Energy Savings Strategies for Transit Agencies (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

18 563.8 million to 455.5 million), whereas consumption of non-diesel sources, which include CNG, gasoline, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and biodiesel, increased from a combined 26 million diesel gallon equivalents (DGEs) to 218.7 million DGEs. As of January 2010, a third of all transit buses were powered by something other than diesel fuel or gasoline (6). It is important to note however that there are a number of alternative (i.e., non-diesel or non-gasoline) fuels that are nevertheless derived from fossil fuels and do not in all cases reduce energy use or improve efficiency. Some of these alter- native fuels have other benefits. For example, CNG burns more cleanly than diesel, emitting fewer criteria pollutants such as NOx or particulate matter. Transit agencies have a wide variety of options when looking for ways to improve the energy efficiency of their operations. This chapter provides descriptions of types of strategies as well as specific examples. The strategies identified are drawn from an extensive literature review and the survey of transit agencies nationwide. Where available, information on cost-effectiveness, energy savings, and experiences from transit agencies are included. The strategies fall into the following categories: • Transit vehicle technologies • Vehicle operations and service design • Non-revenue vehicle strategies • Energy at stations and stops • Energy savings in other facilities • Strategies to reduce indirect energy use – Employee commute programs – Water use – Waste management – Construction materials • Renewable power generation. This report includes survey responses from 51 North Amer- ican transit agencies on the strategies that they have employed to reduce energy use. Nearly every respondent reported using at least one strategy, and many reported that they use multiple strategies. More than half of agencies surveyed have imple- mented at least one strategy in most of the categories of actions included in the survey, as shown in Figure 9. TRANSIT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES Transit agencies can significantly reduce their energy use by changing the fuel and/or technology used for vehicle pro- pulsion. Transit agencies can improve the fuel- or energy- efficiency of their existing vehicles, switch to an alternative vehicle technology such as diesel–electric hybrids, or per- form other retrofits and adjustments to existing vehicles to reduce energy use. This section describes strategies specific to bus and rail modes as well as retrofits that are applicable to multiple vehicle types. Alternative Fuels for Buses Transit agencies across the country are already changing the fuels and technologies used to power their buses. For exam- ple, between 1995 and 2009, diesel fuel consumption by tran- sit buses decreased by more than 100 million gallons (from chapter four STRATEGIES THAT SAVE ENERGY AT TRANSIT AGENCIES Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a proposed rule affecting heavy duty vehicles in the model years 2014–2018. The standards released that apply to transit buses will require that model year 2017 buses achieve 21.8 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles— equivalent to a 6% to 9% reduction in fuel consumption compared with a 2010 model year vehicle (23). Alternative bus fuels can be characterized as first genera- tion or second generation. The first generation fuels discussed here help transit agencies reduce consumption of petroleum, but do not necessarily reduce energy consumption. The second generation fuels and technologies discussed generally reduce energy consumption. The technologies for second generation fuels have emerged just in the last decade, while first genera- tion fuels have been available longer. First Generation Alternative Fuels Commonly used first generation alternative fuels for transit buses include: • CNG, • LNG, • LPG, and • Biodiesel.

19 $1 million, and that constructing a fueling facility could cost from $950,000 to $5 million (28). Further research is needed to quantify the energy efficiency impacts and costs of CNG buses to help transit agencies make more informed decisions about adopting this technology. Biodiesel is another alternative fuel used by some agen- cies, although in much lesser quantities than CNG. It is made by reacting oils such as vegetable oil, waste cooking oil, or animal fat with methanol. Biodiesel can be used as fuel either in its pure form or in a mixture with conventional diesel. Shift- ing a conventional bus to biodiesel fuel requires only minor changes in maintenance procedures; however, it is not clear that switching to biodiesel reduces pump-to-wheel energy use. One study of five buses that ran for two years on a 20% biodiesel blend, with each bus accumulating approximately 100,000 miles over this time, found that the efficiency of diesel and biodiesel buses was almost identical—4.41 mpg—while laboratory testing detected a slight decline in fuel economy from diesel to biodiesel, because biodiesel has a slightly lower energy content than diesel (29). The price of biodiesel relative to diesel tends to fluctuate depending on seasonal and eco- nomic factors; therefore, agencies are unlikely to save money by switching to biodiesel. Nonetheless, agencies may use bio- diesel to reduce consumption of fossil-based energy. Second Generation Alternative Fuels Second generation alternative propulsion technologies include hybrid technologies that augment diesel engines with elec- tric motors and hydrogen fuel cells and batteries that replace petroleum-based fuels entirely. The use of these technologies is increasing. A significant number of agencies use at least a small number of hybrid vehicles as demonstrations in their fleet, whereas hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric vehicles are less common. As Table 8 shows, three-fifths of the survey respondents currently use hybrid electric buses. CNG, LNG, and LPG all require either special buses or retrofitted buses that operate using these fuels. A number of agencies have switched the majority and in some cases even their entire fleet to CNG buses to comply with air quality regulations. LA Metro retired its last diesel bus in 2011 and now operates almost its entire bus fleet off of CNG. Arlington County Transit also operates a primarily CNG fleet. These agencies realize significant benefits in terms of lower criteria pollutant emissions. However, there is mixed evidence as to whether CNG buses yield a net reduction in energy use and costs. One study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory compared two models of CNG buses with two diesel mod- els at the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority (WMATA). The results showed that CNG buses ranged from being 1.6% less efficient than diesel buses to 9% more effi- cient, as measured in miles per DGE (24). A separate analysis comparing diesel and CNG buses at NYMTA found that the average fuel economy of a CNG bus was lower than a tradi- tional diesel bus—3.4 miles per DGE compared with 3.9 (25). Fuel for CNG buses is cheaper than diesel fuel, and the payback period for a CNG bus, which costs about $25,000 to $50,000 more than a traditional bus, is only slightly more than three years (26). One benefit–cost analysis conducted for NYMTA found more than $150,000 in lifetime savings from switching from a diesel-powered bus to a bus fueled by CNG. However, these analyses may not fully account for the cost of maintaining CNG buses and upgrading facilities for fueling and upkeep of the buses. According to one study, it costs $220,000 per bus to upgrade a 60-bus diesel depot to accommodate CNG buses, and maintaining these buses costs $4,750 per bus per year compared with $1,500 per bus per year for a diesel bus depot (27). Another study of costs at multiple transit agencies found that the cost of retrofitting a maintenance facility for CNG could range from $320,000 to 42 41 38 35 34 35 26 24 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 FIGURE 9 Energy saving strategies in use by survey respondents.

20 for King County Metro Transit in the Seattle area over a one- year evaluation period (see Table 9). At Connecticut Tran- sit (CT Transit), hybrid buses operate at 16% to 39% higher fuel efficiency than comparable diesel buses, depending on the model year (33). Some agencies have reported smaller improvements; a study of multiple Florida transit agencies found only a 3% increase, from 3.94 mpg to 4.03 mpg (34). Similarly, a study of Long Beach Transit found only an 8.5% fuel economy improvement when switching from a diesel to gasoline hybrid (35). At least one projection of future tech- nology has forecasted that hybrid–electric buses will achieve between 4.3 and 8.6 mpg in 2030, with that number climbing to as much as 16 mpg in 2050 (36). It is important to note that the fuel economy of hybrid vehicles depends upon driving speed and technique more so than with other vehicles. Because the electric battery is recharged through braking, hybrids can be much more fuel efficient than their conventional counterparts in stop-and-go traffic, while their fuel economy decreases on hills or when accelerating quickly (31, 37). Potential challenges associated with hybrid electric buses include the initial purchase costs, the cost of maintenance, and, in some cases, the dependability of the buses. A hybrid electric bus is significantly more expensive than a conventional diesel bus, although the price gap has narrowed in recent years. In 2005, the typical price premium of a hybrid bus was $175,000 (27). Maintenance costs may also be greater for hybrid elec- tric vehicles, because parts are less widely available and tech- nicians may need additional training to maintain the buses. Research regarding costs for parts and maintenance of hybrid buses has produced mixed conclusions. One study found that on average parts and labor for a hybrid electric bus cost $1.36 per mile compared with $0.72 per mile for a conventional diesel bus, though it noted that these costs may eventually decline (27). A different study found the maintenance cost per mile to be $0.24 for a hybrid compared with $0.45 for a conven- tional diesel bus (28). Los Angeles Metro currently operates Hybrid Electric Buses A hybrid electric vehicle combines two energy converters, typically an internal combustion engine powered by fossil fuel and an electric drive powered by electricity stored on board in a battery. The balance between these two power sources varies. In “mild” hybrids, the bus operates primarily using its engine with additional power accessible using the electric motor; in “full” hybrids, the electric motor is more powerful and may be sufficient to power the bus on its own at low speeds. By deriving energy from an electric battery, hybrid vehicles typically experience improved fuel economy compared with conventional buses (30). In recent years, hybrid electric buses have been increas- ing in popularity as the reliability of the technology has improved. In its 2010 report to Congress, U.S.DOT reported that hybrid diesel–electric and gas–electric vehicles can be between 10% and 50% more fuel efficient than conventional diesel buses (31). The San Francisco Metropolitan Trans- portation Authority (SFMTA) has seen a 25% improvement in fuel economy with its hybrids, and the Maryland Tran- sit Administration reports an average of 4.8 mpg for hybrid buses compared with 2.9 for conventional diesel-powered buses. NYMTA has experienced a 10% to 30% fuel economy improvement (25), and one study found a 27% improvement TABLE 8 AGENCY USE OF ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY Is your agency using any of the following alternative vehicle technologies to save energy in buses? (Check all that apply) Response Count Hybrid Electric Vehicles 32 Battery Electric Vehicles 6 Other (please specify) 6 Hydrogen Fuel Cell 4 None of the Above 13 TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF HYBRID-ELECTRIC TO DIESEL BUSES—KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Evaluation Results (12-month evaluation period) Category Diesel Ryerson Base (10 buses) Hybrid Atlantic Base (10 buses) Hybrid Difference Monthly Average Mileage per Bus 2,949 3,096 +5% Fuel Economy (mpg) 2.50 3.17 +27% Fuel Cost per Mile ($) (@$1.98/gal) 0.79 0.62 22% Total Maintenance Cost per Mile ($) 0.46 0.44 4% Propulsion-Only Maintenance Cost per Mile ($) 0.12 0.13 +8% Total Operating Cost per Mile ($) 1.25 1.06 15% Miles Between All Road Calls 5,896 4,954 16% Miles Between Propulsion Road Calls 12,199 10,616 13% Chandler and Walkowicz, King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses: Final Evaluation Results (32).

