The sudden suspension of electric battery bus services in Antelope Valley two weeks ago has unveiled significant challenges and pitfalls associated with the rush towards electrification of public transit systems, without adequately addressing reliability and infrastructure issues.
This event has left hundreds of commuters stranded, highlighting the essential gaps in planning and risk management that are too often overlooked in the fervor to adopt green technologies.
The Incident
On a seemingly ordinary Tuesday, the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) halted all operations involving their fleet of MCI D45 battery-electric commuter coaches. This decision, made “out of an abundance of caution and for reasons outside of AVTA’s control,” abruptly affected the daily routines of countless individuals who rely on these buses for work, school, and other critical appointments. The suspension, importantly, did not impact AVTA’s local service nor their use of BYD zero-emission battery electric buses, suggesting a specific issue with the MCI D45 models.
At least four critical commuter lines were affected by the suspension, including services to downtown Los Angeles, Century City, the San Fernando Valley and the TRANSporter service to Newhall.
The suspension does not affect AVTA’s local service or the agency’s use of any BYD zero-emission battery electric buses, transport officials said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/electric-battery-commuter-bus-services-abruptly-suspended-in-antelope-valley/ar-BB1lluZb
Commuter Chaos and Communication Breakdown
The impact on the community was immediate and severe. Many commuters were left in the lurch, with some only becoming aware of the suspension when handed a flyer while boarding a bus. This last-minute notification is a glaring testament to the lack of effective communication strategies in critical transit service changes. Furthermore, alternative transport options were not seamlessly integrated. Metrolink trains, suggested as an alternative, were reportedly unprepared to accept AVTA passes, leading to confusion and additional expenses for the riders, with one individual’s commute cost tripling as a result of the disruption.
The Underlying Issues
While no official explanation was provided immediately, some speculation pointed towards safety concerns with the electric batteries, such as potential fire risks. This speculation, if true, touches upon a critical aspect of electric vehicle technology — battery safety and reliability. The rapid push for electrification of public transport solutions often glosses over these vital engineering challenges. It is imperative to ask if the technological zeal is overshadowing practical implementation strategies that ensure safety and reliability.
Economic Impact and Policy Shortcomings
The financial ramifications for everyday commuters like the bus rider who reported a threefold increase in daily commuting costs illustrate a broader issue of economic inequity introduced by technological transitions. The shift to electric buses is often touted as a necessary step towards combating climate change, yet the real-time execution of these policies must be scrutinized. Are we advancing towards a future of sustainability at the expense of present-day reliability and economic accessibility?
Moreover, the AVTA’s situation serves as a microcosm of a larger trend where policies and technologies are deployed under the banner of environmental conservation without thorough vetting for practical viability. This incident compels policymakers to reassess the balance between innovation and reliability, especially in essential services like public transportation.
Conclusion
The suspension of the electric bus services in Antelope Valley should act as a wake-up call for transit authorities and policymakers alike. It underscores the necessity of adopting a measured, data-driven approach when integrating new technologies into critical public services. Technology transitions must not compromise on safety, reliability, or economic feasibility. As this case vividly demonstrates, the leap towards futuristic solutions requires not just technological readiness but a robust framework for risk assessment, crisis management, and public communication to truly benefit the communities it aims to serve.
This incident reveals the gaps between the idealistic pursuits of environmental policies and the pragmatic realities of their implementation. It serves as a crucial lesson in the importance of caution and thoroughness in the face of technological or ideological enthusiasm.
H/T j-boles
The same problems with electric vehicles existed in 1900. Expense, poor range, excessive weight, and long charge times. The newer issue is fires.
Handwaving will not make bad tech viable.
Expense is the consequence of requiring an abundance of exotic materials. The availability of the current materials required limits the BEV fleet size.
It is fair to say that ubiquitous presence of ICE vehicles causes near universal under appreciation of the significance of the internal combustion engine. And I wonder how far can the technology go when mated to energy recovery system for braking like present hybrids. F1 racing cars achieve an impressive result with 100kg of fuel.
“how far can the technology go when mated to energy recovery system for braking like present hybrids.”
