Posted on Wednesday June 3rd by The Infrastructurist | 6,869
If you want a system that really attracts riders and investment, many transit experts will attest that streetcars are the best dollar-for-dollar investment a city can make.
Of course, there are plenty of situations where old-fashioned bus service or newfangled bus rapid transit (which usually has dedicated lanes) are just the thing. But for cities facing a choice between building a streetcar system or high-end BRT–and the cost difference can be smaller than might think–it’s handy to know that transit riders overwhelming prefer streetcars. Well, overwhelmingly if the comments section from a recent story on this site can be taken as a fair sample. One reader posed the question, “buses or streetcars?” and the responses–from laypeople and transportation experts alike–came fast and furious. In the end, we were left with dozens of reasons why streetcars are superior, ranging from the obvious to the wonderfully creative.
As the comments added up, we became more and more intrigued. So we’ve edited the various reasons into a proper list. Did we miss anything? Do any of these not hold up? Disagree entirely? Let us know in the comments section and we’ll update the story–and the headline–as worthwhile additions come in.
- New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
- Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement (and in Chicago we have plenty). Streetcars ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps.
- Streetcars don’t feel “low status” to transit riders. Buses often do.
- Mapmakers almost always include streetcar lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map.
- The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.
- There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
- Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
- Steel wheel on steel rail is inherently more efficient than rubber tire on pavement. Electric streetcars can accelerate more quickly than buses.
- Streetcars don’t smell like diesel.
- Streetcars accelerate and decelerate smoothly because they’re electrically propelled. Internal-combustion engines acting through a transmission simply cannot surge with the same smoothness.
- The current length limit for a bus is 60 feet, but streetcars can go longer, since they are locked into the rails and won’t be swinging all around the streets, smashing into cars.
- Streetcars have an air of nostalgia.
- New streetcar and light rail lines usually come with an upgraded street experience from better stops, landscaping, new roadbeds, and better sidewalks, to name a few. Of course, your federal transit dollar is paying for these modernizations, so why wouldn’t cities try to get them!
- Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
- Streetcars are light and potentially 100% green. Potentially they could be powered by 100% solar and/or wind power. Even powered with regular power plant-derived electricity, they are still 95% cleaner than diesel buses. [Source? -Ed.]
- Streetcars stop less. Because of the increased infrastructure for stops, transit planners don’t place stops at EVERY BLOCK, like they do with buses (SEPTA in Philly is terrible for this). Instead, blocks are a quarter to a half mile apart, so any point is no more than an eigth to a quarter mile from a stop.
- People will travel longer distances on streetcars. At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.
- Buses are noisy. I ride them every day in Chicago, and I am constantly amazed at how loud a diesel bus engine is–even on our latest-model buses [and] the valve chatter is an irritant to the nervous system. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
- Technological advances already make the current generation definitely NOT your grandfather’s streetcar. Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
- Passengers can take comfort from seeing the rails stretching out far ahead of them, while ever fearing that the bus could take a wrong turn at the next corner and divert them off course.
- Once purchased (albeit at high cost) streetcars are cheaper to maintain and last way the hell longer (case in point, streetcars discarded in the US in the 40’s, snapped up by the Yugoslavs, which are still running).
- Streetcar tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.
- People get notably more excited about the proposed extension of the streetcar system and expect revitalization of the neighborhoods around the planned stops.
- Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
- Most European cities and countries kept investing in public transit during the decades when America was DISinvesting. Now I look across the pond and see dozens of European cities extending or building new rail transit systems, including many streetcar lines, and conclude: ‘They probably know what they are doing; we should do some of that too.’
- You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
- Streetcars are faster than buses or trackless trolleys (aside from 2 lines in Philly, do any other cities run trackless trolleys, or trolley buses anymore?) because trams tend to have dedicated lanes. Even if they don’t, if they operate on streets with multiple lanes, people stay out of the tram lane, because it’s harder to drive a car along tram tracks (the wheels pull to one side or the other as they fall into the groove).
- In buses you’re still jostled by every pothole and sway at every bus stop. I thought bus rapid transit would be a significant improvement - there’s still a bit of sway and they concrete was not installed as smoothly as line of steel rail.
- With buses transit planners are pushed by funding formulas to capture every pocket of riders thus you can get a very wiggly route – something that’s less practical on a fixed rail system
- Buses lurch unpredictably from side to side as they weave in and out of traffic and as they move from the traffic lane to the curb lane to pick up passengers. In streetcars turns occur at the same location on every trip, so that even standees can more or less relax knowing the car is not going to perform any unpredictable lateral maneuvers.
- Most streetcar riders don’t consciously think about the differences between a bus ride and a streetcar ride. But their unconscious minds–the spinal cord, the solar plexus, the inner ear and the seat of the pants–quickly tally the differences and deliver an impressionistic conclusion: The streetcar ride is physiologically less stressful.
- An internal-combustion engine is constantly engaged in hammering itself to death and buses tend to vibrate themselves into a sort of metallurgical dishevelment. Interior fittings–window frames, handrails, floor coverings, seats–tend to work loose and make the interior look frowzy and uncared-for. By age 12 the bus is a piece of junk and has to be retired. A streetcar the same age is barely into its adolescence.
- Streetcar stops are typically given more attention than most bus routes and the information system is more advanced. In Portland, the shelters even have VMS diplays that tell you the times of the next two streetcar arrivals. This valuable information gives people the option to wait, do something else to pass the time, or walk to their destination.
- One great advantage of streetcars is that the infrastructure serves as an orienting and wayfinding device. The track alerts folks to the route and leads them to stops. Because they are a permanent feature of the streetscape, the routing is predictable and stable (unlike bus routes). So unlike a bus, a streetcar informs and helps citizens to formulate an image of their city, even if folks don’t ride it. It is a feature of their public realm. Because of this, these streets get greater public attention.
- When you ride one of the remaining historic cars in Toronto or San Francisco you can tell they’re “old” in the sense of “out of style,” but when you look around the interior everything still seems shipshape, nothing rattles, the windows open and close without binding. The rider experiences a sense of solid quality associated with Grandma’s solid-oak dining table and 1847 Rodgers Brothers silver. And that makes everybody feel good. Unlike, say, an aging bus.
- For those of you who cannot see the difference between a bus and a streetcar, I suggest riding a streetcar when you get the chance. Then, if you can locate a bus that more or less follows the same route, give that a try. Compare the two experiences.
**********
ALSO CHECK OUT:
AMERICA’S STREET CAR RENAISSANCE (MAP)
COMPARISON SHOPPING FOR TRANSIT (CHART)
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
i’m happy to see it being pointed out that the ride on a city bus is generally horrific. we deserve dignified transit, and buses just aren’t cutting it. and that goes for school buses — kids deserve dignified transit. they should be able to walk or bike, but if those aren’t feasible, then luxury coaches, short paratransit vehicles, streetcars, etc.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Great article! Just as a follow-up to point #27, yes several US cities (and international cities) use the trolleybuses. Here is the list according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus):
Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s Silver Line Waterfront service.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: SEPTA
San Francisco, California: San Francisco Muni
Seattle, Washington: King County Metro
Dayton, Ohio: Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority
I’ve been on the latter 3 systems, all three cities with some notable hills (not Dayton as much). I definitely prefer the streetcar. Riding the crowded trolleybuses on the hills is not much fun at all.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Only 36 reasons why streetcars are better than buses? Gotta be more.
I’ve seen it said that two or three streetcars can be hooked together to run efficiently as a train with one driver during rush hour, while adding more buses each with its own driver inevitably leads to bunching up. But I’m not an operations guy, so I just pass this one on.
I am the guy who made ‘the French know what they are doing’ point. Since then I came across a great site, http://www.trams-in-france.net, with great descriptions of 31 French cities with streetcars. Er, trams. Almost all of them are new lines in old cities. Thirty-one cities, with plans for hundreds of miles of added tram lines in France within a decade.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Having spent some years living on Toronto streetcar lines, I’d offer two things:
Streetcars are part of the neighborhood fabric and ambience. They belong where they are, a real element of the place, like landscape and buildings. Buses are anonymous, transient, no attachment to place. They come, they wheeze and belch, they go, who knows where.
On crowded streets buses get trapped at the curb and have to muscle their way back into the traffic. Streetcars move down the middle of the street and marshal the traffic to suit themselves.
Toronto is planning a major expansion of its streetcar routes. I hope that happens soon.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I agree with you about the streetcars, but just to let you know, Seattle has 14 high frequency ETB (electric trolleybus) routes, and San Francisco has 17. Dayton has 6, and Philadelphia has 5, too. But they do kind of suck.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Peter Smith makes an excellent point about schoolbuses. That is probably where the first indelible negative impression of riding the bus is formed. We force our kids to ride ugly, ungainly, uncomfortable, graceless schoolbuses and then we act surprised that everyone thinks the bus experience is not so nice. Well, duh.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:35 am
These are basically 36 ways of saying people are racist against buses.
It sucks because if middle-class people rode buses they would make them good, because those riders would demand it and they have political influence, case in point go ride a bus in Berlin. The buses there are Mercedes brand. They are beautiful, quiet, and clean. Many are double-deckers which is really cool. They have LCD displays showing you the next three stops, and the three most important stops down the rode.
I was in a Canadian Cities class in Undergrad where we talked about why they tore up the streetcar in the 50’s. The prof was obviously nostalgic for Montreal’s old system. The real reason why they ripped them up wasn’t because of technology, or even (everywhere) because of the auto conspiracy. Everyone back then was for replacing them with diesel buses because they all dated back to the 20’s; there had been no major investment for decades. So most of them were rust buckets. Diesel buses were seen as the wave of the future.
We’re basically seeing this again now: buses are lower class, and there has been disinvestment in them. Any streetcar you see these days is new and fancy. So everyone associates streetcars with all that is good, and buses with all that is bad. When they’re old and in disrepair we’ll probably see the opposite movement.
Everyone who’s ever had to regularly ride the 501 knows that streetcars are in some senses actually less reliable than buses. But streetcars have steel wheels, and that’s what people are obsessed with for now. I’m sure we’ll see the backlash in a decade or two, but streetcars are in and that is that.
I wish everyone would just get a positive attitude about buses, so we could see a reinvestment in them and an end to racial and class disparity in transit mode, but I know that nowadays the people with influence over transit policy, aka upper-middle-class white people, only want streetcars. So I guess that is how it will be… streetcar neighborhoods will gentrify and poor people will be riding crappy busses.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:43 am
@John
Though I don’t totally agree with you, it is probably true that buses in the U.S. are dirty, inconvenient and basically “rubbish” because they primarily serve the poor/disadvantaged in most major cities. You give an interesting example of the buses in Berlin and their amenities. Likewise here in Japan, buses are much easier to use than in the U.S., with both verbal announcements and LCD/LED panels showing stops., as well as fareboxes that give change(!). Why these simple enhancements can’t be done in the U.S. is beyond me.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:22 am
[...] under Uncategorized No Comments The readers of the Infrastructurist blog drafted this list. There is no question that buses are an important part of any city’s multi-modal [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am
[...] Infrastructurist provides a nice list of 36 ways in which streetcars are better than buses. It’s fine so far as it [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
>These are basically 36 ways of saying people are racist against buses.
