Say what you will about streetcars, they have an unmatched appeal. I mean, there must be a reason why it's hard to imagine a smoldering love affair between Marlon Brando and Vivian Leigh with a bus theme.
Or, as the inimitable Dan Savage says:
Why is this so hard to understand? ... People like trains. People hate buses.
To wit, the Seattle P-I recently interviewed folks about the new Seattle streetcar and elicited what I imagine are fairly typical sentiments:
Bryan Lenning ... could take the bus downtown ... But for some reason, he'd rather take the streetcar. "But I'd never take the bus." He'd rather walk or drive downtown.
Mari Stobbe ... "I'd never take a bus. I've never been on a bus. I've never had any desire to be on a bus," she said. "(But) the streetcar seems like it would have a different feel."
Okay, sure, there are plenty of reasons to carp about streetcars -- they're expensive given their capacity and distance; they can absorb bus funding; the tracks can threaten cyclists -- but fixed-rail travel has an instinctive appeal that is simply not matched by other travel modes. I'm not arguing that the attraction is rational, or even that it's right. I'm arguing that it's real. And I'm suggesting that maybe our transportation planning should acknowledge the preference.
Personally, I'm mostly a least-cost planning guy. I want to know which transportation choices are the most cost-effective -- for public dollars, health, and the climate. And buses tend to pencil out better. But then again, many people (myself included) sort of hate riding the bus for some reason.
I'll bet there are lots of potential transit riders out there. People who currently ignore buses, but would happily ride a streetcar. Maybe it's nostalgia, or maybe it's something much deeper. So while our transportation investments should make responsible use of public money, they should also provide alternatives that the public really craves. Cheapest doesn't always mean best. And I don't think it's revolutionary to suggest that boosting transit ridership is easier if people fall in love with transit.
Seattleites: Come hang with Amanda Little at Elliott Bay Books
U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill
Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic
Comments
View as Flat
Brudaimonia Posted 12:34 pm
12 Dec 2007
Here's another good recent streetcar article from Alex Marshall that I recommend:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/04/good-streets-includ ...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:03 pm
12 Dec 2007
I definitely prefer rail, and I don't quite know why either -- there may also be something to be said for the size. Even a modest light-rail train with, say, three or four cars is more imposing than an articulated bus. That may be part of the reason that they are sometimes less efficient than buses but still more popular.
Great post!
Permalink
Brendan Posted 3:14 pm
12 Dec 2007
But for the sake of our climate, I am willing to take the high road and support street cars if it makes them happy.
Permalink
TariffDude Posted 3:32 pm
12 Dec 2007
A streetcar on the other hand, even if the tracks are on the road, seems more distinct from other modes and therefore less marginal than the bus. It has a more exclusive right of way and the technology is just more appealing.
However if you look at the history of the rise of buses in the place of streetcars it's largely because people acquiesced to huge auto subsidies that had the effect of making buses cheaper to operate, instead of a conspiracy. (see e.g. http://lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf)
So even if people like trains (in the same way that they like, say, hot air balloons), when it comes to getting where they're going that's Serious Business.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:51 pm
12 Dec 2007
With batteries on the vehicle it can ride on induction strips or off for a certain range. The class/status appeal of a streetcar, the clean electric power, and no tracks make it a good solution.
It can also be made much lighter for less damage in accidents and greater rolling efficiency. Streetcar rail trucks have got to be massively heavy.
This also makes it easier to add more cars in busy times and take cars off duty later without a lot of complex switching.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:00 pm
12 Dec 2007
But I cannot imagine how streetcars would fit in here. ("Trolley cars" we called them, back in Philadelphia where I grew up. And that is what the more famous ones in San Francisco are called too, no?) The streets are already so crowded; and negotiating around double-parked or otherwise stopped vehicles is absolutely necessary.
A very slender over-head track might work, a couple of storeys off the ground, casting very little shadow, unlike the elevated train tracks that are still in use in the outer boroughs and here and there in Manhattan.
But that is sort of a monorail, I guess. And we just saw the fourth-season Simpsons episode, in which a traveling thief sells Springfield a super-shitty monorail, and Homer is the driver, and Leonard Nimoy himself is present for the maiden voyage. ... Lisa of course had reservations all along.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:19 pm
12 Dec 2007
If anything could get me to give up my car, it would be a streetcar.
Laissez les tramways rouler!
