You're almost certainly right that the rental Amtrak pays for its LD trains is too low - the freight railroads have been complaining about it for years. But that's a different issue from the one I was addressing. Whether too high or too low, the rental Amtrak pays its host railroads includes compensation for the infrastructure it is using, including the host railroad's capital costs. To my knowledge, Amtrak treats the rental as an "operating cost"(there could be an exception to this where Amtrak pays for Amtrak owned improvements, but that's normally a small part of the infrastructure it is using when it's a tenant). On the corridor, by contrast, a big chunk of the money Amtrak is paying for infrastructure is treated as capital costs, not operating costs. That means, if you just compare Amtrak's "operating cost" coverage on the corridor vs the long distance services (a comparison I've seen made many times), you're comparing applies and oranges. The comparison isn't really telling you anything about the relative economic viability (or nonviability) of the two services.
The reason I raised the Amtrak issue is because it's a modern example of the "operating cost" comparisons which are frequently made in discussions of streetcars vs buses. In fact, you'll see them in this thread - streetcars are said to have lower "operating costs" vs buses above a certain level of traffic. But, if the streetcar's infrastructure costs are being excluded from this comparison (because they are "capital", not "operating" costs), the comparison is meaningless. Costs are costs. From a business standpoint, if the money is being spent, it doesn't matter much what bucket they are assigned to in the accounting system. After all, when you pay for a restaurant meal, does it matter much to you whether you put your copy of the check into your right rather than your left pocket?
A possible varient of this problem is that a "depreciation" element might be included in the streetcar operating costs. This would make the comparison more meaningful as an accounting exercise, but not as the basis for business or public decisionmaking. The reason is that depreciation is based on what was spent in the past, not what will be needed in the future. A streetcar system with old, nearly worn out infrastructure (a description which fits many of the U.S. streetcar operations that survived into the 1950's) may have very low annual depreciation charges (or none, if the assets have been fully depreciated from an accounting standpoint). The thing a businessman or public agency making a conversion decision wants to know is what costs WILL be incurred in each scenario - the replacement costs of the streetcar assets and how soon they will need to be incurred if the streetcar system is retained vs the costs that will be incurred if the system is converted to buses.
I'm afraid that I've been singularly responsible for taking this thread way beyond a discussion of DC streetcars, which was its original purpose. Call it a weakness.
Falcon48That means, if you just compare Amtrak's "operating cost" coverage on the corridor vs the long distance services (a comparison I've seen made many times), you're comparing applies and oranges. The comparison isn't really telling you anything about the relative economic viability (or nonviability) of the two services.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I don't recall I said anything about the allocation of costs between two services that are using the same rail infrastructure. I was using an Amtrak example to illustrate a point about streetcars vs buses. However, with respect to your comments about capital costs being susidized, I will say that, whether the capital costs are funded from the farebox, or are funded by the government through subsidies, they are still costs of the service in question and must be taken into account in assessing economic viability, whether the issue on the table is streetcars vs buses or Amtrak. A susidy may make the economics more favorable for the party being subsidized, but it makes the economics correspondingly less favorable for the subsidizer (and, if the government is providing the subsidy, the poor taxpayers upon whose back all harebrained government schemes seem to ride). There's no free lunch.
With respect to your comments on cost allocation, there is no one "right" way to allocate costs between two services using a single rail infrastructure. The "right" answer largely depends on the question being asked. For example, if you are simply trying to compare the financial performance of two services using the same infrastructure, the most obvious way is to just allocate the joint and common costs between services on a unit basis (cars or passengers). For example, if Service A has half the cars and Service B has the other half, you allocate the costs 50-50. "But wait", the advocates of Service B might say. "The infrastructure would exist for Service A even if Service B weren't being provided". So, they would argue that the only costs Service B should be assigned are the incremental costs directly attributable to the service (presumably, in this example, less than half of the total costs). This isn't necessarily "wrong". In fact, it is "right", if the question on the table is whether Service B should be discontinued. That's because, in a discontinuance, only the avoidable (incremental) costs of the Service B will be saved. The costs that will be incurred anyway on Service A will not be saved if Service B is discontinued. This, in fact, is the way joint and common costs are handled in STB rail abandonments
This question of cost assignment between services using the same rail infrastructure is likely to rear its ugly head big time with positive train control (PTC). The statutory PTC mandate requires installation of this technology on (i) lines carrying intercity or commuter passenger trains, and (ii) lines with 5 million or more GTM which also carry TIH. Now, I don't know what freight railroads are planning to do about recovering the billions of dollars they are going to have to spend on PTC systems, but it's a pretty good bet they will seek to recover this money from the passenger operators and TIH shippers whose traffic is triggering the need to install these systems. That's pretty straighforward if a particular segment of track has to be PTC equipped just because of passenger service, or just because of TIH traffic. But what about a track segment that carries both (and many routes do)? You can bet, in this case, the passenger operators will be arguing they shouldn't pay anything because the PTC would have to be installed to support the TIH traffic even if there were no passenger trains. The TIH shippers, in turn, will argue that they shouldn't pay anything because the PTC would have to be intalled to support the passenger trains even if there were no TIH. It will be a battle royal.
Finally, as I said in an earlier post today, I am probably the person most responsible for expanding this thread far beyond its original purpose (which, as I look back at the first posting, was merely to answer an inquiry about some old conduit streetcar tracks in Georgetown). This time, however, I'm innocent.
daveklepper Operating costs include track maintenance including eventual track replacement but do not include the initial investment. When I say that Woodward Avenue, Detroit, and Flatbush Avenue, Brookly,. regular streetcar lines, should have remained streetcar lines, I would note that the track was in good condition when lines were abandoned, and that the equipment was reasonably modern. When it comes to the vast majority of streetcar and interurban lines in the USA, of course you are right, and the swing to personal auto transportation made then good candidates for bus conversion. I am merely pointing out that there were and are exceptions. Note that Philadelphia has restored streetcar service on Garrad Avenue and that the historic F line in San Francisco (mostly PCC's, some Milan Peter Witts, and an occasional special like the Blackpool "boat" and MUNI No. 1) is the one line that comes closest to paying all its operating costs in the entire MUNI network. I think even you would agree that abandonment of Long Beach PE by the government authority that then owned it was a bad mistake. And Nortons Point in Brooklyn was similar (smaller) but much harder to restore, since much of the ROW now has buildings. But to say that GM dfid not cause the conversion of streetcars to buses is like saying that Electro Motive did not cause the dieselization of North American Railroads. But, again, it was not a conspiracy, just smart business practice.
