Streetcar skeptic to believer (Cleveland, Cincinnati: real estate, apartment complex, calculating)

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

WTH are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Ever think about how buses and all cars (with the exception of hybrids and some very new cars) have to idle? Aren't they wasting a ton of energy running their engines without going anywhere?

The streetcars and other electric vehicles don't waste energy idling.

[Wilson513]

Energy is used doing work. Work is defined in foot pounds. Lifting 250,000 pound train the one hundred foot rise from one end to the other is a task requiring 25,000,000 foot pounds of work before any calculation is made for waste from idling or friction at all.

That is the problem. No other way to slice it.

[jmecklenborg]

The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rail is much lower than tires on pavement. A streetcar can coast much more than can a bus, and when it's coasting, there is no power applied at all, since electric motors don't idle. If you ever rode the streetcar instead of just complaining about it, you could look at the driver's controls and see how power is being drawn relative to the speed of the vehicle. It's pretty interesting, since there is not a direct correlation.

In the case of intercity passenger trains, they have the distinct aerodynamic advantage of slip streaming that cars and trucks cannot achieve. Anyone who bicycles knows that you use 20-30% less power to travel the same speed while riding in a pack. A train of any length is essentially a pack and so all of the cars behind the engine enjoy riding in the head unit's wake.

But all of the streetcar haters would oppose a large light rail network or passenger service to any of Cincinnati's neighbors. According to them, a small system is wrong because it's too small. But the larger system they suggest is instead is too big.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Electricity use by a steel-wheeled streetcar running on rails is minimal. A rubber-tired diesel city bus can't compete in energy efficiency. The price of electricity isn't as susceptible to spikes.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The streetcar has regenerative braking, just like nearly all electric rail systems for the past 100 years.

The articulated buses used on the Cleveland bus rapids are hybrid electric vehicles with regenerative braking power; they currently use clean diesel for the combustible fuel, but future buses may be powered by other alternative fuels. It would be interesting to measure fuel and labor costs each per passenger mile for various bus rapids and street car lines. The capital costs seem much less for bus rapid systems.

http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_hybrid_bus_032007.pdf

Cleveland, New Flyer unveil prototype for BRT corridor - Management & Operations - Metro Magazine

RTA's HealthLine -- the world-class standard for BRT service | Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

How RTA uses alternative fuels | Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Future bus rapid vehicles may be powered by hydrogen, already in the Cleveland RTA fuel mix, according to the above articles.

https://newflyer.com/rss/802-zero-em...-by-48-in-2016

Do Cincinnati's street cars offer interior bike racks, as do the Cleveland bus rapid articulated buses, or do bike riders stand with their bikes? Accommodating bikes certainly is a requirement of a green mass transit option.

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/faqs/

Hydrogen-powered vehicles truly will be zero emission to the extent that the hydrogen is produced using wind, solar or even nuclear generated electricity.

Please provide some substantiation for your undocumented claim that street cars are more energy efficient, especially per passenger mile, than modern articulated buses.

Consider that the Cincinnati Connector cars weigh 40 tons empty and have only 38 seats.

<<Each streetcar weighs 40 tons empty and can carry 38 seated and 116 standing, for a total of 154 passengers.>>

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/faqs/

60-foot articulated, hybrid buses weigh 21 tons and have over 60 seats.

https://www.newflyer.com/23-buses/10...specifications

Much of the weight differential likely is due to steel wheels and heavier suspensions.

Having a seat as opposed to standing is a massive difference in the quality of the ride experience.

[Wilson513]

The comparison is never favorable for street car lines. One would have to have a three car train packed to the gills (which might happen once per year) to even get down to equal a fleet of 200 Toyota Prius hybrids. Add the cost of professional staff driving the rigs and no warranty maintenance and the street car cost will always be a multiple of the private car.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Ever think about how buses and all cars (with the exception of hybrids and some very new cars) have to idle? Aren't they wasting a ton of energy running their engines without going anywhere?

With this statement, you've proven your general ignorance about modern bus fleets, often reliant on hybrid technology that doesn't use fuel while idling and with regenerative braking.

See post 304.

[BigMouseMama]

The street car sucks. The area is already horridly congested with traffic and CONSTANT jaywalking. Now you have to be alert to crazy drivers, idiots that walk right freaking out in front of you and a street car taking up haft the flipping road. I avoid the area like the plague and thank God I only have to go downtown for the occasional business meeting. Ugh.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Having a seat as opposed to standing is a massive difference in the quality of the ride experience.

The streetcars do not serve a long-haul line. If the line was 10 miles long, we would have ordered cars with more seats. If they extend the existing line, they could easily switch out the interior to add more seats.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

The comparison is never favorable for street car lines. One would have to have a three car train packed to the gills (which might happen once per year) to even get down to equal a fleet of 200 Toyota Prius hybrids. Add the cost of professional staff driving the rigs and no warranty maintenance and the street car cost will always be a multiple of the private car.

You're arguing that 200 people driving hybrid cars between The Banks and Findlay Market is more energy efficient than 200 people on a streetcar? Where do they park? Is that parking going to be "free"?


Getting back to the issue of rolling resistance, it appears that steel wheels on steel rails have 6-10x less rolling resistance than rubber tires on asphalt:


http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/s...s/20091118.pdf




So the rolling resistance is much more favorable for streetcars or any rail vehicle. Electric motors are much more efficient, can accelerate more quickly, and can send extra power back into the system. People can move around downtown and Over-the-Rhine without moving their cars.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Getting back to the issue of rolling resistance, it appears that steel wheels on steel rails have 6-10x less rolling resistance than rubber tires on asphalt:


http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/s...s/20091118.pdf

This article compares rolling resistance of freight railroads with freight trucks. It's not at all clear that rolling resistance for street cars and mass transit buses have a comparable impact on fuel efficiency. Why? Tire resistance may actually be beneficial in the type of start-and-stop driving that typifies local mass transit providing more efficient starts. Local transit vehicles also operate at lower speeds with more stopping and starting (a greater wheel surface results in much more efficient braking).

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Electric motors are much more efficient, can accelerate more quickly, and can send extra power back into the system.

As noted, and consistently ignored here by you, bus rapid transit routes often use hybrid vehicles employing electric propulsion.

In post 304, it was noted that Cincinnati street cars are much heavier, well over 2 times heavier per passenger seat than bus rapid vehicles. How much does this weight differential negatively impact the energy efficiency of street cars?

One of the most important factors impacting energy efficiency is load capacity utilization. Driving half empty vehicles most of the day compared to vehicles nearer full capacity has a massive impact on energy efficiency, especially with heavy street car vehicles.

The bottom line is that it is possible to calculate actual energy usage per passenger mile for any mass transit route, especially when accurate passenger mile estimates are available.. See page 4 here for the methodology.

https://jamesrivertrans.com/wp-conte...tiveEnergy.pdf

One of the best things that U.S. could do is to require such disclosures, subject to audit, for every mass transit route in the U.S. I would hope that most mass transit lines already do such calculations.

E.g., I suspect that Cleveland's bus rapid lines (especially the Healthline), have much higher energy efficiency than Cincinnati's street car for the same hours of service due to higher capacity utilization and the lower weight of the transit vehicles, regardless of any possible (but non-quantified by you) disadvantage to rolling friction.

Until mass transit energy efficiencies per passenger mile are calculated and disclosed for every transit line, arguing over energy efficiency is a mere guessing game IMO.

What bothers me about your argument is that it often has based on factual inaccuracies, such as your continued contention that buses don't use electric engines or capture the energy from braking. You have paid no attention to the important factors of vehicle weight or capacity utilization.