Transportation Research Part D 20 (2013) 7–11

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Assessing the impact of bus technology on greenhouse gas

emissions along a major corridor: A lifecycle analysis
Sabrina Chan, Luis F. Miranda-Moreno, Ahsan Alam, Marianne Hatzopoulou ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Macdonald Engineering Building, Rm. 492, 817 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper evaluates the impact of alternative bus transit technologies including com-
Transit emissions pressed natural gas, biodiesel, and diesel-electric hybrid on greenhouse gas emissions
Alternative fuels along a busy transit corridor using a lifecycle analysis approach. In addition, we compare
Emission modeling the operational emissions of buses running on these technologies using an instantaneous
Lifecycle analysis
speed and an average speed model. Our results indicate that operational emissions
make-up the largest portion of lifecycle emissions. When comparing instantaneous and
average speed emissions we find that both methods produce consistent results for diesel,
however, the average speed method underestimates biodiesel emissions by 21% and over-
estimates compressed natural gas emissions by 16%. Bus technologies ranked in increasing
order of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are: hybrid, compressed natural gas, biodiesel,
and conventional diesel.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With increasing investments in transit systems across metropolitan areas in North America, most transit agencies have
placed emphasis on reducing their carbon footprint. This is often done through operational improvements, such as transit
signal priority or jumper lanes, which help reduce idling times therefore reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
alternative technologies. Lifecycle analyses (LCA) that have investigated natural gas generally demonstrate that buses run-
ning on it provide modest or no reductions compared to conventional diesel buses (Karman, 2006). Further reductions have
been observed using bio-CNG (Ryan and Caulfield, 2010). Bioethanol from wheat and corn show 6–21% higher GHG emis-
sions than conventional diesel while ethanol derived from cassava and sugarcane demonstrate reductions of 16–44%; bio-
diesel produced from rapeseed and soybean offers substantially lower lifecycle GHG emissions (Yan and Crookes, 2009).
LCA for hydrogen buses show that under current hydrogen production technologies, hydrogen buses generate slightly more
GHG emissions than diesel buses (Frey et al., 2007).
Despite the availability of studies that have evaluated the impacts of bus transit technologies, there is a general lack of
research on specific transit corridors whereby local road characteristics and detailed bus drive-cycles are taken into account.
Most existing LCA studies use generic emission factors to derive operational-level emissions ignoring the particular charac-
teristics of the corridor to be evaluated. Our study, set in Canada, focuses on a busy bus transit corridor. Our objectives in-
clude (1) evaluating the impact of alternative bus transit technologies including compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel,
and diesel-electric hybrid on GHG emissions using a LCA approach, and (2) comparing the operational emissions of buses

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 398 6935; fax: +1 514 398 7361.
E-mail address: marianne.hatzopoulou@mcgill.ca (M. Hatzopoulou).

1361-9209/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.01.004
8 S. Chan et al. / Transportation Research Part D 20 (2013) 7–11

running on these technologies using an instantaneous speed and an average speed emission model. Local geographic and
driving conditions along the corridor are incorporated in the estimation of operational emissions.

