We Miss Streetcars’ Frequent And Reliable Service, Not Streetcars Themselves

[M II A II R II K]

We Miss Streetcars’ Frequent And Reliable Service, Not Streetcars Themselves


April 17, 2019

By Owain James

Read More: https://mobilitylab.org/2019/04/17/w...themselves/#10

.....

The myth that the destruction of streetcar systems in the U.S. was a conspiracy by auto manufacturers to undercut useful public transit by replacing streetcars with buses and thus sell more cars, as depicted in the 1996 documentary Taken for a Ride, is one that persists to this day despite debunking. While it is true that Kansas City, like many American cities at the time, had an extensive public transit system, it was not the fact that it was a streetcar- based system that made it so useful.

- The key to successful transportation infrastructure is whether it can get you where you need to go conveniently, not whether it runs on rails or rubber tires. It sounds like a simple point, but focusing on the mode rather than the quality of service leads to disappointing projects that don’t live up to the hype. The Kansas City streetcar is effective at moving people along its two miles of track, but unless it matches the range and frequency of its 1920s predecessor, it will never be a strong alternative to cars. --- The level of transit service in U.S. cities in the heyday of streetcars has been unmatched since, but the switch from streetcars to buses is not responsible for this decline. As automobile traffic increased, streetcars had to compete for road space that was filling up quickly. While streetcars ran on tracks, these were almost always installed on roads that were open to all automobiles, so streetcars had to sit in traffic like everyone else.

- While we look back on streetcars with nostalgia and new streetcars as cutting edge, the opposite was true in the streetcar’s heyday. Urbanites in streetcar cities valued the ability to move quickly around a city for a mere $.05, but by the time of the streetcar’s demise, they were widely considered to be backwards and obsolete. Many riders welcomed the replacement of streetcar lines with modern buses which were quieter and considered cutting edge technology, more appropriate for the modern age. Streetcars, meanwhile, were old, noisy, crowded, and slow. The debut of buses did not relieve transit lines of their traffic woes, but the new buses offered other advantages. --- Washington, DC historian John Deferrari in his book Capital Streetcars: Early Mass Transit in Washington, D.C., writes that there was “surprisingly little contention” about converting the Connecticut Avenue streetcar line to buses. The story was much the same on lines elsewhere in the city.

- CityLab’s extensive history of U.S. mass transit points out that systems running on their own lanes or track, free of other traffic, survived, while those running in mixed traffic collapsed. Only the latter, they argue, could compete with cars by providing frequent service that would not be slowed down by traffic. --- Another underlying problem was that urban mass transit was privately owned and never had been very profitable. Most streetcars were land speculation ventures, like LA’s Pacific Electric Railway which was built primarily so people could reach new housing that was being built. DC’s system was propped up by its much more successful electric company subsidiary, PEPCO, but Congress banned holding companies from owning both electricity and transit companies in the 1930s. --- As cities attempt to rebuild the transit infrastructure that once existed, it’s important to remember the right lessons. What made streetcars successful in their heyday wasn’t the tracks, but the investment in extensive service that was both frequent and far-reaching.

.....

[canucklehead2]

Agreed. I really hope LA rebuilds it's streetcar network to where it once was.

[Doady]

Seattle has one of the best transit mode share in the US, despite the lack of rail transit. While Dallas has one of the worst transit ridership, despite having one of the largest rail systems. The total amount of service matters more than the mode.

I think the main problem with transit in the US is the extremely low fares. It starves the systems of funding, and thus prevents them from providing a useful service that can compete with cars, unless there is enough taxpayer subsidy to make up for the lack of fare revenue (and there never is).

And that is one of the main differences of the streetcar era too. The streetcars back then had much higher fares.

Kansas City ATA fare is $1.50. $111 million operating budget but only $9 million fare revenue. 8% cost recovery. Wow.

The labour and fuel and operating supplies of KCATA is around $75 million. If they had $2.75 fare like Seattle, that is almost double the fare revenue, they could immediately boost the amount of service almost 10%. More service attracts more riders, and more riders means more revenue and even more service. With $1.50 fare and only $9 million fare revenue they are stuck. They need to increase the fare revenue.

Ridership is based on amount of service, but the amount of service is based on ridership too.

[Busy Bee]

And that is one of the main differences of the streetcar era too. The streetcars back then had much higher fares.

This isn't remotely true. Did you read the article? Have you read any article about the private-municipal ownership transition in the US due to low fares starving capital improvements?

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This isn't remotely true. Did you read the article? Have you read any article about the private-municipal ownership transition in the US due to low fares starving capital improvements?

I was talking about operating revenues and operating costs, not capital revenues or capital costs. Of privately-owned, for-profit streetcar lines.

And I wasn't talking at all about the failure of all those old streetcar systems, I was talking about the potential success of new ones.

Why all those systems failed is not the main focus of the article and the article is wrong about that anyways: the largest, surviving streetcar system in North America, the Toronto streetcar system, mostly operates in mixed traffic.

But still, capital improvements such as ROW is still a matter of increasing efficiency. It's still ultimately about cost recovery. All these systems failed, and all these new system are failures, while Toronto's system is successful is because it maintained a sustainable cost recovery ratio. And a large part of that is because the Toronto streetcar costs $3.25 to ride, not $1.50.

[llamaorama]

The labour and fuel and operating supplies of KCATA is around $75 million. If they had $2.75 fare like Seattle, that is almost double the fare revenue, they could immediately boost the amount of service almost 10%. More service attracts more riders, and more riders means more revenue and even more service. With $1.50 fare and only $9 million fare revenue they are stuck. They need to increase the fare revenue.

Or...

Poor people in Kansas City would be punished by this, while all non-poor people choose to drive a car. Kansas City doesn't have the geography to support high transit ridership. Why would you spend $2.75 to ride a bus for hours when you could drive to work in 10 minutes?

How would you feel if it cost 2x to 3x more for you to commute daily?:

[jmecklenborg]

The article was totally wrong. The public did often fight the substitution of buses for streetcars because streetcars were quieter, smoother, and people knew where they went.

There was a huge push by the local traction companies to covert to buses for several reasons. A primary one was that streetcar companies had to pay for tracks AND pavement between the tracks and a certain proscribed distance to either side. For example, a typical 40-foot city street would be comprised of 10 feet along either curb paved by the city and 20 feet in its center paved by the streetcar company in between and to either side of the tracks.

So when streetcar companies abandoned their rail operations and substituted diesel buses, they also abandoned their legal obligation to pave the road for automobiles, a huge cost obligation beyond maintenance of their tracks.

In addition, a streetcar company made a fair amount of money scrapping their overhead wire. This one-time event generated a special dividend for shareholders.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The article was totally wrong. The public did often fight the substitution of buses for streetcars because streetcars were quieter, smoother, and people knew where they went.

There was a huge push by the local traction companies to covert to buses for several reasons. A primary one was that streetcar companies had to pay for tracks AND pavement between the tracks and a certain proscribed distance to either side. For example, a typical 40-foot city street would be comprised of 10 feet along either curb paved by the city and 20 feet in its center paved by the streetcar company in between and to either side of the tracks.

So when streetcar companies abandoned their rail operations and substituted diesel buses, they also abandoned their legal obligation to pave the road for automobiles, a huge cost obligation beyond maintenance of their tracks.

In addition, a streetcar company made a fair amount of money scrapping their overhead wire. This one-time event generated a special dividend for shareholders.

Thank you - didn't know that.

Streetcar tracks are a common item under the streets in Chicago, several of the old cable houses are still in existence.

Chicago | Streetcar Tracks by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Streetcar Tracks by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr