text:
Transportation Deployment Casebook/2020/Minnesota Streetcar

Preface

Streetcars played a major role in the rise of public transportation around the world and continue to show their presence in the modern transportation mix. Invented by Frank Julian Sprague in 1888, it came into existence in Richmond, Virginia USA, where the installation of a 19-km circuit sparked a nation-wide track network spanning over 72,000 kilometres by 1917 (National Museum of American History, 2020). Being one of the pioneering technologies of public transit for mid-sized towns and cities in industrial America, the Streetcar made its mark as an engineering marvel before the use of automobiles, serving millions of Americans through the turn of the century.

Defining Technological Characteristics
The streetcar was defined as a public transit vehicle that was most clearly identified by its utilisation of rails in the streets of urban centres. Comprised of a carriage, wheelset (wheel-axle combination typical of railroad modes) and electrical trolley pole, the streetcar rode a pair of rails embedded in the road alongside other traffic modes. The streetcar was powered by via its ‘trolley pole’ which was an erected rod that contacted a set of overhead wires to power the vehicle. Streetcars were typically electrically powered by these overhead wires but earlier models were horse-drawn or even powered by a slot in the road where an electrical cable run beneath the tracks (American Public Transportation Association, 2019).

This arrangement is what gave birth to its colloquial name of “Trolley”, but streetcars have also been referred to as a “Tram”, especially in Europe. Whilst the above names are synonymous with the streetcar, the streetcar is still commonly misconceived as ‘light rail’. There are a few technological differences in their features that a quintessential to the streetcar model; (NACTO, 2012) (Whelan & Kornrumpf, 2014) (American Public Transportation Association, 2019)

The Advantages of the Streetcar
The streetcar had several advantages over other modes of transport of the time, as well as many social benefits for users at the time of its invention. Being introduced to society amid the rise of Industrial America (1876–1900), the newfound mode of transport acted as a catalyst in the national urban boom. Often referred to as the ‘walking era’, pedestrians only had the options of foot-travel and horse driven transport when undertaking intracity travel. Streetcars offered a faster means of transport within towns, reducing destination times, energy expenditure and improved comfort when travelling. In addition, streetcars reduced the amount of foot traffic and horse drawn carts/carriages around the dense city centres by encouraging commuters of the streets and roads and into streetcars. This not only minimised the possibility for vehicular accidents but also and reduced city congestion. (Nguyen-Phuoc, Currie, De Gruyter, & Young, 2017).

Apart from its major upgrade in the speed of individual travel, the major advantage of the streetcar was its enabling of travelling further distances within shorter periods of time. Most notably, the streetcar triggered intercity links between suburban communities and town centres. This facilitated suburban sprawl and expansion of city hubs; communities were built around these routes which improved housing availability, new opportunities for work and more convenient access for leisure activities and socialising. (National Museum of American History, 2020)

American Context (1890s - 1920s)
In the 19th Century, the cities of America were walking cities. This is because most of the population shopped and worked close to their place of residence. The streets were shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, farmers’ wagons, carriages and street cars (National Museum of American History, 2020). As transportation of the public evolved, many city residents were able to travel greater distances, allowing easier and more efficient travel to work, shop and socialize in town. A sweeping technological revolution caused a change in city streets and the pattern of people’s everyday lives. As the electric streetcar systems continued to be built in the upcoming decades, Americans would see an evolution in their modes of transport. From horse powered cars and walking to steam powered cars to them electric trolley cars (Library of Congress, 2020). The turn of the century saw the American nation establish itself as a world power and saw the strength of a nation’s industrial capacity (Library of Congress, 2020).

Minnesota at the Turn of the Century
In 1870, Minnesota’s population was 439,000. Europeans immigration and settlement hit an all-time peak after the Civil War as farmland was attractive. In the two decades coming, the population number tripled. The North Pacific Railway and Saint Paul Pacific Railroad advertised many opportunities in the railroad industry to invite immigrants to reside in Minnesota (Lass, 1998). It was recorded that St. Paul and Minneapolis in Minnesota, known as the Twin Cities, had one of the fastest rates of traffic congestion growth in the USA. (Carter, 2003)

Early transportation market environment in the US & Minnesota & the limitations of their existing modes
Prior to the 1890’s, transportation was slow. American cities shared the streets with horse-drawn carriages, pedestrians and cyclists. Improved streets allowed more traffic, however the traffic remained slow as pedestrians were still able to cross roads at any point. (National Museum of American History, 2020) Faster modes of transport were dependent on expensive storage batteries, though were inefficient. (Ray, 2020).

The early Minnesota horsecars were modest in size and was equivalent in weight to the average horse. A single car could shuttle 14 people and had a max speed of 6 mph, which was the max safe speed the horse could attain. Originally a mode of choice, horse drawn carts posed major disadvantages. With such high overhead, the lines were not cost-effective, and employees sometimes waited several weeks to be paid, not to mention the odor and health risks associated with horse pollution were a real concern. It was very expensive maintaining the horsecar lines with increasing costs of the car, the six horses that were needed to operate the car, horse food, driver and conductor wages of 12-16 hour days (Cameron, 2017)

The 1873 invention of the cable car increased travel efficiency. The cars were pulled along by a looping cable running in a gap between the rails and being driven by a steam-driven shaft in the powerhouse. The well-adapted system allowed people to commute over steep hills. The cable cars operated smoothly but ran only at a constant speed, therefore, any experience in breaking or jamming of the cable tied up all the cars on the line. Most cable trackage was replaced by electric cars by early 1900s (Ray, 2020)

The public embraced the new system of the cable car, however, concerns regarding its level of safety were speculated. Fear of flying sparks from the wheels or from lightning strikes, electrocution of horses or drivers if they attempted to cross a cable car track and snowstorms putting electric cars out of business. Despite the speculations, the growing popularity of the lines resulted in the Twin City Rapid Transit Company to cover all horse-drawn car routes to electric routes by 1902 (Cameron, 2016).

How did these limitations of the current modes of transport trigger the invention of the streetcar?
From 1902 electric street cars replaced horse-drawn cars in the United States. With consideration to its current design and function of the cars, gradual improvements were implemented. To gain a greater carrying capacity, the four wheeled cars were replaced with 8 heavy duty wheels, and wood was replaced with steel. It became essential for a growing city to be in possession of a streetcar line so that lines can be extended further out into other towns and communities (Ray, 2020).

Though the horse car and cable car systems gave residents increased access to mobility and stimulated urban growth in the Twin Cities, the electric street car had a profound impact on the evolution of transport. Travelling faster and further in what was to become the nation’s finest mode of public networks of transportation. (Cameron, For thirty years, electric streetcars ruled Twin Cities streets, 2016). The efficiency of the public transportation network in Minnesota always had room for improvement.

Policy Influence
The development of the streetcar system in Minnesota was driven by a variety of policies that enabled its spread throughout the state. Several policies were adopted from the precursor railway industry, but new policies were introduced by private owners and the local government to manage its progress.

