Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 Approach The search for efficient, low-emission methods of transporting marine containers inland has led developers to examine a wide range of technologies and systems configurations. As of early 2014, most advanced-technology proposals are conceptual, without working examples in existence. Many fixed-guideway proposals would apply technologies used in other applications, chiefly public transit and “people movers.” In contrast, truck-based solutions focus primarily on propul- sion technology, including natural gas, hybrid, battery, and electric options. These factors make compiling and comparing system descriptions a challenging task. The research team approached this deficiency by working backward from the descriptors and data elements that would be available for a completed inland transport system. This approach breaks down a complete system into its major functional components—line-haul, terminals, control systems, and so forth—to highlight areas in which proposals are either complete or incomplete and to facilitate development and application of consistent evaluation criteria across disparate technologies. This approach also facilitates comparisons between existing systems (e.g., conventional truck drayage) and proposed systems that would accomplish the same purpose. The research team’s review of the literature found that previous studies also faced the issue of providing systems descriptions to various audiences with differing levels of technical interest. In response, the research team’s approach was to create a multi-level descriptive matrix to support communication and comparison at multiple levels. These technology/systems descriptions rely on the work performed in these previous studies, an extensive literature search, and a review of information provided on the websites of the technology suppliers. The research team compiled available information on all known, active inland container transport proposals, based primarily on the preceding work in Southern California on ZECMS. In parallel, the research team developed a generic step-by-step description of the inland container transport process from marine terminal to delivery at inland destinations within 100 miles. With a view toward eventual implementation of complete, permanent transport systems, the research team included commercial, managerial, scheduling, and maintenance factors not typically addressed in conceptual technology reviews. As the research progressed it became apparent that the evaluation method would need to support different kinds of decisions being made at different points during the technology development and implementation process. The research team therefore sought ways to match the level of detail available at any given time with the needs of decisionmakers. C H A P T E R 2 Landside Container Transport Alternatives

18 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Container Transport Technologies The research team identified a continuum of technologies beginning with very simple incremental improvements in the current drayage system and continuing to very new and some- what unorthodox approaches. The technologies identified by the research team are described in Table 2-1. The table includes technologies and proposals as of 2013–2014, when the compilation was completed. Although the basic technology options are likely to remain, specific developers and proposals are likely to change over time. Generally, these technologies fall into several categories: • Conventional Truck Drayage. This is equivalent to a no-build scenario for port planning purposes because it represents the current and evolving status of container drayage. • Advanced Truck Drayage. Hybrid trucks could use existing roadways, although some pro- posals call for these vehicles to use dedicated truck lanes or rights of way. In some proposals, trucks would draw electricity from a power source such as catenary while within a designated right-of-way. • Conventional Railway Technology. Conventional railways could provide an alternative to truck drayage in the 100-mile range, using either clean diesel locomotives or electric power. Electric locomotives are used across the world, although they are not used for inland container transport within the United States. Electrification by conventional means (i.e., catenary or third rail) could create significant operational issues on existing rail rights of way. • Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies. Many proposals suggested that containers be conveyed along dedicated guideways using electric power and various high-technology pro- pulsion systems, chiefly LSM or LIM. In some cases, guideways are proposed for ground level; in others they are elevated. To create a frictionless environment with no noise, some proposals recommend Maglev used in conjunction with either LIM or LSM propulsion. Conventional Truck Drayage Port drayage is conducted almost exclusively by conventional diesel truck tractors pulling containers on chassis. Truck tractors are typically purchased used after being retired from long-haul or regional truckload service, although there has been an increase in the acquisition of new drayage tractors to meet emissions standards. New and proposed drayage truck technologies are focused on propulsion technology—otherwise there are few significant operational differences from conventional diesel truck tractors. The current standard system relies on power produced by an internal combustion engine in a tractor driving a rubber tire on a conventional highway. The