The streetcar craze is just insane. Los Angeles wants one; so does San Antonio. It was bad enough when cities all over the country were building light rail, an expensive, obsolete form of transportation that at least has the virtue of providing slightly better service than the local buses it usually replaced. But streetcars have no redeeming transportation value at all; they are hardly faster than walking, they are far more expensive than buses; and (because, for safety reasons, they cannot operate as close together) their capacity is much lower than a bus line.
Yet at the rate things are going, in a few years more cities will have streetcars than light rail. Cincinnati is further along than most other cities; Sacramento is talking about one; Tucson is building one; and Atlanta apparently hasn’t wasted enough money on its flop of a heavy-rail line, so it is talking about streetcars. Even normally sensible Kansas City is talking about streetcars.
levitra 40 mg This situation isn’t really harmful or debilitating, but it could influence sexual lives of couples. Thus, a https://www.supplementprofessors.com/levitra-6573.html buy cialis canadian male gets extra energy and stamina. cialis generic pills https://www.supplementprofessors.com/cialis-2749.html The arteries in the penis get enlarged resulting in an erection. Make sure you follow the guidelines given by your doctor and not to online sildenafil india exceed the dosage prescribed. President Obama even gave an award to a Portland company for building streetcars that cost more than the streetcars that Portland was importing from Europe. Now that’s an achievement!
This is all based on the big lie that streetcars promote economic development. They do nothing of the kind; at most, they promote more subsidies to economic development, and that economic development would have taken place anyway, though perhaps not in exactly the same location. It is also being driven by federal dollars: Charlotte, Ft. Worth, St. Louis, along with Cincinnati, Tucson and some of the other cities listed above have all received federal grants for streetcars. Unless you are a rail contractor, all that money will be completely wasted.
Urban planners claim to have integrity, but any planners who go along with streetcar scams are little better than the corrupt elected officials who accept bribes (usually in the form of campaign contributions) from contractors and manufacturers. Maybe the Occupy Portland crowd should try occupying a streetcar.
Antiplanner: This is all based on the big lie that streetcars promote economic development.
JK: Well, at least they have quit claiming that streetcars have some useful transportation function
Thanks
JK
Even more than light rail, streetcars are “forward into the past,” as a certain Antiplanner wrote long ago.
Now I don’t have a problem with existing streetcar systems, such as those in Philadelphia, Penna. and in some European cities (including quite a few that were in the former Soviet Union or its old empire in Eastern Europe). Though I was thoroughly annoyed with SEPTA for having the entire 15 streetcar line (which uses rebuilt PCC cars) out of service when I visited there a year ago.
And strange as it sounds, I think Congress made a huge mistake (way back in 1956, in the aftermath of a long and acrimonious transit strike) in ordering the (then) privately-owned, well-maintained and extensive Washington, D.C. streetcar network (which extended to the nearby Maryland suburbs) replaced with buses.
But none of that means that we should be building new streetcar systems, for anything that a streetcar can do, a bus can do at least as well. Getting back to Washington for a moment, the streetcar line that ran along H Street, N.E. and Benning Road, N.E. was abandoned in the 1940’s and replaced by buses because the streetcars could not handle the load of passengers. And modern Diesel or CNG buses do not spew out the particulate exhaust that transit buses of the 1950’s and 1960’s did, though for fans of transit that runs on electricity, trolleybuses are an alternative that’s less-expensive than streetcars.
What better way to showcase the success of streetcars and light-rail than to show how empty it is most of the day. Google anything and “green” websites tout the superiority of streetcars over the bus. They fail to take into account destination and how rail is a rigid model for transit development. If after spending millions (or billions) and the train doesn’t take you exactly where you need to go, well certainly one bus could go out of it’s way to pick you up (assuming they had the money); instead they go further building an additional line. Amazing that cities keep buses if rail is supposed to pick up all the slack. Chicago’s famous rail system is so badly rusted, they have to give out tetanus shots.
Just what we need, more streetcars not going to where we are going, when we need to be there.
The Antiplanner:
This is all based on the big lie that streetcars promote economic development. They do nothing of the kind; at most, they promote more subsidies to economic development, and that economic development would have taken place anyway, though perhaps not in exactly the same location.
