Let's have a good discussion about the "great streetcar conspiracy" or the "great streetcar myth" or whatever you call it.
I'll start with this http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/
tl;dr - there was no conspiracy, streetcars are gone because your grandparents didn't want to pay new taxes to move, modernize and maintain the networks.
Cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh bustituted without any interference from GM or National City Lines.
The Red Car itself was abandoned by the Los Angeles MTA (municipal owner) while the Yellow Car largely survived ownership by NCL until it too was abandoned by the MTA in 1963.
>>872507
>market urbanism
Of all the sources that debunked the myth you picked some neolib rag. Good going OP.
>>872520
it was just there to start a conversation, thank you for joining the thread
>>872522
There is nothing to discuss beyond your terrible link choices.
>>872524
did you read the article? It isn't that terrible, it raises some good points. Give me some articles that you consider "good"
>>872526
>http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/
It's that article with an extra layer of "fucken liburels" drivel.
>>872530
>http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/
Sweet! Thanks for the link!
>>872507
at lest where I live it was the cost that killed it
7000 pounds sterling to upkeep existing tram infrastructure
6000 pounds sterling to replace them all with greyhound buses
and then later the investment that was going to be put into high speed light rail got diverted into motorways as part of a kickback from auto makers
>>872519
>there was no conspiracy
There literally was in some areas (SF Bay Area, LA), but in most places there wasn't.
fucking capitalist bourgeois decided everyone had to ride a car, smh
>>874937
You're right. Socialists would never advocate car ownership. Or build roads. With special lanes just for certain cars.
>>874998
They aren't socialists
Scandinavians are the ones doing it right .
>>872507
>there was no streetcar conspiracy
so why did trams only die out in some cities and thrive in others that kept them, especially in europe?
mass motorization was bound to generate traffic jams, and loads of money had to go into building highways. If that same money had gone into keeping and expanding public transit systems people would have seen cars as a cumbersome way to move because of traffic, and used public transportation much more, making it much more feasible than it was when it had to compete with subsidized highways.
B T F O
T
F
O
>>874998
Oh but my that is gorgeous
National city lines existed.
It bought streetcars and replaced them with buses.
This is undeniable fact.
Government built new suburban housing accessible only by car.
This undeniable fact.
As both events occurred massive pr campaigns were undertaken telling people of the freedom the automotive represented.
Another fact.
You can try weasel your way out of this and try to insert ifs and buts and maybes and other qualifications, but you'll be wrong.
>>875148
Different ownership models.
Yankees had private investors building most lines, in EU the municipalities were often the majority owners from the start.
>>875148
>especially in europe
Scandi countries, UK, France and Spain closed most of their tram systems too.
>>875177
>National city lines existed.
Nobody denied this.
>It bought streetcars and replaced them with buses.
Yes, generally a few dinky little systems in small towns. It also maintained streetcars where feasible.
>Government built new suburban housing accessible only by car.
They also incorporated existing rail access in many cases.
>As both events occurred massive pr campaigns were undertaken telling people of the freedom the automotive represented.
People didn't need to be told. Talk to IRL oldfags, lots of them hated streetcars by the end because they had fallen into disrepair, held up traffic and were generally considered outdated.
>You can try weasel your way out of this and try to insert ifs and buts and maybes and other qualifications, but you'll be wrong.
Or we can look at this like rational adults, rather than a bunch of assmad foamers.
If you want to be butthurt, take it out on the idiots who didn't (and don't) think rail was/is a worthwhile public investment. Last time I checked, it's still a pretty common political belief.
>>875278
I won't say about Scandinavia.
>Finland
Three systems, Vyborg was lost to Soviets, closed down by them. Turku closed, Helsinki contracted a bit in the 50s but remained intact.
>Sweden:
About ten systems (depends what you want to count), two survive in full extent. Gothenburg has steadily grown, some closures, but real upgrades too. (New lines, not just 300 meters redirections.) Norrköping is very small, two lines. They used to have three but the two have extended way more than the closed circle-line had track.
Stockholm, Helsingborg and Malmö closed in 1967, when sweden switched to right-hand traffic. Rest were small and closed in the fifties, Uppsala was bigger but suffered a fire in the carbarn and lost most of its rolling stock.
>Denmark
Two systems, Århus and Copenhagen, Århus was single line, Copenhagen bigger but was gradually reduced. Both closed in the 70s.
Norway:
Oslo, still here, mostly intact. Bergen, smallish system closed, but they now have a modern light rail. Trondheim, four line system reduced to single line.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even germans closed a great majority of their tramways. They just had so many of them in the begin with. Some notable small systems survived the danger years with second hand equipment bouth from the cities that had closed hastily with the trend even if they had new rolling stock.
>>875148
>especially in europe
France, UK, western Germany, Spain, all of them closed majority of their tram systems ... trams basically survived en mass only in eastern bloc and even there were many cities where it closed, basically in 2 waves.
1) 1950's - "we must build new cities comrade! 50 years old tram systems are not ok for todays people!"
2) 1970's - "buses are super cheap, because oil prices are super low and they will stay like that for sure"
here's a nice doc on youtube arguing the counterpoint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4
i would say the most compelling part of this documentary is the firsthand testimony from the employees themselves. also presents good examples of how pro-automobile and pro-interstate movements shaped the US
i personally don't know where i stand, but i hate driving in city traffic all day. buses are too slow. my city (columbus) used to have an excellent streetcar system, no idea why it was removed
>>875295
>Århus
mah nigga, jeg har sgu aldrig set min by på /n/ for.
GM lied streetcars died.
>>875301
>>875278
I never said all cities in Europe kept them, but quite a few did, mostly in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, also Milan.
But that's proof enough that they didn't disappear because they were no good, but because there was a forced "trend" towards bustitution, that had no basis in real advantages of buses over trams on reasonably demanded lines. In part it was a conspiracy, in part it was the trend this conspiracy created.
>>875301
>Spain
Spain was doing everything the americans did (it still does to some point, it's quite pathetic how they want to be like americans in many ways). They not only closed all tram systems, they also closed many rail lines, and drew up plans to fill cities with highways, which luckily barely came to fruition thanks to Spain being a poorfag country. Spain is one of the most car-centric countries in Europe, way more so than Germany. Spain has the largest highway network in Europe, all the while it has more area and half the population of Germany, which has the second largest highway network. Goes to show how fucktardedly crazy they are about cars to fill up the middle of nowhere with utterly underused highways.
>>876415
To be fair the Spanish like to also build useless subways and HSR lines to nowhere.
>>876418
And pointless airports.
Why is Spain so shit at transportation?
>>876419
Their politicians must be really addicted to ribbon cutting photo shots.
>>876422
you have no idea...
>>876418
>>876419
For one, Spaniards have an inferiority complex so they like to feel important by getting new fuckhueg infrastructure, which in turn makes politicians try to get votes by promising ever more fuckhueg infrastructure.
Moreover, they have little social conscience and don't understand/care that money put into airports, HSR, useless subways, highways, etc. is money that won't go into public health, housing, education, or actually useful public transit (like trams where you don't need a subway or suburban trains). Spaniards will go to great lengths to make up some bullshit fantasy world to justify their "need" for oversized infrastructure, such as claiming that they need HSR because regular rail is no good, because of the sparse population outside main urban areas and difficult geography, when that's actually the perfect argument against HSR and in favor of maintaining and improving conventional rail lines (which may be slow, but dirt cheap to run and able to reach all the small villages in between large cities), while using air travel between large cities. LARGE cities, not Castellón.
tl;dr, Spaniards are egotistical idiots with small dicks.
>>876431
They sound like Californians and their irrational desire for HSR tbh.
>>876435
Well, they do want to be like americans in many ways, they're so dumb they really believe everyone in america lives like in the movies in a suburb with two cars in front of the house, and that's what they want to be like. Hell, whenever there's some news story from the US they don't say "in the US..." they say "In Kansas/Oregon/Texas..." as if it were right next door. They pretend to hate the US, but in reality they're just envious and want to be like americans. All the while they also want free healthcare, quality public education, public housing, the works. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
>>874933
In SF the key system had sagging ridership, all their users moved out to (now shit) suburbs like hayward, cupertino or daly city. Then the feds came in and paid nine dollars out of ten for freeway construction. Thus, the Key System was completely dismantled in about a decade to make for new federally-built freeways. Enough people got pissed off that BART was created, as flawed as it was at the time. SP continued to provide commuter rail service until 1991.
It's not so much a "conspiracy" as it is social trends that killed America's big cities until the mid 90s when gentrification began.
>>875148
Because Americans are fat, stupid and greedy. They had shitloads of money in the 50s and dumped it into suburban real estate. This trend continued until the 2007 mortgage meltdowns. More importantly, the feds were paying for construction (individual counties and cities weren't) and people got to drive around big cars really fast. Americans did not give two shits about "urbanism" or "planning", all they wanted was a huge home far away from reality and good enough schools that they could dump their kids off in.
>>876499
Were the SP commuter trains profitable till the 90s or had local governments started subsidizing them?
>>876525
I'd say it was about break-even. SP probably would have killed service if it weren't for the rapid expansion of the peninsula in the 1960s and 70s. The issue was that in 1991, the track needed a handful of capital improvements (namely better signals), and the entire rolling stock and locomotives needed to be replaced. In 1987, the peninsula counties formed their joint rail board, which purchased the SF-SJ line from SP entirely. SP didn't have much freight traffic on it as most of their operations were in the east bay.
Meanwhile, SP was still burned by the failed Santa Fe merger and had merged with Western Pacific, and in the late 80s everyone was eyeing up a SP/WP/UP merger. This is what happened in 1995.
So, while it wasn't necessarily "unprofitable" it would cost a lot of money to keep it modern, money SP didn't want to spend on a low-margin service. The Peninsula counties made them a good offer and they took it, in 1991 Caltrain was formed and began service in 1993 with new(er) F40phs and nippon-shiro (?) gallery cars. Among other things, Caltrain installed a modern signalling system, added more trains and most importantly began grade-separating the track. In 2008 with the passage of Prop 1A (CAHSR) Caltrain got money to electrify, which they begin construction on next year.
>>876564
>>876564
>money SP didn't want to spend on a low-margin service
History repeating itself?
>>876564
Man, it's like you are intentionally trolling an autist like myself with your misinformation. The worst thing about this is I already corrected you on this months ago and you keep spouting bullshit. To paraphrase an earlier message:
Western Pacific merged with UP in 1982, it never merged with SP or even proposed such an arrangement. UP did not take over SP until September 11, 1996 (coincidence?). SP WAS purchased by Rio Grande from the Santa Fe Railroad in 1988 (that's another long story), but those ownership changes did not influence or alter the SF-SJ commuter operations, because that route had already been relinquished by SP to Caltrain by 1985.
To quote from Strapac's "Southern Pacific Diesel Locomotive Compendium Vol. 2":
>The San Francisco-San Jose Commute operation was a loss leader as far as SP was concerned. As one of the last privately run commercial rail services in the United States, it was only a matter of time before a government agency would take over. In 1985-86, the Joint Powers Board, representing local counties, did just that, adopting the name "Caltrain."... In 1985, Caltrain took delivery of eighteen new EMD F40PH-2 diesels...At that moment desperately short of serviceable locomotives, SP moved its well-maintained Commute locomotives into freight service...
So by 1986, SP was effectively out of the SF-SJ commute operations, although I believe some SP-vintage rolling stock remained in operation into the end of the decade. UP was never involved in this process however, at least not until 1996. And SP was notorious for its dislike of passenger service after the 1950s, the one exception being the SF-SJ line (since SP executives themselves often used it in their commute to corporate headquarters).
Still not sure where you're coming up with 1991 as an important date, considering Caltrain was already 6 years old.
>>876568
>In 1985, Caltrain took delivery of eighteen new EMD F40PH-2 diesels...At that moment desperately short of serviceable locomotives, SP moved its well-maintained Commute locomotives into freight service...
That is what happened but for all the wrong reasons. Caltrans put the new trains in because they were designed for the short stop service, SPs ancient communte locomotives, which were expensively maintained to hike the costs up, were put into frieght service, because, they were no longer needed for passenger service, because it was just a waste of money to maintain then at that level, and SP wanted to focus on wasting elseware, their focus had already turned from making money to sucking the tit of government.
So, all the factual events happened but for exacty NOT the reasons. It was not a loss leader, it was a corporate welfare project. It was one of the last passenger services in the country, because almost all of the government money was being spent elsewhere ( planes and cars ).
Strapac's screed is simply stupid.
>>876882
>Strapac's screed is simply stupid.
Right, the authority on SP locomotives is stupid and the guy who thinks SP merged with WP is trustworthy. Got it.
Not even really sure what the fuck you are trying to say. Try using less commas and run-on sentences.
Here in Pittsburgh, bus routes were made to cover the areas that the streetcars once did. Busses just work better. However, having a couple of historic/tourist lines would be nice
>>879622
>buses just work better
not on high-volume routes. Proper BRT costs about the same as light rail, except your buses also have to share ROW with cars
>>879622
>Busses just work better
Obviously not considering a few of the old streetcar lines were modernized as light metro lines and the Skybus was never built.
>>872507
>>872507
>the time National City Lines – the holding company backed by GM, Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil, among others – started buying up transit companies in 1938.
>lthough General Motors and other car-centric companies were certainly lobbying the government in their favor,
Soooo the liberals are right? Car and oil companies bought public transit system to replace them with buses, lobbied for motor vehicles? Sure there were other factors, but it's pretty clear they were out to kill the street car.
It actually happened where I live in the UK as well. Bus company buys a well used tram service (the oldest passenger tram in the world) and then rips up the tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU9Cq-v9dvA
>>879662
It's a half-truth. Yes, NCL did buy and rubberise certain systems but there was already a trend towards cars. Plans for freeways were already being drawn up in the 30s and the private interurban and streetcar companies were starved of capital in the depression (especially when many companies lost their ability to act as a power company). Once the passenger spike of WW2 was over most systems didn't have the money to rebuild their old lines.
NCL only owned a tiny fraction of the systems that were operational in the 30s and 40s yet most of them died without their intervention.
The real tragedy is that there was no grand vision for anything other than cars in the 50s. Think of what US public transit systems would like today if a fraction of the Interstate Act funds went towards modernizing railroads and streetcars. Maybe the IND Second System could have been built. Maybe the Cincinnati subway could have been completed.
>It actually happened where I live in the UK as well. Bus company buys a well used tram service (the oldest passenger tram in the world) and then rips up the tracks.
That sucks. Doesn't sound nearly as bad as what Beeching did to your railroads though.
>>879622
Similar story with London. Used to be trolleybuses but they switched to diesel in the 1960s.
>>872507
That is a site for "free market" flat earthers. There has never been a free market and never will be.
Transport with a personal automobile is the biggest subsidized form of transport in the world.
>>872530
>http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/
Here is a summary of that story in two sentences:
>The situation, according to Slater, was largely the result of simple economics. Streetcars were cheaper to operate than buses in 1915, but after World War I that was not always the case. Streetcars were burdened with the capital costs of maintaining electrical lines and tracks while buses benefited from an increased concern for public road maintenance. Meanwhile the growing demand for personal cars rendered public transit of all sorts less attractive.
So basically roads and highways became so subsidized, well funded and widespread that private automobiles and buses essentially cannibalized trains and streetcars/light rail which had to pay for maintaining rail and some supply of power which was not subsidized or less subsidized than the roadways. In other words what happened was totally opposite of what conservative douchebag free market lunatics think, the roads now dominated by private automobiles are the welfare queens in this story.
If transportation development stayed frozen at 1920s technology the world would be a better place.
Is it a law in America that every controversial decision or change has to have a conspiracy theory attached to it?
>>884866
You from Belgium or some little place like that? Let me help you understand how big countries work. We have lots of people. There is a lot of money at stake with every piece of legislation. We have special interest groups that would make your head spin. Behind every politician making a decision, even one in his head that he thinks is perfectly honest and valid, there are millions of dollars of lobbying going on in the most insidious ways. That is how our system works. That is how it works in all large countries.
It's never a question of whether there was a conspiracy. There was. It's a question of which out of the many competing theories correctly describes the conspiracy that actually happened.
Oh wait now you'll tell me that by the legal definition it's only a conspiracy if the law was broken.
I promise you we have enough laws. Some law *was* broken. I'm probably breaking about ten laws I've never heard of, right this second. It's how our system works. We enforce what's convenient, to suit the agenda of whoever is in power.
>>884866
most people can't understand the political system and have no intention of attempting to
the result is crying about "big railroads" or "big oil" instead of actually looking at why things happen the way they do
>>885019
Sorry but you are falling for the opposite end of the spectrum, believing everything big corporations (or big government, depending on your world view) tell you just because you don't like the people who are speaking out against these institutions or organizations. Sometimes conspiracies are legitimate and negatively impact the public for the benefit of a few (the late 19th and early twentieth centuries are full of such instances).
