3 ms·

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

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...

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...