See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320095410

What hinders adoption of the electric bus in Canadian transit? Perspectives of

transit providers

Article · September 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.019

CITATIONS READS

12 748

3 authors, including:

Moataz Mohamed Mark R. Ferguson

McMaster University McMaster University
54 PUBLICATIONS   480 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   545 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Metropolitan Traffic Congestion in Canada View project

A Systemic Assessment and Optimization of Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) Network View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moataz Mohamed on 02 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 What Hinders Adoption of the Electric Bus in Canadian
Transit? Perspectives of Transit Providers
Moataz Mohamed *a, Mark Ferguson b, Pavlos Kanaroglou c

a
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
McMaster University, 1280 Main street west,
Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Canada

b
Senior Research Associate, McMaster Institute for Transportation & Logistics,
McMaster University, 1280 Main street west,
Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Canada

c
Professor of Emeritus, School of Geography & Earth Sciences,
McMaster University, 1280 Main street west,
Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Canada

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in Transportation Research

Part D: Transport and Environment, available online at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.019

To cite this article:

Mohamed, M., Feguson, M., Kanaroglou, P., (2017): What Hinders Adoption of the Electric Bus in
Canadian Transit? Perspectives of Transit Providers, Transportation Research Part D-Transport &
Environment, doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.019

Abstract
There is increasing advocacy for the electrification of mobility choices to reduce transport related GHG
emissions. Bus transit has been always considered a promising context for electric powertrain technologies.
Current market shares, however, tell a different story with a very small share for electric powertrains. This study
identifies factors that hinder the implementation of the electric bus in the public transit context as seen from the
perspective of service providers. A grounded theory analysis of 11 in-depth interviews yielded 55
themes/concerns, allocated over four categories, that appear to govern the adoption of the electric bus in
Canadian transit. Risk mitigation, operational capabilities, and cost reductions are identified as significantly
influencing the perspective of service providers and consequently the potential of the electric bus to penetrate the
marketplace. The findings also highlighted that: political support, Canadian-based operational data,
standardization, and demonstration projects are essential components that would move transit providers towards
electric powertrains. Overall, the study provides a detailed blueprint for a feasible path towards implementation
of the electric bus technologies in the urban transit context.

Keywords: Electric bus; grounded theory; transit electrification; operational feasibility

1
1. Introduction
Public transit is always considered a cornerstone to reduce transport social exclusion as it offers a cheaper
mobility choice. It is also an indicator of economic development and welfare in many countries (Kamruzzaman
et al., 2015). Increasingly, public transit is facing a remarkable transformation not only from the technological
perspective, but also in relation to societal and ecological impacts (Mahmoud et al., 2012). Indications of
attitudinal shift towards shared mobility, smart commutes, and automated mobility are palpable. There is
declining desire to own a private car as a means of transport (Mahmoud and Hine, 2013, 2016; Offer, 2015;
Pihlatie et al., 2014). Hence, public transit is expected to play a major role in the future of personal mobility.
That being said, transportation currently contributes 22% of global GHG emissions, a share which is often
flagged as a target for potential emissions reduction (Miles and Potter, 2014).
On the other hand, electricity is a clean source of energy that provides a better alternative to finite fossil fuels
(Kennedy, 2015). Although there are valid concerns about electricity generation methods and its sensitivity to
increase/decrease GHG emissions at the macro level, electricity is arguably the only source of energy with the
promise of net-zero emissions (Lajunen, 2014; Offer, 2015; Poullikkas, 2015), and at the micro level, electricity
offers zero local emissions, and better air quality. The electrification of transport, therefore, is receiving
considerable attention from academics and policy makers (Lajunen, 2014; Miles and Potter, 2014; Pihlatie et al.,
2014; Poullikkas, 2015; Wang et al., 2015). Electric bus transit, in particular, is considered a suitable target to
considerably decarbonize transport. The nature of bus transit operation, with fixed routes and timely schedules,
offers a suitable setting to utilize electric powertrain technology (Mahmoud et al., 2016; Miles and Potter, 2014;
Pihlatie et al., 2014).
The adoption path of the electric bus in transit has been examined via several domains of research.
Technology review (Bayindir et al., 2011; Chan, 2007; Kühne, 2010; Mahmoud et al., 2016), battery technology
(Khaligh and Li, 2010; Lu et al., 2013), life cycle cost (LCC) models (Lajunen, 2014; Pihlatie et al., 2014),
environmental assessment (García Sánchez et al., 2013; Nylund and Koponen, 2012; Ou et al., 2010; Ribau et al.,
2014), market demands (Frost & Sullivan, 2013), and operational feasibility (De Filippo et al., 2014; Miles and
Potter, 2014; Mohamed et al., 2017) have been prominent research domains in the electric bus literature.
Although previous attempts provide sound contributions, additional aspects that significantly affect the
electrification of bus transit are surprisingly yet to be investigated. Most notable is the lack of research that
investigates the willingness, or lack thereof, of service providers to adopt electric bus technology. In this respect,
two fundamental aspects are not fully addressed in the literature; firstly, transit providers are at the forefront of
operating the electric bus, and understanding their operational, and organizational demands is imperative (Miles
and Potter, 2014). Secondly, almost all models are based on bus-to-bus comparison and/or a small fleet (2-4
buses) with controlled/selected operational conditions, which does not reflect the varied operational demands that
service providers encounter on a daily basis (Mahmoud et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2015).
This study contributes to address these gaps and provides evidence on the perspectives of transit providers in
Canada as it relates to the implementation of the electric bus in the transit context. The study aims to identify key
factors that hinder the adoption of electric buses in transit. It provides a blueprint of a feasible path toward
adoption of the electric bus in Canadian transit. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no previous study
that investigated the implementation of the electric bus from a transit provider perspective.

2. Literature review
The electric bus offers different sets of operational features compared to the diesel bus. Energy logistics,
range, energy consumption, environmental impact, and cost are examples of these varied features (Hannan et al.,
2014; Hua et al., 2014; Li, 2014; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2015). The electric bus itself has three distinct
electric powertrains: overnight electric, opportunity electric, and battery-trolley. Each offers different operational
features, the overnight electric features relatively longer range, and bigger battery capacity that requires long
charge time, while opportunity electric benefits from on-route charging and operates for a limited range with a
smaller battery capacity. The battery-trolley is a trolley electric bus with additional battery that allows for
operation without overheard wiring for a limited range. Models have been developed to address the varied
technological choices for transit buses by establishing quantitative comparisons for different engine technologies
(i.e. internal combustion, hybrid, and electric), and for different types of fuel/energy (i.e. electricity, diesel,
hydrogen). These are focused on the development of techno-economic-environmental measures of alternative
electric powertrains, and are considered an important facilitator for the diffusion of electric buses (De Filippo et
al., 2014; Lajunen, 2014; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Pihlatie et al., 2014).
Life cycle models highlight that electric buses are cost competitive with diesel and CNG buses (Ou et al.,
2010). Although it shows higher capital cost for the electric bus, low operational and maintenance costs

