They put street cars here in Phoenix, AZ. Costing two to three times more then they said it would and three years longer to build. Money that could have better been spent on improving the bus system.
1
This article does not mention any benefits of trolleys over buses and I can't think of any other than their less polluting than diesel buses -- but buses can be run much more cleanly on propane or LNG.
In addition to being more expensive than buses, they are far less flexible. Bus routes can be easily and inexpensively changed over time to reflect population shifts or other changes in demand, but trolleys cannot.
In addition to being more expensive than buses, they are far less flexible. Bus routes can be easily and inexpensively changed over time to reflect population shifts or other changes in demand, but trolleys cannot.
3
The situation in Arlington sounds very much like the things that the automotive dealers did during the 1940's and '50's to damage masstransit around the United States. It would be interesting to know who finances Mr Vihstadt's campaign and who's talking to Mr. Fisette. I'd read that story.
I have a strong feeling the Koch brothers, with their fossil fuel billions, are behind many of these "opponents". They recently derailed a mass transit project in Tennessee.
2
Just another example of our general inability to focus on a coherent public transit plan for long enough to get anything done. When one side of a debate on any subject refuses to consider anything but initial cost comparisons, it makes it hard for the rest of us to move forward in a rational way.
2
One look at that photo of DC and I see failure. Streetcar lines alongside parallel parking? A successful streetcar system — one which moves more people more efficiently than a bus or private vehicles — is designed to give the streetcar priority over all other forms of movement on the street. How's that going to happen with automobiles trying to park from the streetcar lane? Every time I travel back to the U.S. I am amazed at what I see as increasingly foreign and seemingly wrong urban planning decisions. Much of that is driven by traffic engineering choices that no street car line is going to magically fix.
3
I'm getting really tired of people taking the GM streetcar conspiracy (immortalized in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?") as fact. It's at the very least a gross exaggeration and at worst an urban legend. Plenty has been written about it. Here's a start:
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-calle...
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-calle...
2
If streetcars are so bad, then why are they popular and successful in Seattle, Portland and San Francisco?
4
On what basis do you claim that streetcars are successful in Seattle? I don't see any evidence for that at all. Tracks have been laid and traffic disrupted. That's about the end of the success.
1
Technology is moving on. Why are we spending so much money on yesterday's technologies? If public transportation is the issue, autonomous cars are almost here, thanks to the likes of Tesla and Google. We can easily envision autonomous electric vehicles zipping through non-fixed routes in a decade or two. If the commercial development is the goal, well, there are cheaper and more cost-effective ways, like building mixed use high density housing in target areas.
Sure, Europe is doing well with streetcars. But Europe has different envinronment and different culture. We should look for solutions that fit our environment using the latest technologies rather than old ones.
Sure, Europe is doing well with streetcars. But Europe has different envinronment and different culture. We should look for solutions that fit our environment using the latest technologies rather than old ones.
1
Denver has a fantastic light rail/street car system that is jam packed with commuters during rush hour. New lines to Boulder and the airport open next year. Yes, it's an investment, but it's also a huge boon to quality of life, particularly in a city with horrendous traffic. The key is building routes that matter -- i.e. those routes that take people to work and school, not just in useless circles around a downtown area.
8
Good to know!
Frankly, when I read the comments in this forum I have to chuckle at how "clueless' some Americans are about Public Transit, its purpose and how it fits in to modern, growing urban centers. Toronto(fourth largest city in North America) has always had an extensive streetcar system(the largest in the Americas) which consists of approximately 250 streetcars running on their lines every day with ridership exceeding 300,000 (and growing). For those that think buses are better, the new modern streetcars that have been ordered and now being gradually introduced in to the system would require THREE buses to match the numbers of passengers that they can carry so if traffic is a concern, think again. I would dare say that many who criticize probably live in the "burbs", have never used any form of public transit at all OR who think it is only for the inner city and "those' people.
This another perfect example of of why many American inner cities have become virtual dead zones in which now public money has to be thrown at the situation to attempt to resurrect them and good public transit in many forms is central to that issue.
This another perfect example of of why many American inner cities have become virtual dead zones in which now public money has to be thrown at the situation to attempt to resurrect them and good public transit in many forms is central to that issue.
10
I live near DC and I have driven through H street where the new streetcars are being tested. The street is too small for cars and streetcars to share it. On several blocks, cars drive single lane. This means that a small mistake by a driver and he/she is in the streetcar tracks and an accident can occur (and indeed several have already occurred before the service even began). If City Council wants to implement streetcar (a very bad idea in my opinion), they should have closed the whole street (and create a lot of new problems).
The transit problem in DC is not how to navigate within the city (if you are a resident you can use the metro). The problem is that the metro does not extend farther enough outside the city so a lot of people (myself included) need to drive into the city. Most new developments in VA are occurring 40 miles from DC but the metro extends just 20 miles outside the city (even less in the MD side of it). Plus, this is a very old, unreliable and EXPENSIVE system. For 2 people sharing 1 car, it is way cheaper (50% cheaper or better) to drive (and pay parking and face traffic jams) than to use the Metro.
The transit problem in DC is not how to navigate within the city (if you are a resident you can use the metro). The problem is that the metro does not extend farther enough outside the city so a lot of people (myself included) need to drive into the city. Most new developments in VA are occurring 40 miles from DC but the metro extends just 20 miles outside the city (even less in the MD side of it). Plus, this is a very old, unreliable and EXPENSIVE system. For 2 people sharing 1 car, it is way cheaper (50% cheaper or better) to drive (and pay parking and face traffic jams) than to use the Metro.
1
It's misleading to say that the Metro stops short in Maryland. I lived in Silver Spring for a while and I found that the Maryland Transit Authority picked up where Metro stopped. I could easily take regional rail from downtown DC to Baltimore. If you live 40 miles into Virginia I think that it is the responsibility of Virginia to fund a system that would eventually hook up with Metro. Good luck with that.
1
To JM:
I agree with you that it is VA responsibility to fund the Metro expansion into VA (there is nothing in my comment that says otherwise). The Silver line extension into Dulles airport (finishing a little above it) is clearly not sufficient; much more is needed.
However, I maintain that the DC Metro should also be significantly extended into MD. For example, the Red line must reach Germantown and above (where a lot of new development is happening) and the Green line must also reach BWI (but this airport competes with Dulles, so I am not holding my breath for that). Plus other extensions into PG County (maybe the new FBI HQ may help with this).
Overall, my comment was about the need to extend the DC Metro, rather than add Streetcars which compete with cars (and bikes and pedestrians) and don’t add much in terms of transport.
I agree with you that it is VA responsibility to fund the Metro expansion into VA (there is nothing in my comment that says otherwise). The Silver line extension into Dulles airport (finishing a little above it) is clearly not sufficient; much more is needed.
However, I maintain that the DC Metro should also be significantly extended into MD. For example, the Red line must reach Germantown and above (where a lot of new development is happening) and the Green line must also reach BWI (but this airport competes with Dulles, so I am not holding my breath for that). Plus other extensions into PG County (maybe the new FBI HQ may help with this).
Overall, my comment was about the need to extend the DC Metro, rather than add Streetcars which compete with cars (and bikes and pedestrians) and don’t add much in terms of transport.
1
Sounds to me like over fiscal failure, in some cities, may have doomed the trend toward public transportation. Hanging in there would certainly prove to be the right decision, as such systems would soon begin to pay their own way, wherever there are jobs to go to.
2
You should try living in a poor, somewhat remote place, where there aren't even buses to take you places. Makes life very difficult for a lot of folks.
I remember visiting New Orleans and realizing that the "Desire" in Tennessee Williams' play "A Streetcar Named Desire" was a place in that city. Of course, the streetcars were long gone by the time I visited; my realization came when I saw "Desire" as the destination on a city bus. Somehow "A Bus Called Desire" doesn't have the same poetic ring, and that probably has something to do with people's preference for streetcars. Of course, poetry is rarely much of a guide for public policy.
3
one question here is why US cities have been so reluctant to adopt express bus lanes where riders pay at the station and board from a high platform so there are no steps. seems to work in many Latin American cities and is much cheaper to build and maintain. the transit gurus say passengers want shiny trains, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to back up that expensive assertion.
1
The T-3 Line light rail line around part of Paris is working very well. The T-3 railhead (@ Porte d'Asnières) is down river from the Eiffel Tower. Take it around on the inner Périphérique of Paris. It connects the Metro Lines from the center of Paris. It encourages public transportation. Perhaps it will be extended all the way around Paris. You would be surprised what you see on the T-3. The real Paris.
2
Michael you have made three errors. 1. The T-3a Tramway beginning is down Seine river from the Eiffel Tower at the Pont du Garigliano. The Pont du Garigliano is a bridge over the Seine. If the T-3 went all the way around Paris the Tramway would go over the Seine on the Pont du Garigliano. The current end of the T-3b is at the Porte d'Asnières; one of the old gates to Paris on the North side of Paris. 2. Paris calls it T-3 a Tramway; not a light rail system. 3. You forgot to encourage American Tourists in Paris to ride the T-3 as an example of excellent urban transit. There is nothing like April in Paris on the T-3 Tram Line. You also forgot to mention that the T-3 is now so long that it is divided into the T-3a and the T-3b.
1
I live in DC, a few blocks from H Street, and am an urban planner who generally thinks streetcars add value.
But the H Street system is a total blunder, but not because it's a bad idea, but due to incompetence at the Wilson Building, Washington's City Hall. The system was mostly driven by the politics of vanity, not sound planning.
The biggest mistake was moving ahead with construction before a an agreement to build a turnaround connecting the streetcar line to D.C.s Union Station, where there is a Metro Rail subway stop (it's also the bus terminal) was reached with Amtrak. Amtrak refused to grant the turnaround due to Amtrak's expansion plans. So the H Street Streetcar is a Streetcar to nowhere. it runs about a mile and a quarter, and since most commuters are not going to walk the quarter mile through a bus garage to the Metro Rail station, particularly in adverse weather, the Streetcar is only useful for people at the east end of the line to travel to the Giant Supermarket at the line's west end.
As Bugs Bunny says, that all folks. D.C.'s H Street Streetcar has tuned into a cartoon.
But the H Street system is a total blunder, but not because it's a bad idea, but due to incompetence at the Wilson Building, Washington's City Hall. The system was mostly driven by the politics of vanity, not sound planning.
The biggest mistake was moving ahead with construction before a an agreement to build a turnaround connecting the streetcar line to D.C.s Union Station, where there is a Metro Rail subway stop (it's also the bus terminal) was reached with Amtrak. Amtrak refused to grant the turnaround due to Amtrak's expansion plans. So the H Street Streetcar is a Streetcar to nowhere. it runs about a mile and a quarter, and since most commuters are not going to walk the quarter mile through a bus garage to the Metro Rail station, particularly in adverse weather, the Streetcar is only useful for people at the east end of the line to travel to the Giant Supermarket at the line's west end.
As Bugs Bunny says, that all folks. D.C.'s H Street Streetcar has tuned into a cartoon.
3
New streetcar lines don't make sense because of the cost of installing the track (not sure about overhead electric lines though). What seems to make the most sense now are electrified buses with dedicated lanes, like they have in the San Fernando Valley and Eugene, OR. What I don't understand is why the issue seems to be so often either or--either fixed rail or nothing.
1
A BIG loss for Columbia Pike and Arlington VA. We'll see if Vihstad can come up with anything close. He hasn't yet and my guess is he can't and isn't interested. The US needs to look more to Europe where public transport is LIGHT YEARS ahead.
2
We now have 4 miles of street car in Tucson. It cost over $90M. We have over 500,000 residents and are one of the poorest cities in the nation. We have one of the lowest economic outputs in the nations for a city of our size. It is self-evident that it was a waste of federal money. One can buy 8 good electric buses for under $4M that would do the same thing.
The street car has not made a large economic impact nor will it, but the consultants who championed it, and the contractors who built it got paid.
The street car has not made a large economic impact nor will it, but the consultants who championed it, and the contractors who built it got paid.
