Is a Streetcar still Desired?

During the 1920s, Los Angeles boasted the most expansive electrically powered streetcar system in the world – at its height featuring over 1,100 miles of track. Within three decades, however, the streetcars were gone. What happened and what can we learn from this?

First introduced in the 1800s in East Coast cities such as Boston, Philadelphia and New York, streetcars provided Americans with easy access to urban centres – at the time perceived by many as unhealthy and overcrowded – while allowing them to live in outlying lower-density neighbourhoods graced with landscaped front yards, tree-lined streets and private backyards. These cities were founded when most Americans travelled by foot and horse and cart.  By the time streetcars were introduced, these cities already had well-established, compact, dense and centralised downtowns.

But Los Angeles’s phenomenal growth occurred after the invention of the streetcar, which distributed the population around the countryside, resulting in much lower urban densities than those in its East Coast counterparts. Constructed by railway entrepreneurs who purchased large tracts of land in the surrounding countryside, Los Angeles’s streetcars connected Downtown Los Angeles to new, primarily single-family neighbourhoods on these landholdings, as well as to already established towns and communities such as Santa Monica, Long Beach, Pasadena, Beverly Hill and Redlands, some of which were over 60 miles away (see Figures 1 and 2).

At the outset, Angelinos enthusiastically embraced streetcars. People could travel longer distances in less time. They could live outside the city centre, but still have convenient access to shopping, work and recreational destinations such as Santa Monica beach. They lived within walking distance of the streetcar stops and the streetcars arrived on time and were well maintained. However, as Los Angeles’s population began to grow, streetcar services fell short of passenger expectations. Since streetcars rarely generated profits, the streetcar companies were unable or unwilling to invest in new lines or to increase efficiency. Streetcars stopped running on schedule, were overcrowded, poorly maintained and were perceived by the public as overpriced. Paradoxically, in order to expand and improve services, the streetcar companies needed to hike fares, but their attempt to do so met with heavy opposition from the riding public, despite the fare increases being comparable to those across the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, as the streetcar system expanded during the first decades of the 20th century, automobile manufacturers were producing more reliable automobiles at more affordable prices. During the first decade of the 20th century, only the wealthiest could afford automobiles. However, by the 1920s as the cost of automobiles came within reach of more and more Angelinos, car ownership expanded dramatically. As the streetcar experience became increasingly arduous, more and more Angelinos began to use cars for their day-to-day activities. Cars provided direct access to where they wanted to go, when they wanted to go. In addition, due to declining profits, the transit companies began transitioning interurban streetcars to buses, which were less expensive to operate and better suited to Los Angeles’s decentralised, low-density urban structure.

Of course, just as the streetcar had its disadvantages, so did the automobile. Increased traffic, longer and longer commutes and world-famous air pollution were the consequences of Los Angeles’s reliance on the automobile. The improved mobility ushered in by the automobile during the 1920s has been diminished in recent decades by continual growth. While traffic used to be congested mainly at rush hour, today, in many parts of Los Angeles, congestion is encountered during virtually all times of the day. Just as Angelinos of the 1920s were looking for ways to get around other than the streetcar, many Angelinos today are looking for an alternative to the automobile. In both cases and time periods, Angelinos looked for the form of transportation that reduced their opportunity costs.

Opportunity cost is the time spent waiting for a train or sitting in traffic that could otherwise be spent on a more productive or alternative activity, such as working or spending time with family. The higher the opportunity cost, the more time ‘wasted’. 

For transit, opportunity costs include time spent waiting for transit, time waiting for connections at transfer points, the inability to work or do other activities while riding transit (if there is standing room only, for instance, it is difficult, if not impossible, to do work), and the inability to do other tasks and activities before or after riding transit, such as shopping, running errands or picking up the kids. Opportunity costs for transit riders are fewer if the number of transfers are reduced or eliminated, if trains or buses are run at short, regular, predictable intervals, if workplaces, residences and daily activities are located close to transit stations, if enough seats are provided and if errands or other activities can be easily achieved before or after the trip.