Not everything is a conspiracy, true, but not everything is NOT a conspiracy, too.
Is there any reason to bother with streetcars today when you can simply use partially or fully electric buses, and freely modify the lines without the need for new infrastructure?
>>885029
There's a lot, first of which is that buses share the roads with cars and thus are slowed down enormously because of it.
However, assuming a dedicated busway is used, it's still inferior because light rail/streetcars have a better power:weight ratio and thus use less power to move more people. Moreover, it's easier to schedule more trains with lower headways between them.
Now, assuming we're talking about a trolley bus (aka, a bus that gets power from overhead catenary) then there's even less advantages of using that over a regular Right-Of-Way segregated lightrail train. The *only* legitimate advantage a bus has over a train is that it can take a much steeper grated (7-10%, compared to 4-5% max for a train). This is why cities like San Francisco still use trolley busses, because they have lots of steep hills that cannot be modified easily to accommodate a train. Also Mexico City and Paris use a sort of "bus train" (there's a proper term for this but it escapes me) which are essentially trains using tires and electric bus style motors (to allow for steeper grades) instead of regular steel-on-steel subway trains. Of course, these also take up much more power than the latter and have much larger maintenance costs.
But to answer your question: on heavily utilized routes light rail is a much more affordable and efficient option than buses. In a similar manner, heavy rail subways are more efficient at long distances than lighter rail vehicles. Buses are most effectively used for routes that don't have any riders off peak hours as a single bus can run multiple routes each day.
>>885036
A good example of this is San Francisco, who's transit systems are all at their breaking point. The city is currently spending lots of money building light rail subway extensions to alleviate traffic off buses and provide more consistent 24/7 service. Likewise, heavy rail BART is considering doing extensions so that they can alleviate traffic off both light rail and the bus system. In the meantime, the city built a few dedicated electric busways as a stopgap until these light and heavy rail subways are built. When it comes to the busways, they can also be converted to light rail more easily as well or the catenary can be pulled out and regular buses can use it.
The point is, when you're running lots of buses during the peak hour it becomes very expensive and there isn't much gain unless you make a dedicated busway. Even when that's done, building proper rail allows for much more efficient operations which translates into better service quality and lower operating cost. The benefits become even greater when you figure that most light and heavy rail system have quick access to suburbs at 50-80 mph (depending on the system) so that they offer faster service than congested peak-hour freeways. Buses on the other hand have to use said freeways, even HOV lanes still back up especially around toll booths.
>>885036
>The *only* legitimate advantage a bus has over a train is that it can take a much steeper grated
How about route flexibility?
>>885038
True, but I mean all things equal on a given route except the type of vehicle (bus vs light rail). In this case, buses are only better from a technical angle when it comes to climbing grades. But yes, within a larger context buses do have the advantage that they can run different routes. But, such an advantage isn't useful on heavily used lines especially lines that have riders all day.
>>885040
>>885038
Buses and trams/streetcars/light rail have different advantages and disadvantages. Mainly, light rail is good when it's technically viable and the line has a certain demand to it, for very lightly travelled lines the expense of a rail system makes no sense. Just the same, buses make no sense for heavily travelled lines, so BRTs are generally just a poor man's light rail (despite being more expensive in the long run), and they only make sense in very exceptional situations, such as steep grades (in which case you'd opt for double-articulated trolleybuses as a compromise solution), or situations where you'd have long stretches of nothing inbetween where the bus can just use existing roads (I think in Paris there's a line where something like this is the case).
>>885029
>>885036
>>885037
More advantages of rails:
- Much better ride quality. You can actually have an ok time in a standing space. In a bus, you just get thrown around all the time, making people prefer their cars.
- Research has shown that commuters are much more willing to switch to a rail-based form of transport than a bus. A rail route is going to be there for a long time. A bus route can be changed or canceled any moment.
- Due to actually being able to see the tracks and where they lead, trams / LRTs are much easier to figure out for people unfamiliar with the area, such as tourists, and consequently get used by them. Local buses almost never get used by tourists, they take taxis instead.
>>885125
Those are pretty dumb arguments, even if they're based on truth. I'm a huge advocate for rails, but a dumb implementation of a rail system in the end does more harm than good, since you'd end up with an inefficient and overly expensive system, turning people away from rail as it ends up being perceived as something unnecessary.
>- Much better ride quality
Yes, but I prefer an uncomfortable bus every 10 minutes to a comfy tram every 20 tbh, which is what would happen if you used trams for a line with low demand.
>- Research has shown that commuters are much more willing to switch to a rail-based form of transport than a bus.
Again, same argument, a tram can offer horrible service, and a bus can offer pretty good service, depends on how it's managed. A tram with shit frequency and that goes nowhere will attract less people than a well planned bus line.
> trams / LRTs are much easier to figure out for people unfamiliar with the area, such as tourists
It's fucktarded to plan a transit system thinking mainly about tourists. You want mainly commuters to use the trams, not just a couple of tourists. This is going the same way as that "single short lrt line in gentrified downtown", which is clearly more useful to tourists than locals.
>>885138
>if you used trams for a line with low demand.
Which is why you don't do that and such lines are getting closed everywhere.
RIP in peace Mülheims 110.
>>885140
depends on the city
in case you didn't notice, light rail is what cities turn to when their bus systems become overburdened. Light rail doesn't work in Provo but works in Salt Lake City due to the large population
>>886038
>depends on the city
>shitty light rail line nobody uses
you missed the whole point. Of course having light rail or not depends on the city, and it's good if you need it, because it means demand is growing to a point where buses aren't enough anymore and you can switch to a more efficient system (more efficient per pax if you get enough demand). What I was going on about is that if you DON'T have that sort of demand, a light rail line is a bad decision, since it'll cost a lot of money and likely go nowhere, when you can just run a good bus system. There's loads of small cities in Europe that have excellent bus systems.
>>886036
But closing them doesn't seem to make much sense, either. If the infrastructure has been in place for a long time (that is if it isn't a modern light rail line where you have to carry the costs of construction) it would seem more logical to just keep it up, since running it won't be too much more expensive than a bus line. This is even more true if you can at least get a reasonable demand on a part of this line, eg in the downtown section. Tearing out an old tram line because demand is low doesn't do much good, the expensive part is getting the whole infrastructure in place in the first place. It's even possible you may lose passengers because people prefer riding the tram and not the bus.
Government elites and corporations killed off streetcar lines to oppress poor minorities (particularly blacks) and prevent them from moving freely around the city. This was all admitted in the McCone Commission report that was issued following the Watts Riots in LA in 1965.
>Our investigation has brought into clear focus the fact that the inadequate and costly public transportation currently existing throughout the Los Angeles area seriously restricts the residents of the disadvantaged areas such as south central Los Angeles. This lack of adequate transportation handicaps them in seeking and holding jobs, attending schools, shopping, and in fulfilling other needs. It has had a major influence in creating a sense of isolation, with its resultant frustrations, among the residents of south central Los Angeles, particularly the Watts area. Moreover, the lack of adequate east-west or north-south service through Los Angeles hampers not only the residents of the area under consideration here but also of all the city.
>A resident of Watts may have to ride on several separate bus systems to reach certain destinations in the immediate area. These transportation systems are uncoordinated, do not provide for free transfers between systems (except in the instance of parent and subsidiary), and have been forced to cut back service and increase fares over the years because of increased capital and operating expenses.
>We believe that adequate and economical public bus transportation is essential to our community and that it should not be ignored because of the debate over mass rapid transit... Public transportation is particularly essential to the poor and disadvantaged who are unable to own and operate private automobiles.
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/cityinstress/mccone/part8.html
>>886062
Well, good public transportation is essential to allow equality of mobility. If being able to move around easily depends on you having a car, people without cars are in disadvantage.
However, the US is not a social state, so I don't see a reason why the government should HAVE to provide adequate transportation for the less fortunates, if the majority doesn't want to.
>>886065
>However, the US is not a social state, so I don't see a reason why the government should HAVE to provide adequate transportation for the less fortunates, if the majority doesn't want to.
Because of social mobility? Better public transit means wider access to employment which in the long run can lower expenses related to the social safety net as more individuals are capable of surpassing the threshold of poverty. Plus, better public transit typically spawns development along a corridor which means more tax revenues for all levels of government.
