We need more Streetcar Cities (suburban, highway, Atlanta, landscape)

[grega94]

I love trains and rail transport just as much as the next rail enthusiast, but I agree with the assertion that buses generally are better than street cars (particularly the way they are built in the US not having right of way). If it it has its own dedicated way then yes street cars are better, otherwise it’s just there for aesthetics and to increase property values. Also buses can be attractive and effective if they are clean, modern, frequent, have priority signaling, low floors and have proper bus stops similar to rail stops.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by NW4me

That map was impressive!

How does the Toronto system compare to Melbourne's (where they call them "trams")?

That map was nothing. I just took a small snippet of the track map to show that the streetcars can run anywhere busses can run. I believe the Toronto streetcar system is bigger than Melbourne's.

Anyway my point in this thread is that if you are talking about a serious real streetcar system like what Toronto has, then yeah, I think more cities should have them. If you are talking about these stupid fake "modern" streetcar systems that most cities are building, which are nothing but glorified buses on tracks, then no. I think those are colossal waste of money.

Here is the full TTC streetcar system.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

There are critical junctures along the Toronto street car route (as shown by the exact video you posted) that prove my point. That a street car can maneuver (but a street car can only go almost everywhere a bus can go assuming that there are tracks on nearly every street . . . important because it goes to the ability to adequately detour) around things based one extensive connection points doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of points along these tracks that are essentially straightaways and where such connections/maneuvers cannot be made. These connector points are at intersections, which means if things happen outside of intersections, maneuvering becomes more challenging. Whether there are work arounds hardly means that street cars are as maneuverable as buses.

There are tracks in Downtown Toronto on almost every street that a bus would use. If you look at that map the streets that don't have tracks are just very narrow streets and non through streets, which buses would generally never attempt to drive down. Since I was last in Toronto they have eliminated a lot of the non-revenu tracks. I would guess those tracks they eliminated they had absolutely no need for and never used. They appear to have statigically keep enough non-revenue track to be able to detour wherever necessary.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

And as you pointed out, that's because central Toronto has a dense network of tracks with many turnout points.

Right now, that situation exists in no US city.

I believe Philadelphia might have enough tracks. They have enough unused tracks that cyclists are complaining they are a hazard to riders, and there are so many all over the city that they can't avoid them.

Accident Galvanizes City To Address Unused Trolley Tracks

[Boothwynman]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

I believe Philadelphia might have enough tracks. They have enough unused tracks that cyclists are complaining they are a hazard to riders, and there are so many all over the city that they can't avoid them.

Accident Galvanizes City To Address Unused Trolley Tracks

I'm sure they do, even today, even though that article is 9 years old and I just glanced at it. But point taken. Philly should do something about those tracks.

[drive carephilly]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Medians don’t run through intersections.
… and the point others have made is the waste, expense, and loss associated with giving a dedicated lane to a periodically running vehicle while excluding all other traffic

But the "periodically running vehicle" can carry 3x as many people as a lane of traffic. It also allows people who live near it to avoid the waste, expense, and loss associated with owning a car thereby making less traffic for everyone else who may want to drive. Also, you're not "excluding all other traffic" because they already have two travel lanes. Dedicating a 3rd lane to cars doesn't result in a 50% increase in capacity. That's not how traffic works.

It's not possible in existing cities to increase capacity by tearing down your tax base (and destinations) so that more people can drive there. If you live in Pittsburgh you should know this. If you got rid of the T you'd need two extra lanes each way going into and out of downtown to make up for the loss of capacity.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

But the "periodically running vehicle" can carry 3x as many people as a lane of traffic. It also allows people who live near it to avoid the waste, expense, and loss associated with owning a car thereby making less traffic for everyone else who may want to drive. Also, you're not "excluding all other traffic" because they already have two travel lanes. Dedicating a 3rd lane to cars doesn't result in a 50% increase in capacity. That's not how traffic works.

