The Return of the Streetcar?

[ablarc]

^ As a point of fact, Milan still operates some Peter Witt cars from the Thirties. You'll find a photo a few posts up.

 

[chumbolly]

For me the point isn't whether we use Ye Olde Horseless Trolleys or whiz bang modern cars. In fact, I'd prefer the modern cars because I like the sexy voices they talk to me in and the lack of herky-jerkiness. Actually, given the herky-jerkies on the Silver Line bus, I guess modern doesn't necessarily mean smooth. At any rate, old-timey or not, a trolley line on the Greenway wouldn't be about speed, it would be about the promenade.

 

[Dan]

A surface route along the Greenway between North Station and South Station is not a bad idea. (I would have prefered it underground, and in fact, decades ago pestered Dukakis to consider re-routing the Green Line from Boylston Station under Essex Street to South Station and then along the Greenway up to North Station--anything to replace all those slow, arduous curves in the central Tremont Street subway.)

It should cease being as special as an amusement park ride.

This is absolutely true.

Please, having spent a decade jammed into un-airconditioned PCCs squealing around the 6 mph Boylston Station curve, it is hard to have much nostalgia for them.

The fundamental problem with Boston's transit system is NOT that it isn't quaint or historical enough. The fundamental problem is that it takes too long, has limited coverage, and that too many trips require changing lines.

Back Bay to Harvard should be a direct subway route. So should Back Bay to Logan. Watertown Square should have subway service. The Red Line should extend to Burlington Mall. But I wander off topic here.

 

[ablarc]

A surface route along the Greenway between North Station and South Station is not a bad idea. (I would have prefered it underground, and in fact, decades ago pestered Dukakis to consider re-routing the Green Line from Boylston Station under Essex Street to South Station and then along the Greenway up to North Station--anything to replace all those slow, arduous curves in the central Tremont Street subway.)

Appropriately ambitious plan for a European system, this would be considered paltry in China, where the line would have been proposed at least as heavy rail.

Please, having spent a decade jammed into un-airconditioned PCCs squealing around the 6 mph Boylston Station curve, it is hard to have much nostalgia for them.

True, we're not blessed with San Francisco's year-round benign climate. On the other hand, a walking tourist is also an un-airconditioned tourist.

The fundamental problem with Boston's transit system is NOT that it isn't quaint or historical enough.

Nobody said it was. Anyway, putting a line on the Greenway won't solve the "fundamental problem" regardless what you do, so you may as well aim for what can be achieved.

The fundamental problem is that it takes too long, has limited coverage, and that too many trips require changing lines.

That's one you won't solve on the Greenway, so you might as well settle for giving folks a nice experience, a scenic ride and a relief for sore feet.

Back Bay to Harvard should be a direct subway route. So should Back Bay to Logan. Watertown Square should have subway service. The Red Line should extend to Burlington Mall. But I wander off topic here.

Yep, and don't forget: we need to find a cure for AIDS.

 

[Dan]

OK, I give up.

But mark my words--tourists won't fundamentally care whether they ride in buses that look like historic trolleys, or in the real thing. Heck, I doubt most will even know the difference.

I still argue for modern streetcars anyday.

 

[ablarc]

But mark my words--tourists won't fundamentally care whether they ride in buses that look like historic trolleys, or in the real thing. Heck, I doubt most will even know the difference.

I think you underestimate tourists. Remember: every time you go to another city to look around, you're a tourist too.

I've ridden San Francisco's F-Line, together with hordes of delighted tourists and plenty of San Franciscans using it as everyday transport. If it had been a gussied-up bus made to look like a trolley, you wouldn't have found me on it.

 

[Dan]

If it had been a gussied-up bus made to look like a trolley, you wouldn't have found me on it.

That's you (and me), Ablarc.

