m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That inflexibility of route change does have a
> positive side: Riders can feel reasonably certain
> that the streetcar line will be there for the long
> term. A bus line might be rerouted tomorrow. And
> it does happen now and then.
>
> A streetcar line or other rail transit can have
> significant positive impact on real estate values,
> because residents, employers and retailers know
> that transit service will likely remain good in
> the foreseeable future.

Probably true, over the "short term" but at some point, population dynamics outweigh public transit, at which point fixed transit becomes useless. Just look at public transit in Chicago. Whole areas of the city that were vibrant middle class areas, served by the CTA, went down hill, despite access to fixed rail transit. Whole segments of the Chicago Transit Authority trackage, L and trolley, were removed because of the changes in population (as well as for financial considerations).

> A bus line has much less such effect.

I disagree. A bus line serves as a valuable feeder to a light/heavy rail system. Again, based on Chicago, an efficient transit system requires some sort of public transportation service within 4 blocks (1/2 mile) or less, of an individuals residence. I think that a bus based system is much more flexible in meeting the changing demands of a changing population. Anecdotally, I do not see where street running trolleys are more efficient than buses. If for nothing else, buses can be rerouted, for small things like fires, vehicle collisions and etc, whereas fixed rail vehicles are greatly impacted by such issues on their routes. It is true that the MBTA trolleys operate, on many routes, in tunnels, and are therefore, exempt from surface issues. The problem here is that system riders do not have the flexibility of boarding/deboarding the trolley where they want, ie their street corner.

> On the historical note: I agree that a major
> reason many streetcar systems were dismantled was
> because their infrastructure required significant
> reinvestment. The solution that seemed easiest to
> reach within the short term was to abandon the
> rails and convert to buses. Somewhere within this
> timeframe did transit (in the U.S.) generally pass
> from private operations to public. Because of the
> rise of auto ownership, transit operations was no
> longer able to make a profit for its private
> owners. Public transit has many other benefits,
> which is why local governments took on the role of
> operating transit systems at a monetary loss.
> However, many of these local agencies lacked the
> access to investment capital for big projects like
> rail replacement and upgrades. Or, they didn't see
> the point of doing those investments as they
> perceived their role as serving a shrinking
> segment of the public.

Can't disagree with this, at all. The CTA (and RTA) are in major financial binds. Although, I don't think the segment of the population is shrinking, it is just moving, from the city to the suburbs, or from one city neighborhood to another. This social (population) movement is where buses serve better than fixed rail.