I confess, I'm not sold on the benefits of streetcars over buses or subway. But it seems to me that if you're going to buy streetcars, you should go ahead and build the damn streetcar route. Unfortunately, the District's efforts in this direction are a comedy of errors.
First, they bought streetcars that work on overhead wires, only to be told that they can't put overhead wires in much of DC. Then they repeatedly changed the routing, having somehow failed to notice that the company they were buying the right of way from didn't, like, own it. DC's master planners then laid out a route which was conveniently barren of disgruntled residents, but also of potential passengers, given that it had a freeway on one side and a massive airforce base on the other. Now they've got a halfway sensible route for the Anacostia streetcar--but of course that means opposition from residents who hate construction and like driving their cars. ETA for the first segment of Washington's once and future streetcar system has now moved back from 2006 to sometime in 2012.
Libertarians like to hold up these things as examples of how government can't do anything right, but of course, New York managed to get a whole subway system built with government involvement. Tthough the actual development was done with what we would now probably call a public-private partnership, New York City's government managed to help pick routes and get the proper right-of-way to get them constructed for an entire subway system in less time than DC's government will have spent launching a 2-mile streetcar line in a not-very-populated area.
Not all of this is the DC government's fault, exactly--the legal and political culture is now heavily stacked against that kind of rapid government action. But the endless, ridiculous fiddling around, the buying of streetcars that can't be used in much of the city, and other follies are pure bad government. Government is, by its nature, bureaucratic and inefficient. But not this bureaucratic and inefficient. DC is possibly the worst-governed city I've ever lived in.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"DC is possibly the worst-governed city I've ever lived in."
It's governed by Congress, what did you expect?
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this, but I agree with Megan: why not build more subways?
Street cars are eyesores, block traffic, and are bad in inclement weather. About the only good one I ever saw was in SF, and there people cut the line and it blocked traffic, and there's little snow in SF.
Anybody for a defense?
why not build more subways?
Because they cost insane amounts of money. At least in the DC area tunneling is very expensive. Either you trench and fill, blocking the street and putting people out of work for months to years, or you tunnel, which is hideously expensive. Especially in the local granite. Takes a long time, too.
Light rail is cheaper and faster. Been very successful in Salt Lake, which is hardly a hotbed of liberalism.
What local granite? Northwest DC and some of Montogomery County have shallow bedrock (I used to rock climb at Carderock and Great Falls) but its mostly pretty soft. Most of the DC area has bedrock several hundred feet down. Unions and gov't management are what made the Metrorail system so expensive. My father and I used to work underground utilites construction in the area, so I am intimately, even painfully, familiar with the ground conditions. (Actually the worst conditions in the area are marl and quicksand, which are irritatingly common in southern PG County).
As Wiredog says, subways are extraordinarily expensive, and tunneling is expensive in DC. I'll be happy when the link-up to Dulles is in place -- I don't hold out any hope for more subways in DC proper.
That said, why not just add more Circulator bus lines? They just did for Adams Morgan and south of the Capitol after all. Unlike normal Metrobuses, which often have irregular service and unintelligible routes (only exacerbated by the fact that the maps Metrobus provides have no indication of where the stops are -- in some cases, I have been reduced to searching for the stops on Google's Street View), the Circulator has clear routes and clearly labeled stops. It's also cheaper than Metrobus and runs fairly regularly. The "every 10 minutes" thing is, of course, a lie, as all public transport schedules in the US are, but it comes regularly enough to be useful, and runs reasonably late along the bits of the line that I actually use. I'm sure that would be cheaper than setting up streetcars again, even if it sacrifices some of the old-fashioned charm.
"As Wiredog says, subways are extraordinarily expensive, and tunneling is expensive in DC."
Not only expensive to build but also maintain, with WMATA facing regular budget shortfalls. I think they have even laid people off recently.
"I'll be happy when the link-up to Dulles is in place -- I don't hold out any hope for more subways in DC proper."
Not me, what a waste of money. You can already take the 5A bus there for $3. Runs twice an hour from Rosslyn and L'Enfant.
But this is a shovel ready project! Infrastructure! Jobs! Um, putting people to work! Saving the economy! YEs we can! Change! Hope! Kool-Aid!