Look at the hordes of tourists who already use fake historic trolleys, not just in Boston, but all over the country. (I've always been tempted to walk over one and yell at the occupants "Do you know you're riding in a fake trolley ? Would putting fake wings on a bus make you think you're in a plane ?" but I digress).

Anyway, I am ready to end this argument if you are. We've both made our points.

EDIT: I too have ridden Muni in San Francisco, and the unfortunate truth is that the cable cars are just about the only public transportation I consider worse than the Number 1 bus. But tourists do like them.

 

[ablarc]

Anyway, I am ready to end this argument if you are. We've both made our points.

Not to be argumentative, but I don't think we were even arguing. We were finding our common points of agreement.

 

[statler]

Are there even enough old trolleys around to be refurbished and put into service?

If not, what do you see as a replacement? New (real) trolleys made to look old or modern looking ones?

Does it matter?

Personally, I'm not sure. As much as I hate the faux antique look, the trolley on the right leaves me cold.

 

[Dan]

Well, I think the LRV on the right has a low floor, which is clearly useful for boarding people with disabilities.

In any event, I have not so much been arguing about outside appearances, but rather the staples that make regular use tolerable, such as:
1. Air conditioning.
2. Comfortable seating.
3. Quality suspension.
4. Big windows.

 

[chumbolly]

Modern trolleys can be very sharp looking, though I'll grant that the one above does look a little like a sturgeon. I sort of like the juxtaposition of super modern trolleys in historic cities. The trolley system itself seems old fashioned, so having a modern version is almost hip. Not too long ago, I was staying in the SAS hotel overlooking the main train station and square in Goteburg, Sweden, and there was a constant stream of very sleek, almost silent trolleys gliding through the square at ground level, intermingling with cars, some buses, pedestrians, and cyclists. It all worked very well.

 

[ablarc]

Are there even enough old trolleys around to be refurbished and put into service?

Melbourne and cities in Russia have been renewing their streetcar fleets with new rolling stock; they have made donations of streetcars to San Francisco's F-Line. So has New Orleans --though New Orleans has been replacing its old cars with identical new ones. I wouldn't call these replicas --any more than a brand new Toyota Prius is a replica of the ones made at the beginning of the current model run. Would you feel better if the Market Street Railway referred to its F-Line not as ?historic? (hokey term) but as ?recycled? (hip)?

Actually, streetcar manufacture in the USA is burgeoning as a semi-cottage industry. The streetcars that operate in Memphis are new --though these you could call replicas, as there was a period when Memphis had no streetcars.

A newish Memphis streetcar looking oldish (in typically crummy --alas-- Southern-city surroundings).

If not, what do you see as a replacement? New (real) trolleys made to look old or modern looking ones?

Does it matter?

Not much. Any streetcar line on the Greenway is better than none.

But since you ask, my personal favorite in this application is two small fleets. One for the summer that takes advantage of the weather to provide maximum interaction with the Greenway?s skyline and harbor views. Like a San Francisco cable car, this is neither comfortable nor cosseting, but that isn?t the point:

Is a roller coaster comfortable? (Trinity Church in the background?)

The point is: is it interesting? Won?t most customers on the Greenway Line be tourists if only because it represents a desirable route for them, and less so for Bostonians? And call me weird, but when I lived in Boston I became a tourist every weekend.

Tourists bring money to the Boston economy. Jobs.

My winter fleet would be entirely enclosed, but as glassy as possible:

Duluth used to run these (a frigid place in winter).

A Peter Witt from Toronto, also a cold place.

Even better for seeing the sights from a special vantage point is a double-decker:

Rolling billboards mean enhanced revenue.

These are also new, locally-made by a cottage industry, and substantially the same as they've alwys been. They're not faux and they're not replicas; they are the continuation of an ongoing production run, like Coke or Colgate toothpaste.

Or a modern articulated model is fine with me:

Manchester. Two cars means less frequency, longer waits and lower labor costs ?though these latter can be covered by charging, say, $3 for a ride on a more frequent one-car train.

