Whats the point of streetcar?

[GoASU 0]

I mean would bus be better, becaus there still on the road but there not connected to tracks? Seems like they get in the way.

[Zelgadis 638]

To put it simply, streetcars hold more people and do not pollute. It would take three buses to hold the same number of people as one large Toronto streetcar.

ISF

[Duke87 1,070]

You can make hybrid or other alternatively powered buses. And saying streetcars don't pollute is misleading, since they use electricity... and the power plants that make that electricity pollute.

And considering buses are more versatile, cheaper, and interfere less, it's understandable why most cities that used to have streetcars ditched them in favor of buses.

Of course, that's streetcars. Light rail is a different story, since it runs in its own right of way, not in the middle of the street mixing with traffic, and thus doesn't get in the way anywhere near as much, and potentially moves faster than traffic on the street. Still, removing lanes from a street to put it in isn't always a good idea. It works best in small cities and semi-urban areas. In big cities with lots of traffic on the street, it doesn't really, and you have to build subways or els to get the same type of benefit.

And that's another thing to remember- streetcars run in the middle of the street and are basically just buses on rails. Light Rail runs on its own dedicated ROW (though it still has grade level crossings), and generally is trains of two or three cars, increasing the capacity. There's a difference.

zel seems to have mixed that up. I do believe Toronto has what's technically considered "light rail", not streetcars, even though that's what the locals call them.

Streetcars- there really isn't much point, since buses do the same thing only better.

Light rail- having increased capacity over buses, and being much more out of the way, safer, and faster than buses are the key benefits.

To further clarify: those famous things in San Fransisco are Streetcars. What they have in cities like Denver is light rail.

[Rymac91 15]

streetcars are usually bus sized trains that run on rails in the streets.

Light rail usually has a independent track from the street traffic(such as in the median of a avenue) and uses longer trains, but does use streetcar sized cars in some places.

Trolleybuses are electric buses, they use overhead electrical wires and operate mostly like a normal bus.

[liryon 0]

Even street cars that run in the middle of the street often still move faster than the traffic on that street. At least this is true with the above ground portions on the green line in Boston. The trains are sometimes up to 3 cars in length increasing capacity at peak times. Now, granted, a subway or light rail would be better, but those require new, large costs. They also run buses on the streets, and the street cars are definitely faster during commute times.

If you are deploying a new system in places where eliminating a lane for tracks is not an option (pretty much eliminating an existing lane is never an option), then you're pretty much stuck with buses. Buses of course can switch between common right of way and exclusive right of way, they can also switch of electricity from overhead wires to internal combustion. This is practical and it is done, see the silver line in Boston.

[your_adress_here 11]

Toronto does in fact have streetcars.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: Duke87 To further clarify: those famous things in San Fransisco are Streetcars. What they have in cities like Denver is light rail.quote>

Now that is cool.  That is the first time I have ever seen Denver mentioned as an iconic city with regards to mass transit (I guess the airport kinda.....but this isn't in Kansas, so it's easier to have pride for).  And to be equated with the SF streetcar no less!

[screamingman12 30]

Streetcars still have a purpose, urban renewal. Refer to the Portland system.
It is also not true that busses are cheaper than streetcar systems are. Busses put increased ware on the road surface, making for a rougher ride quality. Are genernally repulsive to perspective users, and electrically powered streetcars have superior grade climbing ability and are more efficient then busses. as well as providing superior people moving capability.

[Zelgadis 638]

Toronto has streetcars. And they have much higher capacity than buses. They may be "buses on rails," but they're a lot bigger and roomier. These are simple facts. Duke, you might want to do more research in the future before you start contradicting things people say about cities you know nothing about.

ISF

[Silur 3,308]

Yes, this is some trams from Moscow:

#1

#2

#3

#4

Tram capacity like a bus ...

[hamsterTK 93]

I am not a transit engineer, but it seems like articulated buses can do the same job as a streetcar for less cost, depending on the kind of construction of the roadway/lanes they use.

Now full on Light rail, as a regional commuter/metro system makes sense. An alternative to a subway yet with the same capacity. That was the original idea when light rail was first planned in the 80's.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Hmm my city has a planned monorail system which if built will be quite effective. Portsmouth being an island with only 3 road bridges on (and no where else to stick one), having a monorail leading from a large car park adjacent to the motorway (and my local station) outside the city will allow commuters and shoppers to park their car or leave the train outside of the city and take the Monorail into the city (which also passes the International Ferry Port).

[WSU Planner 0]

In the U.S. there is another less tangible difference between the streetcars and buses: In many large metropolitan areas, buses carry with them a pretty negative conotation that only the poor or minorities ride them (I am not defending this, just pointing it out) and the movement towards fixed-route transportation options, while more costly to implement, can help to negate this.