The streetcar doesn't wait until it has 3x the people to go. The streetcar moves from stop-to-stop regardless of the number of people on board. The frequency of cars is much higher frequency such that more people by far are carried by car. Dedicating an existing third lane to only a streetcar DOES result in excluding all other traffic from that lane and results in a significant decrease in road capacity. You will also have holdups because the 2d lane will now be used for cars to right turn. They will hold up anyone behind them and the turning car has to turn across an open lane instead of from next to the curb creating another opportunity for collision.

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

It's not possible in existing cities to increase capacity by tearing down your tax base (and destinations) so that more people can drive there. If you live in Pittsburgh you should know this. If you got rid of the T you'd need two extra lanes each way going into and out of downtown to make up for the loss of capacity.

They aren't interested in increasing capacity! Streetcars are just the obsession of a subset of rail fanatics. See, The Irrational Planning Process.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

I believe Philadelphia might have enough tracks. They have enough unused tracks that cyclists are complaining they are a hazard to riders, and there are so many all over the city that they can't avoid them.

Accident Galvanizes City To Address Unused Trolley Tracks

Most of the tracks in question are segments of track connected to no working or active trolley line. THe city does need to pave them over or rip them out.

[Stadtmensch]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Not at all. You obviously didn't read the article. It describes your conduct to a "T".

Second, planners cast around for problems that they think they might be able to persuade people their proposal will solve. These can include childhood obesity, global warming, traffic congestion, or housing affordability

Irrational Planning

Under various aliases you have promulgated compact cities, rail transit, and now streetcar transit and you argue your proposals need to be implemented to address global warming, traffic congestion, housing affordability, etc. are somehow alleviated by your proposal. In fact, most of your rationales are bogus or at best personal opinion and obviously so. It is you that made the unsupported assertions which are readily controverted.

False, planners and myself identify problems such as congestion and pollution and search for suitable solutions like streetcars. The article from Randall O'Toole is laughable as always. Your posts are driven by pure envy of those who have the creativity and moral values to have good ideas.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

You claimed the streetcars were efficient. They aren't because they take up room and run regardless of the number of passengers. Cars are traveling on the street only when the driver is going somewhere.

Your latest conclusion is one of your typical hilarious logical thinking errors.

First of all, cars take up room regardless of the number of passengers as well. It's called parking.

Secondly cars traveling on the street take up room regardless of the number of passengers as well.

Even if you only look at the number of uses of room per passenger, your statement is a false conclusion, since both means of transport have different transport capacities with different occupancy rates.

A streetcar can not only transport significantly more passengers than a car, it also does so in practice.

It then makes no difference that in some rare event some streetcars may have less than one passenger while cars always have at least one.

Even if we assume that a certain number of streetcar trips are completely empty trips, then the remaining trips would have to have a very, very low number of passengers for a car to have a lower number of room uses per passenger than a streetcar - unlikely.

In practice a car needs the room on the street more way more often per passenger than a streetcar.

The car would clearly lose this efficiency comparison between car and streetcar with regard to the frequency of uses of room per passenger.

You should be thankful, that I am showing you the next logical error of your argument, because it improves your position, while you are still failing.

Third, usage of a room is not only a function of the number of uses, but also a function of the degree of the uses.

This should help your case, because streetcars are usually much bigger than cars and the footprint of an empty streetcar should be larger than the footprint of an almost empty car.

However, in practice streetcars are barely empty and a have higher occupancy rate than cars.

And the fuller the streetcar gets, the clearer the difference in room uses per passenger to the streetcar's advantage.

Basically, an average occupancy of 15-20% is enough for a streetcar to use less space per passenger than a car occupied by 1.5 passengers (which corresponds to the measured average).

Now let's do the math:

The average car has a footprint of 4 square meters.
The average occupancy rate of cars is 1.5 passengers.
So on average cars take up 2.7 square meters per passenger.

A typical streetcar in Berlin has a footprint of 96 square meters.
The average occupancy rate of a Berlin streetcar is 55 passengers.
So on average a streetcar takes up 1.7 square meters per passenger.

The case is pretty obvious, reasonably occupied streetcars use the street room much more efficiently than cars.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Cars are smaller than street cars.

And have a much lower capacity as well. A car can only carry max. 5-7 passengers. A typical Berlin streetcar can carry up to 200-300 passengers.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Cars do not require rails.