If ICE tech is extended like that, then it would be a hybrid.
But yes it would be interesting how far ICE can go – from a geeky engineering level, but will it be worth it, just to save a bit of fuel.
Ahh, I think you should check your figures. An F1 race is typically 190 miles and 100 kg of fuel is 36 (US)gallons. So they get a mere 5.3 miles per gallon. And they don’t use regenerative braking to extend range, they use the motor/generators and batteries to provide a boost in shaft power for overtaking. So F1 regen braking is a poor example.
Likewise regenerative braking in an hybrid is also poorly understood. It ONLY works for stop and go city driving, and has no benefit whatsoever on steady speed, highway driving. And it only works to provide a small percentage of actual stopping power – as in only if you are not following too close, or not driving like a madman and stopping at the last minute. Normal hydraulic friction brakes are used when the meager electrical braking function’s capacity to stop is exceeded. Let’s say conventional idiot drivers (80+% of them) require -2g to stop. The regen braking function can only do maybe -0.5g, so most of the time average idiot drivers are using the friction brakes. (so only a fraction of the energy to stop is recovered, the rest is dissipated as heat as per normal ICE only vehicles)
I can attest to this empirically as changing pads and rotors for a Prius, happen about the same interval as for a Corolla, being about the same weight.
Oh and a huge caveat is that an hybrid, such as the Prius, has a large battery, and when it generates a fault, the computer will not allow you to even start the ICE engine, so it becomes a boat anchor until you replace the main battery at a cost of $15k. So the benefits of an hybrid are slim to none in the long run. Oh and newer ICE systems already get better mileage than hybrids too….
Regenerative braking as in an hybrid gasoline/electric vehicle is a nice idea on paper, but the practicality of implementation – not so much on balance.
“Prius, has a large battery, and when it generates a fault, the computer will not allow you to even start the ICE engine, so it becomes a boat anchor until you replace the main battery at a cost of $15k”
These claims are mainly BS
The Prius battery is relatively small, not large, and currently weighs 118 pounds versus 1,000 to 2,000 pounds for a BEV battery pack
The Prius will usually with a nearly dead lithium battery. The car’s computer won’t allow the high-voltage batteries to become fully depleted, as this can damage them. If the high-voltage battery completely dies, however, the car won’t be able to be driven at all, in most cases.
A replacement battery, rarely needed, is from $1,500 to $4,500, depending on the year, not $15,000
The advantages of a hybrid are very significant if your driving needs are mainly short trips powered by the batteries.
Their gasoline engines are economical too:
Most hybrid SUVs get more than 35 mpg and most hybrid sedans get more than 45 mpg. That’s about a 40 percent improvement over non-hybrids, on average.
We have a Lexus hybrid SUV, which we bought used about two years ago. It is mostly driven around south Florida, and there is lots of traffic congestion in the Miami area, but it still gets about 25 to 30 miles per gallon, and about 35 mpg on the highway, much better than an ordinary ICE engine for a car this size. We’ve never had trouble with the battery yet (knock on wood!), and it is a reliable car otherwise.
Hybrids may be more expensive than ordinary ICE cars when new, but they do offer impressive fuel economy if owned for several years. All-electric cars, on the other hand, are unreliable and difficult to re-charge, and are not very useful outside of golf carts.
My 2023 Mazda Miata will do 42-43mpg without being a hybrid. Power to weight ratio is something auto makers for the most part seem to forget.
I have a 2019 Rav4 Adventure. My daughter has a 2019 Rav4 Hybrid, She’s been averaging 36MPG, I’ve been averaging 28. Her car is about an order of magnitude better driving than mine. Toyoda is squeezing my ICE to the max for mileage, along with an 8 speed trans that is up shifting as fast as it can, Drivability sucks. Her car is shoosh and zoom in comparison. And way quieter. She has owned two other hybrids Longterm – a Prius C and that Honda CR-Z, no problems at all. she traded the CRZ for the Rav when a kid came into the scene.
When I got the 2019 Ravs were hard to find, hybrid Ravs more so. I settled. I don’t know if 20% less fuel cost (Kalifornia) would make up for the cost but I’d much rather drive that hybrid.
