university of michigan ccer plant operations vehicle...

University of Michigan

University of Michigan CCER Plant Operations

Vehicle Reduction Study Dylan Graves, Adam Kern, James Morrison, Katie Beth

Halloran

April 2013

University of Michigan Vehicle Reduction Study

Executive Summary:

The goal of this project is to minimize the number of gas-powered vehicles in the University of Michigan’s Central Campus East Region vehicular fleet. Environmental sustainability has become an increasingly important focus of college campuses nationwide. The University of Michigan has announced specific sustainability goals, including reducing the carbon intensity of passenger trips on transportation options by 30% (approximately .8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per trip), and reducing scope 1 & 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025. This project helps achieve these goals and further the University’s image of a sustainable campus.

While it is unfeasible to get rid of all gas-powered vehicles in the fleet due to jobs that require a vehicle with reliable endurance and a large carrying capacity, Plant Operations is seeking a way to reduce the number of gas-powered vehicles in favor of alternatives which are easier to park, more fuel efficient, and more sustainable. We investigated electric vehicles, electric golf carts, and bicycles as possible alternatives to the gas-powered vehicles. The data of the fleet’s current electric vehicle usage showed that most vehicle repairs were battery replacements, which are caused by a lack of use and overcharging. We also examined that repair and gas costs caused the gas-powered fleet’s expenses to be similar to those incurred by the electrical vehicles. Preliminary research was done on electric vehicles, electric golf carts, and bicycles, which found that in some situations, all of these could be used as alternatives. This way many tradesmen who once needed gas-powered vehicles can utilize smaller, more environmentally sound vehicles. However, Upper Management of Plant Operations feared that tradesman would be resistant toward system changes. A survey and focus groups served a dual purpose of engaging with the tradesmen and establishing the pros and cons of specific solutions based on user needs. The data showed that tradesmen were most concerned that alternatives would reduce speed, reliability and carrying capacity. The focus group helped address these concerns, which was important for gathering their suggestions as well as solutions to their concerns.

Plant Operations should revise the current system, which requires each tradesman to carry all maintenance supplies they need on the job (i.e., tool bags, heavy duty tools, repair supplies, trade specific tools). For those that deal with heavier material, it was proposed to transport heavy materials via designated ‘runners’, who would utilize potentially one or two gas-powered vehicles and eliminate the use of multiple vehicles. Tradesmen can then use smaller alternative transportation to carry their individual tools to their work site instead of using gas-powered vehicles for everything. Both electric vehicles and electric golf carts would be feasible in all weather and reduce carbon emissions compared to gas vehicles, while bicycles would completely eliminate carbon emissions and are feasible during the warmer months. On-call vehicles can be stocked full of all supplies used by a specific job of tradesman, and signed out as on-call vehicles or used in emergency situations. While this project is not an entire solution to the larger University wide problem of meeting the 2025 goals, it serves as a small step in the right direction, as well as an example for others to observe and hopefully replicate in future generations.


Project Goals/Objectives: Our team aimed to provide a recommendation for the reduction of the number of current gas-powered vehicles in the Central Campus East Region. This reduction is meant to increase the cost effectiveness and energy efficiency in the region’s transportation fleet. Our recommendations were based on a set of criteria determined by the needs of Plant Operations management, vehicle operators, and the University’s Campus Sustainability Integrated Assessment Goals. The sustainability goals that our project will directly affect are: 1. Reduce scope 1 & 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from the 2006 levels by the year 2025.

• The reduction of gas-powered vehicles and replacement with alternative transportation in the Central Campus East Region Plant Operations vehicle fleet will directly decrease carbon emissions on campus. 1

2. Decrease carbon intensity of passenger trips on U-M transportation options by 30% from the 2006 levels by the year 2025.

• If we consider the transport of Plant Operations staff “passenger trips”, the implementation of alternatives to current gas-powered vehicles will directly reduce the carbon intensity of trips made.

Plant Operations management in the region stressed the goal of reducing long-term costs. Also in coordination with Plant Operation’s goals is the Planet Blue Operations Team’s mission to, “Actively engage the University of Michigan community to conserve utilities and increase recycling thereby saving money and benefiting the environment.”2 We hope to see the Central Campus East Region implement our recommendations ideally by Fall of 2013. Background/Introduction: 1Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions refer to all direct greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions refer to indirect greenhouse gas emissions. 2 About Planet Blue Operations Teams. 2013. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from, http://opsteams.plantops.umich.edu/about.php.

http://opsteams.plantops.umich.edu/about.php


1. Motive for Study The university’s Plant Operations recently moved from a centralized system to a zonal system that broke the campus into a number of separate regions. This reduced the distance that tradesmen and staff would need to travel for their jobs. Although tradesmen are now travelling shorter distances, they are still utilizing the same vehicles as had been previously used. Because of this switch, regional supervisors have determined that the current fleet can be adjusted while maintaining the tradesmen’s effectiveness. Presently, there are fourteen gas-powered vehicles and three small plug-in electric utility vehicles in the fleet. Each of these vehicles is assigned to a specific tradesman. The remaining tradesmen who are not assigned a vehicle walk to their job sites. This study will analyze whether a reduction in gas-powered vehicles is feasible and determine what other transportation options would allow the tradesmen to continue to do their jobs effectively. 2. Literature Review

The Plant Operations Vehicle Study at Michigan in 2009 found that of the 375 vehicles in the Plant Operations Fleet, 65 vehicles could be switched to smaller vehicles because their larger size was not needed for particular jobs.3 This exemplifies the unnecessary use of large gas-powered vehicles and the possibility for the implementation of alternative modes of transportation such as smaller electric vehicles, electric golf carts, or bicycles. This transition would reduce cumulative negative effects such as rising carbon emissions and fuel costs.

