The September 9th Sunday News ran a long article extolling the virtues of bringing trolley cars (they call them “street cars”) back to Lancaster. The article is available here.

NewsLanc comments on the article’s assertions:

1) The formation of the Lancaster Street Car Co., a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, is recognition that no “for profit” company would be willing to invest in the trolley system.

2) How does a trolley “stitch the city together” any better than a bus? If “fifty-cent fares” are the key, we could simply subsidize loop buses. Better yet, provide them for free. The subsidy would not be much different than providing trolley cars, and free trolley bus service would surely spur downtown development.

3) “The 2.6-mile loop would cost an estimated $14.1 million.” Guess who will pay the $14.1 million. If you say us taxpayers, you got it! A similar length street car system in Charlotte, NC was budgeted at $20 million and actually cost $40 million.

4) The idea is that it would be “financially sustainable.” But the published projections by the sponsors indicate an annual loss of about $300,000. Research trumps wishes. The existing trolley bus that follows much the same route carries an average of only eight passengers per trip, so isn’t it likely the deficit will be $500,000 or more? So who gets to pay the deficit? Again, taxpayers.

5) But wait. “…backers will certainly look for philanthropic dollars…” Dollars sunk in mindless trolley cars are no longer available for other worthy projects.

6) “…backers will chase advertising dollars…” But trolley buses also run advertisements.

7) “…tax exempt status to provide donors with tax advantages and help solidify corporate partners…” Tax exempt status means indirect tax payer subsidy. There ain’t no free lunch!

“…fine tune the route and design of the proposed system, with an eye on minimizing traffic disruptions.” They acknowledge that running trolleys down the street and stopping every time someone wants to get on or off disrupts traffic. In Charlotte, NC, trolleys run off the streets on a separate right-of-way.

9) “Streetcars would operate at about 10-minutes intervals around a north-south loop along Queen and Prince streets, from the city Amtrak station to Southern Market Center at South Queen and Vine Streets.” These main streets are already congested several hours each day. Traffic is expedited through coordination of sequential traffic signals. With street cars stopping for passengers, traffic will no longer be able to flow at a steady pace.

10) “There are, backers acknowledge, a lot of legitimate concerns about the project. Traffic is a major worry…[they] may in fact reduce traffic volume, if people park at the edges of the city and use the trolley to get around town.” The Amtrak station is the “edge of the city?” Plans for station parking expansion are modest and, at most, will only relieve current station parking problems. So where are commuters to park? It is hard enough now for residents to find street parking for their cars.

11) “Conventioneers and visitors … might want to visit Clipper Magazine Stadium or go antiquing in the 300 block of North Queen Street.” Conventioneers will come to Lancaster to watch our local baseball team? Nonsense! If shoppers want to stretch their legs and look around town, they will walk a couple of blocks to antique stores.

12) “It can be built quickly, inexpensively, right into the street to get around without a car more easily.” It requires $14.3 million minimum (and, if like Charlotte, NC or the convention center early estimates, the budget will likely double) to create the infrastructure for the trolley line. It costs nothing towards added street infrastructure cost to simply run a distinctively painted loop bus.

13) Trolley buses running much the same route only average eight passengers a trip. That hardly pays the driver’s wages. Most potential passengers will be from Lancaster. If they won’t take a trolley bus, why will they take a trolley car?

14) “This is not some harebrained idea,” said Jack Howell of the Lancaster Alliance. Seems that way to us.

NewsLanc has heard favorable comments about the Charlotte, N.C. streetcar system. To find out more, it interviewed Ron Tober, Executive Director of Charleston Street Trolley, Inc. and learned the following:

In Charlotte, street cars will run in their own right-of-way, not in city streets.

They share rails with a high speed transit system, so they only operate week days between commuter peak hours plus all day and evenings on week ends.

The route is approximately 2 miles, similar to Lancaster’s proposal.

Although the original cost estimate was $20 million (the same as for Lancaster), it ended up costing $40 million.

They operate one rebuilt vintage trolley and three replicas.

The fare is $1.30.

The regional transit system (similar to Red Rose) operates the street cars.

Trolley operations are subsidized as part of the overall transit system subsidies.

They are very popular with tourists.

