Suburban Service 99.94% 0 0.03% 0.02% 0.1% 0.21% 15,572 Total % 92.99% 4.17% 0.26% 0.82% 1.17% 0.58% Total no. 30,983 1,388 88 275 388 194 33,317

Source: Survey “Buses and Investments 2005” carried out by ASSTRA, 2005 The suburban service is covered for 99.9% by diesel-powered buses; as for the urban service, the percentage of buses powered by technologies other than diesel is more considerable; CNG-powered buses by themselves reach 7.8%. The results of the survey carried out by ASSTRA are confirmed by the collection of data made by ACI (Automobile Club Italia) in 2006: Buses in use by fuel and seats in 2006:

up to 15 16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-100 over 100 N.I. Total

Gasoline 151 110 108 44 31 58 4 11 7 64 588

Diesel 2.423 6.900 9.937 8.542 9.037 23.224 3.203 17.442 9.495 2.518 92.721

Gasoline/LPG 39 21 45 6 2 19 1 81 15 -

229

Gasoline/CNG 85 89 219 98 38 36 39 1.208 174 9

1.995

others 14 19 279 143 33 1 2 41 3 31 566

Total 2.712 7.139 10.588 8.833 9.141 23.338 3.249 18.783 9.694 2.622 96.099

Note-Standing people included N.I.= not identified Source: ACI

In 2007 RER carried out - for the COMPRO project - a survey among ten of the main Italian LPT companies and nine major provincial LPT companies in order to collect data on the LPT vehicle market trend in some of the leading cities. The results are presented here below:

30

Number of buses operated by 10 of the main Italian towns’ and RER’s6 LPT companies with reference to fuel source:

Diesel CNG LPG Hybrid Electric Other Total AMT Genoa 729 9 6 22 766 ANM Naples 741 26 22 10 139 938 ATAC Rome 2,308 363 12 80 2,763 SASA Bolzano 75 71 146 APS Padua 260 94 2 356 GTT Turin 222 23 245 ATAF Florence 273 144 26 443 ATM Milan 1,405 1,405 APM Perugia 250 75 9 12 346 TT Trent 703 36 2 741 RER* 2,660 267 57 107 33 3,124 Total 9,404 1,307 57 145 187 173 11,273 % 83.42% 11.59% 0.51% 1.29% 1.66% 1.53% 100%

Source: Survey for COMPRO carried out by Regione Emilia-Romagna, 2007 Number of CNG buses per manufacturer

Bredamenarinibus Irisbus Iveco MAN

Mercedes Benz Sitcar Total

SASA Bolzano / / / / / / 67 AMT Genoa 9 9 APS Padua 94 94 ATAC Rome 363 363 TT Trent 36 36 ATAF Florence 14 130 144 ANM Naples 26 26 APM Perugia 20 55 75 GTT Turin 222 222 RER 128 50 63 17 7 2 267 total 162 976 63 17 16 2 1,303 % 12.43% 74.90% 4.83% 1.30% 1.23% 0.15% 94.86%

Source: Survey for COMPRO carried out by Regione Emilia-Romagna, 2007 Number of hybrid buses per manufacturer

BredaMenarinibus CAM EPT Irisbus Iveco

Tecnobus

Mercedes Benz Total

ANM Naples 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 ATAC Rome 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 APS Padua 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 TT Trent 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 RER 11 30 4 8 8 0 46 107

6 The RER data include the 9 main LPT provincial companies’ bus fleets: ATC Bologna, TEMPI Piacenza, TEP Parma, ACT Reggio Emilia, ATCM Modena, ACFT Ferrara, ATM Ravenna, ATR Forlì-Cesena, TRAM Rimini.

31

total 11 32 4 10 20 22 46 145

% 7.59% 22.07% 2.76% 6.90% 13.79% 15.17% 31.72% 100.00%

Source: Survey for COMPRO carried out by Regione Emilia-Romagna, 2007 Irisbus covers almost 75% of the CNG-powered buses market, followed by BredaMenarinibus with around 12.5%, while the hybrid bus market is not monopolized by any manufacturer. Mercedes manufactured less than 32% of the total vehicles, followed by CAM (which is no more on market) with 22%. Compared to ASSTRA data, the COMPRO results highlight a different fuel split referred to the fleets of the companies which have been contacted: specifically, diesel buses rate is 83,42%, while CNG Buses represents the 11,59% of the total amount. In the last few years, some of the companies involved in the COMPRO survey procured a major number of clean buses, such as for instance ATAC Rome, that is going to reach the number of 400 CNG buses in 2008, and GTT Turin, that after the most recent procurement of 63 CNG Buses will soon operate a 285 vehicles CNG fleet. Other consolidated major CNG fleet circulate in Florence, Bologna, Padua, Bolzano, Ravenna and Perugia. As far as gas emission Euro standards are concerned, the bus fleet split in 2005 in Italy was the following:

Euro 0 Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Total in % 32 12 30 25 1 0 0 100

Source: Survey “ Buses and Investments 2005 “ carried out by ASSTRA, 2005 Also in this case, the bus fleet compositions have probably changed since 2005; more precisely, the number of still circulating EURO 0 is expected to have decreased since then, while the number of clean vehicles (especially EURO 4 and EEV) has probably increased. This consideration is based on the fact that in 2005 the percentage of scrapped vehicles was 7% of the total number of vehicles, while the new registrations - in the same year - reached 5% of the total (Source ASSTRA). Lastly regarding the age of buses one can notice that the fleets are quite old, which means that most of the buses will have to be changed soon. This might create opportunities to increase the share of clean vehicles.


Referring to technical specifications, namely those dealing with accessibility, a study conducted by UITP in 2005 on the basis of a national sample of 32 LT companies operating urban transport services with class I and II vehicles, shows that:

32

For Class I7: • 52% of urban and suburban buses are provided with total low floor, • 12% belong to the low floor bus typology featured by the EU Directive 2001/85/CE, • only 36% of class I buses are not provided with any kind of low floor. Class I bus split according to accessibility technologies (% - 2005):

52%

12%

36%low floor buses

floor buses according tothe UE Bus Directive 2001/85/CE

not provided with anykind of low floor.

Source: UITP, 2005. For Class II; • 26% are provided with total low floor, • 4% belong to the low floor bus typology featured by the EU Directive 2001/85/CE, • 70% are not provided with any kind of low floor.

Class II bus split according to accessibility technologies (%, 2005):

7 EU Directive 2001/85/EC defines vehicles with seated places and standing areas to allow frequent movement as Class I, and vehicles principally designed for carriage of seated passengers with some standing areas as Class II (UITP)

33

70%

26%

4%

low floor buses

low floor busesaccording to the UE BusDirective 2001/85/CE

not provided with anykind of low floor

Source: UITP, 2005 Referring to other equipment typologies, automatic wheel chair pallet are optioned more than the manual operated ones, since they seem to work quicker and less tiring for the driver. Low floors buses are generally equipped also with kneeling systems. Class I bus split according to different accessibility equipments:

Manual wheel chair pallet

Automatic wheel chair pallet

Kneeling

Low floor buses 13% 59% 79%

UE Directive low floor Buses 7% 54% 72% No low floor buses 0% 1% 1% Source : UITP, 2005 Class II bus split according to different accessibility equipments:

Manual wheel chair pallet

Automatic wheel chair pallet

Kneeling

Low floor buses 35% 45% 79%

UE Directive low floor Buses

11% 46% 35%

No low floor buses 0% 13% 1% Source : UITP, 2005 Only 46% of class I buses has dedicated space for wheel chairs; as far as class II buses are concerned the rate drops down to 27%.

34


The COMPRO RER’s survey highlights that in the next three-year period (2008-2010):

• Diesel will remain the leading fuel technology for almost all the interviewed companies, particularly with reference to the suburban service; • CNG will increase and be the mostly used alternative to diesel (some companies, such as ATAC Rome, plan to invest totally or almost totally in this technology); • Other fuel technologies, such as hybrid and electric, will remain marginal.

