Uptake of alternative fuels in the European Union bus sector
Jonatan Gomez Vilchez
European Commission!, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
E-mail: jonatan.gomez-vilchez@ ec.europa.eu
'The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be
regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
ABSTRACT
After having been deployed with success in China, electric buses seem to be emerging
as the preferred option for reducing oil dependency, noise and tailpipe air pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions from public transport. This paper presents a system dynamics
model of the European Union bus market, including urban buses and coaches. The
study focuses on the future uptake of alternative fuels in this sector, particularly on
electric bus sales and stocks. The paper explores the potential impacts of minimum
public procurement targets in 2025 and 2030 on annual CO: emissions from diesel
buses and on battery cost. Further research is needed for a detailed analysis of
purchase incentives at the country level.
Keywords: electric buses, public transport, alternative fuels, system dynamics
37th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
Albuquerque, New Mexico (US), 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
According to EEA (2017b), almost 19% of European Union (EU) transport greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions are caused by heavy-duty trucks and buses. To support its goal to
drastically reduce emissions from transport (EU, 2017b), the European Commission
proposed in 2018 CO2 emission reduction targets for heavy-duty vehicles for the first
time. Initially applicable to large trucks, it is expected that buses and coaches will be
included in 2022 (EU, 2019). The DIONE fleet impact model (Harrison et al., 2016)
reports in its baseline scenario a 7% increase in tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions from
buses in the EU between 2010 and 2050, generating almost 47 megatons of CO2
emissions by mid-century.
Public transport initiated modem mobility (Bunting, 2004) and continues to meet the
need for passenger travel’. Depending on vehicle occupancy rates, fuel consumption per
passenger can be lower in public transport than in private transport. Furthermore, the
shift from car to public transport reduces congestion (Metz, 2012). In the EU, the most
common type of public transport is bus travel (ACEA, 2017). With almost three
quarters of the EU population living in cities (Eurostat, 2017), urban buses are expected
to play an important role in fostering sustainable transport.
In 2013, 79% of the European bus stock was powered by diesel and 10% by biodiesel
(ZeEUS, 2016). Faced with air pollutant concentration levels above the EU limit values
(EEA, 2017a), cities are announcing the banning of internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles in the future (for a list, see Table A in WB (2018)). EC (2015) identified
biofuels, electricity, hydrogen, and natural gas (including biomethane) as the most
promising energy sources to displace diesel in the bus sector. To facilitate an increase in
the use of alternative fuels in the EU transport systems, Directive 2014/94/EU requested
that Member States adopted national policy frameworks (NPFs) containing “measures
that can promote the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in public transport
services” (EU, 2014: 11). An assessment of the NPFs revealed that the level of ambition
of these measures varies significantly by country (see the A ppendix).
! Less influentially in the United States, where it accounts for only 2% of passenger travel (Sperling &
Gordon, 2009), than in other regions.
Fig. 1 shows the number of buses and coaches in use in the EU28 in the years 2005,
2010 and 2015 and the demand this stock of vehicle served, measured in passenger-km
(PKM). As can be seen, the behaviour over time of both variables was relatively stable.
In 2010, urban buses accounted for 39% of buses and coaches in the EU28 (TRACCS,
2017). In terms of trips, UITP (2016) reported that over 32 billion local public transport
journeys were made on EU buses (including trolley-buses) in 2014.
Stock —=Demand
2005 2010
Figure 1. Stock of buses and coaches used to meet demand in the EU
Source: own work based on data from EC (2018b)
The demand for bus and coach travel varies significantly by country, as can be seen in
Fig. 2. In 2016, the most extensive use of these vehicles was made in Hungary (21%)
while the EU28 average stood at over 9%. In contrast, buses and coaches represented
only 3% of the modal split of passenger transport on land in the Netherlands.
10%
Figure 2. Demand for bus and coach travel as a percentage of land transport passenger
demand (excluding two-wheelers) in 2016, by country
Source: own work based on data from EC (2018b)
RestofEU
32%
Figure 3. Stock of buses and coaches in 2016, by country?
Source: own work based on data from Eurostat (2017)
Fig. 3 shows that 68% of the EU stock of buses and coaches were in use in six of the
twenty-eight Member States in 2016. The UK sticks out with a stock of 161,500 buses
and coaches. With an estimated fleet of 9,462 buses (TfL, 2018), London stands at a
level similar to AT, NL and SK (see Eurostat (2017)).
Previous SD work on altemative fuels use in transport has mainly focused on the
passenger car market. This paper focuses on the EU bus sector, particularly on electric
buses. Hybrid buses are beyond the scope of this paper. The main reason for this is the
large battery an electric bus currently features, which may be relevant in the context of
the European Battery Alliance (EC, 2018a) as well as for achieving battery price
reductions and improving the value proposition of electric cars vis-a-vis petrol and
diesel cars. The objective of the study is to explore the market uptake of electric buses
in the EU in the next years as well as to tentatively quantify its potential impact on
battery prices. The dynamic problem to be addressed concerns the preservation of
public transport services while significantly reducing its adverse emissions impacts.
The structure of this paper is as follows: after the introductory section, section 2
provides further information on electric buses, in section 3 the proposed model is
presented, section 4 shows the results and conclusions are drawn in section 5.
?See the code list at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Country_codes.
3However, DfT (2018) indicates that about 55% of these are minibuses, as defined for statistical purposes
in that country.
2. DATA ON ELECTRIC BUSES
In 2016, over 54,000 buses and coaches were registered in the EU28, adding to a stock
of almost 899,000 buses and coaches (Eurostat, 2017)‘. According to EVI (2018), there
were ca. 100,000 electric buses sold and 370,000 electric buses in use worldwide in
2017, most of them in China (see the A ppendix). Most of the Chinese electric buses and
coaches are battery electric (BEV), rather than plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV), and were
sold by BYD and Yutong (GIZ, 2018). The number of manufacturers offering electric
versions of buses and coaches is on an upwards trend. Table 1 shows a selection of
electric bus models and their relevant characteristics. There are other important
manufacturers not shown in that table because they have not fully entered the EU yet.
Among them are BAIC Foton, CRRC, Zhongtong Bus active in China as well as New
Flyer and Proterra in North America. As can be seen, lithium iron phosphate (LFP),
manufactured by several suppliers, emerges as the preferred lithium-ion battery
chemistry. Nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries are being deployed in 2019.
Table 1. Main characteristics of electric buses available in the European market
Type Length Model Battery Capacity [kWh] Charging time Supplied by Seats /max. PAX Year
PHEV 12m Businova/SAFRA Standard P 132 ‘46h EVE System 2017
ADL Enviro200EV LEP 324 gh BYD 2016
ALSTOM /NTL Aptis Sodium nickel 309 78h Flamm 2017
ALSTOM /NTL Aptis NMC NIA N/A Foresee Power 2019
Bollore BhieBus Lithium metal polymer 240 5h Blue Solutions 2016
Bozankaya Sileo S12 LEP 215 28h — Bozankaya 2015
LEP 330 445h BYD 2013
12m Irizar ie Sodium nickel 376 67h — Fiamm 2014
aimler eCitaro NMC 243 NIA AKASOL 2019
BEV Skoda Electric Penn HE 230 46h various 2013
Urbino 12 electric LFP/ Lithium titanate <240 32 min-3h Solaris 2012
VDL Citea SLF-120 various 133 Smin-4.5h various 2014
Volvo 7900 electric LI 76 36min SAFT 2016
Yutong EI LEP 324 55h CATL 2017
Bozankaya Sileo SB LEP 215 38h Bozankaya 2016
tm BYD 18m articulated LEP. 547 2016
Inizar ie tram various 150 5-10 min- 2h various 2017
Solaris Ushino 18 electric_LFP/ Lithium titanate 5240 32 min-3h_ Solaris 2013
Notes: (i) N/A means ‘not available’, (ii) PAX means ‘passengers’, (iii) ‘year’ refers to the introduction
into the European market’, (iv) figures in italics reflect estimated average values.
Source: own elaboration based on information from AKA SOL (2018), Alstom (2019), BY D (2019),
Daimler (2019), EVI (2018), Irizar (2019), Volvo (2019) and ZeEUS (2017)
Fig. 4 shows the market share of the best-selling electric bus manufacturers in Europe in
2018, compared to the previous year.
“ Both figures include trolley-buses and reflect 2015 values for Romania due to lack of data availability.
