daveklepper I should not have said typical. The 20,000 figure applies for laying track in streets without major and vast relocation of utilities. This can raise the figure. In the old days utilities were permitted to interrupt service on one track, and temporary "pancake" switches were used to facilitate single-track operaton throught the affected area. Mosr successful light rail lines run 40,000 rides a day or higher. The story of the rape of the Twin Cities streetcars is fairly well known, and in this case it was not GM (although they leased the buses) who but an "investor" who saw an opportunity to profit from sale of scrap and then lease buses to increase operating costs justifying fare increases.
I should not have said typical. The 20,000 figure applies for laying track in streets without major and vast relocation of utilities. This can raise the figure. In the old days utilities were permitted to interrupt service on one track, and temporary "pancake" switches were used to facilitate single-track operaton throught the affected area. Mosr successful light rail lines run 40,000 rides a day or higher.
The story of the rape of the Twin Cities streetcars is fairly well known, and in this case it was not GM (although they leased the buses) who but an "investor" who saw an opportunity to profit from sale of scrap and then lease buses to increase operating costs justifying fare increases.
Have you read the excellent "Twin Cities By Trolley" book by Diers and Isaacs (University of Minnesota PRess, 2007, ISBN-13:978-08166-4358-5)? While the authors have nothing good to say about the management team who presided over the bus conversion (some of whom went to prison), they also point out that TCRT's ridership tanked big time after WWII - a loss of 45 million riders in just three years. Their view is that the conversion "was inevitable and necessary given the loss of riders, TCRT's deteriorating financial situation and the public's preference for the automobile".
All that said, streetcars are very definitely fun - the older the better..
Don't confuse modern LRT's with streetcars. While the vehicles may be broadly similarIy, the services and infrastructure are not.
LRT's are essentially rapid transit systems. While they may have some street trackage, most of the mileage is usually on private rights of way. And even the street trackage is usually in reserved lanes not shared with other street traffic. As a result, an LRT system can offer service which is superior to a busses that get caught in street traffic.
The classic streetcar systems of yore, on the other hand, operated mostly in city streets, without reserved traffic lanes. Streetcars had to fight their way through street traffic just like any other street vehicle. The only difference was that streetcars ran on rails embedded in the pavement rather than driving on the pavement. And, unlike a bus line, an entire streetcar line could be brought to a stop by one double parked car. Streetcars like this had no real service advantages over busses. Prior to WWII, they might have had an advantage in terms of capacity, but this became meaningless in the post WWII period as busses became larger and riders deserted public transit by the millions for private autos.
One f the things that frustrates me is that today, many in and out of government, fail to understand that there are routes best served by LRT's and routes that are better served by buses or commuter rail. This is certainly true in Minneapolis/St Paul. We are paying for the silly and stupid mistakes made in the 1950's.Of course one of them was the abandoning streetcars completely in 1954.We have gone through a hotly debated rebuilding of an LRT line along University Avenue which was abandoned by TCRT in 1954.This route should never have been abandoned. I was TCRT's busiest route,operated with PCC cars exclusively. Those PCC cars could have been operated for many years after 1954.
From an economic standpoint, if uyou do the math for all costs involved, typically a streetcar installation makes sense only when passenger boardings exceed 20,000 per day at a particular location looking at both directions. Some of the museum-heritage operatons are less than 1,000 per day!
But streetcars are fun. They can attract retail shoppers to an area.
John WR If I ever needed persuading that buses are cheaper than steetcars Sam certainly did that. After all, how can anyone really argue that it is cheaper to dig up a street, install railroad tracks and repave that street to put a vehicle than it is to simply take a rubber tired vehicle and run it on an existing street. Yet I have found an argument that streetcars are really cheaper than buses on high density routes. Here is is: [url]http://beyonddc.com/?p=1733]/url] The arguent is that while the initial cost of a streetcar line is higher operating expenses are lower because: 1. Streetars las much longer than buses. Buses are often replaced after 10 years. Streetcars can be rebuilt at lower cost and will last much longer. I don't know the ideal life of a streetcar. I do know that New Orleans runs Pearly Thomas cars originally built in 1924 which is 90 years old next year. The cars have been rebuilt more than once and have been upgraded over the years but they sure are old. 2. Electricity is generally a cheaper fuel than fossil fuels. And if history is any guide it will continue to be. But I think it is important to point out that streetcars can be run on fossil fuels just as well as buses are and buses can and are run on electricity. Actually both streetcars and buses could be run on the fuel that makes most sense on a particular route. 3. Finally, streetcars are bigger than buses. It isn't just that a typical streetcar is bigger than a typical bus; streetcars can be hooked together so one streetcar operator can operate 2 or more. The ability to carry more passengers means that fewer people are needed to operate streetcars and a fleet of buses carrying a similar number of people. Bus drivers' salaries and benefits and pension costs are a large part of the expenses of any bus system. Reducing the number of employees can create large savings over time, savings that can be used to find the higher national costs. So are some cities losing money because they continue to use bus systems on heavily traveled routes?
