Streetcar Revival Is Wavering in Some Cities

[finehoe]

Just a few years ago, the streetcar revival was all the rage in cities across the country. Portland, Ore., seemingly set the trend with its 11.5-mile system, which opened in 2001 and was said to spur economic development while carrying 16,000 passengers on weekdays.

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.

Yet, while several cities inaugurate new systems or expand older ones, the streetcar revolution, faced with fiscal and operational challenges, has stalled elsewhere. Last July, San Antonio abandoned its planned streetcar system after a change in mayors, reallocating to other projects the $92 million it had set aside.

Even the most ardent streetcar supporters acknowledge that the challenges are daunting, though they argue that the rewards far outweigh the costs in terms of the economic development and quality of life that make cities more livable and attractive.

www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/streetcar-revival-is-wavering-in-some-cities.html

[thelakelander]

This quote from the article pretty much identifies a major problem and one many have provided the answers to since this site was founded a decade ago:

William S. Lind, director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation and a strong right-leaning voice for streetcars, said that trolleys remained "not only a viable but an essential component" of successful cities. "That said, there have been some blunders." These include, he said, building short lines "that don't go anywhere," infrequent service and excessive and widely varying costs per mile, from $5.1 million in Kenosha, Wis., to $67.5 million in Washington, D.C.

Go "no-frills" (like Kenosha, Little Rock) with a route/headways that actually efficiently takes transit riders to pedestrian oriented destinations (like Portland or New Orleans). Also, what's just as important is to not mix streetcars with regular automobile traffic (Tampa is a good example, but with poor headways and route). On top of this, you can't forget about establishing supportive land use and zoning regulations along the corridor. If you're not going to do these things, you might as well be honest with your community and do something else.

[I-10east]

Thanks for this story Finehoe. The comments section is very interesting with this New York Times story; There's not alot of sunshine pumping for streetcars in it. I'm not gonna act like I'm some transportation know it all, but the way I see it for the most part, streetcars are an uppity millennial version of a bus; They don't wanna be seen on the 'lowly' buses, so they prefer to ride streetcars. A regular Joe like me and the majority of people would hop on a bus in a second, without worrying about any socio-economical backlash.

I'm also tired of the politicalization of streetcars "In order to be 'progressive' you must have streetcars, versus the evil 'conservative' omnibus". It's safe to say that the US streetcars success stories are few and far between. Don't take it for me, read the comments (with people who like streetcars, but realize that many systems are failing). IMO a streetcar system is the last thing that a mainly blue collar city like Jax should be worrying about.

[I-10east]

^^^I'm talking about the streetcar systems in place that are under performing...Streetcar 'fixed' stations have it's disadvantages too, if they don't get it right...Why don't you say what's your opinion on this, instead of attacking someone's opinion like always?

[simms3]

^^^I agree with I-10east here.  It's a glorified bus either for tourists, upper class Millennials living in expensive apartment areas trying to get to their nearest upscale market without having to walk 5 blocks, or both.

I can't think of one streetcar that has the same effect as a LRT line, HRT line, or commuter rail.  The streetcars I have ridden are all either tourist traps, or they are really no different than a bus except they are "not a bus".

Streetcars are for "progressive" sunbelt/new growth cities trying to be progressive.  I could see it working in Jax if the route is extensive enough to go deep into Avondale and if it is built to replace a bus line with better headways (but good luck seeing "economic development" in a historic single family home neighborhood such as Avondale where you'll never see true mixed-use or higher density replace the homes that are there).

A skyway extension to the stadium would be just as much of a waste as an ill-planned or not-substantial-enough (i.e. cheap) streetcar system in Jax, in my opinion.

Just keep in mind Atlanta's streetcar that exists today was a fallback.  Not their desired plan or intent.  It was pretty much a waste of money all in the name of "show" (to I-10east's point about cities trying to be progressive).

[Gunnar]

Personally, I see a streetcar as a smaller version of a train rather than a bus on fixed tracks.

It runs on electric power, is more flexible in terms of length  - just add / remove cars as needed, higher passenger comfort...

And yes, obviously a street car needs to go where people want to go and from where they can either continue on foot or with other means of transportation. And it also needs to be planned properly.

[finehoe]

Streetcars are an integral piece of Melbourne, Budapest, Berlin, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Hong Kong, Toronto, and many other cities transit infrastructure.

That other countries are able to make them work suggests it is a political, not a technological problem.