Operating costs include track maintenance including eventual track replacement but do not include the initial investment. When I say that Woodward Avenue, Detroit, and Flatbush Avenue, Brookly,. regular streetcar lines, should have remained streetcar lines, I would note that the track was in good condition when lines were abandoned, and that the equipment was reasonably modern. When it comes to the vast majority of streetcar and interurban lines in the USA, of course you are right, and the swing to personal auto transportation made then good candidates for bus conversion. I am merely pointing out that there were and are exceptions. Note that Philadelphia has restored streetcar service on Garrad Avenue and that the historic F line in San Francisco (mostly PCC's, some Milan Peter Witts, and an occasional special like the Blackpool "boat" and MUNI No. 1) is the one line that comes closest to paying all its operating costs in the entire MUNI network.
I think even you would agree that abandonment of Long Beach PE by the government authority that then owned it was a bad mistake. And Nortons Point in Brooklyn was similar (smaller) but much harder to restore, since much of the ROW now has buildings.
But to say that GM dfid not cause the conversion of streetcars to buses is like saying that Electro Motive did not cause the dieselization of North American Railroads.
But, again, it was not a conspiracy, just smart business practice.
A few comments on the above post (not necessarily disagreements)
1. Perhaps you have seen some financial statements I have not, but I'm not aware that "operating costs" shown by transit companies included costs for "eventual replacement" of their streetcar investment. To do that, they would have had to calculate current replacement costs for the infrastructure, and then allocate that against operating income on some annual basis, something I very much doubt they would have done (particularly in the 1950's). What they may have done is include an annual depreciation charge. As I pointed out in another posting, this would understate (probably significantly) the future capital investments needed to keep the streetcar system in operation. The reason is that depreciation is based on past investment (which, in the case of a streetcar company in the 1950's, could have been made in the 1920's or before). Further, many streetcar companies probably had fully depreciated capital assets by the 1950's, in which case no depreciation charges would have been taken against operating income for these assets.
2. I don't know much about the specific Detroit or Brooklyn streetcar lines you mention. As I think you recognize, I was talking in general terms and there, of course, could have been some exceptions (although I have to wonder whether the Detroit line's ridership held up enough in the postwar period to support continued streetcar operations). One consideration in retaining individual streetcar lines in a city otherwise converted to bus is the need to retain support facilities for a technology used only on a single route or a few routes. With respect to Girard Avenue in Philadelphia, it's a mystery to me why they restored ths line as a streetar line. It doesn't go into a subway and doesn't seem to serve an area where a "historic" line would have any value. But. sometimes, the workings of government are unfathomable. I'm very familiar with the F line in San Francisco, and I agree that this route is very successful. But this route is really unique. It has huge tourist patronage and serves as an alternate "historic transit" route to the cable cars to/from Fisherman's Wharf. It simply wouldn't work as a bus line.
3. I agree that, looking at it from today's vantage point, the abandonment of the former PE Long Beach line by the government authority that then owned it (others reading this post should note that it was NOT abandoned by a company affiliated with GM or National City Lines) was a mistake from the standpoint of public transit policy. But, at the time, the service had to be funded from the farebox - public transit subsidies weren't available. So, from the standpoint of the public authority that abandoned it at the time, it was not a mistake.
4. I agree that GM "caused" the abandonment of streetcar lines and that its subsidiary EMD "caused" the dieselization of U.S. railroads in the sense that they produced products (buses and diesel locomotives) that transit operators and railroads believed were superior to the technology they were currently using and wanted to buy. That, as you recognize, is not a conspiracy. It's good, old fashioned capitalism. It's no different than what happened when Frank Sprague came out with a product (the electric streetcar) which caused the mass extinction of cable cars in most American cities.
Exactly. The Toronto system is well-managed, and track replacements are scheduled routinely, wiht the system kept in good shape. It comparitive operating costs on a passenger mile basis were available to me and bus passengers cost about 25% more to handle than streetcar passengers both per passenger and one a passenger mile basis. I think this information is still available at APTA. It was only specific heavy lines that should have been kept, and most of DC's lines fitted that desciption, otherwise Roy Chalk would not have wished to keep them. And at the time, the PCC's were mostly relatively new, and many did see further service in Cairo, Alexandria, and Sarajavo.
Remember that while track requires replacement after 50 or 60 years, the streetcar can also last that long, while a bus wears out in 15 years. There was a dramatic improvement in streetcar technology with the PCC. But a modernized PCC, equipped with wheel chair lift at its front door, air-conditioning, and electronic based instead of relay based controls, can hold its own in performance and passenger comfort with the latest equipment.
And why did PTC put streetcars back on Garrad Avenue. Public pressure. The riders wanted them back. The riders prefered streetcars over busses. Given a choice between a hard wood seat cold in winter and warm in summer noisy hard riding 40-year-old relic, and a modern bus, in 1950 or today, most riders would prefer the bus. But between any bus and a well-maintained PCC or a modern LRV, the riders will choose the rail vehicle.
A few points:
(1) As I recall, the Girard streetcar reactivation in Philadelphia was actually quite controversial. It was held up some time by local opposition (probably adjoining property owners). At one point, I believe SEPTA indicated it was considering the disposal of the newly modernized PCC equipment.
