The New York Times is reporting that American cities are seeing the return of the streetcar. Portland, Cincinnati, Denver (pictured above), Houston, and a number of other cities believe building streetcar lines in down-and-out neighbourhoods will revive urban communities. In Cincinnati, advocates suggest this will bring more people downtown. Fares range from free, to 50 cents, to $1.
At least 40 other cities are exploring streetcar plans to spur economic development, ease traffic congestion and draw young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, according to the Community Streetcar Coalition, which includes city officials, transit authorities and engineers who advocate streetcar construction.
More than a dozen have existing lines, including New Orleans, which is restoring a system devastated by Hurricane Katrina. And Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, N.C., have introduced or are planning to introduce streetcars.
“They serve to coalesce a neighborhood,†said Jim Graebner, chairman of the American Public Transportation Association’s streetcar and vintage trolley committee. “That’s very evident in places like San Francisco, which never got rid of its streetcar system.â€
In Cincinnati, the line was dismantled in the 1950s and some see streetcars as an old-fashioned mode of transportation. The price of gas and an increased interest in the environment seems to be turning many minds towards the way things were done fifty or sixty years ago. I can only imagine some old man saying I-told-you-so to his grandkids: clotheslines, local food, and streetcars are all making a comeback and everything old is new again.
photo by Matthew Blackett
19 comments
Most GTA residents think a streetcar is just a bus on a leash.
What’s striking about the article is the focus on streetcars as a neighborhood ornament, rather than as a transit backbone. To me, that’s more of an indictment than a vindication of Toronto’s streetcar implementation.
It is unfortunate that the NY Times article seems to focus on smaller systems including two that are seen much more as tourist operations (San Francisco and New Orleans) than integral parts of the transit system. Although there is a cable car in the slide show, they don’t mention the several streetcar lines, rights of way and tunnels that the streetcars use in SF.
There are many other systems worth mentioning, but I have a sense that the writer was constrained for space — it’s unusual for what looks like a major article not to have two or three pages on the NYT site.
None of these lines are serious transit projects. At best they are tourism drivers (Kenosha) and at worst they are plain pork barreling (Cincinati). None of them have ridership that justifies anything above a bus, if that. Portland’s streetcar (a 9km circulator) has 9k daily riders. Cleveland is estimating it’s tram (an 8km single track) will have 4k riders per day to begin with. And that is WITH fares as low as $0.50!
There is no streetcar renaissance, turnaround, revolution or any other phrase you want to apply to it just like there was no monorail “renaissance” during the 80s (Detroit, Miami, Jacksonville). It is pork barreling, plain and simple.
There is some confusion here, and to be fair the article is very poorly written. The intent of the editors, I believe, was to point out development in what the Americans call “streetcars” (as opposed to LRT). However, the writer is not too bright and mixed up the two. Denver and Houston use an LRT, similar to (or even better than) what is planned for Transit City. Charlotte has a heritage streetcar but just introduced LRT. SF’s cable car is just a tourist attraction and not really part of Muni. The lack of actual streetcar systems at the moment limited the photo ops, hence the need to drag the touristy heritage cars into the story.
The only true example of a “streetcar” is currently in Portland, the one city to blend Transit-City-esqu LRT with current-TTC-esque streetcars. (For this Spacing post, a Portland Streetcar image should really be used instead of a Denver LRT.) The lesson to be learned is that there are different benefits to the different systems. A “streetcar” can bring tourist and business development and streetscape improvements to a local neighbourhood but is obviously not a full transit system in its own right. Therefore they typically cost much less than a normal fare in order to spur their development role.
The application to Toronto is interesting. Many of the existing streetcar lines will inevitably evolve to more of an LRT operation. In order to move the required number of bodies, they will have to grow in car size, shed stops, use prepay, and maybe (NIMBYs willing) get some proper right-of-way. These lines can then intersect one or several downtown “streetcars” that hold the existing urban fabric together. Perhaps one streetcar line could circle around, Bloor, Church, King, Spadina while another handled Bay, Queens Quay, Jarvis, Dundas. This would ideally on a different, cheaper, fare, in order to appeal to downtown condo dwellers, tourists, etc. taking short trips. Once the new regular-route vehicles are in use, the existing CLRVs could even be used to make a sort of poor imitation of San Francisco’s F-Market line or Melbourne’s City Circle route.
Will makes a good point about the previous people-mover fad; for some lucky cities with generous federal politicians (imagine that, Toronto!) this will be good old pork. And yes, to highlight Cincinnati in the article was kind of silly, since that city is sort of legendary for its failed subway.
But in the cities that have real transit ridership it cannot be ignored. Read between the lines — US cities have seen the potential of local rail circulators in addition to LRT, and perhaps rather than being the worst of both worlds Toronto should look to adapt both modes. The potential is there for the best surface rail net in North America, if the city could just see it.
By the way, O’Toole is a renowned neo-con tyrant on the subject of rail, but always manages to get his name in print as the voice of the “other side of the story.” Ignore anything attributed to his mouth.
The light rail line in Charlotte NC has been a big hit since the day it opened. The streetcar system there disappeared many decades ago and was forgotten. People there who have known nothing but the bus see light rail as a step up and an investment in the community due to it permanence, and the associated infrastructure improvements that come with the construction of such a line. Light rail has already arrived in much of the US. When those lines first opened, naysayers like Pork Barrel Will abounded. Not anymore. The same will happen with the “streetcar” lines… give it time.
Well, to begin with, the LYNX has about as much in common with a streetcar as the 36 Finch has to do with the Curitiba system. It is an actual, bona fide, LRT line with segregated ROWs, dedicated stations and runs in extended multi car “trains”. It is different from the purported “streetcar turnaround” in that it actually has practical applications. Don’t get LRT and trams confused, they are different.
More over, it isn’t so clear the LYNX is an actual success. Despite absurdly subsidized fares (4$ day pass!) daily ridership is still only 18k people. Forgive me if I don’t bust out the champagne. Calgary, now there is an LRT success story. Spacing should do a story on the C-train, it is a made-in-Canada LRT success story. The only other example of a successful LRT system is the Muni.
uSkyscraper:
You say, “The intent of the editors, I believe, was to point out development in what the Americans call “streetcars†(as opposed to LRT). However, the writer is not too bright and mixed up the two.” As far as I know, there is no widely accepted delineation between streetcars and LRT, even among people who really should know what they are talking about. Even on this site, we read in this article praise of “streetcar-oriented development” in reference to Transit City, which is generally thought of as LRT.
You also say, “Many of the existing streetcar lines will inevitably evolve to more of an LRT operation.” Given that the streetcars operate today in much the same way that they have operated from the beginning, I see nothing inevitable about that. And thanks to Transit City stealing the attention away from the disastrous state of downtown transit, these changes are unlikely to take place for decades.
Looking at all of the examples in the article, and reading the quotes of the advocates, you will see that Toronto has it backwards: the lesson of the streetcar renaissance is that streetcars are primarily development tools that are only incidentally to be used as transit, not serious modes of transit that should be expected to carry the bulk of east-west traffic.
I explained the difference between streetcars and LRT, particularly in the North American context, on this very site earlier this year.
The NYT did not do a very good job, at least in my not-so-humble opinion. Most of the new projects sound like streetcar circulators, not real LRT.
https://spacing.ca/toronto/2008/02/09/draft-streetcars-and-light-rail-transit-part-1-north-american-context/
Uskyscraper: The Cable cars are very much a part of the Muni System, and is heavily used by commuters. Especially the California St. line. Do not write the Cable Cars off.
And you’re correct about Mr. O’Toole. Be very wary of him. And be wary of Wendell Cox. They have a history of distorting facts, and fudging numbers in their reports. They are not to be trusted.
With GM spiraling towards bankruptcy, streetcars around the continent are coming out from hiding.
We may need more clarity on what vehicles mean what for our transick, especially in the core east-west routes. In the uncritical rush to embrace “green” transit, we may get a one-size-fits-all-suburbs mini-train that means the core east-west routes have much less service but the same “capacity” – but it may be too late, and many of us may be too blindp or busy to fuss about it. The streetcars also tend to prevent giving safety to the truly better way for many of us, as the streetcar tracks essentially prevent repainting the major roads for bike lanes, unless we did a two-in-one curb lane somewhere.
(Perhaps these are irrelevant comments about local issues for such an urbane blog, talking about NYT…)
If this article is looking for role models for public transit it should look to Europe where fuel is substantially higher. In Germany for example their are cities of 150 000 that have LRT infrastructure set up already. North American fuel prices will rise and hopefully we have a relatively cleaner(locally) electric transit systems in all urban areas to help its citizens battle the high price of fuel.
The next time someone mouths off that “we don’t have the money for LRT, it’s too extravagant” – point them to this project.
Now THAT’s freakin’ extravagant when you consider APS “third rail you can walk on” is 3x more expensive than standard Citadis tramway.
