Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it would depend: one of the reasons the streetcars were originally eliminated is that they were increasingly held up in traffic, and the argument was that buses could navigate (like cars) around traffic, make detours, etc.

In practice however that hasn't really been borne out: the city's buses are notoriously slow. The city has (correctly) reprioritized bus lanes (including lane enforcement for scofflaw drivers) and express services (SBS) in response, but at that point we're essentially back to rights-of-way (i.e. how much of Europe runs timely and efficient streetcar networks).

In short: I think streetcars would be less effective if not (partially) separated, but more effective otherwise. Given that the city is moving towards bus lane separation anyways, I personally believe they should revitalize the streetcar network instead. But that's (1) expensive, and (2) involves impressive amounts of local political spaghetti, given that the buses are currently run by state-level MTA while the roads are owned by the city.

Any public transport that doesn't have its own right of way is immediately and trivially broken, since it will be always strictly worse than an individual car. So more people will take cars, so traffic will be worse, so buses will be worse by the same measure, so will still be worse than cars, so... That's how you get LA levels of gridlock despite every street being a 14 lane freeway.

Whereas if buses/trams run in a dedicated lane with the same speed independent of car traffic, there is immediately a natural balancing incentive / restoring force: too much car traffic and the bus will become comparatively more attractive, so less people will take cars, so traffic will be lessened, so

NYC buses have been crowded since before I was born 30+ years ago, even if they are crawling at 4 mph

Ya the idea that buses are better than streetcars because they can go around traffic is just completely detached from reality. Maybe a bus can go around one double-parked car but during rush hour that's not happening. It was always just an excuse to avoid taking an inch of space away from cars for dedicated transit right of way.

I live in Toronto and avoid taking streetcars because I have seen significant delays precisely because of parked cars or some other blockage.

Of course in my opinion this simply means banning parking on streetcar routes; or having dedicated streetcar lanes where a blockage simply isn’t possible.

Streetcar routes in Toronto which do not share the road are fine.

What's the benefit to streetcars over busses with a dedicated, physically separated right of way?

I like the idea of streetcars, but busses seem easier to purchase than streetcars, standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks and power, and likely it's easier to find/train bus operators than streetcar operators (even though I assume streetcars are actually a bit easier to operate).

there are a few

* 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.

Would just like to note one issue i have observed with the MPLS light rail: multi-car transit has less oversight and is more attractive for drug use and shelter for the homeless which lowers use by commuters. Our busses running the same routes are safer and better options.

I haven't seen these problems on the Minneapolis Metro even riding at night, but if it is actually a problem, it seems like the solution is build out actual infrastructure to support the homeless community.

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

It’s a severe problem in mpls. Are you sure we’re talking about the same city and rail system? Never heard it called “the metro”. I was born and raised in DC where that’s what folks call the subway… only ever heard it called the light rail…

The rapid transit system in Minneapolis, MN is called the Metro. Technically that includes the bus rapid transit system, but I'm just talking about the light rail since I do prefer it over the buses.

All I can say is I've never seen any issues on the LRT. I'm genuinely sorry you have.

In prague there is both extensive bus network and tram network. I almost always go for buses. The capacity is just so much higher and usually the drive is much smoother compared to buses. Also trams are powered by electricity making it more efficient and c02 neutral...

> standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks

I would think that tracks last way longer.

Overall I think the cost is lower in long term for street cars but the initial cost is super high - e.g. edinburgh build one awkward tram line for around 700m. But thats with depots, cars everything. In Prague with all existing infrastructure it cost now about 78m usd to build 2.2km of tram with 6 stops.

Fellow European here. My understanding is street cars started out as futuristic marvels of modernity, but unlike their cousins trains & subways, they aged fairly poorly and don't generally do well in mixed city traffic today:

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.

I really like the idea that street cars, trains and subways could share a single network (kinda like they do in Tokyo, except Tokyo doesn't really have street cars, mostly trains - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMYAEIXVzA).

It would allow trains to come from one direction, pass through the city undisturbed and emerge on the other side and continue.

Known as tram-trains, and an established model in Karlsruhe and Kassel, Germany.

The federal rail administration would never let this happen in the US

> First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice),

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

> No idea what you mean by this but I would assume that the cost of running things is lower

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.

> 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!

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.

> universally appreciated by most

60% of the time, it works every time

The main one, in my mind, is permanency: as I mentioned in the adjacent comment, stable car-independent communities tend to be built around transportation systems that can’t be easily removed.

(I think there are other benefits, like being slightly more comfortable. But permanency is by far the most important.)

Capacity and level boarding are the two big ones.

Trams are more capacious than buses because they don’t have onboard fuel tanks, so more space for passengers; and they’re fixed to tracks so they can be significantly longer without worrying about the back swinging out.

Trams are also perfectly level with platforms, so there’s no need to waste time to achieve level boarding for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and the elderly; buses can spend quite a lot of time kneeling and deploying ramps.

These are good points!

Streetcars can be up to 100m (300ft) long and fit 1000 people, saving costs for drivers.

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.

Enforcing right of way for street cars could be a lot more efficient now. Stick a licence plate reader on the front of trolley, record any car that blocks them for more than X minutes and mail a ticket. Drivers will learn fast not to screw around.

> for more than X minutes

You meant seconds there, not minutes.

For two-lanes-or-less-each-way streets, buses don't offer much benefit if the streets are busy since the chance of being able to get enough space for a very heavy, long bus to switch lanes is low/impossible.

Streets cars/trams weakness include breakdowns - trailing streetcars/trams are blocked if a streetcar breaks down on the track. But, they can also carry more passengers than buses. I think many modern versions are about 3-4 bus-lengths long.

> the city's buses are notoriously slow

Are the buses actually slower than they can be, or do they just have to deal with too many passengers (given the population density) taking a long time to board/unboard?

Boarding time is a factor, but traffic, road conditions (double parking and driving in the bus lane), and stop spacing are larger ones. Especially since OMNY and pre-purchased tickets for the SBS routes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com