(2) I question whether the Toronto "operating cost" comparisons with bus include all of the infrastructure related costs, for the reasons stated in my earlier notes. It's undoubtedly true, however, that a streetcar system capable of operating trains will likely have lower "operating costs" per passenger (or even per vehicle) than a system (streetcar or bus) that uses only single unit vehicles. But, in most U.S. cities, the problem by the 1950's wasn't capacity - it was the opposite. There wasn't enough traffic to fill even single unit cars on a regular basis (in Omaha-Council Bluffs, for example, which was once a major streetcar metro area, they removed the standee straps from the streetcars in the 1930's). An additional problem in the U.S. by the 1950's was that the population (customer) base was expanding beyond the historic limits of the streetcar system, while the areas served by the streetcar system were declining.
(3) The statement that streetcar trackage lasts 50-60 years may be true of modern construction, where the rails are fastened to concrete panels. But I seriously doubt whether it was true as to historic streetcar construction, where the tracks were built on wood ties (just like regular railroads) and then covered by the street material. The drainage issues alone wouldn't have been favorable to long life. Most streetcar systems that survived into the 1950's were rebuilt during the 1920's, and were converted before they needed to be rebuilt again. But Pittsburgh is a good test of the 50-60 year estimate. Assuming the Pittsburgh system was last renewed in the 1920's, it would have been in place roughly 40 -45 years by the late 1960's, when I started riding it as a young, eager railfan (I'm giving away how old I am). While still operational (sort of), it was absolutely wretched. Riding it was like being in an airplane caught in a storm (or a roller coaster at the nearby Kennywood Park). The operators had to know where all of the broken rails were in the street so they didn't sail off into a sidewalk or a building. There's something slightly unnerving about seeing a streetcar inch down a downtown street while the rail ahead of it lifts out of the pavement.
(4) There is no question that a modern LRV or air conditioned, reconditioned PCC car operating on good track gives a ride that is equal or superior to a bus. But the issue a trasit operator faced in the mass conversion period was whether the existing streetcar system could give that kind of service without substantial new investment. Keep in mind that, before the mass conversion process got underway, most streetcar systems didn't even use PCC's, and the ones that did still relied on standard streetcars for the majority of their services. This situation didn't change until enough lines had been converted to permit the remaining lines to be operated entirely by PCC's (1954 in Chicago).
(5) A major impetus for streetcar conversions was that many cities wanted the streetcar tracks out of the streets, regardless of what the transit company at the time might want. City opposition to street trackage was already being felt by the 1930's (see the Hilton/Due book on interurban railways). NYC's opposition is well known. Apparently, based on the some of the other posts in this thread, it was also true in DC. However, there's one aspect of the DC system I haven't seen discussed. The city portions of the DC system were conduit lines. When did they begin using salt in DC fro snow removal? Even though DC residents don't like to admit it, it does snow several times a winter in DC, sometimes heavily. I would imagine that salt would wreak havoc with a conduit system in pretty short order._
I agree that Pittsburgh Railways should have bought fewer PCC streetcars, itself converted the lighter feeder lines to buses where service would not be compromised, especially some street running outer shuttle lines, some of which even got PCC's. and invested more in rebuilding downtown orginal installation track. But the tracks on Woodward and Gratiot and Michigan (only those three lines) in Detroit and on Canal in New Orleands were in good shape and cars rode smooothly, the historic and well maintained cars in New Orleans and the modern and well maintained PCC's in Detroit. Political pressure and GM was involved in both.
Tracks in Toronto have always been kept in good shape and the ride is smooth. Again, economically, the heavy lines are the lines that economically should have been kept streetcar. and where the track renewal economics make sense. Toronto has converted its lighter and feeder lines to bus and dosn't run streetcars above rapid transit on the same street. It has a balanced approach to transportation, but the easy money prevented such a solution for the Twin Cities. In New York and DC it was simple prejudice, the needs of the private auto driver having precedence over that of the transit rider. But again, even these two matters, GM was at least partly responsible, the lease purchase deal and the psychology that to be a real American, one must own an auto and public transit is for the poor and foreigners. Sure there was contorversy in Philadlephia, but what the riders wanted was streetcars. It was not the riders that objected, just those used to parking their cars where streetcars did and now again run to access the carbarn.
Under the Roy Chalk management, those DC lines that had deteriorated conduit had already been abandoned. The conduit operated systems had learne how to cope with snow and sleet and ice, and the newer conduit installtions benefited from improved technology and did not require the heavy maintenance that the older ones it. The quality of steel alloys, the alloy of the power rails, all that was studied seriously. The Manhattan lines ran reasonably reliably in winter, probably more reliably than the buses, because Third Avenue did bring out its fleet of snowplows and snow sweepers, while the bus lines were completley dependant on the City;s equipment. Huge snowstorms did tie up the lines, but tied up everything else, including some surface and above ground third rail subway lines.
Incidentally, some of the bad downtown Pittsburgh tracks never got replaced and continued to be used by the South Hills lines until the downtown subway was built replacing them. Toward the end, the streetcars moved slowly across the Smithfield Street Bridge at something like 5mph!
I guess Pittsburgh Railways was counting on someone building a subway for them. Like the New York Westchester and Boston entering Manhattan. Never happened.
Anyway, if you wish to see where there car culture has brought the world and even the USA, contact my friend Jerry Spriggs, Jerry.spings@gmail.com and ask him to attach the demographic study to his reply and listen and watch.
