4 ms·

A streetcar is just a bus that can't be rerouted or go around a road obstruction.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Except it usually also has a dedicated lane. Businesses and people also know that the bus line is fixed, so it makes all development along it significantly more attractive. A bus route can come and go per financial quarter.
- philwelch 2y ago
  And if that lane gets obstructed you lose the entire streetcar line from that point on.
throw0101c 2y ago
> A streetcar is just a bus that can't be rerouted or go around a road obstruction. A single-lane BRT can carry 9000 people, while a single-lane streetcar/tram/LRT can carry 18000: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_dif... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity Rail gives you more capacity. Of course if you don't need that capacity then the value proposition is questionable: perhaps better to start with a BRT and try to get things to grow.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  BRT would be a good (and cheap) upgrade for a lot of the absurdly wide stroads covering US cities. Bonus points if you can get the intersections on those roads converted to roundabouts. The whole reason why those stroads got so comically wide is so that all the cars have somewhere to park while they're waiting for the next light. Roundabouts are continuous flow and can handle a lot more traffic than a signaled intersection, so you can take out the center lanes in favor of dedicated bus infrastructure. The reason why most buses suck to take is because they can never keep to a schedule when they're sharing the same lanes that private cars take, have to wait at the same lights as them, etc.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >The reason why most buses suck to take is because they can never keep to a schedule when they're sharing the same lanes that private cars take, have to wait at the same lights as them, etc. They're also pretty damn uncomfortable to sit on: bouncing motions, herky-jerky steering motions, etc. Compare that to sitting on a subway car: the subway is FAR more comfortable because it's riding on rails and doesn't bounce around a lot. And if it's really crowded, it's a lot easier to stand up while riding a subway than a bus.
vikingerik 2y ago
Besides the sibling replies, it can also be powered better, from direct connection to the electrical grid. More efficient than lossy conversions from battery storage or combustion fuel, and also saves the weight and complexity of those components.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Electric trolleybuses are probably the better tradeoff.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Plus, no tyres. It turns out that tires cause a surprising amount of pollution.

Except it usually also has a dedicated lane. Businesses and people also know that the bus line is fixed, so it makes all development along it significantly more attractive. A bus route can come and go per financial quarter.

philwelch 2y ago
And if that lane gets obstructed you lose the entire streetcar line from that point on.

throw0101c 2y ago

> A streetcar is just a bus that can't be rerouted or go around a road obstruction. A single-lane BRT can carry 9000 people, while a single-lane streetcar/tram/LRT can carry 18000: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_dif... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity Rail gives you more capacity. Of course if you don't need that capacity then the value proposition is questionable: perhaps better to start with a BRT and try to get things to grow.

kmeisthax 2y ago
BRT would be a good (and cheap) upgrade for a lot of the absurdly wide stroads covering US cities. Bonus points if you can get the intersections on those roads converted to roundabouts. The whole reason why those stroads got so comically wide is so that all the cars have somewhere to park while they're waiting for the next light. Roundabouts are continuous flow and can handle a lot more traffic than a signaled intersection, so you can take out the center lanes in favor of dedicated bus infrastructure. The reason why most buses suck to take is because they can never keep to a schedule when they're sharing the same lanes that private cars take, have to wait at the same lights as them, etc.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >The reason why most buses suck to take is because they can never keep to a schedule when they're sharing the same lanes that private cars take, have to wait at the same lights as them, etc. They're also pretty damn uncomfortable to sit on: bouncing motions, herky-jerky steering motions, etc. Compare that to sitting on a subway car: the subway is FAR more comfortable because it's riding on rails and doesn't bounce around a lot. And if it's really crowded, it's a lot easier to stand up while riding a subway than a bus.

vikingerik 2y ago

Besides the sibling replies, it can also be powered better, from direct connection to the electrical grid. More efficient than lossy conversions from battery storage or combustion fuel, and also saves the weight and complexity of those components.

philwelch 2y ago
Electric trolleybuses are probably the better tradeoff.
fragmede 2y ago
Plus, no tyres. It turns out that tires cause a surprising amount of pollution.