2. Materials and methods

Our study is set in Montreal and focused on the Côte-des-Neiges (CDN) transit corridor that is served by multiple bus
routes. This corridor is located in an urban setting with varying road grades and it is home to one of the busiest bus routes.
We focus on the Route 165 bus that has the 4th highest average weekday ridership with 29,879 passengers (Société de
Transport de Montréal, 2011a). This bus route also connects to two metro stations and one commuter train station. The
length of the corridor is 6599 m in the northbound direction and 6734 m in the southbound direction. The bus route is oper-
ated by the Société de Transport de Montréal (STM). In 2009, STM fleet operations were estimated to generate about
147,000 tons of GHG emissions (Société de Transport de Montréal, 2011b). In Quebec, it was estimated that transit buses
are responsible for 78.7% of GHG emissions from public transit, and 2.1% of overall passenger transportation emissions (Nat-
ural Resources Canada, 2006).
The study corridor was divided into 30 links (in each direction) which are defined by the Route 165 bus stops situated
upstream of each intersection. The average link length is 222 m, with a minimum length of 71 m and maximum of
462 m. Instantaneous speeds of a single bus traveling along the corridor were recorded using a portable global positioning
system (GPS) in October 2011 for one complete cycle (northbound and southbound) during the morning (6–9 AM) and after-
noon (3:30–6:30 PM) periods. Link grade was calculated using an online tool, the GPS Visualizer, which uses a Digital Ele-
vation Model (Schneider, 2012). In the northbound direction, the grades of the 30 links range from 7.9% to +13.5%.
Ambient meteorological data including barometric pressure, relative humidity and temperature were extracted for October
2011. Route 165 buses include standard low-floor (80%) and articulated (20%) buses. Articulated buses are in service 80% of
the time, and the majority are manufactured in 2010.
We investigate three alternative fuels which are compared to conventional diesel fuel with a sulfur content of 15 ppm.
These technologies include CNG, biodiesel, and diesel-electric hybrid. We examine biodiesel with a typical blend of 20% ca-
nola oil and 80% petroleum diesel (B20).
Lifecycle emissions were calculated for one cycle during the morning and afternoon periods as the sum of the upstream
emissions estimated using GHGenius and operational emissions estimated using either the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES) or fuel consumption curves. Lifecycle components include fuel production (e.g. extraction of raw mate-
rials, transport, storage and distribution), vehicle manufacturing, and operation.
The estimation of upstream GHG emissions was conducted using GHGenius, a lifecycle tool developed for Natural Re-
sources Canada ((S&T)2, 2005). GHGenius is useful for the evaluation of lifecycle emissions of various conventional and alter-
native transportation fuels and embeds inputs specific to all Canadian provinces. GHGenius contains extensive data
regarding vehicle fuel economy, electricity production, fuel composition, carbon sequestration, crude oil slates, and fertilizer
use. The model assumes a fuel consumption rate of 28.5 L/100 km for a typical Canadian diesel-fueled bus in 2011. The life-
time vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) are based on Canadian data with 1.27 million km for diesel and biodiesel buses, and
1.06 million km for CNG buses. The lower lifetime VKT for CNG buses is justified by the higher maintenance needs of such
buses.
Although GHGenius can estimate emissions during operation, the results of this step were replaced by emission estimates
generated using the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). MOVES
estimates emissions using instantaneous or average link speeds; the former mode was adopted in light of the importance of
accelerations, decelerations, and idling in a bus speed profile. Instantaneous speeds collected using on-board GPS were
attributed to each link on the road network. Emissions for diesel, biodiesel, and CNG buses were simulated assuming the
same drive-cycle.
In contrast, hybrid bus emissions could not be modeled within MOVES and were estimated using a more aggregate ap-
proach. Average-speed based fuel consumption curves were used to estimate GHG emissions of hybrid buses as well as all

Fig. 1. Fuel consumption curves of hybrid, diesel and CNG buses. Source: Société de Transport de Montréal (2009) and Clark et al. (2009).
 S. Chan et al. / Transportation Research Part D 20 (2013) 7–11 9

other three technologies for comparative purposes (Fig. 1). These curves were determined based on fuel consumption
recordings of instrumented buses (Société de Transport de Montréal, 2009; Clark et al., 2009). We assume that the fuel con-
sumption rate of biodiesel buses is identical to conventional diesel. The GHG emissions per link using average speeds aggre-
gated from the GPS recordings are calculated using Equation 1:

GHGlink ¼ EF  FCR  VKT ð1Þ

where EF is the GHG emission factor in CO2-equivalent; 2691 g/L for diesel, 2168 g/L for B20, 1711 g/m3 for CNG and 2342 g/
L for hybrid (Transport Canada, 2012); FCR is fuel consumption rate (L/100 km or m3/100 km); and VKT is the link length in
100 km multiplied by the number of vehicles, the number of vehicles is 1 since we are estimating emissions for a single bus
Fig. 1 illustrates that at lower average speeds one would expect CNG to generate higher GHG emissions than diesel or
hybrid buses despite its lower CO2-equivalent emission factor. This effect will be discussed later in the results section.

