Jump to content

Electric Buses in the US


Recommended Posts

​If you read the article, they are hybrids, not electric buses (electric being defined as battery only)--other than what it says about "in the long run" instead of now.

Edited by Busjack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 8 years later...
  • 2 months later...

New Flyer release that NYCTA placed firm orders for 187 40-ft battery buses and 18 60-ft ones, with options for 943 40-ft ones and 272 60-ft ones. However it seems to have hedged its bets by ordering 224 diesel artics with options for another 446. Anyway, this is being reported as up to 1400 electric buses out of up to 2090.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

New Flyer release that NYCTA placed firm orders for 187 40-ft battery buses and 18 60-ft ones, with options for 943 40-ft ones and 272 60-ft ones. However it seems to have hedged its bets by ordering 224 diesel artics with options for another 446. Anyway, this is being reported as up to 1400 electric buses out of up to 2090.

Smart move to also order clean diesel artics.  I've been saying that CTA should also be ordering clean diesel buses in addition to any electric buses they are ordering in the future.  They can't keep the few electrics they currently have on the road.  Therefore placing more orders for electric buses to retire the oldest buses without having some newer diesel buses is not snart . The 8350s should not be the last order of diesel buses.  Hopefully CTA will learn from New York. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

 Therefore placing more orders for electric buses to retire the oldest buses without having some newer diesel buses is not snart . The 8350s should not be the last order of diesel buses

I agree that they should get some more diesels or hybrids, but the Illinois senate says otherwise and we can't do much about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Elkmn said:

I agree that they should get some more diesels or hybrids, but the Illinois senate says otherwise and we can't do much about that.

As been said many times before, that law is so full of holes that it makes Emmenthaler and Jarlsberg (Norwegian Swiss) cheese looks solid, as 70 ILCS 3615/2.10a provides:
    (c ) For the purposes of determining compliance with this Section, a Service Board shall not be deemed to be in violation of this Section when failure to comply is due to:
        (1) the unavailability of zero-emission buses from a manufacturer or funding to purchase zero-emission buses;

        (2) the lack of necessary charging, fueling, or storage facilities or funding to procure charging, fueling, or storage facilities; or

        (3) the inability of a third party to enter into a contractual or commercial relationship with a Service Board that is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Section.

A possible explanation for NYCTA's action is that NF is the only remaining major BAA compliant assembler of articulated buses, and that's all it could do, and if that's the case, CTA may come within exception (c )(1). But it would appear that if that's the case, neither CTA nor NYCTA will make the 2040 deadline for zero emissions, unless they plan to scrap the buses to be acquired after 2027 prematurely.

But unless hybrid technology has radically improved, hybrid buses don't save much fuel and aren't zero emission, so if the additional $200,000 per bus is still the case, would be a waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Busjack said:

 

neither CTA nor NYCTA will make the 2040 deadline for zero emissions, unless they plan to scrap the buses to be acquired after 2027 prematurely.

this is a very far off pipe dream, but what if CTA brings back trolleybuses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Elkmn said:

this is a very far off pipe dream, but what if CTA brings back trolleybuses?

Going electric to ETBs over BEBs was always the more logical move, especially with the street grid and how routes conform to it, and with the advances made to IMC over the years. However, I don't see the agency or pols expending the political capital to make the switch. Cambridge basically forced MBTA's hand to make the switch from ETBs to BEBs even though they should've just ordered new ETBs to replace the Neoplans. CTA would basically need to convert an entire garage and their routes at once, while other garages shoulder the load, which again, is probably possible, but could easily be deemed not worth the effort. Forest Glen would probably be a good start for this, especially with most of the routes being short and operating out of Jeff Pk. But all that said, I don't see CTA/Chicago, or anywhere, stringing up wires for anything other than LRVs. When the wires came down, so went the inertia to keep them them. Same way all the super expansive streetcar networks that still exist in the US had one thing in common (a downtown tunnel where all the lines got funneled into)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to string up wires using current electrical wire support poles and streetlamps? If so, installing wire couldn't be that hard, and after that it's just setting up FG for trolleybuses, putting in some substations (substations? I'd think that's what ETBs have) and acquiring some ETBs, which also shouldn't be too hard as Vancouver TransLink is looking to replace their E40s. This is still a pipe dream though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elkmn said:

Is it possible to string up wires using current electrical wire support poles and streetlamps? If so, installing wire couldn't be that hard, and after that it's just setting up FG for trolleybuses, putting in some substations (substations? I'd think that's what ETBs have) and acquiring some ETBs, which also shouldn't be too hard as Vancouver TransLink is looking to replace their E40s. This is still a pipe dream though.

Main issue that @andrethebusman99 brought up was that CTA did not want to pay the expense of maintaining the wires when they broke, or of rewiring when routes or streets changed. For instance, it wasn't coincidence that the 51 51st/55th trolley bus was discontinued when Hyde Park got urban renewal and University Apartments were built in the middle of 55th. Also, it was 51/55 because trolleys were not allowed in the parks, which precluded running through Washington Park and on Garfield Blvd. Andre also mentioned that there were plans to route 81 and 85 into Jefferson Park, but, again not coincidentally, trolley bus on those routes ended when Jeff Park opened. Most of the north side lines ended short of Lincoln Park at such terminals as Belmont-Halsted, or at Broadway, and short-line buses such as 74L, East Belmont, and Lawrence-Montrose were used to get to the beach. Similarly, CSL (basically to fend off CMC) and CTA thought trolley buses were worth it around Central, but not worth it such as on Irving Park west of Neenah.

Wires were considered eyesores, and CTA got sued when a truck going under a viaduct caught on fire.

There are some trolley/battery buses, which might take care of the parks problem, but still need batteries. As @NewFlyerMCI  pointed out, Cambridge forced out trolley buses and Toronto did too; streetcars and trolleybuses basically work only in transitways, and Toronto is the only North American city that has streetcars running on the grid. Even at that TTC has bustitution when streets are under construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...