Talk:Streetcars in North America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Synth with Tram#North America

Please keep synced with Tram#North America L blue l 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Backup

backup of original 04:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC) from Trams section Trams in North America

Many North American cities abandoned their streetcar systems in the mid-twentieth century, due to the popularity of the automobile and government policies favoring it. In fact, there was a conspiracy to shut down city tram systems by automobile, oil and tyre interests, as they wanted cities to move to buses, which the companies profited from. In fact, the city of Detroit, which once had a population bordering two million people in 1950, never implemented any type of subway or elevated rail service, unusual for a city that size. It seems the city did not want to ruffle the feathers of the big automotive corporations that were headquartered in the area. The city today now has half the population it did five decades ago. The struggling depression era streetcar companies were bought up by outside interests in many U.S. cities, who, twenty years later, gutted most North American streetcars and interurbans. (see General Motors streetcar conspiracy). However, traditional systems survived in Boston (MBTA Green Line), Newark, New Orleans, Philadelphia (Subway-Surface Lines), Pittsburgh, San Francisco (F Market line), and Toronto (Toronto Streetcar System). This survival was aided by the introduction of the modern PCC car in the 1940s and 1950s in all these cities except New Orleans. New light rail systems have since opened in many other cities, starting with the ground-breaking system in Edmonton , and now including Baltimore, Buffalo, Calgary, Dallas (DART), Denver, Edmonton, Houston, Jersey City-Hoboken, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Ottawa, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, St Louis, Salt Lake City, San Jose, and Vancouver. Additionally, all the surviving PCC operators have replaced their PCC cars with light rail vehicles, although restored vintage PCC cars are still in regular operation on Boston's MBTA Red line Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line, and on San Francisco's F Market line, a line popular among tourists. This line recently underwent an expansion to the Fisherman's Wharf area and a second line along the Embarcadero to the east is in the planning stages.

Another trend originating in North America is the introduction of newly built heritage streetcar lines using original or replica historic equipment, a trend which is now spreading elsewhere in the world. Examples in North America include San Pedro, Little Rock, Dallas, Denver, Memphis, Tampa, Seattle, Charlotte, North Carolina, the new Canal Street line in New Orleans, and the reintroduction of the historic Girard Street line in Philadelphia. Atlanta is also considering an historic streetcar to connect the downtown tourist attractions with the King Center area just east of Downtown.

This information has now been added to the article L blue l 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 
  PCC car in San Francisco
• Siemens-Duewag U2 in San Diego
  Siemens-Duewag U2 in San Diego

L blue l 04:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Heritage - in Savannah?

The last two or three sentences in the Heritage streetcar systems section of this article currently read:

Savannah, Georgia on the Famous River Street abandonded Railroad Tracks . using 1 Mile Long Railroad Tracks with 2 restored vintage Streetcars To equip with Modern LRVs With going green Techology Ultra Battery Hybrid Onboard Generator Streetcars.

With a W-5 class Melbourne Austrailian Streetcar & a PCC StreamLiner Streetcar Converted to a Bi Directional Streetcar with a Ultra Battery Hybrid Onboard Generator Streetcar also Next.

The problems with those "sentences" is that they seem to convey no meaningful information. Is there an external reference to back up the claim that Savannah would like to build a heritage style streetcar system? (please note the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy for content). Is the W-5 paragraph about the Savannah proposal or is it about Melbourne and therefore inappropriate for an article on Streetcars in North America? Is the jargon about "green Techology Ultra Battery Hybrid Onboard Generator", "Ultra Battery Hybrid Onboard Generator", and "Next" necessary or are they attempts to advertise some products produced by some company? (please note the WP:NOTADVERTISING content policy). Can subjects and verbs be found for some of those "sentences"? I invite people to research and resolve the questions I have posed. If we cannot find adequate answers I'd like to remove the "sentences" from the article. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some partial answers to the questions I posed previously: Savannah, GA began operation of a seven stop heritage line in the fall of 2008 according to [1] and the subpage at [2]. The rolling stock will be a 1930s era 54 passenger W class Melbourne tram car(cars?) from Melbourne, Australia (see also Trams in Melbourne). I have yet to uncover further detail on the supposed "environmentall-friendly green technology" updates from another source. connectthedot is a website run by "Savannah Mobility Management Inc." the company that runs public transport services for the city of Savannah. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

More information: Service along the approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) route is to start in December 2008 according to [3] Free trials ran on Saturday 13 December 2008 according to [4] The power is a custom engineered hybrid biodiesel propulsion system according to the previous WSAV web page. See also fare and cost information at [5] where it is mentioned that the power was hoped to avoid traditional diesel engines (noise and fumes) as well as overhead electric power lines (that would have obstructed the views of the Savannah River and Hutchinson Island (Georgia) from River Street). 67.86.73.252 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposed rewording into two sentences:

As of December 2008 Savannah, Georgia has made trial runs of a new streetcar line that runs on a 1 mile (1.6 km) route along River Street with seven stops. The rolling stock is a modified 1930s era 54 passenger W-5 tram from Melbourne Australia that has been specially updated to run with biodiesel fueled regenerative hydbrid powered engines instead of electricity from overhead lines.

