
The demise of America's once-mighty streetcars - qzervaas
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demise
======
scotty79
That's the funniest thing because that's a rare example of conspiracy theory
that actually happened, succeeded and shaped cultural perception of trams and
public transit in general in one large country.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

You probably can't say that what they did was decisive as there were more
factors in play but they tried in a covert way and prevented any chance of
recovery.

For a dense city having a streetcar is no-brainer. Whatever you pay for
planning, building and maintaining light-rail and subsidizing its operation,
it will pay for itself in increase in taxes collected from business growing
thanks to offloading road network from whole lot of cars, lower traffic,
cleaner air and lower necessary car ownership.

All this clean electric car revolution with energy recovery, low number of
moving parts and so on, that's happening now, for trams happened 50 or more
years ago.

~~~
txru
FWIW, the article disagrees with this reading of the conspiracy.

> While it's true that National City continued ripping up lines and replacing
> them with buses — and that, long-term, GM benefited from the decline of mass
> transit — it's very hard to argue that National City killed the streetcar on
> its own. Streetcar systems went bankrupt and were dismantled in virtually
> every metro area in the United States, and National City was only involved
> in about 10 percent of cases.

~~~
scotty79
Still they bought some struggling companies with intention of finishing them
off, not saving them because their tech competed with their core tech. And
they did it covertly.

The impact they had is probably arguable.

Still, I think that no city in the United States came up with an idea how to
benefit from trams, the way European cities did, is a little bit strange.

After all that's the country that hosts biggest ball of twine in the world.

------
oblio
I wonder how in Europe "streetcars" (actually "tramways", I don't think anyone
here calls them "streetcars") remained popular. From what I've seen in the US
the ones that still are running are relics and are mostly tourist attractions
(such as San Francisco).

Meanwhile in places like Berlin or Brussles they look like they're out of some
SciFi movie:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Berlin#/media/File:Bom...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Berlin#/media/File:Bombardier_Flexity_Berlin.jpg)

[http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselse_tram#/media/File:23_2...](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselse_tram#/media/File:23_2elansiers.jpg)

~~~
bane
The U.S. has similar systems in a few cities still. Austin, TX (of all places)
has a heavy surface metro system that operates like a tram. [1]

Portland, Oregon, largely considered to have one of the best public transit
systems in the U.S. has a tram backbone. [2]

The good news is that it looks like streetcars are trying to make a comeback.
D.C. is reintroducing streetcar service [3] [4] and has a plan for city-wide
service (about 60km worth) [5], a return the old normal [6]

My understanding is that similar programs are getting kick-off across the U.S.
as the long realization of how bad things are without them. [7] [8] [9]

1 -
[https://www.google.com/search?q=austin+metro&espv=2&biw=1527...](https://www.google.com/search?q=austin+metro&espv=2&biw=1527&bih=841&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=k7FMVfnDB8_isATzt4G4Ag&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw#tbm=isch&q=austin+metro+rail&revid=1287911562)

2 -
[https://www.google.com/search?q=austin+metro&espv=2&biw=1527...](https://www.google.com/search?q=austin+metro&espv=2&biw=1527&bih=841&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=k7FMVfnDB8_isATzt4G4Ag&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw#tbm=isch&q=portland+trimet)

3 -
[https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+tram&espv=2&biw=1527&bi...](https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+tram&espv=2&biw=1527&bih=841&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=crJMVcqTD42wsATXxYCgBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw#tbm=isch&q=d.c.+streetcar)

4 - [http://www.dcstreetcar.com/](http://www.dcstreetcar.com/)

5 - [http://www.dcstreetcar.com/projects/37-mile-streetcar-
system...](http://www.dcstreetcar.com/projects/37-mile-streetcar-system/)

6 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_Washington,_D.C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_Washington,_D.C).

7 -
[http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/50106](http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/50106)

8 - [http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeh45iedd/los-angeles-
street...](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeh45iedd/los-angeles-streetcars-
ready-to-return/)

9 - [http://wnpr.org/post/return-american-
streetcar](http://wnpr.org/post/return-american-streetcar)

~~~
oblio
The Austin one looks cool. But from what I see it's just 1 line. In crappy old
Bucharest, Romania, even though trams are absolutely awful (they're very old
and maintenance is... low), the tram network looks like this:
[http://www.ratb.ro/maps1/Tramvaie.pdf](http://www.ratb.ro/maps1/Tramvaie.pdf)

Keep in mind that we have buses, trolleybuses and subway here, as well, and
the metropolitan population of Bucharest isn't much larger than Austin's.

