AGENDA 5a

BUDGET WORKING PAPER

TO:                  W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

FROM:            Mary Lou Kuschatka, Transportation Director

SUBJECT:       Cost Comparison of Regular Buses to Small Buses, including 12-year Small Bus Option

DATE:             April 3, 2002

This working paper briefly describes several types and sizes of transit vehicles and the relative merits of each.

DISCUSSION

Most transit systems in the United States favor a “standard” bus with a 12-year life span. These vary in length from 35 to 60 feet. Depending on demographics, topography and local preferences, they also may operate smaller versions of the standard bus. These generally are in the 29 to 35 - foot range but are constructed to big bus standards. A third option available is the small light-duty bus built on a truck chassis. These are referred to as “cut aways” and are generally less than 29 feet and have a 5 to 7 year life span.

 Chapel Hill currently operates a fleet of 67 standard 35-foot buses and three light-duty 25-foot buses.

Each type of vehicle has advantages and disadvantages.

 “Large” standard bus (35 to 60 feet, 12 year life span):

Advantages

• Enjoys a high degree of comfort and safety for the passenger.
• Relative ease in training of maintenance employees due to wide support network.
• Built with heavy-duty components to be reliable for 12-year life span.
• Ability to carry large number of passengers to accommodate rush hour loadings (50+ passengers for a 35-foot bus).

Disadvantages

• Intrusive in residential areas.
• Higher fuel costs when compared to smaller vehicle.
• Perception of unproductivity if bus is not fully loaded.
• Weight can prove destructive to substandard paving.
• Most expensive to purchase.

“Small” standard bus (29 to 35 feet, 12 year life span):

Advantages

• Enjoys a high degree of comfort and safety for the passenger.
• Relative ease in training of maintenance employees due to wide support network.
• Built with heavy-duty components to be reliable for 12-year life span.

• Parts interchangeability is possible with larger buses.
• Passenger comfort is equivalent to a standard bus.
• It is less intrusive in residential areas.

Disadvantage

• Procurement cost is high, compared to a light-duty vehicle.
• Relative lack of manufacturers from which to choose.

“Small” light-duty bus (less than 29 feet, 5 to 7 year life span):

Advantages

• It is small and less intrusive in residential areas.
• Relatively fuel efficient due to small size and low weight.
• Least expensive to purchase.

Disadvantages 

• Since it is basically a truck chassis, the ride tends to be harsh.
• The steps are steep, making it difficult for passengers (particularly senior citizens) to board and alight.
• The wheelchair lift is out in the open, which gives the users concern for their safety.
• They are maintenance-intensive and tend to be unreliable when used to carry heavy loads.
• They require additional parts, training, and additional costs associated with maintaining a vehicle if it forms a relatively small percentage of the fleet.

OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Ridership patterns since inception of fare-free service have placed an increased demand on the system. On certain routes the 35-foot bus is not able to accommodate all of the passengers. This results in the additional cost of adding “tripper” buses to transport the overflow passengers. Standard 40-foot buses will operate without difficulty on most of Chapel Hill Transit’s routes.

However, there remain places where a small bus can be used to advantage. Those include routes where fewer than 16 passengers are carried on each trip. The M Shuttle, which operates weekdays between Crest and Cole and the University Mall, is a prime example. The route provides an east-west connector and supplements existing service along East and West Franklin streets. The small buses could also be used on service operated after 8:00PM due to reduced passenger demands.

The small bus would lend itself to areas such as Southern Village and eventually Meadowmont. In these cases the small bus would provide intra-community circulator service that would have a scheduled transfer with another route operating into the Downtown/Campus area. This provides residents with public transit for neighborhood trips as well as access to through bus service for longer trips.

A light-duty bus is less costly to buy than a standard bus, and fueling costs are marginally lower due to increased fuel economy. Ongoing maintenance costs, however, are high because the light-duty bus lacks the durability of a standard 12-year bus.

The table below presents summarizes key information.

Type of vehicle	Purchase price	Replacement cost/ year	MPG	Fuel cost/mile	Repair cost/mile	Maintenance cost/mile
Standard 35/40 foot	$260,000	$21,666	3.7	.27	$0.05	$0.32
Standard small *	$210,000	$17,500	4.2	.23	--	--
Light-duty small	$111,000	$15,857	6.5	.15	$0.33	$0.48

Data is based on comparison of 14 standard 35-foot vehicles purchased in 1990 and the three small light-duty buses purchased in 2000. 

*Lack of data in tables due to fact that Chapel Hill does not operate “standard small” buses.  Data provided is from manufacturers.

CONCLUSION

We continue to believe that a standardized fleet composed mostly of 35- and 40-foot buses will provide the most efficient, comfortable and convenient service to the majority of the passengers.

While the initial purchase price of a small light-duty bus is attractive, any perceived savings would be consumed by the costs of  keeping the vehicle in service. Since the small light-duty bus can carry 24 passengers as opposed to 50 in a standard 35-foot bus a fleet composed entirely of small light-duty buses would need to be twice the size of a “standard” fleet to accommodate the same number of riders.  Actual operating costs would more than double due to the corresponding increase in the number of drivers and mechanics as well as an increase in facility size.

However, since the small transit vehicle does now appear to have a limited role in our growing service area, we feel it prudent to keep these small vehicles in our fleet mix. We believe that future purchases of this type of vehicle, however, should be a “standard” type of vehicle rather than the “light-duty” version because of passenger comfort, reliability and maintenance costs.