That's the funniest thing because that's a rare example of conspiracy theory that actually happened, succeeded and shaped cultural perception of trams and public transit in general in one large country.
You probably can't say that what they did was decisive as there were more factors in play but they tried in a covert way and prevented any chance of recovery.
For a dense city having a streetcar is no-brainer. Whatever you pay for planning, building and maintaining light-rail and subsidizing its operation, it will pay for itself in increase in taxes collected from business growing thanks to offloading road network from whole lot of cars, lower traffic, cleaner air and lower necessary car ownership.
All this clean electric car revolution with energy recovery, low number of moving parts and so on, that's happening now, for trams happened 50 or more years ago.
Not to mention streetcars as a possible vehicle (no pun intended) for alternative power plants or fuel sources. Some of the arguments against alternatives for the internal combustion engine fall away if you do not have to deal with the needs that consumer cars have.
> All this clean electric car revolution with energy recovery, low number of moving parts and so on, that's happening now, for trams happened 50 or more years ago.
FWIW, the article disagrees with this reading of the conspiracy.
> While it's true that National City continued ripping up lines and replacing them with buses — and that, long-term, GM benefited from the decline of mass transit — it's very hard to argue that National City killed the streetcar on its own. Streetcar systems went bankrupt and were dismantled in virtually every metro area in the United States, and National City was only involved in about 10 percent of cases.
Still they bought some struggling companies with intention of finishing them off, not saving them because their tech competed with their core tech. And they did it covertly.
The impact they had is probably arguable.
Still, I think that no city in the United States came up with an idea how to benefit from trams, the way European cities did, is a little bit strange.
After all that's the country that hosts biggest ball of twine in the world.
I wonder how in Europe "streetcars" (actually "tramways", I don't think anyone here calls them "streetcars") remained popular. From what I've seen in the US the ones that still are running are relics and are mostly tourist attractions (such as San Francisco).
Meanwhile in places like Berlin or Brussles they look like they're out of some SciFi movie:
Tram or Straßenbahn (streettrain) is correct.
I am from Berlin, if you remove public transit here, the city will collapse tomorrow. The old european cities weren't planned at the drawing board like the us. There are already way to much cars, it would be impossible to handle if everybody had one.
To be fair, though, by the time of German reunification, most of the West Berlin trams had been removed just as in other Western European countries. (West Berlin still had public transport, notably the U-Bahn, but not trams specifically.)
Unified Berlin then inherited a tram network from East Berlin which played well into the post-'90s renaissance of enthusiasm for trams and light rail.
As an SF resident, I can say that every light rail line sees heavy use by locals.
I think oblio is confusing SF's cable cars (historic and almost exclusively used by tourists) with SF's light rail/streetcars (quite modern and used by everyone).
The U.S. has similar systems in a few cities still. Austin, TX (of all places) has a heavy surface metro system that operates like a tram. [1]
Portland, Oregon, largely considered to have one of the best public transit systems in the U.S. has a tram backbone. [2]
The good news is that it looks like streetcars are trying to make a comeback. D.C. is reintroducing streetcar service [3] [4] and has a plan for city-wide service (about 60km worth) [5], a return the old normal [6]
My understanding is that similar programs are getting kick-off across the U.S. as the long realization of how bad things are without them. [7] [8] [9]
I'm personally a bit lukewarm on them. I think many of these systems, especially the longer ones intended as major backbone/commuter routes are mainly "backup" plans forced by cost issues. The city has identified a backbone route that would be well served by a rapid-transit line, but the capital costs to build one are impossible to come up with in the current transit-funding climate, so a light-rail/tram line is built as Plan B. Besides Houston, another example that imo is clearly a case of "should have been rapid transit, but we couldn't afford it" is the Expo line in L.A., to Santa Monica. Santa Monica is becoming a major tech hub and has huge commute problems, but the system being built simply doesn't have the capacity to offload more than a small portion of the current car traffic.
An in-between approach, sometimes called a "light metro", better serves in the commute-backbone role imo: light-rail-like vehicles, but at very high frequency (e.g. every 2-3 minutes) in order to enable the line to provide significant throughput. The Copenhagen Metro is an example of such a system. But running at those headways reliably almost requires a grade-separated right-of-way, which negates a lot of the capital-cost savings of putting in a street-level tram (though it's still somewhat cheaper, because the shorter trains mean smaller stations and a tighter max turning radius).
Seattle has had one streetcar line for some time and is just finishing up a second. What's unclear to me is why. They still suffer from the same problems that the article says led to the fall of streetcars last century: gridlock due to cars makes schedules and ride times unpredictable, same as buses. The Seattle streetcars do carry a few more people than a bus, but it's not a huge difference. From my own observations, the streetcar tracks also present a fairly significant danger to inexperienced cyclists.
We do have an expanding light rail system, which makes a lot more sense as it operates on its own right of way and thus isn't affected by Seattle's terrible car traffic.
The Austin one looks cool. But from what I see it's just 1 line. In crappy old Bucharest, Romania, even though trams are absolutely awful (they're very old and maintenance is... low), the tram network looks like this: http://www.ratb.ro/maps1/Tramvaie.pdf
Keep in mind that we have buses, trolleybuses and subway here, as well, and the metropolitan population of Bucharest isn't much larger than Austin's.
One thing to always keep in mind in U.S. to European city comparisons is that U.S. cities (for better or worse) are more spread out and less dense.
Bucharest is both smaller (~250km^2 vs. 700km^2) and more dense (8,260/km^2 vs 1,065/km^2) than Austin.
It's simply less cost effective to build a system in Austin than in Bucharest. I would imagine that a citizen of Bucharest, transported to Austin, would be surprised that some parts of the city are even considered "city" since it's so low density.
While city areas are somewhat arbitrary, it does impact the raising of capital to support building these systems.
Still, we're slowly relearning lessons our European friends learned a long time ago (and ones that we forgot), new urbanism, smart cities, etc. are all starting to bring people back into city centers, which makes building these kinds of systems more cost effective (and more logical).
Street cars are still around here in the Netherlands. I don't like them for the reasons given in the article: They get stuck in traffic jams (even though they have the right of way). That makes them very slow during traffic hours, even slower than simply biking. A subway system, like the one they have in New York and in London, is superior in every way. They are building a new line in Amsterdam now, which will replace some of the street cars, and I can't wait for them to finish it.
Cars shouldn't be allowed to block trams. If someone does, fine them heavily. I live in Zurich, which has an awesome tram system, and I never get stuck in traffic on a tram.
Overall I like trams much better than subways. There are tram stops every 200 meters, you can hop on and off, you get to see the city instead of a concrete tunnel, and you don't need to drag your kid stroller up and down the fucking stairs.
Cars, on the other hand, suck. It's one thing to have a city with a million people, but it's quite another thing to have a city with a million cars. Suddenly the whole place is paved over, the air is disgusting, and you can't walk anywhere anymore. Sense of freedom, my ass. It's great that Switzerland makes owning and parking a car so expensive.
> Cars shouldn't be allowed to block trams. If someone does, fine them heavily. I live in Zurich, which has an awesome tram system, and I never get stuck in traffic on a tram.
Doesn't work. In Graz Austria one of the lines goes where most traffic is. They cannot change that because it's the only road and people need it. There is not enough space to move the tram away. End result: at 5 when everybody leaves work, the tram takes 30 minutes for something that would otherwise take 5. It's also overcrowded with students at that time because there are not enough trams going as there is not enough space.
They either need to remove the cars or build a subway, there is not much alternative.
An underground railway has a much higher capacity. The Victoria Line in London runs a train every 105 seconds at peak time in each direction, with a design capacity of 864 people per train. (I think that's the most frequent line.)
A long tram, such as Edinburgh's, can carry about 250, and will be slower due to street traffic, junctions, and more frequent stops.
I wonder why not use both underground and trams. A system designed like that could work like a skip list - you take "the tube" to quickly cover big distances, and use trams to cover the last mile or two.
Actually they're doing just that. In essence using high capacity buses on designated tracks, which are physically separated from the road. As a user it feels like a mixture between metro and bus, while being much, much cheaper to implement than a designated metro, or light rail system.
I used it in Lima and was pretty impressed about its efficiency.
The Green line(s) in Boston are like that, underground in a large portion of downtown, up on the street the rest of the way. Some share the way with cars, some use a separate right-of-way: a noticeable difference in travel time and convenience, or at least the perception thereof.
Shared right of way is pretty clearly "deprecated" in Boston these days (considered unpractical, they'll never build another one and they'd be glad to get rid of the one they have).
The two tram routes which have been cut in the last 50 years were both shared-right-of-way and there's only one short piece left.
There's a streetcar line in Toronto that does that, and a light rail system that's currently under construction that will be underground for a portion of the line.
I live in Amsterdam and I agree that a subway system is probably faster and more efficient. However I find the street cars' ride more enjoyable. I don't like the idea of getting into the ground, with nothing to see from your window different than concrete. With the tram, you might take longer, but you can appreciate the beautiful city around you.
Also, stations for a subway systems requires more space, they're much harder to build and they're really expensive.
So I disagree with the idea that subways are superior in every way. Street cars have some advantages as well.
What? Lived in Amsterdam my whole life, only time I get stuck in a tram is when there's an accident (usually a taxi or something) on the track. Cars aren't allowed on tram tracks in 95% of streets where they're on a separate lane. But even then, traffic in the city where trams are is sort of rare, most congestion is on highways where trams obviously aren't a problem.
The trams are certainly not perfect and I like the metro system and look forward to the long overdue noord-zuid, but trams are an important part of the traffic mix, especially in a city in which a new metro line is very difficult.
There are certainly a few notorious streets where the car lane is 80% as wide as it should be, and so cars go on the tram tracks, which can suck during peak hours. But I find that most tracks run on separate heightened tracks completely. If you happen to live in one of these streets and happen to want to take the tram everyday during peak hours I can imagine the frustration. But by and large they're really nice.
You mentioned New York and London, I have to say I get around easier in Amsterdam than I did while I was in these other two cities. That's not to say Trams are amazing, but again, the traffic mix is really nice here in my opinion and trams are a part of that story. And compared to London its pretty affordable, too.
The situation is fairly interesting: In the old eastern part streetcars still exist, while they were dismantled in the old western parts. I notice that the streetcar fills an important role in the transport network: It's faster, more reliable and higher capacity than buses but still cheaper and with a more dense network than subway or light rail. It efficiently bridges the gap and provides access to to areas that are less well connected by the large lines. Reaching those areas in East Berlin is a breeze, reaching them in West Berlin a pain. Street cars usually don't share the roads though.
In some german citys, streetcar tracks are separated from the carways, at least in the city centers - separated in a way that a car gets damaged if they try to violate the separation.
Taking into account that a subway is so much more expensive to build than streetcar tracks, that driving in bright light outside is more enjoyable than driving underground and probably, that we want cars to stay out of the cities as much as possible, streetcars are great, imho. More comfortable than busses for sure.
Streetcars work fine enough in Rotterdam. Is your experience limited to Amsterdam city centre? The metro live you speak of had been heavily delayed and way over budget. I prefer metro lines, but that's because I can more readily figure out where it's going and how.
Here in Minneapolis, the streetcar was killed by the Duluth Bus Company (DuPont/GM). The governor lost his job when he got caught taking kickbacks from the below market sale of the steel from the lines, which was organized by Meyer Lansky & Isadore "Kid Kann" Blumenfeld.
The MRTC was then taken over by the then president of Marquette bank, a one Carl Pohlad, who's offspring own the local MLB franchise.
Many of the MRTC cars ran in Mexico City for many years, the rest were burned. There is one 1/4mi long museum line by lake Harriet remaining (worth a visit). Meyer & Blumenfeld retired together and ran real estate scams until they died in the early 80s.
The cable cars are purely a tourist attraction. Waiting times can exceed an hour, so nobody uses them to commute. The rest of SF Muni is a joke. Average fleet speed is 8mph and has been declining. On one Sunday workout, I outran an express line from its start to finish. Anyone on a bicycle can beat Muni in price, speed, and convenience. The situation would be comical if it didn't cost taxpayers $800 million per year.
These days we mostly have a combination of a few places connected to BART/Muni, and the rest handled by buses and trolleybuses, which are in general incredibly slow, because they get stuck in car traffic and make frequent long stops to load and unload passengers. There are a couple of cable cars, and one restored streetcar line, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Market_%26_Wharves, but they’re mostly kept that way as tourist attractions and curiosities.
Toronto still has a fairly extensive streetcar network. A few former routes have been closed, but that's mostly because they were replaced by Subway lines. The Streetcar network was expanded as recently as the 1990s.
The reasons sound very compelling, but I think one reason is missing. I would suggest that the main reason streetcars survived in many cities in Europe, but not in the USA is:
Here in Europe, public transport is not done by privately owned companies, but by the Cities themselves. So the city is very interested in keeping them running.
And it can also keep the fares low by tax subsidies. For example, here in Linz (AT), I only pay €285,00 instead of €444,34 for an annual ticket, because the city of Linz pays the rest for its residents.
The article pointed out that the issue was because of the fare lock-ins, not because they were private. Do you realize how ridiculous 5 cents is, even for 1920? That's like 59 cents in todays buying power.
Even the subsidized 285 Euro price you pay for a yearly pass could have afforded multiple rides nearly every day paying per ride at those rates.
They were stupid enough to do it to the companies, there is little reason to believe they wouldn't have caved to the same political pressure from constituents to keep the prices low if they were operating it.
Austria also lost lots of streetcars to the cars and so did many other cities in Europe. A big reason for that was the switch to the right for traffic. As there were alternatives there was sometimes no reason to keep the trams.
People are openly wondering why people in developing countries want to keep on cooking with dirty smoky stoves while there would be easy to use better cleaner alternatives.
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-toilets/
Reminds me of the switch from streetcars to cars - who in their right mind would want to start polluting the city? Maybe back then the air quality was atrocious anyway because of all the inner city industry and heating.
Sure, and so do probably the US. There is no denying however that lines were lost after the war all over the world for different reasons.