2
contribute to a competitive total cost of ownership (TCO). Lajunen (2014) highlights that the TCO for electric
bus is just 13%-25% higher than the diesel counterpart based on varied simulated bus routes. While Pihlatie et al.
(2014) argue that the TCO of the electric bus is around 15%-44% higher than a diesel bus based on operational
data in Finland. Other studies confirm these findings in different contexts and report 15%-50% higher TCO for
electric bus (Conti et al., 2015; Kühne, 2010). However, it is evident that TCO models are significantly sensitive
to technology and operational configurations (Nurhadi et al., 2014). Battery configuration (energy/power density)
in particular, has a pronounced impact on TCO estimations (De Filippo et al., 2014; Lajunen, 2014; Pihlatie et
al., 2014).
Operation feasibility, as well, is tested in different contexts. Miles and Potter (2014) and Kontou and Miles
(2015) have reported promising operational capability for the opportunity electric bus based on operational data
in England. In North America, De Filippo et al. (2014) have provided simulated evidences on electric bus
operational feasibility. Overall, the electric bus is considered a stable and feasible technology to operate in the
transit context. However, the diurnal availability (range/charging time) of the electric bus is considered a critical
limitation to operational feasibility. Lajunen (2014) has reported 70% availability for electric bus, while De
Filippo et al. (2014) have argued that no incremental electric buses are needed to replace a fleet of diesel buses.
Their model however, has indicated that an average of 2.8-3.7 minutes of additional time to each route trip is
required. Furthermore, Perrotta et al. (2014) have developed a route optimization simulation model for the
electric bus that confirms the operational feasibility over different route contexts. They have indicated a clear
lack of evidence on electric bus operation in a complete network (Perrotta et al., 2014). In addition, Xu et al.
(2015) have highlighted the lack of practical and/or operational evidence on electric bus operation feasibility in
interlined transit networks. Although fixed-route based studies are showing promising operational capabilities,
the cumulative impacts of electric bus operation in varied sequential routes require a detailed investigation.
Environmental assessments of electric bus operation highlight significant reduction in energy consumption,
and GHG emissions (Poullikkas, 2015; Wang et al., 2015). Xu et al. (2015) and Mahmoud et al. (2016) provide a
detailed review of models that are used to assess environmental and energy performance of the electric bus. They
have provided evidence on significant well-to-wheel (WTW) GHG emissions reduction for the electric bus
compared to diesel and CNG. Other studies in different contexts have echoed similar conclusions (Robert et al.,
2014; Torchio and Santarelli, 2010; Wang et al., 2015). Valid concerns are expressed about the benefits of the
electric bus for GHG emissions reduction at the well-to-tank (WTT) stage due to electricity generation methods.
However, Kennedy (2015) has highlighted that electricity generation with carbon intensity below the 600
tCO2e/GWh−1 threshold is GHG competitive. His study reports few countries that exceed this threshold.
Currently, electricity generation in Canada is significantly below this mark (167 tCO2e/GWh−1) due to the
substantial hydropower and nuclear generation methods (Kennedy, 2015). In addition, geographical
characteristics are identified as a prominent contributor to electric bus environmental and energy performance
(Perrotta et al., 2014). Traffic conditions, temperature, and number of stops are also highlighted to impact energy
and emission performance (Kontou and Miles, 2015).
Overall, the electric bus is an arguably capable, efficient, and cost-competitive powertrain that could
significantly contribute to the decarbonization of transport (Mahmoud et al., 2016). However, the market share
for the electric bus is telling a different story. In 2012, electric buses had a 6% share of new bus purchases
globally, and optimistic market expectations predict 15% of new purchases globally in 2020 (Frost & Sullivan,
2013). The North American market, in particular, is showing very slow penetration of the electric bus in transit.
The market is expected to grow just 2% (6 to 8%) from 2012 to 2020 (Frost & Sullivan, 2013; Mahmoud et al.,
2016).
The inconsistency between electric bus market share and feasibility models highlights a clear gap between
theoretical evidence and practical application. Although some argue that the lack of political support,
technological immaturity, and inertia to change are key contributors to a small share, others attribute this
situation to the sensitivity of techno-economic models to operational context. This sensitivity is evident to be a
common theme across all electric bus assessment models (Nurhadi et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015; Zhou et al.,
2016). Consequently, this sensitivity increases the uncertainty about the operational benefits of electric bus in a
network context, thereby limiting market share.
Furthermore, there are growing claims that all models do not incorporate the demands and the perspectives of
transit providers as it relates to the electric buses. There is a lack of understanding the decision-making process
for the electrification of bus transit. Concerns about the individual impact of each feature (e.g. adding 5 minutes
to a schedule/route) on the decision-making process require comprehensive investigation, if we are to increase
electric bus market share and reduce transit carbon print.
This study works towards reducing this gap by investigating the key factors that hinder the adoption of the
electric bus in transit from transit providers perspective so as to better inform electric bus assessment models.

3
This is done in a way that considers the varied daily operation demands from the perspective of transit providers
and offers insights for research and development (R&D), political direction, and electric bus literature as well.

3. The electric bus in Canadian transit: policies & practice

In Canada, the bus transit delivery chain involves five key players that include the federal government,
provincial governments, municipalities, and Transit Agencies (Hatzopoulou and Miller, 2008). Mainly,
municipalities are responsible for delivering bus transit services, which are partly self-funded through fares and
local taxes. Transit agencies are established to fulfill transit demands in some specific areas. They are created as
a link between regional municipalities and provinces, and funded through municipalities and provincial
governments, as well as through federal grants in special cases. In contrast, federal and provincial governments
generally do not directly operate transit services. They however, provide funds/subsidies for municipalities in
different forms as detailed in Figure 1.

Federal Federal fund Provincial

programs

Federal fund Municipalities Provincial fund

programs programs

Fares, local taxes

Federal fund Provincial fund

Transit Agencies
programs programs

Figure 1 Canadian bus transit delivery chain

The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) reported 4% federal, and 31% provincial contributions
towards transit capital and operation costs in 2011 as detailed in Figure 2 (CUTA, 2011). However, it should be
noted that federal contributions are directed only towards capital costs. Several federal capital funding programs
are currently in place that include, yet are not limited to: Gas Tax Fund (GTF), P3 Canada Fund, and New
Building Canada Fund. Recently, the Public Transit Fund (PTF) was announced to provide $750 million over
two years (2017-2018) for transit infrastructure and smaller transit projects (Department of Finance Canada,
2015). It is also planned to expand thereafter, and $1 billion will be allocated annually (Department of Finance
Canada, 2015).
Although several aspects of transit policies may encourage transit electrification, there is no specific policy
dedicated to enforcing the implementation of the any electric bus in transit. Policies are geared towards emissions
reduction in general. That being said, federal and provincial grants have previously been used to support the
adoption of hybrid buses in transit as well as electric bus demonstration projects (Li, 2014). It could be argued
that federal and provincial governments have no direct link to powertrain technology choice for bus transit, yet
they have significant influence as they control allocation of funding (Barrieau and Lagu, 2015). In Canada,
service providers and municipalities lead the selection process of powertrain technology in transit.
With respect to electric bus operation, few electric bus demonstration projects are currently operational in
Canada. In the province of Manitoba, Winnipeg transit operates an electric bus powered by lithium-ion batteries
on an airport route (route 20 Academy-Watt). While in Alberta, Edmonton Transit operated two battery electric
buses in a demonstration project that was recently concluded. Societe de Transport de Montreal (STM) will
operate four electric buses in a Montreal demonstration project, which is sponsored by the provincial government
of Quebec. In addition, three mini electric buses (5.3m) have been in operation in Quebec since 2005 (Li, 2014).

