dc streetcar final paper

8/12/2019 DC Streetcar Final Paper

1/21

1

DCs New Streetcar System:

Transit-Oriented Development orDevelopment-Oriented Transit?

Elissa Silverman

URSP 631: Transportation and Land Use

Professor Robert Terrance Moore


2/21

2

Introduction

Its back to the future in many US cities right now, including in the nations capital.The District

of Columbia has started construction of two modern streetcar lines, the initial stages of a planned

eight-line, 37-mile streetcar system, which is estimated to cost nearly $2 billion at completion.

Streetcars disappeared from the citys streets nearly 50 years ago, but there is renewed interest in

this mode of public transit since Portland, Oregon, brought them back in 2001. Four years later,

Portland officials have touted, $2.3 billion had been invested within two blocks of its streetcar line,

resulting in 7,248 housing units and 4.6 million square feet of new office, hotel, and retail space.1

A

few other US cities have since followed suit.

Now the District, along with nearly 80 cities across the county, is looking at streetcars as a

critical catalyst to create high-density, transit-oriented development. According to DC officials, the

new streetcar system will increase transit capacity and efficiency, draw new riders to public transit,

lower vehicle miles traveled, and attract billions of new dollars in economic development.

Why?

And how?

Streetcar proponents say the sleek, iron-wheeled cars are more attractive to riders and developers

than buses, but less expensive to build and operate than other types of light-rail transit, such as DCs

Metrorail.

With such statements, supporters highlight how streetcars are unique compared to other forms

of urban transit: The primary purpose of this transportation investment is not simply about

1Gloria Ohland and Shelley Poticha, Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, 2009


3/21

3

transportation, or improving the overall efficiency of moving people from place to place. And its

certainly not about speed: The average streetcar travels about five miles an hour and at most 20,

compared to an average Metrorail subway speed of 33 miles per hour.

What really drives the push for streetcars is its very strong transportation and land use

connection. Developers like streetcars not simply for its transit benefits of getting people from here

to there sans automobile, but because the cost of the streetcar infrastructure shows a commitment

by local and state governments to that area and makes their real estate investments less of a risk:

Part of the argument is that a fixed guideway system is necessary if developers are to have

confidence that the transit capacity to support dense development will always be there.2

This makes evaluating the costs and benefits of DCs streetcar system quite complex, because

the community objectives arent so clearin importance or hierarchy. Are streetcars about better

transportation? Or are they about better land value? Or some combination of both?

In order to better understand the unique transportation/land use connection streetcars pose, this

paper will examine the Districts proposed streetcar network with five sets of questions:

*Do streetcars increase access and mobility for the greatest number of District residents? Isthere a better alternative?

*Are streetcars a reliable and efficient form of transit?

*Do streetcars bring economic development?

*Are streetcars the most cost-effective option?

*How does DCs proposed streetcar network compare with others in terms of design and

cost?

2Terry Moore and Paul Thorsnes, The Transportation/Land Use Connection, American Planning Association Press,

1994


4/21

4

DCs proposed streetcar system will only be compared to those in cities with modern systems.

Savannah, Georgia, for example, has a single refurbished streetcar that is powered by biodiesel, but it

is designed for a confined tourist route. Other cities, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, and Tampa,

Florida, have vintage systems also designed to circulate in small downtown areas for tourist use.

DCs system iscomparable those to Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington because it is

designed to attract residents and tourists alike.

Source: DC Department of Transportation

FIGURE 1: DCS PROPOSED STREETCAR SYSTEM


5/21

5

Criteria I: Access and Mobility

Do streetcars improve access and mobility for the greatest number of Districtresidents? Is there a better alternative?

The District of Columbia has a civic culture of mass transit use, though the current system in

place is not easily accessible for all residents. Metrorail, the regions subway system, is the second-

busiest rapid-transit rail line in the US with more than 700,000 riders per day. However, many areas

of the District are not served by Metros above or underground lines; approximately 55 percent of

DC residents live more than a half-mile from a subway station.

DCs proposed streetcar system is designed to both supplement and complement the citys

major mass-transit systems, Metrorail and Metrobus. The eight proposed lines would largely fill gaps

in service along corridors identified by the city for major redevelopment, including H Street NE,

Minnesota Avenue SE, and Georgia Avenue NW. According to the District Department of

Transportation (DDOT), the new streetcar system would have 147,000 daily trips by 2030.Thats

3,970 riders per mile.

