Transportation Deployment Casebook/2020/California Streetcar

California due to its exceptionally complicated and challenging topography is a region of extremes. With the gold rush starting from 1847, gold mining became an important factor of economy, this also bought in the economy for agriculture and Cattle ranching factored by the difficulty in bringing supplies from the west side of California on account of no rail link. Thus area in east California was left out. First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 to California ended its physical isolation from the rest of the United States. This saw large numbers of people coming to California. The mass transport modes were not in place, the destinations in cities were mostly reached by walking, the rich people had wagon or carriages.

The first form of streetcars deployed in California were the horse-driven streetcars on unpaved surfaces. As the existing roads at that time were generally poor, ride on the road was slow and bumpy, especially in poor weather conditions difficult to operate.

Early period

The history of the development of streetcar in America started from the 1820s. The earliest city street railways consisted of streetcars drawn by horses and sometimes mules on track. The streetcars pulled by horse or mule on rails improved the comfort, speed and efficiency of operations as there is less rolling resistance on a rail in comparison to roads. The first streetcar in San Francisco in 1860 started was operated by steam dummies, later by horses.

Beginnings

The uneven terrain of parts in California made it difficult for a horse-driven street cart to operate. This paved the way for the cable pulled streetcars.

The operation of cable cars is done through a stationary engine which pulls the cable throughout Rail-line. The Grip cars by gripping the moving cable in line tow trailer cars, for stopping the grip car un-grips the cable. Cable Pulled Street Cars offered greater Speed, Safety and Cleanliness Improvement (horse faeces) over horse-driven streetcars.

The high upfront cost for building and high operation cost made cable railway system unattractive. Further, the cable systems were not scalable as were the other evolving technologies.

The electric propulsion was explored, the initial electric cars developed were capable of transporting people quickly, but technical problems, breakdowns delayed the service frequently. Technological and design improvement in electric streetcars made the deployment of successful large electric street railway system possible. This made major streetcar systems to shift to electric and attracted electric utility companies to jump in for streetcar operation.

As the system grew larger and demand increased for the services, the frequency of operation also increased, the time tables also evolved, which were placed for the general public and operational convenience.

Market Development

Before Streetcars in California, the urban areas were small, Cities started expanding due to increased mobility from streetcars, now people could settle or make houses over larger distances from the centre of the Town and still be able to reach their jobs and downtown businesses as required. This benefitted real estate development and residents.

Polices

In California the birthing phase started from the 1860s, the policies were already in place for the rail road and the same were emulated to streetcars.

• The construction policies were borrowed from the construction techniques of Railroads.
• Common carrier model for freight and passengers was taken from canal services
• The formation of the timetable for coordination to ensure reliability and safety in operation.

The Governments of the times were pro Rail roads, and thus issued charters for development of railroad considering safety , service and fares. Also, few other policies were locked in in this period, for example, the width of the track was made standard as 4 feet 8 1/2 inches for track gauge. The narrow gauge streetcars died and were converted to standard gauge.

Decline

In 1914 world war-I started due which the business was impacted and the ridership may have also declined. By 1920s the streetcar system in California reached its maturity and started losing its popularity owing to the deployment of buses and automobile. The automobile was an attractive option as against the streetcars, they provided better speed, comfort, the convenience of going anywhere the people desired. Even though the new improved streetcar featuring automobile-style controls, fast acceleration and deceleration were fast to come, however, the new streetcars were not able to compete with the automobile.

Quantitative Analysis

The life cycle analysis for most of the transport mode follows the S-Curve representing the birthing, growth and maturity phases. The logistic relationship for the lifecycle can be defined by the equation

S(t)=K/(1+e^((-b(t-to)) )

where:

• S(t) is the status measure, (streetcar track miles)
• t is time (year),
• t0 is the inflection time (year in which 1/2 K is achieved),
• K is saturation status level for streetcar track miles,
• b is a coefficient.

The above equation can be rearranged to obtain a linear relationship with t( Time )as :

ln⁡(S(t)/(K-S(to) ))=b×t+c

Where c =-b/to
Comparing it with Y= bX+c

This three-parameter function is required to be solved for K, b and c. The value of K is assumed and linear regression analysis for values of time (t) as X parameter and Ln( s(t)/(K-s(to))) as Y parameter is done using Microsoft Excel to find the intercept and slope by best-fitting model, the Solver tool is employed to maximise the value of RSq nearest to 1, t-statistics more than 2.

