ghettocruiser

Probably the same reason they are peeling off $2.6 billion to extend the subway line to a vacant field in another city, while proceeding with a fare increase that is supposed to address overcrowding by dropping ridership by on existing routes by 10 million trips a year.

The funding formulas they work on are, in a word, surreal.

genec

Gee we use Trolleys in San Diego... and they have a pretty good ridership. I'd hardly call them quaint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley

I've used the system to get to work and the airport. I'd call that pretty handy.

Roughstuff

Well Genec is anything in San Diego quaint? I do not doubt that they get you from point A to point B perfectly fine. Assuming points A and B are on your desired route, handy is dandy. And like I said, the "T" in Boston does a valuable service. But there are far better alternatives, even in the mass transit space.

roughstuff

genec

Well the Little Italy area of San Diego has a bit of a quaint feel...

as as far as perfect public transit... Taxis are the only thing that I know of that goes door to door.

Wogster

Trams are one of the best choices in transportation.

1) They can carry an incredible load, while a diesel bus sits about 45 people and has a crush load of around 80, a tram can easily hold double that. This means fewer vehicles competing for road space, and fewer drivers at $25/hr plus full benefits. Because they are electric powered, they don't produce fumes, greenhouse gases or fine particulate matter. They tend to be on 4 lane roads, in the centre lane, so other then needing to mind boarding and leaving passengers, you can ignore them.

The general rule is this, cross tracks at an angle of between 45 and 135 degrees, the closer to 90 degrees the better. Remember that wet tracks will be slippery, and to cross them carefully.

genec

I somewhat tend to agree... in fact in San Francisco the MUNI system makes owning a car in the city a redundant exercise. Of course the city is quite compact and the system runs not on a schedule, but frequently enough that you can always catch "the next one." MUNI is a combination of trolleys and electric buses (rubber tires), and really is nearly door to door... or within a block or two for the most part.

On the other hand the Coastal Train in the San Diego area, while serving a number of riders, does have some rather haughty restrictions on time and station that proves quite limiting. The last southbound train leaves the northern station at 5:30 PM. That means that if you have to hoof it or even use a bus to get to the station, you had better plan well ahead. If you are coming from the south and working in the northern area, the train schedule doesn't even allow for a full 8 hour day. Now that is just bad design in action. So certainly I can see how some folks might have negative opinions about local "tracked" transit systems.

robertv

I gotta say, while tram tracks are very dangerous to cyclists, they are also incredibly obvious and any "local" cyclist shouldn't have any problem with them. The only time I've ever had a problem was following friends home, drunk as hell, in amsterdam. I've never fallen but had a few close calls. I can't imagine getting stuck in tram tracks whil sober.

randya

streetcar tracks often run parallel to the travel direction, in the right hand lane, exactly where most cyclists expect to be able to ride, that's just a crash waiting to happen. Portland has miles of these types of streetcar tracks in the downtown area, and plans on expanding the system to double the existing size or larger, that's just a recipe for trouble.

Mos6502

Typically rails are laid in the center lanes of streets.

There are a few cities which have (quite stupidly) laid the rails near the curbside of the street in certain locations, but this is a recent phenomenon.

Dahon.Steve

Good points.

The lightrail revolution is just begining so you better get used to it. There are over a dozen cities that have plans for traction lines and for good reason. Lightrail brings in hundreds of million or billions in capital development unlike a bus stop which generates little or no invesment. Planners have seen the success of lightrail and now view it as an essential part of urban development. If you want to revitalize urban blight, build lightail.

In my neck of the woods, lightrail attracted over 2 billion dollars in new construction. In another 20 years, that number will double as the line continues to extend past the original plan. I cannot believe the high paying jobs and luxury condo development this train has attracted. It's incredible.

If the lightrail doesn't take you where you want to go it's your fault. I made it priority to find housing within walking distance of a stop thereby taking advantage of this billion dollar electric car. I then made it a priorty to find employment at the end of the line becoming car and bicycle free. I did not find this diffiuclt to do and many other have followed my steps.

randya

I don't think your generalization is anywhere near being valid, it depends what the ROW cross section is and the purpose and design of each individual rail system.

Some of Portland's rail ~ e.g. the street car ~ is in shared ROW space, typically on two to four-lane cross sections on both one way and two way streets, and it's sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left; OTOH, the light rail lines have dedicate space that motor vehicles and cyclists technically aren't allowed to share. And that's just in one city.

bmclaughlin807

Why would you consider that 'stupid'?

It eliminates the whole letting people out in the center of the road issue for lightrail altogether... Passengers can board/leave the train at dedicated platforms away from moving vehicles. Much better than people running into the middle of a (possibly) busy street to catch a train/tram!

I love Denver's light rail system... I'll love it even more in a few years when they have more of the new lines finished. Looking forward to being able to jump the train to Golden.

Mos6502

In the history of the streetcar, reaching all the way back to the horsedrawn cars of the 1870s and earlier - the rails have been laid down the center of streets. Putting the rails near the sides of the street instead of the center is a modern idea, that's really only considered as a concession to automobile traffic because it keeps the trams out of the way of cars and keeps the passengers out of the way of cars.

