Which do you prefer, subway or streetcar?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:08:22 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Which do you prefer, subway or streetcar?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Subway (metro) or streetcar (tram)?
#1
Subway
 
#2
Streetcar
 
#3
Other form of public transit
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 30

Author Topic: Which do you prefer, subway or streetcar?  (Read 2488 times)
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2016, 09:13:47 PM »

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

I prefer elevated trains to buses, of course, but buses can get you more precisely to where you want to go.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2016, 04:24:11 AM »

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

Really?!? Shocked That's absolutely pathetic for a city this size.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2016, 04:39:25 AM »


My favorite part of the SLUT is that people actually call it that unironically!  I've been in formal neighborhood meetings where it's used in serious discussion like it was the official name.  I love it.

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

Really?!? Shocked That's absolutely pathetic for a city this size.

Chicago has elevated heavy rail, same purpose really.  Streetcars are cool but have some serious disadvantages that something like the "L" doesn't, namely that they aren't grid-separated, so their reliability is affected by traffic patterns (and occasionally they maim bicyclists and stuff).  Seattle currently has a fairly terrible streetcar line with low ridership and that can sometimes be outpaced with a brisk walk.  I have a soft spot for them but they're usually not the best people-movers.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2016, 08:50:41 AM »

Oh, that makes sense. I read that post to mean Chicago had no rail at all. Trams definitely have their own issues, and they require designing lines that don't interfere with traffic too much. I imagine that would be even harder in US, where cities are built almost entirely for the convenience of drivers.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2016, 04:02:34 PM »

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

I prefer elevated trains to buses, of course, but buses can get you more precisely to where you want to go.

Even in the narrow sense (a subway being an underground heavy rail system), that's not true. Chicago's Red Line is fully underground when it reaches Downtown.

As for the original question ... streetcars are good only when they run along historic (pre 1945) routes. Otherwise they seem gimmicky to me and stand a poor second to a genuine subway/metro system.

(Yes, I am aware that most people think the opposite -- ancient New Orleans-style streetcars are kept alive only as tourist traps while the modern Siemens-built trams represent the energy efficient and air conditioned wave of the future -- but these modern systems are far more in danger of being dismantled when the streetcar/tram fad fades than any of the historic ones).
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2016, 09:59:23 PM »

Chicago doesn't have either of these things.

I prefer elevated trains to buses, of course, but buses can get you more precisely to where you want to go.

Even in the narrow sense (a subway being an underground heavy rail system), that's not true. Chicago's Red Line is fully underground when it reaches Downtown.

You don't have to tell me. It still is not a subway system. It is an elevated train system of which limited portions are underground.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2016, 10:03:54 PM »

I've never heard anyone from Chicago call it a subway, even when talking about the underground portions.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 30, 2016, 06:18:12 AM »

It makes no sense not to consider the Chicago L a metro just because it generally runs above ground. Berlin's U1 is also a metro.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2016, 07:07:35 AM »

The problem is in the poll question. Each type only picks one instance of a large class. We might have done better to use categories like

Commuter Rail (scheduled service, shared track; eg. suburban rail)
Rapid Transit (frequency service, special track; eg. heavy rail, metro, subway, underground)
Tram (frequency service, street level; eg. light rail, streetcar, trolley)
Bus
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2016, 07:46:12 AM »

The problem is that many types of urban public transportation are still hard to classify in that case, especially when they are crossover types. I also don't see the difference between frequency service and scheduled service. Most metro systems have timetables. The only differences that really matter are shared track/special track and light rail/heavy rail.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2016, 08:14:19 AM »

The problem is that many types of urban public transportation are still hard to classify in that case, especially when they are crossover types. I also don't see the difference between frequency service and scheduled service. Most metro systems have timetables. The only differences that really matter are shared track/special track and light rail/heavy rail.

In my experience in Chicago and Boston there's a big difference between scheduled service and frequency service.

