Erik,
Thanks for the information about a gas turbine with a recuperator.
And yes, I think the cost of labor to operate the vehicles is an important issue and the ability to use a train of cars is important. Almost all of New Jersey Transit's light rail lines use 2 car trainsets at a minimum and it the traffic demands it two trainsets will be hooked together.
JohnWR's local buslines for consideration: "New Jersey Transiit's 11/28 line runs from Market Street, Newark via Washington and Broad Streets and then Bloomfield Avenue to Montclair where route 28 branches off to go to Montclair State University and then to Willowbrook Mall. Route 11 leaves Bloomfield Avenue at Route 23 also ending at Willowbrook Mall. Each day there are 74 buses in each direction. Service is between 6 am and midnight.
NJT's 72 line (which I take) begins at Newark Penn Station running on Raymond Boulevard to Washington Street where it follows an identical route to the 11/28 up to Broad Street where it turns right and continues on to Paterson. here are 41 buses each way from 6 am to midnight (not 74 as I originally posted in error),
On average the 11/28 line has a bus about every 15 minutes and during rush hours buses are about 5 to 7 minutes apart. The 72 line averages a bus every 26 minutes and during rush hours buses are 20 minutes apart." I believe he also said they both use NJT's 40' buses, which seat 40.
Doing the math and assuming the buses average out to 40 passengers per run, the #11/28 line carries (rough estimate) 5120 passengers per day; the #72 carries 3280. Pretty clearly these routes are not good candidates for streetcars, even if the passenger count were 50% higher. But during the rush hours, perhaps the use of the higher capacity articulated buses should be considered, along with closer headways in the peak period?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MidlandMikeRegarding labor costs, a multi car trolley must either have extra crew to collect fares, or have ticket machines and compliance personnel, plus track and wire maintainers.
Mike,
Fare compliance is part of a larger issue of security. It is not at all clear to me that bus operators were able to enforce fare compliance from farebeaters. I have seenmany of them enter through the back door with the bus driver unable to do anything about it. All transit systems need security and security officers regardless of the type of vehicle used.
New Jersey Transit is focused on providing a safe environment for its bus drivers and installing glass shields on buses to protect them although some doubt that the shields will help much. In 2011 there was a particularly brutal attack in Newark: A bus driver was stabbed 7 times.
Here is an article with a discussion of driver safety:
http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/10450859/pa-bus-driver-shields-spreading-but-not-in-philadelphia
John
schlimmDoing the math and assuming the buses average out to 40 passengers per run, the #11/28 line carries (rough estimate) 5120 passengers per day; the #72 carries 3280. Pretty clearly these routes are not good candidates for streetcars, even if the passenger count were 50% higher. But during the rush hours, perhaps the use of the higher capacity articulated buses should be considered, along with closer headways in the peak period?
Schlimm,
You will be happy to learn that have no influence with New Jersey Transit. I have never seen any suggestion that my transit agency is considering streetcars for any route and I do not expect to.
I would be happy to see your suggestion accepted and longer articulated buses used on these routes during the rush hour. That would help a lot. But I doubt it will happen because NJT is using all of its articulated buses on routes where the demand is even greater such as the No. 1 between Newark and Jersey City.
Apart from the issue of streetcars, I think that at least here in New Jersey our transit agency is extremely rigid and bureaucratic and finds any change at all to be extremely difficult. A case in point would be the decision before hurricane Sandy to leave rail equipment in a swamp despite the weather reports available to anyone because there was no history of problems there.
If they were less rigid, perhaps they would consider converting the bus routes with the most passengers to streetcars.
I feel strongly that for many high density urban routes that articulated buses are a superior transit vehicle to LRT. The present LRT vehicles used in the Twin Cities are inadequate for high density routes due to their design. They are uncomfortable except for short distances and lack the riding qualities of the PCC Car designed in the 1930's. The LRT vehicles used in Pittsburgh and Toronto are much better vehicles than are the LRT's used in the Twin Cities. The LRT in the Twin Cities vehicles seem to be more concerned about accommodating bicycles than people. The same poor design is seen in the Northstar Commuter Rail. High capacity seating seems to be an afterthought for both LRT operations and Northstar.
Which car does the TC use?
schlimm If they were less rigid, perhaps they would consider converting the bus routes with the most passengers to streetcars.
blue streak 1If a light rail route can be made somewhat faster then any paralleling bus routes can defer to the light rail line. + bus routes can feed the light rail route. Of course some bus routes can still be cut back to a longer headway ?
Streak,
You make a fascinating observation. New Jersey Transit also has the Newark Lightrail. It begins at Newark Penn Station and ends at Grove Street, one long block from Bloomfield Avenue where the 11/28 and 72 buses pass. And it has a good size parking lot. Also, the lightrail does have its own right of way and is in a tunnel downtown so never gets backed up in the downtown traffic as buses do regularly.
I don't really expect NJT to consider streetcars anywhere. But I have wondered why it doesn't coordinate its bus service with the light rail which it does have and it does operate. That would mean that most of the trips would start 5 miles away from downtown Newark and avoid the downtown traffic so they would be faster. And it would mean the need for fewer buses and fewer bus drivers. Some bus service would be needed between Grove Street and downtown Newark but not nearly as much.
It is possible to walk the distance between the Grove Street lightrail station and the bus stops but it is long and may require you to cross Bloomfield Avenue and there is no coordination of time tables so it doesn't work well at all.
I can only wish you were a transportation planner at New Jersey Transit.
John WR First, my main point is that buses require one operator per vehicle while streetcars do not. One operator per vehicle maximizes the number of people required to operate a transit system and adds the maximum number of management officials to oversee that maximum number of operators. Given the high costs of labor which, in addition to wages and salary included fringe benefits such as health insurance for whole families, social security and medicare taxes, pensions and other things is is really a good idea to commit a transit system to maximizing these costs? Certainly streetcars have a higher initial cost but because they can be connected in trains with one operator for a train of 2 or 3 cars they offer the potential for reducing labor costs.
First, my main point is that buses require one operator per vehicle while streetcars do not. One operator per vehicle maximizes the number of people required to operate a transit system and adds the maximum number of management officials to oversee that maximum number of operators. Given the high costs of labor which, in addition to wages and salary included fringe benefits such as health insurance for whole families, social security and medicare taxes, pensions and other things is is really a good idea to commit a transit system to maximizing these costs? Certainly streetcars have a higher initial cost but because they can be connected in trains with one operator for a train of 2 or 3 cars they offer the potential for reducing labor costs.
While it is true that streetcars can run with more than one vehicle per operator, you are leaving out the labor that streetcars need above and beyond bus service. Track will need to be inspected and repaired, along with the trolley wire. The labor used for those activities will eat up much of the reduced labor costs of being able to operate more seats with just one operator.
An "expensive model collector"
However, with a dense sevice, 20,000 past a specific point, meaning service at least every ten minutes even with 220-ft-long two-double-articiuoated car trains, track plus vehicle maintencance will still be only a fraction of bus maintenance.
The Bloomfield Avenue bus route was the very last New Jersey Streetcar abandonment, I think as late as 1954. It also ran into the subway, at the ramps at the intersection of Bloomfield Avenue and the subway line, and I believe you can still see the ramps. Bus riders can transfer to the light rail cars at that intersection and station, at no extra change, and thus avoid the most congested part of the bus trip.
The old NJT orange and cream clunkers used on Bloomfield Avenue had in black on the lower side panels:
SUBWAY CAR, SAVE TIME AND PARKING
Rode the line to the terminal at Caldwell several times.
Dave,
You sure know the Bloomfield Avenue part of New Jersey Transit. The old ramps from the then No. 7 line up to Bloomfield Avenue are clearly visible at the Bloomfield Avenue station of the what is today the Newark Light Rail. During the rush hour I would leave my bus there and change to the Lightrail because I found it faster.
New Jersey Transit offers a "continuing ticket" which is not a transfer but simply a continuation of the same trip to honor the fact that there was a time when no change was needed.
If today NJT were to decide to return to streetcars it would be as easy to run them up the ramps to Bloomfield Avenue just as it was done in the old days. But would anyone in his right mind ever suggest such a crazy idea?
Don't overlook the huge price difference for initial acquisition of typical streetcars vs typical buses as I posted earlier in this thread. Even with a service life twice as long, the trolley is not cost effective on any lines except the 20,000+ routes..
A large reason for the expense of the streetcars is that they are custom designed for each system, possibly for one line. Economies of scale do then not apply. In order for streetcar prices to come down, a company must offer a standard version to keep engineering costs down, like they are for busses.
United Streetcar of Portland, Oregon, is trying.
Alstom and Bombardier both have standard products that are modified only slightly for different cities. If you compare pix of Dublin, Jerusalem, Angiers, several French cities, you will notice the same design with only small cosmetic differences. Dublin's cars are not mu, have couplers for emergency purposes only, and the center truck is not powered, while Jerusalem's are mu and all 12 wheels are powered, because of the higher predicted patronage, much less sharing of vehicular lanes, and much steeper grades. But both are Alstom Citidas II standard cars, and most parts are identacle. And I think it is an excellent design. Hope United Streetcar does even better.
Northwest,
Thanks for the information about United Streetcars. I looked at their website. Among other things they show some places that are buying their streetcars.
One thing that I've leaned since beginning this thread is that there are places in the United States that are installing streetcar systems. That has been a pleasant surprise.
Dave, the United Streetcar designs are closely based off a standard Skoda design (the 10 T is essentially an Americanized version of the 03 T, which is used in several cities in Europe). Since crash standards aren't as much of a barrier, standard European streetcars could probably operate on American systems. The issue is the "Buy American" laws, any manufacturer needs to build in the US.
http://unitedstreetcar.com/
schlimm The San Diego trolley's Siemens S 70's being delivered seat 60, with much standing room (commuter capacity = 102). . Price: $4.3 mil. per car. I have no idea how much a bus costs, but $4.3 mil. plus the cost of building trackage and overhead wire sounds like a pretty hefty investment on bus lines that as JohnWR describes them sound like fairly low-density routes. Streetcars are wonderful, but belong on higher-density lines, as Dave Klepper and others have suggested. Addendum: "Based on 2011 values in the US, the purchase cost of a regular 40 ft bus is $280,000 to $300,000 compared to a hybrid bus that is between $450,000 and $550,000." http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/publications/_documents/t2summaries/hybrid_transit_bus_tech_brief1.pdf
The San Diego trolley's Siemens S 70's being delivered seat 60, with much standing room (commuter capacity = 102). . Price: $4.3 mil. per car. I have no idea how much a bus costs, but $4.3 mil. plus the cost of building trackage and overhead wire sounds like a pretty hefty investment on bus lines that as JohnWR describes them sound like fairly low-density routes. Streetcars are wonderful, but belong on higher-density lines, as Dave Klepper and others have suggested.
Addendum:
"Based on 2011 values in the US, the purchase cost of a regular 40 ft bus is $280,000 to $300,000 compared to a hybrid bus that is between $450,000 and $550,000."
http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/publications/_documents/t2summaries/hybrid_transit_bus_tech_brief1.pdf
NorthWest: Regardless of standardization savings (BTW, the Siemens S 70 is widely used, including in the US) do you actually think that such an enormous price differential can be cost effective:from to 8.7 to 17 times as much?
schlimmNorthWest: Regardless of standardization savings (BTW, the Siemens S 70 is widely used, including in the US) do you actually think that such an enormous price differential can be cost effective:from to 8.7 to 17 times as much?
For the S70, crunching some numbers:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2009/10/siemens-wins-san-diego-light-rail-contract.aspx
$205 mil/57 cars = 3.6 mil/car.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/siemens-announces-biggest-us-light-rail-order.html
$277mil/77 cars = 3.6 mil/car.
I am unsure of where this 4.3mil/car comes from. Can you link an article?
.7 mil is more than the cost of a hybrid bus.
NABI Standard Floor capacity is 44, United Streetcar is 157.
http://www.nabusind.com/NABI/416%20Brochure.pdf
http://unitedstreetcar.com/products/united-streetcar-100/
Looking at this list, the average life for a NJT bus is about 10 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buses_used_by_New_Jersey_Transit
United Streetcar advertises a life of 30+ years:
So, here is my point. A streetcar can last for about the same life as three busses. And three buses are needed to do the job of one streetcar.
280,000 (low number) X9=2.52 mil.
300,000X9= 2.7 mil.
Hybrid bus:
450,000X9=4.05 mil.
Streetcar: 3.6 mil.
Add in the costs for labor for the other busses, and the streetcar infrastructure, I believe the costs can be competitive for higher ridership routes. These numbers are rough, though.
