Trains Artical on Heritage Streetcars-- " There is no Logical reason why Passengers should prefer s

[Anonymous]

steelwheel over rubber tire or something to that affect... Huh?? This is Train magazine talking mind you not the Cato Instsitute.

Here are some reasons...

1. Better Ride Quility...City Buses are bumpy and light rail has smother quiters starts and stops.
2. People do get Bus Sick but few people i know get Train Sick
3. The Carbon Monoxide from Diesal does leak into the passeger compartment
4. City Buses AC systems break down freaquinty
5. Cars and streetcars are sperated from each other so there is at least the illiusion that one is faster then the other or in fact more consistant in scedule
6. More room in light rail systems and can move around and sitdown and do work in softer seats
anymore??

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The ride quality of a rail vehicle depends on the quality of and the maintenance of the track as well as the maintenance of the vehicle's suspension system. The same would apply to a bus, but thee the transit company, or transit authority, is at the mercy of the local highway department for the quality of the road surface. However, the bus could have an advantage in that the rubber tires can help to mitigate some of the shock of the bumps in the road.

This is sort of sensitive, but what you are talking about is motion sickness, not bus sickness, car sickness, or train sickness. The propensity for somebody to get sick on any mode of transportation depends on the person's physical condition.especially how well they tolerate very low frequency cyclical motion.

Carbon monoxide can leak into the passenger compartment of any diesel powered or gasoline powered vehicle.

[kevikens]

Maybe not logical but much of our decision making is based on feeling and intuition. Anyone familiar with Market St. in San Francisco who pays attention to passenger boardings had got to have noticed that the locals, not just the tourists, prefer to take the F line trolleys, mostly PCC's, over the surface electric buses or the below ground subway cars. Why? Do they run faster ? ( no) Are they cheaper ? (no) Do they operate more frequently /?(no) Perhaps it is just more enjoyable and pleasurable to ride a trolley than something else and just maybe that is a logical decision at that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chaplainmonster

steelwheel over rubber tire or something to that affect... Huh?? This is Train magazine talking mind you not the Cato Instsitute.

Here are some reasons...

1. Better Ride Quility...City Buses are bumpy and light rail has smother quiters starts and stops.
2. People do get Bus Sick but few people i know get Train Sick
3. The Carbon Monoxide from Diesal does leak into the passeger compartment
4. City Buses AC systems break down freaquinty
5. Cars and streetcars are sperated from each other so there is at least the illiusion that one is faster then the other or in fact more consistant in scedule
6. More room in light rail systems and can move around and sitdown and do work in softer seats
anymore??

While it is true that all of these factors can vary, there is no way that they can fundamentally correlate with the basic modes of rail and rubber tire transport. However, I'm not surprised to hear somebody from the light rail community make the correlation. They also are known for declaring it axiomatic that we cannot build enough freeways to solve traffic congestion. It's not possible they say.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Traffic congestion will be difficult to solve without public transit unless you plan to raise the eminent domain issue to further widen 6-lane and 8-lane freeways (and some even wider ones). The cost of property acquistion in built-up urban areas plus doing battle with NIMBY's makes a freeway-only approach quite unpracticable.

[Anonymous]

It may be difficult to solve the traffic congestion by building roads, but it would seem to be far more difficult to solve it by building light rail. To me, it doesn’t make much sense to build an expensive, single purpose railroad to carry a couple bus size loads of people when you can use existing roads with buses instead. For the most part, transit, especially light rail, is not cost effective transportation. It’s objective is public sector, subsidized transportation.

[Anonymous]

Carbon Monoxide does leak into bus compartment because the windows are often open and bus bodies are subject to corosion and salt that eats there frames...
I have Ridden the Pittsburg Busways and while I prefer the busway over the on the street buses in mixed trafiic when there o is no light rail Light rail is better because you can MU the cars into a train..
Trolleys are Cleaner and profide a smoother ride...Period

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chaplainmonster


Trolleys are Cleaner and profide a smoother ride...Period

Not fundamentally. Maybe you can cite instances of clean trolleys and dirty buses, but there is nothing about the two modes that allows one to be cleaner or smoother than the other.

