Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Toronto's streetcar network. It's clearly an asset to the city and I don't think anybody would dispute that. If it's already there, then of course continued maintenance and development is justified.
My argument is that in cities that have already long ago torn up their streetcar network it is not rational to start building it up again. Whatever capacity advantage streetcars have is marginal and again, I question the importance of the comfort factor when compared to the high startup costs. Streetcars really are just buses on rails, which means that bus speed and capacity is not significantly different, and this is what really matters in developing a transportation network. The fact that it's on rails may attract tourists and the odd curious suburbanite who will take a ride for novelty, but in countless examples in the US replacing bus routes with streetcars does not really increase ridership.
So I'm not saying that streetcars are bad and should be replaced with buses; they are great and I think it's cool to ride them myself. But when making rational, calculating decisions it makes no sense to build streetcar lines in places they don't already exist, as this is much more expensive than simply expanding bus service, with virtually the same results.
Finally, I think the general anti-bus bias is concerning, especially on places like Skyscraperpage, or at least on this thread. We're supposed to be in favour of public transit expansion to make it easier to get around without a car. However, streetcars simply don't accomplish this in the way that buses do. $1 billion goes a lot farther in expanding transit's usability through frequency and reach improvements in buses than in building a streetcar line to replace a bus route with the same overall metrics. We aren't the US where we need to build big rail projects to induce demand; our demand is naturally high already and improving functional transit services is more important than improving the image of certain services.
|
Well said! Unless there is a compelling reason to build rail (eg. very high ridership on a corridor), you can accomplish more with buses. In case of street running transit, why would you build rail? The benefits with rail are very limited but the infrastructure costs are always higher. In addition, buses offer the benefit of being able to run beyond a designated and segregated route.
Definitely, if ridership is very high, go ahead and build rail underground or above ground or a segregated corridor. Also, if rail is already in place, use that existing infrastructure.
But, if you build rail at street level with pretty stations and lane segregation, the same can be done with buses at a lower cost.
Rail can never replace all bus routes but the high cost of rail can be an excuse of reducing bus service. This is counterproductive.
The rail bias is over blown. Really, people want good service. We should not get confused to believe that rail in itself is the attraction. Rail will attract new ridership if it in fact delivers better service and takes people to where they want to go.
We also have to remember that rail increases the last mile problem. How do we get people effectively to their final destination? There are many who assume that people will be willing to walk farther to rail. That may be true but it is a symptom that we are not addressing the last mile problem effectively. For those who are willing and able to walk further that is fine but there are many others who simply can't. As we continue to focus on the fit and able, our transit system becomes less attractive and we push more into private vehicles.
Prev
.
Linear Mode