Land Development and Land Designation Policies – The main commodity that streetcar systems consumed was land. May it be for laying tracks, constructing stations, or building car yards for servicing and maintenance, streetcars required increasing amounts of free land. The state government of Minnesota and private investors saw this need and adapted several of its land designation policies used for railways to acquire and lock-in land (Cullingworth & Caves, 2013). Private Ownership and Fare Regulation Policies - Policies underlying the private ownership and monopolisation of streetcar businesses meant that fares were not regulated by the government and customers had no option but to pay. The Twin City Rapid Transit Company (TCRT) had claimed and merged all streetcar transit in Minneapolis and St. Paul which allowed them complete control over the fees for travel, independent of governmental statutes (Cameron, 2016). In turn, this created a positive feedback loop that provided the economic capital needed to expand streetcar networks, maintain tracks, and upgrade cars.

Discrimination and Segregation Policies – The birth of the streetcar in Minnesota coincided with its worse period of social racism and discrimination (1900–1930). While several African American communities were scattered throughout the state, the suburb of Near North in Minneapolis housed the largest concentration of African Americans (Miller, 2020). All these minority communities are housed on the outskirts of city centres due to the state’s restrictive property policies and deed clauses. This forced private streetcar corporations to extend their networks to city edges to ‘tap-in’ to these densely populated communities and increase market coverage.

Functional Enhancement
Shopping - At the turn of the century, the streetcar was gaining momentum and mass market proliferation throughout Minnesota. Being one of the larger cities of the time, Minneapolis and St. Paul had thriving shopping district where residents would seek groceries and other essential items daily (National Museum of American History, 2020). In fact, the shopping and retail industry of Minnesota (and the US for that matter) was growing exponentially as well, attracting several travellers and residents to the stores. The town of Edina in Minnesota would see the first indoor shopping mall open years later – a statement to the attention it’s stores received (Meyer, 2018).

Industry - At the time, the twin Cities of Minnesota; Minneapolis and St. Paul were home to some of the largest iron, flour milling and logging industries in the country (Muscato, 2020). Employing thousands of labourers, the streetcars serviced these workers by aiding their commute the foundries, factories and mills situated across the cities. Each of these booming industries in Minnesota were so reliant on the streetcar that “for a brief time, the trolley was more important than the electric light because while only the wealthy had electric light in their homes, almost every blue collar worker was riding the trolley to work” (Whelan & Kornrumpf, 2014). The invention ensured worker punctuality and better productivity, ultimately generating more revenue for these businesses.

Functional Discovery
The growth seen by the streetcar in the urban area of Minnesota could also be attributed to the new opportunities and prospects it developed. The growth of the entire metropolitan area was transformed by the streetcar system. It shaped the character and development of the Twin Cities.

Marketing - Between 1890 and early 1900’s, around 53,000 people worked for the Twin City Rail Transport. The streetcar created opportunity for businesses to flourish. In the centre of a Trainman’s day stood the car house of station. This is where services were able to be performed such as haircuts and men’s clubs, as well as libraries and pool tables were available. Attendants were paid if they were dual skilled for these amenities. It surfaced opportunities for businesses to market their product and service on the side of the street cars to gain further recognition in and around their cities (Diers & Isaacs, 2007).

Real Estate - The possibility of suburbs were a result of being able to commute further than before. It was the streetcar that was able to expand these reaches and allow the development of other suburbs to be easily accessible by the communities. By the 19th Century, communities and suburbs were enjoying the new kind of surroundings and Americans began to live more freely, yet still able to easily commute to their workplaces and to go shopping.

The development of other suburbs allows civilians to relocate from the city to the suburbs. Due to the high immigration rate, residents were able to relocate to quieter communities, or leave the city to a less congested community. The rise of division became more prominent with those being less wealthy were living nearby the city and therefore those of different races and ethnicities started to intertwine. People’s lifestyles were changing due to having more responsibility in the suburbs. Maintenance and upkeep of gardens, yards and homes were the new reality. Walking to the shops and to work was no longer an option. The street care became the main mode of transport with men predominantly travelling into the city. Women became isolated, until The Chevy Chase Land Company established over 1700 acres of street line cars, facilitating the public’s needs for transit (National Museum of American History, 2020).

New Distribution Systems - The invention of the new streetcar saw the opportunity for new distribution systems for businesses in the Minnesota district. Like many big cities, residents shopped frequently at several large markets for their daily necessities. The rail system provided businesses to transport their goods from stockyards to their market stalls or to regional distributors, farmers were able to send their produce to wholesalers and retailers and national advertising hit a peak due to these distribution systems and Brands were becoming common household names due to recognition (National Museum of American History, 2020).

Maturity and Decline of the Streetcar
Streetcars ruled the streets of Minnesota between 1910 to the 1930s. The transportation mode reached it peak in 1922, where over 850 km of streetcar track was sprawled across the state and guiding 1021 active streetcars (Prosser & Hofsommer, 2007).

Over the next few decades beyond 1920, the electric street cars and trolleys were made obsolete. Accompanied by government and corporate policies, the limitations of the streetcar system increased, and consumer choice steered toward the development of other alternatives being the bus and the car. The development of new bus systems began in the 1910s. Commuters considered this new mode of transport to be luxurious due to its modern feel and comfortability. Buses became more affordable to run than streetcars and they were more flexible in times. It was decided that buses made more business sense for the transit companies. Well known companies such as General Motors and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company took interest in the design of this system and encouraged the decision for the street car to be converted to the bus transportation network.

In conjunction with the bus system, Americans chose the automobile, another development that made sense to the social environment of residents. The main form of commuter in the nation was now cars. It was the option of choice considering it was affordable and a growing number of people could purchase and run them. It was in 1962 that the last street car ran in Washington D.C (National Museum of American History, 2020)


text:
Transportation Deployment Casebook/2020/Maryland Streetcar

Streetcars in the United States
The streetcar (as used in North America) is a rail-based vehicle used primarily for passenger transport, typically operating within the public right-of-way. Specific to the electric streetcar, the technological characteristics that are essential to the operation of the mode would be:
 * Pantograph sliding on an overhead line or contact shoe on a third rail, providing propulsion via electricity. This would require infrastructure, including power source and distribution network to supply power.
 * The movement of electric streetcars requires the provision of fixed rail providing low rolling resistance, allowing for loads to be moved with less effort. As such, investment in rail infrastructure is required prior to operation of the streetcar.

Other streetcars in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century were similar but differed in their power sources (i.e. horse-drawn, steam, cable). The main advantages of the streetcar technology in the context of the study period not only to applied to Maryland. Electric trolleybuses that moved on regular road surfaces were the primary competing technology at the time. The main advantage of the streetcar system was the use of steel rails, which reduced rolling resistance, allowed smooth movement and move more rapidly than trolleybuses.

The main market the streetcar system served were relatively dense urban centres. This was prior to the advent of the personal motor vehicles thus, alternatives were limited, such as horse-powered carriages and walking. Horse-drawn carriages would have been expensive to operate and maintain, such as costs to manage horse manure, provide feed, stabling and replacing horses.

The Maryland urban scene prior to electric streetcars
In the period of the electric streetcar, Baltimore, the most populous city in Maryland, had emerged as a key manufacturing center. From 1850 to 1900 Baltimore’s population grew from 169,000 to 508,957, which placed pressure on Baltimore’s physical infrastructure. The city expanded from ten to thirty square miles in 1888. Horsecar railway companies started laying tracks on Baltimore Streets, following historic turnpike roads, which opened new suburbs for development.

