Interesting insight into becoming a doctor in America

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Milwaukee had light rail before it was light rail.   It was called a street car.  I think that service ended in 1958 because the city needed the flexibility afforded by the bus system.  If there was such a demand for the service that Mayor Barrett is demanding, a  bus route could provide it at a fraction of the cost.  (Aren't buses mass transit?)

As to the comment about heavy rail, the infrastructure for that was built along with the growth of the city.  Retrofitting a system like into a city the size of Milwaukee doesn't make economic sense.   Milwaukee doesn't have the the scale to support it anyway.

mu ra-ra, you do know that street cars & light rail were ripped up all over the country because "cities needed the flexibility afforded by the bus".  The rip-up was directly paid for by the Detroit car companies, so they could make & sell busses to cities and not have to worry about any competition at all from rail.

[mu-rara]

mu ra-ra, you do know that street cars & light rail were ripped up all over the country because "cities needed the flexibility afforded by the bus".  The rip-up was directly paid for by the Detroit car companies, so they could make & sell busses to cities and not have to worry about any competition at all from rail.

Did not know that.  Can you point me to the documentation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Did not know that.  Can you point me to the documentation.

For conspiracy wonks


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA699.pdf

And here

http://debunkportland.com/printables/TQOrigin.pdf

And here


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/

And here

http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

[mu-rara]

For conspiracy wonks
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA699.pdf
And here
http://debunkportland.com/printables/TQOrigin.pdf
And here
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/
And here
http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

I found some of these.  Was looking for support of MU Fan in Connecticut's argument.

[Eldon]

Milwaukee had light rail before it was light rail.   It was called a street car.  I think that service ended in 1958 because the city needed the flexibility afforded by the bus system.  If there was such a demand for the service that Mayor Barrett is demanding, a  bus route could provide it at a fraction of the cost.  (Aren't buses mass transit?)

As to the comment about heavy rail, the infrastructure for that was built along with the growth of the city.  Retrofitting a system like into a city the size of Milwaukee doesn't make economic sense.   Milwaukee doesn't have the the scale to support it anyway.

I completely agree about Milwaukee getting an El or subway system, the city is much too small population-wise. In fact, for most (all?) American cities, building a heavy rail line(s) is way too high of a fixed cost. It would take generations to pay itself off. I was simply expressing my general affinity for (already-built) heavy rail systems.

My overall point was to express my love of mass transit (especially the potential of BRT), but also express my apathy, if not outright dislike, of streetcars/trolleys. IMO, a bus gets you the exact same thing as a streetcar at a significant fraction of the cost. Thus, if we need mass transit to go from the Pabst brewery to Ogden or whatever, why not simple create a new bus line?

I mean, i get that street cars are sexy, and more aesthetically-pleasing than a bus, but that's a steep price to pay for trying to look cool.

[jficke13]

My main skepticism on the light rail front is its ridership and therefore its ongoing ability to pay for its own upkeep. Good mass transit goes from where people are to where people want to be. From what I can tell about the proposed line is that it will only serve a very limited slice of the city, won't work for business commuting, and I'm afraid it won't have nearly enough regular riders.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

For conspiracy wonks


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA699.pdf

And here

http://debunkportland.com/printables/TQOrigin.pdf

And here


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/

And here

http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

The CBS article was straight forward with two big money lines: 
 
"Bus lines were less expensive to operate than trolleys, and far less costly to build because there were no rails. Extending service to rapidly growing suburbs could be accomplished quickly, by simply building a few bus stops, rather than taking years to construct rail lines. So, buses replaced streetcars.

For similar reasons, with the added one of personal preference for individual transportation, private cars also played an important role in the demise of streetcars. People understandably liked driving their own cars directly to their destinations more than crowding onto trolleys that dropped them blocks from where they were going."

Like most things there is no one silver bullet just a combination of factors that when mixed together spelled the downgrade of trolleys, street cars & light rail. 
I just think we've reached a tipping point and are headed back towards rails. 

[GooooMarquette]

Agree that streetcars don't seem like a very cost-effective solution compared to a bus.

If the goal is to increase mass transit ridership, create more user-friendly bus routes (as suggested earlier).  Then take some of the money you'd have spent on rails, and put it into making more attractive, well-lit bus stops. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

They are installing in Hartford a "Busway" which is kind of a compromise between light rail & a bus.  It's used in Pittsburgh and other cities.  It's set up like a light rail line with stations, however instead of a train or trolley only busses are allowed on the "track" or road. 
It's been controversial to say the least.