Tapatalk

why the streetcars shut down

why the streetcars shut down

63
New MemberNew Member
63

PostJun 16, 2006#1

in the discussion about old downtown department stores in the st louis/mo based chains thread in the retail and business section, we came across the question of why the streetcar lines shut down. i found this article that doesn't cover the issue too extensively but gave some reasons. Most of you have probably already read it but it's from far enough back that it will probably bring back some refreshing memories. Particularly I thought how well our metrolink system is ranked for not going through streets and even though expansion money is slow and sometimes the whole project seems like it will never expand again we've come a long way to have one at all....





article

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJun 16, 2006#2

People stopped riding. Period.

291
Full MemberFull Member
291

PostJun 16, 2006#3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_City_Rapid_Transit



This is about the Twin Cities street car system... The demise of streetcars in St. Louis may be a similar story...Note the conspiracy theory.

1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostJun 16, 2006#4

White flight=sharply declinging population=declining ridership=inability to maintain=shutting down the lines

282

PostJun 17, 2006#5

I highly suggest reading Streets & Streetcars of St. Louis as it clarifies in great detail each of the streetcar lines that once operated in St. Louis.

Also, Joe Frank did an excellent job looking at a number of them which 60 years ago yesterday switched to buses. http://joefrank.blogspot.com/2006/06/en ... nd-of.html



White flight and decreased ridership are only partially true and then only at a certain point in time. Streetcar lines began switching to bus service as early as the 1930s. Many switched to bus in the 1940s and by the mid-late 1950s all but a few lines were over to bus. Just over half the original lines remained after 1948. The late 40's closures were actually planned for the early 40s but were delayed due to WWII.



Thus, most streetcars had become bus routes before landmark civil rights cases of the 1950s and civil rights legislation of the 1960s that created lots of white flight in the 1960s-present.



Some lines further out were consolidated into other routes (both via rail & bus) most likely due to decreased ridership as the car became more popular.



Several real factors played into the demise of the streetcars. Reasons cited in the intro to the book include:

? St. Louis County wanted the streetcars gone in the late 40s so they could do street widening projects to keep up with a growing number of cars.

? Television began entertaining folks so evening ridership decreased begining in the late 40s.

??As demand fell, so did service, resulting in fewer riders. This occcured for streetcars as well as bus lines.

??Downtown parking lots and private cars reduced public transit use to downtown. Downtown also lost business to new suburban shopping areas not served by transit.

??Many remaining streetcar lines were victims of road widening, interstate highway construction or bridge replacement projects.

? Private streetcar companies were required to pay taxes on fixed street railway infrastructure. Buses eliminated such taxes on the companies.

??Streetcars were phased out because their rail and electric lines required maintenance and conflicted with road projects.

? Many streetcars also were old vehicles and did not have air conditioning.

? The public noted the new buses held more seats than the older streetcars and had a smoother ride.



The book notes a daily peak turnout of 1471 buses in 1953 compared to only 400 in 2001. The removal of streetcars is less about rail and more about many other factors.



I also recommend the book Cash, Tokens, and Transfers: A History of Urban Mass Transit in North America.



We also have the often disputed claim that GM & others help speed up the process by conspiring to sell GM buses, Standard Oil and Firestone tires. This is addressed in the Cash, Tokens & Transfers book as part urban myth part fact.



There was no escaping the fact that in the 1950s GM was a powerhouse and they were in the business of building buses, not rail vehicles. Had they bought out a company that built rail vehicles rather than buses things might be very different today.

696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostJun 17, 2006#6

Thanks for taking the time to research the subject and post the link, rock. Much appreciated.

I find the blanket statement made "people stopped riding, period" to be erronious...I don't ever remember being one of only a few in a streetcar...I mean, I and my family are people and those others on the cars weren't manequins!! Seriously, certainly, many did stop but many didn't, and I think in the name of modernization the drop in ridership was a barometer which the "powers that be" chose to heed. Why invest in new equipment and repairs in something that, at that time, seemed antiquated and showed that ridership was indeed on the decline? TheWayOfTheArch summed it up best.

(More than once I'd heard the rumor that one of the major auto makers struck a deal with our "powers that be" that removal of streetcars would be neccessary for the auto makers to provide jobs here....but, one hears all kinds of things, although in a very synical tone it would make sense.)

It makes a great deal of sense that with America's love affair with the automobile people would prefer to drive than ride (gas was cheap), hence old buildings downtown were destroyed to build garages and parking lots and suburban malls sprang up and grew to the convenience of those who moved out from the city. The thing is, the suburbs have grown and grown until now they're such a mess with all the auto traffic, and unlike CBD's which stay in the same place, suburban development sprawls ever further out, "newer and better", while older suburbs fall into decline.

Now that urban sprawl, new urbanism and environmental issues as well as price of gas is on many minds, we seem to be returning to the old ways which have been made new again...light rail...and now even talk of bringing back streetcars.

282

PostJun 17, 2006#7

A few more tidbits from Cash, Tokens & Transfers:


In 1948 the latter (new PCC streetcar) was in the $40,000 range, while a 50-passenger bus cost about $16,000. One can narrow this differential by virtue of the fact that a new 1950 streetcar had a marginally larger carrying capacity than a bus, plus the fact that the $40,000 streetcar had a useful service life of at least twice that of the bus. But performing all the necessary calculations still leads to the conclusion that a bus was a cheaper vehicle to buy than a streetcar --- annualized, on a per seat basis, however, one cares to express it.


The author goes on to talk about even if it could be rationalized to be even the companies operating the streetcars didn't want to take on as much debt.



The Saint Louis Car Company was one of the major buliders of the streamlined PCC streetcars of the 1930s-50s. So the end of the streetcar hurt the local economy as they did not seem to switch to manufacturing buses.



Regions that had subway & other non-street rail systems continued to offer mass transit. NYC, Boston & Philly all had systems in place. Some cities like New Orleans and Toronto continued with their streetcar systems. Toronto supplemented the streetcar with subway & light rail in later years while keeping streetcar service.

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJul 01, 2006#8

I wish the streetcars where still around today, but it is obvious that demand dropped for this service as more and more people chose to drive cars and the bus became more "modern and fashionable" than the ol' streetcar. How cool would it be to see old streetcars running throughout the city, down Wydown again.. New Orleans style..

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostJul 01, 2006#9

They're tearing up the middle lane of Tucker now for whatever reason, and have -- in parts -- nearly perfectly chiseled around the embedded tracks. *sigh* I wish there'd be a surprise announcement that they're ressurecting a Gravois streetcar line, thanks to an anonymous donor....

425
Full MemberFull Member
425

PostJul 01, 2006#10

You'll be disappointed to learn that they've already begun sectioning them for removal, then.

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostJul 01, 2006#11

dang!

2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostJul 03, 2006#12

Reminds me of the glorious day when they dug up the tracks in Washington Avenue during the revamp of the street.

1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostJul 03, 2006#13

I noticed the tracks on Tucker too. (What are they doing there anyway? Putting in another one of those stupid *ss medians?).



I've been skeptical of the streetcar idea. I've preferred the dedicated rights-of-way of the elevated and subway trains. It just seemed to me that streetcars were just fancy (expensive) versions of buses. But seeing those tracks in the street gave me a little tingle of excitement. It's a shame that the power brokers in this town don't take the idea more seriously.

2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostJul 03, 2006#14

I'm talking about new modern streetcars:





Not old fashioned trolleys:





Electric streetcars are what we need to replace busses as a long term alternative.

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJul 03, 2006#15

Do a Google image search on "BRT" and you'll see many modern vehicles. And if a streetcar runs as slow or slower than a bus, why must it be on rails? You can still get modern vehicles, the look of stations and a reliable frequency of service, all for a much lower price with BRT than with a modern streetcar.



As for light-rail, you can have travel time savings over buses, even if semi-exclusive street-running, however, you also have substantially higher cost. Thus, for LRT, like streetcars, you need added density and clustering of destinations to warrant the added expense. Thus, intense development should be the prerequisite to any investment in rail transit, heavy, light or streetcar.



So then, unless the City of St. Louis and all its parochial interests are willing to commit to dramatic increases in density in linear corridors, rubber-tired vehicles, such as BRT, make so much more financial sense.

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostJul 03, 2006#16

southslider wrote:Do a Google image search on "BRT" and you'll see many modern vehicles. And if a streetcar runs as slow or slower than a bus, why must it be on rails? You can still get modern vehicles, the look of stations and a reliable frequency of service, all for a much lower price with BRT than with a modern streetcar.


Buses, for whatever reason, have a stigma attached to them that streetcars do not. Perhaps it's the rails that give streetcars a sense of permanance? The stigma is the reason many people fight for streetcars because its often believed (and probably correctly) that more people will be attracted to them instead of buses, even if they do provide the same function.

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJul 05, 2006#17

I understand the stigma for buses. As shared under another transportation topic, I posted the classic story of how folks refused to take direct, non-stop bus service to North Hanley after Fair St. Louis, instead choosing to wait in long lines for MetroLink.



However, even if rail attracts more riders than bus, rail transit can still fail to attract enough riders to warrant its added cost. Granted, MetroLink has higher fare recovery than the average MetroBus route. However, routes like Grand have much better fare recovery, or less subsidy per passenger mile. And for the cost of one rail line, you could easily pay for a lot more frequent routes like Grand.



But most importantly, a streetcar in low-density St. Louis will never perform as well as MetroLink, risking even higher subsidies. If developers, like in the case of the Loop Trolley, want to foot the bill, then build as many localized streetcar lines as the private sector will support. But our region's transit authority will remain in the primary business of moving transit-dependent masses about our region, while hopefully attracting transit-choice commuters. In summary, streetcars remain an inefficient technology for transit's goal of regional accessibility.

10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostJul 05, 2006#18

For me, one of the toughest things about buses is that it's not all that clear where they go - you have to do your homework before riding the bus, studying the routes, figuring out what connections to take, etc. It's so much easier to get on MetroLink knowing that it takes a set route.



When I was in high school, I would often ride the bus home from school. I got on at Manchester and Kingshighway and rode it all the way down Manchester to a stop in Des Peres near my home. Let's just say the people who rode that bus were...interesting.

2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostJul 06, 2006#19

Fixing lines with rails will do amazing things for the economic situation in many neighborhoods.