National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"SUMMARY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14422.
×
Page 54

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SUMMARY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STREETCARS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 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

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.

3 of an additional 3.3-mi extension from downtown Portland across the Willamette River. The success of this system, and its relationship to further enhancing the Portland region’s extensive network of light rail lines, has made Portland a leader in public rail transit. The streetcar “renaissance” has brought a strong desire by policymakers and planners to gain a more in-depth understanding of how this form of transportation interacts with the built environment. This report provides a synthesis of published literature on this topic, as well as a summary of a survey of 13 streetcar systems recently built or expanded to identify impacts on the built environment. PURPOSE OF SYNTHESIS The purpose of this synthesis is to document experience with selected streetcar and trolley projects and their relationship with the built environment. Local potential for changes in land use are often used to justify investment in streetcar and trolley systems. However, the ability of these systems to spur growth and revitalization has not been documented adequately. Questions remain regarding the direct role of such systems on the built environment versus other factors that also may be important. In documenting experiences, this synthesis examines selected, built streetcar and trolley systems to trace their evo- lution, define significant factors, and identify commonalities among levels of success in affecting the built environment. Definition of Streetcar Several definitions exist for what constitutes a streetcar sys- tem. According to APTA, streetcars are a type of light rail transit, which APTA defines as follows: Lightweight passenger rail cars operating singly (or in short, usually two-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of- way that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph (1). Included within this classification are streetcars, tram- ways, and trolleys. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACkGROUND In the past 20 years, numerous cities have planned and implemented new rail transit systems. This movement has coincided with other urban regeneration trends, bringing new life to urban centers and advancing strategies to manage growth that promote more efficient patterns of development. Various forms of heavy rail, light rail, and streetcar systems have been built, many with robust ridership and popularity, owing to a rediscovery of this form of transportation, as well as concerns about growing traffic congestion, volatile fuel prices, and climate change. One of the types of rail under consideration or built by numerous cities is the streetcar, reviving an older form of urban transportation. At present, more than 45 streetcar sys- tems are either built, under construction, or planned across the United States, ranging from larger cities such as Colum- bus, Ohio, to smaller cities such as Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Pasadena, California; and Lake Oswego, Oregon. Streetcar systems have gained in popularity because of their relatively lower cost of construction than light or commuter rail, the ease of integrating streetcars into the existing urban fabric, and the convenience of frequent stops (see Figure 1). FIGURE 1 Portland streetcar (Source: Portland Streetcar, Inc.) The most showcased modern streetcar system in the United States is the Portland streetcar. Opened in 2001, the system has grown to more than 4 mi of track travers- ing downtown, and currently is in the final design stages

4 even though the vehicles are the same as those used in the Portland and Seattle streetcar systems. In San Francisco, several MUNI light rail lines meet many of the streetcar def- initional criteria, along a substantial portion of their route, but also operate as subways as they pass through downtown. These and other systems straddle the definition between streetcar and light rail and are at times variously classified as either typology. Approach to Synthesis To clearly focus this synthesis on the impacts of streetcars on the built environment, distinct from light rail, and also to draw meaningful findings with respect to the unique quali- ties of streetcars’ impacts, this report focuses on recently built streetcar systems (i.e., developed within the past 20 years). Hence, systems in Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and San Francisco are not evaluated in this synthesis for their impacts on the built environment. These legacy sys- tems have been in operation for decades and the built envi- ronments along the streetcar routes has evolved over the course of decades throughout the 20th century. The following list of 14 currently operating U.S. streetcar systems are the focus of this synthesis: Astoria, Oregon1. Charlotte, North Carolina2. Dallas, Texas (M-Line)3. Galveston, Texas4. Kenosha, Wisconsin5. Little Rock, Arkansas6. Lowell, Massachusetts7. Memphis, Tennessee8. Portland, Oregon9. San Pedro, California10. Savannah, Georgia11. Seattle, Washington12. Tacoma, Washington13. Tampa, Florida14. To differentiate streetcars from other forms of light rail transit, experts focus on system purpose as well as several physical characteristics of systems and vehicles. According to one widely cited definition, the key difference separating streetcar systems from other light rail transit systems is their intended usage: Streetcars are for local transportation. A Light Rail line may operate ten or 20 miles out beyond the downtown, running at high speeds between suburban stations spaced a mile or more apart. Streetcars operate in the downtown and perhaps a bit beyond it, picking people up and letting them off at almost every street corner. Often, people will use Light Rail to come into town, then use a streetcar to get around town (2). In addition to purpose, definitions of streetcars also focus on the following more tangible characteristics: Right-of-Way: Streetcars generally operate in mixed • traffic rather than in separated exclusive rights-of- way. Vehicles: Streetcars generally use smaller, lighter vehi-• cles than other light rail systems, including the use of historic or vintage cars. Rails: Streetcar systems often are designed to support • lighter weight vehicles than other light rail systems. Hence, it is at times possible to operate a streetcar on a line designed to support other light rail vehicles, but not vice versa. Cost: Because of the use of shared rights-of-way and • lighter weight materials, streetcar lines generally are substantially less expensive to build than other types of light rail lines. Stops/Stations: Streetcars often stop in traffic along • streets. As such, infrastructure at streetcar stops is often no more elaborate than a sign or small, covered seating area. Other types of light rail systems often provide more elaborate stations, with parking areas, ticket vending machines, and freestanding structures. Moreover, streetcar stops are often spaced every few blocks along the entire route, in comparison to other light rail systems, which may space stops 1 mi or more apart, outside of downtown areas. Consistent with these criteria, Reconnecting America has developed a typology that describes modern streetcars as follows: typically running in the street at grade on embed- ded rails, stopping every two or three blocks, moving at 8 to 12 mph, and providing low cost-per mile construction rela- tive to other light rail and heavy rail (3). Although these definitions work well as a description of many streetcar systems, some systems blur the lines between streetcar and light rail. For example, SoundTransit in Seattle calls its Tacoma, Washington, LINK vehicles “light rail,”

5 Definition of Impacts on the Built Environment The definition of “impacts on the built environment” can vary quite substantially depending on the policy or research focus. In the most direct sense, streetcar projects affect the built environment through their construction by altering streets, sidewalks, and rights-of-way. In an indirect sense, streetcar systems impact the built environment by activating neighborhoods (e.g., through an increase in foot traffic) or by altering perceptions of an area (e.g., signaling that a district is “up and coming”), affecting a range of public and private investment decisions. Indicators that a streetcar system is working to activate a neighborhood or enhance its perception could include increased land value or lease rates, increased pedestrian traf- fic counts, increased sales at existing businesses, increased employment, increased lodging occupancies, or increases in other measures of economic activity near streetcar stops. Such changes tend to improve the climate for investment within an area, ultimately affecting the built environment through increased real estate development activity, which can be measured as the dollar value or quantity of construction. For this synthesis, the impacts of a streetcar system on the built environment were defined as broadly as possible, so that it considers those factors that are indicative of an eco- nomically vibrant neighborhood as well as those measuring actual change in the quantity and types of physical develop- ment near streetcar systems. The Charlotte streetcar system operates weekends only on a right-of-way shared with the light rail system. Service on the Galveston streetcar system was interrupted because of damage caused by Hurricane Ike, but the system is expected to reopen. Initial consideration of the diversity of existing streetcar systems highlights a wide spectrum in the level of service that is being offered in terms of routes, hours and days of service, and the types of users being served. This includes “fuller service” systems (Memphis, Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma) that operate 7 days a week year-round, offer service throughout commute hours, and have longer routes enabling them to serve as urban circulators or multiple routes. At the other end of the spectrum, “shorter service” systems (Astoria, Charlotte, Galveston, Kenosha, Lowell, San Pedro, Savan- nah, and Tampa) operate fewer hours excluding at least one commute period (typically mornings), offer less than daily service, or have a seasonal schedule. Many of these systems are more oriented toward serving tourists than the full range of transit trips, and they include a number of systems that use heritage vehicles or replicas of them. Other systems (Dallas, Little Rock) fall toward the middle of this spectrum. Streetcar systems that provide a fuller service, and tar- get a broader range of riders, particularly commuters, offer a higher level of transportation amenity and would be expected to generate greater ridership, and potentially a more synergistic effect in stimulating changes in the built environment along their route(s). At the same time, these systems are not static, and as service hours are increased and routes extended, “shorter service” systems can become “fuller service.”

6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW For the synthesis, a review of relevant publications on the subject of streetcars and the built environment was con- ducted using the Transportation Research Information Ser- vices (TRIS) database as well as general online searches and references in other synthesis documents. One of the key challenges of the available literature regarding the impacts of streetcars on the built environment is the definitional challenge cited in the Introduction. The construction of numerous light rail and heavy rail systems across the United States has generated substantial published analysis, especially focused on the “value premium” from land and building rents near transit stations. This literature, however, does not describe these impacts with respect to a contemporary streetcar system. VALUE PREMIUM IMPACTS A substantial amount of research and analysis has been under- taken by policy experts over the past decades to track and document the effects of fixed guideway transit systems (e.g., term includes heavy rail, light rail, and streetcar/trolley) on property values. This topic has commanded so much attention because many policymakers believe that fixed guideway tran- sit systems create a “value premium,” meaning an increase in property values or related economic factors, as a result of the increased access and desirability of the land served by the fixed guideway transit. If increased value can be linked to the transit investments, a portion of this increase has strong potential to be “captured” upfront in the transit development process and converted to a funding source for the transit system. In other words, to finance the transit system, local and regional govern- ments seek to share in the economic benefits that fixed guide- way transit is thought to bring to private property owners. Numerous studies have used statistical models and other methods to examine whether premiums exist for real estate prices or lease rates near transit stops, particularly for com- muter and light rail systems. However, because of the rela- tively recent emergence of contemporary streetcar systems, almost no analysis of the value premiums associated specifi- cally with streetcars could be found in the literature. A summary of various fixed guideway transit value pre- mium studies was recently published by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, a nonprofit organization associated with Reconnecting America. Entitled Capturing the Value of Transit, the publication reviews the concepts associated with transit and summarizes the findings of more than 20 analy- ses of the effect of fixed guideway transit on different land uses around the United States (4). Many of these studies, in turn, identified a range of value premiums associated with fixed guideway transit and utilized a variety of techniques to come to this conclusion. The range of findings from the wealth of literature indicates that this topic presents chal- lenges in distilling conclusions applicable directly to other locations. Capturing the Value of Transit drew the following conclusions from the reviewed studies (see Table 1). TABLE 1 RANGE OF VALUE PREMIUM ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSIT (4) Range of Property Value Premium Single Family Residential +2% w/in 200 ft of station (San Diego Trolley, 1992) to +32% w/in 100 ft of station (St Louis MetroLink Light Rail, 2004) Condominium +2% to 18% w/in 2,640 ft of station (San Diego Trolley, 2001) Apartment +0% to 4% w/in 2,640 ft of station (San Diego Trolley, 2001) to +45% w/in 1,320 ft of station (VTA Light Rail, 2004) Office +9% w/in 300 ft of station (Washington Metrorail, 1981) to +120% w/in 1,320 ft of station (VTA Light Rail, 2004) Retail +1% w/in 500 ft of station (BART, 1978) to +167% w/in 200 ft of station (San Diego Trolley, 2004) From: Capturing Value from Transit (Center for Transit Oriented Development, November 2008). Notes: VTA Light Rail is the Santa Clara, California Valley Transportation Authority. BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit. Although this table focuses on those studies that found a premium, the report also describes a study that found negative impacts on value associated with fixed guideway transit. A 1995 study, by Dr. John Landis at the University