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:54 am
13 Dec 2007
I lived in Manhattan for 4 years and never once took a city bus. Ditto for my 14-year stint in Boston. Both cities are eminently walkable and the bus is just so painful that I always prefer to walk. I have, and do, however take the subway, or the T in Boston (the Green Line is much like a streetcar, in that it is above ground, stops every block, and takes about 80 years to get you anywhere). I have taken streetcars, however, all over the country (and, in fact, the world) and always enjoy it. I think they somehow give the illusion that you can jump off at any time, the illusion of being in control of your own travel, while on the bus you are simply trapped and at the mercy of traffics whims.
Nevertheless, I add my vote for streetcars! It is worth it to spend a bit more money to be happy.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:07 am
13 Dec 2007
Eric, a categorical statement like that just isn't correct. Buses are cheapest option in certain applications, but there are many urban conditions in which rail is the better deal. Transit critics like to pontificate about the cost of rail, but often times their numbers are based on selective statistics -- failing to account for all costs and benefits, as a proper accounting must do.
Todd Litman at the Victoria Transport Institute has published an excellent series of papers on rail vs. bus transit. In Rail Transit In America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits, Litman compared cities with extensive rail transit systems to cities with bus-only systems. He found that cities with large rail systems have higher ridership, lower consumer transportation expenditures, lower transit operating costs per passenger-mile, and higher transit service cost recovery, among other benefits. Litman writes,
Many of these benefits result from rail's ability to create more accessible land use patterns and more diverse transport systems, which reduce per capita vehicle ownership and mileage. These additional benefits should be considered when evaluating rail transit.
Rail transit does have a cost. Rail transit requires about $12.5 billion annually in public subsidy, which averages about $90 additional dollars annually per rail transit city resident compared with Bus Only cities. These extra costs are offset several times over by economic benefits, including $19.4 billion in congestion costs savings, $8.0 billion in roadway cost savings, $12.1 billion in parking cost savings, $22.6 billion in consumer cost saving, and $5.6 billion in reduced crash damages.
In Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Litman refutes many critiques of rail, including the cost issue. He summarizes his position:
Critics often argue that rail transit projects are not cost effective at addressing a particular problem (congestion, air pollution, energy conservation, mobility for non-drivers, etc.). This reflects reductionist analysis, which only considers a single objective. But cost effectiveness should reflect total impacts. High quality transit that attracts discretionary riders (people who would otherwise drive) provides multiple benefits. Although rail is not necessarily the most cost effective way of solving any of these problems individually, it is often cost effective overall, when all benefits and costs are considered. Rail critics generally ignore many of these impacts.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:19 am
13 Dec 2007
As far as overhead wires, I believe Strasbourg has perfected a system of getting the electricity from a strip in the middle of the light rail path (there must be a technical term for this). Dr.X, rails are more efficient than rubber on road, and I can't find the article that discusses it right now, unfortunately.
By the way, Alan Drake, also a big New Orleans streetcar booster, has an excellent article called "A 10% Reduction in America's Oil Use in Ten to Twelve Years", in the web site lightrailnow.com, which also has articles comparing buses to light rail.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:23 am
13 Dec 2007
How about moving sidewalks for Manhattan? I saw a Science Channel presentation on a nifty application of this sci-fi notion used in an indoor Dubia ski park (wonder if it's solar powered? In dubai? No chance).
In the cult classic 60s sci-fi novel "Agent of Chaos", Spinrad featured a moving walkway that had a slower strip of conveyor belt that riders step onto, then a few progressive layers of belts increasing in speed.
So you can hop on at walking speed then step up to cab or bus speed through a couple of steps. Bike riders or roller bladers could also use them for steep uphills, then coast down the hills and flats of a city. Turning it into a kind of snowless downhill ski area type city transit on bikes and roller blades, even skateboards. Bart would love this.
How about a nice bench feature built into the higher speed side, along with a clear shield that protects from the elements or anyone entering the high speed side? One problem, the conveyor would have to be interrupted at corners or wherever cross driveways are needed. It would be a choppy one block at a time ride. Maybe that would be ok?
Another idea is to have the fastest strip in the middle with slower ones on both sides. But could it be stepped across safely? Hehey. I'd like to try one of these ski lift conveyor strips.
These issues are easy with ski lifting, because skiers can zoom right onto the strip, from either side.
I am liking the Dean Kamen electric wheelchair design more and more. The balancing invention is used in his Segway. This next idea is along that line, but different.
