Comments on: All Aboard the Great Streetcar Debate http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:32:54 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-81001 Jarrett at HumanTransit.org Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:38:36 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-81001 So for example your second sentence would be correct if revised like this: A recent post on Human Transit called "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth" precipitated a very informed and sometimes heated thread of discussion on the relative virtues of streetcars vs frequent local bus services. So for example your second sentence would be correct if revised like this:

A recent post on Human Transit called "Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth" precipitated a very informed and sometimes heated thread of discussion on the relative virtues of streetcars vs frequent local bus services.

]]> By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80991 Jarrett at HumanTransit.org Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:25:55 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80991 Sarah. Thanks for the link, but there's one very important correction: The streetcar discussion at my blog is very specifically about local-stop services (stopping every block or two) not rapid or limited-stop services (which usually stop only every 1/4 mile and usually more). The difference is explained, in technology-neutral terms, here: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/06/slippery-word-watch-express.html "Streetcar" in North American English seems to mean "light rail technology used for local-stop service", while the term "light rail" by itself usually seems to imply rapid or limited-stop applications. So we're NOT talking about "light rail" vs "bus rapid transit." Those terms would signal a conversation about rapid or limited-stop services for longer distances of travel, and that's a very different conversation. Feel free to delete this comment if you correct the text. Thanks again for the link! Cheers, Jarrett Sarah.

Thanks for the link, but there's one very important correction: The streetcar discussion at my blog is very specifically about local-stop services (stopping every block or two) not rapid or limited-stop services (which usually stop only every 1/4 mile and usually more). The difference is explained, in technology-neutral terms, here:

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/06/slippery-word-watch-express.html

"Streetcar" in North American English seems to mean "light rail technology used for local-stop service", while the term "light rail" by itself usually seems to imply rapid or limited-stop applications.

So we're NOT talking about "light rail" vs "bus rapid transit." Those terms would signal a conversation about rapid or limited-stop services for longer distances of travel, and that's a very different conversation.

Feel free to delete this comment if you correct the text. Thanks again for the link!

Cheers, Jarrett

]]> By: Adam http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80761 Adam Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:11:43 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80761 I was originally against the idea of streetcars as a glorified bus of sorts (and buses are NOT efficient; just ask someone who has to wait 15 minutes for about 3 buses to all come up next to each other, let alone have to share the road with traffic), but I now conditionally support streetcars. I am still very much against heritage streetcars (because they're basically the same thing as buses), but I am very much for modern low floor LRVs being used to run on the street. The other condition is they must get their own lane which cars can't go in and stall them (defeats the purpose of transit, no?) Also, I don't like the dangerous notion that people say streetcars are an adequate replacement for subways. They're not. They work within a neighborhood or to get from one side of Manhattan to the other (on 34th Street, for instance). However, to get from, say, Forest Hills to Greenpoint, a subway is the only thing that will work, let alone for travel across a river (between Flushing and Fordham, let's say). I was originally against the idea of streetcars as a glorified bus of sorts (and buses are NOT efficient; just ask someone who has to wait 15 minutes for about 3 buses to all come up next to each other, let alone have to share the road with traffic), but I now conditionally support streetcars. I am still very much against heritage streetcars (because they're basically the same thing as buses), but I am very much for modern low floor LRVs being used to run on the street. The other condition is they must get their own lane which cars can't go in and stall them (defeats the purpose of transit, no?)

Also, I don't like the dangerous notion that people say streetcars are an adequate replacement for subways. They're not. They work within a neighborhood or to get from one side of Manhattan to the other (on 34th Street, for instance). However, to get from, say, Forest Hills to Greenpoint, a subway is the only thing that will work, let alone for travel across a river (between Flushing and Fordham, let's say).

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80711 Mark Walker Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:18:20 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80711 I'd rather have a quality ride than retro chic. I'd rather have a quality ride than retro chic.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80671 Cap'n Transit Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:14:03 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80671 <blockquote>its great to talk about bogata but look at the avenues they run down. luckily theres nothing like it in the US...</blockquote> Have you seen Queens Boulevard lately?

its great to talk about bogata but look at the avenues they run down. luckily theres nothing like it in the US...

Have you seen Queens Boulevard lately?

]]> By: I \v/ NY http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80541 I \v/ NY Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:22:07 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80541 its great to talk about bogata but look at the avenues they run down. luckily theres nothing like it in the US... these surface streets look like an atlanta freeway. bogata-style brt system can only work in places where they have so many lanes that they can give up 4 lanes for exclusive buses, the bogata road without brt would otherwise be like 16 lanes wide. its a hell of a lot harder if not impossible to give up 4 lanes to buses in the US when the widest streets here are 6 lanes wide total. its great to talk about bogata but look at the avenues they run down. luckily theres nothing like it in the US... these surface streets look like an atlanta freeway. bogata-style brt system can only work in places where they have so many lanes that they can give up 4 lanes for exclusive buses, the bogata road without brt would otherwise be like 16 lanes wide. its a hell of a lot harder if not impossible to give up 4 lanes to buses in the US when the widest streets here are 6 lanes wide total.

]]> By: JSD http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-80531 JSD Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:20:01 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/10/all-aboard-the-great-streetcar-debate/#comment-80531 The modern city is not, and should not be some time machine for transit. Public funds shouldn't be going towards a backwards looking tourist trap that deliberately avoid modern efficiencies for the sake of a vintage look and feel. I understand preservation and historical context. But truly honoring the past means acknowledging the benefits and farsightedness of previous modes of transportation and updating them to be relevant and useful for the modern population. If cities are truly interested in streetcars, they should be of the best possible quality, with the best possible technology. Anything else is just a ride built for tourists. The modern city is not, and should not be some time machine for transit. Public funds shouldn't be going towards a backwards looking tourist trap that deliberately avoid modern efficiencies for the sake of a vintage look and feel.

I understand preservation and historical context. But truly honoring the past means acknowledging the benefits and farsightedness of previous modes of transportation and updating them to be relevant and useful for the modern population.

If cities are truly interested in streetcars, they should be of the best possible quality, with the best possible technology. Anything else is just a ride built for tourists.

]]>