The Secret Scam of Streetcars

[finehoe]

Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe. 

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are developed societies outside of the US and Europe.





...to name just two.

[UNFurbanist]

I think that the streetcar in NOLA would be a good model for Jax to look at as a first attempt. When I was there for a week it seemed to be used at all hours of the day by both locals and tourists. I think they should put it on main st. like the old days of Jax running from DT out into Springfield. The development of transit and the development of uses have to happen at the same time though. If a streetcar went in today on main it would be a flop but if we see the elbow district become popular, more residents moving into springfield and downtown along with more business in the area then it could work. I think streetcars have to be done exactly right to work and DC did not accomplish that goal.

[CCMjax]

^^^Development patterns are still quite different.  I'm well aware that European cities sprawl   But European sprawl is very different from American sprawl.  Besides, American cities are only building streetcars in the city centers, and the difference between American city centers and European city centers is even more stark than the difference between their sprawl.  Mentalities can't change that easily.

Making a city like Atlanta truly transit/walk first from where it is today could take 1,000 years at this point.  Even Euopeans today love their cars, but their cities weren't designed around the car and their cities are not conducive to making it easy to take trips with the car.

Also, to the point about race and trying to get white people to ride transit at the expense of bus lines that serve mostly black people...do you honestly think Europe has that problem like America does?  How backwards is this problem?!?  That's an American mentality that is a form of subtly, likely subconscious racism (let's call it prejudice...and it's probably not anti-black, more anti-lower class).  For whole generations now, transit has been a lower class thing.  It will take generations at least to change that in some people.  Europe *never* went through a phase where transit was just for lower class people.  And they never got rid of their transit lines and swapped them out for cars.  Mentalities are entirely fabricated.  Europe and America and largely opposite, so mentalities are largely opposite.

Mentalities can't just "change" and American cities can't just be rebuilt to be like the European cities that are covered in tram networks.  Agree to disagree!

Ladies and gentlemen . . . . you don't have to leave the country to experience functioning mass transit systems and "white people taking buses."  Go to DC, Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly, New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, SF and several other major cities.  In other words, real cities.  Real cities have other ways to get around other than car.  Jacksonville will never be comparable to the older cities whose infrastructure developed mostly before automobiles.  You can see it just by Google Mapping, the infrastructure is night and day Jacksonville vs say Boston or even closer, New Orleans.  But Jacksonville does have a lot of vacant land in the core and along transportation corridors so at least there is potential to be as efficient as possible in the future with smart development and redevelopment.  Trouble is you have to get the population here on board, and if you haven't been to these other places it is hard to visualize the concept.  Which I think is the problem with a vast majority of the population here, most people can't visualize it with what's already here.  They accept that the way it has been done for the last 50 years here is an ok way to continue.

[simms3]

I think that the streetcar in NOLA would be a good model for Jax to look at as a first attempt. When I was there for a week it seemed to be used at all hours of the day by both locals and tourists. I think they should put it on main st. like the old days of Jax running from DT out into Springfield. The development of transit and the development of uses have to happen at the same time though. If a streetcar went in today on main it would be a flop but if we see the elbow district become popular, more residents moving into springfield and downtown along with more business in the area then it could work. I think streetcars have to be done exactly right to work and DC did not accomplish that goal.

^^^My impression of the streetcars in NOLA are that they are like the streetcars in San Francisco, essentially fixed rail buses that appeal functionally to residents and don't replace bus lines and aren't the "shiny new Siemens cars" bought to attract white yuppies to transit, and they appeal to tourists because they go where tourists want to go and are cute and different.

I would agree it's a much better system, functionally, then all these new little things that cities all over are putting in.  But it's also quite a bit of a different system.

Very few cities in the US are functionally like cities in Europe. 

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are developed societies outside of the US and Europe.





...to name just two.

Hahaha so funny...yea Toronto and Sydney are just like Charlotte and Tampa.  Yea...There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

Let's compare the top 5-6 cities in the US and the largest cities in Canada and Australia (which are very obviously a part of the empire and have far more similarities to European cities...as do the people have sensibilities more reminiscent of Europeans, than Americans), I digress...

Not to mention Toronto's streetcar system is "surviving", meaning, they never tore it down.  It is the original streetcar system!  As is San Francisco's, Philadelphia's, NOLA's, and Boston's.  Perfect examples to compare to the new ones in the following cities:

Atlanta - the most pointless thing I've ever seen
Charlotte - seems like it may have some use, better than Atlanta's!
Dallas streetcar - wtf is that
Little Rock - highlighted here on MJ.  Clearly a "development tool" for a tiny city
Memphis - one would think would be similar to NOLA's, and it uses heritage cars, but I heard nobody rides it at all
Seattle - surprisingly useless with low ridership...the bus system in Seattle is fantastic, why start building streetcars?
Tampa - we know how crappy this one is and nobody rides it
Tucscon - really?!?

