Modern streetcars, starting with the PCC of 1935, pioneering resilient wheels, are all quieter than buses, and any transportation nosie control textbook will tell you so. This is assuming both are in good repair, smooth road surface, welded rail, well maintained equipment for both modes.
Why two men on a streetcar? That went out when SF finally got permission for one man on PCC's. Two-caar trains perhaps, especially wihout interconnecting doors.
APTA has operating costs per passenger mile on many systems on their website. My inspection indicated that operating costs on 1/2-2/3 of bus for all rail. One reason is that streetcars, artics compaired wih artics, double trucks compared with 4-wheel bus, carry more passengers for a single crew member/ But the big saving is in maintenance expenses. Power vs fuel varies but are rooghlly comparable. Maintenancd, about 1/3 of that of buses for each vehicle mile, and the streetcar carreis more passengers. Part of that saving goes of course to maintaining track and wire, but the overall saving is still there. The big cost in the much greater capital cost for streetcars. That is why 20,000 passengers past a given point is the breakpoint, or about 60,000-70,000 per day,
ontheBNSFMany studies have shown that streetcars have a lower operating cost compared to buses.
I'm calling you on this: cite 'em.
Everything I have seen indicates enormous stranded cost, difficulty of street repairs, two-man rather than single-man crew for the great majority of examples -- etc. Don't forget the vastly lower operating speed most streetcars operated under. Not to mention the awful noise, having to cross the traffic to get on the car, and the danger (slippery rails, blocked street_ to other road traffic. We laugh now at the old Keystone-Kops-type movies where the automobile comes out wobbling after going between two streetcars. Not so funny if it happens to you...
... and all this before you address the does-not-go-anywhere, non-reroutable nature of streetcars. Some very fancy devices had to be used to take the cars over, say, firehoses or damage in the street, but even so, any blockage or failure usually meant sitting there until something came out to pull you. And everyone else behind waiting.
Remember that we are not comparing costs with steam railroads, we are comparing with buses. About the only way you could 'compare' the bus costs is by ignoring the entire infrastructure cost, and assuming that the power to run the things comes cheaply from the grid (perhaps possible, in the days when Insull et al. were building the grid largely, nominally, to supply electric-railroad power) -- yielding the same sort of 'economics' that purport that BEVs have a 'lower energy cost' than liquid-fueled cars. Lower net of what?
Bring on the studies!
RME
In my view the systems died due to political reasons and not the technology itself. Many studies have shown that streetcars have a lower operating cost compared to buses. In my view people focus far too much on the plot itself rather than analyzing the origin which was in my view the politics of the time. As for the companies well they are the epitome of corporate welfare and are beneficiaries of government in the form of central banking monopolies and World Wars. In my view the automobile is a tool of the elites as way of controlling the population.
Railroad to Freedom
Bob,
I lived at Brandon Farms, a then new development in Hopewell Township south of Pennington. I rode and on demand bus from my home to Princeton Junction. The ride was about half an hour; I would be ready at 5 minutes to 6 and arrive at the station in time to get the 6:35 Clocker to Newark with the Waterfront Connection to Hoboken.
Later my job moved to Trenton. Usually my wife drove me to Pennington Circle where I rode the 602 bus down The Pennington Road (SR 31) to Trenton.
I'm glad you survived the accident on the Mercer bridge.
John
John WRPS. The Pennington Road, where my bus traveled, is a very old road. So old that George Washington's men marched down it dragging their cannon and leaving their bloody footprints in the snow on the way to the Battle of Trenton.
Where in God's name is there a Pennington Road that even remotely runs near Princeton Junction? You can't mean Rocky Hill, can you?
The Pennington Roads I remember are 31, and 546 (across the Delaware). All that stuff is MILES from West Windsor, and oriented orthogonal to any way to get there, too. So you had to turn onto something -- probably Lawrence/206, because I can't IMAGINE a bus going over that old, old bridge on Mercer...
