They never actually tore up most of these lines; the city just paved over them. You can see them poking through the pavement whenever the city redoes the roads.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_streetcar_lines_in_Bro...
I spotted one of these in July in long island city by vernon blvd while they were repaving. You can see them embedded in the cobblestone. Here's some impromptu phone pictures: https://imgur.com/a/MLdjvxo
In practice however that hasn't really been borne out: the city's buses are notoriously slow. The city has (correctly) reprioritized bus lanes (including lane enforcement for scofflaw drivers) and express services (SBS) in response, but at that point we're essentially back to rights-of-way (i.e. how much of Europe runs timely and efficient streetcar networks).
In short: I think streetcars would be less effective if not (partially) separated, but more effective otherwise. Given that the city is moving towards bus lane separation anyways, I personally believe they should revitalize the streetcar network instead. But that's (1) expensive, and (2) involves impressive amounts of local political spaghetti, given that the buses are currently run by state-level MTA while the roads are owned by the city.
Of course in my opinion this simply means banning parking on streetcar routes; or having dedicated streetcar lanes where a blockage simply isn’t possible.
Streetcar routes in Toronto which do not share the road are fine.
I like the idea of streetcars, but busses seem easier to purchase than streetcars, standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks and power, and likely it's easier to find/train bus operators than streetcar operators (even though I assume streetcars are actually a bit easier to operate).
(I think there are other benefits, like being slightly more comfortable. But permanency is by far the most important.)
Trams are more capacious than buses because they don’t have onboard fuel tanks, so more space for passengers; and they’re fixed to tracks so they can be significantly longer without worrying about the back swinging out.
Trams are also perfectly level with platforms, so there’s no need to waste time to achieve level boarding for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and the elderly; buses can spend quite a lot of time kneeling and deploying ramps.
> standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks
I would think that tracks last way longer.
Overall I think the cost is lower in long term for street cars but the initial cost is super high - e.g. edinburgh build one awkward tram line for around 700m. But thats with depots, cars everything. In Prague with all existing infrastructure it cost now about 78m usd to build 2.2km of tram with 6 stops.
First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice), so there’s no obvious advantage like with trains. Secondly, buses got a lot cleaner, spacious, comfortable and quieter. The modern buses in European cities are not just on-par, but often more comfortable and allow higher speed on long stretches, because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains). So then what’s the point? Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison.
Now, there are some exceptional cases where I really like trams. When the route has majority separate rail (typically in beautiful stretches of nature) but can switch into streets when needed to reach better. For instance, Tvärbanan in Stockholm is a tram that – while not always perfect – is universally appreciated by most.
60% of the time, it works every time
It would allow trains to come from one direction, pass through the city undisturbed and emerge on the other side and continue.
that is not true, in cities the car speed is usually limited to 50, a lot of trams go 70 on certain sections. Also "or avoid traffic" a lot of trams go completely separetely from the traffic.
> because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains).
Depends on the city, but a lot of cities that I visited have a very modern trams that are not shaky (helsinky, zurich, bratislava, riga, edinburgh, bordeaux...). Also the technology of the rail building has changed and the new lines are meant to be quiter and more stable
> Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison
No idea what you mean by this but I would assume that the cost of running things is lower, the c02 profile is for sure https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
I meant that light rail must be much more expensive, but now I’m not so sure. I hadn’t considered you can have more passengers per driver and if labor is dominating cost then yeah trams can be cheaper!
> a lot of cities that I visited […]
Have you accounted for the reliability of these networks? In my experience trams (or rather tracks and electrical- and signal systems) often break down when there’s snow in the winter, leaves in the fall or sun-bending in the summer, which may not be noticeable on visits. That can also increase costs, since the backup is usually buses and you need a task force who can go fix problems.
Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but my experiences relying on them everyday (in San Francisco and Gothenburg) have been disappointing.. it feels like those networks have been kept alive for nostalgic reasons.
Well labor and gas/electricity. I think in most places in EU the electricity will win over gas easily.
> often break down when there’s snow in the winter, leaves in the fall or sun-bending in the summer, which may not be noticeable on visits.