(/sarcasm)
Here in Portland (OR), backers of the local streetcar say (1) it's more appealing to users than either light rail or buses, and (2) rail lines, being more permanent than bus routes, provide greater encouragement to builders and business owners to commit to prime spots along the route.
For the money I'd say just run buses. I prefer the local light rail (MAX) to a bus, but not enough to justify the MAX's greater public expense. I find MAX about equivalent to the streetcars, and it seems really stupid to have non-interchangeable rail systems running through downtown. But then, Portland's style of public planning seems antithetical to the KISS principle.
Finally, in an era of increasingly powerful and portable explosives used by increasingly radical terrorists, I'm not sure I like the idea of more underground transit in the world's highest-profile target city, DC.
Ah, Portland, where parasite hipsters living off their parents and pretending to be bohemians live inside and 20 million homeless drug addicts live on the street (or in hotels subsidized by the handouts---and, yes, that is true). Why anyone would move to that craphole remains a mystery to me; then again, they voted for NotMyPresident, so its not liek they're thinking rationally to begin with.
I don't know about that, Shelby. If a bomb goes off on a light rail or bus in downtown DC, is that really much better? At least you could dig the subway deep enough or reinforce the walls enough so any exposion is contained.
Uhm, better check either your typos or your sources, there, hippie basher. That's nine times the population of the Portland metropolitan area (let alone the city proper, which may have its political faults but is definitely not a long string of alternating soup kitchens and section 8 units), and about about five times the entire population of Oregon.
aMouse, you do get hyperbole, right? check it out on merriam-webster.
Portland's style of land use and transportation policy implementation makes more sense when you take into account its interdependence with the policies of all the surrounding jurisdictions... the existence of Metro is almost certainly a net positive, but in order to get things done it needs to secure agreement from a seemingly endless list of constituencies.
The streetcar itself was undertaken with its own objectives, its own funding sources, and its own limitations... the area through which it travels is far too densely built to easily accommodate full light rail infrastructure, without worse disruptions than the kind that had folks screaming bloody murder while the Interstate line was being put in.
I suspect that D.C.'s problems are illuminated by Portland's, though for all its dysfunction Portland's government strikes me as the picture of health compared to D.C.'s.
P.S. Don't feed the zarking trolls. Sheesh.
people who support light rails as a good idea are the same people who think cap-and-trade is a good idea.
Completely free market transport for hire is the best solution to public transport. Of course, it puts a lot of government employees out of active work, and deep sixes a lot of rent collectors such as taxi companies, but I consider those plusses.
True enough, Yancey. Funny how the subway in NYC never had problems making $$ until the government took over.
The taxi drivers in DC are the worst, though. The arguments for fighting the meter were so hamhanded and idiotic.
How can we have a free market for transport coexisting with the absurdly massive government subsidies for the automotive infrastructure?
In Boston, they took forever with the big dig, but they couldn't wait to bury parts of the Green Line. 'Course that was elevated as well, but still---the city looks hella better where the subway went subterranean. They didn't do it all, however; Comm Ave is still a pain in the ass to drive through/look at where its above ground.
The cost may prohibitively expensive, but a light rail is more expensive than more buses. I guess I'm saying that if you're going int he direction of a trainline type thing, the subway is the better long term investment.
But what am I saying? This is DC. They're about to let 80% of the convicts out of jail to save money; these are people who think jaywalking is a worse crime than robberies and murder, and where Marion Barry is still a councilman.
I have no sympathy for anyone who buys a home there, or even bothers to live there. You have had your warnings.
Streetcars work beautifully throughout Germany. The ones they have there are handsome, clean, don't get in the way of traffic (they stop at red lights like a bus would) and don't have wires. Generally a fine way to get around the city. If a similar program could be arranged here, I'd be very pleased.
Well, I'll just take your word on it, Sancho. I saw one in Dublin ( a light rail) and in Amsterdam, and they both unnecessarily seemed to block traffic and take up space.
"The ones they have there are handsome, clean, don't get in the way of traffic (they stop at red lights like a bus would) and don't have wires. Generally a fine way to get around the city."
