Samantha wrote: oltmannd wrote: I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour......... Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low...... The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?DART has had an impact on traffic density inside its service area, albeit it low. Approximately two per cent of the adults in the Metroplex ride the light rail and commuter rail systems. What I said was that DART has taken few if any cars off the roads. This is true. But in the case of the DART and the TRE riders it has taken car miles off the road and transformed them into train miles inside the rail service area. Most suburban rail riders (light rail and commuter rail) drive to a park & ride lot where they park the family buggy and board the train. The net reduction in car miles is equal to the portion of their commute from where they board the train to where they get off. DART does not know how far its light rail passengers ride. Nor does it know what type of vehicle they parked. Thus, it does not know how many vehicle miles its trains take off the road and, equally important, it does not know how much pollution is eliminated by those who ride its trains. It does not know whether its passengers are Honda Civic devotees or Ford 250 drivers. The Red Line, which runs from Plano to the Dallas CBD and on to West Moreland, which is located in southwest Oak Cliff, boards inbound passengers at the Plano terminus. They come from Allen, Plano, etc., which are affluent communities. A few come on a connecting bus, but most of them drive to the station. At the West Moreland end of the line the passenger mix is markedly different from the north boarding passengers. Although some of them drive to the West Moreland Park & Ride, many of them come on connecting buses. And a higher proportion of them don't have access to a car. They are not taking a vehicle off the road. As the train proceeds to town it picks up more park & ride passengers until its gets south of Forest Lane. From there to town a significant number of passengers are fed into the red line by connecting buses. Interestingly, in some instances they come off connecting buses that ran downtown before the light rail line went into operation. And even more interesting, at least to skeptics, their commute is longer, not shorter, because of the rerouting of the bus line and the transfer from the bus to the train. As I mentioned in a previous post, approximately 40 per cent of DART's bus riders don't have a car. The number of passengers connecting with the light rail who do not have a car is unknown. However, DART told me that approximately 20 to 23 per cent of the light rail users don't have a car, as is true for 13 to 15 per cent of the TRE passengers. These numbers need to be factored into any estimate of the number of vehicles and vehicle miles that the rail lines take off the road. DART has difficulty getting information about its riders because it does not have a positive fare collection system. Therefore, it depends on sample surveys for its information. As you can imagine, collecting rider information on a crowded train early in the morning is a challenge. In 2006 the light rail system carried a daily average of 50,904 passengers. In 2007 the average number was 49,041, a decrease of 3.7 per cent. Of course, the number is higher during the week and lower on the weekends. Although the 2008 figures are not available, I have heard that the number of riders is up between five and eight per cent from April 2007 to April 2008. These numbers can be found on the DART website. The red and blue lines began operating in 1996. Twelve years later one significant real estate development (Mockingbird Station) could be attributed to the light rail line. In addition, with a little bit of a stretch, one could say that a redo south of downtown, as well as a new apartment complex near Presbyterian Hospital, was spawned by the light rail lines. As I mentioned, most of the developments in Dallas have been in areas that are not and will not be served by light rail. No one has any hard data to support an argument that the developments next to the light rail line would not have occurred if the light rail system had not been built. In a growth area like Dallas they surely would have although not necessarily on properties close to the rail line. DART, as well as the American Public Transit Association, has commissioned studies touting the economic benefits of light rail. I agree with many of their findings. But they paid for the studies. Most auditors, at least, look askance at studies that are paid for by the client. It tends to produce a biased report. To stir the pot a bit further, DART and TXDOT added HOV lanes on two of the major highways that parallel the rail lines for much of the way. As a result, a daily average of 110,000 people uses the HOV lanes. With the exception of the HOV lane on I-30, which uses a complex movable barrier, the cost of adding the HOV lanes on I-35 and U.S. 75 was minimal. They reduced the existing lanes by six inches, for a total of 18 inches, and eliminated the center emergency stopping lane. Presto! They had an HOV lane for the cost of stripping and the placement of some flex poles to mark it. These lanes will be excellent for rapid buses if DART decides to include them in its mix. Proponents of light rail have made a convincing argument for it in many locales. In fact, I was a strong proponent of it in Dallas and spent many hours getting a referendum passed to make it happen. But I have had some second thoughts about it. Whether the results justify the cost is debatable. Anyone who argues that a rapid bus complex and route attracts real estate development in a economic growth area would have the same challenge of proving it as the proponents of light rail. They may think that it does. But believing that it does and proving it are two different things. Rail is a good choice in selected environments, but those who think it is a universal solution, as seems to be favored by many folks who participate in this forum, are probably wrong.
oltmannd wrote: I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour......... Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low...... The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?
