I’m a defender of the DC streetcar mostly because DC already has a well developed public transit system and the streetcar is able to feed into it to become another piece of the transit. But obviously extending it would be even more ideal
This is the point I make all of the time. In fact, P & O Streets in the West Village between Wisconsin and 35th still have streetcar rails on cobblestone roads. When I was a student, I lamented the busses and wished for a better connection to the Metro.. And the streetcar rails were just there, taunting us. It drove me to the point where I made an intricate map of how WMATA should implement LRT and Streetcars (and other transit modes). I don't ride transit much anymore due to the nature of the trips I take. If we had more LRT and Streetcars to replace crowded bus routes (Wisco. Ave, Conn. Ave), more of my trips would be taken by transit. I've considered organizing a group to push local municipalities and WMATA to make improvements, but there are so many roadblocks. It'll take true transit enthusiasts/advocates to be members of local governments to see any returns. I see immense transit potential for DC, but I know we'll continue to squander it.
@@yaush_ Even still they do need some level of speed to be faster than walking pace. Its generally best practice to build trams with dedicated lanes wherever space allows, yet the fact that this isnt done in the US is a political decission that sabotages the streetcars. As for high capacity, the trams used on US streetcar lines only have the capacity of a bi-articulated bus, so it fails in that department too! And this too reflects in ridership, where even lines that are considered "succesful" like Seattles First hill streetcar perform far lower than even European lines that are viewed as "Scandalous" like the 9 mile tram in the city of Odense, Denmark (pop 182k).
Pyongyang has a big tram network! Four lines with a total length of 53.5 km/33 miles. Before the war from 1950 to 1953, there were three tramway systems in the entire Korean Peninsula: one each in Seoul, Busan and Pyongyang. However Seoul and Busan got rid of their historic tramways for the automobile in the 1960s, while Pyongyang's was destroyed in US attacks, and was decided to be rebuilt from scratch. The new system began operations in 1989. The network has three main lines, and a smaller fourth one. The fourth one was created to connect the Pyongyang Metro station at Kim Il-sung University (Samhung) to the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, the mausoleum of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. A Pyongyang Metro station was once at the palace’s site (Kwangmyong), but once it became a mausoleum in 1995, it became sacred ground and thus it was closed with a new tram line built. Most of the network uses Tatra trams made in the former Czechoslovakia but unlike the rest of the network, the tram that runs on this Kumsusan line uses a Swiss tram built in the late 1940s that was retired from the Zurich network in 1994 where it was purchased by us the next year. In addition, Pyongyang also has a trolleybus network, a metro system, and even bikeshare! Pyongyang It currently has 12 lines and a total length of 56.6 km! The first plans for a trolleybus network were proposed in 1957, though construction only began in 1960, after Kim Il-sung ordered it. The network begun operation on April 30, 1962, with an opening ceremony at Pyongyang Railway station to commemorate the opening of the line from the Three Revolutions Exhibition at Ryonmot-dong to the railway station. As of 2024, the latest line opened in 2022 on Day of the Sun when a new line from Songyo to Songhwa was opened, while the line from West Pyongyang to Thermal Power was rerouted, both to serve the new Songhwa and Kyongru-dong residential districts! Construction of the Pyongyang Metro began in 1965 and first opened with the Chollima Line in 1973 (one year before the Seoul Subway Line 1 opened), while the Hyoksin Line opened in 1978. Even Pyongyang has bike infrastructure to complement the Pyongyang Metro, trolleybuses, and trams. Bikes were banned in Pyongyang for decades until the ban was lifted in 1992. In 2017, a bike share program was introduced called Ryomyong/려명 or Dawn. The system is overseen by the Pyongyang Bicycle Rental Office, with bicycles manufactured domestically by a DPRK/Chinese joint venture, Phyongjin Bicycle Cooperative Company, located in Sosong district. Reservations may be made for 50 won per minute with a stored-value card at one of five locations on Kwangbok Street in the city's scenic Mangyongdae district. If a city like Pyongyang can have a bikeshare program, a trolleybus system with over 35 miles in length, a tram system with 33 miles in length, AND two subway lines, then other cities have zero excuses not to take these steps for the greater good.
The Portland streetcar has what I consider to be the perfect route. Hits the university, two major shopping centers, three museums, multiple downtown neighborhoods, the region’s largest hospital, innumerable bars and restaurants, and the club district. So many of the cities that fail at streetcar try too hard to treat them like light rail, with long routes that don’t offer any meaningful advantage over bus or train
Well at the end of the day building a streetcar without the dedicated lanes and signal priority is stupid and is gonna sabotage the system and it's usefulness, regardless of if it's on a good or bad routing. Both streetcars and Light rail are at the end of the day trams and use the same kinds of vehicles and traffic rules, splitting it into 2 where one is often stuck in traffic with small vehicles and no capacity benefit, and one is overbuilt like a discount subway, really doesn't do any good for utilizing this tool where it works best.
Portland has like half of a good streetcar. The NS line is almost really good, but it's way too slow especially from NW to downtown and the 200m gap between one way tracks on Lovejoy/Northrup is horrible. It is really good from the Pearl to the South Waterfront though, even if the lack of dedicated treatments can be problematic (plus the inexplicable half block of single tracking at 5th and Montgomery). The A/B line is awful though - every 20 minutes and runs along a truly miserable alignment on the east side.
The irony is that Streetcar is literally Light Rail. If it's short and serves the main urban core only, and is equivalent to a "tram" or "trolley" to Europe, then it is 100% LRT. TRUE LRT. Stuff like MAX is NOT LRT at all, in reality. It's a massive corruption of what true LRT was created to do and function as. It's really just metro lines pretending they're streetcars/LR.
@@TheCriminalViolin LRT is a socially constructed idea, and "LRT" as its understood in the US does have a distinct meaning and can broadly trace it's inspiration to German Stadtbahns. And these are systems that are at least sort of characterized as "metro lines pretending they're streetcars", or maybe vise versa. Either way the distinction between European trams and US/German LRT is also fuzzy depending on what part of Europe you are in and when the system was built. Like in Nice, everyone would call their urban rail transportation a tram but surely to an American it looks more like a typical LRT you would find in Portland or Seattle than a tram in Zurich or Milan (because Nice doesn't have a legacy system). A trolley/tram/streetcar can look like a metro, or a pseudo-metro, or just street running depending on where you are in the world and the specific history of the lines in question. None of them are a "corruption" of what LRT should be - they have been shaped by the people and the history of the place they are in.
The worst part of these systems is how they fuel anti transit people. I saw an episode of reason tv talking about how busses are better and cheaper than rail and how rail is even slower and their example was the Atlanta streetcar. Not one mention of their actual metro. I invited them to come see how well busses are replacing rail during the red line shutdown here in Maryland and received no response.
They can. Nobody wanted the streetcars in Seattle, those were a demand of a local developer. The region was already working on lightrail and there had been a bunch of talk about various other options going back to the '90s in particular. (Although there were debates that were far earlier, that's just when the ones that led to actual action were)
Yeah id rather have light rail over streetcars. Streetcars are basically busses because it looks so easy for cars to go in front of it and cause delays, and be less dangerous to impaired pedestrians. At least light rail is more protected,and has safety textured lines so blind people can feel how close to the train they are. If there were dedicated lanes, that are easy for pedestrians to navigate id probably like them more.
its true though in most states the bus is seen very specifically for the homeless and poor vs something on rail that looks futuristic, is generally seen as cool unless crime starts taking hold, which is whats happened here in los angeles
The biggest driving force behind the 2010s streetcars wasn't their actual utility, but the romanticization of historic streetcars. People heard that transit was better back when the streetcars were in service and concluded that it was because streetcars were better than the alternatives, when in reality the streetcars worked because there weren't any alternatives. The legacy streetcar systems that survived in places like Philadelphia did so because they had enough dedicated right of way that they could provide service that couldn't be replicated with buses. They functioned and continue to function more like modern light rail than either modern buses or first-generation streetcars.
Yeah. And the key to making the Obama era streetcars and similar systems work is to retrofit priority measures onto then like making its lanes dedicated for transit, and installing signal priority. And make sure extensions get built out to such standards from the beginning, more akin to how its done in European cities.
Dedicated right of way is only one aspect of why the Philly trolleys survived (or other ones elsewhere). Lots of places abandoned perfectly functional sections of dedicated streetcar rights of way. The Selby Tunnel in St. Paul, the Pacific Electric subway in LA, and the Rochester subway all come to mind as places where streetcars/trams/trolleys had dedicated rights of way but still didn't survive. Rather, why Muni and SEPTA retained streetcar lines was because of both dedicated rights of way and municipal ownership. We obviously take municipal ownership for granted these days, but it's just as important of an aspect for why some systems survived while others didn't.
@@andrewlindstrom9599 Modern Standards of Public Transportation are victims of Economic effects as well as the objectives of providing a ride. The fading fortunes of the USA as the Colonial System that supported the lifestyles of the G-7 Nations began to lose support from the Colonies, seems to be responsible for the decrease of Incomes that once could afford Cars and Insurance, in more prosperous times. Face the fact that despite all Administrations attempts to promote the economic situation, it is about to implode as the Federal Reserve Note no longer has the support it found as the Fiat Currency was substituted for the Gold standard Dollar. The US domination of Trade and the flow of profits that seemed to float all Boats, seems to be getting as dtr as the Ogallalla Aquifer. The need for Transit opportunities may profit from the use of PCC Cars or even some good old Streetcars that have open windows to cool down a hot head. The promotion of Public accommodations that provide a plugin for your Defibulator, may be a bit of overkill as Incomes remain at a 1% increase and Inflation remains much higher. I have been promoting Public Transportation for over 30 years and the ability to inspire riders to ride, is not as difficult as some might seem to assume? The economic conditions of the 1930's may be returning, and along with them the need for public accommodations. The ability to fund the Public Transportation will require some interesting economic applications of Funds, as they become scarce.
@andrewlindstrom9599 Detroit was one of the first cities to have municipal buyout of the streetcars in the 1920s. The city decided it was better to scrap the system in the 50s. So municipal ownership didn't help at all, it likely led to lack of proper upkeep and maintenance. To make matters worse, Detroit was debating between buying the streetcars or building a subway. Mayor James Couzens vetoed a subway proposal for this reason and council failed to override by one vote.
In the case of the QLine in Detroit that opened in 2017, the QLine is useful, it serves Wayne State University, Fox Theatre, Amtrak, Little Caesars Arena, and is walking distance from the Lions and Tigers stadiums as well from Grand Circus Park. But being curbside and not being in the median for most of its length hurts it and slows it down, and when asked by transit advocates during the planning, the QLine people were like "Yeah so?", they didn't care, they didn't want it to be true transit, they just wanted a casual touristy streetcar to attract development. And then you realize that back in the 1970s, Detroit wanted a city and metro-wide light rail transit system with the Detroit People Mover as a downtown distributor for these routes, and commuter rail to Ann Arbor and Port Huron was planned as well. But it didn't happen because the city and the suburbs couldn't decide on anything for the 600 million promised by Gerald Ford, and so only the downtown circulator got built and the money was withdrawn by Reagan. When given priority, expansion, have great connections, and a route that actually serves activity centers, then streetcars can work great as shown here, but at that point, you might as well just build a light-rail system, European trams work because they act more like what North Americans would call light-rail, and European trams have more segments. It needs to be built out to also connect to destinations outside of the innermost districts, and it needs to have dedicated lanes and signal priority where space allows to be fast and attractive. People used streetcars in many North American cities because they were the only option and weren't backed up by other vehicles that slowed them, the latter leading to their demise as more flexible buses replaced them. The Newark Light Rail's Broad Street extension runs on the surface, but it runs in its own right-of-way that connects Newark's two train stations of Newark Penn and Newark Broad St, serving sites like NJPAC, Rutgers Business School, the main Newark Public Library, Berkeley College's Newark campus, and the Newark Museum of Art. My favorite streetcar system of all time is the North Hudson County Railway which originated in the 1860s and lasted until the 1940s. The North Hudson County Railway was a complex streetcar network that connected Journal Square in Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, and Union City. However, a portion of Hudson County is a line of pretty steep cliffs that makes up part of the Hudson Palisades. So how did they get the streetcars down these dangerous cliffs to low-lying Hoboken and Weehawken by the Hudson River? By devising many engineering innovations from a huge and long elevated trestle, viaducts, funicular wagon lifts, and an elevator! Tackling the cliffs this way was an engineering feat, especially for the time. There are still remnants of this streetcar feat, there are former trolley buildings in The Heights of Jersey City around Ferry St on Palisade Ave, the Supremo supermarket was once the station house, doctor's offices was once the trolley house, and a building right next to the supermarket was once a PSE&G building (Public Service eventually ran the trolleys). A former trolley house on Bergenline Ave in Union City is now Union City's Department of Public Works, and the Union City Police Mid-Town Precinct.