For automobiles, the principal opportunity costs are time spent commuting long distances, the inability to work or do other activities while driving, time spent driving to complete multiple errands, time spent looking for parking and time spent waiting in traffic. Opportunity costs for motorists are reduced if workplaces and shopping are located close to residences, if shopping and entertainment can be grouped together in a ‘park-once’ environment, if there are new technologies enabling drivers to do something else while driving, such as driverless cars and if traffic congestion is reduced.

Other user costs, particularly out-of-pocket costs, contribute to the equation. For cars, these include the cost of the car, gasoline, tolls, fees, maintenance and insurance. For transit, these include the cost of tickets and transit passes and potentially a means of getting to the station or stop. Other costs include people misbehaving on the trains and buses – something that does not occur in personal automobiles. Many probably choose to ride transit because of the out-of-pocket savings provided by transit – despite the opportunity costs incurred. In addition, there are many who cannot afford an automobile, but if they could, they would buy one to reduce the opportunity costs of getting to work, visiting family, etc. The optimum situation, of course, is low opportunity costs and low out-of-pocket-costs – living within walking distance of work, shopping and entertainment and not having to rely on mass transit or automobiles.

In 1990, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) began reviving the rail system with the introduction of fixed rail lines between Downtown Los Angeles and many of the towns and cities served by the original streetcars. This system has grown to over 600 miles of track, enabling Angelinos to once again get around via train. The City of Los Angeles, however, covers an area of over 500 square miles and the metropolitan region covers over 4,800 square miles and jobs are distributed all over the region – only a small percentage of metropolitan Los Angeles’s jobs are located in Downtown Los Angeles. 

Accordingly, unless Angelinos live near a transit station and/or work near a station, most who have a choice still choose the automobile because of the reduced opportunity costs. Since Los Angeles is so spread out, it simply is too time- consuming to take transit.

So how can the opportunity costs of riding transit be lowered? If transit makes people’s lives easier, people will willingly use it. If it does not, they will seek and use other means. Transit, then, must be designed so that people, if given a choice, will choose to use it. Strategies include:

1. Design transit stations as mixed-use transit villages: Most of Los Angeles’s fixed-rail transit stations are uninviting, purely functional portals designed for no other purpose than ‘catching the train’ (see Figure 3). They are commuter stations, typically surrounded by parking lots and low-density buildings with uses that do not support transit or contribute to ridership. People must travel to the station by foot, bike, car or bus.

Of course, transforming station areas into places where people can live and work is the most obvious way of reducing these transit-related opportunity costs. Streetcars were convenient for Angelinos during the 1920s because Angelinos lived within walking distance of the streetcar stops. But it is just as important to design these station areas as places where people want to live, work or visit and where people can take care of daily activities at or near the station. Parcels within half a mile of the station, accordingly, should be developed with higher-density buildings that accommodate uses that promote transit ridership, especially housing and offices. Most importantly, they should be designed as inviting, memorable places that people want to inhabit and visit (see Figures 4 and 5).

These villages should also accommodate housing for a wide range of households. Most multi-family buildings currently being built in Los Angeles consist of studio, one bedroom and two-bedroom apartments designed for singles, roommates and couples, but are typically not opportunity costs. Streetcars were convenient for large enough to comfortably accommodate families. There are many families that would like to live near transit, not have to take care of a yard and live in a walkable, mixed-use environment. This opportunity is not available to many families in Los Angeles.

2. Design a system that takes people where they need and want to go: There are many destinations in Los Angeles that are simply too difficult to reach via transit. The 30-mile trip from Pasadena to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) via light rail, for instance, takes 1 hour and 55 minutes and four transfers, with one of the transfers entailing a four-minute walk between lines and the last leg consisting of a five-minute shuttle bus ride. The same trip by car without traffic takes about 35-40 minutes and about 1 to 1-1/2 hours with traffic. Metro is currently constructing the Regional Connector Transit Project, which will provide more overlap between rail lines in Downtown Los Angeles, resulting in one less transfer for this trip. For most travelers, however, this trip will still be too difficult – especially if they have to carry luggage.

