I think that different transit companies had different views of their future prospects, and those views also changed over time. In the late 1940’s, some transit companies were obviously optimistic about their future prospects and the prospects for continued streetcar operations. These were the companies which ordered postwar PCC cars. But many of of these companies apparently changed their view in the early 1950’s. Chicago is a good example. It bought a large fleet of new PCC cars in 1948, and then began a massive conversion program just a few years later. Twin Cities is another. There’s at least one case where a city ordered postwar PCC cars and then decided to convert to bus before the cars were delivered (Louisville). The new cars were then sold to other cities. By 1951, however, the market for new streetcars had dried up. In part, this was because so many conversions were underway that a transit operator that stil wantedto operate streetcars could get modern secondhand equipment. But it also reflected the fact that many operators had become pessimistic about the prospects for continued streetcar operations.
And then there were the many streetcar propoerties which had never ordered PCC cars, either pre-war or post war. Most of these properties had probably decided in the 1930’s to run their existing systems until it wore out or required additional investment and then convert (which is actually a very a rational approach). Probably the best example was Milwaukee, WI, where the transit company’s intention to eventually convert to busses was known by the mid 1930’s (as you might expect in this situation, Milwaukee never bought PCC’s). Omaha-Council Bluffs is another - theiri newest cars were built in 1917, although parts of the system stagered on until 1955. Denver is another.
There’s one final group to consider -transit companies that were so broke that they
But again, there were lines where patronage held up and only political pressure caused the bus substitution. Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn (and a few other lines as well), much of the Manhattan and Bronx Third Avenue system (the lighter lines had been converted already), Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward in Detroit, Canal Street, New Orleans, would have made more sense to remain rail, and the bottom line would probably have been better, not worse.
Third Avenue Transit Lines that should have remained rail include Fordham, Treemont, Webster, Southern Boulevard, Westchester Avenue, and Boston Road. These were very heavy lins, and Third Avenue had inhouse capability of building their own modern cars for less money than the price of a new bus.
In Manhattan, Third Avenue wanted to completely rebuild the Broadway - 42nd Street track in time for the World Fare of 1939-1940, during 1938, but LaGuardia would not give them permission. After WWII the track on this line was really worn out, and this was an extremely heavy line, a car in sight at all times.
[|)]lOVED THE PICTURE… BROUGHT BACK A FEW MEMORIES…
NO, NEVER BEEN TO DC, BUT: DID GROW UP IN A “TROLLEYTOWN”. IN CASE YA’LL HAVE FORGOTTEN, DIDN’T KNOW
OR CARE ETC: THE MOTOR CITY: “DETROIT” HAD A PRETTY GOOD
STREET CAR SCHEDULE. MY MEMORY IS OF PCC’S OF: “THE D S R”
DETROIT STREET RAILWAY. NEVER HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT “OUR”
STREETCARS/TROLLEYS. ROUTES WERE ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES: JEFFERSON AVE, GRATIOT, MICHIGAN, WOODWARD & A FEW OTHERS I’VE FORGOTTEN. SADLY WERE
REPLACED BY THOSE D— TROLLEY BUSES’… WHICH DIDN’T LAST
LONG. ALL RAN TO TERMINUS IN DOWNTOWN IF MEMORY SERVES.
USED TO BE ABLE TO PICK UP AT CITY LIMITS WITH GROSSE PTE PARK, TRANSFER, END UP AT BRIGGS STADIUM… SEE AL KALINE AND TIGERS PLAY… OR GO TO OLYMPYIA AND SEE THE WINGS AND GORDIE HOWE PLAY… ALL GONE NOW.ETC. OH WELL. JUST SIGN ME:
SOUTHEASTERN HS CLASS OF 58. CITY CHAMPS FOOTBALL 57, EAST SIDE CHAMPS BASEBALL 57 & 58. AKA:DAS ADLER!
Let me point out, again, that I was speaking in general terms when I discussed the reasons transit operators would convert streetcar lines to busses. Could there have been some isloated lines where these dynamics didn’t apply? Sure (although one has to wonder whether the lines you mention would have stayed as streetcars much beyond the 1950’s even without city opposition). Add to these the handful of lines in some cities that operated in subways or tunnels that couldn’t practically be converted (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco). But the mileage represented by these lines is insignificant compared to the streetcar mileage that used to exist in this country.
