Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

donttouchthirdrail t1_j1qn4yw wrote

I am begging you people to put up wire and run trolley buses

99

huebomont t1_j1r3oxi wrote

mta is allergic to using existing solutions

82

irykiryk t1_j1sof38 wrote

You gotta spend tax funds on that "modern" green washed techno bullshit before investing in things that work.

6

therealowlman t1_j1roa7v wrote

That would only work if the city was a near perfect grid

Oh wait

34

Shreddersaurusrex t1_j1t7fq2 wrote

West Village is a nightmare

1

down_up__left_right t1_j261hy6 wrote

It's not like the West Village has streets with crazy curves. It's basically a grid at a different angle and then a small part of it is a grid at a third angle.

I don't see why a trolley bus couldn't go up Hudson or go along Christopher St and handle the turn when it transitions to the normal grid and becomes 9th St.

1

Taupenbeige t1_j1rm3ox wrote

I’m imagining the flaming sneakers hurled up on those suckers right now

17

soundadvices t1_j1rxgj3 wrote

Imagine how much we can save by building the infrastructure upon an existing city-wide network of permanent scaffolding, and never see the sky again.

7

[deleted] t1_j1rkgv5 wrote

How would that change the cost of the electricity?

6

hob_goblin8 t1_j1ukxb3 wrote

makes more efficient use of the same costly electricity

3

Effeted t1_j1rdj1l wrote

That would cost 1 billion per block

3

SmashRadish t1_j1qgrad wrote

NY post is totally impartial. There’s no way they are banking on manufacturing dissent from electrification to make more money from fossil fuels.

92

Albedo100 t1_j1s0zxp wrote

So what? MTA literally started buying Hybrid buses in 1999 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/30736.pdf

It seems like people forgot that they tried this whole transition away from fossil fuels 20 years ago and then gave up on it after 10 years and went back to diesel, leaving us with what we have now. Their track record at sticking to the environmentally friendly option is terrible.

6

SmashRadish t1_j1s19zr wrote

> So what? MTA literally started buying Hybrid buses in 1999

This is a great reason to ignore the naked shilling of the NY post

1

Albedo100 t1_j1s1ff7 wrote

They were phased out. MTA at one point had close to 2000 hybrid buses

6

Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_j1ro23r wrote

It's just the government pissing your money down the drain.

$1 billion dollars for electric buses that ultimatimaly get electricity from mostly fossil fuels. This is just a handout to their corporate donors

If these pice of shit politicians want to do something about climate do something about corporate pollution.

−14

OhGoodOhMan t1_j1rux4g wrote

Not true, NY gets most of its power from nuclear and renewables.

Even still, burning natural gas for electricity to charge electric vehicles is far more energy efficient and less polluting than combustion engines.

14

CairnBarrow t1_j1s4d8t wrote

Naturally a paywalled article would be this misleading…

https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2226333/2022-Gold-Book-Final-Public.pdf

Page 136 shows the facts on 41 Gigawatts of NYISO generation assets available to meet the 24 GW peak winter demand forecast. Renewables including nuclear and hydro total to 12.2 GW. This includes a whopping 0.132% of peak for solar, bearing in mind that peak winter load comes at night in NYC.

Therefore NYS can only meet half of the peak winter load demand with its nuclear, hydro, wind and other renewable power assets. The remaining half needs to be met by expensive imports or fossil assets, and you can bet that most of the dual fuel burners will be running on fuel oil due to natural gas curtailment.

I would be interested in seeing some normal load and consumption data in addition to annual capacity factors for installed assets. This would likely paint a better kWh picture. The kW picture will be pretty bleak for years to come. Still, I remain confident that we can put a good dent in it during our lifetime if we all do our part by reducing consumption during peak demand periods and doing your own research when demand is low.

1

Platapos t1_j1ryomo wrote

Even if electricity is generated using fossil fuels, it’s still a far more efficient system than a combustion motor burning fossil fuels.

