Light Rail Coyote

One distinctive attribute of Amsterdam relative to the American cities I've spent time in is its extensive use of electric trams for mass transit purposes. I don't really understand why we don't see more of this in the United States. From one point of view, we're a country that has preposterously little in the way of mass transit options. At the same time, we seem in some respects to be a bit subway-crazed, with little metro systems popping up in places like LA and Miami and even Baltimore.

There's nothing wrong with subways, of course, but a lot of these systems seem a bit half-assed and consequently don't wind up being very useful, which is really no good for anyone. The problem with building bigger subway systems, though, is that it's obviously really expensive. For the same amount of money, you could build a lot more tram track. Now it's true that a tram line won't let you move as many people as a heavy rail line, but a tram can carry substantially more capacity than a bus, and it's cleaner, quieter and takes up less space as well. And at the end of the day, though the large carrying capacity of subway systems is great for those cities where the system is comprehensive enough to draw a large customer base (New York, Washington, etc.) there's really no point in building a system that a lot of people could use in principle if it doesn't actually have sufficient scope to make the system an attractive option.

Also, though it's hard to quantify this precisely, I think the trams look cool (the ones they have here in Amsterdam, at least, I recall feeling that the trams I saw in Prague and Nizhny Novgorod in the 1990s were ugly) which is nice. And on some level, aesthetics do matter. My impression of the Philadelphia subway system mostly related to the overpowering stench of urine in whatever station I was waiting in.

Comments

Actually, I've often suspected that the gigantic cost of subway systems is more of a feature than a bug, allowing for gigantic profits in all the subway-building contracts.

For example, a while back I think I saw a totally unbelievable (but true) ratio of the cost-per-user figures between LA's subway white-elephant and its long under-funded public bus system. But it's obviously harder to gouge the tax-payer on buses, since their costs are pretty simple and obvious.

Posted by RKU | November 29, 2007 5:32 PM

Dude, bug out of Amsterdam and go to Berlin. Way, way better.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | November 29, 2007 5:38 PM

My brother is in public transportation design, and he's pointed out that light rail (as trams are typically called) is the ONLY form of public transportation that leads to an increase in ridership as comes online. Busses? Ah, whatever. New bus routes aren't going to get people out of their cars. But light rail does, and that's a fascinating tidbit to add to this.

Me, I'm enjoying the "Bim" in Vienna right now...

Posted by mc | November 29, 2007 5:38 PM

You are absolutely correct about SEPTA (Philly's subway). As much as I try to defend Philly against haters, I agree with every SEPTA complaint out there.

There are, however, significant problems with light rail. The main one is that unless you build a separate rail bed or elevate it (which greatly increases the impact/costs), a light rail line is integrated into the traffic grid and does not offer much more congestion relief than a ordinary city bus. And the normal disruption of street life (utility excavations, double parked cars, etc) can clog/shut down an entire line. What's more, rail lines in the pavement are hazards to cyclists. In a dense existing city grid, it's hard to justify putting in streetcars instead of buses when the infrastructure/immobility issues are such obvious downsides. They pretty much can only go on larger avenues with room for a separate bed. (Like the new Girard Ave. trolley line in Philly--the only good thing SEPTA has done in a while.)

The cool thing about Amsterdam is how the streetcars have dedicated rail beds, cyclists have their own lanes separate from cars, and taxis/commercial traffic has its own lane. At least in the historic center, private cars are an afterthought.

Still, the heavy cycle traffic and many packed streetcars can be dangerous...especially if you're high. Before crossing a street, look out for RMDPs: Rapidly Moving Dutch People.

Posted by Philly | November 29, 2007 5:39 PM

I'm not an expert here, but I remember seeing stuff about how GM and the auto industry destroyed the streetcar system in several american cities. As I remember, GM bought the LA system and had it demolished. Efficiency is not the only engine of change.

Posted by jk | November 29, 2007 5:43 PM

If you want trams, why not just have buses?. They can move around parked cars, after all, and you can change lines easily when demand shifts.

Ultimately, buses are only viable if you have a geographically concentrated population, and trams are even less so...

Posted by Chris | November 29, 2007 5:44 PM

This is what happens when you try integrating trams into Houston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

chopped and screwed indeed.

Posted by SK | November 29, 2007 5:53 PM

I've got to agree with Chris, electric buses would be more flexible than the trams in Amsterdam. And possibly safer.

And of course, even in low lying Amsterdam they are now moving it all underground (at a high cost due to the high water table).

Between the Bikes and the Trams, I'm amazed more drunk tourists aren't killed each year.

I love taking the Thalys between Amsterdam and Paris. But would I want it here? Why? We have Southwest Airlines for that!

Posted by Davebo | November 29, 2007 5:55 PM

I recall feeling that the trams I saw in Prague and Nizhny Novgorod in the 1990s were ugly

They were old pre-1989 Comecon designs. The trams in Amsterdam are from the 1990s and later: Low entrances and so on. (Here's one in case you are curious or want to relive Amsterdam)

Buses are slower and less comfortable than trams. On the other hand, the costs of building a tramway is higher than setting up a bus-servive.

Posted by Jacob Christensen | November 29, 2007 5:57 PM

Amsterdam trams share their lanes with buses and taxis - a system that would probably work even better in many US cities, which have far wider roads than A'dam.

By the way, Matt, here's a tip from a long-time resident - trams are great, but watch out for them when you're crossing the road - they're often virtually silent and will kill you stone-dead if they hit you. Tourists occasionally find this out just a little bit too late...

Posted by JohnTh | November 29, 2007 5:57 PM

Re "My impression of the Philadelphia subway system mostly related to the overpowering stench of urine in whatever station I was waiting in. "
--------------
Hmmm. Retaliating for my evenhanded, objective judgments on New York City earlier?

Posted by Don Williams | November 29, 2007 6:00 PM

Check out our cool streetcars here in Portland, OR (http://trimet.org/streetcar/index.htm). And they're free to ride over much of the downtown area. Future plans call for building a new bridge to carry them across the Willamette River, which divides Portland about in half.

Posted by Roberta | November 29, 2007 6:00 PM

Are streetcars really cleaner, in the sense of total energy consumption? A bus uses only the energy required to move it and its cargo at a given point in time, whereas I figure the streetcar grid has to be kept energized full-time all over the map, implying full-time transmission losses over distance.

You can move on to consider other factors like difference in GHG emissions due to internal combustion engines vs centralized power production, but I'm really asking if anyone can explain the basic question as I've posed it, specifically the fundamental difference in energy consumption.

