JusticeZero

[*]What makes streetcars cheaper than buses? With the need to lay new track, It seems like they'd be more expensive. What are the costs compared to developing comparable bus lines?

While laying TRACK is quite expensive, so is the cost of laying new ROAD. Buses, along with the streetcars of the time (though to a large part NOT the newer rail lines, nor certan bus infrastructure) share the road system with passenger automobiles, which severely degrade the transit system's ability to compete with the car under peak service conditions. Rail infrastructure generally depreciates quite a bit slower than bus infrastructure, and it is much less politically problematic to build dedicated rail right of way than it is to build dedicated bus right of way which will not permit privat automobiles on it.
[*]It was said that buses are more flexible than streetcars, but flexibility is bad in a public transit system. What does this mean?

The existance of a public transit system in an area makes property more valuable and desirable. Apartment developers look at the other nd of a transit line leading to a major employer, and realize that those workers will want a convenient place to livea stones throw from the transit station. If a city builds a rail network, these connections are blindingly obvious and the various links between destinations can very readily take form. On the other hand, it is not typically the case that a business or housin will be ilt in a place with no market to support it, and sit and wait losing money hand over fist in hopes that some enterprising bus planner will suddenly move a bus route to serve it. If the demand does not exist, the supply will not appear; if the transit system is ephemeral and "flexible", and lacks connections to connect the demand to a potential location to place the supply, investors simply will not create the developments which would create the demand for that transit link. This is no different to asking why McDonalds and Starbucks do not build locations in the trackless wastes of the Arctic tundra in hopes that customers will magically relocate and order roads built to their door to buy their products.
[*]How much electricity does it take to run trolleys? Would cities have to build more power plants to supply streetcars with power?

Some, but the power demand is on par with many commercial or industrial facilities, and any city with insuffiient power to add a factory is likely planning to add power capacity in any case.
[*]Which cities have put in new streetcar systems? How are they liking them? I heard that ridership on San Diegos new trolleys was disappointing.

Varies according to a lot of other factors. By and large we are no longer speaking strictly of streetcars, as that was merely the state of ar at the time. Ridership when a system is put in to place usually is dissapointing for the reasons noted above; the linkages along the line have not yet developed.

Ekdog

What do you mean by "new trolleys"? That system, whose first line opened in 1981, is currently the sixth most-ridden light rail system in the United States.

mike

+++1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!

oldfool

I rode this system several times between the border crossing and the train station in the late '80's and it was excellent. It was automated as I recall and it was clean, silent and efficient. I was impressed.

Roody

Thanks JZ. This is great information--we're lucky to have experts like you posting on this forum.

I'm far from an economic rationalist. In fact, I had to look it up to know what this is (basically Reagan/Thatcher "private good/government no good" philosophy). I've always favored buses over streetcars because of the arguments that buses are cheaper and more flexible. But I'm in the process of changing my opinion in light of your explanation.

One further question for you or anybody. What does the population and area of the city matter when planning for light rail versus buses? Is a small city still better off with buses, or are streetcars always superior?

oldfool

December 28,2008
Reading these post has brought back some memories of the electric buses of Little Rock, Arkansas in the early '50's. My grandfather was a conductor on the street cars there and I remember riding them as a child but only vaguely. I do remember the electric buses that replaced them as I was old enough to ride them unaccompanied. They were air conditioned and the only other place that I noticed air conditioning was Woolworth's. To a young boy they seemed powerful and futuristic. They took power from the existing overhead street car lines. They had an advantage over the street cars in that they could pull over to the curb to pick up passengers.

Unfortunately It didn't last and I don't know why. I heard later that someone went on strike and someone else (politician) decided to shut it down and sell the equipment. Diesel buses were brought in and they were terrible. I remember them very well also. They were noisy (even in the passenger compartment), old (they must have gotten them used) an poured black smoke out of the back at street level. I was very disappointed as I believed we were moving into a future as depicted on the covers of Popular Science and other magazines.

I have searched for information about these buses on the internet but so far have had no luck. If anyone has any information about these buses please share.

Roody

Thanks again!

To reduce it all to slogans:

• LRT is cheaper than buses....eventually.
• If you build LRT, they will come...eventually.

You can see this in the development patterns of older cities like Detroit.

The oldest suburbs were developed near the city and along streetcar lines like Woodward Ave. (Highland Park, old sections of Royal Oak) and Michigan Ave. (Dearborn). Settlement in these areas was dense and friendly for carfree living.

Postwar suburbs were built along freeways like I75 (northern Oakland County) and I 94 (western Wayne Co.). Settlement in these areas was much more sprawled and bad for carfree living.

Roody

Thanks for the correction. I was going by information from a friend who lives in SD. She told me that local people don't ride the LRT--it's just for tourists. I'm glad to learn that she's wrong.

Roody

Search for "trolleybus". Wikipedia has a long article.

Sixty Fiver

Trolleybuses have been operating here in Edmonton since 1939 and share the roads with conventional diesel buses... we also have a light rail system that runs north - south.

Our streetcar system operated from 1913 until 1958 and in 1979 a group of volunteers began working toward restoring streetcar service to carry people from the south to north side of our high level bridge on the old rails... it took 17 years for this project to be completed but now Streetcar #1 (it was the city's only surviving car at the time) operates from May to September. It is a very popular service.

We also have streetcars operating at the Fort Edmonton Park Museum.

In 2009 the city will begin phasing out the electric trolleys and replacing them, and the rest of the diesel fleet with cleaner running hybrid buses.

That battle to keep the trolleys was fierce but in the end, our council voted against keeping and upgrading the trolley system due to the high costs of bringing the old system up to modern standards as well as the much higher costs of purchasing new trolleys vs buses.

I love the trolleys... they are quiet and comfortable and do not spew exhaust although I realize that the energy they require does not come out of thin air and does cause some pollution.

I think that we may regret this decision down the road.

Roody

I guess the higher initial costs of trolleys are offset by their long lives before replacement. Was this brought up in the fight to keep the trolleys?

You'll find that your new buses are quiet, and they don't spew exhaust. We're gradually getting hybrid buses that run on ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel. They run a lot of the time on battery, and are as quiet as a trolley. They remain pretty quiet when the diesel kicks in. Having ridden behind many a bus, I can testify that none of the newer ones are smelly or loud.

There are other new advances in buses. China has developed a battery bus that partially recharges at every bus stop, when it pulls up under an "electric umbrella." Even diesel buses are much more efficient these days. I ride new interurban buses that get 11 mpg of diesel and carry 56 passengers in great comfort.

JusticeZero

A small (under 100,000) city will be best served by buses as a rule. As it develops, it is advantageous to add rail corridors; bus service is still best for serving feeder branches feeding the higher capacity of a rail corridor. "Streetcars" in the specific refer to very light rail sharing highway right of way; these have a higher cost with greater confidence to encourage development and can be used interchangeably with bus service, so long as the initial cost of construction can be met. Light rail such as Portland's MAX and other similar systems is heavier than a streetcar, and best used for high capacity and trunk services; fortunately though, in a healthy urban area, these heavy transit systems are an excellent encouragement for these high capacities to develop. Alas, the price tag is typically higher than a small urban area can justify.
Were I able to control all, I would advise dedicated bus routes to be developed in small urban areas - bus only, no private vehicles allowed. As the area develops, these can be converted to rail. Alas, dedicated bus routes tend to die on the accountants' floor; the dedicated busway, really the central feature of a BRT system, is invariably the first to be removed as it passes through the political process. Alternately, the developing city should reserve rail routes early and leave them in some other status, such as parkland.

Furthermore, any new city development should insist on some form of gridiron development in urban core; this will allow for transit services to be most easily spread over the area without leaving gaps in service, massive need to condemn property to connect areas, or other problems.

Roody

Or leave these corridors as dedicated bike routes. "Trails-to-rails" rather than rails-to-trails.

Where do you put LRT in an older developed city? Do you convert roadways or condemn property for new right-of-ways? Is this an important consideration in deciding whether to put in LRT, or is it pretty easily resolved?

gerv 

My city already has a section of the town marked as "buses only", although it is not a continuous route out of downtown. It eventually merges into car traffic. It's been this way for the 15 years I've lived here. In addition to local downtown routes, there are express buses that move from the city center to the suburbs on the freeway.

Wouldn't you think that the wide swathes of the city taken up with freeway would be a natural corridor for a Bus Rapid Transit.? I know this isn't a fit for every city, but for Des Moines, it would work well. Most of the population is within a mile or two of this freeway and there are exits every 2-3 miles that could be converted into bus stops. We've just spent a gazillion dollars on upgrading this freeway to 3 and 4 lanes too. One of the could be reserved for buses.

JusticeZero

Sure it's a good idea. Now just try convincing people who think you're just trying to steal 'their' lane. As I said, almost all of the BRT corridors are stillborn for those political reasons. It's a lot easier to get people to accept using one of those lanes for RAIL, because they can visualize the incompatibility between the railway and the cars.

wahoonc

IIRC in MSP they have light rail with adjacent bike paths. I have only ridden that area once, so hopefully someone from their will corroborate or correct me. To me light rail and bicycles go hand in hand. We have a Rails to Trails near the small town just up the road from us. No worry about it being converted back to rail anytime soon, it doesn't go anywhere. I know of at least two other abandoned railways that should have been converted, but weren't so they may be lost. They would have made a great candidate for the R to T as well as light rail.