For the LPT companies which were contacted, it is usually difficult to provide definite procurement estimates in advance because the funds availability mainly depends on national and regional financing channels. As far as the following three-year period is concerned (2011-2013), the companies had even more problems in giving an accurate indication of their estimates. For those companies which were able to give such estimates referred to the period 2011-2013, diesel will remain the mostly used technology and CNG will still continue to represent a significant alternative. It is important to underline that some big Local Public Transport companies (such as for example ATC Bologna, ATM Milan) are thinking of considerably investing on hybrid during the above mentioned three-years’ period 2011-2013, presuming that at that time the hybrid technology will be ripe, both in terms of market costs and reliability.

f) How alternative technologies are perceived in Italy

As it has emerged from the interviews realized by RER for the COMPRO survey, the Italian LPT companies presently judge only two fuel technologies as capable of providing a service similar to that provided by diesel (both in terms of cost and performance): CNG and LPG. Between the two, CNG is considered the most convenient option. CNG technology is valued as a good alternative thanks to its autonomy and reliability, as well as to its limited polluting emissions. The fuel low cost contributes to make such technology competitive, since it requires, on the other hand, a first considerable investment (for filling stations, security systems in bus depots and machine shops) and generally has maintenance costs higher than those related to diesel. Hybrid buses are present in 9 companies’ bus fleets out of the 19 considered in the survey (included the 9 companies that operate in Regione Emilia-Romagna), but only in a limited number. Their presence can be considered experimental, and it must be said that in most cases the results were not so positive as it was expected; often the hybrid vehicles could not provide the needed service, had considerable reliability problems and consequently higher maintenance costs (by far above the average). Due to these negative experiences, the companies which were contacted do not consider the hybrid technology suitable for local public transport. Electric buses are present in many Italian towns’ bus fleets (10 out of the 19 companies interviewed own this kind of vehicle), but in a very limited number, as well. They are used to

35

cover short distances within the historical centers or the pedestrian areas because of the limited autonomy of the battery on the one side, and thanks to the absence of polluting emissions on the other one.

36

4. The Swedish situation


Public transport in Sweden is characterized by county-wise coordination under a Public Transport Authority (“PTA”), which is politically and financially responsible for all local and regional public transport within the county (the country is divided into 21 counties). As a general rule the PTA of each county is jointly owned by the local authorities and the county council. An exception is the County of Stockholm where the PTA is fully owned by the county. The most common form of supplying public transport services to customers is through procurement. Over 95 % of all local and regional public transport services in Sweden are procured under competition by the PTAs. The PTA is responsible for planning and taking care of the roads and the outdoor environment in the local area. The PTA implements the management strategies, defines the level of service and the fare policy, controls the investments of the traffic environment and oversees the operators’ assignments. The operators who gain their contracts through procurement have responsibilities for all the planning and operating of the local public transportation system, buying and taking care of the vehicles and the supply of tickets, time tables and information to the public. The final ticket prices are decided through cooperation between the PTA council, the PTA and the operator. The bus market is characterised by a few large companies: Swebus, Veolia Transport and Busslink account for almost 50 % of the total fleet, which consists of more than 13.000 buses. All three companies have a foreign majority owner and are engaged in contracts all over the country. On the other hand, there is a large number of smaller companies. For example, 1,450 bus companies have only 1 – 9 buses and operate mostly locally. Smaller companies often hand in a joint bid at procurements. 80 % of the bus companies are private. The largest public company is “Göteborgs Spårvagnar” operating about 400 buses and the entire tramway traffic system in Gothenburg. The major Public Transport Companies, autumn 2007:

Company Numbers of buses Swebus 2450 Busslink 1550 Veolia Transport 1300 Göteborgs Spårvägar 405 Bergkvarabuss 500 Orusttrafiken 400 Arriva 367 KR-Trafik 220 Gamla Uppsala Buss 150 Västerås Lokaltrafik 150 Borås Lokaltrafik 140

37

Source: http://www.bussbranschen.se, Statistik om bussbranschen 2008,(Svenska Bussbranschens Riksförbund), 12th of Feb 2008. Since 2003, there has been a concentration in companies operating public service transportation systems to a few transnational companies operating in several European countries; Keolis, Veolia Transport and Swebus. Number of bus companies 2003-2006:

Companies Year 2003

Year 2004

Year 2005

Year 2006

Bus companies in public service transportation

401 387 378 343

Charter bus companies etc 480 488 492 506 Total 881 875 870 849 Source: ibid As for the manufacturers, Volvo is the most often selected by companies with almost 40 % of the market. Manufactures’ share of sold buses8:

Vehicle Share of the market in 2007 Kässbohrer-Setra 12,0 %

Mercedes-Benz 5,7 %

Neoplan 5,2 %

Scania 16,5 %

Volvo 41,7 %

Others 18,8 %

Total 100,0 Source: http://www.bilsweden.se, Press release from BilSweden ”Definitiva nyregistreringar under 2007” , dated 7th of Jan 2008, (BilSweden).


In Sweden there is a political environmental consensus. The local authorities follow the main course set by the Government and the Parliament. The Minister for Environment has recently stated the importance of reducing the CO2 emissions from vehicles, with the idea that “polluters must pay for their impact on the environment”, through the use of several energy taxes such as carbon dioxide taxation. 8 Only buses with weight over 10 tons are counted.

38

From their side, the Swedish road administration, responsible for the environmental impact of the road transport system, and the Swedish rail administration, responsible for the rail transport system in Sweden (including underground railways and light rail systems) have very recently issued a report, which encourages the “decrease in the use of fossil fuels”. Finally, the Swedish Public Transport Association (SLTF), the trade association for local and regional public transport in Sweden, has issued a report called “Bus 2000”, which describes what requirements the public transport authorities should have on buses in regular traffic, in a view to create increased uniformity. In this report, the SLTF recommends local traffic service companies to have tougher environmental requests in their procurements. The aim of the Swedish Public Transport Association’s new environmental programme is to have at least 40% of the local service traffic buses using non-fossil fuels (such as biogas and ethanol) by the year 2012 and to increase that number to 90% by the year 2020. These fuels are indeed competitive in price with diesel, which gives the economical opportunity to replace diesel in buses. At the same time there should be efforts made to decrease the fuel use at a whole, to fill up the buses with passengers and make more people leave their cars at home. To sum up, the general tendency in Sweden is to decrease the use of fossil fuels in general, with a special emphasize put on diesel, and to increase the use of non fossil fuels such as biogas and ethanol.

c) Fleet overview

(1) General overview

According to SCB (The Central Bureau for Statistics) there were 13600 buses in use 2007 in the public service transportation system. In 2006 the buses were travelling in the counties with a total distance of 923 430 570 km (counted on all kinds of buses, 16081 buses). An average distance for each bus was 57420 km.9 Approximately 8 600 buses were bought by the public service transportation companies to be used in the public service transportation system. 10 In 2006 there were 343 companies running the public service transportation and 506 charter bus companies, taxi companies (using minibuses)etc., a total of 849 companies in Sweden using buses in their daily work. 11

As for the fuels, in 2007, 9, 7 % of the buses in the public transportation service were using renewable fuels (814 of 8426 buses). Even though most buses still use diesel the share of

9 SCB: Statistisk årsbok för Sverige 2008 (SCB, Statistiska centralbyrån, The Central Bureau for Statistics), 12th of Feb 2008. http://www.sika-institute.se (SIKA, Statens Institut för Kommunikationsanalys, The State’s Institute for Communication analyses, 12th of Feb 2008.http://www.bussbranschen.se, (Svenska Bussbranschens Riksförbund), 12th of Feb 2008. http://frida.port.se, (Fordons- och miljödatabasen Frida, a database for vehicles) 12th of Feb 2008. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

39

renewable fuels has increased since 2005 when only 7, 9 % of buses were using either biogas or ethanol. 12

There is a tendency for more clean technology as the last buses bought by the companies are belonging to the classification types Euro 3, Euro 4 and Euro 5. The emission of CO2 has slightly decreased from 2005 (average of 1007 g/km) to 2007 (average of 1004 g/km). 13

In summary, for the year 200714:

Diesel CNG LPG Hybrid Electric Biogas Ethanol Other Total in % 86,60% 3,70% 0 0 0 4,40% 5,30% 0 100%

in n° of buses 7298 314 - - - 369 445 - 8426

In terms of Euro norms:

Euro 0 Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 Other Total in % 1 5,5 24,1 37 23,6 5,1 3,7 100

(2) Overview of the fleet in the main Swedish counties

The 21 counties of Sweden have a bus fleet with an average age of 6, 2 years. In the next few years many of them might have to be replaced. The main fuel type used today is diesel but methane gas (CNG) is more used in the east (Stockholm, Södermanland, Uppsala) and in the west regions (Västra Götaland), but also in the middle of Sweden (Västmanland and Östergötland). CNG use is concentrated in the areas of the bigger towns such as the capital, Stockholm, and Göteborg in the west, situated in the county Västra Götaland. In these regions there is a development of infrastructure and production of CNG, mainly biogas. The buses are for the most part belonging to the classification Euro2, Euro 3 and Euro 4. Euro 5 is still not so much in use but has started to take a bigger part of the fleet in the west (Halland, Örebro, Västra Götaland) and in the east in Uppsala county and up in the north in the county of Västernorrland. Overview of the bus fleet in the counties concerning average age and fuel.