Not an issue in Prague where I have experienced them the most. You can clean the tracks in similar way that you would clean the road, so the buses would not have much of an advantage..
> it feels like those networks have been kept alive for nostalgic reasons.
i have not been there, so maybe its true tho Gothenburg seems to be investing into the network and buying new trams. So are a lot of other cities.
* recently a big trend is grass tramways. generally speaking this is more ecologically friendly by reducing impervious surfaces and replacing it with greenery, which generally lowers the urban heat island effect and is better for stormwater absorption. as a nice side effect, it is also generally a more visible differentiator from car lanes that people are less willing to drive over.
* trams are generally more capacious than buses because they are laid out better for more standing room. they are also more capacious because it is safer to run very long trams since the tram is fixed to the tracks; there are practical limits to how long a bus can be since a driver needs to be careful when switching lanes and whatnot. The longest single tram unit is 58m, the longest single bus is 32m; and you can couple trams together.
* trams don't really move side to side due to being fixed to tracks, so level boarding with little to no gap is much more realistic to achieve than on buses. This is generally much better for accessibility and speeds up boarding time; if you've spent any time riding a city bus, even a low floor bus spends a significant amount of time kneeling to achieve worse results for level boarding. And buses kneel not only for people in wheelchairs, but for people with strollers, with luggage, the elderly, etc.
Which Minneapolis very much does not have right now despite the best efforts of one or two plucky underfunded nonprofits.
If your light rail cars are the best option people have, that's not an issue with the transit design, that's an issue with the rest of the infrastructure
All I can say is I've never seen any issues on the LRT. I'm genuinely sorry you have.
Roads works are expensive [citation needed], and buses are heavy [citation needed], so they cause lots of damage over time. These costs are often not tracked correctly. Metallic rails require far less maintenance, but have a higher initial cost.
Trams can be quieter than ICE buses.
If build appropriately, Teams can even take sharper turns than buses.
Whereas if buses/trams run in a dedicated lane with the same speed independent of car traffic, there is immediately a natural balancing incentive / restoring force: too much car traffic and the bus will become comparatively more attractive, so less people will take cars, so traffic will be lessened, so
Are the buses actually slower than they can be, or do they just have to deal with too many passengers (given the population density) taking a long time to board/unboard?
You meant seconds there, not minutes.
Streets cars/trams weakness include breakdowns - trailing streetcars/trams are blocked if a streetcar breaks down on the track. But, they can also carry more passengers than buses. I think many modern versions are about 3-4 bus-lengths long.
- They can maneuver around double-parked cars and trucks
- They can switch up the route when there's construction
- There are no tracks tripping up pedestrians and cyclists
- They're [probably] easier to get to a service hub for maintenance
- They don't require overhead wires to provide electricity
- I would guess they're cheaper to purchase and maintain, but don't have a reference
One area where street cars _might_ win is noise. Busses can be loud.
I think a significant understated advantage to streetcars is their effect on local neighborhood development: like a subway line, a streetcar line is a semi-permanent installation that can't be easily taken away by a short-term replanning of the network. Bus lines, even when dense and well-developed (like NYC's are!), simply feel impermanent in a way that rail transport doesn't.
(Or as another framing: if you build a rail connection to a neighborhood, there's a good chance there will still be a thriving neighborhood there in a century. It's not as easy to guarantee that with a bus route that can be taken away overnight.)
The principle is that bus routes can change, bus stops can move. Rail right-of-way and train stations are quite permanent and immobile.
Therefore, if a city invests in rail, the developers will follow, and redevelop, revitalize, or gentrify neighborhoods along that route. Conversely, folks in the neighborhood may fight the rail expansion, because "there goes the neighborhood" usually in a more upscale fashion.
It was smart for cities to build out streetcar lines in their early expansions, enticing developers into areas that promised long-term access. Of course, rail lines don't last forever, but the point is being more permanent and staying put, more reliably, than rubber-tire-based transit.
Any place there is a comprehensive utility construction project, there is a pay item that orders the contractor to excavate the rails out of the way for utility installation. A survey is done using a meta Detector to find if any rails remain in a site.