How is this an argument for streetcars rather than, say, cleaning up the bus fleet and giving it a new paint job? I saw streetcars in Oslo, and they looked quite nice, but it wasn't like they were doing anything a bus couldn't do.
DC is possibly the worst-governed city I've ever lived in.
Wow, I'd like to hear about the other contenders. I'm thinking you spent some time living in the slums outside of Rio; I can't conceive of another city as poorly run as DC -- and I say that as a proud son of DC.
DC is the town that once did the following to a street (G street just east of 15th):
1) Resurfaced it. This took a couple of weeks and was apparently done as a part of a large resurfacing project.
2) Then, a couple of weeks after finishing the resurfacing, tore it back up to allow companies to lay fiber-optic cables. Yes, literally within a month of the resurfacing they effectively had to reshut the road and re-resurface it.
3) Once that was all done, they went ahead and tore the road up again, this time to put in the spiffy new granite curbstones. This was a few weeks after they finished the resurface for the cable-laying.
It was really something to watch. The road was effectively out of commission for 3 months to do and redo and redo again work that could have all been accomplished at the same time in less than 2 weeks if properly planned and coordinated.
As to the relative preference for streetcars over buses, I'd normally chalk that up to the SWPL-demographic's innate hatred of buses but it's seems odd to have that govern your transit choices in Anacostia. Unless that's become the newest front in the hipster infiltration of the ghetto? It's been a while since I've lived in DC.
Streetcars are mostly due to left-wing influence, because they block cars! People would have to start taking the light rail and biking and handgliding and whatever else liberals expect everyone to do to stop the worst!threat!ever! of global warming. Liberals will stop at nothing to stop people from having cars, mostly because they get jealous they can't afford them (see NYC and the new, except-by-hipsters-unusued bike lanes). I hope the cabbies revolt.
True story: this summer, while taking a cab in NYC, I got out. A biker neatly crashed into my cab door and blamed me. This was on a busy, crowded street at a red light. And, of course, it was my fault, because one thing about liberals is: everything they do is right.
I told the whiny little hipster to do something quite nasty with his bike. I was pleasantly surprised at how fate had allowed me to unintentionally cause pain to a worthless parasite.
Would you have preferred to open your cab door into the path of an oncoming car?
Ninja Zombie: usually when one gets out of a cab, they are at the curb/sidewalk...no risk of oncoming car.
Bikes need to follow the same traffic rules as cars. If this cyclist was running a red light, he deserved it.
Kentuckyliz, Bikers rarely drive on the sidewalk in NYC. It's unsafe, illegal, and generally inconvenient (you'll never move faster than walking speed).
My guess: either basic fact was getting out street side, or the taxi let him out in the bike lane. Either way, he should have looked before opening his door.
But suppose the biker was totally at fault: would you rather be hit by a bike running a red light or a car running a red light?
Ninja Zombie, here's some truth for your wittle mind:
1. "Bikers rarely drive on the sidewalk in NYC."
---absolutely false. Bikes drive ALL THE TIME on the sidewalk---mostly when they're going against traffic, which is 1/2 the time. It's a combo of delivery guys and self-important hipsters doing this.
2. " either basic fact was getting out street side, or the taxi let him out in the bike lane"
----wrong again, moron. NO bike lane on that street, and it was curbside. Miss Bicycle Bitch just assumed, as a biking hippie (not a delivery guy), she could do whatever she wanted, because Daddy paid for her rent.
3. "Either way, he should have looked before opening his door."
---Note the moron response: even though traffic is stopped, even though its a red light, and even though there were no pedestrians near me, it was still my job to look out for the careening superhumans known as bikers.
4. "would you rather be hit by a bike running a red light or a car running a red light?"
---wtf kind of false choice is that? I would rather hit a biker trying to run a red light with a car. Or....I would rather idiot bikers weren't on the road inventing their own traffic rules out of self-entitlement.
PWNED.
When you make shit up, it helps to keep a consistent mental narrative. Then you avoid making mistakes like this:
"I told the whiny little hipster to do something quite nasty with *his* bike."
"*Miss* Bicycle Bitch just assumed, as a biking hippie (not a delivery guy), *she* could do whatever *she* wanted, because Daddy paid for *her* rent."