I will add that to the article to replace the current wording unless there are objections expressed here. Thanks. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has been added to the article and has replaced the previous sentences about Savannah et alia. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The section entitled 'Conspiracy' is obvious vandalism. I've deleted it. 72.198.194.159 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a well-known conspiracy theory, which even has its own article at Great American Streetcar Scandal. It may benefit from editing, rewording, and a link directing users to the seperate article, but I feel wholesale removal is unwarranted. Skabat169 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer moving the 'Conspiracy' section up to serve as a new subsection of the 'History' section. I think the 'History' section is lacking in detail at this time and that the notion that there was a conspiracy was a part of the history of the demise of widespread streetcar use in North America. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the 'Conspiracy' section up into 'History'. I hope to be able to expand the 'History' section in the not too distant future. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Roundhouse Railroad Museum

It appears that the recently added Roundhouse Railroad Museum (RRM) is indeed a fine railroad museum facility. However, the museum's collection does not appear to contain any streetcars at all. Perhaps that RRM article should be added to the List of railway museums article instead of this article? If there are plans to eventually display or restore streetcars at the RRM, then perhaps it could be re-added to this article when those plans are a bit further developed. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have listed RRM on the List of railway museums. I have also posted a question about streetcars in the museum's collection on the Talk:Roundhouse Railroad Museum page. If a modest source for streetcars in the collection at that museum cannot be found then I'd like to remove it from this article. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well-made. The same thing—that RRM appears not to have any streetcars at all (yet, at least) and they are not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about it—had also occurred to me when I first saw the corresponding new addition to this article. It's been a week, and nothing has been added. You could give it a couple more days if you like, but in my opinion it would be fine to go ahead and delete RRM from the streetcars article. SJ Morg (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a consenus of two editors. Hence I have removed RRM from the list of streetcar museums. I note that the new article on the River Street Streetcar mentions that that line has hopes of expanding to provide heritage line transit service to the Roundhouse Railroad Museum but has not yet carried out that expansion plan. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa it seems that the Roundhouse Museum's website does have pictures of their restoration work on the Melbourne W5s here. In addition, a news source here has a story about the restoration work on the W5(s) for the River Street Streetcar having taken place at RRM. Ordinarily I'd consider those two sources adequate to be able to list Roundhouse Railroad Museum among the streetcar museums in this article. In addition, it is worth pointing out that in the edit histories for the articles on rail museum and historic places in Savannah (particularly the RRM and the Historic Railroad Shops articles) has asserted that there is a PCC car and a Birney car either in the collection being restored, or on display in the exhibit space of the museum. By application of WP:AGF I think I must withdraw my original objection to listing RRM in the museum section of this article. I will soon put it back. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

history proposal

Here is a proposal for an expanded "History" section: 67.86.73.252 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This "History" section expansion has been added to the article and need not be edited here (edit the article instead please). 67.86.75.96 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Main article: History of trams

An 1877 horsecar on display in Manchester, New Hampshire, as it appeared on a 1908 postcard

Omnibuses and Horsecars

From the 1820s to the 1880s urban transit in North America started when horse-drawn omnibus lines started to operate along city streets. Examples included Gilbert Vanderwerken's 1826 omnibus service in Newark, New Jersey. Before long Omnibus companies sought to boost profitability of their wagons by increasing ridership along their lines. Horsecar lines simply ran wagons along rails set in a city street instead of on the unpaved street surface as the omnibus lines used. When a wagon was drawn upon rails the rolling resistance of the vehicle was lowered and the average speed was increased. A horse or team that rode along rails could carry more fare paying passengers per day of operation than those that did not have rails. North America's first streetcar lines opened in 1832 from downtown New York City to Harlem by the New York and Harlem Railroad, in 1834 in New Orleans, and in 1849 in Toronto along the Williams Omnibus Bus Line.

Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. with carriages and horsecars of the Washington and Georgetown Railroad as seen from the U.S. Treasury building

A 1917 view of a New York horsecar on the left and an electric streetcar on the right on Broadway near 17th Street

These streetcars used horses and sometimes mules. Mules were thought to give more hours per day of useful transit service than horses and were especially popular in the south in cities such as New Orleans, Louisiana and Celaya, Guanajuato, Mexico. In many cities single animal drawn streetcars were known as "bobtail streetcars" whether mule or horse drawn. By the mid 1880s, there were 415 street railway companies in the USA operating over 6000 miles of track and carrying 188 million passengers per year using animal drawn cars. In the nineteenth century Mexico had streetcars in around 1,000 towns and many were animal powered. The 1907 Anuario Estadístico lists 35 animal-powered streetcar lines in Veracruz state, 80 in Guanajuato and 300 lines in Yucatán.

Although most animal drawn lines were shut down in the nineteenth century a few lines lasted into the twentieth century. Toronto's horse drawn streetcar operations ended in 1891. New York City saw regular horsecar service last until 1917 (see photo at left). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's Sarah Street line lasted until 1923. The last regular mule-drawn cars in the United States ran in Sulphur Rock, Arkansas until 1926 and were commemorated by a U.S. Postage Stamp issued in 1983. The last mule tram service in Mexico City ended in 1932, and a mule-powered line in Celaya, survived until May 1954.

See also: Omaha Horse Railway, Hudson Avenue Line (surface), Palmdale Railroad, and Winnipeg Transit

Early power

During the nineteenth century, particularly from the 1860s to the 1890s many streetcar operators switched from animals to other types of motive power. Before the use of electricity the use of steam dummys, tram engines, or cable cars were tried in several North American cities. A notable transition took place in Washington, D.C. in the U.S. where horsecars were used on street railways from 1862 to the early 1890s. From about 1890 to 1893 cable drives provided motive power to Washington trolleys, and after 1893 electricity powered the cars. The advantages of eliminating animal drive power included dispensing with the need to feed the animals and clean up their waste. A North American city that did not eliminate its cable car lines was San Francisco and much of its San Francisco cable car system continues to operate to this day.