The same argument can be used against roads. If roads can guide the “economic development [that] would have taken place anyway” then so can transit.
This is hardly an argument against transit, streetcars or otherwise. If streetcars or light rail, or BRT, or whatever helps develop more compact development that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage, then they have value regardless of the arguments against attempted here. Try again.
More lies and gibberish from msetty. Sigh. And please don’t try to impress us with your global warming religion. Is there any boondoggle you won’t support?
Regarding capacity of streetcars vs. buses. Rail opponents would have more credibility if they get their facts straight.
For surface transit regardless of mode, the maximum practical frequency is two traffic signal cycles, e.g., three minutes with 90-second signal cycles. If any given surface transit route is more frequent than that, schedules become unreliable–e.g., allowing for variations in traffic, passenger boarding patterns, passengers who slow down boarding, etc. (e.g., persons with disabilities, frail seniors, etc.)–and vehicles too often begin to “bunch.”
This is something that L.A.’s Rapid Buses and Orange Line Busway operations show every day; headways are limited to every 3 minutes or so to keep reliable operation; less than every 3 minutes, schedules break down and reliability goes out the window.
Based on typical maximum bus loadings of roughly 3-3.5 passengers per meter of vehicle length (reference: http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/ModalCapacity2005.htm), and observed maximums of 4.0-5.0 per meter of vehicle length for rail transit, one gets the following maximum practical capacities for surface “in street” transit:
12.2m (40-foot) buses. 732-854 riders/hour
18.3m (60-foot) buses. 1,098-1,281 riders/hour
20.0m (66-foot) streetcars (Portland) 1,600-2,000 riders/hour
29.3m (96-foot) MAX Trains (2-cars S70s) 4,688-5,860 riders/hour
27.0m (88.6-foot) L.A. LRT Trains (3-cars) 6,480-8,100 riders/hour
I suppose some will argue that, no, no, no, BRT capacity is 600-800 buses per hour. Well, it is, IF you have non-stop operation on a busway with off-line stations, AND–ANOTHER BIG IF–you have a rather large off-street bus terminal, like the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan with 200+ berths. In the U.S. there are virtually no other examples anywhere similar.
As for surface operations, you can mix routes on transit malls as Portland does, with a capacity of 8 LRT trains per hour each direction, plus 120-150 buses/hour from multiple routes on this downtown spine. But note that Portland handles this with generally two lanes each way, e.g., buses can pass stopped vehicles. In San Francisco, Muni is able to pump about 180 buses, trolley buses and streetcars per hour each way on Market Street, with two lanes of operation in each direction.
However, such on-street downtown transit operations are very, very slow, e.g., I’d guess around 7-8 mph on the Portland Transit Mall, and 8 mph on Market Street in S.F.–and that’s with favorable traffic signal for transit and diversion of most inbound auto traffic before the downtown S.F. core area.
GO SUCK YOURSELF METROSUCKS. WITH YOUR NAME, YOU PROBABLY ALREADY DO.
Hey Metrofucks, if you’ve been reading this blog lately, you know I don’t support the California High Speed Rail plans as they currently exist. This is because I’m aware of how other countries have succeeded whereas the U.S., in its current state of kleptocracy, sucks, er, F—ks things up.
I think I buy the argument that buses can do most of what streetcars can do at a fraction of the cost. In my mind, the exception might be in lieu of a road on a pedestrian thoroughfare / mall. Using streetcars for moving people in and out of the downtown seems superfluous. Rather, they should only be utilized to move people within the downtown on specific pedestrian corridors that do not have car traffic. The best example I can think of (which isn’t actually a built example) would be Vision 42 which proposes removing all traffic from 42nd street to replace all lanes with pedestrian mall, save a streetcar to move people from one side of the island to the other.
To me, this makes sense to me as a safer, more accessible solution to buses as long as you can foster the amount of pedestrian traffic to warrant it. Even then, it’s a rather small, very focused installation.
Thanks msetty; you just proved what I’ve been saying. Though one has to wonder why Mikey’s such an angry little man. Could it be because he realizes that drivers/voters are finally tired of the “Amtrak on steroids” BS that Mikey and his buddies have promoted for years????
Randall writes:
But streetcars have no redeeming transportation value at all; they are hardly faster than walking, they are far more expensive than buses; and (because, for safety reasons, they cannot operate as close together) their capacity is much lower than a bus line.