FWIW, the cost per car of a NYC Subway R160 was 1.45 mil.
http://new.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-nyc-transit-awards-new-car-contract
$961,687,121/660 cars = 1.45 mil/car.
Not sure where the $4.2 mil. came from. All i could find now was this link, which gives $3.6 mil. per car:
However, the capacity for seats for the S70 is 60. And as the article mentions, the cars being replaced are "over 20 years old." The seating capacity for the NJT 40' buses is 42.
So, using the $3.6 mil. figure, the mutiples are from 8.4 to 12.8. To suggest it takes 9 buses to replace 1 streetcar is inaccurate, as the capacity is only 1.5 times as much and the service life is only 2X. Although the number is essentially meaningless, that would be a multiple of only 3. To cloud the picture even more, using the 42 vs 60 capacity, you would have to reduce the number of streetcars running per hour, which would mean less frequent service.
As Dave Klepper stated earlier and on other posts, you need a very densely traveled line for the streetcar replacement to make economic sense. European cities have retained many tram lines on those high density routes (which is great) but even there, many less-dense lines now use buses as replacements.
schlimmHowever, the capacity for seats for the S70 is 60. And as the article mentions, the cars being replaced are "over 20 years old." The seating capacity for the NJT 40' buses is 42.
Since vehicles are most cost competitive at full load, I have chosen to use total capacity figures.
The S70: up to 200(!) (http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/FS_SDTI_000.pdf.pdf)
40ft Bus: 42 plus about 30 standing for about 70.
The S70 has close to 3X capacity.
The cars that are being replaced are the Siemens U2s, some still in operation on SDMTS 32 years later, being put in service in 1981.
schlimm To cloud the picture even more, using the 42 vs 60 capacity, you would have to reduce the number of streetcars running per hour, which would mean less frequent service. As Dave Klepper stated earlier and on other posts, you need a very densely traveled line for the streetcar replacement to make economic sense. European cities have retained many tram lines on those high density routes (which is great) but even there, many less-dense lines now use buses as replacements.
To cloud the picture even more, using the 42 vs 60 capacity, you would have to reduce the number of streetcars running per hour, which would mean less frequent service.
I am only advocating streetcars on lines that have the ridership, not every route. So, reduced service is not necessary. I have said this from the beginning. Buses do have their place, it is all about finding the place for each vehicle in order to operate the cheapest service.
I'd like to see them shove 200 people into that space, which in SD is 80 feet by 9 feet wide, with 60 seats plus wheelchair space. If you figure the seats, it is hard to imagine squeezing 140 more into that space. Here is an interior shot of the S70's in the Twin Cities:
I can only say that what is found on the official SDMTS document is what they believe they can fit.
I maintain that certain routes are able to support streetcar operation, but not all. Heavy rail systems like the NYC Subway or CTA are expected to carry more.
From my own experience in watching the operation of Jerusalem light rail, yes, Schlimm, under really crowded conditions, 200 people would be accomodated in the car in the picture. But hopefully only under exceptional crowded conditions, like to and from a star football game, not the daily commute. But such conditions are normal on the northbound Lexington Avenue expresses and locals leaving Grand Central around 17:05 and will remian normal until the 2nd Avenue subway is opened.
Note that if a two-car train is run, the capacity then is 400 under crowded conditions.
I’ve been away from my computer for the last several days (I’m definitely not part of the “wired” generation). So I’m just now getting around to addressing JohnWR’s note of December 13 which responded to some of my earlier notes. However, procrastination clearly has its benefits, as I notice that many of the points I had been planning to make have already been made by others.
Let me address the points John makes in order.
1. The difference between the costs of economic alternatives (like streetcars vs busses) has to be made by taking all costs into account, and not just focusing on one cost element (like the wages/benefits paid to vehicle operators). It may well be that the vehicle operator labor cost per passenger could be less with streetcar “trains” than with busses (although this would only be true where the streetcar “trains” are actually carrying more passengers than could be carried by an equivalent number of articulated busses). But there are other costs that have to be considered. For example, a streetcar system will incur large costs for infrastructure maintenance, both in labor and materials, which aren’t incurred by a bus based system. These costs could (and probably would) easily offset any savings for vehicle operators. Also, the labor costs for vehicle operators on the “train” are only smaller if you don’t have a person on every car to collect fares or check passes. If you don’t have a person on each car, you have to have additional employees to verify fare collection, if only on a random basis. The fewer of those employees you have, the more passengers will ride without paying. The cost of the fare checkers, and the fare revenues lost by not having a person on each car, are costs to the system.
