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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates


You ain't gonna get 80,000 people to board a train in one hour. let alone continue on to drive it past a single fixed point.

It seems to me that you are under the misaprehension that 80,000 people get on a train at point A and an hour later they are delivered to point Z.

Sorry if it looked as though I believed that. my intention was more to exploit the concept as a comparative improbability.

It's clear that any such train would HAVE to board at numerous locations, spanning well beyond the parameters of the one hour time frame.

My (intended) point was along the lines of '~okay, if we are going to allow these trains 3 hours to ticket and board, then stage them to speed past a single point so that we can claim rail has a capacity of 80,000 passengers per hour, then clearly we are making some optimal assumptions, to give the rail option such a huge advantage.~'
Okay, THAT was my point.

And I was just saying that if we factor in ticketing, change making, and boarding (all a part of the rail riding experience) then that optimized number goes way way down.

Alternately, lets figure in some unrealistic variables for the auto, and see how that modes listed capacity skyrockets.

Instead of assuming each car has only one occupant, lets optimize for the sake of numbers derived, lets cram 4 passengers in each car (with the driver), throw 3 more in the trunk, then stage the cars bumper to bumper, then let them get a flying mile head start to race past a single point and see what kind of contrived, albeit impressive number we can compare with.


Even with the optimized conditions for the trains, 80,000 passengers/hr is a staggering figure.

Lets look at that,how many passengers per train/ how many trains?

Just pulling numbers out of the air, if each train holds a 1000 passengers, then we have 80 trains supposedly passing a single point, over a 60 minute period

What about a cushion in between each train for safety? how long must a train capable of holding 1000 passengers be? How long will all 80 trains combined be, and how fast will they have to travel to collectively pass by a single point within an hour?

Better hope UP isn't involved, they'll let each train sit waiting in a siding for well more than an hour.

he original claim just doesn't seem to hold any merit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

You seem to have a desire to compare apples to oranges

T'wern't me making the initial comparison, nyuk nyuk, BEHOLD!!:

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper


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

I was merely sorting through HIS comparison, observing that the deck appears to be a bit stacked. [2c]

[Anonymous]

Nonetheless, it is still the case that if you have a large number of commuters moving from points A to B (or points A, B and C to D), half of a double track will move as many as a multilane expressway without the wasted space, pollution, and much higher accident rate. A luxury? A hobby? It is true that in the USA heavy-rail commuter tends to work as a subsidy more toward the middle class than the poor, but that's because most such commutation still heads to a fixed point--the inner city--and is more efficient that way than the spread-out driving habits of the working poor. That, too, is changing, though--compare a fixed-downtown system like Chicago's Metra to the more linear, on-and-off boardings in many of the California systems. These benefit everyone.

[Anonymous]

The low friction, self-guiding principles of rail transport are most suited for high tonnage, long haul, bulk loads such as grain, coal, ores, and chemicals. The general inertia of this system, however, renders it less effective for higher value, time-sensitive, low-density, short haul cargo such as televisions, coffeemakers, and people. So it is not a fair comparison to say that rail is more efficient than road transport for commuters by citing the bulk cargo tonnage advantage of rail. People cannot be handled like coal.

Rail may indeed be perceived as more fun than road transit, but this hardly seems like a proper justification for spending taxpayer’s money. Commuters would probably think it even more fun to be transported in small flying machines, even if they were less practical than rail as a transport alternative.

Commuter rail made sense 100 years ago when roads and vehicles were in their infancy. Furthermore, the initial rail corridors attracted development. The development clustered around the corridors, creating a density of users that justified the hauling capacity of the rail line. So the corridor patterned the development, and the pattern justified the corridor. Minneapolis had an extensive electric streetcar / interurban network with corridors matched to corresponding development. In the 1950’s, when rubber tired vehicles and roads had matured, they scrapped the rail system.

It was seen as a natural evolution. They said it was absurd to tie transit to rails on fixed routes when you could liberate it to go everywhere on the roads. Moreover, because roads were far less costly to build and maintain compared to railroads, you could produce a network of roads covering the entire area rather than the select linear corridors of railroads. It made a lot more sense because the city transport requirement is patterned in an area, as opposed to say a freight haul across Montana, which is a linear pattern.