3. Take advantage of existing transit assets: An alternative way to get to LAX from Pasadena requires only one transfer, from rail to bus and only takes about 1 hour and 35 minutes – a much faster, more convenient trip and one that employs the transit mode best suited for a decentralised, spread-out city such as Los Angeles – the bus. Metropolitan Los Angeles is served by at least 11 bus providers and over 425 combined bus routes. Conversely, the region hosts only four light rail, two subway and seven heavy rail lines (see Figure 6). The opportunity costs of riding the bus can be lowered by improving bus services, especially by introducing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along abandoned rail road lines, within the centre medians of boulevards that originally accommodated streetcars and on Los Angeles’s extensive freeway network. 

BRT is a cost-effective way of introducing transit in a decentralised city such as Los Angeles, especially in lower-density areas. As population or employment densities increase along these routes, the BRT lines could be upgraded to fixed-rail modes such as light rail or even subway. Metro’s Orange Line – a BRT line that runs along an abandoned streetcar route that soon will be upgraded to light rail – does just this.

4. Reduce the number of transfers: Limiting the number of transfers for a given trip will reduce the overall time and the number of disruptions during a given trip. The 29-mile trip from Pasadena to Santa Monica via light rail, for instance, takes 1 hour and 57 minutes and requires two transfers. The same trip by car takes about 30-40 minutes without traffic and anywhere from 1 to 2 hours during rush hour. Metro’s Regional Connector Transit Project will cut the number of transfers down to one, significantly reducing the opportunity costs of riding transit, particularly during rush hours.

5. Provide express and regional trains: Because Los Angeles is so big, long distance transit lines with limited stops should be provided during all times of day, otherwise people will take the trip by other means. The 22-mile, 20-stop light rail trip from Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown Long Beach, for instance, takes 58 minutes. The same trip by car takes 20 to 40 minutes, depending on traffic. Introducing a second set of tracks – at least at certain locations – that accommodate express trains would make the trip faster, perhaps enticing more people to ride the train.

Los Angeles’s existing regional rail system, Metrolink, which connects surrounding towns to Downtown Los Angeles with less stops, generally runs only during commute hours. Many people who do not want to spend the whole day in Downtown Los Angeles, accordingly, drive rather than take the train. Introducing residential, employment or mixed- use transit villages around Metrolink stations would create more destinations, generate more riders, and enable trains to run during non-commute hours, allowing people to travel longer distances with less stops during all times of day.

Introducing rapid transit lines – whether BRT or fixed-rail – with fewer stops along Los Angeles’s freeways would enable faster trips between Los Angeles’s various towns. 

Many corporate businesses in Los Angeles have located next to freeways due to easy accessibility by car – and visibility – from the freeway. Rapid transit would provide an alternative way to travel between these centres.

6. Accommodate Private Transit and Transportation Companies: Another way of making transit more accessible is to encourage private transit and transportation alternatives. Great examples are the shuttle buses hired by private companies such as Google, Apple and Genentech to transport employees to work. These shuttles not only reduce the number of cars on the road and the number of parking spaces needed at the corporate offices, but they also enable flexible routes and stop locations that can be tailored according to where employees live. They are a very good means of transporting people in a decentralized environment and the cost of the shuttles is borne by the sponsoring companies.

Another example is the Boring Company’s proposal to introduce subterranean tunnels to transport passengers in vehicles travelling up to 150 miles per hour between destinations. Routes in Los Angeles are proposed between Los Angeles’s Union Station and Dodger Stadium and between Space-X/Tesla’s headquarters and West Los Angeles. Key to the feasibility of this system is the Boring Company’s innovations in the technology used to dig the tunnels, which vastly reduces the cost and could potentially be applied to other applications, such as digging subway tunnels.

While the introduction of the streetcar resulted in Los Angeles developing at a lower density than East Coast cities, today it is the densest metropolitan region in the United States. As Los Angeles continues to grow, transit will be key to moving people around. For transit to be successful – and for it not to be used solely by those who have no other choice – it should be designed so people want to use it. The best way to achieve this is to lower the opportunity costs of riding it.