• Amtrak owns the parking lot at the Lancaster station but has contracted out the operation of it to Parc More

• Current expansion plan will take the number of spaces from 169 to 300, almost doubling the size of the lot – we are maximizing the available space

• Construction will take approximately 2 years and during that time available parking will be limited to allow for construction equipment

• Other transportation options to/from the station include:
  • 2 taxi services, Friendly Cab & Yellow Cab – both have taxis parked at the station, awaiting the arrival of passengers (used to be an on call service)
  • Red Rose Transit – local transit system – makes stops around town including stops at the station and numerous other parking lots and garages

• Long term plans include the possibility of a street car system which would travel between the train station and the convention center, making local stops but this option is years away – we do have a representative on the committee considering this project

A decade ago, McCaskey graduate and later real estate developer Richard Field and his father visited the planning office of District 9 in Budapest, Hungary. They were shown a detailed plan comprising dozens of blocks describing precisely which buildings were to be razed, which renovated, the type of new construction to take place in designated locations, proposed pedestrian pathways, street enhancements, new green areas, and improvements to existing parks.

At the time of the visit, the neighborhood consisted of many run down buildings, dingy streets, trashed littered empty lots, and buildings teeming with squatters.

When Field examined the detailed redevelopment plans, he recognized the direction, vision, and commitment of local officials. Over time, Field and his associates acquired four sites on which they developed condominiums consisting of a couple hundred flats with indoor parking and ground level shops.

Today when Field looks out from his eighth floor balcony, he sees that plan fully realized. Consequently, the district has become one of the most fashionable and sought after sections of Budapest and is experiencing rapidly rising real estate values.

In contrast, a developer interested in building similar residential condominiums in downtown Lancaster would have a very different experience. There is no comparable plan for orderly development. A prospective builder or apartment purchaser can only see what exists now; not know what will occur later.

Furthermore, prospective developers would be hard pressed to detect much civic interest in facilitating a downtown housing trend or appreciation of the resulting gentrification that would spread to currently distressed nearby neighborhoods.

Grim evidence of this apparent disconnect was the choice of the Watt & Shand site for the convention center project with no apparent recognition that such a massive commercial structure would block the logical and orderly spread to the south of housing for empty nesters and young professionals. Instead of asking what can be done to trigger downtown gentrification, concentration was on what could be done with the Watt & Shand site.

Most recent downtown residential activity has concentrated on converting deserted industrial and retail buildings, wherever they might be located, into loft type residential units. This indeed is progress, but hardly sufficient in itself.

Planning requires expertise and consensus, not gimmicks such as trolley cars. And making what is planned actually happen requires education of decision makers and the public, investments in improving streets and parks, federal and state subsidies, and leadership.

To lead effectively, one must know where one is going. Planning provides direction.

In response to a question from a NewsLanc reporter regarding the board’s position on the issue of trolley cars for downtown Lancaster, Executive Director David Kilmer said, “That effort is not being led by this authority” and “I think it’s too early to make any judgment about that and I don’t think we should be narrow-minded about things.”

Refusing to indicate any position on the issue, both David Kilmer and Board Treasurer Jon Farrell repeatedly stressed that further study is needed to determine the needs and concerns of the Authority’s client base.

According to figures made available at their Monday Board meeting, ridership of combined Red Rose Transit Services increased by 4.4% between October 2006 and October 2007.

213,838 passengers rode RRTA last month compared to 204,912 in October 2006. Over 2.2 million rides were taken on Red Rose Transit vehicles in Fiscal Year 2007.

At their Monday board meeting, the members approved a resolution to award a construction contract to Ebersole Brothers Construction of Mount Joy in the amount of $118,866.50 for improvements to the transit stop located at Locust & Market Streets in Columbia, part of which will be funded by a grant from PENNDOT.

The members also approved a resolution Monday authorizing the purchase of eight Wheelchair-Accessible Small Transit Buses from Shepard Brothers, Inc. for a total cost of $482,488. Eight buses were retired from RRTA’s fleet due to the fact that they have now accrued over 200,000 miles.

It was also announced at Monday’s board meeting that RRTA Executive Director David Kilmer has been appointed to a 3-year term on the recently-formed Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, which will advise Pennsylvania lawmakers on safety and efficiency issues with regard to motor carriers.

