A Streetcar Names Stuck in Traffic

Washington Post takes a look at DC's looming streetcar construction. I'm excited about this but, as they say, "Streetcars share lanes with automobiles and ride on rails built in existing streets."

We should really be aspiring to have our streetcars run at least substantial portions of their routes in dedicated lanes. A streetcar in a dedicated lane not only can hold a lot of people but will hold a lot of people -- running quickly and reasonably frequently, thus presenting itself as an attractive option that takes a lot of cars off the roads. A streetcar that spends a lot of time stuck in traffic isn't necessarily going to be a very useful option, but the routes most prone to heavy congestion tend to be the routes where it makes the most sense to consider locating a line.

Comments

I'm just wondering who the market for this streetcar experiment is. Its supposed to run from Anacostia Metro to Bolling AFB. Now, thousands work at DIA, but the terminus is substantially more than a five minute walk away. The White House Communications Agency and Navy Color Guard are pretty close, but probably not enough people work there to make the project work.

It seems like that this is the perfect demonstrator to prove to people that people wont ride streetcars, not that people will.

If they REALLY wanted to prove something, they should have put a demonstrator line from something like the Capital down to M Street NE along Pennsylvania Avenue.

That has a good chance of attracting a significant amount of ridership I think, and there is enough median to support a dedicated streetcar track.

Posted by calipygian | July 13, 2008 5:15 PM

I'm just wondering who the market for this streetcar experiment is. Its supposed to run from Anacostia Metro to Bolling AFB. Now, thousands work at DIA, but the terminus is substantially more than a five minute walk away. The White House Communications Agency and Navy Color Guard are pretty close, but probably not enough people work there to make the project work.

It seems like that this is the perfect demonstrator to prove to people that people wont ride streetcars, not that people will.

If they REALLY wanted to prove something, they should have put a demonstrator line from something like the Capital down to M Street NE along Pennsylvania Avenue.

That has a good chance of attracting a significant amount of ridership I think, and there is enough median to support a dedicated streetcar track.

Posted by calipygian | July 13, 2008 5:15 PM

Tge D key is the one to the right of the S key.
Moral: Read your own posts at least once.

Posted by offended keyboard | July 13, 2008 5:27 PM

as they say, "Streetcars share lanes with automobiles and ride on rails built in existing streets."

That old saw?

Posted by southpaw | July 13, 2008 5:36 PM

That old saw?

Streetcars and brand-new streets are like pig and elephant DNA, southpaw. They just don't splice.

Posted by scythia | July 13, 2008 5:40 PM

To actually add something substantive to the discussion, in SF streetcars sometimes run in car-accessible lanes and it seems to work just fine. It's mostly the cars who are inconvenienced, not the streetcars.

The trick is to have them not run on main arteries, but a street or two removed, on streets with more stop signs than traffic lights. The trolley stops can be set naturally at the stop signs.

Then again, the SF Muni system should probably not be held up as an example of how to successfully implement mass transit.

Posted by scythia | July 13, 2008 5:45 PM

America is just not compatible with street cars! Stop trying to turn us into Luxembourg! Besides, we already have streetcars: all our cars drive on streets, dummy!

Posted by Blixner | July 13, 2008 5:53 PM

Aerobus technology would avoid the problem of sharing the road lane.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 13, 2008 6:15 PM

I really don't want to be an officious a**hole but your seeming inability to enrage in even the most minimal copy-editing really robed your post title of any style points, i.e., "A Streetcar NAMED (not "names" Stuck in Traffic."

Posted by Roberto | July 13, 2008 6:30 PM

I really don't want to be an officious a**hole but your seeming inability to enrage in even the most minimal copy-editing really robed your post title of any style points, i.e., "A Streetcar NAMED (not "names") Stuck in Traffic."

Posted by Roberto | July 13, 2008 6:30 PM

I really don't want to be an officious a**hole but your seeming inability to enrage in even the most minimal copy-editing really robbed your post title of any style points, i.e., "A Streetcar NAMED (not "names") Stuck in Traffic."

Posted by Roberto | July 13, 2008 6:30 PM

I had it coming for critiquing MY's copy editing under the influence. "Robbed," not "robed."

Posted by Roberto | July 13, 2008 6:32 PM

Boston (portion of the Green Line) and the Melbourne Australia tram system (system also includes buses) operates partially in the same space as car lanes. Drivers have adapted to the situation fairly well and the trams/T have the right of way. People that block the trams get hefty fines to discourage bad behavior.