Aaron

derath

You can rent it

https://www.newday.com/films/Taken_for_a_Ride.html


[edit]

Or better yet buy it for $80 and donate it to your local library. I think I might do that.

-D

cbr2702

The claim is jitneys gave people a faster cheaper ride and ran more frequently. That sounds like enhancing service to me.

EDIT: would you say that the chinatown buses running between NYC and Boston are a negative for similar reasons?

gerv 

Ok, but my city also has an underused rail line that comes out of downtown. The rail corridor actually exists and doesn't need to be preserved. However, it would clearly need to be upgraded and unfortunately the line runs just south of where all the people live, so the cost of "feeder" busing would be substantial.

It seems to me a dedicated busway would be a lot cheaper to implement. But yes.... the price of the implementation is not stopping it. It's really the mindset of local people who view even the current, dreadful transit as extravagant and underused.

Still for cities under 1 million (as is Des Moines...) I wonder if a rail solution could work.

Ekdog

That would be great.

JusticeZero

I'm going to have to cite Mees here with his model of Squaresville. Imagine a city on a perfect gridiron of streets A-Z and 1st-24th. You have a transit system that runs along D street once every 20 minutes, and one that runs up I street every 20 minutes. Which will increase service more: increasing the frequency with which you can go between D and 1st-24th by 10 minutes, or adding a service along 10th Avenue that will allow you to access the I Street line and all of the destinations it serves as well as all of the homes and businesses on 10th that you were not able to access before?
In my report to the borough here on transit (available on the MSB web page) I noted that the system thus designed should actually have legislation making carrying passengers from one hub to the other, or very near that, by entities other than the transit company ILLEGAL. This is because allowing competition carrying passengers from one point where a subsidy has been used to gather passengers to another point where the subsidy is designed to disperse passengers constitutes an unintended massive subsidy to the point of being a substantial theft.
I'm not familiar with the Chinatown buses, perhaps this explanation answers that question.

cbr2702

Your example makes sense for a city that has very little mass transit. But it's nothing like the way transit in cities looked like at the time we're talking about. These places had streetcars on most of the large streets; something like 5,10,15,20 by D,I,N,S,X. At rush hour many lines were overcrowded. So additional service parallel to the main system on busy streets at busy times is quite good.

You started by claiming that the jitneys did not improve service. Now you're claiming they didn't improve service as much as some other option.

I read your paper and think I understand your problem with this. If there is government subsidized transit to hub areas, then private transit between them, the private transit benefits from the government's collecting.

I see several options that don't involve trying to increase service by prohibiting additional service.

1) Full free market economics approach: Tax road users (including bus companies and private automobiles) in proportion to their road use costs. Then private mass transit will be more economical than private automobile use in most local cases. This puts users in a position to prefer mass transit and private mass transit will take off. If you're concerned about poor people being able to afford buses, which is a reasonable concern, first see what prices end up set by the market -- I suspect they would be quite low. But if they're not, you can do a program similar to food stamps (and just as food stamps are redeemed at non-government stores, transit cards could be used on all private lines).

Downside: politically difficult, as people like their cars.

2) Minimize the subsidy by charging actual costs: you set up lines in the pattern of the paper, but without trunk routes subsidizing feeder routes. The trunk routes end up charging much less per mile than the feeder ones, as ridership is higher. Private mass transit does not "set up a rival concession stand in the theater" because there are not temptingly high profit margins on any of the routes.

Downside: people may decide that the whole thing is to expensive based on feeder route prices and ignore it.

3) Acknowledge the subsidy but leave it alone: you set up bus lines as in your paper, subsidizing the feeder routes, but don't prohibit any additional transit. If private companies start competing on the profitable core routes, let them have the routes. There is a massive subsidy happening, but it's not to the private transit companies on the trunk routes; it's to the riders who're using the feeder routes.

Downside: additional government cost.

Chinatown buses are very cheap transit between east coast city centers. Lines I've ridden a lot are:

Boston <---> NYC : Lucky Star, Fung Wah ($15)
NYC <---> Philly : Apex, Today's bus ($12)

There are also NYC <---> DC, Philly <---> DC routes and several others.

These companies are all extremely cheap. But they're running additional service parallel to existing (amtrack, planes, greyhound) options and benefit from public transit in the cities to get people to the city centers. I see them as clearly a good thing and analogous to the jitneys, though on a different scale.