Say what you will about streetcars, they have an unmatched appeal. I mean, there must be a reason why it’s hard to imagine a smoldering love affair between Marlon Brando and Vivian Leigh with a bus theme.
Or, as the inimitable Dan Savage says:
Why is this so hard to understand?… People like trains. People hate buses. [emphasis his]
To wit, the P-I recently interviewed folks about the new Seattle streetcar and elicited what I imagine are fairly typical sentiments:
Bryan Lenning… could take the bus downtown… But for some reason, he’d rather take the streetcar. “But I’d never take the bus.” He’d rather walk or drive downtown.
Mari Stobbe… “I’d never take a bus. I’ve never been on a bus. I’ve never had any desire to be on a bus,” she said. “(But) the streetcar seems like it would have a different feel.”
Okay, sure, there are plenty of reasons to carp about streetcars—they’re expensive given their capacity and distance; they can absorb bus funding; the tracks can threaten cyclists—but fixed-rail travel has an instinctive appeal that is simply not matched by other travel modes. I’m not arguing that the attraction is rational, or even that it’s right. I’m arguing that it’s real. And I’m suggesting that maybe our transportation planning should acknowledge the preference.
Personally, I’m mostly a least-cost planning guy. I want to know which transportation choices are the most cost-effective—for public dollars, health, and the climate. And buses tend to pencil out better. But then again, many people (myself included) sort of hate riding the bus for some reason.
I’ll bet there are lots of potential transit riders out there. People who currently ignore buses, but would happily ride a streetcar. Maybe it’s nostalgia or maybe it’s something much deeper. So while our transportation investments should make responsible use of public money, they should also provide alternatives that the public really craves. Cheapest doesn’t always mean best. And I don’t think it’s revolutionary to suggest that boosting transit ridership is easier if people fall in love with transit.
Ryan
I love rail. I love the idea of streetcars. I also realize that despite it’s greater efficiency, the public overwhelmingly views buses as inferior to rail. I sympathize with that perspective.However, I’m sour on SLU streetcar because 1) it’s apparently quicker to walk from downtown to SLU than it is to ride the streetcar, and 2) who is this streetcar going to serve? What impact will it have on traffic congestion? Virtually nobody and none are the two answers I come up with. It’s maddening.
jeffy
There are lots of reasons to like rail. I wonder if anyone has done any analysis to figure out what the real reasons are that folks prefer trains to buses.One of my reasons is that the routes are so much more transparent when you can see the tracks right there on the street. It’d be cool if we could paint lines on the street for bus routes. Don’t know where the nearest stop is? Just follow the line.Seattle’s metroblog is celebrating Saturday’s opening of the monorail green line. Sigh.
Aaron Antrim of Green Wheels
Bus transit has a negative public image. Despite the fact that bus transit can more sometimes more efficiently serve riders with affordable service that other modes, people frequently choose other modes to avoid the image problems of bus transit.This is perfectly understandable, given the kind of negative experiences often associated with underfunded bus transit.However, there are strategies to improve bus transit’s image and people’s experiences with it. One of these strategies is Bus Rapid Transit. In Eugene, OR, they choose high-tech looking bus vehicles, in part to to distinguish it from conventional bus transit. In Bogotá, bus system branding and enclosed stations help to improve their bus system’s image.See this Mission Group presentation on improving public transit: http://www.missiongrouponline.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/improvingpt5.pdf.I highly recommend other presentations by the Mission Group after seeing Alan Hoffman speak at CalACT.
JoshMahar
As much as people might be looking forward to this, myself included, lets be honest. Once the novelty of the fact that its on a rail instead of wheels wears off, it really will be just like the bus…but slower. The upside of a rail is suppose to be efficiency. No stop lights, no traffic, automated doors so the schedule is on track. But unfortunately, this streetcar doesnt have these things. What it does do is give public transit a cute little simple to stand behind, which is at least something to entice people frighened of public transit, to start using it. I use it multiple times a day and, trust me, it works great. (although we could use some more buses and maybe a real N-S rail, and a couple E-W)
lisaB
There’s one tangible reason for prefering street cars over buses (which doesn’t balance out the cost difference, but…): it’s a smoother ride. Anyone who has been on a jerky bus with a driver who alternates slamming on the breaks with flooring it while weaving left and right will appreciate the smoothness of a rail system.Also – there is the sense of investment and long term planning that comes with the laying of tracks. You can believe that streetcar route will be there for a long while… with a bus it could get rerouted next week and then what?