[zugmann]

Many people believe that buses are for the lower wage-earning service sector. Trolleys, on the other hand, are historic and unique, which draws the 'rest' of the people. Many people out there don't want to associate with "the type that rides the BUS".


Sad but true.

[Anonymous]

Up here in Plattsburg the bus is slow and takes a hour to do a trip that takes 10 min by car.
The reason that it has a zigzag route that hits every nieghboorhood on the way to the destination

[stmtrolleyguy]

As sad as I am to admit it, the ride quality really does depend on the maintance of a vehicle, although here in Boston, with all the potholes, maintenance is always a game of catch-up, and rail would probably win hands down.

I would think, though, that in SF, especially on the F line, which I've seen a small part of, and ridden a few blocks, the braking systems on a PCC should be able to bring it to a smoother stop that a bus would, but a good part of that relies on the driver as well. On good rail, a PCC should ride better. The acceleration has no jerking as it shifts gears, even though newer busses can transition pretty well. Also, you can build a cleaner bus, but I have yet to see a signifigantly quieter bus. PCC's do make noise, but its not the loud growl that a bus makes, more of a quiet hum of sorts.

Going off-topic for a minute, its interesting looking at new "historic" trolleys. They may be able to accelerate as fast as a PCC, or bus for that matter, but quite often the historic replicated wooden seats negate any ride-quality advantages. The seats that the car has do make a difference. Freshly varnished wood seats are very easy to slide off of.

In short : I'd prefer the PCC, but I'm not going to say put in a rail line if it isn't needed.

[daveklepper]

Facts are better than opinions, and here are some facts:

Rail has been proven more powerful in getting people to leave cars at home and use public transit than buses in similar situations, even where schedules, running time, and convenience are similar.

Rail vehicles are generally more roomy than buses, simply because they are guided mechanically and don't reuqire operator attention with regard to direction of travel. There are long articulated buses, but in width and height they are generlly smaller than railcars. In a given lane, a guided vehicle requires less safety space on each side than one driven manually.

When General Motors converted the Lexington Avenue NYC route of Green Lines (New York Railways, a subsidiary of Firth Avenue Coach Company, which was a GM Subsidiary), business picked up immediately on the directly parallel Third and Amsterdam Avenue line of Third Avenue Railways. When TARS, then became TATS, Third Avenue Transit System, and New York's government forced conversion of the Broadway-42nd Street line, one of the busiest streetcar lines in North America, to bus in December 1946, about 1/3 the passengers left! Some used the subways, some used buses that were more convenient since there wasn't an incentive to walk an extra block to use streetcar anymore, and some (like me) just walked!

Although massive amounts of money are required for light rail installation (but far less than either a real subway system or monorail), operating costs usually are less on a per passenger basis than bus operation, because one operator handles more passengers in a given vehicle.

There is one kind of bus operation that people find as much fun to ride as a train or a streetcar: An open top double-deck bus in the summertime.

Finally:

People per hour one lane past one point at reasonable speed:

Private auto:2500 Bus: 7,500 Streetcar: 12.000 Light Rail Separate RofW: 20,000 Heavy Rail Rapid Transit: 80,000 Bus-only Lane with station bypasses: 15,000

[Anonymous]

Ok Ok but I am shocked that the writer of this artical would make a statement like that..

[Anonymous]

There is one obvious component that can be added to public transportation such as light rail that will get people to use it. That component would be the always available force of law. Certainly we are moving in that direction.

But rather than getting people out of their cars and into transit, I believe that our cars will be made into transit. Cars will be factory equipped with GPS and a computer that will turn every road into a toll road. Then the tolls will be constantly adjusted to control traffic according to traffic conditions, purpose of trip, ability to pay, etc.

