LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

My partner and I have only taken the FlyAway bus once, several years ago. The trip to LAX from Union Station was a breeze---we loved it. But, the trip back from LAX to Union Station was frustrating. I don't remember what terminal we were waiting at, but yeah, we waited there for close to an hour or more it seemed, as FlyAway bus afer FlyAway bus kept passing us and other people waiting for it, becuase they were completely full. I don't know how other people's experience with it has been, leaving LAX.

I used to take it from Van Nuys all the time. Same problem. Getting to LAX was a breeze but coming home the busses would be full and pass right by even in terminals close to the entrance.

[bzcat]

The solution to FlyAway overcrowding is simple... It needs more headways that operates as short lines that starts at LAX instead of round trips. If you take a look at the FlyAway schedule, you will notice there are equal number inbound and outbound services per day and on hourly basis because it is operated as roundtrip service - meaning the route is operated as Union Station-LAX-Union Station roundtrip and not two separate directional schedules like a normal bus operation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem. There are different peak hours for departures and arrivals but FlyAway is running the same number of buses outbound from LAX because it has the same exact number of buses inbound. To make this a real service, you will need several spare buses that operate only one-way in the peak direction.

For example, if I was designing the schedule, I would make sure early mornings and late nights there are more inbound buses (peak departure time) while in the afternoon and early evenings, there are more outbound buses per hour (peak arrival time). Instead, FlyAway runs the same 2 buses per hour all day to/from Union Stations. Running unbalanced schedule means more deadheading which costs money without generating revenue. But it will make the service better and perhaps attract more riders. But does LAWA really want more riders? The Van Nuys service starts at a LAWA owned garage so LAWA is happy to run a bus from there. But the service to/from Union Station is not something LAWA wanted to do.

So as with all other FlyAway issues, the root cause is LAWA is operating it as a court consent decree. If it was up to LAWA, they will probably cancel the thing entirely. There is no incentive for them to provide more funding to run more efficient service because it doesn't make money for LAWA (unlike parking...)

[SIGSEGV]

Yeah two not-so-high capacity buses per hour seems pretty insane for a city the size of LA. Especially given what a shit show driving into LAX is in my limited experience.

[craigs]

First-of-its-kind zero-emissions train rolls into San Bernardino

Andrew J. Campa
Los Angeles Times
August 17, 2024


San Bernardino County Transit Authority debuts its new zero-pollution passenger train, known as ZEMU, short for Zero Emission Multiple Unit. (San Bernardino County Transit Authority)

The first zero-emission passenger train in the U.S. has rolled into San Bernardino, and passengers should be able to ride the clean-energy line early next year, transportation authorities said. San Bernardino County Transit Authority presented the $20-million, 108-passenger train — the Zero Emission Multiple Unit, or ZEMU — at a public ceremony Thursday at the San Bernardino Depot Train Station.

ZEMU is North America’s first self-powered, zero-emission passenger train to meet Federal Railroad Administration requirements, according to the transit authority. “What we have done with ZEMU is transformational,” San Bernardino County Transit Authority President Ray Marquez said in a statement. “The development of the train has solidified SBCTA’s place as an innovator in clean passenger rail here in the Inland Empire, throughout the state and the nation.”

The train will serve the Arrow Line, a 9-mile transit line with five stops between downtown San Bernardino and the University of Redlands. . . . The Arrow Line debuted in October 2022 and allows for westbound connections to Los Angeles’ Union Station.


ZEMU, a clean-energy train, arrives June 30 in San Bernardino. (San Bernardino County Transit Authority)
. . . .

[hughfb3]

Stop trying to jump on Caltrain’s locomotive, Arrow!!!! Haha

[SIGSEGV]

Sorry, do the hundreds of electrified train lines in North America not count as zero emissions?

[Busy Bee]

^ It looks like they are defining "self-powered, zero-emission passenger train" as locomotion where the emission-free motive power is completely derived and generated onboard, whereas an EMU technically wouldn't qualify as "self-powered" considering it needs electricity supplied to it. I guess they're technically correct.

Plus this is a news piece written for layman not train nerds like us.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ It looks like they are defining "self-powered, zero-emission passenger train" as locomotion where the emission-free motive power is completely derived and generated onboard, whereas an EMU technically wouldn't qualify as "self-powered" considering it needs electricity supplied to it. I guess they're technically correct.

