>>1416489>>1416490Neither of these comments directly counter the argument made in the video
>>1416492The current expansion of streetcar systems in US metros seems to be tied to enticing development along fixed corridors. Streetcars more than anything seem to signal financial commitment to a neighborhood on the part of the city. If offering public transportation were the main driver of economic growth, buses achieve the same degree of service at much lower capex and much greater route flexibility.
>>1416623Are you sure people just didn't want to pay for something they weren't going to use? If a light rail line were positioned to be so beneficial for the city, would a private entity have built it out-of-pocket?
>>1416751People are more willing to ride streetcar/light rail systems in the US because they are new and novel. Buses were literally pushed into cities across the country in the 50's on the same gimmick. Just wait 20 years for the current streetcar fleets to age like NYC subway cars. Then they'll be dirty, expensive, at-grade boondoggles.
>>1416843There's a term for at-grade low-cost mass transit - it's called a bus. And it is absolutely cheaper to operate and has lower input costs.
>>1417189>>1417195>>1417203I really fail to see how this is any more efficient than a dedicated bus lane.
>>1423147To reiterate, modern US streetcars only feel "sleek and modern" precisely because the rolling stock is brand-new and the transit option is novel to many people. Give it 20 years and it will be grimey and graffiti-covered and you'll be making pretty much the same complaints you were originally making about buses.