Story tip important, know it is off topic, but…
Twisters sequel to Twister coming July 2024, in time for election propaganda
Climate Change Theme
https://collider.com/twisters-plot-details/
Start a boycott….
Pedowood ruins everything. Surprised they haven’t tried remaking Big Trouble in Little China.
I imagine Michael Crichton (screen play Twister, novel State of Fear) is probably turning over in his grave.
“Climate Change Theme”
I was looking forward to seeing that movie. Now, I’m not. More alarmist climate change propaganda.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VqGrLzQJGuI
Who needs the movies these days
Much like what was seen in the two crashes of Boeing designed planes ca. 10 years ago, the numerous EV bus and car fires deserve a halt to these technologies until the problems are resolved (if ever). Moving forward in spite of these fires is the height of irresponsibility.
Guess where Antilope Valley is—yup, California outside LA.
Guess which eBuses Antilope Valley bought—yup, BYD from China.
Guess why Antilope Valley discontinued all eBus service—catastrophic fire risk, maybe because already had one in a bus out of service. Not reported, of course.
Guess whether Antilope Valley has yet discontinued their proud green website propaganda given this disaster—NOPE.
Stranded bus commuters should fire Antelope Valley admin.
Took a minute of Googlefu. Ridicule is effective against greens. Alinsky Rule 5.
BYD were the buses in the fleet that were not pulled from service. It’s in the quoted part of the article.
20 years ago I moved to Michigan to work on HYDRAULIC hybrid UPS trucks, and after 10s of millions of dollars spent by the federal gooberment I bet there are NO such trucks on the road today. It was just a bad idea, but life long bureaucrats do not know any better.
Their jobs are not at risk for screwing up.
Research would be ok, as long as the plug gets pulled when it’s obviously a dead end.
The Mother Earth News ran a couple of articles on hydraulic hybrid cars in the 1970’s. One was built on a VW Beetle chassis with a slick fiberglass kit car body. A hydraulic motor/pump was installed in place of the VW engine. A small gas engine was installed, attached to a hydraulic pump. That pumped hydraulic fluid into a pressurized tank. To move the car, the fluid was let out of the pressurized tank, through the motor/pump. Hit the brakes and the motor switched to pump mode to push fluid back to the pressure tank as regenerative braking. All the while the small gas engine kept pushing fluid into the pressurized tank.
Given that the 55 MPH max speed limit was in effect, the car was designed to cruise at 55 MPH with the ability for bursts of speed up to 65 MPH.
The inventor applied for government funding to build an improved, even more efficient version but nope, the government funding available for efficient vehicle research was only for electric. No alternative fuels, no alternative drive systems, only for electric vehicles.
Such a system with a stop/start system for the gas engine could be even more efficient, along with optimized design of the fluid piping and fittings for minimizing losses due to flow restrictions. Likewise with pumps designed to be more efficient than off the shelf ones available 40-ish years ago. Electronic control of the engine, its RPM, the valves, the pumps and the rest could be tuned for best operation across the range of vehicle speed and other conditions.
Lots of problems in Boston with trams made by a Chinese company – made in Springfield, MA. Knowing how woke both the state and Boston are- I’d almost blame them more than the Chinese company.
The affected buses are made by MCI, a US company controlled by NFI a canadian bus maker.
Where does it say the chinese were at fault ?
The busses in this story? Rud said they were BYD from China. The Boston trams were made by a Chinese company- and many have serious problems. Of course the Boston train system has always had problems it shouldn’t have if managed well. But, it’s Boston and MA, both infamous for corruption, nepotism, incompetence.
“The suspension, importantly, did not impact AVTA’s local service nor their use of BYD zero-emission battery electric buses, suggesting a specific issue with the MCI D45 models.”
Electric busses really don’t have an issue except for the batteries adding weight which reduces travel distance and takes up space. But the batteries can be removed
Plus that whole self immolation thing
They were right to withdraw those BYD (Burn Your Drive) electric buses promptly. Imagine a bus packed with passengers undergoing a fire/chemical explosion as in the video. There is no way on Earth everyone could have evacuated it in time.