... which reminds me. My pride and joy in those bygone bright college days was a baby-blue 1972 Mark IV. It was the 15th one made, if you went by the likeliest interpretation of the serial number coding... and it went through ALL the teething troubles you'd expect from a heavy car with 460 motor cantilevered over a Torino front end. It was ridiculously easy to ground out that long nose (I'm 6'1" and could comfortably lie on that hood and not reach either end!), and no amount of changing to heavier springs and pickup-size shocks would fix that.
So I'd gotten turned around somewhere trying to get to 206 (this was, if I remember right, just after they opened 95 south/west of Rt. 1, and I got off one exit too soon), and found myself going down Mercer, eastbound, about 2 in the morning. If you've driven this, you know there is a long string of speed limit signs, ISTR about 200' apart, and they read about like this, with no warning signs whatsoever: 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 20 - right turn over the essentially single-lane heavy stone bridge, up a steep ramp, then down the other side, then a sharp left to get back on alignment. I arrived at that bridge at a nice innocent 50 mph, having been lulled by the long Burma-Shave line of 50s until it was Just Too Late. Put it in second, tapped the brakes hard enough to fire the rudimentary antilock system that was always 'working' anyway, cranked the wheel around, and waited for the bang. At the top of the ramp, hit the brakes hard to try to pull the nose down, for at least enough bounce to keep the tires on the road. Then crank the wheel hard left, surprise!
Went through just like it was on rails. Couldn't have been anything but the hand of the Good Lord. Last time I went THERE at night...
I grew up in the south jersey suburbs of Philadelphia. My father commuted to work every day by Public Service bus (later Transport of New Jersey) route 71 or 7. Those buses were standing room only for a good bit of the trip during rush hour. I don't know if you remember those old rattletraps, with manual transmissions and a cash registar the driver punched away at while grinding the gears and horsing around that huge steering wheel! Anyway, it seemed nearly everyone lived within walking distance of a public transportation line at that time (60's-70's), even if that walk was a mile. The commuter service on our local branch, Penn-Central's Pemberton branch were killed off by the buses direct one seat ride to the city. No transfer to the bridge train. It seemed the entire suburban adult working population made that pilgramidge to and from a very concentraited business/manufacturing center daily. I haven't ridden a bus up in that area for years. I kind of suspect it's easier to find a seat, now, even at the height of rush hour. But, as you said, a huge percentage of those autos choking the roads have most of their available seating vacant, too!
PS. The Pennington Road, where my bus traveled, is a very old road. So old that George Washington's men marched down it dragging their cannon and leaving their bloody footprints in the snow on the way to the Battle of Trenton. And it also had a street car running along it at one time. I'm sure of this because I've seen a picture of the street car at the local library. But of course the street car vanished years and years ago. When it went and why I don't know. And the more flexible bus route that replaced it runs exactly where that street car used to run.
rfpjohnBut, I think finally, in the last couple of decades all the problems in concert have perhaps convinced enough of us that our tranportation model needs revamping and that there is no sin or shame in riding public transport. I hope.
I hope so too. But I'm not so sure. For about 10 years I rode New Jersey Transit's 602 bus from Pennington straight down the road to downtown Trenton. Sometimes I counted the cars; when ever I did the result was the same: 9 cars out of 10 had 1 person in them. Many, a great many, were going to the end of my bus route to work at the State of New Jersey's Capitol complex. But I was the only one taking the bus to work. There were a few other riders at my stop, guys who had worked all night pumping gas or at a supermarket and were now going home to Trenton. But no one going to work.
Yet I lived in a middle class suburb with middle class people who were very socially involved. They would do anything for the environment except get out of their cars and ride the bus.
Ah yes, and of course what is the appropriate technology today was not always the apparent way to go yesterday! In the 50's and 60's no one could have dreamed of the problems of putting all of our eggs in the petroleum/automobile basket. To question the concept of evey American in his own car, going where he wanted to go, free from fixed routes, schedules, and shared riding space was, well, un-American! The recognition of a growing air pollution problem was probably the first hint that maybe mass transit should be revisited. Growing highway congestion simply meant we needed to build more highways and the gas crunch in the 70's drove us toward better fuel economy. But, I think finally, in the last couple of decades all the problems in concert have perhaps convinced enough of us that our tranportation model needs revamping and that there is no sin or shame in riding public transport. I hope.
