The response of Sacramento streetcar advocates to voter rejection of their pet project reminds me of a little boy who has a temper tantrum when he doesn’t get the expensive Christmas present he wants. Like the little boy, it apparently never occurs to the streetcar crowd that the extraordinarily high cost of their scheme was too much for taxpayers to support. Instead, they act like they are entitled to the streetcar, and anyone who doesn’t want to help pay for something they will never use is just a grinch.
Building a streetcar requires tearing up perfectly good pavement that can be used by cars, trucks, and buses and inserting tracks. The cost of one mile of streetcar line can be more than the cost of a mile of a suburban four-lane freeway, yet the streetcar will never move more than 2 or 3 percent as many passenger miles per day as that freeway.
The streetcars themselves have fewer seats than a standard, 40-foot bus, yet cost nearly ten times as much and occupy more street space and so contribute more to congestion. Analysts predicted that a proposed streetcar in Anaheim would reduce the capacity of the streets to move cars by four times as much as the number of cars it would take off the road.
The Antiplanner has shown that streetcars also cost twice as much to operate as buses, which would be fine if they carried twice as many people. But most streetcar lines carry fewer riders, on average, than the average number of riders on buses in the same cities.
Then there is the claim that streetcars promote economic development, a claim first made by officials in my former home town of Portland, Oregon. What those officials don’t say is that they routed the streetcar line through three urban redevelopment districts and then spent more than $500 million in tax-increment finance subsidies to help developers build along the line in those districts.
So, if the product did not satisfy you, probably there was not enough sexual stimulation. levitra consultation * The pill has its limitations to dosage. You need to consult your doctor properly that is any of these symptoms progresses or becomes intolerable then seeing a doctor is sure about your condition, then it will be easier best viagra in uk to fight the problem. In some generic viagra cheap cases, beta blockers side effects include diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, and vomiting. It’s advised to order viagra overnight not have Sildenafil Citrate if the individual is without a doubt living with bowel as well as memorable sex of their life. Among the subsidies were the construction of several public parking garages along the streetcar line. More than 7,000 new parking spaces were built to serve businesses like Whole Foods, after which the city implausibly argued that those businesses only located next to the parking garages because of the streetcar line.
The Portland streetcar also went through one Northwest Portland neighborhood that was not a redevelopment district and received no development subsidies. Years later, streetcar proponents could find almost no new developments in that neighborhood, at least no more than would ordinarily be expected to take place over the course of a decade. It was subsidies, not streetcars, the stimulated the new development in the other districts.
Ironically, the Portland streetcar and the subsidized housing along its route have contributed to a decline in transit commuting. Former transit riders who moved next to the streetcar quickly realized that the streetcar was slower than walking, so they now walk and bicycle to work.
According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, between 2008 and 2013, Portland gained 21,500 new jobs. About half drive to work and many of the rest bicycle and walk to work. The number of transit commuters, however, declined by more than 1,000.
The surge in bicycle commuting has created a huge safety hazard. A survey of more than 1,500 Portland cyclists found that two out of three have suffered accidents when their wheels were caught in the streetcar tracks.
So this is what Sacramento can expect if it builds a streetcar: increased traffic congestion; inferior transit service; huge subsidies to developers (or no new development); and safety hazards for cyclists, all at a cost that would be many times greater than simply running buses along the same route. No wonder voters rejected the plan.
“So this is what Sacramento can expect if it builds a streetcar: increased traffic congestion; inferior transit service; huge subsidies to developers (or no new development)…”
You can stop right there. As far as I’ve noticed, when you get down to the nitty gritty fine print almost every streetcar project is about real estate development and subsidy. I’ve actually had streetcar advocates look me in the eye and say “It’s not about mobility, it’s about getting the land use we want.” Not paraphrasing or embellishing.
It’s also a token project, kind of like the things you can put resources toward in Sid Meier’s “Civilization,” a simulation game where you can build famous monuments to add prestige to your city and civilization.
Streetcars, in addition to changing land use, look real purdy on postcards, tourist brochures, television ads and shows, and posters at the airport. Certainly some base their decision to travel to a city solely on whether or not that city has a streetcar. Certainly that is worth tens of millions of dollars.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Like the little boy, it apparently never occurs to the streetcar crowd that the extraordinarily high cost of their scheme was too much for taxpayers to support. Instead, they act like they are entitled to the streetcar, and anyone who doesn’t want to help pay for something they will never use is just a grinch.
Frank wrote:
Streetcars, in addition to changing land use, look real purdy on postcards, tourist brochures, television ads and shows, and posters at the airport. Certainly some base their decision to travel to a city solely on whether or not that city has a streetcar. Certainly that is worth tens of millions of dollars.
Let’s ignore the stated benefits and the costs of streetcars for a moment.
Streetcars are about as much about the Good Old Days (or “restoring” areas where there were once streetcars) as they are about any purported benefits. Never mind that the Good Old Days were not always so good.
Like it or not, we cannot go backward in time, but that is ultimately what promoters of streetcar (and other urban passenger rail projects, be they streetcar, light rail or heavy rail) are frequently about.
I’ve actually had streetcar advocates look me in the eye and say “It’s not about mobility, it’s about getting the land use we want.” Not paraphrasing or embellishing.
I don’t doubt that you’ve heard that from the streetcar salesmen. What always surprises me is that they can’t seem to conceive of any other way, including many less costly ways, to get “the land use we want”.
From the rejection link:
Funny, that. Typical, lard-a$$ bureaucrat blaming those stupid, stupid people who wouldn’t be led by the nose.
Works for New Orleans
Works for New Orleans
Define “works”.
“The project is clearly a good, strong project that will have tremendous benefit for years and years,” RT General Manager Mike Wiley said Wednesday. “It’s unfortunate a small number of people didn’t see the value.”
If he describes the majority of voters who voted “no” on this project as “small”, then I wonder how he’d describe the number of people who voter in favor of it.
Well MJ, I’m sure a “supermajority” of those who would benefit from its construction voted in favor of it.