All of these requirements to cause transit to 'transport people effectively, but also do X' effectively count as a bunch of micro-unfunded-mandates, which together do what unfunded mandates always do: create externalities that impair the primary vector of value, while also discouraging change.
Not to mention that if you operate a regular bus route that goes on a fixed path inside a city, it usually is much cheaper to set up a trolleybus line instead of an electric bus. There may be some use cases for an electric bus if the infrastructure is not there at all, but most of the time you have already many people involved in setting up a bus route, adding a few people to manage installing the line over the bus route to have a constant connection for a trolleybus is not a big investment compared to how much cheaper a trolleybus is compared to a electric bus
Update I have been advised that modern trolley buses can be provided with batteries so they can run autonomously for short distances. This mitigates the issue I first commented on
=========
Trolley buses are fine until there is an issue on the route. There was a fire on the main street in Edinburgh which closed the road for seven weeks. The buses have been rerouted. The fixed track tram cannot be rerouted. As a result a large proportion of the population who used the trams to get to the airport cannot do so
The community path has had decades of support it certainly was not just 13 people at a single meeting. Also a billion dollar green line extension that took decades to build with extravagant financial gifts to consultants and construction companies the least they could do is include a 10 foot path for bikes and peds.
I spent my early career working on transit systems for the YAHPU group: Young, aged handicapped, poor and unemployed. In short the people left out of our auto-sprawl ecology. They were all losers when we lost transit-oriented development. I also worked on a statewide system for rural needs not met by autos. But if we go back to the Good Roads program it was all about social action for those away from urban/rail hubs. The problem with making transit take up the needs is that we got an inefficient and inequitable transport system.
Ok but the Somerville community path is genuinely excellent infrastructure, and definitely has played a role in Somerville having zero ped/cyclist traffic fatalities in the last 3 years. Can say as a frequent user of the path extension. It is very well used!
Your critique of mission creep in transit is convincing. But the proposed solution risks shifting that mission creep into housing—a sector where accumulated requirements have already made construction extraordinarily expensive.
Density is not costless. Mid-rise buildings require two staircases, hallways, elevators, and, in five-over-one construction, a concrete podium. At transitional densities, residents often still need cars, which may require costly underground parking.
High density makes sense in some places, but advocating it without confronting the trade-offs in each case risks replacing one costly problem with an even costlier solution.
I get (and agree with) the overall point that putting more money into higher frequency to attract more users to switch from cars would have a greater impact, but I very much disagree with "from a passenger perspective, electric buses are no different". Here in Auckland much of the bus fleet is electric, and the difference in ride is immediately noticeable when you get on a diesel one. You forget just how loud combustion engine buses are until you ride a nice quiet electric one.
Not to mention it's so much more pleasant as a pedestrian on the footpath when you're not sucking in bus exhaust or shouting over its loud engine.
Really thoughtful piece! When you study transit networks, it is striking how different the economics and politics of ground infrastructure are compared to air corridors. Ground transit gets bogged down by every parcel of land, while airplanes bypassed geography entirely by using the sky.
Since some readers will inevitably take home from this that "electric bus bad," it's worth pointing out that the economics are highly dependent on context.
Where diesel is expensive, electricity cheap and trade barriers aren't onerous, battery-electric buses have a lower total cost of ownership.
Ghotge, van Rooij & van Breukelen found that this is the case in e.g. Finland, France, Belgium and Greece
"It’s more sensible to reduce emissions by getting a broader base to make small behavioral changes than to force a small group of already burdened people to carry the load."
Wonder if that's always the case for troubleshooting in the broader public interest?
Take the case of the Indian freedom struggle. Freedom fighters who used the non-violent mass agitations built on public awareness and participation were more successful than the revolutionaries who used assasinations and bombings. One reason was that the former asked for minor behavioral changes from a large number of people, while the latter asked for complete sacrifice from a small populace.
We need more Pigouvian taxes. It's OK to have a bunch of diverse objectives in public policy. But tradeoffs always exist. Pigouvian taxes would help us determine when pursuing a given objective is efficient.
All of these requirements to cause transit to 'transport people effectively, but also do X' effectively count as a bunch of micro-unfunded-mandates, which together do what unfunded mandates always do: create externalities that impair the primary vector of value, while also discouraging change.
