VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY TECHNICAL … Technology Survey Technical Memorandum Page 1 December 4, ... (Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles), ... if there are problems …

Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Project Vehicle Technology Survey Technical Memorandum

Page 1 December 4, 2013

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum presents recommendations concerning vehicle technology based

on current developments in the streetcar industry and the current status of the

Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Project, while keeping in mind how these decisions could affect

critical approvals that will be required to move the project forward. Critical approvals include

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts Grant, which will be needed before

construction can begin, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Safety

Certification, which will be needed before operations can begin.

This memo covers the following subjects:

Traditional Streetcar Vehicle

Technology Overview

Alternatives to OCS

Buy America Compliance

FTA Small Starts Risk Assessment

California PUC Safety Compliance

Viable Technologies for the

Downtown/Riverfront Project

Potential Cost Savings with

Alternative Vehicle Technology

Key Considerations

Schedule Implications

Recommendations

TRADITIONAL STREETCAR VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

For 120 years, the preferred means of providing power to streetcars has been by an overhead contact system (OCS) where a copper wire is placed above the streetcar tracks and the streetcar has a roof-mounted pantograph in contact with the wire to draw electricity from a series of traction power substations (TPSS).

Portland Streetcar, the first modern streetcar in the US, opened in 2001 and uses a fleet of

Inekon-Skoda and United Streetcar vehicles.

OCS wire

Pantograph



For the following reasons, the transit industry has been developing alternatives to OCS:

Concerns over the visual impact of overhead wires and poles

Conflicts with the OCS wire along the route, such as at bridges, traffic signal mast arms, and railroad crossings

Conflicts with OCS pole foundations along the route, such as utilities, bridges, or hollow sidewalks

The cost of OCS and TPSS infrastructure

Interest in reducing energy consumption by capturing the energy that can be generated during braking

ALTERNATIVES TO OCS

The following vehicle technology alternatives to OCS have been proposed and demonstrated to different degrees:

Third Rail provides power at-grade adjacent to the track. Third Rail is used on heavy rail systems that are completely grade separated (elevated on bridge or below grade in a tunnel), or in a secured right-of-way, so that there is minimized risk of the public coming in contact with it. Third rail cannot be used for an at-grade streetcar.

Embedded Third Rail places the power flush with the ground and between the rails and becomes energized only when a train is directly above it. Embedded Third Rail is a proprietary system. Embedded Third Rail eliminates the overhead wires, but increases the cost of infrastructure and creates its own challenges with conflicts at the ground level. It should be noted that there are no applications to date where Embedded Third Rail has been used in a shared traffic lane. Alstom, a French manufacturer, installed a contact-based system in Bordeaux, France in 2003, followed by installations in Angers and Reims, France. Ansaldo, an Italian company, has installed a contact-based system on a test track in Italy, and Bombardier, a Canadian Company that acquired a German company, has installed a system based on inductive power transfer on a test track in Germany. This type of system has not been installed in the U.S.

Alstom’s Citadis Tram in Bordeaux, France, running on a segment with

Embedded Third Rail

Alstom’s Embedded Third Rail in Reims, France



Energy Storage On-Board provides power from batteries and super-capacitors. Initially, batteries were placed on vehicles as a means to recapture energy created during regenerative braking, and thoughts of using this captured power to avoid the need for overhead wires followed. With developments in technology driven by the automotive industry, batteries are quickly becoming proven technology with a good weight-to-power ratio and low cost. Super-capacitors charge and discharge much more quickly than batteries. They are also more expensive, but survive more charge cycles, so the increased up-front cost is offset by reduced maintenance costs. Super-capacitors are helpful during acceleration and can be used in combination with batteries.

In 2007, Alstom used batteries on the Nice Tramway in France to avoid overhead wires on two 0.3-mile non-electrified segments of the 5.4 mile line that is service-proven with 70,000 riders per day. CAF (Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles), a Spanish manufacturer, has examples operating in Seville and Zaragoza, Spain, and Kawasaki, a Japanese manufacturer, has developed and is operating a battery-powered car in Sapporo, Japan.