Today, the development has continued by evenly filling in area without specific corridor clusters. So any proposed light rail route does not have a dense enough cluster of development to justify its hauling capacity. Therefore, even if people could be handled like coal, exploiting the natural advantage of rail, there are not enough passengers to fulfill that objective on any given route.

The most unique characteristic of light rail projects is that they are being foisted upon the public despite the public’s rejection based on the cost. So light rail projects come packaged in dishonesty. They must be sold to the public in a package of marketing ploys and outright lies. After it is built, we are told that it is exceeding expectations. But we are not being told that the expectations allowed for a breathtakingly large subsidy for every passenger that drops some change into the fare box. One good way to sell light rail is to slack off on road development and maintenance and let the traffic nightmares sell light rail.

Light rail is an anti-automobile, political agenda. That is why it does not make sense in terms of economics and transportation engineering. It doesn’t have to. It is so anti-automobile that they built the Minneapolis Hiawatha LRT with no parking at the mid-line stations. Yet they managed to budget about $400,000 for public art at the stations. It’s an expensive hobby.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates


You ain't gonna get 80,000 people to board a train in one hour. let alone continue on to drive it past a single fixed point.

It seems to me that you are under the misaprehension that 80,000 people get on a train at point A and an hour later they are delivered to point Z.
Commuter railroads don't work like that. Trains originate at points A to M (some a couple of hours away from point Z). These points are usually even on multiple routes. On their way into the city the trains also stop at points N to Y (and then some). Eventually all the branches come together and all of the trains arrive at the terminus, where in the hour between 08:00 and 09:00 (say) 80,000 people arrive.
Consider this, a 12 car double deck train has 1680 seats (140 seats/car) and has room for the same number of standing passengers giving a total of 3360 passengers per train. So to carry 80,000 passengers you only need 24 trains. Commuter railroads can easily handle 24 trains/hr. (that's a headway of 2 and a half minutes).

[rrandb]

You seem to have a desire to compare apples to oranges. Rail already has optimal conditions to get those numbers. It would be unfair advantage to expect cars to. The fact that you are unable to beleive it has not stop rails from achiveing it. Tokyo routinely does it and makes it look effortless. [%-)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

First of all there is usually only one person per car. If you can find two per car they would be in the Diamond lane. If your test is done at rush hour NONE will be flying by but they will be lined up bumper to bumper. Grand Central in NYC and its related stations move well above that number per hour every weekday morning and evening.

You really DON'T get it, do you?

My point was, if for heavy rail to get those high numbers, a set up of optimal conditions was necessary, then lets be fair and allow all competing options to set up optimal conditions.

You ain't gonna get 80,000 people to board a train in one hour. let alone continue on to drive it past a single fixed point.

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
In Washington, DC, dedicated bus lanes were instituted and during the energy crunches, ridership only got to about 2/3 what was projected and even that fell drastically when it was shown tghat there were still plenty of dead T-Rexes down there supplying oil. But now they have rail and ridership is way up, like 900 percent! These people are not rail fans; they are former motorists who have determined that commuter rail better fits their lifestyle than driving. It takes a minimum of 550 square feet, 10.5'x50', for each motorist on the road at rush hour, since nearly all trips awe single occupant. That is plus right of way which is usually 300 feet for highways. By contrast, two rail passengers can fit into a space about 3'x3'. Obviously, we will eventually run out of space for cars unless we take Wendell Cox's advice and run highways through everyone's backyard.
And who says it is government's job to give motorists what they want? If the rest of us wanted no taxes, could we have that?

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chaplainmonster

"{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. "
Yep was done every year with the ARMY/NAVY Game in the 1940s...Pennsy did it I believe..

So,lets do the same for cars, put 5 people in 100,000 cars, line them up bumper to bumper, give them a flying start, and then see how many of them can speed past one measuring point on the highway over an hour, and use that figure for the "auto" number.

First of all there is usually only one person per car. If you can find two per car they would be in the Diamond lane. If your test is done at rush hour NONE will be flying by but they will be lined up bumper to bumper. Grand Central in NYC and its related stations move well above that number per hour every weekday morning and evening.

[Anonymous]

I think that taxing urban sprawl would be a more effective deterrant to rising commuter congestion, AND would spike property values for inner city lots, sparking re developement.

Then main reason we are addicted to inflating the suburbs is because it's (relativey) cheap to do so.

The transportation nightmares caused after residential communities swamp around the new rural malls are just as much a result of the initial building of those malls as the original roof raising was.

So, let those developers who got rich building the malls in the first place,, pay their share towards correcting the eventual problems they create. Stop letting them shift that cost onto a generation of taxpayers 30 years into the future.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944


So what your saying is that all big city rail transportation is here just for the dedicated rail enthusiast?

Bert

No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that most argument made in support for rail mass transit on this forum, is hobbyist sourced, and should be regarded as such.

Maybe rail enthusiasts "enjoy" commuting by rail, but thats no reason to ***-U-ME that everyone feels the same way

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chaplainmonster

"{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. "
Yep was done every year with the ARMY/NAVY Game in the 1940s...Pennsy did it I believe..

You don't understand.

the figure cited is some "flying mile" type optimized number, where the passengers were no doubt loaded at various and sundry points , taking well over an hour, and then paraded past one point for an optimal result.....best ;possible reading SET UP, in other words.

So,lets do the same for cars, put 5 people in 100,000 cars, line them up bumper to bumper, give them a flying start, and then see how many of them can speed past one measuring point on the highway over an hour, and use that figure for the "auto" number.

i guarantee you they didn't load, then transport 80,000 people over the same pair of rails, all in 60 minutes time.

getting 80,000 people all onto the train in one hour would be Herculean, all by itself

[Anonymous]

A figure I learned over 30 years ago has stuck with me: one track of a double-track rail line can move more people than an eight-lane freeway.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
Mr. Antigates, problem is, people do enjoy rails. Why? If you read "Future Shock" back about 1970, you might have seen Toffler's statement that in an increasingly technological world, we hang onto our sanity by maintaining something old. Now Toffler didn't mention riding trains specifically, but he stated that we try to do things our parents did. Our parents often rode trolleys or interurbans. My mother rode the Atlanta Northern from Smyrna to Atlanta, as did my wife's mother during WW II.

Then buy a studebaker for mental health, lol...

Hey, trains CAN be 'fun", I know that when I FIRST MOVED to Atlanta, riding the Marta trains was fun"...same thing when i moved to Oakland. Riding Bart was fun.

But what I'm saying is that in practical use, day after day, the enchantment will soon wear off, except for the dedicated rail enthusiast.

Which is what, like 1.5% of the population?

Why should 100% of the people be forced to over pay for limited use transportation, just to entertain rail nostalgists?

Afterall, isn't that what Classic Trains Magazine is intended for? [yeah]

So what your saying is that all big city rail transportation is here just for the dedicated rail enthusiast? I think there are many people who depend on rapid transit to get to work that would argue that point.


Bert

[Anonymous]

"{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. "
Yep was done every year with the ARMY/NAVY Game in the 1940s...Pennsy did it I believe..

[zugmann]

nostalgia?

Ask Washington DC if their METRO is nostalgic.

We have to stop building transit as something that stands on its own. Too much of our transportation options are isolated. Commuter rail isn't the answer in and of itself. But it is a crucial piece int he transportation puzzle. I could not imagine how DC could function today withouit their METRO. And it is not something that has existed for 100 yrs, but rather just the past 25.

If done right, and planned right, it will succeed. Will it replace the highways? Of course not. But we can not put all our eggs into one basket. We have been doing that for decades, and look at where it has gotten us. Suburban hell and gridlock city.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
Mr. Antigates, problem is, people do enjoy rails. Why? If you read "Future Shock" back about 1970, you might have seen Toffler's statement that in an increasingly technological world, we hang onto our sanity by maintaining something old. Now Toffler didn't mention riding trains specifically, but he stated that we try to do things our parents did. Our parents often rode trolleys or interurbans. My mother rode the Atlanta Northern from Smyrna to Atlanta, as did my wife's mother during WW II.

