Streetcar Revival is Wavering in Some Cities - NY Times

[GPCharles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/bu...=top-news&_r=0

[Bham1982]

Streetcars are the latest "urban revitalization" fad. Previously it was sports arenas, prior to that convention centers, before that festival marketplaces, and way back slum clearance/urban renewal type projects. We Americans love to jump on the latest revitalization magic bullet.

If you want real transit, build modern, functional transit. Toonerville Trolleys are for tourists and barhoppers. Works for NOLA and other places where actual mobility for residents is completely besides the point. No one is building streetcar lines in Asia or Europe.

[wilderness]

Guess they'll begin digging up the many paved-over [[buried) tracks in the Big-D

[Wesley Mouch]

Failures tell me that this is no longer a fad.

[A2Mike]

Why ever did Detroit sell the streetcars and pull up the tracks in 1956? The city was at the zenith of its postwar prosperity, downtown entertainment and retailing were thriving, office and hotel occupancy were healthy and the city center was the focus of life generally in SE Michigan. Everything that people say they want today was already on place. The streetcars [[they should have been subways but that's another story) facilitated the movement of large numbers of people without the vexing problems of traffic and parking, and people too young or too old to drive were able to fully partake of downtown's unique attractions. Were the city's decision makers ignorant of the notion that "if it's not broken don't fix it"? Was there no opposition? Who stood to profit from ruining something that was working just fine? And did no else recognize what was going on? I can't think of another city in this country which exhibited such numbing shortsightedness.

[animatedmartian]

The city the article seemed to be focused on is DC area, which if I remember correctly, has a subway system. Light rail is inferior to the subway so it really shouldn't be surprising the light rail isn't taking off in DC. Perhaps the money spent streetcars would have been better suited on expanding the subway system. Just a thought.

[dtowncitylover]

The city the article seemed to be focused on is DC area, which if I remember correctly, has a subway system. Light rail is inferior to the subway so it really shouldn't be surprising the light rail isn't taking off in DC. Perhaps the money spent streetcars would have been better suited on expanding the subway system. Just a thought.

Exactly. This article is not as doom and gloom as the headline makes it out to be.

"Elsewhere, New Orleans is extending its streetcar lines, while Atlanta, Tucson and Salt Lake City have also moved ahead with similar systems, almost always pegged to the promise of transit-related economic growth.

"'The overall trend is very much on the side of streetcars,” said Art Guzzetti, vice president for policy of the American Public Transportation Association, an industry group. “That doesn’t mean every project in the planning stage is going to happen. In the long run, there will be a lot of projects built.'"

So doesn't this contradict the premise of the article?

Maybe NYC should try to build a streetcar lines up Broadway and 5th Ave? Let's see how that works!

[Mackinaw]

The article explicitly focused on cost overruns and the idea that political support for such projects especially in suburban areas wanes if the ask is too high. Thankfully, this is a non-issue in Detroit vis-a-vis M1.

All good points. But definitely not an indictment of transit as both necessary and good for urban areas, nor an indictment of transit being effective and attractive to people-- ridership is essentially at modern highs now nationwide.

[Bham1982]

I can't think of another city in this country which exhibited such numbing shortsightedness.

Basically every city in the U.S. did the exact same thing. Every major avenue in cities like NYC and LA had streetcars.

Here's a map of streetcar lines in Brooklyn.

http://www.brooklynstreetcar.org/the-streetcar/

[Bham1982]

ridership is essentially at modern highs now nationwide.

Streetcar patronage is essentially irrelevent to national ridership numbers.

Something like 70%+ of daily rail passengers in the U.S. are riding the NYC subway and its sister agencies [[PATH, LIRR, NJ Transit, etc.), so when you hear national numbers for rail ridership, it's basically dependent on one city's annual transit numbers.

[mwilbert]

Why ever did Detroit sell the streetcars and pull up the tracks in 1956? The city was at the zenith of its postwar prosperity, downtown entertainment and retailing were thriving, office and hotel occupancy were healthy and the city center was the focus of life generally in SE Michigan. Everything that people say they want today was already on place. The streetcars [[they should have been subways but that's another story) facilitated the movement of large numbers of people without the vexing problems of traffic and parking, and people too young or too old to drive were able to fully partake of downtown's unique attractions. Were the city's decision makers ignorant of the notion that "if it's not broken don't fix it"? Was there no opposition? Who stood to profit from ruining something that was working just fine? And did no else recognize what was going on? I can't think of another city in this country which exhibited such numbing shortsightedness.

