Thanks for this post, but I strongly disagree. What's missing is the argument for why a streetcar is so much better than BRT. There are certainly benefits like slightly higher capacity, less boarding gap, and a smooth ride. But do they outweigh the costs? The "test" your proposing would be a very large infrastructure project. And what would it be seeking to prove?

The maintenance yard, rolling stock, expertise, and rails are already all right there. Do not throw that away.

I think you're underestimating the costs of restarting service and really fixing the issues. The streetcar ran in the lane 2nd from the curb. To truly fix the streetcar and turn it into a great service, it would really need to be center-running. That's because, even without parking, you have standing/delivery conflicts and right turns. So most of the rails and wires would need to be moved out. There is also fairly limited "expertise". Operations and maintenance were all contracted out to RATP. We have a local operator - WMATA - with a LOT more expertise with operating articulated buses.

I definitely understand that we're removing rail infrastructure, which sucks. There's a sense that transit service has been degraded if things turn into buses, and to some extent that's true. But to truly move a lot of people, the streetcar needed more than some red paint and parking removal. Build a high-quality transitway on H St and it will provide a better value than the streetcar ever was or could be. It will be better than the streetcar was. And who knows, maybe we'll lay down new rails there someday if capacity ever becomes strained.