The Secret Scam of Streetcars

[CCMjax]

^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Yes, more dense for sure. But likely not nearly as dense as you'd think. Out where I live there are few terraces - most of the houses are detached or semi-detached. There are so many more motorists out here. In many ways it reminds me of the US.

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

Aren't there already impact fees?  Isn't that what CDD fees are in a way?  They are all over the place in Suburban Jax and St. John's County but people still move there. 

[Adam White]

^^^Also suburban London is more dense than Riverside/Five Points, so it stands to reason that it's more difficult/costly to build roads in general around Greater London and while not any cheaper, it does make more sense to build rail.  Generalizing.  I was with a friend in Palo Alto this weekend.  2x as dense as Riverside/Five Points, and merely a suburb 20-30 miles outside of San Francisco.  I don't know what it's going to take to get Jax to build in a more responsible, sustainable fashion, but as it stands now roads are pretty much the only logical form of transport for 99% of the city/metro, and yet even then roads are still so costly and stupid to build because the whole area is that scattered and poorly planned.

The city does need to consider what Portland has also done in growth boundaries and reel in the boundaries where it is even legally possible to build.

Yes, more dense for sure. But likely not nearly as dense as you'd think. Out where I live there are few terraces - most of the houses are detached or semi-detached. There are so many more motorists out here. In many ways it reminds me of the US.

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

Aren't there already impact fees?  Isn't that what CDD fees are in a way?  They are all over the place in Suburban Jax and St. John's County but people still move there.

My bad. I didn't think there were impact fees. Back when I was in university, it was something that was mentioned a number of times in the TU - that's how I even know what they are. I guess things might've changed since the early/mid-90s? Who would've thunk it...

[thelakelander]

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl.

[Adam White]

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes you wonder why they bothered to pass the regulation if they were going to take the teeth out of it. Jax does have a problem with sprawl. One thing I find really depressing is the way a new subdivision will spring up and they'll build a strip mall or two near the entrance. After a few years, someone builds a new subdivision less than a mile away - with a new strip mall. The old stip mall then dies off (not like it was ever fully occupied anyway).

Jax needs infill of some sort. I think a thriving DT would make that happen, as property values close to the urban core would rise.

[CCMjax]

We have a greenbelt which surrounds the region - theoretically this should reduce sprawl and encourage infill. I've always thought Jax should look into a growth boundary and impact fees for developers (not sure if that is a city or state issue).

We implemented a mobility fee in 2011. It included a funding mechanism that would generate the money needed to build a streetcar line between Riverside and San Marco, and the local portion of funding for JTA's future commuter rail lines. It hasn't been followed and council has modified the concept so much, we're now reimbursing developers for building internal roadway networks for suburban strip development. Only Jax would find a way to turn something that encourages infill and redevelopment into a tool that subsidizes sprawl.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes you wonder why they bothered to pass the regulation if they were going to take the teeth out of it. Jax does have a problem with sprawl. One thing I find really depressing is the way a new subdivision will spring up and they'll build a strip mall or two near the entrance. After a few years, someone builds a new subdivision less than a mile away - with a new strip mall. The old stip mall then dies off (not like it was ever fully occupied anyway).

Jax needs infill of some sort. I think a thriving DT would make that happen, as property values close to the urban core would rise.

Exactly.  The good thing for developers of strip style developments and most of these ridiculously unsustainable subdivisions is that they get a good quick return on the new shiny development they have.  But the problem is they don't hold their value.  Like you mentioned, there is always something newer and better being built down the street but the developments never feed off eachother, they only compete with eachother.  Usually the newer one wins and people move out of the older one and the area declines.  Kind of like how the Baymeadows area on the SS used to be a nice place to live, now it is pretty unattractive with all the strip development that has taken place.  Sprawl leads to more sprawl.  The only neighborhoods that really seem to hold their value the best are the older neighborhoods like San Marco where that strip development can't really take hold.

[I-10east]

Washington, D.C. Streetcar Nightmare: Then and Now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1T8CqSPL7I

[thelakelander]

^The author is essentially our Robert Mann with a different perspective on streetcars in his particular city.  I'd love to see Ock chime in with his opinion.  There are some parts of the discussion I agree with and others I don't, based on my own studies of transportation and land use. The book appears to have the same exact cover as Ock's Jacksonville streetcar book, so both were mostly published by Arcadia.

[I-10east]

^^^Very interesting. Thanks for that info Lake.