2. Maybe NJT doesn’t consider the existing capacity of the routes John mentioned to be “appropriate” in a perfect world, for the reasons he states. But they certainly consider the capacity be “acceptable” given the resources that they have. If they are unwilling or unable to come up with the resources to put larger busses on these routes, they certainly aren’t going to come up with the resources to build and operate streetcar lines on these routes, let alone operate streetcar trains.
3. I mentioned the “Twin Cities By Trolley” book primarily in response to some other posts which suggested that the Twin Cities should have retained streetcars. While probably not mentioned in any reviews, this is one of the few traction books which really gets into the question of “why” things happened as they did, and it has an excellent discussion of the reasons the Twin Cities system converted to busses. Another book like this is “A Splendid Ride” on the Kansas City MO/KS system. While not about streetcars, the “Electric Interurban Railways in America” by Hilton/Due does a particularly thorough job of explaining the reasons for the rise and fall of the interurban industry.
Finally, while this isn’t in response to anything JohnWR said. I want to emphasize again that “streetcars” are not the same thing as “light rail transit” (LRT). LRT is a rapid transit technology that largely separates the rail vehicles from street traffic (by private rights-of way, reserved traffic lanes, medians, etc.). As such, LRT can usually offer a service which is superior to street bound busses. Streetcars, on the other hand, are rail bound street vehicles that have to usually have to fight their way through street traffic, just like any other street vehicle. Of course, there are some “streetcar” lines that have LRT characteristics, or that have been partially transformed into LRT lines (e.g., San Francisco, Pittsburgh). But it’s still well to keep the difference between LRT’s and streetcars in mind when talking about the supposed benefits of “streetcars” vs busses.
NorthWest schlimmNorthWest: Regardless of standardization savings (BTW, the Siemens S 70 is widely used, including in the US) do you actually think that such an enormous price differential can be cost effective:from to 8.7 to 17 times as much? For the S70, crunching some numbers: http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2009/10/siemens-wins-san-diego-light-rail-contract.aspx $205 mil/57 cars = 3.6 mil/car. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/siemens-announces-biggest-us-light-rail-order.html $277mil/77 cars = 3.6 mil/car. I am unsure of where this 4.3mil/car comes from. Can you link an article? .7 mil is more than the cost of a hybrid bus. NABI Standard Floor capacity is 44, United Streetcar is 157. http://www.nabusind.com/NABI/416%20Brochure.pdf http://unitedstreetcar.com/products/united-streetcar-100/ Looking at this list, the average life for a NJT bus is about 10 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buses_used_by_New_Jersey_Transit United Streetcar advertises a life of 30+ years: http://unitedstreetcar.com/products/united-streetcar-100/ So, here is my point. A streetcar can last for about the same life as three busses. And three buses are needed to do the job of one streetcar. 280,000 (low number) X9=2.52 mil. 300,000X9= 2.7 mil. Hybrid bus: 450,000X9=4.05 mil. Streetcar: 3.6 mil. Add in the costs for labor for the other busses, and the streetcar infrastructure, I believe the costs can be competitive for higher ridership routes. These numbers are rough, though. FWIW, the cost per car of a NYC Subway R160 was 1.45 mil. http://new.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-nyc-transit-awards-new-car-contract $961,687,121/660 cars = 1.45 mil/car.
Falcon,
Thank you for your perspective. I don't want to add much to what I've already said.
You speak of "The resources they [NJT] have...." Governor Chris Christie when he was first elected cut 25 per cent from NJT's budget. He was just re-elected. So there is not much in the way of resources, certainly not enough to be doing any new things. As far as I know NJT had never considered a streetcar for any route.
I don't follow your point about light rail vehicles. I don't see any confusion of a light rail system with its own right of way and a streetcar. Have I missed something?
San Diego light rail, like Denver and others, runs thru downtown streets, and only reaches it's own ROW out of town.
Portland MAX runs through downtown streets largely unsegregated, and at high speeds on its own ROW.
I'm not sure how much snow they get, but their Type 1 cars have been in service since 1986.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.