Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
don't confuse subways with streetcars. one is inherently louder than the other. traveling beneath grade makes subways inherently louder due to the echo effect of traveling in an enclosed space at a high rate of speed. the noise gets amplified several times over by the tunnel. once the train leaves the tunnel it becomes much quieter.
'smoothness' is subjective. to me subways are smooth. just as smooth as Amtrak trains, for example, which use electric locomotives. you can have a sit-down restaurant-style dinner with a glass of wine in the dining car on Amtrak without spilling anything with the train moving at full speed. try that on a moving bus and see what happens. the dinner will be on you, literally.
don't confuse subways with streetcars. one is inherently louder than the other. traveling beneath grade makes subways inherently louder due to the echo effect of traveling in an enclosed space at a high rate of speed. the noise gets amplified several times over by the tunnel. once the train leaves the tunnel it becomes much quieter.
Who cares? Not everyone wants to spend an additional billion dollars in taxpayer money so some people can enjoy a smooth ride from the coffee shop to the yoga studio while reading Pride and Prejudice on their Kindle. Most people just want to get where they're going fast. If a streetcar accomplishes that (and it rarely does), then so be it. If a horse and carriage accomplishes that, then so be it. If a rocket pack accomplishes that, then so be it.
Who cares? Not everyone wants to spend an additional billion dollars in taxpayer money so some people can enjoy a smooth ride from the coffee shop to the yoga studio while reading Pride and Prejudice on their Kindle. Most people just want to get where they're going fast. If a streetcar accomplishes that (and it rarely does), then so be it. If a horse and carriage accomplishes that, then so be it. If a rocket pack accomplishes that, then so be it.
Which is why, thankfully, LA has not rebuilt streetcar lines since the dismantling of the streetcars (though there is talk of one in DTLA).
Instead they have focused on building (arguably) the most efficient and comprehensive bus system in the US and adding LRT on (mostly) dedicated tracks or elevated tracks. It would be a pretty safe bet that the current fleet of Rapid Buses in LA are as efficient, effective and comfortable as the streetcar lines ever were. (Not to mention a higher ridership capacity).
And yes, buses have actually been shown to be "greener" than streetcars. Professors at the very conservative University of California at Berkeley said as much in a 2008 study:
The more stunning result was in the comparison of light rail, which would include most streetcar systems, with buses. Buses came out substantially cleaner than light rail in basic pollution, and they beat the socks off light rail in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, doing almost twice as well in the UC-Berkely whole-shmear comparison.
this study raises all kinds of red flags because the notion seems completely ludicrous on its face. especially when electricity can be generated, and often is, by alternative clean or cleaner sources such as hydropower, nuclear (which does have toxic waste issues, but there's no air pollution), natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
what I find interesting is the date of this pro-fossil fuels study, which shows that it was published just a year after UC Berkeley accepted a half billion dollar grant from British Petroleum in 2007, the largest corporate sponsorship of a major university in US history so far. nah, that's not suspicious at all.
this study raises all kinds of red flags because the notion seems completely ludicrous on its face. especially when electricity can be generated, and often is, by alternative clean sources such as hydropower, nuclear (which does have toxic waste issues, but there's no air pollution), natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
Most electricity is generated using fossil fuels. When trains run all over New York City, they're not running on electricity generated from windmills off the coast of Cape Cod. It's good old fashioned petroleum and coal that's powering those "green" trains in NYC, buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
what I find interesting is the date of this pro-fossil fuels study, which shows that it was published just a year after UC Berkeley accepted a half billion dollar grant from British Petroleum in 2007, the largest corporate sponsorship of a major university in US history so far. nah, that's not suspicious at all.
It wasn't a "pro fossil fuels study." It was a study from arguably the most liberal academic campus on the face of the planet.
Most electricity is generated using fossil fuels. When trains run all over New York City, they're not running on electricity generated from windmills off the coast of Cape Cod. It's good old fashioned petroleum and coal that's powering those "green" trains in NYC, buddy.
are you sure about that? as of 2006, electric power in NY state comes mostly from natural gas and nuclear, with hydro at third. only 10% from coal and 2% from oil. in california its even less. electric produced from oil is zero and coal only 1%.
It was a study from arguably the most liberal academic campus on the face of the planet.
what gives you that idea? the students and some of the professors at UCB might be liberal, but they don't have much power. they aren't running the school. but the people who are running the school or the administration, otoh, tend to be on the conservative and corporate side, and always have been. the school's 'liberal' reputation is mostly a myth. the students may be liberal, but the school itself certainly is not.
are you sure about that? as of 2006, electric power in NY state comes mostly from natural gas and nuclear, with hydro at third. only 10% from coal and 2% from oil. in california its even less. electric produced from oil is zero and coal only 1%.
The New York City Subway gets its power from the Con Edison plant off the FDR Highway. And yes, they burn petroleum.
what gives you that idea? the students and some of the professors at UCB might be liberal, but they don't have much power. they aren't running the school. but the people who are running the school or the administration, otoh, tend to be on the conservative and corporate side, and always have been. the school's 'liberal' reputation is mostly a myth. the students may be liberal, but the school itself certainly is not.
Well, if that's the case, then you'd probably reject any study from any university. Because they all have corporate sponsorship.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 07-02-2012 at 04:57 PM..
Well, if that's the case, then you'd probably reject any study from any university. Because they all have corporate sponsorship.
Not to mention LA has the largest fleet of clean burning buses in the country.
The real question is, would Los Angeles have a larger transit ridership or transit share if the streetcars were left in place as is (or even modestly upgraded to keep with the times)?
T
Well, if that's the case, then you'd probably reject any study from any university. Because they all have corporate sponsorship.
universities have been traditionally supported by tuition, foundations, government funding, etc. the infiltration of corporate money, a non-traditional source of funding, into prestigious US schools is a relatively recent phenomenon so it does raise an eyebrow. I would say more than an eyebrow.
Not to mention LA has the largest fleet of clean burning buses in the country.
The real question is, would Los Angeles have a larger transit ridership or transit share if the streetcars were left in place as is (or even modestly upgraded to keep with the times)?
I say most likely not.
Why not? I don't know LA well, but would assume if the streetcar system had grown and been upgraded as the city grew, that the development patterns would have created higher density near transit and less need for the massive highway system that did evolve. And the existing transit right of ways would be much cheaper than attempting to add transit to an already developed city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