21 As of August 2010, 15 buses were in service at seven U.S. locations (39). One of the first agencies to deploy a hydrogen fuel cell bus was CT Transit’s Hartford division, which put its first fuel cell bus into operation in 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, the bus got an average fuel economy of 5.4 miles per diesel gallon equivalent, making it 47% more efficient than a baseline diesel average of 3.68 mpg of diesel (40). Although these numbers suggest that hydrogen vehicles are operationally more efficient, it is important to note that they do not take into account the well-to-pump energy used to produce hydrogen fuel. CT Transit is able to use fueling facilities at UTC Power in South Windsor that are only seven miles away, helping to solve potential infrastructure prob- lems associated with the bus. Since acquiring its first bus in 2007, CT Transit has added an additional four fuel cell buses. As with other technologies that are in the experimental stage of development, hydrogen fuel cells present a number of barriers to adoption. Vehicles are expensive; BC Transit’s hydrogen buses cost almost three times as much as conven- tional diesel buses, although the agency expects these costs to decrease over time as demand for the buses grows (38). Fuels can also be difficult and expensive to procure, and mainte- nance can be costly. For example, the cost per mile associated with hydrogen fuel and maintenance at CT Transit is $1.11 per mile, not including labor time to drive to the fueling sta- tion, which brings the total to $1.29 per mile, whereas the cost per mile for diesel fuel at CT Transit is $0.70 (41). Fac- toring in the maintenance costs associated with deploying a new technology increases this figure significantly; however, this maintenance price premium has decreased over time at CT Transit. Additionally, hydrogen bus garages and mainte- nance facilities need to be equipped for safety to minimize any possible risk associated with a hydrogen leak. Although some agencies deploying this technology have built entirely new facilities at great expense, CT Transit managed to design a ventilation system and accompanying warning system as a retrofit solution for an existing diesel garage. The cost of the retrofit was $75,000 (34). Several agencies in the San Francisco Bay area have teamed up to deploy hydrogen buses. Alameda–Contra Costa Tran- sit District (AC Transit), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, and San Francisco Municipal Railway have partnered on the project, with AC Transit as the lead agency. The project was originally designed in response to the California Air Resources Board’s Zero Emissions Bus Rule, which calls for transit agencies to begin deploying zero-emissions technology. Beginning in 2002, AC Transit operated a prototype fuel cell bus, and VTA and SamTrans began operating three additional buses in 2004. The program has since expanded to 12 buses, and AC Transit is building two hydrogen fueling stations that will also have capacity to fuel light-duty vehicles. The fuel economy of seven of these hydrogen buses over a nine-month period was 6.05 mpg of diesel equivalent, compared with 3.99 mpg for the diesel fleet (41). The cost for these buses was approximately four hybrid gasoline–electric buses, which have experienced frequent breakdowns and are often out of service (16). Battery Electric Buses Battery electric buses (BEBs) derive their power from the grid rather than from liquid fuel, and run using an electric motor powered by a rechargeable battery. These buses are limited in their range of travel by how much charge the battery can hold, although technological advances in coming years will likely increase their range. BEBs use their operational energy more efficiently than many other technologies. Whereas an engine in a CNG bus is typically less than 40% efficient in converting fuel to power, electric motors can be more than 80% efficient in converting stored energy to power to move the vehicle (16). The impact of BEBs on well-to-wheel energy use will vary somewhat based on the efficiency of the electricity gen- eration and transmission systems used to charge the battery. At present, few transit agencies are using BEBs in rev- enue service. However, a number of agencies, including King County Metro, Monterey Salinas Transit, and LA Metro, are testing or have tested the technology and are consider- ing implementing it. Foothill Transit in Covina, California, has successfully deployed three BEBs along one of its routes, with funding through FTA and the local air quality manage- ment district. The buses have a fast-charge battery that can go from a 10% to 95% charge level in ten minutes. The bus is therefore able to be quickly charged along its route, allowing for continuous operation on the line throughout the day. For a more detailed description, see the case example on Foothill Transit in chapter five. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles operate differently from most on-road vehicles. A fuel cell within the vehicle runs two variable motors that do not require a transmission. On-board batteries provide additional power when needed, and these batteries are recharged when less power is needed or when the brakes are applied. These buses require special fueling infrastructure to provide the hydrogen required. At the moment, hydrogen fuel cells are in a relatively early stage of deployment because of the advanced nature of the technology and their specialized fueling requirements. The largest fleet of hydrogen fuel cell buses currently on the road is in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, and is operated by BC Transit. BC Transit ordered 20 41-foot buses in 2010 to increase service during the 2010 Olympic Games, after which the buses entered regular service. So far, Whistler’s hydrogen fleet has logged more than one million service miles, and BC Transit estimates that the buses are roughly twice as energy efficient as conventional diesel buses (38). A hydrogen plant is currently under construction in the province, and when completed the buses will have a local source of fuel.

22 • Palm Tran in West Palm Beach received a TIGGER grant to install thermal motor fans on its diesel buses to improve their fuel efficiency. • Jacksonville Transportation Authority retrofitted buses with electric fans to cool engines. The electric fans replaced cooling systems that draw power from the engine itself. The fans reduce the weight of the bus and auxiliary loads on the engine. They also require less maintenance than the systems they replaced. • Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority in Phoenix, Arizona, has improved vehicle fuel econ- omy with interior light-emitting diode (LED) lighting and electric air conditioning systems installed on buses. • Maryland Transit Administration is retrofitting the cool- ing systems in its buses with electric fans that are expected to increase the fuel economy of vehicles by 12% (42). Transit agencies can also install intelligent technologies that improve the efficiency of a vehicle’s transmission system. These technologies help the vehicle to optimize its operating efficiency, thereby improving fuel economy. For example, an intelligent transmission system can detect the most appropri- ate times for a bus to shift gears, thereby ensuring that buses always operate in the most efficient gear. Examples of two transit agencies using these systems follow: • Regional Transportation District in Denver, Colorado, has installed intelligent acceleration and gearshift systems that allow buses to adapt more efficiently to the topog- raphy of their routes. Using the technology reduces fuel use by between 5% and 10%. The improved transmission systems may also require less frequent oil changes than conventional systems (43). • Societe de Transport de Montreal found that using the TypoDyn Life transmission optimization software on its buses reduced fuel use by up to 15%. As a result, the agency has installed the system on all of its buses (44). The weight of a bus can also be reduced through the use of new, lighter weight materials in vehicle bodies. These include high strength stainless steel, composites, or carbon fibers. Using lighter materials in the bodies of buses means that other parts of the bus, such as wheels and brakes, can also be made lighter or smaller. Research at the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy indicates that combining a series of light- weight technologies could increase bus fuel efficiency to as high as 13 mpg, although not all of the technologies are cur- rently commercially available (43). Rail Propulsion Technologies Rail cars are primarily powered by electricity, with some commuter rail systems powered by diesel-electric engines (45). Primary ways for rail systems to improve energy effi- ciency or to save energy include energy storage systems or using lightweight materials on rail cars, rather than changes to the vehicles’ power source. The average lifetime of a rail $1.49 per mile for the hydrogen fuel, compared with $0.67 per mile for diesel. Total costs per mile of hydrogen buses at AC Transit have been high, with maintenance alone accounting for $1.51 per mile. Although these buses may not be entirely feasible for most agencies at the present time, they represent a possible energy-saving strategy in the future depending on how the technology matures. Auxiliary Technologies for Buses Aside from the fuel source used to move buses, transit agen- cies can use alternative technologies to power auxiliary equipment or otherwise improve the fuel economy of buses. These include using electric motors or battery power to oper- ate accessory units such as lights, heating, or air conditioning; improving the efficiency of lighting or heating and cooling systems; and implementing lightweight materials in vehicle bodies. Lighter vehicles require less fuel to move. As shown in Table 10, improving the efficiency of vehicle lighting is the most common strategy of this type used by survey respon- dents. “Other” responses included using electric engine cool- ing motors and using special technologies to optimize vehicle transmission systems. Some auxiliary technologies improve fuel efficiency in more than one way. For example, electric motors that power lighting and air conditioning reduce the amount of energy used to provide light and cool air and also reduce the weight of the vehicle, because these systems tend to be lighter than the mechanical systems that they replace. Electrical and battery- powered units can also help to reduce the amount of time that vehicles spend idling, because the bus engine does not need to be operating in order to maintain a reasonable temperature or have lights on during repairs and maintenance (see Strategies for Idling Reduction later in the chapter). The following are examples of transit agencies imple- menting these types of auxiliary technologies: • Broward County Transit in Florida received a TIGGER grant of $2 million to replace the cooling system on its buses with electric devices (MiniHybrid Thermal Sys- tems), which it expects will increase the fuel efficiency of its buses by 5% (21). Answer Options Response Count Improve Efficiency of Vehicle Lighting 24 Improve Efficiency of HVAC Systems 19 Procure Lighter Weight Vehicles 13 None 20 Other (please specify) 10 TABLE 10 USE OF RETROFITS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE BUS FUEL EFFICIENCY

23 off-board device such as a flywheel or ultracapacitor. In systems that provide regenerated electricity to nearby trains, reuse of the electricity is limited to trains accelerating at the moment that the first train is braking. Any unused regener- ated electricity is lost. As a result of this phenomenon the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority reports that its energy savings from regenerative braking are fairly small. However, using a system of flywheels or ultracapacitors allows energy to be stored until the moment that it is needed. Described here are several of the agencies that have assessed or begun to employ this type of technology. • LA Metro has begun a wayside storage pilot project funded through a TIGGER grant. A feasibility study on a single segment of one rail line projected that electricity savings at the study station would be approximately 366,720 kWh per year, yielding annual savings of $42,173. The study projected installation costs of approximately $2.08 mil- lion per station. Given current electricity prices and the high installation cost, LA Metro determined that the investment would not pay back the investment as a ret- rofit. However, if installed while constructing a new line, WESS technology could save the agency $8.85 million on new electrical infrastructure (16). • BART rail cars currently use regenerative braking tech- nology to transfer power to the system’s third rail. Any regenerated electricity not immediately used is dissi- pated. In one study, BART determined that more than 650 kWh went unused during a round trip between its South Hayward and Richmond stations. BART esti- mated that ultracapacitors installed on its railcars, which would allow the cars to use regenerated electric- ity rather than distributing it to the third rail, would save the agency $8,709 per year on retrofitted railcars (from nearly 83 million kWh saved) and $13,019 per year on new cars, with payback periods of 10.9 and 9.9 years, respectively (15). • SEPTA is piloting an advanced WESS that would not only power its own rail system, but distribute electricity to the grid at times of peak electricity demand. The local electric utility will pay SEPTA for the electricity pro- vided. SEPTA estimates that the WESS can generate up to $250,000 in revenue for the agency per year (46). For more information, see the case example in chapter five. NYC Transit (NYCT), which has regenerative braking capability on about half of its subway rail cars, has undertaken a study to evaluate possible regenerative technologies. Fig- ure 10 summarizes the study results. The study found that the most costly strategy, as well as the one with the longest pay- back period, was to synchronize starts and stops of railcars in order to maximize sharing of energy between cars. Although an on-board lithium ion battery would pay back the investment the most quickly of any of the options studied, this technology was not yet ready for installation at the time of the study in 2008. NYMTA noted that this technology is developing rap- idly and could become available within a few years (47). car is approximately 25 years (45). As a result, in the short term retrofit solutions for railcars are often more attractive to transit agencies than a change in vehicle type. Rail sys- tems in the United States tend to have customized rail cars (45), which can also complicate the design and deployment of energy efficiency strategies. The most common strategy that survey respondents use to improve the energy efficiency of railcars is regenerative brak- ing, with more than four-fifths of the respondents using this strategy (see Table 11). According to another study, approxi- mately 60% of U.S. rail transit systems use regenerative brak- ing in some way (45). Regenerative Braking For rail cars, “regenerative braking” refers to ways of storing a car’s kinetic energy, which would otherwise be released as heat during the braking process, and using it for propul- sion. When braking, a railcar’s electric motor can become an electric generator and the electricity generated can be stored in a battery, a flywheel, or an ultracapacitor. Each of these technologies has its own advantages; for example, batteries are capable of holding the largest amount of energy, whereas ultracapacitors are able to charge and discharge more rap- idly. Energy generated through regenerative braking can be stored either on board the railcar or off-board in an energy storage system (WESS). The capabilities of both on-board and off-board storage are improving as they continue to be researched and tested. LA Metro has considered retrofitting some of its railcars with on-board technology to store energy generated from regenerative braking. Based on available information, this strategy is anticipated to reduce electricity use for a rail car by approximately 15%. However, as is the case with hybrid motors in buses or cars, actual reductions in energy use will depend on the route traveled and the number of times that the train stops and starts (16). Instead of storing energy on-board, railcars can also sup- ply energy immediately to nearby trains or store it in an Answer Options Response Count Regenerative Braking 16 Improve Efficiency of Vehicle Lighting 10 Minimize Electric Transmission Losses 5 Switch to Lighter Weight Vehicles 4 Improve Efficiency of HVAC Systems 4 Other (please specify) 5 None of the Above 2 TABLE 11 ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES FOR RAIL CARS