I’d like to hear your justification for how “streetcars are smoother”, “streetcars have higher capacity”, “streetcars cost less to operate”, “streetcars are more green” and “streetcars are more permanent” qualify as “racist agaisnt buses”.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
This is an interesting post in how it reinforces an implied “hierarchy” in transit where every tier feels compelled to trash the one below it, and everybody aspires to move up in tiers even though they haven’t optimizedthe tier they have.
So, from top to bottom, you get HSR, Rail, Light Rail, Trolley/Streetcar, BRT, Bus, etc. Bikes and feet are not on this list because they are individual transit, not “mass” transit, and there are lots of variations, like monorails and people movers, that blur the lines, but in general, this is the transit world.
So “Trolleys are better than buses” is the same argument as “HSR is better than Rail”, Light rail is better than trollies, etc.
A lot of this is a no brainer, and what is perpetually missing is that improving bus service can be accomplished at orders-of-magnitude less cost and time than installing trolleys. Want a shiny new hybrid bus? Get on the phone and it will be delivered in a couple months. Want to install a street-bed rail and overhead power network in an existing city? Good luck doing that inside of 10 years.
As is the case with HSR mania, we keep obsessing about the shiny new solution and missing the low hanging fruit.
I LOVE trolleys as an alternative to light rail (which suffers from its own mania) but there’s really no need to trash buses to advocate for it. In fact, BRT is a realtively quick, cheap and easy way to establish rights-of-way and infrastructure that can be upgraded to trolley over time. Tey are not mutually exclusive.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.”
Really? What were the lines?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
[...] tidbits that have flowed past us in the fast-moving Streetsblog Network news feed: The Infrastructurist posts 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. Orphan Road writes about increasing density along [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
OK, this is so bad on so many levels we’ll have take them one by one:
Maybe if this were titled “One person’s opinion why they like new electric streetcars more than Chicago’s old diesel buses” this would be acceptable.
1. Absent stats, this is speculation
2. OK
3. This is totally dependant on the design and demographics.
4. Speculation
5. Absent stats, this is speculation
6. Contradicts #12
7. Subjective
8. Absent stats, this is speculation
9. Not all new buses are diesel, or smell.
10. Subjective. Also, not all new buses are ICE through transmission
11. This goes both ways, Extra lenght limits routes.
12 Contradicts #5
13. Speculative and subjective.
14. Rails are more permanent. However, development doesn’t automatically follow rails, Sometimes it avoids them.
15. Wrong. Streetcars are heavier than buses by a signifcant margin, and electicity is electricity. An electric bus is as green as an electric anything else.
16. This is a design and routing decision. It is not inherent or exclusive to streetcars. In fact, it applies equally to BRT, which the author seems intent on trashing.
17 Speculation.
18. Electric buses and streetcars are probably the same. Apple-to-oranges comparisons abound.
19. New buses posess many ofhthe same design improvements.
20. Subjective. Bordering on WTF?
21. Absent stats, this is speculation
22. Absent stats, this is speculation
23. Speculation
24. Speculation.
25. Factually correct, speculative conclusion
26. Subjective
27. Absent stats, this is speculation
28. Subjective.
29. Trolleys dont need funding?
30. Subjective
31. Absent stats, this is speculation
32. Apples to oranges, again. Also, part of streetcar’s substantial extra weight goes to durability, as their expense must be amortized over longer periods.
33. Not exclusive to streetcars
34. Speculative, and not exclusive to streecars
35. Comparing a tourist attraction to public transit? This crosses the line into WTF territory.
36. One last nonsensical subjective assertion.
OK, gotta get back to work now!
June 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
man, someone made the bus guy angry.
moving on…
This is an interesting post in how it reinforces an implied “hierarchy” in transit where every tier feels compelled to trash the one below it, and everybody aspires to move up in tiers even though they haven’t optimized the tier they have.
don’t agree with the ‘feels compelled to trash’ stuff — that’s just a bizarre statement. but there a transit hierarchy — implied and otherwise — it’s called the Green Transportation Hierarchy, and we should build our policy to match this hierarchy which seems to derive from natural law:
http://tinyurl.com/bjl4kn
carry on!
June 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
noise, noise, noise.
that’s probably my #1 gripe against buses, and why i long for streetcars
noise pollution doesn’t get the recognition it deserves, and buses are a large cause
June 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am
John,
There are advantages to streetcars over buses period (why bring race into this discussion?). To your point, I will say that the “upper middle-class white” commuters that are driving transit policy are quite happy here in Charlotte with their express bus services to the suburbs (although they would prefer to see more light-rail and commuter rail), and it is acutally the “lower class” communities of Charlotte that are clamoring for streetcar, because the streetcar is seen here as a positive improvement mobilizing their community identity and pride. The reason streetcar is going to these communities is to serve the largest transit dependent population of our city.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Streetcars are safer for bicyclists, and other vehicles to commute with on the street.
Whenever I find myself riding my bike next to a streetcar, I am not concerned about it swerving to the side suddenly and killing me - whereas whenever I am cycling next to a bus, I know my life is in grave danger. Busses, with their many stops weave in and out of traffic constantly often behaving erratically and worse still - making sudden changes in course with little to no signal. On top of it Bus Drivers almost NEVER signal, and are among the most careless drivers on the street (probably because they do so much driving and are so much better protected in the event of an accident than other motorists and cyclists. Signaling with a streetcar is a non-issue, because I can see where the track is going, and I know which side of the streetcar to be on.
There is a slight issue with the streetcar rails being a hazard to cyclists, but no cyclist who is paying attention is going to ride into a rail gutter. That’s nothing a but of unfriendly pavement texture and bright yellow paint can’t fix.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
[...] Other tidbits that have flowed past us in the fast-moving Streetsblog Network news feed: The Infrastructurist posts 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. Orphan Road writes about increasing density along [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
[...] stuck in traffic on Queen Street, Toronto The Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few flaws. 1. they can’t [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I wonder where subways fall in the mass transit hierarchy mentioned earlier?
I would say light rail/streetcars are my favorite mode of urban transportation because you get to remain above-ground and enjoy the daylight and city sights. There is also the comfort and aesthetic factors mentioned above. In New York, my primary mode of transit is the subway, which I am grateful for, but is lacking in aesthetics (deteriorating stations, noisy cars, and perpetual dark underground).
I’ve ridden trolleybuses and they generate a distinct electric whine when running that is not so pleasant.
Overall, I think the quality of one’s ride on a bus, streetcar, or other mass transit modes depends less on the inherent “virtues” of the mode and more on the care and expense lavished on the mode. For example, the express buses in New York can be very plush and comfortable to ride compared to being crammed on a packed and noisy subway car during rush hour. On the other hand, riding a Metro-North train can almost be a Zen experience.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
[...] 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Streetcars aren’t nearly as prone to kill bicyclists.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Not a bus guy at all. Just tired of hearing everybody say “their” way is superior to the “other” ways when what we need is in fact more of all modes of transit. It doesn’t further the discussion to argue for one versus the other, even though I do understand that resources are limited and decisions have to be made. But each individual case is so unique that making broad, general arguments for any one mode is not useful.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Streetcar in its own lane is a million times better than a bus in its own lane, and a billion times better than a bus that is stuck behind cars.
But streetcars that share lanes with cars and buses? All these 36 reasons are pretty low priority compared to speed and reliability - both of which suffer drastically in shared-lane operation (and the bus, at least, can change lanes to get around a broken down car; a temporary traffic obstruction; etc).
IE, the oft-touted flexibility of buses is usually a load of crap - it hurts more than it helps to be able to switch streets; but it DOES help when you can switch lanes. Unless you can make sure nobody else is in your lane, of course.
In a city with traffic congestion bad enough to justify major transit investment, in other words, streetcar in shared lane is even worse than buses.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Rockfish @1005a: “This is an interesting post in how it reinforces an implied “hierarchy” in transit where every tier feels compelled to trash the one below it… I LOVE trolleys as an alternative to light rail (which suffers from its own mania) but there’s really no need to trash buses to advocate for it. In fact, BRT is a realtively quick, cheap and easy way to establish rights-of-way and infrastructure that can be upgraded to trolley over time. Tey are not mutually exclusive.”
***************
But there are technological differences between the systems you mention. Trams/trolleys/streetcars operate in mixed traffic on city streets. Light rail operates on separate right of way from vehicular traffic, often grade separated. Light rail standards call for more infrastructure at stations to facilitate quick boarding, as opposed to a simple shelter or even just a sign at a tram stop.
Streetcars, LRT, heavy passenger rail, and HSR all accomplish different transportation tasks so you can’t really say that one system is preferable to the one below it. The hierarchical ordering has to do with the distance traveled, not the level of comfort. It would be impractical to build HSR to go from one side of a city to the other, just as it would not make sense to build a coast-to-coast streetcar line with a stop every half mile.
As for BRT, they say it is “cheaper than light rail” when really it should be compared to the costs of streetcars. BRT systems operate on city streets and narrow separate rights of way like streetcars, and their capacity is similar to streetcars. So it isn’t appropriate to compare the costs of that kind of system with LRT systems that are fully grade separated in tunnels or up on viaducts and have complete stations rather than simple stops and can move many hundreds of people in one vehicle.
BRT systems by design have a much lower capacity than rail systems, principally because buses cannot be coupled together like streetcars can. The frequency of BRT reaches a maximum level and then bottlenecks as one bus waits for the preceding one to clear a stop. The roadway of BRT degrades at a rapid pace and needs to be resurfaced every 2-3 years. BRT vehicles are cheaper than LRT vehicles, but have a much shorter service life and much higher maintenance costs, and are at the mercy of changing fuel prices. People always say BRT can be upgraded to rail, but really it cannot. The two systems don’t share any common technology so there is no upgrading, only total replacement.
All that being said, there will always be a need for a variety of transit modes, including buses. Look at NYC, with one of the busiest and most developed metros in the world, they still depend on buses to keep people moving. The problem is that right now all our eggs are in one basket with buses, we need multi-modal transit and that means rail.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
For reference, Light Rail Now! has a large section devoted to BRT case studies in Toronto, Cleveland, LA and others:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm
June 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
As I tried to point out in the introduction, this list is relevant mainly to situations where cities might be choosing directly between streetcars and BRT. There are many cases where buses are self-evidently the better option, and in no way is the idea to say otherwise. And, for god’s sake, it’s user generated. So if there’s a real takeaway here, it’s that users seem to have a pronounced preference for riding on streetcars. Which is good to know since they’re the ones both paying for and, um, using the system.
I think there’s some rhetorical value in it too. To most Americans buses are thoroughly familiar, while streetcars are not. To play off that point of reference and highlight some of the advantages of a less well-known transit option that’s still relatively rare on the American landscape is not inappropriate, I don’t think.
Besides, we do nice stories about buses and BRT not infrequently, so clearly it’s not a case of “good” and “bad”.
-Jebediah
June 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
M1EK: “But streetcars that share lanes with cars and buses? All these 36 reasons are pretty low priority compared to speed and reliability - both of which suffer drastically in shared-lane operation”
**********
Yes that is definitely a major hurdle for rail transit in the US! I live in Richmond, VA that had the world’s first electric trolley system. Unfortunately for us, we were also one of the first cities to remove our trolleys in the 50’s because they became inefficient with so many cars sharing the roads with them.