tractor pulls a chassis on which a standard ocean container is mounted (Figure 2-1). The system relies on legacy marine and rail terminals as well as legacy inland customer facilities. Clean Diesel Ordinary diesel fuel has given way to ultra-low sulfur diesel. Engines are continuing to evolve, becoming cleaner with each new regulatory standard. For example, model year 1994 and older dray trucks emit about 60 times more fine particle (PM 2.5) emissions than year 2007 and newer trucks. Alternative Fuels Alternative fuels include ethanol, biodiesel, propane, natural gas, and hydrogen. Many of these fuels yield emissions reductions. Hydrogen is a zero-emissions fuel. Natural gas is established as an economically and operationally viable fuel for light urban delivery trucks and is also used in heavier buses and trash collection trucks. Natural gas engines in heavy-duty freight applications,

Landside Container Transport Alternatives 19 Name Organization General Descrip on Generic Technology Conventional Drayage Multiple This is the current standard system using a standard diesel tractor pulling a chassis holding one container. Diesel Truck Drayage Hybrid Trucks Tetra Tech Use of hybrid diesel electric trucks ulizing exisng streets and highways in addion to newly acquired right of way. Hybrid Trucks Hydrogen Hybrid Trucks Tyrano A prototype hydrogen fuel cell hybrid electric truck, with zero tailpipe emissions. Hydrogen Hybrid Truck MagneTruck™ General Atomics MagneTruck™ is a proposed concept that would utilize linear synchronous motors (LSMs) embedded in road surfaces to move road vehicles along within specially designed traffic lanes. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) Electrified Railway Siemens & others An electric locomove pulling convenonal rail cars on an electrified railway. Electrified Railway MagneRail™ General Atomics MagneRail™ is based on the idea of retrofitng convenonal steel wheel rail lines with linear synchronous motors, most likely mounted to the railroad es between the rails. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) LIM Rail/MagRail Innovave Transportaon Systems Corporaon LIM Rail is proposed as a retrofit of existing tracks with a linear synchronous motor system to move containers on railroad flatcars or convenonal truck trailer chassis under automated propulsion and control. Linear synchronous motor (LSM) Rail Motor & SPM Maglev Launchpoint Technologies Rail Motor is proposed as a retrofit to convenonal track, a linear rail motor to be mounted to exisng rail lines to electrically propel passive railcars and locomoves. Maglev Flight Rail Corporation Flight Rail Corporaon Use of a vacuum propulsion technology along an elevated, fixed guideway system. Vacuum propulsion Automated Shu…le Car System Automated Terminal Systems, Inc. Automated Shuttle Car System is proposed as a fully automated cargo container system for transporng cargo containers between marine/rail and other terminals, including a fully automated container yard. Electrified Rails DC Motors CargoRail/Cargo Tram MegaRail Transportaon Systems CargoRail/Cargo Tram is proposed as a coupled dual mode conveyance that could operate in port and railroad intermodal areas on existing paved surfaces. Electrified Rails DC Motors Container Express Corridor CiCar CiCar is proposed to move cargo containers within an automated corridor using exisng railroad track and specialized electrically powered vehicles. No design for railcar motor Container Port Skid Tubular Rail Container Port Skid is proposed to propel a container carrying skid (vehicle) on an electric power roller system. External AC electric propulsion Electric Cargo Conveyor System General Atomics Electric Cargo Conveyor System (ECCO) is proposed as a grade separated, fully automac – driverless container transport system using stationary levitaon magnets and linear synchronous motor propulsion. Combination of Maglev and LSM Air Rail Skytech SkyTech's linear inducon motor (LIM) powered framework and its forefront electromagnec technology provide automated container moves from point to point. Linear inducon propulsion Southern California Guideway Southern California Guideway Southern California Guideway is proposed to move pallets loaded with cargo containers by linear motors in a grade separated guideway. Linear Induction Motor (LIM) SAFE Freight Shule Freight Shuttle Partners Freight Shuttle Partners has proposed the use of steel wheeled vehicles on elevated fixed guideway using linear induction motors. Linear inducon propulsion Environmental Migaon and Mobility Initiative (EMMI) American Maglev Technology of Florida Environmental Migaon and Mobility Initiative Logiscs Soluon (EMMI) would use grade-separated magnetically levitated trains to move cargo containers. Maglev Freightrapid Transrapid International USA Freightrapid is a proposed adaptaon of the Transrapid passenger technology, using electromagnecally levitated vehicles, propelled by a linear synchronous longstator motor to transport standard containers. Maglev Bombardier Maglev Maglev Inc. Use of magnetic levitaon technology along an elevated, fixed guideway system. Maglev LEVX California Freight Systems Magna Force, Inc Use of a levitaon technology employing permanent magnets along a fixed guideway system. Maglev AirHelo International, Inc AirHelo would use a fleet of lighter than air airships to move transfer containers from ships to transshipment points. Airships Truck Drayage Technologies Railway Technologies Advanced Fixed Guideway Technologies Other Technologies Table 2-1. Technologies identified.