24 FIGURE 10 NYMTA evaluation of regenerative energy systems for NYC subway. Source: Traction Power Report (47 ). Lightweighting Strategies for Railcars A lighter railcar requires less energy to move and stop. Although such strategies generally cannot achieve the same degree of electricity savings as regenerative braking, reducing the weight of a railcar can be a very cost-effective approach to saving energy. Some lightweighting strategies have very short payback periods. Several transit agencies have studied the specific strategies that would be available for their sys- tems. The results for each strategy vary depending on whether they are applied as retrofits or in new railcars and supporting infrastructure. NYMTA identified 14 different ways to reduce the weight of its subway railcars (see Figure 11). Eight of these strate- gies are so simple and inexpensive to implement that they

25 FIGURE 11 NYMTA analysis of lightweighting strategies for NYC subway. Source: Traction Power Report (47 ). would pay back almost immediately. Strategies studied ranged from eliminating flip-up seats and changing adver- tisement card clips from metal to plastic to redesigning the trip cock linkage, which is part of the train’s stop system. At 38 years, the latter has the longest payback period of the strategies studied. Transit agencies may see fewer opportunities to reduce the weight of commuter railcars than for light rail and sub- way railcars, because safety requirements for commuter rail limit the use of many of the strategies discussed earlier. Improving Auxiliary Systems in Rail Cars In addition to lightweighting strategies, there are a number of basic energy efficiency measures that agencies can incorpo- rate in lighting or HVAC systems on existing and new railcars to reduce total energy consumption. BART analyzed a group of such improvements and calculated the annual cost savings and payback periods, both with and without energy efficiency incentives available in California. Table 12 summarizes the results of the analysis, which found that high-efficiency light- ing and directing cooler air to the inlet of HVAC condensers

26 Improved vehicle maintenance can also save energy. Sim- ple activities such as maintaining lubrication and reducing friction throughout the vehicle and maintaining tires with the proper pressure can improve or preserve the fuel economy of buses without substantially increasing costs. For example, properly inflated tires can increase the fuel economy of buses by 3% (43). When lubricating engines, low-viscosity motor oils and lubricants may be able to improve fuel economy from 1% to 5% (44). TriMet in Portland, Oregon, found that adjusting transmissions, front-end alignment, steering con- trol, and maintaining tire pressure increased fuel efficiency by 10% on its bus fleet (49). The APTA Transit Sustainability Guidelines also suggest using rail lubricators to reduce friction, thereby improving the energy efficiency of railcars (50). Table 13 shows the relative popularity of different types of vehicle operations and maintenance strategies among sur- vey respondents. Strategies for Idling Reduction Reducing unnecessary idling is a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use. In addition to reducing energy use during the opera- tion of the vehicle, anti-idling strategies can reduce wear offered rapid payback periods—less than one year if the agency takes advantage of available incentives. Other agencies pursuing or considering lighting retrofits for rail cars included: • TransLink in Vancouver, British Columbia, which esti- mates that lighting retrofits to its rail cars could reduce energy use by 200,000 kWh over more than two years. • WMATA is purchasing new rail cars that will include LED passenger information display signs, linear door motors that will not generate carbon dust (requiring less maintenance), and oil-less compressors that do not need an acid wash (48). VEHICLE OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICE DESIGN The most fuel-efficient way for any transit vehicle to oper- ate is at a relatively constant speed with few stops and starts and minimal time spent with the engine idling, which need- lessly burns fuel and releases emissions. Energy is lost when vehicles idle in maintenance yards, during repairs or layovers, and in congested conditions along service routes. Naturally, transit vehicles must make frequent stops as part of their ser- vice; however, transit agencies can employ a number of tech- niques to minimize operational energy lost through idling and unnecessary starts or stops. In the instance of idling, available technologies can turn off vehicles automatically and agency- wide policies can encourage behavior changes. Driver train- ing programs can help reduce vehicle idling, as well as teach other “eco-driving” practices. To address unnecessary starts and stops, agencies can make sure that routes are planned efficiently and effectively to minimize time and energy lost at traffic lights or at stops with low ridership, which may in the process also improve the quality of service provided. Strategy Energy Savings— Fleet (kWh/year) Cost Savings per Year Payback Period Payback Period with Incentives 1. High-efficiency lighting 156,872 $37,891 Included in 5 Included in 5 2. Direct cooler air to the inlet of HVAC condensers 1,717,819 $180,370 1.1 0.6 3. Higher-efficiency HVAC units 413,021 $43,367 15.9 14.6 4. Optimize outside air intake 1,444,334 $151,791 6.9 5.6 5. Daylight controls on fluorescent lamps 837,433 $87,930 32.6 22.4 6. Variable frequency drives on supply fans 3,206,292 $336,661 8.8 4.4 BASE Energy, Inc., Energy Efficiency Assessment of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Train Cars (15). TABLE 12 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS FOR BART CARS Is Your Agency Saving Energy Through Transit Vehicle Operations and Maintenance Strategies? Response Count Use of anti-idling technologies or policies 38 Maintenance programs to improve fuel efficiency 24 Driver training for eco-driving/operation of vehicles 22 Other (please specify) 7 None of the above 9 TABLE 13 USE OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES FOR FUEL EFFICIENCY

27 more easily on transit buses than some other technolo- gies (51). In some cases, this technology has generated reductions in idling time of up to 50% (43). The Mary- land Transit Administration has installed an AESS system on its newest locomotives and reports significant energy savings. Similarly, Sound Transit has reduced idling by approximately 34% with AESS and more environmen- tally friendly engine power units. • Diesel-driven heating systems for railcars can charge batteries and power heaters, using waste heat generated during operation to then maintain heat in the water sys- tem when a locomotive is turned off. • Direct power connections allow buses or locomotives to plug into an electric power source at garages or main- tenance facilities to maintain functions required during repairs that might otherwise have required idling the engine. For example, NYMTA’s Metro-North Railroad has wayside power available for locomotives that pow- ers heating, cooling, and lighting when trains are in the maintenance yard. In one study conducted for buses at the Chicago Tran- sit Authority (CTA), a cost–benefit analysis of anti-idling technologies indicated that these technologies could save between $3,000 and $14,000 per bus per year and all pay- back periods could be less than one year (see Table 14). Anti-idling policies can also help agencies reduce unnec- essary fuel use. A large number of U.S. transit agencies have anti-idling policies; however, the degree to which they are effective depends on whether drivers are aware of them and the degree to which they are enforced or monitored by the agency. Agencies responding to the survey reported that their anti-idling programs were generally successful, but many commented that they could not quantify the energy savings from the programs. Additionally, these policies often include exceptions in order to maintain reasonable comfort when tem- peratures get too low or too high. Several responding agencies also commented that they could not effectively enforce anti- idling policies. and tear on an engine, resulting in reduced needs for vehicle maintenance and replacement (43). Avoiding idling at criti- cal locations, such as near schools, can also reduce health impacts of criteria pollutants on populations that are particu- larly vulnerable. Among survey respondents, reducing idling is a common strategy, with more than three-quarters of the agencies sur- veyed reporting that they were using either anti-idling tech- nologies on their vehicles or instituting policies against idling, as shown in Table 13. TransLink in Vancouver, Canada, esti- mates that an anti-idling campaign and policy has resulted in fuel savings of approximately $500,000 per year. Several states or jurisdictions also set time limits on idling to improve air quality, such as Connecticut’s three minute limit and New York’s five minute limit when the temperature is above 25°F (43). Enforcing such laws helps transit agencies save fuel. Many transit vehicles have or can be equipped with anti- idling technologies that allow auxiliary equipment to func- tion even when the vehicle’s engine has been turned off. Some of the available technologies are described here: • Auxiliary power units (APUs) are small engines with cooling, heating, and generating capacity that provide power to a vehicle for nonpropulsion needs. The weight of an APU needs to be considered, because this can offset fuel savings in some cases, particularly on buses (51). • Combination battery-powered air conditioning/diesel- fired heating units can supply power for air condition- ing through a battery that is recharged while the bus is in motion. However, the added weight of this system can limit gains in efficiency (51). • Automatic engine stop-start (AESS) controls automati- cally turn off an engine after a set period of time and mon- itor various parameters to determine when to shut down and then restart the engine. These parameters include water temperature, brake pressure, battery charge, or even ambient vehicle temperature. Such devices can be small and lightweight, allowing for them to be integrated Technology Cost of Unit & Installation Fuel Use per Hour Maintenance Cost Annual Savings per Bus Payback Time in Years Percent of Diesel Reduced— Fleet APU $8,000 0.08–0.30 $400 $12,396–14,719 0.5–0.6 12.8% Battery-powered AC/Diesel-fired Heater $7,500 0.00–0.17 $400 $13,769–14,719 0.5 16.65% Automatic Shutdown/Start-up Devices $1,200 0.15–0.40 $0 $11,740–14,380 0.1 17.53% Direct Power Connection $2,100 0.00–0.00 $0 $3,407 0.6 NA Adapted from Ziring and Srirag, “Mitigating Excessive Idling of Transit Buses” (51). NA = not available. TABLE 14 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR IDLING REDUCTION ON CTA BUSES

28 nificant improvements in fuel economy from training drivers in energy-efficient practices. More than two-fifths of survey respondents indicated that they provide some sort of eco-driving training to their vehicle operators. Although eco-driving strat- egies can be effective for improving the fuel economy of vehi- cles, they can also be a challenge for drivers concerned with maintaining on-time performance along their routes. One of the best known programs available for transit oper- ators is the SmartDriver program developed by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. This program has been piloted and used at a variety of transit agencies both in Canada and the United States. Some of the techniques taught in this train- ing include: 1. Pulse and coast (also known as pulse and glide). This technique involves using the vehicle’s own momen- tum and coasting to reduce fuel consumption. 2. Extending the buffer space between cars from 1 s to 3 s. 3. Anticipating traffic flow by keeping their eyes on the horizon, coasting to gradual stops, and changing lanes to avoid upcoming obstacles. 4. Driving at fewer than 200 revolutions per minute, with smoother and slower acceleration and braking. 5. Driving uphill at 6 mph under the speed limit. 6. Keeping tires properly inflated as per vehicle specifications. 7. Driving 6 mph under the posted highway speed limit. 8. Reducing aerodynamic drag by keeping windows closed while driving (53). CUTA’s pilot study in 2009 included five transit agen- cies (North Bay, Windsor, Nanaimo, Halifax, and Bramton). North Bay reduced fuel consumption during the course of the Some agencies are able to enforce anti-idling policies using technologies that can monitor when a vehicle is turned on but not moving. UTA uses a Global Positioning System (GPS) to monitor and enforce its anti-idling policy, which it has recently made more rigorous. Similarly, Foothill Transit uses technology provided by Zonar to assess idling on its vehicles (see chapter five). Anti-idling policies may also be externally enforced. For example, in 2010 the EPA helped to enforce a Massachu- setts anti-idling law in response to citizen complaints about idling commuter trains. As a result, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority installed and upgraded electric plug-ins at layover stations, changed to ultra-low sulfur die- sel for commuter rail trains, installed new diesel engines on 14 of its locomotives, and paid a fine of $225,000 (52). Other ways to improve the application of anti-idling poli- cies include education and incentives for drivers, and tech- nologies to improve the driver’s experience when switching off engines. One survey of bus operators in Chicago asked drivers what would encourage them to idle less. Table 15 summarizes the results (51), which indicate that reminders and reinforcement of anti-idling policies are the most effec- tive ways to encourage drivers to idle less. Driver Training Beyond idling, the operating techniques of drivers have impli- cations for a vehicle’s fuel economy, as well as the rate of wear and tear on the vehicle. Although driver training programs also depend on compliance and the degree to which techniques learned are applied in the field, many agencies have found sig- TABLE 15 EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNIQUES TO ENCOURAGE REDUCED IDLING Influence of Various Factors on Bus Operator Behavior Encourage Idle Less No Effect Awareness of amount of fuel consumed while idling 60% 40% Awareness of cost of fuel consumed while idling 57% 43% Awareness of added maintenance cost caused by idling 72% 28% Awareness of health effects of fumes produced by my bus to me and to others 84% 16% Awareness of amount of pollution produced while idling 81% 19% Reassurance from management that bus will restart even if off for a few hours 62% 38% Reassurance that shutting off engine is official policy 93% 7% Visual reminder (on-board sign and/or signs posted around garage) of idling policy 93% 7% Installed device that provides heat even when engine is off 93% 7% Installed device that provides A/C even when engine is off 91% 9% Installed device that automatically restarts engine when it hits a certain low engine temperature 95% 5% Incentives 88% 12% Punishment for not following idling policy 83% 17% Adapted from Ziring and Srirag, “Mitigating Excessive Idling of Transit Buses” (51).