[I-10east]

Just one man's opinion on youtube (spunkitydoda). Portland's streetcar is often seen as this 'crowned jewel of success' concerning US streetcars, but this person's take was very critical and seemingly unbiased. I totally agree that the hatred of cars (and buses) spurred on the revival of streetcars. To me the ideal rail transit is something that doesn't interfere with ground traffic (heavy rail, subway etc).

Rails were a passing phase. A vehicle confined to tracks became a joke for urban use. Now it is simply hatred of cars that has people resurrecting this dinosaur of the nineteenth century. Portland Oregon residents cover the 80% of costs that ridership fails to meet year after year, as the promoters count their millions, year after year. PGE is a major supporter, and profiteer. The only light rail that makes any sense is one that runs from the airport to the downtown train station. Cyclists now have to deal with tracks, usually wet. Maybe you saw the video of the train rolling through a flooded track- it is typical misappropriation.



[thelakelander]

Streetcars don't have to interfere with ground traffic either and not all streetcar systems did. Jax, for example, had several streetcar routes where they operated on their own ROW. This is one of the arguments people make against streetcars, that I don't agree with.  In reality, a streetcar is a form of technology.  How you integrate that type of technology into your urban landscape, streets and ROW is up to you.

Boston streetcar operating on grade separated ROW:


New Orleans streetcar operating on own ROW in street median:


San Francisco streetcar operating on own ROW in street median:


Tampa streetcar operating on own ROW on side of street with transit oriented infill development adjacent to station:


Washington streetcar tracks (under construction in 2013) and sharing lanes with regular car traffic:


IMO, there's nothing wrong with streetcar technology. However, why a city would want to spend millions installing any type of fixed transit to only share travel lanes with cars makes no sense to me. Yet, Washington's poor planning should not be used as a claim to say a certain type of technology is bad.

[thelakelander]

Just one man's opinion on youtube (spunkitydoda). Portland's streetcar is often seen as this 'crowned jewel of success' concerning US streetcars, but this person's take was very critical and seemingly unbiased. I totally agree that the hatred of cars (and buses) spurred on the revival of streetcars. To me the ideal rail transit is something that doesn't interfere with ground traffic (heavy rail, subway etc).

Rails were a passing phase. A vehicle confined to tracks became a joke for urban use. Now it is simply hatred of cars that has people resurrecting this dinosaur of the nineteenth century. Portland Oregon residents cover the 80% of costs that ridership fails to meet year after year, as the promoters count their millions, year after year. PGE is a major supporter, and profiteer. The only light rail that makes any sense is one that runs from the airport to the downtown train station. Cyclists now have to deal with tracks, usually wet. Maybe you saw the video of the train rolling through a flooded track- it is typical misappropriation.



Another gripe of mine. This dude "rails" off about Portland residents covering 80% of a transit system's direct operating costs but they also cover 100% of every locally maintained street in the city and a good chunk of highways funded by their DOT. He also totally overlooks the tax revenue generated into the local municipality by the complementing dense development following those lines, due to good transit infrastructure/land use integration policies. That alone, more than covers the direct costs for operating the system.

[strider]

We just returned from New Orleans and one thing we will miss dearly is the street cars.  They seemed to be used equally by the locals as well as the tourists, which, as you might guess, are there in substantial numbers.  You can get anywhere you need to go via street car in the urban areas.  For the vast majority of the tracks, they are indeed separate from the cars however, in a few areas, they do share the road and one can readily see the issues that causes. On some lines, part of the route is in a separate lane that is also accessible to cars and even in light traffic, the cars can not seem to stay out of the way of the street cars, who from the reactions of the street car drivers, have the right of way to start with. The parts of the lines that were in the medians and had two way tracks seemed faster than driving the longer distances as well. It certainly was easier.

I did not notice a lot of new development along the routes, but as one of the longest lines (St Charles) has essentially been running since 1820 something, I guess I would not expect a lot of new TOD. Some was obvious on the Canal Street lines but as Katrina sort of did a number on the area, hard to tell what is TOD and what is "Hurricane Oriented Development". 

From a layman's perspective, NOLA is a great example of what to do and what not to do in terms of street car.  The positives seem to out weight the negatives and for Jacksonville, a dedicated track lane system would seem to help move this city forward. It all comes down to doing it right rather than just doing something just to do it.  In other words, if we can't do street car the right way, we shouldn't do it at all.

