Intercity electric buses represent a growing segment in the passenger transportation market. As of , only 200 intercity electric buses were registered in Europe, a stark contrast to the over 6,000 municipal battery electric bus registrations. Despite this nascent stage, advancements in technology and regulatory changes are paving the way for broader adoption.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website tenglong.
The European Union has set in ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. While city buses will have to be 90% zero emission in and 100% zero emission in , Intercity buses fall into the same category as coaches and trucks. By , new registrations must achieve a 45% reduction in emissions, with targets escalating to 65% by and 90% by .
Low Entry configurations are set to become increasingly popular in the Class II segment, due to two main factors: accessibility and the energy transition. The partially lowered floor design facilitates fast passenger handling and requires only a practical, quick manual ramp for wheelchair access, enhancing overall accessibility.
Moreover, Low Entry buses offer greater flexibility for accommodating alternative drive technologies. These technologies, often positioned on the roof, can leverage a specially modified load-bearing structure to maintain acceptable overall height. This design allows for the integration of new electric technologies without significantly altering the bus’s profile.
However, there are trade-offs. Low Entry buses must sacrifice some seating and luggage space to maintain overall passenger capacity. Additionally, they are generally more expensive than their normal floor counterparts, positioning themselves just behind fully lowered buses in terms of cost.
Despite these challenges, the increasing emphasis on ecological factors is likely to drive growth in this segment.
In early December , at the French expo Autocar Expo in Lyon, Iveco Bus raised the curtain in the Crossway Elec normal floor, following the previous launch of the LE model (see below). First order in the domestic market was made official just a few days after.
The Iveco Crossway Elec features a maximum declared autonomy of 500 kilometers, thanks to 69 kWh battery packs each with high energy density and assembled by FPT Industrial, which use NMC chemistry; the life cycle of the modules, guaranteed for 10 years, is 15 years.
Depending on the needs, 3 to 6 battery packs are planned, allocated to the roof and the rear if three or four; if, instead, five or six modules are planned, they are planned to be placed in one of the side luggage racks.
Motor is by Siemens, Elfa III model with 290 kW of power and 3,000 Nm torque. Two length variants are planned: 12 and 13 meters. In the first case, the passenger load capacity is 57 people, which increases to 63 in the long version.
The only well-established normal floor intercity bus in electric version presented to the public, as of today, is the Mercedes eIntouro. It was unveiled in late November and will be available for orders in first quarter of . The eIntouro will be officially launched at Busworld Europe , with deliveries beginning in . Production sites? France and Istanbul.
Interestingly enough, it’s equipped with a different set of battery and driveline than the eCitaro range, made of LFP batteries and central motor by ZF. It’ll be produced in the OEM’s plants in Turkey and in France.
Two lengths are available: the 12.18-metre eIntouro and the 13.09-metre eIntouro M. Seating variants from 50 to a maximum of 63 seats are covered.
The electric intercity segment also sees the presence of Otokar, which offers the high-floor e-Territo U. The model, moreover, is built on a platform that can also accommodate hydrogen technology. The e-Territo U is already in production and ready for order in . It is a Class II with a length of 13 meters, maximum power of 410 kW and passenger capacity of up to 63 people.
The Temsa LD SB E was presented for the first time at the IAA expo in Hannover in and re-proposed at Busworld in Brussels in October .
The vehicle is one of the very few intercity battery-electric models on the European market as of today.
The Adana-based manufacturer’s Class II intercity bus is available in two length variants – 12,365 and 13,080 millimetres, with up to 63 seats on the longest version (the one that we had the opportunity to video test drive in July ). Batteries are assembled in house and equipped with the Temsa Battery Management System. The chemical formula is NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) and they are available in three different capacities: 210, 280 and 350 kWh (6, 8 or 10 modules).
Solaris plans to launch a dedicated high-floor intercity electric bus platform by .
The Polish OEM showed during its press conference, held in March , the first renderings of the future intercity bus platform (picture on the left), set to be “ready for commercial activities in “, as said Solaris CEO Javier Iriarte. The renderings have been then showed in a updated version (on the right) during its presentation (on Solaris results).
Over the next few years, Solaris states it will introduce a new zero-emission intercity platform in three different lengths: 10.9, 12.2 and 13 meters. It is worth noting that each of these models will be available as both battery and hydrogen vehicles. Developing Solaris high floor intercity electric bus platform is an activity headed by Luca Cordiviola that in September year joined Solaris in the new position of Interurban Platform Director.
It should be however be noted that Solaris offers possibility of homologation in Class II both on the Urbino 9 Low Entry Electric and on the 15-meter Low Entry launched in October .
