Some top civic leaders have quietly created a not-for-profit organization to study and build a streetcar "circulator" system downtown.Downtown Indianapolis Streetcar Corp. would bring the electric vehicles to the streets for the first time since the 1950s.Notable members of the group include Bob Bedell, former president of the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association, and Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce President Roland Dorson.The group envisions a fleet of streetcars powered by overhead wires that connects to other transit vehicles, such as IndyGo buses or to a rapid transit line previously proposed between downtown and Noblesville."Today, the trend for both citizens and businesses is to move back downtown," according to the group's promotional material.Not only can a well-planned streetcar system support such increased density in a central business district - it can help bring it about," says the material, which was obtained by IBJ.The group points to streetcar systems such as one that opened in Portland, Ore., in 2001. "There is currently about $2.5 billion of new construction around these streetcar lines. There are some very strong parallels between the Portland situation and Indianapolis."A cost estimate was not provided, although the group says it expects a blend of public and private financing will be required. It's not clear how such an idea will be received by a city suffering budget woes and still howling over property tax increases.Downtown Indianapolis Streetcar Corp. said it has tapped as a consultant a nationally recognized expert in streetcar systems, Jim Graebner, who grew up in Indianapolis and now lives in the Denver area.
Chairing the group's board is Tom Hoback, president of Indiana Railroad, a freight railroad based in Indianapolis. Other prominent leaders on the board are IndyGo president Gilbert Holmes, Eiteljorg Museum President John Vanausdall and Central Indiana Community Foundation President Brian Payne.Other board members represent downtown area organizations that stand to gain from such a project. They include officials of the Indianapolis Zoo, Circle Centre mall, IUPUI, and White River State Park.
The next step will involve launching an in-depth study of possible routes.
...Indy has been very progressive during the past decade or two and the downtown is bursting with "new" stuff....including the Circle Centre Mall and a host of new construction on going....
This is an interesting proposal. Will be interesting to see if anything happens for this "movement".
Quentin
I would say that the return of the streecar is part of a steamroller movement that is only limited by the amount of money that it can mortgage from the citizens. Minneapolis is salivating for the return of the streetcars, but they have too much on their plate with the overpriced bridge and the University Avenue LRT project.
What is the point of spending public money to run dedicated electric rail vehicles on their own track in the streets today?
Bucyrus wrote: I would say that the return of the streecar is part of a steamroller movement that is only limited by the amount of money that it can mortgage from the citizens. Minneapolis is salivating for the return of the streetcars, but they have too much on their plate with the overpriced bridge and the University Avenue LRT project. What is the point of spending public money to run dedicated electric rail vehicles on their own track in the streets today?
Streetcars run on electricity and don't directly burn petroleum or ethanol. They also can be excellent tools in urban redevelopment as they provide quick and efficient mass transportation to limited areas allowing people to move without automobiles. Light rail or trolleys are significantly cheaper than subways or elevated lines. Look at NYC, Chicago or other major cities with mass transit. New Orleans and San Diego are great examples of effective streecar lines.
LC
I agree that there will be certain efficiencies arising from the fact that streetcars are electric, and there may be some ecological benefit depending on where the electricity comes from. However, this strikes me as a rather weak justification in light of the enormous cost of installing a new streetcar system.
Here is the benefits pitch from the people who make money selling the concept:
Streetcars accelerate and organize development (more so than buses).
Streetcars attract tourists and occasional riders.
Streetcars offer a "legibility" and permanence that buses can't match.
Streetcars operate better in pedestrian environments.
Clearly identifiable and predictable rail route.
Easily identified stops that are protected.
More stability in vehicle ride.
Greater ride comfort; ease of boarding and exiting.
Freedom from fumes and excessive noise of diesel buses.
Trains engender a sense of nostalgia, buses typically do not.
Rail has the ability attract "choice" markets.
A national study shows that rail attracts up to 40% more riders than bus, all conditions held equal.
Here is the link to the source for the above: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/Streetcar_Presentation_040406.pdf
Why do streetcars operate better in pedestrian environments?
Why is a streetcar running on a railroad more predictable than a bus running on a road?
Why can't we identify and protect bus stops?
Why can a bus not be made just as stable and comfortable as a streetcar?
These so-called benefits speak for themselves as to how hard it is to justify pouring public money into such frivolous pursuits. Some of these items seem downright silly. Legibility? Protected stops? A sense of nostalgia? "Choice" markets? Give me a break. What's illegible about a bus? This is fashion, not transportation.
Dakguy201 wrote:Perhaps it is just me, but I think a lot of catenary is very negative to the visual experience of an urban area. Although not urban, the grounds of the Illinois Railway Museum are a good example of my idea of visual pollution.
Depends on if you're a railfan or not.... I personally like to look at them!
gabe wrote:I cannot begin to say how good this would be for the city of Indianapolis.
Personally, I like the retro-look of the overhead wires. Let's hope this revitalizes the downtown -- and retro cars would add to the visual appeal, methinks -- not to mention the ridership.
People also seem to get less impatient waiting for a streetcar than a bus.