The other transport modes available at the time were horsecars and horse-drawn railway. The limitations of this transport mode were a key consideration by urban planners due to factors such manure, maintenance, feeding, stabling and disposal of stock.

A rapidly increasing city population resulted in an evolving market for transportation. The availability of the horsecar railway lines expanded the suburbs outwards as travel times and accessibility from major employment centres improved. The improvement in accessibility stirred interest in the new possibility that accessibility could be further enhanced with new transport technology. Electric streetcars offered just that, further facilitating new suburban villages surrounding Baltimore.

Invention of the electric streetcar and technological shift
Frank J. Sprague is credited as the inventor of the electric streetcar system. His invention involved the use of overhead lines to collect electricity and was successfully first installed for use in the Richmond Union Passenger Railway in Richmond, Virginia in 1888.

Following this success, the shift from the initial horse powered cars to electric systems was rapid. By 1890 there was some 5,700 miles of horse car track, 500 miles of cable-car track and 1,260 miles of electric track in the United States; some 17% of market share within 2 years for electric systems. By 1903, 98% of the 30,000 miles of street railway lines were powered by electricity.

To achieve the electric streetcar railway system, technological expertise in the fields of electricity distribution (mainly generated by coal at the time) and motor and gear design were brought together to enhance the existing street railway system in the form of the new horseless vehicle.

Early market development
The initial market niche that the electric streetcar satisfied was the ability to operate a transport service without the use of horse-powered vehicles. Electricity proved to be far cheaper than horses, so fares could be reduced at the same time as services improved. Ultimately, the cheaper fares achieved functional enhancement, serving the existing market better by expanding the market to lower income households. The improvement in services, coupled with increasing urbanisation, led to the expansion of the street railway system in Baltimore, facilitating further market development of the technology through functional discovery.

The birthing phase
The existing railway systems were already laid out from the horse car. This was a widely accepted mode by the public and government. The streetcar borrowed the railway system from the horse car and innovated on it, providing an improved service at a lower cost. With the unqualified success of the first electric system in Richmond, Viriginia, the technology quickly spread to all parts of the globe resulting in a relatively short birthing phase from 1888.

The growth phase
The Baltimore local government permitted the development of the streetcar network through profit-sharing arrangements During his mayorship, Thomas Swann agreed to allow horsecar companies to lay track on public streets in exchange for 20% of their gross proceeds to fund public parks. This potentially reduced planning barriers to achieving growth of the mode within Baltimore.

The private sector grew the network on the back of the profit motive. Network growth in Maryland grew from 245 miles of track in 1894 to 450 miles of track by 1898. Some eight independent railway companies were operating by this time.

Growth in Baltimore was relatively rapid at the time and City officials responded by expanding the city. Naturally, this policy environment induced the demand for expansion transport services to meet the needs of the population. Streetcars provided a solution and so the network could expand through private capital.

The mature phase
In 1899, the myriad of independent railway companies was consolidated to form the United Railways and Electric Company. By this time, the network was reaching maturity at 357 miles of track (by 1920 it was at 418 miles of track). The consolidation allowed for the separate systems to be modernised into a cohesive system to effectively serve the metropolitan area. Through the consolidation, the fleet of streetcars were standardised.

By 1915, jitneys were becoming a prevalent competitor to the streetcar. The United Railways and Electric Company sought to adapt to the changing market by setting up the Baltimore Transit Company. This would have been an attempt to avoid “lock-in” and adopt the “escape” strategy posited by Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970).

Opportunities to “re-invent” the mode
In the present day, the modern streetcar mode still exists albeit at a much smaller scaler than its peak in the early twentieth century. It has also taken on another form via light rail, which differs only in capacity through the coupling of multiple units. Streetcars served the market in the absence of the point-to-point transport offered by the personal automobile. Potential opportunities to reinvent the mode so that it can better serve the needs of today and tomorrow could be:
 * Integration into dense urban areas where there is a high cost for private vehicle use (particularly ownership and storage). This situation would attract ridership in the absence of the personal automobile. A dense environment would ensure there is adequate market size to justify the cost of implementing the system, by allowing for suitable scale and diversity of trip purposes.
 * Being an on-street rail system, the spatial requirements are well-defined and potentially compact. This could be leveraged to incorporate into the urban form, particularly within pedestrian-only rights-of-way where traditional bus and car transport would not be able to operate.

The Life-cycle model
The life-cycle metaphor is useful in understanding the behaviour of a transport system over time (Garrison & Levinson, 2014). This behaviour is generally represented through three phases: Assuming the data forms a logistic function, S-curves are useful to model, track and predict systems within their lifecycle. The model can be represented with the following three-parameter function:
 * Birthing/innovation phase,
 * Growth development phase
 * Mature phase

S(t)= K/(1+e^([-b(t-t_0 )]) ) where: Therefore, knowing K, t0 and b, the system size in any given year t could be predicted. However, the only data generally available would be the current system size whereby K and b would have to be determined iteratively and tested with linear regression.
 * S(t) is the status measure, (e.g. passenger-km travelled, miles of track)
 * t is time (usually in years),
 * t0 is the inflection time (year in which 1/2 K is achieved),
 * K is saturation status level, and
 * b is a coefficient.

Analysis of the Maryland Streetcar network
Historical financial and company data from the McGraw Electric Railway Manual – the red book of American Street Railway Investments was used to develop the lifecycle of the streetcar network in Maryland between 1894 and 1920. Data on the “miles of track” was published in this document for the streetcar systems in each city in the USA, which have been extracted to develop a lifecycle model (see Table 1). This data was also compared against the predictive model using the equation provided above. Table 1: Miles of track within the Maryland Streetcar network; actual and predicted

The above data is represented in Figure 1 below. Note that missing data has been linearly interpolated.

The model provides the following outputs: The model accuracy was tested using linear regression with a predicted K value. Assuming K = 910, the regression analysis output was R-squared = 0.9, which indicates that the model curve could be a good fit. The t-statistic for the variables are greater than 2, indicating that the relationship is statistically significant.
 * The inflection point of the system, t0, whereby the rate of growth was no longer increasing was the year 1901.
 * The saturation status level, K, was 910 miles of track.
 * The coefficient, b, is 0.079614.

Life cycle phases
Based on the model, the three distinct life cycle phases could be seen as:
 * Birthing: 1880-1890.
 * Growth development: 1890-1910 (inflection at 1901).
 * Maturity: 1910 onwards.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Transportation Deployment Casebook/2020/Delaware Streetcar

Description of Mode
Electric streetcars (or ‘tramways’) are a form of public transportation running on (rail) tracks, historically, owned and operated by railway companies. These companies provided track and integrated the transportation system with an electric system. Forms of the electric system have included use of storage battery attached to individual streetcars or electricity from generators was passed through overhead wires to motors in streetcars. Though the latter electric system is usually used in describing electric streetcar systems. Such streetcar systems aided local populations to travel efficient within Delaware as well as interstate travel between Delaware and its neighbouring states. When these urban systems are especially densely populated electric streetcar systems can provide a source for short trips that can serve well in growing economies and job markets.