The University of Michigan has implemented some changes into their vehicular fleet. According to the University of Michigan Annual Sustainability Report, the university owns a number of different types of vehicles (ethanol, hybrid, biodiesel) that help address the unnecessary use of gas-powered vehicles.4 There are a total of 1,057 vehicles in the campus’ fleet.5 However, according to a study done in 2011 concerning the North Campus Plant Operations Fleet at the University of Michigan, most of the staff members fell into the 10-20 or 10 or less miles per day range for vehicle use.6 This meant that the majority of the 153 staff vehicles on North Campus were used for very short trips.6 In this case, the use of gas-powered vehicles for such short trips are very wasteful and unnecessary. It is evident that both carrying capacity and vehicle endurance are not always necessary components of transportation options in certain regions.

These previous sustainability issues are also main reasons why the University of Michigan is motivated to invest in electric vehicles as an alternative mode of transportation. According to the Plant Operations Study in 2009, downsizing 65 full sized gas-powered vehicles 3 Mullins, M., V., Levin, Y., D. (2009). University of Michigan Plant Operations Vehicle Study. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer 4 Office of Campus Sustainability. (2011). Sustainability: 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://sustainability.umich.edu/news/u-m-annual-sustainability-report-shows-success-key-areas 5 Office of Campus Sustainability. (2011). Sustainability: 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://sustainability.umich.edu/news/u-m-annual-sustainability-report-shows-success- key-areas 6 Parking and Transportation Services. (2011). Plant Operations Fleet Study. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer

https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer

http://sustainability.umich.edu/news/u-m-annual-sustainability-report-shows-success-




to electric vehicles or bicycles would save up to $1.4 million over a ten-year period.3 One could argue that the upfront cost of purchasing a new electric vehicle would negate the effects of the fuel savings, but the study concluded that “if electric vehicles are chosen, approximately $1,000 per vehicle would be required upfront for a charging station that should pay for itself in less than two years via fuel cost savings.3 This doesn’t include other environmental benefits such as conserving fossil fuels or the increased positive outlook on the university for making a significant environmental investment.3

The campus has 118 bike racks on central campus for public use, 16 of which offer protection from the elements (Appendix E).The University of Michigan owns a bike storage facility in the parking structure on Thompson Street, where bicyclists can rent out storage space for their bicycles. The storage facility offers a secure place to store up to fifty bicycles at one time, safe from theft and weather damage, as well as a free air compressor for renters of the facilities.7 There are also two bike lockers located near UMHS and Wolverine Tower. Many of the main roads on Central Campus either have a bike lane or are shared use roads, including Packard, Hill, North University, South University, Geddes, and Thayer. Most of State St and all of Washtenaw do not offer bike lanes (Appendix E). To support the new influx of bicyclists on campus generated by the new student blue bike initiative, the University has installed additional bike racks, a service repair center near the Central Campus Transit Center with tools for emergency fixes and two new air pump stations.7

Staff and upper management reported that parking is a major problem for fleet members at the University of Michigan, with many staff members accumulating tickets while on the job. Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain exact ticketing information because this data is only tracked to the Divisional level, not the regional level. Although not many universities have a bicycle dependent fleet system for their staff members, we did find one college who successfully added bicycles to their existing transportation fleet. The University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez replaced their security officer staff vehicles with bicycles as part of a campus wide movement to become more sustainable, and the entire campus now promotes bicycles as their main means of transportation.8 However, the University of Puerto Rico has a very different climate from the University of Michigan. Bicycles will not always be a feasible solution during the winter, due to inclement weather. We are also examining electrical vehicles, which offer more protection during the winter months. Methodology: Our project required both quantitative and qualitative research, as our recommendation needed to consider both vehicle data and behavior data of the staff. This would ensure that the transportation options we recommend would not only be cost effective and environmentally beneficial, but also successfully implemented and used by Central Campus East Region 7 Budzaj, D. (2012, September 12). University launches bike rental program on campus. University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/120912/bike 8 Madera, A. O. R. (2009). University of Puerto Rico- Mayaguez Transportation: ride a bike and the seven green resolutions. National Wildlife Federation, 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/~/media/Campus-Ecology/Files/Case-Studies/University-of-Puerto-Rico-Mayaguez-2010-Case-Study-FINAL.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130214T2025494789

http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/120912/bikes

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/Campus-Ecology/Files/Case-Studies/University-of-Puerto-Rico-Mayaguez-2010-Case-Study-FINAL.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130214T2025494789



tradesmen. To retrieve this data, we distributed a survey to the tradesmen, administered a focus group with relevant staff stakeholders, considered secondary research from past studies and peer institutions, and evaluated the current fleet and compared it to alternative transportation options to determine what improvements could be made. 1. Survey To determine the staff’s transportation needs, thoughts and behaviors regarding alternative transportation, we circulated a short survey (10 questions) to the Central Campus East Region tradesmen. The survey was distributed to approximately 30 people, of which 27 responded. (Appendix D)contains specific survey questions and response data. After receiving results from the survey, we reviewed the information and sorted the results based on the responder’s trade (maintenance mechanic, elevator mechanic, HVAC mechanic, etc.). This allowed us to compare data across each trade, and thus determine individuals’ general concerns with the vehicles we were considering, their transportation requirements (tool carrying ability, speed, etc.), their familiarity with environmental issues and the importance they place on them. 2. Focus Group We used the survey results to guide discussion in a focus group setting. Fifteen tradespeople attended the focus group and we asked questions about their vehicle needs. We also asked for their opinions on whether alternative transportation options could be implemented, and their prior knowledge about alternative vehicles. We additionally wanted to gather solutions that they came up with in order to show them that they had a voice in our decision too. 3. Fleet Vehicle Data To determine the expense of the region’s current vehicle fleet and its environmental impact, we worked with the University’s Parking & Transportation Services department and ran a query of the region’s vehicles. We also analyzed the alternative transportation options using the same criteria. This produced quantitative data on the following criteria:

• Monthly Lease Rate • Annual Fuel Costs • Carbon Emissions (grams CO2/mile) • Service Repair Costs/Frequency of Service Repairs • Vehicle Carrying Capacity

In addition, qualitative concerns were also considered. These included:

• Parking (parking constraints) • Vehicle Maneuverability across Campus • Ability to Reliably Handle Inclement Weather

o Climate Control Options (AC or heat) o Covered/Enclosed Vehicle

• Speed to Destination


• Effort/Exertion Required • Perceptions/Preferences

This data was compiled for 15 gas-powered vehicles and 15 electric vehicles across the campus to equally compare them across these criteria. For bicycles and electric golf carts, average industry data was used due to a lack of utilization on campus. 4. Test Drives To experience the vehicles’ functionality and performance, we test drove the E-Ride Industries EXV2 and Miles ZX40ST electric vehicles, and a Club Car Carry-all electric golf cart. We noted the distance traveled, the battery usage, and parking issues/availability to see how each performed. The tradesmen’s main concerns were reliability and storage capacity. Test driving these vehicles would allow us to determine if these were appropriate concerns or if they simply came from a lack of knowledge regarding non-gas-powered vehicles. 5. Matrix After compiling the data, we created a matrix that rated the various transportation options that compared them across the aforementioned categories. For each criteria, a five-point scale was created (five being the best) that was used to rate each transportation option. Each point along this scale corresponded with the transportation option’s performance in each category. Each category was weighted based on its specific level of importance, which was determined by our project sponsors and the university’s sustainability goals. These weights were ultimately applied to the each category and used to determine a total score for each transportation option. Findings: 1. Problems with Gas-Powered Vehicles We found that there are several problems associated with the fleet’s gas-powered vehicles. These include:

• Lack of legal parking near job sites o Tradesmen often have to park far from their destination and walk the rest of the

way, which is an inefficient use of time. o There are only 19 total service vehicle spots in the CCER and these are used by

many staff members in addition to the CCER tradesmen. o In this case, tradesmen must either wait for someone to leave or they must

illegally park on sidewalks near their buildings. o This is a major issue, as CCER supervisors report that tradesmen often receive

parking tickets when this occurs. o Tradesmen must pay for these tickets themselves.

• Inefficient Fuel Economy • Unnecessary use • Waste of resources


ex) One man uses his vehicle only as a storage site for his tools • Contribution to rising greenhouse gases • High fuel costs

2. Survey Results (Appendix D)

A summary of our survey results showed that the most important criteria for staff members was carrying capacity and storage, with 72% indicating that it was one of their top two priorities. Maintenance mechanics were the exception to this trend, as they rated speed and reliability as the most important features of their vehicle. This can be explained by the comparatively lower amounts of tools a maintenance mechanic carries on the job. Maintenance mechanics often do not use vehicles for transportation around campus, instead opting to walk because they can carry the majority of needed tools and supplies in a pack that can be easily carried. For other trades, staff indicated that alternative options, specifically bicycles, could not carry all their necessary tools, which are often specialized. In addition, certain trades need to transport large parts to complete their tasks, which they feared alternative vehicles could not accomplish.

Another common objection tradesman found with the alternative vehicles was the suspected incompatibility with Michigan weather. Six individuals specifically mentioned weather as an inhibitor for bicycle use, with several others commenting that they simply were not safe options for staff, in part due to weather concerns. The staff had similar concerns for electric golf carts and electric vehicles, as they thought that these too were susceptible to weather-related issues. The main problem they cited was that battery life is compromised during the winter months, with reliability concerns arising as a result.

In the suggestions box, one person suggested using smaller, more efficient vehicles on days when few tools were needed and only utilizing large gas powered vehicles on days when many tools were needed. Another suggestion was to assign a runner to drop off daily supplies at the buildings where they were needed rather than expecting each person to do it individually. Both of these options would decrease the staff’s reliance on large, gas-powered vehicles. However, based on our other findings, implementation of these solutions would require culture change 3. Focus Group Results Most tradesmen and maintenance mechanics were hesitant to embrace our proposition of reducing the number of gas-powered vehicles in their fleet. The goal of our focus group was to allow the staff to voice their opinions and for us to be the listeners. Initially, many of the staff argued that electric vehicles (those currently in the fleet) and smaller transportation alternatives would not be compatible for their jobs. For example, all 15 agreed that carrying capacity was a large concern, since they wouldn't be able to do their jobs if the vehicle didn’t provide adequate capacity. They also argued that electric vehicles weren’t as reliable as gas-powered vehicles, with concerns about battery life and durability. However, when we asked how many of them had driven an electric vehicle, only 2 out of the 15 tradesmen had done so. While the majority of the


conversation about alternative vehicles seemed negative, one staff member said, “If you find an electric vehicle that can do the same job as a gas-powered vehicle, then why not switch?” After this was stated, there was a consensus among the tradesmen. Lack of information seemed to be the major cause of concern among the group.

