Comments on: ultralight rail, just like grandma used to ride

By: miked

miked — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:51:17 +0000

Shared right of way slows down the streetcars. Slow streetcars waiting in traffic were part of the reason that there wasn’t giant opposition to getting rid of them. You can experience the slow streetcar with the F in San Francisco- it comes complete with the old cars from the cities that got rid of their streetcars.

Unfortunately exclusive right of way suffers from Reedman’s issue- that not many people use a substantial piece of land. There aren’t easy answers.

By: Liz

Liz — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:05:29 +0000

They should’ve never scrapped the Key systems for the joke we call AC Transit. My grandparents told me that the Key was far better then what AC can do.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:46:04 +0000

Shared right-of-way is the most sensible approach for
cost-effective transit. VTA Light Rail, for example, has a train
about every 15 minutes during the work day. The ROW is abandoned the rest of the
time, while cars are in gridlock in the adjacent lanes. No bicycles,
no pedestrians, nothing can use this valuable strip of land except
a couple of vehicles driven by civil servants.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:30:11 +0000

BRT is an excuse for refusing to implement better transit options. Whether you call them streetcars or Light Rail, they ARE more attractive to riders who can choose whether to drive or not. Trolleys are not archaic, they are a tried and true mode of transport. And BTW the distinctions Erik points up are all contradicted in numerous instances around the US.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:52:46 +0000

And believe you me, that short distance from Amtrak and JL Square to BART would be more than just a downtown redevelopment thing. That connection would make a huge difference for people who are waffling over taking the train from out in the boonies where I live. Few would take the bus that makes that run now, but I think a lot would take a streetcar, because, as you say, it makes transit more attractive.

By: Aaron Priven

Aaron Priven — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:27:22 +0000

A streetcar would serve a completely different purpose than BRT; they’re not comparable. BRT is about speed; streetcars are about making short-distance travel attractive.

BART did a study of a streetcar system to serve Jack London Square — see http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/alameda.asp, scroll down to Jack London Square feasibility study. I disagree with their routing (I would have it go from Amtrak down 2nd St. to Washington, then up Washington to the Convention Center, than loop around 10th, Clay, 11th –with a stop near the BART entrance on 11th — and 10th) but I think the general idea is a good one, *if* it is paid for out of redevelopment funds our tourism funds or something, because in terms of transit efficacy, there are better ways to spend money.

By: Keith Jones

Keith Jones — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:42:42 +0000

And some streetcar lines have been built for much less than $25 million per mile. Kenosha WI for $3 million a mile, Little Rock Arkansas for $8.5 million a mile (opened 2004).