[I-10east]

What you're doing Stephen is funneling the conversation specifically about San Antonio's situation. San Antonio actually did the right thing by not starting the system to begin with. The story was about the bigger picture of wavering US streetcar systems that started already; Cities like Tampa, Salt Lake City, Tuscon etc. San Francisco is a totally different situation with streetcar success, and you know it;  The epitome of the American streetcar is in San Fran, with it's strong identity, and long time history.

[I-10east]

^^^I don't know what your boldfaced 'I gotcha, you wasn't paying attention' highlighting was for, but whatever. Talk about a word salad...

[simms3]

What you're doing Stephen is funneling the conversation specifically about San Antonio's situation. San Antonio actually did the right thing by not starting the system to begin with. The story was about the bigger picture of wavering US streetcar systems that started already; Cities like Tampa, Salt Lake City, Tuscon etc. San Francisco is a totally different situation with streetcar success, and you know it;  The epitome of the American streetcar is in San Fran, with it's strong identity, and long time history.

You're correct, I-10east.  San Francisco's neighborhoods currently served by the E and F streetcar lines actually predate the streetcar lines and are and have always been very dense.  It's sort of the opposite situation of most modern day streetcar lines in America, which are used as economic development tools to densify neighborhoods (ultimately to much lower densities than those already existing in SF's case).  So it's tough to compare SF's streetcars to most modern day streetcars.

Also, I think it's tough to compare European tram systems to those in America.  European systems are often really built out, to extents that are not politically or feasibly possible in America.  They also serve in-place density much greater than nearly anything achieved in America outside of maybe 5-6 cities.  So I don't believe they are a legitimate comparison, though they are something to strive towards?  Maybe?

I think American cities look at streetcars in a bubble moreso than European cities, or SF as it kept 2 of its lines.

That said, even in San Francisco's case, the 2 streetcars are often jam-packed with tourists, and as a rider of one of the lines that heads from downtown up into some Upper Market neighborhoods, it's a bus choice for me.  It comes down to (based on visual cues or my MUNI Watch app) which comes first for where I'm at and what's traffic like at the surface level at the time?:

MUNI Metro (LRT subway...super effective during rush hours, though super crowded)
Any number of traditional bus lines
F Line streetcar

There is virtually no difference to me or really anyone else save for tourists between the F and about 5 different bus lines that can take you from the same Point A to about the same Point B.  Same speed.  Same seating.  Same setup.  Same stops.  In fact, the tourists can really get in the way and bog it down because they are clueless and slow.  So I prefer a local bus because clueless tourists will not be getting on to nearly the same extent.

[I-10east]

^^^Thanks for sharing that SF perspective Simms.

[strider]

Thanks for this story Finehoe. The comments section is very interesting with this New York Times story; There's not alot of sunshine pumping for streetcars in it. I'm not gonna act like I'm some transportation know it all, but the way I see it for the most part, streetcars are an uppity millennial version of a bus; They don't wanna be seen on the 'lowly' buses, so they prefer to ride streetcars. A regular Joe like me and the majority of people would hop on a bus in a second, without worrying about any socio-economical backlash.

I'm also tired of the politicalization of streetcars "In order to be 'progressive' you must have streetcars, versus the evil 'conservative' omnibus". It's safe to say that the US streetcars success stories are few and far between. Don't take it for me, read the comments (with people who like streetcars, but realize that many systems are failing). IMO a streetcar system is the last thing that a mainly blue collar city like Jax should be worrying about.

You are are so right, I10. Yeah, look at the great things we get with buses.  Flexibility.  That's what buses give you.  You can change the route almost daily if you wanted to.  Yep, as long as you can change the system to your liking year after year by just redrawing the route, buses are the way to go.  So what if you kill three retail shops every time you do it.  So what if you give the guy in Mandarin an extra 40 minutes in commute time every morning and every evening. And did I mention that buses are pretty cheap too?  Why spend money on giving those that don't have a car a way to get around. Heck, why don't they have a car, are they un-American?

Here's what I know for a personal fact.  We once had a store on Main St.  They moved a bus stop one day and we lost 25% of our business.  If we had a store on Main and the stations were fixed rail, we would probably still have that store. In fact, if we had managed to get in on the ground floor of a new fixed rail system, we probably would have had to grow the store. (OK, so the rent probably would have grown too high and we would have moved.) The point is, as has been proven time and time again, buses are not development generators.  They can't be.  Too flexible.  Fixed rail has proven that it can be if done right.

You can find cities that have done it right, you can find cities that have done it wrong and you can find cities that actually have the density that it doesn't matter.  The development will happen or has happened anyway in those high density cities.  But it seems many of the cities have indeed expanded their fixed rail systems - including Street Car.