In the instant case, the track miles of the streetcars in California U.S. is analysed with time(year). The data for the streetcar track miles for the state of California was obtained from “McGraw electric railway manual - the red book of American street railway investment” from the year 1894-1920 however the data for the year 1895,1896,1915 and 1916 could not be obtained.

Lifecycle analysis streetcars for California State.

The S-curve parameters

Variable	Value
K	4738.09
b	0.14
to	1909.66

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	992.67	477.71
1897	796.96	688.89
1898	806.33	774.77
1899	824.04	869.04
1900	845.37	971.94
1901	812.26	1083.58
1902	859.02	1203.90
1903	940.69	1332.66
1904	1218.48	1469.40
1905	1415.443	1613.45
1906	1522.17	1763.90
1907	1827.89	1919.67
1908	2230.11	2079.44
1909	2757.79	2241.79
1910	2870.58	2405.19
1911	2695.99	2568.05
1912	2986.45	2728.82
1913	3087.75	2886.04
1914	3245.35	3038.35
1917	3366.919	3455.20
1918	3406.357	3578.29
1919	3496.497	3692.76
1920	4057.727	3798.50

• 
  Lifecycle Analysis for Track length (Miles) of Streetcar in California

The birthing phase is very small, the growth phase starts from 1899 and the period continued till 1914. The system started reaching the maturity from 1914 onwards.

Quantitative analysis for Urban Areas and streetcar system is

In the same way, the lifecycle analysis is carried out for the track length (Miles) of the streetcar for the urban places for which the streetcar system data is seen to be available consistently, also the streetcar system in those places have been analysed for which the system has sufficient data points, the results are presented as under:-

Fresno

Fresno urban area

The S-curve parameters

Variable	Value
K	1256.20
b	0.12
to	1943.94

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	4.5	3.50
1897	4.5	4.98
1898	4.5	5.60
1899	4.5	6.30
1900	8.5	7.08
1901	8.5	7.96
1902	8.5	8.94
1903	14.5	10.05
1904	11.5	11.30
1905	15.5	12.69
1906	15.5	14.26
1907	15.5	16.02
1908	15.5	18.00
1909	15.5	20.21
1910	15.5	22.69
1911	31.6	25.47
1912	25.5	28.58
1913	31.31	32.06
1914	36.39	35.95
1917	64.01	50.57
1918	64.01	56.60
1919	64.01	63.32
1920	64.01	70.79

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Fresno (urban area) Streetcar for S-curve

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Fresno (urban area) Streetcar extended period for S-curve

From the above figures, it is seen that the transport system in Fresno is birth phase is little long and the growth seems to start from 1910 comparison to its lifecycle considering the current form of system takes its own course without any intervention.

In Fresno 2 streetcar systems emerged, for the purpose of analysis the track length of all the companies forming one consolidation has been taken as a system from the initial years to 1920, there were 2 Streetcar system described as-

1. Fresno Traction Company:- In Fresno the streetcar was operated through horses, operated by the Fresno Railroad Co., in 1900 new company Fresno, Belmont & Yosemite Railroad Co also started operation of horse-driven streetcar, in 1903 Fresno City Railway Co. was formed, it merged Fresno, Belmont & Yosemite Railroad Co in itself and started operating electric streetcars. In 1905 both Fresno Railroad Co & Fresno City Railway company consolidated to form Fresno Traction Company with electric streetcars.
2. Fresno Interurban Railway Co.:- In 1913 San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation started is electric streetcars, this later became Fresno interurban Railway Co.

Fresno traction company

The S-curve parameters

Variable	Value
K	64.63
b	0.16
to	1914.21

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	4.5	2.49
1897	4.5	3.92
1898	4.5	4.55
1899	4.5	5.27
1900	4.5	6.09
1901	4.5	7.03
1902	4.5	8.09
1903	15.5	9.29
1904	11.5	10.63
1905	15.5	12.12
1906	15.5	13.77
1907	15.5	15.57
1908	15.5	17.53
1909	15.5	19.64
1910	15.5	21.88
1911	31.6	24.24
1912	25.5	26.70
1913	25.5	29.22
1914	30.58	31.78
1917	45.01	39.39
1918	45.01	41.79
1919	45.01	44.08
1920	45.01	46.25

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Fresno traction company Streetcar system

From the chart the growth phase of Fresno Traction company is till 1899, the growth period is from 1899 onwards the system is to attain maturity in near future as the growth has slowed in the years from 1917.