>>886074
>Because of social mobility?
Well, it is a social service paid for by the taxpayer. I agree with all the benefits you say, but if a country isn't constituted as a place where the government has to provide for everyone getting their basic needs, if the democratic majority chooses to fuck itself, I don't see why it shouldn't do so, since it's not going against that country's nature. If, as in most European countries, you have a country constituted as a social state of some kind or another, government must indeed tend to people's basic needs, regardless of other government policies, except if they'd vote to change the very constitution.
>>886101
>I agree with all the benefits you say, but if a country isn't constituted as a place where the government has to provide for everyone getting their basic needs, if the democratic majority chooses to fuck itself, I don't see why it shouldn't do so, since it's not going against that country's nature
Fair point.
>>875278
Frenchfag here.
Literally the opposite. It is HUGELY popular and on the rise. Even mid level cities (by frog standards so small in murika levels) that have extensive developed subway systems are investing in tramway infrastructure (all german built btw).
In France there is no stigma associated w/ public transportation.
regular bikes and tramway are literally the "way of the future" for millennials. Fewer and fewer people have cars and motos here. Gas Buses and other public bikes have gained popularity.
One of the first things young Europeans who travel to the US notice is the weak public transport infrastructure. Everyone assumes your Detroit motorists lobbied congress for moar market share; and they're right.
Literally every randian heroic american capitalist success story has been made thanks to crushing unfairly the competition or establishing monopolies through lawsuits, patent trolling and other corporate take overs. From Bethlehem steel to apple.
i am not anti car but it's not complicated to see that every large city in the world suffers from congestion. Take the pleasure outta driving, makes you late, pollution etc..
To compensate their over regulate safety, parking, red tape and you got yourself a nightmare.
>>886132
Trams did die in France though. The revival is impressive but it's impossible to ignore the fact that following WW2 most tram systems in France were shut down and covered to buses.
>>886132
>In France there is no stigma associated w/ public transportation.
So long as it's not a line going through the banlieues...
In Australia we have good public transit in Melbourne and the city is noticably better for it.
Shit tier transit in every other city and driving can take forever.
Adelaide is hilariously a mess for it as the trams and trains only go a few routes the rest must use a bus. In Adelaide there is even a bus that goes on rails like a train in order to speed it up and make it more usable.
Millenials in urban areas cant afford and don't want to pay for cars because with high rent, stagnant wages and the short distance they have to travel it hardly seems worth it although people really only seem to be forgoing cars in Melbourne and Sydney and that's if you live in the inner suburbs. Once you get 15km out of the CBD everyone owns a car.
>>886170
This has to be the first time I've heard someone call the system in Melbourne 'good'.
How did the NYC subway survive?
>>886173
wat. The NYC subway is not an interurban system.
>>886172
Relative to the rest of Australia (whose systems are virtually nonexistent). You can really see the benefits that Melbourne has reaped by having such systems as I think that a good public transit system encourages commerce to take place around them as hubs, it makes for less massive car parks and changes the real estate values around these train/tram systems. I think it makes ciies on the whole more livable.
I could just be talking shit though since this is based on anecdotal evidence just me travelling around Australia.
You can even witness it in Melbourne as the suburbs with less public transit seem to have massive malls with mega multistorey carparks instead of nice shopping streets with plazas.
>>886173
it was a heavy rail subway, not light rail
aka most of it's track was either underground or above ground, not at-grade
>>886170
The tram network is definitely great (no surprise given it's the world's largest I guess)
But your train system is shitty. Shorter trains, crappy trains (I'm looking at you xtrap, where the government cheaped out and *didn't* install airbag suspension despite being given the option, inconsistent aircon on the comengs and Siemens having those awful high windows. Oh and you can't even flip the seats) fewer express services and thinner (and unelectrified) interurban services. Oh and it's more or less radial so you have to go near the city anyway
>>886135
True. The fact is, that there was a time during mass motorization in Europe where it was seen as somewhat normal to switch to buses as to allow easier flow of cars without being "obstructed" by trams. Only when traffic became a serious issue and public transit cutbacks where hurting lower-class people's capacities to move around this started to change. Also the oil crisis did a lot to show the unreliability of car-based transportation.
A stark contrast to France was the evolution in Spain. Firstly, during Franco's dictatorship Spain was anything but a social state, and the centralist government had little interest in public transportation wherever it wasn't wholly necessary due to high density, that is Madrid and Barcelona which had their subways expanded (especially Barcelona's subway was tiny by the time of the civil was, just two short lines), and not even by that much. Since Spain was relatively isolated from a post-fascist Europe, they often looked towards america (both the US and latin america) as a place where there's progress, since Spaniards can never develop their own progress, they have small dicks and have to always copy others, they NEVER innovate anything by themselves. After that joke of a transition into that joke that is modern "democratic" Spain, it was constituted as a social state, which everyone thinks is great, and yet many people deeply question any serious effort in improving public transit while it's considered perfectly normal to focus on cars first.
>>886173
I think it was rather profitable, and also it was seen as essential to keep the city going, since high density made reliance on cars on buses impossible.
>>886290
>Since Spain was relatively isolated from a post-fascist Europe, they often looked towards america (both the US and latin america) as a place where there's progress, since Spaniards can never develop their own progress, they have small dicks and have to always copy others
Every country looks to other nations for ideas. Don't act like such a goddamned retard. The states you praise for having trams on every street probably studied systems all over the place before deciding to expand theirs.
>>886302
copying =! looking to others for ideas
Innovating means looking at ideas, and then deriving your own, adapting those things you learned to your own situation.
France looked probably to Germany and Switzerland when considering making new tram systems, but they didn't just build new systems in the old fashion, they made modern trams in what we'd call a light rail or light metro style, with ROWs and larger vehicles.
Spain just says "hey, others are doing X, so we have to do X", and they start building HSR all over the place without it being useful because France has HSR, they build trams but into the perifery without them going anywhere because France is building tram systems (albeit in places where they do make sense), they build a shitload of highways into a poor and sparsely populated country because the US and Germany do so, they build huge subway systems for medium-sized cities because Paris and London do so... and so on, and so on, and so on. If what I say weren't true, this country wouldn't be one of the poorest countries in western Europe but with some of the most abundant infrastructure. It's a country with a serious small-dick complex.
>>886318
>Spain just says "hey, others are doing X, so we have to do X", and they start building HSR all over the place without it being useful
>It's a country with a serious small-dick complex.
California is the same tbh.
>>886318
What a load of shit. Copying what was being done in Switzerland and Germany does not count as 'innovation'. Plus, you make it sound like the French government doesn't build pork barrel projects either. There's been widespread complaints that too much money is being funnelled towards building new LGVs in areas where a Pendolino could do the trip in a similar amount of time as a 'true' HSR line.
There has also been claims that tram projects have served the same double-purpose as in the US. New tram projects exist to spawn development in certain previously 'undesirable' areas rather than serve as trunk lines.
Don't act all high and mighty; every European parliament has its own issues involving infrastructure.
>>886343
>Copying what was being done in Switzerland and Germany does not count as 'innovation'.
Only they didn't copy, because the trams in Switzerland and Germany are first-gen systems, often street running, with very tight corners that make the designs for low-floor rolling stock more complicated. The french-designed concept can use rather simple fixed-bogie low-floor rolling stock. Just look at how problematic Zurich's Cobra trams are, or how complex Vienna's ULF's design is.
>Plus, you make it sound like the French government doesn't build pork barrel projects either. There's been widespread complaints that too much money is being funnelled towards building new LGVs in areas where a Pendolino could do the trip in a similar amount of time as a 'true' HSR line.
I didn't say that they don't, but it's not the rule. There's literally not one HSR line in Spain that truly makes sense, even the Barcelona-Madrid HSR corridor doesn't have much advantage over the airplane, it's not faster (2.5 hours the direct trains, vs. 1 hour by plane + to/from airports which aren't that far away) and the only significant stop inbetween is Zaragoza (pop 650k).
>New tram projects exist to spawn development in certain previously 'undesirable' areas rather than serve as trunk lines.
You do know that there was a brutal housing bubble here that's crippled the economy? There were quite a few projects like that, and they all have been massive failures because there simply wasn't the demand for that much development. Developing residential zones makes sense if your country is growing, economy and population wise, not in a poor country with at least 10% structural unemployment and a crappy economy based on tourism and building cheap cars.
>Don't act all high and mighty; every European parliament has its own issues involving infrastructure.
Yeah, but only Spain has gone bankrupt by wasting all their money on building useless infrastructure.
>>886327
California is building HSR because the state desperately needs it. In case you didn't notice, the existing coastal route from SJ to LA is painfully slow, congested and unreliable. HSR is happening as a remedy to that, so there can be better statewide rail service as the state would no longer be dependent on the original coastal route.
>>875301
Living in EasternEurope all my life and never realizing how rare are trams...
> special roadsigns have to be placed before each junction to notify cagers whether they should continue driving straight on the road next to a tram track or from the tram tracks
> tram tracks laid in the middle of the street are really dropping people onto the driveway for cager mercy
> small, cramped, slow and unable to maneuvr around fallen trees, snow, accidents
> the tracks are designed to capture every motorcycle and bicycle wheel in them (I lost my first tooth because of tram tracks)
> if tram tracks are not in the middle of the road and are not separated by grass from traffic, then you can't turn onto them
> can't flexible
> tracks have no international standards, so either you have to modify fleet of new trams or modify tracks to accomodate new fleet of trams and annoy everybody in the process..
Why on earth would anybody want one in their city?
Build bike highways, trolley routes, anything..
>>886463
You're a useful idiot for the "cagers" without even realizing it. Great job.
>>886466
>hurr durr there can't be an alternative
>>886466
trolley masterrace
> uses electricity
> can go places with stored electricity
> is not limited to tracks
> can be equal part of traffic, instead of annoying everybody
> fits more people
> cheaper to maintain infrastructure
> does not take so much space
it's slower than the bus, tho
>>886474
Buses have near identical per-passenger cost over the infrastructure lifetime, except with only 1/2 to 1/3 the capacity of trams. They are not an alternative at all.
>>886463
>Why on earth would anybody want one in their city?
They generally ignore traffic.
>>886660
>fits more people
nope, it's the same size as any other bus.
>it's slower than the bus, tho
nope, it's actually faster, since they usually have better acceleration, especially on hilly terrain.
>>886474
define "alternative"
the fact is, proper BRT (especially in dense urban areas) costs about the same as light rail but has less capacity per vehicle and less efficiency but greater maintenance costs
>>886692
>>fits more people
>nope, it's the same size as any other bus.
trolley fits more people than tram, but usually as much as bus, but not all the time where I live
>>it's slower than the bus, tho
>nope, it's actually faster, since they usually have better acceleration, especially on hilly terrain.
my place has no hills and roads are terrible, so trolleys can't disregard surface in order to stay connected to the grid, especially on bridges with speed limit of 70 kph
>>886706
>trolley fits more people than tram
kekus maximus. no it doesn't. In my city our trams carry 220 pax, and can be coupled to carry 440. Show me a trolley that can carry that many people.
>my place has no hills and roads are terrible
hate the players, not the game.
>>886708
>kekus maximus. no it doesn't. In my city our trams carry 220 pax, and can be coupled to carry 440. Show me a trolley that can carry that many people.
If he lives in Philadelphia then it's one of the rare places where buses do carry more people than trams. The Kawasaki trams they have are barely as big as old 40 foot buses.
>>886660
>can be equal part of traffic, instead of annoying everybody
Imply mass transit ought not to be superior to private transportation
>>886718
Fair point.
Although on a global average and as a general rule trams still have more capacity than buses.
>>886727
This. Traffic annoys everybody using public transit.
>>886474
I like how you chose a picture with two busses behind each other, with two drivers to pay, whereas a tram could make do with one.
>>886706
>trolley fits more people than tram
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w
FUCK WHY DID NORMIES AND MINORITIES KILL MY INTERURBANS I JUST WANT TO RIDE IN PEACE REEEEEEEEE
>>875161
I have no idea, what I see except an empty bigass cityroad
>>886036
And therefore RIP M-Wagen in Mülheim.
The whole public transit "concept" (there is actually none, every city is cooking their own stew) for the Rhine-Ruhr area is one big fuckery. Especially the whole tram/lightrail story.
>>886048
>the expensive part is getting the whole infrastructure in place in the first place
This is one of the reasons, why a lot of municipalities in the Rhine-Ruhr area are piss poor.
In short:
> be mainly a workers municipality after ww2
> trams, trams everywhere
> cars are suddenly afforable, trams and public transit in general are out of fashion and "only for the poor, old, jobless, apprentices (including pupils/students), anti-socal"
> lots of networks closed from the 50ies on up to the 90ies, because "busses are way cheaper and more modern"
> we have an idea! Let's build a big network of light rails to get rid of our shitty trams.
> everybody is hyped and gets money from the country to build its own underground tunnel system and to replace trams with big light rail coaches
> shit, changing the system immediately is too expensive, let's continue using our small trams in our recently build tunnels. It's still cool, really!
> 20-40 years later
> the whole network is an unfinished mix of underground tram lines and bigger light rails
> no more money from the country
> too expensive, we need to pay other things first
> shit, maintaining tunnels is fking expensive
> shit, we need new rolling stock (first light rail series and tram size light rails are 30 to 40 yrs old)
> shit, we need to renovate everything
> can we habe sum money plz?
> no.jpg
> okay.jpg
Düsseldorf and Dortmund are the only cities more or less done with the transition or even continue building. The rest either closed everything or is doing half hearted shit (Especially refering to Duisburg, Mülheim, Essen and Bochum).
>>888227
>Düsseldorf
I'll be so fucking happy when Bilk S-Bahnhof becomes usable again.
>>888227
What about Mannheim? I hear they are building a new line of about 9km and have recently phased out their previously massive fleet of Düwags?
Oh right, they never built any tunnels...
Problem with Rhine S-bahn was insistence on 1435 mm when all the systems around used 1000 mm, so you have places like Essen and Müllheim.
Are there even other notable places but Stuttgart that actually have done the whole gauge transition thing all the way? (Closing 90% of the network down doesn't count.)
>>876419
Spain is a transportation wet dream compared to the American South.
>>888227
>be city with decent sized heavy rail subway
>get rid of trams tho
fml
>>888474
Diarrhea don't make shit less shitty.
>>888460
Chemnitz converted from 925 mm to standard gauge (and even uses it for tram-train purposes).
>people choosing to own and drive cars of their free will is a conspiracy
>>892382
And that can be rephrased
>failed revenue model is not a conspiracy
The systems that GM and folks bought were in more or less break even situation with "maintenance debt" in infrastructure and rolling stock accumulating. Were they profitable, the owners would not have no will to sell.
>>892382
It's not so much about what people choose, but what facilities they're given to do so. People take public transit in certain cities because it's simply more practical, and there's no reason governments should go out of their way to make cars more attractive, and not public transit, when the latter means a guarantee that everyone, not just people who can and want to drive a car, is able to move efficiently, and without getting stuck in traffic jams. Transportation is a public service as basic as water and power, and I see no reason why governments should not provide them, while instead providing facilities for the use of private motor vehicles.
The fight over streetcars in the 1940s and 1950s was basically a proxy war between two massive corporations, GE and GM. The former favored continued expansion and maintenance of the nation's existing streetcar systems due to the profits it received from supplying these systems with electrical machinery and equipment, while the latter favored scrapping electric streetcars entirely and replacing them with buses and highways, due to the profits such developments would provide them as an auto manufacturer.
This outcome of this conflict was not predetermined but contingent on a variety of factors. One of the most important being that GM had better propaganda. GM's rhetoric was that cars = freedom, and since this was taking place during the Cold War it was hard to argue against car culture without looking like a commie. Had this battle and conspiracy taken place in the 1920s or 1930s it likely would have been a much different outcome.
Take a look at the films below. Which ones seem more appealing from the perspective of a middle-class American in the 1950s?
GE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl1R-2zYi1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6dltiZMlaU
GM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CElngLAjMaA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltrxz0foAI8 (check out the praise for Robert Moses at 11:50)
>>886463
Living in Toronto, I kind of agree with this general sentiment. We were pretty much the only city in North America not to abandon the streetcar system. The streetcars have their own sort of charm, but god fucking damn, the ones that operate in mixed traffic are just as annoying for the users as they are for everyone around them.
>Can't get around obstacles like fallen trees, downed power lines, car accidents, etc.
>Stop every 20 goddamn metres
>Switches and track freeze in winter, crippling the entire system
>One problem with one streetcar somewhere on the line, again fucks up the entire system
>Streetcars can't pass one another and usually arrive in packs of 4 or 5, with one absolutely stuffed full of passengers and the others all empty
And then there's the whole matter of trying to cross a lane of traffic when you get off. I find the private "cagers" are usually extremely courteous and stop, it's the fucking lunatic cab drivers and cyclists I'm always worried about.