Then buy a studebaker for mental health, lol...

Hey, trains CAN be 'fun", I know that when I FIRST MOVED to Atlanta, riding the Marta trains was fun"...same thing when i moved to Oakland. Riding Bart was fun.

But what I'm saying is that in practical use, day after day, the enchantment will soon wear off, except for the dedicated rail enthusiast.

Which is what, like 1.5% of the population?

Why should 100% of the people be forced to over pay for limited use transportation, just to entertain rail nostalgists?

Afterall, isn't that what Classic Trains Magazine is intended for? [yeah]

[rrandb]

Ask anyone in St. MO. how much fun it is to go flying past all those cars in grid lock at either morning or evening transit times. They will tell you it is fun to ride the trolly system (LR) to the airport! [8D] They are not rail enthusiast just commuters. Same for D.C.

[Anonymous]

Certainly there is intolerable traffic. But it might help if the people in charge of building roads did not have a conflicting agenda to get everybody out of their cars. What could possibly be more to their benefit than jammed up traffic?

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
Mr. Antigates, problem is, people do enjoy rails. Why? If you read "Future Shock" back about 1970, you might have seen Toffler's statement that in an increasingly technological world, we hang onto our sanity by maintaining something old. Now Toffler didn't mention riding trains specifically, but he stated that we try to do things our parents did. Our parents often rode trolleys or interurbans. My mother rode the Atlanta Northern from Smyrna to Atlanta, as did my wife's mother during WW II. Slightly OT but both our grandfathers knew each other and my wife and I met at the other end of the state of Georgia.
Olden times seem like happy days so we associate trolleys with good times because our parents told us of the fun they had going into Atlanta to shop or go to the picture show.
I've never been to Detroit which is supposed to have good roads but Atlanta's suck. Buses and cars have to bounce over the spaces betweeen concrete or over asphalt patches.
Take decades to install rail lines? Bull! When Seoul, Korea decided that its ex-Atlanta street cars were not enough to move the public, the government decreed that subways be built. Three years later they were in operation. It depends upon what the government wants as to what will get built and when.
The New Orleans trolleys will each hold two bus loads of passengers, NO Regional Transit Authority General Manager Will Mullett told me. Incidentally, he told me the steel rails were over 100 years old and still gave him a sense of security.
When people start debating rails vs roads, they-the road people-tend to make it seem like an all one way or another thing to scare motorists. You don't need to get all the people off the roads. If you did there would be no gas taxes to HELP pay for the roads. Experts say gas taxes pay only 60% of a road's cost.
The highway lobby also likes to say the trolley used to pay for itself but people quit riding it. People used to walk to the store, too, until post WW II zoning made that as imposible. Aand they never really paid for themselves because they were at the mercy of city councils for fare increases and these political animals knew they could lose support from the voters by allowing increases in the fares. So from almost the time they first ran, trolley systems were instituting deferred maintenance.
The reason Americans abandoned mass transit are because we wanted options. And cars gave us that. Lately, we drivers have begun to realize that trains give us options. That is evidenced by the increasing use of c ommuter rail. In Portland, OR, the Westside Max was built to alleviate traffic to the growning west side business disitrict. According to a Free Congress Foundation report, freeway usage has remained flat in that area while transit is growing.
One thing the pro-road warriors like to point out is that transit planners missed their marks on early "re-entry rail" costs and usage. Rail still seems to be misssing the user numbers because now they are grossly underestimating the ridership. This is about as bad as over estimating it because it causes problems for the riders who may decide not to take transit in the future. Po-road spokesmen like Wendell Cox liked to bring up New Jersey Transit's rail line which was only hauling half the number expected. But that was before the line was finished. I checked NJT's website and the line is now hauling twice the passengers expected.
But the great thing about rail is that all you have to dod is add more rail cars, not more lanes.

[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.

[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]

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.