1. While the ultimate configuration may be up to the agency, the streetcar seating configuration in question is used by both Portland and Seattle, the two US cities with new-build "modern" streetcar lines. Likewise, the interior transit bus seating configuration in both cities is similar to buses operated by RTD, with the substantial number of seats facing forward with two on each side of a central aisle. Standard operational capacity should be preferred over technical capacity; the latter deals with how many people can physically fit in a vehicle, while the former deals with how many should fit. Given that customers prefer to be seated as opposed to standing, particularly if the trip is over a standard of roughly 15 to 20 minutes, some standing capacity is necessary, but not ideal from the point of view of the customer. It would be a comfort downgrade to tell customers that while they were previously able to get a seat on a bus, they must now stand on the streetcar. Additionally, the United Streetcar Model 100 has been used nearly exclusively in promotional materials related to new streetcar lines, and is what a reasonably informed citizen would cite as a "modern streetcar vehicle".
2. Once again, false. Your original claim was that streetcars were more "affordable" than buses, made with a logical argument with no citations provided. Through the use of NTD data, I proved that the existing examples of modern streetcars have a higher cost on a per-vehicle-hour basis, a standard benchmark of comparison between modes and agencies. You countered by falsely claiming my argument is a strawman, and stating they are lower once they pass a ridership threshold. However, per-vehicle-hour costs slightly correlate positively, not negatively, with ridership on a per-vehicle-hour basis. Once again, comparisons based on expenditures-per-customer are inherently misleading because buses are politically required to service all areas, including areas where transit service exists on what would be considered to be a coverage basis.
It has been noted that you admit the Portland Streetcar "actually has pretty low ridership".
3. Again, this is about the real world, not theoretical situations. In practice, the "P" bus customers had their route curtailed and were directed to light rail; as you imply, redirected from a "luxurious bus" to a "crappy train". To the "P" bus customers, switching from coaches to light rail is a downgrade. In addition, cross-apply the response to point 1: Sitting on a bus is preferable in comfort to standing on a rail vehicle.
4. I apologize I am not making the argument you would prefer I make; however, my argument is still valid. Additionally, you are making a strawman argument - at no point did I argue in favor or against trolleybuses. The point not contested by you still stands - overlay networks create a two-tiered system.
5. Claiming that international transit and author Jarrett Walker "[applies principles] universally without thinking" is not only wrong, but outright accusatory towards an expert with many projects to his name. Additionally, you only prove my point by claiming streetcars are for "key corridors". As evidence from Portland and Seattle has clearly shown, "key corridors" is simply another way of stating "wealthy, white, and young" neighborhoods, not high ridership potential routes as one may assume.
My position with regards to RTD's FasTracks program, specifically new commuter and light rail lines, is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, which is about streetcars. I am not inherently bound by your false dilemma.
6. Obviously, nothing earthly exists in a vacuum. However, in the case of transit operating agencies, scope is a matter of mission - every resource (human, capital, etc) focused on development is a resource that can't be used for direct improvements to the transit system, which is within a transit agencies mission. While McDonalds and Home Depot are both retail, it is not within the mission of McDonalds to sell lawnmowers; likewise, while transit and development both affect urban form, it is not within the mission of the transit agency to focus on development.
The study you cite is flawed on numerous grounds. Any citations within must be treated with skepticism - HR&A focuses only on private-public development proposals. Inherently, they will only produce a study stating that development is good; if they were to state to the contrary, they would lose business. In the words of American author Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Additionally, HR&A was hired by Arlington County - they are as independent and unbiased as a hired court witness. While I fully admit I am not familiar with the specifics of the corridor you are involved with,
this comment on the website you post adequately sums up the inherent structural failures with the study.
Additionally, you concede by silence the negative impacts tax breaks and subsidies have on other governmental agencies whose funding source is those taxes, such as the Portland Public School system.
7. Concede.
8. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the contestant. It is your burden to prove that streetcars are quieter than buses, not mine. Buses have been making drastic improvements over the years in reducing noise; for instance, compare the diesel engine of a bus built only 15 years ago to one built within the last few years. A link would be impractical as this is best determined through sound, which is compressed and distorted over typical recording devices, end-user computer speakers, and online hosting mediums. Rail-based vehicles produce plenty of noise, particularly when passing around tight corners.
9. It has been noted that you state "For the vast majority or transit routes, the benefits of bus outweigh the benefits of rail." While I won't bind myself to an absolute statement, absent a very specific circumstance (such as an abnormally restrictive weight restriction on a historic bridge or abnormally restrictive vertical or horizontal clearances posed in tunnels), buses *almost always* outweigh streetcars in terms of benefits. In the specific case of Denver, taking into account the operational characteristics of streetcars and buses, no reasonably feasible corridor meets any circumstance requiring the operation of streetcar.
And finally, streetcars uniquely pose disadvantages towards non-white, non-wealthy, and non-Millennial populations that buses and other rail systems do not have. The high capital and operational costs associated with streetcars limit their use to only a few select corridors, not citywide. While other rail modes are similarly restricted by high capital and operational costs, their role as regional truck lines as opposed to local circulators results in the political process proposing new light and heavy rail lines where ridership is or can be reasonably expected to be, not where politically favorable neighborhoods are in the case of streetcars. While it is possible to outright discriminate with buses, the structure of transit agency governing bodies, especially the relevant Denver agency, RTD, results in bus service distributed on an "equal" basis. While "equal" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people, RTD bus service does not neglect to outright service politically undesirable neighborhoods, like streetcars inherently have been shown to do.
Prev
Linear Mode