Swinging for the fences rather than manufacturing runs in the realm of public transport seems a rather idiotic proposition.

Posted by Pat | July 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Matt, are you familiar with the idea of Personal Rapid Transport? See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra

There are many variants on the idea, some crackpot-ish. The one that seems most sensible to me is http://personalrapidtransit.com/

Posted by Brian W. | July 13, 2008 6:48 PM

Here in Seattle we've got a new streetcar affectionately referred to as the SLUT, as it was named the "South Lake Union Troller" for about 15 minutes for the city realized the tragedy of the acronym and changed it to the South Lake Union Streetcar.

The SLUT is a huge waste of time, however, as it rides on existing streets and gets no preference at the stop lights. Thus, I can walk the mile long track from my apartment (2 blocks from the nearest slut stop) downtown and pass the SLUT car each block as its caught at each successive stop light.

Walking is also healthier and more fun. The only downside is I miss out on opportunities to make jokes like "boy there sure are a lot of people riding the SLUT today."

Posted by cd6 | July 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Just a note that some bits of Salt Lake City's TRAX light rail system run on car lanes, and I've never seen any problems. Of course, it does have right-of-way priority.

Posted by ty | July 13, 2008 7:29 PM

A streetcar that doesn't run in dedicated lanes, or better, directly in/along a median, like some of Boston's, sounds pretty dangerous

Posted by Andrew Fly | July 13, 2008 7:35 PM

Am I the only one of your readers so far who remembers that Washington HAD streetcars? Right up until the early 60s, I think, when they were done in (as were most urban light rail systems) by the bus lobby and its compliant congresspeople. The streetcar tracks were flush with the pavement, and I think the way to look at it is that automotive traffic ran in the STREETCARS' lanes, not the other way around. In terms of traffic congestion, I can't remember a problem. Of course, vehicular traffic density was nothing like what it is now; on the other hand, a mixed bus-streetcar transit system made a lot of car trips completely unnecessary.

Now should I tell y'all about the time I met George Washington?

Posted by dugsdale | July 13, 2008 7:53 PM

Posted by Roberto | July 13, 2008 6:30 PM

I really don't want to be an officious a**hole but your seeming inability to enrage in even the most minimal copy-editing ...

I think this is a self-contradicting post ... clearly, Matt's minimal copy-editing appears to have ample ability to enrage.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 13, 2008 8:28 PM

Have you ever seen a streetcar? The whole point is that they DON'T have dedicated lanes. When they are not in the lane, cars can use it as a turn lane, allowing through traffic to move smoothly through the intersections.

Posted by Bloix | July 13, 2008 8:39 PM

dugsdale -

Many of the old cobblestone streets in Georgetown still have the street car tracks imbedded in them. Also, the old street car terminus is right under the cliff from Georgetown University.

My biggest problem is they are talking about completing everything by 2030!! That is 22 years from now. Why the heck should it take 22 years to lay track in the middle of some existing roadways?!

Posted by dantonj | July 13, 2008 9:07 PM

Have you ever seen a streetcar? The whole point is that they DON'T have dedicated lanes.

Exactly. Streetcars in dedicated lanes are called trains.

Posted by Mike | July 13, 2008 9:10 PM

The only good streetcar is a nonexistent streetcar.

Posted by ixnermay | July 13, 2008 10:04 PM

I don't think any of Boston's still-extant streetcars run in traffic lanes; they're all on dedicated medians, though on most of the lines they have to stop for cross traffic.

On the other hand, the MBTA also runs electric trolley buses powered from overhead wires in parts of Cambridge and Watertown, and those are really just one step removed from classic streetcars.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | July 13, 2008 10:54 PM

so, this is better than a bus how?

Posted by Katherine | July 13, 2008 10:58 PM

Posted by Matt McIrvin | July 13, 2008 10:54 PM

On the other hand, the MBTA also runs electric trolley buses powered from overhead wires in parts of Cambridge and Watertown, and those are really just one step removed from classic streetcars.

Posted by Katherine | July 13, 2008 10:58 PM

so, this is better than a bus how?

The three advantages of trolley buses over ordinary city buses is more energy efficient electric traction, fixed route so more reliable for smart development, fixed route so easier to design bus priority over congestion causing cars.

