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:
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
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:
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 la
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
An example is Portland, OR. Compare MAX with the streetcar, MAX has higher speeds, dedicated lanes, private ROWs, and a tunnel, all of which the streetcar lacks.
The REAL difference, According to LION is commitment.
Beese come and go, like putting your hand in a pail of water. Pull it out and leaves no trace in the water. Such are the beese.
A street car demonstrates commitment to a community: It is going to stay there, and the city/county that put it there has a continuing interest in “there”, wherever there is. This in turn increases property values. Stick you hand in a can of Crisco: the impression remains, everybody can see that your hand was there.
People may have the impression that a streetcar line “is going to stay there”, but that view is inconsistent with history. There’s nothing inherently permanent about streetcar lines. Streetcar lines vanished in droves between the 1920’s and the 1950’s - the industry was very nearly extinguished. The Interstate Commerce Commission, in a 1950 decision approving a series of Pacific Electric abandonments, observed that “(a)pproximately 885 American cities which formerly were served by electrically operated streetcars now rely exclusively on motor coaches for their transportation needs” (see 275 ICC 649 at 656 if you want to verify the quote and see the rest of the discussion). That number, of course, increased as the 1950’s rolled on. So much for streetcar lines staying there
The few “streetcar” lines (as opposed to LRT lines) that still exist today may be somewhat more resilient that the rest of the industry was, particularly those that fill an important tourist function (e.g., San Francisco, New Orleans). Also, government being what it is, once a government agency has spent a bundle to build a streetcar line, they are unlikely to discontinue service in the short term. The long term, however, may be a different story, as ridership patterns change and the line requi
IMHO any transit whether it be bus, street car, electric bus, light rail, commuter rail, is the ability to provide reliable - constant time service at all times of the day.
When there is the ability to run different length trains using the same operator for a full day’s pay then many economies of scale are then available.
Ex . If in the morning an operator can run a three car train into the employment center leave 2 cars go back out to the end of the line then couple up and bring in 3 cars again the wear and tear on the cars is reduced + less energy used. This is somewhat the way Portland was in the past although I have no idea what the situation is now.
Late in the evening , overnight, early morning, a shorter car compatible with longer cars can be operated. Again operator gets a full single shift work day. This type operation allows for memory schedules which will attract some additional passengers.
The problem of down town parking, end of line maintenance facilities is not easily resolved especially in very extreme weather locations.
Streetcar lines were often abandoned because they simply did not make economic sense when a great majority of the local trips in the community were by private car, and they would not make economic sense today. (Special cases as a fun drawer to retail neighborhoods are exceptions.) But Flatbush Avenue and Nortons Point, Brooklyn, 42nd Street and Broadway-42nd Street Manhattan, Woodward Avenue and Michigan-Grand in Detroit, and most of Capitol Transit, were bussed because of non-economic political considerations and should have remained streetcar. Canal Street, New Orleans was another and has been restored. The streetcar and light rail lines being built today are in an environment where the bus and auto are mature technologies and economies, and thus they should last, unless teleportation or something similar is developed!
Many streetcar routes in Manhattan and on Capital Transit were equipped with conduit pickup, which has a lot more maintenance issues than overhead. While I won’t deny that political factors had a lot to do with converting these lines to bus, I’m not sure that they would have lasted much longer as streetcar routes than they did.
I’ve read all of the comments on this thread. Here is my response:
My suggestion is really that we should reconsider streetcars for specific high volume lines where they might be a better way than the buses now used. Actually, “Reconsidering Streetcars” would have been a better title than “Bringing Back Streetcars.” My title suggests a return to the old days but that is not really what I intended to say. My intention is to argue that today we should look at streetcars and buses in the context of today’s needs and other realities.
After posting I did a little research about some bus lines close to me and learned that they could be examples for partial replacement with streetcars.
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. At mid day my 72 is so full it has a few people standing and during rush hours it can be too full for the driver to stop to pick up passengers. This must also be true for the 11/28 which has an identical route except for a few blocks at the beginning. The distance
Chalk said he wanted to keep streetcars, and the PCC’s were well-maintained and so was the track right to the end. He may have been posturing, but I believed him and still do. Congress forced this issue.
John WR: The fossil fuels question has met a game changer as the natural gas boom is now here. GE makes a recupertative electric generator system that can recover almost 50% of total energy content of natural gas. That is almost double the recovery of any reciprocating motor vehicle. + the emissions of the system is much less than oil.
One has to wonder if running light rail trains with power from a center rail conduit mmight work much better now than in past years ?
The Washington conduit system was well maintained, and the one line that was thought to be a maintenance problem, Rossllyn - Benning, had already been abandoned. And when they dug up some of the tracks for extensive road regrading, they found the conduit in much better condition than expected. Even with the conduit system, the density of traffic, the condition of the track and cars, the then age of the cars, all argued for economic reasons to preserve rail operation. If this would have continued after the Metro was constructed is arguable. But streetcars or light rail or something inbetween is coming to Washington, DC, now.
In response to JohnWR’s latest note, let me state right off the bat that I’m not familiar with NJT’s bus operations in the Newark area. However, based on the information in the note, I have to question whether any of the routes he mentions are candidates for rail service, whether “streetcar” or LRT.
As I understand his note, these routes operate on 15 minute headways. They use standard, 40 foot busses, not the larger articulateds on the market (which apparently NJT has, but chooses to use on other routes). Sometimes, there are standees on the busses, and somethimes a bus has too many passengers to make a pickup. The latter conditions occur from time to time on any bus line with decent patronage (as opposed to bus lines that normally run nearly empty).
A 15 minute headway with standard busses isn’t very impressive. The easy measures NJT could take to increase capacity, without a huge investment in rail infrastructure, would be to shorten the headways and/or use larger busses. The fact that NJT has apparently not chosen to take either of these measures suggests that they regard the existing capacity as adequate.
In one of my earlier notes, I mentioned the Diers/Isaacs book on the Twin Cities streetcar system (“Twin Cities by Trolley”). This book has information on the headways on the various TCRT streetcar routes, and it’s interesting to compare these with the Newark headways John mentions. The principal TCRT routes appear to have had service frequencies of 10-15 minutes off peak and 3-5 minutes peak.
FALCON48: Your analysis seems very thorough. The telling piece is the use on the routes in question of 40’ buses, which have 42 seats versus 59 on NJT’s articulated buses.
As much as I would lok forward to greater NJT use of rail transit, I must agree with FALCON on this case. And doubly so because there are more pressing needs for NJT capital funds.