Rest #ADL §BYD mSolaris @VDL
2017 2018
Figure 4. European electric bus sales market shares (2017-2018), by bus manufacturer
Source: own elaboration based on data from Interact Analysis cited by SustainableB US (2019)
Fig. 5 shows the stock of alternative fuel buses® in the EU, which has so far been
dominated by CNG (including biogas) buses (in 2016 and 2017, 46 and 44 liquefied
natural gas (LNG) buses were sold (EAFO, 2018)). Since 2016, this market is however
declining while the electric bus stock is growing. By country, more than 50% of electric
bus sales or stock in the EU in 2018 were in NL, UK, FR, PL and DE (EAFO, 2018). In
addition, there were 49 hydrogen buses in use in 2018 (EA FO, 2018).
Electric CNG/LNG/Biogas #LPG
25,000
20.000
15.000
10.000
“ [ i [ [ | I
t
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
bus stock
Figure 5. Stock of buses in the EU, by energy source (excluding diesel)
Notes: (i) own estimation in 2011 from CNG sales data, (ii) post-2010 LPG
stock N/A (but LPG buses were sold in 2011-2012 and 2016-2017).
Source: own work based on data from TRACCS (2017) and EAFO (2018)
5 Note that EAFO (2018) follows UNECE (2014) and reports buses as the sum of M2 and M3 categories.
3. THE PROPOSED MODEL
3.1 Key assumptions
The model time horizon runs from 2005 to 2050. For the period 2005-2010, (TRACCS,
2017) is used, which disaggregates buses into urban (buses) and coaches
3.1.1 Sales, stock and scrappage
We disaggregate sales, stock and scrappage by powertrain technology. In line with
TRACCS (2017), urban buses and coaches are subscripted and a distinction between
new and second-hand sales is made. For simplicity, no ageing chains are used. Fig. 6
shows the stock-and-flow structure at the core of the model.
historical aggregate new
market share new
registrations bus
strations bus
aggregate new + ee
regstrations coach average bus
+ INITIAL BUS ae
gregate new STOCK
a
y _Tegjstrations urban bus
aggregate ne\
registrations total buses Ph =
. new registrations | Bus stock bus scrappage
5s eee
+S aggregate registrations
total buses second hand
registrations bus +
+ bus stock total by +
aggregate second hand ay Powertrain bus stock total
+ registrations urban bus an Seewe coach
aggregate second hand urban bus
registrations total buses ssl ca
aggregate seco
+ registrations coach sind tat
Figure 6. Stock-and-flow structure in the proposed model
Source: own work using Vensim®
The scrappage rate is determined by the stock and the average lifetime. Between 2005
and 2014, the average of the bus fleet in the EU has remained very stable at 9.4 years
(EEA, 2016). We assume a constant average bus lifetime of 14 years, shorter than the
20-year lifespan stated by ForeseePower (2018) for the new Alstom’s electric bus and
slightly longer than the minimum period of service for large buses required by FTA
(2008) and the 12-year LFP battery warranty offered by BY D (2019).
3.1.2 Average fuel consumption and annual bus mileage
Based on EU28 average values, the fuel consumption of diesel urban buses and coaches
in 2010 was respectively 38.7 litres/100km and 33.9 litres/100km (TRACCS, 2017).
Table 2. EU28 bus fuel consumption [litre/100km]
Urban Coaches
Petrol _Diesel _Petrol_Diesel
2005 46.5 41.0 54.6 35.1
2010 44.0 38.7 50.7 33.9
Source: own work based on data from (TRACCS, 2017)
For the electric bus modes listed in Table 1, fuel economy values range from 0.8-1.5
kWh/km for 12-metre and 1.15-1.30 kWh/km for 18-metre buses (see ZeEUS (2017)).
Gao et al. (2017) estimated that the energy consumption of an electric bus ranges from
1.24 to 2.48 kWh/km. More recently, ITDP (2018) reported real-world Chinese electric
bus data showing energy consumption of 1.063 kWh/km. We assume that an electric
bus uses 1.10 kWh/km.
ITDP (2018) also reported a daily average operating mileage equal to 174.4 km. This is
above the number reported in the EU28 for the year 2010, when average mileage stood
at 44,706 km/year for urban buses and 57,729 km/year for coaches (TRACCS, 2017).
3.1.3 Capital and operating expenditures
For the calculation of capital expenditures (CAPEX), the assumed electric bus battery
capacity is crucial. In its report, EVI (2018) assumed electric bus battery capacities
equal to 250 kWh (p. 86) and 330 kWh (p. 73). For European buses, we assume an
average value equal to 132 kWh for PHEVs (from Table 1) and 250 kWh for BEVs.