29 boarding more efficient while also reducing idling time. Real-time travel information from GPS tracking of transit vehicles informs travelers when a bus or train will arrive, and also allows agencies to track performance and potentially cut vehicle-miles while maintaining service. The Maryland Transit Administration reports that scheduling and automatic vehicle location systems have helped reduce the number of buses in service at off-peak times, resulting in energy savings. When buses operate faster and more reliably, fewer vehicles can be used to provide the same level of service to custom- ers. There is very limited information concerning the amount of energy saved by these strategies; however, they represent opportunities for agencies to improve customer service and enjoy at least some energy savings as a co-benefit. Reducing non-revenue or “deadhead” miles is another way to reduce fuel used by buses. For example, Sound Tran- sit implemented a program to store buses downtown between the morning and evening rush hour rather than at a garage located at the edge of city. As a result, the agency saved 95,000 gallons of diesel fuel in 2008 (43). At King County Metro, improved scheduling reduced the number of buses in service at any time and reduced the number traveling to and from downtown empty at the beginning and end of the day. Total mileage savings have been between 1% and 2%, or approximately 100,000 vehicle-miles for the entire system. Similarly, energy is saved when smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles are used for routes with fewer customers. For exam- ple, Kansas City transit uses small buses and a “Metroflex” fleet of buses that carry 12 to 15 passengers. The small buses have fuel economy that is approximately 39% higher than the larger fleet buses, and the Metroflex fleet is about 164% more efficient (55). Using these buses effectively has helped to reduce costs, although the lower wages paid to drivers of the smaller vehicles is most likely also a factor. Another series of tests of the fuel economy of small buses across several systems found that fuel economy improvements could range from 7% to 78% (55). On a route with lower ridership demands, chang- ing from a larger to a smaller bus could save energy; how- ever, agencies should consider the possibility that maintaining smaller vehicles could increase maintenance costs. For paratransit or other demand-response service, hav- ing real-time monitoring systems in place can also improve efficiency. For example, the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority has scheduling software that allows passengers to effortlessly schedule and cancel rides as needed. The soft- ware also sends reminders to passengers of upcoming trips. The software has improved paratransit service by reducing missed trips and time the vehicles spend idling while waiting for a late passenger (43). Implementing signal priority for transit vehicles improves traffic flow and can improve on-time performance of buses. This is often an essential component of bus rapid transit (BRT) service, but can benefit other transit modes as well. One study from Helsinki, Finland, found that a combination study by 15.7% and Windsor Transit saw even greater sav- ings of nearly 25%, although these savings were measured on a closed course rather than actual service routes (53). CT Transit also implemented the program. Between 2006 and 2008 the agency provided all operators with a full day of training. During the training, operators improved fuel effi- ciency by a full mile per gallon (James Bradford, CT Transit, personal communication, Feb. 2012). Similar programs such as DriveCam and GreenRoad focus on teaching efficient and smooth driving, reducing idling, and reducing speeding. Both programs monitor a driver’s behav- ior in the vehicle, provide real-time feedback, and allow for measurement and quantification of savings, as well as com- parison of performance across multiple operators (28, 54). Service Design Strategies The way that a transit route is designed has implications for the number of times a vehicle must stop, the level of conges- tion along the route, and passengers’ experience (Table 16). As more technologies to track vehicles and synchronize traffic signals are becoming available to transit agencies, it is increas- ingly possible to systematically select the most efficient vehi- cle type for a given route or to design energy-efficient transit routes by adjusting traffic signals, timing layovers, or chang- ing the spacing of stops so that vehicles spend more time mov- ing and less time idling. Granted, routes must be designed to provide the best transit service possible for travelers, so these strategies are rarely employed for their energy saving benefits alone. Among survey respondents, nearly half reported they were saving energy through transit service design strategies; however, less than one-third consider energy use when design- ing their transit routes. Nevertheless, it is likely that, whether intended or not, transit agencies around the country are saving energy through strategies they have pursued for other reasons. Some of the strategies listed previously may have a greater impact on displaced energy use, because they serve to make transit a more attractive option and may increase rid- ership as well. For example, off-board fare payment makes Answer Options Response Count GPS tracking of transit vehicles 21 Signal priority for transit vehicles 20 Layover timing 14 Off-board fare payment 11 Stop spacing 9 Use of demand-response service when demand not sufficient for fixed-route service 7 Other (please specify) 3 Automatic vehicle dispatch and management for traffic flow 1 TABLE 16 USE OF SERVICE DESIGN STRATEGIES AT TRANSIT AGENCIES

30 and maintenance functions. Transit agencies’ fleets of non- revenue vehicles can be quite large. For example, LA Metro’s non-revenue fleet includes 700 light-duty cars and trucks (16). In some cases, limited paratransit or demand-response service may be provided by smaller vehicles or medium-duty vans. Techniques for reducing energy used by non-revenue or paratransit vehicles are in many cases the same strategies that individuals might use to reduce energy consumption in their personal vehicles. Among transit agencies surveyed, nearly three-quarters reported using strategies to save energy in their non-revenue fleets (see Table 18). Among survey respondents the most common way to reduce energy consumed in a non-revenue fleet is through the use of hybrid electric vehicles. Hybrids make up an increasing percentage of the light-duty vehicle market. Sales of hybrids increased from 2.5% of the total sales in 2008 to 4% in 2011. Hybrid vehicles offer the potential for considerable fuel sav- ings, with fuel economy for many hybrid models reaching as much as 50 mpg, compared with 23.8 mpg for the average new light-duty vehicle in the United States as of 2009 (10). The Department of Energy estimates the cost of fuel for a hybrid Ford Escape at approximately $1,800 per year compared with $2,450 for a non-hybrid Ford Fusion, which gets 23 mpg (56). Actual savings for a transit agency depend primarily on how much individual vehicles are driven (56). Hybrids and other alternative fueled vehicles cost more than conventional vehi- cles to purchase, although the exact premium depends on the type of vehicle. Some individual agencies that have experi- ences with hybrids include the following agencies: • LA Metro found that purchasing a Toyota Camry hybrid sedan that gets 34 mpg costs $5,755 more than a conven- tional Camry, but could save up to $8,629 and 977 gal- lons of fuel over the life of the vehicle if it was driven 18,000 miles per year. The agency would break even if the vehicle was driven 7,300 miles per year or more. For of real-time travel information and signal priority could result in up to a 5% decrease in fuel consumption (55). Toronto has implemented traffic signal priority for a light rail line. As a result, the transit agency was able to remove one vehicle from service while maintaining the same level of service from the rider perspective. Therefore the agency saves both money and energy (55). Several agencies, including SEPTA and Foothill Transit, are working with their municipalities on large transit signal prioritization projects, some of which are funded through TIGGER grants. CTA is implementing BRT that will use transit signal prioritization, as is Capital Metro in Austin, Texas. Regional Transit District in Denver is looking to expand its current signal prioritization program. Multiple service design strategies can be implemented simultaneously to improve service and save energy. For example, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority analyzed ridership demands on each route to support route restructur- ing. The agency subsequently reduced annual route miles by 1.9 million over three years, even as ridership increased by 6%. The number of buses required for peak service dropped from 148 to 126, and the agency replaced some larger buses with smaller more fuel efficient vehicles for neighborhood services. Taken together, the strategies mentioned previously can help to improve transit service overall, with an appropri- ately sized vehicle arriving at stops when scheduled, with minimal time (and energy) lost in unnecessary stops or on deadhead miles. Table 17 summarizes these strategies. NON-REVENUE VEHICLE STRATEGIES In addition to their revenue fleets of vehicles dedicated to transporting passengers, transit agencies also maintain fleets of non-revenue vehicles. These are typically light-duty pas- senger vehicles used for management and supervision pur- poses. Agencies may also have some larger vehicles that are used for repairs and towing as well as construction activities Operations and Service Design Strategy Potential Energy Benefit Fleet Management Software Reduced energy through more efficient routes, appropriately sized vehicles, and more efficient service types, such as BRT AVL and Real-Time Dispatch Reduced energy from reduced deadhead miles Ability to reduce vehicles in circulation when not needed Transit Signal Prioritization Higher fuel economy from smoother traffic flow Service Realignment Reduced fuel use from smoother driving technique and reduced idling Energy reduced from deadhead miles Ecodriving Reduced fuel use from smoother driving technique and reduced idling Anti-Idling Technologies or Policies Reduced fuel use by limiting time with engine running AVL = automatic vehicle location. TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS AND SERVICE DESIGN BENEFITS