I'd have to argue with DART not having any measurable effect on traffic - provided the more-or-less parallel freeways are currently congested at rush hour.........
Cities that grew up around freeways tend to have suburban sprawl and business-only city centers (LA, Atlanta, Dallas, Houtson)
You can't expect rail transit to be a good fit for an area that grew up around freeways. The density is too low......
The problem with express bus service, is that nobody makes development decisions around bus lines. Have you ever heard of a new, mixed use development around a bus route?
DART has had an impact on traffic density inside its service area, albeit it low. Approximately two per cent of the adults in the Metroplex ride the light rail and commuter rail systems.
What I said was that DART has taken few if any cars off the roads. This is true. But in the case of the DART and the TRE riders it has taken car miles off the road and transformed them into train miles inside the rail service area.
Most suburban rail riders (light rail and commuter rail) drive to a park & ride lot where they park the family buggy and board the train. The net reduction in car miles is equal to the portion of their commute from where they board the train to where they get off.
DART does not know how far its light rail passengers ride. Nor does it know what type of vehicle they parked. Thus, it does not know how many vehicle miles its trains take off the road and, equally important, it does not know how much pollution is eliminated by those who ride its trains. It does not know whether its passengers are Honda Civic devotees or Ford 250 drivers.
The Red Line, which runs from Plano to the Dallas CBD and on to West Moreland, which is located in southwest Oak Cliff, boards inbound passengers at the Plano terminus. They come from Allen, Plano, etc., which are affluent communities. A few come on a connecting bus, but most of them drive to the station.
At the West Moreland end of the line the passenger mix is markedly different from the north boarding passengers. Although some of them drive to the West Moreland Park & Ride, many of them come on connecting buses. And a higher proportion of them don't have access to a car. They are not taking a vehicle off the road.
As the train proceeds to town it picks up more park & ride passengers until its gets south of Forest Lane. From there to town a significant number of passengers are fed into the red line by connecting buses. Interestingly, in some instances they come off connecting buses that ran downtown before the light rail line went into operation. And even more interesting, at least to skeptics, their commute is longer, not shorter, because of the rerouting of the bus line and the transfer from the bus to the train.
As I mentioned in a previous post, approximately 40 per cent of DART's bus riders don't have a car. The number of passengers connecting with the light rail who do not have a car is unknown. However, DART told me that approximately 20 to 23 per cent of the light rail users don't have a car, as is true for 13 to 15 per cent of the TRE passengers. These numbers need to be factored into any estimate of the number of vehicles and vehicle miles that the rail lines take off the road.
DART has difficulty getting information about its riders because it does not have a positive fare collection system. Therefore, it depends on sample surveys for its information. As you can imagine, collecting rider information on a crowded train early in the morning is a challenge.
In 2006 the light rail system carried a daily average of 50,904 passengers. In 2007 the average number was 49,041, a decrease of 3.7 per cent. Of course, the number is higher during the week and lower on the weekends. Although the 2008 figures are not available, I have heard that the number of riders is up between five and eight per cent from April 2007 to April 2008. These numbers can be found on the DART website.
The red and blue lines began operating in 1996. Twelve years later one significant real estate development (Mockingbird Station) could be attributed to the light rail line. In addition, with a little bit of a stretch, one could say that a redo south of downtown, as well as a new apartment complex near Presbyterian Hospital, was spawned by the light rail lines.
As I mentioned, most of the developments in Dallas have been in areas that are not and will not be served by light rail. No one has any hard data to support an argument that the developments next to the light rail line would not have occurred if the light rail system had not been built. In a growth area like Dallas they surely would have although not necessarily on properties close to the rail line.
DART, as well as the American Public Transit Association, has commissioned studies touting the economic benefits of light rail. I agree with many of their findings. But they paid for the studies. Most auditors, at least, look askance at studies that are paid for by the client. It tends to produce a biased report.
To stir the pot a bit further, DART and TXDOT added HOV lanes on two of the major highways that parallel the rail lines for much of the way. As a result, a daily average of 110,000 people uses the HOV lanes. With the exception of the HOV lane on I-30, which uses a complex movable barrier, the cost of adding the HOV lanes on I-35 and U.S. 75 was minimal. They reduced the existing lanes by six inches, for a total of 18 inches, and eliminated the center emergency stopping lane. Presto! They had an HOV lane for the cost of stripping and the placement of some flex poles to mark it. These lanes will be excellent for rapid buses if DART decides to include them in its mix.