The commuter rail systems have a timetable that riders must be aware of. Missing a train can result in a long delay, so you plan to arrive at the station based on the timetable. They are basically intercity trains with frequent stations. They also share typically track with other trains, including freight. That can result in delays on the schedule due to interference from non-commuter trains.

The rapid transit systems have no preset timetable. You show up at the station and know that approximately every 10 minutes (or whatever) a train will show up. Busier stations have screens to say when the next train is arriving, but that's new in the last decade. It doesn't change the fact that when you use them you just show up whenever you can get there. Delays are usually due to station congestion slowing the trains ahead of you, but since there isn't a fixed schedule it doesn't throw off a larger timetable.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2016, 11:00:32 AM »
« Edited: August 30, 2016, 11:02:12 AM by DavidB. »

In my experience in Chicago and Boston there's a big difference between scheduled service and frequency service.

The commuter rail systems have a timetable that riders must be aware of. Missing a train can result in a long delay, so you plan to arrive at the station based on the timetable. They are basically intercity trains with frequent stations. They also share typically track with other trains, including freight. That can result in delays on the schedule due to interference from non-commuter trains.

The rapid transit systems have no preset timetable. You show up at the station and know that approximately every 10 minutes (or whatever) a train will show up. Busier stations have screens to say when the next train is arriving, but that's new in the last decade. It doesn't change the fact that when you use them you just show up whenever you can get there. Delays are usually due to station congestion slowing the trains ahead of you, but since there isn't a fixed schedule it doesn't throw off a larger timetable.
There really isn't a fixed schedule, or riders are simply not aware of it because the frequency is so high they just go to the station and don't bother to find out when the next train shows up? For instance, when riding the New York subway, most commuters will probably not bother finding out what the schedule is (I certainly didn't), but there definitely is one, and by night it can suddenly become useful to look it up because the frequency of trains is lower.

My point is that there are likely timetables for both forms of public transportation. The difference solely consists of the frequency and of the question whether riders will bother looking up the timetable, but these are very subjective criteria. One person may just go and find it okay to wait for 15 minutes, another may look up the timetable. It's hard to distinguish between various types of public transportation on the basis of this criterium.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2016, 11:27:35 AM »

In my experience in Chicago and Boston there's a big difference between scheduled service and frequency service.

The commuter rail systems have a timetable that riders must be aware of. Missing a train can result in a long delay, so you plan to arrive at the station based on the timetable. They are basically intercity trains with frequent stations. They also share typically track with other trains, including freight. That can result in delays on the schedule due to interference from non-commuter trains.

The rapid transit systems have no preset timetable. You show up at the station and know that approximately every 10 minutes (or whatever) a train will show up. Busier stations have screens to say when the next train is arriving, but that's new in the last decade. It doesn't change the fact that when you use them you just show up whenever you can get there. Delays are usually due to station congestion slowing the trains ahead of you, but since there isn't a fixed schedule it doesn't throw off a larger timetable.
There really isn't a fixed schedule, or riders are simply not aware of it because the frequency is so high they just go to the station and don't bother to find out when the next train shows up? For instance, when riding the New York subway, most commuters will probably not bother finding out what the schedule is (I certainly didn't), but there definitely is one, and by night it can suddenly become useful to look it up because the frequency of trains is lower.

My point is that there are likely timetables for both forms of public transportation. The difference solely consists of the frequency and of the question whether riders will bother looking up the timetable, but these are very subjective criteria. One person may just go and find it okay to wait for 15 minutes, another may look up the timetable. It's hard to distinguish between various types of public transportation on the basis of this criterium.

The public transit world regularly makes this distinction and it is echoed in a number of documents all the way down to Wikipedia. When I served on a regional public transit committee we made this distinction regularly and no one was confused. Putting out a timetable that says trains run with a frequency of every 15 minutes is very different than saying trains are scheduled at 10:15 and 10:30.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2016, 10:18:57 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2016, 10:21:37 PM by Green Line »

In my experience in Chicago and Boston there's a big difference between scheduled service and frequency service.