4
 Figure 2 Operating and capital funding for public transit in 2011, values are in millions, adapted from (CUTA, 2011)

200
2%
Federal Contributions 800 500
7% 4%
Provincial Contributions 3,700
31%
3,500
Municipal Contributions 30%

Passenger fares

Other Contributions

Other Revenue
3,000
26%

4. Methodology

4.1. Grounded Theory

The implementation of a new powertrain technology in the transit context is a complex process. This
complexity is attributed to the multidimensional nature of transit operation, which requires seamless integration
of different operational features. Furthermore, the utilization of the electric bus in transit requires a trade-off in
the decision making process, as an electric bus offers different operational features compared to the diesel
counterpart (Mahmoud et al., 2016). Although several quantitative models have been developed to address these
issues in a way that informs the implementation of electric bus, any quantitative encouragement offered by these
models has not been reflected in practice given the prevailing tiny market share of the electric bus in Canadian
transit. Some argue that these models are unable to address the basic questions of “if, what, and might” that are
associated with transit operation.
Alternatively, qualitative methods are a powerful family of tools to address such questions, yielding insights
into the decision-making process for transit operation and specifically with regard to electric bus implementation.
In particular, Grounded Theory, advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967), is considered a powerful inductive tool
to explore complex decisions. Fundamentally, grounded theory allows the pattern of ideas to emerge from data
through systematic procedures of coding (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007). The method utilizes participants’
perspective/experience to construct a theory that emerges and advances from multiple interactions between
codes, concepts, and categories (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007; Creswell, 2013). While the present study
aims to understand practical barriers that hinder the application of electric bus from a transit provider
perspective, the grounded theory approach offers several advantages by developing a theory that is based on the
day-to-day practices of transit providers in Canada.
A theory that emerges through the process offers new insights not only to guide the implementation of electric
bus technology, but also to highlight how each feature of the electric bus influences the decision-making process.
This is to portray a detailed blueprint on the desired Research and Development (R&D) and the required political
interventions to implement the electric bus in the Canadian urban transit context. To our knowledge, there are no
previous attempts that qualitatively investigate the implementation of the electric bus from the service provider
perspective.
4.2. Interview participants
A qualitative data set was collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews. The selection process of
participants was stratified to ensure that a wide range of transit operational characteristics was considered, as
well as that all categories of transit operators are represented in the sample. The process began with the
development of a long list of potential participants. The list was thoroughly reviewed by members of the
Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). Shortlisted transit properties were contacted via email and/or
telephone and invited to participate in the study. Participants included those of directors, fleet/operation
managers, maintenance managers, and planning managers. One participant represented each transit property, and
prior to the interview, a detailed information package was sent to participants that included consent forms,
interview themes, and subject information sheet. On average, interviews lasted one hour and 12 minutes.
A total of 11 transit providers participated in the study, out of a larger list that were contacted, and in-depth
interviews were conducted during March-June 2015. These transit providers are: Toronto (Toronto Transit
Commission, TTC), Hamilton (Hamilton Street Railway, HSR), Windsor (Windsor Transit), Region of Waterloo
(Grand River Transit, GRT), Halifax (Metro Transit), Kentville (Kings Transit), Fredericton (Fredericton

5
Transit), Winnipeg (Winnipeg Transit), Calgary (Calgary Transit), Ottawa (OC Transpo), and Montreal (Societe
de Transport de Montreal, STM). These organizations represent 63.19% of the Canadian transit ridership across
six provinces. Table 1 highlights the diversity in operational capacity, fleet characteristics and market size within
the sample and that the organizations provide a good cross-section of the Canadian transit context.
Table 1. Sample information
% of Average
Population Fleet Total Traveled
Transit Provider City Province National Fleet
Served* Size* KM*
Ridership Age*
TTC Toronto Ontario 2,808,503 26.40% 1,869 7.4 120,915,443
HSR Hamilton Ontario 490,000 1.10% 221 6.6 13,696,705
Windsor Transit Windsor Ontario 210,891 0.31% 112 10.1 5,077,299
GRT Region of Waterloo Ontario 434,437 1.07% 235 6.3 14,006,366
Metro Transit Halifax Nova Scotia 308,084 0.95% 312 7.3 15,451,523
Kings Transit Kentville Nova Scotia 42,500 0.02% 14 5.8 630,000
Fredericton Transit Fredericton New Brunswick 50,000 0.08% 27 9.0 1,071,380
Winnipeg Transit Winnipeg Manitoba 675,300 2.46% 583 9.6 26,172,798
Calgary Transit Calgary Alberta 1,195,194 5.44% 1,053 7.3 49,354,009
OC Transpo Ottawa Ontario 857,890 4.79% 936 5.5 48,326,802
STM Montreal Quebec 1,959,987 20.56% 1,729 5.8 72,548,985
* Data are based on (CUTA, 2014)

4.3. Data and analysis

The interview transcript includes five themes with a total of 18 items/questions that investigate the
implementation of the electric bus in the Canadian transit context. The transcript starts with a general theme (3
items) to investigate participants’ attitude towards the environmental impact of the transport sector in general,
and of transit services in particular. The second theme (4 items) investigates the decision-making process for
fleet management, and the selection process of powertrain technology. The focus is shifted towards the electric
bus in the third theme (6 items), which investigates operational, technological, and other concerns regarding
electric buses. In theme four (2 items), participants explain the key barriers/drivers for implementing electric
transit buses. Theme five (3 items) discusses transit policies in relation to the implementation of the electric bus
at three main levels: federal, provincial, and municipal. Each interview concludes with an open discussion on the
future of transit/mobility in 20 years. All discussions were digitally reordered (audio) and anonymously
transcribed.
The data analysis follows the typical grounded theory analytical approach advocated by Glaser and Strauss
(1967). Firstly, an open coding process, using line-by-line codes, is undertaken by converting each line in the
transcript into a unique code. The process produces a large volume of codes that are refined through focused
coding. The focused coding process groups the most frequent and significant codes generated from the initial
open coding. The process synthesizes a larger proportion of the data and generates sub-categories and categories
(Charmaz, 2014). The generated categories are linked through axial codes that rebuild relationships between the
extracted categories (Strauss, 1987). Axial codes could be seen as a method to restore links between the separate
distinct categories in a more comprehensive manner (Birks and Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013;
Strauss, 1987). In the final stage, categories are linked in a theoretical coding process that outlines the emerging
theory. This systematic process allows the theory to “self-emerge” from the data without forcing a predefined
conceptual/theoretical framework (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007; Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013).
Grounded theory analysis is carried out by two researchers independently, and a cross-comparison of
materials (codes, notes, and categories) showed similar results, which confirms that personal intervention during
data interpretation is indeed eliminated. The analysis comprehensively identifies the dimensions (political,
operational, technological, and attitudinal) that constitute a feasible implementation of electric bus in the
Canadian urban transit context.

5. Results
Interview participants raised a wide range of factors that govern the implementation of the electric bus in the
transit context, as well as light was shed on the discrepancies between day-to-day operation and theoretical
feasibility studies. Potential avenues for R&D requirements, political interventions, and research directions were
advocated and practical solutions emerged that could be readily implemented to increase the utilization of
electric bus in transit.