However, for China a single value (325 kWh) is assumed. The reason for this is due to
the evidence that the aforementioned main manufacturers in that country sell 12-metre
electric buses with 324-330 kWh battery capacities. Tsiropoulos et al. (2018) report the
following lithium-ion battery pack costs: 200 €/kWh in 2017, 96-127 €/kWh in 2025
and 75-101 €/kWh in 2030. This would bring the cost, only for the battery, of an electric
bus to €50,000-65,000 in 2017 and €22,000-28,600 in 2030 (assuming that average cost
is also applicable to LFP batteries and no energy density effects as well as depending on
the battery capacity and cost estimate adopted). In addition, the industry mark-up needs
to be determined.
Based on information from T&E (2018), we estimate that the purchase price of diesel
and electric buses are €182,500 and €350,400 per unit, respectively. According to the
same authors, electric buses are nonetheless cheaper on a total cost of ownership (TCO)
calculation basis that comprises the internalization of external costs such as noise, air
quality and climate. Based on figures from EMT (2018), we estimate that the purchase
price of CNG buses in Europe is at present around €300,000 per unit. The current price
differential between diesel and electric buses can be reduced through purchase
incentives. The UK is supporting electric and hydrogen buses with a £48 million
scheme (DfT, 2019). Based on information on the winning bidders, we estimate that the
average purchase subsidy is around €207,500 per electric bus and €251,500 per
hydrogen bus®. With such level of incentives in place, the TCO calculation is even more
favourable to electric buses.
For the estimation of operating expenditures daily operating mileage (shown in the
previous section) is key. In the aforementioned calculation reported by T&E (2018),
electric buses clearly beat diesel buses already today with operating costs (excluding the
operating cost of recharging infrastructure) of ca. 0.3€/km, compared to more than
0.6€/km for diesel buses. Given the energy consumption value assumed in section 3.1.2
and an average EU28 electricity price for non-households equal to 0.11€/kWh (Eurostat,
2017), we assume that an electric bus has an operating cost of 0.12€/km (energy only,
excluding maintenance).
3.1.4 Deployment of recharging infrastructure
Two recharging options for electric buses are opportunity and overnight recharging. The
latter presently dominates (EVI, 2018). Directive 2014/94/EU made a distinction
between a normal power and a high power recharging point and defined the latter as “a
recharging point that allows for a transfer of electricity to an electric vehicle with a
power of more than 22 kW” (EU, 2014: 10). EVI (2018) anticipates that electric buses
will primarily be recharging using fast (> 50 kW) infrastructure. Based on an
assessment of publicly accessible recharging points (see EU (2017a)), we implicitly
assume in this work that the current and future fast recharging infrastructure is sufficient
to meet the electricity demand from electric buses.
® Assuming the following exchange rate: £1 = €1.17.
3.2 Policy targets
The policy measure examined in this paper is public procurement, which accounts for
14% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the EU (EP, 2018a) and was regarded in a
2017 public consultation as an important measure to foster low-emission vehicles
uptake (EP, 2018b). Among the alternative fuels identified are electric, hydrogen or
biogas (EC, 2017). The potential for procurement of public transport vehicles at the
local level is particularly high (EU, 2017c). Indeed, European cities such as London,
Paris, Copenhagen and Barcelona have pledged to purchase only electric buses after
2025. Amsterdam’s municipal public transport operator is even more ambitious and
aims at operating only electric buses by 2025 (WB, 2018).
Specifically, we examine bus procurement 2025 and 2030 targets. Although minimum
procurement targets have been proposed per Member State (see Table 5 in Council
(2018)), we construct a ‘Targets’ scenario by assuming these procurement targets across
countries: 50% in 2025 and 75% in 2030 (5% of which are PHEVs and the rest BEVs).
4, RESULTS
4.1 Evolution of the bus stock
Fig. 7 shows the simulated stock of urban buses and coaches in the EU, compared with
historical data. By 2030, total bus stock is simulated to exceed 0.8 million vehicles in
the EU. Thus the bus market remains relatively stable over the period.