And it will be interesting to see if there is ever an end to the revival of trolleycar technology now labeled light rail, and if 100 years from now, as we look down hopefully from Heaven, whether the amount of mileage has been restored!
Of course, population densities are greater and congestion greater and fuel costs greater.
I see very little reason for anyone now or in the future to restore classic “streetcar” systems (ie., systems consisting mostly of railroad tracks embedded in city streets) except for historic “tourist” lines. If the objective is to get away from petroleum based fossil fuel vehicles, the trolley bus would be a better choice than a streetcar, since it does not require the railroad infrastructure in the street, and is better able to avoid obstructions,
With respect to “light rail”, rather than streetcars, the “light rail” renaissance will last only as long as governments are willing to continue giving massive subsidies to this form of transport. As I mentioned in a prior post, “light rail”:covers a wide variety of systems. Some of these provide levels of service which are vastly superior to busses and are heavily utilized. They are likely to be around for a long time, Others do not. My prediction is that, in the coming years, there will be a number of light rail systems built which are poorly conceived and designed, not to meet any real transit need, but because Federal money is available. Systems like this will eventually be abandoned as the economic realities of retaining them become evident and governments have to choose between competing priorites. The most likely point in time this will occur is when the track structure requires substantial renewal. I won’t be around by then, but perhaps some of the younger participants in this forum will be.
St. Louis is in the process of bringing back a streetcar to run from our Metrolink light rail to the Delmar Loop Area. The Loop is home to our own Walk of the Stars and Chuck Berry regularly appears at Blueberry Hill cafe. The streetcar will stop at the old Wabash Delmar Station, which has a Metrolink stop on the lower level and the restored Pageant Theater, which has various music acts appearing on a regular basis.
This will be our first streetcar line in over 40 years. When they get it finished, I’ll be checking it out.
Because trolley busses (like streetcars) use electricity. The vast majority of the electricity generated in this country does not come frrm PETROLEUM based fossil fuels. Most of it comes either from coal (a fossil fuel, but not a petroleum based fossil fuel) or from non fossil fuel sources (nuclear, hydro-electric etc). To be sure, a portion of our electricity comes from petroleum based fossil fuels (particularly natural gas), but the majority of it does not.
Because trolley busses (like streetcars) use electricity. The vast majority of the electricity generated in this country does not come frrm PETROLEUM based fossil fuels. Most of it comes either from coal (a fossil fuel, but not a petroleum based fossil fuel) or from non fossil fuel sources (nuclear, hydro-electric etc). To be sure, a portion of our electricity comes from petroleum based fossil fuels (particularly natural gas), but the majority of it does not.
There is no virtue in the idea of operating electric railway equipment or trolley busses on electricity with the idea that most of our electricity isn’t generated by petroleum. The other fossil fuels present their own problems.
Natural gas is the most environmentally benign fossil fuel because of its low carbon content, but it is perhaps the most valuable in terms of it’s uses for chemical feedstocks essential for modern agriculture and the chemical industry, so burning it for electricity is, in some senses, a huge abuse and waste of a valuable resource. Coal is the worst from an environmental standpoint. It is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, contributing more carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour than any other fuel, fossil or otherwise.
Even wood is better because the carbon dioxide discharged from the burning of wood came from absorbing that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when the tree grew. As such it is a closed cycle. Fossil fuels are not closed cycles, but are open and only add carb
The purpose behind my question was more to point out that electric trolley busses and electric streetcars are one and the same with only one difference - the lack of tracks for the busses to run on. I don’t see a benefit in running busses over trolleys since the busses still need dedicated right of ways much in the same way trolleys so. About the only benefit is that busses negate track maintenance. They do, however, present their own unique set of maintenance costs, such as tires (which are petroleum based). While tires are less costly than tracks from a maintenance standpoint, they are replaced much more frequently than tracks and are subject to various hazards found in streets like glass, nails, among other puncture hazards.