6
 The analysis yielded 55 distinct themes that are sorted into 16 subcategories, and further refined into four
categories as detailed in Table 2. The following subsections detail the perspectives of transit providers towards
these subcategories.
Table 2. Grounded theory results
Categories
Attitude towards the electric bus
Operational feasibility of the electric bus
Decision-making & fleet management strategy
Developing a business case; the way forward
Subcategories
General attitude towards electric
technology
The “Guinea Pig” syndrome
Technology Anxiety
Lack of operational data
Risk and safety concerns
Operational availability
Powertrain technology
Network optimization
Human resources
Total Cost of Ownership
Standardization of electric bus technology
Decision making
Fleet management strategy
Manufacturers and the U.S. influence
Top-down approach & political
intervention
Implementation criteria & regulatory
environment
Themes
Electrical technology is viable
Passengers demand reliability, not green technology
Contributes to GHG reduction
Future implementation only
High risk being the first
Need someone else to test it
Fear of obsolescence
Lack of R&D direction
No practical Canadian data
Various unknowns in operations
Health and safety for passengers & employee
Safety standards for high voltage exposure
Range
Charging time
Overnight electric buses
Opportunity electric buses
Battery-Trolley electric buses
Route selection
Operational flexibility
Interlining versus fixed routes
Increased fleet size,
Mechanics
Drivers
Human resources
Capital cost
Operational cost
Leasing
Infrastructure cost
Fuel saving & electricity rates
Human resource cost
Total cost of ownership
Standards
The role of CUTA & APTA
No Green/electric policy in place
Risk free decision-making process
Multiple criteria/departments involved
Reliability/cost driven decision making
Replacement first
Age-driven strategy
Performance requirements force e-bus out of tendering
Technology change is not often considered
Eliminating old diesel is a priority
Manufacturers not meeting performance requirements
U.S. guides market direction not Canada
Different priorities for manufacturers and providers
Top down approach is the only solution
Providers can’t act in isolation
Federal government is the key player
Provinces and municipalities are key building blocks
Federal incentives
Piloting is the only feasible solution
City/technology/network choice are key for successful pilots
Data banks for e-bus in Canada
Regulation for on-route chargers
Acquisition regulations & contracting
7
5.1. Attitude towards electric bus technology
In general, a positive attitude towards electric bus technology was evident in the data. It is considered a viable
technology and a good powertrain choice that fits the nature of transit operation. Several advantages of electric
vehicle technology are identified, most notably is the low level of noise and vibration associated with the electric
bus. In addition, the comfort of an electric bus, with no shifting gears, is identified as a good feature for a more
appealing transit service.
“It’s there. When I first heard about it, I thought Nah, it’s going nowhere, but you know what, they made a
believer out of me because I can’t believe the leaps that have been made in the last couple of years, the
technology is just pretty” – HSR, Hamilton.
“I think it’s good technology and I think there’s certainly a place for it” – Kings Transit, Kentville.

In addition, and motivated by reducing GHG emissions, the electric bus is considered a practical way to
reduce the transit GHG footprint. Although the results indicated that state-of-the-art diesel buses are perceived as
environmentally friendly as well, providers are seeking the perceived greater environmental benefits associated
with the use of the electric bus. The results highlighted that transit providers are very aware of the link between
provincial electricity generation profiles and the environmental benefits of the electric bus but were not
necessarily sure about the implications within their own jurisdiction:
“When we’re ready to have clean electricity being generated then we know we can switch over. But it’s not
something, I don’t think, that we can be doing right now just, say from a more holistic, environmental level,
it’s not, it’s not right for Alberta just yet I don’t think” – Calgary Transit, Calgary.

Transit providers, however, have identified that customers do not have strong preferences towards specific
powertrain technology regardless of environmental impact. They argued that delivering frequent and reliable
services are vital to satisfy consumers’ mobility demands not the powertrain technology.
“Our customer, the first priority is punctuality it’s untouchable. They want more buses at rush hour, they
want to go fast, and they want more buses outside the rush hour. These are the four things our customers
want” – STM, Montreal.

Overall, the positive orientation towards electric bus technology by service providers seemed always
associated with future implementation only. It is evident in the data that transit providers consider electric bus a
viable future technology but not for implementation at the present time.
“My firm belief: maybe not in my lifetime, but public transit vehicles will be electrified, fleet wide. But it is
going to take quite a substantial amount of time” - Windsor Transit, Windsor.
“Long-term, like I said; my thinking is that electric buses will have a place in our operation down the road” –
GRT, Region of Waterloo.

5.1.1. The “Guinea Pig” syndrome

The future expectation for implementing the electric bus is coupled with a consistent reluctance to implement
the electric bus in a fleet operation. All participants stated that it is risky to be the first providers with new
technology and that some other jurisdiction should play the role of “guinea pig”. There is thus a natural inertia in
place, based on perceived risk that would have to be overcome before the electric bus could become more
prominent in Canada.
“I would certainly be pushing that the electric bus would be the way that we need to go down the road. But we
don’t like to be the guinea pigs with technology” – GRT, Region of Waterloo.
“I am worried about being a guinea pig and getting a system in that two years later it’s out of date” –
Fredericton Transit, Fredericton.

5.1.2. Technology anxiety

The perceived risk associated with the implementation of the electric bus is identified to emerge from several
factors with the most notable being technology anxiety. The term refers to concerns that current electric
powertrain technology will soon be obsolete. Rapid technological advancement in several components (i.e.
range, charge time, and batteries) is identified as a major barrier for adopting electric bus in transit.
“What if these things go obsolete, or a company like xxx decides (We’re not going to build them anymore),
and we ran into that, we have run into it with our streetcars and our subway car equipment” – TTC, Toronto.
“Especially with that kind of technology, is going to make sure that it doesn’t go obsolete or that we don’t
have to… like 5 years down the road the technology advances so much that now the system is new… you may
as well just dump the bus” – Metro Transit, Halifax.

This theme is frequently echoed through the discussions. There is clear demand for a stable technology that
would stay current for the 12-16 years lifespan of bus operation. The data highlighted that several providers have
experienced similar situations with significant technological/operational variation between 1 st and 2nd generations
hybrid buses.

8
 “We have first generation technology and there were challenges…. I’m not at all criticizing the
manufacturer… it is technology... it evolves... and now the new ones are 10x better than what they had in the
first-generation ones” – OC Transpo, Ottawa.

Adding to that is the lack of clear R&D direction with respect to electric bus technology. Transit providers
expressed that several aspects of technological support and the trend in electric bus industry are still indefinite,
which hinders the feasibility to be committed to electric bus at this stage. There is uncertainty across the sector
about which type of electric bus technology (overnight, opportunity, or battery-trolley) the industry will support.
“Yeah, I think it is kind of unknown, because we don’t know what is tomorrow’s technology, I know today’s
technology. They are coming with things so differently so quickly. It has been a question that we have talked
to manufacturers about” – Windsor transit, Windsor.

5.1.3. Lack of operational data

The analysis highlighted that operational data on the electric bus remains unavailable to transit providers.
Specifically, a lack of data on the impacts of temperature variation on battery performance, as well as the
durability of electric components in snow and salt conditions are perceived as barriers to implementation. Transit
providers emphasized that the selection process of powertrain technology is mainly informed by practical
operational data in similar contexts, not by laboratory tests. Although some Canadian trials/pilots are currently in
place, transit providers clearly stated that they demand real-world operational data under a variety of network
conditions, not proof-of-concept trials that are based on relaxed operational conditions. To that end, the
availability of reliable operational data is identified as a practical method to mitigate the high risk associated with
the implementation of electric bus.
“Show me a city that’s done it. Show me their experience, show me their mileage, show me their maintenance
history, and let me talk to the folks that have been involved because that’s where we’re going to get the real
information. The salespeople can do what salespeople do but, like I said, the transit industry is so
collaborative that I want to talk to the folks and I want to hear their real experiences” – Metro Transit,
Halifax.

5.1.4. Risk, health and safety concerns

Risk, health, and safety regulations of electric bus are regarded as part of the unknown. Transit providers
highlighted the lack of knowledge/regulations/policies related to safe operation/maintenance of the electric bus in
their current operational manuals. These would need to be developed and refined before implementing the
electric bus. The concerns also include dealing with a high voltage environment for both transit employee and the
general public.
5.2. Operational and financial feasibility of electric buses
The operational feasibility of the electric bus has emerged as a key factor that governs the adoption of electric
technology in the transit context. Several aspects are identified that contribute to operational feasibility, however,
providers emphasized that these aspects should be dealt with as a unit. Each is an integral component towards
determining operational feasibility.

