November 17, 1998

To:Budget Committee

From:Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Subject:Wheel Trans Vehicle Replacement

Purpose:

The report recommends funding options for Project 415 - 127 Wheel Trans Vehicle Replacements (Orion II).

Financial Implications:

Approval of the recommendations will increase the net capital requirements to be financed from debentures by $2.7 million in 1999, $2.9 million in 2000, $3.0 million in 2001, and $1.8 million in 2003, in relation to the TTC 1999-2003 capital request for the project. In addition, the recommended funding will result in a 1998 increased contribution from the TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund of $0.7 million to finance the increased net capital requirement for the project ($1.4 million recommended less the 1998 approved net expenditure of $0.7 million).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the gross request for Project 415-127 Wheel Trans Vehicle Replacements (Orion II) be approved as originally submitted with the TTC 1999-2003 capital request, based on the staggered delivery option, at a total gross cost of $27.5 million;

(2)the contributions from the Wheel Trans operating budget to this project be limited to the provision for vehicle replacement of $1.4 million as included in the approved 1998 operating budget for the TTC, with the addition of the projected operating savings resulting from the project, through future reserve contributions as set in the body of this report;

(3)a Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement reserve be established and funded from the provision for vehicle replacement included in the approved 1998 operating budget for the TTC and the future operating savings from the purchase of the new vehicles as per the schedule of contributions set in the body of this report; and

(4)the $0.7 million increase in the 1998 net capital requirement for the project be financed from the TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on October 5, 1998, recommended:

(A)the adoption of:

(1)additional project approval and financing of $10.1 million for City Project No.415, "127 Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacements (Orion II)"; noting that such additional project approval and financing is required no later than October30, 1998, at which time the bids expire; and

(2)an increase of $800,000.00 in the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget, subject to successful negotiations between the Toronto Transit Commission and Overland Custom Coach Inc. regarding the delivery of 14 ELF low floor buses in 1998; and

(B)that the communication (October 5, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration.

The Budget Committee on October 13, 1998, had before it the item together with a communication (September 24, 1998) addressed to the Clerk, City of Toronto from the General Secretary, TorontoTransit Commission indicating that a continuous delivery schedule rather than a staggered schedule had been further considered and that an overall price reduction of $1.7 million could be realized under this option, i.e. $27.5 million to $25.8 million.

The Budget Committee deferred this item until the next meeting, with a request that the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, provide a joint report providing other financial options to fund the Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement project; and further that, due to time restraints, if a special Budget Committee meeting is required to finalize this matter, the said meeting, be at the call of the Chair.

Discussion:

Gross Expenditures

On June 30, 1998 a Request for Proposals to supply 127 specialized accessible low floor and lift-equipped vehicles over a five year period was issued by the TTC. Based on the results of the request for proposals, the TTC is recommending the replacement of the Orion bus fleet with 127 low floor (ELF) buses to be delivered from 1998 through 2002. The total cost of the project, under this staggered delivery option, is $27.5 million. Once the vehicles are fully delivered, it is estimated that annual operating costs will be reduced by $2.2 million as a result of lower fuel and maintenance costs.

TTC also submitted an option based on the continuous delivery of vehicles combined with the accelerated retirement of the Orion II vehicles by the year 2000. The total project cost under this option is $25.8 million, $1.7 million less than the staggered option, however through an accelerated cash flow. The comparison of capital costs, operating savings and net present value under both alternatives is as follows:

($ Millions)

19981999200020012002Total

Staggered Delivery

Gross Project Cost2.86.26.46.75.427.5

Operating Savings0.0(0.4)(1.1)(1.6)(2.2)(2.2)

Net Present Value (@7%)2.85.44.54.02.419.1

Continuous Delivery

Gross Project Cost2.811.811.20.00.025.8

Operating Savings0.0(0.3)(1.4)(1.8)(2.2)(2.2)

Net Present Value (@7%)2.810.68.4(1.4)(1.6)18.8

The Continuous delivery option would result in a net present value saving of only $0.3 million or 1.6 percent. However, this option would increase the already existing pressure on the 1999 and 2000 debenturing requirements. It is therefore recommended that the gross request for the project be approved as originally submitted with the TTC 1999-2003 capital request, based on the Staggered Delivery option.

