<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Light Rail in the Future for Richmond?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/</link>
	<description>Local news coverage from the Near West End of Richmond.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 14:02:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Walsh</title>
		<link>http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/comment-page-1/#comment-38123</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/#comment-38123</guid>
		<description>Peter Eldridge is so right</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter Eldridge is so right</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Eldridge</title>
		<link>http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/comment-page-1/#comment-14748</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Eldridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/#comment-14748</guid>
		<description>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. 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 over a decade ago. They have now rebuilt their fleet with 57 new trolley buses acquired from the Czech builder Skoda in 1998/99. 
 
Any number of route combinations could be considered candidates for possible trolleybus conversion. Trolleybuses might just be the answer for the Broad/Main Street corridor and for those advocating dedicated bus ways as a cheaper alternative to heavy rail construction. In 1995 Quito Equator opened such a dedicated trolley bus system using special 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p> Enter the Electric Trolley Bus!</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.  </p>
<p>Currently, in the U.S., there are five trolley bus systems located in such diverse cities as Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Dayton. 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 over a decade ago. They have now rebuilt their fleet with 57 new trolley buses acquired from the Czech builder Skoda in 1998/99. </p>
<p>Any number of route combinations could be considered candidates for possible trolleybus conversion. Trolleybuses might just be the answer for the Broad/Main Street corridor and for those advocating dedicated bus ways as a cheaper alternative to heavy rail construction. In 1995 Quito Equator opened such a dedicated trolley bus system using special 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.</p>
<p>Of course the question of financing for such an undertaking comes up.<br />
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: j.m. carter</title>
		<link>http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/comment-page-1/#comment-5444</link>
		<dc:creator>j.m. carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearwestendnews.net/2008/01/11/is-light-rail-in-the-future-for-richmond/#comment-5444</guid>
		<description>Houston recently dropped a similar plan (bus &quot;rapid transit&quot; first then switching to light rail) for a five- line l.r. system from the outset, saving millions.  Does anyone in Richmond have any idea about what is going on in nearby Norfolk?  Or about Charlotte&#039;s newly-opened l.r. line? Get out and smell the roses.  Nationwide, these systems have all been big successes !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Houston recently dropped a similar plan (bus &#8220;rapid transit&#8221; first then switching to light rail) for a five- line l.r. system from the outset, saving millions.  Does anyone in Richmond have any idea about what is going on in nearby Norfolk?  Or about Charlotte&#8217;s newly-opened l.r. line? Get out and smell the roses.  Nationwide, these systems have all been big successes !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

