On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:20:24 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
When I was a kid there were trolley car tracks all over Pittsburgh and
they were being pulled up....
When I grew, Seattle Transit was 100% electric trolley.
Then they expanded the system, but making it electric was too
difficult. Or some such excuse. The overhead wires came down.
There was then a resurgence: some short lines either kept their
overhead wires/electric buses or they were put back in.
And then there's the South Lake Union Line. This is a new
overhead-line trolly, starting in 2007.
It's original name was "South Lake Union Trolley", but when that got
reduced to SLUT, the name was ... adjusted.
More may be coming. Overhead wires have advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, they have to be moved if the route changes. And buses
not tied to the wires are needed for temporary reroutes. But,
particularly in an area where virtually all electricity is green
(nuclear and hydro plus others), it sure beats out anything burning
oil.
On 2026-04-17, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:20:24 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
When I was a kid there were trolley car tracks all over Pittsburgh and >>>they were being pulled up....
When I grew, Seattle Transit was 100% electric trolley.
Then they expanded the system, but making it electric was too
difficult. Or some such excuse. The overhead wires came down.
There was then a resurgence: some short lines either kept their
overhead wires/electric buses or they were put back in.
And then there's the South Lake Union Line. This is a new
overhead-line trolly, starting in 2007.
It's original name was "South Lake Union Trolley", but when that got
reduced to SLUT, the name was ... adjusted.
More may be coming. Overhead wires have advantages and disadvantages.
Specifically, they have to be moved if the route changes. And buses
not tied to the wires are needed for temporary reroutes. But,
particularly in an area where virtually all electricity is green
(nuclear and hydro plus others), it sure beats out anything burning
oil.
And if (where the route allows) these are paired with rails, it becomes >easier to increase capacity too.
On 4/16/26 10:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 4/16/2026 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva˙ <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law >>>>>> somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if
it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways
crossing urban
neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart.˙ In many cases the
motorways
are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not
blocked.˙˙ Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in >>>>> the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities.˙ But the
way it was
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it >>>> part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in
mobility?
Indeed personal vehicles were and are very important in California where
distances are fairly long and restricted access highways were planned
and replanned
due to increases in traffic.
In San Francisco when I was much younger and before I came to live
here, there were inter-urban railways that crossed the Bay Bridge. By
the time
I moved here they were dismantled and the bridge was given over to 2 levels of traffic upper level which had been 3 lanes in each direction now
only goes
West into San Francisco and East on the lower level which used to be
for trucks
and rail is East-bound to Oakland and other points.
This was due to Fossil Fuel and Automotive Industry lobbyists. In
LA, the inter-urban cars (Red Line)were shut down by the same lobbying groups.
Freeways which are not really free since taxes are imposed to pay
for building and maintaining them. We also have toll roads to less popular venues.
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so
automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
The Netherlands, in the 1970s, made a deliberate pivot away from cars
and to public transport and bicycles in the 1970s.
Thinking way ahead.
Of course, it helps to have a small, densely populated country,
and to be as flat as Kansas.
99% Invisible did an excellent podcast about the change:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/531-de-fiets-is-niets/
pt
On 2026-04-16, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 4/16/26 10:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 4/16/2026 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva˙ <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law >>>>>>> somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if
it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>>>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways
crossing urban
neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart.˙ In many cases the
motorways
are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not
blocked.˙˙ Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in >>>>>> the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities.˙ But the
way it was
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it >>>>> part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in >>>>> mobility?
Indeed personal vehicles were and are very important in California where
distances are fairly long and restricted access highways were planned
and replanned
due to increases in traffic.
In San Francisco when I was much younger and before I came to live
here, there were inter-urban railways that crossed the Bay Bridge. By
the time
I moved here they were dismantled and the bridge was given over to 2 levels >> of traffic upper level which had been 3 lanes in each direction now
only goes
West into San Francisco and East on the lower level which used to be
for trucks
and rail is East-bound to Oakland and other points.
Wow. that looks quite stupid, replacing a more efficient higher-capacity medium with road lanes... that'd only make sense if demand were
*decreasing* (and would still not be a wise option).
This was due to Fossil Fuel and Automotive Industry lobbyists. In
LA, the inter-urban cars (Red Line)were shut down by the same lobbying
groups.
Freeways which are not really free since taxes are imposed to pay
for building and maintaining them. We also have toll roads to less popular >> venues.
What ends up being "funny" is how in some societies you'll get people actively pushing against funding public transit in the same way, yet
they will happily embrace the status quo of road management, which is
pretty much built that way.
For some countries, I foresee that the future is either a strong,
intended shift in policy to invest in public transit and in other
mobility choices than personal vehicles, or starting to collect car
fares for every single road according to what it costs to maintain it...