Falcon48You're almost certainly right that the rental Amtrak pays for its LD trains is too low - the freight railroads have been complaining about it for years. But that's a different issue from the one I was addressing. Whether too high or too low, the rental Amtrak pays its host railroads includes compensation for the infrastructure it is using, including the host railroad's capital costs. To my knowledge, Amtrak treats the rental as an "operating cost"(there could be an exception to this where Amtrak pays for Amtrak owned improvements, but that's normally a small part of the infrastructure it is using when it's a tenant). On the corridor, by contrast, a big chunk of the money Amtrak is paying for infrastructure is treated as capital costs, not operating costs. That means, if you just compare Amtrak's "operating cost" coverage on the corridor vs the long distance services (a comparison I've seen made many times), you're comparing applies and oranges. The comparison isn't really telling you anything about the relative economic viability (or nonviability) of the two services. The reason I raised the Amtrak issue is because it's a modern example of the "operating cost" comparisons which are frequently made in discussions of streetcars vs buses. In fact, you'll see them in this thread - streetcars are said to have lower "operating costs" vs buses above a certain level of traffic. But, if the streetcar's infrastructure costs are being excluded from this comparison (because they are "capital", not "operating" costs), the comparison is meaningless. Costs are costs. From a business standpoint, if the money is being spent, it doesn't matter much what bucket they are assigned to in the accounting system. After all, when you pay for a restaurant meal, does it matter much to you whether you put your copy of the check into your right rather than your left pocket? A possible varient of this problem is that a "depreciation" element might be included in the streetcar operating costs. This would make the comparison more meaningful as an accounting exercise, but not as the basis for business or public decisionmaking. The reason is that depreciation is based on what was spent in the past, not what will be needed in the future. A streetcar system with old, nearly worn out infrastructure (a description which fits many of the U.S. streetcar operations that survived into the 1950's) may have very low annual depreciation charges (or none, if the assets have been fully depreciated from an accounting standpoint). The thing a businessman or public agency making a conversion decision wants to know is what costs WILL be incurred in each scenario - the replacement costs of the streetcar assets and how soon they will need to be incurred if the streetcar system is retained vs the costs that will be incurred if the system is converted to buses. I'm afraid that I've been singularly responsible for taking this thread way beyond a discussion of DC streetcars, which was its original purpose. Call it a weakness.
Again, the Toronto system is a well-mange dsystem in whicvh continual upgrading of track and other fixed acilities takes place and is included in the operating costs. Every year they program a particular piece of track to rebuild, with cars rerouted to parallel lines if possible, or single tracked with pancake portable crossovers. or temporary bus substitution. Most transit experts recommend buses for lines having less than 15,000 passengers a day, llihgt rial or streetcar can beocme competitive if their a cheap private right of way in the 15,000 - 25,000 per day patronage, but really starts becoming cost effective above 25,000 passengers/day. Above 80,000, bewtter go to completely grade separated rapid transit. Probalby 98% of the transit lines by mileage cary less than 15,000 passengers by day, so the bus is by far and away the vehicle of choice. But rail does have a place and always really did have a place and this definitely inlcudes on-street operation where appropriate.
I think that different transit companies had different views of their future prospects, and those views also changed over time. In the late 1940's, some transit companies were obviously optimistic about their future prospects and the prospects for continued streetcar operations. These were the companies which ordered postwar PCC cars. But many of of these companies apparently changed their view in the early 1950's. Chicago is a good example. It bought a large fleet of new PCC cars in 1948, and then began a massive conversion program just a few years later. Twin Cities is another. There's at least one case where a city ordered postwar PCC cars and then decided to convert to bus before the cars were delivered (Louisville). The new cars were then sold to other cities. By 1951, however, the market for new streetcars had dried up. In part, this was because so many conversions were underway that a transit operator that stil wantedto operate streetcars could get modern secondhand equipment. But it also reflected the fact that many operators had become pessimistic about the prospects for continued streetcar operations.
And then there were the many streetcar propoerties which had never ordered PCC cars, either pre-war or post war. Most of these properties had probably decided in the 1930's to run their existing systems until it wore out or required additional investment and then convert (which is actually a very a rational approach). Probably the best example was Milwaukee, WI, where the transit company's intention to eventually convert to busses was known by the mid 1930's (as you might expect in this situation, Milwaukee never bought PCC's). Omaha-Council Bluffs is another - theiri newest cars were built in 1917, although parts of the system stagered on until 1955. Denver is another.
There's one final group to consider -transit companies that were so broke that they couldn't even raise the money to convert and kept on operating increasingly dilapidated streetcar systems until they were taken over by public authorities. Pittsburgh is probably one of these. Although it had a large PCC fleet (both pre and post WWII cars), which showed that it had been optimistic about its streetcars at least through the late 1940's, the system and the cars had become wrecks by the 1960's and 70's. In fact, many of the PCC's went to the scrap heap after 30+ year of service with the original paint they had when delivered
Falcon48In the late 1940's, some transit companies were obviously optimistic about their future prospects and the prospects for continued streetcar operations. These were the companies which ordered postwar PCC cars. But many of of these companies apparently changed their view in the early 1950's.
But again, there were lines where patronage held up and only political pressure caused the bus substitution. Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn (and a few other lines as well), much of the Manhattan and Bronx Third Avenue system (the lighter lines had been converted already), Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward in Detroit, Canal Street, New Orleans, would have made more sense to remain rail, and the bottom line would probably have been better, not worse.
Third Avenue Transit Lines that should have remained rail include Fordham, Treemont, Webster, Southern Boulevard, Westchester Avenue, and Boston Road. These were very heavy lins, and Third Avenue had inhouse capability of building their own modern cars for less money than the price of a new bus.
In Manhattan, Third Avenue wanted to completely rebuild the Broadway - 42nd Street track in time for the World Fare of 1939-1940, during 1938, but LaGuardia would not give them permission. After WWII the track on this line was really worn out, and this was an extremely heavy line, a car in sight at all times.
lOVED THE PICTURE... BROUGHT BACK A FEW MEMORIES...
NO, NEVER BEEN TO DC, BUT: DID GROW UP IN A "TROLLEYTOWN". IN CASE YA'LL HAVE FORGOTTEN, DIDN'T KNOW
OR CARE ETC: THE MOTOR CITY: "DETROIT" HAD A PRETTY GOOD
STREET CAR SCHEDULE. MY MEMORY IS OF PCC'S OF: "THE D S R"
DETROIT STREET RAILWAY. NEVER HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT "OUR"
STREETCARS/TROLLEYS. ROUTES WERE ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES: JEFFERSON AVE, GRATIOT, MICHIGAN, WOODWARD & A FEW OTHERS I'VE FORGOTTEN. SADLY WERE
REPLACED BY THOSE D--- TROLLEY BUSES'... WHICH DIDN'T LAST
LONG. ALL RAN TO TERMINUS IN DOWNTOWN IF MEMORY SERVES.