7 of California–Berkeley, found that values for single fam- ily homes within 900 ft of light rail stations in Santa Clara County were 10.8% lower than comparable homes located farther away, and no value premium could be identified for commercial properties within 0.50 mi of BART stations in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area (5). One of the most thorough analyses conducted after 2000, when contemporary fixed guideway transit systems had established their resurgence as a modern, desirable form of transportation in urban America, was conducted by Dr. Robert Cervero at the University of California–Berkeley. This study, a survey of other studies covering housing value premiums associated with fixed guideway transit, found that among the seven locations (Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, San Diego, Chicago, Dallas, and Santa Clara County), value premiums ranged from 6.4% to more than 40% (6). The authors concluded that value premiums depended on a vari- ety of factors, including traffic congestion, local real estate market conditions, and business cycles. Transit in Europe also can provide insight to ways of measuring value capture. A study of 15 light rail systems in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and North America measured housing prices, residential rent, office rent, and property values in each of the cities, concluding that a pos- itive value premium was evident in all but two cities (7). These two cities initially experienced negative value impacts from fixed guideway transit because of the noise associated with the light rail system. One key aspect of this literature is the separation of fixed guideway transit’s impacts on existing real estate versus its impacts on new development. In many situations, once a fixed guideway transit system is planned, local governments also increase zoning densities or implement policies that increase the density of allowable development. This makes sense, because fixed guideway transit moves people without creating commensurate automobile traffic impacts. Studies of value premiums, however, often have to control the analy- sis for changes in zoning (to allow for denser development) and the effects of related development policies. Conversely, increases in allowable development through denser zoning, even in the absence of fixed guideway transit, almost always result in a higher land value, because a developer can build more units on the same site under these increased density conditions. AMOUNT AND DENSITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT One of the only quantitative studies specifically about mod- ern streetcar impacts is the Portland Streetcar Development Impacts (8). This analysis of the Portland streetcar system measures the amount of new development and its density (measured by amount built compared with amount allowed by zoning), within a fine-grained block-by-block area around Portland’s first streetcar segment. The study found that the amount of new development captured near the streetcar line grew after streetcar operations commenced, and that the type of development near the streetcar also became denser, com- pared with development patterns along the streetcar route before its construction. This often-cited work, described in more detail in chapter four, “Case Studies,” for Portland’s streetcar, ends with a clear statement that causality needs to be further analyzed, because other factors were in play dur- ing the period of the streetcar’s construction in downtown Portland. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Because streetcar planning is experiencing a resurgence in the United States, the literature contains several published projections of economic development benefits anticipated by future streetcar development in specific cities. However, the methodologies used, and the resulting components of the estimated benefits, generally are not well described beyond the creation of construction jobs. Levine et al. is an excep- tion in its use of an input–output model to estimate economic impacts from a proposed light rail line (9). The literature regarding empirical measurement of actual changes in economic activity, such as changes in retail sales, visitors, or job growth, is almost nonexistent for streetcars. Indeed, this lack of empirical data was cited by many of the streetcar system survey respondents described in this report. One of the few identified published articles, by Crampton, describes in very broad terms the findings of other studies of streetcars (trams) and light rail systems, and contrasts the experience in French and German cities with those in Brit- ain and North America (10). He makes a contrast between French systems that explicitly seek to connect city centers and outlying high density residential areas, but have limited potential for new development, versus British or U.S. sys- tems that often seek to use available rail rights-of-way, which tend to be located in industrial or other areas that present a challenge for generating ridership, but offer greater potential for attracting development (although this benefit is likely to only be captured in a strong economy). Crampton shows that trams can attract more shoppers and generate higher growth in property prices and rents. He notes, however, that these factors vary between different towns, for reasons that are not yet fully understood or empirically analyzed (10). SUMMARY OF LITERATURE LIMITATIONS The literature on impacts on the built environment over- whelmingly focuses on heavy rail and light rail systems. The only study with quantitative analysis of a contempo- rary streetcar system’s impacts can be found in Portland

8 Streetcar Development Impacts (8). As described in more detail in this report, the study’s findings are not necessar- ily applicable to other U.S. streetcar systems, owing to the unique presence in Portland of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) constraining development at the region’s edge (push- ing development into the center), the presence of a frame- work for urban renewal [Urban Renewal Areas (URAs)] with substantial redevelopment incentives, and limits on the study’s analysis of causality. Given that federal funding for streetcars emphasizes economic development, along with many local policymakers’ objectives to stimulate economic development, the literature is particularly weak on impacts of streetcars on economic development, such as the attrac- tion of jobs, retail sales, and tax revenue.

9 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY OF STREETCAR AND TROLLEY SYSTEMS Review Studies, Presentations, and Articles • Provided: All studies provided by the interviewees were reviewed, and follow-up was conducted indepen- dently, particularly for the five case study systems pro- filed in this report. For most systems, beyond anecdotal information elicited during the survey, only limited information regarding streetcar impacts on the built environment was available. PROFILE OF STREETCAR SYSTEMS As shown in Table 2, organized in order of annual ridership, the streetcar systems offering fuller commute service show a more intensive use pattern, with routes ranging from 1.3 to 8.0 mi, and ridership ranging from a low of 450,000 in Seat- tle to a high of 3.7 million in Portland, Oregon. By compari- son, the systems with lower ridership range in length from 1.0 to 6.7 mi (with half of them less than 2 mi), with annual ridership ranging from a low of 22,000 in Galveston, Texas (before inoperability resulting from Hurricane Ike), to a high of 100,000 in San Pedro, California. These data exclude the anomalous performance of Tampa, Florida’s streetcar with a route of 2.4 miles (expanding an additional 0.3 miles in December, 2010) with annual ridership exceeding 440,000 (this systems connects multiple visitor destinations, includ- ing the convention center and a cruise ship terminal). PLANNING, FINANCING, AND MANAGING THE SYSTEM It is difficult to generalize about the planning and goals of each surveyed system, because each has a unique individual history. As shown in Appendix C, although each system had general goals for streetcar development, few of the systems had identified measurable objectives that were documented, and almost no objective has been evaluated or benchmarked, other than ridership projections in some cases. In general, the lower ridership systems evolved from either a community or business initiative to restore street- cars to attract visitors. One exception to this pattern was Kenosha, Wisconsin, which implemented its limited service system after an Urban Land Institute (ULI) advisory panel recommended streetcars as one facet of a strategy to revi- talize and stimulate private development on the site of an SURVEY METHODOLOGY Synthesis reports commissioned by TRB typically include a survey of stakeholders or transit agencies to obtain first-hand knowledge of the current state of the practice. The number of contemporary streetcar systems completed in the past 20 years, for which the conditions exist to measure changes to the built environment, are limited (a total of 13 systems as described in the Introduction). Thus, this synthesis adjusted the approach to survey each of these systems, using a detailed survey instrument administered by personal tele- phone interview. The multistep process was as follows: Prepare Draft and Final Survey: • A detailed draft survey instrument was prepared, based on a series of questions and issues raised by the TRB Synthesis Panel. The draft survey instrument was reviewed by the panel and revised to respond to additions or dele- tions of questions. Identify Interview Subjects:• To comprehensively capture knowledge about the system’s planning and development impacts, a transit agency expert with institutional knowledge was identified as well as an economic development expert or land use planner who had managed the related land use and economic devel- opment process associated with the streetcar system. Set Appointments for Telephone Survey: • Telephone appointments were made with these two people in each of the 13 communities. Two-person interviews in 12 of the 13 communities were successfully com- pleted, with the exception being the Dallas street- car, where attempts to arrange the interviews were unsuccessful. Administer the Survey: • The survey was sent in advance to each interview subject, to aid their under- standing and enable them to collect background infor- mation before the appointed interview. Because the survey instrument consists primarily of open-ended comment questions, the survey administration involved recording all of the comments on the interview form, as well as follow-up requests for information, studies, and images for each system. The survey instrument is provided in Appendix A, respondents are listed in Appendix B, and the survey tabulation is provided in Appendix C.

10 interest in carbon emissions reductions, it is anticipated that this objective will become more prevalent in the next few years. Consistent with a growing environmental awareness, the city of Seattle has seen a strong trend toward green build- ing along its streetcar line and is currently exploring density bonuses for buildings that achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. (LEED is a green build- ing certification system that provides third-party verification that a building was designed and built using environmen- tally sound materials and practices.) Financing for the systems surveyed is varies widely, rang- ing from the repurposing of Interstate Transfer Funds for a planned (but not constructed) highway project in Memphis, to substantial local property assessments through a Local Improvement District (LID) mechanism in Portland and Seattle. A full comparison of cost per mile, and leveraging of public and private sources of funds, was not conducted for this study. Management of the systems also varies, including man- agement by several nonprofit organizations. Several of the lower ridership systems rely on volunteers to staff the sys- tem, demonstrating an amazing dedication to the concept of transit by streetcar (and the appeal of the heritage aspect of streetcars in their communities). IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL BUILT ENVIRONMENT As shown in Appendix B, almost all of the streetcar sys- tem representatives believed that the streetcar had positively affected the physical built environment, especially in terms of attracting new development or enhancing revitaliza- tion and redevelopment efforts; however, the degree of this impact ranged from mild to strong. At the same time, each abandoned automobile manufacturing facility located on the shores of Lake Michigan near, but not in, downtown. Another exception was Savannah, Georgia, which considers its recently opened streetcar as a “starter” line to build sup- port for a more extensive streetcar system to resolve bus and auto congestion in its downtown. The fuller service systems, as might be expected, gener- ally had more extensive planning before construction and many of these systems have evolved over time to become an integrated component of overall regional transit strategies. Most of the fuller service systems seek to transport residents and workers from housing to jobs and back again, along with visitors and patrons of retail and entertainment venues. Only a few of the system operators reported that alterna- tive modes of transportation were evaluated when the street- car systems were planned. In contrast, however, most system operators cited the more generalized belief, without analysis, that people are more attracted to streetcars than to buses, and streetcars would better meet the goals of revitalization or visitor attraction. Several systems acknowledged that this opinion needs further empirical research to better under- stand if this is accurate in their city, and why it may be true. The Savannah streetcar is notable in terms of explicit identified transportation purposes for its streetcar. In Savan- nah, the streetcar was implemented in large part to solve congestion on historic streets affected by private automobile traffic as well as an overlapping network of bus and shuttle systems. Based on experience with its initial streetcar line, the current downtown Master Planning process reflects con- siderable interest in expanding the system. None of the systems’ representatives mentioned explicit environmental goals as being a key driving factor behind development of the systems. Nonetheless, based on growing TABLE 2 SUMMARY PROFILE OF SURVEYED STREETCAR SYSTEMS