[Jasoncw 11,940]

Duke, streetcars are a form of light rail.  You seem to not know what you're talking about. 

Some pros and cons are listed on this wikipedia article.

I'd also like to add though, that there is a greater economic benefit from things with rails.  Their path is fixed, and are seen to be more permanent than buses.  This makes the land around stops more desirable.  And the fact that light rail costs more than buses means that more money is invested in the area serviced in the first place, showing that there is value in the area to investors.  Studies have been done, and have shown that the added economic benefit is more than the added cost of the system.

And like has been said before, buses have a bad image.  Light rail systems have the image of a clean healthy progressive city.

[hamsterTK 93]

light rail and streetcars may both be the same thing, but there is some differences I think,

the most notable is that modern streetcars use shallower track bed and that their cost per mile is significantly less than traditional LRT. Modern Streetcar vehicles also have a smaller profile than traditional LRV's and consequently less passenger capacity.

Light rail is descended from interurban and stadtbahn type systems operating over heavy rail lines, vehicles are just regular trains but with performance and apperance suitable for street running.

In Portland, the streetcar can run on MAX lrt tracks, but if a MAX train tries to go on the streetcar line it would damage the rails and the pavement.

[fishmarket 0]

Refer to the film End of Suburbia and they discuss buses vs. light rail system

[TheJackalope 0]

Well for one thing streetcar technology was available before buses, and replaced horse drawn incity stages in many communities. The tracks also provide a visual cue of where the line goes whereas a bus doesn't.

[GreekMan 246]

Toronto has a cool streetcar system! The only bad thing is that their transport is not modern

For ex: If your go to T you see 50s 60s Buses and streetcars there

[TEG24601 32]

Seattle has an interesting hybrid of the two. They have an extensive bus network, but along major arterial and through downtown, many busses extend hooks and are powered by the power grid. It reduces pollution and still retains the flexibility of busses and don't take away lanes from the roads. It does help that most of the dual powered busses are articulated (i.e. double length), so they also have the larger capacity of a streetcar.

Street Cars in the US are often used for services that need to run often over a certain length, especially between residential areas and employers or education facilities.

TEG

[omgitsacamera 0]

buses carry with them a pretty negative conotation that only the poor or minorities ride them (I am not defending this, just pointing it out)quote>

dont forget the driving impaired, kids, seniors, and like you pointed out, the poor and minorities.

[City2TheMax 3]

Streetcars work well in Europe, but I can't see them working too well in America. They hold lots of people, don't pollute, and are cheap. They are a great alternative in a car (where I lived in Germany you never really needed a car, you could get everyhwere by streetcar or by walking). Buses just add to congestion (since they run on the regular roads, not on extra lanes <-- this is not true in all cases of course), they can't hold nearly the same amount of people, and pollute.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Just as streetcars and light rail have been pointed out as having initially expensive fixed infrastucture representing real investment along their routes, buses offer the other extreme of affordable impermanence with the possibility of service at any time being discontinued or consolidated into lesser routes. As a budgetary practice, buses offer on paper an inexpensive capital solution that at anytime can be more easily scaled down or withdrawn whenever cutbacks are needed.

Often times, the transit solution package chosen has most to do with what the public authority believes it can afford to finance or convince the voters to pay for within the projected time frame. They compromise between the best versus the affordable.

[csgcseri 0]

Well, as a transit enthusiast, i must denie, that buses are always good. But let's take a fair view (clarifying, that I'm a big fan of streetcars). Bus causes heavy pollution, BUT not as much as cars do (think of how many cars can be stopped). Not very cheap to operate, do to todays high oil prices, BUT bus route's are changeble very easy, and in areas, where the mainstream of traffic changes often (build a mall, make a bus route, not much traffic? -> cancel it), that's an important thing. Another bad thing, that it easely stuck in jams. Trams do not pollute, some of the modern ones even recycle energy they consume, BUT they require tracks to build, and you cannot change routes that easly+ if it's built in a wrong conception, then you cannot discontinue it as easly as a bus route. And traffic jams are no problem for them IF they have a separated trackbed.

Now, i must talk about a reliable solution, the trolleybus. This buses use overhed wires, which means they don't pollute. Trolleybuses don't use tracks, they run on the roads, so the only cost is to make the overhead wires, which is cheaper than wires+track. And, it's route is more changeable, than trams. BUT if they don't have separated bus lanes, than they can stuck in traffic jams. I think this is the most reliable kind of transit form instead of bus.

Now, you would say, that those overhead wires would ruin the city scape. There's an answer: BATTERY / accumulator. The trolley routes would be wired only on a small section, and on this section, they would fill up the battery, and then run on the rest of the route battery-powered. Like for instance, only a 5 meter section of the route at the terminus would be overwired, which would serve as fill up points, and run on the lines as battery-buses. Today, battery is a standard in new trolleybuses manufactured, so its reality.