20 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers however, are in their infancy compared with mature diesel technology. The abundant supply and lower prices resulting from expanding shale gas production have greatly increased interest in freight applications. Advanced Truck Drayage Hybrids Hybrid systems are becoming available. A hybrid vehicle typically combines an electric pro- pulsion system with an internal combustion engine to achieve improved fuel economy over a conventional vehicle. A hybrid electric vehicle produces fewer emissions than a gasoline or diesel vehicle equivalent, with further reductions occurring when the internal combustion engine is shut down while the vehicle idles. Many of these systems use the energy developed by regenerative braking stored electrically or hydraulically. Hydrogen-Hybrid Trucks The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are funding the demonstration of a hydrogen/electric hybrid vehicle. Except for propulsion, the vehicle is otherwise ordinary and can use legacy streets and highways as well as marine, rail, and customer facilities. Battery-Powered Trucks Battery trucks are, so far, restricted to either light-duty or in-terminal operations and do not yet have the storage capacity for routine use in port container drayage. Although this technol- ogy is expected to progress and improve, the capacity limits of battery trucks are a major factor in developing wayside power options. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are also funding the demonstration of a battery-powered heavy-duty truck. Except for propulsion, the vehicle is other- wise ordinary and can use legacy streets and highways as well as marine, rail, and customer facilities. Electrified Highway Drayage This system relies on electric power typically provided by overhead catenary. The power is pro- vided to a motor in an otherwise conventional highway tractor. The system would require some other vehicle or hybrid capability in order to use legacy marine and rail terminals as well as legacy Figure 2-1. Class 8 drayage tractors.

Landside Container Transport Alternatives 21 customer facilities. Wayside power, typically via overhead wire, is in common use for trolley buses and heavy-duty mining trucks. Wayside power requires route-specific infrastructure, either cat- enary over public roadways or an exclusive road system. Trolley buses and mining trucks typically stay on the system. A closed system might be appropriate for movements between marine terminals and inland rail terminals, but would forego the inherent flexibility and scalability of truck drayage. Wayside/Battery Trucks A promising variation not yet tested is wayside/battery power. In such a system, the truck tractor would use wayside power where available for both propulsion and charging the battery and use the battery alone for short trips off the wayside power system. The wayside power/ battery combination is intended to allow the truck free-ranging operation at either end of the line-haul trip. This arrangement would allow electric trucks to intermingle with diesel or natural gas trucks in unmodified marine and rail terminals, and to serve “off-wire” points inland within operating range of catenary power. Such a system would, however, require a way for trucks to move smoothly between wayside power and battery operations. The transition would be more challenging on public roadways. Magnetruck™ This conceptual system relies on electric power and a Linear Synchronous Motor (LSM). The power is provided to a specially equipped rubber-tired tractor operating on a highway equipped with an LSM. The system would rely on the tractor’s hybrid power capability to use legacy marine and rail terminals as well as legacy customer facilities. Truck Platooning Truck platooning refers generally to methods for operating trucks in closely grouped sets, with the goal of reducing fuel and labor costs and increasing effective highway capacity. There are multiple concepts for truck platooning: • Electronically linked “trains” of trucks following a lead driver, exemplified by the European Safe Road Trains for the Environment (SARTRE) project or the Japanese Energy ITS project. • Ad hoc platooning of vehicle-to-vehicle linked trucks, exemplified by the Peloton system. Platooned trucks with linked automatic braking system can travel closer together than unlinked vehicles because the