ROWs By Any Other Name: Placing a Baltimore Streetcar in Context
At no time in recent memory has transportation in Maryland been so political. Earlier this summer, Governor Larry Hogan cancelled the Baltimore Red Line, a light rail project that was fifteen years in the making, fully funded, and ready to break ground. It is a project that would have brought billions of dollars of investment to the city, which is heavily Democrat. Instead, Gov. Hogan, who is a Republican, shifted the Red Line funds to highway projects in more rural, conservative jurisdictions, fulfilling a campaign promise made to his voter base.
The debates leading up to the decision to cancel the Red Line and the discussions that have followed since have been marred by misinformation and ambiguity. Transit opponents sought to paint the Red Line as a wasteful “boondoggle” that did little to meet the state’s transportation needs. As I explained in a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun in July, in doing so, opponents, including the Governor himself and his administration, spread a surprising amount of misinformation about the project.
A similar situation is taking shape in the wake of the Red Line decision. Misinformation about the value of public transit as a whole has been at the core of a strategy to keep transportation dollars flowing to highway construction and away public transit projects.
As we explore alternative solutions to Baltimore’s transportation problems, much of the misinformation is rooted in terminology. We saw this during the Red Line debates: there was bickering over whether it was a “light rail” or a “streetcar,” bickering over whether it offered a “true connection” to other transit lines, bickering over whether it operated in “mixed traffic.” Now, we see the same arise in the discussion about bus alternatives. Klaus Philipsen addressed this point in his article, What Bus Rapid Transit Is and What It Isn’t. City leaders have used the terms “BRT” and “rapid bus” interchangeably, despite that BRT is a very specific term of art and “rapid bus” is a purposefully ambiguous phrase that does not mean BRT.
We’re also seeing a similar recklessness of terminology with respect to a discussion about whether trams/streetcars are an appropriate mode for Baltimore.
Trams/streetcars are a particularly loaded subject for Baltimore for a couple of reasons: Baltimore has a long history with streetcars; there have been several proposals over the years to bring streetcars back to city streets; and Baltimore arguably already has a tram system with which it has a complicated relationship.
It has been more than half a century since they vanished from the city’s streets, but streetcars retain a special place in the collective psyche of Baltimore, where they are viewed often with nostalgia, sometimes with criticism, and increasingly with hope for the future. In high hopes of building the scaffolding around an honest discussion about streetcars in Baltimore, this article will attempt to lend some context to the questions of what do we mean when we use terms like trams and streetcars, and what existence they may have in Baltimore’s future.
TRAMS VERSUS STREETCARS (VERSUS TROLLEYS)
The distinction between tramways and streetcars is not perfectly clear. Neither is how those concepts compare to others, such as light rail, subways and el trains.
The heavy rail versus light rail distinction is one purely of technology. They draw their power from different sources: heavy rail from an electrified third rail, light rail typically from overhead wires.
The distinction between subways and el trains is one purely of design. A subway is a train that runs underground, regardless of technology. Barcelona’s FGC lines, which are light rail, are as much a subway as its TMB lines, which are heavy rail. Likewise, an el train runs on an elevated track, regardless of technology. Vancouver’s Skytrain, a light rail, is as much an el train, as Chicago’s El, which is heavy rail.
But tramways and streetcars are characterized by elements of both technology and design. And for that reason, there is a high degree of confusion in how the terms often get used.
In the United States, tramways and streetcars are often spoken about in juxtaposition to light rail. In these instances, light rail refers to a manner of system design as much as it does a technology. The Baltimore light rail is an example of this. But this is not always the case. The American Public Transportation Association, for example, defines light rail as (in relevant part), “a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley)…”
Jarrett Walker describes the difference between light rail and streetcars, noting that the technologies are very similar, and that the difference is mostly one of design, found in spacing of stops and exclusivity of the right-of-way.
But how much of the route must be exclusive before a line is considered light rail? How closely spaced must the stops be for a line to be considered a tramway or streetcar? These distinctions are more easily made on paper than in practice. Combined with regional preferences for one term over another, and the result are vast inconsistencies in how transit networks are defined.
