[KevO]

back to the cities we go:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')errence Mann said "If you build it, they will come"; I once said at a public meeting about a Toronto streetcar line that "investment follows infrastructure." Portland proved it; 10,000 residential units have been built and $3.5 billion has been invested within two blocks of its streetcar line since it opened.

At least 40 other cities are exploring streetcar plans to spur economic development, ease traffic congestion and draw young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, according to the Community Streetcar Coalition, which includes city officials, transit authorities and engineers who advocate streetcar construction.

Furthermore, streetcar lines attract development and investment- that's where the condos go. As Cincinnati's city manager said in the IHT: "Today, young, educated workers move to cities with a sense of place. And if businesses see us laying rail down on a street, they'll know that's a permanent route that will have people passing by seven days a week."

Compared to a bus, they are faster and more dependable; compared to a subway, they are cheap; compared to a private car, from a capacity and climate point of view: there is no comparison.

[EndSuburbia]

Hooray

[Denny]

I suspect most people reading this have never taken a ride on a streetcar, but compared to buses they are so much smoother and quieter for the passenger. And, no exhaust.

About ten years ago, the general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, working the figures, determined that street cars were not as economic to operate as buses and proposed the evolution away from street cars. Torontonians were ready to lynch him. And, in fact, since then, street car lines have grown, by about 10 km.

They are not a small investment, but are much less than subways. To maximize their efficiency, they need their own defined right of way. For most Toronto lines that is not the case, and a typical bicyclist can match the average speed of a streetcar in congested traffic conditions. Bear in mind that in Toronto, the street cars have frequent stops, much like a city bus, every three or four blocks, and that also cuts their average speed way down.

But, to go back to the title, its interesting to note that in many cities, back almost 100 years go, streetcar lines were extended to the suburbs, and survived economically, until the auto, fueled by cheap gasoline, displaced them. And, with dedicated track they were fairly quick too. Maybe its an idea worthy of reconsideration.

For sure, not every arterial road in a suburb could be a streetcar candidate, but a hub and spoke system using buses could feed a radial network with dedicated surface rail.

Consider Copenhagen. A city of 600,000 city residents with a combined metropolitan population of 2.8 million. Not really so dissimilar to many middle of the pack major U.S. cities, like St. Louis or Sacramento or Cincinnatti in terms of the downtown/suburban sprawl. But, the S-Tog commuter rail network extends over 100 (168 km) miles of track length and 85 stations. And the rail cars used are very clean and quiet, with excellent seat upholstery and large windows, better than a car for comfort. Whereas many U.S. cities of this size do not even have frequent city bus services on most routes. A high share of commuters use bikes at either end to reach the stations. Seems like a very energy efficient, and time efficient, transit mode to me. I have often asked, if Denmark can afford such a system, commenced way back in 1934, what is to stop America? A country which can spend $244 billion over five years on interstate upgrades, to support a transport mode we see going defunct, can afford this type of technology, no doubt about that. I have often wondered, when it comes to tax money for transportation, if there is some inertia or even backroom manouvering by vested interests to keep this non-sustainable status quo of auto commuting going as long as possible.

This is a map of the "S-Tog" commuter rail network, which portrays the suburban sprawl there.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'I') suspect most people reading this have never taken a ride on a streetcar, but compared to buses they are so much smoother and quieter for the passenger. And, no exhaust.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'T')his is a map of the "S-Tog" commuter rail network, which portrays the suburban sprawl there.

[miles392]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'I') suspect most people reading this have never taken a ride on a streetcar, but compared to buses they are so much smoother and quieter for the passenger. And, no exhaust.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miles392', '.')..
Right.. so your conclusion is that in a energy starved world we will use buses run on gasoline instead of streetcars running on electricity. That makes sense.. not.

[efarmer]

In much the US the folks in almost each and every town are constantly using tax abatements and "tools" to spend the anticipated future income from suburbia in 2018 or 2028 to make infrastructure now that is just as cheap petroleum dependent as the stuff they built in 1958. Suburbia was built because of cheap energy, lives and dies by it, and now has borrowed it's own anticipated future expansion revenue and spent it right now as much as possible. This boat runs at full speed because it's transom is open and it sinks as soon as it slows down or stops.