3

Iskald_ t1_j25dci9 wrote

Electric also produced no local pollution or noise pollution. This city is dirty and noisy as fuck, electric buses is such a nice change.

1

DelTeaz t1_j1qlkhl wrote

It’s a simple news article and not an op-ed so it’s pretty unbiased.

−29

glazor t1_j1qmb1g wrote

Are you saying that only op-eds can be biased?

32

DelTeaz t1_j1qq4zc wrote

No just pointing out that it’s a simple article that’s just reporting facts and quotes. Just because the post is right leaning doesn’t mean it’s local news articles are biased.

−4

hooplah t1_j1r4bfi wrote

a non-comprehensive list of where bias can exist in news stories:

  • what stories news organizations choose to report on
  • how much coverage they give each story
  • language in headlines
  • language in articles
  • sources they reference
  • people they quote
  • statistics they pull
  • photos they use

every part of a news article, from a single word to the article’s very existence, is an opportunity for bias. you’re naive if you think only op-eds have slant

9

DelTeaz t1_j1r4ofw wrote

I’m aware of all that. It’s still a fine article to read.

−5

iv2892 t1_j1ql6vn wrote

As others have pointed out, this is the NY post which is in the fossil fuel pockets

38

NewYorker0 t1_j1r4qkr wrote

Doesn’t excuse the fact that electric bus costs 3times that of diesel. Edit: it costs 3 times to power the bus.

−10

Braedan0786 t1_j1r5yhl wrote

Source please

EDIT: Your poor sentence structure and description are difficult to understand but are you saying electric buses cost more than diesel buses, or are you saying charging a battery is more expensive than filling a tank with diesel?

6

NewYorker0 t1_j1rf1ft wrote

Excuse my comment. The article says to power the bus, though the article itself is very vague on where exactly it costs more, but it sounds like it costs 3 times more to charge the vehicle than to fill it up with diesel. Don’t think it will make much of a difference in operating cost

−7

Braedan0786 t1_j1rfhnr wrote

The article is dogshit. It’s speculating on the cost of an all electric bus fleet v. all gas/diesel. At no point are actual costs discussed - it’s all conjecture.

9

NoodleShak t1_j1rrdyy wrote

A friend of mine noted to me that due to less moving parts in electric vehicles while up front cost is higher as all new tech is,wear and tear on the vehicle is far less. I refuse to read the post so I’m not sure what their argument is.

Short term costs are probably higher, but if I understood my bud correctly long term is less.

5

Braedan0786 t1_j1rsy41 wrote

The article is a typical Post hit job. They interviewed someone or multiple people who work for the MTA and didn’t provide any context to the quotes. Yes, surge pricing on electricity can be expensive. The problem is the article did nothing to discuss the actual costs involved or if the MTA be able to get some kind of deal on electricity pricing.

Typical of the Post - let’s fear-monger and get quotes from people who work for the org. In question and throw out some numbers without any actual cost comparison. The lack of maintenance is a good point, too. How much money would the MTA save by cutting out 75%+ of maintenance costs? Zero discussion of that, of course.

5

NoodleShak t1_j1rukzv wrote

The way I’m understanding it (I’m not a car guy or engineer) we basically remove that giant exploding machine we have that is usually the most complex part of any vehicle and we replace a lot of it with a battery. I’m probably really simplifying this but i do know that my friend does little to no maintenance on his leaf. I know buses are a differnt animal but I think it’s close enough to come to a conclusion.

I do know that for right now we don’t have a great infrastructure for recycling the batteries but as cities turn to electric that will naturally solve itself to cut costs.

Also surge pricing is a non issue to me. Teslas in ideal conditions can go from 250-300 miles you’re average car can roughly do the same on a tank of gas but that tank costs 60+ dollars to fill up. Electricity costs a fourth of that.