No doubt there were political reasons and good political reasons that led to the demise of street cars. For example, when street cars were replaced by buses any property taxes associated with the street car line was eliminated.
But there is also the issue of street car technology and bus technology and which is the better technology in a given situation.
By all means, I agree! The modern light rail/streetcar system is a whole different animal than the lines fading out in the 30's-50's. Of course there were exceptions. Some city car lines did invest heavily in upgrading their systems in the late 30's through the 50's. The PCC car was a tremendous advance over previous cars. It found ready acceptance on the lines where they were employed. The Red Arrow Lines operating out of 69th street in Philadelphia steadily invested in its' fleet through the depression,acquiring there last cars in 1949, I believe. As a result of their efforts, it was a profitable operation with a growing patron base for many years. Strangely enough, the tremendous growth of the suburban area they served led to the demise of their longest route, to West Chester. The need to 4 lane West Chester Pike userped the trolley right of way and the easy "modern" solution was to substitute bus service. Bet they regret it now! The Ardmore line of the same company became a bus route in the mid 60's. Never did hear a resonable explanation why. This line was well patronised and Red Arrow didn't seem to lack enough cars. Of course, the lines I site here were essentialy interurbans. In the city of Philadelphia, much of the system of former PTC lines ran throughout the 60's and later. But it seemed that whenever some urban improvement or change in street/intersection configuration occurred, if there was a street car line involved, no accomidations were made for it. Add to that a devistating car barn fire that decimated the PCC fleet, and the Philly system just faded to near extinction, with the exception of the five subway-surface lines to west Philly and the two remaining Red Arrow interurban routes to the 'burbs. But I guess the original question posed was, what powers behind the scenes were choking the life out of nations streetcar systems. What I offered in my previous post was only an observation and perhaps a few contributing factors.
rfpjohn Of course, what also didn't help was the fact that the average streetcar was a worn out antique by virtue of having been cash starved and then brutely overused from the late 20s through the 1945. Sort of like our nations steam locomotive fleet!
Of course, what also didn't help was the fact that the average streetcar was a worn out antique by virtue of having been cash starved and then brutely overused from the late 20s through the 1945. Sort of like our nations steam locomotive fleet!
Firelock76Since those involved in the extinction of the trolley and interurban systems are long dead by now they're not likely to be offended by anyone or anything!
Wayne,
Even when they were around I doubt they got their wealth and power by being easily offended. That's why I find it strange that some seem it is important to defend them now as if they were not capable of handling their own affairs during their own lifetimes.
Hey John, in it's purest form "political correctness" amounts to nothing more than bending over backwards to avoid offending anyone. Since those involved in the extinction of the trolley and interurban systems are long dead by now they're not likely to be offended by anyone or anything!
So say what you like boys! Let 'er rip!
Wayne
There may be a portion of truth to big bad guys unfairly taking down the struggling trolley systems, but perhaps they were helped along, even cheered along, by a society wanting a clean slate after struggling though a grueling depression and slugging it out through WW2. The average streetcar was perceived as a noisy antique that got in the way of your 10 mp-$.17per gallon land barge. And besides, they didn't get out to the new 'burbs. I know there were detractors, but if you read press from the post second world war period, phasing out streetcar systems was heralded as uber progressive. Of course, what also didn't help was the fact that the average streetcar was a worn out antique by virtue of having been cash starved and then brutely overused from the late 20s through the 1945. Sort of like our nations steam locomotive fleet!
ontheBNSFWhat about it is politically incorrect? The people, families, and events that happened are indeed real they are just not talked about very often.
Being politically incorrect means talking about real history and events of which some people disapprove. That's why they are not often talked about; they have been successfully suppressed.