Before the Mode
Even prior to the development of electric streetcars, there were methods for mass transportation service for people to travel between dense cities and new neighbouring regions which were acquired by adjacent states or states sharing those same dense cities. Since the 1830s, cities similar to Philadelphia and New York City has employed omnibuses operated by horse-power. Soon after, horse-drawn streetcars were adopted as they helped with the transportation of goods for local industries. These streetcars also helped to connect passengers between business within cities and their homes away from cities. Limitations of omnibuses were mainly resolved by the horse-drawn streetcar system. Horse-drawn streetcars were able to operate on track laid out in streets with flanged wheels. These streetcars could operate more smoothly and provide improvements with larger passenger capacities and higher speeds. In mid 1800s, Wilmington (one of Delaware’s major cities) though did not have sufficiently large populations to serve like neighbouring cities Philadelphia (which were large), it was nevertheless influenced by such neighbouring cities where horse-drawn streetcars are required to adopt such systems. Due to financial difficulties around the beginning of the American Civil War (in 1861) Wilmington’s first horse-drawn streetcar systems were delayed to 1864. Wilmington City Railway Company operated this streetcar system. Wilmington City Railway Company along with the company following it, such as the Front and Union Street Railway company, was limited in the size of area which it could serve and limited with its finances to expand the networks for the streetcar system. With Wilmington’s population growing in its city and neighbourhoods, limitations of the horse-drawn streetcar systems were being realised as the need for better public transportation systems grew 1880. Such streetcar systems were affected by the limitations of animal power and created issues of animal waste to manage around the city.

Introduction of the Mode
During the 1860s, in other cities alternatives to the horse-drawn streetcar system were being considered in other cities. For example, in Chicago, individual streetcars powered by steam engines individually were being tested and did not derive favourable public response. There were issues with the emissions of smoke and noise pollution as well as sparks from engines disturbed local populations and passengers. After a successful first exhibition of an electric streetcar in the Exposition of Railway Appliances in Chicago, 1883, lead to the widespread adoption of the electrical system integrated with the streetcar systems of many railway companies. While the technology of the electrified streetcar systems had not been developed, the management department of Wilmington City Railway Company had intentions of modernising their systems with overhead electrical wires. There was an experiment with a 1.5-long electric line connecting the intersection of Market and 10th Streets and Riverview Cemetery. However, there were some objections to and reservations against the new system with a new technology working electricity (unfamiliar and mysterious during those times) that would have disrupted the existing transportation system. Wilmington’s first electric streetcar system was operated in 1888. As reliability of the services increased popularity of its use increased too with larger volumes of weekday traffic. The experiment was considered a success and led to the acceptance (of the Wilmington City Railway Company) of the electrical streetcar system and expansion of its networks.

Early Market Developments
After the success of the electric streetcar systems were realised, the original market for public transportation expanded as passenger demands increased with growing populations and the development of Wilmington. New electric streetcar systems and larger networks were created to meet those demands: such as the Gordon Heights Railway Company which provided feeder lines along the Delaware River. Existing companies such as the Front and Union Street Railway Company quickly adopted the new system. By 1892, the market for horse-car services had discontinued. Benefits from larger capacities and increases in streetcar speeds compared to the previous system, resulting in decreases in cost per passenger and travel times, expanded the economies of scale. Hence, the electric streetcar system can be viewed as a magic bullet which improved the streetcar systems already established with better technology. The supply of electrical power to the new streetcar systems involved the collaboration of many railway companies with power stations. Associated with the electric streetcar systems were networks of utility services such as for gas and electricity. It was rare for railway companies to not also be involved in the provision of electrical light and power. Desires to increase the use of streetcar systems required railway companies to increase the demand of their transportation systems with the development of external facilities. For example, to increase demand for their system, Gordon Heights Railway Company helped construct an amusement park along the Delaware River.

Role of Policies in the Birthing Phase
The 1890s could be described as the birthing phase of the electrical streetcars system. Observing the extent of competition between railway companies, it would be evident that laissez-faire economic policies were prevalent amongst electrical streetcar systems. There was consolidation of electric streetcar companies in most cities in North America. In 1891, Wilmington City Railway Company bought smaller companies like the Front and Union Street Railway Company which resulted in a reduction of competition. The stock of Wilmington City Railway Company was owned by financiers in Wilmington and then later by private bankers, Clark and the Company of Philadelphia in 1897. Clark’s purchases of many streetcar lines in the neighbouring states of Chester and Pennsylvania, and connecting them to cities of Wilmington and Chester to construct an electric streetcar system monopolising a large metropolitan region in the Mid-Atlantic states. Policies present at the time had little government intervention on the economics of the streetcar system. Many owners of the street railway companies obtained many rights from contracts with city governments to running powerful monopolies. In these contracts, many businessmen could obtain large investments for providing constant fares and maintenance of quality of pavement adjacent to the railway track. By 1899 a major player in the economic game of the electric streetcar system in Delaware was the Wilmington and Chester Traction Company formed by Riggs, a financier from Pennsylvania.

Growth of the Mode
The period of growth of the electric streetcar system can be divided into 2 decades: 1900s, 1910s. In the first decade where Riggs had insufficient funds to expand his company. In 1903, another railway company of Riggs, the Interstate Railways Company, suffered from financial problems and limited in its ability to expand due to strikes. Later by the time of the economic depression (1907) forced the company into bankruptcy. With the reorganisation of the company’s subsidiaries and the leasing of the area properties of Wilmington and Chester a new company was made, the Wilmington & Philadelphia Traction Company in 1910. The new company was able to soon achieve success from obtaining larger amounts of capital which enabled the company to improve both the employee wages and the quality of its tracks. As the company grew its monopoly, it could consolidate smaller companies, develop its own tracks and remove redundant tracks. As the company’s power grew, the company was able to modernise old electric streetcar lines, for example the New Castle-Delaware City. During WW1, despite having been imposed with rising costs for labour and equipment, the Wilmington & Philadelphia Traction Company had to increase fares. During the war, many other railway companies had difficulties with running monopolies and competing with others. However, by the after the war, in the 1920s, many railway companies consolidated while the Wilmington & Philadelphia Traction Company saw success.

Mature Phase of the Mode
During the periods of birthing and growth, automobiles had been developed and allowed for its mass production (at reduced costs). This challenged the well-established electric streetcar systems as a new competitor. During the early 1920s, independent bus lines also entered the competition, threatening the Wilmington & Philadelphia Traction Company. The company responded with one-man cars to counter the congestion of cars arriving from the automobile industry. The company in 1925 also developed the Delaware Bus Company, a bus subsidiary, to further counter the competition of a line within Delaware from Wilmington to Newark. The subsidiary was able to consolidate many of Delaware’s independent bus lines. The traction company also obtained profits from selling electric power (mainly) but suffered the decline of the electric streetcar system. By 1927, the Traction company renamed itself to the Delaware Electric Power Company and later the Delaware Coach Company after the New Deal Legislation, disassociating itself with electrical utilities. The company’s electric streetcar system, nevertheless, was still not achieving any success and was slowly being replaced by bus services and later trackless trolleys. The overhead wires became ‘lock-in’ features of the fading electric streetcar system which came to use for trackless trolleys later in the 1950s. After WW2, urban transportation system use decreased as populations shifted more into suburbs instead of cities. Delaware Coach Company attempted to attract passengers with promotional offers and novel bus features. Eventually, the company came under the ownership of the American Transportation Enterprises (ATE) in 1956 where attempts were being to achieve a system of trackless trolleys and buses to replace the previous electric streetcar system. After the creation of Delaware Authority for Regional Transit (DART) to replaced the coach company for the operation of the bus system. DART has since then developed into a transit system, still in operation, for Delaware.

