Trolley should be built the way it originally was...

bastiat · PostFeb 09, 2006#12006-02-09T00:27+00:00

...By private companies.

People on this forum seem to take for granted that the most successful transportation systems were generally built by private companies. This includes the New York subway and St. Louis' trolleys.

Rather than focus on tax increases that stifle economic growth, we should look for ways that the city could grant trolley companies the ability to build tracks on streets. Under private leadership, we would not hear about "cost overruns" and much less likely hear about delays because the people building it would have their money on the line. This is economics 101. Private street car companies would have more incentive to run efficient cars with good employees and clean cars for less money. If they didn't, then they would lose customers which equals money out of their own pocket. On the otherhand, bureaucrats running the line would have no personal financial stake in the success or failure of the line and would only have to ask the government for more operating money if they operated at a loss.

Not only that, but I imagine that the builders of these lines would also have considerable incentive to make the neighborhoods surrounding the line desirable places and would invest in considerable rehab and infill projects. A historical example of this is Davis Place in Clayton. The builder of this neighborhood was also a stockholder in the trolley line that ran down Wydown and right up to the piece of land that Davis Place is situated on (I read this in the book about the history of Clayton). I am sure that this is not the only example. Imagine if a company got the rights to run a trolley to Old North Saint Louis through the 14th street mall. Stockholders and owners would be the first to invest in the rehab of the commercial buildings lining the street.

Building a trolley line would cost a lot of money, but Joe Edwards has already raised a lot of private money for the Delmar line. If the company issued stocks a lot of residents and business owners would buy those stocks because it would mean a lot more business, convienence, and property value increases.

We tried this before and ended up with one of the world's largest trolley systems, why wouldn't it work this time?

dutchtowner · PostFeb 09, 2006#22006-02-09T01:07+00:00

Unless there is some obscure law, there is no reason this shouldn't happen. Except, of course, that no one with any capital has been interested in doing what you propose.

I certainly would prefer for the market to take the initiative, and I generally agree that private companies would run mass transit systems more efficiently. But sometimes, the market is apathetic and falible. When it is, I don't think people should simply throw up their hands because market forces would rather have us all live in Wentzville.

Also, we shouldn't forget that the salad days of private streetcar operators were also a period of rampant political corruption, often aided by those very same private companies and other contract firms.

ucityman · PostFeb 09, 2006#32006-02-09T01:38+00:00

only if highways stop recieving the funding they do, because while your idea is good, it doesn't stand a chance when other competing projects are getting so much funding already.

brickandmortar · PostFeb 09, 2006#42006-02-09T02:21+00:00

I'm sorry, but by that logic roads should be built the way they used to be...by private companies. The first coast to coast highway in the US, the Lincoln Highway, was started using private donations from individuals as well as philonthropic donations from Goodyear Tire and Packard. Eventually the feds became interested in the road business starting with the 1916 Federal-Aid Road Act which established their partnership with states that continues today.

Streetcar lines were taxed by the City of St. Louis and as the tracks and streetcars aged it eventually became too much of a burden for the many companies that ran the streetcars. Eventually many went broke or consolidated. The Bi-State Development Agency is what ultimately came out of the consolidation. Busses weren't taxed to drive on the road(although indirectly thru fuel taxes) which is what made them take over as the main mass transit in our country.

Federal policy after World War II, especially 1956 was to build the interstate network we have today. Originally designed to eliminate the massive gridlock in cities created by the automobile, the demand has overwhelmed the ability to keep up. There is simply not enough land to continue expansion especially in developed areas.

Streetcars were built out the original suburbs (i.e. Clayton) to spur development. These were built privately to suit people's desire to escape the hustle and bustle of the city. Profit was certainly a motive, but when the feds began to dictate road policy, the motive was lost. I see it as no coincidence that the last street cars here ran 10 years following the interstate's conception.

Can we rebuild the streetcars as they were previously? Sure, but it will cost a lot more money than it would if they were being built into greenfields. That is where incentives would come into play for rebuilding streetcar lines whether it is federal match or private sector donations.

The cost of rebuilding Hwy 40 would certainly be lower if there were no constraints surrounding it(i.e Richmond Hts residential, Forest Park, Eager Rd.)

Ultimately, I'd like to see a private/public consortium of roads. Chicago recently sold its Skyway to a European conglomeration for $1.8 billion.