5.2.1. Operational availability

Range anxiety continues to play a significant role in hindering implementation of the electric bus. In addition,
charging-time (bus availability) associated with range is identified as equally important. The data highlighted that
the diesel bus is always used as a reference in operation, with a range of 500-700 km and refueling time of 1-3
minutes. Adding to that are demands for 20 to 22 hours of operation in bigger metropolitan areas. In this respect,
transit providers argued that current electric bus technology is not able to satisfy range/charging-time
requirements. They have argued that more electric buses will be needed to operate in a diesel-based transit
network, which adds several financial and operational burdens on service providers. They demanded an electric
technology that can operate continuously for 20 hours, with small time intervals for charging. Although some
propositions are introduced to use recovery time for charging, all providers emphasized that recovery time is
essential to deliver reliable service.
“We got a new bus that goes out for 22 hours or so a day. And our range, our range for one of those buses is
400 miles. Just before we get into those electric buses we talked about, we’re not even close” – TTC, Toronto.
“In our industry we talk about unproductive time, drivers have about a 3-4 minutes recovery time at the end
of the line, that is an acceptable amount of time in a transit industry, don’t touch that recovery time, don’t use
that recovery time as your charging time, because I may still need to recover, there is no way to add 3-5
minutes on that to charge, that just through my operating efficiencies out the window, that will become a huge
challenge for transit properties” – Windsor Transit, Windsor.

5.2.2. Powertrain technology

Although the demands for range and charging-time could be addressed by the opportunity electric bus, the
data show huge variation in providers’ perspectives with regard to electric bus technology. Some argued that

9
battery-trolley is the only solution that can satisfy current operational requirements, while others preferred
overnight technology to centralize infrastructure distribution. Others identified the opportunity electric bus as a
practical, flexible solution with a feasible range/charging time ratio. It is evident in the data that the feasibility of
specific electric technology is sensitive to operational/network characteristics. This is supported by the
expectation that the electrification of bus transit will include a mix of all electric options in order to satisfy the
varied operational environments in transit network.
“I really like the technology of the long range, but you might need to beef it up a little bit” – GRT, Region of
Waterloo.
“When we plan service we’re typically trying to allow for about 10% downtime anyway… and we want to
plan for a minimum 5 minutes break. So, I think this is our best option with electrification” – Metro Transit,
Halifax.
“They use this trolley bus that… it’s on the wire for 10 km, and then it leaves the wire for the other 20 km on
battery. It comes back, picks up the wire… You don’t lose time; you charge while you’re riding so it’s very
interesting, efficient” – STM, Montreal.

5.2.3. Network optimization

Given current technological capabilities, transit providers argued that only specific routes could fit the
prevailing range/charging-time profile of the electric bus. There was thus a perception that electric buses would
constrain flexibility of use across routes. Specific route characteristics are identified as preconditions for
operating an electric bus. In particular, these were short routes, with over 15 minutes recovery time, and/or a
maximum of 18 hours of operation.
“It would have to provide service on this route and it has to be here… that creates a problem where we’re
actually moving the other way to more flexibility…from bouncing buses from one route to the next instead of
looking at making sure we have one specific bus on one specific route” – Metro Transit, Halifax.
“They will be limited I think… I don’t think it will be usable for every service, there’ll be very specific ones...
it will take a lot of work to work through the steps of how you select your routes I think” – Calgary Transit,
Calgary.

These conditions are thought to fit both overnight and opportunity electric buses. However, some argue that
even with tailored route characteristics, there is no room for electric buses in an interlined-based transit network.
Unlike traditional fixed-route operation, interlining requires operating a bus seamlessly on different routes.
Interlining has been proven to optimize resource allocations in transit operation but hinges on flexibility. Overall,
the electric bus, at present, is not considered feasible for interlining operation.
“What we do here to more efficiently use the assets is what we call ‘interlining.’ So, on a given day a bus
could be on like 7 different routes which is great when you have like one type of asset, but when you have an
electric bus, for example, where it has to be on Route 2 all day then it starts introducing some inefficiencies”
– Metro Transit, Halifax.

The data highlighted that small networks, with no significant variations in route characteristics, are claimed to
be a suitable environment for electric bus operation. The data showed, as well, that integrating the electric bus on
routes/networks that are designed/optimized for diesel powertrains is not feasible. Several approaches are
identified to overcome the limited operational flexibility of electric bus that include: redesigning transit
networks, creating a mix of fixed and interlined routes, or increasing fleet size. Yet each of these approaches
significantly increases operational and capital costs.
“Realistically, the first issue is changing the mindset of operation. Changing the operation such that: when
we design our routes, we design them with the mind to incorporating the constraints of the electric bus in
them” – Winnipeg Transit, Winnipeg.

5.2.4. Human resources

Availability of human resources is identified as an integral component for the implementation of the electric
bus. Transit providers argued that electric technology requires different skill sets, especially from mechanics.
The availability of trained mechanics represents a current problem for transit providers in Canada. Hence
recruiting new mechanics with the required skill sets is a challenging task. In addition, the required training
period to prepare mechanics for the electric bus is a costly and time-consuming barrier for implementation.
Service providers argued that due to the limited operational flexibility of the electric bus, more buses are
required, and consequently additional human resources are needed for operation. Furthermore, the hiring/training
process is identified as a major obstacle due to strict union regulations and the added cost.
“To take on electric knowledge … it would be a lot to upgrade your mechanics. Mechanics are really a rare
commodity right now right across the country” – Kings Transit, Kentville.

10
5.2.5. Total cost of ownership
Cost is the main driver for the decision-making process in the transit context. Transit providers argued that
current theoretical LCC models do not fully consider all cost aspects associated with transit operation. They
claimed that current LCC models do not provide “apples to apples” comparisons owing to the varied operational
features between different technologies at the network level.
“It’s that clock I was telling you about and then the whole thing… if it’s (implementing electric bus) going to
mean a re-tooling of your maintenance regime, of your lifecycle regime, of your ‘where can you use the buses.
It’s very difficult. It is no longer bus-to-bus comparison, the entire service should be considered” – OC
Transpo, Ottawa.

Although the high capital cost is considered the first hurdle to overcome, providers claimed that governmental
monetary incentives could help solve the problem. Cost reductions in maintenance and fuel consumption are
considered promising aspects of electric buses, yet the data indicated consistent expectation for increased
operational costs with the electric bus. This is attributed to the expected increase in fleet size and its impact on
capital, operational, and human resources costs. Providers have highlighted that fuel and maintenance costs
represent only 30% – 40% of the total operational cost, while human resources, namely mechanics and drivers,
are the main costly components in transit operation.
“In our operation, today, with the diesel bus, the cost of the fuel is only 10% of the operating cost. So, if you
need more buses, you cover up this 10% even if electricity was free, you quickly go back to more than 10% in
operating costs” – STM, Montreal.
“One of the things to bear in mind is that fuel to the transit department is around 10% of the overall budget,
and sum of salaries is close to 50%. So, a saving of 50% or 75% of fuel is … if it’s 75% it’s $10 to 12 million
on a $170 million budget, but adding a few minutes to every operator’s workday can add, it escalates at a
huge rate. Like I said; bus operator salary is the number one expenditure that we have” – Winnipeg Transit,
Winnipeg.

Also, relevant to costs is uncertainty about electricity rates. Providers claimed that higher demand for
electricity might increase electricity rates substantially, which will impact operational costs and the financial
feasibility of the electric bus.
“Our biggest fear with hydro is the time of use, you know the peak hour is when we have most of our buses on
the road, at night when the rates go down we have half of our fleet inactive” – Windsor transit, Windsor.
“What’s to say in three years, when nobody’s using gas anymore and everybody’s using electric buses, it is
not $1.50 per litre or $1.50 a charge… I don’t know, where’s the industry going to go with it and how is it
going to manage it” – Metro Transit, Halifax.