County Numbers of buses Average age Diesel Ethanol Methane gas

Blekinge 121 1,7 121 x x

Dalarna 273 5,6 255 18 x

Gotland 9 5,9 9 x x

Gävleborg 206 5,6 206 x x

12 http://frida.port.se, (Fordons- och miljödatabasen Frida, a database for vehicles), 12th of Feb 2008. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

40

Halland 131 6 120 11 x

Jämtland 173 6,4 x 3 x

Jönkoping 228 6,5 228 x x

Kalmar 214 7,4 214 x x

Kronoberg 221 7,2 221 x x

Norrbotten 263 7,4 255 8 x

Skåne 880 6 363 517 x

Stockholm 2045 7,7 1614 380 51

Södermanland 233 5,6 219 x 14

Uppsala 368 6,6 326 2 40

Värmland 307 6,2 307 x x

Västerbotten 320 7,1 299 21 x

Västernorrland 297 5,8 282 15 x

Västmanland 144 7,4 104 x 40

Västra Götaland 1560 5,6 1421 17 122

Örebro 235 6,2 235 x x

Östergötland 349 7 260 x 89

Total 8577 6,2 7314 992 356 Source: ibid Overview of the bus fleet in the counties, according to classification types.

County Older than

Euro 0 Euro 0 Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5

No specification

s

Blekinge x x x x 11,6 %

14 86,8 %

105 x 1,6 % 2

Dalarna x x 6,2 %

17 31,5 %

86 23,8 %

65 37 % 101 x 1,5 %

4

Gotland x x x 33,3 %

3 22,2 %

2 44,4 %

4 x x

Gävleborg x x 2,4 %

5 7,8 %

16 58,3 %

120 30,1 %

62 1,5 %

3 x

Halland 2,3 %

3 x x 9,2 % 12

54,2 % 71

6,9 % 9

27,5 % 36 x

Jämtland 1,7 %

3 0,6 %

1 4,6 %

8 24,3 %

42 44,5 %

77 22 %

38 0,6 %

1 1,7 %

3

Jönkoping 1,3 %

3 x 2,2 % 5

28,9 % 66

57,9 % 132

6,6 % 15

3,1 % 7 x

Kalmar 5,1 %

11 0,9 %

2 4,7 %

10 10,3 %

22 51,9 %

111 19,6 %

42 0,9 %

2 6,5 %

14

Kronoberg 2,7 %

6 x 17,6 % 39

22,6 % 50

42,5 % 94

9 % 20

2,7 % 6

2,7 % 6

Norrbotten 2,7 %

7 2,7 %

7 1,9 %

5 28,9 %

76 54,8 %

144 5,3 %

14 1,5 %

4 2,3 %

6

Skåne 0,9 %

8 0,8 %

7 1,8 %

16 19,5 %

17 22,7 %

200 46,9 %

413 6,5 %

57 0,8 %

7

41

Stockholm x 1,6 %

33 6,6 % 135

33,3 % 681

39,2 % 802

10,8 % 220

0,2 % 4

7,9 % 161

Söder- manland

1,3 % 3

0,4 % 1

3 % 7

16,3 % 38

51,5 % 120

25,8 % 60

1,7 % 4 x

Uppsala 3,5 %

13 2,2 %

8 20,9 %

77 18,2 %

67 15,8 %

58 19,6 %

72 16,8 %

62 3 % 11

Värmland 0,7 %

2 1,3 %

4 6,2 %

19 17,9 %

55 58 % 178

12,1 % 37

1 % 3

2,9 % 9

Väster- botten

2,5 % 8

2,5 % 8

11,6 % 37

29,4 % 94

44,1 % 141

2,5 % 8

4,1 % 13

3,4 % 11

Väster- norrland

1,3 % 4

1,3 % 4

3 % 9

22,2 % 66

53,5 % 159

7,1 % 21

9,4 % 28

2 % 6

Väst- manland

x x 2,1 % 3

28,5 % 41

11,1 % 16

51,4 % 74

6,9 % 10 x

Västra Götaland

x 0,1 % 2

2,7 % 42

20,2 % 315

27,9 % 436

37,8 % 589

11,3 % 176 x

Örebro x 0,4 %

1 0,9 %

2 37,9 %

89 40 %

94 9,8 %

23 9,4 %

22 1,7 %

4

Öster- götland

x 0,6 % 2

10 % 35

21,2 % 74

38,7 % 135

28,9 % 101

0,6 % 2 x

Total 0,8 %

71 1,0 %

80 5,5 % 471

24,1 % 2065

37,0 % 3169

23,6 % 2028

5,1 % 440

2,9 % 246

Source: ibid


Technical specifications of trams and buses in 2008

Buses Trams Numbers of buses/trams 8548 256 Equipment Alcohol-locks for drivers 21% 8,60% Fire-fighting equipment in the engine space 31,30% x Safety belts for passengers 39,80% x Camera surveillance 17,70% 91,40% Low floor 59,30% 47,70% Access ramp 44,20% 14,10% Lift 7% 0,80% Dedicated space for wheel chairs 65,20% 51,20% Internal automatic call for next stop 49,10% 100% Internal information data screen 55,60% 51,20% Dedicated space for baby prams 88% 100%

Source: ibid The average age of the buses has increased in the last few years from 5, 8 years in 2005 to 6, 7 in 2007. At the same time the demands for accessibility and security have improved and developed the systems and the equipment with the extra effect of a more positive attitude towards the public transportation system as a whole from both passengers, people in general and the crew of drivers and technicians.

42

Security for the passengers and drivers has increased with installation of safety belts for passengers and alcohol-locks for the drivers. The number of buses with safety belts has grown from 29, 6 % in 2005 to 39, 6 % in 2007 and with alcohol-locks from 3, 4 % in 2005 up to 20, 6 % in 2007. Fire-fighting equipment in the engine space has increased from 29,5 % in 2005 to 31,3 % in 2008. As an answer to the unfortunately increasing situations for the passengers and the drivers with robbery, abuse and threats the companies now install cameras for surveillance and try to make the working environment for the drivers as safe as possible. Camera surveillance in buses has increased from 8,3 % in 2005 to 17,7 % in 2008. Inn trams over 90 % have cameras. The working space have been enclosed with partly glass or plastic walls which allows the driver to be in a safety area where it is difficult for others to touch her/him and at the same time have a chance to see what is going on around the driver. The collecting of money have also started to be much more restricted and will most probably in the next ten years disappear from the drivers’ job assignments, at least in the city buses. Passengers will have to buy tickets in offices or shops and new systems of tickets have started to be used, such as SMS-tickets and money loading system over the internet, with good results and positive experiences. The need for accessibility has change the bus equipment from 2005 to in 2008. Many people with disabilities and with baby prams find it hard to travel with the public transportation vehicles due to lack of space and boarding accessibility. Dedicated space for wheel chairs exists in 65 % of the buses today. But dedicated space for baby prams has decreased from 95, 7 % in 2005 to 88 % in 2008. Low floor existed in 65, 8 % of the buses in 2005 and in 59, 3 % 2008. Access ramps could be used in 49, 4 % of the buses in 2005 and in 44, 2 % 2008. Lifts existed in 3, 7 % of the buses in 2005 and in 7 % 2008. For trams the numbers are lower with 51,2 % of the trams having space for wheel chairs and internal information data screens. But the trams have space for baby prams and internal automatic calls for the next stop in 100 % of the trams. The local authorities have been working with national and local organisations for people with disabilities and the result is positive as there is now a bigger concern for the accessibility needs of different kinds. The co-operation has also had the effect of increasing the information for people in general. The need for gaining information of where to get off has developed the information system. Internal automatic call for bus stops has increased from 30, 4 % in 2005 to 49, 1 % in 2008. Internal information data screens existed in 42, 8 % of the buses in 2005 and in 55, 6 % in 2008 which is slightly higher then for the trams where only 51, 2 % have data screens.


In Sweden diesel will remain the leading fuel technology for a few years. CNG will increase and be the mostly used alternative to diesel. In many of the big cities CNG will be the only used fuel technology in about the year 2020. Biogas will be the most used CNG and will be local produced and in many places it is already used for local energy supply. Other fuel technologies, such as hybrid and electric, will remain marginal. To illustrate this trend, the case of Stockholm, where the main operator, now operating a fleet where 75% of the buses are running on diesel, will have 50% of the buses using non fossil fuels by 2011 and 100% running on biofuel by 2025.