Moving forward we have to seriously rethink how transportation is prioritized. That means making a real commitment to retool cities for people and not cars. We have to make more space for transit at the expense of cars. Things like signal priority and separated lanes for trams are a good start, with the eventual goal of car-free zones that facilitate density and quick, reliable transit. It’s time to get out of our cars!
June 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
As a Philadelphian and non-driver, I have to tell you that you’re vastly overestimating the convenience factors. I regularly travel on all available forms of public transit as I make my way around the city and its suburbs–buses, subway/el, trolleys, rail, and trolley-buses.
Some of the points listed are laughably subjective. Trolleys are smoother? Really? The brand new trolley on Girard in Philly is still jarring. Metal wheels on metal rails, remember? Rubber tires were invented specifically to counter the discomfort of metal wheels. And when you have a trolley on a hill, the tracks are the first thing to ice over and the wheels can’t get a grip. This, I suspect, is why the trolley-buses were chosen for West Philly.
Frankly, trolleys would be a much better solution if they didn’t have to share the road with cars, but the possibility of that happening is a pipe dream. Trolleys can’t divert their routes, which the author thinks is a positive–but when I am going home from work, I’d rather the bus go a few blocks out of the way to avoid a car accident/emergency gas or water work/flooding than just stop helpless on the tracks for hours.
#16, #20, #26, and #29: Again, your beef with buses is kind of laughable. Transit should travel along straight routes even when it is less convenient to users? I appreciate bus routes which detour into shopping centers; taking the 47 (which runs all night) home from the 24-hour grocery store means I can wait with my purchases under an awning right outside the store rather than walk a few hundred yards and wait in the street. This is a big deal when Septa is your only transport option and you need to buy laundry detergent and a case of diapers.
I just don’t buy that trolleys are so glamorous and sexy that people who are able to drive to work will suddenly stop. If you don’t live in a rapidly growing city, then you are overestimating the demographic that is going to want to switch from driving to public transit. Aside from the pollution claims, which you don’t substantiate and I therefore can’t take too seriously, there’s nothing to suggest that most mature cities will be willing to adopt trolley service–and if you can’t draw car owners, then the only people riding will be bus users, and their “cachet” is politically nonexistent.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I need to defend Rockfish who itemized what was wrong with each of the 36 points and John who brought the idea of racism. I don’t think either of them was very angry. They were just pointing out that some of the views were wrong.
First off, I don’t think the idea was to bring race into it. While I can not claim to read John’s mind, I think the intent was just to animate or anthropomorphize buses and trolleys. The comment was saying that hatred of buses is like racism, mindless, unreasoning, and not open to discussion. I hate them cause I hate them. They are bad because they bad and that’s all there is to it. And I think that is a very accurate description.
I wish we had kept the streetcars in my city. But when I read this article I thought, “Wow this is very speculative, biased, and with a fair amount of circular logic.” I don’t know if I would go quite as far as Rockfish in knocking the list. But I thought it was being fairly fair if you were being fairly fair. Very little was given in way of facts. There was speculation. Many of the problems with buses can be fixed. Development does sometimes avoid rails. 6 and 12 do contradict each other. Something can not be old and new at the same time. Streetcars are a lot heavier than buses. Many of the comments are not exclusive to streetcars.
The article shows rampant hatred against the “race” of buses and all other forms of rail that are not streetcars. The main problem trolley people have with buses seem to be that buses are dirty, smelly, noisy, internal combustion, diesel monsters. But when you say that they do not have to be diesel, they say that does not matter. When you say that dedicated lanes would cut down on the swaying, they say that does not matter. Which is it? Is it important or not? Express Electric buses on bus only routes would get rid of over half the objections to buses. I don’t know enough about the various forms of rail travel to say which is better. Maybe streetcars are the cheapest and best form of city rail travel. I don’t know. But we had light rail transit in a city I used to live in. It was cheap, clean, fast, comfortable, and quiet. I doubt it would have been much better with streetcars. I doubt BART and all the rest of them are that terrible either. The superiority of streetcars to all other rail is exaggerated.
Comments not made about this article; These are not 36 points. Many of the points are just an earlier point said in a different way or two or more earlier points smooshed together to falsely create another point. Being a permanent fixture is not everything. Cities change all the time. When a new area of the city is build or an old area becomes more or less popular, bus routes can be changed easily. Street cars routes can not. Bicycles can get stuck in tracks. Winter is bad for rail lines. When a rail vehicle goes around a corner it makes a hell of a racket. Railway of any kind shakes buildings.
If buses are antiquated, noisy and unpopular, we don’t need to throw them away. We need to modernize them and change peoples attitudes toward them. Not one of us three is against street cars. We just think we need an integrated transit system. Buses where appropriate, rail where that works, and good connection between the two. We see the need to truly look at the good and bad points of all possibilities. We do not just say this type of thing is good, this type of thing is bad.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree with most of these, but I’m a self-selected audience. Sure, I think streetcars are cool, and I’m working my ass off to get them, but you have to understand that not everyone thinks the way we do.
Plus, don’t knock on buses so much. Yes, there are extremely undesirable qualities associated with buses, but isn’t that partially to do with the way in which we operate our buses and not because of the vehicles themselves? Buses could stop less frequently (and having a streetcar is no guarantee that stops would decrease, look at the Pittsburgh Light Rail). Whether streetcar advocates like to admit it or not, BRT is better suited for some areas than rail is at this point.
I’m in no way knocking rail. But remember, there is complexity and nuance in the situation.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
To clarify my own comment from earlier, I neglected to complete the last sentence of the second paragraph. I should have said that trolley-buses were probably chosen for West Philly because it is a very hilly area.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’m a big supporter of streetcars, and would like to see them supplement busses and Metro in DC, but those aren’t 36 reasons. I only count 5:
1) Streetcars are more attractive and hip
2) Streetcars are smoother
3) Streetcar developments offer permanence that leads to development around stops
4) Streetcars have a longer life and the system is easier to maintain
5) The mechanics of streetcars lead to greater energy efficiency
Those are still good reasons on their own. The case for streetcars isn’t improved if you just repeat the same thing over and over. Now how about a “why subways are better than streetcars” post?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Rockfish,
“easy way to establish rights-of-way and infrastructure that can be upgraded to trolley over time.”
Except for the Seattle Bus Tunnel, can you name one instance of BRT being converted to rail?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Louisville, KY has trolley buses
June 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Nice list, but there are at least two reasons why buses (in some form) will need to remain:
1. Topography: there’s a limited grade anyone would *want* to use streetcars on. Consider all the parts of hilly Prague the Czechs decided not to put their trams on.
2. Demand-response: a bus network can be more responsive to peak demand and service interruptions than a rail network, especially a simplified one like San Francisco has.
Also, whether trains, trams, or buses - there are (at least) three converging and competing needs that these technologies have to serve: short distances, long distances, and regional distances.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Another part of the streetcar portfolio is the ability to design a streetcar system that includes routes, or some linking of routes, that permits freight into downtown farmer’s markets and general warehousing interface. This sort of multi-use downtown trackwork was visible in many American cities, reaching the penultimate with examples such as Pacific Electric, and the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin Interurban Electric systems.
Although this dual use of track (day passenger/night freight) does not seem part of the discusion, in fact, designing dual use of urban rail lines shall soon be crucial as trucking is impacted by Peaking Oil. This energy component in transport planning is usually dismissed with comments like “we’ll adapt and/or replace one form of energy with another”. Well, maybe not. See writings of Richard Heinberg (postcarbon.org) and theoildrum website. Books by James Howard Kunstler & Christopher C. Swan are also helpful. Pay attention to T. Boone Pickens.
EIOER is shorthand for calculation of energy required to achieve another substitute energy product. This becomes crucial in decisions concerning development of transport policy, and local determinations deciding where streetcar lines are a better way to go than buses. There is a tendency for some people who are not in particularly favor of public transit to express support for buses, actually thinking about more roads & highway pavement, not about riding the bus…
ALL in this conversation will be better decision-makers by getting knowledgeable on Peaking Oil. This is a problem that will soon reach every American at a personal level, including employment, mobility, access to food and necessities of life. The references noted are basic starting primers, and have reference threads for further study. General outlines on railway thinking is at (peakoil.net) articles 374 & 1037.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I think this is a great list of reasons why streetcars should be favored for primary, high volume urban transit routes when possible, even though they may often have a larger up front cost than BRT. Noise pollution and rider comfort are the biggest reasons: I don’t think bus systems can overcome those two key problems, even if they are high end designs with limited routing.
As far as the complete list of arguments, I definitely still don’t buy all of them, but some of the ones I hadn’t heard before do make a good deal of sense (like the point about mapmaking).
After riding on the Minneapolis light rail line (which exceeded its 2020 ridership projections as soon as it opened!), through Downtown Minn and out to the airport, I was sold. The fact that the line was so successful attracted even more political capital for such systems, and Minneapolis is now building many more miles of lines to St Paul and other parts of the metro.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
There are some good reasons here. That being said, electric buses address most of the relevant ones. I don’t think that electric buses in their own lanes make good sense, though, unless it’s only for a short distance in a much longer route. If you have to have infrastructure solely devoted to running a bus, you might as well put in rails. One of the main reasons to go for electric bus over streetcar is that you can change lanes or even routes to get around obstructions and easily share the same space as other traffic– if you’re going to have your own lane, you might as well use the more efficient rails.
The important thing is that you make good decisions about public transit, that are appropriate to the situation. If it’s a hilly route and you get a lot of snow, skip the railway. If you can have your own lane, put in a trolley. Light rail is great to run next to highways. Otherwise, use trolley-bus, and intersperse the local buses with express buses that make fewer stops, and don’t be afraid to switch over from electric to diesel when you get far enough out that your ridership doesn’t support the added infrastructure of electric lines. If you can, design it such that your electric buses can also use trolley powerlines. Make sure you can change from one form of transit to another efficiently and painlessly.
Portland’s got a decent enough setup, for an American city. That being said, they could have electrified and expanded the entire bus system for what they spent extending the light rail and putting in all the trolleys downtown.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I agree with you, but most of the list is wishy-washy and based too much on “feelings”.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
David,
In one sense, yes. But–to some extent anyway–”feelings” rule the world. There are tons of things that we would be doing if we were perfect technocrats, but aren’t because of “feelings.” And it will always be thus.
Building out our nuclear capacity is one obvious example that is personally hugely frustrating to me.
If vulcans were going to riding on the transit systems, then fine. But real human users do seem to much, much prefer the experience of riding on a streetcar to the experience of riding on a bus. And that matters and that’s kind of the point of the post.
-Jebediah (aka the editor)
June 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
The previous comment regarding the 1930’s is VERY significant.
There were city AND intra-urban lines almost everywhere there was any kind of population.
They mostly ALL went away for just one reason.
LACK OF RIDERS.
In the 50’s there were abandoned rail right of way’s everywhere.
Everyone preferred to drive their own vehicle to get where they wanted to go.
It was a PITA to deal with groceries or any other item bigger than a cell phone.
You had to cart or carry everything you wanted to buy.
Then to go other places that people wanted to go, they had to either take a bus or drive a car. They bought cars, and drove where they wanted. FREEDOM!
As far as the American people are concerned, it is ALL about FREEDOM and the ability to go anywhere, anytime THEY want, and NOT being concerned about ANYONE else’s situation or needs.
Mass transit is a great idea, if you don’t happen to have any other travel option.