600,000
525,000 [gs
450,000
vehicle
375,000
300,000
2005 2011 2017 2023 2029 2035 2041 2047
bus stock total coach{Coach] : Data
bus stock total coach{Coach] : No targets
bus stock total urban bus[Urban Bus] : Data
bus stock total urban bus[Urban Bus] : No targets
Figure 7. EU28 urban bus and coach stocks, data versus simulation
Source: data from TRACCS (2017) and own simulations using Vensim®
10
900,000
675,000
$450,000
225,000 p=
0 aha
2005 2011 2017 2023 2029 2035 2041 2047
bus stock total by ICEV] : No tages
bus stock total by ICEV] : Targets
bus stock total by powertrin[BEV] : No taxyets
bus stock total by powertainlBEV] : Targets
Figure 8. EU28 diesel and BEV bus stocks, by scenario
Source: own simulations using Vensim®
Fig. 8 shows the simulated growth in the number of fully electric buses in use in the
EU28 until 2050 under the ‘Targets’ scenario, at the expense of diesel buses. Fig. 9
provides more detailed information on PHEV and BEV stocks by type of bus.
300,000
225,000
150,000 a
Tt
75,000 Pal
0 Be
2005 2011 2017 2023 2029 2035 2041 2047
vehide
Bus stock[{Urban Bus,PHEV] : Targets
Bus stock[{Urban Bus,BEV] : Targets
Bus stock[C oach, PHEV] : Targets
Bus stock[C oach,BEV] : Targets
Figure 9. EU28 electric bus stock, by type of bus and powertrain
Source: own simulations using Vensim®
Finally, we use emissions factors for diesel fuel from IPCC (2006) to tentatively
estimate the reduction in annual tailpipe CO2 emissions from diesel buses in the
‘Targets’ scenario with respect to the “No targets’ scenario. Our simulations suggest
12%, 21% and 45% emissions reductions in respectively 2025, 2030 and 2050.
11
4.2 Comparison with similar studies
EVI (2018) presented two scenarios with different electric bus market shares in Europe
in 2030: almost 20% under their ‘New Policies’ scenario and over 40% under their
‘EV30@30” scenario. In both cases, fully electric buses dominate over PHEVs.
Further extending the model time horizon, a study by the European Road Transport
Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC) reported four scenarios of the EU city bus and
coach stock. These are shown in Fig. 10 as follows: ‘mixed’ scenario (S1), ‘moderately
electrified’ (S2), ‘highly electrified’ (S3) and ‘highly electrified plus H2’ (S4).
Our simulation results would roughly match the ‘New Policies’ scenario in 2030. For
2050, they would be closer to S1 for city buses and point to a more optimistic view on
the future deployment of BEV technology for coaches.
mICEY =CNG/LNG =PHEVY mBEV mFCEV
100%
80%
Mil
40%
20%
0%
sl sz $3 st Sl 82 3 st
City buses Coaches
Figure 10. EU28 city bus and coach stock in 2050, by scenario
Source: Krause et al. (2019) [under review]
4.3 Impact on battery demand and resulting price
In 2016, there was more demand for lithium-ion batteries from electric buses than from
electric cars globally (BNEF, 2017). The same authors forecast that the electrification of
the bus sector will be quicker than for light duty vehicles (BNEF, 2018). Avicenne
(2018) projects that battery demand from electric buses will grow from 21 GWh in 2017
to almost 50 GWh in 2025. Restricting ourselves to the EU context, we simulate battery
demand from electric buses to reach 4.9 GWh/year in 2025 and 7.4 GWh/year in 2030.
12
Next, we used these results as inputs to a different system dynamics model’. The results
are shown in Fig. 11, measured in dollars per kWh. As can be seen, taking into account
the experience from manufacturing electric bus batteries leads to a lower battery cost
curve. Though the simulated cost reduction between simulation runs is not dramatic, it
appears to be sufficiently attractive in 2019-2020 once the size of electric bus batteries
are considered.
400
350
300
cellar")
250
200
2017-2018 = 2019S 2020 2021.» 2022) 2023. 2024 = 2025
Datry cost in dolla{BEV battery, Medium] : Tages with bate Link
Datoy cost in dellafBEV battery Medium]; Tages
Figure 11. Battery cost, with and without link from electric bus manufacturing
Source: own simulations using Vensim®
5. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
In sum, a system dynamics model was developed to represent the EU bus market, with a
focus on the future uptake of alternative fuels. In particular, electric bus sales and stocks
were analysed. The key feedback process modeled in this paper goes from electric bus
sales to battery cost via expected cumulative experience (adding that of buses to the pre-
existing manufacturing experience from passenger cars), which can be fed back into the
purchase price of electric buses.