31 refers to the electricity, natural gas, and other fuels that are used to heat, cool, and power buildings. Buildings also use some energy indirectly. Indirect energy is not consumed on site, but is inherent in other resources that buildings consume and waste that they generate. Examples of indirect energy include the energy that is required to manufacture construction materials and haul waste to landfills and the energy used to extract, treat, and distribute water to buildings. This and the following two sections discuss ways of reduc- ing energy use in buildings. This section describes strategies to reduce direct energy use that apply to transit stops and other facilities that are unique to transit agencies. The next section describes more general green building strategies to reduce direct energy use that apply to administrative buildings and maintenance facilities, and the following section discusses strategies to reduce indirect energy use in buildings. Although rail and bus stations, stops, and bus shelters may not be at the top of any agency’s list of energy consum- ers, they offer the opportunity for an agency to showcase its energy-saving initiatives to the public. There are opportuni- ties to save energy used to light, heat, cool, and operate sta- tion facilities. Approximately three-quarters of the agencies surveyed were in some way saving energy at their stations and stops, with the majority of respondents saving energy through lighting, as shown in Table 19. Those responding “other” primarily indicated other efficient lighting options. light-duty trucks, the savings were less significant, with the possibility of saving $2,070 and 755 gallons of fuel over the life of the vehicle (16). • Sound Transit reduced non-revenue fuel consumption by 15% in 2010, in part as a result of replacing nine non-revenue fleet vehicles with Toyota Priuses. In 2010, these vehicles saved the agency 1,800 gallons of fuel and about $5,600 (11). • SamTrans identified a cost premium of $1,280 per hybrid vehicle purchased. The agency has purchased 21 Priuses and plans to replace an additional 51 vehicles with hybrids between 2012 and 2015. Payback periods are estimated to range from 2.7 to 2.9 years for past and future purchases, respectively (14). • TriMet has added hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles to its non-revenue fleet and has worked with Zipcar to use shared vehicles to meet some of its non-revenue needs. Employees are able to reserve shared vehicles online for a few hours at a time when they are needed and pay for them by the hour. Ecodriving and anti-idling measures also offer potential fuel savings for smaller vehicles. The Department of Energy estimates that the cost of idling is $0.02–0.04 per minute for a light-duty vehicle with the air conditioner running, and that aggressive driving can lower gas mileage by about 5% on down- town routes (57). At several transit agencies, anti-idling policies and driver training programs cover non-revenue vehicles as well as transit vehicles. Although not a transit agency, the city of Edmonton, Canada, has achieved significant fuel savings in its municipal fleet through its Fuel Sense program, which trains drivers in eco-driving practices. The city reports a 10% reduc- tion in fuel consumption as a result of the program (53). ENERGY AT STATIONS AND STOPS In addition to operating vehicles, transit agencies operate build- ings, including transit stations and stops, administrative offices, and maintenance facilities. Broadly speaking, there are two dif- ferent ways in which buildings use energy. Direct energy use Non-Revenue Vehicle Strategies Response Count Hybrid Electric Vehicles 29 Use of Anti-Idling Technologies or Policies 18 Driver Training for Eco-Driving/Operation of Vehicles 12 Reductions in Fleet Size 11 Maintenance Programs to Improve Fuel Efficiency 11 Trip Chaining or Other Trip Reduction Measures 6 Other (please specify) 5 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles 4 Battery Electric Vehicles 2 Hydrogen Vehicles 0 None 14 TABLE 18 USE OF ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES FOR NON-REVENUE VEHICLES Energy Savings at Transit Stations and Stops Response Count LED Lighting at Stations or Stops 23 Solar-Powered Lighting at Stations or Stops 22 Other (please specify) 7 Efficient Heating or Cooling in Stations 4 None 14 TABLE 19 ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES AT STATIONS AND STOPS

32 • The Capital District Transportation Authority in Albany, New York, installed 25 solar-powered illuminated bus signs at bus stops without shelters, four solar shelter lighting systems on top of existing shelters, and 10 Big- Belly cordless compaction systems for trash disposal along a 2.5 mile corridor. In addition to the energy saved by these systems, the agency was interested in increas- ing ridership along this corridor before beginning BRT service. The project was implemented in partnership with an area business improvement district, which pro- vided $10,000 toward the project. The project found that small signs were subject to vandalism, but that the solar- powered bus shelters were effective and appreciated by users (60). • SFMTA’s new “Wave” shelter has photovoltaic cells that generate up to 100 watts of energy. This is enough to power a fluorescent backlit information panel, rooftop lighting, and NextBus and Push to Talk technologies, which provide real-time travel information to passen- gers. In addition to powering the stop’s amenities, up to 40% of the energy generated can be supplied to the city’s power grid. SFMTA advertises these benefits to waiting customers through a sign displayed on the shelter. • Pierce Transit in Tacoma, Washington, has 56 solar- powered stops, which do not need to be connected to the grid in order to power the lighting. Although these strategies can reduce grid energy use, some agencies have reported reliability issues with solar-powered lighting at bus stops. Energy-Efficient Station and Stop Design Large transit stations and stops require energy for heating and cooling, and also for escalators and elevators. Escala- tors alone can use up to 25% of the energy at a station (2). Improved designs can reduce the energy used in each of these functions. Small design details or the use of recycled or alter- native construction materials can help to reduce energy used in construction as well as the embodied energy in the facil- ity. Stations in particular can follow many of the strategies associated with green building more generally, such as those associated with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. More information on these types of improvements is provided in the next two sections. SEPTA recently completed construction of a LEED-certified station funded through the ARRA. Fox Chase Station’s energy- saving elements include: • Using light-colored surfaces to reflect sunlight and keep surfaces cool. • Replacing 40% of cement with slag or fly ash, saving 33 tons of raw materials and 150 MBTUs (thousand BTUs) of energy, and 95% of construction waste was recycled. LED and Other High-Efficiency Lighting High-efficiency lighting provided either by LEDs, compact fluorescent bulbs, induction lighting, or other technologies can offer a relatively quick payback for a high degree of energy savings. Additionally, agencies can save money on labor, because a longer bulb life means less staff time spent replacing the bulbs. Efficient lighting technology comes in many variet- ies, including: • Compact Fluorescents (CFLs): Easy replacements for incandescent bulbs, CFLs use approximately one-quarter of the energy of an incandescent bulb and last approxi- mately ten times longer. Although the purchase price of CFLs is higher, their life-cycle costs are estimated at $10 compared with $40 for an incandescent bulb. • T-5 and T-8 Fluorescents: These fluorescent tube bulbs replace older traditional fluorescent tube lights (T-12 models) and are at least 25% more efficient than the traditional fluorescent tube bulbs. The payback period for a basic T-8 bulb is 5 years. • LEDs are typically used for small signs such as exit lights and some street lighting. They can reduce energy use by up to 80% compared with incandescent lighting. The use of LEDs is expanding rapidly as the technology matures and becomes available in more applications. • Induction lighting requires no electrodes and provides significant amounts of light with a long fixture lifetime. Because the costs of induction lighting remain high, they are most typically used in locations that are dif- ficult to access, making one-time installation more cost- effective (58). Agencies will need to select the appropriate lighting replace- ment for each application based on the original lighting fix- ture and bulb and its purpose. Numerous transit agencies have estimated energy savings associated with lighting upgrades at stations and stops. For example, in planning future upgrades, TransLink has esti- mated that lighting retrofits and controls at stations and sub- stations could result in more than 220,000 kWh saved in one year. NYCT has replaced tunnel lighting with CFLs, and LA Metro is using T-8 lights, achieving between 25% and 75% improvements in energy efficiency (3, 59). Solar-Powered Lighting and Other Applications Bus shelters and transit stations can be good locations for solar panels, particularly for rural systems or suburban por- tions of urban transit systems, where bus stops may be rela- tively isolated and composed of just a small shelter or sign. At such locations solar panels can completely replace any other source of power for lighting and eliminate the need to connect to the grid. Additionally, some agencies have used solar-powered lighting at stops as a public relations mecha- nism to encourage ridership. For example:

33 This section highlights some examples of strategies related to energy use in offices and facilities, but does not provide a comprehensive list of all possible technologies or strategies available. Lighting, Computers, and Electronics Computers, electronics, and lighting combine to make up 6% of a building’s energy use. Although a relatively small amount, there are often significant opportunities to make simple changes that result in energy savings. Savings can accrue from ensuring that lights, computers, and any other electronics are turned completely off when not in use and from using more efficient lights and appliances. Detailed descriptions of efficient lighting technologies are provided in the previous section “Energy at Stations and Stops.” Exam- ples of agencies saving energy from lighting, computers, and electronics in administrative facilities follow. • SamTrans found that a suite of projects including upgrad- ing existing lighting fixtures to more efficient T-8 fluo- rescent bulbs and electronic ballast systems, improved lighting placement, increased penetration of natural sunlight where possible, LED systems for spot light- ing requirements, and energy miser devices in vending machines in an administrative building would save $5,300 per year, with a payback period of about five years (14). • Similarly SamTrans found a payback period of less than five years after installing motion sensors in four of its facilities. The quickest payback period was associated with a desktop power management system for agency computers, with an estimated payback period of 1.4 years based on an assumption of a 30% reduction in computer energy use (14). • 9 Town Transit, which provides public transit along a portion of the Connecticut shoreline, saves energy through power saving energy strips that automatically shut down at night. The agency has upgraded lighting using rebates available through its local utility. • Jaunt, in Charlottesville, Virginia, installed timers to shut off vending machines on the weekends when bev- erages do not need to be kept cold. Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Upgrades Transit agencies can realize significant energy savings through comprehensive building upgrades that take into account heat- ing and cooling systems, in addition to lighting and other equipment. Heating buildings accounts for on average one- quarter of a building’s energy needs, and cooling for another 12%. Because each building’s energy use profile will be differ- ent, an agency may find it helpful to have an energy audit con- ducted to identify where energy is being lost and where systems could operate more efficiently. The Argonne National Labora- tory has conducted an ongoing inventory and assessment of buildings that have undergone complete energy assessments • Using high-efficiency plumbing fixtures and faucets to reduce water use by 100,000 gallons per year. • Using 30% less energy than a comparable building (46). With these energy-saving elements, Fox Chase Station was the first railroad station to achieve LEED Silver certification (46). Other agencies finding creative ways to save energy at stations and stops include the following: • NYMTA is currently constructing a new Second Avenue subway station to include several innovative and energy- saving design elements. The track approaching and leav- ing the station has been adjusted so that the inclines take advantage of gravity to reduce energy spent on braking and acceleration. The station also includes an escalator that responds to demand and can go into sleep mode when not used, a center platform, reducing the size of the station, and recycled railroad ties (2). • TransLink estimates that improvements to escalator motors at transit stations can save 565,000 kWh over two years. Automation of manual track heaters is antici- pated to save an additional 195,000 kWh over two years. ENERGY SAVINGS IN OTHER FACILITIES In addition to operating transit stops, transit agencies also own and operate administrative buildings and maintenance facilities. These facilities are not unique to transit agencies, and many of the best practices that other organizations, com- panies, or private citizens use to save energy in buildings can also apply to administrative buildings owned by transit operators. Because buildings are responsible for approxi- mately 40% of overall U.S. energy use, they offer a signifi- cant opportunity for transit agencies to reduce electricity and heating bills, as well as their overall energy footprint (43). Almost three-quarters of those agencies surveyed reported sav- ing energy through strategies related specifically to building energy use. Table 20 provides more information on specific strategies that agencies are using. Building Energy Saving Strategies Response Count Install automatic timers/sensors for lighting 31 Upgrading to more efficient lighting 30 Energy savings in maintenance yards 22 Upgrading to more efficient appliances and computers 16 Achieving LEED certification 15 Enhancing building insulation 11 Other (please specify) 8 Installing passive heating or cooling systems 6 None of the above 12 TABLE 20 USE OF ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES FOR BUILDINGS