For years I used to commute using Toronto's dreaded 504 King car. From that, I could see why our grandparents were so eager to rid ourselves of these things and why Rob Ford would never shut up about subways. But then I moved out of the downtown and now I take the 512 St. Clair to the subway. This line runs on a dedicated right-of-way, which single-handedly saves the streetcar's reputation and actually makes it a pleasant experience. But if it's not running on dedicated track, the streetcar is utter dogshit.
>>892491
Sometimes it doesn't make sense to service certain corridors with public transit. Occasionally cars do work better, for example in large suburban industrial areas, and I think it's important to take both cars and public transport planning into consideration (with an emphasis on the latter, of course). As a disclaimer, I do own a 1991 Toyota Cressida, so maybe I'm slightly biased in this assessment. But I also only drive 4,000km a year, so maybe I'm not.
>>894081
>Sometimes it doesn't make sense to service certain corridors with public transit
I'm really tired of this strawman. Whenever someone suggests that public transit can be a more convenient option, someone else replies with
>herp derp but if there's very few people cars are better
hell, sure cars are better if you live in some bumblefuck small town, but the whole issue is TRAFFIC and moving around in big cities, not a handful of rednecks in their country houses. In a city, by definition you're going to have loads of people going in loads of directions, which is why cities are in the most need for public transportation, to the point that even the most capitalist and neoliberal society is bound to have subways or the like in their big cities. Even with sprawled suburbs you can have an efficiently planned transportation system where you combine cheap buses running through sparesely populated burbs feeding to heavy rail transit.
The outermost branches of any cities transit system are going to be economically dire, but it makes up with the trunk lines becoming even more economical, because they get fed from those less economic branches. The Zurich model has proven time and again that you don't need dense cities to justify good transportation, you just need to plan for transit instead of for cars, and have it efficiently organized to get the most out of as little investment as possible.
>>894088
>cont'd
And apart from that, I have to say that I largely disagree that you can't provide every last person with a public transit alternative, although at some point it's true that it makes very little economic sense (since you're not feeding them into heavier trunk lines), so it just comes down to the kind of society you want, if you just want transit in urban centers and only have small lines as feeders that are part of a larger system, that's fine, and if you want to make a point of offering public transportation to absolutely everyone because you consider it a basic necessity (ie welfare state), it's really not that big a deal. In Switzerland there's villages that have fewer than 50 inhabitants and get a bus every 2 hours for most of the day. Sure it costs some money to keep this up, but you're not going to go bankrupt of it. It's not like in many countries there aren't a shitload of highways going to shitty little villages and carrying extremely few cars and which nevertheless are paid for with public funding.
You Toronto people have a bad image of public transit and streetcars because the management is 3rd-world-tier, but you can't get your point against public transit from there. I've always been impressed of what Zurich has done with it's public transit, and it goes to show that you can get a lot out of very simple infrastructure and reasonable investment if you just play your cards right. This doesn't mean that what works for Zurich will work for toronto obv, you can always make another strawman out of
>herp derp but muh city is big and different from Zurich
but it goes to show that the effectiveness of public transit isn't limited to certain types of cities and infrastructures, but to good planning and management.
>>894081
One more thing:
>the [trams] that operate in mixed traffic are just as annoying for the users as they are for everyone around them
>operating trams in mixed traffic
That's the absolutely first thing you don't do if you care for public transit. Goes to show how little interest there is in Toronto for good public transit.
>Hate the players, not the game.
In Tallinn we upgraded the tram system and have new modern trams aswell, and i think they are wat better than the buses on the same route.
>>894081
The 504 and/or the 501 needs to be replaced by a Subway since if I'm not mistaken they are the most used routes in the entire system. The 504 alone carries more passengers a day than the SRT and Sheppard Subway. Its to bad the "suburbs" are holding the city hostage and no one on council seems to have the balls to admit we need another subway downtown.
Hell the TTC subway system (save for Sheppard) was built in part because of overcrowded streetcars.
>>894117
Those new trams are ugly, thoug.
Good luck with the airport extension, first phase looks neat. Is it going to have some sort of shopping center built above it?
Also I understand that ferry terminal (A-terminal, reideers still must walk) extension is in serious planning?
What about the trolley buses, more cancellations ahead? I think I read somewhere that they have ban on buying new cars or something. Hard to say, your hobbittish is hard.
>>894144
You don't need to necessarily replace them, if the routes aren't completely identical. Even then, the tram would offer shorter stop lengs and convenience for short trips. Surely, in modern world existing subway would prevent tram being built to the same corridor, but the tramway already is there.
That always irks me with the tunnel-cagers how they want to clean every other mode of transport off their precious corridors. Like in Oslo they propose to cut like three stops wort of track because it's parallel to subway and would cripple the network (not fundamentally, but several easy connections would be lost).
>>894152
I actually like the trams and their livery; it makes the old network look modern. I doubt the livery will be easy to maintain in the winter with all the slush and grime sticking to the nice white paint though.
>>894144
There's no doubt that Toronto needs more high-capacity grade-separated trunk lines going through its downtown (especially with the continuing intensification) but the 504 and 501 really shouldn't be replaced outright (especially considering how much cash was poured into modernising them). Even with the DRL or other downtown focused projects the 501 and 504 corridors would still completement nicely these new lines.
Maybe we should also reconsider the idea of the underground tramway network plans that were floated around at several points. It would maintain the utility of overground network and it would add subway-like capacity to the most crowded lines. After all, modern LRVs like the new Flexity cars can be built to accommodate the same amount of traffic as modern subway cars (the Eglinton Crosstown line demonstrates this since it's going to use LRVs).
Cities like Karlsruhe in Germany and Nice in France are building tunnels under existing crowded tramway lines to solve capacity problems in their downtown cores while maintaining ground-level service so it isn't a completely insane proposition. Plus, maybe suburban voters would put up less of a fight faced with a 'fiscally conservative' approach to building heavy rail lines (the loud NIMBYs, the city dwellers and the politicians all bought into Tory' bullshit 'inexpensive' SmartTrack proposal after all and we all now know that thing is going to cost billions)
>>894200
>Cities like Karlsruhe in Germany and Nice in France are building tunnels under existing crowded tramway lines to solve capacity problems in their downtown cores while maintaining ground-level service so it isn't a completely insane proposition
San Francisco does this too
>>894200
>underground tramway network
eh, this is usually only a good idea for smaller cities. A tram tunnel doesn't have a subway's capacity by a long shot, since trains are much smaller, and you usually have many lines running into the tunnel to add frequency, which makes service less regular and requires buffers to allow for trams running slightly ahead or behind of schedule.
For a city like Toronto, the obviously best option is to expand the subway somewhat, while ROW'ing most streetcar corridors to get more out of them. By having ROW'd streetcars you significantly reduce the need for subway lines, since you get many more corridors and connections from them, even if their capacity isn't the same.
>>872507
>good discussion
>streetcar myth or whatever you call it
>good discussion
>biased OP
yeah, you want a good discussion of how you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong
>>894349
You can operate full-length subway trains using tramway rolling stock. They couple together you know.
It's just bit of a challenge to mix those gigantic trains into the street level routes. You basically need full right of way and hardcore level intersections.
The rolling stock doesn't matter much. Tramway stock is better because it does more things. What matters is the kind of right of way you're building.
>>894559
>It's just bit of a challenge to mix those gigantic trains into the street level routes. You basically need full right of way and hardcore level intersections.
Well, it isn't much of a tram then, is it? It would just be an at-grade subway/train/whatever, but it would surely be considered heavy rail by then, since it would have absolute priority. And having grade crossings on a subway really isn't viable, you'd have trains crossing at least every 10 minutes or so in each direction, the gates would barely have time to open up before the next train comes.
You do have a point about tram sizes, our own tram system (2nd gen and fully ROW'd) allows for 60m long trams which would carry up to 440 pax, we have a subway line which uses three-car trains and carries about the same amount of people.
But the point of a tram system is precisely that you don't need full-on level crossings nor train-style signalling, and instead crossings are just regular intersections, likely with the traffic lights allowing for tram priority.
With a setup like this you're really looking into the very low end of what you could consider heavy rail: With a regular fully grade separated subway you can have fuckhueg trains that could carry over 1000 pax running every few minutes, more than any system that's remotely similar to a tram could ever carry.