In the U.S., battery-powered streetcar systems are currently being constructed in Dallas and Seattle that will operate off-wire for a portion of their routes. These will be the first two such projects in the United States and both are scheduled to receive delivery, test, and begin revenue operations in 2014. Both systems had unique circumstances that contributed to the preference for off-wire operations.

The Dallas Oak-Cliff Streetcar will operate for 0.9 mile across the historic Houston Street Viaduct without poles and wires, and then operate under OCS for the remaining 0.6 miles. Significant cost savings were achieved by not having to modify the bridge to accommodate the OCS poles. Brookville Equipment Corporation, based in Pennsylvania, is supplying two streetcars for this project. These will be the first two modern streetcars supplied by Brookville.

The Seattle First Hill Streetcar will operate for 2.5 miles on the downhill portion of the route without wires, and then return 2.5 miles uphill under OCS. Inekon, a Czechoslovakian company, will manufacture the vehicles, and Pacifica, based in Seattle, will complete final assembly on 6 streetcars for this project.

The industry will be watching closely to see if there are any problems during the design, manufacture, commissioning, operations, or maintenance of these vehicles. If these vehicles are delivered and operate without any problems, then the FTA would likely assign them a reasonable risk. However, if there are problems with either of these two projects, the FTA is unlikely to assign a level of risk that could be overcome for receipt of a Grant Agreement. Until these vehicles are a proven success—the new vehicle technology represents a significant risk.



Energy Production On-Board to date in a public transit application has been done using diesel powered generators on the rail transit vehicle. This mode is known as Diesel Multiple Unit or DMU. The size and weight requirements and acceleration performance of DMU vehicles have caused DMU’s to be used primarily as a substitute for commuter rail applications.

North San Diego County’s Siemens Sprinter DMU

Generating energy on-board a rail transit vehicle with hydrogen fuel-cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines has not been demonstrated or service-proven in a public transit application. The tram in Oranjestad, Aruba, is 1.6 miles long, operates 3 hours per day, and uses open-air vehicles without air conditioning. Development of a modern streetcar that produces energy on-board would represent a new technology. This would introduce a significant risk to the Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Project that would likely not be able to be mitigated to the degree necessary to obtain approval for the FTA Small Starts Grant Agreement.

Tram by TIG/m in Oranjestad, Aruba (opened in February 2013)



BUY AMERICA COMPLIANCE

The use of FTA Small Starts capital funding will require strict compliance with the Buy America

Act, which requires that more than 60 percent of the cost of all equipment and materials used

on federally funded projects be of domestic origin and final assembly must occur in the U.S.

FTA vigorously enforces this requirement through Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Audits. Thus, it

is essential that the vehicle technology selected result in streetcar vehicles that can meet the

Buy America Act. Note that the Dallas Oak-Cliff and Seattle First Hill Streetcar Projects received

federal TIGER funds and must be compliant with Buy America requirements. It is also

important to consider the future purchase of replacement parts for maintenance which also

must be Buy America compliant. The greater challenge here is that these replacement parts

are no longer considered components or subcomponents, and therefore must be domestically

produced.

We have identified ten different worldwide manufacturers of modern streetcar vehicles (see

Table 1). Each of these manufacturers is developing off-wire capabilities and each has a U.S.

manufacturing plant or partner arrangement. Not all of these manufacturers have built a Buy

America Compliant vehicle in part because they appear to be reluctant to redesign their

streetcars with components provided by U.S. suppliers for what are typically very small (less

than 10 car) orders. The manufacturers have said they would be more interested if

procurements included systems elements and/or a long-term operations and maintenance

contract.



Manufacturer Based US Plant Off-Wire Technology Development Buy America Compliant Streetcar?

Alstom France Hornell, NY Embedded Third Rail and Battery Systems

in Revenue Service in France.

Not yet.

Ansaldo Italy South Carolina Embedded Third Rail test track in Italy. Not yet.

Bombardier Canada Pittsburgh Embedded Third Rail test track in

Germany.

Not yet.

CAF Spain Elmira, NY Battery off-wire in Seville and Zaragoza,

Spain.

Cincinnati--in process.