2
Building these kinds of public transit systems require a funding stream from tax sources, mostly local. Since we are in a era of ant-government, anti-tax, revenue streams from tax sources are very unpredictable, and in many places unavailable.
Even life sustaining issues like water and sewer resources have difficulty finding funding sources.
Lobbying from traditional sources, road builders, auto makers, and ideological differences will prevent any inroads towards development of these resources for decades to come.
Cities in Europe have an completely different outlook on the quality of life than cities in the USA
So, if you want a streetcar in your town, be prepared to pay for yourself, as in with your own checkbook
Even life sustaining issues like water and sewer resources have difficulty finding funding sources.
Lobbying from traditional sources, road builders, auto makers, and ideological differences will prevent any inroads towards development of these resources for decades to come.
Cities in Europe have an completely different outlook on the quality of life than cities in the USA
So, if you want a streetcar in your town, be prepared to pay for yourself, as in with your own checkbook
2
The first principle in ANY transport medium is linking places people already want to access or will because of some major attraction-CBD, sports venue, major medical center, etc. The issue of evicting cars from the tracks is simple politics. In Wash DC there was a trolley car only median on several avenues as well as tunnels preventing cars from blocking the streetcars before Congress mandated buses.. Only auto centric thinking prevents making the H Street tracks no car zones. The same could have been done in Arlington. Of course, buses are cheaper todeploy until you figure in replacing them twice as often as streetcars, breathing "clean diesel" exhaust, and that they too are sabotaged by autos unless they get exclusive lanes. As to bicycling near tracks, I learned how to do that in San Francisco 40+ years ago. Much saner than dodging NYC buses on 5th Avenue.
1
"Only auto centric thinking prevents making the H Street tracks no car zones. The same could have been done in Arlington."
It would have required legal changes at the state level, which would never happen given Virginia politics (remember, we were the state searching through the e-mails of university professors doing climate change research). VDOT required that Columbia Pike retain four lanes for cars, and there is simply not enough room to add additional dedicated lanes.
It would have required legal changes at the state level, which would never happen given Virginia politics (remember, we were the state searching through the e-mails of university professors doing climate change research). VDOT required that Columbia Pike retain four lanes for cars, and there is simply not enough room to add additional dedicated lanes.
1
Only streetcar centric thinking prevents efficient use of streets.
2
“One of the greatest disappointments for me,” he said recently, as he drove the route, now largely defined by strip shopping and aging garden apartments,
When that someone in charge of deciding its fate is driving the route, is it any wonder these projects fail because their planners are so out of touch with the needs and realities of the users without cars will need and are actually looking for in viable and efficient mass transit system.
A lot of these piecemeal systems that are so limited in their scope and practicality for daily use, make many streetcars appear to be nothing more than like those in San Francisco that are quaint tourist attractions or amusement rides.
When that someone in charge of deciding its fate is driving the route, is it any wonder these projects fail because their planners are so out of touch with the needs and realities of the users without cars will need and are actually looking for in viable and efficient mass transit system.
A lot of these piecemeal systems that are so limited in their scope and practicality for daily use, make many streetcars appear to be nothing more than like those in San Francisco that are quaint tourist attractions or amusement rides.
4
You're wrong about the streetcars in San Francisco. They're an important part of our transit system and used by residents.
5
You obviously don't live in San Francisco. The Muni streetcars/light rail are the fundamental component of the public transportation system. You're thinking of just the historic streetcars on the waterfront, which also serve important commuter functions by the way, and the cable cars. You're completely missing the five modern streetcar/light rail lines that operate well throughout the city in what would otherwise be car dependent areas like Sunset and Richmond.
8
I rode the KLM from Church to Van Ness for 4 years. The trains were always too crowded and we always got stuck in the tunnel and had to wait to pull into the station. Then I moved and started taking the bus on Van Ness. I travel twice the distance in half the time. The only upside to the train was during storms. Being in the station was better than waiting in the elements. I think streetcars can do well with a dedicated right-of-way.
1
They've been running the streetcar up and down H Street for four months or more without passengers as a test!!! How long does it take to figure out how to do it? I'm all for streetcars after seeing how well they do in Europe but the fools who run the system in Washington D.C.are totally clueless. The people in Arlington saw the foolishness that was going on in the District and then decided to cancel there own system.
4
Here in Cincinnati, OH there has been debate about the streetcar for years and years. It is under development at the moment, and I still wonder what "economic impact" it will have in the long run. Moreover, the practicality of it I bring into question. After fighting tooth and nail to move the project forward, it will only be encompassing a rather small loop within the city. I would have much rather had the money invested in a more comprehensive transportation system that would connect the outer areas of the city into the actual downtown area. People will still have to travel into the city to even use it, and the population within a reasonable distance of using the streetcar on a daily/weekly basis can't possibly support it. I view it as a novelty, but I guess only time will tell.
4
In Baltimore they have a subway that runs from downtown to the far North West suburbs; then they use the light rail,which runs from the airport to the far North of the city; there are lots of bus lines too; and downtown there are some free buses that travel only in the downtown areas called the Charm City Circulator.
The Subway is in real bad need of upgrade and repair, the light rail is more than fine, except in southern areas where there is a lot of crime. And the local buses downtown can take you anywhere you need, fast and free.
This combination allows a lot of people moving all over the city. You can take Amtrak into the city, take the Circulator and go visit all the touristy areas, including the stadiums, and then take it back to Amtrak and go home. In the process you drop a lot of money into the local economy.
This is the best example i can think of where all these came together and really helped the local economy and community.
It's not perfect, and a planned light rail expansion was derailed by local neighborhoods very petty concerns. But over all, it works very well.
Maybe, for once, Baltimore should be set as a good example of how to plan and run a public transportation service.
The Subway is in real bad need of upgrade and repair, the light rail is more than fine, except in southern areas where there is a lot of crime. And the local buses downtown can take you anywhere you need, fast and free.
This combination allows a lot of people moving all over the city. You can take Amtrak into the city, take the Circulator and go visit all the touristy areas, including the stadiums, and then take it back to Amtrak and go home. In the process you drop a lot of money into the local economy.
This is the best example i can think of where all these came together and really helped the local economy and community.
It's not perfect, and a planned light rail expansion was derailed by local neighborhoods very petty concerns. But over all, it works very well.
Maybe, for once, Baltimore should be set as a good example of how to plan and run a public transportation service.
4
Remember, President Reagan said that the cost of building and running the Metrorail system in Miami was not justified, based on low ridership at the time the new system began operation- cheaper to give each rider a limousine, he
suggested. In December, 2014, average week-day boardings were 71,000. Where are all those limousines? The old ones and the new ones!
suggested. In December, 2014, average week-day boardings were 71,000. Where are all those limousines? The old ones and the new ones!
6
In Portland, OR the City planners have approved construction of thousands of new apartment units with -0- on site parking. The City argues that residents don't need cars, and that they will all take the streetcar or perhaps ride bicycles to work or to the grocery store. While this model might work in NYC or Chicago or Philly, it is highly controversial in the Pacific Northwest where nearly everybody has a car (or 3). It remains to be seen whether streetcars become the alternative transportation for the 21st Century or just a toy for urban planners.
5
City planners tend to be herd animals and think that one solution fits all cities.
Cars, trucks, taxis, buses and other motorized traffic are used to get in, out and around a metro area and need places to park or be off the streets while business is conducted. A lack of that understanding among the idiots that plan for traffic and transit has been rife here in NYC.
We've undergone a building boom, especially in Manhattan that develops parking lots and buildings into multistory condos (primarily). Throw in the removal of one lane of traffic on major avenues throughout Manhattan for dedicated bike lanes and that exacerbates the problem on an exponential basis.
But our region's city planners don't seem to be able to expand mass transit around the city and its neighbors to relieve the need to drive around. From the cancellation of the new train tunnel from NJ to midtown, to the reduction in bus and subway services after the economic collapse and Hurricane Sandy, the overpriced and overdue 2nd Avenue subway, 7 line extension, and access for LI Railroad to Grand Central Termina,l these planners have shoved in ways to make traffic worse without making sure that we have alternatives.
People will only give up their cars if they have viable alternatives. It's a lot easier and cheaper to run smaller, cheaper buses on a more frequent schedule than to put in the infrastructure for a streetcar, subway or other transit option. Maybe that's the cheapest, most flexible option.
Cars, trucks, taxis, buses and other motorized traffic are used to get in, out and around a metro area and need places to park or be off the streets while business is conducted. A lack of that understanding among the idiots that plan for traffic and transit has been rife here in NYC.
We've undergone a building boom, especially in Manhattan that develops parking lots and buildings into multistory condos (primarily). Throw in the removal of one lane of traffic on major avenues throughout Manhattan for dedicated bike lanes and that exacerbates the problem on an exponential basis.
But our region's city planners don't seem to be able to expand mass transit around the city and its neighbors to relieve the need to drive around. From the cancellation of the new train tunnel from NJ to midtown, to the reduction in bus and subway services after the economic collapse and Hurricane Sandy, the overpriced and overdue 2nd Avenue subway, 7 line extension, and access for LI Railroad to Grand Central Termina,l these planners have shoved in ways to make traffic worse without making sure that we have alternatives.
People will only give up their cars if they have viable alternatives. It's a lot easier and cheaper to run smaller, cheaper buses on a more frequent schedule than to put in the infrastructure for a streetcar, subway or other transit option. Maybe that's the cheapest, most flexible option.
1
Newark, NJ has a line that runs about a mile and duplicates the last leg of at least 6 bus routes. It's less convenient than a bus because it runs on a 15 or 20 minute schedule, while you can grab a bus in any 5 minute window if you really need to. Otherwise, the walk from Broad Street Station to Penn Station is about 20 minutes. It doesn't seem to be any quicker than a bus, and you often hear the blasts from its horn when it's stuck in traffic. I don't get it.
1
I lived in Boston ca 1980, and the E Arborway streetcar line was extremely slow, sometimes slower than walking pace, because the streetcar shares the street with cars and traffic. Buses have the same problem.
You need rail separated from cars so it can actually move. Otherwise, you might as well walk and get some exercise.
You need rail separated from cars so it can actually move. Otherwise, you might as well walk and get some exercise.
2
The newer streetcars can control the traffic lights, which allows them to move through traffic.
That said, cities need less passenger cars and more mass transit and that means congestion pricing.
That said, cities need less passenger cars and more mass transit and that means congestion pricing.
1
Funny how the "progressives" these days are all about telling people what to do and how to live. Looks like you took some lessons from the far right wing.
1
Fortunately, they got rid of a good chunk of the E Arborway branch. At present, it only exists where the street is wide enough for a a trolley line. Now ambulances can actually get to hospitals without being trapped behind some old clunky streetcar.
1
Urban Transit, One of Two:
Other cities should take far more careful note of the TWO light rail systems now successfully operating in Portland, OR. Why do they apparently work so well, where other systems in other cities may not? There are multiple reasons, among them:
Truly excellent planning! Portland's original line used existing ROWs where possible, displaced very few people/homes and addressed a specific need to Move People from one area to another quickly and at minimal cost. (Riding the original line from extreme East Portland into downtown is still far faster that driving the route.
In most important locations, Portland provided substantial parking and even secure bicycle storage at minimal cost.
Portland engaged the business/employer community by providing huge incentives for employers to buy and distribute Tri-Met Stickers to employees and at a fraction of the annual cash cost. ( A fingernail-sized attachment to and ID badge or card that permits Any Ride, Any Time.)
Portland expanded their system in all four directions as population density and demand warranted, always with well-developed community support.
Portland's transit police force does not and cannot possibly have agents on every train, but perhaps magically, they are presently available well before serious trouble erupts, regardless of the area.
Other cities should take far more careful note of the TWO light rail systems now successfully operating in Portland, OR. Why do they apparently work so well, where other systems in other cities may not? There are multiple reasons, among them:
Truly excellent planning! Portland's original line used existing ROWs where possible, displaced very few people/homes and addressed a specific need to Move People from one area to another quickly and at minimal cost. (Riding the original line from extreme East Portland into downtown is still far faster that driving the route.