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so
automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
The Netherlands, in the 1970s, made a deliberate pivot away from cars
and to public transport and bicycles in the 1970s.
Thinking way ahead.
Of course, it helps to have a small, densely populated country,
and to be as flat as Kansas.
99% Invisible did an excellent podcast about the change:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/531-de-fiets-is-niets/
pt
On 4/27/26 01:11, Nuno Silva wrote:
it...What ends up being "funny" is how in some societies you'll get people
actively pushing against funding public transit in the same way, yet
they will happily embrace the status quo of road management, which is
pretty much built that way.
For some countries, I foresee that the future is either a strong,
intended shift in policy to invest in public transit and in other
mobility choices than personal vehicles, or starting to collect car
fares for every single road according to what it costs to maintain
That has been what California's high gasoline taxes are about.
We have yet to figure out how to deal with the electrical vehicles
as far as I know.
On 2026-04-16, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
In San Francisco when I was much younger and before I came to live
here, there were inter-urban railways that crossed the Bay Bridge. By
the time
I moved here they were dismantled and the bridge was given over to 2 levels >> of traffic upper level which had been 3 lanes in each direction now
only goes
West into San Francisco and East on the lower level which used to be
for trucks
and rail is East-bound to Oakland and other points.
Wow. that looks quite stupid, replacing a more efficient higher-capacity >medium with road lanes... that'd only make sense if demand were
*decreasing* (and would still not be a wise option).
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-04-16, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
In San Francisco when I was much younger and before I came to live
here, there were inter-urban railways that crossed the Bay Bridge. By
the time
I moved here they were dismantled and the bridge was given over to 2 levels >>> of traffic upper level which had been 3 lanes in each direction now
only goes
West into San Francisco and East on the lower level which used to be
for trucks
and rail is East-bound to Oakland and other points.
Wow. that looks quite stupid, replacing a more efficient higher-capacity
medium with road lanes... that'd only make sense if demand were
*decreasing* (and would still not be a wise option).
Realize that Bobbie is speaking of the 1950s. The last train across the bay was
in 1958. This was near the start of the post-war age of the automobile
in the USA, and rail was considered obsolete (yes, that's foolish
in retrospect). There were also pressures from the auto industry
to favor automobiles over rail
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)
The bay area in general has seen many of the historic rail right-of-ways
fall to housing development. There is very little freight rail traffic
in the entire bay area (aside from the Oakland port freight traffic
headed eastbound across the sierra and cars from the fremont tesla
plant heading east).
The Santa Cruz line along the coast, for example, has fallen into signficant disrepair
and efforts to reanimate it for passenger rail are failing due to the cost of replacing
many dozen small viaducts and wooden bridges that are over a century old in some cases.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:12:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 01:11, Nuno Silva wrote:
<snippo>
What ends up being "funny" is how in some societies you'll get people
actively pushing against funding public transit in the same way, yet
they will happily embrace the status quo of road management, which is
pretty much built that way.
For some countries, I foresee that the future is either a strong,
intended shift in policy to invest in public transit and in other
mobility choices than personal vehicles, or starting to collect car
fares for every single road according to what it costs to maintain it...
That has been what California's high gasoline taxes are about.
We have yet to figure out how to deal with the electrical vehicles
as far as I know.
Up here, as I understand, some people are advocated trip fees for non-electric vehicles based on distance travelled.
How the heck they plan to measure that I have no idea.
But, yes, electric vehicles are cutting into the primary source of
road maintenance funding -- gas taxes. It was set up that way so that
those who used the roads would pay for the roads.
And increasing license tab fees is a flash point up here.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:12:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 01:11, Nuno Silva wrote:
<snippo>
it...What ends up being "funny" is how in some societies you'll get people
actively pushing against funding public transit in the same way, yet
they will happily embrace the status quo of road management, which is
pretty much built that way.
=20
For some countries, I foresee that the future is either a strong,
intended shift in policy to invest in public transit and in other
mobility choices than personal vehicles, or starting to collect car
fares for every single road according to what it costs to maintain =
That has been what California's high gasoline taxes are about.
We have yet to figure out how to deal with the electrical vehicles
as far as I know.
Up here, as I understand, some people are advocated trip fees for >non-electric vehicles based on distance travelled.
How the heck they plan to measure that I have no idea.
Vernor Vinge wrote "A fire on the deep", the best usnet inspired novel.
I've read it three times, and it has an equally or perhaps even more
admired sequel, "A deepness in the Sky".
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493848:25:25 |
| Calls: | 146 |
| Files: | 547 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (97K bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,846 |