Posted by PT&S | November 29, 2007 6:03 PM

In Amsterdam 2 years ago. Lovely May Sunday. Crowds of people enjoying sunshine. Lots of bikes. No cars. On a narrow street, tram winds along, bell clanging. We go up to internet cafe for 15 minutes. Back down, another tram travels the street IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION on the same single track. Clang, clang, clang. I know of no transportation system in the US where this flexibility would be possible. After 5 days in Amsterdam, was able to take trams everywhere. Yeah strippenkaart!

Posted by HBinBoston | November 29, 2007 6:04 PM

though the large carrying capacity of subway systems is great for those cities where the system is comprehensive enough to draw a large customer base (New York, Washington, etc.)

Wondering where the "etc." is in this equation. I thought New York and DC were pretty much it.

Posted by yave begnet | November 29, 2007 6:05 PM

Here in Toronto, almost our entire new planning on mass transit involves light rail. As others have pointed out, subways are not the best value for dollar; in addition, you can only plot stops a minimum of every 1 km or so, so that streetcars make more sense and can make more frequent stops.

If you want trams, why not just have buses?. They can move around parked cars, after all, and you can change lines easily when demand shifts.

The new streetcars Toronto is buying will fit about 6-7 times as many passengers as a bus. It also makes sense to give streetcars dedicated lanes to improve traffic flow, and this is easier to do with light rail than buses. And, on the whole, there is an aesthetic appeal about streetcars that buses simply lack.

Posted by McKingford | November 29, 2007 6:06 PM

Google "light rail boondoggle" for stories of the fabulous deadweight losses generated by light rail projects across the nation, for reasons commenters above have noted. Here's one tidbit from the St. Louis Fed:

"Based solely on dollar cost, the annual light-rail subsidies could instead be used to buy an environmentally friendly hybrid Toyota Prius every five years for each poor rider and even to pay annual maintenance costs of $6,000."

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/light_rail.html

Posted by rd | November 29, 2007 6:10 PM

Yes Don, everything is about you.

Posted by mad6798j | November 29, 2007 6:11 PM

yave begnet:

Aside from NYC and DC, Boston ("the cittie on a Hill, which shall be a beacon unto all peoples") also has a subway system, the much loved-hated "T", or Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority.

My only reccomendation is to avoid the effing Green Line.

Posted by Ben Cronin | November 29, 2007 6:14 PM

"I don't really understand why we don't see more of this in the United States. From one point of view, we're a country that has preposterously little in the way of mass transit options."

Because in Europe & Japan gas is taxed to reflect the social cost of its consumption. In the U.S. it's not.

Matt,learn some economics. Seriously, please.

Posted by kafka | November 29, 2007 6:16 PM

Matt- The reason we don't see more trams is that we tore them out to make room for automobiles. Didn't you see Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Oh, that's right, you were five when it came out. Well, you should rent it.

Other random comments:

The Brooklyn - now LA - Dodgers were dodgers because of the expression 'trolley dodgers,' meaning urchins who played in the streets. The Brooklyn streetcar line ceased operation in 1956.

Your adopted city, DC, had streetcars until 1958, and an underground line from Mt Pleasant to DuPont Circle that ran until 1961. (See the wikipedia article on the DC Streetcars.) If you take a bus out Georgia Ave you'll see the grass median that has replaced the the trolley tracks. That line ran to Silver Spring and made the development of the suburb possible.

You are not alone in wanting trolleys back. See http://brooklynstreetcar.org/index.html

Posted by Bloix | November 29, 2007 6:19 PM

"My impression of the Philadelphia subway system mostly related to the overpowering stench of urine in whatever station I was waiting in."

That's not a subway-specific feature, it's a citywide feature.

Viva Philadelphia!

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 6:20 PM

One distinctive attribute of Amsterdam relative to the American cities I've spent time in is its extensive use of electric trams for mass transit purposes.

Notice any other distinctive attributes of Amsterdam? Or is it pretty much only the electric trains?

Posted by mq | November 29, 2007 6:39 PM

a tram can carry substantially more capacity than a bus, and it's cleaner, quieter and takes up less space as well

I'm fairly sure - as an interested civilian - that this statement is incorrect. Not the cleaner and quieter part - that's pretty much my experience, too, and I'm willing to believe it - but I think that "capacity" and "takes up space" are inversely related. To achieve high speed and capacity, trams need dedicated street space, a lot of dedicated street space. If the rails share their space with traffice lanes used by cars, you've got some very nice, very clean, very expensive, very inflexible buses, with no capacity or speed bonus over ordinary buses.

As noted upthread, one alternative is to place electric lines out along bus routes and avoid all the rail laying. Indeed, Seattle has, for decades, used electric trolley buses that connect to overhead power lines (with gas, natural gas, or biodiesel engine as well; I think this is used in the alternative rather than in combination, but I could be wrong).

Posted by Warren Terra | November 29, 2007 6:43 PM

we seem in some respects to be a bit subway-crazed, with little metro systems popping up in places like LA and Miami and even Baltimore.

MY, Just to clarify: Baltimore has had both light rail and subway since 1983. Sure, they're small and crappy relative to the "big cities", but we didn't just develop 'em a few years ago!

Posted by JDinBalt | November 29, 2007 6:44 PM

They just opened a light rail in Charlotte last weekend and it was gangbusters...huge lines to try it out. Hopefully the officials there can make it work.

Posted by Mike P | November 29, 2007 6:46 PM

There is no doubt that the light rail system with it's dedicated rail beds in St. Louis is expensive and reasonable people can disagree about the value.

What is certain is that it is extremely popular.

The above cited article suggesting it would be cheaper to buy each 'poor rider' a car is a little dishonest.

For instance, the article includes the capital cost of building out the system in the annual subsidy figure but assumes the cost of roadways are free.

It seems that every time someone attacks the (admittedly) high cost of light rail build out, they always assume highway build out and maintenance are free.

As we are about to embark on a 700 million dollar renovation of the key highway artery in St. Louis that will close down miles of highway for two year while it is rebuilt, it's clear that the capital investment for light rail alternatives-- while not factored into the Prius alternative -- are hundreds of millions of dollars more than zero.

Posted by Don Ward | November 29, 2007 6:48 PM

Those damn trams in Amsterdam almost hit me several times. They are too quiet.

And I wasn't high.

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 6:49 PM

Matt, try the Hawaiian mushrooms and record your thoughts on anything in particular and analyze them at a later, sober moment for any interesting insights or just a very good laugh. These are the kinds of thought-experiments expressly prohibited in the land of the free and its 'serious' world of elite punditry, so I say take advantage, you are young, and the dollar ain't gonna get any heavier over there.