The urban core of Jacksonville needs a lot of help to get the development it needs to be a viable modern urban city. It needs more that rhetoric, it needs more than NSP, CBGB or whatever the latest Federal help program may be called as we got those and nothing happened, except we got told we can't handle the money...sort of evident when you ride around the urban core.

I am all for Street car and not because I think it is the best way to move people.  I think it is the best way to get the needed development, which will include good places to work, live and have fun, all within the street car's route.  Which will mean lots of people will end up riding it.  Seems like a nice little self-fulfilling circle of transportation oriented development to me.

And it will take a long time for that to happen.  We have spent the majority of the last one hundred years in Jacksonville moving away from fixed rail and good public transportation and urban living to individual transportation and suburban living.  It will take close to that long to get all the way back.  But it would be nice to start that particular journey sooner rather than later.

[I-10east]

^^^Strider, I think that buses in Jax generally have mainstay routes, with a few exceptions; JTA even has a longstanding NIMBY-esque route going down St John's Ave in upper crust Avondale. I'm just for whatever makes the most economical and practical sense, just like the green energy issue. I'm I against green energy? No. Is green energy currently less than 15 percent of the overall energy? Yes.

If Jax had an strong hipster/millennial enclave within the heart of a the city (lots of upper tier residential, Whole Foods etc) maybe I would change my tune with streetcar. If Jax had a San Francisco, or even St Augustine touristy atmosphere downtown, I probably would change my tune. Many of these new age US (monkey see monkey do) streetcars aren't going well as planned; Them being 'under funded' was mentioned earlier, but doesn't a 'Phase 1' have to start from somewhere? A Populous architect said a great quote not that long ago on the radio (paraphrased) You need locations before adding fixed transit.

[thelakelander]

Streetcars are an integral piece of Melbourne, Budapest, Berlin, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Hong Kong, Toronto, and many other cities transit infrastructure.

That other countries are able to make them work suggests it is a political, not a technological problem.

This!

[simms3]

Streetcars are an integral piece of Melbourne, Budapest, Berlin, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Hong Kong, Toronto, and many other cities transit infrastructure.

That other countries are able to make them work suggests it is a political, not a technological problem.

This!

Part of the politics is general land use planning, though.  It's not a matter of the freedom and funds to simply build a streetcar system.  A few things have to be in place:

1) Preferably existing density to be served - maybe a super busy bus route or two was replaced with street car (and there are no "busy" bus routes in Jax).

2) If no density yet exists (in Jacksonville's case and many "today" cities' cases), a plan has to be in place to adequately promote and allow for both density and form that promotes vibrancy, walkability, and a shift away from cars.

In my opinion, the killer of all of this is either:

a) in-place low density that is not likely to ever be replaced by higher density (as is the case with most of Jacksonville's historic neighborhoods which have a highly defendable, popular, and important single family building stock, often inhabited by well to do middle class families who are not giving that neighborhood characteristic up for Millennial apartments, artists lofts, and high rises any time soon)

b) in-place zoning that allows for and even promotes horribly planned higher density (such as cut off podium style high rises or wrapped garage hybrid apartments of low quality and poorly thought out integration into existing communities).

Gone are the days of small lot sizes and true infill - the kind of zoning that allowed for walk-ups and smaller developments to be constructed that promote true walkability and vibrancy.  Instead, S&P500 developers are the "infill" game in most cities, particularly sunbelt cities just now densifying, and their financial model, which conforms with zoning, is to put up pretty much self-contained communities with lots of units and lots of amenities, with high parking ratios.

We've seen how this is "effective" in Charlotte and Austin.  But our standards are low.

Consider their systems' ridership numbers and put that into perspective.  Thousands of "infill" units craved by folks on this site (think dozens of 220 Riversides) have been built alongside those fixed rail lines, so economic development has occurred, but are we REALLY talking about a significant amount of people actually taking and depending on public transit?  Not really.  It's a talking point.  It's an attractor of Millennials into new apartments.  It's a huge upfront cost for taxpayers, but eventually repaid by additional tax revenue from large projects.  But it's not really a true urban lifestyle like people are pretty much forced (and generally happily forced) to live in our nation's 5-6 truly urban cities.

So yes, it's politics.  The technology works.  But the politics is deeper than just anti-rail sentiment or a system in America that makes building new public transit of almost any kind prohibitively expensive.  It's a politics that even after rail is put in, the politics of creating a city that is conducive to actually using that rail is not there.