reaction and braking time of the automated systems exceeds that of human drivers. The ability to travel closer together at high speeds results in less aerodynamic drag and thus greater fuel economy. Results to date suggest that potential fuel savings may be in the range of 5–7% at highway speeds (e.g., 65 mph in recent tests). Demonstrations of the Peloton approach in 2013 and 2014 yielded fuel use reductions of 4–5% in the lead truck and 10% in the rear truck; about 7% on average. Because aerodynamic drag is a function of the square of the speed, however, fuel savings at the lower speeds typical of local and regional drayage would be far less. Labor saving depends on the trailing trucks being driverless, which for safety reasons is only envisioned for closed-system, dedicated lane operations. For local and regional drayage, driverless trucks would be impractical. The only potential application may be in container trips between a single marine terminal and a single off-dock rail terminal. The ability to operate trucks closer together (e.g., 10 meters apart at 65 mph) is also less important at lower speeds where trucks are already closely spaced. The ability of platooning to increase net capacity is therefore extremely limited. Research for Caltrans under the PATH project

22 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers found that gains by platooned long-haul trucks were achieved at the expense of short-haul trucks (which would include most drayage) and passenger vehicles. The research team did not treat truck platooning as a separate candidate container transport technology for the following reasons: • Overall, progress to date on the truck platooning concept suggests that it would be most effective at higher speeds and on longer trips than are typical of local and regional truck drayage or container distribution. • If implemented on exclusive rights-of-way, truck platooning features such as automatic gap adjustment and braking could become part of the guideway and propulsion systems exam- ined above. In the Southern California I-710 case, the electric drayage scenario included truck platooning capabilities. • If implemented in a vehicle-to-vehicle format, such as the Peloton demonstrations of 2013 and 2014, truck platooning would be a method of improving truck performance rather than a container transportation system per se. Conventional Railway Technology For this research “conventional” rail technologies are defined as those that can operate over existing or retrofitted rail track and right-of-way rather than requiring new guideway. The options for conventional rail systems, as with truck drayage, focus on propulsion: • Clean Diesel Locomotives. Clean diesel locomotives (e.g., EPA Tier III standards). • Natural Gas Locomotives. Natural gas (requiring new or modified locomotives and perhaps natural gas “fuel tenders”). • Conventional Electrified Railway. This system relies on electric power typically provided by an overhead catenary. The power is provided to a motor in a locomotive driving a steel wheel on a railway. The locomotive pulls a set of unpowered rail cars. Train lengths may be 1 mile or longer. Containers may be mounted one or two high. Typically, catenary is not provided in container transfer facilities and a diesel locomotive is required for terminal switching. With that provision, the system can use legacy marine and rail terminals. Final delivery to customer facilities is typically by conventional truck drayage. • LSM Rail Retrofits. The conceptual MagneRail™, LIM-Rail, and Rail Motor. Systems rely on electric power provided by an LSM or similar technology retrofit to existing railroad tracks. The power is provided to a specially equipped rail car (“power car”) or locomotive, which can then pull container cars. Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies The proposals attracting the most attention are those employing advanced technologies over new fixed guideways. The advanced technologies in question use different combinations of propulsion, suspension, guidance, and control. Propulsion All of the advanced technologies proposed for inland transport are electrically powered using one of a few basic methods: • Conventional electric motors, via steel or rubber wheels. The Automated Shuttle Car, CargoRail/Cargo Tram, and Tubular Rail/Container Port Skid proposals use conventional electric motors for propulsion.

