Has There Ever Been a Streetcar Feasibility Study That Found Streetcars Unfeasible?

I ask this as a serious question: Does a streetcar study exist that concludes that a streetcar is unfeasible? Check out the studies that show up from a Google search (link). Without spending too much time looking at all of them, I don't see one that offers a critical assessment of streetcars. In fact, if you read them and believe what is written you must conclude that cities are insane and loony and ignoring their fiduciary responsibility not to immediately build as many streetcar lines as possible. Yet cities don't build like crazy--not even Rock Hill, South Carolina, which seems to accept a minimum return on investment of $14 for each $1 spent.

Obviously feasibility studies will take place after projects pass an initial discussion, so there should be some bias toward positive assessments. But it is unreasonable to expect that all feasibility studies will conclude that streetcars are a good investment. If all projects are feasible there really isn't any good reason to keep doing these studies. I do wonder if we would be better off without any type of feasibility justification as currently practiced. Streetcar projects, like many transport projects and other types of economic development investment, are justified on political grounds rather than economic grounds.

Consider stadium deals for pro sports teams. These deals have long been discredited as poor investment by the public, yet they remain popular even when a feasibility study makes clear they are a bad deal. Example: Santa Clara Feasibility Study for a new 49ers Stadium presented these two key takeaways:

• No benefit from NFL events.
• All profits stay with 49ers
• "hidden costs" add up:
• City loses $111 million

And here is the website for Santa Clara's brand new NFL stadium! It opens next year. (Most feasibility studies for new stadiums in the Bay Area supported new construction. For example, here.)

So I wonder if any streetcar feasibility studies have been negative, and as an extension, I wonder why we continue to expect these types of studies that either confirm biases or are ignored. It seems like a lot of excess effort with nothing to show for it.

UPDATE: Alon Levy notes that the Red Hook Streetcar  Feasibility Study guided against the project. I'll admit I didn't review that one as I was more focused on smaller cities. A more accurate question is do any streetcar feasibility studies exist outside of New York City that find streetcars unfeasible.

The Politics of Implementation: NYC Bike Share Edition

New York City is about to launch Citibike bike share, and apparently some people are upset about the bike racks in certain locations. See here and here for examples. Many bike share supporters are quite derisive about any complaints against bike share, but concerns about implementation are to be expected. In fact, for most new transport policies the period immediately prior to implementation is when the public support is at its nadir.

The above figure (taken from a FHWA report) shows the popular support for congestion pricing at various stages of implementation. This is an instructive example of the phenomenon at work. A strong bias toward the status quo exists, which means that the challenge of change is not necessarily one of ideas but rather one of implementation. Once a controversial project is installed, then it represents the new status quo and everyone gets on with their life. Mike Manville, Donald Shoup and I wrote about the political calculus of congestion pricing (link), and the same lessons apply. When a project is initially presented support runs high (in most cases politicians will not introduce projects they expect to be unpopular), but as details are offered support wanes. Then, just before implementation, support craters because of status quo bias, loss aversion and other factors. Once implemented the incentives to fight against the project diminish and support grows.

The consternation about the bike share infrastructure is predictable and will be short lived. Popular support for bike share will follow a similar u-curve as above. There is no need to demonize people who raise concerns.

Under the Influence

Utne Reader's Alt Wire ranks the 500 top urbanism raw feed influencers, and I made the cut. My mojo score is seven, which I never knew.

This Week in Flying Cars

Jalopnik notes that an experimental flying car called a "Maverick" crashed into a tree in Canada.

Jalopnik is also creating a list of the greatest flying car concepts.

CNN.com takes a look at various flying car ideas.

Terrafugia--the one company closest to bring a "roadable airplane to market--announced that it is developing a plug-in hybrid model.

Los Angeles Almost Had a Bicycle Superhighway

Motherboard posted about an 1897 plan to build a bicycle superhighway toll road in Los Angeles. Here is a prior story. The road was to have a toll and even a bike rental system so riders could travel in one direction if they wished.

The case for (and against) public subsidy for roads

David Levinson and I discuss the case for and against subsidy for roads at Streets.mn. Here are our concluding thoughts, so read the whole thing to find out how we got here:

So what is the net?
In the short run, states should raise their gas tax to replace the general (property tax) revenue from a baseline set by lowest common denominator jurisdiction within their domain with user charges. That is, figure out which jurisdiction spends the least per capita on roads, and raise the gas tax to replace the property tax by at least that amount of money for each jurisdiction. In all cases states should be extremely wary of using sales taxes to pay for roads. (States will also need to cover the declining federal gas tax, but that is separate.)
Over time, states should move toward a vehicle mileage fee varying by weight (for trucks and other heavy vehicles), location and time of day to replace the motor fuel tax. This should be phased in with EVs (and Hybrids) which don’t pay (much) motor fuel taxes, and trucks which would be charged for weight and distance, going first. Off-peak discounts would encourage peak-spreading. Rates would vary by area to account for different costs of running networks.
Road networks should be organized and operated like public utilities, managing to generate revenue from users to pay for cost of operations. Restrictions on usage should be allowed in this model, where auto and truck traffic can be limited to specific times of day or excluded altogether. Road design that allows access for emergency services can be regulated.

Do Autonomous Vehicles Get In Crashes or Accidents?

Brad Templeton has a detailed discussion of the issues that arise from collisions involving self-driving cars. The piece is long and worth reading, but why does he call the incidents "accidents"? There is sustained effort to replace the commonly used accident with crash (see here) to more accurately reflect that crashes are preventable, though some more so than others. With autonomous vehicles major sources of crashes such as drunk driving will be eliminated (unless Bender takes the wheel), but there will still be some crashes. These should not be called accidents.