Brookville Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Manufacturing 2 battery off-wire vehicles

for Dallas Oak-Cliff.

Dallas--in process.

Inekon Czech Republic Pacifica Marine, Seattle Manufacturing 6 battery off-wire vehicles

for Seattle First Hill.

Seattle--in process.

United Streetcar Clackamas, Oregon Clackamas, Oregon Have designed a battery off-wire vehicle,

waiting for an order to produce.

Portland, Tucson, Washington DC.

Siemens Sacramento Sacramento Providing capacitor-based energy storage

units to Portland Tri-Met.

Salt Lake, Atlanta--in process.

Kinkisharyo Japan Massachusetts ameriTRAM prototype on tour in US in

2011 with battery off-wire capability.

Not yet.

Kawasaki Japan Yonkers, NY Battery off-wire in Sapporo, Japan. Not yet.

Table 1: Vehicle Manufacturers



FTA SMALL STARTS RISK ASSESSMENT

Prior to FTA approving a Small Starts Grant, through a Risk Assessment or series of Risk Assessments, FTA must be assured that risks have been avoided or mitigated so that an event or chain of events could not cause schedule delays or budget overruns. The Project Management Team cannot recommend any technology that would jeopardize the possibility of federal funding. Selection of unproven streetcar vehicle technology represents a potentially significant risk due to the importance of proven reliability of vehicles to transit operations. Even a vehicle that requires more than an average amount of maintenance could be problematic due to the impact on annual maintenance costs. It will be critical to the success of the project that all equipment used be service-proven and familiar to the federal grantors.

CALIFORNIA PUC SAFETY COMPLIANCE

In the State of California, the CPUC provides safety oversight of non-heavy rail operations. As such, vehicles must comply with the CPUC regulations as stated in General Order 143-B, which establishes the safety requirements governing the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of non-heavy rail transit systems in the State, or obtain a waiver.

VIABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DOWNTOWN/RIVERFRONT STREETCAR PROJECT

The Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Project passes under a Union Pacific Railroad Bridge in West Sacramento with reduced clearance, crosses over the Sacramento Southern Railroad tracks (requiring an increase in the contact wire height), and crosses over the historic Tower vertical lift bridge. All of these physical constraints were considered and resolved during Preliminary Engineering and will need final approvals during Final Design, but we don’t anticipate any issues that would prevent OCS from being implemented. Thus, traditional OCS technology is feasible for the Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar Project.

If there is interest in pursuing alternative vehicle technology that does not require OCS, it is important to recognize that a significant portion of streetcar line will operate under existing OCS wire. This existing OCS wire represents an opportunity to collect power that can be stored on-board the streetcar vehicles. Given the presence of an existing power supply, there is no compelling reason to consider a vehicle that could produce its own power, particularly given that no such technology has been proven on a comparable project. We conclude that the only alternative vehicle technology that warrants further consideration is energy storage on-board using batteries and/or capacitors (i.e., similar to that being undertaken in Dallas and Seattle).

If OCS is not extended to enable LRT service to Raley Field, then 1.7 miles of the 6.2 mile round-trip (27%) is on track with existing OCS (see Figure 1). The first 1.6 miles from West Sacramento Civic Center to the Sacramento Valley Depot would be off-wire, followed by 0.9 miles to 12th and J on-wire, followed by 1.3 miles to 12th and K off-wire, followed by 0.8 miles to the Sacramento Valley Depot on-wire, concluding with 1.6 miles to the Civic Center off-wire (see Table 2).

If OCS were extended to Raley Field in order to provide for LRT service for special events, then 3.5 miles of the 6.2 mile round-trip distance (56%) would be under OCS (see Figure 2). The first 0.7 miles from West Sacramento Civic Center to Raley Field would be off-wire, followed by 1.8 miles to 12th and J on-wire, followed by 1.3 miles to 12th and K off-wire, followed by 1.7 miles to Raley Field on-wire, concluding with 0.7 miles to the Civic Center off-wire (Table 2).



