Why are trolleys opposed so much?

[BrooklynIRT]

There seems to be a lot of opposition to trolleys:

 

-They have supposedly been banned from Manhattan south of 59 Street for a very long time - why?

 

-I get the impression that a lot of people oppose them without taking into consideration as many advantages/disadvantages of trolleys and buses as possible. One of the things about buses that absolutely irritates me is this:

 

"Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic."

 

5% is just dreadful to me.

 

-It is supposedly expensive to pay for electrical power to power electrical trolleys, but what about our dependence on oil? Unless I missed something, we still depend heavily on oil from foreign nations with which we have had several political problems in the past, right or wrong?

 

-MTA supposedly does not have money to maintain trolleys and buses; it can only do one or the other..oh wait, it was even said that it is not economical to maintain a 100% trolley/trolleybus fleet. How, if electric trolleys do not create ramp lines like motor buses do?

 

-Are we worse off if we have electrical trolleys that do not cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots at the end of the day but cannot be used to form a trolley bridge (the trolley version of a bus bridge) in the event of a disaster such as Hurricane Sandy, or if we have motor buses that cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots but can be used to form a bus bridge? What about the fact that electrical trolleys have a longer lifespan than motor buses?

 

-Do trolleys provide better working conditions than buses?

 

-Trolleys seem to provide better riding conditions than buses and offer more interior room for people and their cargo (no wheel wells under any seats, unlike buses).

 

-It has been said that trolleys cannot circumvent obstructions as easily as buses can. I have a few things to say about this:

 

+Double-parked vehicles blocking offset bus lanes/offset trolley tracks. (I want to focus on offset lanes/tracks.) It was said previously that since people know that it is physically impossible for a trolley on tracks to circumvent a vehicle blocking the tracks, they feel guiltier about blocking a surface rail vehicle than they do about blocking a non-rail vehicle.

 

+Utility work. If some agency chooses to do utility work in a way such that a trolley track is blocked, we have to figure out how to get the trolley past the blockage. But, this can be achieved using sidings if the road is wide enough. They could use two lanes for tracks on some parts of Nostrand Ave north of Farragut (except b/w E Pkwy and Sullivan Pl) if they removed all legal parking for personal automobiles (keep loading zones for trucks) from the west side of Nostrand north of Farragut.

 

I was thinking about a configuration where they put one trolley track where the offset bus lane currently is and had the express trolleys use that track only, stopping at express stations where there are curb extensions, just like the curb extensions that are at SBS bus stops now; and use turnouts to allow the local trolleys access local trolley stations, which would not have curb extensions. This would be just like the present local bus stops.

[FamousNYLover]

NY Sightseeing Grayline used to had trolley-shaped bus but I don't see them any more.

[Mtatransit]

There seems to be a lot of opposition to trolleys:

 

-They have supposedly been banned from Manhattan south of 59 Street for a very long time - why?

 

-I get the impression that a lot of people oppose them without taking into consideration as many advantages/disadvantages of trolleys and buses as possible. One of the things about buses that absolutely irritates me is this:

 

"Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic."

 

5% is just dreadful to me.

 

-It is supposedly expensive to pay for electrical power to power electrical trolleys, but what about our dependence on oil? Unless I missed something, we still depend heavily on oil from foreign nations with which we have had several political problems in the past, right or wrong?

 

-MTA supposedly does not have money to maintain trolleys and buses; it can only do one or the other..oh wait, it was even said that it is not economical to maintain a 100% trolley/trolleybus fleet. How, if electric trolleys do not create ramp lines like motor buses do?

 

-Are we worse off if we have electrical trolleys that do not cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots at the end of the day but cannot be used to form a trolley bridge (the trolley version of a bus bridge) in the event of a disaster such as Hurricane Sandy, or if we have motor buses that cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots but can be used to form a bus bridge? What about the fact that electrical trolleys have a longer lifespan than motor buses?

 

-Do trolleys provide better working conditions than buses?

 

-Trolleys seem to provide better riding conditions than buses and offer more interior room for people and their cargo (no wheel wells under any seats, unlike buses).

 

-It has been said that trolleys cannot circumvent obstructions as easily as buses can. I have a few things to say about this:

 

+Double-parked vehicles blocking offset bus lanes/offset trolley tracks. (I want to focus on offset lanes/tracks.) It was said previously that since people know that it is physically impossible for a trolley on tracks to circumvent a vehicle blocking the tracks, they feel guiltier about blocking a surface rail vehicle than they do about blocking a non-rail vehicle.