From the Chicago skyway website:

In a transaction that gave the City of Chicago a $1.83 billion dollar cash infusion, the Skyway Concession Company, LLC* (SCC) will assume operations on the Skyway on a 99-year operating lease. SCC will be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs of the Skyway but has the right to all toll and concession revenue. This agreement between SCC and the City of Chicago is the first privatization of an existing toll road anywhere in the United States.

Maybe you are on to something.

marmar · PostFeb 09, 2006#52006-02-09T03:55+00:00

Yes! There's been talk of privatizing our interstates, too. I think you've got a great idea, bastiat...sounds MUCH more sensible than what has become traditional funding of transportation to me.

doug · PostFeb 09, 2006#62006-02-09T14:29+00:00

Privitization of the infrastructure? I would support this but I think the government should at least match private dollars. I view one of the governments sole responsibilites as providing a good infrastructure, however, since Missouri is not really providing a 'good' one, I would support private developments if tax dollars would match private dollars.

markofucity · PostFeb 09, 2006#72006-02-09T16:33+00:00

personally - I don't care who puts up the money. I just want them built. But I must agree with some of the sentiments on this forum. Private funding would be preferable, sure - but given the cost at th emoment I think they would at leats need some subsidaztion.

southslider · PostFeb 09, 2006#82006-02-09T16:53+00:00

Trolleys are increasingly popular but realistically, trolleys are the least cost-effective form of transit. Still, trolleys, in limited applications, can be used as an economic development tool, but to do so, you need a commitment from the local community for increased density and mixed uses with strong pedestrian design.

From Otis White's blog, "Urban Notebook":

The Joy of a Short, Slow Ride

In Love with Trolleys

What is the deal with trolleys? Every city, it seems, is suddenly crazy about streetcars. On the surface, this makes no sense. They?re an antiquated form of transportation (most cities ripped up their streetcar lines by the 1950s), they?re slow (top speed: 5 miles an hour), stop at nearly every corner and run along lines that average only two and a half miles in length. So who wants to go for a short, slow ride?

Before we answer that, some definitions: Actually, the proper name is streetcar, although most people prefer calling them trolleys. These short, squat rail cars run on electricity, usually from overhead wires. (The poles connecting the cars to the wires are trolley poles, which is where the more popular name comes from.) Streetcars are different from light rail in a number of ways: They?re slower, shorter (both in length of vehicle and route) and almost always run on streets, unlike light rail which sometimes runs on dedicated rights of way. Oh, and there are no stations. If you want to board a streetcar, you stand next to the streetcar sign or just wave at the conductor, although many streetcars are so slow you can just hop aboard as it passes.

In the early 20th century, nearly every city, large and small, had streetcar lines. Starting in the 1930s and continuing through the 1950s, cities shut them down in favor of the more flexible, more seemingly modern diesel buses. (General Motors played a role in this, buying up streetcar systems in some cities. But even had GM not given its push, streetcars were dying out after World War II.)

And now they?re back. It?s hard to make an exact count, since the difference between light rail and streetcar systems can be fuzzy, but there are at least 20 cities with streetcar lines and double that number with systems on the drawing boards. (Notable places with new streetcar lines: Tampa, Memphis and Charlotte) Big cities, too, are fascinated by streetcars. There are serious proposals to bring streetcars back to Atlanta and Seattle.

Why? There seem to be three motivations: the belief that cute, clanging trolleys will help with tourism, the idea that they?re a great form of ?circulator transit? (where people move from one side of a business district or college campus to another), and the notion that they allow for greater residential density in in-town neighborhoods as people hop on the streetcar for a short ride downtown. There?s a fourth motivation: People just plain like them, in the same way they like Art Deco architecture or antique automobiles ? as nostalgia.

But are any of these motivations good, rational reasons for spending millions to lay track, string overhead wires and buy antique streetcars? Yes, but only if the streetcar line is built as part of a larger plan of development (which, come to think of it, is how all transportation should be built).

Portland, Ore., showed how to do this when it built a streetcar line to connect two nearby neighborhoods with downtown. Part of the deal: Developers in these areas had to build much greater densely than they had planned. (On one tract, the city boosted zoning from 15 units per acre to 125.) The density and the streetcar worked hand in hand: More people on the street meant more riders; the streetcar line, in turn, meant less parking was needed, so more housing could be built. Important side benefit: The streetcar and the resulting density helped create one of Portland?s liveliest downtown neighborhoods.

