Transportation Deployment Casebook/2021/New York

Overview

A streetcar is a rail-based vehicle that provides passenger transportation in metropolitan areas using tracks that are positioned within the roadway. Streetcars typically comprise a single-unit carriage and are an electrified means of conveyance, with electrical power transmitted to the system either through overhead wires or through the tracks. They are most widely employed within dense urban regions to transport both daily commuters and recreational travellers, with capacities ranging from 20 to 70 riders depending on the carriage’s size and configuration.

At their commercial advent in the late 1880s, streetcars were viewed as revolutionary within the mass transit landscape. Their electricity-based design was a vast improvement on existing horse-drawn vehicles as it afforded the mode better speed, quietness, comfortability (eg. eliminated horse waste and odours) and efficiency, as well as the ability to offer reasonable fare prices. The efficiency and low-cost of the streetcar made it highly popular among the middle-class, which subsequently enabled commuters to live further away from the city centre in "streetcar suburbs".

Urban transit forms prior to the streetcar

At the turn of the 19th century, Manhattan had established itself to be a rapidly densifying harbour city, however transportation to the surrounding settlements of Brooklyn and Paulus Hook (now Jersey City) was constrained to water-based methods. As a result, there was heightened demand for more efficient forms of water-based transportation.

Following the success of the first local steamboat service between Paulus Hook and Manhattan in 1812, Robert Fulton and William Cutting established the New York and Brooklyn Steamboat Ferry Association and commenced regular passenger services between Manhattan and Brooklyn. The introduction of steam-propelled ferry services proved popular as they greatly improved on the speed and capacity of the preceding horse-powered alternative, and by the early 1860s, the New York harbour ferry system supported an annual ridership of 32 million people across more than twenty routes. However, while the steam ferry’s rapid rise to prominence facilitated urban expansion which would have otherwise been impeded by the Hudson River and East River, it did little to alleviate the growing demand for land-based mass transit as urban communities concurrently observed substantial population growth and densification.

Abraham Brower - a stagecoach operator - capitalised on the increasing need for land-based transit options by introducing the first horse-drawn omnibus to New York in 1827. Originating in France during the early 1820s, the omnibus was a horse-drawn carriage that provided a local transportation service along a fixed route for the general public at a set price. Brower’s initial services operated along Broadway, had a capacity of approximately 12 passengers and cost 24 cents per ride. By the end of the 1830s, New York’s omnibuses had grown increasingly popular, resulting in both large companies and small independent operators managing hundreds of omnibuses across numerous routes throughout the city. Omnibuses subsequently spread to other major cities in the state of New York, including Albany in the 1840s. However, the omnibus possessed several limitations. First, omnibuses were frequently characterised by their non padded seats, lack of ventilation and impolite drivers. The uncomfortability of the ride was further exacerbated by the poor condition of city streets, which were often unpaved or made of rough cobblestone. Second, the cost of a single ride was too expensive for the average resident (at an average of 12 cents) and the speed of omnibus services were often less than 5 miles per hour - not much faster than fast-paced walk. Consequently, while New York City featured one of the most expansive omnibus networks, the mode was only patronised by about one in thirty residents, servicing only 25,000 riders per day. Nevertheless, the omnibus prompted a “riding habit” in a small number of middle class commuters, substituting walking as the main form of local transportation.