In this transition period some early streetcar lines in large cities opted to rebuild their railways above or below grade to help further speed transit. Such system would become known as rapid transit or later as heavy rail lines.

Electrification

An editorial cartoon from New Orleans, Louisiana advocating the switch from horsecars to electric streetcars that appeared October 21, 1893

The World Cotton Centennial was held in New Orleans, Louisiana from December 16, 1884 to June 2, 1885. It featured displays with a great deal of electric light illumination, an observation tower with electric elevators, and several prototype designs of electric streetcars. On April 15, 1886 Montgomery, Alabama established its electric streetcar system nicknamed the Lightning Route. Another early electrified streetcar system in the United States was established in Scranton, Pennsylvania by November 30, 1886, giving Scranton the nickname "The Electric City". In 1887 an electric streetcar line opened between Omaha and South Omaha, Nebraska. The Omaha Motor Railway Company began operation in 1888.

Along the east coast a large-scale electric street railway system known as the Richmond Union Passenger Railway was built by Frank J. Sprague in Richmond, Virginia, and was operating by February 2, 1888. The Richmond system had a large impact upon the burgeoning electric trolley industry. Sprague's use of a trolley pole for D.C. current pick up from a single line (with ground return via the street rails) set the pattern that was to be adopted in many other cities. The North American english use of the term "trolley" instead of "tram" for a street railway vehicle derives from the work that Sprague did in Richmond and quickly spread elsewhere.

See also: Omaha and Council Bluffs Railway and Bridge Company

Growth

Several streetcars, including an open air toursit car, in Vancouver in 1910

By 1889 110 electric railways incorporating Sprague's equipment had been started or were planned on several continents. By 1895 almost 900 electric street railways and nearly 11,000 miles (18,000 km) of track had been built in the United States.

The rapid growth of streetcar systems led to the widespread ability of people to live outside of a city and commute into it for work on a daily basis. Several of the communities that grew as a result of this new mobility were known as streetcar suburbs. Another outgrowth of the popularity of urban streetcar systems was the rise of interurban lines, which were basically streetcars that operated between cities and served remote, even rural, areas. Interurban lines competed with regular passenger service on mainline railroads.

Braddock Heights, MD with an H&F trolley

The Hagerstown and Frederick Railway that started in 1896 in northern Maryland was built to provide transit service to resorts and the streetcar company built and operated two amusement parks to entice more people to ride their streetcars. The Lake Shore Electric Railway interurban in northern Ohio carried passengers to Cedar Point and several other Ohio amusement parks. The Lake Compounce amusement park, which started in 1846, had by 1895 established trolley service to its rural Connecticut location. Although outside trolley service to Lake Compounce stopped in the 1930s, the park resurrected its trolley past with the opening of the "Lakeside Trolley" ride in 1997 which is still operating today as a short heritage line. In the days before widespread radio listening was popular and in towns or neighborhoods too small to support a viable amusement park streetcar lines might help to fund an appearance of a touring musical act at the local bandstand to boost weekend afternoon ridership.

Many of Mexico's streetcars were fitted with gasoline motors in the 1920s and some were pulled by steam locomotives. Only 15 Mexican streetcar systems in Mexico were electrified in the 1920s.

See also: Setback (land use)

Decline

The great depression of the 1930s led to the closure of many streetcar lines in North America. The onset of World War II held off the closure of some streetcar lines as civillians used them to commute to war related factory jobs during a time when rubber tires and gasoline were rationed. After the war automobile use continued to rise and was assisted in the 1940s and 1950s by the passage of the Trans-Canada Highway Act of 1948 and growth of provincial highways in Canada as well as the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 in the United States. Declining ridership and traffic jam crowding of city streets by streetcars were often cited as a reasons to shut down remaining lines. By the 1960s most North American streetcar lines were closed, with only the exceptions noted above and discussed below remaining in service. The survival of the lines that made it past the 1960s was aided by the introduction of the successful PCC streetcar (President's Conference Committee car) in the 1940s and 1950s in all these cities except New Orleans.

City buses were seen as more economical and flexible: a bus could carry a number of people similar to that in a streetcar without tracks and associated infrastructure. Cambridge, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California removed some streetcar tracks but kept the electric infrastructure so as to run electrified trackless trolley buses (see also San Francisco Municipal Railway, Boston-area trackless trolleys, Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority, List of trolleybus systems in Canada). In 2001 Boston started operation of its newly constructed Silver Line trackless trolley service.

Conspiracy

Main article: Great American streetcar scandal

The abandonment of city streetcar systems in the mid-twentieth century, led to a popular conspiracy theory which touts that a union of automobile, oil, and tire manufacturers shut down the streetcar systems in order to further the use of buses and automobiles. The struggling depression-era streetcar companies were bought up by this union of companies who, over the following decades, dismantled many of the North American streetcar systems.

While it is true that General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, and some other companies formed holding companies that purchased several dozen of the hundreds of transit systems across North America, their real goal was to sell their products -- buses, tires, and fuel -- to those transit systems as they converted from streetcars to buses. During the time the holding companies owned an interest in American transit systems, more than 300 cities converted to buses. The holding companies only owned an interest in the transit systems of less than fifty of those cities. The claims of a conspiracy have been refuted by scholars from several institutions.