You don't make high speed rail, New Urbanism, or Popular Mechanics gee wizz out of these ingredients. This contrivance crashes and gets rigged into a bunch of goofy workarounds and desperate ploys and makeshifts by a jillion flat broke and disillusioned people.

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'Y')ou believe that in a financially starved world after PO the taxpayers will have enough money to surrender $100 million per mile because that's how much light rail costs. Make it $200 million per mile if you want it completely grade-separated. umm okay if you say so.

[cube]

To: Denny
Congratulations so you've picked the most successful implementation of a light rail line in the entire North America.
I guess it's my turn:
wiki says:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')eattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile,...

[TheDude]

Alan Drake over at TOD has been gung ho on LR/CR (Commuter Rail)/Electrified Heavy Rail/Interurbans/etc., here is his latest/definitive piece for those interested:
Multiple Birds – One Silver BB: A synergistic set of solutions to multiple issues focused on Electrified Railroads.

The way these things are done nowadays Fed money is an essential part of the picture, of course. Whether these massive and sleek lines could be built in an era of fuel shortages we don't know. Alan likes to point out that we built interurbans a century ago using mule teams and sweat blah blah blah which is a shallow argument, unless he's driving home the point that we could knock these things together in a low tech fashion - true of course, but if it came to that I think we'd be more concerned about securing food.

Bob Shaw, also a TODer, has a novel idea for suburbs - "spiderwebriding," which means simply slapping tracks on sidewalks or street shoulders, and running toy trains on them to get around. Low power locomotive - steam, if need be.

Agree with cube that rail lines are a possiblity for larger cities, but <100k and it's quite pie-in-the-sky unless you're a satellite community - and we've discussed how farked those well may be soon. Buses are much cheaper, and if funding new bus lines isn't possible, I see the new MT looking like this:



Anybody other Amerikanz heard word one out of our elected dumbasses regarding expansion of mass transit?

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'Y')ou believe that in a financially starved world after PO the taxpayers will have enough money to surrender $100 million per mile because that's how much light rail costs. Make it $200 million per mile if you want it completely grade-separated. umm okay if you say so.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')nybody other Amerikanz heard word one out of our elected dumbasses regarding expansion of mass transit?

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')nybody other Amerikanz heard word one out of our elected dumbasses regarding expansion of mass transit?

[alokin]

Javman, do you think there will be a problem to bring the people to the station?? NO. You will simply walk or cycle if you have one.

What is built as a light rail today is the most sophisticated version we can think of. And it is as well the integration in the existing road system which costs so much. When I was young they ran simply in the middle of the road and stopped there as well. With less traffic we could do this. No they are in a gravel bed, I think the reason is that they are separated from the traffic and thus more rapid, less noise. But this separation costs as you must do many changements on the roads at both sides on the footpathes, that everything still fits in.
You spend as well lots of money to fit the tram into the existing signaling system. The tram needs always to be preferred in intersections, but all the changements of the traffic lights and what we call "green wave" costs a whole lot of money.

Thus without all the traffic around it would be a whole lot cheaper.

Then there are the ticket machines. As a kid there was a second person in every street car to sell tickets.

In my city we have streetcars and buses and underground. The streetcar is far the best. In the city itself it has maybe a bit less speed than a car, but when you get outside they are quite fast.

It is far the most effective system in terms of money/energy input in relation to the people transported. It must not necessarily be the modern, luxury version, the key to success is high frequency and speed, what mostly depends on the preference in intersections and how quick you get the people out and in at the stations.

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('alokin', 'J')avman, do you think there will be a problem to bring the people to the station?? NO. You will simply walk or cycle if you have one.

What is built as a light rail today is the most sophisticated version we can think of. And it is as well the integration in the existing road system which costs so much. When I was young they ran simply in the middle of the road and stopped there as well. With less traffic we could do this. No they are in a gravel bed, I think the reason is that they are separated from the traffic and thus more rapid, less noise. But this separation costs as you must do many changements on the roads at both sides on the footpathes, that everything still fits in.
You spend as well lots of money to fit the tram into the existing signaling system. The tram needs always to be preferred in intersections, but all the changements of the traffic lights and what we call "green wave" costs a whole lot of money.

Thus without all the traffic around it would be a whole lot cheaper.

Then there are the ticket machines. As a kid there was a second person in every street car to sell tickets.