Portland's system seems to be a success, and perhaps DC's will, but you're talking 2 cities that follow a much more European model and have a more European mentality than all of the cities on the list above (and moreso than most cities in the US).  The western US is generally so progressive in development and land use (for the 21st century...) that I don't think it can be computed or even comprehended by much of the S/TX/Midwest.  Portland had an intact core to begin with and has only built it up in a very old world style.  I'm sorry to say, Jacksonville won't even kick into gear to 10% of what Portland is doing to develop itself.  It just won't.  You'd need to swap the people of the two cities...the people in Jax will never get there.


The fact of the matter is that streetcars are slow and cumbersome.  They move at the speed of a bus line in a dense city...i.e. somewhere between walking and inner city light rail.  About the same speed as biking, perhaps even slower!

Someone explain to me how people in Jax are going to ditch their cars when free and abundant parking is everywhere and there is no traffic, to consistently ride a slow tram?  Even Charlotte's light rail is a failure in my eyes.  9 miles, 16K daily riders through the densest part of town connecting the most important things (residents, jobs, amenities).  My friggin inner city bus line (a trolley bus attached to a wire nonetheless) goes only 5 miles and carries 35-40K people a day...and it's slow and crowded as hell and it smells and yet everyone rides it.  It takes me ~30 minutes to walk to work, and almost as long sometimes to take the bus.

Density works with trams.  That's the golden ticket.  Jax has no density.  Riverside needs 5x the density, in my opinion, to even start to feel like a neighborhood worthy of a slow tram taking up streets.  The neighborhoods along my bus route have a minimum density of 5x that of Riverside.  My Census Tract is pushing 60K ppsm, close to 10x that of Riverside.

I think Jax will be far more successful playing with full on light rail...something that doesn't make frequent stops, can take on park N ride, and zip people around point A to B along a corridor that can be developed.


Save the Euro style trams for when Jax looks and feels like a real city and using a car is becomes pointless.

[finehoe]

There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

And?  They also film movies there that are supposed to be set in New York.  The point is "the layout and design of the city" in Canada and Australia are virtually identical to those in the US, so your assertion that that is why they can't work here is obviously not true.

[JFman00]

The New Orleans streetcar seems to be unique in the US in that it runs largely on a separate right of way. Of course, it also has had the added benefit of serving both where people are/live and where they want to go (has not relied on induced demand a justification for maintenance/expansion). NOLA's compact size and population density along major corridors also make the system more affordable and easily justifiable than other attempts.

[simms3]

There are parts of Toronto, by the way, where you wouldn't even realize you were in North America.

And?  They also film movies there that are supposed to be set in New York.  The point is "the layout and design of the city" in Canada and Australia are virtually identical to those in the US, so your assertion that that is why they can't work here is obviously not true.

No.  You're failing to see the overall point of the video, and my point.  There are 5-6 cities in the US that are "real" cities, and most of them have streetcars, heavy rail, high density, an old built form (pre-auto), etc etc.  There are a few other cities that are smaller but are very very progressive and also still have a larger built form and prewar density (i.e. Portland).

Fine and dandy...these cities *already* have streetcars, and that is not really wherein the complaint lies.  Portland was in the movie as being tied to an American streetcar manufacturer...the movie didn't focus on how wasteful its streetcar system was.

DC was in the movie, even though it's in that top tier 5-6 cities, as an example of where a streetcar was being used to coax white riders at the expense of more heavily used bus routes used by black people.  That is a real problem...paying for these shiny new systems that have fewer riders at the expense of existing systems that serve people that really need them.

Getting past DC and Portland, the real crux is all of these other American cities rushing to put streetcars in.  See my list.  Little Rock.  Tucscon. Tampa.  Dallas.  Atlanta.  Etc etc etc

These are the more "typical" American cities where most people live.  Most people don't live between NYC (which has no streetcars), Boston, SF, NOLA, and Portland.  Most people live in the Atlantas, Phoenixes, Houstons, Tampas, Charlottes, etc of America.

Streetcars are the cumbersome, slow, "small-scale" fixed rail transit option of what's out there.  They are also cheaper, but on a pound for pound basis are at best worthless in these typical American cities that are all rushing to install them.  That's the point.

You think a streetcar that stops every couple blocks going from Shoppes of Avondale to downtown will be heavily ridden?  That's many many miles at that speed.  Do you know how long that will take?  On a route of 3K ppsm where everyone has multiple cars and there really is no traffic and there is free and abundant parking, everywhere?  And not to mention no tourists or reason for tourists to use it to go to a neighborhood with some shops that looks like hundreds of other semi-older neighborhoods with shops around the country?

I mean...come on.  Find a corridor and replicate what Charlotte did with LYNX.  Yea I called it a "failure" because that is the best one can hope for in a newer city...it's doing well given the circumstances and they are expanding it.  It has spurred development.  It has attracted white riders (at I don't know what kind of service cutbacks across other bus routes serving black riders).  It has ok ridership, and its ridership is increasing.  It goes decently fast and doesn't stop every couple blocks until right in the city.  It has park n ride further out.

That is a full on light rail.  Not a streetcar.  That's what Jacksonville needs.  Not a tram (and Jax already has a Skyway...which is essentially a tram in the sky at much greater cost).