Not to mention that if you operate a regular bus route that goes on a fixed path inside a city, it usually is much cheaper to set up a trolleybus line instead of an electric bus. There may be some use cases for an electric bus if the infrastructure is not there at all, but most of the time you have already many people involved in setting up a bus route, adding a few people to manage installing the line over the bus route to have a constant connection for a trolleybus is not a big investment compared to how much cheaper a trolleybus is compared to a electric bus
Update I have been advised that modern trolley buses can be provided with batteries so they can run autonomously for short distances. This mitigates the issue I first commented on
=========
Trolley buses are fine until there is an issue on the route. There was a fire on the main street in Edinburgh which closed the road for seven weeks. The buses have been rerouted. The fixed track tram cannot be rerouted. As a result a large proportion of the population who used the trams to get to the airport cannot do so
Modern trolley buses can go off wire with small batteries that charge in motion.
Thanks for taking the time to add this bit of information. I have updated my comment
The community path has had decades of support it certainly was not just 13 people at a single meeting. Also a billion dollar green line extension that took decades to build with extravagant financial gifts to consultants and construction companies the least they could do is include a 10 foot path for bikes and peds.
I spent my early career working on transit systems for the YAHPU group: Young, aged handicapped, poor and unemployed. In short the people left out of our auto-sprawl ecology. They were all losers when we lost transit-oriented development. I also worked on a statewide system for rural needs not met by autos. But if we go back to the Good Roads program it was all about social action for those away from urban/rail hubs. The problem with making transit take up the needs is that we got an inefficient and inequitable transport system.
Ok but the Somerville community path is genuinely excellent infrastructure, and definitely has played a role in Somerville having zero ped/cyclist traffic fatalities in the last 3 years. Can say as a frequent user of the path extension. It is very well used!
The reference to the “American Public Transit Association” is, unfortunately, incorrect.
It should be the “American Public Transportation Association”.
Your critique of mission creep in transit is convincing. But the proposed solution risks shifting that mission creep into housing—a sector where accumulated requirements have already made construction extraordinarily expensive.
Density is not costless. Mid-rise buildings require two staircases, hallways, elevators, and, in five-over-one construction, a concrete podium. At transitional densities, residents often still need cars, which may require costly underground parking.
High density makes sense in some places, but advocating it without confronting the trade-offs in each case risks replacing one costly problem with an even costlier solution.
I get (and agree with) the overall point that putting more money into higher frequency to attract more users to switch from cars would have a greater impact, but I very much disagree with "from a passenger perspective, electric buses are no different". Here in Auckland much of the bus fleet is electric, and the difference in ride is immediately noticeable when you get on a diesel one. You forget just how loud combustion engine buses are until you ride a nice quiet electric one.
Not to mention it's so much more pleasant as a pedestrian on the footpath when you're not sucking in bus exhaust or shouting over its loud engine.
Structural incentives within peer networks often prioritize velocity over verification, compounding epistemic drift.
Really thoughtful piece! When you study transit networks, it is striking how different the economics and politics of ground infrastructure are compared to air corridors. Ground transit gets bogged down by every parcel of land, while airplanes bypassed geography entirely by using the sky.
Aviation created an isochronic map where physical kilometers stopped mattering and everything became a function of flight time. Explored that non Euclidean geometry of the modern world here: https://gzambrano.substack.com/p/quando-a-distancia-colapsou-por-que-a-aviacao-importa
Brilliant essay, shared it with friends!
Since some readers will inevitably take home from this that "electric bus bad," it's worth pointing out that the economics are highly dependent on context.
Where diesel is expensive, electricity cheap and trade barriers aren't onerous, battery-electric buses have a lower total cost of ownership.
Ghotge, van Rooij & van Breukelen found that this is the case in e.g. Finland, France, Belgium and Greece
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/16/8/464
"It’s more sensible to reduce emissions by getting a broader base to make small behavioral changes than to force a small group of already burdened people to carry the load."
Wonder if that's always the case for troubleshooting in the broader public interest?
Take the case of the Indian freedom struggle. Freedom fighters who used the non-violent mass agitations built on public awareness and participation were more successful than the revolutionaries who used assasinations and bombings. One reason was that the former asked for minor behavioral changes from a large number of people, while the latter asked for complete sacrifice from a small populace.
Seems even Burning Man is not likely to sell out this year, no butts in seats. (need subsidy?)
We need more Pigouvian taxes. It's OK to have a bunch of diverse objectives in public policy. But tradeoffs always exist. Pigouvian taxes would help us determine when pursuing a given objective is efficient.
deep