Emission and life-cycle assessment of alternative-fuel buses: a case study of the Delaware Authority of Regional Transit

References

• Ahouissoussi N, Wetzstein M. 1998. A comparative cost analysis of biodiesel, compressed natural gas, methanol, and diesel for transit bus systems. Resour Energy Econ. 20(1):1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APTA. 2010. Impacts of the recession on public transportation agencies survey results. Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association. [accessed 2016 Apr 12]. http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/Impacts_of_Recession_March_2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• APTA. 2017. Public transportation fact book. Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association. [accessed 2017 Mar 4]. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2016-APTA-Fact-Book.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barnitt R (2008). In-use performance comparison of hybrid electric, CNG, and diesel buses at New York City Transit. SAE International Powertrains, Fuels & Lubricants Conference (pp. 12–21). Shanghai, China: SAE.
   Google Scholar
• Bi Z, Kleine R, Keoleian G. 2017. Integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle cost model for comparing plug in versus wireless charging for an electric bus system. J Ind Ecol. 21(2):344–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler K, Eberts E, Melendez M. 2006. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: compressed natural gas transit bus evaluation. Golden, Colorado, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
   Google Scholar
• Clark N. 2009. Assessment of hybrid-electric transit bus technology. Vol. 132, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• Clark N, Zhen F, Wayne W, Lyons D. 2007. Transit bus life cycle cost and year 2007 emissions estimation. Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen T. 2005. Diesel vs. compressed natural gas for school buses: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of alternative fuels. Energy Policy. 33(13):1709–1722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooney G, Hawkins T, Marriott J. 2003. Life cycle assessment of diesel and electric public transportation buses. J Ind Ecol. 17(5):689–699.
   Google Scholar
• Delaware Transit Corporation. 2017. How transit is funded. Dover, DE, USA: Delaware Transit Corporation. [accessed 2017 Mar 9]. http://www.dartfirststate.com/information/getting_there/faq/index.shtml
   Google Scholar
• EIA. 2017. Annual Energy Outlook 2017. US DOE Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2014. Washington, DC. [accessed2016 Jul 2]. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2016-main-text.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EPACT. 1992. U.S. energy policy act of 1992, 102nd Congress H.R.776.ENR. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed2016 Mar 16. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg2776.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ercan T, Zhao Y, Tatari O, Pazour J. 2015. Optimization of transit bus fleet’s life cycle assessment impacts with alternative fuel options. Energy. 93:323–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamad K, Faghri A, Li M. 2015. Forecasting model for vehicular demand: an alternative methodology in the context of developing countries. J Dev Areas. 49(2):125–143.
   Google Scholar
• Laghaei J, Faghri A, Li M. 2016. Impacts of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions: multi-year regional study. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(5):381–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lajunen A. 2014. Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 38:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Faghri A. 2014. Cost-benefit analysis of added cycling facilities. Transporta Res Rec. (2468):55–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Faghri A. 2016. Applying problem-oriented and project-based learning in a transportation engineering course. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 142(3):04016002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Faghri A, Ozden A, Yue Y. 2017a. Economic feasibility study for pavement monitoring using synthetic aperture radar-based satellite remote sensing: cost–benefit analysis. Transporta Res Rec. (2645):1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Rouphail N, Mahmoudi M, Liu J, Zhou X. 2017b. Multi-scenario optimization approach for assessing the impacts of advanced traffic information under realistic stochastic capacity distributions. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 77:113–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Zhou X, Rouphail N. 2017c. Quantifying travel time variability at a single bottleneck based on stochastic capacity and demand distributions. J Int Trans Sys. 21(2):79–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichliter A, Faghri A, Li M. 2013. Assessing airport snow and ice removal and its economic implications for a sustainable airport management. J Airport Manag. 8(2):174–188.
   Google Scholar
• Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S. 2010. Scenario analysis on alternative fuel/vehicle for China’s future road transport: life-cycle energy. Energy Policy. 38(8):3943–3956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozden A, Faghri A, Li M, Tabrizi K. 2016. Evaluation of synthetic aperture radar satellite remote sensing for pavement and infrastructure monitoring. Procedia Eng. 145:752–759.
   Google Scholar
• Rukowicz S. 2006. Comparative analysis of alternative fuels for bus transit. Newark, DE, USA: University of Delaware.
   Google Scholar
• Scott M, Kelly C, Collins E, Lewis J, Faghri A, Li M. 2017. Research of viable attributes and potential to integrate curbside intercity buses. In: Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting. No. 17-06609. Washington, D.C.: TRB.
   Google Scholar
• Taromi R, DuRoss M, Chen B, Faghri A, Li M, DeLiberty T. 2015. A multi-objective land development optimization model: the case of New Castle County, Delaware. Transportation Plann Technol. 38(3):277–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TCRP. 1998. Transit guidebook for evaluating, selecting, and implementing fuel choices for transit bus. Washington D.C.: TCRP Report 38.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng G, Lin C, Opricovic S. 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy. 33(11):1373–1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan M, Faghri A, Li M. 2017a. An interactive expert system based decision making model for the management of transit system alternate fuel vehicle assets. Intell Inf Manag. 9(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan M, Faghri A, Li M. 2017b. Knowledge-based decision-making model for the management of transit system alternative fuel infrastructures. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Gbologah F, Lee D, Guensler R, Liu H, Rodgers M. 2015. Assessment of alternative fuel and powertrain transit bus options using real-world operations data: life-cycle fuel and emissions modeling. Appl Energy. 154:143–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yavuz M, Oztaysi B, Onar S, Kahraman C. 2015. Multi-criteria evaluation of alternative-fuel vehicles via a hierarchical. Expert Syst Appl. 42(5):2835–2848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Xu W, Li M. 2009. Co-evolution of transportation and land use: modeling historical dependencies in land use and transportation decision-making. No. OTREC-RR-09-08. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC).
   Google Scholar