Experts Clash on Streetcars
June 16, 2015 | By Anthony E.
Gallo | agallo2368@verizon.net
Scribner argued
that streetcars are unable to move as many riders as light- and heavy-rail transit, and potentially even bus
rapid transit systems. Streetcar travel times are greater than
transit alternatives—and often walking parallel to the streetcar is faster.
Streetcars worsen traffic congestion and provide residents with no additional
employment access compared to the bus service they are replacing. There may be
slight operating cost savings, but these are dwarfed by streetcars’ massive
capital costs, which can exceed bus capital costs by a factor of 10, resulting
in much higher total costs. Streetcars also slow private auto and bus traffic,
reducing mobility and increasing air pollution. He also argued that streetcars at
best are just relocating economic development that would have taken place
elsewhere in the metropolitan area, benefiting specific property owners and
developers at the expense of taxpayers and transit users.
Tangherlini argued that there is no question that
society benefits from streetcars. He cited the development on H Street in the District of Columbia as
an example of how streetcars can lead to economic development. Ecologically,
streetcars trump alternative transportation, namely automobiles, because carbon
emissions are lower. He noted that streetcars are just one component of a long-term
vision of what our cities should be, and that they help support residents by
providing an additional transportation choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment