Charles St. Trolley vs. Downtown Circulator

Here is a map of the proposed streetcar route:



A makeshift map of the proposed circulator routes, as well as more info on the project, can be found on page 7 of this document: http://www.trolleytrouble.org/Docs/Downtown_circulator.pdf
(Please ignore the fact that this document comes from the Trolley Trouble website. I do not think this document is their creation, and I am by no means a supporter of their cause.)

I guess I will be the first to answer my own question.

I love the idea of the streetcar. I am a big fan of rail transit, and I would love to see streetcars return to Baltimore. I like the route. Although, it will run parallel to the light rail for a number of blocks, I don't think it is fair to say that the streetcar will duplicate light rail service. I see the streetcar as serving residents and tourists who live and are visiting, respectively, the Charles Street corridor. I don't think many people living in Station North or Mt. Vernon use the light rail to get around, but I do think they will widely use the streetcar. It is much for immediate, accessible and visible than the light rail. I'm also not convinced by any of the arguments that it will cause traffic nightmares or disrupt the character of the neighborhood. Charles Street has been reduced to one lane of traffic along at least some portion of it for the last few years and traffic has still flowed fairly well. Streetcars don't close down lanes of traffic, they flow with traffic. Also, with regards to the argument that it will ruin the historic character of the neighborhood, I don't see it. There are "historic" neighborhoods all across the world, or across Europe anyhow, in Barcelona, Lyon, Rome, Berlin, Prague, etc. that have streetcars. Why is Mt. Vernon any different?
That said, I am still concerned by the idea that the streetcar line will not be run by MTA or the city. I am also concerned by the fact that it has yet to be determined who will be primarily served by the streetcar. First, it was tourists. Then, it was Baltimore residents. Now, it seems ambiguous.

On to the circulator...
I really like the routes of the circulator. I think they cover a lot of ground and connect a number of critical neighborhoods. The Green Line, however, covers exactly the same route as the proposed Red Line (light rail line, not circulator line), and unlike the Charles Street Trolley with regards to the light rail, I think the circulator and the Red Line in this case will largely duplicate the same service. The circulator will be free, and because of its widespread service, I think it will be successful in drawing a number of patrons who wouldn't otherwise use transit. Nevertheless, the circulator is still a bus, and buses have rarely, perhaps never, proven to be as successful as rail lines. The circulator may be easier to implement, but I also think there is a greater probability that it won't work. There are already a number of shuttles operating in Baltimore that most people do not even know exist. If the circulator routes do get implemented, I would hope that the city would widely publicize them.

At first glance, I think the best thing to do would be to combine the two. Commence immediately one the construction of the Charles Street Trolley while at the same time implementing the circulator routes. In time, hopefully the Charles Street Trolley will replace on circulator route and the Red Line will replace another. Perhaps another trolley line could replace the third circulator route if it proves successful as well.

oneworld25 said:

It's not an either or thing.

Click to expand...

You're right that it doesn't have to be. But my impression from reading the minutes of the meetings where the circulator idea was first introduced is that the city is looking to implement the circulator at the expense of the Charles Street Trolley. It appears as though if that we get the circulator, we will not get the trolley, at least right away. The trolley may be put on hold or cancelled altogether.

Peter,

Check out Gerry Neily's plan for integrating the Chuck Street Trolley into a comprehensive citywide rail transit program. Interesting stuff.

http://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com

I love trolleys, but I've been walking on Charles Street for too long to even begin to think they'd work well there ... at least not south of Madison. I'm not crazy about the circulator, either. It's been tried and failed because the headways were too long and the route too roundabout. Until we have at least one two-way street that the circulator can run on (allowing folks to return directly from the same stop they got off) it'll be an expensive toy.

^^ Hmmm. Perhaps it seemed as if they were unplanned and unpromoted, but the first go-round was led by Mark Joseph of Yellow Taxi, who knows a bit about transportation, and it was promoted widely at all the attractions it linked, and in various publications. Problem is, the marketing dollar doesn't go far and, as sponsorships dried up, the circulator did, too. Ridership was never all that great, and certainly didn't pay the bills. The second was led and promoted by the Downtown Partnership and, again, ridership was never great.

I'm not saying the third time wouldn't be the charm; but it's important to understand the main challenge: it's expensive and the market doesn't exist to sustain it, even at MTA farebox sustainability levels.

The circulator dosen't do anything for Locust Point, Federal Hill, Station North or Charles village.

I'd say one circulator route.

Canton Crossing
Fells
IHE
IH
UofM
Stadiums
Fed HIll
Riverside
Locust Pt

And in addition, run the Trolley to serve the Charles st. corridor.

southbalto said:

... I'd say one circulator route.

Canton Crossing
Fells
IHE
IH
UofM
Stadiums
Fed HIll
Riverside
Locust Pt

... .

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, once you have a route that large, you're basically duplicating the service provided by the No. 11 and No. 1 buses.

Circulators are nice in concept; it's just that, day in and day out, not enough people ride them to justify the cost.

jamie_hunt said:

Here's the thing, once you have a route that large, you're basically duplicating the service provided by the No. 11 and No. 1 buses.

Circulators are nice in concept; it's just that, day in and day out, not enough people ride them to justify the cost.

Click to expand...

I see your point. I think a lot of tourists and waterfront residents are hesitant to use the bus because of confusion over routes and schedules. I've lived in the city for over 10 years and still haven't set foot on the bus. That's why I feel like a dedicated circulator could work. The route should service only destinations around the water and should be idiot proof. Paiint them some obnoxious colour and run them heavy during rush hours and the weekends.....

southbalto said:

... I've lived in the city for over 10 years and still haven't set foot on the bus. That's why I feel like a dedicated circulator could work. ...

Click to expand...

We'll need to clone you for it to succeed.

Seriously, the number of people living downtown is increasing. At some point, there'll be enough like-minded souls who want/need to ride the thing. Don't have enough info to say if we're there yet. Wouldn't put my own money on it. Someone else's? Sure, why not?

Buses have a bad reputation in Baltimore. I'm not sure if the stats of crime on buses compared to trains warrants it.

I have been robbed a couple times on the bus and it's always uncomfortable riding with the rowdy students during the school year or the whino's after 9pm. But I road the subway a lot this past spring and I'd have to say its almost as scary sometimes as the buses sometimes. I hardly ever had any scary incidents riding the lightrail for several years though.

But either way, I think people will feel less intimidated by riding a train than a bus. Buses have just been on the news way too much the past year.

House3780 said:

Buses have a bad reputation in Baltimore. I'm not sure if the stats of crime on buses compared to trains warrants it.

I have been robbed a couple times on the bus and it's always uncomfortable riding with the rowdy students during the school year or the whino's after 9pm. But I road the subway a lot this past spring and I'd have to say its almost as scary sometimes as the buses sometimes. I hardly ever had any scary incidents riding the lightrail for several years though.

But either way, I think people will feel less intimidated by riding a train than a bus. Buses have just been on the news way too much the past year.

Click to expand...

I've never had a genuinely bad experience on a Baltimore bus--typical stuff like rowdy kids and loud mentally ill people, things like that, but never anything that made me fearful or uneasy. I consider things like that a part of public transit, and I use earphones and/or a book to drown out any nuisances. For me, buses just aren't as efficient as the trains. The headways on buses are way too long and they are highly irregular and unpredictable, due partly to traffic and partly to poor management by MTA. I prefer trains (with a separate right-of-way) to buses for that reason alone. Of course, if riders on the subway become unbearable, there's also the added benefit of being able to change cars or get off and wait for the next train--something I'd never do on a bus with a 30 or 60 minute headway.