The QLine proved a valuable connection for me when I was transiting through Detroit, arriving via Amtrak, and departing via the Tunnel Bus to Canada, with stations right near the stops of the above services
I seem to recall a transit activist made a viral video ahead of the street alignment decision in Detroit "to put it down the center!" It really should have been down the center having just ridden it, it's a great route otherwise and interestingly enough did put it down the center on the outer portion of the line in and near New Center.
@@Ponchoedtrains down the middle was the youtube channel name. Don't believe it posted any other video. Interestingly Vox did an article called the real reason behind the demise of streetcars. And mentioned that they increasingly kept getting stuck in traffic. The article was published after Detroit's QLine started construction. And I don't remember seeing that explanation written anywhere else before. Somehow the knowledge of streetcars getting stuck in traffic was forgotten until the 2010 wave of modern streetcars being built.
I feel that even though many of these Obama Era streetcars are concerningly small, it should encourage urban planners and local governments to exponentially expand them to the point where they can serve more neighborhoods on a more frequent basis. Busses also produce several invisible microplastic particles from tires (along with any other vehicle with rubber tires) whose emissions are only made worse with more weight placed on them.
The Dallas Streetcar had its origin in a group that wanted to what the McKinney Avenue line had done, but for their own neighborhood. The city wasn't interested in helping, but when the group won a TIGER grant, they begrudgingly stepped in to take ownership of the line (while passing operations off to DART). One of its big problems is that it doesn't reach far enough into downtown to be more useful. The line has a great anchor area on the south end, but has to use about third of its length crossing the river and a highway interchange before just poking into the edge of downtown. There have been plans for ages to extend it through the core of downtown to connect to the McKinney Ave line, but finding funding has always been an issue. Lack of investment is the other big issue; it only got extended far enough to be at all useful because it got extra funds from cancelled projects. The money issue may also play into the constant mechanical issues with the line interrupting service; even when they're operating, the cars are an increasingly rough ride. I'm not sure if the track needs grinding or the wheels have too many flatspots, but the rattly old cars on the other line run smoother nowadays. The cars (or at least 2 of the 4) being the first production batch of cars built by Brookville may also mean that they hadn't ironed out the kinks that later cars for other cities had fixed, but that's just speculation on my part.
I remember reading that the group pushing for streetcars in Oak Cliff in Dallas were apparently originally considering using both modern streetcars and former Dallas PCCs for their service.(The group would would eventually end up contributing to the creation of the Dallas Streetcar and they would end up using the terrible Brookville cars.)
One advange of buses. Route flexibility and the ability to switch buses from one route to another for periods of peak ridership. EI before schools open and after the get out. Street cars are clean, quiet and cause less wear and tear on streets. But such eystems need to to tied into redevelopment of city centers that lead to high density and also access places outside of city centers. Building transit in the US faces the same problem all infrastructure projects face. Everything takes to damn long to build. Who is at fault? Multiple parties. Contractors bidding on more projects than they can handle. Opponents attempting to derail (no pun intended), delay or even stop projects halfway through. Politicians or interest groups attempting to secure changes to plans. Construction unions looking to delay the end date in exchange for continued paychecks for their membership. Multiple municipalities permiting processess. A perfect example is California's High Speed Rail.
The problem is, the USA doesn't seem to know how to build transit that people would use anymore. Kansas City, Tuscon, and Tempe AZ seem to have lucked out. And forget busses! People won't ride busses that get stuck in traffic if they have any other option!
How hard is it to get good ridership at a college campus? Tempe’s streetcar runs around the city’s ASU campus, and Tucson’s streetcar goes from downtown to the U of A campus.
I'm actually an Urban Planning and Design major at UMKC and I love the KC Streetcar! It's definitely not perfect and quite limited but I ride it any chance I get and geek about it the whole time. I'm excited for the extension that's going to have a stop just a block off campus next year as it will really help integrate the school into the city (which is part of UMKC's whole image). I do hope for more extensions in the future, particularly East/West to really get into the neighborhoods where people are less likely to be able to afford a car. I'm more excited about what the Streetcar represents for the city. As one of the worst culprits of redlining, it seems like we're finally starting to move in the right direction planning-wise and I can't wait to graduate and become a part of that process!
did not expect to see a fellow upd student in the comment section lol see you in katz 😁 can't wait for the extension either !! the Main Max is slow to reach downtown and numerous Troost Max stops lack proper amenities or are in poor condition
I'm curous how the bus charging fare, but the streetcar being free (?) is going to affect commuter habits in midtown, once this extension is done. I'm in westport & take the main max to work everyday.
Street cars demonstrate commitment to a particular route which can drive neighborhood investment in a way that buses cannot since their routes can be changed at any time.
I feel like a BRT route could potentially also do that, especially if it provides dedicated lanes, and as a bonus it would speed up transit, be cheaper (and thus could likely cover a larger distance), and buses could branch off the BRT line for one-seat rides to even farther destinations. Though obviously it doesn't have the cool factor of being a cute little train.
I’m 100% for the DC street car. However, I’m biased because I use it all the time and get to enjoy its utility myself whenever I need it. I think the city would really benefit from having a more complete streetcar system to compliment the metro. Especially in the summertime when it’s hot.
Pittsburgh building a streetcar to Squirrel Hill via Oakland is so painfully obvious and so bafflingly not done considering Pittsburgh also managed to build a subway under a river recently.
@@drewk1514 believe me- everyone knows that extending the t to oakland is precisely what should happen…but the cost is so high that there’s no way it would happen, sadly.
@@drewk1514 Not even one in each direction lol? Ughhhhhh. I love that the south hills get two T lines and dedicated BRT, but Oakland and Squirrel Hill really need more than a singular bus lane. Ugh!
It was BEYOND stupid and crazy expensive to build that tunnel under the river. The line could have run on reserved lanes on one of the bridges to North Side would have been more practical and allowed funding the T to Oakland. A surface line with separate right of way would have been workable. No need for a subway if the streetcars don’t run in traffic.
@@thefareplayer2254- the BRT in Cleveland looks like a REAL transit line running along Euclid Avenue. Pittsburgh will have one bus lane running toward downtown and one running toward Squirrel Hill on ADJACENT streets. Just paint some lines and call it a day.
COMFORT is #1... Buses will always be too bouncy and jostling to ever beat a smooth steel wheel train especially those with modern CWR tracks... Having been thrown across a trolley-bus in a bad way hitting my head just from it coming off a wire, unless they have battery back ups, skip trolleybuses and just invest in the rails...
The problem with bus comfort is not because it's a bus but because it's a US bus on a US street. Where I live buses are very comfortable and I actually prefer them, depending on the destination, even though I have all options available (trams, metro, rail). Use of each transport mean should depend on the purpose and all can be comfortable and pleasant to use if done right and horrible if not.
Buses in Europe (and I've heard also Asia, though I've never been) are actually quite good when it comes to comfort. They're held back in NA because we have protectionist policies which require transit agencies to only buy American and Canadian buses, and that stifles competition between bus manufacturers
@@AL5520 The thing is even on a good road, the bus has to run on bouncy suspension because it *HAS* to support bad roads if they're encountered. They can't run with rubber tired metro-style suspension. This means that they lurch when maneuvering even on a smooth road. This could be fixed with active smart suspension but that's too expensive which is why you only see it on luxury vehicles and never on buses (the variable-height suspension on many buses does not count as that's only used for boarding purposes and does not dynamically adjust while moving).
I used to live in downtown Tucson and the Sun Link streetcar there was pretty convenient, and I used it nearly daily. It is busy fairly frequently as well. I think it benefits from a good route and good spacing of destinations, given that it connects downtown, the popular 4th Avenue district, and the University of Arizona. These systems get a lot of flak but the streetcar completely changed the perception of transit here! I would say this counts as a success.
Trams require two things in order to be successful: decent priority a solid transit network to connect to it. Trams should mostly run in exclusive center median lanes, have transit signal priority, run frequently, and connect existing transit hubs with popular destinations. Trams can be useful as a high density stopgap for last mile connectivity or to serve dense central city areas. They cannot, however, exist in a vacuum of car traffic, parking lots, and sprawl. They must be part of an urban ecosystem of walkability, cycling, and transit in order to be successful.
Cities thought they could copy-paste their way to streetcar success without actually optimizing the service and infrastructure. And when they did deviate from the copy-paste, it was almost always to save money, not improve performance.
It does really suck that all the modern streetcar routes are made in really small cities that really will never have enough ridership to justify streetcars (mainly due to their size). A streetcar pretty much anywhere in NYC or Chicago would solve so many capacity problems that some current 1 minute bus headways can't solve.
IDK about that. I regularly see cities in Europe, even heavily suburbanized ones with less than 200k residents that build trams that have more success than the Obama streetcars. The real thing they need is length and dedicated infrastructure. It needs to be built out to also connect to destinations outside of the innermost districts, and it needs to have dedicated lanes and signal priority where space allows to be fast and attractive. Less than 4 miles isn't enough, you'd preferably need something around 8 miles in length to reasonably serve a small city.
The size of the city is not the problem, even some small cities in Europe have trams. It comes to connecting places enough people want to move between.
@@firstlast1932 Small cities with trams is probably not much of an issue. If they're smaller cites, you can run them where they make sense without causing problems. Bigger cities really need the rail to be grade separated or they just wind up contributing tot he problem.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Trams dont need grade separation like heavy rail does. Its nice thing to have, but keeping things cheap and on street level is usually more important. Transit signal priority usually does the trick. To which problem is mass transit contributing?
You might look at Spokane's City Line. Its a bus designed to function like a modern central-neighborhood-serving streetcar. Has custom buses and stations including center median stations. Its not really BRT and dont recall any significant bus lanes. Its worth a look as a comparison with comparable modern streetcars.
@@anthonybanchero3072 yes! It would have been great if they brought it back when rehabbing the waterfront. Sure it was novel, sure it was touristy, but I feel like would have supported the revamped waterfront
@@anthonybanchero3072 That's the only one that actually made any sense. It's just a shame they couldn't figure out how to preserve the maintenance building. Or, perhaps figure out how to get it to connect up to the light rail and just use their maintenance facilities. (I do get it, that tunnel would be extremely expensive for what we get out of it, but still)
Love the discussion of Tucson's streetcar. I lived ~ car free in Tucson while I went to university there between 2019 and 2022 because I could get everywhere I needed to go with the streetcar!
I really wish that Seattle would at least extend the South Lake Union Streetcar to the connection with the soon to open RapidRide G Line Madison Street BRT and work on rebuilding Pioneer Square street above The Underground so that streetcars from First Hill can run all the way to Fred Hutch in South Lake Union. I also would love to see more streetcar lines built in Seattle but the city council doesn't want to spend the money to repair the sagging streets in Pioneer Square nor do residents of the West Edge Neighborhood want the streetcar. West Edge is a neighborhood that lacks public transit and has since busses were banned on Seattle's 1 Ave because of the construction of Seattle's Hwy 99 Tunnel and the problems with The Underground's supports that hold up the roads over head. The West Edge Neighborhood is not well connect to the rest of downtown Seattle for those who don't drive as the neighborhood sits below some of the steepest hills in downtown Seattle and is very north south oriented. Most people passing through are going to Pike Place Market at the north end, using buses coming up from the Ferry terminal on Columbia street, or driving through. There used to be several commuter buses, two local buses and a free shuttle that ran on 1st Ave before the Alaskan Way Via Duct was closed. The shuttle was a bus replacement for the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar that stopped operating when it's maintenance shed was torn down to make way for the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park. The connector that would allow streetcars from First Hill to continue to South Lake Union would bring lots of tourists to the Pike Place Market and a bars and Show Venues along 1st Ave including the Showbox Market music venue. It would also better connect the ferry terminal with King Street Station and allow for a more seamless travel for those needing to get between King Street Station and the Seattle Waterfront, including the Ferries. I hope Seattle's City Council will turn it's views on the project around and make the Seattle Streetcar system truly one to be proud of as well as start understanding that if we eliminate parking minimums for all new buildings more people will be forced to use transit which will mean less people driving downtown and it would be a win win for all as we'd see the need for more and better transit through out the region. I am all for more and more streetcar systems but they definitely need to be made to European standards and have a lot more pedestrianized plazas that they run through to make them better then just a glorified bus.
Street cars aren't a singular solution to transit, they're just one more modal type. I live in Portland and I'd say that level of residual commerce along the route has exploded so I think they are worth it. It might also depend on density. They go thru some pretty dense neighborhoods so that keeps ridership up.