Figure 1: Existing OCS

Existing OCS



Figure 2: OCS with Raley Field LRT Service

OCS if LRT serves Raley Field



Scenario 1--OCS not extended to Raley Field Off-Wire On-Wire Total Scenario 2--OCS extended to Raley Field Off-Wire On-Wire Total

West Sacramento Civic Center to Sacramento Valley Depot 1.6 West Sacramento Civic Center to Raley Field 0.7

Sacramento Valley Depot to 12th and J 0.9 Raley Field to 12th and J 1.8

12th and J to 12th and K 1.3 12th and J to 12th and K 1.3

12th and K to Sacramento Valley Depot 0.8 12th and K to Raley Field 1.7

Sacramento Valley Depot to West Sacramento Civic Center 1.6 Raley Field to West Sacramento Civic Center 0.7

Total Miles 4.5 1.7 6.2 Total Miles 2.7 3.5 6.2

Percent 73% 27% 100% Percent 44% 56% 100%

Table 2: Off-Wire Scenarios (with and without LRT Extension to Raley Field)



POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS WITH ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY

If OCS is not extended to Raley Field, and if no new TPSS units are installed, using the cost estimate

prepared in May 2013, and assuming that adding battery capabilities to the streetcars adds $0.5M to the

cost of each of the 8 streetcars, there is the potential to save $13.6M in OCS costs, $7.6M in TPSS costs,

with an increase of $4M in vehicle costs, or a net savings of $17.2M (see Table 3). If OCS is extended to

Raley Field, and one TPSS unit is installed nearby, then the OCS savings would be $8.1M, TPSS savings

would be $5.1M, and vehicle costs would increase $4M, for a net savings of $9.2M. Note that a cost

increase of $0.5M per vehicle is an approximate cost that has been mentioned in conversation with

vehicle suppliers. The only way to know exactly what this capability would cost would be to request it as

an option during the vehicle procurement. Also note that these estimates of potential cost savings

assume that sufficient energy storage can be provided on-board the streetcar vehicles such that

additional wayside power supply is not necessary. The vehicle suppliers will have to verify that this is in

fact the case. If additional wayside power is required and/or the cost of batteries per vehicle increases,

then the cost savings may not be realized.

Table 3: Potential Cost Savings for Off-Wire Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

OCS not extended to Raley Field OCS extended to Raley Field

OCS Cost Savings $13.6 $8.1

TPSS Cost Savings $7.6 $5.1

Added Vehicle Costs -$4.0 -$4.0

Net Savings $17.2 $9.2

Savings % of $150M Total Project Cost 11% 6%

All costs in $millions

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Before making a decision to pursue vehicles that store energy on-board via batteries and/or capacitors, it is important to consider the following:

There have only been two off-wire capable vehicle procurements in the United States for eight cars to date, and none of these vehicles have been produced, delivered, tested, or placed into revenue service. Until this happens successfully, this would be considered a significant risk that could delay or prevent FTA approval of the Grant Agreement.

Because this technology is still in the development stages, the cost is still somewhat uncertain and we should expect some volatility in pricing until it becomes more common. The only way of knowing the true cost of providing off-wire capability would be through the vehicle procurement process if an option is specified for pricing.

This new technology will add time to the procurement, design, delivery, testing, and acceptance of a vehicle.



Batteries will add weight to the vehicles. It will be important to confirm that we still have acceptable axle loads for the Tower Bridge and Capitol Mall/I-5 Separation. If the Policy Steering Committee (PSC) decides that they would like to pursue vehicles with off-wire capability, then we would recommend evaluating bridge structural issues assuming the likely increased weight. Adding to the structural capacity of the Tower Bridge would present significant impacts in both cost and historic preservation.

The pantograph will have to be raised when the streetcar is under OCS, and lowered when it is not. The pantograph is spring-loaded. If the pantograph is not lowered when it leaves the OCS, it will extend to its maximum height and could be torn off the vehicle when it reaches the next segment of OCS. The vehicle will be out of service and it is costly to repair the pantograph, so it is important that the raising and lowering occur without fail. Automating the operation of the pantograph is another technical challenge that will need to be worked out by the vehicle suppliers.