For Fresno interurban

As there is only 2 points lifecycle analysis not carried out.

Los Angeles

Analysis of lifecycle of streetcar for the urban area and system is as under:-

For Los Angeles urban area.

Variable	Value
K	4885.29
b	.14
to	1920.78

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	117.99	108.53
1897	147.71	163.56
1898	153.87	187.30
1899	183.57	214.32
1900	199.57	245.03
1901	197.11	279.88
1902	197.86	319.33
1903	311.86	363.90
1904	389.62	414.12
1905	535.1	470.53
1906	509	533.68
1907	768.49	604.13
1908	1015.46	682.40
1909	1432.49	768.94
1910	1477.15	864.16
1911	1318.08	968.33
1912	1637.86	1081.61
1913	1658.56	1203.98
1914	1770.62	1335.22
1917	1450.02	1776.67
1918	1450.02	1936.72
1919	1481.54	2101.17
1920	1485.54	2268.52

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Los Angeles urban area Streetcar

Here it is evident that the decline in the streetcar deployment started from 1914 onwards, but the S-curve projections show that if the external factors won’t have been there the growth, should have taken to further period.

For Los Angeles till 1920, 2 streetcar systems evolved after merging and consolidating.

1. a. Los Angeles Railway Corporation.
2. b. Pacific Electric Railway.

Los Angeles Railway Corporation (streetcar system) of Los Angeles

Variable	Value
K	573.60
b	.13
to	1912.01

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	104	50.65
1897	73.66	71.72
1898	76.12	80.25
1899	84.36	89.62
1900	94.36	99.86
1901	94.36	111.01
1902	94.36	123.07
1903	99.86	136.06
1904	127.62	149.97
1905	135	164.76
1906	152	180.39
1907	185.5	196.78
1908	212.93	213.86
1909	216.73	231.51
1910	221.6	249.61
1911	344.3	268.01
1912	344.3	286.56
1913	365	305.12
1914	376.25	323.53
1917	389.08	376.39
1918	389.08	392.81
1919	389.08	408.46
1920	389.08	423.27

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Los Angeles Railway Corporation Streetcar system

The system in initial years till 1899 was in birthing stage then till 1914 was in growth stage. The system started maturing 1914 onwards and there no growth as can be inferred by the deployment rate of track.

Pacific Electric Railway.

Variable	Value
K	2488.37
b	.19
to	1915.44

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	13.99	41.77
1897	74.05	72.89
1898	77.75	87.59
1899	99.21	105.13
1900	105.21	125.99
1901	102.75	150.74
1902	103.5	179.98
1903	212	214.36
1904	262	254.60
1905	400.1	301.38
1906	357	355.39
1907	582.99	417.23
1908	802.53	487.38
1909	1215.76	566.10
1910	1255.55	653.38
1911	973.78	748.87
1912	1293.56	851.84
1913	1293.56	961.15
1914	1394.37	1075.27
1917	1059.48	1427.20
1918	1059.48	1540.83
1919	1091	1649.44
1920	1095	1751.55

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Pacific Electric Railway Streetcar system

The system was in birthing phase till 1903, thereafter the growth phase continued till 1914 when the system declined and became stagnant in its maturity.

Sacramento

For Sacramento till 1920, 2 streetcar systems evolved after merging and consolidating.

1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. this company is the successor of the company operating since 1894.
2. Sacramento Northern Railroad. This has started operating since 1919 and is interurban Rail. The same has not been considered for analysis.

