Photo by morejazz3

On Tuesday afternoon, the D.C. Council voted unanimously — for a second time – to approve the Transportation Infrastructure Temporary Amendment Act of 2010, a temporary overhead wires bill under emergency procedures (the Council must vote on legislation twice under its procedures).  The Council amended the bill to address concerns raised by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) recently, including by specifically listing Pennsylvania Avenue NW between the Capitol and the White House and the National Mall as wire free zones. 

The Council action caps off several tumultuous weeks following the Council’s June 22 hearing on the legislation at which NCPC did not testify.  However, just days after the hearing, NCPC Chairman Preston Bryant fired off a letter to the D.C. Council seeking unprecedented powers of approval for each individual streetcar segment before it could be built, and he threatened that if the Council failed to meet his demands, NCPC may be compelled “to pursue other measures that ensure protection of the federal interest.”  Not only that, but he sent a letter to Peter Rogoff, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in an effort to torpedo D.C.’s application for $25 million in federal funding to extend the H Street-Benning Road streetcar line across the Anacostia River to the east and connect it to the Benning Road Metrorail station.

Within days, three D.C. officials — Robert Miller (NCPC Vice Chair who also works for D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray), Harriet Tregoning (Director of D.C.’s Office of Planning and an NCPC member), and Gabe Klein (Director of the District Department of Transportation(DDOT)) — sent separate letters to Bryant strongly objecting to his letter to the FTA seeking to kill D.C.’s chance to compete for federal funding for streetcars.  As it turned out, NCPC had not agreed upon the position stated in Bryant’s letters so he found himself out on a long limb.  He had to answer for his actions in a closed session of the Commission.

On July 8, the FTA announced awards for its Urban Circulator grants, and D.C. did not receive funds to extend the H Street-Benning Road streetcar line.  As reported on Greater Greater Washington, Bryant’s letter appears to have had no impact because the FTA grant decision had already been made by the time his letter was received.

In an attempt to resolve the dispute, last week Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton convened a meeting in her House office with representatives from NCPC, the D.C. Council and DDOT.  According to one account, that meeting appears to have been productive and has spurred further conversations between NCPC and the D.C. government, with NCPC apparently acting in good faith.  Further, in an interview with Fox 5 on Monday, Norton expressed confidence that D.C. will be in a good position to win federal funding for streetcars in the next round.

Where do streetcar supporters go from here?  First, we need to convert Congresswoman Norton from a lukewarm supporter of streetcars into our advocate for streetcars in Congress, particularly for federal streetcar funding.  More on this soon.  Second, we must ensure that when the D.C. Council returns from its recess in September that it immediately passes permanent overhead wires legislation (as the current “emergency” legislation is only temporary).  The goods news is that according to Council sources, this is the Council’s plan.

The Committee on Public Works and Transportation (Councilmember Jim Graham, Chairman) has announced that it will hold a hearing on Tuesday, June 22 at 2:00 p.m. on the recently introduced bill to permit overhead wires for streetcars on H Street and Benning Road — the Transportation Infrastructure Amendment Act of 2010. The hearing will be in Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building, which is located at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

According to the hearing announcement, members of the public are invited to testify or submit written comments, which will be made part of the official hearing record. Anyone who wishes to testify should contact Ms. April Hawkins-Mason by email or telephone at (202) 724-8195 and request to be added to the witness list. Individuals will be given three minutes to present oral testimony and should also bring 16 copies of their written testimony to the hearing.

Anyone who is unable to testify at the hearing is encouraged to send a written statement by email or U.S. Mail to Ms. Hawkins-Mason, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Room 116, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20004, no later than Tuesday, June 22 at 5:00 pm.

It is very important that streetcar supporters sign up to testify at this hearing. You can bet that members of the Committee of 100 and Capitol Hill Restoration Society who oppose overhead streetcar wires will be there to testify against the legislation, and numbers count at a hearing like this.

The image that I–and I believe many Americans–have of rail transportation in France is that, compared to the United States, it is rather advanced. After all, in Paris one is never more than 500 meters from a Métro stop, and France has been a pioneer of high-speed rail service with its TGV. So I was rather surprised to learn that, much like the United States, dozens of cities in France got rid of their streetcar systems through the 1950s and 1960s, such that there were only 3 small services running by the time the oil crisis of the 1970s hit: A 3km line in Marseille, a 5.5km line in Saint-Étienne, and an 18km interurban line connecting Lille, Roubaix, and Tourcoing. But after the oil crisis, France decided that electric rail transit needed to become an integral part of the transportation network again, and embarked on a program to plan and build tramways in numerous cities. The first de novo modern tramway opened in Nantes in 1985, and to date thirteen additional cities have followed suit, in addition to which the three historic systems have been modernized and expanded.