In most important locations, Portland provided substantial parking and even secure bicycle storage at minimal cost.
Portland engaged the business/employer community by providing huge incentives for employers to buy and distribute Tri-Met Stickers to employees and at a fraction of the annual cash cost. ( A fingernail-sized attachment to and ID badge or card that permits Any Ride, Any Time.)
Portland expanded their system in all four directions as population density and demand warranted, always with well-developed community support.
Portland's transit police force does not and cannot possibly have agents on every train, but perhaps magically, they are presently available well before serious trouble erupts, regardless of the area.
2
Portland's system was built along pre-existing bus routes that the white yuppies who run the town thought too low class for them. So now they have street cars full of whites, and the buses with far more minorities are being cut back. Funny how that works.
1
Streetcars work well in dense population areas. However, they are a subsidized transportation (like most public transportation). Transit authorities only have so much funding, so their response is usually to cut bus service, used by low income individuals who have no other means to get anywhere.
In the Twin Cities, one social services agency that places individuals for work reported that 25% of the available positions aren't on a bus route. So instead of focusing on general accessibility, we decided to build a light rail to connect the two downtowns. I'd rather have better access than a cute train any day.
In the Twin Cities, one social services agency that places individuals for work reported that 25% of the available positions aren't on a bus route. So instead of focusing on general accessibility, we decided to build a light rail to connect the two downtowns. I'd rather have better access than a cute train any day.
All modes of transportation are subsidized. Motor vehicle based transportation on asphalt roads with rubber tires and 50% foreign petroleum is more heavily subsidized than most other types of transport.
The question of whether or not the light rail system goes where it needs to go is definitely an important one. An empty streetcar is an expensive thing to have around. Fortunately, here in SF the streetcars are very often packed like a Tokyo subway. Frequently, they can't keep up with demand.
The question of whether or not the light rail system goes where it needs to go is definitely an important one. An empty streetcar is an expensive thing to have around. Fortunately, here in SF the streetcars are very often packed like a Tokyo subway. Frequently, they can't keep up with demand.
2
The demise of streetcar systems nationwide in the 1950s was the result of greed, stupidity, short-sightedness and most of all city government ineptidude. Formerly vibrant inner cities were turned into blighted, high-crime ghost towns and unsustainable, environmentally bad and poor land use suburban sprawl is the result that we all have to live with. Yes, streetcars are expensive but if well planned they are more than worth. A recent New York Times articles stated that young people are moving back into the cities and relying on public transportation instead of unsustainable auto based movement. The downright stupid tearing up of perfectly usable, viable and updatable streetcar systems has left deep and probably irreversable scars in our once-great cities. The automakes of America have gotten what they want, we are now nearly solely dependant on auto-based transporation and all the very bad things that go with it!
11
The removal of streetcars in the late 1920s across the country was a deliberate act done in coordination with the motor companies who envisioned everyone with their own automobile. Well, their wishes came true and now look what we've got. Entire cities in the Northeast -- through NJ, Conn into Rhode Island and Mass -- cities like Hartford, NY, Pawtucket, Providence, Fall River, Boston -- were chopped up during the Eisenhower administration to run highways through their centers. Some cities, Pawtucket for example, simply never recovered from the destruction. And now we rely on cars, get killed in cars, pay an absurd amount to maintain and drive them -- from fuel to insurance -- and have had the heart and souls of our cities ripped out while the motor companies, insurance companies and oil companies got fatter and richer. Poorer countries, like those in Eastern Europe, never ripped out their street cars and are better off today -- transportationwise -- for that. Our public transport is a joke. We are addicted to cars.
13
Philadelphia has a great trolley-car system which runs below ground in Center City (downtown), then comes above ground in West Philadelphia neighborhoods. It's clean, safe and reliable transportation, and, because it runs on electricity, there's no smog or other pollutants in the air.
1
Streetcars are proceeding in Houston, TX, with one line recently expanded and two additional lines nearing completion.
1
I love Muni in San Francisco. Good combination of lots of stuff and the car sits in the garage. On the rare occasions that there is a wait, no problem, I read my New York Times.
7
I agree, the streetcars are great.
Now if we could just get some kind of decent newspaper here…
The NYT is by far the best paper ('paper'?) in San Francisco.
Now if we could just get some kind of decent newspaper here…
The NYT is by far the best paper ('paper'?) in San Francisco.
1
Streetcars are just too expensive, and their rails are problematic for bicycles.
A much better approach is buses fueled by natural gas running in dedicated bus lanes.
Another alternative is trollybuses (electric buses which draw their power from overhead wires but use rubber tires). These elminate the need for rails.
A much better approach is buses fueled by natural gas running in dedicated bus lanes.
Another alternative is trollybuses (electric buses which draw their power from overhead wires but use rubber tires). These elminate the need for rails.
2
Streetcars are not inherently good or bad. They only work if the following conditions are met:
1) They serve the necessary critical mass of population - too many projects are built that simply do not have the population to support them.
2) They take people where they want/need to go. This is a big problem where destinations are sprawled out all over the map. Getting to your job in Silicon Valley is a lot different than getting to your job on Wall St.
3) They run with sufficient frequency. They longer people are required to wait, the less likely they will use it.
4) Fares are reasonable - this always requires subsidies.
Public transit is particularly vulnerable to 3) and 4), as cost pressures lead to schedule cuts and fares increases.
1) They serve the necessary critical mass of population - too many projects are built that simply do not have the population to support them.
2) They take people where they want/need to go. This is a big problem where destinations are sprawled out all over the map. Getting to your job in Silicon Valley is a lot different than getting to your job on Wall St.
3) They run with sufficient frequency. They longer people are required to wait, the less likely they will use it.
4) Fares are reasonable - this always requires subsidies.
Public transit is particularly vulnerable to 3) and 4), as cost pressures lead to schedule cuts and fares increases.
19
David, I think that here in the USA your #1 is the key issue: population density. More than many other countries, in most cities we have to contend with sprawl and this effects the viability of public transportation of any kind.
The cars are the problem.
Streetcar systems need to be accompanied by severe restrictions on cars.
Inter-city rail, streetcars, subways - all powered by renewable electric energy are the transportation of our carbon constrained future.
The Times should be ashamed for running this hit piece.
Streetcar systems need to be accompanied by severe restrictions on cars.
Inter-city rail, streetcars, subways - all powered by renewable electric energy are the transportation of our carbon constrained future.
The Times should be ashamed for running this hit piece.
8
Libertarians like to cite Curitiba, Brazil's "privatized" bus system as an example of "free market" public transport. They ignore the fact that the system is a complicated public-private hybrid and that it is accompanied by strict limits on automobiles and land use.
Anyway, here in the U.S., where some people think that their cars prove their human worth and others are car potatoes, healthy adults who are unable to walk a couple of blocks to the store, I don't hold out much hope for restrictions on cars. Even in cities with good public transit, cities where living without a car is feasible, some people insist on driving and then have the nerve to complain about the traffic, as if they aren't part of the traffic.
Anyway, here in the U.S., where some people think that their cars prove their human worth and others are car potatoes, healthy adults who are unable to walk a couple of blocks to the store, I don't hold out much hope for restrictions on cars. Even in cities with good public transit, cities where living without a car is feasible, some people insist on driving and then have the nerve to complain about the traffic, as if they aren't part of the traffic.
The Economist magazine has long opined that dedicated bus lanes are more cost effective and surprisingly more environmentally friendly, due to LNG engines and the ability to build a sustainable system more responsive to ridership demands, than ground-level light rail. Once created, dedicated bus lanes are also much easier to maintain and manage than street-cars.
These trendy 'boondoggles' appear to be manifestations of naive masters theses of freshly graduated urban planners. Moreover, their construction appears to benefit little more than government sub-contractors, real-estate agents, and the property owners they represent.
These trendy 'boondoggles' appear to be manifestations of naive masters theses of freshly graduated urban planners. Moreover, their construction appears to benefit little more than government sub-contractors, real-estate agents, and the property owners they represent.
3
Here in San Antonio, the Koch brothers conspired to bring the initiative down then it came out that they are spearheading efforts in other cities as well across the US whether the projects are viable or not.
7
Of course they did. It's bad for the big oil companies.
3
There are certain anti-transit shills who invariably pop up to give speeches and write articles in the local press whenever a community considers any form of non-automotive transit. Often they just plain lie, such as one such person who claimed that no one but foreign tourists rides streetcars or trains in Europe.
2
Americans are still laboring under the delusion that riding around in (often) single-occupant, two-ton vehicles is a wise use of limited renewable energy resources, so yes, public transportation will never get approriate priority.
12
As I recall, Tennessee Williams resided for a time on Peter Street in the New Orleans French Quarter while he was expanding his short play "The Poker Night" into "A Streetcar Named Desire." The Desire car line ran in front of his apartment building, and the clanging of the car at times interrupted his concentration.
Maybe that's just a bit of lore.
Maybe that's just a bit of lore.
2
Correction: That's St. Peter Street.
I have been recently surveying the street cars in the Washington DC H Street area , on the ground I notice that the cars are big ugly monsters, they cause traffic jams and parking problems. There appears to be no entry point for passengers to get into the cars for the beginning point is in the middle of the road, besides that, H Street during the day is empty, I have walked the streets alone, WHERE are the customers? NOT only that, H Street in DC is for walkers and bikers - tourists do NOT come to H Street. The money spent has been completely wasted for the people who planned and implemented this project are living in their LaLa land offices and did not examine the common sense of everyday street life. The Street Car on H Street comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.
4
Urban planners love to waste other people's money.
If streetcars don't have dedicated lanes, the only two advantages they have is that they present a higher class image of mass transit, and they allow citizens to know that there is some permanence to the routes. With buses, you don't know if some commissioner is going to decide to move a bus route, but with streetcars you know that is very difficult to do (both a pro and con).
1
Even without dedicated lanes, streetcars have the advantage over buses of greater capacity; lower operating costs; and, a far longer time between replacement (rail vehicles of all types last far longer than road vehicles).
The city of San Jose, CA., has a light rail system. It has never achieved its promise. Work and housing patterns are too decentralized for many residents of Silicon Valley to make use of it on a daily basis. Both lines pass through the downtown but that is not a regional job hub. For anyone who can use it the time factor kicks in. Since it largely travels surface streets, the trains need to stop at every red light. Driving may be faster.
3
While it may not have achieved its promise, its ridership has been consistently increasing and it keeps over 30,000 people off the roads everyday. As Silicon Valley continues to become more urban, the use of the light rail system will only increase.
4
30,000 rides doesn't mean 30,000 fewer cars, but heck, why not lie about it. Good cause, right?
1
INSTEAD ... but similar: absolutely dedicated lanes for buses --- that could be changed quickly as needs and use change. The use of concrete barriers and the placement of bus-stop shelters would be part of this plan. Cheaper? then laying tracks and wires. THEN - don't we have electric battery technology or some other technologies which buses could use which would reduce/eliminate pollution? Buses might be big enough to carry a lot of batteries and they could be scheduled and drected into recharging stations in timely manners.
1
I for one am very excited about the new M1 street car line being built in Detroit. At this point it will only run from the Downtown area to Mid-Town, but it is a start.
3
Only in the US would such ridiculous concerns be expressed about a method of transportation that is used everywhere else in the developed world with huge success. Hasn't anyone been to Zurich or Munich? That the country which built the space shuttle views building streetcar systems as controversial and enormously complex is pathetic beyond belief. Europeans and Asians construct streetcar lines in in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost of the US. Something is seriously wrong in the US approach. But I suppose it is simply confirmation that America remains in the stone-age when it comes to public transportation. Gas-guzzling and polluting buses and cars continue to be worshipped and promoted by people who have no idea how much better urban transportation can be.
24
As a frequent visitor to Tokyo I do not recall seeing streetcars there, although the city has the most amazing and convenient subway and rail systems I've ever seen. But what works so well in Tokyo would never succeed in most American cities, which lack the population density - the critical mass. Moreover, public transit fares in Japan are generally higher despite the much greater usage. I assume this means that public transit is not as heavily subsidized.
