43 ms·

Ignoring the huge issue of political will, how much more or less effective would street cars be on these lines, compared to buses?

woodruffw 2y ago
I think it would depend: one of the reasons the streetcars were originally eliminated is that they were increasingly held up in traffic, and the argument was that buses could navigate (like cars) around traffic, make detours, etc. In practice however that hasn't really been borne out: the city's buses are notoriously slow. The city has (correctly) reprioritized bus lanes (including lane enforcement for scofflaw drivers) and express services (SBS) in response, but at that point we're essentially back to rights-of-way (i.e. how much of Europe runs timely and efficient streetcar networks). In short: I think streetcars would be less effective if not (partially) separated, but more effective otherwise. Given that the city is moving towards bus lane separation anyways, I personally believe they should revitalize the streetcar network instead. But that's (1) expensive, and (2) involves impressive amounts of local political spaghetti, given that the buses are currently run by state-level MTA while the roads are owned by the city.
- thescriptkiddie 2y ago
  Ya the idea that buses are better than streetcars because they can go around traffic is just completely detached from reality. Maybe a bus can go around one double-parked car but during rush hour that's not happening. It was always just an excuse to avoid taking an inch of space away from cars for dedicated transit right of way.
  - JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
    I live in Toronto and avoid taking streetcars because I have seen significant delays precisely because of parked cars or some other blockage. Of course in my opinion this simply means banning parking on streetcar routes; or having dedicated streetcar lanes where a blockage simply isn’t possible. Streetcar routes in Toronto which do not share the road are fine.
- freditup 2y ago
  What's the benefit to streetcars over busses with a dedicated, physically separated right of way? I like the idea of streetcars, but busses seem easier to purchase than streetcars, standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks and power, and likely it's easier to find/train bus operators than streetcar operators (even though I assume streetcars are actually a bit easier to operate).
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    The main one, in my mind, is permanency: as I mentioned in the adjacent comment, stable car-independent communities tend to be built around transportation systems that can’t be easily removed. (I think there are other benefits, like being slightly more comfortable. But permanency is by far the most important.)
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Capacity and level boarding are the two big ones. Trams are more capacious than buses because they don’t have onboard fuel tanks, so more space for passengers; and they’re fixed to tracks so they can be significantly longer without worrying about the back swinging out. Trams are also perfectly level with platforms, so there’s no need to waste time to achieve level boarding for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and the elderly; buses can spend quite a lot of time kneeling and deploying ramps.
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        These are good points!
  - _visgean 2y ago
    In prague there is both extensive bus network and tram network. I almost always go for buses. The capacity is just so much higher and usually the drive is much smoother compared to buses. Also trams are powered by electricity making it more efficient and c02 neutral... > standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks I would think that tracks last way longer. Overall I think the cost is lower in long term for street cars but the initial cost is super high - e.g. edinburgh build one awkward tram line for around 700m. But thats with depots, cars everything. In Prague with all existing infrastructure it cost now about 78m usd to build 2.2km of tram with 6 stops.
- andrepd 2y ago
  Any public transport that doesn't have its own right of way is immediately and trivially broken, since it will be always strictly worse than an individual car. So more people will take cars, so traffic will be worse, so buses will be worse by the same measure, so will still be worse than cars, so... That's how you get LA levels of gridlock despite every street being a 14 lane freeway. Whereas if buses/trams run in a dedicated lane with the same speed independent of car traffic, there is immediately a natural balancing incentive / restoring force: too much car traffic and the bus will become comparatively more attractive, so less people will take cars, so traffic will be lessened, so
  - 7speter 2y ago
    NYC buses have been crowded since before I was born 30+ years ago, even if they are crawling at 4 mph
- dataflow 2y ago
  > the city's buses are notoriously slow Are the buses actually slower than they can be, or do they just have to deal with too many passengers (given the population density) taking a long time to board/unboard?
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    Boarding time is a factor, but traffic, road conditions (double parking and driving in the bus lane), and stop spacing are larger ones. Especially since OMNY and pre-purchased tickets for the SBS routes.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Enforcing right of way for street cars could be a lot more efficient now. Stick a licence plate reader on the front of trolley, record any car that blocks them for more than X minutes and mail a ticket. Drivers will learn fast not to screw around.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    > for more than X minutes You meant seconds there, not minutes.
- canucker2016 2y ago
  For two-lanes-or-less-each-way streets, buses don't offer much benefit if the streets are busy since the chance of being able to get enough space for a very heavy, long bus to switch lanes is low/impossible. Streets cars/trams weakness include breakdowns - trailing streetcars/trams are blocked if a streetcar breaks down on the track. But, they can also carry more passengers than buses. I think many modern versions are about 3-4 bus-lengths long.
ochoseis 2y ago
From the perspective of "vehicles on the road" buses make a lot more sense to me: - They can maneuver around double-parked cars and trucks - They can switch up the route when there's construction - There are no tracks tripping up pedestrians and cyclists - They're [probably] easier to get to a service hub for maintenance - They don't require overhead wires to provide electricity - I would guess they're cheaper to purchase and maintain, but don't have a reference One area where street cars _might_ win is noise. Busses can be loud.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Your last four points are good, but in practice the first two have not netted significant advantages for NYC's bus operations: many of NYC's buses run on narrow one-lane streets, where any amount of double parking makes the road completely un-navigable. Similarly, it's more common to see a bus route taken out of operation entirely for a week than to have it re-routed on the fly (the latter does happen, but the network also dense enough where most riders can take the next avenue's route). I think a significant understated advantage to streetcars is their effect on local neighborhood development: like a subway line, a streetcar line is a semi-permanent installation that can't be easily taken away by a short-term replanning of the network. Bus lines, even when dense and well-developed (like NYC's are!), simply feel impermanent in a way that rail transport doesn't. (Or as another framing: if you build a rail connection to a neighborhood, there's a good chance there will still be a thriving neighborhood there in a century. It's not as easy to guarantee that with a bus route that can be taken away overnight.)
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Rail-based transit also provides major side-benefits to its routes: development and improvement. The principle is that bus routes can change, bus stops can move. Rail right-of-way and train stations are quite permanent and immobile. Therefore, if a city invests in rail, the developers will follow, and redevelop, revitalize, or gentrify neighborhoods along that route. Conversely, folks in the neighborhood may fight the rail expansion, because "there goes the neighborhood" usually in a more upscale fashion. It was smart for cities to build out streetcar lines in their early expansions, enticing developers into areas that promised long-term access. Of course, rail lines don't last forever, but the point is being more permanent and staying put, more reliably, than rubber-tire-based transit.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Light rail provides mostly equivalent service to streetcars. Brooklyn-Queens is getting the Interborough Express at some point. https://new.mta.info/project/interborough-express https://new.mta.info/project/interborough-express
elygre 2y ago
From discussions in Oslo, Norway: every researcher or institute says that buses are both cheaper and significantly more flexible, and should be used. And then the public comes along, preferring trams by a mile.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  Interesting. Is there a good entry point into the bus vs tram cost and flexibility research?