 

+Utility work. If some agency chooses to do utility work in a way such that a trolley track is blocked, we have to figure out how to get the trolley past the blockage. But, this can be achieved using sidings if the road is wide enough. They could use two lanes for tracks on some parts of Nostrand Ave north of Farragut (except b/w E Pkwy and Sullivan Pl) if they removed all legal parking for personal automobiles (keep loading zones for trucks) from the west side of Nostrand north of Farragut.

 

I was thinking about a configuration where they put one trolley track where the offset bus lane currently is and had the express trolleys use that track only, stopping at express stations where there are curb extensions, just like the curb extensions that are at SBS bus stops now; and use turnouts to allow the local trolleys access local trolley stations, which would not have curb extensions. This would be just like the present local bus                                                                                                                                                                                    

   Trolleys stop at red lights also and have stations every 2-3 blocks so its just an bus with tracks and electric which means more costly to maintain, its good for the enviroment but we are going with electric buses anyway

[MHV9218]

I think the light rail vs. BRT point is moot. Light rail is not an option along 1st Ave, 34th St., Nostrand Ave, etc. 

[bobtehpanda]

There seems to be a lot of opposition to trolleys:

 

-They have supposedly been banned from Manhattan south of 59 Street for a very long time - why?

 

-I get the impression that a lot of people oppose them without taking into consideration as many advantages/disadvantages of trolleys and buses as possible. One of the things about buses that absolutely irritates me is this:

 

"Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic."

 

5% is just dreadful to me.

 

-It is supposedly expensive to pay for electrical power to power electrical trolleys, but what about our dependence on oil? Unless I missed something, we still depend heavily on oil from foreign nations with which we have had several political problems in the past, right or wrong?

 

-MTA supposedly does not have money to maintain trolleys and buses; it can only do one or the other..oh wait, it was even said that it is not economical to maintain a 100% trolley/trolleybus fleet. How, if electric trolleys do not create ramp lines like motor buses do?

 

-Are we worse off if we have electrical trolleys that do not cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots at the end of the day but cannot be used to form a trolley bridge (the trolley version of a bus bridge) in the event of a disaster such as Hurricane Sandy, or if we have motor buses that cause ramp lines when they have to go back to depots but can be used to form a bus bridge? What about the fact that electrical trolleys have a longer lifespan than motor buses?

 

-Do trolleys provide better working conditions than buses?

 

-Trolleys seem to provide better riding conditions than buses and offer more interior room for people and their cargo (no wheel wells under any seats, unlike buses).

 

-It has been said that trolleys cannot circumvent obstructions as easily as buses can. I have a few things to say about this:

 

+Double-parked vehicles blocking offset bus lanes/offset trolley tracks. (I want to focus on offset lanes/tracks.) It was said previously that since people know that it is physically impossible for a trolley on tracks to circumvent a vehicle blocking the tracks, they feel guiltier about blocking a surface rail vehicle than they do about blocking a non-rail vehicle.

 

+Utility work. If some agency chooses to do utility work in a way such that a trolley track is blocked, we have to figure out how to get the trolley past the blockage. But, this can be achieved using sidings if the road is wide enough. They could use two lanes for tracks on some parts of Nostrand Ave north of Farragut (except b/w E Pkwy and Sullivan Pl) if they removed all legal parking for personal automobiles (keep loading zones for trucks) from the west side of Nostrand north of Farragut.

 

I was thinking about a configuration where they put one trolley track where the offset bus lane currently is and had the express trolleys use that track only, stopping at express stations where there are curb extensions, just like the curb extensions that are at SBS bus stops now; and use turnouts to allow the local trolleys access local trolley stations, which would not have curb extensions. This would be just like the present local bus stops.

 

Now, I'm going to use the words "tram" and "light rail" instead of "trolley", because modern usage of the word trolley has a bunch of different connotations, most of which are not rail based.

 

1. Trams and light rail are not banned from the CBDs. However, during the heyday of the trams, overhead wires were banned due to their negative aesthetic effects (as they still are in DC, where the streetcar is being revived.) This is not a problem with modern trams, since (if you're willing to pay enough) there are non-overhead systems available.

 

2. That statistic is a load of crap, since there aren't that many high-quality BRT systems in the United States in the first place (in the first world, high-quality systems would be those of Brisbane, Ottawa, and Los Angeles.) Of the three, the Brisbane and Los Angeles systems are heavily patronized (and the Los Angeles one is actually at capacity), and Ottawa's had the fatal flaw of dumping the buses off the busway into a mixed-traffic downtown segment.) In fact, a study came out that showed that BRT had better development potential per dollar than light rail.