Landside Container Transport Alternatives 23 • Linear Induction Motors (LIMs). LIMs are asynchronous AC motors that have been effectively “unrolled” over a guideway. In LIM applications, the electromagnetic stator (primary) of the motor is typically built into the vehicle with the rotor (secondary) consisting of a “reactor rail” or flat metal sheets centered in the guideway. The SAFE Freight Shuttle, Southern California Guideway, Air Rail, and Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative Logistics Solution (EMMI) proposals include LIM propulsion. • Linear Synchronous Motors (LSMs). LSM systems typically use permanent magnets on the vehicles and electromagnets in the guideway. This approach usually reduces the cost and complexity of the vehicles, but increases the complexity of the guideway. LSM technology is increasingly used in roller coasters. The Electric Cargo Conveyor System (ECCO), SPM Maglev, Freightrapid, and Bombardier Maglev are proposed LSM systems. • Other systems. The Flight Rail concept relies on stationary electric power to create a vacuum in a tube located in a guideway. Locomotion is provided by driving a piston through the tube. The LEVX proposal involves vehicle-mounted magnetic discs rotating near an aluminum linear reaction rail mounted in the guideway to provide propulsion. As part of the FTA Urban Maglev Technology Development Program, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a comprehensive evaluation2 of these technologies and found that each had advantages and disadvantages for passenger operations. Those findings are relevant to the current effort. The most basic difference between the two propulsion systems is that LIM can be generally characterized as a “smart vehicle/dumb guideway” technology while LSM employs a “dumb vehicle/smart guideway” concept. The FTA study found that LIM was generally more reliable, easier to maintain, more flexible in operations, and had lower capital and operating costs than LSM. LSM, on the other hand was more energy efficient and could operate at higher speeds because of lighter-weight vehicles. However, in freight movement operations, the higher speeds possible with LSM-propelled vehicles are probably not relevant to this evaluation process. Suspension The major variations in suspension are between wheeled systems and magnetically levitated (Maglev) systems. Conventional systems may use either rubber or steel wheels and some com- bination of springs and hydraulics to maintain contact with the guideway and cushion the ride. Maglev systems use electromagnetic arrays to raise the vehicle off the guideway, thereby reducing friction and enabling higher speeds at the cost of higher power consumption. Being “contactless,” Maglev systems typically use LIM or LSM propulsion. Other options include the roller-supported Tubular Rail concept. Guidance The fixed-guideway systems, by definition, rely on the guideway (track) for guidance. For wheeled systems, the wheels follow either paired or single rails. Maglev systems use the magnetic array to track the rail or rails in a similar fashion. The differences in guidance systems have critical implications for network complexity. Wheel-on-rail turnouts (switches) for conventional, LIM, and LSM systems are basically the same as standard railroad turnouts, with the addition of power or reactor rails. These turnouts take 5 to 10 seconds to change routes, depending on geometry. These turnouts can permit vehicles to change routes or enter/exit terminals at full speed. 2 FTA Urban Maglev Technology Development Program, Colorado Maglev Project, “Comparison of Linear Synchronous and Induction Motors,” Report Number: FTA-DC-26-7002.2004.01, June 2004.

24 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Turnouts for Maglev systems are far more complex. Traverser types that allow high-speed operation are large (up to 80m) and slow to change directions. The more conventional types used in yards and terminals take 30 to 40 seconds to change routes and require operations at more moderate speeds. These limitations of Maglev guidance are relatively unimportant in larger point-to-point systems but can significantly impair system performance and capacity in systems linking multiple port-area terminals. Control Advanced fixed-guideway technology proposals ordinarily envision automated control. Automated control is clearly feasible for line-haul movement. The Skytrain LIM system in Vancouver, BC, has been automated for nearly 30 years, and most airport people movers are automated. The feasibility of automation in intermodal transfer terminals, however, has not been demonstrated. The proposed systems described below are the best-documented of the current proposals and have many features in common with other options. Representative Advanced Fixed-Guideway Systems: Safe Freight Shuttle Freight Shuttle Partners has proposed the use of steel-wheeled vehicles on elevated fixed guideways using LIMs (Figure 2-2). The contact for the technology is Freight Shuttle Partners, LLC, Saint Helena, CA. The system is a Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) initiative. The Texas A&M System has exclusively licensed all patented technology to Freight Shuttle Partners (FSP). TTI recently published the report, FHWA/TX-11/9-1528-1, which describes the system as follows: The Freight Shuttle is an automated conveyance designed to transport standard intermodal containers over a specially configured, fixed guideway. The guideway-vehicle combination comprises the elements necessary for an electrically-powered linear induction motor—with the stator positioned as a vertical element in the center of the guideway and the motor windings positioned on either side of the stator as opposing linear motors on each shuttle vehicle. The shuttle vehicle is positioned across and straddles the Figure 2-2. Concept drawing of the freight shuttle system.3 3 Roop et al., Report 9-1528-1, Project 9-1528, The SAFE Freight Shuttle: A Proposal to Design, Build, and Test an Alterna- tive Container Transport System, Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and FHWA, November 2010, Published: January 2011, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas 77845-3135, pp 3–4.