3. Results

The GHG emissions from the upstream phases for diesel, B20, CNG, and hybrid buses are summarized in Table 1. Conven-
tional diesel has the highest upstream emissions due to the fuel production and feedstock recovery processes. The emissions
for B20 are slightly lower than diesel. This is expected as B20 is composed of 80% petroleum diesel. The vehicle cycle emis-
sions are the same for diesel and B20. Due to the cultivation of canola and the absorption of CO2 by this plant, GHGenius
applies a credit of 252.7 g/km for B20. This occurs at the end of the operation phase; therefore, this amount will be deducted
from the overall lifecycle emissions. A 35% decrease in upstream emissions characterizes hybrid buses compared to diesel
buses. This reduction is mostly found in the fuel cycle. The manufacturing of hybrid vehicles is the most intensive consid-
ering it requires a diesel engine and an electric motor. CNG has the lowest upstream emission rates, a reduction of 44% com-
pared to diesel buses. The fuel cycle processes of CNG are not as demanding as diesel; however, the on-board CNG storage
tanks require more material.
Operational GHG estimates using second-by-second and average speeds are presented in Table 2. Since MOVES does not
estimate emissions of hybrid buses; average speed emissions of hybrid buses as well as the other technologies were esti-
mated using fuel consumption curves.
Instantaneous speed-derived emissions of CNG are lowest compared to diesel and B20 buses, representing a difference of
over 4 kg of CO2 per cycle in each period. The emissions of diesel and B20 buses are close, with diesel buses being slightly
more polluting. For both peak periods, the emissions of a bus traveling in the northbound direction are lower than in the
southbound direction by 10–15%. The southbound direction goes towards the downtown area and is therefore characterized
by higher ridership, longer idling times at bus stops, and more frequent stops.
Consistent with the instantaneous speed emissions, average speed emissions also reveal lower levels in the northbound
direction (going away from downtown). The most noticeable observation is the large reduction, approximately 50%, in emis-
sions for hybrid buses compared to diesel buses. A hybrid bus serving Route 165 would produce 15 kg of CO2-equivalent for a
complete cycle in each of the peak periods compared to 27 kg for a diesel bus. CNG was found to have higher emissions than
diesel whereas the instantaneous model findings show CNG emissions are lower than diesel emissions. Studies comparing
diesel and CNG show that CNG normally performs better than diesel at lower speeds especially in stop and go conditions
(Jayaratne et al., 2010). This effect is captured by the instantaneous speed model estimated using MOVES but was not de-
tected in the average-speed fuel consumption curve (Fig. 1) that systematically assumes higher emissions for CNG under

Table 1
Upstream emissions (g/km).

Process Diesel B20 CNG Hybrid

Fuel dispensing 0.4 0.4 4.4 0.2
Fuel storage and distribution 7.7 10.4 27.9 4.5
Fuel production 165.3 157.5 29.0 97.3
Feedstock transport 16.2 16.6 0 9.5
Feedstock recovery 147.3 143.8 38.2 86.6
Land-use changes, cultivation 3.5 26.4 0 2.0
Fertilizer manufacture 0 35.4 0 0
Gas leaks and flares 28.2 23.0 62.1 16.6
CO2, H2S removed from NG 0 0 19.6 0
Emissions displaced by co-products 3.9 99.5 0 2.3
Total fuel cycle 364.7 314.0 181.2 214.4
Vehicle assembly and transport 5.0 5.0 6.3 7.3
Materials in vehicles 28.8 28.8 35.4 37.8
Total vehicle cycle 33.8 33.8 41.7 45.1
Total upstream 398.5 347.8 222.9 259.5
10 S. Chan et al. / Transportation Research Part D 20 (2013) 7–11

Table 2
AM and PM peak operational emissions per bus.

Period Direction Emissions (kg) Emission Rates (kg/km)

Diesel B20 CNG Hybrid Diesel B20 CNG Hybrid
Second-by-second (MOVES)
AM NB 13.09 13.02 11.19 – 1.98 1.97 1.70 –
SB 15.06 14.98 12.43 – 2.24 2.22 1.85 –
Total 28.14 28.00 23.62 – 2.11 2.10 1.77 –
PM NB 13.22 13.15 11.08 – 2.00 1.99 1.68 –
SB 14.88 14.81 12.53 – 2.21 2.20 1.86 –
Total 28.10 27.96 23.61 – 2.11 2.10 1.77 –
Average-speed (fuel consumption curves)
AM NB 12.69 10.22 12.50 7.4 1.92 1.55 1.89 1.12
SB 14.38 11.58 14.50 8.0 2.14 1.72 2.15 1.19
Total 27.07 21.81 27.00 15.4 2.03 1.64 2.03 1.15
PM NB 13.73 11.06 13.75 7.7 2.08 1.68 2.08 1.17
SB 14.08 11.34 14.22 7.9 2.09 1.68 2.11 1.17
Total 27.81 22.40 27.97 15.6 2.09 1.68 2.10 1.17

Notes: NB = northbound and SB = southbound.

Fig. 2. Estimated lifecycle emissions.

