SEPTA pulls PCC trolleys out of service for at least a year

[fairviewroad]

SEPTA’s trolleys along the Route 15 line will be taken out of service and replaced by buses for at least a year beginning Sunday, as the historic PCC II streetcars undergo evaluation and maintenance.

More here:
https://www.inquirer.com/transportation/septa-girard-avenue-trolley-route-15-bus-20200121.html

 

[Acela150]

The consensus amongst Philly Railfans is that they're done permanently. The federal loan requirement for these cars to run ran out about 6 months ago. So Septa isn't held hostage to run them now.

 

[Anderson]

My guess is that they'll end up on F Market or somewhere similar.

 

[fairviewroad]

The consensus amongst Philly Railfans is that they're done permanently. The federal loan requirement for these cars to run ran out about 6 months ago. So Septa isn't held hostage to run them now.

I suspect you are correct. Part of the issue is that (IMO) there isn't a very compelling case to even run streetcars on Girard Ave. Doesn't connect to the subway-surface tunnel, doesn't serve a touristy area. I love those PCC cars, but I think daily commuters on that stretch would be better served by a bus.

I'm sure if SEPTA kept a few they could run them as occasional excursions, or as a local circulator in Chestnut Hill, or whatever. But yeah, hard to see them coming back in the same way. Depends on local politics somewhat, I suppose.

 

[neroden]

The campaign to restore all the streetcar lines (including Chestnut Hill) continues. However, it now seems dependent on actually getting the new SEPTA trolley order...

 

[MARC Rider]

If you ride the Northeast Regional, you can see all the PCC cars lined up at the car barn in Southwest Philadelphia.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Frankly the vast surface portion of Phillys trolleys don’t make sense. They take advantage of almost none of the benefits of rail, while being saddled, and saddling the city with, its disadvantages.

 

[neroden]

There's plenty of room for exclusive streetcar-only lanes on the routes which advocates want to restore.

 

[MARC Rider]

Frankly the vast surface portion of Phillys trolleys don’t make sense. They take advantage of almost none of the benefits of rail, while being saddled, and saddling the city with, its disadvantages.

If streetcars don't make sense, how come a lot of cities seem to be building new lines? (Portland, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Tucson, and Washington DC. -- these are streetcars, not light rail.) Also, if streetcars don't make sense, why did most European cities keep their trams?

For the people who live along the lines in Southwest Philly, it is sure preferable to them to ride through the crowded part of Center City in a tunnel, rather than be in a bus stuck in the heavy traffic. For the point of view of the city, it keeps a whole lot of buses off the street. Powered by electricity with current off-the-shelf technology, it helps the metro area meet their air quality goals.

 

[Pere Flyer]

If streetcars don't make sense, how come a lot of cities seem to be building new lines? (Portland, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Tucson, and Washington DC. -- these are streetcars, not light rail.)

Follow the federal grants for public transit of the last decade. City DOT’s tend to plan for what they can best convince the feds to award capital for. In the last decade, that’s been streetcars/some kind of surface rail. Willingness to spend money on something doesn’t necessarily mean the project will be useful (e.g. interstate highways in cities, Wayne Co.’s “Fail Jail,” over-compromised streetcar projects) despite our best efforts with bureaucratic procedures.

Also, if streetcars don't make sense, why did most European cities keep their trams?

I’d attribute the European-U.S. difference to each’s cultural values in public transit. In most U.S. cities there just isn’t a broad consensus that public transit is superior to autos, even though fundamental laws of physics indicate otherwise.

Some U.S. streetcars have been successful, based on high ridership data—as you pointed out, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and Milwaukee have done well. Seattle’s will be useful after the planned extension. Cincinnati and Atlanta were over-compromised, St. Louis had no practical use as transit and will almost certainly get torn up (and the feds are asking for a refund) and Detroit was purely a real estate power move (where the feds wisely pulled funding when they saw the plans).

 

[jebr]

Cincinnati and Atlanta were over-compromised,

Atlanta also has the extremely frustrating problem of having a completely separate fare structure and no pass products other than a single-day pass. MARTA still runs duplicate bus service over the eastern half of the route as well, even though the route doesn't extend significantly further east than where the streetcar goes (though appears to hit a senior center and a couple other important stops.) Allowing it to function as part of the transit system as a whole would help boost ridership quite a bit, even with the other compromises.

 

[iplaybass]

The streetcars in Philly were a part of the overall public transit structure. While Germantown Ave. is narrow for a streetcar, I used to ride from one end of Erie to the other.

Removing streetcars makes room for more autos, it's as simple as that.

 

[Septa9739]

I saw a PCC doing testing today on the Route 15. About 10 motormen were aboard. Here’s hoping to a restoration. As a rider, there are a litany of reasons to restore as many of our trolleys as possible. Trolleys are faster, smoother, quieter, and cleaner running. They are better liked by commuters and neighbors alike. The 15 boosted property values when it was restored to trolley service the first time. The downside is the ability to steer around problems, but if the PPA would do its job, that would be a relatively minor problem.

 

[John from RI]

Today with battery opearated buses and street cars the facts should be changing. With battery operation street cars do not need the traditional overhead wire for power; that greatly reduces the cost of a street car line. And the intrinsic efficience of a steel wheel on a steel rail really gives a lower operating cost with a street car than with a rubber tired bus. No doubt it is still cheaper to put a bus on an existing road than to build new tracks for a street car. But over time there will be economic benefits from street cars. Why shouldn't we take advance of those economic benefits?

