Comments on: 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:16 +0000

Way back before I was around, my town (along with pretty much every town in the area) had a trolley going up and down main street. The tracks have been ripped up and now our Main Street is ruled by cars, whereas it used to be a place for people to walk around. With all the talk about cities putting in streetcars, I think that smaller towns with a nice downtown should put a trolley back in. It could make downtown areas and Main Streets much more of a tourist/shopper destination and make the streets much more walkable.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:41:43 +0000

“There were city AND intra-urban lines almost everywhere there was any kind of population.
They mostly ALL went away for just one reason. ”

Government subsidies to roads combined with price regulations preventing the privately owned streetcar systems from making a profit.

Them’s the facts.

By: Miami Beach needs a modern Streetcar - Florida (FL) - Miami-Dade County - City-Data Forum

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:11:44 +0000

[...] manner, it would do wonders for the area for very little coin. Has this option been considered? 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses

By: Rochester needs an efficient Light Rail system. - New York (NY) - Page 12 - City-Data Forum

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:16:28 +0000

[...] 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses

By: Nauris

Nauris — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:18:29 +0000

aside from 2 lines in Philly, do any other cities run trackless trolleys, or trolley buses anymore?

Yes. Riga, the capital of Republic of Latvia has an extensive trolley network. 25 routes in total.

By: Tessa

Tessa — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:22:52 +0000

So many of these examples have absolutely nothing to do with streetcar technology. Route planning can be done equally efficiently with buses, stops can be equally spaced, next-bus signs and bus bulges can make the stops much more pleasant (as is done on Main Street in Vancouver, for instance), and trolly buses run on electricity just like streetcars. I’m not saying buses are better than streetcars, rather I do believe streetcars have many advantages, but let’s have this debate with the actual facts rather than a bunch of nonsense, please.

By: re:place Magazine

re:place Magazine — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:23:30 +0000

[...] Our city has been fortunate to keep its quiet and non-polluting trolley buses - it is now the only Canadian city still running them. Diesel buses may have eventually replaced streetcars in most other cities in North America, but they have never captured the imagination of the general public. A great post on The Infrastructurist lists their 36 reasons streetcars are better than buses. [...]

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:57:19 +0000

“In any case, a fairer question this article suggests it answers but does not might be, Do streetcars attract more riders per dollar than bus rapid transit? I.e., wound a 5 mile streetcar line do better than an 8 mile BRT line?”

We have simple case studies for this. The answer is, “Yes, they do”. If you want “high-end” examples with lots of exclusive ROW, look to Los Angeles, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh. If you want “low-end” examples, look to Portland or even Seattle.

I’d only be guessing the reasons. I think it’s plenty of examples though.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:54:07 +0000

“It will be interesting to see how the Cambridgeshire (England) guided busway will fare when it opens next month. It will be the longest guided busway in the world (25km), overtaking Adelaide (Australia). Will it be comparable to LRT in terms of attracting riders and also in attracting new development near the stations?
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/”

Let me step out on a limb here and say “No, it won’t.”

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:52:32 +0000

“As to 5., the argument that rail operating costs are lower than bus operating costs has become a fixture of rail proponents, but it is rarely the case when you actually review the options for particular corridors. I”

Actually, it’s always the case. Every single time.

Provided the corridor has enough volume. That’s all there is to it. If the passenger volume is really low, it’s cheaper to run buses. If it’s high enough — and factor in that streeetcars always, always attract more passengers when they replace buses, I don’t care why that is, it’s proven by studies — then the streetcars are cheaper to operate.

By: The appeal of the steel wheel. « Thomas the Think Engine

The appeal of the steel wheel. « Thomas the Think Engine — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:22:49 +0000

[...] “The bus takes too damn long too damn inconsistent.” 2. “Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement.” 3. [...]

By: KR

KR — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:34:46 +0000

Just a simple terminology question from a non-regular contributor: what is a “cheesebox” bus?