In 1832, the New York and Harlem Railroad Company sought to address the limitations of the omnibus by creating a more comfortable and economic mode of urban transit. Initially, the company proposed the implementation of a commercial steam railway that would connect Harlem and lower Manhattan but concerns of smoke, noise and other dangers for adjacent suburbs caused the city to restrict the operation of steam engines within the residential neighbourhoods. Consequently, the New York and Harlem Railroad Company introduced the horse streetcar, or “horsecar”. The horsecar was a horse-drawn, rail-based vehicle that operated in the city street’s right-of-way. By utilising the low friction offered by rails, the horsecar improved on the omnibus by being smoother, faster (travelling at 8 mph instead of 5 mph) and more a efficient use of horse power (able use the equivalent horse labour to transport 30-40 passengers compared to the omnibus’s capacity of 12-15). Other features included a more spacious interior with easier to access exits. Significantly, the horsecar’s increased efficiency and capacity resulted in decreased operating costs and thus cheaper passenger fares (from 12 cents omnibus fare to 5 cents horsecar fare). While horsecars were quickly popularised in New York City due to their operating advantages, the concept was not utilised in other major American cities until the 1850s. This delayed establishment also applied to other cities in the state of New York, with Albany, Rochester and Syracuse not implementing horsecar lines until the early 1860s. In comparison, by 1860, there were fourteen horsecar lines in Manhattan that transported more than 38 million riders annually, in addition to the existing omnibus patronage.

Towards the mid 1800s, many major metropolitan regions in the state of New York - most notably Manhattan - were congested with a multitude of private carriages, horse-drawn omnibuses, horsecars, hackney carriages and pedestrians. Specifically, the routes between the docks along the Hudson River and downtown Broadway were frequently gridlocked as merchandise was transported between the ships and city centre. Despite the implementation of an elevated rapid transit service (known as the “Els”) in New York City in 1870s, the city streets remained heavily congested. In addition to the congestion, the heavy reliance on horse-power in the omnibus and horsecar resulted in other challenges. Horse maintenance was costly as owners had to consider ongoing stabling, tack and medical costs, and horses typically only worked for a maximum of five years. Further, the commonality of horse-powered vehicles resulted in large quantities of horse faecal waste on city streets, exposing residents to unpleasant odours and diseases, such as cholera and tetanus. Frequent outbreaks of disease were also common in horses, the most notable being the equine influenza outbreak in 1872 which suspended approximately 95% of horse labour in the city for a period of weeks and disrupted horse-drawn transit. Ultimately, by the 1870s, it was clear that there was a need for a more economic and reliable form of street-level transit.

Invention of the streetcar

The electric streetcar evolved from its mass transit antecedents - the stagecoach, omnibus, horse-drawn streetcar and cable car - and was born out of the demand for a more efficient and comfortable transportation mode, facilitated by key technological innovations throughout the 19th century.  

Several early electric vehicle prototypes emerged following Thomas Davenport’s invention of the battery-powered direct current (DC) electric motor in 1934, including Robert Davidson’s four-wheeled carriage electric locomotive, ‘Galvani’ (1842), and Charles Grafton Page’s electromagnetic locomotive (1951). While these early prototypes proved electricity to be a successful means of propelling vehicles, they relied on batteries as the source of electrical current and thus were infeasible to implement commercially due to the high associated costs. It was ultimately the ensuing improvements in electrical generation technology and the electric traction motor that enabled the practical application of electricity to transportation to become realised.

Specifically, the development of the dynamo by Antonio Pacinotti, Werner Von Siemens and Charles Wheatstone, Zenobe Gramme and Charles F. Brush during the 1860s and 1870s led to the first practical electrical generator capable of delivering commercial quantities of DC power. In 1883, Leo Daft implemented the dynamo in his electric locomotive to produce the first commercial forerunner of the modern electric streetcar. The design utilised a pre-existing horsecar rail and two dynamos that provided DC power to the electric traction motors via a third, electrified rail. While Daft’s electric locomotive successfully began commercial service in Baltimore in 1885 and achieved a patronage of approximately 29,000 passengers per month, the 220 volt system frequently electrocuted small animals and livestock and was subsequently reverted back to horse-power.

Concurrently to Daft’s progress, inventors Edward Bentley and Walter Knight trialled an electric car in Cleveland, powered by subterranean wooden conduits with two copper-wire conductors; however frequent breakdowns resulted in the project being abandoned by 1885. In 1886, Charles van Depoele modified the electrical distribution system to produce the first electric vehicle powered by an electrical current running through overhanging wires and a spring-loaded trolley pole in Montgomery, Alabama. While van Depoele’s invention was met with great success, limitations in funding constrained his capacity to make improvements. As a result, it was Frank Sprague’s developments throughout the 1880s that ushered in the electric streetcar era.

Sprague made improvements to Thomas Edison's system of DC electricity distribution, van Depoele’s spring-loaded trolley pole and the existing electrical traction motors. Notably, his non-sparking traction motor with fixed brushes that could maintain a constant speed under varying load would permanently evolve the electric vehicle movement. From 1887 to 1888, Sprague implemented his electric streetcar system in Richmond, Virginia, which found rapid success as it demonstrated that electric vehicles could be economical, reliable and safe. Subsequently, 90% of the streetcars systems in the United States utilised Sprague’s patents by 1900.

Early market development

In New York state, the electric streetcar found its birthplace in New York City. The streetcar provided a faster, cheaper and more comfortable mode of transit in comparison to the city’s existing omnibus and horsecar alternatives. At a cost of 5 cents per fare, the streetcar offered improved comforts and speed to the equally priced horsecar, and was significantly more affordable compared to the omnibus (12 cents per fare), leading to its popularity among middle class urban residents.

The streetcar further expanded the market for mass forms of urban transportation by facilitating the daily commute of people that lived in the city’s outer suburbs. Where horsecars and omnibuses were typically constrained to residents of the inner city, the rapid expansion of the streetcar system enabled newfound mobility of suburban communities, eventually resulting in the growth of “streetcar suburbs'' along the line.

In addition, streetcar operators encouraged travel for leisure by establishing parks, hotels, race tracks, amusement centres, beaches and bars at the line’s terminus. New York City’s Coney Island, located in Brooklyn’s furthest southern corner, was one of the most notable examples of this practice as it offered guests numerous spectacles and attractions suitable for all ages.

Policy in the birthing phase

Legislation

In the United States, there was limited state or national urban transit regulation for the majority of the 19th century. It was not until the end of the 1800’s that a federal, legal precedent for the transit industry was set. In 1887, Congress introduced the Interstate Commerce Act to curb the discriminatory and monopolistic practices that had become common in the railroad industry following its rapid expansion during the Civil War. While this legislation had minimal impact on intracity transit, it was the first instance of the Federal government’s involvement in transportation matters.

Franchising

Until the late 19th century, most transit regulation in the United States was developed and administered by local jurisdictions. Local governments quickly recognised the opportunity to tax for-profit transit operators (at the time, omnibus and horsecar operators) for their use of publicly owned streets, leading to the introduction of the “franchise”. In New York City, the Common Council would grant franchises to private companies to provide transit services within designated areas.

The franchise system facilitated a decentralised mechanism for regulating operators, whereby franchise agreements would contain required terms of operation that would ultimately serve to control the industry. While these terms would set the fare price (typically at 5 cents) and designated area of service, they were otherwise relatively limited in scope and nature; for example, additional terms included that streetcar operators pave the street in between tracks to protect it from damage and carry police and firemen for free. Outside of franchise agreements, transit operators were largely free of regulatory intervention, with the private operators being independently responsible for the investment and operation of their respective line. By the time the streetcar was introduced, this decentralised approach to regulation had led to a complex franchise system characterised by intense competition among operators. Consequently, a consolidated and standardised streetcar system was never established, resulting in inconsistent track sizes, timetables, fares and quality standards of rolling stock which led to critical operational inefficiencies.