Landside Container Transport Alternatives 25 vertical guideway in a manner that prevents decoupling from the guideway. The system is further characterized by steel wheels operating on a continuous steel running surface. The guideway’s track sur- face consists of a reinforced concrete structure of sufficient thickness and width to support fully-loaded intermodal containers. The guideway can be elevated or installed alongside existing roadways or other facilities, thereby utilizing existing highway or other rights-of-way. The shuttle vehicles are designed to operate as single-unit transports; each dispatched to its destination as the loading process is completed. The overall system is designed to operate as a continuously circulating conveyor of containers or truck trailers over distances ranging from a few miles up to 500 miles. The infrastructure is designed to support multiple vehicles operating simultaneously, with the upper range in vehicle numbers established by customer demand, economic operating velocity, and guideway length. The drawing depicts the basic system elements: an automated vehicle, elevated guideway, and cargo bay designed to support and transport one intermodal container or truck trailer. As of mid-2014, the Freight Shuttle System remains conceptual. Representative Advanced Fixed-Guideway Systems: Electric Cargo Conveyor System The proposed Electric Cargo Conveyor System (ECCO) relies on stationary electric power in a (mostly) grade-separated guideway with an LSM driving platform vehicles equipped with stationary levitation magnets (Figure 2-3). Standard ocean containers are mounted using legacy marine and rail terminal lift equipment. The system is envisioned operating as a fully automated, driverless system. Vehicles would move as individual units rather than trains. The Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT), California State University, Long Beach, describes the system as follows: Instead of wheels where a shipping container’s entire weight is focused on a small contact area, the ECCO system uses a large area of permanent magnets under the carriage to distribute the container weight uniformly over the carriage and the underlying guideway. Thus, ECCO not only has the largest payload-to-carriage ratio of any land transport, but also—due to minimum stress on the guideway—is the most reliable and economical method to elevate freight transport. In addition to eliminating wheels and their accompanying noise and vibration, ECCO further advances land transport by having its electric motor within the guideway, and not in each carriage. This Linear Synchronous Motor (LSM) powers only the short portion of the guideway where a container carriage is present thus assuring minimum energy use and maximum safety. Extra power for steep grades can be built into the guideway where needed, rather than augmenting on-board propulsion. Using stationary electrical power, ECCO produces no pollution along its path.4 4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/owd/forum_files/ECCO_documents_for_printing%20.pdf 5 http://atg.ga.com/EM/transportation/ecco/index.php Figure 2-3. ECCO concept graphic.5

26 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers General Atomics, San Diego, CA, further describes the system as follows: The system uses magnet blocks mounted on the chassis assembly of the vehicles. There is no active power system on vehicle—only permanent magnets. This allows use of guideway tracks that are lighter, cheaper, and less intrusive. The Halbach Array magnet configuration adds the benefits increased mag- netic field strength and very low magnetic fields in passenger compartments and near stations (well below allowable standards). The larger air-gap enables less expensive guideway construction. The ECCO line-haul technology has been demonstrated in a prototype container-carrying form. Technology Matrix The research team developed an extensive Excel-based matrix to organize the available infor- mation on proposed container transport technologies and to identify important information gaps. The matrix, presented in Appendix B (available on the project web page), covers the fol- lowing technologies: • Hybrid Trucks • Flight Rail Corporation • AirHelo • Electrified Railway • Automated Shuttle Car System • CargoRail/Cargo Tram • Container-Express Corridor • Container Port Skid • Electric Cargo Conveyor System • MagneTruck™ • MagneRail™ • LIM-Rail/MagRail • Air Rail • Southern California Guideway • SAFE Freight Shuttle • Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative (EMMI) • Freightrapid • Rail Motor & SPM Maglev • Bombardier Maglev • LEVX California Freight Systems As Appendix B (available on the project web page) shows, at this stage of development the infor- mation gaps predominate. The task of compiling information is also complicated by similarities between proposals and the changing use of nomenclature over time.