Yutong announced in early (sharing some nice renderings on social media) the upcoming introduction of the IC12E model, a battery-electric intercity bus designed for long-range operations.
The standard battery configuration is 400 kWh, with an optional 466 kWh pack. Yutong offers a guarantee of 1.5 million kilometers or 15 years, with minimal battery degradation over this period.
The Yutong IC12E measures 12,660 mm in length, 2,550 mm in width, and 3,500 mm in height. It has a maximum seating capacity of 59 passengers, plus space for luggage with a boot volume of 4.5 cubic meters.
Irizar has launched the new i3 intercity e-bus model at FIAA in Madrid. On show there are: also a new generation Irizar i6S Efficient unit, an i6S Efficient Hydrogen, and an Irizar ie tram urban electric vehicle.
The bodywork of the new electric Irizar i3 is available in an integral self-supporting configuration and with different electric chassis.
The new class II electric low entry Irizar i3 features “a totally renewed design, in addition to a range of vehicles with a new generation of lighter, more comfortable integral Irizar chassis with up to 50% lower consumption. The vehicles also have the most stringent safety and cybersecurity systems on the market, an improved cockpit with a redesigned dashboard, weight reductions and improvements in consumption and emissions”, Irizar states.
Iveco has been a pioneer in the intercity electric bus market with its Crossway Low Entry model. The Iveco Crossway is the most sold intercity bus in Europe, and has broken a new production record as the 60,000th unit rolled off the assembly line last year since its launch in . Together with the Setra MultiClass, the Iveco Crossway LE is the most popular LE bus available in Europe (see our technical focus).
The new Iveco Crossway Low Entry Elec is available in both urban (Class I) and intercity (Class II) variants, with options for 12-meter and 13-meter lengths. Powered by a central electric motor delivering 330 kW of power and a maximum torque of 2,200 Nm (by Siemens/Accelera by Cummins), the bus relies on NMC lithium-ion batteries assembled by FPT, offering high energy density (180 kW/kg).
The Class I version can be equipped with five, six, or seven battery packs, providing respective energy capacities of 346 kWh, 416 kWh, and 485 kWh. The Class II version features 416 kWh or 485 kWh capacities.
The Iveco Crossway Low Entry Elec was one of the main novelties from the electromobility-focused event held in Paris in May where electric versions of Crossway LE, Streetway and Daily have been unveiled.
The intercity e-bus launch is in line with the brand roadmap of having a full electric bus range in . Iveco is also working on developing high-floor intercity vehicles, which are essential for longer routes and more demanding operational conditions. The company’s ongoing investments in electric bus technology underscore its commitment to sustainable transportation.
Unveiled at Busworld Brussels , this model exemplifies MAN’s first step in the intercity electric bus segment. The vehicle can indeed be homologated both in Class I and Class II.
Standing capacity in MAN Low Entry electric bus varies depending on the configuration and the number of batteries installed, that can range from a minimum of four (320 kWh) to a maximum of six (480 kWh).
Contact us to discuss your requirements of Electric Intercity Buses Spare Parts. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.
The bus uses NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) batteries, arranged in 80 kWh modules across the roof. Each module features a Battery Management System (BMS) that balances the state of charge and maintains optimal thermal conditions around 25°C. Future upgrades, expected by the end of next year, include 90 kWh battery modules with a Depth of Discharge (DoD) of 90%, increasing usable energy by approximately 20%.
The propulsion system consists of a centrally mounted permanent magnet synchronous motor, developed within the Traton Group. This motor, connected to the drive axle via a transmission shaft, delivers a continuous power output of around 160 kW, with peaks over 230 kW and a maximum torque of 2,100 Nm. The motor is equipped with an internal oil-based lubrication and cooling system, ensuring efficient performance and longevity.
Volvo Buses has entered the intercity electric bus market with its BZR platform, launched in March , which is set to join the already available BZL platform in the Swedish company’s offering. The Volvo BZR platform is designed to meet a diverse range of transportation needs, including commuting, intercity travel, and coach applications, from Low Entry to High Floor, with options for two or three axles and various battery configurations.
Also a first concept version of the Electric with BZR chassis and Volvo bodywork has been showed in Gothenburg at the showcase event, although the series production of the model will happen in Egypt through bodybuilder partner MCV.
At launch, the platform accommodates lengths from 9.5 to 15 meters, a maximum weight of 27,000 kg and traction power up to 400kW, or 540 hp. In combination with the modular battery arrangement of up to 540 kWh, the Volvo BZR Electric is suitable for most of the applications in extended city and intercity operation.
Just a few steps back: in March , Volvo Buses announced the decision to cease the production of complete buses, both urban and coach, in Europe. Then, the company had signed letters of intent with MCV for the manufacture of bodies for city and intercity buses, and with Sunsundegui for tourist buses (with not great results…). The definitive agreement signed with MCV included the development “an electric bus for intercity traffic”.
Scania is also making inroads into the intercity electric bus sector with the introduction of a low-entry 4×2 e-bus model. Scania platform is coupled with Castrosua 75CS body. Batteries offer energy storage capacity of up to 520 kWh.
The model, presented at Busworld , will be available in two performance steps – a four-battery variant with an installed capacity of 416 kWh and a five-battery variant with an installed capacity of 520 kWh.
The vehicle features a continuous power output of 250 kW at 1,750 rpm. Batteries are designed and produced in cooperation with Northvolt at Scania’s battery factory in Södertälje, Sweden. The batteries are fast-charging, Scania states, with a full charge in 150 minutes, more sustainable and with a lifetime of 1.5 million kms.
Although VDL has not stated any specific projects so far concerning intercity vehicles, it’s true that the new generation Citea e-bus range has LE versions and can be homologated also in Class 2.
The bus range, purpose-built for electric traction, was previously presented on an online event in May . The launch was announced in December and happened in September .
The new product family is the outcome of a new concept entirely developed on an electric driveline. And, for the first time, it houses batteries in the floor (in the standard version of 306 kWh). Maximum battery capacity is 490 kWh, with the kWh exceeding 306 put on the roof. Battery modules are assembled in-house by the VDL group. Formula is NMC, supplier not mentioned. What is interesting is passenger capacity: 110 people can be welcomed on the version with standard battery capacity.
In November Nordic region’s largest public transport operator Nobina awarded an order for VDL electric bus in Class 2 design for use in regional operations in Sweden.
Chinese manufacturers, particularly Yutong and BYD, have been early entrants in the intercity electric bus market, as BEV technology is quite well established already in the domestic market. Yutong already has several units in operation across Europe.
The Yutong T12 is one of the electric coaches in Yutong’s portfolio. The 12-meter-long made-in-China tourer can rely on 422 kWh batteries that the manufacturer assures are capable of providing a range of about 530 km (supplier? CATL). In-house motors, ZF gearbox and Wabco braking system complete the picture. Capacity? 59 passengers. Also the three-axle battery-powered coach T15E is on offer in Europe.
This is the fourth in a series of five (not four) posts about the poor state of political transit advocacy in the United States, following posts about the Green Line Extension in metro Boston, free public transport proposals, and federal aid to operations, to be followed by a post about how to do better instead.
I think very highly of Yonah Freemark. His academic and popular work on public transport and urbanism ranges from good to excellent, and a lot of my early thinking (and early writing!) on regional rail and high-speed rail owes a debt to him.
But I think he’s wrong in his proposal for a Green New Deal for transportation. This is a proposal by the Climate and Community Project (not the Urban Institute as I said in previous posts – sorry) to decarbonize transport in the United States, through fleet electrification and investments in public transport. Yonah is one of several authors; I identify him with the public transit-related parts of the report, but I want to make it clear that it’s the report I’m criticizing, regardless of who wrote what.
The fundamental problem of the CCP report is what I’ve been building up to in the last three posts in this series: it tries to please everybody by throwing money everywhere and making conflicting promises. The Green Line Extension was built this way under Deval Patrick, and costs ballooned, and what passed for discipline under Charlie Baker just reinforced the same long-term loss of state capacity that led to the cost explosion.
For example, here’s its take on fleet electrification:
In other words, there is a compelling and immediate need to decarbonize this fleet within a decade. And that’s feasible: buses are replaced every 10 to 15 years on average, and commuter rail trains about every 25 years; currently, commuter trains in the United States are on average 22 years old. Publicly owned vehicles would be replaced with the electric equivalent; for privately owned contracted vehicles (the case for many school buses), and requirements for electrification would be written into contracts and tax credits given to assist the transition of buses from fossil fuels to electric. The commissioning of thousands of new transit vehicles would produce new, good-paying union jobs in manufacturing. The shift to electric transit vehicles would affect maintenance requirements, and the Department of Transportation must ensure the mechanic and operator workforce is fully prepared for the electric transition through workforce retraining assistance. This may require retraining, such as encouraging mechanics to retrain as electric vehicle charging installers.
(…)
Electrifying existing diesel railways would require overhead catenary electrical wires to be useful for electrified trains (though the trains themselves actually cost less than diesel vehicles). The cost of railway electrification infrastructure alone is between roughly $1 and $5 million per mile. There are roughly 6,600 miles of non-electrified commuter rail in the United States, plus roughly 20,800 miles of non-electrified Amtrak service (with some overlap between the two). Amtrak’s routes are mostly owned by freight rail companies, but we suggest joint electrification that includes both passenger trains and freight trains, using this program for Amtrak and another we lay out below for the freight lines. To electrify the national passenger rail network of existing lines would cost between $27 and $137 billion. In addition, new trains would have to be purchased to run on these electrified lines.
I cite this pair of paragraphs because of something they show about the study: it is not uniformly bad. The second paragraph is a decent idea (though $1m/mile is very cheap), and trying to workshop how to wire the national freight network is not necessarily a bad idea, even if the report doesn’t go into enough detail about what the business barrier to electrification is for the private carriers.
But the first quoted paragraph is awful. Here’s the key thing: “The commissioning of thousands of new transit vehicles would produce new, good-paying union jobs in manufacturing” is a giant waste of money. Bus vendors outside North America consistently produce equipment for much less than the protected North American market; the Boris Bus, at £350,000 per unit (around $500,000), is both cheaper than American buses and locally considered expensive, a prime example of Boris Johnson’s poor performance as mayor of London.
The passenger rail industry does not exist in the United States, and attempts by American governments to coerce it to build factories domestically in order to create well-paying jobs have resulted in ballooning costs. The premium for recent American rolling stock orders, behind bespoke regulations, protectionism, informal state-level protectionism, and agency heads that know less than recently-graduated interns who make one quarter of what they do (less, if those interns are European), looks like 50% over European equivalents. Nor does this do much job creation, except perhaps for sitework consultants: the premium for some recent orders has been $1 million per $20/hour 4-to-6-year job created. Those are not objectively good jobs – the wages are not much higher than present-day retail, food service, and delivery jobs – but backward-looking politicians consider them inherently moral, and the report coddles them instead of looking forward.
Then, the report has the following recommendations for how to spend money on improving public transportation:
End the use of federal infrastructure funding for new highway infrastructure, except for focused opportunities that improve equity. Provide immediate funds for a quick-start infrastructure program for walking and cycling. Vastly expand support for transit and metropolitan network planning.
Appropriate $250 billion over 10 years, or $25 billion annually, in federal funding bill to support transit operations funding throughout the United States.
Increase federal support for transit and intercity rail capital projects to $400 billion over 10 years, or $40 billion annually, providing funds for new lines, maintenance of existing infrastructure, and upgrades designed for equitable accessibility.
Require metropolitan planning organization voting systems to be proportional to resident population. Mandate adjustments to local zoning policy to enable more dense, affordable housing near transit in exchange for federal aid. Implement regional commuter benefits throughout the nation.
This, I’m sorry, is a bad program. The $40 billion/year capital investment is not bad, but the proposal explicitly includes maintenance, making it vulnerable to the state of good repair scam, in which agencies demand escalating amounts of money for infrastructure with nothing to show for it. The $25 billion/year operating aid is likely to be a waste as well.
Transit agencies can invest money prudently, but the report says nothing about how to do it, instead proposing to zero out highway funding (which is a good way to save money, but is less relevant to mode shift than American transit advocates think it is). The one concrete suggestion for what to do with the money is “One goal, for example, would be for all residents to have access to a bus or train with a short wait within at most a 15-minute walk at all times of the day.” This is a standard I can get behind in a dense place like New York; nearly everywhere else, it means overfunding coverage routes in low-density areas, often middle-class white flight suburbs, ahead of workhorse urban routes. Writing years ago about New Haven, Sandy Johnston noted that a bus reform there would cannibalize the circuitous suburban bus branches to add service on the core routes through the city and Hamden. The CCP report would do the opposite, boosting frequencies where they are least useful.
Finally, the MPO rules seem weak. I get what Yonah (and perhaps the other authors) wants to do here: he wants to incentivize more housing production near mass transit nodes. But MPO voting weights are not especially relevant. What is relevant is using state power to disempower local communities, which are dominated by NIMBYs even in places where the residents vote YIMBY at the state level, such as San Francisco. The report talks about banning single-family zoning (okay, but duplexes are not TOD), but that’s it. Then it suggests extracting developer profits through mandatory inclusionary housing, which acts as a tax on TOD and reduces housing production. The authors of the study are left-wing, but do not propose public housing, only taxes on TOD to subsidize some local housing; Yonah knows this is not how social housing works in Paris, but he still proposes this for the United States.
For more 12-Meter Highway Businformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.