4 ms·

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

dangerwill 4y ago
These lines would be unambiguously better (cheaper, much simpler materials, much less embodied carbon, faster and more reliable if given a proper right of way) than a bunch of electric buses in shared traffic so it makes sense to bring them up.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Not really, because you can rework bus routes about 10,000x easier than rerouting trolley lines. If there are very dense, well defined lines, then sure trolleys can be better.
  - dangerwill 4y ago
    And yet bus routes don't change that often. Let's say it would take 10 years to change a trolley path (an insane time frame but it's the usa so...), I don't see any bus routes changing 3x a day. It is easier to reroute but the difference is only really like 2-5x. And with the trolley you can actually be confident of it showing up on time :)
- mminer237 4y ago
  How is building dedicated trolley tracks cheaper than buying a bus and running it on ordinary pavement? And streetcars have no reason to be faster either. It's easier and historically faster to have a dedicated bus lane than a dedicated trolley lane, but there's just not enough will for even that.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I won't make the claim that trolleys are cheaper, in terms of initial capital. I will make the claim that they're more sustainable, in the following senses: * They make their neighborhoods more valuable to both residents and businesses, which in turn prevents neighborhood flight * Streetcars cost less over time, after their initial cost. Portland found that streetcars cost the city roughly half as much per ride as buses do, and streetcar bodies themselves last much longer than buses do[1]. Ultimately, however, we're talking about public infrastructure. It shouldn't be beholden to the lowest cost; we should be balancing cost with benefit. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17570156/us-streetcar-trend-public-transportation https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17570156/us-streetcar-trend-pu...
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > Portland found that streetcars cost the city roughly half as much per ride as buses do, and streetcar bodies themselves last much longer than buses do[1]. This is the same order of saving gained by switching high traffic bus routes to EV busses, since fuel is the main cost, (Lower EV maintenance is also a benefit shared by battery busses) so its a very weak claim to superiority for electric trollybusses or trams without batteries, and one that will, if it even exists today, erode over time as batteries improve in cost and performance. EV busses are similarly an up front cost for continual future savings. This is already a key part of their appeal. People buying scores of busses know their way around a spreadsheet.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Sure; don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of more bus routes! If EV makes those buses cheaper to operate, that's a big win in my book.
  - dangerwill 4y ago
    Dedicated bus lanes almost match dedicated trolley paths for on time reliability but it doesn't address the fact that over head wire trolleys are still much more environmentally friendly than battery feed buses. You can even do over head wire trolley buses if you are absolutely wedded to never touching existing pavement. My point really is more that over head wires are so much better for vehicles with set routes than batteries
- syntheweave 4y ago
  When trolley lines were new, they competed with horse-drawn carriage traffic for fast transit, and they just ran continuously at very slow speeds without stopping. Nowadays you can ride an e-bike faster than a horse and cover those routes in less time...except that all of the lines have stops for cars. Basically, all the old trolley lines have a lot of trouble in the present-day context because the traffic appeared around them, and once cities succumbed to the desire for lots of parking, the die was cast - you had to also give cars most of the routes. And then it's pulling teeth to get a modest 1 MPH improvement out of some trolley corridors with careful stop alignment and signalling. If we separate out the rights of way well it's a different story, but then we are talking about a more substantial build, and when that happens a busway becomes the way to do the mass transit cheaply upfront and get the most impact immediately. Everything really comes back to the geometry, not the modality. When there's dedicated space the difference between rails, overhead lines, and battery is just a spreadsheet calculation. But as soon as it's mixed traffic battery shoots to the top because of its flexibility.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It's not safe on HN to tell the more obvious lies about EVs, renewable power, climate change etc. that are popular in certain circles due to the more technical audience so you get a lot of people with unusually strong views about how obsolete tech X is actually better for the planet than the solution that experts in the field have settled on. Can't have people believing that experts and democratic governance is capable of performing even basic functions or the next stop is communism.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > the solution that experts in the field have settled on. 1. The "experts" ain't always actually experts 2. They haven't settled on anything, judging by the abundance of trams and lightrail still in service.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    There's no one size fits all answer, and scrapping existing infrastructure is not a high priority but... The basic shape of the future is electric powered and with batteries. Even for areas with existing overhead line systems, adding batteries is a no brainer, as it simplifies complicated junctions and a thousand other annoying edge cases. And extending the system with electric busses for less busy areas is also a no brainer (which they probably already do with some other kind of bus). As batteries plummet in price the distance between recharges can be stretched, current models have like 10km to 30km autonomous range, which means they're basically battery busses with in-motion charging. Battery busses are a global oppprtunity, with massive cost savings over existing alternatives today and the benefits of scale will quickly make them better than the trams and trollybusses that only work in specific locations, even in those specific locations that they are great for. They'll improve, just as an offshoot of the wider EV revolution but long term they're an obvious dead-end. In motion charging will be something you do to get even cheaper electricity costs by managing demand, not something you do because batteries are too expensive or heavy. And induction charging at stops may well prove a better investment if it can be shared with other EVs on the road. In short, in a world with cheap plentiful batteries and electricity, full of a thousand other types of battery EVs they don't make sense. Anyone advocating for them is basically arguing against cheap, plentiful batteries existing, which if it was true, would be the real problem to solve. But it's not.