Analysis of lifecycle of the streetcar for the urban area and system is for Sacramento will be same as there is only one system which has operated for the period. The track length of the interurban line have not been considered for analysis of urban area:-

Sacramento Urban area/ Pacific Gas & Electric Co

Variable	Value
K	50.63
b	.10
to	1900.65

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	18.5	17.05
1897	24.5	20.66
1898	24.5	21.92
1899	24.5	23.19
1900	24.5	24.48
1901	24.5	25.77
1902	24.5	27.06
1903	24.5	28.34
1904	24.5	29.60
1905	28	30.84
1906	38	32.06
1907	38	33.24
1908	28.9	34.38
1909	28.9	35.49
1910	34.14	36.55
1911	35.86	37.56
1912	39.6	38.52
1913	41.6	39.44
1914	42.59	40.30
1917	43.89	42.59
1918	43.89	43.26
1919	43.91	43.88
1920	43.91	44.45

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Sacramento (urban area) streetcar

The Street car system of Sacramento in 1894 was already in growth phase and it was shifting to its maturity from 1906 the same can be seenfrom the S-curve that has started declining in the deployment.

San Diego

San Diego urban Area

Variable	Value
K	378.27
b	.15
to	1917.45

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	40.5	9.88
1897	39	15.46
1898	22	17.91
1899	32	20.74
1900	32	23.98
1901	18	27.68
1902	18	31.91
1903	18	36.72
1904	18	42.16
1905	17	48.30
1906	22.7	55.18
1907	27.9	62.86
1908	65	71.37
1909	87.6	80.74
1910	92.93	90.97
1911	101.12	102.05
1912	143.86	113.95
1913	163.46	126.60
1914	164.38	139.91
1917	189.52	182.53
1918	194.337	197.11
1919	227.727	211.60
1920	305.697	225.83

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for San Diego (urban area) Streetcar

The street car system in San Diego had a birthing phase till 1906 and the growth period started from1906 onwards , the system is in its growth phase by the 1920 data and the system may further grow.

For Sandiego till 1920, 5 streetcar systems were functioning but only 1 system has been considered for analysis. The details of the system along with consideration for analysis are as under:-

1. Bay Shore R. R. Co -not analysed as there is no change in track length deployed.
2. Los Angeles & San Diego Beach Railway- not analysed as only there is no change in track length deployed.
3. Point Loma Railroad Co.- not analysed as only 2 data points available.
4. San Diego Electric Railway Co- analysed.
5. San Diego & Arizona Ry. Co.- analysed.

San Diego Electric Railway Co.

Variable	Value
K	95.36
b	.17
to	1910.10

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	20	5.91
1897	20	9.42
1898	3	10.95
1899	18	12.70
1900	18	14.67
1901	18	16.89
1902	18	19.37
1903	18	22.10
1904	18	25.10
1905	17	28.34
1906	20.7	31.82
1907	25.4	35.49
1908	34.5	39.33
1909	35.6	43.28
1910	44.55	47.29
1911	44.55	51.31
1912	60.47	55.27
1913	62.06	59.14
1914	63.5	62.84
1917	82.47	72.69
1918	84.65	75.48
1919	75.75	78.01
1920	82.42	80.28

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for San Diego Electric Railway Co. Streetcar

The growth phase started from 1900, the growth phase lasted till 1914 and thereafter entered in its maturity phase as the decline started.

San Diego & Arizona Ry. Co

Variable	Value
K	250.00 assumed as for a fit, however the point don’t converge and there is no S curve feasible for the data
b	.17
to	1918.88

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1908	27	35.93
1909	48.5	40.64
1910	48.5	45.90
1911	48.26	51.73
1912	75.08	58.18
1913	75.09	65.29
1914	75.09	73.08
1917	75.11	100.69
1918	75.11	111.30
1919	117.4	122.57
1920	188.7	134.45

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for San Diego & Arizona Ry Co. Streetcar system

Here the data is not converging and not giving the S-curve. There seems to be small phases of linear growth and then stagnation for longer periods. It seems to be the system is in growth phase with slow rate of growth.

San Francisco

Variable	Value
K	633 assumed as for a fit, however the point don’t converge and there is no S curve feasible for the data
b	.11
to	1901.19

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	237	197.44
1897	270.84	244.83
1898	270.84	261.55
1899	259.22	278.59
1900	261.8	295.86
1901	271.7	313.26
1902	266.09	330.67
1903	274.23	348.00
1904	436.6	365.14
1905	422.66	381.99
1906	422.66	398.46
1907	420.79	414.47
1908	466.29	429.94
1909	485.49	444.82
1910	467.36	459.05
1911	379.86	472.59
1912	368.66	485.41
1913	372.39	497.50
1914	378.82	508.86
1917	581.06	538.57
1918	618.75	547.08
1919	623.31	554.93
1920	632.61	562.16