In addition, the data indicated that battery replacement cost for the entire lifespan is a significant obstacle for
operational feasibility. In this respect, a minority of service providers stated that battery leasing might be
considered to overcome the high cost of batteries, while others stated that current regulations require transit
providers to own the asset (bus and batteries), hence leasing is not an option. Furthermore, infrastructure cost
emerged as a significant contributing factor for operational feasibility. Current infrastructure would require
significant investment to accommodate the electric bus. Charging infrastructure is expected to substantially
increase capital cost requirements.
“Are they 6-year batteries, are they 12-year batteries? Do we know yet? What does that replacement cost
look like?” – Metro Transit, Halifax.
“Leasing becomes an economic disadvantage to you unless you’re doing it for risk transfer” – OC Transpo,
Ottawa.
“It’s 1,180 buses or more, so we need our eight depots at the time plus three more so it’s a lot of money. And
then if you recharge at the end of the line, you lose 10%... The eight depots are okay but you need between
250-500 recharging points. This is a nightmare. If you recharge online like in Genève you will need a
thousand things…it’s crazy. And if you use trolley-battery bus, you don’t need any more buses but you need to
put wire on 2,400 km of street, which is ridiculous” – STM, Montreal.

Overall, the data highlighted that there is a strong belief amongst providers that the TCO for electric bus is
much higher than any other technology when all operational aspects are considered. They indicated that TCO
estimations must be carried out at a network/fleet level, not for individual buses due to the variations in
operational features. This approach is argued to be more comprehensive in obtaining an “apples to apples”
comparison between different powertrain technologies.

5.2.6. Standardizations of electric technology

Developing common standards is identified as a critical component for the feasibility of the electric bus.
Providers have expressed their unwillingness to be married to a single vendor due to the variation in electric bus
components (battery, charger, and voltage). Both APTA and CUTA are suggested to be responsible for the
standardization of electric buses in the North American transit context. It is clearly expressed that without
standardization, the electric bus has no place in transit context.

11
 “We have to go for tenders ... it’s not going to be cost efficient and workable to have different batteries,
voltages, chargers, and such from bus build to bus build, so the industry does have to come up with
standards” – Winnipeg transit, Winnipeg.

5.3. Decision making & fleet management

The decision-making process for transit operation has a profound impact on the implementation of the electric
bus. Although it involves various aspects, four significant components emerged from the interviews.

5.3.1. Organizational policies & decision making

The data highlighted the lack of any green/electric policies that guide the implementation of electric bus
technology at the transit provider level. In general, the transit decision-making process is governed by three main
components: reliability of service, risk mitigation, and cost-revenue analysis. The evidence suggests that the
electrification of bus transit is not actively considered in the current decision-making process. In addition, the
decision-making process involves the integration of various departments/criteria, which adds several hurdles to
the implementation of the electric bus.
“We’re very risk-adverse … when you’re dealing with a large volume of public funds, the last thing anybody
wants to do is have your picture on the front of the newspaper with this article about the disaster of electric
buses, it’s really got to be a proven technology and a cost-effective technology I think” – Metro Transit,
Halifax

5.3.2. Fleet management strategy

Apart from the decision-making process, fleet management strategies are identified as major roadblocks for
the implementation of the electric bus. Fleet management is governed by achieving maximum integration in
operation, and accordingly operational requirements are essential for selecting powertrain technology. Transit
providers emphasized that technology change in fleet operation is subject to long-term plans, however it is
identified to be very sensitive to political well at all governmental levels: municipal, provincial, and federal.
Providers explained that previous decisions for implementing new technologies (e.g. hybrid) were a result of
political initiatives and financial support from municipalities, provinces, and the federal government.
“We currently don’t have one (fleet management strategy), but we had one when there was the federal
contribution for provincial and municipal, the one third, one third was on going for all bus replacements.
After that died out, we certainly had some struggles here over the last number of years, and it is coming back
to haunt us right now, because we have an aging fleet” – Windsor Transit, Windsor

The data highlighted that, in practice, fleet management is divided into two phases: fleet renewal and fleet
expansion. With respect to fleet renewal, providers currently focus on the replacement of old high-floor diesel
buses with new “clean” diesel buses and CNG in some cases. This focus is motivated by GHG reductions and the
achievement of full operational integration. A lifespan of 12-14 years is desired as an appropriate target for
transit in Canada.
“We keep a balance of operational feasibility in the fleet so… we’re looking at reducing our lifespan from 18
years to 14 years and that’s solely on life cycle costing… We’ve done an analysis on where our buses start
becoming more expensive than to keep them… we’ve found is that after 11 to 14-year range it becomes almost
cost prohibitive to keep them… the fleet renewal plan is focusing on replacement first” – Metro Transit,
Halifax.

The technology choice for fleet expansion is based on forecasted operational/capacity requirements. In this
respect, the electric bus is considered limited in various operational dimensions due to technological capabilities.
As a result, it is often not included as a choice for a fleet renewal/expansion strategy.
“We do have specific requirements as to how we would like them to perform: it could be acceleration, top
speed, capacity, number of seats, and all that kind of stuff. A lot of times they don’t achieve it. They’ll respond
with what we call ‘exceptions’ … whatever it is. So, then we’ve got to decide is that still a viable bid?” – TTC,
Toronto.

5.3.3. Manufacturers and U.S. influence

There is a strong belief across the sector in Canada that the U.S. market is guiding technology choice and
R&D direction for the electric bus. Transit providers emphasized that Canada follows the U.S. market and it has
little, if no, influence on the industry. In this respect, they argued that manufacturers’ priorities do not necessarily
meet transit demands in Canada, which hinders the implementation of the electric bus.
“Our business here at STM is to transport people cheapest way, fastest way, efficient way, safety and all. So,
if you look at this problem with only the manufacturer they have a lot of ideas, which does not meet the
requirements of our customer” – STM, Montreal.

5.4. Developing a business case, the way forward

Several avenues for interventions were advocated through the discussions to accelerate the implementation of
the electric bus in the transit context. A dominant common theme of the proposed interventions is the

12
development of a practical business case that alleviates current problems associated with electric bus operation.
Interview participants have identified several stakeholders to play major roles in building a successful business
case for electric bus operation including policy-makers, manufactures, industrial experts and transit providers.

5.4.1. Top down approach & political intervention

A business case is advocated to work in a top-down approach. Transit providers emphasized that individual
initiatives are not expected to generate enough impacts on the market, hence a national level approach is
regarded more comprehensive.
“Well typically I think it would come top-down… doing those things in isolation don’t really help, you know?
Like a trial in Calgary is good, it will tell people in Calgary what’s good, but it doesn’t help people
necessarily in B.C. The operating environment is so different… So there needs to be something on a more…
on a higher level I think actually” – Calgary Transit, Calgary.

In particular, political intervention at the federal level is proposed to be a practical and feasible partial solution
for implementing the electric bus. Clean fleet policies, federal monetary incentives, and strict emission policies
are identified as key factors that would accelerate the utilization of the electric bus. In addition, provincial and
municipal supports are argued to be of significant importance. The key rationale is to encourage transit provides
to change fleet technology by mitigating current financial and operational barriers. However, transit providers
emphasized that political interventions should be executed in several steps that start with a few selected providers
and then gradually diffuse across the country.
“They give incentives to buy efficient vehicles for cars, why wouldn’t they for buses? We’re buying bigger
fleets of vehicles than the average person is so… Some incentives would be really fitting I would think, for
agencies to buy them” – Kings Transit, Kentville.