Personally, I'm not sure. As much as I hate the faux antique look, the trolley on the right leaves me cold.

So maybe you don't really hate the "faux antique" look after all; maybe you just feel obligated to hate it. Anyway, the "antique" trolley isn't even "faux"; it's been operating continuously since the 1930's. Can you blame a frugal municipality for not junking a workhorse with such longevity?

 

[statler]

A faux antique is different (by definition) than a reused antique or a true replica.
I was referring to making a modern streetcar and plastering detailed stickers or bits of plastic on to make it look old (which obviously isn't the case with the car on the left, though I wasn't very clear.)

I'll take a real 'old' style any day, although I can see Dan's point about the "staples that make regular use tolerable", so maybe some unseen or interior modifications would be ok.

 

[czsz]

In European cities, where car use is hideously inconvenient and transit systems omnipresent enough to be no-brainer alternatives, the use of historic trolleys hardly present a threat. This is particularly true if the historic streetcar is originally from that city and recalls a specific sense of locality, and not just a generic nostalgia for "the time of streetcars" as does the spectacle in San Francisco.

In American cities the state of streetcars is much more fragile. There needs to be an effort to get them treated as more than novelties or even "alternatives" (which implies last-resort backup) but as essential aspects of the whole transportation system. This is psychologically undermined by making streetcar lines solely "blasts from the past" - appearing about as essential as taking a spin in a jalopy during an antique auto show. More concretely, it is undermined by making streetcars as uncomfortable as such jalopies. In cities from Berlin to Lisbon to Cairo, effort is actually made such that taking public transit is actually more comfortable than driving. Stations in Iberia and Egypt play entertainment on screens in stations to amuse waiting passengers, for example. The padded seats in the London Underground are as nice as any carseat (although admittedly, I still don't understand why they haven't been knifed or stained).

In Boston's case, I think an antique streetcar line is bad for another reason - it's become almost cliche. When you can point to so many examples of it across the US, it becomes something no longer interesting enough to draw tourists anyway - like those painted animal sculptures that were so in vogue in every city about ten years ago, a trend that played themselves out. Rail is too great an investment to fall victim to overdetermined fashion like that.

 

[PaulC]

If street cars were used to connect North Station to South Station which route would be better: along the Greenway or along Atlantic Ave and Commercial St.

Many years ago Mayor White had a study written for the North End. One recommendation was to rename the part of Commercial St that runs along the ocean renamed Atlantic Avenue.

 

[Ron Newman]

Which would make a lot of sense, since many people call it that anyway. The downside is a whole bunch of businesses and residents would have to change their addresses.

 

[choo]

If street cars were used to connect North Station to South Station which route would be better: along the Greenway or along Atlantic Ave and Commercial St.

I think up Atlantic and down Purchase in a loop is the best route. It goes right along the greenway and is the most direct link from North Station to South Station. With about 2 stops in between the ride would ideally be about 6-8 min. Making it a better trip then a cab (when price factored in) and of use to both tourists and commuters, because any NS-SS link with have to serve both.

I really think this would be a great addition for various reasons, does anyone know if these thoughts go beyond this forum? Do you think this is actually being considered by the braintrust at the MBTA, MTA, or BRA?

 

[chumbolly]

I would have the street car line go near North Station, but then branch off down Washington Street, across the Charlestown Bridge, and into the Navy Yard. Probably eight out of ten tourists in Boston want to see Ironsides and/or the monument. Plus, if the Navy Yard had trolley service, it would be significantly improved as a residential and commercial district.

 

[ablarc]

^ Exactly!

 

[Beton Brut]

I would have the street car line go near North Station, but then branch off down Washington Street, across the Charlestown Bridge, and into the Navy Yard. Probably eight out of ten tourists in Boston want to see Ironsides and/or the monument. Plus, if the Navy Yard had trolley service, it would be significantly improved as a residential and commercial district.

Hand this guy the checkbook.