Tampa, alas, showed how not to do it. The 2.5-mile line from downtown to historic Ybor City couldn?t make up its mind whether it was a tourist attraction or a serious way to get to work. (Must be a tourist attraction: The Tampa streetcar starts running only at 11 a.m. and costs $2 to ride.) Result: a scary operating deficit and no easy way of turning things around.

Footnote: So who doesn?t like trolleys? Transit systems, which are run by people who measure effectiveness by efficiency (number of people moved from point A to point B every X minutes). As a result, most streetcar systems today are sponsored, at least initially, by city governments, developers, business associations or nonprofits. Every interest, that is, but the transit system.

markofucity · PostFeb 09, 2006#92006-02-09T17:26+00:00

I see the articles point (and I love the idea about forcing density) - but can't we design an intelligent system? What about elevating the trains ala Chicago (though I realize this can be quite ugly - it works). How hard would it be to give street car lines their own lanes and let them run as light rail (on dedicated tracks - at higher speeds - and with proper stations).

I guess what I'm thinking of is a cost effective way of extending the metro-link system. If we could just get a system that would let us hit all major areas of the city like a subway - we'd be set.

jefferson · PostFeb 09, 2006#102006-02-09T18:23+00:00

good article

Perhaps Metro could pick the 2 or 3 busiest bus lines and make a case for a streetcar replacement. Public money could be used to lay the tracks and then maybe leased to a private operator. Maybe some special assesment tax for the businesses along the route could help pay for it. Although I know it's dicey to talk about any extra taxes in the city, you never know, the businesses might be up for it.

southslider · PostFeb 09, 2006#112006-02-09T19:43+00:00

There is a potentially fatal flaw to vintage streetcars, or trolleys, that backers don't often discuss -- if you use government funds, the American Disability Act requires vehicles to be wheelchair accessible.

bastiat · PostFeb 09, 2006#122006-02-09T22:02+00:00

I'm sorry, but by that logic roads should be built the way they used to be...by private companies. The first coast to coast highway in the US, the Lincoln Highway, was started using private donations from individuals as well as philonthropic donations from Goodyear Tire and Packard. Eventually the feds became interested in the road business starting with the 1916 Federal-Aid Road Act which established their partnership with states that continues today.

I agree with this logic and was going to include this in my original post, by decided to focus on the street cars instead. Government subsidization of roads is, and was, in effect corporate welfare to the automobile companies. I can't remember if it was the Lincoln Highway or another planned private one, but the guy building it asked Henry Ford for donations/investment and Ford replied that the government should do it. Good business decision, why make costs internal when you can externalize them by forcing people to pay for them whether they want to or not.

Just as West County-ians don't want to be forced to subsidize our mass transit, we shouldn't have to subsidize their hour-long commutes. If government had not gotten involved in transportation, we would probably still have one of the world's largest trolley systems, a city undivided by highway partitions, and high-speed rail would probably connect the major cities.

And why should we limit ourselves to just private highways and mass transit? I think that privatization of streets should be allowed on a voluntary basis by block or neighborhood. This doesn't necessarily mean gated off like in the CWE (although it might help in some blocks on the North side). Neighbors would pay the cost of paving and snow removal, etc. This is already done in areas like Clayton and the CWE. It could probably be done in the less affluent areas as well due to higher density leading to the bill being split more ways.

This would empower neighborhoods to take action on their own and not have to sit and wait for city hall to do something. This is precisely what saved many streets in the Central West End during the really rough years. Pershing Place used to be public, but they petitioned the city to take control of the block and gated it off and hired a security guard. Waterman Place also did the same. This could be a good strategy to save some of the blocks north of Delmar in Cabanne.

Not only would this lead to more effective infrastructure repair, but hopefully it would lead to more diverse infrastructure. Residents would be able to choose different styles of sidewalk, lamposts, street, etc other than the boring plain anywhere-usa types. Businesses along commercial strips would have incentives to keep the sidewalks nice and maybe even make the streetscape unique to draw more visitors (maybe an area with a lot of clubs and bars that have live music could pave the sidewalk to look like piano keys or blues notes in the sidewalk, etc). This is not a new concept either--businesses were the first to put up lights with their own money so that they could have customers after dark.

All of the infrastructure provided by government today was initially provided by private individuals and companies. The only difference is that the latter did it better than the former because there were actual incentives to keep costs down and quality up. I think the term government versus private should be dropped in favor of accountable versus unaccountable.

All of this could ease city expenditures so that the city could start to eliminate taxes like the earnings tax and be better able to attract businesses and residents to locate within city borders.