European national, regional, and local authorities have started to take action to make public bus transport services more effective and less polluting. Some see the possibility to move beyond a narrow focus on efficiency or carbon dioxide reductions towards an integrated sustainability perspective. This paper uses this perspective to build and test a new assessment approach that should enhance decisions on bus transport powertrains and energy carriers for Swedish medium-sized cities. The study suggests that a superiority of electric powertrains is revealed if a traditional economic analysis is integrated with a strategic sustainability perspective.

To reach Swedish national climate change reduction targets, organizations collaborate for a sustainable development to improve energy efficiency, reducing pollution and noise in public bus transport. This follow-up study continues to strengthen the previous study by deepen the economic comparisons of two electric buses with different driving range and different type of chargers. The study aims to emphasize on sensitivity analysis for the total cost of ownership (TCO) to reduce uncertainty by identifying which factors of interest that most likely cause the estimated cost values for the electric bus. The result shows that the percentage change of line distance (km/year), operational years, and investment cost would be the most influential and significant factors on TCO.

From a theoretical perspective, Electric buses can be more sustainable and can be cheaper than fossil fuelled buses in city traffic. The authors have not found other studies based on actual urban public transport in Swedish winter climate. Further on, noise measurements from buses for the European market where found old. The aims of this follow-up study was therefore to test and possibly verify in a real-life environment how energy efficient and silent electric buses are, and then conclude on if electric buses are preferable to use in public transport. The Ebusco 2.0 electric bus, fitted with a 311 kWh battery pack, was used and the tests carried out during November 2014 to April 2015 in eight municipalities in the south of Sweden. Six tests took place in urban traffic and two took place in more of a rural traffic setting. The energy use for propulsion was measured via logging of the internal system in the bus and via an external charging meter. The average energy use turned out to be 8 % less (0,96 kWh/km) than assumed in the earlier theoretical study. This rate allows for a 320 km range in public urban traffic. The interior of the bus was kept warm by a diesel heater (biodiesel will probably be used in a future operational traffic situation), which used 0,67 kWh/km in January. This verified that electric buses can be up to 25% cheaper when used in public transport in cities for about eight years. The noise was found to be lower, primarily during acceleration, than for buses with combustion engines in urban bus traffic. According to our surveys, most passengers and drivers appreciated the silent and comfortable ride and preferred electric buses rather than combustion engine buses. Bus operators and passenger transport executives were also positive to start using electric buses for public transport. The operators did however point out that procurement processes need to account for eventual risks regarding this new technology, along with personnel education. The study revealed that it is possible to establish a charging infrastructure for almost all studied bus lines. However, design of a charging infrastructure for each municipality requires further investigations, including electric grid capacity analysis, smart location of charging points, and tailored schedules to allow fast charging. In conclusion, electric buses proved to be a preferable alternative for all stakeholders involved in public bus transport in the studied municipalities. However, in order to electric buses to be a prominent support for sustainable development, they need to be charged either by stand-alone units or via an expansion of the electric grid, and the electricity should be made from new renewable sources.

This article aims to develop and test a new approach for comparing sustainability effects (mainly approximated through CO₂ emissions) and the total cost of ownership of various business models (Regular Purchasing, Car Pooling, Car Leasing, and Taxiing) applied to private cars with different energy carriers (Biogas, Ethanol, Gasoline, Plug-in Hybrid, and Electric). The results indicate that, out of all of the vehicles, electric vehicles are the most competitive—from both an ecological and economic perspective. Moreover, of all of the business models, Car Pooling is the most competitive when driving short to medium distances, reducing CO₂ emissions by 20-40% compared with Regular Purchasing. Meanwhile, Car Leasing emits the same amount of CO₂ emissions as Regular Purchasing if both are driven the same number of kilometers per year. The results also indicate that, from a cost effectiveness perspective, people who travel less than 2000 km per year should primarily consider using Taxis or similar services, while Car Pooling is most cost effective for those who travel from 2000 to 8500 km. For those who travel between 8500 and 13500 km per year, Car Leasing is the most cost effective, and Regular Purchasing is the best option above 13500 km per year. If most car owners were to accept and adapt to this identified need for a market move towards Car Pooling with Electric Vehicles, necessary transportation could be ensured while significantly reducing the number of cars on the road, whether from Regular Purchasing or Car Leasing, as well as those that run on fossil fuel. This, in turn, would result in less fossil fuel use, fewer emissions, and decreased negative effects on human health.