I think it would depend: one of the reasons the streetcars were originally eliminated is that they were increasingly held up in traffic, and the argument was that buses could navigate (like cars) around traffic, make detours, etc.
In practice however that hasn't really been borne out: the city's buses are notoriously slow. The city has (correctly) reprioritized bus lanes (including lane enforcement for scofflaw drivers) and express services (SBS) in response, but at that point we're essentially back to rights-of-way (i.e. how much of Europe runs timely and efficient streetcar networks).
In short: I think streetcars would be less effective if not (partially) separated, but more effective otherwise. Given that the city is moving towards bus lane separation anyways, I personally believe they should revitalize the streetcar network instead. But that's (1) expensive, and (2) involves impressive amounts of local political spaghetti, given that the buses are currently run by state-level MTA while the roads are owned by the city.
Any public transport that doesn't have its own right of way is immediately and trivially broken, since it will be always strictly worse than an individual car. So more people will take cars, so traffic will be worse, so buses will be worse by the same measure, so will still be worse than cars, so... That's how you get LA levels of gridlock despite every street being a 14 lane freeway.
Whereas if buses/trams run in a dedicated lane with the same speed independent of car traffic, there is immediately a natural balancing incentive / restoring force: too much car traffic and the bus will become comparatively more attractive, so less people will take cars, so traffic will be lessened, so
Ya the idea that buses are better than streetcars because they can go around traffic is just completely detached from reality. Maybe a bus can go around one double-parked car but during rush hour that's not happening. It was always just an excuse to avoid taking an inch of space away from cars for dedicated transit right of way.
What's the benefit to streetcars over busses with a dedicated, physically separated right of way?
I like the idea of streetcars, but busses seem easier to purchase than streetcars, standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks and power, and likely it's easier to find/train bus operators than streetcar operators (even though I assume streetcars are actually a bit easier to operate).
* recently a big trend is grass tramways. generally speaking this is more ecologically friendly by reducing impervious surfaces and replacing it with greenery, which generally lowers the urban heat island effect and is better for stormwater absorption. as a nice side effect, it is also generally a more visible differentiator from car lanes that people are less willing to drive over.
* trams are generally more capacious than buses because they are laid out better for more standing room. they are also more capacious because it is safer to run very long trams since the tram is fixed to the tracks; there are practical limits to how long a bus can be since a driver needs to be careful when switching lanes and whatnot. The longest single tram unit is 58m, the longest single bus is 32m; and you can couple trams together.
* trams don't really move side to side due to being fixed to tracks, so level boarding with little to no gap is much more realistic to achieve than on buses. This is generally much better for accessibility and speeds up boarding time; if you've spent any time riding a city bus, even a low floor bus spends a significant amount of time kneeling to achieve worse results for level boarding. And buses kneel not only for people in wheelchairs, but for people with strollers, with luggage, the elderly, etc.
Would just like to note one issue i have observed with the MPLS light rail: multi-car transit has less oversight and is more attractive for drug use and shelter for the homeless which lowers use by commuters. Our busses running the same routes are safer and better options.
I haven't seen these problems on the Minneapolis Metro even riding at night, but if it is actually a problem, it seems like the solution is build out actual infrastructure to support the homeless community.
Which Minneapolis very much does not have right now despite the best efforts of one or two plucky underfunded nonprofits.
If your light rail cars are the best option people have, that's not an issue with the transit design, that's an issue with the rest of the infrastructure
It’s a severe problem in mpls. Are you sure we’re talking about the same city and rail system? Never heard it called “the metro”. I was born and raised in DC where that’s what folks call the subway… only ever heard it called the light rail…
The rapid transit system in Minneapolis, MN is called the Metro. Technically that includes the bus rapid transit system, but I'm just talking about the light rail since I do prefer it over the buses.
All I can say is I've never seen any issues on the LRT. I'm genuinely sorry you have.
In prague there is both extensive bus network and tram network. I almost always go for buses. The capacity is just so much higher and usually the drive is much smoother compared to buses. Also trams are powered by electricity making it more efficient and c02 neutral...
> standard road paving seems easier to maintain than streetcar tracks
I would think that tracks last way longer.
Overall I think the cost is lower in long term for street cars but the initial cost is super high - e.g. edinburgh build one awkward tram line for around 700m. But thats with depots, cars everything. In Prague with all existing infrastructure it cost now about 78m usd to build 2.2km of tram with 6 stops.