Quantitative Analysis
The best fitted logistic curve to the miles reported of electric streetcar systems in Delaware yielded the following:
 * Predicted system size: K = 329 (miles)
 * Inflexion point: to = 1923.115 (year)
 * Logistic growth rate: b = 0.123757 (year-1)
 * S(t)= K/(1+e^(-b(t-t_0)) ) (miles)
 * t-statistic: -9.37
 * RSQ: 0.668

Accuracy of Model and Interpretation of Results
Overall trends of the (electric) miles reported are captured by the modelling a logistic curve. However, phases of local growths and declines during the growth phase are not captured. Analysing when these local phenomena occur and their duration is highly dependent on policies and events prevalent at the time. This is further discussed in the growth of the mode. Considering the between 1888 and 1920 from the qualitative analysis, the system was undergoing its growth. In that light, the trend obtained in fig. 1a is appropriate given the limitations of the range of years (between 1894 to 1920) for which the data was obtained (from the McGraw Electric Railway Manual) and assuming a logistic function for the range of data obtained is inappropriate – explaining the negative sign of the t-statistic. The regression analysis from the model assumed was able to capture the general phase(s) (of birth, growth and/or maturity) in which the given data lies, refer to fig. 1b.

Issues with miles not being reported by railway companies in Delaware for all years near the turn of the century may also have affected occurrences of local declines. These local declines may give the impression of local growths when, in fact, the evolution of total miles is following the trajectory of the actual evolution of miles. Attempts to produce the actual trajectory with assumptions of the track length for some year is equivalent to the previous year (until track lengths are reported again) would not be able to estimate the growths or declines associated with policy changes. For example, assuming the track length of the railway line owned by Wilmington & Chester Traction Company (reporting its mile track in 1904 with 71 miles) is constant from 1904 to 1908 (since in 1909 the track length decreases to 33) may incorrectly predict the extent and year of occurrence of decline of total track length.

The given range of data obtained and analysed is not sufficiently large to predict any of the parameters of the inflexion point, the value of saturation, or points of growth and birth. The limited range of years from when the data was obtained prohibits the illustrations of values near the birth or saturation. However, from the logistic function obtained, estimations can be made of the start and end of the different phases:

 * Birth: 1865 - 1890
 * Growth: 1890 - 1920
 * Maturity: 1920 - 1950
 * Saturation: 1950 - 1970


text:
Transportation Deployment Casebook/2020/North Carolina Streetcar

Streetcar and its Markets
Streetcar, also called tram or trolley, is a vehicle that runs on track laid in the streets, operated usually in single units and usually driven by electric motor. The lines or networks operated by tramcars are called tramways. In the United States, historically the term electric street railways was used.

Tram vehicles are generally lighter and shorter than main line transport trains. The majority of trams are powered by electricity with the power being provided by a pantograph sliding on an overhead line. Older systems also used trolley pole or bow collector.

Some trams may be powered by electricity in the city and diesel in rural areas. The main purpose of the trams or street cars is to transport passengers however in some cases it transports freight. Now a day’s streetcars are also known as light rail. The main advantages of streetcars are:

 * They are relatively cheap to run (using electricity).
 * They provide faster and safer mode of travel as they run on dedicated tracks.
 * Mostly, tram don’t use fossil fuels thus being more environmentally friendly

In the early days, trams were also alternatives to cars which were limited in number / expensive and inefficient running on steam engines.

The main markets of Streetcars were growing cities / urban areas where the population density was increasing and people needed to live on the outskirts and travel to the CBD for work or other needs. In the 19th century in America, in most cities—residents worked and shopped close to where they lived so walking was the main mode of transport. But with the advent of electric streetcar (trolley) systems introduced in the 1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s, cities expanded. Many residents of the cities shifted further away from the central city to where the streetcars had good connectivity at much greater distances for their everyday needs. The electric Street Car system was introduced and found market in US (Montgomery, Alabama & Scranton, Pennsylvania- 1886), Great Britain (Brighton – 1883), Oslo introduced the first tramway in Scandinavia, starting in 1894. Sarajevo built a citywide system of electric trams in 1895. Budapest established its tramway system in 1887, which grew to be one of the busiest tram line in Europe, with a tram running every 60 seconds at rush hour. Bucharest and Belgrade had regular service from 1894. \

Pre Streetcar era and its origins
Prior to the development of street car systems, mainly horse-pulled or in some cases battery powered carriages that were expensive to maintain and inefficient were used. Use of horse drawn streetcar companies included paying for storing and disposing manure apart from limited capacity to work, which was not desirable. Although horse drawn trams on rail were used in mining earlier, but due to the growing local transport market of the cities, the investment in setting up rails was becoming justified. These trams were more efficient in terms of speed and carrying capacity than horse drawn carriages. The Streetcar system mainly evolved from the horse drawn carriages to horse drawn streetcars on dedicated metal tramways to Electric powered streetcar using overhead Electric grid for power supply.

The Streetcar system was a combination of multiple technologies of that time. The streetcar system used:

 * Carriages from the Omnibuses or similar vehicles
 * Tramways / Tracks from railroads
 * Electricity and use of dynamo
 * Electric grid with overhead wires to power the streetcars

The cost of maintaining a horse which was the primary mode of personal transport in the cities was becoming more and more nonviable. The electric cars had many prototypes which were powered by batteries.

Gaston Planté developed the first workable storage batteries in the year 1859. Camille Faure patented his own version of the battery which comprised of pure lead plates coated with a paste of sulfuric acid and lead. This type of battery had its own technical problems. Battery was still in its development phase and was not efficient source of power due to charging and storage issues.

In 1834 Thomas Davenport, a blacksmith from Brandon, Vermont, U.S., ran a small car on a short section of a track powered by a small battery-powered electric motor The invention of the dynamo (generator) led to the application of overhead transmitted power to streetcar lines, which became popular in Britain, Europe, and the United States.

The Electric grid was the need of the hour. In the year 1887, a syndicate based in New York funded development of an electric grid of 12 miles in Richmond, Virginia for US$ 110,000. The electric grid system later spread across most of the major US cities. Initially, electric streetcars were single with one motor mounted on the floor or underneath or the axles however owing to the enormous growth of passenger traffic, two motors were used linking the cars.