The big reason for putting the rails in the center of the street was that if only one line of rails was laid down, streetcars could travel in either direction on it without necessarily going against traffic. Other reasons include ensuring faster service by being less likely to get stuck behind other traffic (people parking, unloading, etc.) and a higher level of safety for other road users by keeping the trams in the center of the street instead of long the sides (considering that they are usually the largest vehicles in traffic, and commonly were also amongst the fastest). It also means that when the company is doing track maintenance people can still get to the parking lanes, etc.

So there's a good many reasons to lay the tracks in the center, and that pretty much why it has been done that way for over a century.

randya

so basically they're applying the FRAP law to streetcars these days, at the expense of cyclists?

Digital_Cowboy

It sure sounds like it.

Dahon.Steve

Good post.

Street cars were put down the middle of the street because there were NO cars at the time they made their introduction. Today's light rail often have a little of both so nothing is really set in stone.

Wogster

I think a lot of it had to do with, weight and size.

Streetcars have always been quite heavy, an empty PCC car is 37,500lbs, same car at crush load ( 134 people) closer to 58,000lbs. This means they require a firm base. Before the days of concrete curbs and roadways, this meant the edge of the road could get a little soft, especially when there was a lot of rain, that would turn the surface to mud. It didn't take long before they started to encase the rails in concrete, even when the rest of the road was still dirt.

Another issue, streetcars, up until very recently, have always been fairly long, the same PCC car is just under 47' long, and requires about 36' to turn a corner. In order to turn right from one street onto another, you need enough space to make the turn, which typically would be too small if the tracks were by the edge of the street.

On a track that has no turns, on a modern, well engineered street, this is much less of an issue, and using the curb lane is more practical, at least for road engineers that think the only vehicles they also need to contend with have 4 or more wheels and a hydrocarbon gulping power source. It does make it more difficult for bicycles, so you need to stay, in a bike lane to the left of the streetcar and trust one thing, a streetcar isn't going to suddenly swerve and run you over.

RobertHurst

Generally they do produce plenty of all those things, but from a remote location. Electric trains are still the most efficient transport besides bicycles.

Roughstuff

Exactly. Instead of the quintillions spent on mass transit systems that force people into a hub-and-spoke urban nightmare, it would be cheaper to provide coupons for cab service throughout the urban area. This is especially true if the cabs themselves are not artificially limited by restrictions such as medallions and other such licenses. In fact creative use of coupons could allow ANY car to be a cab, instead of the shadow gypsy cabs we have in some many major cities.

roughstuff

jputnam

Many cities that care about both cycling and mass transit have taken approaches that make it easier for street cars and cyclists to coexist.

Keeping street cars out of cycling lanes is one important step -- that can mean providing good cycling routes one street over from streetcar lines on a grid system, or keeping street cars in the center of the lane, or striping bike facilities elsewhere on the road when streetcars have to be on the right.

Allowing safe crossing is also good. That can include striping bike lanes that veer to cross tracks at a less oblique angle, e.g.
[url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/otrec/3771778431/][/url

Many European systems use smaller flange gaps than most U.S. rail systems, which makes it harder for bike and wheelchair wheels to drop into the tracks and get stuck.

Of course, one of the keys in most European systems is that motorists are used to sharing the roads with many more cyclists, so cyclists maneuvering around streetcar tracks are at less risk from motorists.

Digital_Cowboy

Question if a street car/tram only travels north/south or east/west why does it need to turn around? Why can't it just reverse directions without turning around?

Digital_Cowboy

Why can't we have both? Think of how many neighborhoods and/or cities that can be interconnected via the "hub-and-spoke" system? Then add in the coupons for those areas that aren't/can't be covered by the streetcars/trams.

Think about it, we have centrally located streetcar/tram hubs spokes radiating out in at least the four major as well as possibly the "minor" compass directions. Then have taxi cabs picking up and returning passengers to the hubs.

Mos6502

But with few exceptions, even horsecar lines were layed down the center of streets. Although when cable cars appeared on the scene, the weight would certainly have made a difference - plus putting the the tracks in the center of the street meant the underground cable conduit was less likely to fill with water and dirt. Generally the area between the rails and immediately around it was not paved until the cable car showed up since the cable equipment required a sturdy foundation to run reliably.

On older systems double ended cars were used for this reason, they could be driven from either end so there was no reason to turn around. Many modern systems use cars which can only be run from end, so they have to be turned around. Also, laying two tracks makes it easier for service to run in both directions at the same time, which is why generally single ended cars are used today.

Mos6502

Oh yeah one more thing that is commonly overlooked in bus vs. streetcar discussion: it costs less to put more streetcars into operation during peak hours than it does buses. Many streetcar systems ran cars at intervals of 5 minutes (or less on busy routes) and could claim that a trolley was "never out of sight" - having spent three hours waiting for buses today, I can see that that would make public transit a lot more likeable.

LesterOfPuppets

'Round here most of our lightrail and streetcar consists can go both ways. Even Amtrak Cascades trains have motive power at each end so they can change directions without switching, wyes or turntables.

The only line I'm unsure about it the WES.

I think I might cry if they put tracks down Main Street in my town.