Transit
New technologies provide alternatives to overhead wires
Opponents of overhead wires have been frequently referring to new technologies that provide alternatives to wires. I invited Monte Edwards to elaborate on the state of streetcar technology so that we can better understand and evaluate these possibilities. – DavidConstruction is underway in DC for a 37-mile streetcar system. While fundamental planning and routing questions still need to be addressed, there is one issue that is of unique significance to our City: whether to adopt an older technology that uses overhead wires to power the system, or one of several newer technologies that do not require overhead wires.
Wires in Toronto. Photo by bennylin0724.
Overhead wires would introduce an element on our streets that has been intentionally prohibited by law since 1889. As a result, Washington has one of the most wire-free streetscapes in the world. We have one opportunity to build a first-class wireless system throughout the city.
The good news is that we have different options to accomplish this worthy goal. In January 2010, the City of Charlotte, NC sponsored a Streetcar Technology Showcase that focused on wireless streetcar technologies.
Battery and ultra-capacitor technology is advancing rapidly. The latest version of Kawasaki's Swimo streetcar includes advanced proprietary metal hydride batteries that recharge 60 times faster than existing battery charging options and are being developed for a range of 6 miles.
Ultra capacitors that can recharge in 20 seconds (made by Trainelec/CAF of Spain) and batteries that can run for 3 km (made by Kinki Sharyo of Japan), when used together, offer the possibility of recharging at the passenger stops with no need for overhead wires or other means to supply power between stops. In fact, the Trainelec/CAF system that will enter service this fall in Saragossa, Spain uses both batteries and ultra capacitors with the ability to capture and store braking energy to provide faster acceleration without requiring increased electric capacity.
Streetcar without overhead wires in Bordeaux. Photo by Lance Salonia.
The Bombardier Primove System is an electric induction system. The power transfer is contact-less, with the electric power cable buried below the surface of the street and the electric pick-up installed below the streetcar. The cable can be integrated in-between existing tracks (saw-cutting the pavement to install the power cable) and there is no wear of the pick-up coil since it is energized by magnetic field. The Primove System is estimated to be about 30% more expensive than overhead wire alternatives, but according to Bombardier, the savings in energy and maintenance costs enable the investment to be recovered within six to ten years.
Charlotte has commissioned an independent engineering study of alternative technologies; DC has not. DDOT needs to undertake a Streetcar Technology Assessment Study comparing all available streetcar technologies, conducted by an objective engineering firm, to determine the pros and cons of all propulsion systems and to compare first costs and operating and maintenance costs before committing at least $1.5 billion to an older technology. Further, a DDOT Public Streetcar Technology Showcase such as the one in Charlotte could engage the public in understanding new technologies and how they might be adopted here.
While five of the six participating vendors in Charlotte, were international companies, all of the exhibiting manufacturers have supplied streetcar/rail equipment to US customers and would be eligible to sell under the Buy America program. Ansoldo Breda of Italy supplied 466 of our Metro cars and Tainelec/CAF of Spain supplied 192. Bombardier of Canada supplied Amtrak with the Acela equipment. The three remaining exhibitors have supplied equipment to streetcar and light rail systems in other US locales.
The Charlotte conference demonstrates that the District of Columbia can have an effective, 21st century non-overhead wire streetcar system. As such, it would be a showcase system, likely to attract the best of the streetcar suppliers as well as demonstration funding. Most importantly, residents and businesses in the reviving commercial areas of our great city would benefit from the same protected viewsheds that tourists enjoy in the "monumental" city.
Monte Edwards serves as a Board Member and VP of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and is a member of the Transportation Committee of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. For over 10 years he chaired the Capital Improvements Committee of the advisory group (EMCAC) that oversaw the restoration of Eastern Market.
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by Adam L on Apr 7, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report
But is this system vaporware? Can they deliver a system that will work, and soon?
by goldfish on Apr 7, 2010 12:49 pm • link • report
As I recall from what Scott Kubly said, DDOT is in full agreement that the alternative technologies need to be investigated/analyzed/studied (take your pick of word) before one is chosen. However, it was also pointed out that two of the wireless-only technologies were exclusionary in the sense that you'd have to go with that technology and manufacturer only and couldn't "mix-and-match". That's a big disadvantage for those particular technologies.
I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the Committee of 100 was accusing DDOT of "putting the cart before the horse" by going with a technology before they could study the other technologies. That's a valid point. But at the same time, the Committee's outright opposition to one of those technologies before it could be studied and compared to the others is doing the exact same thing..."putting the cart before the horse".
by Froggie on Apr 7, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report
by Glenn on Apr 7, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report
In the US perhaps. Most of Europe has underground wiring for electricity, telephone, cable and other stuff. Europeans also tend to stick their traffic light on poles in stead of wires. Only streetcars give overhead wiring.
I did a quick flip through my highlights picture folder and can't find wiring in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, Dublin, Antwerp, Brussels and The Hague. Odd, because the last four have trams. In Chicago there is of course the El obstructing the view. Or adding to the local feeling. I did find a picture of the wireless Docklands Light Railway in London that goes to Greenwich. My Amsterdam pictures show a few wires. After looking really well. Las Vegas (Blvd) has a few too. Hawaii also has wires everywhere. I guess they have enough views to have a view destroyed by wires.
I understand my personal pictures are purely anecdotal, and that multiple anecdotes do not quantify as data, but I dare the anti-wire folks to come up with pictures (or real data) from places where a panoramic view is destroyed by wiring. Or any city in the world where this fear of destroyed views has lead to going wireless. Just pictures with wires in some view is not evidence of a destroyed view, by the way. The destruction has to be obvious.
Furthermore, I still have not heard a good (or even mediocre) argument why we should go wireless with our street cars. The destruction of the panoramic views is a non-argument because it's simply not true.
To quote Jon Stewart (this week): "I have realized that you can not reason with insanity". /flame war started
As long as wireless is significantly more expensive than with wires, we should spend our money elsewhere in our transit system. It is unwise to spend money on wireless steetcars while cutting the yellow line and going to 30 minute headways.
Having said that, if wireless streetcars are competitive with wired streetcars, then we should definitively look at it. I also appreciate Edwards for writing this piece. we should not shun information. But we should also not let ourselves be led by irrational fear.
by Jasper on Apr 7, 2010 1:01 pm • link • report
by K Flo on Apr 7, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report
by RJ on Apr 7, 2010 1:05 pm • link • report
What about a wonderful concept like creating a streetcar manufacturer in/around DC much like Portland has done with United Streetcar?
I'm sure there would be numerous benefits to manufacturing the cars near where they were going to be used. Also, the proposed manufacturer could help supply streetcars to projects throughout the Mid-Atlantic. I think DC could use a nice manufacturing industry nearby like that. All that would have to happen would be to license the technology from whichever group you want and build them locally.
Maybe if the plant took off, they could also handle some of the rehabilitation of Metrorail cars rather than contracting out for that.
tl;dr - Pipe dream, but build the cars locally.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report
It'd be nice to have the cars produced locally, though I see no problem with having them sourced through United Streetcar until the demand picks up further.
Wires really aren't an issue for the parts of town where the first streetcar lines are planned. It'd be hard to make H St look any worse than it currently does.
by andrew on Apr 7, 2010 1:18 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 7, 2010 1:18 pm • link • report
I don't believe this. Power transfer through induction tends to be less efficient than direct contact because so much of the energy goes to producing heat.
I'll buy the assertions about energy savings, but only if I see a specific source that explains what miracles of engineering have produced this result.
by David R. on Apr 7, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report
I suggested rehabbing the WMATA cars locally more for the boost to local economy than the need to keep the rehab domestic. Same with building the cars locally. Why send the money to Portland if it could be inserted into the local economy instead. Would it be a huge undertaking to start a local manufacturer of streetcars? Yes it would...
...so would building a brand new streetcar system...
...or implementing a wireless power system on a scale never attempted before
If we're going to go big with this, let's go all the way.
Otherwise, let's get past the wire issue and start helping the transit problem sooner rather than later.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report
Design the streetcars here, sure. But build them somewhere else with cheap labor so that our highly-educated and talented workforce can reap the benefits.
Don't like it? Should have studied harder in high school. Sorry, you lose.
by realist on Apr 7, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report
http://www.makingjusticereal.org/ward-8-unemployment-is-28-3-in-ward-3-just-3-2
Head down to Wards 7 and 8 and tell them we survived the economic downturn. The REAL survivors are the ones whose economic base is diverse enough to deal with a dip in many different sectors.
I love that you're so "realist" that everyone without a job should have "studied harder in high school".
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report
Of course, this relies upon there being sufficient demand to keep such a facility operating continuously -- right now, I don't think such a demand exists. Alstom have their shops in NY state because most of their customers are convenient to that area (and they have many). There's no way that the DC area could produce enough business to achieve similar economies of scale.
by andrew on Apr 7, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
Now, let's step back for a second and analyze why streetcars are being planned. First, they offer another unique mode of transit, though admittedly not a new method of transportation (that is, they don't have any physical assets that make them superior to any existing form of transportation). Second, they offer substantial encouragement toward the development of certain areas along the planned routes.
As many have pointed out before, if you're purely a transit supporter aiming to get people from Point A to Point B, streetcars are a poor choice. They offer no new assets compared to buses. Quite the opposite, they are less flexible in the routing and in-traffic mobility.
The success and desire for streetcars do not come from their abilities, but from their mystique. Let's be honest: it's cool to be riding in a streetcar. They look and feel different. Unlike a bus, you feel special to be in one. But to many, wires take away from that mystique. If streetcar success is determined by its uniqueness, wouldn't a MORE unique system be that much more successful? I'm betting it would. Heck, gimme a mag-lev train or a flashy monorail and you'd even get the SUV-loving soccer moms from the exurbs to ride it.
Finally, to all of you who are shouting "transit now!" - don't you get that if that's REALLY what you wanted, you'd be clamoring for more buses (a much more cost-effective and immediate way of moving people)? I can understand people who argue to accept wires based on feasibility (the same way I would argue down a mag-lev train idea), but please don't be posers about what you really want.
I, for one, see the value in
1. Enhancing the positive effect of streetcars once they are built
2. Preserving the streetscape of DC
3. Perhaps most importantly, preserving the law which prevents overhead wires in Downtown.
by SDJ on Apr 7, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report
While I'm with you on the concept of competitive bids and avoiding proprietary technology, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.
Wasn't mixing and matching of different manufacturers one of the causes of a recent Metro crash? If you're always trying to cut corners...well...you fill in the rest.
by SDJ on Apr 7, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report
I'm also not advocating a gigantic operation. United Streetcar's latest orders were for 6 and 7 streetcars for Portland and Tucson respectively. I don't think we need a gigantic factory, but a modest operation would be nice.
And again, I recognize this is a pipe dream that has no chance of happening. I just wanted to suggest another way that DC could be forward thinking and innovative as people are proposing for the wireless power system.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report
With streetcars, though, you get an improvement. You get off-vehicle payment, typically. You get larger capacity vehicles and you get less frequent stops. Electric vehicles can accelerate more frequently than buses.
You can get some of that with buses. Sure. Why haven't we already, then? Political opposition. Whenever stuff like stop elimination or off-vehicle payment gets proposed for bus, it dies in the politics of it all. Streetcar has such an aesthetic and comfort improvement (smoother operation and no exhaust fumes) that people must be willing to have the stops space out more and deal with ticket machines.
At least that's how I see it.
by Michael Perkins on Apr 7, 2010 2:05 pm • link • report
by ontarioroader on Apr 7, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report
I agree with the previous comment--the need to pursue wireless technology is a distraction. CHRS does not want streetcars. Their leadership has stated that emphatically. Unfortunately, their influence is greater than their actual membership. There is also a rational wing within CHRS that disagrees with the perspective being presented by the organization. Which highlights why it is so important that progressive voices show up at ANC meetings and other public hearings.
by Ryan Velasco, ANC 6C07 on Apr 7, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report
During the time I lived in Europe, I commuted regularly by streetcar. They are quiet (near silent) and clean (no dirty fumes). Streetcars are faster to load and unload, have greater capacity to move people, do not cause as many traffic snarls. The streetcars I used in Europe were timed to coincide with the traffic lights, so they did not ever block intersections and were as efficient as possible. This type of coordination is impossible with buses. Finally, streetcars are far more comforable to ride on than buses because they do not have jarring stops and starts.
Streetcars also do not come with the same socio-economic prejudices as buses. Far more capitol residents will be willing to ride streetcars down H Street than current take the X2.
I am a regular bus user and I fully support street cars with wires. They will be a welcome addition to the city and I am disappointed by those who are expending so much time and effort to prevent their implementation. The rails are already installed along much of the route. Budgets are tight. The time to argue for underground power has long passed. You lost the battle. Go find another hobby.
by k on Apr 7, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report
I say that as a huge streetcar supporter that would string a wire in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. if it would mean more streetcars.
by Reid on Apr 7, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report
@ k
Why would more capital hill residents ride a streetcar over a bus.
Is it because it is new/clean
Not a bus and they discriminate against buses in general
Think less poor will use them.
What is the back up plan when something happens along the streetcar routes will they run buses in place of the streetcar and if so why would the capitol hill residents ride those.
I don't think it is people not wanting to take a bus it is people not wanting to be around people that are poor.
If it was just the bus than every-time WMATA runs a shuttle bus because of a rail problem no one would ride those.
by kk on Apr 7, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report
In Bordeaux, the majority of the system, including all new extensions, uses overhead wires. Indeed, the ground contact system on the non-overhead wire portion proved so expensive and unreliable that town fathers decided to build the rest of the system with overhead wires and even to change part of the ground contact part of the system over to overhead wires. Plus, the ground contact system that Bordeaux uses is the Alstom APS system. In addition to the problems it caused in Bordeaux, there are two additional problems with Alstom APS. First, it is a proprietary system, meaning that the District would be stuck with one very expensive vendor for everything having to to with its streetcar system. Second, Alstom has repeatedly said that they have no interest in selling the APS system in North America. (I would imagine they are reluctant to sell APS in North America because we put salt on our streets in the winter and salt water is a fantastic transmitter of electricity. In other words: Alstom has no interest in being sued for electrocuting pedestrians.) In addition, it recently snowed in Bordeaux for the first time in many years and apparently the APS system did not fare too well with just a small accumulation of snow.
In Nice, the vast majority of the system uses overhead wires except for two short stretches (less than 1km) through that city's central squares, where the streetcars are powered by batteries.
Bottom line: the overhead wire question is being used by people who are anti-streetcar to kill streetcars through endless studies and subsequent endless lawsuits. These are not people who care about transit because generally they do not really use, much less depend, on transit. They drive everywhere. And that is fine and their right. But please stop this wire distraction and just admit that you are anti-streetcar and anti-transit.
As for using a photo of Toronto as an example: unlike DC, Toronto has mostly not put any of its utility wires underground, which means that their streets have electric, telephone and cable wires in addition to streetcar wires. So, not a good comparison to DC. (Though, I have to say, Toronto is much, much easier to navigate without a car than DC. Indeed, transit on Sunday in Toronto is better than transit on a weekday in DC.) A better comparison to DC would be a city that has all other utilities underground so the only wires are for streetcars. I have dozens of photos of beautiful, historic streets with beautiful vistas and beautiful street tree canopies that are a much better example of what streetcar wires would look like in DC.
Also note, for purposes of his credibility, that Mr. Edwards has been promoting hydrogen trolleys. Please. Not a single city in the world has a streetcar system powered by hydrogen. There is a reason that Energy Secretary Chu, a Nobel Laureate, is moving his Department away from hydrogen: producing hydrogen as a fuel generally takes more energy than you get out of it. In the CHRS petition against streetcars, he claims that Charlotte is going to use a hydrogen trolley. Will he take that language out of his petition when Charlotte decides to build its streetcar with overhead wires, which they are almost certainly going to do? Or does he prefer to continue spreading misleading information as part of his effort to kill streetcars?
If Mr. Edwards thinks streetcars with overhead wires are so bad, then does he think that Zurich should ditch its streetcar system? Or that Vienna should? Or Munich? Or Toronto? Or Amsterdam? Or Prague? Would he be willing to go to the leaders and people of those cities and, with a straight face, tell them their cities are awful, ugly places and will be until they get rid of their streetcars and subsitute them with our lousy air quality?
by rg on Apr 7, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report
As a supporter of both street cars and the design qualities that make our city so special, I think that this "green transit versus historic viewsheds" tradeoff is about as false as it gets. It seems that we can have both. Without commenting on the relatively new technology described in this piece, a recent Washington Post article reported that 50 or 60 years ago, street cars operating within the central part of Washington used a buried power source. So this is hardly unproven technology! Actually, we should be looking for ways to put more of the wired infrastructure outside of the central city underground. The much taller "superpoles" being installed in Tenleytown and other neighborhoods and the "heavy up" of cable and other above-ground wires are a sad sight and impact the tree canopy. Putting wires also undergrond reduces storm disruption and visual blight and enhances development potential and property values. When it comes to street cars, let's do it right.
by GreenDC on Apr 7, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report
Forward into the 1960's.
I'm gonna be real blunt about this one. The author needs to give the mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase a call. Perhaps they can take notes from each other about how to run anti-campaigns while trying to pretend in public that they're not.
This post reeks worse than anything that even PRT cranks can spew because the PRT cranks actually sort of believe what they say (amazingly). The actions of the CHRS and the Committee of 100 are eerily similar the policy of the Ehrlich Administration in cahoots with the Columbia Country Club to "obfuscate, study, and delay" the Purple Line. If it quacks like a duck...
by Cavan on Apr 7, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
Why would more capital hill residents ride a streetcar over a bus.
Is it because it is new/clean
--> I do think that will be part of the difference at the beginning. I also think that streetcars are a more comfortable ride, making for a more pleasant commute overall.
"Not a bus and they discriminate against buses in general"
--> I do think people are biased against buses in general
"Think less poor will use them."
--> I don't think that fewer poor will use them, but a smaller proportion of the riders will be poor because more capitol hill resident will ride them, eliminating some of the bias.
"What is the back up plan when something happens along the streetcar routes will they run buses in place of the streetcar and if so why would the capitol hill residents ride those."
--> In my experience they had a tow truck-like thing that came and pulled the car out of the way in short order so buses were never used in place of street cars. I don't think if buses are a back up it would be treated any differently than when they use buses to replace metro stops now. That may hinders commuters, but doesn't deter them. They are already reliant on the system.
"I don't think it is people not wanting to take a bus it is people not wanting to be around people that are poor."
--> I agree that this is part of the current problem, but I do think it will be overcome with the change in ridership and the friendliness of streetcars in general.
by k on Apr 7, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
by Cavan on Apr 7, 2010 3:39 pm • link • report
That is emphatically false. I have personnally spoken with Shauna Holmes (a Board member of CHRS) who has expressed her dismay at this false rumor. She's pointed out that the CHRS has even passed a resolution coming out in support of streetcars.
I have to wonder why I keep hearing similar falsehoods being spread ... including that the Committee of 100 is opposed to streetcars. It's almost like a demon that doesn't really exist (i.e., opposition to streetcars) is being invented so that other matters can be quietly slipped under the carpet ... Including, but not limited to:
(1) no alternate technologies have been explored
(2) 3 streetcars were bought prior to any studies being done (seemingly locking us into a one technology/one manufacturer solution, and
(3) no plans for funding the entire system vs. the 'stub' that is being built to maybe justify streetcars that were already bought (without a plan) and have been sitting around generating storage fees.
Those of us who are truely interested in seeing streetcars make a full fledged re-appearance in our city (and not just a showing on a couple isolated streets) would be better served by not letting ourselves be distracted by these demonisations of organizations with a long long history of acting as the citizens' advocates in this matter. It might serve the current interests of a current administration to 'expedite' matters, but it doesn't serve the citizen's interests.
To be blunt, I think I'm seeing a 'divide and conquer' strategy being implemented by this administration ... and 'we're' falling for it. Or at least some of us are.
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
>>"If Mr. Edwards thinks streetcars with overhead wires are so bad, then does he think that Zurich should ditch its streetcar system? Or that Vienna should? Or Munich? Or Toronto? Or Amsterdam? Or Prague? Would he be willing to go to the leaders and people of those cities and, with a straight face, tell them their cities are awful, ugly places and will be until they get rid of their streetcars and subsitute them with our lousy air quality?"
To say someone can't even debate the overhead wires in DC unless they are willing to tell Prague to get rid of theirs is Reductio ad absurdum. It's very different to debate how to spend future investment of tax dollars than suggest a city trash all existing infrastructure investment. This is a crap argument by "rg". I don't know if he doesn't really understand the difference or he is just not letting rational thought get in the way of any of his emotional investment in streetcars at all costs.
by Paul on Apr 7, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
Besides, somewhere (maybe on GGW) I saw a series of photos of actual streetcar wires in several cities such as Ghent, Belgium and somewhere in Spain. You could hardly see the wires. The photo with this article appears to be trollybus wires. Trollybusses require 2 overhead wires instead of the single wire for trains. Either way, cost and reliablility should be the prime concern. Wouldn't it be embarassing to get the system running and have so many problems due to the new 'wireless' system?
by BigG on Apr 7, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report
I ask this question in earnest: If bus saturation is the reason why we are opting for streetcars, how exactly does a track-restricted streetcar system avoid the same problems? Streetcars would be in the right-most lane, and would not be able to pass buses. They would have to wait behind the buses' more frequent stops - thereby capping their mobility to that of the "lowest common denominator" if you will. This would negate most benefits that better acceleration would provide. The only way around that would be to eliminate all bus service along streets with streetcars, which I don't think anyone supports.
You're totally right on the political issue - one more reason why streetcars are all about mystique.
@k
I completely agree with your points, but they do nothing to bolster the "transit" argument. Those assets that are rightfully attributed to streetcars are purely aesthetic. It plays a part in thier mystique - the noise factor, cleanliness (though I argue that LNG buses are close), and lack of stigma all are part of what make a streetcar "cool." I dare say that a wireless streetcar would actually further expand the socio-economic stigma disparity between buses and streetcars, but feel free to think that people prefer a wired system.
Y'know, if I proposed building a dirtier, noisier streetcar, I think you'd be a little miffed because that's what makes a streetcar successful. When you suggest a wired streetcar and overturning existing regulations to make it happen, I get a little bit miffed too. With regard to timing of lights, see my comment above about being stuck behind buses. Not to mention that you would (unfortunately) face fierce opposition from drivers who would say that giving streetcars the right of way at intersections would yield greater backups for cars...
Do you understand my point about streetcars success being basically driven by aesthetics and not by practicality/ability? Or did you criticize me and tell me that I "lost" simply because you erroneously think I'm anti-streetcar?
@rg
Man, I really hate being made out to be the transit bad guy even though I really am in favor of increased mass transit options, but I have to call you out on this.
You assume that just because other places don't have something that we should settle for less? B.S. We live in the freakin' capital of the free world and we should settle for something completely ordinary? Aren't our causeway-looking bridges and brutalist metro enough to satisfy a bland palate? Please. What's the matter with having a little self-respecting pride for living in the nation's capital?
@GreenDC
+1
@Cavan
Quit being a conspiracy theorist. Some of us really do want streetcars, but want them preserving the best of what DC has to offer and getting the most out of streetcar development. As you said, "I'm gonna be real blunt about this one:" Just because you're willing to settle for an ugly chick doesn't mean that the rest of us who are holding off don't like women. Crudely put, but I think you get my point.
by SDJ on Apr 7, 2010 3:49 pm • link • report
And there's a vast difference between "superpoles", or even the ordinary telephone pole behind my Capitol Hill house, and the two thin, widely spaced wires supported from lampposts that, I devoutly hope, will soon run above H Street NE.
Yes, let's do DC's new streetcars right: with reliable and inconspicuous overhead wires.
by davidj on Apr 7, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report
by rg on Apr 7, 2010 3:52 pm • link • report
As for your ugly woman comparison: trust me, the ugly one in this case is the crappy buses metro runs on the X2 route, with the modern streetcars of, say, Munich being the supermodel....
by rg on Apr 7, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
And the sad truth is that youth and beauty eventually fades ... for us all. I.e., Gotta think 'what will they look like in 10 years?' ...
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 4:09 pm • link • report
Just because you dismiss things like (1) greater capacity, (2) smoother ride, (3) faster transit, (4) higher ridership getting cars off the road, (5) fewer traffic snarls, and (6) no more buses blocking intersections as merely "cool" doesn't make it so. Those ARE real improvements and will be a HUGE improvement in DC's transit system.
Here's a question for you. When was the last time you rode the X2?
by k on Apr 7, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report
They will look great. Much better than a bus looks after 10 years. Indeed, many of the streetcars that DC abandoned in 1962 are still running in other cities. In Milan, Peter Witt streetcars from early in the last century are still running in regular revenue service. Are any buses from 1962 still in revenue service anywhere? Or from 1982 for that matter? Maybe from 1992, and I think they are on X2 and the 90/92 routes! :-)
Because of their smoother ride and their electric motors, streetcars last a lot longer than buses.
OK -- I think I need to move on from this streetcar debate now. I clearly care way too much about it for my own good or sanity.....
by rg on Apr 7, 2010 4:36 pm • link • report
If CHRS has indeed passed such a resolution, could it be made public and available online?
by Froggie on Apr 7, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report
I want streetcars very much. It would be particularly convenient to me, since two lines are planned for within a half block of my house. If wireless is a real choice, though, then I'd prefer to not have wires. Is it true that DDOT hasn't done a study of wireless propulsion methods? If not, why not?
I generally am pro-DDOT, and I think they often do a good job. This streetcar plan has been a fiasco, though. Laying the tracks on H St probably makes sense, because they were rebuilding the road already. Why buy the cars in advance though, without having a viable propulsion method? Why lock DC into a plan that will take an act of Congress to enact?
The suggestions in the article seem reasonable to me. Why not do what Charlotte did? If it turns out wires are the best choice, then try to figure out how to get the law changed.
by jcm on Apr 7, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report
A quick Wiki check shows me that Munich is on par with DC in terms of pop and area, but its subway system has less than half the number of stops as the DC metro. Not saying its tramway isn't fantastic, but we could weigh tit for tat all the way down a list of transit perks. (Do they have bike-sharing or HOV?)
I also caution you against comparing what's feasible in the U.S. to a European tramway system that has been in existence for over 125 years. Here, people expect more from something that isn't already entrenched in the local fabric...not to mention the U.S.'s obsession with sleek new things.
I leave you with a final question: what if we scored a supermodel that was even hotter than Munich?
@k
1. Greater capacity than an articulated bus? Really? I don't know the answer, so prove it to me.
2. Smoother ride IS NOT a transit benefit - it's an aesthetic benefit. Come on, are you really that thick?
3. Faster transit: Again, capped by existing bus line traffic. If you eliminate bus lines, then you have wider spacing between stops...is that a transit benefit?
4. Higher ridership: would be further enhanced with a wireless system.
5. Fewer traffic snarls: Further abated with increased ridership. And come to think of it, with regard to timed traffic signals, I don't see why you can't use triggers like that for buses too...some sort of proximity sensor wouldn't be that much different from what a streetcar would use, no?
6. Buses blocking intersections: Didn't know you were so "pro-car"! :-p Seriously, though, who's to say that timed sensors couldn't work with buses too, which would take care of points 5 and 6.
Again, I'm not trying to rail on the very real benefits that streetcars can realize (pun intended), but my point is that they are all about the glossy sheen and not about a new service or capability rendered.
Now, imagine if ALL of us who REALLY are for streetcars suddenly categorically came together and said: "Hey, let's make this happen without wires." What do you think would happen? Don't exonerate yourselves because you are as much of the "problem" as you seem to think we are. I'm voicing what is important to me and the sacrifices I'm not willing to make.
I strongly believe that the statute that bans overhead wires is as defining of DC's aesthetic as the cap on building height. If someone proposed that streetcars would have to be elevated at a very high level off the ground, I would be equally displeased with the height statute being repealed. And I would be similarly upset at the fact that looking at the underside of the train would be unattractive and reduce streetcar ridership.
by SDJ on Apr 7, 2010 4:49 pm • link • report
So you are for greater transportation, faster embarking/debarking, efficient etc.
The ONLY thing that makes street cars more appropriate than a bus is the fact that most (DC's plan included)systems have dedicated ROW's for street cars so they are off the road and don't compete with the cars.
Well golly gee, thats an easy fix. Simply build dedicated bus only lanes in the same ROW and alingment you want the street cars to be built in. It would probably reduce that 1.5 billion dollar number (that we all know will skyrocket even if the current plan is followed) by what, a billion?
Transportation problem solved. You can have your trendy Circulator painted scheme buses running in dedicated lanes separated from traffic.
But no you say..."fill in new excuse".
Just come out and admit it. You want street cars because they are "envogue" and "sexy", much in the same way people want that stainless steel stove over the black one even though it does the same thing. This has nothing to do with "better more efficient" transportation ideas.
Well excuse me, as a DC taxpayer to a city with a half a billion dollar budget gap, there are more important things than having "sexy" transportation toys when our current ones don't work and are underfunded as it is.
And the "street cars bring more development than do buses" argument is again bunk. If you look at the proposed street car map you have the bulk of the lines downtown in the business district that obviously isn't suffering from "development" issues. The lines that could use some help are the Georgia Ave, Benning Rd and Anacostia lines which are already OUTSIDE the restricted area! You can hang wires along those routes to your hearts content. If you "need" the vogue-ness of street cars along those three lines, fine. Do it tomorrow. Leave the Rapid-Bus dedicated lanes for downtown and quit arguing about it.
What the wires look like is completely subjective. Folks like Jasper think the "view argument" doesn't exist. Well, for you it may not, but it does for many and has been an issue since the ban on overhead wires was passed ~130 years ago. I love street cars. I lived in Brussels for years and rode them every day but "excuse" me if I think the wires are ugly. We have the opportunity to do this right the first time, no need to run into something half azzed and be stringing spaghetti through the downtown air.
The point is, the overhead wire ban in the L'Enfant city isn't new and Gabe Klein and his predecessors were completely naive and irresponsible to spend ~50 million dollars in the past 6 or 7 years on plans, equipment and construction WITHOUT addressing the main problem. "Now" its a problem and you blame this on the CHRS folks? Hello, this problem has been here from the beginning. It was the first issue raised when DDOT first started ruminating about street cars a decade ago. Rather than spend some time and a tiny amount of money (in comparison to what they have already spent) either getting the federal ban repealed, or looking for a work around, they went full speed ahead in typical naive fashion.
by nookie on Apr 7, 2010 4:55 pm • link • report
One wire per track overhead is not going to destroy the view. Congress intended to prevent this sort of thing: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yw7ytf_PB-k/SZzUMePTojI/AAAAAAAAB98/C0Ip3Qn86nQ/s1600-h/New_York_utility_lines_in_1890Henry+Collins+Brown1913.jpg
from happening, which you can still legislate while allowing for overhead streetcar wires.
by NikolasM on Apr 7, 2010 5:11 pm • link • report
Don't give me this "You can't be for street cars and against wires". Unless you can argue one thing in my post, (dedicated bus lanes, etc) keep your GWB'ian "Your either with us or against us" logic to yourself.
I am for milk but against "tainted" milk. Golly gee, I guess every time I eat a bowl of cereal I am living a contradiction.
And again, "you" say one track per wire won't destroy the view. "I" say it will. See how that works? Thats what "subjective" means.
by nookie on Apr 7, 2010 5:15 pm • link • report
Oh ... that whole conspirancy stuff again. Even Douglas Willinger isn't with you on this one ... And he knows about conspirancies ...
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report
Here's "one thing" to argue.
The essence of your argument is that any thing streetcars can do, buses can do just as well, yes?
Okay, accepting that premise, we should use streetcars so that we can carry 2.5 times the passengers per vehicle along the same route. It's planning for the future so that there is the capacity available to serve demand along high-passenger lines.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report
I'd really love to see some referenced statistics on passenger capacity.
"Passengers per vehicle" capacity is a useless statistic if we don't know what two vehicles are being compared. Do streetcars really hold 2.5x the number of people as an articulated bus that would get as packed as your typical 42/43 bus at rush hour? My guess is no.
by SDJ on Apr 7, 2010 5:29 pm • link • report
I'm sure they'll be pleased at the saving produced by your trenchant analysis of the modern worldview.
by jcm on Apr 7, 2010 5:29 pm • link • report
According to WMATA, a 60' articulated bus carries about a maximum of 91 passengers at crush load (seated + standing). A 40' bus carries about a maximum of 71 passengers at crush load (seated + standing).
According to United Streetcar, which manufactured some of Portland's Streetcar Fleet, the maximum capacity of the car is 170 passengers (seated + standing).
170 is about 1.8 times 91.
170 is about 2.4 times 71.
So a streetcar has the capacity of 1.8 articulated buses or 2.4 40' buses.
Since 2.4 is pretty close to 2.5, I would say that yes, a streetcar does hold about 2.5x the load of a regular 40' bus (which makes up the majority of WMATA's fleet).
Additionally, since streetcars typically have three doors available for boarding and alighting (per side), they can discharge and board passengers (even at crush) more quickly than a bus which is standing room only.
by Matt Johnson on Apr 7, 2010 5:36 pm • link • report
Why do we have to do anything $$$ to fight a problem that wouldn't exist? Who said anything about a conspiracy? I would be happy with a hybrid battery solution as discussed here before with minimal breaks crossing Penn Ave and the Mall, but from what I have been reading, the powers that be don't want ANY overhead wires anywhere in the L'Enfant city, which means we will never see streetcars here. For example, H Street has no viewshed worth protecting and would benefit greatly from the redevelopment it would bring.
by NikolasM on Apr 7, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report
The point that DDOT needs to study the various technologies out there to decide what is best for the city is a good point, and DDOT agreed with that. Where I find fault, on BOTH sides, is where people are opposing wireless or opposing wires before they even have a chance to perform that study. And there's been plenty of both, both within the Committee of 100 and even within this blog thread...
by Froggie on Apr 7, 2010 5:41 pm • link • report
Streetcar specs:
http://www.inekon-trams.com/trio_low-floor_tram_tech_specs.html
Bus specs:
http://www.transitbc.com/corporate/resources/pdf/res-fleet-35.pdf
The New Flyer on page 5 is used by WMATA and carries 38 seated/72 standing
Closest I could find on the articulated buses WMATA runs was on this second hand sales site
http://www.bargainbusnews.com/neoplan.php
The vehicle is the AN460 listed at 63 passengers.
Assume that's seated and double that and it's still only 126 passengers which is at the low end of the spectrum for the Inekon tram.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 5:44 pm • link • report
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 5:46 pm • link • report
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
There are all the bus stats you want. I've already done the math, and as I pointed out above:
40' bus (WMATA average): 41 seated + 30 standing = 71.
60' articulated (WMATA average): 57 seated + 34 standing = 91.
Portland Streetcar: 170 total.
See math above.
by Matt Johnson on Apr 7, 2010 5:49 pm • link • report
Even within the universe of rail, the more jerky starts and stops we've had since the June crash (thanks to the bellying of the 1000 series and mixing rail cars) are noticeable. The quality of the ride matters. Rail bias isn't some snooty characteristic where people just like trains because they are cool, they actively choose the higher quality ride when given the choice.
by Alex B. on Apr 7, 2010 6:07 pm • link • report
Could we have Streetcars running off a solar panel on the roofs of each car and then battery backup power. Are there any manufacturers doing anything with Solar Power or even looking into it.
All stats concerning the amount of people that can fit on a bus/streetcar can change due to the actual people (fat/slim/tall/short)so forget the amount of people and speak of other things that can not change every trip.
by kk on Apr 7, 2010 6:14 pm • link • report
Powering streetcars directly from the vehicle probably can't be done. I don't think solar panels can create the energy needed to run the tram.
As far as the capacity goes, it's relevant in some way. Regardless of fat/thin, streetcars have about 2.5 times the volume. Will the streetcars sometimes not be able to carry their full load due to fatties? Yes, but literally, there is more occupancy volume on a streetcar than on a bus. So it is somewhat relevant to compare passenger loads.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 6:19 pm • link • report
by Chris Loos on Apr 7, 2010 6:24 pm • link • report
"Go to www.chrs.org and scroll down to the orange text block about CHRS adopting a policy re trolleys -- then click on the word "here" to see the full text of our resolution."
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING STREET CARS WITHOUT OVERHEAD WIRES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
November 17, 2009
WHEREAS , the District of Columbia Government has announced a plan to introduce a 38 mile, $1.5 billion dollar new street car system on to the streets and avenues of the city; and
WHEREAS, a properly designed streetcar system could improve public transportation and do so at less cost than a below grade rail system and,
WHEREAS, the streetcar system, once installed will be in place for decades and
WHEREAS, the L’Enfant Plan for Washington (generally, the area south of Florida Avenue/Benning Road, west of the Anacostia River, sometimes referred to as the “old city”) is on the National Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the LÂ’Enfant PlanÂ’s status on the National Register of Historic Places is a bar to the wires and the various supporting structures which might impose on the streets and avenues, and the DistrictÂ’s Comprehensive Plan protects vistas, open spaces, natural settings and public thoroughfares, and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has correctly described Washington as one of the most significant wire-free transportation networks in the world; and
WHEREAS, the NCPC in carrying out its duties to protect the Federal interest in Washington, has informed District representatives that it would defend against wires in the LÂ’Enfant Plan streets; and
WHEREAS, Washington is a planned city with vital vistas and views that make it unique in the world, and those views are located throughout Washington, including areas outside the LÂ’Enfant Plan that deserve protection from unsightly overhead wires used to power streetcars , now:
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by Capitol Hill Restoration Society that before any further official action is taken to introduce a streetcar system to the District of Columbia, the City should conduct a study of streetcar powering systems that are not dependent on overhead wires, including systems in, Charlotte, NC, the U.S. and in Europe and other parts of the world. .
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 6:25 pm • link • report
Frequency per hour w/ bus vs frequency per hour w/ streetcar
Frequency per hour vs travel time
Length of streetcar vs length of bus (you don't need to actually know the amount of people if they are the same size they usually can fit around the same amount of people if the seats are placed in the same type of layout)
People are more likely to want a seat vs standing and most streetcars I have been on seat less people than a similar size bus however the can fill more people due to standing.
by kk on Apr 7, 2010 6:31 pm • link • report
by kk on Apr 7, 2010 6:32 pm • link • report
Oh come on. That's like saying that the Metrorail fails at bringing people to work because so many people stand, there isn't enough seats for everyone who would like to sit.
As far as frequency and travel time, there's no reason to assume that those won't be the same between the bus and a streetcar.
by kidincredible on Apr 7, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report
by kk on Apr 7, 2010 6:49 pm • link • report
@Lance: Thanks for posting. I have to say: I am not impressed with the two lines that acknowledge that "streetcars could improve public transportation" in the middle of the 320 word resolution. I read that and it is clear to me that what CHRS cares about is keeping wires out. Yes, things like the pantograph quote contribute to that. If CHRS wants people to think they are pro-streetcar and not just anti-wire, they'll have to work a bit harder than that. Agreed though that on paper they are not anti-streetcar. But I don't think you should be so shocked at the read that CHRS gets.
I find the article very credulous about the maintenance and efficiency benefits of the wireless systems. I can be wrong but as a physical scientist - I think this is flat out wrong. In both battery/capacitor and induction cases, the vehicles have to be heavier, and with significant (tens of percent) efficiency penalties.
@SDJ et al... The proof is in the pudding. I've ridden streetcars and buses in cities around the world. The streetcars were more comfortable and much more heavily patronized, with the kind of capacity to handle those crowds. If you have enough buses to handle those crowds, you have a very unpleasant street.
Basically, CHRS et al are basically saying we would rather breathe diesel particulate than look at wires. This is just really weird.
Finally: a smooth fast ride is not an aesthetic issue. Obviously, it leads to higher ridership (and therefore better cost recovery, etc.) But it also effectively enables a wider range of folks to ride the vehicles.
by DavidDuck on Apr 7, 2010 7:57 pm • link • report
I'm definitely not big on buses ... I think they make too much noise, look bad, mess up traffic, etc etc. BUT, the truth is that buses nowadays are coming with 'clean natural gas' as a propellant ... Why do we have to keep getting off topic about whether wires ARE or AREN'T appropriate for a city that prides itself for its open vistas. For me that's a no brainer.
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 8:56 pm • link • report
Are you and the other Committee of 100 members, as well as the voting members of the CPHS willing to shoulder the extra costs associated with novel technologies? Are you willing to take responsibilities should the novel technologies prove the be unworkable? Are you willing to compensate DDOT for the additional potential additional costs associated with a single vendor scenario?
I don't doubt that virtually ever reader and contributor in this forum, on the Washington Post comments etc would be more than happy to embrace a wireless transportation solution that provides the efficiencies of the novel solutions suggested. However, until these methods are proven and financially efficient, it is hard to fathom that the District should be the guinea pig.
by Andrew on Apr 7, 2010 9:26 pm • link • report
by D Holmes on Apr 7, 2010 9:45 pm • link • report
I and others look at this and say very expensive, and (at lease myself and David R) quite inefficient. Meaning: less transit overall because of higher capitol costs, higher maintenance costs, higher energy costs. More environmental degradation.
Running a streetcar is far different than an electric toothbrush (and even those are not cheap). In my judgment, this will be so expensive that it will not happen if the wires can't be put up.
And I just don't get the strength of the opposition to wires.
by DavidDuck on Apr 7, 2010 9:59 pm • link • report
Taken by word, that CHRS resolution (the title doesn't count) does not explicitly express support for streetcars within the District. Nor does it explicitly oppose the use of overhead wires for streetcars in the District. In other words, it's a CYA resolution.
The only thing it really does is recommend something that DDOT already agrees with: study the various streetcar technologies that are on the market. Though in a way, the resolution is funny in that it includes "systems in Charlotte, NC", when Charlotte itself is using overhead wires.
by Froggie on Apr 7, 2010 10:15 pm • link • report
I'm guessing you're not familiar with Munich or how transit operates in German cities. The U-Bahn (subway) alone has 98 stations, more than Metro. And that's less than half of the rail system. The S-Bahn, a completely redundant system that is much more comparable to Metro in that it tries to cover the suburbs as well, has 148 stations. Plus, there is the Regionalbahn (commuter rail) which is quite comprehensive, runs 7 days a week and has far superior frequency and rolling stock than MARC or VRE. All of these are in addition to the excellent streetcar system.
Haven't been to Munich in a few years so I don't know if they have bike sharing now, but I can assure you that bicycle lanes and facilities in general are FAR superior to what we have here.
In short, you are completely wrong.
by Phil on Apr 7, 2010 10:38 pm • link • report
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/VerkehrsnetzMuenchen2008.png
by Phil on Apr 7, 2010 10:42 pm • link • report
The proposition that wireless systems save energy sounds like bullshit. Cockamamie. It flies in the face of a basic understanding of electricity. Inductive couplings are lossy. Capacitors, batteries, and induction coils are heavy and expensive. Neither of these conditions suggests energy savings.
I'll grant that there's been progress in the field, and I'm prepared to believe these claims, but I'd need more authoritative evidence.
by David R. on Apr 7, 2010 10:53 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 7, 2010 11:04 pm • link • report
I understand, sometimes abiding by the law is hard ... even if there's a good reason for doing so. And it may be cheaper to just ignore the law and let your neighbors bear the burden for you to get what you want and get it now. But fortunately we live in a democracy and you can't so easliy push your externalities off on the rest of us.
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 11:13 pm • link • report
Look harder. As things stand, nothing will get put up other than what is already in the process of going up if you buy into the 'wires are okay' argument. The feds will never allow wires in the L'Enfant City. A wireless system capable of doing more than 'crossing a viewshed with blinders on to the side" will be required in order to get approval by the feds. But now, wouldn't that be convenient if DDOT could claim that the system never got any larger 'because the wireless folks prevented it'. No one would ever question the fact that absolutely no planning for this $1.5B system has been done ... Not planning related to the corridors (and that needs to include land use along the corridor); planning related to addressing the federal regulations in effect throughout the Old City; planning regulations related to addressing the federal regulations in effect for receving ANY federal funding; planning related to overall funding for such an ambitius project.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It's not wires you have to worry about. It's about the fact that as things stand there isn't a chance in 'h', that the streetcar system will get built much further than the H St corridor.
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 11:22 pm • link • report
I'm not interested in arguing whether it would be lawful to string up the wires tomorrow with a stolen cherrypicker. Obviously, there is some law out there...and some way of overturning it.
You want me to pay for your pain and suffering due to the wires. Fine. Can you pay me for all the pain and suffering due to bus exhaust? Car exhaust? Climate change? Your complaint about the being oppressed with the externality of wire ugliness is really tone deaf.
Again, if the no-wires folks want us to believe that this is not pure NIMBYism, they'll have to do better than this. If you have not noticed, most of us on this blog are pro-planning. But we're also pro-efficiency, and assertions from salesmen about efficiency and economy aren't cutting it.
by DavidDuck on Apr 7, 2010 11:32 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 7, 2010 11:35 pm • link • report
How ironic that the very organizations that may make a complete system possible, are on this blog being accused of trying to derail it. Perhaps what a lot of folks don't get is that 'the regulations are already here', 'the financial requirements are already here', and you need to be able to plan to address all these things (and more). Doing that planning isn't 'holding up the project' as some folks are claiming CHRS and the Committee of 100 are doing, but instead actually will serve to allow the project to pan out.
The wired/wireless issue isn't even up for consideration. It's a given that the feds won't allow it ... and for good reason in my opinion.
Let's stop squabbling and letting ourselves lose focus. DDOT would be more than happy to find an excuse for not going forward. Those tasked by the administration with 'getting it done' know full well that they haven't been given the tools and resources to make this thing to happen. At this point they can do no more than complete the lines/segments that are already being dug ... to make use of the 3 cars (and 6 more) already ordered. Let's not given them an excuse fot not making the whole 37 mile (or more) system happen. Let's insist they do this in a manner that will be success (i.e., allowable by the feds, eligible for federal funding, and generally well thought out and funded for the long term).
by Lance on Apr 7, 2010 11:41 pm • link • report
For high-capacity, surface transit streetcars are the least expensive option (in the long run)
by egk on Apr 8, 2010 12:03 am • link • report
You say the wired/wireless issue isn't even up for consideration. I disagree. It's not up for consideration within the L'Enfant City or Georgetown, to be fair, but it's very much up for consideration in the rest of the city, especially since two of the planned streetcar lines are entirely outside the L'Enfant City.
by Froggie on Apr 8, 2010 7:49 am • link • report
I agree completely about what is 'required' and what is 'not required'. But this city has a long history of treating some of its neighborhoods less equally than others. Many organizations, the Committe of 100 foremost among them, have fought long and hard to change that reality both in fact and in perception. (For example, the Committee of 100 reaches out to all neighborhoods and all 4 corners of the District for its membership so that it is representative of all areas of the city.) Now isn't the time to start constructing a two-tiered system for the city, not any system.
Nor does it make economic sense to do so even if a good argument could be made for having different systems in different parts of the city. As you acknowledged (which many on this blog and elsewhere won't), it's not up for consideration within the L'Enfant City or Georgetown.
Once you've built a system that is wireless for these vast, and central, areas of the city that require wireless, it seems intuitive that it is not going to make economic sense to develop an entirely different 'wired' system for the rest of the city. Perhaps developing a 'hybrid' system that could run off the same streetcars and the same tracks (AND making use of the same streetcars) as the wireless system that would be needed in the L'Enfant City and Georgetown would be possible ... as they are doing in Bordeaux. But not an entirely new system.
Building in this fashion would still require FIRST choosing a technolog that works best for wireless and then secondly seeing if it is adaptable to wired for those areas outside the ban, and if that is the best of the wireless systems to do so. In brief it would require planning and at heart to that planning would be working with the requirement that the L'Enfant City and Georgetown utilize wireless systems.
And that is not what has happened and what is happening. 3 streetcars were bought in the Czech Repubilic without any planning and without any particular streetcar system in mind. And now a complete line is being built to make use of these 3 already paid for streetcars (and 6 more on order), again without any overall planning in place AND without consideration to the requirement that for the vast and central L'Enfant and Georgetown areas of our city that the system will need to be wireless.
I don't think CHRS and the Committee of 100 are putting the cart before the horse by insisting that this prime consideration, the wireless requirement, be considered. I think they are acting responsibly and acknowledging 'what is'. I think DDOT is acting irresponsibly by backing into a solution and then announcing 'this is the best solution' when we all know this best solution can even be used in the vast and central L'Enfant City and the Georgetown areas of Washington.
by Lance on Apr 8, 2010 8:17 am • link • report
"Diesel Particulate matter"? Give me a break. All of Metro's new buses the past few years have all been NatGas or Diesel Electric Hybrid. One strawman eliminated...
"Capacity is greater than a bus" - Well sure, much in the same same way a Aircraft carrier holds more people than a row boat. But at what cost? An articulated bus costs what, 600-700K dollars. Our 4 year old rail cars cost 3.3 million each. So even at your 1.8 times capacity argument it would cost 1.25 million dollars to purchase the same bus capacity as the street car. Or, just buying the vehicle alone costs 2.64 times to go street car versus bus. And of course we haven't even added in all the additional infrastructure costs that would be required (rails, wires) for the street car. Anyone who has done the most basic of cost benefit analysis would see this. Not one of the "pro" folks have admitted that dedicated bus lane would do the same thing a dedicated ROW for a street car would do. Strawman # eliminated...
Someone asked if CHRS would be willing to make up the difference in cost between wireless and wired. Umm, thats the ENTIRE point many of us have tried to make. Gable Klein and his predessesors put the city in this situation with their naievate and lack of planning. The power system should have been the FIRST issues tackled. But no, they spent ~ a hundred million dollars of city money over the past 6 years on equipment and construction plans, and then have the chutzpah to come back now and blame their poor planning on a group of people, when this problem has existed for the past 130 years? Get real. If DDOT had done their job, this issue wouldn't exist. Had they spent a couple million bucks up front either getting the fed ban repealed or finding a work around, we wouldn't be in this situation. But it is simple easier to blame the messenger than take blame for the shoddy job they've done thus far. Spending ~100 million dollars when you haven't even figured out how to power these things? Jeez...
And for those of you who think the Fed's will easily allow it obviously haven't lived here very long. The Feds get involved in every single minor item of their choosing. Every time some Senator from bum-f&%k nowhere wants to look good on TV he blocks something the District tries to do. And filling the city skyscape with wires is certainly something they will have issues over for some reason.
Not to mention all the other entities in the city that have overriding jurisdiction. The Architect of the Capitol, NCPC, the Park Service. Of course DDOT hasn't done their due diligence there either and hasn't run any of their plans past these folks, all of whom have to sign off.
As I said before, the only "benefit" any of you stick with on buses over street cars is the cool "vogueness" of it all. Well I am sorry, DC doesn't have the money to spend a minimum of 1.5 billion dollars building a sexy transportation toy when the one we have is underfunded and broken.
I wonder what the next strawman argument will be?
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 8:47 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 8, 2010 8:55 am • link • report
Rail cars last far longer than buses do. You can get 40-50 years out a rail car relatively easy. You're lucky to get 10-12 out of a bus. Doesn't seem like you factored that into your back of the envelope pro-forma. You not only need more buses to match capacity, but you need even more to match the life cycle capacity of the rail car.
by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2010 8:59 am • link • report
Obviously they didn't do their job or we wouldn't be nearly a decade into this process with 100 million dollars down the drain and rail cars sitting.
No, they blindly moved forward in a manner that is going to cost DDOT a ton of money in delays (at the very least) and even more money if the L'Enfant plan is held up.
AlexB,
Odd, is this the same 40-50 year time frame we were supposed to get out of our metrorail cars as well? Why are we replacing all the metrorail cars that are only 33 years old.
And it isn't an even cost to cost comparison as Metro spends a fortune every 15 years sending those cars away to be reconditioned and rebuilt. And lastly, again...you didn't consider the billions of dollars required to lay tracks and string wires through the city when none of that is required for the bus only arrangement.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 9:19 am • link • report
Metro is starting the process to replace the 1000 series. By the time the 7000 series comes online to replace the 1000 series, the 1000 cars will be at least 40 years old. Remember that the 7000 series serves to add more cars for the Dulles extension first, then replace old cars second.
As for the shorter lifespan, the 1000 series are probably at the low end of the spectrum, but plenty of other subway cars in other cities have gotten 50-60 years of service. Even mid-life overhauls are not as expensive as buying from scratch, and certainly not as expensive as buying buses over that entire period of time.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, streetcars and rail in general present a lot of up-front capital costs. These are long-term decisions. That's what infrastructure is all about.
by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2010 9:41 am • link • report
by Froggie on Apr 8, 2010 9:43 am • link • report
It really bothers me that people who are shouting the loudest are making those decisions from the front seat of their luxury SUVs, while those who depend on the X2 for daily transportation have the smallest voice in this dialog. It's all incredibly unbalanced.
by k on Apr 8, 2010 9:46 am • link • report
Large scale projects like this "ALWAYS" suffer from spec creep and mass cost over runs.
There has not been one single transportation project in the DC Metro area the past 20 years that has been on budget and on time.
Metro Silver Line Extension? Approved in 2004 at a 3.8 billion dollar project. By the time construction actually started in 2009 it had climbed to 5.25 billion. We will easily see another 10%-20% increase before it is done.
NoVa Mixing Bowl Project? Sold to the public and approved in 1999 for $210 Million dollars. By the time it was/is done it had increased 3 fold to 625 Million.
Wilson Bridge Project? It was only 40% over budget at a final price of 2.5 billion.
The Purple Line? It has doubled in cost and it hasn't even broken ground yet.
The New York Avenue In-Fill Metro station. Climbed 16% in cost to 104 million in the 4 months after approval. This has the honor of being the "least" over budget local transportation project yet.
I could go on like this all day long, but all of us are reasonable enough to admit as adults that even if the current plan wasn't changed and they could string wires everywhere, that the 1.5 billion dollar price tag is bunk and will double, at the very least before it is all said and done.
And it isn't like this is a regional transportation project. It isn't going to carry people from MD, or VA into DC. Its going to carry people "in" DC around the city. A city that is half a billion in the hole as it is can't afford another gold plated boondoggle just because it is sexier than buses.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 9:46 am • link • report
Cost creep happens everywhere with transportation. Don't damn DC as if it's some lone, over-spending island in the middle of fiscal constraint.
Most people realize that projects never end up coming in under budget for transportation.
by kidincredible on Apr 8, 2010 9:50 am • link • report
Everyone "for" this project as is keeps touting the fact that will only cost 1.5 billion when we all know thats completely disingenuous, never even considering the fact that it is going to double at a minimum, or worse. Is the cost benefit (which it already loses when compared to dedicated lane rapid-bus service) still worth it to you when it costs twice as much at a minimum?
The numbers don't pen out as it is. How doubling that number makes it more attractive is beyond me.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 9:56 am • link • report
How much of that is actual cost creep and how much is scope creep? It's one thing if I say you'll get 100 widgets for 100 bucks, but if the scope changes to 150 widgets, you can't expect that $100 figure to stay the same.
Also remember that construction costs in general had been increasing far faster than the rate of inflation. Just look at your Silver Line example - 3.8 billion in 2004 translates to 4.3 billion in 2009 just factoring for inflation, without considering the further increases for construction materials. Delaying those projects undoubtedly ended up costing us money.
by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2010 9:57 am • link • report
My point was that your dedicated bus lane proposal would suffer from the same cost-creep. So why even bring that up as an issue?
by kidincredible on Apr 8, 2010 10:00 am • link • report
What difference does it make? All of these projects suffer from both. DDOT threw out a plan that by all appearances was not very detailed or well thought out. Track alignments will change, they will find utilities in streets they didn't know was there, whatever, but the point is we all know it is going to happen.
And your point about delay is somewhat taken although all of these projects saw these massive increases "AFTER" construction had started. The only example above that might fit your model is the Purple Line which has doubled in cost in 4 years, and that wasn't from inflation.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 10:04 am • link • report
Somewhat off-topic, but relevant. This is true for fossil fuels as well. DO you really think it takes less energy to pump oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, refine it, ship it, and distribute it to your car than it gives back in driving your car?
An important and often overlooked point in energy policy is not the efficiency of the final user, but the efficiency of getting the energy in a safe, and usable form to an end user. That is probably the single reason we're still hooked on fossil fuels. They're so d@rn easy to transport.
I agree with the rest of your story though.
@ GreenDC: As a supporter of both street cars and the design qualities that make our city so special
Nice statement, but can you back it up? How are the vistas in DC more special than those in Prague, Moskow and Amsterdam? DC's age alone puts that seriously in question.
this "green transit versus historic viewsheds" tradeoff
There is no trade-off. Saying something does not make it so.
@ Paul:To say someone can't even debate the overhead wires in DC unless they are willing to tell Prague to get rid of theirs is Reductio ad absurdum.
How is blaming a few thin wires for the destruction of vistas not reductio ad absurdum? Another example of a statement you can not back up.
@ SDJ: If bus saturation is the reason why we are opting for streetcars, how exactly does a track-restricted streetcar system avoid the same problems?
Because other cities in the world have figured out how to do so tens of years ago. No mystique. Cold hard facts. Unless you think that DC can not implement policies that worked in the 60s and 70s elsewhere.
When you suggest a wired streetcar and overturning existing regulations to make it happen, I get a little bit miffed too.
Yeah, because all regulations of the late 1800 make perfect sense, right? Things never change. We are more than a century later. Women get to vote now. Prohibition is gone. Segregation ended. Hell, there's even a decent health care bill now. These are all serious issues. But you are arguing that wire regulations from that time are impervious to changing times, than go right ahead. I would just to see you do it on the record.
Not to mention that you would (unfortunately) face fierce opposition from drivers who would say that giving streetcars the right of way at intersections would yield greater backups for cars...
Another fabricated issue that's been solved in any city with streetcars. In the Netherlands, trams have the right of way over anything. In other words, tram tracks are free for use by others, except when a tram is present. It works. End of debate.
B.S. We live in the freakin' capital of the free world and we should settle for something completely ordinary? ...What's the matter with having a little self-respecting pride for living in the nation's capital?
I would love a transit system that's completely comparable to what other capitals on the world have. Newsflash: we're far behind. Streetcars are so f-ing robust that they survived 50 years of communist rule in Prague and Berlin. Why are we debating this?
Some of us really do want streetcars, but want them preserving the best of what DC has to offer and getting the most out of streetcar development.
See my question above. What does DC have that Prague, Dublin and Moscow don't?
@ Matt Johnson: Oh no, you're using facts! The horror! +1
@ Phil: +1
It's also funny that the anti-wire folks only bring up issues. They never react when their points are being refuted.
by Jasper on Apr 8, 2010 10:16 am • link • report
So, the Purple Line doubled in cost - but what exactly was it that doubled? The locally preferred alternative wasn't announced until August, 2009 - if you're going to criticize cost estimates, you need to at least criticize them on an apples to apples basis.
With the current streetcar plan, for example, the 1.5 billion dollar estimate is and has always been thrown around as a very preliminary, back of the envelope kind of estimate. Everyone knows the plan will change over time - that doesn't mean you don't release the plan and share the vision.
For example, the idea of a New Blue line through DC is a great idea - and having some sort of back of the envelope cost estimate is a key part in discussing that vision. There's nothing wrong with preliminary estimates so long as everyone is aware of what that number means and the limitations it has. To get the kind of precision you're asking for would require knowing the end solution without going through the preliminary iterations.
by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2010 10:19 am • link • report
Thanks for the info about Munich. You're right, I've never been to Germany, period. My quick wiki search (because I have better things to do with my time) took me to the main terminal of Munich, where I accidentally looked at the number of platforms, not stations. Wasn't an intentional distortion of facts, just an oversight. So, yeah, never had a chance to go there, but I recently learned that if you do go it gives you license to be a d*ck about it.
@NikolasM
Re: law changing.
Some of us LIKE that law. Some of us think wires are f'in ugly. Some of us think that repealing this law would be a green light for utility companies to cut corners and string up wires everywhere. Give an inch to Pepco and they'll take a mile. No thank you. It doesn't mean we are "hiding behind it," it means that, to me, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. I am a DC native (well, Arlington), and seeing as I now live in the original L'Enfant Plan area, I like my DC Downtown to have low buildings and no wires. Wires are as much a disruption to DC's "effect" as a skyscraper would be. And that law is critical to preserving that.
@Matt Johnson @kindincredible, et al.
Re: Rail cars being able to board/offlad more people more quickly.
Yet another distorted view of what streetcars can do. The ability for to move people in out of the vehicle quickly has nothing to do with the vehicle and everything to do with the way fares are paid. Our current two-door bus system could have two in/out doors if we adopted the same fare gates as would be implemented for the streetcar. A quick google search shows that New York and places in France also have three-door buses. Who's to say we couldn't board/offload people just as quickly on one of those, with a fare system that mimics a streetcar?
Re: capacity
This is probably the closest legitimate argument there has been for why streetcars are incrementally better than buses (transit-wise). Thanks, Matt for the stats. I'll cede the point on this one, but I'm still puzzled as to how this is possible. You can only fit so many people per ft^2 inside the vehicle...it's not like people magically shrink inside a streetcar. Are streetcars wider/longer, or is it just a question of rearranging seats? I'd really like to know.
Anyway, I've only been following transit issues for the last year or so. I'm heartily pro-transit, but I'm really afraid people here have become so entrenched in their views that they can't isolate WHAT exactly they're promoting. You can't be "pro-streetcar" without being able to vocalize what a streetcar offers over any existing mode of transportation. If it's a spiffy look, that's fine, just at least come out and say it (that's why I want it). As nookie has reminded you guys, there have been a flurry of pro-wired-streetcar arguments here that actually have nothing to do with the unique assets that streetcars offer.
So yeah, I'm outta here on this issue. Peace.
by SDJ on Apr 8, 2010 10:20 am • link • report
http://streetcars4dc.org/?p=103
DC Surface Transit (DCST) announced yesterday that it will hold a seminar on streetcar propulsion technology on Thursday, May 6 from 5:00-7:00 pm at the Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th Street, NW. It will address the current legal and environmental framework for modern streetcar systems. The seminar is free and open to the public.
Rich Bradley, President of DCST and Executive Director of the Downtown Business Improvement District, will moderate a panel of transit and urban design experts. Martin Schroeder, Chief Engineer for the American Public Transit Association, will review existing and developing streetcar technologies. Greg Baldwin, a Principal with Zimmer Gunsel Frasca, will present strategies for integrating streetcar infrastructure into urban streetscapes. A question and answer period will follow.
by Alex B. on Apr 8, 2010 10:22 am • link • report
Yes Kidincredible, dedicated rapid-bus lanes would "also" suffer cost creep. I never said it wouldn't. But considering it is so much cheaper to begin with, and requires far less intrusive (read expensive) infrastructure upgrades than does a street car, the cost creep potential is far less than it is for a street car.
Assuming DDOT's numbers are 100% correct and the system only cost 1.5 billion, how much of that do you think is in track/utility/wire cost? 100 million? Throw out a number. I am curious.
The Portland Streetcar that many of you point to as a great example opened it's first 4.8 mile section in 2001 for 57 million, or 12 million per mile. Adjusting for inflation, that is 15 million per mile today. Apply that to the 37 mile plan for DC and that is 560 million dollars.
How many streetcars is DC planning to buy out of that 1.5 billion? I don't know. 100...200 maybe. At the per unit cost we paid 4 years ago for the 3 we have, buying 200 more will cost 680 million (an amount we can buy 600 articulated buses for by the way)
So lets say for the giggles of it all DC is planning on spending 700 million for streetcars and 800 million for tracks and construction, giving us 1.5 billion dollars total.
I can guarantee that re curbing or re striping the streets to give rapid bus the same dedicated ROW street cars would have wouldn't cost anywhere near the 800 million they plan on spending for tracks/wires. I'd be shocked if it cost 25% of that. Then on top of that, we wouldn't have to build unique and new street car maintenance/repair and storage facilities that we already have for buses.
Listen guys, as I said before, you need to find an argument and keep to it, because this constant new straw man argument creation devalues your primary argument.
I am as pro transportation as it gets. I would vote tomorrow to build a dedicated ROW rapidbus system through DC. Just buying the spiffiest looking system out there regardless of cost where there are more economical ways of doing things is a recipe for disaster. As I've said numerous times, we already have a trendy transportation toy that is broken and underfunded. Do any of you truly think the street car won't end up the same way?
None of this takes away from the fact that DDOT irresponsible plowed ahead and spent huge sums of money without figuing out the first and most primary question for this system, how is it to be powered, and now they/you are using a time crunch issue (that was created by DDOT themselves) as reason to just forge ahead some more.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
@k
GTH. I take a metro (and sometimes bus) combo to work every day, and I haven't driven my gas-sipping sedan in at least a week. No luxury SUV for me, thank you very much.
Quit trying to villify people who have legitimate concerns about the future of DC. My guess is that you didn't grow up in the area. I was born and raised inside the beltway, but that doesn't meany my argument is more or less valid than yours. Can we stick to reason as oppose to devolving into a GOP v. Dem campign?
And a quick response to Jasper:
What does DC have that those cities don't? We have more open space between structures, fewer narrow streets, and lots of room -- all reasons to use more overhead wires. We have wider viewscapes and open spaces that allow us to have things like the kite festival on the Mall. Can't see the Smithsonian keep holding that if there's an electrified wire on one side...those viewscapes are a part of what define DC, in the same way Notre Dame is iconic for Paris. You wouldn't string up a wire there, would you? I don't get why people don't have PRIDE in having no wires. I think that's something we should be really happy about. Think about how all new suburban developments are trying to emulate what DC has instituted for a century? That makes me proud to live in a city that had that kind of vision - a vision worth preserving. Your analogy with legislated human rights violations from the 19th century is ludicrous, and borderline insulting. Stick to transit.
Okay friends, now, I'm really out of here.
by SDJ on Apr 8, 2010 10:48 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 8, 2010 10:55 am • link • report
by kidincredible on Apr 8, 2010 11:17 am • link • report
I'm not buying the argument that some barely visible wires would totally ruin the place.
Meanwhile, most of these "amazing viewsheds" in the L'Enfant city have already been spoiled by the predominance of cookie-cutter 12 story boxes. (You can thank DC height regulations for that one.) Again, I don't think barely visible wires would damage things too much.
by Phil on Apr 8, 2010 11:18 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 8, 2010 11:30 am • link • report
I think it's disingenuous to keep bringing up wires on the National Mall. The DDOT and the vast majority have NEVER advocated for wires on the Mall. That's the whole point of a hybrid system. When H Street and Anacostia start hosting a kite festival, then perhaps your absurd argument will have merit.
You are right, I am not from inside the beltway. Perhaps it's the fact that I have commuted by streetcar on a regular basis that gives me the VISION to see the improvement that streetcars are over buses. Perhaps if you'd never lived the difference, you cannot understand. DC is my home now, and I fully believe that wired streetcars (with hybrid power to protect viewsheds) is the optimal compromise between protecting the city's aestheic beauty, keeping down costs, modernizing the transit system, and creating something that is both reliable and can be affordably maintained.
While you seemed to have taken my comment about representation personally, I will not back down. The majority of X2 ridership does not have the capacity or ability to take part in this debate. They should not be forgotten.
by k on Apr 8, 2010 11:32 am • link • report
@Lance: In part, I write resolutions for a living. The CHRS resolution that you claim "supports" streetcars is one of the most unsupportive I've ever read.
Bottomline: I don't think Monte Edwards, CHRS, the Committee of the 100, or the people who argue against any change are being constructive. The power argument is a red herring intended to sidetrack (no pun intended) this project. I agree that we need to study all the options--but I guess I sorta think that transportation professionals, like those at DDOT, are better equipped to make informed decisions than a bunch of "concerned citizens." I have a feeling that no matter what Gabe Klein and DDOT did CHRS would complain and set out roadblocks, because the bottom line is that they fear change. Some of that fear is healthy, and I appreciate it, but at a certain point they become a stumbling block to improvements. Time for them to take a look at what they're doing on this issue and ask some questions about constructiveness vs. obstruction. I don't think it's constructive to say "we support [untested/unproven] battery technology, and anything else is a non-starter."
As a resident up above H, I really resent the people on the rest of the hill/rest of the city weighing in AGAINST more transit options for our underserved neighborhood. You've got your metro stops and your circulator. Now let us have our street car (with its UNOBTRUSIVE wires).
by h street resident on Apr 8, 2010 11:37 am • link • report
Strawman argument here. There is no proposal to build streetcars anywhere near the Mall. Have you been on H St NE lately? Tell me what sweeping vistas would be disrupted?
h street resident, I live south of H, technically in the Capitol Hill Historic District and I can adamantly tell you the CHRS does not speak for me. I don't know who the heck they do speak for.
One thing it's doing is prompting me to go to this April 20th meeting because I'm so aghast at the naysayers. I guess they've never visited the rest of the world and have their blinkers on.
by lou on Apr 8, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report
-------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. Lay out a rough cost benefit analysis as to the difference in both upfront and long term capital costs of a street car system versus a dedicated bus lane as I've done above with cost per mile, street car versus bus cost, mid life reconditioning (which costs Metro approx 400K per metro car or 3-% of original cost, the street car cost can be approximated by that) etc.
Line capacity? Fine, each individual street car can hold half again as many passengers of an articulated bus, but at WHAT COST? A quick 30 second comparison has you all in a tizy about passenger capacity while losing sight of the fact that the cost differential between the two systems (long term, short term, mid term) is so out of whack that it doesn't make a lick of sense.
All the "pro's like to simply throw out subjective "anecdotal" opinion. If the cost benefit comparison is so easy and one sided as you apparently think, then it should be incredibly easy for you to lay out as I have done in a couple examples above.
For example...MetroBus currently operates 1,500 buses daily that cover 300 bus routes and services 12,000 stops and 450,000 people daily, all on a yearly budget of 500 million (FY-10). And you want to spend a bare minimum of 1.5 billion (upfront) and hundreds of millions more per year to service what, 100,000 people daily by 2030 if we are lucky.
Oh, and lastly those of you claiming that the street cars hold 170 people, I would point you to DDOT's own FAQ's where they claim 140 people. Huge difference. So the cost benefit analysis just got skewed again.
DC doesn't need to buy a Rolls Royce when a Taurus will do the same thing.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 1:28 pm • link • report
Talk about "strawman" arguments. Perhaps you should look at the proposed alignments before saying something that clearly isn't true.
http://ddot.washingtondc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1250,q,648154,ddotNav_GID,1746,ddotNav,|34060|.asp#
The proposed "Yellow" line crosses the national mall at 7th street.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report
But your opposition is a blanket one including areas that might be part of the original L'Enfant City but have no sightlines and no vistas and could use the streetcars.
And I really want to know where the Committee of 100 or the CHRS was when really butt-ugly buildings were constructed on H St NE. That public storage building is more hideous than any overhead wires would be.
by lou on Apr 8, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report
Have the wire opponents ever been to Philadelphia? There are streetcar wires in Center City. Center City is William Penn's original city. It is analagous to our L'Enfant City. It is even older and more historic than our L'Enfant City.
Somehow the overhead wires there don't ruin Center City's beauty.
Streetcars also run through the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a beautiful campus with some stunning views of Center City. Somehow the wires don't ruin those views. You only see them when you look for them.
Somehow the wires don't ruin the University of Pennsylvania's beauty.
When we look at the context that the Congress in the early 20th century passed the wire ban, we have to understand that this was during the Industrial Revolution. A previous comment linked to a photo of New York that had wires all over the place in a ridiculous maze. Those wires weren't all for streetcars. Few were for streetcars. We have to remember that when Congress passed the ban, they were seeking to bury utility wires, not prevent streetcars.
The conditions and context of the ban has changed so much in the last century that we should reevaluate whether the law makes sense for us today.
One of the main conditions that has greatly changed is that Washington had only known growth 100 years ago. It was a small, but growing city. We went throught 30 years of stagnation and decline at the end of the 20th century. Now, 10 years into an historic revitalization period, we're looking to accomodate and plan for a growing city. Most local elected officials aren't accustomed to thinking in those terms. Preventing increased mobility options for current and new residents alike, while hiding behind a 100 year old law that was passed with completely different intentions and in completely different circumstances is not the way to plan for a growing and increasingly vibrant city.
by Cavan on Apr 8, 2010 2:01 pm • link • report
Aruging about wires on the Mall is a strawman.
by k on Apr 8, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report
Really, you and about 6 other people above have had such circular logic it is astounding.
Blocking wires in the L'Enfant city is all any of us including the folks over at CHRS are talking about!! No one is saying you can't have wires outside of it. You can build it as a matter of right. No federal ban overturn required!
If you've read any of the posts above you'll see all the "pros" arguing to overturn the federal ban "IN" the L'Enfant city to string wires everywhere. Batteries, quick charge capacitors etc, doesn't matter what technology they use as long as they use it "IN THE L'ENFANT CITY!"
Jebus H Christos. Do any of you even know why you are up in arms? It's like you like to argue for arguments sake.
by nookie on Apr 8, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report
by Phil on Apr 8, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report
K said "Blocking wires in the L'Enfant city is all any of us including the folks over at CHRS are talking about!!"
Then you replied "Blocking wires in the L'Enfant city is all any of us including the folks over at CHRS are talking about!!"
You realize that "The Mall" and "The L'Enfant City" are not the same thing, right? Not being snarky, just wondering.
by oboe on Apr 8, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report
by oboe on Apr 8, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Apr 8, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report
Actually, this is exactly what CHRS and the Committee of 100 are saying. They are both opposing wires city-wide.
by Froggie on Apr 8, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report
I would respect the CHRS/C100 complaints if they actually lived in areas where the streetcars are going to run. Rather than hiding behind the cloak of an organization, they should voice their opinion as a resident of the COMMUNITY.
by Outsider looking In on Apr 8, 2010 5:01 pm • link • report
hmmm ... CHRS stands for "Capitol Hill Restoration Society" ... i.e., It is the neighborhood group that serves to protect Capitol Hill in regards to preservation and other issues vis-a-vis the District government; and the Committee of 100 is a District-wide organization, drawing from the District as a whole for its membership, and performing a similar function for the District as a whole for land use and preservation issues affecting the District as a whole. I.e. We DO live here. Do you?
by Lance on Apr 8, 2010 7:28 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Apr 8, 2010 9:45 pm • link • report
by Lance on Apr 8, 2010 10:04 pm • link • report
Wow, half a block away!
I only hope it happens while I'm still alive and able to live in this house and walk to the streetcar stop.
(I once joined CHRS, only to discover that by then they were much more interested in protecting parking than old buildings. I did not renew.)
by davidj on Apr 9, 2010 12:15 am • link • report
Or if you were to stand on the Mall without blinders, and without looking through powerful binoculars mounted on a tripod and trained exactly in the right direction.
by davidj on Apr 9, 2010 12:21 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 9, 2010 9:34 am • link • report
by Lance on Apr 9, 2010 11:36 am • link • report
by Lance on Apr 9, 2010 11:37 am • link • report
"Overhead wires would introduce an element on our streets that has been intentionally prohibited by law since 1889. As a result, Washington has one of the most wire-free streetscapes in the world.
by Lance on Apr 9, 2010 11:38 am • link • report
It also has one of the most rail-free streetscapes in the world. So what?
That is not "proof", an "example", or even an "anecdote" that the wires will destroy views.
The only thing that proves is that if we build a streetcar system with overhead wires, we won't have one of the most wire-free streetscapes. That is not even close to talking about views.
In fact, several people have cited other world capitals, all of which have more overhead wires, that still have good views and excellent streetscapes.
*Note: I don't care how streetcars are powered, but I do support building them sooner rather than later and as cheaply as possible. That should not be taken to mean that I am calling for overhead wires.
by Matt Johnson on Apr 9, 2010 11:43 am • link • report
We need COST-EFFECTIVE transit solutions. The more effective the transit, the more incentive to develop around it and implement more of it.
Wires are a minor eyesore. Red-ink on budget sheets and congestion are more damaging eyesores. Get real; no one gives a damn about wires except the obsessive compulsive, and those who want to kill the project.
by MikeS on Apr 12, 2010 4:03 pm • link • report
The question is, who's designing new ones? Anyone?
If no one were agitating to remove existing catenaries, it seems unlikely that Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens, Kawasaki and Shanhai Transit, TIG/m and others would have spent so much developing and promoting wireless transit technology.
You don't bet extremely expensive, very long-life projects on dying technologies. Lots of audio tape cassettes are still and around working well ... but you wouldn't invest in a huge new factory to manufacture them.
by Stan Thompson on Apr 12, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report
Add a Comment