Trolleybus
 A trolleybus in Arnhem |
| Table of contents |
|
2 Advantages 3 Problems with Trolleybuses 4 External links 5 References |
Their development dating to the early 1900s, the trolleybus seemed to be a natural compromise between the electric streetcar and the petroleum-powered bus. Trolleybus systems could avoid obstacles in the street which a streetcar could not, and did not require as much capital investment as a streetcar line.
Some cities, led by the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT—New York), subscribed to the "all-four" concept of using buses, trolleybuses, streetcars, and rapid transit subway and/or elevated lines as appropriate for routes ranging from lightly-used to heaviest trunk line. Buses and trolleybuses in particular were seen as entry systems that could later be upgraded to rail as appropriate. Although the Brooklyn system under the BMT only built one trolleybus line, other cities, notably San Francisco, California and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, built larger systems and still maintain "all-four." If you include cable cars as another mode, San Francisco could be called "all-five," as the cable cars do provide a general transportation function in addition to being a tourist attraction.
Trolleybuses are particularly important in hilly cities, as the electric power is more effective than diesel in climbing steep hills and have better roadway adhesion than streetcars. This is especially important in San Francisco and Seattle.
Like other electric vehicles, trolleybuses are often seen as more environmentally friendly than hydrocarbon based vehicles such as buses, but the power is not "free", and instead has to be produced at centralised power plants. On the other hand, centrally-produced power has the advantage of being more efficient, not bound to a specific fuel source, and more amenable to pollution-control as a single-source supply than individual vehicles, each with its own power generation.
One advantage that is rarely used in other vehicles is that they can generate electric power from kinetic power whilst braking, a process known as regenerative braking.
Another area where trolleybuses enjoy a special niche is locations where hydropower is abundant and cheap. Examples of this are the extensive trolleybus systems in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and Seattle, Washington, US. The latter city doubly benefits, due to the steep road grades near the waterfront, as well as on Queen Anne Hill, and Capitol Hill.
In more general terms, trolleybuses suffer from being "neither fish nor fowl" in current transportation planning. Except in the cases mentioned above where they have special advantages, they have difficulty competing with the efficiencies of light rail on the one hand, or the flexibility and low start-up costs of conventional buses on the other.
While at one time numerous cities operated this mode of transport, it is uncommon today in North America and not expanding in Europe, though it is still a common form of transport in the former Soviet republics, generally occupying the niche between street railways and petroleum-powered buses.
See List of cities with trolleybuses for cities which still have electric trolleybuses and also List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses.
Background
Advantages
Problems with Trolleybuses
As trolleybuses do not follow a track, it is possible for them to come off the route and hence off the electric powerlines above and then get stuck.External links
References