Fellow European here. My understanding is street cars started out as futuristic marvels of modernity, but unlike their cousins trains & subways, they aged fairly poorly and don't generally do well in mixed city traffic today:
First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice), so there’s no obvious advantage like with trains. Secondly, buses got a lot cleaner, spacious, comfortable and quieter. The modern buses in European cities are not just on-par, but often more comfortable and allow higher speed on long stretches, because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains). So then what’s the point? Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison.
Now, there are some exceptional cases where I really like trams. When the route has majority separate rail (typically in beautiful stretches of nature) but can switch into streets when needed to reach better. For instance, Tvärbanan in Stockholm is a tram that – while not always perfect – is universally appreciated by most.
I really like the idea that street cars, trains and subways could share a single network (kinda like they do in Tokyo, except Tokyo doesn't really have street cars, mostly trains - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMYAEIXVzA).
It would allow trains to come from one direction, pass through the city undisturbed and emerge on the other side and continue.
> First, you can’t go faster than cars or avoid traffic (in practice),
that is not true, in cities the car speed is usually limited to 50, a lot of trams go 70 on certain sections. Also "or avoid traffic" a lot of trams go completely separetely from the traffic.
> because modern suspension beats aging fixed rail (it tends to be shaky, again unlike trains).
Depends on the city, but a lot of cities that I visited have a very modern trams that are not shaky (helsinky, zurich, bratislava, riga, edinburgh, bordeaux...). Also the technology of the rail building has changed and the new lines are meant to be quiter and more stable
> Trams are electric? Given how buses are basically commodity in our oil-centric world, I can only imagine how trams look at the balance sheet in comparison
> No idea what you mean by this but I would assume that the cost of running things is lower
I meant that light rail must be much more expensive, but now I’m not so sure. I hadn’t considered you can have more passengers per driver and if labor is dominating cost then yeah trams can be cheaper!
> a lot of cities that I visited […]
Have you accounted for the reliability of these networks? In my experience trams (or rather tracks and electrical- and signal systems) often break down when there’s snow in the winter, leaves in the fall or sun-bending in the summer, which may not be noticeable on visits. That can also increase costs, since the backup is usually buses and you need a task force who can go fix problems.
Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but my experiences relying on them everyday (in San Francisco and Gothenburg) have been disappointing.. it feels like those networks have been kept alive for nostalgic reasons.
The main one, in my mind, is permanency: as I mentioned in the adjacent comment, stable car-independent communities tend to be built around transportation systems that can’t be easily removed.
(I think there are other benefits, like being slightly more comfortable. But permanency is by far the most important.)
Trams are more capacious than buses because they don’t have onboard fuel tanks, so more space for passengers; and they’re fixed to tracks so they can be significantly longer without worrying about the back swinging out.
Trams are also perfectly level with platforms, so there’s no need to waste time to achieve level boarding for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and the elderly; buses can spend quite a lot of time kneeling and deploying ramps.
Streetcars can be up to 100m (300ft) long and fit 1000 people, saving costs for drivers.
Roads works are expensive [citation needed], and buses are heavy [citation needed], so they cause lots of damage over time. These costs are often not tracked correctly. Metallic rails require far less maintenance, but have a higher initial cost.
Trams can be quieter than ICE buses.
If build appropriately, Teams can even take sharper turns than buses.
Enforcing right of way for street cars could be a lot more efficient now. Stick a licence plate reader on the front of trolley, record any car that blocks them for more than X minutes and mail a ticket. Drivers will learn fast not to screw around.
For two-lanes-or-less-each-way streets, buses don't offer much benefit if the streets are busy since the chance of being able to get enough space for a very heavy, long bus to switch lanes is low/impossible.
Streets cars/trams weakness include breakdowns - trailing streetcars/trams are blocked if a streetcar breaks down on the track. But, they can also carry more passengers than buses. I think many modern versions are about 3-4 bus-lengths long.
Are the buses actually slower than they can be, or do they just have to deal with too many passengers (given the population density) taking a long time to board/unboard?
Boarding time is a factor, but traffic, road conditions (double parking and driving in the bus lane), and stop spacing are larger ones. Especially since OMNY and pre-purchased tickets for the SBS routes.
Your last four points are good, but in practice the first two have not netted significant advantages for NYC's bus operations: many of NYC's buses run on narrow one-lane streets, where any amount of double parking makes the road completely un-navigable. Similarly, it's more common to see a bus route taken out of operation entirely for a week than to have it re-routed on the fly (the latter does happen, but the network also dense enough where most riders can take the next avenue's route).
I think a significant understated advantage to streetcars is their effect on local neighborhood development: like a subway line, a streetcar line is a semi-permanent installation that can't be easily taken away by a short-term replanning of the network. Bus lines, even when dense and well-developed (like NYC's are!), simply feel impermanent in a way that rail transport doesn't.