Still, glad to hear that things are improving :)

~~~
bane
One thing to always keep in mind in U.S. to European city comparisons is that
U.S. cities (for better or worse) are more spread out and less dense.

Bucharest is both smaller (~250km^2 vs. 700km^2) and more dense (8,260/km^2 vs
1,065/km^2) than Austin.

It's simply less cost effective to build a system in Austin than in Bucharest.
I would imagine that a citizen of Bucharest, transported to Austin, would be
surprised that some parts of the city are even considered "city" since it's so
low density.

While city areas are somewhat arbitrary, it does impact the raising of capital
to support building these systems.

Still, we're slowly relearning lessons our European friends learned a long
time ago (and ones that we forgot), new urbanism, smart cities, etc. are all
starting to bring people back into city centers, which makes building these
kinds of systems more cost effective (and more logical).

~~~
oblio
I agree with your surface/density assessment, but we're also much poorer. So
if Bucharest can afford it, Austin surely can, as well :)

~~~
bane
No disagreements at all from me on that.

------
evandijk70
Street cars are still around here in the Netherlands. I don't like them for
the reasons given in the article: They get stuck in traffic jams (even though
they have the right of way). That makes them very slow during traffic hours,
even slower than simply biking. A subway system, like the one they have in New
York and in London, is superior in every way. They are building a new line in
Amsterdam now, which will replace some of the street cars, and I can't wait
for them to finish it.

~~~
cousin_it
Cars shouldn't be allowed to block trams. If someone does, fine them heavily.
I live in Zurich, which has an awesome tram system, and I never get stuck in
traffic on a tram.

Overall I like trams much better than subways. There are tram stops every 200
meters, you can hop on and off, you get to see the city instead of a concrete
tunnel, and you don't need to drag your kid stroller up and down the fucking
stairs.

Cars, on the other hand, suck. It's one thing to have a city with a million
people, but it's quite another thing to have a city with a million cars.
Suddenly the whole place is paved over, the air is disgusting, and you can't
walk anywhere anymore. Sense of freedom, my ass. It's great that Switzerland
makes owning and parking a car so expensive.

~~~
tomphoolery
In Philadelphia, we have "subway-surface trolleys" which go underground for a
portion of their journey. I've never seen this in any other major city.

~~~
cema
The Green line(s) in Boston are like that, underground in a large portion of
downtown, up on the street the rest of the way. Some share the way with cars,
some use a separate right-of-way: a noticeable difference in travel time and
convenience, or at least the perception thereof.

~~~
waqf
Shared right of way is pretty clearly "deprecated" in Boston these days
(considered unpractical, they'll never build another one and they'd be glad to
get rid of the one they have).

The two tram routes which have been cut in the last 50 years were both shared-
right-of-way and there's only one short piece left.

------
mml
Here in Minneapolis, the streetcar was killed by the Duluth Bus Company
(DuPont/GM). The governor lost his job when he got caught taking kickbacks
from the below market sale of the steel from the lines, which was organized by
Meyer Lansky & Isadore "Kid Kann" Blumenfeld.

The MRTC was then taken over by the then president of Marquette bank, a one
Carl Pohlad, who's offspring own the local MLB franchise.

Many of the MRTC cars ran in Mexico City for many years, the rest were burned.
There is one 1/4mi long museum line by lake Harriet remaining (worth a visit).
Meyer & Blumenfeld retired together and ran real estate scams until they died
in the early 80s.

(Or so the story goes)

------
Animats
San Francisco, of course, kept much of its streetcar system. It's still
running and expanding.

San Francisco even has trolley buses. They climb steep hills without problems,
which is why they were originally installed.

~~~
jacobolus
Much of it? Not even close. Here’s a map from 1914. Thin red lines are street
cars:
[http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~21...](http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~214476~5501692)

These days we mostly have a combination of a few places connected to
BART/Muni, and the rest handled by buses and trolleybuses, which are in
general incredibly slow, because they get stuck in car traffic and make
frequent long stops to load and unload passengers. There are a couple of cable
cars, and one restored streetcar line,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Market_%26_Wharves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Market_%26_Wharves),
but they’re mostly kept that way as tourist attractions and curiosities.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
The F gets used quite a bit by locals to commute.

------
struppi
The reasons sound very compelling, but I think one reason is missing. I would
suggest that the main reason streetcars survived in many cities in Europe, but
not in the USA is:

Here in Europe, public transport is not done by privately owned companies, but
by the Cities themselves. So the city is very interested in keeping them
running.

And it can also keep the fares low by tax subsidies. For example, here in Linz
(AT), I only pay €285,00 instead of €444,34 for an annual ticket, because the
city of Linz pays the rest for its residents.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
Austria also lost lots of streetcars to the cars and so did many other cities
in Europe. A big reason for that was the switch to the right for traffic. As
there were alternatives there was sometimes no reason to keep the trams.

~~~
ExpiredLink
I happen to know that Linz (AT) and other European cities currently build
_new_ streetcar lines.