Without voicing support for the streetcar plans under discussion, let me just say that everything said here is exposed as a myth by the one remaining traditional streetcar network in the US in Philadelphia. Each streetcar seats 51 (vs. 37 for a low floor bus and 41 for a traditional bus) and can also take more standees. The streetcar lines have the lowest headway of any line in the city, with scheduled operations varying from 3 to 6 minutes on each line and operations in the downtown tunnel at under a 1 minute headway. The streetcars operate safely on line of sight principles used by regular vehicular traffic. The streetcar schedules are faster than buses because they accelerate more quickly even with a heavier passenger load. Because there is a network of lines, the streetcars can and do detour if needed over parallel lines due to traffic accidents, power problems, or track maintenance. SEPTA has a large enough network that it has been able to preserve in house capability to build or rebuild street track and wires, manufacture complex special trackwork, and perform heavy maintenance and reconstruction of rail vehicles. This gives the agency the ability to build and extend tracks without turning to consultants and contractors ifdesired. The streetcars currently
operating are 30 years old and will likely be 40-50 years old before they are replaced. Buses last about 9-12 years in heavy service. SEPTA gets about 50 years life from streetcar track and has actually milled down pavement to expose paved over tracks buried for 40 to 50 years when needed for changes in service and put the tracks immediately back into service. Pavement on busways that are heavily used generally requires replacement in about 25 years.
Streetcars can provide significant advantages over buses when there is an organization dedicated to maintaining a real network and system for use by the everyday public instead of a single tourist/leisure oriented line.
Let me see if I understand the terms used in this debate.
It seems like a “streetcar” is gas/diesel powered vehicle that runs on rails. A “trolley” is a gas/diesel powered vehicle that runs on tires without rails. A “cable car” is powered by grabbing a cable that is running underground and runs on tracks.
Is that right?
LazyReader said:
What better way to showcase the success of streetcars and light-rail than to show how empty it is most of the day. Google anything and “green†websites tout the superiority of streetcars over the bus. They fail to take into account destination and how rail is a rigid model for transit development. If after spending millions (or billions) and the train doesn’t take you exactly where you need to go, well certainly one bus could go out of it’s way to pick you up (assuming they had the money); instead they go further building an additional line. Amazing that cities keep buses if rail is supposed to pick up all the slack. Chicago’s famous rail system is so badly rusted, they have to give out tetanus shots.
THWM: That’s like saying, there should just be expressways with no local streets.
metrosucks said: Thanks msetty; you just proved what I’ve been saying. Though one has to wonder why Mikey’s such an angry little man. Could it be because he realizes that drivers/voters are finally tired of the “Amtrak on steroids†BS that Mikey and his buddies have promoted for years????
THWM: metrosucks, you have no reason to complain, you’ve got your big government road infront of your house.
Hey, Metrosucks, you moron, I’m just tired of your moronic comments. Even Karlock contributes more worthwhile comments than you ever have to this blog.
Why do you even bother since even those who might agree with you don’t seem to take you seriously at all?
From previous thread…
Metrosucks:
Point taken, CP. But I can never bring myself to view msetty as a reasonable or nice individual. He views those of us who disagree with him, with no more than contempt.
This comment is a classic case of projection. Typical of uncouth loud-mouthed right wing blowhards.
On this blog the only person I’ve decided to actually HATE and consistently call names is YOU, Metrosucks, because you’re a classic Internet pest, e.g., A TROLL who has virtually nothing productive to day, and engaging in name-calling against those of use who “dare disagree with you” at the drop of a hat.
Keep in mind when I call YOU names I’m just returning the favor, putz.
Pardon my spelling, that should be “say” instead of “day” and “us” instead of “use.” Sh– happens when one is keyed up by an asshole like Metrosucks.
On November 11th, 2011, msetty said:
“GO SUCK YOURSELF METROSUCKS. WITH YOUR NAME, YOU PROBABLY ALREADY DO.”
Clever?
“Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author.”
I’d like to add, “and immaturity” of the author while carelessly violating the protocol set for blogging on this site and disrespectful of all who read and/or participate within it. Interesting though to see how some people can have so little discipline regardless of how it adversely reflects upon them. Admittedly being keyed up, and lashing out while acknowledging it, is a key component of childish behavior.