And light rail is not the future: technicolor flying buses are. The mushrooms will explain.

Posted by MM | November 29, 2007 6:54 PM

Well,

part of the problem is that the people who really need to use light-rail, are also the people who live in developments where it would be near impossible to build an effective light-rail: the modern suburban development, with endless cul-de-sacs. So even out here in Denver, the light-rail still requires people to get in their cars, and drive out to a parking lot, then take the light rail in. This is opposed to say, the Green Line in Boston, where many, many more people can walk to the light-rail station, and never see the inside of a car.

Posted by Brad | November 29, 2007 6:59 PM

Another efficiency gain the Amsterdam trams have (or used to have, at least) is the use of the "honor system". In quotes, because it is really a probabilistic penalty. You get on the tram and stamp your strippenkaart or your ticket, or you have a valid pass of some kind. Occasionally, a ticket person will ask to see your valid ticket. If you have one, fine. If you don't have one, fine: 60guilders or whatever it is now (50 euros or whatever). So some people make the bet that they will not get caught and don't pay; others prefer to pay and not risk the fine.

The advantage of this system is that people get on and off the trams (and buses) very quickly: all doors are entrances and more than one can go in at a time. If you've ever stood in line to get on a bus in the US, the Dutch experience is quite refreshing.

Posted by foo | November 29, 2007 7:03 PM

This is a case of a genuinely criminal corporate conspiracy by GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil, and Philips Petroleum. Not "criminal" in the sense of "ought to have been a crime," but "criminal" in the sense of "the perpetrators went to court and were convicted of criminal conspiracy, albeit sentenced to a slap-on-the-wrist fine as punishment after the damage was already irreversible." Streetcars throughout the country were bought up and demolished by a shell corporation called National City Lines.

The U.S. used to have plenty of streetcars, but that, as Roland Deschain might say, was before the world moved on.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 29, 2007 7:07 PM

@HBinBoston re the same track -- yeah, a weird "passing track" allows that. I saw the cars doing this too then saw how they got past each other: a kind of 2-rails-to-3-rails sort of thing. One thing is that in central Amsterdam there are not a lot of autos (a lot of bikers - watch out), you see more outside the central city.
San Francisco uses a sort of HOV lane on Mkt St for the cars. And New Orleans used the "neutral ground" on St Charles and Canal.
@Gore/Edwards 08 geeze, are the Berlin lines being expanded? When we were there the only area that still had them was near Friedrichstrasse station; several lines, we were on at night and it hauled. raced past some stone bldg with nice carved stone around the door and appeared to have been hit by artillery. but only had a quick look as the damn car raced on. got off finally and had a few beers.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | November 29, 2007 7:14 PM

Something I wonder: How much does it raise the cost of mass transit projects that they must be accessible to people in wheelchairs?

Posted by kodos | November 29, 2007 7:16 PM

Guys, transportation and urban planning are a science, sort of.

But there are rules of thumb for beginners. You know, a bus line has so and so much capacity, costs so much to build and then to use. The same for light rail, and subway, ans suburban rail... Try to google the datas.
At least here in an european context, they translate into:
over 800k- 1Mio population, a metro area is worth a subway over light rail on the main line(s). Starting at 200k-300k, it is worth a light rail over bus on the main lines.
BUs have simply less capacity, need more personal and wear down much much faster (elctric vs engine, steel vs. tyres).

Phoenix is no european city, but some others would work fine with those rules, me think.

And if light rail, always go for dedicated space, especially if you have it, like in most cities in the US (you know, the space where street cars were running some years ago...)

Posted by transport pedant | November 29, 2007 7:19 PM

Another efficiency gain the Amsterdam trams have (or used to have, at least) is the use of the "honor system".

They use the same system here in the Portland area. Occasionally someone will ask to see your ticket, but it isn't required to get on a train or platform.

The reason light rail is more usable than buses (at least for me) is you always know where the thing goes and how to get back. I know that sounds stupid to anyone who has mastered their local bus network and it even sounds a bit dumb to me, as I've learned bus routes in other cities at times, but it really lowers the adoption barrier and makes a difference. A light rail train goes somewhere obvious. You can't get lost. Show up where you got off previously, and it will take you back home.

Posted by Mark | November 29, 2007 7:29 PM

Baltimore is the perfect illustration of a public transportation boondoggle. A north-south Light Rail line, and an East-West subway line, built at approximately the same time... and no connecting station between them. Did I mention that neither of these passes directly by the Amtrak station?

...This message brought to you by Concerned Citizens Of Baltimore, Who Know Baltimore Sucks, But Really Like It Anyway, And Who Really Don't Want Any More DC Douchebags Moving Here, Especially Bloggers.

WWW.CCOBWKBSBRLIAAWRDWAMDCDMHEB.ORG

Posted by MR | November 29, 2007 7:40 PM

@kodos re the wheelchair-accessibility - New Orleans built new cars that were wheelchair accessible; they looked much like the green cars on St Charles (even had wooden seats), but had an elevator-like lift on side. I believe all these cars were lost in aftermath of Katrina.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | November 29, 2007 7:41 PM

They use the same system here in the Portland area. Occasionally someone will ask to see your ticket, but it isn't required to get on a train or platform.

San Diego's trolleys use this system, too. You're supposed to have a valid ticket even to be on the platform, but in my three day trip there, I was only asked twice.

Posted by Milind | November 29, 2007 7:43 PM

Affluent tourists love trams and hate buses, which they see as being low rent, so tourist cities often put in a tram in the cutesy part of town, like in Seattle along the waterfront.

The crucial issue about any form of public transportation is whether it has its own right of way so it can go faster than a bus stuck in traffic. If it doesn't, like most trams don't, then it's just a tourist-friendly bus.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2007 7:49 PM

In all of the places where I've ridden trams (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kalumna, Philadelphia, Boston) they were only marginally better than buses, if that, for the reasons noted above- unless they have their own lanes they are no better than buses and even worse sometimes since less mobile. They are no cleaner than the "trolly-buses" that one sees in most of Russia as well as Seattle and San Fransisco. And, their biggest weakness when compared to subways or elevated trains, even when they have their own lanes they still have to stop for traffic lights and blocked intersections. I like trams and enjoy riding on them, but I'm far from sure they are better than trolly-buses in most cases.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | November 29, 2007 7:53 PM

Matt, Steve Sailor has a good point. I believe those cities you mentioned don't have tram systems which give them their own lane.