The Streetcar’s American Reputation
Adding to the confusion is that trams and streetcars have a less-than-sterling reputation in the United States.
In the hierarchy of public transit, most Americans place trams well beneath metros. As a perceived inferior mode, tramways exist where superior modes were deemed not worth the cost. The perceived inferiority of trams hinges on the belief that they are slower and of lower capacity than other forms of rail transit. While this perception is rooted in experience, such experiences are a product of how tramways have been designed in the United States, and not in any inherit shortcomings of the mode itself.
Tram vehicles can operate at speeds of up to 60mph, and along tramways with exclusive rights-of-way, it is not uncommon for trams to achieve effective travel speeds of 20–30mph. Such speeds are similar to heavy rail metro speeds and faster than city center automobile traffic.
Concerns about capacity are equally misinformed. Individual trams do carry fewer passengers than heavy rail cars, for example, and indeed, singular tramways carry fewer passengers than most heavy rail lines. However, as a system, tram networks are capable of transporting as many passengers as most metro systems. The tram network in Saint Petersburg transports 476 million passengers each year. This gives it a higher ridership than every mass transit system in the United States except for New York City. Its ridership is 2.5 times the ridership of the DC Metro. The Saint Petersburg tram network is far from unique. There are eight tram networks in Europe that carry more than 200 million riders annually.
Trams and streetcars represent an integral part of the world’s best transit systems. Indeed, in some cases, the world’s best transit systems rely exclusively on trams and streetcars.
Source: Data compiled by author from performance reports
The San Francisco Streetcar
For many Americans, their point of entry into the streetcar conversation is San Francisco and its Muni Metro. As if to illustrate the confusion, the Muni Metro describes itself as a “light rail/streetcar hybrid” that also happens to operate partially as a subway.
It runs both modern trains and heritage trams, i.e., vehicles from an earlier era in history. It also connects with the city’s cable car network, which is indeed what many people actually picture when they think of San Francisco’s streetcars. The Muni Metro does not fit cleanly within the definitions, and in that regard, it is surprisingly characteristic of many other systems across the globe.
Streetcars in Toronto, Trams in Melbourne
What they call streetcars in Toronto, they call trams in Melbourne. Disparate names aside, these two transit networks operate similarly.
Melbourne’s tram network is the world’s largest in terms of length at 250km. Toronto filled in for Baltimore in the recent remake of the film Hairspray because its streetcar network resembles that of Baltimore’s in the 1950s.
Both systems run at street-level and operate modern as well as older generation vehicles. And both operate in traffic, sharing the road with cars along the vast majority of their routes.
Photo source: flickr user Doncardona
In these respects, the Toronto and Melbourne networks are among the most similar to the “modern streetcars” that are coming to a number of American cities, including Atlanta (2015), Cincinnati (2016), and DC (who knows? Its opening has been delayed for more than two years). The primary difference is route length. Routes on the Toronto and Melbourne networks generally run between 7–15 miles (11–24km), whereas their American counterparts run much shorter routes of just 2–3 miles.
Trams in Vienna
Vienna’s tram network is characteristic of those in many European cities. It is an extensive system that operates in companionship with extensive metro systems and commuter rail systems. Similar systems exist in Berlin, Munich, Frankfurt, Prague, Amsterdam, Milan, Moscow, and many other cities.
Photo source: flickr user dickpenn
In Vienna and similar cities, trams much more frequently operate along their own rights-of-way and often run in tramsets of two, three or more cars. These elements generally allow the trams to move greater numbers of passengers and to operate along longer routes, sometimes exceeding 20 miles.
In these regards, trams can operate in strikingly similar fashion to heavy rail metro trains in terms of ridership capacity and travel speed. Indeed, the busiest and speediest tram routes in Vienna boast ridership levels and travel speeds comparable to its U-Bahn metro lines.
