Rail streetcars making a comeback in the US?
USA Today has an article about the return of the street car to several American cities. Streetcars were common from the late nineteenth to the midtwentieth century. As we all know most of the tracks got ripped out and the cars were replaced with buses. As cities have tried to revamp their urban cores, some are using streetcars as a means of attracting developers, businesses and residents back. Electric streetcars have many advantages, they're cleaner than diesel buses, and rails are cheaper than subway tunnels.
[Source: USA Today via TreeHugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 9:41AM (1/16/2007)
Yea!!!!! Please sirs, can we have some more???
Reply
kert 10:08AM (1/16/2007)
Streetcars aka light rail has its advantages, but several places are considering overhead monorail systems.
It has the benefits of not being obstructed by other traffic and generally being faster and quieter, with approximately equal construction costs.
It also fits better into existing cityscapes with no need to get rid of buildings or widen the roads, as the carrier pillars are easier to fit than a full rail track.
Reply
Tim 10:57AM (1/16/2007)
Monorail- YES, much better than light rail in most circumstances... http://www.monorails.org/
Reply
mulad 11:14AM (1/16/2007)
Of course, there are lots of debates about nomenclature, so I have doubts that monorails can be as inexpensive as some of these systems. "Light rail" lines are generally more high-end than "streetcar" lines, but it's all confusing since streetcars are considered a class of light rail vehicle. Streetcar lines are more likely to run smaller vehicles and are less likely to put them together into a train. Platforms are smaller and simpler (if they exist at all), and streetcars are more likely to mingle with traffic while light rail lines often have exclusive right-of-way and might have priority over other traffic. But it all varies from location to location.
Reply
Tim 11:41AM (1/16/2007)
I love the romantic notion of efficient electric Streetcars instead of those dirty, smelly, noisy busses. But when I think of them I picture San Francisco and have this strange craving for rice. I don't know why...
Anyway, streetcars and light rail consume road space and compete with vehicular and walking traffic whereas monorail can more easily, cheaply and quickly be placed above. Fewer accidents with quicker and less expensive installation and maintenance sounds like very good things to me.
I wonder if monorail is stepping on another powerful entity’s toes. HUMMM.... rail, as in railroad. Didn't they once control the world? That was before the car and oil… Say, don’t they now control the world? Can you say turf war? Titans at war! Poor little monorail doesn’t stand a chance.
Reply
John 6:57PM (1/16/2007)
Monorails have yet to establish themselves in main stream public transport. Their use is limited mainly to theme parks and smaller people mover systems found at airports. Monorail is not cheaper than light rail. How much any line costs really depends on where you want to put it. Elevated railways, be they conventional rail or monorail do arouse significant neighbourhood opposition in communities where they are planned. It is very difficult to make a forty foot tall concerete pillar and concrete guideway suspended in the air look nice or blend in well with any communitiy.
Further limitations of monorails is that switch assemblies to switch from one track to another are much more costly and cumbersome than on conventional rail and not as easy to repair when they break. Further more, most if not all monorail systems are proprietary. That means you buy the system as a turnkey set up from one supplier and you are beholden to that supplier for all infrastructure needs. Not only that, the vehicles are often proprietary as well meaning you can only buy from one manufacturer for the monorail set up you decide to go with.
Rail monopolies have little or nothing to do with why monorail hasn't taken off. Monorails are often pitched to public transit systems that are run by various forms of local government, not by any railway. Proprietary systems in general have a very tough go of selling themselves these days. Nobody wants to sink hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into a system where the one and only supplier may or may not be there in 20 years when rolling stock needs to be replaced and infrastructure refurbished. Even if they are still in business, because there is only one place you can get rolling stock, they will often charge whatever they feel like.
Perhaps if the builders of monorail systems could band together to provide industry wide standards and provide a competitive market place for after market parts, then maybe transit authorities will be more apt to consider the technology.
Reply
Andy 11:53PM (1/16/2007)
I had to snicker at the monorail comments. I was watching a PBS presentation about the failure of the monorail system to be completed in Seattle. If cities can make monorails and rail cars pleasant, clean, cheap, and comfortable, I think they can really take off in US cities. I wouldn't gamble on it. LA is terribly expensive and rough to commute in, yet the subway system has yet to find a large audience.
Reply
CM 8:54PM (1/16/2007)
Oh, I hope NOT! Street rail is a disaster. With multiton vehicles and poor traction on steel rails, braking is rotten - if any auto were issued with brakes this bad, they would be recalled as "defective". Accident rates and fatalities on streets are abysmally high, on a per passenger mile basis higher than cars! The rails are a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. Only where they are isolated from traffic could they be considered "safe".
I lived in San Jose, California when they built their light rail system. It opened to much fanfare, but ridership was below expectations (except for rare "special downtown occasions") and surveys showed 98% of regular riders were former bus riders. It did nothing to get people out of their cars, even though the biggest daily traffic jam is on Hiway 87 at 280 - and the light rail ran right down the middle of the freeway in full view of all those stuck in traffic. As slow as the traffic jams are, light rail is slower, overall end-to-end average speed is a mere 13 miles per hour, and then there is the "up to half hour" wait for the trolly. Also, most people are going to destinations far from the light rail stations.
It was a fiscal disaster as well. All U.S. light rail systems are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, but San Jose light rail was so expensive and ridership was so poor that it threatened to bankrupt the Valley Transit Authority - in spite of a local extra sales tax dedicated to transit! Some bus routes were cut, and other routes reduced service, and plans to bring BART to San Jose were postponed. San Jose public transit would be much better today if that infernal light rail had never been built. It isn't just San Jose - Light rail has also been a disaster in Portland, Salt Lake, Houston, and Los Angeles. Of all the US light rail systems, only two - San Francisco and San Diego - come anywhere close to their planned ridership.
There are better options. See:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm
Reply
Matt 11:23PM (1/16/2007)
Yeah, they're subsidized, so? What paid for the road you're driving on?
Reply
M 9:44AM (1/17/2007)
http://www.skytran.net/
Light rail and streetcars are not the
only
answers.
The goal is to move people not create
largeinfrastructure/bureaucracies. Most transit agencies lose sight
ofthat goal rather quickly once they become powerful taxing
agencies.Not unlike most government entities.
Reply
john riley 2:42PM (1/18/2007)
These have been part of the Toronto transit system for a long time. Shouldn't be any mystery about them re safety, cost, etc.
Reply
Chris M 4:53AM (1/30/2007)
The San Jose Light rail is clean and comfortable, but it is also slow, inconvenient and expensive. Low ridership forced an increase in fares, causing some riders to go back to busses or carpools.
What is needed is a transit system that is not just clean and comfortable, but also fast, convenient, goes where you want when you want (no waiting), efficient and economical. PRT can do it.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm
http://www.cprt.org/
Reply