A Streetcar Named Excess
Many people look nostalgically at trolleys (streetcars) as symbols of a simpler, friendlier time as they recall their favorite episode of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. Yet, considering the high costs of streetcar construction, it would be better for D.C. Mayor Bowser to leave the trolley for TV and replace the problematic D.C. One City Line project, a streetcar line that would connect the current H Street Line to Georgetown, with an equally-friendly bus.
In her State of the District Speech at the close of March, Mayor Bowser declared her intent to continue construction of the proposed One City Line. Although this sounds grand, it loses its luster after factoring in the costs of the project. The Mayor called for an additional $533 million in spending for the remaining 5.5 miles of track. The District has already spent about $200 million on the currently non-operating 2-mile H Street Line. It makes no sense to tie more than half a billion dollars to a streetcar rail line rather than spending it on other projects, such as education in the Benning Road area, an area that needs better schools.
Consider why major U.S. cities do not have booming streetcar systems. From the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, streetcars were common to metropolitan areas and provided cheap mass transportation that allowed people to move quickly between designated locations. People primarily used streetcars to get from home to work or from home to market.
As Henry Ford’s innovative assembly-line production permitted widespread ownership of automobiles, and as roads became more accessible, demand for streetcar travel began to plummet. Automobiles allowed for more flexibility in departure time and destination. The fixed price of streetcar rides meant that automobile travel was cheaper than streetcar travel over short distances. Additionally, car owners began to discover around 1914 that they could turn a profit by acting as a driver-for-hire in the form of jitney service.
In March 1915 the first jitney bus service developed as larger passenger automobiles became available for purchase. The gradual shift in demand to newer modes of transportation led to the death of most streetcar companies throughout the United States by the middle of the 20th century. The automobile and accompanying jitney services, including both jitney buses and cars, offered more flexible and reasonably- priced metropolitan transportation that was ultimately favored over the streetcar.
Nothing has changed since the early 20th century that justifies a $533 million public investment in streetcar lines. Changes in transportation increasingly favor the automobile. Automobile technology has seen increases in operation, safety, and fuel efficiency that far outweigh any technological developments in trolley systems. In 1930, at the high point of the jitney service, demand for automobile transportation outstripped the demand for streetcars. Then, gasoline sold for 20 cents per gallon ($2.81 in 2015 dollars) on new cars that ran at about 21 mpg. The current gas price is $2.41 and the average fuel efficiency of a new passenger car is 36 mpg. From 1930 to present, the car has become an even better mode of transportation, which in turn should make it even more desirable than the streetcar.
In addition, many public bus and underground rail services are available in Washington, D.C., at a relatively low cost. The streetcar would be duplicating existing services.
Furthermore, mobile internet access and developments in cell phone applications have enabled the growth and efficiency of a modern jitney equivalent, i.e. rideshare services offered through Uber, Sidecar, and Lyft. The government does not need to use additional taxpayers’ dollars to give people a service for which they are not prepared to pay.
Arlington County solved its streetcar problem last November by terminating the streetcar project in Crystal City and Columbia Pike. Besides listing the numerous problems and delays surrounding the project, Arlington County Board Chairman Jay Fissette, who initially supported the initiative, recognized that government spending on an antiquated means of travel is not a public priority. Perhaps Mayor Bowser, who included in her campaign a promise to reevaluate the One City Line, should follow suit.
The One City Line project in DC is another example of the government sidestepping rational business practices to offer a service for which the intended beneficiaries are not willing to pay. Although the $533 million proposed for the completion of the project may seem justifiable as a necessary expenditure to improve an underserved area, the benefits do not meet the costs. Instead of building archaic forms of transportation in low-income areas, politicians should consider buses, which require less maintenance and are not constrained by rail lines. They could also steer spending towards more important projects that encourage income mobility and economic growth, such as education and low-tax enterprise zones.
Tom Pacer is a student at George Washington University and an intern at Economics21.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.