Ken

By: dc resident

dc resident — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:32:50 +0000

by my take, the pro-bus people ( and i’m a huge bus lover here in dc… i prefer them to the metro)
have two things that they feel make buses better than street cars

1. flexibility
2. initial cost

cost has been discussed, and anyone with a brain understands that long term costs with streetcars are less than buses. in areas with density and demand it makes sense on a cost basis, to use streetcars. cities can’t afford to build for the short term, and it places an undue burden on residents to think merely in initial cost.

flexibility. that one sticks. what happens when theres an accident, or a double parked car? or a fire truck or ambulance or parade or protest ( very frequent occurrence in my town).
this will be wildly chaotic in DC.

that’s all i can see as the negatives of streetcars.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:45:22 +0000

The only people who still claim that buses are better than streetcars are people who plan to never ride either.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:51:04 +0000

It will be interesting to see how the Cambridgeshire (England) guided busway will fare when it opens next month. It will be the longest guided busway in the world (25km), overtaking Adelaide (Australia). Will it be comparable to LRT in terms of attracting riders and also in attracting new development near the stations?
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:58:19 +0000

GDRTA sucks, but surprisingly, only one person has filed a complaint against them with the Better Business Bureau in the last 36 months.

In GDRTA, the GD can stand for Greater Dayton, but it can also stand for G** D*** because I hear a lot of people refer to the RTA as the G** D*** RTA.

By: From The Infrastructurist – 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses « Rail For The Valley

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:01:23 +0000

[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/03/36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses/ The Infrastructurist Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 [...]

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:37:01 +0000

“when you do the math, the cost per unit of carrying capacity per year is far higher for streetcars and LRV’s than for bus. ”

Dead wrong. Everyone who *has* done the math says the numbers are the other way around: cost per unit of carrying capacity per year is far higher for buses than for streetcars.

Of course, this is useless if you’re not going to *use* the carrying capacity; streetcars should not be installed on low-volume routes!

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:29:20 +0000

“2. Demand-response: a bus network can be more responsive to peak demand and service interruptions than a rail network, especially a simplified one like San Francisco has. ”

Good point but perhaps not the point you’re thinking of. Denver is building light rail and commuter rail “spines” for its public transit system. As part of this, they are replacing fixed-route bus service in a lot of outlying areas with “call-a-ride” services — true demand responsive buses.

This sort of low capacity feeder transit is not remotely suitable for trains, but eminently suitable for buses.

Special one-shot services which only operate a few days a year, such as certain sports transportation, are also eminently suitable for buses.

(In contrast, for service interruptions in a high-capacity system, you simply need redundant rail routes. San Francisco almost has those, but not quite.)

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:22:00 +0000

“Interestingly, in the 1940s and ’50s, when streetcars were being replaced with buses across America, even those unlikely to be a part of the questionable alliance of oil and rubber tire corporations some suggest are responsible for the end to most streetcar networks believed that buses, in fact, offered a better ride. Should we dismiss these evaluations out-of-hand?”

Yes. Given that the replacement of those streetcar lines with bus lines consistently led to *drops in ridership*, those evaluations seem very unlikely to be accurate.

Personally, I’ve ridden on some terrible ancient streetcar track, and some supermodern super-smooth-road buses — and I get motion-sick on the bus and not on the streetcar. This means something.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:17:15 +0000

For reference, there are a gazillion studies showing that #1 is true; lightrailnow.org has a catalogue of them.

Switch from decrepit streetcar to modern bus? Lose riders. Switch from modern bus to decrepit streetcar? Gain riders. It’s shockingly consistent.

Insufficient studies have been done with trolleybuses, but it appears that they do not get the same “bonus riders”.

This doesn’t prove the “why”. It’s probably a combination of two things:
(1) Any streetcar ride is smoother than even the absolute best bus ride in the world. Yes, even Berlin.
(2) The tracks provide a permanency and a “no, the driver will not get lost” guarantee, which are psychologically attractive.

BTW, BRT of the “same quality” (apart from the worse ride and lower popularity) as LRT costs about the same upfront and more over the long run (because bits, like the pavement and the buses, have to be replaced more often). The main cost upfront is in civil engineering.

