Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Streetcars are a catalyst--they magnify the effects of other ongoing projects. They work best in conjunction with redevelopment efforts, and make those dollars better-spent. Historically they were built just before suburban subdivisions, before public-funded roads and highways put private streetcar companies out of business. They make developers more comfortable with spending because there is concrete evidence of a city's dedication to a transit system--they are less flexible than buses, but far more permanent. People get that same sense of permancence, too--even in Sacramento, when people talk about "transit" they are primarily talking about light rail, because the stations and tracks are solid, prominent and permanent. They may not like it--but they know where the light rail station is. Bus stops are ephemeral: a post with a sign, and maybe a bench to sit on, that can disappear next week.
Take a look at some other cities that put in streetcars: Little Rock, or Tampa. Look at the F line in San Francisco for clear evidence of how people like streetcars more than buses: I have seen people let buses go past on Market so they can get on one of the historic streetcars. Even non-historic streetcars tend to draw more positive attention than buses--people just seem to like them.
As to Detroit, forgetting downtown Detroit's other obvious problems, that streetcar line is little more than a glorified carnival ride--a one-mile run from one part of downtown to another, running on 3' wide narrow-gauge track. It's cute, but cuteness is not an inherent property of streetcars. They have to perform a useful function--does a 1-mile line in downtown Detroit serve commuters or downtown residents? If not, no wonder it went under.
That "cycle track" idea is fantastic--I'd love to see that done on Midtown's two-lane conversions like L, Q and R, where bikes and pedestrians often have to share the sidewalk even though there are technically bike lanes, because the bike lane can seem nearly suicidal between weaving cars and randomly-opening car doors. Although I'm now kind of obsessed with the idea of turning K Street into a "bike boulevard," with a connector around the Memorial Auditorium so bike riders can continue onto the K Street mall, where the ban on bikes is about to be lifted.
I'm not even going to dignify that Cato Institute report with a response. Don't go all Joel Kotkin on me now!
To be totally honest, I never found the notion that building streetcars as a concrete argument of commitment to transit that persuasive. Most cities in the US had streetcars before WW2. Then they got rid of them. If it happened once, it could happen again. In fact it has happened, Detroit got rid of its most recent streetcar line. More importantly the region has built out an extensive system of light rail lines, and that hasn't done much to revitalize the areas next to those light rail station. Presumably a light rail station is an equally strong commitment to transit in the area. The K-street mall has a light rail running through it and I suspect you can find more people who think light rail on K-street contributes more to problems on K Street than it helps to revitalize it.
In SF when the they rolled out the F Line, there were a couple of other things going on. First, the F street line streetcar lines got placed in the median strip along the Embarcadero. When you put the segregated the streetcars from traffic, you allowed them to move through traffic much faster than the buses along the Embarcadero that they replaced. What we don't know is what would have happened if they ran the buses along the median in the Embarcadero instead. When buses get there own protected bus lanes (ala bus rapid transit) we also see an increase in the ridership along those routes too.
Secondly and probably much more importantly, the freeway that used to be along the Embarcadero was removed after it collapsed during the Loma Prieta Earthquake. That freeway pretty much separated a large part of the ocean front from the rest of SF. If the submerged section of I-5 was capped, I am sure that would make the entire part of the river front in Sacramento a much more appealing place for tourists as well.
Again is the causal agent here the introduction of streetcars or is it the opening up of the waterfront by removing the freeway and the mobility improvement caused by moving the streetcars into the median? To me the argument just isn't settled.
The reason I bring it up is the places this region is considering introducing streetcars. There is some talk to bringing streetcars to Rancho Cordova and possibly even running a streetcar out to the Sunrise Mall. West Sac passed a sales tax increase to fund a streetcar line from West Sac through downtown. Lastly there was some scuttlebutt about running a streetcar line out to Cal Expo if the arena for the Kings was built out at Cal Expo.
There is an assumption that if you build streetcars in an area, it causes a redevelopment boom in that area. But there are examples like San Pedro where streetcars were introduced, but no building boom followed.
What I would like to see is a better demonstration of why streetcars succeed and fail and what are the important criteria for the ones that succeed.
The areas in Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights and Cal Expo never previously had a streetcar line running through them. Is running a streetcar through a neighborhood that previous never had a streetcar going to suddenly pedestrianize them? Honestly I have my doubts. The current light rail system really hasn't done much to change land use patterns along Folsom Blvd.
The Detroit and San Pedro lines were ran along previous Street car routes and again they didn't succeed. I suspect the reason West Sac is spending so much money on streetcars is they want to pedestrianize West Capitol and its my understanding that neighborhood at one time did have a street car. But West Sac has been pretty thoroughly remade for the convenience of autos. While Majin seemed to open to getting rid of zoning, this was an opinion shared by only me and Majin alone. I think everyone else pretty much is more along the preserve zoning, preserve parking, fear change mode. Given that the existing building stock along West Capitol tends to be behind deep parking lots. I am wondering if this is going to be another San Pedro Line.
If the people in West Sac are paying a sales tax to support a streetcar line that isn't sparking much redevelopment in West Sac, how long are they going to be willing to keep funding this line?
I am not saying that streetcars will always be a bad idea. They might in fact turn out to actually be a good idea. But I have seen some areas where the streetcars really haven't caused a redevelopment boom and before the region puts a lot of money into streetcars, I want to get a better sense of first whether they actually do cause redevelopment and if so in which situations they cause redevelopment and second if they even cause an increase in transit ridership and if so in what situations do they actually increase transit ridership.
There are some negatives with streetcars particularly in downtown Sacramento. Streetcars require above ground wires and Sacramento has an extensive tree canopy. In Rancho Cordova along Folsom Blvd, you can see what pruning the sycamores to protect the light rail lines has done to the tree canopy there. Second I think the presence of light rail tracks along K Street is one of the things that makes K Street a less inviting place to window shop. When you are walking along the K Street Mall, instead of being distracted by the window displays you are watching to make sure you aren't ran down by light rail vehicles. Is a streetcar going to make things better or worse? If a streetcar really does makes things better in which situations does it really work?
If streetcars really does cause a massive building boom along the routes it might be worth some sacrafice. But if it doesn't, I think people will be wondering what they heck were they thinking? Why didn't they just use the bus? It can take a good 25 years to get a good tree canopy back.
kim racer: Thanks for the complete list of worst-case scenarios regarding streetcars, and your total misinterpretation of my own opinions about zoning. I like some of the links you post, but you seem to misunderstand a lot of them. There are things that streetcars are good for, and things they aren't good for. I totally agree that streetcars aren't good for the things they aren't good for, which pretty much responds to your entire post. It's the things streetcars are good for that I'm talking about, and you're doing a lot of dancing around that.
Streetcars work well in conjunction with mixed-use, street-front development, the kind with cars in the back or little or no parking. While I'm still not sold on your "no zoning" idea, the fact that it is possible to create mixed-use zones while not abandoning the concept of zoning kind of flies in the face of your argument--there is nothing inherent about the idea of zoning that requires putting parking lots in front.
West Sacramento's streetcar line hasn't spurred a lot of development because it has not been built yet. It's okay if you are skeptical, but don't draw your conclusions yet.
Finally: Streetcars and light rail are not the same thing. They work differently and have different effects. A lot of confusion occurs when people can't tell the difference.
kim racer: Thanks for the complete list of worst-case scenarios regarding streetcars, and your total misinterpretation of my own opinions about zoning. I like some of the links you post, but you seem to misunderstand a lot of them. There are things that streetcars are good for, and things they aren't good for. I totally agree that streetcars aren't good for the things they aren't good for, which pretty much responds to your entire post. It's the things streetcars are good for that I'm talking about, and you're doing a lot of dancing around that.
Streetcars work well in conjunction with mixed-use, street-front development, the kind with cars in the back or little or no parking. While I'm still not sold on your "no zoning" idea, the fact that it is possible to create mixed-use zones while not abandoning the concept of zoning kind of flies in the face of your argument--there is nothing inherent about the idea of zoning that requires putting parking lots in front.
Its not going into neighborhoods with a lot of street front development. Its going into a neighborhood with Safeway/Big Lots minimall across the street from a Raley's based minimall. Its not going into the type of neighborhood with the types of characteristics that you think streetcars tend to succeed in. If you look at the stops, the most noticable feature is the huge free parking lots out in front and the development far from the street front.
Second I think the current zoning is a huge impediment to change. The current development is the consequence of the current zoning. Grocery stores have mandatory minimum parking requirements. I suspect the motels on West Capitol have mandatory minimum parking requirements. I suspect that there minimum set back requirements.
For all the reasons stated by people who don't want to get rid of zoning, you are going to have people fighting any zoning change. Zoning is a tool used to lock in/justify the status quo. "Its going to create a traffic nightmare, what about parking, I don't want them to remove minimum parking requirements on that development because people will be parking in front of my house." Because the benefits of zoning are so oversold, they are extremely reluctant to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
West Sacramento's streetcar line hasn't spurred a lot of development because it has not been built yet. It's okay if you are skeptical, but don't draw your conclusions yet.
Fair enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Finally: Streetcars and light rail are not the same thing. They work differently and have different effects. A lot of confusion occurs when people can't tell the difference.
Again, I find that argument less persuasive. If anything I see a light rail stop a bigger show of city commitment to transit at a location than a streetcar. The light rail stop was a lot more expensive to build. Its a lot more expensive to move (have to spend more money reroute utilities under a light rail line, than a streetcar line). Most of the bus lines in the area feed into light rail. In terms of pedestrian counts, you have a lot higher guaranteed minimum number of pedestrians in front of light rail station than in front of the streetcar line.
I never want to see Sacramento turn into Tokyo. Yikes. It would be interesting to have better control of the overrun theft in that city. It's not even a large metro and I don't know how many times my friends and family would experience theft.
Its not going into neighborhoods with a lot of street front development. Its going into a neighborhood with Safeway/Big Lots minimall across the street from a Raley's based minimall. Its not going into the type of neighborhood with the types of characteristics that you think streetcars tend to succeed in. If you look at the stops, the most noticable feature is the huge free parking lots out in front and the development far from the street front.
Second I think the current zoning is a huge impediment to change. The current development is the consequence of the current zoning. Grocery stores have mandatory minimum parking requirements. I suspect the motels on West Capitol have mandatory minimum parking requirements. I suspect that there minimum set back requirements.
For all the reasons stated by people who don't want to get rid of zoning, you are going to have people fighting any zoning change. Zoning is a tool used to lock in/justify the status quo. "Its going to create a traffic nightmare, what about parking, I don't want them to remove minimum parking requirements on that development because people will be parking in front of my house." Because the benefits of zoning are so oversold, they are extremely reluctant to change it.
You suspect a lot, but aren't producing a whole lot of evidence. West Sacramento is making changes to suit the new situation--the new community center and city hall on West Capitol, at the planned terminus of the streetcar line, are street-facing buildings with the parking in the back. This is done specifically in anticipation of streetcar construction, but the real investment (private vs. public) comes after the lines are in. In other cities, such as Portland, being adjacent to streetcar lines meant greatly reduced or eliminated parking requirements.
Simply getting rid of parking requirements without providing transit alternatives IS bad news for a neighborhood--it means a car-dependent neighborhood becomes an underparked car-dependent neighborhood. Providing transit alternatives first (and yes, this can include bike infrastructure as well as public transit in its various forms) gives an outlet--an alternative that means parking requirements can be lowered without an impact on livability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim racer
Again, I find that argument less persuasive. If anything I see a light rail stop a bigger show of city commitment to transit at a location than a streetcar. The light rail stop was a lot more expensive to build. Its a lot more expensive to move (have to spend more money reroute utilities under a light rail line, than a streetcar line). Most of the bus lines in the area feed into light rail. In terms of pedestrian counts, you have a lot higher guaranteed minimum number of pedestrians in front of light rail station than in front of the streetcar line.
It sounds like rail is a no-win scenario with you, kim racer: you have argued that you don't like light rail because it is too expensive, now you don't like streetcars because they aren't expensive enough! But think about it: A streetcar line has the permanence of rail at a fraction of the expense. The physical plant is considerably less, especially when using a low-floor car that doesn't need boarding ramps for wheelchairs or bikes. And that's important: buses have to carry bikes on a rack in front of the bus, a low-floor streetcar with an open section in the middle allows several bikes to just roll on inside and roll back off. That's why streetcars and bikes are a good combination.
The "Human Transit" post you linked to mentioned an important thing: consumer choice. People tend to like streetcars more than buses, either because they're more comfortable to ride or more permanent, but on matter what, they tend to like them. People drive cars because they like them too. So if we're trying to find alternatives to cars, doesn't it behoove us to use alternatives that people like, instead of strictly using the lowest-cost option, in order to better attract choice riders?
The other half of the F-Line goes all the way down Market, with the traffic and the normal buses and is still quite popular. It is very slow on that section, but it serves the purpose of talking you short distances of a half mile or mile. A lot of people get on at lower Market and off at upper Market, skipping the blighted Mid Market area. Keeping in mind, this path is served by a subway, buses, Bart, Taxis and people still use the street car (locals mind you.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My vision for Sacramento
Now I think I like you! 