Proponents of light rail have made a convincing argument for it in many locales. In fact, I was a strong proponent of it in Dallas and spent many hours getting a referendum passed to make it happen. But I have had some second thoughts about it. Whether the results justify the cost is debatable.
Anyone who argues that a rapid bus complex and route attracts real estate development in a economic growth area would have the same challenge of proving it as the proponents of light rail. They may think that it does. But believing that it does and proving it are two different things.
Rail is a good choice in selected environments, but those who think it is a universal solution, as seems to be favored by many folks who participate in this forum, are probably wrong.
I would agree that it's no panacea. There is no panacea. I find it hard to look at mobility choices as either/or. Usually it's both/and.
The easy-sleazy HOV lane trick is a good one. They did that here in Atlanta on I-85 North. It still took them a year of construction to do it though... Now, I-85 is five to six lanes wide 30 miles out from Atlanta and is abutment to abutment with traffic lanes on every underpass. Any more lanes will be really big bucks. The HOV lanes are better, but not hugely better. They knock 5-10 minutes off the commute. Too many times, a car will stall or wreck in the left lanes and use what little shoulder is left next to the HOV lane as a breakdown lane. They can't make it accross 5 lanes of traffic to the RH shoulder. This causes big delays....
The funny thing here in Atlanta is that the MARTA heavy rail system generates 250,000 riders a day - about the same as the heavy rail system in Phila. (Both consist primarily of one N-S and one E-W line), but the common perception is that MARTA trains run empty all the time and Northeasterners are transit users. The other interesting thing is that inside the perimeter highway, where MARTA runs, traffic is much lighter than outside. A good chunk of this is due to so much commuting around the perimeter, but still....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).
The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers.
I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.
Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars.
cordon wrote: I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers. I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars.
Following WW II the majority of middle class people fled the cities for a better environment. Like most things in life, doing so created it own set of problems, but most people I know prefer these problems to the ones associated with living in crowded cities.
Some people, primarily young people and empty nesters, will continue moving into high density environments, which are better suited for public transit, especially rail based public transit. But most people will stay in the suburbs. Or even move further away from the big cities.
Most people will continue to rely on personal vehicles for commuting, running errands, getting to entertainment venues, and for family vacations. What will change, probably dramatically; will be the size, shape, and power plants of the vehicles. Ten or fifteen years from now, if not sooner, most vehicles will be hybrids, all electrics, or powered by alternative fuels.
Rail advocacy folks seem to miss this point. They seem to think that automotive technology will stand still; that it will continue to be powered as it is now, and people will continue to opt for large SUVs and pick-ups. I don't think so.
I'll bet a large number of the people who participate in this forum live in the suburbs. And I'll bet they will be there 10 years from now.
Nobody in here expects mass transit to totally replace individual transportation.
Mass transit allows many families to operate with only one car, and a few urban families to operate without a car. In many dense urban environments, it costs more to park your car than it does to buy a monthly no limit transit pass. Many people cannot drive because of their age, medical condition, or economic status. They NEED public transit.
America is choking on it's automobile traffic. Mass transit is an essential part of the solution.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The problem isn't cars, it's how much we drive them. Suburban living is built around cars and and some seemingly deep-seated set of American values, so I doubt there will be drastic changes such as mass migration back to city dwelling. Transit fits as poorly to suburban living as autos do to Manhattan living. You can't just plug-in transit for autos in the suburbs any more than you can just plug in autos for the NYC-TA.
But, I'll bet you lots of things will change, slowly, around the edges. I've already changed some of my habits because of gas prices. Now, instead of driving a 10 mile RT to Lowes for $15 of stuff, I'll drive 3 miles to Ace and spend $17 for the same stuff. I also order more stuff on-line and have it delivered rather than drive to the mall or hobby shop, for example.
Similarly, people may be more willing to drive to a closer park and ride lot rather than drive a whole trip. I see this happening around me. My express commuter bus, that 3 months ago, usually had a dozen empty seats has had standees the past couple of days.