woodruffw 2y ago

I think it would depend: one of the reasons the streetcars were originally eliminated is that they were increasingly held up in traffic, and the argument was that buses could navigate (like cars) around traffic, make detours, etc. In practice however that hasn't really been borne out: the city's buses are notoriously slow. The city has (correctly) reprioritized bus lanes (including lane enforcement for scofflaw drivers) and express services (SBS) in response, but at that point we're essentially back to rights-of-way (i.e. how much of Europe runs timely and efficient streetcar networks). In short: I think streetcars would be less effective if not (partially) separated, but more effective otherwise. Given that the city is moving towards bus lane separation anyways, I personally believe they should revitalize the streetcar network instead. But that's (1) expensive, and (2) involves impressive amounts of local political spaghetti, given that the buses are currently run by state-level MTA while the roads are owned by the city.

thescriptkiddie 2y ago
Ya the idea that buses are better than streetcars because they can go around traffic is just completely detached from reality. Maybe a bus can go around one double-parked car but during rush hour that's not happening. It was always just an excuse to avoid taking an inch of space away from cars for dedicated transit right of way.
- JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
  I live in Toronto and avoid taking streetcars because I have seen significant delays precisely because of parked cars or some other blockage. Of course in my opinion this simply means banning parking on streetcar routes; or having dedicated streetcar lanes where a blockage simply isn’t possible. Streetcar routes in Toronto which do not share the road are fine.
freditup 2y ago
What's the benefit to streetcars over busses with a dedicated, physically separated right of way? I like the idea of streetcars, but busses seem easier to purchase than streetcars, standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks and power, and likely it's easier to find/train bus operators than streetcar operators (even though I assume streetcars are actually a bit easier to operate).
- woodruffw 2y ago
  The main one, in my mind, is permanency: as I mentioned in the adjacent comment, stable car-independent communities tend to be built around transportation systems that can’t be easily removed. (I think there are other benefits, like being slightly more comfortable. But permanency is by far the most important.)
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Capacity and level boarding are the two big ones. Trams are more capacious than buses because they don’t have onboard fuel tanks, so more space for passengers; and they’re fixed to tracks so they can be significantly longer without worrying about the back swinging out. Trams are also perfectly level with platforms, so there’s no need to waste time to achieve level boarding for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and the elderly; buses can spend quite a lot of time kneeling and deploying ramps.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      These are good points!
- _visgean 2y ago
  In prague there is both extensive bus network and tram network. I almost always go for buses. The capacity is just so much higher and usually the drive is much smoother compared to buses. Also trams are powered by electricity making it more efficient and c02 neutral... > standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks I would think that tracks last way longer. Overall I think the cost is lower in long term for street cars but the initial cost is super high - e.g. edinburgh build one awkward tram line for around 700m. But thats with depots, cars everything. In Prague with all existing infrastructure it cost now about 78m usd to build 2.2km of tram with 6 stops.
andrepd 2y ago
Any public transport that doesn't have its own right of way is immediately and trivially broken, since it will be always strictly worse than an individual car. So more people will take cars, so traffic will be worse, so buses will be worse by the same measure, so will still be worse than cars, so... That's how you get LA levels of gridlock despite every street being a 14 lane freeway. Whereas if buses/trams run in a dedicated lane with the same speed independent of car traffic, there is immediately a natural balancing incentive / restoring force: too much car traffic and the bus will become comparatively more attractive, so less people will take cars, so traffic will be lessened, so
