Although a number of ideas have been put forth to relieve Richmond’s growing congestion we need to look seriously at building transit capacity on an incremental basis. While both heavy and light rail systems make the most sense for major trunk routes the emphasis should be placed on developing secondary lines so that once patronage level are sufficient they too can be converted more easily into these modes. Unfortunately, the ubiquitous diesel bus operated by the GRTC fails to deliver the route building capacity needed to facilitate this process. Taken as a whole these vehicles continue to suffer from a combination of poor public perception, questionable environmental impact coupled with growing concerns about their reliability. Therefore, the question becomes what vehicle can help build patronage while being environmentally friendly at the same time.

Enter the Electric Trolley Bus!

The electric trolley bus (sometimes called the trolley coach or trackless trolley) combines the advantages of traditional streetcar technology with the flexibility of a motor coach. Operated from an overhead power source these buses share application of 600-750 volts direct current (dc) found in both office and industrial complexes for use in elevators, cranes or other electrical devices. In fact, 750 volts dc is the standard for many electric transit systems, including Washington’s Metro.

While some might raise aesthetic objections to the overhead cables employed they nonetheless serve as guide to the route since potential riders can see where the vehicles operate. One of the most common complaints leveled against transit operators is the roadside “bus stop” signs give little indication where the line actually runs.

Currently, in the U.S., there are five trolley bus systems located in such diverse cities as Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Dayton Ohio. In each case their quiet performance, coupled with sufficient power for gradient operations have outweighed the use of traditional diesel technology. In fact, it was these environmentally desirable characteristics that saved Dayton’s trolley bus system from extinction more than a decade ago. They have now rebuilt their fleet with 57 new trolley buses acquired from the Czech builder Skoda in 1999/2000. Boston has also modernized its trolley fleet for its five Cambridge lines.

Any number of route combinations could be considered candidates for possible trolleybus conversion. Trolleybuses might just be the answer for routes13, 16 and the Broad Street corridors. For those advocating dedicated bus ways it should be noted that in 1995 Quito Equator opened such a dedicated trolley bus system using

reserved roadways for these vehicles. For portions of the routes not initially placed under the wire a dual service vehicle could be employed. Currently, Seattle operates some 236 Breda trolleys, equipped with both Westinghouse motors and Detroit Diesel 6v-92 engines, on all portions of its system.

Of course the question of financing for such an undertaking comes up. While such a program would most likely involve a combination of Federal, State and local dollars there are strategies that might reduce costs. One method might be the unique public/private partnership utilized nine years ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin to build its heritage streetcar line. Here, the primary contractor acted as the purchasing agent to procure equipment, track and fittings at a substantial savings to the area transit agency. Also, the North Jersey-Bergen County light rail, operated by New Jersey Transit, is the result of such partnering including that of local real estate developers.

Only through building capacity on an incremental basis can we begin to move people out of automobiles and on to transit with any degree of regularity. Thus, the trolley bus becomes a perfect vehicle to build ridership and infrastructure necessary to support larger more complex transportation operations.

At GRTC’s public meeting the other week, CEO Lewis acknowledged that the signs are not informative, and showed examples with route identification and maps on the signs themselves. He mentioned a gradual roll-out of more information, which is critical. Also, he previewed early concepts for a downtown transfer station, behind the Main Street depot, with a frequent downtown circulator. It was presented as a priority, and under active development to get funding.

Cuts in number of Fan stops part of plans for faster service

http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-30-0119.html

Figuring out the maps sucks, I gave up and instead use their trip calculator to figure out how to get somewhere. It’s like mapquest for the bus. I didn’t notice it on GRTC’s site until my wife pointed it out when she rode the bus up to Carytown one day while I had the car. If you haven’t already played around with it, I suggest you do, it’s a real eye-opening experience as to where they go, and what’s the easiest way to get there via the bus.

There are lots of things I like about the bus, however I personally am hindered by one thing: tardiness. Both times I’ve ridden the bus, it was late. Once by just under 15 minutes, the other by almost 30. I can understand stuff goes wrong, really, thats fine, it just means that I now have to plan to be somewhere well ahead of schedule as I’m not working with factors that I can control anymore. If it was free, I’d probably discount the late factor as an offset.

Not sure if their is a difference between staff at UR and staff at VCU. No matter who you give passes to if you don’t live near the bus line – it’s simply not convenient to use.

GRTC needs big, clear maps at their stops. Citizens have been aksing for this for years.

Tell Trani to lead or retire already. VCU has to come on board with mass transit.