- Large Metro Areas
- Medium Metro Areas
- Small Metro Areas
We’re in the midst of a streetcar boom in the United States. In city after city, political leaders are promoting new streetcar lines.
But not all streetcars are created equal. The systems that are already operating, under construction, or in design vary dramatically in how effective they are: San Francisco carries over 3,000 passengers for every mile of route, but Little Rock carries only 100. What makes the difference? Destinations and service. The successful systems run frequently all day, connect a variety of destinations, including employment, residential areas, and leisure destinations, and integrate into a larger transit system. The least successful have infrequent service, limited hours, serve mainly leisure destinations, and were planned as standalone lines. Cities tend to fixate on the visible aspects of streetcars (like the question of vintage vehicles vs. modern ones), but what really matters is the same thing that matters for all transit: does the streetcar go where a lot of people want to go when they want to go, and does it get them there conveniently?
Here’s a comparison of all active US streetcar lines as well as a number of lines under construction or planning. Information is from a variety of sources as of October 2013.
(updated Nov 2013)
We’ve already discussed the disadvantages of streetcars sharing traffic lanes with cars: it results in slower and less reliable streetcar service. That’s not an inherent problem with streetcar technology; it’s a result of how that technology is implemented. Streetcars can also run in their own lanes or outside of streets entirely. That’s not a new idea: streetcars in New Orleans have run in grassy street medians (they call them “neutral grounds”) since the late 1800s. New there’s a name for that, originally coined by Lyndon Henry: “rapid streetcar.” Here’s how it fits in:
|Local Bus||Streetcar||Rapid Streetcar||Light Rail|
|40′ diesel vehicle on rubber tires||60′ electric vehicle on steel rails||60′ electric vehicle on steel rails||trains of up to two 90′ electric vehicles on steel rails|
|shares lanes with cars||shares lanes with cars||operates in own lane or outside of streets||operates in own lane or outside of streets|
|stops with sign, maybe a bench, maybe a shelter||stops with sign, bench, shelter, short platform||stops with sign, bench, shelter, short platform||stations with shelter, benches, long platform, lighting, ticket vending|
|lowest capital cost||medium capital cost||medium capital cost||higher capital cost|
|does not attract choice riders||attracts new riders; makes surrounding areas more desirable to live, work, and spend time in||attracts new riders; makes surrounding areas more desirable to live, work, and spend time in||attracts new riders; makes surrounding areas more desirable to live, work, and spend time in|
The most common rapid streetcar implementation in the United States is the use of abandoned railroad lines. This is very effective, but only if there happens to be an available right of way in the right place, as there was in Memphis:
…or here in Boston. Note the hike and bike trail alongside.
Alternately, rapid streetcar can run in streets, either in the center or along the curbs, in lanes marked off with paving, pylons, fencing, or landscaping, as along the Embarcadero in San Francisco, in a wide boulevard created by the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway:
or simply with pavement marking, as here in Memphis:
It’s not necessary to separate the streetcars and cars totally: one advantage of a streetcar is its flexibility, and in a tight area, especially one with minimal traffic, a rapid streetcar line can run in traffic lanes for a few blocks. But that affects service. Every block of reserved right of way means faster and more reliable trips.
So far, rapid streetcar is uncommon in the United States. That’s not due to cost: building outside of a street is actually a bit cheaper than building in a street, and the cost of dividers to separate a lane in a street for streetcars is minimal. Not is it because the idea is novel: it’s simply basic good transit practice. Rather, the problem is political. It’s very difficult to take space away from cars. Even in transit-dependent cities like New York, San Francisco and Toronto, where the majority of residents don’t own cars, vocal business owners and car commuters have fought any attempt to give transit its own space. Politicians like streetcars because they satisfy calls for rail transit. But they don’t want to potentially antagonize anyone by taking space from cars, so they put streetcars in mixed traffic. The result looks good, and it’s an accomplishment to brag about. But it’s not actually better transit service than could have been provided with a bus.