43

The same phenomenon can be observed in other places as well: in the county of Östergötland for instance, 95 % of the city buses use biogas and the rest of the city buses and long distance buses run on diesel. The city of Östersund has 30 buses running on diesel and the aim is to have them all running on ethanol by the year 2011. In the county of Skåne 90 % of the main operator Skånetrafiken buses are currently running on diesel and 10 % (410 buses) on CNG but the goal for 2015 is to have all buses running on biogas. In the cities of the county Skåne 90 % of the buses use CNG and in some towns 100 % of the fleet use biogas. Malmö and Lund use CNG buses and plan for biogas use only. The city buses of Helsingör, Landskrona and Hässleholm will have all their buses running on biogas in a few years. The city buses of Kristianstad and Eslöv use 100 % locally produced biogas.


CNG is a technology highly valued for its limited polluting emissions. The development of CNG production is increasing and so the fuel cost will decrease and can be competitive to diesel. Biogas is mostly used in these projects but also hydrogen gas is developing. The infrastructure is building up a stabile ground for the future fuel distribution network. Today more filling stations are being built and they will provide not only fuel but also more working opportunities which is looked upon in a positive way from both politicians and the public. Electric vehicles are in a more peripheral situation. There are not many loading stations in the cities where this kind of vehicles could be in more use. With no security concerning the loading accessibility system the whole industry of electric vehicles are more or less looked upon with sceptical minds from the public. But with new car models coming, in a more sporty fashion, the interest for electric vehicles has increased. Another positive thing with electric vehicles is the noise reduction which is a problem of concern in the cities. The big problems to overcome for the electric technology are the price for the battery, the price for the electricity to load the battery with and the estimated running time/distance for one “loading” is considered as too short, only a few km. Hybrid buses are not in general use but the technology is seen as interesting as it gives alternatives in case one of the fuels are lacking accessibility in one area then the vehicle can still be in use, running on the other fuel type. The choice of fuel is connected with the general demand for new solutions allowing to meet the obstacles and threats of climate change. In several counties there is a increased use and demand for non fossil energy. The development of district heating systems also raise the need for local produced energy such as windmills, solar energy, wave energy and biogas production. Many municipalities have set up goals in their local strategies for decreasing the CO2 emissions with more than the 38 % the government has declared to be the national goal to be reached in 2020. The EU has set the goal to 20 %. The municipality of Markaryd has the highest demand with a goal of 50 % decreased CO2 emissions levels from 2005 to 2010. In the municipality of Växjö they have already decreased the emission level with 30 % from 1993 to 2006 and are now working for reaching another 20 %

44

less emission level in 2010. The capital of Sweden, Stockholm, has taking the decision of not using any fossil fuel at all in 2050. To reach their goals the municipalities not only work with the transportation fuels but also with energy supplies, consumption, food and travels with aero planes.15 Finally, there is a health concern among the people. In a new survey16 diesel has been found to effect the brain in a negative way even in small doses and many people are concerned about the type of fuel used in their own and in public transportation vehicles.

15 “Kommuner minskar utsläppen mer än EU-målen”, Dagens Nyheter, 18th of March 2008. 16 “Dieselgaser påverkar hjärnan”, Dagens Nyheter, 14th of March 2008

45

5. Synthesis of the 4 countries panorama

In terms of technologies in use and euro norms, the 4 partner countries show the following trends: Share of the different technologies

Share of Euro norms

However, for these two graphs, data has to be interpreted carefully as the year of reference differs from country to country. In terms of general trends over the 4 partner countries, the following elements can be observed: In France:

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Sweden2007

Germany2006

Italy2005

France2006

OtherBiofuelBiogasElectricHybridLPGCNG (natural gas)Diesel

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Sweden06/07

Germany2008

Italy 2005

France2006

otherEuro 4, 5 and EEVEuro 3Euro 2Euro 1Euro 0

46

- There is an increase in the use of “clean”17 vehicles: +57% in 6 years - The technical options most commonly selected are diesel with particle filters then CNG (10%

of national fleet), which is regarded as a mature option; - Other options are less preferred at the time but there is an increasing interest in hybrid; - Bio-fuels are a controversial option. Italy: - Over the next years, diesel will remain the leading fuel technology, particularly with

reference to the suburban service. - CNG will increase and be the most used alternative to diesel (some companies, such as

ATAC Rome, plan to invest totally or almost totally in this technology). - Other fuel technologies, such as hybrid and electric, will remain marginal. Sweden: - There is a strong political environmental concern in Sweden, leading to specific choices

differing from the general trends observed in the other partner countries, in particular through the use of non fossil fuels.

- Non fossil fuels (biogas and ethanol) will indeed be dramatically increasing over the next years, the objective being to have 40% of the local service traffic bus fleet running on these fuels by 2012.

Germany: - The country is characterised by a large majority of diesel buses: 97,8% of national fleet - 60% of all diesel buses are equipped with particle filters; - Few CNG buses are in use, only representing 2,2% of the total bus fleet; - There is a strong political tendency to encourage the extension in number of hybrid buses

(medium term) and to discourages the use of CNG, which added value compared to clean diesel buses is not seen as relevant.

17 According to the UTP definition: particle filters, biofuel, water diesel emulsion (eg Aquazole® or Gecam®), CNG, LPG, electric, hybrid. .

47

C. Other European countries

1. General overview in European Countries

The UITP conducted a survey on the bus and trolley bus fleet operated within EU cities of over 100 000 inhabitants, with reference to the year 2005, on a sample of 170 cities totalling a fleet of 70 000 buses. The results of the survey show the following elements:

a) Fleet overview

Diesel is the fuel most in use among EU bus fleet: according to the survey18, over 90% of the urban bus fleet is diesel powered, 68% of which using low sulphur or ultra low sulphur diesel (maximum content of particles in the fuel of respectively 50 ppm or 10 ppm). The use of CNG accounts for 4,1% of the European bus fleet (see table below). Even though the ecological balance sheet of this fuel is extremely positive, the additional procurement costs for these vehicles are still between 20 and 25%, whereby these extra costs do not include the often high investments for fixed equipment. List of cities (which replied to the UITP survey) where CNG buses are used:

Salzburg Duisburg Braga Austria Vienna Köln

Portugal Lisbon

Gand Wuppertal San Sebastian Brussels Rostock Sevilla Belgium Antwerp Düsseldorf Almeria

Bulgaria Sofia Bremen Alcala de Henares

Aarhus

Germany

Saarbrücken Madrid Denmark Copenhagen Greece Athens Getafe

Estonia Tallinn Hungary Debrecen Bilbao Estonia Tartu Turin

Spain

Barcelona Le Havre Forli Örebro

Montpellier Rome VÄSTERÅS Besançon Vicenza Uppsala

Angers

Italy

Milan

Sweden

Göteborg Saint-Etienne Netherlands The Hague Cardiff

France

Strasbourg Krakow Nottingham

Poland Bialystok

UK Leicester

LPG is heavily used in Austria (100% of buses in Vienna) but only accounts for 1,7% of the bus fleet at a European scale. LPG vehicles being some 15 to 20% more expensive than diesel vehicles and requiring also high initial investments, adoption of this technology is a direct consequence of financial support from the local authority.

48

Bio-diesel is used by 29% of the bus fleet in Luxemburg, 18% in Austria (mainly Graz) and 6% in Spain. The use of biogas is negligible, except in Sweden (3,4%). The use of electricity amounts to a total of 0,3%, with a proportion of electric buses in Italy 5 times higher than the average of the whole sample. The total proportion of other fuels (ethanol, various diesel / bio-diesel mixtures, fuel cells) is less than 0,5%. Hybrid buses (mainly diesel – electric) represent 0,25% of the total bus fleet in the sample. With respectively 8% and 1%, Luxembourg and Italy are forerunners in the use of hybrid buses.

b) Euro standards

The survey stated that the most frequent categories in use were Euro 2 and Euro 3 (2/3 of buses), Euro 2 being the most frequent standard in 11 countries whereas Euro 3 was the most frequent standard in 8 countries. It is also worth noting that almost 60% of the Austrian fleet complies with EEV standards (LPG buses), the second best result achieved being Sweden with 4,5% of its buses.

c) Future trends

As the survey was carried out with reference to the year 2005, the answers given as future trends (2006-2008 period) rather give an overview of the current situation in Europe. Indeed, the planned acquisitions for the period were mainly directed toward CNG (48% opting for CNG, i.e. a higher percentage than for diesel : 43%), with smaller percentage toward biodiesel (9%), biogas and hybrid (4%), showing that CNG is currently becoming the best option for buses over Europe.