In conclusion, electric buses seem to be emerging in recent times as the preferred option
for reducing oil dependency, noise and tailpipe air pollutant and GHG emissions from
bus and coach travel in the EU, after having been deployed with success in China.
7 The Powertrain Technology Transition Market Agent Model (PTTMAM). A previous version of this
model is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/pttmam.
13
Whereas the Chinese bus market has played a crucial role to facilitate economies of
scale in the lithium-ion battery manufacturing sector, there are signs it is becoming
saturated (SustainableBUS, 2019). With annual sales of over 50,000 buses and a stock
slowly approaching one million units, the EU bus sector is sufficiently large to
supersede China in its role of large-battery consumer.
Among the limitations of this study are the model simplifications needed to analyse the
EU bus sector, which is very heterogeneous (see e.g. SDG (2016)) and the insufficient
analysis of further alternative fuel options. Two examples for long-range operations are
LNG (Scania, 2018) and hydrogen (FCEB, 2019).
Further work will revolve around modeling additional policy measures such as purchase
incentives at the country level, allowing for quantification of required budgets.
Furthermore, there remains the opportunity to integrate the results of the proposed
model into PTTMAM.
Another increasingly interesting research area is the competition between traditional
public transport with new mobility-as-a-service businesses and the upcoming wave of
autonomous vehicles. These developments are expected to set into motion feedback
processes that are likely to lead to a deterioration of public transport (Naumov et al.,
2018). This would make the goal of doubling the market share of public transport by
2025 (UITP, 2019) more challenging to attain.
References
ACEA. (2017). Factsheet Buses. European Automobile Manufacturers Association
(ACEA),. Retrieved from
https://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/factsheet_buses.pdf
AKASOL. (2018). AKASOL develops second-generation lithium-ion battery systems
for Mercedes-Benz’ eCitaro. Retrieved from https://www.akasol.com/en/news-
akasol-ecitaro-development
Alstom. (2019). Aptis: a new experience of electro-mobility. Retrieved from
https://www.alstom.com/aptis-new-experience-electro-mobility
14
Avicenne. (2018). Current Status and Future Trends of the Global Li-ion Battery
Market. Avicenne Energy.
BNEF. (2017). Lithium-ion Battery Costs and Market. Bloomberg New Energy Finance
(BNEF).
BNEF. (2018). Electric Vehicle Outlook 2018. Bloomberg New Energy Finance
(BNEF).
Bunting, P. M. (2004). Making Public Transport Work. McGill-Queen's University
Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.it/books?id=S3HIQhc5-bUC
BYD. (2019). BYD Battery-electric buses. BYD Europe. Retrieved from
http://bydeurope.com/vehicles/ebus/index.php
Council. (2018). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient
vehicles. Progress Report. Council of the European Union. Retrieved from
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8916-2018-INIT/en/pdf
Daimler. (2019). Der neue eCitaro. Mercedes-Benz. Daimler AG. Retrieved from
https://www.mercedes-benz-bus.com/de_DE/models/ecitaro.html
DfT. (2018). Vehicle Licensing Statistics: Annual 2017 (Revised). U.K. Department for
Transport (DfT). Retrieved from
https://assets. publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/716075/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2017-revised.pdf
DfT. (2019). £48 million funding to drive down bus emissions across the UK. U.K.
Department for Transport (DfT). Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/48-million-funding-to-drive-down-bus-
emissions-across-the-uk
EAFO. (2018). European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO). Retrieved from
http://www.eafo.eu/
EC. (2015). State of the Art on Alternative Fuels Transport Systems in the European
Union. Final report. European Commission (EC). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/studies/doc/2015-
07-alter-fuels-transport-syst-in-eu.pdf
EC. (2017). Declaration of intent on promoting large-scale deployment of clean,
altematively fuelled buses in Europe. European Clean Bus deployment Initiative.
15
European Commission (EC). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-05-05-european-clean-bus-
deployment-initiative-declaration.pdf
EC. (2018a). Speech by Vice-President for Energy Union Maro’ Seféovié at the
Industry Days Forum on the Industry-led initiative on batteries / the EU Battery
Alliance. Press Release Database. European Commission (EC). Retrieved from
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release SPEECH-18-1168_en.htm
EC. (2018b). Statistical pocketbook 2018. EU Transport in figures. European
Commission (EC).
EEA. (2016). Average age of the vehicle fleet. European Environment A gency (EEA).