But roads.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Cars do not require caternary.

But gas stations.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

As far as the energy consumption per passenger, the folks in the car are taking care of their own energy consumption. I could argue the food consumption of the streetcar passengers is more than that of car occupants. It's completely irrelevant.

The folks in the car take care of their own energy consumption, yet you failed to address my point, that the energy consumption per passenger km (mile) of a car is much higher than that of a streetcar.

What's irrelevant here is your hilarious attempt to twist the hard facts about energy use by coming up with the calorie intake of the passengers.

From my own observations car occupants tend to be much more obese than streetcar occupants.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Like all your other posts, when confronted with the negatives of your reality you basically say "oh you don't need that anyway". I have certainly taken long distance trains. However your thread was about streetcars. So now you are trying to change the topic when confronted with facts?

Wrong, you said "rail transit does not have seats as comfortable as cars". You didn't say "streetcars do not have seats as comfortable as cars". Here is the evidence:

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Rail transit does not have seats as comfortable as cars. In addition, you do not have any input over climate control nor who you will be sharing the ride with.

Apparently you can not remember what you just wrote the post before.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

This thread was not about planes, trains, nor distinctions between short- and long-distance trains. The thread you originated was about streetcars with a bunch of bogus rationales for "needing" them.

Your statement about rail transit was false and I corrected it.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

You are used to living in an environment where someone else dictates all these things for you. But again your response when confronted with the negatives of reality is to say "oh you don't need that".

Wrong!

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Inconveniencing 99% of the traffic in order to benefit a very inefficient 1% is absurdly costly and inefficient to the taxpayers. It's the kind of arrogance exhibited by central planners. The solution is not to disrupt everyone else to support your dream of streetcars. If there is a problem it should be addressed more efficiently. There is nothing about what you propose that wouldn't be better addressed with a bus.

There is nothing more efficient about cars, on the contrary and you failed to demonstrate the opposite.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Your originated this thread about a need for streetcars. Streetcars aren't long distance. You aren't going to be able to stand up and stretch if the streetcar is crowded. In some cases you won't get any rest anyway because you have to stand and they are primarily for tourists.

Fully occupied streetcars are just as rare as empty streetcars. You can never stand up, stretch yourself and rest as a car driver. In a streetcar you can do this most of the time.

And you saying that streetcars are only for tourists shows that you have no experience with modern streetcar systems.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

So again when confronted with the negatives of your reality, your response is to simply claim people don't need these things. Your post was not about trains nor long distance trips. It was about streetcars with a litany of bogus rationales. Let's also be clear, it isn't that you "don't have to control every irrelevant aspect" but rather that you have no ability to control any aspect in your "solutions". Car occupants control their climate, when, where, the route they are taking, ambient noise, who they are traveling with, and can readily change any of these.

The problem is you think having the ability to control your A/C is more important than getting to your destination in the most efficient way. In a city, the streetcar is a more efficient way to go somewhere. You are downplaying aspects like reducing congestion, which are much more important than sitting in a traffic jam, but having the ability to control your A/C.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Again you try to change the topic to something other than streetcars when confronted with the bogus nature of your rationales. This thread wasn't about trains nor long distance travel. You initiated this thread claiming a need for more "streetcar cities" and you then want to argue about trains.

Wrong, see above!

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Not much of a view if you are looking at your laptop.

Because moving your head isn't a thing I guess. lol

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

We've already seen the pictures numerous times. In fact, the moderator in one of the threads you posted the pictures in warned you to stay out of the Urban Planning forum on city-data for a while. But you have to keep promoting your religion for all things density, right?

Em he didn't warn me, it was a recommendation that was also valid for YOU.

That said I stayed out of it for a while and it is you who is still going off-topic all the time, like addressing Germany's energy policy, which is what the mods had a problem with.

Actually, it's you who isn't following what the mods said.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The pavement is already in place here and you want to put them on streets - they are "streetcars" after all. Tearing up pavement to implement a streetcar is a terrible idea. This isn't Europe.

Streetcars have evolved (not so much in North America) and run on mediums with no pavement in some places.

