I think I found the issue...looks like that chart may not honestly depict lifecycle savings, because the fleet is acquired gradually over those 20 years, but I think they include full capital costs (though to be honest I haven't read deeply to see if they account for this, but it would explain some of the odd numbers)
So the report basically accounts for like(a lot of rounding here):
15 years of ~150 buses
12 years of 170 buses
10 years of 180 buses
8 years of 200 buses
5 or fewer years of another ~160 buses
but includes the full capital costs for all 940 buses.
It would be far more sensible to account for the full projected lifespan of each unit. It also seems odd that they account for a bunch of disposal costs, but there are never any reductions to the fleet in my image.
The moderate case seems to boil down to an extra $330M in capital, and an extra $264M in maintenance costs...projecting the BEB's to be nearly twice as expensive to maintain, though the report can offer no reasoning to support (and in fact contradicts this notion)
Quote:
Currently, Metro is assuming that for the moderate case, BEBs are more expensive to maintain;
however, there is much volatility in maintenance cost forecasts. Some reports show BEB maintenance
costs to be significantly lower than diesel maintenance costs,
15 and there is a good chance that BEB
maintenance costs will be lower than diesel-hybrid maintenance costs as the technology becomes more
widely adopted and transit agencies become familiar with it.
|
The "moderate" case actually seems like it might be intentionally pessimistic.