Great timing! I'm taking a southwestern USA trip to film and photograph rail transit systems (and other things) next month. I even found a decent hotel mere steps away from a Sun Link station in Tucson. The transit agency claims that the line has helped spur a cool billion dollars of investment along the line.
There’s so much more that goes into the equation of whether modern streetcars are worth it, but I think they make more sense in neighborhoods & connecting them without a separate R.O.W. they can also be useful for connecting trains or systems where a full bus or tram line doesn’t suit the area.
The only bus that I can think of having appeal to car drivers and tourists are the double deckers, like the Deuce running from the Strip to downtown Vegas. Surprisingly busy route that actually connects destinations for visitors. Could only imagine running a dedicated streetcar on two lanes of Las Vegas Blvd
I’m always confused by the assertion that a 3 mile streetcar will “revitalise downtown” because if downtown needs revitalising, then it means people aren’t living,working or playing there. But if your streetcar EXCLUSIVELY serves that area no one wants to be in, why would anyone choose to go (probably drive) to downtown just because you allowed them to circulate around downtown at walking pace on this streetcar that only comes every 15 minutes.
Yes, Seattle had a short street car line like that for decades, but it mostly just went up and down the waterfront and was mostly there to make it easier for tourists to visit the various things that were located there. It worked purely because there were already a bunch of things that people wanted to see and do there along with the main parking being located in a thin strip under the viaduct.
Tucson had a historic streetcar that mainly ran from downtown up 4th Ave on a single track (so only one vehicle). When the rebuilt the aging 4th Ave tunnel under the train tracks, the old streetcar couldn't start from a stop at the bottom due to the grade (they got it out by going back and forth to build momentum). So the streetcar idea has always been dear to Tucsonans (not Tucsonites 😉). It's worth noting that all of Sun Tran (busses), Sun Link (streetcar), and Sun Van (on demand handicap capable vans) are free to ride and there are no plans to bring fares back. I take it pretty often from downtown to Main Gate Square to get Chipotle when I'm craving it.
Yes, if you're going to run them on the street, you might as well just make them trolley buses. That way you don't have to pay for the track and if they break down, they can just be towed using the same trucks you'd use if any other bus broke down. Plus, they can go up hills without having to install cables or sprockets and don't kill cyclists when they get trapped on the tracks.
In their current form I would definitely say most of these streetcars are not worth it. But their potential to be extended and become legitimately useful seems way higher than even a BRT route, so if they become something more I would say they would become worth it. I’m glad to see Kansas City is doing just that.
For the record, Tucson already had a streetcar. Upgrading it was a part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority bond and tax measure. That happened and several historical streetcars that were running had to be retired as they were incompatible with the newer streetcars. We didn't jump on the Portland pattern. There were attempts to cancel out the program as well as it's primary function was to transport students to a now cancelled west campus for the University of Arizona. It was still built between the University's Healthcare campus, through the main campus, Downtown, and finally to the Mercado San Augustin, where the Tucson campus of Caterpillar is located.
I would use both of Seattle's streetcars way more if they just ran more frequently, and later in the evenings. But then they wouldn't need to be high capacity, and I am very happy to ride trolleybuses too. (more trolleybuses pls)
It also doesn’t help when places like Cincinnati planned to have the streetcar route originally expanded to connect to downtown from the university area in Uptown which would honestly make ridership a whole lot better but since the streetcar was something allowed by Obama, a democrat that Ohio state politicians really didn’t like, they were extremely reluctant and cut back many of these types of projects.
You should try the Tempe streetcar whenever you get the chance. It runs right along the outside of the ASU campus, so it gets a lot of use from students commuting the short distance to campus from their off campus apartments or houses. This is where I think streetcars really shine: when they’re used for very short, quick routes that cut down on both car and foot traffic (the latter of which can be important when your temperature gets up to 110+ degrees). I’d still prefer a properly grade separated light rail, but honestly, with it built near a university where people are also used to light rail, it seems possible that they actually grade separate it in the future, at least around campus. This would also be a step towards effectively partial car free zones since portions of the streets in downtown Tempe are single lane. They’re also extending it into Mesa’s downtown district, which is also trying to become more walkable. Overall, I think that these systems can be good trojan horses. You get newer generations accustomed to their existence, and to the idea of everyday rail transit is actually safe, clean, and effective. You also leave the door open for further improvements in the future.
I live in downtown Toronto and the only transit around here is streetcar and the subway. I don’t find use in the streetcars travelling through downtown as it is very slow, sometimes it can be even faster to walk. The longer 5-car streetcars used since 2014 seem to be part of the problem, they are too long. On King St which is streetcar and local traffic (no through traffic) only, during rush hours you can see streetcars backed up for blocks, and only one streetcar can cross an intersection per light cause some of the distances between intersections can only fit two streetcars. However, once you clear that 2km stretch it does connect many residential neighborhoods to downtown so there is use there and they tend to fill up during rush hours. Also since it is a legacy system a lot of repairs and refurbishments are needed. Two major lines are down right now for repairs/upgrades until the end of the year and replaced by buses currently, but supposedly they have phased it in a way to have service for two weeks in November for the Taylor Swift concerts. I guess the point about capacity holds…
The streetcars utility would also be less limited if they werent constantly built in mixed traffic. Like that goes against all best practises to invest this much in rail infrastructure and then not have it be in dedicated lanes where room is available. Heck, the capacity of the US streetcars are also still only comparable to a bus, with many articulated bus models having capacity for 130-150 passengers, and bi-articulated BRT models having room for upwards of 180. At least in Europe, practically all tram systems use at least 5 segment vehicles, about 100ft in length as anything smaller would struggle to justify the investment in a tramway to begin with.
To answer your question at the end, there is no streetcar in my city, although i take the frontrunner (train) to SLC frequently to see my dad, and i do use to streetcar there. SLC public transportation is pretty decent for a city of its size bu North American standards, id say
I think there are two questions to ask wether or not these are useful systems. a) is it an actual serious transit service with a bi-directional route or a sightseeing service with a loop/ figure-8 course. And b) can they be usefully extended in the future. If those apply, having a system running, even if it’s not perfect, is a big asset. Because extending a tram line is much cheaper and easier, then building a completely new one. We see this all the time here in Germany. The cities who kept since of their trams, even if they were in terrible shape and the network heavily shrunk have since startet expanding again and are very successful. The cities who completely ripped them out have been fighting for decades wether or not they should rebuild them. If you already have a depot, a maintenance crew and experience running trams, running more trams isn’t difficult and after the initial building costs, quite cheap. So if you can use the initial route as a starting point for a network, it’s very useful. If you leave it as a single 2 mile toy line, it’s probably never going to be a serious transit service.
Building any train that runs in any mixed traffic is folly in the 21 st century. I'd also argue non-grade separate LRTs (just running in a separate lane) aren't very useful either. However, those LRTs can work well if they operate like stadtbahn where they have elements of full grade separation in central city areas.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Kenosha streetcar. Though it's a lot more old-school than the other streetcar lines being mentioned, and serving a smaller city, I think it is still one of the best streetcars out there. I personally really enjoyed riding it when I did.
Great video. There is also a wider policy question, which is were streetcars successful in "priming the pump" as they say more wider acceptance of and funding for better transit projects. Most more noble minded policy experts would say wasting money on a concept, just as a marketing tool for something better is not a good investment, but policy experts who know politics know that sometime you have to lead with something less optimal to get something better down the road. So the alternative question is, where there are streetcars have local governments built up the capacity to compete for grants to expand the system or build out better transit systems entirely.
It would be great if these systems would be combined with light rail style suburban lines, like in many cities in Europe. That combines the fast running on mostly dedicated right-of-way along the part of the route where people are mostly only interested in the one stop near their home, with the frequent stops and thus short walks to all the destinations in the city core. Also I assume that land value is probably the highest in the central areas of a city, and thus dedicated right of way would be the most expensive there, which is another reason for the combination I'm suggesting. After all, the vehicles are technically more or less the same for street car lines and light rail lines. Also the question of ridership: Combining a few suburban routes onto the same central area core ensures ridership to justify high frequency on the common core section, even with relatively large vehicles. It would be great if future politicians would allocate money similar to the Obama era street cars, but for building light rail extensions to existing street car systems (and for that sake to build compete new systems).
I live in Seattle and use the streetcar frequently (except for the whole everything broke last month issue). I have lived here for 7 years, but lived before that for 3 years in El Paso, TX. Their streetcar got revived in 2018, using the same historic cars that had been rotting away in the desert. It's definitely for tourists and college students, but sadly they don't run super late most nights, so it's not as great as it sounded like it would be. At least it's free, so there's that!
wtyp talked about this - the problem with busses or any inbetweens is it's easy to whittle down service and eventually cut it. First it will be temporary then 'oh no money in the budget' next year... permanent rights of way on the other hand take more effort to get rid of despite costing more.
I think the problem was the streetcars were literally built one size fits all. The tram vehicles are pretty standard regardless of whether they have their own lanes or make frequent stops. Detroit's QLine would probably be better off using smaller cars that have quicker stop/start ability and run more cars at higher frequency. I think the factor of streetcars getting stuck in traffic wasnt considered. The reason why streetcars in the 1920s were faster than buses today is mainly due to fewer cars on the road, not rail being super faster than tires.
So it should also be mentioned that when Detroit first started thinking about a streetcar in 2006, they had the idea of something like the light rail in Baltimore, Dallas, Charlotte and Salt Lake City in mind. Systems that opened in the 90s using the federal new starts program. It seems like the Obama era streetcars didn't quite copy that model fully, or funded scaled down versions of the original idea. Detroit's QLine was originally envisioned by the city as going to the city's northern border of 8 Mile, not just 3 miles as proposed by the M1 group. When the city backed off their proposal, the M1 business leaders pressed forward with their plan and Ray LaHood pledged support once the state created a detroit area regional transit authority.
Yes, installing tracks has a psychological effect on potential riders as there’s permanence in tracks in concrete. And a busy bus route downtown could be a good candidate for upgrading to a streetcar. That being said, many smaller cities have a corridor with high frequency bus service on it because it’s a bunch of lines coming together though downtown or en route to a transfer hub. Those in my opinion are not a good candidate for streetcars. Also, look at the status quo bus service. If you’re only running 15 or 20 minute headways with buses, you’ll never have enough ridership to justify installing rails and buying expensive cars.
I just rode Salt Lake’s for the first time this week. It runs at grade, but runs in dedicated Right of Way alongside a bike path. It seemed to be well used as South Salt Lake’s connection to Trax LRT. I think once the TOD is in (a lot is under construction now), ridership will improve to a more impressive number.
OC Streetcar is going to be a Disaster You already have a Great Transportation Hub in OCTA it feels like a Novelty than a Necessity The Distance from Santa Ana to Garden Grove isn't practical Now if it was from Lake Forest to Long Beach CA and later Los Angeles CA then Yes it serves a purpose considering alot of Manufacturing jobs are in Lake Forest Irvine Garden Grove and Long Beach make it a Trolley System instead
KC streetcar was interesting. I've only ever taken it late at night, but the fare free was cool, the driver was friendly, and the vibe looks like it could work?
Rather if #US feds spent more money on building metros, especially UTO (Unattended Train Operation) driverless light metros like the #SkylineHNL and expanding existing UTO systems such as the #LVMonorail to attract new riders especially those who count on system reliability and those who dislike trains on the street. Low-floor streetcars and light rails nowadays are overemphasized and overused, yet no other #US city/municipality/region is planning or building any new UTO #metro system currently. #Canada currently has the #Vancouver #SkyTrain and #REMmtl with the #OntarioLine under construction. Also, rather if the feds spent more on interstate transit, including via local transit, and transit to international borders in partnership with Canadian and Mexican feds.
The mixed track is killing the speed advantage of the tram. It is the best when it has a separated track, ideally covered by grass. And ideally the trams should get priority at the traffic lights too. Point two: These short few kilometers long lines has less sense. Ideally (again, I know) they should reach some outer dense neighborhood and connect it to a frequently visited place.
I guess the problem of streetcars in the US is that only downtown areas are denesly populated/or a place where a lot of ppl commute to while the rest is just too sparesly urbanized single family homes. In these areas a streetcar stop would serve only a handful of people. In compact European cities such as Brno, Czech Republic, the traffic would collapse completely if the tram lines were to disappear (we have 11). I used to travel to Tucson quite often in the years when the tracks were just being laid and later I watched from a distance how people had to learn to live with the new traffic situation, cyclists getting their bikes stuck in the tracks, streetcars being stuck in traffic because they shared the lanes. Here (Brno) vast majority of the trams have their dedicated lanes, so they overtake the traffic easily. In the peak hours, they run every 5 minutes and are quite punctual.