USED TO BE ABLE TO PICK UP AT CITY LIMITS WITH GROSSE PTE PARK, TRANSFER, END UP AT BRIGGS STADIUM... SEE AL KALINE AND TIGERS PLAY... OR GO TO OLYMPYIA AND SEE THE WINGS AND GORDIE HOWE PLAY... ALL GONE NOW.ETC. OH WELL. JUST SIGN ME:
SOUTHEASTERN HS CLASS OF 58. CITY CHAMPS FOOTBALL 57, EAST SIDE CHAMPS BASEBALL 57 & 58. AKA:DAS ADLER!
Let me point out, again, that I was speaking in general terms when I discussed the reasons transit operators would convert streetcar lines to busses. Could there have been some isloated lines where these dynamics didn't apply? Sure (although one has to wonder whether the lines you mention would have stayed as streetcars much beyond the 1950's even without city opposition). Add to these the handful of lines in some cities that operated in subways or tunnels that couldn't practically be converted (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco). But the mileage represented by these lines is insignificant compared to the streetcar mileage that used to exist in this country.
And it will be interesting to see if there is ever an end to the revival of trolleycar technology now labeled light rail, and if 100 years from now, as we look down hopefully from Heaven, whether the amount of mileage has been restored!
Of course, population densities are greater and congestion greater and fuel costs greater.
I see very little reason for anyone now or in the future to restore classic "streetcar" systems (ie., systems consisting mostly of railroad tracks embedded in city streets) except for historic "tourist" lines. If the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions,
With respect to "light rail", rather than streetcars, the "light rail" renaissance will last only as long as governments are willing to continue giving massive subsidies to this form of transport. As I mentioned in a prior post, "light rail":covers a wide variety of systems. Some of these provide levels of service which are vastly superior to busses and are heavily utilized. They are likely to be around for a long time, Others do not. My prediction is that, in the coming years, there will be a number of light rail systems built which are poorly conceived and designed, not to meet any real transit need, but because Federal money is available. Systems like this will eventually be abandoned as the economic realities of retaining them become evident and governments have to choose between competing priorites. The most likely point in time this will occur is when the track structure requires substantial renewal. I won't be around by then, but perhaps some of the younger participants in this forum will be.
Falcon48 ...the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions...
...the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions...
How would a trolley bus get away from petroleum based fossil fuels?
St. Louis is in the process of bringing back a streetcar to run from our Metrolink light rail to the Delmar Loop Area. The Loop is home to our own Walk of the Stars and Chuck Berry regularly appears at Blueberry Hill cafe. The streetcar will stop at the old Wabash Delmar Station, which has a Metrolink stop on the lower level and the restored Pageant Theater, which has various music acts appearing on a regular basis.
This will be our first streetcar line in over 40 years. When they get it finished, I'll be checking it out.
inarevil Falcon48 ...the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions... How would a trolley bus get away from petroleum based fossil fuels?
Because trolley busses (like streetcars) use electricity. The vast majority of the electricity generated in this country does not come frrm PETROLEUM based fossil fuels. Most of it comes either from coal (a fossil fuel, but not a petroleum based fossil fuel) or from non fossil fuel sources (nuclear, hydro-electric etc). To be sure, a portion of our electricity comes from petroleum based fossil fuels (particularly natural gas), but the majority of it does not.
Falcon48 quote user="inarevil"] Falcon48 ...the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions... How would a trolley bus get away from petroleum based fossil fuels?
quote user="inarevil"]
-----------------------------
There is no virtue in the idea of operating electric railway equipment or trolley busses on electricity with the idea that most of our electricity isn't generated by petroleum. The other fossil fuels present their own problems.
Natural gas is the most environmentally benign fossil fuel because of its low carbon content, but it is perhaps the most valuable in terms of it's uses for chemical feedstocks essential for modern agriculture and the chemical industry, so burning it for electricity is, in some senses, a huge abuse and waste of a valuable resource. Coal is the worst from an environmental standpoint. It is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, contributing more carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour than any other fuel, fossil or otherwise.
Even wood is better because the carbon dioxide discharged from the burning of wood came from absorbing that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when the tree grew. As such it is a closed cycle. Fossil fuels are not closed cycles, but are open and only add carbon to the biosphere and atmosphere, and that carbon dioxide stays around for a very long time.
Until we get serious about getting electricity from renewable resources, or at least from non-carbon sources such as nuclear (virtually all major hydropower sites in this country are already developed, and hydropower has not proved to be environmentally benign), electric traction will not solve our problems. It merely transfers the source of the carbon dioxide pollution from where we see it to where we don't. And let's not forget the devastation coused by mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.
A large scale expansion of nuclear power would provide for the large base load need of electric traction railroads and other forms of transportation. At the present point, the only other rapidly expandable source of electrical generating capacity is probably wind power. It already competes with coal very favorably, and even surpasses it when the costs of coal's pollution and mining damage are considered.
Falcon48 Because trolley busses (like streetcars) use electricity. The vast majority of the electricity generated in this country does not come frrm PETROLEUM based fossil fuels. Most of it comes either from coal (a fossil fuel, but not a petroleum based fossil fuel) or from non fossil fuel sources (nuclear, hydro-electric etc). To be sure, a portion of our electricity comes from petroleum based fossil fuels (particularly natural gas), but the majority of it does not.
The purpose behind my question was more to point out that electric trolley busses and electric streetcars are one and the same with only one difference - the lack of tracks for the busses to run on. I don't see a benefit in running busses over trolleys since the busses still need dedicated right of ways much in the same way trolleys so. About the only benefit is that busses negate track maintenance. They do, however, present their own unique set of maintenance costs, such as tires (which are petroleum based). While tires are less costly than tracks from a maintenance standpoint, they are replaced much more frequently than tracks and are subject to various hazards found in streets like glass, nails, among other puncture hazards.