Once again, you gest as if I'm a clueless soul who has never been around, but I think you're either missing the point or you are the more clueless one.

[thelakelander]

LRT is essentially a modern version and operation of traditional streetcar technology. The technology is pretty much the same.  The difference is in how you operate them, capacity, route planning, etc. If you want to make a streetcar (I'm envisioning modern streetcar or tram, which is cheaper than LRT but can operate in a similar fashion) work in Jax, you don't operate it like Little Rock's or Tampa's. You set it up like an LRT starter line, by making sure you directly hit some key pedestrian scale destinations (especially at the end points), some areas where you'd like to encourage high density infill (think Charlotte's South End) and areas where it can be useful to transit dependent populations (in Jax, the higher density/transit dependent neighborhoods are in NW Jax, not Avondale, etc. so they can't be ignored). Once you have that in place, it needs to be operated like a high frequency transit spine, by having your transit system feed riders into it. In other words, not a tourist train that travels 5mph circling downtown and stopping at every other block. So, it's not the technology that needs to take a bad wrap, it's the application of that technology that many cities have been doing lately.

As for Jax, I say modern streetcar because we already have a out-dated fixed transit system in the Skyway.  At some point, it will need to be completely revamped. Of course further study would be needed, but modern streetcar is a technology that could probably utilize the skyway's existing infrastructure and give you the ability to drop the system down to grade, when the time comes to expand into neighboring districts. I'm not sure that infrastructure can support full blown LRT.

[finehoe]

I just happened to stumble across this:

http://www.vox.com/cards/us-streetcar-trend-public-transportation

[thelakelander]

^Take it with a grain of salt. For example, cost estimates can range. Those numbers on Card 4 are pretty high and reflect systems proposed with all the bells and whistles (like Milwaukee's). There are plenty examples of costs being significantly lower when you stick to the basics of building and providing a reliable service. On the other hand, this dude compares those expensive projects with the cost of operating a regular city bus (not even BRT) on regular streets. Apples and oranges. My advice is to not get caught up on the technology. Instead figure out what type of environment you want your city to become in the future and invest in the types of technologies to incrementally get you to that dream.  If it's a regular city bus, so be it.  If it's streetcar, light rail, BRT, or a mix of everything, so be it.  No need to pit mass transit technologies against one another.

[spuwho]

Seattle had to rationalize fares on their streetcar.

http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/01/09/seattle-streetcar-rationalizing-fares-in-march/

After reading it, Lake is right.

But you will notice the oddity in that this streetcar does not belong to the transit agency (METRO). It belongs to the City of Seattle. METRO just operates it.

METRO didnt want streetcars, they prefer buses.

Sound familiar?

[finehoe]

But you will notice the oddity in that this streetcar does not belong to the transit agency (METRO). It belongs to the City of Seattle. METRO just operates it.

It's a similar story for the streetcar in DC.  Metro didn't build it and won't operate it.

[thelakelander]

Yes. the city has a vision for what it wants to become and the transit agency doesn't share that same vision. Thus, Seattle had the balls to do what they felt was necessary to keep pushing towards their overall goal, as opposed to letting their dreams be decided by another entity that operates from a more pigeon-holed perspective. In some situations, that's what it takes to get things done.  Man up and do it yourself, if you truly believe in it. 20 years from now, we'll see who was right.

[simms3]

The western cities, Seattle included, are in my opinion the most progressive cities in the country.  Most of these cities are largely new and post-war cities, yet they are still developing towards being real mixed-mode, high density, high quality of life cities.

Seattle's metro today is 4-5x the population it was during WWII.  Meaning it's a new city.  It had only about 50% more people at the start of the war than Jacksonville had in its present day city limits (i.e. 200-300K people roughly), with not much more in the "metro".

Yet Seattle today is more urban than all but the top few cities in America.  It has gone down a different path...

Count Portland, Denver, San Diego, Boise, and even Salt Lake City amongst those cities that are doing things differently.  Metro Portland isn't that much bigger than Jax in the grand scheme of things, but it feels A LOT larger (many many times larger) without feeling all that congested and hectic.

[JFman00]

Having recently moved to DC, I will say I was surprised at how utterly unwilling choice Metrorail riders are to use a bus for any reason. Americans' prejudice against anything other than fixed line, dedicated right of way transit is a stark reality. I'm quite curious how a "gold-level" BRT system would fare here.

At least in DC, the idea of a bus feeder system for fixed-transit seems more notional than actual. The city is of a scale that the vast majority of desirable neighborhoods are within walking distance of a Metro stop. In most sprawl-based cities, barring some unforeseen spigot of capital funding opening up, the only viable route to choice ridership is Japan-like TOD where the transit provider is also the real estate developer.

I bring all this up in a streetcar thread as a rebuke to many of the current US streetcart/LRT projects that are often just more expensive buses that can't maneuver around traffic. Even in Portland, I saw no reason to use their system as walking was easy and Uber only slightly more expensive for longer trips.