European and Asian cities that decided to favor public transportation over private cars are the better off for it. I don't fear diluting our national character by imitating them.
2
You are correct, there is only one streetcar line in Tokyo (Arakawa Line). Megacities like Tokyo, NY, Shanghai, London, Paris and Moscow have the population and density to support heavy rail/subways. Streetcars are ideal for medium-density cities like Washington DC (which is why I mentioned Zurich), and remain in use in many medium-size Japanese cities such as Nagasaki, Matsuyama, Sapporo, Hakodate, Toyama, Kyoto, Kumamoto, Kagoshima and Hiroshima. Fares are higher in the US and the systems are also lavishly subsidized, because the Japanese value first-class public transportation. Americans prefer to lavish public money on roads and cars.
"A Desire Named Streetcars" is not playing in Washington, D.C.
3
Streetcar lines are cheap to build ... American cities were once networked with thousands of miles of streetcar lines built with largely (immigrant) hand labor. Besides electrified 'trolley cars' there were horsecars and cable cars (as exist now in San Francisco).
Lines are now government projects that cost billion$ with the required kickbacks, sweetheart deals, graft, bribes and payments under the table: Arlington paid $1 million for one streetcar stop ... no gold plating on the stop just on the contract.
Also included in costs are piggy-backed 'infrastructure improvements' along with the tracks. This means new sewers, water mains, gas mains, electrical ducts, Internet/TV/cell phone cables plus new paving and sidewalks ... don't forget the $1 million streetcar stops. Cars once made in the US are largely imported at very high cost. Streetcars in 2015 isn't transport, it's another sleazy racket like 'health care'.
Fundamentally, streetcars are incompatible with automobiles. Cities need to make a choice of one or the other; with the price signal from the fuel industry it is likely the autos are on their way out ... they are at bottom much more costly and credit-subsidy dependent than any number of streetcars.
Lines are now government projects that cost billion$ with the required kickbacks, sweetheart deals, graft, bribes and payments under the table: Arlington paid $1 million for one streetcar stop ... no gold plating on the stop just on the contract.
Also included in costs are piggy-backed 'infrastructure improvements' along with the tracks. This means new sewers, water mains, gas mains, electrical ducts, Internet/TV/cell phone cables plus new paving and sidewalks ... don't forget the $1 million streetcar stops. Cars once made in the US are largely imported at very high cost. Streetcars in 2015 isn't transport, it's another sleazy racket like 'health care'.
Fundamentally, streetcars are incompatible with automobiles. Cities need to make a choice of one or the other; with the price signal from the fuel industry it is likely the autos are on their way out ... they are at bottom much more costly and credit-subsidy dependent than any number of streetcars.
1
The tracks of streetcars are quite dangerous for cyclists and idscourage bicycle use.
The main environmental/energy advantage of streetcars is using electricity instead of diesel (the greater efficiency of steel wheels is a smaller factor), but the cost of overhead electric lines is huge, both in money and aesthetics. Electric or flywheel buses would be a superior alternative - no overhead electrical lines, no tracks, can go around obstacles, can change routes. They can be charged at the end of each run, several times a day.
The main environmental/energy advantage of streetcars is using electricity instead of diesel (the greater efficiency of steel wheels is a smaller factor), but the cost of overhead electric lines is huge, both in money and aesthetics. Electric or flywheel buses would be a superior alternative - no overhead electrical lines, no tracks, can go around obstacles, can change routes. They can be charged at the end of each run, several times a day.
9
Then you've never been to Amsterdam, where bikes are the preferred mode of transportation, but light rail is everywhere and used by many.
8
The fact that I've been to Amsterdam in no way changes the fact that streetcar tracks, on city streets, are a hazard to cyclists. The article we're commenting on is about streetcars, not about light rail.
Umm, not only Amsterdam. Berlin and just about every city in Eastern Europe where both bikes and streetcars co-exist perfectly. You should be more worried about the gas-guzzling cars that take out more bicyclists each day than a streetcar would in a lifetime.
3
Dedicated bus lanes aren't as sexy as streecars, but they work and are cheaper. The real problem, however, is that the automobile has turned our country's transportation situation into a nightmare. Because of the continued, unquestioning dominance of cars and cheap gasoline, we don't change the status quo and make our country a place where you don't need to have a car to have a good quality of life.
Ok, what about trolley busses? We have had these in Vancouver for many, many years and they are terrific. Need more on the road for rush hour? Then simply add more. They also seem to last forever. Most importantly, they don't stink and they don't pollute, being powered by electricity generated by dams. There are two big problems, however. They aren't sexy and they don't appeal to politicians who are addicted to Big Projects. They are also driven by real people who are reasonably paid, unlike the rest of the transit system that has no drivers. Given their own lanes, trolley busses are quick and don't require massive infrastructure costs. Routes can also be changed fairly easily; simply move the overhead lines.
8
I had no idea there even was an American Conservative Center for Public Transportation. Maybe Mr. Lind can come meet with conservatives in Wisconsin, who are determined to kill Milwaukee's recently-approved streetcar, followed by the entire Milwaukee County Transit System, and convince them to at least tolerate it instead. If there really are conservatives out there who support public transit, bring them in.
4
The term 'conservative' clearly needs to be redefined.
3
This part-time futurist thinks that some, if not all of the streetcar issues mentioned (except racist politics) will evaporate fairly soon by benefit of technology. An analogy is the way Uber, for example, can provide quick and effective transport only by exploiting smartphone communications and pay systems. Couldn't work otherwise.
So what are the enabling technologies for streetcars?
A problem is separate track (expensive, unsuited to our roads) versus susceptibility to auto traffic density. Pretty soon, all of our cars are sprouting not only location awareness and accident avoidance features, but in some measure, direction. Traffic may have the ability to adjust itself to priority vehicles; including so-called high occupancy and emergency ones, as well as streetcars. Parting the steel seas.
Second, and less ambitious, is simply better utilization and scheduling, based, again on communications. Although taxis, big trucks and especially airlines exist only because they have ways to avoid running empty, it seems that rail has so far ignored flexible scheduling, except in the most basic ways. It has to come, even without passenger input via portable devices. A streetcar should be far more flexible in its schedule, even if it can't escape the rails!
There are all sorts of hybrid streetcars, like the rubber-tired but overhead-powered buses around Boston, and there is no reason to define a streetcar as something that requires steel track or lane separation.
So what are the enabling technologies for streetcars?
A problem is separate track (expensive, unsuited to our roads) versus susceptibility to auto traffic density. Pretty soon, all of our cars are sprouting not only location awareness and accident avoidance features, but in some measure, direction. Traffic may have the ability to adjust itself to priority vehicles; including so-called high occupancy and emergency ones, as well as streetcars. Parting the steel seas.
Second, and less ambitious, is simply better utilization and scheduling, based, again on communications. Although taxis, big trucks and especially airlines exist only because they have ways to avoid running empty, it seems that rail has so far ignored flexible scheduling, except in the most basic ways. It has to come, even without passenger input via portable devices. A streetcar should be far more flexible in its schedule, even if it can't escape the rails!
There are all sorts of hybrid streetcars, like the rubber-tired but overhead-powered buses around Boston, and there is no reason to define a streetcar as something that requires steel track or lane separation.
8
Complete waste of money for street cars in Charlotte, North Carolina. There are higher priorities.
2
What can a streetcar do that a bus cannot do less expensively?
4
They can move a lot more people and the vehicles last a lot longer, making them more cost effective over the long run. Here in Boston's South End, we were promised a streetcar line to replace an elevated line that ran over Washington St, only to be given a poorly implemented bus "rapid" transit line, the Silver Line (aka, the Silver Lie), which uses 60 foot articulated buses. The Silver Line has been over capacity since the day it opened, and continues development on its corridor is only making it worse. The buses used can not handle the passenger loads they're designed for and they move very slowly (they all use front door boarding and fare collection). The Washington Street Silver Line corridor has designated bus lanes, but they aren't taken very seriously and are used for double parking and as passing lanes by motorists (and with the slowly melting snowbanks in the parking lanes, people are just simply parking in the adjacent bus lane). Buses don't represent serious commitment, streetcars do.
8
Lure middle class people aboard.
1
I feel your pain amigo, but I thought the Silver Lie handled the glaciers that encrusted our city better than the trolley did. Wasn't the above ground part of the Green Line out of service much longer than the Silver Lie this winter?
Those schlubs who double park in the bus lane really irk me. I wish the city would get after them. Think of all the $$$ the city could get fining people parking illegally in bus lanes (not to mention how much it would improve Silver Lie service). Perhaps I should be writing to the mayor and not you about this...
The dedicated bus lanes on the outskirts of Paris work wonderfully well, because they're separated from the rest of the road by cement barriers. It's impossible for a car to even get on them. I wish we had something like that here!
Those schlubs who double park in the bus lane really irk me. I wish the city would get after them. Think of all the $$$ the city could get fining people parking illegally in bus lanes (not to mention how much it would improve Silver Lie service). Perhaps I should be writing to the mayor and not you about this...
The dedicated bus lanes on the outskirts of Paris work wonderfully well, because they're separated from the rest of the road by cement barriers. It's impossible for a car to even get on them. I wish we had something like that here!
Referenced only occasionally here is the grand advantage trolleys provide property developers. Bus lines have more flexibility, meaning service may be re-routed, suspended, or otherwise altered according to external conditions. But once fixed lines are in place the system faces economic and political pressure to keep running. In Portland the trolley lines have encouraged the construction of hundreds of millions of dollars of upper-middle income condo and apartment construction, a boon for builders and property managers. As the property industry holds great local influence it seeks to assure its investments are well-served by public transport. And the more people housed along a line the higher the probable ridership, i.e., it provides its own incentive however questionable in broader terms.
10
So, how is providing good transportation to thousands of residents a bad thing? People have to live somewhere, and that as a side effect an apartment building is made more valuable to the owner because of access to public transportation doesn't diminish the benefits to the residents and to the city through traffic reduction.
3
Ah, the streetcar. The biggest scam going since the monorail episode on the Simpsons. While the proponents will talk about developers liking them, what they usually don't mention (case in point here) is that what really attracts the developers are the tax abatements. Our own mayor, a former professional salesman for streetcars, is on record for acknowleding that these developments would not have occurred without those tax abatements. Streetcars: the high priced expense of light rail with the slow speeds of the bus. What a combo! plus, streetcars don't have the ability to maneuver in traffic. Several tests have been conducted here: YOU CAN WALK FASTER!
1
I am not arguing the streetcar is “a bad thing“. My point was we need to be aware decisions regarding streetcars or trolleys may be driven by arguments or choices rarely presented to the public. Are we creating such systems to meet the financial interests of a few rather than the transportation needs of the many? A cross-town bus route would have been less expensive than the trolley for Portland but it is questionable whether it would have prompted the same level of housing investment.
Head line should read quoting quaint.
No passenger transportation system can operate without subsidies. The idea that a light rail can pay for itself is as absurd that an airport can pay for itself. The safety precautions when dealing with human cargo is the reason FedEx and UPS can be profitable, but AA and most passenger airlines struggle to stay afloat. Trafficing people whether by rail, car, airplane, etc. will always need subsidies to maintain safety.
The railroad network in the US was built with huge government subsidies (of course it helped that the 19th Century US Congress was literally bought by the railroads). Progressive and forward thinking governments have long seen the benefits of investing in efficient public transportation systems. Even China has bullet trains and all its major cities have subways. However, this US Congress can't even find funds to repair existing bridges and roads.
The railroad network in the US was built with huge government subsidies (of course it helped that the 19th Century US Congress was literally bought by the railroads). Progressive and forward thinking governments have long seen the benefits of investing in efficient public transportation systems. Even China has bullet trains and all its major cities have subways. However, this US Congress can't even find funds to repair existing bridges and roads.