In the debate over trolleys versus electric busses, it comes more down to a matter of capacity, then cost is figured in. Physical constraints play a major part of the decision, but ultimately it still comes down to what the powers that be decide is better in the interest of the public. I haven't seen a bus system yet that can compete with rail in terms of capacity without causing backups.
inarevil Falcon48 Because trolley busses (like streetcars) use electricity. The vast majority of the electricity generated in this country does not come frrm PETROLEUM based fossil fuels. Most of it comes either from coal (a fossil fuel, but not a petroleum based fossil fuel) or from non fossil fuel sources (nuclear, hydro-electric etc). To be sure, a portion of our electricity comes from petroleum based fossil fuels (particularly natural gas), but the majority of it does not. The purpose behind my question was more to point out that electric trolley busses and electric streetcars are one and the same with only one difference - the lack of tracks for the busses to run on. I don't see a benefit in running busses over trolleys since the busses still need dedicated right of ways much in the same way trolleys so. About the only benefit is that busses negate track maintenance. They do, however, present their own unique set of maintenance costs, such as tires (which are petroleum based). While tires are less costly than tracks from a maintenance standpoint, they are replaced much more frequently than tracks and are subject to various hazards found in streets like glass, nails, among other puncture hazards. In the debate over trolleys versus electric busses, it comes more down to a matter of capacity, then cost is figured in. Physical constraints play a major part of the decision, but ultimately it still comes down to what the powers that be decide is better in the interest of the public. I haven't seen a bus system yet that can compete with rail in terms of capacity without causing backups.
I don't understand some of your comments.
For example, you say that there's no benefit in running busses over trolleys because "busses still need dedicated rights of way much in the same way trolleys do." The fact is that busses rarely have "dedicated rights of way". They mostly run on the street pavement just like other street vehicles. Of course, "streetcars" also shared the street right of way with other vehicles and had to fight their way through trafffic too. The difference is that streetcars didn't use the pavement, and thus didn't share infrastructure costs with other street users. Rather, they used railroad tracks embedded in the streets, for which they had sole responsibility. Worse, since the tracks were in the street, private streetcar operators typically had to bear street paving costs for the portion of the street in the track area, which could be a third to a half of the street surface. And they were also subject to assessments for a major share of the costs of things like bridge replacements on, over or under the streets on which they operated. An upcoming bridge assessment was the immediate cause of many streetcar and suburban electric railroad conversions (such as the PE's Northern District lines). And, they also paid property taxes on the track infrastructure. Negating these infrastructure related costs was a powerful reason to convert streetcar lines to busses. You can buy a whole lot of tires with the infrastructure costs of a streetcar system
You also appear to be stating that "rail lines" have more capacity than electric bus lines. But, if you're talking about streetcars vs busses (both of which operate in the streets), that hasn't been true since the 1950's, and it certainly isn't true today, with modern articulated busses. The only way it could be true is if the streetcar lines were running trains. While trains are typically run on modern light rail lines (which are more rapid transit lines than streetcar lines), most U.S. cities didn't run streetcar trains after the 1920's (and many cities were running primarily single truck "Birney" cars in the 20's, which effectively surrendered whatever "capacity" advantage streetcars may otherwise have had) . Frankly, from the 1930's on, the problem most streetcar operators had wasn't lack of capacity. It was filling up the cars they were running. That may not have been as apparent in major transit cities like New York and Chicago (although it was felt even there, with significant declines in off peak and local ridership), but it was striking in other cities. An example I mentioned previously was Omaha-Council Bluffs, once a major streetcar city, where they removed the standee straps from all of the streetcars in the 1930's.
Your comment that you haven't seen a bus system that can compete with rail in terms of capacity "without causing backups" suggests that you are too young to have witnessed streetcars in operation. I, on the other hand, am old and decrepit and remember them quite well. Because streetcars could not pull out of traffic lanes to pick up or drop off passengers, they could cause horrendous backups on the streets they used. This wouldn't have been a big problem on wide streets (like Western Avenue in Chicago), but streetcars operated on lots of major streets where there was effectively only one lane in each direction due to parked cars (like Clark Street in Chicago), so the ability of traffic to get around the streetcars was severely limited. Conversely, since the streetcars could not get around obstructions on the street, an entire streetcar line could be effectively shut down by a single double parked car, something a bus (even a trolley bus) can shrug off.
I suspect you may be confusing streetcars with modern, light rail systems, which typically have dedicated rights of way or, where they operate in streets, have dedicated traffic lanes with traffic signal preemption. There is little question that a modern, well designed light rail line has more capacity than busses on city streets. But it comes at a huge cost (both in construction cost and ongoing operating cost) which farebox revenues don't even come close to covering. Whether that cost is justified by collateral benefits will vary from city to city, but there are unquestionably cities where it costs aren't justified. Eventually (probably not in my remaining lifetime), there's going to be a day of reckoning on some of these systems, most likely when the existing infrastructure wears out and the system requires significant additional investment to remain in operation.
I understand that Seattle, both diesel buses and electric buses, is an exception. There, the theoretical curb loading advantage is actually put into practice. Buses actually do move to the curb and "platform" with low floors just inches away from the sidewalk. And Seattle private car drivers are generally polite and give way when a bus pulls out from the curb to join the traffic lane.
Elsewhere, experience thorughout North America has taught me, aat least, that buses are no better than on-street streetcars as far as blocking traffic. Bus drivers learn quicly that to pull over to the curb means losing time as they wait for a break in traffic to rejoin the traffic lane. Instead they unload and load half in the driving lane and half in the bus stop lane, blocking traffic for everyone except motocycles and possibly some of the smallest of the minicars. And the passengers walk to and from the sidewalk on the road pavement, often during heavy rain wading in puddles.
Better a streetcar line in the middle of the street WITH LOADING ISLANDS. Loading islands a traffic hazard? Sure, just like "round-abouts" and speed bumps and other TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. The best deal was the left-hand loading and unloading Type 5 streetcars on some Boston lines, like Blue Hill Avenue, with a continuous center island separating the opposing direcitons of traffic and used as the platfom all streetcar stops.
