Streetcars are great!
Sometimes.
Meh, occasionally.
Why do we like streetcars so much? Why are new lines, even entire systems of streetcars popping up everywhere - especially in the United States, and now in Seattle?
There are many advantages to streetcars, don't get me wrong. The vehicles are much greener than most of the buses Metro run, using a similar power source to the trolleybuses used by routes such as the 1, 2, 3 and 4. Operation costs tend to be lower as well, especially with the rising price of gas. Train cars last much longer than any city bus will. The ride is typically smoother, quieter both in and outside of the vehicle, and sometimes faster. In many cases, streetcars will have a much larger capacity.
Seattle proves to just barely be part of these trends. According to Seattle Streetcar's official fact sheet, a trolley used on the South Lake Union line will seat just 29 passengers, with a capacity of 140 in total. By comparison, a standard-issue New Flyer articulated bus, according to King County Metro's website, will seat 56-58 passengers, depending on the specific model. Sure, the total capacity of the bus is lower, but it is still seating double the amount of people. A Central Link car will seat 74 people, with a capacity of 200, easily outperforming both of the previous modes.
This alone raises the question: what is the purpose of our streetcar system? Is it bettering bus service, providing a cheaper 'alternative' to grade-separated transit, or trying to create a compromise between the two? Are these lines deliberately made because they are what is needed for our specific situation, or are they built with the pretext of development and progress in our transportation policy just to appease backers of increased transit options?
Let's take a look at each of these situations, based solely on Seattle's situation.
Streetcars as an Improvement on Bus Service
We know what much of King County Metro's bus service is like at this point: slow, late and generally unpredictable. In terms of travel time, taking the bus doesn't have any concrete advantages over driving. Most local routes almost never have right-of-way or dedicated lanes. Many routes are now running at or near full capacity at times in the day, providing for a crowded, noisy and mostly unpleasant commute.
There's no evidence that the South Lake Union line improves on any of these either. It's still slow, crowded during rush hours and without any right of way. When Amazon employees check out for the day, you could walk the vast majority of the route and beat the trolley. And if there's a parked car that's a little too far from the curb, it's going to take a long time before the system as a whole is back up and running.
Sure, there are legitimate improvements. As previously noted, the trolleys are smoother, quieter and many times cleaner than a Metro bus. They also look better. But was the South Lake Union route really worth $56 million in the end, for just these slight perks, traffic issues and a service that almost nobody pays for? It certainly doesn't seem like it. It's almost a certainty that a bus system could run a similar service.
Streetcars as a Cheaper Alternative to Grade-Separated Transit
The only similarities that really exist between these two are that they run on rails, use electric power and have higher capacities than most city buses Metro runs.
In other words, the disparities between the two are massive. One could argue that this is an apples-to-oranges matter because of the sheer difference in scale. Capacity and ridership, for one, are completely different. As stated above, one trolley car can carry 140 people, while one Link car can hold 200. Link averaged close to 34,000 daily boardings throughout the second quarter of this year, while 3 years ago the streetcar could barely manage a tenth of that. Trolley ridership has definitely increased since then, but this comparison still shows the sheer distance that separates these two systems.
Link Light Rail also covers a much larger route, running more than 15 miles from Westlake to Sea-Tac. By comparison, the SLU line covers 1.3 miles from Westlake to Fred Hutchinson. The service is more frequent (every 7.5 minutes versus the streetcar's 10, both at peak hour) and faster. Most of Link is grade separated, while the streetcar is just another vehicle in traffic, making the difference in speed and efficiency between the two huge. The SLU system cost millions of dollars, while the light rail system cost billions of dollars. Really, the two are incomparable; to say that a streetcar, especially as it is now in Seattle, is anything near an alternative to light rail would be a lie.
Streetcars as a 'Compromise'
Spending $56 million on a service that is as slow as walking at times seems crazy. That is, until you see the separation the city has on transportation issues.
From a transit opposer's standpoint, this makes a lot of sense. Letting the city build a comparably cheap streetcar that helps show the inefficiencies of badly planned transportation, thus turning the public against more proposals for transit, seems to be a perfectly valid way of increasing funding for road projects, expanding highways, or flat-out decreasing the transportation budget later on.
The sheer fact that any form of rail transit is being built also has the effect of appealing to advocates of increased transportation options and expansion in the name of 'progress'. But as previously stated, it's not obvious that there are many advantages over current bus service. When compared to supporting a much more expensive deal for sustainable, mostly well-planned and effective transit that brings out the best in itself, supporting the much less pricey streetcar system is logical for opposers of transit expansion.
That's where this system is almost a compromise between the two sides.
Sure, streetcars are sometimes great, but in our city, they've mostly been a nuisance so far. We've only built one line, but it's not inspiring confidence for its soon-to-open successor. Until this form of transportation shows significant advantages over bus service, starts really connecting parts of Seattle together, or demonstrates a use that is well suited to said mode of transport, it's much closer to being money down the drain than money well spent.