~~~
kagamine
And in Edinburgh, no wait they don't, yes they do. Eh no, they don't.

(Joke explainer for the non-Scots: Edinburgh began building a street-car
(tram) system some years ago, massively over budget and a huge political mess,
it is now as good as shelved. There is one tram but it doesn't move, but you
can look at it if you want to).

~~~
fredoralive
Actually, the Edinburgh trams line opened about a year ago. Hugely delayed, a
shorter line than planned and massively over budget, but they're actually
running trams on it now.

~~~
kagamine
Where does it go? I moved from the UK so I have lost all contact with the
ongoing fiascoes.

~~~
fredoralive
I may as well reply somewhat late to say the final route goes from the airport
to York Place, which isn't even the complete phase 1. Or the complete Phase
1a. They basically seem to have reached to the point where the route linked
the airport to the main train station and decided to call it a day.

Someone on Wikipedia made a map that illustrates the original plans vs. what
has actually been built.
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edinburgh_tramway_map...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edinburgh_tramway_map.svg)

~~~
kagamine
Aha, thanks.

------
ska
Toronto is one of the rare North American cities that has both a functional
metro and street cars with significant coverage. Not that both don't have
their detractors, and the city (or rather the GTA, which includes a lot of
commuter suburbs) can't make up it's mind about scaling them up or down.

Having a transit backbone infrastructure like this changes the nature of a
city, I think.

------
peter303
A version called light rail is returning. My city built 7 long lines for 4
billion dollars. Most of the lines shadow freeways.

------
stinos
A friend of mine has a rather compelling theory that the principle of
streetcars is going to make it's re-entry in the future, in a slightly
different form though: self-driving cars which are shared in a on demand (cars
owned by private or public companies)/carpool-like (private owners sharing
their car) way.

The self-driving aspect makes it a bit similar to a streetcar in that it
should not deviate from the road, as does the on demand aspect: in it's glory
days in city centers they were everywhere close to you at regular times so
you'd never had to wait long before before one was available.

Anyway, whether one finds it similar to streetcars or not, the most compelling
about such system is that it would, together with a mentility change away from
'car is king', probably be able to get rid of a lot of traffic jams and more
importantly all the problems they pose. Because it basically is a form of
decentralized (must be good, right :P) public transport which is lacking now
in most countries and cities: something which can get you from A to B at any
time of the day or night without requiring walking/cycling to intermediate
points where you then have to wait for your bus/train/.. to arrive.

~~~
dalke
There are a number of differences between what streetcars do and what you
mention.

The streetcars I'm most familiar with are directly connected to the power grid
through overhead lines, and are on rails. Cars would need batteries as private
cars won't have a pantograph, or fuel. In either case, there are more things
that can break in a fleet of smaller vehicles, so maintenance is higher. Cars
also use rubber wheels on pavement, rather than steel wheels on rails, so have
higher rolling friction.

Streetcars can also handle a high density of passengers. This is important for
rush hour, when the load is high. A streetcar has about 3x the capacity of a
similarly sized bus, which is in turn much higher than passenger vehicles. In
turn, as the article points out, streetcars are best when they have dedicated
right-of-way, which allows a higher throughput and predictable latency
compared to cars, which are more subject to gridlock. Also, the improved
capacity feeds back on itself when people build high-density (eg, 5 story
buildings instead of single family houses) along streetcar corridors.

The more recent streetcars are also better designed for a wide variety of
users. For example, some of the ones I know have a platform which is only
slightly above the curb level. This makes it easier for a parent pushing a
stroller, or someone with difficulties walking, or on a wheelchair, to enter
the streetcar unassisted. The same is not true of most cars.

Finally, there are some environmental difference. A personal vehicle has the
advantage of not sharing space with strangers. It has the disadvantage that
you and your 9 friends can't all travel together. And a streetcar is usually a
much smoother ride; a friend get nauseous after 10 minutes as a passenger in
cars and buses, but not in streetcars.

So while what your friend says is true, there are other factors which make it
less compelling.

~~~
EricSu
I live in Boston where our subway transit system still has a branch of
streetcars. The points about passenger density and right-of-way are spot on.
Actually the only thing that holds up the streetcars are when drivers are
acting stubborn and entitle themselves to right-of-way...or when mother nature
dumps 3 feet of snow on the city and the old transit system can't keep up.

But everyone still uses the streetcar system because you can get from point A
to B, no matter if B is half a mile or 5 miles away, for one fee of $2.10 vs
ride-sharing or taxis which accumulate charges over time and distance.