Ther typical articulated streetcar has about 40% greater capacity than the typical articulated bus. The typical non-articulated bus seats 40 and stands 22. The typical non-articulated streetcar (PCC's and Osgood Bradley lightwieghts are good examples) seats 44 and stands 36-48. A Detroit or Cleveland or Toronto large single-end Peter Witt even more.
Streetcars have always had more capacity than buses and still do.
Steel wheel transportaton is about 40% more energy effiicent on rolling resistance than rubber tire transportation. Meaning that on a passenger mile basis, a streetcar is about 40% more energy efficient than a trolleybus.
I like trolleybuses. Like streetcars, they can use renerative braking and further save enrgy costs. We have one light rail line under construction in Jerusalem. I'd like to see it expanded to the tram-train concept with through running over Israel Railways to the suburban towns of Beit Shemesh (House of the Sun), and Moadin (home of the Maccabees). But I think trolley buses are the proper vehicle for most of the other lines that are now diesel bus.
Buses do have advantages over rail that weigh more than streetcars for most transit lines. But streetcars, even running in the street and not just light rail, also have a useful place.
I don't want to prolong this debate, because it's gone far afield from the original topic of this thread (which I'm probably responsible for). but a few points:
(1) I ride city busses all the time (in Chicago and elsewhere), and they pull to the curb if they can (sometimes they get blocked by parked cars). That's particularly true today with accessibility considerations. You may not think streetcar loading islands in the street were a problem, but city planners in the 1950's took a different view of the matter. And I haven't seen any speed bumps or roundabouts on main streets. These are measures used to slow traffic on side streets, not main streets where busses usually run.
(2) There were hundreds of transit companies, both public and private, that chose to convert their streetcar systems to busses. These firms were run by people who had often spent most of their careers running streetcar systems, and who were trying to do what they thought was best for their companies and customers. What is striking is that they all came to the same conclusion - the streetcar systems should be converted to busses. No U.S. city made any attempt to save its streetcar system after the early 50's. True, a handful of cities kept a handful of streetcar lines (generally historic lines, or lines that operated into tunnels or subways), but these lines were islands in systems otherwise run by bus. I tend to trust the judgement of the market over arguments that the operators should have done something differently.
(3) I find discussions of capacity a little unrealistic because they typically assume that the streetcar is running at capacity. That, by the 1950's, was definitely not the case in most cities - once people could buy autos again, transit ridership took a nosedive (a development which undoubtedly caused transit operators to take a very critical look at their streetcar operations). Similarly, discussions of "efficency" that focus on only some of the costs of streetcars are unrealistic. Sure, steel wheels have less rolling resistance than tires and a streetcar will thus use less energy per pound. But that's offset, in part, by the greater weight of a streetcar and, more importantly, by the huge infrastructure related costs of a streetcar system. A businessperson choosing between two alternatives looks at the total costs of each alternative. Why, after all, did they universally get rid of streetcars in the first place if streetcars cost less than busses?
(4) The only way we are going to see a revival of streetcars in this country (other than an isolated line here and there) is if there are massive new government subsidies for the construction, maintenance and operating costs of these systems. Since transit systems have a hard time making ends meet right now, that's likely not in the cards. The money is better spent on something that actually improves public transit (like a well designed light rail or rapid transit line) rather than sinking it (literally) into rail infrastructure embedded in city streets so that rail vehicles can fight their way through traffic rather than rubber tire vehicles.
Again, we agree that the great majority of transit lines are best served by buses. In Jerusalem, I hope to see trolleybuses, because I see too many main routes on hilly streets where a lot of braking energy is wasted going downhill and a lot of pollution and noise is generated by buses going uphill. But diesel buses with the best low-pllution engines are probably the best and most economical choice for most transit lines.
Light rail, whether true light rail on segregated track, or the conventional streetcar on lanes shared with other traffic will always be a specialty item in transit. Like heavy rapid transit and like commuter rail. But don't distort facts by saying streetcars have no more capacity than buses. This simply is not true. Even in street traffic, a streetcar line can handle more people past a given point in a given time than a bus line. You do point out that there are special cases where light rail will survive. I think at least 95% of the post-WWII light rail lines that have been built will survive. Those very few that are not meeting their projected ridership goals, and there really are only a very small minority. will encourage business and residential development so their goals will be met once the economy recovery is in full swing.
There are still cities where the main purpose of downtown city streets is moving traffic.. Boston, of all places, seems to be one city that persists in that madness, and they are even talking of removing the last vestage of passenger carrying street running rail, instead of restoring it to Arborway as once promised and essentially paid for. (A promise given to approve the "Big Dig." - and note the contiued absence of the much overdue and needed S.Sta-N.Sta rail connection ---only possible in Boston!) (And don't point out Grand Central and Penn in NY as another example, the Hell Gate Bridge and Amtraks revival of the west side line have resolved that problem, just they need to be put to greater use.)
Toronto realized the streets are more that just for autos. They are also centers for urban living. Now we have Market Street in San Francisco, the Portland, OR streetcar and MAX, both on surface alignments in downtown, the restoration of Canal Street in New Orleans, lots of towns and cities around the USA are talking about some kind of restoration of downtown rail service.
Just as a person in Maryland suburb who used ot drive his car to donwtown Washigton or Baltimore, now drives to a light rail, heavy rapid transit, or commuter station and uses rail to access his downtown employment, so, if the future, a person in Manassas or Albermarl who works in Charlottesville, VA may drive to the large parking lot located adjacent to one of the shopping malls on that small city's outskirts and ride an efficient light rail system to his downtown employment. Whether the folks decide it should be on separate right of way, share lanes with traffic, be supermodern in appearance, or look like heritage cars with modern technology, well, there are lots of choices, but the trend is there, and it may still be cheaper, even in the long run, than building more parking garages and adding more lines to existing streets and highways.
I saw my MIT Professor's work in action in Boston, and apparently his ideas still have some weight there. But in other places people are putting in round-abouts (rotaries) where there were massive intersections and talking about getting people out of their cars and into public transit. And light rail has it over buses as drawer card.