>>894349
Even with shorter sets underground tram systems would still have more capacity than a 2nd gen tram system simply due to the elimination of grade crossings (even with signal priority trams slow down at intersections).
>>894570
Certainly, but my point is that tunnel itself has potential for even more capacity if the lines running through it aren't limited by tram standards, frequency, regularity and capacity-wise. If the line is 100% grade separated or with train-style grade crossings (that is, no traffic-light regulated intersections) you can get more capacity than a tram tunnel.
The whole issue is that you want to get the most out of your tunnel. If you're a small city and it doesn't make sense to have a large, grade-separated heavy subway, a tram tunnel can be good on certain stretches where overground capacity is at its limit, but for a larger city where full-on subway lines are an option or necessity, using a tunnel just for trams seems a waste, since making a larger tunnel is justified, and you'll get more out of it using it as a heavy subway.
>>894937
If I recall correctly Vienna and a few other cities have subway lines that share track space with trams. I'm curious if that type of compromise solution could be feasible on a dense corridor.
>>894974
>If I recall correctly Vienna and a few other cities have subway lines that share track space with trams
How's that? You mean trams running on subway tracks? In Vienna I don't recall this, for starters because the subway uses high platforms and 3rd rail, and trams use ground-level platforms and overhead wires.
There's the Karlsruhe model of tram-trains, trams running partly on mainline railways. I guess you could do the same with a subway, but again this would mean reduced frequencies and capacity.
>>895077
Oh you're right. I got them confused because a few of the U-Bahn lines use LRVs.
>>894974
Some Stadtbahn systems do it or have done, but I don't think there ever has been system called metro or underground that has shared ROW with trams.
It's due "steering by line of sight". Stadtbahn does that, metros have block signalling and trying to fit trams inside that would be more problematic.
I can only think of Essen. Stuttgart used to, before going all Stadtbahn.
>>895139
Do they still use line of sight on Stadbahns? I thought CBTC had been installed on most U-Bahn and Stadbahn systems by now.
>>895141
Don't really know, to be honest.
Many systems walk under that banner. The ones that operate more than once or twice in mixed traffic, I wouldn't think.
Almost all Stadtbahn lines use signalling in their tunnels and also on many segregated surface lines. The streetrunning sections of course don't.
As for mixing metros and trams, the closest thing I could think of is the Metro Rotterdam/Randstadrail/Tram Den Haag contraption, which has high and low floor running parallel on occasion and also switches between overhead and third rail multiple times.
>>895259
Holy shit that system is like a compilation of every form of public transit available. How was this beautiful monstrosity conceived?
>>886036
What's the point of a tram that can only fit 10 passengers?
>>898333
It was made when a typical bus looked like this.
Plus don't you start, Toronto fleet as of now:
190 CLRV
>basically a remade PCC-car. Heck, the Psific electric "Red cars" in OP picture are bigger.
52 ALRV
>A fat GT6, about the size like the car in the post you reponded.
>>898495
>that engrish
Good God.
>>898566
I typo mad like shit fuck hell but the argument stands.
>>894527
That's what it's called, though.
>>901960
whatever you say.
This picture explains it all.
>>902643
1. Not streetcars
2. Still in operation
Letts build monorails.
How is it possible to have worse mass transit in 2015 than in 1915? I mean, it's 2015, shouldn't everything be better now than in the past since it's the current year?
>>905006
There are some people who aren't aware that it's the current year. They have yet to come on.
>>905006
1. densely populated cities were long seen as cesspools of crime, disease, pollution, noise, and traffic - plus racial/ethnic/social/religious tensions in various forms depending on the region
2. after WW2, the US government subsidized the development of suburbia and highways, allowing increasing numbers of people to flee inner cities
3. as those who could fled from cities, business and public investment followed, so inner cities lost their tax base and population, and became even less appealing places to live
4. as inner cities deteriorated, so to did mass transit in all forms, both privately or publicly operated
5. federal policy also favored interstate highways and airports, popularizing new modes of intercity travel that largely replaced the existing bus and train lines that were already integrated with local mass transit
>>875295
>even germans closed
an amusing detail here is how East-Berlin system survived (thanks to soviet stagnation) and West one did not
So what the hell happened to the original Washington DC streetcar network? And no, I'm not talking about that clusterfuck that is the new dc streetcar.
>>905343
What about it? It was closed down in the early 1960's, just like so many other systems.
Interesting detail, in the final years they ran a sightseeing service using an air-conditioned PCC, which was the only air-conditioned PCC ever with exception of refurbished units (such as the ones running in Philly)
>>905265
Even more amusing is that after the reunification trams have gotten back into the west as part of some line extensions. It's not much, but it's something.
>people don't like using mass transit when other, better options in the form of personal automobiles are available
>people choose to drive rather than take the streetcar
>HURR ITS A CONSPIRACY THEY WERE BRAINWASHED BY GM
People voted with their wallets and at the ballot for better automobile infrastructure, no conspiracy was needed. The free market fixed it.
>>908104
>bunping this old thread with this content
>have you considered professional help to curb your apparent trolling problem?
>>908108
It's not bait if it's true.
>>905343
Don't worry! The DC Streetcar will be here any day now. Annnnnny day now.
>>908104
>Corporate lobbyists successfully obtain preferential treatment from government
>The Invisible Hand of the Free Market strikes again!
Friedman is spinning in his grave
>>908424
Another filthy liar, Noam Chomsky has repeatedly claimed that the only times Friedman actually used the term "invisible hand" was in context of nationalism amongst capitalists would prevent all investments escaping into colonies if complete free trade would be established within the British commonwealth.
That is, the complete antithesis of how we now understand it.
>>908431
Friedman presents the conventional definition in 'Free to Choose'.
https://youtu.be/4FHxpoQqPTU
>>879664
>especially when many companies lost their ability to act as a power company
How much did this contribute?
>>908493
Not sure of exact figures, but a considerable amount. In the pre-depression USA, interurban lines were sought-after by outlying villages since they brought electricity-related infrastructure wherever they built.
Pic related: Toledo & Indiana Railway car no. 2 near Bryan, Ohio, mid-1930s
>>908504
>Don Ross Collection
Wut. My old landlord was a Don Ross.
>>908493
>How much did this contribute?
It was a big part of the failure for many of the systems. The streetcar companies usually built residential developments (or "streetcar suburbs" as they're often referred to) which were served by their own electrical companies, thus creating more customers for that part of their business. Come the Depression, a bunch of the smaller systems collapsed financially and the subsequent legislation such PUHCA made it harder for the remaining companies to remain in operation.
If you ever had a streetcar/interurban system in your area you can probably find their financial reports in your local archives and look at the numbers yourself since they varied wildly from one system to another.
Streetcars are cool. pls come back
>>892601
>Let's Go to Town
Get rid of all of that on-street parking! City centre parking is a waste of money!
>Give Yourself the Green Light
We need more on-street parking! Hand over your shekels for city centre parking!
ffs GM
>>910799
They never will, the best you can hope for now is lightfail that goes 10 blocks through downtown
>>914062
Now, now. Houston, Dallas, Portland and LA have admirable systems.
Not saying you wouldn't be blowing the things for you with the current trend of micro-streetcars.
What gives, how long vehicles can you legally operate in traffic?
>>914081
>What gives, how long vehicles can you legally operate in traffic?
There's no legal limit; the length limit is purely technical. The Seattle system has some pretty long stations designed to accommodate long consists.
>>888213
>>888227
>Rhine-Ruhr
For the outsiders: all the tram systems in that area were in metre gauge, typical 230cm wide cars, 30cm platforms.
BOSStrab or some other authority document demanded standard gauge and different loading gauge and high platforms, so they built a bunch of separated standard gauge light rail lines that never formed a proper network.
Don't let this happen in your city.
>>894152
I think they look good.
Trolley buses - 2 lines were replaced with hybrid buses. Maybe more will follow. I wouldn't know about that. Apparently those hybrid buses are good shit.
And if that is true, I would imagine the trolleybuses will be replaced with hybrid buses.
>>917267
Do you know are they leaving the contact wires hanging for now?
As I understand, the city made a direct decision whether to be early adopter in this hybrid bus thing or buy new trolleybuses to replace the aging Skodas. I'm still fanning for hope that once the city has some loose cash again after few years, new trolleybuses will be bought and the abandonment will be canselled.
I read from SkyScraperCity (what an unlike place to learn some Estonian) that the routes of 6 and 7 would be too long for these hybrids to run on full battery power or something.