The future looked a lot different in 1956. And the streetcar system was old, losing ridership, and losing lots of money, as more people moved out of the city and into cars. We can wish that the city fathers of 1956 had known what they were doing [[they might have planned fewer freeways, or figured out how to have some kind of metropolitan institutions when that might still have been possible) but they weren't uniquely incompetent.

[bailey]

The article explicitly focused on cost overruns and the idea that political support for such projects especially in suburban areas wanes if the ask is too high. Thankfully, this is a non-issue in Detroit vis-a-vis M1.

Its not an issue right now because come hell or high water, Gilbert will get his trolley...but it WILL be an issue in less than 10 years when M1 is supposed to be turned over to the as yet to be figured out RTA.

[Mackinaw]

Bham, we are both right. Obviously NYC is one of a kind in population and % transit riders, and predictably weighs enormously on any statistical overview. But then the question is, isolating other metro areas, what are the trends. Last rider, despite low gas prices, ridership went up in San Diego, Baltimore, Denver, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Atlanta, San Fran, Seattle, Salt Lake Side, Riverside CA... but not Detroit.

Bottom line: "The American Public Transit Association is out with new data on the number of transit trips in the United States — 10.8 billion in 2014, the highest in 58 years."
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/0...climb-in-2014/

You don't disagree, Bham, that the posted story is merely about political palatability of costs, right?

[wilderness]

My uncle told me that he an my Dad used to ride the Detroit street cars all day for a nickel Seems to me I recall an old thread on the Detroit Street Cars here. Perhaps in the old forum. Even some pics.

[Bham1982]

You don't disagree, Bham, that the posted story is merely about political palatability of costs, right?

I don't even disagree with trolley building. It just isn't real transit, though, and won't be some revitalization magic bullet. It's a tourist/barhopper type thing, and not meaningful in terms of actually building a transit oriented environment.

[bailey]

I don't even disagree with trolley building. It just isn't real transit, though, and won't be some revitalization magic bullet. It's a tourist/barhopper type thing, and not meaningful in terms of actually building a transit oriented environment.

the one nugget of value I see in the trolley building here is the possibility of the barhopping, game going suburbanite will see the value in expansion of it and agree to a regional solution to make that happen. Unfortunately, even with regional buy-in for transit...the people around here in charge of the system seem to be dedicated to dressing buses up to look like trains and calling it a day.

[dtowncitylover]

I don't even disagree with trolley building. It just isn't real transit, though, and won't be some revitalization magic bullet. It's a tourist/barhopper type thing, and not meaningful in terms of actually building a transit oriented environment.

Please go to Melbourne, Portland, Toronto, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, or Manchester and tell them their streetcars aren't "real" transit.

Pray tell Bham1982, knower of everything, what is "real" transit?

I get that the streetcar goes 3.3 miles. It doesn't go far enough but the fact that a bunch of rich guys decided to pool their money and build this is frankly astounding. I'm not saying we should be grateful and take what they're giving us, but this is where it starts. A N-S line [[instead of a circle) through three vital and growing districts that need better transit than buses. If we want the RTA to work, we need to vote YES to fund it. Plain and simple. That will get better buses, streetcar extensions, and complimenting schedules and fare plans.

[iheartthed]

Maybe NYC should try to build a streetcar lines up Broadway and 5th Ave? Let's see how that works!

The streetcar lines in Manhattan were all largely replaced by subway system expansions [[with the exception of Second Avenue).

There has been talk in NYC about restoring the street car service between Queens and downtown Brooklyn. There used to be street car lines connecting the boroughs and it was very heavily used, but they were dismantled during the era of the Great American Streetcar scandal. Some people believe that's why those two boroughs, which are the two most geographically close boroughs in the entire city, feel so distant -- the options for traveling by public transit between the two are cumbersome, but it wasn't always that way.

[Bham1982]

Please go to Melbourne, Portland, Toronto, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Amsterdam, Paris, or Manchester and tell them their streetcars aren't "real" transit.

You just made this up. Most of these cities don't have trolleys. Where are these Paris trolleys? Show me the Manchester trolleys.

Those that do have trolleys have legacy systems, using dedicated rights of way, and generally serve as the equivalent of bus lines. They're no better or worse than the bus.