One occasionally runs across claims that streetcars powered by overhead wires are an “old technology” and one that cities are turning away from. This is certainly not the French view, despite the fact that the only two cities worldwide that are running electric trams in revenue service with some portion of the route not powered by overhead wires are in France: APS for 13.6km out of 44.3km in Bordeaux, and Batteries for 0.92km out of 8.7km in Nice. In fact, all sixteen French systems employ overhead wires for most of their trackage.

To visualize the dramatic growth in French tramway systems and to compare the relative investment in systems powered by overhead wires to other technologies, here is a graph that plots the trackage, in kilometers, of each French tram system that is presently in revenue service, for the years between 1980 and the present. The lighter-shade colors indicate track-kilometers powered by overhead wires and the darker-shade colors indicate track-kilometers with an alternative power source. (Click on graph for full-sized view.)

(Because Marseille’s historic 3km line was shut down between 2004 and 2007 for reconstruction, it is graphed with an opening in 2007; service in Saint-Étienne and Lille was continuous and they are shown with their historic openings.)

Here is a PDF version of the graph.

The graph illustrates the degree to which the French have chosen, and continue to choose, trams powered by overhead wires as a modern transportation solution. Beyond the systems shown in the graph, there are several more cities that are building tram systems, and several of the existing systems are being expanded. And with these expanding systems we see again that overhead wires are by far the predominant choice for power: most systems under construction will use overhead wires for 100% of their trackage, and those that are using the APS system are only using it for relatively small sections of their overall systems. While much is said of the systems in Angers and Reims, which will use APS for short sections of their systems, there are six other systems in the works that use overhead wires exclusively. Collectively, there are eight French cities building 111km of new tramways, of which 3.5km will be powered by APS and 107.5km will be powered by overhead wires. These systems are shown in the table below:

For cities that have tramways that are in the process of being expanded, the story is much the same. Much is said about Orléans, where the second tram line will use APS for 1km out of an 11.8km route; the first 17.9km line is powered entirely by overhead wires. But additional lines are also being planned or built, using 100% overhead wires, in Grenoble, Marseille, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Paris, Strasbourg, and Valenciennes. Most notably, Bordeaux is not intending to use APS for any of its future extensions nor for its fourth line.

So the message from France is clear: tramways powered by overhead wires has persisted as a technology because it works well, providing efficient transportation for modern cities.

Tramway data from Trams in France and Carto Metro.

Today’s Washington Post adds two new perspectives to the recently enlivened debate over streetcars and the use of overhead wires to power them in D.C. The first piece from the Arts & Style section is an article by Washington Post Staff Writer Philip Kennicott, which asks “Would streetcars in D.C. spoil the city’s vistas?” He summarizes the anti-overhead wires arguments as resting on “two essential assumptions: that the city is filled with streets that have historically significant and aesthetically impressive views; and that wires and poles would be ugly intrusions on these grand vistas.” He opines that: “The former is questionable, the latter a matter of opinion.”

Kennicott then argues:

“If you listen to preservationists, the most ardent of whom oppose any overhead wires in the city, you might think Washington was loaded with great vistas. And it is, but not the awe-inspiring views they’re thinking about, which turn out to be fairly few and often not that impressive. Even down our wide avenues, sightlines tend to terminate in small monuments that are best seen up close.

The great views down the streets of Washington are just coming into their full glory as the leaves of spring return. These aren’t wide-open vistas with monumental buildings in the far distance; they are tunnel-like views of shaded streets, overarched by majestic elms, oaks and maples. These shady tubes of green, which are rare in newer and suburban neighborhoods, are the truly distinctive beauty of Washington. The only reasonable concern about running overhead wires should be the protection of trees that create these glorious canopies.”

He calls the demands of the “ardent (shall we just say unreasonable?) anti-wire contingent” for streetcars that run completely on underground power “ridiculous” and “not just because it would limit the District’s options, force it to pay more and result in a system that might not function during weather such as we all remember from February. It is ridiculous because it assumes that wires are ugly.”

Kennicott’s argument builds to this powerful conclusion:

“Some wires are [ugly], and one is thankful for the many District neighborhoods where the majority of wires and cables are underground. But wires powering a modern and environmentally friendly streetcar are the opposite of ugly. They are a manifest advertisement to the world that the city is committed to public transportation, limiting its carbon footprint and improving quality of life. The flexibility of a hybrid system means that not only can the occasional monumental views of Washington be preserved wire-free, but that in certain areas the really distinctive views — the urban allees of overarching trees — might be kept wire-free, too. If DDOT is flexible on both counts, the addition of streetcars would be as beautiful as any view of a marble monolith anywhere in the District.”