But even in places with pavement and rails you could ask why there is pavement at all.

Third, in order to adapt to the additional car traffic, significantly more pavement is required.

And this isn't the US forum, but a general urban planning forum. Europe is as relevant here as any other country including the US.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

I believe another poster has corrected you concerning your misinformation about Toronto.
This isn't Germany.

Of course Toronto isn't Germany, because Toronto is much more car centric than comparable cities in Germany or Europe or Japan or Korea etc.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Streetcars do get stuck in traffic.

In Toronto yes.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Germany shut down its nuclear plants while foolishly not recognizing its dependence upon dirty Russian gas. The generation from renewables is not "reliable" because it can fluctuate greatly from year-to-year or season-to-season. Germany had a banner year for wind at a time other countries needed power. But you can't store the electricity on the grid and you can't control production to match with demand when your production is wind and solar based. Germany is heavily, heavily reliant on imported fuels - including from the U.S. - for its energy production.

You are going off-topic again. The mods have warned you about this before, yet you continue your spread of misinformation about the German energy policy.

I have already told you that German energy prices are higher, because of investments. Operating renewable energies is cheaper than operating nuclear and fossil systems. Germany is currently i.e. investing in hydrogen energy storage. The US may have lower energy prices, but it also has a statistically proven far less reliable energy system, because it failed at investments. We don't need advice from your country regarding our energy policy or infrastructure in general. Some of your cities don't even have clean drinking water.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

It's not clear what crisis you are referring to in Texas. Texas is considerably larger than Germany and the power companies provide more power to households over longer distances and under much more severe weather conditions than Germans could even comprehend. Is it tough for generation and distribution this year? Yes and it is due to weather events. Despite all of this Texans are paying around 1/4 to 1/3 the price Germans do for electricity. Trying to argue average "reliability" out to 4 or 5 decimal places is not availing of anything and when you have to go that far out to show a difference you know you are operating in la-la land.

Germany has a much larger population than Texas, but I agree that Texas low density is an issue for your energy grid, because it demands higher expenses for building and maintenance.

You say the Texas grid is tough, but apparently it wasn't during the blackout.

I never experienced a blackout in my country. Again we don't need advice from a country with third world infrastructure about our energy policy.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

That's not particularly relevant to anything. You will have a higher frequency of cars on the lanes. By your own definition of efficiency, a streetcar is a very inefficient use of a dedicated space.

Higher frequency = higher congestion = more space is needed = inefficient use of room

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Of course you are wrong again and don't know any better because you are used to being a tenant in an apartment complex. A yard serves a purpose 100% of the time including ensuring space between houses.

I used to live in a German suburb with single family homes. The space between those houses wasn't as big as in the US (thanks god), but I am familiar with the concept of detached single family homes.

However, ensuring space between houses is a really bad excuse for empty lawns. If you would do some gardening there at least, but most of the time it is just ugly empty lawn. The utility tends towards zero there.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The fact that they are personal IS relevant because you want to argue they are "inefficient" (in your misguided opinion) but to the extent there is an "inefficiency" the owners chose that and bear any cost.

Instead of wasting resources on empty lawns the same resources could have been used for the preservation and creation of greenbelts.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The inefficiency of the streetcar, however, burdens all the taxpayers and further inconveniences those who are effectively displaced from road use when taxpayer funds are used to tear up or eliminate roads to provide for streetcars.

It's not like roads weren't tax funded right? The long term benefits of streetcars outweigh the costs for investment, but I know sustainable long term planning isn't your thing. Who cares about others and future generations right?

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Well you have serious flaws in your rationale. Your argument is mooted by the fact that you have given no reason why a bus would not be a better solution. You won't be transporting the same number of people by streetcars nor the same population. The cars won't be going away - you will just contribute to more congestion.

Wrong! I said a bus is less comfy and roomy.

Wrong! A streetcar transports even more people than a bus.

And wrong! Cars will be going away, because nobody wants to sit in a traffic jam.

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Again multiple unsupported assertions from you. Public transit generally does not have "comfy" seats regardless. They may well have substances you would prefer your skin and clothes not come into contact with.