Renaissance

See also: Light rail in North America § History of Streetcar and Light rail

The term light rail was devised in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration to describe new streetcar transformations which were taking place in Europe and North America. The Edmonton Light Rail Transit became the first urban light rail system in North America. Construction of the Edmonton line started in 1974 and it became operational on April 22, 1978.

Some notable distinctions between light rail systems and their streetcar predecessors were that light rail lines may run at least partially along exclusive rights of way instead of only along streets, a light rail line is more likely to run multiple unit trains instead of single cars, and a light rail line may use high level stations instead of in street stops. These design differences mean that light rail systems tend to have more passenger capacity and higher speeds than their streetcar predecessors.

References

Detroit

I think the Woodward Avenue Streetcar should be in the "in development" section. Formerly the Woodward Avenue Light Rail, the project was downgraded to a 3-mile streetcar through downtown and midtown Detroit. The studies are already done, and it was simply waiting on a regional transit authority bill to be passed in the state legislature to start construction. DOT Sec. Ray LaHood said that if they passed the legislation, they'd get the money to start the construction of the streetcar. Well, the state senate passed the legislation on November 27, and it looks like it'll be out of the state house and signed by the governor before the year is out. I imagine this is further along than some of the others listed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why cities were included/excluded in summary?

The current introduction is strange and misleading with respect to cities. Various cities are mentioned, in quasi alphabetical order (I suppose this list has been expanded hence breaking that order).

The list is sufficiently long that it would mislead one into supposing that is complete. But it isn't. Which then begs the question on what grounds were the cities in the list chosen. If it was on the basis of some metric, then why are they not ordered in according to that metric?

A long, incomplete, alphabetical list of cities is worse than useless. I intend to fix this. 166.137.208.23 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Greater use of tables

A suggestion: I think this article could benefit from the use of a few summary (data) tables. As the number of modern of modern streetcar systems continues to proliferate (and more are scheduled to open in the next three years), I really think this article could benefit from a summary table of such systems – like the ones now at Light rail in the United States or at Light rail in North America. A summary table of at least the "modern" systems opened over the last couple of decades would be strongly advisable, though a separate summary table for the eight "legacy" systems would probably also be a good idea as well. (Another table for the various "heritage streetcar" systems might be worth considering too...)

I am curious to see if any editors here have any objection to this proposal, or if they have preferences as to how summary tables might be implemented (I personally prefer the summary table used at Light rail in the United States, and would advocate that an edited version of that table just be brought over here...). Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this... --IJBall (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea, for multiple reasons. One reason that might not be so obvious to some is that, unlike the light rail articles, this article is about a subject that goes back for well over a century, and this article's current text on the modern-era systems (both heritage-type and modern-vehicle type) has become way out of proportion to the pre-1970s text within the (very huge) scope of this article's subject. For the record, I'll note that I myself added a lot of text on the new systems currently under construction (or recently opened), but I did so partly because in 2012–13 there was such a huge increase in the number of new systems that were now under construction that this article quickly became very out of date in that subsection, and also because some of the specific Wikipedia articles about those now-under-construction new systems were very poor or non-existent at the time (and I didn't have time to fix or expand multiple articles). Condensing this info. into a summary table, but retaining some prose text also, seems like a very worthwhile proposal to me, although I don't think I'll be able to spend much (if any) time helping carry out the transition. In the prose text that I added/updated, I was careful to include inline citations, and information presented in tables needs to be extensively referenced also.

Other than that, I don't have any specific suggestions at this point, except to say that any such tables should not include a "number of stations" column at all. Streetcar lines have stops, not stations, relatively very simple (like a bus stop) and spaced closely. I might not object to a "number of stops" column, but I really think it would be a little misleading and not helpful, and that other measures (such as length of lines, number of cars) provide a more useful comparison between streetcar systems. SJ Morg (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point about the "stations/stops" difference – I'll be sure to incorporate that suggestion. In thinking about it, I think it would be a good idea to include a 'Stops' column in a table for the "modern" streetcar systems (they all seem to have well defined stops along their routes), but I haven't decided/am not sure if I'd include "stops" info in the "legacy" systems table (I'm thinking this table might need to be different than the "modern" streetcar one...). I'd also like to include the 'Vehicle type' column, as in the Light rail in the United States article, if I can fit it in. (My guess is that the 'Latest extension' column will need to be cut, which I think is fine...)

Anyway, with your encouragement, I'll probably start playing around with this on my Sandbox page for a little while, just to see how it works out. I'm thinking somewhere between 2-4 summary tables in total – two for sure for the "legacy" and "modern" streetcar systems, and then probably one for the "transit" heritage streetcar systems, and then possibly a fourth table for the "non-transit" (i.e. "tourist") heritage streetcar systems. As for the text, I wasn't planning on taking any out (at least to start) – when I looked at the "legacy" section, I actually thought all of the text should stay even if a table is added. However, to work in the tables, I am nearly certain that some of the images dispersed throughout the article are either going to have to be moved, or eliminated. So there is that... Anyway, I'm thinking that I'd like to get this done in the next month, but there are a couple of projects (see my 'To Do' list!) that I should probably get to first... but this table project is probably "easier", so I may get to it first... We'll see! As before, if anyone else has any additional comments, please post them here! --IJBall (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, the first table to work up is relatively easy – that for the four "modern" (i.e. non-legacy) streetcar systems:

City/Area served	Country	State /Province	Streetcar system	Year opened	Year last expanded	System length	Stops	Lines	Type of vehicle
Portland	USA	OR	Portland Streetcar	2001	2012	7.35 mi (11.83 km)	76	2	Škoda 10 T, Inekon Trams 12-Trio, United Streetcar 100
Salt Lake City	USA	UT	S Line	2013	n/a	2.0 mi (3.2 km)	7	1	Siemens S70
Seattle	USA	WA	Seattle Streetcar: South Lake Union (SLU) Line	2007	n/a	1.3 mi (2.1 km)	11	1	Inekon Trams 12-Trio
Tucson	USA	AZ	Sun Link	2014	n/a	3.9 mi (6.3 km)	22	1	United Streetcar

References

I've put in a 'Country' column because this page is, afterall, "Streetcars in North America", and it can't be ruled out that either Canadian or Mexican "modern" streetcar systems may open in the (not so distant?) future.

I'll wait a couple of days for suggestions, but if there are no major objections, I'd like to move this table (or whatever ultimate version of this table consensus dictates) to the article soon. (After that, the next likely candidate to add to the article is a table for the 'heritage' streetcar systems, and then after that perhaps the hardest table to design: a table for the "legacy" systems...). --IJBall (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. First table – for "modern" streetcar systems – added to article. I am likely to next tackle a table for the "transit" heritage streetcar systems, as that's the next easiest table to do (and it's also relatively short). However, I have noticed that to do the "heritage" systems", I am likely to want to move two paragraphs from the current "Second-generation streetcars" section to the "Heritage streetcars" section – if anybody has any objections to (or suggestions for) that, probably best to let me know in the next few days... --IJBall (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Second (set of) table(s) – these for "heritage" streetcar systems that offer "regular transit service" – added to article. This also involved moving around a fair amount of text to 'flesh" out the 'Heritage streetcars' section, but I think the text fits together better this way.

For the next step, I'm not at a bit of a quandary... I may try to add a table for the first-generation "legacy" systems next, though that table will be more complicated that the tables I've just added, and I'm still trying to figure out how I want the 'legacy' systems table to work/look; alternatively, I may try to add a table for the "non-transit" (i.e. "tourist") North American heritage streetcar systems at the bottom of the page – the advantage of this is that I can cut down the list at the bottom of the page and focus it just on the "tourist" heritage systems, but the disadvantage is that this table will take more work, and probably won't be finished quickly. Stay tuned...

But with these tables now added, I think the next step is to look at the text in the 'Modern streetcars' and 'Heritage streetcar' sections, and cut it down (i.e. delete a lot of the subsections on the specific systems like Portland and Seattle, which are overly-detailed for an article such as this, especially now that we have the summary systems tables...). --IJBall (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Under construction section

I would like to replace pretty much all of the text in this article's 'Under construction' section with the table at Light rail in the United States#Light rail systems in the United States under construction (cutting the Honolulu entry, which is "light rail"/"light metro", from that version before moving it here). I know there are a number of references included in the current text for this article's 'Under construction', but I'm guessing they're either redundant with the references in that 'Under construction' table or are repeated at the specific Wikipedia articles on each of those systems. Anyway... is there any objection to doing this? If I don't hear something here in the next few days, I will plan on replacing pretty much that entire section with the 'Under construction' table at Light rail in the United States. --IJBall (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Project complete

 Done! I have added all of the tables to this article that I intended to. In addition, I've copyedited as much as possible to remove redundancies (including deleting a section or two that were unnecessary) and improve the lede (e.g. to cut down on some of the "systems lists" mentioned on the Talk page above...), and updated the text to fix some incorrect out-of-date information. On my end, I consider my "project" to improve this article complete (and hopefully my changes will make it easier for others to update it in the future...), though if anyone else has any other suggestions for further improvements they'll be appreciated!... --IJBall (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline links to the GM Streetcar story as the main article?

Why does the article cite the GM Streetcar story as the primary article on the decline of streetcars. While it's certainly part of the popular understanding of the decline, the article prevents clear evidence that GM et al. had virtually no impact on the decline of streetcar systems in the US. Is this an incorrect link?Springee (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Milwaukee streetcar

The Milwaukee streetcar project is not just planned or proposed. It is in the final stages of engineering and construction actually started with the St Paul ave bridge downtown that had streetcar tracks installed in it last year.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:B83A:CE1F:0:3CD1:94D9:E697:AE4F (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

CLRV based on the PCC

I placed a {{dubious}} after the claim that the TTC's CLRVs are "largely based on the PCC". Of all the more recent vehicles the CLRVs most closely match the appearance of the PCCs. But the vehicles use 1970s era electronics and hydraulics. The TTC has kept three legacy vehicles in service, for rentals and special occasions. I asked on Steve Munro's forum about whether the TTC would keep some CLRV in service. Everyone seemed to agree that while replacement parts for the PCC's older technology can be forged by the TTC's blacksmith, replacement spare parts for the 1970s electronics used in the CLRV were already hard to find, and can not be built by a craftsman.

CLRVs are taller, and require three steps to board, not two, because they have more stuff under their floor than a PCC.

So, I doubt it is true that the CLRVs are "largely based on the PCC". I suspect whoever wrote this was tricked by the surface similarity.

Unless someone can find a reliable reference for this, after waiting a reasonable period of time, I will remove this claim. Geo Swan (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno that it is wrong, but it's so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless. Something that captures concepts used by earlier designers might not have any parts in common, for instance. I think the volkswagen 181 is obviously "based on" the kubelwagen in more than just aesthetics, but good luck exchanging any particular part, and yet it can be meaningfully described as "largely based on." The phrase covers too much ground without an added modifier; it can be used to describe something built off old plans but also off old requirements specs. Anmccaff (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Original systems were very, very seldom "municipal," and often not systems.