 

[Hound6827]

I saw a PCC doing testing today on the Route 15. About 10 motormen were aboard. Here’s hoping to a restoration. As a rider, there are a litany of reasons to restore as many of our trolleys as possible. Trolleys are faster, smoother, quieter, and cleaner running. They are better liked by commuters and neighbors alike. The 15 boosted property values when it was restored to trolley service the first time. The downside is the ability to steer around problems, but if the PPA would do its job, that would be a relatively minor problem.

They pull 10 11 13 34 36

 

[cirdan]

Today with battery opearated buses and street cars the facts should be changing. With battery operation street cars do not need the traditional overhead wire for power; that greatly reduces the cost of a street car line. And the intrinsic efficience of a steel wheel on a steel rail really gives a lower operating cost with a street car than with a rubber tired bus. No doubt it is still cheaper to put a bus on an existing road than to build new tracks for a street car. But over time there will be economic benefits from street cars. Why shouldn't we take advance of those economic benefits?

Most of the inflated costs of streetcar construction are not the actual raw costs of inserting rail or stringing catenary but the urge to piggyback lots of unconnected stuff on top of that, such as landscaping entire streets if not neiborhoods, and also overengineering.

Disclaimer: I am by all means in favor of fixing up and rehabilitating disadvantaged neighborhoods, but let's not pretend those are costs related to streetcars.

The downside of batteries will always be their weight, making vehicles unnecessary heavy and thus requiring more energy to push them along and more engineering to make the tracks stronger to carry them. Batteries may have their place on rural lines where electrification does not add up, but on an urban route with short headways, the economics are clearly in favor of electrification. The whole beauty of a PCC is that it's lightweight, it's fast and it's efficient. Many modern designs are far heavier on a per seat or per passenger basis without there being any real advantages to offset that. If we want to bring down costs and make new routes viable again, we need to focus on simplicity.

 

[joelkfla]

They pull 10 11 13 34 36

???

 

[AmtrakBlue]

???

I'm guessing those are Route #'s the PCC was used for in the past

 

[MARC Rider]

They pull 10 11 13 34 36

Those are the Subway-Surface Cars. They use Kawasaki LRVs and haven't used PCCs since, I think, the 1980s.

 

[Hound6827]

I'm guessing those are Route #'s the PCC was used for in the past

They are existing operating routes

The 15 was a Pcc line they replaced with buses

 

[MARC Rider]

Most of the inflated costs of streetcar construction are not the actual raw costs of inserting rail or stringing catenary but the urge to piggyback lots of unconnected stuff on top of that, such as landscaping entire streets if not neigborhoods, and also overengineering.

So then, the optimal strategy if you want to start a streetcar service is to just do a bare-bones project, laying tracks and wires and getting the cars running as quickly as possible. Then the landscaping stuff can be done neighborhood by neighborhood from sperate project budgets, maybe not even from actual transportation funding. A lot of small-budget projects won't catch the attention that one big high-cost project would, and, in the end, you still get the same results.

 

[cirdan]

So then, the optimal strategy if you want to start a streetcar service is to just do a bare-bones project, laying tracks and wires and getting the cars running as quickly as possible. Then the landscaping stuff can be done neighborhood by neighborhood from sperate project budgets, maybe not even from actual transportation funding. A lot of small-budget projects won't catch the attention that one big high-cost project would, and, in the end, you still get the same results.

The problem is that streetcar detractors compare costs of putting in a bus with costs of putting in a streetcar, often overlooking this is a total apples and oranges comparison, with the costs of putting in a bus being little more than a bit of signage and bus stop shelters. If you asked the bus people to totally rebuild and landscape the street you might find that the streetcar is not significantly more costly. But it is difficult to explain this to the public or even to politicians not familiar with the topic.

So my take is, just be honest about it. Nothing wrong with cleaning up and re-architecting a neighborhood. But just be up front and honest that that is what you are doing and don't try to hide it in a transportation budget, so making the transportation project look insanely expensive relative to its usefulness.

I am sure if you tried to do that on say an education budget, as in take money earmarked for improving a school to landscape the surrounding neighborhood, people would be up in arms at the dishonesty. But transportation money is somehow a legitimate target.

 

[jis]

@AlanB used to quote a study, which I can't find now, that showed that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for a Streetcar system comes out to be lower over a typical 30 year Capital Project costing period than an equivalent bus route when road maintenance and bus replacement costs are accounted for simply because LRTs last much longer than buses and require significantly less maintenance..

 

[BlackDiamond]

@AlanB used to quote a study, which I can;t find now, that showed that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for a Streetcar system comes out to be lower over a typical 30 year Capital Project costing period than an equivalent bus route when road maintenance and bus replacement costs are accounted for simply because LRTs last much longer than buses and require significantly less maintenance..

There is also the fact that light rail vehicles can carry more people per operator than buses. With modern fare collection technology you could have a train of 2 or 3 LRV's operated by one person. It would probably take 4 or 5 buses to carry the same number of passengers. Labor costs are a significant and always increasing part of transit operating expenses.

 

[west point]

It is not the cost of laying track and overhead wire. Track wok is very precise of making the sub grade very strong for the long run. That work requires all underground utilities to be located. Then it has to be inserted into conduit strong enough maintain the compaction needed for the track to remain proper surfacing. Those revision to underground utilities is the big cost.

EX: One block of the Atlanta street car was triple the original estimates for relocating utilities most that were unknown but not disclosed by owners when initial engineering announced but not locatable by then methods. It is not easy to install conduit with utility inside and then live splice the line(s) of that utility. Imagine splicing thousands of telephone wires in each of 12 cables.