- 7speter 2y ago
  NYC buses have been crowded since before I was born 30+ years ago, even if they are crawling at 4 mph
dataflow 2y ago
> the city's buses are notoriously slow Are the buses actually slower than they can be, or do they just have to deal with too many passengers (given the population density) taking a long time to board/unboard?
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Boarding time is a factor, but traffic, road conditions (double parking and driving in the bus lane), and stop spacing are larger ones. Especially since OMNY and pre-purchased tickets for the SBS routes.
morkalork 2y ago
Enforcing right of way for street cars could be a lot more efficient now. Stick a licence plate reader on the front of trolley, record any car that blocks them for more than X minutes and mail a ticket. Drivers will learn fast not to screw around.
- anticensor 2y ago
  > for more than X minutes You meant seconds there, not minutes.
canucker2016 2y ago
For two-lanes-or-less-each-way streets, buses don't offer much benefit if the streets are busy since the chance of being able to get enough space for a very heavy, long bus to switch lanes is low/impossible. Streets cars/trams weakness include breakdowns - trailing streetcars/trams are blocked if a streetcar breaks down on the track. But, they can also carry more passengers than buses. I think many modern versions are about 3-4 bus-lengths long.

ochoseis 2y ago

From the perspective of "vehicles on the road" buses make a lot more sense to me: - They can maneuver around double-parked cars and trucks - They can switch up the route when there's construction - There are no tracks tripping up pedestrians and cyclists - They're [probably] easier to get to a service hub for maintenance - They don't require overhead wires to provide electricity - I would guess they're cheaper to purchase and maintain, but don't have a reference One area where street cars _might_ win is noise. Busses can be loud.

woodruffw 2y ago
Your last four points are good, but in practice the first two have not netted significant advantages for NYC's bus operations: many of NYC's buses run on narrow one-lane streets, where any amount of double parking makes the road completely un-navigable. Similarly, it's more common to see a bus route taken out of operation entirely for a week than to have it re-routed on the fly (the latter does happen, but the network also dense enough where most riders can take the next avenue's route). I think a significant understated advantage to streetcars is their effect on local neighborhood development: like a subway line, a streetcar line is a semi-permanent installation that can't be easily taken away by a short-term replanning of the network. Bus lines, even when dense and well-developed (like NYC's are!), simply feel impermanent in a way that rail transport doesn't. (Or as another framing: if you build a rail connection to a neighborhood, there's a good chance there will still be a thriving neighborhood there in a century. It's not as easy to guarantee that with a bus route that can be taken away overnight.)
AStonesThrow 2y ago
Rail-based transit also provides major side-benefits to its routes: development and improvement. The principle is that bus routes can change, bus stops can move. Rail right-of-way and train stations are quite permanent and immobile. Therefore, if a city invests in rail, the developers will follow, and redevelop, revitalize, or gentrify neighborhoods along that route. Conversely, folks in the neighborhood may fight the rail expansion, because "there goes the neighborhood" usually in a more upscale fashion. It was smart for cities to build out streetcar lines in their early expansions, enticing developers into areas that promised long-term access. Of course, rail lines don't last forever, but the point is being more permanent and staying put, more reliably, than rubber-tire-based transit.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

Light rail provides mostly equivalent service to streetcars. Brooklyn-Queens is getting the Interborough Express at some point. https://new.mta.info/project/interborough-express https://new.mta.info/project/interborough-express

elygre 2y ago

From discussions in Oslo, Norway: every researcher or institute says that buses are both cheaper and significantly more flexible, and should be used. And then the public comes along, preferring trams by a mile.

ericjmorey 2y ago
Interesting. Is there a good entry point into the bus vs tram cost and flexibility research?