In a 22 column-inch puff piece in the Sunday News of Nov. 18th headed “Streetcar group picks board, seeks momentum,” less than one inch is devoted to the merest mention of wide scale public disenchantment with the proposal.

The article concedes in brief: “… there’s been considerable criticism from those who worry that a streetcar system would be an expensive anachronism, dependent upon public subsidies to survive.”

While trolley advocates are quoted at length, there isn’t a single comment from opponents of the project. This is typical of how the monopoly newspapers cover projects endorsed by their owners. Whatever happened to the days when the newspapers would take opposing sides on local issues?

Totally disregarded are the low ridership on the current “trolley bus” (only eight passengers per hour); traffic congestion caused by the trolleys running in the center of the street and, at intersections, in the curb side lane; dangers to pedestrians because of silent running and slow braking; and whether the estimated $300,000 annual deficit is a far too optimistic projection.

The power elite has been drafting board members from every institution in town to make a show (more a sham) of support for the project. But critics have yet to be invited to participate.

According to a spokesperson for the Red Rose Transit Authority, the trolley bus carries 2,900 passengers a month. That comes to 96 daily and, based on the 12 hour daily schedule, an average of about 8 an hour.

Businesses normally expand and upgrade when there is strong demand for their product and services.

Does it seem logical to spend $14 million of taxpayer money to bring back trolley cars and to subsidize the service for upwards of $300,000 a year when there is so little indication of demand?

At the present ridership rate of 34,800 per year, $300,000 annually would subsidize each ride by over $8!!!

Wouldn’t it make business sense to first publicize the bus trolley loop and provide it free or for fifty cents instead of the current $1.35 to determine how much demand exists?

The September 9th Sunday News ran a long article extolling the virtues of bringing trolley cars (they call them “street cars”) back to Lancaster. The article is available at http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/209236.

NewsLanc comments item by item and endeavors to provide the missing balance:

1) The formation of the Lancaster Street Car Co., a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, is recognition that no “for profit” company would be willing to invest in the trolley system.

2) How does a trolley “stitch the city together” any better than a bus? If “fifty-cent fares” is the key, we could simply subsidize loop buses.

3) “The 2.6-mile loop would cost an estimated $14.1 million.” Guess who will pay the $14.1 million. If you say we taxpayers, you got it!

4) The idea is that it would be ‘financially sustainable.’ But the published projections by the sponsors indicate an annual loss of about $300,000. Research trumps wishes. So who gets to pay the $300,000 deficit that is likely to soar? Again, taxpayers.

5) But wait. “…backers will certainly look for philanthropic dollars…” More wishes.

6) “…backers will chase advertising dollars…” But buses also run advertisements yet Red Rose Transit System requires taxpayer subsidy.

7) “…tax exempt status to provide donors with tax advantages and help solidify corporate partners…” Tax exempt status means indirect tax payer subsidy.

“…fine tune the route and design of the proposed system, with an eye on minimizing traffic disruptions.” They acknowledge that running trolleys down the street and stopping every time someone wants to get on or off disrupts traffic.

9) “Streetcars would operate at about 10-minutes intervals around a north-south loop along Queen and Prince streets, from the city Amtrak station to Southern Market Center at South Queen and Vine Streets.” These main streets are already congested several hours each day.

10) “There are, backers acknowledge, a lot of legitimate concerns about the project. Traffic is a major worry…[they] may in fact reduce traffic volume, if people park at the edges of the city and use the trolley to get around town.” The Amtrak station is the “edge of the city?” And even if parking garages are finally built at the station, would commuters be willing to park cars there and have to wait for a trolley rather than park downtown?

11) “Conventioneers and visitors … might want to visit Clipper Magazine Stadium or go antiquing in the 300 block of North Queen Street.” Conventioneers will come to Lancaster to watch our local baseball team? Shoppers won’t take a loop bus or walk a couple of short blocks to visit antique stores?

12) “It can be built quickly, inexpensively, right into the street to get around without a car more easily.” It requires $14.3 million minimum to create the infrastructure for the trolley line. It costs nothing towards added infrastructure to simply run a distinctively painted loop bus.

13) “This is not some harebrained idea,” said Jack Howell of the Lancaster Alliance. Seems so to us!