11 system except Portland noted the critical lack of data and analysis to demonstrate this perception of positive benefit. Moreover, almost all of the systems described the positive benefits as widely varying over time, especially during the current economic downturn. Some representatives of the systems interviewed also cited perceptions of increased property values and, to a lesser extent, lease rates along streetcar routes. Other than in Memphis, however, for which these increases were analyzed systematically as part of a larger study for the city of Char- lotte, none of the cities offered published studies to support the property value opinions. Changes in related development topics, such as attracting larger developers or stimulating LEED-designed buildings, along the streetcar routes were mixed. Several interviewees noted that developers seemed to be interested in projects along the streetcar route, and cited this as a positive trend. Others, however, noted that while projects may have been discussed or proposed, once the streetcar was in place, other factors created delays in realizing these benefits. Few systems reported ancillary changes to the built environment, such as reduced parking garage construction, increased pedestrian or bike lane investments, or explicit reductions in parking requirements if located near street- car. Many of these types of built environment changes have evolved near light rail systems, and perhaps may become more noticeable as contemporary streetcars evolve in the United States. IMPACTS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT One of the most notable aspects of the survey findings is that few, if any, of the systems were seeking information regarding the impacts of the streetcar on economic activity such as job attraction, change in job mix, retail sales, tax revenues, and so on. Although occasionally the literature forecasting economic benefits for proposed streetcar systems posits that streetcars will attract more “creatives” to the area, this idea cannot be substantiated. Few systems surveyed riders as to purpose of trip or demographic composition; of those that have conducted rider surveys, the primary question has been whether the rider is a resident or visitor (likely related to the goal of increasing tourism in several of the systems’ communities). Almost all of the system operators interviewed consid- ered these economic-related questions as vital, and most requested more research around this topic, particularly in cases in which the streetcar system is slated for expansion and significant commitment of public funds. CHANGES IN FUTURE LAND USE PLANS AND REGULATIONS Several streetcar systems, having demonstrated their viabil- ity, currently are being integrated into local land use plan- ning processes. Notably, this is occurring in Savannah, Portland, Seattle, and San Pedro. A handful of cities reported having made explicit changes in density or parking requirements either before or as a result of streetcar implementation, including Portland and Seattle. Portland initially constructed the first segment of its streetcar, in part, to explicitly support higher density devel- opment in a revitalizing district adjacent to the downtown, and subsequently has utilized the streetcar as a connector to the South Waterfront Aerial Tram, which in turn serves as the key mode of transport to a previously disconnected portion of the waterfront now being developed into major residential, educational, research and development (R&D) uses. In Seattle, the city and a major property developer, Vulcan Properties, see the streetcar as necessary to achieved planned densities and overall goals for pedestrian-oriented development in the South Lake Union neighborhood.

12 CHAPTER FOUR CASE STUDIES kENOSHA, WISCONSIN The city of Kenosha, with a population of 98,550 (2007), is located on Wisconsin’s southeastern border with Illinois along the shores of Lake Michigan. The city lies approxi- mately midway between Milwaukee (40 mi to the north) and Chicago (65 mi to the south). The Metra commuter rail system’s Union Pacific North Line connects Kenosha with Chicago, including limited weekday and weekend service. Streetcar System Kenosha’s original streetcar system operated between 1903 and 1932. Today’s streetcar system, the Kenosha Transit Electric Streetcar, commenced service in June 2000 (see Figure 2). As a limited service streetcar system, cars operate primarily during mid-day weekday hours only in the win- ter, with expanded service throughout the day and on week- ends in the summer. The system had an annual ridership of approximately 65,700 in 2008. FIGURE 2 Kenosha Streetcar, HarborPark. (Source: Wikipedia® under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.) Kenosha’s streetcar route follows a single-track, one-way loop, normally served by a single car running at about 15 min headways. The 1.9 mi line is routed in a grassy median for about half its length, alongside the street for about a quar- ter of its length, and in the street for the remaining distance. The system provides daily service with 17 stops, connecting the relatively new 69-acre mixed-use HarborPark neighbor- hood to the Central Business District. The route provides access to Kenosha’s historic civic center, a shopping district, the marina, Lake Michigan lakefront and the adjacent park, museums, and the city’s new downtown transit center, where the streetcar system connects with the Metra commuter rail to Chicago. The current Kenosha streetcar system utilizes five remanufactured Presidents’ Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars, built in 1951 by the St. Louis Car Company and formerly used in Toronto. These cars have been refurbished and repainted in a variety of color schemes. System Development Kenosha Area Transit (KAT), the city-owned public trans- portation agency, operates the streetcar system. KAT is part of the Southeast Wisconsin Transit System, which also main- tains a fleet of 68 buses, 42 of which operate in Kenosha. Several bus routes intersect the streetcar line. Planning for Kenosha’s streetcar system began in the early 1990s as a part of a master plan for the redevelopment of Har- borPark, a 69-acre brownfield site located on the embank- ment of Lake Michigan. The site was the former location of a large American Motors Corporation manufacturing plant, which closed in the 1980s. In 1996, the city engaged the ULI to create a reuse plan for the brownfield site and for redevel- opment of the surrounding area. After one year of studying the area and leading public charrettes, the ULI team rec- ommended reintroducing the streetcar system in conjunc- tion with other aspects of redevelopment to stimulate new development at the HarborPark site and entice developers to rehabilitate existing buildings and invest in the downtown core. In addition to the streetcar, the redevelopment plan included promoting residential and mixed-use development on and surrounding the brownfield site, public investment to enhance the marina, and investment in public activity cen- ters such as museums and public plazas to draw tourism. Furthermore, the streetcar would connect HarborPark to the downtown area and to the Metra station, and enhance what was, at the time, an underutilized Central Business District (see Figure 3). As redevelopment of the area has drawn a larger population to HarborPark and the downtown core, a long-term vision has evolved for the streetcar to eventually serve commuters to and from Chicago by means of the Metra commuter rail as residential density increases in the area.

13 During the winter, the system operates Monday through Friday, only, from 10:05 a.m. to 2:05 p.m. Fares are $0.25 per trip or $2.00 for a day pass. The streetcar has 17 designated stops, but also permits flagged stops. Ridership has substantially increased from 53,662 riders annually in 2006 to 65,759 riders in 2008. Although KAT has not conducted a survey, the KAT director commented that a significant number of riders are tourists visiting the area’s four museums. Impacts of Streetcar on Built Environment Impacts on Existing Development Previously an industrial manufacturing zone, the redevel- opment plan for HarborPark called for new zoning to allow high-density, residential mixed-use and museums. The plan sought to create a new residential, commercial, and tourism district, with the streetcar, streetscape improvements, and design standards connecting it visually and physically to the historic downtown. Additionally, the city eliminated one-way streets to promote more business traffic around the streetcar alignment in the downtown area. The Business Improve- ment District provided most of the funding for downtown streetscape improvements around the streetcar alignment. Private investment in the existing downtown core has focused primarily on rehabilitation. According to the city’s community development specialist, the downtown has attracted some local investors who have rehabilitated several buildings, taking advantage of smaller historic structures. However, much of the downtown building stock, in larger historic structures, reportedly is being held off the market because the economics of rents do not yet support substantial investment. FIGURE 3 Kenosha streetcar map. (Source: Kenosha Area Transit.) System Financing The initial capital cost of $5.2 million for the Kenosha Streetcar system (see Figure 4) came from the FTA 5309 program, which provides capital assistance for new and replacement vehicles, related equipment, and facilities; and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) with an 80% federal and 20% local fund- ing split. The remaining local funds came from the city’s capital improvement program for infrastructure as well as tax increment financing (TIF) for improvements around the streetcar alignment and Metra station. FIGURE 4 Kenosha streetcar. (Source: Kenosha Area Transit.) System Management During the summer months, the system operates 7 days a week from 11:05 a.m. to 7:05 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 10:05 a.m. to 5:35 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.

14 ized on the appeal of the streetcar by incorporating streetcar themes into their businesses. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA Savannah is a coastal city of approximately 130,000 resi- dents, located along the Savannah River, which separates Georgia and South Carolina. The Port of Savannah is a major seaport, with the fourth-busiest container terminal in the United States. Savannah is the county seat of Chatham County, whose population is approximately 250,000. Streetcar System Savannah’s River Street Streetcar is the demonstration phase of what is intended to be a larger effort to incorporate exten- sion of a streetcar system with downtown master planning to enhance mobility and the competitive position of down- town for offices, retail, and residential uses (see Figure 5). Future expanded streetcar service is seen as the best means to replace an overlapping and duplicative mix of various types of publicly and privately operated buses and shuttles. Streetcars are seen as being particularly suitable for Savan- nah, compared with light rail transit options, because of the physical constraints of its historic downtown, with small blocks and its lower cost for this smaller city. FIGURE 5 Savannah streetcar. (Source: John Smatlak.) The River Street Streetcar commenced operation in February 2009, and runs a single route of approximately 1 mi with seven stops along River Street, the city’s primary tourism destination. The Streetcar is part of the downtown department of transportation (DOT) multimodal transporta- tion system that offers free service. From stops along the streetcar route, riders can catch a DOT Express shuttle bus to downtown and between downtown parking structures, as well as the DOT Savannah Belle ferry to the Savannah Inter- national Trade and Conference Center across the Savannah River. Impacts on New Development The redevelopment of the HarborPark area has produced new multifamily condominiums and townhouses, a new natural history and art museum, a new Civil War museum, green space, and a two-tiered water-edge pathway around the har- bor. The Kenosha Harbor also supports two newly enhanced marinas and 0.25 mi of new public promenade with lighting, small courtyards, and a public seating area. A bicycle and pedestrian trail links the park to the 250-boat slip marina. According to the city’s community development special- ist, the incentives for high-density residential projects and the development of cultural amenities came from the initial infrastructure laid down for the streetcar. Additionally, the specialist reported that as a result of the zoning changes, only 2 of the 13 blocks that make up HarborPark remain undevel- oped. The city is currently offering a reduction in land costs for two city-owned undeveloped sites at HarborPark. Kenosha’s director of transportation, interviewed for this study, commented that the streetcar has supported density and helped the rapid sale of HarborPark’s initial 400 con- dominium units. Several recently completed condominium projects adjacent to the harbor on the streetcar line have expe- rienced slower absorption, however, because of the downturn in the economy. He credited the streetcar, along with new open space and pedestrian and streetscape improvements, with helping the city to attract tens of thousands of people for a variety of summer festivals and a lakefront triathlon each year. Even with no zoning changes in the downtown core, the once underutilized Central Business District has experienced New Urbanism inspired development with higher densities. Under the redevelopment plan, the city cut parking require- ments in half for downtown development. It requires no new parking for rehabilitation projects of existing buildings if the footprint is not altered, and requires only off-street park- ing for new buildings. The city currently is discussing the option of reducing parking requirements in the HarborPark area and building city-financed parking garages to alleviate the parking cost burden on developers. Impact on Economic Development It is difficult to ascertain the impacts of the streetcar on the downtown’s economic development. The city’s community development specialist commented that traditional, national “main street” anchor tenants have not located downtown, preferring highway locations, but several locally owned res- taurants and shops, including a wine bar, have opened down- town in recent years. In addition, a nine-story condominium tower and 60-room hotel have been proposed for develop- ment downtown. In general, the mostly locally owned busi- nesses locating downtown have created a niche “hometown downtown.” Businesses such as Trolley Dogs have capital-