Kathleen, this “blog” is all about making ad hominem attacks.
O’Toole gets paid by the Koch borthers to make “ad hominem attacks” on railroads every day.
A few times/month I read a little here. Randal always makes good points. No post has knocked down his logic or concepts, nor mine, but I’ve been absent for months.
The lefty pro-transit posters are just too ignorant on economics & business principle, as well as a multitude of facts. How can transit have much value when carrying <2% of VMTs, at many times the cost per passenger-mile?
Moreover most don't understand that high densities are needed (8,000+) for transit be very widely used in a semi-cost effectiveness method. Although, the NY MTC [where 1/3 of all US transit use is] cannot even have a responsible budget.
Really funny & tragic is that many don't understand supply & demand. Housing restrictions, including less land, lead to higher prices.
msetty, regarding your comparison of roads & street-rails having the same arguments about econ development:
Unbelievable. No comparison! You cannot be that stupid; although you have made many leaps of logic. You are just resorting to typical fallacious rhetoric, plentifully used by all leftists.
Anyway, beyond my perception of you (held by many others). Are you aware that roads go everywhere & are traveled on anytime to any destination, using private vehicles. And that wherever a streetcar is laid, the road already exists, interferes w/vehicles & costs much more?
I should really try to contact you to get together for lunch & a lively discussion. Maybe go hiking & biking to in your rural area. Not aware of your hypocrisy? We could even have a loose outline of major topics & sub-points to cover. I will destroy you (figuratively) & educate the hell out of you. I'll make the 90 minute drive from San Jose.
Oh, forgot to conclude the 1st part of my post.
I gave up posting here because there is not any valid discussion in favor of more public transit. Many attempts, which often sound almost good, but so many fallacies are used, for example: distraction, avoidance, misdirection, misuse of facts & a biggie is faulty comparison. Disrespectful, insulting? Eh, so what? Don’t cry. It’s a shame how many educated people, even with an MA or a PhD, can lack certain thinking skills & forget that their expertise is only partial in one or a few fields. Their are certainly no polymaths in public policy [who favor more gov], not even close.
Don’t get me wrong — some transit, uh, kinda okay — and much infrastructure is needed, but funded by property taxes & user-based fees (ie gas tax, maybe $1/gallon more) & direct user fees (ie water charges).
The biggest hypocrisy of the pro-transiters is that they usually want roads to be fully funded directly, while ignoring the fact that ALL benefit from roads (ie buses & trucks for construction, deliveries, etc.), BUT make no points for any other gov service to be paid for by user (ie schools, defense charged per person, parks, medical, community centers, etc.).
BTW highwayman: Do you rob people like your name was used in the Wild West days? it fits your immorality of wanting massive spending to pay for mass transit, which <5% use regularly. I would imagine you do rob. Nah, as dumb as you are, you would have been caught.
And, per a comment of yours: No there is not a lot of unlimited money spent on roads; it has been curtailed often from what is needed. Additional roads/lanes have been less than population growth for than 3 decades; even less by VMTs.
Scott, even you benefit indirectly from public transit & railroads.
Also no one is saying don’t have roads or don’t have automobiles.
I’ve never had to call the fire department, but I also don’t want it shut down either!
Obsolescence is just a fact of life, when the streetcars waned and were replaced. Randall did spend time refurbishing a old steam powered locomotive. He loves trains and expresses his love of trains in many of his presentations. Still he admits, other than freight it’s a largely unnecessary invention now. No one asked to subsidize the typewriter industry when word processors and computers replaced them. Trains occupy an unusual midground between Planes and Cars. Planes are faster, cars more convenient in the day to day. And the money needed to try to jump start this new passenger train empire is far too much and the results less practical to transition to. Planes are great in the long distance, cars in the short distance and surprise, surprise an industry of resurgent buses for the moderate distances and you can ride them on pocket change.
Streetcars declined because of politics, not economics.
Hey professor, put the crack pipe down and face reality. Streetcars were a developers’ tool whose time is long over.
Metrosucks, we already know that you’re a sociopath, but thank you for reminding us.
I’ll vote Highwayman’s first comment in this thread his best ever.
You guys love double standards.