Last bit sorry didn’t intend this to be long winded. Add in regenerative breaking systems such as those found in Prius’s we further reduce the need for 0 to full charging since we take advantage of the generated kinetic energy of the bus.

2

Braedan0786 t1_j1rv1zp wrote

And another comment on range: the 250-300 mile range you cite is based on continual travel at highway speeds. My EV (a 2022 Tesla Model 3 Performance) would get way more than 300 miles of range at the average speeds NYC buses travel. Like, substantially more range at those speeds.

2

NoodleShak t1_j1rvfzd wrote

I could argue that the bus is substantially heavier than your car but that’s offset by the much larger battery and regenerative charging.

In short we’ve assured ourselves in five comments this post article is nonsense. Well met fellow New Yorker.

2

avd706 t1_j1qmrt2 wrote

NYS owns the Power Authority and the PSC. MTA gets cheap electricity for trains.

29

crammed174 t1_j1r1cf0 wrote

Real question. Con-Ed messaged all of us to cut back on electricity because of an expected winter storm. “Don’t use washers, dryers, dishwashers” etc. how can we then possibly be even close to having. Large electric car population in civilian hands. Like if everyone got a free swap for their ICE cars to an electrics and just 25% of the city switches. Could we even handle it? We have no where near enough public chargers available as is. And it seems even if everyone charged at home the grid can’t handle it.

Please educate me if I’m missing something.

18

Braedan0786 t1_j1r64uw wrote

You’re missing that we have more than a decade to make the transition. No one is forcing the ICE owning population to swap to EVs now and no one is going to force them to swap when states stop selling ICE vehicles.

21

crammed174 t1_j1r88wi wrote

So you foresee that in a decade not only will their be more public chargers ala gas stations but the actual electrical grid will be able to support it? I question the grid, not to mention I doubt enough electric chargers to support a dense city like NY. We would need more Chargers the gas pumps because filling up is five minutes but charging is at least 20 to 30 minutes best case.

Mind you NYC grid is mostly fossil fuels since the closing of Indian Point.

2

_aware t1_j1r90np wrote

Electricity prices would go up, and thus incentivize more power plants to open up. Or our government can actually do something for once and restart Indian Point with better and safer reactors.

5

Braedan0786 t1_j1r8tzs wrote

Yes, I do. Lost in the shuffle about CA’s plan to transition to EVs is their plan to improve power production and reliability in the state prior to 2035. NY will likely do the same.

We don’t need anywhere near as many charging stations as gas stations in this country because GASP the vast majority of EV owners charge at home, overnight. How many ICE vehicle owners fill up their tank every night at home? Fast charging stations are generally used for longer trips and people who must spend more time on local roads.

My Tesla is in a garage in Manhattan that has about thirty Tesla chargers for EVs. The attendants plug it in, swap it around with other EVs, etc. It’s not hard.

4

crammed174 t1_j1re1r7 wrote

I live in a prewar apt as do my parents and in laws and cousins etc. this is an option for single family home owners and people in suburbs. Not NYC. At least not easily or soon.

9

Braedan0786 t1_j1reewe wrote

Cool bro. So what you’re saying is that there will be literally no increase in chargers on the street and other charging solutions in NYC over the next checks notes 13 years before the 2035 restrictions are in place?

−1

1keaman t1_j1rhlzd wrote

Your snarkiness *checks notes* is lame

5

Braedan0786 t1_j1rkrpz wrote

You have officially added checks notes literally nothing to the discussion.

−1

crammed174 t1_j1rvvr9 wrote

I don’t think I said that there won’t be any increase. I said I don’t foresee an increase to meet demand and even if that increase of chargers happens, the power grid can’t handle it if in 2022 we still can’t handle winter storms in a city geographically situated to be prone to winter storms.

We also can’t handle the heat in the summers. I get con-Ed messages every summer urging decrease in consumption.