In the early days before 1800s and even later, the main mode of travel within the city for most of the residents was walking. The distances were walkable as the size of the cities / urban areas was relatively small. However, as the cities grew in population, the size of the cities grew and the need of local public transport grew. This public transport was mainly horse drawn carriages to begin with. The city of New York had a population of 200,000 in the year 1830 and was growing fast adding new urban areas. This created a need of local public transport. A 12-seater carriage named Accommodation, is considered the first omnibus (bus used by public) that provided passenger transport services between New York City’s Broadway from Battery to Bleecker Street for 24 US cents starting in the year 1827. This led others to also provide similar services. Later in the year 1832, a horse drawn street rail road was launched from Fourth Avenue at Fourteenth Street to the Bowery at Prince Street. By 1850, 593 omnibuses ran on 27 routes in New York. In Washington D C., omnibus service was also introduced in the year 1830. The use of Horse trams (on rails) can be traced to the use of horse drawn trams on rail tracks in mines for haulage. However, the use of dedicated tramways (although drawn by horses) picked up in the US, and by 1860, New York had over thirty tram roads. These trams were much more efficient than omnibuses as they carried larger loads at higher speeds. New York had over thirty tram roads by 1860. The success of trams also marked shift of investment from private individuals to business firms in urban public transport as investment was required at a larger scale to develop the tramway rail infrastructure.

Policies and Problems
During the birthing phase of Streetcars in America, there was v little regulation for local transport within the urbanized clusters or cities. Mostly residents walked or used horses for commute. In the 1800s, horse drawn public transport services were introduced by individuals. However, as the streetcar system evolved and grew with dedicated tramways / streetcar systems, policy for streetcars started emerging. The basic public policy for streetcars was based on railroad policy modified for a smaller scale system of city level. Being with in the ambit of cities, the streetcar systems were mainly governed by city governments / councils. The councils awarded charters or franchises to businesses to establish and operate streetcar systems. The public policy focused on safety, services and prices.

As the streetcar network grew, demand for unique regulations / policies emerged. Some examples include rationalization of routes, multiple properties serving overlapping areas. Flat fare policy was adopted as opposed to distance-based fare for rail-roads. It was usually 5 cents. The chief promoters / owners of electrically powered streetcars systems were Electric Utility companies because the streetcars provided a base / minimum load demand helping the companies achieve economies of scale of production, transmission and distribution of power in the city.

The growth of inter-urban transit in America in early 20th century was generated due to the inefficiencies of the existing system of that time. The regular railroads were costly, irregular schedule, poor connectivity. With the introduction of street car systems, which were cleaner (electric powered than steam), cheaper to build & maintain and in some cases faster, the growth of streetcars was fast and widespread between 1895 to 1915. Inter-urban transit opened rural areas to urban market centres, and land prices along the tracks soared, leading to the opening of housing tracts along them. The highest growth rates for cities occurred at the turn of the twentieth century Streetcar service became very popular. Cities were quick to issue franchises. There was overbuilding of lines, and some lines were not well connected to others. A need arose to consolidate and rationalize the networks city wise. Washington, D.C., Optimal network connections were needed because lack of physical connections and/or transfer rights hindered end-to-end connectivity however, the systems lost much of public support by 1920s as they were considered unfairly priced.

The private sector was mainly responsible for financing, technically advancing and operating the streetcar systems and the public sector was responsible for regulating and formulating policies mostly on a need basis during the growth of the streetcar systems. In Los Angeles some thirteen systems were consolidated to become the Los Angeles Railway Corporation. America was growing very rapidly; with laissez-faire was the underlying norm for growth. The policies for streetcars were also shaped around it. Initially the government policy for rail roads was ad hoc however when the railroad systems matured, the government wanted to control the system for public welfare. There were policies related to technical issues or political / authority issues for example allocation of tax revenues.

Maturity & Decline
Streetcar systems grew rapidly from till the 1920s however they abruptly started losing local transit market to buses and cars rapidly. The buses had significant advantages over streetcars. They were not limited in reach to the tramways / tracks and financially viable over streetcars in suburban areas having low traffic volumes. They were more manoeuvrable in traffic and they didn’t require continuous power supply externally unlike streetcars which were not able to maintain their schedules. Once reason was traffic jams once the cars arrived on roads in large numbers in the 1920s & onwards. Also, a break down in the power supply didn’t render the entire line faulty as with streetcars. Also, in some cities, the streetcar operators were responsible to maintain roads which were also used by automobiles which increased operational costs. Similarly, car ownership took away market share of streetcars. The streetcars again became popular during World War 2 (1940s) due to labor movement in cities to places of work / industries built along tramway tracks however by 1960s, the market forces (mainly buses and cars) finally again brought down the market share drastically of streetcars. In response to the market decline of streetcars, the association of streetcar owners known as Electric Railway Presidents’ Conference Committee (PCC) designed streetcars that had better acceleration, quieter, better ventilated, had better seats and stronger built but that was not enough to reverse the decline after World War 2. Even the public policy was car / bus friendly as governments invested more and more in building roads.

Another major problem that the streetcar systems faced in their mature phases was rationalization. Most of the streetcar systems were owned and operated by different Electric utilities which resulted in unbalanced growth and non-standard fares. Also, there was relative ease of riders moving from one mode (streetcars) of transport to another (bus, cars) unlike people trying air transport over surface transport.

In the current scenario, I feel that simply providing a mode of transport from point A to point B may not be enough to become viable for streetcars as they require big upfront capital spending on fixed infrastructure however I see some advantages of street cars as a mode of transport and if they can re-invent themselves, they may make a comeback. One of the advantages of streetcar is that it gives a smooth ride, since it moves on fixed tracks and constant speed unlike buses or cars. This can be helpful in providing services on-the-move for example a street car can be a dedicated saloon offering saloon services to riders at a reasonable cost thus saving time of a commuter or else he or she would have spent precious weekend time in a saloon or become moving restaurants or coffee shops or book clubs or any such day to day service which we all need.


text:
Entrepreneurial Learning/Motive

Economy
From a macro-economically perspective, four production factors can be distinguished: labor, nature, capital and entrepreneurship. These production factors are used to realize the production and with that production the income is earned. Entrepreneurship combines these production factors in new ways, thereby responding to opportunities in our society. All factors of production are subject to change: they develop. This applies to labor (training), capital (infrastructure in a broad sense), nature (raw materials, environment) and also for entrepreneurship.

ROI
The social value that entrepreneurial learning adds to the students can be converted into economic value with the help of stakeholders. For investors it offers a unique opportunity for a high ROI (return on investment). It is possible to enter into a commercial relationship with future topentrepreneurs at an early stage. The creation of these services will be done by start-ups that result in independently operating companies. For the necessary investments, the participating schools, the participating business community and subsidy providers are called upon. These investments will pay for themselves in the long term so that participants can regard their contribution as providing venture capital at a high return.

SROI
The value that entrepreneurial learning adds is more than higher grades. We express this value in Social Return On Investments (SROI). After all, entrepreneurial learning is a breeding ground for social initiatives and results. It is populated by socially engaged, enterprising and creative young people with a commercial spirit. These entrepreneurs create value through innovation and open new markets. Throughout their school careers, these social entrepreneurs are supported in innovations that increase the welfare of people and animals. Social entrepreneurship has the attention of the government when it comes to urgent social issues in the social domain.