The second piece — “Why D.C. streetcars are ‘preservationist’” which appears on the Post’s Local Opinions page, was written by Adam Irish, who is described as “a member of the D.C. Preservation League and a volunteer at the D.C. Historic Preservation Office.” He provides a different preservationist perspective from the anti-overhead wire perspective offered by other preservationists in a recent Post article. He writes: “as an active Washington preservationist, I am thrilled that streetcar service could soon be restored to D.C. neighborhoods, and I know many preservationists who share this view.”

Irish argues that streetcars are an important part of D.C.’s history and bringing them back to our streets could actually help promote historic preservation:

“As an important feature of urban life for nearly half of Washington’s history, streetcars shaped the city’s built environment perhaps more than any other technology. They were a transformative force, making once-remote areas such as Mount Pleasant into vibrant urban neighborhoods and shaping the streetscapes from which they have since retreated. New streetcars would not sully the city’s historic character but would affirm its history and aid in the preservation of its historic neighborhoods. By returning the infrastructure many neighborhoods were built to rely on, streetcars could spur revitalization and help neglected areas get back on track. Yes, all reasonable measures should be taken to protect significant views and honor the 1889 law, but streetcars should not be derailed because of a couple of wires.

This kerfuffle is about more than just ugly wires, however. It gets to the heart of an old and familiar conflict over how Washingtonians and Americans at large envision the city. In its coverage, The Post has referred to opponents of wires as “preservationists,” but I think “D.C. monumentalists” better describes their stance. For the monumentalist, Washington, D.C., the city comes second to Washington, D.C., the sanitized and photogenic capital.

The monumentalist vision of Washington has choked nearly all urban life from the Mall and its environs. It has fashioned large sections of our city into pleasing vistas for tourists but has given the rest of us lifeless wastelands (if you’ve ever stepped foot outside at L’Enfant Plaza, you know what I’m talking about).”

He concludes: “It’s high time we stopped sacrificing the vitality of our city for the sake of a grand and sterile capital. It’s a local tradition that has historically failed both our city and capital, and it’s one that I think isn’t worth preserving.”

The Washington Post published an editorial today calling on the D.C. government and opponents of overhead streetcar wires to reach a “reasonable compromise” so that streetcars can proceed. It goes on to state that: “A good place to start is with the reasonable suggestion by Gabe Klein, the city’s transportation chief, to use a hybrid system that allows overhead wires in some areas but still respects the city’s capital views.” Unfortunately, one of two groups opposing overhead streetcar wires — the Committee of 100 on the Federal City — has demonstrated that it is unwilling to compromise. It passed a resolution in late 2009 calling on the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to conduct multiple studies while indicating that the group will oppose overhead wires regardless of what those studies might find. The Capitol Hill Restoration Society, the other organization that has raised concerns about overhead streetcar wires, also passed a resolution around the same time calling on DDOT to study alternative power sources.

The D.C. Council will likely have to intervene in the months ahead to ensure that D.C. law supports the type of “reasonable compromise” DDOT is proposing — and the Washington Post now publicly supports — so that streetcars can proceed. The Post editorial supports Councilmember Tommy Wells’ contention that “the degradation to the environment is worse from cars on the road than from some unobtrusive overhead wires” and one can only hope that his colleagues on the Council will view the issue the same way and permit streetcars to move forward without further delay.

The Washington Post published an article today focusing on the debate over whether streetcars should be powered by overhead wires. The article asks whether streetcars will leave “a blot on the cityscape.” There is also a Post user poll associated with the article that asks users to vote on whether “Washington, D.C.’s new streetcar system should be run on” overhead wires or an underground electric system, and it also gives a third option “Why do we need a streetcar system?”

Strangely, the article quotes a National Park Service spokesman who states that the National Park Service “‘does not want and does not approve of’ overhead wires in the city” evoking images of the pre-Home Rule era as if the federal agency controls Washington, D.C. rather than D.C.’s elected mayor and the Council of the District of the District of Columbia.

Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells, a leading advocate for streetcars in D.C., puts overhead wires in context, making clear that without streetcars we’ll continue to suffer from automobile congested roads and more polluted air: “Frankly, the degradation of the air [from vehicles] is as bad if not worse than the wires[.]“

UPDATE: The Post has also started an online discussion on streetcars and wires posing the question “If it’s for a good cause—environmentally friendly mass-transit—are wires really ugly?”

At a well-attended community meeting hosted by ANCs 5B, 6A and 6C on Thursday, August 6, District Department of Transportation (DDOT) Director Gabe Klein updated the community on the H Street-Benning Road streetcar line, the Anacostia line and the plans for a larger network of streetcars envisioned to improve transit service in the District in the years to come.  He announced at the meeting that he is tapping Scott Kubly, his chief of staff, to take on a new role leading the streetcar effort and reporting directly to him.  Although Kubly stated that he is currently a “team of one,” Klein said that he is working to assemble a larger team under Kubly that will be dedicated to making faster progress on implementing D.C.’s plans for streetcars.  Up until now, DDOT’s Mass Transit Administration has been leading the effort.

