|
Yeah, if you think about it, maintaining the miles of track and wire + the streetcars is probably more expensive than the costs for a bus, where all maintinance can take place in a single small location without the need for construction crews if the streetcar tracks needed to be replaced.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
edit: i don't know how this got in the wrong thread. Must have had another quote window opened.
Doctor Butts fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Feb 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Yeah, if you think about it, maintaining the miles of track and wire + the streetcars is probably more expensive than the costs for a bus, where all maintinance can take place in a single small location without the need for construction crews if the streetcar tracks needed to be replaced. And, for example, the City will pave and maintain the street your route goes down for free, as far as you the transit company are concerned. Also we're talking about generally the 1910s to 1960s as this stuff is happening, so gas/diesel is cheap as hell in the world's oil production superpower, while electricity is pretty pricey, especially for the first 10s to 30s bit. And you can adapt routes to serve new development more rapidly, you can partially pivot your company into some much longer distance routes than were possible, it's really a lot more flexible than surface streetcars were at the time. People often neglect to notice that whole aspect of buses being legit a very useful and cost effective solution in a lot of situations, especially for private entities who owned most "public" transit until well into the 60s when Federal policy finally sought to push cities/regions/states to take over from the private sector to preserve what was left. Some cities/areas had started well before then, like NYC seizing full control of the subway system by 1940, but many regions would have to wait a lot longer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Buses are cost-effective but so slow that people try very hard not to use them. Streetcars can go at a very fast pace because they don't get mired in traffic. You could get the same effect from turning streets into dedicated bus routes - no cars allowed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Buses are cost-effective but so slow that people try very hard not to use them. Streetcars can go at a very fast pace because they don't get mired in traffic. You could get the same effect from turning streets into dedicated bus routes - no cars allowed. in the general american parlance, a "streetcar" is light rail which isn't grade separated, meaning it gets caught in traffic like a bus. not always (sometimes they have dedicated lanes) but most of the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Buses are cost-effective but so slow that people try very hard not to use them. Streetcars can go at a very fast pace because they don't get mired in traffic. You could get the same effect from turning streets into dedicated bus routes - no cars allowed. What are you talking about? The streetcars literally ran in the street, with all over traffic. That's why they were called street-cars. Some of their descendants still run like that to this day in the outlying areas of their cities even though they now have semi-private or fully separate right of way for large amounts of their route:   And those ones are at least slightly able to benefit from the modern option to give the transit vehicles light priority automatically, classic streetcars couldn't do that. Carriages, autos, any other traffic would be traveling right along with them in the same lanes, they would be totally vulnerable to traffic delays. And they still are to this day when they're operated in conditions similar to how they used to be, even being on its own right of way in the middle of a street but not grade separated can mean a lot of delays waiting for traffic lights for the crossings, even when the vehicle need not deal with cars being actively following along behind them or delaying in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
LOL the Green Line. Not the greatest defense of above-ground streetcars. But yes, streetcars are good and light rail is more common outside the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
luckily light rail is making a big comeback, dallas of all places started building their network in 1990 and now has the most track of any system in the us as well as an impressive daily ridership
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Baltimore had a great light rail project going right up until voters got complacent and allowed a R to be voted governor. Now all that money is being used to repave routes out in the sticks and Baltimore was thrown a few new buses as a bone
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
In Seattle they have these trolley buses that are basically streetcar-bus hybrids. They have a pair of wires sticking out of the top that touch a set of electrical lines all along their route, taking advantage of modern electricity being cheap, but are propelled by tires like any other bus, eliminating the need for dedicated tracks. There are some special shortcuts in the city streets specifically for them. Seattle really needs public transit thanks to how steep the hills are, makes getting around with automatic transmission difficult in certain areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Toronto's currently running a pilot project for a year on King Street for its streetcar system (which has been around for ages), in which private vehicles are restricted from going through intersections; they can only turn down a side street upon reaching an intersection. The aim is to see the extent to which this impacts streetcar travel times on a downtown street that was otherwise fairly congested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:In Seattle they have these trolley buses that are basically streetcar-bus hybrids. like a bumper car?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:like a bumper car? A bumper bus. They actually work really well, I take one every other day or so. They connect where I live directly to where I need to go, they're pretty cheap (for seattle) and the newer ones have AC. For heat we use our poor people bodies. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Streetcars (that run on tracks in the street, as opposed to grade-separated light rail) have only one advantage over electric busses: it's easier politically to get dedicated right-of-way, easier to get signal priority, and even easier to get funding in the first place, because people have romantic notions about streetcars. You need to get a lot of extra funding to make it worth the infrastructure and a lot of priority over cars to make it worth the inflexibility (and if you gave those same things to busses, they'd be even better) but the political reality is what it is. Of course, here in Seattle we built a couple streetcars without their own lanes or signal priority or anything, so they're slow as hell and nearly useless compared to the busses. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Oh, those busses that get powered by electric cables overhead? Lots of them also switch to battery electric (or a deisel engine, depending on the bus) for half of their route that's off that grid. It's neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Ok now I want mesh grates above every road and I want my buses to look like actual bumper cars
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Yeah trolly buses are a good compromise as far as using electricity when you can with either a fueled or electric alternative for off-grid routes. The transmilenio in Bogota Colombia is an incredible example of buses as a trains. They’re regular buses but separated from traffic for the vast majority of the routes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Ok now I want mesh grates above every road and I want my buses to look like actual bumper cars Alright, our finest people are halfway there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
also with streetcar tracks, you can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cktlY8JfvQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Nothing says startup unicorn like a discussion of streetcar antiquity!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Nothing says startup unicorn like a discussion of streetcar antiquity!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Elevators are trains what go up & down. Makes u think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Elevators are trains what go up & down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:So are roller coasters I could live with roller coaster based public transport.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 08:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
