Trains Artical on Heritage Streetcars-- " There is no Logical reason why Passengers should prefer s

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

steelwheel over rubber tire or something to that affect… Huh?? This is Train magazine talking mind you not the Cato Instsitute.

Here are some reasons…

  1. Better Ride Quility…City Buses are bumpy and light rail has smother quiters starts and stops.
  2. People do get Bus Sick but few people i know get Train Sick
  3. The Carbon Monoxide from Diesal does leak into the passeger compartment
  4. City Buses AC systems break down freaquinty
  5. Cars and streetcars are sperated from each other so there is at least the illiusion that one is faster then the other or in fact more consistant in scedule
  6. More room in light rail systems and can move around and sitdown and do work in softer seats
    anymore??
2

The ride quality of a rail vehicle depends on the quality of and the maintenance of the track as well as the maintenance of the vehicle’s suspension system. The same would apply to a bus, but thee the transit company, or transit authority, is at the mercy of the local highway department for the quality of the road surface. However, the bus could have an advantage in that the rubber tires can help to mitigate some of the shock of the bumps in the road.

This is sort of sensitive, but what you are talking about is motion sickness, not bus sickness, car sickness, or train sickness. The propensity for somebody to get sick on any mode of transportation depends on the person’s physical condition.especially how well they tolerate very low frequency cyclical motion.

Carbon monoxide can leak into the passenger compartment of any diesel powered or gasoline powered vehicle.

3

Maybe not logical but much of our decision making is based on feeling and intuition. Anyone familiar with Market St. in San Francisco who pays attention to passenger boardings had got to have noticed that the locals, not just the tourists, prefer to take the F line trolleys, mostly PCC’s, over the surface electric buses or the below ground subway cars. Why? Do they run faster ? ( no) Are they cheaper ? (no) Do they operate more frequently /?(no) Perhaps it is just more enjoyable and pleasurable to ride a trolley than something else and just maybe that is a logical decision at that.

4

While it is true that all of these factors can vary, there is no way that they can fundamentally correlate with the basic modes of rail and rubber tire transport. However, I’m not surprised to hear somebody from the light rail community make the correlation. They also are known for declaring it axiomatic that we cannot build enough freeways to solve traffic congestion. It’s not possible they say.

5

Traffic congestion will be difficult to solve without public transit unless you plan to raise the eminent domain issue to further widen 6-lane and 8-lane freeways (and some even wider ones). The cost of property acquistion in built-up urban areas plus doing battle with NIMBY’s makes a freeway-only approach quite unpracticable.

6

It may be difficult to solve the traffic congestion by building roads, but it would seem to be far more difficult to solve it by building light rail. To me, it doesn’t make much sense to build an expensive, single purpose railroad to carry a couple bus size loads of people when you can use existing roads with buses instead. For the most part, transit, especially light rail, is not cost effective transportation. It’s objective is public sector, subsidized transportation.

7

Carbon Monoxide does leak into bus compartment because the windows are often open and bus bodies are subject to corosion and salt that eats there frames…
I have Ridden the Pittsburg Busways and while I prefer the busway over the on the street buses in mixed trafiic when there o is no light rail Light rail is better because you can MU the cars into a train…
Trolleys are Cleaner and profide a smoother ride…Period

8

Not fundamentally. Maybe you can cite instances of clean trolleys and dirty buses, but there is nothing about the two modes that allows one to be cleaner or smoother than the other.

9

Many people believe that buses are for the lower wage-earning service sector. Trolleys, on the other hand, are historic and unique, which draws the ‘rest’ of the people. Many people out there don’t want to associate with “the type that rides the BUS”.

Sad but true.

10

Up here in Plattsburg the bus is slow and takes a hour to do a trip that takes 10 min by car.
The reason that it has a zigzag route that hits every nieghboorhood on the way to the destination

11

As sad as I am to admit it, the ride quality really does depend on the maintance of a vehicle, although here in Boston, with all the potholes, maintenance is always a game of catch-up, and rail would probably win hands down.