Public transit does have comfy seats, it's just useless for short trips, because your body won't notice the difference during a short period.

Yeah you are afraid of the dirt of others I know.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

Sorry, nope.

Pretty much every transportation system - whether it be hard surfaced roads for auto traffic, or rail systems, or airlines - has to be supported by the government. The question is whether this is an appropriate way to spend tax money. (Personally, I believe it is - some of you may be shocked to see me say this...)

Before the government "started meddling" in the US transportation system, it took a military convoy under the command of Dwigh Eisenhower 62 days to go from DC to San Francisco, and they included considerable heavy equipment to deal with the demands of those "un meddled with" roads.

Before the government "started meddling" with transcontinental railroads, it took half a year or more to go across the country by mule or ox wagon. Have you ever read any of the history of how US railroads were built and financed? I'd rather watch sausage being made.

Much of the 19th century in the US was taken up with the great debate over whether federal tax monies could or should be used to fund "internal improvements" which basically meant improved roads and port facilities.

Facts disagree with your opinions. Before the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic, much of the infrastructure was privately owned private enterprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad

By 1882, the Pennsylvania Railroad had become the largest railroad (by traffic and revenue), the largest transportation enterprise, and the largest corporation in the world. Its budget was second only to the U.S. government.

(And that was just ONE railroad...)

It went bankrupt in 1970, thanks to the government’s meddling, taxes, and ridiculous regulations, and was split off into Conrail and Amtrak.

Yeah, rail represented a power bloc that rankled (or threatened) partisan politicians (and the powers that ran them).
- - - -

A similar situation was founded in the anti-rail hegemony, led by General Motors, starting in the 1920s.
Taken for a Ride -
The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4

Companion report to "Taken"
The StreetCar Conspiracy


- - - -
INTERURBANS and GM RAIL KILLER
PBS HISTORY DETECTIVES CLEVELAND ELECTRIC CAR
History Detectives S04E10
Season 4, Episode 10
Delves into the collusion between local politicians and the conspiracy to replace streetcars with buses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_7E9SLXVV0
http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydet...ectric_car.pdf
= = = = = = =
However it is a fact that the government did federally charter two RR companies to build a transcontinental RR, because the profit-motivated private companies weren't going to pour money down a rat hole. But that was an exception. The vast majority of railway rights of way were PRIVATE PROPERTY and taxed accordingly (or aggressively).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

04. AMTRAK
From the middle 19th century until approximately 1920, nearly all intercity travelers in the United States moved by rail. The rails and the trains were owned and operated by private, for-profit organizations.

... railroads carried a substantial tax burden. A World War II era excise tax of 15% on passenger rail travel survived until 1962. Local governments, far from providing needed support to passenger rail, viewed rail infrastructure as a ready source for property tax revenues. In one extreme example, in 1959, the Great Northern Railway, which owned about a third of one percent (0.34%) of the land in Lincoln County, Montana, was assessed more than 91% of all school taxes in the county. To this day, railroads are generally taxed at a higher rate than other industries, and the rates vary greatly from state to state.

Railroads also faced antiquated work rules and inflexible relationships with trade unions. Work rules did not adapt to technological change. Average train speeds had doubled from 1919 to 1959, but unions resisted efforts to modify their existing 100- to 150-mile work days. As a result, railroad workers' average work days were roughly cut in half, from 57½ hours in 1919 to 23½ hours in 1959. Labor rules also perpetuated positions that had been obviated by technology. Between 1947 and 1957, passenger railroad financial efficiency dropped by 42% per mile.

- - - end of excerpt - - -
In short, if all government meddling (taxes, regulations, etc) and subsidies of the competition (roads, airlines, etc) were eliminated, RAIL would have a renaissance. It's common sense. You can move 20 times as much passengers or cargo for the same amount of fuel / energy than pneumatic tire on pavement vehicles.

(Stoofid FRA regulations keep rolling stock 100% heavier than their European counterparts, for no sound reason. Speaking of "sound" - the blaring of airhorns at EVERY intersection is unique to America. Wonder if "someone" wanted assurance that the folks would "hate" those %@%$^!! trains.)