2. Case studies:

a) State of the Art of the bus fleet in a “new” Member State: Romania

Romania has a population of 22 million inhabitants. The scope of the Romanian cities is the following: • 28 municipalities with less than 150.000 inhabitants each • 13 municipalities with less than 500.000 inhabitants each • 1 municipality (Bucharest) with more than 500.000 inhabitants. The diversity in terms of fuel technology in use on the bus market is a lot lower than in the other countries studied in this report. Indeed, neither CNG nor Hybrid PT vehicles can yet be found on the market, even though Romanian research initiatives for these two technologies are planned

49

to start by 2007/2008. . The only alternative technology currently in use is biofuel, in a view to meet the objective set by the EU of a 5 percent market share by 2010. Thus, talking about buses and minibuses, the almost only technology in use is Diesel.

b) State of the art of the bus market in an “old” Member State: the United Kingdom19:

(1) Market organization

In London, Transport for London (which is accountable to the Mayor) specifies in detail what services are provided. TfL decides the routes, timetables, and fares – everything down to the colour of the buses. The services themselves are operated by private companies through a competitive tendering process. There is no on-road competition. TfL operate some 8,200 buses throughout London have made significant moves towards the introduction of low carbon buses and has set the following strategy:

• December 2008 60 Hybrid buses • March 2010 100 Hybrid buses • March 2011 100 Hybrid buses • March 2012 100 Hybrid buses

From 2012 all bus purchases will be hybrid technology. In addition TfL has currently got on order a further 10 buses based upon low carbon technologies; these vehicles are based on fuel cell/hybrid platforms and are expected for deliver between 2009 and 2010. The first phase of vehicles ordered for December 2008 deliver are based on a variety of technology platforms and will be subjected to intense scrutiny through early 2009; the purpose of this is to establish the most appropriate technology solution for London. Once this has been established then this technology platform will be used as the basis for future tenders. TfL is unique in that they have the ability to influence their supply chain directly as all routes are regulated and this means that TfL are able to determine the vehicles being used across the fleet. The 2012 Olympics aren’t expected to have an impact in interest in low carbon buses as TfL will be providing bus transport. There is however interest outside London to encourage the up take of low carbon buses. LowCVP are currently conducting a feasibility study to assess the potential in this area. In the rest of Great Britain20 it is a free market – anyone (subject to minimum safety and operating standards) can start up a bus service. Bus operators are free to run whatever services they like, charge whatever fares they like, and use what vehicles they like. Monitoring and regulation of reliability and vehicle cleanliness is minimal. Although in theory it is a competitive market, in reality most bus services are provided by five large companies who rarely compete directly against each other.

19 Jonathan Murray, Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership 20 In Northern Ireland, bus services are regulated.

50

Since 1968 seven Passenger Transport Authorities have been created by statutory instrument:

- Greater Manchester - Merseyside (now operating under the name of ‘Merseytravel’) - South Yorkshire; - Strathclyde (operating as a Regional Transport Partnership) - Tyne and Wear (now operating under the name of ‘Nexus’) - West Midlands (now operating under the name of ‘Centro’) - West Yorkshire (now operating under the name of ‘Metro’)

In these PTE areas the big five bus companies – Arriva, National Express, First, Go-Ahead and Stagecoach – operate about 90% of services. Local transport authorities are only allowed to fill in gaps where there is an inadequate commercial service. Where bus routes are socially necessary but not economic, local authorities can put routes out to tender. Some 15% of bus routes outside London are allocated this way. Specific routes such as Park and Ride routes are also put out to tender by local authorities. The tender specification can set conditions concerning the provision of the service. A careful balance is needed as, however, as too stringent conditions such as insisting on low carbon buses, might generate a Judicial Review. These local authority funded routes are operated by private companies through a competitive tendering process.

(2) Tendencies in terms of fuel technology

CNG: Between 1995 and 2003 there was a number of trials of natural gas, LPG and battery electric buses. Approximately 100 LPG buses went into service mainly in Park & Ride services at airports and regional cities. Three large trials of CNG buses were undertaken in Southampton, Birmingham and Peterborough, these numbered less than 40 buses in total. A small number of battery electric buses went into service in Liverpool as part of the Jupiter Project. The fiscal regime in the UK is not helpful to gas buses and so interest in this area reduced, there is a possibility this could start again as the fiscal regime is under review. While battery problems with electric buses stopped wider interest in this technology.

Hybrid: Following a Department for Transport (DfT) led requirement for a “low carbon bus” the Low Carbon Vehicles Partnership Bus Working Group (LowCVP Bus WG) devised a hybrid test protocol and a means of comparison to standard diesel buses. The definition was that such a bus should produce 30% less CO2 when compared to an equivalent standard Euro 3 diesel bus on the Millbrook London Transport Bus chassis dynamometer test cycle (MLTB). This led to activity by some of the UK bus suppliers to produce prototypes to demonstrate the fuel saving and reliability. The Mayor of London, through TfL, then announced a target that all new buses entering service in to London by 2012 should be “low carbon” (circa 500 per annum) ramping up from an initial batch of 50 during 2008.

51

UK suppliers’ initial responses were mixed whereby only ADL and Wrightbus from the OEMs produced prototypes at that time and only WrightBus translated that into batch supply. A single-decker type, the “Electrocity” went into service from 8 February 2006 in London on route 360 between Elephant and Castle and Kensington operated by Go-Ahead. A total of 6 units were delivered. Table 1: Overview of UK Low Carbon & Hybrid Bus Trials:

Manufacturer Type Operator Date of commencement & duration / status

Fleet Route Location

Mercedes-Benz

Citaro H2FC

First January 2005

3 years

3 RV1 Tower Bridge – Covent Garden

Wrightbus Electrocity SD

Go-Ahead February 2006

current

6 360 London: Elephant & Castle - Kensington

Wrightbus Pulsar Gemini DD

Arriva March 2007

demonstrator

1 141 London: Palmers Green – London Bridge

Wrightbus Optare Solo SD retrofit

Merseytravel current 1 S2 Liverpool: city centre shuttle

Traction Technology

Optare Solo SD retrofit

Epsom Coaches Quality Line

current 1 S1 London: Banstead - Mitcham

Traction Technology


Merseytravel current 1 S2 Liverpool : city centre shuttle

Traction Technology


Ipswich Buses

May 2007

current

1 Free Shuttle Bus

Ipswich: city centre shuttle

Designline Olymbus Stagecoach July 2005 10 Q1 Newcastle:

52

North-East current Quayside – Gateshead Interchange

53

3. The contribution of the COMPRO questionnaire

a) Methodology

In order to gather more information on European cities practices and expectations in the field of clean vehicles and public procurement, the partners have launched a questionnaire to a database of more than 200 cities over the EU. The questionnaire was divided in several categories (see annex 2): - A part dedicated to the network profile: how many operators and services provided; - A part describing the local transport network, in terms of modes, kilometres, passengers; - A part more focused on the bus fleet: euro norms, manufacturers, energy - A part dedicated to the bus purchasing processes and experiences, to identify the key

players and the obstacles to the purchase of clean vehicles; - A last part enquiring about future purchasing intentions for the bus fleet in terms of energy,

euro norms, etc. Because the first launch had given few results, other solutions were implemented to promote the questionnaire: - An increase in the number of contacts in the database, thanks to partners contribution and

the support of several networks among which the UITP; - A promotion of the project and the questionnaire by the UITP (article on the UITP website); - An individualized launch of the questionnaire to partners’ personal contacts in different

European cities. Despite all these efforts, the COMPRO partners were only able to receive a few answers to the questionnaire: Number of questionnaires per country

Number of inhabitants represented

France; 6

Italy; 11

Poland; 1

Portugal; 1

Spain; 1

Sw eden; 3

UK; 2

54

05

3

6

11

Less than 50.000

51.000 – 150.000 151.000 – 250.000

251.000 – 500.000

More than 500.000

Fuel technologies in use in the bus fleets

Diesel CNG Hybrid Electric Other

Clermont Ferrand France 120 60 0 0 0

Larochelle France 0 n/c n/c n/c 0 Lorient France 95 0 0 0 0 Metz France 187 n/c n/c n/c 0 Poitiers France 65 60 0 0 0

Toulouse France 400 n/c n/c n/c 0 Bolzano Italy 75 71 0 0 0 Firenze Italy 273 144 0 26 0 Genova Italy 750 9 0 8 22 Milano Italy 1405 0 0 0 0 Modena Italy 374 n/c n/c n/c 0 Napoli Italy 741 26 22 10 0 Padova Italy 260 94 2 0 0

Perugia (Region) Italy 250 75 0 9 12 Roma Italy 2308 363 12 80 0 Torino Italy 823 285 0 23 0 Trentino Italy 703 36 3 0 0 Craiova Poland 180 0 0 0 0 Funchal Portugal 259 0 0 4 0

Barcelona Spain 1540 170 0 0 3

55

Malardalen Sweden 558 0 0 0 52

Norrköping Sweden 7 0 0 0 0 Cardiff UK 0 0 0 0 0

b) Lessons learnt and next steps

Inside the COMPRO project, the launch of the questionnaire and the collection of the data has been a difficult process, despite the partners repeated effort. Several sources of explanation can be found. On the one hand, the multiplication of cities networks and associations increases the frequency of such solicitations and time to answer is difficult to find. Furthermore, the COMPRO initiative is quite unusual and the questionnaire, even if it was kept simple, was too long and addressed several topics at the same time (technical, quantitative data but also relation between operator and organising authority, public procurement procedures, etc.). This made it difficult for one single person to have access to all the data required and therefore to answer all questions. In fact, in many cases, the questionnaire was not entirely filled. Taking this analysis into account, a new simplified questionnaire has been recently launched (see annex 3), which focuses only on the bus fleet description in terms of euro norms and fuelling technology and on the prospects for the future. By refocusing on the core issues for COMPRO, this new version should allow to obtain full and harmonized information. A new version of the present report will therefore be produced in the light of the new results obtained. However, even if not sufficient, the feedback received so far and the difficulty to obtain it in itself provide precious indications. Regarding technologies, the majority of bus fleet in Europe are diesel powered, with the expanding use of particle filters. CNG buses are then the first option in terms of alternative technologies. Even without precise figures, there is a clear perception of the fact that most cities are wondering what the right choices are in terms of fuelling technologies for current and future purchases. In this sense, there is a strong trend toward diversification of fuelling systems, be it CNG, biogas, biofuel, hybrid.. The questionnaire has also had few answers regarding purchase and procurement processes. This is mainly due to the fact, as mentioned above, that it corresponds to different services. There might be as well some reluctance to communicate on this topic. Therefore, it will be of first importance of the COMPRO project to specifically address the topic as a common procurement implies common or at least compatible procedures. To exchange on juridical matters can be as vital as exchanges on technical questions. Indeed, to succeed in bringing together technicians and jurists could be one of the COMPRO project successes. Questionnaires also bring information on one point: local authorities are mainly responsible for the purchasing decision, be it directly or through operating societies. In fact, even though

56

operators are mainly working under a private status, they often have a mixed capital or a totally public capital. However, national and regional incentive policies encouraging the purchase of clean vehicles differ a lot from one country to another. Finally, there might be no need to focus on one specific technical prescription in terms of energy selection as this diversification and experimentation can be strongly observed in many European cities. The political support is therefore the main element in the renewal of the European bus fleet to the benefit of clean buses. It is even more vital to the possibility for several cities to buy clean buses in common.

57

Conclusion The end of the COMPRO project first phase, i.e. the State of the Art, materialized through the organization of a workshop dedicated to clean technologies for buses in general, with a focus on CNG and hybrid technologies. This workshop, held in Nantes, brought together about 90 participants coming from different European countries. Several interventions were made by manufacturers, operators and organizing authorities, NGO and networks in the field of transport and environment. The speakers related their experiences in the field of clean technologies and their views for the future. The high attendance of the workshop and the interest it triggered can be considered as a good omen for the next steps of the COMPRO project. Furthermore, the manufacturers’ interventions on more technical aspects of CNG and hybrid development confirmed the validity of the choice made by the COMPRO partners. Although the first meeting of the COMPRO Procurement Management Group21 deliberated that the analysis of a common procurement in Europe will proceed following a ‘neutral approach’, the results obtained while assessing the European State of the Art of clean technologies were indeed precious. They provide not only for an overview of the alternative fuels mostly used in the various European countries but also, most importantly, the political and market tendencies for the future. They also express the differences existing in the local and national market organisation and in terms of roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in the purchasing of the bus fleets. In conclusion, the market and legislative fragmentation resulting from the State of the Art analysis confirms the reason that led to the submission of the COMPRO project, in particular the idea that those are the main problems facing the successful introduction of clean vehicles and fuels and that something needs to be made at European level.

21 The Procurement Management Group (PMG) is an Advisory Board of the COMPRO project composed of representatives from the motor industry, local authorities, public transport operators, NGOs, National Ministries. The aim of the Group is to give advice to the project members so that the activities undertaken remain in line with the real market expectations.

58

Annexes

59

Annex 1: Partners questionnaire

60

COMmon PROcurement of collective and public service transport clean vehicles (COMPRO)

CLEAN BUSES MARKET - STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS

Organising Authority name - address - phone number - email inhabitants in the area Network kind of services : metro - tramway - bus - others : short description number of lines kms/year - journeys/year

rolling stocks : number of vehicles by category, by energy and by manufacturer

Operator (s) number of operators name - address - phone number - email (by operator)

Clean buses description of each kind of clean buses (use the following items for each category)

articulated - standard - minibus energy - euro norm manufacturer and model technical specifications number (by type/by energy/by model-manufacturer) Bus Fleet - purchasing between AO/Operator : who define : energy choice category of vehicle

61

number and specifications what are the AO missions in the purchasing process what are the Operator missions in the purchasing process FOR THE FOLLOWING PART OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE FULFIL IT FOR EACH GROUP OR CATEGORY OF CLEAN BUS PURCHASED

Description of the group or category of clean bus purchased (main elements) description Call for tender process what were the 3 main reasons of the choice of this energy/technology what were the 3 main uncertainties accepted at this moment

describe this call for tender process (legal obligations ; duration ; main phases…)

list of specifications required replies obtained : did you have enough replies ? did the replies respect the speficiations required ? did the replies respect the prices expected ? did the replies respect the time allowed for delivering the buses ? Operation phase technical aspects

delivery period : respected or not ? (if not why ? And number of months more)

legal authorization to operate : easy to obtain ? (if not why? And problems encountered)

fiability rate at the beginning of operation : normal or not ? (if not why?) employees entertainment : particularity economical aspects cost by bus over-cost (in comparison with diesel bus) modification of the depot : over-cost by bus Evaluation environmental aspects pollutant emissions : do you have a local evaluation process ? if yes : are the results in accordance with the datas expected ? energy saving : energy used (in KW/hour) per km difference with diesel bus marketing impacts users perception : are the results in accordance with the objectives ?

62

citizen perception : are the results in accordance with the objectives ? economical impacts energy cost / km - difference with diesel bus maintenance cost / km - difference with diesel bus regulation aspects

after launching the operation phasehave you been confronted with a regulation problem (rules, norms…) ?

if yes can you explain what kind of problem and their impacts operational impacts

do this clean buses choice have (or had) an impact on the conditions to operate the network ? (can you explain)

Prospects what kind of clean energy/technology do you expected to choose : during the next 3 years (and number by category of vehicle)

after the next 3 years and before the 6th next years (number by category of vehicle)