all speed ranges. We believe this to be a weakness in the average-speed model. The average-speed method underestimates
B20 emissions by 21% compared to the instantaneous method.
A summary of the lifecycle emissions is presented in Fig. 2. These are the sum of the upstream and operational emissions
(including the carbon absorption credit for B20) during peak periods. Note also that operational emissions make up the larg-
est portion of lifecycle emissions (82–89%). The greatest environmental benefits can be found by converting the current die-
sel fleet to hybrid buses (43.3%), followed by CNG buses (20.5%) and in last place are B20 buses (12.5%). This means that
the use of biofuels does not offer substantial GHG savings. If the emissions absorbed by the canola plant are omitted, B20
would have minimal reductions compared to conventional diesel (2.4%). The lowest upstream emissions are attributed
to CNG whereas the lowest operational emissions are associated with diesel-electric hybrid buses.
Using instantaneous operational emissions for diesel, B20, CNG, and average-speed operational emissions for hybrid
buses, the lifecycle emission rates that we estimated are; 2.51 kg/km for diesel, 2.19 kg/km for B20, 1.99 kg/km for CNG
and 1.42 kg/km for hybrid buses traveling along the CDN corridor. For diesel, the emission factors reported are 1.67 to
1.74 kg/km, and for CNG, they range from 1.54 to 2.03 kg/km (Beer et al., 2002; Karman, 2006; Rabl, 2002). An emission rate
of 1.39 kg/km was documented for biodiesel (Beer et al., 2002).
A reason for the higher estimates for diesel, biodiesel, and CNG is the inclusion of local topography and driving conditions
in the simulation of operational emissions. In this study, second-by-second speed recordings were used which take into ac-
count all acceleration and deceleration events. Typical driving profile of a transit bus is characterized by these stop-and-go
events that creates additional emissions. If average fuel consumption rates were to be used, these events would be neglected
and the emissions would be underestimated.

4. Conclusion

This study investigates the lifecycle GHG emissions of alternative transit bus technologies including conventional diesel,
biodiesel, CNG and diesel-electric hybrid. Route 165 traveling along a busy transit corridor in Montreal is used as an appli-
cation environment. The results indicate that operational emissions make-up the largest portion of lifecycle emissions (more
 S. Chan et al. / Transportation Research Part D 20 (2013) 7–11 11

than 80%). While CNG has the lowest upstream emissions due to the limited processes in the fuel production of natural gas,
the hybrid technology produces the lowest operational emissions as well as the lowest lifecycle emissions. When comparing
instantaneous vs. average speed emissions we observe that both methods produce consistent results for diesel emissions.
However, the average speed method underestimates B20 emissions by 21% and overestimates CNG emissions by 16%. The
bus technologies ranked from lowest to highest lifecycle GHG emissions are hybrid, CNG, biodiesel, and diesel. GHG savings
range from 8.4 to 29.0 kg of CO2-equivalent (12.5–43.3%) for a single bus operating during the morning and afternoon peak
periods when converting the current diesel technology to one of the alternative fuels.

References

Beer, T., Grant, T., Williams, D., Watson, H., 2002. Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels in Australian heavy vehicles. Atmospheric
Environment 36 (4), 753–763.
Clark, N.N., Zhen, F., Wayne, W.S., 2009. Assessment of Hybrid-Electric Transit Bus Technology. Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 132,
Washington, DC.
Frey, H.C., Rouphail, N.M., Zhai, H., Farias, T.L., Goncalves, G.A., 2007. Comparing real-world fuel consumption for diesel- and hydrogen-fueled transit buses
and implication for emissions. Transportation Research Part D 12, 281–291.
Jayaratne, E.R., Ristovski, R.R., Morawska, L., Meyer, N.K., 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions from diesel and compressed natural gas buses during acceleration.
Transportation Research Part D 15 (5), 247–253.
Karman, D., 2006. Life-cycle analysis of GHG emissions for CNG and diesel buses in Beijing. EIC Climate Change Technology 1, 248–253.
Natural Resources Canada, 2006. Comprehensive Energy Use Database, 1990 to 2009. <http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/
comprehensive_tables> (accessed 24.05.12).
Rabl, A., 2002. Environmental benefits of natural gas for buses. Transportation Research Part D 7 (6), 391–405.
Ryan, F., Caulfield, B., 2010. Examining the benefits of using bio-CNG in urban bus operations. Transportation Research Part D 15, 362–365.
Schneider, A., 2012. Find ‘‘Missing’’ Elevations with GPS Visualizer. <http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/elevation> (accessed 14.05.12).
(S&T)2 Consultants Inc., 2005. Documentation for Natural Resources Canada’s GHGenius Model 3.0. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.
Société de Transport de Montréal, 2009. Technical Report – Hybrid Technology. STM, Montreal.
Société de Transport de Montréal, 2011a. Activity Report 2011. STM, Montreal.
Société de Transport de Montréal, 2011b. Plan stratégique 2020. STM, Montreal.
Transport Canada, 2012. GHG Emission Factors. <http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Prog/2/UTEC-CETU/GhgEmissionFactors.aspx?lang=eng> (accessed 02.06.12).
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) 2010 User Guide, US EPA, EPA-420-B-09-041, Washington, DC.
Yan, X., Crookes, R.J., 2009. Life cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for road transportation fuels in China. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 13, 2505–2514.