Metrorails primary objective is as a commuter rail to bring in residents from the low-density

residential neighborhoods in the District and suburbs into the downtown core for work and

entertainment. Metrobus is an extensive network of rubber tire diesel and natural gas fueled buses

that feed into the subway lines, and in newly developed areas of the city, serve as the primary mode

of public transit. In general, buses offer great access because they do not travel on a fixed track like

streetcars or light rail, but according to DC transportation officials, it is not the most effective


6/21

6

means for moving large volumes of riders through high-demand corridors.3In other words, buses

get stuck in traffic but subways dont.

DCs proposed streetcar system is designed not simply for recreational or leisure use. Streetcars

in other cities mostly act as urban circulators, connecting neighborhoods with tourist attractions and

entertainment districts. Yet DCs streetcar network would act as a commuter system as well as a link

between neighborhoods underserved by transit. DCs proposed streetcar system would use modern

rail cars, approximately eight-feet-wide and 66-feet-long, which would accommodate 168 passengers

seated and standing. They would operate on in-street tracks and would mix in automobile traffic.

Stops would be located every one-quarter to one-half mile, with an approximately 10 minute

headway.

According to experts, transit must be within a half-mile walk for people to decide to use it

regularly. As Figure 2 shows, Metrorail access is concentrated in the downtown area and a few key

corridors in the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the city. The eastern half of the city is largely

underserved by rapid transit.

3District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternative Analysis

FIGURE 2: AREAS OF DC NOT SERVED BY METRORAIL


7/21

7

There is little argument that the proposed streetcar routes would increase transit access, though

whether the system would offer improved accessibility and mobility is questionable. Many of the

proposed streetcar routes currently are served by Metrobus, though a direct link to the Metrorail

system is not always made. Take, for example, the H Street NE streetcar line currently under

construction. The route is served by the X2 Metrobus line, which passes within a block of the red

line Metrorail station at Union Station, but there is not an easy transfer from bus to rail.

Several of the streetcar lines would serve areas of the District that have demonstrated demand

for additional transit, including several centers of employment. According to the 2005 District of

Columbia Transit Alternatives Analysis, data showed a nine times greater demand than current

transit capacity to the neighborhood of Adams Morgan, which would be served by both east-west

and north-south streetcar lines. The study also showed a five times greater demand than capacity to

the Washington Hospital Center area, which would be serviced by a streetcar line that cuts an east-

west path between the Woodley Park and Brookland red line Metro stations (Figure 3). Neither

Adams Morgan nor the Washington Hospital Center is currently served directly by Metrorail.

FIGURE 3: DCS CURRENT TRANSIT DEMAND AND CAPACITY


8/21

8

The suggestion that streetcars might be used for commuting poses an interesting question for

transportation planners in the District. Would the railcars, which travel at approximately five miles

an hour, be seen as a rational alternative to either bus or car?

There is little data available to determine that at this time. Some cities have implemented what

has been called rapid streetcar, which run on dedicated right-of-ways. The Districts system,

however, is not currently designed as a rapid system. The streetcar tracks are in-street and streetcars

would compete with automobiles in traffic.

The Portland system does offer some evidence of increased access as well as mobility. The

system has seen a steady increase in weekday riders as shown in Figure 4. Currently the system has

approximately 13,000 weekday riders.

Source:http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.php

Streetcar is not the only rapid-transit alternative, however. Another option is bus rapid transit

(BRT), which are rubber-tire vehicles between 40 and 60 feet long. BRT can operate either in mixed

traffic or a fixed guideway, and the vehicles typically can carry between 60 and 120 passengers both

FIGURE 4: DAILY STREETCAR RIDERSHIP IN PORTLAND
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.php


9/21

9

seated and standing. Though individual streetcars hold more passengers, the flexibility of BRT might

make it competitive in capacity.

We will compare the system performance of streetcars versus BRT in the next section.

Criteria II: System Performance

Are streetcars a reliable and efficient form of transit?

The District has a strong commitment to public transit. Indeed, the Metrorail system is

operating nearly at capacity on almost all five of its lines. Many of the Districts most popular bus

routes also are jam packed during peak periods as is shown in Figure 5.

So is streetcar a reliable alternative form of transit for the District? How does it perform compared

to BRT?

FIGURE 5: POPULAR METROBUS ROUTES CAPACITY AND SERVICE


10/21

10

Source: District of Columbia Transit Alternatives Analysis, 2005

Figure 6 offers some comparison. The DC Transit Alternatives Analysis compared both streetcar and

BRT on three criteria of system performance: travel time savings, capacity, and cost effectiveness. The study

did not isolate all three criteria, so it is unclear how both modes rated on each of the criteria individually.

