# Santa Ana streetcar: Route chosen, expected to start 2019



## beautifulplanet (Aug 14, 2014)

Last week, the Santa Ana city council made a route decision to proceed with a Fourth St alignment, not along Fifth St and Civic Center:

Santa Ana City Council endorses streetcar route

August 6, 2014

By Alejandra Molina

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/streetcar-630920-city-council.html

Here is the official website showing the two routes (the green one was selected):

http://santaanatransitvision.com/streetcar_route_options.html

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) took over the lead in the project, as this was assumed to make it easier to obtain federal funding. Just Monday, the OCTA debated the project, and nearly every board member was in favor (13 of 17), only Director Janet Nguyen abstained, Director Frank Ury was absent, and Directors Moorlach and Tait voted against it. Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait is generally critical of streetcars, even the streetcar plan in his own city. Director John Moorlach also voiced a statement that many might think of already as a classic regarding public transportation's capital cost (f.e. while having an estimated initial daily ridership of 1,700): "We're going to spend millions of dollars on 1,700 people? Why don’t we just buy them all Mercedes-Benzes?"

Source:

OCTA debates proposed Santa Ana streetcar

Published: Aug. 13, 2014
By Nick Gerda
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/santa-631666-project-county.html?page=1

Some might think the OCTA hopefully will be successful to collect necessary funding and construct the Santa Ana streetcar, opening up travel opportunities for residents and visitors, while creating business and development opportunities for the city at the same time.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 14, 2014)

To be fair, spending that much money on only 1,700 riders is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 14, 2014)

To be fair spending money to "educate" libertarians is even dumber.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 14, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> To be fair spending money to "educate" libertarians is even dumber.


Which has what to do with anything?


----------



## beautifulplanet (Aug 14, 2014)

Thank you for your response about the proposed streetcar in Santa Ana, California.



Paulus said:


> To be fair, spending that much money on only 1,700 riders is absolutely ridiculous.


Many might think, of course it is legit to see it that way, just as it is legit to oppose or support any policy.

Still some might think, that these investments in streetcars make sense. F.e. the streetcar in Tucson, with a capital cost of over $200 million (in a similar range like Santa Ana's), already created more than $900 million in public and private investment along the route, according to the city of Tucson. Many might think that before the streetcar plans were approved, downtown seemed to indicate that Tucson was a city in decay. Anticipating the streetcar opening, so many new projects were started, much new construction was begun, some finished with other still planned, that some might think that with a daily ridership of 3,900 the streetcar was the major cause for revitalization of downtown and the other districts the route goes through. Some might think the same might be the case for Santa Ana's future streetcar, also with an initial ridership estimate of 1,700, that it will lead to hundreds of millions in development along the route, and possibly Santa Ana doesn't want to miss out on the chance to transform the city for the future.

Some might disagree that rail is not worth the investment. The Santa Ana streetcar might cost $200 million and have an initial daily ridership of 1,700, at the same time SunRail's cost was $1.2 billion for a daily ridership of 4,158 (up to July 31), so that way some could argue that SunRail would be even more "absolutely ridiculous" as the capital cost per rider is easily twice of that of the Santa Ana streetcar. Still many might think SunRail is a good investment. And many might think Santa Ana is a good investment as well.

To some, this logic of "spending that much money on only [so few] riders is absolutely ridiculous" would become even more problematic when looking at Amtrak routes. Track in Vermont was recently upgraded at a cost of $75 million, despite the Vermonter having a daily ridership of 230. And the City of New Orleans has a daily ridership of 703, ending up with a $24 million loss per year ($47 million in costs, $23 million in revenue). So within roughly ten years the pure operating cost is as high as the capital cost of the streetcar, while having much less (even less than half) of the streetcar's daily riders. So it would probably be possible to make a statement like Mr. Tait's one about that service as well "We're going to spend millions of dollars on 703 people? Why don’t we just buy them all Mercedes-Benzes". Some others might think just these kinds of statements are ridiculous, not funding the service. And it would probably also be possible to make the "spending that much money on only [so few] riders is absolutely ridiculous" statement about these Amtrak services as well. Or about the possible new additional Amtrak service Chicago to Memphis.

Still many people might see it differently, and indeed think that Amtrak services deserve to receive funding, just as streetcars bringing new transportation options as well as development opportunities and economic growth deserve funding. Naturally, it is legit to look at it one way or the other.


----------



## John Bredin (Aug 14, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair spending money to "educate" libertarians is even dumber.
> ...


Because the line that "many might think of already as a classic" about buying each rider a Mercedes, or close variations on it, is oft-repeated and simplistic anti-rail rhetoric usually heard from libertarians who know the price of everything but the value of nothing rail but act like roads are free. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" as was once written, or "if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck..." as has been said.
One of the oldest and arguably wrongest examples was when Southern Pacific wanted "out" of the San Francisco peninsula commuter service (now Caltrain) and argued that it would be cheaper to provide the then-8,000 daily riders 1,000 carpool vans. Cite. (See copy of SP ad at link.) Meanwhile, in the real world, Caltrain's



> Weekday ridership in February 2013 averaged 47,060, up 11.1% from February 2012


That would be a whole lotta vans, man! :blink:


----------



## cirdan (Aug 15, 2014)

John Bredin said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Absolutely.

And while its fine rhetoric to propose replacing rail by free cars, I have yet to see even the most crackpot foaming libertarian leader actually walk the talk and step up and actually give fgree cars to rail passengers. They know its stupid. But words are cheaper than actions.


----------



## John Bredin (Aug 15, 2014)

cirdan said:


> John Bredin said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Well, to be fair, Southern Pacific was proposing to buy the 1,000 vans. It was an actual proposal, albeit a goofy one. Then again, SP wasn't acting out of an ideological opposition to passenger rail but a financial opposition to eating the loss itself.


----------