Elisa Murray
Yep, this is a bias that needs to be more acknowledged and addressed. To echo Aaron (above), I like the idea of designing bus systems that mimic much of what people love about light rail, etc., while retaining the flexibility of a bus, as the city of Curitiba, Brazil, has done with “its Curitiba, Brazil’s bus rapid transit system. “Curitiba’s bus system offers many of the features of a subway system—vehicle movements unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare collection prior to boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading—-but it is above ground and visible. Around 70 percent of Curitiba’s commuters use the BRT to travel to work, resulting in congestion-free streets and pollution-free air for the 2.2 million inhabitants of greater Curitiba.”
a-kos
Despite it’s appeal, the SLUT (sorry, love that acronym) is a waste of money. It’s almost entirely a tourist attraction – as a means of transportation it’s useless for the multitude.I do think we need to incorporate more rail into mass transit as part of a comprehensive public transit plan. This includes both light rail and BRT. While busses aren’t as appealing as rail, in most cases they’re much more efficient and cost effective.
vrb
I know exactly why I prefer streetcars and trains to buses – smell! I have a fairly good sense of smell and I hate the diesel smell of buses. Streetcars just seem much cleaner to me. Maybe most people wouldn’t think about it or bring it up as a reason, but it’s possible that they notice it too. Then there’s the smell of the other passengers, but that’s a different story…
edoherty
Jeffy wrote:”One of my reasons is that the routes are so much more transparent when you can see the tracks right there on the street. It’d be cool if we could paint lines on the street for bus routes. Don’t know where the nearest stop is? Just follow the line.”All bus rapid transit (BRT) lines have either very clear transit lane markings, or a busway that is just as easy to spot as a track. But here is Vancouver, where we do not have BRT yet, all you have to do is look up and follow the overhead wires the trolley buses use. This is exactly the same as a streetcar, except two wires instead of one.Last I heard, San Fransisco was considering building an electric BRT. See http://www.transitlab.ca/index.php?option=com_content=view=61=60
markopolo1
yes, people would rather take a streetcar over a bus, there is no question there. Whether or not this tendency is valid, is another question entirely that I won’t get into. (why are buses referred to as “shame trains”) Streetcars are sexy, buses are not. Streetcars are used to take the fam downtown for an evening of theatre, buses are for the poor people who can’t afford cars. But bus rapid transit is better than streetcar service, and can be sexy as well. Many cities across the globe are doing just that, making buses look cooler so that the middle to upper class people will actually use it, and leave their car in the garage as opposed to driving downtown and requiring over 70 square feet of public space to store their private property.
David Levinger
The issue of usability became big in computer systems development in the 1990s. The fact that people are still wrangling over the bus vs. streetcar/light rail question is illustrative of this serious lack of understanding in the transportation policy realm. FOUR problems bus-riders suffer from *do* have solutions that *don’t* require steel wheels:1. Diesel engine vibration. 2. Herky-jerky driving. 3. Uncertainty. (did I get on the right bus, when will it come, etc.)4. Off-gassing of vinyl interiors. Each of these problems can be solved through specifications of equipment and through usability efforts. These are not essential issues to the vehicles or the mode of transport.
JerryZimel
I have recently moved to Keelung, Taiwan, part of the Taipei metropolitan area. I had lived before in Seattle and Portland. I rode the bus and bicycles regularly. Several observations:1. People in Keelung prefer buses to the trains. The buses are faster than the local train. They prefer express trains if they stop at their specific destination.2. People in Taipei City prefer the MRT, which is the subway/light rail, to the bus. They still use the bus to take them to their specific destination from the MRT station. They have 5 MRT lines and are currently building 2 additional lines. I know, Seattle, it is kind of sickening. 3. The percentage of people riding mass transit seems higher here. 4. People do drive cars here. Gas is about $1 (NTD 32) per liter. 4 liters are little bit more than a gallon. Furthermore, it is difficult finding parking spaces. There are lots of motorbikes and scooters.5. Taxi drivers charge less here than in Seattle.6. Both the MRT and the buses use smart cards as well as individual tickets. You can refill smart cards at MRT stations, bus stations and convenience stores like 7-11.7. There are 3 levels of train service: locals, expresses and High Speed Rail (HSR). The HSR attains speeds of nearly 200 mph and traverses the length of the island. It is super smooth. All of the trains are very comfortable.8. I am visiting in Tokyo right now. They have even more sophisticated subway, bus and train systems here. Shame on you, Seattle. You can buy 2-day Metro passes for $10 and go virtually anywhere in this city of over 30,000,000. And the people are more civil here than in Seattle, including car and taxi drivers. A very high percentage of commuters ride buses and subways.This is not a scientific survey or a comprehensive list. It is just my observations.Elisa mentioned Curitiba. I have seen presentations on the bus system and urban planning there. They were given by the ex-mayor, now state governor, Jaime Lerner. Fascinating. There is a presentation video at Curitiba on Seattle Channel.
Chas Redmond
there is the sense of investment and long term planning that comes with the laying of tracks. You can believe that streetcar route will be there for a long while… with a bus it could get rerouted next week and then what?Well, walk down Terry and look at the new streetcar tracks which are adjacent to the old street car tracks. That old streetcar no longer runs so apparently the laying of tracks isn’t really permanent in the sense we might mean it. It’s kind of sad that there are still tons of old tracks down in Cascade – just to remind us that we once actually had a comprehensive streetcar network. That was before our love affair with four wheels and an engine, though.
jer
The answer to this mysterious preference is very simple: Better design. The aesthetics of buses are universally terrible, and the usability is poor as well. As a commentor noted above, light rail generally has more easily-visible stops, and tickets are often (though not always) bought in advance, often from machines that actually give change. The vehicles are generally larger and more spacious, have a smoother ride, don’t vibrate so much, are quieter, and don’t smell like diesel. (Though many of Seattle & San Francisco’s buses are electric. On the other hand, the overhead cables for those systems are unsightly and those buses often get tripped off the cables, requiring the driver to get out and fix it before resuming the trip.)Good design could make buses a pleasure to ride. First of all, make them pretty. I don’t know what soulless wretches design buses, but there has to be a revolution here. One simple idea: no straight lines. Have everything in the bus (seats, bars, body, windows) be curved shapes. Sure, it would be more expensive, but the cost of the bus is miniscule compared to the cost of paying the drivers who operate them. Secondly, better sound-damping inside the bus (and more acoustic insulation between the inside and outside) would work wonders. It would even make people on the bus quieter and better-behaved, as talking would stick out more. Thirdly, make bus stops pleasant places to spend time (Seattle does a good job of this already, with art in so many stops). Fourthly, enable payment by card-swipe, be it debit or credit or special prepaid bus-card (like San Francisco’s BART tickets), to eliminate the fumbling for change / begging for change from other bus-goers / arguments with the driver. I could go on, but you get the idea.In a nutshell, buses suck because they’re designed to be cheap, not nice. Light rail, because it’s more expensive, is designed a bit nicer, and is thus more of a pleasure to use.
Jon Morgan
Rail spurs development around stops that buses don’t. It attracts riders that buses don’t. Streetcars are quieter and less polluting than buses. Fare payment by inspection rather than by each rider as they enter or leave (Seattle’s bus rules are byzantine) is much faster. The SLUT offers NextBus information so people can make an informed choice about the best way to get where they’re going. I’ve been at the whim of missing Metro buses repeatedly, and there’s no info at all provided to those waiting at the stop, unless you happen to have a cell phone on you with Metro’s number in it, and it’s during business hours. Email them afterwards, even 2 and 3 times, with CCs to Ron Sims and your County Councilperson, and you still can’t get any answers. Rail is more or less inherently better. I strongly urge anyone who hasn’t seen it to watch Taken for a Ride, a damning 1-hour documentary on the end of streetcar service in the US.
Fine tooth comb
Interesting comment thread here. It is very illustrative of the level of conversation we are currently having in this region about our transit future. Elisa and others speak of the merits of BRT and claim there is a bias against it. Eric claims that least cost planning should be a guiding rubric. Yet no one really talks about what they mean by BRT. Are you talking about separated guideways or buses operating in HOV lanes? Both present different issues. If you are talking about separated guideways in Seattle’s topography, you are talking about tunnels, bridges, and elevated guideways. In this case, BRT is no cheaper than rail, and likely more dirty. If you are talking about HOV-type BRT then you aren’t really talking about “rapid” transit and you are subject to the political difficulty of taking lanes from cars. This goes to the bait and switch that is often present when BRT is discussed. Seattle isn’t Curitiba or even LA. The former has far less active neighborhood challenges due to income level and development and the latter has far more space and the advantage of an available corridor.All that being said, BRT has a place. Metro will be instituting a BRT-lite in five corridors over the next few years. Metro will also be implementing new radio and GPS tracking on its fleet in 2009 that will allow real time bus info at key stops similar to what you see at light rail systems around the world. Rapid Ride will use curb treatments, low-floor buses, and signal priority which are all great. But it will also operate in traffic much of the time. Jon Morgan hits the nail on the head when he says that rail spurs development around stops that buses don’t. Developers like the fixed nature of rail and are far more likely to invest around it. Take the streetcar here or in Portland to see first hand. Or tour light rail stops in Vancouver and compare them to the Orange Line stops in LA. We often speak of Transit Oriented Development. But if we really want to change the density equation in this region we need to talk about Development Oriented Transit. That is the promise of the streetcar and of light rail in the region. Least cost planning is fine in the short term, but does it really address what kind of region we want to be in the long term?