Each ELF bus can carry a maximum of five wheel-chairs, while an Orion II bus has a capacity of six wheel-chair positions (the new Orion vehicles are designed to carry a maximum of five wheel-chairs, as in the ELF buses). However, TTC staff indicate that the capacity reduction will have no significant impact in the operating expenditures or revenues. They indicate that currently the Orion II buses only carry simultaneously six wheel-chairs per vehicle in approximately one percent of the trips.

Funding

The TTC request for the funding of the staggered option is mainly based on contributions from the Wheel Trans Operating Budget. The funding sources included in the current TTC request, also reflected in the 1999-2003 capital program request of the TTC, are as follows:

TTC Requested Funding Structure (1999-2003 Capital Program Request)

($ Millions)

19981999200020012002Total

Funding - Capital Budget0.01.71.00.70.03.4

Funding Operating * 2.84.55.46.05.424.1

Total2.86.26.46.75.427.5

*These amounts include the use of the noted savings plus new operating contributions.

The approved 1998 Operating Budget for Wheel Trans (at a total flat-lined 1997 level of $37.543 million) included an amount of $1.4 million for the funding of the Orion II fleet replacement. In addition, the approved 1998 Capital Budget for Project 415 - 127 Wheel Trans Vehicle Replacements (Orion II) included a net expenditure of $0.7 million from debenture financing. Therefore, the total 1998 funding anticipated for the project in the approved operating and capital budgets is $2.1 million ($1.4 million operating and $0.7 million capital). However, the funding authorization for Project #415 was granted for the total project cost of $17.4 million (as estimated at that time) on the basis that the purchase would be made on a single contract. It is therefore recommended that the funding of the 1998 expenditure of $2.8 million be provided as follows: $1.4 million from the 1998 operating budget; $0.7 million from debenturing , as included in the approved 1998 Capital Program; and the remainder $0.7 million from the TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund.

The funding structure submitted by the TTC for 1999 onwards is based on operating budget contributions significantly higher than the projected savings, even if the $1.4 million provision anticipated in the 1998 budget is added.

If the provision for the project included in the 1998 Operating budget is added, the total funding available from the operating budget would increase through the four-year period to a maximum of $3.6 million in 2002 ($1.4 million plus the $2.2 million estimated savings). This level of operating budget contributions would allow for the maintenance of the operating budget on a flat-line 1997 level (excluding other pressures, i.e. increased demand). Any additional contribution from the operating budget should be made either through cuts in other expenditures or through a higher subsidy from the tax levy.

The 1999 operating budget discussion will occur from December 1998 onward. Therefore, to avoid committing budget increases in advance, it is recommended that the contributions from the operating budget to this project be limited to the provision for vehicle replacement of $1.4 million as included in the approved 1998 operating budget for the TTC, with the addition of the projected operating savings resulting from the project, through contributions from a reserve to be established as recommended below. The balance of the required funds would be financed through debenturing.

Therefore, the recommended funding of the project is as follows:

Recommended Funding Structure

($ Millions)

19981999200020012002Total

Funding - Capital Budget1.44.43.93.71.815.2

Funding from Reserve**1.4*1.82.53.03.612.3

Total2.86.26.46.75.427.5

*Direct contribution from the 1998 operating budget.

**See next page for details

The impact of the recommended funding on the debenturing levels included in the TTC 1999-2003 capital program request is as follows:

($Millions)

1999200020012002

Requested Funding from Debentures1.71.00.70.0

Recommended Funding from Debentures4.43.93.71.8

Increase2.72.93.01.8

It should be emphasized, however, that the alternative option to the increased debenturing requirements would be the funding of the project from the operating budget, with a direct impact on the tax levy. A possible alternative to this higher capital cost would the purchasing of lift-equipped, instead of low floor, vehicles (the proposed total cost for lift-equipped vehicles at the Request for Proposal was $16.6 million vis-a-vis $27.5 million for the low floor buses). The Toronto Transit Commission does not recommend this alternative on the basis that the service provided is not comparable.