The Cincinnati Streetcar vehicle procurement included an option for off-wire technology, an approach that this project might want to consider. It was determined that the added costs for the off-wire vehicles exceeded the cost savings that would result from eliminating OCS, and in April 2012 Cincinnati decided not to execute the option for off-wire capability.

Vehicles with on-board energy storage will be more technically complex, more expensive to purchase and maintain, and less flexible operationally (i.e., how far they run under OCS and without OCS will always need to be considered).

Batteries have a finite number of operating cycles before they have to be replaced and disposed of. We recommend calculating the duty cycles that the batteries will be subject to and developing an estimate of the time between replacements. More accurate cost comparisons should include a life-cycle cost to maintain the batteries. As a starting point, one vehicle supplier indicated that batteries should last 7 years and cost $50K to replace, which appears to be a significantly lower cost than the cost savings that appear to be possible using vehicles with batteries.

Energy storage technologies are evolving rapidly and there is a risk of adopting a technology that could become obsolete. It would be important for the energy storage to be modular and capable of a complete change-out. Costs and performance of energy storage systems should continue to improve.

The requirements of the CPUC should be incorporated directly into the vehicle procurement specification. It should be up to the vehicle supplier to meet the requirements or to successfully obtain a waiver prior to selection.

SCHEDULE IMPLICATIONS

If the PSC is interested in considering alternative off-wire vehicle technology, we recommend deferring the decision to include such technology in the Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar vehicle procurement until the Dallas Oak-Cliff and Seattle First Hill projects successfully receive,



commission, and operate their off-wire vehicles. Among other things, this would provide a chance for the FTA to consider the acceptability of the alternative technology for Small Starts Project funding.

We recommend that a consultant specializing in rail transit vehicle procurements be engaged to develop a performance specification for the vehicles for this project with input from the project team. As illustrated in Figure 3, this would need to be done prior to receipt of the FTA Grant so that vehicle procurement could immediately follow the grant award. Since vehicle manufacturing typically takes as long as or longer than construction, the start of design for OCS and TPSS could follow the vehicle procurement process. Thus, final design will not commence until after it is known whether the project will go with traditional OCS technology or with alternative off-wire technology. This would avoid spending funds designing project elements that might not be needed.

Figure 3: Conceptual Vehicle Procurement and Manufacturing Schedule

RECOMMENDATIONS

Complete the environmental assessment of the project using a worst-case assumption of overhead wires, poles, traction power substations, and higher energy consumption. If it is determined later that these elements can be eliminated through the use of an alternative vehicle technology, further environmental documentation would be minimal, consisting of internal memoranda documenting the change in the project description and the reduction in the level of impacts and effects.

Closely monitor the experience of the Dallas Oak-Cliff and Seattle First Hill Streetcar projects from scheduled vehicle deliveries, acceptance, and experience during operations. Be aware of any problems that are encountered and factor these into the final decision. If the problems are significant enough that there would be unmitigable risk proceeding with off-wire vehicle technology, then drop off-wire technology from consideration and proceed with traditional vehicle technology.

If the experience from Dallas and Seattle are favorable and it is demonstrated to the Project Team and FTA that there is little risk, then consider procuring the vehicles with an option for on-board energy storage meeting project requirements and let the vehicle suppliers provide the exact cost increase to the vehicles. At the time of the vehicle contract award, make the final decision whether or not to execute an option for off-wire vehicles. Involve FTA in the final decision process as part of their Pre-Award Audit. Also verify that the selected vehicle supplier has met all CPUC requirements.

Task

Complete Environmental Documents

FTA Grant Agreement

Develop Vehicle Specifications

Vehicle Procurement

Vehicle Manufacturing

Design

Construction

Schedule



REFERENCES

Streetcar Vehicle Technology Report prepared for the Kansas City Streetcar Project by John Smatlak of RPR Consulting in May 2012.

Streetcar Technology Assessment, prepared for the City of Charlotte by URS in May 2010.

“Overhead Wires Free LRT Systems”, a paper prepared for the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting by Margarita Novales.

Presentation for the 2012 APTA Rail Conference, John Swanson, Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Article in Progressive Railroading, August 2011.