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/average-age-
of-the-vehicle-fleet/average-age-of-the-vehicle-8
EEA. (2017a). Air quality in Europe 2017. European Environment Agency (EEA).
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air- quality-in-europe-2017
EEA. (2017b). Greenhouse gas emissions from transport. European Environment
Agency. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/transport-emissions- of- greenhouse- gases/transport-emissions-of-
greenhouse- gases- 10
EMT. (2018). EMT invierte 138 millones en la adquisicién de 460 nuevos autobuses.
Empresa Municipal de Transportes (EMT) de Madrid. Retrieved from
https://www.emtmadrid.es/Noticias/EMT-invierte- 138-millones-en-la-adquisicion-
de-460.aspx
EP. (2018a). Clean Vehicles Directive. Briefing. Initial Appraisal of a European
Commission Impact Assessment. European Parliament (EP). Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegD ata/etudes/B RIE/2018/615654/EPRS_BRI(20
18)615654_EN.pdf
EP. (2018b). Review of the Clean Vehicles Directive. Briefing. EU Legislation in
Progress. European Parliament (EP). Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegD ata/etudes/B RIE/2018/614690/EPRS_BRI(20
18)614690_EN.pdf
EU. (2014). Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. European
16
EU.
EU.
EU.
EU.
Union Law. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from _http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TX T/?uri=celex% 3A 32014L0094
(2017a). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Detailed Assessment
of the National Policy Frameworks Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Towards
the broadest use of alternative fuels - an Action Plan for Altemative Fuels
Infrastructure under Article 10(6) of Directive 201/94/EU, including the
assessment of national policy frameworks under Article 10(2) of Directive
2014/94/EU. SWD/2017/0365 final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TX T/?qid=1512384850915&uri=CELEX :52017SC 0365
(2017b). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Delivering on low-emission mobility. A European Union that protects the planet,
empowers its consumers and defends its industry and workers. COM/2017/0675
final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TX T/?uri=CELEX :52017D C0675
(2017c). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
EUROPE ON THE MOVE An agenda for a socially fair transition towards clean,
competitive and connected mobility for all. COM/2017/0283 final. Retrieved from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX T/?uri=C ELEX :52017DC0283
(2019). Reducing CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. European Commission.
Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/heavy_en
Eurostat. (2017). Your key to European statistics. European Commission (EC).
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/home
EVI. (2016). Global EV Outlook 2016. Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI). OECD/IEA.
Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/global-ev-outlook-
17
2016.html
EVI. (2017). Global EV Outlook 2017. Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI). OECD/IEA.
Retrieved from
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEV Outlook20
17.pdf
EVI. (2018). Global EV Outlook 2018. Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI). OECD/IEA.
Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/gevo2018/
FCEB. (2019). Towards clean public transport with Hydrogen. Fuel Cell Electric
Buses. Retrieved from https://www.fuelcellbuses.eu/
ForeseePower. (2018). Alstom and Forsee Power announce collaboration to supply
batteries for Aptis electric buses. Foresee Power. Retrieved from
https://www.forseepower.com/en/news/alstom-and-forsee-power-announce-
collaboration-supply-batteries-aptis-electric-buses
FTA. (2008). Grant Management Requirements. Circular FTA C 5010.1D. Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from
https://cms.fta.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/C_5010_1D_Finalpub.pdf
Gao, Z., Lin, Z., LaClair, T. J., Liu, C., Li, J.-M., Birky, A. K., & Ward, J. (2017).
Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service.
Energy, 122, 588-600. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.101
GIZ. (2018). Trends and challenges in electric-bus development in China. “Sustainable
Transport in China” Blog. Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Beijing. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainabletransport.org/archives/5770
Harrison, G., Krause, J., & Thiel, C. (2016). Transitions and Impacts of Passenger Car
Powertrain Technologies in European Member States. Transportation Research
Procedia, 14(Supplement C), 2620-2629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.418
IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Trizar. (2019). Autobuses eléctricos. Trizar. Retrieved from
https://www .irizar.com/autobuses-y-autocares/autobuses/autobuses-electricos/
ITDP. (2018). China Tackles Climate Change with Electric Buses. Institute for
18
Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP). Retrieved from
https://www.itdp.org/2018/09/1 1/electric-buses-china/
Metz, D. (2012). The Limits to Travel: How Far Will You Go?. Earthscan. Retrieved
from https://books.google.it/books?id=kq8-ywsX -y8C
Naumov, S., Keith, D. R., & Fine, C. (2018). The Effect of Autonomous Vehicles on
Demand for Driving: Is Pooling the Solution to Avoiding Traffic Gridlock? In
Record of the 36th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
Reykjavik, Iceland -- August 7-9, 2018.