A universal low speed personal transport? A low platform, a few iches thick, you stand on that moves along a hidden track, it's speed and acceleration computer controlled so you never fall off or hit anything.
A wireless internet signal on the hidden track would transfer information about any objects moving near or on the track to the computer in the platform vehicle. Then the platform could safely maneuver the passenger through space and time. It would anticipate any stops or possible collisions and gradually adjust, unlike the bumpy bus ride.
Maybe an inflatable easy chair could pop up from the platform too? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
13 Dec 2007
Whisper quiet battery power recharged by induction strips under the street. Now there's a "Family Guy" episode! "Imagine the hilarity that would ensue! Ha." (evil baby voice).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 1:53 am
13 Dec 2007
I'm a huge fan of VTPI and Litman. As you know, there's a long and heated debate between rail and bus enthusiasts that I'm not intending to referee here. In any case, I intentionally did not include a categorical statement in my post. I said "buses TEND to pencil out better" and I believe that's a defensible position.
Sure, there are plenty of cases -- especially large urban areas -- where buses aren't the best buy. But across North America, in cities, towns, and regions of different sizes, I'd put my money on buses.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:29 am
13 Dec 2007
Jon,
I had suspected that there were streetcars in NYC, and I guess I have even seen old photographs of the city in which they are visible. From what I remember of the old PTA trolley cars in Philadelphia in the early 1960s, the competition with other vehicles for limited space could be a problem, mostly for the other vehicles, but also for passengers on the trolleys. As I recall, there were built-up islands in the center of wide streets at the major stops -- but not at all stops, I think, and I am trying to remember where passengers waited to board, and how they crossed out into the street to board, and then again how they got off safely.
Amazing,
the thought of all those conveyor belts running at different speeds make me a bit nauseated. No doubt that would be fine for a younger, more athletic set of passengers, but I think I had better just hail a taxi.
One of the disadvantages of public transit is that buses and streetcars must stop at every stop if anyone wants to get on or get off, which slows down everyone else. Do you think a system of semi-private, taxi-sized streetcars on rails could be invented, such that they would be required to stop along the route to accommodate no more than three or four passengers or small parties?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
NoMoreNigiriSushi Posted 2:41 am
13 Dec 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:45 am
13 Dec 2007
Yep, the belts are great for skiers, but pedestrians would have a hard time with them.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 3:05 am
13 Dec 2007
On the other hand, there is a streetcar renaissance happening in France, and many new routes are in smaller cities like Nice (pop. 347,000), Nantes (pop. 280,000), Strasbourg (pop. 273,000), Montpellier (pop. 244,000), Bourdeaux (pop. 230,000), Saint-Étienne (pop. 175,000), Grenoble (pop. 158,000), Le Mans (pop. 146,000), Mulhouse (pop. 110,000), and Valenciennes (pop. 41,000).
The usual argument is that European cities are denser and therefore more suitable for transit, which is true generally. But one of the great advantages of rail is its feedback effect, where the rail line initiates new transit-oriented development, which increases ridership, which boosts demand for new rail lines.
One of the main reasons rail draws more riders is because the service is better than buses. Bus comfort, convenience, service and design quality can and should be improved a lot. A good example in a smaller U.S. city is the Eugene EmX. Eugene went with buses because it was determined that a rail system would have been too costly. The long-term question, however, is which option would ultimately have been best for ridership, transit oriented development, the environment, and the total cost-benefit balance.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
infp Posted 3:54 am
13 Dec 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:15 am
13 Dec 2007
Hey great...a streetcar. And how did it get there? Because Paul Allen a mega-billionaire forced the city to spend money to put it there.
Why?
Because Paul Allen, a mega-billionaire bought a lot of property in South Lake Union and has been trying to find a way to make people pay a lot of money to live there.
So, these people would be herded on a street car, to work at tech jobs downtown, and then pay high rents and mortgages (in Seattle's now declining real estate market), to Paul Allen -- a mega billionaire.
You know what the best "mass" transit solution is? None. Rich people don't travel en masse...they limo and jet around in private vehicles.
My Log
Permalink
cloud Posted 7:16 am
13 Dec 2007
I have two insights into why:
1)the bus makes me queasy. Yes sometimes I have to ride the bus across the bay from SF and I always arrive queasy. Its the jerky-ride plus the diesel smoke.
2)Train maps are simpler to read (as wisely noted in another comment) and the stops are better defined making riding the train much easier.
Permalink