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

dangerwill 4y ago

These lines would be unambiguously better (cheaper, much simpler materials, much less embodied carbon, faster and more reliable if given a proper right of way) than a bunch of electric buses in shared traffic so it makes sense to bring them up.

googlryas 4y ago
Not really, because you can rework bus routes about 10,000x easier than rerouting trolley lines. If there are very dense, well defined lines, then sure trolleys can be better.
- dangerwill 4y ago
  And yet bus routes don't change that often. Let's say it would take 10 years to change a trolley path (an insane time frame but it's the usa so...), I don't see any bus routes changing 3x a day. It is easier to reroute but the difference is only really like 2-5x. And with the trolley you can actually be confident of it showing up on time :)
mminer237 4y ago
How is building dedicated trolley tracks cheaper than buying a bus and running it on ordinary pavement? And streetcars have no reason to be faster either. It's easier and historically faster to have a dedicated bus lane than a dedicated trolley lane, but there's just not enough will for even that.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I won't make the claim that trolleys are cheaper, in terms of initial capital. I will make the claim that they're more sustainable, in the following senses: * They make their neighborhoods more valuable to both residents and businesses, which in turn prevents neighborhood flight * Streetcars cost less over time, after their initial cost. Portland found that streetcars cost the city roughly half as much per ride as buses do, and streetcar bodies themselves last much longer than buses do[1]. Ultimately, however, we're talking about public infrastructure. It shouldn't be beholden to the lowest cost; we should be balancing cost with benefit. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17570156/us-streetcar-trend-public-transportation https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17570156/us-streetcar-trend-pu...
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > Portland found that streetcars cost the city roughly half as much per ride as buses do, and streetcar bodies themselves last much longer than buses do[1]. This is the same order of saving gained by switching high traffic bus routes to EV busses, since fuel is the main cost, (Lower EV maintenance is also a benefit shared by battery busses) so its a very weak claim to superiority for electric trollybusses or trams without batteries, and one that will, if it even exists today, erode over time as batteries improve in cost and performance. EV busses are similarly an up front cost for continual future savings. This is already a key part of their appeal. People buying scores of busses know their way around a spreadsheet.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Sure; don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of more bus routes! If EV makes those buses cheaper to operate, that's a big win in my book.
- dangerwill 4y ago
  Dedicated bus lanes almost match dedicated trolley paths for on time reliability but it doesn't address the fact that over head wire trolleys are still much more environmentally friendly than battery feed buses. You can even do over head wire trolley buses if you are absolutely wedded to never touching existing pavement. My point really is more that over head wires are so much better for vehicles with set routes than batteries
syntheweave 4y ago
When trolley lines were new, they competed with horse-drawn carriage traffic for fast transit, and they just ran continuously at very slow speeds without stopping. Nowadays you can ride an e-bike faster than a horse and cover those routes in less time...except that all of the lines have stops for cars. Basically, all the old trolley lines have a lot of trouble in the present-day context because the traffic appeared around them, and once cities succumbed to the desire for lots of parking, the die was cast - you had to also give cars most of the routes. And then it's pulling teeth to get a modest 1 MPH improvement out of some trolley corridors with careful stop alignment and signalling. If we separate out the rights of way well it's a different story, but then we are talking about a more substantial build, and when that happens a busway becomes the way to do the mass transit cheaply upfront and get the most impact immediately. Everything really comes back to the geometry, not the modality. When there's dedicated space the difference between rails, overhead lines, and battery is just a spreadsheet calculation. But as soon as it's mixed traffic battery shoots to the top because of its flexibility.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

It's not safe on HN to tell the more obvious lies about EVs, renewable power, climate change etc. that are popular in certain circles due to the more technical audience so you get a lot of people with unusually strong views about how obsolete tech X is actually better for the planet than the solution that experts in the field have settled on. Can't have people believing that experts and democratic governance is capable of performing even basic functions or the next stop is communism.

yellowapple 4y ago
> the solution that experts in the field have settled on. 1. The "experts" ain't always actually experts 2. They haven't settled on anything, judging by the abundance of trams and lightrail still in service.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  There's no one size fits all answer, and scrapping existing infrastructure is not a high priority but... The basic shape of the future is electric powered and with batteries. Even for areas with existing overhead line systems, adding batteries is a no brainer, as it simplifies complicated junctions and a thousand other annoying edge cases. And extending the system with electric busses for less busy areas is also a no brainer (which they probably already do with some other kind of bus). As batteries plummet in price the distance between recharges can be stretched, current models have like 10km to 30km autonomous range, which means they're basically battery busses with in-motion charging. Battery busses are a global oppprtunity, with massive cost savings over existing alternatives today and the benefits of scale will quickly make them better than the trams and trollybusses that only work in specific locations, even in those specific locations that they are great for. They'll improve, just as an offshoot of the wider EV revolution but long term they're an obvious dead-end. In motion charging will be something you do to get even cheaper electricity costs by managing demand, not something you do because batteries are too expensive or heavy. And induction charging at stops may well prove a better investment if it can be shared with other EVs on the road. In short, in a world with cheap plentiful batteries and electricity, full of a thousand other types of battery EVs they don't make sense. Anyone advocating for them is basically arguing against cheap, plentiful batteries existing, which if it was true, would be the real problem to solve. But it's not.