I would think, though, that in SF, especially on the F line, which I’ve seen a small part of, and ridden a few blocks, the braking systems on a PCC should be able to bring it to a smoother stop that a bus would, but a good part of that relies on the driver as well. On good rail, a PCC should ride better. The acceleration has no jerking as it shifts gears, even though newer busses can transition pretty well. Also, you can build a cleaner bus, but I have yet to see a signifigantly quieter bus. PCC’s do make noise, but its not the loud growl that a bus makes, more of a quiet hum of sorts.

Going off-topic for a minute, its interesting looking at new “historic” trolleys. They may be able to accelerate as fast as a PCC, or bus for that matter, but quite often the historic replicated wooden seats negate any ride-quality advantages. The seats that the car has do make a difference. Freshly varnished wood seats are very easy to slide off of.

In short : I’d prefer the PCC, but I’m not going to say put in a rail line if it isn’t needed.

12

Facts are better than opinions, and here are some facts:

Rail has been proven more powerful in getting people to leave cars at home and use public transit than buses in similar situations, even where schedules, running time, and convenience are similar.

Rail vehicles are generally more roomy than buses, simply because they are guided mechanically and don’t reuqire operator attention with regard to direction of travel. There are long articulated buses, but in width and height they are generlly smaller than railcars. In a given lane, a guided vehicle requires less safety space on each side than one driven manually.

When General Motors converted the Lexington Avenue NYC route of Green Lines (New York Railways, a subsidiary of Firth Avenue Coach Company, which was a GM Subsidiary), business picked up immediately on the directly parallel Third and Amsterdam Avenue line of Third Avenue Railways. When TARS, then became TATS, Third Avenue Transit System, and New York’s government forced conversion of the Broadway-42nd Street line, one of the busiest streetcar lines in North America, to bus in December 1946, about 1/3 the passengers left! Some used the subways, some used buses that were more convenient since there wasn’t an incentive to walk an extra block to use streetcar anymore, and some (like me) just walked!

Although massive amounts of money are required for light rail installation (but far less than either a real subway system or monorail), operating costs usually are less on a per passenger basis than bus operation, because one operator handles more passengers in a given vehicle.

There is one kind of bus operation that people find as much fun to ride as a train or a streetcar: An open top double-deck bus in the summertime.

Finally:

People per hour one lane past one point at reasonable speed:

Private auto:2500 Bus: 7,500 Streetcar: 12.000 Light Rail Separate RofW: 20,000 Heavy Rai

13

Ok Ok but I am shocked that the writer of this artical would make a statement like that…

14

There is one obvious component that can be added to public transportation such as light rail that will get people to use it. That component would be the always available force of law. Certainly we are moving in that direction.

But rather than getting people out of their cars and into transit, I believe that our cars will be made into transit. Cars will be factory equipped with GPS and a computer that will turn every road into a toll road. Then the tolls will be constantly adjusted to control traffic according to traffic conditions, purpose of trip, ability to pay, etc.

It would take decades to build all of the light rail that is envisioned to solve traffic congestion whereas this smart car technology is right on our doorstep. Ten years from now, the light rail concept will be an antique.

15

If the streets were to pay their own way (every road a toll road), the expense would drive urban passengers onto streetcars, light rail, rapid transit or whatever’s there. And the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail.

16

Drivers are paying for the roads now, so the tolls will not necessarily mean a greater cost to drivers. The tolls would be in lieu of the gas tax currently being paid at the pump.

I disagree that the best way to move large numbers of people is by rail. The best way to move large amounts of coal is by rail. But if rail were the best way to move people, it wouldn’t lose money every time it’s tried.

17

Just because it is the best way does not mean its the most profitable way.

Bert

18

Again, check the figures on capacity of a given lane with the different transportaiton modes. Auto traffic that supposedly pays its own way is massively subsidized by free LAND USE.

19

When I was in NO (pre Katrina) in the FQ I would ride their streetcars for the sheer joy of the ride. Out and back. When was the last time anyone did that with a bus? [2c]

20

Oh rail is a lot more fun to ride than a bus or even a car for that matter. But it would not be so much fun if you had to pay a fare that reflected the true cost. Light rail is like an indulgence in an expensive hobby that somebody else is forced to pay for.