3 ms·

Streetcars suck. It's less flexible buses, basically. Subways, on the other hand...

by tormeh 11y ago

chkuendig 11y ago
Subways are a lot more expensive than streetcars, while buses are cheaper (not that much once you have a dedicated lane) but slower than streetcars. PS: I live in a city with an extensive streetcar network which is still expanding (Zurich)
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  More importantly, streetcars also have much higher passenger capacity than buses. This particular bus route in DC is stretched for capacity and already has buses coming every minute or two during rush hour, so they can't just add more buses.
- xemdetia 11y ago
  I believe the damning thing is that DC already has a fairly reasonable subway network, so I can't see the need for streetcars.
  - apendleton 11y ago
    DC's streetcar and subway systems aren't supposed to address the same need. The metro system, in terms of station placement/spacing, schedules, line routes, etc., is designed to efficiently move people from the suburbs to the core and back again. It's poorly laid out for moving people within the city; the hub and spoke layout means almost everyone needs to transfer and trips are often circuitous. For my commute to my last job, for example, getting to work via metro required walking five blocks, going into downtown, changing lines, coming back out from downtown, and walking an additional four blocks. It took 45 minutes, vs a half hour just to walk to work or ten minutes to bike, and this is typical of getting from place to place within the city by metro. Most people don't bother. The envisioned broader streetcar network would have been explicitly designed to address intra-urban trips, and would have had a very different layout from metro, with stations spaced more closely together, and fewer lines passing through downtown. Lots of cities have different systems to address these needs, since it's difficult or impossible to design a system that does both well.
    - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
      the hub and spoke layout means almost everyone needs to transfer and trips are often circuitous I don't know how well it works in practice, but ever since I saw the map[1] for the Moscow Metro I've always liked it. Especially the ring that presumably? keeps people from needing to go thru the core. It probably works better than most systems. E.g. NYC's subway doesn't do well if you're trying to get from outer borough to outer borough. Many such trips involve going thru Manhattan. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Moscow_metro_map_en_sb.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Moscow_m...
andys627 11y ago
Why?
staz 11y ago
Subways can't always be build, depending on the terrain type. Streetcars with their own lanes can be pretty efficient.
checker 11y ago
It really depends on whether the goal is simply to move people or to also spur reinvestment along the corridor. I won't debate whether or not the second goal is valid, but the second goal is why a streetcar can be preferable: * Bus - Super flexible, cheapest, similar capacity to street car. However, because of its inherent flexibility, buses can be rerouted or cancelled. Therefore there is less incentive to invest in the corridor because a customer group can easily vanish. * Buses with dedicated lanes - A good compromise between bus and street car, but drivers sitting in traffic will see the nearly empty bus lanes and complain why the road isn't being used. * Street Car - Cheaper than subway, but because the tracks are laid, it's much less likely to be rerouted or cancelled, creating more incentive to invest in the corridor. * Subway - Most expensive and least likely to be rerouted or cancelled; creates most incentive to invest in the corridor.
jonknee 11y ago
The lessened flexibility is actually a big plus for a side effect of transit--private investment. It's much easier to develop adjacent to non-movable transit infrastructure like a streetcar or light rail than it is a bus route which can change in an instant. BRT is a decent compromise, but it's still quite expensive to do.
pwthornton 11y ago
They are better for the local environment. They usually run of off electricity instead of diesel. That's a significant win for streetcars over buses.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Nowadays there's a fix for that: trolleybuses with batteries. Still much more flexibility than streetcars, while running off of electricity.
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    I was wondering whatever happened to the potential for CNG buses. And I found this link http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/10/electric-buses-beat-cng-buses-mile-nearly-6/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/10/electric-buses-beat-cng-... which makes the case that they could be replaced by electric.

Streetcars suck. It's less flexible buses, basically. Subways, on the other hand...

by tormeh 11y ago

Streetcars suck. It's less flexible buses, basically. Subways, on the other hand...

Subways are a lot more expensive than streetcars, while buses are cheaper (not that much once you have a dedicated lane) but slower than streetcars. PS: I live in a city with an extensive streetcar network which is still expanding (Zurich)

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
More importantly, streetcars also have much higher passenger capacity than buses. This particular bus route in DC is stretched for capacity and already has buses coming every minute or two during rush hour, so they can't just add more buses.
xemdetia 11y ago
I believe the damning thing is that DC already has a fairly reasonable subway network, so I can't see the need for streetcars.
- apendleton 11y ago
  DC's streetcar and subway systems aren't supposed to address the same need. The metro system, in terms of station placement/spacing, schedules, line routes, etc., is designed to efficiently move people from the suburbs to the core and back again. It's poorly laid out for moving people within the city; the hub and spoke layout means almost everyone needs to transfer and trips are often circuitous. For my commute to my last job, for example, getting to work via metro required walking five blocks, going into downtown, changing lines, coming back out from downtown, and walking an additional four blocks. It took 45 minutes, vs a half hour just to walk to work or ten minutes to bike, and this is typical of getting from place to place within the city by metro. Most people don't bother. The envisioned broader streetcar network would have been explicitly designed to address intra-urban trips, and would have had a very different layout from metro, with stations spaced more closely together, and fewer lines passing through downtown. Lots of cities have different systems to address these needs, since it's difficult or impossible to design a system that does both well.
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    the hub and spoke layout means almost everyone needs to transfer and trips are often circuitous I don't know how well it works in practice, but ever since I saw the map[1] for the Moscow Metro I've always liked it. Especially the ring that presumably? keeps people from needing to go thru the core. It probably works better than most systems. E.g. NYC's subway doesn't do well if you're trying to get from outer borough to outer borough. Many such trips involve going thru Manhattan. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Moscow_metro_map_en_sb.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Moscow_m...

andys627 11y ago

Why?

staz 11y ago

Subways can't always be build, depending on the terrain type. Streetcars with their own lanes can be pretty efficient.

checker 11y ago

It really depends on whether the goal is simply to move people or to also spur reinvestment along the corridor. I won't debate whether or not the second goal is valid, but the second goal is why a streetcar can be preferable: * Bus - Super flexible, cheapest, similar capacity to street car. However, because of its inherent flexibility, buses can be rerouted or cancelled. Therefore there is less incentive to invest in the corridor because a customer group can easily vanish. * Buses with dedicated lanes - A good compromise between bus and street car, but drivers sitting in traffic will see the nearly empty bus lanes and complain why the road isn't being used. * Street Car - Cheaper than subway, but because the tracks are laid, it's much less likely to be rerouted or cancelled, creating more incentive to invest in the corridor. * Subway - Most expensive and least likely to be rerouted or cancelled; creates most incentive to invest in the corridor.

jonknee 11y ago

The lessened flexibility is actually a big plus for a side effect of transit--private investment. It's much easier to develop adjacent to non-movable transit infrastructure like a streetcar or light rail than it is a bus route which can change in an instant. BRT is a decent compromise, but it's still quite expensive to do.

pwthornton 11y ago

They are better for the local environment. They usually run of off electricity instead of diesel. That's a significant win for streetcars over buses.

icebraining 11y ago
Nowadays there's a fix for that: trolleybuses with batteries. Still much more flexibility than streetcars, while running off of electricity.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  I was wondering whatever happened to the potential for CNG buses. And I found this link http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/10/electric-buses-beat-cng-buses-mile-nearly-6/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/10/electric-buses-beat-cng-... which makes the case that they could be replaced by electric.