Battery-electric bus discussion

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, I think you and Reg should feel free to provide all the technical, cost, environmental, scenic, archaeological, cultural, etc. impact data to the NPS, which will save the Federal government oodles of cash through avoiding an unneeded study. After all, what do the people at NREL know that a few of us amateurs (well, I used to get paid for this kind of thing, albeit at a much smaller level) don't?

Well, I think we could all do an admirable job at estimating "back of the napkin" costs. Clearly, these guys do not much besides "study", which I'm not a big fan of. Dragging up estimates from DECADES ago seems disingenious, but I did work for the US government... I do know how "the study" is the job, and serving the people is low on the list.

1) Get the best data
2) Make a decision
3) Fund the decision
4) Execute the plan

[baustin]

I think it's a very interesting concept. It allows cars to pass under the bus, instead of having to wait behind it at stops. It allows for public transit, but keeps the traffic moving with little hindrance.

Yes, the question is does that make it necessary and less expensive compared to just designating a bus-only lane? After all, you've got to lay down and maintain all those miles of rails (and I still don't see exactly how cars are supposed to cross them, as they appear to be raised), and build very high, expensive raised boarding platforms. Is this really cheaper or faster than just building light or heavy rail with a dedicated, separated right of way, or BRT routes?

The main advantage I can see is in cities that already have high density and can't afford to spend the time building up or tunneling under, but it just seems like the easier and cheaper answer is to prohibit people from commuting singly in their cars, by banning such commuting in certain city areas with limited space for them (and their parking). Some cities already ban cars entirely in certain areas, so allowing only multi-occupant vehicles to enter some areas seems like an obvious next step, if somewhat harder to enforce. Autonomous car-sharing strikes me as likely to arrive about the time this does, and be a lot cheaper and more flexible.

Did you watch the video? Based on the video and the pictures, it is designed to share the road with cars. It is intended for use in high density areas where traffic flow is already restricted, and road space is at a premium.

[GRA]

Tony, I think you and Reg should feel free to provide all the technical, cost, environmental, scenic, archaeological, cultural, etc. impact data to the NPS, which will save the Federal government oodles of cash through avoiding an unneeded study. After all, what do the people at NREL know that a few of us amateurs (well, I used to get paid for this kind of thing, albeit at a much smaller level) don't?

Well, I think we could all do an admirable job at estimating "back of the napkin" costs. Clearly, these guys do not much besides "study", which I'm not a big fan of. Dragging up estimates from DECADES ago seems disingenious, but I did work for the US government... I do know how "the study" is the job, and serving the people is low on the list.

1) Get the best data
2) Make a decision
3) Fund the decision
4) Execute the plan

In this case, 'serving the people' tends to be the major delay factor, as the public gets to weigh in, and in the case of a well-loved park like Yosemite with a major metropolitan area nearby, the public comments and reaction to any changes tend to be vociferous. For instance, one of the recommended changes in the Valley Implementation Plan in the late '90s was to move some employee housing across Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge, to get it out of the flood plain (the Jan. 1997 flood caused a lot of plans to be heavily revised). However, they were talking about removing a large glacial erratic boulder next to Camp 4 (the climber's camp) that generations of climbers have practiced on. To say that the climbing community had a strong negative reaction to this idea is putting things mildly. In fact, this was the last major legal fight David Brower got involved in before his death. The boulder's still there, and I don't know where they've moved the employees.

So, everything moves slowly and incrementally because so many people care about the place and have very strong feelings about it. Everyone has their say, lawsuits get filed or not, and the Park Service has to listen. For anyone who's interested, they're getting ready for the public comment period on a couple of major aspects of the Wilderness Stewardship Plan (I'm on the mailing list for all the Yosemite Management Plan stuff), which will include suggested changes and options for backcountry visitor and stock use, and the link below has dates, times and locations of webinars and public meetings for discussion and public comment:

Wilderness Stewardship Plan Public Involvement Opportunity

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ebb7f9734a

Here's the main link, which includes the documents describing the proposed changes as well as the options: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHom ... ctId=47112

[GRA]

Did you watch the video? Based on the video and the pictures, it is designed to share the road with cars. It is intended for use in high density areas where traffic flow is already restricted, and road space is at a premium.

Yes, I watched the video, and it's the video that raised questions for me.

[GRA]

Others are questioning the practicality of the Transit Elevated Bus (TEB). Via GCR:

Is the elevated Chinese bus really practical? Could it work?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... ld-it-work

. . . Tebtech, the company that designed and built the TEB-1, says governments in Brazil, France, and Indonesia have expressed interest in the massive vehicle.