34 • Regional Transit District in Denver received more than $1 million in TIGGER funds to replace boiler systems in two of its bus maintenance facilities. The new equip- ment will include control systems to adjust the boiler systems in response to outdoor air temperatures. For one of the systems, the projected annual savings are equiva- lent to 22% of the entire facility’s energy use. With pro- jected energy savings of more than 19,000 MBTUs per year, the agency expects to save more than $2 million in energy costs over the lifetime of the new boiler (21, 43). • NJ Transit received $250,000 in TIGGER funds after completing energy audits at 20 of its largest facilities. During these audits, the agency identified opportunities to reduce energy used by air compressors. Opportuni- ties include using variable frequency drives and increas- ing air storage at five locations. NJ Transit anticipates that these upgrades will both save energy and reduce operating and maintenance costs (21). • Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority is replacing two boilers in its operations building with multiple condensing-type boilers, replacing heaters with high-efficiency gas-fired condensing units, and installing temperature controls in operations and service buildings (21). The project, which used $342,153 in TIGGER fund- ing, is projected to save more than 6,000 MBTUs per year and 118,000 MBTUs over the project’s lifetime (62). • SEPTA monitors energy use at each of its buildings and distributes a monthly report to facilities manag- ers comparing the current energy use of its facilities with performance in previous time periods. The anal- ysis demonstrates to managers the benefits of energy efficiency initiatives and helps to highlight unrealized opportunities for energy savings. (See chapter five for additional information on SEPTA’s initiatives.) For transit agencies considering comprehensive energy management programs, an EMS may be a viable option. An EMS consists of a sophisticated software package that com- municates with and controls key building functions, includ- ing lighting and climate control. An EMS can reduce energy use and costs in facilities automatically by: • Turning lighting systems on or off depending on the time of day, available natural light, or occupancy. • Switching on or off noncritical building systems to take advantage of variable rate structures at different times of day. • Switching air handlers in HVAC systems on or off depending on the time of day. • Adjusting building temperatures based on the time of day or on data from outside weather sensors. • Reducing heating of hot water for public lavatories dur- ing off-peak hours. Energy management systems also allow agency staff to moni- tor building functions remotely, which can help inform future strategies to reduce building energy use. and upgrades (often known as “retrocommissioning”) and found that the average energy savings per building is 16%. Upgrades have an average cost of $0.30 per square foot and total payback period of one year (61). LA Metro performed an extensive assessment of energy intensity at its various facilities for its Energy Conservation and Management Plan (ECMP) to identify opportunities for energy efficiency improvements. The results showed a wide variation in energy intensity even among facilities serving similar functions. The energy intensity of the various facili- ties is shown in Figure 12. The analysis shows that the agency’s Metro Services Cen- ter is slightly more energy efficient than the benchmarked office building; however, LA Metro’s many maintenance facilities, particularly the two rail maintenance stations in the upper left corner of the chart, all have a higher energy intensity than the benchmarked warehouses. The analysis therefore suggests that there may be substantial opportuni- ties to improve energy efficiency at these facilities. The ECMP identifies a number of “investment grade” opportunities to reduce energy use. For example, program- mable thermostats could result in between 1% and 5% energy savings, with a payback period of fewer than 18 months (16). The report also recommended ensuring that heating or cooling systems are not running when bus bay doors are open, caulk- ing or adding weather stripping where needed, and installing aerators on water fixtures to reduce water use. One way to finance comprehensive energy efficiency upgrades is energy performance contracting (EPC). Transit agencies can work with an Energy Services Company (ESCO), a company able to assess retrofitting opportunities and perform upgrades, or a local utility that funds energy efficiency audits and upgrades. The upfront costs of audits, management, and upgrades can be paid for over time through the savings gener- ated by the improvements. These financing arrangements are further explained in chapter three, “Financing Energy Savings.” Other transit agency projects for improving the efficiency of existing building energy systems include the following. It can be noted that many of the projected savings from TIGGER- funded projects come from information in the project proposal and these projects will need to be evaluated to provide more complete information on their energy-saving potential: • The Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Author- ity conducted a comprehensive energy assessment for a number of its facilities that resulted in significant upgrades to its lighting systems and roof, and replace- ment of a garage door. The total cost of all upgrades was $2,257,000, which resulted in savings of $499,912 per year and a payback period of 4.5 years (43). The upgrades are projected to save 21,500 MBTUs per year and 538,000 MBTUs over the lifetime of the project (62).

35 FIGURE 12 Energy intensity of the LA Metro portfolio. Source: Energy Conservation and Management Plan (3).

36 The total energy benefits of green buildings can be sub- stantial. Green buildings can use up to 50% less energy than conventional buildings. In addition, a General Services Admin- istration study found that overall maintenance costs are 13% lower for green buildings compared with traditional buildings (61). At least 14 U.S. transit agencies have constructed green buildings, and many of those that have done so report substan- tial energy savings compared with a conventional building. The most commonly used system for buildings to dem- onstrate their energy efficiency is the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program, which provides differ- ent levels of certification for different levels of green building, ranging from “certified” to “platinum.” In addition, there are specific certification systems for different types of facilities. Those most relevant for transit agencies are LEED for New Construction, LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance, and LEED for Core & Shell. A sample of LEED certified projects at transit agencies across the country are pro- vided in Table 21. Not all green buildings are the same; different climates, building sizes, building purposes, and available energy Green Building Certification Transit agencies needing to build new stations, maintenance facilities, or office buildings, or renovate existing structures have a host of cost-effective green building approaches to use that will reduce their energy bills over the long run. “Green” buildings use many of the energy efficiency strate- gies described in previous sections. Buildings are generally termed green when these strategies are integrated into the design of a new building or the retrofit of an existing building such that they meet certain criteria set out in a green building certification system. Many different certification systems exist to help guide designers in constructing a green building. Although these certification systems cover a wide range of aspects of build- ing design, including many that affect indirect energy con- sumption through improved water fixtures, construction materials, and landscaping, one of their key benefits is to reduce direct energy consumption. This section discusses direct energy use reductions in certified green buildings; the following section will discuss strategies to reduce indirect energy use. Rating Systems for Green Buildings There are a number of certification systems available for green buildings. The following were recognized by FTA in its Transit Green Building Action Plan. LEED—Leadership in Environmental Design LEED measures a building’s performance in energy savings, water use, carbon dioxide emissions, indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. Projects can be certified as Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. At present, 442 localities and 34 state governments have legislation, resolutions, policies, incentives, or similar mechanisms in place to encourage the use of the LEED system. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/leed Energy Star® for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants This self-rating system, which was developed by EPA and DOE, rates building energy efficiency on a 100 point rating scale, with buildings receiving a score of 50 considered to be average and more than 75 considered to be top performing. The sys- tem takes into account a building’s size, location, and source energy in determining what each building’s worst performing or best performing level of energy use would be. Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?cbusiness.bus_bldgs Green Globes Building Rating System The Green Building Initiative developed two green building rating systems for new construction and existing buildings, which assesses management, the site, energy, water, resources, emissions, and the indoor environment. Projects can receive between one and four globes for their achievements. The system works in partnership with Energy Star and 18 states provide incentives or policies related to Green Globes. Available at: http://www.thegbi.org/

37 resources mean that green building techniques that are promising in one area might not work in another. Gener- ally, green building strategies minimize the energy required for heating and cooling by adapting to the local climate through techniques such as passive solar heating in north- ern climates and white roofs in warmer climates. Insulat- ing elements such as green roofs (roofs with vegetation grown on top) help to keep a building warmer during cooler months and cooler during the warmer ones. Transit agen- cies both large and small have begun to take advantage of green construction and building practices. A sample of these appears here. • Downeast Transportation in Bangor, Maine, recently completed a 22,000 square foot LEED-certified main- tenance facility, projected to use 50% less energy than a baseline facility. Some of the design elements included in the facility are solar panels, high energy-efficient con- densing gas boilers, radiant floor heating, four inches of insulation compared with a half inch for a baseline building, and high-efficiency windows. • CTA renovated its administrative building in 2004 and has achieved a LEED-Gold rating for existing buildings. Project Name Owner Location Type of Certification East Valley Bus Administration Facility City of Tempe Tempe, AZ LEED® - Gold East Valley Bus Operation and Maintenance Facility City of Tempe Tempe, AZ LEED® - Gold MTA Transportation Building Division 9 Los Angeles County Metropolitan El Monte, CA LEED® - Gold Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita, CA LEED® - Gold Lory Student Center Transit Center, Colorado State University City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO LEED® - Gold Chicago Transit Authority Headquarters Chicago Transit Authority Chicago, IL LEED® - Gold Bay Area Transportation Authority Bay Area Transportation Authority Traverse City, MI LEED® - Gold Apgar Transit Center, Glacier National Park National Park Service West Glacier, MT LEED® - Gold Charlottesville Transit Station Charlottesville Transit Service Charlottesville, VA LEED® - Gold Interurban Transit Partnership Interurban Transit Partnership Grand Rapids, MI LEED® - Certified Wabash Station Reno City of Columbia, Public Works Columbia, MO LEED® - Certified Corona Maintenance Shop and Car Washer New York City Transit Queens, NY LEED® - Certified Salt Lake City Intermodal Passenger Hub Utah Transit City Corporation Salt Lake City, UT LEED® - Certified Pentagon Metro Entrance Facility Pentagon Renovation Office Arlington, VA LEED® - Certified Report to Congress: Transit Green Building Action Plan [Online]. Available: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Green_Building_Action_Plan.pdf (61). TABLE 21 EXAMPLES OF CERTIFIED GREEN BUILDINGS AT TRANSIT IT AGENCIES The building’s energy saving features include a green roof covering 90% of the roof area, use of natural day- light that allows for some lights to be completely turned off from June through October, low-flow plumbing, and advanced heating and cooling controls (61). Some transit agencies have explicit internal policies that commit to achieving green building certification for new buildings. These policies can mandate that newly constructed or renovated buildings achieve a certification standard or reduce energy consumption by a certain amount. Examples include: • NYMTA is currently drafting its own MTA Green Build- ing Guidelines, which will incorporate LEED criteria in addition to MTA-specific criteria. The Guidelines are intended to serve as an industry model, as they will be more transit agency specific than existing guidelines. • WMATA and King County Metro both have goals that all new buildings meet LEED Silver standards and Sound Transit plans to require that all new buildings constructed attain a LEED Silver certification level (11, 50).

38 TABLE 22 USE OF EMPLOYEE COMMUTE STRATEGIES Alternative Workforce Management ResponseCount Providing transit benefits 19 Providing bike benefits or bike amenities (bike racks or showers on site) 14 Encouraging ridesharing or vanpool participation 13 Allowing for compressed work weeks or telework 13 Other (please specify) 1 None of the above 25 APTA’s Transit Sustainability Guidelines (50) APTA’s Sustainability Guidelines suggest a number of “green” construction principles for transit agencies that can reduce energy use. 1. Use heat recovery units (also known as energy recovery ventilators) to provide heating and cooling. 2. Design fenestration and shading to avoid unwanted solar gain by using low-emissivity glass or external light shelves. 3. Design facilities with increased wall and roof insulation, including vegetative roofs. 4. Use motion sensors to minimize idle lighting. 5. Use air-quality sensors and variable-frequency ventilators to adjust air exchange. 6. Use rapid roll-up doors to minimize losses of conditioned air in maintenance and repair facilities. 7. Consider process heat recovery for domestic hot water. 8. Incorporate light and temperature controls at facilities’ offices. 9. Minimize right-of-way electrical transmission losses through optimized substation spacing. 10. Minimize right-of-way transmission losses through use of a better conductive material for contact rail or catenaries (e.g., aluminum/aluminum composite third rail). 11. Ensure early dialogue with the local utility when exploring new approaches to energy efficiency, production and pur- chasing. Review scope of work with the utility and potential impacts, including challenges and benefits. Establish a general understanding of the extent of utility impact. Get support from the utility. 12. Leverage the utility’s expertise in energy production to produce and/or purchase renewable energy. 13. Leverage the transit agency’s long-term facility ownership. 14. Utilize energy efficiency and renewable energy pilot projects to study the effectiveness of possible improvements. Select projects that fit transit capital goals, funding, and budgets. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE INDIRECT ENERGY USE IN FACILITIES The previous two sections discussed strategies that transpor- tation agencies are using to reduce the use of electricity and fuels that directly power, heat, and cool buildings. However, transit agencies can also take steps to reduce the energy that agency employees use to commute to work, that water utili- ties use to treat and distribute water for transit facilities, that waste management companies use to haul and process waste, and that manufacturers use to make and distribute materi- als needed to construct, maintain, and operate facilities. Although transit agencies are not billed for this energy, many have taken steps to reduce indirect energy use to meet agen- cies’ sustainability goals, save money on water or waste dis- posal, or raise public awareness about environmental issues and initiatives. Employee Commute Programs Although transit agencies typically work to provide the pub- lic with energy-efficient travel options, many also work to reduce the energy that their own employees use to travel to work by offering incentives and education designed to encourage employees to take public transit, carpool, ride bicycles, or work from home instead of driving. Table 22 shows the strategies that survey respondents use to reduce the energy used for employee commutes. An employee commute program is one of the least-used strategies by the transit agencies surveyed, with just over half reporting implementing any commute programs. However, all transit agencies provide free transit rides to their employ- ees as a standard benefit. Agencies that have more formal programs to encourage alternative commuting patterns often use multiple strategies in concert. Some even extend transit benefits to spouses of employees. Examples include: • NYMTA provides tax-free transit benefits for employ- ees using NJ Transit. Some of the MTA agencies allow for telecommuting. • In addition to transit passes for employees and spouses, TriMet also provides bike parking and showers for employees. • SunTran provides transit passes for employees and their family members, a compressed work week for adminis- trative staff, and bike lockers and showers at bus main- tenance and storage facilities.