I personally don’t think it is going to work anywhere other than heavily concentrated metro areas, and even then people will demand alternative methods of transit.
Regards,
June 5th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Jon Twork:
Your ideas are outmoded and regressive.
The idea that “the American people want what they want, and screw you if you don’t agree” is played out.
The idea of “freedom” has chained us to a car culture and another expense just as surely as a drug addict is beholden to his dealer.
Yes, mass transit will only work in densely populated areas. That is where it is needed. Nobody’s going to fill the empty spaces of Montana with trolley lines.
In case you were worried, the car is not going to go away anytime soon (even if we have to buy Japanese cars). But cars and buses can’t be our only alternative. That’s just foolish and wrong.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I live in a city with excellent bus service (Victoria, BC). 95% of the buses on the road are under 15 years of age. Buses still suck. They sway and roll. I have ridden trams in quite a few cities, including New Orleans in June 2006. Even the New Orleans streetcar ran smoother than any bus I have ever ridden on. I have also been subjected to the Silver Line in Boston. Anybody that thinks BRT is a great idea should be forced to ride that. Every day, for at least a year.
As for the attracting investment and stability, the numbers speak for themselves. Buses don’t attract development, trains do. Period.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:41 am
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
While streetcars are cool as some of the 36 reasons point out, buses aren’t or shouldn’t be entirely that bad.
Most of the reasons against buses, is largely based on many people’s perception of buses. Not that they’re not entirely untrue, but because we let ourselves down that way.
Instead, it makes great sense to put BRTs in cities that are very automobile-dependent. For instance, Houston is definitely a car city. Barely anyone likes to walk or bike here because of the city’s low-density nature (except in certain parts) making things farther to reach, the heat and mosquitoes, lack of sidewalks and bike trails (very few places have them that are convenient), among other factors. The Metro bus here is also not that great. It can be hard to find information on routes, many bus stops are dilapidated and vandalized, and it obviously has a reputation for serving poorer citizens who can’t afford a car lifestyle and routes that may bring blight to an area. Sorry, but that is the reality.
We should encourage Bus Rapid Transit in heavily-motorized cities, not rail. BRTs are cheaper initially (thought things like road resurfacing, lifespan of a bus, etc. are debatable), can use a more greener fuel (like electric?), take many people all at once, don’t depend on a rail network (given in a motorist city), won’t disrupt businesses too much, and with a lot of nice features like comfortable seating, WiFi, air-conditioning, soft music, and bus stops that have a good shelter, electronic info. (such as the when the next bus comes, stops, etc.) then BRTs will obviously be more convenient and appreciated than trying to drop a rail network in a city that obviously isn’t geared towards rail.
The MetroRail in Houston is an example of how rail can go wrong in a motorist city. Even though the MetroRail can be nice, and I’d use it all the time if I didn’t live in the suburbs, many residents complain about the costs (compared to highway expansion?), how construction will impact their business, right of way, loss of parking spaces, etc. and as much as I’d like rail to be here, folks are obviously too dumb to appreciate a much better form of transportation than the usual polluted cars that bring on miles of traffic every day.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
So much to correct, so little time.
Starting with number 1, it is difficult to say that streetcar ridership is always higher than that of the bus lines they replace because streetcars rarely replace bus lines. The main reasons for this are the high cost of construction of streetcar lines, the lack of added passenger capacity, and the slow speed of streetcars — many streetcar lines do not reach five mph, which, even compared to central business district buses, is sloooow. For these reasons, new U.S. streetcar lines tend to be very short, typically loops on parallel streets with a total distance around the “circle” generally well under ten miles, often well under five miles. When you are running in general purpose traffic lanes, it is very difficult to avoid low speeds in streetcars — and, of course, they can do bad things to total traffic capacity (of course, for some people, making driving more difficult might be reason 37 why streetcars are better than buses, but I would call this an important DISadvantage).
As to 5., the argument that rail operating costs are lower than bus operating costs has become a fixture of rail proponents, but it is rarely the case when you actually review the options for particular corridors. If you compare the national averages for transit modes, or those for a streetcar (or light rail, which is not the same thing) line in a particular city with the bus system in that city, yes, you will often find the rail costs lower. However, the reason for this is the high capital cost of rail; no one but an idiot would ever build rail, including streetcar, anywere but where ridership is expected to pretty high. Because of the low capital cost of bus, it is very frequently utilized on low ridership lines, which brings up the overall average cost per passenger or per passenger mile. However, if you compare the costs and subsidies for well-utilized bus service to rail, or, better yet, model the two different technologies on the same alignment, you will generally find bus to be very competative — and it will often have far lower operating costs.
9. Streetcars do not smell like diesel, but neither does CNG or LNG — and modern diesel engines running ultra-low sulfur fuel are FAR better in this regard than older diesel engines.
13. The “upgraded street experience” is a matter of what the governmental sponsor wants to spend; it has nothing to do with mode. I’ll be happy to direct you to very nice bus malls with the qualities you cite for rail alignments.
Ah, yes, 14., the “permance” of rail. Are you aware of that street-running urban rail in the U.S., formerly one of the most important urban transportation modes, all but disappeared, starting in the 1920’s, replaced by bus? The superior cost structure of bus vs. streetcar kept the transit industry viable in the private sector for from two to four additional decades before even the advantages of bus were not enough to avoid the conversion to taxpayer subsidy. Now, all that bus can do, compared to streetcars, is offer a far lower taxpayer subsidy. (Please, no Snell/Roger Rabbit “GMC Destroyed the Streetcars” stories; streetcars died all by themselves all over the world, including in dozens of major U.S. cities where GMC/NCL had no presence.)
If a transit line is doing well, it should be retained. If it isn’t, it shouldn’t be. While there are many good rail lines all over this nation, there are also losers that should have been killed off years ago, but weren’t — and one of the reasons is, if you take any Federal money, you have to use the assets you purchased for their entire useful lives, or repay the Fed’s. With bus, you can change a line and use to the bus on another line; you can’t do that with rail, so the losers never die.
As to 15., yes, streetcars run on electricity (except a few DMU proposals for what could, possibly, be called a streetcar line by someone who really wanted to push it), but that does not necessarily mean they are green. You have to look at how the electricity is generated. Most electricity in the U.S. comes from burning fossil fuels, chiefly coal, and when you are adding a new load by starting a streetcar line, there is a very high chance that it will be coal-powered in much of this nation. I note you actually asked, in your piece, for someone to provide a source for your claim that they are 95% cleaner — can I interest you in a cite to a source that says there really isn’t much difference in either energy utilization or emissions?
16. The number of stops per mile is a matter of transit agency policy. Yes, some transit operators have stop every block policies, but others have polices that spread out the stops — and, for people who know what they are doing, you generally have more stops in the denser areas (like downtown) and fewer in the less dense areas (like residential areas). In fact, many streetcar lines stop at every block, partly because they are so slow that the planners figure that they may as well have stations as close to the origins and destinations as possible.
17. Yes, it was possible, in the old days, to go hundreds of miles, from city to city to city, by transfering from rail system to rail system. However, these were largely interurban rail systems, not streetcars; if you don’t know the difference, you really shouldn’t be writing this type of column on transit subjects. The national average trip length on streetcars is barely over a mile, mainly because, with such short lines, it is often difficult to go more than two miles, if that, without riding in circles.
19. Low-floor buses have been around for many years and, if you want wider doors on buses, you can get them.
21. Yes, you can keep streetcars running for a long time — if you are willing to pay to keep them running — as you can keep buses operating for years well beyond the Federally required minimum useful lives. However, technology moves on. If you want to operate a transit system with vehicles that don’t have wheelchair lifts, air conditioning, etc., you might find that there are some passengers — and some regulatory agencies — that like newer designs. Yes, streetcars do last longer than buses, and some (not all) have higher load capacities, but when you do the math, the cost per unit of carrying capacity per year is far higher for streetcars and LRV’s than for bus. Also, there is another important difference here, because, once you have purchased the buses, you have the vast majority of the bus capital costs; with rail, the rail cars are often under 20% of the total capital costs.
27. Here, again, you appear to be confused about what constitutes a streetcar, when you say that “trams tend to have dedicated lanes.” If you have an urban surface rail system with a dedicated lane, that is not a streetcar line, it is a light rail line; that is one of the key definational elements of LRT vs. streetcar. The speed advantage is NOT due to the transit mode or the vehicles (with the exception that rail vehicles do accelerate slightly faster than buses, not a major difference in the vast majority of operating environments), but due to the exclusive right-of-way; you put a properly designed BRT system against a properly designed LRT system on the same alighment, the operating times and speeds will be very similar — BUT, the BRT will often have lower passenger travel time because of shorter headways and the ability for a feeder bus to transition directly onto the transit guideway without requiring passengers to transfer.
I could go on at great length, but, that’s about all the time I can put into this right now, so that’s where it is going to have to stop.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Boy, the author has never been to Boston to ride an actual streetcar, has he?
#10 : Streetcars can acelearate and decelarate faster then busses. This doesn’t make for a smoother ride, it simply means that the operator can (and does) end up tossing the riders around a whole lot more. Streetcars can be smoother, but in stop and go situations, there’s no difference.
#12 : Maybe the historic PCC cars in SF have a historic feel to them, but normal streetcars don’t. They’re just another way to get around. They don’t look historic or diginified in any way. They might look sleeker and more streamlined from the outside, but most commuters prefer to be riding on the inside of the streetcar.
#18 : Streetcars are noisy too! Maybe not all streetcars, but the ones here in Boston make an annoying whine from zero to about 8mph. (This might be just the particular design. . . ) Streetcars running over switches, or going over road crossings also make noise when they bump over uneven rail joints.
#19 : The low-floor streetcars in Boston are WORSE then the normal high-floor ones. The low floor is in the middle - you still have to go UP the stairs to get on the car, then go down the stairs to get to the low-floor section. The current generation of busses have no stairs at all, with a perfectly flat floor.
#20 : If a bus takes a wrong turn, a pasenger can still see out the window. If you’re in the subway on a streetcar, all you get is that sinking feeling that you’re going the wrong way, with no visual cues to where you are, or where you’re going. Passengers are traveling farther then the rails they can see ahead of them. Seeing the rails tells them where they’re going - not weather or not its where they WANT to be going.
#22 : Streetcar tracks might be cheaper to maintain. Put streetcar tracks on a normal road, and watch the road suddenly become a lot bumpier over time.
#26 : Have you ever tried looking at a system map of the MBTA in Boston? It gives you a vague idea of where the streetcar is going, but it can still be just as confusing as a bus map is.
#27 : Trackless trolleys can be almost, if not as fast as trolleys. The electric motors in them are quiet and smooth. When a streetcar encounters traffic, or a double-parked car, its stuck. When a trackless trolley encounters a parked car, it just drives around it and keeps on going. Trackless trolleys also pull up to the curb for easier boarding.
#30 : Streetcars move in all directions. They have suspension, so they lurch from side to side now and then. But since streetcars have better accelaration, they lurch more front-back. You never know what its going to do. Even if you do, there’s nothing that says the person next to you does - so you’ve still gotta be ready to move out of the way if someone looses their balance.