[thelakelander]

^Pretty much. I'd apply that philosophy to just about every type of public investment. New Orleans currently has 4 streetcar lines with a combined route length of 22 miles. They pretty much operate in the urban core of the city. To reach the burbs, you'll need a car or take a bus. Also, the streetcar system averages around 21,600 riders per day. One thing I found interesting and actually like about the New Orleans system is that the median based lines were also used by cyclist.

Here's some random pics from my stay in New Orleans a few years ago:


























System map. The black lines are existing, the orange is under construction and the yellow lines are proposed.

[finehoe]

DC's long-awaited streetcar to open Feb. 27

By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia's long-delayed streetcar line will begin carrying passengers on Feb. 27.

Mayor Muriel Bowser announced Thursday that her administration has settled on an opening date for the streetcar, which runs along the busy H Street, Northeast, corridor.

The project has been beset by delays and cost overruns. District officials have spent $200 million on the 2.4-mile streetcar line, which would be the first working trolley in the nation's capital in more than 50 years. Additional streetcar lines have not moved past the planning stage.

Fares will be free for an unspecified amount of time. The trolley will be open Monday-Saturday, with extended service until 2 a.m. Saturday and 2 a.m. Sunday. It will not run the rest of the day on Sunday.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Ocklawaha]

^The author is essentially our Robert Mann with a different perspective on streetcars in his particular city.  I'd love to see Ock chime in with his opinion.  There are some parts of the discussion I agree with and others I don't, based on my own studies of transportation and land use. The book appears to have the same exact cover as Ock's Jacksonville streetcar book, so both were mostly published by Arcadia.

Chiming in Lake. I'll respond to the video and as always, I'm happy to answer questions. Both books are by the same publisher but no, Reason didn't interview me because they wouldn't like my answers and it won't fit their agenda.

VIDEO-'Streetcars involved major engineering headaches and they required enormous amounts of capital investment and maintenance.'

They pull an interesting sleight-of-hand in the video, streetcars are good because the efficiency of rails over a roadway is about 10x, to wit;
'A horse could pull 10 times the weight on rails,' which is said just a bit later in the film, after stating that; 'Streetcars involved major engineering headaches and they required enormous amounts of capital investment and maintenance.' Then they mention the growth of the hilly suburbs and the fact that a horse couldn't make the grade (literally). They are not talking about streetcars here but they never mention it as the casual observer completely misses the insinuation that horsecars were not replaced by streetcars, they were replaced by 'C A B L E C A R S !' And while cablecars might look like streetcars, they are completely different animals requiring obscene amounts of investment and maintenance. Fact is the Washington and Georgetown Railway converted to cablecars in 1890, by which time that entire industry was in free-fall thanks to the ease of engineering and building electric streetcar lines. Cable Railways were once found in virtually every major metropolitan area except in the deep south, maybe we were not as dumb as some people seem to think we are?

VIEDO - 'Power cables ran in a slot in the street and were inefficient.'

True. This wasn't by design, it was by law in DC that forbade overhead electric lines. We wouldn't want a single wire to obstruct our view of that impressive capital. This was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea today but did anyone else notice the Skyway replacement study from JTA mentions a streetcar option with, wait for it... you guessed it, 'power cables in a slot in the street.' If you need a local historical reference you need only go as far as St. Augustine which early on flirted with a variation of the same idea with a 'box system'. Boxes buried in the street would pop open as the car rolled over them feeding 600 volts DC, then after the car passed over it would recede as the next box popped up. Um yeah, those boxes are still buried in the dirt about MLK, King, San Marco and Cedar Streets. Good idea in theory, but when a couple of boxes got clogged up and failed to recede you exposed the whole community to 600 volts of 'kick-butt! The whole thing had to be engineered with overhead wire.

VIDEO - 'The bus moved freely, nimble, quiet, comfortable and just so much better.'