As another point, I’ve never seen an “ordinary bus line” of the “same quality” as an “ordinary” (mixed-traffic) streetcar line. For some reason, modern streetcars these days always get level-boarding platforms and stop signage (contrast 19th century streetcars). I have never seen a full mixed-traffic bus line built to those standards. I suppose it might be cheaper upfront, assuming “someone else” paid for the road. But the lost ridership relative to a streetcar probably means the extra cost of putting in tracks is worth it.

By: Oakland Streetcar Network « 21st Century Urban Solutions

Oakland Streetcar Network « 21st Century Urban Solutions — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:05:01 +0000

[...] The Infrastructurist has a great list of the ways that streetcars are superior to buses. Here are a few: [...]

By: Nicolas Marchildon (elecnix) 's status on Friday, 10-Jul-09 00:13:41 UTC - Identi.ca

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:13:55 +0000

[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/06/03/36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses/ [...]

By: Nouvelles d’un monde sans voitures - Juillet 2009

Nouvelles d’un monde sans voitures - Juillet 2009 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:49:19 +0000

[...] - 36 raisons pour lesquelles les tramways sont mieux que les bus Si vous voulez un système qui attire les voyageurs et les investisseurs, beaucoup d’experts en déplacement vous diront que les tramways sont le meilleur investissement qu’une ville puisse faire. Pour les villes qui doivent choisir entre construire un système de tramway ou un système de bus haut-de-gamme, cette liste impressionnante montre de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les voyageurs préfèrent largement le tramway. Les commentaires vont du plus évident au plus incroyablement créatif. http://www.infrastructurist.com/…36-reasons-that-streetcars-are-better-than-buses [...]

By: Nouvelles d’un monde sans voitures - Juillet 2009

Nouvelles d’un monde sans voitures - Juillet 2009 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:28:05 +0000

By: Phil Morton

Phil Morton — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:58:57 +0000

This is one person’s biased opinion. Comparing streetcars to buses the write overlooks the fact that
they cost 7 to 10 times as much as BRT for the same service level. BRT is essentially like a street car with dedicated lanes without the cost of laying down and maintaing the steel rails.
Comparing streetcars with local buses is not a rigorous comparison.

By: dustbury.com » We don’t need no stinkin’ buses

dustbury.com » We don’t need no stinkin’ buses — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:20:11 +0000

[...] A lot of streetcar vs. bus discussion in the comments here. [...]

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:42:53 +0000

It has been mentioned but deserves repeating again, trolley buses!
With a trolley bus you get the best of both worlds. Street car tracks are expensive to build and to maintain plus the cars need expansive repair yards to move them around, not so with electric buses i.e. can be shuttled, electic buses is much more flexibile system.
A lot of the critism of regular buses has to do the diesel engine, eliminate it maintain a good road surface and you have the cheapest most efficient set up. Street cars were the only alternative more than a 100 years ago but things have progressed, pneumatic tires for one. Steel on steel and tracks for freight but simply not necassary to move people

By: Dudley Horscroft

Dudley Horscroft — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:00:34 +0000

