Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fleet Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task Force hears technical working group on fleet resilience and zero‑emission transition hurdles
Summary
TWG presented asset‑management measures—predictive maintenance, shared procurement, standardized training, and utility coordination—to improve reliability and reduce ZEB life‑cycle costs; members emphasized immediate infrastructure and procurement constraints and requested state technical support.
Michael Eshelman (AC Transit, TWG) briefed the task force on fleet and asset trends: operating cost per service hour has risen while ridership fell in the pandemic, spare ratios and miles‑between‑road‑calls vary widely among operators, and zero‑emission bus (ZEB) fleets have shown lower availability in many agencies. TWG recommendations included shifting from strictly scheduled preventative maintenance to predictive maintenance, aggregating procurement to reduce unit costs, centralizing or sharing specialized charging/fueling and maintenance facilities, and creating statewide standardized training (e.g., ZEB University) to close workforce gaps.
Task force members and industry representatives raised operational constraints: higher upfront and lifecycle costs for battery and fuel‑cell buses (often 2–3x diesel equivalents), limited OEM competition, escalating utility demand charges and interconnection delays, and weight and range constraints that can increase required vehicle counts. Speakers repeatedly urged opt‑in statewide master procurement agreements, expanded regional engineering capacity, and grant‑program flexibility to fund infrastructure and training costs.
Paratransit and smaller vehicles were flagged as a special need: members noted few viable low‑ or zero‑emission solutions exist today for cutaway/paratransit vehicles; CARB is evaluating whether to include cutaways in the ICT regulation and will decide later in 2025, with potential operational implications for ADA service.
Outcome: No formal vote; staff were asked to identify options for shared procurement, centralized training, utility coordination, and grant programs that could include opt‑in project delivery assistance for smaller agencies.
