The Streetcar Isn't a Joke, So Let up on It!

but that's the thing troyjmorris; if you change the public's perception of mass transit it makes the streetcar more plausible. making mass transit desirable, increasing ridership and reducing costs along with getting people out their cars.

and for those people who continue to say, "just add more buses," that's a solution that's shown that it will only attract a certain segment of the population. the reason your buses are stuck in traffic is that the people in the cars surrounding it don't want to ride them. yes, ridership is up. yes, some buses are packed. but so are the roads with cars with one or maybe two people in them. the key is to provide something that will appeal to them, regardless of whether you think not wanting to sit next to someone you find revolting is petty or not, so that they will make the leap from single occupancy to mass transit. so adding more buses is only going to make for a less crowded ride for those that ALREADY ride the bus.

and bigyaz, the "fraction of a cost" you mention is the very short-sighted initial investment. the long-term costs of buses and streetcars are actually fairly equal.

I have to agree why I hate the SLUT. I don't agree with street cars as a plausible solution outside of the fact that they'll help (hopefully) change the public's perception of Mass Transit.

Baby steps.

For the record I don't hate the SLUT for the cost. My dislike stems from being a (former)employee and volunteer of the neighborhood which used to be known as Cascade, before Paul Allen bought it.

I hate the SLUT because it was a pet project put to "create a neighborhood and community pride," when there was already a proud and strong neighborhood to begin with. Just not one that can afford half million dollar plus condos, organic produce from Whole Foods, or a trolley that treks from high end downtown shops and businesses to the bio-tech corridor.

Wait, is it true the buses "over-crowded," as Jeremy says? Or does nobody want to ride buses, as the commenters are saying.

It's like Yogi Berra (may have) said: "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore; it's too crowded."

In fact, bus ridership is booming. Yes some routes have a less-than-desirable population, but it's a city, dammit. You think the same people won't smell up your cutesy new trolley cars?

Create dedicated bus lanes, run buses more regularly on major routes (so people can just show up at the bus stop without having to consult schedules) and eliminate the ride-free zone (which will eliminate some of the undesirables). It can all be done for a fraction of the cost of trolleys.

"Asshat" is a new one. I do ever so love environmentalist autodidacts for whom such trivial things as "facts" and "reality" are mere inconveniences to be glossed over. For the record, I am an environmentalist, I loathe styrofoam (I'm from Portland--I hadn't seen the stuff for 15 years till I moved here in 2003), and again, ride the bus/walk to work every day. And hydroelectic power? Really? See, this is what bugs me about how most people think about the environment: as a fad. When I was a kid, acid rain was a big deal. As was extinction and CFCs and the hole in the ozone. None of which problems have gone away, but now we're all about carbon emissions, global warming, alternative energy. Which apparently makes hydroelectric just dandy, so long as you ignore the fact that we're facing the collapse of the entire West Coast salmon fishery this year. (Maybe them fish ladders aren't all they're cracked up to be.)

As for Abbey's comment: everyone's entitled to their opinion, but Seattle has a long and demonstrable history of shooting down wise ideas in the name of reason and cost, which turns out to be mostly a matter of short-sightedness and cheapness. See: The Bogue Plan.

uh-oh, am i a pseudo-populist jeremy?

I rail against condos, Nickles, and the SLUT... but I don't want my latte from McDonald's.

hmmmm.

Hey, Jeremy M. Asshat--

"(electricity comes from somewhere, too; just 'cause you can't see where doesn't mean it's clean)"

Do you know that 90% of Seattle's electricity comes from hydroelectric power? Of course you don't, you diesel-drinking, gasoline-pissing anti-enviro. I hope you choke on your styrofoam packaging, asshat.

@edgeplot

--Streetcars don't move any faster than a bus because they're at grade an interact with traffic. Since they're not any more efficient, why switch to them?

true, they aren't any faster. that's not the point. the point is to get more people out of their cars and buses aren't doing that. you do want to get more people out of their cars don't you?

--Steetcars don't carry more people than a bus. Unlike real trains and subways, a trolley is about the same size - or even smaller - than a bus.

true, but they get people out of their cars who won't ride a bus

--Streetcars cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to build per mile, unlike buses, which use existing streets. Buses cost a tiny fraction of street cars.

true, and buses last only a tiny fraction of the life of a street car

--Streetcars require expensive additional planning, administration, and facility maintenance. We already have a perfectly good and expandable bus system with existing infrastructure, staff, etc. Why duplicate it at enormous additional expense?

true, see my comment above about getting people out of their cars (we re-route the money, time and effort we'd spend on planning, building and maintaining roads and put that into planning, building and maintaining the street car infrastructure)

--Streetcars are inflexible. They run on a track, and can't be routed around accidents or re-routed in case of emergency. Buses can be rerouted, re-purposed and redirected at a moment's notice.

true, but neither can an electrified bus. they are tied to the same overhead lines. ever see a bus stopped with the driver having to get out to fix the leads to the overhead lines? that's because the leads jumped and the bus couldn't move because there was no power for it. diesel powered buses? how does that reduce the amount of pollution we're pumping into the atmosphere?

--As currently administered in Seattle, the SLUT isn't compatible with Metro or other transit fare systems, discouraging efficiency and movement between modes of transit.

true, as currently administered but that's an easy enough change

So what if streetcars make you feel good about a neighborhood because they're cute?

yes, because they are cute and people don't feel like they're riding a ghetto when they are on one and that gets more people out of their cars. you talk about street cars being stuck in the same traffic as buses. buses are stuck in that traffic because people are in their cars. give people something they want to ride and no more cars causing traffic, the street car isn't stuck in the traffic a bus would be.