15 having city employees operating vehicles. CAT did not want its employees to operate the streetcar because it would have had to create a Rail Division pursuant to FTA rules, and it was not prepared to do so. CAT, however, is willing to take over the route in the future as the streetcar expands and becomes a full system. System Management Since opening, ridership has been running slightly above pro- jections, with the current projection for the year (partial-year operation since operations commenced in February) approxi- mately 75,000. The peak season for ridership is springtime. The streetcars do not have air conditioning, and a seasonal drop-off in ridership is expected during Savannah’s hot, humid summer. The first ridership survey will be conducted at the 6-month anniversary in August; it is believed that approximately 80% of the ridership is tourists. The system operates Wednesday through Sunday, from 12 noon through 7 p.m. Headways are generally every 15 min. System Financing The financing of the River Street streetcar route was through the city’s General Fund, involving an expenditure of approxi- mately $1.5 million. Ongoing operations for the fare-free ser- vice are funded through the city’s parking system (garages, meters, and tickets). Impacts of Streetcar on Built Environment Impacts on Existing and New Physical Development As a recently opened demonstration route in an established and successful tourist area, the streetcar has not had an identifiable effect on existing development, nor has it led to proposals for new development or other job creation and investment. Because River Street is in an historic district, new development, employment, and investment likely will occur through the reuse of existing structures, rather than extensive development of new buildings. The streetcar is a restored W-5 1925 Melbourne streetcar that is self-propelled, using a biodiesel (B50) electric hybrid system. The restoration was completed because use of an overhead catenary is not possible with the extensive tree canopy that is a character-defining feature of the city. System Development The River Street route is a demonstration project that estab- lishes the viability of a streetcar. An earlier 2003 study by Chatham Area Transit (CAT), the regional transit operator, had looked at building a longer 4-mi route that would con- nect the downtown area and River Street. The cost and com- plexity of that system, however, lead to Chatham County los- ing interest, and it was never built. The city went on its own with a smaller demonstration “starter” route along River Street because the rail lines were already in place, and the city was able to buy it from the Nor- folk Southern Railroad (see Figure 6). River Street is part of a historic district, a tourist destination, and better suited to rail than buses because of its cobblestone paving. The goal is to start with a system that is a novelty, and then build excite- ment to support a proposal to extend the streetcar throughout the downtown area. Other goals for the demonstration project include deter- mining whether the biodiesel–electric hybrid propulsion sys- tem would work, as well as the right size of streetcar (47-ft long Melbourne cars or 24-ft long Birney cars). The city now believes that the 47-ft long cars cannot make the tight turns in the city’s historic downtown, with its 1733 layout featur- ing small blocks, and will look to use smaller Birney street- cars in the future. The city’s Department of Mobility Services is responsible for funding the streetcar and contracting with its operators as well as operators for other transportation modes in the down- town and greater downtown areas. The contracted operator is the Savannah Mobility Management Board (MMB), Inc., an independent nonprofit commercial entity that hires the drivers. The Department of Mobility Services hires mechan- ics. This structure was created to facilitate funding and avoid FIGURE 6 Savannah streetcar map.

16 Changes in Future Land Use Plans and Regulations The Savannah Development and Renewal Authority (SDRA), in partnership with the city of Savannah and the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), is guiding the development of a new master plan for downtown Savannah. The plan is undergoing administrative review, with public release scheduled for mid-2009. Expanding the Savannah streetcar system is an integral part of planning process to rationalize downtown Savannah’s transit system, improve downtown mobility, and support redevelopment efforts. For example, CAT currently operates 326 daily buses on lines serving the county that congregate in the downtown area. The Savannah College of Art and Design, a 7,000-student downtown campus with 70 proper- ties, operates its own shuttle system with 36 buses, which stop at many of the same locations as CAT buses. These overlap- ping services—in an historic downtown with small blocks— have contributed to congestion. The city anticipates that an expanded streetcar system integrated into a new multimodal terminal will reduce private automobile and bus transit con- gestion in the downtown area. Moreover, according to city staff, streetcars are considered a cost-effective solution for downtown mobility, because Savannah is not a large city and cannot support a more expensive light rail system. Based on the 2003 failed effort to develop a streetcar system, city staff determined that streetcar planning in Savannah needs to be considered as part of a comprehensive mobility system, integrating all modes of travel, including wayfinding for pedestrians, and development of an under- ground parking structure. Impacts—Future Planned Economic Development Expanded streetcar service is seen as an opportunity to pro- mote economic development. Property owners are interested in being on a streetcar stop, and surveys show that residents perceive the experience of riding in streetcars as preferable to buses. The pending downtown master plan identifies the streetcar as a catalyst for economic development, and a means to attract more shoppers, businesses, and investors. In the future, a streetcar system is seen as an opportunity to promote Class A office space by linking buildings with off- site parking structures. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, the main north–south route from the core downtown area to the waterfront, his- torically had streetcar service running down the middle of the street. A study is currently under way, with a Septem- ber 2009 completion date, on the cost to extend the street- car along the median. CAT is currently building a transit hub on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. The hub is also envisioned as a connection point for streetcars that would consolidate public transit downtown, while serving the mix of tourists, downtown workers, students, and local residents drawn to downtown Savannah. Streetcars are seen as an effective method to extend tran- sit to lower-income areas to the northeast and northwest of downtown, providing access by residents to service jobs downtown. The Savannah River Landing project east of downtown is a major 54-acre mixed-use development that would be linked to downtown by streetcar. Redevelopment of public housing surrounding the downtown into mixed- income developments also would be linked by streetcars. As with River Street, most of the downtown area is in an historic landmark district. This means that new uses, and associated investment and new employment, primar- ily would be achieved through adaptive reuse of existing structures rather than development of new buildings. The Downtown Master Plan will encourage streetfront retail and presence, even for larger uses such as hotels, to enhance the pedestrian environment and synergies with an expanded streetcar system. PORTLAND, OREGON Oregon’s largest city, Portland, is situated at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. Home to 575,000 resi- dents, the city is at the center of a metropolitan area with 2.16 million residents, encompassing portions of northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington. The streetcar system in Portland has gained national prominence as an example of a modern transportation system using streetcars. Streetcar System Portland Streetcar is owned by the city of Portland in part- nership with TriMet, the regional transit operator, who con- tributes a portion of operating funding. Portland Streetcar is managed by the city Office of Transportation, which con- tracts with Portland Streetcar Inc., a private nonprofit orga- nization, for construction and operation of the system. The streetcar system is not part of the regional MAX light rail system, which links suburban communities more than 30 mi apart to each other as well as offering service to the Portland International Airport and north Portland. Initially announced in 1997, the system commenced operations in 2001, with the initial segment running from Good Samaritan Hospital to Portland State University. This first segment traversed primarily what was already a rich transit zone offering free bus service through downtown Portland. Following three additional incremental extensions, streetcars follow a 4-mi continuous loop from Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital at NW 23rd Avenue to the South Water- front District, where the system connects with the Portland Aerial Tram, to a terminus at SW Lowell and Bond.

17 System Financing Financing of the Portland streetcar system has followed a dif- ferent path and used a different mixture of funding sources for each segment constructed to date. The first segment, run- ning from the Good Samaritan Hospital to Portland State University, a length of 2.4 mi, had a total capital cost of $56.9 million in 2000/2001. This cost was financed by a mix of local and federal sources. At the local level, the most substantial share of capital costs was financed by a municipal parking revenue bond supported by parking fees in the area of the streetcar. Additional local mechanisms relied on value cap- ture, including an LID and TIF. Major tax-exempt property owners, including Portland State University, pay the LID fee because of the benefits they receive from streetcar service. As summarized in Table 3, funding sources varied as each of the three subsequent, shorter segments was constructed. To date, the streetcar system has been financed by approximately 79% local funds, including 19% contributed by local improvement districts and 21% by tax increment financing (see Table 3). At present, Portland is preparing for its next stage of streetcar system expansion, which will be a new loop con- necting the Pearl District in northwest Portland with areas across the Willamette River east of the downtown core, including the Lloyd District, a major office center. This loop extension will add 3.3 mi of double-tracked lines to the exist- ing streetcar. It will extend from the Pearl District in north- west Portland, crossing the Broadway Bridge, and ending at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in southeast Portland. The project is currently in its construction design phase, with service slated to begin by 2011. Funding sources for this major expansion are shown in Table 4. As anticipated, this extension will rely more extensively on federal funds, with $75 million or just over 51% of the proj- ect funded from this source. Local funding, from a Portland Development Commission LID (most likely a mix of TIF and other sources) will contribute 10% and 19%, respectively. Impacts on the Built Environment Impacts on Existing Physical Development The Portland streetcar system has been analyzed exten- sively, primarily in terms of the amount, density, and tim- ing of development it has stimulated, rather than streetcar impacts on land value. Anecdotally, the initial stage of the system is credited by the operator with stimulating acceler- ated development of condominiums and specialty retail in the Pearl District, an area that was already undergoing some urban revitalization before the streetcar, as part of Portland’s urban renewal process. This area garnered substantial press in the late 1990s, when a major developer who had promoted the streetcar concept agreed to build higher densities when streetcar funding was finalized. The current system has a total of 46 stops, located approxi- mately every three to four blocks (see Figure 7). Streetcars run approximately every 12 min during most of the day Mon- day through Saturday, and less frequently in early mornings, evenings, and Sundays. Currently, it is free to ride the por- tion of the streetcar route traversing the Fareless Square (see line of squares on map, which is a large area covering most of the downtown area. The Fareless Square predates the street- car and offers free bus and MAX service as well. Tickets for the streetcar outside of Fareless Square are currently $2.00 for adults and $1.50 for youth. Transfers from other transportation systems are honored. Ridership of the system as of Spring/ Summer 2008 averaged 10,000 riders per day and reached up to 12,600 per day during peak summer weekdays. FIGURE 7 Portland streetcar map. (Source: Portland Streetcar, Inc.)