Rapid streetcar is another tool for creating good transit. It fits neatly an ordinary streetcar line and light rail: the low cost of the former with the improved speed and reliability of the latter. It makes a lot of sense for corridors where better transit service is needed but demand doesn’t warrant light rail. But doing it right requires the political will to give transit its own space.
Transit, like any other fields, has trends. And today’s hot trend is the streetcar. Portland opened a modern streetcar line in 2001, Tacoma followed in 2003, and Seattle’s Lake Union Streetcar opened last year. Austin, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Dallas, Oakland, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Northern Virginia, and others are studying new lines. In San Francisco (below), New Orleans, Philadelphia, Memphis (above), Dallas, Tampa, and Little Rock, vintage streetcars (or replicas thereof) serve the same function.
So what’s a streetcar? Like light rail, it’s a vehicle running on steel rails powered by an overhead electric wire. In fact, light rail and streetcars are fundamentally the same technology: they’ve shared tracks in several U.S. cities, and in Europe it’s often hard to tell them apart. But in North American practice there are several differences in how the technology is used:
The advantage is that these features combine into lower construction cost and less impact than light rail. But you get what you pay for: streetcars in mixed traffic are also slower, less reliable, and lower capacity than light rail. If the Main Street line were streetcar instead of light rail, it would have cost less to build. But it take about half an hour, not 20 minutes, to get from Downtown to the Med Center, rush hour trip times would depend on traffic, and the line would have reached full capacity in June of 2004. If we consider service instead of technology, these new streetcars resemble a local bus route. They are not a substitute for light rail, or even BRT, in reserved lanes.
But there is an alchemy to streetcars: people prefer them to buses even if they do not offer better service. Part of that is the distinctive branding, which distinguishes a streetcar line from the rest of the bus system. Part of it is the certainty of rails: you know exactly where that streetcar is going. And part of it is the lure of novelty and nostalgia. This draws riders onto streetcars who would not have taken a bus. And thus it draws development, too, and that is one of the big lures of streetcars.
Streetcars have slipped into a specific niche in North American transit. They’re a tool for downtown and near-downtown revitalization. They’re intended to promote the construction of lofts and apartments, to draw visitors to cultural institutions and restaurants, and to attract tourists. They’re often constructed outside the regular transit structure, funded through tax increment districts and other local funds, and operated separately form the rest of transit system.
So this is the new U.S. streetcar model: low capacity, low speed, mixed traffic, low impact, low cost, maximum economic benefit. In this model, the ideal streetcar line:
Obviously, some of these points are basic to all good transit. But some are very specific. A streetcar has inherent limitations; a good streetcar line is designed to accommodate those. What works in the Pearl District in Portland or South Lake Union in Seattle will not work in every neighborhood, or serve every transit need.
In a small city, streetcars could be the core of a transit system. In a big city, they simply do not have the capacity or the speed for that. But they could be a modest start for rail transit — Dallas had its streetcar line in 1989, seven years before light rail opened — or they could be a local component in a larger rail transit system. That’s the case in Portland, where the light rail line runs one way through Downtown and the streetcar line the other, with a transfer station where the cross, and in San Francisco, where the streetcar line offers local service in a corridor that also has a light rail and heavy rail subway.
The last paragraph could have been written 100 years ago, when streetcars were also a trend. In smaller places, like Houston, they were the transit network; in bigger cities, like New York or Chicago, they were local feeders to subway and elevated lines. Back then, too, streetcars served to stimulate development; neighborhoods were laid out around them, and the lines were often funded through the sale of those lots. Those same neighborhoods remain the places where streetcars work best: they’re close to the core, they’re mixed use, they’re walkable. In many cases, the new streetcar lines are in fact reconstructions of old lines. The streetcar trend is in one sense an admission of error: we would have done well to keep those lines 60 or 80 years ago. And now, in some cases, it makes sense to bring them back.
Read about streetcars in “Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the 21st Century” (the first chapter is available as a PDF) and in Paul Weyrich and William Lind’s report.