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for San Francisco (urban area) Streetcar

Here in San Francisco the S-curve was not achieved in the period 1894-1920, as the trend shows the system was already in maturity phase. This can further be seen that the systems comprising the streetcar network of San Francisco were already stagnant or were in maturity as under:-

United Railroads of San Francisco
Year	1897	1990	1904	1914	1917	1920
Track length(miles)	239.84	230.8	258.41	271.58	286.66	272.77

Municipal Railway (consolidation of Presidio & Ferries Railroad Co & Geary Street Park & Ocean Railroad Co.)
Year	1897	1990	1904	1914	1917	1920
Track length(miles)	19.5	19.5	19.17	15.67	-	67.33

California Street Cable Railroad Co
Year	1897	1990	1904	1914	1917	1920
Track length(miles)	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5

The other systems which were added later:-

North western Pacific Railroad Co
Year	1909	1920
Track length(miles)	127.37	54.5

Central California Trac. Co
Year	1917	1920
Track length(miles)	70.8	70.8

Ocean Shore R. R. Co.
Year	1908	1909	1920
Track length(miles)	36	53	54.4

The increase in the track mile length overall is attributed to few new streetcar system starting their operation and not expanding.

San Jose

Variable	Value
K	144 assumed as for a fit, however the point don’t converge and there is no S curve feasible for the data
b	.12
to	1908.1

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	24.5	23.62
1897	31.5	30.10
1898	39.5	32.63
1899	39.5	35.37
1900	39	38.34
1901	31	41.56
1902	36	45.05
1903	36	48.82
1904	54	52.91
1905	66	57.34
1906	69	62.13
1907	78.5	67.32
1908	68.5	72.93
1909	80.5	79.01
1910	90.5	85.58
1911	90.5	92.69
1912	122.06	100.38
1913	122.06	108.69
1914	138.91	117.67
1917	123.08	149.19
1918	143.69	161.40
1919	136.25	174.59
1920	141.5	188.81

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for San Jose (urban area) Streetcar

The data for deployment of Streetcar in sanjose is not converging to give the S-curve, for the assumed value of track miles just higher than track miles in year 1920. Further from the track length curve it is seen that the the system is growing since 1894, after 1914 the system has started declining or became almost sagnant, this may be due to the externalities.

Stockton

Variable	Value
K	146.98
b	.15
to	1915.53

The projected track length (miles) as per the variable values is tabulated as:-

Year	Track Length(Miles)	Projected Track Length (Miles)
1894	12	5.11
1897	12	7.96
1898	12	9.20
1899	12	10.63
1900	12	12.26
1901	12	14.11
1902	12	16.20
1903	12	18.56
1904	12	21.21
1905	12	24.17
1906	12	27.45
1907	12	31.07
1908	41	35.02
1909	41	39.30
1910	41	43.90
1911	82	48.79
1912	83.3	53.95
1913	83.3	59.32
1914	92.98	64.85
1917	75.71	81.79
1918	75.71	87.33
1919	90.51	92.71
1920	95.81	97.88

• 
  Lifecycle analysis graph for Stockton (urban area) Streetcar

In Stockton the S-curve for track length deployment shows that the birthing phase is till 1900. The phase from 1900-1914 marks to be growth period and the maturity phase starts from 1914 onwards.

Conclusion

The deployment of Streetcars in California was attributed to the demand due to the influx and settlement of people in the places as a result of Goldrush, for providing better and faster transportation modes. The improved linkages to the larger urban area further extended the reaches of the towns.

The initial deployment of horse-driven street cars gradually transformed to cable-driven and then to electric driven streetcars as a result of technological developments.

The streetcar deployment rate in major places started declining from 1914, this could be attributed to the California Alien Land Law of 1913 which led to discrimination in citizenship to Asian communities, limiting the number of passengers and trips. World War-I in 1917 further affected the streetcar operation.

Another factor which led to the maturity of the streetcar systems was the availability of better and efficient transport through the automobile. If these factors won't have come into effect then the maturity period will be delayed for the deployment of Streetcar systems, though the S-curve for streetcars for California as a state is a fitting curve the maturity phase is attributed to saturation of deployment of streetcars and oversupply due to exodus of the communities discriminated of citizenship in areas of California.