You develop entrepreneurship by gaining experience. From learning by doing you create a mind-set that you see opportunities and can give meaning to them. By learning entrepreneurially, the approach is mainly creatively and socially focused on values such as win-win, happiness, freedom, sustainability and growth.

Education
"Cognitive learning is not free, but metacognitive is."

21st century
In the current time perspective, modern man is less and less someone who wants and can comply with a social regulation system. Nowadays, instead of doing things as they should and doing what they have to do, they want self-control over their own lives. Focus more on values instead of standards. Entrepreneurial learning translates this change into a modern vision of education and what it intends to do on that basis. In this vision, education sees the learner as someone who is enterprising, investigative, both critical and open in the world. Who regards his or her own life as a "company". Education there is faced with the task of doing justice to the student. To enable the student to make optimal use of his or her entrepreneurship. Seeing and using the value of others.

Environment
Entrepreneurial learning connects a school to its social environment. Expanding the network has great value for both the school and its environment. Entrepreneurs can be helpful for the school and its teachers and students to set steps to the external environment. Conversely, schools can also be this for young educational entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial students are interesting for organizations (banks, investors) who like to enter into a relationship with young talented entrepreneurs early on. Charities can benefit from the efforts of the schools and participants. These charities can in turn share expertise, social involvement, sustainability and citizenship with the schools. Society as a whole benefits from entrepreneurial learning because of the stimulus it has in matters such as innovation, productivity and, for example, the use of talents.

Attitude
If it performs its task properly, a school will add considerable social value to its students. Most education programs on the subject of entrepreneurship are mainly focused on developing business skills. Research into the effects of this type of program shows that this has a negative effect on the affinity with entrepreneurial behavior and entrepreneurship. For all programs developed so far, this appears to be a general trend.

Entrepreneurial learning can also focus on entrepreneurial attitude in addition to business behavior, by giving talented young entrepreneurs the helm, so that they can organize education according to their taste, in order to increase the motivation for and the development of an entrepreneurial attitude. This means that students largely determine what their learning process looks like. They decide for themselves which projects they want to do and which resources they need.

Motivation
It turns out that discovering the social relevance of courses is an essential condition for achieving intrinsically motivated learning. Learning from your own motivation. Learning from your passion. Because you want to learn it yourself, contrary to what the teacher tells you to do. The value of “subjects” is often not seen by the students. Why do I have to learn that subject? What's in it for me later? With a little bit of luck, an adequate teacher can still make that future value plausible, but explaining what it means to you in the here and now is considerably more difficult for many teachers. When the students understand what a subject can do for them at the same time, they become the owner of the subject, which makes them intrinsically motivated. After all, intrinsic motivation is about pupils wanting to learn something from their own inner drive because they understand its value. Because in entrepreneurial learning the intrinsic motivation of the students is addressed directly and continuously - for each concept, for example, the context } must be made explicit - they are provided with a solid foundation for want to learn.

Self-awareness
In entrepreneurial learning self-aware behavior leads to respect, trust and appreciation. Others therefore feel free to express themselves and are respected. Wanting to know instead of having to know, in order to add more value for yourself and for the other person. People trust enterprising people if they are consistent.In order to do that, the enterprising student must first know what he focuses on. It is best to focus on improving your own unique qualities. Consistent people have a clear vision and mission and continue to check whether everything is still correct. In this way they develop a recognizable identity.

Assertiveness
Entrepreneurial learning invites entrepreneurial students to be assertive. The advantage of assertive behavior is satisfaction with the result achieved and reachingthe goals more often. You experience win-win through honest negotiations and that gives self-respect. Having the guts to dare to be yourself, to stand up for yourself and your ideas and to pursue consistently what you want to achieve. In addition, it would be a shame that when you design your own learning route it is not carried out because you cannot stand up enough for your design.

title: Entrepreneurial Learning/Motive


text:
Entrepreneurial Learning/Audience

Size
By research into the certainty with which students indicate that they want to start their own business about one quarter of them is entrepreneurial. In view of the social developments, entrepreneurship no longer needs to express itself in becoming an entrepreneur, but it can also show itself in entrepreneurial employees, for which there is an increasing demand from the market.

Another indication for this percentage is found in test psychologists who use a normal distribution for the interpretation of performance motivation tests (PMT-A), as a result of which 23% of the population falls into the category  high performance motivation . Some argue that while a high performance motivation will have a strong relationship and positive impact on the other characteristics of entrepreneurship, it does not guarantee entrepreneurship. On the other hand, others argue that someone with an average performance motivation could also be a good entrepreneur because he or she excels at other characteristics. These characteristics in themselves can eventually increase performance motivation when stimulated by the environment. Would test psychologists test entrepreneurship again they would use a normal distribution to distinguish a high level of entrepreneurship from a medium or low level of entrepreneurship. In other words, the percentage of Dutch people who are entrepreneurial could be a question of drawing a line. Education is familiar with this method of determination (CITO or the way in which many teachers standardize the grading of their students.

Customer
In education, a large majority of schools will state that the learner is central. In entrepreneurial education, where the customer is central, this choice can also be understood, although strictly speaking the government is the paying party. It is the learner's choice though to participate that determines the institution's revenue.

Learner
The success of an entrepreneurial school is partly determined to what extent it is able to put the learner first. This appears to be more difficult with educational organizations that have existed for a long time. They need a vast cultural change. This can be hard in situations where it really revolves around a choice between the interest of the school or teacher and that of the learner. An example of this is taking into account differences and learning difficulties of the learner. After all, that requires a lot of effort and often also the gathering of missing expertise. And in a "busy" job, people are not always willing to put in that extra effort. The same can be seen if the learner makes a justified appeal to a fair treatment, but this entails too much hassle or work for the education professional; "you are right but I am not doing anything about it".

Teacher
An educational organization that wants to become more entrepreneurial will have to help its professionals to recognize that this is a different way of working but not necessarily means more work. In fact, entrepreneurial education requires an initiative-oriented attitude from the learner, which, if used well, will only lead to a reduction in teacher's effort. It is therefore questionable whether for the management in entrepreneurial education the learner should be central, or the ones who take care of the primary process, the teacher.

Learner
The entrepreneurial learner wants to be "the pilot in the plane" and be able to give self-direction to his own education. The enterprising learner wants to think up and determine as much as possible himself, pursues his own happiness by taking action himself. Sees the usefulness of developing knowledge, skills and attitude especially in the light of his own passions and how to achieve this effectively, preferably immediately.

Entrepreneurial students usually have a high motivation to perform if the learning activities exactly match their passion. The student can be tempted to learn by challenging them to set the bar high. Entrepreneurial students can be challenged well on personal development, entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, delivering a product / service with high customer satisfaction and on helping another student.

Entrepreneurial students often have a different view of reality. This special view may have been created by talent (nature) or experiences (nurture). In entrepreneurial learning, the student is invited to use that individuality effectively.

The entrepreneurial student prefers to use his learning to come up with new ideas and apply them in reality. He selects his favorite subject, produces his own reality from it and has the wish to realize it. Those learning preferences appeal to higher cognitive and affective learning levels. Giving the subject its own meaning requires analysis, appreciation and attitude. If, like entrepreneurial learning, this will transformed into an own creation, this requires in-depth reflection and an entrepreneurial attitude. Entrepreneurial learning thus stimulates effective learning strategies.