Both Rome and Amsterdam give trams their own lane and are much more effective than buses. There's nothing more hellish then spending time in a crowded, slow, hot, Roman bus.

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 8:07 PM

Americans have a really hard time with the central paradigm of urban transportation, which is basically "takes all kinds".

All of the forms of rail transit have the quality of letting home buyers and businesses know where transit will be located in the future. Conversely, during the long period when discontinuing service was the main goal, buses were preferred because routes could be changed or service discontinued with little loss in fixed plant.

Trams are generally considered to be low-platform slow vehicles that run in traffic, basically horizontal "elevators". Light-rail is also low platform, but it is faster, can run longer trains, and likes to run in a median or dedicated right-of-way. Mass transit, or heavy rail, uses high platforms and requires a dedicated ROW, but can provide very fast services to very large amounts of people.

I think the whole problem in the US has to do with the thinking, or really, lack thereof, about transit. The city street department puts out counters, looks at the traffic, and then tries to build an appropriate road. The same approach in transit would result in trams, light rail, electric trolley buses, and heavy commuter services being added, but what really happens is that a light-rail or tram system is looked at as a stand-alone investment, and naturally, as would most roads subjected to the same treatment, fails the cost-benefit test.

Strange to say, though, when a trolley or light-rail system goes into service, ridership exceeds expectations, the voters approve extensions, and transit-oriented development flourishes.

Go figure.

Posted by serial catowner | November 29, 2007 8:10 PM

Incidentally, for commenter PT&S above, the electricity is only used when it's used, that is to say, just like your home, where a lightbulb only uses electricity when it's on, the current only flows in the overhead when the tram or railcar is using the juice. (Memories of Thurber's aunt, who was always afraid dangerous electricity would leak from a socket that didn't have a lightbulb in it).

In considering transmission losses in overhead wire compared to internal combustion buses, you need to remember that the thermal efficiency of a bus engine is very low, actually hardly more than the thermal efficiency of the best steam locomotives. Electricity, OTOH, is transmitted at high voltages to substations, which cuts transmission losses.

Basically, the answer is that for a number of reasons, light rail or trams are superior to diesel buses in reducing carbon emissions and reducing our need for oil imports. They're also more efficient at moving loads, partly because of the investment in right-of-way and partly because steel wheels on steel rail is a very efficient form of wheeled transport.

Posted by serial catowner | November 29, 2007 8:21 PM

Two points:

1. To yave begnet, you're thinking too parochially. There are lots of subway systems -- outside the US.

2. To harmonize the false dichotomy of light rail vs. bus that has developed in the comments above: how about Curitiba-style bus rapid transit? Put buses in their own lanes, like trams, for greater speed and efficiency, but without the rails, for much lower up-front costs.

Posted by Danthelawyer | November 29, 2007 8:26 PM

"I'm not an expert here, but I remember seeing stuff about how GM and the auto industry destroyed the streetcar system in several american cities. As I remember, GM bought the LA system and had it demolished. Efficiency is not the only engine of change. "

Indianapolis used to have one of the best streetcar systems until the 50s. Then GM and I think Firestone bought it and ran it into the ground.

Posted by Jeremy | November 29, 2007 8:46 PM

"There are lots of subway systems -- outside the US."

is this true?

if it is true, than its often overstated.

Growing up in Chicago, I looked down upon the CTA and its old elevated train network. I expected every European city to have an amazing subway network.

I traveled to Europe. And my expectations were wrong. outside of London, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow, most European cities have average public transport system very comparable to American systems (esp. east coast).

I didn't expect Chicago to have a superior public transport system than Milan, Rome, Naples, Zurich, Lyon, Brussels, Amsterdam, Nice, etc. but it does (for chicago, I include Metra).

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 9:27 PM

> Then GM and I think Firestone bought it
> and ran it into the ground.

This is documented fact, although the GM apologists will argue against it for the next 1000 years.

OTOH, very few transit fans will admit the other side of the coin: essentially every transit system in the US was going bankrupt by 1950. None of them had been profitable over their lifetimes (except perhaps 1917-1919 and 1940-1945). Hundreds had already collapsed of their own weight and been taken up by the scrappers.

I personally would argue that transit systems are still good things, and therefore need to either be public or subsidized by the public. But that in turn creates its own set of inefficiencies and moral hazards that are never discussed.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 29, 2007 9:38 PM

I'm not gonna get into the nitty-gritty of trams v. tram-buses and so on, but Mark mentioned the Portland light rail and I really like that system. It's a big difference being in a city with pretty good public transportation as opposed to one that's pretty bad (perhaps this a banal, obvious observation).

Posted by Warren | November 29, 2007 9:40 PM

Re: So even out here in Denver, the light-rail still requires people to get in their cars, and drive out to a parking lot, then take the light rail in.

I don't see that as a huge problem as long as the commute to the rail station is not far. I do exactly this most days: I drive one mile to the Tri-Rail station then ride the train 22 miles to Boca Raton where my office is within walking distance of the train station (there are also shuttles to carry rail passengers to and from major destinations). A round trip of two miles a day sure the heck saves a lot more money and gasoline than a 45 mile round trip would!

Re: honor system

Same thing with our trains here, although "occasionally" is more like at least half the time a security guard comes around checking tickets. But the trains do board very quickly as a result.

Posted by JonF | November 29, 2007 9:44 PM

"I'm not an expert here, but I remember seeing stuff about how GM and the auto industry destroyed the streetcar system in several american cities. As I remember, GM bought the LA system and had it demolished."

Many years ago, I learned from my friend getting his Ph.D. in urban history at Michigan that GM conned Detroit into getting rid of its trolleys, which got sold to Mexico City where they ran happily for many decades ('though I don't know if they still do). Gotta look at the long term.

Posted by David in NY | November 29, 2007 9:50 PM

JonF:

the problem is that this very situation where people have to get in their cars keeps people from using the transit. If you have to drive 5 miles to the station, find a parking space, pay for parking and then a ticket, then wait for a tram (which still has to deal with traffic once in downtown), well, what you have built in are huge disincentives to driving all the way.

The one advantage to the Denver line is that once it gets outside of Downtown Denver, it does not compete with traffic, so it is not stuck in intersections like a normal city bus.

Posted by Brad | November 29, 2007 10:01 PM

The Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley is a recent "express bus" lane down a disused railroad track that connects to the Red Line subway, which ends in the Southeast SF Valley. The buses don't get held up in traffic between intersections every half mile or so. It has proven quite popular, although it doesn't have the right of way through major intersections. Originally, the drivers were supposed to have radio signals that would give them green lights, but that didn't happen. So, it's almost as as fast during rush hour as driving surface streets would be at midnight (which isn't bad), although the stops make it slower than taking a private car off hours.