If I ever needed persuading that buses are cheaper than steetcars Sam certainly did that. After all, how can anyone really argue that it is cheaper to dig up a street, install railroad tracks and repave that street to put a vehicle than it is to simply take a rubber tired vehicle and run it on an existing street. Yet I have found an argument that streetcars are really cheaper than buses on high density routes. Here is is:
[url]http://beyonddc.com/?p=1733]/url]
The arguent is that while the initial cost of a streetcar line is higher operating expenses are lower because: 1. Streetars las much longer than buses. Buses are often replaced after 10 years. Streetcars can be rebuilt at lower cost and will last much longer. I don't know the ideal life of a streetcar. I do know that New Orleans runs Pearly Thomas cars originally built in 1924 which is 90 years old next year. The cars have been rebuilt more than once and have been upgraded over the years but they sure are old. 2. Electricity is generally a cheaper fuel than fossil fuels. And if history is any guide it will continue to be. But I think it is important to point out that streetcars can be run on fossil fuels just as well as buses are and buses can and are run on electricity. Actually both streetcars and buses could be run on the fuel that makes most sense on a particular route. 3. Finally, streetcars are bigger than buses. It isn't just that a typical streetcar is bigger than a typical bus; streetcars can be hooked together so one streetcar operator can operate 2 or more. The ability to carry more passengers means that fewer people are needed to operate streetcars and a fleet of buses carrying a similar number of people. Bus drivers' salaries and benefits and pension costs are a large part of the expenses of any bus system. Reducing the number of employees can create large savings over time, savings that can be used to find the higher national costs.
So are some cities losing money because they continue to use bus systems on heavily traveled routes?
First of all, a general observation in response to John WR’s note. It’s a mistake to compare a streetcar operation that exists primarily as a tourist attraction, to a straight transit use. The New Orleans cars are certainly very old. The San Francisco cable cars are even older. They do not continue to exist because they are the most efficient way to provide transportation services. They exist because they are important tourist attractions, and they fill that role very well.
Now let me turn to John’s three comments:
1. Older streetcars can certainly be made to last longer than busses. A modern bus, since it is a completely self contained vehicle, is far more complex than an older streetcar. Newer streetcars are also much more complex than older ones, and it’s an open question whether they can be made to last as long as the older, simpler models. I note that the San Diego light rail system is currently replacing LRV’s which they bought in the 1980’s and early 90’s, which represents a service life of about 25-30 years. Light rail vehicles don’t get the abuse of streetcars that spend their lives in stop and go service fighting street traffic. But even if streetcars can be made to last longer than busses, the much greater initial costs of the vehicles, and the huge, ongoing costs of the infrastructure required to operate them would easily offset any savings in greater vehicle life.
2. Historically, most streetcars ran on fossil fuel. Or, more precisely, they operated on electricity produced by burning fossil fuel. In fact, streetcar systems were often the largest users of electricity (and of fossil fuel) in the cities they served. As such, they were not (and are not) immune from fossil fuel price increases. The only systems that are largely immune to fossil fuel costs today are those which get electricity from sources such as hydro or nuclear.
3. The argument that streetcars should be retained because they had more capacity than busses was frequently made in the 1930’s. It fell by the wayside after WWII as more and more passengers deserted streetcar systems and busses became larger and more reliable.
The fact is that some streetcars have more capacity than busses, and some do not. Modern, articulated busses have larger capacities than most older streetcars. If you go back into the history of street transit, you will see that many streetcar operators surrendered the theoretically greater capacity of streetcars as early as the 1920’s in favor of small cars (the Birney safety car) that better fit their declining traffic base. In other words, the theoretically greater capacity of a large streetcar was of no value to them.
Of course, you could build streetcar trains today that have more capacity than even the largest busses. But the problem with surface transit in most U.S. cities isn’t that the vehicles don’t have enough capacity. It’s that the capacity that they have isn’t being fully utilized. I’ve lived in both Chicago (still a major transit city) and Omaha. Omaha used to be a major streetcar city with a comprehensive streetcar system. They removed the “standee” straps in Omaha during the 1930’s because of passenger declines. Today, it’s hard to find a bus in Omaha even in the “rush” hours which is anywhere near full. Clearly, they dosn’t have any need for higher capacity rail vehicles. The same is true in many, many other cities which used to have extensive streetcar systems. And even in few “big” cities, where the busses often run full (like Chicago), they often aren’t being operated at anything close to the headways that streetcars used to be operated. I suppose that, theoretically, you could run long streetcar trains on lengthier headways to provide the same capacity with less employees. But, if you did that, surface transit would become even less convenient than it is today and drive more passengers away.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.