18 a longstanding and ongoing program to revitalize down- town Portland and to reshape the city as increasingly tran- sit-oriented. Major initiatives, including an extensive light rail system (also traversing the downtown), the Fareless Square (free bus, light rail, and streetcar in the downtown), extensive streetscape improvements, substantial allowable density, fine-tuned parking regulations, strong design guide- lines and review, and a host of financial incentives offered The survey conducted for this report included an inter- view with staff of the Portland Development Commission, the city of Portland’s agency devoted to economic develop- ment and redevelopment of specific areas of Portland des- ignated as URAs. Staff reported that although the Portland streetcar has been immensely popularized throughout the transit field, those engaged in economic development in Portland view the streetcar as one of many components of TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM FUNDING SOURCES UTILIZED TO DATE TABLE 4 SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR PLANNED STREETCAR EXTENSION

19 In absolute terms, the study notes that the new devel- opment averaged 5.9 FAR within the one-block area after 1997, whereas it averaged 6.4 at the three-block distance after 1997. In other words, although the sites adjacent to the streetcar clearly were more densely developed after the streetcar announcement than before, other new development elsewhere in downtown was still denser in absolute terms (owing to the configuration of downtown Portland, many of the most newly and densely developed, well-located down- town sites are not along the streetcar route). Another way to understand the change is that the addition of more than 4 million square ft in densely developed new projects near the streetcar allowed this specific one-block area to “catch up” with, and thus achieve similar overall density as, more distant downtown blocks that contain Port- land’s more concentrated downtown districts (see Table 5). The addition of 4.6 million new square ft of development between and on either side of blocks that separate tracks going in opposite directions (“one block”) dramatically increased this zone’s capture of total development activity; before 1997, these blocks contained 19% of the neighborhoods’ existing development, whereas after 1997, the same blocks captured 60% of all new development. This finding suggests that the streetcar attracted a disproportionate share of new develop- ment, shifting the attractiveness of sites adjacent or near to its tracks from moderate to high during the period studied. Local land use policies—such as the UGB surrounding Portland, the construction of other light rail transit systems, and the URA process, as well as the ability to invest TIF to subsidize infrastructure and development projects in these redevelopment areas—have long encouraged downtown development and redevelopment, including but not limited to the streetcar route. Moreover, while the Hovee study mea- sured the amount of zoning capacity used by developers before and after a specific year marking the announcement of the streetcar, other development trends that were present by the Portland Development Commission (e.g., land write- downs, subsidies for affordable housing, loans and grants for economic development, and façade improvements), all have contributed to the success of downtown Portland in the areas around the streetcar routes. Staff perspective, shared by many other planners and economic development prac- titioners in Portland, is that it is difficult to single out the streetcar as a key factor in the downtown’s success; rather it is one among a host of urban amenities creating the condi- tions for success. Impacts on New Physical Development More complete documentation is available regarding the actual new development amounts stimulated by the Portland streetcar. A 2005 report prepared by E. D. Hovee & Com- pany for Portland Streetcar, Inc., the operators of the Portland streetcar system, analyzed the new development patterns experienced after the streetcar system was announced in downtown Portland (8). The study looked at new devel- opment quantities both before and after 1997, the year the streetcar was announced. The geography studied was based on the number of blocks from the streetcar track(s), with the “one block” distance actually representing three blocks in width, as a result of the double streetcar tracks built with a block in between as well as another block on either side of the track. Hovee’s analysis found that between 1997 and 2004, the blocks adjacent to the streetcar attracted more square feet of development, and at denser levels, than had been attracted to the same locations before the streetcar. For the blocks adjacent to the streetcar tracks, new development aver- aged 90% of allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) post-1997, whereas before this time, existing buildings constructed over the neighborhood’s 100-plus-year life had averaged just 34% of allowable FAR (the study did not look at the density of newer development projects alone, before the streetcar announcement). TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PORTLAND STREETCAR IMPACTS, 2005 (8)

20 Riverfront line cars operate in a one-way loop, using the Main Street line as one leg of the circle. MATA opened the 2.5-mi- extension on Madison Avenue in 2004. The Madison Avenue Loop connects the existing downtown system with the Medi- cal Center complex, linking the city’s two largest employment centers by rail transit. The Madison line operates in mixed traffic along Madison Avenue, generally on tracks located in the inside travel lanes. This extension also included two major bridge projects: a parallel two-bridge rail-only system at Danny Thomas Boulevard (one rail bridge on each side of the existing street bridge), and a reconstruction of the existing bridge at I-240, with tracks placed on the bridge. System Development In initial planning for the trolley system, MATA strategi- cally placed the Main Street line between two intermodal transportation terminals: Central Station to the south, and the proposed new North End Terminal to the north. These two transportation terminals facilitate several types of intermodal connection and house joint development ten- ants. Central Station, a historic train station renovation and mixed-use project on the south end of the Main Street/Riv- erside Loop, serves MATA buses, the trolley, Amtrak, and automobile park-and-ride. The new North End Terminal pro- vides a MATA bus, trolley, and an automobile park-and-ride transfer point, as well as a mix of residential and commercial uses (11) (see Figures 9 and 10). According to the manager of planning for MATA, the initial goals for the development of the Main Street and Riv- erfront lines were to bring life and investment back to Main Street, which had been a deteriorating pedestrian mall. The trolley was meant to connect the north and south transporta- tion terminals, while providing shoppers with convenience to shops and access to some jobs along the pedestrian mall. Other considerations in designing the system included connecting major points of trip generation such as residences, restaurants, parking facilities, hotels, the Cook Convention Center, the Pyramid Arena, the Memphis Civic Center, and riverfront parks. Although MATA evaluated the option of a transit way for a bus system, an electric trolley system was chosen for con- struction, because it was considered more consistent with the city’s goal to minimize downtown air pollution. The primary goal of the third line, along Madison Avenue, was to connect Memphis’s two major employment centers: the downtown with about 40,000 jobs and the Memphis Medical Center with approximately 60,000 jobs located east of downtown. System Management The Memphis trolley system operates as a full service sys- tem, with service provided 7 days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on Friday; 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on Saturday; and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The trolley oper- in Portland at that time, such as increased developer demand for more densely developable sites, the real estate boom for condominiums offering urban lifestyles with high amenities in downtown Portland, and rising land costs, likely influ- enced development patterns and resulted in denser develop- ment in the past few years, irrespective of the streetcar (as demonstrated by the average new development FAR of 6.4 at the three-block distance). Hovee recommends that a more thorough statistical model be constructed to better verify the causal relationship between the construction of the streetcar and before-after development patterns. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE The city of Memphis, Tennessee, with approximately 650,000 residents, is the central city within a metropolitan region that encompasses 1.27 million residents. With a rich history, and world fame as a center for music (e.g., blues and rock and roll), Memphis has long attracted substantial tourism. Streetcar System The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) began opera- tion of the city’s trolley system in 1993, approximately 50 years after the city’s original trolley system had been dis- mantled. Today, the system consists of 24 stations along three lines: the Main Street Trolley, the Madison Avenue Loop, and the Riverfront Loop. Together, these lines total 7 mi in length. The system provides daily service, using mostly rehabilitated vintage cars (see Figure 8). FIGURE 8 Memphis streetcar. (Source: John Smatlak.) The 2.5-mi Main Street line was implemented initially, including a 0.8-mi double track on an exclusive trolley-pedes- trian mall, and with the remainder sharing the street with traf- fic. The Riverfront Loop is a 2-mi-long parallel line that runs primarily on a double-track railroad right-of-way traversing the edge of downtown near the Mississippi River. One of the tracks is dedicated to MATA use, and the other to Amtrak.

21 MATA conducted a trolley rider survey in 2001, with results showing that the average ridership over the business week was split about equally between residents (58%) and nonresidents (42%). Over the weekend, the survey showed more nonresidents riders, with 38% local and 62% visitors. Local riders cited using the trolley mostly for home-based trips, followed by work trips and entertainment, whereas nonresidents cited using the system mostly to access their hotel, followed by access to entertainment. System Financing The nearly $45 million cost for the Main Street/Riverfront lines was funded by FTA funds from a prior interstate high- way project that was never built (I-40), and FTA Formula funds, along with state, local, and private funds. The Mem- phis Metropolitan Planning Organization allocated 12% of the Interstate Transfer funds for transit capital projects, which in turn funded roughly 70% of the initial Main Street line, and 44% of the Riverfront line (11). Funding for the Madison Avenue extension totaled $58.3 million, including $46.7 mil- lion from the FTA New Starts program, $5.8 million from the state, and $5.8 million from the city (see Table 6). Impacts of Streetcar on Built Environment Impacts on Existing Physical Development According to the MATA manager of planning, because of the trolley’s implementation of its first segment, the Main Street line, the corridor has experienced resurgence in residential uses and population. The trolley system, along with the rede- velopment of mixed-use Central Station completed in 1999, has played a major role in reinvigorating downtown. In addi- tion to serving as a major transportation hub, the renovated Central Station project included joint development consist- ing of 63 one- and two-bedroom apartments, Hudson Hall (a conference room for private functions), 12,000 square ft of commercial space, a public meeting room, an Amtrak ticket office and waiting room, and a police precinct station. This project totaled approximately $23 million in public and pri- vate investment in the downtown area (see Figure 12). Analysis of Value Premiums As part of a larger study for the city of Charlotte conducted by Bay Area Economics in 2008–2009, original research was conducted to analyze property value changes along the Madison Avenue line, with full data available before and after streetcar service was initiated. The analysis compared tax appraisal data for residential and commercial uses drawn from the Shelby County Ten- nessee Assessor’s Office for the tax years 2002 and 2008 for properties within 0.25 mi of all stops along the Madi- son Street line to determine change in property values over ates on roughly 10-min headways during the week, with less frequent service during off-peak evening weekday hours and on weekends. Ridership has significantly grown since the mid-1990s, when the system had approximately 500,000 riders annually on the Main Street line alone, to more than 900,000 after the opening of the Riverfront Loop in 1997. Since the completion of the Madison line in 2004, ridership has grown to just over 1 million (2008) (see Figure 11). FIGURE 9 Memphis trolley route. [Source: Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA).] FIGURE 10 Memphis trolley system. [Source: Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA).]

22 their fair market value, but assessed values can vary based on land use type (residential, commercial, industrial, agri- cultural). In addition, many properties are exempt from tax assessment (i.e., institutional, religious, and government properties). Additionally, the 0.25-mi distance from each Madison Street line streetcar stop limited the scope of the analysis to only those parcels within easy walking distance of the streetcar, excluding most of the nearby waterfront parcels undergoing value increases as well, but not associ- ated with streetcar accessibility at that time. time. The analysis used Geographic Information System (GIS) tools to isolate those parcels within 0.25 mi from stops along the line. Since the Madison Street line opened in 2003, this data analysis compared the before values to after values along the streetcar line, compared with the citywide data for the same time period. The data analyzed were for appraised values, as deter- mined by the Shelby County Assessor’s Office, rather than assessed values. All properties in the city are appraised at FIGURE 11 MATA rail ridership. (Source: Presentation for Birmingham Economic Summit, Nov. 12, 2008, John Lancaster, MATA.) TABLE 6 FUNDING SOURCES FOR MAIN STREET AND RIVERFRONT LINES

23 least in part, to the location near the streetcar (see Table 7). This dramatic difference between the Madison Street route and the city overall also reflects a substantial urban condominium building boom at that time. Existing com- mercial structures near the Madison Street stops, in con- trast, did not experience dramatic increase in property value per the county’s appraisals; these existing structures actually decreased in appraised value from 2002 to 2008, whereas similar properties citywide rose 17%. (Notably, the Madison Street route contains 451 tax-exempt parcels out of 1,699 parcels within 0.25 mi of the Madison Street Trolley. These include five hospitals and the University of Tennessee biomedical research campus. Tax-exempt par- cels cover 56% of the area’s total acreage, compared with 30% of citywide acreage classified as tax exempt.) When vacant, commercially zoned lands alone were analyzed, the Madison Street route experienced substantial value rises on the order of 70% for the period. Similar to other studies of transit-oriented value premi- ums, downtown Memphis along the Madison Street route shows varying results; residential properties as well as vacant commercially zoned lands experienced substantial increases in value before and after streetcar service. How- ever, existing commercial structures appear to have declined in value, opposite modest citywide increases during the same period. Because these findings are based on county apprais- als, rather than actual land sales, the data may reflect other factors affecting assumptions about commercial structures’ values during the period. Impacts on New Development The redevelopment of Central Station spurred additional residential development in the downtown core. After 1999, the area emerged as an arts and entertainment district, with a substantial amount of new residential uses, including several adaptive reuse projects that have converted historic buildings TABLE 7 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES ALONG MADISON STREET ROUTE (0.25 MI FROM STOPS) FIGURE 12 Economic investment in Memphis. (Source: Presentation for Birmingham Economic Summit, Nov. 12, 2008, John Lancaster, MATA.) As shown in Table 7, residential properties near the Madison Street route increased in aggregate value more than 780% for the period between 2002, before the street- car opening, and 2008. Over the same period for the city as a whole, taxable residential properties rose just 24%, resulting in a potential premium in value attributable, at

24 Changes in Future Land Use Plans and Regulations The city of Memphis did not change zoning or parking requirements before implementation of the trolley system, as a mixed-use zoning designation was already in place. Cur- rently, the city is in the process of adopting a form-based zoning code that will correspond to the trolley routes. This zoning, which will encourage and create more pedestrian access, wider sidewalks, rear parking, and lower parking requirements, will follow historic building patterns, taking advantage of the trolley system transit. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON The Seattle Streetcar has led to a renaissance of interest in developing a citywide streetcar system. It has been an integral factor in the redevelopment of the former light industrial South Lake Union area into Seattle’s hottest new area for develop- ment, attracting major corporate headquarters campuses such as Amazon.com, as well as a range of biotech and high-tech uses along with extensive residential development. The city council has adopted a concept for expansion of the streetcar route to areas north, south, and east of South Lake Union. Streetcar System The Seattle Streetcar is a newer system, consisting of 1.3 mi in a combination of single- and double-track segments through the South Lake Union area, with stops every three blocks or up to 0.25 mi apart (see Figure 13). The route runs between the city’s new Lake Union Park at its north end and the Westlake Transit Hub downtown. The streetcar line opened in December 2007, with ridership to date running approximately 30% above original projections. The South Lake Union area has been the target of exten- sive public and private investment to create a regenerated urban neighborhood, focusing on biotech R&D, including facilities occupied by the Fred Kettering Cancer Research Center, the University of Washington, and support uses such as urban lofts, retail, office space, and privately occupied R&D space. The streetcar operates the Inekon TRIO 12 streetcar, a double-ended, three-section articulated electric streetcar with a low floor center section (this is the same vehicle as used in the Portland system, with modifications). The cars have capacity to carry up to 140 passengers (29 seated), and feature an on-board passenger information system with audible announcements and digital displays, and Global Positioning System (GPS) system for real-time arrival information at stations and on the web. They also feature regenerative braking. The streetcar stations feature raised platforms for easy boarding and digital displays of real-time arrival information. into condominiums and apartments. Moreover, in 2000, the National Basketball Association’s FedEx Forum was com- pleted, which upgraded and replaced the old Pyramid Arena. Additionally, the area has gained several large hotels, a per- forming arts center, the National Civil Rights Museum, the renovation of the Cook Convention Center, a retail center, and Beale Street Landing, a $27 million docking facility on the Mississippi River. Madison Avenue and the city’s Medical Center complex also have seen substantial development activity since the implementation of the Madison streetcar line. Examples include the GenX Inn, a 32-room hotel with a construction value of $12 million, two new for-sale residential projects with a total of 45 units ($11 million), and investment by the University of Tennessee at the Medical Center, including $500 million in a research park and College of Pharmacy, and $25 million in a biocontainment lab. In all, since 1991, more than $3 billion in development projects have been completed, are planned, or are under way on or near the three trolley corridors, leading to a transfor- mation of the physical environment. However, as the man- ager of planning at MATA noted during an interview for this study, the trolley system was one of several critical factors contributing to the overall urban resurgence in Memphis; he considers the trolley system as a vital component, demon- strating public investment to improve the area. Impacts on Economic Development The city incentivizes development through the Center City Commission (CCC), the city’s main economic development body. The CCC, through various tools, facilitates downtown development by creating partnerships to implement projects and by administering financial incentives that can help lower the costs of downtown development projects. The CCC’s PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) Program encourages property renovation or new construction by freezing prop- erty taxes at predevelopment rates. The CCC’s development loan program lends up to $90,000 for building renovation, further leveraging federal historic tax credits in some cases. The city also issues tax-exempt and taxable bonds, provides financial assistance to downtown for façade improvements and signage, and offers forgivable loans to certain retailers. An interview with the vice president of planning and devel- opment for the CCC, conducted for this study, indicated that whereas CCC’s incentives have attracted small to mid-size local developers to renovate historic properties, downtown Memphis has not attracted the larger national retailers it seeks. In the past few years, as national interest in transit-oriented development has accelerated, the vice president reported that interest in retailing downtown has increased, attributable in part to Memphis’s successful streetcar system.

25 Average annual ridership has been approximately 450,000, and trends for this year suggest that it will reach or exceed 500,000 riders for the full year. In its second year of operation, weekday ridership has become the strongest, as opposed to earlier in its operation when many peak days would be on weekends. System Financing The total capital cost of constructing this route segment was approximately $50.5 million, including $25 million from a LID and the balance provided by local, state, and federal sources. The adoption of the LID worked well in this case, because this area has several major property owners participating with the city of Seattle on revitalization, including Vulcan Properties (a private development company) and the Univer- sity of Washington. The University, as a tax-exempt entity, still pays the LID fee because of the benefits it receives from the streetcar line. The city of Seattle made its LID appraisal report available for review, a document that is interesting for several reasons (12). Instead of taking a strict engineering-style approach to allocating assessments to properties in a special assessment district on a per square foot of land, distance from station, lineal foot, or some other physical relationship, this LID assessment approach values the before and after values of each property within the predetermined LID zone. However, the method- ology cited in the report does not actually spell out how the transit improvements were applied to value each parcel. The report notes that most parcels were valued “vacant, as is” for the before estimate, and to a highest and best-use value based on comparables and income approach for the after series. The Final Special Benefits Study found that in the aggregate, the before value of all properties in the LID zone totaled $5.385 billion, and the after aggregate value was $5.454 billion, for a “special benefit” value difference of $68.4 million. Because the city of Seattle was seeking to assess a total of $25.7 million through the LID assessment process, it would be capturing 38% of the “special benefits” value indicated (e.g., difference in before and after property values). Impacts of Streetcar on Built Environment Impacts on Existing Development The South Lake Union area has seen extensive new develop- ment, with more than 3 million square ft of new office space and 6,000 new residential units either built or in various stages of development (including predevelopment). The area is seen as being highly successful in its goal of redevelop- ing the former light industrial area into denser, more urban mixed use. The city, however, has not closely tracked changes in development, job attraction, or other aspects of the project that would allow more detailed analysis of its impacts. FIGURE 13 Seattle streetcar. (Source: Seattle Streetcar.) System Development South Lake Union is a former light industrial area that was planned and rezoned for redevelopment to accommodate new office and R&D uses. It was designated in 2004 as one of the city’s six urban centers, where the city seeks to direct most of its residential and employment growth. Historically, the area lacked transit. Thus, the streetcar supported the development of jobs and housing in the area and became an implementing action for the urban center. Neither bus nor light rail was considered; a community-based group Build the Streetcar advocated for a streetcar, and cited the experience of Tacoma Link which showed higher ridership on a new streetcar line that replaced bus service. A streetcar also was more attractive to developers, who would not have to worry about its route being changed as they would with bus service, and as city staff noted, streetcars are seen as public transportation with a sense of romance to it. A street- car was viewed as something that could be gotten up and running more quickly than a light rail system. System Management The system runs 7 days a week, Monday through Thursday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Headways are approximately 15 min throughout the day. Fares are $2.00 for adults, with reduced fares of $0.50 for seniors, youth, and the disabled; children under 5 years of age ride free. Other transit agency passes, such as PugetPass and Metro, are accepted, along with Metro transfers. Fare box revenues cover approximately 20% of operating costs. Based on fare checks, approximately 80% of riders have a transit pass, suggesting that they are regular local users of multiple transit modes. Additionally, tourist traffic is signifi- cant—the streetcar itself is an attraction. Weekend ridership is getting strong as riders use the streetcar to get to recre- ational opportunities.