Trams in Düsseldorf
Still even more metro-like are a subset of tramways in Düsseldorf. Düsseldorf possesses two separate tram networks. The oldest — the Straßenbahn — is of the same family as those found in Vienna, Berlin, and other cities. A second network — the Stadtbahn — serves as an upgraded version of the Straßenbahn, and perfectly straddles the undefined territory that exists between trams and metros.
Photo Sources (l-r): flickr users fassbrause, Howard_Pulling, and Stadtneurotiker
The Stadtbahn runs three and four-car trains on routes that operate mostly above ground but that slip into underground tunnels beneath the city center. Routes generally exceed ten miles and stops are spaced farther apart than on many other tram networks. Service frequency is intermediate — more often than other tram routes, but still less frequent than metro lines. Long term, continued upgrades may fully convert Stadtbahn routes to metro routes.
Trolleys in Philadelphia, Trolleys in San Diego
Nearly lost but not altogether gone is the term “trolley.” Today, trolley refers less often to a tram-like vehicle than it does to some sort of branded bus meant to evoke a sense of quaint nostalgia. They’re as popular in amusement parks as they are on city streets.
A few cities, though, still prefer the term for their rail transit.
In San Diego, the city’s Trolley system operates three lines that closely resemble the service offered by Düsseldorf’s Stadtbahn. One and two-car trains operate almost exclusively along a surface-level right-of-way. One of the three lines features aerial and underground stations along part of its route. Stations are spaced relatively far apart and service frequency tops every ten minutes at peak hours.
Philadelphia’s trolley system offers a relatively unique species. Officially known as the SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, the five lines use single car trains that operate in traffic in the outer suburbs while sharing tunnels with the metro subway under Center City. In essence, they are one part Melbourne tram, one part Düsseldorf Stadtbahn.
The Portland Comparison
The different styles of trams can be seen side-by-side in Portland. As the birthplace of the modern American streetcar and a pioneer of the American light rail system, Portland has mastered two approaches to the tram. Its streetcar lines — with their shorter routes, closely-spaced stops, and operation in traffic — are cut from the same cloth as Toronto’s streetcar, with which it shares a name, and Melbourne’s tram.
But although it simply goes by the name of “light rail,” Portland’s MAX system is every bit as much a tram as its “streetcar” cousin. Portland’s MAX runs two-car trains that operate along surface routes in traffic downtown and along rights-of-way outside the city center. Their service frequency and stop placement are quite similar to the tram systems of Munich, Frankfurt, and elsewhere.
Photo source: flickr user tracktwentynine
In Portland, the MAX and Streetcar are considered two different transit systems. But in a different city, they might have just been considered slightly different routes of the same tram system.
TRAMS AND STREETCARS IN BALTIMORE
History of Baltimore’s Streetcars
Baltimore has a long history with streetcars. Indeed, in 1885, Baltimore pioneered America’s first commercially-operated electric streetcar when the Baltimore and Hampden route was converted from a horse-drawn line.
In the years that followed, growth of Baltimore’s streetcar network exploded. By 1899, Baltimore featured over 400 miles of track, a network that was 2.5 times larger than any tram network in existence today. Streetcars stretched to every corner of the region, operating on schedules as frequently as a train per minute.
Photo source: Pennsylvania State University archives
The high point of streetcars in Baltimore was short-lived. Just a few decades after the peak, streetcars vanished from Baltimore. A number of factors contributed to the decline, including the invention of the automobile, massive government subsidies for housing and highways that accelerated suburbanization, and the Great American Streetcar Scandal, in which the auto industry acquired and dismantled — often illegally — streetcar companies and assets.
The final Baltimore streetcar run took place in November 1963. Today, all that remains are exposed tracks on streets throughout the city and fond memories housed in the Baltimore Streetcar Museum and the minds of older Baltimoreans.
A Baltimore Streetcar Revival
Although it has been more than fifty years since the final streetcar run, there have nevertheless been efforts to return streetcars to Baltimore.
Formerly, the Charles Street Development Corporation proposed a 7.5-mile streetcar line along Charles and Saint Paul Streets connecting Charles Village with South Baltimore. The CSDC established the Charles Street Trolley Corporation to assess the project’s feasibility and manage its development and operation; though, it has since moved to other priorities.