39 on water bills and on energy used for water heating, as well as reducing sewer discharge (65). • Jacksonville Transit Authority recycles water at its bus washing facility and is planning on installing a solar- powered water heater in the future. Waste Management Transit agencies must manage significant amounts of waste generated by their agencies’ operations and by passengers. Some of the waste types specific to transit agencies include waste oil, hazardous substances, and even retired fleet vehi- cles, which may require creative solutions for proper dis- posal. Some of these materials can be reused by the agency, refurbished to prolong usefulness, or sold to recyclers instead of being thrown away. For example, agencies can retread their tires before recycling them to prolong life or monitor battery fluid levels to ensure that batteries have been fully discharged before disposal. All of these approaches reduce indirect energy use by limiting the amount of energy needed to manu- facture new materials. These strategies also help to reduce agency costs. Among survey respondents, about half noted that their agency engages in waste diversion and recycling. Some examples of transit agencies recycling these types of materials are described here: • NYMTA sold 21,305 tons of scrap material in 2011, bringing in more than $7.8 million. Between 2001 and 2010, the agency gave more than 2,500 obsolete rail- cars to states along the east coast for use as artificial reefs. The subway cars were cleaned of their residue and then lowered into the ocean, where they provide a reef habitat for an aquatic ecosystem (59). To the extent that these practices reduce the use of virgin materials, they also reduce indirect energy use. • Denver’s RTD recycles mixed oil, coolant, filters, and tires. The agency also recycled 262 tons of metal (steel, aluminum, and copper) in 2009. Metal recycling yielded $19,189 from selling this material as scrap (64). • Jaunt, Inc. in Charlottesville, Virginia, recycles waste oil by using it to heat its maintenance shop. Transit agencies also generate mixed solid waste streams. Administrative buildings generate paper waste, and travel- ing passengers dispose of a wide variety of materials while passing through transit agency stations and stops. Providing recycling receptacles to employees and passengers helps to divert this waste from landfills. Recycling in turn reduces indirect energy use by reducing the amount of energy used to manufacture new materials. Recycling can also reduce waste hauling costs for transit agencies. Examples of general waste recycling programs at transit agencies include: • SamTrans, which currently achieves a 28% diversion rate on waste overall, calculated the cost–benefit ratio of increasing its diversion rate to 50%. The agency estimated Although many agencies run employee commute programs, few survey respondents had any information about the impacts of their programs on the agency’s indirect energy use. For many transit agencies, providing this type of benefit makes sense to encourage employees to “practice what they preach”; therefore, the indirect energy savings may be viewed as a co- benefit. Commute reduction strategies may also reduce the cost of building new facilities if they enable transit agencies to reduce the number of parking spaces provided. Water Use Transit agencies use significant amounts of potable water to wash buses and railcars. For example, LA Metro used 236 million gallons of water in 2010, and 90% of that went to bus and car washing (16). NYMTA draws between 1.2 and 1.4 billion gallons of potable water per year to cool subway transformers (63). These amounts are in addition to normal water use by employees and by heating and cooling systems. Treating and distributing water is energy-intensive, partic- ularly in hot, dry climates. Although agencies are not billed directly for this energy, its cost is included in the rates that they pay for water; therefore, agencies have a direct incen- tive to reduce water consumption. Some agencies closely monitor water use at facilities to identify potential reductions or seek opportunities to recycle water. Approximately two- fifths of survey respondents reported using water conserva- tion measures. For example: • LA Metro identified a series of steps to reduce its water use, including recycling runoff water from bus bays, replacing water fixtures in bus and rail stations and steam- ers with models that use less water, and using recycled water where possible. These steps combined would save $69,000 per year in water purchasing costs alone (16). • NYMTA examined its water use and determined that it could achieve a 25% reduction in potable water use and thereby save up to $2 million per year. Strategies to reduce potable water use include recovering water used to cool subway transformers, providing water pumped from subway tunnels to other industrial users in the area, and using greywater for flushing. Currently, the LEED- certified Corona Maintenance shop uses harvested rain- water to wash subway cars (63). • Utah Transit Authority began recycling its bus wash water in 2007. In the three years between 2007 and 2010, the agency reduced its water consumption by 37% across five divisions (13). • Regional Transit District in Denver, Colorado, changed water fixtures in administration bathrooms in its admin- istrative buildings. The agency estimated that the new fixtures reduce water use by 67% (64). • Houston Metro has a wastewater treatment system to recycle water from vehicle washing and cleaning oper- ations. The system removes solids from the water so that they can be disposed of at a landfill. It saves money

40 Examples of agencies using recycled materials in new construction include: • While extending its light rail line, TriMet used 6,000 plastic rail ties made from recycled gas tanks, recycled plastic bollards instead of reinforced metal stanchions (saving more than $250,000 in purchase and installa- tion costs), and mixed existing road-base concrete with an added layer of asphalt, which reduced trucking and disposal fees by more than $2 million dollars (49). • NYMTA has studied the use of engineered compos- ite plastic ties or recycled plastic ties on its rail lines instead of wooden rail ties. The agency’s analysis noted that plastic railroad ties also reduce problems associ- ated with leaching byproducts used to preserve wooden rail ties (47). RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION Transit agencies can reduce energy consumption from the grid (although not necessarily overall energy consumption) by generating renewable energy at their facilities. On-site renewable energy generation is often included in green build- ings; however, many transit agencies have unique opportu- nities for larger-scale renewable energy generation because they own so much property that is suitable for siting renew- able energy installations. The transit agencies surveyed have installed renewable energy projects in a variety of set- tings, including stations, maintenance yards, administrative buildings, and agency-owned rights-of-way. The FTA’s TIGGER program has funded 25 renewable energy installa- tions. Some agencies are also purchasing renewable energy credits for energy they do not generate on site to fulfill agency goals for GHG reductions. Although renewable energy may reduce an agency’s carbon footprint, it does not actually reduce the direct energy consumed. However, on-site energy generation facilities may lower indirect energy use by reducing the amount of energy lost in transmission. The most common power generation strategies employed at transit agencies are solar installations, with some agencies gen- erating energy from stationary fuel cells, wind, and geothermal sources (see Table 24). The vast majority of the agencies that do generate renewable energy use solar facilities to do so. savings with a NPV of $216,700 over multiple years, and a payback period of less than a year. Of 19 strategies ana- lyzed by SamTrans, enhanced recycling had the highest NPV. This is partly the result of the free recycling that is available to the agency (14). • In 2010, Sound Transit recycled 15% and composted 9% of its waste. However, the agency has a goal to divert 100% of its waste stream from landfills. Sound Transit also managed to recycle or salvage 78% of the construc- tion materials from a recent light rail construction site (12). • LA Metro has a contractor who separates recycling waste from a mixed waste stream. The contractor recycled 44% of the waste in 2010, and the agency managed to generate 531 fewer tons of solid waste than the previous year (6). • Denver’s RTD recycles printer cartridges and has eval- uated the publications it receives to eliminate those it does not need or can receive electronically. The agency managed to reduce paper use by 12% in 2008, recy- cling 48.7 tons. Additionally, the agency has made a conscious effort to conduct as much business as pos- sible electronically, which reduces mailing, printing, copying, and waste disposal costs (64). Beyond reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills, transit agencies may also consider green purchasing practices that increase the amount of recycled products that they con- sume, thereby indirectly reducing the energy required to man- ufacture products. Green procurement practices range from purchasing recycled paper to purchasing railroad ties made of recycled materials. Whether these strategies produce cost savings or cost premiums depends on the specific product. Construction Materials When constructing new transit facilities, many transit agen- cies take steps to ensure that these facilities not only consume less energy in operation, but also reduce indirect energy used to manufacture and transport construction materials. Table 23 shows the various strategies that agencies responding to the survey employ. Note that, although not explored in depth in this synthesis, agencies also may have the opportunity to reduce their indirect energy use by seeking out contractors who use energy-efficient construction equipment. Answer Options Response Count Use of Alternative (Recycled) Construction Materials 17 Recycling Construction Waste 17 Sourcing Materials Locally 16 Reuse of Building Materials to Reduce Waste 13 Other (please specify) 6 None 17 TABLE 23 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE FROM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE TABLE 24 RENEWABLE ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES Renewable Energy Generated on Site Response Count Solar 24 Wind 3 Geothermal 1 Fuel cells 2 Other (please specify) 0 None 22

41 A number of other agencies have smaller projects or use solar energy to power stations and stops (see “Energy at Stations and Stops”). The emergence of power purchase agreements that allow an agency to avoid paying the up-front installation and maintenance costs for solar energy are mak- ing solar projects increasingly feasible. Financing strategies for renewable energy projects are examined in more detail in chapter three (“Financing Energy Savings”). Wind Generating wind energy is more of a challenge for transit agencies, as installing turbines can be controversial and require a large site with consistent wind patterns. Very few transit agencies have installed wind turbines, although a number are studying options for wind-based electricity gen- eration. Agencies using or considering wind energy include: • Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation (Lafayette, Indiana) has installed three turbines near its administrative and maintenance facilities. The system is expected to last about 30 years and to provide approxi- mately 90% of the total amount of electricity that the agency uses (11). Through the project’s installer (North- ern Power) the agency provides a website with real-time information on the system’s energy generation and statis- tics on the energy generated to date. Since July 2011, the system has generated 177,000 kWh and saved approxi- mately $16,700 (as of June 13, 2012) (69). Currently, renewable energy generation at transit agencies is generally limited to small scale installations and demon- stration projects at individual facilities. Solar Solar energy is by far the most common form of alternative energy used by transit agencies. Solar panels can be installed on the roofs of a wide variety of agency-owned buildings such as maintenance facilities, administrative offices, or at stations or bus shelters, where they can fulfill the shelter’s lighting needs. However, maintenance facilities, which tend to have larger, flatter roofs, may offer the greatest opportu- nity for energy generation. A few examples of solar power in use at transit agencies are listed here. It can be noted that many of the projected savings from TIGGER-funded proj- ects come from information in the project proposal, and these projects will need to be evaluated in order to provide more complete information on their energy-saving potential: • LA Metro has installed four photovoltaic projects that generate 2,700,000 AC kWh annually and help the agency to reduce its electricity bill by $300,000 and its overall electricity usage from the grid by 8% (3). By far the largest of these installations (1.2 MW) is located on the agency’s Central Maintenance Facility. LA Metro is also beginning to look at smaller scale installations at stations along the Blue Line (66). • The Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority (MARTA) recently installed a 1.2 MW system as a solar canopy in the parking lot of a bus maintenance facility, which will shade 220 bus parking stalls. The installa- tion, which was funded through the TIGGER program, is projected to halve the grid energy required at the garage (a savings of about $160,000 annually), and will further conserve energy by reducing temperatures inside the buses when they are parked, thus reducing air conditioning needs (67). MARTA estimates that the project will save approximately 4,000 MBTUs per year or 184,000 MBTUs over the project’s lifetime (62). • CT Transit has installed a 2.3 MW system of 210 pho- tovoltaic panels on the roof of its Hartford maintenance shop (Figure 13). As a co-benefit to the energy produc- tion, the panels insulate the roof, decreasing the build- ing’s heating and cooling costs and extending the life of the roof. The panels are expected to last 30 years and will save CT Transit $85,000 annually. Because the sys- tem was financed entirely through grants from a variety of sources, the savings will accrue immediately. • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (San Jose, California) recently installed three solar installations on bus facilities. It estimates that the output of their solar systems will save the agency $1.5 million dol- lars (NPV) over more than 20 years. Because the agency is using a power purchase agreement, it does not have to finance the installation or maintenance of the systems (68). FIGURE 13 CT Transit’s solar array.

