tusculan

Actually, here are the two stories that she wrote. Apparently, she would walk about 10 minutes to the Streetcar, ride it for 10 (to go about a mile), and walk 10 to work. Of course, riding the streetcar saved her time from walking directly to work - around 45 minutes directly. But only if she didn't have to wait for the streetcar to arrive. http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/atlanta-streetcar-good-tourists-regular-commuters/ http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/six-lessons-from-riding-the-atlanta-streetcar-for-eight-weeks/

Looking at the comparable data from Portland and Tucson the speed of this line seems to be the same. I guess this alters my idea of what a streetcar ought to be, because it is not a line for commuting, but only a local use line. TIL. If you don't live or work within a 3-4 minute walk of the line, there is no justification for using it.

I agree. 15 miles per hour is awful as a max speed plus all the stops - and lights! So, if we extrapolate to the full length of the system - 37 stops at 15 seconds each. That would equal 50 + minutes for the total phase 3 length, plus lights. That's awful. Does anyone know what full operational speed is supposed to be? Also, am I crazy, but at what speed is it too slow to be useful? Or better - at what speed is it too slow to be beneficial? I saw that Atlanta has experienced this problem with its line. Where a reporter really wanted to like it, but wrote about how in total it saved here on average about 5-10 minutes vs walking - but while it did this, it felt so exasperatingly slow, that she wouldn't use it except if there was bad weather.

It seems that there are three alternatives for pricing schemes. Flat fare rates, zonal, or distance based. While I think that flat fare rates are enough to get people from South end to Uptown for work, I don't think it will encourage people coming in from Hawthorne to hop on the blue line to South End. I think they will just stay within walking distance of the gold line. I think that uptown ought to be one flat fare - preferably free - so that it actually is a network, and not a collection of individual lines.

I think a fair way to do it would be a 5 censt per stop fare, with the area from CPCC to Gateway counting as one uptown stop. So if you were to ride the eventual whole eastern end to uptown - 95 cents The whole western end - 55 cents Thus the whole route is 1.50 but it encourages local use, walking, and lots of uptown users.

This is my big concern with BRT. I think it can be used, but it seems to fulfill a niche need - that between regular bus service around 1000 people per day and Light Rail 10000 ppd. In theory, BRT is a fine idea; in practice, when we don't build transit infrastructure until its utterly obvious, the time has already passed when it would be truly feasible. Thus, I think in the US, BRT can only be a 2nd generation service that complements an already existing one.

I know that a study was done on this, but wasn't it received poorly? Or should I say, didn't we just go back to the drawing board with the Silver line now with 3 options instead of 4 - Central, Independence Blvd, Monroe Rd, CSX ROW.

SouthendCLT811, But you miss my point, I think. I don't think cost can ever be the relevant determinate between these two technologies. IN the Connecticut case, to build a BRT line in the full way, which only makes sense on certain routes, is to spend basically the same amount as a LRT - which can in theory at least, also accommodate more traffic/ split ROW with a commuter line/ and be more energy efficient. If they cost the same amount, and the BRT has to be just as limited in flexibility in order to shore up development, then how does it really work?

I don't know if anyone saw this, but I thought it might be of interest as a comparison to the Silver Line: http://streetsblog.net/2015/05/08/connecticuts-new-brt-line-smashes-ridership-expectations/ Its a ten-mile line that was built largely inside of an unused rail ROW. This was initially touted as being much cheaper. Originally scheduled for 50 million at 1/4 the cost of light rail, the estimated actual cost has ballooned to 570 Million and counting. I am not against BRT - because it makes sense in limited circumstances. But this doesn't appear to be one. Is this also true of the Silver line? Is BRT, because of its flexibility practically unsuitable for arterial flow in an urban area?

Good. I never thought it made sense running in the center of Independence. Commuter trains can work in the middle of arterial roadways, but not light rail or BRT lines meant to serve the area they are passing through. Independence for cars from Monroe and Albemarle, Central Ave and Monroe Rd for local traffic and streetcars, and the CSX line to Matthews for the Silver line and eventual commuter line to Monroe. The East side could have a wonderful and functional transportation network.

So - I get that this is a desired effect. My point is that if the streetcar moves so slowly (6 mph) I have seen quoted...and most people in this country would move to a place to limit the commute to under 45 minutes. If you think 5 minutes to the station, 10 minutes from the station to work...that would mean only a 6 mile route would actually spur development for people who work uptown. Admittedly, some will work in Elizabeth..but I don't see how the line will really be feasible past Eastway without it being constructed so as to be quicker. Moreover, this is only to get you to Trade and Tryon, so the idea of operating at this speed and trying to create greater city movement from the West to the East side and vice versa seems even less likely. Note - I do think this is a good idea. I like the idea behind streetcars. But if they don't actually help one to get where they are going any quicker, I don't see how they can really be viable.

For those of you who have experienced working streetcar systems - did they compete with the buses? I know some cities - Vienna - use only streetcars inside the center ring of the city, thus it forces people to use the streetcar or walk. So it would make sense that in cities like this, riding the streetcar becomes the norm such that even when there are buses outside the center, people may prefer the streetcar. But in a place where the streetcar is an anomaly, where it competes with buses - is the only reason that the Charlotte Streetcar will work is they have chosen the only route that is feasible? In other words, if its so route dependent then it doesn't seem to matter what kind of technology was used for it. Is this a fair assessment, or am I missing something else?

I confess that I don't understand this about the US move to streetcars. Without a dedicated ROW and signal prioritization, they don't seem like a valid transit alternative except for 3-10 stop rides - which of course necessitates that you have enough density and destinations to make that work. The European systems that I am familiar with have wildly different success based on these two factors. In Rome, no one rides the streetcar, because the buses are either going the same speed - or faster - and they don't make every stop. So why ride the streetcar? In Paris, the Streetcar has a distinct ROW, travels quite quickly and thus its really popular. I am not in favor of removing the current work, but without these two features installed for the vast majority of the track, then I don't see how streetcars will work in a way that leaves customers satisfied.