Again, we gotcher rampant presentism right in the lead para. Original streetcars were often, even in electric days, organized by lines rather than as integrated systems, and this had a real effect on history and day-to-day operations. Anmccaff (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Most successor systems were bus or trackless trolley

...so, how was "light rail" the "the successor transit mode to streetcars?" Anmccaff (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was successor rail transit mode to streetcars. It the evolutionary next step in urban rail transit. --IJBall (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking that as true, then the article should say that: "the successor rail technology."

Asking whether it is true gives a different answer...or, rather, several of them. Streetcars/interurbans were replaced by heavy rail and by commuter rail far more than by "light rail." I think the sentence ought to go.

As for being an "evolutionary next step," there's nothing about it that wasn't already in practice with any of the old PCC users; one can argue that it existed more as a re-marketing than an invention. "Light Rail" was, in MBTA-speak, a code phrase for "the Feds will pay for this." Anmccaff (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing that sentence. It's pretty clear: streetcars evolved into light rail – light rail is the successor (rail) transit mode. I'm not the only who says this – I'm pretty sure some of the references either here, or at the light rail article, make the same argument. --IJBall (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Better tell APTA; they seem to believe that a substantial number of new systems are streetcars proper. [Rail & Streetcar Systems How They Differ; How They Overlap]. And better tell the endless number of people and institutions arguing or explaining the difference; a simple web search will pull up endless variants. This isn't a settled question, and this isn't Ijballopedia or Anmccaffopedia; this is supposed to reflect expert consensus, and them experts are still arguing among themselves and to others. This don't belong in the lead. Anmccaff (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, let me make a suggestion – why don't you quit with "dubious" tags, and just edit the text the way you think it should go? I think this is a better approach than doing what you've been doing (which, admittedly, has been getting under my skin...). I suspect the stuff you want to edit isn't so controversial with most editors that it requires a pass through the Talk page, first. Just edit the text the way you think it should go, and then the rest of us will take a look and see if we agree with what you've done. Then, if necessary, we can talk about it after you've made the changes you think are needed... --IJBall (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a serious non-meeting of the minds here [on the article, that is.]. The article assumes that 'light rail" is "progress"; I see it largely as "rebranding," and see it as a modern expression of ideas that were at least 50 years old by the early seventies. I'd rather talk here than edit war, and I'd rather have the article reflect the division with a dubious marker than face seeing a raft of boomerang cites based on it, as occurred in one of the other articles. Anmccaff (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No more so than Boston...in fact, less so.

Hasn't more survived in Boston, and for the same reason: median ROW? Anmccaff (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that tag needs to go – Boston's system has changed substantially over time: the entire 'A' Line was dropped, and I think the end of one of the other lines (Line 'E'?) has been truncated, all since the 1960s. Also, and this part is obvious – the LRVs have changed in Boston over the years. Now, if you want to throw a mention into that same sentence about the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line having remained unchanged as well, I wouldn't object. But New Orleans' St. Charles Line, OTOH, I think has been almost completely unchanged the whole time, including using the same streetcars, none of which applies to Boston's Green Line. --IJBall (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't talk about a "line" more or less intact, but a "system" and, leaving aside questions about grandpa's axe, the NO system has a -single- surviving line, far fewer than Boston, which in turn has much less than (long list ending with) Trono. Toronto's lines, too, are completely modernized. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is, that line – the St. Charles Line – is still operating basically unchanged from its electrification. Again, the only other line that could perhaps claim that is the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line. Now, if you want to change the wording of that sentence from "system" to "line", again, I wouldn't object. But the general point of that sentence isn't "dubious" nor is it inaccurate. --IJBall (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A few (counter) points. First, the overwhelming majority of the NO streetcar system is long gone; the article, as now written, strongly implies the opposite. If a fellow were plucked from 1920 Toronto, and dropped on Yonge street, he might marvel at the new cars, but he'd find 'em where he expected them, mostly. The same is true in parts of Pittsburgh, Philly, Boston, &cet. Only on the St Chuck line would a time-transported Orleanian have the same experience. The "system" is gone, the Toronto system is not.

Next, this isn't the Guiness World Records or a trivia book; it's an article on streetcars in North America. The fact that one city managed to keep a system largely intact is relevant to the lead; the fact that a line was preserved intact partly, frankly, as a tourist attraction over some of its history, is not. The next point ties in with your next para., so... Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

One other point: the key word in that sentence is "mode". The Green Line has, effectively, been converted almost entirely to "light rail" (it had much more in the way of "streetcar" segments earlier in its history) – thus, its "mode" has changed. In the case of New Orleans and Toronto, their systems have remained true "streetcar" systems. And I think that's the main point – most of the other "legacy" systems, such as San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and yes Boston, have at least "partially" (if not "fully") been "upgraded" to "light rail"... --IJBall (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the current barbarism for this is presentism. Back then, if there were a distinction made between "light rail" and "streetcar," the St Charles line would have been on the LRV side. So, of course, would a good chunk of what is -now- called the Green Line of the MBTA. The St Charles line never was a streetcar proper, a thing riding in the common traveled way. Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple – single car streetcars is another hallmark of streetcar systems (e.g. Toronto & New Orleans), whereas multiple-unit trains is a hallmark of light rail (Boston). But if the sentence is so offensive to you, just remove it from the lede – I'm growing incredibly weary of arguing about this... --IJBall (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