>>917274
I had to find info about the circumstances since I was in the dark previously, but I think I know what's going on.
Apparently there is a plan to replace this interchange with a multi level interchange:
http://newfuture.ma.cx/r.php
As a result the trolleybus wires there will be destroyed. That is the reason cited for replacing line 6 and 7. The hybrid buses used are of Volvo 7900 type, they do not run on battery. Fuel savings through regenerative braking and electric acceleration assistance rather than full time hybrid.
Personally I wouldn't mind the trolleybuses replaced, they aren't very good. The Solaris ones are alright, but the Czech ones are like riding in a trash bin on top of a lorry. Incredibly noisy too.
In Tallinn, tram > bus > trolleybus. Without counting train. The Volvo buses are alright, only bad thing is the incredibly nasty cold lighting inside.
>>917267
Hybrid buses are absolute shit, especially compared to trolleybuses. First, their maintenance is way more expensive, since they have both combustion engine and electric motors. This also makes them much more prone to breakdowns. Also even though they pollute less than standard combustion buses, they still pollute while trolleybuses are 100% clean, at least within the city. Finally they're way more expensive than standard combustion buses, dunno if more expensive than trolleybuses but surely not much cheaper, while their lifespan is limited by the combustion engine (10-15 years), while a purely electric trolleybus can run perfectly for twice as long, and maybe even longer if they're well taken care of.
Any city that has trolley wires and switches to hybrid buses is cheating you out of your quality public transit. Trolleybuses are the best kind of bus, they're entirely electric, and yet don't have the limitations, weight or expense that comes from using batteries. The added cost is obviously in building the overhead wires, but once this is done it's not even very expensive to maintain them.
ffs this is like the 1930's all over again.
>hurr durr we have trolleybuses now we don't need trams anymore
>hurr durr we have hybrid/battery powered buses now, we don't need trolleybuses anymore
>>917356
Estonia produces energy on oil shale and contains a power plant in the top 7 most polluting power plants in the EU. So as far as environmental concerns go, it's not much of a case. City air cleanliness is better for the trolleybus, but it's not really much of a concern with euro 6 engines. Electricity is also expensive here. The 6 and 7 line, which were dumped are not surprising at all given that a key interchange on their route is going to be modified and they cannot pass through that area while this is going on - there simply aren't overhead cables for them.
They are expanding the tram network. Not as much as I'd like, but they are doing something. That's what I want. Trolleybuses I don't much care for. Bus service on average is better because most of the buses are more modern than the trolleybuses.
BTW that interchange they are building, I don't think you could mount overhead wires on that one in a reasonable way. I believe it's going to be a 3 level roundabout interchange.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that the end game for these crooks in TLT is to get electric buses in action. The type that don't use wires.
We still got them n philly senpai
Seems like they kill someone every year tho desu
>>917319
>>917356
>>917358
Well this level of pessimism is sad. Your network looks so small yet purposeful is all. Four legs all in straight corridors, two terminals in good places, from three main legs there's direct route to both terminals.
I wonder if it even has more than one substation feeding it give the depot is right at the center of it.
>>917358
>The type that don't use wires.
This is so bad thinking! Won't it make so much more sense to have trolley wires on trunk routes where the buses can load their batteries as they go? Also the oldest buses or buses with expired battery pack could still serve on all-trolley routes.
I'm saying, this electric bus boom is no ways the doom for the trolley, it's the new renaissance.
>>917399
based af
>>875136
Scandinavia is capitalist. Socialism is defined as a society where the means of production are owned by the workers. No country has ever embodied it yet. Abandon the bern and accept that it is revolution or nothing at all.
>>917408
Bus network is laid out in an identical fashion. The public transport is centrally planned but lines are contracted to private operators. They do whatever is most efficient to them.
Trolleybus lines aren't very efficient in terms of carbon credit savings I imagine and that's basically the #1 priority - Estonian government sells that snake oil shit to countries like Japan/Spain/etc to fund infrastructure projects.
>>917652
I guess it helps when countries have strong supplies of cheap power like hydro in Switzerland.
>>917652
You have to know, here's Helsinki speaking. Our bus and tram maps looks like a bowl of spaghetti, because due geographical reasons the grid was broken constantly and the 50-60 suburbs werent built into grid at all.
>>917709
I have been to Helsinki and I absolutely hated the public transport there. Very confusing. The metro was fun though.
>>872507
eh, no
>implying National City Lines didn't actually save public transit from the free market
If GM hadn't subsidized the public transit industry by buying it up, it would have ceased to exist. Only private automobiles would be on the roads today if GM hadn't sacrificed for the good of the country.
>>921213
this isn't even worth posting a bait image for
>>921213
The Commies won the Cold War, they kept all their streetcar lines intact.
>>927659
...and are closing many of them now, after competition from minibusses.
>>924648
The logic isn't sound at all, how dense can you get?
>NCL takes over in admittedly difficult situation
>starts bleeding passengers like there's no tomorrow because they don't lift a finger to try and keep them
>cuts back on services which are getting passengers
>closes down tram lines in good shape with not too old rolling stock to buy new buses
It makes no sense at all, at no level. NCL not only did NOTHING to somehow stop losing passengers, they even took measures to lose them faster. The only thing NCL "subsidized" was buying new GM buses to replace trolleys which were perfectly fine.
If you really think it's a somehow sound concept that when business is bad you just reduce the service your offering you have absolutely no idea of how economics work.
>>872507
Hey Mr. Smart Guy, you forgot one thing:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Streetcar_Conspiracy
Damning proof that you're full of shit exists right here on Wikipedia for all to see. Next time do your research junior.
>>930431
Rekt
>>930431
>fined one measly fucking dollar for that
Bring the nukes already.
>>930431
You should really refer to Wiki's citations directly, if you want to provide 'damning proof'.
>>930431
God damn I hate this country.
>>930431
Freedom. Being able to travel without waiting for some kind of public transportation. The mass produced automobile was the killer.
>>931377
Too bad most of them (at least the American ones) were booby trapped.
>>930431
Funny now that all the mainstream media has been bought out today so supercorporations can get away with shit like this much easier.
>>932127
The conspirators involved in the destruction of the Milwaukee Road got away with it just fine and that was in the 1970s. Even though there's more concrete evidence of a conspiracy regarding the Milwaukee Road than there is of the GM scandal (not to say the latter wasn't a conspiracy).
>>932140
Explain pls
>>895142
They may still have full ATO in tunnel sections. I can't give percentages, but it's definitely not only one or two cities.
>>931377
Why didn't the mass produced automobile erradicate transit systems in Europe?
Freedom isn't depending on your physical and economic capacity to be able to drive a car and get around. That only means a large chunk of the population will NOT have freedom.
Freedom is being able to move around without any hindrance, and you only achieve that with public transit.
>>933548
>War.
This slowed the automobilization and on the other hand put public operators in charge of transit.
>>875334
De var der engang under Tall Ship Race :)
>>933566
>slowed the automobilization
what does it matter? By your logic, by the time people could afford cars they wouldn't want to ride transit anyways.
>put public operators in charge of transit
I thought public transit was killed because people didn't care for it. How does it affect if it's a public operator? Because the private ones did want to close them down and public ones didn't? That would be an argument in favor of the conspiracy theory you dumbass.
>>933548
>Freedom isn't depending on your physical and economic capacity to be able to drive a car and get around. That only means a large chunk of the population will NOT have freedom.
You're right, most people don't have freedom. Thanks to private automobiles though, a greater proportion of Americans have freedom than anywhere else in the world.
The free market saves the day again.
>>936820
>not being able to venture more than 40 paces from your murder cage
>being unable to safely move around after socializing in the normal way that westerners socialize
>rationalizing it by saying you totally cage better after you've knocked back a few cold ones
>this is considered "Freedom"
American cager culture is really abhorrent, isn't it?
>>936820
You're probably poking fun at how stupid the US is, but so many people believe what you typed that it's sad.
>>939760
What part of that post do you think was a joke?
>>942793
not him but
>most people don't have freedom, but some do because they have a car
>only by having a car can you have freedom
▲
▲▲
>>942881
If you want to get to a rural area 100 miles from your home and off the main highway, what do you do? Walk? Or is it even legal to make a trip like that in whatever socialist utopia you live in?
>>947938
>He can't walk 100 miles under his own effort!
>>875148
Trams are much rarer in Europe too. It's just that buses adapt to growing cities, trams don't.