Incidentally, the choice between being hit by a bike or a car is not a false one. There are dangerous bikers and dangerous drivers. The dangerous biker is far less likely to kill you.
Oh, also, you should look before getting out even at red lights. A red light means "do not enter the intersection/crosswalk", not "stop all motion immediately." Both cars and bikes will legally drive up to the intersection even when the light is red.
I did make an error on her gender int he original post, but I just decided to keep writing and not disturb it. The gender wasn't important.
And no, I did not "make it up."
On to Ninja Zombie's stupidities:
"Incidentally, the choice between being hit by a bike or a car is not a false one."
---Yes it is. What would rather have be done: be blown up by a terrorist or have him crash your airplane? Answer: Neither
"There are dangerous bikers and dangerous drivers. The dangerous biker is far less likely to kill you."
---You heard it here, from the mind of a liberal: dangerous bikers are ok because dangerous cars are worse. In a related note, serial killers with 5 victims should be released because serial killers with >5 victims are worse.
"Oh, also, you should look before getting out even at red lights."
---Again, look at this logic: with no bike lane and all traffic stopped, it is still my fault a hippie bike bitch decided to disregard everyone but herself. Liberalism; its not our fault, eva!
"A red light means "do not enter the intersection/crosswalk", not "stop all motion immediately." Both cars and bikes will legally drive up to the intersection even when the light is red."
----with no bike lane, genius, and me at the curb, she wasn't moving up legally; she his knifing through like the selfish little liberal she is, and demanding she get her way.
Back tot he commune, hippie!
P.s. glad you gave up the whole "no one in NYC rides on the sidewalk" lie. Anyone who ever walked around midtown during rush our would smack you for saying something that stupid.
P.P.S. considering the effeteness of the left wing male and the masculinity of the left wing female, my mix up on gender is rather apropos.
Lurker, you singled out bikes for criticism based on the existence of bad bikers. A bike doesn't make you drive dangerously. A bad biker would be a bad driver, and they would do far more damage in a car.
By the way, not sure why you are accusing me of being a hippie. I'm a far right winger.
As for your claim of bikers on the sidewalk in midtown during rush hour, just FAIL. Below a certain speed (roughly a slow jogging pace or fast walk), it's difficult to keep a bike upright. Even walking quickly is inconvenient due to the all the slow walkers.
Alright, Ninja, time to smack your dumbass once and for all:
1."you singled out bikes for criticism based on the existence of bad bikers. "
--- isngled out the bokers in NYC WHO CURRENTLY RIDE, namely, smug, self-entitled hipsters like yourself, and delivery drivers.
2."A bike doesn't make you drive dangerously. A bad biker would be a bad driver, and they would do far more damage in a car."
----Nonsequitor. So what if they would drive cars worse? Tell them to hop a cab/take a box/hoof it.
3. "By the way, not sure why you are accusing me of being a hippie. I'm a far right winger."
---You sure ain't acting like it with your passionate, factless defense of modern urban bikers.
4. "As for your claim of bikers on the sidewalk in midtown during rush hour, just FAIL."
---listen up, LIAR. I live in NYC. I walk to and from work every day. 20 minutes each way. EVERY TIME THERE IS A BIKER EITHER 1) BIKING UP THE SIDEWALK through crowds OR 2) BIKING LIKE A KNIFE IN TRAFFIC.
5. "Below a certain speed (roughly a slow jogging pace or fast walk), it's difficult to keep a bike upright. Even walking quickly is inconvenient due to the all the slow walkers."
---EPIC FAIL, RETARD. Anyone who has actually seen these jerks knows they bike and block. When slowed down on sidewalks, they merely stay on the bike and wait for an opening to speed through. On the streets, they cut off cars, run through lights, and whizz in between cars without a thought.
IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT WHEN SHIT HAPPENS TO THEM.
EPIC FAIL BY YOU, HIPPIE LOVER.
One plus Rio has is that they have fairly liberal liquor laws. Pretty much anywhere you go to eat, you can buy alcohol, and you can also drink on the beach (unlike, say, the beaches here in NJ, where not only can't you drink, but you have to pay just to hang out on the beach). I wouldn't use Rio's bus system though, unless you don't value your life.
BTW, the slums (or favelas, as the locals call them) aren't just on the outskirts of the city, but on what would otherwise be prime real estate, on hillsides in the heart of the city. I've often wondered if Brazil has the doctrine of eminent domain, because this seems like a ridiculous situation. The rights to the land underneath some of these slums could be sold for a lot of money to luxury condo developers, and with the proceeds the Brazilian government could give the slum dwellers wads of cash to move elsewhere.
Blighter,
You fool, don't you recognize stimulus when you see it?
The light rail in Houston is a pain and was poorly done (no shock, there, it was done by city government) and initially was involved in a high number of accidents. It crosses all over traffic lanes which is a problem because it doesn't behave like normal street traffic so anyone driving around it who isn't used to it will have to be extra attentive. Construction blocked roads for a long time and drove businesses out.
I'd rather they just use more busses and make dedicated bus lanes. Busses are increasingly using alternate energy sources and are a good place to implement these technologies. And, when something changes, they can be repurposed or have their routes modified, unlike rail or subways or streetcars.
We do have some fake streetcar looking busses that run around downtown for the locals, though.
Sancho's spot on. Streetcars work beautifully in Germany. They work beautifully in Switzerland as well. In Prague they are a bit 'dated' (the cars themselves), but the lines are efficient and in a city like Prague 'dated' dovetails nicely. And on and on and on.
I was held up once at an intersection by some clown blocking a lane with his car. By Lurker's logic, cars unnecessarily block traffic (?!).
"By Lurker's logic, cars unnecessarily block traffic (?!)."
----Rofe II, wtf? Traffic, as most people define it, is automobiles. After the Great Streetcar Conspiracy, most people in America have been annoyed by rails blocking traffic.
This is the problem with liberals: they redefine words all out of normal meaning and expect that everyone agrees with them.
Does anyone get the impression that Basic Fa--Lurker is just some die-hard liberal trying to make conservative bloggers look silly?
anyone else think Ninja Zombie should STFU and go back to the daily kos?
and you gotta love Rofe II's basic left-wing logic: it works in wonderful utopian left wing Europe in cities where no one has cars and the streets are tiny and horse-based, therefore, it will work here.
Baltimore has the light rail system, which I've always thought combined the worst aspects of each form of public transportation. Like buses, they still need to stop at traffic lights. Like subways and trains, they are limited in flexibility, since if you want to change the route you need to lay out tracks. Throw in the fact that most of Baltimore isn't that dense, so owning a car doesn't involve THAT much hassle compared to, say, DC, and they are kind of pointless.
There has also been quite a bit of resistance from people in the suburbs to extending track - there are a lot of claims that crime increased in some of the 'burbs after the light rail was put in there - it's easy for kids from the hood to go up there, shoplift, and take the light rail back - which has pretty much killed extending it any further.
Thank you, MadAnthony.
A couple of times in the States I had to wait in traffic for some big yellow thing that spit out one little kid after another. Was that traffic?
I recall having to wait a few times on streets that were narrowed to one lane by delivery vans dropping off, well, any range of things. Traffic?
Moving vans, city buses, tractor trailers, RVs, streetcars, etc., etc. . . and yes, even bicycles . . . all belong to traffic depending on where you are.
It's a big world out there, Lurker. You should get out and see it sometime.
Um Rofe II, perhaps I wasn't clear when I said automobiles. I really meany any 4-wheeled moving vehicle the average joe can drive and isn't on tracks. Buses, trucks,c ars, etc.
Bicicyles aren't traffic. They're targets. ;)
But Light rails are dumb ideas.
Clearly DC should have listened to Lyle Lanley and built a Monorail instead.
Detroit actually does have a genuine, bonified, electrified, 6-car-monorail called the "People Mover". It's actually a pretty cool piece of technology, but when I visited there a decade ago, appeared mostly unused and covered a very limited amount of space.
"Won't the track sway and bend?"
"Not on your life, my Hindu friend."
I lived in DC for 8 years, and I also held your opinion about the quality of the city government... Then I moved to Los Angeles. Let's just say that DC looks like the model of governmental efficiency in comparison. Our subway line currently has a scheduled completion date of 2032!