63

Annex 2 : Table of main German operators and fleets

64

A. Table of main German operators and fleets*

Frankfurt / Main (HLB Basis) 142 Osnabrück 143

Marburg (SWM) 144 Oberhausen (StOAG) 145 Frankfurt / Main (VU) 147

Mainz (MVG) 148 Würzburg (WSB) 152

Chemnitz (Autobus Sachsen) 155 Lübeck (SL) 156

Münster 162 Kiel (KVG) 164

Duisburg (DVG) 168 Bautzen (RBO) 169 Dresden (RVD) 170 Potsdam (HVG) 170

Geilenkirchen (WestEnergie) 173 Kamen (VKU) 176 Hagen (HST) 178

Annaberg-Buchholz (BVO) 187 Hettstedt (VGS) 189

Leverkusen (KWS) 195 Karlsruhe (RVS) 196

Gummersbach (OVAG) 199 Schleswig (SWS) 205 Dresden (DVB) 206

Schenefeld (PVG) 207 Wiesbaden (ESWE) 216

Salzgitter (KVG) 217 Soest (RLG) 217

Saarbrücken (Stadtbahn) 221 Hannover (üstra) 221 Bremen (BSAG) 226

Mönchengladbach (NVV AG) 232 Ulm (RAB) 246

Dortmund (DSW21) 246 Essen (EVAG) 251 Lahr (SWEG) 262

Wuppertal (WSW) 268 Frankfurt / Main (VGF) 272

65

Siegen (VWS) 277 Nürnberg (VAG) 278 München (RVO) 295 Stuttgart (RBS) 298

Düsseldorf (BVR) 300 Troisdorf (RSVG) 300

Bochum (Bogestra) 315 Aachen (ASEAG) 319 Stuttgart (SSB) 319

Köln (KVB) 319 Moers (NIAG) 321 Herten (VEST) 359

Hamburg (VHH) 370 München (MVG) 388

Stade (KVG) 405 Hannover (Regiobus) 406

Mainz (ORN) 424 Lüdenscheid (MVG) 430 Düsseldorf (RBG) 436

Bonn (SWBV) 460 Mannheim (BRN) 478

Braunschweig (RBB) 481 Freiburg (SBG) 589 Münster (RVM) 595 Bielefeld (BVO) 601

Münster (Westfalenbus) 649 Bremen (WEB) 702 Hamburg (HHA) 709

Saarbrücken (RSW) 738 Kassel (RKH) 745

Kiel (AK) 818 Koblenz (RMV) 833

Regensburg (RBO) 980 Berlin (BVG) 1 283

Nürnberg (OVF) 1 302 TOTAL 26 063

Source: VDV * All the operators mentionned in the table are publicly owned

66

Annex 3: COMPRO questionnaire 1st version

67

COMPRO QUESTIONNAIRE

COMPRO is a European project financed under the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. The aim is to enhance the development of the clean vehicles market analysing the conditions for a common procurement of clean buses at European scale. The study will focus on two different clean energy technologies: CNG and Hybrid.

Two working groups of local authorities will be created in order to jointly identify common vehicles standards and specifications for each of the two technologies as well as homogeneous terms and conditions for a public procurement.

As clean vehicles are still more expensive than the conventional ones, the final objective of COMPRO is to increase and homogenise the demand and -as a result- press on the prices. Cities and regions represent crucial market actors when it comes to vehicle procurement and pooling together they can make the difference!

The aim of the present questionnaire is to collect information across Europe on the experiences and trends of European local authorities in terms of clean public transport and green procurement. Altogether, the answers will provide for an overview of the clean energy technologies most in use at European level and what we can expect to change in the coming years. We will be happy to share with you the results of the survey. The questionnaire should not require more than 20 minutes, to answer please follow the site link highlighted below. If you are willing to help, please answer to the questions and send it back to [email protected] or fax ++ 39 063213049 . Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation. For more information on the COMPRO project: www.compro-eu.org

68

1. PROFILE In this section we ask you to provide the general data of the organising authority and the public transport companies operating in the urban context. The information will be used ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for the project purposes and WONT be transferred to any third parties, besides the European Commission and its Agencies. 1.1 Organising Authority/Name_______________________________ Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________ Email_____________________________________________________ Inhabitants in the area

Less than 50.000 51.000 – 150.000 151.000 – 250.000 251.000 – 500.000 More than 500.000

1.2 The operators Please specify the total number of operators___________________ Operator 1/Name Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________ Email_____________________________________________________ SERVICE PROVIDED

Buses Metro Tram Local Trains Other, please specify

(continue if answer to 1.2 is >1, otherwise jump to section 2) Operator 2/Name Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________

69

Email_____________________________________________________ SERVICE PROVIDED_________________________________


(continue if answer to 1.2 is >2, otherwise jump to section 2) Operator 3/Name Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________ Email_____________________________________________________ SERVICE PROVIDED


(continue if answer to 1.2 is >3, otherwise jump to section 2) Operator 4/Name Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________ Email_____________________________________________________ SERVICE PROVIDED


2. THE LOCAL TRANSPORT NETWORK In this section we ask you for an overview of your local transport network: the types of vehicles in use, the number of lines as well as the KM and journeys made in a year Does your local transport network include:

70

2.1 Metro YES NO

(if yes) Please describe your METRO network N° of lines________________________ Kms/vehicles/year___________________________ Passengers/year_________________________ 2.2 Tramway

YES NO

(if yes) Please describe your TRAMWAYS network N° of lines________________________ Kms/vehicles/year___________________________ Passengers/year_________________________ 2.3 Buses

YES NO

(if yes) Please describe your BUSES network N° of lines________________________ Kms/vehicles/year___________________________ Passengers/year_________________________ 2.4 Local trains

YES NO

(if yes) Please describe your LOCAL TRAINS network N° of lines________________________ Kms/vehicles/year___________________________ Passengers/year_________________________ 2.5 Trolley buses

YES NO

(if yes) Please describe your TROLLEY BUSES network N° of lines________________________ Kms/vehicles/year___________________________

71

Passengers/year_________________________ 2.6 Does your local transport network include other types of vehicles?

YES NO

(if yes)Please specify

3. FOCUS ON THE BUS FLEET In this section we ask you to provide information on the composition of your bus fleet and in particular on the energy technologies in use. 3.1 DIESEL 3.1.1 How many diesel buses do you have in total?_______________ (if answer is >0, otherwise jump to 3.2) 3.1.2 Can you please indicate the number of diesel buses per type?

Type

Euro norm

Articulated

Standard Minibus Others

Euro 0 N° N° N° N° Euro1 N° N° N° N° Euro 2 N° N° N° N° Euro 3 N° N° N° N° Euro 4 N° N° N° N° Euro 5 N° N° N° N° EEV N° N° N° N° 3.1.3 Which manufacturer/s did supply them?

Bredamenarini Evobus Irisbus Man Mercedes Neoman Scania

72

Solarisbus Van Hool Volvo Other, please specify

3.1.4 Does your diesel bus fleet include bio-fuelled buses?

YES NO

(if yes) 3.1.5 Which % is powered by bio-fuels?_______________ 3.2 CNG 3.2.1 How many CNG buses do you have in total?____________________ (if answer is >0, otherwise jump to 3.3) 3.2.2 Can you please indicate the number of CNG buses per type?

Type

Euro norm

Articulated



Bredamenarini Evobus Irisbus Man Mercedes Neoman Scania Solarisbus Van Hool Volvo Other, please specify

73

3.3 HYBRID 3.3.1 How many hybrid buses do you have in total?____________________ (if answer is >0, otherwise jump to 3.4) 3.3.2 Can you please indicate the number of hybrid buses per type?

Type

Euro norm

Articulated




3.3.4 What type of hybrid technology are in use in your city?

In series In parallel Other, please specify

3.3.5 And what type of thermal engine?

Diesel CNG Other, please specify

3.4 ELECTRIC

74

3.4.1 How many electric buses do you have in total?____________________ (if answer is >0, otherwise jump to 3.5) 3.4.2 Can you please indicate the number of electric buses per type? Articulated


N° N° N° N° 3.4.3 Which manufacturer/s did supply them?


3.5. OTHERS 3.5.1 Does your bus fleet include buses powered by another type of energy technology?

YES NO

(if yes) 3.5.2 How many? ______________ 3.5.3 Which type of energy technology do they employ? _________________________________________________ 3.5.4 Can you please indicate the number of other fuel buses per type? Articulated


Euro 0 N° N° N° N° Euro1 N° N° N° N° Euro 2 N° N° N° N°

75

Euro 3 N° N° N° N° Euro 4 N° N° N° N° EEV N° N° N° N° 3.5.5 Which manufacturer/s did supply them?


4. BUS FLEET PURCHASING In this section we ask you to provide information on your bus fleet purchasing system. Questions regard the financing bodies, possible incentives, the tendering process and the share of responsibilities between the authority and the operators. Finally we will ask you more detailed questions about your last bus fleet purchase 4.1 FINANCES & INCENTIVES 4.1.1 Which body normally finances the acquisition of new buses?

National Government Regional Government Local Government Privates Other, please specify

4.1.2 Is there any program for reducing taxation?

Yes, regarding CNG Yes, regarding Hybrids No Other, please specify

4.1.3 Is there any other relevant financial incentive?

76

Please specify __________________________________ 4.1.4 In case of acquisition of non conventional buses, who is paying for the additional infrastructure (for instance CNG filling stations)?

national authority gas provider repaid funding cost other funding organisation the public transport operator pro rata other

4.1.5 And who is paying for the additional maintenance costs of the buses?

national authority gas provider repaid funding cost other funding organisation the public transport operator pro rata other

4.2 THE TENDER PROCESS 4.2.1 What is the responsible body when it comes to decide on the NUMBER OF BUSES to be purchased? Please distinguish between the two phases: identification of the needs and final decision

Authority Operator External Body Needs identification Final decision 4.2.2 What is the responsible body when it comes to the ENERGY CHOICE? Please distinguish between the two phases: identification of the needs and final decision Authority Operator External Body Needs identification Final decision 4.2.3 What is the responsible body when it comes to decide on the TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS of the buses? Please distinguish between the two phases: identification of the needs and final decision Authority Operator External Body

77

Needs identification Final decision 4.2.4 Who « launches » the tender (whose name figures on the official call for tender publications)?