Reserve

Funding vehicle purchases from a reserve is a normal business practice for many municipalities. Vehicle purchases tend to be 'big ticket' items which are purchased on an irregular schedule. The advantage of using a reserve mechanism to fund purchases of this type are:

1. Annual contributions to a reserve provide budget stabilization by moderating large fluctuations in the replacement expenditure;
2. Reserves provide an alternate funding source from the operating budget; and
3. Reserves provide for better financial and vehicle management by contributing to the replacement of vehicles in a timely and economically advantageous fashion.

In either of the suggested replacement options of the Wheel Trans vehicles, the outflow of funds for the purchase of vehicles will fluctuate from zero to several million dollars. To include these sums in the operating budget as needed would cause dramatic swings in the operating budget from year to year. A reserve fund mechanism would mitigate this fluctuation. In addition the reserve fund would allow for the capture of the projected operating savings resulting from the purchase of the new vehicles, as well as the provision for vehicle replacement already included in the approved 1998 Operating Budget of the TTC. It is therefore recommended that a Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund be established and funded as follows:

($ Millions)

19981999200020012002Total

1998 Budget Provision1.41.41.41.41.41.4

Operating Savings0.00.41.11.62.22.2

Total Contribution to

Reserve Fund1.41.82.53.03.63.6

Conclusion:

The funding structure submitted by the TTC for 1999 onwards is based on operating budget contributions from the operating budget significantly higher than the projected savings, even if the $1.4 million provision anticipated in the 1998 budget is added. To avoid committing operating budget increases in advance, it is recommended that the contributions from the Wheel Trans operating budget to this project be limited to the provision for vehicle replacement of $1.4 million as included in the approved 1998 operating budget for the TTC, with the addition of the projected operating savings resulting from the project, through contributions from a reserve to be established as per the recommendations in this report.

The Chief General Manager of the TTC concurs with the recommendations of this report.

Contact Names:

Andres Hachard (416) 392-5377

W.A. Liczyk

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

October 6, 1998

To:Budget Committee

From:City Clerk

Subject:Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement

Recommendations:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on October 5, 1998, recommended:

(A)the adoption of:

(1)additional project approval and financing of $10.1 million for City Project No.415, "127 Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacements (Orion II)"; noting that such additional project approval and financing is required no later than October30, 1998, at which time the bids expire; and

(2)an increase of $800,000.00 in the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget, subject to successful negotiations between the Toronto Transit Commission and Overland Custom Coach Inc. regarding the delivery of 14 ELF low floor buses in 1998; and

(B)that the communication (October 5, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following communications:

(i)(September24, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission on September 23, 1998, approved the Recommendations contained in Report No. (6), entitled "Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement"; and

(ii)(October 5, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), regarding the purchase of Wheel-Trans buses; advising that an evaluation of the continuous delivery option of ELF buses, combined with an accelerated retirement of the Orion II vehicles, would result in net overall savings of approximately $2.0 million; that, however, the continuous delivery option would require an increase to the 1999 and 2000 Operating Budgets which is significantly higher than the staggered delivery option; and stating that while City Council needs to consider the overall impact to the City of bringing forward the purchase, either approach is acceptable to the TTC.

City Clerk

N. Rickford/lv

Attachment

Item No. 3

h:\1998prod\ud\reports.98\report12\981003.tra

Copy to:General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission

Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission

Ms. Wanda Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Mr. Shekhar Prasad, Director, Budget Services Division, Finance Department

Mr. John Di Lallo, Finance Division

Mr. Andres Hachard, Finance Division

September 24, 1998

Ms. Novina Wong

Clerk

City of Toronto

Station 1071, 7th Floor

Metro Hall

55 John Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5V 3C6

Dear Ms. Wong:

At its meeting on Wednesday, September 23, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement."

The Commission approved the Recommendation contained in the above report, as listed below:

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

1/a $10.1M increase in the current project approval amount of $17.4M for the Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement project, bringing the total to $27.5M; and

2/an increase in the 1998 Operating Budget allocation for purchasing these buses from $2,000,000 to $2,800,000 due to bus price increases, noting that should it not be possible to award this contract and make initial payments in 1998, arrangements should be made to place these funds into contingency for use in 1999; and

3/the award of a contract to Overland Custom Coach Inc. for the supply of 127 accessible low floor (ELF) buses in the amount of $27,030,966 (including taxes), subject to City Council approval; and

4/the provision of associated spare parts, test equipment, vehicle maintenance training, vehicle inspection services and in-house support in the amount of $469,034 (net of GST rebate); and

5/forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council for approval of:

a)additional project approval and financing of $10.1M by no later than October 30, 1998 at which time the bids expire;

-2-

b)and an increase of $800,000 in the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget subject to successful negotiations with Overland Custom Coach Inc. regarding the delivery of 14 ELF low floor buses in 1998.

6/forwarding this report to the TTC's Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation for information."

The foregoing is forwarded to City of Toronto Council for the necessary action, as detailed in Recommendation No. 5 of the report, as well as, the TTC's Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation for information.

Sincerely,

Vincent Rodo

General Secretary

1-64

Attachment

Copy:Mr. W. Brown, Chair - TTC's Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSIONREPORT NO. 6

MEETING DATE:September 23, 1998

SUBJECT:WHEEL-TRANS VEHICLE REPLACEMENT

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Commission approve:

1/a $10.1M increase in the current project approval amount of $17.4M for the Wheel-Trans Vehicle Replacement project, bringing the total to $27.5M; and

2/an increase in the 1998 Operating Budget allocation for purchasing these buses from $2,000,000 to $2,800,000 due to bus price increases, noting that should it not be possible to award this contract and make initial payments in 1998, arrangements should be made to place these funds into contingency for use in 1999; and

3/the award of a contract to Overland Custom Coach Inc. for the supply of 127 accessible low floor (ELF) buses in the amount of $27,030,966 (including taxes), subject to City Council approval; and

4/the provision of associated spare parts, test equipment, vehicle maintenance training, vehicle inspection services and in-house support in the amount of $469,034 (net of GST rebate); and

5/forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council for approval of:

a)additional project approval and financing of $10.1M by no later than October 30, 1998 at which time the bids expire;

b)and an increase of $800,000 in the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget subject to successful negotiation with Overland Custom Coach Inc. regarding the delivery of 14 ELF low floor buses in 1998.

6/forwarding this report to the TTC's Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation for information.

FUNDING

The 1998-2002 Wheel-Trans Service Plan assumed flatlined funding of $38.2M per year in order to meet projected trip demand and to partially fund the procurement of new accessible buses to replace the Orion II fleet.

It was estimated that a total of $17.4M would be required over the five year period to replace the fleet with $14.0M to be provided from the Wheel-Trans Operating Budget and the balance of $3.4M to be provided from the Commission's 1998-2002 Capital Program. The funding details of the 1998-2002 plan are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

1998-2002 Wheel-Trans Service Plan

($ Millions)

Based on a tender call, we now know that the cost to replace the Orion II Fleet with low floor buses has significantly increased from $17.4M to $27.5M resulting in a requirement for an additional $10.1M in operating funds.

Table 2

Vehicle Replacement Costs

($ Millions)

*Includes Capital Funds of $3.4M ($1.7M in 1999, $1.0M in 2000 and $0.7M in 2001)

BACKGROUND

In 1997, the Task Force on Accessible Transit presented a Five Year Service Plan that was adopted by Metro Toronto and the Commission. That Plan identified the need to replace the aging fleet of Orion buses as they were approaching the end of their design life, are expensive to maintain, and increasingly unreliable. The Task Force concluded it would not be cost effective to refurbish the old Orion buses.

As per the Task Force's recommendation, a test of new low floor and lift-equipped buses was completed earlier this year. One low floor and two lift-equipped specialized buses were tested in service to consider factors such as vehicle reliability, maintenance and fuel costs, ride comfort, passenger safety, and scheduling constraints as well as the accommodation of various mobility devices. Wheel-Trans customers assisted Commission staff in the evaluation of the test buses. These vehicles were also viewed at a Wheel-Trans Open Forum and examined by the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation (ACAT). Members of ACAT assisted in the evaluation of each vehicle type.

From an Operator, scheduling, and maintenance perspective, both vehicle types were considered acceptable. However, Wheel-Trans customers and members of ACAT preferred the low floor design because of the superior ride quality, safety, security, and ease of entry and exit. Some customers were so concerned about their safety and comfort on lift-equipped buses that they requested trips only on low floor buses. This latter issue could be alleviated through increased customer familiarity with lift-equipped vehicles and additional Operator assistance in the shorter term.

Other concerns raised about the lift-equipped buses included scheduling constraints due to relocating wheelchairs and scooters when the bus was filled to capacity, as well as longer loading and unloading times. In addition, some customers were concerned about lift devices being able to accommodate large motorized scooters. While these concerns did not manifest themselves as significant delays to service, the test would suggest that lift-equipped buses are less adaptable and flexible with regard to quickly and efficiently handling large mobility devices and serving peak demand during core service hours.

DISCUSSION

As a result of this test, both types of vehicles are considered acceptable for Wheel-Trans service. In addition, the test identified areas to be addressed in the current accessible vehicle specifications such as safety systems for ramps and lifts, improved ride quality, better interior layout and access to doors, improved seating, better lighting and visibility, an alternate emergency exit on lift-equipped buses and upgraded major mechanical components to improve vehicle reliability and achieve cost efficiencies.

On June 30, 1998, a Request for Proposals to supply 127 specialized accessible lift-equipped and low floor vehicles over a five year period was publicly advertised in the Globe and Mail and 14 companies were issued notifications. Optional prices were requested for the delivery of 50 additional buses, a best continuous vehicle delivery, and a $2.0M prepayment in late 1998.

A total of eight companies picked up the Request for Proposals and four proposals were received for the supply of lift-equipped buses and two proposals offered for the supply of low floor buses. Appendix 'A' summarizes the proposals for the supply of 127 buses of each type and the optional prices for the delivery of an additional 50 buses.

Based on a preliminary analysis to establish the cost benefit of proceeding with the aforementioned pricing options, staff concluded that insufficient benefit existed to pursue the prepayment option as proposed. Discussions are continuing with the manufacturer to secure a more advantageous discount in return for an advance payment. Staff are continuing to evaluate the continuous delivery option both from a cost benefit and operational perspective. If this option is determined to be more beneficial then staff will report to the Commission at the next meeting.

Lift-Equipped Buses

Overland Custom Coach Inc. (Overland) submitted the lowest priced proposal for a lift-equipped bus (El Dorado National Aertech Model 240). However, they stated several exceptions such as a reduced vehicle design life, limited warranty, limited access to wheelchair positions, and overall vehicle height. Therefore Overland's proposal is considered both commercially and technically non-compliant.

The second lowest price proposal was offered by Capital Bus Sales (Capital) for their Corbeil bus. However, Capital stated several exceptions including a limited warranty, limited random wheelchair access, and an inability to meet all the Provincial/Federal regulatory requirements at this time. Therefore Capital's proposal is considered both commercially and technically non-compliant.

Leeds Bus Sales Limited (Leeds) offered the only commercially and technically acceptable proposal for the supply of lift-equipped buses. The Girardin MB IV bus was offered. Their submission was qualified in that the Girardin MB IV has a five year service life. However, they met the specified seven year structural warranty (including chassis) and as a result this qualification is considered technically and commercially acceptable.

Low Floor Buses

Overland Custom Coach (Overland) submitted the lowest price proposal for their ELF low floor bus. The only notable exception was a service life of five years or 200K miles. However, Overland did comply with the specified seven year structural warranty and offered an extended warranty exceeding the specified requirements of the overall bus, engine and transmission. Therefore Overland's proposal is considered both commercially and technically acceptable.

Orion Bus Industries (Orion) submitted an alternative proposal to lease 127 Orion II low floor buses over a seven year term at $3,703 per month or a nine year term of $3,139 per month. Based on a net present value analysis, the cost to lease these buses from Orion is higher than the purchase cost for the ELF buses. Also, Orion did not comply with various warranty provisions and therefore their proposal is considered commercially non-compliant.

Wheel-Trans has gained considerable experience with an earlier model low floor ELF bus which has been in revenue service since 1993. This test of the new low floor (ELF) bus in 1998 confirmed earlier assessments that this vehicle has the overall design and capacity necessary to meet the growing demand for Wheel-Trans service. In fact, the Task Force on Accessible Transit had used the previous model low floor ELF bus as a benchmark vehicle in their analysis as it was recognized as having the advantage of lower maintenance cost than the Orions and the capacity to meet Wheel-Trans demand.

Over the Five Year Vehicle Replacement period, the 127 low floor ELF buses plus associated spare parts, test equipment, vehicle maintenance training, vehicle inspection services and in-house support will cost approximately $27.5M. These low floor buses are more expensive than the lift-equipped buses ($16.6M) and rebuilt Orion buses ($26.0M). With regard to the rebuilt Orions, the significant ongoing operating cost advantage of the low floor (ELF) buses negates the additional capital costs as compared to rebuilt Orion buses.

Based upon testing both lift-equipped and low floor buses, staff consider both vehicles appropriate for Wheel-Trans service. However, customers have indicated a distinct preference for low floor technology, in particular they appreciate the ease of entry and exit from the bus as well as the ride quality. This preference for low floor technology, combined with the increased flexibility of low floor buses in meeting the additional demand during peak service periods, prompted staff to not pursue the purchase of lift-equipped vehicles even though the procurement of these vehicles would have allowed us to remain within the original vehicle replacement budget ($17.4M). Appendix 'B' outlines the total project funding required for each of the Orion vehicle replacement options considered; namely rebuilt Orions, the Girardin MB IV lift-equipped bus, and the low floor (ELF) bus as compared to the Operating and Capital funding provided for in the Five Year Plan.

Due to the increased cost of low floor (ELF) over what was projected last year, the $2.0M provided for in the 1998 Operating Budget for purchasing 14 replacement buses must be increased to $2.8M. Neither the Overland or Leeds proposals provided for delivery of buses in 1998. If Overland is unable to deliver buses this year, staff recommends approval to carry over these operating budget funds for the purchase of the 14 buses in 1999.

JUSTIFICATION

Approval to purchase 127 ELF low floor buses from Overland will allow for the scheduled replacement of Orion buses over the five year period 1998-2002 resulting in decreased maintenance costs and increased vehicle reliability. The replacement program will allow the Commission to provide a quantity and quality of service required and expected by our customers. Continuing without the vehicle replacement program will result in further maintenance cost increases as well as continuing deterioration of vehicle performance and customer dissatisfaction.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

September 18, 1998

Appendices A, B

APPENDIX 'A'

* Open for acceptance for the duration of the contract

APPENDIX 'B'

FIVE YEAR BUS PURCHASE OPTIONS

TABLE 1: FIVE YEAR BUS PURCHASE PLAN

(1998-2002 CAPITAL PROGRAM)

*Actual deliveries to be 30 in 2001 and 23 in 2002.

TABLE 2: IMPACT OF REBUILDING ORION BUSES

TABLE 3: IMPACT OF LEEDS LIFT-EQUIPPED BUSES

TABLE 4: IMPACT OF OVERLAND LOW FLOOR BUSES

Project funding to replace the Orion buses with 127 low floor (ELF) buses is $27.5M ($24.1M from Operating and $3.4M from Capital).