#36 : I have done exactly that. There are two ways for me to get downtown : the streetcar, or the bus. Depending on the time of day, the bus is actually faster. The streetcar has to stop at all stops in the subway, but the bus usually runs through downtown fairly empty, then starts taking on passengers after the stretcar line ends. The bus is also 50 cents cheaper if I’m on a budget. Sometimes its a choice between the overcrowded streetcar or the noisy bus. I’ll take a seat on the bus any day then pretend to be a sardine on the streetcar.
I prefer streetcars over busses most of the time because most of the time they seem to be more reliable - they’re not as subject to traffic, they do ride smoother (most of the time), and they’re usually faster. But I can’t knock the lowly city bus either. I use lots of bus routes that wouldn’t support streetcar line ridership. I don’t have a car in the city, so its either the bus, or walk to where I need to go. Designers should start building better busses, with interiors that look more upscale and cared for, and with quieter engines. (I’m a big trackless trolley fan for that reason - they’re quiet like a streetcar, don’t burn fuel directly, and smooth and fast to ride.) A poorly designed streetcar system can be just as bad as a poorly designed bus system. There are MANY more bus systems out there then streetcar systems, which means there will be many more BAD bus systems out there as well.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
when what we need is in fact more of all modes of transit.
No, we don’t. That’s never been true, and it will never be true, no matter how many bus people say it — and y’all say it a lot.
It doesn’t further the discussion to argue for one versus the other
Yes, it does. Some modes of transit are preferable to others for a whole variety of reasons, and they are not inconsequential reasons — they can broadly determine the health of a city, and that translates directly and indirectly into the wellbeing of humans who live/work/visit there — lifes and deaths, fulfillment or misery, etc.
Back in the day, people said, “Oh, who cares? It’s all transit! Buses work just as well as streetcars!”
And then the world went to hell.
Why? Because buses are terrible, and everyone who could afford to did everything in their power to become independent of them — which meant they had to buy a car, which was why GM tore up all the tracks.
It took anti-democratic corporate forces (GM) to really pull us in that direction so swiftly, and we’re living with the consequences — and in case you haven’t noticed, they are dire.
I don’t mind if bus people want to defend the bus, but defend it — don’t go calling bus haters racists and whatever else — if you can defend the cattle car that is a city bus, then do it — you’ve got the mic — have at it.
even though I do understand that resources are limited and decisions have to be made. But each individual case is so unique that making broad, general arguments for any one mode is not useful.
Cars suck, and are the worst form of transit — they have wrought havoc on our world in very real and tragic ways. Walking is, by far and away, the best. There are many modes in between the two — some vastly superior to others. The bus, in my expert opinion, has enabled the auto industry force us all into cars, and we’ve helped the auto industry wreck the world with cars. And buses — because they force people into cars. This has to stop. We need some sanity. Some clarity. We can only get there if we’re willing to challenge long-held assumptions about things we see around us every single day — one of those things is bus travel — we need to question its validity and viability.
Now, the question is, do we repeat what the GM convinced everyone to say 50 years ago, that buses are great, full well knowing otherwise, or do we actually demand decent, dignified, maybe even pleasant and/or enjoyable transportation?
It’s largely up to us.
Suggesting that we close down debate about the worthiness of bus travel, however, actually does hurt us — so let’s keep the door open on this bus thing. It’s only now starting to get a second look.
Another message for the bus lovers — stop projecting. If you love the bus, fine, but most of us hate it and put up with it because we have no other choice — but that’s changing.
Riding rails — be it light rail or street cars or heavy/commuter rail or metro/subways or whatever — is smooth, and roomy, and sometimes even pleasant and/or enjoyable — shoot — sometimes it’s downright exhilarating and invigorating! This is dignified transit. I know this because I ride the rails whenever I can, whenever I’m not walking or on my bike — it’s a decent way to travel. Buses are not — and that’s why even people who are broke will save every last penny to buy a car — they are literally going to work every day just to keep their cars — the bus is that bad. When was the last time you heard someone saying they were going to save all their money so they could stop riding the train and instead buy a car?
June 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
[...] Infrastructurist certainly thinks so, and provides 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses. I agree, but let’s not gild the lily here; streetcars are not without a few [...]
June 6th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Angela on June 4th says, “…that’s why trolley-buses were chosen for
West Philadelphia.”
Not true, Angela…
Trolley buses operate on 3 routes in Northeast Philadelphia, PA ONLY.
Their 38 ETBs just a year old.
The two South Philadelphia - flat as a pancake - ETB routes were
recently declared ‘abandoned’ by SEPTA.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Interesting discussion. U.S. streetcar systems come in many different forms. A few of the larger systems tend to get all of the attention, but there are many others. More information on the individual U.S. streetcar systems is at: http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/vintagetrolley.htm.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
#21: Yugoslavia ceased to exist as well as the American streetcars that were shipped . Currently 4 cities in this former nation still operate trams.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:57 am
A Jake: Louisville, Kentucky does not have trackless trolleys.
However Cambridge, Mass (three lines plus the “Silver Line” in Boston) does.
As does San Francisco, on myriad lines. And Seattle. And they work pretty darn well.
Even Dayton, Ohio has trolleybuses.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
[...] Infrastructurist’s 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses post merely summarized the remarks that had began to appear after a challenge first broke out in the comment section of Yonah Freemark’s post (posted a month ago), some felicity-challenged [...]
June 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Few of the advantages cited for streetcars are intrinsic to rails vs. roads. Many of them have to do with the advantage of having fixed guideways and stations. Streetcar stations are more “imagable” and serve wayfinding better than simple curbside bus stops, but not better than Bus Rapid Transit stations. Stations would also weave buses into the urban fabric better, and hopefully mapmakers would start putting them on maps.
The “permanence” argument is all about perception. It’s not only that most street railways have disappeared, but also trunk bus lines have persisted, decade after decade. Here in Oakland, the main bus routes are pretty much the same as they were in the 1930’s (which has certain problems, I know!).
I don’t know why bike maps, at least, don’t show bus lines, at least major bus lines. That would show bicyclists how to reach the bus system and use the bus to extend their travelshed.
Similarly, streetcar stations tend to have better information, but there is no reason that BRT stations or even major stops couldn’t have better information (and in some places they do, like Broadway in Downtown San Diego).
There’s nothing intrinsic about the ride characteristics on short, frequently stopping routes, which is what defines a streetcar and separates it from a longer distance light rail line.
If you compare a simple railway system to a large bus system, the railway is less confusing, there are a few stations as opposed to multiple bus stops, often with multiple routes each. If you get a large rail system, like New York or Chicago, it starts to get harder to understand.
I don’t want to call anyone a racist, I don’t think that’s helpful. But I think it would be less than honest to ignore the fact that bus transit in the United States–in a great many instances–has been associated with poor people and Black people. There are plenty of problems with most bus transit in the US today–it can be infrequent, slow, unreliable, uncomfortable etc. But even when it’s not, it can carry a negative association that makes many middle class White people (especially working age–i.e. not students or seniors) reluctant to use the bus.
Streetcars work where conditions are right for them. Portland is the most frequently cited example. In Portland the streetcar serves a major university, a very active downtown, a new residential area where the city stimulated hundreds (thousands?) of residential units and one of the city’s strongest neighborhood commercial districts. In Portland, where the amount of Downtown parking space was limited for years, hotels advertise that they’re along the streetcar line. Any city that can replicate these conditions should seriously consider a streetcar!
I don’t think those are the only conditions where a streetcar can work. But a counterexample would be the streetcar in Tacoma–a nice place, I hasten to add–which carries almost no one. Even the infamous Lake Union trolley in Seattle isn’t all that busy because the main development areas are elsewhere.
When planning transit, people should first figure out what trips they want the transit to serve, then match the appropriate mode to that travel pattern. That avoids sterile “modalism” and will wind up with transit solutions better suited to their actual needs.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
All of the yuppie-oriented developments in transit planning–including streetcars and “light rail”–can have a positive place in an integrated transit network. While not exactly blessed soley by the presence of “choice riders” (or, the new industry trope, “lifestyle transit users”), passengers of buses, et al, in the United States nonetheless benefit from the almost universal prescence of lower-impact passenger rail on rapid transit alternatives studies by agencies.
With measured approval, then, with this list’s subject, I’m nonetheless concerned that many of these points are the same specious and revisionist ones heard from the-answer-to-every-problem-is-rail advocates to make Americans feel like the central experience for riders of American transit systems today is one of grinding misery alternated with crisis and a dose of old fashioned preterition.
Repeating a word for emphasis does not make its point more cogent, and point 1 highlights a common flaw in this piece: the lead says we’re talking about BRT versus streetcar service, but we end up comparing local bus to streetcars. In any case, a fairer question this article suggests it answers but does not might be, Do streetcars attract more riders per dollar than bus rapid transit? I.e., wound a 5 mile streetcar line do better than an 8 mile BRT line? Maybe, maybe not–that’s why public planners use statistical analysis, instead of blanket assumptions, to plan rapid transit lines.
Numerous points suggest that streetcars provide a better riding experience than buses. Interestingly, in the 1940s and ’50s, when streetcars were being replaced with buses across America, even those unlikely to be a part of the questionable alliance of oil and rubber tire corporations some suggest are responsible for the end to most streetcar networks believed that buses, in fact, offered a better ride. Should we dismiss these evaluations out-of-hand? Buses and many roads in the United States were relatively new and in good condition in the decades following World War II. Streetcars were, on the other hand, managed by power companies with little interest in proper upkeep for a system that was probably on its way out, anyway. I wonder if wheel-on-surface transportation is similar across-the-board: that all can suffer from a turbulent riding experience, and that maintenance determines the quality of the ride. In America today, where “high bus ridership” is a euphemism in most neighborhoods for “low-income,” streetcars are, alternately, less than a few decades old–except the bumpy systems still around from the early twentieth century, which streetcar proponents dubiously distinguish as “heritage” (as opposed to real?) streetcars.
Readers of point 17 could benefit from cursorily browsing Google search results for “interurban lines.” Nobody’s talking about building those.
On that note, point 25 is untrue. England dismantled its entire streetcar and interurban network (interurban, as in, express streetcars between cities; I am aware that England maintained a good deal of its full locomotive regional rail networks). France tore up many streetcar systems still in operation after World War II, and only started a big building boom again the 80s (when American transit supporters began waving the light rail banner, for better or worse). Japan, meanwhile, was already dismantling its streetcars in major cities for “heavier” rapid transit technology. Sure, Milan and Zurich have numerous streetcar networks, but fewer today than they did before and immediately following World War II. Poland has cut back on its vast Upper Silesian network. St. Petersburg, interestingly, another example of streetcars (hardly heritage) operating to this day, has converted many routes to trackless trolley, and uses this technology often for expanding its system.
One might interpret the excitement mentioned in point 23 as “coercive gentrification,” or, alternately, in diverting money that could be used operating local bus service for the already transit-dependent to building an attractive streetcar line in an already-expensive district.
Point 14 gives pause, as the fact that streetcars were undone in the 40s and 50s might allude to some developer skepticism. Perhaps developers just like new things. Alternately, developers in any part of what might be termed the “inner city” of a major metropolitan area can count on a bus (or something with higher impact) being at least a few blocks away. Rather, streetcars might indicate to developers that the city is willing to throw money at an area to attract those who travel there by choice, who could otherwise drive to the mall or something, which is the real reason streetcars have development potential. I hope we’re not banking our hope for a transit- and pedestrian-friendly future on a yuppie pyramid scheme.