Ridership has exceeded projections, although I'm sure it would get more upscale riders if it was a quaint tram instead of a bus, because buses strike the Prius-driving set as too downscale to even consider.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2007 10:01 PM

Edit:

what I meant to say above was:

...what you have built in are huge disincentives to riding the Tram versus just taking your car all the way to work downtown.

Posted by Brad | November 29, 2007 10:05 PM

Would someone explain the distinctions between the various proposals? What's the difference between electric trams, streetcars using overhead power lines, light rail, rail other than light rail, and subways?

Posted by FS | November 29, 2007 10:08 PM

Would someone explain the distinctions between the various proposals? What's the difference between electric trams, streetcars using overhead power lines, light rail, rail other than light rail, and subways?

From largest to smallest

COMMUTER RAIL: These are passenger trains running on regular train tracks and generally share space with freight trains. They may be electric or diesel. Examples would be commuter rail lines from NYC to CT and the commuter rail lines running north and south from Chicago. They generally have few stops and stop at traditional train stations. Because the tracks already exist (in most cases) it can be fairly cheap to put in commuter rail. You just need the trains and the stations. Portland is adding a commuter rail line to its east side and Seattle recently added a commuter rail line between Seattle and Tacoma on existing freight tracks. The limits to commuter rail are obvious. It only goes where existing freight tracks go.

HEAVY RAIL: These are dedicated transit trains that have their own right-of-way on 100% of their track. Typically they are powered by a in-ground 3rd rail which means they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT share any right of way with cars or even freight trains. Most true subways are heavy rail systems although some light rail systems also have underground portions (such as Portland). But heavy rail systems don't necessarily need to be underground. For example, DC's metro has more track above ground than below ground. The subway portion is mostly in the central city and the suburban portions are all above ground because it makes no sense to build expensive underground lines in less dense suburban and industrial areas. The HUGE advantage to heavy rail systems over all other forms of transit is that they control an exclusive right-of-way so they can move as many trains as they want as fast as they want. On heavy routes trains can run every couple minutes and don't have to wait for anything but other trains. No other form of transit comes close to having the passenger capacity of heavy rail. The disadvantage to heavy rail is the enormous infrastructure cost. No other form of transit is remotely as expensive.

LIGHT RAIL: These are the modern trains designed to run at street grade in urban areas. Because they may share right-of-way with cars and pedestrians they MUST HAVE overhead wires for power because you can't have a high voltage 3rd rail running down the middle of a city street. Most light rail systems are actually some combination of shared right-of-way and dedicated right-of-way. Portland's system has a dedicated right-of-way following freeway corridors in the suburban areas and then runs down city streets in downtown Portland. Because most light rail trains are designed to run at least partly on city streets they are limited in length and speed. You can't really have light rail trains that are longer than a city block and they can't go too fast when there are cars and pedestrians around. So they can't touch the maximum capacity and speed of heavy rail systems.

TRAMS/TROLLEYS/STREETCARS: There isn't really a bright line between trams/trolleys and light rail. Generally speaking trams are smaller and slower than light rail systems. Portland has trams that poke around the downtown and inner city neighborhoods at a slow pace and light rail trains that are much larger and faster and run out to the suburbs. But strictly speaking, trams are a form of light rail in that they have overhead wires and run on street right-of-ways.

Most very large cities around the world actually have a combination of all four types of rail systems in addition to having large bus networks. For example, I was recently in Buenos Aires where I rode commuter rail trains, light rail trains, and the heavy rail subway.

Posted by Kent | November 29, 2007 10:56 PM

Didn't Boston, like San Francisco according to Steve Sailer, create some sort of Bus only lane (or maybe network).

I'm sure Boston and San Francisco have some smart finance people. But still, if you devote an entire lane to a bus, why not make that lane into a more cost efficient tram line.

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 10:56 PM

I'm sure Boston and San Francisco have some smart finance people. But still, if you devote an entire lane to a bus, why not make that lane into a more cost efficient tram line.

Because the smart finance people aren't in the Transportation Authority office. Heck, smart transportation people aren't in the Transportation Authority office. Rather, "connected" people looking for a steady paycheck with the government have jobs in that office, and a few well-dressed bus salesmen impressed the staffers, who decided that "buses are the future!" And thus, we end up with the crapitude that is the Silver Line.

Posted by Tyro | November 29, 2007 11:00 PM

I'm fairly sure - as an interested civilian - that this statement is incorrect. Not the cleaner and quieter part - that's pretty much my experience, too, and I'm willing to believe it - but I think that "capacity" and "takes up space" are inversely related. To achieve high speed and capacity, trams need dedicated street space, a lot of dedicated street space. If the rails share their space with traffic lanes used by cars, you've got some very nice, very clean, very expensive, very inflexible buses, with no capacity or speed bonus over ordinary buses.

Dedicated light rail lanes take up a lot less space than a dedicated bus lane; they need space, but not *a lot* of space.

Even when they don't have dedicated lanes, streetcars aren't *worse* than buses - even when accounting for the inflexibility of the rail line (which is only marginally a problem in any event). A large part of the reason is the considerably greater load capacity a streetcar has over a bus.

As I mentioned above, Toronto's new streetcars will have a capacity of 260 passengers, whereas our new buses can barely fit over 30. At peak times, on heavy routes in mixed traffic, in order to replace a full streetcar, you would essentially need a consecutive string of buses. With their stopping requirements, all traffic would be exponentially slower.

In addition, it is doubtful that even the initial costs of running buses over streetcars would be cheaper: you would need 6-7 buses for every streetcar - which also means 6-7 bus drivers. In the long run, there is no comparison on costs. Buses have much higher maintenance demands and much shorter shelf lives.

Two other points:

1. There has been some derision about the fact that some (snobby) people wouldn't take a bus but would take a streetcar. Whether it's rational or not is beside the point: if the aesthetic appeal of streetcars induces greater use, isn't that a good thing?

2. Yes, dedicated light rail lines take up space (but not as much space as claimed). But that's part of increasing their appeal. The point is to encourage mass transit use. People can gripe about preferential treatment of streetcars, or they can take advantage of it. Ultimately, by increasing mass transit efficiencies and use, one hopes to decrease traffic congestion as a whole, so that those people (for whom I have little sympathy) who continue to use cars will have less traffic to contend with.

Posted by McKingford | November 29, 2007 11:08 PM

And thus, we end up with the crapitude that is the Silver Line.

