Evaluation of the Life Cycle Costs for urban buses equipped with conventional and hybrid drive trains
Emilia Szumska 1  
More details
Hide details
Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Polska
Faculty of Management and Computer Modelling, Kielce University of Technology, Polska
Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technická 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic
Emilia Szumska   

Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Al. Tysiąclecia P.P. 7, 25-314, Kielce, Polska
Publish date: 2019-03-29
Submission date: 2018-11-27
Final revision date: 2019-01-08
Acceptance date: 2019-02-19
The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji 2019;83(1):73–86
The life cycle cost (LCC) methodology provides understanding of economic aspects of urban buses equipped with different types of propulsion. The LCC analysis delivers the sum of costs related to the acquisition, operation, repair and maintenance disposal as well as the costs for the each bus power train technology. The method allows to take into account all costs for the whole vehicle’s life cycle and creates a recondition for precise information database for decision making. In addition to the economic factors LCC can be extended to environmental aspects such as greenhouse gases emissions. The environmental impacts of the vehicle lifetime may be presented in monetary values. The paper presents the Life Cycle Cost analysis undertaken for urban buses fitted with conventional, series hybrid and parallel hybrid drives. Provided LCC analysis includes the economic and environmental aspects. The paper also delivers the evaluation of the total air pollutant emissions for all stages of lifetime of the each analysed urban bus. The results show that the hybrids have slightly lower life cycle cost than conventional bus. Moreover, hybrid buses were found to have lower life cycle environmental impacts.
Ally J., Pryor T. Life cycle costing of diesel, natural gas, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell bus systems: An Australian case study, Energy Policy 94, 2016, pp. 285–294, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.039.
Ally J., Pryor T. Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems, Journal of Power Sources 170, 2007, pp. 401–411, DOI:
Bicer Y., Dincer I. Life cycle environmental impact assessment and comparison of alternative fuel for clean vehicles, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol. 132, 2018, pp. 141-157, DOI:
Cockroft, C.J., Owen, A.D. The economics of hydrogen fuel cell buses, Economic Record.
Vol. 83, Is. 263, 2007, s. 359-370, DOI:
Emery I., Mbonimpa E.,Thal A.E. Jr. Climate-based policies may increase life-cycle social costs of vehicle fleet operation, Energy Policy 101, 2017, pp. 1–9, DOI:
Ercan T., Zhao Y., Tatari O., Pazour J.A. Optimization of transit bus fleet’s life cycle assessment impacts with alternative fuel options, Energy Vol. 93, Part 1, 2015, pp. 323-334, DOI:
Ercan T., Tatari O. A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20, 2015, pp. 1213–1231, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0927-2.
Finkbeiner M. Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment, Springer, 2016, ISBN 978-94-017-7610-3.
Harris A., Soban D., Smyth B.M.: Best R. Assessing life cycle impacts and the risk.
and uncertainty of alternative bus technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Vol. 97, 2018, pp. 569-579, DOI:
He Y., Zhang Q., Pang X. The development pattern design of Chinese electric vehicles based on the analysis of the critical price of the life cycle cost, Energy Policy Vol. 109, 2017, pp. 382-388, DOI:
Hu J., Morais H., Sousa T., Lind M. Electric vehicle fleet management in smart grids: A review of services, optimization and control aspects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Vol. 56, 2016, pp. 1207-1226, DOI:
Jwa K., Lim O. Comparative life cycle assessment lithium-ion battery electric bus and Diesel bus from well-to-wheel, Energy Procedia Vol. 145, 2018, pp. 223-227, DOI:
Klocke F., Kampker A., Döbbeler B., Maue A., Schmieder M. Simplified Life Cycle Assessment of a Hybrid Car Body Part, Procedia CIRP Vol. 15, 2014, pp. 484-489, DOI:
Kliucininkas L., MatuleviciusJ., Martuzevicius D. The life cycle assessment of alternative chains for urban buses and trolleybuses, Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 99, 2012,.
Kommalapati, R., Sheikh, S., Du, H.B. Huque, Z. Life-Cycle Analysis of Bio-Ethanol Fuel Emissions of Transportation Vehicles in Greater Houston Area, Journal of Environmental Protection 7, 2016, pp. 793-804, DOI:
Lajunen A. Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 1-15, DOI:
Lownes N., Cohen J., Pines D., Islam A., Larsen D. Sustainability Strategies to Minimize the Carbon Footprint for Connecticut Bus Operations, Connecticut Academy of Science.
& Engineering, 2018.
Mahmoud M., Garnett R., Ferguson M., Kanaroglou P. Electric Buses: A Review of Alternative Powertrains, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, pp. 1-19, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019.
McKenzie E.C., Durango-Cohena P.L. Environmental life-cycle assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Vol. 17, Is. 1, 2012, pp. 39-47, DOI:
Miah J.H., Koh S.C.L., Stone D. A hybridised framework combining integrated methods.
for environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing, Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 168, 2017, pp. 846-866, DOI:
Pawełczyk M., Szumska E. Evaluation of the efficiency of hybrid drive applications in urban transport system on the example of a medium size city, MATEC Web of Conferences Vol. 180, 2018, pp. 1-7, DOI:
Ribau J.P., Silva C.M. Sousa J.M.C. Efficiency, cost and life cycle CO2 optimization of fuel cell hybrid and plug in hybrid urban buses, Applied Energy Vol. 129, 2014, pp. 320-335, DOI:
Richardson, S.: Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG (an updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives). Dallas/Ft. Worth: Public Solutions Group, Ltd, 2013.
Rose L., Hussain M., Ahmeda S., Malek K., Costanzo R., Kjeang R. A comparative life cycle assessment of diesel and compressed natural gas powered refuse collection vehicles in a Canadian city, Energy Policy, 52, 2013, pp. 453–461, DOI:
Sharma A., Strezov V. Life cycle environmental and economic impact assessment of alternative transport fuels and power-train technologies, Energy Vol. 133, 2017, pp. 1132-1141, DOI:
Soo V.K., Compston P., Doolan M. Interaction between New Car Design and Recycling Impact of Life Cycle Assessment, Procedia CIRP Vol. 29, 2015, pp. 426-431,
Soo V.K., Peeters J., Compston P., Doolan M., Duflou J.R. Comparative Study of End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in Australia and Belgium, Procedia CIRP Vol. 61, 2017, pp. 269-274, DOI:
Tong F., Hendrickson C., Biehler A., Jaramillo P., Seki S. Life cycle ownership cost and environmental externality of alternative fuel option for transit buses, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Vol. 57, 2017, pp. 287-302, DOI:
Xu A., Gbologah F.E., Lee D.-Y.: Liu H., Rodgers M.O., Guensler R.L. Assessment.
of alternative fuel and powertrain transit bus options using real world operation data: Life-fuel cycle and emission modeling, Applied Energy 154, 2015, pp. 143–159, DOI:
Yao Z., Wei H., Perugu H., Liu H., Li Z. Sensitivity analysis of project level MOVES running emission rates for light and heavy duty vehicles, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) Vol. 1, Is. 2, 2014, pp. 81-96, DOI:
Plan on Urban Mobility for City Kielce, Kielce 2016.
Panorama et évaluation des différentes filières d’autobus urbains, French Environment.
and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), 2015.
GREET Life-cycle model. User Guide, Center for Transportation Research Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory, 2016.
43. [date of access: 10 August 2018].
44. [date of access: 10 August 2018].
45. [date of access: 7 September 2018].