It really bugs me when there’s whining in the press on this side of the Atlantic about money for public projects. Compared to the rest of the world in general, the US and Canada are rolling in money. If the ninnies in charge now were around before 1960, there would be no US highway system, no trans Canada railways, no Hoover Dam, no Golden Gate Bridge. A way would have been found to cheapass it, defer it, squash it.
When are we going to see any of the current TTC guys poached by a free spending transit system? Probably only Brad Ross…
I did forget to mention the Seattle Streetcar, which is the only other modern “streetcar” currently operating in the US (in addition to Portland). It opened in July.
Again, my point is that there is LRT, and there are what the Americans call “streetcars”. Toronto is currently neither. Maybe that’s a good thing, but I do not think so. We need LRTs to move commuters and streetcar circulators to strengthen business and tourist districts. It’s not (red) rocket science — everyone else is now doing it. You can argue with theory but you cannot argue with case studies on the ground. Can we please not drag behind?
“The streetcars also tend to prevent giving safety to the truly better way for many of us, as the streetcar tracks essentially prevent repainting the major roads for bike lanes, unless we did a two-in-one curb lane somewhere.”
Regardless of whether bicycles are “truly the better way for many of us” (which I doubt, the portion of the population that is young and mobile enough to cycle is considerably smaller than the portion of the population that is mobile enough to take transit), as a cyclist I find the current situation on King or Queen a pretty reasonable compromise between cyclists and transit.
There is a wide right lane, and left lane just wide enough for auto/streetcar traffic. There is enough room in the right lane for parked cars (or moving rush hour traffic) and cyclists still have a reasonably large area to ride in and avoid the door zone.
You could slap some paint down there, but then you’d just have College St — there is no benefit whatsoever that I can see to the bike lanes there. The path you ride in would be the same with or without the paint. In fact, I’d say we’re better off without them as the current bike lanes on College encourage cyclists to pass cars on the right at intersections, tempting a right-hook from autos. The paint on the road makes the more sensible option of passing on the LEFT of turning vehicles a no-go, or at least discouraged.
“We need LRTs to move commuters and streetcar circulators to strengthen business and tourist districts. ”
And that is why I find the continuing drip of talk by the media regarding the downtown LRVs being the basis, albeit double ended and double doored, for the suburban/midtown LRVs premature.
It’s not just important that the LRVs fit the rails, but that they fit the streets they run through. The downtown order will be at least 204 cars, probably more when Queens Quay East and Cherry are on-line. We can afford to have a different LRV which is designed and optimised specifically for wider arterials such as Finch East without any performance compromises owed to downtown’s narrow streets, frequent stops and tight turns.
Sean, the NYT may not have done a good job, but their mistake was in mentioning the systems like Denver and Salt Lake City. The point of the article was to talk about the trend to new streetcar routes providing local service (of which Portland’s streetcar seems to be one of the trend setters), as opposed to full-blown LRT systems with downtown on-street running.
A year or so ago I ordered a book called Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century (published by the same Community Streetcar Coalition quoted in the NYT article). The book discusses these types of lines and comes out heavily in favour of their ability to leverage development. It is an interesting book with some neat photos, and I would like to be able to agree with what’s written in there, but it is difficult when half of it is touting the “success” of lines that have daily ridership less than two or three thousand. Four of them don’t crack three digits, including Kenosha with a daily ridership of 100!
One interesting writeup discusses the concept of a “light rail spectrum”:
1) light rapid transit (mostly exclusive ROW; higher average speeds above 30 km/h, longer trains, and longer distances between stations)
2) Light rail transit (reserved ROW with some in-street segments; medium speeds from 20-30 km/h; shorter trains; medium distances between stations [800-1500 m]; route length 15-30 km)
3) Streetcars (mostly in-street, shared lanes; lower speeds below 20 km/h; single cars; frequent stops every 150-450 m; route length less than 8 km)
One thing that is an issue for North American cities, is to decide whether you want good transit or good flow of automobile traffic, since then 1950’s the answer has been automobile traffic. High fuel prices, and concerns over pollution and global warming, means this needs to change, but with the popularity of the automobile, cites don’t want to slay the sacred cow (automobile). I don’t know if it’s completely possible. For streets in the inner suburbs, like Finch, there is space along the street that you could redesign the streetscape to allow for a dedicated ROW, bike lanes, and still keep an automobile traffic lane. For narrow downtown streets like Queen or King, it may not be doable.