In the debate over trolleys versus electric busses, it comes more down to a matter of capacity, then cost is figured in. Physical constraints play a major part of the decision, but ultimately it still comes down to what the powers that be decide is better in the interest of the public. I haven’t seen a bus system yet that can compete with rail in terms of capacity without causing backups.
For example, you say that there’s no benefit in running busses over trolleys because “busses still need dedicated rights of way much in the same way trolleys do.” The fact is that busses
I understand that Seattle, both diesel buses and electric buses, is an exception. There, the theoretical curb loading advantage is actually put into practice. Buses actually do move to the curb and “platform” with low floors just inches away from the sidewalk. And Seattle private car drivers are generally polite and give way when a bus pulls out from the curb to join the traffic lane.
Elsewhere, experience thorughout North America has taught me, aat least, that buses are no better than on-street streetcars as far as blocking traffic. Bus drivers learn quicly that to pull over to the curb means losing time as they wait for a break in traffic to rejoin the traffic lane. Instead they unload and load half in the driving lane and half in the bus stop lane, blocking traffic for everyone except motocycles and possibly some of the smallest of the minicars. And the passengers walk to and from the sidewalk on the road pavement, often during heavy rain wading in puddles.
Better a streetcar line in the middle of the street WITH LOADING ISLANDS. Loading islands a traffic hazard? Sure, just like “round-abouts” and speed bumps and other TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. The best deal was the left-hand loading and unloading Type 5 streetcars on some Boston lines, like Blue Hill Avenue, with a continuous center island separating the opposing direcitons of traffic and used as the platfom all streetcar stops.
Ther typical articulated streetcar has about 40% greater capacity than the typical articulated bus. The typical non-articulated bus seats 40 and stands 22. The typical non-articulated streetcar (PCC’s and Osgood Bradley lightwieghts are good examples) seats 44 and stands 36-48. A Detroit or Cleveland or Toronto large single-end Peter Witt even more.
I don’t want to prolong this debate, because it’s gone far afield from the original topic of this thread (which I’m probably responsible for). but a few points:
(1) I ride city busses all the time (in Chicago and elsewhere), and they pull to the curb if they can (sometimes they get blocked by parked cars). That’s particularly true today with accessibility considerations. You may not think streetcar loading islands in the street were a problem, but city planners in the 1950’s took a different view of the matter. And I haven’t seen any speed bumps or roundabouts on main streets. These are measures used to slow traffic on side streets, not main streets where busses usually run.
(2) There were hundreds of transit companies, both public and private, that chose to convert their streetcar systems to busses. These firms were run by people who had often spent most of their careers running streetcar systems, and who were trying to do what they thought was best for their companies and customers. What is striking is that they all came to the same conclusion - the streetcar systems should be converted to busses. No U.S. city made any attempt to save its streetcar system after the early 50’s. True, a handful of cities kept a handful of streetcar lines (generally historic lines, or lines that operated into tunnels or subways), but these lines were islands in systems otherwise run by bus. I tend to trust the judgement of the market over arguments that the operators should have done something differently.
(3) I find discussions of capacity a little unrealistic because they typically assume that the streetcar is running at capacity. That, by the 1950’s, was definitely not the case in most cities - once people could buy autos again, transit ridership took a nosedive (a development which undoubtedly caused transit operators to take a very critical look at their streetcar operati
Again, we agree that the great majority of transit lines are best served by buses. In Jerusalem, I hope to see trolleybuses, because I see too many main routes on hilly streets where a lot of braking energy is wasted going downhill and a lot of pollution and noise is generated by buses going uphill. But diesel buses with the best low-pllution engines are probably the best and most economical choice for most transit lines.
Light rail, whether true light rail on segregated track, or the conventional streetcar on lanes shared with other traffic will always be a specialty item in transit. Like heavy rapid transit and like commuter rail. But don’t distort facts by saying streetcars have no more capacity than buses. This simply is not true. Even in street traffic, a streetcar line can handle more people past a given point in a given time than a bus line. You do point out that there are special cases where light rail will survive. I think at least 95% of the post-WWII light rail lines that have been built will survive. Those very few that are not meeting their projected ridership goals, and there really are only a very small minority. will encourage business and residential development so their goals will be met once the economy recovery is in full swing.
There are still cities where the main purpose of downtown city streets is moving traffic… Boston, of all places, seems to be one city that persists in that madness, and they are even talking of removing the last vestage of passenger carrying street running rail, instead of restoring it to Arborway as once promised and essentially paid for. (A promise given to approve the “Big Dig.” - and note the contiued absence of the much overdue and needed S.Sta-N.Sta rail connection —only possible in Boston!) (And don’t point out Grand Central and Penn in NY as ano
Lest I appear to be myopically anti-rail, I am not. I think that well designed rail transit systems can have important collateral benefits which don’t how up in the farebox. In particular, I think rail transit is essential to a vibrant central business district, particularly in larger cities. It can’t be done with autos, if for no other reason that the parking facilities would destroy the destination. A healthy CBD, in turn, creates all kinds of economic and social benefits (which, unfortunately, can’t be monetized by the transit system).
I also have serious problems with analyses that show transit ridership as a percentage (typically a low one) of travel in a county or multi-county area, and conclude that transit is a non-player. You could do the same thing with any single expressway or road in a county or multi-county area. The proper role of transit is supporting the CBD. That means what you want to look at is how many trips the transit system is providing to/from the CBD and what percentage that is of total trips to/from that area. I haven’t seen any figures lately, but I believe that, for Chicago, transit use to/from the CBD is well over half.
That said, I think that too many transit proposals are simply pursued because federal money is available, not because of any intelligent transit strategy, I keep using Omaha-Council Bluffs as an example, because I lived there for 14 years. They keep proposing to build a streetcar line there. Now, this a city with a transit system that runs nearly empty bussses even in rush hour (such as it is) - rail transit makes no sense at all. And the route of the streetcar line keeps changing, In other words, they decided to build a streetcar line first and are now trying to find a place for it. I think that some of the light rail systems being proposed in various cities (eg., Houston) are similar
Again, I agree that in most cases they got it right. But the fact is that rail service of all types has the power to get people out of their cars and use public transit more than any bus technology now available. But there is one diesel bus line in Seattle that was converted to electric bus about six or seven years ago. Falling transit riding or more efficient use of the total electric bus fleet had made available the required number of electric buses and the wire was up for most of the route for other bus lines using some of the same streets. So they completed electrification of the bus line, kept the same bus schedules, the same route, same headways, and ridershp increased 40%! I think the name of the line was Ballard, but I am not sure. I got this information from a Seattle railfan who had been a professional transit engineer and had major responsibility for New Jersey Tranist’s Hudson-Bergen light rail project as well as the cars now running on the Norristown - 69th Street line. Most new light rail lines, including streetcars, draw people who did not use buses previously, and sometimes this has been 50% of the total ridership.
Some things you might wish to learn about transit. Going from regular to articulated buses doesn not necessarily increase bus line capacity. Only if a substantial number of riders ride considerable distance. Because dwell time at stops is a limiting factor. In fact, if most riders ride for only a few stops, articulated buses can reduce capacity by preventing two buses boarding at a specific stop at the same time. The reason the extra capacity of a rail car is useful in increasing line capacity is that rail cars board and exit faster than buses do. The need for steering limits the length that can be devoted to the front platform in even the most modern bus design, and this far short in boarding area to what is available in any front-loading
Isn’t Houston a bad example?. Granted they do not have a long light rail system but was not there an item that they have the 2nd largest light rail passengers / rail mile ? With those figures was that why they got grants for two extensions - one North and One South?
Have you ridden the Houston line? I have. It’s very poorly designed. It’s painfully slow compared to lines like DART and San Diego, and has some questionable features that increase accident hazards. I haven’t seen their ridership stats, but I can’t imagine how they could have the “2nd largest passengers / rail mile”, if only because they run pretty short trains compared to other systems. Also, one thing you need to watch for in light rail ridership numbers is whether the passengers are actually new to the transit system, or are simply exisiting transit passengers transfering from the bus system. Typically, when a light rail system is placed in oerations, the bus system is restructured to force passengers to transfer to the light rail system…