Designing A Successful Transportation Project - Energy

DESIGNING A SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTNumber of PartnersPIs cited partnerships in general as being critical to projectsuccess, although preferences varied when it came to the quantityand types of partners that should be included in a project. SomePIs who advocated for fewer partners determined that it gavethem the opportunity to develop strong relationships and focustheir attention on only one or two partners. They asserted thatthis led to uncomplicated communication channels and minimalmanagement complexity. In some cases, however, PIs saidthis approach had the potential to create animosity from otherstakeholders who were not involved in the project.EV811CNG4935,0E8549,391Natural igure 5. GHGs reduced by station fuel type (tons GHG)Project PartnershipsFederal Funding Awardedto Each Sub-Project (Millions)Most Clean Cities projects included multiple partners who ledsub-projects that focused on meeting specific fleet and community needs. In total, nearly 700 partners were involved in theseprojects—ranging from large national companies to small privatefleets and municipalities. While some sub-projects were complexendeavors involving the construction of fueling infrastructure andthe purchase of large quantities of vehicles, most sub-projectsinvolved relatively small actions, such as one fleet purchasing afew vehicles. The average amount of federal funding allocated toa sub-project was 368,000, with 74% of sub-projects receivingfederal funds of 250,000 or less. The vast majority of sub-projects (91%) received less than 1 million in federal funds, whileonly 13 sub-projects received more than 3 million in federalfunds. Overwhelmingly, Clean Cities efforts demonstrated thatmany small actions can significantly influence and transformmarkets in communities across the United States (see Figure 6). 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0074% 368,102.8791%of Sub-Awards wereless than 250KAverage Sub-AwardValueof Sub-Awards wereless than 1M 1 Sub-Project100200300400500Number of Sub-ProjectsFigure 6. Clean Cities sub-project values600700There were advantages and challenges to having greater numbersof partners—usually exceeding 10 or more—in a project as well.PIs cited the primary advantage of leading projects with morepartners as being able to leverage a very broad pool of resourcesthat benefitted everyone involved in the project. This wasespecially advantageous for small partners who often did not havemuch financial capital to bring to the project but who could stillparticipate thanks to the ability of larger partners to provide morethan the minimum cost-share requirement.Larger partners benefitted from the participation of smallerpartners, too. Having more people in the alternative fuel marketincreased demand for vehicles and fuel. This contributed to economies of scale that decreased overall costs and led to improvedcommunity awareness of alternative fuel options, helping tofurther market growth. In addition, higher concentrations of vehicles in a given area meant improved access to fueling locationsand increased availability of complementary resources, such astrained maintenance technicians.The disadvantages of having a lot of partners were primarilyassociated with the increased complexity of project management. When a project included dozens of partners across a largegeographic area, communication became challenging due to thesheer volume of people involved and the inability to devote largeamounts of time to any single partner. Sometimes, when issuesarose, project leaders felt like they were spread too thin and werenot able to devote the necessary time and attention to resolve theproblems as quickly as they would have liked. In some cases,poor communication damaged the relationships and trust betweenthe PI and the partners (see Figure 7).Fleet SizePIs had widely different views on the merits of including smallversus large fleets. Some focused their efforts entirely on largefleets because they tended to drive their vehicles many miles,and switching these fleets to an alternative fuel was viewed tobe more impactful. Others focused their efforts entirely on smallfleets because of their ability to relate to more of the general driving public. Their idea was that if it could work for a small fleet, itcould work for anyone. Furthermore, some thought because thereare far more small fleets than large fleets in the country, over timethe benefits of working with small fleets would outweigh thequick hit of working with a large fleet.VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE6 cleancities.energy.gov