The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
oltmannd wrote: The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
stored braking has also been available for a long time in electrified tranist/railroad lines. I'm no expert, apparently it has some complicating factors. For example even though mainline railroads had been using regenerative brakes since the early 1900's PCC streetcars from the 1940's had regular dynamic brakes, with no regenerative capability. Something to do with a motor not being a very efficient generator and vice versa, and needing extra equipment in the power distribution system to take advantage of all that braking power getting pumped into the lines.
I also haven't heard anything about hybrid diesel locomotives. Since they're usually diesel-electric with dynamic brakes, doesn't that mean they already have some of the hybrid equipmnet already, just missing the batteries?
And how about a separate tank for cooking oil? I say somebody idling a Mercedes-Benz diesel automobile, asked him why idle, he said he needed the engine to warm up so he could switch to his homebuilt waste cooking oil tank. Other than adding the extra tank and delivery mechanism he said he made no other mechanical modifications. Can a mainline locomotive with a bunch of McDonalds next to the right of way take advantage of cooking grease for fuel?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Hybrid DE loco: http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/products/hybr.html
Used cooking oil? Sort of like saying I should capture the condensation off my beer can to water my lawn.... Does a single McDonalds even create enough used oil to power a couple dozen of their customers from their homes thru the drive thru?
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable. No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, highways and automobiles are very expensive. Whether they are the best options is debatable.
Samantha wrote: No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, light rail is very expensive. Whether it is the best option, outside of a few locations, is debatable.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, highways and automobiles are very expensive. Whether they are the best options is debatable.
True! But slicing and dicing the numbers shows there is a big difference. Motorists pay directly or indirectly the cost of driving. The reason is because their base (number of users) is very large. Passenger and transit train riders depend on a large subsidy from non-users because their base (number of users) is small in relation to the population as a whole.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods. Samantha, had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology how were they to have easily changed the bus routes and still have retained the rapid bus aspect on the new routing?
Samantha wrote: One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods.
One of the problems with rail is its inflexibility. Once the tracks are tacked down, it is difficult to move them. Thus, in Dallas, the areas that took off just about the time the first light rail trains began to operate are not served by light rail, as per my previous post. There is no way to get a train to them. Had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology it could have easily changed the bus routes to serve the new high density neighborhoods.
Samantha, had Dallas opted for rapid bus technology how were they to have easily changed the bus routes and still have retained the rapid bus aspect on the new routing?
Rapid bus technology, which was in its infancy when Dallas opted for light rail, requires at least three conditions: dedicated lanes, at least for part of the route; relatively infrequent stops; and operator traffic signal control.
In the Dallas central business district, buses have had dedicated lanes for as long as I can remember. Only buses, as well as cars turning right, can use them. East and West Transit Centers were opened in the mid 1990s, if I remember correctly, but the buses still stop at every corner as they work their way through town, so the opportunity to take advantage of limited stops was lost. Dallas did not give the buses, or light rail operators for that matter, the opportunity to control the traffic signals for cross street traffic.
As an example, rapid bus technology could be implemented to serve Uptown and Oak Lawn with through service to Love Field. These are two of the "in communities" in Dallas that are not and will not be served by light rail. Only a few changes would be necessary. First, the drivers would have to be given the ability to change the traffic signals. Second, parking would have to be banned along McKinney Avenue and parts of Cedar Springs where it is permitted. Third, the buses would only stop every three blocks, which means that passengers, in the extreme, would have to walk no more than 1.5 blocks if they lived on the route or add 1.5 blocks to their normal walk.
DART could give it a go. If it did not attract enough passengers, it could place the buses somewhere else, and change a few signs telling passengers where the buses stop. But it cannot move the light rail lines.
oltmannd wrote:The stored braking energy technology that's available to improve mileage of suburban driving is also available to transit (in fact, I rode a hybrid bus in Denver over 2 years ago...). Hybrid drives should benefit transit even more than autos since wind resistance and rolling resistance are a less % of the overall energy consumption of transit vehicles compared to autos. I'm a bit surprised nobody's tried to pitch a hybrid commuter locomotive to anybody yet.
I remember talking about that idea with Bill Farquhar (then at San Diego NCTD) about hybrid commuter locomotives back in the mid-1990's. Main reason that there hasn't been a serious pitch is trying to find a battery (or other energy storage system) with sufficient energy density, power density and cycle life to be practical. Li-ion batteries can meet two of those three requirements, but there is a very significant trade-off between usable energy density and cycle life. GE's hybrid locomotive battery has sufficient energy density, but I'm not sure if it has a high enough power density.