Arlington VA almost built one of these on Columbia Pike and it would have probably been the most ambitious modern streetcar project in the country. It was canceled because of a group of activists who were opposed to spending so much money on a train without dedicated lanes (using Toronto congestion as an example) as well as an inability to coordinate funding with Fairfax County, where the line would have ended. It might have been successful due to the high bus ridership along that corridor, but it would have to run very frequently in order to justify someone choosing it over the bus.
I could see East Bay California streetcars feeding into BART such as a Jack London to DT Oakland then going around Lake Merritt to loop back to BART. Also, a Berkeley streetcar.
Most of the streetcars have the corridor and center city neighborhoods right but messed up on the alignment... either zigzagging all over the place to hit the front door of every destination (OKC), constantly changing lanes (Cincinnati) or they should have been built down the center of the street like they did in the past, but with transit only lanes... essentially small scale light rail. Down the center is the best place to have dedicated lanes, minimal blockages and fast operation. Kansas City and Detroit have good routes, straight down one major street that are the spine of the center city, unfortunately they run in the right shoulder lane impacted by right turning vehicles and hard to make truly transit only. I agree about Tucson, I really like that line and think its one of the best. Its not a particularly traffic choked region and the mixed traffic running works there... it has a great line thats mostly double track on a simple route (with no out of direction travel or awkward loops (the small amount of one way loops downtown and at west end make sense IMO). The route hits everything a tourist or urbanist would want in Tucson.
Overall it is how they were implemented not if they were implemented that makes modern streetcars ineffective. They can still improve though because ATL is consider expanding its streetcar to the beltline. They are also more efficient than buses because of less rolling resistance.
I can answer this question with the Streetcars that I've already used. Washington DC, yes. Dallas, TX, Yes. Cincinnati, maybe. Kansas City, No. Salt Lake City, no. I can't say anything about Portland or Seattle simply because I never rode it.
I rode the Seattle line in question in the video. It seemed like it was built only for corporate real estate enticement reasons isolated from reality or ridership which limits its use. Connect the two fragmented lines together and you'd have gangbusters ridership... Heck even the Seattle Monorail has a much better purpose and usage... Connecting downtown to Seattle Center where all the cool things are.. Space Needle, Amazon Arena, Experience Music Center....
Thanks for producing such low-quality content that you overlooked Tacoma’s streetcar built in 2003. There is no debate about whether or not they were useful: it depends on context. Let’s not be vapid… streetcar lines that run frequently, quickly, and provide access & linkage to major trip generators. When doing so correctly, streetcars ALWAYS work.
I love the Urbos 3 LRVs used by Transdev under contract to Transport for NSW on the L1 Dulwich Hill Line in Sydney. But at 12.8km (8mi) it is longer than Kansas City's system, and operates mostly grade spearated on a former goods railway. In the CBD, it runs in the Hay Street pedestrian mall, where cars are strictly prohibited and the NSW Police Force on hand to punish any driver who dares venture there. It's not free though.
Here in Toronto, our streetcars highlight the need for modern operations and priority measures. Car traffic has a unique ability to completely ruin streetcar operations.
The streetcars shouldn’t run in mixed traffic (except perhaps along with buses). Just paint the lane with the rails and designate it as transit only. Or better yet block off all private car traffic. Market street in San Francisco is an example.
I always think of the differences between Winston-Salem and Greensboro, NC. Both put streetcars on their plans during the Obama Administration. The difference is that instead of keeping it on their plan, Greensboro realized what they wanted was a downtown circulator, so they replaced it with a bus that runs every 12 minutes and gets decent ridership (4,000 or so a day on Weekends when it runs). It also didn't take the oxygen out of conversations about Transit either, letting them focus investments on a better bus network. Meanwhile, Winston-Salem didn't go for a bus-based alternative and like 2 years ago said they couldn't do it for the next like 50 years or so. The result of all the conversations about the streetcar being that they didn't invest in the existing bus network, causing declining ridership and even for a year or so, not even having real time tracking.
As someone who currently lives in Tempe and used to live in Tucson, in our case, they’ve been great. Even though they run in mixed traffic, they connect the universities, downtowns and main streets in both cities (like you mentioned), making them incredibly convenient and useful for both students and commuters alike. I personally even used to frequent the station at 4:10 when I lived in the area. Plus, they’re massively popular. The route is everything. If it’s a streetcar to nowhere that zigzags to a bunch of random places, then it won’t work. Perhaps that’s one area the Obama administration could have done more with.
Many of these streetcars would've been better as something built like they do everywhere else: completely separated from car traffic. Doesn't have to be a "light rail", just a normal tram. Unfortunately I said "like they do everywhere else" so that won't happen because Murica is special boiiii
Hiroshima has an extensive street car system. They are nice but it's frustrating how much they get stuck in traffic. I kind of wish the money had been put into a subway system instead. One advantage of streetcars is they are more resistant to anti-transit politicians who want to cut services to save a dime, which you see happen all the time to bus routes.
I’m just so infuriated that DC(a former streetcar hub) should have extended the tram, but at the moment last I checked, I’ve seen no construction beginning on the H street bridge which will be required to extend the line and additional leading into the K street Coridor which is currently beginning the construction to accommodate the streetcar in its construction. It’s taking too dang long and they’re purposely building this badly on purpose. It’s getting annoying. 😤 Even more infuriating, ward 6 representatives tried to pulled the funding to accommodate the tram 🚊 on the other end of the line at the last minute just before construction was about to begin. 😡 On another note, eventually I feel the that trams 🚊 will probably eventually become a longer tram line, but some light rails cost money to ride. Something folks won’t be too keen on doing. American transit is so unreliable.
I think streetcars are almost always better for urban areas than buses - at least US buses. They are more comfortable to ride, have a nice permanent feeling to them, and are fully electric. The problems of the Obama era streetcars are mostly related to planning them as more like downtown circulators rather than actually useful bits of a transportation network. The success stories (Tuscon, KC) mostly are successful because they actually have good routes. Insofar as they could just be buses - sure, but buses are noisy and bumpy in the US and the streetcar is a hugely important piece of the urban development of every city. It's not just nostalgia bait to reintroduce them, as long as the effort is to do so in the specific places where they once were. Granted, this largely wasn't done, but that's again a planning issue not a streetcar issue
I grew up in a city with a tram network of around 50 miles of track and 9 lines in 3 different countries… I looooove trams /streetcars ! But - no line without a reason. A one way loop through the CBD is just wasted money and a missed chance…to build something useful.
DC had an entire system planned. Now its existing line has halted extension. IMO, for the wrong side of the city. Now that the circulator is going away they should shift focus on extending the streetcar 🐧
I had been pretty hard on streetcars for a while due to the cost and not a ton of benefit. However, I took the cincinatti streetcar and found it fast and really delightful. So basically I can't tell if they are worth it either.
The streetcar in Portland OR is why I can easily get to my doctor and to the hospital from my apartment. I am permanently disabled and the streetcar is easier to get on and off of then the max or the busses. I wish we could expand the streetcar system but I know money is tight in 2024. Oh and we actually moved into the Pearl District so we had access to the streetcar with everything we need being a short trip away from home.
I'd rather have them than not, but short lines in mixed traffic just don't live up to their potential. With dedicated lanes and a wider reach I think they could beter justify themselves, but overall I'm glad they exist. Having lived in cities with and without them, in the city with a streetcar I used it all the time to bounce around my favourite stores and cafes when downtown. And in the one without, there was a single street that would make for a perfect line. It would hit the amtrak station, downtown, residential neighbourhoods, a major university, a large mall, and the airport in that order. It would never happen though, the local transit company is hemorrhaging money as is (because the city outsourced transit to a private contractor rather) and as much as it would be a good route, the city didn't have the population to justify such a massive high capacity investment
I'm quite a fan of the more obscure transit lines/modes out there, and I think these streetcar lines are quite the oddity. Some of them mainly serve as a very fancy tourist shuttle, but they're still fun to ride. I've ridden the Bell Connector in Cincinnati and it's probably leaning more towards a tourist attraction. However, I think there can still be a good market for lines like these if they're built right. There's plenty of cities that just need something to fill in a gap, even if a downtown streetcar might not be the best choice. In conclusion: downtown streetcar look funny lol
I think many urbanists don’t understand the importance of public perception when choosing to build a bus line versus a streetcar line. In a lot of ways, buses make more sense and are more practical. However, most Americans unfortunately see buses as sketchy and an undesirable way to get around, whereas streetcars are more often seen as sexy and novel. However unjustified that perception may be, if new streetcars are going to get more enthusiasm and ridership because of that… then it probably makes more sense to build the streetcar.
Yeah. But at the same time, building the streetcar in mixed traffic, if the road has room for dedicated lanes is gonna be a huge downgrade and not give the streetcar any meaningful speed advantage. Especially when building this from the ground up where the cost differential between dedicated tram lanes and mixed traffic is practically nonexistant.
I think bus rapid transit is often a better option. Especially I'd you explain its not a typical American bus route, and actually has more in common with a streetcar than a regular bus. Dedicated lanes and signal priority is a bigger factor in success than the debate over using rail vs rubber tires.
So 150 pax capacity x 12 trams /hrs (i.e. 5 minutes frequency) = 1800 Pax per direction for a line between (3,728 Miles to 12,427 miles) (6 to 20 km) How many city in North America can support that.
I think the problem with many street-cars is that the city they run in is not transit friendly in the first place a streetcar fits really well into the last-mile solution of any dense and walkable city, but, it maybe requires a city built for something other than cars... because of it's lower speeds it really does not suit urban sprawl scenarios... however, being quiet it really suits quiet neighborhoods or central districts... a bus, same as a truck, is more of a disturbance to the atmosphere, whilst a streetcar on a relatively empty street feels almost natural in the way a river barge on a river might.... the problem with most "Obama-lines" is that they run on alignments people do not really use as a journey... now, if it was a communist style line linking a university or factory with it's dorm, that could have worked, or, if the size of the community and the size of the network were comparable (like in Kansas city) that also works, in principle, a people-mover like in Miami could easily have been a street-car if it was in Asia... but that is the idea of small street cars with limited passenger numbers, used simply because they are modern and can be designed to blend into the architecture of the campus they run within. (almost thinking something like the Msheireb-Tram in Doha) anyway, the problem is not the streetcar concept but where and how it was done and the lack of a bright future for many of them.
The Tacoma Streetcar preceeded the Seattle Streetcar, opening in 2003. The Seattle First Hill Streetcar was not an Obama streetcar in the typical sense because it was built as an appeasement because Sound Transit wasn't able to make a First Hill Link station work. This is probably part of why it is one of the most successful in terms of raw ridership and ridership per mile. Streetcars are really good at getting white people to take transit and they're really good at connecting corridors
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | กลุ่มสีเหลืองวันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_FdxGT3WV4/mqdefault.jpg)
The DC streetcar would be so much more useful if it ran to Georgetown.
Absolutely! It would also be much better if it wasn’t right up against the parking lane or if it had better traffic priority on H Street!
I’m a defender of the DC streetcar mostly because DC already has a well developed public transit system and the streetcar is able to feed into it to become another piece of the transit. But obviously extending it would be even more ideal
Amen to that!
This is the point I make all of the time. In fact, P & O Streets in the West Village between Wisconsin and 35th still have streetcar rails on cobblestone roads. When I was a student, I lamented the busses and wished for a better connection to the Metro.. And the streetcar rails were just there, taunting us. It drove me to the point where I made an intricate map of how WMATA should implement LRT and Streetcars (and other transit modes). I don't ride transit much anymore due to the nature of the trips I take. If we had more LRT and Streetcars to replace crowded bus routes (Wisco. Ave, Conn. Ave), more of my trips would be taken by transit.
I've considered organizing a group to push local municipalities and WMATA to make improvements, but there are so many roadblocks. It'll take true transit enthusiasts/advocates to be members of local governments to see any returns. I see immense transit potential for DC, but I know we'll continue to squander it.
You can thank Georgetown residents who don't want a rail vehicle to "bring undesirables into town"
Trams are necessary, the problem with the USA is that they are so short and slow that they are of no use to anyone.
To be fair being slow is basically the point of a tram. But their use is in providing high capacity service to a lot of places.
@@yaush_ Even still they do need some level of speed to be faster than walking pace. Its generally best practice to build trams with dedicated lanes wherever space allows, yet the fact that this isnt done in the US is a political decission that sabotages the streetcars. As for high capacity, the trams used on US streetcar lines only have the capacity of a bi-articulated bus, so it fails in that department too! And this too reflects in ridership, where even lines that are considered "succesful" like Seattles First hill streetcar perform far lower than even European lines that are viewed as "Scandalous" like the 9 mile tram in the city of Odense, Denmark (pop 182k).