CSSHEGEWISCH Just how different would urban life be if we continued to have streetcars instead of buses???
Just how different would urban life be if we continued to have streetcars instead of buses???
One can't really know at this point. Likely there would be higher ridership and generally better riding experience. Urban ares which depend on system would likely be better served and those urban areas would better off as a result Toronto is an example at this point.
CSSHEGEWISCH The whole theory in the opening post sounds more like a lament for a lifestyle that started fading out at the end of WW2 and the beginning of the postwar economic boom. It also runs true to a common populist belief that the problems and miseries of the farmers and working class can be blamed on a grand conspiracy of the rich, invariably with little tangible proof.
The whole theory in the opening post sounds more like a lament for a lifestyle that started fading out at the end of WW2 and the beginning of the postwar economic boom. It also runs true to a common populist belief that the problems and miseries of the farmers and working class can be blamed on a grand conspiracy of the rich, invariably with little tangible proof.
I avoid using the word "conspiracy" because it implies secrecy. None of the things I mention are secret of theoretical. Really conspiracy is just a word people use to shut people up. As for the problems of the world being blamed on the rich well no not all problems are the result of them just that they have a lot influence and power. to Deny the power of the super rich simply ignores reality for example the Du Pont family helped through their family influence pass the interstate highways and the Du Pont family is another "Money Trust" family. The lifestyle began fading out because governments deliberately destroyed it sure I will acknowledge the advantages of the automobile but their are disadvantages to it as well it isn't this wonderful and godly thing that propagandists try to claim it is. Beyond regulations on streetcar systems and government roads there was FHA Guaranteed loans, mortgage deductions, euclidean zoning, minimum parking requirements, section 8 housing, poor police and other factors as well. Of course though there were streetcar suburbs and many small towns had streetcar systems.
DuPont
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/administrators/fdupont.htm
John WR ontheBNSFJust a theory at this point though. When I stated views that were not the same as your theory but similar in some ways I was rebuked for being politically incorrect. Perhaps (I hope) you will succeed where I failed.
ontheBNSFJust a theory at this point though.
When I stated views that were not the same as your theory but similar in some ways I was rebuked for being politically incorrect. Perhaps (I hope) you will succeed where I failed.
What about it is politically incorrect? The people, families, and events that happened are indeed real they are just not talked about very often.
The story of the great American streetcar scandal goes GM with the help of standard oil, firestone tires, and mack truck went around buying up and destroying streetcar systems. Their is more to the story then just companies buying out competitors. The Public utility holding company act required utilities to sell of unregulated assets which included streetcars because they were not regulated by the federal government. Other things that did the streetcars in were government subsidized roads, 5 cent fares, union labor, high property taxes that would often be used for roads, and paving requirements which would effectively subsidize car and bus usage. I think it is clear regulations did in streetcar systems but what about the companies because the plot was indeed real?
Firestone tires: there isn't much to be said but it is of note that Harvey Firestone was a close friend of John D. Rockefeller.
Standard oil: A Rockefeller owned enterprise. The Rockefellers helped bring about central banking as well as various other changes to government. Standard oil is a "money trust" enterprise it is indeed a central banking enterprise. Standard Oil was also instrumental in the bring the US to world War II as a way of accessing oil in Asia. John D. Rockefeller is psychopathic monopolist famous for saying "competition is a sin" the streetcars would probably have ended the standard oil monopoly forever.
General Motors: General Motors was financed by the House of Morgan and was bailed out by the house of Morgan during the 20s. General Motors is indeed a "Money Trust" enterprise. General Motors is also famous for their control of the car maker Opel which sold equipment to the ***.
In my view the great american streetcar scandal was possibly a banker plot not just a big business plot if you look at the companies behind it. An increase in car usage increases the amount of auto loans needed as well as encouraging suburbanization which encourage home loans and mortgages. Just a theory at this point though.
some sources
http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/gmandthenazis.php
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Crapo_Durant.aspx
lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard269.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.