The most prevalent concerns which the tradesmen brought up involved carrying capacity, battery charge, lack of heat in the winter, and maintaining a personally equipped vehicle. Solutions to these concerns include: Tradesmen’s Solution:

• Kitter/Runner idea- proposed in a survey response • Basic Idea: Have a kitter drop off maintenance supplies at the tradesmen’s points of

interest (at a loading dock) rather than at the region’s headquarters. Their Concerns with This Solution:

• Not enough space at certain loading docks • Theft of supplies at loading dock • Lose sense of ownership of maintenance supplies-supplies will become sloppily managed

without someone taking direct responsibility for them Tradesmen’s Solution:

• On-Call Vehicles- everyone agreed that some gas powered vehicles needed to be kept as on-call vehicles

• Basic Idea: Load several vehicles with supplies needed for all trades, keep these vehicles constantly kitted and ready for any trades’ on-call use

Their Concerns with This Solution:

• Lose sense of ownership of supplies • Will be a problem in an emergency situation, such as a power outage where many on-call

vehicles are needed to transport supplies and tradesmen to a distant location • Issue of who gets a car each day- whose job is more important?

Common Consensus: The tradesmen agreed that helping the environment is an important issue and is one which the University takes seriously. They also agreed that finding enough parking spaces on the job is a tremendous hassle, which results in a waste of time and efficiency. Another large complaint is the increase of parking ticket expenditures while on the job as a result of limited parking. Camie Munsell, Asset Supervisor of Central Campus East Region, explained that there are only 19 service vehicle parking spaces on campus. These can be sold to outside maintenance companies such as printer mechanics, making it even harder for CCER tradesmen to find parking. Furthermore, no new parking spaces will be added by parking services. Tradesmen seemed to agree that finding an alternative vehicle which could allow them to use alternative parking places (such as sidewalks) would be beneficial.


4. Test Drive Results A. Miles ZX40ST (Electric Vehicle) (Appendix A) Conclusions of Miles test run:

• Battery life is sufficient for short trips around campus • We were able to ride completely around the diag, down S. Forest to Geddes and back to

the parking structure in 20 min, using less than 40% of the charge, with radio and heat on • Concluded that this vehicle is still satisfactory for jobs.

We decided to test this vehicle because during our focus group, many of the tradesmen reported the Miles to have the most problems out of the electric vehicles in the fleet. Keith Johnson, the Associate Director of Transportation Operations, later explained that the battery usage indicator is an unreliable measure of battery charge, as it is based on a smart car system which changes its indications based on how much it has been used previously. In other words, the Miles car actually had a greater charge than 60% at the end of our test drive, but due to its underuse reported a lower charge. Keith also reported that in three years only one person has ever run out of charge on an assignment using the electrical vehicle. B. Club Car Carry-all 1 (Electric Golf Cart) (Appendix A) Conclusions of Club Car test run:

• Can fit 2 passengers, and has maximum carrying capacity of around 800 lbs • Trunk bed can carry 300 lb • Standard battery life: 117 min • Battery warning light

After driving in the Club Car Carry-All 1 for 15 minutes, it seemed that this was also feasible for short transportation jobs (keeping in mind that CCER’s approximate diameter is only half a mile). The golf cart’s battery did not drain at all after the 15 minutes of driving. With a trunk bed carrying capacity of 300 pounds, the golf cart could easily carry basic tools that tradesmen carry to their jobs.


5. Criteria Matrix This is the matrix we used to determine the comparative performance of each transportation option within each key category. The ratings were compiled using the following chart: Using the matrix, we determined the following results: A. Emissions The following are the emissions for the transportation options we considered. These are average emissions based off the 14 gas-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, and industry standards we used throughout the study: - Gas-powered vehicles: 496.679 grams CO2/mile - Electric vehicles: 106.775 grams CO2/mile - Electric golf carts: 66.735 grams CO2/mile - Bicycles: None - Walking: None Overall all five transportation options, the average grams CO2 emitted per mile was ~133. Gas-powered vehicles are the worst emitters, on average. Based on our ratings system, they received


a 1 as a result. This is over four times higher than the emissions per mile for electric vehicles and over five times higher than the emissions per mile for electric golf carts. Electric vehicles emit more carbon dioxide per mile than electric golf carts, although both receive a 4 rating because they are below 150 grams CO2/mile. Electric vehicles are larger than golf carts and are comparable to a full-sized gas-powered vehicle in function, as they are street-legal vehicles requiring a license to operate. This explains why emissions are slightly higher. The emissions differences between the electric vehicles and golf carts are a trade-off between efficiency and performance. Bicycles and walking both received 5 ratings because their utilization results in no carbon emissions. B. Costs The following are the average annual costs for the transportation options we considered. These are based off the annual leasing costs, fuel costs, and maintenance repair costs for the 14 gas-powered vehicles, 7 electric vehicles, and estimates for electric golf carts and bicycles we used throughout the study. Total costs for current fleet vehicles is included in the Appendix B. The average annual costs are as followed: - Electric Vehicles : $5459.73

- Gas Vehicles: $4707.06 - Golf Cart: ~$1150 - Bicycle: <$500 - Walking: None

Electric vehicles have the highest annual costs, largely due to high monthly leasing costs ($424/month for the E-ride EXV2) and higher repairs costs ($371.73/year). For these reasons, electric vehicles received the poorest rating in this category. However, although the Central Campus East Region is required to pay for any gasoline used, they are not required to pay for electricity used to charge the electric vehicles in the parking garages. Therefore, although there are energy costs associated with the electricity production for these vehicles, the region does not incur them. Gas-powered vehicles also performed poorly in this category, receiving a 1, even with comparatively lower monthly leasing costs ($321.36/month on average) and maintenance costs ($217.64/year). A major cost contributing to their low score was the fuel costs required for utilization. Average fuel cost for gas-powered vehicles was $693.13 over the past year (May 2012 - May 2013). Electric golf carts are much better from a cost perspective if the costs are averaged over a ten-year life cycle. The university’s Parking and Transportation Services do not offer golf cart leases at this time, meaning the CCER would have to purchase them directly. This would result in a high initial investment, as the desired golf cart has a purchase price of approximately $10,000. While this looks like a large cost, when taken over a ten-year period, this equates to only $1,000/year over the life of the vehicle. When compared with leasing costs, this is significantly less. For gas-powered vehicles, a $326.13/month lease equates to $3913.56/year and for electric vehicles, a $424/month lease equates to $5088/year. Over a ten-year period, data suggests that bicycles will cost less than $500/year in purchase costs and repair costs. Bicycles have a relatively low initial investment cost, with some suitable entry-level models valued at ~$300-500. In addition, costs for a Travoy storage system, bike lock, helmet, extra inner tubes,


and other maintenance equipment and bicycle tools would need to be purchased. A Travoy costs approximately $299 and the other equipment would cost an additional $100. Overall, initial investment would be approximately $1000 per bicycle, or $100/year over a ten-year period. General maintenance and repair costs are relatively low with bicycles and the purchase of new parts required would be cheaper than comparative parts for gas-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, or golf carts. Walking has no similarly quantifiable economic costs associated with it. C. Reliability We analyzed 7 electric vehicles from within the campus fleet and 14 gas powered vehicles from the region. The reliability standards were based on the average downtime associated with each repair and the number of repairs over the past year. To assign a rating, the worse of the two metrics was considered (i.e. for the 15 electric vehicles, average downtime of 9.5 days is worse than the average number of repairs of 0.857, so we gave reliability a 2 rating). a. Electric Vehicles Based on our matrix, electric vehicles received a 2 for reliability due to the high number of days out of service.

• Average downtime: 10 days • Average number of repairs: 0.857 repairs

The most common cause of repair for electric vehicles was battery failure. In these cases,

mechanics have to order special batteries with associated shipping times, resulting in higher average downtime per repair even considering the low number of repairs overall..

. b. Gas Vehicles Based on our matrix, gas-powered vehicles received a 3 for reliability, due to the average number of repairs.

• Average downtime: 5.929 days • Average number of repairs: 2.14 repairs

Although there is a lower average downtime within the electric vehicle fleet, the total number of maintenance incidents over the past year is higher compared to the electric vehicles. c. Golf Cart Club Car Based on our matrix, golf carts received a 4 for reliability, due to low number of repairs and downtime. Golf cart repair analysis was based on a Club Car golf cart from the Central Campus West Region.

• Average downtime: data was unavailable • Average number of repairs: 0.2 • It had one battery replacement in five years


The golf cart battery was replaced once in five years, contributing to its score of an average 0.2 repairs in one year. This suggests that golf carts are quite reliable, although only one vehicle was examined, so these results might not reflect the reliability of the entire fleet. d. Bicycles -Based on our matrix, bicycles received a 4 for reliability, due to low number of repairs and downtime.

• Average downtime : 1 day • Average number of repairs: 1-2 repairs per year

Many group members own a personal bicycle, and based on quantitative data related to personal testimonies we determined that most bicycles only have one or two repairs in a year, and can be fixed within a day. e. Walking Based on our matrix, walking received a 5 for reliability, as unless you break your foot there are no repairs necessary.

• Average downtime: 0 days • Average number of repairs: 0 repairs

D. Efficiency We based efficiency on a check system based on research, the focus group and survey. The four key criteria within efficiency include: parking, maneuverability, ability to handle inclement weather, and speed to destination. Our checklist would rank zero check marks as a 1, one check mark as a 2, two check marks as a 3, and three check marks as a 4, and 4 check marks as a 5.

• Parking: Ability to park near point of interest • Maneuverability: Ability to drive on sidewalks (through diag and avoid people) • Ability to Handle Inclement Weather: Sustained performance in all weather conditions • Speed to Destination: The quickness of reaching destination


a. Gas-Powered Vehicles - Scored a 2 on our matrix: • Preferences:

o The tradesmen felt gas-powered vehicles are the fastest, but also acknowledged the issue of parking, which makes them take longer to reach their destination.

b. Electric Vehicles - Scored a 2 on our matrix:

• Preferences: o The tradesmen felt this would get them to their destination but also realize they

cannot park on sidewalks, which delays how quick they get to their point of interest.

c. Electric Golf Carts - Scored a 2 on our matrix:

• Preferences: o The tradesmen felt that golf carts would be a great option for maneuverability and

parking (since they can park on sidewalks) but worried that they would not be able hold up to inclement weather.

o A golf cart is not a licensed vehicle, and can be parked anywhere. o This would save the tradesmen a significant portion of time spent searching for

parking, as well as lots of money since they won’t be getting ticketed d. Bicycles - Scored a 4 on our matrix

• Preferences: o The tradesmen felt that bikes would not be the best alternative, but we felt that

bikes would allow them to maneuver well and get from point A to point B fast since they do not have parking issues.

e. Walking - Scored a 3 on our matrix

• Preferences: o Many tradesmen already walk, so lots of them were okay with this mode of

transportation. However the speed to a point of destination is not as fast. E. Comfort We also based comfort on a check system based on research, the focus group and survey. The four key criteria within comfort include: climate control, covered/enclosed, no effort needed, and preferences. Our checklist would rank zero check marks as a 1, one check mark as a 2, two check marks as a 3, and three check marks as a 4, and 4 check marks as a 5.