I've yet to ride it, but I heard it's actually pretty good at getting one to the airport.

But still, if you devote an entire lane to a bus, why not make that lane into a more cost efficient tram line.

Good question. I would have much preferred they put in light rail, but my guess is it's a lot more expensive than buying some new buses and painting lanes on certain sections of a few major avenues.

Posted by Jasper | November 29, 2007 11:19 PM

yeah, Tyro, I can understand why your upset about the "Silver Line".

I found this from an article at boston.com:

"The Silver Line is a bus but not just any bus. It's a tunnel seeking, satellite driven, traffic light changing, kiosk talking, two section 60 foot long vehicles powered by natural gas, electricity, and a diesel generator. When the Silver Line's $1,500,000,000 of construction is complete, it will travel most of its route between Roxbury and Logan Airport underground."

$1,500,000,000 for a high tech bus rout!!!!!!!!

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 11:24 PM

This has been addressed, but is worth restating... every American city of a certain size had light rail until the 50s. Most removed the wiring and simply paved over large sections of the track.

Posted by Patrick | November 29, 2007 11:37 PM

I'm sure Boston and San Francisco have some smart finance people. But still, if you devote an entire lane to a bus, why not make that lane into a more cost efficient tram line.

Cost of a dedicated bus lane? Whatever it costs a striping crew to paint the bus lanes on the pavement.

Cost of a light rail system? Tens of millions of dollars per mile not to mention years of construction ripping up the streets, moving utility lines, etc. etc. On top of that, light rail trains are mostly custom-made and are hugely more expensive than mass produced buses.

Posted by Kent | November 29, 2007 11:41 PM

"Yes, dedicated light rail lines take up space (but not as much space as claimed). But that's part of increasing their appeal. The point is to encourage mass transit use."

Now, I get it! The point is to _punish_ drivers by taking lanes away from them. No wonder it's so popular with voters!

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2007 11:48 PM

Echoing Danthelawyer, it has been a puzzle to me why the Curitiba-type bus rapid transit system has been so little used in the US, LA's Orange Line being the only exception I know of. My discovery of BRT was in Quito, Ecuador, where the "Trole" (trolley) runs much of the length of that long, narrow city. Using streets that, in the center of town, are 16th-century, narrow and winding, the line is at street grade and no more than semi-dedicated, with only regulation, and a narrow curb that any car can jump, separating it from the auto lanes. Nevertheless, that degree of exclusivity, and the off-bus fare collection and level boarding from enclosed bus-stop shelters, make it amazingly more efficient than the bus lines that feed it, and a great deal cheaper to build as well, not to mention fit with a minimum of violence in a UNESCO World Heritage Cultural site.

Posted by johne | November 29, 2007 11:50 PM

"...The point is to _punish_ drivers by taking lanes away from them."
Steve: Would you rather have all those riders driving, especially at the US-typical one occupant-per-(not very well-tuned) car? There goes the lane that was "taken away."

Posted by johne | November 29, 2007 11:58 PM

"Cost of a dedicated bus lane? Whatever it costs a striping crew to paint the bus lanes on the pavement."

Kent, come on. I just cited a source which estimates the cost of the "bus line" being at 1.5 billion dollars. plus, my gut tells me that a rail line in the long would be cheaper. There's a friction issue here. Metal wheels on a metal line is efficient.

Posted by thehova | November 29, 2007 11:59 PM

Dear Johne:

Thanks for the description of Quito's system. Evidently, there are a lot of ways to make buses more efficient.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 12:05 AM

Johne writes:

"Steve: Would you rather have all those riders driving, especially at the US-typical one occupant-per-(not very well-tuned) car?"

No, the point is that in American cities, they already are driving, so taking lanes away from them makes traffic even worse for drivers. The Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley was politically popular because it made use of an used old railroad line. It would never have been approved if the proposal had been to, say, take away two lanes of Ventura Blvd. from drivers.

The more general point is that in modern America, there aren't a lot of really good infrastructure solutions. Los Angeles, say, could certainly use more mass transit, but it can't afford to take lanes away from drivers, and it can't afford to buy up property and flatten buildings for new dedicated lanes. So just about all it can do is get the federal government to give it many billions to extend the subway into the rich liberal neighborhoods of the Westside that Henry Waxman blocked back in the 1980s.

Since LA test-drives the American future, one thing the country as a whole can learn from its infrastructure travails is that modern American can't adequately handle much population growth except way out in the exurbs. This suggests to me that we don't want fast population growth, and the only way to achieve that is to cut back on immigration.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 12:20 AM

Now, I get it! The point is to _punish_ drivers by taking lanes away from them. No wonder it's so popular with voters!

"Punishing" drivers isn't the point, and it isn't even a likely product of dedicated light rail lines.

The fact is, there is limited space in cities and we have to decide how to best allocate it. A streetcar can carry 260 passengers. Now compare the space needed on the street to accommodate 260 cars.

Assume a commute through a downtown city in a car takes 20 minutes. If we give a streetcar a dedicated lane, it may run 2-3x as fast as car traffic: the transit user gets from point A to B in 11 minutes instead of the 25-30 minutes it would take a driver (this accounts for the "punishment" of drivers who are now running slower with less street space). If you don't provide light rail, you face the possibility that those 260 streetcar passengers are going to drive, in which case the increased congestion from their car use may well result in 30-40 minute commute times.

There was a photo juxtaposition recently on one of the Gothamist network blogs, which showed an aerial shot of a street, and the space needed to accommodate a bus full of people: comparing the space needed on the street for the bus, for those same people with bikes, and for the equivalent number of car drivers. It was a pretty incredible contrast that neatly brought home the advantages of transit over driving.

Taking a traffic lane away from drivers for mass transit isn't punishing drivers. It is a choice that ensures the most number of people get where they need to go the fastest (leaving aside the incredible environmental advantages). Given how much better we would be in urban society if we did that, it would be a pretty fucking rational choice.

Posted by McKingford | November 30, 2007 12:33 AM

No, the point is that in American cities, they already are driving, so taking lanes away from them makes traffic even worse for drivers.

That assumes that they will continue to drive, no matter what.

If drivers were faced with the choice of driving, with a 20 minute drive through a downtown core, or using a dedicated light rail line, with a 10 minute travel time, don't you think they might opt for the latter?

And if creating 10 minute travel times by creating dedicated ROW's means converting a driver's travel time from 20 to 25-30 minutes, isn't that a net benefit to the majority of commuters?

And if faced with an increased commute time of 25-30 minutes (ie. their punishment) vs. 10 minutes in a LRT lane, drivers opt for the latter, all the better.