42 Geothermal Geothermal energy uses an underground heat source to pro- vide heating, cooling, or power to buildings. A geothermal heat pump uses underground heat directly in an HVAC system, and can significantly reduce the need to heat or cool buildings with other energy sources. In Illinois, the Champaign–Urbana Mass Transit District received a TIGGER grant to upgrade one of its facilities with a geothermal heat pump system. In addition, part of the Red Rose Transit Authority’s (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) upgrades to its primary operations facility will include geothermal energy for heating and air conditioning needs (21). It is also possible to generate electricity using geo- thermal energy. SUMMARY OF ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES The previous sections describe a wide variety of strategies that transit agencies can use to save energy, and are summa- rized in Table 25. The following provides an overview of the strategies identified as well as a brief summary of the mag- nitude of energy savings that can be expected from various strategies, based on findings from the FTA’s TIGGER pro- gram. Not all strategies can be used to save energy at every agency. Agencies will need to consider individual strategies in the context of their particular systems. It is not possible to draw detailed conclusions about which strategies are most and which are least effective at saving energy for transit agencies. Most of the energy that transit agencies consume is used to power vehicles. As a result, transit agencies have opportunities to save large amounts of energy in their fleets. However, building energy efficiency improvements can often be implemented relatively quickly and cheaply. These types of strategies may be more appeal- ing to transit agencies for those reasons. More comparative analyses of energy-saving strategies are needed to draw further conclusions. Because the applica- tion of each strategy varies from agency to agency, individual transit agencies will benefit most from conducting their own analyses. At present only a few agencies, including BART, NYMTA, and LA Metro, have done so. FTA’s TIGGER grant program offered one of the first opportunities to assess the performance of energy efficiency projects at transit agencies on a national scale. It can be noted that the energy savings provided is an estimate drawn from project proposals, and these projects will need to be evaluated to provide more complete information on their energy-saving potential. Also, cost figures are provided only for TIGGER grant funds and do not include any matching funds. Still, it can be informative to compare expected results across some broad categories of strategies, as in Table 26. The highest average energy reductions both per project and per TIGGER dollar are for rail projects, with controls • LA Metro is examining the possibility of using its Red Line subway tunnel to generate wind energy (66). The agency could potentially use the energy to power sta- tions or trains, or energy could be input to the grid (16). • New York MTA is exploring entering a consortium with area utilities, the city, and other local governments to develop offshore wind sources that are estimated to generate 1,500 MW annually. The agency also analyzed sites in its ROW on Long Island for areas with compat- ible land uses, where it was possible to easily connect to transmission lines, and where permitting requirements and community sentiment might allow wind turbines to be installed. At the time of the analysis, the areas iden- tified would only account for about 0.2% of demand from the Long Island Railroad’s facilities (70). Stationary Fuel Cells Stationary fuel cells, similar to those used in hydrogen- powered vehicles, use hydrogen fuel and oxygen to produce electricity, heat, and water. Fuel cells can replace traditional diesel-powered generators. Technology for stationary fuel cells is relatively new; however, a few agencies have begun to deploy them successfully. CT Transit recently installed a 400 kW fuel cell sys- tem that uses natural gas and is much more efficient than the previous diesel-powered system (Figure 14). Although the previous generator operated at approximately 35% effi- ciency, the new system is expected to operate at about 80% efficiency and reduce the facility’s energy needs by up to 59% (6,311 MBTUs per year) (62). The fuel cell system also generates hot water in a combined heat and power configura- tion. As a co-benefit, the system generates very few emis- sions, benefitting local air quality as well (71). NYMTA has also installed a stationary fuel cell system at its Corona Yard Maintenance Shop in cooperation with the New York Power Authority. FIGURE 14 CT Transit’s stationary fuel cell. Courtesy: CT Transit.

43 TABLE 25 POSSIBLE ENERGY SAVING STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES Energy Saving Strategies for Transit Agencies Transit Vehicle Technology Strategies Bus Propulsion Technologies CNG buses LNG buses Propane buses Biodiesel Hybrid-electric buses Fuel cell buses Bus Retrofit Technologies Replace cooling systems Electric fans for engine cooling Intelligent gearshift and acceleration Use of lightweight materials Maintain tire pressure Rail Propulsion Wayside Energy Storage Systems (WESS) (ultracapacitators, flywheel, and battery) Regenerative braking for railcars (on-board flywheel, super capacitator, battery) Lightweighting technologies High-efficiency lighting Improve efficiency of HVAC systems Start/stop synchronization Automatic Engine Stop Start Systems (AESS) Vehicle Operations, Maintenance, and Service Design Idling Reduction Auxiliary power units (APUs) AESS Direct power connections/electrification Diesel-driven heating systems (buses) Anti-idling policy Education/training programs Service Design Strategies GPS tracking of transit vehicles Signal priority for transit vehicles Layover timing Off-board fare payment Use of demand-response service when demand not sufficient for fixed-route service Automatic vehicle dispatch and management for traffic flow Bus rapid transit (BRT) Non-Revenue Vehicle Strategies Hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid, or battery electric vehicles Use of anti-idling technologies or policies Driver training for eco-driving/operation of vehicles Reductions in fleet size/use of car sharing Maintenance programs to improve fuel efficiency Trip chaining or other trip reduction measures Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Energy at Stations and Stops LED lighting at stations or stops Solar-powered lighting at stations or stops Efficient heating or cooling in stations Station design strategies Escalator efficiency improvements Energy Savings in Other Facilities Office Energy Use Install automatic timers/sensors for lighting Upgrade to more efficient lighting Use more efficient appliances and computers Energy Systems in Existing Buildings Replace garage door Roof replacement Boiler replacement Thermostat reprogramming Green Building Certification for New Facilities LEED certification Green Globes Certification ENERGY Star for buildings (continued on next page)

44 Although informative, it is important to note that Table 26 does not take into account total project costs, because many TIGGER grantees also draw funds from other sources. Addi- tionally, the cost-effectiveness of some types of projects may change as technology develops. For example, stationary fuel cells, WESS, and bus technologies may improve in the com- ing years or may become less expensive. For agency decision makers, understanding the likely magnitude of savings from for track switches or rail heaters providing by far the greatest savings, although the analysis includes only two projects. Facility upgrades also appear to be highly cost-effective. On a per-project basis, wind projects and hybrid bus proj- ects funded by TIGGER are projected to save the smallest amounts of total energy. Newer technologies with high capi- tal costs, such as WESS and stationary fuel cells, produce the fewest savings per TIGGER dollar invested. Technology Category Sub-Category Number of Projects MBTU saved per Project per Year (average) Lifetime Energy Savings per TIGGER $ (BTU/$) Bus Efficiency Hybrid buses 19 1,857 10,607 Efficiency retrofit 5 4,893 41,607 Zero-emission buses 16 3,357 11,504 Total Bus Efficiency Projects 40 2,284 12,693 Rail Wayside energy storage system 3 57,211 5,775 Locomotive upgrades 3 43,907 562,825 On-board energy storage 2 242,688 41,965 Controls for track switches or rail heaters 2 5,007,959 1,116,660 Total Rail Projects 10 40,466 296,736 Facility Efficiency Facility upgrades (lighting, building envelope upgrades, etc.) 14 24,789 393,571 Solar 15 3,061 27,274 Wind 2 1,781 20,463 Stationary fuel cell 3 6,146 9,860 Geothermal 5 NA NA Total Facility Efficiency Projects 39 10,640 91,323 Adapted from Eudy et al. “Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction Program: First Assessment Report [Draft]” (72). NA = not available. TABLE 26 ENERGY SAVINGS BY PROJECT TYPE FOR TIGGER GRANTEES Enhancing building insulation Recycling programs Composting programs Selling scrap metal and materials Construction Materials Use of alternative (recycled) construction materials Sourcing materials locally Reuse of building materials to reduce waste Renewable Power Generation Solar panels Wind power Geothermal Fuel cells Flexible work schedules Water Use Recycling bus bay runoff and wash water Rainwater harvesting Use of low-flow fixtures Waste Management Green roofs Passive solar design Strategies to Reduce Indirect Energy Use Employee Commute Programs Transit passes Bike infrastructure for employees Telework programs TABLE 25 (continued)

45 different strategies is important; however, which particular strategies are feasible and effective for a particular agency will depend on how the agency currently uses energy. OPPORTUNITIES TO SAVE ENERGY AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSIT AGENCIES As illustrated by the examples in this chapter, an agency’s size and operating characteristics will affect the type and range of energy-saving strategies that the agency can pursue. Larger transit agencies have a wide range of maintenance facilities, often provide rail service, and may engage in their own construction projects such as expanding rail lines or building new buildings. They have the opportunity to pursue a correspondingly large range of strategies to reduce energy use. With larger fleets they will likely have greater opportu- nities to reduce energy use through fleet optimization and energy-efficient vehicle specifications. Larger agencies also have larger operating budgets for relatively expensive strate- gies, such as generating renewable energy. For smaller agencies providing only one or two modes of transit, such as bus or paratransit, the options for energy sav- ings are likely to be more limited. Some of these agencies do not own their own buildings. Smaller agencies may also con- tract out certain maintenance, cleaning, and repair activities. With less control over these functions and smaller budgets, a smaller agency typically will not have as many opportunities to implement energy-saving strategies. Transit agencies will also see different opportunities to reduce energy consumption depending on the type of ser- vice that they offer. Most of the U.S. transit fleet is made up of buses and paratransit vehicles, which are most likely to operate on diesel fuel or gasoline. These fleets have oppor- tunities to use biofuels or to switch to more efficient vehicle types. Energy saving strategies for rail systems are some- what different. For example, rail agencies can increase the efficiency of the electricity distribution systems that serve rail cars. Geography can also be a factor for agencies in select- ing energy-saving strategies. For example, many renewable energy sources, such as wind power or solar panels, are not viable in all locations. The performance of alternative-fueled vehicles can also vary based on terrain. For example, hybrid buses perform differently on flat versus hilly terrain. Transit agencies must take their operating routes into account when selecting new vehicle technologies. Regardless of these differences, all transit agencies can find ways of reducing their energy use or increasing their energy efficiency. Although some of the energy efficiency measures discussed in this report have relatively small impacts on their own, many transit agencies have substan- tially lowered their energy bills by pursuing a suite of indi- vidual measures that add up to a greater change. The case examples of diverse agencies in the next chapter demonstrate the wide variety of options available.