But can such a bizarre vehicle actually be practical in the real world?

That's what the Chinese press is already asking, according to a summary of comments published by Agence France-Presse. Following the first test last Tuesday, a flurry of articles questioning the project's feasibility were reported published in China—including some from government-controlled media outlets. . . .

It may allow cars to pass underneath, but the bus will still block intersections, the reports note.

The vehicle is also likely too tall to pass under the many pedestrian bridges that cross Chinese city streets—or to pass through tunnels.

The fact that only regular sedans and hatchbacks are seemingly able to pass under the bus also limits its utility somewhat. . . .

[GRA]

Not BEV buses and I don't know their full reasoning, but I can guess. Via GCC:

Saskatchewan school division switches entire bus fleet to propane; nearly quadrupling propane-fueled buses in province

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/08 ... egina.html

. . . RCSD partnered with LP3 Transportation Solutions to add 89 Blue Bird Vision Propane buses from Legacy Bus Sales in Saskatoon. . . .

The Blue Bird Vision Propane buses emit 80% fewer smog-producing hydrocarbons and virtually eliminate particulate matter when compared with diesel. Along with environmental benefits, the new Blue Bird buses were chosen for their ability to start in cold weather, retain heat in the cabin more effectively, and operate more quietly. Buses fueled by propane reduce engine noise levels by 11 decibels, or about 50%, compared with diesel-fueled buses.

According to the Canadian Propane Association, propane costs about 37 percent less than gasoline per gallon, and propane infrastructure cost is significantly less than natural gas.

This would appear to be a case where cold and/or range issues eliminated BEV buses from consideration, and maybe they couldn't get a grant either. FCEVs would probably have worked depending on whether they could meet the cold-start requirement, but would be far more expensive.

[GRA]

I wonder why they went this way rather than some type of EV bus. Maybe short headways/no pauses, cold/winds, and/or lack of electric infrastructure for charging. I've never been (it's on the list), so am not familiar with the road or service requirements. Via GCC:

Denali National Park to use Lightning Hybrids hydraulic hybrid buses to transport park visitors

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/08 ... tning.html

. . . The shuttle buses, one a Chevrolet model (top above) and the other Freightliner (bottom above), will transport park visitors along the 14-mile paved section of the scenic 92-mile long Denali Park Road at the entrance to the park. . . .

The National Park Service has a long-standing commitment to using advanced clean technology in their fleet vehicles. Our hydraulic hybrid systems work well in harsh environments, and will help the park service to reduce emissions and save fuel.

—David Brosky, vice president for sales of Lightning Hybrids

The system from Lightning Hybrids is a patented, parallel hydraulic hybrid system that has no electric batteries. Instead, it applies a hydraulic system to the driveline of a vehicle to regenerate braking energy. Hydraulic pumps and a lightweight accumulator brake the vehicle, store the braking energy, and then use that stored energy to provide power to the wheels. In doing so fuel is saved and harmful emissions are cut.

The buses were sold by Colonial Equipment Company on the GSA schedule. . . .

[RegGuheert]

I wonder why they went this way rather than some type of EV bus.

I wonder why you have posted an article about a hybrid bus which does not contain a traction battery in a thread entitled "Battery-electric bus discussion".

[GRA]

I wonder why they went this way rather than some type of EV bus.

I wonder why you have posted an article about a hybrid bus which does not contain a traction battery in a thread entitled "Battery-electric bus discussion".

Because this would seem to be a potentially good use for a BEV bus, and I was wondering why they chose to go another way, so thought I'd post it and see if anyone had more info. The reasons why BEV buses aren't chosen when it seems they might be suitable are of interest to me, just as the reasons why BEV buses ARE chosen are of interest. I want to see the factors driving the decision, and when/how much they move as the tech improves.

[TonyWilliams]

I wonder why they went this way rather than some type of EV bus.

I wonder why you have posted an article about a hybrid bus which does not contain a traction battery in a thread entitled "Battery-electric bus discussion".

Because this would seem to be a potentially good use for a BEV bus, and I was wondering why they chose to go another way, so thought I'd post it and see if anyone had more info. The reasons why BEV buses aren't chosen when it seems they might be suitable are of interest to me, just as the reasons why BEV buses ARE chosen are of interest. I want to see the factors driving the decision, and when/how much they move as the tech improves.

I suspect that issue has probably more to do with government grants or university studies etc. then bona fide best choices.