9/9/07

By Robert E. Field

My son Richard and I have been conducting business in Eastern Europe over the past 15 years. As such, I have had considerable experience with trolley cars. In fact, we have had to design entry ways in a manner to minimize the lethal risk that trolleys engender.

They do run silently. And they cannot be quickly stopped. Pedestrian fatalities take place each year. At least in Eastern Europe people have been admonished by parents about the danger since earliest childhood.

The initial route is to be between the Amtrak Station and downtown. How would you like your children or grandchildren to live on a city street with a trolley car that cannot be readily heard and cannot be quickly stopped?

I am old enough to recall riding trolleys in Philadelphia during my youth. There are good reasons why street cars were phased out by trackless electrical vehicles and finally by busses. Riding behind a trolley is comparable to riding behind a school bus. They impede traffic. They cannot pull over to pick up pedestrians, let alone the physically challenged. And if they run along curb side, they eliminate vital on street parking.

Of course when built in dedicated lanes in the center of broad boulevards (six to eight lanes including the center trolley lanes and platforms) street cars work very well. We have no boulevards in Lancaster.

I went to school at Cal Berkeley and love to visit San Francisco and ride on the cable cars. But they are something very unique and they can stop quickly under most circumstances since the brakes grab onto a cable. (Those of us who hung on from the sides learned to anticipate this.) And I have visited the New Orleans waterfront and seen the street car named Desire. If it wasn’t the object of the play and the movie, it probably would not be running now. It does serve the river front.

I suspect that a slow moving trolley on flat ground on a broad avenue along a waterfront in a town with many tourists attractions might be worthwhile. But that is hardly Lancaster. Our downtown is a mixed use commercial, retail and residential community with very little tourism. This is pointed out in the Feasibility Report. (I encourage readers to use this link to read the actual Stone Consulting & Design, Inc., February 2006 report.)

The study indicates that the initial project would cost $14 million. (The initial estimate for the Convention Center / Hotel Project was $70 million and ended up $200 million, all things considered.)

The estimated annual operating loss (that is before debt service) is about $400,000. However the report acknowledges the difficulty in anticipating ridership.

I see here a pattern of “Lancaster exceptionalism” whereby the power elite ignores hard facts and chase federal and state largess, regardless of whether the outcome will be good or bad for the community.

I have made no secret of my feeling that the convention center project is the worst thing that could happen to downtown and will be a major obstacle if not the death blow to the town’s ongoing revitalization. People revitalize a downtown, not boondoggles. Condominiums and shops draw people. Convention Centers generate dead zones in the heart of a city.

The Convention Center will likely be a community debacle. But fatalities resulting from trolley cars running on narrow streets will be a human tragedy.

The March 3 Sunday News contained an opinion piece by Althea C. Ramsay headed, “Climb aboard an old idea.” The article mentions visits to various cities and purports that “Business in formerly blighted areas was brisk. Construction of new projects was ongoing along the routes…The riders on the streetcar were most often local residents, commuters, grandparents with their grandchildren and couples visiting downtown from surrounding Counties.”

Here we go again!

When it comes to City renewal, the good, solid, conservative Lancaster establishment seems to have a single approach: Grab as much federal grant money as possible, float bond issues guaranteed by local taxpayers, and construct gigantic projects that are likely to do more harm than any good.

In the past, we had the eyesore and failed Lancaster Square. Currently a misbegotten, ruinous Convention Center / Hotel Project is being thrust upon the community despite wide scale reluctance by the public. And now our benighted leaders are suggesting that all will be well if we spend another couple hundred million dollars in bringing back streetcars.

Never mind that street cars were replaced by trackless trolleys and later buses a half century ago in most towns. Never mind that they congest streets and threaten pedestrian safety (They can’t be heard). And give no heed to the fact we already have to subsidize the far more practical and flexible Red Rose bus system.

Why cannot the local power establishment understand the route to revitalization is through attracting people to move downtown and simultaneously encouraging shopkeepers and restauranteurs to start or expand businesses, not hundred million dollar boondoggles at taxpayers’ expense?

Let’s stop wasting our tax money and the tax money of future generations and concentrate on allowing private enterprise — remember capitalism? — to invest significant private funds because then the projects will not be disconnected from reality.

Enough already!