3 ms·

Please stop perpetuating the bogus "oil/gas/auto companies killed the streetcars" myth. Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregate

by evgen 12y ago

Please stop perpetuating the bogus "oil/gas/auto companies killed the streetcars" myth. Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregated from regular traffic and even in that case it still loses to several alternatives. Every possible justification for this form of public transit died by the middle of the 20th century. The only reason for such systems now is to amuse tourists.

toddmorey 12y ago
I think looking for one single cause in any complex transformation is a bad idea, but like most myths, it's an exaggeration of a kernel of truth. An equality frustrating myth is the idea that pure market forces led us into our current auto-based transportation system because it's just superior to public transport in every way. I think were that the case, public transit would have waned more evenly worldwide. But I am curious (genuinely) about the other alternatives you mention.
cbhl 12y ago
> Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregated from regular traffic I find this interesting, since there is a lot of mixed light rail traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area, whereas in my hometown of Richmond Hill, Canada, there is ongoing construction of segregated bus lanes (with the intention of building light rail over the bus lanes in the next ten years). What were the arguments for mixed light-rail/roads, and what are the current counterarguments that make buses and/or segregated light rail strictly better?
- hapless 12y ago
  Separate rights of way are the only way to ensure on-time service. Bus "bunching" is an unsolved mathematical problem. Traffic is just not predictable, and since buses follow a defined route, they have an even worse time of it than the average driver (who only goes from point A to B, with flexible routing) This is equally true whether you use rail or bus. A bus system on dedicated busways can be just as fast and reliable as a traditional subway. A rail system running at-grade in traffic will suffer the same low ridership and stigmatization as a regular bus line. Advantages to buses on dedicated busways: They're slightly cheaper than rail development. Advantages to rail on dedicated railways: Much greater capacity than a bus system. More "headroom" to upgrade capacity. Segregated lanes in an at-grade system are a half-measure at best. It gets you nowhere close to the service improvements made possible by a dedicated RoW. A bus system with segregated lanes is just a slightly faster bus system. A bus system running on dedicated busways is rapid transit.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
mproud 12y ago
Really? Then you don’t know about National City Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines). They were indicted in 1947 on charges of conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, and of forming a transportation monopoly to control sales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines#cite_note-para1-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines#cite_note-...) GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and others were involved.
- hapless 12y ago
  A conspiracy to control sales of busses. Every transit agency in the country was already investigating busses to replace street-level rail and trolley-bus systems. Lower costs (both up front and operating), greater route flexibility, and new capabilities seemed like a slam dunk. The "conspiracy" was an attempt to corner the market on the already-inevitable replacement of legacy non-rapid transit systems. The conspirators were willing to spend a good deal of money to make certain that transit groups would buy GM buses with Firestone tires, not Ford and Michelin.
  - mproud 12y ago
    I don’t buy it. NCL, incorporated in Delaware, was a holding company which took over 46 transit systems in 16 states. Doesn’t sound like flowers and bunnies to me.

by evgen 12y ago

toddmorey 12y ago

I think looking for one single cause in any complex transformation is a bad idea, but like most myths, it's an exaggeration of a kernel of truth. An equality frustrating myth is the idea that pure market forces led us into our current auto-based transportation system because it's just superior to public transport in every way. I think were that the case, public transit would have waned more evenly worldwide. But I am curious (genuinely) about the other alternatives you mention.

cbhl 12y ago

> Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregated from regular traffic I find this interesting, since there is a lot of mixed light rail traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area, whereas in my hometown of Richmond Hill, Canada, there is ongoing construction of segregated bus lanes (with the intention of building light rail over the bus lanes in the next ten years). What were the arguments for mixed light-rail/roads, and what are the current counterarguments that make buses and/or segregated light rail strictly better?

hapless 12y ago
Separate rights of way are the only way to ensure on-time service. Bus "bunching" is an unsolved mathematical problem. Traffic is just not predictable, and since buses follow a defined route, they have an even worse time of it than the average driver (who only goes from point A to B, with flexible routing) This is equally true whether you use rail or bus. A bus system on dedicated busways can be just as fast and reliable as a traditional subway. A rail system running at-grade in traffic will suffer the same low ridership and stigmatization as a regular bus line. Advantages to buses on dedicated busways: They're slightly cheaper than rail development. Advantages to rail on dedicated railways: Much greater capacity than a bus system. More "headroom" to upgrade capacity. Segregated lanes in an at-grade system are a half-measure at best. It gets you nowhere close to the service improvements made possible by a dedicated RoW. A bus system with segregated lanes is just a slightly faster bus system. A bus system running on dedicated busways is rapid transit.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

mproud 12y ago

Really? Then you don’t know about National City Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines). They were indicted in 1947 on charges of conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, and of forming a transportation monopoly to control sales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines#cite_note-para1-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines#cite_note-...) GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and others were involved.

hapless 12y ago
A conspiracy to control sales of busses. Every transit agency in the country was already investigating busses to replace street-level rail and trolley-bus systems. Lower costs (both up front and operating), greater route flexibility, and new capabilities seemed like a slam dunk. The "conspiracy" was an attempt to corner the market on the already-inevitable replacement of legacy non-rapid transit systems. The conspirators were willing to spend a good deal of money to make certain that transit groups would buy GM buses with Firestone tires, not Ford and Michelin.
- mproud 12y ago
  I don’t buy it. NCL, incorporated in Delaware, was a holding company which took over 46 transit systems in 16 states. Doesn’t sound like flowers and bunnies to me.