It would take decades to build all of the light rail that is envisioned to solve traffic congestion whereas this smart car technology is right on our doorstep. Ten years from now, the light rail concept will be an antique.

[Anonymous]

If the streets were to pay their own way (every road a toll road), the expense would drive urban passengers onto streetcars, light rail, rapid transit or whatever's there. And the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626

If the streets were to pay their own way (every road a toll road), the expense would drive urban passengers onto streetcars, light rail, rapid transit or whatever's there. And the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail.

Drivers are paying for the roads now, so the tolls will not necessarily mean a greater cost to drivers. The tolls would be in lieu of the gas tax currently being paid at the pump.

I disagree that the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail. The best way to move large amounts of coal is by rail. But if rail were the best way to move people, it wouldn't lose money every time it's tried.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626

If the streets were to pay their own way (every road a toll road), the expense would drive urban passengers onto streetcars, light rail, rapid transit or whatever's there. And the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail.

Drivers are paying for the roads now, so the tolls will not necessarily mean a greater cost to drivers. The tolls would be in lieu of the gas tax currently being paid at the pump.

I disagree that the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail. The best way to move large amounts of coal is by rail. But if rail were the best way to move people, it wouldn't lose money every time it's tried.

Just because it is the best way does not mean its the most profitable way.

Bert

[daveklepper]

Again, check the figures on capacity of a given lane with the different transportaiton modes. Auto traffic that supposedly pays its own way is massively subsidized by free LAND USE.

[rrandb]

When I was in NO (pre Katrina) in the FQ I would ride their streetcars for the sheer joy of the ride. Out and back. When was the last time anyone did that with a bus? [2c]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

When I was in NO (pre Katrina) in the FQ I would ride their streetcars for the sheer joy of the ride. Out and back. When was the last time anyone did that with a bus? [2c]

Oh rail is a lot more fun to ride than a bus or even a car for that matter. But it would not be so much fun if you had to pay a fare that reflected the true cost. Light rail is like an indulgence in an expensive hobby that somebody else is forced to pay for.

[StillGrande]

Rail may be great as long as it goes where people want to go. Bus has the advantage that it can change routes to serve people. Businesses close, neighborhoods changes, but the tracks sit there. Many cities are finding that the shiny new trains they built don't take the people from home to work. And just because you build a new station does not mean people and businesses will relocate there. DC is finding that out with some of their new Metro stations.

[rrandb]

You mean like those property taxes that pays for schools even when you have no children? As opposed to the buses my taxes pay for when only 2% of the people ride them? Whats your point! Everyday our taxes pay for stuff we do not use but if we did we could not afford them if we payed the true cost.

[Anonymous]

Streetcars work if there is a dedicated right of way such as a Blv. meduim strip or reused railroad right of way that would give them a avantage over automobiles. The St. Charles line was slow by light rail standards even though it used a center meduim strip was slow because there was too many grade crossings and the ol cars were contstaly playing chicken with cars and peds. Even though the light rail my be slower then driving a dedicated right of way means consistancy and that to a commuter makes a difference over driving. The ablility to multi-task as in sleep or work on the way to work and as well as save on parking. Can dedicated bus lanes and busways do the same job? For some odd reason DOT engineers dont not like to give up lanes for buses but at the same time will give up lanes for light rail. The Issue I beleive is saftey the so called "light" rail vehicals are many times heaver and more destructive to a car then a bus is. DOT engineers is cars first even though the T in DOT means transportation

[wallyworld]

People enjoy riding the cars in a world where technology changes every five minutes, it provides continuity to everyday life, with a reach of experience that goes back 100 years.
It's a community shared experience rather than the increasing isolated and synthetic world we inhabit. It's full of squeals, ringing bells and groans it winds its way through streets. Its not instant gratification where we are zoomed at mega speed to another destination with hardly a moment to enjoy the passing scene. Heritage streetcars once rerooted in the American scene, are a part of our public traditions.

