Comment 35298

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted November 11, 2009 at 18:17:21

This is from hamiltonlightrail.com...


Development ROI for Streetcar Lines

Kenosha, Wis. - 2,400%

( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_Kenosha,_Wisconsin )

Little Rock, Ark. - 920%

( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Rail_Electric_Streetcar )

Tamp, Fla - 1,686%

( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECO_Line_Streetcar_System )

Each one of these "success" stories involve OLD FASHIONED streetcars, the one's you say are far less effective at attracting ridership and investment, yet they are presented as proof as to why Hamilton needs light rail.

My point about Boston was that it had THESE types of streetcars for decades, even while the city experienced massive population losses and high tax rates.

On the one hand you're saying that old fashioned streetcars are not good for investment, but then hamiltonlightrail.com presents them as success stories?

If streetcars are really good at attracting investment, why did they not stop the exodus of people form Boston from 1950-80 and why did they not lead to lower tax rates? If you can't explain light rail's complete failure in one of America's largest public transportation systems, why should we believe that light rail will work here?

Once again, too many unanswered questions.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds