Seattle Going Green with GM Hybrid-Powered Buses

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post In my previous article, some commenters questioned the viability of hybrid-drive. Some implied it is unproven or without precedent in a transit environment. As if on queue, today this little gem flashed across my news feed: Seattle, Washington [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Seattle's municipal area, King County, was awarded a contract for the purchase of up to 500 articulated buses, most of which will be powered by General Motors' 2-mode hybrid system. The five-year contract, which could be worth $400 million, is between King County and bus-manufacturer New Flyer Industries. General Motors supplies New Flyer with the hybrid system for the buses. King County has been operating a fleet of 214 GM hybrid-powered buses since 2004 and, with the addition of this contract, King County could have a total of 714 buses. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) one-year comparative study of King County's hybrid buses endorses GM's 2-mode hybrid propulsion system. The full study can be found here but be warned. It's lengthy, technical and there aren't any pretty pictures. Better to wait for a night you're having trouble getting to sleep before tackling it. The really interesting thing to me is the involvement of the NREL. You know what that means? Grants! As a city we already get grants for our Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles that the Water Department runs. It's not inconceivable that we could get a little grant money to offset the cost of our ULRVs because we're using "green" technology.

What will run on the rails? Part IV

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Only routes in very dense cities with limited parking can justify the high capital cost and passenger capacity of traditional LRT. Kansas City does not meet either of those requirements. Our population is not dense, and there is ample parking in our urban core. Whenever the conversation about light rail comes up, the most talked about issue is cost. The cost per mile of fifty, sixty, even seventy million dollars is a difficult project to undertake for even the wealthiest of communities. I made my analysis with several constraints. That's what we geeky engineer-types do. We design within constraints. My self-imposed constraints were cost, route, aesthetics, minimal infrastructure and low environmental impact. Of course these constraints led me to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) but I also chose to honor what I feel was the intent of the voters when they passed our current plan. The voters wanted rail. Fair enough. So I added rail to my constraints. For aesthetics, it is purely my opinion that overhead catenaries are not desirable, so that eliminated traditional LRT like Denver and Minneapolis. Surface transit cannot have a third rail providing power unless it's in a dedicated transitway unaccessible to pedestrians. Not my idea of an attractive urban transit system so that leaves that out. The fabled "new ground level power supply system" from the ballot proposition? Not practical or affordable. With no wires and no third rail, that left me self-propelled options. Part I and Part III are both self-propelled. The Colorado DMU is not practical. The diesel-powered light rail has potential but it's not very environmentally friendly. That left me with today's proposal. Ultra Light Rail (ULR). The first ULR system to run that I could find began at Bristol in the late nineties. The 35 passenger tram used a flywheel from a 70 volt DC supply picked up from a short stretch of third rail situated at two stops. The extremely popular service ran for two years and carried some 50,000 fare-paying passengers. That technology has morphed into a hybrid-drive system using off the shelf components borrowed from the automotive industry such as high efficiency diesel or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) engines and sophisticated battery banks. Advantages: - Low emission hybrid drive. Zero emission if plug-in EV technology is utilized - Lighter weight, low cost vehicles. The picture to the left is a ULR running on a wooden ocean pier - Rails can be laid over existing streets and there is no need for ground-level conductors or overhead catenaries. - Capacity up to 50 passengers per car - Single or dual car configuration available - Potential for onboard auxiliaries to be powered by roof mounted solar panels - Potential system cost less than 10% of conventional LRT - Easily retrofitted when new technologies appear Disadvantages: - New technology. First adopters assume significant risk of unforeseen problems - Very few commercial installations up and running. Southport ULR in the UK is the longest running but it is an all-electric plug-in EV - European companies are only just now beginning to develop manufacturing relationships in the United States - Smaller than LRT. Typical ULRVs carry around 70-100 passengers at one time meaning more vehicles will have to run more frequently during periods of high demand Conclusion: Kansas City has an opportunity to step forward and lead the way for 21st Century transit. Sometimes the most expensive option is not the best. In this case I believe ULR to be not only the lowest cost option, but the best option. Modern, low impact, scalable to ridership demands and completely customizable for our needs. I know it is a Kansas City tradition to enumerate all the reasons "we can't" instead of asking "why not?" So let the "why we can't" group begin here in the Comments section. For the rest of us, let's look forward to the 21st Century instead of re-living the 19th.