[rrandb]

Yes but the DC Metro is routinely setting records for ridership. If you build it they will come if you are close to thems.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

You mean like those property taxes that pays for schools even when you have no children? As opposed to the buses my taxes pay for when only 2% of the people ride them? Whats your point! Everyday our taxes pay for stuff we do not use but if we did we could not afford them if we payed the true cost.

My point is actually quite similar to the subsidized school and bus examples that you cite, except that light rail takes irresponsible spending to breathtakingly new heights.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

When I was in NO (pre Katrina) in the FQ I would ride their streetcars for the sheer joy of the ride. Out and back. When was the last time anyone did that with a bus? [2c]

There are a few people out there who love buses, not many mind you but a few.

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

You mean like those property taxes that pays for schools even when you have no children? As opposed to the buses my taxes pay for when only 2% of the people ride them? Whats your point! Everyday our taxes pay for stuff we do not use but if we did we could not afford them if we payed the true cost.

My point is actually quite similar to the subsidized school and bus examples that you cite, except that light rail takes irresponsible spending to breathtakingly new heights.

No it is the other way around, it is responsible spending because it is getting people out of their cars, into the more fuel efficent mode of transport. It is also keeping people off the roads and preventing massive traffic jams. Look at the Chicagoland area, our expressways suck at rush hour times, just think about how much worse they would be without Metra or the CTA. To fund both Metra and the CTA is a drop in the bucket compared to what it would cost to expand the expressways to meet the demand of the people that use mass transit.


Bert

[Anonymous]

{A} I doubt seriously that among any given group of people having transportation needs, the majority of them (who will not be rail enthusiasts/hobbyists) will not find any one mode to be more "fun" than the other. Suggesting that the fun of riding rail would be a material benefit over and above bussing, has got to be one of the more (*ahem, trying to be polite*) CREATIVE suggestions I've seen on this forum in a while. [2c]

{B} I'd really like to see the heavy passenger rail option mentioned in Mr Klepper's analysis manage to board 80,000 passengers an hour through a single point of entry. Just envisioning the logistics of trying to empty a sports stadium in 60 minutes with everyone exiting in an orderly path in the same direction, sorting their change to buy a ticket, then finding a seat, challenges believability. [2c]

{C} At least those children receiving government subsidized education will grow up to become slaves ERR, I mean TAXPAYERS to help pay into social security to pay for my retirement. Some hobbyist special interest streetcar will only rust away eventually, until some fool preservationist will get the crazy idea that the past must be preserved, and seek a government grant ($tax dollars) to restore the thing. Big difference in payback potential, if you ask me. one is a bottomless pit while the other at least presents SOME premise of payback. (teach a man to fish, etc) [2c]

{D} Those of you who think that rail will ride better than tires on pavement are really overlooking how bad aged / neglected railway rides, as well as overlooking the benefit of pneumatic tires in cushioning the road. If what you are trying to argue is that brand new rail supporting brand new equipment rides smoother than busses on existing city streets, well, sure, but i'll bet we could fix an awfull lot of bumpy streets for the cost it would take to install new rail systems. and, at least by putting that money into streets, it would benefit everyone, not just a few thousand rail enthusiasts trying to pretend it's 1927 all over again [2c]

{E} No good analysis would be complete without examining opportunity cost...if we dedicate more land to limited use commuter rail , we are forever taking that land out of other productive use. No parades, ice cream wagons, moving vans, concrete delivery trucks, or stretch limosines will EVER be able to benefit from the us of that land again. the value of that land is effectively removed from potential use by ALL but a narrow swath of potential users. [2c]


There's my dime, keep the change




[8D]

[zugmann]

But how many more lanes will be enough? What's the count on the Washington Beltway? We can't keep adding lanes as a way out of congestion.

Other alternatives must be studied. Sure, that land won't be able to be used by limos or concrete trucks, but by removing present cars from the road - we can free up more space for the trucks, limos, and whatever needs to be on the road.

We as a society always wait until the proverbial boiler is about to explode before we act. I fear it may already be too late....have fun sitting in traffic.