Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if a trolleybus operating on coal-generated electricity is more or less efficient per passenger than a) a diesel bus or b) a car. On hydro power I'm sure it's cleaner than both. Boston's trolleybuses might be powered by coal but I'm not sure.
My only experience using trolleybuses was in Seattle; it seemed they were used for busy local routes in the neighborhoods surrounding the city center (Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley area, etc. ). I'm betting they carried a higher load than the average figure.
There's also an acceleration advantage on hills with the electric motor. In Baltimore we have a new fleet of diesel-electric hybrid motors which really get away from stops on hills much quicker. I wonder if this will make trolleybuses even less prevalent.
@Hands, don't hurt yourself! I did like the picture!
Could we all agree that bus systems have some positive attributes even if they aren't more efficient than cars in transporting passengers?
We have people on this board who want to have bus service every 10 minutes. Except in the densest of cities, that will result in many buses running half-empty if not moreso, especially off-peak. I personally think such service is unnecessary except perhaps at rush hour. As far as fewer stops, according to what I have read (and I'm not going to slog through Google for a link to this right now, shoot me), the average person is willing to walk about 1/4 mile to a bus stop. The Denver RTD plans for stops on its local routes every two blocks, about that equivalent. Consolidating routes will also make people have to walk farther, and may reduce ridership more than save money.
Buses can reduce traffic density, by getting people out of cars. They can lessen the need for parking garages, lots, etc. They can easily provide service to any area that is served by roads. They have their place along with these fixed-rail systems for that reason. They're more flexible than rail. What did I miss?
Efficient and environmentally friendly aren't the same thing. The trolleybus operating on coal-generated electricity, depending on the plant that's generating it, could very well be less environmentally friendly than a passenger car while being more efficient. On hydro power, it's certainly "cleaner" but could be less efficient than a passenger car. Probably not than a bus operating along the same route would be, however.
@Hands, don't hurt yourself! I did like the picture!
Could we all agree that bus systems have some positive attributes even if they aren't more efficient than cars in transporting passengers?
We have people on this board who want to have bus service every 10 minutes. Except in the densest of cities, that will result in many buses running half-empty if not moreso, especially off-peak. I personally think such service is unnecessary except perhaps at rush hour. As far as fewer stops, according to what I have read (and I'm not going to slog through Google for a link to this right now, shoot me), the average person is willing to walk about 1/4 mile to a bus stop. The Denver RTD plans for stops on its local routes every two blocks, about that equivalent. Consolidating routes will also make people have to walk farther, and may reduce ridership more than save money.
Buses can reduce traffic density, by getting people out of cars. They can lessen the need for parking garages, lots, etc. They can easily provide service to any area that is served by roads. They have their place along with these fixed-rail systems for that reason. They're more flexible than rail. What did I miss?
I actually agree with most of your post but going to nitpick. If a bus averages 10 people as some links people have put up, that's not even half-empty, that's close to 1/4 full. That link I posted on mostly heavy rail energy use said the system with the highest % seat filled up was NYC's subway at 58%. That sounds really low from my experience but it's probably because the end of the line gets low usage and it fills up as it reaches the middle, and service gets much more ridership in one direction. I doubt most bus systems would beat the NYC subway's filling up seats. So is it a waste to have on average a quarter-filled bus? Not necessarily, as a some time in the day the bus may fill up.
As for ridership declined by less stops, it's a bit of a tradeoff depending on demographics. I might prefer to walk a bit more for a faster service and would be more likely to use the bus. Others (particularly the elderly or people partially disabled) would not. Because buses are operated to provide access to the most people, I think most transit agencies tend to opt for more stops unless budget cuts persuade them
If you base your decisions on passenger miles per unit of fuel, the winner is neither buses nor automobiles.
It's electric traction rail.
Depends on the rail system. San Jose and Sacramento have light rails that are more energy intensive (San Jose is about double that of an average car, Sacramento is comparable with a bus). Overall, however, you're correct. Rail usually gets reserved for routes with decently high demand, which definitely helps the passenger mile efficiency.
I actually agree with most of your post but going to nitpick. If a bus averages 10 people as some links people have put up, that's not even half-empty, that's close to 1/4 full. That link I posted on mostly heavy rail energy use said the system with the highest % seat filled up was NYC's subway at 58%. That sounds really low from my experience but it's probably because the end of the line gets low usage and it fills up as it reaches the middle, and service gets much more ridership in one direction. I doubt most bus systems would beat the NYC subway's filling up seats.
As for ridership declined by less stops, it's a bit of a tradeoff depending on demographics. I might prefer to walk a bit more for a faster service and would be more likely to use the bus. Others (particularly the elderly or people partially disabled) would not. Because buses are operated to provide access to the most people, I think most transit agencies tend to opt for more stops unless budget cuts persuade them
Regarding par. 2, I specifically stated "local routes". Now if you're talking about express routes, yes, you gather more people together in one spot and have fewer stops.
Depends on the rail system. San Jose and Sacramento have light rails that are more energy intensive (San Jose is about double that of an average car, Sacramento is comparable with a bus). Overall, however, you're correct. Rail usually gets reserved for routes with decently high demand, which definitely helps the passenger mile efficiency.
check the link I posted on the previous page. Rail does much better in CO_2 emissions per person. Since rail usually gets its energy source from electricity the fuel consumed to make the same amount of energy is less.
I apologize for posting a gorgeous picture and derailing the thread!
I can, too! 6 miles north of downtown Vancouver, accessible by half-hourly bus service.
Downtown is definitely busy, perhaps crowded fit depending on your perspective. Outside of downtown, not really, though this beach was crowded. As a tourist, the crowds made it more interesting, though normally I wouldn't see that as a plus for beaches. The bigger problem was the water was way too cold to swim in! I prefer my cities on the crowded side and natural areas un-crowded.
Well, I didn't want to get too off topic before, but if it's okay I'll post this other gorgeous picture as nei did, just for context. The original gorgeous picture would have been taken from the mountain in the centre of this photo, which is why people said it was a photo of "Vancouver" even though there wasn't anything visible but nature. It's quite close to the city and some people actually commute from homes on the island shown, as there is a ferry.
There is alot more to it than just fuel cost. City of 120K nearby is studdig what to do when federal subsidy goes awya. 1.3 millio a year to ru the system. 300K in fairs. The rest is split between city and federal grant moneies. They have found that they coulod c=subsidie and pay atxi for less cost and more convenience to users really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
6 miles north of downtown Vancouver, accessible by half-hourly bus service.