They're a waste of money that we don't even have.

this is why we have taxes. it could be argued that helping out the local sports teams are a waste of money that we don't even have. yet we still have sports teams (well, maybe not a basketball team). besides, street cars last longer and have lower maintenance costs so if you look at which is cheaper over a period of 60 years, it's pretty much a wash.

We don't have a lot of transit dollars to spread around, and we should use them effectively: massively expanded bus service, bike lanes, pedestrian enhancements, telecommuting incentives, and low-cost urban housing projects.

expand bus service? so put more smelly polluting homeless shelters on the roads? roads that are already turning into something from a third world country? add buses that a significant portion of the community won't ride? bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements come as a matter of course with the upgrade to a street car (admittedly the bike lanes are weird and out of the way for solu but they are there). and, low-cost urban housing projects? we're trying to get middle and upper class people out of their cars. what does low-cost housing have to do with that?

Buses are the answer, not streetcars.

i'd debate that you aren't qualified to say what is and isn't the answer

Reading this thread, and the one over on My Ballard http://www.myballard.com/2008/05/05/streetcar-proposed-for-fremont-ballard/ makes me have little hope that we'll ever have a decent transit system in this city. People are either too dedicated to the status quo or are somehow offended by the idea that transit should be not only utilitarian, but actually pleasant (or at least not disgusting and uncomfortable.)

One of the great things about streetcars and other rail projects is that they have a higher capacity potential and greater predictability than buses. Their lack of flexibility is actually a feature. Metro buses make all sorts of stupid loop-de-loops just to hit that one special stop where another three people will board. Rail just cruises right by to the next fixed stop, and people go to where the transit is.

Plus, an investment in infrastructure is just that, an investment, whereas buses are ultimately disposable. It's easy to re-designate bus only lanes. In fact, I'm waiting for someone to try to do an initiative to ban the things. Rails are harder to get rid of, and a good rail plan would have at least some grade separation or at least the ability to force lights to change along their routes.

I think Seattle should give streetcars a chance. It's about time we invested in something in this town!

Simonian brings up two good points. The reason I jumped on the street car system was because it could just be used inner city and not have to deal with the red-tape of three counties (or one).

However, two passes is a pain but it's better to start the ball rolling and see how to integrate after testing usage.

Also, RMH - spilt milk or not, we bought the milk and I was really looking forward to mixing it with some Hershey Syrup.

Jan Drago said something in council about how one of the reasons she supports a streetcar system is that the city would control it and get the revenues, not the county. One of the reasons I find the whole thing ridiculous is that as a commuter you are then put in the position of having to buy two monthly passes to two different transit systems. Or choose between them, and pay an extra fare should you happen to want to take a bus instead of a streetcar, or vice versa.

When a transit system is simple, integrated, convenient, and fast people will use it. Adding yet another system to the mix is not going to help with any of those items.

Yes, buses are seen as an inferior form of transportation when compared to rail. However, are streetcars really the answer? I have yet to read a compelling argument for streetcars. My definition of compelling would include all sorts of ridership data including cost per rider to build.

Were any of these studies conducted in advance of the current streetcar? Are any planned prior to future expansion plans?

Btw, almost every feasibility study had the monorail beating both light rail and an expanded bus ride free zone in almost every area. Spilt milk, etc. but I really wish that damn thing would've been built.

Man,you seemed pissed. Why? OH right. Because it's aggravating.

I hate street cars here. I think they're just slightly above buses.

But you know what, it's still better. Slightly is still something.

And with a network, it brings permanence and a symbolic commitment to mass transit systems.

Especially with an entire network, it shows the citizens that mass transit is for the average joe (or joanne).

Streetcars in Seattle are a joke. Here's why:

--Streetcars don't move any faster than a bus because they're at grade an interact with traffic. Since they're not any more efficient, why switch to them?

--Steetcars don't carry more people than a bus. Unlike real trains and subways, a trolley is about the same size - or even smaller - than a bus.

--Streetcars cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to build per mile, unlike buses, which use existing streets. Buses cost a tiny fraction of street cars.

--Streetcars require expensive additional planning, administration, and facility maintenance. We already have a perfectly good and expandable bus system with existing infrastructure, staff, etc. Why duplicate it at enormous additional expense?

--Streetcars are inflexible. They run on a track, and can't be routed around accidents or re-routed in case of emergency. Buses can be rerouted, re-purposed and redirected at a moment's notice.

--As currently administered in Seattle, the SLUT isn't compatible with Metro or other transit fare systems, discouraging efficiency and movement between modes of transit.

So what if streetcars make you feel good about a neighborhood because they're cute? They're a waste of money that we don't even have. We don't have a lot of transit dollars to spread around, and we should use them effectively: massively expanded bus service, bike lanes, pedestrian enhancements, telecommuting incentives, and low-cost urban housing projects.

Buses are the answer, not streetcars.

Excellent post.

Screw our so-called "leaders" who ride to work in their fancy cars and leave the rest of us with tenements-on-wheels to get to where we need to go.

Great point.

One thing that annoyed me about the endless monorail debates: people seldom acknowledged that monorail was a much cooler way to travel than the bus. (Or they seldom acknowledged that that's one valid criterion for considering it.)

Also, excellent photo selection.

Word up! It's absolutely true, Jeremy. The intangibles with streetcars and trolleys are often overlooked, and yet by any practical measure POPULARITY has got to be a key criterion. You couldn't pry streetcars out of San Franciscans' cold, dead hands (they've tried). For whatever reason, this kind of personal-sized rail inspires a sense of neighborhood ownership that buses never do, while making an easy way for tourists to see the sights. Ride them, don't ride them, I don't care, but don't try to argue that everyone hates them. It's just not true.

AMEN! Preach it!