A slower version of the euthanasia coaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Streetcars (that run on tracks in the street, as opposed to grade-separated light rail) have only one advantage over electric busses: it's easier politically to get dedicated right-of-way, easier to get signal priority, and even easier to get funding in the first place, because people have romantic notions about streetcars. You need to get a lot of extra funding to make it worth the infrastructure and a lot of priority over cars to make it worth the inflexibility (and if you gave those same things to busses, they'd be even better) but the political reality is what it is. Prague relies heavily on streetcars and it seems to work fine there. * Which you can potentially claw back somewhat via value capture
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
One thing that's important to remember is that a whole bunch of European cities also got rid of trams/streetcars at the same time as the US did, replacing them with buses (compare any photo of a European city from 1910-1920 to now to see what I mean). The difference is that European cities for a variety of reasons kept robust public transport (just not usually streetcars/trams), while the US went whole hog on suburbanisation after WWII, which was the real killer of inner city public transport. Trams/streetcars are making something of a comeback now but are usually somewhat grade separated for all the reasons people have mentioned, and are essentially being used as a step up from buses without the cost/space of subways or heavy rail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People liking them more also means it tends to increase property values more*/increases investment, and people will be less hesitant to use it over buses. MikeCrotch posted:One thing that's important to remember is that a whole bunch of European cities also got rid of trams/streetcars at the same time as the US did, replacing them with buses (compare any photo of a European city from 1910-1920 to now to see what I mean). The difference is that European cities for a variety of reasons kept robust public transport (just not usually streetcars/trams), while the US went whole hog on suburbanisation after WWII, which was the real killer of inner city public transport. Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Uber/Waymo lawsuit settles My favorite bit of Uber's press release: quote:As we change the way we operate and put integrity at the core of every decision we make,
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
they're just gonna get away with everything aren't they.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
So much for the $3 billion demand
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:
Waymo seemed to be having trouble making their case. Sarah Jeong's article from yesterday is telling: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
it doesn't really matter in the long run because uber's attempt to create self driving cars is just a desperate rainmaking appeal to long term sustainability whether or not self driving cars are a year, five years, ten years, or twenty years away, it will almost certainly be one of the established auto makers or maybe some other giant SV tech firm that comes up with the first practical consumer product. not uber
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
new snapchat sucks. i hope they burn to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it doesn't really matter in the long run because uber's attempt to create self driving cars is just a desperate rainmaking appeal to long term sustainability
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:their goal is not to create a consumer product but to replace their drivers, you know thats what they say the real goal is to try to shore up investor confidence that nobody will make a better version of their extremely easy to replicate product there are massive flaws with the whole "fleet of robocars" concept that uber is appealing to here, a concept which is at least more than a decade away and likely longer, which is way too far for any practical business purpose and is instead just investor storytime e: to head off another self driving car derail, uber is currently in the business of acting like a middleman for human drivers in privately owned cars to take fares for the "automate drivers" plan to work, we need to be in a world where fully automated cars exist. ones which absolutely require no human input at all. this is going to take some time, because for a while after the first self driving cars exist it's going to be required to keep a human in the drivers seat for liability/insurance purposes. fully self driving cars with no human input may not even be possible and the technology may dead end as just super fancy "driver assist" but that's a different conversation so, assume these cars exist. uber then has two options. do they own the cars outright, or do they rent them? if they own them, uber then completely shifts from being a technology company acting as a middleman taxi dispatcher to a fully fledged transportation company owning billions of dollars of worth of real assets, as well as paying for those assets to be maintained through some kind of partnership or internal service department. this is a huge shift away from uber's current business model, where they dont actually own any cars and so keep their overhead relatively low if they rent them, uber has to appeal to people who own brand new fancy cars to allow drunk strangers to ride around in those cars all night without direct supervision. you're targeting a smaller slice of people who are looking to use their brand new cars as passive assets generating relatively small amounts of money at some risk of damage or vandalism all of this while uber's core product is so simple and easy to reproduce that there are dozens if not hundreds of local competitors. i fully believe a massive technology company like intel, or general electric, or alphabet, is in a position to make long term development choices that wont pay off for decades. i dont think uber is in that position boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Feb 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:their goal is not to create a consumer product but to replace their drivers, you know Replacing their barely paid drivers who bring their own vehicles with very expensive brand new cars and taking on all maintenance that the drivers formerly did? That's a completely stupid business model switch which does not leave Uber coming out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Replacing their barely paid drivers who bring their own vehicles with very expensive brand new cars and taking on all maintenance that the drivers formerly did? That's a completely stupid business model switch which does not leave Uber coming out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Replacing their barely paid drivers who bring their own vehicles with very expensive brand new cars and taking on all maintenance that the drivers formerly did? That's a completely stupid business model switch which does not leave Uber coming out ahead. It's a long haul and poo poo it's probably not gonna happen, but the financial incentives are too real for them not to dream.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:Uber gets only 25% of every car ride. They would literally quadruple their revenue if they cut drivers out of the equation. That's not including all the other benefits of having full control of their supply chain. it's such an obvious fantasy though that you have to wonder why they would even include it in their plans. it would be more realistic for them to say they're going to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into lottery tickets also you're missing the point here with "they only get 25% of every car ride". if they take the ownership path, they get more of the fare, but they also shoulder more of the cost. if they take the rental path, they still don't get to keep the whole fare, some must be sent to the actual owner of the vehicle
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 20:04
|
|