Lest I appear to be myopically anti-rail, I am not. I think that well designed rail transit systems can have important collateral benefits which don't how up in the farebox. In particular, I think rail transit is essential to a vibrant central business district, particularly in larger cities. It can't be done with autos, if for no other reason that the parking facilities would destroy the destination. A healthy CBD, in turn, creates all kinds of economic and social benefits (which, unfortunately, can't be monetized by the transit system).
I also have serious problems with analyses that show transit ridership as a percentage (typically a low one) of travel in a county or multi-county area, and conclude that transit is a non-player. You could do the same thing with any single expressway or road in a county or multi-county area. The proper role of transit is supporting the CBD. That means what you want to look at is how many trips the transit system is providing to/from the CBD and what percentage that is of total trips to/from that area. I haven't seen any figures lately, but I believe that, for Chicago, transit use to/from the CBD is well over half.
That said, I think that too many transit proposals are simply pursued because federal money is available, not because of any intelligent transit strategy, I keep using Omaha-Council Bluffs as an example, because I lived there for 14 years. They keep proposing to build a streetcar line there. Now, this a city with a transit system that runs nearly empty bussses even in rush hour (such as it is) - rail transit makes no sense at all. And the route of the streetcar line keeps changing, In other words, they decided to build a streetcar line first and are now trying to find a place for it. I think that some of the light rail systems being proposed in various cities (eg., Houston) are similar.
But I still don't see a place for traditional streetcars (that is, rail cars operating on city streets)in modern transit systems, except for historic lines or lines that go into subways. Whatever theoretical advantages a streetcar has are dwarfed by the infrastructure costs. For example, you say that a streetcar has greater capacity than a bus. But, in most cities I've seen, the base period headway between busses is about 15 minutes. In fact, in many cites, the base period headway is 30 minutes or more on many lines (eg.,San Diego). In the glory days of streetcars, headways of 15 -30 minutes were unheard of - the standard was usually a "car in sight". Headways of this length don't support any need for higher capacity vehicles. While additional capacity might be needed in rush hours, that capacity is more economically created by adding vehicles for a couple of hours rather than by building an expensive rail infrastructure in the street to support marginally larger vehicles. In short, I think the transit companies that converted their streetcar systems got it right.
Again, I agree that in most cases they got it right. But the fact is that rail service of all types has the power to get people out of their cars and use public transit more than any bus technology now available. But there is one diesel bus line in Seattle that was converted to electric bus about six or seven years ago. Falling transit riding or more efficient use of the total electric bus fleet had made available the required number of electric buses and the wire was up for most of the route for other bus lines using some of the same streets. So they completed electrification of the bus line, kept the same bus schedules, the same route, same headways, and ridershp increased 40%! I think the name of the line was Ballard, but I am not sure. I got this information from a Seattle railfan who had been a professional transit engineer and had major responsibility for New Jersey Tranist's Hudson-Bergen light rail project as well as the cars now running on the Norristown - 69th Street line. Most new light rail lines, including streetcars, draw people who did not use buses previously, and sometimes this has been 50% of the total ridership.
Some things you might wish to learn about transit. Going from regular to articulated buses doesn not necessarily increase bus line capacity. Only if a substantial number of riders ride considerable distance. Because dwell time at stops is a limiting factor. In fact, if most riders ride for only a few stops, articulated buses can reduce capacity by preventing two buses boarding at a specific stop at the same time. The reason the extra capacity of a rail car is useful in increasing line capacity is that rail cars board and exit faster than buses do. The need for steering limits the length that can be devoted to the front platform in even the most modern bus design, and this far short in boarding area to what is available in any front-loading railcar that is larger than a single-truck Birney. (Proof-of-payment operation and use of all doors results in even faster loading and unloading, of course.) So the figures of 12,000 past a given point for a single lane of streetcars on street vs 8,000 riders for buses still holds true.
I don't know whether you are a regular transit rider or not. On the average in Jerusalem I use about four or five buses each day. Because of the reroutes supposedly necessary for light rail construction, bus travel for me is not a piece of cake, considerably less enjoyable than it was before the reroutes. In the USA I owned and drove private cars 1953-1970, but would still use public transit and commuter rail when convenient. I think that you are right that most transit operators got it right, but I also think Toronto got it right when it kept and is still keeping some valuable and well-used on-street streetcar lines. To me there is a contiuum. A sparsely settled area should have public transit along the lines of the Swiss Post Bus sytem, now abandoned there because there are no longer any sparsely settled areas in Switzerland. All Switzerland has regular public transit. Next up is the diesel bus. Then putting it in a dedicated lane or PRW and/or putting up trolleybus wire, Next the streetcar on the street. Next the light rail on dedicated right of way. Next remove the grade crossings through grade separation, subways, and viaducts. Next use high platforms and heavy rail technology and commuter rail where applicable and high-speed rail. Each has its place, including the streetcar.
Falcon48In other words, they decided to build a streetcar line first and are now trying to find a place for it. I think that some of the light rail systems being proposed in various cities (eg., Houston) are similar.
Isn't Houston a bad example?. Granted they do not have a long light rail system but was not there an item that they have the 2nd largest light rail passengers / rail mile ? With those figures was that why they got grants for two extensions - one North and One South?
blue streak 1 Falcon48In other words, they decided to build a streetcar line first and are now trying to find a place for it. I think that some of the light rail systems being proposed in various cities (eg., Houston) are similar. Isn't Houston a bad example?. Granted they do not have a long light rail system but was not there an item that they have the 2nd largest light rail passengers / rail mile ? With those figures was that why they got grants for two extensions - one North and One South?
Have you ridden the Houston line? I have. It's very poorly designed. It's painfully slow compared to lines like DART and San Diego, and has some questionable features that increase accident hazards. I haven't seen their ridership stats, but I can't imagine how they could have the "2nd largest passengers / rail mile", if only because they run pretty short trains compared to other systems. Also, one thing you need to watch for in light rail ridership numbers is whether the passengers are actually new to the transit system, or are simply exisiting transit passengers transfering from the bus system. Typically, when a light rail system is placed in oerations, the bus system is restructured to force passengers to transfer to the light rail system..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.