4 0
Operational cost comparison of alternative fuel vehicles for public transportation/ Jose Gabriel E. Mercado 6 6 - - - - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the operational cost analysis of different alternative fuel vehicles used for Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJ's) in Metro Manila. Four models were genrated using data from the UP-SM North Jeepney route. Model a used actual data gathered from the on-road tests conducted. Model B did not consider the downtime days to normalize the daily net income. Model C kept the costs not related to fuel and maintenance, jeepney fare, and data influence by the preference of the driver , constant. Model D assumed only jeepney type varied, without accounting for any preference for any preference mentioned in model C. For all models, in terms of fuel Cost (PhP) per Passenger-km, the electric jeepney is 35-49% moreeconomical and has 1% - 36% higher net income vs Diesel jeepney. However , the LPG jeepney is less economical by 8%-18% vs diesel jeepney in models A - C but more economical by 4% in Model D due to higher cost of Diesel fuel. In terms of Net Income (PhP) per passenger km, LPG has 10% lower income vs diesel jeepney in models a&B but has 5% higher income in Models C&D as considered days are the same, thereby minimizing differences in the number of passengers that affects both parameters.
5
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
JEEPNEY ------ALTERNATIVE FUELS--OPERATIONAL COST ANALYSIS--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/
Operational cost comparison of alternative fuel vehicles for public transportation/ Jose Gabriel E. Mercado 6 6 - - - - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the operational cost analysis of different alternative fuel vehicles used for Public Utility Jeepneys (PUJ's) in Metro Manila. Four models were genrated using data from the UP-SM North Jeepney route. Model a used actual data gathered from the on-road tests conducted. Model B did not consider the downtime days to normalize the daily net income. Model C kept the costs not related to fuel and maintenance, jeepney fare, and data influence by the preference of the driver , constant. Model D assumed only jeepney type varied, without accounting for any preference for any preference mentioned in model C. For all models, in terms of fuel Cost (PhP) per Passenger-km, the electric jeepney is 35-49% moreeconomical and has 1% - 36% higher net income vs Diesel jeepney. However , the LPG jeepney is less economical by 8%-18% vs diesel jeepney in models A - C but more economical by 4% in Model D due to higher cost of Diesel fuel. In terms of Net Income (PhP) per passenger km, LPG has 10% lower income vs diesel jeepney in models a&B but has 5% higher income in Models C&D as considered days are the same, thereby minimizing differences in the number of passengers that affects both parameters.
5
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
JEEPNEY ------ALTERNATIVE FUELS--OPERATIONAL COST ANALYSIS--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/