(uhh........long post)

[TRNSTN 0]

Toronto has some light rail-like routes (according to the definition above about LR) and some not, but the vehicles themselves are still streetcars. Just the idea of Toronto streetcars, the current models I would never call light rail, they seem like these gigantic lumbering monsters rumbling along our streets. And they do not stick close to the ground either, you take a good 3 (4?) steps to get onto them. Back in the day i guess they didn't have the term LR, so streetcars have just stuck. Hopefully the proposed change in our Toronto streetcar models will happen then we'll have true LR, and maybe add in a few LR routes.

[TRNSTN 0]

Your idea about battery powered busses/ accumulated energy storage is very interesting. I've read up on the history of electrical vehicles and such (I'm nerdy that way) and apparently in that golden age of innovation, electrical battery-powered buses were tested on the streets of London back in 18whatever00. At that time electrical and gas powered vehicles were in limbo so not much domination of either one.

Basically how the system worked was that the buses would go from stop to stop, and perhaps at the end of the line or even end of the day they'd simply go back to the main garage go up on a ramp and have their battery changed, and it'd be all ready for the next use.

It sounds pretty efficient to me, especially if implemented now, you could have the buses that stopped in larger hub stations (which they usually stop for a big longer) get their batteries exchanged, via ports underneath the bus that simply opened up and changed it with robotic machinery in a matter of seconds. Forgive me if that sounds a little surreal because the image of that is just really futuristic, but it's not impossible say in the next 10 years or so.

[Odd from Sweden 129]

If a route takes more than 30 000 passangers per day, a tramway line may be more economical than a bus service. The investment cost for sthe rail is of course a burden, but in the long run lower costs for personnel (long trains still only have one driver), vehicles (a bus do not last very many years), energy (rail consumes a fraction of the power) pays off. At least this is what has been discussed here in Stockholm where bus line 4 carries about 45 000 passangers a day and would serve better if converted to a tramway line.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Odd from Sweden If a route takes more than 30 000 passangers per day, a tramway line may be more economical than a bus service. The investment cost for sthe rail is of course a burden, but in the long run lower costs for personnel (long trains still only have one driver), vehicles (a bus do not last very many years), energy (rail consumes a fraction of the power) pays off. At least this is what has been discussed here in Stockholm where bus line 4 carries about 45 000 passangers a day and would serve better if converted to a tramway line.quote>

Agreed. I've recently moved from an area served by 9 trains per hour during the day (6-19) and 30 metro trains per hour during the day (45 or 60 during rush hours), to a place completely cut off by rail. The bus to the city centre runs about every fourth minute, but the routing is terrible--one stop by a suburban train station (with a semi radial service around the centre) and one by metro, pretty close to downtown. To be fair, there are a bus going to the main suburban rail line, but when both buses takes 30 minutes to reach them, it's pretty useless. While they are debating a light rail project, polls show that people want the tramways back (when they were traded for the buses)

The sad thing is of course, that their speed are way too low that they can be an alternative if you could use a car instead. The only place the buses can run with a decent speed are in fact in the centre, because of the avenues present.

Also, because buses run on ardinary streets they're subject to all stops and curves the road takes, which can be somewhat reduced by a track service.

[TRNSTN 0]

I havne't heard anything about dedicated bus lanes? If you haven't heard of Curitiba's (Brazil) innovative way of implementing an efficient mass transit system, done very cheaply and successfully, check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_Integrada_de_Transporte

It's pretty amazing what they did, especially when the city had budget and traffic woes. I guess bus rapid transit with dedicated lanes is alot cheaper to run than a light rail system, because of the added cost of rails and overhead wires. Assuming these buses may eventually become hybrid or full electric vehicles, added pollution (at least not in the downtown or urban area) will not be a problem. Or with buses that have overhead wires, you save on the rails being built.

[The Arrowz 3]

One good thing about streetcars is that they don't always have to share the road with regular traffic. They can and do, but not always.

Buses do cause more pollution within a city though since most power plants are probably rather far away.

I know that in San Francisco, they have streetcars, as well as light rail, as well as buses and articulated buses, yet people still ride the streetcar It might be because the route is simple and straightforward without all these turns and detours, and might provide quicker service, yet still be able to access residential and commercial districts with ease? I don't really remember...

[Wrightguy0 40]

Cities benefit from having streetcars, not only are cleaner than busses, but in some cities they are an attracton (SF) they provide defined routesto a destination and I think many majour cities would be better off with streetcars, the more public transit, the better. heck at the turn of the century streetcars were the only form of mass transit, from Saint John to San Francisco and every point in between the steetcar was king.