By that standard (which I agree is seen as a real distinction), though, many systems had evolved to what we now might call "light rail" before the PCC era. I think LR is an amorphous enough term now, without dragging it back kicking and screaming into the past. More importantly, I think "system" is a misleading word; "remnant" might be more accurate. Anmccaff (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Boston, the "A" Branch discontinuation and the "E" Branch permanent truncation appear to be caused by the MBTA's dislike of street running in mixed traffic (only a short remnant of the "E" Branch remains in street running). The MBTA continues to have problems with demented drivers at level crossings, even when trains are running in reserved medians. Reify-tech (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment – you have eliminated all mention of New Orleans from the lede. As the oldest surviving streetcar line in the world, it needs to be mentioned. I strongly suggest that some mention of it be put back in the lede. --IJBall (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it, though? It started out as inter-city steam, and ran on a dedicated median from the get-go. It's notable, yes, but I'm not sure it's lead-worthy, except in connection with "heritage" revivals. St. Charles and the SF cable cars were certainly the inspiration for that. Anmccaff (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is the longest-running continuously operating streetcar line in the world (this is not disputed). That is the definition of lede-worthy. It's certainly more important than, say, Newark's or Pittsburgh's systems, both of which are mentioned. Please put it back in the lede somewhere. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunno. This "First!" "Last!!!" "Oldest"" emphasis reeks of foamerism to me, and seems firmly associated with elegiac nostalgia for dead technology. The Battleship article carefully notes the last launch, but the destroyer page spends less time on history in the lead, and more on the present. That said, I've added something; does it work? Anmccaff (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine. New Orelans has been included in this article's lede going all the way back to this article's inception in 2006, so it really does need to be mentioned... --IJBall (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Albeit the largest?

Dunno about this. The idea that GM et al affected the largest systems is only supported if you credit the conspiracy theorists like Black, who see LaGuardia and Moses as tools of Alfred P. Sloan; or Snell's fantasies about the New Haven still controlling New England's trolley network. The "supplier defendants" in the NCL federal case were mostly involved in small companies; LARy, Baltimore and St Louis were major exceptions. Anmccaff (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons unnecessary?

I find the multiple colored flag icons in the tables to be visual clutter, adding nothing other than a promotional local boosterism tone to the article. Why not get rid of them? The screen space would be better used to expand the cryptic state abbreviations, which aren't universally known even to US residents. Reify-tech (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points: Flag icons, as used in the list-tables here, are fully allowed under the guideline WP:WORDPRECEDENCE. On my end, I generally like flags in tables such as these (which is why I included them in the tables in the first place). All that said, I'm not as rigid about this issue as some editors are, so if the broad consensus here is to remove them, I won't lodge any major objections to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A side note: I asked for help re-editing another related page, the List of North American Trackless Effin' Trolleys...excuse me, that's currently misnamed List of trolleybus systems in the United States, and what I can only think of as The Anti-Icon Avengers swooped down and nuked every damned flag icon, muttered about standards, policies and guidance, and flew off to defend The Encyclopedia against the Flag Menace elsewhere. It was pretty damned funny.

That said, a real problem both for the articles and for real-life transit systems is that they are linked spatially and geographically, not alphabetically, and not necessarily politically. Catchment areas of passenger systems in the New York City area affect at least three states; the MBTA has an impact on 4. Icons that show geography as well as political divisions might be useful, too; practice in Vancouver, BC influences and is influenced by Seattle and SF more than by Ottawa. Showing instead an outline map of North America, with the system location indicated on it might be more useful. Again, topography also drives design; it isn't a coincidence that the trackless trolley cities are often kinda un-flat - Seattle, SF, Vancouver, and so forth. This also creates design families that have little to do with political boundaries, and a way of expressing that'd be nice. Dunno what it would be, though. Anmccaff (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is getting a little far afield, but I agree that is odd – they invoked MOS:FLAG, but I don't see where it says that flag icons can't be used in section headings (they certainly are at other articles I've seen)... Basically, this boils down to a battle between a group of editors that want all flag icons nuked from nearly every article, and a group of editors who think flag icons should be used every time a nation's (etc.) name is invoked... (FTR, I fall somewhere on the middle on this – my main objection to flag icons is their overuse in Infoboxes, contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.) Bottom line: I think flag icons are generally fine in lists such as the ones here (and in lists such as List of trolleybus systems in the United States...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You used the T------b-- word. For shame. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that an important purpose of overview articles is to enable the reader to make their own discoveries of patterns and trends from comparisons of multiple entities. Sortable WikiTables are a powerful and easily-implemented tool to facilitate some of this, and we make good use of them here. In this article about transportation systems, physical and political geography are both very important as well.

Adding an outline map of North America with a dot for each system could be revelatory, in a single map. However, adding multiple iconic maps to the WikiTables would eat up a lot of display area, and might seriously dilute the information density of the article. One way to explore geographical proximity would be to have a map tool consisting of a moveable circle with adjustable radius. Any map dot within the circle would select the corresponding entry in a WikiTable with more data. Such a tool could also be made to work without an interactive graphic interface, by specifying "within NNN miles (km) of this geographical coordinate (XXX, YYY)". Either feature would require adding geo coordinates to the WikiTables, which could be done with a bit of effort. I don't know what software mechanisms Wikipedia offers to support interactive features based on geographical proximity.