Implementation and growth

After its successful launch in Virginia in 1888, New York City planned to implement the electric streetcar in Manhattan within the year, however a powerful blizzard caused significant delays to the system’s implementation. Because Manhattan utilised overhead wires strung from poles to carry its electricity and phone services, the blizzard of 1888 led to extensive electrical failures throughout the city as electric lines and poles collapsed from the weight of ice and snow. As a result, New York City mandated that all utilities in Manhattan, including streetcar wires, were to be subterranean. Consequently, a modified electric streetcar system was designed for the city. This Manhattan-specific system comprised a slot in between two adjacent, running rails, in which the slot contained two additional rails that carried electricity. Each streetcar was designed with a “plow” affixed to the vehicle that would collect electricity from the slot. Significantly, the impacts of this specialised system included a delay in the streetcar’s advent in New York City, and a considerable increase in construction expense as the underground electric rail system cost between three and ten times the price of traditional rails. Despite the construction delay, the electric streetcar made its debut in New York City in 1890 with the electrification of the Coney Island Avenue Line.

Aside from this postponement, the electric streetcar was rapidly adopted in New York City and was considered a radical advancement in transit technology. Its efficiency and low fare cost encouraged ridership for both routine (eg. work and education) and non-routine (eg. leisure) travel - in fact, weekend patronage was found to significantly exceed working days. Streetcar operators encouraged this leisure travel by establishing parks, hotels, race tracks, amusement centres and bars at the line’s terminus (see ‘Early Market Development’ above), subsequently embedding the streetcar in New York’s social landscape. As the streetcar’s popularity grew, so did its infrastructure. By the 1910s, New York City’s streetcar system was over 1,900 kilometres long, far exceeding the size of other major cities around the world. The expansiveness of the streetcar, as well as its reasonable 5 cent fare, further enabled the mobilisation of suburban New Yorkers, resulting in greater spatial distribution of economic activity and reducing the need for commuters to reside within the inner city.

The impact of policy on growth

A likely factor in the streetcar’s rapid growth in New York City was the legislative obstacle faced by the locomotive industry. In 1839, the boiler of a locomotive exploded in New York City, causing the engineer’s death and the injury of twenty passengers. This event, in combination with other more minor accidents, resulted in widespread fear of large steam engines and subsequent mobs and riots against the presence of locomotives in the densely populated areas of the city. In response to residents’ concerns, Manhattan and Brooklyn quickly banned locomotives from highly populous areas of the city.

A similar situation arose in the mid-1910s with the introduction of the jitney. Jitneys were privately owned automobiles that were used as a means of unlicensed, unregulated and untaxed public transportation (equivalent to the modern taxi). While jitneys grew popular for their flexibility and novelty, established transit companies viewed them as unfair competition that threatened their solvency, and thus pressured lawmakers to ban their operation within the city and state. As a result, Chapter 667 of the Laws of 1915 was passed, which effectively prohibited the operation of jitneys within the limits of a city in New York. This enabled the streetcar industry in New York to continue to thrive as the predominant form of public transportation until the 1930s.

The impact of franchise on growth

As the franchise system was firmly established prior to the advent of the streetcar, many existing horsecar operators were well-suited to adopt the new technology as they already possessed access to the city’s streets and rails. Consequently, streetcar operators proliferated. As previously discussed, franchise agreements were the primary mechanism used to control and regulate the industry due to the decentralised nature of the streetcar system (see ‘Policy in the birthing phase’). These agreements were relatively simple, typically only setting requirements for fare price, area of service and term of operations. Other operational considerations, such as rolling stock, rail type and timetable were not managed under these agreements. Consequently, with limited regulation, New York’s streetcar industry quickly grew into a complex and unstandardised system characterised by intense competition.

Maturity

Due to the lack of standardisation, New York’s streetcars experienced significant operational inefficiencies (see ‘Policy in the birthing phase’). These challenges led to frequent bankruptcies and subsequent takeovers or outright abandonments. Some large conglomerates found significant financial success into the early 1900s - such as the Metropolitan Street Railway, which profited approximately $100 million USD from 1893 to 1902 - as they used the decline of independent operators to expand and consolidate their respective streetcar empires. However, the cycle of bankruptcy, takeovers and abandonments largely continued until the early 20th century, transforming the streetcar industry into a convoluted oligopoly that never experienced prolonged stability and success.