9
I was in Vienna and Munich in September and was impressed by the commuting options and efficiency of the whole system. Completely integrated together are national rail (inter-city transport), suburban rail (think Metro-north, LIRR), an urban subway system, streetcar/tram, and buses where needed. Specifically the streetcar served neighborhoods that didn't need the larger scale subway system or helped people efficiently travel to subway stations. The streetcars had dedicated lanes, the right of way, and traffic lights that changed when the streetcar is approaching. This is possible in the US. We just need the political will, patience, money, and a bit of imagination to make it work.
It was a pleasure to never worry about transportation in these cities. And residents of Munich and Vienna used it too.
It was a pleasure to never worry about transportation in these cities. And residents of Munich and Vienna used it too.
78
I totally agree with this. There are many, many cities worldwide where streetcars peacefully and efficiently co-exist. It takes perhaps a large initial investment, but the payoffs are huge. We all use the streetcars and the underground and the trains all the time; it sure beats going by car with all the traffic and parking problems!
Agreed, but we do need to remember that most of Munich and other "enviable" German and European cities are on their second iteration, and are only 70 years old. Of course they are going to look better.
If we reduced any major American city to 90% rubble, I would think we could probably design some more efficient transportation systems. But Lord knows I hope we don't have that opportunity. For now, we have to work with the infrastructure and designs that are in place.
If we reduced any major American city to 90% rubble, I would think we could probably design some more efficient transportation systems. But Lord knows I hope we don't have that opportunity. For now, we have to work with the infrastructure and designs that are in place.
(First, let me say that I live 4 blocks from Columbia Pike. The streetcar would have had a direct impact on my neighborhood.) The Arlington County board is completely out of touch with the sentiments of the county—on top of the streetcar, they have pushed for an aquatic center, when all three high schools have public pools attached to them; they have continued to fund a low-performing arts space; and they pushed for more than 20 "super-stops" for the streetcars, each of which would have cost $900K, that don't keep rain or snow off of travelers. The Pike already has dedicated Metrobuses (the 16 line) that go either to one of two subway stops or directly into DC. The county board argued that (a) the young, hip Clarendon-esque residents they were trying to attract would not ride buses, and (b) too many people rode the buses. They can't have it both ways. This issue will drastically remake the face of the county board, and it's about time.
1
Thank you. Someone who gets it. This is why I snorted at the theory that wealthy North Arlingtonians were conspiring to keep decent public transit out of the hands of all the poor Columbia Pike dwellers.
The County Board does not really seem interested in serving the current residents of Columbia Pike. They seem more interested in attracting wealthier and more "desirable" residents, who can afford to purchase those $800k condos going up at the corner of the Pike and Glebe.
The County Board does not really seem interested in serving the current residents of Columbia Pike. They seem more interested in attracting wealthier and more "desirable" residents, who can afford to purchase those $800k condos going up at the corner of the Pike and Glebe.
I love streetcars and trams in cities like New Orleans and Lisbon, but for serious urban mass transit give me a great subway system any day of the week. I love the subway systems in New York, Buenos Aires, and Paris. I was in Paris last fall and was SO impressed by the city's underground Metro. I used it at many times of the day and week, never waited more than 4 or 5 minutes for a train to arrive in a station. Sometimes I had to stand, but usually I was able to sit down. Even at off-peak hours, the cars were 1/3 to 1/2 filled with people, indicating that the system is seriously depended on by Parisians. The stations were ubiquitous, and the cost was reasonable. My understanding is that the Parisian and French governments have plans for continuous enhancement and development of the system reaching far into the future. As in many countries, France is committed as a society and a culture to this sort of public infrastructure - that is what is behind the success. Having said all that, I was there on vacation, looking at things through the eyes of a happy vacationer, not through the eyes of a daily commuter.
15
If streetcar lines are being built "from nowhere to nowhere," as some commenters have complained, then this is a function of poor planning. I am tempted to wonder if planners who are secretly anti-transit push such projects through as a passive-aggressive means of turning the public off to the idea of transit.
A properly planned streetcar system that runs to major destinations can get cars off the road and---here is the key point that the car potatoes miss--make it easy for those who cannot or prefer not to drive to live a normal life. That should be the key question that every transit planner asks: "How can we make life easier for non-drivers?" Not "How can we make it easier for suburbanites to commute downtown five days a week?"
One line of Portland's streetcar system runs through downtown and the trendy Pearl District to a major residential neighborhood to the northwest and then south to Portland State University, the Riverplace complex, and a new residential area along the Willamette River with connections to the aerial tramway that goes to Oregon Health Sciences University. The other line, which connects to the first one at a couple of transfer points, will eventually run in a loop across the river to the Lloyd Center shopping mall, the Oregon Convention Center, and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.
Anyone who thinks buses are a fine alternative needs to spend time trapped in the bus traffic jams of Seoul, South Korea. Streetcars are a more pleasant ride.
A properly planned streetcar system that runs to major destinations can get cars off the road and---here is the key point that the car potatoes miss--make it easy for those who cannot or prefer not to drive to live a normal life. That should be the key question that every transit planner asks: "How can we make life easier for non-drivers?" Not "How can we make it easier for suburbanites to commute downtown five days a week?"
One line of Portland's streetcar system runs through downtown and the trendy Pearl District to a major residential neighborhood to the northwest and then south to Portland State University, the Riverplace complex, and a new residential area along the Willamette River with connections to the aerial tramway that goes to Oregon Health Sciences University. The other line, which connects to the first one at a couple of transfer points, will eventually run in a loop across the river to the Lloyd Center shopping mall, the Oregon Convention Center, and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.
Anyone who thinks buses are a fine alternative needs to spend time trapped in the bus traffic jams of Seoul, South Korea. Streetcars are a more pleasant ride.
28
The first segment of California High-Speed Rail is set to open in 2022 from nowhere to nowhere.
3
Agreed. A trip to Geneva, Switzerland, would also reveal how clean, modern, and convenient a well-designed and well-funded streetcar system can be. Anyone who says buses (or even cars, with all the sitting in traffic and struggling to find parking space in a city) are superior to streetcars can't possibly have experienced a good streetcar system.
3
You put streetcars on streets of Seoul, you'd be trapped even more. You ride the subway, one of the best in the world, over there if you want to avoid traffic. (Streetcars are not subway cars in case you are confusing the two.) I rode buses in Seoul all the time, btw, except for rush hours in certain high traffic areas, because I prefer open air over underground. Buses run fine in most of Seoul most of the time because they have BRT with dedicated lanes.
The "streetcar revolution" is a bit of silly nostalgia combined with elitist distain for both gasoline-powered vehicles and dispersed suburban lifestyles that most Americans embrace. Street cars existed in the first place because horses could pull far larger wagons with many more passengers if they pulled them along steel rails. Electrified, they lived on for another 50 years or so but were understandably displaced by much more flexible and inexpensive bus systems. Why any city would want to invest a fortune in streetcar infrastructure when buses work just fine is a mystery. Taxpayers should regard it as irresponsible.
5
There is nothing "nostalgic" about the idea. Streetcars running on their own tracks are not part of the traffic nightmare but have their own "roads". ANd the popularity of the dispersed suburban lifestyle is disappearing. There is also good reason to "disdain" gasoline powered vehicles. There seems to be more "disdain"from people who consider alternatives gasoline to be "unmanly" or (the horror) "unAmerican
2
You haven't been to Europe, have you? If anything is outdated, it's the American inability to go even to the local corner store without one's personal car.
12
Americans "embraced" the suburban freeway/tract house/strip mall lifestyle? Or was it forced upon them by a combination of racist blockbusting in urban areas (well documented) and the lack of any other kind of new construction to meet the demands of a rising population? If you look around the country, you will see that downtowns are now the trendy places to live, and no one is forcing the residents of those central city apartments and condos to live there.
2
I thought streetcars were cool until I commuted on one for 5 weeks from Queens St West to Queens St East in Toronto. It was WAY worse than a bus. A bus can swerve around a car waiting to make a left turn. A street car cannot. It took over an hour each way.
7
And in that time you didn't even learn the name of the street. Enjoy your SUV in your rich white suburb. In real cities we have streetcars.
2
The article failed to mention the streetcar (now bus) stop that cost a $1 million to build and failed to keep people warm or dry in inclement weather. That debacle caused a lot of people in Arlington County to stop and think about whether the proposed streetcar was such a great idea, particularly since it was not being built in a dedicated lane. It just did not make any sense. So, stopping the project was the right thing to do. By the way, Alexandria, Virginia has just opened a bus line along a major road that is in a dedicated lane for a portion of the way. It makes so much more sense to do projects like that.
2
ANd most if not all bus stops keep people warm or dry in inclement weather? What bus stops are those? Maybe room for a few people at best and you still have to leave the little kiosk to get on the bus
1
It seems like a lot of details were left out, either by the author or by the Arlington Co board members. I know one key issue that isn't mentioned is that had begun talking about the Columbia Pike Line in south Arlington being offered as free for use because of concerns about generating usage, while its initial planning had all referenced it becoming self sustaining through rider fares.
1
Re: the Arlington Virginia intersection in the artist's rendering is never without more traffic than pictured, and the street is just not that wide, either.
1
South Arlington is already becoming expensive enough to eject renters benefiting from our tax dollars--we already reached that point long ago in North Arlington. The streetcar would have reversed that by using bonus density to build committed affordable funded (housing) units (aka CAFs). So the families squeezing into 2-BR rentals and sending their 3 high needs kids into our schools would have only continued.With our crowded schools, we have to find any way possible to get rid of families squeezing into a 2-BR rental & sending two or three of their high-needs kids into our schools to spend our
Vihstadt + allies recognized the insanity for people stretching to pay $1.2 million to buy a comfortable home in North Arlington to see any $ spent to keep users in South Arlington. Thankfully, they knew "if you DON'T build it, they WON'T come".
I wish Vihstadt (and his allies) were here before. Here in Lyon Village, a church a block from the Clarendon Metro, sold its air rights to allow mixed-income affordable housing right next to us!!! Our neighbors sued through four rounds times to try to blow up the financing through delays, to no avail--although a silver lining is that we spiked up the County subsidy from its "affordable housing fund" so that money couldn't be used elsewhere. But ultimately you have to remove the tools the "Social Justice" types use--starve them of $. Derail their revenue sources, mess up their financing. Thankfully the REAL Arlingtonians understand that now.
Vihstadt + allies recognized the insanity for people stretching to pay $1.2 million to buy a comfortable home in North Arlington to see any $ spent to keep users in South Arlington. Thankfully, they knew "if you DON'T build it, they WON'T come".
I wish Vihstadt (and his allies) were here before. Here in Lyon Village, a church a block from the Clarendon Metro, sold its air rights to allow mixed-income affordable housing right next to us!!! Our neighbors sued through four rounds times to try to blow up the financing through delays, to no avail--although a silver lining is that we spiked up the County subsidy from its "affordable housing fund" so that money couldn't be used elsewhere. But ultimately you have to remove the tools the "Social Justice" types use--starve them of $. Derail their revenue sources, mess up their financing. Thankfully the REAL Arlingtonians understand that now.
1
It gives me great comfort to know that the real elites consider those of you "stretching" to pay $1.2 million for a home and sending your kids to public school just as gross as you consider occupants of affordable housing.
7
Philly's trolley system is fabulous, but that's because it goes underground in center city and parts of university city. It makes the trolley faster than a bus in areas that have heavy traffic, removes congestion, and let's you connect to the major train lines from all over the city (so you don't have to spend on tunnels or El systems). If it didn't do those things it would be a bus (that can't go around double parked cars).
Trolleys can be great, as they are in Philly, but their function needs to be clearly thought out. Too often trolley construction seems to be driven by an elite distaste for buses.
Trolleys can be great, as they are in Philly, but their function needs to be clearly thought out. Too often trolley construction seems to be driven by an elite distaste for buses.
7
I rode the Tucson street car recently. Quite nice. Downtown Tucson is looking good.
2
With respect to the Arlington County decision there has been an allegation of subtle racism in which the more Anglo-centric citizens in wealthier North Arlington (the area primarily served by the Metro stations) turned against improvement for the poorer, and heavily Latino, population along Columbia Pike whose only Metro access is at the Pentagon.
20
I lived in DC for 10 years and am now a part-time resident. The Columbia Pike corridor is a traffic nightmare and extremely unsafe for pedestrians. Light rail/ street cars are a terrific idea for this stretch. Really a shame that it was killed.
2
Actually, this was one of the primary problems with the streetcar on Columbia Pike - it would not have improved access to the Pentagon Metro station any more than the current bus lines. There are already many, many bus routes that run along Columbia Pike and head to the Pentagon City station. I've taken those buses many times. They come more frequently than a streetcar would have. And the streetcar was never planned to head directly into the Pentagon station due to security concerns.
The way I heard it pitched, it was that wealthier residents needed a streetcar because they couldn't be convinced to take a bus like the rest of us. But I don't put much stock in either story.
The way I heard it pitched, it was that wealthier residents needed a streetcar because they couldn't be convinced to take a bus like the rest of us. But I don't put much stock in either story.
A shared right of way introduces problems. Sure, many urban settings don't easily support a dedicated right of way but whether light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT), separating mass transit from urban street congestion is a key to success.
I was surprised this article did not discuss BRT. While I am a fan of light rail, BRT is proving to be a viable alternative in many places around the world, that has a favorable cost comparison to light rail.
I was surprised this article did not discuss BRT. While I am a fan of light rail, BRT is proving to be a viable alternative in many places around the world, that has a favorable cost comparison to light rail.
5
You are correct... Though bulding BRT faces many of the same right of way issues. Also while capital costs are generally lower - I'm not too sure about operating costs.
I'm a big fan of BRT. Trolley tracks are hazardous to cyclists, BRT are not. Riders' wheels can easily slip into the tracks, sending the cyclist head over handlebars into heavy traffic. The tracks are slippery when wet, which is dangerous not only to bike riders, but motorcycles and scooters as well.
A bit of snow or a downed tree can be enough to shut down an entire trolley line, but a bus can always muddle through.
The trolley lines in Boston that have their own platforms and run on tracks where cars and bikes don't go work smoothly. The remaining part of the Green Line that dumps passengers off in the middle of the street (and in the middle of traffic) are slow, inefficient, and generally just muck up transportation for everyone.
A bit of snow or a downed tree can be enough to shut down an entire trolley line, but a bus can always muddle through.
The trolley lines in Boston that have their own platforms and run on tracks where cars and bikes don't go work smoothly. The remaining part of the Green Line that dumps passengers off in the middle of the street (and in the middle of traffic) are slow, inefficient, and generally just muck up transportation for everyone.
1
What is the full list of benefits of a town building a trolley network versus simply having plain 'ole metropolitan bus service like New York City has?
What "metropolitan bus service" is there in NYC? Last I checked city and suburban bus systems were separated... Though some do offer a free transfer. That said buses an light rail that aren't separated from street traffic face the same clogged streets.
3
Here's the full list of benefits:
1. Corporations rake in taxpayer bucks for trolley construction.
2. Corporations rake in taxpayer bucks for infrastructure construction.
3. Corporations funnel the money to right-wing wackjobs.
The primary rule of benefits is "follow the money".
1. Corporations rake in taxpayer bucks for trolley construction.
2. Corporations rake in taxpayer bucks for infrastructure construction.
3. Corporations funnel the money to right-wing wackjobs.
The primary rule of benefits is "follow the money".
1
A well-designed light rail system has the advantages of:
1. Capacity to carry many more passengers than a bus (as much as 7 times greater per hour).
2. A smoother, more comfortable ride.
3. Lower operating costs per passenger mile.
4. Potentially faster travel if given own right-off-way.
5. Lower point source pollution and overall carbon load.
1. Capacity to carry many more passengers than a bus (as much as 7 times greater per hour).
2. A smoother, more comfortable ride.
3. Lower operating costs per passenger mile.
4. Potentially faster travel if given own right-off-way.
5. Lower point source pollution and overall carbon load.
1
I think one of the problems with the Arlington and DC lines were that they weren't light rail running in their own right of way. They were street cars that utilized the same lanes as every other vehicle. In DC this caused numerous accidents with car drivers always at fault, probably due to unfamiliarity with street cars. In Arlington, had the project gone ahead this would have most likely been the same scenario. Dealing with accidents/broken down vehicles/bicyclists and whatever else that potentially blocks the roadway, and by default the street cars, was never adequately addressed by the Arlington County Board, along with other issues, and as a result, there was a groundswell to cancel this very expensive project.
31
It is disheartening to see yet another article in the tkmes that does not discuss the plusses and minuses of the street of systems that have succeeded and failed in the hundreds of cities where they nave been built.
Electic/ rail powered vehicles use less fuel per passengers mile than cars or busses, take up less street room than cars carrying the same number of passengers, and are increasingly necessary to relieve automobile caused congestion. On the other hand they lack the flexibility of being rerouted as developments (mostly effectively unregulated) changes the need for specific routes. Monorails have lower per mile fixed costs, making it cheaper to build new ones as route demands change....
Certainly somebody would have been willing to provide the reporter with these very basic facts and the economic analyses that should be psrt of the decision making processes for cities dealing with increased strangulation of their cores by slow moving traffic - strangulation that has increased annually for decades as public transit alternatives are dismissed as expensive pipe dreams -toys -nrhather than S's investments in keeping cities alive.
Electic/ rail powered vehicles use less fuel per passengers mile than cars or busses, take up less street room than cars carrying the same number of passengers, and are increasingly necessary to relieve automobile caused congestion. On the other hand they lack the flexibility of being rerouted as developments (mostly effectively unregulated) changes the need for specific routes. Monorails have lower per mile fixed costs, making it cheaper to build new ones as route demands change....
Certainly somebody would have been willing to provide the reporter with these very basic facts and the economic analyses that should be psrt of the decision making processes for cities dealing with increased strangulation of their cores by slow moving traffic - strangulation that has increased annually for decades as public transit alternatives are dismissed as expensive pipe dreams -toys -nrhather than S's investments in keeping cities alive.
6
I think streetcars/light rail can succeed in cities if the streetcar tracks are segregated from auto traffic. When systems mix the streetcars with auto traffic, then the streetcar will just be stuck in traffic with no way to get out.
Some cities considering streetcars should consider dedicated bus lanes (and new buses) as a much less expensive alternative.
Some cities considering streetcars should consider dedicated bus lanes (and new buses) as a much less expensive alternative.
34
The City of Ottawa, decades ago, made the decision to use dedicated bus lanes and it has worked out very well. As for dedicated streetcar tracks, Toronto tried this with the St. Clair Avenue line - a complete waste of valuable real estate and money that improved very little and created a lot of vehicular congestion. The experience in Germany where this is very common indicates that it works best when it can be done on VERY wide streets, or in some other European cities where since ages ago enough people to make a difference knew better than to drive their cars on city streets because good public transport was preferable. So yes, once again, all points to the need for careful analysis of the options.
5
In Arlington the streetcar was on the wrong side of the tracks. Despite having a 3-2 advantage on the County Board, Chairman Fisette didn't have the backbone to fight for the streetcar against Vihstadt (a Republican who ran as an independent) and the lily white and well-off North Arlingtonians who didn't what their tax money being "wasted" on heavily Hispanic South Arlington.
6
That's not the reason the streetcar failed. It simply didn't make sense. It went from nowhere to nowhere. Developers stood to profit. Affordable housing, already very scarce in Arlington, would have disappeared. Traffic on Columbia Pike is already a problem. Think about what would have happened when cars got stuck behind a streetcar that did not have a dedicated lane. And the County Board never put the issue to a vote--they wouldn't do it and they also would not reveal the total cost of building the line. So Arlington voters--both South and North Arlington voters--did the job for them and voted in an Independent, who joined with another Board member, a Democrat, to let the rest of the County Board know what the majority of Arlington voters felt about the streetcar.
1
Most of us who live in South Arlington were against the gross waste of money. and also voted for Vihstadt and against the streetcar.
1
Heh. I've thought the intra-Arlington rift was the reason the aquatics center in Long Bridge Park was placed on hold. What, we in South Arlington shouldn't have a public pool to rival the (at least) three public pools in North Arlington? Back to the topic, I live in South Arlington and opposed the streetcar, not because I am rich and lily white, but because there is ample and well-run bus service along Columbia Pike. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I don't have a car and am reliant on the bus service in Arlington and find it is far better than Metro (subway). The streetcar was only for those who did not want to rub shoulders with non-hipster bus riders. Thank God for Vihstadt.
Milwaukee is moving ahead with rebuilding its former streetcar system. The phase I won't go very far, but it will connect a multimodal station with downtown and a some high density lakefront neighborhoods. A phase II would serve the airport, downtown, and additional neighborhoods.
http://milwaukeestreetcar.com/
http://milwaukeestreetcar.com/
5
The new street car here in Salt Lake City, which runs about a block from our home, is an expensive white elephant. All day I see empty carriages silently trundle by at an illaudible 15 mph towards destinations no one actually wants to go to, until they cease operations promptly at 9 pm. I love street cars. I wish they worked here, but it is quite apparent they do not. The bus, which takes a nearly identical route, is much faster and more efficient, but the middle class professionals in our neighborhood do not want to take it because of its reputation, not altogether unfair, for being smelly and overrun with riffraff.
25
Just visited Salt Lake from Boston on Sunday. Rode the S line. Sort of reminded me of a surface level version of the High Line park in Manhattan, except in Salt Lake there was a modern streetcar operating down the middle. I am big rail & streetcar fan, but I found the S Line a little disheartening. Why can't streetcar & light rail lines in this country get built where people are actually going to ride them, & serve as practical modes of transportation???
3
That streetcar line is being run to fail. Why else would the service end so early. For those who do not know, Sugarhouse (the neighborhood that the streetcar connects to the regional train system) is basically SLC's second downtown. It is highly walkable and in addition to dense living spaces it has many stores, bars, restaurants, festivals, as well as movie theaters and large parks. In the summer it doesn't even get dark until almost 10 PM. The fact that it stops running even before the sun goes down shows you that the people running don't know what they are doing. It should run at least as late as the rest of the train system and you should not have to buy a second ticket to connect to the rest of the system. Like I said, it is being run to fail. The people running it don't use the system they are give company cars, make more money than the people running BART and the MTA, and have no accountability to the public. That is why this streetcar is not what it should be
7
While I agree that much of the failure is operational I also am convinced that the S-line is functionally flawed. It was a solution looking for a problem. There is not that much demand along the 2100 S corridor. There happened to be a disused freight line there, which gave planners a convenient opportunity to shoehorn the project into that space, but the real demand is surely Sugarhouse to University and Sugarhouse to Downtown SLC. If the S-line can be built to run up 900 E or 1100 E as the original master plan described, and be done so without too much infringement of automobile traffic, then we might have a useful system. The community opposition and logistical hurdles resulted in a useless half-measure consuming funds that could be put towards transit projects that try to meet demand instead of engineer it.
1
I used the tram systems in Wroclaw and The Hague many times. I find it's much better and less smelly than buses. Traffic accidents happen everywhere - I saw several while living in Milan. If drivers are educated properly and attentive to the slow and large vehicles then it's no more of a problem than a system reliant on buses (which are slow and large too).
On the other hand, $65 million for a mile of track is outrageous! The planners need to do better and learn from cities with good track records.
On the other hand, $65 million for a mile of track is outrageous! The planners need to do better and learn from cities with good track records.
26
Riding in comfort from the main train station [with links to the airport] right to the beach in Scheveningen and back is a treat!
2
The trillions we burn in non-ending wars to secure other nations' oil fields could have been used to put streetcars in every American city, streetcars that would have run on American coal and natural gas.