26 Approximately 60 acres in the area is owned by a single major property owner, Vulcan, making a large number of sites available so that several buildings could be developed at once, rather than more limited infill development. Vulcan Properties is a long-term developer and the owner has pro- moted the area as a hub for biotech uses. Although retail and other businesses are struggling dur- ing the current recession, the area continues to experience active leasing of new space, unlike the rest of the city. A variety of road and streetscape improvements were made in conjunction with the streetcar, including a variety of pedestrian improvements and enhanced signage. Devel- opers have privately funded streetscape improvements as part of their projects, and the city and developers are work- ing together to green sidewalks in the area. More recently, the city has made improvements to promote bicycle access, along with a redevelopment of Lake Union Park that is now under construction. Impacts on New Development The city has not been tracking changes in land values or rents, so quantitative information on the streetcar’s impact is not available. The city designed the South Lake Union as one of six urban centers to receive a majority of future residen- tial and employment growth, and increased height limits to 90 ft (but not downtown heights) to permit denser develop- ment. Previously, height limits were specifically increased to accommodate biotech—that is, to allow a five-story building to go up to 85 ft in height. All parking requirements were eliminated, with the mar- ket allowed to determine what parking would be provided. The city has not yet applied the maximum limits on park- ing in the downtown area to the other urban centers. Public parking garages are not available in the area, and the nearest garage is at the Seattle Center. Following Vulcan’s lead in obtaining LEED building cer- tification from the U.S. Green Building Council, much of the development along the line is seeking LEED certification as well. The city is assembling data so the South Lake Union area can be designated as LEED-ND Silver or possibly Gold, although currently no city mandate is in place. Future zoning changes that allow for greater downtown heights and densi- ties may lead to a future City requirement for projects to obtain LEED Silver certification to be eligible for bonuses. Washington State does not allow tax increment financing and is limited on the types of financial incentives it can offer developers or businesses. The primary incentive it controls is zoning. Most new development in the area is being built to the maximum zoning. The city is now working on a zoning plan for its comprehensive plan, with an emphasis at the site level, and is looking to increase height limits to allow high-rise buildings and density. Part of the consideration in the plan- ning process is that the streetcar would support greater height and density. At the same time, certain portions of South Lake Union are seen as being more residential, and height and other incentives will be used to encourage that use. Impacts on Economic Development The South Lake Union has become the hottest new area for development in Seattle, with the streetcar seen as an added attraction. Without the streetcar or improved bus service, it would have been much harder to attract firms. The area has attracted company headquarters, including those of Ama- zon.com, Group Health Coop, and PATH. Part of the attrac- tion for these companies is the campus feel of the area, and how the streetcar provides a convenient connection to the Central Business District, while allowing them to be located just outside it. The streetcar, as part of a broader strategy, is credited with giving the South Lake Union area an advan- tage over other areas that these firms were considering at the time. The streetcar has had an impact on the marketing of devel- opments, with projects being sold and promoted as being on the line or within one block of the line. One project put in a mid-block crossing to provide better access to the streetcar line on the next block. Vulcan, as the major land owner has been careful to bring the types of retail it considers most compatible, avoiding an emphasis on national retailers. The attraction of a Whole Foods store was seen as huge boost to the neighborhood. City staff sees the success of the area as a combination of the urban center zoning, Vulcan’s actions, and the development of the streetcar, with all factors reinforcing each other. Changes in Future Land Use Plans and Regulations The city has adopted a concept for streetcar expansion to continue the line north across Lake Union toward the Uni- versity of Washington, as well as to other established urban neighborhoods. Other lines would run through the down- town area to various destinations, and down through to West Seattle.

27 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Suggested analytical needs include the following: Systematic documentation of “before” and “after” • streetcar impacts on the amount, type, density, and values of development within specified distances from streetcar routes. Use of statistical analyses, similar to existing research • on light rail systems, to assess the relationships between streetcars and other factors on outcome such as increased share of citywide development. Thorough rider surveys (and related market research • such as focus groups as appropriate) to better under- stand ridership origin, destination, frequency of use, purpose of trip, and rider demographics on streetcars. Benchmarking and monitoring of factors such as rider-• ship compared with reduced demand for public park- ing garage spaces, increased retail sales, and increased public tax revenues. Studies to assess the potential for full economic devel-• opment impacts relating to jobs and employer attrac- tion along streetcar routes, including interviews with businesses to identify site location decisions regarding streetcar access, relationships to certain occupations or industry sectors, and perceptions of employers and employees regarding how streetcars enhance other urban amenities. Systematic assessment of streetcars as a feature in car-• bon reduction strategies, including reductions in vehi- cle miles traveled by automobile, reduced congestion, and so on. Best practices documentation of methods to integrate • streetcars into regional transit networks, including streetcar relationships to “complete streets,” changes in pedestrian mobility, bicycle lanes, and auto conges- tion management. This synthesis summarizes the literature and documentation regarding the impacts of modern streetcar systems on the built environment, underscoring the need for further empiri- cal analysis. Streetcars represent a growing transportation alternative, with more than 45 systems built or in various stages of plan- ning or construction. Although the diversity is great among operating and planned systems, based on the work done for this synthesis, it is possible 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 neces- sarily commuters Full service:• frequent daily service, including during commute hours with service to downtown or business centers Urban connector:• multiple routes between various dis- tricts and full integration into the regional transporta- tion system These stages have distinctly different implications for the potential impact of streetcars on the built environment, and the types and amount of economic development and changes in the built environment that might occur. Because federal transportation policies, along with most local gov- ernments’ land use and transportation planning increasingly are emphasizing “green” development, smart growth, reduc- tion in carbon emissions, and increased links between land use and transportation, the need to systematize the study of streetcar impacts is dramatic.

28 REFERENCES 1. Rail Definitions, American Public Transportation Asso- ciation, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: www. apta.com/research/stats/rail/definitions.cfm [accessed Aug. 10, 2009]. 2. Weyrich, P.M. and W.S. Lind, Bring Back the Streetcar, Free Congress Foundation, Washington D.C., June 2002. 3. “Transit Technologies Worksheet,” Reconnecting America, Oakland, Calif. [Online]. Available: www.reconnectingamerica.org/public /download/ BestPractice175 [accessed Aug. 10, 2009]. 4. Fogarty, N., N. Eaton, D. Belzer, and G. Ohland, Captur- ing the Value of Transit, Center for Transit Oriented Development, Oakland, Calif., Nov. 2008. 5. Landis J., M. Zhang, S. Sen, W.S. Huang, S. Guhathakurta, and B. Fukuji, “Rail Transit Investments, Real Estate Values, and Land Use Change: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Systems,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California. Berke- ley, 1995. 6. Cervero, R., S. Murphy, C. Ferrell, N. Goguts, and Y.H. Tsai, TCRP Report 102: Transit Oriented Development in America, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004. 7. Hass-Klau, C., G. Crampton, and R. Benjari, “Economic Impact of Light Rail: The Results of 15 Urban Areas in France, Germany, United Kingdom, and North Amer- ica,” Environmental & Transport Planning, Brighton, England, 2004. 8. Hovee, E.D. and T. Jordan, Portland Streetcar Develop- ment Impacts, Portland Streetcar, Inc., Portland, Ore., Nov. 2005. 9. Levine, M.V., Foss-Mollan, K., Kim, S., Light Rail in Milwaukee: An Analysis of the Potential Impact on Eco- nomic Development, Center for Economic Development, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wis- consin, May 1992. 10. Crampton, G.R., “Economic Development Impacts of Urban Rail Transport,” presented at the ERSA2003 Con- ference, Jyvaskyla, Finland, Aug. 27–30, 2003. 11. Fox, T., “The Memphis Trolley System: A Transporta- tion Link and Development Tool,” Proceedings of Amer- ican Public Transportation Association/Transportation Research Board, LRT Conference, Nov. 11–15, 2000. 12. Brackett, A., Final Special Benefits Study for South Lake Union Streetcar Project, City of Seattle LID No. 6750, Seattle, Wash., Mar. 2006 [Online]. Available: http:// clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~cfpdfs/307911.pdf [accessed Aug. 10, 2009].

29 APPENDIx A SURVEY INSTRUMENT STREETCAR SYSTEM BASICS First we would like some basic information about yourself and the focus of your work: What are your name, title, and focus of your work?1. How much of your job is associated with the develop-2. ment and/or operation of the city’s streetcar system? Please tell us about the streetcar system:3. Operator name, type of organization, relationship • to regional transit operator: Date original operations commenced, or if long-• standing operation, when were new additions opened in the last 10 years: Which routes serve the CBD:• Nature of financing, federal formula, local tax dis-• trict, etc. Primary reason(s) for system implementation or 4. additions. What type of vehicles does the system use? • Examples: Modern electric vehicles, Historic elec- tric vehicles, Replica electric vehicles, Historic diesel-electric hybrid (e.g., Savannah), Modern diesel-electric vehicles (e.g., Galveston). Do vehicles have rubber or steel wheels? If steel, • where are the tracks generally located relative to the street? Please provide us with basic operating information 5. on the system, including noting differences between peak and off-peak periods: Hours of operation by day, and days of operation• Headways• Average annual ridership (describe significant sea-• sonal variations) Average annual change in ridership over the past • three years (or general increase/decrease trend?) Fares• Number of stations and average distance (or varia-• tions in distances) between stops along the street- car route If you have collected any data regarding composition 6. of streetcar riders, please summarize for us (or pro- vide study if possible). Time period for data and how was it collected (e.g., • on board) Percent commuters, tourists/visitors, students, • other local residents, etc. Any demographic data (age, HH income, etc.)• Please tell us about the streetcar system’s performance 7. relative to original projections for: Actual ridership compared with projections, in terms • of trip purpose, time of day, and socio-economic characteristics Actual fare box revenue compared with projections• Composition of riders or origin/destinations of • riders Other performance measures• Planning the Streetcar System Next, we are interested in learning about how the streetcar system was originally planned. What were the key factors in selecting the street-8. car route (or new segment if system is older than 10 years)? (e.g., promote tourism, tie key sites together, reduce traffic congestion, etc.). Were there explicit goals for the streetcar system? 9. Are these goals being tracked or benchmarked? Was the streetcar promoted as an economic develop-10. ment strategy, or a transportation solution, or both? Were 11. other types of transit evaluated compared to streetcar (e.g., bus, electric bus, or light rail)? Please describe the consideration of other types of transit, and reasons why streetcar was selected. How important was the 12. perception that more peo- ple would ride a streetcar than other transit such as traditional bus, along the same route? If this was important, who (e.g., developers, community resi- dents, others) advanced the idea that this would be the case. Did you do any empirical research on this question? Please describe the 13. era and general character of the streetcar route or most recent segment. Does the new streetcar corridor follow any historic streetcar sys- tems (from early 20th century)? Was this important in planning the new system’s route?