Plus this is a news piece written for layman not train nerds like us.

Correct. The article does a decent job explaining all this, but forum rules limit how much of the article I could post.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Sorry, do the hundreds of electrified train lines in North America not count as zero emissions?

They do. Zero-emission trains have been around for over 100 years in the US, powered either by overhead catenary wire, or third rail.

There's also some debate over hydrogen's actual climate impact.

The Cornell scientists note that oil and gas companies including Shell and BP have heavily promoted hydrogen as a clean fuel, including through the Hydrogen Council, which also includes automakers, mining companies and other industries.

“From the industry perspective, switching from natural gas to blue hydrogen may be viewed as economically beneficial since even more natural gas is needed to generate the same amount of heat,” the Cornell authors write. “We see no way that blue hydrogen can be considered ‘green.’”

Schlissel, like other experts and advocates, said it’s possible that hydrogen produced from water, powered by renewable energy, could be a viable and emissions-reducing way to power steel-making, heavy transportation or other hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But he’s frustrated that the federal government is investing so heavily in hydrogen when other solutions exist.

Catenary electric trains can provide substantial service improvements that could make rail competitive with cars, unlike hydrogen trains. Electric motors accelerate faster than combustion engines, including hydrogen. Catenary electric trains also have virtually unlimited range and require no dwell time for refueling, unlike hydrogen, which has a longer refueling time than diesel. Hydrogen has much lower energy density than diesel, so hydrogen-powered trains need to carry more volume or mass for a trip of the same length compared to catenary electric trains, which don't carry fuel.

...

On top of these limitations, hydrogen is substantially less environmentally friendly than electrification due to impacts from its production. Catenary electrification and green hydrogen both use energy from the electrical grid to power trains, eliminating ozone emissions along the tracks. The grid is currently around fifty percent carbon-free, and is mandated to grow to ninety percent by 2035. The problem is that green hydrogen is produced through a multi-step process that involves converting water into hydrogen via electrolysis, using 2.5 times more energy than directly electrifying via overhead wires. It’s also extremely water-intensive. For example, generating enough hydrogen to replace the diesel at one BNSF facility would require 12-20 million gallons of water per day, equivalent to five percent of LA's residential water usage. With climate change creating greater uncertainty over water supplies, electrolysis hydrogen is simply not a realistic replacement for fossil fuels in California’s passenger and freight rail fleets. And as it stands now, electrolysis is largely speculative, accounting for only two percent of the global hydrogen market, while 98 percent of the supply chain is derived from fossil fuels. Regardless of source, we can’t realistically count on having enough hydrogen to power a transportation network.

...

Hydrogen embrittles steel, leaks easily, is highly flammable (think Hindenburg), and requires specialized and land-intensive infrastructure for refueling at multiple points along the train route, in contrast to catenary electrification which requires little infrastructure beyond the overhead wires. Electric trains also require less maintenance compared to diesel: they incur half the maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/07/...-electric-rail

[llamaorama]

You'd think battery-electric multiple units would eventually win out over hydrogen just because vehicular battery tech is established. It might be easier to build and maintain a train if its drive system is made out of commodity parts and its like an electric car or bus only bigger. I feel like Japan has had BEMU (battery electric multiple unit) trains running on branch lines for like a decade at this point if not longer.

Also catenary vs. battery isn't a real dilemma, you can have both. Several modern streetcar lines already in operation in the USA have only partial catenary coverage and then run on battery for part of the trip. Also EV buses that have pantographs and contact an overhead rail that only exists at stops to charge are starting to become more common in the US including on smaller transit agencies like Spokane for example.

Hydrogen tech is specialized and uncommon and also comes with fire safety hazards.

[Nouvellecosse]

Green hydrogen would be a great option for things that can't be easily electrified like ships and perhaps long distance trains. But shorter train routes providing urban or suburban service are not great candidates for hydrogen imo because of the extra complication of storage, transport, and handling along with the energy loss of isolating it. But really long routes may not be practical to electrify while battery range would be an issue.

Electrifying urban and suburban routes with a hard connection or batteries may be expensive but we just need to get over it and fork out the money.