5.4.2. Implementation criteria

The development of a successful business case includes not only political support, but also careful selection
for business case context. In this respect, some providers argued that small-medium cities represent a good
environment for implementing the electric bus as it features less demanding operational conditions. While the
majority emphasized that big transit providers have significant impact on technology choice in the Canadian
market, and offer various operational features. In addition, there is a strong belief that only major transit
providers have the financial and technical capabilities to initiate electric bus programs. However, all participants
emphasized that a successful business case should reflect real-world operational constraints to truly inform the
decision-making process.
“From my perspective, you develop … you pool your effort into a limited number … you know have your
successes there, work out how your network changes or whatever it is that can be done and use that as a
showpiece for everybody else. There’s nothing like having a successful operation over a period of time that
yields positive benefits to have other people want to jump on. I think there needs to be targeted efforts at a
controlled number of locations to make the changes necessary for this to really, really work” – Winnipeg
Transit, Winnipeg.
“We have a lot of interest from other agencies for our CNG, they are saying; (well if you’re doing it, then we
can do it as well. If it’s good enough for you it must be good enough for us). I think that an electric bus thing
needs to be adopted by a major user first, it needs to be an agency of the size of Calgary, or Edmonton, or
B.C, or Toronto, or Montreal, or maybe in Ottawa, before it gets recognition as a real viable mode of
transport” – Calgary Transit, Calgary.

6. Discussion
The findings highlight the multidimensional nature of implementing the electric bus in Canadian transit. A
total of 55 themes emerged and these are classified into four categories that appear to govern the electrification
of bus transit from the service provider perspective. The outcome offers valuable contributions to the current
literature across several domains. Firstly, in respect to electric technology, the findings indicate that rapid
technological advancement is a major barrier to long-term commitment, unless arrangements for seamless
upgrades are established. In addition, the development of standards for electric bus technology is highlighted as
an imperative precondition for implementation. Secondly, from an economic perspective, the findings highlight
that although a competitive TCO for electric bus is essential, it must come with no additional burdens on
operating time and fleet size, which is not yet attained as different studies has reported additional operational
time (De Filippo et al., 2014) and/or increased fleet size (Lajunen, 2014). Thirdly, testing the electric bus in
controlled/selected network configurations is not considered sufficiently informative for decision-making. A
demand for full-interlined network analysis is clearly highlighted, which confirms the argument of Xu et al.
(2015).
Overall, the decision-making process for implementing the electric bus in transit could be argued as risk,
operational, and cost centric. These three factors are jointly, and/or separately, linked to all the themes/categories
that emerged from the data as illustrated in Table 3. Together, these factors guide the decision-making process.

13
Miles and Potter (2014) have highlighted that risk transfer is essential for transit providers to implement electric
buses in transit. Others have highlighted that competitive cost, and operational capabilities are key components
for competitive transit service (Perrotta et al., 2014; Pihlatie et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015).
Table 3. Factors influencing the implementation of the electric bus

Attitude towards E-bus

Operational Feasibility Decision making process Building a business case
technology

High risk associated with

Risk of influencing service Risk-free decision making Risk mitigation through
being an early adopter,
Risk reliability, and reducing when dealing with public establishing Canadian
coupled with the fear of
ridership rates funds, and taxpayer money operational data
obsolescence

Technology is viable but

still in development Expected increase in fleet Operation is optimized Demands for
phases, with a lacked size, with limitation in with long range & demonstration projects
Operation
defined future Range/charge-time, and economic diesel and CNG that highlight operational
technological operational flexibility buses feasibility in Canada
development

Perception of high cost Not having Federal support and

Total cost of ownership is
Cost associated with the financial/capital capability monetary incentives are
high, and high hydro rates
electric bus for implementation essential

The findings offer an opportunity to guide the electrification of bus transit in a way that is grounded on the
perspective of transit providers. In this respect, a comprehensive framework is developed that provides a
blueprint for implementing electric bus in transit. The framework integrates the efforts of manufacturers, policy
makers, experts, and transit providers. It is structured around four stages that could address all the
themes/concerns highlighted throughout the analysis as illustrated in Figure 3.

• R&D and standardization

The first stage involves R&D to enhance electric bus technology in light of operational demands. Only bus
manufacturers and governmental entities have the R&D capabilities to advance electric bus technology. In
addition, both are argued to establish standardization schemes for electric bus technology.

• Political support; finance & regulations

It is evident that the implementation of the electric bus comes with additional costs, which exceed the
financial capabilities of transit providers. Political support in this respect is essential to subsidize the additional
cost, or to provide other incentives for service providers. This study strongly highlights the lack of dedicated
Canadian transit policies that directly motivate the implementation of the electric bus in transit.

• Demonstration projects
In addition, political and financial support is essential to test electric technology in real-world operational
conditions. Pilots/demonstration projects are important for two fundamental reasons: they illustrate the
operational limitation/feasibility of electric bus technology, and they contribute to a detailed databank of electric
bus operation in Canada. Operational data are noted to significantly influence the decision making for
implementing electric bus.

• Canadian databanks
These databanks provide experts with a great opportunity to better inform R&D and policy direction. Data
accessibility, however, should be permitted to a wider audience.
In a nutshell, the key concepts of the proposed framework are to mitigate the high risk associated with electric
bus implementation, and to provide Canadian-based practical operational records for future implementation.
Although the U.S has sound operational records for electric buses, cold weather operation is not capture in these
records.
Although the developed framework accounts for all the stated factors that emerged from the interview
analysis, additional factors might have influence on the perspective of transit providers towards the implantation
of electric buses in transit.

14
Figure 3 A comprehensive framework for bus transit electrification

15
7. Conclusion
This study investigated the key factors that hinder the implementation of electric bus technology in the
Canadian transit context. In particular, a grounded theory based qualitative analysis was carried out to better
understand the perspectives of service providers towards the implementation process. This perspective is an
under-researched one. The findings highlighted aspects of required interventions that inform different sets of
demands if jurisdictions are to implement electric buses in transit.
The findings highlight that, at the present time, there is little desire from service providers to implement
electric bus technology in a daily full-network operation. Although transit providers are supporting technological
advancement, the huge financial burden hinders the implementation of electric buses in transit. In addition, due
to the sensitivity of electrical bus operation in various respects. The current risk-averse decision-making
environment is also highlighted as a reason for not seeing the electric bus as an economical, and operational
capable powertrain technology. Standardization, technology anxiety, and full network operational feasibility
were also identified as roadblocks for the electrification of bus transit. The findings indicated as well that the
implementation of electric bus hinges on political support. Transit providers expressed a clear desire for political
support that transfers the financial risk associated with the higher capital costs for electric buses and their
infrastructure. Targeted political efforts directed at selected transit agencies are advocated to be essential.
The findings of the analysis served as the basis for developing a comprehensive framework that attempts to
aid the implementation process and inform the future political and research agenda. A four-stage framework is
developed, which integrates the perspectives of all stakeholders. The framework suggests that the development
of electric bus standards is essential first stage. Political and organizational support for real-world applications in
various network configurations is advocated to provide business cases for the electric bus operation in Canada.
These applications will provide a wealth of data that guide R&D. Overall the framework is structured around
providing a feasible business case that satisfies, and further overcomes, the current concerns of transit providers,
and provides a practicable showcase.
Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge that electric bus technology will continue to be sensitive to operational
variation. This implies that, at the present time, tailored technological configurations are essential to meet the
operational demands of transit service at a network level. Future investigation, however, should be directed at
eliminating this sensitivity through technological advancement and optimization models that fully consider the
daily operational constraints.

Acknowledgment
The authors of this article would like to acknowledge support from Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC) Grant No: 886-2013-0001.

