There seems to be a significant degree of skepticism here about pursuing a streetcar network in Minneapolis; many seem to prefer the less expensive (and seemingly more politically palatable) option of improving bus service or opting for BRT (the latter alternative doesn’t make sense to me, since this is essentially an LRT-like express service, unlike the local-service streetcar). There was an interesting article on Streets.mn a few months ago arguing the counter-intuitively pro-urban, anti-streetcar position; find the article here:
https://streets.mn/2012/04/23/the-magic ... -of-buses/
I thought this article was fascinating for a number of reasons. First, it seemed to be an exercise in rhetoric, not argument. This was surprising given the source. Second, there was an exchange in the comments section wherein a commentator demolished (in my, admittedly sympathetic, opinion) the myth (perpetuated by the author) that streetcars don’t work when mixed with automobile traffic.
When I say the article was an exercise in rhetoric, not argument, consider the four supposed benefits of streetcars that the article purportedly debunks as untrue. The author says there are four arguments for streetcars over buses: (1) they have lower operating costs, (2) they offer a smoother ride, (3) they’re more user-friendly, and (4) they promote development.
As proof that streetcars don’t offer lower operating costs, the author dismisses the fuel and labor cost savings offhand. The fact that electricity is not only less energy intensive, but also an energy source (while indeed derived often from coal power) that is cheaper and more predictable in price (fueling buses subjects Metro Transit to the vagaries of the market in a manner detrimental to accurate budgeting) are both dismissed by the author. These arguments are powerful and can’t be dismissed so readily. Further, the higher capacity of streetcars vis-à-vis buses is mentioned, but not taken seriously. No one can seriously deny, however, that streetcars can move far more people (larger, longer vehicles with far more standing room) more quickly (easier boarding/exiting, no proof of payment delays) than can buses. Higher capacity translates into lower operating costs per trip.
The, the author follows with a predictable ‘higher initial capital costs’ argument. Yes, a transit line with rails, overhead wires, stations, and vehicles costs more to build than a transit line with only vehicles. What is often missed in this discussion, however, is that the higher upfront capital costs invested in streetcars (around which it is indeed difficult to form political consensus) will over the life-span of the line generate significant cost savings through lower operating expenditure and higher use.
As to the smoother ride argument, the author doesn’t even try. Instead, we are treated to a silly quotation of an old jingle describing the rough ride on the old pre-1954 streetcars. Modern streetcars offer a very smooth ride; arguments to the contrary are disingenuous or ignorant.
Third, the author equates the user-friendliness of streetcars to their ‘navigability’ – in essence, the rails and wires just let people know where they’re going. Navigability, in the author’s opinion, can be solved with better signage. What is lost in this discussion, however, is the full panoply of amenities offered by streetcars that make them more attractive to users: physical stations with proper lighting, ticket vending machines, shelter from the elements, benches, (revenue generating) advertisements, low-floor boarding (meaning no queues behind the disabled, easy access for bikes), security cameras, posted information such as maps and schedules, announced train arrivals, etc. Admittedly, BRT has these amenities as well, but if you’re going to build such extensive stations, why not put in a wee bit more effort, build a proper streetcar system and avoid the higher maintenance, lower capacity issues that plague BRT?
Finally, (actually addressed first in the article) is the issue of whether streetcars promote development. Reducing this argument to the “permanence” of rail over bus lines, the author unhelpfully states: “The simple fact that after 1954 there were no more streetcars in the Twin Cities belies their permanence.” Thanks for the reminder; how does this contradict the argument that streetcars promote development? Is the author arguing that the first iteration of streetcars in Minneapolis did not do so? Because this is simply unture. The author then describes how buses also promote development. Cool, that’s true. Again, is this an argument against streetcars? At the end of this segment, the author returns to the stale argument that streetcars don’t get you to where you’re going faster than cars or buses. I disagree, but again, this doesn’t go to the point of development.
Many people contend that streetcars don’t work when mixed with automobile traffic. The author of this article repeats this argument in the comments segment (and it has been repeated on this forum). I profoundly disagree. So did one of the commentators, and I quote their exchange below because I think it is more elegantly stated than I could ever put it.
In a response to the author’s contention that mixed automobile-streetcar traffic slows the streetcar down, a commentator wrote:
Commentator: “I feel this argument is pretty weak — buses get slowed by traffic to roughly the same extent.
Author: Cars on tracks block the streetcar, the untracked bus can go around. This is in principle regulatory, if you keep cars off the streetcar tracks entirely, no problem. That doesn’t happen because you are using streetcars, not LRT, when you don’t have exclusive RoW.
Commentator: Well, there are two main types of blockages in my mind: Immobile vehicles and obstacles (parked cars, broken cars, random large objects that have fallen off a truck, etc.), and traffic congestion.
I doubt that immobile vehicles/objects pop up nearly as often as critics suggest. It’s illegal to park on or otherwise obstruct tracks. Plus, while liability issues would generally prevent it these days, the car owner still runs the risk of picking a fight with a vehicle that is many times heavier than the car.
Then there’s traffic. Center-running streetcars have to deal with left-turning traffic, but standard buses have to wait for an opening in traffic as they pull away from stops. Both streetcars and buses would probably work best these days with bulb-out platforms along the right side of the street.
Buses don’t pass other vehicles all that often either, though that’s partly due to stopping patterns. It doesn’t do much good to pass someone if the next stop is in less than 600 feet anyway.”
Anyway, if you’ve read this far, to sum up: I think streetcars are cool and that they make sense and aren’t just toys but a sensible and serious transportation option that Minneapolis should pursue.