30 Local Improvement Districts• Business Improvement Districts• Other (please describe):• Impacts of Streetcar on Built Environment Next we are interested in understanding how the streetcar has changed the amount and type of infill development and new development, and other impacts on the built environment. Are there 20. notable differences in the built envi- ronment occurring along the streetcar route after its announcement/construction? Please summarize and also provide your thoughts as to whether these changes are related to the streetcar (if addressed in a study, please indicate source and year). Is there a notable • increase in the amount of development attracted than would otherwise have occurred (e.g., major employment attraction, new development projects, etc.)? Please provide gen- eral thoughts or data if available. Are there any notable differences between the • types of new development projects attracted to the streetcar corridor compared to elsewhere in the community (e.g., more dense, less parking, more pedestrian-oriented?). Are there any notable differences between the • types of developers attracted to the streetcar route for their projects (e.g., large national companies, small local, no difference compared to elsewhere). Are there any notable differences between the • types of businesses, such as retailers or employ- ers, attracted to the streetcar route (e.g., large nationals vs. small local)? Are there any notable differences • in business per- formance or vacancies in the current economic downturn? (e.g., better or worse than other retail areas or notable differences in vacancies)? We are interested in the interaction between LEED • certification, which credits for proximity to transit, and your streetcar system. Do you see any direct relationship, such as a concentration of pro- posed/built LEED buildings near the streetcar? Are there notable differences in • other signs of pri- vate investment along the streetcar corridor (e.g., façade improvements, developer marketing pro- moting streetcar transit, etc.)? Has the streetcar system 21. increased the sale value of land and buildings? If so, please provide opinion (or data) regarding how much. Has the streetcar system 22. increased the rental/lease rates charged? If so, please provide opinion (or data) regarding how much. Did the streetcar seek to 14. serve existing develop- ment, or was there an expectation that the new street- car would stimulate new development? How much was new development a necessity to support the new system? Please rate the importance of the following in select-15. ing the route and planning operations (1 = not impor- tant to route planning 5 = very important to route planning): Serving commuters to daily job locations• Serving tourists and visitors• Serving students• Connecting cultural, entertainment, or civic • destinations Connecting with other modes of transit (light rail, • commuter rail, bus) Stimulating revitalization• Generating affordable or workforce housing• Organizing new neighborhoods around transit• Compatibility with comprehensive/general plans• When planning for the most recent segment of the 16. streetcar system, how important was existing/planned population density? Employment density? Were there goals set forth to encourage more dense devel- opment patterns to support the streetcar? How did these goals dovetail with other local initiatives (e.g., smart growth, sustainability, job attraction)? Incentives and Financing Next we would like to understand incentives to encourage development, as well as methods used to finance the street- car, particularly using value capture mechanisms. Did the streetcar alignment coincide with any 17. exist- ing development incentives (already existing at the time of streetcar planning?). Please describe the nature of each incentive. Were 18. new development incentives put into place as part of streetcar planning or construction? (Exam- ples: tax abatement, density bonuses, reduced park- ing standards, etc.). Please describe the nature of each incentive. Were any of the following financing tools used to 19. support streetcar construction or related infrastruc- ture investment along the streetcar corridor (please be specific as to each one)? Please provide a summary description for each one that was used: Tax Increment Finance (TIF)• Special Assessment Districts•

31 Please describe the 23. types of public improvements and approximate value within ¼ mile of the streetcar corridor, completed as either as part of streetcar con- struction or subsequently: Auto circulation changes (e.g., one-way, • re-signalization?) Pedestrian improvements• Bicycle improvements• New signage (including “next train” signs)• Streetscape/street furniture improvements• Plazas, parks, or other public space• Public parking (surface or structures)• Other public improvements• Zoning and Land Use Next we are interested in how public regulations for land use, zoning, and parking requirements interacted with the streetcar corridor. Before Streetcar24. —Did your city change its zoning, land use designations, or allowable densities along the streetcar route prior to construction of the streetcar or in conjunction with it? If so, please describe the changes. Before Streetcar25. —Did your city change its parking requirements or parking management strategies along the streetcar route prior to construction or in conjunc- tion with it? If so, please describe the changes. After Streetcar26. —Did your city change its zoning, land use designations, or allowable densities after the streetcar was completed? If so, were these changes a result of public policy shifts, the developer commu- nity requesting changes, or both? After Streetcar27. —Did your city change its park- ing requirements or parking management strategies after the streetcar was completed? If so, were these changes a result of public policy shifts, the developer community requesting changes, or both? How would you summarize the 28. overall impact of the streetcar on the following (as applicable): Job attraction along its corridor • Creating a competitive advantage versus other • parts of your city and region Stimulating neighborhood revitalization and • reinvestment Downtown and neighborhood retail districts• Employment centers• Civic or cultural gathering places• Tourism venues• Additional Information Have any studies about ridership demographics, 29. impact on built environment, or job attraction been prepared since the streetcar system began operation? Has your city studied the amount of development, changes in density, or other changes to development near the streetcar since it was constructed? Do you have any illustrative images of new projects, list, or map of recently built new projects, or other materials that convey changes along the streetcar corridor? Do you have any other comments or observations 30. regarding the relationship between streetcars and the built environment? Lessons learned? Opportunities realized or missed? Suggestions for new empirical research? Thank you for your help!

32 APPENDIx B LIST OF RESPONDENTS Astoria, Oregon Planning Director, City of Astoria Director of Sunset Empire District, Astoria Riverfront Trol- ley Association City Planner, City of Astoria Ex-Director of Public Works, Astoria Chamber of Commerce Charlotte, North Carolina Assistant Director, Strategic Planning Services, City of Charlotte Manager, Rail Transportation, Charlotte Area Transit System Galveston, Texas Vice President, Goodman Corporation (consultant to Galves- ton Island Transit) Director of Transportation, Galveston Island Transit Kenosha, Wisconsin Director of Transportation, City of Kenosha Community Development Specialist, City of Kenosha Little Rock, Arkansas Executive Director, River Rail System Metro Plan Planning Manager, Central Arkansas Transit Authority Lowell, Massachusetts Community Planner, National Park Service Planning and Permitting Director, City of Lowell Memphis, Tennessee Vice President of Planning and Development, Center City Commission Manager of Planning, Memphis Area Transit Authority Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Portland, Oregon Portland Development Commission Executive Director, Portland Streetcar, Inc. Savannah, Georgia Director of Mobility and Parking Services, City of Savannah Executive Director, Savannah Development and Renewal Authority San Pedro (Los Angeles), California Director of Planning, Port of Los Angeles Owner, Railway Preservation Resources Seattle, Washington Director, Department of Planning and Development, City of Seattle Streetcar Project Manager, Department of Transportation, City of Seattle Tacoma, Washington Project Manager, Tacoma Link, SoundTransit Division Manager, Community and Economic Develop- ment, City of Tacoma Tampa, Florida Development Services Manager, Economic and Urban Development, City of Tampa Vice President, Tampa Historic Streetcar

33 APPENDIx C LIST OF RESPONDENTS

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Randell H. Iwasaki, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEO–General Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Pitt Meadows, BC Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* CHAIR James Wilding Independent Consultant VICE CHAIR Jeff Hamiel Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission MEMBERS James Crites Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport Richard de Neufville Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kevin C. Dolliole Unison Consulting John K. Duval Beverly Municipal Airport Kitty Freidheim Freidheim Consulting Steve Grossman Jacksonville Aviation Authority Tom Jensen National Safe Skies Alliance Catherine M. Lang Federal Aviation Administration Gina Marie Lindsey Los Angeles World Airports Carolyn Motz Hagerstown Regional Airport Richard Tucker Huntsville International Airport EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Sabrina Johnson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Marchi Airports Council International—North America Laura McKee Air Transport Association of America Henry Ogrodzinski National Association of State Aviation Officials Melissa Sabatine American Association of Airport Executives Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Transportation Research Board SECRETARY Christopher W. Jenks Transportation Research Board *Membership as of October 2009.*Membership as of October 2009. MASTERS need SPine Width TCRP OVERSIGHT AND P OJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR ANN AUGUST Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority MEMBERS JOHN BARTOSIEWICZ McDonald Transit Associates MICHAEL BLAYLOCK Jacksonville Transportation Authority LINDA J. BOHLINGER HNTB Corp. RAUL BRAVO Raul V. Bravo & Associates GREGORY COOK Veolia Transportation TERRY GARCIA CREWS StarTran ANGELA IANNUZZIELLO ENTRA Consultants JOHN INGLISH Utah Transit Authority SHERRY LITTLE Spartan Solutions, LLC JONATHAN H. MCDONALD HNTB Corporation GARY W. MCNEIL GO Transit MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY Motor Coach Industries BRADFORD MILLER Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority FRANK OTERO PACO Technologies KEITH PARKER VIA Metropolitan Transit PETER ROGOFF FTA JEFFREY ROSENBERG Amalgamated Transit Union RICHARD SARLES Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority MICHAEL SCANLON San Mateo County Transit District MARILYN SHAZOR Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority JAMES STEM United Transportation Union GARY THOMAS Dallas Area Rapid Transit FRANK TOBEY First Transit MATTHEW O. TUCKER North County Transit District PAM WARD Ottumwa Transit Authority ALICE WIGGINS-TOLBERT Parsons Brinckerhoff EX OFFICIO MEMBERS WILLIAM W. MILLAR APTA ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRB JOHN C. HORSLEY AASHTO VICTOR MENDEZ FHWA TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS SANDERS APTA SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TRB *Membership as of July 2010.*Membership as of June 2010. TRANSPORTA ION RESEA CH BOARD 2010 XECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Tr nspo tation, North Ce tral Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., Secretary of Transpo tation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineeri g, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JEFFREY W. HAMIEL, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN PAULA J. HAMMOND, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia EDWARD A. (NED) HELME, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City DEBRA L. MILLER, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA STEVEN T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Mari e Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairma (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Res arch and Innovative Te h ology Administration, U.S.DOT J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC DAVID T. MATSUDA, Deputy dministrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC

60+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPine COPY = 14 pts Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMTCRP SYNTHESIS 86 TCR P Syn Th eSiS 86 Relationships Betw een Streetcars and the Built environm ent need SPine Width Job no. tRB 24_tCRP 86 Pantone 648 C TRAnSPORTATiOn ReSeARCh BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, n .W . W ashing to n, d .C . 20001 A D D R eSS SeR ViCe R eQ UeSTeD TRB A Synthesis of Transit Practice Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration 1430977803099 ISBN 978-0-309-14309-7 90000 >

Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 86: Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment examines selected, built streetcar and trolley systems to trace their evolution, define significant factors, and identify commonalities among levels of success in impacting the built environment.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!