This is great news. I live in northern In, and would go to, and enjoy riding the streetcars.Additionally, a connector to the new stadium would ease traffic woes for that venue.
I am not a big fan of how politics will pay for this, but we all get taken each payday anyways...
As I drive past the long forgotten Interurban crossings, I keep thinking "How could we get that back?"
I hope the project really takes off!
*EDIT* I hope they go with a "Classic" look, not those FUGLY Buses with a cantenary on top!!
wheeler wrote: This is great news. I live in northern In, and would go to, and enjoy riding the streetcars.Additionally, a connector to the new stadium would ease traffic woes for that venue. I am not a big fan of how politics will pay for this, but we all get taken each payday anyways...As I drive past the long forgotten Interurban crossings, I keep thinking "How could we get that back?"I hope the project really takes off!*EDIT* I hope they go with a "Classic" look, not those FUGLY Buses with a cantenary on top!!
When you say "Classic" look, what do you have in mind? Here is a PDF that I linked yesterday that shows many examples of today's look. I think you are going to get a "Jetsons" look.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/Streetcar_Presentation_040406.pdf
A great book that makes the economic argument (supported by data) for streetcars, as well as comparing construction costs, rolling stock typologies, etc. is Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century from Reconnecting America
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org
It is also VERY well illustrated with MANY color photographs - a really great technical guide.
Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) and commuter rail are more suited to providing links from downtowns to bedroom commuities or suburbs - external connectivity. They are complimentary systems that serve different purposes.
Tyson
Indianapolis
djfuturewax wrote: A great book that makes the economic argument (supported by data) for streetcars, as well as comparing construction costs, rolling stock typologies, etc. is Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century from Reconnecting Americahttp://www.reconnectingamerica.orgIt is also VERY well illustrated with MANY color photographs - a really great technical guide.Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments. Light Rail Transit (LRT) and commuter rail are more suited to providing links from downtowns to bedroom commuities or suburbs - external connectivity. They are complimentary systems that serve different purposes. TysonIndianapolis
Opened up the site to take a peek. Looks interesting.
To offer a disclaimer-I live in a small (10,000 pop) town in Wisconsin. I don't ever expect to see passenger rail transit in or connecting my town to the big Chicago or Milwaukee metro areas that are fairly close to us.
Having no potential direct benefit, I look at the situation as having two options. I can have some of my hard earned money taking as taxes to build transit lines around the country, thus making money for people involved, for the arguable benefits of improving the movement of people getting around our cities or the development of realestate in our cities.
On the other hand, I can support the status quo and have some of my hard earned money taken at the gas pump, thus making money for the people involved for the arguable benefits produced by building super luxurious high rise buildings, multi million dollar homes built on a man made island in the shape of a palm tree and an in door facility for snow skiing, all located in the hot desert lands of a country half way around the world.
Somehow, I find the option of my money working in my country more attractive. But then you never know. Somday I might want to own a home on an island in the Persian Gulf and I probably would appreciate having a ski hill just down the road a bit.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
For me, the issue is about how much bang I get for my buck, rather than who ends up getting the buck.
The mission statement/justification for streetcars given in an earlier post is:
"Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments."
Buses do the same thing for a lot less money.
Sixty to seventy years ago, as the system of rubber tires and roads matured, transportation officials realized the flexibility of the road/tire system rendered obsolete the system of streetcars running on their own dedicated railroad track. Roads were multiple use and tires could go anywhere the transportation demand took them. What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?
Bucyrus wrote: What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?
The cost of and the source of power to run the buses. There may also be the element a potential for a higher ratio of vehicle passenger capacity to vehicle operator. Buses don't MU very well.
And no one is proposing either buses or street cars, not both. Sound application of intermodal concepts may produce the best bang for the buck.
Bucyrus wrote:For me, the issue is about how much bang I get for my buck, rather than who ends up getting the buck.The mission statement/justification for streetcars given in an earlier post is: "Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments."Buses do the same thing for a lot less money. Sixty to seventy years ago, as the system of rubber tires and roads matured, transportation officials realized the flexibility of the road/tire system rendered obsolete the system of streetcars running on their own dedicated railroad track. Roads were multiple use and tires could go anywhere the transportation demand took them. What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?
If I could be helpful, this is like asking if you're getting bang for your buck when public school systems should include athletics or art classes, or history, calculus, or advanced science for that matter. The public has a very different perception of bus vs. trolley and reducing the service down to "an enclosed, air-conditioned space with or without a seat that moves a person from point A to point B on a regular set schedule" underestimates the complexity of the service and does not capture the entire set of values that's at work here.
There's not much question that the public often prefers rail transportation over bus transportation and while one might be cheaper than the other, the public has an opportunity to vote and can pick whichever one they prefer more, and pay the price accordingly. We don't have a command-and-control government or economy, and public expenditures have no requirement to justify themselves against any set of measures other than the ones the public concocts. It's fair and useful to assert in public discourse that the bus service is just as good, and cheaper, than a fixed-rail trolley service, but it appears that a majority of the public doesn't agree, in most of the cases. That doesn't mean I think you should stop asserting your position, but I hope you're not easily frustrated.