School
A entrepreneurial school wants to enable learners to develop entrepreneurial behavior and to regard learning as an "enterprise" in a metaphorical sense. The school is prepared to offer this learner an individual learning path from junior class to the final exam. The learner can determine this learning process (under certain conditions) by himself. The school is prepared to offer freedom for self-invented projects (that meet certain criteria), interaction with the world outside the school, which may lead to starting an own company.

The school places itself more firmly in its community with entrepreneurial learning. The students make through their businesses the connection with the local community. The local community can contribute to education by offering passion and expertise for entrepreneurship, for example in the role of a master during a masterclass.

title: Entrepreneurial Learning/Audience


text:
Entrepreneurial Learning/Method

The entrepreneurial learning method will look at how it can stimulate, support and facilitate the learner in creating and deciding about his own learning and entrepreneurship. That turns out to be what makes an enterprising person happy and thus motivates optimally. To organize your own way from freedom and responsibility is something that needs to be learned. It should certainly not be presumed to be already present. The method should pursue learning in freedom as the main learning objective.

title: Entrepreneurial Learning/Method


text:
Entrepreneurial Learning/Implementation

A school can choose to implement entrepreneurial learning as a business school. So entrepreneurial learning skips the key factor of freedom in learning, but instead focusses primarily on learning entrepreneurship. At the other end of the spectrum a school may focus on the freedom of the learner and sees entrepreneurship just as an extra bonus.

Another dimension of the implementation is the number of students involved. Is the school implementing entrepreneurial learning to a small suitable group of entrepreneurial students or to all the students of the school?

Strategy
There is a clear line dividing learning business with entrepreneurial learning. When a school wants to introduce entrepreneurial learning, it is important in the mission to be clear whether content (entrepreneurship as a subject) or form (entrepreneurship as an attitude) is more prominent. In the latter case, entrepreneurial learning in its true sense applies. One can opt for a growth in the number of pupils or for a growth in the size of the educational program that has entrepreneurial learning as an educational form. The following actions can facilitate both choices

 * Provide training for subject teachers and school leaders to enable entrepreneurial learning during regular lessons. Time can be freed up by, for example, recording instructions on film (the Flipping the Classroom concept) or on another medium and offering it via an Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).
 * School-wide entrepreneurial projects that run for a period and together form a continuous learning track.
 * A separate school department for the most entrepreneurial students and teachers who take on the above actions.

Change management
The following phases can be recognized in implementing a change such as entrepreneurial learning at a school:

 * 1) Collecting data (during workshops, for example) with those involved on the questions below, ultimately leading to conditions that a school must meet or will meet and support for the change
 * 2) Who want the change and who are involved?
 * 3) What does the school want to achieve through the change and what can one expect from the school?
 * 4) Why will the change produce this?
 * 5) Which things are needed to implement the change and which training?
 * 6) How does the change take shape?
 * 7) What requirements must the school meet to realize the change?
 * 8) Making an implementation plan (and tools for making it) on the basis of the first phase, which in any case answers the following questions
 * 9) Who is responsible for what? In other words, how are the responsibilities, tasks and powers distributed among those involved? And who directs the implementation and the evaluation thereof?
 * 10) What are the principles, expectations and performance with regard to the impact of the change on the (culture of) the school?
 * 11) Why is it necessary and important that the change be implemented?
 * 12) What goals are ultimately achieved?
 * 13) How is the change communicated and how is it embedded in the school organization?
 * 14) When are the checkpoints set?
 * 15) Further elaboration of the change by further detailing the various components to be realized and their mutual relationship and formulating the necessary actions.
 * 16) The actual implementation can start when the implementation plan is sufficiently specified. In particular, everyone must always be clear where they want to go and how to get there. These expectations need to be clarified and adjusted during the process over and over again. Communication, reducing uncertainty and constantly measuring the process, measuring adjustments again and adjusting again are the keywords. Always check whether the energy of the design process does not get bogged down because people no longer connect with the organization itself. One must watch out for being too far ahead of the troops. Take everyone with you and train and train where otherwise you can not keep up. Every step needs to be anchored but also further improved.
 * 17) Until one reaches the end point and then one has to complete and evaluate the change project concretely and visibly.

Test
Available talents have a positive contribution to acquiring skills, knowledge and attitude (competences). For the possible selection of entrepreneurial students based on a personal profile, an entry level test can be useful. Subsequently, the development of these competences will have to be monitored so that the student receives effective feedback about his learning process. Afterwards, the school is accountable for the quality of the education by evaluating the student's development. These tests are also individual due to the individual learning paths. This requires goals that have been formulated SMART for each individual student, which, apart from the differences in content, can also differ in the way of evaluating.

Portfolio
The more the learner determines the learning process and learning goals, the more the existing school subjects are in line with entrepreneurial behavior, the more suitable a portfolio is for recording and monitoring the learner's development. The school will make demands on the minimum learning objectives that are demonstrated by the portfolio. Learning entrepreneurship and learning to learn entrepreneurially will have a permanent place in this. It depends on the implementation (see implementation) where the accent will lie. Any ceetification that follows will be the sum of the 'regular' diploma - obtained on the basis of the regular assessment - and the portfolio.

Affection
Emotional events play a crucial role in how entrepreneurial people learn. They give meaning to the learning experiences. Although not very common in mainstream education, it is therefore important in entrepreneurial learning to make these affective learning objectives explicit. By regularly letting the learner reflect on his learning process, one can monitor the development of those affective learning goals and support them with feedback.

title: Entrepreneurial Learning/Implementation


text: Entrepreneurial Learning/Information

title: Entrepreneurial Learning/Information


text:
Transport/Vehicles

Wheeled. Rapid transit.

Wheels
Wheels can be rubber which particulates generate air pollution or metal. Wheelsets can be bogies. Tracks can be trails, roads or guided (rails).

Multiple units
Platoon. Road train. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). Electric Multiple Unit (EMU).

Motive power

 * Animal
 * Human
 * Diesel
 * Hydrogen
 * Wind

Personal transport

 * Bicycle is a two wheeled form of transport
 * Sled
 * Pedestrianism
 * Horse

Public transport

 * Tram
 * Trolleybus
 * Train
 * Cruise ship
 * Airplane
 * Zeppelin

Rapid

 * Light rail

Freight transport

 * Tractor
 * Road train

Questions

 * Is a horse a vehicle?
 * Is a walking bus a vehicle?
 * Is a bike bus a vehicle?
 * Is an airplane public transport?
 * What is a car transporter?
 * What is a tram-train?
 * What type is a rubber-tyred metro?
 * What is a trackless train?

title: Transport/Vehicles


text:
Transport/Infrastructure

 * Maps
 * Lighthouse
 * Viaduct
 * Parking lot
 * Overhead cables

Cost
The longest tram line in the world at 42 miles is Coast Tram (Belgium).
 * Cost-benefit analysis
 * Passengers
 * Subsidy - Roads are the most subsidised infrastructure especially controlled access highways (freeways, motorways).
 * Space
 * Traffic flow
 * Demand (induced)

title: Transport/Infrastructure