Pyongyang has a big tram network! Four lines with a total length of 53.5 km/33 miles. Before the war from 1950 to 1953, there were three tramway systems in the entire Korean Peninsula: one each in Seoul, Busan and Pyongyang. However Seoul and Busan got rid of their historic tramways for the automobile in the 1960s, while Pyongyang's was destroyed in US attacks, and was decided to be rebuilt from scratch. The new system began operations in 1989. The network has three main lines, and a smaller fourth one. The fourth one was created to connect the Pyongyang Metro station at Kim Il-sung University (Samhung) to the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, the mausoleum of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. A Pyongyang Metro station was once at the palace’s site (Kwangmyong), but once it became a mausoleum in 1995, it became sacred ground and thus it was closed with a new tram line built. Most of the network uses Tatra trams made in the former Czechoslovakia but unlike the rest of the network, the tram that runs on this Kumsusan line uses a Swiss tram built in the late 1940s that was retired from the Zurich network in 1994 where it was purchased by us the next year.
In addition, Pyongyang also has a trolleybus network, a metro system, and even bikeshare! Pyongyang It currently has 12 lines and a total length of 56.6 km! The first plans for a trolleybus network were proposed in 1957, though construction only began in 1960, after Kim Il-sung ordered it. The network begun operation on April 30, 1962, with an opening ceremony at Pyongyang Railway station to commemorate the opening of the line from the Three Revolutions Exhibition at Ryonmot-dong to the railway station. As of 2024, the latest line opened in 2022 on Day of the Sun when a new line from Songyo to Songhwa was opened, while the line from West Pyongyang to Thermal Power was rerouted, both to serve the new Songhwa and Kyongru-dong residential districts! Construction of the Pyongyang Metro began in 1965 and first opened with the Chollima Line in 1973 (one year before the Seoul Subway Line 1 opened), while the Hyoksin Line opened in 1978. Even Pyongyang has bike infrastructure to complement the Pyongyang Metro, trolleybuses, and trams. Bikes were banned in Pyongyang for decades until the ban was lifted in 1992. In 2017, a bike share program was introduced called Ryomyong/려명 or Dawn. The system is overseen by the Pyongyang Bicycle Rental Office, with bicycles manufactured domestically by a DPRK/Chinese joint venture, Phyongjin Bicycle Cooperative Company, located in Sosong district. Reservations may be made for 50 won per minute with a stored-value card at one of five locations on Kwangbok Street in the city's scenic Mangyongdae district. If a city like Pyongyang can have a bikeshare program, a trolleybus system with over 35 miles in length, a tram system with 33 miles in length, AND two subway lines, then other cities have zero excuses not to take these steps for the greater good.
That was actually a really interesting read, thank you!
The Portland streetcar has what I consider to be the perfect route. Hits the university, two major shopping centers, three museums, multiple downtown neighborhoods, the region’s largest hospital, innumerable bars and restaurants, and the club district. So many of the cities that fail at streetcar try too hard to treat them like light rail, with long routes that don’t offer any meaningful advantage over bus or train
Well at the end of the day building a streetcar without the dedicated lanes and signal priority is stupid and is gonna sabotage the system and it's usefulness, regardless of if it's on a good or bad routing. Both streetcars and Light rail are at the end of the day trams and use the same kinds of vehicles and traffic rules, splitting it into 2 where one is often stuck in traffic with small vehicles and no capacity benefit, and one is overbuilt like a discount subway, really doesn't do any good for utilizing this tool where it works best.
Its slow and infrequent, so its faster to walk or bike
Portland has like half of a good streetcar. The NS line is almost really good, but it's way too slow especially from NW to downtown and the 200m gap between one way tracks on Lovejoy/Northrup is horrible. It is really good from the Pearl to the South Waterfront though, even if the lack of dedicated treatments can be problematic (plus the inexplicable half block of single tracking at 5th and Montgomery). The A/B line is awful though - every 20 minutes and runs along a truly miserable alignment on the east side.
The irony is that Streetcar is literally Light Rail. If it's short and serves the main urban core only, and is equivalent to a "tram" or "trolley" to Europe, then it is 100% LRT. TRUE LRT. Stuff like MAX is NOT LRT at all, in reality. It's a massive corruption of what true LRT was created to do and function as. It's really just metro lines pretending they're streetcars/LR.
@@TheCriminalViolin LRT is a socially constructed idea, and "LRT" as its understood in the US does have a distinct meaning and can broadly trace it's inspiration to German Stadtbahns. And these are systems that are at least sort of characterized as "metro lines pretending they're streetcars", or maybe vise versa. Either way the distinction between European trams and US/German LRT is also fuzzy depending on what part of Europe you are in and when the system was built. Like in Nice, everyone would call their urban rail transportation a tram but surely to an American it looks more like a typical LRT you would find in Portland or Seattle than a tram in Zurich or Milan (because Nice doesn't have a legacy system).
A trolley/tram/streetcar can look like a metro, or a pseudo-metro, or just street running depending on where you are in the world and the specific history of the lines in question. None of them are a "corruption" of what LRT should be - they have been shaped by the people and the history of the place they are in.
The worst part of these systems is how they fuel anti transit people. I saw an episode of reason tv talking about how busses are better and cheaper than rail and how rail is even slower and their example was the Atlanta streetcar. Not one mention of their actual metro. I invited them to come see how well busses are replacing rail during the red line shutdown here in Maryland and received no response.
They can. Nobody wanted the streetcars in Seattle, those were a demand of a local developer. The region was already working on lightrail and there had been a bunch of talk about various other options going back to the '90s in particular. (Although there were debates that were far earlier, that's just when the ones that led to actual action were)
Yeah id rather have light rail over streetcars. Streetcars are basically busses because it looks so easy for cars to go in front of it and cause delays, and be less dangerous to impaired pedestrians. At least light rail is more protected,and has safety textured lines so blind people can feel how close to the train they are. If there were dedicated lanes, that are easy for pedestrians to navigate id probably like them more.
its true though in most states the bus is seen very specifically for the homeless and poor vs something on rail that looks futuristic, is generally seen as cool unless crime starts taking hold, which is whats happened here in los angeles
The biggest driving force behind the 2010s streetcars wasn't their actual utility, but the romanticization of historic streetcars. People heard that transit was better back when the streetcars were in service and concluded that it was because streetcars were better than the alternatives, when in reality the streetcars worked because there weren't any alternatives. The legacy streetcar systems that survived in places like Philadelphia did so because they had enough dedicated right of way that they could provide service that couldn't be replicated with buses. They functioned and continue to function more like modern light rail than either modern buses or first-generation streetcars.
Yeah. And the key to making the Obama era streetcars and similar systems work is to retrofit priority measures onto then like making its lanes dedicated for transit, and installing signal priority. And make sure extensions get built out to such standards from the beginning, more akin to how its done in European cities.
Dedicated right of way is only one aspect of why the Philly trolleys survived (or other ones elsewhere). Lots of places abandoned perfectly functional sections of dedicated streetcar rights of way. The Selby Tunnel in St. Paul, the Pacific Electric subway in LA, and the Rochester subway all come to mind as places where streetcars/trams/trolleys had dedicated rights of way but still didn't survive. Rather, why Muni and SEPTA retained streetcar lines was because of both dedicated rights of way and municipal ownership. We obviously take municipal ownership for granted these days, but it's just as important of an aspect for why some systems survived while others didn't.
Yeah this explanation is so f@cking stupid💀
Streetcars are much more energy efficient and can have more wagons than buses too
@@andrewlindstrom9599 Modern Standards of Public Transportation are victims of Economic effects as well as the objectives of providing a ride.
The fading fortunes of the USA as the Colonial System that supported the lifestyles of the G-7 Nations began to lose support from the Colonies, seems to be responsible for the decrease of Incomes that once could afford Cars and Insurance, in more prosperous times.
Face the fact that despite all Administrations attempts to promote the economic situation, it is about to implode as the Federal Reserve Note no longer has the support it found as the Fiat Currency was substituted for the Gold standard Dollar.
The US domination of Trade and the flow of profits that seemed to float all Boats, seems to be getting as dtr as the Ogallalla Aquifer.
The need for Transit opportunities may profit from the use of PCC Cars or even some good old Streetcars that have open windows to cool down a hot head.
The promotion of Public accommodations that provide a plugin for your Defibulator, may be a bit of overkill as Incomes remain at a 1% increase and Inflation remains much higher.
I have been promoting Public Transportation for over 30 years and the ability to inspire riders to ride, is not as difficult as some might seem to assume?
The economic conditions of the 1930's may be returning, and along with them the need for public accommodations.
The ability to fund the Public Transportation will require some interesting economic applications of Funds, as they become scarce.
@andrewlindstrom9599 Detroit was one of the first cities to have municipal buyout of the streetcars in the 1920s.
The city decided it was better to scrap the system in the 50s. So municipal ownership didn't help at all, it likely led to lack of proper upkeep and maintenance.
To make matters worse, Detroit was debating between buying the streetcars or building a subway. Mayor James Couzens vetoed a subway proposal for this reason and council failed to override by one vote.
I found a video by Vox on TH-cam saying why streetcars are making a comeback that was 7 years ago
lol they failed
@@qjtvaddict
Nah, they’re still building them up.
In the case of the QLine in Detroit that opened in 2017, the QLine is useful, it serves Wayne State University, Fox Theatre, Amtrak, Little Caesars Arena, and is walking distance from the Lions and Tigers stadiums as well from Grand Circus Park. But being curbside and not being in the median for most of its length hurts it and slows it down, and when asked by transit advocates during the planning, the QLine people were like "Yeah so?", they didn't care, they didn't want it to be true transit, they just wanted a casual touristy streetcar to attract development. And then you realize that back in the 1970s, Detroit wanted a city and metro-wide light rail transit system with the Detroit People Mover as a downtown distributor for these routes, and commuter rail to Ann Arbor and Port Huron was planned as well. But it didn't happen because the city and the suburbs couldn't decide on anything for the 600 million promised by Gerald Ford, and so only the downtown circulator got built and the money was withdrawn by Reagan. When given priority, expansion, have great connections, and a route that actually serves activity centers, then streetcars can work great as shown here, but at that point, you might as well just build a light-rail system, European trams work because they act more like what North Americans would call light-rail, and European trams have more segments. It needs to be built out to also connect to destinations outside of the innermost districts, and it needs to have dedicated lanes and signal priority where space allows to be fast and attractive. People used streetcars in many North American cities because they were the only option and weren't backed up by other vehicles that slowed them, the latter leading to their demise as more flexible buses replaced them. The Newark Light Rail's Broad Street extension runs on the surface, but it runs in its own right-of-way that connects Newark's two train stations of Newark Penn and Newark Broad St, serving sites like NJPAC, Rutgers Business School, the main Newark Public Library, Berkeley College's Newark campus, and the Newark Museum of Art.
My favorite streetcar system of all time is the North Hudson County Railway which originated in the 1860s and lasted until the 1940s. The North Hudson County Railway was a complex streetcar network that connected Journal Square in Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, and Union City. However, a portion of Hudson County is a line of pretty steep cliffs that makes up part of the Hudson Palisades. So how did they get the streetcars down these dangerous cliffs to low-lying Hoboken and Weehawken by the Hudson River? By devising many engineering innovations from a huge and long elevated trestle, viaducts, funicular wagon lifts, and an elevator! Tackling the cliffs this way was an engineering feat, especially for the time. There are still remnants of this streetcar feat, there are former trolley buildings in The Heights of Jersey City around Ferry St on Palisade Ave, the Supremo supermarket was once the station house, doctor's offices was once the trolley house, and a building right next to the supermarket was once a PSE&G building (Public Service eventually ran the trolleys). A former trolley house on Bergenline Ave in Union City is now Union City's Department of Public Works, and the Union City Police Mid-Town Precinct.
The QLine proved a valuable connection for me when I was transiting through Detroit, arriving via Amtrak, and departing via the Tunnel Bus to Canada, with stations right near the stops of the above services
I seem to recall a transit activist made a viral video ahead of the street alignment decision in Detroit "to put it down the center!" It really should have been down the center having just ridden it, it's a great route otherwise and interestingly enough did put it down the center on the outer portion of the line in and near New Center.
@@Ponchoedtrains down the middle was the youtube channel name. Don't believe it posted any other video.
Interestingly Vox did an article called the real reason behind the demise of streetcars. And mentioned that they increasingly kept getting stuck in traffic.
The article was published after Detroit's QLine started construction. And I don't remember seeing that explanation written anywhere else before.