Like this one in China…note the number of passengers that evacuate through the flames
note how the other cars and busses keep driving by … I think I would like the Chinese driver mentality.
The MCI D45 CRT LE CHARGE – is the fully electric commuter bus that was abruptly pulled from “long distance” commuter service route.
Their BYD electric busses are still in service
NO BUS FIRES were referenced in this article.
From ATVA press release:
The suspension was due to battery issues encountered by the agency related to the charging of AVTA’s fleet of MCI D45 CRTe LE CHARGE battery-electric commuter coaches.
Only the MCI electric commuter coaches, and therefore the commuter routes, are impacted by this suspension.
Any wonder EV sales, prices and profits are sagging?
Direct consequence of shoot -> ready -> aim which is the MO of the AGW pushers. This is neither the first nor the last of these incidents. The video posted by Bryan A should scare the crap out of people. Let’s make the cars safe before going to busses.
Did this happen only two weeks ago? Why didn’t you wait another 2 weeks?
¿que?
Happening so often, it is sort of hard for anyone to keep up, isn’t it ! 🙂
So as not to step on the story about the next Bus Fire
As history repeatedly reveals, it will not. Religious fanaticism knows no practical considerations.
Why are EV’s always called “sustainable”.
They are not, period.
Only in the eyes of the “west” are they sustainable as the proponents don’t see, hear and speak about the environmental destruction going on elsewhere to satisfy their dreams.
Even now when governments are trying to get back into mining and refining the minerals and metals needed to be able to make the batteries the enviros block just about every initiative.
I can only presume that they don’t like what they know they have to face.
Battery fires are self-sustaining?
More good news. Some riders say they must now pay three times more than riding the bus. I wonder how much of the bus operation is subsidized? How do those riders think those of us who don’t ride the bus feel about paying for their fare?
The sad irony in all this nonsense is that it is all done based on the belief that it will make the weather better over the next 80 years with no evidence and no possible way to ever know if this is true. No matter what is done to try and manage global use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, there is no way to determine whether or how much these efforts alter climate versus changes due to other natural variables. The idea that one data point per year – the poorly defined global mean temperature anomaly – describes the climate is ludicrous to begin with.
The world is wasting trillions of dollars and huge amounts of time and talent chasing an imaginary threat conjured up by by zealots whose real goal is power and control. I’m sure many of the smarter ones know their running a giant scam. The stupid ones – aka politicians – just know it gives them more power and control over the masses.
Predictable. This should never of happened. It happened, because it’s not their money they are spending. Demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills, product/service development or any respect for taxpayers. A boondoggle that will be repeated elsewhere.
Here’s another example of the authorities failing to make long-term tests of the viability of such buses with a limited number of them for starters. Instead, they went whole-hog on their implementation just to show how Green public transit could be on a large scale. So now after spending too much money on these vehicles, they’ve found themselves stuck with a collection of white elephants similar to the findings of car rental companies like Hertz which has abandoned its EVs. A further irony is that the inoperable buses are likely to have to be replaced by diesels, but at least those will get the job done.
In years gone by, there were buses that had electric motors powered by grid electricity from overhead trolleys. As recently as the last time I was in San Francisco (15 years +/-) they were still running. The biggest problem they had was the limited ability to maneuver around obstacles and to pass each other. If you really wanted electric buses, that is what you would do. But, our climatiers are hypnotized with Li-ion batteries as the cure for every problem.
Budapest has trolleybuses
https://www.budapest.net/trolleybus#:~:text=The%20trolleybus%20network%20in%20Budapest,and%20steep%20streets%20in%20Budapest.
They were very common in English towns until the 1950s
Bratislava has trolleybuses too.
Las addition from 2023, 24 meters (78 feet) long one.
https://imhd.sk/ba/galeria-media/u/18655/Prvý-trolejbusový-dlháň-je-už-v-Bratislave?ref=ba%2Fdoc%2Fsk%2F22776%2FPrv%25C3%25BD-trolejbusov%25C3%25BD-dlh%25C3%25A1%25C5%2588-je-u%25C5%25BE-v-Bratislave
Electric buses have been in Cleveland Ohio USA for at least 10 years. They put them in before the so-called “Climate Change” hysteria.
