We have the South Lake Union Railcar in Seattle. Nobody rides it. And like I’m not one to blame infrastructure, but you can literally walk faster than it moves. Meanwhile there are shitloads of buses with plenty of ridership. Many fully electric with overhead wire.
Meanwhile bicyclists routinely get their wheels caught in the tracks and eat it.
I can’t imagine the efficiency of rail makes much difference in a city environment. The best argument I’ve heard for rail is that it’s more a commitment to developers that the route won’t be changed any time soon.
Light rail is almost always more energy efficient, more cost effective, safer, offers a smoother ride, requires less maintenance, and it can be fully automated.
Lots of major cities outside of the US have had great success using light rail. I have no idea how Seattle managed to fuck it up
the secret american sauce of corruption where they spend the money, got nothing to show for it and public just gets to pay the clean up cost for failure
the main argument I see for rail is that it doesnt get stuck in car traffic, which should make it easier to keep to a reliable schedule and speed, and that it can have a higher capacity per vehicle. Those would seem to indicate that it should be better than busses for routes that are very busy, provided of course that the rail infrastructure is actually good (able to do a reasonable speed, have reasonable reliability, and separated from other modes of transit to as to not cause conflicts at crossings). If your trains are so slow you can beat them by walking, and directly cross the roads and bike paths, then its not trains as a concept that are the problem, its that you have rather bad trains.
We have the South Lake Union Railcar in Seattle. Nobody rides it. And like I’m not one to blame infrastructure, but you can literally walk faster than it moves. Meanwhile there are shitloads of buses with plenty of ridership. Many fully electric with overhead wire.
Meanwhile bicyclists routinely get their wheels caught in the tracks and eat it.
I can’t imagine the efficiency of rail makes much difference in a city environment. The best argument I’ve heard for rail is that it’s more a commitment to developers that the route won’t be changed any time soon.
Light rail is almost always more energy efficient, more cost effective, safer, offers a smoother ride, requires less maintenance, and it can be fully automated.
Lots of major cities outside of the US have had great success using light rail. I have no idea how Seattle managed to fuck it up
the secret american sauce of corruption where they spend the money, got nothing to show for it and public just gets to pay the clean up cost for failure
the main argument I see for rail is that it doesnt get stuck in car traffic, which should make it easier to keep to a reliable schedule and speed, and that it can have a higher capacity per vehicle. Those would seem to indicate that it should be better than busses for routes that are very busy, provided of course that the rail infrastructure is actually good (able to do a reasonable speed, have reasonable reliability, and separated from other modes of transit to as to not cause conflicts at crossings). If your trains are so slow you can beat them by walking, and directly cross the roads and bike paths, then its not trains as a concept that are the problem, its that you have rather bad trains.
The rail car in question is not grade separated.
Does your tram get stuck in traffic or something? Why is it that slow?
I don’t know much about trams but I kinda feel like that’s not supposed to happen.
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lake_Union_Streetcar