[electricron]

First-of-its-kind zero-emissions train rolls into San Bernardino is not redefining a zero emissions train, nor implying this is the first zero emissions train.
Why do everyone forget the first words in that headline? Can't readers comprehend what is written anymore?
It is the first-of-its-kind, specifically a hydrogen fueled zero emissions locomotive, in commercial service.

As for what is better, BEMUs or ZEMU, is probably up to debate.
Stadler states a range of 45-65 miles on a fully charged BEMU Flirt train with a charge from 20%-80% in 25-30 minutes.
I have no idea what the range is for a fully fueled ZEMU Flirt train is because I have not seen it yet, but I believe it is probably much longer than 45-65 miles.
As for the costs of providing green hydrogen, I believe it would certainly decrease as supply meet demand in a competitive market.
I will admit the market for green hydrogen is at its inception.
But if this demonstration project proves successful, and more companies choose to use green hydrogen power that market will grow.
You first must learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

I doubt the local San Bernadino transit agency cared whether their trains were powered by hydrogen or diesel fuels. They bought 3 DEMUs and just 1 ZEMU. The ZEMU was fully funded by California. Which later bought more ZEMUs for San Jaoquin trains. The local Arrow route is 9 miles, the San Jaoquin route is 315 miles (507 km) (Oakland–Bakersfield) or 282 miles (454 km) (Sacramento–Bakersfield).
If the San Joaquins used BEMUs instead, they would have to recharge at least 4 times, adding at least 2 hours to the travel time. I wonder how many times the ZEMUs will have to refuel on a single trip? Zero? If so, the elapse time for a single trip would be at least two hours shorter.

P.S. I found the Stadler world records run for the ZEMU range that also states the world record run for the BEMU range data on one 100% charge or 100% full hydrogen tanks. The Hydrogen train ran 10 times further than the battery train.
https://youtu.be/5Aco2hgVlRQ?si=3hlzQWEnGkW2ToiE

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

First-of-its-kind zero-emissions train rolls into San Bernardino is not redefining a zero emissions train, nor implying this is the first zero emissions train.
Why do everyone forget the first words in that headline? Can't readers comprehend what is written anymore?
It is the first-of-its-kind, specifically a hydrogen fueled zero emissions locomotive, in commercial service.

You're lecturing people on their reading comprehension when the article literally said, "The first zero-emission passenger train in the U.S" in the first sentence? If you don't think that explicit claim is implying that it's the first zero emissions train then it's you who lacks reading comprehension. It's true that the title said first of its kind, but with that type of vague statement you need to read further to get more specifics. And as soon as you do, they clearly make the claim that people were refuting. Their wording was at best confusing and at worst very misleading.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're lecturing people on their reading comprehension when the article literally said, "The first zero-emission passenger train in the U.S" in the first sentence? If you don't think that explicit claim is implying that it's the first zero emissions train then it's you who lacks reading comprehension. It's true that the title said first of its kind, but with that type of vague statement you need to read further to get more specifics. And as soon as you do, they clearly make the claim that people were refuting. Their wording was at best confusing and at worst very misleading.

It is only confusing if you do not read the entire news article, including the headline. The amount quoted was just the first three paragraphs of the news article.
More readers are likely to read the headline than just the first sentence in the first paragraph. The first sentence in the second paragraph mentions self powered zero emissions. If the readers were interested in more facts, they certainly would read more than just the first sentence. And, as presented earlier, the first three fairly short paragraphs explains all.

Hen-picking information provided in the very first sentence in a long news article is being very unfair to the news reporter.

[craigs]

Final People Mover train cars delivered at LAX


The last People Mover train cars have arrived at LAX. (Los Angeles World Airports)

Colleen Shalby
Los Angeles Times
August 21, 2024

Four train cars recently arrived at Los Angeles International Airport from Pittsburgh, completing the upcoming Automated People Mover’s total set of 44 and shifting the focus of the long-awaited project to testing, officials announced on Wednesday. The 2.25-mile elevated train is expected to open in January 2026. Although it’s been nearly complete, disputes between the contractor and the airport over production, compensation and timeline led to lengthy delays that pushed back the goal of a 2023 launch.

This summer, Los Angeles World Airports’ board of commissioners allocated $400 million more to settle past claims and reignite progress. The decision was recently approved by the Los Angeles City Council, bringing the project’s total settlement amount to $550 million. The project’s budget is more than $3.3 billion. “Receiving the final train cars for the APM signifies a major milestone for this project and our airport’s transformation,” John Ackerman, CEO of Los Angeles World Airports, said in a statement. “The APM will enhance the travel experience at LAX and set a new standard for sustainable transportation. As we move this project forward, we remain dedicated to delivering a state-of-the-art solution that reflects our commitment to our passengers, community and environment.”

The cars have fully recyclable aluminum shells and a regenerative braking system, according to LAWA. The train is expected to run 24/7 in four car sets — two minutes apart during peak hours — that will be able to accommodate 200 passengers. LAWA expect the train to move 85 million passengers per year.
. . . .

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

It is only confusing if you do not read the entire news article, including the headline. The amount quoted was just the first three paragraphs of the news article.
More readers are likely to read the headline than just the first sentence in the first paragraph. The first sentence in the second paragraph mentions self powered zero emissions. If the readers were interested in more facts, they certainly would read more than just the first sentence. And, as presented earlier, the first three fairly short paragraphs explains all.

Hen-picking information provided in the very first sentence in a long news article is being very unfair to the news reporter.

Mixing correct and incorrect statements is absolutely confusing. Just because you can figure out what they're saying if you read carefully enough doesn't change that. It's great that it didn't confuse you but the fact is, several people here did consider it confusing. And these are people who are on the transportation subforum of an urbanism site rather than members of the general public. And something that is confusing to people is - by definition - confusing, whether you're one of them or not.

But no one is blaming you for it so there's no reason for you to get defensive. Well, unless you happen to be the author lol.

[craigs]

A big part of the problem is that we cannot post more than three paragraphs of any article. So let's all understand the constraints that this forum is placing on long-form journalism.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by craigs

A big part of the problem is that we cannot post more than three paragraphs of any article. So let's all understand the constraints that this forum is placing on long-form journalism.

The entire article has 23 paragraphs. Very unfair to suggest the full contents of the entire article must be summarized in the very first sentence. Especially when the title summarized it better, which is what titles should do.
The author and the transit agency spokesperson wanted to emphasize zero emissions from the train, which they successfully accomplished.

[Nouvellecosse]

What? No one suggested the contents had to be summarized in the first sentence. Usually titles have to be even more concise and pithy than the contents, so if they can make an accurate title they can also add a few extra words elsewhere to ensure that accuracy is consistent. Just don't mix inaccurate and accurate statements together. It isn't a difficult task.

[homebucket]

Metrolink Officials Need to Move Forward on Electrification: A Rebuttal
Californians for Electric Rail's petition to electrify Metrolink asks for a commitment and a reasonable rollout, not the huge project Metrolink is afraid to invest in. KTLA and Metrolink focused on the wrong points.
By Adriana Rizzo
11:22 AM PDT on August 23, 2024

Ten days ago, Caltrain launched its electrified service, to universal acclaim and glowing speeches by a who's-who of California politicians. On Monday, Californians for Electric Rail launched a petition calling on Metrolink to make an immediate commitment to overhead electrification following the success of Caltrain electrification. The petition received over 200 signatures in one day. KTLA wrote about the petition, and included an official response from Metrolink that they have no plans to electrify anytime soon. Here’s a rebuttal to some of their excuses.

Metrolink highlights that the more than 545 track miles in their system makes electrification infeasible. While we’d like to see all of Metrolink electrified eventually, we acknowledge that this would be a lengthy process. But our petition specifically calls for electrification only of the lines that would benefit most, that is Metrolink’s highest frequency lines that will be shared with high-speed rail (which will be powered by overhead wires): the Antelope Valley Line, San Bernardino Line, and portions of the LOSSAN corridor. Electrifying Anaheim-Vista Canyon and Union Station-San Bernardino would require a far more manageable 130 miles of overhead wire.

...

KTLA also cites Metrolink’s lack of ownership of the right of way as an issue. All of the segments we call out in our petition are publicly owned, with the exception of Union Station-Fullerton, which is owned by BNSF. However, the High-Speed Rail Authority has already reached an agreement with BNSF to allow overhead wires on that segment, making this a non-issue.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2024/08/...ion-a-rebuttal