Daily Kos

View Story | 27 comments

  •  where do you get (0+ / 0-)

    these crazy cost figures?

    A billion dollars for a trolley line?

    No way.  Nonsense, in fact.  Look at the pictures in the links.  Trolley busses cost no more than diesel busses, have no exhaust, and the cost of the overhead is . . . well . . . not a billion dollars.

    And rail-on-grade is not expensive . . . probably overall no more than the cost of pavement and tire replacement.  Steel wheel on steel rail is, however, significantly more efficient than rubber.  

    And . . . there's no right-of-way cost . . . just use one (or two) of the existing traffic lanes.

    by Deward Hastings on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This sounds right to me also. (0+ / 0-)

      by penguinsong on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:47:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Take a look at the final budgets (0+ / 0-)

      for any of the newly built rail lines in California. There all in the billion dollar range. Nobody's talking about diesel buses. At the very least CNG, but preferably zero emissions all electric, hydrogen and/or hybrid electric. If you're talking about at-grade, on-street trolleys, they may not be as expensive, but they are also slow, especially compared to a bus in an exclusive lane.

      "Not This Time"

      by pragprogress on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why do you imagine (0+ / 0-)

        that a streetcar on "exclusive" rails is any slower than a bus in an "exclusive" lane?  It doesn't work that way in San Francisco or Seattle.

        And "zero emissions all electric" is a trolley, either trolleybus or on rail.  Where do you think the "electric" comes from?

        Again, look at the pictures in the links I provided.  They show inexpensive, efficient systems that work (or worked, in the case of the systems we used to have in this country).  Trolley cars on rail do everything busses do, but cheaper in the long run.  The only "advantage" of self powered busses on rubber tires is some flexibility in routing . . . when's the last time there was a route change on the 212 line?

        by Deward Hastings on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:36:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look, if trolley's can be done cheaper (0+ / 0-)

          than buses, then by all means let's do it. If the MTA had plans to put trolleys on every major street in LA, then I would ecstatic. But they are not. They are planning to build four or five multibillion dollar light rail lines and one heavy rail extension over the next several years, and then cut service everywhere else. In a city of 400 square miles that means by their own calculations no change in mode share between private automobiles and alternatives and a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions even after it's all built. That ought to be unacceptable to anyone concerned about the environment.

          I've lived in SF and trolleys are great, but they are not fast unless they are running in an exclusive guideway, in which case you're really talking about light rail and 150-200 million a mile, more for a subway.

          But by all means, let MTA and anyone else know about any alternatives that could actually be built given available resources to go enough places to provide a real alternative to the private automobile in Los Angeles. Right now, the only thing that does that is the bus.

          "Not This Time"

          by pragprogress on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:52:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also, the electric trolley's in SF (0+ / 0-)

          are not self-powered. So I think it's a bigger difference between just on rubber or rail. The Route of the 212 probably hasn't changed much over the years, except ironically to connect better to the new rail stations that have been built. Again, if the MTA was planning trolley lines on every major street in LA and had the money to do it, I would be ecstatic. But you're proposing an alternative that's not on the table. What's on the table is reduced service for 97% of the County, and rail for the fortunate few. Great for them (for the even smaller percentage that not only live near rail, but also work, shop and play nearby as well), but horrible for the environment and horrible for mobility for the transit-dependent as compared to improving service everywhere buses go, which is to say more or less everywhere in the County.

          "Not This Time"

          by pragprogress on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  SF Muni (0+ / 0-)

            San Francisco's Muni runs electric trolley buses, and electric streetcars, and both take electricity from the overhead wires (despite the different physical characteristics of the pickup mechanism, and that the lines cross each other).

            Don't remember off the top of my head, but I think San Francisco runs these "for free" off elecricity generated by the city-owned Hetch Hetchy Dam (not directly, but credited to the city by the utility since those electrons are consumed closer to Sacramento, but whatever.)

            Another advantage of the electric buses: Electric motors have the most torque near 0 RPM. The electric buses are tasked with the hilliest routes, where combustion engines and transmissions on heavily loaded buses would wear out very quickly, or not be possible at all.

            These advantages are unlikely to transfer to just any other city -- San Francisco is an unusual case.

            Spineless. Blue. Slow. Leaves trail of slime. Hit it with something - if it doesn't hit back, it's a Democrat. -- Bucky looking at a slug in "Get Fuzzy"

            by Lurtz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

View Story | 27 comments