 

Buses and trams do not have many differences, because both can be run in mixed traffic, with dedicated lanes SBS and the Hudson Bergen Light Rail, or in dedicated corridors with subway segments. The only concrete difference is that ride quality is smoother and trams can carry more riders, but this is primarily because the default length of a tram is much longer than the default length of a bus; bi-articulated buses exist where top-tier BRT is implemented.

 

3. That nonsense about oil has changed over the past decade with the exploitation of the tar sands in Canada and oil shale in America. While the world price of oil is still dependent on foreign nations, most of North America's energy needs are met at home.

 

4. Buses do not have overhead requirements, and are significantly shorter than trams. Many depots have problems accommodating articulated buses, which are 60 feet in length. The shortest trams used in North America are 66 ft (significantly shorter than the standard tram, with not much capacity improvement over a bus), so you'd need to build brand new depots with overhead lines and such.

 

Much of your thoughts about trams conveniently forget the fact that there is no existing infrastructure for trams or light rail. Laying rail is extremely expensive and disruptive, and you have to build an entire infrastructure from the ground up, including substations, overhead wires, and depots. When you consider that any benefit over a bus is minimal and the fact that the MTA has projected $100B in capital costs for the next twenty years just to maintain the existing system (no Second Avenue Subway future phases, no new construction), it isn't worth the cost.

 

An added fact to consider is the fact that most of the corridors that need SBS have been considered for subway extensions in the past. Should the MTA eventually have the money to extend lines down corridors such as Webster/Third, Second Avenue, or Utica and Nostrand (to name a few examples), light rail would just impede progress. Why? Because the argument will be that they will have more rail than they need. This is  true; very few corridors need both on-street "light" transit and heavy rail underground as well. The moment a subway would open under Utica or the southern bits of Nostrand, nearly all existing surface transit users would just switch to the subway, leaving the surface transit severely underused. (Note that in the outer boroughs, nearly all routes directly or closely paralleling subway lines do not have high ridership.) With SBS, you can just switch the line back to normal local service (and keeping the lanes and payment machines would be optional), but with light rail, you now have an empty, useless piece of infrastructure.

 

Also, even in areas of the world with high tram usage, none implement the express/local tram system you describe here. Why? Because it doesn't work. Each switch is a potential failure point, and heavy use will make these switches more prone to failure. You cannot have your cake and eat it too with express/local; one must be picked over the other (or you could build two systems, but that would just be even more of a colossal waste of money).

 

TL;DR, light rail/trams don't actually have many advantages over bus service, and the MTA has more pressing capital projects to deal with, such as the regular maintenance of the existing system.

[trainfan22]

There's no room in NYC for light rail, keep in mind you gotta have yards for these LRV to get stored, serviced, etc.

 

Only place LR is feasible is Staten Island.

[BrooklynIRT]

Does anybody know how much money ramp lines cost MTA (per a given amount of time)?

[Amtrak7]

What matters about transit is frequency, service level, and passenger capacity. The primary advantage of light rail over a busway is that one light rail driver can move many more people than one bus driver. The busway's advantage over a regular bus is that it bypasses or reduces traffic delay and can support much more frequent and faster service.

 

What are the disadvantages of a busway over a bus route? Construction cost, right of way acquisition, and the fact that the routing of the dedicated ROW isn't flexible (though feeder buses can run on the busway and serve local areas as needed). What are the disadvantages of a light rail over the busway? Even more construction cost, overhead wires, and the service catchment area is limited to the route of the busway unless a dedicated frequent feeder route is provided.

 

A mixed-traffic trolley, like the ones under construction in DC and currently run in Philly, take all the negative aspects of the light rail (cost, rails, overhead wires, fixed routing) and all the negative aspects of a local bus route (traffic lights and delay). Since it's a trolley and not an articulated light rail vehicle, passenger to driver ratio isn't all that much greater than a bus or articulated bus. And since it's running in mixed traffic where the potential for delays and blockages is much higher, there better be a way to turn those trolleys back or get them out of the way, since it can't go around a double parked truck or collision. Since trolley vehicles also tend to be specialized and unique, there is no way to increase service significantly short of buying more, an extremely expensive proposition since they are usually custom-built.

 

The novelty effect isn't really a reason to run a trolley service. Downtown circulation and buisness benefit can be done quite nicely with a good dedicated bus service that's marketed well. See Baltimore's Charm City Circulator the Emery-Go-Round in Emeryville, CA for examples.