By the 1910s, Manhattan’s intercity transit system was dominated by two entities: the New York Railways Company and the Third Avenue Railway Company. Through a complex series of subsidiary takeovers and corporate consolidations, the New York Railways had inherited the largest streetcar system in New York, with eight wholly-owned properties and eight leased companies. However, the New York Railways Company made crucial errors in its efforts to systematise its complicated network of lines. First, in an attempt to consolidate properties, New York Railways leased a number of its properties to independent operators, realising too late that the leased lines were some of their most profitable. This led to a costly lease termination process to return the lines to whole ownership. Second, New York Railways ordered 293 rollstock that had a new door system designed to expedite the boarding and alighting of passengers. However, this new configuration was less efficient than the original, and additionally required two operators to man the carriage to effectively collect fares. The last significant financial mistake came with the attempt to convert four lines to battery power, which included the purchase of 70 new battery-powered rollstock. Unfortunately, the battery-operated lines failed to succeed and were quietly abandoned in 1919. This series of financial missteps led to the New York Railways Company falling into receivership in 1919, to eventually be purchased by the Omnibus Corporation and return in 1925 as the New York Railways Corporation. However, by this time the era of the motor bus was beginning, and the Omnibus Corporation - a General Motors subsidiary - intended to replace its streetcar properties with buses.

Decline

There were three primary determinants in the eventual downfall of the streetcar in New York, including:

• Inflation pressures caused by World War I
• Introduction of the automobile
• Introduction of the motor bus.

Inflation pressures caused by World War I

In the mid-1910s, inflation pressures associated with World War I induced significant increases in cost for both labour and material. Due to the privatised nature of the streetcar industry, the heightened capital expense became a significant obstacle to financial stability, particularly as many streetcar operators were unable to correspondingly raise their fare price due to the common five cent fare term within franchise agreements. As streetcar companies lost profitability, stock prices of the industry declined and thus operators were unable to raise the funds necessary for technological improvements and modernisations.

Introduction of the automobile

The gradual decline in streetcar ridership corresponded to the rapid expansion of the automobile industry. American entrepreneurs focused on creating economical motor vehicles that could be mass produced, and by 1908 there were two dozen American manufacturers selling affordable automobiles. The automobile was advertised as a symbol of the American dream, representing independence and opportunity for ownership. With the middle class’ increasing access to the automobile, public sentiment towards the streetcar and other transit modes began to wane as its users preferred the individual freedom provided by the automobile. In addition to evolving public perceptions, the automobile industry was backed by powerful private interest groups, comprising oil companies, tire manufacturers and dealers, part suppliers and road builders, who successfully lobbied policymakers for taxpayer subsidies to improve roads and reduce parking restrictions. As the road was considered a public good, lobbyists argued that taxpayer subsidies were justified, and would further serve to increase property values (and thus property tax revenues) along developed roadways. While there is some speculation as to whether it was the economic proposition or political influence that ultimately swayed lawmakers, public financial aid was ultimately made available to improve roads for the rise of automobiles. This starkly contrasted the government’s approach to the streetcar industry, as the private, mass transit industry was largely viewed as undeserving of government support and intervention. Consequently, while the automobile industry flourished, mass transit struggled to stay afloat. By 1910, American urban transit was being outperformed by European rivals, which had invested in more aesthetically pleasing designs (sans overhead wires) and had seen a rapid growth in ridership.