2

Braedan0786 t1_j1rxa2b wrote

Ok so I’ll put you down as someone who believes that 13 years from now nothing will change. Seems like a pretty absurd position to take given how much technology changes on a near daily basis these days, but hey, you keep being you.

−2

[deleted] t1_j1rxuz5 wrote

[removed]

2

Braedan0786 t1_j1s36z1 wrote

Nah, I get what you’re saying. You’re still using issues today to justify your idiotic logic arguing things will essentially be the same in 13 years.

−1

Wowzlul t1_j1rfc6n wrote

You're right that personal electric vehicles are overhyped as a solution. They don't solve the fundamental issues that plague urban America, namely our dogshit inefficient land use that simultaneously requires and caters to people who drive personal automobiles to every destination.

There is no viable future for this city or the US generally that doesn't involve many fewer people driving personal vehicles for their daily comings and goings. We have to provide them with other options, and live in communities that are built to make those options viable. There's simply no other way around it.

8

cteno4 t1_j1rfmza wrote

Not that this solves the source of the problem, but having an electric car with C2G actually could have helped you in that situation. If your power had cut out, then you could have powered your house with the car for a day.

3

huebomont t1_j1r3vnh wrote

it’s a great question and just one more reason that just swapping every ice car to an electric car is going to be woefully inadequate to meet climate needs. we need to reduce the need for personal cars whenever and wherever possible, incentivize making them smaller and less power-hungry, and generally undo the horrific trends in car and truck design and marketing that have been going on for years.

2

[deleted] t1_j1rgwwt wrote

[deleted]

1

huebomont t1_j1um5wv wrote

Right, it’s not your job to figure out a solution, but for all the money the government spends subsidizing highways and gasoline they could divert even a fraction of that to transit construction and operations and serve way more people. That’s the mental shift we need but I doubt it will happen in time, if ever.

1

jay5627 t1_j1riw3v wrote

Well, in a few years all new developments will have to be electric (heat, ovens etc). I'm sure we'll have upgraded the infrastructure by then... right?

2

crammed174 t1_j1rotrh wrote

I’m not against it. By all means, I think we should have 100% nuclear power supplemented with solar, hydro and wind where feasible and everything should be electric. That way everything is actually clean energy (and cheap). I just don’t see it happening in the timeframe people aspire to, or even the government thinks it can mandate.

2

jay5627 t1_j1rp10r wrote

> I just don’t see it happening in the timeframe people aspire to

Well, nothing ever really happens on time when the gov't is setting the dates. I do agree it will be a net-positive when it's implemented, I just don't trust the grid to be updated and we'll be stuck with insufficient energy while everyone looks around with a shocked pikachu face

2

supremeMilo t1_j1rnk96 wrote

Fucking Cuomo fucked up by closing Indian River and not allowing a new natural gas unit in Astoria...

17

HiFiGuy197 t1_j1s09a0 wrote

Yeah, Indian Point should have remained open.

9

TryingHard2023 t1_j1qoivl wrote

Guess they got slapped with high Con Ed bills like the rest of us

2

Even_Reveal_1950 t1_j1qtopq wrote

Any excuse is good when it comes to gaining more wealth for the elites and the oil companies.

2

DYMAXIONman t1_j1rsikq wrote

Why are we buying electric buses without a trolly bus system set up?

2

Chiefwilde3224 t1_j1saz3s wrote

But electric buses dont have the vibration of the iconic motor powered bus, Plus its quieter

2

AutoModerator t1_j1qedxt wrote

Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

LogicIsMyFriend t1_j1rb109 wrote

This is a statewide issue. This is why PSC has to be all over it. To make a very complex story short, they will most likely end up buying credits from NYPA on all the excess Niagara Falls power while they build up wind. This is the most logical solution.