Pray tell Bham1982, knower of everything, what is "real" transit?

High capacity, rapid transit that influences built form and modal choice. Something all these cities have, and something that Detroit lacks. Trolleys and buses don't do these things.

If Detroit had plans for something like Metrolink in Manchester, yeah, it would be real transit.

[iheartthed]

The future looked a lot different in 1956. And the streetcar system was old, losing ridership, and losing lots of money, as more people moved out of the city and into cars. We can wish that the city fathers of 1956 had known what they were doing [[they might have planned fewer freeways, or figured out how to have some kind of metropolitan institutions when that might still have been possible) but they weren't uniquely incompetent.

I thought the ridership thing was debunked? The streetcars were hardly running empty in 1956. I imagine it was a pretty jarring change, if you were a rider at that time, to experience the transition from a rail based to bus system. In NYC they some times replace train service with buses that replicate the train routes so that they can do track maintenance on the weekends. Even on the weekend, which is "off peak," it's always a complete clusterfuck because bus systems don't move people as efficiently as rail based systems.

[Mackinaw]

I don't even disagree with trolley building. It just isn't real transit, though, and won't be some revitalization magic bullet. It's a tourist/barhopper type thing, and not meaningful in terms of actually building a transit oriented environment.

I will ask again, to see if we agree, the ARTICLE that started this thread is NOT about ridership problems or a lack of popularity vis-a-vis any of the systems that have been built, but merely reports that many proposed systems turn out to be too costly for taxpayers to support their building. I didn't ask for your ultimate opinion on the issue, though you're welcome to espouse it-- I am just trying to define the scope of the issues raised in the article. I want to do so because some spinsters will run rampant with the headline when in fact the reported material is more...'meh.' Nothing earth-shattering whatsoever.

[dtowncitylover]

You just made this up. Most of these cities don't have trolleys. Where are these Paris trolleys? Show me the Manchester trolleys.

Those that do have trolleys have legacy systems, using dedicated rights of way, and generally serve as the equivalent of bus lines. They're no better or worse than the bus.



High capacity, rapid transit that influences built form and modal choice. Something all these cities have, and something that Detroit lacks. Trolleys and buses don't do these things.

If Detroit had plans for something like Metrolink in Manchester, yeah, it would be real transit.

Yikes. This entire post makes me embarrassed for you and your supposed knowledge on transit. No, not all those cities have entire systems of ROW tram lines. Toronto doesn't. Melbourne doesn't. Manchester doesn't for all line [[Eccles line). You seem to ignore the fact that trolleys, streetcars, trams are all synonyms. You're not fooling anyone.

Transit doesn't specifically mean rapid transit. Rapid transit is a component of a transit system. A transit system can be entirely buses that works effectively and that can definitely make a real transit system because it works. A real transit system is one that works, ie connects populations to important transportation, employment, and social centers in an efficient manner.

DDOT and SMART, while transit systems, do not work. They are shells of what they can be and will only succeed with the help of the RTA and its future funding.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Better tell everyone in SF to hop off the J, K, L, M, N, and T "trolley" lines when they are above ground. I guess they can stay on them when they are underground and are a subway.

[detroitbob]

I don't even disagree with trolley building..

What have you done with the real Bham1982? Where is the body hidden? It has to be some sort of imposter. Not disagreeable for once! . Maybe his account was hacked?

[ghettopalmetto]

Streetcars are the latest "urban revitalization" fad. Previously it was sports arenas, prior to that convention centers, before that festival marketplaces, and way back slum clearance/urban renewal type projects. We Americans love to jump on the latest revitalization magic bullet.

If you want real transit, build modern, functional transit. Toonerville Trolleys are for tourists and barhoppers. Works for NOLA and other places where actual mobility for residents is completely besides the point. No one is building streetcar lines in Asia or Europe.

That's because European cities didn't *demolish* their streetcar lines after World War II--they *rebuilt* them! Ergo, they don't have to build what they already have! You know what virtually no country outside of South America or the United States is building? The crappy "modern functional transit" bus routes that cheapskates and highway departments are forcing on us.

Asia is a bit of a different animal. In a lot of Asian cities, there is heavy reliance on motorbikes, which don't take up nearly the space [[and parking) that automobiles do. The larger cities on that continent [[which, frankly, dwarf most American and European cities) either have built, or are building metro systems.