On point 16 (I’m not sure why the writer is particularly hostile to SEPTA’s bus system), buses could simply be planned to stop less. Alternately, a cheaper alternative to streetcars in alignments where the technology or investment is unfeasible might be to run limited-stop express routes in the manner that Chicago does, which apparently attracts choice riders as well. Most European bus networks have far fewer stops than American bus networks. Is this really more enlightened, though, or evidence of different priorites? In the United States, with postive along with seriously negative implications, we have relegated mass transit service in most cities as filling in for those unable to drive, or are disinterested in commuting by car for long distances. Transit in some European cities balances these interests along with many others. Stopping more frequently assists the disabled, the elderly, those carrying groceries (the thing choice riders are least likely to do, by choice), and those who frankly, aren’t trying to get somewhere by a specific time (which may or may not implicate their economic status). Stopping less frequently improves the speed a bus travels, and (barring extremely long distances between stops) presumably benefits everyone else. But, like with all possible benefits of streetcar over buses–whether BRT or plain old cheesebox local bus…
The advantages of streetcars do not alleviate the need for buses to serve as the backbone of transit operations.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:22 am
In the UK some bus companies have tried to simplify their networks by introducing direct high-frequency routes with clear colour coded buses that can be easily identified with a particular area or route. One example is Reading Buses, the municipally owned operator in Reading, Berkshire. The high frequency ‘Premier Routes’ have colour coded buses clearly displaying termini, and principle intermediate stops, plus frequency information. View the their website at http://www.reading-buses.co.uk/quality-routes/
See photos of the bus fleet at http://buspicssouth.fotopic.net/c1670307.html
June 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
[...] here is a list 36 benefits of streetcar transit over busses and other forms of transportation: 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses
June 12th, 2009 at 9:36 am
[...] a little discussion starter for all you transit geeks: Infrastructurist’s list of 36 reasons why streetcars are better than buses. I’d boil a lot of it down to a smaller list: The ride is generally more pleasant, as it is [...]
June 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
What’s cool, what’s not when it comes to getting around by bus or train? Help us understand what young people think about transportation by going to this link and answering a couple questions. It only takes a couple minutes to complete. Your opinion matters!!!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SXANzMR34XwSLj4R5_2bNINQ_3d_3d
June 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, and 35 are not real reasons. You can take a look at the rest of the reasons and either refute, consider it an advantage for streetcars with a corresponding advantages for buses, or finally incorporate a few of things into the design of buses (low floors or landscaping). And some are genuinely good advantages of streetcars.
But 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, and 35 make me think that a lot of the focus on streetcars is a fad.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Clearly there are a number of caveats necessary for this list. As Dean said there are several that overlap and his 5 cover most of the 36. Some of the reasons are based on subjective, but widely held and still valid, emotions, while others are based on a comparison of streetcars to diesel local buses.
All that said, I think it’s a useful list and I think it leaves out at least one advantage:
36 or 6. The open layout of modern streetcars makes them easier to board and accomodate strollers, bikes, & wheelchairs.
When I’ve got 2 small children & a stroller with me, that aspect of streetcars is a major advantage. Sure you can design buses this way, but most aren’t and it works best for the 2-7 mile trips that streetcars serve well.
It will be interesting to see the development impact, if any, of the BRT and BRT Lite systems being installed. I would expect LA’s Orange Line and similar systems will probably have some development impact, LA’s Metro Rapid and other “enhanced bus” projects probably won’t have much impact on the speed, scale, and parking ratios for development. If good, transit-oriented development with limited parking occurs around a line then that has additional environmental and fiscal benefits.
Some corridors don’t have the density, mix of uses, policies, or interconnected transit system necessary to justify the investment in the rails, wires, vehicles, & stations for a streetcar. A fixed-rail system can help build density and the transit network but only if there is a commitment to investing the money, accepting the density, and doing it right.
Finally, some progress is being made on minimizing the wires that folks rarely like, although on a tree-lined street they’re not very visible to pedestrians.
———————-
Dean Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’m a big supporter of streetcars, and would like to see them supplement busses and Metro in DC, but those aren’t 36 reasons. I only count 5:
1) Streetcars are more attractive and hip
2) Streetcars are smoother
3) Streetcar developments offer permanence that leads to development around stops
4) Streetcars have a longer life and the system is easier to maintain
5) The mechanics of streetcars lead to greater energy efficiency
Those are still good reasons on their own. The case for streetcars isn’t improved if you just repeat the same thing over and over.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
1. New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
Not a reason for preferring streetcars, but a statement that patronage studies always (usually?) underestimate the potential demand.
2. Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement. Streetcars ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps.
Unfortunately roads develop irregularities, and it is difficult to fix them without a substantial reconstruction of the street. Streetcar tracks both are less likely to ‘develop bumps’ and are easier to fix if they do. (Not all transit authorities bother!)
3. Streetcars don’t feel “low status” to transit riders. Buses often do.
A comment on the way bus transit operators work – many are not interested in maintaining their vehicles in attractive condition.
4. Mapmakers almost always include streetcar lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map.
First sentence relates to the permanence of the routes. Second relates to how attractive the actual routes are, including their permanence, not whether they are shown on maps or not.
5. The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.
For cities in the USA with both ‘light rail’ and ‘buses’ about 2/3 agree with the first sentence. The other third have buses cheaper – but these tend to be the more expensive – possibly the less well run transit systems?
6. There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
Subjective, but given the relative age of buses and streetcars in the USA, probably true. On the other hand, Toronto’s trams have always impressed me as being excellent in spite of their age – just well maintained?
7. Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
Subjective.
8. Steel wheel on steel rail is inherently more efficient than rubber tire on pavement. Electric streetcars can accelerate more quickly than buses.
Both are correct (assuming that the streetcars have the power – most do).
9. Streetcars don’t smell like diesel.
Correct. In the open air, diesel smell is barely noticeable. Try a bus station in an enclosed location – the smell is terrible (evidence, Birmingham, UK, Chatswood, Sydney Australia, Christchurch, NZ). More important, diesel engines emit particulates (as well as visible smoke) and the smaller particulates are detrimental to health. The smell of diesel exhaust is nowhere near as bad as the exhaust from petrol engined buses that I remember from the 1940s. Thank heavens nobody is building petrol-engined buses!
10. Streetcars accelerate and decelerate smoothly because they’re electrically propelled. Internal-combustion engines acting through a transmission simply cannot surge with the same smoothness.
Generally true, but driving style is important too.
11. The current length limit for a bus is 60 feet, but streetcars can go longer, since they are locked into the rails and won’t be swinging all around the streets, smashing into cars.
Buses can be longer if the legal limits are relaxed.
12. Streetcars have an air of nostalgia.
Only if they are ‘heritage’ – but these are not proposed for any new transit line other than a tourist gimmick. Irrelevant.
13. New streetcar and light rail lines usually come with an upgraded street experience from better stops, landscaping, new roadbeds, and better sidewalks, to name a few. Of course, your federal transit dollar is paying for these modernizations, so why wouldn’t cities try to get them!
Unfortunately consultants assume that the ‘upgraded street experience’ is essential, and this pushes costs up, plausibly so far that the proposal is abandoned. Not a good reason for preferring streetcars to buses!
14. Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
Agreed. But contrary to some people’s comments, streetcar routes can be easily varied in case of blockage. Twice in Toronto when on a tram in Queen Street there has been a ‘Book Fair’ blocking the street. As we approached the blockage, the drive announced his tram was diverting, and he turned right, then left along King Street, and a bit later left and then right again back into Queen Street. No problems. Can only be done in a city with a proper streetcar system of course.
15. Streetcars are light and potentially 100% green. Potentially they could be powered by 100% solar and/or wind power. Even powered with regular power plant-derived electricity, they are still 95% cleaner than diesel buses.
Calgary claims its trams are 100% green. Much of western USA and Canada uses hydro power – also 100% green. Eastern USA has nuclear plants, also 100% green. I doubt the third sentence, though exhaust gases generated at a central source can be stripped of carbon dioxide, at a cost, as can the exhausts of an oil refinery. But burn oil fuels on individual vehicles and ‘green’ is not on.
16. Streetcars stop less. Because of the increased infrastructure for stops, transit planners don’t place stops at EVERY BLOCK, like they do with buses. Instead, blocks are a quarter to a half mile apart, so any point is no more than an eighth to a quarter mile from a stop.
Relates to design of system, and nothing to do with mode. Irrelevant.
17. People will travel longer distances on streetcars. At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.
Plausible, even though most streetcar lines are very short. This is because streetcars are only desirable where loading is high, hence truck routes, hence (probably) a longer travel distance. Reference to past interurban lines is irrelevant to today’s streetcars.
18. Buses are noisy. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
Agreed, and people prefer quiet.
19. Technological advances already make the current generation definitely NOT your grandfather’s streetcar. Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
Where possible, trams should stop at loading platforms as near as possible the same height as the car floor. (Kerbside only when gutter running is used – not normally a good idea.) Buses can be built the same way, BUT parked cars one side or the other of the stop make it very difficult for the bus to get close to the platform, and a large gap is often the case. A win for trams.
20. Passengers can take comfort from seeing the rails stretching out far ahead of them, while ever fearing that the bus could take a wrong turn at the next corner and divert them off course.
Having been on a bus in London where the driver turned round and said “I’ve never been on this route before, which way do I go?”, I fear that this is a valid reason.
21. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) streetcars are cheaper to maintain and last way the hell longer (case in point, streetcars discarded in the US in the 40’s, snapped up by the Yugoslavs, which are still running).
All reports indicate that streetcars are cheaper to maintain. They certainly, given good maintenance, last a long while. Buses, given very good maintenance, also last well – London Routemasters were in production from 1958 to 1968, the last regular RM service was in 2005, meaning the buses were at least 37 years old, but a small fleet is still running in tourist service.
22. Streetcar tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.
The tracks are designed to take heavy point loads (up to 5t on each wheel) so are strongly built. This means, with mass concrete use, maintenance is approximately zilch for many years (occasional touching up of the concrete grooves, and replacement of sharp curve s/switches crossings – but even this is years apart).
23. People get notably more excited about the proposed extension of the streetcar system and expect revitalization of the neighbourhoods around the planned stops.
Basically people like streetcars.
24. Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
Agreed.
25. Most European cities and countries kept investing in public transit during the decades when America was DISinvesting. Now I look across the pond and see dozens of European cities extending or building new rail transit systems, including many streetcar lines, and conclude: ‘They probably know what they are doing; we should do some of that too.’
Strangely while WW 2 was a major reason for the abandonment of US, UK and Australian tram systems (major lack of maintenance plus prohibition on buying new cars meant, after recovering from the Depression, that systems were worn out) the war was a reason for retaining trams in Western Europe – after bomb damage it was easier to patch up the tram system and return it to traffic than to get new buses to replace the trams. Then Düwag’s articulated trams changed the high staff requirement (one driver plus a conductor for the motor car and each of the two or three trailers) to two men, and then one man operation, with honour payment in trailers (plus frequent inspection of tickets) meant the finances had irrevocably turned in favour of trams.
26. You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
Yes, but this is a matter of map design – many are exceedingly poor, apparently designed to get rid of passengers. Irrelevant.