Professionally, others I work with have had great success helping city and regional governments establish trolley lines, based on the substantial economic impact trolley lines have on city sales and property tax receipts, and employment taxes. The public likes riding the things, for whatever reason. The public also likes to vote for bonds for professional sports stadiums, art museums, greenbelts, and all sorts of other things that make me scratch my head.
RWM
jeaton wrote: Bucyrus wrote: What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?The cost of and the source of power to run the buses. There may also be the element a potential for a higher ratio of vehicle passenger capacity to vehicle operator. Buses don't MU very well.And no one is proposing either buses or street cars, not both. Sound application of intermodal concepts may produce the best bang for the buck.
Well the bang for the buck is about the most compelling argument one can make in the proposal of almost anything, if the proposal does indeed offer more bang for the buck. Go back and look at post #7 where I listed the advantages being pitched by the ones who sell streetcar systems. They don't mention anything about the economics of what you get for the cost. Instead, they spout nonsensical platitudes such as streetcars having more legibility than buses. If there were a sound economic argument, I certainly think they would make it in their sales pitch.
Railway Man wrote: Bucyrus wrote: For me, the issue is about how much bang I get for my buck, rather than who ends up getting the buck.The mission statement/justification for streetcars given in an earlier post is: "Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments."Buses do the same thing for a lot less money. Sixty to seventy years ago, as the system of rubber tires and roads matured, transportation officials realized the flexibility of the road/tire system rendered obsolete the system of streetcars running on their own dedicated railroad track. Roads were multiple use and tires could go anywhere the transportation demand took them. What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?If I could be helpful, this is like asking if you're getting bang for your buck when public school systems should include athletics or art classes, or history, calculus, or advanced science for that matter. The public has a very different perception of bus vs. trolley and reducing the service down to "an enclosed, air-conditioned space with or without a seat that moves a person from point A to point B on a regular set schedule" underestimates the complexity of the service and does not capture the entire set of values that's at work here. There's not much question that the public often prefers rail transportation over bus transportation and while one might be cheaper than the other, the public has an opportunity to vote and can pick whichever one they prefer more, and pay the price accordingly. We don't have a command-and-control government or economy, and public expenditures have no requirement to justify themselves against any set of measures other than the ones the public concocts. It's fair and useful to assert in public discourse that the bus service is just as good, and cheaper, than a fixed-rail trolley service, but it appears that a majority of the public doesn't agree, in most of the cases. That doesn't mean I think you should stop asserting your position, but I hope you're not easily frustrated. Professionally, others I work with have had great success helping city and regional governments establish trolley lines, based on the substantial economic impact trolley lines have on city sales and property tax receipts, and employment taxes. The public likes riding the things, for whatever reason. The public also likes to vote for bonds for professional sports stadiums, art museums, greenbelts, and all sorts of other things that make me scratch my head. RWM
Bucyrus wrote: For me, the issue is about how much bang I get for my buck, rather than who ends up getting the buck.The mission statement/justification for streetcars given in an earlier post is: "Streetcars are really circulator systems, good for extending pedestrian range, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for errands and short trips, and increasing the catchment area for business districts. Like sidewalks and multi-use trails they provide internal connectivity in urban environments."Buses do the same thing for a lot less money. Sixty to seventy years ago, as the system of rubber tires and roads matured, transportation officials realized the flexibility of the road/tire system rendered obsolete the system of streetcars running on their own dedicated railroad track. Roads were multiple use and tires could go anywhere the transportation demand took them. What has changed about that logic that justifies bringing back the streetcar?
Your comparison to public school systems spending money on less than essential things is apt, but these transit proposals seem to be of a far larger scale. Although the two examples do have in common the public sector's gusto for spending other people's money. I agree that there is not a built in requirement that government expenditures be justified. In the end, it is only a matter of what the public wants collectively.
When you say that the majority of the public agrees with bringing back the streetcars or LRT for that matter, I am not sure what you mean by majority. I would say it may be over 50% of the public, but I don't think the opposition has lost the argument because of being overwhelmed by public support of rail transit, at least not yet.
But granted, a lot of people do want these new rail transit options. Certainly the ones who pay little if anything toward them are on the bandwagon. Predictably, railfans are mostly for them. They must see kindred spirits in the likes of transportation officials who make the pitch, "Trains engender a sense of nostalgia, buses typically do not."
And of course transit riders will prefer a brand spanking new train to a run down bus system any day. But there are a lot of people who do pay the tab and many of them would find it impossible to realize any utility whatsoever from many of these new rail systems. Even if they wanted to use them, and if it made economic sense for them to do so, the logistics of their business or commute make it impossible. At the same time, it is obvious that the highway system needs improvement, and highway users are skeptical of the state diverting finite funds to exotic rail transit while arguing that it is the best way to decongest the highways.
While it is true that the public gets what they want, the public's desire for these rail transit options is not just something the public has swerved into. Instead, rail transit is being hard sold by politicians who seem to be packaging it as something other than transportation. This ought to raise anyone's suspicion. You mentioned that moving a person from point A to point B does not capture the entire set of values that's at work here. I could not possibly agree more, but we might disagree about what is actually at work here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.