Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STREETCARS
AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
SUMMARY This synthesis summarizes the limited literature and documentation regarding the impacts
of modern streetcar systems on the built environment, underscoring the need for further
empirical analysis.
Streetcars represent a growing transportation alternative, with more than 45 systems
built or in various stages of planning or construction. Their popularity has resulted from
a range of factors, including relatively lower cost of construction than other forms of rail
transit and their relative ease of integration into the existing urban fabric. Little in-depth
work has evaluated this streetcar resurgence, leading to an interest by policymakers and
planners to have a better understanding of how this mode of transportation interacts with
the built environment, particularly since changes in land use and development patterns are
often cited as a justification for investment in streetcar systems.
Great diversity exists among operating and planned systems, and this synthesis begins
to identify several stages of streetcar system development. These stages are potentially but
not necessarily sequential and include the following:
· Demonstration: a volunteer or local agency establishes the feasibility of a modest
streetcar line
· Targeted trips: expanded service is focused on certain groups, typically tourists and
residents but not necessarily commuters
· Full service: frequent daily service, including during commute hours with service to
downtown or business centers
· Urban connector: multiple routes between various districts and full integration into
the regional transportation system
These stages have distinctly different implications for the potential impact of street-
cars on the built environment, and the types and amount of economic development and
changes in the built environment that might occur. Because federal transportation poli-
cies, along with most local governments' land use and transportation planning are increas-
ingly emphasizing "green" development, smart growth, reduction in carbon emissions, and
increased links between land use and transportation, the need to systematize the study of
streetcar impacts is dramatic.
This synthesis presents an overview of published literature on the relationship between
streetcars and the built environment, a survey of 13 streetcar systems that have been recently
built or expanded, and in-depth case studies of five systems to describe the current state of
knowledge and elaborate on the relationship of streetcars to the built environment.
A challenge in considering these questions is the lack of a common and consistent
definition of what constitutes a streetcar as opposed to a light rail system. Furthermore,
some systems blend characteristics of these two modes. For example, the LINK system in
Tacoma, Washington, is termed "light rail" by SoundTransit, its operator, even though its
vehicles are the same as those used in the Portland and Seattle streetcar systems. For this
OCR for page 2
2
synthesis, a broad definition of streetcar systems was used that builds on rail advocacy orga-
nization Reconnecting America's typology of streetcars. Streetcar systems typically run in
the street at grade on embedded rails, stop every several blocks, operate at average speeds of
less than 12 mph, and have lower construction cost per mile than light or commuter rail.
For this synthesis, "impact on the built environment" was defined as broadly as possible.
The definition includes indicators that describe economically vibrant neighborhoods as well
as indicators that measure the actual changes in the quantities and types of physical and
economic development adjacent to streetcar systems.
A literature review for this synthesis considered the substantial literature on the "value
premium" or increase in property values or related economic activity that can be created
by fixed guideway transit. This is a key consideration because of policymaker interest in
"capturing" some of this value to help finance streetcar construction and operating costs.
Because of the broad range in methodologies used and findings from various studies, how-
ever, it is difficult to distill conclusions that can be applied broadly. Premiums vary by land
use and range from minimal (1% to 2%) to substantial (100% plus). A key challenge in
evaluating value premiums is controlling for changes in zoning or other policies permitting
greater density in conjunction with new fixed guideway transit, because these alone can
increase the value of land and existing properties, separate from any direct transit impacts.
Other literature measuring actual changes in economic activity, such as retail sales, visitors,
or job growth is nearly nonexistent.
General findings from the streetcar systems surveys and case studies highlight a vari-
ety of differences between systems, including that smaller-scale systems typically evolved
from community or business initiatives, while larger systems generally were created through
more extensive planning efforts, and some have evolved to become an integrated compo-
nent of overall regional transit systems. A broad range of funding sources and management
arrangements are available, encompassing such efforts as repurposing highway funding
(Memphis), completing substantial property assessments (Portland and Seattle), and using
local nonprofits for development and management of systems. Almost all representatives
interviewed believed that streetcars positively affected the built environment, particularly in
attracting new development or enhancing revitalization, although the degree of impact var-
ies. Few systems, however, reported the types of ancillary changes in the built environment,
such as reduced parking garage construction, increased pedestrian or bike lane investments,
or explicit parking reductions that often are associated with light rail systems. Few, if any,
streetcar system operators seek information on their impact on economic activity, although
most interviewed consider economic-related questions to be vital and desire further research
on this topic.
Based on the literature review, case studies, and surveys, a series of suggestions have been
developed for future empirical research to augment the limited literature and documentation
of impacts of streetcars on the built environment. These are outlined in the Conclusions.