21
We just opened our mutli-million dollar streetcar boondoggle here in Atlanta. Touted as "the dawning of a new era for transit – one that will transform how we get around in our community", it is a $69 million, 2.7 mile joke ($25 million per mile) that, in spite of a three month introductory period in which you can ride for free, has fallen woefully short of the rosey predictions for ridership used to justify it. As per EricR's comments about streetcars in general, it does not serve the transportation needs of the vast majority of those of us who live here and, connecting the King Center to Centennial Park, is little more than bling for tourists. Political pork run amok.
4
Mass transit makes sense if
1. it is quicker than driving yourself
2. More convenient ie timely run
3. price is not prohibitive relative to driving.
Subways and buses if they have dedicated bus lanes can meet the first point and with enough subsidy perhaps the third point.
The trolley makes sense when the first two points are irrelevant ie the tourist and cost is reduced because 90% is funded by the federal government.
What is telling is that even when the majority of the cost of the trolley system is funded by some source other than the local public coffers the local officials still can not justify their share of the cost.
1. it is quicker than driving yourself
2. More convenient ie timely run
3. price is not prohibitive relative to driving.
Subways and buses if they have dedicated bus lanes can meet the first point and with enough subsidy perhaps the third point.
The trolley makes sense when the first two points are irrelevant ie the tourist and cost is reduced because 90% is funded by the federal government.
What is telling is that even when the majority of the cost of the trolley system is funded by some source other than the local public coffers the local officials still can not justify their share of the cost.
4
Mass transit doesn't have to faster than driving, it just has to be competitive and have advantages that outweigh any drawbacks. For example, let's say a car commute is normally 30 minutes, and the mass transit commute is 40 minutes. But if on the transit commute you are able to work or read or knit or whatever, and you don't arrive stressed out from traffic, then the benefits might outweigh for you the 33% longer commute time. Transit doesn't have to do everything as well or better than driving, just enough to make it worthwhile.
4
I don't understand the appeal of streetcars. They seem like the worst of all worlds. They have the expense of rail, but unlike rail, they must compete with automobiles, slowing traffic and getting stuck in traffic themselves.
30
Here in Boston, we had streetcars, on tracks, with overhead wires for power. Decades ago, we (eventually) ripped out the tracks, and had rubber-tired cars, still with overhead wires. Today, all of the routes, we use standard buses. Diesel power. Our (failing) subway trains run on 600 volts DC. New cars will use AC motors, I think.
Try riding them sometime, and compare them to buses. They're much smoother and more comfortable and can carry more people. In many places they can have a dedicated right-of-way or be routed underground. Most major american cities used to have them for a reason. They weren't eliminated because they're no good, they were eliminated because oil and rubber companies did their best to undermine them.
3
Street car lines are great in high density areas where subways are not feasible. The biggest cost is the installation of the rails but that initial cost virtually disappears as the decades go by. New Orleans, for example put in there streetcar infrastructure a century ago so today most of the costs are for operations. The same goes for the New York and Boston subway systems. In short, it can be a good system for city's that cannot install a subway.
1
It all comes down to leadership and will. The naysayers will always talk about cost, etc. but the fact that streetcars thrive in several American cities and hundreds of others world-wide belies that argument. The U.S. has so much to learn from other countries in regards to modern transit systems, but as usual, given our "exceptionalism", we don't even try. In the 60s, we put a man on the moon. Now we can't even put a streetcar in place. The difference is just leadership and will.
95
We can put streetcar lines is place if we want to. It's not the capability; it's a matter of the costs and benefits.
1
Good analogy. A huge empty streetcar is rather similar to a man on the moon, excellent, but very expensive, eye candy.
2
The trolleys that ride the rails along city streets here in Philly are a nonissue -- a functional, matter-of-fact convenience. No one thinks twice about them.
What's the problem?
What's the problem?
6
Part of that is because Philly and San Fran and New Orleans never got rid of them.... People were born with them...
6
Don't forget that in Philadelphia there's a lot of negativity surrounding SEPTA's surface car lines, especially from motorists. Since 1978 when rail once again became popular with the opening of Edmonton's LRT, SEPTA continued replacing streetcar lines with buses in Philadelphia. Also as far as I know, it doesn't seem that there's nearly enough political will in Philadelphia to bring back the Streetcar lines lost in the 1980s & 90s. As someone who considers himself a rail advocate, I rarely consider Philadelphia a place that in recent decades, has set a good example in promoting streetcar & light rail service.
2
Part of the problem is that there are very few cities in the US where streetcars are a mainstream form of transportation. In those cities like Boston, Philly, SF, and Portland, people can't imagine life without them. But in cities that abandoned their systems in the 60s and 70s, people just have no idea what they are and make them a hard sell. It's really unfortunate that anti-streetcar advocates have succeeded in convincing people that they are a relic since if you visit any European City they are a very efficient and essential form of transportation that is incomparable to slow, jerky and traffic plagued buses.
6
As a big supporter of public transit I see many of these streetcar initiatives as incredibly misguided and could actually lead to a setback for the cause of overall expansion of efficient and useful public transportation in America.
What these systems need are dedicated rights of way whether it is bus or rail so they move people quickly and smoothly to where they need to go. The DC streetcar is not only slow, it's causing bus lines that run along that corridor to run slower. This project is counterproductive from a transit perspective.
Portland's streetcar is held up as a success, but even there it's not that great and moves slowly through the city along with traffic and I question the long term viability. Once the new bridge opens that may change and I hope it does succeed, but in most cities this money could be spent on much better public transit projects.
What these systems need are dedicated rights of way whether it is bus or rail so they move people quickly and smoothly to where they need to go. The DC streetcar is not only slow, it's causing bus lines that run along that corridor to run slower. This project is counterproductive from a transit perspective.
Portland's streetcar is held up as a success, but even there it's not that great and moves slowly through the city along with traffic and I question the long term viability. Once the new bridge opens that may change and I hope it does succeed, but in most cities this money could be spent on much better public transit projects.
5
The only thing wrong with this article is that the two words "economic analysis" do not appear - even once. This isn't a matter of technological preference; it is about what is the least-cost way (including users and non-users who are affected by the lines) of moving people from Point A to Point B. City councils should be making decisions based on solid least-cost analysis of the alternatives including priced-in impacts for users and non-users alike. We are struggling with this in Canada as well.
3
When the University of Portland's choir smuggled itself onto one of Portland's streetcars this Christmas and burst into carols, I could see joy on the faces of passengers for whom the mass transit option was already a happy way of life -- it just keeps getting better here in the Rose City.
Don Magnusen of the Portland Development Commission and Roger Breezily, former president of the old U.S. Bank of Oregon, dreamed up the Portland street car line back in the dotcom era of the Internet in the late 1990s -- that was vintage Oregon, far-sighted old school guys providing my grand-daughters a quick way to get to Powell's book store without driving!
Don Magnusen of the Portland Development Commission and Roger Breezily, former president of the old U.S. Bank of Oregon, dreamed up the Portland street car line back in the dotcom era of the Internet in the late 1990s -- that was vintage Oregon, far-sighted old school guys providing my grand-daughters a quick way to get to Powell's book store without driving!
4
How does one smuggle oneself onto public transit? Were some of the choir members carried on board in backpacks or suitcases? Did they sneak on board without paying their fare?
3
I'm surprised that the article failed to include Jersey City as an example of success. Neighborhoods along the Hudson Light Rail have been and continue to be revitalized and the HBLR has played a huge part in that revitalization. I can't say that such a model would work everywhere but it does represent an example of leaders understanding the impact that investments in our infrastructure can have on our communities and our local economies.
13
A big reason is that even though Hudson County is a suburb of NYC - it is still more densely populated than many US cities... That and it connects to heavily used PATH and NJ Transit.
4
Full disclosure: I love streetcars or, in the lexicon of rail buffs, traction. That said, I thought the proposal for a Cincinnati to be ridiculous in terms of expense and need. Still the city went ahead with it despite the elimination of the University of Cincinnati segment (which would have made a huge difference in ridership). Like the Bengals' stadium of the 1990s, the truncated line is going to suck money from the city and county, money desperately needed to seriously repair the disgraceful road system here.
Where streetcars were not dismantled, such as San Francisco or Toronto, additional routes may make sense. If a city or metro region is going to build from scratch a transit system with a steel wheel on a steel rail, better to make it a comprehensive light rail system with the eye on the future.
Where streetcars were not dismantled, such as San Francisco or Toronto, additional routes may make sense. If a city or metro region is going to build from scratch a transit system with a steel wheel on a steel rail, better to make it a comprehensive light rail system with the eye on the future.
6
Where are the strong local leaders for light rail? Houston, Texas once had an interurban line from Houston's main street to West Beach Galveston, Texas. One could leave Main Street and be at the West Beach surf in less an hour and for about 50 cents. That line was pulled up for a freeway that remains constantly under construction.
Could it be highway, oil, and tire interest once again who are paying the opposition to oppose one of the most civilized methods of urban travel in the nation? Why not look behind the curtain of opposition and discover the truths about opposition to light rail.
Could it be highway, oil, and tire interest once again who are paying the opposition to oppose one of the most civilized methods of urban travel in the nation? Why not look behind the curtain of opposition and discover the truths about opposition to light rail.
8
Let's remember, the nations streetcars were largely bought by the Auto companies and their stooges in the 1950's to encourage purchases of Autos. Tracks were ripped up, established public transportation was eviscerated so auto makers had more of a market.
29
The General Motors streetcar conspiracy has been debunked several times. Check out the Wikipedia article on it.
1
RJ, did you read the article that you are referring to? While there were other factors at play, the GM purchase of streetcar systems was one of the prime reasons for their demise.
4
Actually, this happened in the 1930s and it was done to encourage the purchase of buses.
For Depression-era cash-strapped municipalities, it made a lot of sense at the time. Many bus manufacturers provided easy financing to these municipalities.
I like the aesthetic of street cars but they are expensive to install and operate. In my experience living for many years in San Francisco, they are rarely on time.
For Depression-era cash-strapped municipalities, it made a lot of sense at the time. Many bus manufacturers provided easy financing to these municipalities.
I like the aesthetic of street cars but they are expensive to install and operate. In my experience living for many years in San Francisco, they are rarely on time.
St. Louis just broke ground on a streetcar in the Loop. It will run from the Missouri History Museum to the Loop district.
1
The public transit system in Boston is a disaster. One of the oldest one in the country, it is not being updated, much less expanded. This is only due to the lack of political will.
Meanwhile public transit is flourishing in most major European cities...
This article is a long list of descriptive items - no explanation is given.
Meanwhile public transit is flourishing in most major European cities...
This article is a long list of descriptive items - no explanation is given.
In all fairness, transit systems have to be viewed as a whole. Light rail in Portland, Oregon, is the backbone of the system there, with several lines running basically as rapid transit once out of the downtown area and a few local lines running in downtown and immediately adjacent neighbourhoods. Roughly similar situations prevail in Salt Lake City, San Diego, Sacramento and other streetcar success stories.
The D.C. area, with its multiple Metro lines, is another situation altogether; when streetcars ran there sixty years ago, they WERE the system, as Metro didn't exist. While streetcars get debated there, Metro gets breakdowns; really, the biggest need there is for maintenance.
This reminds me of the silly debate about a line on Manhattan's 42nd Street. They could call that a streetcar named desire for some sort of movement, since it would just get mired in crosstown traffic anyway.
Meanwhile, when the Number 7 line got its extension to the Javits Center, the stop at 41st Street and 10th Avenue - an area of relatively new residential and retail expansion - got the ax. I'm still trying to figure out how much sense THAT made.
The D.C. area, with its multiple Metro lines, is another situation altogether; when streetcars ran there sixty years ago, they WERE the system, as Metro didn't exist. While streetcars get debated there, Metro gets breakdowns; really, the biggest need there is for maintenance.
This reminds me of the silly debate about a line on Manhattan's 42nd Street. They could call that a streetcar named desire for some sort of movement, since it would just get mired in crosstown traffic anyway.
Meanwhile, when the Number 7 line got its extension to the Javits Center, the stop at 41st Street and 10th Avenue - an area of relatively new residential and retail expansion - got the ax. I'm still trying to figure out how much sense THAT made.