Introduction of the bus

New York City was the first city that established an extensive bus system, with the first battery-powered bus operationalised in 1902 (which proved unreliable) and the first motor bus operationalised in 1905. The debut of this first motor bus - owned and operated by the Fifth Avenue Coach Company - was met with great success, and within a few years 132 of Fifth Avenue’s buses had substituted all horse-drawn omnibuses within New York City. The motor bus offered significant operational efficiencies in comparison to the streetcar, as it did not rely on rails or external wires, and could therefore navigate city streets with reduced risk of delays caused by infrastructure obstructions. The motor bus also had greater flexibility to serve suburban areas beyond existing streetcar lines and was more economical in longer routes, and thus by 1925 it had started to replace streetcars in New York City’s outer suburbs. It also improved upon existing horse-drawn vehicles by offering a more efficient, sustainable, reliable, comfortable and hygienic alternative. The novelty of the motor bus also contributed to its warm public reception as it was viewed as a revolutionary and modern mode of transit in comparison to the increasingly neglected streetcars.

The public’s positive perception of the bus likely influenced local government officials, including then New York City mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia. Mayor LaGuardia saw the buses as the mass transit mode of the future and sought to encourage the replacement of streetcars with buses within the city. To this end, in the early 1930s Mayor LaGuardia started a campaign to replace the Els and streetcar lines in Manhattan with motor buses. In response to the threat of obsolescence, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company - which operated the majority of Brooklyn’s streetcars - investigated whether a hybrid transit vehicle would be feasible. This led to the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company’s conversion of numerous trolley lines to trolley-bus operations in 1930. The trolley-bus was electrically powered by overhead wires but did not require rails, which granted it greater manoeuvrability in traffic while simultaneously being cheaper to operate then motor buses at the time. However, the non-railed design allowed the trolley-bus to frequently deviate from the overhead wires and consequently detach the trolley pole, causing costly and time consuming re-attachment efforts. Similarly to the streetcar, the overhead wires were considered visually unpleasant and eventually their removal became a staple of local political campaigns. Ultimately, the trolley-bus only survived a few years more than its streetcar counterpart.

The decline of the streetcar was further exacerbated by the actions of General Motors, which has since become the topic of the widely rumoured General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy. As previously mentioned (see ‘Maturity’ above), General Motors purchased the failed New York Railways Company and operated it from 1926 under its subsidiary, the Omnibus Corporation, with the intent of converting its streetcar empire into motor buses. In addition to this acquisition, General Motors purchased numerous abandoned and nearly-bankrupt streetcar lines in the city. By 1939, only approximately 542 kilometres of streetcar lines remained in the city, in comparison to its peak in 1919 of approximately 2163 kilometres.

By the late 1960s, all of New York state’s streetcar and trolley-bus services had been made obsolete and removed. Other cities in New York, including Buffalo, Albany, Rochester and Syracuse saw their streetcars slowly replaced by buses from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. Ultimately, the decentralisation, minimal regulation and poor rationalisation of New York’s streetcar industry resulted in an uncoordinated system that failed to provide a fiscally-sound or operationally efficient public service, and thus failed to reach the prosperous heights once imagined.

Quantitative assessment of the New York streetcar lifecycle

A quantitative analysis was undertaken to explore the lifecycle of the electric streetcar system in the state of New York. The length of electrified track (miles) was selected as the unit of analysis and was sourced from the Red Book of American Street Railway Investments. The following logistic function was used to assess the length of track between the years 1894 and 1920:

S(t)= K/(1+e^([-b(t-t_0)]))

where:

• S(t) is the status measure (miles of track)
• t is time,
• t0 is the inflection point in time,
• K is saturation status level, and
• b is a coefficient.

Linear regression was initially performed to determine the parameters of K, b and t_0 prior to the generation of the S-curve. Where data from a particular year was not available, the track miles were linearly interpolated. The results are shown in Figure 1 (refer to the excel file as Wikibooks will not permit my figure upload) and the estimated parameters are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Estimated parameters

Variable	Value
K	6820
b	0.136
t_0	1905

The R-squared value (0.938) indicates that the model was a satisfactory fit. Analysis of the S-curve for the state of New York indicates the following streetcar lifecycle characteristics:

• Birthing phase: <1897
• Growth phase: 1894 -1910 (inflection occurring at 1905)
• Maturity: >1910.