An entirely ignored point in all this is that as much as drivers may feel persecuted, given the advent of peak oil (which, depending on who you believe, may well already be upon us - but even the greatest rational optimists on peak oil concede it will be here within this generation), it is a bit of lunacy to continue to devote large resources to accommodating drivers (given how short the time will be drivers will get to enjoy those roads). We *have* to start changing gears in terms of our urban planning to account for the reality of peak oil and climate change strategies. If this means "punishing" drivers, so be it. They'll thank us 20 years from now.

Posted by McKingford | November 30, 2007 12:46 AM

I don't know what you all make, but when gas hit $3/gallon, selling my car, getting rid of insurance, and taking a bus to work was like getting a second job in terms of discretionary spending.

I don't like that walk, and I'd rather not have been punished by having Gulf War II out of a fit of pique and I'm not thanking anyone for that, but get a sense of perspective here.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 30, 2007 1:01 AM

"We *have* to start changing gears in terms of our urban planning to account for the reality of peak oil and climate change strategies. If this means "punishing" drivers, so be it. They'll thank us 20 years from now."

McKingford, I have some problems with this statement.

I, in now way, trust a central transportation committee to determine what approach is necessary to combat global warming/"peak oil". I'm not an expert on the issue.

But my gut tells me that a centralized committee in Boston has messed up a lot in the past. From the insanely expensive and deadly "Big Dig" to the irrational 1.5 billion dollar "silver line".

But I do support a large increase in the gas tax. Hopefully this would get more smart people involved in public transport than the cronies in city government now.

Posted by thehova | November 30, 2007 1:02 AM

thehova, I'm not advocating for, or defending, any centralized committee of the status quo. I'm simply making the point that not only is light rail the best option for mass transit, but that we need to embrace mass transit as a whole. Given that central planning has given us inefficient mass transit (eg. dedicated bus lanes vs. LRT), I'm certainly not going to defend it.

The flip side, of course, is that we also shouldn't trust any system that has given us our mess of road planning.

The fact is, peak oil and climate change are upon us, and they cry out for a response. It isn't going to be the market that gets this right, so I'll have to take my chances with the alternative.

The final point I'd make is that a large increase in a gas tax, while a good idea, has to be balanced with alternatives to driving. The revenue generated from a gas tax should be reinvested into mass transit. After all, if the point of a gas tax is to dissuade people from driving, they'll need an alternate means of travel, otherwise you are simply gouging them by increasing the inelasticity of gas pricing.

Posted by McKingford | November 30, 2007 1:16 AM

thehova, I'm not advocating for, or defending, any centralized committee of the status quo. I'm simply making the point that not only is light rail the best option for mass transit, but that we need to embrace mass transit as a whole. Given that central planning has given us inefficient mass transit (eg. dedicated bus lanes vs. LRT), I'm certainly not going to defend it.

The flip side, of course, is that we also shouldn't trust any system that has given us our mess of road planning.

The fact is, peak oil and climate change are upon us, and they cry out for a response. It isn't going to be the market that gets this right, so I'll have to take my chances with the alternative.

The final point I'd make is that a large increase in a gas tax, while a good idea, has to be balanced with alternatives to driving. The revenue generated from a gas tax should be reinvested into mass transit. After all, if the point of a gas tax is to dissuade people from driving, they'll need an alternate means of travel, otherwise you are simply gouging them by increasing the inelasticity of gas pricing.

Oh, and I found the photo I was looking for, contrasting driving, busing and biking (although I don't think this is where I first saw it):

http://maubrowncow.com/index.php/2007/11/04/same-number-of-commuters-different-methods/

Posted by McKingford | November 30, 2007 1:18 AM

In an average semi-urban locale like the San Fernando Valley, dedicating lanes on existing surface streets to trams or buses doesn't do all that much good unless you build them overpasses or underpasses across major intersections and their pesky traffic lights. If you can do that, terrific, but it's hugely expensive in terms of money and traffic snarls during construction.

The point is that there aren't any really great ways to retrofit a better mass transit system onto a typical semi-suburban semi-urban place like the San Fernando Valley. A lot of people fantasize about how all we have to do is fix the transportation system, but like "all we have to do is fix the public schools," it's really not going to happen. We're just going to limp along like we are now, making marginal fixes that are quickly overwhelmed by population growth driven by immigration.

If we are serious about giving ourselves some breathing room to make fixes in our public services, we'd cut back on immigration for awhile.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 1:46 AM

"If we are serious about giving ourselves some breathing room to make fixes in our public services, we'd cut back on immigration for awhile."

Right. Because the 1890 - 1920 era certainly wasn't a time of growth of mass transit.

-----

I will say that I'd have been confused if a thread on light rail hadn't ended up being all about the darkies for you, Steve.

Posted by Petey | November 30, 2007 1:57 AM

I love this blog entry that sketches out the way Amsterdam's streets are designed for pedestrians, cyclists, cars and trams to share the space, with cyclists probably getting the best deal.

(Btw, Matt, the 20 tram is your best bet for a cheap tour of the Centrum.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 30, 2007 2:13 AM

McKingford, I do agree with this:

"The final point I'd make is that a large increase in a gas tax, while a good idea, has to be balanced with alternatives to driving. The revenue generated from a gas tax should be reinvested into mass transit."

But at the same time, while there are many smart and dedicated people in city government, I do believe its crucial to mobilize the private sphere in public transport. And the cost shock to citizens would hopefully get the private sphere involved in the process.

Of course, the tax revenues to whomever will help (as you say in your post).

Posted by thehova | November 30, 2007 2:25 AM

Could we ban the racist, please.

Posted by novakant | November 30, 2007 3:21 AM

I bet Matt is really happy right about now that he was more or less courting Sailer back in the not-so-distant day.

Posted by dude | November 30, 2007 3:24 AM

Re: If you have to drive 5 miles to the station, find a parking space, pay for parking and then a ticket, then wait for a tram (which still has to deal with traffic once in downtown), well, what you have built in are huge disincentives to driving all the way.

In the conditions you site I agree. But in my situation I drive one mile to the station and the parking is free (and the latter could be true anywhere).

Posted by JonF | November 30, 2007 6:34 AM

Matt - In all your excitement for Amsterdam, you miss one thing: Light rail is appallingly inefficient next to the most relevant comparator - busses.

With light rail, you need to shut down sections of street for months on end for construction -- not so for busses. With light rail, you're locked into your initial route (in which you've made a huge capital investment) -- not so for busses, which you can just move to new streets when development/ridership patterns change. The only things attrctive about light rail are (i) the locked in nature of the rail may lead to greater confidence on the part of developers/home-buyers that the route won't change, thus leading to more construction on those routes; and (ii) for some strange reason, the well-off have a distinct aversion to busses. But I guarantee you, a frequent, well-timed bus route with clean busses (like the red Connection busses in DC) would be more cost-efficient in both the short- and long-term than any light rail.

And oh yes -- you ever gotten stuck behind a two-car light rail system bottling up traffic in the street? Far worse than busses. (And if there aren't dedicated islands for the light rail, they just go in the street with the cars.)

Reflexive "why aren't we more like Europe" and "why doesn't the city still look like it did in 1930" sentiments make terrible transit policy.

Posted by noname | November 30, 2007 9:33 AM

I didn't expect Chicago to have a superior public transport system than Milan, Rome, Naples, Zurich, Lyon, Brussels, Amsterdam, Nice, etc. but it does (for chicago, I include Metra).

It used to. CTA is failing. Metra is OK physically, but leases the tracks from freight operators whose 100+-per-day trains have 1st priority. The delays are pretty bad.

But the CTA just sucks, and the main reason is mere political failure, and I'm talking about corruption, cowardice, and (other) political incompetence more than 'the tax base doesn't support pub. transit' reasons. Here's a place where the infrastructure is already built out pretty well, and the 'leaders' don't have the guts to maintain it, because it's not sexy, among other reasons.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 30, 2007 10:05 AM

Let's go over this one more time, slowly- the rails promise continued service in the future, which is a good thing. It encourages TOD (transit-oriented development), the new fad where we don't drive a mile every time we go from one store to another, but just walk a few hundred feet. It's the latest craze, being able to live near where you shop or go for medical appointments. In Seattle the neighborhoods around the new light-rail stations are already being developed, although service won't actually start until 2009.

Buses are nowhere near as efficient as trams or light rail, unless your goal is to discontinue service (or change the routes as a way of driving ridership down so you can discontinue service).

Yes, people like rail better than buses. Studies have shown that people will walk three extra blocks to use a rail service instead of a bus service. Get over it.

What people don't understand about "bus rapid transit" is that labor is a big cost in a transit system, and when ridership rises, adding more buses means adding more drivers, while you can add cars to a light rail trainset without adding more drivers.

In Curitabo labor is cheap and riders will endure crushes (250-300 passengers per articulated bus) that would be very unpopular in the US. It's not even that popular in Curitabo, which is now building a rail transit system.

In reality, BRT is always a bait-and-switch that starts out with a glowing description of gleaming robo-buses in dedicated lanes, and in reality turns out to be a few stripes painted on the roadway and a bus shrinkwrapped with advertising.

'noname' pretty much hi-lites the Enron accounting with the assumption that streets get closed for transit construction, but not for maintenance and improvements to make buses possible. This is the consistent theme of the anti-transit crowd- the streets are 'free'.

In reality, streets are rebuilt all the time because buses and trucks pound them into rubble, and it costs us tons of money and aggravation. Count the real costs and transit is a bargain.

Posted by serial catowner | November 30, 2007 1:23 PM

The irony about the failing CTA is that the city's mayor is a Democrat, along with most of the city council. Add to that the state legislature is mostly Democrat and has a Democrat governor, and still they can't pony up enough money to stave off a "Doomsday" cuts let alone keep the track in good repair. 5 mph slow zones? Kinda sad, because they really need a mid town circle line to connect the red and blue and connect the dots in between, but that will never happen.

Posted by freddiemac | November 30, 2007 1:24 PM

Anyway, to quibble with Matt's original post, the fact that main-stem subways and heavy rail are only part of the solution does not mean they are "really no good for anyone". They obviously are good for the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people who use them every day. I remember reading that 3 million people a day pass under downtown Brooklyn on the subway- that's a lot of people.

Governmental bodies have consistently bit the bullet and supported the big systems because the alternative was transportation disaster. Nobody saved the El because it was 'cute' or built the subway in DC to impress foreign visitors. They keep it running because it does a job roads just can't do.

Posted by serial catowner | November 30, 2007 1:34 PM

The irony about the failing CTA is that the city's mayor is a Democrat, along with most of the city council. Add to that the state legislature is mostly Democrat and has a Democrat governor, and still they can't pony up enough money to stave off a "Doomsday" cuts let alone keep the track in good repair.

I don't find this ironic at all. I am a Democrat too, and a pretty rabid one since the 90s, but...this is Illinois, Land of Corruption. Aside from the shamefully low amount of money the city itself contributes to the CTA (only about $3 million, believe it or not...that's right; you read right: not a paltry $30 million but a pathetic $3 million), a good chunk of maintainence money has been wasted over the years hiring cronies who fucked the work up, etc. Republicans are corrupt here too, but Dems are particularly awful. Daley is ridiculously overrated and should've been out of office long ago, for this and other reasons.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 30, 2007 2:14 PM

I'd say serial catowner pretty much nails the point about the advantage of LRT over buses.

I'm at a loss to understand how running 6-7 buses instead of 1 streetcar is more efficient - cost or otherwise...

Posted by McKingford | November 30, 2007 5:15 PM

So it's impossible to insert bus rapid transit into America's clogged streets and crowded cities. But, as mentioned above, somehow Quito was able to do it not many years ago, and there aren't many places in the US that compare with that high-density, early-Renaissance city. Its narrow, winding streets are draped over a mountain valley terrain, yet they support a packed, crawling, 21st-century mix of vehicles.
And to top it all off, the trole was built in spite of a large and potent lobby of private bus and taxicab owners.
But maybe we've lost the knack for that sort of problem solving.

Posted by johne | November 30, 2007 5:50 PM

Excellent use of a Sleater-Kinney song title!

Posted by Larry | November 30, 2007 9:30 PM

A little bit of Washington local history and future.

Washington DC still has some legacies from the era when light rail trolleys ran on city streets. DC had trolleys until the early 60s and still has two "Car Barns" standing and available to view (as condos).

The Georgetown Car Barn is by the Exorcist Steps where the Whitehurst Freeway dumps onto M St NW. The other trolley car parking lot was on East Capitol Street a mile due east of the Capitol and was converted in the 1970s to "The Car Barn", historic conversion to rentals (to make the historical tax credit available to the investors) which recently converted to condos.

There is a plan for LRT to return to H Street NE and M Street SE and using some abandoned rail tracks on the banks of the Anacostia river.

I have no idea where they will park at night.

Posted by factOr.fiction | November 30, 2007 11:01 PM