 

As to the "permanence of rail", trolleys can be abandoned too, even though it isn't often. (Seattle Waterfront Streetcar, Pittsburgh Penn Station, SEPTA 23) If the route no longer becomes economically feasible to operate, service is reduced to the point of unsuitability, detracting ridership yet still costing money because nobody wants to give up the ROW. (VTA's Almaden shuttle, proposed cuts to Seattle's South Lake Union Streetcar)

 

I'm all for light rail on mostly dedicated ROW's and frequent service. But completely mixed-traffic trolleys are a waste of $$.

[qjtransitmaster]

There's no room in NYC for light rail, keep in mind you gotta have yards for these LRV to get stored, serviced, etc.

 

Only place LR is feasible is Staten Island.

Sort of.

[Roadcruiser1]

Light rail would also make sense in parts of South Brooklyn, Red Hook, Coney Island, and parts of Eastern Queens. Maybe even a line along the East River, but the East River Ferry is already there. It makes it redundant, but mostly those are the locations where it works. I don't really see New York City having a true tram system. That money would be better spent expanding the Subway. So..........

[BrooklynIRT]

Ramp lines.

[NYSubwayBuff]

There is something in place right now in boston from MBTA that is like a mix between trolley and bus, and the silver line (which this system is called) runs underground close to the center of boston in a sort of underground roadway and would run overground all by electric. The best part is that these buses/trolleys can be disconnected from the electric rails and gas powered. I think something like this should be done in NYC. For ex: a line from the city can be run underground to bklyn to a certain point and then it would run above ground

 

Edit: a line from the city to the airport, similar to the silver line which runs from boston's chinatown/ bus terminal to boston logan

[Roadcruiser1]

There is something in place right now in boston from MBTA that is like a mix between trolley and bus, and the silver line (which this system is called) runs underground close to the center of boston in a sort of underground roadway and would run overground all by electric. The best part is that these buses/trolleys can be disconnected from the electric rails and gas powered. I think something like this should be done in NYC. For ex: a line from the city can be run underground to bklyn to a certain point and then it would run above ground

 

Edit: a line from the city to the airport, similar to the silver line which runs from boston's chinatown/ bus terminal to boston logan

It makes more sense to expand either the Airtrain or the Subway. It carries more passengers than light rail.

 

Honestly light rail would not really help the city much. It did pretty much run on the street, and it would be delayed by traffic on the streets. That's why a light rail system will not happen. Some lines could be built to help areas, but it's not going to be a light rail system. Governor's Island could have light rail for example since it won't be easy to connect the island using the subway. It along with the places I mentioned in my message yesterday are the only places where light rail would work.

 

It's just a better concept to expand the ferries, and the subway rather than to have light rail!!!!!!!

[Culver]

Trolley lines = less space for the bros and soccer moms in their bus-sized SUVs. Can't have that.

[bobtehpanda]

There is something in place right now in boston from MBTA that is like a mix between trolley and bus, and the silver line (which this system is called) runs underground close to the center of boston in a sort of underground roadway and would run overground all by electric. The best part is that these buses/trolleys can be disconnected from the electric rails and gas powered. I think something like this should be done in NYC. For ex: a line from the city can be run underground to bklyn to a certain point and then it would run above ground

 

Edit: a line from the city to the airport, similar to the silver line which runs from boston's chinatown/ bus terminal to boston logan

 

The Silver Line is considered an absolute disaster by most Boston-area transit advocates and riders, since it doesn't actually work all too well.

 

It would be cheaper to do what you're describing with light rail, since the trolleybuses have issues with the raising and the lowering of pantographs at transit tunnels, and light rail requires less width of the ROW since they're restricted to rails.

 

It makes more sense to expand either the Airtrain or the Subway. It carries more passengers than light rail.

 

Honestly light rail would not really help the city much. It did pretty much run on the street, and it would be delayed by traffic on the streets. That's why a light rail system will not happen. Some lines could be built to help areas, but it's not going to be a light rail system. Governor's Island could have light rail for example since it won't be easy to connect the island using the subway. It along with the places I mentioned in my message yesterday are the only places where light rail would work.

 

It's just a better concept to expand the ferries, and the subway rather than to have light rail!!!!!!!

 

Ferries aren't that useful, if only because our waterfront areas are either cut off from highways or undeveloped/industrial (unlike Jersey City/Hoboken, which is a solid line of condo towers).

[Roadcruiser1]

Trolley lines = less space for the bros and soccer moms in their bus-sized SUVs. Can't have that.

Really?