Scania. (2018). Scania introduces world’s first gas-fuelled long-distance coach.
Retrieved from https://www.scania.com/group/en/scania-introduces-worlds-first-
gas-fuelled-long-distance-coach/
SDG. (2016). Comprehensive Study on Passenger Transport by Coach in Europe. Steer
Davis Gleave (SDG).
Sperling, D., & Gordon, D. (2009). Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability.
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.it/books?id=IA G 1A LILHGAC
Statista. (2019). The Statistics Portal. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/
SustainableB US. (2019). 650 electric buses supplied last year in Europe, according to
Interact Analysis. The leader? VDL. Retrieved from https://vww.sustainable-
bus.com/news/around-650-electric-buses-delivered-in-2018-in-europe-according-
to-interact-analysis-the-leader-vdl/
T&E. (2018). Electric buses arrive on time. Marketplace, economic, technology,
environmental and policy perspectives for fully electric buses in the EU. Transport
& Environment (T&E).
TfL. (2018). Bus Fleet Audit. 31 March 2018. Transport for London (TfL). Retrieved
from http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-fleet-audit-31-march-2018.pdf
TRACCS. (2017). TRACCS. Final report and datasets. EMISIA. Retrieved from
http://traccs.emisia.com/
Tsiropoulos, I., Tarvydas, D., & Lebedeva, N. (2018). Li-ion batteries for mobility and
stationary storage applications - Scenarios for costs and market growth. EUR -
Scientific and Technical Research Reports. Joint Research Centre (JRC). Retrieved
from
19
http://publications,jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J RC 113360/kjna29440enn.
pdf
UITP. (2016). Statistics Brief - Local public transport in the European Union. Union
Internationale des Transports Publics (UITP). Retrieved from
https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-
files/UITP_Statistics PT_in EU_DEF 0.pdf
UITP. (2019). Strategy for public transport. Union Internationale des Transports
Publics (UITP). Retrieved from https://www.uitp.org/strategy-public-transport
UNECE. (2014). Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles. United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Retrieved from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DA M/trans/main/wp29/wp29resolutions/ECE-
TRANS-W P29-78-13e.pdf
Volvo. (2019). Volvo 7900 Electric. Busse Deutschland. Volvo. Retrieved from
https://www.volvobuses.de/de-de/our- offering/buses/volvo-7900-electric.html
WB. (2018). Electric Mobility and Development. An Engagement Paper from the World
Bank and the International Association of Public Transport. World Bank (WB).
Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/193791543856434540/pdf/132636-
EMA Dv4-web.pdf
WRI. (2018). How Did Shenzhen, China Build World’s Largest Electric Bus Fleet?
World Resources Institute (WRI). Retrieved from
https://www.wii.org/blog/2018/04/how-did-shenzhen-china-build-world-s-largest-
electric-bus-fleet
ZeEUS. (2016). ZeEUS eBus Report - An overview of electric buses in Europe. Zero
Emission Urban Bus System (ZeEUS).
ZeEUS. (2017). ZeEUS eBus Report #2 - An updated overview of electric buses in
Europe. Zero Emission Urban Bus System (ZeEUS).
20
Appendix
Fig. Al shows that the level of comprehensiveness of measures supporting the
deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (AFI) ranges from low (four Member
States) to high in the case of the UK.
Measures for public transport AFI
HB High comprehensive measures
[1 Medium comprehensive measures
[= Medium not comprehensive measures
{Hl Low comprehensive measures
BZ, Low not comprehensive measures
Gi nothing assessable defined
(nF not received
Figure A1. Level of comprehensiveness of measures that promote A FI deployment in
public transport services, by country
Source: (EU, 2017a)
Fig. A2 shows the evolution of the total and electric bus stock (including trolley-buses)
in urban China between 2010 and 2017. The bus fleet of the Chinese city of Shenzhen,
with over 16,359 units in 2017, is reportedly fully electric (WRI, 2018).
21
mmm Electric buses | =Total urban buses
2010-2011. 2012, 2013S 2014S 2015. 20162017
Figure A 2. Stock of buses in urban China
Source: own work based on data from (Statista, 2019) (EVI, 2018) (EVI, 2017) (EVI, 2016)
22