Advantage over streetcars is the trolley buses are a notch less capital intensive, so they would be used on a route that did not have the ridership to justify a streetcar or other light rail option.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 13, 2008 11:23 PM

@dugsdale:

Right up until the early 60s, I think, when they were done in (as were most urban light rail systems) by the bus lobby and its compliant congresspeople.

Can you give more detail on this? I've not studied it as much as I ought.

As a fairly conflicted Libertarian who also wants collective transport to thrive, I'm particularly interested in anecdotes of how government intervention helped make the US into this current paradise of freeways.

Posted by Equal Opportunity Cynic | July 14, 2008 12:29 AM

I don't think any of Boston's still-extant streetcars run in traffic lanes; they're all on dedicated medians, though on most of the lines they have to stop for cross traffic.

It's been a few years since I lived there but I know some of the E (Heath Street) branch of the Green Line travels in the roadway, in particular beyond Brigham Circle. I think some of the B might too but I'm less sure of that.

Posted by Equal Opportunity Cynic | July 14, 2008 12:41 AM

Can you give more detail on this? I've not studied it as much as I ought.

Northern VA street cars here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia_trolleys

For thirty years, trollies went from Fort Belvoir (then Camp Humphries) via Mount Vernon all the way into DC to Federal Triangle.

Posted by calipygian | July 14, 2008 6:48 AM

Whatever Matt McIrnin may believe, portions of the Green Line (E Heath Street per EQC in Boylston and Huntington Avenues) do run in the roadway, once you get a bit farther out past the MFA.

And in Melbourne nearly all of their streetcars run in non-dedicated lanes. When the trams aren't present, it's a four lane street where the middle lane is mostly used for passing. When it is there it has the right of way. This occurs on major arteries feeding the CBD of Melbourne, and while traffic is a problem at peak periods, it is not disastrous.

Posted by Pat | July 14, 2008 8:19 AM

Sorry, EOC, you'll have to put your Googlefingers on to get that info; all I have is an imperfect memory for anecdote. Doing some googling myself, I came up with 1962 as the last year the DC streetcars ran. As to motives, market forces etc., explaining the decline and fall, you'll have to search that out for yourself too.

Here's a link to an indispensable photo: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/img/media/xl/55.jpg&imgrefurl=http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/image_55.html&h=373&w=480&sz=34&hl=en&start=28&um=1&tbnid=SKaVHz9hB5LkSM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDC%2BStreetcar%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

It may be inspirational to you in your search.

Posted by dugsdale | July 14, 2008 10:09 AM

Just to add: streetcars were an integral part of DC's fabric for so long, it's kind of stunning to read an entire thread in which the idea is treated as a novelty.

As to why it could take 20 years to build, the old system used overhead wires out in the burbs, and in the central city, an embedded hotwire running down an underground conduit between the pair of rails. Beats digging subway tunnels, of course, but not all that cheap or easy to install.

Posted by dugsdale | July 14, 2008 10:29 AM

Further DC localism: I have always assumed that the islands running down both sides of downtown K Street are a relic of a streetcar line. Anybody know if that is true?

Posted by roac | July 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Boston eliminated most of the streetcars that ran in the same lanes as automobiles some while ago (all except part of the E branch of the Green line), and hardly anybody wants to bring them back. For example, according to Wikipedia, service on the outer part of the "E" branch has been "temporarily" suspended since 1985, and I believe that the only reason that it's not officially permanent is that the EPA would want some compensating increase in mass transit elsewhere.

Posted by Peter | July 14, 2008 12:17 PM

Roberto:

I feel your "enrage"--not once, not twice, not three times-but FIVE times your "enrage".

Matt, you totally ruined an opportunity to create a really cute title for this post, dude!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Ella in NM | July 14, 2008 2:26 PM

Sigh. I wish Mt. Vernon Avenue still had streetcars! I feel a little sad every time I see the little trolley on the street signs.

For thirty years, trollies went from Fort Belvoir (then Camp Humphries) via Mount Vernon all the way into DC to Federal Triangle

Also, OT: I am catching up and noticed a post from the other day mentioning the proposed 15 year construction window for rail to Dulles. What MY may not realize is that they were saying that 15 years AGO. I find the whole topic amusing, frankly.

Posted by ajw_93 | July 14, 2008 4:01 PM

I don't understand why we should spend ANY money on Streetcars, when we could instead use that money to expand the DC Metro.

Posted by KTJ | July 14, 2008 6:42 PM