Somehow the knowledge of streetcars getting stuck in traffic was forgotten until the 2010 wave of modern streetcars being built.
As a Detroit native, you accurately described the history and problems of the qline and the people mover.
I feel that even though many of these Obama Era streetcars are concerningly small, it should encourage urban planners and local governments to exponentially expand them to the point where they can serve more neighborhoods on a more frequent basis. Busses also produce several invisible microplastic particles from tires (along with any other vehicle with rubber tires) whose emissions are only made worse with more weight placed on them.
The Dallas Streetcar had its origin in a group that wanted to what the McKinney Avenue line had done, but for their own neighborhood. The city wasn't interested in helping, but when the group won a TIGER grant, they begrudgingly stepped in to take ownership of the line (while passing operations off to DART). One of its big problems is that it doesn't reach far enough into downtown to be more useful. The line has a great anchor area on the south end, but has to use about third of its length crossing the river and a highway interchange before just poking into the edge of downtown. There have been plans for ages to extend it through the core of downtown to connect to the McKinney Ave line, but finding funding has always been an issue. Lack of investment is the other big issue; it only got extended far enough to be at all useful because it got extra funds from cancelled projects. The money issue may also play into the constant mechanical issues with the line interrupting service; even when they're operating, the cars are an increasingly rough ride. I'm not sure if the track needs grinding or the wheels have too many flatspots, but the rattly old cars on the other line run smoother nowadays. The cars (or at least 2 of the 4) being the first production batch of cars built by Brookville may also mean that they hadn't ironed out the kinks that later cars for other cities had fixed, but that's just speculation on my part.
I remember reading that the group pushing for streetcars in Oak Cliff in Dallas were apparently originally considering using both modern streetcars and former Dallas PCCs for their service.(The group would would eventually end up contributing to the creation of the Dallas Streetcar and they would end up using the terrible Brookville cars.)
One advange of buses. Route flexibility and the ability to switch buses from one route to another for periods of peak ridership. EI before schools open and after the get out.
Street cars are clean, quiet and cause less wear and tear on streets. But such eystems need to to tied into redevelopment of city centers that lead to high density and also access places outside of city centers.
Building transit in the US faces the same problem all infrastructure projects face. Everything takes to damn long to build. Who is at fault? Multiple parties. Contractors bidding on more projects than they can handle. Opponents attempting to derail (no pun intended), delay or even stop projects halfway through. Politicians or interest groups attempting to secure changes to plans. Construction unions looking to delay the end date in exchange for continued paychecks for their membership. Multiple municipalities permiting processess. A perfect example is California's High Speed Rail.
The problem is, the USA doesn't seem to know how to build transit that people would use anymore. Kansas City, Tuscon, and Tempe AZ seem to have lucked out.
And forget busses! People won't ride busses that get stuck in traffic if they have any other option!
How hard is it to get good ridership at a college campus? Tempe’s streetcar runs around the city’s ASU campus, and Tucson’s streetcar goes from downtown to the U of A campus.
Good ride quality, enjoyable. Never heard that said about a bus.
You clearly have not rode buses in the rest of the world 😅😅 you just don’t know better
The Portland streetcar is the opposite of a smooth and comfy ride
I'm actually an Urban Planning and Design major at UMKC and I love the KC Streetcar! It's definitely not perfect and quite limited but I ride it any chance I get and geek about it the whole time. I'm excited for the extension that's going to have a stop just a block off campus next year as it will really help integrate the school into the city (which is part of UMKC's whole image). I do hope for more extensions in the future, particularly East/West to really get into the neighborhoods where people are less likely to be able to afford a car.
I'm more excited about what the Streetcar represents for the city. As one of the worst culprits of redlining, it seems like we're finally starting to move in the right direction planning-wise and I can't wait to graduate and become a part of that process!
did not expect to see a fellow upd student in the comment section lol see you in katz 😁 can't wait for the extension either !! the Main Max is slow to reach downtown and numerous Troost Max stops lack proper amenities or are in poor condition
I'm curous how the bus charging fare, but the streetcar being free (?) is going to affect commuter habits in midtown, once this extension is done. I'm in westport & take the main max to work everyday.
Street cars demonstrate commitment to a particular route which can drive neighborhood investment in a way that buses cannot since their routes can be changed at any time.
I feel like a BRT route could potentially also do that, especially if it provides dedicated lanes, and as a bonus it would speed up transit, be cheaper (and thus could likely cover a larger distance), and buses could branch off the BRT line for one-seat rides to even farther destinations. Though obviously it doesn't have the cool factor of being a cute little train.
I’m 100% for the DC street car. However, I’m biased because I use it all the time and get to enjoy its utility myself whenever I need it. I think the city would really benefit from having a more complete streetcar system to compliment the metro. Especially in the summertime when it’s hot.
Pittsburgh building a streetcar to Squirrel Hill via Oakland is so painfully obvious and so bafflingly not done considering Pittsburgh also managed to build a subway under a river recently.
Instead we're getting ONE bus lane on Forbes and ONE on Fifth. What a joke. And how many years they've been debating this.
@@drewk1514 believe me- everyone knows that extending the t to oakland is precisely what should happen…but the cost is so high that there’s no way it would happen, sadly.
@@drewk1514 Not even one in each direction lol? Ughhhhhh. I love that the south hills get two T lines and dedicated BRT, but Oakland and Squirrel Hill really need more than a singular bus lane. Ugh!
It was BEYOND stupid and crazy expensive to build that tunnel under the river. The line could have run on reserved lanes on one of the bridges to North Side would have been more practical and allowed funding the T to Oakland. A surface line with separate right of way would have been workable. No need for a subway if the streetcars don’t run in traffic.
@@thefareplayer2254- the BRT in Cleveland looks like a REAL transit line running along Euclid Avenue. Pittsburgh will have one bus lane running toward downtown and one running toward Squirrel Hill on ADJACENT streets. Just paint some lines and call it a day.
COMFORT is #1... Buses will always be too bouncy and jostling to ever beat a smooth steel wheel train especially those with modern CWR tracks... Having been thrown across a trolley-bus in a bad way hitting my head just from it coming off a wire, unless they have battery back ups, skip trolleybuses and just invest in the rails...
The problem with bus comfort is not because it's a bus but because it's a US bus on a US street. Where I live buses are very comfortable and I actually prefer them, depending on the destination, even though I have all options available (trams, metro, rail).
Use of each transport mean should depend on the purpose and all can be comfortable and pleasant to use if done right and horrible if not.
Buses in Europe (and I've heard also Asia, though I've never been) are actually quite good when it comes to comfort. They're held back in NA because we have protectionist policies which require transit agencies to only buy American and Canadian buses, and that stifles competition between bus manufacturers
@@AL5520 The thing is even on a good road, the bus has to run on bouncy suspension because it *HAS* to support bad roads if they're encountered. They can't run with rubber tired metro-style suspension. This means that they lurch when maneuvering even on a smooth road.
This could be fixed with active smart suspension but that's too expensive which is why you only see it on luxury vehicles and never on buses (the variable-height suspension on many buses does not count as that's only used for boarding purposes and does not dynamically adjust while moving).
I used to live in downtown Tucson and the Sun Link streetcar there was pretty convenient, and I used it nearly daily. It is busy fairly frequently as well. I think it benefits from a good route and good spacing of destinations, given that it connects downtown, the popular 4th Avenue district, and the University of Arizona. These systems get a lot of flak but the streetcar completely changed the perception of transit here! I would say this counts as a success.
Trams require two things in order to be successful: decent priority a solid transit network to connect to it. Trams should mostly run in exclusive center median lanes, have transit signal priority, run frequently, and connect existing transit hubs with popular destinations. Trams can be useful as a high density stopgap for last mile connectivity or to serve dense central city areas. They cannot, however, exist in a vacuum of car traffic, parking lots, and sprawl. They must be part of an urban ecosystem of walkability, cycling, and transit in order to be successful.
Cities thought they could copy-paste their way to streetcar success without actually optimizing the service and infrastructure. And when they did deviate from the copy-paste, it was almost always to save money, not improve performance.
It does really suck that all the modern streetcar routes are made in really small cities that really will never have enough ridership to justify streetcars (mainly due to their size). A streetcar pretty much anywhere in NYC or Chicago would solve so many capacity problems that some current 1 minute bus headways can't solve.
IDK about that. I regularly see cities in Europe, even heavily suburbanized ones with less than 200k residents that build trams that have more success than the Obama streetcars. The real thing they need is length and dedicated infrastructure. It needs to be built out to also connect to destinations outside of the innermost districts, and it needs to have dedicated lanes and signal priority where space allows to be fast and attractive. Less than 4 miles isn't enough, you'd preferably need something around 8 miles in length to reasonably serve a small city.
The size of the city is not the problem, even some small cities in Europe have trams. It comes to connecting places enough people want to move between.
@@firstlast1932 Small cities with trams is probably not much of an issue. If they're smaller cites, you can run them where they make sense without causing problems. Bigger cities really need the rail to be grade separated or they just wind up contributing tot he problem.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Trams dont need grade separation like heavy rail does. Its nice thing to have, but keeping things cheap and on street level is usually more important. Transit signal priority usually does the trick.
To which problem is mass transit contributing?
You might look at Spokane's City Line. Its a bus designed to function like a modern central-neighborhood-serving streetcar. Has custom buses and stations including center median stations. Its not really BRT and dont recall any significant bus lanes. Its worth a look as a comparison with comparable modern streetcars.
I use the First Hill Streetcar in Seattle pretty often! It’s basically just a glorified bus route but there’s nothing too wrong with it.
If only it connected with the SLU streetcar
@@sameoldcircusAfter that, wished the Waterfront Streetcar still ran, especially with more Passenger only ferries. Need a connection to the Stadiums.
@@anthonybanchero3072 yes! It would have been great if they brought it back when rehabbing the waterfront. Sure it was novel, sure it was touristy, but I feel like would have supported the revamped waterfront
@@anthonybanchero3072 That's the only one that actually made any sense. It's just a shame they couldn't figure out how to preserve the maintenance building. Or, perhaps figure out how to get it to connect up to the light rail and just use their maintenance facilities. (I do get it, that tunnel would be extremely expensive for what we get out of it, but still)
I could say it's a mixed bag.
Love the discussion of Tucson's streetcar. I lived ~ car free in Tucson while I went to university there between 2019 and 2022 because I could get everywhere I needed to go with the streetcar!
Unlike bus lines, streetcar tracks can't be easily moved, thus they "permanently" increase the land values around them.
I really wish that Seattle would at least extend the South Lake Union Streetcar to the connection with the soon to open RapidRide G Line Madison Street BRT and work on rebuilding Pioneer Square street above The Underground so that streetcars from First Hill can run all the way to Fred Hutch in South Lake Union. I also would love to see more streetcar lines built in Seattle but the city council doesn't want to spend the money to repair the sagging streets in Pioneer Square nor do residents of the West Edge Neighborhood want the streetcar. West Edge is a neighborhood that lacks public transit and has since busses were banned on Seattle's 1 Ave because of the construction of Seattle's Hwy 99 Tunnel and the problems with The Underground's supports that hold up the roads over head.
The West Edge Neighborhood is not well connect to the rest of downtown Seattle for those who don't drive as the neighborhood sits below some of the steepest hills in downtown Seattle and is very north south oriented. Most people passing through are going to Pike Place Market at the north end, using buses coming up from the Ferry terminal on Columbia street, or driving through. There used to be several commuter buses, two local buses and a free shuttle that ran on 1st Ave before the Alaskan Way Via Duct was closed. The shuttle was a bus replacement for the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar that stopped operating when it's maintenance shed was torn down to make way for the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park.
The connector that would allow streetcars from First Hill to continue to South Lake Union would bring lots of tourists to the Pike Place Market and a bars and Show Venues along 1st Ave including the Showbox Market music venue. It would also better connect the ferry terminal with King Street Station and allow for a more seamless travel for those needing to get between King Street Station and the Seattle Waterfront, including the Ferries. I hope Seattle's City Council will turn it's views on the project around and make the Seattle Streetcar system truly one to be proud of as well as start understanding that if we eliminate parking minimums for all new buildings more people will be forced to use transit which will mean less people driving downtown and it would be a win win for all as we'd see the need for more and better transit through out the region.
I am all for more and more streetcar systems but they definitely need to be made to European standards and have a lot more pedestrianized plazas that they run through to make them better then just a glorified bus.
Atlanta has pretty big plans for its streetcar but i'm not holding my breath on seeing that extension anytime soon...
Street cars aren't a singular solution to transit, they're just one more modal type. I live in Portland and I'd say that level of residual commerce along the route has exploded so I think they are worth it. It might also depend on density. They go thru some pretty dense neighborhoods so that keeps ridership up.