• Climate control - Whether the option provided heat during the winter and air conditioning during the summer

• Covered/Enclosed - Whether the option provided protection from the elements via an enclosure

• No Effort Needed - Whether the option required little physical exertion was necessary to power the transportation

• Preferences - How the tradesmen perceive the transportation options. These are qualitative considerations that can cause concerns amongst tradesmen with implementation of alternative transportation options.

a. Gas-Powered Vehicles - Scored a 5 on our matrix:

• Preferences: o In our focus group and survey, the tradesmen made it clear that the gas-powered

vehicles were their top choice. b. Electric Vehicles - Scored a 5 on our matrix:

• Preferences: o The E-ride EXV2 is made in America, which is something the tradesmen

expressed interest in o Tradesmen mentioned that they would be willing to use electric vehicles in the

focus group, provided they had adequate battery life c. Electric Golf Carts - Scored a 4 on our matrix:

• Preferences: o Tradesmen seemed willing to use a golf cart as long as an alternative plan that

reduces carrying capacity requirements was implemented. d. Bicycles - Scored a 1 on our matrix.

• Preferences: o This was many tradesmen’s least favorite option in the survey results and focus

group


o Concerns over theft were not entirely dissipated o Bicycles are not enclosed - would be problematic on rainy days and cold days. o There may also be safety issues at hand during the winter from ice and snow

accumulation. e. Walking - Scored a 2 on our matrix.

• Preferences: o Many tradesmen currently walk and indicated in the survey results that they were

content to continue doing so. However, walking is not the best mode of transportation during inclement weather, and there is effort needed.

F. Carrying Capacity Each of the transportation options had some ability to carry necessary equipment, parts, and tools. Carrying capacity was important in determining the ability for tradesmen to carry all required equipment and effectively complete their required duties. We based carrying capacity standards and ratings off of a comparison between all the transportation options. Both payload capacity and storage space were important considerations. a. Gas-powered vehicles - Scored a 5 on our matrix:

- Average storage space: 145.31 cubic feet - Average payload capacity: 1807.86 pounds

These have the highest carrying capacity of all options.These accomplish all carrying needs and are a baseline for comparisons. b. Electric Vehicles - Scored a 4 on our matrix:

-Average storage space: 31.44 cubic feet -Average payload capacity: 1158.33 pounds

Although these cannot carry as much as a gas-powered vehicle, estimates indicate that there are rarely needs exceeding these carrying capacity specifications. The electric vehicles would be able to carry all the tools and most equipment required for daily use. c. Electric Golf Carts - Scored a 3 on our matrix: - Average storage space: 9.1 cubic feet - Average payload capacity: 800 pounds Carrying capacity is rather low for electric golf carts, with only 9.1 cubic feet of storage space in its rear bed. This option would only prove effective if another way to carry large materials is implemented. d. Bicycles - Scored a 2 on our matrix: - Average storage space: 2 cubic feet -Average payload capacity: 60 pounds


These ratings reflect the carrying capacity for the Travoy cargo bag that can attach to bicycles and serve as additional storage space. The Travoy would be able to carry tradesmen’s general hand tools and other small pieces of equipment, although would not be appropriate for large items. e. Walking - Scored a 1 our our matrix: Walking receives the worst grade in our carrying capacity ratings because it requires the tradesmen to carry all of their tools on their person. Tradesmen can only carry small tools and materials. If heavy materials or equipment were required, another transportation option or system would need to be used. 6. Alternative Transportation Options A. Electric Vehicles:

Advantages • Can be parked directly outside buildings • Large carrying capacity • Can be driven on main roads • Protection from the weather • Heat • Functional in any weather • Staff seemed willing to embrace idea, given certain concessions

Disadvantages • Staff concerns over battery life • Staff does not often use electric vehicles currently in system- most problematic

maintenance issue is batteries dying from being overcharged and underutilized • Expensive • Still uses carbon as fuel for electricity- does not completely eliminate carbon emissions • After life cycle, destruction of the battery might raise health concerns • Heating in winter drains the battery

B. Electric Golf Carts: Advantages

o Doesn’t use as much charge as a full-sized electric vehicle o Space friendly o Average battery life is 15- 30 miles- within the range of an average tradesman’s

job coverage o Protection from the weather o Already implemented at the Athletics department and other regions o Reduces carbon emissions o Functional in any weather

Disadvantages o Some do not have a heater


o Expensive upfront cost compared to electric vehicles (since purchasing golf carts instead of leasing electric vehicles)

o Still uses carbon as fuel for electricity- does not completely eliminate carbon emissions

o After life cycle, destruction of the battery might raise health concerns C. Bicycles: Advantages:

o Can ride on the sidewalk o Can be parked right outside the buildings o Have no carbon emissions once produced o Easy to maneuver o Inexpensive

Disadvantages o Staff seems unwilling to embrace idea o Inadequate during inclement weather (hard to control/not enclosed) o Limited carrying capacity

Recommendations: 1. Balance of Gas-Powered Vehicles in the Fleet: A. Maintenance of Gas-Powered Vehicles: Several gas-powered vehicles will still be necessary to maintain certain functions of the fleet. These functions include:

• On-Call Service9: Quick, reliable response needed campus wide at any time. • Emergency Maintenance10: Requires quick response, possibly heavy payloads (ex. fixing

a burst pipe). • Carrying Capacity Requirements: Several trades occasionally require the carrying

capacity of a gas-powered vehicle (ex. elevator door/fire alarm batteries). B. Reduction of Gas-Powered Vehicles: Given that the current fleet of gas-powered vehicles is larger than necessary, we recommend the removal of seven of the fourteen gas-powered vehicles in the current fleet by Fall 2014

9 On-call duties - tradesman on on-duty shift respond to random maintenance calls late at night, which requires them to carry a wide range of tools and quickly travel long distances. This shift is divided between all tradesmen on campus so some nights there might not be a tradesman on duty from our region. 10 Emergency maintenance- in emergency maintenance situations, as in the case of flooding or a power outage, tradesman must be able to quickly respond to the situation regardless of region and carry a wide variety of tools to fix the problem.