As for flag icons, I'm not crusading against them everywhere, and I think they add interest to articles like those on the Olympics and competitive professional sports. I just think that they add very little here (USA vs Canada vs Mexico in the playoffs??), add visual clutter, dilute information density, and wallpaper over real flaws like the use of cryptic state codes. As used in this article, flags add a dominant flavor of boosterism ("PA scores 3, beating runners-up CA and MA in the First-generation "Legacy" Streetcar, North American division semi-finals!!! And losers DF, LA, NJ, OH, and ONT barely scored at all this season..."). Do the little flags really help any reader who comes to this article to find out something? An obsessive vexillologist might get a thrill out of the minuscule flag icons adorning each WikiTable, but what do those flags have to do with understanding transportation? If we really think that flag icons are helpful, why are the municipal flags of the individual competitors missing from the WikiTables? Shouldn't we add in Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, New Orleans, Toronto, etc.?

Let's think more about what the reader is looking for in this overview article, and not add in tinkling bells and shrill whistles just because we can add them in with very little effort. Reify-tech (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like what you guys are looking for is something like this (which is already used at the List of tram and light rail transit systems article...--IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that, but with Canada, and Mexico(and a pony. With an egg in its beer.)Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest puting in a request with Chumwa (he indicates that requests should be left at his German-language Wiki discussion page), the author of the image at left, then – Chumwa has been very responsive when I've left requests for him in the past... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Planned systems" section

OK, so recently the "planned systems" were put into table form, and in an edit summary I (perhaps too pointedly) objected, and the table has now been reverted back to the "list" form. But let me put again into words why I think a table for the "planned systems" is problematic:

The reason why a "list table" for the planned systems is an issue is that entries in such a table will ultimately be highly speculative (esp. things like "route length", which in a planned system isn't even a necessarily defined value yet, esp. if no environmental reviews have been done). A good argument could probably be made under WP:CRYSTALBALL that the "Planned" section should be eliminated entirely, though I don't go that far. But these systems almost certainly doesn't merit a table like the existing or under construction systems, which is why I purposely put it in "list" form when I revised that section some months back. The fact is, a good percentage of those "planned" systems that are listed will ultimately never be built or put in to operation at all.

Anyway, that's my position. If there is a large consensus that a table is fine for these "planned" systems, I would certainly abide by that consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only spare a couple of minutes to comment today, but I agree with what IJBall has said above. Most of those planned systems already have their own articles – prematurely, in some cases, I'd say – and details on them (which are still very fluid, as IJ said) can be given there, and updated there. I wouldn't eliminate the "Planned" section entirely, because some of those plans have received significant approvals (from some of the many entities that must each approve such major projects, at various stages) and secured much of the funding they'll need, and are only months away from construction starting, and this brief section provides a useful places to mention them and link to the most relevant WP article for each. But it should be kept very brief, to just one to three sentences total and with only a list of places/projects and no details about any of them. The details can be provided in other Wikipedia articles, until such time as a project mentioned there moves into construction. – SJ Morg (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the "planned" systems are too diverse and tentative to be put into a tabular form. I wouldn't go so far as to eliminate the section, because I think it is appropriate for an overview article. But the details are very much subject to change, and should be in the individual articles which the interested reader can consult once they are mentioned. Reify-tech (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What's interesting to me is the ambiguity/conflict between the need to be ultra-cautious about providing too much information on projects that are planned (and which may never get built), and the existence of articles on the same project (sometimes with a level of detail that exceeds articles on systems that are actually in operation!!). We'll happily debate whether to delete or minimize the details on this page, yet turn a blind eye to the fully formed article. It get's worse, I could list plenty of articles on projects that are to all intents dead (never going to happen in anyone's lifetime), that are so well developed and sourced with references (and almost at GA/FA quality) that any attempt to delete them will be shot down in flames. A great example is Access to the Region's Core which was cancelled, and has now been replaced (if that's the right word) with another project that has equally poor odds of being built - Gateway Project. I'm not going to make any further changes to this page, but I'll enjoy watching your hypocritical arguments. Bethayres (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, we need at least two lists: Planned and Pipedreamed. Anmccaff (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You have some nerve, Bethayres. You're the one who added details for the planned systems such as "possible opening date" and "system length" to this article (in a table) without including (inline) sources for any of those specific details. No one here said that the brief list, in prose form, should include every planned project, or even every planned project that has an article. Exactly which projects to mention was not being discussed here. This article has about 15 to 20 times as many page views as any of those on individual projects (ones not yet under construction), and yet you suggest that those of us who are trying to improve/maintain the quality of this higher-view article must also be willing to clean up all those other articles? Or else we are hypocritical? I don't buy it. This discussion is about this article, not any other articles. Many articles on planned U.S. streetcar systems need to be cleaned up, but many are not bad, and simply mentioning them here (with a link) is fine and might even attract the attention of someone interested in expanding and improving them. We shouldn't be mentioning any planned projects here that are dead or long dormant. – SJ Morg (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@SJMorg - Thank you for you comments, they neatly demonstrate the point that I was making, which was that people like to put their heads in the sand about obvious contradictions that exist in the project. You have also reinforced my views about how near-sighted editors (like you) can be. Defending this article whilst expecting others to make improvements to others is so typical. As the bible states "take the beam out of your eyes before pointing out the splinter in mine". I would like to say that hypocrisy is the "new normal" ... but regrettably it has always been "normal". Bethayres (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)