 

http://sacramentopress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC9319.jpg

[Vistausss]

There is something in place right now in boston from MBTA that is like a mix between trolley and bus, and the silver line (which this system is called) runs underground close to the center of boston in a sort of underground roadway and would run overground all by electric. The best part is that these buses/trolleys can be disconnected from the electric rails and gas powered. I think something like this should be done in NYC. For ex: a line from the city can be run underground to bklyn to a certain point and then it would run above ground

 

Edit: a line from the city to the airport, similar to the silver line which runs from boston's chinatown/ bus terminal to boston logan

 

Arnhem here in The Netherlands has trolley buses (like the Silver Line in Boston) for more than 50 years now. There s mixed feelings about it. Some love it, some absolutely hate it. Im in the hate group. Please, dont ever consider putting trolley buses anywhere. Not here, not in the USA, not in Asia. Trolley buses are a disaster IMHO.

[N6 Limited]

Because Trolleys belong in UK supermarkets 

[B35 via Church]

Why are trolleys opposed so much in NYC, or in general?

 

In NYC, it's simple..... The roads don't allow for it, and there is simply way too much vehicular traffic on said roads...... You already have as many people in this city reliant on a subway or bus for "local" travel..... Not gonna take much of anyone else off the roads by implementing a trolley system, as said system would have to be much more conducive to taking over our buses & subways..... I hope the notion isn't to worsen anyone of the public transportation options we have now, for this (implicated) suggested option of travel... What's never stated in these BRT/LRT/Trolley/whatever suggestions is how to make them unify as a part of cohesive unit to what we already have now (which are RR's, subways, and buses) - It's always to shun one of the modes & to have said system run in place of the mode being shunned (which in this case, is buses).....

 

 

It's just a better concept to expand the ferries, and the subway rather than to have light rail!!!!!!!

(Expanding) The subway, I agree with.... The concept however of expanding the ferry (system) would be great - if it weren't such a hassle to get to them (which has been my issue with ferries for the longest)..... Your average commuter would be far more willing to drive to some rail station than some ferry terminal/"station"...

 

Just like people love going train > bus, well train > travel-by-boat also.....

 

 

Trolley lines = less space for the bros and soccer moms in their bus-sized SUVs. Can't have that.

Really?

 

http://sacramentopress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC9319.jpg

Lol..... You reinforced his point by posting that picture....

[Roadcruiser1]

Just to sum up one last point. New York City still has intact trolley tracks buried under the streets with tar. When the city stopped the trolley service they didn't remove them like other cities. The people back then saw a future where they might be needed again, and buried them. They are still visible in Red Hook for example with some trolley cars sitting out there. Though again I don't think trolleys are coming back since it makes more sense to extend the subway, and ferry..........

[N4 Via Merrick Rd]

The amount vehicles in the streets of NYC in impede it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

Just to sum up one last point. New York City still has intact trolley tracks buried under the streets with tar. When the city stopped the trolley service they didn't remove them like other cities. The people back then saw a future where they might be needed again, and buried them. They are still visible in Red Hook for example with some trolley cars sitting out there. Though again I don't think trolleys are coming back since it makes more sense to extend the subway, and ferry..........

 

Even if we were to scrape the pavement off for them, the rails are probably not in usable condition, and will need to be replaced.

 

Ferries do not make sense except for on the East River and Hudson, due to the lack of development on our shores.

[Far Rock Depot]

I remeber when SEPTA reactivated their 15 Girard Ave route back to streecars they had two issues. 1) even though tracks were there, some had to be replaced. 2) parking. Some local residents along the route lost their curbside parking while on some parts of the route-along with current routes-have to strictly enforce no double parking. The cost of maintaining tracks and wires is another issue. Although saving on gas, the costs shifts to maintenance. Then there's if there needs to be track work, bustitution comes into effect-frequent on SEPTA's 15. Although I personally would love to see the return of streetcars, in manhattan, it wouldn't be fesible. The outer boros have more of a chance, but I don't see that happening either.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

[Vistausss]

I remeber when SEPTA reactivated their 15 Girard Ave route back to streecars they had two issues. 1) even though tracks were there, some had to be replaced. 2) parking. Some local residents along the route lost their curbside parking while on some parts of the route-along with current routes-have to strictly enforce no double parking. The cost of maintaining tracks and wires is another issue. Although saving on gas, the costs shifts to maintenance. Then there's if there needs to be track work, bustitution comes into effect-frequent on SEPTA's 15. Although I personally would love to see the return of streetcars, in manhattan, it wouldn't be fesible. The outer boros have more of a chance, but I don't see that happening either.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. Which is why LRT would be better for outher boroughs *if* we're gonna set up rail routes that are not subways. LRT can work wonders, see Minneapolis' METRO LRT for an example of how good LRT can be and how many people it can serve if you set it up right like they did.

[BrooklynIRT]

It's always to shun one of the modes & to have said system run in place of the mode being shunned (which in this case, is buses).....

....Because of ramp lines.