1. New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
Not a reason for preferring streetcars, but a statement that patronage studies always (usually?) underestimate the potential demand.
2. Buses, are susceptible to every pothole and height irregularity in the pavement. Streetcars ride on smooth, jointless steel rails that rarely develop bumps.
Unfortunately roads develop irregularities, and it is difficult to fix them without a substantial reconstruction of the street. Streetcar tracks both are less likely to ‘develop bumps’ and are easier to fix if they do. (Not all transit authorities bother!)
3. Streetcars don’t feel “low status” to transit riders. Buses often do.
A comment on the way bus transit operators work – many are not interested in maintaining their vehicles in attractive condition.
4. Mapmakers almost always include streetcar lines on their city maps, and almost never put any bus route in ink. New investment follows the lines on the map.
First sentence relates to the permanence of the routes. Second relates to how attractive the actual routes are, including their permanence, not whether they are shown on maps or not.
5. The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs. In transit you get what you pay for.
For cities in the USA with both ‘light rail’ and ‘buses’ about 2/3 agree with the first sentence. The other third have buses cheaper – but these tend to be the more expensive – possibly the less well run transit systems?
6. There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
Subjective, but given the relative age of buses and streetcars in the USA, probably true. On the other hand, Toronto’s trams have always impressed me as being excellent in spite of their age – just well maintained?
7. Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
Subjective.
8. Steel wheel on steel rail is inherently more efficient than rubber tire on pavement. Electric streetcars can accelerate more quickly than buses.
Both are correct (assuming that the streetcars have the power – most do).
9. Streetcars don’t smell like diesel.
Correct. In the open air, diesel smell is barely noticeable. Try a bus station in an enclosed location – the smell is terrible (evidence, Birmingham, UK, Chatswood, Sydney Australia, Christchurch, NZ). More important, diesel engines emit particulates (as well as visible smoke) and the smaller particulates are detrimental to health. The smell of diesel exhaust is nowhere near as bad as the exhaust from petrol engined buses that I remember from the 1940s. Thank heavens nobody is building petrol-engined buses!
10. Streetcars accelerate and decelerate smoothly because they’re electrically propelled. Internal-combustion engines acting through a transmission simply cannot surge with the same smoothness.
Generally true, but driving style is important too.
11. The current length limit for a bus is 60 feet, but streetcars can go longer, since they are locked into the rails and won’t be swinging all around the streets, smashing into cars.
Buses can be longer if the legal limits are relaxed.
12. Streetcars have an air of nostalgia.
Only if they are ‘heritage’ – but these are not proposed for any new transit line other than a tourist gimmick. Irrelevant.
13. New streetcar and light rail lines usually come with an upgraded street experience from better stops, landscaping, new roadbeds, and better sidewalks, to name a few. Of course, your federal transit dollar is paying for these modernizations, so why wouldn’t cities try to get them!
Unfortunately consultants assume that the ‘upgraded street experience’ is essential, and this pushes costs up, plausibly so far that the proposal is abandoned. Not a good reason for preferring streetcars to buses!
14. Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
Agreed. But contrary to some people’s comments, streetcar routes can be easily varied in case of blockage. Twice in Toronto when on a tram in Queen Street there has been a ‘Book Fair’ blocking the street. As we approached the blockage, the drive announced his tram was diverting, and he turned right, then left along King Street, and a bit later left and then right again back into Queen Street. No problems. Can only be done in a city with a proper streetcar system of course.
15. Streetcars are light and potentially 100% green. Potentially they could be powered by 100% solar and/or wind power. Even powered with regular power plant-derived electricity, they are still 95% cleaner than diesel buses.
Calgary claims its trams are 100% green. Much of western USA and Canada uses hydro power – also 100% green. Eastern USA has nuclear plants, also 100% green. I doubt the third sentence, though exhaust gases generated at a central source can be stripped of carbon dioxide, at a cost, as can the exhausts of an oil refinery. But burn oil fuels on individual vehicles and ‘green’ is not on.
16. Streetcars stop less. Because of the increased infrastructure for stops, transit planners don’t place stops at EVERY BLOCK, like they do with buses. Instead, blocks are a quarter to a half mile apart, so any point is no more than an eighth to a quarter mile from a stop.
Relates to design of system, and nothing to do with mode. Irrelevant.
17. People will travel longer distances on streetcars. At one point, in the 1930s, a person could travel to Boston from Washington solely on trolleys, with only two short gaps in the routes.
Plausible, even though most streetcar lines are very short. This is because streetcars are only desirable where loading is high, hence truck routes, hence (probably) a longer travel distance. Reference to past interurban lines is irrelevant to today’s streetcars.
18. Buses are noisy. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
Agreed, and people prefer quiet.
19. Technological advances already make the current generation definitely NOT your grandfather’s streetcar. Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
Where possible, trams should stop at loading platforms as near as possible the same height as the car floor. (Kerbside only when gutter running is used – not normally a good idea.) Buses can be built the same way, BUT parked cars one side or the other of the stop make it very difficult for the bus to get close to the platform, and a large gap is often the case. A win for trams.
20. Passengers can take comfort from seeing the rails stretching out far ahead of them, while ever fearing that the bus could take a wrong turn at the next corner and divert them off course.
Having been on a bus in London where the driver turned round and said “I’ve never been on this route before, which way do I go?”, I fear that this is a valid reason.
21. Once purchased (albeit at high cost) streetcars are cheaper to maintain and last way the hell longer (case in point, streetcars discarded in the US in the 40’s, snapped up by the Yugoslavs, which are still running).
All reports indicate that streetcars are cheaper to maintain. They certainly, given good maintenance, last a long while. Buses, given very good maintenance, also last well – London Routemasters were in production from 1958 to 1968, the last regular RM service was in 2005, meaning the buses were at least 37 years old, but a small fleet is still running in tourist service.
22. Streetcar tracks are cheaper to maintain than the roadways they displace.
The tracks are designed to take heavy point loads (up to 5t on each wheel) so are strongly built. This means, with mass concrete use, maintenance is approximately zilch for many years (occasional touching up of the concrete grooves, and replacement of sharp curve s/switches crossings – but even this is years apart).
23. People get notably more excited about the proposed extension of the streetcar system and expect revitalization of the neighbourhoods around the planned stops.
Basically people like streetcars.
24. Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
Agreed.
25. Most European cities and countries kept investing in public transit during the decades when America was DISinvesting. Now I look across the pond and see dozens of European cities extending or building new rail transit systems, including many streetcar lines, and conclude: ‘They probably know what they are doing; we should do some of that too.’
Strangely while WW 2 was a major reason for the abandonment of US, UK and Australian tram systems (major lack of maintenance plus prohibition on buying new cars meant, after recovering from the Depression, that systems were worn out) the war was a reason for retaining trams in Western Europe – after bomb damage it was easier to patch up the tram system and return it to traffic than to get new buses to replace the trams. Then Düwag’s articulated trams changed the high staff requirement (one driver plus a conductor for the motor car and each of the two or three trailers) to two men, and then one man operation, with honour payment in trailers (plus frequent inspection of tickets) meant the finances had irrevocably turned in favour of trams.
26. You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
Yes, but this is a matter of map design – many are exceedingly poor, apparently designed to get rid of passengers. Irrelevant.
27. Streetcars are faster than buses or trackless trolleys because trams tend to have dedicated lanes. Even if they don’t, if they operate on streets with multiple lanes, people stay out of the tram lane, because it’s harder to drive a car along tram tracks (the wheels pull to one side or the other as they fall into the groove).
Reasoning wrong. Trams are faster because full power is available at starting, they have better brakes, and tram routes are generally straighter, so speeds can be higher (within the legal limits). Trams are generally longer, so can have more doorways, hence loading times can be short. The capacity of trams is generally higher – the actual crush capacity of trams (B2 class) in Melbourne is about 220, though normal capacity is around 150. This means that one tram can do the work of 2 or 3 buses (passengers are more willing to stand because of the better ride) and an enlightened traffic authority will allow absolute traffic priority to a tram every 6 minutes when they would not give it to a bus every 2 minutes. With farside stops and absolute traffic priority, delays due to traffic congestion are virtually eliminated.
28. In buses you’re still jostled by every pothole and sway at every bus stop. I thought bus rapid transit would be a significant improvement - there’s still a bit of sway and they concrete was not installed as smoothly as line of steel rail.
Same as reason 2. BRT is NOT a competitor to the streetcar, but it is to light rail. All remarks about BRT are therefore irrelevant in the context of streetcars v. buses.
29. With buses transit planners are pushed by funding formulas to capture every pocket of riders thus you can get a very wiggly route – something that’s less practical on a fixed rail system.
“The shortest distance between two points is a straight line; the longest distance between two points is a Canberra bus route.” Enough said.
30. Buses lurch unpredictably from side to side as they weave in and out of traffic and as they move from the traffic lane to the curb lane to pick up passengers. In streetcars turns occur at the same location on every trip, so that even standees can more or less relax knowing the car is not going to perform any unpredictable lateral manoeuvres.
The lateral flexibility of buses is a disadvantage in normal traffic; but is an asset in case of a blocked road. However, see 14 above.
31. Most streetcar riders don’t consciously think about the differences between a bus ride and a streetcar ride. But their unconscious minds–the spinal cord, the solar plexus, the inner ear and the seat of the pants–quickly tally the differences and deliver an impressionistic conclusion: the streetcar ride is physiologically less stressful.
Again, see points 2, 18, 28, 29, 30. It is a matter of perception, which leads back into reason 1.
32. An internal-combustion engine is constantly engaged in hammering itself to death and buses tend to vibrate themselves into a sort of metallurgical dishevelment. Interior fittings–window frames, handrails, floor coverings, seats–tend to work loose and make the interior look frowzy and uncared-for. By age 12 the bus is a piece of junk and has to be retired. A streetcar the same age is barely into its adolescence.
No. This is a matter of maintenance. See comment on point 21. The maintenance regime depends on management’s direction, which depends on the funding arrangements. Plenty of money for new rolling stock, but not for maintenance – do no maintenance, junk buses after 12 years. No money for new buses, but money for maintenance, buses last 36 years.
33. Streetcar stops are typically given more attention than most bus routes and the information system is more advanced. In Portland, the shelters even have VMS displays that tell you the times of the next two streetcar arrivals. This valuable information gives people the option to wait, do something else to pass the time, or walk to their destination.
This is possible with buses, and many bus systems already have such passenger information systems in place. Some even work well! See point 13.
34. One great advantage of streetcars is that the infrastructure serves as an orienting and wayfinding device. The track alerts folks to the route and leads them to stops. Because they are a permanent feature of the streetscape, the routing is predictable and stable (unlike bus routes). So unlike a bus, a streetcar informs and helps citizens to formulate an image of their city, even if folks don’t ride it. It is a feature of their public realm. Because of this, these streets get greater public attention.
Basically the same as points 4, 14, 26 and possibly others.
35. When you ride one of the remaining historic cars in Toronto or San Francisco you can tell they’re “old” in the sense of “out of style,” but when you look around the interior everything still seems shipshape, nothing rattles, the windows open and close without binding. The rider experiences a sense of solid quality associated with Grandma’s solid-oak dining table and 1847 Rodgers Brothers silver. And that makes everybody feel good. Unlike, say, an aging bus.
See points 21 and 32. This applikes to the PCC cars, but I have doubts about it being applicable to some of the other ‘historic cars’.
36. For those of you who cannot see the difference between a bus and a streetcar, I suggest riding a streetcar when you get the chance. Then, if you can locate a bus that more or less follows the same route, give that a try. Compare the two experiences.
I can see it very well. I compare Melbourne trams with buses elsewhere – the Melbourne trams usually win hands down.

One point mentioned by a respondent is that cyclists are happier with the predetermined path of the tram. So also are motorists – knowing you can drive 6 inches away from a tram is a great help – no sane motorist drives that close to a bus.
It all boils down to two things, (1) the financial and economical results of putting in a tram (streetcar) line as against maintaining or slightly improving a heavily loaded bus line (lightly loaded bus lines are irrelevant), and (2) the perceptions of potential passengers. With proper design, and proper attention to “cheeseparing and candle ends” the finances of a new tram line can be good. Ride quality is normally far better than buses, so passenger perceptions are good, and usually tram systems attract more passengers than buses. As the bus passengers transferring to tram are, hopefully, a ‘given’, this means either more passengers who would not otherwise have travelled, or passengers attracted out of cars, normally both. This means a small reduction of car travel IN THAT CORRIDOR, and hence a likely reduction in congestion in that corridor. Which is part of the economic justification.
Reference to corridor is important – too often know-nothings argue that a tram line in one corridor will do nothing for congestion in the city as a whole, and therefore should not be supported. It is only necessary to state this to see what a silly argument this is, but it keeps on coming out from the know-nothings.
BRT is more a competitor to light rail. However, it is believed – evidence is needed, that a BRT system providing an equivalent service to light rail has capital costs close to that of the LR system, with higher operating costs. It is notable that the Green Line coach system in London, which provided a service approximating BRT lost virtually all its patronage and none of its cross London routes survive.

