Commuter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).

Access to transit is hardly the only factor that determines the desirability of a place. Crime, for one is probably bigger. City leaders can't just install rails and think they're done. But that's a larger discussion.

> > 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.

It's not really an either/or situation. Buses are fine for feeder service and less heavily traveled routes. There's no need to build streetcar lines where existing or predicted demand doesn't warrant it.

> > 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.

I should have pointed out the timeframe I had in mind in the paragraph above: 1950's and 60's mostly. That was a time when transit agencies didn't believe ridership would ever increase because everyone who could afford it was getting a car, and transit systems became viewed as something for those too old/young/poor to drive. This is still the case in some places but not everywhere. These days many cities see transit as a way to relieve traffic congestion and thereby improve quality of life for commuters (i.e. working middle class) whether driving or not.