More recently, the Baltimore Streetcar Campaign serves as a grass-roots advocacy group pushing for the return of streetcars to Baltimore.
Simultaneously, the City introduced the Charm City Circulator, a free circulator bus system operating in and around downtown. Among the early discussions regarding the CCC was the notion that it would serve as a stepping stone to a streetcar system. If the Circulator proved popular, the City might one day lay track along their paths and convert the routes to streetcars. The Circulator system has proven to be immensely popular, but maintaining a reliable funding stream has proven difficult.
During a tour of the city’s transit system, mayoral candidate Sheila Dixon expressed support for a streetcar route along North Avenue, an idea that continues to be advocated for by the Old Goucher Community Association and others.
The Baltimore Light Rail
The people of Baltimore have a complicated relationship with their light rail system. At more than 30 miles in length, its route is a true representation of Baltimore life, traveling through downtown between the city’s wealthy northern suburbs and its working and middle class suburbs to the south.
Throughout its development, the system was forced to make a number of compromises in order to keep costs low and open in time for the Orioles’ first season at Camden Yards.
The result was a series of perceived shortcomings that Baltimoreans have firmly engraved in the light rail’s lore. Some of these — that the light rail goes unused except for Orioles and Ravens games or that it was responsible for the decline of Howard Street as the city’s main shopping street — are mythical, lazy, and demonstrably false. Others — that the light rail is slow and suffers from low ridership — deserve a closer look.
Photo source: Wikicommons
The light rail has a daily ridership of approximately 30,000 passengers and an effective travel speed of 22mph; although that speed drops to about 7mph in downtown and climbs higher outside the city center. Based on these numbers, the light rail is frequently compared unfavorably with Baltimore’s metro subway, which carries nearly 60,000 daily riders and maintains a travel speed of 30mph.
But is this a fair comparison? Are these two lines really created equally?
Despite what city leaders may have intended to build with the light rail, they did not build a rapid transit line of the same character as the metro subway. What they built instead closely resembles the tram lines of Europe.
The Baltimore light rail runs one and two-car trains on a surface route that is partially along its own right-of-way and partially mixed with traffic. Within the city center, stops are spaced every few blocks; outside the city center, they are much farther apart.
In these regards, the Baltimore light rail shares much more in common with the tram systems of Frankfurt, Munich, Düsseldorf and other cities than it does with the Baltimore metro subway or other heavy rail subway systems in nearby cities. And when judged in relation to the tram systems of these European cities, as opposed to Baltimore’s metro subway, the light rail no longer appears so flawed. In fact, it stacks up quite well.
Its daily ridership of 30,000 passengers is comparable to the average ridership of trams in Vienna, and is roughly three times the daily ridership of many lines in Melbourne. Its average travel speed of 22mph is faster than most tram lines worldwide, and even its downtown speed of 7mph is comparable to center city travel speeds of other tram systems.
In the past, Baltimore transit advocates have focused on ways to make the light rail a better version of what we generally think it is, namely to make it more like the metro subway by tunneling it under Howard Street. It would be a great upgrade for sure if it were to happen and certainly worth the investment. But in the meantime, perhaps it is worth valuing the light rail instead for what it already is: an effective, popular tram route that could serve very well as one north-south trunk of an expanded Baltimore tram network.
The biggest drawback of the light rail as a tram route is not that it is slow or underutilized — it’s neither of those things. Its biggest drawback is that it exists in isolation. Baltimore has one tram route. Other cities have 10, 20, 30 or more.
THE MODERN AMERICAN STREETCAR
Although considered by many Americans to be a lesser mode of transit than metros, streetcars have found a particular niche as vehicles of economic development. Shortly after they arrived on the scene, modern streetcars were hailed as the newest, oldest prize in American transit. To city leaders seeking showpiece transportation achievements, streetcars had a ton to offer. They were inexpensive, could be constructed relatively quickly (i.e., within the term of a single mayor), and had the firm ground to stand on of Portland’s streetcar-induced, multi-billion-dollar developments.