8. References

Barrieau, P., Lagu, X., 2015. Electrifying public transportation: A comparison of Quebec, Ontario and California,
50th Annual Canadian Transport Research Forum (CTRF), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Bayindir, K.C., Gozukucuk, M.A., Teke, A., 2011. A comprehensive overview of hybrid electric vehicle:
Powertrain configurations, powertrain control techniques and electronic control units. Energ Convers Manage
52(2), 1305-1313.
Beirão, G., Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A
qualitative study. Transport Policy 14(6), 478-489.
Birks, M., Mills, J., 2015. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications.
Chan, C.C., 2007. The state of the art of electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles. P Ieee 95(4), 704-718.
Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.
Conti, M., Kotter, R., Putrus, G., 2015. Energy Efficiency in Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and
Its Impact on Total Cost of Ownership, In: Beeton, D., Meyer, G. (Eds.), Electric Vehicle Business Models
Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer International Publishing, pp. 147-165.
Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE
Publications.
CUTA, 2011. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Public Transit Funding Programs in Canada, Reports, Statistics
and Research. Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Toronto, CA.

16
CUTA, 2014. Canadian Transit Fact Book, CUTA Data. Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), Toronto,
CA.
De Filippo, G., Marano, V., Sioshansi, R., 2014. Simulation of an electric transportation system at The Ohio
State University. Applied Energy 113, 1686-1691.
Department of Finance Canada, 2015. Economic Action Plan 2015. Department of Finance Canada, Canada.
Frost & Sullivan, 2013. Strategic Analysis of Global Hybrid and Electric Heavy-Duty Transit Bus Market
(NC7C-01). Frost & Sullivan Publication.
García Sánchez, J.A., López Martínez, J.M., Lumbreras Martín, J., Flores Holgado, M.N., Aguilar Morales, H.,
2013. Impact of Spanish electricity mix, over the period 2008–2030, on the Life Cycle energy consumption and
GHG emissions of Electric, Hybrid Diesel-Electric, Fuel Cell Hybrid and Diesel Bus of the Madrid
Transportation System. Energ Convers Manage 74, 332-343.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Aldine de Gruyter.
Hannan, M.A., Azidin, F.A., Mohamed, A., 2014. Hybrid electric vehicles and their challenges: A review. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 29, 135-150.
Hatzopoulou, M., Miller, E.J., 2008. Institutional integration for sustainable transportation policy in Canada.
Transport Policy 15(3), 149-162.
Hua, T., Ahluwalia, R., Eudy, L., Singer, G., Jermer, B., Asselin-Miller, N., Wessel, S., Patterson, T.,
Marcinkoski, J., 2014. Status of hydrogen fuel cell electric buses worldwide. J Power Sources 269, 975-993.
Kamruzzaman, M., Hine, J., Yigitcanlar, T., 2015. Investigating the link between carbon dioxide emissions and
transport-related social exclusion in rural Northern Ireland. International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology 12(11), 3463-3478.
Kennedy, C., 2015. Key threshold for electricity emissions. Nature Climate Change 5(3), 179-181.
Khaligh, A., Li, Z.H., 2010. Battery, Ultracapacitor, Fuel Cell, and Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for Electric,
Hybrid Electric, Fuel Cell, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles: State of the Art. Ieee T Veh Technol 59(6),
2806-2814.
Kontou, A., Miles, J., 2015. Electric Buses: Lessons to be Learnt from the Milton Keynes Demonstration Project.
Procedia Engineering 118, 1137-1144.
Kühne, R., 2010. Electric buses – An energy efficient urban transportation means. Energy 35(12), 4510-4513.
Lajunen, A., 2014. Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses. Transport Res
C-Emer 38, 1-15.
Li, J.-Q., 2014. Battery-electric transit bus developments and operations: A review. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation 10(3), 157-169.
Lu, L.G., Han, X.B., Li, J.Q., Hua, J.F., Ouyang, M.G., 2013. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery
management in electric vehicles. J Power Sources 226, 272-288.
Mahmoud, M., Garnett, R., Ferguson, M., Kanaroglou, P., 2016. Electric buses: A review of alternative
powertrains. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62, 673-684.
Mahmoud, M., Hine, J., 2013. Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of
bus services. Transportation Planning and Technology 36(1), 4-23.
Mahmoud, M., Hine, J., 2016. Measuring the influence of bus service quality on the perception of users.
Transport Plan Techn 39(3), 284-299.
Mahmoud, M., Hine, J., Kashyap, A., 2012. Segmentation Analysis of Users' Preferences Towards Bus Service
Quality, Irish Transport Research Network Annual Conference. ITRN, Belfast, pp. 1-22.
Miles, J., Potter, S., 2014. Developing a viable electric bus service: The Milton Keynes demonstration project.
Research in Transportation Economics 48, 357-363.
Mohamed, M., Farag, H., El-Taweel, N., Ferguson, M., 2017. Simulation of electric buses on a full transit
network: Operational feasibility and grid impact analysis. Electric Power Systems Research 142, 163-175.
Nurhadi, L., Boren, S., Ny, H., 2014. A sensitivity analysis of total cost of ownership for electric public bus
transport systems in Swedish medium sized cities. 17th Meeting of the Euro Working Group on Transportation,
Ewgt2014 3, 818-827.

17
 Nylund, N.-O., Koponen, K., 2012. Fuel and Technology Alternatives for Buses - Overall Energy Efficiency and
Emission Performance. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland.
Offer, G.J., 2015. Automated vehicles and electrification of transport. Energ Environ Sci 8(1), 26-30.
Ou, X.M., Zhang, X.L., Chang, S.Y., 2010. Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: Life-cycle fossil
energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations. Energy Policy 38(1), 406-418.
Perrotta, D., Macedo, J.L., Rossetti, R.J.F., de Sousa, J.F., Kokkinogenis, Z., Ribeiro, B., Afonso, J.L., 2014.
Route planning for electric buses: a case study in Oporto. Transportation: Can We Do More with Less
Resources? - 16th Meeting of the Euro Working Group on Transportation - Porto 2013 111, 1004-1014.
Pihlatie, M., Kukkonen, S., Halmeaho, T., Karvonen, V., Nylund, N.-O., 2014. Fully electric city buses - The
viable option, IEEE International Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC), Florence, Italy.
Poullikkas, A., 2015. Sustainable options for electric vehicle technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41, 1277-1287.
Ribau, J.P., Silva, C.M., Sousa, J.M.C., 2014. Efficiency, cost and life cycle CO2 optimization of fuel cell hybrid
and plug-in hybrid urban buses. Applied Energy 129, 320-335.
Robert, E., Jean-Francois, L., David, R., Werner, W., 2014. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels
and powertrains in the european context. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Europe.
Strauss, A.L., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Torchio, M.F., Santarelli, M.G., 2010. Energy, environmental and economic comparison of different
powertrain/fuel options using well-to-wheels assessment, energy and external costs European market analysis.
Energy 35(10), 4156-4171.
Wang, R., Wu, Y., Ke, W., Zhang, S., Zhou, B., Hao, J., 2015. Can propulsion and fuel diversity for the bus fleet
achieve the win–win strategy of energy conservation and environmental protection? Applied Energy 147, 92-103.
Xu, Y.Z., Gbologah, F.E., Lee, D.Y., Liu, H.B., Rodgers, M.O., Guensler, R.L., 2015. Assessment of alternative
fuel and powertrain transit bus options using real-world operations data: Life-cycle fuel and emissions modeling.
Applied Energy 154, 143-159.
Zhou, B., Wu, Y., Zhou, B., Wang, R., Ke, W., Zhang, S., Hao, J., 2016. Real-world performance of battery
electric buses and their life-cycle benefits with respect to energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Energy 96, 603-613.

18

View publication stats