You may read more about GE's hybrid locomotive here. Sounds promising.
Samantha wrote: cordon wrote: I don't believe that rail, either light or heavy, is the answer, either. What I believe is that a mix of mass transportation is better than an all-automobile approach, and that people living nearer to work and school is better than people living far from work and school (large schools mean a higher proportion of students use school buses because more students live outside the walking distance).The trends in my lifetime have been suburban sprawl, multiple workers in each household, shopping centers located where the people and businesses are not, tax strategies that drive both residents and businesses out of cities, ever larger schools, and increased use of automobiles with no passengers. I believe that we should work to reverse all these trends. Mass transportation is just a part of it.Many users of mass transportation don't own a car. I believe that many of them would have to get a car or join a carpool if the mass transportation they use were not available. I think it's certain that some of them would move to using cars. Following WW II the majority of middle class people fled the cities for a better environment. Like most things in life, doing so created it own set of problems, but most people I know prefer these problems to the ones associated with living in crowded cities.Some people, primarily young people and empty nesters, will continue moving into high density environments, which are better suited for public transit, especially rail based public transit. But most people will stay in the suburbs. Or even move further away from the big cities.Most people will continue to rely on personal vehicles for commuting, running errands, getting to entertainment venues, and for family vacations. What will change, probably dramatically; will be the size, shape, and power plants of the vehicles. Ten or fifteen years from now, if not sooner, most vehicles will be hybrids, all electrics, or powered by alternative fuels. Rail advocacy folks seem to miss this point. They seem to think that automotive technology will stand still; that it will continue to be powered as it is now, and people will continue to opt for large SUVs and pick-ups. I don't think so.I'll bet a large number of the people who participate in this forum live in the suburbs. And I'll bet they will be there 10 years from now.
You are absolutely correct about moving to the suburbs. The air is cleaner, there is less crime, the schools are better, etc. My wish is that we (meaning our govts, with our consent) should work to reverse those trends. Is there something inherent in the "city" that forces them to have undesirable characteristics? Or is it possible to have a city with clean air, good schools, low crime, good public transportation, etc.? Would it be a "subsidy" to spend billions to evolve cities in those directions so that people would want to, and be able to afford to, live closer and use public transportation?
In some cases the govts did exactly the opposite. I lived near Boston in the 40s - 60s when "urban renewal" struck. The govt forced residents to leave the ethnic neighborhoods, many of which were somewhat self-contained (i.e., there were many jobs right there), and built office buildings.
In some cities the govt increases property taxes even when there is no improvement to the property and when the owner does not change the use. I'm talking about changes way out of proportion to inflation and increases in the cost of living. This makes it impossible for some people to continue to live in, or run a small business in, some city neighborhoods. The city simply drives them out with taxes. Would not doing that be a subsidy leading to a bad decision?
I am a proponent of decisions (I hope good ones) leading to the careful use of subsidies and other incentives to achieve the goals we set as desirable.
I think we, as a society, often have a problem in agreeing on what's desirable, especially where long-term effects are involved. If we can get over that hurdle, I don't think we will object to subsidies.
The cities in North Carolina are healthy and growing because NC has a great law.
When contiguous area outside the city reach a certain population density, the city can just annex them. They do not need the consent of the people being annexed.
When my house was built in 1978 it was 5 miles outside of the city. It is now several miles INSIDE the city.
That law means that we don't have the poor people living in the city and the middle class and upper class living in the suburbs. Interestingly enough, as the mass transit is being improved, more and more of the upper middle class are moving to city center. With the new trend toward mixed tall use buildings, more and more people are taking the elevator to work.
cordon wrote:You may read more about GE's hybrid locomotive here. Sounds promising.
I've seen that webpage and ran across the page for hybrid tugboats (idea makes sense). One funny note is that the first production diesel electric hybrids were the post V-boat US Navy subs.
From what I gather, the GE hybrid freight locomotive will be using sodium sulfur batteries, which have the advantage of good energy density (not much less than Li-ion) and are made from readily available materials (both sodium and sulfur are much easier to find than the lithium and cobalt used in Li-ion - and much cheaper as well), but the disadvantage of a lower power density than Li-ion.
I would expect that hybrid commuter locomotives would use some sort of Li battery for the higher power density, by the time a NaS battery was large enough to have a useful power output, it would be large enough to run for at least two hours on battery alone.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.