DESIGNING A SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTFewer PartnersMore Partners Close relationships Strongcommunication Undivided attention Ability to leverage broader pool ofmatching funds (good for smallpartners) Potential to createanimosity from those whowere not involved Management complexity Communication issues Loss of ability to “lean in” when thereare issues Loss of trust and damagedrelationships if things go wrongAdvantagesChallengesFigure 7. Lessons learned and challenges from projects withsmall and large numbers of partners.PIs gained experience about how different sized fleets presenteddifferent types of challenges. For example, many PIs underestimated the difficulty of working with individual owners/operators, many of whom operate only seasonally and with verythin profit margins. They also found that fleets that run a tightratio of vehicles to service could not afford vehicle downtime forneeded repairs or conversion work. Generally, individual owners/operators also could not handle the risk of transitioning to analternative fuel, as well as a larger fleet that can typically accessback-up trucks in the event of vehicle downtime.Fleet Type (Public/Private)Private-sector companies tended to be easier to work with thanpublic fleets due to having less bureaucracy to navigate. PIsagreed the leadership at private-sector companies generally hadmore latitude to make fleet decisions, and there were typicallyfewer politics involved in the decision to move to alternativefuels. However, the drawback was that many private-sectorfleets came into the project wanting private, behind-the-fencefueling for only their vehicles. Because the preference was tofund public-access fueling stations, PIs worked with private fleetsto overcome their concerns about the liability associated withhosting open-access fueling stations on their property. Otherwise,they were encouraged to shift their attention toward convincingother local partners to provide public-access fueling in a locationthat was convenient for their drivers.While working with public fleets was noted to be challenging—primarily due to the politics that play a role in decision makingand the often long and restrictive budgeting process—there werealso some notable advantages. For instance, government andmunicipal fleets are often required to use alternative fuels orhave supportive policies in place. While the decision to transitionto alternative fuels can take a long time, once it is made, thatdecision also tends to remain in place for a long time.Regardless of the size or business sector of a partner, PIsfound each partner had a level of bureaucracy inherent to theiroperations. Whilebureaucracy is oftenKey Takeawayconsidered a detrimentMany PIs found their projectsthat can lengthen projectprogressed smoother if theytimelines and delaytook the time up front toprogress, there wereensure partners read themany instances citedcontract and could confirm theirduring interviews whereunderstanding of it.PIs said they foundthe bureaucracy wasproductive. For example, one PI noted that the subcontract witha large, national fleet took an unusually long time to negotiatecompared to the other subcontracts included in the award. Whilefrustrating at the time, the PI realized as all the projects progressedthat the project with the large, national company was executed themost smoothly. This was attributed to the fact that the contract waswell-scrutinized and thoroughly discussed from the beginning.On the contrary, some of the quickest subcontracts to get signedproved to be the most troublesome during project executionbecause many of those partners did not take the time to fully reador understand their contractual obligations from the start.Technology SelectionOne of the most surprising aspects of partnerships noted inproject interviews was that seemingly similar partners—usingthe same technology—could experience very different outcomesbased on factors such as infrastructure availability, drivingroutes, duty cycles, driver behavior, and climate. AFVs are notone-size-fits-all, and it took a great deal of interaction with localClean Cities coalitionsand their nationwideKey Takeawaysupport network toFleets that experiencedensure that all partnersthe greatest success oftenwere operating theirattributed the outcome tovehicles in a way thatproviding the right support forwould maximize theirthe technology they chose, ininvestment. Fleetsaddition to installing alternativethat experienced thefueling stations in locations thatgreatest success oftenoffered convenient and reliableattributed the outcomeaccess to both local andto providing the rightnational fleets.support for the technology they chose, such astraining drivers and mechanics, providing a well-designed routebased on the traits of the vehicle, and ensuring proper maintenance. Furthermore, fleets that had reliable access to fuelinginfrastructure and communities that located alternative fuelingsites in locations that were accessible to a wide array of local andnational fleets experienced the most success.VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE7 cleancities.energy.gov