It comes as no surprise then that the Federal Transit Administration was soon inundated with requests for funding to build streetcar routes. Since 2009, the FTA has allocated nearly $550 million to help build 15 streetcar lines in cities from Atlanta to Kansas City to Tucson.
Nearly all of the new streetcar routes are less than five miles in length, and they typically follow similar blueprints, such as running a downtown loop or connecting a city’s historic core with a growing university district.
As one might expect, no sooner had cities begun to lay tracks when critics set out to judge whether the streetcars really held up to the advantages they promised. And again, as one might also expect, the critics found reason to declare that the age of the modern American streetcar had ended as quickly as it had begun. The DC Streetcar was a failure before it ever made its first run, they said. The Atlanta Streetcar, they cried, had proven a disaster as it continued to work out kinks during its first few weeks in operation.
A Wall Street Journal article published in late August, Streetcar Projects Suffer a Bumpy Ride, detailed the struggles that new routes have encountered as they open and as advocates push for expansion.
The struggles, notably, stem not from the streetcars’ performances once in operation but rather from the challenges encountered during implementation. Construction delays, rising costs, and prolonged testing phases run counter to earlier promises that streetcars can be built quickly and simply. In addition, these struggles chip away at the appetites of cities to continue expanding their streetcar networks, which in the short term, leaves cities with short routes of lesser value, thereby compounding the belief that the investment did not live up to expectations.
But once again, Portland shows the way. Once cities can overcome these initial hurdles, streetcar systems prove their worth. The Portland Streetcar now has two lines, totaling 7.2 miles, with an additional expansion currently underway. Ridership has doubled over the past decade and it now serves 20,000 passengers each day.
The lesson here is one that we encounter time and again: that transit works as a system, and the more comprehensive that system is, the more valuable it is. It tells us little to judge streetcars based on singular 2-mile routes, as we’ve done in cities like Atlanta and Seattle.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Certainly, the recent calls in Baltimore to explore reviving a tram/streetcar system in the wake of the Red Line’s cancellation raise more questions than it answers. As the examples above illustrate, the terms “tram” and “streetcar” are about as ambiguous as the word “train.”
Trams and streetcars operate successfully in countless configurations around the world. But their design is also vulnerable to attempts to cut corners and to attempts to give the impression that more is being promised than actually is.
Just as Maryland leaders have sought to conflate BRT with the meaningless “rapid bus,” we can expect that some leaders who call for a streetcar revival will likely do so in a similarly vague and misleading manner.
It is quite a different conversation that we must have if we are proposing to revive the streetcar system that Baltimore once had or build a modern tram network like the one in Vienna than if we are simply interested in a short downtown loop a la Kansas City. The former addresses large-scale, long-term, regional transportation issues. The latter is above all else a local development stimulus.
It is critical to understand that while all forms of tram networks have their virtues, failing to speak with consistency presents a major challenge. In the case of the Red Line, the tram networks around the world illustrate that regardless of whether the Red Line would have been a “light rail” or a “streetcar,” regardless of whether it operated in “mixed traffic,” it would have been a beneficial addition to the transportation network of the Baltimore region. But the failure to convince citizens of precisely what we were proposing was arguably the real fatal flaw of the project. Failing to speak with consistency precluded us from having an honest conversation about the Red Line and from determining how it could address the myriad needs of Baltimore’s diverse communities.
As the conversation shifts to consider other designs and modes, including trams, we must be mindful to not repeat the same mistakes. We must hold leaders accountable for consistency and precision when they speak about alternatives. And we must be conscious of those who seek to impede and disrupt honest debate by spreading misinformation and introducing ambiguity. Perhaps more than any other mode, the many design possibilities for tram networks make them vulnerable to such transgressions.
Fortunately, as one of the most popular forms of transit worldwide, there exist examples of successful tram networks for us to point to and model from Europe to Canada, Australia to Latin America. But where we point will depend on how we define our needs and how we choose to address them.