• Camie Munsell, Asset Supervisor of CCER Plant Operations, recommended removing seven vehicles from the fleet based on their assigned owner’s use of them (Appendix B)

• She therefore recommended removing the vehicles in red, possibly replacing the vehicles in black at a later time, and keeping the vehicles in green

• We would recommend eliminating seven vehicles based on their functionality and carbon emissions

Reasons for Reduction:

o Underutilization: Multiple tradesmen report that they do not use the vehicle assigned to them on a regular basis (sometimes used as storage only). Nine of the tradesmen who responded to the survey currently walk.

o These cuts/additions will net a savings of $18,909.30 per year (taking into account leasing/purchasing, fuel, and repair costs).

o These cuts/additions will reduce carbon emissions by 3263.203 gCO2/mile per year.

2. Implementation of Electric Vehicles We would recommend the addition of two E-Ride EXV2 electric vehicles by Fall 2014

• Functionality similar to gas-powered vehicle: The determined functionalities of the seven gas-powered vehicles to be removed are all related to the transport of small hand/power tools, a capability of electric vehicles.

• Lower carbon emissions • Our data has shown that there is a significant difference between the usage of EVs and

gas-powered vehicles in the current fleet (Appendix B). • We also found that many of the gas-powered vehicles are being driven for tasks that need

little carrying capacity (the main reason for the gas-powered vehicles) and travel a short distance. These are the sort of tasks that we recommend be targeted for the use of electric vehicles.

3. Ways to Eliminate Large Carrying Capacity Needs:

A. Point of Service Material Drop-Off: o To alleviate the concern over the new vehicles’ carrying capacity, we would

suggest a point of service program where materials and equipment are shipped directly to the buildings via the material supplier

o Eliminates current method where materials are shipped to the region’s headquarters and carried by individual staff to the buildings.

o Have kitter be responsible for supply ownership o Ensure that there is a delegated space at loading dock for supplies before

requesting drop off o Buy a lock for any supplies that are theftable

B. Runner System:


o Another way to mitigate the concern of carrying capacity is implementing a runner system to CCER.

o Designate one person to deliver the heavy materials that a tradesmen would typically carry himself to a point of interest via a gas powered vehicle.

o This would allow the runner to use one gas vehicle for delivering heavy materials around campus for the trades, while the tradesmen can use alternative modes of transportation to simply get from point A to point B.

o Have kitter be responsible for supply ownership o Ensure that there is a delegated space at loading dock for supplies before

requesting drop off o Buy a lock for any supplies that are theftable

4. Golf Cart and Bicycle Additions

• If we implement either the runner system or the point of service system, there would no longer be a need for robust carrying capacity and transportation options would only be needed to carry small tools and to actually get to the buildings.

• In this case, we would recommend implementing smaller vehicle options to be used in combination with the larger fleet vehicles by Fall 2014.

• We would recommend an investigation on how well the two golf carts are holding up in the Central Campus West Region (Club Car Carry-all 1).

o If they are fitting the CCWR tradesmen’s basic needs, we would recommend researching the newer brands of Club Car since they might have improvements on the older brand.

• We would recommend adding two to three Club Carry-all 1 golf carts and approximately five bicycles to the fleet by Fall 2014.

o These would also be pooled to maximize their usage between fleet members. o Depending on demand and their success within the fleet, the pool can be added to

in the future. Implementing these recommendations by Fall 2014 will allow us to keep the momentum behind this movement while giving upper management the time needed to handle the logistics of implementing these changes. 5. Further Recommendations The Department of Parking and Transportation Services has recently given the region management an electric bike (e-bike) to test. It is essentially a normal bicycle with two additional modes: assisted pedaling, where the electric motor assists your pedaling, and full electric, where no pedaling is needed.

• We would recommend following through with the E-bike pilot. • The E-bike will reduce the effort needed for transportation, improving the tradesman

comfort and speed on the job; even so, it is still a low carbon emission option. • Although we did not perform any research on this option, it is possible that this could be

an effective compromise between tradesmen and upper management.


6. Culture Change: In accordance with our survey results and focus group, it was made clear that there was a cultural barrier in the way of implementing change. In particular, staff had a bias against electric-powered vehicles and bicycles. There were multiple pre conceived ideas about alternatives, such as electric vehicles, being unreliable that were not backed up by any data or experience. As a solution, we recommend that staff meetings be held to discuss the importance of meeting our sustainability goals and the feasibility of vehicle/transportation alternatives, which will hopefully ease their concerns over the change in system. These meetings will also provide education for the staff and management on their modes of transportation.

Conclusions Although environmentalism is a topic which can be waylaid in the academic environment of the University of Michigan campus, upper management at the University of Michigan Plant Operations is clearly dedicated to achieving their goals of reducing carbon emissions through improving vehicular efficiency. Our study has shown that there a multitude of possible options to be utilized on campus to improve the fleet’s sustainability, while maintaining the fleet efficiency. Electric vehicles and golf carts are viable year round solutions, capable of driving over 20 miles and carrying over a thousand pounds, which is an adequate weight capacity provided several gas-powered vehicles stay in service to act as on-call vehicles and the new runner vehicle. Bicycles also represent an alternative vehicle to be used during warmer months with lighter loads. Although the installation of these vehicles into the current fleet will require some changes in the system, with cooperation and enough forward thinking it should be possible to achieve the goal of replacing large gas-powered vehicles with alternatives. The upper management of Plant Operations was very helpful throughout the entire process, and seemed very invested personally in this project. They were always willing to reach out and help us contact people such as Steve Dolan and Keith Johnson to acquire additional information. Although the various regions have unique needs, this study serves as a stepping stone for It was an excellent demonstration of how the University of Michigan functions as a series of networks, in which many people with many different mentalities and jobs can come together and accomplish a change in a greater system.