1) the 42nd street light rail would have shut down car traffic completely (just like in Times Square) so it would by get caught in traffic. It could hve worked and transit advocacy groups are still working on it.
2) 41st and 10th was stopped simply because of a lack of funding. If $500 million can be found - the station can still be built. Not sure why developers didn't pony up as it would increase the value of their developments.
2) 41st and 10th was stopped simply because of a lack of funding. If $500 million can be found - the station can still be built. Not sure why developers didn't pony up as it would increase the value of their developments.
If our society was drawing up a transportation system from scratch would anyone opt for one that is guaranteed to kill over 30,000 people a year and disable thousands more? One that made L.A. and other large metro's air unbreathable. One that relies on a resource that will vanish at some future point. Was this the dream we were sold?
The car makes sense for rural travel, but commuters sitting in a daily traffic jam going form home to work 5 days a week makes no sense.
The car makes sense for rural travel, but commuters sitting in a daily traffic jam going form home to work 5 days a week makes no sense.
76
Street cars do make sense in densely populated areas, particularly if well thought out and executed. This seems to make the most sense in areas with limited parking and heavy congestion. Building one strictly for the tourist trade doesn't make much long term sense. Building one to primarily serve the local population and make it endearing for tourists would be a better option.
I think the article would have been better if it had cited the reasons some systems have done well, and which ones, as it would have better informed readers who have never been exposed to this type of public transportation.
I think the article would have been better if it had cited the reasons some systems have done well, and which ones, as it would have better informed readers who have never been exposed to this type of public transportation.
40
Though this country was able to find $billions to bail out the US auto industry (even while one company was lying about the safety of its car with fatal consequences), small municipalities are struggling fiscally. There is no technical issue with street cars, it's the lack of funding cities face even for sewage and water systems, schools, affordable housing, etc.
You look at old Keystone Cop films that were shot in L.A. in the early part of both century and you see ladies all decked out waiting for the streetcar which probably got them to downtown LA much quicker that the highways do today. You travel major cities of Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. and street cars effectively reduce urban traffic congestion. However, these countries have a long history of monetary support for their urban centers unlike the US.
Just stand at the corner of 23rd and Madison at 5 pm on a workday and breathe the fumes from all the commuter buses that are standing idle, then think back on those ladies in the Keystone Cop films. This is progress?
You look at old Keystone Cop films that were shot in L.A. in the early part of both century and you see ladies all decked out waiting for the streetcar which probably got them to downtown LA much quicker that the highways do today. You travel major cities of Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. and street cars effectively reduce urban traffic congestion. However, these countries have a long history of monetary support for their urban centers unlike the US.
Just stand at the corner of 23rd and Madison at 5 pm on a workday and breathe the fumes from all the commuter buses that are standing idle, then think back on those ladies in the Keystone Cop films. This is progress?
89
Mr Meyer,
Come over to Jersey City where we have an excellent Light Rail System which has been in operation for years. It links downtown Jersey City with Hoboken, Bayonne, Port Imperial and other areas of Jersey City with easy bus and train connections at nearly every station.
Moreover, if you are disabled or have a child in a stroller, it is the only viable mass transportation available.
With all the examples of out of town systems, I am surprised you did not include this local one.
Come over to Jersey City where we have an excellent Light Rail System which has been in operation for years. It links downtown Jersey City with Hoboken, Bayonne, Port Imperial and other areas of Jersey City with easy bus and train connections at nearly every station.
Moreover, if you are disabled or have a child in a stroller, it is the only viable mass transportation available.
With all the examples of out of town systems, I am surprised you did not include this local one.
59
Streetcars disappeared 50=60 years ago for a reason.They are expensive to build and run and buses do a better job in a more flexible manner. Long distance rail disappeared 50 years ago for similar reasons. The costs far exceed the convenience and benefits.
12
Trolleys haven't disappeared here in Philly. They are part of the urban fabric. And I can take an Acela train to Boston. Sorry about life in Iowa.
17
I believe you left out the auto and tire industries' buying and dismantling those systems and replaced them with buses. Southern California's Pacific Electric and its 1500 miles of track met that fate (see the Roger Rabbit movie) to the point where the Federal government had to investigate. Google the Snell Report.
You also forgot to mention the federal government funds for roads and the interstate systems. Drivers never have paid full user fare from day one.
Cars did displace traction, but there was major help from rapacious corporations and government at all levels. As for flexibility, rail allows businesses along the route to know that, unlike "flexible" buses which can abandon routes at anytime, the streetcar will always be there to drop off passengers just down the street.
You also forgot to mention the federal government funds for roads and the interstate systems. Drivers never have paid full user fare from day one.
Cars did displace traction, but there was major help from rapacious corporations and government at all levels. As for flexibility, rail allows businesses along the route to know that, unlike "flexible" buses which can abandon routes at anytime, the streetcar will always be there to drop off passengers just down the street.
32
They only disappeared in the US, where we divested from the public good in favor of autos -- which has been disastrous for our society in terms of the environment, the ugliness of our cities, and the difficulties now faced by the young, the elderly, and the poor with no means of transportation. Streetcars flourish all over the world outside the US precisely because they DO make economic sense and are much more pleasant to ride than buses.
18
Go spend a couple of days in Munich using its multi-layered public transportation system and you will understand what an awful public transportation system you have. Look at the dedicated bike lanes.
We are full of excuses and always hear we have no money to build a first-rate public transit system.
We are full of excuses and always hear we have no money to build a first-rate public transit system.
132
... or Oslo, or virtually any city in urban Europe, or, now, even in the USA, in Portland!
6
And remember Melbourne, Vienna, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Gothenburg, Berlin, Prague, Warsaw, Krakow, Jerusalem, Kolkota, the list goes on and on. It is a matter of commitment. Multiple US cities could benefit tremendously from streetcar systems. Other cities less so. Without a commitment to restoring and maintaining all transportation infrastructure, we will continue to fall behind. It is sad that as a community we do so little to invest in our future. Streetcars really can do so much make a city a much more pleasant place to live.
9
One of the best features about Munich, are the vast, car-free spaces. You can walk from shopping to restaurant to beer hall. And many outdoor eateries!
1
I was glad when the mayor halted the streetcar project. Our project was designed with the tourist in mind and not the local population. No matter how the city and county crunched the numbers, the numbers just didn't add up to me.
7
I just visited San Antonio for the first time back in Nov and your metro area reeks of SPRAWL.
Its just an ugly landscape from San Antonio to Boerne. You should be embarrassed to live there.
Its completely dependent on the car. Its not walkable. Its not bikeable.
And its a bore.
My favorite spot: San Antonio Riverwalk. Why? Its walkable!
You're metro area is going to learn the hard lesson that Los Angeles finally learned: Its not sustainable. Nightmare traffic problems are coming and more lanes for highways isn't the solution.
Its just an ugly landscape from San Antonio to Boerne. You should be embarrassed to live there.
Its completely dependent on the car. Its not walkable. Its not bikeable.
And its a bore.
My favorite spot: San Antonio Riverwalk. Why? Its walkable!
You're metro area is going to learn the hard lesson that Los Angeles finally learned: Its not sustainable. Nightmare traffic problems are coming and more lanes for highways isn't the solution.
13
I agree with most of what you say. San Antonio reeks of sprawl. The San Antonio - Boerne corridor is ugly. In most of the city, a car is indispensable, although some areas are walkable and bikeable. The few walkable areas are the most interesting.
But if you believe that pouring millions into a streetcar system that would serve only the downtown area would change any of this, you are living in a dream world.
And I am thrilled to hear that the DC area has been transformed into a pedestrian utopia since my last visit.
But if you believe that pouring millions into a streetcar system that would serve only the downtown area would change any of this, you are living in a dream world.
And I am thrilled to hear that the DC area has been transformed into a pedestrian utopia since my last visit.
1
While "cute" and nostalgic, streetcars are prohibitively expensive, tediously disruptive, do not serve the transportation needs of the vast majority of those who pay for them, are dangerous, and ultimately little more than bling for cities trying for instant tourist appeal. There are some places where their history makes good sense to continue their use, like San Francisco. In other places, like Tucson, they are largely a boondoggle of over budget, behind schedule wishful thinking by the commissioners and contractors who neither get nor care about the needs of average citizens.
43
Tuscon, a city built on sucking resources so people can live in air conditioned comfort year round.
12
The same criticisms were leveled against Phoenix's light rail system before it opened in 2008, along with the assertion that nobody would ride it. To date however is that ridership has already reached estimates for 2020 - five years ahead of schedule. Ridership exceeded projections immediately.
There is nothing cute or nostaligic about light rail or modern streetcar service, where bears little resemblance to streetcars you refer to in San Francisco. Yes, investments are expensive and nowhere does public transportation pay for itself - its the economic activity that it supports and generates that make it a worthy public investment. Developers invest in areas along light rail and streetcar routes because they are fixed routes that are not subject to change as bus routes are. Commercial and residential investment along the Valley light rail routes continues to be massive. Other Valley communities want extensions because it has been so successful and because the people who live there want it. Millenials want it as an alternative to the high cost of owning and operating a car, to say nothing of the amount of time lost battling traffic from one far flung part of the county to another. Were modern street car such a boondoggle, Phoenix and Tempe would not be planning for them for their cities.
There is nothing cute or nostaligic about light rail or modern streetcar service, where bears little resemblance to streetcars you refer to in San Francisco. Yes, investments are expensive and nowhere does public transportation pay for itself - its the economic activity that it supports and generates that make it a worthy public investment. Developers invest in areas along light rail and streetcar routes because they are fixed routes that are not subject to change as bus routes are. Commercial and residential investment along the Valley light rail routes continues to be massive. Other Valley communities want extensions because it has been so successful and because the people who live there want it. Millenials want it as an alternative to the high cost of owning and operating a car, to say nothing of the amount of time lost battling traffic from one far flung part of the county to another. Were modern street car such a boondoggle, Phoenix and Tempe would not be planning for them for their cities.
11
I think people are very confused about streetcars in San Francisco. The system is one of the fundamental parts of the city's transportation. The N-Judah and L-Taraval (and 3 other) lines are completely modern streetcar/light rail systems using modern Italian rolling stock that provide an effective form of transportation in otherwise car dependent neighborhoods. For anyone wondering about busses vs. streetcar, try taking the famous 38 Geary bus vs the N-Judah streetcar and see which one is faster and more comfortable. The system is not just cable cars and the historic trams on the waterfront that tourists see.
8
Many municipalities see rail as the end all be all, but to put so many resources into infrastructure that is highly unadaptable seems a bit short sighted. Have there been any systems built that include above ground bus lanes? These lanes would essentially be roadways, but devoted only to buses (and perhaps emergency vehicles). They could even be electric powered. I know buses are not sexy or sleek, but they are more flexible and less expensive. Perhaps the bus industry needs some bigger lobbyist.
12
Los Angeles has a set of dedicated bus lanes in the San Fernando Valley. But the idea of using busses instead of trolleys only makes sense if all the buses are either electrified (as many are in San Francisco) or run on natural gas (as do the buses on L.A.'s bus lanes.
10
Boston has this in the Silver Line. It works probably as well as a streetcar would have. Still, most people would have much preferred an underground subway.
1
So why ever bother building any trolley or streetcar system when the towns can simply put into service electric or natural gas buses?
1
New, big projects, even those based on old concepts, are always opposed, always controversial and always subject to being vetoed.
Having been constructed over more than 40 years (and still growing), the Washington, DC, metro area is unimaginable as it is now without the subway system. A lot of federal jobs in government and a lot of the growth of the DC area would have had to move elsewhere without Metro, which might not have been such a bad thing. As things stand now, DC is being turned into Manhattan on the Potomac with million dollar apartments becoming common and long time residents being forced out of the city. Progress.
Street cars are a late 19th century technology. For that matter, so are subway systems. Both feature very heavy metal boxes moving a much lighter cargo of people. The main energy consumption is moving the metal box. Still, Europe manages to make good use of them while we argue and fume about costs and viability. An entire system needs to be imagined and built to realize the full utility.
http://terryreport.com