In my city we have streetcars and buses and underground. The streetcar is far the best. In the city itself it has maybe a bit less speed than a car, but when you get outside they are quite fast.

It is far the most effective system in terms of money/energy input in relation to the people transported. It must not necessarily be the modern, luxury version, the key to success is high frequency and speed, what mostly depends on the preference in intersections and how quick you get the people out and in at the stations.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'A')side from the cost of owning a car (which is worth the cost!), tell me, where is the savings from riding the train?

[ReverseEngineer]

In cities, the streetcar or tram works as a good form of mass transportation. Far better than cars of course for this type of environment.

However, conversion over to rail off the personal automobile does nothing for the suburbs, as you get further out you get ridiculously further from the stations to the point that walking or cycling to them becomes a long chore in itself. In inclement weather, can you really see an Accountant riding his bike and getting his suit drenched on the way to the train? You are gonna cross country ski to the station when it snows? What?

Laying track all over the sidewalks is about as dumb an idea as trying to lay more asphalt for streets. Those steel rails cost a bundle in energy to produce, and if you laid track everywhere the cost would be staggering. Not to mention the maintenance problems with all that track.

Above all, what you have to come to grips with is that the culture of travel far from the home is about finished. Assuming we don't completely devolve back to the Stone Age, people will need to live near where they work. Near meaning around a 15 mile radius, something you can accomplish on a bike in a city or on Horseback in a rural area.

Some intercity transportation can continue on the rail lines, but its just a small subset of overall freight transport on these lines. So maybe on a Chicago-NY Freight train hauling midwestern grain to the Big Apple there might be one or two passenger cars attached. Running a pure passenger service would presuppose the need to move many people often over such a vast distance, and there really is no need to do that. There IS need to move the freight around, but not the people really.

In the best case scenario when the smoke clears, you'll still have cities functioning as centers of trade as they always have, and collapsed into a small area. This of course is why NYC squished itself onto the island of Manhattan with such tall skyscrapers, rather than developing like Indianapolis did in the Automobile Age. Of course, given NYC dependence on Oil to run the energy infrastructure of that city, its unlikely that city continues to function in quite the same way with anywhere near its current population in the future. I'm really curious to see how fast NYC goes broke here, with the major Investment Banks writing down huge losses, they sure won't be paying much into the tax base this year. The Condo Market in the city is in shambles, and even the Hamptons is reporting falling real estate prices now So property taxes are going to fall in revenue collection, and since the investment bankers themselves are outta work they won't be paying much income tax. Where is the tax money going to come from to pay the Sanitation Workers and New York's Finest & Bravest?

Anyhow, I'm drifting off topic here, sorry. Although light rail and mass transportation may provide some bridging here as we try to manage the shrinkage, it doesn't play out long term because its just not necessary. People really don't need to travel very far from where they live very often. Most of your life will revolve around where you work, and where you work has to be near where you live. people who moved out to the Suburbs to get a better quality of life at a cheaper price depended on the availability of cheap personal transportation, which is going the way of the Dinosaur and rapidly. Sure that house 30 miles out cost 1/2 what a similar house close in did 5 years ago, but now the cost of the fuel you use each day to drive to and fro work more than makes up the difference in the mortgage you would have had to take out for the more expensive home. You weren't qualified for that mortgage, but 5 years ago you were a good credit risk to buy the cheapo home in the new subdivision. So now you Jingle Mail your keys back to the bank, and move in with your parents who still live in that old house in the bad neighborhood in the city. Unfortunately, that bad neighborhood is just gonna get worse, and mass transit won't help that.

Reverse Engineer

[alokin]

I guess less than one km to a station will be luxury in future. People will be happy to walk only half an hour to the station.
But I do really agree that it does not seem to be very realistic to build a brand new tram system under these economic circumstances.

Javaman if you pay the same price for both systems you would be stupid choosing your own car. Can you read the newspaper, work or doing something else in your car? And with thoughtfull planing trams are in many cities much faster than cars.

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('alokin', 'I') guess less than one km to a station will be luxury in future. People will be happy to walk only half an hour to the station. But I do really agree that it does not seem to be very realistic to build a brand new tram system under these economic circumstances.
Javaman if you pay the same price for both systems you would be stupid choosing your own car. Can you read the newspaper, work or doing something else in your car? And with thoughtfull planing trams are in many cities much faster than cars.