Appendix A (Transportation Option Visuals):

(description) Gas-Powered Example (GMC Savana):

There are currently fourteen gas-powered vehicles in the CCER fleet11. Club Car Golf Cart:

The Club Car Carry-All 1, shown here, is part of the Central Campus West region vehicle fleet and is not the most recent model, the Club Car Carry-All 2, which we are recommending for implementation.

11 Image from: infotruck.blogspot.com


E-Ride EXV2 Electric Vehicle:

There are currently two E-Ride EXV2 electric vehicles in the CCER fleet. This is the make and model in our recommendations12.

Bicycle Example (UM Blue Bike):

University of Michigan’s Outdoor Adventures Blue Bikes are an example of the style/model bike for implementation in the CCER fleet13.

12 Image from: allcalgolf.com 13 Image from: umich.edu


Travoy Bag (for Bicycle):

The Burley Travoy Urban Trailer- a solution for carrying capacity needs with bicycle implementation14.

E-Bike (Yukon Trail Xplorer XM26):

This is the make/model of electric bike that Parking and Transportation Services provided for CCER to test15. 14 Image from: Burley.com


Appendix B (Current Fleet Data Matrices):

This shows the comparison between electric and gas vehicles that we studied. The following criteria are considered: emissions, fuel costs, leasing costs, average downtime, maintenance issues, and vehicle model 15 Image from: Yukontrailinc.com


Appendix C (Charts on UM Sustainability Initiative):

This graph depicts the University of Michigan’s progress from year 2006 toward meeting its 2025 sustainability goal of decreasing carbon intensity of passenger trips by 30%16

16 Sustainability Graph Reference


This graph depicts the University of Michigan’s progress from year 2006 toward meeting its 2025 sustainability goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%17.

17 Sustainability Graph Reference


Appendix D (Survey Questions): This is the survey that was given to the CCER tradesmen.


Appendix E (Region Maps):

The above map depicts bicycle routes on the University of Michigan’s Central Campus18.

18 http://pts.umich.edu/maps/.

http://pts.umich.edu/maps/


This map depicts the approximate half-mile range of CCER that tradesmen need to travel19.

19 Image from: plantops.umich.edu


Appendix F (Visual of Parking Problems):

This picture was taken on central campus by Plant Operations management and sent to us as an example of current parking problems. This gas-powered vehicle is technically not allowed to park on this sidewalk. The picture also shows the availability of bike parking on campus.


References Budzaj, D. (12 September 2012). University launches bike rental program on campus.

University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/120912/bike

Burley (2013). Burley Travoy. Retrieved

from: http://www.burley.com/home/bur/page_416/travoy.html. City of Ann Arbor (15 July 2011). Bicycling in A2. Retrieved from:

http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/Transportation/Pages/Bike.aspx

Club Car (2009). Carryall 1. Retrieved from:

http://www.clubcar.com/commercialbusiness/utility4x2/pages/carryall1.aspx Gardner, J. (2008). Boise state university 2008 campus sustainability leadership award

application. Retrieved from: http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_121.php. Kenfield Golf Carts (2008). Kenfield Golf Carts Frequently Asked Questions [Weblog].

Retrieved from: http://www.kenfieldgolfcars.com/faq. Madera, A. O. R. (2009). University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez transportation: Ride a bike and

the seven green resolutions. National Wildlife Federation, 1-9. Retrieved from: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/Campus-Ecology/Files/Case-Studies/University-of-Puerto-Rico-Mayaguez-2010-Case-Study-FINAL.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130214T2025494789.

Miles Electric Vehicles (n.d.). Miles ZX40ST. Retrieved from:

http://www.milesev.com/downloads/MILES_ZX40ST.pdf Mullins, M., V., Levin, Y., D. (2009). University of Michigan Plant Operations Vehicle Study.

Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer.



http://www.burley.com/home/bur/page_416/travoy.html



http://www.clubcar.com/commercialbusiness/utility4x2/pages/carryall1.aspx

http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_121.php

http://www.kenfieldgolfcars.com/faq





Office of Campus Sustainability (2011). Sustainability: 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://sustainability.umich.edu/news/u-m-annual-sustainability-report-shows-success-key-areas.

Parking and Transportation Services (2011). Plant Operations Fleet Study. Retrieved from

Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer. U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (2008). Miles Electric Vehicles

2008 Guide. Retrieved From: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/nev/miles2008zx40st.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions from a

typical passenger vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f11041.pdf.

University of Michigan Office of Sustainability (2013). Sustainability 2012. University of

Michigan Planet Blue Sustainability Progress Report 2012. Retrieved from: http://sustainability.umich.edu/report/2012/#ourcommitment_two.php.

University of Michigan Plant Operations (2013). About Planet Blue Operations Teams.

Retrieved from: http://opsteams.plantops.umich.edu/about.php. Woodhouse, K. (17 September 2012). University of Michigan launches bicycle rental

program. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from: http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-launches-bicycle-rental-program/.

Woodhouse, K. (4 February 2013). Multimillion dollar bike-sharing program planned for

University of Michigan and downtown Ann Arbor. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from: http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-bike-sharing/.

Zezima, K. (19 October 2008). With Free Bikes, Challenging Car Culture on Campus. New

York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/education/20bikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.




http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/nev/miles2008zx40st.pdf

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-launches-bicycle-rental-program/

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-launches-bicycle-rental-program/

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-bike-sharing/

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-bike-sharing/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/education/20bikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/education/20bikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

university of michigan ccer plant operations vehicle...

Documents