Correction, if the bus moved 'freely' it was only because the streets it ran on were largely paved with tax revenue from the streetcar companies. In one of the worst cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the cities saw the streetcars as Milch Cows to be used for any and all municipal projects. Around 1912 a nationwide campaign circulated for municipal ownership of all streetcar lines because following the lead of Chicago, it would result in the end of property taxes. Jacksonville likewise had such a movement but no action was ever taken outside of bleeding the company dry. There is something to be said for 'nimble' buses, as a bus can change lanes, and go around objects blocking it's path and rail vehicles cannot. 'Quiet?' Just how quiet is a 1920/30 vintage bus? How about if I told you they generally sound like a WWII fighter plane? Rubber tires on a smooth pavement might be quieter than a steel wheel going over a rail joint, but modern streetcar lines have very few rail joints so that part of the argument has changed meanwhile, electric motors hum while internal combustion or diesel engines chug or sputter. 'Comfortable?' Do you enjoy diesel or gas fumes? Ever been behind a local school bus until you are turning green? Tell me how comfortable that is? As to seating, Horses could pull more because there is next to no friction with a steel wheel on a steel rail and that equates to a silky smooth ride. Perhaps DC's early buses had velvet interiors? Hey, but then many early streetcars actually did. 'So much better,' Sorry but that is in the eye of the beholder, from a passenger prospective a rail vehicle is much larger, much smoother and generally quieter.

'VIDEO - People preferred buses.'

While this might have been true in a few isolated locations, the facts are that when buses replaced streetcars ridership plummeted. The worst case I've found is Oklahoma City which suffered a sudden -97% drop in ridership almost overnight. Some others were Detroit -93%, Dallas -89%, St. Louis -87% and WASHINGTON DC -85%. (you can google this fact, it is on several sites) . (you can google this fact, it is on several sites)

'VIDEO - There is a hard to kill conspiracy theory, it is just not true.'

Pick up a copy of my book, in the appendix you will see copies of several FBI letters documenting the exact fact this video is attempting to refute. There was also the civil court cases that were filed by several cities (also in the book). I find it irresponsible that any historian or political think tank would sweep away the charges and the convictions (for the lesser crime of conspiracy in the sale of buses) with a claim that it never happened.

'VIDEO - The people wanted to get rid of streetcars.'

How does that square with what happened in Oklahoma City or the fact that cities were suing over the loss of their streetcars?

VIDEO - 'Streetcars don't coexist well; tracks next to parked cars is wrong'

No argument here that streetcars at their best are on exclusive right-of-way. Streetcars are railroad vehicles and their size, weight and construction guarantees that in any conflict between pedestrian, bike, car or bus and a streetcar, the streetcar wins. As much as 50-65% of Jacksonville's system used exclusive right-of-way. Moncrief, Pearl, Davis, Kings, Main, Phoenix, Panama, East 8Th, San Jose, Fairfax-Ortega-NAS JAX and about ⅓ of the Murray Hill line were not in the path of automobiles.

VIDEO - 'Résurrection of this expensive 19Th Century Dinosaur,' 'Limited (modern day) national application (is expected).'

Do they really want to go there? As Lake pointed out a streetcar that returns 25% of it's cost through the farebox is returning 25% more than any road. Toll roads likewise do not 'make money'. A roadway will last about 10 years according to FDOT before it needs attention, and a roadway with heavy vehicles such as JTA'S 'almost BRT' will become worn out even quicker. The bus vehicles themselves have a lifespan of about 8-12 years, (12 is the current standard but the industry is pushing for 8 years).  According to the FRA streetcar track is good for 50 years and the vehicles 30+ though several cities are currently running streetcars that are over 100 years old.  '19Th Century Dinosaur's' Amazing, I can date the Via Appia was built by Romans under Appius Claudius Caecus in 350 BCE, which would date highways and roadway vehicles to a tad before the 19Th Century Dinosaur's mentioned in the article.

IN CONCLUSION:

For Jacksonville, the streetcar should be seen as 'cheap light-rail' which is generally considered a poor man's metro system. In other words, ours should be an even cheaper metro system. Use streetcar along the 'S' line from Gateway to the Prime Osborn. Use them from Maxwell House to the old Springfield rail yard where it could intersect that Gateway line. Use them along the CSX and FEC right of ways in area's where they would not in any way interfere with rail traffic or future industrial land uses. Send them at their full 35-45mph speeds to 'The Avenues' to 'Yukon and hence via the Ortega River green belt to Blanding in Orange Park. In downtown, we have an amazing broad boulevard running east-west in Water Street and with a remake, it could have that beautiful green median seen in the New Orleans photos. Replace the current Skyway with elevated Streetcars and ramp them down at Atlantic in San Marco, Rosa Parks and hence north through the park borders to UF Health, and east to the Stadium. The Riverside-Downtown link would make for a great nostalgia attractor of TOD, but the really useful aspects of the streetcar concept seem to evade this city's thought processes.