We haven’t talked about streetcars much here lately, although one thread has started to heat up again on Columbus Underground in the past week. I wanted to share an interesting article I read on Human Transit last week though. The author of the blog, Jarrett Walker, is a transit consultant based in Australia. The article begins by arguing that streetcars replacing existing bus lines are not a mobility improvement. Before you get all upset and start commenting, let him explain.
streetcars: an inconvenient truth (final july 7 version)
…Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before. This makes streetcars quite different from most of the other transit investments being discussed today.Where a streetcar is faster or more reliable than the bus route it replaced, this is because other improvements were made at the same time — improvements that could just as well have been made for the bus route. These improvements may have been politically packaged as part of the streetcar project, but they were logically independent, so their benefits are not really benefits of the streetcar as compared to the bus.
I think this gets to the heart of what streetcar opponents dislike about the Columbus streetcar plan and why many transit advocates would still rather see more regional rail lines that actually improve travel times. The streetcar would run and up and down High Street, just like the #2 bus. It doesn’t take you anywhere you can’t already go via transit. It won’t do take you anywhere faster than a bus could if you were to provide the same stop frequency with level boarding and off-board fare payment. But it will cost over $100 Million.
Despite these drawbacks, there ARE benefits of building the streetcar, as acknowledged by Mr. Walker:
* I’m not disputing the ridership benefits of streetcars. Streetcars do attract more ridership than the buses they replace, though it’s not always clear why. There’s an urgent need for more research on how much of the ridership benefits of a streetcar are truly results of intrinsic benefits of the streetcar (such as the ride quality, the legibility provided by tracks in the street, etc) as opposed to results of other improvements introduced at the same time (including speed and reliability improvements, better public information, off-board fare collection, and possible differences in operations culture).
* I’m not saying that streetcars don’t promote urban development; clearly they seem to be doing that, though there’s room for disagreement about how much the development really requires the streetcar.
* I’m not saying that electric streetcars aren’t quieter and more environmentally friendly than diesel buses; clearly they are, but if this is your only reason for wanting streetcars, electric trolleybuses may meet your need less expensively.
* I’m not saying that streetcars aren’t fun to ride. They are.Most important, I’m not saying in the abstract that streetcars are good or bad. I’m saying that they are a major capital expense that requires a justification other than mobility when we compare them to the bus routes they replace, or that could be developed instead. If you want a streetcar because it will make your city a better place, then build it for that reason. If you want a streetcar because of the development it will attract, fine, though this suggests that (as in Portland) the landowners who will benefit when the streetcar raises their property values should probably be one the main sources of the money. But you want a streetcar because it’s intrinsically faster and more reliable than a bus — well, that’s just not true.
So I think this provides some insight into how the argument for the streetcar should be framed by advocates.
- The streetcar needs to be viewed as a supplement to the #2 bus, not as a replacement. Maybe the streetcar can even enhance service on the #2, perhaps by letting it run a little faster through the Campus, the Short North, and Downtown with fewer stops? It could also help provide extra capacity in its larger cars to relieve over-crowding on the #2 in peak periods.
- The streetcar is a first step towards a larger rail system. Much like a White Castle Slider, advocates are hoping that the streetcar creates a crave of delicious transit service that will keep Columbusites waiting in line to get more.
- Rails provide a smoother rides than even state-of-the art buses that I have ridden.
- The streetcar is likely to increase transit ridership. It’s not clear if this is because rail is easier to understand, because it’s marketed better, or because of the smoother ride (see #3), but rail pretty much always attracts more passengers than a bus on the same route. There is an opportunity to get more visitors out of cars and to get them to see more of Columbus since the line goes by destinations like the Convention Center and the Arena District.
- Electrification can provide environmental benefits.
- Most importantly, the streetcar has potential to spur economic development and help create a denser downtown.
I do think that a full alternatives analysis should be considered before building the streetcar. Hopefully this would be included with the engineering study that has yet to take place. If an alternatives analysis has already been done, please let me know. I’d love a link to the report. The studies I’ve seen so far basically justify investment in a streetcar without considering other alternatives. Human Transit warns against this approach:
Let me repeat: my purpose here is not to praise or condemn the streetcar in the abstract. But as a transit planner, I’ve learned to question sweeping claims on behalf of any technology, including a lot of bus technologies. Transit planners are trained to ask a different question: “First, what are we trying to do? Second, what’s the best tool to do it?” I love seeing a house built, so I respect the role of hammers. But if you fall in love with the hammer rather than the house, you’ll just go around looking for nails to pound, and that’s not the way to build the best possible house.
The diversity of transit needs in each city is so great, and geography of each corridor is so different, that the decision about the right mode needs to be made corridor-by-corridor. Portland’s new Streetcar Network Plan does acknowledge this, but the entire scope and definition of the study is still troubling. The question as framed by the study was not “What are our transit needs, and how do we meet them?” Rather, it was framed as “We want streetcars!!! So where do we put them?”
…But when the thinking starts with the love of one technology, you’re in danger of producing an inferior transit service, because when compromise needs to be made, technology-first thinking will tend to sacrifice the goals to save the technology. To use my previous analogy, you’ll build an inferior house because you weren’t really focused on building the house, you were focused on how much you like your hammer.
Two questions seem to come from this post:
What are the transit goals for Columbus?
What type of transit on High Street would best serve those goals?
Does Columbus have definitive answers for these questions yet?
Seems to me that we need to get pro-transit people on the same page before we try to get either light rail or the streetcar built, especially since we’re going to have to convince people to pay for it one way or another.
The closest thing I think you’ll find to a transit goal is COTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan. Here’s an excerpt of the big plans to come:
Some of these goals are very broad and need to be defined more clearly. Which portion of the community needs more frequent and convenient service? Where do they live? Where are these second and third shift jobs located? What exactly does “improved mobility services” mean?
Despite these questions, the broad goals appear to be mostly an expansion of the status quo; more frequent service, more hours of operation, and more routes. If we’re lucky, we’ll get some real-time information and smart cards for fare payment. This is a very realistic and achievable plan, which is good, but it’s not very inspirational. I don’t think many people are excited about the plan. It’s practical, not really visionary.
One of the things I’ve learned from writing this blog is that the train posts get a lot more hits than the bus posts. People want rail and seem to get excited about it. I think it should be part of the long-range plan.
Yeah, John, I’ve read that long-term plan. Great starting points, but not much really going on. Its not well advertised or publicized, and if it were, I don’t think people would get too excited. COTA needs to invest some more money in image. Then again, it needs to invest more money. Period. Sigh.
Always good to read your blog, and thanks for checkin mine out!
CBT
Great streetcar update. I think we’ve not heard much on it lately as it seemed to be getting rolled into the larger Light Rail plan announced back in January. Which we’ve also not heard a lot on lately. Which I would probably chalk up to the fact that so much of it hinges on stimulus money, and that folks at City Hall probably don’t want to be talking about rail development while they’re trying to get a tax increase passed. Lots of opponents of the tax increase are still shouting about the Streetcar as if it were a part of the tax increase plan.
After the economy tanks again sometime between August and October, I think the feds will probably announce a second larger stimulus package. It could be a good opportunity to get funds for the streetcar or some other project. I’m not sure if all that deficit spending is really good for the country, but as Bob Knight once said, “if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”
More on mobility versus access in relation to streetcars here:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/what-i-meant-by-mobility-could-also-be-called-access.html
I love our streetcar in Portland, but learn from our mistakes. Give it its own lane(s), and don’t space the stops too close together. In other words, don’t let it get stuck in traffic, and insist on decent, competitive travel times. Our newest light rail line (not a streetcar) runs through downtown in a lane shared only with buses, and stations are spaced 1,000′ apart – instead of 400′ like our old light rail and streetcar lines. I think this will be ideal. We’ll see when it starts running on Sept 12.
There are many good studies about how it is that small improvements in bus stop curb bumpouts and use of dedicated lane space might improve transit times. Politically, the idea of putting all of one’s community money on a single line should be a no brainer: beneficiaries are only those with their money maker rubbing on the tracks. After the recent interest in light rail in Columbus, I hope the political ‘wurgins’ among us might notice where it is local administrators like to stick their snout.
OK with the bombastic. Improvements in bus transit are not simply a function of putting more buses on the road or replacing a bus with a street car or light rail per se. It’s more a question of travel times relative to traffic flow. Any separation of the two increases transit efficiency. Ideal seperation is by grade so that rail or busways travel above or below all other considerations. Signal priority allows transit vehicles computerized signal preference and thus the ability to cruise along as if hitting every green light in town. Bus stop curbs that are bumped out into the lanes otherwise used by parked cars relieve transit buses the delay of waiting to rejoin traffic (anyone who follows a city bus is a registered dumb ass / Red). This is sometimes best achieved in the middle of a city block and other times by bumping out the curb immediately after an intersection. Hi-way median bus stops allow temporal seperation at left turns. Another low tech strategy involves dedicated ‘bus lanes’ prioritizing traffic for blocks or a few significant yards. Last would be elimination of close stops altogether as occurs with any rail system (who wouldn’t walk a few blocks rather than wait another hour). These changes can make improvements in service without great capital expense and incrementally improve personal mobility over automobile induced poverty. The following groups and institutions are but a few of those offering studies and papers on this and related subjects: Road & Transit Research (google ‘bus lanes’ reference #6, or BNET per topic), University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Transit Studies, American Public Transportation Association, New Jersey Transit Studies, various Urban Transportation groups, and the World Resources Institute, depending on your language abilities. One can only assume OSU doesn’t have a course of study regarding public transit.
Bruce,
OSU offers Urban Public Transportation and other courses related to public transit systems in the civil engineering program. I took them.
If you google Bus Rapid Transit, you will find the following organizations: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, Transportation Research Board of the National Acamedies, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, and the National BRT Institute. The last will include a section ‘Case Studies and Examples’ and relevant among them is Streamline Program Increases Ridership and Reduces Cost (2006), and Vancouver Main Street Busway Improvements (2003). These civic, academic and industry groups discuss the topics of signal priority, lane separation, and improved transit times. The classic 2006 documentary “Congested Streets: Breaking New York City Gridlock” will be shown on Sundance Channel this Sunday at 11:00 am. There is good visual on the BRT separation of bus, bicycle, and automobile traffic flow and some simple advice from a Copenhagen architect and urban planner: “What they have done in this city is they have taken a little step every year for 40 years, and there is a fantastic difference in what it was then and what it is now”.