Only one of the modes received a highrating as denoted with a blue line: BRT. Indeed, the blue

segment rated high performance for BRT is the H Street NE/Benning Road corridor. That corridor is one

of the two currently under construction for streetcar.

According to the analysis, streetcar rated low in many more segments than BRT, as shown by the yellow

lines in Figure 6. The system was modeled to perform low in the highly dense Adams Morgan area, as well

as parts of downtown and on Florida Avenue NW. BRT got a higher rating in these areas. One reason

might be that the fixed track of the streetcar offers little flexibility in this already densely developed area of

the city.

FIGURE 6: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE BRT VS. STREETCAR


11/21

11

Modeling suggests BRT is equal if not superior to streetcar in system performance. Yet DC officials

opted for streetcar in these corridors anyhow.

Other examinations of streetcars by experts have found them lacking in performance: Concerning

intermodal comparisons, results suggest that streetcars do not fill a significant gap between buses and

underground rail.While one should include other considerations such as pollution and comfort before

making any definite judgment, we believe that there is a strong case against small and slow streetcars.4

Criteria III: Economic Development

Do streetcars bring economic development?

Some conservativesthey are really libertariansargue for buses instead of streetcars.

Buses have no effect on development. Why? Because a bus route can disappear overnight.

Buses also seldom attract riders from choice with significant disposable incomes, which is

what downtowns need economically. Streetcars, with their investments in tracks and wires,

represent a commitment to lasting, high-quality transit service, service developers can count

on in the years to come. Streetcars appeal to middle-class and upper-middle-class people,

who have money to spend in stores, restaurants, and theaters. In terms of economic

development, streetcars are silk purses and buses are sows ears.

Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind, Free Congress Foundation5

Michael Powell, the owner of Powells City of Books in Portland, describes the economic development

benefits of streetcars this way: When Portlands streetcar system opened in 2001, he counted about three

pedestrians an hour in the crosswalk in front of his store. After seven years of streetcar service, in 2008,

Powell counted 938 pedestrians.6

Powell was an early proselytizer for the streetcar, telling his fellow merchants: The day we put the

streetcar into execution, your property values go up by 50 percent.

4Pierre Wunsch, Cost and Productivity of Major Transit Systems in Europe: An Exploratory Analysis, 19965Ohland and Poticha.6Ohland and Poticha.


12/21

12

He later commented: I was probably shy of the mark by at least 50 percent; Im sure their values more

than doubled.

The strong connection for streetcars between transportation and land value is hardly new. It was true

for the first generation of streetcars as well. In fact, almost all the first streetcar lines in cities were financed

by real estate developers who needed to build a transit link between the land they were selling outside the

city core and employment. Take, for example, Henry Huntingtons efforts in Los Angeles:

Having learned the extent to which good transportation could influence metropolitan growthand, as a

corollary, the sale of property in favored sections[Huntington] began, in 1901, to knit together the

whole basin with a web of electrified interurban railroads.the destination of his lines was often real

estate that he and his associates owned.7

Fast-forward about 100 years later to Portland, Oregon, where another real estate developer had a

similar thought about the connection between transportation and land use. Homer Williams owned a

section of town known as the Pearl District, an underdeveloped, largely industrial area in a part of Portland

in need of a catalyst and slated for redevelopment.

In the end, Williams cut a deal with the city of Portland in which streetcars were the central

transportation link. The city embarked on building a streetcar that would connectWilliams Pearl District

with an area to the south also slated for redevelopment. In the deal, the city upzoned the Pearl District

property from 15 units an acre to over 125 units an acre if Williams agreed to a high-density development

that included parks and affordable housing.

The streetcar was built quickly, using a shallow slab construction system that was much faster and

cheaper than light rail at the time. Two blocks of track were constructed in two weeks time, saving business

owners from disruption. The cost of the system was approximately $57 million.

Portlands streetcar and Pearl District have become the model for transit-oriented development.

Officials brag that since 2001, $3.5 billion has been invested in real estate within a few blocks of the

streetcar and more than 10,000 housing units have been created. They estimate that the high-density, transit-

7David Lavendar, California, A History, Norton, New York, 1976, page 143.


13/21

13

oriented development, in which residents can get to work, shopping and entertainment without use of a car,

has saved 70 million vehicle miles traveled. Figure 7 illustrates how proximity to the streetcar line correlated

to economic development in Portland.

Source:http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.php

A few years later in Seattle, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was interested in developing an area of

town known as the South Lake Union district into a center for the biotech industry. He and other business

and civic leaders led a campaign to build a streetcar line that would connect downtown Seattle with many of

the biotech firms and new development locating in the South Lake Union district.

A similar boost in economic development has been seen. Property values within three blocks of the line

rose at higher rates than similar properties within the city of Seattle. For example, vacant land three blocks

or less from the line rose a median of 123 percent versus a median of 53 percent within the city limits over

the 5 year period in which the streetcar was planned and constructed.

FIGURE 7: PORTLAND DEVELOPMENT
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.phphttp://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.php


14/21

14

DC leaders are clearly hoping for the same impact. Developers who were brought together by city

leaders clearly expressed their desire for streetcars. The respondents were close to unanimous in preference

for streetcar over BRT. Streetcar was preferred because it is seen as a fixed investment with distinctive

features; perception of BRT was that it would be less reliable even with special features.8

Streetcar Benefits to Investment

Start ofService

Initial

Track

Miles

Initial System

Cost Per Track

Mile (Millions)

Initial System

Cost

(Millions)^

Development

Investment

(Millions)*

Return on

Investment

(%)

ExpansionPlanned

Kenosha 2000 2.0 3.00 6.00 150 2400.00 Yes

LittleRock

2004 2.5 7.84 19.60 200 920.41 Yes

Tampa 2003 2.3 24.35 56.00 1000 1685.71 YesPortland 2001 4.8 11.38 57 2300 4112.45 Yes

^ This represents the total costs of the project including maintenance facilities and in Tampa's case, land

acquisition.

* This represents planned and existing development investments directly related to the lines. Numbers

were through interviews in Little Rock and Kenosha, a development study in Portland, and calculations

of new planned development located three blocks or less from the streetcar in Tampa.

8DCs Transit System Plan, Final Report, April 2010

FIGURE 8: STREETCAR RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN FOUR CITIES


15/21


16/21

16

1. $46.6 million of Tax Increment Financing (TIF),

2. $46.6 million of a traditional special assessment district and

3. $46.6 million from a never-done-before sharing of private property value increases

FIGURE 10: STREETCAR RETURN ON

INVESTMENT IN DC WITH VARIOUS OPTIONS


17/21

17

Criteria V: Comparisons to Other Systems

How does DCs proposed streetcar network compare with others in terms of designand cost?

Portland

Portlands streetcar system is a four mile loop. The first leg built was 2.4 miles, double-tracked,

which opened in 2001. The total capital cost was $56.9 million, or $12 per track mile. Three extensions have

opened since then, adding an additional 1.6 miles.

The first part of the extension, which was. .6 miles double-tracked miles, cost $16 million, or $13

million per track mile. The second extension, 0.6 miles of single track, cost $15 million. The latest leg, 0.4

miles, cost $13 million.

Half the initial cost of the system, $28.5 million, was paid by parking garage bonds. The next largest

chunk was through Tax Increment Financing and LID.


18/21

18

FIGURE 11: PORTLAND STREETCAR FUNDING

FIGURE 12: PROPERTY VALUE CHANGES IN

STREETCAR DISTRICT IN PORTLAND


19/21


20/21

20

ConclusionWith funding sources still unclear, it remains to be seen how much of DCs planned streetcar system will

be built. The addition of a new transit option will certainly increase accessibility.

Yet DCs streetcar, like those in other cities, cannot be judged simply as a transit system. It is an

economic development project with transportation benefits.. It is arguable that the biggest goal is

economic development and the transit and environmental benefits such as a decrease in vehicle miles

traveled are secondary.

Will the cost be worth the benefits? Analysis shows that alternatives such as bus rapid transit offer the

same if not better transit performance, but streetcars have a coolness factor that wins out.

Ken Johnsen of Shiels Obletz Johnsen, which was instrumental in the Portland streetcar, offers two

guiding principles for all cities interested in building streetcars:

The private sector needs to step up with funding and support, understanding that an increasein property values will provide a return on investment; and

FIGURE 13: SEATTLE STREETCAR FUNDING

SOURCES


21/21

21

Its crucially important to keep the project simple, cheap and fast because streetcars are notsupposed to be as costly, complicated or disruptive as other rail systems.

The District hasnt adhered to either principle so far.

dc streetcar final paper

Documents