1

Wowzlul t1_j1rf2pr wrote

Jfc just do trolleybuses and be done with it

1

notahugeredditfan t1_j1s3fhn wrote

I’m not sure you understand how much money and time it takes to create and extend this infrastructure. You have to create everything to meet peak demand, which is the time when everyone and everything demands electricity - usually in the afternoon or evening. We are already net short of gas, renewables are inconsistent until we have batteries, and so there are rolling blackouts or forced blackouts in some areas. You’re right that there will be massive change in technology, but it has to be incentivized the right way - subsidies will just ensure that things are created, not that they are created in a sustainable way and to meet cost structures for cheap power to consumers, and profits to energy companies. There needs to be a policy to increase electrical generation and then a policy to make the distribution more consistent - incentivize investment while restricting monopolies. That needs to be in place before we count on innovation and change, because there are many unknowns.

1

SumyungNam t1_j1yw2fg wrote

What about electric trains lol

1

NatLawson t1_j1r3sk1 wrote

Electrification is "hands down" a good bet. Charging technology notwithstanding, the reliability of the resource is outstanding. The cost of electric supply is simply less volatile than the oil supply. Now is a market anomaly due to war and the post epidemic period.

Don't let any of this fool you.

Electrification changes the state of being of most individuals and may welcome an inexpensive alternative to single use vehicles in our cities.

Imagine if you could reserve a cabin to travel to and from most places in the city? Would you rather have a private cabin then an Uber or packed bus or open train car?

Electrification will lead to a seamless trip to any place and a safe journey home for most New Yorkers. Blended surface to under transportation and "pod" travel will revolutionize our transportation and package delivery needs making it cheaper and more reliable.

Thank you modernity. Thank you causality. Thank you for the blind faith our mothers put into their children's hands.

0

Hoser117 t1_j1reg0b wrote

> Imagine if you could reserve a cabin to travel to and from most places in the city? Would you rather have a private cabin then an Uber or packed bus or open train car? > > Electrification will lead to a seamless trip to any place and a safe journey home for most New Yorkers. Blended surface to under transportation and "pod" travel will revolutionize our transportation and package delivery needs making it cheaper and more reliable.

What exactly are you talking about here? Making electric vehicles doesn't really imply we're fundamentally changing the vehicles or method of transportation.

2

NatLawson t1_j1rgslu wrote

Actually - electrification in the 40's and 50's drove innovation for 50 years in every part of the country. Surface fleet mass transit, in line with pedestrian traffic innovation like bike lanes and streets with limited traffic are the beacons of modernity implemented by this change.

Combustion engines pollute the air we breathe but also create congestion and unsafe vehicle traffic. Electric fleets, transportation fleets, sanitation fleets and maintenance fleets grow the idea of accelerated use of viable modern technology. Costs, in the time of war and health emergencies should not cause us to abandon modernity. We should embrace modernization. I ask you to embrace the idea that innovation in our city has always led to fantastic benefits. From the docks to factory infrastructure to industry development, our cities infrastructure leads to massive efficiency. Electrification of our mass transit systems are only part of the grand vision. We should move forward. I should hope innovation also provides better safety and convenience as the fleets mature.

Right now, you can time your bus to the minute. Combustion engines are part of the past. Full steam ahead, to the future.

0

NatLawson t1_j1rsy3t wrote

Hey, cool comments.

There is an isolation between costs and supply. Considering advancements in electric supply, fusion experiments, just as fossil fuel, advancements in electric supply will improve. Truth is the infrastructure is already in place.

I am also a skeptic. I have to be convinced.

This is a confession, it's gonna happen. It's sooner than later. Mass transit will be electrified. We will be better.

−1

ketzal7 t1_j1rag4t wrote

MTA Board going to suggest a fare hike to 3.4572 in order to fix this

0

Deluxe78 t1_j1rrncq wrote

Wait, red tape and politics are getting in the way of things and jacking up prices in NY ?!?!

0

sleovideo t1_j1rshgo wrote

So the MTA aren’t going to add in the lower cost of parts and labor for maintenance needed as well as the overall reduction in emissions as worth the cost?

0