By: Patrick Mc

Patrick Mc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:25:30 +0000

Clearly there are a number of caveats necessary for this list. As Dean said there are several that overlap and his 5 cover most of the 36. Some of the reasons are based on subjective, but widely held and still valid, emotions, while others are based on a comparison of streetcars to diesel local buses.

All that said, I think it’s a useful list and I think it leaves out at least one advantage:

36 or 6. The open layout of modern streetcars makes them easier to board and accomodate strollers, bikes, & wheelchairs.

When I’ve got 2 small children & a stroller with me, that aspect of streetcars is a major advantage. Sure you can design buses this way, but most aren’t and it works best for the 2-7 mile trips that streetcars serve well.

It will be interesting to see the development impact, if any, of the BRT and BRT Lite systems being installed. I would expect LA’s Orange Line and similar systems will probably have some development impact, LA’s Metro Rapid and other “enhanced bus” projects probably won’t have much impact on the speed, scale, and parking ratios for development. If good, transit-oriented development with limited parking occurs around a line then that has additional environmental and fiscal benefits.

Some corridors don’t have the density, mix of uses, policies, or interconnected transit system necessary to justify the investment in the rails, wires, vehicles, & stations for a streetcar. A fixed-rail system can help build density and the transit network but only if there is a commitment to investing the money, accepting the density, and doing it right.

Finally, some progress is being made on minimizing the wires that folks rarely like, although on a tree-lined street they’re not very visible to pedestrians.

———————-
Dean Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’m a big supporter of streetcars, and would like to see them supplement busses and Metro in DC, but those aren’t 36 reasons. I only count 5:
1) Streetcars are more attractive and hip
2) Streetcars are smoother
3) Streetcar developments offer permanence that leads to development around stops
4) Streetcars have a longer life and the system is easier to maintain
5) The mechanics of streetcars lead to greater energy efficiency

Those are still good reasons on their own. The case for streetcars isn’t improved if you just repeat the same thing over and over.

By: eiioi

eiioi — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:43:13 +0000

1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, and 35 are not real reasons. You can take a look at the rest of the reasons and either refute, consider it an advantage for streetcars with a corresponding advantages for buses, or finally incorporate a few of things into the design of buses (low floors or landscaping). And some are genuinely good advantages of streetcars.

But 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, and 35 make me think that a lot of the focus on streetcars is a fad.

By: Sue

Sue — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:05:39 +0000

What’s cool, what’s not when it comes to getting around by bus or train? Help us understand what young people think about transportation by going to this link and answering a couple questions. It only takes a couple minutes to complete. Your opinion matters!!!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SXANzMR34XwSLj4R5_2bNINQ_3d_3d

By: Streetcars and buses – Off the Kuff

Streetcars and buses – Off the Kuff — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:36:54 +0000

[...] a little discussion starter for all you transit geeks: Infrastructurist’s list of 36 reasons why streetcars are better than buses. I’d boil a lot of it down to a smaller list: The ride is generally more pleasant, as it is [...]

By: Tucson choses StreetCar Maker - Arizona (AZ) - City-Data Forum

Tucson choses StreetCar Maker - Arizona (AZ) - City-Data Forum — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:02:56 +0000

[...] here is a list 36 benefits of streetcar transit over busses and other forms of transportation: 36 Reasons Streetcars Are Better Than Buses

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:22:47 +0000

In the UK some bus companies have tried to simplify their networks by introducing direct high-frequency routes with clear colour coded buses that can be easily identified with a particular area or route. One example is Reading Buses, the municipally owned operator in Reading, Berkshire. The high frequency ‘Premier Routes’ have colour coded buses clearly displaying termini, and principle intermediate stops, plus frequency information. View the their website at http://www.reading-buses.co.uk/quality-routes/

See photos of the bus fleet at http://buspicssouth.fotopic.net/c1670307.html