The biggest issue with buses is that they are subject to the exact same traffic conditions as cars. If you're going to spend an hour going 11 miles, you might as well do it in your car and not have to stop to pick up and drop off passengers every block. The concept of express bus routes, which have their own lane physically separated from the rest of traffic, seems to work reasonably well. LA uses that in a few places, and it's far, far less expensive to build and operate than subway tunnels.
"The biggest issue with buses is that they are subject to the exact same traffic conditions as cars."
Isn't this an issue that streetcars have too? And if you set up special lanes for the streetcars to use, hey, it's still cheaper to use buses there anyhow.
I don't know about all the economics of streetcar usage, but a streetcar certainly carries a lot more people than a bus. (Modern streetcars have multiple cars.) Presuming sufficient ridership, and why even consider it if the demand is not there, that would seem to be a clear gain in economies of scale.
Well, it can carry a lot more people. The streetcars I saw in Oslo were mostly empty, when I saw them (and only about twice the size of a city bus to boot -- just two cars, if I recall correctly). While I have occasionally been on packed buses in DC, at times when everyone is coming into work or going home, I don't get the sense that there is much of an undercapacity problem on the existing networks. To the extent there is, it's the result of an inefficient allocation of resources (all those empty buses) rather than a need to pick up more passengers in a single go.
sufficient ridership (i.e. no empty cars) would imply heavy usage, which would behoove a city to build a subway instead---freeing up the street for the extra traffic.
I can't imagine a city being worse-run than DC...we have 35,000 city employees for a place with about 600K people! The overwhelming majority of these are make-work jobs staffed by people who make no effort to actually accomplish anything. Not to mention most don't even live in the city, either.
Anyway, of the two lines that are proposed to be built - one in a less-dense area with few businesses, the other on a long commercial strip with an ever-increasing bar and restaurant scene - the city of course opted for the first choice, so the area that would be better served by this system probably won't get it for another ten years. Brilliant.
Like buses, they still need to stop at traffic lights.
In Portland, the MAX can control the lights, throwing synchronization all to hell. Plus it takes up a lane that would otherwise be useful for traffic, meaning that a single pedestrian and single turner can clog the street long enough for the de-synchronized light to turn.
Portland is just messed up. It's been voted the most depressed city in the America and has a high crime rate relative to its size:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/02/0226_miserable_cities/2.htm
This is what happens when hippies are in charge.
why can't buses move to a "broken windows" system?
I mean, I guess what I'm saying is, couldn't a bus system be designed with a few buses in reserve, and scouts reporting which routes needing urgent attention with extra buses that day?
In NYC, one major problem is that on rainy days, buses are packed, or when the subway unexpectedly busts. I would rather pay some experienced gusy to sit in reserve and mobilize on those days/instances.
Streetcars AREN'T cheap to build. They just externalize a bunch of the costs and have a shorter life than subways.
With streetcars vs tunneling you close businesses and streets for long periods, so bystanders take a huge amount of costs instead of paying to build a tunnel. Cut&cover works out faster, generally, than LRT construction since the heavy load bearing structure goes below the utilities and road structure. You also don't lose as much street room for storage of rails when constructing a subway as you do with LRT/streetcars (since you have the tunnel...).
For LRT/streetcars (separate or integrated into streets) the rails need to be replaced much more frequently than with a subway and create a huge problem. Subways can do upgrades/maintenance at night, while lRT/streetcars need to shut down for 1-2 years and interfere with other lanes. This happens every 10-15 years.
Overall tunneling is a much better solution, since it provides a faster service, few to no externalities, and creates much greater incentives to increase density and rely on transit. It just has a high upfront cost and doesn't interfere with costs, making it less attractive for greens and transit people.
With my experience in Toronto, streetcars tend to be slower than walking in dense areas and extremely unpleasant to wait for. Subways are nice since they run fast and thus frequently, are protected from the elements so waiting doesn't suck, and carry large amounts of people. Subways are also useful for short jaunts in dense areas as well as cross city trips, while streetcars are useful for neither (hampered by wait time for short trips and by insanely low speeds for long trips).