27. Streetcars are faster than buses or trackless trolleys because trams tend to have dedicated lanes. Even if they don’t, if they operate on streets with multiple lanes, people stay out of the tram lane, because it’s harder to drive a car along tram tracks (the wheels pull to one side or the other as they fall into the groove).
Reasoning wrong. Trams are faster because full power is available at starting, they have better brakes, and tram routes are generally straighter, so speeds can be higher (within the legal limits). Trams are generally longer, so can have more doorways, hence loading times can be short. The capacity of trams is generally higher – the actual crush capacity of trams (B2 class) in Melbourne is about 220, though normal capacity is around 150. This means that one tram can do the work of 2 or 3 buses (passengers are more willing to stand because of the better ride) and an enlightened traffic authority will allow absolute traffic priority to a tram every 6 minutes when they would not give it to a bus every 2 minutes. With farside stops and absolute traffic priority, delays due to traffic congestion are virtually eliminated.
28. In buses you’re still jostled by every pothole and sway at every bus stop. I thought bus rapid transit would be a significant improvement - there’s still a bit of sway and they concrete was not installed as smoothly as line of steel rail.
Same as reason 2. BRT is NOT a competitor to the streetcar, but it is to light rail. All remarks about BRT are therefore irrelevant in the context of streetcars v. buses.
29. With buses transit planners are pushed by funding formulas to capture every pocket of riders thus you can get a very wiggly route – something that’s less practical on a fixed rail system.
“The shortest distance between two points is a straight line; the longest distance between two points is a Canberra bus route.” Enough said.
30. Buses lurch unpredictably from side to side as they weave in and out of traffic and as they move from the traffic lane to the curb lane to pick up passengers. In streetcars turns occur at the same location on every trip, so that even standees can more or less relax knowing the car is not going to perform any unpredictable lateral manoeuvres.
The lateral flexibility of buses is a disadvantage in normal traffic; but is an asset in case of a blocked road. However, see 14 above.
31. Most streetcar riders don’t consciously think about the differences between a bus ride and a streetcar ride. But their unconscious minds–the spinal cord, the solar plexus, the inner ear and the seat of the pants–quickly tally the differences and deliver an impressionistic conclusion: the streetcar ride is physiologically less stressful.
Again, see points 2, 18, 28, 29, 30. It is a matter of perception, which leads back into reason 1.
32. An internal-combustion engine is constantly engaged in hammering itself to death and buses tend to vibrate themselves into a sort of metallurgical dishevelment. Interior fittings–window frames, handrails, floor coverings, seats–tend to work loose and make the interior look frowzy and uncared-for. By age 12 the bus is a piece of junk and has to be retired. A streetcar the same age is barely into its adolescence.
No. This is a matter of maintenance. See comment on point 21. The maintenance regime depends on management’s direction, which depends on the funding arrangements. Plenty of money for new rolling stock, but not for maintenance – do no maintenance, junk buses after 12 years. No money for new buses, but money for maintenance, buses last 36 years.
33. Streetcar stops are typically given more attention than most bus routes and the information system is more advanced. In Portland, the shelters even have VMS displays that tell you the times of the next two streetcar arrivals. This valuable information gives people the option to wait, do something else to pass the time, or walk to their destination.
This is possible with buses, and many bus systems already have such passenger information systems in place. Some even work well! See point 13.
34. One great advantage of streetcars is that the infrastructure serves as an orienting and wayfinding device. The track alerts folks to the route and leads them to stops. Because they are a permanent feature of the streetscape, the routing is predictable and stable (unlike bus routes). So unlike a bus, a streetcar informs and helps citizens to formulate an image of their city, even if folks don’t ride it. It is a feature of their public realm. Because of this, these streets get greater public attention.
Basically the same as points 4, 14, 26 and possibly others.
35. When you ride one of the remaining historic cars in Toronto or San Francisco you can tell they’re “old” in the sense of “out of style,” but when you look around the interior everything still seems shipshape, nothing rattles, the windows open and close without binding. The rider experiences a sense of solid quality associated with Grandma’s solid-oak dining table and 1847 Rodgers Brothers silver. And that makes everybody feel good. Unlike, say, an aging bus.
See points 21 and 32. This applikes to the PCC cars, but I have doubts about it being applicable to some of the other ‘historic cars’.
36. For those of you who cannot see the difference between a bus and a streetcar, I suggest riding a streetcar when you get the chance. Then, if you can locate a bus that more or less follows the same route, give that a try. Compare the two experiences.
I can see it very well. I compare Melbourne trams with buses elsewhere – the Melbourne trams usually win hands down.
One point mentioned by a respondent is that cyclists are happier with the predetermined path of the tram. So also are motorists – knowing you can drive 6 inches away from a tram is a great help – no sane motorist drives that close to a bus.
It all boils down to two things, (1) the financial and economical results of putting in a tram (streetcar) line as against maintaining or slightly improving a heavily loaded bus line (lightly loaded bus lines are irrelevant), and (2) the perceptions of potential passengers. With proper design, and proper attention to “cheeseparing and candle ends” the finances of a new tram line can be good. Ride quality is normally far better than buses, so passenger perceptions are good, and usually tram systems attract more passengers than buses. As the bus passengers transferring to tram are, hopefully, a ‘given’, this means either more passengers who would not otherwise have travelled, or passengers attracted out of cars, normally both. This means a small reduction of car travel IN THAT CORRIDOR, and hence a likely reduction in congestion in that corridor. Which is part of the economic justification.
Reference to corridor is important – too often know-nothings argue that a tram line in one corridor will do nothing for congestion in the city as a whole, and therefore should not be supported. It is only necessary to state this to see what a silly argument this is, but it keeps on coming out from the know-nothings.
BRT is more a competitor to light rail. However, it is believed – evidence is needed, that a BRT system providing an equivalent service to light rail has capital costs close to that of the LR system, with higher operating costs. It is notable that the Green Line coach system in London, which provided a service approximating BRT lost virtually all its patronage and none of its cross London routes survive.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
It has been mentioned but deserves repeating again, trolley buses!
With a trolley bus you get the best of both worlds. Street car tracks are expensive to build and to maintain plus the cars need expansive repair yards to move them around, not so with electric buses i.e. can be shuttled, electic buses is much more flexibile system.
A lot of the critism of regular buses has to do the diesel engine, eliminate it maintain a good road surface and you have the cheapest most efficient set up. Street cars were the only alternative more than a 100 years ago but things have progressed, pneumatic tires for one. Steel on steel and tracks for freight but simply not necassary to move people
June 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
[...] A lot of streetcar vs. bus discussion in the comments here. [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
This is one person’s biased opinion. Comparing streetcars to buses the write overlooks the fact that
they cost 7 to 10 times as much as BRT for the same service level. BRT is essentially like a street car with dedicated lanes without the cost of laying down and maintaing the steel rails.
Comparing streetcars with local buses is not a rigorous comparison.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:28 am
[...] - 36 raisons pour lesquelles les tramways sont mieux que les bus Si vous voulez un système qui attire les voyageurs et les investisseurs, beaucoup d’experts en déplacement vous diront que les tramways sont le meilleur investissement qu’une ville puisse faire. Pour les villes qui doivent choisir entre construire un système de tramway ou un système de bus haut-de-gamme, cette liste impressionnante montre de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les voyageurs préfèrent largement le tramway. Les commentaires vont du plus évident au plus incroyablement créatif. http://www.infrastructurist.com/…36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 7:49 am
[...] - 36 raisons pour lesquelles les tramways sont mieux que les bus Si vous voulez un système qui attire les voyageurs et les investisseurs, beaucoup d’experts en déplacement vous diront que les tramways sont le meilleur investissement qu’une ville puisse faire. Pour les villes qui doivent choisir entre construire un système de tramway ou un système de bus haut-de-gamme, cette liste impressionnante montre de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les voyageurs préfèrent largement le tramway. Les commentaires vont du plus évident au plus incroyablement créatif. http://www.infrastructurist.com/…36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/03/36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses/ [...]
July 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
[...] The Infrastructurist has a great list of the ways that streetcars are superior to buses. Here are a few: [...]
July 15th, 2009 at 2:17 am
For reference, there are a gazillion studies showing that #1 is true; lightrailnow.org has a catalogue of them.
Switch from decrepit streetcar to modern bus? Lose riders. Switch from modern bus to decrepit streetcar? Gain riders. It’s shockingly consistent.
Insufficient studies have been done with trolleybuses, but it appears that they do not get the same “bonus riders”.
This doesn’t prove the “why”. It’s probably a combination of two things:
(1) Any streetcar ride is smoother than even the absolute best bus ride in the world. Yes, even Berlin.
(2) The tracks provide a permanency and a “no, the driver will not get lost” guarantee, which are psychologically attractive.
BTW, BRT of the “same quality” (apart from the worse ride and lower popularity) as LRT costs about the same upfront and more over the long run (because bits, like the pavement and the buses, have to be replaced more often). The main cost upfront is in civil engineering.
As another point, I’ve never seen an “ordinary bus line” of the “same quality” as an “ordinary” (mixed-traffic) streetcar line. For some reason, modern streetcars these days always get level-boarding platforms and stop signage (contrast 19th century streetcars). I have never seen a full mixed-traffic bus line built to those standards. I suppose it might be cheaper upfront, assuming “someone else” paid for the road. But the lost ridership relative to a streetcar probably means the extra cost of putting in tracks is worth it.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:22 am
“Interestingly, in the 1940s and ’50s, when streetcars were being replaced with buses across America, even those unlikely to be a part of the questionable alliance of oil and rubber tire corporations some suggest are responsible for the end to most streetcar networks believed that buses, in fact, offered a better ride. Should we dismiss these evaluations out-of-hand?”
Yes. Given that the replacement of those streetcar lines with bus lines consistently led to *drops in ridership*, those evaluations seem very unlikely to be accurate.
Personally, I’ve ridden on some terrible ancient streetcar track, and some supermodern super-smooth-road buses — and I get motion-sick on the bus and not on the streetcar. This means something.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:29 am
“2. Demand-response: a bus network can be more responsive to peak demand and service interruptions than a rail network, especially a simplified one like San Francisco has. ”
Good point but perhaps not the point you’re thinking of. Denver is building light rail and commuter rail “spines” for its public transit system. As part of this, they are replacing fixed-route bus service in a lot of outlying areas with “call-a-ride” services — true demand responsive buses.
This sort of low capacity feeder transit is not remotely suitable for trains, but eminently suitable for buses.
Special one-shot services which only operate a few days a year, such as certain sports transportation, are also eminently suitable for buses.
(In contrast, for service interruptions in a high-capacity system, you simply need redundant rail routes. San Francisco almost has those, but not quite.)
July 15th, 2009 at 2:37 am
“when you do the math, the cost per unit of carrying capacity per year is far higher for streetcars and LRV’s than for bus. ”
Dead wrong. Everyone who *has* done the math says the numbers are the other way around: cost per unit of carrying capacity per year is far higher for buses than for streetcars.
Of course, this is useless if you’re not going to *use* the carrying capacity; streetcars should not be installed on low-volume routes!
October 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/03/36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses/ The Infrastructurist Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 [...]
October 13th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
GDRTA sucks, but surprisingly, only one person has filed a complaint against them with the Better Business Bureau in the last 36 months.