(Or as another framing: if you build a rail connection to a neighborhood, there's a good chance there will still be a thriving neighborhood there in a century. It's not as easy to guarantee that with a bus route that can be taken away overnight.)
Rail-based transit also provides major side-benefits to its routes: development and improvement.
The principle is that bus routes can change, bus stops can move. Rail right-of-way and train stations are quite permanent and immobile.
Therefore, if a city invests in rail, the developers will follow, and redevelop, revitalize, or gentrify neighborhoods along that route. Conversely, folks in the neighborhood may fight the rail expansion, because "there goes the neighborhood" usually in a more upscale fashion.
It was smart for cities to build out streetcar lines in their early expansions, enticing developers into areas that promised long-term access. Of course, rail lines don't last forever, but the point is being more permanent and staying put, more reliably, than rubber-tire-based transit.
From discussions in Oslo, Norway: every researcher or institute says that buses are both cheaper and significantly more flexible, and should be used. And then the public comes along, preferring trams by a mile.
My brother and I came up with an interview process for help desk positions many years ago. It was sort of an open-book exam. He set up a computer and a network printer. I believe he purposely misconfigured something with the networking of the network printer, possibly one other issue too.
They had 1 hour, utilizing any resource on the internet they wanted, to correctly configure the network printer. If they completed it, great, if not, he'd go through and see what their troubleshooting process was, what they researched, etc.
This type of interview worked really well for hiring help desk staff, but obviously hiring a software engineer and evaluating them is much more difficult.
I've thought about giving people an old Fortran project with a few small compile errors, and asking them to fix that. We're not using Fortran of course – it's just a test of pragmatic skill of Getting Shit Done™ without hand-holding.
Inspired because I had to do exactly the above a few months ago. I don't really know Fortran. I don't even know exactly why it failed to compile, but my fixes work (and verified to work correctly), so whatever. I just read the compile error, copied what other bits of the code do. Basic stuff really, but it would probably filter out the worst of it. I haven't put this theory to the test yet though.
I think so. It's my belief that they often times leadership sees software engineers as cogs that can easily be replaced by another. They don't appreciate the years of institutional knowledge that experienced engineers have, vast productivity differences between workers, etc.
If certain members become known as being super important or valuable, management's response will more often be "fix this risk" not "great, let's reward that person". In the short term it will bring that person some degree of job security, but in the long term they are viewed as a threat to the org.
It's the assembly line mindset -- if there's only one person who can operate the machine or build a part, remove the part.
Yeah. The other day, I asked a clarifying question that led to a long email chain among non-technical employees. Of course, the various VPs refer to each other by name, but when the resulting email chain got forwarded to me, I see that I was referred to merely as "the dev." It really hammered home for me that these people will never see me as their equal. I am just a nameless, fungible "resource" despite my decade+ of experience.
As an aside, unless you have a specific reason not to, refer to others in those situations in the way they refer to each other. If you’re chatting with Jane and Bob, and they’re calling each other Jane and Bob, so should you. Your default attitude should be that you’re their peer, even if you’re working in different fields. They’re good at managing organizations. You’re good at technical stuff. You’re all there to work together to get stuff done.
Get them used to calling you by name as an equal, not as “the dev”.
They didn't offer one. It came out I was living in my car and was told that day I wasn't needed any longer.
When I started working there I was still living in the home I was born into. One day my mom, sister and I were suddenly given 2 weeks to vacate (it's complicated).
You're underestimating how connected the world economies and supply chains are. You seem to be huffing some serious copium if you're sure your daughter will be fine.
"In the Wall Street Journal story in May, the Petersons said they bought the home in 2007 for $16.65 million, invested $10 million in renovations and decided to sell it because their teenage children are in boarding school and they have another property in the city, as well as homes in Aspen, Colo., and Indiana."
I imagine their "financial situation" has left them completely out of touch with the common person.
Sorry that you're suffering this way. It's infuriating to me that people downplay Covid infections when the risk of suffering from long Covid effects is very real.
Unions have these things that you might of heard of... elections, where you can elect your leadership. How much democracy is for employees in a corporation?
In the union that I was represented by you had to pay extra money to be a voting member. So for people like me that didn't like the union they still forcibly took some of my money but without any chance for me to vote on how they spent it.
No possible way to work for that employer and opt out of the fees. It was illegal for me to make an employment contract with my employer without them getting a cut.
A lot of countries have work's council[0] enshrined into law. Which actually means you have some form of democratic control over what a company wants to do.
i am still bewildered the US has nothing of the sort... in any kind of way.
reply