Austria currently has streetcars in Graz, Linz, Vienna, Gmunden and Innsbruck. The only lines that is growing are Linz?
On the other hand we lost Baden, Dornbirn-Lustenau, Ebelsberg-St. Florian, Klagenfurt, Salzburg, St. Pölten, Unterach–See and Ybbs. Most of them to buses and cars.
And in Edinburgh, no wait they don't, yes they do. Eh no, they don't.
(Joke explainer for the non-Scots: Edinburgh began building a street-car (tram) system some years ago, massively over budget and a huge political mess, it is now as good as shelved. There is one tram but it doesn't move, but you can look at it if you want to).
Actually, the Edinburgh trams line opened about a year ago. Hugely delayed, a shorter line than planned and massively over budget, but they're actually running trams on it now.
I may as well reply somewhat late to say the final route goes from the airport to York Place, which isn't even the complete phase 1. Or the complete Phase 1a. They basically seem to have reached to the point where the route linked the airport to the main train station and decided to call it a day.
Toronto is one of the rare North American cities that has both a functional metro and street cars with significant coverage. Not that both don't have their detractors, and the city (or rather the GTA, which includes a lot of commuter suburbs) can't make up it's mind about scaling them up or down.
Having a transit backbone infrastructure like this changes the nature of a city, I think.
A friend of mine has a rather compelling theory that the principle of streetcars is going to make it's re-entry in the future, in a slightly different form though: self-driving cars which are shared in a on demand (cars owned by private or public companies)/carpool-like (private owners sharing their car) way.
The self-driving aspect makes it a bit similar to a streetcar in that it should not deviate from the road, as does the on demand aspect: in it's glory days in city centers they were everywhere close to you at regular times so you'd never had to wait long before before one was available.
Anyway, whether one finds it similar to streetcars or not, the most compelling about such system is that it would, together with a mentility change away from 'car is king', probably be able to get rid of a lot of traffic jams and more importantly all the problems they pose. Because it basically is a form of decentralized (must be good, right :P) public transport which is lacking now in most countries and cities: something which can get you from A to B at any time of the day or night without requiring walking/cycling to intermediate points where you then have to wait for your bus/train/.. to arrive.
There are a number of differences between what streetcars do and what you mention.
The streetcars I'm most familiar with are directly connected to the power grid through overhead lines, and are on rails. Cars would need batteries as private cars won't have a pantograph, or fuel. In either case, there are more things that can break in a fleet of smaller vehicles, so maintenance is higher. Cars also use rubber wheels on pavement, rather than steel wheels on rails, so have higher rolling friction.
Streetcars can also handle a high density of passengers. This is important for rush hour, when the load is high. A streetcar has about 3x the capacity of a similarly sized bus, which is in turn much higher than passenger vehicles. In turn, as the article points out, streetcars are best when they have dedicated right-of-way, which allows a higher throughput and predictable latency compared to cars, which are more subject to gridlock. Also, the improved capacity feeds back on itself when people build high-density (eg, 5 story buildings instead of single family houses) along streetcar corridors.
The more recent streetcars are also better designed for a wide variety of users. For example, some of the ones I know have a platform which is only slightly above the curb level. This makes it easier for a parent pushing a stroller, or someone with difficulties walking, or on a wheelchair, to enter the streetcar unassisted. The same is not true of most cars.
Finally, there are some environmental difference. A personal vehicle has the advantage of not sharing space with strangers. It has the disadvantage that you and your 9 friends can't all travel together. And a streetcar is usually a much smoother ride; a friend get nauseous after 10 minutes as a passenger in cars and buses, but not in streetcars.
So while what your friend says is true, there are other factors which make it less compelling.
I live in Boston where our subway transit system still has a branch of streetcars. The points about passenger density and right-of-way are spot on. Actually the only thing that holds up the streetcars are when drivers are acting stubborn and entitle themselves to right-of-way...or when mother nature dumps 3 feet of snow on the city and the old transit system can't keep up.
But everyone still uses the streetcar system because you can get from point A to B, no matter if B is half a mile or 5 miles away, for one fee of $2.10 vs ride-sharing or taxis which accumulate charges over time and distance.
> something which can get you from A to B at any time of the day or night without requiring walking/cycling to intermediate points where you then have to wait for your bus/train/.. to arrive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...
You probably can't say that what they did was decisive as there were more factors in play but they tried in a covert way and prevented any chance of recovery.
For a dense city having a streetcar is no-brainer. Whatever you pay for planning, building and maintaining light-rail and subsidizing its operation, it will pay for itself in increase in taxes collected from business growing thanks to offloading road network from whole lot of cars, lower traffic, cleaner air and lower necessary car ownership.
All this clean electric car revolution with energy recovery, low number of moving parts and so on, that's happening now, for trams happened 50 or more years ago.