In GDRTA, the GD can stand for Greater Dayton, but it can also stand for G** D*** because I hear a lot of people refer to the RTA as the G** D*** RTA.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:51 am
It will be interesting to see how the Cambridgeshire (England) guided busway will fare when it opens next month. It will be the longest guided busway in the world (25km), overtaking Adelaide (Australia). Will it be comparable to LRT in terms of attracting riders and also in attracting new development near the stations?
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/
November 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The only people who still claim that buses are better than streetcars are people who plan to never ride either.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
by my take, the pro-bus people ( and i’m a huge bus lover here in dc… i prefer them to the metro)
have two things that they feel make buses better than street cars
1. flexibility
2. initial cost
cost has been discussed, and anyone with a brain understands that long term costs with streetcars are less than buses. in areas with density and demand it makes sense on a cost basis, to use streetcars. cities can’t afford to build for the short term, and it places an undue burden on residents to think merely in initial cost.
flexibility. that one sticks. what happens when theres an accident, or a double parked car? or a fire truck or ambulance or parade or protest ( very frequent occurrence in my town).
this will be wildly chaotic in DC.
that’s all i can see as the negatives of streetcars.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Just a simple terminology question from a non-regular contributor: what is a “cheesebox” bus?
Ken
December 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
[...] “The bus takes too damn long too damn inconsistent.” 2. “Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement.” 3. [...]
January 15th, 2010 at 8:52 am
“As to 5., the argument that rail operating costs are lower than bus operating costs has become a fixture of rail proponents, but it is rarely the case when you actually review the options for particular corridors. I”
Actually, it’s always the case. Every single time.
Provided the corridor has enough volume. That’s all there is to it. If the passenger volume is really low, it’s cheaper to run buses. If it’s high enough — and factor in that streeetcars always, always attract more passengers when they replace buses, I don’t care why that is, it’s proven by studies — then the streetcars are cheaper to operate.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:54 am
“It will be interesting to see how the Cambridgeshire (England) guided busway will fare when it opens next month. It will be the longest guided busway in the world (25km), overtaking Adelaide (Australia). Will it be comparable to LRT in terms of attracting riders and also in attracting new development near the stations?
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/”
Let me step out on a limb here and say “No, it won’t.”
January 15th, 2010 at 8:57 am
“In any case, a fairer question this article suggests it answers but does not might be, Do streetcars attract more riders per dollar than bus rapid transit? I.e., wound a 5 mile streetcar line do better than an 8 mile BRT line?”
We have simple case studies for this. The answer is, “Yes, they do”.
If you want “high-end” examples with lots of exclusive ROW, look to Los Angeles, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh. If you want “low-end” examples, look to Portland or even Seattle. 
I’d only be guessing the reasons. I think it’s plenty of examples though.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
[...] Our city has been fortunate to keep its quiet and non-polluting trolley buses - it is now the only Canadian city still running them. Diesel buses may have eventually replaced streetcars in most other cities in North America, but they have never captured the imagination of the general public. A great post on The Infrastructurist lists their 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. [...]
February 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
So many of these examples have absolutely nothing to do with streetcar technology. Route planning can be done equally efficiently with buses, stops can be equally spaced, next-bus signs and bus bulges can make the stops much more pleasant (as is done on Main Street in Vancouver, for instance), and trolly buses run on electricity just like streetcars. I’m not saying buses are better than streetcars, rather I do believe streetcars have many advantages, but let’s have this debate with the actual facts rather than a bunch of nonsense, please.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
aside from 2 lines in Philly, do any other cities run trackless trolleys, or trolley buses anymore?
Yes. Riga, the capital of Republic of Latvia has an extensive trolley network. 25 routes in total.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
[...] 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses
February 15th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
[...] manner, it would do wonders for the area for very little coin. Has this option been considered? 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses
February 16th, 2010 at 12:41 am
“There were city AND intra-urban lines almost everywhere there was any kind of population.
They mostly ALL went away for just one reason. ”
Government subsidies to roads combined with price regulations preventing the privately owned streetcar systems from making a profit.
Them’s the facts.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Way back before I was around, my town (along with pretty much every town in the area) had a trolley going up and down main street. The tracks have been ripped up and now our Main Street is ruled by cars, whereas it used to be a place for people to walk around. With all the talk about cities putting in streetcars, I think that smaller towns with a nice downtown should put a trolley back in. It could make downtown areas and Main Streets much more of a tourist/shopper destination and make the streets much more walkable.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 am
I think subways are much better than buses and streetcars.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
“At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.”
At several points in the 1930s, ’40s, 50s, etc., a person could travel from New York to San Francisco solely on buses, or on trains, with no gaps in the routes.
That point was pretty silly, but I do like streetcars. How about this one?
Streetcars encourage easy-on easy-off with multiple entries and exits and even running boards. Buses seem to require longer to load or unload passengers.
I agree with the points about the crappiness of school buses. We use our biggest, ugliest, loudest, most ungainly contraptions to haul our smallest citizens. Kids have to climb stairs taller than they are just to get in the thing.
I’d like to see a competition to redesign the school bus. I’m envisioning something like the trams at Disney World. Modular, with smaller, separable individual seating compartments. Low decks for easy, parallel boarding.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:45 am
…and there would have never been a play called “A Bus Named Desire”.
May 4th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
[...] Originally Posted by oakparkdude Street cars are essentially the equivalent of buses. Not really. Ever been to Europe? http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009…er-than-buses/ [...]
May 11th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Charlie -
“A bus named desire”? Well, that title has been used for a film and a cool album by Ashley Cleveland (check Google)
Following this debate from outside the USA (I’m in the UK), I find it fascinating to see how strongly buses are, well, hated. Here in the UK, they are used, if not always liked: the bus system in Edinburgh, Scotland carries 110m passengers per year in a population of less than half a million. Portland carried about 100m passengers per year in a population of 2m. That’s a useage rate more than 4 times as high.
Now, I know the comparison is not quite a fair one, as car ownership levels in the UK aren’t nearly as strong as the States; but even in Canada, bus and transit use rates are about twice what they are in the USA. Why?
May 16th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I think the reason why buses are viewed lesser then streetcars is it dates back to school days. In fact our school buses where so packed to the gills that I wish they had BRT type double linked buses to pack the kids in more. I mean they packed them in three or four to a seat. Also once you got on to the school bus you couldn’t really move around around and if some hillbilly wanted to beat you up for the fun of it there was really nothing you could do it was like a cage for animals. So as soon as you are old enought to drive you wanted to drive and say good bye to the bus forever.
Another going angist the bus would be the Bus system in Richmond Virigina is that you don’t have a blue’s clue where it goes. Such as a example you see the bus leave VCU in downtown Richmond and across one of the James River Bridges into the suburbs and then it becomes kind of a mystery where it goes you hear legends and romors that it stops off at one of the major malls in the area or stops about a few blocks away from them but even that is unknown and you don’t find out intill you phyiscaly have to follow the bus in a car to find out where it pops out at. And some of the bus stops are in some really crazy spots such as you will see a bus stop with a roof shelter in the middle of no where with a 20 foot ledge and drop off behind it with no sidewalk acess. When you do see it pop out you have really no idea where it has been between point A and B.
Richmond Virginia used to have a streetcar system that was so big you could go from Hopewell Virginia and to Ashland Virginia with only a one city block gap between vast streetcar system with Richmond Petersburg and Richmond inbetween. Also one of the streetcar system builders had dreams of extending his system up to Fredricksburg VA which is only a few miles south of the vast Washingtion DC streetcar system at the time. But sadly we ripped it all out for a bus system that is many a mystery of where it goes.
May 18th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I think it’s all about options and possibilities. No one wants to choose something that’s slow or dirty or uncomfortable. If your mode is slow, dirty or uncomfortable, then you won’t be happy. This is made worse when others have better options, because you will feel unloved, and they will look down on you. The rest (permanence, bike issues, etc) is secondary, or lower.
The reason why the situation in the US is different, is that it is so easy to own and use a car. If driving is not a good option (be it Tokyo, Riga, or NYC), then people will use transit, bus or whatever. Plus, having more people in the same situation makes everyone feel better. In Tokyo, which I know well, people don’t use buses and trains because they’re transit fanatics, but because they are more practical than driving. Parking, congestion, tolls, gas cost, all of these are important factors, much more than what anyone would ideally prefer, altruism, concern about the environment, etc. If people hate buses, it’s because they’re RELATIVELY slow, dirty, inconvenient, uncomfortable, unreliable or unsafe. If that’s their best option, then people will use it.
So, bottom line is the transit has got to make sense. More than what the vehicle looks like or what kind of wheels it has, people won’t use it unless some (not all) of these questions are answered ‘yes’:
1. Does the bus/tram/train save me time?
2. Does the bus/tram/train save me money?
3. Does the bus/tram/train save me hassle?
4. Is the bus/tram/train clean and safe?
By the way, I choose the train in LA (yes!), even though driving is faster (15-30 min vs 45). Transit doesn’t have to be absolutely cheaper or faster than driving. But it has to be close. Then, the added benefits (which are undersold) can make the difference. Examples:
1. Train is predictable (driving time is too unreliable)
2. Freedom of what to do during travel (catnap, reading, daydreaming, writing, chatting)
3. Other risks (no speeding tickets, fender benders, wear and tear on car)
In the US, if we want people to use transit (do we really?), then we must make it a better option than driving. There are many ways to do this, but all have some cost, whether financial, political or whatever. It’s not easy to change the equation, but rest assured that every bit helps. The bar need not be set so high (everyone doesn’t need to use it). Small increases in transit use result in larger reductions in congestion (and therefore pollution and energy consumption).
So, transit promoters, let’s not kneecap each other by saying one mode or another just sucks. Each transit mode has benefits, and the borderline where one should be chosen over another isn’t perfectly clear. This is a great debate, but the real question is how do we get more people out of their cars. If streetcars do that, great, but we’ll still need lots of buses, too.
May 18th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
And about walking (@ Greg Says, et al):
When we look back to a time when people used streetcars and walked all over downtown, that was necessity! Many didn’t have cars, stores didn’t have lots of free parking, and there wasn’t cable TV, wireless internet, X-Box or rental DVDs to hurry home to. Walking around downtown was people’s best entertainment! People spent time sitting (yes, just sitting!) on their front porches!
I love streetcars and porches as much as the next guy, but you can’t always go back to the past.
May 25th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
It could be very well that we could start going back into the past as a default as driving becomes far more expessive such as though rising gas prices. Another thing that is starting to happen is that many Citys live to tow you away. The City of Richmond favortie thing to do is tow people. They once had ten cop cars and ten tow trucks going along a street towing people at will. It also costs $125 to get the car out of jail. Also many of the stop lights in the suburbs and the cities keep getting harder and harder to understand. Also the Richmond City Bus system doesn’t help eather in that you don’t know where they go once they go beyound a cirtan street.
We may soon start going back in time as the Oil also runs out but many it’s the pain and cost of driving.
May 31st, 2010 at 10:09 am
Woody Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Peter Smith makes an excellent point about schoolbuses. That is probably where the first indelible negative impression of riding the bus is formed. We force our kids to ride ugly, ungainly, uncomfortable, graceless schoolbuses and then we act surprised that everyone thinks the bus experience is not so nice. Well, duh.
woody
school busses are meant for one thing to transport kids back and forth safely to school they don’t need to be pretty or comfortable just functional of course if you would like to increase your property taxes to give them more luxorious busses be my guest