Originally Posted by
nikwax
Don't know about other areas, but where I grew up all the local and regional rail/trolley systems were privately owned. In the 19th century they made money with 5 cent fairs, but by the early 20th century they were marginal or losing money. Rail cars were not updated and those that survived were noisy, heavy, and uncomfortable. The lines that survived were the ones that the city bought and operate at a loss with heavy tax subsidy. My dad rode the regional cars and described them as "brutal."
As astetically attractive as streetcars are, buses give way more bang for buck, are more flexible, take less time to deploy, and don't present the rail hazard to cyclists.
Interurban rail is a better bet. Still expensive and slow to build, but it directly replaces freeways.
Yeah, the bus vs. rail debate is big and there are valid points on both sides. The history is similar here but there are a few points worth noting:
There's no doubt with the current infrastructure that buses are far more flexible as far as routing goes. But are they cheaper to operate? Again there's a huge debate. When the street car system was dismantled here many of the more modern PCC car (which were not brutal to ride at all) were sold to other cities and continued service for decades. Some until early this century. How many buses stay in service for half a century? Steel wheels and electric engines last a long long time. I'm guessing the street cars require a lot less maintenance and require replacement at a much lower rate than buses.
As for light rail, each car has more capacity than a single bus and can be linked together while still requiring only one driver.
The other advantage to electric rail is being powered by electricity which can be generated umpteen different ways. This makes them less susceptible long term to higher prices for an individual type of fuel.