What will run on the rails? Part III

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post A growing trend in North America is the use of self-propelled light railway cars. Similar in size and scale to electric light rail vehicles (LRVs), these trains are powered by internal combustion engines rather than external electric power lines. New Jersey Transit's RiverLine light railway, connecting Camden and Trenton, was the first such venture in the United States. San Diego's North County Transit District has a 22-mile route (called the Sprinter) under construction, and Austin, Texas has launched its own 32-mile light railway project (called Capital MetroRail). Harrisburg (Pa) is planning a similar fuel-powered light railway; others are under consideration in Madison (Wi) and Spokane. Advantages: - Self-propelled. No need for catenaries or ground-level power supplies. The overall cost of such a system would be less than half of a traditional light rail configuration. - Low-floor, articulated diesel multiple unit (DMU) light rail cars look and function like traditional LRVs. They are modern, ADA compliant and the Austin vehicles will even feature free Wi-Fi. - Proven technology. Diesel engines are similar to those which power a standard bus. - Combines dedicated LRT median running and streetcar-like operation in mixed traffic. - Platform could be easily modified to a diesel-electric hybrid configuration. As new technology becomes available (hydrogen fuel cells, super capacitors) these vehicles could be retrofitted to accommodate them. - Several manufacturers and communities have experience with this type of vehicle. Disadvantages: - Not really intended for full-time duty as a streetcar. More of a short distance commuter rail vehicle. - Current diesel engine configurations are slightly louder than a bus (I've seen and heard one in London's Paddington Station). - Still heavy enough to require significant track infrastructure for weight bearing issues. - It's essentially a scaled-down commuter train which may meet with resistance from the public. Conclusion: If a configuration of a very small compressed natural gas (CNG) engine and lithium ion battery banks could be installed, this could be the most viable option for Kansas City. A plug-in hybrid configuration in this type of vehicle would provide the necessary elements of minimal noise and pollution as well as ease of maintenance. I feel using a self-propelled configuration is necessary to allow Kansas City to move forward on laying track without the constraints of "new ground-level power supply technology" or overhead catenaries. The technology exists, it just hasn't been requested of the manufacturers yet. Tommorow's option is my final(?) installment. I'll also be introducing a new term to Kansas City's discussion of LRT, LRV, BRT etc.

What Will Run On The Rails? Part II

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post The picture to the right is what most people envision when we talk about light rail. This particular LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) is the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis. Manufactured by Canadian company Bombardier these vehicles depend on overhead wires known as catenaries to provide current for the onboard electric motors. This configuration is the preferred method of surface inter-urban rail transit in North America. The last few systems built have shared this configuration. Minneapolis, Denver and Phoenix are just a few of the latest cities to join the light rail club. Is Kansas City on its way to joining the LRT fraternity? Here I'll weigh some advantages and disadvantages of a traditional LRV. Advantages: - Clean, relatively quiet and zero-emissions - Foreign manufacturers like Bombardier (Canada) and Siemens (Germany) maintain assembly plants in the United States so LRVs can qualify for federal funded programs that require using domestic manufacturers - Proven technology. Catenary electric systems have been around for over 100 years - Attractive. Do not underestimate the "gee whiz" factor. Experienced transit planners admit that in order to lure riders an LRV must evoke emotional responses of "I need to get on that thing. It looks cool!" - It's familiar. Voters and bureaucrats typically shy away from new technology. This vehicle has gained wide acceptance and will not meet with resistance from the community. Disadvantages: - It may be called 'light' rail but it's actually very heavy. Considerable infrastructure must be installed under the streets to disperse the weight. Additional reinforcement of the proposed crossing on the Heart of America Bridge may also be required. - The overhead catenaries are unsightly, create right-of-way issues and can present a safety hazard albeit a minimal one. - It's expensive. Of all the options, the LRVs are the most expensive vehicles. Coupled with the infrastructure required including the reinforced roadbed and overhead electrical system, this configuration is cost prohibitive for Kansas City without significant federal assistance. - It's implementation will take the longest. Spokespeople for the FTA say the average time that elapses from study to laying track is four to twelve years. And that's only if funding is available and no unforeseen issues arise. - It's 19th Century technology. It may look cool, but the concept of high voltage and large amperage delivered via steel cables is not exactly cutting edge. Conclusion: The traditional LRV does not lend itself to the constraints of implementing a light rail system in Kansas City. In my opinion the variables of funding, infrastructure issues and the return of catenaries is not desirable. There are other options. Tomorrow, Part III.

What Will Run On The Rails? Part I

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post One of the may concepts that is being knocked around for transit in Kansas City is the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) railcar. Manufactured by Colorado Railcar, it is a self-propelled commuter railcar with the capacity to pull two full-sized commuter rail coaches. Basically it's a locomotive with seating. When Kansas City's Southern's Warren Erdman made his presentation to the City Council's Transit and Infrastructure Committee he put forth the potential of "one seat from Blue Springs to Olathe." This is the vehicle some people feel is the answer. This vehicle could travel on existing freight rails from Blue Springs, arriving in the either the Rivermarket or directly into Union Station. Then west and southwest along I-35 into Olathe. As I've mentioned before, any route directly into Union Station from the east is probably not feasible because of freight traffic. This vehicle is more for commuter rail than inter-urban transit, although I present it as an option because there are some who feel the DMU could run through through the streets of the urban core during morning and afternoon rush hours. Advantages: - Full FRA Compliance - This means the DMU meets Federal Railroad Administration guidelines for crash standards allowing it to run on the same tracks as freight trains. - It's available now and manufactured in the United States which is a requirement of most federal funded programs - It is self-propelled so it needs no overhead catenaries or electrified third-rail. - It is scalable so you can either run one unit or pull up to two more passenger cars as demand warrants. Disadvantages: - It's huge! It's not even light rail. Its FRA compliance means it's heavy rail. - It's loud. The manufacturer claims it is "neighborhood friendly" but this thing was never intended to run on city streets. It's a locomotive, not a trolley. - It's the least fuel efficient of all the rail-based options. Conclusion: I feel the DMU is not a viable option for anything other than commuter rail. I cannot conceive this vehicle running through the streets of KC. But then again, I've seen a lot of things happen that I couldn't fathom.