The commuter rail systems have a timetable that riders must be aware of. Missing a train can result in a long delay, so you plan to arrive at the station based on the timetable. They are basically intercity trains with frequent stations. They also share typically track with other trains, including freight. That can result in delays on the schedule due to interference from non-commuter trains.

The rapid transit systems have no preset timetable. You show up at the station and know that approximately every 10 minutes (or whatever) a train will show up. Busier stations have screens to say when the next train is arriving, but that's new in the last decade. It doesn't change the fact that when you use them you just show up whenever you can get there. Delays are usually due to station congestion slowing the trains ahead of you, but since there isn't a fixed schedule it doesn't throw off a larger timetable.
There really isn't a fixed schedule, or riders are simply not aware of it because the frequency is so high they just go to the station and don't bother to find out when the next train shows up? For instance, when riding the New York subway, most commuters will probably not bother finding out what the schedule is (I certainly didn't), but there definitely is one, and by night it can suddenly become useful to look it up because the frequency of trains is lower.

My point is that there are likely timetables for both forms of public transportation. The difference solely consists of the frequency and of the question whether riders will bother looking up the timetable, but these are very subjective criteria. One person may just go and find it okay to wait for 15 minutes, another may look up the timetable. It's hard to distinguish between various types of public transportation on the basis of this criterium.

The public transit world regularly makes this distinction and it is echoed in a number of documents all the way down to Wikipedia. When I served on a regional public transit committee we made this distinction regularly and no one was confused. Putting out a timetable that says trains run with a frequency of every 15 minutes is very different than saying trains are scheduled at 10:15 and 10:30.

CTA trains do run on a timetable.  No one ever pays attention to it.  An abbreviated version of this is posted in every station: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rail_route_schedules/brown.pdf
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2016, 07:02:07 AM »

In my experience in Chicago and Boston there's a big difference between scheduled service and frequency service.

The commuter rail systems have a timetable that riders must be aware of. Missing a train can result in a long delay, so you plan to arrive at the station based on the timetable. They are basically intercity trains with frequent stations. They also share typically track with other trains, including freight. That can result in delays on the schedule due to interference from non-commuter trains.

The rapid transit systems have no preset timetable. You show up at the station and know that approximately every 10 minutes (or whatever) a train will show up. Busier stations have screens to say when the next train is arriving, but that's new in the last decade. It doesn't change the fact that when you use them you just show up whenever you can get there. Delays are usually due to station congestion slowing the trains ahead of you, but since there isn't a fixed schedule it doesn't throw off a larger timetable.
There really isn't a fixed schedule, or riders are simply not aware of it because the frequency is so high they just go to the station and don't bother to find out when the next train shows up? For instance, when riding the New York subway, most commuters will probably not bother finding out what the schedule is (I certainly didn't), but there definitely is one, and by night it can suddenly become useful to look it up because the frequency of trains is lower.

My point is that there are likely timetables for both forms of public transportation. The difference solely consists of the frequency and of the question whether riders will bother looking up the timetable, but these are very subjective criteria. One person may just go and find it okay to wait for 15 minutes, another may look up the timetable. It's hard to distinguish between various types of public transportation on the basis of this criterium.

The public transit world regularly makes this distinction and it is echoed in a number of documents all the way down to Wikipedia. When I served on a regional public transit committee we made this distinction regularly and no one was confused. Putting out a timetable that says trains run with a frequency of every 15 minutes is very different than saying trains are scheduled at 10:15 and 10:30.

CTA trains do run on a timetable.  No one ever pays attention to it.  An abbreviated version of this is posted in every station: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rail_route_schedules/brown.pdf

Yes but for the majority of the day it only lists a frequency like "then every 7 to 8 minutes until". The times are mostly for transitions at the start and end of service and during rush hours. Even then I've never found the rush hour times in the timetable to have much meaning. The L runs as frequently as it can with the necessary spacing, and the exact time doesn't matter much.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 14 queries.