Streetcar Campaign article highlighted in The Charles Villager

"The Charles Villager Holiday 2012" issue ran an article entitled "Baltimore Streetcar Campaign Compares Nationally".  I presume the "comparison" is the chart produced by the article's author, Mr. Peter Duvall , but what I find there is nothing that would support the Baltimore Streetcar campaign. In fact what I see is the opposite and I will attempt to explain:

1.  In one section of the article, Mr. Duvall reports for the proposed Baltimore Streetcar "Route Miles are 3.5 miles" while another section of the article he reports a 4 mile route.   Three and one-half miles (as originally presented in the original plan) to four miles (if extended to Key Highway?) is correct if he is considering that the streetcar will only go up North Charles Street and remain stationary at either JHU or 39th Street and University Parkway, never to move again.  However, as the streetcar has been projected  to complete travel by going  north on North Charles Street and south on St. Paul Street, then  Mr. Duvall's calculation of  "Construction Cost $ Millions of $195 million" does not represent the full cost of  the line.  Another $195 million must be added for the return trip which would make it $390 million to construct the line up and down the corridor, the full trip from JHU to the Inner Harbor via St. Paul Street and back to JHU along North Charles Street.  I don't believe any contractor would offer a bargain of "buy half a route at $195 million and get the other section free".  And even the $390 million figure is $40 million moe than what I quoted several years ago at a meeting in Mount Vernon to a group of residents and business owners who were listening to the streetcar  proposal presented by the Charles Street Development Corp. at that time.  And that was to go only as far as the Inner Harbor and not Key Highway, which could then increase the cost to construct the line up to $500 million.

2.  The author of the article goes on to state that to pay off the "substantial" upfront cost of the streetcar line it can be done over 50 years (actually 55.74 years) through the $1. total ticket cost for the traveling public. And he presumes the City will also be using additional income from presumed increased real estate values to pay for the capital costs as well.  Stating that the cost of a streetcar ride could be only $1.sounds quite reasonable comparing it to the regular bus line's cost of $1.60 per ticket today if every thing were to work out as he suggests, he has forgotten the Operational Costs needed to run the streetcar which would raise the ticket cost substantially.  He uses the $1. per ticket to both pay for the capital costs and to run the streetcar system – but only up to the "start-up period".  None of this makes any sense at all.  Based on his projections, apparently utilizing U.S. Transit Projects analysis, by the year 2030 the annual ridership will amount to 7 million passengers, or simply 19,178 passengers per day to equal revenue of $19,178. in order to pay off an accumulated debt of $390 million dollars, plus unknown and on-going operational costs.  There is no way that this streetcar can run financially sound with such a small revenue base.  Unless the supporters are back to the idea of surtaxing property owners within a mile on each side of the streetcar routes comes back into play as it did in the initial plans for this campaign.

3.  At the beginning of his article Mr. Duvall writes that "some North Central Baltimore residents wonder why it isn't easier to get to Mount Vernon or Downtown".  This seems strange when there are three bus lines servicing the area daily, and since it is really only 3.5 or 4 miles it that can be walked or biked easily. What will really happen to those bus lines that serve not just a very limited population in "North Central Baltimore" but people needing to travel much farther along the line than to University Parkway and 39th Streets for work and to get to other places as far as Towson and Cockeysville without using cars if they even have cars available to them?  Or will these people join all the others in Baltimore who don't have all the bus lines we presently have in this corridor and have to add hours to their commute to and from work.  Real and existing public transportation will have to be sacrificed as there simply isn't sufficient room along this narrow corridor to accommodate a streetcar, bikes, passenger cars that won't simply disappear, and delivery trucks without which every business cannot survive. And what part of the projected 19,178 passengers who take existing transportation up to Cockeysville and Towson and who will not be using the limited streetcar service?  No mention of this in his statistics.

4.  Mr. Duvall mentions how thrilled people were to have the free circulator extended along the same line that the streetcar would service. He presumes that the City lacks the funds to run expanded circulator routes, but doesn't utilize any specific sources to prove his point, as the City believes that it will have sufficient income to continue the route from projected parking revenue.  We are quite sure that the Mayor considered these costs prior to advising the traveling public that the circulator would continue through Charles Village up to JHU.  So now we are to believe that a streetcar line that could cost anywhere from $390 million to $500 million is far superior and less costly to a circulator providing the residents, businesses and students free transportation.   It simply does not make any sense whatsoever.  Can you imagine the traveling public sitting there and saying, "do I want to pay $390 million to $500 million to have a service that was going to be provided to me for free?"  Would you want to be taxed additionally for something that the City would provide for free?

5.  The author continues his sales pitch about how wonderful it will be with the streetcar running north on North Charles Street and forgets that it has to run south on St. Paul Street.  He hasn't considered the loss of the Christmas spectacle of the lighting of the Washington Monument, the Book Fair, the Flower Mart not to mention the deliveries to all of the "140,000 jobs, 55,000 residents and dozens of cultural and entertainment" venues that will be lost by this streetcar that will run on streets that are in some places 15 feet curbside to curbside?  What happens when a water main breaks?  Has he considered for one moment the economic impact it will have on the community when they can no longer park their car(s) because of the space needed to construct this streetcar route?  We in Baltimore City (and therefore Charles Village)  pay a real estate tax (the highest in the state), a surtax for supplemental services and now to add further insult, are we to expect that we will have to pay $150. to $300. monthly to park our car(s)?  And what about our guests, from out-of-town and from other areas of the City?  Since the parking has been limited by the streetcar, will we have to tell them to stay home and not visit us?  I'm sure that this will really help the Mayor's plan of increasing the population of Baltimore City. 

Certainly our money can be wisely used to upgrade the existing bus system that provides services for all residents as well as for those who travel along this corridor.  Increase the ridership on the circulator but don't create a system that will cost far more than the proponents will advise us and, based even on Steering Committee figures, will never obtain financial sustainability.  Let's quit fooling ourselves because this clearly is not a well thought out idea and will not benefit anyone.  Statistically it is based on unfounded ideas that have not been thoroughly investigated and, even using the author's own figures, does not make any financial sense.