This seems an individual problem. We have the same stupidity over here. People are dissatisfied with public transportation, politicans have budget cuts and at the same time they call for investment. So what do they do? Wast the scarce money on electric busses. Now I happen to work for public transportation and most busses have to operate for at least 16 hours a day. Now, busses don’t do much kilometers a day, but use a lot of energy for temperature control, lights, doors,… although you might recover energy from breaking. I’ve never heard anyone raising the question if electric busses con operate for 16 hours. It also leaves them theoretical 8 hours to charge. My main concern is safety. I will never ride an electric bus with batteries underneath, only on top. In case of a defect it takes 3 seconds to turn ino a inferno. It’s only a matter of time before this happens.
They can’t even get electric cars to work for 100 years so they push to busses and trucks seems another waste of capital.
Chattanooga, TN has run electric buses for 32 years. Initially they used lead acid batteries and had a battery swap station. Then they changed to NiMH. The buses could run almost a full day’s use, needing just a top off charge to finish then got fully charged overnight. The battery swap station was no longer needed.
When I was there in 2016 they had changed most of the fleet to lithium-ion, which could run a full shift without needing topped off. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re changing to lithium iron phosphate or soon will.
Since the initial DoT grant to get started, Chattanooga’s electric shuttle buses have been free to ride, self funded via donation boxes at the two stations and on the buses, and a cut of the downtown parking lot and meter fees.
If you’re staying at a hotel in downtown Chattanooga, you won’t need to hire a taxi or pay to get around to the restaurants and shops. At worst you’ll have to walk a couple of blocks to get to or from one of the bus stops – and only pay to ride if you feel like paying, however much you want.
Do you have to wear you bus pants?
https://youtu.be/Bbb66RM4NLs
Story Tip
Why can’t any of these other places follow the example of Chattanooga, TN? That city has run two routes with electric shuttle buses since 1992. Other than an initial Department of Transportation grant to get started, the buses have been self funding via donation boxes at the two stations, on every bus, and a cut of the down town parking lot and meter fees.
Imagine that, a government program that’s free to use. Pay only if you want. And it actually works.
They began with buses using lead acid batteries, moved to nickel metal hydride, then by 2016 had mostly gone to lithium ion. They might be switching to lithium iron phosphate by now.
After 32 years of sorting out any issues, the manufacturer of Chattanooga’s electric buses should be ready to manufacture “bulletproof” vehicles for any municipality wanting to set up an electric bus route.
But noooo, they can’t just buy a product backed by three decades plus R&D! That would be too easy, too logical.
WUWT should do an article on Chattanooga’s electric buses as a counterpoint on how to do something right. Find someone who lives in that area to do some interviews and research on the bus program and how it’s changed over the years.
According to engineers working on EV cars, the worst possible application for batteries is irt buses. With intercity buses as second worse
Buses are heavy
They carry a heavy load of passengers
Intercity buses have luggage too
All buses have a large interior to keep warm in the winter when batteries are least efficient
The city bus doors open frequently and let in cold air and cold passengers
A city with hills would be the worst case.
There have been quite a few bus fires and fleets that have been parked permanently. It is a miracle that no passengers were killed by the fires so far (that I know of).
Research has found at least 27 verifiable e-bus high voltage battery fires globally since 2010, in a stock of over 250,000 vehicles (January 2024).
Typically, an EV fire burns at roughly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 Celsius), while a gasoline-powered vehicle on fire burns at 1,500 F (815 C). It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to extinguish a burning gasoline-powered vehicle; putting out an EV fire can take 10 times more.
A retired fireman I know feels lucky to never have had an EV fire to fight. He said his company planned to let an EV burn if no one was in the vicinity (the fumes can be more dangerous than the fire to people on the street).
“Technology transitions must not compromise on safety, reliability, or economic feasibility. “
The best sentence in the entire article. And how is all that ‘renewable’ energy generation coming along?