Streetcars Roll In Seattle

I'm not surprised that a fair number of people are writing the streetcar off as a boondoggle. It's very true that the streetcar will not do much at all to reduce traffic congestion in Seattle. And it's slow as molasses (average speed from one end to another including stops is about 6mph) - indeed, a bus would be faster. So a bus would have been a wiser choice, right? Well, not really - When Seattle was forced to shutter its Waterfront Streetcar, it replaced rail with bus service. It also eliminated the fare for the route. Despite that, and the fact that the bus makes the same route in less time, ridership on the route plummeted to a fraction of what it was as a rail system.

The streetcar is not intended to be a regional artery that will provide 'rapid transit' like BART or the NYC Subway. Rather, the permanence of the streetcar route stimulates fairly dense, mixed use, walkable development. Think of it more as extending the range of walkability in the central part of Seattle. To get some idea of how a very similar system has benefited a city, visit Portland, Oregon's Pearl District and South Waterfront areas, which have boomed with development as a direct result of Streetcar access.

In short, criticism of the Seattle Streetcar that claims that it will be ineffective is incorrect - I have little doubt that the South Lake Union Line will do exactly what it was designed to do - essentially expand the footprint of Downtown Seattle. Like all things, it is subject to valid criticism - such as that it is too expensive a project to serve such a small pocket of the region, and that it's subsidizing 'urban lifestyles' (the 'by-choice' kind, not the 'last-resort, inner city' kind) of the elite in the city when most of the growth and infrastructure needs are in the suburbs. Personally I think streetcar systems are well worth the investment when one factors in the benefit of the expanded tax base from the development spurred along the line.