DESIGNING A SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTCoordinators also have access to a national network ofother coordinators and experts within DOE and at nationallaboratories who are available to help fleets identify crediblesources of information and make educated decisions abouthow to best get projects back on track.Project FocusSome projects focused on a single fuel or technology (e.g., hybridschool buses or natural gas refuse trucks) and other projects cast awide net, including as many as six different fuels in their efforts.While many of the same benefits and drawbacks associated withthe number of partners held true for the number of fuels andtechnologies represented, PIs also drew some unique conclusionsregarding whether a narrow or broad project focus was optimal(see Figure 8).undivided attention on only one or two fuels, resulting in deepknowledge and industry contacts that many of the more broadlyfocused projects did not have the resources to cultivate. However,narrowly focused projects were often faced with a great deal ofpushback from other fuel-specific industry groups that were left outand the fleets that did not feel like the fuel they selected was a goodfit for their operations. For example, during a couple of projectsthat were focused solely on implementing CNG, PIs experiencedresistance from fleets who preferred to use biodiesel or wanted alower entry cost with propane. However, because the project scopewas limited to a single fuel, fleets who felt like they would be betterserved with a different fuel choice were unable to participate.Broadly focused projects with many technologies were laborintensive and required greater administrative support but weregenerally more appealing to the community because they offeredsomething for everyone. Similar to projects with a lot of partners,the broadly focused projects were able to leverage a larger poolof matching funds and, perhaps most importantly, were able toengage in a great deal of dialogue with their community aboutwhich fuel options worked best for particular applications. Bybeing less prescriptive in their funding, they enabled broad inputabout what would work best. Petroleum displacement and GHGreduction data reported from these types of projects also showeda broader focus generally created more petroleum displacement(see Figures 9 and 10).When a project was narrowly focused and involved only one ortwo technologies, PIs had the advantage of developing specializedknowledge and expertise on the particular fuel that they chose.During these types of projects, PIs were able to focus theirPetroleum Gasoline Gallon EquivalentsReduced by Vehicle Fuel Type30Million GGEs ReducedHaving a Clean Cities coalition involved in a project wasoften cited as a critical factor in its success. Clean Citiescoalitions are well-positioned within local markets to not onlyhave access to willing participants who are ready to moveforward with deploying alternative fuels within their fleet butalso possess the knowledge and access to resources tohelp partners successfully overcome the challenges theymay face during implementation. Coordinators are expertsat developing relationships and cultivating trust with theirstakeholders, putting them in an ideal position to assistfleets that have questions or run into issues. In the event ofa problem, fleets are generally more comfortable discussingit with a coordinator because their personal relationship givesthem confidence that they will stand by them and help themfind a solution.2520151050CNGLPGLNGHEVEVMedium and Heavy-dutyBroad Focus Development of specializedknowledge and expertise Undivided attention on asingle technology Ability to leverage broader pools ofpartners/matching funds Something for everyone Increased public awareness of manyalt fuel options Potential to createanimosity from those whowere not involvedAdvantagesLight-dutyGHGs Reduced by Vehicle Fuel LE TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE8NEV60,000 Management complexity Necessitates more staff Loss of ability to “lean in” when thereare issuesFigure 8. Lessons learned and challenges from projects witha narrow and broad focusPHEVFigure 9. Petroleum reduced by deployed vehiclesGHGs reduced (tons)Narrow FocusHHVCNGEVHEVLNGMedium and Heavy-dutyLPGLight-dutyFigure 10. GHGs reduced by deployed vehicles cleancities.energy.govNEVPHEV

DESIGNING A SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTImpactsWhen asked what the most unexpected aspect of their projectswas, several PIs noted that they ended up building alternative fuelmarkets that they did not intend to build. This was especially trueof the propane markets that sprouted in conjunction with CNGmarkets. Three separate PIs in particular noted that because theirprojects had funding allocated specifically for CNG vehicles andinfrastructure, they devoted a great deal of effort to educatingtheir stakeholders about the fuel. In the course of achievingtheir goal to build a CNG market, they also ended up having asurprising number of fleets commit to propane. They attributedthis to starting general conversations about alternative fuels. Theprojects created a lot of buzz in their community, and fleets wereexcited to try something other than conventional gasoline ordiesel. By raising awareness of a particular alternative fuel, theproject team encouraged greater conversation about the availability of all alternative fuels. Fleets selected the fuel best suitedto their needs and budget—in many cases opting for propanebecause of its low implementation cost. Some of these fleetsmight have never considered an alternative fuel at all—let alonepropane—without the education and presentations about all theavailable alternative fuels that were part of the project.Project Funding PrioritiesWhile DOE selected the 25 Clean Cities projects for fundingbased upon the priorities set forth in the funding opportunityannouncement, each project had its own unique focus and wayof prioritizing the allocation of the funds they received. Forexample, some projects focused primarily on funding fuelinginfrastructure while others focused primarily on assisting with thepurchase of vehicles.Funding StrategiesFor projects that focused on vehicle purchases, in many casesthere were commitments in place from infrastructure providersthat would support infrastructure expansion as vehicles weredeployed and fueling demand increased. This turned out to be asuccessful strategy, and infrastructure did expand as promised.In other cases, infrastructure funding was prioritized over vehiclepurchases. These projects tended to have fleets that were alreadycommitted to purchasing certain vehicles. The vehicles were usedas matching funds so that the grant funding could cover as muchof the infrastructure cost as possible. This also proved to be asuccessful strategy.Incremental Cost LimitsWhile 100% of infrastructure costs could be funded through thefederal award, the funding opportunity announcement set forthlimits about how much federal funding could be used to purchasespecific vehicle types. The funding limits ranged from 2,000per vehicle for a light-duty hybrid electric vehicle to incrementalcost coverage of up to 500,000 per vehicle for medium- andheavy-duty electric vehicles. In many cases, partners supplied

DESIGNING A SCCESSFL TRANSPORTATION PROECT fleet (e.g., refuse haulers and school buses), while other projects cast a broader net that included deploying multiple fuels and types of vehicles for various end users. Project Objectives Each project within the Clean Cities Recovery Act portfolio began with the same set of initial objectives: 1.