Some in the audience expressed frustration that the city has been slow to implement its streetcar plans and others complained that DDOT has not done a good job communicating with the community about the H Street-Benning Road streetcar project even as tracks are being laid as part of the Great Streets project.  One man commented that there is “pent up interest bordering on angst” in the community.  Klein acknowledged that DDOT can do a better job communicating with the community.  When ANC 6A Chair Joseph Fengler asked him to commit to quarterly meetings to continue to update the communities in Wards 5, 6 and 7 about the H Street-Benning Road streetcar project, Klein agreed that he will do this.  ANC 5B Chair William Shelton agreed to organize the next meeting in Ward 5 in the fall.

Klein told the more than 100 people assembled for the meeting that he has talked with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood about streetcars, and he said that LaHood is enthusiastic about the idea of streetcars in D.C.  Klein also expressed optimism that the Obama Adminstration will make federal funding more available for development of streetcars and other transit projects.

Several audience members asked Klein how DDOT plans to power the streetcars.  He said that DDOT is looking at overhead wires as the most feasible power source for streetcars, but he said that the agency is examining emerging battery technology that also could be used to power streetcars in certain areas of the city.  He said that on H Street, they are hedging their bets by installing the infrastructure that would be necessary for overhead wires.  He added that the 1889 law prohibiting overhead wires in much of downtown Washington could be changed to accommodate streetcars, and he suggested that this could be on policymakers’ agenda in the months ahead.

For those who are eager to ride streetcars in D.C. soon, the worst news of the evening is that DDOT now estimates that the Anacostia streetcar line will not be in operation until at least fall 2012, and Klein and Kubly would not venture a guess as to when the H Street-Benning Road line will be operational.

UPDATE: For additional coverage of the meeting, visit the blog posts about the meeting at GreaterGreaterWashington (“Streetcars now on the front burner“) and Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space (“Streetcars for DC“).

On Tuesday, The Overhead Wire, a pro-electrified transit blog, published comments arguing that Congress should repeal a century-old federal law prohibiting the use of overhead wires for streetcars, freeing “the District of Columbia to operate clean, green, efficient, electric surface mass transit on any of its streets.” 

The commenter goes on to argue that a single overhead wire — the type D.C. plans to use — should be permitted throughout the District:

“Until more reliable forms of power become available, the best system for more than 100 years to power streetcars is from a simple almost invisible overhead wire. This is how more than 400 other electric surface transit systems operate around the world and within other US cities. However, Congress banned overhead wires in parts of D.C. more than 100 years ago stifling electric surface transit progress and ultimately killing it almost 50 years ago.

It’s time for Congress to take a leadership role and change that law to allow streetcars to use single simple, non-polluting almost invisible wire above their tracks and return to all of D.C. When the law was passed more than 100 years ago it was well intended to remove masses of utility wire from city streets. Utilities can bury their wires but transit cannot. The old underground conduit system used by the now abandoned D.C. streetcar network is too expensive and difficult to maintain or reinstall and not at all desirable.”

The District government plans to build and operate an extensive streetcar network in Washington, but the National Capital Planning Commission has resisted the use of overhead wires to power streetcars, citing an 1889 federal law prohibiting overhead wires in the downtown area falling within the historic part of Washington laid out by Pierre L’Enfant.  The initial streetcar line planned for Anacostia falls outside the overhead wire prohibition area; however, a portion of the streetcar line planned for H Street and Benning Road N.E. (and other lines to be built later) would be affected by the overhead wire prohibition.  The District Department of Transportation has not yet stated publicly how it plans to overcome this obstacle.

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 5B, 6A and 6C — three member organizations of the H Street-Benning Road Streetcar Alliance – have sent a letter to Freddie Fuller, Associate Director of the District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) Mass Transit Administration, asking DDOT to hold a public meeting to explain to the community how DDOT plans to power the streetcar line planned for H Street and Benning Road NE between the Minnesota Avenue Metrorail Station (Orange Line) and Union Station (Red Line).

The letter asks DDOT to present to the community on each the following questions:

1. What options exist to power the streetcars?
2. What is the feasibility of each of these options?
3. What are the technical or legal challenges posed by each of these options?
4. Which of these power source options does DDOT intend to pursue?
5. What is DDOT’s plan to overcome any obstacles and move forward with the selected alternative?

Many are concerned that the longer these questions remain unanswered, the longer the streetcar line will be delayed. 

Some media accounts have indicated that DDOT would like to use overhead wires to power streetcars in the District but that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has cited an act of Congress from the 1890’s as a potential obstacle to using overhead wires.