Great timing! I'm taking a southwestern USA trip to film and photograph rail transit systems (and other things) next month. I even found a decent hotel mere steps away from a Sun Link station in Tucson. The transit agency claims that the line has helped spur a cool billion dollars of investment along the line.
There’s so much more that goes into the equation of whether modern streetcars are worth it, but I think they make more sense in neighborhoods & connecting them without a separate R.O.W. they can also be useful for connecting trains or systems where a full bus or tram line doesn’t suit the area.
The only bus that I can think of having appeal to car drivers and tourists are the double deckers, like the Deuce running from the Strip to downtown Vegas. Surprisingly busy route that actually connects destinations for visitors. Could only imagine running a dedicated streetcar on two lanes of Las Vegas Blvd
No tickets? That's like shutting down souvenir shops.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who screams out Pittsburgh whenever it's on screen lol
I’m always confused by the assertion that a 3 mile streetcar will “revitalise downtown” because if downtown needs revitalising, then it means people aren’t living,working or playing there. But if your streetcar EXCLUSIVELY serves that area no one wants to be in, why would anyone choose to go (probably drive) to downtown just because you allowed them to circulate around downtown at walking pace on this streetcar that only comes every 15 minutes.
Yes, Seattle had a short street car line like that for decades, but it mostly just went up and down the waterfront and was mostly there to make it easier for tourists to visit the various things that were located there. It worked purely because there were already a bunch of things that people wanted to see and do there along with the main parking being located in a thin strip under the viaduct.
Tucson had a historic streetcar that mainly ran from downtown up 4th Ave on a single track (so only one vehicle). When the rebuilt the aging 4th Ave tunnel under the train tracks, the old streetcar couldn't start from a stop at the bottom due to the grade (they got it out by going back and forth to build momentum). So the streetcar idea has always been dear to Tucsonans (not Tucsonites 😉).
It's worth noting that all of Sun Tran (busses), Sun Link (streetcar), and Sun Van (on demand handicap capable vans) are free to ride and there are no plans to bring fares back. I take it pretty often from downtown to Main Gate Square to get Chipotle when I'm craving it.
Modern Trolleybus > 2010s streetcars
Yes, if you're going to run them on the street, you might as well just make them trolley buses. That way you don't have to pay for the track and if they break down, they can just be towed using the same trucks you'd use if any other bus broke down. Plus, they can go up hills without having to install cables or sprockets and don't kill cyclists when they get trapped on the tracks.
In their current form I would definitely say most of these streetcars are not worth it. But their potential to be extended and become legitimately useful seems way higher than even a BRT route, so if they become something more I would say they would become worth it. I’m glad to see Kansas City is doing just that.
For the record, Tucson already had a streetcar. Upgrading it was a part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority bond and tax measure. That happened and several historical streetcars that were running had to be retired as they were incompatible with the newer streetcars. We didn't jump on the Portland pattern. There were attempts to cancel out the program as well as it's primary function was to transport students to a now cancelled west campus for the University of Arizona. It was still built between the University's Healthcare campus, through the main campus, Downtown, and finally to the Mercado San Augustin, where the Tucson campus of Caterpillar is located.
I would use both of Seattle's streetcars way more if they just ran more frequently, and later in the evenings. But then they wouldn't need to be high capacity, and I am very happy to ride trolleybuses too. (more trolleybuses pls)
It also doesn’t help when places like Cincinnati planned to have the streetcar route originally expanded to connect to downtown from the university area in Uptown which would honestly make ridership a whole lot better but since the streetcar was something allowed by Obama, a democrat that Ohio state politicians really didn’t like, they were extremely reluctant and cut back many of these types of projects.
As well as track records of places like Cincinnati failing in implementation of transit projects and ideas.
You should try the Tempe streetcar whenever you get the chance. It runs right along the outside of the ASU campus, so it gets a lot of use from students commuting the short distance to campus from their off campus apartments or houses. This is where I think streetcars really shine: when they’re used for very short, quick routes that cut down on both car and foot traffic (the latter of which can be important when your temperature gets up to 110+ degrees). I’d still prefer a properly grade separated light rail, but honestly, with it built near a university where people are also used to light rail, it seems possible that they actually grade separate it in the future, at least around campus. This would also be a step towards effectively partial car free zones since portions of the streets in downtown Tempe are single lane. They’re also extending it into Mesa’s downtown district, which is also trying to become more walkable. Overall, I think that these systems can be good trojan horses. You get newer generations accustomed to their existence, and to the idea of everyday rail transit is actually safe, clean, and effective. You also leave the door open for further improvements in the future.
I live in downtown Toronto and the only transit around here is streetcar and the subway. I don’t find use in the streetcars travelling through downtown as it is very slow, sometimes it can be even faster to walk. The longer 5-car streetcars used since 2014 seem to be part of the problem, they are too long. On King St which is streetcar and local traffic (no through traffic) only, during rush hours you can see streetcars backed up for blocks, and only one streetcar can cross an intersection per light cause some of the distances between intersections can only fit two streetcars. However, once you clear that 2km stretch it does connect many residential neighborhoods to downtown so there is use there and they tend to fill up during rush hours.
Also since it is a legacy system a lot of repairs and refurbishments are needed. Two major lines are down right now for repairs/upgrades until the end of the year and replaced by buses currently, but supposedly they have phased it in a way to have service for two weeks in November for the Taylor Swift concerts. I guess the point about capacity holds…
The streetcars utility would also be less limited if they werent constantly built in mixed traffic. Like that goes against all best practises to invest this much in rail infrastructure and then not have it be in dedicated lanes where room is available. Heck, the capacity of the US streetcars are also still only comparable to a bus, with many articulated bus models having capacity for 130-150 passengers, and bi-articulated BRT models having room for upwards of 180. At least in Europe, practically all tram systems use at least 5 segment vehicles, about 100ft in length as anything smaller would struggle to justify the investment in a tramway to begin with.
To answer your question at the end, there is no streetcar in my city, although i take the frontrunner (train) to SLC frequently to see my dad, and i do use to streetcar there. SLC public transportation is pretty decent for a city of its size bu North American standards, id say
I think there are two questions to ask wether or not these are useful systems. a) is it an actual serious transit service with a bi-directional route or a sightseeing service with a loop/ figure-8 course. And b) can they be usefully extended in the future.
If those apply, having a system running, even if it’s not perfect, is a big asset. Because extending a tram line is much cheaper and easier, then building a completely new one. We see this all the time here in Germany. The cities who kept since of their trams, even if they were in terrible shape and the network heavily shrunk have since startet expanding again and are very successful. The cities who completely ripped them out have been fighting for decades wether or not they should rebuild them. If you already have a depot, a maintenance crew and experience running trams, running more trams isn’t difficult and after the initial building costs, quite cheap. So if you can use the initial route as a starting point for a network, it’s very useful. If you leave it as a single 2 mile toy line, it’s probably never going to be a serious transit service.
Building any train that runs in any mixed traffic is folly in the 21 st century.
I'd also argue non-grade separate LRTs (just running in a separate lane) aren't very useful either. However, those LRTs can work well if they operate like stadtbahn where they have elements of full grade separation in central city areas.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Kenosha streetcar.
Though it's a lot more old-school than the other streetcar lines being mentioned, and serving a smaller city, I think it is still one of the best streetcars out there. I personally really enjoyed riding it when I did.
Great video. There is also a wider policy question, which is were streetcars successful in "priming the pump" as they say more wider acceptance of and funding for better transit projects. Most more noble minded policy experts would say wasting money on a concept, just as a marketing tool for something better is not a good investment, but policy experts who know politics know that sometime you have to lead with something less optimal to get something better down the road. So the alternative question is, where there are streetcars have local governments built up the capacity to compete for grants to expand the system or build out better transit systems entirely.
It would be great if these systems would be combined with light rail style suburban lines, like in many cities in Europe. That combines the fast running on mostly dedicated right-of-way along the part of the route where people are mostly only interested in the one stop near their home, with the frequent stops and thus short walks to all the destinations in the city core. Also I assume that land value is probably the highest in the central areas of a city, and thus dedicated right of way would be the most expensive there, which is another reason for the combination I'm suggesting.
After all, the vehicles are technically more or less the same for street car lines and light rail lines.
Also the question of ridership: Combining a few suburban routes onto the same central area core ensures ridership to justify high frequency on the common core section, even with relatively large vehicles.
It would be great if future politicians would allocate money similar to the Obama era street cars, but for building light rail extensions to existing street car systems (and for that sake to build compete new systems).
The Seattle Streetcars are almost always empty. They take up a huge amount of space and do very little.
I live in Seattle and use the streetcar frequently (except for the whole everything broke last month issue). I have lived here for 7 years, but lived before that for 3 years in El Paso, TX. Their streetcar got revived in 2018, using the same historic cars that had been rotting away in the desert. It's definitely for tourists and college students, but sadly they don't run super late most nights, so it's not as great as it sounded like it would be. At least it's free, so there's that!
Re: Pittsburgh
Build the Fifth Avenue Subway!
wtyp talked about this - the problem with busses or any inbetweens is it's easy to whittle down service and eventually cut it. First it will be temporary then 'oh no money in the budget' next year... permanent rights of way on the other hand take more effort to get rid of despite costing more.
I think the problem was the streetcars were literally built one size fits all. The tram vehicles are pretty standard regardless of whether they have their own lanes or make frequent stops.
Detroit's QLine would probably be better off using smaller cars that have quicker stop/start ability and run more cars at higher frequency.
I think the factor of streetcars getting stuck in traffic wasnt considered. The reason why streetcars in the 1920s were faster than buses today is mainly due to fewer cars on the road, not rail being super faster than tires.
So it should also be mentioned that when Detroit first started thinking about a streetcar in 2006, they had the idea of something like the light rail in Baltimore, Dallas, Charlotte and Salt Lake City in mind. Systems that opened in the 90s using the federal new starts program.
It seems like the Obama era streetcars didn't quite copy that model fully, or funded scaled down versions of the original idea.
Detroit's QLine was originally envisioned by the city as going to the city's northern border of 8 Mile, not just 3 miles as proposed by the M1 group. When the city backed off their proposal, the M1 business leaders pressed forward with their plan and Ray LaHood pledged support once the state created a detroit area regional transit authority.
Yes, installing tracks has a psychological effect on potential riders as there’s permanence in tracks in concrete. And a busy bus route downtown could be a good candidate for upgrading to a streetcar. That being said, many smaller cities have a corridor with high frequency bus service on it because it’s a bunch of lines coming together though downtown or en route to a transfer hub. Those in my opinion are not a good candidate for streetcars. Also, look at the status quo bus service. If you’re only running 15 or 20 minute headways with buses, you’ll never have enough ridership to justify installing rails and buying expensive cars.
I just rode Salt Lake’s for the first time this week. It runs at grade, but runs in dedicated Right of Way alongside a bike path. It seemed to be well used as South Salt Lake’s connection to Trax LRT. I think once the TOD is in (a lot is under construction now), ridership will improve to a more impressive number.
OC Streetcar is going to be a Disaster You already have a Great Transportation Hub in OCTA it feels like a Novelty than a Necessity The Distance from Santa Ana to Garden Grove isn't practical
Now if it was from Lake Forest to Long Beach CA and later Los Angeles CA then Yes it serves a purpose considering alot of Manufacturing jobs are in Lake Forest Irvine Garden Grove and Long Beach make it a Trolley System instead
KC streetcar was interesting. I've only ever taken it late at night, but the fare free was cool, the driver was friendly, and the vibe looks like it could work?
The biggest problem with these systems is mostly poor planning. They don't go anywhere important!
Rather if #US feds spent more money on building metros, especially UTO (Unattended Train Operation) driverless light metros like the #SkylineHNL and expanding existing UTO systems such as the #LVMonorail to attract new riders especially those who count on system reliability and those who dislike trains on the street. Low-floor streetcars and light rails nowadays are overemphasized and overused, yet no other #US city/municipality/region is planning or building any new UTO #metro system currently. #Canada currently has the #Vancouver #SkyTrain and #REMmtl with the #OntarioLine under construction. Also, rather if the feds spent more on interstate transit, including via local transit, and transit to international borders in partnership with Canadian and Mexican feds.
The mixed track is killing the speed advantage of the tram. It is the best when it has a separated track, ideally covered by grass. And ideally the trams should get priority at the traffic lights too.
Point two: These short few kilometers long lines has less sense. Ideally (again, I know) they should reach some outer dense neighborhood and connect it to a frequently visited place.
I guess the problem of streetcars in the US is that only downtown areas are denesly populated/or a place where a lot of ppl commute to while the rest is just too sparesly urbanized single family homes. In these areas a streetcar stop would serve only a handful of people. In compact European cities such as Brno, Czech Republic, the traffic would collapse completely if the tram lines were to disappear (we have 11). I used to travel to Tucson quite often in the years when the tracks were just being laid and later I watched from a distance how people had to learn to live with the new traffic situation, cyclists getting their bikes stuck in the tracks, streetcars being stuck in traffic because they shared the lanes. Here (Brno) vast majority of the trams have their dedicated lanes, so they overtake the traffic easily. In the peak hours, they run every 5 minutes and are quite punctual.
Arlington VA almost built one of these on Columbia Pike and it would have probably been the most ambitious modern streetcar project in the country. It was canceled because of a group of activists who were opposed to spending so much money on a train without dedicated lanes (using Toronto congestion as an example) as well as an inability to coordinate funding with Fairfax County, where the line would have ended. It might have been successful due to the high bus ridership along that corridor, but it would have to run very frequently in order to justify someone choosing it over the bus.
I was at the McDonald's on the wrong side of Main Street in Kansas City in 2007. ❤ The shopping and BBs on the West side of Main (Westport)
New Orleans also built a 3 mile line from downtown to the 7th ward.
I could see East Bay California streetcars feeding into BART such as a Jack London to DT Oakland then going around Lake Merritt to loop back to BART. Also, a Berkeley streetcar.
Most of the streetcars have the corridor and center city neighborhoods right but messed up on the alignment... either zigzagging all over the place to hit the front door of every destination (OKC), constantly changing lanes (Cincinnati) or they should have been built down the center of the street like they did in the past, but with transit only lanes... essentially small scale light rail. Down the center is the best place to have dedicated lanes, minimal blockages and fast operation. Kansas City and Detroit have good routes, straight down one major street that are the spine of the center city, unfortunately they run in the right shoulder lane impacted by right turning vehicles and hard to make truly transit only.
I agree about Tucson, I really like that line and think its one of the best. Its not a particularly traffic choked region and the mixed traffic running works there... it has a great line thats mostly double track on a simple route (with no out of direction travel or awkward loops (the small amount of one way loops downtown and at west end make sense IMO). The route hits everything a tourist or urbanist would want in Tucson.
One factor people miss, is development, and associated development fees/new taxes, and those have basically bayed for these systems themselves.
Kansas City mention in a positive context!
@@bigdonkus1416 here's another positive mention, I really regret not eating the barbecue there
Overall it is how they were implemented not if they were implemented that makes modern streetcars ineffective. They can still improve though because ATL is consider expanding its streetcar to the beltline. They are also more efficient than buses because of less rolling resistance.
I can answer this question with the Streetcars that I've already used. Washington DC, yes. Dallas, TX, Yes. Cincinnati, maybe. Kansas City, No. Salt Lake City, no.
I can't say anything about Portland or Seattle simply because I never rode it.
Seattle has one good line and one bad, Portland’s is all pretty solid
I rode the Seattle line in question in the video. It seemed like it was built only for corporate real estate enticement reasons isolated from reality or ridership which limits its use. Connect the two fragmented lines together and you'd have gangbusters ridership... Heck even the Seattle Monorail has a much better purpose and usage... Connecting downtown to Seattle Center where all the cool things are.. Space Needle, Amazon Arena, Experience Music Center....
If we manage to extend it to benning road it wont be a mistake
One other advantage of streetcars is the long shelf life of the vehicles compared to buses
Thanks for producing such low-quality content that you overlooked Tacoma’s streetcar built in 2003.
There is no debate about whether or not they were useful: it depends on context. Let’s not be vapid… streetcar lines that run frequently, quickly, and provide access & linkage to major trip generators. When doing so correctly, streetcars ALWAYS work.
You're welcome! 😁
I love the Urbos 3 LRVs used by Transdev under contract to Transport for NSW on the L1 Dulwich Hill Line in Sydney. But at 12.8km (8mi) it is longer than Kansas City's system, and operates mostly grade spearated on a former goods railway. In the CBD, it runs in the Hay Street pedestrian mall, where cars are strictly prohibited and the NSW Police Force on hand to punish any driver who dares venture there. It's not free though.
Here in Toronto, our streetcars highlight the need for modern operations and priority measures. Car traffic has a unique ability to completely ruin streetcar operations.
The streetcars shouldn’t run in mixed traffic (except perhaps along with buses). Just paint the lane with the rails and designate it as transit only. Or better yet block off all private car traffic. Market street in San Francisco is an example.
They would make sense, just there needs to be more car-free streets and areas.
I always think of the differences between Winston-Salem and Greensboro, NC. Both put streetcars on their plans during the Obama Administration. The difference is that instead of keeping it on their plan, Greensboro realized what they wanted was a downtown circulator, so they replaced it with a bus that runs every 12 minutes and gets decent ridership (4,000 or so a day on Weekends when it runs). It also didn't take the oxygen out of conversations about Transit either, letting them focus investments on a better bus network. Meanwhile, Winston-Salem didn't go for a bus-based alternative and like 2 years ago said they couldn't do it for the next like 50 years or so. The result of all the conversations about the streetcar being that they didn't invest in the existing bus network, causing declining ridership and even for a year or so, not even having real time tracking.
As someone who currently lives in Tempe and used to live in Tucson, in our case, they’ve been great. Even though they run in mixed traffic, they connect the universities, downtowns and main streets in both cities (like you mentioned), making them incredibly convenient and useful for both students and commuters alike. I personally even used to frequent the station at 4:10 when I lived in the area.
Plus, they’re massively popular. The route is everything. If it’s a streetcar to nowhere that zigzags to a bunch of random places, then it won’t work. Perhaps that’s one area the Obama administration could have done more with.
Y'all are somehow leagues ahead of the rest of the country on streetcars!
Many of these streetcars would've been better as something built like they do everywhere else: completely separated from car traffic. Doesn't have to be a "light rail", just a normal tram.
Unfortunately I said "like they do everywhere else" so that won't happen because Murica is special boiiii
Hiroshima has an extensive street car system. They are nice but it's frustrating how much they get stuck in traffic. I kind of wish the money had been put into a subway system instead. One advantage of streetcars is they are more resistant to anti-transit politicians who want to cut services to save a dime, which you see happen all the time to bus routes.
To be fair, Memphis did it before Portland. It runs on a very nice transit mall
I’m just so infuriated that DC(a former streetcar hub) should have extended the tram, but at the moment last I checked, I’ve seen no construction beginning on the H street bridge which will be required to extend the line and additional leading into the K street Coridor which is currently beginning the construction to accommodate the streetcar in its construction. It’s taking too dang long and they’re purposely building this badly on purpose. It’s getting annoying. 😤 Even more infuriating, ward 6 representatives tried to pulled the funding to accommodate the tram 🚊 on the other end of the line at the last minute just before construction was about to begin. 😡
On another note, eventually I feel the that trams 🚊 will probably eventually become a longer tram line, but some light rails cost money to ride. Something folks won’t be too keen on doing. American transit is so unreliable.
I think streetcars are almost always better for urban areas than buses - at least US buses. They are more comfortable to ride, have a nice permanent feeling to them, and are fully electric. The problems of the Obama era streetcars are mostly related to planning them as more like downtown circulators rather than actually useful bits of a transportation network. The success stories (Tuscon, KC) mostly are successful because they actually have good routes. Insofar as they could just be buses - sure, but buses are noisy and bumpy in the US and the streetcar is a hugely important piece of the urban development of every city. It's not just nostalgia bait to reintroduce them, as long as the effort is to do so in the specific places where they once were. Granted, this largely wasn't done, but that's again a planning issue not a streetcar issue
I grew up in a city with a tram network of around 50 miles of track and 9 lines in 3 different countries… I looooove trams /streetcars !
But - no line without a reason.
A one way loop through the CBD is just wasted money and a missed chance…to build something useful.
@@aoilpe chances are I'm going to be in your city in about a month. Basel, right?
@@ClassyWhale
😃👍👏🫠
DC had an entire system planned. Now its existing line has halted extension. IMO, for the wrong side of the city. Now that the circulator is going away they should shift focus on extending the streetcar 🐧
I had been pretty hard on streetcars for a while due to the cost and not a ton of benefit. However, I took the cincinatti streetcar and found it fast and really delightful. So basically I can't tell if they are worth it either.
The streetcar in Portland OR is why I can easily get to my doctor and to the hospital from my apartment. I am permanently disabled and the streetcar is easier to get on and off of then the max or the busses. I wish we could expand the streetcar system but I know money is tight in 2024. Oh and we actually moved into the Pearl District so we had access to the streetcar with everything we need being a short trip away from home.
7:32 Just a nitpick, it's one thing to have low-floor vehicles but level boarding is only really possible with streetcars/trams not buses.
if caleb showed a picture of the TECO Streetcar it would be barely useful at best
I almost got a panic attack when he said “sun”
sunrail
I'd rather have them than not, but short lines in mixed traffic just don't live up to their potential. With dedicated lanes and a wider reach I think they could beter justify themselves, but overall I'm glad they exist.
Having lived in cities with and without them, in the city with a streetcar I used it all the time to bounce around my favourite stores and cafes when downtown. And in the one without, there was a single street that would make for a perfect line. It would hit the amtrak station, downtown, residential neighbourhoods, a major university, a large mall, and the airport in that order. It would never happen though, the local transit company is hemorrhaging money as is (because the city outsourced transit to a private contractor rather) and as much as it would be a good route, the city didn't have the population to justify such a massive high capacity investment
I'm quite a fan of the more obscure transit lines/modes out there, and I think these streetcar lines are quite the oddity. Some of them mainly serve as a very fancy tourist shuttle, but they're still fun to ride. I've ridden the Bell Connector in Cincinnati and it's probably leaning more towards a tourist attraction. However, I think there can still be a good market for lines like these if they're built right. There's plenty of cities that just need something to fill in a gap, even if a downtown streetcar might not be the best choice.
In conclusion: downtown streetcar look funny lol
Don't forget the recent completion of the Tempe AZ streetcar...but not an Obama era streetcar
I think many urbanists don’t understand the importance of public perception when choosing to build a bus line versus a streetcar line. In a lot of ways, buses make more sense and are more practical.
However, most Americans unfortunately see buses as sketchy and an undesirable way to get around, whereas streetcars are more often seen as sexy and novel. However unjustified that perception may be, if new streetcars are going to get more enthusiasm and ridership because of that… then it probably makes more sense to build the streetcar.
Yeah. But at the same time, building the streetcar in mixed traffic, if the road has room for dedicated lanes is gonna be a huge downgrade and not give the streetcar any meaningful speed advantage. Especially when building this from the ground up where the cost differential between dedicated tram lanes and mixed traffic is practically nonexistant.
I think bus rapid transit is often a better option. Especially I'd you explain its not a typical American bus route, and actually has more in common with a streetcar than a regular bus.
Dedicated lanes and signal priority is a bigger factor in success than the debate over using rail vs rubber tires.
So 150 pax capacity x 12 trams /hrs (i.e. 5 minutes frequency) = 1800 Pax per direction for a line between (3,728 Miles to 12,427 miles) (6 to 20 km) How many city in North America can support that.
I think the problem with many street-cars is that the city they run in is not transit friendly in the first place
a streetcar fits really well into the last-mile solution of any dense and walkable city, but, it maybe requires a city built for something other than cars... because of it's lower speeds it really does not suit urban sprawl scenarios... however, being quiet it really suits quiet neighborhoods or central districts... a bus, same as a truck, is more of a disturbance to the atmosphere, whilst a streetcar on a relatively empty street feels almost natural in the way a river barge on a river might....
the problem with most "Obama-lines" is that they run on alignments people do not really use as a journey... now, if it was a communist style line linking a university or factory with it's dorm, that could have worked, or, if the size of the community and the size of the network were comparable (like in Kansas city) that also works, in principle, a people-mover like in Miami could easily have been a street-car if it was in Asia... but that is the idea of small street cars with limited passenger numbers, used simply because they are modern and can be designed to blend into the architecture of the campus they run within. (almost thinking something like the Msheireb-Tram in Doha)
anyway, the problem is not the streetcar concept but where and how it was done and the lack of a bright future for many of them.
The Tacoma Streetcar preceeded the Seattle Streetcar, opening in 2003.
The Seattle First Hill Streetcar was not an Obama streetcar in the typical sense because it was built as an appeasement because Sound Transit wasn't able to make a First Hill Link station work. This is probably part of why it is one of the most successful in terms of raw ridership and ridership per mile.
Streetcars are really good at getting white people to take transit and they're really good at connecting corridors