Everyone can get a new GM/Segway motorized wheelchair cage with GPS and sonar and automatic collision avoidance. coff coff
I was in Munich last Spring and found the streetcar system just wonderful. It's pretty well laid out and doesn't seem to block traffic. Each train consists of multiple cars, so it has a much higher capacity than a bus system would.
I have no idea what the system costs, though.
An integrated traffic network is not an either / or proposition, i.e. either streetcars or subways. Munich, for example, has both streets cars and a subway as well as buses and - Lurker's cartoonish aside notwithstanding - plenty of cars, as anyone who has sat in one of Germany's daily 'stau' can testify. Many European cities (Hamburg, Frankfurt, Prague, Moscow and Budapest off the top of my head) have similar integrated traffic infrastructures. Subways and streetcars are complementary rather than substitute modes.
To Lurker's "point" about European streets being designed for horses, well, yeah. Thanks for that. It is what happens when your cities evolve in the age of horses. Walk around Boston or lower Manhattan or Society Hill in Philadelphia and discuss the impact of horse traffic on streets.
Of course European cities continued to evolve over time, no surprise there either, into their currrent integrated configurations. London's traffic trouble - just to mention one among many cities - clearly shows that solutions will have to evolve further.
Why, then, would anyone think that the traffic situations in America's cities wouldn't continue to evolve over time? Sure, America's cities have largely come about in the age of the automobile (another non-insight) and have oriented themselves to the automobile far more than European cities have. But I fail to see how that precludes acknowledging places where other modes work well or, more to the point, whether anything from those places can be adapted to the American scenarios to improve them.
Oh Rofe, you eejit;
"Lurker's cartoonish aside notwithstanding- plenty of cars"
---plenty of small cars. Americans drive bigger, in case you haven't noticed.
"Subways and streetcars are complementary rather than substitute modes."
----I have been to Europe a lot. The streetcars block traffic and cause problems. Subways do not.
"Sure, America's cities have largely come about in the age of the automobile (another non-insight) and have oriented themselves to the automobile far more than European cities have. "
----Actually the insight, dummy, was that our city culture has comeabout in the wake of the Great Streetcar Conspiracy, which made us non-dependent on streetcars, but thanks for playing. This coupled with the Interstate Highway Project (which curiously, no one seems to give enough weight to) has meant that Americans are uniquely dependent on their own transport in most places, as opposed to Europeans, who are dependent on others (re: train systems) to get from A to B quickly.
"But I fail to see how that precludes acknowledging places where other modes work well"
------as has been painstakingly pointed out, the streetcar system blocks traffic and is a pain in general in comparison to more buses and subways. Other commentators have noted this here, why can't you? The light rail/streetcar system is less cost efficient and more cumbersome than merely hiring more bus drivers and/or making the subway. I'm not just whistling Dixie; streetcars combine the worst of both worlds. Only those interested in creating traffic would fail to see that point.
[Portland] may have its political faults but [it] is definitely not a long string of alternating soup kitchens and section 8 units
Of course not. You forgot the strip clubs.
Portland is just messed up. It's been voted the most depressed city in the America
My thinking is that any ranking that lists Portland as worse than Detroit has some serious flaws.
I would expect BusinessWeek to slam on any community that goes to so much trouble to hold commercial interests accountable for their actions. The upside is that even the suburbs are almost universally tolerable.
"The upside is that even the suburbs are almost universally tolerable"
---If you're a drug using hobo, definitely.
"I would expect BusinessWeek to slam on any community that goes to so much trouble to hold commercial interests accountable for their actions."
---If by that you mean "punish businesses and reward drug users, criminals, and homeless parasites" then you are correct, sir.
Business Week only used the crime ranking as one part of the equation. Suprisingly, because I've little heard of it, St. Louis is apparently worse for crime than Detroit.
Lurker, dude, you need to dial it back, you're really being a jerk here.
Back when I lived in Arlington, many years ago, a DC sanitation truck was pulled over on I-395 (IIRC) because the driver was drunk. The truck was impounded.
It took DC so long to come pick it up that the fines kept piling up. And whenever DC finally received authorization for the check expenditure, so much time went by that the fines piled up more than the check.