Bare Ruin'd Choirs (or Missing the Trolleybus)

 This article about Seattle's trolleybuses made me feel some feelings, since I grew up in Seattle taking trolleybuses fairly frequently.

Ah, to sit upon the throne of the seat in the middle of a Seattle articulated trolleybus. 

There were, as the article mentions, some severe political headwinds against these buses in the earlier part of this century, which led to the issue obliquely referenced by this title: that the trolleybus is seen as a declining technology when it ought to be in its prime.

Why? Because the trolleybus is, in my humble opinion, the best option available for a city that wants to improve its transit outcomes on the cheap, without investing in full-scale rail. That's because trolleybuses provide three things I think of as ideal in transit, all without requiring nearly as much investment in either infrastructure or vehicle costs as trains: visible infrastructure, high volume (or the potential for it), and pleasurable trips (or the potential for them as well).

1. Visible Infrastructure

I love trains because you can see where they're going and know that you're on a transit corridor without having to actually see the bus. It creates an awareness that there is service, and an expectation that you can use the service, which I think is a critical element often missed by bus-only service.

But with a trolleybus you can do that without paying train prices. Yes, you need to install the overhead lines for the electric system, but that's a lot less expensive and disruptive than train tracks, an elevated rail corridor, or god forbid tunneling or cut-and-cover. 

And yet the lines above still show the transit exists, and guide you to knowing that you're in a transit corridor.

Sort of like the top of this tram picture, without the bottom part. They both trace the route, but only one of them alters the street--and it's much cheaper not to alter the street.

2. High Volume Potential

There's a reason I referenced the articulated trolleybus above: artics (or double-artics!) are big. They're higher-capacity (generally) than even the doubledeckers that London is known for. 

Sorry buddy, you know I love you, but you're no artic.

They're not as high-capacity as a tram, but a lot of that is that places that run trolleybuses tend to just not run them as high-frequency as a tram would, and trams are often made up of more vehicles linked together (as in that Paris tram above, with its six sections). An articulated trolleybus is roughly two-thirds higher capacity than a regular bus, and there's no reason they can't be run highly frequently (especially if run as bus lanes or fully separated BRT) even if Seattle historically didn't really do that. 

So while the volume is nowhere near a metro, these aren't really competing with a metro or even true light rail. They're competing with low-volume tramways or regular buses, and they're cheaper than the former and higher-volume than the latter.

Don't worry, Link Light Rail, this isn't coming for you. Rather, the trolleybus is ideal for a high-volume route that isn't ready for (or doesn't have the political will for or the money for) a tram, light rail, metro, etc. It's a great way to boost capacity without costing an arm and a leg.

3. Pleasurable Trips

By this I mean a callback to my first thought about trolleybuses: I like riding a trolleybus. The artics can be distinctive, attractive, and comfortable to ride on.

Basically like the HOP in Milwaukee, except much easier to expand.

The regular bus is a workhorse that we should not disrespect. 

Pictured: a bus that calls itself a trolley bus but isn't.

But it also has a justified reputation as kinda basic, not particularly comfortable, and, well, generic: most US cities run pretty similar buses.

And even buses like the above Chicago artic that isn't a trolleybus don't have some of the trolleybus's advantages: like a consistent route with relatively little variation that means that you can actually make the ride smoother and easier. 

Trolleybuses have the potential to be well-branded, well-organized, and consistent in a way that can make them a distinctive service with a service and a reputation that both go beyond the traditional bus.

I like riding them; you might too. And that makes them a real potential tool for cities looking to expand their portfolio of transit beyond the bus/rail duality in so many US cities.

I wish Seattle had expanded them, rather than cutting them back, and I'm glad they seem to have turned back towards them in recent planning.

What do you think? Does your city have trolleybuses? Do you wish it did?