The transport authority The transport operator Other (specify)_______________________________

4.2.5 How is the supplier finally selected ?

By an external commission By an internal body Other (specify)

4.2.6 Do you have a suppliers’ pre-qualification system ?

YES NO

4.2.7 What is the typical time-span of the process (from the publication of the call to the contract assignment)?

Less than 3 month Between 3 and 6 months More than 6 months

4.2.8 Have you ever purchased public transport vehicles without going through a call for tender procedure?

YES NO

(if yes) 4.2.9 Which kind of purchasing system have you applied? ____________________________________ 4.2.10 Could you explain the reason for this choice? __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 4.3 THE LAST BUSES PROCUREMENT

78

4.3.1 When have you made the last buses procurement (i.e. when did you last launch a call for tender)?

Before 2001 Between 2001 and 2004 In 2005 In 2006 In 2007

4.3.2 What type of buses did you want to purchase?

Diesel CNG Hybrid Electric Other, please specify

(ONLY if tick on DIESEL in 4.3.2) 4.3.2.1 How many DIESEL buses did you want to purchase and of which kind? Please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other

(ONLY if tick on CNG in 4.3.2) 4.3.2.2 How many CNG buses did you want to purchase and of which kind? Please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other

(ONLY if tick on Hybrid in 4.3.2) 4.3.2.3 How many HYBRID buses did you want to purchase and of which kind? Please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated

79

Standard Minibus Other (ONLY if tick on ELECTRIC in 4.3.2) 4.3.2.4 How many ELECTRIC buses did you want to purchase and of which kind? Please specify the number in the corresponding boxes N° Articulated Standard Minibus Other 4.3.3 Which type of call for tender did you implement?

Open call for tender Restricted call for tender Negotiation procedure

4.3.4 What was the principal evaluation criteria ?

Purchasing price only Different weighed criteria (please specify the most important one)

4.3.5 While proceeding to the last fleet procurement, did you encounter difficulties such as lack of competition between manufacturers, procedures length problems, delays in the delivery timing, or any other? Please describe them briefly.. 4.3.6 How many responses did you receive?________________ 4.3.7 The number of responses was in line with your expectations?

YES NO

4.3.8 At what price did you finally purchase the bus? €________________

80

4.3.9 What was the extra cost (compared to a diesel bus?) €______________________ 5. PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE 5.1During the next 3 years, do you expect to purchase CNG or hybrid buses?

YES NO I don’t know (jump to 5.2)

(if YES ) 5.1.1 If you will buy CNG buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other

5.1.2 If you will buy Hybrid buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other (if NO) 5.1.3 If you don’t expect to buy neither CNG nor hybrid buses, what will you buy?

Diesel Electric Other, specify

5.2 And within the next 3 following years (2011-2013) do you expect to purchase CNG or hybrid buses?

YES NO I don’t know (jump to next session)

(if YES ) 5.2.1 If you will buy CNG buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Euro 6 Articulated Standard Minibus Other

81

5.2.2 If you will buy Hybrid buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Euro 6 Articulated Standard Minibus Other (if NO) 5.2.3 If you don’t expect to buy neither CNG nor hybrid buses, what will you buy?


Within the COMPRO project, it is foreseen to create two working groups of local authorities/ operators (1 for CNG and 1 for Hybrid) to share experiences in regulations and homologation aspects, green public procurement, and in general analyse together legal and/or technical barriers hampering common procurement initiatives. Are you interested to participate?

YES to both working groups YES to CNG YES to hybrid NO

Please provide any comment/suggestion/advice/critic you want to give to the present questionnaire and the COMPRO initiative.

82

Annex 4 : COMPRO questionnaire new version

83

COMPRO

Collection of data

The information will be used ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for the project purposes and WONT be transferred to any third parties, besides the European Commission and its Agencies.

Profile 1. Are you filling the questionnaire on behalf of an organising authority (city/region) or public transport operator?

Organising Authority Public Transport Operator

2. Contact details

Name_______________________________ Contact person_____________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ Country___________________________________________________ Phone number _____________________________________________ Email_____________________________________________________

3. Inhabitants in the area

Less than 50.000 51.000 – 150.000 151.000 – 250.000 251.000 – 500.000 More than 500.000

The bus fleet 4. Please indicate the composition of the local bus fleet according to the energy technology in use

Energy technology N° of vehicles Diesel CNG LPG Hybrid Electric Other Total

5. CNG (if answer is >0)

84

5.1 Can you please indicate the number of CNG buses per type? Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other 5.2 Which manufacturer/s did supply them?


6. HYBRID 6.1 Can you please indicate the number of hybrid buses per type? Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 EEV Articulated Standard Minibus Other 6.2 Which manufacturer/s did supply them?


6.3 What type of hybrid technology are in use in your city?

In series In parallel

85

Other, please specify 6.4 And what type of thermal engine?

Diesel CNG Other, please specify

The prospects for the future 7. During the next 6 years, do you expect to purchase CNG or hybrid buses?

YES NO I don’t know

(if YES ) 7.1 If you will buy CNG buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes

Euro 0 N° Euro1 N° Euro 2 N° Euro 3 N° Euro 4 N° Euro 5 N° EEV N°

7.2 If you will buy Hybrid buses, please specify the number in the corresponding boxes

Euro 0 N° Euro1 N° Euro 2 N° Euro 3 N° Euro 4 N° Euro 5 N° EEV N°

(if NO) 7.3 If you don’t expect to buy neither CNG nor hybrid buses, what will you buy?


Within the COMPRO project, it is foreseen to create a working group of local authorities/ operators to share experiences in regulations and homologation aspects, green public procurement, and in general analyse together legal and/or technical barriers hampering common procurement initiatives. Are you interested to participate?

YES NO

86

Please provide any comment/suggestion/advice/critic you want to give to the present questionnaire and the COMPRO initiative.

87

Annex 5 : workshop programme

88

COMPRO WORKSHOP

Clean Technologies for Buses

Nantes, 4 March 2008 Cité internationale des congrès, 5 rue de Valmy

Morning: overview of clean technologies in general

Registration time 8h30-9h00

Welcome speech Mr Camille Durand 9h00-9h15

EU Commission: position on clean technologies

Mr Dario Dubolino 9h15-9h35

• The role of the COMPRO project • Results from COMPRO

Mrs Silvia Gaggi, ISIS Mr Eric Chevalier, Nantes 9h35-

10h00

The clean buses technological panorama and future trends

The demand side: • What are the technologies most in

use and the perspectives for the future

• Experience in several European countries

• What are the potentialities of the clean technologies available on the market

Mr André Niemegeers, UITP Mr Pierre Moise, Transdev Mr Gabriel Plassat, ADEME 10h00-

11h00

Break

The supply side:

• What are the projects • How do they perceive the market

Mr Edward Jobson, VOLVO Mr Antoine Garnier, Heuliez Mr Valery Cervantes, Irisbus Iveco

11h30-13h00

89

evolution in general and more specifically on hybrid and CNG

• DEBATE

M. Claudio Modelli, Bredamenarini Mr Julien Calloud, Evobus Mr. Altenschöpfer Solaris

Focus on Hybrid and CNG

1. CNG technology

• Cases study: cities experience

• Interests and future developments of the technology: questions to manufacturers

Debate with manufacturers

Mr Philippe Bègue, SEMITAN, Nantes Mme Silvia Zamboni, Emilia Romagna M. Yves BAESEN, Lille Metropole (tbc) Manufacturers

14h15-16h00

Break

2. Hybrid technology

• Cases study: cities experience

• Interests and future developments of the technology: questions to manufacturers

Debate with manufacturers

Mme Maria Sara Ruggiero, ATM Milan M Lloyd Schultz, City State of Bremen Manufacturers 16h30-

17h15

3. Conclusions

17h15-17h30

Documents

D2.1 Analysis of clean buses market - European Commission · c) The State of the Art Report The present State of the Art report represents the achievement of the work conducted during