Trains.com

Bringing Back Steetcars

8427 views
95 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:40 AM

In Germany, most of the major cities have extensive Strassenbahn (streetcar or tram) or Stadtbahn (literally city rail, similar to light rail here) systems: Berlin, Munich,  Frankfurt, Cologne, but also many middle-sized cities as well.  Hamburg abolished theirs in 1978.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:21 AM

The old system of tracks in the street is alive and well as a local circulator line in Portland, Or, as a very important part of overall transportation in Toronto, as a downtown circulator in Tacoma and Salt Lake City.  Tourist operations that are also main commuter operations and important parts of local transportation include St. Charles, Lakeside, and Canal in New Orleans, and the F line, Castro Enbarcadaro in San Fran.  Ridership on all these lines is mostly regular transit ridership with tourists as an extra.  The F line is one of the few earning more than operating costs, and is well above the 20,000/day figure in ridership.  Certain of ALRV and CLRV-operated lines in Toronto are also above that figure, and some have new track extensions restored or built-new after WWII.

More on on the way.

Vienna, Melborn, Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Biograd (Belgrade), the Hague, Amsterdam, Milan Toreno, Basle, Bern, Zurich are all cities where the main local transportation is by in-street "tram" lines, often very modern with low-floor cars, fast, comfortable, and no more problem for motorists than buses would be.

Flarbush Avenue and Broadway-42nd Street and 42nd Street crosstown should have remained streetcar lines, and Brooklyn and Manhattan would have been and would be whole lot better off.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:15 AM

Vancouver BC, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Philadelphia have trolley buses. Others have been dieselized. In Seattle they operate in the several mile long rapid transit tunnel with streetcars. And in San Francisco they share a positive wire with streetcars. (Streetcar negatives are through the tracks, buses have another wire.)

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:58 AM

Some transit companies owned by electric utilities bought electric buses to replace their street cars. Power came off the old trolly wires. A swivel at the base of the pickup allowed the bus to navigate the width of the street and take any intersection under wire with the turn of the wheel.

Such electric buses were far more flexible than tracks in the street. It was still dependent on the wire overhead and thus route restricted. How many such systems are left?

The old system of cars on rails in city streets alone is dead except as a tourist attraction.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:37 PM

Portland receives around 5 inches of snow.

http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/PastWX_files/PDX%20Seasonal%20Snowfall%20By%20Decade%201871%20to%202009.pdf

I am not confusing Light Rail with Streetcars, which are usually slower, lighter, and overall smaller, operating with no traffic preference on city streets with other vehicles. 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:15 PM

John WR

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?

John

 There's no confusion in your notes between light rail and streetcars.  It's in some of the others.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:07 PM

I'm very familiar with the San Diego and Denver systems, and have ridden both of them extensively.  Both systems have city street running in their downtown areas, but they run on reserved traffic lanes that they don't share with other street traffic.   I rode the Portland system about 10 years ago.  I don't recall that the street trackage involved shared traffic lanes (at least not to any significant extent), but it's been a long time. In any event, most of the system wasn't in the street.  They get a lot of rain in Portland, but I'm not aware that they get much snow (or, more importantly, salt).

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:02 PM

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.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Monday, December 16, 2013 9:37 PM

San Diego light rail, like Denver and others, runs thru downtown streets, and only reaches it's own ROW out of town.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Monday, December 16, 2013 8:12 PM

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?

John

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Monday, December 16, 2013 6:45 PM

NorthWest

schlimm
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?

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.

 

 The San Diego cars are light rail vehicles, not streetcars.  They haven't been subject to nearly the abuse of a streetcar that spends its life fighting through stop and go traffic.  The San Diego cars also operate in one of the most benign climates in the U.S.  No snow or salt there.   I rather doubt that the San Diego cars would have lasted nearly as long had they spent their lives fighting their way down city streets in New Jersey with their bodies and electronics caked with road salt.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Monday, December 16, 2013 6:29 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, December 16, 2013 4:57 PM
My 2 cents worth.
San Francisco. One of the reasons San Francisco has continued with and expanded their electric streetcar system is the city owned Hetch Hetchy dam project. During recent years of skyrocketing fuel prices it was the cushion that kept Muni from being a financial wreck. In addition to powering the light rail /streetcar lines it also provides power to run the cable car lines as well Muni 's extensive (electric) trolley bus system.
Sometimes their are other reasons for might rail or streetcars. In a couple of cases existing right of way in hilly areas. As an example Pittsburgh. Better use as for instance Seattle were transit tunnels were built.

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 15, 2013 10:09 PM

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.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:21 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:13 PM

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:

Interior of new Siemens LRV

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:36 PM

schlimm
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.  

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. 

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:55 PM

Not sure where the $4.2 mil.  came from.  All i could find now was this link, which gives $3.6 mil. per car:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2009/10/siemens-wins-san-diego-light-rail-contract.aspx

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. 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:49 PM

schlimm
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?

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.

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:47 PM

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

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?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, December 15, 2013 2:34 PM

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/

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, December 15, 2013 1:28 PM

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.  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 15, 2013 1:14 PM

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.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:39 AM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:04 AM

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..

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, December 15, 2013 10:26 AM

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?

John

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:28 AM

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.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:05 PM

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.   

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"

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:35 PM

blue streak 1
If 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

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:06 PM

schlimm

If they were less rigid, perhaps they would consider converting the bus routes with the most passengers to streetcars.

If 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 ?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy