Why Streetcars Make People Crazy! (Picture)

[MisterF]

I think stop spacing will need to be reworked once the new streetcars hit the streets, and signal priority on routes that have their own ROW need to be turned on before the benefits become obvious. The new streetcars will be nothing but a new vehicle running on the same broken system.

True to a point, but the fact that they'll have all door loading will make a big difference I think. Think about how much time is wasted at each stop with a dozen people climbing the stairs and putting coins in the farebox one at a time.

 

[Paleo]

Coming home from St. Mike's this afternoon, a street car's cable came loose from the overhead wires and caused a line up of about 20 cars. It was like being stuck on the DVP during rush hour. No one could move for ages. It's ridiculous that we're still using this method of transportation. Why can't buses be built with the same dimensions as street cars?

As per earlier post, replacing it with a non-ridiculous method of transportation nets you this:

 

[ShonTron]

Bow collectors/pantographs will mitigate the problem posed by the occasional loose trolley pole, which usually only happens when switching at junctions. The TTC is already anticipating the phase-out of trolley poles, a good chunk of the overhead is already pantograph-ready.

Trolley bus systems also have this issue; I have seen it in Vancouver, and ETBs are not pantograph compatible. Yet it's not a big deal. The operator can come out, reposition the pole(s) and be on the way.

 

[SlickFranky]

The serious, non-dick answer to the gentleman's question:
Buses can't be built that large because they don't run on rails. Also, the new trams use a different cable system so that won't happen anymore.

 

[rbt]

Bow collectors/pantographs will mitigate the problem posed by the occasional loose trolley pole, which usually only happens when switching at junctions.

Pantographs fail too except they tend to be stronger than the overhead. Instead of a broken trolly pole you get chunks of overhead being sliced up.

IIRC, Boston had one instance where the pantograph snagged the overhead but didn't lose power and dragged down a mile of overhead before the vehicle was stopped.

Things will go wrong.

 

[Rainforest]

I feel the same way about streetcars as I feel about houses with pools. It's great when you already have one, but you would never spend the money to build one from scratch. Streetcar lines have a modest capacity improvement over buses and probably are more cost effective to operate on a daily basis, but they do not justify the cost of new line construction. A streetcar is, after all, just another form of local, surface-operated transit and does not have the major network, speed and capacity advantages of real rapid transit.

Streetcars are more cost effective to run, and carry more people than buses, but they should not be built because the capital cost is too high. Wow. That is some serious stuff you're smoking. Many cities are trying to reinstall streetcars. A good chunk of a transit project's cost is rebuilding the streetscape, and relocating utilities, which is unnecessary, since many modern trams are not as heavy as LRV's and do not require the infrastructure for higher speed operation. Portland's streetcar system was built for a fairly low price by not relocating utilities.

I think Hipster Duck has a point: if you have mixed-traffic streetcar lines, keep them running. But if you are going to build a new streetcar line, do that only if you can provide dedicated lanes (i.e. it should be LRT rather than ordinary streetcar).

 

[Rainforest]

Streetcars are more comfortable than buses, but that factor matters only if the service is frequent and reliable. On infrequent routes, and especially if the intervals are irregular, the advantage of streecar is questionable; most of riders will prefer to wait 10 min for a bus than 15 min for a streetcar.

For the streetcar service to be attractive, it should be treated as a kind of premium local route. First of all, it means reliable rolling stock; the new streetcar order needs to be completed.

Secondly, off-peak service must be frequent enough to preclude long wait times. Running the 501 Long branch service on 19' headways in the evening, or the 502 Kingston Rd on 20' headways mid-day, does not make any sense. Few riders will rely on that kind of service if they have choice. Where and when the streetcar service exists at all, it should run every 10 min or better.

Another important consideration is headway-based route management. TTC prefers schedule-based management and short-turns the operators who are running late, so their shift ends at a predetermined location. But that causes irregular headways, and essentially a multi-million piece of transit equipment being underutilized.

In my experience, streetcar routes that work are Spadina, St Clair, and King. Spadina and St Clair work because they have dedicated lanes, while King works due to the sheer volume of vehicles assigned to that route. While it might not be possible to run other mixed-traffic routes with the same frequency as King, the goal is to operate them smarter.

 

[Nads Gone Bads]

Well that's what people get for trying to drive down Queen Street. Why would anyone do this?

A 23-metre bus? The new streetcars will be 30-metres ... do you really need an answer that.

I'm tired of drivers who are the minority on such streets, whining that they can't drive on a road they probably shouldn't be on in the first place. It's ridiculous that we are still letting cars drive as through traffic on this part of Queen Street.

Why shouldn't I drive on Queen St? I have the right to drive on any road in the city.

 

[GTS]

I prefer streetcars over buses- just a lot more comfortable (usually) and they have higher capacity. Also an electric motor is more efficient then a 4 cyl. diesel in buses, which in turn is more efficient then a gasoline powered engine. Fuel, or energy costs, are a big part of any transportations budget and anyway we can cut corners we should try to keep investing in.

Even many trains run on electric already. The diesel engine in them powers an electric motor which turns the wheels. Why do private and public rail do this- it is to save money- sure you lose a bit tranferring energy from a diesel engine to turn an electical generator, but the diesel engine runs (usually) at a fairly steady RPM to keep the generator turning and when the train picks up speed the load put on the diesel engine isn't suddenly cranked up burning fuel that way as the train builds momentum-they try to maintain a fairly steady RPM on the source diesel engine to help efficiency.

I worked for many years on these gen-sets out west- and really learned a lot about the efficiency that can be met by an electric motor compared to a diesel (or any internal combustion) engine. I think the more public transit works with electric the lower the costs will be. If TO brings back trolley buses (which are still used in Vancouver on many routes), we will have to invest in the cables of course, but I think this investment will be made up in the TTC's expenditure in fuel. Electicity is not going to go up AS MUCH as fuel costs are going to.

 

[nfitz]

Why shouldn't I drive on Queen St? I have the right to drive on any road in the city.

Why do a minority of people who are in cars, have the right to inconvenience the majority who are in streetcars?

But more to the point ... why would you if you were driving more than a block or two ... Richmond and Adelaide are invariably faster - as they are one-way, with 4 lanes at intersections, so there are 2 through lanes that are not impeded by turning vehicles. East of Broadview, Dundas is typically faster.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why do a minority of people who are in cars, have the right to inconvenience the majority who are in streetcars?

But more to the point ... why would you if you were driving more than a block or two ... Richmond and Adelaide are invariably faster - as they are one-way, with 4 lanes at intersections, so there are 2 through lanes that are not impeded by turning vehicles. East of Broadview, Dundas is typically faster.

They are the same people who park in a no parking zone to get some coffee, because they are important.

 

[grey]

Photo by Paul Sherwood on Flickr:

How many buses can I fit in one photo

Traffic on Sheppard Ave East. Now it's time to take out the right lane for bus traffic only. Let the cars stew in traffic jams and not all those passengers on those buses and the passengers it effects who are waiting at Don Mills!!!

It's not surprising the TTC can't keep to schedule, I was talking to the driver on the bus I was on, at this point of the route she was already 19 minutes down after getting stuck going Westbound too.

18 TTC buses in this shot, there were more hiding behind the pole to the right.

Time for the end of the reliance of private vehicles for transportation.... mass transit is the only way and this just proves it

 

[vic]

Ummm, there were 4 posts of the Ottawa Transpo bus queues. Or were you being sarcastic? If fact, only LordWanker's photo of Taiwan was a non-Ottawa example of bus congestion.

Here's one from Toronto. Not my photo:


How many buses can I fit in one photo by djp3000, on Flickr

The photographer counted 18 buses. Click the link to see it on Flickr with the bus count.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If TO brings back trolley buses (which are still used in Vancouver on many routes), we will have to invest in the cables of course, but I think this investment will be made up in the TTC's expenditure in fuel. Electicity is not going to go up AS MUCH as fuel costs are going to.

Back in grad school I was part of a team that did a cost benefit analysis of trolley bus expansion in Vancouver, and we came to the conclusion that it was not worth it under almost any circumstances. For most routes, running a trolley bus would cost up to a million dollars more per bus per year than running a diesel bus, and would only make sense if the cost of diesel fuel was 7 times higher than it was at the time (that time being not too long ago), and given the assumption that electricity costs would remain constant (of course, if gas goes up 7X in value, electricity is also going to go up considerably).

The main expense, of course, is the trolley overhead which costs $600,000/km to install and about $26,000 per km to maintain over its lifetime. I don't have the figures for streetcar infrastructure, but I am certain it's much more expensive. Thus, there is no economic justification for streetcar expansion. Even at the low end I would imagine a new streetcar line costs more than $5 million/km and there are the costs of maintaining the line and overhead over its lifespan. The ridership would have to be increased many times over (like more than 10X - or far more than any present LRV can deliver) in order for it to be cost effective with a bus.

Of course, the main objective of public transit is not just to be cost-effective but to provide the service of transporting many people efficiently and effectively. For this reason, I would not extend this kind of cost benefit accounting to rapid transit (whether it's light rail or subway). Rapid transit is a totally different kettle of fish: its purpose is to create the backbone of a regional transit system and transport large numbers of people quickly over greater distances. Streetcars, however, are just surface milk-runs. They might have capacity advantages over buses, but they are bus substitutes, not real rapid transit.

 

[nfitz]

Back in grad school I was part of a team that did a cost benefit analysis of trolley bus expansion in Vancouver, and we came to the conclusion that it was not worth it under almost any circumstances

What are the riderships on those routes though? Are any at the 40-50,000 riders per day we see on on many of the streetcar routes?